Communication and Flexibility in Aircrews Facing Unexpected and Risky Situations

This study examined the differences in communication patterns of “low-flexible” and “high-flexible” aircrews facing unexpected situations. During a flight simulation, 10 3-member aircrews were confronted with 2 events associated with low risk level (technical failure) and high risk level (threat to flight safety). In high-risk decision situations, low-flexible crews expressed their personal opinions more frequently than high-flexible crews, but they tended to argue by recalling procedures, whereas high-flexible crews more frequently argued by describing the context of the situation. However, overall, the frequency of dissent and argumentation was low, suggesting an impact of cognitive cost of these activities in risky situations.

[1]  L. Karsenty,et al.  Cooperative work : The role of explanation in creating a shared problem representation' , 2000 .

[2]  Alan Searleman,et al.  Rigidity of thought and behavior: 100 years of research. , 2002, Genetic, social, and general psychology monographs.

[3]  René Amalberti,et al.  Cognitive-Adaptation Training for Improving Performance and Stress Management of Air Force Pilots , 2012 .

[4]  Douglas A. Wiegmann,et al.  Visual Flight Rules Flight Into Instrument Meteorological Conditions: An Empirical Investigation of the Possible Causes , 2001 .

[5]  Emily S. Patterson,et al.  Collaborative cross-checking to enhance resilience , 2005, Cognition, Technology & Work.

[6]  David O'Hare,et al.  The Role of Situation Assessment and Flight Experience in Pilots' Decisions to Continue Visual Flight Rules Flight into Adverse Weather , 2002, Hum. Factors.

[7]  C. Chauvin,et al.  Impact of training programs on decision-making and situation awareness of trainee watch officers , 2009 .

[8]  Ute Fischer,et al.  How do Flight Crews Detect and Prevent Errors? Findings from a Flight Simulation Study , 1998 .

[9]  E. Salas,et al.  Team cognition : understanding the factors that drive process and performance , 2004 .

[10]  K Mjos.  COMMUNICATION AND OPERATIONAL FAILURES IN THE COCKPIT , 2001 .

[11]  Ulrich Klocke.  How to Improve Decision Making in Small Groups , 2007 .

[12]  Maaike Harbers Delft.  Enhancing Team Performance through Effective Communication , 2012 .

[13]  S. Schulz-Hardt,et al.  Group decision making in hidden profile situations: dissent as a facilitator for decision quality. , 2006, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[14]  S. Schulz-Hardt,et al.  The dissemination of critical, unshared information in decision-making groups: the effects of pre-discussion dissent , 2002 .

[15]  Nadine B. Sarter,et al.  Error Types and Related Error Detection Mechanisms in the Aviation Domain: An Analysis of Aviation Safety Reporting System Incident Reports , 2000 .

[16]  Pierre Falzon,et al.  The development of collective reliability: a study of therapeutic decision-making , 2008 .

[17]  Barbara G. Kanki.  COMMUNICATION AND CREW RESOURCE MANAGEMENT. , 1993 .

[18]  J. Quesada,et al.  Cognitive flexibility and adaptability to environmental changes in dynamic complex problem-solving tasks , 2003, Ergonomics.

[19]  Tamara van Gog,et al.  The Effects of Critical Thinking Instruction on Training Complex Decision Making , 2010, Hum. Factors.

[20]  Eduardo Salas,et al.  Analyzing Communication Sequences for Team Training Needs Assessment , 1998, Hum. Factors.

[21]  Nancy J. Cooke,et al.  On Teams, Teamwork, and Team Performance: Discoveries and Developments , 2008, Hum. Factors.

[22]  J. Hoc,et al.  Cognitive Control Dynamics for Reaching a Satisficing Performance in Complex Dynamic Situations , 2007 .

[23]  Françoise Darses,et al.  Analyse du processus d'argumentation dans une situation de reconception collective d'outillages , 2006 .

[24]  J. Orasanu,et al.  Cognitive and contextual factors in aviation accidents: Decision errors. , 2001 .

[25]  David O'Hare,et al.  Enhancing Aeronautical Decision Making through Case-Based Reflection , 2009 .