Dark knights: Exploring resilience and hidden workarounds in commercial aviation through mixed methods

• Published in: Safety science Vol. 175; p. 106498
• Main Authors: Steen, Riana, Norman, James E., Bergström, Johan, Damm, Gitte F.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Elsevier Ltd 01.07.2024
• Subjects: Adaptive capacity; Aviation Safety; Civil Engineering; Engineering and Technology; Human factors; Resilience; Responsibilization; Samhällsbyggnadsteknik; Teknik; Transport Systems and Logistics; Transportteknik och logistik; Workload; Responsibilization; Aviation safety; Adaptive capacity; Human factors; Resilience; Workload
• ISSN: 0925-7535; 1879-1042
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ssci.2024.106498

•Balancing compliance with the recognition of frontline adaptation is needed.•Prescriptive training does not recognize or train resilient strategies employed by frontline workers.•Resilient behavior may unintentionally increase the brittleness of the system.•Pilots negotiate competing interests, resulting in adaptations in everyday work.•Organizational entities do not view resilience and adaptive capacity the same as frontline workers. In this study, the duality of adaptive capacity in aviation safety is examined, where the need for resilience of frontline workers conflicts with the expectations and assumptions of upstream entities, leading to system brittleness. We explore three critical categories: responsibilization, the application of practical wisdom in navigating challenging situations, and the unrecognized sacrifices that accompany adaptation. A qualitative research design is used, using three focus groups consisting of pilots in a European airline, the airline’s safety department, and the respective civil aviation authority. The study's findings reveal i. significant organizational constraint and pressure on pilots, resulting in workarounds, personal playbooks, and exhaustion, ii. a culture of apathy, cynicism, and secrecy, contributing to a disconnect between the idealized and practical aspects of work (work-as-imagined versus work-as-done), iii. an oversimplification of complex issues and attributing problems to individual factors rather than systemic factors, iv. normalizing the risk of saturation by pushing the boundaries of safe performance, and v. the current prescriptive training approach may increase risk by not accounting for adaptations that are necessary in the frontline work environment. Recognizing both the technical and social complexities of aviation, the study calls for a reimagined framework away from a prescriptive training approach, as it may increase risk by not accounting for adaptations that are necessary in the frontline work environment. In summary, the study presents a nuanced view of aviation as a complex system, where the push for adaptivity is challenged by ethical dilemmas and trade-offs. Left unresolved, this conflict may hinder aviation safety.