Aeronautical decision making research has focused almost exclusively on general and commercial aviation - with little attention given to the military aviation domain. This research has also been limited by its lack of realism and/or inability to probe aviators for additional clarifying information relevant to their decisions. This study addresses these shortcomings by using in-depth interviews of critical incidents guided by the critical decision method to gain a deeper understanding of the decision making process of experienced naval aviators during novel or unexpected situations in flight. Through this method, two contextual factors in the military aviation environment not previously addressed were identified: (a) the purpose of the flight; and (b) the flight operation environment. These two factors were found to influence each other in addition to impacting the saliency of certain cues and factors for the aviators. Implications for military aviator training and other domains of aviation are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AmalbertiR.DeblonF. (1992). Cognitive modeling of fighter pilot aircraft process control: A step toward an intelligent on-board assistance system. International Journal of Man-Machine Systems, 36, 639–671.
2.
AmesB. (2005, May). Unmanned combat aircraft takes to the air. Military & Aerospace Electronics16(5), 6–7.
3.
BrictsonC. A.CiavarelliA. P.WulfeckJ. W. (1969). Operational measures of aircraft carrier landing system performance. Human Factors11(3), 281–290.
4.
CrandallB.KleinG.HoffmanR. R. (2006). Working minds: A practitioner's guide to cognitive task analysis. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
5.
CreswellJ. W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative & quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
6.
DekkerS. W. A. (2001). Follow the procedure or survive. Human Factors and Aerospace Safety1(4), 381–385.
7.
EndsleyM. R. (1995). Measurement of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Human Factors, 37, 65–84.
8.
EndsleyM. R.BolteB.JonesD. G. (2003). Designing for situation awareness: An approach to user-centered design. London: Taylor & Francis.
9.
FischerU.OrasanuJ.MontalvoM. (1993). Efficient decision strategies on the flight deck. Proceedings of the Seventh International Symposium on Aviation Psychology (pp. 238–243). Columbus, OH.
10.
FlathersG. W.GiffenW. C.RockwellT. H. (1982). A study of decision-making behavior of aircraft pilots deviating from a planned flight. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine53(10), 958–964.
11.
GiffenW. C.RockwellT. H. (1984). Computer-aided testing of pilot response to critical in-flight events. Human Factors, 26, 573–581.
12.
HoffmanR. R.CrandallB.ShadboltN. (1998). Use of the critical decision method to elicit expert knowledge: A case study in the methodology of cognitive task analysis. Human Factors40(2), 254–276.
13.
JensenR. S.BenelR. (1977), Judgment evaluation and instruction in civil pilot training, (FAA-RD-78–24). Washington, DC: Federal Aviation Administration.
14.
KleinG. (1997). The recognition-primed decision (RPD) model: Looking back, looking forward. In ZsambokC.E.KleinG., Naturalistic decision making (pp. 285–292). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
15.
KleinG. (2003). The power of intuition: How to use your gut feelings to make better decisions at work. New York: Currency.
16.
LiW.HeadT.WuF.ChenS.YuC. (2004). The investigation of decision errors in aviation mishaps by applying the human factors analysis and classification system (HFACS). Proceedings of the Second Human Performance, Situation Awareness and Automation Conference (HPSAA II) (vol. 1, pp. 283–289). Daytona Beach, FL.
17.
MilesM. B.HubermanA. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
18.
MilitelloL.CrandallB. (1999). Critical incident/critical decision method. In JonassenD.H.TessmerM.HannumW.H., Task analysis methods for instructional design. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
19.
OrasanuJ.FischerU. (1997). Finding decisions in natural environments: The view from the cockpit. In ZsambokC.E.KleinG., Naturalistic decision making (pp. 343–357). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
20.
OrasanuJ.MartinL.DavisonJ. (2001). Cognitive and contextual factors in aviation accidents: Decision errors. In SalasE.KleinG., Linking expertise and naturalistic decision making (pp. 209–225). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
21.
PrinceC.SalasE. (1993). Training and research for teamwork in the military aircrew. In WienerE.L.KankiB.G.HelmreichR.L., Cockpit resource management (pp. 337–366). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
22.
RubinR. T.MillerR. G.ArthurR. J.ClarkB. R. (1970). Differential adrenocortical stress responses in naval aviators during aircraft carrier landing practice. Psychological Reports, 26, 71–74.
23.
SicardB.TaillemiteJ. P.JouveE.BlinO. (2003). Risk propensity in commercial and military pilots. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine74(8), 879–881.
24.
WaagW.L.BellH. H. (1997). Situation assessment and decision making in skilled fighter pilots. In ZsambokC.E.KleinG., Naturalistic decision making (pp. 247–254). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
25.
WiegmannD. A.GohJ.O'HareD. (2001). Pilots' decisions to continue visual flight rules (VFR) flight into adverse weather: Effects of distance traveled and flight experience. (ARL-01–11/FAA-01–3). Washington, DC: Federal Aviation Administration.
