Human Error Stats
CRMDEEN_at_aol.com
Thu, 8 Oct 1998 07:53:43 EDT
The numbers of "human error" being quoted look low to me. I've not seen any
really new numbers. When the CRM genre was in its infancy, I saw reports of
80% and 75%, and the verbage of the reports were attributing those numbers to
"pilot error". That's were all of this stuff started--pilot error. Later, as
the community began to study the problems more intelligently, "pilot error"
became "crew error", and that was refering to the cockpit crew. Many
programs, mine included, made the mistake of ignorance by thinking the "back
enders" didn't need the training.
We've come a long way in the CRM world. The current views of a systems
approach to the cause of aircraft mishaps could indeed point to "human" error
as 100% of the causual factors, since humans did design, and build the devices
of aviation.
Here's a question to the group: Is there an acceptable cause rate?
Whether the "human error" cause of crashes are 50%, or 100%, does it matter?
Greg Deen
Ratheon