Publications 2014 Decision to Use an Airframe Parachute in a Flight Training Environment Scott R. Winter Florida Institute of Technology, [email protected] Richard O. Fanjoy Purdue University Chien-Tsung Lu Purdue University Thomas Q. Carney Purdue University James P. Greenan Purdue University Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.erau.edu/publication Part of the Aviation Safety and Security Commons, and the Social and Behavioral Sciences Commons Scholarly Commons Citation Winter, S. R., Fanjoy, R. O., Lu, C., Carney, T. Q., & Greenan, J. P. (2014). Decision to Use an Airframe Parachute in a Flight Training Environment. Journal of Aviation Technology and Engineering, 3(2). https://doi.org/10.7771/2159-6670.1091 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Publications by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Available online at http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/jate Journal of Aviation Technology and Engineering 3:2 (2014) 28–34 Decision to Use an Airframe Parachute in a Flight Training Environment Scott R. Winter Florida Institute of Technology Richard O. Fanjoy, Chien-Tsung Lu, Thomas Q. Carney, and James P. Greenan Purdue University Abstract The purpose of this study was to complete a qualitative analysis of the decision-making process used by pilots to determine whether or not to deploy an airframe parachute system. A sample of participants from the subject university’s flight training program was selected to complete a scripted simulator flight in instrument flight conditions. During the flight, participants experienced an engine failure while en- route during IFR conditions. The script was examined and validated by an expert panel who determined use of the airframe parachute was the most appropriate outcome for the scenario. Interestingly, only 9 of the 21 participants responded as expected by the expert panel and deployed the parachute system; only three of the nine followed the correct deployment procedure as outlined in the Pilot’s Operating Handbook. Analysis of a post-flight survey completed by participants provides insights into the decision-making process used by pilots and offers explanations on why or why not participants used the airframe parachute. Keywords: ADM, airframe parachute, deployment decision making About the Authors Scott R. Winter, PhD, ATP, is an assistant professor of Aviation Science at the Florida Institute of Technology. Winter completed his doctorate degree from Purdue University in 2013, where his dissertation research focused on pilot decision making in irreversible emergencies. He presently conducts research in three foundational areas: pilots’ transition and information processing in glass cockpit aircraft, training pilots in very light jet operations, and enhancement methods for pilot cognition and decision making. Richard O. Fanjoy is associate department head in the Department of Aviation Technology at Purdue University. His principle teaching areas are air transportation, aircraft operations, cognitive modeling, principles of high-performance flight, research methods, and advanced aircraft flight systems/ instrumentation. He also manages the department’s graduate program. Fanjoy has more than 30 years of experience as a pilot and flight examiner of large jet transport aircraft in both domestic and international flight operations. Chien-tsung Lu is an associate professor in the Aviation Technology Department at Purdue University. He holds degrees from the University of Central Missouri and the University of Nebraska, and his research interests include aviation safety, airport security, and aviation policy making. Thomas Q. Carney is a professor of Aviation Technology and former department head of the Department of Aviation Technology at Purdue University, where he has taught since 1972. He holds the Airline Transport Pilot certificate with multiengine, Mitsubishi Diamond, and Beechjet type ratings, anda Certified Flight Instructor certificate with airplane single- and multiengine and instrument airplane ratings. In addition to his flight background, Carney holds MS and PhD degrees in Atmospheric Science, and maintains a courtesy faculty appointment in the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Purdue. James P. Greenan is a professor and chair of Career and Technical Education within the Department of Curriculum and Instruction at Purdue University. His research interests include research methodology and program evaluation. He completed his PhD from the University of Minnesota in 1980. Correspondence concerning this article should be sent to [email protected]. http://dx.doi.org/10.7771/2159-6670.1091 S. R. Winter et al. / Journal of Aviation Technology and Engineering 29 Introduction attempt to understand how people make decisions in real- world contexts that are meaningful and familiar to them’’ (p. When operating single-engine aircraft, pilots tradition- 332). A key component to NDM is the recognition that ally had one possible outcome after an engine-failure: a decisions may have to be made without all the facts controlled glide to a forced landing (a landing that occurs available, and this emphasis on real-world situations is very off-site from an airport). Nonoptimum conditions may have applicable to the aviation field. ‘‘In many high risk added to the emergency complexity if the engine failure consequential environments, time for a decision is limited, occurred over inhospitable terrain, during night hours or information is incomplete, conditions change dynamically, instrument flight conditions. With recent technological and goals shift, rendering analytic decision making imprac- advancements, some aircraft are now equipped with an tical, if not impossible’’ (Orasanu, 2010, p. 150). Craig airframe parachute system that can be utilized in certain (2000) further references the characteristics of naturalistic catastrophic emergencies. This airframe parachute, once decisions as outlined by Orasanu and Connolly as ‘‘ill- deployed manually by the pilot, provides an alternative structured problems; uncertain dynamic environments; outcome to what otherwise may have been a very risky, shifting, ill-defined or competing goals; action/feedback dangerous or even deadly accident. Of interest in the loops; time stress, high stakes; and multiple players’’ present study is the decision-making process utilized by (pp. 22–23). Many, if not all, of these characteristics are pilots operating an aircraft equipped with an airframe applicable to aviation decisions in critical contexts. parachute system. Naturalistic decision-making theory will be applicable to the current study due to the dynamic and evolving Purpose of the Study environment related to aviation decision making. The subject university has utilized aircraft equipped with an The purpose of this study was to complete a qualitative airframe parachute system for approximately three years at analysis of the decision-making process used by pilots to the time this study was completed. Therefore, it was determine whether or not to deploy an airframe parachute assumed that students and instructors will have adapted to system. Participants completed a scripted flight scenario this new safety feature, have been trained, and gained that resulted in an emergency engine failure in instrument experience in having this system on-board. Since NDM is flight conditions. heavily influenced by previous experience, the researchers were particularily interested in how prior training would Review of the Literature influence participants’ decisions to utilize the airframe parachute. A comprehensive literature review was completed as part of this study. Major theories on decision making were The Possible Influences of Heuristics and Biases on analyzed to identify those which are most applicable in an Aviation Decision Making aviation context. Further literature was examined to understand human factors issues appropriate to decision Decision-making heuristics and biases were reviewed to making within an aviation context, such as heuristics and determine their possible influence on aviation-related biases. decision making. Heuristics are often associated with decision models and are defined as a ‘‘mental ‘shortcut’ Naturalistic Decision Making within an Aviation Context involving psychological processes such as assessing the similarity of one event to another or the ease with which an There are a number of interesting theories that address example can be brought to mind, rather than reasoning with decision making. However, the two that were isolated for probabilities’’ (O’Hare, 2003, p. 204). While heuristics may study in this project were classical decision theory and shorten the time required to make a decision, it should be naturalistic decision making (Lipshitz, Klein, Orasanu, & cautioned that these tools sometimes result in the wrong Salas, 2001). Classical decision theory assumes that options decision being made. The researchers concluded that are clearly known prior to making decisions and is an heuristic mental shortcuts might have biased the pilots into overarching term given to normative and prescriptive making the incorrect decision; complacency could have decision making (Beach & Lipshitz, 1993). This theory also played a role in the incorrect decision. In another assumes that there is a right and wrong choice that can be example, a pilot who is familiar with what a warning light made, and