Human Factors in the International Certification of Transport Category Aircraft
by
Charles F. Adam (USA), Robert B. Barnes (USA),
Harry W. Orlady (USA), and Yury S. Ostrovsky (Russia)
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)
Third Global Flight Safety & Human Factors Symposium
Auckland, New Zealand
April 1996
The views stated in this paper are those of the individual authors and may or may not be consistent with the views of any state or organization with which the authors are or have been associated.
Abstract
Human factors issues create difficult certification problems for ICAO member states because of both a lack of basic harmonization on the relevant issues and a lack of consensus on specific methods for dealing with these issues. To a great extent such disagreements are due to a lack of understanding between states of their individual certification processes and the rationale behind them.
This paper is restricted to selected human factors issues arising during the bi- or multi-national certification of new transport aircraft and deals specifically with those issues associated with crew ergonomic and two-member crew evaluation.
Although there are many engineering challenges in the certification process, there are also some significant human factors issues. The engineering challenges are more easily solved because they tend to lend themselves to orderly, analytical processes. Unfortunately, the human factors issues, especially human factors behavioral issues, do not have this advantage.
This paper discusses the advantages of using carefully organized bilingual and bicultural workshops to increase understanding and to share human factors methods and techniques between member states. h notes that in the example being discussed, the written standards of the two states (Russia and the United States) are quite similar, particularly since the issuance in 1994 of Aviation Regulations AP-25 which are harmonized with FAR-25. This regulation and an advisory document entitled "Means of Compliance" detail the certification test methods allowing compliance with most of the requirements of AP-25 and, accordingly, FAR-25.
This paper concludes with a summary of some of the key human factors issues observed by the authors during this program plus some suggestions for member states that will be involved in the certification of new airplanes during this decade. The nature of these new airplanes plus their range and operating flexibility make the process of multinational certification an international issue of immediate concern to all member states of ICAO.
The Importance of Mutually Recognized Certification Standards
Because of the nature of the aviation industry, it is highly desirable that those ICAO states that are recognized to have the requisite resources and experience to certify aircraft, and whose certification will be generally accepted world-wide, work toward the achievement of common and mutually recognized certification standards. Worldwide acceptability and marketability is significantly enhanced if joint mutual certification is achieved. Joint or ultimately mutually acceptable certification considerably reduces certification costs, increases world air transport safety, and in addition further removes economic competition from certification standards. These are clearly desirable benefits for ICAO member states.
Present-day certification must address at least two quite different areas. While the first area includes many traditional human factors concepts, it is mainly concerned with engineering requirements. The second area is considerably more difficult. It includes behavioral or human performance issues and, therefore, must consider the expected performance of appropriate pilot populations actually operating the applicant's design. The effect of cultural issues, organizational variables, and the total environment in which the new airplane or system will be operated must be recognized. These latter considerations directly involve "modern human factors."
Today, modern human factors concepts have become an integral part of generally accepted certification procedures in many ICAO member states. However, these concepts can also create difficult certification problems between member states. Without mutual understanding, there can be difficulty in identifying the relevant human factors issues and certainly difficulty in reaching consensus on specific methods for dealing with these issues during certification.
Bi-Lateral Certification Activities
The authors recently participated in a joint United States-Russian workshop on the topic of U.S. Minimum Crew Certification as part of U.S.-Russian Bi-Lateral Certification activities. This workshop was based upon a high level of mutual respect between the professional aviation communities of the United States of America and the Russian Federation.
As a result of this experience, the authors emphasize the term "mutual understanding" when dealing with human factors issues because they found that the human factors certification standards of Russia and the United States actually have a great deal in common when their respective certification processes are mutually understood. This is true despite major cultural and language differences.
In the case of the IL-96T certification which was the focus of the workshop, this consensus has been particularly true since the issuance of the Russian AP-25, which in conjunction with "Means of Compliance" determines the requirements for Transport Category Aircraft.
Language differences should never be underestimated. Even with very able translators, basic semantic difficulties can arise. Words, even when accurately translated, can sometimes have very different meanings and, if not addressed effectively, can lead to catastrophic results when applied to aviation human factors issues.
One should always remember that certification is a dynamic and an evolutionary process. Certification standards are not static. They are modified by technological changes, by cultural and organizational changes, and by a continuing quest for increased air transport safety. Standards that were formerly acceptable may not meet today's requirements. And, changes or modifications in certification standards very rarely change uniformly in different states. ICAO member states can and do learn from each other.
Evolution of Russian Aviation Regulations
A good example of this dynamic and evolutionary process occurred in 1984 when the Russian Aviation Regulations NLGS-3 and the associated certification procedures were formulated and placed within the province of the Aviation Industry, Civil Aviation, and Aviation Register. These procedures have facilitated development, certification, and operation of the Russian family of transport aircraft and have enhanced their operational safety.
Another example occurred when Russian activities aimed at concluding the Bi-lateral Airworthiness Agreement between Russia and the United States started a process of harmonization of airworthiness regulations, procedures, and certification test methods. During this process there were obvious differences, but it was found that the essential differences which were impeding understanding of NLGS-3 abroad were primarily the differences in requirements arrangement and their numbering.
During this period, Parts 21, 23, 25 and a number of other Russian requirements were formulated. For example, Part 25 of the Russian Aviation Regulations, "Airworthiness Standards: Transport Category Airplanes" (AP-25) took into account the requirements of the previous NLGS-3 and were structured in accordance with the United States Federal Aviation Regulations, FAR Part 25, including Amendments 1 through 73.
One of the most important certification items that is specified in both FAR Part 25 and the new AP-25 is an evaluation of cockpit ergonomic and flight crew workload levels. These requirements are now essentially identical in FAR Part 25 and AP-25 except, of course, they are in different languages. When Russia certifies national aircraft for compliance with the AP-25, these items must be addressed in accordance with the revised Means of Compliance based upon technical and operating expert evaluation.
Mutual Understanding Is Essential
As one of the first steps in the process of achieving bilateral certification, and particularly in dealing with human factors issues, ft is essential that representatives of both states involved understand the certification standards, the rationale behind those standards and the certification procedures used by the other state. It is also imperative that the paramount importance Of operational safety be recognized throughout this process.
Safety considerations are a principal consideration in all transport certifications. Today's certification standards are very high and N is recognized that individual states take their respective responsibilities very seriously. Neither the certification states, the operating states, nor the manufacturers or modifiers of an aircraft can afford to be associated with an aircraft or aircraft system that is even marginally perceived to be unsafe.
Human factors considerations which have become a central part of today's transport operations include:
- Safe and efficient operation with a minimum crew complement of two;
- The upgrading of the role and responsibilities of the first officer or copilot;
- The challenges of very long-range airplane operation; and
- Pilot transition training to advanced digital glass cockpits, including problems associated with transition from traditional analogue instrumentation.
Today it is universally recognized that operation of modem transport airplanes is not a "one-person operation" but rather requires a "team concept" both within the cockpit and, in fact, throughout the organization. All participants in the certification process, including both regulatory and certification authorities, must recognize and adapt to the new challenges created by very long-range airplanes plus the problems associated with pilots transitioning from traditional aircraft analogue instrumentation to advanced digital "glass cockpits."
Bi-Cultural and Bi-Lingual Workshops Improve Understanding
A prime purpose of the U.S.-Russian Minimum Crew Certification Workshop was to ensure that the Russian participants fully understood the U.S. certification process and the rationale behind that process. A further goal was to ensure that the U.S. participants in the workshop achieved a better understanding of the Russian certification process. To reach these goals, it is necessary that the participants achieve understanding of the "social environments" of their respective states.
The workshop leaders strongly believed that it takes much more than merely similar words to build a mutual understanding of human factors issues. Therefore, the workshop was designed to be fully participatory rather than merely a note-taking exercise and included an actual team project involving the use of a transport category, full motion flight simulator.
The authors learned that the bilingual and multicultural character of such workshops is a very effective way to clarify the meaning of specific certification issues (as well as to quickly identify any differences). Specific details regarding the design of such a mufti-cultural workshop and the methods used to recognize individual language and cultural differences are covered in greater detail in a companion paper presented during the Poster Session of this conference (Barnes, et at, "Multi-Cultural Training in Human Factors for Transport Aircraft Certification").
It should be noted that many of the human factors issues raised are not always easy issues to resolve. For example while there is fair agreement in such traditional ergonomic issues as the placement of controls and displays, the world aviation community has not yet achieved either the world-wide standardization of colors or world-wide consensus on the display and use of warning and caution systems. Basic problems are inherent in using airplanes with differences in these areas and transitions for pilots from one system to another are frequently very troublesome. Anthropometric considerations would seem to be reasonably straight-forward but in a world-wide context we must still consider differences in both gender and among races. These can be major differences and they must be recognized.
Behavioral issues that recognize the importance of the operating philosophy of the user also need special emphasis. Programs involving such concepts as the "total team concept", Crew Resource Management (CRM), and Multi-Crew Cooperation (MCC) are getting a great deal of attention in the United States and in many parts of Europe. They need specific treatment because it is an area that has been previously neglected. The operational environment created by national regulations and national culture must also be considered. For example, we have learned that despite having common goals, training that is effective in one culture may be completely ineffective in another. The aviation community in a growing number of geographic areas has reached consensual agreement that these new operational concepts are now legitimate requirements. In the United States, as well as in some other parts of the world, such programs have actually become regulatory requirements.
Cultural Differences Must Be Recognized and Considered
Specific cultural differences sometimes create legitimate problems in behavioral areas, but even when there is complete consensus on the desired goal, there is not always consensus on the best methods of implementation. The basic principle is that individual state language and cultural differences must be recognized. Cultural differences may require special treatment, not because either one or the other is superior, but simply because they are different.
In an area that is not always completely understood, h seems highly desirable that the certifying authority participates actively in all development phases, particularly with regard to human factors issues. This involves a very close interface between the manufacturer and the regulatory experts during the design, manufacture, and testing of any new or modified airplane or system. Training requirements are of obvious interest at all levels and should be recognized at a very early stage. Today, training requirements have been established as an integral part of the certification process and involve a representative cross-section of the kinds of pilots and the total operating conditions in which the new airplane or system will be operated. Obviously, such training requirements must be considered in any bilateral or mufti-state certification process.
Inevitably differences and misunderstandings will arise during a bi- or multi-state certification process. Carefully organized cross-cultural and bilingual workshops can minimize these differences and misunderstandings by providing forums to promote better understanding between the experts of the states involved. Because each state ultimately has very similar goals and because safety is paramount in all air transport certification situations, the differences, once they are clearly understood by both parties, can usually become minimal.
Four Principles for Effective Cross-Cultural Workshops
At least four principles are important in developing such bicultural and bilingual workshops. They are:
- Translation and interpretation are essential. All written material should be available in both languages and aviation-informed interpreters should be recognized as co-facilitators of the workshop. The role of the interpreters should not be underestimated since an accurate and aviation-oriented translation of both languages is critical.
- Provide opportunities to work in native language. It is important that participants from both states be given an opportunity to think in their own language. When small break-out groups are given specific assignments, R is essential that the assignments be accomplished in their mother tongue. The results of each group session should be reported in the same mother tongue to ensure that the sub-group's thinking is accurately reported to the main group. Securing a good aviation oriented interpreter is obviously important in order to ensure the effective transmission of the sub-group's findings.
- Never assume anything is perfect. In the interest of both parties, the workshop should ensure that the latest thinking from each state is available. R is much too easy to fall into the trap of assuming that the opinions of one's own state are always optimal.
- Ensure active involvement. The organizers should ensure that the participants are actively involved in the workshop. It should never be allowed to degenerate into a lecture or "tell them" session.
Some Suggestions for International Consideration
From a larger perspective, it has become clear that certification is no longer the domain of an individual state. However, h is also clear that only a relatively small number of states, or groups of states, have the facilities and expertise to adequately certify aircraft or systems in this complex and dynamic industry. Since this process must be done thoroughly and well, R is imperative that member states find ways to share their views on the key certification issues. For example ...
- Design for the total market. The designers of any new airplane must be sensitive to the total operational market for that aircraft and sensitive as well to the particular personal characteristics of the people who will fly it. ft is well known that cultural and physical differences and experience levels can vary from state to state. These differences must be addressed during the certification process.
- Involve human factors specialists early. In order to deal with these very real problems, human factors specialists with line operational experience plus an awareness of the differences in prospective pilot populations should be involved early in the design process. By doing so, they will be able to identify potential training requirements as well as any latent human factors design conflicts which may surface in the population of pilots who may fly the new aircraft.
- Training can not save a bad design. These very real human factors problems can only be addressed through engineering design changes or through effective training. Since h is so expensive to make retroactive design changes after an airplane has been manufactured, it becomes virtually impracticable to do so. Therefore, any such problems must be recognized early and the design changed if necessary to mitigate any potential human factors problems.
- Training must apply to the total market. The adequacy of proposed operational training becomes an essential element of the certification evaluation process. Certification authorities and aircraft designers must recognize that training which is appropriate for one pilot population may be inappropriate, inadequate, and ineffective in another. Therefore, any training proposed to mitigate human factors design issues must be evaluated with a representative cross-section of the total market.
- The certification process must place more emphasis on human factors. The evaluative methodologies used during the certification process must ensure that pilot population differences are specifically addressed and thoroughly evaluated prior to certification.
These are only a few observations of current certification issues that need to be addressed globally. We should all work toward achieving an international consensus particularly on the development of specific guidelines for evaluating human factors issues during certification. ICAO has been playing, and must continue to play, an increasingly important role in this difficult area. This Symposium and the entire ICAO Flight Safety and Human Factors Program are testimony to ICAO leadership. Fortunately there is growing consensus on what the difficult issues really are and we are slowly developing generally accepted guidelines for reaching mutually acceptable solutions. The authors believe that mufti-cultural, bilingual workshops can be of great assistance in this process.
There will always be a continuing need for active interface between certifying authorities of various countries. This is a role that ICAO can continue to facilitate. It is essential that this interface should include active participation by individuals at the working level. These are the people who will have to make the evaluations. We must remember that among the goals of an effective interface between the certifying authorities of various countries are the goal to provide better understanding between the individual states and the goal to continually share different approaches toward improving the operational safety of the international air transport community.
Finally, there is a pressing need for ICAO member states to develop harmonized human factors certification methods among those states that have the resources and the expertise necessary to certify airplanes in this era. This fact should be recognized during this Symposium, and most importantly, be stressed before the appropriate authorities of each member state.
About the Authors
Charles F. Adam is a Flight Test Pilot with the Federal Aviation Administration, Aircraft Certification Service, Transport Airplane Directorate in Los Angeles, California. He has functioned as a test pilot on the certification of the MD-1 1 and as the focal point for two-person crew conversions of the Boeing 727 plus restricted category versions of the Lockheed C-1 30, P-3, and L-1 88 "Electra."
He holds a Bachelor's Degree in Electrical Engineering, a Master's Degree in Business Administration, and is a graduate of the U.S. Navy Test Pilot School. He completed twenty-two years of military service with ten of those years as an Experimental Test Pilot in which his assignments included research, development, and operational flight testing.
Mr. Adam is a member of the Society of Experimental Test Pilots, the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, the Society of Automotive Engineers, and the SAE's G- 1 0 and A4 committees for heads-up displays. (U.S. Tel: +310-627-5369 and Fax: +310-627-5210)
Robert B. Barnes is a management consultant who specializes in helping technology-based companies enter the commercial marketplace. He is regularly involved with the commercialization of leading-edge systems. Frequently, he provides human factors-related project management assistance to aerospace companies.
He holds a Bachelor's Degree in Aerospace Engineering and a Masters Degree in Educational Psychology plus a Professional Certificate in Aviation Safety. A former USAF instructor pilot and flying safety officer, he also holds a Certificate of Master Instructor in USAF Flying Training.
Mr. Barnes is a member of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Society of Automotive Engineers, System Safety Society, Association of Aviation Psychologists, and the SAE's G-10 Committee on Aerospace Behavioral Engineering Technology. (U.S. Tel: +500-4424311 and Fax: +602-585-5703)
Captain Harry W. Orlady is an Aviation Human Factors Consultant and former Senior Research Scientist for the Aviation Safety Research System (ASRS). He has worked with NASA/Ames, with private research firms and with the FAA in its certification of the Boeing 747-400 and the McDonnell-Douglas MD-1 1. During his 39 years as a pilot for United Airlines, he flew ten types of aircraft ranging from the DC-3 to the Boeing 747. He has conducted studies in the ground and flight training, human factors, aviation safety and aeromedical fields.
Captain Orlady has received several major aviation awards and presented nearly 100 papers or lectures. He is an elected fellow of the Aerospace Medical Association and of its Human Factors Association; a member of the Human Factors Society, of ICAO's Flight Safety and Human Factors Study Group, the Association of Aviation Psychologists, and of the SAE Human Behavioral Technology and G-10 Committees. (U.S. Tel: +408-356-6807 and Fax: +408-3566292)
Yury S. Ostrovsky is IL-96T Program Manager for the Transport Aircraft Certification Branch of the Russian Interstate Aviation Committee in Moscow. For more than 20 years he has been engaged in national and foreign-made aircraft certification for operation in the USSR and the CIS. He was the lead flight test engineer for the IL-86, IL-96-300 and other aircraft certifications. In addition, he has participated in Aviation Register certification tests at Airbus Industries Boeing, Dassault Aviation, Cessna, Beech Aircraft, and SAAB Aircraft AB facilities.
Today, one of his main activities is the IL-96T certification test program to evaluate minimum flight crew workload compliance with the requirements of Russian Aviation Regulations and U.S. Federal Aviation Regulations. (Russian Tel: +7-095-129-61-77 and Fax: +7-095-125-51-95)
Copyright © 1996-2005 by Neil C. Krey unless otherwise indicated.
Non-commercial reproduction rights granted if the following notice is included:
"Source: Neil Krey's CRM Developers Forum, http://www.crm-devel.org"