09 December 2024
Effective Flight Crew Coordination and Decision Making under High Stress and Workload
Emergency situations encountered by flight crew can be cognitively demanding, time-critical in nature, and require effective crew coordination and communication, exercising Crew Resource Management (CRM) behaviours to resolve the event successfully, to a safe outcome. Most emergency and abnormal situations generally increase crew workload, and the level of increased workload can also be influenced by the extent to which the event is either familiar to the crew (seen before in part or full) or novel (something completely new).
In stressful and high workload situations, where crew are faced with operational threats, crew errors (omission and commission) may manifest, and less-than-optimal responses can occur. Under stress, crew attentional focus can narrow which leads to a phenomenon termed ‘tunnelling’. Tunnelling is where crew attention may be restricted to what is determined to be the most important informational cues relevant to the emergency situation missing the full range of cues available from which to build an effective situational model (NASA/TM—2005–213462).
Basing a mental model of the emergency situation on limited informational cues (from the cockpit instrumentation and external environment), and not a clear picture of the real-world environment, can create a false sense of security and a flawed situational model. This can be exacerbated by the fact that working memory capacity (as well as the length of time information can be held in working memory) decreases under stress. Thus, under stress crews may miss important cues to the current situation and are unable to build an effective mental model from which to design effective threat countermeasures. This can be compounded when that information is disparate or contradictory (NASA/TM—2005–213462).
In stressful and high workload situations, where crew are faced with operational threats, crew errors may manifest, and less-than-optimal responses can occur
Emergency situation management is influenced by previous experience, training (simulator and line), pilot knowledge, and the Standard Operating Procedures employed by crews to respond to an emergency/abnormal situation. Influencing factors include:
· Training to the operational risk environment (Evidenced Based Training),
· Crew decision-making processes and models,
· Crew Resource Management Behaviours (e.g. leadership, assessment and decision making, situational awareness and coping with stress, cooperation and resource management, and communication and interaction behaviours),
· Previous experience of similar and novel emergency events and environmental conditions,
· Crew performance limitations under high workload and stress, and
· Understanding and management of aircraft automation and systems linked to response to abnormal events.
Thus, a crew's ability to analyse an emergency event situation is dependent on a number of factors as well as the ability to work together as a crew, on management option generation and decision action, which under stress can be significantly impaired. Crew decision-making is contingent on an accurate situation model from which to develop a plan of action and evaluation and selection of decision options (design the problem formulation and design an effective solution). Applying a flawed situation model can lead to an expectation of improvement that in reality may be illusory.
Response to novel emergency situations
Flight crews dealing with an unexpected emergency situation of which they have no previous experience can take much longer to respond, as they have to develop a ‘novel’ solution to the problem being faced. The ability to respond will also be affected by the situation's complexity and time constraints (DOT/FAA/AM-20/01). Crew are trained to anticipate threats to safe operations and ‘stay ahead of the aircraft’, however when responding to a new novel threat, crews may not have existing SOPs/checklists which are applicable to fall back on. Crews have to adapt to the changing situation and design an appropriate response, and this can be greatly affected by the use of trained CRM behaviours.
Flight crews’ responses to an unexpected event clearly showed that crews who performed with sufficient leadership, teamwork, open communication, and decision-making outperformed crews who did not utilise any of these when faced with ‘surprise’ (Field, Fucke, Correia Grácio, & Mohrmann, 2016).
Time constraints and situation complexity of the operating environment may require crews dealing with an emergency event to gather the right information, develop a structured situation model (schema), share and discuss the plan options and make fast complex decisions under difficult conditions. Crew behaviour in response to a difficult or compounded emergency situation (also where no appropriate response exists in the pilot’s previous experience (procedure/manoeuvre countermeasures or checklist), can result in:
- A sharp increase in excitability expressed in impulsive acts, impairment and loss of skills or,
- Inhibition and even the cessation of activity. (Leech, J. 2004).
The role of training and checklist development
Training is an important factor that can significantly affect the outcome of whether the crew successfully respond to an emergency situation, to reach a safe outcome. There are limitations to current training programmes where typically during simulator training (conversion and recurrent), crews do not encounter a scenario for which the checklist procedures (QRH) do not exist or work as expected. The problem is that it is impossible to foresee all potential abnormal or accident scenarios and to have developed checklists in place. The focus of training should be to train against the risk environment effectively and give crews the tools to meet known and novel emergency situations. It follows then that the degree to which training truly reflects real-life emergencies and abnormal situations, with all of their real-world demands, may not be comprehensive. The goal of an operator’s training department should be to develop guidance for Standard Operating Procedures and sound checklist development, supporting crew coordination, and effective situation management. This should be based on effective data collection and analysis of Flight Data, Safety Reporting Systems, Flight Deck Observations, and Industry shared incident/accident data; as well as accounting for human performance capabilities and cognitive limitations under stress and high workload. Thus, it is essential that a detailed Risk Assessment of the mission role and commercial model, in the operating environment, is made, and that flight crew are trained to the risks of operating in that environment.
Evidenced Based Training (EBT) addresses this by moving from pure scenario-based training, to prioritising the development and assessment of defined competencies, leading to better training outcomes. The aim of an EBT programme is to identify, develop and assess the competencies required by pilots in order to operate safely, effectively and efficiently in a commercial air transport environment, by managing the most relevant threats and errors based on evidence collected in operations and training (IATA Evidenced-Based Training Implementation Guide).
Through EBT implementation a number of scenario events based on operational data are used as a means to develop and assess crew performance linked to defined competencies. This will allow a crew to manage previously unseen or novel situations.
Implementation of EBT is designed to result in a more effective and efficient training programme with associated improvements in operational safety performance (EBT approach supporting safety performance and Organisational Resilience).
A ‘resilience engineering’ approach believes that making pilots resilient in the case of unexpected events is essential to increase aviation safety (DOT/FAA/AM-20/01).
Flight crew response to new and novel emergency situations that may have time-critical constraints, high risk and situational complexity, can be strongly influenced through the implementation of an EBT-based approach in the operator’s training programme. The outcome of implementation ensures that flight crews are best placed to respond to emergency events as pilot training is based on real-world operational scenarios, risk analysis of the operating environment, and data-driven decision-making.
DOT/FAA/AM-20/01 (2019) Office of Aerospace Medicine Washington, DC 20591. Problem Solving/Decision Making and Procedures for Unexpected Events: A Literature Review Shawn Pruchnicki; Kylie Key; Arjun H. Rao
NASA/TM—2005–213462: NASA The Challenge of Aviation Emergency and Abnormal Situations; Barbara K. Burian, San Jose State University Foundation, San Jose, California; Immanuel Barshi and Key Dismukes Ames Research Centre, Moffett Field, California
Leach,J.,“Why People ‘Freeze’in an Emergency:Temporal and Cognitive Constraints on Survival Responses,” Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, Vol. 75, No. 6, June 2004, 5 through 8
Pilot Response in Time Critical Aircraft Upset Loss of Control Inflight LOC Events. Philip A Oppenheimer¨ LtCol¨ USAF (Retd) Advanced Instructor Aviation Performance Solutions APS
ICAO Manual on Evidence-based Training (Doc 9995);
IATA EBT Implementation Guide Ed2 (2024)
The Walbrook Building 25 Walbrook London, EC4N 8AW
Author
Simon Stewart
Managing Director, Sirius Aviation Limited
https://www.siriusav.com/
Arthur J. Gallagher (UK) Limited is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. Registered Office: The Walbrook Building, 25 Walbrook, London EC4N 8AW. Registered in England and Wales. Company Number: 119013.