Synggapa, #35,
'statistically' most issues can be identified as having an average. The important point is if this is meaningful; useful in achieving a specific objective.
Failures in aircraft components can be quantified - counted and divided; human performance is qualitative - a judgement which might at best be classified. Interpreting opinions as hard numbers defies meaning. Note rating assessments for CRM.
This inability to quantify humans creates uncertainty which challenge assessors and designers, who may be biased towards numerical techniques. The industry does not design for 'average' people, everyone has to be considered in context. Thus context - those situations which could challenge people and equipment have to be considered.
Recent accidents suggest that Boeing resorted to a numerical view of pilots (blame according to an arbitrary 'averge') when defending their products, deflecting suggestions of poor design. Their product design could have been well designed according to their ground rules, but then either human judgement or the range of situations considered were mistaken; work as conducted was not as imagined.
Perhaps this reflects erroneous cultural (organisational) beliefs; everyone should be the same as us - false consensus bias; - not considering the realities in a rapidly changing world.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/7425e8yykg...20%2B.pdf?dl=0
Statistical Thinking:
http://iase-web.org/documents/intsta....Pfannkuch.pdf
https://www.stat.auckland.ac.nz/~wil...easurement.pdf