BACKGROUND: Current attempts to culturally tailor human factors training in aviation segregates cultural identities based on geopolitical, passport nationality, and is therefore poorly suited for (adult) ‘Third Culture Kids’ (TCKs) whose cross-cultural upbringing has led to the development of multicultural individual identities that do not reflect their passport nationalities. In this study, respondents’ self-categorization of personal cultural identity, as opposed to passport nationality, was used to determine whether there were cultural differences in airline pilots’ behaviors.METHOD: A survey with items imported from established scales was distributed to pilots of an international airline to measure pilots’ work values, flight management attitudes, and cultural dimensions, with respondents segregated into Western, TCK, or Asian cultural groups.RESULTS: TCKs shared similar work values with Westerners, were similarly individualistic, had comparable preference for shallow command gradients, were similarly pragmatic in self-evaluation of performance under stress, and both had lower dependency and preference for rules and procedures. TCKs scored in the middle between Westerners and Asians in automation preference attitudes, and on the cultural dimensions of power distance and uncertainty avoidance. TCKs did not share any similarities with Asians at all.DISCUSSION: The results show that TCKs were neither assimilated into a mainstream culture, nor culturally “middle of the pack” as may be expected from their “East meets West” backgrounds. Having identified TCK pilots’ unique values, attitudes, and dimensions, practical implications include changing training design to better suit TCKs’ cultural characteristics and the adaptation of airline management to cater for TCKs’ work values.Chan WT-K, Harris D. Third-culture kid pilots and multi-cultural identity effects on pilots’ attitudes. Aerosp Med Hum Perform. 2019; 90(12):1026–1033.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

IntroductionIn the aviation industry, safety management has moved away from capturing frontline failures toward the management of systemic conditions through organizational safety management systems (SMS). However, subjective differences can influence the classification of active failures and their associated systemic precursors. With levels of professional experience known to influence safety attitudes, the present research examines whether experience levels among airline pilots had an impact on the classification of causal factors using the Human Factors Analysis and Classification System (HFACS). Differences in the paths of association between categories were evaluated in an open-system context.MethodPilots working in a large, international airline were categorized into high (≥10,000 total flight hours) and low (<10,000 h) experience groups and asked to classify aircraft accident causal factors using the HFACS framework. One-way ANOVA tests were carried out to determine experience effects on the utilization of the HFACS categories, and chi-squared analyses were used to assess the strength of association between different categories within the framework.ResultsResults from 144 valid responses revealed differences in the attribution of human factors conditions. The high experience group was more inclined to attribute deficiencies to high-level precursors and found fewer paths of associations between different categories. In contrast, the low experience group presented a greater number of associations and was comparatively more affected by stress and uncertainty conditions.DiscussionThe results confirm that the classification of safety factors can be influenced by professional experience, with hierarchical power distance impacting the attribution of failures to higher-level organizational faults. Different paths of association between the two groups also suggest that safety interventions can be targeted through different entry points. Where multiple latent conditions are associated, the selection of safety interventions should be made with consideration of the concerns, influences, and actions across the entire system. Higher-level anthropological interventions can change the interactive interfaces affecting concerns, influences, and actions across all levels, whereas frontline-level functional interventions are more efficient for failures linked to many precursor categories.