Average number of mistakes on each flight

[CaptainGrizzly]

Hi all

I had read somewhere a report which mentioned that an average airline pilot makes X number of mistakes on every flight - as long as those mistakes are identified, incidents and accidents can be avoided.

I can't remember where this was. Anyone has any idea?

[anchorhold]

I think is was Hawkins in 'Human Factors in Flight' mentioned a study of the error when dialing telephone numbers. With a task such as flying an aircraft it might be difficult quantifying errors.

[megan]

Here you go Grizzly

https://human-factors.arc.nasa.gov/publications/NASA-TM-2010-216396.pdf

[CaptainGrizzly]

Thanks Megan

[Adrift]

i ran some LOSA projects a couple of years back. In one survey of 180-ish flights the error rate was 6/sector. In another survey looking at flight through the WOCL the rate was 10/sector. If you look at the range, we were seeing anything from 2-22/sector. No sector was error free.

[+TSRA]

i ran some LOSA projects a couple of years back. In one survey of 180-ish flights the error rate was 6/sector. In another survey looking at flight through the WOCL the rate was 10/sector. If you look at the range, we were seeing anything from 2-22/sector. No sector was error free.

That matches pretty close from the LOSA I was involved with a year or two ago, about 6 to 10 per sector, with some flights reaching into the mid-twenties.

[Bergerie1]

That is why the concept of the 'self-healing cockpit' is so valid. We all make mistakes, the issue is to recognise them and correct them in good time. All good crews do that.

[alf5071h]

CaptainGrizzley,
It would be interesting to understand why the reference is required, and how it would be used.

The quote ‘as long as those mistakes are identified, incidents and accidents can be avoided’ is open to interpretation. Normal operations can withstand many mistakes, some activities might rely on ‘mistakes’ for efficient operation. With identification, the quote qualifies outcome with ‘can’ be avoided, without assurance of success.

Also there could be a hidden assumption that all relevant mistakes will be detected, or if detected why whom, who judges relevance, consequence. The mistakes with consequence are those of interest, are the consequences significant or not, again who and how is this judged.

Sounds like Hollnagel, ‘what you find is what you look for’.

[CaptainGrizzly]

Was having a casual discussion with fellow pilots and someone mentioned this study. Was looking for reference to confirm what was said.

[alf5071h]

Thanks CG,
Hawkins discusses error rate, but not the implications about detection and safety.
He considers the question of a normal error rate, but not in terms of an average pilot.
Also, the emphasis is on consequence.

The NASA paper aligns with LOSA, which in its purist sense is limited by view point, who judges # 8.