The Effects of Pedagogical Paradigms on Aviation Students with Hazardous Attitudes

Hazardous attitudes can adverselyaffect a pilot's judgment and thus impact the safety of a flight (FAA, 1991). These hazardous attitudes are antiauthority; impulsivity; invulnerability; macho; and, resignation. Wetmore & Lu (inpress) found hazardous attitudes to be a causal or contributing factor in 86% of the general aviation accidents involving a fatality. This study reviews certain fundamental tenets and belief systems for each of the major traditional and modern educational philosophies, ideologies and theories. A qualitative determination was made that many of the pedagogies that permeate our educational system have tenets and beliefs can actually exacerbate rather than ameliorate hazardous attitudes. One of the main conclusions of this study is for aviation teachers to constantly examine their personal pedagogical paradigms and remind themselves of four important questions: (a) Do my aviation students have hizirdous attitudes? (b) What are those hazardous attitudes? (c) Does my own personal teaching style ameliorate or exacerbate those hazardous attitudes? (d) How can I change or adapt my teaching strategies to better serve the needs of those student pilots suffering from hazardous attitudes? Introduction Why do perfectly good pilots crash perfectly good airplanes? This is a question that continues to plague all aviation and especially general aviation. Perhaps the answer to that question can be found in the Aeronautical Decision Making (ADM) process (FAA, 1991). There are 5 hazardous attitudes in aviation adversely affix%& ADM and resulting in risk-taking pilot behavior. These hazardous attitudes are antiauthority, impulsivity, invulnerability, macho and resignation. In 1991, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued an Advisory Circular (AC) concerning ADM for pilots (FAA, 1991). Since then, there has been an irregular, but steady decline in the general aviation accident rate (NTSB, 2000). It would probably be safe to say that by now most pilots are aware of how hazardous attitudes lead to risk-taking behavior. However, despite the best efforts of the FAA, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), certified flight instructors (CFI), aviation educators, aviation researchers, and professional organizations such as the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), aviation accidents are still occurring where hazardous attitudes are a Eactor (Wetmore 6 Lu, in-pre J). Training in ADM and hazardous attitudes has become a standard part of the curriculum in most professional pilot programs. All Certified Flight Instructors are required to teach their aviation students about how to recognize and avoid hazardous attitudes (FAA, 1999). The FAA requires ADM to be evaluated during practical flight tests (FAA, 2002a; FAA, 2002b; FAA, 2004a). The logic is that good decisions and sound judgments can help to reduce pilot error. For example, here at Central Missouri State University, ADM and hazardous attitude training is included in the following courses: Private Pilot, Instrument Pilot, Commercial Pilot, CFI, and Advanced Flight Crew Management (AFCM). This type of ADM and hazardous attitude education probably occurs in most university aviation programs and in non-collegiate ones as well. Once again, despite all of this ADM education, hazardous attitudes are still a factor in aviation accidents. The question now becomes: Why are perfectly good pilots, who have been trained in ADM and are aware ofthe dangers of hazardous attitudes, still crashing perfectly good airplanes? This paper proposes one possible explanation to that question: Some of the basic tenets and beliefs of the educational philosophies, ideologies, and theories (pedagogical paradigms) permeating our educational system can actually exacerbate rather than ameliorate hazardous attitudes. This paper examines the basic beliefs and tenets of various educational philosophies, ideologies, and theories (pedagogical paradigms) for their potentially ameliorating or exacerbating effects on student pilots with hazardous attitudes. In addition, this study discusses the potentially beneficial or harmful effects of various pedagogical strategies when instructing student pilots with hazardous attitudes. JAAER, Spring 2007 Page 25 1 Wetmore et al.: The Effects of Pedagogical Paradigms on Aviation Students with Ha Published by ERAU Scholarly Commons, 2007 Hazardous Attitudes and Pedagom Research Questions The purpose of this paper is threefold: (a) to present quantitative data on the role of hazardous attitudes in general aviation accidents that involved a fatality; (b) to discuss the basic beliefs and tenets of the various educational philosophies, ideologies, and theories; and, (c) to discuss how pedagogical paradigms can have either a ameliorating or exacerbating effect on student pilots with hazardous attitudes. The research questions which satisfy this purpose are as follows: 1) What are the basic beliefs and tenets of the major educational philosophies, ideologies and theories? 1 2) How do these educational pedagogies affect student pilots with hazardous attitudes? 3) What pedagogical strategies can an aviation instructor use to ameliorate and not exacerbate the hazardous attitudes likely to be present in many aviation students? Literature Review ~eront both significantly reduce displayed hazardous attitudes. Antiauthority. People with antiauthority reject the authority of public agencies and the opinions of recognized experts. Antiauthority is an attitude found in people who do not like being told what to do (FAA, 1999). It is an attitude where people are fesentful towards rules, regulations and procedures. They proceed with an inadvisable course of action despite the rules and training (FAA, 2001). They typically reject the rules and regulations of the Federal Aviation Administration, the directions and instructions given by air traffic control, and the advice of their own flight instructor. Impulsivity. Pilots with impulsivity act on sudden, spontaneous urges. They feel the need to take immediate action (FAA, 1999). They act recklessly without thinking about the consequences. These pilots do not take the time to consider all options and to select the best course of action