Human factors training

Provenmire, H. K., and Roscoe, S. N. (1971), An Evaluation of Ground-Based Flight Trainers in Routine Primary Flight Training, Human Factors, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 109-116. 

Swezey, R. W. (1989), Generalization, Fidelity and Transfer-of-Training, Human Factors Society Bulletin, Vol. 32, No. 6, pp. 4-5. 

Wightman, D. C., and Sistrunk, F. (1987), Part-Task Training Strategies in Simulated Carrier Landing Final-Approach Training, Human Factors, Vol. 29, pp. 245-254. 

Salas, E., Prince, C., Bowers, C.A., Stout, R.J., Oser, R.L., and Cannon-Bowers, J.A. (1999b). A methodology for enhancing crew resource management training. Human Factors, 41,... 

Kovari, B. Air Crew Training, Human Factors and Reorganizing in Case of Irregularities. Periodica Polytechnica Transportation Engineering 33, no. 1-2 (2005) 77-88. 

Human Factors A diseipline eoneerned with designing maehines, operations, and work environments so that they mateh human eapabilities, limitations, and needs. Ineludes any teehnieal work (engineering, proeedure writing, worker training, worker seleetion, ete.) related to the human faetor in oper-ator-maehine systems. 

For inherently safer interactions of designs and procedures, include an operator trained in human factors on the design team. 

Human factors, discussed in Section 4.2, enter a fault tree in the same manner as a component failure. The failure of manual actions, that prevent or mitigate an accident, are treated the same as hardware failures. The human error failure probability is conditioned by performance sluiping factors imposed by stress, training and the environment. 

Human errors may be dependent on the specific accident sequence displayed in the event tree, and, for that reason, may be included in the event tree. This requires the human-factors specialist to consider the context of the error in terms of stress, operator training in response to the accident, di.tgnosiic paiierns, environmental, and other performance-shaping factors. 

The human factors audit was part of a hazard analysis which was used to recommend the degree of automation required in blowdown situations. The results of the human factors audit were mainly in terms of major errors which could affect blowdown success likelihood, and causal factors such as procedures, training, control room design, team communications, and aspects of hardware equipment. The major emphasis of the study was on improving the human interaction with the blowdown system, whether manual or automatic. Two specific platform scenarios were investigated. One was a significant gas release in the molecular sieve module (MSM) on a relatively new platform, and the other a release in the separator module (SM) on an older generation platform. 

Quality of installation and the adherence to design specifications of the equipment should be evaluated to ensure that errors during shipping and installation were not made. Often overlooked at this phase are human factors considerations for the construction crew, such as selection of the contractor, training of the crew, lighting, shift work, procedures, and supervision. 

The following are some human factors aspects relevant to training but they are meant only as a stimulus to further study and consideration and not as an authoritative and exhaustive checklist. 

Once these questions are answered, the user is led to more detailed questions that address the specific situation. These more detailed questions cover areas such as human factors, communication, training, fatigue, scheduling, environment, equipment, rules, policy, procedure, or barriers to quality. 

---