# Human Factors Analysis of the Improved FRAM Method for Take-Off Quality Lateral Shift
## 6 Conclusions  
* The analysis of aircraft take-off quality can be carried out systematically using the FRAM method according to the functional modules operated by pilots. By constructing a take-off taxiing model, the pilot can simulate the possible taxiing of the aircraft during take-off. According to flight data such as the lateral offset distance, the lateral distance correction frequency, the taxiing speed, the acceleration, the taxiing distance, and the simulated airport environment, the human factors that may affect the flight quality during the flight are analyzed.
* The FRAM model is specific to specific functional modules, can track the specific operation of pilots at a certain time, can more intuitively point out the human factors that affect the take-off quality, and has good practicality in finding problems and setting safety barriers.
* Compared with the traditional FRAM method, the safety barrier set by the improved FRAM method after functional resonance can enter the feedback loop, and the effectiveness of the safety barrier set in the previous round can be verified in the new round of flight data. The analysis results of each round can be compared with historical data, which can more objectively reflect the common problems of multiple pilots in take-off operations and correct them.
* After reaching the analysis conclusion and setting up the safety barrier, the improved FRAM method can repeatedly modify and iterate the new scheme according to the cost-benefit analysis until it meets the requirements of the analysts. Compared with the traditional FRAM method, the improved FRAM method can only obtain a safety barrier that cannot be modified, which is more practical.  
Conceptualization, X.G. and Y.W.; methodology, Y.W.; software, K.Q.; validation, W.O. and K.Q.; formal analysis, W.O.; investigation, J.W.; resources, J.W.; data curation, J.W.; writing--original draft preparation, W.O.; writing--review and editing, W.O.; visualization, W.O.; supervision, X.G.; project administration, X.G.; funding acquisition, Y.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.  
This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China: \"Modeling and Sensitivity Analysis of Task Safety for a 'Man-Machine-Environment' Complex System from an Uncertain Perspective\", grant number: 52074309.  
Data Availability Statement: Data sharing not applicable.  
The authors declare no conflict of interest.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline
**Difference** & **Traditional FRAM Method** & **This Paper Improves FRAM Method** \\ \hline Analysis process & Open-loop single analysis process. & Closed-loop feedback flow, rolling analysis. \\ Analysis phase & Post-accident analysis. & Systematic analysis of the whole process. \\ Analytical criteria & Highly dependent on expert knowledge & More attention is paid to objective data when comparing the results of multiple rounds of cycle analysis. \\ Analyze data & Only use the accident-related data; data & Full association of a large number of historical data; \\ Analyze data & utilization rate is low. & high utilization of information. \\ Analysis efficiency & A single model is only suitable for this single security analysis. & The same problem built by the model through improved rolling analysis can be used multiple times. \\ Analysis conclusion & The effect of the safety barrier cannot be verified. & The effect of the safety barrier is verified through the feedback loop and can be continuously optimized. \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 17: Comparison and analysis of the model performance.