Assessing human error in Air Traffic Management systems design: Methodological issues

The human reliability of Air Traffic Management (ATm) operations is still v ery high compared to other industries. However, most incidents are attribut able to human error (generally controller and/or pilot), rather than hardwa re or software failures, and the levels and complexity of air traffic place s pressure on controllers in current systems. These facts dictate that effo rts must be made to manage human errors at the design stage, before they ma nifest themselves as incidents in operational systems. A range of methods h ave been tried and tested in NATs, to elicit information on human errors an d to try to improve system resilience to human error. The methods range fro m the obvious, such as observation, interviewing, and questionnaires, to th e more technique-oriented approaches of human error prediction via the tech niques of TRACEr (Shorrock & Kirwan, submitted) and HAZOP (Kletz, 1999). Th is paper considers human error assessment methods in the context of the Sys tem Des gn and Development Lifecycle (SDDLG). Platforms on which to base th e methods are discussed, along with the major stakeholders who should be in volved in,the process. The approaches are compared on a number of criteria useful for determining which methods to use. The paper introduces the conce pt of a portfolio of methods accessible to those involved in the design, de velopment and evaluation of new ATM systems-the Hum an Error Assessment in Design portfolio (HEAD). Examples are provided from the portfolio, along wi th some typical applications.