Flight Examiners’ Methods of Ascertaining Pilot Proficiency

Wolff‐Michael Roth
{"title":"Flight Examiners’ Methods of Ascertaining Pilot Proficiency","authors":"Wolff‐Michael Roth","doi":"10.1080/10508414.2015.1162642","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: To determine how flight examiners reason and which methods they use when assessing the competencies of pilots for continued accreditation purposes and type-rating training. Background: Early work on pilot performance assessment focused on measurement models, including the accuracy and reliability of the scores attributed to the human factors variables included. More recent studies investigated the nature of the evidence that flight examiners used. No previous studies were found on how flight examiners assess line pilots’ performance during flight training and examination. Method: This study employed methods typical for cognitive anthropology, combining ethnographic observations of debriefings and interviews, stimulated recall concerning debriefing, and modified think-aloud protocols of assessment of flight episodes. Twenty-three flight examiners from 5 regional airlines were observed and interviewed in 3 contexts. Results: The data revealed that flight examiners used the documentary method, where initial observations are treated as documentary evidence of underlying phenomena (e.g., situational awareness, decision making) while presupposing these phenomena for making and categorizing the observations. Flight examiners, using a variety of techniques, actively create situations for obtaining additional observations that further substantiate the presupposed underlying phenomena. Conclusion: Even when flight examiners use rating scales, their assessment method is based on categorization of facts and, therefore, shares similarities with medical diagnosis. Suggested quality improvement measures include increasing awareness of diagnostic error, developing diagnostic tools, and developing means to measure diagnostic errors.","PeriodicalId":83071,"journal":{"name":"The International journal of aviation psychology","volume":"25 1","pages":"209 - 226"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10508414.2015.1162642","citationCount":"10","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The International journal of aviation psychology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10508414.2015.1162642","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

Abstract

Objective: To determine how flight examiners reason and which methods they use when assessing the competencies of pilots for continued accreditation purposes and type-rating training. Background: Early work on pilot performance assessment focused on measurement models, including the accuracy and reliability of the scores attributed to the human factors variables included. More recent studies investigated the nature of the evidence that flight examiners used. No previous studies were found on how flight examiners assess line pilots’ performance during flight training and examination. Method: This study employed methods typical for cognitive anthropology, combining ethnographic observations of debriefings and interviews, stimulated recall concerning debriefing, and modified think-aloud protocols of assessment of flight episodes. Twenty-three flight examiners from 5 regional airlines were observed and interviewed in 3 contexts. Results: The data revealed that flight examiners used the documentary method, where initial observations are treated as documentary evidence of underlying phenomena (e.g., situational awareness, decision making) while presupposing these phenomena for making and categorizing the observations. Flight examiners, using a variety of techniques, actively create situations for obtaining additional observations that further substantiate the presupposed underlying phenomena. Conclusion: Even when flight examiners use rating scales, their assessment method is based on categorization of facts and, therefore, shares similarities with medical diagnosis. Suggested quality improvement measures include increasing awareness of diagnostic error, developing diagnostic tools, and developing means to measure diagnostic errors.
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
飞行审查员确定飞行员熟练程度的方法
目的:确定飞行审查员在评估飞行员持续认证和类型评级培训的能力时如何推理和使用哪种方法。背景:早期的试点绩效评估工作侧重于测量模型,包括归因于人为因素变量的分数的准确性和可靠性。最近的研究调查了飞行检查人员使用的证据的性质。以前没有研究发现飞行审查员如何在飞行训练和考试中评估直线飞行员的表现。方法:本研究采用了典型的认知人类学方法,结合对述情报告和访谈的民族志观察,对述情报告的刺激回忆,以及对飞行事件评估的改进的有声思考方案。对来自5家支线航空公司的23名飞行审查员进行了3种情况下的观察和访谈。结果:数据显示,飞行审查员使用文件方法,其中初始观察被视为潜在现象(例如,态势感知,决策)的文件证据,同时假设这些现象进行观察和分类。飞行审查员使用各种技术,积极创造条件,以获得进一步证实预先假定的潜在现象的额外观察结果。结论:即使飞行审查员使用评级量表,他们的评估方法也是基于事实分类,因此与医学诊断有相似之处。建议的质量改进措施包括提高对诊断错误的认识、开发诊断工具和开发测量诊断错误的方法。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
EOV Editorial Board Gaze Behavior and Visual Attention: A Review of Eye Tracking Studies in Aviation The International Journal of Aviation Psychology Reviewers 2016 Exposure to Disturbance Motion During Practice in an Analog of a Flight Task Influences Flight Control of Naive Participants Investigating Non-Technical Skills in Scottish and English Aircraft Maintenance Teams Using a Mixed Methodology of Interviews and a Questionnaire
×
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