The Utility of the Checklist of Individual Strength in Assessing Maintenance Errors within the Royal Australian Naval Aircraft Maintenance Workforce

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "The Utility of the Checklist of Individual Strength in Assessing Maintenance Errors within the Royal Australian Naval Aircraft Maintenance Workforce"

Erica Brown
5 years ago
Views:

1 The Utility of the Checklist of Individual Strength in Assessing Maintenance Errors within the Royal Australian Naval Aircraft Maintenance Workforce Robert ForsterLee Headquarters Fleet Air Arm

2 Vagaries of Fatigue Fatigue, also known as weariness, tiredness, exhaustion, or lethargy, is generally defined as a feeling of lack of energy. Fatigue is not the same as drowsiness, but the desire to sleep may accompany fatigue. Apathy is a feeling of indifference that may accompany fatigue or exist independently. ( A person suffering from fatigue has slowed reflexes and reduced function in daily life. Excessive tiredness is also a known risk factor in motor vehicle and workplace accidents. ( pendocument)

Fatigue & Cognitive Performance In both the commercial and Defence aviation

mishaps found to involve fatigue (Johnston, 2005).

relationship between fatigue and decreased cognitive performance.

3 Fatigue & Cognitive Performance In both the commercial and Defence aviation environments, fatigue is a recognised hazard with up to 25 percent of military mishaps found to involve fatigue (Johnston, 2005). Dawson and McCullough (2004) highlight that the literature consistently support the relationship between fatigue and decreased cognitive performance. Five cognitive ability dimensions have been identified from an analysis of 62 studies of sleep and/or decision making (Petrilli, Lamond, Roach, & Dawson, 2005).

4 Affected Cognitive Areas (Petrilli et al., 2005) Situation Assessment Memory FATIGUE Mental Simulation Ability Performance Insight Controlling Emotion

a procedure were completed was forgotten A task was not signed off on A tool or some other item was left in an aircraft A part was incorrectly

5 10 Common RAN Maintenance Errors A step(s) was missed in a maintenance task Work was resumed at the wrong place when returning to a task after an interruption A component was lost part-way through a job A fault was not detected when completing a visual inspection The final check that all steps in a procedure were completed was forgotten A task was not signed off on A tool or some other item was left in an aircraft A part was incorrectly installed A part was left over after a job was completed A task was difficult because there was a misunderstanding concerning how a particular aircraft system worked

6 Maintenance Errors Cognitive Deficits

7 Fatigue at Work The Maastricht Cohort study has produced over 60 International publications on fatigue between Conceptualise fatigue as a continuum comprising Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioural dimensions experienced as a subjective sensation. Checklist of Individual Strength used as the main measure of fatigue.

8 The CIS Questionnaire The Checklist Individual Strength 20-item, seven point Likert-type scale Assesses fatigue levels within the past 2 weeks (Bultmann et al., 2000). A Total CIS Score and 4 subscales: Subjective feelings of fatigue (items 1, 4, 6, 9, 12, 14, 16, 20), Concentration (items 3, 8, 11, 13, 19), Motivation (items 2, 5, 15, 18), and Physical Activity (items 7, 10, 17) Developed to measure chronic fatigue by Vercoulen et al. (1994) Aratake et al. (2007), Bultmann et al. (2000), and Makowiec- Dabrowska & Koszada-Włodarczyk (2006) have demonstrated the scale s applicability for assessing fatigue among the working populations across a number of cultures CIS total scale Cronbach s α =.91,.90, and.91, respectively.

9 Relationship of Cognitive Ability to CIS

10 RAN Safety Survey Results 2008 Sample: Participants were 281 Royal Australian Navy Maintainers based in the various Squadrons (SQNs) at HMAS Albatross in Nowra NSW. Paper & Pencil surveys were completed as part of an annual Safety Stand Down Programme focusing on general and specific aviation safety issues. The 20-item CIS produced a Cronbach s α =.92 Subjective Fatigue α =.88 Concentration α =.77 Motivation α =.65 Physical Activity α =.74.

11 Preliminary Results: Civilian v RAN Civilian Sample RAN Sample White Collar n = 94 Blue Collar n = 42 Aircrews n = 108 Maintainers n = 282 Subjective Fatigue Concentration Motivation Physical CIS-20R Total Score

Group Differences: High v Low Fatigue A fault was not detected when completing a visual inspection The final check that all steps in a procedure were completed was forgotten A part was incorrectly

12 Group Differences: High v Low Fatigue A fault was not detected when completing a visual inspection The final check that all steps in a procedure were completed was forgotten A part was incorrectly installed High (M = 3.88, SD = 1.32) Low (M = 2.69, SD = 1.42) (F(1, 278) = 7.77, p =.006, η 2 =.027). Low (M = 2.07, SD = 1.36), High (M = 2.62, SD = 1.74) (F(1, 278) = 3.62, p =.058, η 2 =.013). High (M = 2.85, SD = 1.43) Low (M = 2.17, SD = 1.24) (F(1, 278) = 6.86, p =.009, η 2 =.024).

13 Correlation of CIS Scales & Error Rates

Regression Results A step(s) was missed in a maintenance task Work was resumed at the wrong place when returning to a task after an interruption A component was lost part-way through a job A fault

14 Regression Results A step(s) was missed in a maintenance task Work was resumed at the wrong place when returning to a task after an interruption A component was lost part-way through a job A fault was not detected when completing a visual inspection The final check that all steps in a procedure were completed was forgotten A task was not signed off on A tool or some other item was left in an aircraft A part was incorrectly installed A part was left over after a job was completed A task was difficult because there was a misunderstanding concerning how a particular aircraft system worked (F(2, 277) = 3.49, p <.05, R =.157) (F(2, 277) = 7.31, p <.001, R =.224) (F(1, 278) = 8.67, p <.01, R =.174) (F(1, 278) = 9.53, p <.01, R =.182) NS (F(2, 277) = 3.87, p <.05, R =.165) NS (F(2, 277) = 9.80, p <.001, R =.257) NS (F(2, 277) = 679, p <.001, R =.216)

15 Significant Regression Coefficients β

use of High & Low Fatigue groups demonstrates differences in the

16 Basic Implications The Checklist of Individual Strength (CIS-20R) yields similar results in Civilian and RAN Fleet Air Arm members The use of High & Low Fatigue groups demonstrates differences in the rates of errors types involving Visual Inspection Task Performance Memory

17 Deeper Analyses Assessing a range of Fatigue dimensions with the CIS-20R yielded 2 subscales, along with the overall score that contribute to the prediction of 7/10 error rates: Concentration Motivation Total CIS Score Fatigue is not just a unidimensional factor that impacts performance.

18 Final Thoughts & Questions? Cognitive abilities are impacted differentially by the domains of fatigue as reflected in the error rates of tasks. Current practices knock it off may need to be revised to include awareness of non physical indicators of fatigue.

Updates to CAO Robert Forsterlee, CASA PACDEFF 7 Nov 2018

Updates to CAO Robert Forsterlee, CASA PACDEFF 7 Nov 2018 Updates to CAO 48.1 Robert Forsterlee, CASA PACDEFF 7 Nov 2018 Recent 48.1 Timeline July 2018. 21 March to 22 April 2018 October 2018 March 2018. Future The independent review team, assembled by Dédale