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.
As every new generation of civil aircraft creates more on-wing data and fleets gradually become more connected with the ground, an increased number of opportunities can be identified for more effective Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul (MRO) operations. Data are becoming a valuable asset for aircraft operators. Sensors measure and record thousands of parameters in increased sampling rates. However, data do not serve any purpose per se. It is the analysis that unleashes their value. Data analytics methods can be simple, making use of visualizations, or more complex, with the use of sophisticated statistics and Artificial Intelligence algorithms. Every problem needs to be approached with the most suitable and less complex method. In MRO operations, two major categories of on-wing data analytics problems can be identified. The first one requires the identification of patterns, which enable the classification and optimization of different maintenance and overhaul processes. The second category of problems requires the identification of rare events, such as the unexpected failure of parts. This cluster of problems relies on the detection of meaningful outliers in large data sets. Different Machine Learning methods can be suggested here, such as Isolation Forest and Logistic Regression. In general, the use of data analytics for maintenance or failure prediction is a scientific field with a great potentiality. Due to its complex nature, the opportunities for aviation Data Analytics in MRO operations are numerous. As MRO services focus increasingly in long term contracts, maintenance organizations with the right forecasting methods will have an advantage. Data accessibility and data quality are two key-factors. At the same time, numerous technical developments related to data transfer and data processing can be promising for the future.
In this paper we present a review of existing aviation safety metrics and we lay the foundation for our four-years research project entitled “Measuring Safety in Aviation – Developing Metrics for Safety Management Systems”. We reviewed state-of-the-art literature, relevant standards and regulations, and industry practice. We identified that the long-established view on safety as absence of losses has limited the measurement of safety performance to indicators of adverse events (e.g., accident and incident rates). However, taking into account the sparsity of incidents and accidents compared to the amount of aviation operations, and the recent shift from compliance to performance based approach to safety management, the exclusive use of outcomes metrics does not suffice to further improve safety and establish a proactive monitoring of safety performance. Although the academia and aviation industry have recognized the need to use activity indicators for evaluating how safety management processes perform, and various process metrics have been developed, those have not yet become part of safety performance assessment. This is partly attributed to the lack of empirical evidence about the relation between safety proxies and safety outcomes, and the diversity of safety models used to depict safety management processes (i.e. root-cause, epidemiological or systemic models). This, in turn, has resulted to the development of many safety process metrics, which, however, have not been thoroughly tested against the quality criteria referred in literature, such as validity, reliability and practicality.
