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
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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“In aircraft visual inspection in particular, the defect detection rate was stated to be 68% to 74% [42,99].”
From Automated Defect Detection and Decision-Support in Gas Turbine Blade Inspection (2021) · cites this paper as [99]
Citations
Cites
Handbook of industrial engineering
(1992) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.29-6026 · Cited by 470
Task Analysis of Aircraft Inspection Activities: Methods and Findings
Drury, C. G., Prabhu, P. V., & Gramopadhye, A. K. (1990) · Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · doi:10.1177/154193129003401620 · Cited by 66
Self-citationVisual Inspection Research Project Report on Benchmark Inspections
United States Department of Transportation, & Laboratories, S. N. (2017) · ROSA P · doi:10.21949/1403546 · Cited by 35
Are Research Results in Inspection Task Specific?
Drury, C. G., & Wang, M.-J. (1986) · Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · doi:10.1177/154193128603000515 · Cited by 13
Self-citation
Research works printed but not linked: 5
- Goranson U. F., Rogers J. T. (1983). Elements of Damage Tolerance Verification, 12th Symposium of International Commercial Aeronautical Fatigue, Toulouse, France.
- Murgatroyd R. A., 1994, A Study of the Human Factors Influencing the Reliability of Aircraft Inspection
- 1993, National Aging Aircraft Research Program Plan
- Rummel W. D., 1989, Metals Handbook, 17, 674
- Spencer F., 1995, Reliability Assessment at Airline Inspection Facilities. Volume III: Results of an Eddy Current Inspection Reliability Experiment
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Visual inspection: a review of the literature
(NNSA), U. N. N. S. A., See, J., & Sandia National Lab. (SNL-NM), A. (2012) · doi:10.2172/1055636 · Cited by 99
Automated Defect Detection and Decision-Support in Gas Turbine Blade Inspection
Aust, J., Shankland, S., Pons, D., Mukundan, R., & Mitrovic, A. (2021) · Aerospace · doi:10.3390/aerospace8020030 · Cited by 66
“In aircraft visual inspection in particular, the defect detection rate was stated to be 68% to 74% [42,99].”
Background
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)
- ORCID
- Drury, Colin G.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- 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
