Engineering topics

Orasanu, J.

Publications and source records attributed to Orasanu, J..

3 records

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 NTRS1996

Cross-Cultural Barriers to Effective Communication in Aviation

Communication is essential to safe flight, as evidenced by several accidents in which crew communicates was found to have contributed to the accidents. This chapter documents the essential role of explicit efficient communication to flight safety with a global context. It addresses communication between flight crews and air traffic controllers in regions a the world where pilots and controllers speak different native languages, as well as cases in which crew members within the flight deck represent different native languages and cultures. It also addresses problems associated with "exporting" crew resource management training programs to parts of the world which values and norms differ from those of the United States, where these programs were initially developed. This chapter is organized around several central questions: (1) What are various kinds of communication failures and what are their consequences; (2) What are the causes of communication failure; (3) What are features of effective crew communication; (4) What can be done to enhance communication success? To explore a wider range of communication failures than available from accident reports, we examined a set of incident reports from the Aviation Safety Reporting System. These could be classified into three major categories: those in which language actually interfered with transmission of a message; those in which transmission was adequate but the context was not expressed unambiguously and thus the message received was not the same as the message intended; and those in which the message was received as intended, but was not adequately understood or acted upon, mainly because of cultural factors. The consequences of failed communication can be flight errors (such as when a clearance is not received correctly), loss of situation awareness, or failure of crew members (or ATC and pilots) to build a shared understanding of a situation. Causes of misunderstanding can be traced to a number of sources, often grounded in faulty assumptions held by one or both parties to a conversation. Speakers and listeners often experience "illusionary understanding" in which they think they understand each other, but in fact do not. While this problem can exist within a single culture, it is much more serious across cultures. Training in effective explicit communication is a component of Crew Resource Management training programs developed in the U.S. These programs are being adopted by airlines around the world, with varying degrees of success. The level of success in part depends on how similar the conversational and social styles of those cultures are to those of the U.S. A factor that influences conversational style is a culture's relative positioned on two major dimensions that distinguish national cultural groups: individualism vs. collectivism and degree of power distance. The chapter concludes with a discussion of techniques for overcoming the various classes of communication failures and for effectively adapting training programs to fit the values and norms of cultures around the globe.

Fischer, U.↗

NASA NTRS1992

Crew decision making under stress

Flight crews must make decisions and take action when systems fail or emergencies arise during flight. These situations may involve high stress. Full-missiion flight simulation studies have shown that crews differ in how effectively they cope in these circumstances, judged by operational errors and crew coordination. The present study analyzed the problem solving and decision making strategies used by crews led by captains fitting three different personality profiles. Our goal was to identify more and less effective strategies that could serve as the basis for crew selection or training. Methods: Twelve 3-member B-727 crews flew a 5-leg mission simulated flight over 1 1/2 days. Two legs included 4 abnormal events that required decisions during high workload periods. Transcripts of videotapes were analyzed to describe decision making strategies. Crew performance (errors and coordination) was judged on-line and from videotapes by check airmen. Results: Based on a median split of crew performance errors, analyses to date indicate a difference in general strategy between crews who make more or less errors. Higher performance crews showed greater situational awareness - they responded quickly to cues and interpreted them appropriately. They requested more decision relevant information and took into account more constraints. Lower performing crews showed poorer situational awareness, planning, constraint sensitivity, and coordination. The major difference between higher and lower performing crews was that poorer crews made quick decisions and then collected information to confirm their decision. Conclusion: Differences in overall crew performance were associated with differences in situational awareness, information management, and decision strategy. Captain personality profiles were associated with these differences, a finding with implications for crew selection and training.

Orasanu, J.↗