Page 39 - Volume 15 Number 10

to proceed to the longer runway may have been the bad decision if the runway turned out to be contaminated and the breaking action was poor.Rational decision-making works very well under well- defined laboratory-like conditions in a highly controlled environment, but another strategy comes into play when pilots are faced with dynamic flight conditions and uncertainty. Instead of annunciating and evaluating all the available options and coming to a conclusion, experienced pilots tend to analyze the situation and immediately proceed with a course of action. In other words, they go with gut instinct. It sounds unscientific to use intuition instead of rational analysis, but as it turns out there’s a valid reason for this behavior. Intuition is the ability to process cues and patterns in the environment and to mentally process them to generate situational awareness. This cognitive activity occurs unconsciously as the brain attempts to categorize the situation according to what the pilot has experienced in the past. Experience matters as the ability to do this grows as a function of time. Because this means of analysis is based on identifying recognizable cues, the concept is referred to as recognition-primed decision-making (RPD).The most obvious difference between the two forms of decision-making is that rational decision-making is based on a comparison; whereas, RPD revolves aroundmaking a single option workable. Without an alternative to compare it against, how does a pilot evaluate whether an RPD-based decision is a good one?Optimum use of RPD requires that the decision-maker constantly and continually assess the course of action to validate effectiveness of the plan and continued safety of flight. Doing so requires a pilot to construct a mental simulation of how the choice will play out and to make subtle changes as necessary.An experienced pilot with a significant amount of time in type would most likely have decided to proceed to the fictitious ski resort with the shorter runway instead of the more conservative towered field. If using RPD correctly, the pilot’s thoughts might be to ensure the aircraft is fully configured prior to the final approach fix, verify a positive descent to get the aircraft to the minimum descent altitude in sufficient time to see the airport, perform a solid touchdown at the beginning of the runway, and watch for fatigue-related errors.In this scenario the pilot has mentally rehearsed the event and identified points to adjust or abandon the current plan in favor of a new one if things are not proceeding according to expectations.The tendency to force a bad plan to completion is a common pitfall to both rational and RPD as pilotsOCTOBER 2011TWIN & TURBINE • 37