The evaluation of the effect of a short aeronautical decision-making training program for military pilots
The evaluation of the effect of a short aeronautical decision-making training program for military pilots is an article that provides proof that Aeronautical decision making (ADM) is trainable. ADM identifies a systematic approach to the risk and stress management applied by pilots to navigate through specific circumstances.
In the past tactical decision making was associated with a pilots experience in flying or in the case of military personnel, it was through experience from actual navigation of specific situations. Each decision made by a pilot is critical as it may cause the loss of multiple lives. A significant number of accidents associated with military aircrafts stem from poor decision making. Therefore, pilots need to assess’ situations to help in the making of decisions reducing the frequency of accidents. Additionally, having an understanding of the decision-making process lays the foundation for acquiring the appropriate skills. Military personnel work in high-risk situations, thus depending solely on experience may not be the best tactic. The question that arises is whether the pilots can undergo training to acquire practical decision-making skills.
A study of 41 pilots from the Republic of China tactical training wing took part to prove whether ADM is trainable (Li & Harris, 2008). They all had the experience of between 220 and 354 flight hours. The research conducted used SOHR and DESIDE mnemonics. The United States Air Force was the first to develop the SOHR technique to train pilots to make decisions in high pressure and time-constrained circumstances. Stimuli, hypothesis, options and reaction, are the four steps to SOHR methodology. Li and Harris (2008) assert that the stimulus-response paradigm of classical behavioral psychology and SOHR serve the same function. They both explore the level of uncertainty involved during the decision-making process, and they also work by generating hypothesis and making evaluations. SOHR is superior in top priority situations where there is a time limitation.
On the other hand, the DESIDE mnemonics was a product of South Africa, and it involved six steps. The steps are detection, estimation, setting safety objectives, pointing out, carrying out and assessing. The DESIDE method borrows some aspects from the conflict theory model of Janis and Mann of 1977. Heredia, Arocena & Garate (2004) say that according to this theory, the need to make a decision arises when a conflict occurs. The disputes can arouse stress to a certain degree which when in excess, or absent is a vital determinant of the subject’s failure to come up with the right decisions. Li and Harris (2008) state that DESIDE is better in regards to arriving at knowledge-based decisions after in-depth analysis as long as there were less restrictive time constraints.
During the study, the participants take part in stimulation tests to rank their decision-making abilities. They are then randomly grouped in two, where one acts as the control group. The experimental group goes through a four-hour training program specified for pilots in the military. They practised the implementation of go-no-go, recognition-primed, response selections, resource management, non-diagnostic procedural decisions and those requiring creativity. At the end of the training session, both groups undertook another set of tests intending to evaluate the effectiveness of ADM training. To ensure the study was practical, all tests occurred at the Northrop F-5E simulator, which had visual databases that gave a similar representation of the Taiwan terrain and airfields.
Only non-diagnostic procedural, recognition-primed decisions and creativity centered scenarios got picked up due to time and resource restrictions. For the development of these scenarios, there were three focus groups pre and post-training. The groups aimed to act as a source of verification that the plots for decision making correspond to the Air Force incidents database. The non-diagnostic procedural framework involves multiple signs without a stipulated operating procedure and response. Here the nature of the problem is often unclear, and the numerous signs can showcase the harmful conditions present. In this scenario, before training, there was terrible weather both the leader and wingman land with low fuel. While after training the team land the F-5E at home base with remnants of fuel.
The recognition-primed decisions require the need to identify patterns of a specific condition that allow the decision-maker a chance to learn how to come up with ideas of responses. Pre-training the right engine of the aircraft fails due to damages from a foreign object just as it takes off from the ground. On the other hand, after training the pilots hear disturbing sounds’ emanating from the engines just after 500 feet and the aircraft is shaking considerably. The engines revolutions per minute (RPM) have reduced while the engine exhaust gas temperature (EGT) has increased. On the third scenario of creative-problem solving pre-training, both generators fail and post-training, they realize that the nose landing gear is not working in the usual way.
All participants took two sets of tests incorporating the three different scenarios. The instructor had undergone training in the most suitable ways to assess performance based on the situation, risk management strategies and the response speed. At the end of each trial, participants went through a debriefing session about their performance and the factors that influenced those decisions. The instructor used a 9-point Likert rater scale, with nine being the high score and one being the lowest while in response, one was the fastest and nine the slowest. The study adhered to stipulations from the British Psychological Society (Li & Harris, 2008). All the 41 pilots were volunteers and knew of the purpose of conducting the research prior to its commencement.
Results from the 123 test samples in the experimental group and 120 from the control group went through the mixed model, multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) to reduce the risk of type I error. The type I error is the probability of rejecting the null hypothesis in the occasion that it is true. The variables used in evaluating the results were situational assessment, response time and risk management. Under the non-diagnostic procedural framework, there were no effects identified for the groups who received training on ADM and those that had not. However, the studies within the groups indicate there was a notable difference in the dimension of assessing the situation and time of response pre and post-training. In both cases, the second group had increased their performance. Although with regards to managing the risks, there was no effect.
Findings from the recognition-primed decisions scenario showed that there was a notable difference between the groups and within the groups trained in ADM and those with no training. The interaction, performance and situational assessments of the groups all had a lasting effect. In this situation, there was no difference between the trained and untrained groups in term of response speed. In essence, the training helped to improve the performance in terms of managing the risks and assessing the situations. Lastly, the findings for creative thinking scenario a difference in risk assessment and evaluation of the event is present for the second group of trials, but that is not the case with the response time.
From all these findings, it is possible to conclude that overall performance in risk assessment and evaluation of the situation increases while response time decreases with the second trial. It is because, in the second trial, the pilots are more cautious of the dynamics; thus, they make their assessments in a more controlled manner hence the extended response periods. All these findings stand to prove is that with the use of the SHOR and DESIDE mnemonics, it is possible to train pilots in ADM. In this case study with further training, there can be a tremendous increase in the response time with the modification of assessment and risk management skills (Li & Harris, 2008). After the study, there were subsequent debriefing sessions where the participants acknowledged applying the ADM mnemonics as a guideline to their decision-making process.
It is vital to note that the training process does not help to eliminate errors; it helps the pilot recognize and manage the failure mitigating the effects. Pilots in the military must undergo behavior modification to ensure that they can cope with the ever-present stress factors presented by their occupations. In this case study, a short ADM training course of four hours was available to 21 pilots, and the only negative effect was reduced response time.
ADM training goes a long way in equipping pilots in the military with enhanced decision-making skills. Using mnemonics ensures that they can recall the appropriate steps required to make the decisions as they are accessible and applicable.
References
Li, W.-C., & Harris, D. (2008). The evaluation of the effect of a short aeronautical decision-making training program for military pilots. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 18(2), 135–152. doi:10.1080/10508410801926715