Abstract
Objective:
The objective of this research was to advance an improved model of Flight Crew task performance.
Background:
Existing task models present a “local” description of Flight Crew task performance.
Method:
Process mapping workshops, interviews, and observations were conducted with both pilots and flight operations personnel from five airlines, as part of the Human Integration into the Lifecycle of Aviation Systems (HILAS) project.
Results:
The functional logic of the process dictates Flight Crew task requirements and specific task workflows. The Flight Crew task involves managing different levels of operational and environmental complexity, associated with the particular flight context. In so doing, the Flight Crew act as a coordinating interface between different human agents involved in the Active Flight Operations process and other processes that interface with this process.
Conclusion:
This article presents a new sociotechnical model of the Flight Crew task. The proposed model reflects a shift from a local explanation of Flight Crew task activity to a broader process-centric explanation. In so doing, it illuminates the complex role of procedures in commercial operations.
Application:
The task model suggests specific requirements for pilot task support tools, procedures design, performance evaluation and crew resource management (CRM) training. Also, this model might be used to assess future operational concepts and associated technology requirements. Lastly, this model provides the basis for the operational validation of both existing and future cockpit technologies.
Keywords
Introduction
This article presents a new integrated model of the Flight Crew task. Overall, it focuses on the sociotechnical dimensions of this task and, in particular, the shaping influence of the process on task activity. The proposed model reflects a shift from a local explanation of Flight Crew task performance to a broader, process-centric explanation.
This model can be made use of in terms of illuminating the requirements for new Flight Crew tools/systems, along with new processes and procedures to optimize airline operational and safety goals. Moreover, it might be used to assess new operational concepts such as free flight (i.e., new distribution of functions between Air Traffic Control (ATC) and Flight Crew in relation to routing management and separation responsibility), and reduced crew operations.
This model was developed following extensive field research with both pilots and flight operations personnel from five European airlines, as part of the work requirement for the Human Integration Into the Lifecycle of Aviation Systems (HILAS) project, sponsored by the European Commission.
First, a short introduction to Flight Operations and the Flight Operations process is provided. Existing Flight Crew task models are then reviewed. Following this, field research underlying the development of the new task model is presented. The proposed task model is then outlined. The theoretical and practical implications of this model are then discussed. Finally, some conclusions are drawn.
Introduction to Flight Operations
The Flight Operations process must be understood in terms of the design of the wider Air Traffic Management (ATM) System. This is premised on the existing Flight Operations concept, namely, pilots flying fixed routes managed by ATC and supported by different ground/air functions. In this respect, the work system involves the nexus of several different processes/functions. This includes ATC, Airline Flight Operations, Ground Operations, Maintenance, Airport Management, and others. Overall, these functions/processes share one common goal—the safe achievement of the flight. To this end, certain tasks are shared across these different functions.
Each airline is responsible for the design of the specific Flight Operations processes required to support the implementation of the existing operational concept. This includes activities related to the Flight Planning process, the Active Flight Operations process, and the Safety/Quality/Improvement process (see Figure 1).
Flight Operations process.
Primarily the Flight Planning process concerns the progressive development and specification of the Flight Plan, following agreement with relevant ATM agencies. The Flight Planning process is structured in terms of three phases: (a) commercial flight planning, (b) aircraft pairing and rostering, and (c) dispatch. The Active Flight Operations process is divided into three sequential process stages: preflight, flight execution, and postflight. Each of these process stages is structured in terms of a series of flight phases defined by the Air Transport Association (ATA). The Safety/Quality/Improvement process runs in parallel to the two operational processes. This process spans various organizational functions such as safety, training, and procedures design.
Flight Crew Task Models
Introduction
Flight Crew are classified into one of two ranks (i.e., “Captain” or “First Officer”). The Captain is responsible for approving the aircraft airworthiness and is “in command” during flight. The First Officer is subordinate to the Captain. Both Captain and First Officer are involved in flying/navigating the aircraft. Traditionally, pilot task functions/responsibilities are grouped into three priority level categories—“aviate,” “navigate,” and “communicate.” Of key importance is the management of flight control (i.e., aviate). Secondly, the crew should know where they are and where they are supposed to be (i.e., navigate). Following from this, the crew can/should coordinate with ATC and other relevant functions (i.e., communicate). During flight, the term “Pilot Flying” (PF) is used to denote the crew member responsible for aircraft guidance and control. The other pilot, referred to as the “Pilot Monitoring” (PM), is responsible for interacting with ATC/Tower and verbalizing checklists. Typically, both Captain and First Officer will alternate PF and PM roles during successive flight legs, or during a long-haul flight.
A model of Flight Crew task activity must provide a sufficient explanation of the task. Primarily, the sociotechnical dimensions of the task should be addressed. This includes the interaction between the people (i.e., between the cockpit crew, and between the cockpit crew and other operational roles), the tools/technologies supporting task activity, the organization (i.e., airline operational and organization processes, specific Flight Crew procedures, and airline safety culture), and the environment. Critically, the shaping influence of the process on task activity must be considered. Further, the proposed model must reflect “normal practice.” Thus, the model should take into account how procedures are used, the practice of informal workarounds, and the role of “pilot expertise” in optimizing procedures. Pilots engage in many distinct tasks at different levels. What level of specificity should the task model provide? Arguably, it is helpful to provide an account of actual task functions as opposed to detailing unique tasks and their relationships. This provides a framework for organizing/conceptualizing task activity.
The literature presents several models of the Flight Crew task at different levels. In general, these accounts present a “local” description of Flight Crew task performance. For analysis purposes, these have been grouped into four topic areas: (a) sociotechnical accounts, (b) procedures, (c) task functions, and (d) non-technical performance concepts. Overall, these accounts provide an incomplete picture of Flight Crew task operations. Certain key operational dimensions are overlooked. Further, there is a lack of integration across these different accounts.
Sociotechnical
The shaping influence of the existing flight operations concept on Flight Crew task performance is not explicitly addressed in the literature. However, several problems facing Flight Crew arising from the design of the current operational concept and, specifically, the managerial role of ATC are highlighted.
To date, the impact of flight operations process design on Flight Crew task performance has not been attended to. In addition, the relationship between Flight Crew task performance and the design of both Maintenance and Ground Operations processes is ignored.
Airline Flight Operations manuals provide a procedural account of Flight Crew teamwork. This spans different levels of teamwork including cockpit teamwork, Flight Crew interaction with the broader operational team (i.e., coordinator and cabin crew), and Flight Crew interaction with ATC. Primarily, the focus of these accounts is on when and how information is shared. Standard operating procedures (SOPs) suggest that this occurs at predefined times in the process. Does this reflect operational reality? Do the crew receive the right information from relevant roles at the right time? If not, how does this impact on task performance? Further, as proposed by McDonald (2005) and Sachs (1995), do informal communication/coordination processes occur?
Hutchins (1995a, 1995b) provides a theoretical account of Flight Crew use of tools and information resources in relation to the distributed cognition framework. The automation literature provides an account of how different cockpit systems are used in relation to the “aviate” and “navigate” task functions. This literature presents a pilot-centric perspective on certain cockpit interactions. Arguably, a more concrete explanation of Flight Crew communication with other agents in support of these task functions is required.
Procedures
Airline operations manuals provide a normative account of Flight Crew task performance. Pilot workflows are characterized in relation to the performance of fixed tasks by the (a) Captain and/or First Officer, and/or (b) the PF and/or the PM in sequential order, at set flight phases as defined by the ATA. Implicit in this is the idea that task performance is a matter of applying procedures and that procedures are appropriate to a given situation.
The deterministic workflow descriptions proposed in airline SOPs have been challenged by Loukopoulos, Dismukes, and Barshi (2003). It is argued that pilots are frequently interrupted, forcing them to interweave, suspend, and defer task components (Loukopoulos et al., 2003). Further, pilots are sometimes unable to execute a procedural step at the point at which it occurs in the written procedures, either because the larger situation makes it inappropriate to execute that step at that moment, or because the information necessary for the execution of a task step is not yet available (Loukopoulos et al., 2003).
The literature concerning procedural drift presents another perspective on procedures (Helmreich, Klinect, & Wilhelm, 1999; Klinect, Murray, Merritt, & Helmreich, 2003). Procedural drift refers to the tendency of pilots to become complacent about procedures, and in certain cases to willfully infringe procedures/rules. Losa (2007) provides an alternative angle on this issue. According to Losa, the design of the process often makes it difficult for pilots to follow procedures. In support of this, Losa cites weaknesses in airline processes related to the sharing of information across Flight Operations, Maintenance, Dispatch, and Ground Handling.
Other authors highlight the issue that procedures do not account for all possible situations and the important role of expertise (Johnston, 2003; Klein, 1993). Operational situations can be very complex, and there is not always a clear set of rules/procedures to be followed. In such situations, pilots draw upon their own expertise/experience to identify a suitable course of action (Johnston, 2003; Klein, 1993).
Collectively, these different accounts provide an insight into the complex role of procedures in operations. As evidenced, procedures are followed, not followed, and/or optimized, for different reasons. Thus, it is necessary to unpack the issue of procedures in more detail.
Task Functions
The literature surrounding Flight Crew task functions provides a high-level overview of the Flight Crew task. Several models of Flight Crew task functions are outlined. In general, these follow from normative accounts of Flight Crew task functions as outlined in airline Flight Operations manuals. Ricks, Jonsson, and Rogers (1993) propose that the traditional model of Flight Crew functions (i.e., aviate, navigate, and communicate) be reformulated to include systems management. Abbott (1993) and Abbott and Rogers (1993) extend this definition to include task management. Theunnisen (1997) suggests a classification in terms of crew management of the navigation problem. Arguably, these accounts reflect a narrow conception of the Flight Crew task. Firstly, these formulations fail to consider crew management of operational and environmental complexity. The team concept embedded in these definitions appears local in focus. Also, safety behavior (i.e., briefing, reporting, and the application of SOPs and CRM behaviors) is not addressed.
Nontechnical Performance Concepts
Several theoretical descriptions of the nontechnical dimensions of Flight Crew task performance have been advanced. Endsley (1988, 1995a, 1995b) distinguishes the concept of situation awareness from the process of “situation assessment.” The team nature of situation awareness is emphasized (Salas, Prince, Baker, & Shreshta, 1995). In addition, the relationship between situation assessment and risk assessment is highlighted (Carol, 1992).
Theories of Flight Crew task management are also outlined (Funk, 1991). Funk defines cockpit task management (CTM) as the “initiation, monitoring, prioritization, execution, and termination of multiple, concurrent tasks by Flight Crews” (1991). Similarly, Loukopoulos et al. (2003) suggest that the specific cognitive demands of concurrent task management include interweaving tasks, monitoring tasks, suspending tasks, and deferring tasks. Again, these accounts provide a crew-centric explanation of Flight Crew task management. A broader account of the crew’s monitoring of tasks performed by other team agents that directly or indirectly links to their own tasks is not provided.
Existing information behavior models provide an account of Flight Crew information management in relation to specific flight management tasks, as part of the Active Flight Operations process. This includes general information management accounts (Von Thaden, 2004; Wilson, 1997) and accounts that focus on particular information processing stages (Dervin, 1983; Ellis, 1989; Wilson, 1981, 1997). Certain deficiencies in these accounts can be identified. Flight Crew reporting at the end of the flight is not addressed. Further, off-duty information management activities are not alluded to. In addition, the impact of the underlying process design on Flight Crew information sharing with other operational agents is not investigated.
Method
Introduction
The critical objective of this research was to advance an improved model of Flight Crew task performance, specifically taking into account the shaping impact of Flight Operations process design on Flight Crew task activity. Overall, three studies were undertaken. The first study focused on mapping the Active Flight Operations process and understanding the relationship between this process and Flight Crew task activity. The second study explored dependencies between Flight Crew task activity and the design of the Flight Planning process. Finally, the third study involved a detailed analysis of the Flight Crew task, comprising two phases of research. Study 2 and Study 3 (Phase 1 research) were undertaken in parallel, and after Study 1.
Participants from five European airlines (Airlines 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5) were involved in Study 1. Study 2 and 3 involved participants from two of these airlines only (Airlines 2 and 5). Three of the airlines (Airlines 2, 3, and 5) were large commercial operators flying both long and short haul, while the other two airlines (Airlines 1 and 4) were smaller commercial operators.
Phase 1: Analysis of Relationship Between Active Flight Operations Process and Flight Crew Task
Introduction/background
The objective of this study was to analyze the relationship between Flight Crew task activity and the design of the existing Flight Operations process. Five process analysis workshops were conducted with five separate European airlines. Each workshop was attended by airline-specific personnel. Collectively, this involved 42 participants. Table 1 provides a breakdown of role attendance per workshop. It should be noted that ATM personnel were not involved in any of the workshops.
Breakdown of Role Attendance for Process Workshops
In each workshop, the researcher mapped the existing Active Flight Operations process (i.e., from crew checking/briefing to the flight report at the end of the flight) and obtained feedback about the relationship between the design of this process and Flight Crew task activity. The workshops also examined (at a preliminary level) the relationship between Flight Crew task activity and the two other Flight Operations processes (i.e., the Flight Planning process and the Safety/Quality/Improvement process). In general, the same information was elicited from the participants of each workshop.
Research design
Prior to attending each workshop, information pertaining to existing Flight Operations processes and specifically Flight Crew SOPs was reviewed. The structure of each workshop was as follows. First the overall process was mapped. Following this, the researcher led a discussion of human factors issues impacting on the achievement of the operational goal (i.e., team coordination, fatigue, and information reliability). The group then discussed how these problems might be resolved.
The specific process-mapping methodology evolved through the course of the workshops. The first two workshops focused on mapping the high-level process and associated task steps of Flight Crew and other operational roles, in accordance with the specification of flight phases as defined by the ATA. In the first workshop (i.e., workshop with Airline 1), a high-level diagram of the process and associated ATA flight phases was projected on a whiteboard. The process map was devised using process mapping software (Web Sphere). Participants were invited to list the key tasks of the cockpit team and the broader operational team (i.e., comprising Maintenance, ATC, and Ground Operations personnel) at each flight phase. Representatives from each role/function provided input on their task activity for specific flight phases, and associated task inputs from other roles/functions. Overall there was agreement as to role/task requirements and collaboration/coordination needs. Where differences emerged, these were discussed and a consensus description agreed. The initial process diagram/model was updated to include all task and coordination information. In the second workshop (i.e., workshop with Airline 2), this diagram was reviewed and amended to reflect the organization of tasks (and coordination requirements) as conceived by the second set of participants.
During the Workshop with Airline 3 (i.e., Workshop 3), participants recommended an alternative structuring logic for conceptualizing the Active Flight Operations process. It was suggested that the process might be structured in terms of a series of “critical points,” as opposed to flight phases. The researcher proposed that these “critical points” be termed “process gates.” To develop this idea, the researcher drew a picture of the flight timeline on the whiteboard, and invited participants to list and associate each “process gate” with a specific point in the flight/operational timeline. Following this, participants were asked to list the tasks required by each operational role to move from one process gate to the next, and to highlight any prior and parallel dependencies. Participants also provided information about the tools and information resources used at each process gate. Participants were then invited to detail the task outcomes at each process gate. Lastly, participants were invited to comment on task facilitators (i.e., good information sharing with ATC, positive cockpit team relations, etc.) and task blockers (i.e., delays obtaining information from coordinator, fatigue, and poor weather). In the case of Workshop 4, participants were instructed to review and edit the process map that emerged in Workshop 3, to ensure that it reflected their airline’s process. This approach was also undertaken in Workshop 5.
The process maps that emerged in Workshops 3, 4, and 5 were documented using Microsoft Word. Also, human factors issues and improvement suggestions for all workshops were recorded in a Microsoft Word document. The collective workshop findings were analyzed. As part of this, the following process maps were advanced:
High-Level Process Map 1: process phases, process subphases, and flight phases (all airlines)
High-Level Process Map 2: process phases, process subphases, process gates, and process states (for Airlines 3, 4, 5 only)
Following from this, both the team task performance picture and the specific Flight Crew task performance picture at each process gate were analyzed. As part of this, two sets of process/task analysis templates populated with a synthesis of workshop data from all five workshops were specified. The first set of templates recorded the team task performance picture and underlying process framework for each process gate. An example of this template is provided in Appendix A. The second series of templates presented a breakdown of Flight Crew tasks for each process gate. For an example of this template, please see Appendix B. Further, human factors issues and improvement suggestions, both at a general and airline specific level were documented.
Key findings
In relation to the structure of the Active Flight Operations process, a generic process map emerged for all five airlines. In keeping with the ATA approach, the overall flight operation is conceptualized in relation to three process phases: (1) preflight, (2) flight execution, and (3) postflight. Each of these process phases is grouped into a series of process subphases as illustrated in Table 2.
Generic process map.
Relationship Between Process Subphases and ATA Flight Phases
Note. ATA = Air Transport Association.
These particular process subphases correspond to specific ATA flight phases, as illustrated in Table 2.
As an extension of the ATA approach, each of the above process phases and subphases can be further divided into a series of process gates. For a summary of these, please see Appendix C. Participants conceptualized these process gates as key milestones in the operational process requiring the completion of tasks by both the cockpit team and other operational roles, to keep the process “moving forward.” Certain tasks span one process gate while others span several. However, at a certain point in the operational timeline, work needs to be achieved so that the process can continue. Here tasks become mandatory from a process stability perspective. Participants conceptualized the completion of relevant tasks in relation to the achievement of a series of operational outcomes and/or states.
Overall, a strong team picture emerged. Certain operational goals (i.e., safe flight and on-time arrival) are common to other functions such as ATC, Airline/Flight Operations Control, Airline/Safety, Airline/Dispatch, Airline/Coordinator, Ground Handling, and Maintenance. Specifically, Flight Crew participants noted that they share responsibility for certain aspects of the flight with these functions, as detailed in Table 3. That said, Flight Crew participants reflected a perspective that although their task activity links to a bigger team picture, they are at the “center” of the operation.
Flight Crew Collaboration/Shared Tasks With Other Roles
Flight Crew collaboration with certain roles emerged as critical. During the preflight stage, this includes the Coordinator, Dispatch, ATC, and Flight Operations Control. During the flight (and specifically at the landing phase), this includes ATC and Flight Operations Control.
In all workshops, participants referred to the concept of flight threats. Flight threats are conceived as issues that arise either before or during the operation that can have a potentially adverse impact on the operational outcome and/or flight safety, unless they are appropriately managed. In so doing, participants distinguished operational threats (i.e., aircraft and crew related) and environmental threats (i.e., weather and terrain related). In relation to the former, this includes aircraft changes, aircraft technical issues, crew availability issues, ATC delays, and issues pertaining to the reliability/availability of operational information.
Across the airlines, participants described an “unofficial world” of how things “normally go.” Although procedures are important, they are not always followed. In situations of high operational and/or environmental complexity, it can be difficult to follow procedures and/or procedures do not account for the specifics of the situation. In these instances, procedures are optimized and/or the crew perform those tasks necessary to keep the process moving forward.
Throughout the workshops, Flight Crew participants stated that the management of complexity is a central task function. CRM strategies are used to manage the different levels of complexity encountered on a daily basis. Central to this, is the execution of briefings (both preflight and during the flight). Participants from Airlines 2 and 5 also alluded to the analysis of flight threats from a Threat and Error Management (TEM) perspective.
Participants referred to dependencies between the Flight Planning process (and specifically the Dispatch process) and the Active Flight Operations process, which have a bearing on Flight Crew task activity; for example, the management of flight threats in advance of the flight and the quality of flight plan information. Also, participants noted the central role of reporting both from an operations planning/management and safety perspective.
Phase 2: Analysis of Relationship Between Flight Planning Process and Flight Crew Task
Introduction/background
The objective of this study was to explore in more detail certain issues that arose in the collective process workshops (i.e., Study 1) and the initial phase of Flight Crew task analysis (i.e., Study 3), pertaining to the impact of the design of the Flight Planning Process on Flight Crew task activity—in particular, to understand from a Flight Planning perspective key dependencies between the Flight Planning Process (specifically the task outputs of Dispatch and Flight Operations Control) and Flight Crew task activity. Research was conducted with Flight Planning personnel from Airlines 2 and 5 only. Seven participants, reflecting a spread of Flight Planning functions (i.e., Flight Planning, Dispatch, and Flight Operations Control) were interviewed. Further, four observations of Dispatch and Flight Operations Control were undertaken. Additional observations/interviews were conducted with three Flight Operations Control representatives. Pilots were not involved in this study.
Research design
Seven one-to-one interviews were conducted on-site with Flight Planning personnel from both Airlines 2 and 5. First, the researcher explained the objectives of the HILAS project. The overall findings of the process workshops (i.e., Study 1) and the first phase of Flight Crew task analysis (i.e., Study 3) were then outlined. This included findings in relation to dependencies between the Flight Planning process and the Active Flight Operations process. Participants were invited to comment on these findings. Participants were then asked to describe their role in the context of the broader Flight Planning process and associated challenges. Participants were then questioned about the specific task requirements of their role. As part of this, questions were posed in relation to information sharing with other operational roles (i.e., whom do they share information with, how is it shared, and what problems are encountered). Participants were then invited to demonstrate their existing work tools. Lastly, there was a free-form discussion covering issues pertaining to the participant’s work.
Further, two observations of the Flight Dispatch process and two observations of Flight Operations Control process were conducted with personnel from Airline 5. These observations were used to validate the information obtained in participant interviews. Observations were conducted on-site at the airline’s offices. Three combined interviews/observations of Flight Operations Control personnel from Airline 2 were also undertaken. Where possible, the researcher asked questions to clarify issues related to the task activity observed. This occurred during “down-time” periods, or after the observation.
Research findings across the two airlines were then analyzed. As part of this, a process map was advanced detailing relevant role task actions at different points in the process timeline and key information flow channels.
Key findings
The functional logic of the Flight Planning process follows from the temporal and dynamic nature of the flight operation. Accordingly, the Flight Plan is progressively defined. Much of the Flight Plan is subject to change. The nature of the Dispatch process varies according to the risk level of the flight. If the flight is rated of medium or high risk, the Dispatcher is required to coordinate with Flight Crew at the preflight, flight planning, and briefing stage.
The dispatcher and the coordinator do not always have the full information picture. Flight Operations Control relays the latest operational information to these roles in a piecemeal fashion. Once obtained, both functions share this information with Flight Crew. As a result, the relay of operational updates to Flight Crew is often piecemeal and slow.
This research illuminates several dependencies between the task activities of different Flight Planning functions and Flight Crew. Aircraft “pairing and rostering” activities in relation to ensuring quality crew pairings impacts on Flight Crew team concepts. The management of flight threats undertaken by Dispatch in advance of the flight has an implication for the risk level/complexity of the flight. The quality of the Flight Plan produced by Dispatch has an impact on Flight Crew situation awareness and the quality of the preflight, flight planning, and briefing task. Moreover, the quality of the collaboration between Dispatch and Flight Crew at the preflight stage has an impact on how threats are managed during the flight. Further, this collaboration has consequences for the signoff of the Flight Plan. Lastly, the quality of collaboration between Flight Operations Control and Flight Crew during the flight impacts on Flight Crew management of flight threats.
Phase 3: Detailed Flight Crew Task Analysis
Introduction/background
The overall objective of this study was to build on the output of the process workshops study (i.e., Study 1) in relation to advancing a model of the Flight Crew task. The specific objectives included:
To validate the list of Flight Crew tasks at each process gate, identifying task allocation in terms of rank and role, identifying key tasks, ascertaining task relationships, and understanding task dependencies;
To understand the sociotechnical nature of Flight Crew task activity;
To understand real world operations—in particular, Flight Crew use of procedures, CRM/TEM behaviors, and reporting.
Research was conducted with 11 participants, involving Flight Crew from Airlines 2 and 5. First, a detailed interview was conducted with a First Officer from Airline 5. Following this, three jump-seat observations and follow up debrief interviews were undertaken with one set of crew from Airline 5. Four jump-seat observations and follow up debrief interviews were then conducted with one set of crew from Airline 2. A further detailed interview was conducted with a First Officer from Airline 2.
Research design
Prior to embarking on the interview, the analysis outputs of the workshops (i.e., process gate templates) were simplified to focus on the Flight Crew role. For each process gate, two sets of templates were produced. This included (a) a summary of Flight Crew tasks for each process gate, and (b) a detailed analysis of this task picture for each process gate. See Appendices D and E for an example of these templates.
First, a detailed interview was conducted with a First Officer from Airline 5 who had attended the airline’s process workshop. This interview was conducted over a three day period. The purpose of the interview was to interrogate the findings of Workshop 5 and, specifically, to understand the relationship between Flight Crew task performance and the design of the Active Flight Operations process. First, the high-level process map for the Active Flight Operation for Airline 5 was reviewed. Following this, the researcher presented the preliminary analysis outputs for each process gate. The participant reviewed both templates for each process gate—suggestions, changes/updates, and adding information as required.
Jump-seat observations were then conducted to elicit feedback about real world task practice. Observations focused on understanding the operational and environmental context for Flight Crew task performance, and associated team work issues. Furthermore, observations were used to capture information about how tools/information systems are used, and to understand information flow both within the cockpit and between Flight Crew and other operational roles. At suitable moments during the flight (i.e., cruise), the researcher posed questions in relation to task performance and information requirements. Debriefing interviews were conducted after the flight, to elicit information about specific pilot workflows and workarounds, and issues that arose during the course of the operation.
Following jump-seat observations with both airlines, an extensive interview was conducted with one pilot from Airline 2. This pilot had been involved in the process workshop for Airline 2. This interview focused on unpacking issues identified in jump-seat observations with that airline.
The two task analysis templates were modified and extended to reflect the overall findings of this research. This research was also analyzed from the perspective of producing a new model of the Flight Crew task. This included an analysis of the core sociotechnical dimensions of Flight Crew task performance, the relationship between task and process, the use of procedures and task functions, and the relationship between task activity and duty status.
Key findings
Flight Crew task requirements and associated information needs vary according to their duty/roster status.
Flight Crew task workflows are structured according to the functional logic of the operational process. In principle, it is possible to associate Flight Crew tasks with specific process gates. At certain process gates, specific tasks must be accomplished or the process will not move forward.
The operational process/flight timeline is punctuated by a series of key decisions. This includes the decision to go (i.e., flight plan signoff), the decision to push back, the decision to taxi, the decision to take off, the decision to proceed with the flight plan or to divert to an alternate, and the decision to land or go around. These decisions can be associated with specific process gates. For more information, please see Appendix F.
The process defines the boundaries for Flight Crew collaboration with other team agents, and associated information sharing requirements. The kick-off and completion of task workflows depends on (a) the prior or ongoing completion of task outputs from other operational roles and (b) the quality of these task outputs. At different points in the flight, the performance of certain Flight Crew tasks depends on Flight Crew obtaining information inputs from other operational roles. Much information sharing is informal and opportunistic. Critically, the pilot is the key coordinating interface across the different personnel involved in the Flight Operation.
The quality of tools and information impinges on task outcomes. If information is out of date or unavailable, the crew cannot complete their tasks. In such situations, the crew are required to continuously monitor the status of this information. This necessitates additional work effort. These situations are often stressful for crew.
Flights are characterized by different levels of operational and environmental complexity. Overall, the different operational and environmental problems experienced by crew impacts on task performance. Specifically, (a) task workflows, (b) time to task, (c) task complexity, and (d) task workload varies according to the level of operational and environmental complexity. TEM strategies are actively used to manage this.
Pilots value procedures from a safety perspective. Procedures help them to focus on the key tasks from an operational perspective. This is especially important in high-workload and/or stressful situations, and when pilots are fatigued (i.e., end of long flight, last flight of the day, and/or last flight of working week). Mostly, task performance is quite procedural (i.e., execution of checklists). However, task performance does not always follow the specific procedure as detailed in airline SOPs. This can be attributed to several issues: insufficient time, complexity of the situation, task outputs/information from other roles not available at the prescribed time, SOP not reflecting actual operational requirements, and so forth. It was also noted that pilots draw upon their experience and training to manage complex situations where no clear guidelines apply.
Participants highlighted the important role of crew reporting at the end of the flight, in terms of providing feedback to Safety personnel concerning the safety/risk status of the operation. The importance of certain task activities performed while off duty was also emphasized. This includes (a) preflight, flight planning, and briefing; (b) the review of safety case studies and training information; and (c) voluntary reporting. It was observed that task management occurs throughout the operation.
Proposed Flight Crew Task Model
Introduction
As indicated in Figure 3, the analysis of field research has generated a qualitative model of the Flight Crew task at four levels. This includes: (1) a high-level model of the sociotechnical elements of Flight Crew task activity and their relationships, (2) a model of task performance in relation to different levels of process, (3) a model of task performance in terms of on-duty task requirements, and (4) a model of Flight Crew role/task functions (from the perspective of on-duty task performance).
Relationship between different models.
The main focus of this model is to provide an account of the shaping influence of the process on task activity. The first level provides a sociotechnical framework for interpreting task activity (and specifically, the relationship between task and process). The second level advances from this to provide an explanation of the relationship between task and process. This account is broken into three strands: (a) an account of the high-level processes that impinge on Flight Crew task performance, (b) an account of the overall relationship between the Flight Operations process and the Flight Crew task, and (c) an account of Flight Crew Task performance in the context of the Active Flight Operations process. The other levels (i.e., levels 3 and 4) provide more detail on two further elements referred to in the high-level sociotechnical account, namely, (a) on-duty task requirements (level 3) and (b) Flight Crew task functions (level 4).
Level 1: Model of the Flight Crew Task Performance in Terms of Key Sociotechnical Elements and Their Relationships
Flight Crew task performance can be described in relation to several sociotechnical elements. Core elements include: operational concept, process (i.e., Active Flight Operations process and other processes), duty status, role/task functions, task procedures, team, tools, operational/environmental context, and information/information flow. Other relevant elements include: regulation, airline goals and objectives, the airline’s business model, and the airline’s safety culture. These sociotechnical elements exist at different levels. In this respect, a hierarchy of sociotechnical elements is proposed. The nature of this hierarchy is outlined in Figure 4. It should be noted that the relationship between these elements has been explored at different levels of detail. Primarily, this research focuses on the relationship between task and process.
Sociotechnical analysis of task.
As indicated in Figure 4, the design of the existing operational concept has a bearing on the design of the overall ATM system and specific ATM and airline processes. Airline operational and organizational processes are designed to achieve specific commercial, operational, and safety objectives. Broader regulatory requirements also impact on the design of these processes (i.e., setting boundaries for role task requirements, duty periods, skills requirements, and so forth).
As highlighted in Figure 4, Flight Crew task requirements can be conceptualized in relation to the structure/functionality of the flight operations process. These task functions/requirements span crew activities while on and off duty. In terms of on-duty task performance, Flight Crew task requirements are detailed in airline SOPs. Task performance is mostly procedural. However, periodically, the crew draw upon their training and experience to optimize safety in situations where no clear procedures/guidelines apply.
Flight Crew execute relevant tasks in collaboration with other actors in the ATM system. These actors are referred to as the broader operational team. This team spans personnel working in the local process (i.e., Active Flight Operation), the broader Flight Operations process (i.e., Safety and Flight Planning) and in other processes (i.e., ATC, Ground Handling, and Maintenance). The execution of Flight Crew task actions depends on the quality of team task activities. Critical here is the sharing of information across team agents to support the individual and collaborative task requirements of the process. The operational/environmental context on the day also influences how the task is performed.
Task performance involves the use of tools and information resources. In keeping with Norman’s analysis (1988), these tools and information resources shape how the task is performed. Specifically, the quality of information available to Flight Crew impacts on task performance and task outcomes. This information flow spans the team, the tools (i.e., cockpit technologies and paper information resources), and the environment. Information flow across all relevant sociotechnical agents must be optimized to ensure successful task outcomes. Both the nature of the information and the broader information flow process follows from (a) the design of the existing Flight Operations process and (b) the Human Computer Interaction design of particular tools/systems.
Flight Crew task actions (along with the task actions of other roles) involves certain underlying socio-cognitive dimensions. This includes situation assessment, task management, information management, and decision making. Further, safety objectives underscore task performance. This in turn is influenced by the airline’s safety culture (i.e., perception of CRM, value placed on safety, and relative openness of reporting culture).
Level 2: Model of Task Performance in Relation to Different Levels of Process
Introduction
This research highlights the shaping influence of several different processes on Flight Crew task activity. This includes the Air Traffic Management Process, the Flight Operations process, the Maintenance process, and the Ground Handling process. Primarily this research focuses on the shaping influence of the Flight Operations process. In this respect, the influence of the Flight Planning process and the Safety/Quality/Improvement process on Flight Crew task activity is explored at a general level. However, the impact of the Active Flight Operations process on Flight Crew task activities is examined in more detail.
Process 1: High-level processes that impinge on Flight Crew Task performance
Several processes impact on Flight Crew task performance. As depicted in Figure 5, this includes the Air Traffic Management Process, the Flight Operations process, the Maintenance process, and the Ground Handling process.
Scope of process and task relationships.
Flight Crew task performance is shaped by the overall Flight Operations concept and the related ATC processes which support this. Critical here is (a) the signoff of the flight plan between ATC/Dispatch, and (b) Flight Crew coordination with ATC throughout the flight operation. Further, the design of airline flight operations processes has a bearing on the Flight Crew role. Specifically, these processes generate particular task requirements for Flight Crew. This includes the two operational processes (i.e., the Flight Planning process and the Active Flight Operations process), and the Safety/Quality/Improvement process. In addition, the design of Maintenance and Ground Handling processes impact on Flight Crew task activity. Periodically, Flight Crew experience flight delays related to the resolution of aircraft technical activities, by Maintenance Engineers. As a consequence, tasks are often hurried to recover lost time. This can have an adverse impact on crew briefing activities at the preflight stage. In addition, delays loading baggage and/or catering, and fuelling issues, can impinge on Flight Crew task workflows.
Process 2: Relationship between Flight Operations process and Flight Crew task
Overall, the crew complete specific tasks given the requirements of the three flight operations processes. Further, crew can experience task problems arising from the links between Flight Crew task activity and these processes. For example, the crew often inherit problems resulting from decisions/actions made by planning personnel. Primarily, this concerns decisions/actions taken during (a) aircraft pairing and rostering and the production of the high-level Flight Plan by Flight Planning personnel and (b) the production of the Flight Plan by Dispatch. In relation to (b), the quality of the information provided by Dispatch in the Flight Plan impacts on Flight Crew briefing and situation assessment.
In relation to the Active Flight Operation, this research points to the shaping influence of (a) Flight Crew review and signoff of the Flight Plan with Dispatch and (b) Flight Crew collaboration with Flight Operations Control throughout the flight. The specific design of the Dispatch process has a bearing on the nature of the information provided in the Flight Plan. This in turn impacts on the nature of Flight Crew pre-flight, flight planning, and briefing activities. In general, many Flight Crew information and/or information flow problems can be attributed to the design of the dispatch process. Further, decisions made by Flight Operations Control both before the flight and during the course of the flight, have an impact on Flight Crew task performance. In relation to the former, this includes decisions made by Flight Operations Control concerning aircraft and crew changes, as part of the real time management of the global flight operation. In relation to the latter, route changes during the flight (i.e., to avoid bad weather) necessitate re-briefing.
There is also a relationship between the Safety/Quality/Improvement process and certain aspects of Flight Crew task performance. Studies 1 and 3 illuminate the important role of crew reporting, in terms of providing feedback to Safety personnel concerning the risk status of the operation. Further, the provision of feedback from Safety personnel to Flight Crew has a bearing on task performance. This feedback is used to identify and understand potential flight threats and/or pitfalls, to learn about TEM strategies, and to improve their overall performance.
Process 3: Model of Flight Crew task performance in the context of the Active Flight Operations process
As indicated in Figure 6, the Active Flight Operations process is structured in terms of a series of (a) process phases (i.e., preflight, flight execution, postflight), (b) process subphases (i.e., for the preflight phase this includes flight planning and briefing and aircraft release and turnaround), and (c) process gates. This links to a higher level process hierarchy (i.e., flight operations concept and Flight Operations process), as explored in the earlier analyses. Further, the process/operational timeline is punctuated by a series of (d) key decisions. These decisions are associated with specific process gates.
Flight Crew Task and Active Flight Operations process.
The process has a shaping influence on operator task activity on a number of levels. The functional logic of this process dictates Flight Crew task performance requirements and the nature of Flight Crew task workflows. It is critical that Flight Crew task requirements are managed such that necessary process states are achieved, at different points in the process. Further, the process impacts on the time allocated to the task, the specification of Flight Crew collaboration/communication requirements with other agents at different points in the process and associated information flow rules, and the delivery of task information to Flight Crew. Thus, the process is conceived as the key structuring principle for Flight Crew task activity, as opposed to flight phases as defined in airline SOPs.
The process logic generates specific collaboration requirements between Flight Crew and other operational agents at different points in the flight timeline. Flight Operations manuals primarily focus on a subset of these team agents (i.e., Cabin Crew and ATC). However, Flight Crew task performance involves strong collaboration with many additional roles. As depicted in Figure 6, this includes the Dispatcher, Flight Operations Control/Duty Manager, the Coordinator, Maintenance Engineers, and others. Crucially, the task performance of the wider team has a bearing on Flight Crew task performance, in terms of workflow, workload, and information requirements. On certain occasions it is not possible for crew to commence a task and/or complete a task, because they are waiting for another role to complete a task, or to provide them with information. Moreover, the crew are regularly interrupted while completing their tasks (which in turn impacts on task workflows).
In keeping with Hutchins’s (1995a, 1995b) analysis, and the research of Johnston (2003), pilots use a range of both physical and nonphysical tools, as part of task performance. Essentially, the myriad of tools assist either different aspects of the same task and/or different tasks. The crew interact with a range of paper and electronic tools throughout the flight. These can be termed physical tools. Further, task performance involves the use of certain abstract or non-physical tools. This includes: the crew members mental picture of the proposed flight, rules of thumb, training mantras, knowledge of procedures, prior experience of a situation, and the application of specific CRM/TEM strategies. Flight Crew tools act as task aids on a number of levels. This includes providing information relevant to the task, facilitating the performance of certain tasks, and automating certain tasks.
The process design dictates what information is provided to Flight Crew and how this is communicated to Flight Crew. This is well illustrated in the terms of the Flight Plan.
Individual flights are characterized by different levels of operational and environmental complexity. Overall, this impacts on Flight Crew task performance requirements, workflow, and workload. Further, the safety outcome depends on how well crew manage the different operational and environmental issues that arise on the day.
Level 3: Model of Flight Crew Task Requirements in Relation to Duty Status
Flight Crew duty status is a key organizing principle for conceptualizing Flight Crew task activity. Flight Crew perform specific tasks while on and off duty. As demonstrated in Figure 7, these duty requirements span two Flight Operations processes: the Active Flight Operations process and the Safety/Quality/Improvement process.
Flight Crew duty status and task requirements.
Two further organizing principles, linking to the concept of duty status are defined. This includes the crew’s physical location and the crew’s location in the active operational process (if on duty). The concept of crew location links to (a) the crew duty status and (b) the crew position in the Active Operational process. Several task environments/locations and associated task requirements have been identified. This includes: the crew room, the aircraft, the crew training center, the crew hotel, and the crew member’s home. Further, the crew may be in transit from one location to another.
Flight Crew safety behavior spans both on-duty and off-duty task performance. Off-duty safety behaviors are not formally defined in airline SOP. Further, the safety literature tends to overlook these activities. Primarily, off-duty safety behavior relates to voluntary reporting activities. In addition to voluntary reporting, pilots periodically review safety case studies both at a general and fleet specific level. Moreover, pilots frequently conduct preparatory briefing sessions in advance of the flight, from home and/or their hotel room (i.e., if their duty schedule requires an overnight stay). As illustrated in Study 3, this is particularly the case for flights with complex departure and/or arrival procedures.
Level 4: Model of Flight Crew Role/Task Functions
A new formulation of Flight Crew task functions (from an on-duty perspective) is proposed: (1) flight management (i.e., aviate and navigate tasks), (2) the management of operational and environmental complexity, (3) team management, and (4) reporting. Underlying these functions is a further task function, namely, (5) task management. This formulation reflects a reconfiguration of the existing definitions provided by Abbott and Rogers (1993) and Jonnson and Ricks (1993, 1995). It is argued that this formulation better captures the sociotechnical nature of the Flight Crew role—and in particular, the operational and organizational reality underpinning Flight Crew task activity.
So what is the nature of each of these proposed functions and how do they relate? Flight Crew task performance necessitates the transport of passengers from one location to another. In this regard, it involves the core function of flying the aircraft in accordance with the Flight Plan. This comprises two related subfunctions, namely, aviate and navigate. Critically, the broader operational process logic (and underlying flight operations concept) determines the specific nature of these functions. Further, the functional logic of the process necessitates the performance of specific aviate and navigate tasks at particular process gates. In transporting the passengers from one location to the next, pilots manage different levels of operational and environmental complexity. This necessitates the performance of CRM tasks (i.e., briefing and TEM). Overall, this is in keeping with CRM frameworks (Johnston, 2003) and, especially, the conception of Flight Crew task performance as proposed in the TEM model (Helmreich, 1999a, 1999b). In executing the flight operation, the crew collaborate with a range of human roles to obtain task and information inputs necessary to the performance of their tasks. As such, there is a relationship between the first three functions. This relationship is indicated in Figure 8. Reporting is also conceived as a key function. This comprises both operational and safety reporting. However this function is independent of the three other functions, as depicted in Figure 8.
Flight Crew role/task functions.
Flight Crew task performance includes a further high-level function: task management. The transport of passengers from one location to the next involves the monitoring and management of tasks in relation to the broader operational process. Flight Crew must ensure that task workflows correspond to the functional requirements of the process, at specific process gates. Thus, task management involves the ongoing tracking of both individual and team performance in relation to the current and future situation. As such, this goes beyond the crew centric definitions of task management proposed by Abbott and Rogers (1993), Jonnson and Ricks (1993, 1995), and Funk (1991; Funk, Suroteguh, Wilson, & Lyall, 1998).
As indicated in Figure 8, Flight Crew performance of these task functions can be understood from two related perspectives. This includes safety behavior and information management. As depicted in Figure 8, safety behavior is conceived as implicit in everything that the crew do. However, safety behavior also involves the execution of specific tasks. This includes briefing, TEM activities, checklist execution, and reporting. For the most part, Flight Crew safety behavior is conceived as implicit in the first three functions. Both briefing and CRM/TEM behaviors link to flight management, the management of operational complexity, and team management. Further, Flight Crew optimization of procedures relates to the management of operational complexity. Nonetheless, reporting is not implicit in any of these functions. As such, it is defined as a separate task function.
For the safe achievement of the operational goal, the crew perform a range of information management tasks linked to each of these functions at different points in the process. In this way, information management is implicit in all of these functions. Thus, the Flight Crew task problem can be characterized in relation to the management and use of information pertaining to these task functions.
Discussion
Introduction
Primarily, the purpose of advancing a model is to develop a theoretical picture of the reality under question. A second objective is to use this understanding to improve/change that reality. Arguably, this model contributes on both counts.
Theoretical Implications of Model
Process-based account
Existing task models reflect a Flight Crew centric perspective on task activity. This is perhaps justified, given that (a) Flight Crew act as an overall coordinating interface across a range of operational roles, and (b) their actions directly relate to aircraft states. However, airline SOPs fail to capture the process logic which underlies this task activity. Moreover, SOPs fail to capture the team dimensions of this activity, which is linked to the wider operational process picture and associated information flow requirements. For this reason, it is suggested that we move beyond pilot/flight-centered models of task activity. Rather, a process based account is proposed. This takes a more holistic/collaborative view on Flight Crew task performance, taking into account the collaborative requirements of the process at different process gates, while prioritizing the Flight Crew role.
Procedures, expertise, and improvisation
This research poses certain challenges to procedural task models. Arguably, the SOP/flight phase approach reflects an idealized notion of Flight Crew task activity. Specifically, it has resulted in generic workflow accounts which describe task activity as consisting of a set of tasks performed in a serial fashion. In support of Loukopoulos et al. (2003), it is argued that task execution does not follow a linear workflow. Given task interruptions and delays obtaining information, it is often not possible for Flight Crew to follow the prescribed workflow as defined in SOPs. Crucially, the operational and environmental context at the time has an impact on whether certain tasks can be performed at the optimum time in the process. Thus we must move beyond linear workflow accounts. This is not to suggest that Flight Crew task workflows do not follow any underlying logic. As demonstrated, the functional logic of the process dictates Flight Crew task workflows.
Further, although procedures are important, it is not always possible or advisable to follow procedures. Moreover, procedural noncompliance is not always due to crew complacency. Rather, this often reflects crew professionalism in terms of optimizing procedures to support a safe outcome. However, such a tactic is not always acceptable. Failing to follow procedures because of complacency or forgetfulness presents a real safety threat. As discussed previously, existing task models explore issues concerning the use of expertise and improvisation (Johnston, 2003). In line with this, this research suggests that crew training and expertise is critical in terms of managing situations where no clear procedures/guidelines apply. Further, in keeping with Losa (2007), this research indicates that procedural drift can be attributed to weaknesses in the existing process design. Crew are often required to engage in informal information gathering activities not defined in SOPs.
Task requirements and duty status
The analysis of the relationship between task and process highlights the importance of conceptualizing Flight Crew task activity from the perspective of duty status. To date, this is overlooked in the literature. Perhaps this reflects an assumption that tasks performed while off duty have little impact in terms of the achievement of operational/safety goals. If so, this reflects a narrow view of Flight Crew task activity. As demonstrated, the crew often engage in both briefing and reporting tasks while off duty. Critically, these tasks have an impact on the quality of crew task performance at different process gates, and by implication on operational/safety goals.
Flight Crew task functions
Existing models of Flight Crew role task functions reflect a narrow view of the Flight Crew role and associated task responsibilities. In many ways, these models make sense for general aviation. However, they fail to capture the nature of Flight Crew task activity in the commercial context. Significantly, there are differences between Flight Crew task functions in these settings. In commercial aviation, the crew manage a complex operation involving different levels of operational and environmental complexity. This involves considerable collaboration with personnel involved in similar and different processes. Central to this, is the management of information. Further, this involves the practice of specific safety behaviors, most notably CRM behaviors and reporting.
Practical Implications
Performance evaluation
The proposed model suggests a new baseline for evaluating performance. Arguably, Flight Crew task actions might be evaluated in terms of how far they contribute to overall process stability and defined safety outcomes, as opposed to conformance with procedures. This in turn suggests new requirements for reporting tools. Accordingly, reporting tools (both mandatory and voluntary) should elicit feedback about the overall situation that applied, who was involved, what the task actions of different task agents were, and how this contributed to overall process stability and required safety outcomes. If SOPs were not followed, pilots should state why they were not followed, and how procedures might be improved.
Flight Crew procedures
This model might also be used to evaluate and improve existing procedures. Specifically, it provides a better insight into Flight Crew collaboration requirements with other actors in the ATM system. It is argued that improved Flight Crew procedures might specify team task performance requirements at different process gates, and associated information sharing requirements. Further, this model points to a new philosophy for procedures; Flight Crew procedures might be described more generally so as to permit/highlight the requirement to optimize procedures (i.e., apply expertise) in certain contexts.
Flight Operations processes
This model points to process redesign requirements in relation to all three flight operations processes, for the purpose of addressing problems related to (a) the sharing of operational and safety information and (b) the management of risk information across the operational timeline. Arguably, existing Flight Crew task models are not instructive here.
It is suggested that flight planning activities should make use of risk/safety analysis information, to support the intelligent pairings of crews and the management of specific flight threats before the flight. A more collaborative dispatch process might be undertaken for high risk flights. Flight Crew information sharing with dispatch and/or the Flight Operations Duty Manager, at the preflight stage should be improved. Moreover, throughout the flight, improved information sharing processes with Flight Operations Control/Duty Manager are recommended.
Requirements for new Flight Crew task support tools
This model offers a new perspective on the advancement of cockpit systems. The introduction of new cockpit technology should be predicated on the introduction of improved Flight Operations processes designed to ameliorate certain information flow problems from a Flight Crew perspective. In this way, new technology should be designed to solve existing process design problems (i.e., sharing of safety/operational information across personnel at predefined points in the operational timeline). This therefore points to requirements for certain new tools, for example, tools supporting the pre-flight, flight planning, and briefing task (Cahill & Losa, 2007, 2008; Cahill, McDonald, & Losa, 2011).
Training
This model might also be made use of in relation to (a) “abinitio” and recurrent pilot training (including CRM training) and (b) the training of other operational personnel. Unlike existing models, this model provides a better insight into the team/coordination requirements of the task, along with the operational and environmental complexity underlying task performance. Specifically, the reformulation of Flight Crew task functions provides an operational focus for pilot training. This is currently lacking in existing models. More generally, the process maps might be presented in a visual format to all operational personnel, to encourage them to think about teamwork at different process gates, and associated coordination and information sharing strategies. For example, training might focus on Flight Crew task activities at each process gate, what other actors are involved, what their task functions are, what tasks/subtasks are shared between Flight Crew and the relevant other roles, what specific information is shared between these different roles, and how this information is shared.
Future operational concepts
Increased airspace usage has resulted in congestion problems both at airports and en route. This congestion is amplified in reduced visibility conditions. New flight operations concepts (along with the respective ATC and Flight Crew technology solutions) have been advanced to ameliorate these problems. This includes the Single European Sky (Eurocontrol, 2009) and Free Flight (Johnson, Battiste, & Bochow, 1999) concepts. In relation to Free Flight, this is being implemented in the SESAR and NextGen projects. Here, research is focused on implementing new ground/air data links supporting 4-D trajectory management and assisting information sharing between Flight Crew and ATC, during the flight execution phase. Potentially, these concepts might be further exploited to take into account Flight Crew collaboration/information sharing requirements with other operational agents, as defined in this task model.
New research is also addressing the movement from a two crew cockpit to single crew or fully automated flight. This task model highlights the importance of teamwork. By implication this model highlights the necessity to define how teamwork (and specifically cockpit CRM activities) will be supported, as part of single crew operations. Potentially, the use of formal and informal briefings and the application of TEM strategies on the part of the cockpit team should be replicated in some form of remote ground/air collaboration concept. Further, the requirement for improved teamwork between the cockpit and other ground/air functions (i.e., sharing of operational information and joint problem solving) can only intensify in a single pilot situation. This too needs to be considered.
New evaluation framework for validation of existing and future cockpit technologies
As discussed previously, this new task model situates Flight Crew task activity in the context of the broader sociotechnical system (i.e., ATM system) and associated operational processes. As such, it points to a new framework for evaluating both existing and future cockpit technologies (Cahill, Morrison, & McDonald, 2011). Arguably, the typical remit of operational assessment (i.e., the assessment of task workflow, workload, and situation awareness) must be supplemented by a broader analysis of “operational” issues related to the design of operational processes/procedures, teamwork, system information flow, operational benefits, and implementation barriers. Further, technologies might be evaluated in terms of their contribution to process requirements and associated process outcomes (i.e., safety and punctuality). This “operational validation” approach is currently being demonstrated in the All Condition Operations and Innovative Cockpit Infrastructure (Alicia) project, sponsored by the European Commission (Alicia Project Consortium, 2009).
Areas for Further Analysis
This is a new model and requires more detailed validation. Additional research might be undertaken with pilots from other airlines (both within and outside Europe). Although this research has adopted a macro ergonomic focus (conceptualization of task from perspective of broader ATM system and Flight Operations processes), the field research has primarily taken a within airline focus. In this way, further research might investigate certain non-airline perspectives (i.e., ATC and Airport Management).
Conclusions
The analysis of field research has generated a qualitative model of Flight Crew task performance, at four related levels. In general, the proposed model reflects a shift from a local explanation of Flight Crew task performance to a broader process based explanation. In so doing, this model illuminates the complex role of procedures in commercial operations. Moreover, this model highlights the requirement to reformulate existing Flight Crew task functions to better capture the operational and organizational reality underpinning Flight Crew task activity. The proposed task model provides a basis from which to define improved performance management concepts, Flight Crew task procedures, Flight Operations processes, and the requirements for improved cockpit technologies. Also, this model might be used to assess new operational concepts such as free flight and single crew operations. Lastly, this model provides the basis for the operational validation of both existing and future cockpit technologies.
Key Points
Existing models of the Flight Crew task fail to provide a comprehensive description of Flight Crew task activity. The analysis of field research undertaken in the HILAS project (i.e., process mapping and Flight Crew task analysis) has generated a new process centric model of Flight Crew task activity. The functional logic of the process dictates Flight Crew task requirements, and specific task workflows. The Flight Crew task involves managing different levels of operational and environmental complexity, associated with the particular flight context. In so doing, the Flight Crew act as a co-ordinating interface between different human agents involved in the Active Flight Operations process, and other processes that interface with this process.
Footnotes
Appendix A: Process Gates and Team Task Performance Picture
Note. ATC = Air Traffic Control; CC = Cabin Crew; CPT = Captain; FO = First Officer; FOC = Flight Operation Control; MX = Maintenance; PF = Pilot Flying; PM = Pilot Monitoring; PNF = Pilot Not Flying.
Appendix B: Process Gates and Flight Crew Role/Task Matrix
Note. CPT = Captain; FO = Flight Officer; PF = Pilot Flying; PNF = Pilot Not Flying.
Appendix C: Active Flight Operation and Process Gates
Appendix D: Process Gates and Tasks
Note. CPT = Captain; FO = First Officer; PF = Pilot Flying; PNF = Pilot Not Flying.
Appendix E: Detailed Process Gate and Task Information
Appendix F: Process Gates and Decision Points
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the European Commission, for sponsoring this research. Also, the authors would like to thank HILAS Flight Operations Strand members. Specifically, the authors would like to thank Iberia Airlines and SAS.
Joan Cahill is with the Centre for Innovation in Human Systems (CIHS), School of Psychology, Trinity College Dublin (TCD), Ireland. She received her PhD in Psychology in 2010 from Trinity College Dublin (TCD), Ireland.
Nick McDonald is with the Centre for Innovation in Human Systems (CIHS), School of Psychology, Trinity College Dublin (TCD), Ireland. He received his PhD in Psychology in 1979 from Trinity College Dublin (TCD), Ireland.
Captain Gabriel Losa is on the Human Factors and CRM Unit, Flight Safety Department, Flight Ops Direction, Iberia, Madrid, Spain.