Two studies were conducted to identify effective communication strategies for calling attention to problems and getting action on them from other crew members. In Study 1, pilots in both crew positions relied primarily on one status-consistent strategy to request action of another crew member: Captains generally preferred to use commands, while first officers predominantly used hints. However, when asked to rate the effectiveness of various strategies in Study 2, captains and first officers: favored communications that appealed to the crew concept rather than to any particular status-based model.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Blum-KulkaS.HouseJ.KasperG. (Eds.). 1989. Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. (Advances in Discourse Processes: Vol. 31). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.
2.
BrownP.LevinsonS. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universal in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
JentschF.MartinL.BowersC. (1997). Identifying critical training needs for junior first officers. Special Technical Report submitted to Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems Division. May 12, 1997,.
5.
LindeC. (1988). The quantitative study of communicative success: Politeness and accidents in aviation discourse. Language in Society, 17, 375–399.
6.
National Transportation Safety Board (1982). Aircraft Accident Report: Air Florida, Inc., Boeing 737-222, N62AF, Collision with 14th Street Bridge, Near Washington National Airport, Washington, D. C., January 13, 1982 (NTSB-AAR-82-8). Washington, DC: Author.
7.
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) (1994). Safety study: A review of flightcrew-involved, major accidents of U.S. air carriers, 1978 through 1990 (NTSB/SS-94/01). Washington DC: National Technical Information Service.
8.
OrasanuJ. (1994). Shared problem models and flight crew performance. In JohnstonN.McDonaldN.FullerR. (Eds.), Aviation psychology in practice. (pp. 255–285). Avebury Technical.
9.
OrasanuJ.FischerU. (1992). Distributed cognition in the cockpit: Linguistic control of shared problem solving. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 189–194). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
10.
OrasanuJ.MartinL.DavisonJ. (In press). Cognitive and contextual factors in aviation accidents. In KleinG.SalasE. (Eds.) Applications of Naturalistic Decision Making. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
11.
SearleJ. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
