A full mission simulator study of aircrew performance: The measurement of crew coordination and decision-making factors

Murphy, M. R.; Randle, Robert J.; Tanner, T. A.; Frankel, Richard M.; Goguen, Joseph A.; Linde, Charlotte

doi:10.1037/e506172009-022

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The methodology described here is presently being used in a study of crew coordination factors and their relationship to flight task performance, using as data the audio and video recordings of 16 full-mission simulations (Murphy et al, 1984). This will permit some important extensions of the present research including (1) extension of the hypotheses to nonverbal performance and to factors of the aircraft systems, and (2) comparison of communication in successful and unsuccessful flight performance.…”

Section: Extensionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Crew communication as a factor in aviation accidents

Goguen¹,

Linde²,

Murphy³

1984

PsycEXTRA Dataset

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARYA method for the detailed analysis of within-crew communications is developed and applied in formulating and testing several hypotheses about the basic structure of the aircrew communication process. Planning and explanation are shown to be well-structured discourse types, described by formal rules. These formal rules are integrated with those describing the other most important discourse type within the cockpit: the command-and-control speech act chain. Command-and-control discourse is described as a sequence of speech acts for making requests (including orders and suggestions), for making reports, for supporting or challenging statements, and for acknowledging previous speech acts. Mitigation level, a linguistic indication of indirectness and tentativeness in speech, was an important variable in several hypotheses. Testing these hypotheses showed that the speech of subordinates is more mitigated than the speech of superiors, that the speech of all crewmembers is less mitigated when they know that they are in either a problem or emergency situation, and that mitigation is a factor in failures of crewmembers to initiate discussion of new topics or have suggestions ratified by the captain. The test results also indicated that planning and explanation are more frequently performed by captains than by other crewmembers, are done more during crew-recognized problems, and are done less during crew-recognized emergencies.

show abstract

Section: Extensionsmentioning

confidence: 99%