The Purdue ‘Pilot’ Studies: Hints of a Problematic Interface

The first dedicated research to examine communication between pilots and engineers took place at Purdue University (Lapacek, Mattson, Lopp, & Eiff, 1997). Primarily exploratory in nature, the researchers undertook a pilot study of inter-professional communication between flight crew and line maintenance personnel at the university flight training school. The study utilised students (who were either in the process of qualifying for their pilot or engineering licences) as well as instructors (who were qualified pilots or engineers). Investigation of the

29_{Electronic article databases were used to search peer-reviewed journals. Key-word searches [Flight crew}

Table 3.3 Studies pertaining to pilot-maintenance communication

Year Title Authors Setting Methodology Focus

1997 Maintenance Discrepancy Reporting: Human Factors Issues Lapacek, M. Mattson, M. Lopp, D. Eiff, G. Department of Aviation Technology, Purdue University ‘Pilot’ study: survey and experiment Logbook write-ups 1997 Practical Considerations of Maintenance Human Factors for Line Operations Eiff, G. Lopp, D. Abdul, Z. Lapacek, M. Ropp, T. Four US air carriers Observational (‘pilot’) Field Study

Human factors issues for line maintenance personnel

1999 Communication Discrepancies between Pilots and Maintenance Technicians in the Reporting of Maintenance Issues: The Impact of Organisational Socialization Mattson, M. Crider, J. Whittington, J. 55 US aviation organisations (major, regional, corporate and general) Survey 222 responses Perceptions and willingness for pilots and engineers to collaborate, communication media preferences

2001 Integrating Safety in the Aviation System: Interdepartmental training for pilots and maintenance technicians

Mattson, M. Petrin, D. Young, J.

As above As above Perceived effectiveness of communication between pilots and engineers, perceived benefits of interdepartmental communication training 2004 Reporting Discrepancies: An assessment of the informational needs of airline pilots and mechanics Munro, P. Kanki, B. Jordan, K. 2 US airlines Survey 319 responses Logbook write-ups 2008 Beyond ‘Inop’: Logbook Communication between Airline Mechanics and Pilots

Munro, P. Kanki, B. Jordan, K.

quality of pilot logbook write-ups (as judged by maintenance faculty staff who rated both the content and legibility of student pilot logbook entries), found that pilot descriptions of defects which were written up for the purpose of rectification by engineering were rated poorly by maintenance personnel. A quarter of the 203 logbook entries which were examined required clarification because the handwriting was poor, and 21% of defects which were written up were unable to be duplicated by engineering indicating that the descriptions of the problem were not detailed enough (or possibly were of an intermittent nature). With a view to exploring these claims further, a B727 simulator was rigged with a defect. The researchers subsequently found that defect rectification was timelier when pilots and engineers communicated face-to-face due to the difficulties maintenance experienced interpreting pilot write-ups in the aircraft logbook. In conclusion, Lapacek et al. (1997) stated that communication difficulties result in ‘frustration’, ‘excessive downtime’, and ‘reoccurrence of the problem’ which, in turn, could lead to schedule disruptions affecting both passengers and flight crew.

In addition to their findings regarding the logbook, Lapacek et al. (1997) made two observations of interest concerning the relationship between the pilots and maintenance personnel in their study. The authors stated that communication difficulties resulted in pilots and engineers fostering “unhealthy (and inaccurate) stereotypical notions about the overall competence of each group” (p.1), however, there was no evidence presented in the study to illustrate how this conclusion was drawn. Likewise, their comment that: “an overriding theme in all the research was that attitudes and stereotypes of each other’s profession many times foster breakdowns in communication” (p.4), provides no elaboration on what these

stereotypes are, nor what the attitudes are based on. Similarly, despite hinting at a causal relationship, there was no mention in the study as to how these factors were facilitating a breakdown in communication, nor is there any description of what a ‘breakdown’ is, or indeed how one might be recognised.

In 1997, a second ‘pilot study’ from Purdue University was published (Eiff, Lopp, Abdul & Ropp, 1997). The aim of the research was to explore human factors issues that specifically impacted on line maintenance. Acknowledging that there had been little recognition of the different specialities within the aviation maintenance profession (i.e., line maintenance vs. heavy maintenance), the study was designed to collect qualitative data consisting of observations of line maintenance personnel at work at a US airline. Interestingly, during their time in the field, the observers noted several occurrences of conflict between engineers and pilots. According to the researchers, not only were engineers troubled by thoughts that their profession was both undervalued and underappreciated by the general public, they also identified that engineers “seemed to unanimously agree that they were not afforded the respect or considerations which pilots receive” (p.7). While the authors acknowledged this may have simply been a reflection of what was an unhappy workforce, they were disinclined to attribute these perceptions solely to that possibility. Interestingly, the study suggested that the way in which line maintenance personnel perceive themselves in comparison to the pilot group impacts on communication but how or why exactly this occurs was not explored.

This study by Eiff et al. (1997) also noted that disagreements arose between pilots and engineers regarding the airworthiness of aircraft, whether a particular rectification was appropriate and whose legal authority the aircraft was under at specific points in time. How

often these disagreements took place and what the resultant outcome was, was not however, reported. Additionally, the observers stated – somewhat cryptically – that only some of the conflicts related to ‘real issues’. While the authors commented that poor communication was a barrier to effective teamwork which, in turn can cause errors and affect safety, this particular study was not designed to test this relationship empirically. What the researchers did observe, however, was that those maintenance engineers who displayed good interpersonal skills when interacting with flight crew, tended to have greater success in rectifying defects. What the authors deem to be ‘good’ interpersonal skills was not explained. Eiff et al. (1997) conclude that while the observations made in their study were ‘enlightening’, they were simply observations. Additionally, as the focus of the research concerned only line maintenance engineers the views of pilots were not covered.