Military vs Civil: Does training background affect safety in helicopter pilots?

Military or civil?

Which system produces the better pilot – military or civil? It’s probably been a topic for discussion in flying circles almost since the dawn of aviation and the stuff of crew room banter the world over. It might seem a puerile debate to many but, on the other hand, it is certainly enduring. Does it matter? 

Until recently, there has been a lack of up-to-date empirical research exploring the impact of professional culture in aircrew. Now, according to a recent study of helicopter pilots from the University of Aberdeen with the title “Does training background affect safety in helicopter pilots?” (Kaminska et al., 2023¹), maybe we are right to be asking these questions. The answers suggest that we need to pay more attention to how the military-civil divide impacts CRM behaviours amongst mixed crews. What do the cultural differences embedded in the different ways these pilots have been trained mean to competency, operational effectiveness, and – ultimately – safety?

Culture is known to be a key factor influencing team performance and flight safety² , and in aviation where professional culture is strongly linked to job role and training background, there are few things that have a greater impact than the military-civil dichotomy. We know from demographic data on helicopter crews that the rotary wing community is especially finely balanced in terms of this split, with roughly half coming from a civil training background, and the other half military. This makes the operational impact of any military-civil cultural differences even greater in helicopter crews than they might be elsewhere.

The Study

The University of Aberdeen study looked at a group of 128 helicopter pilots from different training backgrounds, of which 79 were civilian and 47 military trained. They were asked what impact they thought their own and others’ training background have on a crew’s non-technical skills in flight. One of the most prominent findings of the study was just how enduring and profound the impact of a pilot’s training background is on their behaviours and their approach to flying for the whole of the rest of their career. In fact, the respondents believed that (within Western Europe) the roots of their professional culture (military or civil) had a greater impact upon their social-professional norms and CRM behaviours than differences in national cultures.

The impact of a pilot’s training background is profound and enduring

So what were these behavioural differences that they were referring to, and what impact do they have on CRM, team effectiveness, and flight safety?

The big-picture divide between military and civil cultures was summed up by the researchers as efficiency vs safety. Almost every pilot that was interviewed (whether military or civil by training) shared the opinion that military culture was focused on ‘getting the job done’ (and that to do so required the tolerance of a certain level of risk) whereas for civil pilots a safe outcome was the bottom line. This fundamental difference in culture was the product of a civilian training system which is fundamentally more rule-based compared with a military culture which engrains a more flexible approach to changing circumstances and achieving the task over the primacy of compliance with rules.

The study identified a set of themes characteristic of the professional culture in each group, which I have organised in the table below. Note that, in all cases, the perceived differences in behaviours or attitudes between the two groups are relative to the other group and do not describe absolute differences.

Implications of differences in civil-military professional culture on non-technical skills behaviours.

The results of the study showed that a multi-professional team could be a positive attribute by enhancing group non-technical skills as a whole. Situation awareness was the area seen to benefit from this the most. However, the research also brought to light a number of potential threats to CRM from having a mixed crew. This really highlights the importance of acknowledging that the military-civil dichotomy is real. It is not helpful simply to pretend that differences do not exist. Instead, awareness of the nuances in crews’ backgrounds provide some important insights into how to get the best from mixed military-civil crews in terms of CRM and team behaviours.

It is important to acknowledge that the military-civil dichotomy is real.

The study highlighted the following considerations when operating with mixed civil-military crews:

• Mixed civil-military crews offer the potential of enhanced CRM due to the combination creating broader and more balanced perspectives
• Risk perception is unlikely to be uniform within a mixed crew and therefore discussion of perceived risked should be made more openly.
• Expect a higher cockpit gradient with military commander/civil co-pilot and a lower gradient with civil commander/military co-pilot. 
• Military trained crews maintain a strong “in-group” culture which endures long after they leave the military. This can create in-group/out-group dynamics.
• Evidence shows use of in-group terminology and abbreviations can complicate clear communication. For example, military trained pilots often use the term “overshoot” to mean “go around”. 
• Military trained crews have much higher power-distance scores than civil trained pilots. This means they have a stronger leadership style but can tend towards more hierarchical behaviours and autocratic decision-making in the interests of ‘getting things done’.

What to conclude:

If you fly helicopters outside of the military, the chances are that you have flown as part of a crew of mixed military and civil training backgrounds. If you are still in the military and intend to remain flying when you leave the armed forces, then the chances are you will in the future.

Perhaps the most significant finding of this study was that most of the pilots surveyed did not believe that their professional background affects their or others’ general flight behaviours. Contrary to this belief, all the evidence shows that we are steeped in the professional culture in which we were trained and this continues to affect our behaviour in the aircraft throughout our careers. So the overriding message is to remain conscious of your cultural baggage! Crew members should try to maintain an awareness of the potential impact of their own cultural inheritance on members of the opposite group.

——————————————————————————————————

This article was based on information from the following studies, all of which are available open source online:

• Kaminska, A., Irwin, A., Ray, D., & Flin, R. (2023). Get the Job Done or Safety Above All? How Training Background Affects Safety in Helicopter Pilots. In 22nd International Symposium on Aviation Psychology.
• Kaminska, A., Irwin, A., Ray, D., & Flin, R. (2021, May). Pilot is a pilot is a pilot?: exploration of effects of professional culture in helicopter pilots. In Congress of the International Ergonomics Association (pp. 682-690). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
• Kaminska, A., Irwin, A., Ray, D., & Flin, R. (2021). Pilot Is a Pilot Is a Pilot: Exploration of Effects of National Culture in Helicopter Pilots. In 81st International Symposium on Aviation Psychology (p. 232).

Footnotes:

1. Kaminska, A., Irwin, A., Ray, D., & Flin, R. (2023). Get the Job Done or Safety Above All? How Training Background Affects Safety in Helicopter Pilots. In 22nd International Symposium on Aviation Psychology. ↩︎
2. Helmreich, R. L. (2000). Culture and error in space: Implications from analog environments. Aviation Space and Environmental Medicine, 71(9-11), 133-139. ↩︎