Air Force Safety: Life Sciences Overview

1. As of: 1 Air Force Safety:Life Sciences Overview Lt Col Thomas D. Fadell Luna Safety Center Surgeon

2. 2 Life Sciences Branch Composed of: Aerospace Medicine/Occupational Medicine Aerospace Physiology Aviation Psychology Life Support Located in Aviation Safety Division Responsible for life science issues throughout HQ AFSC

3. 3 Life Sciences Branch: Services Human Factors/Life Support consultation Safety Board support Training on life science investigation Organizational Safety Assessments Mishap summary newsletters Maintain life science portion of HQ AFSC database Injuries Egress/Life Support Human Factors

4. 4 Human Factor Assessment Determine which human factors were present Describe how they interrelated and influenced each other Investigators rate human factors present in mishap on a scale from 0 to 4 0 = present but not part of mishap sequence 1 = Minimal Contribution 2 = Minor Contribution 3 = Major Contribution 4 = Causal Contribution Standard terminology: all USAF human factors are defined in AFPAM 91-211 atch 8 Now for a very, very important topic. Your flight doc and their consultants will help your SIB clarify which human factors were present. They will also use a matrix to describe how those human factors interrelated and influenced each other. Then the SIB needs to discuss the factors and and rate them 0 to 4 as to how they contributed to the mishap, with 4 signifying that that human factor played a causal role. The Doc must not do this alone; these are the SIB�s ratings. These ratings are not technically �findings� but they play the same role and should receive the same attention. When the database is searched for a human factor these ratings are what what that search is pulling on; the only other way to search is to do a word search mishap findings which is a very poor way of getting the job done. As we mentioned before, these ratings are input into AvSAS and will appear in the final message. All the ratings should be discussed in depth in the tab Y narrative and at least those rated as major and causal contributors should be discussed in the tab T as well. Factors rated as causal should also be explicitly linked to a causal finding. Another important issue is to use standard terminology when discussing human factors. AFPAM 91-211 provides definitions of all human factors covered by the USAF Human Factors taxonomy. Please use that reference and use those specific terms. Queries via word search are suboptimal but they are still common. The factors you discover will not be recognized on those types of searches unless you use that standard terminology in your findings.Now for a very, very important topic. Your flight doc and their consultants will help your SIB clarify which human factors were present. They will also use a matrix to describe how those human factors interrelated and influenced each other. Then the SIB needs to discuss the factors and and rate them 0 to 4 as to how they contributed to the mishap, with 4 signifying that that human factor played a causal role. The Doc must not do this alone; these are the SIB�s ratings. These ratings are not technically �findings� but they play the same role and should receive the same attention. When the database is searched for a human factor these ratings are what what that search is pulling on; the only other way to search is to do a word search mishap findings which is a very poor way of getting the job done. As we mentioned before, these ratings are input into AvSAS and will appear in the final message. All the ratings should be discussed in depth in the tab Y narrative and at least those rated as major and causal contributors should be discussed in the tab T as well. Factors rated as causal should also be explicitly linked to a causal finding. Another important issue is to use standard terminology when discussing human factors. AFPAM 91-211 provides definitions of all human factors covered by the USAF Human Factors taxonomy. Please use that reference and use those specific terms. Queries via word search are suboptimal but they are still common. The factors you discover will not be recognized on those types of searches unless you use that standard terminology in your findings.

5. 5 Human Factors in Context:Flight Safety Historically, about 2/3 of our mishaps have been due to HFs. Of the 20 FY02 mishaps for which we have HF data, 19 have causal HFs. From what we know of the remaining FY02 mishaps, it is likely that half (8) will have causal HFs. That means that it is likely that 27 of our 35 mishaps � or about 77% - were likely due to HFs.Historically, about 2/3 of our mishaps have been due to HFs. Of the 20 FY02 mishaps for which we have HF data, 19 have causal HFs. From what we know of the remaining FY02 mishaps, it is likely that half (8) will have causal HFs. That means that it is likely that 27 of our 35 mishaps � or about 77% - were likely due to HFs.

6. 6 Human Factors in Context

7. 7 Spatial Disorientation (SD): FY91 - FY00

8. 8 SD Contributing Factors Attention management Channelized attention Distraction Habit pattern interference Judgment and decision making Task misprioritization Risk assessment Course of action taken Operations Vision restricted: weather/haze/darkness Crew coordination CONTRIBUTING FACTORS TO SPATIAL DISORIENTATION CONTINUE TO BE CLUSTERED UNDER THESE ELEMENTS OF THE USAF HUMAN FACTORS TAXONOMY: ATTENTION MANAGEMENT, JUDGMENT AND DECISION MAKING AND OPERATIONS. ELEMENTS SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO ATTENTION MANAGEMENT ARE: CHANNELIZED ATTENTION, DISTRACTION AND HABIT PATTERN INTERFERENCE ELEMENTS RELATED TO JUDGMENT AND DECISION MAKING ARE: TASK MISPRIORITIZATION, RISK ASSESSMENT AND COURSE OF ACTION TAKEN ELEMENTS RELATED TO OPERATIONS ARE: VISION RESTRICTION AND CREW COORDINATION SKILL, RULE AND KNOWLEDGE BASED PERFORMANCECONTRIBUTING FACTORS TO SPATIAL DISORIENTATION CONTINUE TO BE CLUSTERED UNDER THESE ELEMENTS OF THE USAF HUMAN FACTORS TAXONOMY: ATTENTION MANAGEMENT, JUDGMENT AND DECISION MAKING AND OPERATIONS. ELEMENTS SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO ATTENTION MANAGEMENT ARE: CHANNELIZED ATTENTION, DISTRACTION AND HABIT PATTERN INTERFERENCE ELEMENTS RELATED TO JUDGMENT AND DECISION MAKING ARE: TASK MISPRIORITIZATION, RISK ASSESSMENT AND COURSE OF ACTION TAKEN ELEMENTS RELATED TO OPERATIONS ARE: VISION RESTRICTION AND CREW COORDINATION SKILL, RULE AND KNOWLEDGE BASED PERFORMANCE

9. 9 SD: Where Should We Look? Historically, SD prevention training has been illusion oriented Recognition and recovery requires conscious attention Most contributors are cognitive If looking to prevent (using human-based intervention) - treat SD as a cognitive phenomenon

10. 10 Human Factors� New Frontier

11. 11 Benefits to Expanding HF Investigation Almost all mishaps have relevant HF Apparently, most mishaps have causal HF Need programs to address HF Need mishap HF data to develop HF programs Need mishap HF investigations to gather HF data

12. 12 How Do We Get There? Implement AFSAS Web-based data entry; logic tree format Revise safety courses How to investigate HF USAF HF taxonomy Use of SAS Using a HF consultant Gradual, stepwise, implementation (over 3 years) Flight Class B, C & E Ground Weapons

13. 13 New Way of Business Investigative stop rules based on mishap class Deeper HF investigation for A than for C or E Use previous 5 yrs data to set: Alert and detect levels for specific HF�s Provides near real-time risk analysis tool

14. 14 BOTTOMLINE Huge undertaking � huge potential payoff Program phase-in enables payoff analysis Identify indicators associated with events/incidents in order to prevent mishaps Identify trends and develop prevention programs

15. 15 Questions?