Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Developers of emergency, abnormal, and non-normal checklists hold a number of beliefs about how, when, and under what types of conditions flight crews will access and use these checklists. These beliefs or expectations strongly influence the decisions developers make about checklist content, design, and presentation. Interviews with pilots involved in incidents and accidents, simulator observations, and analyses of paper and electronic checklists, reveal that many of the expectations developers hold, which are implicit in checklist designs, do not match the realities of emergency and abnormal situations and flight crew checklist use. Several of these expectations are presented along with contrasting realities and some suggested design solutions.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

(2005). Line pilot performance of memory items. In Proceedings of the 13^th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology, Oklahoma, City, OK.

Aviation Safety Reporting System. (2001). Search Request Number 6133. NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA.

Berman

Burian

B.K.

Dismukes

R. K.

Geven (2006). Current practices in training Part 121 flight crews for emergency and abnormal situations. Manuscript in preparation.

Boorman

(2000). Reducing Flight Crew Errors and Minimizing New Error Modes with Electronic Checklists. In the Proceedings of the International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction in Aeronautics, 2000. Polytechnic International Press, Toulouse, France.

Burian

B. K.

(2006). Emergency and abnormal checklists: Design, content, and use. Manuscript in preparation.

Flight Safety Focus. (1985, May). In-flight fire: Report of the Saudi Arabian Civil Aviation Authority. Flight Safety Journal, 1–12.

Flight Safety Foundation. (2005). Flight crew procedures streamlined for smoke/fire/fumes. Flight Safety Digest, 24 (6), 31–36.

Holder

McKenzie

(2006). Quick Reference Handbook: Summary of changes. Presentation given at the Boeing 2006 Flight Operations Symposium, Seattle, Washington. May 2–3.

National Transportation Safety Board. (1989). Aloha Airlines Flight 243, Boeing 737–200, N73711, Near Maui, Hawaii, April 28, 1988. Washington, DC: NTSB (NTIS No. PB89–910404).

10.

National Transportation Safety Board (1992). Aircraft Accident Report – Explosive Decompression—Loss of Cargo Door in Flight, United Airlines Flight 811, Boeing 747–122, N4713U, Honolulu, Hawaii, February 24, 1989. Report Number NTSB AAR-92/02. Washington, DC: NTSB.

11.

National Transportation Safety Board. (1998a). American Trans Air Flight 406, Boeing 727–290, N775AT, Indianapolis, Indiana, May 12, 1996. (NTSB ID No. CHI96IA157).

12.

National Transportation Safety Board (1998b). Aircraft Accident Report – In-flight Fire/Emergency Landing, Federal Express Flight 1406, Douglas DC-10-10, N68055, Newburgh, New York, September 5, 1996. Report Number NTSB AAR-98/03. Washington, DC: NTSB.

13.

National Transportation Safety Board. (2002). Loss of Control and Impact with Pacific Ocean, Alaska Airlines Flight 261, McDonnell Douglas MD-83, N963AS, About 2.7 Miles North of Anacapa Island, California, January 31, 2000. Washington, DC: NTSB. (NTIS No. PB-2002-910401).

14.

Transportation Safety Board of Canada (2003). Aviation Investigation Report A98H0003, In-flight Fire Leading To Collision with Water, Swissair Transport Limited McDonnell Douglas MD-11 HB-IWF, Peggy's Cove, Nova Scotia 5nm SW, 2 September 1998. Gatineau, Quebec, Canada: TSB of Canada.

15.

Tremaud

(2002). Operational and Human Factors Involved in Situations Beyond the Scope of Published Procedures. Presentation given at the Airbus 16^th Human Factors Symposium, Singapore, October 8–10.

Aeronautical Emergency and Abnormal Checklists: Expectations and Realities

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References