曝光臺 注意防騙 網曝天貓店富美金盛家居專營店坑蒙拐騙欺詐消費者

Low (some potential for preventing the accident) 1
Moderate (moderate potential for preventing the accident) 2
High (high potential to prevent the accident) 3
Team members individually rated the effectiveness of each intervention for potentially
preventing each of the reviewed accidents. An average intervention rating was calculated
from the individual team member assessments for each accident-intervention
combination, along with an overall effectiveness score (overall average across all 10
accidents). A count was also made for each intervention to indicate the number of
accidents in which the intervention had been judged to have high effect (average
intervention rating for an accident of greater than or equal to 2.5).
The interventions were then assessed by the team for feasibility of implementation within
the United States, using the following rating scale:
Impossible to achieve wide implementation 0
Very difficult to achieve wide implementation 1
Moderately difficult to achieve the implementation 2
Easy to achieve wide implementation 3
If an intervention was determined to be other than ‘easy to achieve wide implementation’
Page 4
(other than 3 on the feasibility scale), a reason, such as cost, technology, culture, etc., was
identified and included with the rating.
The CFIT overall effectiveness and feasibility ratings for each of the interventions are
included in Appendix D. Note that this list contains missing identification numbers due
to the elimination of duplicate interventions.
To prioritize the interventions based on effectiveness and feasibility, the team first
multiplied the overall effectiveness score by the feasibility (E x F). However, the team
quickly identified that the feasibility score was almost entirely responsible for the
resultant E x F score. This was due to the fact that feasibility was rated only once against
each intervention, while effectiveness was assessed against each of 10 accidents and then
averaged across those accidents (many of which had “0” values due to nonapplicability).
The process the team settled on to group the interventions into prioritization categories
began with sorting the interventions by overall effectiveness score. Next, the overall
effectiveness score ordering was reviewed to identify gaps in the continuum of
decreasing scores. This illustrated points of possible differentiation between categories.
However, where obvious divisions did not exist in the data, the scores were grouped into
“top”, “midrange” and “bottom” overall effectiveness categories based on the values of
their overall effectiveness scores. The dividing lines between categories were established
in a somewhat judgmental manner based on the observed range of the scores. Since the
effectiveness scores were averaged across 10 accidents, many of which were not
applicable to a particular intervention, the overall effectiveness scores were considerably
lower than their highest individual scores had been. Thus, the overall effectiveness
scores cannot be compared directly to the individual accident effectiveness scale
provided above.
The overall effectiveness groups were then carried over as the starting point for three
prioritization categories. The groupings were then adjusted based on the feasibility
assessments. Interventions which had “top” overall effectiveness scores but had been
assessed as difficult to implement were moved down to the secondary prioritization
category. Interventions which had “midrange” overall effectiveness scores and were
difficult to implement were likewise moved down to the third prioritization category.
Finally, any intervention with a “bottom” overall effectiveness score but judged to be
highly effective (2.5 or above) for at least one individual accident was moved up to the
secondary prioritization category. All interventions judged as not applicable (N/A) in the
U.S. were moved to the third prioritization category.
Page 5
The prioritization categories are described below:
Recommended: “Top” overall effectiveness scores (greater than or equal to 1.5)
and no worse than moderately difficult to implement (greater
than or equal to 2 on the feasibility scale)
2nd choice: “Top” overall effectiveness scores (greater than or equal to 1.5)
but difficult to implement (less than 2 on the feasibility scale)
or:
“Midrange” overall effectiveness scores (between .75 and 1.5)
but no worse than moderately difficult to implement (greater
than or equal to 2 on the feasibility scale)
or:
Interventions judged to be highly effective against at least one
　
中國航空網 m.k6050.com
航空翻譯 www.aviation.cn
本文鏈接地址：航空資料33(63)