Asiana Airlines Flight 214
Investigating Cockpit Automation and Culture Issues in Aviation Safety
Abstract
This article focuses on a major human factors–related issue that includes the undeniable role of cultural factors and cockpit automation and their serious impact on flight crew performance, communication, and aviation safety. The report concentrates on the flight crew performance of the Boeing 777–Asiana Airlines Flight 214 accident, by exploring issues concerning mode confusion and autothrottle systems. It also further reviews the vital role of cultural factors in aviation safety and provides a brief overview of past, related accidents. Automation progressions have been created in an attempt to design an error-free flight deck. However, to do that, the pilot must still thoroughly understand every component of the flight deck – most importantly, the automation. Otherwise, if pilots are not completely competent in terms of their automation, the slightest errors can lead to fatal accidents. As seen in the case of Asiana Flight 214, even though engineering designs and pilot training have greatly evolved over the years, there are many cultural, design, and communication factors that affect pilot performance. It is concluded that aviation systems designers, in cooperation with pilots and regulatory bodies, should lead the strategic effort of systematically addressing the serious issues of cockpit automation, human factors, and cultural issues, including their interactions, which will certainly lead to better solutions for safer flights.
References
(2013, December 11). Pilot concerned about landing Asiana jet before crash. Retrieved from www.cnn.com/2013/12/11/us/ntsb-hearing-asiana-flight-214/
. (1993). Crew factor accidents: Regional perspective Proceedings of the 22nd Technical Conference of the International Air Transport Association (IATA) on Human Factors in Aviation (pp. 45–61).
(2013, July 8). A system designed to make landings safer was out of service when Asiana Flight 214 crashed. Business Insider. Retrieved from www.businessinsider.com/glide-slope-not-working-when-asiana-214-crashed-2013-7
(1993). Human factors in the global marketplace. Keynote address to the annual meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, October 12, 1993, Seattle, Washington.
. (1996). The interfaces between flightcrews and modern flight deck systems. Washington, DC FAA.
(2011). Cultural influences and errors: Prevention, detection, and management. In , Errors in organizations (pp. 273–315). New York: Routledge.
(2011). Differences between tight and loose cultures: A 33-nation study. Science, 332, 1100–1104.
(2008). The ethnic theory of plane crashes. In , Outliers: The story of success (pp. 177–223). New York: Little, Brown.
(1994). Integrating human factors knowledge into automated flight deck design. Invited presentation at the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Flight Safety and Human Factors Seminar, Amsterdam, May 18, 1994.
(2014, July 6). News & Events – NTSB – National Transportation Safety Board. News & Events - NTSB - National Transportation Safety Board. Retrieved from www.ntsb.gov/news/speeches/hart/hart140624o.html
(1987). Exploring flight crew behavior. Social Behavior, 2, 63–72.
(1994a). Flightcrew perspective on automation: A cross-cultural perspective. In Report of the 7th ICAO Flight Safety and Human Factors Regional Seminar (pp. 442–453). Montreal, Canada: International Civil Aviation Organization.
(1994b). Anatomy of a system accident: Avianca Flight 052. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 4(3), 265–284.
(1998). Culture at work in aviation and medicine: National organizational, and professional influences. Brookfield, VT: Ashgate.
(1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
(2013, July 9). Could Malcolm Gladwell’s theory of cockpit culture apply to Asiana crash? National Geographic News. Retrieved from news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/07/130709-asiana-flight-214-crash-korean-airlines-culture-outliers/
(1993). CRM: Cross-cultural perspectives. In , Cockpit resource management (pp. 367–397). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
(1994a). Foreword. In , Culture at work in aviation and medicine: National organizational, and professional influences. Brookfield, VT: Ashgate.
(1994b). Cross-cultural perspectives in human factors training: The lessons from the ICAO Human Factors Programme. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 4(2), 173–182.
(
2007 ). Human factors issues in cockpit automation (Unpublished directed research report on human factors in aviation safety). Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern California.(1994). Cross-cultural issues in CRM training. Paper presented at the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Flight Safety and Human Factors Seminar, Amsterdam, May 18, 1994.
(2000, November 29). Why your flight safety is at the mercy of cultural factors. Rivista Tecnica Dell’ANPAC. 25–29.
(2013, December 11). Asiana flight 214 pilot turned off plane’s autopilot despite concerns landing at SFO. Mercury News. Retrieved from www.mercurynews.com/nation-world/ci_24700728/sfo-asiana-flight-214-hearing-begins-prevent-repeat
. (2013). Investigative hearing: Crash of Asiana Flight 214, San Francisco, CA. Washington, DC Author.
. (2014). Descent below visual glidepath and impact with Seawall Asiana Flight 214, Boeing 777-200ER, HL 7742, San Francisco, California, July 6, 2013 (Aircraft Accident Report NTSB/AAR-14/01). Washington, DC Author.
(2011, July 11). Boeing vs. Airbus: Is it purely about money? Or do the pilots care? Slate. Retrieved from www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2011/07/boeing_vs_airbus.html
(2002). Humans and automation: System design and research issues. 3, Santa Monica, CA Wiley.
(2009, June). Back to basics. ATW Aviation Safety. 51–53.
(2014, March). Coming up short: Asiana crash shows continued need for vigilance against CRM & cultural issues. Australian Aviation. 52–57.
(2014, June 25). Controversy in the wake of NTSB’s Asiana 214 findings. AirlineRatings.com. Retrieved from www.airlineratings.com/news.php?s&id=316
(2013, July 9). Pilots’ cockpit actions under review. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from articles.latimes.com/2013/jul/09/local/la-me-0709-sfo-crash-probe-20130709
(2013, December 11). Pilots in crash were confused about control systems, experts say. The New York Times. Retrieved from www.nytimes.com/2013/12/12/us/asiana-airlines-crash-san-francisco-airport.html?hpw&rref=us&_r=0
(2014,March 31). Airline blames bad software in San Francisco crash. The New York Times. Retrieved from www.nytimes.com/2014/04/01/us/asiana-airlines-says-secondary-cause-of-san-francisco-crash-was-bad-software.html
(2013, July 8). In Asiana crash investigation, early focus is on the crew’s actions. The New York Times. Retrieved from www.nytimes.com/2013/07/09/us/in-asiana-crash-investigation-early-focus-is-on-the-crews-actions.html?_r=0
(2013, July 9). Asiana flight 214 was traveling slower than recommended on landing. CNN.com.. Retrieved from www.cnn.com/2013/07/08/us/asiana-airlines-crash/index.html
(2013, July 9). Korean culture may offer clues in Asiana crash. CNBC.com. Retrieved from www.cnbc.com/id/100869966
