Incorporation of Pilot Factors into Risk Analysis of Civil Aviation Accidents from 2008 to 2020: A Data-Driven Bayesian Network Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pilot factor is worth considering when analyzing the causes of civil aviation accidents. This study introduces a data-driven Bayesian network (BN) approach to investigating the joint causal effects of pilot and other factors on civil aviation safety. A total number of 163 individual pilot-related accidents in the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) aviation accident database from 2008 to 2020 are analyzed, focusing on eliciting the causal effects of various potential risk factors, including pilot factors, on civil aviation accidents. The modeling of the interdependency among the risk influencing factors (RIFs) and their causal contributory effect on the accident outcome is structured by a tree augmented network (TAN) and validated by sensitivity analysis. The novelty of this study is to incorporate pilot factors derived from the civil aviation accident database into risk analysis, combined with other external factors. The results indicate that weather conditions and flight phases are more correlated with casualty types of civil aviation accidents than pilot action and decision, and three other pilot factors only contribute to fatal injury in civil aviation accidents.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".