Re: Procedural Non-compliance

Vince Mancuso (vince_mancuso_at_CompuServe.COM)
Tue, 16 Dec 1997 13:52:06 -0500


Norm writes,
>Do you see a tie in between Boeing's Accident Prevention Strategies which
show non compliance by the PF and your NTSB study? We are developing an
error module which links the two and asks the pilots why SOPs in there
experience haven't been adhered to. From there we expect to develop the
prevention strategies from the class on how they try to - minimize the
frequency of error, limit the
extent of error, and cope or trap error. <

One assumption that appears to be present in both the Boeing prevention
work and the UT prevention work is that the pilots recognized the
condition. Can we make this assumption? Are trainers building skill in
recognition with the same or greater emphasis as they do for response? Is
recognition an integral part of prevention, coping, or trapping of errors?
This area provides plenty of challenges for training developers to develop
creative methods for building recognition skill. It appears to be a
training area that is currently underdeveloped.

Has anyone done a reanalysis of the NTSB's 37 accidents to identify whether
there were indicators that the pilots recognized the error producing
conditions? I know that the classification of "tactical decision making"
was used in the original NTSB study and I believe that it was used to
include both recognition and response. Until we isolate the recognition
challenges, it will be difficult to build recognition oriented skill
training.

It seems that the orientation in LOS training design will have to shift
from:

Here is a predicament, how do you respond?

to

Here is a condition, do you recognize the need to respond. If so, when and
how.

Thoughts or comments????

Vince Mancuso