This paper presents how the application of the STPA method might support the evaluation of fighter pilots training programs and trigger procedural and technological changes. We applied the STPA method by considering the safety constraints documented in the Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) of a South European Air Force and regard a flight of a two F-16 aircraft formation. In this context, we derived the control actions and feedback mechanisms that are available to the leader pilot during an Aircraft Combat Maneuver (ACM) mission, and we developed the control flow diagram based on the aircraft manuals. We compared the results of each analysis step with the respective flight training program, which is based on a mixed skill and rule-based decision-making, and we examined the role of the feedback mechanisms during multiple safety constraints violations. The analysis showed that: the flight training program under study does not structurally include cases of infringement of multiple safety constraints; the maintenance of some safety constraints are not supported by alerts, or rely on only one human sense; the existing procedures do not refer to the prioritization of pilot actions in cases of violation of multiple safety constraints; operation manuals do not address the cases of possible human performance deterioration when simultaneous information from feedback mechanisms is received. The results demonstrated the benefits of the STPA method, the application of which uncovered various inadequacies in the flight training program studied, some of them related to the F-16 cockpit ergonomics. The analysis lead to recommendations in regard to the amendment of the corresponding fighter pilots training program, and the conduction of further research regarding the aircraft – pilot interaction when multiple safety constraints are violated. The approach presented in this paper can be also followed for the (re)evaluation of flight training schemes in military, civil and general aviation, as well by any human-machine interface intensive domain.
This study investigated the effect of work pace on workload, motor variability and fatigue during light assembly work. Upper extremity kinematics and electromyography (EMG) were obtained on a cycle-to-cycle basis for eight participants during two conditions, corresponding to "normal" and "high" work pace according to a predetermined time system for engineering. Indicators of fatigue, pain sensitivity and performance were recorded before, during and after the task. The level and variability of muscle activity did not differ according to work pace, and manifestations of muscle fatigue or changed pain sensitivity were not observed. In the high work pace, however, participants moved more efficiently, they showed more variability in wrist speed and acceleration, but they also made more errors. These results suggest that an increased work pace, within the range addressed here, will not have any substantial adverse effects on acute motor performance and fatigue in light, cyclic assembly work.STATEMENT OF RELEVANCE: In the manufacturing industry, work pace is a key issue in production system design and hence of interest to ergonomists as well as engineers. In this laboratory study, increasing the work pace did not show adverse effects in terms of biomechanical exposures and muscle fatigue, but it did lead to more errors. For the industrial engineer, this observation suggests that an increase in work pace might diminish production quality, even without any noticeable fatigue being experienced by the operators.
Using the latest industrial robot technology, the collaborative robot (cobot), industrial manufacturers work towards high-mix low-volume production systems that could satisfy a diversifying customer demand. As the utilization of the cobot’s potential depends on the dynamic interaction with operators, one would expect HR professionals to play a central role in this implementation process. However, cobot-related literature is unanimous: HR is not involved. This is in line with the results of our study in 2019 on seventeen cobot experiments in Dutch industrial manufacturing companies. To explore what human cobot collaboration emerges when engineers and line managers take the lead in their design, we revisited the data from our previous interview study (N=53). HR was absent in all implementations. We found that line managers and engineers prepared operators for rigid human-cobot collaborations that were aimed at getting the cobot to work, enhancing production efficiency and handling a few batches of mass-produced goods (low-mix, high-volume). Furthermore, the collaborations all showed signs of being difficult to sustain over time and posed a direct threat to operators’ well-being. To protect operators’ future of work and build towards interdependent human-cobot collaboration suitable for high-mix low-volume production, we propose an approach in which operators themselves, and HR too, are much more involved in the cobot implementation process. Operators should be allowed and supported to design, program, operate, and repair as much of their human-cobot workstations themselves as possible. To support this, HR has to familiarize itself with the cobot technology, secure operators’ decision latitude, facilitate the required support, and become the work design expert that helps operators co-design sustainable cobot applications that optimally utilize the strengths of both man and machine.
MULTIFILE
Manual labour is an important cornerstone in manufacturing and considering human factors and ergonomics is a crucial field of action from both social and economic perspective. Diverse approaches are available in research and practice, ranging from guidelines, ergonomic assessment sheets over to digitally supported workplace design or hardware oriented support technologies like exoskeletons. However, in the end those technologies, methods and tools put the working task in focus and just aim to make manufacturing “less bad” with reducing ergonomic loads as much as possible. The proposed project “Human Centered Smart Factories: design for wellbeing for future manufacturing” wants to overcome this conventional paradigm and considers a more proactive and future oriented perspective. The underlying vision of the project is a workplace design for wellbeing that makes labor intensive manufacturing not just less bad but aims to provide positive contributions to physiological and mental health of workers. This shall be achieved through a human centered technology approach and utilizing advanced opportunities of smart industry technologies and methods within a cyber physical system setup. Finally, the goal is to develop smart, shape-changing workstations that self-adapt to the unique and personal, physical and cognitive needs of a worker. The workstations are responsive, they interact in real time, and promote dynamic activities and varying physical exertion through understanding the context of work. Consequently, the project follows a clear interdisciplinary approach and brings together disciplines like production engineering, human interaction design, creative design techniques and social impact assessment. Developments take place in an industrial scale test bed at the University of Twente but also within an industrial manufacturing factory. Through the human centered design of adaptive workplaces, the project contributes to a more inclusive and healthier society. This has also positive effects from both national (e.g. relieve of health system) as well as individual company perspective (e.g. less costs due to worker illness, higher motivation and productivity). Even more, the proposal offers new business opportunities through selling products and/or services related to the developed approach. To tap those potentials, an appropriate utilization of the results is a key concern . The involved manufacturing company van Raam will be the prototypical implementation partner and serve as critical proof of concept partner. Given their openness, connections and broad range of processes they are also an ideal role model for further manufacturing companies. ErgoS and Ergo Design are involved as methodological/technological partners that deal with industrial engineering and ergonomic design of workplace on a daily base. Thus, they are crucial to critically reflect wider applicability and innovativeness of the developed solutions. Both companies also serve as multiplicator while utilizing promising technologies and methods in their work. Universities and universities of applied sciences utilize results through scientific publications and as base for further research. They also ensure the transfer to education as an important leverage to inspire and train future engineers towards wellbeing design of workplaces.
