SavedAdd your journal

Journals / International Journal of Aviation Science and Technology / 2026 / Volume: 07 Issue: 01

Shared Perspectives of Aviation Safety Among Managers and Technicians

Ebru Yazgan(Faculty of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Department of Airframe and Powerplant Maintenance)0000-0002-6545-8536
Cüneyt Ceyran(TÜRK HAVA KUVVETLERİ)0009-0002-2435-0649
Vildan Durmaz(Faculty of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Department of Aviation Management)0000-0003-3649-1780
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-07-01
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The results of the current study revealed a significant difference between maintenance technicians and managers in terms of their perspectives on the main issues of aviation safety.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:When compared to other transportation sectors, aviation is often listed among those with noticeably higher risk ratio with regards to financial, environmental and operational issues although it is relatively safer, reliable and faster.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In this respect, this study deals with dirty dozen factors, which affect technician and manager performances in aviation organizations in terms of the sustainability of flight safety.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The results of the current study revealed a significant difference between maintenance technicians and managers in terms of their perspectives on the main issues of aviation safety.
🔬Design:Experimental Field Trial
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Dirty Dozen · Aviation Safety · Human Factors in Aviation

Abstract

When compared to other transportation sectors, aviation is often listed among those with noticeably higher risk ratio with regards to financial, environmental and operational issues although it is relatively safer, reliable and faster. In aviation practices, human factor plays the most critical role in handling accidents and similar unwanted incidents when existing risks are not properly and effectively managed since they might result in considerable financial and operational loss in the sector. In this respect, this study deals with dirty dozen factors, which affect technician and manager performances in aviation organizations in terms of the sustainability of flight safety. For the purposes of the study, expert opinions were obtained from aircraft maintenance technicians and maintenance managers regarding the criteria leading to unwanted incidents, and SWARA method was employed to determine the weights of the criteria. According to the findings, maintenance managers reported “the lack of situational awareness” as the most important criteria while “stress” was the most important criteria for aircraft maintenance technicians. The results of the current study revealed a significant difference between maintenance technicians and managers in terms of their perspectives on the main issues of aviation safety.

🔖

Cite This Article

Yazgan, E., Ceyran, C., Durmaz, V. (2026). Shared Perspectives of Aviation Safety Among Managers and Technicians. International Journal of Aviation Science and Technology, Volume: 07 Issue: 01. https://ajindex.com/articles/1493674

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (24)

  1. Abdulvahitoğlu, A. and Cengiz, N. 2022. Peynir Üretiminde Kullanılan Gıda Katkı Maddelerinin SWARA Yöntemi ile Değerlendirilmesi. 1st International Conference on Scientific and Academic Research.
  2. Adalı, E. A. and Ayşegül, T. U. Ş. 2017. Bir Tedarikçi Seçim Problemi için SWARA ve WASPAS Yöntemlerine Dayanan Karar Verme Yaklaşımı. International Review of Economics and Management, 5(4), 56-77.
  3. Aksoy, E. 2006. Uçuş Emniyetinin Sağlanmasında İnsan Unsuru ve Bu Süreçte Mesleki Eğitimin Önemine İlişkin Bir Araştırma (Yüksek Lisans Tezi). İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü İşletme Anabilim Dalı İnsan Kaynakları Yönetimi Bilim Dalı, İstanbul.
  4. Bassett, W.E. 2020. The Relationship of The Dirty Dozen Precursors to Human Factor Error Found in Civilian Aircraft Maintenance to The Negative Trending of The EWIS System on Military Aircraft, Northcentral University, ISBN:979-8-6624-3239-0
  5. Beehr, T.A. and Newman, J.E, 1978. Job Stress, Employee Health and Organizational Effectiveness: A Facet Analysis, Model and Literature Review. Personnel Psychology, 31, 665-669
  6. CAA (2002) CAP 715 An Introduction to Aircraft Maintenance Engineering Human Factors for JAR 66. UK Civil Aviation Authority.
  7. Carthey, J. 2019. Creating Safety II in the operating theatre: The Durable Dozen!. Journal of perioperative practice, 29(7-8), 210-215.
  8. Çakır, E. 2017. Kriter ağırlıklarının SWARA–Copeland yöntemi ile belirlenmesi: Bir üretim işletmesinde uygulama. Adnan Menderes Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 4(1), 42-56.
  9. Dupont G. 1997. The dirty dozen errors in aviation maintenance. In Meeting Proceedings Eleventh Federal Aviation Administration Meeting on Human Factors Issues in Aircraft Maintenance and Inspection: Human error in aviation maintenance, Washington, pp. 45-49. Washington, DC: Federal Aviation Administration/Office of Aviation Medicine.
  10. Durmaz, V., Yazgan, E., Delice, E.K., and Çelem, B.P. 2024. Evaluating airports' Sustainable Development Goals by using multi-criteria decision making methodologies, Work: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment & Rehabilitation pp.1-14 doi: 10.3233/WOR-220385
  11. Gerede, E. 2018. Havacılık emniyetine ilişkin kavramlar. E.Gerede (Editör), Havacılık emniyeti (p. 2-14). Eskişehir: Anadolu Üniversitesi Açıköğretim Yayınları.
  12. http-1 https://strasam.org/savunma/savunma-sanayii/ucak-bakiminda-bir-duzine-kirli-aliskanlik-bolum-2-1424 (ALINTI TARİHİ:10.03.2025).
  13. ICAO Circular 240-AN/144, 1993. Human Factors Digest No. 7 - Investigation of Human Factors in Accidents and Incidents.
  14. Iqbal, M., and Waseem, M. A. 2012. Impact of job stress on job satisfaction among air traffic controllers of civil aviation authority: An empirical study from Pakistan. International Journal of Human Resource Studies, 2(2), 53.
  15. Keršuliene, V., Zavadskas, E. K., and Turskis, Z. 2010. Selection of rational dispute resolution method by applying new step-wise weight assessment ratio analysis (SWARA). Journal of Business Economics and Management, 11(2), 243-258.
  16. Marquardt, N., Treffenstadt, C., Gerstmeyer, K., and Gades-Buettrich, R. 2015. Mental Workload and cognitive performance in operating rooms. International Journal of Psychology Research, 10(2), 209-233. ISSN:1932-6092
  17. Nzelu, O., Chandraharan, E., and Pereira, S. 2018. Human factors: The Dirty Dozen in CTG misinterpretation. Global Journal of Reproductive Medicine. 6(2), 1-6. doi:10.19080/GJORM.2018.06.555683
  18. Önen, V. 2022. Havacılıkta İnsan Faktörleri Eğitimi Sorunsallarının Tespiti ve Buna Yönelik Geliştirilmiş Eğitim Modeli ve İyileştirme Önerileri. Journal of Aviation Research, 4(1), 25-56.
  19. Ram, A. 2022. Degrading human factors through the invisible ‘Freaky 13th’element. In International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (pp. 397-407). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
  20. Saaty, T. 1980. The Analytic Hierarchy Process. USA: McGraw-Hill International Book Company
  21. Samad, A., Johari, M., and Omar, S. 2018. Preventing human error at an approved training organization using the Dirty Dozen. International Journal of Engineering & Technology, 7(4.13), 71-73. doi:10.14419/ijet.v7i4.13.21332
  22. Yazgan, E., and Kavsaoğlu, Ş. M. 2017. Evaulation of Stress Affecting Aircraft Maintenance Technician’s Performance. International Journal of Computing, Communication and Instrumentation Engineering, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.15242/IJCCIE.IAE1216205
  23. Yilmaz, A.K., Yazgan, E., Malagas, K.N. and Nikitakos, N. 2018. Risk Matrix Approach to Human Factors in Aircraft Maintenance Organization, Athens: ATINER'S Conference Paper Series, No: MGT2018-2560.
  24. Zolfani, S. H., and Saparauskas, J. 2013. New application of SWARA method in prioritizing sustainability assessment indicators of energy system. Engineering economics, 24(5), 408-414.