Situational pressures on aviation decision making: goal seduction and situation aversion

Introduction: The context in which a decision is made can shape the decision process in important ways. Of particular interest here are ‘ strong ’ situations, that is, contexts where the situation itself exerts an influence on decision making. Borrowing concepts from field theory and approach/avoidance theory, this paper explores the influence of strong situations on pilot decision making. Method: There were 28 pilots flying in Alaska who were interviewed using a critical incident technique where participants were asked to relate stories about challenging flying situations. A bottom-up qualitative analysis of reported social and psychological pressures revealed a range of types, including strong situations, which are described in this paper. Results: Strong situations were mentioned in 67% of the interviews and included situations likely to motivate the pilot toward unsafe behavior (goal seduction) and situations likely to motivate the pilot away from safe behavior (situation aversion). Goal seduction situations included rescuing others, meeting a significant other, time-related constraints, financial pressures, and unspecified goal seduction; aversive situations included physical discomfort, not having maintenance or facilities for the airplane, and a lack of basic necessities (e.g., lodging) for the pilot. Discussion: Goal seduction describes one broad, unspecified influence on pilot decision making, but situation aversion is also an important motivator for some pilots. Goal seduction and situation aversion may well underlie the phenomena of plan continuation errors, the tendency for pilots to continue despite evidence suggesting it is imprudent. This study suggests some specific factors that constrain decision making for pilots in challenging situations

Challenges of NextGen technologies for coordinated decision making and the exchange of information between pilots and controllers

Introduction: This paper presents two studies that explore the implications of NextGen technologies for pilot/controller information exchange and coordinated decision making. Method: In Study 1 five participative focus groups were conducted with human factors experts. In Study 2 fifteen interviews were conducted with air traffic controllers. Both studies employed a thematic analysis. Results and Discussion: Results from Study 1 suggest that changes to pilot and controller information acquisition will alter rather than reduce breakdowns in coordinated decision making. Study 2 identified some basic issues in information exchange with NextGen technologies and suggests that some important non-operational information will be lost. Conclusion: The two studies highlight some important challenges that need to be carefully considered as the NextGen technologies move towards maturity

Challenges of NextGen Technologies for Coordinated Decision Making and the Exchange of Information between Pilots and Controllers

Introduction: This paper presents two studies that explore the implications of NextGen technologies for pilot/controller information exchange and coordinated decision making. Method: In Study 1 five participative focus groups were conducted with human factors experts. In Study 2 fifteen interviews were conducted with air traffic controllers. Both studies employed a thematic analysis. Results and Discussion: Results from Study 1 suggest that changes to pilot and controller information acquisition will alter rather than reduce breakdowns in coordinated decision making. Study 2 identified some basic issues in information exchange with NextGen technologies and suggests that some important non-operational information will be lost. Conclusion: The two studies highlight some important challenges that need to be carefully considered as the NextGen technologies move towards maturity

Socializing the Human Factors Analysis and Classification System : incorporating social psychological phenomena into a Human Factors Error Classification System

Objective: The presence of social psychological pressures on pilot decision making was assessed using qualitative analyses of critical incident interviews. Background: Social psychological phenomena have long been known to influence attitudes and behavior but have not been highlighted in accident investigation models. Method: Using a critical incident method, 28 pilots who flew in Alaska were interviewed. The participants were asked to describe a situation involving weather when they were pilot in commandand found their skills challenged. They were asked to describe the incident in detail but were not explicitly asked to identify social pressures. Pressures were extracted from transcripts in a bottom-up manner and then clustered into themes. Results: Of the 28 pilots, 16 described social psychological pressures on their decision making, specifically, informational social influence, the foot-in-the-door persuasion technique, normalization of deviance, and impression management and self-consistency motives. Conclusion: We believe accident and incident investigations can benefit from explicit inclusion of common social psychological pressures. Application: We recommend specific ways of incorporating these pressures into the Human Factors Analysis and Classification System

Organizational pressures and mitigating strategies in small commercial aviation: findings from Alaska

Introduction: Recent attention has focused on the way in which organizational factors can erode safety in aviation, particularly in regions that have a high accident rate, such as Alaska. The present study builds on this work by examining the direct and indirect pressures that can be exerted on pilots by Alaskan operators. In addition, the paper examines ways in which organizations and individuals manage the effects of pressure. Method: Using the critical incident method to uncover situations where the pilot’s skills had been challenged, 28 pilots who flew in Alaska were interviewed. A bottom-up qualitative analysis revealed a range of organizational pressures and mitigating strategies. Results: Pilots in Alaska encountered both implicit and explicit norms and expectations to fly in marginal conditions. Pressure also arose from pilots ’ awareness of the need for their company to make money and from perceived job competition. Some Alaskan operators were able to mitigate the effects of pressure on their pilots and some pilots reported mitigating pressure to fly by managing their employer’s expectations and re-emphasizing safety. Discussion: Organizational factors were found to be an important source of pressure for pilots and are likely to contribute to the high accident rate in Alaska. Balancing the competing demands of safety and productivity may be extremely difficult for many small operators, which places a heavy reliance on the decision making of individuals. Both the subtle pressures on individual pilots and strategies for mitigating those pressures are, therefore, extremely important to safety and productivity in small-scale commercial aviation

Christopher Bearman, Susannah B.F. Paletz, Judith Orasanu and Matthew J.W. Thomas (2010), 'The breakdown of coordinated decision making in distributed systems', Human Factors, 52, pp. 173-88

Objective: This article aims to explore the nature and resolution of breakdowns in coordinated decision making in distributed safety-critical systems. Background: In safety-critical domains, people with different roles and responsibilities often must work together to make coordinated decisions while geographically distributed. Although there is likely to be a large degree of overlap in the shared mental models of these people on the basis of procedures and experience, subtle differences may exist. Method: Study 1 involves using Aviation Safety Reporting System reports to explore the ways in which coordinated decision making breaks down between pilots and air traffic controllers and the way in which the breakdowns are resolved. Study 2 replicates and extends those findings with the use of transcripts from the Apollo 13 National Aeronautics and Space Administration space mission. Results: Across both studies, breakdowns were caused in part by different types of lower-level breakdowns (or disconnects), which are labeled as operational, informational, or evaluative. Evaluative disconnects were found to be significantly harder to resolve than other types of disconnects. Conclusion: Considering breakdowns according to the type of disconnect involved appears to capture useful information that should assist accident and incident investigators. The current trend in aviation of shifting responsibilities and providing increasingly more information to pilots may have a hidden cost of increasing evaluative disconnects. Application: The proposed taxonomy facilitates the investigation of breakdowns in coordinated decision making and draws attention to the importance of considering subtle differences between participants’ mental models when considering complex distributed systems

The breakdown of coordinated decision making in distributed systems

Objective: This article aims to explore the nature and resolution of breakdowns in coordinated decision making in distributed safety-critical systems. Background: In safety-critical domains, people with different roles and responsibilities often must work together to make coordinated decisions while geographically distributed. Although there is likely to be a large degree of overlap in the shared mental models of these people on the basis of procedures and experience, subtle differences may exist. Method: Study 1 involves using Aviation Safety Reporting System reports to explore the ways in which coordinated decision making breaks down between pilots and air traffic controllers and the way in which the breakdowns are resolved. Study 2 replicates and extends those findings with the use of transcripts from the Apollo 13 National Aeronautics and Space Administration space mission. Results: Across both studies, breakdowns were caused in part by different types of lower-level breakdowns (or disconnects), which are labeled as operational, informational, or evaluative. Evaluative disconnects were found to be significantly harder to resolve than other types of disconnects. Conclusion: Considering breakdowns according to the type of disconnect involved appears to capture useful information that should assist accident and incident investigators. The current trend in aviation of shifting responsibilities and providing increasingly more information to pilots may have a hidden cost of increasing evaluative disconnects. Application: The proposed taxonomy facilitates the investigation of breakdowns in coordinated decision making and draws attention to the importance of considering subtle differences between participants’ mental models when considering complex distributed systems