As aircraft have become more reliable, humans have played a progressively more important causal role in aviation accidents, resulting in the proliferation of human error frameworks and accident investigation schemes. To date, however, few efforts have been made to systematically organize these different approaches based on underlying theoretical similarities, and formalized methods for evaluating the utility of these multiple approaches have not been clearly defined. Many safety professionals, therefore, have been at a loss when choosing which error analysis and prevention approach to use within their organizations. As a result, those tasked with instituting human-centered safety programs often rely primarily on personal experience and intuition to address their needs. The purpose of this article is to help remedy this situation by providing safety practitioners with an overview of the prominent human error perspectives in aviation, as well as a set of objective criteria for evaluating human error frameworks.