(see sidebar).  The top three for maintenance were pressure, complacency and the use of norms — that is, the use of unwritten practices. The combination of these top-rated causes of error can contribute to the failure to use technical documentation, which surprisingly was rated only as the fifth on the inspectors’ rating of challenges despite the fact that documentation issues are unarguably the leading contributor to maintenance error.   
 

FAA inspectors rated the important attributes/programs for a quality maintenance organization and overwhelmingly identified a positive safety culture — 91 percent — and an SMS — 82 percent — as the most important (Table 3). FAA management, especially from the Aviation Safety office (AVS), has been “walking the walk” with respect to safety culture and SMS, evidenced by the organization’s recent ISO9000 certification and establishment of a new office dedicated to gathering, analyzing and sharing data.

 

Fatigue is a concern for the aviation industry.⁵ Nearly 40 percent of ASIs responded that maintenance employee fatigue is a safety issue for the operators they oversee.  Airline inspectors saw this as a greater issue — 43 percent — than did GA inspectors — 35 percent.   Both categories of inspectors reported a need for regulations related to fatigue issues in maintenance, 91 percent for airline ASIs and 75 percent for GA inspectors.  The FAA has ongoing research initiatives that are providing guidance and procedures to address fatigue in the maintenance workplace. This R and D involves a planned mix of approaches addressing issues including the science of fatigue and sleep, applications for nano-technology sensors, real-time human performance modeling, advanced technology scheduling practices, economics of maintenance worker compensation practices and accident investigation analysis related to fatigue. 
 

The FAA’s three-day employee course, “Human Factors in Aviation Maintenance,” is now required training; half of all airworthiness ASIs attended the previous two-day class.  Two-thirds of the respondents indicated that they want biennial recurrent training in human factors; EASA requires biennial recurrent training for its certificate holders. 
 

During 2006 and 2007, FAA released two operator’s manuals for human factors, one for maintenance that received the FAA Administrator’s Plain Language Award for 2006, and the other a report for airport operations.⁶  ASIs indicated a limited familiarity with the maintenance operator’s manual, suggesting that the FAA must not only publish guidance materials but also promote them both internally and externally.

 

Inspectors used the “Dirty Dozen” to rate their own job challenges, rating distraction, lack of resources and pressure as their greatest challenges.  There were many comments providing positive suggestions to improve inspectors working efficiency. Inspectors recognized the emerging requirement for additional oversight of domestic and international repair stations and said they knew that inspectors face a workload that is growing faster than the work force.  
 

Inspectors said that there should be an FAA regulation for human factors programs, with 80 percent of airline inspectors and 72 percent of GA inspectors backing the idea.  Their positions were reinforced by numerous comments that generally said that airline maintenance organizations are driven by regulations and will invest resources to follow the rules.  When there are human factors regulations, there will be compliance by all.  Until then, human factors programs will exist only where there are EASA certificates and/or enlightened U.S. maintenance organizations. 
 
 

Combining Survey Data  
 

The high rate of response to both voluntary surveys was evidence of a high interest in maintenance human factors.  Respondents had positive attitudes and reported what they believed were the best opportunities for improvement.  FAA inspectors were generally positive in their rankings and candid in their responses about maintenance human factors.  Their comments demonstrated an understanding of the impact of human factors programs in maintenance organizations.  Many of the comments originated from the ASI’s past employment in the airline maintenance industry.  
 

There was general agreement between the two surveys that the no. 1 challenge is fatigue in maintenance.  Throughout the world, the rules addressing fatigue are not strict.  There are exceptions, usually due to national labor law.  That leaves the responsibility of addressing fatigue challenges with companies, labor organizations and individuals. 
 

A strict regulation regarding duty time may not be the best solution for everyone. The issue crosses a variety of domains, including but not limited to science, health, fitness for duty and safety, plus significant corporate and personal economic issues.  One size does not fit all. 
 

The industry must not wait for regulators to issue a mandate. Tools are available that organizations can use to assess the potential impact of their scheduling practices on fatigue and performance. Industry must step up to professional reviews of scheduling patterns, managing shifts and tracking duty time, plus beginning to recognize fatigue as a valid reason to miss or stop work.  
 

Additional opportunities for improvement, depending on company and country, may include the following: increased use of error reporting system data; application of systems and data to cost-justify human factors programs; improved training for human factors trainers; improved systems for technical documentation; and more. The international movement towards a formal SMS environment is a step in the right direction. It is critical that SMS never loses focus on the most important link in the safety chain, the human.

 
 

William B. Johnson is chief scientific technical advisor, human factors in aircraft maintenance systems, FAA, and Carla Hackworth is an engineering research psychologist, FAA. 
 

1. Nearly 1,500 safety professionals worldwide contributed to these surveys. The research was a joint effort of the FAA Civil Aerospace Medical Institute (CAMI) at the Mike Monroney Aeronautical Institute, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, U.S., and the Maintenance Division of the Flight Standards Service, Washington, D.C.  Flight Standards participants were John J. Hiles and David Cann.  CAMI team participants were Kali Holcomb, Joy Banks, Melanie Dennis and David Schroeder.

 
 

2. Hackworth, C., Holcomb, K., Dennis, M., Goldman, S., Bates, C., Schroeder, D., Johnson, W. (2007a). Survey of Maintenance Human Factors Programs Across the World. The International Journal of Applied Aviation Studies, Volume 7, Number 2, 212–31.

 
 

3. Hackworth, C., Holcomb, K., Dennis, M., Goldman, S., Bates, C., Schroeder, D., Johnson, W. (2007b). An International Survey of Maintenance Human Factors Programs (Report No. 07/25). Oklahoma City, Oklahoma: FAA Civil Aerospace Medical Institute.

 
 

4. Hackworth, C.A., Banks, J.O., Holcomb, K.A., Johnson, W.B., Hiles, J.J. (2007c).  Aviation Safety Inspectors’ (ASIs) Maintenance Human Factors Survey, (Memorandum Internal FAA Report). Oklahoma City, OK: FAA Civil Aerospace Medical Institute.

 
 

5. National Transportation Safety Board (2006). Most Wanted Transportation Safety Improvements Federal Issues. Aviation: Reduce Accidents and Incidents Caused by Human Fatigue. <http://www.ntsb.gov/recs/mostwanted/aviation_reduce_acc_inc_humanfatig.htm>

 
 

6. Human factors manuals are available at <www.hfskyway.com>.