Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorA. Stanton, Nevilleen_US
dc.contributor.authorSalmon, Paulen_US
dc.contributor.authorHarris, Donen_US
dc.contributor.authorMarshall, Andrewen_US
dc.contributor.authorDemagalski, Jasonen_US
dc.contributor.authorS. Young, Marken_US
dc.contributor.authorWaldmann, Thomasen_US
dc.contributor.authorDekker, Sidneyen_US
dc.date.accessioned2017-05-03T11:19:29Z
dc.date.available2017-05-03T11:19:29Z
dc.date.issued2009en_US
dc.date.modified2011-09-08T06:58:51Z
dc.identifier.issn00036870en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.apergo.2008.10.005en_AU
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10072/40701
dc.description.abstractThe Human Error Template (HET) is a recently developed methodology for predicting design-induced pilot error. This article describes a validation study undertaken to compare the performance of HET against three contemporary Human Error Identification (HEI) approaches when used to predict pilot errors for an approach and landing task and also to compare analyst error predictions to an approach to enhancing error prediction sensitivity: the multiple analysts and methods approach, whereby multiple analyst predictions using a range of HEI techniques are pooled. The findings indicate that, of the four methodologies used in isolation, analysts using the HET methodology offered the most accurate error predictions, and also that the multiple analysts and methods approach was more successful overall in terms of error prediction sensitivity than the three other methods but not the HET approach. The results suggest that when predicting design-induced error, it is appropriate to use a toolkit of different HEI approaches and multiple analysts in order to heighten error prediction sensitivity.en_US
dc.description.peerreviewedYesen_US
dc.description.publicationstatusYesen_AU
dc.languageEnglishen_US
dc.language.isoen_AU
dc.publisherElsevieren_US
dc.publisher.placeUnited Kingdomen_US
dc.relation.ispartofstudentpublicationNen_AU
dc.relation.ispartofpagefrom464en_US
dc.relation.ispartofpageto471en_US
dc.relation.ispartofissue3en_US
dc.relation.ispartofjournalApplied Ergonomicsen_US
dc.relation.ispartofvolume40en_US
dc.rights.retentionYen_AU
dc.subject.fieldofresearchTechnology not elsewhere classifieden_US
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode109999en_US
dc.titlePredicting pilot error: Testing a new methodology and a multi-methods and analysts approachen_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.type.descriptionC1 - Peer Reviewed (HERDC)en_US
dc.type.codeC - Journal Articlesen_US
gro.date.issued2009
gro.hasfulltextNo Full Text


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • Journal articles
    Contains articles published by Griffith authors in scholarly journals.

Show simple item record