The effects of digitalization on human factors, safety, and decision making in aviation operations: A systematic review

Abstract

The growing use of automation, digital interfaces, data-driven decision-support systems, and artificial intelligence has significantly transformed aviation operations and reshaped human–machine interaction. Although digitalization is often associated with efficiency, standardization, and error reduction, its effects on human performance, decision-making, and safety are not one-dimensional. In some contexts, digital systems support operators and improve operational reliability, while in others they may reduce active human involvement, weaken situational awareness, and increase overreliance. This study systematically reviews the literature on the effects of digitalization on human factors, safety, and decision-making in aviation operations. The review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA 2020 framework. A total of 485 records were identified through Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar, and 25 studies were included in the final analysis after a multi-stage screening process. The selected studies were examined through a theoretically guided narrative synthesis, focusing on workload, situational awareness, trust in automation, decision-support systems, and safety-related outcomes. The findings show that digitalization has a dual and context-dependent impact on human performance. While digital systems can reduce workload, improve decision speed, and increase consistency in routine tasks, they may also create new risks in highly automated environments. Recent post-2018 studies further indicate a shift from classical automation toward AI-enabled and data-driven systems, where model transparency, data quality, explainability, trust calibration, and organizational oversight have become central concerns. Overall, digitalization alone does not guarantee safer aviation operations; safety depends on the balanced integration of human, technological, and organizational elements.

Keywords

• Automation
• Decision Support Systems
• Human–Machine Interaction
• Operational Safety
• Situational Awareness

Havacılık operasyonlarında dijitalleşmenin insan faktörleri, emniyet ve karar verme üzerindeki etkileri: Sistematik bir inceleme

Abstract

Otomasyon sistemleri, dijital arayüzler, veri odaklı karar destek sistemleri ve yapay zekâ uygulamaları, havacılık operasyonlarının yürütülme biçimini önemli ölçüde dönüştürmüş ve insan–makine etkileşimini yeniden şekillendirmiştir. Dijitalleşme çoğu zaman verimlilik, standartlaşma ve hata azaltma ile ilişkilendirilse de insan performansı, karar verme süreçleri ve emniyet üzerindeki etkileri tek boyutlu değildir. Bazı durumlarda dijital sistemler operatörleri destekleyerek operasyonel güvenilirliği artırırken, bazı durumlarda insanın aktif katılımını azaltabilmekte, durumsal farkındalığı zayıflatabilmekte ve aşırı güven riskini artırabilmektedir. Bu çalışma, havacılık operasyonlarında dijitalleşmenin insan faktörleri, emniyet ve karar verme süreçleri üzerindeki etkilerini sistematik biçimde incelemektedir. İnceleme, PRISMA 2020 çerçevesi doğrultusunda yürütülmüştür. Scopus, Web of Science ve Google Scholar veri tabanlarından toplam 485 kayıt belirlenmiş; çok aşamalı eleme sürecinin ardından 25 çalışma nihai analize dâhil edilmiştir. Seçilen çalışmalar; iş yükü, durumsal farkındalık, otomasyona güven, karar destek sistemleri ve emniyetle ilişkili sonuçlar çerçevesinde kuramsal olarak yönlendirilmiş anlatısal sentez yaklaşımıyla değerlendirilmiştir. Bulgular, dijitalleşmenin insan performansı üzerinde çift yönlü ve bağlama bağlı bir etki yarattığını göstermektedir. Dijital sistemler rutin görevlerde iş yükünü azaltabilir, karar verme hızını artırabilir ve tutarlılığı güçlendirebilirken, yüksek otomasyon düzeylerinde yeni riskler oluşturabilmektedir. Ayrıca 2018 sonrası çalışmalar, tartışmanın klasik otomasyon yaklaşımından yapay zekâ destekli ve veri odaklı sistemlere kaydığını; model şeffaflığı, veri kalitesi, açıklanabilirlik, güven kalibrasyonu ve örgütsel gözetimin öne çıktığını göstermektedir. Genel olarak dijitalleşme tek başına daha emniyetli operasyonları garanti etmemekte; emniyet, insan, teknoloji ve organizasyonel unsurların dengeli bütünleşmesine bağlı olarak ortaya çıkmaktadır.

Keywords

• Durumsal Farkındalık
• Emniyet
• İnsan Makine Etkileşimi
• Karar Destek Sistemleri
• Otomasyon

References

1. Billings, C. E. (1997). Aviation automation: The search for a human-centered approach. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
2. Degas, A., Islam, M. R., Hurter, C., Barua, S., Rahman, H., Poudel, M., Ruscio, D., Ahmed, M. U., Begum, S., Rahman, M. A., Bonelli, S., Cartocci, G., Di Flumeri, G., Borghini, G., Babiloni, F., & Aricò, P. (2022). A survey on artificial intelligence (AI) and explainable AI in air traffic management: Current trends and development with future research trajectory. Applied Sciences, 12(3), 1295. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12031295
3. Dekker, S. W. A. (2014). The field guide to understanding “human error” (3rd ed.). Ashgate.
4. Demir, G., Moslem, S., & Duleba, S. (2024). Artificial intelligence in aviation safety: Systematic review and biometric analysis. International Journal of Computational Intelligence Systems, 17, 279. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44196-024-00671-w
5. Dzindolet, M. T., Peterson, S. A., Pomranky, R. A., Pierce, L. G., & Beck, H. P. (2003). The role of trust in automation. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 58(6), 697–718. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1071-5819(03)00038-7
6. Endsley, M. R. (1995). Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Human Factors, 37(1), 32–64. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872095779049543
7. Endsley, M. R. (2017). From here to autonomy: Lessons learned from human–automation research. Human Factors, 59(1), 5–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720816681350
8. Endsley, M. R., & Kiris, E. O. (1995). The out-of-the-loop performance problem and level of control in automation. Human Factors, 37(2), 381–394. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872095779049516

9. European Union Aviation Safety Agency. (2023). Artificial intelligence roadmap 2.0: A human-centric approach to AI in aviation. https://www.easa.europa.eu/en/document-library/general-publications/easa-artificial-intelligence-roadmap-20
10. Esposito, M., Lazoi, M., Margarito, A., & Quarta, L. (2019). Innovating the maintenance repair and overhaul phase through digitalization. Aerospace, 6(5), 53. https://doi.org/10.3390/aerospace6050053
11. Flin, R., O’Connor, P., & Crichton, M. (2008). Safety at the sharp end: A guide to non-technical skills. Ashgate.
12. Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x
13. Hancock, P. A., & Parasuraman, R. (1992). Human factors and safety in the design of intelligent vehicle-highway systems (IVHS). Journal of Safety Research, 23(4), 181–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-4375(92)90001-P
14. Helmreich, R. L., & Merritt, A. C. (1998). Culture at work in aviation and medicine: National, organizational and professional influences. Ashgate.
15. Hoff, K. A., & Bashir, M. (2015). Trust in automation: Integrating empirical evidence on factors that influence trust. Human Factors, 57(3), 407–434. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720814547570
16. Hollnagel, E. (2014). Safety-I and Safety-II: The past and future of safety management. Ashgate.
17. Kaber, D. B., & Endsley, M. R. (2004). The effects of level of automation and adaptive automation on human performance, situation awareness and workload in a dynamic control task. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 5(2), 113–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/1463922021000054335
18. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
19. Latorella, K. A., & Prabhu, P. V. (2000). A review of human error in aviation maintenance and inspection. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 26(2), 133–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-8141(99)00063-3
20. Kirwan, B. (2025). Human factors requirements for human-AI teaming in aviation. Future Transportation, 5(2), 42. https://doi.org/10.3390/futuretransp5020042
21. Lee, J. D., & See, K. A. (2004). Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human Factors, 46(1), 50–80. https://doi.org/10.1518/hfes.46.1.50_30392
22. Leveson, N. (2011). Engineering a safer world: Systems thinking applied to safety. MIT Press.
23. Madeira, T., Melício, R., Valério, D., & Santos, L. (2021). Machine learning and natural language processing for prediction of human factors in aviation incident reports. Aerospace, 8(2), 47. https://doi.org/10.3390/aerospace8020047
24. Nanyonga, A., Wasswa, H., Joiner, K., Turhan, U., & Wild, G. (2025). Explainable supervised learning models for aviation predictions in Australia. Aerospace, 12(3), 223. https://doi.org/10.3390/aerospace12030223
25. Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., et al. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, Article n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
26. Parasuraman, R., & Riley, V. (1997). Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Human Factors, 39(2), 230–253. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872097778543886
27. Parasuraman, R., Sheridan, T. B., & Wickens, C. D. (2008). Situation awareness, mental workload, and trust in automation: Viable, empirically supported cognitive engineering constructs. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 2(2), 140–160. https://doi.org/10.1518/155534308X284417
28. Reason, J. (2000). Human error: Models and management. BMJ, 320(7237), 768–770. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.320.7237.768
29. Salas, E., Maurino, D., & Curtis, M. (2010). Human factors in aviation: An overview. In E. Salas & D. Maurino (Eds.), Human factors in aviation (2nd ed., pp. 3–19). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-374518-7.00001-8
30. Salas, E., Reyes, D. L., & McDaniel, S. H. (2018). The science of teamwork: Progress, reflections, and the road ahead. American Psychologist, 73(4), 593–600. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000334
31. Shappell, S. A., & Wiegmann, D. A. (2000). The human factors analysis and classification system—HFACS (DOT/FAA/AM-00/7). Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Aviation Medicine. https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/15397
32. Stanton, N. A., Salmon, P. M., Walker, G. H., & Jenkins, D. P. (2010). Cognitive work analysis: Applications, extensions and future directions. Ashgate.
33. Wickens, C. D., Hollands, J. G., Banbury, S., & Parasuraman, R. (2015). Engineering psychology and human performance (4th ed.). Psychology Press.
34. Wiegmann, D. A., & Shappell, S. A. (2003). A human error approach to aviation accident analysis: The human factors analysis and classification system. Ashgate.
35. Young, M. S., Brookhuis, K. A., Wickens, C. D., & Hancock, P. A. (2015). State of science: Mental workload in ergonomics. Ergonomics, 58(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2014.956151