The paper presents a framework that through structured analysis of accident reports explores the differences between practice and academic literature as well amongst organizations regarding their views on human error. The framework is based on the hypothesis that the wording of accident reports reflects the safety thinking and models that have been applied during the investigation, and includes 10 aspects identified in the state-of-the-art literature. The framework was applied to 52 air accident reports published by the Dutch Safety Board (DSB) and 45 ones issued by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) from 1999 to 2014. Frequency analysis and statistical tests showed that the presence of the aspects in the accident reports varied from 32.6% to 81.7%, and revealed differences between the ATSB and the DSB approaches to human error. However, in overall safety thinking have not changed over time, thus, suggesting that academic propositions might have not yet affected practice dramatically.
The study of human factors in forensic science informs our understanding of the interaction between humans and the systems they use. The Expert Working Group (EWG) on Human Factors in Forensic DNA Interpretation used a systems approach to conduct a scientific assessment of the effects of human factors on forensic DNA interpretation with the goal of recommending approaches to improve practice and reduce the likelihood and consequence of errors. This effort resulted in 44 recommendations. The EWG designed many of these recommendations to improve the production, interpretation, evaluation, documentation, and communication of DNA comparison results.
MULTIFILE
The findings from a bloodstain pattern analysis (BPA) may assist in formulating or falsifying scenarios that are considered in the investigative stages of a criminal investigation. When a case proceeds to trial the bloodstain pattern expert may be asked about the relevance of their findings given scenarios that are proposed by the prosecution and defense counsel. Such opinions provided by an expert are highly relevant to police investigation or legal proceedings, but the reasoning behind the opinion or implicit assumptions made by the expert may not be transparent.A proper framework for the evaluation of forensic findings has been developed since the late twentieth century, based on the hierarchy of propositions, Bayesian reasoning and a model for case assessment and interpretation. This framework, when implemented in casework, mitigates some of the risks of cognitive biases, and makes the reasoning and scientific basis for the opinion transparent. This framework is broadly used across forensic science disciplines. In this paper we describe its application to the field of BPA using a case example from the Netherlands Forensic Institute (NFI).
