Engineering topics

Davison, Jeannie

Publications and source records attributed to Davison, Jeannie.

4 records

NASA NTRS1998

Errors in Aviation Decision Making: Bad Decisions or Bad Luck?

Despite efforts to design systems and procedures to support 'correct' and safe operations in aviation, errors in human judgment still occur and contribute to accidents. In this paper we examine how an NDM (naturalistic decision making) approach might help us to understand the role of decision processes in negative outcomes. Our strategy was to examine a collection of identified decision errors through the lens of an aviation decision process model and to search for common patterns. The second, and more difficult, task was to determine what might account for those patterns. The corpus we analyzed consisted of tactical decision errors identified by the NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board) from a set of accidents in which crew behavior contributed to the accident. A common pattern emerged: about three quarters of the errors represented plan-continuation errors, that is, a decision to continue with the original plan despite cues that suggested changing the course of action. Features in the context that might contribute to these errors were identified: (a) ambiguous dynamic conditions and (b) organizational and socially-induced goal conflicts. We hypothesize that 'errors' are mediated by underestimation of risk and failure to analyze the potential consequences of continuing with the initial plan. Stressors may further contribute to these effects. Suggestions for improving performance in these error-inducing contexts are discussed.

Orasanu, Judith↗

NASA NTRS1997

Coping with Irregular Operations: Implications for a Free Flight Environment

Irregular operations involve disruption of scheduled airline operations. They ate of concern to the carriers because they cost money, require personnel effort, and may harm customer good will. Irregular operations may result from aircraft system malfunctions that take planes out of service or result in cancellations, Might system problems or passenger medical emergencies that require diversions, local airport problems that may close down a runway, or weather systems that restrict flow into airports or regions. At the heart of responding to irregular operations is distributed decision making by members of airline operations centers, pilots, and the air traffic control system. Six U.S. carriers participated in a study in which we observed strategies used by operations center personnel to handle various classes of irregular operations. We focused on situations that are most disruptive to regular operations and are most difficult to cope with. We also sought to identify classes of events that would be most affected by changes in the air traffic management system. How a carrier deals with disruptions to its schedule reflects its philosophy and primary goals, as well as its resources. Size and type of operations (short or long-haul) determine which problems have priority. Each airline has different technological support tools to aid in flight planning and replanning, and some carriers have established contingency procedures for coping with various situations. We also examined differences in extent and type of interaction between ABC personnel and various elements of the air traffic system as they managed various problems: who interacts with AM what situations prompt interaction, how often these occur, and the outcomes and Perceived benefits. Use of the expanded NRP program was also studied, along with its advantages to the individual companies. We also examined the implications of the proposed change to a free flight environment on airline strategies for coping with irregular operations.

Orasanu, Judith↗

NASA NTRS1997

Alternative Perspectives on Risk

The goal of the commercial air transport system is to provide air transportation to the flying public at an acceptable cost with minimal risk. in an ideal situation these three goals would support each other. In fact, it is sometimes the case that the goals conflict: getting passengers to their destinations on time may conflict with fixing a minor mechanical malfunction that may or may not impact safety; flying a route that will avoid turbulence, thereby providing passengers with a more comfortable ride, may consume more fuel; managing traffic density may mean aircraft are delayed or must use an approach that will result in a long taxi to their gates, costing time and fuel. Various players in the system--pilots, dispatchers, controllers, as well as managers in the airline carriers and traffic management system--make decisions every day that involve trade-offs of benefits and costs. The prospect of revisions in the air traffic management system, with shifts in responsibilities from controllers to users, including airline operations center personnel and pilots, means that individuals may be performing either new jobs or old jobs under new guidance. It will be essential to know how the various players (a) perceive the risks and benefits associated with the decisions they will make under the old and new control structures, and (b) how much risk they are willing to accept in making decisions. Risk is here defined as the probability and magnitude of negative events (after Slovic, 1987). Of primary interest are risks associated with traffic, weather, and operational factors such as schedule, fuel consumption, and passenger service. Previous research has documented differences between groups in perceptions of risks associated with both everyday and aviation related situations. Risk perception varies as a function of familiarity with the situation, degree to which one is potentially affected by the risk, the level of control one has over the situation, and one's level of experience and responsibility in the situation. In our presentation we will consider several factors that may influence differences in risk perception, risk tolerance and risk management among the three major categories of participants in the aviation system (pilots, dispatchers, and controllers). Primary factors that may affect risk attitudes (the collective term we will use for the three components of risk) include: expertise or job-specific knowledge or training, personal involvement or vulnerability to consequences, goals, time horizon (imminence of consequences), span of control and type of control, and information or technology support. These will be considered in the context of five different types of risk (physical threat, economic, social, legal, and ethical). A study designed to study differences between pilots and controllers in their perceptions and responses to traffic risks under the present and a user-preferred control situation will be described. Future studies involving dispatchers' risk perceptions regarding various types of risk will be discussed.

Davison, Jeannie↗

NASA NTRS1995

Cross-Cultural Barriers to Effective Communication in Aviation

Recent research on communication and performance in airline flight crews has led to a concept of shared mental models that is associated with effective, efficient team coordination in problem solving and decision making situations. Elements that characterize efficient communication have been identified. This research, however, was based strictly on US crews. More recent studies supported by NASA have identified cultural factors that influence communication among team members who vary in their status and roles. Research is just beginning to identify commonalities and culturally distinct strategies for accomplishing joint tasks. ASRS incident reports have been analyzed to identify language barriers in flight that have safety consequences. Implications of these concepts and findings for multi-cultural command and control will be explored.

Orasanu, Judith↗