Human-Machine Interaction in Automation of Avionic Systems: An Analysis of the Asiana Airlines Flight 214 Aircraft Accident

Yıl 2025, Cilt: 2 Sayı: Aviation Technologies and Applications Conference (ATAConf'25) Special Issue, 65 - 91, 31.12.2025

Tayfun Aydoğdu

Öz

The widespread use of automation in Avionics systems in modern aircraft has not only increased flight safety but also radically altered the nature of human-machine interaction. This study examines the effect of increased automation in Avionics systems on human-machine interaction. The study's focus is the Asiana Airlines Flight 214 aircraft accident, which occurred on July 6, 2013, at San Francisco International Airport. Pilots' overconfidence in the automation system, misunderstanding of autopilot system controls, and loss of situational awareness were among the primary causes of the accident. In this context, information obtained from accident reports by national and international aviation authorities was analyzed using a qualitative research methodology. The research findings reveal that automation, rather than supporting pilots' cognitive processes, sometimes creates an automation paradox. The study identifies the weaknesses of automation dependency and human-machine interaction in aviation operations and offers recommendations that will contribute to Avionics system design and human factors training processes.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Avionic systems , automation , aircraft accident , flight safety , human factors

Aviyonik Sistemlerin Otomasyonunda İnsan-Makine Etkileşimi: Asiana Hava Yolları Uçuş 214 Hava Aracı Kazası Üzerine Bir Analiz

Öz

Modern hava araçlarında Aviyonik sistemlerin otomasyonunun yaygınlaşması, uçuş emniyetini artırmakla birlikte insan-makine etkileşiminin niteliğini köklü bir şekilde değiştirmiştir. Bu çalışma, Aviyonik sistemlerde artan otomasyon boyutunun insan-makine etkileşimi üzerindeki etkilerini incelemektedir. Çalışmanın temel noktasını 6 Temmuz 2013 tarihinde San Francisco Uluslararası Havalimanı’na zorunlu iniş yapan Asiana Hava Yolları Uçuş 214 hava aracı kazası oluşturmaktadır. Pilotların otomasyon sistemine aşırı güveni, otomatik pilot sistem kontrollerinin yanlış anlaşılması ve durumsal farkındalık kaybı kazanın temel nedenleri arasındadır. Bu bağlamda ulusal ve uluslararası havacılık otoritelerinin kaza raporlarından elde edilen bilgiler, nitel araştırma yöntemi ile doküman analizi yapılmıştır. Araştırma bulguları otomasyonun pilotların bilişsel süreçlerini desteklemek yerine zaman zaman otomasyon paradoksu meydana getirdiğini ortaya koymaktadır. Çalışma, havacılık operasyonlarında otomasyon bağımlılığının ve insan-makine etkileşiminin zayıf noktalarını ortaya koyarak, Aviyonik sistem tasarımı ve insan faktörleri eğitim süreçlerine katkı sağlayacak öneriler sunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Aviyonik sistemler , otomasyon , hava aracı kazası , uçuş emniyeti , insan faktörleri

Kaynakça

• Australian Transport Safety Bureau (2016). In-flight upset involving Airbus A330, VH-QPA, en route from Singapore to Perth, 7 October 2008 (Aviation Occurrence Investigation Report No. AO-2008-070). ATSB Press.
• Bainbridge, L. (1983). Ironies of automation. Automatica, 19(6), 775-779. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-1098(83)90046-8
• Bureau of Enquiry and Analysis for Civil Aviation Safety (2012). Final report on the accident on 1st June 2009 to the Airbus A330-203 registered F-GZCP operated by Air France flight AF 447 Rio de Janeiro–Paris. BEA Press.
• Casner, S. M., & Hutchins, E. L. (2019). The challenges of partially automated flight: A case study of Asiana Flight 214. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 13(3), 171-189. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555343419850467
• Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). Sage Press.
• Cummings, M. L. (2017). Automation and accountability in aviation. Human Factors, 59(2), 199-219. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720817692723
• Cummings, M. L., Gao, F., & Thornburg, K. M. (2021). Human-automation teaming in dynamic environments: Automation transparency and reliability. Human Factors, 63(4), 626-643. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720820914519
• Degani, A., & Wiener, E. L. (1997). Procedures in complex systems: The airline cockpit. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics - Part A: Systems and Humans, 27(3), 302-312. https://doi.org/10.1109/3468.568739
• Dutch Safety Board (2010). Crash involving Turkish Airlines flight TK1951 Boeing 737-800 near Amsterdam Schiphol Airport, 25 February 2009. DSB Press.
• 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
• Endsley, M. R., & Jones, D. G. (2016). Designing for situation awareness: An approach to user-centered design (2nd ed.). CRC Press.
• Federal Aviation Administration (2020). Aviation safety information analysis and sharing report. FAA Press.
• Hancock, P. A., & Parasuraman, R. (1992). Human factors and safety in aviation. Journal of Air Transportation, 2(1), 1-20.
• Helmreich, R. L. (1999). Culture and error in space: Implications from analog environments. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 70(9), 133-139.
• Helmreich, R. L., & Merritt, A. C. (2000). Culture at work in aviation and medicine: National, organizational and professional influences. Ashgate Press.
• International Civil Aviation Organization (2020). Human factors training manual (DOC 9683). ICAO Press.
• Kilic, B., & Gundogdu S. (2020). Human factors in air cargo operations: An anaysis using HFACS. Journal of Aviation, 2(2), 101-114.
• Kwak, J., Lyons, J. B., & Stokes, C. K. (2018). Effects of shared control on trust calibration and performance in human–automation interaction. Human Factors, 60(3), 408-425. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720817751405
• National Transportation Safety Board (2010). Loss of control on approach, Colgan Air, Inc., operating as Continental Connection flight 3407, Bombardier DHC-8-400, N200WQ, Clarence Center, New York, February 12, 2009 (Aircraft Accident Report No. NTSB/AAR-10/01). NTSB Press.
• National Transportation Safety Board (2014). Descent below visual glidepath and impact with seawall, Asiana Airlines Flight 214, Boeing 777-200ER, HL7742, San Francisco, California, July 6, 2013. (Report No. NTSB/AAR-14/01). NTSB Press.
• Parasuraman, R., & Riley, V. (1997). Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Human Factors, 39(2), 230-253. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872097778543886
• Parasuraman, R., Sheridan, T. B., & Wickens, C. D. (2000). A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics - Part A: Systems and Humans, 30(3), 286-297. https://doi.org/10.1109/3468.844354
• Reason, J. (1990). Human error. Cambridge University Press.
• Sarter, N. B., & Woods, D. D. (1995). How in the world did we ever get into that mode? Mode error and awareness in supervisory control. Human Factors, 37(1), 5-19. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872095779049516
• Sheridan, T. B. (2002). Humans and automation: System design and research issues. Wiley Press.
• General Directorate of Civil Aviation (2020). Accident report regarding the incident of a Boeing 737-800 aircraft veering off the runway after landing (Accident Report No: 2020/01). DGCA Publication.
• Wickens, C. D. (2008). Situation awareness: Review of Mica Endsley’s 1995 articles on situation awareness theory and measurement. Human Factors, 50(3), 397-403. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872008X288420
• Wickens, C. D., Hollands, J. G., Banbury, S., & Parasuraman, R. (2015). Engineering psychology and human performance (4th ed.). Pearson Education Press.
• Wickens, C. D., Hollands, J. G., Banbury, S., & Parasuraman, R. (2021).
• Engineering psychology and human performance (5th ed.). Routledge Press.
• Young, M. S., & Stanton, N. A. (2002). Attention and automation: New perspectives on mental underload and performance. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 3(2), 178-194. https://doi.org/10.1080/14639220210123889
• Young, M. S., & Stanton, N. A. (2015). Attention and automation: New perspectives on mental workload and performance. CRC Press.
• Young, M. S., & Stanton, N. A. (2020). Mental workload: Theory, measurement, and application. Human Factors, 62(5), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720820916761