Presenter Email
jcruit@ist.ucf.edu
Location
Mori Hosseini Student Union Events Center (Bldg #610) – Rooms 165 E/F
Start Date
3-4-2020 9:00 AM
End Date
3-4-2020 10:30 AM
Submission Type
Presentation
Keywords
Resiliency Training, Unexpected Events, Air Carrier Operations
Abstract
Air carrier flight operations continue to be highly proceduralized events, which have contributed to the overall safety and performance efficiency of the National Airspace System (NAS). However, existing and envisionable procedures do not, and may never completely cover all operational situations. At times, there is not a procedure for a situation or adequate time to complete a known procedure. More specifically, the current use of procedures does not adequately address unexpected events. In the instances when procedures are non-existent, the flight crew needs to have the ability to demonstrate resilience or to adapt and respond appropriately to the changing environment to continue the safety of the operation.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is currently interested in research that focuses on developing recommendations for flight-crew training that will provide the knowledge and skills, which will augment the existing training programs to include elements that address adaptation and resilience to unexpected situations and events. However, one challenge to training resiliency within the air carrier environment is adequately defining resiliency to fit the given training population in order to create measurable training objectives.
The current literature on resiliency is not conclusive on a collective definition of the term (Aburn, Gott, Hoare, 2016). Moreover, definitions on resiliency appear to be specific to the population or domain being studied (e.g., resiliency after personal trauma, resiliency in healthcare, resiliency among teams). However, one commonality that exists throughout the resiliency literature is the assumption that certain behaviors of resiliency (e.g., anticipate, monitor, respond, recover) follow a chronological pattern. That is, pilots must be anticipating an unforeseen event before they begin monitoring their surroundings. Once the unexpected event occurs, the pilot responds accordingly and then takes the necessary steps to recover.
One limitation to this time-based approach is that linear training may prevent pilots from expanding their critical and creative thinking, therefore decreasing the range of cognitive resources pilots can access. This is precisely what the FAA is seeking to overcome as specified in their directive to develop improved resiliency training for highly proceduralized operations.
Our approach to the time-based training challenge is to supplement the existing framework with functional models drawn from social cognitive theories (De Jaegher, Di Paolo, and Gallagher, 2010) in order to justify how each of the elements of resiliency function to create the knowledge, behaviors, and attitudes of resiliency. Once we functionally categorize the different components of resiliency into the De Jaegher, Di Paolo, and Gallagher (2010) framework, we can then link those functional elements of resiliency with specific, objective, and measurable training events within an aviation scenario. The results of this study aim to reduce ambiguity among the approaches to develop and measure resiliency training and ultimately, to create a path for improved training for air carrier events.
Redefining Resiliency using Principles of Social Cognitive Theories to Address the Gap in Training and Assessing Resiliency for Air Carrier Operations
Mori Hosseini Student Union Events Center (Bldg #610) – Rooms 165 E/F
Air carrier flight operations continue to be highly proceduralized events, which have contributed to the overall safety and performance efficiency of the National Airspace System (NAS). However, existing and envisionable procedures do not, and may never completely cover all operational situations. At times, there is not a procedure for a situation or adequate time to complete a known procedure. More specifically, the current use of procedures does not adequately address unexpected events. In the instances when procedures are non-existent, the flight crew needs to have the ability to demonstrate resilience or to adapt and respond appropriately to the changing environment to continue the safety of the operation.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is currently interested in research that focuses on developing recommendations for flight-crew training that will provide the knowledge and skills, which will augment the existing training programs to include elements that address adaptation and resilience to unexpected situations and events. However, one challenge to training resiliency within the air carrier environment is adequately defining resiliency to fit the given training population in order to create measurable training objectives.
The current literature on resiliency is not conclusive on a collective definition of the term (Aburn, Gott, Hoare, 2016). Moreover, definitions on resiliency appear to be specific to the population or domain being studied (e.g., resiliency after personal trauma, resiliency in healthcare, resiliency among teams). However, one commonality that exists throughout the resiliency literature is the assumption that certain behaviors of resiliency (e.g., anticipate, monitor, respond, recover) follow a chronological pattern. That is, pilots must be anticipating an unforeseen event before they begin monitoring their surroundings. Once the unexpected event occurs, the pilot responds accordingly and then takes the necessary steps to recover.
One limitation to this time-based approach is that linear training may prevent pilots from expanding their critical and creative thinking, therefore decreasing the range of cognitive resources pilots can access. This is precisely what the FAA is seeking to overcome as specified in their directive to develop improved resiliency training for highly proceduralized operations.
Our approach to the time-based training challenge is to supplement the existing framework with functional models drawn from social cognitive theories (De Jaegher, Di Paolo, and Gallagher, 2010) in order to justify how each of the elements of resiliency function to create the knowledge, behaviors, and attitudes of resiliency. Once we functionally categorize the different components of resiliency into the De Jaegher, Di Paolo, and Gallagher (2010) framework, we can then link those functional elements of resiliency with specific, objective, and measurable training events within an aviation scenario. The results of this study aim to reduce ambiguity among the approaches to develop and measure resiliency training and ultimately, to create a path for improved training for air carrier events.
Comments
Presented during Concurrent Session 9B: The Changing Landscape of Flight Training