|عنوان مقاله||Safety perceptions of training pilots based on training institution and experience|
|ترجمه عنوان مقاله||ادراک ایمنی آموزش خلبانان بر اساس نهادهای آموزشی و تجربه|
|نوع نگارش مقاله||مقاله پژوهشی (Research article)|
|تعداد صفحات مقاله||۹ صفحه|
|رشته های مرتبط||علوم فنون هوایی|
|مجله||مجله مدیریت حمل و نقل هوایی – Journal of Air Transport Management|
|دانشگاه||دانشکده کسب و کار، دانشگاه شمال تگزاس، ایالات متحده آمریکا|
|کلمات کلیدی||سازمان های تایید شده (ATOs)، عوامل انسانی، مدل رابط SHELL ، آموزش خلبانی|
|لینک مقاله در سایت مرجع||لینک این مقاله در سایت الزویر (ساینس دایرکت) Sciencedirect – Elsevier|
|وضعیت ترجمه مقاله||ترجمه آماده این مقاله موجود نمیباشد. میتوانید از طریق دکمه پایین سفارش دهید.|
|دانلود رایگان مقاله||دانلود رایگان مقاله انگلیسی|
|سفارش ترجمه این مقاله||سفارش ترجمه این مقاله|
|بخشی از متن مقاله:|
In Northeast Asia, substantial economic growth in China has resulted in increased demand for aviation operationsddespite the limited availability of resources to provide them (Boeing, 2015a). Likewise, a growing need for air travel in the Asia-Pacific in general has resulted in increased demand for pilots in the region (Boeing, 2015b). In an attempt to meet this demand and reduce a reliance on foreign pilots, as well as addressing the drain of Korean pilots to Chinese or Middle East carriers (Wong, 2016), the Korean government sanctioned the establishment of approved training organizations (ATOs) in July 2010. Consequently, domestic flight training should steadily increase. Each flight training center must have their curricula, methods, equipment, and tools certified by the government while flight training has a better safety record than general aviation as a whole in the USA (Air Safety Institute, 2014). Flight training programs must promote error avoidance, assist in the early detection of errors, and minimize the consequences of errors when they occur (Salas et al., 2001); such training focuses on the effects of negligence and unsafe behaviors in a complex system (Reason, 1990), on mutual relationships (Cooper, 2000), and on the human-error framework (i.e., the human factors analysis and classification system) proposed by Wiegmann and Shappell (2003). Researchers have examined pilot-specific factors such as gender (McFadden, 1996), personality (Carretta et al., 2014), situational/ personal characteristics (Hunter et al., 2011), age (Hardy and Parasuraman, 1997; Li et al., 2003), experience (Wiggins and O’Hare, 1995; Adamson et al., 2010), education/training (Adamson et al., 2010), and style of learning (Fanjoy and Gao, 2011), in addition to airline-specific factors (McFadden, 2003). Other studies have focused on collegiate aviation pilot programs (Adamson et al., 2010; Adjekum, 2014; Fanjoy and Gao, 2011), wherein novice pilots are taught visual and instrumental flight rules, as well as how to operate aircraft and appropriately respond to various situations. The importance of training pilots regarding risk factors cannot be overemphasized because the success of a collegiate aviation program with a safety management system initiative is strongly influenced by the safety culture of its front-line personnel, including certified instructors and students (Adjekum, 2014).
This study focuses on the relationship between students’ flights experiences and the institutions they attend and their perceptionsof risk factors. An ideal safety assessment would examine each flight’s associated risk factors; however, doing so would entail collecting hard-to-obtain data such as the age and experience of each respective pilot, measuring the instructor pilot’s capabilities, procuring aircraft maintenance records, determining a given aircraft’s age, and recording each flight’s weather conditions. This research instead examines each student pilot’s perceptions in light of the SHELL (Software, Hardware, Environment, Liveware and Liveware) interface model, which is designed to prevent human error.
or. 1.1. The SHELL model Elwyn Edward developed the SHELL model, a conceptualization and systematic visualization of relationships between crew and aircraft system components. Edward maintained that the human factors theory is more problem-solving oriented than problem-theory oriented-that is, it focuses on practical rather than academicals approach; he further asserted that it is essential for human performance and its limitations to be understood in tandem in order to resolve discrepancies between humans and their surrounding environments (Hawkins and Orlady, 1993; Keightley, 2004). Hawkins later transformed Edwards’ model into a building block structure, wherein crew and aircraft system components function as a foundation. The human element, which is the most critical component, lies at the center and is influenced by software, hardware, the environment, and other individuals in the workplace (e.g., cockpit crew, air traffic controllers, management, and administrative and maintenance personnel). The SHELL model adopts a systems perspective and rarely deems humans to be the sole cause of accidents. The research model adopted by this study is based on the SHELL interface model, which comprises liveware (L), livewareesoftware (LeS), livewareehardware (LeH), livewareeenvironment (LeE), and livewareeliveware (LeL) variables (see Appendix). The L variables pertain to human performance, capabilities, and limitations (ICAO, 1993). The LeS variables concern interactions between human operators and software, including (but not limited to) rules, procedures, and procedural information (Hawkins and Orlady, 1993; Wiener and Nagel, 1988). LeH variables involve human operators and machines (Hawkins and Orlady, 1993). LeE variables include interactions between human operators and internal/external environments as well as the adaption of a given environment to meet human requirements (Johnston et al., 2001; Wiener and Nagel, 1988). Finally, LeL variables include interactions between human operators performing tasks and other individuals in the aviation system (ICAO, 1993).