A Methodology to Support Decision Making and Effective Human Reliability Methods in Aviation Safety

  • Pietro Carlo CacciabueEmail author
  • Italo Oddone
Part of the Springer Series in Reliability Engineering book series (RELIABILITY)


This Chapter shows firstly a practical way to support Risk Informed Decision Making processes. The approach, discussed only in abstract and theoretical terms, shows that it is possible to develop practical instruments supporting the safety analysts in presenting overall results of the risk analysis process to the decision makers in a way highlights the effectiveness of safety measures and their efficiency with respect to cost benefit. The second part of this Chapter evaluates four different and well established Human Reliability methods, with the aim to assess their differences and ability to cope with aviation procedures. The comparison of results of applying the methods to two aviation case studies shows advantages and drawbacks in the implementation of each method. It has not been possible to come to a conclusive assessment of the ability of the methods to cope with aviation issues, as a much more extensive process is necessary to carry out an accurate revision of existing data.


Aviation safety Safety management system Risk analysis Management of change 


  1. Andrews JD, Moss TR (1993) Reliability and risk assessment. Logman Scientific & Technical, HarlowGoogle Scholar
  2. ARMS (2011) The arms methodology for operational risk assessment in aviation Organisations. visited 2011.12.28
  3. Bell J, Holroyd J (2009) Review of human reliability assessment methods. Health and Safety Executive (HSE). Research Report—RR679Google Scholar
  4. Bello GC, Colombari C (1980) The human factors in risk analyses of process plants: the control room operator model, TESEO. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 1:3–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. BowTie (2013) The Bowtie methodology. Online: Visited 12/06/2013
  6. Cacciabue PC (2004) Human error risk management for engineering systems: a methodology for design, safety assessment, accident investigation and training. Special issue on HRA data issues and errors of commission. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 83:229–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cacciabue PC, Cassani M, Licata V, Oddone I, Ottomaniello A (2015) A practical approach to assess risk in aviation domains for safety management systems. Cog Tech Work 17:249–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Castiglia F, Giardina M, Tomarchio E (2015) THERP and HEART integrated methodology for human error assessment. Radiat Phys Chem 116:262–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. De Grandis E, Oddone I, Ottomaniello A, Cacciabue PC (2012) Managing risk in real contexts with scarcity of data and high potential hazards: the case of flights in airspace contaminated by volcanic ash. Proceedings of PSAM-11—ESREL 2012, Helsinki, June 25–29.Google Scholar
  10. Dhillon BS (2014) Human reliability, error, and human factors in power generation. Springer, Cham, ISBN 978-3-319-04019-6Google Scholar
  11. EASA—European Aviation Safety Agency (2012) European Aviation Safety Plan 2012–2015. Final ReportGoogle Scholar
  12. EC—European Commission (2012) Commission Regulation (EU) No 965/2012Google Scholar
  13. Ersdal G, Aven T (2008) Risk informed decision-making and its ethical basis. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 93:197–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. FAA (2010) SMS Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for 14 CFR Part 121 Certificate Holders. SMS NRPM for 14 CFR Part 121Google Scholar
  15. Hannaman GW, Spurgin AJ, Lukic YD (1984) Human cognitive reliability model for PRA analysis. NUS-4531, NUS Corporation, San Diego, CAGoogle Scholar
  16. Hollnagel E (1998) Cognitive reliability and error analysis method. Elsevier, LondonGoogle Scholar
  17. Hollnagel E (2004) Barriers and accident prevention. Ashgate, AldershotGoogle Scholar
  18. Humphreys P (ed) (1988) Human reliability assessors guide. United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, RTS88/95QGoogle Scholar
  19. IAEA—International Atomic Energy Agency (2005) Risk informed regulation of nuclear facilities: overview of the current status IAEA-TECDOC-1436. ViennaGoogle Scholar
  20. IAEA—International Atomic Energy Agency (2011) A framework for an integrated risk informed decision making process INSAG-25. ViennaGoogle Scholar
  21. ICAO—International Civil Aviation Organisation (2012) Safety management manual, 3rd edn. Doc 9859 AN/474. MontrealGoogle Scholar
  22. Kierzkowski A, Kisiel T (2015) Airport security screeners’ reliability analysis. Proceedings of 2015 I.E. International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management (IEEM 2015). Singapore, 6–9 December 2015, pp 1158–1163Google Scholar
  23. Kirwan B (1994) A guide to practical human reliability assessment. Taylor & Francis, LondonGoogle Scholar
  24. Lyons M, Woloshynowych M, Adams S, Vincent C (2005) Error Reduction in Medicine. Final Report to the Nuffield TrustGoogle Scholar
  25. NASA (2010) NASA risk informed decision making handbook. NASA/SP-2010-576 (Vol 1)Google Scholar
  26. NEA-CSNI (1998) Critical operator actions: human reliability modelling and data issues. Principal Working Group No. 5—Task 94-1. NEA/CSNI/R(98)1Google Scholar
  27. Nielsen DS (1971) The cause/consequence diagram method as a basis for quantitative accident analysis. Danish Atomic Energy Commission RISO-M-1374Google Scholar
  28. NRC—US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (1995) Final policy statement ‘Use of Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) Methods in Nuclear Regulatory Activities’. Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  29. NRC—US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (1998) An approach for plant-specific, risk-informed decision making: technical specifications. RG 1.177. Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  30. NRC—US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (2002) An approach for using probabilistic risk assessment in risk-informed decisions on plant-specific changes to the licensing basis. RG 1.174. Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  31. NRC—US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (2003). Fleming KN. Issues and recommendations for advancement of PRA technology in risk-informed decision making. NUREG 6813Google Scholar
  32. NRC—US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (2009). Drouin M, Parry G, Lehner J, Martinez-Guridi G, LaChance J, Wheeler T. Guidance on the treatment of uncertainties associated with PRAs in risk-informed decision making. NUREG 1855. Vol 1Google Scholar
  33. Rasmussen J (1983) Skills, rules and knowledge: signals, signs and symbols; and other distinc-tions in human performance model. IEEE-SMC 13-3:257–267Google Scholar
  34. Roland HE, Moriarty B (1990) System safety engineering and management. Wiley, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Salvendy G (2006) Handbook of human factors and ergonomics. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  36. Spurgin AJ (2010) Human Reliability Assessment. Theory and practice. CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  37. Stolzer AJ, Halford CJ, Goglia JJ (2010) Safety management systems in aviation. Ashgate, LondonGoogle Scholar
  38. Sun R, Chen Y, Liu X, Peng T, Liu L (2011) A method of analysis integrating HCR and ETA modeling for determining risks associated with inadequate flight separation events. J Aviat Technol Eng 1(1):19–27Google Scholar
  39. Swain AD, Guttmann HE (1983) Handbook of reliability analysis with emphasis on nuclear plant applications. Nuclear Regulatory Commission NUREG/CR-1278 Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  40. Williams JC (1985) HEART—a proposed method for achieving high reliability in process operation by means of human factors engineering technology. In Proceedings of a Symposium on the Achievement of Reliability in Operating Plant, Safety and Reliability Society (SaRS). NEC, Birmingham.Google Scholar
  41. Williams JC (1988) A data-based method for assessing and reducing human error to improve operational performance, 4th IEEE conference on Human factors in Nuclear Power Plants, Monterey, California, pp. 436–450, 6–9 June 1988Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Science, Engineering and ComputingKingston UniversityLondonUK
  2. 2.Dipartimento di Ingegneria AerospazialePolitecnico MilanoMilanoItaly

Personalised recommendations