HFS376: (Human Factors in Defence and Security) Using this accident as a case study, examine human capabilities and limitations in operating a military transport plane in a high stress situation.

Module / Subject / School:

HFS376: (Human Factors in Defence and Security)

Singapore University of Social Sciences

Requirements: 

Question 1

You are required to conduct a review of the human factors analysis in the investigation report and propose solutions to prevent a similar accident in the air force. Using this accident as a case study, examine human capabilities and limitations in operating a military transport plane in a high stress situation.

Identify the possible safety and risk management issues in defence and security operations and examine design principles to reduce human errors both in the operations and maintenance of military / combat equipment. You may refer to other reliable news reports or commentaries in your review.

Question 1a

Review the investigation report and identify the human errors presented. Discuss how these errors relate to physical and cognitive human capabilities and limitations. (14 marks)

Question 1b

Explain how human limitations contributed to the transport plane accident. (6 marks)

Question 1c

Mission planning, take-off and landing phases, situation awareness and decision making, detection and distractions experienced by the pilots during the course of the ERO, and the misidentification of the malfunction once airborne are very critical parts of a flight. Given this situation, examine how stress impacts performance and what can be done to manage stress in such circumstances. (10 marks)

Question 1d

Using Crew Resource Management principles, evaluate the team performance of the flight crew comprising the two pilots and two loadmasters. (10 marks)

Question 2a

Based on the findings from the report (case study), describe the safety climate of the 455th Air Expeditionary Wing at Bagram Airfield, Afghanistan, in particular, the attitude towards safety displayed among the airmen. Support your analysis with the evidences reported. (10 marks)

Question 2b

The MP’s placement of the hard-shell NVG case in front of the yoke blocking forward movement of the flight controls, the distractions experienced by the MP and MCP during the course of the ERO, and the misidentification of the malfunction once airborne, inaccurate expectations, and fixation substantially contributed to the mishap.

Illustrate how this discipline issue relate to a unit’s attitude towards safety and risks. (8 marks)

Question 2c

Show how a safety management system, with the implementation of education, intervention, and monitoring programmes, can possibly avert such safety issues. (12 marks)

Question 3

All the pilots and loadmasters were reported to be qualified professionals. For more details, please refer to the case study paper.

The Mishap Pilot (MP) was a current and qualified aircraft commander with 943.0 total C-130J hours, including 235.9 combat hours, and 164.8 NVG hours. He was certified as an aircraft commander on 9 October 2014 and completed his most recent flight evaluation on 29 July 2015. Squadron leadership considered the MP a top Aircraft Commander and he was projected to attend Instructor Pilot school.

The Mishap Co-Pilot (MCP) was a current and qualified first pilot with 338.4 total C- 130J hours, including 31.5 combat hours, and 47.6 NVG hours. He was initially qualified on 16 November 2013 and completed his most recent flight evaluation on 3

April 2015. Additionally, the MCP was previously qualified as a senior surveillance manager on the E-8C, where he accumulated an additional 2,164.2 flight hours. MCP had a great reputation and was on track for upgrade to Aircraft Commander.

The Mishap Loadmaster 1 (ML1) was a current and qualified loadmaster in the C-130J. He had a total of 524.5 C-130J hours, including 31.5 combat hours and 32.5 NVG hours. He was initially qualified on 24 January 2014 and completed his most recent flight evaluation on 18 May 2015. ML1 had been identified by his leadership as an Instructor Loadmaster candidate.

The Mishap Loadmaster 2 (ML2) was a current and qualified loadmaster in the C-130J (Tab G-76). He had a total of 596.7 C-130J hours, including 31.5 combat hours and 39.7 NVG hours (Tab G-29). He was initially qualified on 18 April 2014 and completed his most recent flight evaluation on 23 July 2015. ML2 had been identified by his leadership as an Instructor Loadmaster candidate.

Question 3a

Given the human errors discussed in this case study, propose design solutions that could assist the aircrew in handling the emergency during the mission flight. (15 marks)

Question 3b

Assuming the role of the incident unit’s commander, recommend the steps your unit / squadron must take to improve and to prevent future incidents. Your recommendations should be based on the findings of the investigation report and should include training or re-training options.(15 marks)

What we score:

76%

Our Writer’s Comment 

This assignment is designed to assess students’ understanding of business practices.

To secure an A+ grade, adhere to these guidelines and make sure your work aligns with the grading criteria:

Question 1: Human Factors in the Transport Plane Accident

1a) Review of Human Errors (14 Marks)

When reviewing human errors, focus on specific cognitive and physical limitations. For instance, how did fatigue or stress impair the crew’s decision-making? Use details from the case study to identify where human error played a role. Did the pilots overlook critical information? Was there a breakdown in communication?

Link these errors to human factors theories. For example, you could reference attentional tunneling (the tendency to focus on one problem and miss others) or cognitive overload, which occurs when too much information is presented at once. By connecting real-world examples to theory, you’ll show a deeper understanding of the human factors at play.

1b) How Human Limitations Contributed (6 Marks)

In this part, go beyond just listing limitations. Explain how each human limitation—like reduced situational awareness, multitasking failures, or fatigue—contributed to the accident. Were the pilots overwhelmed by the complexity of the mission or the high-stress environment? Show how these limitations directly affected their performance.

1c) Stress and Performance Management (10 Marks)

Here, explain the relationship between stress and performance. Use models like the Yerkes-Dodson Law, which shows how moderate stress improves performance, but excessive stress diminishes it. Discuss how stress likely impacted the crew’s situational awareness, decision-making, and response times.

Propose practical strategies for managing stress, such as crew rest periods, stress management training, or even introducing automated systems to reduce cognitive load during critical phases like takeoff and landing.

1d) Crew Resource Management (CRM) Evaluation (10 Marks)

When evaluating the crew’s performance, break down the principles of CRM: communication, leadership, decision-making, and teamwork. Did the crew apply these effectively? Were there gaps in communication or leadership that contributed to the mishap?

Use the CRM model to suggest how the team could have performed better, focusing on areas like role clarity, feedback loops, and collaborative decision-making. By applying CRM principles, you’ll show how team performance could have mitigated the human errors.

Question 2: Safety Climate and Attitudes Toward Safety

2a) Safety Climate of the 455th Air Expeditionary Wing (10 Marks)

When discussing the safety climate, use specific examples from the case study to show the attitude toward safety. Were airmen following protocols, or was there evidence of complacency? Did leadership foster a safety-first environment?

Back up your analysis with evidence from the report and theory on safety climate. Highlight how a strong safety climate typically correlates with fewer accidents, while a poor safety climate can lead to increased risks.

2b) Discipline and Safety Attitudes (8 Marks)

In this section, explain how discipline issues (like the mishap involving the NVG case) reflect a unit’s overall attitude towards safety. If safety procedures are routinely ignored or considered unimportant, it suggests a lax safety culture. Propose how discipline could be improved to foster a better safety attitude across the unit.

2c) Role of Safety Management Systems (12 Marks)

For this part, propose a safety management system (SMS) that includes education, intervention, and monitoringprograms. These systems should emphasize:

• Education: Regular safety training that highlights risk management.
• Intervention: Real-time safety interventions, like automated alerts during risky maneuvers.
• Monitoring: Continuous performance tracking to identify emerging risks.

Describe how these programs could have prevented the mishap, such as through better risk identification or pre-flight checks. Your answer should be practical and grounded in real-world application.

Question 3: Design Solutions and Commander’s Recommendations

3a) Design Solutions to Assist the Aircrew (15 Marks)

Here, propose specific design changes that could assist aircrew in emergencies. Think about adding automated alert systems that identify malfunctions faster, or ergonomic design adjustments to reduce cognitive load during high-pressure moments.

Focus on human-centered design principles, like simplifying displays or integrating auditory and visual alerts to help crews react quickly. Use research to support these ideas, showing how they reduce human errors in stressful situations.

3b) Commander’s Steps for Improvement (15 Marks)

As a commander, propose concrete steps to improve safety and prevent future incidents. This could include:

• Re-training programs focused on CRM principles and human factors.
• Regular safety drills to simulate high-stress situations.
• Leadership engagement to ensure a safety-first culture.

Make sure your recommendations are actionable and based on findings from the case study. For example, if fatigue was a major issue, suggest implementing stricter crew rest policies. The more practical and specific your recommendations, the better your score.

General Tips to Improve Your Score:

1. Use Evidence: Always back up your points with specific examples from the case study and research on human factors.
2. Link Theory to Practice: Show how human factors theories, like situational awareness or cognitive overload, apply directly to the case study.
3. Be Specific in Your Solutions: When proposing design solutions or training programs, focus on practical, real-world applications.
4. Structure Your Answers Clearly: Make sure each part of the question is clearly addressed, with a logical flow and subheadings where appropriate.

By connecting your analysis to theory and providing clear, practical recommendations, you’ll demonstrate a deeper understanding of human factors and improve your score next time!

Why are we trusted by Singaporean part-time students?

1. Assurance of Academic Success: We are confident in the quality of our work so much so that we offer a 200% money-back guarantee if our work is not of sure-pass quality. This showcases our unwavering commitment to delivering exceptional essays that consistently meet the highest academic standards.
2. Well-Established and Trusted: With a decade of experience in the industry, we have built a strong and reputable presence. Our long-standing track record speaks to our ability to consistently deliver outstanding results. Students can have confidence in our extensive expertise and our proven ability to help bachelor and master’s students excel in their academic pursuits.
3. Valuable Testimonials: We are proud to have received numerous testimonials from hundreds of satisfied students who have benefited from our services. These testimonials serve as a testament to the trust and satisfaction students place in our essay writing service. The positive feedback highlights the quality of our work and the positive impact we have had on our clients’ academic journeys.
4. High Ratings on Google: Our commitment to excellence is reflected in the positive ratings we consistently receive from students. With an impressive 4.6 rating on Google, students can rely on the feedback shared by others who have had successful experiences with our service. These positive reviews further reinforce the trust students can place in the quality of our work and the positive outcomes we deliver.
5. Strict Confidentiality: We prioritize the confidentiality and privacy of our clients. Students can trust that their personal information and engagement with our service will be treated with the utmost confidentiality and security. We never disclose any client details to third parties.

Sample Assignment

We have done well for this piece, but are unfortunately unable to share with you. Why not have us work on a model assignment for you instead? You can know more about the service here.