Sensemaking following surprise in the cockpit—a re-framing problem

Amy Rankin,Rogier Woltjer,Joris Field

doi:10.1007/s10111-016-0390-2

Amy Rankin, Rogier Woltjer + Show 1 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-016-0390-2

Copy DOI

Abstract

Re-framing is the process by which a person fills the gap between what is expected and what has been observed, that is, to try and make sense of what is going on following a surprise. It is an active and adaptive process guided by expectations, which are based on knowledge and experience. In this article, surprise situations in cockpit operations are examined by investigating the re-framing process. The results show difficulties that pilots have in re-framing following surprise, including the identification of subtle cues and managing uncertainties regarding automated systems, coping with multiple goals, tasks and narrow time frames and identifying an appropriate action. A crew-aircraft sensemaking model is presented, outlining core concepts of re-framing processes and sensemaking activities. Based on the findings, three critical areas are identified that deserve further attention to improve pilot abilities to cope with unexpected events; (1) identification of what enables and obstructs re-framing, (2) training to build frames and develop re-framing strategies and (3) control strategies as part of the re-framing process.

Highlights

In the past few decades, the role and tasks of pilots have gone from flying the aircraft by means of manual control, to an increased role as managers of automated systems
The cases elicited in the interview study offer a broad spectrum of surprise situations in cockpit operations
Emerging from the data are nine challenges relating to the re-framing process (Table 1)

Summary

Introduction

In the past few decades, the role and tasks of pilots have gone from flying the aircraft by means of manual control, to an increased role as managers of automated systems. Such changes inevitably bring about new challenges in operations and have resulted in a number of unintended consequences. The Performance-Based Operations Aviation Rulemaking Committee (PARC)/Civil Aviation Safety Team (CAST) working group (FAA 2013) states that a major factor in aircraft incidents and accidents is that pilots are failing to keep up with technological changes, resulting in surprise and confusion. Other recent accidents connected to difficulties with automated systems include Turkish Airlines flight 1951 in Amsterdam where the flight crashed during the approach (Dutch Safety Board 2010) and Air France flight 447 that crashed into the Atlantic (BEA 2012)

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion