Accident Investigation ProverをAIに接続

• 01 / 02対策案の生成方法
• 02 / 02因果関係のマッピング方法

最速日

763ms

最遅日

1047ms

14日間の傾向

遅延傾向+17%

Accident Investigation Prover Connector

準備完了です。MCPクライアントを選択し、セットアップ手順に従ってください。

コネクタリンクhttps://edge.vinkius.com/vk_preview_lW5eq02uyQWDJiNGsxX901icN7Fl8AQ8SwMOpToG/mcpコピー

Claude Desktop

以下の手順で数秒で接続できます。

1. 1In Claude Desktop, open Settings → Connectors.
2. 2Click “Add custom connector” and paste the connector link above as the remote MCP server URL.
3. 3Click Add and start a new chat — Accident Investigation Prover capabilities are ready to use.

設定 · claude_desktop_config.jsonコピー

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "accident-investigation-prover-mcp": {
      "url": "https://edge.vinkius.com/vk_preview_lW5eq02uyQWDJiNGsxX901icN7Fl8AQ8SwMOpToG/mcp"
    }
  }
}

• Claude
• ChatGPT
• Cursor
• VS Code
• Windsurf
• Claude Code
• JetBrains
• Cline

各クライアントの手順ガイドはこちらです。 接続方法

Claude向けのガイド付きセットアップ？ Accident Investigation ProverをClaudeや他のAIに設定する

このConnectorが対応するすべてのAIクライアントを見る ↑

• 01

  航空事故調査官

  ICAOやNTSBの厳格なガイドラインに基づき、多角的な証拠を統合した信頼性の高い調査レポートを作成する必要があります。

• 02

  航空安全エンジニア

  ヒューマンエラーの背後にある組織的・システム的な要因を特定し、具体的な安全改善策を策定する役割を担います。

• 03

  航空会社管理者

  事故やインシデント発生時、単なる責任追及ではなく、組織の運用プロセスや訓練体制の根本的な改善点を見つけ出したい場合に活用できます。

• 01

  Does this MCP just tell me who was at fault?

  No. The MCP is designed to prevent assigning blame. It focuses on the systemic failure. It forces the analysis to look at organizational decisions, like scheduling pressure or training gaps, rather than just pilot error.

• 02

  What kind of data does it need to run?

  It requires highly specific data sources, including FDR parameters, CVR transcripts with timestamps, ATC recordings, and detailed maintenance logs. Narrative descriptions alone are insufficient.

• 03

  What is the difference between this and a standard AI prompt?

  A standard prompt accepts a single conclusion. This MCP forces the AI to use the NTSB/ICAO methodology, demanding a causal chain, four-level human factor classification, and evidence correlation across multiple sources.

• 04

  Can it analyze non-aviation incidents?

  The MCP is built around aviation standards (ICAO Annex 13). Its capabilities and methodologies are specific to aviation safety and accident investigation.

• 05

  What does 'HFACS' mean?

  HFACS stands for Human Factors Analysis and Classification System. The MCP uses it to classify every contributing factor into one of four levels: unsafe acts, preconditions, supervision, or organizational issues.

• 06

  How does this prevent 'pilot error' as a root cause conclusion?

  The engine maintains a semantic trap list of blame-language signals: 'pilot error,' 'crew error,' 'human error,' 'judgment error,' 'failed to,' 'negligence.' If the LLM uses any of these in the HFACS taxonomy field, the classification is rejected. Instead, the LLM must classify each factor at the correct HFACS level: Level 1 (what the pilot did. skill error, decision error, perceptual error, or violation), Level 2 (what conditions enabled it. fatigue, CRM failure, environment), Level 3 (what supervision allowed it. scheduling, training gaps), Level 4 (what organizational decisions created it. budget cuts, staffing, regulatory gaps). 'Pilot error' is Level 1 only. the investigation must reach Level 4.

• 07

  What evidence sources must be cross-referenced?

  Five mandatory sources: (1) Flight Data Recorder. minimum 88 parameters per ICAO Annex 6, with timestamps. (2) Cockpit Voice Recorder. last 2 hours of audio, transcribed with timestamps, correlated with FDR parameter changes. (3) ATC recordings. radar track, clearances, handoffs, weather advisories. (4) Maintenance logs. last A/B/C/D checks, MEL items, deferred defects, AD compliance, component life (TSN/TSO/CSN/CSO). (5) Wreckage analysis. impact signatures, fire patterns, fracture analysis (fatigue vs overload), metallurgical examination. The engine rejects speculative language like 'it appears that' or 'evidence suggests' when hard data from these sources exists.

• 08

  Why does this require recommendations to be addressed to specific authorities?

  Because 'improve training' with no addressee has zero accountability. The NTSB model requires each recommendation to name the authority responsible for implementation. the FAA, the operator, the manufacturer, or an international body. Each recommendation must include: what specific action to take, measurable success criteria, a response deadline (typically 90 days), a verification mechanism (audit, inspection, data review), and a direct link to a specific investigation finding. This is how aviation achieved its extraordinary safety record. not through vague wishes, but through tracked, accountable, evidence-linked changes.

• 

  Flight Risk Assessment Prover AIコネクタ

  A dispatch office cleared a flight into known CB activity with 'proceed with caution.' The crew never returned

  表示
• 

  Causal-Graph Navigator AIコネクタ

  LLMs reason by statistical proximity, confusing word co-occurrence with direct causal relationships. This tool

  表示
• 

  Engineering Reasoning Prover AIコネクタ

  An engineering report cited 'industry standards' without naming a single one. Engineering Reasoning Prover for

  表示
• 

  Modelbit (ML Model Deployments) AIコネクタ

  Deploy and call machine learning models directly from your AI agent using Modelbit's inference endpoints.

  表示

おすすめ

• 

  Legal Reasoning Prover AIコネクタ

  A legal memo cited cases that do not exist and confused jurisdiction. Legal Reasoning Prover forces IRAC-based

  表示
• 

  Journalistic Reasoning Prover AIコネクタ

  A report cited three sources. None of them existed. That is not an error � that is fabrication. Journalistic R

  表示
• 

  Incident Postmortem Prover AIコネクタ

  Most postmortems fail: vague timelines, symptom-level root causes, and action items with no owner. This tool f

  表示
• 

  Reasoning Model Economics AIコネクタ

  Financial modeling for reasoning-intensive LLM economics.

  表示