Decision-Making Tools For Aeronautical Teams: FOR-DEC And Beyond
923/a000099 - Henning Soll henning.soll@dlr.de - Tuesday, November 01, 2016 11:36:23 PM - Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt (DLR) IP Address:129.247.247.239APAHF in PracticeDecision-Making Toolsfor Aeronautical Teams:FOR-DEC and BeyondHenning Soll,1 Solveig Proske,2 Gesine Hofinger,3 and Gunnar Steinhardt41German Aerospace Center (DLR), Hamburg, Germany2Lufthansa Flight Training, Germany3Team HF Human Factors Research & Training PartG, Remseck, Germany4Cargolux Airlines International, LuxembourgAbstract: Many case studies show that unstructured decision-making processes in teams are contributing factors to accidents. In situationswithout any preconfigured solutions, airlines have developed decision models. In our article, we give an overview and comparative analysis ofdifferent models. We discuss FOR-DEC, developed by Lufthansa and the German Aerospace Center. Findings from an explorative study onpilots’ experiences with FOR-DEC and from a workshop with pilots and experts from non-aviation high-risk domains are reported. The model isuseful for structured decision-making in complex situations when there is enough time. Moreover, some extensions to FOR-DEC could bebeneficial, for example, the integration of expert knowledge into the decision process and the explicit integration of the team in the decisionmaking process. Results give advice for the useful implementation, application, and training of decision-making tools using the example ofFOR-DEC.Keywords: decision-making, problem-solving, FOR-DEC, team, emergency, comparison of toolsFlight Hapag Lloyd 3378 from Crete to Hannover on July 12,2000: After take-off the landing gear was impossible toretract. The pilots continued the flight with extended landinggear. Turning back to Crete was not addressed. The fuelconsumption rate was drastically raised; therefore, Viennawas planned as an alternate. The copilot’s calculationsshowed less fuel than originally reckoned. Nevertheless,the crew stuck to Vienna as alternate instead of landing atone of the enroute airports. Only as the engines stoppedbecause of the lack of fuel did the crew declare anemergency. The highly experienced captain landed thegliding aircraft 600 m before the runway. Although the aircraft was severely damaged, only a few people sufferedminor injuries. The accident report of the Austrian ministryof traffic mentions “a lack of developing alternative strategies to overcome the fuel problem” (Österr. Bundesanstaltf. Verkehr, 2006) as one of the reasons for the accident.This case study and the psychological researchabout decision-making processes show that humans tendto decide on an ad hoc basis; they are led by their preassumptions and preferences. Moreover, they cling to theiraims for too long and follow heuristics rather than starting to analyze the situation (Dörner, 1996; Jungermann,Pfister, & Fischer, 2005; Kahneman, 2012; Kahneman,Slovic, & Tversky, 1982; Klein, 1989; Reason, 1990;Tversky & Kahneman, 1974). These findings have beenshown in many laboratory studies. A fortiori this appliesin situations where perceived stress is increased. Stressleads to additional mistakes and worse decisions (overviewin O’Hare, 2003). Whenever decision-making processes gobadly, they are mostly unstructured, not thoroughlyadjusted in the team. They simply “happen” rather thanbeing conscientiously developed.Hence, there is a need for a “manual for good decisions”.Such a manual was formalized first in aviation becausepilots are frequently bound to act under time pressureand in hazardous situations.Basically there are two ways to minimize wrong decisionsin the cockpit: Most of the possible inflight situations can bepredicted and the appropriate response can be writtendown as procedures in manuals. Knowledge about theseprocedures is trained and checked. Thus, the likelihood ofwrong decisions is reduced and the headline is: “Followthe rules!”On the other hand, there are situations where no procedures are available. This is where problem-solving and decision-making step in (e.g., Dörner, 1976; Klein, Orasanu,Calderwood, & Zsambok, 1993). Thus, pilots frequentlyÓ 2016 Hogrefe PublishingAviation Psychology and Applied Human Factors (2016), 6(2), 101–112DOI: 10.1027/2192-0923/a000099
923/a000099 - Henning Soll henning.soll@dlr.de - Tuesday, November 01, 2016 11:36:23 PM - Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt (DLR) IP Address:129.247.247.239102H. Soll et al., Decision-Making Tools for Aeronautical Teams: FOR-DEC and Beyondhave to make decisions. Orasanu (1993) defines threeelements that are inherent in decisions in the cockpit: Choice among options; Situation assessment; and Risk assessment.These three elements are consistently included in allprocedure models that support pilots in their decisionmaking. The available time seems to play an important rolein situational judgment when pilots experience an unexpected situation (e.g., O’Hare, 1992, 2003). In time-criticalsituations the decision process has to be compact andefficient. Hence, in these situations few or no thinkingprocesses can be carried out.How can pilots’ decision-making be improved? The literature on aeronautical decision-making was normative untilthe 1970s. It was all about the key question: “How should agood pilot behave?” Later, the perspective became moredescriptive. The question then changed to: “What do pilotsreally do?” (e.g., Wickens & Flach, 1988). For the pilotsthemselves, the academic literature is not useful inaeronautical daily routine. There is a gap betweendecision-making theory and pilots’ experience. Because ofthis, the development of procedure models began in the1970s. These models should support pilots in decisionmaking using the knowledge of human decision-makingand requests. Some of these models are presented here.Yet, none of the models has been evaluated consideringtheir usefulness in real-world aeronautical decision-making.In the following sections we provide a brief outline ofdecision-making procedures in aviation. Subsequently,FOR-DEC, the best-known model in Germany, is discussed.FOR-DEC was chosen because in Germany and severalother European countries it is widely used in aviation andis also being transferred to other high-risk domains (seenext section). Its development and current applicationsare presented here. An explorative study about pilots’experience with FOR-DEC is reported: When do pilotsuse FOR-DEC? For what is it useful? For what is it notuseful? What kind of criticism has been leveled? Theseresults will be compared with results of a workshopcomposed of experts held in 2011. In concluding,suggestions are made for the further development of theFOR-DEC model to enhance the decision-making processin teams.published decision-making models with their acronymsand their stages (see Table 1).Except for FOR-DEC, these models have had limitedapplication, as shown in the literature and by requests inairlines. FOR-DEC is the only one that became widelyaccepted, at least in Europe.In addition to the models O’Hare presented, the authorsidentified several decision-making tools (see Table 2) byasking colleagues, pilots, and airline representatives aboutmodels they use.Comparison of the ToolsDespite their heterogeneity, the presented models allinclude some key steps that are further classified accordingto the phases of problem solving (overview in Betsch,Funke, & Plessner, 2011; Dörner, 1996). Table 3 showswhich steps are used in the different models.The structure using problem-solving phases depicts ourconsiderations. Unfortunately, not only do the authors ofthe models usually describe their models very tersely butalso they do not compare them with other models.Every model includes an analysis of the situation. Most ofthe models contain a decision-making process with optionsto act and/or make an evaluation of risk. This finding corresponds to the parts of the decision-making process describedby Orasanu (1993). Interestingly, most of the models donot contain the real decision-making step nor the actionafterward, but most of them include a control step.Nevertheless, despite the similarities and differences inthe models, no one has ever evaluated which model isthe best. Li and Harris (2005) asked 60 Chinese militaryinstructor pilots to evaluate five decision models in termsof suitability for situation assessment, risk management,response time, and applicability using paper-basedscenario descriptions. Results varied among differentconditions. The pilots preferred SHOR for time-pressuresituations; DESIDE and FOR-DEC were regarded to be bestfor knowledge-based decision-making for well-definedproblems.FOR-DECDevelopment of FOR-DECHere we describe decision-making processes in aviationthat are available in the literature and in some unpublishedmodels we found. O’Hare (2003) has summarized theIn autumn 1992 Lufthansa established a Crew ResourceManagement (CRM) workgroup. The goal of this workgroup was to make CRM knowledge visible and teachable.To reach this aim the workgroup was set up with expertsboth from Lufthansa (department of flight and simulatortraining in Frankfurt) and from the German AerospaceAviation Psychology and Applied Human Factors (2016), 6(2), 101–112Ó 2016 Hogrefe PublishingDecision-Making Models in Aviation
923/a000099 - Henning Soll henning.soll@dlr.de - Tuesday, November 01, 2016 11:36:23 PM - Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt (DLR) IP Address:129.247.247.239H. Soll et al., Decision-Making Tools for Aeronautical Teams: FOR-DEC and Beyond103Table 1. Published decision-making tools (O’Hare, 2003)AcronymStepsAuthor(s)DECIDEDetect, Estimate, Choose, Identify, Do, EvaluateBenner, 1975DESIDEDetect, Estimate, Set safety objectives, Identify, Do, EvaluateMurray, 1997FOR-DECFacts, Options, Risks & Benefits, Decision, Execution, CheckHörmann, 1995PASSProblem identification, Acquire information, Survey strategy, Select strategyMaher, 1989SOARSituation, Options, Act, RepeatOldaker, 1995SHORStimuli, Hypotheses, Options, ResponseWohl, 1981QPIDRQuestioning, Promoting, Ideas, Decide, ReviewPrince & Salas, 1993Table 2. Other aeronautical decision-making toolsAcronymStepsAirlineDODARDiagnosis, Options, Decision, Assign Tasks, Review and risk assessmentBritish Airways, CityJetSPORDECSituation Catch, Preliminary Action, Options, Rating, Decision, Execution, ControllingSwissSOCSSituation, Options, Consequences, SelectCenter (Department of Aviation and Space Psychology,Hamburg; DLR). The topic of “judgment behavior anddecision-making” was handled by Hans-Jürgen Hörmannfrom DLR. He presented the following flow model representing a basis for most of the decision-making models(Hörmann, 1994, p. 80):1. Situation analysis;2. Generating optional responses;3. Assessing risks and benefits – comparing options;4. Selecting the most appropriate option (and also aback-up option);5. Planning and execution of the selected option; and6. Monitoring actions and outcome – review of theprocedure.Having these steps in mind, a mnemonic aid displayingplausibly the judgment and decision-making processes inthe cockpit had to be found. The workgroup eventuallyagreed on the easy-to-remember “FOR-DEC”: Facts,Options, Risks and Benefits, Decision, Execution, Check.An essential part of this invented word is represented bythe hyphen between the R and the D. It was inserted tomake the pilot stop and reflect on whether anything essential was missing and whether all available information hadbeen taken into consideration. In order to focus the crew’sconcentration on these six phases of the decision-makingprocess, every phase of the FOR-DEC model was linkedto a question:– Facts: “What’s the matter?”– Options: “What kind of possibilities do we have?”– Risks and Benefits: “What pleads for what?”– Decision: “What are we going to do?”– Execution: “Who does what, when, and how?”– Check: “Is everything still ok?” (Hörmann, 1994).Ó 2016 Hogrefe PublishingDistribution of FOR-DECSince its introduction, the FOR-DEC model has become notonly established as an important decision-making tool inthe cockpit, but also a synonym for effective cooperationin teams in many other domains. Although scientificpublications are scarce (e.g., Hörmann, 1994), the use ofFOR-DEC has spread quickly.To our knowledge, FOR-DEC is used by numerousairlines, for example, Air Nostrum, Austrian Airlines, AirEuropa, Lufthansa, Germanwings, and Finncomm (nowFlybe Nordic). Air France, Iberia, and Finnair are about tointroduce it.The FOR-DEC model has gained currency in aviation aswell as in organizations and institutions that try to learnabout safety by inviting pilots to lectures and seminars. Itis increasingly being taught and published in the medicalcontext via CRM courses (St. Pierre, Hofinger, Buerschaper,& Simon, 2011).Moreover, it has been applied and trained by militarystaff and crisis teams. In German nuclear power plants,FOR-DEC is mandatory in exceptional occurrences.Explorative Study 1: Experiencewith FOR-DEC and Suggestionsfor ImprovementThe starting point of this study was provided by statementsfrom experienced pilots during simulator sessions thatFOR-DEC had not been applied as planned. For example,sometimes FOR-DEC is used only because it is compulsory(“You ask for the weather between Lisbon and Riga whenAviation Psychology and Applied Human Factors (2016), 6(2), 101–112
seActOptionsCheckAn explorative, qualitative study using a simple questionnaire was conducted. Because we wanted pilots to answerthe questionnaire in their free time, the questionnaire hadto be short. As it was to be distributed by e-mail, it had tobe simple and self-explanatory. On the other hand, wewanted to know as much as possible about pilots’experience, so we chose open questions. A German andan English version were developed.In the questionnaire, the following four questions wereposed:1. Did you experience situations in which you usedFOR-DEC for an appropriate and successfuldecision-making process? If yes: please describeone or more situations.2. Did you ever experience situations in which FORDEC was applied although you thought that itwouldn’t make sense? If yes: please describe one ormore situations.3. (a) What do you like about FOR-DEC, (b) what doyou miss?4. Which other decision-making models do you know?How do you evaluate these?The questionnaire was sent via e-mail to approximately 20experienced pilots the authors knew, asking for furtherdistribution among German-speaking pilots. The totalnumber of recipients (and, consequently, the answer rate)is therefore unknown. Recipients were given the authors’e-mail address. Some answers came back anonymously(using nicknames). General anonymization was achievedby separating answers from e-mail headers.The questionnaire was broadly distributed in order toreach pilots with a wide range of lExecutionDecisionExecutionSelect strategyDecisionOptionsRisks and benefitsRisk assessmentOptionsIdentifyIdentifyChooseImmediate measuresSituation analysislanding in Cologne”). They stated that, “pilots use thistool rather as a justification of a decision,” and that “theC (check) is often omitted due to an urge of immediateaction” [captain, instructor A320]. On the other handFOR-DEC is seen as positive, because it forces the crewto name the facts (“Without FOR-DEC we’d be stuck”).It also gives copilots the option to make their voices heard(“Let’s do FOR-DEC!”).These and other statements led to the idea of askingpilots about their experiences with FOR-DEC moresystematically. We especially wanted to know in whichsituations FOR-DEC is applied and what pilots like anddislike about it.Select by decidingDecisionDecideDecision Assign tionsSurvey strategyAcquire informationFactsEstimateEstimateProblem analysisSet safety on catchPromotingQuestioningHypothesesStimuliProblem y ActionSOCSSituationH. Soll et al., Decision-Making Tools for Aeronautical Teams: FOR-DEC and BeyondTable 3. Comparison of decision-making 192-0923/a000099 - Henning Soll henning.soll@dlr.de - Tuesday, November 01, 2016 11:36:23 PM - Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt (DLR) IP Address:129.247.247.239104Aviation Psychology and Applied Human Factors (2016), 6(2), 101–112SampleIn all, 14 German-speaking male pilots, 12 from a Germanairline and two from a Swiss airline, answered the fourquestions in written form (two of them gave opinions ofÓ 2016 Hogrefe Publishing
923/a000099 - Henning Soll henning.soll@dlr.de - Tuesday, November 01, 2016 11:36:23 PM - Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt (DLR) IP Address:129.247.247.239H. Soll et al., Decision-Making Tools for Aeronautical Teams: FOR-DEC and Beyondseveral colleagues). Of them, 12 were captains, one seniorfirst officer, and one first officer. Their experience rangedfrom 6,000 to over 20,000 flight hours. Before answeringthe questions, all of them stated that they knew FOR-DECas a decision-making tool. The sample is described inTable 4.Data AnalysisAnswers to the four questions were gathered from allparticipants. Owing to the small sample and missinginformation about most participants, no formal system ofcategories was built. Data analysis followed a qualitativeapproach (e.g., Dey 1993; Flick, 2014): Content categorieswere built in inductively from the material. Whereappropriate, a simple yes/no categorization was used(Question 1). Answers were then grouped to these categories by two of the authors separately. Differences werediscussed until consensus was reached (Steinke, 2000).As it was of interest to describe the range of experiencefound in the sample, it was decided to present all answersto the four questions in the sample without statistics, onlygrouped into the content categories. All statements arethe opinions of the pilots based on their personal experience. In the following section, the qualitative results of thesurvey are described.ResultsResults of Question 1 (Appropriate and SuccessfulUse of FOR-DEC)All participants stated that they had used FOR-DEC for anappropriate and successful decision-making process.To provide insight into the answers of the second part ofthe questions, here are some typical examples:105 The situation is complex and/or there is a need forstructure (11 mentions).Results of Question 2 (Use of FOR-DEC Although It DidNot Make Sense to the Pilot)The results of Question 1 showed that eight participantssaw FOR-DEC as rather counterproductive when little timeis available and/or the (only) solution is clearly evident.One pilot gave the example of a fire on board that led toan immediate landing at the nearest possible airport. In thiscase, mindlessly using the FOR-DEC model would onlyresult in an aggravation of the actual situation, accordingto the pilot. Another pilot describes the following comprehensible example:“Due to a severe technical problem the destinationwill not be reached. Even a continuation of the flightis risky. An alternate is in close proximity, suitable fora safe landing. Using the FOR-DEC model wouldonly be an obstacle to quick and safe action.”Despite such experience, one participant added to this question: “I have experienced more situations in which I shouldhave used FOR-DEC than vice versa.”During simulator checks (regular review of the pilots inthe flight simulator) FOR-DEC is sometimes reported tobe used inappropriately. Pilots obviously assume that theapplication of FOR-DEC should be presented in an examsituation. This leads to an artificial atmosphere and possiblyto a FOR-DEC sullenness resulting in ignoring FOR-DEC incritical situations in real flight operations.The positive results of this decision were that all passengerscould be transported to their destination and that no furthertime delays resulted.Another pilot’s example shows the precarious situation ofa medical emergency after take-off. Again, different optionswere possible and FOR-DEC could help to find them and tosort out an informed decision.Altogether FOR-DEC is described as a useful tool, if: There is enough time (eight mentions), andResults of Question 3a (What Do You Like AboutFOR-DEC?)Participants referred to the clear structure of the model(N 11), its reputation as an established instrument, andits high popularity (N 3), for example: “Everybody inthe company knows FOR-DEC, so that all can use the samelanguage.” The clear structure prevents jumping to conclusions and helps especially in complex situations, where different options with pros and cons must be weighed againsteach other.Some participants reported that working with FOR-DECmeans establishing a critical distance to oneself (which isneeded for reflection). Also, it can eventually lead to withdrawing a decision without losing the leadership authority.Thus, FOR-DEC can be understood as a “protection” andfunctions with a small authority gradient, but still requiresleadership.Two benefits were also mentioned: Solutions are jointlydeveloped and all important issues are present in theÓ 2016 Hogrefe PublishingAviation Psychology and Applied Human Factors (2016), 6(2), 101–112“On a German domestic flight the (landing) gearcouldn’t be retracted. As there was no time pressuresome options were created via FOR-DEC. The firstthought, flying back to the departure airport, wasrejected. Instead we continued the flight safely tothe destination with enough fuel reserve.”
923/a000099 - Henning Soll henning.soll@dlr.de - Tuesday, November 01, 2016 11:36:23 PM - Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt (DLR) IP Address:129.247.247.239106H. Soll et al., Decision-Making Tools for Aeronautical Teams: FOR-DEC and BeyondTable 4. Description of the sample (Study 1)Subject ptCptCptCptCptCptCptFlight experience ine 0,000GERGERNote. SF/O senior first officer; FO first officer; Cpt Captain; CH Switzerland; GER Germany; m male.model. Furthermore, FOR-DEC forces you to revisedecisions that have been made at the outset.Results of Question 3b (What do you missin FOR-DEC?)As mentioned, the main criticism is that FOR-DEC istime consuming. Almost all (N 10) participants missedhaving a shorter FOR-DEC when facing time-critical situations. It was repeatedly mentioned that sticking toostrictly to the model (when the solution is clearly visible;see also Question 2) can result in an adverse effect.According to the authors, this issue seems to be moreof a training problem rather than primarily a FOR-DECproblem.One participant suggested a decision loop where theC (Check) is not a unique event but, at best, an iterativedecision-making process to consider changes in the situation. As this is part of the FOR-DEC instruction, this againdoes not seem to be a FOR-DEC problem but more likely atraining issue.Some suggestions were focused on the acronyms of themodel. One pilot recommended enhancing the balance ofthe O (Option). Another said that the R (Risks/Benefits)should include economic efficiency.Results of Question 4 (Knowledge and Evaluationof Other Decision-Making Models)Except for the two tools PPAA (Power, Performance, Analysis, Action) and NITS (Nature of Problem, Intention, Time,Specials), which were both mentioned once, no other modelwas mentioned. As PPAA has a technical focus and NITS israther an aid for communication, we have not includedthem in Table 3.of a problem is obvious, action is prescribed by procedures,or the decision has already been made without using aformal process, using FOR-DEC might be a waste of time.Moreover, being forced to use the FOR-DEC model canlead to reluctance and the model probably being disregarded in critical situations. Therefore the circumstancesin which pilots should use FOR-DEC have to be furtherdiscussed. Moreover, appropriate training methods shouldbe reflected accordingly.Explorative Study 2: ExpertWorkshopThe topics of Study 1 were presented to an interdisciplinarygroup at a conference workshop on decision-making inBerlin in June 2011. The aim was to see whether and howexperts from other domains make use of decision-makingmodels.MethodFirst, without presentation of any model or literature, smallgroups had to work on a non-aeronautical decision-makingtask. The authors observed the participants’ discussions andstrategies. After this scenario, FOR-DEC was presented anddiscussed. The following questions were debated in smallgroups of four to six participants, each with participantsfrom aviation and other domains: What do you like about FOR-DEC? what do you miss? New ideas “beyond FOR-DEC?”Summary of ResultsThe results of the survey with experienced pilots show notonly the advantages and the familiarity of the FOR-DECmodel but also potential for improvement and problemsin training. According to this, FOR-DEC can be used calmlyand meaningfully whenever there is enough time incomplex decision-making situations. In this case, it can helpto detect nonobvious options and risks. Thus, it is usedwhen enough time is on hand. But whenever the solutionQuestions 1 and 2 were taken from the questionnairereported in Study 1. Question 3 aimed at general requirements for decision-making tools.Aviation Psychology and Applied Human Factors (2016), 6(2), 101–112Ó 2016 Hogrefe PublishingSampleThe workshop had 20 participants, all of whom participatedactively in discussions. For discussions of Questions 1–3,they were grouped into four small groups of four to sixparticipants.
923/a000099 - Henning Soll henning.soll@dlr.de - Tuesday, November 01, 2016 11:36:23 PM - Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt (DLR) IP Address:129.247.247.239H. Soll et al., Decision-Making Tools for Aeronautical Teams: FOR-DEC and BeyondParticipants came from aviation (N 4), medicine,engineering, psychology, and other domains. All of themwork in safety-related fields. All of them either teachdecision-making or are themselves in the role of makingcritical decisions under time pressure, for example, assurgeons. Owing to the workshop setting, no additionaldata on subjects’ background or experience could begathered.Data AnalysisThe authors observed the participants’ discussions andstrategies during the scenario task and small groupdiscussions. The results of the discussions in small groupswere visualized in the form of statements on flip charts.There was consensus about these statements in therespective groups. The results of all groups were then discussed with all participants. As Study 2 was meant to giveadditional insight into the strengths and weaknesses ofthe results from Study 1, we report all statements givenby the small groups, noting if a statement was made byseveral groups. No further analysis of these data wasundertaken.ResultsIn the decision-making task, participants from military,police, or fire brigades tended to use FOR-DEC or othermodels that they are used to. When asked by the observers,they reported that formalized decision-making was familiarto them and they judged it as helpful.Results of Question 1 (What Do You Like AboutFOR-DEC?)All four groups highlighted the “structured,” “guided,” and“standardized” course of action made possible byFOR-DEC. The structure of the model was seen as“simple” and “catchy.” The process was perceived as a“logical cycle” or “closing the loop.” In addition, theassessment of alternatives and the “break,” symbolizedby the hyphen, were mentioned. Finally the role of the teamwas highlighted: The model “integrates the team.” Also,one group stated that FOR-DEC clarifies (using thehyphen) when the team works together and when thecaptain (or the team leader) decides.107Results of Question 3 (New Ideas Beyond FOR-DEC?)A variety of issues were proposed. New ideas concerningthe framework conditions and the implementation and application of the model were discussed, for example, “defineusage conditions” and “what comes ‘before’ FOR-DEC?”and evaluation of the model. Suggestions concerningcontent and process were made: “Don’t ignore the expert’s‘gut feeling’”, “consider the team process,” “use mentalsimulation (in the ‘break’),” “visualize the model.”Although the participants came from various professionalfields, agreement was strong in terms of application, framework conditions, and prerequisites of FOR-DEC. Also, theresults are comparable to those of the questionnaire survey.New Developments: PRO FOR!DEC and FOReDECThe results of the explorative questionnaire study, theworkshop with experts, and various comments andsuggestions from pilots and aviation specialists showed thatFOR-DEC is a very useful tool for structured decisionmaking – as long as it is used correctly. Correct means: insituations where no clear procedures exist, when time pressure is not critical, and when wrong decisions have severeor even fatal consequences.FOR-DEC is sometimes used in situations where a decision is predetermined by procedures, or the team alreadyknows exactly what they want to do. Thus, not surprisingly,teams consider it as senseless and skip the model in theirprofessional routine. Considering this, clarifying the decision criteria and priorities beforehand seems to be mostimportant. Moreover, the conditions of application shouldbe defined more thoroughly: critical situations, where thereare no clear procedures, but enough t
APAHF in Practice Decision-Making Tools for Aeronautical Teams: FOR-DEC and Beyond Henning Soll,1 Solveig Proske,2 Gesine Hofinger,3 and Gunnar Steinhardt4 1German Aerospace Center (DLR), Hamburg, Germany 2Lufthansa Flight Training, Germany 3Team HF Human Factors Research & Training PartG, Remseck, Germany 4Cargolux Airlines International, Luxembourg Abstract: Many case studies show that .
Bruksanvisning för bilstereo . Bruksanvisning for bilstereo . Instrukcja obsługi samochodowego odtwarzacza stereo . Operating Instructions for Car Stereo . 610-104 . SV . Bruksanvisning i original
aero engine fitter aerobics instructor . aerodynamicist aerodynamics engineer aerographing decorator (ceramics) aeronautical draughtsman aeronautical engineer aeronautical engineering assistant aeronautical engineering technician aeronautical mechanic . air-conditioning and refrigeration
NOTE: For the purposes of this publication, the terms Aeronautical Radio Station (Air Navigation Order), Aeronautical Station (ICAO), Mobile Surface Station (ICAO) and Aeronautical (Ground) Radio Station (Ofcom) will be covered by use of the single term Aeronautical Radio Station unless there is a need to refer to the other terms individually.
10 tips och tricks för att lyckas med ert sap-projekt 20 SAPSANYTT 2/2015 De flesta projektledare känner säkert till Cobb’s paradox. Martin Cobb verkade som CIO för sekretariatet för Treasury Board of Canada 1995 då han ställde frågan
service i Norge och Finland drivs inom ramen för ett enskilt företag (NRK. 1 och Yleisradio), fin ns det i Sverige tre: Ett för tv (Sveriges Television , SVT ), ett för radio (Sveriges Radio , SR ) och ett för utbildnings program (Sveriges Utbildningsradio, UR, vilket till följd av sin begränsade storlek inte återfinns bland de 25 största
Hotell För hotell anges de tre klasserna A/B, C och D. Det betyder att den "normala" standarden C är acceptabel men att motiven för en högre standard är starka. Ljudklass C motsvarar de tidigare normkraven för hotell, ljudklass A/B motsvarar kraven för moderna hotell med hög standard och ljudklass D kan användas vid
LÄS NOGGRANT FÖLJANDE VILLKOR FÖR APPLE DEVELOPER PROGRAM LICENCE . Apple Developer Program License Agreement Syfte Du vill använda Apple-mjukvara (enligt definitionen nedan) för att utveckla en eller flera Applikationer (enligt definitionen nedan) för Apple-märkta produkter. . Applikationer som utvecklas för iOS-produkter, Apple .
The chart legend includes aeronautical symbols and information about drainage, terrain, the contour of the land, and elevation. You can learn to identify aeronautical, topographical, and obstruction symbols (such as radio and television tow-ers) by using the legend.
