In the aviation industry, safety management has moved away from capturing frontline failures toward the management of systemic conditions through organizational safety management systems (SMS). However, subjective differences can influence the classification of active failures and their associated systemic precursors. With levels of professional experience known to influence safety attitudes, the present research examines whether experience levels among airline pilots had an impact on the classification of causal factors using the Human Factors Analysis and Classification System (HFACS). Differences in the paths of association between categories were evaluated in an open-system context.
Pilots working in a large, international airline were categorized into high (≥10,000 total flight hours) and low (<10,000 h) experience groups and asked to classify aircraft accident causal factors using the HFACS framework. One-way ANOVA tests were carried out to determine experience effects on the utilization of the HFACS categories, and chi-squared analyses were used to assess the strength of association between different categories within the framework.
Results from 144 valid responses revealed differences in the attribution of human factors conditions. The high experience group was more inclined to attribute deficiencies to high-level precursors and found fewer paths of associations between different categories. In contrast, the low experience group presented a greater number of associations and was comparatively more affected by stress and uncertainty conditions.
The results confirm that the classification of safety factors can be influenced by professional experience, with hierarchical power distance impacting the attribution of failures to higher-level organizational faults. Different paths of association between the two groups also suggest that safety interventions can be targeted through different entry points. Where multiple latent conditions are associated, the selection of safety interventions should be made with consideration of the concerns, influences, and actions across the entire system. Higher-level anthropological interventions can change the interactive interfaces affecting concerns, influences, and actions across all levels, whereas frontline-level functional interventions are more efficient for failures linked to many precursor categories.