Science, Technologies, Innovations №4(16) 2020, 68-78 p

 PDF

http://doi.org/10.35668/2520-6524-2020-4-07

Reva O. M. — D. Sc. in Engineering, Professor, Principal Researcher of State Institution “Ukrainian Institute of Scientific and Technical Expertise and Information”, Antonovich Str., 180, Kyiv, Ukraine, 03680; +38 (044) 521-00-10; ran54@meta.ua; ORCID: 0000-0002-5954-290X

Kamyshin V. V. — D. Sc. in Pedagogy, Senior Researcher, Acting Director of State Institution “Ukrainian Institute of Scientific and Technical Expertise and Information”, Antonovich Str., 180, Kyiv, Ukraine, 03680; +38 (044) 521-00-10; kvv@ukrintei.ua; ORCID: 0000-0002-8832-9470

Borsuk S. P. — D. Sc. in Engineering, Associate Professor, Postdoctoral researcher at Wenzhou University, Wenzhou, People Republic of China, Chashan University Town, Wenzhou City, Zhejiang Province, China; 325035grey1s@yandex.ua; ORCID: 0000-0002-7034-7857

Shulhin V. A. — PhD in Engineering, Assistant Professor, Dean of the Flight Operation Faculty, Flight Academy of the National Aviation University, Dobrovolsky Str. 1, Kropyvnytskyi, Ukraine 25005; VAShulgin@ukr.net; ORCID: 0000-0001-7938-8383

Nevynitsyn A. V. — PhD in Engineering, Associate Professor, Dean of the Faculty of Air Traffic Services Flight Academy of the National Aviation University, Dobrovolsky Str. 1, Kropyvnytskyi, Ukraine 25005; nevatse@ukr.net; ORCID: 0000-0001-7000-4929

QUANTITATIVE INDICATORS OF AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS’ ATTITUDE TO
THE DANGER OF ERRORS

Abstract. The negative and persistent impact of the human factor on the statistics of aviation accidents and serious incidents makes proactive studies of the attitude of “front line” aviation operators (air traffic controllers, flight crewmembers) to dangerous actions or professional conditions as a key component of the current paradigm of ICAO safety concept. This “attitude” is determined through the indicators of the influence of the human factor on decision-making, which also include the systems of preferences of air traffic controllers on the indicators and characteristics of professional activity, illustrating both the individual perception of potential risks and dangers, and the peculiarities of generalized group thinking that have developed in a particular society. Preference systems are an ordered (ranked) series of n = 21 errors: from the most dangerous to the least dangerous and characterize only the danger preference of one error over another. The degree of this preference is determined only by the difference in the ranks of the errors and does not answer the question of how much time one error is more dangerous in relation to another. The differential method for identifying the comparative danger of errors, as well as the multistep technology for identifying and filtering out marginal opinions were applied. From the initial sample of m = 37 professional air traffic controllers, two subgroups mB=20 and mG=7 people were identified with statisti-cally significant at a high level of significance within the group consistency of opinions a = 1%. Nonpara-metric optimization of the corresponding group preference systems resulted in Kemeny’s medians, in which the related (middle) ranks were missing. Based on these medians, weighted coefficients of error hazards were determined by the mathematical prioritization method. It is substantiated that with the ac-cepted accuracy of calculations, the results obtained at the second iteration of this method are more ac-ceptable. The values of the error hazard coefficients, together with their ranks established in the preference systems, allow a more complete quantitative and qualitative analysis of the attitude of both individual air traffic controllers and their professional groups to hazardous actions or conditions.

Keywords: flight safety, human factor, air traffic controllers, attitude to the danger of errors, individual and group preferences’ systems, Kemeni median, prioritization method, weighted coefficients of errors’ hazards.

REFERENCES

  1. Sytnyk, A. H., Skrypets, A. V., Chuzha, O. O., & Demianchuk, V. B. (2013). Liudskyi chynnyk ta yoho vplyv na psykholohichnu bezpeku fakhivtsiv ekstremalnykh profesii v aviatsii [The human factor and its impact on the psychological safety of specialists in extreme professions in aviation]. Problemy ekstremalnoi ta kryzovoi psykholohii [Problems of extreme and crisis psychology]. 14 (II), 322–330.
  2. Safety Management Manual (SMM) (2018). Doc ICAO 9859 — AN/460. Fourth Edition (advance unedited). Montreal, Canada.
  3. Systema menedzhmenta okhrany zdorovia y obespechenyia bezopasnosty truda. Trebovanyia: Mezhdunarodnyi standart [Health and safety management system. Requirements: International standard]. OHSAS 18001:2007.
  4. Human Factors Module ­ A Business Case for Human Factors Investment. EUROCONTROL — HUM.ET1.ST13.4000­REP­02 / 13.12.1999.
  5. Reva, O. M., Kamyshyn, V. V., Shulhin, V. A., & Nevynitsyn A. M. (2020). Systemnyi analiz: mediana Kemeni yak optymizatsiina model hrupovoi systemy perevah aviadyspetcheriv na nebezpekakh kharakternykh pomylok [Systems analysis: the median Kemeni as an optimization model of the group system of air traffic controllers’ preferences on the dangers of characteristic errors]. Nauka, tekhnolohii, innovatsii [Science, technology, innovation]. 3, 55–64. doi: http://doi.org/10.35668/2520­6524­2020­3­06.
  6. Reva, A. N., Tumyshev, K. M., & Bekmuhambetov, A. A. (2007). Chelovecheskij faktor i bezopasnost’ poletov : Proaktivnoe issledovanie vliyaniya [The human factor and flight safety: A proactive impact study]. Almaty, 242 p.
  7. Reva, O. M., Borsuk, S. P., Shulhin, V. A., Mirzoiev, B. M., Mukhtarov, P. Sh., & Nasirov, Sh. Sh. (2016). Stavlennia aviatsiinykh operatoriv “perednoho kraiu” do nebezpechnykh dii abo umov profesiinoi diialnosti ­ holovnyi chynnyk zabezpechennia bezpeky polotiv [The attitude of “leading edge” air operators to dangerous actions or conditions of professional activity is the main factor in ensuring flight safety]. Suchasni informatsiini ta innovatsiini tekhnolohii na transporti (MINTT­2016) [Modern information and innovative technologies in transport (MINTT­2016)]. Kherson, 90–97.
  8. Reva, O, Borsuk, S., Shulgin, V., & Nedbay, S. (2019). Ergonomic Assessment of Instructors’ Capability to Conduct Personality­Oriented Training for Air Traffic Control (ATC) Personnel. Advances in Human Factors of Transportation. Washington D.C., USA, 783–793. https://doi.org/10.1007/978­3­030­20503­4_70
  9. Reva, O. M., Shulhin, V. A., & Iievliev, A. M. (2020). Problemy korysnosti­bezpeky v vyznachenni stavlennia aviatsiinykh operatoriv “perednoho kraiu” do nebezpechnykh dii abo umov [Usefulness­safety problems in determining the attitude of “leading edge” air operators to dangerous actions or conditions]. Suchasni enerhetychni ustanovky na transporti, tekhnolohii ta obladnannia dlia yikh obsluhovuvannia SEUTTOO­2020 [Modern power plants on transport, technologies and equipment for their maintenance SEUTTOO­2020]. Kherson, 276–282.
  10. Maslou, A. G. (1999). Motivaciya i lichnost’ [Motivation and personality]. St. Peterburg: Evraziya.
    478 p.
  11. Frolov, K. V. (2006). Analiz riska i problem bezopasnosti [Analysis of risk and security issues]. Osnovy analiza i regulirovaniya bezopasnosti [Fundamentals of safety analysis and regulation]. Moscow: Znanie, 640 p.
  12. Demidenko, G. P. (2008). Bezpeka zhittєdіyal’nostі [Life safety]. Kyiv: NTUU KPІ, 300 p.
  13. Popov, N. V., & Luzgacheva, N. V. (2010). Formalizaciya bazovyh ponyatij teorii bezopasnosti [Formalization of basic concepts of security theory]. Voprosy sovremennoj nauki i praktiki [Questions of modern science and practice]. 10–12, 29–37.
  14. Akimov, V. A. (2018). Obshchaya teoriya bezopasnosti zhiznedeyatel’nosti v sovremennoj nauchnoj kartine mira [General theory of life safety in the modern scientific picture of the world]. Moscow: FGBU VNII GOCHS (FC), 136 p.
  15. Nasirov, Sh., & Mukhtarov, P. Sh. (2013). Rozrobka metodychnoho zabezpechennia protsedur diahnostyky i korektsii nebezpechnykh stratehii pryiniattia rishen aviadyspetcheramy [Development of methodological support for diagnostic procedures and correction of dangerous decision­making strategies by air traffic controllers]. Naukovyi visnyk Khersonskoi derzhavnoi morskoi akademii [Scientific Bulletin of the Kherson State Maritime Academy]. 1, 90–96.
  16. Reva, O. M., Kamyshyn, V. V., Nevynitsyn, A. M., & Shulhin, V. A. (2019). Dyferentsialnyi metod vstanovlennia porivnialnoi nebezpeky pomylok aviadyspetcheriv [Differential method for establishing the comparative risk of air traffic controller errors]. Nauka, tekhnolohii, innovatsii [Science, technology, innovation]. 3 (11), 70–82. doi: http://doi.org/10.35668/2520­6524­2019­3­08.
  17. Reva, O. M., Kamyshyn, B. B., Nevynitsyn, A. M., & Radetska, C. B. (2019). Bahatokrokova protsedura pryiniattia rishen shchodo uzghodzhenosti hrupovykh system perevah aviadyspetcheriv [Multi­step decision­making procedure on the consistency of group systems of air traffic controllers preferences]. Tekhnichne rehuliuvannia, metrolohiia, informatsiini ta transportni tekhnolohii [Technical regulation, metrology, information and transport technologies]. Odesa: ODATRIa, 147–152.
  18. Reva, O. M., Nevynitsyn, A. M., Shulhin, V. A., & Kamyshyn, V. V. (2020). Upravlinnia bezpekoiu polotiv za liudskym chynnykom: pokaznyky vahomosti pomylok aviadyspetcheriv [Human factor safety management: indicators of the severity of errors of air traffic controllers]. Tekhnichne rehuliuvannia, metrolohiia, informatsiini ta transportni tekhnolohii [Technical regulation, metrology, information and transport technologies]. Odesa: ODA–TRIa.
    000­000.
  19. Beliaievskyi, L. S., & Bindas, L. S. (1999). Metod rozstanovky priorytetiv u kilkisnii otsintsi faktoriv nebezpeky v diialnosti aviadyspetchera [Method of prioritization in the quantitative assessment of danger factors in the activities of the air traffic controller] Visnyk Kyivsk. mizhnar. un­tu tsyv. aviatsii [Bulletin of Kyiv. international un­tu civ. Aviation]. 2, 278–284.
  20. Reva, O. M., & Radov, D. H. (2001). Rozstanovka priorytetiv na mnozhyni obstavyn, shcho pomiakshuiut ta obtiazhuiut vidpovidalnist [Prioritize a number of mitigating and aggravating circumstances]. Derzhava i pravo [State and law]. 11, 406–417.
  21. Reva, O. M., Hrinka, T. I., & Sobolenko, V. V. (2002). Rozstanovka priorytetiv na mnozhyni okremykh pokaznykiv, shcho vkhodiat v uzahalnenyi pokaznyk “Efektyvne vykorystannia robochoi syly” [Prioritization on a set of individual indicators included in the generalized indicator “Efficient use of labor”]. Vodnyi transport [Water transport]. 3, 133–141.
  22. Reva, O. M., & Suvorova, I. M. (2009). Modeliuvannia rozstanovky priorytetiv u vyznachenni koefitsiientiv vazhlyvosti motyviv trudovoi diialnosti vykladachiv [Modeling the arrangement of priorities in determining the coefficients of importance of the motives of teachers work]. Aktualni problemy ekonomiky  [Current economic problems]. 9, 243–249.
  23. Nasyrov, Sh. Sh. (2011). Vyznachennia koefitsiientiv vazhlyvosti kharakternykh pomylok aviadyspetcheriv v protsesi upravlinnia povitrianym rukhom [Determining the coefficients of importance of characteristic errors of air traffic controllers in the process of air traffic control]. Aviatsiino­kosmichna tekhnika i tekhnolohiia [Aerospace engineering and technology]. 9, 195–201.
  24. Berzh, K. (1962). Teoriya grafov i ee primenenie [Graph theory and its application]. Moscow: IL,
    320 p.
  25. Bliumberh, V. A., & Hlushchenko, V. F. (1982). Kakoe reshenye luchshe? Metod rasstanovky pryorytetov [Which solution is better? Prioritization method]. Leningrad: Lenyzdat, 160 p.
  26. Batyshchev, D. Y. (1984). Metody optymalnoho proektyrovanyia [Methods of optimal design]. Moscow: Radyo y sviaz, 248 p.
  27. Bronshtejn, I. N., & Semendyaev, K. A., Groshe, G., & Cigler, V. (Ed.) (1981). Spravochnik po matematike (dlya inzhenerov i uchashchihsya vuzov) [Handbook of Mathematics (for engineers and university students)]. Lejpcig: Tojbner; Moscow: Nauka,
    719 p.