Using STPA in the Evaluation of Fighter Pilots Training Programs

Plioutsias, Anastasios; Karanikas, Nektarios

dc.contributor.author	Plioutsias, Anastasios
dc.contributor.author	Karanikas, Nektarios
dc.date.accessioned	2021-09-10T01:04:16Z
dc.date.available	2021-09-10T01:04:16Z
dc.identifier.issn	18777058	el
dc.identifier.uri	https://dspace.lib.ntua.gr/xmlui/handle/123456789/53828
dc.identifier.uri	http://dx.doi.org/10.26240/heal.ntua.21526
dc.rights	Default License
dc.subject	Fighter Aircraft, Flight Training, Risk Management, STPA	en
dc.title	Using STPA in the Evaluation of Fighter Pilots Training Programs	en
heal.type	journalArticle
heal.classification	Safety	el
heal.contributorName	Plioutsias, Anastasios
heal.contributorName	Karanikas, Nektarios
heal.language	en
heal.access	free
heal.recordProvider	ntua	el
heal.publicationDate	2015-12-11
heal.bibliographicCitation	Plioutsias, A., & Karanikas, N. (2015). Using STPA in the Evaluation of Fighter Pilots Training Programs. Procedia Engineering, 128, 25-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2015.11.501	el
heal.abstract	This paper presents how the application of the STPA method might support the evaluation of fighter pilots training programs and trigger procedural and technological changes. We applied the STPA method by considering the safety constraints documented in the Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) of a South European Air Force and regard a flight of two F-16 aircraft formation. In this context, we derived the control actions and feedback mechanisms that are available to the leader pilot during an Aircraft Combat Maneuver (ACM) mission, and we developed the control flow diagram based on the aircraft manuals. We compared the results of each analysis step with the respective flight training program, which is based on a mixed skill and rule-based decision-making, and we examined the role of the feedback mechanisms during multiple safety constraints violations. The analysis showed that: the flight training program under study does not structurally include cases of infringement of multiple safety constraints; the maintenance of some safety constraints are not supported by alerts, or rely on only one human sense; the existing procedures do not refer to the prioritization of pilot actions in cases of violation of multiple safety constraints; operation manuals do not address the cases of possible human performance deterioration when simultaneous information from feedback mechanisms is received. The results demonstrated the benefits of the STPA method, the application of which uncovered various inadequacies in the flight training program studied, some of them related to the F-16 cockpit ergonomics. The analysis lead to recommendations in regard to the amendment of the corresponding fighter pilots training program, and the conduction of further research regarding the aircraft–pilot interaction when multiple safety constraints are violated. The approach presented in this paper can be also followed for the (re)evaluation of flight training schemes in military, civil and general aviation, as well by any human-machine interface intensive domain.	en
heal.publisher	Elsevier Ltd	el
heal.journalName	Procedia Engineering	el
heal.journalType	peer-reviewed
heal.fullTextAvailability	false
dc.identifier.doi	10.1016/j.proeng.2015.11.501	el