A Look at Risk Attitude: Flight Students Compared to Non-Flight Students

This study delves into a student pilot’s ability to perceive levels of risk compared to non-flight students. A pilot’s ability to assess risks and adequately mitigate or prevent that risk is essential for safe operation. A key principle for safe decision making is the ability to identify and correctly determine the level of risk within a situation. The base of pilot training should give an individual the tools necessary to identify these risks. In order to study the differences in risk attitudes of flight students compared to non-flight students, we administered a survey. Participants were collegiate flight and non-flight students recruited from a four-year university in Florida. All participants were administered the DOSPERT Risk Measurement Test (Blias & Weber, 2006). The DOSPERT Test is comprised of 30 questions on a 7-point Likert type scale ranging from Not at all Risky to Extremely Risky. The questions involve areas including Social, Recreational, Financial, Health, and Ethics. The implications of our study’s results could be used to further understand the differences of risk attitudes of pilots as compared to non-pilots. This study will be generalizable to students in four-year collegiate flight programs or STEM degrees. The data collection is ongoing, and the results will be ready to present by December

Prevalence of Invulnerability in Collegiate Part 141 Flight Students

Nearly every flight training program focuses on promoting good habits for aeronautical decision making. Some of the factors that influence aeronautical decision making are hazardous attitudes. The five hazardous attitudes are thought patterns that put pilots at risk of being involved in an accident. The purpose of this study is to determine the prevalence of one hazardous attitude, invulnerability, in Collegiate Part 141 flight students. Participants were recruited from a collegiate flight program at a university in Florida. Invulnerability is particularly important to study because a pilot thinking that he/she is immune from being in an accident could lead to a dangerous situation. The authors find this particular attitude important to study in college students because that segment of the population is still undergoing brain development. The study employed an ex-post facto design where participants were administered a 30-question survey consisting of Hunter\u27s (2005)’s New Hazardous Attitudes Scale. The study was administered to students during their private, instrument, commercial, and flight instructor ground school courses respectively. The findings of this study will help determine how changes in knowledge level affected students’ levels of invulnerability. Data collection is ongoing, and the results will be ready by early December. The study’s data will be analyzed via a between-subjects one-way ANOVA

Examining the Impact of Overhearing In-Flight Cell-Phone Calls on Passenger Safety

Objective: The study examined the effects of passengers’ conversations on adjacent passengers’ annoyance, attention to in-flight announcements, and performance on following instructions, which could lead to passengers’ injuries. Background: Some airlines have provided services to enable in-flight cell-phone calls. However, passengers’ compliance with safety instructions is essential. Previous research demonstrated that cell-phone calls led to higher levels of distractions than face-to-face dialogues, and people were more annoyed with one-sided conversations, such as most cell-phone conversations. Method: Twenty-four participants took 30-minute simulated flights in a laboratory room. Three announcements, which instructed participants to fasten seatbelts, raise tray tables, and check seatbelts, were given while pre-recorded conversations, including cell-phone and face-to-face conversations, were being played. Participants’ annoyance with conversations and attention to instructions were collected with questionnaires. The performance regarding following instructions was measured by observing compliant behavior. Results: Participants were more annoyed with cell-phone conversations, but they had equivalent levels of attention and compliance. Response times were longer when they were overhearing face-to-face conversations. Conclusion: Cell-phone calls are not more distracting, and they may be safer sometimes than traditional face-to-face dialogues. From a passenger compliance standpoint, cell phones can be allowed and supported. However, the annoyance caused by cell-phone conversations needs to be taken into consideration