Human Factors

[puddles_7]

Hi Guys

 

I am studying for my RAA exam - Human Factors. All I have is my Jim Davis book. It is a tremendous reference and was fine for my BAK but not sure whether it is good enough for Human Factors. Any suggestions, I hear the exam has changed recently so I need to be studying the most up to date info.

 

Cheers

 

Puddles

 

 

[sain]

Have a look at the airmanship section of the ra-aus site, its got some pointers. Also have a look at the CASA materials (http://casa.cart.net.au/details/2603042.html). Its a good starting point.

 

 

[sain]

whups, double clicked the post button. sorry about that.

 

 

[Piet Fil]

Puddles,

 

I used the Dyson Holland HPL book, found it was pretty spot on for the exam and easy to read.

 

BTW - If you get the question on heart disease, even though all the options given are true, they all contribute, just remember that smoking is the root of all evil regarding heart disease

 

Phil

 

 

[Tomo]

Jim's book does have some great HF stuff in it, I used it and some other information on the net I was given and I passed my exam easily.

 

Have some knowledge on when you can go flying after diving also.

 

 

[Gnarly Gnu]

Mate you don't even need a book just show up. I also used the DH book but I read it after the exam.

 

 

[ahlocks]

Yeah you could, but you really have to read through the textbook(s) to be aware of all the jargon and catchy new age buzz words that describe ways of stuffing things up.

 

 

[facthunter]

The fact that they keep changing the terms used in a human factors courses from time to time is a significant cause of confusion. Is that not a human factor too?

 

There was a good oportunity to do something quite worthwhile here. have we done it well?... NO!.. We've barely scratched the surface. Nev

 

 

[ahlocks]

Yep. Reciting obscure concepts and terminology really helps with making a decision of whether to fly into a thunderstorm after a big weekend on the turps.

 

 

[turboplanner]

FH and The Tourist

 

I agree with both of you, and would go as far as putting three deaths this year down to HF.

 

CASA collected the statistics which highlighted the HF issue, then botched the training and management.

 

One mistake, I think, was to widen the subject to include issues such as the effect of alcohol, recent diving etc - that should have been a separate subject.

 

Then we would have been left with the pure psychological reasons we:

 

• Leave the gust lock in for takeoff, whether we have 50 hours up or are flying a coporate jet
   
   
  
• Look around, but not in the direction of incoming aircraft
   
   
  
• Go through the check ritual, but don't notice what each gauge is telling us
   
   
  
• Call without the mic button
   
   
  
• Can't remember our call sign, or worse the type of aircraft
   
   
  
• Refuel on a slope, rely on the fuel gauges
   
   
  
• Assume there are no birds nests in the engine bay (heard a bird in the rudder of a C172 one day - he went to Tasmania)
   
   
  
• Turn back when you have an engine failure at low altitude
   
   
  
• Have an engine failure at a safe altitude, then forget to keep flying speed
   
   
  
• Forget to put the flaps up in a touch and go
   
   
  
• See cloud in front of you and decide to go a bit further and "have a look"
   
   
  

 

 

...and so on

 

Virtually none of these benefit from cute "definitions" and "scenarios"

 

An Instructor with a heavy book belting you around the ears would probably work better

 

 

[ahlocks]

I truely believe that the wisdom of the members in this forum has been a greater benefit for human factors awareness.

 

 

[facthunter]

That could easily be the case ahlocks, but the HF has possibilities that haven't been realised because of a less than optimum application. An opportunity missed. We've paid our money but haven't got the goods. The other bad side is that the concept gets discredited.

 

When this stuff was first around there were lots of pilots who absolutely Poo-Pooed the idea as BS and said any person with half a brain wouldn't need it. A lot of those guys were the ones who needed it the most.

 

It's got to be done right but there has to be the acceptance of responsibility, by the PIC, ( Where the buck stops), but it would be unfortunate if he did not use all resources available. A lot of pilots were a one man band in the old days.

 

CRM. (Cockpit Resources Management). Some of my mates still love it to be .. Cockpit Run (by) Me and there has to be some of that too. There is not always time to have a big discussion and then a vote, but then that is a human factors situation too.. Nev

 

 

[nong]

Ha Ha HF is crap. I mean, honestly.......

 

Are they really saying that reading about human limitations and weaknesses will prevent us from having human limitations and weaknesses.

 

LOL Ha Ha

 

 

[turboplanner]

Ha Ha HF is crap. I mean, honestly.......Are they really saying that reading about human limitations and weaknesses will prevent us from having human limitations and weaknesses.

LOL Ha Ha

Yes they are saying that, and that's the mistake they've made.

 

The question is what is the correct solution.

 

We all have limitations and weaknesses, so we need to programme ourselves not to go beyond our limitations, and to bypass or overcome our weaknesses.

 

This particularly applies to recreational pilots who may go months between flights, so don't have the benefit of recency and repetitive subconscious action.

 

There's no doubt we lose a lot of pilots due to HF mistakes, but we shouldn't just let them keep dying, we should try to find methods of training.

 

 

[Guest davidh10]

The error is in trying to be too academic about the subject. We don't need to learn how to be psychologists, but we do need to learn the sorts of situations that lead to HF mistakes, oversights, action and inaction. I don't think there's a simple answer. As many issues as you can list; Someone is going to find a way of killing themselves in new and innovative ways. It's all about understanding the situations that lead to poor decision making, being aware of the impact of distractions, being aware of what is and isn't a distraction! Not getting comfortable with "routines" and check-lists.

 

For how many people does the objective of a routine change from the real purpose to simply fulfilling the routine. You hear this in rapid staccato radio calls. You encounter it in seeing what you expect, rather than actuality. Check-lists can be a source of HF, in that they tend to limit what you check!

 

It is important to start with understanding the term and what it encompasses. Beyond that, it is scenarios that will be meaningful, not just a few for an exam, but constantly being on the look out, and being receptive to learn from life and the experiences of others. The exam is just a tick in a box. What is important, nay, critical, is to not stop there, and keep inquiring and learning.

 

 

[facthunter]

Thanks for tha effort there david. The list is endless. Things like your brain/eye interconnect where the brain will "fill-in" an incomplete picture. (unlike digital TV) explaining why you miss seeing things that are there sometimes. You have to be taught how to do an effective visual scan from an aircraft cockpit.

 

It's not BS, we just haven't done it very well so far in RAAus (generally). There may be some exceptions. Nev

 

 

[sain]

I was under the impression the HF push actually came from ICAO, with the goal of minimising the impact of human errors on fare paying passengers (i.e killing less of them). I don't think its been applied with much sense to the ultralight aircraft realm. Learning the difference between a threat and a risk doesn't seem like a particularly good use of our time.

 

That said I did learn something I didn't know from it that will be useful for me eventually. I now know how long to wait before taking a scuba diver flying (roughly, though I'd highly recommend borrowing the diver's handbooks and doing the calcs yourself if they have done multiple dives or deep and long dives). My brother dives as often as he can manage, and I would quite like to take him for a flight one day.

 

 

[Guest davidh10]

..Learning the difference between a threat and a risk doesn't seem like a particularly good use of our time.

On the contrary, perceiving only "threats" without evaluation of "risk" is what makes people fearful and supports poor decision making. There's plenty of people who don't understand the difference, and will list "threats" as reasons for either doing or not doing something. Understanding that "risks" are how we evaluate the liklihood of a "threat" occurring and "controls" are the measures we take to eliminate or minimise the "risk" is a useful understanding for everyone, whether they fly or not.

 

This is the basis of HSE (Health Safety Environement) training and Job Safety Assessments, that should be used in every business, and in fact should be used at home.... a large percentage of accidents happen in the home!

 

... I now know how long to wait before taking a scuba diver flying (roughly, though I'd highly recommend borrowing the diver's handbooks and doing the calcs yourself....

Actually, it is somewhat less precise than "doing calcs". All the guidelines are based on empirical tests using US Navy divers, who are a good deal fitter than the average sport diver. Diving computers actually use a complex mathematical model that performs separate calculations for several different types of body tissue that have different uptake and release characteristics. Doing the "calculations" is no guarantee. Just wait 72 hours from the last dive for sport divers. Different rules may apply for "saturation divers", but that is beyond the sport diving training.

The issue is that off-gassing rates depend on level of fitness, body fat levels, and other factors.

 

Remember too that this guideline was developed with pressurised commercial aircraft in mind. A recreational aircraft may exceed the 8,000' maximum equivalent "cabin altitude" limit of commercial pressurised aircraft, meaning the duration specified is inadequate for flights above 8,000'.

 

 

[sain]

Actually, it is somewhat less precise than "doing calcs". All the guidelines are based on empirical tests using US Navy divers, who are a good deal fitter than the average sport diver. Diving computers actually use a complex mathematical model that performs separate calculations for several different types of body tissue that have different uptake and release characteristics. Doing the "calculations" is no guarantee. Just wait 72 hours from the last dive for sport divers. Different rules may apply for "saturation divers", but that is beyond the sport diving training.

Actually that 72 hour figure is way beyond what RA-Aus reckons....

 

*edit* just to clarify - I don't think RA-Aus got it right. If I had some dive tables to hand I'd probably come up closer to your figure than theirs.

 

 

[Guest davidh10]

Actually that 72 hour figure is way beyond what RA-Aus reckons....*edit* just to clarify - I don't think RA-Aus got it right. If I had some dive tables to hand I'd probably come up closer to your figure than theirs.

The official recommendations from PADI were (for flying to 8,000'):

 

• Bottom time in previous 12 hours <1 Hour; wait 4 hours.
   
   
  
• Bottom time in previous 12 hours <4 Hours or dives near the no-decompression limit at 60' or deeper; wait 12 hours.
   
   
  
• Bottom time >4 Hours; wait 48 hours.
   
   
  

 

 

However I seem to recall that this was considered inadequate where multiple dives had been done over a period of days, hence my recollection of 72 hours being a more conservative and thus safer figure. That is what I used to observe.

 

* This is for info only and is not advice.

 

 

[dazza 38]

I found the HF course a benefit.I knew more after the course than before it.Having said that, I have learnt more about HF from reading Flight Safety over the years, than the course, with the magazines HF Stories.