Cited by 19Non-Destructive Testing TechniquesHuman-Automation Interaction and SafetyIndustrial Vision Systems and Defect Detection

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Measuring Human Detection Performance in Aircraft Visual Inspection

Drury, Colin G., Spencer, Floyd W., Schurman, Donald L.·1997·Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting

Abstract

In airworthiness assurance, while there is a long tradition of measuring inspection reliability for machine-aided Non-Destructive Inspection (NDI), the more common visual inspection has received little attention. Yet inspection reliability measurements are needed if we are to set appropriate inspection intervals for airframe components. Visual inspection of aircraft is characterized as using multiple senses (despite its name) and having to inspect for multiple fault types, in contrast to NDI which is used for single specific fault types. The study here used 12 professional inspectors to perform nine visual inspection tasks on a long-service Boeing 737 aircraft. Each inspector worked over two days. Measures were taken of performance, strategy and individual differences. Only a fraction of the results are presented here, with a major finding that aircraft visual inspection has approximately the same reliability as industrial inspection. Individual differences were found, as well as correlations between certain aspects of performance and individual characteristics such as Field Independence and Peripheral Visual Acuity. However, there was little correlation between an individual inspector's performance on the different tasks, showing the difficulty of designing selection and placement procedures for such a wide-ranging job.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/107118139704100168

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 4 references

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Goranson U. F., Rogers J. T. (1983). Elements of Damage Tolerance Verification, 12th Symposium of International Commercial Aeronautical Fatigue, Toulouse, France.
  2. Murgatroyd R. A., 1994, A Study of the Human Factors Influencing the Reliability of Aircraft Inspection
  3. 1993, National Aging Aircraft Research Program Plan
  4. Rummel W. D., 1989, Metals Handbook, 17, 674
  5. Spencer F., 1995, Reliability Assessment at Airline Inspection Facilities. Volume III: Results of an Eddy Current Inspection Reliability Experiment

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 19

Metadata

Authors
Drury, C. G., Spencer, F. W., & Schurman, D. L.
Affiliations
  • University at Buffalo, State University of New York (US)
  • Sandia National Laboratories (US)
  • Idaho National Laboratory (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting
Published
1997-10
Volume
41
Issue
1
Pages
304-308
ISSN
  • 0163-5182 (ISSN-L)
  • 1071-1813
  • 2169-5067
OpenAlex
W2497278590
Cited by
19
References
4
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 5 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 2
FWCI
1.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanical Engineering › Non-Destructive Testing Techniques
  • Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering › Industrial Vision Systems and Defect Detection
Keywords
inspection reliability, airframe components, individual differences, field independence, peripheral visual acuity, inspection strategy, Boeing 737

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Measuring Human Detection Performance in Aircraft Visual Inspection. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/107118139704100168
The paper
Drury, C. G., Spencer, F. W., & Schurman, D. L. (1997). Measuring Human Detection Performance in Aircraft Visual Inspection. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting. https://doi.org/10.1177/107118139704100168