I bring you a weekly bite-sized chunk of the science behind helicopter human factors and CRM in practice, simplifying the complex and distilling a helicopter related study into a summary of less than 500 words.
TITLE:
Decision-Making in the Cockpit.
WHAT?
This landmark paper examines how pilots make decisions in real flight operations. Rather than viewing decision-making as a single skill, the author argues that cockpit decisions vary depending on the situation, time available and clarity of the problem. The paper introduces a practical framework describing six different types of cockpit decisions, many of which remain influential in modern CRM, Threat and Error Management (TEM) and Evidence-Based Training (EBT).
WHERE?
Aerospace Human Factors Research Division at NASA Ames Research Center, California,
WHEN?
Published in 1993 as a chapter in Decision Making in Aviation. It helped shape thinking about naturalistic decision-making at a time when CRM was expanding beyond communication to include judgement and decision-making.
WHY?
The paper highlights that more than 50% of accident-related human errors were decisional errors. As automation increasingly manages routine situations, decision-making becomes a core skill as pilots become responsible for solving the unexpected problems that automation cannot handle.
HOW?
The paper draws on evidence from commercial and military aviation synthesising accident reports, operational observations and cognitive research. It classifies cockpit decisions into six categories:
- Go/no-go decisions (whether to continue or stop an action such as a take-off)
- Recognition-primed decisions (recognising a familiar situation and applying an experienced-based response)
- Option selection (choosing between several acceptable alternatives)
- Resource management (prioritising and coordinating multiple tasks)
- Procedural management (following procedures when the exact problem is unclear)
- Creative problem-solving for novel situations where no established solution exists.
The author argues that each decision type places different demands on pilots and therefore requires different training approaches.
FINDINGS:
The paper argues that good cockpit decisions are rarely “optimal” in the mathematical sense. Instead, they are safe, timely and workable under operational constraints.
Expert crews rely on pattern recognition, experience and heuristics (mental shortcuts that usually produce effective decisions quickly). Effective crew decision-making depends on four foundations: situational awareness, planning, shared mental models, and resource management. It concludes that decision-making is a team activity supported by communication, workload sharing and effective leadership rather than an individual cognitive skill.
SO WHAT?
Although written over 30 years ago, this paper remains one of the foundations of modern aviation Human Factors. Many concepts now embedded in CRM, TEM and EBT, including recognition-primed decision-making, shared mental models and scenario-based training, can be traced back to Orasanu’s work.
The paper also anticipated contemporary challenges with automation and AI by arguing that pilots should be trained to make different kinds of decisions under realistic operational pressure, rather than simply memorising procedures. As aviation moves towards Human–Automation Teaming, its central message is still relevant – that resilient crews are those who can rapidly recognise situations, adapt their decision strategy to the problem, and work together to manage uncertainty.
REFERENCE:
Orasanu, J. M. (1993). Decision-making in the cockpit. In E. L. Wiener, B. G. Kanki, & R. L. Helmreich (Eds.), Cockpit resource management (pp. 137–172). Academic Press.
competentaviators.com 