Study of perseveration behaviors in military aeronautical accidents and incidents

Abstract

Perseveration behaviours have been studied for several years in the aeronautical domain through the analysis of plan continuation errors. However, the cognitive processes underlying these behaviors and the factors responsible for them have usually been studied in isolation rather than conjointly. The goal of the current study was to identify cognitive processes and factors involved in perseveration behaviors in real-life aeronautical situations. Thirty investigation reports concerning accidents or incidents involving French military aircrafts were analyzed in order to reconstruct the decision sequences involved. For each decision point, we identified the way information indicating a change in the situation was processed. The results showed that in 54% of cases, perseveration behaviors were unrelated to failures of information processing. Instead, perseveration behaviors were mostly due to aircrews’ excessive confidence in their risk management skills. Collaborative actions apparently played an important role, since the lack of synergy between crew members was identified by investigators as the second most-important factor of this type of perseveration behavior, and in 80% of cases in which recovery from perseveration occurred, it did so due to outsider intervention. Implications of these findings, and directions for future research, are discussed.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Amalberti

(2001). La conduite de systèmes à risques (2nd ed.). Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

Bourgeon

Valot

Fauconnet

Loyau

Navarro

(2009). The effects of success-related pressure on information processing strategies and plan continuation error. In Proceedings of the 15th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology (pp. 563-568). Dayton, OH: Wright State University.

Bureau d’Enquêtes et d’Analyses pour la sécurité de l’aviation civile. (1997). Objectif: destination. 1991-1996. Retrieved from http://www.beafr.org/etudes/objectifdestination/objdes.htm .

Burian

B. K.

Orasanu

Hitt

(2000). Weather-related decision errors: Differences across flight types. In Proceedings of the IEA 2000 and HFES 2000 Congress (pp. 22-25). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.

Coleman

A. M.

(2009). Oxford dictionary of psychology (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Goh

Wiegmann

D. A.

(2001a). An investigation of the factors that contribute to pilots’ decisions to continue to visual flight rules flight into adverse weather. In Proceedings of the Human factors and Ergonomics Society 45th Annual Meeting (pp. 26-29). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.

Goh

Wiegmann

D. A.

(2001b). Visual flight rules flight into instrument meteorological conditions: An empirical investigation of the possible causes. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology 11(4), 359-379.

Muthard

E. K.

Wickens

C. D.

(2002). Change detection after preliminary flight decisions: linking planning errors to biases in plan monitoring. In Proceedings of the 46th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.

Muthard

E. K.

Wickens

C. D.

(2003). Factors that mediate flight plan monitoring and errors in plan revision: planning under automated and high workload conditions. In Proceedings of the 12th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology. Dayton, OH: Wright State University.

10.

O’Hare

(1990). Pilots’ perception of risks and hazards in general aviation. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 61(7), 599-603.

11.

O’Hare

Smitheran

(1995). “Pressing on” into deteriorating conditions: an application of behvaioral decision theory to pilot decision making. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 5(4), 351-370.

12.

Orasanu

Fisher

Davison

(2002). Risk perception: a critical element of aviation safety. In Proceedings oh the IFAC 15th Triennial World Congress. Barcelona, Spain.

13.

Orasanu

Martin

Davison

(2001). Cognitive and contextual factors in aviation accidents: Decision errors. In Salas

Klein

G. A.

(Eds.), Linking expertise and naturalistic decision making (pp. 209-225). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

14.

Wiegmann

D. A.

Goh

O’Hare

(2002). The role of situation assessment and flight experience in pilots’ decisions to continue visual flight rules flight into adverse weather. Human Factors, 44(2), 189-197.