|
|
OR/MS Today, August 1997 When it Comes to Air Travel
There's |
By Kathleen L. McFaddenOR/MS Models can be used to expand our knowledge of factors in airline safety and form the basis for setting national and international policies Many of us have traveled on an airliner at some point in our lives, possibly to attend an INFORMS conference or to reach an exciting vacation destination. But studies show that the majority of passengers aboard flights are not relaxed, but instead are quite afraid of flying. This may be partially explained by the fact that airline crashes, although rare, receive a lot of media coverage. So one might ask, "What are my odds of being killed in an airline accident?" Arnold Barnett, an aviation safety expert at MIT, has found that the current risk per scheduled U.S. domestic flight is about 1 in 7 million [1]. In other words, if you picked one flight at random each day, it would take you 19,000 years before your number was up. These odds sound comforting unless you or your loved one happen to be one of the unfortunate statistics. Many individuals in both the public and private sector
continually work to improve airline safety. For example, the
operations research department of the Federal Aviation
Administration was established in 1988. More recently, a
Center for Excellence in Operations Research was formed to
address various aviation safety issues. While regulations
and strategies are already in place to support the effort of
reducing the risk of aviation accidents and incidents, many
more are likely in the future. One major recommendation of
the air safety commission headed by Vice President Al Gore
was to strive to achieve a five-fold reduction in airline
accidents over the next 10 years. The role of academicians
in this process is to conduct safety-related research and
generate safety recommendations to help prevent future
aviation accidents and incidents. Researchers routinely
analyze accident and incident data and use the information
to build practical tools that are useful in solving aviation
safety problems. Factors that influence pilot error accidents and incidents can be broken down into two major categories as depicted in Figure 1: those that are individual (internal to the pilot) and those that are situational (external to the pilot). ![]() In the past most researchers have relied on only
rudimentary statistical methods in analyzing accident and
incident data. Recently, researchers have begun to see the
potential of OR/MS techniques in contributing to the
solutions of aviation safety problems. Advanced modeling
offers a richer, more comprehensive approach to addressing
aviation safety concerns. The new thrust is to expand the
range of models and statistical tools that are used to
analyze safety data. My research has applied OR/MS modeling
techniques and has focused on the individual factors
associated with pilot error accidents and incidents,
specifically gender and medical (alcohol misuse).
Policy-relevant aviation research coupled with the use of
advanced modeling, as opposed to rudimentary statistical
methodologies, can provide the information needed to have an
impact on the decision-making process. My intent is to
illustrate this point using examples. To address possible gender differences in pilot flying performance, I first used contingency table analysis. With this simple approach, I found that female airline pilots were significantly more likely to have aviation accidents than their male counterparts. After exploring the data further, I discovered that female airline pilots, on average, were less experienced and much younger than males. Studies of the effect of age on pilot error accidents have demonstrated that accident rates decrease with age, but may level off for older pilots. Accident rates also tend to decrease as experience (measured by total flying hours) increases. Therefore, it was important to use a more sophisticated modeling technique that could address the issue of confounding of factor effects. Since males were older and more experienced, this explained their lower accident rates. The differences in age and experience levels of males and females were due to the fact that females have only recently entered the airline pilot profession in any significant number. After adjusting for variables in a logistic regression model, accident rates of male and female airline pilots were not significantly different [2]. These findings suggest that airlines should recruit and retain experienced pilots regardless of gender. It also cautions against affirmative action programs that lower the flying standard for females in order to increase the number of female airline pilots. More research could be done in this area using OR/MS models. For instance, it may be worthwhile to analyze other measures of flying performance for gender differences. Incidents, pilot deviations and simulator check-ride performance errors occur with greater frequency than accidents and may provide higher statistical power. Future studies might also compare the flying performance of those pilots trained in the military versus those trained through the civilian ranks. As OR/MS professionals, it may seem somewhat obvious that
important factors should be adjusted for in a model.
However, some prior aviation safety researchers have based
their conclusions on simple statistical tests that may
provide misleading results. As an example, one published
gender study in aviation [3] was criticized because it used
a simple approach that failed to control for recent flying
hours, a measure of exposure of pilots to risk. The theory
behind adjusting for risk exposure is that pilots who fly
more frequently may be exposed to a greater risk of being
involved in an accident. The study reported that females
flying in general aviation (private flying) had
significantly lower accident rates than males, and were a
safer pilot group. But, if males had more recent flight
time, this could explain their higher accident rates. More
advanced modeling techniques should be applied to the data
in general aviation to confirm prior findings of gender
differences. The FAA may suspend or revoke a pilot's certificate or rating if the pilot has two or more DWI convictions within a three-year period. The FAA verifies DWI information on pilots by querying the National Driver Register. Information in the NDR was unreliable prior to 1986. Therefore, the scope of my study was limited to the years 1986-1992. I found that the vast majority of airline pilots (97.55 percent) had neither flying accidents nor DWI convictions over the seven-year period. However, 1,372 pilots had DWI convictions, 1.96 percent of the airline pilot population. Table 1 compares the number of pilot-error accidents for pilots with no DWI, one DWI and two or more DWI convictions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
To address the association between DWI convictions and pilot flying performance, I applied loglinear modeling techniques. The primary advantage of this approach was that it allowed me to access multiple factors simultaneously (age, experience, gender, risk exposure and major/non-major airline employment) and to partition the contribution to variance of DWI over and above the contribution of the other factors. The results showed that DWI was significant even after adjusting for important factors. The presence of even one DWI conviction was associated with a doubling of the risk of pilot-error accidents. The presence of two or more DWIs almost quadrupled that likelihood. In contrast, my study found no evidence to support the concept of using random preflight alcohol testing as a method for preventing airline accidents. The findings suggest that cost-effectiveness and increased airline safety could be realized by improving the DWI program and reducing expenditures on random alcohol testing. I presented recommendations for policy improvements to
both the FAA and the NTSB based on these findings. They were
also made part of the public docket on the alcohol testing
rule. My first recommendation was that the FAA continue to
penalize pilots with two or more DWI convictions but use the
first DWI as a trigger to identify and assist the
potentially risky pilot. My second recommendation was to
reduce the current random alcohol testing sampling rate
based on these findings. This twofold strategy could result
in greater improvements in aviation safety and reduced
overall costs.
Barry Valentine, the former acting FAA administrator, has
stated that the FAA, "is committed to continually working to
make the safest air transportation system in the world even
more safe." Researchers are also committed to keeping one
step ahead of change in this dynamic world of aviation, and
OR/MS models may well be the key to achieving this goal. OR/MS models can be used to expand our knowledge of factors in airline safety and form the basis for setting new, important national and international policies. As we become more involved in aviation safety issues, a broader range of alternative and more sophisticated modeling techniques can be applied to aviation safety research which in turn will improve the safety of our nation's air transportation system. REFERENCES1. Barnett, A., "Aviation Safety, Another
Decade," Presentation at Informs San Diego, May, 1997.
Kathleen L. McFadden, Ph.D., is an assistant professor of Operations Management at Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, Ill. For more information, put the number 3 in the appropriate space on the Reader Service Form |
|
|
OR/MS Today Resources: OR/MS Today Home Page | Current Issue | Search Resource Directory | Classifieds | Past Issues | Software Surveys | Subscriptions | Reprints | Advertising | Links E-mail to the Editorial Department of OR/MS Today: Lionheart Site Resources: Lionheart's Home Page | What's New | Site Index | Newsroom | Contact Online Sponsors | Visitor Survey Other Publications: APICS The Performance Advantage BDO Seidman, LLPComprehensive Guide to Manufacturing Software Intelligent Manufacturing | Intelligent Systems Report Subject Areas: Manufacturing & Resource Planning Operations Research and Management Science | Intelligent Systems | Lionheart's Publishing Services OR/MS Today Copyright © 2020 by the Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences. All rights reserved. Lionheart Publishing, Inc. 2555 Cumberland Parkway, Suite 299, Atlanta, GA 30339 USA Phone: +44 23 8110 3411 | e-mail: | URL: |