PPRuNe Forums - Average number of mistakes on each flight

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)

- Safety, CRM, QA & Emergency Response Planning (https://www.pprune.org/safety-crm-qa-emergency-response-planning-93/)

- - Average number of mistakes on each flight (https://www.pprune.org/safety-crm-qa-emergency-response-planning/621775-average-number-mistakes-each-flight.html)

CaptainGrizzly

21st May 2019 16:17

Average number of mistakes on each flight

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

21st May 2019 17:30

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

26th May 2019 06:59

Here you go Grizzly

https://human-factors.arc.nasa.gov/p...010-216396.pdf

CaptainGrizzly

26th May 2019 09:56

Thanks Megan

Adrift

30th May 2019 13:21

Error rate per flight

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

31st May 2019 17:08

Quote:

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

31st May 2019 17:13

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

2nd Jun 2019 16:17

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

2nd Jun 2019 18:14

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

alf5071h

3rd Jun 2019 07:54

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.

All times are GMT. The time now is 21:26.