Why are go-around
policies ineffective?
Why, do managers manage as they do?
The Psychology
Dr. J. Martin Smith, Dr. David Jamieson and Captain Bill Curtis
Consolidated…
2011 Accidents
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Appr & Land
Everything Else
How are we doing at preventing unstable
approaches
100
4% unstable - Airbus study
3.4 % unstable - LOSA study
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Stable
Unstable
What is the compliance rate of executing
go around policies?
100
83% of all ALAs preventable with a
go around [Jim Burin, IASS 2011]
90
80
3% compliance - Airbus study
4% (13%) compliance – LOSA
3% compliance - ASIAS analysis
70
60
50
40
no other single decision can have
such an impact on the industry
accident rate
30
20
10
0
Continue to
Landing
Go Around
Let us look at this another way…
Go Around
Policies
Previous Work – Flight Crews
Strategies for Mitigation
1. Enhance Dynamic Situational Awareness of Flight
Crews (S1)
2. Redefine the Go Around Policy (stable approach
parameters, stable approach height, decision points)
(S2)
3. Minimize the Subjectivity of Go Around decision
making (S3)
Manager Effectiveness
The Psychology
Results
Managers’ Results
• Outreach via FSF, IATA, A4A, as well as some
individual airlines
• 880 hits to the survey, of which 164 (18%)
submitted their responses for analysis, as
compared with flight crew survey response rate of
33%
• Geographical representation
UA-GA Survey Data Results
• 68% of managers indicated that they did not know the
rate of compliance in the industry
• 55% did not know their company’s rate of compliance
• 16% estimated an industry compliance rate close to the
actual rate of 3% (“close” was defined as < 10%)
• 12% estimated their companies’ compliance rates as
being <10%
• Only 31% of respondents were dissatisfied with their
company’s rate
• Only 20% saw their policies as ineffective
Psychological Analysis
•
•
•
We measured perceptions, beliefs, attitudes about UA-GA policies
and rates
We measured Presage’s Situational Awareness constructs:
precursors to non-compliance
Analysis of the data yielded three "factors" that cross-cut Presage
SA metrics:
1. Perceptions, beliefs, attitudes about company support
(informational/organizational) for understanding/management of GA
rates
2. Perceptions, beliefs, attitudes about the clarity, appropriateness
and effectiveness of companies' UA-GA definitions, policies and
procedures
3. Perceived threat/risk contained in companies’ GA rates
Risk Awareness Findings
•
•
•
•
Managers had moderate confidence in their
companies’ GA policies and procedures
Managers reported they felt moderate support
from their companies for the management of their
GA policies
The confidence levels on these first two measures,
plus lack of awareness of GA rates, lends itself to
minimizing the risk = a normalization effect
Manager’s perceived only a slight risk with respect
to the GA rate issue
Manager Group Types
Sees Lower Risk
•
•
•
•
Over-stated company
GA rate
Had significantly lower
SA scores
Felt higher company
support on GA
management
Perceived higher
effectiveness of GA
policies
Sees Higher Risk
•
•
•
•
•
Had higher sense of
urgency
More accurate
assessment of GA rate
More critical of
company’s GA policy
effectiveness
Felt less support from
company on GA
management
Had significantly higher
SA scores
A simple example of a change in one
variable
Normalization of Deviance – The Historical Normal
Dimmed Situational Awareness
Minimizes the identification of risk and its level of
significance (empirical data is negated)
Thwarts the engagement and conversation of risk
The risk continues to percolate just below the
collective radar - until
Strategies for mitigation
1. Enhance situational awareness of the UA GA
policy non-compliance rates for their airline. (S4)
2. Enhance situational awareness of the UA GA
policy non-compliance rates for the industry. (S5)
3. Operators set specific compliance rate targets, and
establish initiatives to achieve them. (S6)
4. Industry oversight programs be amended to
include SARPs that address this specific noncompliance issue.(S7)
QUESTIONS?
Thank you!
Analysis: Engagement, Knowledge and
Awareness of Risk
•
•
•
•
Completion rate for the survey was low
Few respondents claimed awareness of the UA-GA compliance rates for
their company or for the industry
Among those claiming knowledge of the industry rate, accuracy is low for
the real rate
Among those claiming knowledge of their company's rate, either accuracy
is low or they represent companies with extremely high rates of
compliance (unlikely)
Observations:
•
•
Engagement and awareness are extremely low for the issue as a whole
Lack of awareness/knowledge ability of true rates may drive complacency