Food for thought
In response to some welcome critiques about CHIRP’s processes and commentaries, we have been experimenting with the use of the Human Factors “Dirty Dozen” within our publication of reports to illustrate more succinctly what the CHIRP Advisory Boards have discussed in relation to a particular report.
In doing so, we’re particularly sensitive to not being judgemental of those who report, but we think that it’s a useful exercise to examine what might have been done differently or what might have been a Human Factor influence in an incident.
CHIRP does not conduct detailed investigations into reports and so, although we do contact those associated with an event to try to gain as much understanding of the relevant background whenever we can, we are well aware that we may not have all of the information or context that might be applicable to a particular event. As such, CHIRP does not make definitive judgements as to any Human Factors aspects that may or may not have applied, and we do not associate any such assessments to individuals’ performances. However, in order to provide food for thought when considering aspects that might be pertinent in similar circumstances, we offer our thoughts on the ‘Dirty Dozen’ Human Factors elements that were a key part of our discussions about individual reports. Individual reports will soon show these thoughts at the end of the ‘CHIRP Comment’ with a short statement associated with each Dirty Dozen title as per the taxonomy below. In doing so, we have tried to identify which factors were external influences (Threats in Threat & Error Management (TEM) parlance) and which were self-generated internal aspects (Errors in TEM parlance).
We’re still evolving the use of the “Dirty Dozen” but the current CHIRP Aviation taxonomy is as in the table below.
