透過您的圖書館登入
IP:3.144.250.169
  • 期刊

Aeronautical Decision-Making Training Mnemonics: Experts and Novices Evaluated Five Alternative Methods

並列摘要


The purposes of this study was to analyze the suitability of ADM mnemonics, from the perspectives of instructor pilots and cadet pilots, as a basis for ADM training across a range of different tactical environments. Sixty instructor pilots and forty-seven cadet pilots in the Republic of China Air Force Academy participated. They assessed the suitability of five different ADM mnemonics (SHOR-Wohl, 1981; PASS -Maher, 1989; FOR-DEC-Hormann, 1995; SOAR-Oldaker, 1995; and DESIDE-Murray, 1997) in the 6 different basic types of decision-making situation described by Orasanu (1993): go/no go decisions; recognition-primed decisions; response selection; resource management decisions; non-diagnostic procedure, and problem-solving. The findings indicated that SHOR was regarded as the most suitable mnemonic for application in time-limited and critical, urgent situations. DESIDE was thought to be superior for knowledge-based decisions which needed more comprehensive consideration but were less time limited.

參考文獻


Li, W. C.,Harris, D.(2005).HFACS Analysis of ROC Air Force Aviation Accidents: Reliability Analysis and Cross-Cultural Comparison.International Journal of Applied Aviation Studies.
Jensen, R.,Benel, R.(1977).Judgment Evaluation and Instruction in Civil Pilot Training.Washington, D.C.:Federal Aviation Administration.
Diehl, A.,Jensen, R. S.(Editor)(1991).The Effectiveness of Training Programs for Preventing Aircrew Error.Sixth International Symposium on Aviation Psychology.2,640-655.
Chi, M.,Glaser, R.,Farr, M. J.(1988).Lawrence Erlbaum.NJ:Hillsdale.
Klein, G. A.,Klein, G. A.,Orasanu, J.,Calderwood, R.,Zsambok, C. E.(Editor)(1993).Decision Making in Action: Models and Methods, Ablex.New Jersey:Norwood.

延伸閱讀