1 / 16

Flight Crew Performance: Operational and Human Factors

Flight Crew Performance: Operational and Human Factors. Katherine A. Lemos, Ph.D. Human Performance Group Chairman Operational Factors Group Co-Chairman. Operational-Human Performance. Factors ruled out Decision to land Mixed braking action reports Performance calculations

fabian
Download Presentation

Flight Crew Performance: Operational and Human Factors

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Flight Crew Performance:Operational and Human Factors Katherine A. Lemos, Ph.D. Human Performance Group Chairman Operational Factors Group Co-Chairman

  2. Operational-Human Performance • Factors ruled out • Decision to land • Mixed braking action reports • Performance calculations • Inability to stop the aircraft • Use of reverse thrust

  3. Factors Ruled Out • Certificated / qualified / trained • No accidents or violations • Medical and behavioral • Fatigue

  4. Mixed Braking Action Reports

  5. Mixed Braking Action Reports • SWA policy: • Defer to the “more critical term” • FAIR to POOR POOR • SWA policy: • POOR: 5kt tailwind component limit • Crew unaware of mixed report policy

  6. Mixed Braking Action Reports • Mixed Reports: • Training • Limited guidance • Other pilots also were unaware • Three previous SWA aircraft landed • SWA amended training and guidance • Recommendations

  7. Onboard Performance Computer

  8. Onboard Performance Computer • Output: Stopping margins • Crew performed several assessments: • FAIR produced a margin of 560’ • POOR produced a margin of 40’ • Crew uncomfortable with 40’ • Expected better than POOR • Expected increased margin with use of reverse thrust

  9. Onboard Performance Computer • OPC assumptions: • Reverse thrust use assumed • Tailwind component limit (5kt) • Stopping margin based on the actual/presented 8kt tailwind for POOR: -260

  10. Onboard Performance Computer • Inconsistent programming • Training / guidance / presentation • Calculation assumptions are critical to a pilot’s decision to land • SWA has updated programming • Recommendations

  11. Reverse Thrust Stowed Deployed

  12. Reverse Thrust • Required reverse thrust immediately • All landings • Emphasized: Conditions less than GOOD • Delay in command of reverse thrust • Would have been able to stop • Crew and other pilots aware of protocol • Other pilots landing at MDW

  13. Reverse Thrust • New autobrake procedure • Pilot actions upon touchdown in conditions less than GOOD: • Prior: Reverse thrust and manual brakes • New: Reverse thrust only • Learning new procedures • Requires practice

  14. Reverse Thrust • Automatic Task Sequences • Absence absence • Activation activation • Accident Sequence: • Refrained from manual brakes Failed to deploy reverse thrust • Manual brakes applied Thrust reverse within 3 sec

  15. Reverse Thrust • Other pilots demonstrated delay during first use of autobrakes • Trials in development of policy • Post-accident familiarization period • Captain stated being distracted • Crew’s first use of autobrakes accounts for their delay • Recommendations

More Related