Human Factors and Ergonomics (HF & E) are defined as a multidisciplinary field, which include contributions from fields such as operations research, psychology, and engineers as well. In fundamental nature is a research of designing tools and machines which suit the Human Body plus its cognitive capabilities. According to the International Ergonomics Association (2003) Human Factor or Ergonomic is defined as a scientific discipline which addresses more about the awareness of communication among people and other system’s components and the profession which uses theories, standards, data and technique to plans in order to optimize the well-being of the human being and the intact performance of the system. This paper will review the selected Human Factors taxonomies, incident systems of reporting and tools of collecting data.
According to Federal Aviation Administration (2000), the Aviation Safety Action Program that collects de-identified reports of events from the pilot’s line, concerning the risks to safety is the same to Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) of NASA. For instance, pilots are encouraged by both systems to self-report their faults by offering imperfect invulnerability from trial. Nevertheless, distinct to ASRS, the ASAP is a specific carrier, and having the examples from ASRS, several ASAPs collect milieu information concerning the pilot who acquiesces the report and the flight states that instantly led the event. Additionally, space is normally given in order the pilots can write short narrative reports explaining the happenings and the fundamental factors which impulsive it and plans for averting its reoccurrence. The common rule is that most issues of human factors illustrated in ASAP reports, can also be seen in these narratives.
In conclusion, according to Fleishman & Quintance, (2004) and Fleishman & Mumford (2001), there are few methods suggested for evaluating efficiency of classificatory plans and were carried out by Fleishman and his contemporaries and discovered that there are 3 key criteria Internal validity: This is concerned with the extent in which a categorization system is
reasonably designed and parsimonious. This suggests that the internally valid taxonomies are those that may be reliably used by novices, which can consistently classify occurrences in spite of random fluctuations during the wording of these narrative texts, that employ commonly exclusive and comprehensive descriptors and which disclose consequential patterns.
External validity: Involves the degree to which taxonomy accomplishes the goals for which it was planned for. In general this suggests that the externally valid taxonomy is that cross-validate with the latest sets of data, which identify gaps in researches and that forecast meaningful results.
Utilitarian criteria: This is concerned with the degree in which taxonomy is helpful and efficient of the research that is in general this criterion proposes that the valuable taxonomies assist communication by normalizing the terminology in a field that were used to work on applied issues, which need few start-up charges and have a big user base.