Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University

Error of commission: prominence and remediation challenges

This type of error embodies the subject “Human Factors” for the simple reason that while a machine can be programmed to churn out same response in a certain scenario with same conditions, a human will bring other variables into the equation, notably, STRESS. 

From my experience, solutions to the other four types of errors are to the most part generic or entrenched and trained quite effectively, error of commission has consistently reared its ugly head in the aviation/aerospace sector in a multi faceted manner requiring specific remediation. 

Evidently, Reliable and unreliable warning cues in the sustained attention to response task, a scholarly research involving eighteen participants published results showing probability of common errors – Commission, Omission and timing. Helton et al. (2011) found that with no warning, warning and unreliable warning variables, the overall number of errors of omission was on average 1.8% of total errors possible, the overall number of errors of commission was on average 38.5% of total errors possible while timing errors where almost entirely eliminated with reliable warning (prompting). 

While technology through human centered design of airports, navigation charts, flightdeck displays, Radar monitoring and standardization of phraseology has vastly improved remediation and reduced recurrence of all the types of errors, error of commission remains the most resistant to minimization.

References

Guastello, S. J. (2014). Human Factors Engineering And Ergonomics, A Systems Approach. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press

Helton, W. S., Head, J., & Russell, P. N. (2011). Reliable- and unreliable-warning cues in the sustained attention to response task. Experimental Brain Research 209(3),4017. doi: http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/10.1007/s00221-011-2563-9  
Weick, K. E. (1990). The vulnerable system: An analysis of the tenerife air disaster. Journal of Management, 16(3), 571-593. doi:10.1177/014920639001600304

Leave A Comment