Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Sun, 29 May 2005 14:44:57 -0400
Message-ID: <redirect-967285@logan.com>
Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=204.13.112.10; envelope-from=marknlisa@hometel.com
From: "Mark Sletten" <marknlisa@hometel.com>
Subject: Attitude & Safety
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <list-967031@logan.com>

Guys and Gals,

Please allow me share some thoughts on attitude vs safety.  As a 20-year
USAF veteran with a B.S. in Workforce Education & Development I've
learned a thing or two about both of these subjects over the years.  

Attitude can be both taught and learned.  Adult education experts
classify learning into three domains: Cognitive, Psycomotor & Affective.
The cognitive domain deals mainly with knowledge and can be equated to
ground school for the purposes of our discussion.  The psycomotor domain
is where you learn skills; eye-hand coordination, accomplishing tasks in
the proper order, etc.  Flight training is learning in the psycomotor
domain.  The affective domain encompasses feelings, attitude, values,
etc.  A good flight school and/or instructor will imbue his/her syllabus
with affective lessons throughout the training program.  For a much more
in-depth review of affective learning click on this link: 

http://www.coe.uga.edu/epltt/affective.htm 

If you don't want to read the entire webpage let me cover some
highlights.

The best way to teach an attitude is to create a need for one during
ground school (cognitive) and flight training (psycomotor), then teach
by example.  Students will best learn from their primary instructor,
either thru discussion or direct observation/imitation, the importance
of safety.  Research shows that aside from personal experience, role
modeling and social acceptance are the most powerful attitudinal
devolopers.  Think about the implications of that for a moment.  Unless
you survive a life-threatening experience from which to learn, your
instructor and the rest of the flying community will likely form the
basis of your attitude toward flight safety when faced with a "life or
death" decision.

Experts have further categorized levels of learning within the affective
domain (see below).  It's generally accepted that one must progress up
this scale; before one can value an attitude one must have learned of
it, etc.

RECEIVING PHENOMENA -- an awareness; willingness to listen
RESPONDING TO PHENOMENA -- taking an active part in learning;
participating
VALUING -- the value a person attaches to something
ORGANIZATION -- organizing values into order of priority
INTERNALIZING VALUES  -- behavior which is controlled by a value system

I think if asked, everyone of us would SAY we believe that flight safety
is paramount; when faced with dire straights, getting the plane on the
ground without injury to people or damage to the aircraft is the primary
goal -- we are beyond the first three levels as regards safety.  The
problem seems to come when we're asked to DO something with that belief.
Even though we believe flight safety is paramount, our behaviour often
reflects conflicting values.  We make silly decisions that lead to
injury/death (overflying two airports to land short of another) and seem
to make no sense.  They seem to make no sense until we discern the
controlling value: save the aircraft (and all those years of blood,
sweat and tears)!  

In my opinion, our problem isn't teaching new attitudes (values).  Our
problem is how to ORGANIZE and INTERNALIZE our values so that we may
properly prioritize.  Our behaviour should (and most likely will)
reflect our belief.  Where is the priority, saving the aircraft, or
saving ourselves?  Obviously there needs to be some balance, but no one
would argue that walking away is more important.

I spent twenty years as a member of the USAF (Boom Operator on KC-135
aircraft).  Any USAF flight crewmember will tell you that the USAF has a
lock on safety.  That's not to say they don't have accidents, but no one
is better at instilling safety into its culture.  Some of the things
they do:

SAFETY AS A CORPORATE VALUE -- Safety is mentioned at least once a day
by "someone in charge."  No aspect of your life is considered sacrosanct
from safety review.  Commanders are required to individually brief
members who engage in "high-risk" activities off duty (skydiving, scuba
diving, even flying light aircraft).  Every season brings new hazards
and results in a mass "safety briefing" to discuss them; 101 Critical
Days of Summer, Winter Driving Tips, etc.  Everyone from the top down is
continually observed and critiqued on their attitude towards safety.
You can see how this falls right into the "social acceptance" aspect of
attitude change.

MONTHLY FLYING SAFETY MEETINGS -- Every month crewmembers are required
to attend a safety meeting.  An officer is assigned specifically to
organize and present pertinent safety topics.  Accidents are mercilessly
reviewed as regards the actions of the crew.  All aspects of the
accident are reviewed (ever read an NTSB report on a major airline
accident?) with the intention of showing how the crew's action (or
inaction) contributed.  All the data is presented coldly, accurately and
concisely; no punches are pulled out of respect for the living or dead
crewmembers involved.  More "social acceptance."

POST-FLIGHT CRITIQUES -- After every mission the crew (or crews in the
event of a multi-aircraft flight) review the entire mission as regards
flight safety and mission effectiveness.  For training missions, flight
safety rules.  Operational missions might require more emphasis on
mission effectiveness.  Crews discuss safety issues without prejudice or
passion (hopefully); leave your ego at the door.  All comments by
everyone involved are taken at their face not as a personal attack, but
as one person trying to help another aviod death or injury.  No opinion
is suppressed.  Sometimes the discussion involves how safety relates to
mission effectiveness and these are the most beneficial because they
help clarify one's system of value organization.  It's not uncommon for
these discussions to occur openly in view of others crewmembers that
weren't on the flight; comments from the peanut gallery are encouraged
-- all actions are open for scrutiny.  Can you say "social acceptance?"

CURRENCY TRAINING -- Effective, recurrent emergency procedures training
conducted in as realistic a method as possible (simulators).  No one can
argue that a behaviour repeated time and again becomes second nature.
And research has proven that repetitive training such as this can even
change attitudes.   Hmmm...

You see, the USAF incorporated and internalized training in the
affective domain throught its entire culture. They incorporated three
key devices experts tell us are most effective in changing attitudes:

-- Demonstration of the desired behavior by a respected role model
(primary training)

-- Practice of the desired behavior, often through role playing
(simulator training)

-- Reinforcement of the desired behavior (safety meetings, post-flight
critiques, etc.)

Here on this list we can't do anything about the first one.  We can do
something about the second two.  

As for practice of the desired behavior, I've already heard someone
suggest a "type-specific" training program.  I would suggest we take
that a step further and make a "genre-specific" program; one for those
that've built their own planes and must include that fact in their
decision-making process.  Of course, money is always an issue.  If we
can get the insurance companies to play ball and give us a discount for
"type-specific" training I'm there!  This kind of program benefits the
more with more involvement; the more of us that get involved, the
greater benefit for everyone.  Besides, I'd rather spend money on
training than insurance--one helps me avoid accidents, the other only
helps pay for them.

And finally, the open-minded among us has reaped the benefit of
reinforcement activities here on the list.  Post-accident discussions on
this list are invaluable in reviewing tragedies and triumphs.  I will
say that some posters are better than other at leaving our personal
attacks and avoiding contempt when discussing other's actions; and email
isn't the most effective means of conveying meaning at times.  In my
opinion, the most effective observations are made without rancor or
contempt thereby limiting emotional reactions in those we are observing
(trying to help).  And to ensure a rich supply of material for
discussion we should remember that those not familiar with a system like
this will be much more amenable to posting their experiences for
dissection if they don't feel like they're opening themselves up for
cheap shots and personal attacks.  

To those of you who've posted your experiences: I salute you in your
efforts to better prepare all of us to make those "life or death"
decisions when they become necessary.  I would encourage everyone to try
and see past your emotions when reading others' opinions about your
experiences.  Remember that email sometimes conveys emotions not
intended by the poster.  Try to accept any and all comments on their
face as an attempt to help foster a "safety culture" here on the list.
A note of caution: beware your individualism.  As has been previously
pointed out, the same attitude that led you to eschew certified aircraft
and choose a high-performance kit can lead to an unwillingness to listen
to other's opinions.

Okay, I'll get off my soapbox now.  BTW, please feel free to comment in
any fashion you like about this post--after 20 years of post-flight
critiques I'm pretty thick skinned!


In hopes of making a better list for us all,


Mark & Lisa Sletten
Legacy FG N828LM
http://www.legacyfgbuilder.com