Army Aviation Scenarios
David R. Hunter‚ John E. Stewart‚ 2009
فرانامه (سناریو) هوانوردی ارتشی
The following ten scenarios were presented to participants‚ one scenario at a time. Participants were asked to read the scenario‚ and then complete the 17 items that assessed their global andspecific locus of control‚ perceived risk‚ and self-serving bias.
Situation 1:
While on a single-ship resupply mission to an outpost located in a ountainous region deteriorating weather conditions reduce horizontal visibility to less than one mile‚ makingrecognition of landmarks and location of the outpost difficult. GPS is unserviceable on thisaircraft‚ forcing the crew to rely upon visual navigation. After an extensive search‚ the crewlocates the outpost and begins their approach. However‚ as they descend toward the LZ which ison the side of a steep hill‚ high winds blow clouds across their flight path and they lose sight ofthe LZ and visual contact with the ground.
Situation 2:
The crew is the second ship of a three-ship formation. They are heavily loaded with troops and supplies and are performing a combat assault into a long‚ but narrow LZ‚ surrounded by tall trees.Because of the layout of the LZ‚ the lead ship directs the formation into trail as they line up forapproach. There has been frequent enemy contact in this area‚ and the previous flight earlier inthe day received light enemy automatic weapons fire as they were on final‚ descending through200 feet. No one was injured‚ however one of the aircraft suffered slight damage with severalrounds passing through the tail section. All the crews are very alert and ready for action‚ and the lead passes the word to keep the formation tight so they can provide mutually-supportive covering fire. The initial approach is uneventful‚ however just as the lead ship begins to flare for landing‚ a flock of large birds‚ frightened by the noise and rotor wash‚ erupts from the trees on the right and head across the LZ‚ directly into the path of the lead ship. In response‚ the lead ship flares abruptly‚ and the second ship must take extreme action to avoid a mid-air collision.
Situation 3:
The unit maintenance officer has asked the crew to fly one of the aircraft back to the depot for some maintenance that cannot be performed at the field site. The crew chief has noticed a slight elevation in the oil temperature over the last several flights and the maintenance officer thinks a more detailed inspection of the engine may be required. There is a layer of low clouds along the route of flight extending from about 400 AGL to 5‚000 MSL. Therefore‚ the PC elects to fly VFR on top. Approximately 40 minutes into the 75 minute flight they notice that the engine oil temperature has risen and is now just below the red line. They have also begun to notice a slight vibration and the crew chief reports a high-pitched whine coming from the area of the engine deck. The nearest airfield with an instrument approach is 35 minutes away
Situation 4:
Following an uncontained engine failure which resulted in the loss of both engines‚ the crew makes a successful emergency landing in a small clearing on the top of one of the many steep hills in this area. The crew exit the aircraft with only minor injuries before it is consumed by a post-crash fire. They have only the minimum survival equipment and no radio. Weather conditions are deteriorating‚ the temperature is 25 degrees F.‚ and low clouds with possible snow are moving into the area‚ which may seriously delay the search by rescue aircraft. There are numerous small bands of hostile combatants known to inhabit the area‚ and the nearest friendly force is 15 KM away.
Situation 5:
The crew is conducting a routine VIP flight from your home airfield to another airfield about 150 miles away. Weather was forecast to be marginal VFR or IMC along the route of flight‚ so they have filed an instrument flight plan and are now cruising at 6‚000 feet in the clouds. They expect to execute an ILS approach upon your arrival. Current conditions at the destination are 600 foot ceiling‚ and 1 mile visibility‚ with winds out of the east at 12 kts. The CP has been flying in the unit for about a year‚ and is fully qualified. There are no indications of mechanical malfunctions in the aircraft.
Situation 6:
While flying a routine day mission in good weather‚ the #2 engine chip light flashes on then off‚ then repeats 30 seconds later. The crew identifies a good emergency landing area and begins the proper emergency procedure to land. Just before landing‚ a crewmember reports a fire in the #2 engine.
Situation 7:
A crew receives a mission change with a request to locate and attempt to recover a downed UAV. The crew hovers at 30 feet‚ slowly moving across an area of mixed sparse vegetation and loose sand. After about 20 minutes of searching the crew notice the downed UAV lying on the ground in a cleared area. As they hover over next to the UAV to recover it‚ the aircraft enters brown out conditions and all visual contact with the ground is lost.
Situation 8:
You are flying through areas of marginal visibility at 500 feet‚ under a 600 foot ceiling while the CP is performing navigation and radio comms duties. You glance down to check the engine instruments for a moment‚ and then hear the CP cry out‚ "Tower ahead". You look up to see that you are headed directly toward a radio/TV antenna approximately 300 meters directly ahead. The top of antenna is in the clouds‚ and supporting guy wires can barely been seen spreading out to either side. You immediately begin an abrupt evasive maneuver.
Situation 9:
You come to a hover at approximately 60 feet over a confined area barely able to accommodate your aircraft. You begin to slowly maneuver downward into the landing area‚ using guidance from the CP‚ and your crew chief. At approximately 40 feet the crew chief yells‚ "Don't come back"‚ just as you hear a loud bang‚ and the aircraft begins to spin rapidly to the right.
Situation 10:
It is 0200 hours when the crew is called for an urgent MEDEVAC mission for a seriously wounded Soldier at a forward base. The sky is clear‚ and there is a full moon providing excellent illumination of the countryside. As they arrive at the pickup location in the center of a shallow valley‚ they find that a layer of fog has formed in the valley‚ with the tops at around 800 feet AGL. Troops on the ground report that they can see the moon‚ and that there is no fog at the ground level. Anxious to extract the wounded Soldier‚ the crew lines up with the long axis of the valley and begins a slow descent into the fog‚ expecting to break out before reaching ground level. As they enter the fog forward visibility is reduced to zero.
These 17 questions followed each of the ten scenarios:
1. Compared to other pilots you know‚ how well would you be able to handle this situation if you were the pilot in command?
a. Much better than most
b. Better than most
c. About the same
d. A little worse than most
e. Much worse than most
2. How strongly do you agree or disagree with the following statement: If I were the pilot in command in this situation‚ the outcome would be determined by my personal skills‚ knowledge‚ and abilities.
a. Strongly agree
b. Agree
c. Neither agree nor disagree
d. Disagree
e. Strongly disagree
[Questions 3 – 13 used a drop-down menu with the digits 1 to 10 listed as alternatives. The following scale was used for questions 3-13:
1 – Almost none‚ 2‚ 3‚ 4‚ 5‚ 6‚ 7‚ 8‚ 9‚ 10 – Almost all
3. On the scale of 1 to 10‚ how much of the outcome in this situation would be under your personal control?
4. On the scale of 1 to 10‚ how much of the outcome in this situation would be determined by Luck?
5. On the scale of 1 to 10‚ how much of the outcome in this situation would be determined by others (enemy‚ ground troops‚ other aircraft crews)?
6. On the scale of 1 to 10‚ how much of the outcome in this situation would be determined by your personal knowledge and skills?
7. On the scale of 1 to 10‚ how much of the outcome in this situation would be determined by your attitudes?
8. On the scale of 1 to 10‚ how much of the outcome in this situation would be determined by your determination?
9. On the scale of 1 to 10‚ how much of the outcome in this situation would be determined by your professionalism?
10. On the scale of 1 to 10‚ how much of the outcome in this situation would be determined by your airmanship?
11. On the scale of 1 to 10‚ how much of the outcome in this situation would be determined by your crew management skills?
12. On the scale of 1 to 10‚ how much of the outcome in this situation would be determined by your crewmembers’ performance?
13. On the scale of 1 to 10‚ how much of the outcome in this situation would be determined by changes in weather?
[Questions 14 - 15 used a drop-down menu with the digits 1 to 10 listed as alternatives. The following scale was used for 14-15:
1 – Very little risk‚ 2‚3‚ 4‚ 5‚ 6‚ 7‚ 8‚ 9‚ 10 – Very high risk
14. On the scale of 1 to 10‚ if you were placed in this situation tomorrow (as PC)‚ how risky do you think it would be?
15. If a typical Aviator from your unit were placed in this situation tomorrow (as PC)‚ how risky do you think it would be?
[Questions 16 – 17 used a drop-down menu with the digits 1 to 10 listed as alternatives. The following scale was used for 16-17:
1 – Very unlikely‚ 2‚ 3‚ 4‚ 5‚ 6‚ 7‚ 8‚ 9‚ 10 – Highly likely
16. How likely is it that you would be able to complete this mission successfully and without an incident/accident?
17. How likely is it that the typical Aviator from your unit would be able to complete this mission successfully and without an incident/accident?
شرح سایت روان سنجی: این مقیاس یکی از چهار مقیاس برای مطالعه خلبانان ارتشی است.
برپایه رخدادها و تجربه های خلبانان، 10 فرانامه (سناریو) به آزمودنی ها داده می شود تا کانون مهار آنان مورد بررسی قرار گیرد. همچنین برای ارزیابی درک از خطر و تعهد خلبانان به کار گرفته شده است.
Q1. Compared to other pilots you know‚ how well would you be able to handle this situation if you were the pilot in command (PIC)?
Response Scale: 1 (Much better than most)....5 (Much worse than most)
Q2. How strongly do you agree or disagree with the following statement: If I were the pilot in command in this situation‚ the outcome would be determined by my personal skills‚ knowledge‚ and abilities (SKA).
Response Scale: 1 (Strongly agree) ...... 5 (Strongly disagree)
Q3. Thinking about this situation‚ how much of the outcome would be under your personal control?
Response Scale: 1 (very little) ………10 (almost all)
- Multi-Dimensional Locus of Control (M-LOC)
How much of the outcome in this situation would be determined by:
Response Scale: 1-very little………..10-very much
Q4. Your personal knowledge and skills
Q5. Your attitudes
Q6. Your determination
Q7. Your professionalism
Q8. Your airmanship
Q9. Your crew management skills
Q10. Your crewmembers’ performance
Q11. The changes in weather
Q12. Actions by others (enemy‚ ground troops‚ other aircraft crews)
Q13. Luck
Q14. If you were placed in this situation tomorrow (as PIC)‚ how risky do you think it would be?
Response Scale: 1-very little risk…10-very high risk
Q15. If a typical Aviator from your unit were placed in this situation tomorrow (as PIC)‚ how risky do you think it would be?
Response Scale: 1-very little risk…10-very high risk
Q16. How likely is it that you would be able to complete this mission successfully and without an incident/accident?
Response Scale: 1 -very unlikely…..10-absolutely certain of completion
Q17. How likely is it that the typical Aviator from your unit would be able to complete this mission successfully and without an incident/accident?
Response Scale: 1 -very unlikely…..10-absolutely certain of completion
اعتبار: برای آگاهی از ویژگی های روان سنجی به متن لینک داده شده (چگونگی دستیابی) مراجعه کنید.
چگونگی دستیابی
منبع و ماخذ
David R. Hunter‚ John E. Stewart‚ 2009. Locus of Control‚ Risk Orientation‚ and Decision Making Among U.S. Army Aviators. United States Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.
Hunter‚ D.R. (2006). Risk perception among general aviation pilots. International Journal of Aviation Psychology‚ 16‚ 135-144.
Hunter‚ D.R. (2004). Measurement of hazardous attitudes among pilots. International Journal of Aviation Psychology‚ 15‚ 23-43.
Hunter‚ D. R. (2002). Risk perception and risk tolerance in aircraft pilots (Report DOT/FAA/AM–02/17). Washington‚ DC: Federal Aviation Administration.
Hunter‚ D. R. (2002). Development of an aviation safety locus of control scale. Aviation‚ Space‚ and Environmental Medicine‚ 73‚ 1184-1188.
Hunter‚ D.R. (1995). Airman research questionnaire: Methodology and overall results. DOT/FAA/AM-95/27. Washington‚ DC: Federal Aviation Administration.