Jurnal Teknik dan Keselamatan Transportasi ISSN: 2622-0105 (print) | 2716-1196 (online) http://jurnal.poltekbangmakassar.ac.id/ Safety Perception in Flight Training a Q-Methodology Study on ICPA of Banyuwangi Agung Wahyu wicaksono1*, Imam Sonhaji2, Andi Frianto Peranginangin3, Ahmad Mubarok4 Akademi Penerbang Indonesia Banyuwangi1,4, Politeknik Penerbangan Indonesia Curug2, Politeknik Penerbangan Jayapura3 *Correspondence: agunglpse@gmail.com ABSTRACT Article info Received: Final Revision: Accepted: Available online: Keywords: Safety, SMS, Flight Operation A Safety Management System (SMS) cannot run without the support of other components. The key to successful SMS implementation lies in the alignment of operational systems, technical management, and human resources. Flying schools in Indonesia were recorded to have contributed to 20 accidents and serious incidents. This study aims to describe safety at the Indonesian Civil Pilot Academy in Banyuwangi, where regulations have been implemented, school leaders are committed to a safety management system, and the system is supported by adequate technology. The study employed a qualitative method based on Q Methodology. Qualitative research was chosen to facilitate the review of perspectives on the implementation of safety management systems and to assess respondents' perceptions. Respondents in this study were key personnel from PSC 141–014, senior pilot students, and pre-solo pilot students, with a total of 7 respondents. Respondents were selected using purposive sampling. Respondents completed a Q-sort with 33 statements/courses. The respondent's Q-sort results were processed using the KADE application. The consensus results, both most agreeing and most disagreeing, indicate that safety perceptions are based on two factors: self-awareness and the role of the organization, specifically leadership, in building and developing a safety culture, including a just culture. To promote a safety culture, including a just culture, the organization ensures that internal safety audits are conducted by competent, adequately trained personnel. The development of a safety culture will be more effective if regulators are involved in establishing safety culture indicators and in using them as assessment indicators through audits or surveillance. Reccomended Citation: APA Style License: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License INTRODUCTION Air transportation is a vital component of the global economy. This industry has transformed from a start-up with a weak safety track record to an ultra-safe system, thanks to the aviation community's continued investment in building safety (ICAO, 2014). Over the past 60 years, accident prevention efforts have focused on detailed analysis of each incident to design measures that prevent recurrence. (Martin, 2025). The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) requires all airline operators to integrate 24 Airman: Jurnal Teknik dan Keselamatan Transportasi Volume 8 Nomor 2 Desember 2025 | halaman 24-41 DOI: http//doi.org/10.46509/ajtk.v8i2.768 safety management by adopting a Safety Management System (SMS) across all operations. (Stroeve et al., 2022). A Safety Management System (SMS) is the process of effectively managing and reducing risks associated with aviation activities, both in aircraft operations and in supporting functions (Kıvanç et al., 2025a). SMS cannot operate without the support of other components, as the key to successful SMS implementation is a harmonious combination of operational systems, technical management, and human resources (Wittmer & Müller Roland, 2014). The period 1996–1999 marked the first application of SMS on the Leonardo da Vinci project, a case study that underscores the importance of integrating quality, environmental, and total quality management systems with implementation methodologies that continued to evolve until the early 2000s (Labodova, 2001). The development of research on SMS can improve the level of aviation safety and can reduce the annual aviation accident rate by implementing 4 pillars of SMS, that is Safety Policy and Objective, Safety Risk Mangement, Safety Assurance and Safety Promotion (Martin, 2024). Figure 1. Accident Event on a Commercial Jet Flight 2024 Source: (Martin, 2024) One of the aircraft manufacturers, The Boeing Company, reported that accidents that occurred in 1975-2024 in the Statistical Summary of Commercial Jet 2024 continued to experience a decrease of 40%, hull loss decreased by 55%, fatal accidents also decreased by 65%, offset by a 23% increase in aircraft arrivals, which can be seen in Figure 1 (Martin, 2025). In 2018, Indonesia recorded an accident with more than 100 fatalities (Febriani, 2017). Meanwhile, flight schools in Indonesia were recorded as having contributed 20 accidents and serious incidents recorded in the NTSC report (see table 1). In order to increase the Acceptable Level of Safety (AloS), ICAO requires all member countries to develop a National State Safety Program. Indonesia implementing the State Safety Program (SSP) Framework issued by ICAO in the Worksheet of the Thirteenth Air Navigation Conference in Montréal, Canada (DGCA, 2018). Since its first audit by ICAO in 2007, Indonesia underwent a full USOAP-CMA audit in 2014, with an effectiveness score of 43.02%, which increased to 49.06% after desktop validation. In 2017, through the ICVM mission, Indonesia's EI score rose significantly to 78.85% (based on the 2020 edition of the USOAP PQ), surpassing the APAC (63.62%) and global (69.54%) averages. However, of the 147 audit findings, only 74 Community Action Plans (CAPs) had been completed by the end of 2022, indicating a persistent weakness in the safety oversight system (see Figure 2). Therefore, prompt resolution of these findings is crucial to avoid a "State Safety Concern" status. Active collaboration between the DGCA, airport authorities, airlines, airport operators, air navigation providers, and the National Transportation Safety Committee (NTSC), relevant ministries, and non-governmental organizations is key to strengthening the safety system and supporting the sustainable growth of national aviation (Siswantoro, 2023). 25 Airman: Jurnal Teknik dan Keselamatan Transportasi Volume 8 Nomor 2 Desember 2025 | halaman 24-41 DOI: http//doi.org/10.46509/ajtk.v8i2.768 Figure 2. Effectiveness of ICAO Audits Source: (DGCA, 2018) At a lower level, particularly in flight schools, including pilot school certification (PSC), the DGCA, in this case the DKUPPU, conducts certification, audits, and surveillance to ensure the quality of pilot education, including safety implementation. These activities ensure that aviation safety commitments and quality assurance for flight training meet minimum requirements. However, accidents and incidents continue to occur during flight training activities in Indonesia. The following table presents accidents at flight schools between 2010 and 2020. Table 1. Accidents and serious incidents originating from flight training activities Year Case A/C Registration Type of A/C 2010 Runway Incursion PK AGU Socata Tobago TB-10 2010 System Failure PK ROG Cessna 172 2010 Fatal Accident (wind shear/thunderstorm) PK AGM Socata Tobago TB-10 2012 Collision During Take Off and Landing PK ROI Cessna 172 2013 Accident (Swallow at the Sea) PK KFC Cessna 152 2013 Runway Excursion PK IUA Cessna 172 2014 Abnormal Runway Contact PK AEE Piper Warrior III 2014 Abnormal Runway Contact PK BOB Cessna 172 2014 System/Component Failure or Malfunction PK MSN Cessna 172 2015 System/Component Failure or Malfunction PK LLA Liberty XL2 2016 Runway Excursion PK TGL Cessna 172 2016 System/Component Failure or Malfunction PK NIV Cessna 172 2016 Runway Excursion PK HAN Cessna 172 2016 System/Component Failure or Malfunction PK PBH PA-28-161 2016 System/Component Failure or Malfunction PK NIZ Cessna 172P 2016 Runway Excursion PK AGV Socata Tobago TB-10 2017 Abnormal Runway Contact PK MUA Cessna 172S 2017 Abnormal Runway Contact PK PBO Piper PA 28-161 2017 Runway Excursion PK ARH Piper PA 28 2020 Runway Excursion Source: NTSC of Indonesia PK SNR Cessna 172 Worker behavior patterns are a sign of safety culture, so workforce behavior directly reflects the organization's safety culture. If a safety culture is empowered, employees will act in accordance with safety principles (Fugas et al., 2012). A safety culture is built through leadership, employee participation, and the integration of safety into all business processes, which is realized through a safety system (Wicaksono et al., 2024). Although companies have committed to safety through routine communication, in reality, safety is often neglected due to project priorities influenced by demographic factors such as education level, work experience, and employment status (Kadir et al., 2022a). 26 Airman: Jurnal Teknik dan Keselamatan Transportasi Volume 8 Nomor 2 Desember 2025 | halaman 24-41 DOI: http//doi.org/10.46509/ajtk.v8i2.768 Addressing Normalization of Deviation (NoD) requires a comprehensive understanding of the internal and external factors that trigger the problem to minimize accidents. (Xu et al., 2024). Indonesia's safety culture is considered quite good, but commitment and collaboration from the organizational, project, and national regulatory levels are still needed as a first step in creating better safety. (Lestari et al., 2020). The Indonesian Civil Pilot Academy (ICPA) in Banyuwangi, as holder of PSC 141-014 certification, implements all safety concepts and assurance measures, including the establishment and operation of a safety management system. The Indonesian Aviation Academy Banyuwangi is supported by good regulations with periodic internal and external audits, the latest technology, trained personnel who have licenses and sufficient flight hours/experience, and the most important is that the leaders commit to safety and represent at declaration or testimony like “The sky is vast but no room for error” or “safety maintained by good preparation”. However, based on table 1 above, the Indonesian Civil Pilot Academy (ICPA) of Banyuwangi, although small, still contributes to several accidents and the most recent incident was the PKBYK which made an emergency landing on the edge of Gumuk Kantong Beach - Muncar - Banyuwangi. Therefore, the research question arises: RQ: What is the perception of flight operation safety at the Indonesian Civil Pilot Academy of Banyuwangi? This study aims to describe the safety picture at flight schools in Indonesian Civil Pilot Academy of Banyuwangi where regulations have been implemented and school leaders are committed to implementing a safety management system and are supported by adequate technology. METHOD The research method used in this study was qualitative. Qualitative research was chosen to facilitate the review of perspectives on safety management system implementation and to assess respondents' perceptions of its implementation. (Lazazzara et al., 2020; Sebele-Mpofu, 2020). The informants used in this study were flight instructors and student pilots. Selecting the most appropriate and balanced informants is crucial in qualitative research to ensure that the information obtained is unbiased. (Rijal Fadli, 2021). The selection of informants used a purposive sampling technique where the primary informants were the chief (Key Person) at PSC 141, senior pilot students, and pre-solo pilot students. The respondents in this study were key personnel from PSC 141-014 ICPA in Banyuwangi. Meanwhile, for pilot students, there were three respondents: senior students with more than 180 hours, pilot students who had reached the CPL phase, and pilot students who had completed the presolo stage. There are only 7 respondents in this study, each with a different background as described above. 7 respondents are sufficient for this research, as each respondent represents a function and a level of flight training at the Indonesian Civil Pilot Academy in Banyuwangi. Data analysis techniques using Q-sort by using Q methodology. The first mechanism carried out is to determine the number of columns in the Q-Sort and determine the statement/concourse that will be used for Q-Sort (Coogan & Herrington, 2011; Watts & Stenner, 2005; Zabala et al., 2018). In this study, 33 Q-sorts were determined, followed by 33 Concourses. Each respondent was given a Q-Sort table (Q grid) and 33 statements/concourses, and each respondent was given the freedom to determine the statements in the available Q-sort. The statement or course chosen in this research is the primary topic of safety management material delivered in the SMS course. A statement or discourse may introduce a new concept, such as practical drift. Table 2. Statements on Q – Sort Statement / Concourse References Practical drift is real in aviation. (Schaap, 2022; York et al., 2022) Every person/personnel has the potential to make mistakes (Pettersen & Schulman, 2019) Procedures are always followed without exception. (Di Nardo et al., 2020) Several procedures in flight operations were violated. (Martin, 2025) Flight operations are conducted in accordance with safe procedures. (Stroeve et al., 2022; Su, 2021) Technology can reduce the potential risk of accidents. (Kim et al., 2019; Li & Guldenmund, 2018) The regulations set are binding. (Kıvanç et al., 2025b) All flight personnel understand safety regulations and procedures. (Kešeľová et al., 2021) Existing hazards and risks have been identified. (Kartal & Bayramoğlu, 2024; Machfudiyanto et al., 2020) Accidents and incidents on flights often occur due to small things (Ziakkas et al., 2023) (errors). 27 Airman: Jurnal Teknik dan Keselamatan Transportasi Volume 8 Nomor 2 Desember 2025 | halaman 24-41 DOI: http//doi.org/10.46509/ajtk.v8i2.768 Statement / Concourse The organization always promotes safety The organization's leadership focuses on aviation safety. The organization's leadership prioritizes aviation safety. Latent conditions are an important thing to pay attention to. Safety management system has been implemented well. The technology used makes it easy to carry out procedures. I never did anything wrong. I always comply and never violate procedures. I pay attention to small things that can reduce the level of safety. Flight safety training has been provided periodically. Safety promotion is carried out continuously. I understand very well that practical drift will occur even if all components of achieving safety are met. The organization implements just culture (no blame). All activities have procedures All personnel have understood the most basic safety concepts. Latent conditions are dangerous conditions. Mistakes will still occur even under the safest conditions. Accidents and/or incidents can occur even if adequate defenses are in place (regulation, technology and training). I have implemented the simplest safety culture, such as not smoking at work. Safety is the absence of danger and risk. Safety has been assessed and measured annually. Safety performance indicators have been established. Implementation of internal and external audits and surveillance improves safety culture. References (Kadir et al., 2022b) (Oktivaningsih et al., 2025) (Ayiei et al., 2020; Prasad Bastola, 2020) (Chan & Li, 2023; Xinğ et al., 2024) (Key et al., 2023) (Dincer, 2023) (Chan & Li, 2023) (Xiong et al., 2024) (Senaj & Jun, 2023) (York et al., 2022) (Schaap, 2022; York et al., 2022) (Coban & Bukec, 2024; Woodlock, 2022) (Yılmaz, 2025) (Xiong et al., 2024) (Xiong et al., 2024) (Xing et al., 2024) (Pettersen & Schulman, 2019; Schaap, 2022) (Woodlock, 2022) (Karanikas et al., 2020) (Provan et al., 2020) (Stroeve et al., 2022) The results of the safety perception assessment by respondents were processed into Excel and put into KADE application to view the consensus statement results in the Q-Sort table (Q grid). The KADE application will process data in the form of Q-sort data input, correlation between respondents, factor analysis, varimax and factor rotation, factor loading calculations, and finally, the consensus display from the Q-sort (Clausen et al., 2021; Rahma et al., 2020). See Figure 3. Figure 3. Q grid as a tool for Q sort in this research Source: (Chikudza et al., 2020; Zabala et al., 2018) 28 Airman: Jurnal Teknik dan Keselamatan Transportasi Volume 8 Nomor 2 Desember 2025 | halaman 24-41 DOI: http//doi.org/10.46509/ajtk.v8i2.768 After the consensus results from the KADE application were obtained, based on the differences in the consensus results, especially between the extreme right (strongly agree) and extreme left (strongly disagree), a Focus Group Discussion was conducted to discuss the topic. To understand the mechanism and flow of thought in this study, see Figure 4 below. The research was conducted from May to July 2025, while the focus group discussion was conducted on July 28, 2025. The focus group discussion only invited key persons from PSC 141 ICPA of Banyuwangi as mentioned above. Figure 4. Thinking Framework Source: (Chikudza et al., 2020; Zabala et al., 2018) RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The results of respondents' completion and selection of the Q-sort table were converted into Microsoft Excel data and entered into the KADE V1.3.1 application. The initial step after entering the data and verifying that there are no data errors is to assess the correlation among respondents. The correlation results for respondents in this study are as follows. Table 3. Correlation between respondents Participants R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R1 100 41 22 19 30 33 31 R2 41 100 59 52 61 51 69 R3 22 59 100 57 36 55 53 R4 19 52 57 100 38 59 51 R5 30 61 36 38 100 54 61 R6 33 51 55 59 54 100 47 31 69 53 51 61 47 100 R7 Source: Output KADE In the Q method, the correlation between respondents (Q correlation) is used to identify similarities or differences in thought patterns, perceptions, or attitudes among participants. (Nguyen & Waller, 2022; Wei et al., 2020). This analysis helps researchers group respondents with similar views into categories, such as "factors" or "personality types," thereby enabling analysis of withingroup variation and how those views may relate to participant characteristics. (Ghojogh et al., 2023; Rieber, 2020). 29 Airman: Jurnal Teknik dan Keselamatan Transportasi Volume 8 Nomor 2 Desember 2025 | halaman 24-41 DOI: http//doi.org/10.46509/ajtk.v8i2.768 After calculating the correlation, the next step is to calculate the factor size for each respondent's opinion using principal component analysis. The results of the unrotated factor size calculation are as follows: Table 4. Unrotated Factor Matrix Participant Fac. 1 Fac. 2 R1 0.4811 R2 R3 R4 0.7357 R5 0.7429 R6 0.7754 R7 Eigenvalues % exp. var. Source: Output KADE Fac. 3 Fac. 4 Fac. 5 Fac. 6 Fac. 7 0.7463 0.4424 -0.0634 0.0577 0.0256 -0.088 0.8498 0.1095 -0.1479 -0.2583 -0.0336 -0.3027 0.2906 0.751 -0.3422 0.224 -0.2902 -0.3833 0.019 -0.1927 -0.403 0.2545 0.0639 0.4484 -0.1236 -0.1053 0.2079 -0.4668 0.3188 -0.0721 -0.1365 -0.2479 -0.1109 0.2196 0.4907 -0.1635 0.148 0.221 0.8097 0.0407 -0.3287 -0.2425 0.1719 0.3806 0.0376 3.8678 0.9057 0.7068 0.5602 0.414 0.2934 0.2521 55 13 10 8 6 4 4 The results of the factor loading of each respondent's assessment found that the highest eigenvalues were 3.8678 in factor 1 and followed by 0.9057 in factor 2. Of the 7 existing factors, those that can be continued are factors with eigenvalues greater than 1 (Fan et al., 2022; Johnstone, 2001; Weiss et al., 2023). Eigenvalues are a factor analysis that is calculated to determine how many factors will be extracted from the total factor analysis (J. D. Brown, 2001). Eigenvalue analysis is a crucial determinant in Q-Method analysis, determining the number of factors to be subjected to Varimax rotation (Clausen et al., 2021; Johnstone, 2001; Ke et al., 2023). Varimax is the most common rotation technique in statistical analysis. To simplify factor interpretation, this orthogonal rotation minimizes the number of variables with high loadings for each factor (Akhtar-Danesh, 2023). In fact, for each factor, this rotation maximizes the variance of its loadings by making high loadings higher and low loadings lower (Akhtar-Danesh, 2023; Nguyen & Waller, 2022). To more clearly see the distribution of eigenvalues in this study, see the screeplot (Figure 5) below. Figure 5. Screeplot Eigenvalues Source: Output KADE The factor loadings are rotated using varimax rotation, placing the two main loading factors into consensus in the Q-Sort. The value of the largest of the two loading factors will be marked 30 Airman: Jurnal Teknik dan Keselamatan Transportasi Volume 8 Nomor 2 Desember 2025 | halaman 24-41 DOI: http//doi.org/10.46509/ajtk.v8i2.768 (flagged) with a significance value of p>0.05. The results of the factor loading that has been rotated using the varimax method and marked (flagged) can be seen in the following table: No Table 5 Flagged factor Loading Q-sort F1 F2 1 R1 0.0253 0.8876 2 R2 0.6705 0.5336 3 R3 0.8197 0.0959 4 R4 0.8381 0.0361 5 R5 0.528 0.5624 6 R6 0.7209 0.3065 7 R7 0.6717 0.454 After the two factor loadings are flagged, the next step is to pull the data from the two factor loadings into each statement/concourse to calculate the Z score and rank them to determine the consensus value of each statement to obtain the final consensus data in the Q-Sort display. The Z score describes how many standard deviations a measurement is above or below the population mean (Curtis et al., 2016; Wei et al., 2020). The results of the Z-score calculation that correspond to the statement are as follows: No Table 6. The Z-score value and level for each statement. F1 Statement / Concourse Z Score Rank F2 Z Score Rank Diff. 1 Practical drift is real in aviation 1.29 5 0.74 9 0.549 2 Every person/personnel has the potential to make mistakes 1.32 4 1.91 1 -0.593 3 Procedures are always followed without exception. -1 28 -0.67 25 -0.328 4 Several procedures in flight operations were violated. 0.54 12 0.08 18 0.457 5 Flight operations are carried out with safe procedures. 0.44 13 1.49 3 -1.057 6 Technology can reduce the potential risk of accidents. 0.86 10 0.33 13 0.531 7 0.24 15 0.66 11 -0.423 -0.82 25 0.67 10 -1.488 -0.37 19 1.08 5 -1.449 1.22 7 0.83 6 0.393 11 The regulations set are binding. All flight personnel are familiar with safety regulations and procedures. Existing hazards and risks have been identified. Accidents and incidents on flights often occur due to small things (errors). The organization continually promotes safety -0.25 17 0.17 15 -0.423 12 The organization's leadership focuses on aviation safety. -1.1 29 -0.25 19 -0.856 13 The organization's leadership prioritizes aviation safety. -0.94 27 -0.66 24 -0.278 14 Latent conditions are important to consider. 1.23 6 0.75 8 0.485 15 The safety management system has been implemented well. -0.07 16 0.25 14 -0.317 16 The technology used facilitates the execution of procedures. 0.63 11 0.16 16 0.462 17 I never did anything wrong. -1.61 32 -1.25 29 -0.357 18 I always comply and never violate procedures. I pay attention to small things that can reduce the level of safety. Flight safety training has been provided periodically. -0.34 18 1.33 4 -1.666 0.29 14 0.83 7 -0.542 -0.55 22 -0.42 22 -0.137 Safety promotion is carried out continuously. I understand very well that practical drift will occur even if all components of achieving safety are met. The organization implements just culture (no blame). -0.45 20 -0.91 27 0.459 0.91 9 0.58 12 0.326 -1.74 33 -1.83 32 0.092 8 9 10 19 20 21 22 23 31 Airman: Jurnal Teknik dan Keselamatan Transportasi Volume 8 Nomor 2 Desember 2025 | halaman 24-41 DOI: http//doi.org/10.46509/ajtk.v8i2.768 No Statement / Concourse F1 F2 Diff. Z Score Rank Z Score Rank All activities have procedures All personnel have demonstrated understanding of the most basic safety concepts. Latent conditions are dangerous conditions. -0.72 24 -0.5 23 -0.221 -1.2 30 1.58 2 -2.781 1.66 1 -0.33 20 1.995 1.44 3 -1.25 30 2.69 1.46 2 -0.33 21 1.79 -0.66 23 -0.75 26 0.093 30 Mistakes will still occur even under the safest conditions. Accidents and/or incidents can occur even if adequate defenses are in place (regulation, technology, and training). I have implemented the simplest safety culture, such as not smoking at work. Safety is the absence of danger and risk. -1.29 31 -0.91 28 -0.376 31 Safety has been assessed and measured annually. -0.47 21 -1.99 33 1.519 -0.88 26 -1.58 31 0.694 0.92 8 0.16 17 0.754 24 25 26 27 28 29 32 Safety performance indicators have been established. Implementation of internal and external audits and surveillance 33 improves safety culture. Diff. = Different Source: Output KADE As seen in Table 6 above, the Z-Score is obtained from each statement/concourse, so that from the Z-score value, a ranking can be given (Wei et al., 2020). The results of this ranking will be entered into a Q-Sort table (Q grid), where those who get the highest Z-Score will be placed in the rightmost table with the conclusion of strongly agree and successively to the lowest Z-Score in the leftmost table with the conclusion of strongly disagree (M. Brown, 2004; Rieber, 2020b; Steelman & Maguire, 1999). The results of the Z-score ranking consist of 2 factor loadings, so there are 2 consensus conclusions in this study. To make it easier to understand table 6 above, it can be seen in figures 6 and 7 below. 32 Airman: Jurnal Teknik dan Keselamatan Transportasi Volume 8 Nomor 2 Desember 2025 | halaman 24-41 DOI: http//doi.org/10.46509/ajtk.v8i2.768 Figure 6. Consensus Results of Factor Loading 1 Based on Figure 6 above, it is found that loading factor 1. the consensus results from those who most agree to those who most disagree respectively, as follows: 1. Latent condition are dangerous conditions (most agreed); 2. Accidents and/or incidents can occur even if adequate defenses are in place (regulation, technology and training) (most agreed); 3. I never did anything wrong (most disagreed); and 4. The organization implements just culture (no blame) (most disagreed). Meanwhile, in the second loading factor as seen in Figure 7 below, the consensus results from those who most agree to those who most disagree are as follows: 1. Every person/personnel has the potential to make mistakes (most agreed); 2. All personnel have understood the most basic safety concepts (most agreed); 3. The organization implements just culture (no blame) (most disagreed); and 4. Safety has been assessed and measured annually (most disagreed). Based on the results of the consensus on both loading factors 1 and 2, it was found that there were similarities, especially in the statement "The organization implements just culture (no blame)" which both expressed disagreement with the statement. To dig for more in-depth information and perspectives, the researcher conducted interviews on focus group discussions with respondents who were key persons from PSC 141 ICPA of Banyuwangi, whose names were disguised as P1, P2, P3 and P4 in order to protect the privacy of the person concerned. 33 Airman: Jurnal Teknik dan Keselamatan Transportasi Volume 8 Nomor 2 Desember 2025 | halaman 24-41 DOI: http//doi.org/10.46509/ajtk.v8i2.768 Figure 7. Consensus Results of Factor Loading 2 The discussion topics in this focus group discussion were differentiating statements between the extreme right (strongly agree) and extreme left (strongly disagree). The topics were as follows: 1. All person/personnel have the potential to make mistakes (most agreed); 2. All personnel have understood the most basic safety concepts (most agreed); 3. Latent condition are dangerous conditions (most agreed); 4. Accidents and/or incidents can occur even if adequate defenses are in place (regulation, technology and training) (most agreed); 5. I never did anything wrong (most disagreed); 6. The organization implements just culture (no blame) (most disagreed); 7. Safety has been assessed and measured annually (most disagreed); The focus group discussion was conducted on July 28, 2025, and focused on the seven topics identified above, which were derived from a consensus of respondents' perceptions using the QMethodology. The overall results of the focus group discussion are presented in Table 7. The results of this study on perceptions of flight safety reflect the conditions experienced by flight operators at ICPA Banyuwangi. It is notable that the consensus opinion on both factors 1 and 2 most strongly disagrees with the statement that "The organization implements just culture (no blame)". This is noteworthy because ICPA Banyuwangi is among the organizations that provide flight training. Based on the data in Table 1. ICPA of Banyuwangi experienced the fewest incidents; the only accident was the ditching of PK-BYK at Gumuk Kantong Beach, which did not result in any fatalities. Topic Most agree Latent conditions are dangerous conditions. Accidents and or incidents can occur even if adequate defenses are in place. Every individual has the potential to make mistakes All personnel have mastered the most basic safety concepts Most disagree I never did anything wrong P1 Table 7. FGD results on 7 topics Respondent / Participant P2 P3 An accident is triggered by small thing P4 The most obvious Culture justifies what example of a latent is normal instead of condition that occurs is getting used to what like the engine cowling is right opening during flight due to a lack of preflight or even the instructor not accompanying the student in pre-flight There are a lot of factor Bad habits lead to that we cannot control. latent conditions and That could possibly lead to accidents or lead to an accident or incidents. incident even though we have strictly monitored it. Every participant not argued with the statement Latent triggers something big conditions (accidents/incidents) If we talk about the basic, we must talk about just culture again and make sure that culture Disagree, if this statement not only flight operation personal or flight operation supporters I agree, everyone understands, whether the violation still occurs or not is a different matter. Reporting hazards is a culture that must be implemented if we want to reduce the potential hazard, even if the person reporting it accidentally carries out the dangerous activity. “I'm always right” is hazardous. That actually happened to me. when we became seniors, sometimes we'd The only problem is that you have to admit your mistake It was Complacency Definitely, because humans are individuals. Humans have limitations like Physical limitations, emotional limitations, etc 34 Airman: Jurnal Teknik dan Keselamatan Transportasi Volume 8 Nomor 2 Desember 2025 | halaman 24-41 DOI: http//doi.org/10.46509/ajtk.v8i2.768 Topic P1 The organization has implemented a just culture It seems like Just Culture itself in our organization is still not appropriately implemented. it's still taboo in our country. so people keep it to themselves Safety has been assessed and measured annually Regarding safety audits, they're actually conducted annually, every two years during the PSC renewal. But again, safety is actually something that isn't paid close attention enough. Respondent / Participant P2 P3 say, "Oh, I can do this. Just to be cool of.” Just culture has not yet Many employees are become a culture, reluctant to report because latent dangers because, each time a are still frequently report is submitted, encountered and tend to they're the ones who be ignored due to fear must complete it. So of speaking out. They are lazy to Because there's still a report something that fear of being blamed is out of the ordinary Actually, there already No man has safety is. It's in the manual. auditor or But this safety audit has investigator never been certifications. implemented. When the operational run well, they think that safety goes well too. P4 Other people resist and deny it. Not only will reporting lead to people being accused of doing wrong, but secondly, when we report, it turns out that others are offended The regulator itself need to more concerned about safety. Based on the results of focus group discussions, it was revealed that it remains taboo for personnel to discuss safety, and most importantly, a reporting culture has not been fully implemented. This is because when they report, the burden of resolving the report falls back on the reporter, and worse, the reporter is blamed for the unpleasant report. This contrasts with the concept of a just culture, which should provide opportunities and recognition to reporters (Coban & Bukec, 2024; Woodlock, 2022). Safety culture is an index of how many employees perceive that the organization emphasizes safety values at all levels, from line management to leadership (Key et al., 2023). Just Culture is a system of shared accountability in which organizations and individuals are held accountable for their mistakes and behavior, but in a fair, honest, and balanced manner, focused on learning and improving the system, not on punishment alone (Coban & Bukec, 2024; Woodlock, 2022). Therefore, based on this definition and the existing consensus, ICPA of Banyuwangi is still far from perfect in implementing a just culture. Another interesting statement on the most disagree side is "I never did anything wrong." All participants agreed to disagree with this statement. This is because they have experienced this feeling themselves, or at least experienced the impact of the statement. Based on participants' perceptions, this feeling arises when it reaches a certain level, leading to a decrease in safety awareness, known as complacent behavior. Complacency is the characteristic of feeling satisfied with a situation even though one is not aware of the potential dangers. (Neff, 2022). Unfounded self-satisfaction which is a characteristic of complacency which is often manifested through compliance drift and normalization of deviance (Burton, 2023). Complacency encompasses many aspects of human behavior, such as making incomplete decisions and rushing to improve response time (Burton, 2023; Neff, 2022). This lack of safety awareness can increase the likelihood of deviations, which may escalate into incidents or accidents. (Kartal & Bayramoğlu, 2024; Machfudiyanto et al., 2020). However, key person at ICPA of Banyuwangi fully understand the potential for error and have made efforts to acknowledge their mistakes. This increases personnel safety awareness and, when combined with a just culture, can improve safety (Karanikas et al., 2020; Schopf et al., 2021). A safety management system has at least four pillars: safety policy (commitment), safety risk assessment, safety promotion, and safety audit. (ICAO, 2018; Kešeľová et al., 2021). One mechanism for measuring implementation is through safety audits (Kim et al., 2019; Prasad Bastola, 2020). The consensus results indicated that respondents most disagreed with the statement that "Safety has been assessed and measured annually." This was further clarified in the discussion, 35 Airman: Jurnal Teknik dan Keselamatan Transportasi Volume 8 Nomor 2 Desember 2025 | halaman 24-41 DOI: http//doi.org/10.46509/ajtk.v8i2.768 noting that ICPA of Banyuwangi does have a safety manual, but safety audits have not been implemented effectively. Respondents also noted the lack of human resources qualified to conduct safety audits or serve as safety investigators. Meanwhile, on the most agree side, respondents (consensus) agreed that latent conditions will give rise to other hazardous conditions. (Xing et al., 2024). Based on participants' opinions, accidents are triggered by minor factors that constitute latent conditions. One of the latent conditions that has been identified is the incident of an aircraft engine cowling opening during flight. From the participant's perspective, this occurs due to a lack of pre-flight checklists, and even flight instructors do not participate in pre-flight preparation. Therefore, the chief of quality issued a new standard operating procedure (SOP), so that flight instructors are involved in the pre-flight process and become a safety learning in flight operations to students. Accidents and incidents can occur despite strong defenses, this phenomenon is called "practical drift" (Snook, 1996; York et al., 2022). Practical drift occurs when safety awareness decreases due to the environment being equipped with adequate defenses, including regulations, technology, and trained human resources (Kim et al., 2019; York et al., 2022). One trigger is bad habits that become latent (Xing et al., 2024). Everyone has the potential to make mistakes, so each individual must be equipped with sufficient knowledge of safety. From the participants' perspectives, differences exist depending on the professional context. While all aviation personnel at ICPA of Banyuwangi have adequate knowledge of safety, they must still be supported by a positive safety culture, including a culture of reporting and just culture. Based on the consensus perception in Q-sort and also the results of focus group discussions, it can be said that ICPA of Banyuwangi safety is quite good because the key person who plays a vital role in flight operations has a good understanding of safety. The personnel understand and agree that latent conditions are dangerous; accidents and incidents will still occur, even with adequate safeguards in place. All flight personnel understand the basic concepts of safety. ICPA Banyuwangi personnel understand that every individual has the potential to make mistakes, and there is no complacent attitude among flight personnel. ICPA of Banyuwangi needs to improve its safety culture and just culture. Safety culture and just culture can encourage personnel to adhere to safety procedures and maintain consistent safety awareness. Just culture will improve safety levels because all personnel are willing to report hazardous incidents, enabling hazards to be identified, risks to be assessed, and mitigated. At the same time, the reporter is protected rather than blamed. CONCLUSION Flight safety is a crucial factor in flight operations, particularly during flight training. Safety must be measurable using various indicators, including the safety perceptions of the flight instructor and the student, particularly on the flight training process. The research results indicate that safety implementation at the Indonesian Civil Pilot Academy of Banyuwangi is quite adequate. Although serious incidents and accidents continue to occur, the responsible parties conduct evaluations, internal audits, and investigations to ensure aviation safety in accordance with CASR 141. The consensus results, both most agreeing and most disagreeing, indicate that safety perceptions are based on two factors: self-awareness and the role of the organization, specifically leadership, in building and developing a safety culture, including a just culture. Complacency and practical drift are important considerations, particularly with respect to self-awareness. Complacency can lead to lapses in compliance, leading to practical drift and resulting in accidents, even if procedures are followed, technology is adequate, and personnel, especially competent personnel, are present. Personnel who feel complacent often ignore input and suggestions, especially safety-related criticism, and always assume they are right. To promote a safety culture, including a just culture, the organization ensures that internal safety audits are conducted by competent, adequately trained personnel. It also develops safety values that can be incorporated into procedures and establishes safety performance indicators that will serve as safety targets and be evaluated annually. The development of a safety culture will be 36 Airman: Jurnal Teknik dan Keselamatan Transportasi Volume 8 Nomor 2 Desember 2025 | halaman 24-41 DOI: http//doi.org/10.46509/ajtk.v8i2.768 more effective if regulators are involved in establishing safety culture indicators and in using them as assessment indicators through audits or surveillance. REFERENCES Akhtar-Danesh, N. (2023). Impact of factor rotation on Q-methodology analysis. PLoS ONE, 18(9 September). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0290728 Ayiei, A., Pollock, L., Khan, F. N., Murray, J., Baxter, G., & Wild, G. (2020). The Role of Leadership in Aviation Safety and Aircraft Airworthiness. Fatigue of Aircraft Structures, 2020(12), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.2478/fas-2020-0001 Brown, J. D. (2001). What is an eigenvalue? Shiken: JALT Testing & Evaluation SIG Newsletter, 5, 15–19. Brown, M. (2004). Illuminating Patterns of Perception: An Overview of Q Methodology. http://www.sei.cmu.edu/publications/pubweb.html Burton, A. (2023). The Influence of Aviation Technology on Human Complacency [Western Michigan University]. https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/honors_theses/3755 Chan, W. T. K., & Li, W. C. (2023). Development of effective human factors interventions for aviation safety management. Frontiers in Public Health, 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2023.1144921 Chikudza, L., Gauzente, C., Guillotreau, P., & Alexander, K. A. (2020). Producer perceptions of the incentives and challenges of adopting ecolabels in the European finfish aquaculture industry: A Q-methodology approach. Marine Policy, 121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2020.104176 Clausen, J. M., Borthwick, A. C., & Rutledge, D. (2021). Collaborative research and use of Q methodology to understand technology infusion in teacher preparation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 69(3), 1617–1639. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423021-10018-3 Coban, R., & Bukec, C. M. (2024). Just Culture in Aviation: A Metaphorical Study on Aircraft Maintenance Students. International Journal of Aviation, Aeronautics, and Aerospace, 11(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.58940/2374-6793.1868 Coogan, J., & Herrington, N. (2011). Q methodology: an overview. RESEARCH IN SECONDARY TEACHER EDUCATION, 1(2), 24–28. Curtis, A. E., Smith, T. A., Ziganshin, B. A., & Elefteriades, J. A. (2016). The Mystery of the ZScore. In AORTA (Vol. 4, Issue 4, pp. 124–130). Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc. https://doi.org/10.12945/j.aorta.2016.16.014 DGCA, I. (2018). Indonesia Progress of Implementing the State Safety Programme (SSP) . https://www.icao.int/Meetings/anconf13/Documents/WP/wp_278_en.pdf Di Nardo, M., Madonna, M., Murino, T., & Castagna, F. (2020). Modelling a safety management system using system dynamics at the Bhopal incident. Applied Sciences (Switzerland), 10(3). https://doi.org/10.3390/app10030903 Dincer, N. (2023). Elevating Aviation Education: A Comprehensive Examination of Technology’s Role in Modern Flight Training. Journal of Aviation, 7(2), 317–323. https://doi.org/10.30518/jav.1279718 Fan, J., Guo, J., & Zheng, S. (2022). Estimating Number of Factors by Adjusted Eigenvalues Thresholding. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 117(538), 852–861. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.2020.1825448 37 Airman: Jurnal Teknik dan Keselamatan Transportasi Volume 8 Nomor 2 Desember 2025 | halaman 24-41 DOI: http//doi.org/10.46509/ajtk.v8i2.768 Febriani, R. (2017, December 4). Lalu Lintas Udara Semakin Padat, Ternyata Begini Cara Menghindari Tabrakan Pesawat Saat Terbang . Tribun Travel.Com. https://travel.tribunnews.com/2017/12/04/lalu-lintas-udara-semakin-padat-ternyata-beginicara-menghindari-tabrakan-pesawat-saat-terbang Fugas, C. S., Silva, S. A., & Meliá, J. L. (2012). Another look at safety climate and safety behavior: Deepening the cognitive and social mediator mechanisms. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 45, 468–477. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2011.08.013 Ghojogh, B., Karray, F., & Crowley, M. (2023). Eigenvalue and Generalized Eigenvalue Problems: Tutorial. ArXiv.Org. http://arxiv.org/abs/1903.11240 ICAO. (2014). Safety Report 2014 Edition. www.icao.int ICAO. (2018). Doc 9859 Safety Management Manual. Johnstone, I. M. (2001). On the Distribution of the Largest Eigenvalue in Principal Components Analysis. In The Annals of Statistics (Vol. 29, Issue 2). Kadir, A., Lestari, F., Sunindijo, R. Y., Erwandi, D., Kusminanti, Y., Modjo, R., Widanarko, B., & Ramadhan, N. A. (2022a). Safety Climate in the Indonesian Construction Industry: Strengths, Weaknesses, and Influential Demographic Characteristics. Buildings, 12(5), 639. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12050639 Kadir, A., Lestari, F., Sunindijo, R. Y., Erwandi, D., Kusminanti, Y., Modjo, R., Widanarko, B., & Ramadhan, N. A. (2022b). Safety Climate in the Indonesian Construction Industry: Strengths, Weaknesses and Influential Demographic Characteristics. Buildings, 12(5). https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12050639 Karanikas, N., Chionis, D., & Plioutsias, A. (2020). “Old” and “new” safety thinking: Perspectives of aviation safety investigators. Safety Science, 125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2020.104632 Kartal, G., & Bayramoğlu, G. (2024). The Safety Management System (SMS) As A Tool for Building Safety Culture in Aviation: A Qualitative Research. Journal of Aviation, 8(3), 315– 324. https://doi.org/10.30518/jav.1493642 Ke, Z. T., Ma, Y., & Lin, X. (2023). Estimation of the Number of Spiked Eigenvalues in a Covariance Matrix by Bulk Eigenvalue Matching Analysis. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 118(541), 374–392. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.2021.1933497 Kešeľová, M., Blištanová, M., Hanák, P., & Brůnová, B. (2021). Safety Management System in Aviation: Comparative Analysis of Safety Management System Approaches in V4 Countries. Management Systems in Production Engineering, 29(3), 208–214. https://doi.org/10.2478/mspe-2021-0026 Key, K. N., Hu, P. T., Choi, I., & Schroeder, D. J. (2023). Safety Culture Assessment and Continuous Improvement in Aviation: A Literature Review. www.faa.gov/go/oamtechreports Kim, N. K., Rahim, N. F. A., Iranmanesh, M., & Foroughi, B. (2019). The role of the safety climate in the successful implementation of safety management systems. Safety Science, 118, 48–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2019.05.008 Kıvanç, E., Tuzkaya, G., & Vayvay, Ö. (2025a). Safety management system and risk-based approach in aviation maintenance: A systematic literature review. Safety Science, 184, 106755. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2024.106755 Kıvanç, E., Tuzkaya, G., & Vayvay, Ö. (2025b). Safety management system and risk-based approach in aviation maintenance: A systematic literature review. In Safety Science (Vol. 184). Elsevier B.V. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2024.106755 38 Airman: Jurnal Teknik dan Keselamatan Transportasi Volume 8 Nomor 2 Desember 2025 | halaman 24-41 DOI: http//doi.org/10.46509/ajtk.v8i2.768 Labodova, A. (2001). Technological Training for SME’s CZ/98/1/82530/PI/III.1.a/FPI Coordinator: A. Labodova; Project duration: 1998–2001. Lazazzara, A., Tims, M., & de Gennaro, D. (2020). The process of reinventing a job: A meta– synthesis of qualitative job crafting research. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2019.01.001 Lestari, F., Sunindijo, R. Y., Loosemore, M., Kusminanti, Y., & Widanarko, B. (2020). A Safety Climate Framework for Improving Health and Safety in the Indonesian Construction Industry. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(20), 7462. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17207462 Li, Y., & Guldenmund, F. W. (2018). Safety management systems: A broad overview of the literature. In Safety Science (Vol. 103, pp. 94–123). Elsevier B.V. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2017.11.016 Machfudiyanto, R. A., Latief, Y., Sagita, L., & Suraji, A. (2020). Identification of institutional safety factors affecting safety culture in construction sector in Indonesia. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 426(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/426/1/012031 Martin, E. (2024). Statistical Summary of Commercial Jet Airplane Accidents. Martin, E. (2025). Statistical Summary of Commercial Jet Airplane Accidents. Neff, P. S. (2022). The Five Hazardous Attitudes, A Subset of Complacency. International Journal of Aviation, Aeronautics, and Aerospace, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.15394/ijaaa.2022.1677 Nguyen, H. V., & Waller, N. G. (2022). Local Minima and Factor Rotations in Exploratory Factor Analysis. Psychological Methods, 28(5), 1122–1141. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000467 Oktivaningsih, A. R., Seran, A. G. A., & Wibisono, K. (2025). Pengaruh Safety Leadership Dan Safety Culture Terhadap Keselamatan Penerbangan pada PT. Lion Mentari Airlines. Optimal, 21(2), 31–47. Pettersen, K. A., & Schulman, P. R. (2019). Drift, adaptation, resilience and reliability: Toward an empirical clarification. Safety Science, 117, 460–468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2016.03.004 Prasad Bastola, D. (2020). The Relationship Between Leadership Styles and Aviation Safety: A Study of Aviation Industry. In Journal of Air Transport Studies (Vol. 11, Issue 1). Provan, D. J., Woods, D. D., Dekker, S. W. A., & Rae, A. J. (2020). Safety II professionals: How resilience engineering can transform safety practice. In Reliability Engineering and System Safety (Vol. 195). Elsevier Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2019.106740 Rahma, A., Mardiatno, D., & Rahmawati Hizbaron, D. (2020). Q methodology to determine distinguishing and consensus factors (a case study of university students’ ecoliteracy on disaster risk reduction). E3S Web of Conferences, 200. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202020001003 Rieber, L. P. (2020a). Q methodology in learning, design, and technology: an introduction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(5), 2529–2549. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09777-2 Rieber, L. P. (2020b). Q methodology in learning, design, and technology: an introduction. Education Tech Research Dev. Rijal Fadli, M. (2021). Memahami desain metode penelitian kualitatif. 21(1), 33–54. https://doi.org/10.21831/hum.v21i1 Schaap, P. (2022). In Search of a Method: How to Prospectively Recognise Drift into Failure [LUND UNIVERSITY]. http://www.risk.lth.se 39 Airman: Jurnal Teknik dan Keselamatan Transportasi Volume 8 Nomor 2 Desember 2025 | halaman 24-41 DOI: http//doi.org/10.46509/ajtk.v8i2.768 Schopf, A. K., Stouten, J., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2021). The role of leadership in air traffic safety employees’ safety behavior. Safety Science, 135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2020.105118 Sebele-Mpofu, F. Y. (2020). Saturation controversy in qualitative research: Complexities and underlying assumptions. A literature review. In Cogent Social Sciences (Vol. 6, Issue 1). Cogent OA. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2020.1838706 Senaj, A. T., & Jůn, F. (2023). Optimization design of flight training regarding cockpit equipment. Práce a Štúdie, 96–100. https://doi.org/10.26552/pas.Z.2023.1.17 Siswantoro, D. P. (2023). RESPONSE SAFETY BULLETIN. https://imsis-djpu.dephub.go.id/vrs/ Snook, S. A. (1996). Practical Drift: The Friendly Fire Shutdown Over Northern Iraq. Harvard University. Steelman, T. A., & Maguire, L. A. (1999). Understanding Participant Perspectives: Q-Methodology in National Forest Management. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 18(3), 361–388. Stroeve, S., Smeltink, J., & Kirwan, B. (2022). Assessing and Advancing Safety Management in Aviation. Safety, 8(2). https://doi.org/10.3390/safety8020020 Su, W.-J. (2021). The Effects of Safety Management Systems, Attitude, and Commitment on Safety Behaviors and Performance. International Journal for Applied Information Management, 1(4), 187–200. Watts, S., & Stenner, P. (2005). Doing Q methodology: Theory, method and interpretation. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 2(1), 67–91. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088705qp022oa Wei, R., Ogden, C. L., Parsons, V. L., Freedman, D. S., & Hales, C. M. (2020). A method for calculating BMI z-scores and percentiles above the 95th percentile of the CDC growth charts. Annals of Human Biology, 47(6), 514–521. https://doi.org/10.1080/03014460.2020.1808065 Weiss, S., Proudler, I. K., Coutts, F. K., & Khattak, F. A. (2023). Eigenvalue decomposition of a parahermitian matrix : extraction of analytic Eigenvectors. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing. Wicaksono, A. W., Peranginangin, A. F., & Sonhaji, I. (2024). Mengelola Manajemen Risiko Melalui Identifikasi Proses Bisnis di Bidang Penerbangan. Jurnal Penelitian, 9(3). Wittmer, A., & Müller Roland. (2014). Aviation Risk and Safety Management (C. Drax, Ed.; 1st ed.). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02780-7 Woodlock, J. (2022). Procedural justice for all? Legitimacy, just culture and legal anxiety in European civil aviation. Law and Society Review, 56(3), 441–476. https://doi.org/10.1111/lasr.12622 Xing, Y., Wu, Y., Zhang, S., Wang, L., Cui, H., Jia, B., & Wang, H. (2024). Discovering latent themes in aviation safety reports using text mining and network analytics. International Journal of Transportation Science and Technology, 16, 292–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijtst.2024.02.009 Xiong, M., Wang, H., Wong, Y. D., & Hou, Z. (2024). Enhancing aviation safety and mitigating accidents: A study on aviation safety hazard identification. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 62, 102732. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.AEI.2024.102732 Xu, X., Gardner, R., Karim, M., Mixco, A., Mojtahedzadeh, M., Palmer, J., Sultze, T., Wang, X., Jackson, D., King, M., Chen, S., Hu, X., Lee, D., Tang, R., Wang, J., Yang, W., Zhu, T., & He, J. (2024). Reduction of Normalization of Deviation (NoD) Using a Socio-Technical Systems Approach. Journal of System Safety, 59(1), 16–22. https://doi.org/10.56094/jss.v59i1.274 40 Airman: Jurnal Teknik dan Keselamatan Transportasi Volume 8 Nomor 2 Desember 2025 | halaman 24-41 DOI: http//doi.org/10.46509/ajtk.v8i2.768 Yılmaz, A. A. (2025). From Simulators to Skies: Engineering and Educational Advancements in Pilot Training: A Bibliometric Perspective. Black Sea Journal of Engineering and Science, 8(2), 524–536. https://doi.org/10.34248/bsengineering.1629319 York, D., Xu, J., Foli, K., & Potetz, J. (2022). Safety Competency, Certification, and Practical Drift. Air Medical Journal, 41(1), 78–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.AMJ.2021.10.008 Zabala, A., Sandbrook, C., & Mukherjee, N. (2018). When and how to use Q methodology to understand perspectives in conservation research. Conservation Biology, 32(5), 1185–1194. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13123 Ziakkas, D., Wayne Suckow, M., & Pechlivanis, K. (2023). The Artificial Intelligence (AI) Certification challenges in Future Single Pilot Operations (SiPO). Human Factors in Transportation, 95. https://doi.org/10.54941/ahfe1003848 41