PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Wen-Chin Li

Publications and source records attributed to Wen-Chin Li.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

Pilot error and its relationship with higher organizational levels: HFACS analysis of 523 accidents.

INTRODUCTION: Based on Reason's model of human error, the Human Factors Analysis and Classification System (HFACS) was developed as an analytical framework for the investigation of the role of human error in aviation accidents. However, there is little empirical work that formally describes numerically the relationship between the levels and components in the model (the organizational structures, psychological precursors of errors, and actual errors). METHOD: This research analyzed 523 accidents in the Republic of China (ROC) Air Force between 1978 and 2002 through the application of the HFACS framework. RESULTS: The results revealed several key relationships between errors at the operational level and organizational inadequacies at both the immediately adjacent level (preconditions for unsafe acts) and higher levels in the organization (unsafe supervision and organizational influences). CONCLUSIONS: This research lends support to Reason's model that suggests that active failures are promoted by latent conditions in the organization. Fallible decisions in upper command levels were found to directly affect supervisory practices, thereby creating preconditions for unsafe acts, and hence indirectly impaired performance of pilots, leading to accidents. The HFACS framework was proven to be a useful tool for guiding accident investigations and developing accident prevention strategies.

Accidents, Aviation↗

Aeronautical decision making: instructor-pilot evaluation of five mnemonic methods.

INTRODUCTION: The ability to make good decisions is a critical component of pilot proficiency. Results of recent research suggest that aeronautical decision making (ADM) can be improved by training. The purposes of this research are to identify the best ADM mnemonic-based methods for training military pilots in decision making in tactical environments. METHODS: There were 60 instructor pilots in the Republic of China Air Force Academy who evaluated the suitability of 5 different ADM methods including SHOR (Stimuli, Hypotheses, Options, Response); PASS (Problem identification, Acquire information, Survey strategy, Select strategy); FOR-DEC (Facts, Options, Risks & Benefits, Decision, Execution, Check); SOAR (Situation, Options, Act, Repeat); and DESIDE (Detect, Estimate, Set safety objectives, Identify, Do, Evaluate). Each was evaluated for six different types of decisions: go/no go; recognition-primed; response selection; resource management; non-diagnostic procedural; and creative problem-solving. RESULTS: The instructor-pilots regarded the SHOR method as the best for time-limited and critical, urgent situations, while they preferred DESIDE for knowledge-based decisions that needed more comprehensive consideration and were less time limited. DISCUSSION: To optimize training effectiveness, it is necessary to provide instruction based around both the SHOR and DESIDE decision-making mnemonic methods to provide comprehensive instruction for coping with all situations in the demanding military aviation environment.

Accidents, Aviation↗