2004 Q7 Human Factors

[dorothy.pipet]

For comments please.

I admit to being a bit thrown with the 2004 paper, in particular it does not show any mark break-down. I therefore assumed that I'm aiming towards 6 marks per part of that question, although I'm sure my knowledge is not up to that yet.

[PJW]

For comments please.

I admit to being a bit thrown with the 2004 paper, in particular it does not show any mark break-down. I therefore assumed that I'm aiming towards 6 marks per part of that question, although I'm sure my knowledge is not up to that yet.

Many of the older paper didn't give mark split; this is one of the things where the exam committee listened and it has now become a standard.

[Jerry1237]

So, I'm not an HF expert but some points to consider:
1) quantity of alarms and types of messages, actions requiring more than one event can be achieved without moving significantly (i.e. route set), indications, naming, alarms have predictable presentation and cannot be misintepreted. More commonly used features are in very easy reach. Fringes are not overly complex requiring significant effort (i.e. auto sections). Ensure workload is not excessive during disruption.

2) Weights, positions, accessibility are important. Easily replaceable units with miminal configuration lineside. Things are labelled clearly, exposed voltages are minimal and risk of electrocution, trapping are mitigated. Ability to check power is off or take possession...

3) Monitoring I would suggest it is worth talking about remote diagnostics where you can ID a fault and ensure the right parts are on the van before you get there. Also, it allows trending and preventative maitenance.

4) Avoid overly complex or confusing indications, different interpretations of functions on the same route, consistancy in signal placement and naming etc etc.

Some good points but I would suggest parts of the answer are not specifically HF responses although it is clear where you are coming from.

Hope that helps.

J