What we got Here, is a Failure to Coordinate: Implicit and Explicit Coordination in Air Combat

IF 2.2 Q3 ENGINEERING, INDUSTRIAL Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making Pub Date : 2023-05-31 DOI:10.1177/15553434231179566
H. Mansikka, K. Virtanen, D. Harris
{"title":"What we got Here, is a Failure to Coordinate: Implicit and Explicit Coordination in Air Combat","authors":"H. Mansikka, K. Virtanen, D. Harris","doi":"10.1177/15553434231179566","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Air combat is the ultimate test for teamwork, as teams of fighter pilot (or flights), must coordinate their actions in a highly complex, hostile, dynamic and time critical environment. Flights can coordinate their actions using communication, that is, explicitly, or by relying on team situation awareness (SA), that is, implicitly. This paper examines how these two forms of coordination are associated with performance when prosecuting or evading an attack in simulated air combat. This was done by investigating the flights’ team SA, number of SA-related communication acts and performance in these two types of critical events during air combat. The results exhibit a quadratic dependence between team SA and communication. The rate of change of SA-related communication frequency with respect to change of team SA was negative: communication was needed to build team SA, but once an appropriate level of team SA was established, fewer communications were required. If, however, team SA deteriorated the number of SA communication acts increased. However, during time critical events, the flights did not always have enough time to coordinate their actions verbally. If the flights’ team SA in such situations was low, the flights’ explicit coordination attempts were not sufficient to avoid poor performance.","PeriodicalId":46342,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making","volume":"17 1","pages":"279 - 293"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15553434231179566","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, INDUSTRIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Air combat is the ultimate test for teamwork, as teams of fighter pilot (or flights), must coordinate their actions in a highly complex, hostile, dynamic and time critical environment. Flights can coordinate their actions using communication, that is, explicitly, or by relying on team situation awareness (SA), that is, implicitly. This paper examines how these two forms of coordination are associated with performance when prosecuting or evading an attack in simulated air combat. This was done by investigating the flights’ team SA, number of SA-related communication acts and performance in these two types of critical events during air combat. The results exhibit a quadratic dependence between team SA and communication. The rate of change of SA-related communication frequency with respect to change of team SA was negative: communication was needed to build team SA, but once an appropriate level of team SA was established, fewer communications were required. If, however, team SA deteriorated the number of SA communication acts increased. However, during time critical events, the flights did not always have enough time to coordinate their actions verbally. If the flights’ team SA in such situations was low, the flights’ explicit coordination attempts were not sufficient to avoid poor performance.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
我们在这里得到的是协调的失败:空战中的隐性和显性协调
空战是对团队合作的终极考验,因为战斗机飞行员(或飞行)团队必须在高度复杂、充满敌意、动态和时间紧迫的环境中协调行动。航班可以通过沟通(即明确)或依靠团队态势感知(SA)(即隐含)来协调他们的行动。本文研究了在模拟空战中起诉或躲避攻击时,这两种形式的协调与表现之间的关系。这是通过调查飞行团队SA、SA相关通信行为的数量以及在空战期间这两类关键事件中的表现来完成的。结果显示团队SA和沟通之间存在二次依赖关系。与SA相关的沟通频率相对于团队SA的变化率为负:建立团队SA需要沟通,但一旦建立了适当级别的团队SA,就需要更少的沟通。然而,如果团队SA恶化,SA通信行为的数量就会增加。然而,在时间紧迫的事件中,航班并不总是有足够的时间口头协调他们的行动。如果航班团队在这种情况下SA较低,那么航班明确的协调尝试不足以避免糟糕的表现。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
10.00%
发文量
21
期刊最新文献
Is the Pull-Down Effect Overstated? An Examination of Trust Propagation Among Fighter Pilots in a High-Fidelity Simulation A Taxonomy for AI Hazard Analysis Understanding Automation Failure Integrating Function Allocation and Operational Event Sequence Diagrams to Support Human-Robot Coordination: Case Study of a Robotic Date Thinning System Adapting Cognitive Task Analysis Methods for Use in a Large Sample Simulation Study of High-Risk Healthcare Events.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1