Another Technology Tailchase Against Human Error

Another Technology Tail Chase

In an article by the Associated Press today (GAO: Risk of runway collision still high” by Joan Lowy), “the GAO reported that the rate of close calls on airport runways is up over last year and the risk of a collision is high, according to Gerald Dillingham, the General Accountability Office's top expert on aviation safety.”

In testimony to a House panel, Mr. Dillingham said that even though the Federal Aviation Administration "has given a higher priority to runway safety" the rate of serious incidents — measured by number of incidents per 1 million takeoffs and landings — has increased about 10%, Dillingham told the House transportation committee's aviation subcommittee. Both the number and rate of all types of runway incursions are also are up, Dillingham said.

The FAA, responsible for oversight of the airline safety programs has proposed three technology solutions to this human error problem:

• Installation of electronic mapping equipment in the cockpits of 80 airliners, belonging to four airlines, that will provide the position of the aircraft while on the ground
• Installation of runway status lights over the next three years at 21 airports to signal pilots when a runway is safe to enter or cross, and in the long term,
• Plans for a satellite-based map system on all commercial airliners that will show pilots the location of their aircraft in the air and on the ground, as well as the positions of other planes.

Yikes - another plan to spend tens of millions of taxpayer dollars in an attempt to find technological solutions for people problems. Don’t get me wrong, I’m for safety widgets and gadgets where they make sense, but they must always be complemented to the maximum extent with the human side of the error chain.

Everyone seems to agree, but we still burn incense at the alter of the techno gods instead of confronting the challenge head on (pun intended).

Later in the same article referenced above, “GAO expert Dillingham and FAA Chief Operating Officer Hank Krakowski agreed that mistakes by pilots and controllers rather than technology problems were key factors in many incursions.”

Really? If so, why are we not getting serious – really serious – about error control training and personal responsibility? The problem here lies in the mistaken belief that the major airline training programs are already doing all they can to educate and train pilots against human error.

There is much more that can and should be done. Outdated programs such as Crew Resource Management (CRM) and Threat and Error Management (TEM) are required for airline pilots on a recurring basis, but these classroom group hug sessions have changed very little since the late 1980s when they were first offered, and pale in comparison to the rigorous error control training currently required in some sectors of the US military. Compared to what the Marines have done with their Global War on Error initiative, traditional airline human factors programs have become polished antiques.

It used to be that the military turned to the airlines to find industry best practices. Perhaps now it is time for the regulator (FAA) and oversight agencies (GAO and NTSB) to politely suggest (or demand?) that the Part 121 air cariers look at the highly sophisticated error control programs currently available to confront this serious problem.

NTSB Chairman Mark Rosenker told The Associated Press he applauds the steps the FAA has taken to reduce runway accidents but worries they may not be enough to head off a disaster. He goes on to say ‘we have been very close in recent years to seeing a terrible collision . . . very fortunate that the airmanship and the seconds in which pilots have had to react have averted potentially catastrophic results.”

So if human error is the problem – and fast thinking pilots are the best solution, why are we – once again - putting all our eggs in the technology basket when the answer is much simpler, far less expensive and far more effective?