臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

本研究首先透過文獻回顧瞭解現有各風險評估模型的特色，延伸出建置飛行操作風險評估系統理念與方向。再以個案公司所建置的飛行操作風險評估系統為基礎，分析此系統著重的風險因素。此系統分為前艙組員(人為因素)、航機本身(航機因素)以及航路方面(環境因素)，整體架構利用層級分析法將風險因素一一拆解，其中數學模型採用模糊專家系統配合個案公司所訂定的風險矩陣來計算各層級之集合風險值。
本研究針對前艙組員利用「變動單一終端值」來做敏感度分析，研究結果以定性的方式分為「終端值群體(水平)比較」與「終端值向上影響(垂直)層級」兩方面分析結果來討論。
「終端值群體(水平)比較」結果顯示在個案公司的飛行操作風險評估系統中，前艙組員主要分為組員間溝通方面、經驗能力方面和壓力程度方面。在組員間溝通方面，最重視英語能力；在組員經驗能力方面，重視飛行員是否曾到過該機場及是否有廣體機的經驗；在壓力程度方面，則著重精神壓力、短暫疲勞以及累積疲勞。「終端值向上影響(垂直)層級」分析結果顯示，終端值(T 值)在層級分析的架構下，風險值經由層層轉換後，最上層的總風險值會被稀釋，以至於看不出敏感度。另外，分析結果亦顯示出飛行操作風險評估系統必須客製化、並主動積極控管風險因子的特色。
應用敏感度分析結果顯示，飛行操作風險評估系統採用層級分析法的優點在於可以有系統的分析各風險因素；但缺點在於底層的重要的風險因素無法完全反應到最上層。所以建議使用者可在整個飛行操作風險評估系統上採用較扁平化的架構，並建議利用敏感度分析為工具，找出高敏感度的終端值及風險評估系統的運算特性，以建構決策輔助系統，提昇飛行操作風險評估系統之使用效能。

This thesis started with the literature review of the existing risk assessment models and to extend the concept to characterize flight operations risk assessment system. Focused on the flight operations risk assessment system of
a national airline, this thesis analyzed the important risk factors that appeared in the system and improvement action items were suggested.
The airline’s flight operations risk assessment system utilized Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) method to decompose risk factors into branches and layers. The final risk value was mainly composed by crew functionality
(human factors), the aircraft functionality (mechanical factors), and the sector threat (environmental factors). The calculation of the composite risk values in the transition between layers adopted the mathematical model of “Fuzzy Expert System” as well as the risk matrix determined by the company.
This research adopted “Bruce force” sensitivity analysis to characterize the sensitivities of each terminal (bottom layer) risk factors to the composite risk value. The horizontal comparisons between terminal risk factors as well as the vertical impact analysis of each terminal risk factor were given. In the analysis of the risk assessment on crew functionality, the results of the horizontal comparison showed that the airline emphasized on English Proficiency in “crew conversation” aspect, and paid more attention on wide-body experience in “crew experience” aspect. In the “crew stress levels” aspect, mental tress, transient fatigue, and cumulative fatigue were all important to the airline. The vertical impact analysis showed the impact of the terminal risk factors (bottom) to the composite risk value (top) were diminishing during layer by layer risk value calculations under AHP framework. The results also showed flight operations risk assessment system must be customized, and actively managing.
In conclusions, the advantage of using AHP in flight operations risk assessment system method is its systemized decomposition of risk factors, however, due to its complex structure, the bottom risk impact can hardly respond to the top. To avoid this, the assessment structure should be as flat (less layers) as possible. Moreover, sensitivity analysis of the assessment system is vital in the application of the assessment system. It is a tool to characterize the sensitive terminal factors. And, the calculated sensitivities of the risk factors are important reference data for the design of the decision-support system in conjunction with the application of flight operations risk assessment systems.

目錄
中文摘要 Ⅰ
英文摘要 Ⅱ
致謝 Ⅲ
目錄 Ⅳ
表目錄 Ⅶ
圖目錄 Ⅸ
附錄目錄 Ⅹ
第一章 緒論 1
1-1 研究背景 1
1-2 風險的定義、管理與分類 2
1-3 風險因素分析 3
1-4 研究動機與目的 4
第二章 文獻回顧 6
2-1 NASA 飛行安全計畫(AvSP) 6
2-1-1 航空器效能風險評估模型(APRAM) 7
2-1-2 航空器系統風險模型(ASRM) 8
2-2 國內飛行風險評估相關研究 11
第三章 飛行操作風險評估系統(FORAS) 13
3-1 飛行操作風險評估系統(FORAS)背景介紹 13
3-2 飛行操作風險評估系統(FORAS)組織架構 13
3-2-1 層級分析法(AHP) 14
3-2-2 模糊專家系統(Fuzzy Expert System) 15
3-2-3 小結 17
3-3 個案公司建立之飛行操作風險評估系統(FORAS) 18
第四章 研究方法與工作流程 20
4-1 研究方法 20
4-2 風險因素定義及分類說明 21
4-3 敏感度分析 22
4-3-1 線性比例法範例說明 24
4-3-2 重心法範例說明 25
第五章 研究結果與討論 26
5-1 組員間溝通不足程度(C6) 26
5-2 經驗能力不足程度(C7) 28
5-2-1 機場熟悉不足程度(C8) 28
5-2-2 飛行經驗不足程度(C10) 29
5-3 壓力程度(C12) 32
5-3-1 短暫疲勞程度(C5) 32
5-3-2 累積疲勞程度(C18) 35
5-4 終端值(T 值)群體(水平)比較分析結果 37
5-5 終端值(T 值)向上影響(水平)比較分析結果 38
第六章 結論建議與未來工作 41
6-1 結論建議 41
6-1-1 終端值(T 值)群體(水平)比較之結論建議 41
6-1-2 終端值(T 值)向上影響(垂直)層級之結論建議 43
6-1-3 飛行操作風險評估系統(FORAS)之特性 45
6-2 未來工作 46
參考文獻 47
表 50
圖 72
附錄 84

參考文獻
【1】 張有恆，「航空業經營與管理」，華泰文化事業股份有限公司，pp.2-10，民92
【2】 Boeing Commercial Airplanes Group Aviation Safety,“Statistical Summary of Commercial Jet Airplane Accidents Worldwide Operations 1959-2005＂, 2006
【3】 張國政，「航空運輸專論」，交通部民用航空局，p.126，民94
【4】 張有恆，「航空安全風險管理」，華泰文化事業股份有限公 司，p.185，民94
【5】 張有恆，「民航政策白皮書」，交通部民用航空局，民89
【6】 Zea M.,“Is Airline Risk Manageable ?＂,Airline
Business,pp.68-70, 2002
【7】 Flight Safety Foundation,“Approach-and-landing Safety Demands Improvemen＂, http://www.flightsafety.org/cfit1.html
【8】 Flight Safety Foundation,“Controlled Flight Into Terrain And Approach-and-landing Accident education＂,
http://www.flightsafety.org/cfit4.html
【9】 John W.,“Aviation Safety Program＂, National Aeronautics and Space Adminstration
【10】 Bennett C., Rick C., Alex S., “Development Of An Aircraft Performance Risk Assessment Model＂, AIAA 18th DASC, 1999
【11】 Alex S., Risk C., Eric Y. Y., Ben S., Bennett C., “Feasibility Demonstration Of An Aircraft Performance Risk Assessment Model＂, AIAA 19th DASC, 2000
【12】 James T. L., et al., “A Risk Based Decision Support Tool for
Evaluating Aviation Technology Integration in the National
Airspace System＂, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2003
【13】 James T. L, “Probabilistic Causal Analysis for System Safety Risk Assessments in Commercial Air Transport＂, Proceedings of the Workshop on Investigating and Reporting of Incidents and Accidents(IRIA), 2003
【14】 Nathan G. , Denise A., and James T. L, “Graphical Enhancements to Executive Information System(EIS) for the Aviation System Risk Model(ASRM)＂, Proceedings of the AIAA’s 4th Annual ATIO, 2004
【15】 James T. L., “Model-Based Reasoning for Aviation Safety Risk Assessments＂, SAE International, 2005
【16】 James T. L., David W. C., “Modeling Low Probability/High Consequence Events：An Aviation Safety Risk Model＂, Reliability and Maintainability Symposium, 2006
【17】 李文魁，張有恆，「模糊FMECA 應用在飛安風險評估模式之研究」，民航季刊，第七卷第一期，pp.1-22，民94
【18】 李文魁，張有恆，「飛航安全風險評估模式之構建」，運輸計畫季刊，第三十四卷第一期，pp.145-176，民94
【19】 Saaty T. L. et al.,“The Hierarchon：A Dictionary of Hierarchies Expert Choice＂, RWS Publication, 1992
【20】 Michael H., Osborne D.M. , Ross D. , Boyd D. ,and Brown B.G. ,“The Flight Operations Risk Assessment System＂, Proceedings of the SAE Advances Safety Conference. Society of Automotive Engineers, 1999
【21】 Michael H., John M.,“Using a Fuzzy Expert System to Represent Risk＂,In Proceedings of the SAE Advances Safety Conference. Society of Automotive Engineers, 2004
【22】 Michael H., John M.,“Development of a Fuzzy Expert System for Aviation Risk Modeling＂, Proceedings of the SAE Advances Safety Conference. Society of Automotive Engineers, 2005
【23】 Schwartz D.,“Flight Operations Risk Assessment System (FORAS): A Metric-Based Approach to Flight Operations Risk management＂ ,International Air Safety Seminar, Flight Safety Foundation, 1998
【24】 John H. E.,“The Flight Operations Risk Assessment System (FORAS):A Progress Report”, International Air Safety Seminar, Flight Safety Foundation, 2000
【25】 Michael H., John M.,“Flight Operations Risk Assessment System (FORAS)＂,International Air Safety Seminar, Flight Safety Foundation, 2002