Investigating Communication and Situation Awareness in Air Combat

Abstract

In an exploratory study, we examined whether communication could distinguish between high-or low-situation awareness (SA) F-15 lead pilots. With aid from an assigned wingman and an air weapons controller, the lead pilots flew 36 simulated combat engagements. Two measures of SA were utilized. First, ratings of SA were obtained from the operational squadrons. Second, subject matter experts based SA ratings of 40 lead pilots on (a) 28 critical behaviors identified in a task analysis, and (b) behaviors such as communication. Subsequent rankings from both SA measures revealed that, during the simulated engagements, high-situation awareness pilots directed team members more frequently and requested more information. Despite the varied complex simulated engagements, communication patterns were stable; lead pilots' communications were similar for identical engagements that were flown both early and late in the study. Larger studies using a correlational approach with communication categorization are suggested.

Exploring the Concept of Team Situation Awareness in a Simulated Air Combat Environment

“…The sharing of necessary information was shown to have a high degree of association with SAGAT scores. This is in line with a previous study by Schreiber et al (1998), who found that high-SA pilots provide more information because they tend to be more aware of the relevant information. Sharing information regarding own and enemy is necessary to build a big picture of the overall team situation.…”

“…Similarly, Bowers, Jentsch, Salas, and Braun (1998) analyzed communication patterns of high-and lowperforming cockpit teams and revealed that high-performing teams used more closedloop communication (i.e., following commands and actions with acknowledgment and response). In contrast, Schreiber, Bell, and Raspotnik (1998) found that pilots with higher SA acknowledged less. MacMillan, Entin, and Serfaty (2004) showed that efficiency of communication, measured in terms of anticipation ratio (i.e., ratio of the number of communications transferring information to the number of communications requesting information), correlates to team outcome measures.…”

“…Similarly, Bowers, Jentsch, Salas, and Braun (1998) analyzed communication patterns of high-and lowperforming cockpit teams and revealed that high-performing teams used more closedloop communication (i.e., following commands and actions with acknowledgment and response). In contrast, Schreiber, Bell, and Raspotnik (1998) found that pilots with higher SA acknowledged less.…”

A Systems Perspective on Situation Awareness I: Conceptual Framework, Modeling, and Quantitative Measurement

“…For example, cognitive constructs such as memory, mental pictures, attention, and schemata (Endsley, 1995b;Wilson, 1995), are outside the purview of the ELM. Furthermore, the approach is not equipped to capture the relationships between SA and communication (Schreiber, Bell and Raspotnik, 1998), or the emotional and phenomenological aspects of SA (Gerson, 1997).…”

Conceptualization of team situation awareness : attributes, measurement approach and underlying factors

“…When the numbers of thought units in each category were transformed into a percentage of the total units communicated (see Table 4-4), the percentage of information request and response were found to significantly correlate to navigation errors, r = .93, p < .01 and r = .95, p < .01, respectively. Previous study by Hollenbeck et al (1995) Contrary to the findings by Hollenbeck et al (1995), Schreiber and colleagues (Schreiber et al, 1998;Schreiber et al, 1996) reported that high SA pilots requested more information. The latter finding is similar to the trend found in the enemy engagement task,…”