Variable versus Constant Errors in Aviation

VARIABLE VERSUS CONSTANT ERRORS IN AVIATION

Name

Course

Tutor

Date

Variable versus Constant Errors in Aviation

It is difficult to ignore the concept of human errors. The two main human errors among the aircraft crews are variable and constant errors. Variable errors are random in the human environment whereas constant errors have a systematic pattern and are consistent. It is easy to detect constant errors hence easy to control whereas variable errors are difficult to predict making the difficult in handling. Recent developments in the field of aviation have led to a renewed interest in the elimination of variable and constant errors in daily operations of aircrafts. Management team in the aviation industry are creating awareness in understanding the nature of the task each employee has to perform in order to minimize human errors (Diehl, 2013). Employees in the aircraft industry should understand the environment they are working and the mechanisms in the performance of duties in order to give quality services. The nature of individuals working in the aircraft industry should have a sober mind and relaxed in order to minimize errors. The individuals in the aviation industry should have a mechanism of predicting the chances of occurrence of human error (Sarter & Alexander, 2000).

However, changes in the aviation industry have a serious effect in making corrections of variable and constant errors. Close examination of human errors is not bearing good results since the human being is working under the pressure of constant supervision. It is also difficult to predict the potentiality of conducting constant error since it does not permit a choice of accuracy. For example, a fatigued pilot has a high chance of making errors than an alert pilot. It is difficult to predict a fatigued pilot or even the pilot may deny that they are fatigued only to conduct errors during the flight operations (Diehl, 2013). Standard operating procedures (SOP) in performing tasks, in the aircraft industry should be clear and easy to understand. Ambiguous procedures have a high likelihood of causing errors during flights. Additional information on the standard operating procedures is helpful in operations as the information creates clarity on the operations. Operations within the aviation sectors have random errors that are not easy to predict and may have a large effect in the final procedures of operations (Shappell et al. 2007).

Recently, information on aviation errors offers contradictory findings of solving the human errors. It is difficult to completely solve human errors since procedures in the aviation industry have elements of random errors that are unavoidable. Human errors in the aircraft industry are inevitable. The management team in the aviation sector ensure that the errors do not have adverse effects that are fatal. Reduction of errors involves undergoing training to enhance competence in the aircraft operations and also controlling errors from causing an immediate effect (Byrne & Kirlik, 2005). Control of errors involves creating clear Standard Operating Procedures that addresses mitigation strategies. Some human errors are done by multi-crew panel in which it is difficult to detect the source of error. Aircraft sector requires human reliability in that the person in that the person emphatically admits the errors even before mitigation process. Early identification of errors results in solving the problem with ease. Human reliability and error performance is more of an art than science in that it is difficult to predict the perfect performance of an individual (Latorella & Prabhu, 2000).

Most studies in aviation have only been carried out in a small number of areas of human perfection in duty performance. Certain conditions attribute towards error performance and have not received considerable attentions towards mitigation studies. Human factors such as stress, fatigue, poor training, loud noise, and personal life problems have a major contribution towards variable and constant errors in aviation. Variable and constant errors also occur during training sessions. Constant errors produce damaging consequences that may have regrettable consequences. The constant errors are not avoidable but are manageable. Variable and constant errors fall under unintentional types of errors. Poor judgement, carelessness and insufficient knowledge may lead in variable errors. Unknowingly errors may get mistaken with intentional mistake making it difficult in conducting mitigation studies. Mitigating the risk involves the use of proper logbooks and worksheets that give clear communication on accomplishment of the tasks. Mitigation procedures ensure maintenance of personal thoughts and ideas towards completion of the task. Aircraft sector does not assume any completed work before conduction of mitigation risk (Byrne & Kirlik, 2005).

In conclusion, the aviation studies have a major concern on human factors that bring safety of the aircraft operations. Communication and coordination among the staff in the aviation academy will help in a reduction of constant and variable errors. Complacency gives the staff in the aviation sector a sense of confidence in the daily operations. Individuals should have self-satisfaction on the completion of a task. Repetitive tasks require well illustrated standard operating procedure in order to avoid constant errors (Sarter & Alexander, 2000). Some of the constant errors in aviation are due to ambiguous procedures that lead in false interpretation of the concept. Variable procedures are difficult to detect since they have intrinsic source. Major errors are due to personal motives cognitive process but not due to lack of maintenance proficiency. It is the role of the management team to provide a good working environment in the aircraft industry in order to minimize variable and constant errors (Chen, Chen & Lin, 2009).

References:

Byrne, M. D., & Kirlik, A. (2005). Using Computational Cognitive Modeling To Diagnose

Possible Sources Of Aviation Error. The international journal of aviation psychology, 15(2), 135-155. HYPERLINK http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1207/s15327108ijap1502_2http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1207/s15327108ijap1502_2#.U2NDFqLNnac

Chen, C. C., Chen, J., & Lin, P. C. (2009). Identification Of Significant Threats And Errors

Affecting Aviation Safety In Taiwan Using The Analytical Hierarchy Process. Journal of Air Transport Management, 15(5), 261-263. HYPERLINK “http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0969699709000027” http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0969699709000027

Diehl, A. (2013). “Air Safety Investigators: Using Science To Save Lives-One Crash At A Time”. Xlibris corporation. HYPERLINK “http://www.prweb.com/releases/DrAlanDiehl/AirSafetyInvestigators/prweb10735591.htm” http://www.prweb.com/releases/DrAlanDiehl/AirSafetyInvestigators/prweb10735591.htm

Latorella, K. A., & Prabhu, P. V. (2000). A Review Of Human Error In Aviation Maintenance

And Inspection. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 26(2), 133-161. HYPERLINK “http://www.jccjournal.org/article/S0883-9441%2803%2900108-4/fulltext” http://www.jccjournal.org/article/S0883-9441%2803%2900108-4/fulltext

Shappell, S., Detwiler, C., Holcomb, K., Hackworth, C., Boquet, A., & Wiegmann, D. A. (2007).

Human Error And Commercial Aviation Accidents: An Analysis Using The Human Factors Analysis And Classification System. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 49(2), 227-242. HYPERLINK “http://hfs.sagepub.com/content/49/2/227.full.pdf” http://hfs.sagepub.com/content/49/2/227.full.pdf

Sarter, N. B., & Alexander, H. M. (2000). Error Types And Related Error Detection Mechanisms

In The Aviation Domain: An Analysis Of Aviation Safety Reporting System Incident Reports. The international journal of aviation psychology, 10(2), 189-206. HYPERLINK http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1207/S15327108IJAP1002_5http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1207/S15327108IJAP1002_5#.U2NEZKLNnac