Classification and management method of errors and violations in civil aviation pilots' unsafe behaviors

doi:10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2024.12.0281

Abstract

Abstract:

To address the classification and quantitative evaluation issues of unsafe behaviors of civil aviation pilots, the management mode of their unsafe behaviors was optimized. A method for managing unsafe behaviors in civil aviation was proposed focusing on the civil aviation flight field. Firstly, based on unsafe behavior classification theory, intervention and improvement methods for errors and violations were systematically analyzed to distinguish between errors and violations. Secondly, expert interviews and questionnaire surveys were used to propose a classification evaluation index system for pilots' unsafe behaviors. Furthermore, a classification method of unsafe behavior based on quick access recorder (QAR) data and a quantification method of unsafe behavior scores based on flight operations quality assurance (FOQA) were proposed to achieve a classified quantitative assessment of pilots' unsafe behaviors. Finally, the classifying and managing unsafe behavior process was analyzed and validated. The results indicated that the 68 FOQA monitoring events obtained by screening and calculation had different causal behavioral tendencies. The two proposed unsafe behavior classifications and quantitative evaluation methods can be combined with QAR data or FOQA records. Moreover, the classification management of unsafe behaviors of civil aviation pilots can be achieved by combining intervention and improvement measures for errors and violations.

Key words: pilots, unsafe behavior, errors, violations, classification management

CLC Number:

X949

WANG Lei, WEI Zixin, ZOU Ying. Classification and management method of errors and violations in civil aviation pilots' unsafe behaviors[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2024, 34(12): 8-15.

Figures/Tables 12

Table 1

Fig.1

Table 2

Table 3

Table 4

Table 5

Table 6

Fig.2

Fig.3

Table 7

Table 8

Table 9

References 26

[1]	何朝平. 交通运输安全要素中人的因素研究[J]. 综合运输, 2017, 39(8): 21-25.
	HE Chaoping. Study on human factors in safety factors of the transport industry[J]. China Transportation Review, 2017, 39(8):21-25.
[2]	中国民用航空局航空安全办公室. 2020中国民航航空安全报告[R], 2021.
[3]	王卓, 刁朋娣, 贾利民, 等. 铁路事故致因与风险分析[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2012, 22(6): 79-85.
	WANG Zhuo, DIAO Pengdi, JIA Limin, et al. Analysis of railway accident causes and risk[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2012, 22(6): 79-85.
[4]	霍志勤, 罗帆. 近十年中国民航事故及事故征候的统计分析[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2006, 16(12): 65-71.
	HUO Zhiqin, LUO Fan. Statistic analysis on accidents and incidents in the last decade in china civil aviation[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2006, 16(12): 65-71.
[5]	REASON J, MANSTEAD A, STRADLING S, et al. Errors and violations on the roads: a real distinction?[J]. Ergonomics, 1990, 33(10/11): 1315-1332.
[6]	李炎, 公超, 何吉波. 2010—2019年中国民航商业航空运输飞行事故中人的因素分析[C]. 第六届中国航空科学技术大会, 2023: 1488-1502.
	LI Yan, GONGChao, HEJibo. The analysis of human factors in China civil aviation flight accidents from 2010 to 2019[C]. Proceeding in the 6^th China Aeronautical Science and Technology Conference, 2023:1488-1502.
[7]	International Air Transport Association. IATA annual safety report -2022[R], 2023.
[8]	何鹏, 孙瑞山. 中国民航典型征候的趋势研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2023, 33(7): 133-139. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2023.07.1459
	HE Peng, SUN Ruishan. Study on trend of typical incidents of civil aviation in China[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2023, 33(7): 133-139. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2023.07.1459
[9]	许保光, 王蓓蓓, 池宏, 等. 基于贝叶斯网络的航空安全中不安全信息分析[J]. 中国管理科学, 2020, 28(12): 118-129.
	XU Baoguang, WANG Beibei, CHI Hong, et al. Insecurity information analysis in civil aviation safety based on bayesian network[J]. Chinese Journal of Management Science, 2020, 28(12): 118-129.
[10]	MD-AS-2000-001, 飞行品质监控工作管理规定[S].
[11]	AC-121/135-FS—2012-45, 飞行品质监控(FOQA)实施与管理[S]. 2012-02-15.
[12]	AC-121/135-FS—2012-45R1, 飞行品质监控(FOQA)实施与管理[S]. 2015-06-30.
[13]	汪磊, 邹颖, 王朔. QAR数据驱动的飞行员不安全操作行为量化评价[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2023, 33(5): 49-56. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2023.05.2300
	WANG Lei, ZOU Ying, WANG Shuo. Quantitative evaluation of pilots' unsafe operation behavior driven by QAR data[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2023, 33(5): 49-56. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2023.05.2300
[14]	李大庆, 陈小琦.基于航空QAR大数据的飞行员胜任能力画像方法及系统, 中国, CN113298431B[P]. 2023-04-21.
[15]	REASON J. Human error[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990: 57-86.
[16]	SHAPPELL S A, WIEGMANN D A. The human factors analysis and classification system-HFACS[R]. Federal Aviation Administration, 2000.
[17]	WIEGMANN D A, SHAPPELL S A. A human error approach to aviation accident analysis: the human factors analysis and classification system[M]. London: Routledge, 2003: 50-55.
[18]	NORMAN D A. Categorization of action slips[J]. Psychological Review, 1981, 88(1): 1-15.
[19]	朱宝岩, 李柏冬, 刘玉姣, 等. 模糊痕迹安全决策模型及其应用研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2019, 29(8): 17-22. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2019.08.003
	ZHU Baoyan, LI Baidong, LIU Yujiao, et al. Research on fuzzy trace safety decision model and its application[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2019, 29(8): 17-22. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2019.08.003
[20]	刘红军. 基于机组人为因素分析的东航飞行安全风险防控及对策研究[D]. 上海: 复旦大学, 2013.
[21]	黄荣顺, 孙华波, 卢宾宾, 等. 飞行安全时空大数据理论与实践[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2022: 1-2.
[22]	李德毅, 刘常昱. 论正态云模型的普适性[J]. 中国工程科学, 2004, 6(8): 28-34.
	LI Deyi, LIU Changyu. Study on the universality of the normal cloud model[J]. Engineering Science, 2004, 6(8): 28-34.
[23]	任勇. 航线飞行员的风险倾向特征研究[D]. 天津: 中国民航大学, 2018.
	REN Yong. Study on the characteristics of risk propensity of airline pilots[D]. Tianjin:Civil Aviation University of China, 2018.
[24]	龚艳冰, 蒋亚东, 梁雪春. 基于模糊贴近度的正态云模型相似度度量[J]. 系统工程, 2015, 33(9): 133-137.
	GONG Yanbing, JIANG Yadong, LIANG Xuechun. Similarity measurement for normal cloud models based on fuzzy similarity measure[J]. Systems Engineering, 2015, 33(9): 133-137.
[25]	刘莉, 汪丽娜. 基于熵权-正态云模型的水资源可持续性评价[J]. 华南师范大学学报: 自然科学版, 2020, 52(1): 77-84.
	LIU Li, WANG Li'na. The entropy weights-based approach to and the normal cloud model for water resources assessment[J]. Journal of South China Normal University: Natural Science Edition, 2020, 52(1): 77-84.
[26]	薛黎明, 崔超群, 李长明, 等. 基于正态云模型的区域矿产资源可持续力评价[J]. 中国人口·资源与环境, 2017, 27(6): 67-74.
	XUE Liming, CUI Chaoqun, LI Changming, et al. Normal cloud model-based approach for regional sustainable power assessment of mineral resources[J]. China Population, Resources and Environment, 2017, 27(6): 67-74.

分值	监测事件致因
1分	完全是能力/技术不足
2分	可能是能力/技术不足
3分	说不定
4分	可能是习惯/态度不佳
5分	完全是习惯/态度不佳

信息	组别	样本量	占比/%
年龄/ 岁	20~29	13	17.10
	30~39	55	72.37
	40~50	8	10.53
飞行等级	教员	15	19.74
	机长	32	42.10
	副驾驶	29	38.16

监测事件	归属度	行为倾向
离地仰角大	0.39	差错
超最大起飞重量	0.85	违规
爬升掉高度	0.39	差错
着陆坡度大	0.37	差错
进近放起落架超过限制速度	0.73	违规
下滑道偏离	0.42	差错
高度偏离	0.62	违规
着陆垂直载荷大	0.38	差错
自动驾驶接通早	0.74	违规
接地点近/远	0.4	差错
未收到起飞许可擅自起飞	0.84	违规
调错进近最低标准	0.83	违规
着陆滑跑方向不稳定	0.37	差错
进停机位速度大	0.79	违规
低空大速度	0.57	违规

评价指标	很低	低	中等	高	很高
转弯时最大速度/kn	≤ 10.85	≤ 11.7	≤ 12.55	≤ 13.4	> 13.4
[35,1 000) ft 最大速度/kn	≤162	≤ 168	≤ 174	≤ 180	> 180
[1 000,2 000) ft 最大下降率/ (ft·min^-1)	≤ 1 444.5	≤ 1 872	≤ 2 299.5	≤ 2 727	> 2 727
[500,1 000) ft 最大下降率/ (ft·min^-1)	≤ 1 010	≤ 1 128	≤ 1 246	≤ 1 364	> 1 364

评价指标	权重	很低	低	中等	高	很高
转弯时最大速度/kn	0.14	(5.43, 4.61, 0.01)	(11.28, 0.36, 0.01)	(12.13, 0.36, 0.01)	(12.98, 0.36, 0.01)	(14.25, 0.72, 0.01)
[35,1 000) ft 最大速度/kn	0.08	(81.00, 68.79, 0.01)	(165.00, 2.55, 0.01)	(171.00, 2.55, 0.01)	(177, 2.55, 0.01)	(186.00, 5.10, 0.01)
[1 000,2 000) ft 最大下降率/ (ft·min^-1)	0.11	(722.25, 613.38, 0.01)	(1 658.25, 181.53, 0.01)	(2 085.75, 181.53, 0.01)	(2 513.25, 181.53, 0.01)	(3 154.50, 363.06, 0.01)
[500,1 000) ft 最大下降率/ (ft·min^-1)	0.11	(505.00, 428.87, 0.01)	(1 069.00, 50.11, 0.01)	(1 187, 50.11, 0.01)	(1 305, 50.11, 0.01)	(1 482.00, 100.21, 0.01)