ABSTRACT
"Human error" as explanation for accidents has become increasingly unsatisfying. There is always an organizational world that lays the groundwork for the "errors", and an operational one that allows them to spin into larger trouble. Human factors risks falling into the trap of citing "human error" by any other name. That is, for a human factors investigation to be taken seriously, it should contain its dose of situation awarenesses and stresses and workloads. Human factors concepts that have more scientific merit in the sense that they supported by better articulated models of human performance. Just like "human error", labels like the ones also hide what really went on, and instead simply judge people for what they did not do. Rather than explaining why people did what they did, these labels say "human error" over and over again. The use of large terms in investigative findings and explanations may be seen as the rite of passage into psychological phenomena.
