safety is a matter that operators and regulators take seriously. Overtime, the industry has seen tremendous growth and changes that havetransformed the dynamics of aviation safety. Engineering designs havenecessitated re-training of crews to improve their understanding ofaviation safety. The industry continues to witness accidents thatsometimes arise from human errors. Human factors have significantcontribution to crew performance during a flight. Close communicationand coordination between the crew and support team on the groundimproves the aviation safety. The paper aims at examining the crewperformance during the Asiana Airlines Flight 214 accident.
Theaccident, involving Boeing 777, occurred in 2013 in San Francisco,California(National Transportation Safety Board, 2014).The accident led to three fatalities and 304 survivors. Post-crashfire and the accident impact led to the destruction of the airplane.Reports indicated that pilot mismanagement and confusion causedAsiana Flight 214 to crash. Transport agency claimed that automatedaircraft controls were creating new opportunities for errors insteadof enhancing safety. The designers of the automated system hoped thatthe move would eliminate unreliability on human performance. The crewrelied heavily on the automated system, which they did not possessknowledge and understanding on its usage. Training and bettercoordination of control systems by the flight crew can enhanceaviation safety when using automated paraphernalia.
Investigationsafter the accident revealed that mode confusion and authrottlesystems contributed to the accident. safety is a matter thatrequires serious assessment due to the magnitude of consequences incase of an accident. Asiana agreed that the flight crew failed toobserve and sustain the speed of the airplane. The pilot did notabort landing when he recognized the difficulties in managing theflight. When an approach to landing gets unstable, the pilot isrequired to abort landing to avoid a disastrous crash (NationalTransportation Safety Board, 2014).
Itis noteworthy that the weather conditions were perfect to cause alarmto the flight crew. Boeing is also known to have one of the safetystandards in the aviation industry. The cause for the accidentpointed human factors and errors. Human errors in automated controlsystem can be disastrous irrespective of the magnitude (Shappell& Wiegmann, 2012).The accident report recommended the significance of training andequipping the flight crew with the right knowledge about the controlsystems. Automation has been created to ensure an error-free flightdeck. Nonetheless, it is considered that the crew must observe andunderstand all the systems to enhance safety. Without appropriateknowledge, pilot can cause fatal accidents on slightest errors(Strauch,2016).It is also necessary to consider undertaking regular audits to ensurethe crew remains abreast with the changes in technology. Still, thereare concerns within the industry that some pilots fail to respectinstructions given by the captain. Others get hesitant to abortlanding when faced with mechanical problems during a flight (Moura,Beer, Pattelli, Lewis, & Knoll, 2014).
Shappelland Wiegmann (2012)recognize the importance of HumanFactors Analysis and Classification System(HFACS) in addressing faced by investigators during accidents. Thetwo authors assert that aviation psychology and apprehension of humanfactors can improve operator`s outcomes during an accident analysis.Addressing the human factors related to accidents will go a long waytowards enhancing training development for aviation crew. HFACS modelcollaborates theory and practical aspect of aviation accidentsanalysis. The move aims at preventing accidents that occur due tohuman errors by improving aviation safety.
Inconclusion, the accident during the Asiana Flight 214 reflects designand cultural factors influence crew performance. Even with theevolution of engineering designs and training, flight crew need toadhere to basic guidelines such as appropriate communication toenhance aviation safety. Boeing claimed that airplane had nomechanical problems. Regulatory bodies need to work closely with crewto generate strategic means to address cockpit automation and humanfactors. Better interactions and innovation can provide solutionsleading to safer flights.
Moura,R., Beer, M., Pattelli, E., Lewis, J., & Knoll, F. (2014,September). Human error analysis: Review of past accidents andimplications for improving robustness of system design. In EuropeanSafety and Reliability Conference: ESREL2014, Wroclaw, Poland(pp. 1037-1046).
NationalTransportation Safety Board. (2014). BoardMeeting : Crash of Asiana Flight 214 Accident Report Summary.Retrieved September 13, 2016, fromhttp://www.ntsb.gov/news/events/Pages/2014_Asiana_BMG-Abstract.aspx
Shappell,S., & Wiegmann, D. (2012). Ahuman error approach to aviation accident analysis: The human factorsanalysis and classification system.Farnham: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd..
Strauch,B. (2016). The Automation-by-Expertise-by-Training Interaction WhyAutomation-Related Accidents Continue to Occur in SociotechnicalSystems. HumanFactors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society,0018720816665459.