Situational awareness and human error reduction in aviation ground operations

High Reliability or Normal Accidents: A critical examination of situational awareness and its value in reducing human errors in aviation ground operations

Acronyms

The concept of situational awareness

Level 1 SA -- Perception Of The Elements In The Environment.

Level 2 SA -- Comprehension Of The Current Situation.

Level 3 SA -- Projection Of Future Status.

Situation Awareness Requirements

Theories of Situational Awareness

Three-level model

Interactive sub-systems

The perceptual cycle

Summary of the theories

Preparing for thematic synthesis

Searching

Qualitative assessment

Extracting data from studies

Thematic synthesis

Stages one and two: coding text and developing descriptive themes

Stage three: generating analytical themes

Context and rigor in thematic synthesis

Study quality and sensitivity analyses

Analysis

SA Measurement Devices

SA requirements analysis

SA resource analysis

SA resources: personnel

SA resources: technologies

Discussion

Three Levels of SA

Recommendations

Task management

Development of comprehension

Projection (Level 3 SA) and planning

Information seeking and self-checking activities

SA training

Shared mental models

Verbalization of decisions

Conclusion

Abstract

A conceptual model to aid understanding of the critical decision making complexities arising out of transient situation awareness in aviation has been attempted in this paper. The cognitive processes of the brain as affected by rapidly changing situations have been analyzed. This paper also tries to factor in the various factors that have significant effect on decision making in this time sensitive and critical profession.

The limitations of attention spans, concentration issues and the working memory part of the brain have been addressed in this paper to seek a solution holistic behavioral orientation and methodology that will make situational awareness easier to perceive.

Two classes of factors, human brain and technology have contributed to limiting the SA capabilities. These are chiefly; incessant demands put on the brain by way of magnitude, quality and response time on one hand and rapidly evolving complex technology and level of mechanization on the other.

The two approaches that have gone into development of the model presented herein are based on; one, the causes of errors in decision making and two, a comparison of the successful vs. The unsuccessful pilots based on their tackling of situational cognition. With the continually increasing demands of complexity, continuity and frequency of decision making on the human brain in the last fifty years specially, it has become necessary that due attention is paid to this avenue of human performance. The situation awareness capability of the human interface is under increasing pressure and this paper considers these critical factors while trying to attend to them to help improve performance.

Acronyms

ATC -- Air Traffic Control

ATM -- Air Traffic Management

SA -- Situation Awareness

CFIT -- Controlled flight into terrain

GA -- General Aviation

RCTs -- Randomized Controlled Trials

LSZ -- Launch Success Zone

SART -- Situational Awareness Rating Technique

SAGAT -- Situation Awareness Global Assessment Technique

AMT -- Aviation Maintenance Technician

SABARS -- Situation Awareness Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scale

PSAQ -- Participant Subjective SA Questionnaire

OCCs -- Operations Control Centers

"High Reliability or Normal Accidents: A critical examination of situational awareness and its value in reducing human errors in aviation ground operations"

Chapter 1: Introduction

The sustained levels of awareness cognition demanded in aviation puts a lot of stress on those required to take decisions based on the rapidly changing scenario. A correlation between the changing environmental and other conditions has to be understood, picturized and analyzed to arrive at a line of action to be taken. Seen from this perspective, the fighter pilots face a more challenging situation with the added parameters of identification of allies' and enemy's aircraft are also to be accounted for. The skill of navigating the aircraft thus involves the proper evaluation of shifting ambient conditions and factors in addition to following the rules, procedures and other technicalities of flying and aircraft maneuvering. The complexity cannot be overemphasized. To top it, it should be noted that an assertion of the factors at hand have to be recognized to also assess and anticipate developing possibilities in light of the data available. All the above discussion goes on to show the importance and criticality of situation awareness. SA plays a significant role in the operability of flying industry and due importance to it has been given by those studying the human brain for cognitive capabilities and limitations (Kilingaru et al., 2013). The recurrent mishaps and incidents owing to inadequate SA practices have inspired many studies in related fields. In order to improve the operating costs of aviation owing to operational difficulties in flying in turn causing disrupted schedules, mishaps and material damage to equipments and facilities, SA training has to be streamlined. Best practices to improve SA have to be imbibed in the aircrew (Thatcher & Kilingaru, 2012). This training structure has to be approached at two levels, personal and at the team level, with each aiding the other. This has to be further augmented by improving existing systems with an eye on improving SA cognition. It is pertinent to note that the pilots need to learn and unlearn practices by adapting to newer systems to best incorporate situational awareness. A very critical factor that leads to success in aviation is improvement in situational awareness. The clarity of inter-play between the technology, capabilities of the brain, and other factors that make flying successful has to be the cornerstone of any system that aims at improving SA (Strybel et al., 2011).

Objectives of the study

1.

Comprehend the effect of SA and its capability to reduce incidents in ground operations

2.

Understand the effect of SA on people in lessening human lapses in flying

3.

Understand the role of communication in SA

4.

Understand the effect of different measures of SA

5.

Recognize significant activities imperative to SA

Purpose of the study

The aim of this work is to discern the importance of SA and hence to propose a model that would improve SA. It is also proposed hereby that the work already done in this area will be further explored.

Significance of the study

It will be brought out that SA is not the sum total of the information available on the instrument panels alone. SA is much more than that. It involves the capability to anticipate situations and hence decision making will have to me made based on those premises and impending possibilities too. Unlike in other spheres, where data can be solely depended upon for critical decision making aviation success depends on much more that analysis of data available. As long back as the WW1, the importance of SA was deemed critical for the fighter aircraft operations. The aircraft itself, whether in military, commercial or day-to-day civilian use, has undergone radical changes owing to the singular importance of SA in flying it successfully. The design parameters have been altered to make it more congenial for the purposes of improving SA of those flying it. The main factors that the pilot manning the aircraft encounters are those of the incessantly and rapidly changing aircraft parameters, conditions prevailing outside, the data provided by navigational systems as also the presence of other aircrafts and any other intruding condition (Thatcher and Kilingaru, 2012; Kilingaru et al., 2013). A complete and precise scenario has to be ingrained and updated continuously by the aircrew to safely achieve his goals. The smallest of error or oversight can result in disastrous situations (Durso, and Manning, 2009). On the ground the SA capabilities of the Air Traffic Controllers is called upon to navigate the aircraft movement while taking-off and landing procedures. The parameter of minimum safe distance from other aircrafts has to be assured while keeping in perspective the destination and speed of other aircrafts (Endsley, 1995; Durso, and Manning, 2009). The increasing traffic has made the task even more reliant on the SA capabilities of the ATC personnel. The job of safety becomes even more complex given the 3D nature of cognition required for assessing the dynamics involved.

The concept of situation awareness

Endsley (1988) chose to define Situation awareness as the assimilation of individual components within the confines of time and space, their significance to the whole system and the estimation of their values in foreseeable future.

Thus the three stages in which SA can be grouped under are level 1: understanding all critically important factors; level 2: the relative contribution of each factor to the aim of safe operation and Level 3: anticipating changes in the system based on anticipating variations in the independent factors known thus far. A better operational success rate can be achieved only by a better decision making based on these higher SA levels (Endsley, n.d.).

Level 1 SA - Perception of the Elements in the Environment.

The primary step in practices of effective decision making is the SA of the status displayed on the aircraft, its relevance to the overall picture and the inter-play of the data thus obtained. The pilot needs to be aware of the terrain, other planes and other indicating lights and sign ages. The pilot faces an overwhelming assortment of panels displaying a whole gamut of in-flight data, instructions for navigation and other relevant aircraft in its proximity (Endsley, n.d.).

Level 2 SA - Comprehension of the Current Situation.

The data made available to the brain in level 1 has to be now, analyzed, and inter-correlated to contribute to take decisions ensuring safe and successful operations. The accuracy and speed with which to respond to warning lights, for example are only one of the decisions the crew has to take to continue with or abandon taking-off. It is the experience that comes into play while taking decisions of such critical importance that differentiates the SA capabilities required of higher levels. A novice, for example may underestimate the available runway to carry on the take-off or on the hand may not fully comprehend the urgency of the warning lights, to begin with (Endsley, n.d.).

Level 3 SA - Projection of Future Status.

The most experienced of pilots have the capability of using the data, information and status of level 1, comprehending it to make insightful inter0play with the conditions without the aircraft systems and then anticipating the emerging conditions as relative to flight operations. The decisions to be made by the pilots and aircrew are largely dependent on this studied evaluation (Amalberti & Deblon, 1992). The evaluation and projection thus made empowers the pilots with sufficient time and knowledge to choose the appropriate decisions to meet their goals (Endsley, n.d.).

Situation Awareness Requirements

All the parameters that are enumerated in each of the three levels of SA are to be clearly understood for their importance and relevance. The data available, the inter-play between them and using these two attributes to dwell upon future possibilities as accurately as possible for the safe navigation of the aircraft are important with respect to the class of aircraft that the pilot is entrusted with, viz., military, civil or commercial. Each has its own degree of SA associated with it. However certain basic comprehension is common to all types and classes of aircrafts that pervade the skies (Endsley, n.d.).

Geographical SA - own position, aircraft in vicinity, parameters of the terrain, airfields, residential domains, directional attributes for movement; relative dimensional measures of objective locations; allotted pathways for landing; directions for destinations; takeoff and landing demarcations (Endsley, n.d).

Spatial/Temporal SA - directional paths, height above MSL, direction of movement, horizontal and vertical speed, G's, the path to be followed by the aircraft; licenses and permissions and alterations to the air-routes to be taken; aircraft capabilities; projected flight path; anticipated time of arrival to the airport (Endsley, n.d).

System SA - present attributes of environs of flight- man and machinery, functional parameters; RF settings, altitude and transponder data; presence of signals from the air traffic controllers; inaccuracies in the required data and information setting; setting parameters for functioning of automated responses; possible difficulties in maintaining safe flying emanating from mechanical/technical faults; fuel; estimated flying distance and duration available based on fuel reserves in the aircraft (Endsley, n.d; Dao et al., 2009).

Environmental SA - environmental conditions that affect the flight path and progress-weather attributes; temperature, snow and icing, physical limitations, cloud formations, fog, sun, clarity of vision into the distance, smoothness of flight or lack thereof, storms and wind speeds, minor and sudden upheavals; IFR vs. VFR conditions; terrain not conducive to smooth and safe flying; flight safety; anticipated environmental conditions in the course of flight. Military aircrafts have to take into cognizance a few more parameters relevant and vital to their safety and hence success (Endsley, n.d).

Tactical SA - discrimination and recognition, strategic position and condition, kind, wherewithal (range and power), positional and motional attributes of aircrafts in relevant vicinity; comparative capabilities as weighted against other aircrafts; identification and observation of aircraft, capacity to launch and aim at targets; perception of scale of threat, prioritization and schedules; present and anticipated threat probabilities, strategies, target shelling and flight control; schedule and conditions of mission tactics. Ascertaining appropriate SA requirements for a particular class of aircraft is a function of the motives of the pilots in that particular assignment. A proper set of guidelines for gaining SA requirements has been prepared and used for fighter planes (Endsley, 1993), bombers (Endsley, 1989), and ATC (Endsley and Rodgers, 1994)

A theoretical proposition has been developed to comprehend the various parameters and practices that influence situational awareness in all its complexity in aviation settings (Endsley, 1998; 1994; 1995c). A summary of the main features of the model are given. Major attention has to be given to the limitations of the human brain and the facets of working and retentive parts thereof. Improvements directed towards better utilization of long-term memory to stimulate actions by force of habit as in reflexive mechanism, processing of immediate data as in working memory to achievement of specific goals can be productive in extending the SA capabilities of the pilots (Endsley, n.d.). Though crucial, SA has not been fully understood as yet. It still remains one of the basic domains on which the success of complex and fast moving systems like ATC and flying aircrafts hinge (Nullmeyer et al. 2005; Craig, 2012). It is working memory part of the brain that keeps the transition movements of the aircraft relative to other parameters that actualizes the decision making in the dynamic and complex situation that the ATC faces on the ground (Garland et al., 1999). The 3D imaging that has been anticipated by the ATC personnel has been a point of many a study in the past. Improvements done on functioning of the WM should augur well for the improvement sought in SA capabilities. The ATC would then find it less challenging to face the dynamic and complex situations at hand (Van Der Merwe et al., 2012).

Chapter 2: Literature Review

Introduction

The rapid technological advances made in the field of aviation have made Situational awareness in human beings more important. The safety of the flights depends on the awareness capability shown to the conditions being shown by the instruments and panels. The significance of SA is now no longer restricted to the cockpit. It has extended to the ATC and maintenance sectors of aviation, too. In addition to aviation SA is now being given due importance in other fields that face dynamic conditions. (Salas & Dietz, 2011). To address the increasing importance in aviation, this review pays specific stress on the SA dimension of human operators it aims to minimize human errors in aviation sector. Situational awareness is broadly defined as the observation, assimilation and anticipation of dynamic and relevant parameters within a given timeframe (Endsley, 1988).Human Error, can be defined as the unlikely, undesired outcome of a planned action that is not caused because of any external factor.(Reason, 1990).though flying is now ( for almost five decades) considered to be one of the safest means of travel, accidents have kept occurring in aviation and human error has been a cause, directly or otherwise in majority of the cases.

Background

The single most dominant factor that causes mishaps and incidences in the aviation domain is that of human mistakes; those that directly affect the flying exercise and by consequence its safety, viz., the maintenance engineers and ATC personnel on the ground and the pilots and assistants in the cockpit. In most cases if not all it is usually the (SA) or lack of it that causes lapse in their execution of the job. The full impact of the situation if not evaluated properly causes the personnel to take erroneous decisions and hence actions. That in turn usually means that human error can be invariably equated with situation awareness. A study of the data available suggested that over seventy percent of the accidents that occur can be attributed to human factors (Langan-Fox et al., 2009). The different databases that worked on different premises and took into account all the factors (errors, human and technical and weather conditions) that caused mishaps exhibited the contribution of human factor to lie in the range of sixty to eighty five percent. This anomaly can be understood that each factor can or rather does affect independently as well as in tandem with others to cause the incident. As such singling out a factor (human error) is not always feasible. Any complex system that is prone to untoward occurrences is bound to have overlapping of different factors and as such segregation of individual contribution is not possible in the strictest sense. According to National Research Council Staff, 1998, the SA factor is the most dominant in Controlled Flight Into Terrain (CFIT) mishaps. These are the types of accidents that cause most fatalities when compared to other causes (Endsley, 1999a). The degree to which human error, as a consequence of lack of SA, affects most of the flying accidents can be estimated by the fact that out of the approximately eighty five percent of human fatal errors, about fifty one result in fatalities and thirty five percent are non-fatal. In most cases the lack of Situation Awareness have been known to bring about the incidents, even though in a few cases the accident could be otherwise (attributed to erroneous decision making) (Endsley, 1999a).

Different perspectives of SA and their application

Situation Awareness is the sum total of the observation, information, analysis, relevance to the goal, and then anticipation of future incumbent status that emerges. It cannot be simply any one of these factors in isolation (McCarley et al., 2002). Hence, according to Endsley, 1999, proper segmentation of each of these factors is imperative that will help to understand that SA is different and more complex from solely cognitive derivations of the human brain. The human brain can be, on the other hand be broadly understood in this context as working memory and long-term memory attributes (they are thus only a part of the whole of SA).

Situation awareness is a manifestation of the individual's response to the stimuli gathered from his senses, the processes that he goes through as a routine, and the memory that stashes away experiences. The interplay of the five senses and the inputs from the recedes from memory help him anticipate / appreciate or otherwise evaluate the risks that may lie potentially in a situational occurrence. This immediately raises the likelihood of flooding of information that may negatively affect the response. It has been generally understood that a person is at responsive best when he is exposed to less than seven different inputs. More than that is sure recipe for information deluge and fudged thinking. Another factor that can affect clear thinking is fatigue. Fatigue can result from stretched working hours, administrative manifestations (micro management issues) noise and sound pollution, extreme weather conditions and the like (Situation Awareness: Associated non-technical skills for the NSW mining and extractives industry, 2011.).

SA is thus, the present state of the human when combined with one or more of the given factor(s). Situation Awareness can grow up from the bottom or be filtered down from the top (Endsley and Garland, 2000).The top-down processes are mostly observed in an executive controlled action (Endsley and Garland, 2000). In this approach of top-down approach, it is the goal that decides the data needed from the environment. This data is then evaluated along the lines of operation to be executed. Judiciously choosing the information that is to be assimilated in the brain to be processed by the working memory sector with the aid of long-term memory is done with the help of visual sensing and coordinating them to relate to the tasks to be performed (McCarley et al., 2002). It is important to sequentially take cognizance of all the parameters of the environment towards successful achievement of the goal of safe flying.

SA is thus relative to instantaneous appreciation of elements to achieve goals with emergence of dynamics of elements in the environment of task at hand (Foyle et al., 1996). That is to say that the appearance of certain situation has to be factored into the immediate action to be taken that may at times involve shifting the priorities of goals. The SA capabilities thus vary from situation to situation. The capabilities, for instance, of those driving a car vary greatly from those that control the air traffic on the ground. The information and hence SA thereof needed by these two activities are vastly different from each other (Remington et al., 2012).

The Swiss cheese model of system accidents

The systems invariably contain preventative measures to safeguard their working and the clients' environs. Such measures can be seen in two forms -- material (engineered) or the human resource. A third important way of putting defenses into place in a system are through procedures, practices and tactical decisions to avoid accidents by the strategists. Such decisions are, however, prone to loopholes, invariably.

Ideally, the layers of defenses are firm and provide the protection desired. Practically speaking, that is unfounded. The layers, along with their loopholes keep shifting unlike those of cheesecake. The dynamic nature of the layers and the loopholes are unpredictable variants. Till the time a disaster occurs, the defenses act in tandem or even individually to achieve the safety expected. However, when the loopholes of all protective layers (latent conditions) are exposed to a situation (active factors) at the same time, the consequences can be catastrophic. As discussed the main cause of accidents are a combination of active as well as latent conditions presented to the system. (Reason, 2000).

'Active failures' are the result of risk-prone actions of people interact with the system directly. They can be seen in different forms like: inadvertent actions or lack of actions, errors, and circumvention of rules and regulations defined for carrying out a task. Active failures are noted for their notoriety to mask the latent mistakes. Such actions are knee-jerk reactions that can later result in accidents of much larger magnitudes. A very pertinent case in point is the explosion that took place at Chernobyl plant. The diagnostic measures that then follow (a catastrophe) limit their findings to the immediate cause. As is explained in the following discussion, however, the primal cause that should be looked into is the build-up (systemic as well as precedential in nature) of the cause which is much, much more important (Reason, 2000).

'Latent conditions' have been described as the invariably found "resident pathogens" in any system. The rules and regulations or the strictures of the organization contain them inherently. Alternatively, it can be said that they are a manifestation of the decision-makers within an organization. The decisions themselves may be ridden with faults, but are not necessarily so. Tactical decisions are possible causes that introduce the 'pathigens' into the workspace. The negative ramifications of the pathogens can be seen in the immediate vicinity (dominantly in the human resources' sector such as inexperience, short-staffing, pressures on time as also improper instruments acquired and so on…) as also in the preventive and anticipatory measures that the organization has designed for protecting itself, like impractical procedures, signaling systems and annunciations and design inconsistencies. The effect of such latent conditions may not be immediately visible and may make their presence felt only when triggered by some particular situation and the cumulative effect could prove to be disastrous. Failures arising out of and the causes of 'latent' conditions can be anticipated and weeded out before they cause irreparable damage unlike the active ones whose anticipation is near to impossible (Reason, 2000).

Figure 1: The Swiss cheese model of how defenses, barriers, and safeguards may be penetrated by an accident trajectory (Reason, 2000)

The origin of SA can be seen in the highly critical domain of wartime fighter pilots. It is here that the most importance to SA capability was first identified. The identification was then subsequently seen to have relevance in many other fields and situations that are exposed to dynamic and complex brain activity (Ma & Kaber, 2005). These activities have one underlying commonality; those of rapidly changing situation and elements that need central attention and take cognitions of various changing parameters to be processed in pursuit of goal achievement (Durso & Alexander, 2010).

The work done by Barry Turner on accidents and mishaps within sociological domain had inspired many other theories on disasters theories and constructs. Turner's theories revolve around the framework of complex organizations. According to Turner (1976), order and organization are causative to achieving desired results in tasks targeted and may also be at the root of mistakes or anti-tasks [sic] that are also most likely to manifest widely. Turner was interested in advocating the cause of organizations. He laid emphasis on the societal processes that would give birth to order. He went on to propose the social processes that would engender societal rules and regulations, set up norms and establish practices. For Turner, a cultural collapse is a disaster in the sense that the social norms and structures are rendered obsolete and even dysfunctional. In its most essential form, social crisis is hence about the redundancy of a normative set of practices (Sellnow & Seeger, 2013).

The performance in each domain though may vary greatly from the other. SA, being central to all such activities has been recognized as being crucial underlying factor that pervades all such spheres. It is only the elements that differ in the different situations. SA capability and its importance simply cannot be undermined (Endsley & Jones, 2012).

The concept of SA is crucial to safety in aviation; and is now used increasingly, more so as aviation demands newer engineering to be incorporated (Federal Aviation Administration [FAA], 2009, 2011; Joint Planning and Development Office, 2008, 2011). Inconsistencies in SA cause errors that are the main concerns to flights' safety (Jones & Endsley, 1996) and causes of mishaps. To cite instances, CFIT accidents (Weiner, 1977) almost invariably exhibit the inadequacies of pilots in anticipating ground clearances and proper angles of landing (Jacobsen, Chen, & Wiedemann, 2000), and Woodhouse (1995) directly assigned seventy five percent of these lapses to below-average SA. Hartel, Smith, and Prince (1991) observed lack of SA to be the major causal factor in the 200 aviation accidents they studied. Similar studies along parallel lines of commercial aviation mishaps also point an accusing finger at eighty eight percent of problems related to human error as lack of SA (Endsley, 1995b). Some have argued that the definition of SA is confusing and ambiguous (Dekker & Hollnagel, 2004, Dekker et al., 2011; Dekker & Woods, 2002; Dekker et al., 2010). Some, however, had a more positive view, even as they differ somewhat in its apt definition. For example, Durso and Gronlund (1999) and Durso, Rawson, and Girotto (2007) emphasized the association and relevance between SA and textual cognition, bringing into the picture, the part of the brain associated with working memory (Ericsson & Kintsch, 1995), while choosing to concentrate on the acumen of experts to sustain a "situation model" which helps assimilation of new data. Some suggest SA to be a construct at an institution level rather than solely on the brain of the operator in question (Sulistyawati, Wickens & Chui, 2011).

In all probability the most discernable (and most seasoned) meaning of SA, which is utilized as a basic premise of this paper, is that proposed by Endsley (1988, 1995b), who characterized SA as "the impression of the components in nature's turf within the confines of, the comprehension of their relevance, and the anticipation of their values in the near, foreseeable future" (Endsley, 1988, p. 792). This definition tags SA to consist of three levels. Level 1 SA is the assimilation and observation of significant components in relative proximity. Level 2 SA is the cognizance of the current instance comprising of the parameters. Level 3 SA is anticipation of future values by factoring the current circumstance.

Figure 2. Endsley's model of situation awareness (adapted from Endsley, 1995b).

Two parts of Endsley's treatment need to be appreciated. First and foremost, she attempts to unequivocally portray and emphasize what SA should not be construed as, by consequence avoid the peril that it turns into a trivial, sweeping idea. Specifically speaking, SA is not a matter of choice (the activity that is focused around, yet takes after SA), and it is not the information put away in long haul memory (e.g., a mental model), in light of the fact that SA is normally connected to element circumstances in which fresh information and stream of data are persistently arriving, a circumstance having a higher data transmission than is commonplace of the structure of long haul memory. (This is especially valid for loss of SA. The oversight of long haul memory is moderate; the loss of SA can be very fast.)

Second, this article uses Endsley's model as a structure, in light of the fact that her specific calculated refinement between Level 1 (recognition, observation), Level 2 (perception, analysis), and Level 3 (anticipation, estimation, expectation) maps specifically onto the center of this investigation: understanding the part of forecast in supporting SA and in supporting the general execution of an flying assignment on which SA depends (Sulistyawati, Wickens & Chui, 2011; Wickens, 2008).

SA and complex systems

The close interconnected complex systems are prone to undesirable incidents, but well-considered design changes in the basic structure can reduce the chances of mishaps. (Perrow, 1999). Controllers need to consistently switch from and to low and high mental workload, contingent upon varying factors (e.g., number of air ship, many-sided quality, and top periods). This is called shifting stress administration and contrasts among controllers (Averty, Collet, Dittmar, Athenes, & Vernet-Maury, 2004; Salmon et al., 2009). Controllers consistently apply systems, which are exclusively distinctive, to keep security (instances of clash), effectiveness (activity deferral), and their mental workload (individual productivity) (Oprins, 2008). SA is required to distinguish and order a protected and proficient answer to avert particular (collision) circumstances.

Automaticity is the instinctive, if mechanical response to stimuli. It enables a person to carry out tasks without much effort. Such persons are able to either multitask easily or carry out successive consequential tasks adroitly; they may even have reached that level of skillfulness by practice. However such expert levels are almost invariably accompanied by pitfalls, too. As an example, the researcher needs consider the incident cited in Barshi's paper, where the practical dangers associated with automaticity of going through the checklist and hence erroneous presumption has been starkly exemplified. In March 1983, the crew on-board of a Boeing 737, that was preparing to land at Casper, Wyoming, was checking the landing checklist as a matter of routine. The Captain (not at the controls) called out to the co-pilot to lower the wheels for landing to which the co-pilot responded back verbally in the affirmative. The crews as well as the passengers were presented with a rude shock. The actual landing took place wheels up. (Toft & Mascie-Taylor, 2005).

Moreover, controllers keep their mental workload under control by modifying their techniques to those that exert less pressure. In absence of emergencies, they return to routine activities, standard systems, and straightforward arrangements that need less consideration, for example, by a lower heap of radiotelephony (R/T). Contingent upon the developing circumstance (routine non-routine), they keep switching from and to low and high workload (van de Merwe et al., 2012). Design appreciation assumes a focal part; the controller bunches air ship in a certain manner to remember their positions. These tactics help them to make request in apparently critical circumstances by streaming activities. Much research has been carried out on how controllers create the 3-D imaging of the parameters that movement exhibits. This is typically alluded to as SA, as defined by Endsley, 1988, 1995a. SA is viewed as the result of the confluence of circumstance evaluation that happens at three levels: recognition (Sa1), elucidation (Sa2), and reckoning (Sa3) (van de Merwe et al., 2012).

In the event of administrators attaining the optimum degree of SA, they will be more successful than if SA is denied or hard to accomplish SA is driving FORCE for choosing options and execution in intricate, shifting frameworks (Salmon et al., 2009). In unpredictable situations, choice making is very subject to SA - a continually developing picture of the state of relevant factors (Endsley & Jones, 2012; Chiappe et al., 2012). Optimized SA is the most basic component for accomplishing effective execution in avionics. Issues with SA were discovered to be the main cause that affected military avionics accidents (Hartel, Smith, and Prince, 1991). In an investigation of mishaps among aerial transports, 88% of those including human misappropriation could be ascribed to issues with SA instead of issues with choice making or flight abilities (Endsley, 1995). NASA has recognized SA as one of seven real assignment sectors when focused for human factor in its Aviation Safety Program which is looking to meet the administration's objective of decreasing fatal airplane crashes by 80% in the following decade (Huettner and Lewis, 1997). Given the key part of SA issues in pilot blunder, projects to manage this issue ought to be especially viable at averting mishaps (Endsley & Garland, 2000). While preparing for SA may be successful for pilots at diverse levels of experience, the present exertion is centered on SA all ground operations. This center was chosen for various reasons: (1) General flight accidents and occurrences represent 94% of mishaps and 92% of fatalities (focused around July, 1999 mishap information), a mishap/flight hour rate in excess of 27 times that of planned section 121 bearers (NTSB, 1999, 2010). Better SA in this domain will help considerably towards the general objective of safety (Landry et al., 2010). (2) Improvement of SA in GA pilots will likewise help towards enhancing the general well-being of the airspace framework as these flying machine share the ground space with commercial ones. (3) Improvement of SA in GA pilots might likewise have a trickle up impact (Endsley & Garland, 2000).

SA is common to a whole range of activities (that require interaction with rapidly shifting factors) that human beings execute. SA accordingly includes seeing basic variables in nature (level 1 SA); understanding what those components mean, especially when coordinated together in connection to the administrator's objectives (level 2); and, in the most profound level, an intelligent anticipation (level 3). These larger amounts of SA empower individuals to act in a convenient and compelling way, even under duress (LEE, KIRLIK & DAINOFF, 2013). This is on the grounds that indentifying an error between what is going on and what ought to be occurring is frequently the first evidence of a mistake. Improved SA is proactive, as opposed to impulsive actions. Pilots discuss prevention and anticipation to evade disasters. Consequently, barriers against lapse incorporate engineering, staff preparing, and organization. Then again, most paramount is societal values: The aggregate mentality, convictions, and qualities (VINCENT, 2010).

Proper assessment of the organizational structure is important to take steps to prevent mishaps. The role of organizational factor has been addressed by mainly two streams of thought -- NAT (Normal Accident Theory) [Perrow 1999; Sagan 1995] and HRT (High Reliability Organisation) [LaPorte and Consolini 1991; Roberts 1990a; Roberts 1990b; Rochlin 1987; Weick 1987; Weick and Roberts 1993; Weick et al. 1999]. Charles Perrow is credited with the NAT, a work done on the mishap at the nuclear power facility at Three Mile Island. The complexities of the interknit technology at work and the interplay between systems make the unit susceptible to unforeseen manifestations. As such, mishaps are almost a given in such systems [Perrow,1999]. According to Perrow, the origins of large systems' failure can be often traced down to much smaller, insignificant happenings. The smaller failures reach out to affect other systems so fast because of the closely knit structures that preempting a large fiasco becomes very difficult, if not impossible. Any attempt to create ways out by incorporating redundancy would only serve to complicate the system further, according to Perrow. The complexity of technological organization may be overwhelming for an engineer to comprehend the full impact of even a small failure and anticipate fully the consequences thereof, and Perrow seems to be right in his premise (Leveson et al., 2009).

Todd Laporte [LaPorte and Consolini 1991] and Karlene Roberts [1990] have however pointed out some bright spots in some sectors that use complex organizational structure, too, to counter the darker side of such systems described by Perrow. They have taken pains to exhibit the safety records of some industries over a long period of time. Specific citations they use to make their point are in the field of ATC and flying operations. The differentiating factors they say, in the HRO's are the high priority given to safety while designing and operation, continuous appraisals and learning and adaptation inclination, high skill level in technical domain and a technically robust system. The five milestones of HRO (Weick, 1999): inability to assimilate inferences, operational involvement, strictly standing by commitment, and learning from past occurrences to experience. All this only implies that proper work practices and ethics can obviate most chances of mishaps owing to system failures. [Weick and Roberts 1993]. One major impediment that has to be worked around by those in direct control of the technology is the sometimes meaningless instructions from the 'top'. Those on the shop-floor or in the field do need to take the best possible tweaking that may be the best course of action under the conditions (Leveson et al., 2009).

Theories of Situational Awareness

The deliberations on SA are firmly connected with the definitions that have given birth to the idea and the routines for evaluating SA. Three fundamental hypothetical methodologies: the data preparing approach, the action approach and the ecological methodology. The data handling methodology has been best spoken to by Endsley's (1995) hypothetical three-level model of SA. This shows an unfolding of SA as higher-request is actuated. The movement theoretical methodology presents SA as a cog of the whole picture, as depicted by Bedny & Meister (1999). The model of the perceptual cycle calls SA as a human-element inter-play. Advocates of this methodology propose that it is the setting of the collaboration that characterizes the SA (Smith & Hancock, 1995; Adams, Tenney & Pew, 1995).

Three-level model

The three-level model of SA (Endsley, 1995) was created at first to comprehend flight assignments (e.g. steering airplane and airport regulation where individuals are obliged to stay up with the latest parameters), however it is contended that it could have been reached out into different spaces, for example administration, power generation facilities, atomic and nuclear domains, et al. For all purposes, any undertaking that obliges individuals to stay updated is a subject for situational appraisal exploration and application (Stanton, Chambers & Piggott, 2001).

Interactive sub-systems

Activity is the premise on which the second approach is introduced by Bedney & Meister (1999) to the western world. This hypothesis bases itself on eight main functional blocks of activity. This is an intuitive, cognitive, approach that has its origins in Russia. As a data preparing methodology, it is distinctive in the admiration that it doesn't detail forms that are conventional to cognitive brain research, for example, recognition, memory, analyzing, and activity execution. Rather it suggests that the degree to which courses of action are included is reliant on the way of the assignment orientation and the objectives of the individual (Stanton, Chambers & Piggott, 2001).

The perceptual cycle

Problem recognition is rooted in understanding what is understood and available vs. what is not understood or missing in the circumstances. This perspective implies that, SA is neither solely in the inhabitant nor in the environment, which it is the interaction of each with the other (Smith & Hancock, 1995). This methodology is an extrapolation of Neisser's (1976) model of the perceptual cycle (Adams, Tenney & Pew, 1995). Adams et al. (1995) contend that the process-instance interaction of SA projected variously by the scholars is to be seen as a hypothesis of data analysis by human brain. Procedure alludes to the perceptual and cognitive exercises included in amending the state of situational mindfulness though item alludes to the state of situational mindfulness concerning accessible data and information (Stanton, Chambers & Piggott, 2001; Stanton et al., 2010 oblem recognition is rooted in understanding what is understood and available vs. what is not understood or missing in the circumstances.

Summary of the theories

Each theory has facts ingrained in it. The implanted -intelligent model (Smith & Hancock, 1995; Adams, Tenney & Pew, 1995) is great at clarifying the observation part of SA, for example, how the shifting parameters are ingrained and how the quest for data from the world is looked for. The cognitive sub-frameworks approach (Bedney & Meister, 1999) is perfect for considering underlying capacities and how they affect each other. This perspective concentrates on the single person, to indicate the processing in the brain. The three-level model of SA (Endsley, 1995) offers a useful model for evaluating diverse degrees of understanding in practice (Stanton, Chambers & Piggott, 2001).

High Reliability Theory

The HRO theory is another stream that studies personnel causation of accidents. It has found to be ably applied to study diverse industries such as the ATC's, oilfields' (offshore and onshore) operations as also critical sectors such as nuclear power plants, et al. In an interesting variation regarding the safety of accident-prone industries, the question that would invariably give a true assessment of the safety standards and elements, would be, how many times the organization avoided a mishap when it was most likely to take place (Roberts, 1990a). Wang (2008) goes further to state that if the answer is 'numerous' then the conclusion would be that the organization professes high standards of safety. Endsley (1995) proposes that SA (situation awareness) is a manifestation of the observation and perception of environmental parameters, analysis of individual, separate entities that would in unison aggregate the whole scenario. The anticipation of foreseeable set of circumstances is also based on these same perceptions and analyses. The quality and extent of clear communication for sharing information garnered by each individual assumes greater significance in light of the fact that the HRO's comprise of technological complexities operating in an involved environmental construct.

Normal accident theory

The inherent inevitability of a system to be prone to failure and mishaps is what Perrow tries to address by this Term, Normal Accident Theory. His specific point of attention is the organizational complexity of the technical domain that populates the aviation industry. The root cause of a failure he emphasizes is the close interlinking of different factors and systems that may not be linked in immediate operational ascendancy. This brings to light the fact that most such accidents are not fully understood. He emphasizes the inability of personnel, systems and measures to pre-empt accidents that are a consequence of cumulative effects of smaller failures

Perrow identifies the cause of accidents with the constant interaction and reactions that elements in contact exert with immediate effect. The responses to any action on an element by the one it is tied to is delayed or instantaneous depending on the tightness of the coupling. Linear or complex sequences are initiated as a result of the nature of bonding between elements. Perrow (2011) chooses to classify systems based on these premises. It is imperative for ground staff to be aware and alert at all times so as to avert major mishaps and be ready for any eventuality by being in readiness to anticipate such occurrences and take appropriate actions. Ground operations become susceptible to mishaps if the situational awareness (especially Level 3- that of anticipation of states to follow current construct) is lacking, though maintaining such alertness is a stressful, complicated exercise, it is imperative to assure safety in operations.

Human Error

Human error can be manifested either as a personal error or as a result of the system. The reason in each case has an independent dimension and hence a different way has to be chosen to avoid either of them (Reason, 2000). Most of the accidents caused in aviation can be ascribed to human error. The main actors in ensuring the safety of a flight are the ground staff - the maintenance, signaling staff and ATC personnel among others; and the crew, the flight engineer, the pilot, his assistant, the in-flight staff. They are directly involved with the flight operations and a lapse on their part can cause an accident. Farley (2010) has opined that to understand how accidents can be avoided, regular assessment of the workload and stress on each of these personnel needs to be monitored and analyzed. Human error remains one of the main causes of an accident. Pilots, cabin crew, maintenance engineers and airport ground staff are just some of the people who ultimately have a role to play in assuring air safety. Monitoring and assessment of workload and responsibilities is essential for understanding how human error might be prevented (Farley, 2010).

Person approach

Most of the errors in this category have found to have their origin in mistakes or negligence or oversight of the procedures dictated. It is generally those at the controls or those that face the situation hands-on who are prone to these errors. The human minds' fragility and indiscipline is most often the cause of these errors. The most obvious counter would be to instill diligence, adherence to rules and awareness amongst the critical workforce. (Reason, 2000).

System approach

It has to be understood that there is a marked difference in humans and machines or systems. Humans can and do make errors. The reasons that can be seen in the factors such as management issues, workplace ambience and such other related environmental elements, leading to their behavior. The working conditions, if altered favorably and updated from time to time can alleviate this fallibility to a great extent. The systems are equipped for diagnostics. In the event of a failure, the pertinent query should be: why did the system diagnostics fail, not who caused it? (Reason, 2000).

Chapter 3: Methodology

This chapter focuses on two aspects: one, explanation of the methodology being used in this study and two, appropriate justification for selecting the methodology chosen, in the first place. The main topics of this chapter are (1) grounds for thematic synthesis and (2) thematic synthesis approach.

A research has to be well defined in its objectives, follow the most appropriate methods to reach a conclusive end and has to ultimately prove beneficial to all involved (Cohen, Manion and Morrison, 2007). The researcher has followed this line of thinking, by properly dividing the section into intelligible subsections. It is aimed that the reader will comprehend a clearer understanding of the complexities involved and hence a better appreciation of the study, the researcher undertook. Keeping in line with the famed research process, 'onion', (Saunders, et al., 2012, p.83) the researcher has presented the study's inferences in a graphical representation of the methodology for the perusal of the academia. The researcher provides all definitions pertaining to terms that need elucidation in the text.

Figure 3: The research process 'onion' (Saunders et al., 2012)

Research Philosophy

It is the endeavor of a research to help the students to fully comprehend the environment within the subject details thereby explaining the various viewpoints and beliefs that make up the ecosystem (Trochim, 2006). This idea finds its origin in two streams of thoughts: Positivism and Post-Positivism. Positivism emphasizes the need to understand things from observations and experiences rather than intangible explanations. Post-Positivism, places its belief in the various interactions of all elements that permeate the ecosystem of the subject under observation. Both the schools of thought are important for any research to be meaningful.

A positivist would be able to be grasp the truth in a more practical way. The laws of nature are determined by close examination under controlled conditions by a Positivist. The critical analytics performed by a positivist are but second nature to him, most positivists believe. The post-posivist on the other hand challenges the premise of a solely objective point-of-view. The contention held therein is that observations tend to be relativistic to the individual in question inherently and as such are prone to bias and prejudice (Trochim, 2006). This study makes use of the post-positivist approach of research.

Research Approach

There are two established methods of research Trochim (2006),: Inductive, wherein a logic is first tested at the specific level and is worked upon progressively upward ascertaining its authenticity all along; Deductive methodology uses the reverse path in that, it is applied to general situations and conditions and the conditions are then trimmed off successively to reach the specific application status. Here, use will be made of the Inductive Approach.

Research type and Time line

In view of the literature that the researcher studied the researcher found that the duration of a research is dependent on the format adopted to carry out the research. Two approaches of research are:

1) dissected (cross-sectional) and

2) linear.

In the first method the specific subject is evaluated within a stipulated time frame ignoring other. In the other mode all factors that may directly or indirectly be involved are taken into cognizance and a result arrived at after scaling in the time factor, (Trochim, 2006).this study has adopted the cross sectional approach owing to paucity of time.

Data Collection Methods

Data collection can be done at two levels: qualitative and quantitative. The researcher will be discussing the qualitative as it is more difficult to relate this kind of data for direct consequences. The researcher has used use of graphical nature in this study.

This paper utilizes one methodology to combine the discoveries of qualitative exploration known as 'topical union.' The demonstration of looking to integrate qualitative examination means going into more unpredictable and challenged domain than is the situation when just Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) are incorporated in a survey (Thomas & Harden, 2008). Topical examination is a quest for topics that develop as being paramount to the depiction of the instance (Daly, Kellehear, & Gliksman, 1997).The methodology the researcher used deciphering subjects, through "cautious and diligent textual appreciation" (Rice & Ezzy, 1999, p. 258). Distinct recurrences that kept emerging have been taken note of and topics dissected from the data have been analyzed. Topical dissection, though often inappropriately categorized and seldom recognized, is yet broadly utilized qualitative scientific strategy (see Boyatzis, 1998; Roulston, 2001) within or without the domains of psychology (Fereday & Muir-Cochrane, 2008). The system for dissection picked for this study was a crossover methodology of qualitative strategies for topical examination, and it joined both the information driven inductive methodology of Boyatzis (1998) and the deductive from the earlier layout of codes methodology laid out by Crabtree and Miller (1999). The methodology that the researcher supplemented the exploration addresses by assimilating the principles of social phenomenology to be indispensable to the procedure of deductive topical dissection while taking into consideration subjects to develop from the information utilizing inductive coding (Fereday & Muir-Cochrane, 2008).

Preparing for thematic synthesis

The technique the researcher selected for the study is Thematic Analysis which is a systematic evidence synthesis technique used for qualitative data. It shares some characteristics of both narrative reviews and content analysis. Rather than focusing on the categorizing data by specific content types the researcher summarized data through the interpretation of larger themes so that the researcher could present data obtained in tabular and graphical form. This technique can be systematic, transforming qualitative data to quantitative data from broad fields (Athanasiou & Darzi, 2011).

Searching

The researcher understood the importance of including all possible studies and researched when an attempt is made to bring out the significance of a subject. That is specifically so as the subject pointed out lots of data. A half hearted attempt could have produced erroneous and prejudiced results. Regardless, Doyle (2003: p.326) communicates that, "in the same route as meta-examination, meta-ethnography utilizes different observational studies in any case, unlike meta-analyzation, the example is purposive instead of exhaustive in light of the way that the outline is interpretive illumination and not conjecture." This prescribes that it may not be imperative to place every available study in light of the way that, for example, the outcomes of a hypothetical confluence won't change if ten instead of five studies contain the same thought, however will depend on upon the extent of plans found in the studies, their association, and whether they are in agreement or not. The moot point therefore is that it is not the number of studies availed, rather it is the message and content they are trying to convey that is of more significance. The congruence of the concepts then portrayed is more valuable in such cases. Also, distinctive models from vital qualitative investigation schedules may moreover be "acquired, for instance, deliberately searching for studies which may go about as negative cases, striving for most amazing variability and, essentially, sketching out the resulting set of studies to be heterogeneous, in a couple of courses, as opposed to the homogeneity that is frequently the point in measurable meta-analyses (Thomas & Harden, 2008).

Regardless of the inquiry, qualitative exploration is hard to discover (Barroso et al., 2003, Walters et al., 2006, Wong et al., 2004). In the survey that the researcher then chose to carry out, it was unrealistic to depend on basic electronic pursuits of databases. The researcher required to even go through grey writing, search particularly for book sections, and used a considerable measure of exertion screening titles and edited compositions by hand and looking through diary jottings too. In this sense, while not determined by the basic of finding each important study, when it really boiled down to looking, it was clear that there was next to no distinction in the techniques the researcher needed to use to discover qualitative studies contrasted with the routines utilized when scanning for studies for incorporation in a meta-dissection (Thomas & Harden, 2008).

Qualitative assessment: Sampling group and the inclusion and exclusion criteria

Concerted efforts to maintain discretion is of paramount importance to filter out inconsequential and irrelevant information and data. Then again, following there is minimal experimental premise on which to base choices for barring studies focused around quality evaluation, this study's inclusion and exclusion criteria prohibits those studies which have noteworthy imperfections and utilize 'affectability dissects' (depicted beneath) to evaluate the conceivable effect of study quality on the audit's discoveries. In this study, the research studies that are going to be evaluated will be judged by a 12 criteria before being excluded or included. This 12-point criterion is determined from existing sets of criteria proposed for surveying the nature of qualitative examination (Boultonet al., 1996; Cobb and Hagemaster, 1987; Mays and Pope, 1995; Medical Sociology Group, 1996), and whether studies utilized proper routines for tending to the questionnaire. The 12 criteria will secure three fundamental quality issues. Five identify with the nature of the reporting of a study's points, setting, justification, strategies and discoveries (e.g. is there a satisfactory portrayal of the example utilized and the routines for how the specimen is chosen and enlisted). A further four criteria identify with the sufficiency of the methodologies utilized to secure the unwavering quality and legitimacy of information gathering apparatuses and strategies for examination, and consequently the legitimacy of the discoveries. The last three criteria are going to identify with the evaluation of the suitability of the study strategies for guaranteeing that discoveries about the obstructions to and facilitators of SA are established in the members' viewpoints (Thomas & Harden, 2008).

Extracting data from studies

It is really a difficult task to factor in a piece of statistics as relevant data. This issue is effectively tended to when a measurable meta-examination is constantly led: the numeric depiction of RCTs - for instance. The researcher found that screening data for study in question is also an uphill task. In this study, while it was moderately simple to recognize "information" in the studies - typically as citations from the studies themselves - it is becoming hard to distinguish key ideas or concise rundowns of discoveries, particularly for studies that attempt general straightforward break-downs and have not gone much more distant than depicting and compressing what the respondents have said. To resolve this issue, the researcher is going to make an effort to incorporate discoveries to be the majority of the content and the researcher is going to bracket them as "results" or "discoveries" in the reports. Study reports can run in size from a couple of pages to volumes (Thomas & Harden, 2008).

Thematic synthesis strategy

The amalgamation took the manifestation of three stages, which covered to some degree: the free line-by-line coding of the discoveries of essential studies; the association of these 'free codes' into related ranges to develop "elucidating" subjects; and the improvement of "expository" topics (Thomas & Harden, 2008).

Stages one and two: coding text and developing descriptive themes

In the audit, our first concern is to concentrate and orchestrate study discoveries as per the points of the survey in regards to the limitations to, and factors positively affecting SA in lessening oversight. It may be that certain conclusions can tend to these inquiries simplistic and direct manner thereby opening up the possibility of in accuracies. The other hazard is that a prejudiced conclusion is conceived obliterating the possibility of alternate deductions. It is in the light of these possible inconsistencies that inductive methodology is going to be followed. (Thomas & Harden, 2008).

The researcher is going to refer to a number of studies that had been previously carried out by researchers in this area, which explained various approaches to improve SA capabilities on ground. The researcher is going to include dictions of the essays in the database. Thereafter analysts will then freely code each one line of content as indicated by its importance and substance. The utilization of line-by-line coding empowers attempt what the researcher considers as one of the key assignments in the amalgamation of qualitative exercise: the interpretation of ideas starting with one study then onto the next (Britten et al., 2002; Fisher et al., 2006). Nonetheless, this procedure is definitely not that of simple translation. As coding each one study required expansion of new substance to the "bank" of codes and create new ones when important. This method also throws up new ideas occasionally. In this study our analysis is going to search for likenesses and contrasts between the codes to begin gathering them into a various leveled tree structure. The researcher is going to capture the significance in the new codes suggested by this structure (Thomas & Harden, 2008).

Stage three: generating analytical themes

The study of the data that the researcher thus has is going to create an aggregation which resemble the original deductions of the data. The results of each study will be correlated through a posting of topics which is going to help in improving SA capabilities in ground operations. It is likely that the researcher finds out that this phase of a qualitative conjecture is the most hard to depict and is, possibly, the most questionable, since it is subject to the judgment and isolated bits of knowledge of the analysts. The identical stage in meta-ethnography is the advancement of second point-of-view which goes past the premise of previous studies (Britten et al., 2002; Campbell et al., 2003). In the study that the researcher embarked upon, the venture of 'going past' the substance of the first studies is going to be accomplished by utilizing the enlightening subjects that rise up out of inductive examination of study discoveries to answer the audit questions the researcher has chosen to bypass. In this study the researcher is going to gather hindrances and facilitators from the perspectives the studies communicated about SA all in all, caught by the engaging topics. Then the researcher is going to consider the ramifications of the perspectives for improvement through intervention. The researcher is going to achieve individually and then grouped suitably. It is through this dialog that more theoretical or investigative subjects started emerging. The obstructions and facilitators and suggestions for improving SA are analyzed again in light of these topics. Since the researcher was exposed to newer possibilities and data for theoretical conjuncture, the researcher may chose to opt for iterative processes so that none of the newer possibilities would be left out. These revises are going to be carried out repeatedly in the quest for clarifying the underlying concepts succinctly.

Context and rigor in thematic synthesis

The methodology of interpretation, through the improvement of clear and diagnostic premises, is going to be carried out in a thorough manner that encourages transparency of reporting. Since the researcher expects to create a union that both creates 'conceptual as well as formal hypotheses' that are in any case 'observationally unwavering to the cases from which they were produced' (Sandelowski: 2004: 1371), the study considers express recording of the advancement of subjects as vital to the system. It may seem that some may contend against the amalgamation of qualitative research in light of the fact that the discoveries of individual studies are prone to being out of context and that ideas distinguished in one context may differ from other situations. (Britten et al., 2002). However, this confluence can be likened to the inclusion of an outside view that supports and relates considerably to an original idea (Thomas & Harden, 2008).

The study that the researcher has undertaken strives to protect connection by giving organized outlines of each study enumerating points, strategies and methodological quality, and context and illustration. This implies that examiners of the audit have the integrity and freedom to correlate other inferences in their own contexts. In the combination, the researcher likewise is going to check whether the emanating results truly are transferable crosswise over distinctive studies. In pursuit of being aware that the study does not make an interpretation of ideas into circumstances where they don't have a place, the researcher is going to undertake a path after a standard that others have emulated when utilizing union routines to construct grounded formal hypothesis: that of establishing content in the connection in which it was developed. As Margaret Kearney has noted "the conditions under which information were gathered, dissection was carried out, discoveries were found, and items were composed for each helping report ought to be thought seriously about in creating a more summed up and unique model" (Thorne et al., 2004: 1353). Britten et al. (2002) propose that it might be vital to make a purposeful endeavor to incorporate studies directed crosswise over assorted settings to attain the more elevated amount of deliberation that is gone for in a meta-ethnography (Thomas & Harden, 2008).

Study quality and sensitivity analyses

The researcher, in the study, is going to survey the "quality" of included studies with respect to the degree to which they speak to the perspectives of those involved. In doing this, the researcher may find the idea of "value" inside the setting of the motivation behind the survey - SA value - and not so much the connection of the essential studies themselves. In the study's 'progression of proof', subsequently, the researcher is not going to prioritize the exploration outline of studies yet accentuated the capability of the studies to answer the audit needs. A conventional orderly survey of controlled trials might contain a quality evaluation arrange, the motivation behind which is to avoid thinking about ideas that don't give a solid response to the audit question. In any case, given that there are no acknowledged - or observationally tested- techniques for barring qualitative studies from combinations on the premise of their quality (Daly et al., 2007; Dixon-Woods et al., 2006a, 2006b; Popay, 2005), the researcher chose to incorporate all studies ignoring the quality.

All things considered, the study's observations are not going to contrast as indicated by the quality criteria they are evaluated against and it is critical that the study the researcher undertakes, takes cognizance of this premise. In orderly surveys of trials, 'affectability investigates' - examines which test the impact on the combination of including and barring discoveries from investigations of contrasting quality - are regularly done. Dixon-Woods et al. (2006a) propose that surveying the attainability and worth of directing affectability breaks down inside combinations of qualitative examination ought to be a paramount center of work that blends different ideas. After the researcher completes topical amalgamation, the researcher is going to analyze the relative commitments of our studies to the last scientific subjects and suggestions for intercessions. It may become clear to us that the poorer quality studies help similarly little to the blend and do not contain numerous remarkable subjects; and that the better studies, contributed more significantly (Thomas & Harden, 2008).

Chapter 4: Analysis

SA has been the focus of all studies explored here. That is so because SA assumes a basic part in flight groups and in military domains' decisive situations. The study proposes that this build applies to many different fields too (e.g., restorative crisis groups, firefighter's et al.). In this paper, examination of SA takes two different cognitions. Initially, the study outlines a few components that are normal to a few of the proposed clarifications of SA to give a premise to analyzing SA. In addition to this premise, the study recognizes discriminating variables that are connected with group SA and portray procedures and practices that have been proposed as supportive to its foundation and sustenance. Finally, on the premise of the data checked on, the study recognizes issues identified with estimation and preparing of improvement in SA (Salas et al., 1995).

The crucial aspect of situational awareness in keeping up appropriate control of a flight carrying people can't be exaggerated. One survey of more than 200 flying machine mishaps found that poor situational Awareness was the primary cause among many that resulted in the incidents (Hartel, Smith & Prince, 1991). Yet some have scrutinized the idea for being excessively subjective (Gilson, 1995), too generic (Flach, 1995), and incapable of proposing a rational and logically sound definition (Sarter & Woods, 1991). Different analysts have countered these allegations, contending that situational mindfulness is a valuable idea with far reaching implications for operational settings (Gilson, 1995). Regardless of the fact that it has its roots in the flying domain, it has been recommended that the idea is just as material to human supervisory control for all other areas that touch human lives as in driving, firefighting and other such instances (Kaber & Endsley, 1998).

According to a study by Endsley et al. (1998), SA has transformed into an essential premise for systems appraisal consultations. A couple of quantifying systems of SA have been created, the most by and large used among them being the Situation Awareness Global Assessment Technique (SAGAT) and the Situational Awareness Rating Technique (SART). SAGAT gives a target numerically assess-able measure of SA centered on posing questions in the midst of stops in a situation created to resemble the real conditions. SART gives a subjective rating of SA. It may well be called a qualitative assessment of performance. This paper presents a pros and cons of both studies and evaluating each against the other which were then used for the purposes of presentation appraisal study. It was watched that both SART and SAGAT helped affectability and diagnosticity as to the effects of the conceived thought. The SART measure was especially evaluated and assigned values for subjective measures of positivity, a fundamental and rudimentary subjective SA measure and a subjective execution measure. Evaluations of structure frameworks in a wide variety of regions of operations have dynamically begun to consolidate measures of situation control. Though accepted as being crucial, situation Awareness is not found to be fully understood and hence incapable of attracting requisite attention to complicated operations such as flying. (Endsley et al., 1998).

With a specific end goal to attain more effective response, students of human efforts have for a considerable length of time endeavored to measure workload under the affirmation that it will give more affectability in separating a decent outline from one which is not as simple, yet which may test alright if the human puts in efforts that exceed the normal requirement. Measures of workload can be exceptionally helpful; then again, they just catch only a part of the whole picture: How hard the individual is working - not what is the efficiency for the effort that has been put in, or what is the throughput of the human factor (Langan-Fox et al., 2009). Measures of situation awareness give a record of how well administrators have the capacity obtain and incorporate data in a complex environment where a great deal of information may vie for their consideration. This is a measure of legitimacy well worth surveying. What makes a difference in these frameworks is not exactly how much information the researcher can give on the numerous presentations accessible, instead how well administrators have the capacity assimilate this data (focused around their element objectives) under operational conditions when confronted with numerous contending wellsprings of data. This element is a profoundly valuable measure for the assessment of a coordinated framework (Endsley et al., 1998).

In a study carried out by Endsley and Robertson (2000), directed their examination at a large airlines' operations to research variables identified with circumstance mindfulness in flight support groups, in this case the maintenance teams. Situation awareness has been discovered to be a dominant and decisive factor to execution and error anticipation in many different situations. Their parts in the aircraft maintenance domain with respect both individual and a group is examined. Situation Awareness prerequisites for aeronautics support were decided upon and the technological factor and staff and personnel used to gauge Situation Awareness. Boundaries and issues for circumstance mindfulness both crosswise over and within groups included in aeronautics repair and maintenance were ascertained and obtained. In analyzing human lapse that may take place during maintenance operations, different issues were brought to the fore. (1) The first includes inadequacies in the location of fault lines and signs of damage with respect to the state of the airplane or subsystem. (2) Often, actually when vital data is seen, there may be troubles in legitimately translating the significance or essence of that data. (3) Problems in appropriately identifying the state of the framework and diagnosing or translating prompts that are seen are intensified by the way that different sets of crew may be included in dealing with the same flying machine. (4) Notwithstanding the requirement for intra-group coordination, a noteworthy premise for support groups is the coordination of exercises and procurement of data crosswise over groups to those on distinctive movements or in far off locations.

These troubles point to an absence of Situation Awareness. Situation Awareness has been discovered to be essential in a widely mixed bag of frameworks operations, including guiding, airport regulation and support operations (ground operations and maintenance). Upkeep teams need help and preparing in finding out the current state of the flying machine framework over and above present preparatory projects that focus on specialized abilities. In the setting of airplane repairs and maintenance activities, SA means being mindful of the state of the air ship framework (and the subsystem one is taking into consideration). Termed Level 1 SA, this would incorporate impression of components, for example, metal weariness, detached or missing things, sticks, or screws, oil or liquid seepages, tread wear, or frameworks not working appropriately. Level 2 SA would include the specialists' understanding or appreciation of the importance of critical observation of framework states. In particular this would incorporate their assertion of the causal components connected with possible side effects. A flight support specialist, Aviation Maintenance Technician (AMT) with Level 1 SA may be mindful that a specific subsystem is not living up to expectations appropriately. An AMT with Level 2 SA additionally comprehends what is particularly not up to mark. Level 3 SA, the capacity to extend the state of the framework into the near but immediate future, is viewed as the highest degree of SA. An AMT with Level 3 SA would have the capacity to extend what impact a specific deformity may have on the flight eventually. While SA has for the most part been examined regarding the operation of an element framework, for example, an airplane, the idea is likewise pertinent to the support space on which the aircraft operates.

Little work has gone into an in-depth analysis of Level 3SA in aviation. Jones and Endsley (1996) did this in their investigation, and found that just 16% of the recognized slips were assigned to Level 3, an astonishingly small number given its critical impact. Sohn and Doane (2004) additionally considered Level 3 SA in an avionics study; however they utilized generally unique static portrayals of an instrument board, to test members' estimation without incorporating the dynamics of flying machine state. More applicable and relevant is a dynamic re-creation template by Durso, Bleckley, and Dattel (2006), which inspected SA (surveyed by reactions to test inquiries) as indicators of airport regulation (ATC) execution. In spite of the fact that responses to inquiries at all three levels were found to record for difference in ATC execution, shockingly, level 3 testing was found to be accorded less weight age. This result, nonetheless, remains as opposed to one found in an alternate investigation of SA and ATC execution by O'Brien and O'Hare (2007), who, in three tests, likewise investigated SA and the capabilities behind it in an ATC assignment. Pertinent to this present study's worries here, they found that Level 2 and 3 SA were more applicable (and emphatically weighted) for ATC execution, however not Level 1. They additionally observed that on particularly preparing for training, a component nearly identified with Level 3 SA, was successful in enhancing SA in the target undertaking of ATC. Their examination, in any case, did not unequivocally recognize Level 2 (understanding, comprehension) and Level 3 (expectation, anticipation). Lichacz, Cain, and Patel (2003) likewise inspected SA in ATC, broken down independently into the three levels.

SA Measurement Devices

Many devices and techniques have been developed to assess situation awareness in the last 10 years or so. Amongst them, the most frequently used and known for producing consistent results are SAGAT-Situation Awareness Global assessment Technique (Endsley, 1988; Endsley, 1990a) and SART- situational Awareness Rating Technique (Taylor, 1990). With regards to LSZ (Launch Success Zone) envelopes it was found that the rating of SA done by SART- Situational Awareness Rating Technique was significantly higher. SART has been designed on the premises of comprehension, observation or assimilation; the amount and quantity of resources at disposal; and the extent to which the resources were expected to perform or the pressure on the resources. The significantly higher ratings attained by SART were then understood to have been caused by the variations in subject ratings of understanding. With respect to LSZ, launch success zone the subject ratings obtained by the situational awareness rating technique were higher for understanding (comprehension, observation, with p<.05), amount of data and information made available (p<.05) and information value or quality or significance with respect to the environment (p<.05).SAGAT recorded the perception, imagination or anticipation of a situation and weighed as against the real situation. The continuity of the events was broken and the questions were asked during the freeze periods. The SA score for each freeze was allotted marks. Thus, the proximity to real situation in their anticipation of emerging situations earned the most marks. In the result analysis whereas it was observed that SA was subjectively higher when assessed by SART-situational awareness rating technique, the SAGAT results were a mixed bag (Endsley et al., 1998).

In the study by Matthews et al. (2000), focused around the SA necessities analysis, three distinctive SA estimation gadgets were created. The principal was an infantry adaptation of SAGAT focused around a methodology already portrayed in more detail by Endsley (1995). The second was a Situation Awareness behaviorally tied down evaluating scale (SABARS). SABARS obliges master evaluations of SA related practices by a trained examiner. The third was the post-trial member subjective SA survey (PSAQ). The PSAQ was intended to permit members to subjectively rate their SA amid activities or missions. The reason in creating three distinctive estimation methodologies was focused around (1) the way that no past work had been accounted for that depicted the efficient advancement of SA estimation approaches for infantry missions, and (2) the thought that diverse operational and preparing settings would position themselves to diverse estimation approaches (Jones et al., 2010).

The SAGAT estimation was initially envisioned by Endsley (1988; 1995) and has along these lines been utilized to survey SA in different sets of circumstances (c.f., Endsley et al., 2000). In Matthews et al. (2000) study, the SAGAT method included halting activities or imagery reproductions (simulations of real-like conditions) at random and asking test inquiries for assessing a member's SA. The test inquiries concentrated on each of the three levels of SA as characterized by Endsley. The SA necessities investigation was utilized to create an arrangement of 21 test inquiries significant to infantry MOUT missions. Case in point, respondents to SAGAT must demonstrate and identify on a map the area of a mixture of faculty and assets discriminating to mission achievement (Chiappe et al., 2011). This incorporated their area, that of subordinate units or workforce, help units, the adversary, regular people or different noncombatants, the authority, and foe and substantial weapons. Responses were elicited/solicited what is the largest amount of danger, whether their unit can finish assigned exercises within the time stipulated for it, and where friendly and adversary areas are strongest and weakest. They were further solicited to assess the sufficiency from the point-of-view of key supplies, what possessions were accessible to them, and to anticipate or foresee enemy/foe and non-military personnel activities for the five minutes to follow. A full posting of SAGAT test inquiries was accessible from the creators upon request. This obliged another examiner/observer to check what constituted "right" responses to SAGAT tests.

SABARS: The SABARS estimation methodology obliges master observers/examiners to rate members on 28 inquiries identified with noticeable practices that record SA. Particularly, SABARS is a five-point scale (with an extra reaction for "not relevant") where the execution on tagged practices is evaluated as "exceptionally poor," "poor," "marginal," "great," or "great." PSAQ: As existing subjective measures of SA were intended for avionics and are inadmissible for infantry conditions, for which another measure was created. The PSAQ was regulated at the instance of a trial. The accompanying inquiry was evaluated on a five-point scale. "Kindly round the number that best depicts how mindful of the advancing circumstance you were amid the situation." Response choices on this inquiry extended from "not mindful of the circumstances" ("1") to "totally mindful of the circumstances ("5"). Space was given to respondents to make open-ended remarks on their SA

SA requirements analysis

The primary step was to focus the particular Situation Awareness necessities of people in the airplane repair maintenance and upkeep territory. This was tended to through an objective controlled assignment examination which surveyed (1) the objectives and sub-objectives connected with upkeep groups, (2) the decision prerequisites connected with these objectives, and (3) Situation Awareness necessities important for tending to the choices at all three levels } recognition, cognizance, and extrapolation or anticipation. This kind of examination has been effectively directed for pilots in a few classes of airplane (Endsley, 1989,1993; Strybel et al., 2011), airport regulation, ATC (Endsley and Jones, 1995; Endsley and Rodgers, 1994) and aviation route offices support (Endsley, 1994).

SA resource analysis

The second piece of the group SA concerned analysis focused on was distinguishing the SA assets utilized within the technical support environment to accomplish the SA prerequisites distinguished in the objective regulated exercise examination. Two consequential classifications of assets were taken into account: other workforce as a source of data and technology utilized as sources of data. To give an appraisal of the human faculty SA assets, an examination of correspondences between individuals and organizations was carried out utilizing a logical request methodology. The logical request methodology (Robertson and O'Neill, 1994) concentrates on understanding and portraying the correspondence designs inside and between groups (inter and intra-group correspondence) as regards to their execution and occupation objectives. Also, the devices and techniques for extracting every requisite within the current framework were recorded. Taking into account this analysis, an appraisal was made of the degree to which the current framework helps SA in maintenance groups and the aptitudes and capabilities that are needed for attaining great SA within the assigned environs. This appraisal was utilized to recognize framework outline suggestions and preparing ideas for enhancing SA in repair and maintenance units (Endsley & Robertson, 2000).

SA resources: personnel

In their study, Endsley and Robertson (2000), the workforce and engineering factors utilized in the organization to meet the SA necessities recognized and were found out through the relevant topical system. Deductions of the logical topical examination for the AMT were exhibited in a manner that portrays the faculty SA assets, taking into regard the people or units in supportive technical operations that are required to accomplish the AMTs' SA prerequisites and employment objectives (Endsley & Robertson, 2000).

SA resources: technologies

It was not only the use of personnel deputed for improving SA that were ascertained in the organization, even the techniques and the technology used was cross checked. The essential devices utilized for passing data incorporated a business data framework for logging technical support exercises, a few non-coordinated databases utilized in some of the organizations, and specialized documentation which could be found in different hard copy manuals and micro-fiche (Endsley & Robertson, 2000). An alternate study by Matthews et al. (2000 Situation Awareness is a central part of infantry operations. Specifically, military operations in urbanized landscape (MOUT) place enormous pressures on a warrior's SA. Urban landscape is especially difficult in light of unpredictability of the manipulated and camouflaged structural construct, the large number of spots for the adversary to battle and escape, the vicinity of regular citizens in the fight space, proximity to risky objects, constrained viewable pathway, successive interferences of correspondences frameworks, impediment of alternatives to administrators originating from prohibitive standards of engagement, and also the threat of media crew lurking in the vicinity.

Discussion

The point of this study was to comprehend the effect of SA and its capability to reduce incidents in ground operations owing to human factor. The study also aimed to understand the effect of SA on people in lessening human lapses in flying. Human lapses resulting in fatal airplane mishap constitute more than a large portion of all aeronautics mishaps. Man keeps on being a powerless connection in the man machine system of flying. Progresses made in the configuration and dependability of aeronautics has lessened technological framework breakdowns. In spite of the fact that there has been a huge and positive change in the training of the aircrew to avert human blunder mishaps, human lapse keeps on being a main component in the greater part of the fatal airplane mishaps. Understanding and averting human mistake in flying mishaps remains the chief test in safe avionics environment (Kumar & Malik, 2003). In the study by Endsley and Robertson (2000), focused around the investigation of the SA prerequisites and assets for every association and the hindrances and issues communicated, a few perceptions can be made apropos to group SA in the repair and maintenance of the aircraft. The biggest issue for group SA is the communication gap that appears between associations or people. These losses of communication may be the consequence of bungled objectives, absence of required data from one or both parties, absence of understanding of the definite data in definite terms that an alternate gathering needs, or in appropriate translations of data that is passed from another department. AMT's face a few difficulties in gathering their SA prerequisites that can be related to group SA. To begin with, AMT's use a lot of their time and energy in finding out whether they have the right parts or when and how they will get the right parts. An extensive disengagement exists between the AMT's and the inventory department which may supply the erroneous part (because of challenges with large nomenclature variation between distinct airplane models, as an example) or might not have the right part because of stocking constraints. These circumstances increment both the likelihood of lapse (erroneously introducing the wrong however fundamentally the same part) and may hence prompt inefficiencies, waste of time and performance (Patrick & Morgan, 2010; Bacon et al., 2011). At the point when parts are not accessible, the AMT's as often as possible must keep all the support staff as well as the aircraft grounded. They then must look to take into loop the supervisors and find solutions.

Despite the fact that regulations are to the point with respect to the criteria indicating when a part must be repaired or changed, AMT's should use their better sense of judgment to avoid being too close to malfunction. It might be both more secure and more of a prudent decision to propagate this kind of activity in certain circumstances (e.g. In the event that some other similar device is as of now dismantled for other work and the part is accessible). Better offering of data is required concerning these issues with the goal that Amts, leads and administrators can settle on choices that are in accordance with characterized hierarchical needs and equipments and parts. Case in point, they may require the information that a given flying machine might be going to different stations that are not generally prepared to cater to the specific sort of issue or that are already too occupied to do so. This would demonstrate that they ought to settle the issue as opposed to putting it off, even if that results in a slight delay. Workforce need to comprehend what immediate needs are in totality. A transparent and thorough understanding of the commercial tradeoffs in settling things on the spot vs. postponing repairs would permit them to structure a superior understanding of circumstances they experience and help to adopt choices (Kass et al., 2007; Pierce et al., 2008). In checking on the SA imperatives and assets of the maintenance leads and chiefs, it is clear that they serve as crucial links in the whole system and can get to be data carriers. Over and above managerial obligations, they find themselves drawn in when issues emerge and help is required, giving help themselves or cooperating with different departments (e.g. maintenance or on-ground operations) to get required backing. This part is extremely crucial towards attaining great SA at the group level (Kaber and Endsley, 2004).

In a study by Matthews et al. (2000), the first orderly SA necessities analysis focused around infantry MOUT operations is given a close look. Leading a precise SA necessities examination is essential before psychometrically sound SA measures can be produced. In a workshop inspecting infantry SA issues (Graham & Matthews, 1999), the requirement for solid, substantial, and useable SA measurements was emphasized dominantly. The ebb and flow exploration seeks to underline need of preparatory venture in creating such measurements. The infantry-significant SAGAT, SABARS, and PSAQ portrayed in this paper are right now being tried in a simulated atmosphere. In the activity, officers were tasked with heading their units through four MOUT missions in a mock exercise. Along with SA measures, the choice making abilities of unit pioneers are constantly evaluated. Hence, to add to testing the psychometric characteristics of SA measures, the analysis permits an examination of the connection among the different levels of measures, choice making, and achievement of goal .Since the present examination concentrated on SA necessities and measures for ground-based operations, extra research may be required to augment these estimation methodologies to other war and battling factors, for example, protective layer or ordnance. A total battle scenario SA assessment demands more research. While a portion of the essential SA prerequisites, such as knowing where your own particular troops and the foe troops are found, won't change with echelon, there may be components remarkable to echelon or elements may be weighted in an unexpected way. Likewise, the SA measures depicted here ought to be tried continuously worked out in actual warfare and not restricted to laboratory conditions. The measures depicted in this report relate three distinctive, relevant, methodologies to evaluating SA. An intriguing examination question with hypothetical ramifications is the degree to which subjective SA measures, as referred to by the PSAQ; relate with more consequential measures, for example, SAGAT and SABARS. There may be an inclination for subjective measures of SA to specifically consider genuine assignment execution (see Endsley et al., 2000, p. 66); That is, the individuals who accomplish a mission will rate their SA as high, and the individuals who are unable to finish a mission may rate their SA as low. In this manner, there may be a higher association between the PSAQ and target undertaking execution than between the PSAQ and SAGAT and/or SABARS. Since members now and again confuse execution with SA, acquiring SAGAT and SABARS measures may be additionally enlightening about the real level of SA controlled by members in activities or simulations.

A further preference to having different measures of SA is that varying testing circumstances may give better results for a specific measure (Salmon et al., 2009). It might be imprudent and difficult amid field activities to stop the activity to permit the freeze frame tests that is the characteristic of the SAGAT methodology. In this manner, if SABARS yields comparative assessments of SA as SAGAT, then it may be a favored strategy to use in "live" settings on the grounds of it being less meddlesome. Such potential outcomes underscore the imperativeness of exhaustive field-testing and refinement of the SA measures reported here. There has been extensive hypothesis on the part of SA in infantry battle operations (e.g., Gorman, 1999; Holder, 1999). SA by its very nature is hard to being appreciated directly and is practically notional. An idea is of heuristic esteem in extent to how well it can be quantified. In addition, securing, keeping up, and improving circumstantial alacrity in the element environment of ground-based battle operations postures noteworthy difficulties. The advancement of sound SA measures for these sorts of missions permits more precise investigation into the bunch of variables thought to influence SA. A decent basic premise for conceptualizing SA was just reported (Endsley et al., 2000). This model serves as a kind of perspective for deciding how individual components, undertaking and ecological variables, preparing, knowledge, mission, and Army regulation help SA and dependable choice making. SA improvement in this requires that the inter-play of aforementioned factors be analyzed

The study of Endsley, et al. (1998), upholds the utility of utilizing a test-battery approach for assessing presentation ideas. Basically demonstrating reduced time in the danger zones does not explain adequately the cause of the situation or on potential drawbacks connected with the presentation idea. SART turned out to be useful in anticipating this execution advantage. The study depended on Endsley's (1988, 1995a) meaning of SA and utilized her model to look at courses in which members in different, assessed studies created SA. In spite of the fact that the first level of Endsley's model alludes to the view of components in nature's turf, the model does not recognize among these components regarding weighting them as indicated by their relative criticalness. In perspective of this, the components and factors of SA were arranged and weighted as indicated by unpredictability (Chiappe et al., in press). The study expand on Endsley's work by stretching the first level of her model which ought to enhance understanding of specific direction in which chiefs create situation awareness and empower leaders to perceive contrasts between components of circumstance mindfulness. The discoveries ought to prompt a more prominent understanding of circumstance mindfulness in different territories of flying and areas, for example, crisis administrations, pharmaceutical, driving, war technique, and power station operations (BRUCE, 2011). Gaining, retaining and consolidating situational cognition is one of the essential requisites of oral correspondence. This is a procedure which is continually happening between the pilots buzzing around, controller on the ground and amongst pilots and controllers at crucial junctures in the flight (e.g. leeway, level progressions, progressions in heading, methodology, holding, unprecedented occasions and so on) (Bell & Waag, 1997; Allendoerfer et al., 2010; Durso, 1998). What's more; situational mindfulness is maintained by the team checking correspondences with the ground and other airplanes as well (Salmon, 2008). So losing situational mindfulness could turn into what might as well be called 'blind flying ' (Shawcross & Day, 2011). One obligation of an ATC is to identify and anticipate approaching clashes (legal airspace overlap) between aircrafts. Since the probability of overlap increments with movement thickness, this can prompt an inadmissible increment in controller workload (Averty et al., 2004; Bell & Lyon, 2000). One possible resolution is to make airspace recognition and/or determination computerized that take a portion of the work off the controller. Furthermore, analysts have been exploring the likelihood of distinct and proper assignment of tasks demarcated clearly to accordingly prepared flight decks (Wickens, 1996). On such flight decks, the pilot would be furnished with information that pinpoints legal airspace overlap and determination. By and large, this examination shows that the essential driver of human lapse in unpredictable frameworks is not poor choices, instead poor situation recognition. The components causing those lapses are aplenty, and incorporate arrangements at both the framework outline and SA preparatory levels (Endsley et al., 2003). Specific issues with circumstance mindfulness are shown at the attention span and quality and working memory, and can be attached to framework outlines that exert pressure on these human breaking points (Endsley & Bolstad, 1994; Dekker, 2010; Woods & Sarter, 2010).

The Situation Awareness Global Assessment Technique (SAGAT) has been effectively used to give this data by specifically and equitably measuring operator SA in assessing flight ideas, presentation plans, and interface advances (Vu, et al., 2009). A basic advantage of inspecting framework plan from the point-of-view of operator SA is that the effect of outline choices on circumstance mindfulness can be dispassionately evaluated as a measure of nature of the coordinated framework plan when utilized with respect to the real difficulties posed by operational circumstances. The human component in an aeronautics mishap is decently reported within flight safety documents. "An investigation of human mistake in distinctive spaces demonstrates that much of it is not because of poor choice making, however poor circumstance mindfulness." (Endsley, 1999a, 1999b) Consequently, an exhaustive understanding of the relationship between the social and the specialized content in human lapse in complicated frameworks is vital in understanding the methodical nature of SA (Dominguez, 1994.). Working complicated frameworks obliges an extraordinary state of analysis and execution that is achieved on attaining and keeping up certain level of SA. To address the outcome because of human lapse owing to poor SA, a lot of examination and commitments have been made to the understanding of creating a model of and for Situational awareness by researchers like Endsley (2000). The cognitive methodology to SA, overwhelming inside the studies, has encouraged the conceptualization of models utilizing such basic structures as data preparing hypothesis (Wickens, 1992) and the applications from a Mental Models viewpoint (Endsley, 2000). Applications of these models and other exist all through an extensive variety of complex frameworks. Specifically noteworthy is the SA connected with complex socio-specialized frameworks, for example, avionics (Vincenzi, Mouloua, & Hancock, 2013; Adams et al., 1995). "unmistakably understanding SA in the avionics environment rest on an agreeable clarification of its components (at each of the three levels of SA), distinguishing which things the aircrew needs to see, comprehend and anticipate" (Endsley, 1999a, 1999c; Durso et al., 2007).

Intrusions into the Runway have caused serious accidents considerable deaths. With the increase in air traffic, this malady is seen to occur with increased frequency. The aviation safety procedures need to assign this malady due importance and promote designs and procedures to avoid them altogether. (ICAO, 2007). The Ground Control Approach/Precision Approach Radar (GCA/PAR-2020) system is an X-band, AESA-based system that provides customers with secondary surveillance, area surveillance, and precision approach radar capabilities in one compact system. It's modular, open architecture and solid-state design achieves availability and reliability superior to any other radar-based landing system. The Terminal Airport Surveillance Radar (TASR), which meets the demanding requirements of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), is an S-band radar system that provides full airport surveillance capability and the TASR is available worldwide to even customers in Oman (Exelis, n.d). Safety and security in aviation, in the air, on aircraft, and on the ground, have always remained the top priority on the agenda of Oman Air and remain in the forefront of proactive ingenuity work, planning, training and implementation (Oman Air, n.d).

Oman Air is the sole ground handling agent for Muscat International Airport and Salalah Airport, established since 1981 Oman Air has an excellent record of professional and high quality service standards Oman Air has been internationally recognized by IATA for the prestigious airport handling standard AHS 1000 (OAMC, n.d). Ground operations are essential to the safety and punctuality of all passenger and freight traffic, and are equally important for airports, airlines and ground service providers. IATA ground operations training leads participants to perform up to modern industry standards through management and operational courses, and addresses all important topics concerning the performance of services, management and business relations between ground service providers and airlines (IATA Training And Development Institute, n.d). The Muscat International Airport is currently undergoing a $1.8bn expansion to increase the passenger handling capacity. The expansion is scheduled to be completed by the end of 2014. Muscat International Airport (formerly Seeb International Airport) is located approximately 32km west of Muscat, the capital of the Sultanate of Oman. The airport is a hub for the national carrier Oman Air and is the gateway to Oman, improving connections to international destinations like the Gulf, the Middle East, Europe and the Far East. It is operated by Oman Airports Management Company (OAMC). A new air traffic control centre was opened at the airport as part of the expansion plan in August 2014. Unlike the earlier system which used four screens, the new system has a single 56-inch screen which helps to integrate all the facilities. The system, developed by Indra, a Spanish company, helps air controllers to directly get additional information from the aircraft to the radar screen, using a safety network (Muscat International Airport, Oman, n.d).

Circumstance mindfulness (SA) can be considered a disguised mental model of the current state of environs of the operator. Each component of the approaching information from the numerous frameworks, the nature's domain, individual group parts, and others (e.g. (other air ship and ATC) should all be united into an incorporated entirety (Kraut et al., 2011). This coordinated picture structures the focal sorting out from which all choice making and move makes place. An incomprehensible share of the administrator's occupation is included in creating SA and staying up with the latest in a rapidly shifting parameter set. This is an assignment that is not simple in light of the many-sided qualitative features and sheer number of elements that must be considered with a specific end goal to settle on successful choices. The key to adapting in the "data age" is creating frameworks that help this methodology. This is the place our current innovations have left human administrators the most powerless. Issues with SA were discovered to be the main causal element in an audit of military aeronautics accidents (Rodgers et al., 2000; Hartel, Smith, & Prince, 1991) and in an investigation of mishaps among larger air transporters, 88% of those including human lapses could be ascribed to issues with situational mindfulness (Endsley, 1995b). A comparable audit of lapses in different spaces, (for example, aviation authority or atomic force) demonstrates that this is not an issue that is constrained to flight, yet one the researcher confronts with a major portion of the study's complex frameworks. Achievement will be achieved by those engineers who see how to consolidate and present the incomprehensible measures of information now accessible from the numerous innovative frameworks systems keeping in mind the end goal to give genuine situation awareness (whether it be to the pilot, the doctor, the business director or the auto driver). The key here is in understanding that genuine situation awareness just exists in the brain of the human being. Thusly showing a huge amount of information will be of no real use and benefit no one unless it is effectively transmitted, absorbed and acclimatized in an appropriate and timely manner by the human to structure circumstance mindfulness. Because of its vitality and the critical test it postures, discovering better approaches for enhancing SA has turned into one of the significant configuration drivers for the improvement of new frameworks (Endsley, 2001).

While substantially speaking, these proposals may appear somewhat clear and affirm what was long ago thought to be the situation; situational mindfulness unites the notions under a solitary binding idea. A few analysts have joined situational mindfulness preparing into crew resource administration programs (Salas, Prince, Bowers, Stout, Oser & Cannon-Bowers, 1999). These projects consolidate systems for enhancing time bound inspections of suitable display models, dynamic workload appropriation, correspondence and criticism, and strategies in crisis situations. In a showing of the more extensive application of situation awareness ideas and techniques, Gaba, Howard & Small (1995) considered the cognitive methods of anesthesiologists. They contend that situation awareness is a cognitive ability that is indispensable to all circumstances that oblige adroit execution in dynamic, complex, and indeterminate situations. The issues uncovered by this study are aplenty. Obviously, a multitude techniques can be recommended that would be useful for improving data movement and SA within any organization. The study demonstrates a few progressions and enhancements to both the advances and hierarchical framework that can be executed to enhance the appropriation of data. While these elements are particular to this airline, a large portion of these proposed arrangements might likewise be pertinent to the repair and maintenance departments of different carriers. Enhancing situation awareness inside a generally appropriated department, for example, flying upkeep (repair and maintenance), notwithstanding, will likewise oblige that workforce have the capacity appropriately use this data to structure much larger amount evaluations of the situations at hand and communicate the same effectively within their own or with other departments and organizations. One method for recognizing strategies for enhancing SA is to look for the different ways in which SA lapses take place or manifest. A second strategy is to recognize the courses in which pilots effectively create and keep up SA as contrasted with pilots who make a poorer showing with these undertakings. Endsley and Robertson (2000) audit various studies that have been performed germane to these issues. A detailed analysis of SA lapses in aeronautics was directed (Jones and Endsley, 1996) utilizing reports from NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) utilizing a SA lapse scientific categorization focused around a model of SA (Endsley, 1995). Gibson, Orasanu, Villeda and Nygren (1997) additionally performed an investigation of SA blunders. They discovered issues with workload/diversion (86%), interchanges/coordination (74%), inappropriate methods (54%), time weight (45%), gear issues (43%), climate (32%), newness (31%), weakness (18%), night conditions (12%), feeling (7%) and different variables (37%). Outcomes of loss of SA brought about height deviations (26%), infringement of FAR (25%), heading deviations (23%), activity clashes (21%), and non-adherence to distributed strategies (19%). Perilous circumstances were found to come about because of 61% of the cases. Plainly loss of SA ought to be considered important in avionics. While both of these studies included loss of SA by controllers and business pilots notwithstanding GA, they reveal some insight into the way of the issues that happen in circumstances where SA is lost (Endsley & Garland, 2000).

In directing crucial episodic audits with pilots, Prince and Salas (1998) recognized four significant activities that are imperative for group SA in business pilots: (1) distinguishing issues or potential issues, (2) exhibiting information of the activities of others, (3) staying aware of subtle flight elements, and (4) verbalizing activities and aims. Prince, Salas and Stout (1995) found that those aircrews who performed better on a goal measure of SA showed more activities in these territories. They appeared to tackle issues quicker and perceived potentially disturbed circumstances emergence better. While the center of this exploration was on group SA instead of individual SA, it does point at specific attributes that are critical for creating SA in flying settings (Endsley & Garland, 2000).

Three Levels of SA

The study found that the exactness of Level 3 appraisals was less than that of Level 2 (see Table 3). This finding is in consonance and agreement with those of both Durso et al. (2007, 1999) and with the view that Level 3 SA requires extra cognitive steps, connected to, and in this way well beyond the recognition and mental representation of the element information existing at Levels 1 and 2. These included steps incorporate "running" a mental model of the progress up to the time period needed by the expectation, and focused around the info gave by Levels 1 and 2 (Wickens, 2000, Wickens et al., 2008). The researcher likewise found that the relationships between SAGAT Level 1, 2, and 3 scores went from moderate to high. This recommends the importance and impact of recognition and understanding of the current circumstance to precisely anticipate what is going to happen in the near and immediate future.

Chapter 5: Recommendations and Conclusions

Recommendations

Studies that have inspected circumstance mindfulness in aeronautics other than commercial or military pilots and air movement controllers are few and far between.SA is the basic premise and key to decision making methods of controllers in OCCs. This recommend that further research is required to look at situation awareness in other avionics areas like ground operations and brings up various examination issues: (a) To what degree is situation awareness basic in flying spaces, for example, ground taking care of, airplane terminal operations, burden control, and group roistering? (b) Can arrangement of parts of circumstance in other flight areas lead to changes in taking proper decisions in those domains? (c) Can grouping of parts of circumstance mindfulness be fused into pilot and air activity controller choice making procedures to enhance situational awareness in these areas (BRUCE, 2011)?

Further research could concentrate on the degree to which components may be weighted in different spaces as this is prone to prompt a more prominent understanding of advancement of circumstance mindfulness in these areas. The discoveries of the study propose various vital study and research purposes: (a) Can the most important components of circumstance cognition be recognized and weighted in specific domains? (b) as far as Endsley's (1995a) model is concerned, to what degree does distinguishing the most significant components in a space lead to more prominent levels of cognizance and projection of circumstance mindfulness in the decision making methodology? (c) What is the relationship between circumstance cognition and data fulfillment? (d) How can data be custom-made to particular circumstances to give progressed levels of circumstance awareness? (e) What instruments can be established to help leaders distinguish and prioritize applicable data to best suit a circumstance? (f) To what degree can changes in situation mindfulness lead to recognizable proof of more developed choice contemplations (BRUCE, 2011)?

A few training ideas were distinguished for enhancing Team SA inside the repair and maintenance department focused around this examination and discourse.

Task management

In Aviation, accidents are often the result of poor task management when the operator switches attention from critical tasks of airplane guidance and stability control to deal with an interruption (e.g., a communication from air-traffic control; a possible failure of landing gear) and then fails to bring attention back to the high-priority safety-critical task (Wickens & Mccarley, 2007). Interferences, assignment related diversions, different preoccupations and general workload represent a high risk to SA. Better assignment administration methods seem basic for managing these issues. Schutte and Trujillo (1996) found that the best performing teams in extraordinary circumstances were those whose assignment administration methodologies were focused around the apparent seriousness of the criticality of work and circumstances. The individuals who utilized an occasion/hinder driven methodology (managing every interference as it came up) and the individuals who utilized a procedural-based technique performed all the more inadequately. The capability to precisely survey the imperativeness and seriousness of occasions and tasks is a vital segment of Level 2 SA. This appreciation additionally permits pilots to heartily deal with their undertaking and data stream so as not to wind up in circumstances in which they are over-burden and miss crucial data.

Development of comprehension

Notwithstanding issues with appropriately surveying the significance or seriousness of undertakings and occasions, pilots will likewise perform inappropriately in the event that they are not able to legitimately gauge the relevance of the circumstances, the danger levels included and both individual and framework capacities for managing circumstances. Simmel and Shelton (1987), in dissecting mishap reports, note that precisely deciding the results of non-routine occasions had all the earmarks of being the issue for these pilots. Each of these variables (timing, danger, abilities, results and seriousness) are important segments of Level 2 SA (Endsley, Farley, Jones, Midkiff, and Hansman, 1998). Unpracticed pilots give off an impression of being less ready to make these paramount evaluations, staying more centered at Level 1.

Projection (Level 3 SA) and planning

Amalberti and Deblon (1992) found that a huge portion of accomplished pilots' attention span was used in reckoning conceivable future events. This provides for them the learning (and time) important to choose the most ideal path to be taken to meet their goals. Accomplished pilots likewise seem to invest huge time in preflight arrangements and information assembling and take part in dynamic possibility planning in the course of flight (Durso & Sethumadhavan, 2008). Each of these activities serves to decrease workload in unlikely situations that may crop up. Utilizing projection aptitudes (Level 3 SA) these pilots have the capacity earnestly look for paramount data ahead of time of a known prompt requirement for it and preparation for different possibilities. Not all arranging is similarly compelling, on the other hand. Taylor, Endsley and Henderson (1996) found that groups who saw one and only course of action were especially powerless to Level 2 SA mistakes, neglecting to perceive signals that things were not working out as expected. Energetically making arrangements for different possibilities and not only the normal in flight is imperative.

Information seeking and self-checking activities

Pilots with elevated amounts of SA easily identify discriminating and crucial data, making them snappier to perceive patterns and respond to occasions. These pilots are additionally great at checking the legitimacy of their own circumstance appraisals, either with more data or others (Taylor, et al., 1996). This is successful in managing false desires and mistaken mental models. Different scientists have likewise recommended an "Argumentative third party" system where individuals are encouraged to test their elucidations of circumstances (Klein, 1995; Orasanu, 1995). Taking everything into account, numerous elements including meta-cognitive aptitudes and information base insufficiencies can be joined to issues with poor SA; preparatory schedules that address these issues ought to be powerful at enhancing SA in GA pilots.

SA training

Normal issues can be connected to SA disappointments in various frameworks, including (1) overlooking data or steps, regularly in relationship with errand interferences, (2) not passing data between different shifts or colleagues, (3) missing basic data because of other assignment related diversions, and (4) confusing data because of anticipation pre-occupation; training can be utilized to give elevated consciousness of these issues and methods for fighting them; Case in point, assignment intrusions: regular issue prompting SA lapses.

Last but not certainly the least, it would be profoundly attractive to find out the degree to which the preparation impacts crucial repair and maintenance execution measures of the carrier. The most basic thing to be borne in mind is to diminish support slip-ups, enhance flying well-being and enhance execution. Since the course had been regulated to so few members (scattered in excess of 9 urban communities), making any significant appraisal of the impact of the preparation on execution conclusions was not possible in this study (Hoffman et al., 2009). Later on, notwithstanding, the impact of the preparation execution on a few key security and execution measures ought to be surveyed.

Shared mental models

From the examination it was ascertained that diverse groups (associations) don't have a decent mental model of what different groups know, don't know or need to know. Great circumstance cognition at the group level relies on upon having an acceptable understanding of what data implies when it is passed on over to colleagues.

Verbalization of Decisions

There additionally exists a requirement for groups to improve a vocation of passing data to different groups with respect to why they choose to (or not to) make a specific course of move (e.g. postponements, plans, etc2). Unless the method of reasoning and reasons are passed along, significant mistaken assumptions may result and cause mishaps.

Conclusion

Different conclusions can be drawn from the studies. In the first place, the results in the different studies recommend that SA is an aggregate methodology. Second, it creates the impression that SA may be procured in unique stages. In the study, this happened amid the acquaintance stage where the testing domain was static. Third, the studies seemed to accumulate data until they arrived at a certain level of starting circumstance mindfulness. Consequently, confronted with complex circumstances, a high volume of data seems to bring down SA as controllers have constrained time to process it. Getting sufficient data as a premise for picking up SA may be more essential in the acquaintance stage. An examination of human lapse in dissimilar areas of operation demonstrates that much of it is not because of poor decisions taken, instead, poor SA (Hoffman et al., 2009). These circumstance mindfulness issues can be attributed to various variables connected with the framework outline and operational conditions under which individuals must perform their assignments. Taking after an organized methodology from investigation to outline to testing, SA can be consolidated as a noteworthy and achievable configuration objective that can fundamentally decrease this class of human mistake. It is vital that such strategies are connected in the configuration procedure to address the true issues prompting poor SA and human execution mistakes in unpredictable settings. While not all human mistakes are preventable, a huge segment of those issues that are at present marked as human blunder can be tended to proactively and effectively by handling the significant configuration figures that prompt SA issues.

In general, the appropriateness of the idea and vitality of circumstance mindfulness in repair and maintenance units has been upheld in this examination. In Endsley and Robertson (2000), groups of AMTs are underpinned by numerous other staff and hierarchical units to accomplish their objectives, each of which has a real effect on the achievement of these objectives. Results from the SA prerequisites investigation led give a firm declaration to distinguishing the learning, aptitudes, and capabilities that support workforce need to achieve an above average state of SA. The SA prerequisites recognized give data on the particular information that support faculty need to attain an abnormal state of SA for finishing their assignments. Giving information to faculty is insufficient, though. Routine maintenance-work units should likewise have the aptitudes and capabilities needed to adequately impart that learning, and need the capability to perceive which data needs to be traded among and between colleagues.

The hypothetical discussion depends on whether situational mindfulness is a methodology or a produce. The three-level model and intelligent sub-frameworks accentuate item (i.e. The resultant state of situational awareness in the brain of the human administrator) though the perceptual cycle accentuates process (i.e. The demonstrations of getting situational cognizance by the human administrator). Useful measures have been created that can evaluate both the procedure of obtaining situational awareness and the result of situational awareness. Change of SA appears to concentrate on two primary procedures, either the outline of the framework interface to empower better inspecting and diminish the cognitive workload or a structured training in situational awareness at the individual as well as group levels (Loft et al., 2007; Kiken et al., 2011). As a point for the future, situational mindfulness appears to have caught the creative ability of both specialists and professionals and would appear to have immediate safety ramifications (Proctor & Vu, 2010). Applications are spreading past the flight domain to incorporate solution, ground transportation, and procedure control. SA is a welcome addition to investigate human execution. This new viewpoint encompasses the human-environment framework and supports a profound gratefulness for the rich communications between human beings and environment and among discernment, choice making, and activity (Flach, 1995). In the wake of the advancement of the SA develop by Endsley (1995), others additionally gave imperative early evaluates (Flach, 1995; Sarter & Woods, 1991). At the same time now there is a significant group of deep study indicating its utility (e.g., Banbury & Tremblay, 2004; Durso, Rawson, & Girrotto, 2007; Endsley, 2006; Tsang & Vidulich, 2006; Wickens, 2008; Parasuraman et al., 2008). Precise and productive aviation administration requires SA as well as viable administration of other aptitude sets likewise. By being situationally aware pilots can then tackle adequately the dangers and mistakes which are aplenty, settle on generally educated choices that can take care of mishaps, and can deal with the airplane's frameworks in both typical and demanding situations successfully (Tenney, & Pew, 2006). These constitute the components which then permit pilots to practice situational control and thus earnestly manage air ways in a protected, proficient and fitting manner.

References Adams, M, Tenney, Y and Pew, RW. 1995. Situation awareness and the cognitive management of complex systems. Human Factors, 37(1): 85 -- 104. Allendoerfer, K.R., Truitt, T.R., & Willems, B. (2010). Evaluations of data communications in tower, TRACON, and en route air traffic control. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 54th Annual Meeting, (pp. 116-120). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society. Amalberti, R., and Deblon, F. (1992). Cognitive modeling of fighter aircraft process control: a step towards an intelligent on-board assistance system. International Journal of Man-machine Systems, 36, 639-671 Andre, A.D., Wickens, C.D., & Moorman, L. (1991). Display formatting techniques for improving situation awareness in the aircraft cockpit. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 1(3), 205-218. Athanasiou T, Darzi A (Eds.). Evidence Synthesis in Healthcare -- a practical handbook for clinicians. Springer 2011 Averty, P., Collet, C., Dittmar, A., Vernet-Maury, E., & Athenes, S. (2004). Mental workload in air traffic control: An index constructed from field tests. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 75, 333 -- 341. Bacon, L.P., et al., 2011. Situation awareness, workload, and performance in midterm Nextgen: Effect of variations in aircraft equipage levels between scenarios. In: Proceedings of the 2011 International Symposium on Aviation Psychology, Dayton, OH, 32 -- 37 Banbury, S. And Tremblay. S. (2004) (eds.) Situation Awareness: .4 Cognitive Approach. Aldershot: Ashgale. Barroso, J., Gollop, C., Sandelowski, M., et al. (2003) The challenges of searching for and retrieving qualitative studies. Western Journal of Nursing Research 25(2): 153-178 Bedny, G., Meister, D., (1999). Theory of activity and situation awareness, International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics, 3, pp 63-72 Bell, H.H., & Waag, W.L. (1997). Using observer ratings to assess situational awareness in tactical air environments (No. AL/HR-TP-1996-0050). Armstrong Lab Brooks Afb Tx Human Resources Directorate. Bell, HH and Lyon, DR. 2000. "Using observer ratings to assess situation awareness." In Situation awareness analysis and measurement, Edited by: Endsley, M.R. 115 -- 130. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Blandford, A., & William Wong, B.L. (2004). Situation awareness in emergency medical dispatch. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 61(4), 421-452. Boulton M, Fitzpatrick R, Swinburn C (1996) Qualitative research in healthcare II: a structured review and evaluation of studies. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 2:171-179 Boyatzis, R.E. (1998) Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. Thousand Oaks, London, & New Delhi: SAGE Publications. Britten N, Campbell R, Pope C, Donovan J, Morgan M, Pill R (2002) Using meta ethnography to synthesise qualitative research: a worked example. J Health Serv Res Policy 7(4):209-215 Bruce, P.J. (2011). Understanding decision-making processes in airline operations control. Farnham, Surrey, England, Ashgate. Burke, C.S., Salas, E., Wilson-Donnelly, K., & Priest, H. (2004). How to turn a team of experts into an expert medical team: guidance from the aviation and military communities. Quality and Safety in Health Care, 13(suppl 1), i96-i104. Campbell R, Pound P, Pope C, Britten N, Pill R, Morgan M, Donovan J (2003) Evaluating meta-ethnography: a synthesis of qualitative research on lay experiences of diabetes and diabetes care. Social Science & Medicine 56 (2003) 671 -- 684 Chiappe, D, Vu, K, & Strybel, T 2012, 'Situation Awareness in the NextGen Air Traffic Management System', International Journal Of Human-Computer Interaction, 28, 2, pp. 140-151, Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost, viewed 10 October 2014. Chiappe, D., Strybel, T., & Vu, K-P. L. (2011). Mechanisms for the acquisition of situation awareness in situated agents. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/1463922X.2011.611267 Chiappe, D., Strybel, T.Z., & Vu, K.-P. L. (in press). Review of situation awareness theories from the perspective of cognitive science. Manuscript in preparation. Cobb A, Hagemaster J (1987) Ten criteria for evaluating qualitative research proposals. Journal of Nursing Education 26:138-143 Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007) Research Methods in Education, 6th edition. London: Routledge. Crabtree, B.F., & Miller, W.L. (Eds.). (1999). Doing qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Craig, C 2012, 'Improving flight condition situational awareness through Human Centered Design', Work, 41, pp. 4523-4531, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 6 October 2014. Daly A, Willis K, Small R, Green J, Welch N, Kealy M, Hughes E (2007) Hierarchy of evidence for assessing qualitative health research. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 60: 43-49. Daly, J., Kellehear, A. & Gliksman, M. (1997). The public health researcher: A methodological approach. Melbourne, Australia: Oxford University Press. Dao, A.Q., Brandt, S.L., Battiste, V., Vu, K-P. L., Strybel, T.Z. & Johnson, W.W. (2009). The impact of automation assisted aircraft separation on situation awareness. Paper presented at the 13th Annual International Conference on Human -- Computer Interaction, July, San Diego, CA. Dekker, S. 2010. Epistemological self-confidence in human factors research. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 4(1): 27 -- 38. Dekker, S., Hummerdal, DH, & Smith, K. (2011). Situation awareness: Some remaining questions. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 11, 131 -- 135. Dekker, S., Nyce, J., van Winsen, R., & Henriqson, E. (2010). Epistemological self-confidence in human factors research. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 4, 27 -- 38. Dekker, S.W.A., & Hollnagel, E. (2004). Human factors and folk models. Cognition, Technology and Work, 6, 79-86. Dixon-Woods M, Bonas S, Booth A, Jones DR, Miller T, Sutton AJ, Shaw RL, Smith JA, Young B (2006a) How can systematic reviews incorporate qualitative research? A critical perspective. Qualitative Research 6(1) 27-44. Dixon-Woods M, Cavers D, Agarwal S, Annandale E, Arthur A, Harvey J, Katbamna S, Olsen R, Smith L, Riley R, Sutton AJ (2006b) Conducting a critical interpretative synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups. BMC Medical Research Methodology. Dominguez, C. 1994. "Can SA be defined?." In Situation awareness: papers and annotated bibliography, Edited by: Vidulich, M. Wright-Patterson Airforce Base, OH: Air Force Systems Command, Report AL/CF-TR-1994 -- 0085 Doyle LH (2003) Synthesis through meta-ethnography: paradoxes, enhancements, and possibilities. Qualitative Research 3(3): 321-344 Durso & Gronlund (I999) Durso F.T., Gronlund S.D., Situation mvareness F.T. Durso, R.S. Nickerson, R.W. .S'chvaneveldt, S.T. Dumais, D. Lindsay, MT.H. Chi, Handbook of applied cognition 1999 Wiley New York, 283-314. Durso, Bleckley, & Dattel (2006) Durso F. T, Bleckley MK. Dattel A.R., Does SA add to the validity of cognitive tests? Human Factors 48, 2006, 721-733 Durso, F and Sethumadhavan, A. 2008. Situation awareness: understanding dynamic environments. Human Factors, 50(3): 442 -- 448. Durso, F, Rawson, K and Girotto, S. 2007. "Comprehension and situation awareness." In Handbook of applied cognition,, 2nd, Edited by: Durso, F. 163 -- 194. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Durso, F. 1998. Situation awareness as a predictor of performance in en route air traffic controllers. Air Traffic Quarterly, 6(1): 1 -- 20. Durso, F.T., & Alexander, A. (2010). Managing workload, performance, and situation awareness in aviation systems. In E. Salas & D. Maurino (Eds.), Human factors in aviation (2nd ed., pp. 217 -- 247). Burlington, MA: Elsevier. Durso, F.T., & Manning, C.A. (2009). Air traffic control. In C.M. Carswell (Ed.), Reviews of human factors and ergonomics (4th ed., pp. 195 -- 244). Santa Monica, CA: HFES. Durso, F.T., Hackworth, C.A., Truitt, T.R., Crutchfield, J., & Nikolic, D. (1999). Situation Awareness As a Predictor of Performance in En Route Air Traffic Controllers (No. DOT/FAA/AM-99/3). Oklahoma Univ Norman Dept Of Psychology. Endsley, M., & Jones, W.M. (1997). Situation Awareness Information Dominance & Information Warfare. Logicon Technical Services Inc. Dayton Oh. Endsley, M.R. (1988). Design and evaluation for situation awareness enhancement. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 32nd Annual Meeting (pp. 97-101). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society. Endsley, M.R. (1989). Final report: Situation awareness in an advanced strategic mission (NOR DOC89-32). Hawthorne, CA: Northrop Corporation. Endsley, M.R. (1993). A survey of situation awareness requirements in air-to-air combat fighters.International Journal of Aviation Psychology,3(2), 157-168. Endsley, M.R. (1995a). Measurement of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Human Factors, 37 (1), 65-84 Endsley, M.R. (1995b). Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 37(1), 32-64. Endsley, M.R. (1996). Automation and situation awareness. Automation and human performance: Theory and applications, 163-181. Endsley, M.R. (1999a). Situation awareness and human error: Designing to support human performance. In Proceedings of the High Consequence Systems Surety Conference (pp. 2-9). Lawrence Eribaum Associates. Endsley, M.R. (1999b). Situation awareness in aviation systems. Handbook of aviation human factors, 257-276 Endsley, M.R. (1999c). Level of automation effects on performance, situation awareness and workload in a dynamic control task. Ergonomics, 42(3), 462-492. Endsley, M.R. (2001, November). Designing for situation awareness in complex systems. In Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on symbiosis of humans, artifacts and environment. Endsley, M.R. (n.d). Situational Awareness In Aviation Systems. In: Garland, D.J., Wise, J.A., and Hopkin, V.D. (Eds.) (1999) Handbook of Aviation Human Factors. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.pp.257-276 Endsley, M.R., & Bolstad, C.A. (1994). Individual differences in pilot situation awareness. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 4(3), 241-264. Endsley, M.R., & Garland, D.J. (2000, July). Pilot situation awareness training in general aviation. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 44, No. 11, pp. 357-360). SAGE Publications. Endsley, M.R., & Jones, D.G. (2012). Designing for situation awareness an approach to user-centered design. Boca Raton, FL, CRC Press. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&db=nlabk&AN=411938. Endsley, M.R., & M. Robertson, M. (2000). Situation awareness in aircraft maintenance teams. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 26(2), 301-325. Endsley, M.R., & Rodgers, M.D. (1994, October). Situation awareness information requirements analysis for en route air traffic control. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 38, No. 1, pp. 71-75). SAGE Publications. Endsley, M.R., & Rodgers, M.D. (1997). Distribution of attention, situation awareness, and workload in a passive air traffic control task: Implications for operational errors and automation (No. DOT/FAA/AM-97/13). Federal Aviation Administration Washington Dc Office Of Aviation Medicine. Endsley, M.R., Bolstad, C.A., Jones, D.G., & Riley, J.M. (2003, October). Situation awareness oriented design: from user's cognitive requirements to creating effective supporting technologies. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 47, No. 3, pp. 268-272). SAGE Publications. Endsley, M.R., Farley, T.C., Jones, W.M., Midkiff, A.H., and Hansman, R.J. (1998). Situation awareness information requirements for commercial airline pilots (ICAT-98-1). Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology International Center for Air Transportation Endsley, M.R., Selcon, S.J., Hardiman, T.D., & Croft, D.G. (1998, October). A comparative analysis of SAGAT and SART for evaluations of situation awareness. In Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting (Vol. 42, No. 1, pp. 82-86). SAGE Publications. Ericsson, K.A., & Kintsch, W. (1995). Long-term working memory. Psychological Review, 102(2), 211 -- 245. Farley, W. (2010, August 23). Human Error. Retrieved November 12, 2014. Federal Aviation Administration. (2009). FAA's NextGen implementation plan . Washington, DC: Author Federal Aviation Administration. (2011). NextGen Implementation Plan. Accessed 10 October, 2014.  Fereday, J., & Muir-Cochrane, E. (2008). Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International journal of qualitative methods, 5(1), 80-92. Fisher M, Qureshi H, Hardyman W, Homewood J (2006) Using qualitative research in systematic reviews: Older people's views of hospital discharge. London: Social Care Institute for Excellence Flach, J.M. (1995). Situation awareness: Proceed with caution. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 37(1), 149-157. Flight Operations Briefing Notes (n.d). Light Operations Briefing Notes: Human Performance Enhancing Situational Awareness. Foyle, D.C., Andre, A.D., McCann, R.S., Wenzel, E.M., Begault, D.R., & Battiste, V. (1996). Taxiway navigation and situation awareness (T-NASA) system: Problem, design philosophy, and description of an integrated display suite for low-visibility airport surface operations (No. 965551). SAE Technical Paper. Garland, D.J., Wise, J.A., and Hopkin, V.D. (Eds.) (1999) Handbook of Aviation Human Factors. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.pp.257-276 Gilson, R.D. 1995 SITUATION AWARENESS SPECIAL ISSUE PREFACE HUMAN FACTORS 37 (1) 3-4 Gorman, P.F. (1999). Situation awareness. In S.E. Graham and M.D. Matthews (Eds.), Infantry Situation Awareness: Papers from the 1998 Infantry Situation Awareness Workshop. Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. Graham S.E... & Matthews M.D. (Eds.). (1999). Infantry situation awareness. Papers from the 1998 Infantry Situation Awareness Workshop. Alexandria. VA: U.S.. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. Hartel, C.E., Smith, K., Prince, C., 1991, Defining aircrew coordination: searching mishaps for meaning. Paper presented at the Sixth International Symposium on Aviation Psychology, April. Hoffman, R.R., Neville, K.N., & Fowlkes, J. (2009). Using cognitive task analysis to explore issues in the procurement of intelligent decision support systems. Cognition, Technology, and Work, 11, 57 -- 70 Holder, L.D. (1999). Situation awareness in infantry battalions. In S.E. Graham and M.D. Matthews (Eds.), Infantry Situation Awareness: Papers from the 1998 Infantry Situation Awareness Workshop. Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. Huettner, C.H., & Lewis, M.S. (1997). Aviation safety program: report to industry. Moffett Field, CA: NASA. International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). (2007). Manual on the Prevention of Runway Incursions. Jacobsen, A., Chen, S., & Wiedemann, J. (2000, March). Vertical situation awareness display. Paper presented at the Royal Aeronautical Society Conference on Situation Awareness on the Flight Deck: Avionics and systems, London, UK. John. Y., 8: Doane, S. (2004) Memory processes of flight situation awareness: interactive roles of working memory capacity long-term working mcmmy, and expertise. Human Factory. 460(3), 461-475. Joint Planning and Development Office. (2008). Integrated work plan for the next generation air transportation system (IWP). Washington, DC: Author. Joint Planning and Development Office. (2011). NextGen overview. Accessed 10 October, 2014.  Jones, D.G., & Endsley, M.R. (1996). Sources of situation awareness errors in aviation. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 67, 507 -- 512. Jones, R. Connors, E., Mossey, M., Hyatt J., Hansen N. And Endsley M., (2010). Modeling situation awareness for army infantry platoon leaders using fuzzy cognitive mapping techniques, In: Proceedings of the Behavior Representation in Modeling and Simulation (BRIMS) Conference pp. 216 -- 223. Kaber, D.B., & Endsley, M.R. (1998). Team situation awareness for process control safety and performance. Process Safety Progress, 17(1), 43-48. Kaber, DB and Endsley, MR. 2004. The effects of level of automation and adaptive automation on human performance, situation awareness and workload in a dynamic control task. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 5(2): 113 -- 153. Kass, S, Cole, K and Stanny, C. 2007. Effects of distraction and experience on situation awareness and simulated driving. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 10(4): 321 -- 329. Kiken, A., Rorie, R. C, Bacon, L.P., Billinghurst, S., Kraut, J. M, Strybel, T.Z., Vu, K.-P. L., Battiste, V. (2011). Effect of ATC training with NextGen tools and online situation awareness and workload probes on operator performance. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 6772, 483-492. Kilingaru, K, Tweedale, J, Thatcher, S, & Jain, L 2013, 'Monitoring pilot 'Situation Awareness," Journal Of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 24, 3, pp. 457-466, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 10 October 2014. Klein, G. (1995, November). Studying situation awareness in the context of decision-making incidents. Paper presented at the Experimental Analysis and Measurement of Situation Awareness, Daytona Beach, FL. Kramer, L.J., Prinzel, L.J., Bailey, R.E., & Arthur, J.J. (2003, November). Synthetic vision enhances situation awareness and RNP capabilities for terrain-challenged approaches. In Proceedings of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Third Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations Technical Forum, AIAA (Vol. 6814, pp. 1-11). Kraut, J.M., et al., 2011. Effects of data communications failure on air traffic controller sector management effectiveness, situation awareness, and workload. In: G. Salvendy and M.J. Smith, eds. Human interface, Part II, HCII 2011, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 6772, 493 -- 499 Kumar, U., & Malik, H. (2003). Analysis of fatal human error aircraft accidents in IAF. Indian journal of aerospace medicine, 47(1), 30-36. La Porte, T.R. (2006). "High Reliability Organizations: Unlikely, demanding, and at risk." Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management 63(4). La Porte, T.R. And Consolini P. (1991). "Working in practice but not in theory: Theoretical challenges of High-Reliability Organizations." Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 1: 19 -- 47. Landry, S.J., Levin, K., Rowe, D., & Nickelson, M. (2010). Enabling collaborative work across different communities of practice through boundary objects: Field studies in air traffic management. International Journal of Human -- Computer Interaction, 26, 75 -- 93. Langan-Fox, J., Sankey, M., & Canty, J. (2009). Human factors measurement for future air traffic control systems. Human Factors, 51, 595 -- 637. Lee, J.D., Kirlik, A., & Dainoff, M.J. (2013). The Oxford handbook of cognitive engineering. S.l, s.n.]. Leveson, N., Dulac, N., Marais, K., & Carroll, J. (2009). Moving beyond normal accidents and high reliability organizations: a systems approach to safety in complex systems. Organization Studies, 30(2-3), 227-249. Lichacz, F.M., Cain, B., & Patel, S. (2003, October). Calibration of confidence in situation awareness queries. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 47, No. 1, pp. 222-226). SAGE Publications. Loft, S., Sanderson, P., Neal, A., & Mooij, M. (2007). Modeling and predicting mental workload in en route air traffic control: Critical review and broader implications. Human Factors, 49(3), 376-399 Ma, R., & Kaber, D.B. (2005). Situation awareness and workload in driving while using adaptive cruise control and a cell phone. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 35(10), 939-953. Matthews, M.D., Pleban, R.J., Endsley, M.R., & Strater, L.D. (2000, October). Measures of infantry situation awareness for a virtual MOUT environment. In Proceedings of the Human Performance, Situation Awareness and Automation: User Centred Design for the New Millennium Conference. Mays N, Pope C (1995) Rigour and qualitative research. British Medical Journal 311:109-12 McCarley, J.S., Wickens, C.D., Goh, J., & Horrey, W.J. (2002, September). A computational model of attention/situation awareness. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 46, No. 17, pp. 1669-1673). SAGE Publications. Medical Sociology Group (1996) Criteria for the evaluation of qualitative research papers. Medical Sociology News 22: 68-71. Mogford, R.H. (1997). Mental models and situation awareness in air traffic control. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 7(4), 331-341. National Research Council Staff. (1998). Improving the Continued Airworthiness of Civil Aircraft A Strategy for the FAA's Aircraft Certification Service. Washington, National Academies Press. http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6265. National Transportation Safety Board. (2010). Aviation statistical reports. Accessed 10 October, 2014.  Niesser, U. 1976 COGNITION AND REALITY: PRINCIPLES AND IMPLICATIONS OF COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY FREEMAN: SAN FRANCISCO. Nullmeyer, R.T., Stella, D., Montijo, G.A., & Harden, S.W. (2005). Human factors in Air Force flight mishaps: Implications for change. Proceedings from 27th Annual Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation, and Education Conference (paper no. 2260). Arlington, VA: National Training Systems Association O'Brien, K.S., & O'Hare, D. (2007). Situational awareness ability and cognitive skills training in a complex real-world task. Ergonomics, 50, 1064-1091. Oprins, E. (2008). Design of a competence-based assessment system for air traffic control training. PhD thesis, Maastricht University. Orasanu, J. (1995). Situation awareness: It's role in flight crew decision making. In R.S. Jensen and L.A. Rakovan (Ed.), Proceedings of the Eigth International Symposium on Aviation Psychology (pp. 734-739). Columbus, OH. Parasuraman, R., Sheridan, T.B., & Wickens, C.D. (2008). Situation awareness, mental workload, and trust in automation: Viable, empirically supported cognitive engineering constructs. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 2(2), 140-160. Patrick, J and Morgan, P. 2010. Approaches to understanding, analyzing and developing situation awareness. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 11(1 -- 2): 41 -- 57. Perrow, C. (1999). Organizing to reduce the vulnerabilities of complexity. Journal of contingencies and crisis management, 7(3), 150-155. Perrow, C. (2011). Normal accidents: Living with high risk technologies. Princeton University Press. Pierce, R., Strybel, T., and Vu, K., 2008. Comparing situation awareness measurement techniques in a low fidelity air traffic control simulation. In: Proceedings of the 26th international congress of the aeronautical sciences (ICAS), 14 -- 19 September 2008, Anchorage, AS Popay J (2005) Moving beyond floccinaucinihilipilification: enhancing the utility of systematic reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 58:1079-80. Prince, C., and Salas, E. (1998). Situation assessment for routine flight and decision making. International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics, 1(4), 315-324. Prince, C., Salas, E., and Stout, R. (1995). Situation awareness: team measures, training methods. In D.J. Garland and M.R. Endsley (Eds.), Experimental Analysis and Measurement of Situation Awareness Daytona Beach, FL: Embry-Riddle University Press. Proctor, RW and Vu, K-PL. 2010. Cumulative knowledge and progress in human factors. Annual Review of Psychology, 61: 623 -- 651. Reason, J. (2000). Human error: models and management. Bmj, 320(7237), 768-770. Reason, J.T. (1990). Human error. Cambridge [England: Cambridge University Press Remington, R., Boehm-Davis, D., Folk, C.L., Folk, C.L., & Folk, C.L. (2012). Introduction to humans in engineered systems. Hoboken, N.J, Wiley. Rensink, R, O'Regan, J and Clark, J. 1997. To see or not to see: the need for attention to perceive changes in scenes. Psychological Science, 8(5): 368 -- 373. Rice, P., & Ezzy, D. (1999). Qualitative research methods: A health focus. Melbourne: Oxford University Press. Roberts, K.H (1990a). "Managing high reliability organizations." California Management Review 32(4): 101 -- 114. Roberts, K.H. (1990b). "Some characteristics of one type of high reliability organization." Organization Science 1(2): 160 -- 176 Robertson, M.M & O'Neill M.J. (1994). A systems analysis for integrating macrocrgonomic research into office and organizational planning. In: A.Gricco, G..Molteni, E.Occhipitini, B.Piccoii. (Eds), Work with display units, selected proceeding for WWD U'94. (Elsevier, North-Holland), A6-A7. Rochlin, G.I., La Porte, T.R., & Roberts, K.H. (1987). The self-designing high-reliability organization: Aircraft carrier flight operations at sea. Naval War College Review, 40(4), 76-90. Rodgers, MD, Mogford, RH and Strauch, B. 2000. "Post hoc assessment of situation awareness in air traffic control incidents and major aircraft accidents." In Situation awareness analysis and measurement, Edited by: Endsley, M. And Garland, D. 285 -- 292. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Roulston, K. (2001). Data analysis and 'theorizing as ideology'. Qualitative Research, 1(3), 279-302. Salas, 5., Prince, C., Bowers. C., Stout, R.I., Oser, R.L., and Cannon-Bowers, LA. (1999). A methodology for enhancing crew resource management training. Human Factors, 4!. 161-172. Salas, E., & Dietz, A.S. (2011). Situational awareness. Farnham, England: Ashgate. Salas, E., Prince, C., Baker, D.P., & Shrestha, L. (1995). Situation awareness in team performance: Implications for measurement and training. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 37(1), 123-136. Salmon, P. 2008. What is really going on? Review of situation awareness models for individuals and teams. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomic Science, 9(4): 297 -- 323. Salmon, P., Stanton, N., Walker, G., Jenkins, D., Ladva, D., Rafferty, L.A., & Young, M. (2009). Measuring situation awareness in complex systems: Comparison of measures study. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 39, 490 -- 500. Sandelowski M (2004) Using Qualitative Research. Qualitative Health Research 14(10): 1366-1386 Sarter, NB and Woods, DD. 1991. Situation awareness: a critical but ill-defined phenomenon. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 1(1): 45 -- 57. Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2012) Research method for business students, 3rd edition. New York: Prentice Hall. Schutte, P.C., and Trujillo, A.C. (1996). Flight crew task management in non-normal situations. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 40th Annual Meeting (pp. 244-248). Santa Monica, CA: Schutte, P.C., and Trujillo, A.C. (1996). Flight crew task management in non-normal situations. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 40th Annual Meeting (pp. 244-248). Santa Monica, CA. Sellnow, T.L., & Seeger, M.W. (2013). Theorizing crisis communication. Shawcross, P., & Day, J. (2011). Flightpath: aviation English for pilots and ATCOs. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Simmel, E.C., and Shelton, R. (1987). An assessment of nonroutine situations by pilots: A two-part process. Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine, 58 (November), 1119-21 Situation Awareness: Associated non-technical skills for the NSW mining and extractives industry. (2011, March 1). Retrieved November 12, 2014. Smith, K., & Hancock, P.A., (1995). Situation awareness is adaptive, externally directed consciousness, Human Factors, 37, pp. 137-148. Stanton, N., Salmon, P., Walker, G.H., & Jenkins, D.P. (2010). Is situation awareness all in the mind? Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 11, 29 -- 40. Stanton, N.A., Chambers, P.R.G., & Piggott, J. (2001). Situational awareness and safety. Safety science, 39(3), 189-204. Stanton, N.A., Chambers, P.R.G., & Piggott, J.(2001). Situational Awareness and safety. Safety Science, 39, 189-204. Strybel, T.Z., Vu, K.-P. L., Bacon, P.L., Billinghurst, S., Rorie, R.C., Kraut, J.M., Morgan, C., . . . Johnson, W. (2011). Situation awareness, workload, and performance in midterm NextGen: Effect of dynamic variations in aircraft equipage levels. Proceedings of the 2011 International Symposium on Aviation Psychology, May, Daytox, Ohio. pp. 118 -- 123. Sulistyawati, K, Wickens, C, & Chui, Y 2011, 'Prediction in Situation Awareness: Confidence Bias and Underlying Cognitive Abilities', International Journal Of Aviation Psychology, 21, 2, pp. 153-174, Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost, viewed 7 October 2014. Taylor, R.M. (1990) Situational awareness rating technique (SART): The development of a tool for aircrew systems design. Situational Awareness in Aerospace Operations, AGARD-CP-478 Taylor, R.M., Endsley, M.R., and Henderson, S. (1996). Situational awareness workshop report. In B.J. Hayward and A.R. Lowe (Eds.), Applied aviation psychology: Achievement, change and challenge (pp.447-454). Aldershot, UK: Ashgate Publishing Ltd. Tenney, YJ and Pew, RW. 2006. "Situation awareness catches on. What? So what? Now what?." In Reviews of human factors and ergonomics, Edited by: Williges, R.C. Vol. 2, 89 -- 129. Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Thatcher S. And Kilingaru K. (2012). Intelligent monitoring of flight crew situation awareness, Advanced Materials Research (6693 -- 6701. pp.433 -- 440 Thomas, J., & Harden, A. (2008). Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC medical research methodology, 8(1), 45. Thorne S, Jensen L, Kearney MH, Noblit G, Sandelowski M (2004) Qualitative Metasynthesis: Reflections on Methodological Orientation and Ideological Agenda. Qualitative Health Research 14(10): 1342-1365 Toft, B., & Mascie-Taylor, H. (2005). Involuntary automaticity: a work-system induced risk to safe health care. Health Services Management Research, 18(4), 211-216. Trochim, W. (2006). The Research Methods Knowledge Base, 2nd Edition. Tsang, P.S., & Vidulich, M.A. (2006). Mental workload and situation awareness. Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics, Third Edition, 243-268. Tumer, B.M. (1976) The organizational and inter-organizational development of disasters. Administrative Science Quarterly 21(3), 378-397. Uhlarik, J., & Comerford, D.A. (2002). A review of situation awareness literature relevant to pilot surveillance functions. Kansas State Univ Manhattan Dept Of Psychology. van de Merwe, K, Oprins, E, Eriksson, F, & van der Plaat, A 2012, 'The Influence of Automation Support on Performance, Workload, and Situation Awareness of Air Traffic Controllers', International Journal Of Aviation Psychology, 22, 2, pp. 120-143, Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost, viewed 6 October 2014. Vincent, J.L. (2010). Yearbook of intensive care and emergency medicine 2010. Berlin, Springer-Verlag. http://public.eblib.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=646482. Vincenzi, D.A., Mouloua, M., & Hancock, P.A. (2013). Human Performance, Situation Awareness, and Automation Current Research and Trends HPSAA II, Volumes I and II. Hoboken, Taylor and Francis. http://www.123library.org/book_details/?id=77465. Vu, K-P.L.et al., 2009. "Situation awareness and performance of student vs. experienced air traffic controllers." In Human interface, part II, Edited by: Smith, M.J. And Salvendi, G. 865 -- 874. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Walters LA, Wilczynski NL, Haynes RB, Hedges Team (2006) Developing optimal search strategies for retrieving clinically relevant qualitative studies in EMBASE Weick, K.E. (1987). Organizational culture as a source of high reliability. National Emergency Training Center. Weick, K.E., & Roberts, K.H. (1993). Collective mind in organizations: Heedful interrelating on flight decks. Administrative science quarterly, 357-381. Weick, K.E., Sutcliffe, K., and Obstfeld D. (1999). "Organizing for high reliability." Research in Organizational Behavior, 21: 81 -- 123. Weiner, E.L. (1977). Controlled flight into terrain: System induced accidents. Human Factors, 19, 171 -- 181. Wickens, C.D. (1992). Engineering Psychology and Human Performance (2nd Ed.). Harper Collins: New York. Wickens, C.D. (1996). Situation awareness: impact of automation and display technology. Situation awareness: limitations and enhancement in the aviation environment, k2. Wickens, C.D. (2000). The tradeoff of design for routine and unexpected performance: Implications of situation awareness. In D.J. Garland & M.R. Endsley (Eds.), Situation awareness analysis and measurement (pp. 211 -- 226). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Wickens, C.D. (2008). Situation awareness: Review of Mica Endsley's 1995 articles on situation awareness theory and measurement. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 50(3), 397-403. Wickens, C.D., McCarley, J.S., Alexander, A., Thomas, L., Ambinder, M., & Zheng, S. (2008). Attention-situation awareness (A-SA) model of pilot error. In D. Foyle & B. Hooey (Eds.),Human performance models in aviation (pp. 213 -- 242).Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Wong SSL, Wilczynski NL, Haynes RB (2004) Developing optimal search strategies for detecting clinically relevant qualitative studies in Medline. Medinfo 11 (1): 311-314. Woodhouse, R., & Woodhouse, R.A. (1995). Navigation errors in relation to controlled flight into terrain (CFIT) accidents. In R.S. Jensen & L.A. Rackovan (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology (pp. 1403 -- 1404). Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press. Woods, DD and Sarter, N. 2010. Capturing the dynamics of attention control from individual to distributed systems: the shape of models to come. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 11(1): 7 -- 28