On the Complexity of Loss of Control in Aviation

Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 786)


Loss of control (LOC) in the aviation realm is continuously studied with regards to its definition, recognition, and mitigation. Problematics exist with the high level of complexity present during LOC situations, especially given the non-linear consequences. The study of LOC requires an almost “philosophical” analysis to understand its origins; a study that this paper investigates through complexity analysis. LOC can involve a socio-technical instability on the flight deck: an instability that can be analyzed in the field of cognitive engineering (for the sociological side) and complexity analysis (for the technological side). This document guides the reader through thoughts involving the cognitive aspects of cockpit management and operation during LOC events and the realization that the mitigation of such events need to be recognized and resolved as naturalized complex systems. These systems require a specific framework for research involving human agents that can be executed via human-systems integrated flight testing.


LOC LOC-S Loss of Control Flight test Cognitive engineering Complexity analysis General aviation Aviation Commercial aviation Human-systems integration Naturalized complex systems Human error Pilot error 


  1. 1.
    Boy, G.: Orchestrating Human-Centered Design, 1st edn. Springer, London (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hollnagel, E., Woods, D.D.: Joint Cognitive Systems: Foundations of Cognitive Systems Engineering, 1st edn. Taylor & Francis/CRC Press, Boca Raton (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Belcastro, C.M., Foster, J.V.: Aircraft loss-of-control accident analysis. In: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (2010)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mitchell, M.: Complexity: A Guided Tour. Oxford University Press, New York (2009)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    National Transportation Safety Board: General Aviation Accidents involving Loss of Control in Traffic Patterns (1982–2015)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kirwan, B.: Human error identification techniques for risk assessment of high risk systems-Part 1: review and evaluation of techniques. Appl. Ergon. 29(3), 157–177 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission: ATHEANA User’s Guide: Final Report. NUREG 1880. Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (20555-001), Washington, DC (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration: Probabilistic Risk Assessment Procedures Guide for NASA Managers and Practitioners, NASA/SP-2011-3421, 2nd edn. (2011)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hollnagel, E.: Human reliability assessment in context. Nucl. Eng. Technol. 37(2), 159–166 (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wickens, C.D.: Situation awareness and workload in aviation. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 11(4), 128–133 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mckinney, E.H., Barker, J.R., Davis, K.J., Smith, D.: How swift starting action teams get off the ground what united flight 232 and airline flight crews can tell us about team communication. Manage. Commun. Q. 19(2), 198–237 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rodriguez, C.C., Cusick, S.K.: Commercial Aviation Safety, 5th edn. McGraw Hill, New York (2012)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sibilski, K., Kowalski, M.: Prediction of aircraft loss of control in the flight by continuation, bifurcation, and catastrophe theory methods. J. KONES 23(4), 451–460 (2016)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
  15. 15.
    Anderson Jr., J.D.: Introduction to Flight, 7th edn. McGraw Hill, New York (2011)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bernard, T., Stephane, L., Boy, G.A.: Autonomous stall recovery dynamics as a prevention tool for general aviation loss of control. In: International Conference in Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics, Orlando, Florida (2017)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bernard, T., Kasdaglis, N., Rolins, A., Troshchenko, A., Stephane, L.: LOC-S: improved model and control algorithm for a stall recovery on-board avionics system. In: IEEE Aerospace Conference, Big Sky, Montana (2017)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kasdaglis, N., Bernard, T., Stowers, K.: Trajectory recovery system: angle of attack guidance for inflight loss of control. In: Human Computer Interaction International, Toronto, Canada (2016)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kasdaglis, N., Bernard, T., Stephane, L., Boy, G.: Affordant guidance for inflight loss of control: the trajectory recovery system (TRS). In: Human Computer Interaction in Aerospace, Paris, France (2016)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Troshchenko, A., Kasdaglis, N., Bernard, T., Stephane, L.: Development of an OpenGL stall recovery system in a restricted-resource boeing 737 simulator with external data feed for flight testing. In: IEEE Aerospace Conference, Big Sky, Montana (2017)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Boy, G.A.: On the complexity of situation awareness. In: 19th Triennial Congress of the IEA, Melbourne, Australia, pp. 9–14 (2015)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bernard, T., Stephane, L.: Human-systems integration methods in flight test: a consolidated framework for sociotechnical modeling during critical phases of flight in general aviation. In: Society of Flight Test Engineers 48th Annual Symposium, Destin, Florida (2017)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Crandall, B., Klein, G., Hoffman, R.R.: Working Minds – A Practitioner’s Guide to Cognitive Task Analysis, 1st edn. MIT Press, Cambridge (2006)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Swain, A.D., Guttman, H.E.: Handbook of Human Reliability Analysis with Emphasis on Nuclear Power Plant Applications, 1st edn., NUREG/CR-1278, Washington, DC (1983)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Paradies, M., Busch, D.: Root cause analysis at the savannah river plant. In: International Conference on Human Factors in Power Plants, Monterey, CA (1988)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Whalley, S.P.: Minimising the cause of human error. In: 10th Advances in Reliability Technology Symposium. Springer, Dordrecht (1988)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    European Air Traffic Management Program (EuroControl): Technical Review of Human Performance Models and Taxonomies of Human Error in ATM (HERA), HRS/HSP-002-REP-01 (2002)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Jones, D.G., Endsley, M.R.: Sources of situation awareness errors in aviation. Aviat. Space Environ. Med. 67(6), 507–512 (1996)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kasdaglis, N., Oppold, P.: Surprise, attraction, and propagation: an aircraft is no place for a catastrophe. In: International Conference in Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics, Krakow, Poland (2014)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kasdaglis, N.: For the lack of information: Catastrophe Information Entropy Theory (CIET): A Perspective on Aircraft Accident Causation. In Florida Tech Masters Thesis Archives, Melbourne, Florida (2013)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hollnagel, E.: Safety-II in Practice: Developing the Resilience Potentials, 1st edn. Routledge, New York (2018)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Engineering and ScienceFlorida Institute of TechnologyMelbourneUSA

Personalised recommendations