Team situation awareness accuracy measurement technique for simulated air combat - Curvilinear relationship between awareness and performance

Heikki Mansikka,Kai Virtanen,Ville Uggeldahl,Don Harris

doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2021.103473

Abstract

A new technique for the assessment of Team Situation Awareness (TSA) accuracy based upon post task Critical Decision Method structured interviews was developed and tested using 39 combat-ready F/A-18 pilots. Pilots undertook a number of simulated air combat scenarios, flying in flights of four aircraft against a formation of enemy aircraft. Results showed a strong curvilinear relationship where high TSA accuracy resulted in higher performance in some areas of air combat, measured with friendly losses and kills. There were diminishing returns in performance as TSA accuracy increased. This may explain why previous studies on air combat have found relatively weak relationships between situation awareness and performance where the relationship has been assumed to be linear.

Highlights

Situation awareness (SA) has replaced traditional ‘rudder and stick’ skills as the dominant success factor in air combat (Endsley, 1995; Svenmarckt and Dekker, 2003)
There was a significant difference observed in Team Situation Awareness (TSA) accuracy indices with respect to the level of cognitive demand imposed by the mission (F2,13 = 473.562; p < 0.001; ηp2 = 0.971), see Table 3
There was a significant difference observed in the number of friendly losses with respect to the level of cognitive demand

Summary

Introduction

Situation awareness (SA) has replaced traditional ‘rudder and stick’ skills as the dominant success factor in air combat (Endsley, 1995; Svenmarckt and Dekker, 2003). Dekker and Hollnagel (2004) have described the concept as a ‘folk model’ and adopted a reductionist approach suggesting that SA could be decom posed into measurable, specific components (e.g., decision-making, perception, understanding, and long-term memory). They argued that it was immune to falsification (see Flach, 1995). As Wickens (2008) noted “... one can speak to the increased use of the construct in both theory and applications as testimony to its viability, as well as note that such strong criticism is an index of the value of the SA concept to human factors science” (p. 401)

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion