No abstract

No abstract

In this article we explore the phenomenon of airmanship in commercial passenger flights, in a context of increasing standardisation of procedures and technologies. Through observation studies in cockpits and interviews we have studied pilots' practices and how they relate to the larger system of procedures and the technical environment. We find that practices are to a large extent guided by standard operating procedures, and that interchangeability of pilots and aircrafts is both a prerequisite for and enabled by this standardised regime. However, since sociotechnical systems in general - and operation of aircrafts is no exception - are inherently underspecified, the pilots' exercise of discretion in their context-sensitive adaptation of the procedures and technical environments is another prerequisite for well-functioning systems. Mastering these adaptations - and recognising the absolute delimitations of adaptations - is a central aspect of airmanship. Outside this space of manoeuvre for the pilots, the aircrafts are managed by what we call airlineship: The inter-organisational efforts to create predictability and safe practices through de-identification and interchangeability of personnel and aircrafts. Pilots are actors in sociotechnical systems that are not demarcated by the cockpits. To understand pilots' work, studies must account also for the wider sociotechnical context of organisational, regulative and techno-material structures. The article is a contribution to the a generic attempt in the field of ergonomics to contribute with models and theories that portray individuals, groups, organisations and systems in ways that keep sight of the individuals in the systems and the systems in the individuals at the same time.

This paper is an extensive review of 229 papers addressing HSE (Health, Safety and Environment) and culture published between 1992 and 2013. The review has been conducted in order to analyse how "culture" has been conceptualised, and whether there is a relation between these conceptualisations and the authors' experience base. The review of the papers has been supported by a statistical analysis of data obtained by a structured and systematic registration of information from papers addressing "culture" and "HSE". Bivariate correspondence analysis has been used as the statistical method in order to explore possible associations between the constructed categorical variables. The statistical analysis reveals that different cultural perspectives are associated with the professional background of the authors and the research designs that have been applied. Our findings confirm much of the critique that has been addressed regarding the use of culture as a concept. The review shows that the literature first and foremost addresses safety. An overwhelming majority of the published research has been conducted in North America, Europe and Australia. We argue that this represents a bias in the research that contributes to inaccurate generalisations and conclusions, especially related to discussions regarding "bad" or "sound" cultures. Some perspectives on culture are dominant, such as the conceptualisation of culture as: 1) shared and aligned perceptions and attitudes, 2) culture as an ideational entity, and 3) culture as one factor among several factors that influence Health, Safety and/or Environment. Relatively few papers conceptualise culture as: 4) holistic metaphor, used in order to denote the systemic relations that influence HSE or as, 5) something that develops in the interaction between people within a particular organisational context. Finally, interpretative approaches, taking the perspective of the actors, are marginal.