Addressing Operational Human Factors Issues: AERO 2053 Report Sample

• Subject Code : AERO-2053
• University : University of South Australia My Assignment Services is not sponsored or endorsed by this college or university.
• Subject Name : Management

Human Factors 

Abstract

An airline was having communication issues between the crew members of the aircraft. The Airline also mentioned about negative gist in the management and communication of Cabin Crew and the Flight crew. It was found that a threat existed about not receiving important information by the Cabin Crew regarding the travelers and proceedings in the passenger cabin. For controlling this problem, three strategies were planned to employ the Hierarchy of Controls. The first strategy explained the lack of communications among the Flight Crew and Cabin Crew during the flight. The second strategy has been used for resolving the matter of the Captain as they become angry when contacted by a flight attendant during their relaxation period. The ultimate strategy has been used for training and administrative controls to improve Crew communications during the flight. Research materials such as journal articles, books, and incident reports were consulted for the report. Based on the strategies deliberated, it was suggested that the Flight Crew and Cabin Crew should familiarize themselves earlier the flight; a Cabin Crew member after part each flight and communicates information; the Cabin Crew informs the on-duty Captain as a substitute of the resting Captain;and others.

Table of Contents

Introduction.

Discussion of strategies.

Hierarchy of Controls.

The implication of the Hierarchy of Control model for the current scenario.

Issue 1:

Issue 2:

Issue 3:

Conclusion.

Recommendations.

References.

Introduction to Human Factors Issues

According to Kelly & Efthymiou (2019), “Human factors are matters distressing how individuals do their works” and “the communal and individual skills, such as communiqué and conclusion making which accompaniment an individual’s methodological skills”. An airline communicated about issues between the Cabin Crew and Flight Crew of the aircraft. There are some serious problems in the management and communication between Cabin Crew and the Flight Crew members. It was found that there was an issue regarding not receiving important information about the passengers to the Cabin Crew. There was also miscommunication about proceedings in the passenger cabin. This could affect the security of travelers in the aircraft. Accident reports discovered that landing is the greatest perilous step in-flight processes. Communication about aviation safety measures to the passengers is very important.

Review assemblies organized by the flight operations department have recognized incidences in which Cabin Crew have not communicated about safety apprehensions or troublesome actions to the Flight Crew till the airplane had landed (Deveci & Demirel, 2018, p. 391). This report will use the Hierarchy of Control model for making strategies. Different stages of the model are elimination, substitution, engineering controls, administrative controls, and Personal Protective Equipment or PPE. These strategies will help to resolve communication issues among Cabin Crew (CC) and Flight Crew (FC). Finally, the recommendation is presented for how such incidents can be avoided in the future.

Discussion of strategies

One significant trait of safe associations is the adoption of procedures that screen the working condition to guarantee the adequacy of hazard controls and to alarm the management of developing risks. Controlling exposures to dangers is the key strategy for securing the workers. Customarily, the Hierarchy of Controls (HOC) has been utilized as a method for deciding in what way to execute practical and successful control arrangements. Control measure defences the workers of an organization against a hazard or problem.

Hierarchy of Controls 

The Hierarchy of Controls model is used by the organization to eliminate the consequences of a hazard. The model is used by the managers to encourage standard training in the workplace. Hazard controls of the hierarchy are:

• Elimination
• Substitution
• Engineering controls
• Administrative controls
• Personal protective equipment (PPE)

Figure 1: Hierarchy of Controls Model

(Source: Druely, 2019 )

The control strategies depicted at the top of the model are theoretically more operative and protecting as compared to those at the lower level. Using this hierarchy generally primes to the execution of integrally safer systems in which the danger of damage has been noticeably abridged (Druely, 2019).

Elimination

The elimination phase of the control model is most effective since it expels the danger of incidents. Druely (2019) suggests that businesses analyze any activity or movement that puts workers in danger of injury. During the assessment, the organization looks to dispose of any part of the undertakings that put workers at an unsatisfactory degree of hazard. Numerous organizations despite everything battle with the elimination level, since they just squint at the underlying expenses of rolling out a principal improvement to the activity of the business (Deveci & Demirel, 2018, p. 392). When they find the drawn out reserve funds, together in operational and labourers pay terms, elimination becomes progressively reasonable.

Substitution

Substitution, the next finest hazard control, comprises displacing something that generates a threat with something that doesn't produce a peril. For example: If farmers are suffering from infections due to pesticides, they can replace it with an organic pesticide. Substitution level is generally avoided by several organizations for two causes, First, more secure choices are now more costly than their destructive other options. Second, they replace one item with other which causes the equal or similar wellbeing issues. It is a procedure that needs a speculation of time and vitality to test a few distinct choices before doing a switch (Druely, 2019, n.d.).

Engineering controls

Organizations utilize engineering controls to genuinely isolate their workers from unsafe machines or risky working conditions. The organization can do this by expelling the danger from the environment or making a barrier (Druely, 2019, n.d.). Most designing controls are costly and can prompt further issues later on. Basic engineering control methods are controlling a process, isolating an emission source and proper ventilation.

Administrative

Administrative controls look to improve working environment security by making more secure strategies in the work environment. Controls can extend from the situation of caution signs all through an office, workers preparing programs, and the utilization of security tape.When organizations arrive at the managerial level, they begin to put the obligation of working environment security on staff rather than the board, and the outcomes are erratic(Deveci & Demirel, 2018, p. 393). Cautioning signs are just successful if representatives notice the admonition, yet numerous workers decide to overlook wellbeing techniques to spare time or exertion.

Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)

PPE is any bit of extra hardware, similar to head protectors, gloves, or protective goggles, that shield the workers from work environment perils. Even though PPE appears the clearest decision to improve security, the high disappointment rate makes PPE futile for everything except the most minor of risks (Druely, 2019, n.d.). A head protector won't shield a representative from a falling steel shaft, and goggles can, unfortunately, withstand a limited amount of power before breaking. No matter which kind of protecting equipment is utilized, it is vital to have a whole PPE package in every organisation.

The implication of the Hierarchy of Control model for the current scenario

The Hierarchy of Control model will help in the effective utilization of all possessions accessible to the crew members, including equipment, mechanical/technical skills, and the aids of FC and others. As the Hierarchy model ventured into non-aviation businesses, it likewise extended outside the flight deck into other flying divisions, for example, Cabin Crew and Preservation. Hryshchenko, Romanenko & Amelina's (2019) research article examines the obstructions of communication among the crew members from airline attendants’’ point of view through group focusing. The focused gatherings featured the accompanying obstructions: Locked flight deck entryway and interphone conventions, sterile cockpit, briefings before the flight, facts about fundamental airplane terminologies. Also, debriefings after happenings and differences in inns, meals, and incentives lead to miscommunication between the FC and CC. Hierarchical impacts, for example, status, gender, age, and experience differences between Flight Attendants and Pilots were additionally noted as hindrances to successful communication (Hryshchenko, Romanenko & Amelina, 2019, p. 52). For addressing the barriers between the FC and CC the airplane can use the strategies of the Hierarchy of Control model.

The present administration styles at an authoritative level could frustrate Cabin Crew announcing safety matters to FC. A portion of the administration style hindrances that forestall security conversations between CC and FC are psychological wellbeing, status, level of vulnerability, and power separation. Comprehensiveness management training of Flight Crew and a workforce of high status is important as their performance can smother conversation from lower-status staff (Hryshchenko, Romanenko & Amelina, 2019, p.51). Operationally, pre-flight briefings should be used to help with mental wellbeing and security communication desires. Hence, the accompanying inquiry rises: "What techniques can an aircraft utilize to keep up or improve CC/FC connections and fortify trust between them while addressing foundational issues, operational expenses, individual behaviour, and advantages. This contextual investigation report will aim to solve the airline’s problem with three strategies. By utilizing "Hierarchy of Control" method for identification of human factors and resource management of the crew will help the airline to solve the problem.

The accompanying three strategies will utilize the "Hierarchy of Control" strategy to give a structure to viable control measures for addressing foundational issues and individual practices inside the working environment in an airline. The Hierarchy of Control consists of five levels of rheostat measures, with best at the top and the least viable at the base. They are elimination, substitution, engineering, administrative, and personal protective equipment.

Issue 1

Flight operations administrators have recognized regarding few events in recent months where CC has not conceded on satisfactory data about security concerns or problematic events in the cabintill the airplane had landed. Research by Suthatoram and Charoensukmongkol (2018) and Hryshchenko, Romanenko, and Amelina (2019)recognizes the "fundamental reason behind quietness among the airline attendants was the dread of punishment, trailed by sentiments of vanity and worry about harming relationships". Various remaining tasks of FC and CC joined with varying high/low areas have been distinguished as huge obstructions to communication among the crew members of the airplane. Adding to the correspondence boundary is the workplace environment, FC works behind a bolted flight deck entryway while CC works in an open area, and in this way, each crew can't watch the other group. Bennett's (2017) research likewise revealed different zones that add to non-effective conversations. FC tends to be "more experienced, largely male, exceptionally talented in specialization and operational zones. One airplane type evaluated “though Cabin Crew are more youthful and of the two sexual orientations, had great social abilities and held more than one airplane type scores" (Deveci & Demirel, 2018, p. 403).

The strategy used: Administrative controls (Level 4)

Preparing hierarchy control of both FC and CC would help with seeing each other's activities which can deliver positive cooperation between the two and separate the authoritative cultures. Successful collaboration in critical situations during training would help the crew members to "work from a similar page" (Deveci & Demirel, 2018, p. 401). Joint training will give members the study hall abilities, coaching of junior workers by staff. Influential positions will give hands-on human variables part of preparing because of the experience of the pioneers and their comprehension of the issue influencing how errands are finished. This hands-on preparation will ingrain the right social, individual, correspondence, and dynamic abilities into the lesser representatives which is required inside an aircrew domain (Deveci & Demirel, 2018, p. 401). This strategy is intended for the airline crew members to advance the corporate relationship and producing a confiding safe space to the CC individuals to "make some noise" concerning the security or problematic occasions.

Issue 2

The instructors of emergency procedures have revealed hearing narrations from CC about irritation of the Captain when reached about a security issue if it awakens them during their rest time in the crew rest cabin. At first, it would appear that CC would need to settle on whether to wake up the Captain for a security issue or overlook/manage the issue on their own. Government Aviation Regulation (2018) tells "The in-command Captain of an airplane is legitimately liable for, and is the last authority concerning, the activity of that airplane.". While the Captain is exclusively liable for the flight, leadership drilling for the Captain will help the evacuation of uncertainty for CC concerning the detailing of security issues while utilizing a relaxing time.

The strategy used: Substitution (Level 2)

Leadership drilling for Captains in regards to entrustment and supporter availability. Utilizing theory by Hersey and Blanchard for the premise of the initiative of leadership drilling, it will help the Captain to comprehend that "devotees are the significant elements of the circumstance, and thus, of deciding real leader conduct" (Deveci & Demirel, 2018, p. 404)."Leaders govern the dread level in the association" and making a "domain that empowers individuals to have a sense of security" will amass a positive trusting connection between the crews (Deveci & Demirel, 2018, p. 404).Advantages of leadership drilling for Captains will expel an obstruction for CC with regards to security detailing and permit them to proceed as per the training.

Issue 3

The management of flight operations discovers that there is some negative gist in airline crew members' coordination and collaboration in the course of the last few months.

The strategy used: Elimination (Level 1)

To address the negative gist between the airline crew members and eliminating the "us and them" ethos, the following training is planned according to the hierarchy model for eliminating the relationship problems between the crew members. Joint training will help the airline members in understanding others jobs (Soekkha, 2019, n.d.). Consolidated pre-flight briefings for the crews would help in introducing each other. This can also include the points regarding improvement required in the flight. The operational expenses of holding crew members together will be predominated by the advantages of the group environment through a better and positive authoritative culture.

Conclusion on Human Factors Issues

A compelling reliable relationship between the crew members is required for flight security. The first methodology proposed through the Hierarchy of Control model is that the FC and the CC should participate in joint training. This will help in understanding other member’s job, making safe psychological space for individuals. The substitution strategy advances a positive believing connection among Flight Crew and Cabin Crew with the ideal result of evacuating boundaries when Cabin Crew is reporting security worries in flight and the Captain is resting. Assigning and considering follower willingness is crucial in dropping dread levels inside a squad environment. The Elimination strategy suggests that the two groups should convert to one team by staying at the same inns during delays. Research has indicated that individuals of a group become profoundly dedicated to the group environment. These strategies feature the requirement for the Hierarchy of Controls model for addressing the human operational factors of the airline.

Recommendations on Human Factors Issues

The recommendations to the airline for improving the relationship between the Cabin crew and Flight Crew of the aircraft are as follows.

• Joint training of the FC and CC should be done annually.
• The on-flight captain should visit CC to reduce flight communication barriers. This will help in understanding the work of flight attendants by the Flight Crew.
• Mentoring of junior staff by the seniors to reduce dread levels. This will improve interactions of the crew members in the flights and also outside their working environment.
• Combined pre-flight briefings of FC and CC to build trust and psychological benign space. The introduction of the in-flight crew members will reduce the risk factors involved with the human operational factors of the airline.
• Increase the crew size and make all the crew members to back-seat at the identical point during airplane landing and take-off.
• Train the crew members about the technology, usage and benefits of the equipment in the aircraft.
• Encouraging team spirit among the crew members by providing the same hotels and transport during delays and layoffs. While traveling from the airport to the destined hotel, crew members will interact with each other, this will improve their relations.

References for the Assignment

Bennett, S. A. (2017). Aviation crew resource management- a critical appraisal, in the tradition of reflective practice, informed by flight and cabin crew feedback. Journal of Risk Research, 22(11), 1357-1373.

Charlton, S. G. & O’brien, T. G. (2019). Handbook of human factors testing and evaluation.2nd ed. Oxon: CRC Press.

Deveci, M. & Demirel, N. C. (2018). Evolutionary algorithms for solving the airline crew pairing problem. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 115, 389-406.

Druley, K. (2018). The hierarchy of controls. Retrieved from https://www.safetyandhealthmagazine.com/articles/16790-the-hierarchy-of-controls

Hryshchenko, Y. N., Romanenko, V. G. & Amelina, A. I. (2019). The problem of uncoordinated aircraft turn on small flight speed. International Scientific Journal “Electronics and Control Systems”, 1(59), 50-57.

Kelly, D. & Efthymiou, M. (2019). An analysis of human factors in fifty controlled human factors into terrain aviation accidents from 2007 to 2017. Journal of Safety Research, 69, 155-165.

Peksatici, O. (2018). Crew Resource Management (CRM) and cultural differences among cockpit crew- the case of Turkey. The Journal of Aviation/Aerospace Education and Research, 27(2), 1-39.

Rawat, M. (2020). 20 fatal crashes, 280 deaths. Both 2019 still among safest years for commercial flights in 74 years. Retrieved from https://www.indiatoday.in/world/story/fatal-air-accidents-deaths-safest-years-for-air-travel-history-1632948-2020-01-01

Soekkha, H. M. (2019). Aviation safety, human factors- System engineering- Flight operations- Economics- Strategies- Management. Florida: CRC Press.

Stanton, N. A. (2019). Editorial: Ergonomics and human factors in aviation. Taylor & Francis Online, 62(2), 131-137.

Suthatoram, P. & Charoensukmongkol, P. (2018). Cultural intelligence and airline cabin crews members’ anxiety: The mediating roles of intercultural communication competence and service attentiveness. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism, 17(4), 423-444.

Remember, at the center of any academic work, lies clarity and evidence. Should you need further assistance, do look up to our Management Assignment Help