Results

The study recorded 246 errors during an observation of 102 sectors of normal flight operations. The data was grouped quantitatively according to Error Occurrence or Error Management. Highlights were:
1. Error Occurrence
  - The descent-approach-landing phase was where most errors happened
  - Unintentional deviations from normal operating procedures accounted for the most common type of error
  - Less than half or errors were detected
2. Error Management
  - Captains were more effective than First Officers (FOs) in error detection
  - This difference suggests the effect of expertise and authority on the flight deck that might have contributed to FOs being less prone to pointing out errors of senior flight members
  - However, Captains demonstrated a greater tendency to detect errors committed by them as compared to FOs
  - Low general occurrence of fairly negligible and insignificant errors
  - Overall, monitoring and crosschecking led to higher rates error detection than self-checking
The results of the study by Thomas, M.J.W, Petrilli, R.M., & Dawson D. (n.d.) determined that a sizeable amount of errors stayed undetected during normal operations and demonstrated that error detection is more easily achieved by the crewmember that did not commit the error
This study exhibited (1) the importance of crew cooperation in the multi-crew environment and (2) the merits of monitoring and cross-checking to keep a high level of safety
Finally, the results showed the need for stronger error detection strategies in error management training programs; specifically, pilots’ metacognitive skills of categorising, scrutinising, assessing, and anticipation of errors created by themselves or other crewmembers

Methods

Research approach

The research approach of this study by Thomas, et al. (n.d.) was to qualitatively deliver a methodical study of error recognition procedures during normal flight operations in a commercial aviation setting
The study focused on the roles of scanning, monitoring, crosschecking and checklist-based approaches to error detection

Sample

The normal flight operations of an airline operating a single-aisle fleet on mainly short-haul flights

Procedure

Trained observers collected data from a sample of 102 sectors of normal line operations
Observers obtained two days of observational methodology training and practice to hone their reliability in recognition and analysis of errors
Observers provided a qualitative and quantitative assessment through a written narrative of each error event and a structured coding technique

Data analysis

The data collection and analysis was based on the Threat and Error Management Model developed by the University of Texas

Generalization potential

Study was based on a small commercial operation
Results might differ depending on strength of error management training of other organisations
Study shows important role systemic defences play in high-risk operations

References

Thomas, M.J.W., Petrilli, R.M., & Dawson, D. (n.d.) An Exploratory Study of Error Detection Process During Normal Line Operations. Centre for Applied Behavioural Science, University of South Australia.

Want to know more?

Threat and Error Management: Data from Line Operations Safety Audit: A quantitative analysis from data collected from Line Operations Safety Audit (LOSA)
University of Texas Human Factors Research Project: More Information by the University of Texas on LOSA and Threat and Error Management