Categorisation theory explains our ability to recognise events in terms of a similarity overlap between either a prototypical, ideal case or a stored exemplar derived from experience. Evidence from aviation accident reports indicate that pilots are not always able to recognise flight safety events in real-time and this can lead to undesirable pilot behaviour. Flight safety events may not always arise in recognisable formats, especially as rare and unusual combinations are possible. Correspondence with prototypes or exemplars may be weak, creating borderline cases and harming recognition. In this article we extend categorisation theory to develop a new framework which characterises flight safety events. We model three case studies using the new framework to demonstrate how categorisation theory can be used to understand flight safety events of different types. Finally we propose a roadmap for future research and discuss how categorisation theory could be applied to training or the organisation of flight crew reference material to improve response to inflight events. Relevance to Human Factors/Ergonomics Theory Categorisation theory is established in cognitive psychology as a leading explanation of variability in the human capacity to recognise objects and events. Several recent air transport accidents appear to show flight crew have difficulty recognising some events, and this article applies this theoretical framework to analyse such failures. We account for borderline cases, and argue that typicality and familiarity gradients are important drivers of pilot behaviour. We provide a theory-driven account of why some events are not recognised.

Objective We extend the theory of conceptual categories to flight safety events, to understand variations in pilot event knowledge. Background Experienced, highly trained pilots sometimes fail to recognize events, resulting in procedures not being followed, damaging safety. Recognition is supported by typical, representative members of a concept. Variations in typicality (“gradients”) could explain variations in pilot knowledge, and hence recognition. The role of simulations and everyday flight operations in the acquisition of useful, flexible concepts is poorly understood. We illustrate uses of the theory in understanding the industry-wide problem of nontypical events. Method One hundred and eighteen airline pilots responded to scenario descriptions, rating them for typicality and indicating the source of their knowledge about each scenario. Results Significant variations in typicality in flight safety event concepts were found, along with key gradients that may influence pilot behavior. Some concepts were linked to knowledge gained in simulator encounters, while others were linked to real flight experience. Conclusion Explicit training of safety event concepts may be an important adjunct to what pilots may variably glean from simulator or operational flying experiences, and may result in more flexible recognition and improved response. Application Regulators, manufacturers, and training providers can apply these principles to develop new approaches to pilot training that better prepare pilots for event diversity.

Many complex work environments rely heavily on cognitive operators using rules. Operators sometimes fail to implement rules, with catastrophic human, social and economic costs. Rule-based error is widely reported, yet the mechanisms of rule vulnerability have received less attention. This paper examines rule vulnerability in the complex setting of airline transport operations. We examined 'the stable approach criteria rule', which acts as a system defence during the approach to land. The study experimentally tested whether system state complexity influenced rule failure. The results showed increased uncertainty and dynamism led to increased likelihood of rule failure. There was also an interaction effect, indicating complexity from different sources can combine to further constrain rule-based response. We discuss the results in relation to recent aircraft accidents and suggest that 'rule-based error' could be progressed to embrace rule vulnerability, fragility and failure. This better reflects the influence that system behaviour and cognitive variety have on rulebased response.Practitioner Summary: In this study we examined mechanisms of rule vulnerability in the complex setting of airline transport operations. The results suggest work scenarios featuring high uncertainty and dynamism constrain rule-based response, leading to rules becoming vulnerable, fragile or failing completely. This has significant implications for rule-intensive, safety critical work environments.

No abstract

No abstract