Mr.Senarat

The omnipresent stress and its effects on aviation organizations and individuals  

Buddhi

 

 

The omnipresent stress and its effects on aviation organizations and individuals

 

Senarat Jayasekera    BAvM CRMI MHFI   © 2006

 

Abstract

Various stressors are identified as the cause of overall stress the human body experiences in the form of physical or cognitive stress. Although optimal levels of human performance requires corresponding levels of arousal generated by healthy levels of stress, an overdose of stress can have negative consequences on the human information processing system. These overdoses are linked to a reduction in human decision making skills and motor programmes leading to error making and a reduction in crucial situational awareness in aviation personnel. A firm link is thereby established between stress and the compromising of safety in airline operations. Airline organisations and individuals while accepting the omnipresent stress must implement educational programmes to master stress management. The regulator plays an important overseeing role in the harmonisation of stressor reduction policies and programmes.

Introduction

 

The catastrophic accident on Tenerife will be etched in any aviation professional’s mind even after 29 years. Trying to keep to deadlines with the added frenzy of expediting all procedures prior to worsening weather resulted in the world’s worst aviation disaster when two aircraft collided. The technical crew of both aircraft and the air traffic controllers concerned were under considerable mental strain due to the prevailing scenario as ascertained during the subsequent investigation. Behind all factors of causation, there loomed a spectre that had permeated into the behavioural patterns of all personnel concerned – stress. What is stress and how does stress affect the performance of humans in an airline environment? This write-up analyses stress and the manner it affects the human physique and cognitive systems especially when the brain is overloaded. The role the various forms of stress play in compromising safety in airline operations is also analysed before presenting an outline on stress management at the employer, employee and regulator levels within an airline environment.

 

 

Stress’s many definitions

 

The Webster’s Dictionary (1991) defines stress as a ‘constraint’; ‘pressure’ or ‘weight’ – hindrances that act on the human body. These hindrances that result in causing humans to experience stress are defined as stressors, which are events or situations that induce stress (Hawkins, 1987). Stress is two fold, namely physical work stress and cognitive work stress where the respective stressors are physically and mentally induced (Miller, 2001). Figure 1 depicts the main facets of stressors that humans tend to experience.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Stress is a perception. A negative correlation is the perception of a threat or the foreboding of bad things in the near future. Due to negative perceptions and stressors, the resultant stress could be disastrous both physically and emotionally. The human system, no longer capable of coping with the stressors and the stress, begins to breakdown (Hawkins, 1987). A positive correlation on the other hand involves the physical and mental symptoms associated with excitement and/or the good things to come shortly. Stress is therefore a chameleon with its good and evil facets.

Figure 2 depicts the parameters where stress is present and in fact augments the levels of efficiency. Figure 3 portrays the levels of arousal due to the levels of stress being experienced by humans. As observed there is an optimal strata of arousal where performance peaks with the correct dose of stress. A lesser level of stress and subsequent arousal will see humans experiencing lower levels of performance and efficiency. Low levels of arousal lead to lower motivation and a lower than optimal harnessing of attentional mechanisms leading to boredom and complacency. The results will be less than optimal attention being given to processing of incoming data (Green, Muir, James, Gradwell & Green, 1991). Any higher levels of stress and arousal than optimal levels will lead to a reduction in efficiency and performance as mental overload sets in. It is this crucial area of mental overload during excessive levels of stress that plays a major role in compromising desired results especially in an airline environment. It is therefore these excessive levels of stress that will be scrutinised throughout this write-up.

 

 

The human information processing system

 

To have a clear perception of the elements and the environment, the human body continuously gathers and processes enormous amounts of information (Figure 4). The brain’s short term memory (STM) or working memory and the long term memory (LTM) play crucial roles in this gathering and processing (Wickens & Holland, 2000). The STM registers incoming information in the form of signals that are constantly compared with stored information in the LTM by linking stored information with information being processed so that a perception of the situation is constantly made. Depending on the compatibility of the information being processed in the prevailing environment, humans revert to known actions or if totally unfamiliar, revert to decision making to arrive at actions to suit the prevailing condition.

 

 

 

Personnel in airline operations attract higher levels of stress

 

There is inherent risk in air transport and aviation operations will always be risk-intensive (Orlady & Orlady, 1999). The aim of any airline operation is to get its aircraft from the points of origin to the destinations in the most safe and economically feasible manner possible. The highest levels of performance are therefore required from all personnel involved if these goals are to be achieved. High levels of performance unfortunately result in equally high levels of stress being experienced by personnel associated with airline organisations (Hawkins, 1987). Air traffic controllers and personnel handling customer service and complaints occupy the two top most positions where high stress jobs are concerned due to potential dangers and extreme job functions. Studies have also shown that 71% of pilots as admitting to being worried by personal and domestic problems during the previous year (Hawkins, 1987). Ample tests have proven that domestic stress has an effect on flying efficiency (Haward, 1974, cited in Hawkins, 1987).

 

 

 

Stress reduces the brain’s information processing powers and skills leading to errors committed

 

Based on Figure 4; increased levels of arousal influence the attentional mechanisms and the perception of information. Unfortunately under conditions of high stress and arousal, although the sampling rate is increased, the pattern of sampling is reduced to a narrow range of stimuli resulting in attention being restricted to a primary task (Green et al., 1991), also known as fixation or tunnel vision (Trollip & Jensen, 1991). This situation is akin to a view through a 50 mm camera lens and a view through a 350 mm telephoto lens from the same location. Although the telephoto lens magnifies a distant object tremendously, the area under scrutiny narrows down drastically compared to the angle of vision through the 50 mm lens. This ‘narrowing of attention’ leads to important information being missed or overlooked leading to errors as the highly stressed human’s attention is restricted to the primary source of the problem (Green et al., 1991).

 

 

The STM’s storage capacity is limited whereas the LTM’s capacity is considered to be unlimited (Green et al., 1991). Stress severely reduces the capacity of the working memory [Davis & Parasuramen, (1982), cited in Wickens & Hollands, (2000)]. Therefore with higher than optimal stress levels and a further reduced capacity STM, the information processing powers are further compromised leading to vulnerability of the decision making channels and slowing of motor programmes and resultant actions. O’Hare & Roscoe (1990) have confirmed that stressors and the resulting stress impair people’s abilities to carry out tasks. Errors are therefore the inevitable outcome.

 

 

Stress severely reduces the powers of situational awareness

 

Endsley (1993), (cited in Orlady & Orlady, 1999, p.257) defines situational awareness (SA) as “the perception of the elements in the environment within a volume of time and space, the comprehension of their meaning and the projection of their status in the near future”.  Endsley (1993), (cited in Orlady & Orlady, 1999, p.257) further states that SA is “a person’s mental mode of the state of a dynamic system (and that it) is central to effective decision making and control and is one of the most challenging portions of many operator jobs”. This definition fits major portions of professional aviation personnel’s job descriptions. Overall SA coupled with the 3–level taxonomy1 proves that incorrect perceptions of situations contribute to the majority of SA errors. As stress is a major cause preceding this scenario, a link is yet again established between stress and the compromising of SA so crucial to safe operations.

 

 

Coping with stress is preceded by airline organisations recognising that stress is inevitable

 

Airline organisations and personnel have to recognise that they operate within an environment that acts as a catalyst in generating stress. Acceptance by both parties of the negative effects of stress on health not to mention the balance sheets will help manage stress with better results. With these factors forming the background, organisations should make an effort to reduce stressors confronted by its personnel. Personnel should be educated on stress and its effects. ‘Cockpit Resource Management’ and later ‘Crew Resource Management’ (CRM) courses contain stress management as one of the five crucial management tools (Diehl, 1991). CRM conducted for employees reduces stressors, arising during the interface of human to human (O’Hare & Roscoe, 1990). Studies have also proven that flight crew groups exposed to CRM training have managed to reduce their overall accident rates (Diehl, 1991). High levels of corporate governance and transparency coupled with a positive organisational culture and a solid safety culture practiced by the airline will tend to reduce work stressors experienced by employees. Secondary positive results will also be felt downstream such as high employee morale and internalisation (Helmreich & Merrit, 1998) leading to a perpetual enhancement of the environment and reduction in work stressors.

 

 

Stress management at the individual level

 

Organisations comprise of individuals who bear the brunt of stress and its effects prior to the organisation’s activities being compromised. Therefore if stressors and the resultant stress could be arrested before it is experienced by individuals, then both employee and employer stand to gain. Stress awareness, coping strategies and stress management (Green et al., 1991) are therefore of importance. All individuals, from the highest ranked to the lowest, have to realise their responsibility in stress management. E.g. During a pre-flight discussion on CRM issues prior to a long-haul flight, a captain might, on realising that a technical crew member is stressed out, decide to change the member so that he is on duty during the cruise portion rather than have him on the flight deck for the crucial take-off phase2. Individuals must however realise that there is no quick remedy to stress management. Self discipline and a properly developed and learned technique is needed to overcome stress (Bootzin, 1981; Nicassio et al., 1974, cited in Hawkins, 1987).  Figure 5 depicts a programme where the individual in tandem with the organisation profits by professional stress management.

 

 

 

 

 

Role of the regulator

 

Safety in air transport is a complex phenomenon (Orlady & Orlady, 1999) that has encompassed the entire world due to its nature. The role of the regulator is crucial as safety is also a universal effort and value (Helmreich & Merrit, 1998). The regulator has to ensure that individuals adhere to correct and accepted stress management techniques by issuing guidelines. Additionally the regulator also has to ensure that organisations do not aggravate conditions leading to stress in individuals. A good example is the CAA’s CAP 371 which specifies the ‘calculation of a flying duty period’ (FDP) and the maximum FDP for airline pilots. Regulators also have to ensure that rules implemented, are fair and feasible to both operator and individual. Regulations thus enacted are subsequently enforced by the regulator at national level. Due to the very nature of airline operations, regulations have to be as far as possible uniform across the entire world. At an international level, regulators can discuss, amend and harmonize regulations so that universally harmonized rules are by far enforced for the ease of acceptance by organisations and individuals.

 

 

Conclusion

 

Stress is experienced by humans due to various stressors being exerted on them. Although an optimal level of stress is required for optimal human performance, stress in excess leads to compromising the human information processing system resulting in errors being made. This is of concern for aviation personnel as crucial aviation safety is compromised. Stress cannot be eradicated and should be accepted. Individuals and organisations should act in tandem to educate themselves in programmes that help control stress and augment stress management. Due to the inherent nature of aviation, the regulator plays an important role as overseer and arbitrator in overall stress management.

 

 

 

 

 

References

 

Diehl, A. E. (1991). Does cockpit management training reduce aircrew error? In 22nd International seminar international society of air safety investigators. Canberra, Australia, November 1991.

 

Green, R. G., Muir, H. M., James, M., Gradwell, D., & Green, R. L. (1991). Human factors for pilots. Aldershot: Ashgate.

 

Hawkins, F. H. (1987). Human factors in flight. Aldershot: Ashgate.

 

Helmreich, R.L., & Merrit, A. C. (1998). Culture at work in aviation and medicine. Aldershot: Ashgate.

 

Miller, J. C. (2001). Fatigue. NY: Donnelley & Sons.

 

O’Hare, D., & Roscoe, S. (1990). Flightdeck performance: The human factor. Ames: Iowa Sate University Press.

 

Orlady, H.W., & Orlady, L.M. (Eds) (1999). Human factors in multi-crew flight operations. Aldershot: Ashgate.

 

Trollip, S. R., & Jensen, R. S. (1991). Human factors for general aviation. Englewood: Jeppesen Sanderson.

 

Webster’s Dictionary (1991). Florida: P.S.I. & Associates, Inc..

 

Wickens, C. D., & Hollands, J. G. (2000). Engineering psychology and human performance. (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Notes

 

1 Endsley (1995), (cited in Orlady & Orlady, 1999), developed the important 3-level taxonomy to better analyze ‘situational awareness’. The levels comprise of:

Utilizing the above taxonomy the US – Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) has reviewed 113 situational awareness incidents reported to it. Of the 113 cases, 80.2% were classified as Level 1 errors, 16.9% as Level 2 errors and only 2.9% as Level 3 errors!

 

 

2 Discussions on 15 August 2005 on the main themes of ‘stress and stress management’ with a senior airline captain, flying for a major international South East Asian airline. The captain who flies a B 747-400 at present has logged over 31,000 hours in aircraft ranging from the Fokker 27, B 737-200, A 300 B4, DC 10-30, B 747-300 to the B 747-400.

 

Discussions ranged on the following topics:

 

 

 

 

Exit mobile version