Interaction types in the Cockpit
coaching, dominance, and intersubjectivity
From UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO Cognition in Flight:
Understanding Cockpits as Cognitive Systems
A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the
requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in Cognitive Science by
Barbara E. Holder
An
interaction analysis was developed to identify three system-level properties.
These properties are emergent interaction patterns I named coaching, dominance, and intersubjectivity.
These patterns emerged from individual interactions in the system and were not
produced by a single pilot. The data suggest these patterns influence system
performance and flight safety.
...
Interactive
processes do not occur in isolation, they occur simultaneously across social,
physical, and conceptual dimensions and shape system interactions. These
findings have implications for display design, training, meaning construction,
and crew coordination.
...
Coaching occurs when one pilot transforms representations
into statements that are supportive of a specific task of the other pilot, such
as controlling the aircraft. During a coaching interaction there tends to be heavy flow of
representations from the instrument panel to the copilot and then to the pilot.
Coaching statements may be given as directives 38 38 (“get that nose over”) or
as status (“that’s a good rate”) or as reassurance (“you've got it”). The pilot
being coached may verbally acknowledge the statements or acknowledge them
through his actions. The coaching pilot monitors the other pilot’s actions and
continues to coach as required. Coaching interactions tend to vary in duration
because pilots transition in and out of coaching to perform other tasks such as
verifying a mechanical failure. The notion of coaching is represented in the
pilot community in the phrase back each other up.
...
A dominance interaction occurs when one pilot
does everything—processes instrument representations, speaks, acts, decides,
without assistance or concurrence from his partner. The other pilot tends to
remain a passive partner even if he was not passive before. This
pattern is often characterized by a unidirectional flow of representations
centering on one pilot. Pilots construct an understanding of the situation
independent of each other and the understanding of the dominant pilot may sway
the understanding of the other pilot. Communication between pilots tends to be
one-sided flowing from the dominating pilot to the other pilot with little or
no opportunity for negotiation and discussion. These kinds of interactions are
known to be dangerous and are addressed in the navy’s aircrew coordination
training under assertiveness. Assertiveness is defined in the programs as: the
willingness one has to take action and to actively participate. All members of
the crew, pilots and aircrewmen, receive some kind of assertiveness training.
...
The last
interaction pattern is intersubjectivity as the
emergence of a shared understanding between pilots. Hutchins and
Klausen (1996), documented the emergence of intersubjectivity between
crewmembers flying a commercial airplane. These interactions occur when both
pilots make relevant contributions in terms of speech and 40 40 action to a
joint activity. We see abbreviated sentences, overlapping speech, and actions
in response to an understanding not a command. The interaction may vary in
length and intensity and may incorporate coaching. The exchange transitions
into parallel coordination when the pilots begin another separate, but contextually
appropriate, activity following an interaction. Parallel coordination occurs
when both pilots perform separate, complimentary activities in parallel such as
one pilot performing checks while the other calls air traffic control.
Intersubjective interactions usually occur during intense activity, like during
a diagnosis, detection of a malfunction, or when the crew is regaining aircraft
control. These are periods where crew coordination is essential. The closest
term to intersubjectivity in the training program is synergy, but it is not
clearly defined nor is it used to describe behavior outside of the books. It is
not surprising that this is a more difficult phenomenon to conceptualize in
training terms.
