Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Study on the influencing factors of the flight crew’s TSA based on DEMATEL–ISM method

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Cognition, Technology & Work Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

It is increasingly being recognized that the flight crew’s team situation awareness (TSA) is essential for flight safety. To explore the inherent correlation and hierarchical structure of the flight crew’s TSA, 21 influencing factors were extracted from individuals, flight crew, equipment, environment, management, and task perspectives based on the Delphi Method and flight accident investigation. By absorbing the advantages of Decision Making Trial and Evaluation (DEMATEL) and Interpretive Structure Modeling (ISM), the influencing degree, the influenced degree, the centrality, and the causality of each influencing factor were calculated to find out the key factors and the cause-and-effect relationship; a multi-level hierarchical model was established for analyzing the interaction mechanism of the flight crew’s TSA. The results show: (i) for the formation and maintenance of the flight crew’s TSA, among the 21 influencing factors, task property, safety consciousness, workload, communication, coordination, physiological, and mental state are the most important influencing factors; (ii) the multi-level hierarchical model is divided into five layers and reflects the function pathway. Attention, memory, and safety consciousness are the direct causes of the failure of the flight crew’s TSA. Regulatory policy, safety culture, and training can be considered upon as the deepest and fundamental influencing factors affecting the flight crew’s TSA; (iii) the mutual influencing degree of elements and the cause-and-effect relationship are quantificationally presented to better reveal the inherent correlation. This study provides a workable reference for analyzing the flight crew’s TSA and offers a novel decision-making approach to support better flight safety management by priority actions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ackerman RK (2005) Army intelligence digitizes situational awareness. Signal 59(11):23–26

    Google Scholar 

  • Adams MJ, Tenney YJ, Pew RW (1995) Situation awareness and the cognitive management of complex systems. Hum Factors 37(1):85–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banbury S, Tremblay S (2017) A cognitive approach to situation awareness: theory and application. Routledge, pp 15–16

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Banbury S, Dudfield H, Hoermann HJ, Soll H (2007) FASA: Development and validation of a novel measure to assess the effectiveness of commercial airline pilot situation awareness training. Int J Aviat Psychol 17(2):131–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brennan PA, Holden C, Shaw G, Morris S, Oeppen RS (2020) Leading article: what can we do to improve individual and team situational awareness to benefit patient safety? Brit J Oral Max Surg 58(4):404–408

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cebi S (2013) Determining importance degrees of website design parameters based on interactions and types of websites. Decis Support Syst 54(2):1030–1043

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dragan K, Georges L, Mustafa K (2017) Organization: a new focus on mine safety improvement in a complex operational and business environment. Int J Min Sci Techno 27(4):617–625

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Durso FT, Nickerson RS, Dumais ST, Lewandowsky S, Perfect TJ (2007) Handbook of applied cognition. Wiley, pp 93–95

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Endsley MR (1995b) Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Hum Factor 37(1):32–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Endsley MR (2006) Situation awareness handbook of human factors and ergonomics, 3rd edn. Wiley, pp 528–542

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Endsley MR, Robertson MM (1996) Team situation awareness in aviation maintenance. Proc Hum Factors Ergon Soc Annu Meet 21:1077–1081

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Endsley MR (1995a) A taxonomy of situation awareness errors. human factors in aviation operations. Proceedings of the 21st Conference of the European Association for Aviation Psychology (EAAP) 3(2):287–292

  • Falatoonitoosi E, Z ZL, And SS, Salimi M, (2013) Decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory. Res J Appl Sci Eng Technol 5(13):3476–3480

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flach JM (1995) Situation awareness: proceed with caution. Hum Factors 37(1):149–157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fu B, Liu W, Liu X (2019) Influence of cognitive ability on task performance of dynamic decision making in military vehicles under different task complexity. Cogn Technol Work 21:445–455

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson J, Orasanu J, Villeda E, Nygren TE (1997) Loss of situation awareness- Causes and consequences. The Proceeding of the Eighth International Symposium on Aviation Psychology, Columbus, OH,. pp 1417–1422

  • International Civil Aviation Organization (2020) Effects of novel coronavirus (COVID-19) on civil aviation: economic impact analysis. Montreal, pp 3–5

    Google Scholar 

  • Ivošević J, Bucak T, Andraši P (2018) Effects of interior aircraft noise on pilot performance. Appl Acoust 139:8–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kilingaru K, Tweedale JW, Thatcher S, Jain LC (2013) Monitoring pilot “situation awareness.” J Intell Fuzzy Syst 24(3):457–466

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leveson NG (2011) Applying systems thinking to analyze and learn from events. Saf Sci 49(1):55–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li Y, Hu Y, Zhang X, Deng Y, Mahadevan S (2014) An evidential dematel method to identify critical success factors in emergency management. Appl Soft Comput 22(5):504–510

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li PC, Li XF, Zhang XF, Dai LC, Jin X (2019) A study on team situation awareness errors in digital nuclear power plants. Ind Eng Manag 24(2):183–197

    Google Scholar 

  • Li PC, Wang YX, Chen JH, Luo ZH, Dai LC (2021) An experimental study on the effects of task complexity and knowledge and experience level on SA. TSA and Workload. Nuclear Eng Design 376:111112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liang N, Yang J, Yu D, Prakah-Asante KO (2021) Using eye-tracking to investigate the effects of pre-takeover visual engagement on situation awareness during automated driving. Accid Anal Prev 157(1):106143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lo JC (2013) SA Measuring group situation awareness in a multiactor gaming simulation: a pilot study of railway and passenger traffic operators. Proc Hum Factors Ergon Soc Annu Meet 1:177–181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Looseley A, Hotoura A, Keogh M (2009) Patient safety and the aviation model: medicine is still learning. Int J Risk Saf Med 21(3):131–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marquardt N (2019) The effect of locus of control on organizational learning, situation awareness and safety culture. Nova Science Publishers, pp 157–218

    Google Scholar 

  • McNeese NJ, Cooke NJ, She M (2021) Team situation awareness and conflict: A study of human-machine teaming. J Cogn Eng Decis Mak 1:15553434211017354

    Google Scholar 

  • Mohammadfam I, Mahdinia M, Soltanzadeh A, Aliabadi MM (2021) A path analysis model of individual variables predicting safety behavior and human error: The mediating effect of situation awareness. Int J Ind Ergonom 84(3):103144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nonose K, Kanno T, Furuta K (2010) An evaluation method of team situation awareness based on mutual belief. Cogn Technol Work 12(1):31–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patrick J, James N, Ahmed A, Halliday P (2006) Observational assessment of situation awareness, team differences and training implications. Ergonomics 49(4):393–417

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prince C, Salas E (2000) Team situation awareness, errors, and crew resource management: Research integration for training guidance. Situation awareness analysis and measurement. CRC Press, pp 325–347

    Google Scholar 

  • Prince C, Ellis E, Brannick MT, Salas E (2007) Measurement of team situation awareness in low experience level aviators. Int J Aviat Psychol 17(1):41–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salas E, Prince C, Baker DP, Shrestha L (1995) Situation awareness in team performance: implications for measurement and training. Hum Factors 37(1):123–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salmon PM, Stanton NA, Walker GH, Baber C, Jenkins DP, Mcmaster R, Young MS (2008) What really is going on? Review of situation awareness models for individuals and teams. Theor Issues Ergon Sci 9(4):297–323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salmon PM, Walker GH, Stanton NA (2015) Broken components versus broken systems: why it is systems not people that lose situation awareness. Cogn Technol Work 17(2):179–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salmon PM, Walker GH, Stanton NA (2016) Pilot error versus sociotechnical systems failure: a distributed situation awareness analysis of air france 447. Theor Issues Ergon Sci 17(2):1–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Samima S, Sarma M, Samanta D, Prasad G (2019) Estimation and quantification of vigilance using ERPs and eye blink rate with a fuzzy model-based approach. Cogn Technol Work 21(3):517–533

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seppanen H, Mkel J, Luokkala P, Virrantaus K (2013) Developing shared situational awareness for emergency management. Saf Sci 55(6):1–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shi YS, Huang WF, Tian ZQ (2017) Team situation awareness: the concept, models and measurements. Space Med Eng 30(6):463–468

    Google Scholar 

  • Shu YF, Furuta K (2005) An inference method of team situation awareness based on mutual awareness. Cogn Technol Work 7(4):272–287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith K, Hancock PA (1995) Situation awareness is adaptive, externally directed consciousness. Hum Factors 37(1):137–148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sperling BK (2006) Information distribution and team situational awareness: an experimental study. Proc Hum Factors Ergon Soc Annu Meet 3:477–481

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanton NA, Stewart R, Harris D, Houghton RJ, Baber C (2006) Distributed situation awareness in dynamic systems: theoretical development and application of an ergonomics methodology. Ergonomics 49(12–13):1288–1311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanton NA, Salmon PM, Walker GH, Salas E, Hancock PA (2017) State-of-science: situation awareness in individuals, teams and systems. Ergonomics 60(4):449–466

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trapsilawati F, Herliansyah M, Nugraheni A, Fatikasari M, Tissamodie G (2019) EEG-based analysis of air traffic conflict: Investigating controllers’ situation awareness, stress level and brain activity during conflict resolution. J Nav 73:1–19

    Google Scholar 

  • Vanderhaegen F (2001) Non-probabilistic prospective and retrospective human reliability analysis method - application to railway system. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 71:1–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vanderhaegen F (2021) Heuristic-based method for conflict discovery of shared control between humans and autonomous systems - A driving automation case study. Robot Auto Syst 146:103867

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vanderhaegen F, Zieba S, Enjalbert S, Polet P (2011) A Benefit/Cost/Deficit (BCD) model for learning from human errors. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 96(7):757–766

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vanderhaegen F, Wolff M, Mollard R (2020) Non-conscious errors in the control of dynamic events synchronized with heartbeats: a new challenge for human reliability study. Saf Sci 129(6):1–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Vannucci A, Kras JF (2013) Decision making, situation awareness, and communication skills in the operating room. Int Anesthesiol Clin 51(1):105–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker GH, Stanton NA, Kazi TA, Salmon PM, Jenkins DP (2009) Does advanced driver training improve situational awareness? Appl Ergon 40(4):678–687

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang YQ, Liu CQ, Li M (2019) Experimental study on flight crew’s team situation awareness based on team mutual belief model. Sci Technol Eng 19(13):305–311

    Google Scholar 

  • Wei HY, Zhuang DM, Wanyan XR (2013) An experimental analysis of situation awareness for cockpit display interface evaluation based on flight simulation. Chinese J Aeronaut 26(4):884–889

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiegmann DA, Shappell SA (2017) A human error approach to aviation accident analysis: the human factors analysis and classification system. Routledge, pp 23–34

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Xie KF, Liu ZM (2019) Factors influencing escalator-related incidents in china: a systematic analysis using ism-dematel method. Int J Env Res Pub He 16(4):2478

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yan S, Yao K, Congchi T (2021) Using artificial neural network for predicting and evaluating situation awareness of operator. IEEE Access 99:1–1

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang JZ, Zhang K (2004) Situation awareness: approaches, measures and applications. Adv Psychol Sci 6:842–850

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang PK, Luo F (2017) Influencing factors of runway incursion risk and their interaction mechanism based on DEMATEL–ISM. Tehn Vjesnik Techn Gazette 24(6):1853–2186

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by key scientific research projects of colleges and universities of Henan Province (17A630069); key technology projects for the prevention and control of serious and especially serious accidents in safety production (Henan-0012-2017AQ).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Civil Aviation, Zhengzhou University of Aeronautics, 15 Wenyuan West Road, Zhengdong New District, Zhengzhou, 450046, Henan Province, People’s Republic of China

    Bin Meng, Na Lu, Chen Lin, Yunjing Zhang, Qingmin Si & Jinsong Zhang

Authors
  1. Bin Meng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Na Lu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Chen Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yunjing Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Qingmin Si
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jinsong Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bin Meng.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 78 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Meng, B., Lu, N., Lin, C. et al. Study on the influencing factors of the flight crew’s TSA based on DEMATEL–ISM method. Cogn Tech Work 24, 275–289 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-021-00688-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-021-00688-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation