Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
3.3
1.9
Journals
Safety
Special Issues
Aviation Safety
share announcement

Aviation Safety

A special issue of Safety (ISSN 2313-576X).

Deadline for manuscript submissions: closed (30 November 2017) | Viewed by 50230

Special Issue Editor

Prof. Dr. Manoj Patankar

E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
Parks College of Engineering, Aviation and Technology, Saint Louis University, Saint Louis, MO 63103, USA
Interests: aviation safety; organizational culture and climate; patient safety

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues,

Over the past decade, five major themes have dominated the conversations across the global aviation industry: (a) personnel supply/demand; (b) personnel fatigue and duty-time regulations; (c) organizational safety culture; (d) effectiveness of programs such as the safety management system; and (e) the impact of unmanned aerial vehicles on the overall safety of the air transport industry. In this Special Issue on “Aviation Safety”, you are invited to submit the following four types of articles:
  1. Analysis of safety strategies: Examples include human performance (training); technology performance (reliability); regulation (standardization); transparency (availability of safety reports/data); and accountability (compliance).
  2. Effectiveness of safety interventions: Examples include crew/maintenance resource management programs; non-punitive error reporting systems; safety management systems; and fatigue risk management programs.
  3. Globalization: Examples include ICAO’s role in enhancing aviation safety (public policy); universalization of professional credentials like MPL (harmonization); cross-cultural challenges (language, technology standards, and national cultural norms); and impact of BREXIT (de-coupling of regulatory infrastructures).
  4. Complexity: Examples include the entry of non-traditional entities in commercial aviation (introduction of UAS in traditional air space by operators like Amazon Prime Air); off-shore maintenance; and introduction of new hazards like cell phones and onboard electronic devices.

Dr. Manoj S. Patankar
Guest Editor

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a single-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Safety is an international peer-reviewed open access quarterly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 1800 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

 

Keywords

  • Safety strategies
  • safety interventions
  • globalization of credentials
  • complexity of air traffic

Published Papers (6 papers)

Download All Papers
Order results
Result details
Show export options expand_more Show export options expand_less
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:

Research

Jump to: Review

10 pages, 430 KiB  
Article
Establishing Training and Certification Criteria for Visual Observers of Unmanned Aircraft Systems
by Igor Dolgov
Safety 2018, 4(2), 15; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/safety4020015 - 06 Apr 2018
Cited by 1 | Viewed by 6971
Abstract
Safe integration of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) into airspace generally occupied by manned aircraft and other aviation stakeholders is a pressing global challenge. In the United States, efforts are being made to integrate small and large UAS into the National Airspace System (NAS). [...] Read more.
Safe integration of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) into airspace generally occupied by manned aircraft and other aviation stakeholders is a pressing global challenge. In the United States, efforts are being made to integrate small and large UAS into the National Airspace System (NAS). Whereas regulations for the civil operation of small UAS (25 kg and lighter) have already been adopted, those for larger unmanned systems are still being crafted. Thus, a two-part mixed methods study was conducted to examine three pivotal issues in the safe operation of large UAS: (1) What kind of visual observer skills are needed to execute safe UAS operations; (2) Should visual observers involved in UAS operations receive formal training; and (3) Should visual observers be required to pass a certification exam? In the first phase, subject matter experts identified various vigilance, trajectory estimation and communication skills that were vital to performing visual observer duties successfully and elaborated on their training regimens. In the second phase, survey participants were approximately evenly split on the need for formal classroom/online and hands-on visual observer training. Furthermore, participants generally favored visual observers having to pass a classroom/online certification exam, whereas they were against a practical (hands-on) exam. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Aviation Safety)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

15 pages, 1334 KiB  
Article
The Neuroergonomics of Aircraft Cockpits: The Four Stages of Eye-Tracking Integration to Enhance Flight Safety
by Vsevolod Peysakhovich, Olivier Lefrançois, Frédéric Dehais and Mickaël Causse
Safety 2018, 4(1), 8; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/safety4010008 - 27 Feb 2018
Cited by 48 | Viewed by 11321
Abstract
Commercial aviation is currently one of the safest modes of transportation; however, human error is still one major contributing cause of aeronautical accidents and incidents. One promising avenue to further enhance flight safety is Neuroergonomics, an approach at the intersection of neuroscience, cognitive [...] Read more.
Commercial aviation is currently one of the safest modes of transportation; however, human error is still one major contributing cause of aeronautical accidents and incidents. One promising avenue to further enhance flight safety is Neuroergonomics, an approach at the intersection of neuroscience, cognitive engineering and human factors, which aims to create better human–system interaction. Eye-tracking technology allows users to “monitor the monitoring” by providing insights into both pilots’ attentional distribution and underlying decisional processes. In this position paper, we identify and define a framework of four stages of step-by-step integration of eye-tracking systems in modern cockpits. Stage I concerns Pilot Training and Flight Performance Analysis on-ground; stage II proposes On-board Gaze Recordings as extra data for the “black box” recorders; stage III describes Gaze-Based Flight Deck Adaptation including warning and alerting systems, and, eventually, stage IV prophesies Gaze-Based Aircraft Adaptation including authority taking by the aircraft. We illustrate the potential of these four steps with a description of incidents or accidents that we could certainly have avoided thanks to eye-tracking. Estimated milestones for the integration of each stage are also proposed together with a list of some implementation limitations. We believe that the research institutions and industrial actors of the domain will all benefit from the integration of the framework of the eye-tracking systems into cockpits. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Aviation Safety)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

24 pages, 745 KiB  
Article
Addressing Differences in Safety Influencing Factors—A Comparison of Offshore and Onshore Helicopter Operations
by Rolf J. Bye, Stig O. Johnsen and Grethe Lillehammer
Safety 2018, 4(1), 4; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/safety4010004 - 17 Jan 2018
Cited by 8 | Viewed by 6004
Abstract
The accident levels in helicopter transportation vary between geographical regions and types of operations. In this paper, we develop some hypotheses regarding the factors that may explain this variation. The aim of this paper is to improve safety in helicopter transportation through better [...] Read more.
The accident levels in helicopter transportation vary between geographical regions and types of operations. In this paper, we develop some hypotheses regarding the factors that may explain this variation. The aim of this paper is to improve safety in helicopter transportation through better understanding of the causes leading to fatal accidents. We provide an analysis of three segments of helicopter transportation in Norway (i.e., offshore transportation; onshore ambulance/police, and onshore transportation). This analysis refers to international research on helicopter accidents. The number of fatal accidents per million flight hours in Norwegian offshore helicopter transportation was 2.8 in 1990–1999 and zero in 2000–2015. In Norwegian onshore helicopter transportation, the fatal accident rate was 13.8 in the period 2000–2012. Twenty-three onshore helicopters crashed to the ground; seven of these crashes were fatal, killing 16 people. It is reasonable to question why there is such a significant difference in accident rates between offshore and onshore helicopter transportation. We have approached this question by comparing how the different segments of helicopter transportation are organized and managed. Our analysis shows that there are major differences both at the “sharp” end (i.e., in actual operations) and the “blunt” end (i.e., rules, regulations and organization). This includes differences in regulations, market conditions, work organization (i.e., training, employment conditions, and qualifications of the crews), operations and technology. A central argument is that differences in the market conditions and requirements stipulated by the users explain some of these differences. The same differences can be found internationally. If we use best practice and expert judgments, there is an opportunity to improve helicopter safety through improving the socio-technical system (i.e., organizational issues, improved design, improved maintenance of critical components and more focus on operational factors). A reasonable goal is that the international helicopter transportation industry could reduce the accident level to less than one fatal accident per million flight hours (Considering the oil and gas industry internationally, this would reduce the average of 24 fatalities annually to 4 per year, thus saving 20 lives each year). Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Aviation Safety)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

25 pages, 3552 KiB  
Article
The Presence of Behavioral Traps in U.S. Airline Accidents: A Qualitative Analysis
by Jonathan Velazquez
Safety 2018, 4(1), 2; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/safety4010002 - 11 Jan 2018
Cited by 6 | Viewed by 7443
Abstract
Behavioral traps are accident-inducing operational pitfalls aviators may encounter as a result of poor decision making. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) identifies the existence of twelve of these negative pilot behaviors. These are: Peer Pressure; Get-There-Itis; Loss of Situational Awareness; Descent Below the [...] Read more.
Behavioral traps are accident-inducing operational pitfalls aviators may encounter as a result of poor decision making. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) identifies the existence of twelve of these negative pilot behaviors. These are: Peer Pressure; Get-There-Itis; Loss of Situational Awareness; Descent Below the Minimum En Route Altitude (MEA); Mind Set; Duck-Under Syndrome; Getting Behind the Aircraft; Continuing Visual Flight Rules (VFR) into Instrument Conditions; Scud Running; Operating Without Adequate Fuel Reserves; Flying Outside the Envelope; and Neglect of Flight Planning, Preflight Inspections, and Checklists. The purpose of this paper was to study the nature of their occurrence in the airline domain. Four Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) analyzed 34 National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) accident reports. The SMEs were able to identify many pilot actions that were representative of the behavioral traps. Behavioral traps were found in all accidents with Loss of Situational Awareness and Neglect of Flight Planning, Preflight Inspections, and Checklists dominant. Various themes began to emerge, which played important roles in many accidents. These themes included Crew Resource Management (CRM) issues, airline management and fatigue. The findings of this study indicated that behavioral traps were prevalent in airline accidents including habitual noncompliance by pilots. Attitude management training is recommended. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Aviation Safety)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

1764 KiB  
Article
Models of Automation Surprise: Results of a Field Survey in Aviation
by Robert De Boer and Sidney Dekker
Safety 2017, 3(3), 20; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/safety3030020 - 11 Sep 2017
Cited by 18 | Viewed by 7102
Abstract
Automation surprises in aviation continue to be a significant safety concern and the community’s search for effective strategies to mitigate them are ongoing. The literature has offered two fundamentally divergent directions, based on different ideas about the nature of cognition and collaboration with [...] Read more.
Automation surprises in aviation continue to be a significant safety concern and the community’s search for effective strategies to mitigate them are ongoing. The literature has offered two fundamentally divergent directions, based on different ideas about the nature of cognition and collaboration with automation. In this paper, we report the results of a field study that empirically compared and contrasted two models of automation surprises: a normative individual-cognition model and a sensemaking model based on distributed cognition. Our data prove a good fit for the sense-making model. This finding is relevant for aviation safety, since our understanding of the cognitive processes that govern human interaction with automation drive what we need to do to reduce the frequency of automation-induced events. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Aviation Safety)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

Review

Jump to: Research

382 KiB  
Review
How Did Crew Resource Management Take-Off Outside of the Cockpit? A Systematic Review of How Crew Resource Management Training Is Conceptualised and Evaluated for Non-Pilots
by Jop Havinga, Robert Jan De Boer, Andrew Rae and Sidney W. A. Dekker
Safety 2017, 3(4), 26; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/safety3040026 - 31 Oct 2017
Cited by 12 | Viewed by 8725
Abstract
Crew resource management (CRM) training for flight crews is widespread and has been credited with improving aviation safety. As other industries have adopted CRM, they have interpreted CRM in different ways. We sought to understand how industries have adopted CRM, regarding its conceptualisation [...] Read more.
Crew resource management (CRM) training for flight crews is widespread and has been credited with improving aviation safety. As other industries have adopted CRM, they have interpreted CRM in different ways. We sought to understand how industries have adopted CRM, regarding its conceptualisation and evaluation. For this, we conducted a systematic review of CRM studies in the Maritime, Nuclear Power, Oil and Gas, and Air Traffic Control industries. We searched three electronic databases (Web of Science, Science Direct, Scopus) and CRM reviews for papers. We analysed these papers on their goals, scope, levers of change, and evaluation. To synthesise, we compared the analysis results across industries. We found that most CRM programs have the broad goals of improving safety and efficiency. However, there are differences in the scope and levers of change between programs, both within and between industries. Most evaluative studies suffer from methodological weaknesses, and the evaluation does not align with how studies conceptualise CRM. These results challenge the assumption that there is a clear link between CRM training and enhanced safety in the analysed industries. Future CRM research needs to provide a clear conceptualisation—how CRM is expected to improve safety—and select evaluation measures consistent with this. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Aviation Safety)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

Show export options expand_more Show export options expand_less
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
 
Displaying articles 1-6
Back to TopTop