Examination of Human Factors in Civilian Unmanned Aerial Vehicles Accidents with PEAR Model: United Kingdom Sample

Year 2025, Volume: 9 Issue: 3, 751 - 767, 19.10.2025

Ramazan Çoban

https://doi.org/10.30518/jav.1751655

Abstract

This research primarily aims to examine the human factors that cause accidents involving civilian UAVs using a qualitative research method within the framework of the PEAR model. Examining the consequences of UAV accidents constitutes a secondary aim of this research. The research was conducted using a phenomenological design, a qualitative research design. The research sample was determined using purposive sampling and the saturation point method. The study sample consisted of 85 UAV accidents that occurred in different locations and while performing different tasks in the United Kingdom between 2015 and 2025. Accident reports were examined using document review to collect data. The obtained data were subjected to content analysis using a descriptive approach within the framework of the PEAR model. Five themes emerged from the content analysis. These themes are: People-related factors, Environment-related factors, Action-related factors, Resource-related factors, and Consequences of UAV Accidents. Research findings indicate that resource-related factors (mostly technical issues) account for 39% of UAV accidents, environmental factors (mostly physical environment) for 26%, action-related factors for 22%, and human-related factors for 13%. Both actions and human-related factors are directly related to the behaviours, skills decisions, and attitudes of UAV pilots and flight crew. In this context, it can be concluded that the sum of these two factors (35%) accounts for human factors in UAV accidents. While UAVs have mostly sustained material damage as a result of these accidents, in some cases, a small number of people in the vicinity were slightly injured, and vehicles were partially damaged.

Keywords

Unmanned aerial vehicles , UAV accidents , Human Factors , PEAR model in aviation , Drone accidents

References

• Akyürek, İ., and Eraslan, E. (2024). İnsansız hava araçlarında insan hatasının etkilerinin sistematik analizi ve sınıflandırılması-İHA tasarımı ve ergonomi. Researcher, 4(2), 157-165.
• Albihn, J. (2022). Human factors in aerial drone operations. Master Thesis, Lund University School of Aviation Faculty of Engineering.
• Asim, M., Ehsan, N., and Rafique, K. (2010). Probable causal factors in UAV accidents based on human factor analysis and classification system. 27th International Congress of The Aeronautical Sciences.
• Avellar, G.S., Pereira, G.A. Pimenta, L.C., and Iscold, P. (2015). Multi-UAV routing for area coverage and remote sensing with minimum time. Sensors, 15(11), 27783-27803.
• Bell, B.G., and Cooke, N.J. (2003). Cognitive ability correlates of performance on a team task. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 47th Annual Meeting, pp.1087-1091, Denver, CO: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
• Çoban R., and Bahar İ. (2018). Havacılık sektöründe yabani hayatı yönetim üzerine Hamid Karzai Uluslararası Havalimanında (Kabil-Afganistan) bir araştırma. Journal of Aviation, 2(2), 87-104.
• Çoban, R. (2022). Askeri hava aracı kazalarında insan faktörü kavramı üzerine nitel bir araştırma. In: Harmanşah, C. and Hava, H.T., Eds., Havacılık teknolojileri ve uygulamaları kitabı, İzmir, Ege Üniversitesi Yayınları, 39-91.
• Çoban, R., and Aydoğdu, T. (2020). Havacılık sektöründe zaman baskısının teknostrese etkisi: Uçak bakım teknisyenleri üzerine bir araştırma. İşletme Araştırmaları Dergisi, 12(3), 2442-2460.
• Creswell, J.W. (2017). Araştırma deseni nitel, nicel ve karma yöntem yaklaşımları [Research design qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approches]. (Demir, S. B. Çev.) 3. Baskı, Ankara, Eğitilen Kitap Yayın Organizasyon.
• Cummings, M.L., Mastracchio, C., Thornburg, K.M., and Mkrtchyan, A. (2013). Boredom and distraction in multiple unmanned vehicle supervisory control. Interacting with Computers, 25(1), 34-47.
• Dekker, S.W.A. (2003). Human factors in aviation - A natural history. Technical Report 2003-02.
• Doğan, N. (2009). İş etiği ve işletmelerde etik çöküş. Sosyal Ekonomik Araştırmalar Dergisi, 16, 179-200.
• Dönmez, K., and Suat, U. (2018). The relationship between flight operations and organizations in aircraft accidents; The application of the human factor analysis and classification system. Anadolu University Journal of Science and Technology A-Applied Sciences and Engineering, 19(2), 316-333.
• Dorling, K., Heinrichs, J., Messier, G.G., and Magierowski., S. (2016). Vehicle routing problems for drone delivery. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems, 47(1), 70-85.
• Dupont, G. (1997). The dirty dozen errors in aviation maintenance. In meeting proceedings of 11th Federal Aviation Administration Meeting on Human Factors Issues in Aircraft Maintenance and Inspection: Human Error in Aviation Maintenance (pp. 45-49). Washington, D.C.: Federal Aviation Administration/Office of Aviation Medicine.
• EASA, (2015). Modüle 9, for level B-1 and B-2 certification, human factors. Aviation Maintenance Technician Certification Series.
• Ergai, A. (2013). Assessment of the human factors analysis and classification system (HFACS): Intra-rater and inter-rater reliability. Doctoral Dissertation, Clemson University, South Carolina.
• FAA, (2015). Operation and certification of small unmanned aircraft systems: Notice of proposed rulemaking (Docket No. FAA-2015-0150; Notice No. 15-01). Washington, DC: Author.
• FAA, (2018). Federal Aviation Administration. Aviation maintenance technician handbook-general.
• Fontaine, O., Martinetti, A., and Michaelides-Mateou, S. (2016). Remote pilot aircraft system (RPAS): Just culture, human factors, and learned lessons. Chemical Engineering Transactions, 53, 205-210.
• Genç, Y.M., and Erciyes, E. (2020). İnsansız hava araçları (İHA) tehditleri ve güvenlik yönetimi. Türkiye İnsansız Hava Araçları Dergisi, 2(2), 36-42.
• Giones, F., and Brem, A. (2017). From toys to tools: The co-evolution of technological and entrepreneurial developments in the drone industry. Business Horizons, 60(6), 875-884.
• Grindley, B., Parnell, K.J. Cherett, T., Scanlan, J., and Plant, K.L. (2024). Understanding the human factors challenge of handover between levels of automation for uncrewed air systems: A systematic literature review. Transportation Planning and Technology, 1-27.
• Gupta, A., Afrin, T., Scully, E., and Yodo. N. (2021). Advances of UAVs toward future transportation: The state-of- the-art, challenges, and opportunities. Future Transportation, 1(2), 326-350.
• Hassanalian M., and Abdelkefi, A. (2017). Classifications, applications, and design challenges of drones: A review. Progress in Aerospace Sciences, 91, 99-131.
• Heimann, C.F.L. (1993). Understanding the challenger disaster: organizational structure and the design of reliable systems. American Political Science Review, 87(2), 421-435.
• Hobbs, A. (2010). Unmanned aircraft systems. In: Salas E. and Maurino, D. Eds., Human factors in aviation, 2nd edition, San Diego, Elsevier, 505-531.
• Hobbs, A., and Lyall, B. (2016). Human factors guidelines for unmanned aircraft systems. Ergonomics in Design, 24, 23-28.
• Hobbs, A., and Shively, R.J. (2014). Human factor challenges of remotely piloted aircraft. Report Number: ARC- E-DAA-TN17388, European Association for Aviation Psychology (EAAP), Valletta, Malta.
• Howard, J., Murashov, V., and Branche, C.M. (2018). Unmanned aerial vehicles in construction and worker safety. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 61(1), 3-10.
• ICAO Doc 9806, (2002). Human factors guidelines for safety audits manual. First Edition.
• ICAO, (2011). Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS), Cir. 328, AN/190.
• Johnson, W.B., and Maddox, M.E. (2007). A model to explain human factors in aviation maintenance. Avionics News, April, 38-41.
• Kahveci, M., and Can, N. (2017). İnsansız hava araçları: Tarihçesi, tanımı, dünyada ve Türkiye'deki yasal durumu. Selçuk Üniversitesi Mühendislik Bilim ve Teknoloji Dergisi, 5(4), 511-535.
• Keane, J.F. and Carr, S.S. (2013). A brief history of early unmanned aircraft. Johns Hopkins APL Technical Digest, 32(3), 558-571.
• Macit, A., Özden, M.A., Yavaş, V., and Yeşilay, R.B. (2025). İnsansız hava aracı pilotlarının dijitalleşme ile emniyet bilincinin artırılması: Mobil uygulama örneği. Journal of Aviation Research, 7(1), 18-33.
• MacPherson, E. (2018). Is the world ready for drones? Air Space Law, 43, 149-178.
• Mouloua, M., Gilson, R., and Hancock, P. (2003). Human-Centered Design of. Ergonomics in Design, Winter, 6-11.
• Murray, J., Richardson, S., Joiner, K., and Wild, G. (2025). Identifying human factor causes of remotely piloted aircraft system safety occurrences in Australia. Aerospace, 12, 206-221.
• Mygal, G. (2022). The problem of human factors in unmanned systems. Scientific Journal of Polonia University, 52(3). 237-245.
• Otto, A., Agatz, N. Campbell, J., Golden, B., and Pesch. E. (2018). Optimization approaches for civil applications of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) or aerial drones: A survey. Networks, 72(4), 411-458.
• Özyörük, H.E. (2020). İnsansız hava araçlarında (İHA) insan faktörlerinin etkisine dair literatürün sistematik olarak analizi ve sınıflandırılması. Journal of Aviation, 4(2), 71-81.
• Piwek, G.D. (2018). Human factor in flight safety. Hadmérnök XIII. Évfolyam 4. Szám.
• Reason, J. (1990). Human error. New York, Cambridge University Press.
• Reason, J. (2008), The human contribution: Unsafe acts, accidents and heroic recoveries. Ashgate Publishing.
• Rigolot, C. (2020). Transdisciplinarity as a discipline and a way of being: Complementarities and creative tensions. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 7(100), 1-5.
• Sarılı, G., and Özsoy Somuncuoğlu, S. (2024). Aristoteles’in tümdengelim ve tümevarım anlayışı hakkında genel bir değerlendirme. Fikriyat Sosyal Bilimler Araştırmaları Dergisi, 4(2), 153-162.
• Sharit, J. (2012). Human error and human reliability analysis. In: Salvendy, G. Eds., Handbook of human factors and ergonomics, New Jersey, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, 734-800.
• SHT-İHA (2020). Sivil Havacılık Genel Müdürlüğü İnsansız Hava Aracı Sistemleri Talimatı.
• Sığrı, Ü. (2021). Nitel araştırma yöntemleri. 2. Baskı, İstanbul, Beta Basım Yayım.
• Spravak, J.J., Moisio, D.A., and Payton, M.G. (2005). Unmanned air vehicles: A new age in human factors evaluations. Technical Paper, AFFTC-PA-05069.
• Sundar, K., and S. Rathinam, (2013). Algorithms for routing an unmanned aerial vehicle in the presence of refueling depots. IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering, 11(1), 287-294.
• Tokekar, P., Hook, J.V., Mulla, D., and Isler. V. (2016). Sensor planning for a symbiotic UAV and UGV system for precision agriculture. IEEE Transactions on Robotics 32(6), 1498-1511.
• Wang, W., Guo, X., Liu, Y., Tang, A., and Yang, Q. (2023). Factors affecting unmanned aerial vehicles’ unsafe behaviors and influence mechanism based on social network theory. Transportation Research Record, 2677(5) 1030-1045.
• Watts, A.C., Ambrosia, V.G. and Hinkley, E.A. (2012). Unmanned aircraft systems in remote sensing and scientific research: Classification and considerations of use. Remote Sensing, 4(6), 1671-1692.
• Wild, G., Murray, J. and Baxter, G. (2016). Exploring civil drone accidents and incidents to help prevent potential air disasters. Aerospace, 3(3), 1-11.
• Williams, K.W. (2008). Documentation of sensory information in the operation of unmanned aircraft systems. (Report No. DOT/FAA/AM-08/23). Washington, DC: Federal Aviation Administration.
• Yakar, M., Ulvi, A., and Fidan, Ş. (2023). İnsansız hava aracı teknolojisi ve operatörlüğü eğitim kitabı, 1. Baskı. Konya, Atlas Akademi Yayınları.
• Yang, K., and Fan, Y. (2016). “Peart” human factors model for aviation maintenance. 2nd International Conference on Education Technology, Management and Humanities Science (ETMHS 2016).
• Yıldırım, A., and Şimşek, H. (2018). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. 11. Baskı, Ankara, Seçkin Yayıncılık.
• Zimmermann, N., and Mendonca, F.A.C. (2021). The impact of human factors and maintenance documentation on aviation safety: An analysis of 15 years of accident data through the PEAR framework. Collegiate Aviation Review International, 39(2), 1-25.