| 1. |
- Stogsdill, Matthew, et al.
(författare)
-
A Reexamination of the Risk Paradigm : An Aviation Perspective
- 2014
-
Ingår i: International Coference on Human-Compter Interaction in Aerospace, California, USA.
-
Konferensbidrag (refereegranskat)abstract
- This paper outlines a course of research that is currently being pursued as a part of the EU FP-7 project, PROSERO. The concept being investigated relates to whether there is an alternative way of considering risk that may allow for closer to real time understanding of the different aspects that influence how much risk is in a given situation. This conceptual paper outlines some of the areas that will be investigated in the coming years. As such, this paper can be thought of as a map of future research where the concepts and rationale will be supported with the collection of data from the PROSERO project. As risk is a concept that is highly relevant to the aviation industry in various forms, attempting to synthesize the essence of risk into a relatively simple format will hopefully be beneficial to all involved stakeholders.
|
|
| 2. |
- Stogsdill, Matthew, et al.
(författare)
-
Development of a Metric Concept that Differentiates Between Normal and Abnormal Operational Aviation Data
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Risk Analysis. - : Wiley. - 0272-4332 .- 1539-6924. ; 42:8, s. 1815-1833
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- There is a strong and growing interest in using the large amount of high-quality operationaldata available within an airline. One reason for this is the push by regulators to use data todemonstrate safety performance by monitoring the outputs of Safety P erformance Indicatorsrelative to targeted goals. However, the current exceedance-based approaches alone do notprovide sufficient operational risk information to support managers and operators makingproximate real-time data-driven decisions. The purpose of this study was to develop and testa set of metrics which can complement the current exceedance-based methods. The approachwas to develop two construct variables that were designed with the aim to: (1) create anaggregate construct variable that can differentiate between normal and abnormal landings(row_mean); and (2) determine if temporal sequence patterns can be detected within thedata set that can differentiate between the two landing groups (row_sequence). To assessthe differentiation ability of the aggregate constructs, a set of both statistical and visual testswere run in order to detect quantitative and qualitative differences between the data seriesrepresenting two landing groups prior to touchdown. The result, verified with a time series k-means cluster analysis, show that the composite constructs seem to differentiate normal andabnormal landings by capturing time-varying importance of individual variables in the final300 seconds before touchdown. Together the approaches discussed in this article present aninteresting and complementary way forward that should be further pursued.
|
|
| 3. |
- Stogsdill, Matthew, et al.
(författare)
-
Mapping Risk Models/Methods onto a Complexity Spectrum
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Transp. Res. Procedia. - : Elsevier B.V.. ; , s. 133-140
-
Konferensbidrag (refereegranskat)abstract
- The rate at which accidents/incidents occur within the Air Transport System (ATS) has remained consistent over the past two decades (European Commission, 2016). If such a rate is maintained and the ATS grows as expected (AirBus, 2013; Boeing, 2013), then the ATS may no longer be able to be considered ultra-safe. The purpose of this work is to develop a framework by a set of defining system complexity parameters that allow mapping of conceptual safety models and risk analysis methods in relation to their complexity domain analysis range. The study asks: What is the complexity domain range for commonly used models/methods? To answer this question the following models and methods are described and analyzed: Domino model, Swiss Cheese model, Bow-Tie model, Functional Resonance Analysis Method (FRAM), Systems-Theoretic Accident Model and Processes (STAMP). The Cynefin framework uses four domains to represent the system complexity spectrum. In combination with the Cynefin domains, the following system complexity parameters are used for the analysis: Coupling - the ability to represent a loosely coupled system, Linearity- the ability to represent non-linear relationships, and Dynamics - the ability to represent a system through time. The obvious/simple domain of the Cynefin framework requires only that a model/method be able to represent tightly coupled, linear, static systems. While the complicated domain requires that a model/method be able to represent a moderately loose level of coupling, a degree of non-linearities among system actors/elements, and at least a moderate ability to dynamically represent the system. The complex domain requires a model/method to be able to represent a very loosely coupled system, with many non-linear relationships, in a highly dynamic manor. The results of this analysis showed that the FRAM method, Bridge model, and RMF are the most capable when assessing complicated highly interconnected systems (such as the ATS). However, it was also concluded that while when the ATS is operating within a normal range these models/methods may be sufficient, they are not able to effectively inform decision makers when on rare occasions the system shifts into the complicated domain. Therefore, since the ATS represents a common system type (having a large number of actors/elements that are very intertwined, and dependent upon the skills of their operators) a new term is coined - Highly Complicated and Occasionally Complex (HCOC) systems. An HCOC system is one that predominantly follows the same pattern of rules for the majority of its operations, however when occupational novel conditions are encountered which cause the system to shift to the complex domain and thus the underlying analysis methods are no longer sufficient.
|
|
| 4. |
- Stogsdill, Matthew, et al.
(författare)
-
Sharing is Caring : A Discussion for Combining Risk Information
- 2014
-
Ingår i: 11th International Symposium on Human Factors in Organizational Design and Managment, Copenhagen, Denmark. ; , s. 835-840
-
Konferensbidrag (refereegranskat)abstract
- As the aviation system continues to grow, the need to develop models that allow for an understanding of the complex interactions that occur within the industry. This paper will present some preliminary finding of the PROactive Safety PERformance for Operations (PROSPERO), an FP7 project, regarding the development of the conceptual and practical implication of such a model. Additionally, work concerning the development of a new understanding of risk, which will be necessary to fully understand the complexities of highly interconnected systems, will be discussed, which will be continued in future papers.
|
|
| 5. |
- Stogsdill, Matthew, et al.
(författare)
-
The Essence of Change
- 2014
-
Ingår i: 31st European Association for Aviation Psychology, Valletta, Malta.
-
Konferensbidrag (populärvet., debatt m.m.)
|
|
| 6. |
- Stogsdill, Matthew
(författare)
-
When outcomes are not enough: an examination of abductive and deductive logical approaches to risk analysis in aviation
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Risk Analysis. - : Wiley. - 0272-4332 .- 1539-6924. ; 42:8, s. 1806-1814
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- While airlines generate massive amounts of operational data every year, the ability to use the collected material to improve safety has begun to plateau. With the increasing demand for air travel, the aviation industry is continually growing while simultaneously being required to ensure the level of safety within the system remains constant. The purpose of this paper is to explore whether the traditional analysis methods that have historically made aviation ultra-safe have reached their theoretical limits or merely practical ones. This analysis argues that the underlying logic governing the traditional (and current) approaches to assess safety and risk within aviation (and other safety critical systems) is abductive and therefore focused on creating explanations rather than predictions. While the current “fly-fix-fly” approach has, and will continue to be, instrumental in improving what (clearly) fails, alternative methods are needed to determine if a specific operation is more or less risky than others. As the system grows, so too does the number of ways it can fail, creating the possibility that more novel accidents may occur. The paper concludes by proposing an alternative approach that explicitly adds temporality to the concepts of safety and risk. With this addition, a deductive analysis approach can be adopted which, while low in explanatory power, can be used to create predictions that are not bound to analyzing only outcomes that have occurred in the past but instead focuses on determining the deviation magnitude between the operation under analysis and historically commensurate operations.
|
|
