Aeronautical decision making in pilot training-CASSENS2011

Table of Contents

Illustration 1: ADM mean differences between academics and instructors
ADM element	Faculty	Instructor	d⁵	Difference⁶
Risk management	5.00	4.36	0.89	medium
Course of action analysis	4.86	4.15	0.99	medium
Course of action selection	4.86	4.12	1.03	medium
Situational awareness	4.86	4.56	0.42	—
Situation assessment	4.86	4.13	1.02	medium
Change recognition	4.71	4.31	0.56	small
Headwork	4.71	4.12	0.82	medium
Course of action development	4.71	4.12	0.82	medium
Attitude management	4.57	3.96	0.85	medium
Skills and procedures	4.57	4.60	-0.04	—
Stress management	4.57	3.67	1.25	large
Communication	4.57	4.39	0.25	—
Poor judgement chain	4.57	4.09	0.67	small
Attention control	4.43	4.08	0.49	small
Leadership	4.43	4.30	0.18	—
Organisational influence	4.43	4.13	0.42	—
Social influence	4.43	3.78	0.90	medium
Dynamic problem solving	4.43	3.96	0.65	small
Computing time available	4.29	4.17	0.17	—
Aviation experience	4.14	4.24	-0.14	—
Values	4.00	3.79	0.29	—
Personality	4.00	3.65	0.49	small
(Mean values on a Likert scale running from '1, Strongly disagree' to '5, Strongly agree'.)

Illustration 2: Teaching methods mean differences between academics and instructors
Instructional methods	Faculty	Instructor	d⁵	Difference⁶
Set good examples of ADM	5.00	4.47	0.69	small
Evaluate ability to exercise ADM	4.86	4.40	0.60	small
Debrief on poor decisions and solutions	4.86	4.43	0.56	small
Encourage to look for judgement errors	4.86	3.83	1.35	large
Encourage practical use of ADM	4.71	4.17	0.71	small
Introduce complex problems under stress	4.71	3.77	1.23	large
Teach ADM by example	4.71	4.33	0.50	small
Evaluate go/no go decisions	4.57	3.73	1.10	large
Incorporate realistic scenarios	4.57	3.47	1.44	large
(Mean values on a Likert scale running from '1, Strongly disagree' to '5, Strongly agree'.)

References

1. CASSENS Ronda E, John P YOUNG, James P GREENAN & James M BROWN (2011). Elements related to teaching pilots aeronautical decision making. Collegiate Aviation Review, 2013, volume 29, number 1, pages 10-27.

2. ELLIS Paul D (2010). The essential guide to effect sizes. Cambridge University Press (UK), 2010. [ISBN 9780521142465]

3. HENDERSON Isaac L & Jose D PEREZGONZALEZ (2010). Student pilots' perception of the effects of consuming energy drinks. Knowledge (ISSN 2324-1624), 2013, pages 121-123.] [DOI]

4. ROBINSON Melissa & Jose D PEREZGONZALEZ [eds] (2012). Judgements of likelihood under hypoxic conditions (descriptive statistics). Journal of Knowledge Advancement & Integration (ISSN 1177-4576), 2012, pages 271-274.

+++ Notes +++

5. Effect sizes, d, calculated using the average of Hedges's weighted and pooled standard deviation for each pair of items (as described in Ellis, 2010²).

6. Modified interpretation of Cohen's 'd': 0.5 = small difference, 0.8 = medium difference, 1.1 = large difference (see reasoning in, for example, Henderson & Perezgonzalez, 2010³ or Robinson & Perezgonzalez [eds], 2012⁴).