Content uploaded by Hinnerk Eißfeldt
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Hinnerk Eißfeldt on Mar 10, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
K.-M.Goeters (2004). Aviation Psychology: Practice and Research (pp. 99-119). Ashgate.
Ability requirements in core aviation professions -
job analyses of airline pilots and airtraffic controllers
Klaus-Martin Goeters, Peter Maschke, Hinnerk Eißfeldt
Differential job analyses are an important basis for the design of selection and training programs
for pilots and controllers. Particularly, the dramatic changes in flight guidance technologies and
the growing awareness with regard to pilots and controllers as system managers call for a review
of the basic personal capabilities needed for these key professions in aviation. This article
describes the development of an extended job analysis technique, reports the results of recent job
analysis surveys and discusses the implications for selection and training.
Method
A method which has its origin in aviation psychology is the Job Analysis Survey F-JAS by
Fleishman 1992. It uses the professional experience of job holders of any given job in assessing
their own job demands of which they are well aware. The common problem of job holders of not
being capable of expressing their experience in sophisticated terms is solved by F-JAS in
carefully describing its scales which are presented with clear definitions of psychological
components. These components are also compared with similar but not identical factors and
presented as 7- point-scales with behavioural anchors.
A main advantage of the Fleishman system is the possibility to transfer the results directly into
test or assessment methods (Fleishman & Reilly 1992). The original F-JAS consists of 72 rating
scales, which include the following areas (Number of scales of a particular area in brackets.):
a. Aptitudes subdivided into
Cognitive Abilities (21)
Psychomotor Abilities (10)
Physical Abilities (9)
Sensory Abilities (12)
b. Knowledge and Skills (11)
c. Interactive / Social Components (9).
The incorporated aptitude scales reflect the factor-analytic research over several decades (e.g. see
Pawlik 1968; Amelang & Bartussek 1981). The aptitudes described can be seen as components
whose existence and relevance is proven by basic research. Although most of the scales used by
F-JAS are based on factor analytic results, the method does not claim that the different scales of
the F-JAS are independent factors. A certain overlap between scales might exist.
Unfortunately the F-JAS does not cover the interpersonal domain to the same extent as the
performance area. Only 9 interactive / social scales are included in the original F-JAS. At DLR
Aviation and Space Psychology, Hamburg nine additional scales were constructed so that
relevant components of interpersonal behaviour are now better represented.
Table 1 lists the existing as well as the newly developed interactive / social scales. It is obvious
that the formulation of the new scales was inspired by terms which are often used in the
discussion on Crew Resource Management (CRM). Nevertheless, the terms are not unique CRM
K.-M.Goeters (2004). Aviation Psychology: Practice and Research (pp. 99-119). Ashgate.
terms and thus should be adequate also in occupational areas other than aviation. These are the
definitions for the additional interactive / social scales:
Self Awareness
This is the skill of assessing one‘s own performance and personal fitness. It involves comparing
the own action and personal fitness against norms, past behaviour, goals and values.
Communication
This is the process by which relevant information and intentions are shared by persons through
the exchange of verbal and non-verbal messages.
Cooperation
This is the ability to function effectively as a member of a team. Contributing one‘s individual
abilities towards the attainment of team goals in agreement and co-ordination with the other team
mates. It also involves absence of competition.
Leadership
This is the ability to influence the activities of an organised group in its efforts towards goal
setting and goal achievement. It involves motivating, activating and monitoring the group.
Assertiveness
This is the skill of taking action of one‘s own accord and of standing up for one‘s own opinion. It
involves a healthy sense of responsibility.
Motivation
This is the disposition to develop, direct, regulate and maintain effort and energy in order to reach
an objective, despite obstacles or difficulties.
Stress Resistance
This is the capability to cope with stress situations in such way that control is maintained and the
objective achieved.
Situational Awareness
This is the capability to remain always cognisant of the surroundings within a dynamically
changing environment. It involves temporal awareness and the anticipation of future events based
on knowledge of both the past and the present.
Decision Making
This is the ability to choose appropriate responses to complex situations where several options
are possible. It involves evaluating several sources of information, option finding and risk
assessment.
------ Insert Table 1 about here ------
A very important step in scale construction is to find proper anchors. The anchors should be well
understood by everybody (researchers as well as subjects) working with the F-JAS method. The
scale position of the anchors also has to be calibrated. This can only be done empirically by
assessing the respective occupational activities. A large variety of anchors were tested but only
K.-M.Goeters (2004). Aviation Psychology: Practice and Research (pp. 99-119). Ashgate.
those can be used which show a scale disparity of ratings (Standard Deviation SD < 1). The
anchors are positioned on the 7-point-scales by arrows which reflect the average degree of
empirically collected ratings. The scale Cooperation is presented in figure 1 as an example of the
principal scale structure.
------ Insert Figure 1 about here ------
The original F-JAS scales for Knowledge & Skills include some components which are
obviously not relevant for pilots and controllers (e.g. Type Writing). These scales were removed
from the scale system in the reported studies.
Job analysis of airline pilots
Study design and subjects
This study was planned to determine a general profile of job demands for airline pilots, but also
to evaluate whether there are differences with respect to
• Cockpit position (Captain vs. F/O)
• Short vs. long haul flight operation
• Degree of cockpit computerisation:
Degree I (less, the "Hybrid" cockpit: A310, B737, B747-200)
Degree II (more, the "Glass" cockpit: A320, A340, B747-400).
Therefore, 141 pilots of a major European airline (Lufthansa) who represented the different
cockpit positions, flight operations and cockpit types participated in the study: 49 captains and 92
First Officers, 81 pilots flying short and 56 long haul, 75 pilots on hybrid and 62 on glass cockpit
aircraft (4 cases not included due to mixed operation). The modified F-JAS was administered to
the pilots at regular fleet meetings. This prevented a certain bias with respect to attitudes related
to questionnaires. None of the attendees refused to fill in the F-JAS. First they were asked to
what extent the F-JAS factors are required for today's airline pilots' work in general. Secondly
they were asked to rate to what extent the factors are specifically relevant in their own
occupational situations.
Results: General profile
The ratings of the 141 airline pilots revealed a very typical profile concerning the factors which
are nowadays relevant for airline pilots' work in general. There was a clear consensus concerning
the general profile (Goeters & Maschke 1998; Maschke, Goeters & Klamm 2000). A similar
result was also obtained for airline pilot students (Maschke & Goeters 1999).
In most of the scales the ratings of the pilots varied, with a standard deviation of approximately 1.
Since the 4 of the 7-point-scales is the centre and thus indicates a "normal" degree of relevance,
it was defined that average ratings which are more than 1 SD above 4 are classified as relevant (>
5) and those which are more than 2 SD above 4 are very relevant (> 6). No average rating below
3 was observed. Thus we added two categories: Ratings between 4 and 5 are classified as normal
K.-M.Goeters (2004). Aviation Psychology: Practice and Research (pp. 99-119). Ashgate.
and between 3 and 4 below normal. Table 2 reports the results for all 76 F-JAS – scales used
(including the 9 new DLR scale developments, but excluding for acceptance reasons five scales
which were clearly not related to the job of pilots, e.g. Type Writing). The factors per cell are
grouped according to their average ratings.
------ Insert Table 2 about here ------
In the area of Cognitive Abilities many factors rated as relevant or very relevant have been well
known as criteria for pilot selection since World War II (Guilford & Lacey 1947; Hörmann
1998): Time Sharing, Spatial Orientation, Selective Attention, Perceptual Speed, Number
Facility, Memorisation and Visualisation. The other relevant factors are in many selection
programs not directly but indirectly measured, since they are embedded in existing tests as co-
variables. The only scale where a complete contradiction between traditional acceptance and
today's ratings exist is the factor Mathematical Reasoning, which is now not rated as relevant. In
practice Number Facility (quick and accurate calculations) seems to be more relevant than
Mathematical Reasoning (solving mathematical problems).
In the area of Psychomotor Abilities the factors Rate Control, Control Precision, Response
Orientation, Multi-limb Co-ordination and Reaction Time are rated as relevant or very relevant.
These are diagnostic components of the classical apparatus tests for pilot selection ( e.g. Complex
Coordination Test CCT; see Melton 1947, Fleishman & Hempel 1954, Seifert 1966/ Instrument
Coordination Analyser ICA; see Gubser 1963 / Test of Multiple Task Performance TOM ; see
Hörmann, Manzey & Finell 1989). Some of these test principles also date back to World War II.
None of the physical abilities indicating aspects of body strength and flexibility were rated as
relevant or very relevant. Indeed it seems that these factors are negligible in today's airline
business, where such technologies as "fly by wire" etc. do not require the physical condition of
athletes. Pilots primarily have to be healthy but not very athletic. Practising sports is good for
keeping healthy. This contrasts with the older selection philosophy, which considered physical
strength also as a selection criterion. The argument was that in certain extreme situations strong
forces are needed to control an aircraft with mechanical transmission of the control inputs. Such
aircraft are vanishing increasingly from the market.
In the area of Sensory Abilities the factors Auditory Attention, Speech Recognition, Night
Vision, Far Vision, Glare Sensitivity, Depth Perception and Peripheral Vision are rated as
relevant or very relevant. The first two are part of existing pilot selection programs; for example
DLR's Clearance Test for Auditory Memory and Attention was already developed in the late '60s
for screening pilot applicants. Another test is the Dichotic Listening Test which was originally
developed by Gopher & Kahneman 1971. All the other relevant sensory abilities are clearly
factors which are to be evaluated in the medical examination of pilots but not in the
psychological selection program.
In the area of Knowledge & Skills only Map Reading and Reading Plans are rated as relevant
and above. Neither factor is a basic capability but a trained skill. Thus they are not selection
criteria but training results.
In the area of Interactive / Social Skills a concentration of factors appeared which were rated
K.-M.Goeters (2004). Aviation Psychology: Practice and Research (pp. 99-119). Ashgate.
relevant or very relevant. 77% of all scales in this area are rated relevant and above. No other
area holds such a high percentage. Stress Resistance, Co-operation, Communication and Decision
Making are rated as very relevant for working as airline pilots, while Situational Awareness,
Leadership, Self Awareness, Resistence to Premature Judgement, Behaviour Flexibility,
Resilience, Assertiveness, Motivation, Social Sensitivity and Oral Fact Finding are rated as
relevant.
Discussion of the general profile
The results confirm that such cognitive and psychomotor aptitudes still are necessary for airline
pilots of today which were already components in selection test batteries during the last decades
(e.g. see the list of operational aptitudes under (European) Joint Aviation Requirements JAR-
FCL, Part 3, Subpart A, B and C, Aviation Psychology).
The results clearly indicate also the importance of interpersonal capabilities and managerial skills
for airline pilots. Unfortunately, only few diagnostic methods existed so far by which the highly
rated Interactive / Social Factors can be assessed in pilot selection programs. As a consequence
pilot selection programs should intensify personality assessment. Recently DLR has developed
and checked various new methods. Traditional tools as well as new developments are now in use:
Personality questionnaires, different interview techniques and assessment center methods.
Advantages and disadvantages regarding their validity, economy and acceptance are discussed in
the article of Maschke, Pecena and Höft in this book.
With respect to training goals the results strongly support the philosophy of Crew Resource
Management (CRM) training, since this training is designed to improve the behavioural potential
in areas like communication, cooperation, leadership and decision making (see Eißfeldt, Goeters,
Hörmann, Maschke & Schiewe 1994). All these aspects were rated high. The best approach of
personnel development in the area of social/interactive capabilities is a combined one: finding the
respective talents by selection and forming them up to an appropriate level of competence in
CRM skills by training.
Results: Specific Ratings
The specific ratings were evaluated regarding the cockpit position (first officer/captain), flight
operation (short- vs. longhaul) and the degree of computerization (high/low). Senior first officers
were included in the group of first officers. As the respective airline maintained a modern fleet
and did not operate real conventional aircraft at the time of the study. It was differentiated
between a low degree of computerization (e.g. B747-200) and highly computerized cockpits (e.g.
A320). Four pilots could not be included in the evaluation concerning the degree of
computerization, since they had two ratings on different types.
Table 3 (left column) shows the differences between specific mean ratings of the captains and
the first officers. Only significant differences in those scales which were rated as at least
important (>5) in the general ratings (altogether 42 scales, see table 2) are presented.
------ Insert Table 3 about here ------
Only in 10 out of these 42 scales were significant differences regarding the cockpit position
K.-M.Goeters (2004). Aviation Psychology: Practice and Research (pp. 99-119). Ashgate.
observed in the specific ratings, in 32 scales the differences were not significant. All significant
differences showed higher ratings for captains than for first officers. The highest difference in
mean ratings between captains and first officers was found in the interactive/social scale
Leadership, which clearly reflects the differences in responsibility of both positions.
As table 3 (right column) shows, concerning the level of computerization no significant
differences were observed in the scales generally rated as important. Only in scales with a mean
general rating of the required level of less than 5, and therefore not given in table 3, were some
differences statistically significant: Pilots working in high computerized cockpits rated Finger
Dexterity, Persistance, Manual Dexterity, Visual Color Discrimination, Sound Localisation, and
Electrical Knowledge as more important and Static Strength as less important than pilots working
in cockpits with a lower level of computerization.
Results of the comparison between short and long haul flying are not reported here since this
comparison did not reveal any substantial information. The ratings turned out to be mainly a
confirmation of the general profile.
Discussion of the specific ratings
The results of the specific ratings concerning the cockpit position are not of particular
relevance with regard to selection: Not only because few significant differences between captains
and first officers were found, but also because major airlines do not look for applicants who will
always fly as first officers. Normally an airline wants a first officer to fulfil all necessary
requirements for being upgraded to a captain when appropriately experienced. Nevertheless the
results regarding cockpit position are interesting as to the specific tasks within the cockpit crew.
The requirements needed for being a successful first officer are in most cases not significantly
different from those of captains. First officers perform an important function within the cockpit
crew with a high level of responsibility. Therefore the similarity between the ratings of captains
and first officers may also be a result of progressive MCC- and CRM-philosophies in the airline.
The specific results due to computerization are even more surprising, since no significant
differences in the important factors were found between less and highly computerized cockpits.
In particular there appears to be no general reduction of the level of demands due to
computerization. On the contrary, if at all, there is a trend towards slightly higher requirements in
highly computerized cockpits. Altogether the consequences of cockpit-computerization for job
requirements should not be overestimated. This result is very important with regard to selection,
because the selection decision should normally be valid for the whole of the pilot`s career, which
usually covers some decades. Although there is no garantee for stable demands in the long run,
there is hope that the basic requirements in modern airline pilot selection will not dramatically
change in the near future.
K.-M.Goeters (2004). Aviation Psychology: Practice and Research (pp. 99-119). Ashgate.
Ability requirements for current and advanced ATM systems
Several studies with the F-JAS (Fleishman 1992) have been conducted with controllers of the
Deutsche Flugsicherung GmbH DFS aiming at the foundation of a potentiality analysis (Deuchert
2002), the description of differences between controller working positions (Eißfeldt 1997; 1998;
Eißfeldt & Heintz 2002) and the reflection of these findings in the selection procedures (Heintz
1998). These studies finally included the Upper Area Controller working position and led to the
final conclusion, that despite smaller differences in general there is a communality concerning
ability requirements across different controller working positions (Eißfeldt et al., 2001).To collect
knowledge about the current ability requirements in ATC also raised questions about potential
changes with future ATM systems and their consequences for selection (CAST 1998). Will
today`s ab-initio controllers ever work in the ATC system reflected in the current job analyses? If
not, which ability requirements will change, which will remain? Which training efforts have to be
planned? To find answers anexperimental study was conducted to directly compare the job
demands of current ATC with those expected to come when ATC will be highly computerized.
The F-JAS was used with controllers participating in a simulation of future highly computerized
ATC systems. The simulation took place at Deutsche Flugsicherung, Research and Development
Division in Langen, Germany and is in more detail described in Eißfeldt, Deuchert& Bierwagen
1999.
Study design and subjects
The simulation features for future ATC were:
- Data link for air/ground and sector/sector communication; no radio telephony.
- Stripless system; flight information only on computer screens
- Availability of planning tools (like an automatic extrapolation of the airspace situation for
the next 10 minutes period)
- Automatic conflict detection aids
28 ATC controllers (16 trainees at the end of on the job training and 12 experienced
professionals) participated in the investigation which followed these steps:
1. First presentation of the F-JAS: The controllers had to assess the job demands of current
ATC with which they were all familiar with.
2. The controllers were introduced into the new ATC system by Computer-Based Training
(CBT) of 2 hours.
3. In a Warm-up phase of 1 hour the controllers exercised the new ATC system.
4. 4 “sharp” simulation scenarios with rising complexity followed.
5. The F-JAS were presented a second time in order to assess the requirements under the
simulated future ATC conditions.
Results
The results of the F-JAS ratings will be described here as follows: for each subset of abilities first
the results will be listed in tables ranked by size of rating for the data link experience (Future
ATC). In addition the Wilcoxon test for non-parametric small samples is described for each
K.-M.Goeters (2004). Aviation Psychology: Practice and Research (pp. 99-119). Ashgate.
ability to identify significant differences of the ratings before and after simulation.
Cognitive, psychomotor and sensory abilities
In the F-JAS basic abilities are covered by the scales for cognitive, psychomotor, sensory and
physical abilities. The later have been left out since physical abilities were considered irrelevant
for ATC.
Table 4 lists means and standard deviation for ratings before and after simulation and the
significance level of the Wilcoxon Test for the validated F-JAS abilities. Abilities are ranked by
Data link ratings. Varying sample sizes are due to omissions especially by one subject.
------ Insert Table 4 about here ------
Cognitive abilities
'The dynamic process of collecting, processing and distributing information is the central aspect
in air traffic control. This information stems from multiple sources (visual, acoustic, gestures)
and often has to be processed simultaneously, performing multiple tasks at the same time with
high demands on information storing and readjustments of plans due to new incoming
information. Typical for air traffic control is a high time criticality and the complexity of the
task.' (CAST 1998, p. 79). Most of these criteria are reflected by cognitive abilities of the F-JAS.
Therefore cognitive abilities are the central ability requirements for the air traffic controller job as
they reflect the core aspects of the task.
Similar as with all comparable studies Time Sharing was shown to be the most required ability
for current air traffic control, followed by Selective Attention and Problem Sensitivity, both
receiving mean ratings of about 6. Mean ratings between 6 and 5 were found for Speed of
Closure, Memorisation, Oral Comprehension, Oral Expression, Perceptual Speed, Originality and
Fluency of Ideas. All other cognitive abilities received ratings between 5 and 4 besides
Mathematical Reasoning and Category Flexibility being rated slightly below 4, indicating that
these cognitive abilities could not be considered essential for the current job.
Eißfeldt 1998 showed for different data the top-ranked cognitive abilities being Time Sharing and
Selective Attention and the bottom-ranked abilities being Mathematical Reasoning, Category
Flexibility and Written Expression. These findings are identical for the data describing current
ATC. But also for the other cognitive abilities it can be stated that this profile is well in line with
prior findings with the F- JAS.
The comparison of ratings for current versus future ATC shows numerous effects of data link
simulation experience. A first look reveals that for the majority of cognitive abilities a decrease
of requirement level can be stated for future ATC. Only 5 out of 21 abilities show minor
increases, none of them reaching statistical significance. 9 out of 21 cognitive abilities do show
significant differences of ratings before and after simulation experience. All those abilities are
showing decrease in the level of requirement. The strongest effects occurred for Oral Expression
and Oral Comprehension, followed by Written Expression. These findings clearly reflect the
experience of voice substitution in data link environment. The decrease for Written
K.-M.Goeters (2004). Aviation Psychology: Practice and Research (pp. 99-119). Ashgate.
Comprehension is not as clear to be interpreted, may be this reflects more the substitution of
flight strips. Number Facility receives ratings significantly lower after simulation experience.
This might be due to the fact that planning tools make calculations of estimates obsolete.
Problem Sensitivity and Speed of Closure are abilities being required at a reduced level in data
link environment as well. This can reflect greater trust in aircraft input being transferred via data
link compared to the use of voice, making fast checking and deep insight less required. The most
important finding for cognitive abilities is that after the experience of data link simulation Time
Sharing and Selective Attention are rated being significantly less required compared to the
current job. Both are the core abilities for the current systems requirements, and often they are
indicating the limits of performance for applicants as well as for trainees. To see -among others -
these requirements significantly reduced indicates that requirements for cognitive abilities are not
necessarily being raised any further by data link systems. This gives confidence concerning
human performance in data link systems. Nevertheless it must be made clear, that even for the
data link environment Time Sharing received the highest mean rating, followed by Problem
Sensitivity, Perceptual Speed and Speed of Closure.
Psychomotor abilities
Only 2 out of 10 psychomotor abilities received ratings nearly reaching 5. Reaction Time and
Response Orientation can be viewed as being essential for the current air traffic controller job.
This is well in line with prior studies (Heintz 1998). In all studies abilities connected with
movements of arms and hands receive ratings between 2 and 3 showing that they are not to be
considered as important for the job.
The comparison of ratings before and after simulation experience are showing two major effects.
Firstly it seems that psychomotor abilities connected with reaction to dynamic processes are not
affected by simulation experience. Reaction Time, Response Orientation and Control Precision
receive the same or slightly higher ratings for the data link environment. Secondly, all the
abilities connected with movement of arms and hands do show significant increase of
requirement. This effect certainly reflects the introduction of mouse-handling as major input
device for the ATM system. For Finger Dexterity and Wrist-Finger Speed this leads to mean
ratings of above 4 indicating that with data link these abilities become slightly more relevant
requirements for the job. Whether this is some kind of primary effect that might be washed out
when getting used to mouse-input is unclear, but it underlines the importance of ergonomic
aspects when planning new workstations. Often the design of existing workplaces is weak in
sense of mousepad placement.
Sensory abilities
The ratings for sensory abilities are showing the importance of good functioning of senses for air
traffic control. 5 out of 12 mean ratings are 5 or higher. Compared to data described by Heintz
1998 it seems that ratings for aspects of vision would have been higher if air traffic controllers
used to the tower position would have participated. However, eye and ear are the controller's
main input channels for information, and especially all abilities connected with hearing are
required to a high level in current ATC. Auditory Attention, Speech Recognition, Speech Clarity
and Hearing Sensitivity receive mean ratings between 5 and 6. Also Sound Localisation could be
K.-M.Goeters (2004). Aviation Psychology: Practice and Research (pp. 99-119). Ashgate.
considered to be essential for the job to a certain degree.
For abilities connected to eyesight Near Vision is clearly indicating the highest requirement level,
certainly due to the fact that the radar screen is the most important visual medium for approach
and area control.
Again the comparison of ratings before and after the simulation reveals clear changes. Most
prominent is the strong decrease in requirements connected with the auditory channel. All the
abilities being rated as essential for the job (5 or above) are after the data link simulation
experience being considered as not essential (ratings between 3,0 and 3,5). All these effects are
highly significant, leading to the impression that the data link simulation as used makes the use of
voice irrelevant. However, although there was no back-up voice channel provided as no simulator
pilots were employed, study participants used to talk to each other directly whenever they felt to.
So voice communication was not prevented in this study. The longest period of silent control (no
verbal communication) was about 25 minutes, varying largely from team to team.
The strongest effect on abilities connected with eyesight is the significant increase in the
requirement level of Visual Colour Discrimination together with a strong increase for Near
Vision being close to significance (p =.06). Both reflect the nearly complete reliance on visual
input with the data link simulation. It has to be questioned whether this would be feasible in the
long run with the screens presently in use. At least eyesight problems can develop faster and
stronger in data link environment compared to current air traffic controller work.
Interactive / Social Scales
Results with the original interactive / social scales of the F-JAS and with additional scales by
DLR (see table 1 are listed in table 5). Varying sample sizes are due to omissions especially by
one subject.
------ Insert Table 5 about here ------
Using the same criteria as before the importance of the interactive / social scales for the current
ATC job is obvious, as 11 out of 18 scales receive ratings above 5 and are therefore considered to
be essential for the job. Stress Resistance, Decision Making, Cooperation, Communication,
Resilience, Situational Awareness, Motivation, Behaviour Flexibility, Self Awareness,
Assertiveness and Resistance to Premature Judgement (in order of magnitude) are rated above 5.
These findings are well in line with other studies (Heintz 1998), with the same ranking order and
sometimes nearly identical mean ratings.
As expressed in the difference of ratings before and after simulation experience, study
participants perceived interactive / social aspects clearly being less required for data link
environment. In most scales this effect is significant. The work situation under full
computerization with data link etc becomes less demanding. What still remains is that controllers
need situational awareness, behavioural flexibility and decision making for the fulfilment of their
generic task. Also motivation and stress Resistance are emotional requirements which enable to
cope with a higher demand level. Aspects of social interaction and communication were
obviously less required under the condition of the simulated future ATC system.
K.-M.Goeters (2004). Aviation Psychology: Practice and Research (pp. 99-119). Ashgate.
Knowledge / Skills Scales
A limited number of the Knowledge / Skills scales of the F-JAS were used. According to the
results of previous studies only selected scales have been included in this study, as the other
scales were found to be not required at all in current ATC (e.g. Driving). Results for the
Knowledge / Skills scales are reported in table 5. They are indicating that Map reading has to be
considered as essential for the current air traffic control job. Exactly the same was found in all
other studies using the F-JAS.
The comparison of ratings before and after simulation experience reveals a decrease of
requirement level for Map Reading and Spelling. The decrease is statistically significant and
Spelling receives a very low rating for the data link environment, while Map Reading still holds a
position of relevance under future ATC. The decrease in Spelling can be viewed as consequence
of not being forced to reproduce callsigns by voice or by writing in the data link simulation
environment. Aircraft callsigns were handled as complete entities and were recognised as such.
Discussion
Results are clearly indicating: an ATM environment as used in this study reduces requirements in
any ability connected with speech and voice and it enlarges some ability requirements in vision
and in all motorial aspects of 'mouse-handling'. Thus far results are as expected and easy to
interpret, although it has to be kept in mind no voice-channel for air-ground communication was
used (contrary as to what is recommended in almost any data link study (e.g. Kerns 1991;
Wickens, Mavor, Parasuraman & McGee 1998). However sector-sector communication did use
data link and voice in parallel, therefore phases of 'silent control' lasted no longer than 25
minutes.
According to the results presented for psychomotor abilities connected with mouse-handling
there is a significant increase in required level. This should not lead to the perception of motorial
strain as those abilities still received very low ratings. However the input device 'mouse' brings
those abilities up to a level where they have to be considered not directly for selection purposes,
but for human engineering design of the input tools and their use.
Not as expected are the results concerning social/interactive scales, showing significant decreases
for many scales. Also the additional scales of DLR reflecting resource management issues show
decrease of requirement throughout. Study participants perceived lesser requirements concerning
aspects of human interaction as indicated by their ratings, but in the group discussions it became
obvious that they sometimes felt unhappy with the lack-of-feedback situation. At least in current
ATC one still has to consider aspects which in this professional environment are not addressed as
CRM , but TRM (Team Resource Management) components (see Eißfeldt, Goeters, Hörmann,
Maschke & Schiewe 1994).
Results on significant differences in cognitive abilities did not show any significant increase of
requirement as often has been pointed out in the literature. Instead for a variety of abilities in the
cognitive domain requirements were decreasing significantly, including the core abilities of
K.-M.Goeters (2004). Aviation Psychology: Practice and Research (pp. 99-119). Ashgate.
selective attention and time sharing. This finding of requirement decrease concerning cognitive
abilities indicates that the application of data link and other advanced features at least has the
potential to smoothen the workload of controllers. However it has to be pointed out that although
showing significant decrease none of the cognitive abilities being considered essential before
simulation was considered being not essential after simulation experience. It should also be noted
that in group discussions conducted at the end of study there was a clear discrepancy between the
trainee and the expert participants. While trainees - in line with above results - expected a clear
decrease in ability requirements with new ATM systems comprising data link, experts named
considerably more abilities becoming increasingly relevant (Eißfeldt, Deuchert & Bierwagen
1999, p. 48).
Applying this results to today's selection system and its questioned appropriateness for future
ATCO jobs it can be stated, that for the cognitive abilities today's criteria seem to be rather too
high than to low. The same appears to be true for interpersonal/social criteria, but here the
presence of some air-ground voice communication might change the picture again. Results
should not serve as basis to reduce criteria before they have found replication in other studies.
Even if this would be the case - a lot of the decrease in the level of required abilities will be
consumed up if the increase of traffic continues as expected.
Aviation abilty requirements
Often young people are interested in an aviation career in general, may it be pilot or
controller. Hier Vergleich pilot lotse anfügen
References
Amelang, M. & Bartussek, D. (1981). Differentielle Psychologie und Persönlichkeitsforschung.
Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
CAST. (1998). Consequences of future ATM systems for air traffic controller Selection and
Training. WP1: Current and Future ATM Systems. In EC FPIV DGVII: Air Transport Project
(Ed.), AI-97-SC.2029. Brussels: European Commission.
Deuchert, I. (2002). Upgrading flight data specialists. In H. Eißfeldt, M. C. Heil & D. Broach
(Eds.), Staffing the ATM system - the selection of air traffic controllers (pp. 139-151). Aldershot:
Ashgate.
EATCHIP. (1996). Guidelines for developing and implementing team resource management. In
Eurocontrol (Ed.), HUM.ETI.STIO.1000-GUI-01. Brussels: EUROCONTROL.
Eißfeldt, H. (1997). Ability requirements for different ATC positions. In R. S. Jensen & L.
Rakovan (Eds.), Proceedings of the Ninth International Symposium on Aviation Psychology,
Columbus, Ohio USA (Vol. 1, pp. 123-128). Columbus: The Ohio State University.
Eißfeldt, H. (1998). The selection of air traffic controllers. In K.- M. Goeters (Ed.), Aviation
Psychology: A Science and a Profession (pp. 73-80). Aldershot: Ashgate.
K.-M.Goeters (2004). Aviation Psychology: Practice and Research (pp. 99-119). Ashgate.
Eißfeldt, H. (1999). Ability requirements for Air Traffic Controllers in future ATM systems. In
R. S. Jensen, B. Cox, J. D. Callister & R. Lavis (Eds.), Proceedings of the Tenth International
Symposium on Aviation Psychology, Columbus, Ohio USA (Vol. 1, pp. 592-597). Columbus: The
Ohio State University.
Eißfeldt, H., Deuchert, I. & Bierwagen, T. (1999). Ability requirements for future ATC systems -
a simulation study using research facilities of DFS Deutsche Flugsicherung GmbH. In DLR-
Forschungsbericht 99-15. Hamburg: DLR.
Eißfeldt, H., Goeters, K-M., Damitz, M., Grasshoff, D., Pecena, Y., Schwert, T, Scholz, B &
Levin, A. (2001). Eignungsauswahl für den Flugverkehrskontrolldienst. Entwicklungsstand und
Kontrolle des Verfahrens.In IB-316-2001-01. Hamburg, DLR.
Eißfeldt, H. & Heintz, A. (2002). Ability requirements for DFS controllers - Current and future.
In H. Eißfeldt, M. C. Heil & D. Broach (Eds.), Staffing the ATM system - the selection of air
traffic controllers (pp. 13-24). Aldershot: Ashgate.
Eißfeldt, H., Goeters, K. M., Hörmann, H. J., Maschke, P. & Schiewe, A. (1994). Effektives
Arbeiten im Team: Crew-Resource-Management-Training für Piloten und Fluglotsen. DLR
Mitteilung 94-09. Hamburg: DLR.
Fleishman, E.A. (1992). The Fleishman Job Analysis Survey (F-JAS). Palo Alto: Consulting
Psychologists Press, Inc.
Fleishman, E.A. and Hempel, W.E. (1954). Changes in factor structure of a complex
psychomotor task as a function of practice. Psychometrika 19, 239-252.
Fleishman, E. A. & Reilly, M. E. (1992a). Fleishman Job Analysis Survey (F-JAS)
Administrator's Guide. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc.
Fleishman, E. A. & Reilly, M. E. (1992b). Handbook of Human Abilities. Definitions,
Measurements, and Job Task Requirements. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc.
Goeters, K.-M. & Maschke, P. (1998). Anforderungsprofil bei Linienflugzeugführern 1997.
FlightcrewInfo, 3/98, 10-17.
Gopher, D. & Kahneman, D. (1971). Individual differences in attention and the prediction of
flight criteria. Perceptual and Motor Skills 33, 1335-1342.
Gubser, F. (1963). Apparative Untersuchungsmittel in der Pilotenauswahl. Aviation Psychology
Research, 189-192.
Guilford, J.P. & Lacey, J.I. (1947). Printed classification tests. Washington: Defence
Documentation Center.
Heintz, A. (1998). Anforderungsanalysen in der Flugverkehrskontrolle: Ein Vergleich
K.-M.Goeters (2004). Aviation Psychology: Practice and Research (pp. 99-119). Ashgate.
verschiedener Arbeitspositionen. DLR-FB-98-18. Hamburg: DLR.
Hörmann, H.-J. (1998). Selection of civil aviation pilots. In: Goeters, K.M. (ed.). Aviation
Psychology: A science and a profession. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Hörmann, H.-J., Manzey, D. & Finell, G. (1989). TOM – Test of multiple task performance.
DLR-FB 89-60. Hamburg: DLR.
Kerns, K. (1991). Data-Link communication between controllers and pilots: A review and
synthesis of the simulation literature. International Journal ofAviation Psychology, 1, 181-204.
Manning, C. A., & Broach, D. (1992). Identifying ability requirements for operators of future
automated Air Traffic Control systems. In Office of Aviation Medicine (Ed.),
DOTIFAAIAM92126. Washington, D. C.: FAA.
Maschke, P. & Goeters, K.-M. (1999). Anforderungen an Flugschüler in der Ab-Initio-
Ausbildung im Vergleich zu aktiven Linienflugzeugführern. DLR-FB 99-16. Hamburg: DLR.
Maschke, P., Goeters, K.-M. & Klamm, A. (2000). Job requirements of airline pilots: Results of
a job analysis. In Lowe, A.R. & Hayward, B.J. (Eds.). Aviation Resource Management (Vol. II,
1-7). Aldershot: Ashgate.
Pawlik, K. (1968). Dimensionen des Verhaltens. Stuttgart: Huber
Seifert, R. (1966). Neue Geräte zur Untersuchung der Psychomotorik. Diagnostica 12, 6-16.
Wickens, C. D., Mavor, A. S. , Parasuraman, R. & McGee, J. P. (1998). The Future ofA ir Traffic
Control. Washington: National Academy Press.
K.-M.Goeters (2004). Aviation Psychology: Practice and Research (pp. 99-119). Ashgate.
Table 1. Extension of the Original Fleishman – Job Analysis Survey (F-JAS) by 9 Interactive /
Social Scales
Original F-JAS: Interactive / Social Scales
Additionally developed by DLR
• Social Sensitivity
• Oral Defence
• Persuasion
• Sales Interest
• Persistence
• Resilience
• Behaviour Flexibility
• Oral Fact Finding
•
Resistance to Premature Judgement
• Communication
• Cooperation
• Leadership
• Assertiveness
• Motivation
• Stress Resistence
• Self Awareness
• Situational Awareness
•
Decision Making
K.-M.Goeters (2004). Aviation Psychology: Practice and Research (pp. 99-119). Ashgate.
Table 2. Job Analysis of Airline Pilots by an Extended Fleishman – Job Analysis Survey F-JAS:
The classification of average ratings of 141 Pilots (Year of Reference: 1997)
Area
To what extent is the factor relevant for the work of airline pilots in general?
Average rating
>3
>4
>5
>6
Below normal
Normal
Relevant
Very relevant
Cognitive Abilities
Written Expression
Oral Comprehension
Inductive Reasoning
Originality
Fluency of Ideas
Category Flexibility
Mathematical
Reasoning
Problem Sensitivity
Speed of Closure
Selective Attention
Flexibility of Closure
Perceptual Speed
Number Facility
Written
Comprehension
Information Ordering
Oral Expression
Memorization
Visualization
Deductive Reasoning
Time Sharing
Spatial Orientation
Psychomotor
Abilities
Speed of Limb
Movement
Wrist-Finger Speed
Manual Dexterity
Arm-Hand Steadiness
Finger Dexterity
Control Precision
Response Orientation
Multilimb
Coordination
Reaction Time
Rate Control
Physical Abilities
Static Strength
Extent Flexibility
Dynamic Strength
Trunk Strength
Dynamic Flexibility
Explosive Strength
Stamina
Gross Body
Equilibrium
Gross Body
Coordination
Sensory Abilities
Near Vision
Speech Clarity
Hearing Sensitivity
Visual Colour
Discrimination
Sound Localization
Auditory Attention
Speech Recognition
Night Vision
Far Vision
Glare Sensitivity
Depth Perception
Peripheral Vision
Knowledge & Skills
Drafting
Mechanical
Knowledge
Electrical Knowledge
Knowledge of Tools
and Uses
Reading Plans
Map Reading
Interactive / Social
Skills
Sales Interest
Oral Defence
Persistance
Persuasion
Situation. Awareness
Leadership
Self Awareness
Resistance to
Premature
Judgement
Behaviour Flexibility
Resilience
Assertiveness
Motivation
Social Sensitivity
Oral Fact Finding
Stress Resistance
Cooperation
Communication
Decision Making
The factors per cell are grouped according to their average ratings: Highest rating = highest postion in the cell.
K.-M.Goeters (2004). Aviation Psychology: Practice and Research (pp. 99-119). Ashgate.
Table 3. Differences in specific ratings regarding cockpit position and level of computerization
(only in scales rated as generally important)
Scale Area Significant Mean Scale Differences (p<.05)
Cockpit-Position Computerization
Cpt N=49,FO N=92 high N=62,low N=75
Map Reading Knowledge/Skills .31 n.s.
Stress Resistance Interactive/Social n.s. n.s.
Cooperation Interactive/Social n.s. n.s.
Communication Interactive/Social n.s. n.s.
Time Sharing Cognitive n.s. n.s.
Decision Making Interactive/Social .34 n.s.
Spatial Orientation Cognitive n.s. n.s.
Rate Control Psychomotor n.s. n.s.
Leadership Interactive/Social 1.12 n.s.
Situational Awareness Interactive/Social n.s. n.s.
Self Awareness Interactive/Social n.s. n.s.
Resistance to Prem. Judgem. Interactive/Social .41 n.s.
Behavior Flexibility Interactive/Social n.s. n.s.
Problem Sensitivity Cognitive n.s. n.s.
Control Precision Psychomotor n.s. n.s.
Resilience Interactive/Social n.s. n.s
Speed of Closure Cognitive n.s. n.s
Selective Attention Cognitive n.s. n.s
Response Orientation Psychomotor .50 n.s.
Auditory Attention Sensory n.s. n.s
Speech Recognition Sensory .34 n.s.
Assertiveness Interactive/Social n.s. n.s
Multilimb Coordination Psychomotor n.s. n.s
Flexibility of Closure Cognitive n.s. n.s
Perceptual Speed Cognitive n.s. n.s
Night Vision Sensory n.s. n.s
Motivation Interactive/Social n.s. n.s
Far Vision Sensory n.s. n.s
Number Facility Cognitive n.s. n.s
Glare Sensitivity Sensory n.s. n.s
Reaction Time Psychomotor .51 n.s.
Written Comprehension Cognitive .46 n.s.
Social Sensitivity Interactive/Social .59 n.s.
Depth Perception Sensory n.s. n.s
Reading Plans Knowledge/Skills n.s. n.s
Peripheral Vision Sensory n.s. n.s
Oral Fact Finding Interactive/Social n.s. n.s
Information Ordering Cognitive n.s. n.s
Memorization Cognitive n.s. n.s
Visualization Cognitive n.s. n.s
K.-M.Goeters (2004). Aviation Psychology: Practice and Research (pp. 99-119). Ashgate.
Deductive Reasoning Cognitive .36 n.s.
Oral Defense Interactive/Social n.s. n.s
K.-M.Goeters (2004). Aviation Psychology: Practice and Research (pp. 99-119). Ashgate.
Table 4. Means and standard deviations of ratings for current and future
ATC and significance of difference (Wilcoxon) for the cognitive, psychomotor
and sensory F-JAS abilities. Abilities are ranked within each domain by order of
magnitude of the Future ATC ratings.
N Sig. Diff. Current ATC Future
ATC
Wilcoxon Mean Std. Dev Mean
Std. Dev
Cognitive abilities F-JAS
Time Sharing 28 .00 6.500 .694 5.821
.945
Problem Sensitivity 28 .01 6.000 1.018 5.536
.744
Perceptual Speed 28 .29 5.214 1.228 5.500
.882
Speed of Closure 28 .03 5.786 .917 5.393
.875
Memorization 28 .07 5.536 .793 5.214
.833
Flexibility of Closure 28 .12 4.786 1.258 5.179
1.020
Visualization 28 .30 4.929 1.359 5.143
1.533
Selective Attention 28 .00 6.036 .838 5.071
1.562
Originality 28 .17 5.107 1.257 4.821
.905
Information Ordering 28 .54 4.786 1.228 4.679
1.090
Spatial Orientation 28 .70 4.714 1.782 4.679
1.701
Fluency of Ideas 28 .11 5.107 1.100 4.643
1.254
Inductive Reasoning 28 .50 4.786 1.031 4.571
.959
Deductive Reasoning 28 .18 4.821 1.188 4.536
1.170
Number Facility 28 .00 5.000 1.089 4.179
1.307
Category Flexibility 28 .38 3.964 .962 4.107
1.066
Written Comprehension 28 .01 4.929 1.184 4.071
1.184
Mathematical Reasoning 28 .50 3.893 1.100 4.036
.838
Oral Comprehension 28 .00 5.464 .999 3.393
1.618
Oral Expression 28 .00 5.286 1.084 3.107
1.315
Written Expression 28 .00 4.143 1.008 2.714
1.117
Psychomotor abilities F-JAS
Response Orientation 27 .80 4.778 1.281 4.964
1.170
Reaction Time 27 .69 5.000 1.664 4.964
1.347
Control Precision 27 .17 4.259 1.607 4.857
1.458
Finger Dexterity 27 .00 2.926 1.492 4.464
1.347
Rate Control 27 .42 3.778 1.553 4.071
1.120
Wrist-Finger Speed 26 .00 2.769 1.243 4.036
1.401
Manual Dexterity 27 .00 3.000 1.240 3.857
1.113
Arm-Hand Steadiness 27 .00 2.704 1.463 3.750
1.430
Multilimb Coordination 27 .44 3.593 1.526 3.464
1.427
Speed of Limb Movement 27 .13 2.815 1.469 3.286
1.329
Sensory abilities F-JAS
Near Vision 28 .06 5.179 1.124 5.714
1.013
Visual Colour Discrimination 28 .00 3.857 1.484 4.929
1.303
K.-M.Goeters (2004). Aviation Psychology: Practice and Research (pp. 99-119). Ashgate.
Peripheral Vision 28 .72 4.679 1.362 4.607
1.315
Night Vision 28 .22 4.000 1.466 3.643
1.311
Glare Sensitivity 28 .59 3.643 1.830 3.607
1.641
Auditory Attention 28 .00 5.929 .766 3.464
1.527
Far Vision 27 .04 4.111 1.783 3.429
1.425
Depth Perception 28 .37 3.500 1.856 3.286
1.436
Hearing Sensitivity 28 .00 5.321 1.056 3.286
1.675
Speech Clarity 28 .00 5.643 .826 3.214
1.595
Speech Recognition 28 .00 5.893 .875 3.143
1.693
Sound Localisation 27 .00 4.519 1.282 3.036
1.503
K.-M.Goeters (2004). Aviation Psychology: Practice and Research (pp. 99-119). Ashgate.
Table 5. Means and standard deviations of ratings for current and future ATC and
significance of difference (Wilcoxon) for the social / interactive and knowledge /
skills scales. Abilities are
ranked within each domain by order of magnitude of
Future ATC ratings.
N Sig. Diff. Current ATC Future ATC
Wilcoxon Mean Std. Dev Mean Std. Dev
Social / Interactive Scales F-JAS
Decision Making 28 .13 6.429 .690 6.214 .787
Stress Resistance 28 .01 6.643 .559 6.179 .819
Behavior Flexibility 27 .17 5.481 .849 5.643 .780
Situational A wareness 28 .38 5.643 .826 5.500 .882
Motivation 28 .21 5.500 1.000 5.214 1.067
Resilience 28 .03 5.714 .897 5.179 1.188
Cooperation 28 .00 6.321 .905 4.929 1.303
Self Awareness 28 .03 5.393 .994 4.929 1.245
Assertiveness 28 .00 5.393 .916 4.536 1.374
Resistance to Premature Judgement 28 .01 5.143 1.297 4.464 1.551
Communication 28 .00 6.250 .799 4.393 1.571
Social Sensitivity 28 .01 4.678 .983 3.964 1.478
Leadership 28 .02 4.000 1.678 3.107 1.524
Oral Defence 28 .00 4.286 1.213 3.071 1.438
Persistence 28 .07 3.481 1.578 3.036 1.261
Oral Fact Finding 28 .00 4.536 1.319 2.893 1.571
Sales Interest 28 .69 2.893 1.499 2.786 1.424
Persuasion 28 .00 3.679 1.278 2.750 1.266
Knowledge/Skills Scales F-JAS
Map Reading 28 .00 5.786 .995 5.214 1.134
Reading Plans 28 .30 3.750 1.531 4.107 1.227
Spelling 28 .00 4.286 1.512 2.821 1.416
Knowledge of Tools and Uses 28 .35 2.929 1.762 2.679 1.416
Drafting 28 .97 2.679 1.362 2.643 1.592
Electrical Knowledge 28 .66 2.536 1.105 2.429 1.317
Mechanical Knowledge 28 .08 2.679 1.056 2.286 1.272
