Panic in Pilots
 

I'm a doctoral student researching panic behaviour in pilots, in particular why panic behaviour is not mentioned in commerical aircraft accident reports.

The following is a quote from NTSB-AAR-79-2, Allegheny Airlines, BAC 1-11, Rochester NY, 9/7/1978:

"...the question arises as to why an experienced captain would make such a grossly improper approach and continue to a landing when a missed approach could have been successfully accomplished even after touchdown."

Such comments are echoed accross a broad range of reports for approach and landing accidents.

Is is possible that behaviour contrary to experience and training in professonal pilots is because of panic? (an impulsive fight or flight reaction). Or does panic only exist in the realm of General Aviation?

Looking forward to your comments,

Trish

I am absolutely at a loss in trying to comprehend how you rationalize the NTSB quote you offer and the term "panic". Also how in the world do you make the assumption that panic exists in General Aviation? I have read, even participated in a few, alot of accident reports from many countries and I have never seen the reference "panic" used.

So the captain, despite warning signs to the contrary in the form of anomalously high airspeeds and GPWS alarms, continues with his intended plan of landing the aircraft.

I could understand an accusation of inattention or overconfidence, but panic?! You're joking.

Trish has a legitimate question I think. I know this is a pilots' board but to state categorically that no pilot ever panicked is nonsense. Has panic ever lead to a crash (GA or ATP) ? I don't know and can't find out because, as Trish says, the word is taboo in accident reports. Even if there is a surviving witness to testify to panic, it will be euphemised for public consumption (cf. tired and emotional).

I know of one fatal crash where panic was almost certainly the cause. I won't name it for obvious reasons, and you won't see that word in the report. And just in case any journos are watching, I am talking about a very, very, very (got it now ?) small number of cases.

I can't relate to the word panic in this context. Perhaps a more discriptive definition needs to be made in a thesis in order to ascribe its use to a particular accident.

I'll admit that my experience is limited but of all the CVRs of accidents that I have participated in, I would not have ascribed that word to the pilot flying.

At the most, I have only sensed panic in the voice inflections of "extras" in the cockpit not engaged in the decision making process. And even my sense is still "subjective"

While I agree that just because it has not been mentioned as a causal factor in the past does not mean it doesn't exist or has been avoided in the past.

Flying is a highly task orientated vocation. SOPs, AFMs, rules and regs etc all tell us what do, when and how. Airmanship "may" be considered as the human side of our operation - and the study of that into CRM. (Very crude statement, I'll admit).

Lack of situational awareness, assertiveness (single & multi crew environment); the ego factor; complacency and inexperience are just some factors that may cause a pilot to go down the wrong path when all signs indicate otherwise. CFIT accidents are a prime example.

Perhaps investigate "panic" from the point of view of experience . Have a chat at any flying school with some instructors and see how many panic expamples there are with students as opposed to airline pilots with 5000+ hours.

As pilots we are trained not to panic - ever. From my early training days I still believe the same holds true in any and every situation:
1. Fly the aeroplane.
2. Asess the situation.
3. Land as soon as conditions permit.

Just my 2 cents worth.......

Good luck with your study and research.

Sounds a bit odd for a PhD subject, particularly the choice of word 'panic'. Trish, why not knock off down to CAS at Bankstown with your question?

JRH :hmm:

Well, IMHO when one sees someone being loaded up in the simulator and the pressure comes on then 'panic' is not so very far away and many of the symptoms of panic start to show!

It is possible that if a person in an aircraft has too many things going wrong at the same time and a disasterous outcome is inevitable then, I believe panic could easily set in? Possibly more an effect than a cause?

I don't think one can honestly say that panic and flying are mutually exclusive.

No. 15 described many possible cockpit factors very well.

Some author in a recent (US) "Flying" magazine article stated that the last leg of a trip can be a strong motivator not to delay the taxi or takeoff, or seriously consider a divert to an alternate airport, and that the closer you are to home, or your crewbase, the harder it is to avoid beginning, or to break off the approach.:ugh:

The popular 'model' that pilots are taught is the Yerkes-Dodson relationship between stress and arousal.

See:

http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/...y/arousal.html

The approach and landing phase you mention has many other stresses than just effecting a safe touchdown. For example, the pilot may have considerations of fuel, ATC, weather, passenger sickness, flight duty limitations, tiredness/fatigue or variables of these.

In extreme circumstances a pilot may not want to go-round to avoid a more complicated situation.

The trick for the crew is to keep the general arousal level at about the right pitch. Too laid back and you don't process enough information to solve the problem.

Too worked up and you don't process enough information to solve the problem.

E.g. good advice for a technical problem at a busy airport might be to go into the hold and give yourself thinking space to troubleshoot. However, having this option requires the ability to plan ahead . . .


Plenty of scope for a good PHd project. Best of luck!

Stay cool and survive
 

In a flying career spanning 31 years I have been in tricky situations a couple of times. That set against nearly 20000 hours of safe flying.
Many years ago I suffered a total engine failure in a light single at 3500 feet. The engine simply stopped dead and wouldn't restart, thus a routine local flight became an instant emergency. If panic had taken over at that point a safe landing would have been difficult if not impossible due to the terrain and housing around the area. As the training I had received kicked in I took a concious decision to keep calm a "fight" the situation, thus I worked through the forced landing checklist whilst transmitting a distress call and looking for a patch of green to land on.
The outcome was a safe landing -no damage or injuries - later that day I did reflect that it was a close call but took comfort in my performance and the outcome.
Later in my career I had to shutdown one engine on a Kingair over a long sea crossing which triggered a rapid response from ASR services but again worked hard at getting safely to land. A positive decision not to panic was the key.
All pilots are different and I would not exclude panic from the list of possible accident causes but keeping calm and following practiced procedures is one way to keep it at bay.....

Panic, or the lack of it, should be directly related to the quality of training and the ongoing training. I would think that we could also relate it to the training that the police, firefighters and military receives.

Trish. I'm a pilot of aver 40 years experience, and I happen to have a son who is a psychology professor, so I have an idea of the type of research that you need to do. I would however recommend that you avoided the word ‘panic', as your responses are lightly to be ‘who moi' ? Seriously though, pilot psychology is important work, and the term work-load is one that we like to use a lot. In the years I was a co-pilot, I flew with guys that had gone through the war, and the only time that I saw anything like panic was during a base check. The pilot's brain, is the nerve-centre of an aircraft, so, all the best with your studies.

PANIC is such an emotive word (esp to pilots) I would try to avoid using it!
Unfortunately many people think of 'panic' as hysteria.
Lesser symptoms of panic though are quite common....Im sure everyone here has seen another pilot (and some may admit to it themselves) just sit there stunned....and do nothing! The good news is that it is possible to come back from the brink of panic....often the other pilot starting a checklist is enough.

The 'fight or flight' argument is an interesting one in aviation. The problem arises from the fact that even having dealt with one critical situation pilots just cant sit back and say 'holy s1t, thank goodness thats over'....we still have the rest of the flight (and possibly other dramas) to negotiate. A fight or flight reaction tends to be instantaneous...an ETOPS emergency can take 3+hours.

Different training methods, SOPSs, checklists, memory items, 'immediate actions' (often verbal), and a reliance on facts, numbers and instruments are all tools we use to try and prevent panic.
I can tell you that after the shock of the critical situation...it oftens becomes almost 'routine' as you deal with it.

You mention GA. I have to agree that unlike the military or an airline they do not have complex training systems and testing/checking to reinforce these techniques but they do have a very good one...and one that I have heard from every pilot I have ever known. DO NOTHING! Sit on your hands for a couple of seconds.....put yourself in control and not the emergency.

1. Panic is an emotive and misunderstood word
2. Panic takes a myraid of forms
3. Many pilots dont know that their training systems are in part designed to prevent panic
4. GA do have organic systems in place....its just that often they are not explained to them correctly.

Do I detect a teansy weansy bit of denial in some of these replies?

Trish,

Having read the responses to date might I suggest you offer a bit more information.

How would you define "panic?" In quick and dirty lay terms.

What are you using for your definition of "general aviation?" It would appear that depending where in the world your respondents are from it can mean very different things. In Canada as an example GA would refer to the C172's, Cherokee's, Seneca's etc. It would not refer to Challenger's, Hawker's, Citation's, Kingair's etc that is something entirely different.

Just thought that a common understanding of terminology being used might provide you with some of the answers you seek.

Panic is an interesting and emotive word.
From a military perspective (I'm still fairly junior, mind) I've not seen or experienced what I would define as panic. My definition of panic would be something like "extreme physiological/psychological condition brought on by by perception of imminent pain, injury or death"
I would think it a rare thing that aircrew knew, for a reasonable period before-hand, that they were about to face pain, injury or death. Aircraft accidents (CFIT, collision, SAM) can occur before the crew is aware anything is wrong. In other cases, say an uncontollable engine fire leading to a wing burning off, are rare. In that case, most folks I know would be doing everything they could to keep the jet flying and crashing is the last thing they'd be thinking about. Therefore panic shouldn't enter into it.
On pilots' course we worked to some strict heights and speeds "Engine failure at XXX, I abort, engine failure at XXX I put it back on the deck, engine failure at XXX I eject" We practiced EFATO's so damn much that it bacame a drill. Of course, never did a real EFATO, but I think the training would take over, so to speak.
Aircrew seemed programmed to "do something" in emergencies.

The word 'panic' in my dictionary = sudden and infectious fear.

The word 'panic' in my thesaurus = alarm, costernation, fear, fright, scare, terror.

As this is a CRM/Human Factors related question... I would like to make reference to a well known publication written by Bob Tait used in Australia from PPL to ATPL level examination.

It states that fear is an emotional consideration. A pilot who never experiences anxiety, depression or fear would likely to have a fairly short career in aviation.

Fear is the result of millions of years of evolution. It is nature's way of alerting us to situations which are threatening.

It becomes destructive when there is no rational reason for such emotions.

Perhaps the word 'panic' instills a meaning to most of being scared witless and out of control, which is not really the case in aviation because we are taught from the beginning how to deal with emergency events that lead to the onset of fear.

Thread Bear

'Panic' and the P.I.C.

IMHO you'll be hard pressed to find much reference to 'panic' in professional pilots, especially not once they are into the 3000+ hrs level. My experience is that the pro is so focussed on the emergency that there's no time for other reactions.

I would suggest that you look into interviewing pilots who have survived the following:

* totally lost in inland Australia or similar

* VFR and stuck on top,necessitating assistance

* Inadvertant IMC while VFR

It might be that none of these 'panic'd' either, which is why they are still here to tell their story?

cheers

As a "shrink" told us one time long ago in a human factors course, fear and anxiety are very "natural" emotions that keep us safe. Panic on the other hand is not a "natural" emotion and is often a learned response. He went on to explain the differences using lots of words that helped justify his medical degree. So TB is quite correct in that the former helps to ensure a long career.

Surely we've all felt anxiety at some point when flying. When does this become "panic." Are you able to define this Trish.

You might be interested in the FAA "Aviation Instructors Handbook" which has some basic material on learning and psychology as it relates to (student) pilots. Fear narrows the perceptual field was the most interesting aspect to me.

I think humans have a many and varied reaction to dangerous situations, such as a stopped/broken engine in an airplane and this should be carefully and fully trained out and replaced with a reasoned and thorough response using checklists and knowledge to best resolve the situation.

I experienced a partial engine failure in a 172, and after it went bang, I probably froze for a couple of seconds (why me !?!?!?!) before I started dealing with the problem ...

o Aviate !
o Navigate !
o Communicate !

Thankyou for the replys so far - They have all been very helpful.

I agree that "Panic" is an emotive word, and probably should not be used when describing behaviour in this context.

My definition (taken from studies of military training methods dating from WWII) describes panic as a maladaptive form of the fight or flight response. Fight or flight, otherwise known as escape behaviour, is an instinctual response, hard wired into the most "primitive" parts of our brains. This response to a threat prepares us physiologically and mentally to run or fight. Pulse increases, blood is pumped to the limbs, functions such as digestion cease momentarily, and adrenalin circulates through the body. The problem is, this hard wired instinctual response tends to overide our higher thinking processes, which is fine if you're running away from a snake but not so good in a cockpit.

This is why training is so important - the procedures to deal with a problem become "hardwired" themselves and thus make up for any cognitive deficits that may occur.

But what about situations where there is little training, such as upset recovery? As mentioned in the above discussion the best thing to do is "sit on your hands" (obviously not for too long!) and work out what the aeroplane is doing. Once the pilot is over the initial "startle" they can take control of the aeroplane.

Panic situations can occur when a hasty, intinctual reaction to a startling situation is incorrect and thus plunges the pilot into deeper and deeper layers of confusion and rapidly increasing anxiety, making it harder to regain control.

Currently the leading cause of airline fatalities in the US are "loss of control" accidents. In response to this, the FAA is funding a program to train commercial pilots in upset recovery - in essense, training to "hardwire" pilot responses, making upsets less "startling" and therefore shortening the time before regaining control.

"The 'startle factor' may significantly delay a pilot in starting recovery from an upset" (http://www.alpa.org/alpa/DesktopModu...ocumentID=1930)

Could the "startle factor" be a precurser for a possible panic situation? Maybe I should rename panic "The Extended Startle".

Any suggestions?

Regards

Trish

Trish,


I certainly don't want to be accused of being persnickity here, but I'm not sure we mean the same thing when we say "loss of control". If the vertical fin and engines fall off, I guess you're "out of control" but I don't see that pilot behavior or emotions at that point have much to do with the "cause" of the accident.

The only part 121 accident that I can think of off the top of my head that involves "loss of control" and might (and I use the word might here advisedly) have been avoided by different inputs by the pilots is the Airborne Express crash in the late 90s. After reading that transcript, panic is the last word that comes to mind. In fact, I was almost nonplussed by the crew's calm.

Perhaps if you gave us an idea of what accidents you're thinking of?

Best regards,
TRF

As a layman, having read multiple CVR transcripts- the only time cockpit crew appear (IMHO) to approach panic is when its absolutely clear the aircraft is unrecoverable. Most of the time it seems more of an angry resignation of their fate and inability to control it. Two that come to mind are PSA San Diego and USAir 427. It is clear the crews were working hard and it is also clear based upon the attitude of the A/C into ground that toward th end they knew what was coming. This however is balanced against the professional courage shown by the crews of both the Valujet Miami and Alaska Air MD-80 crashes. It made my hair stand up reading as both crews didn't quit in spite of obviously major challenges flying the A/C.

Trish thanks for the explanation. Now I believe that you are on to something that will be most valuable.

I like your definition of the Extended startle Factor

I have done some work in this regards and spent many hours working with live CVR's that ended with a "click"

Some of the startle factors start with noises while others start with control perceptions (WTF was that? or unh oh?)

Sometimes the problem is when the other crew members stay silent or blurt out the wrong call resulting in a rapidly deteriorated situation and no time to back out of the wrong call.

Silence sometimes is your friend as it gives the questioning pilot time to focus on his own question before acting. Although in some cases requiring decisions in 1-3 seconds the questioning pilot acts anyway with an increased error rate.

If you want we could take some of this off-line with my (limited) examples after you put together a data gathering plan..

Trish,

While admittedly this is an area of interesting research I too think that a clear understanding of some of the terminology is required.

“Loss of control” to a layperson is understood by the terms of reference that they have at their disposal. Another is the phrase “the aircraft stalled” also pretty much universally misunderstood by the media and general public. I would invite you to sit down with some folks in your area who have a solid aviation background to impart some of their knowledge to you. This will allow you to gain a better understanding of some of the material.

As for upset training, I know of a number of operators that are providing this. In our case, we have been providing annual upset training to our flight crews since 1986. It’s as you suggest, another valuable tool in the knowledge/skill base of flight crews.

Best of luck in your continued research.

604guy

Trish,

I'm sure that the ability to cope with emergency situations increases with training levels and experience.

Professional pilots deal with an emergency from a checklist and rationalise it. If we panic, we die. A prime example of dealing with a major emergency by not 'panicking', and particularly one not in a checklist, would be the Sioux City crash where many lives were saved.

We do not sit on the flight deck and lose our heads completely. In a commercial ( ie: pax carrying flight there are two crew anyway. One person alone may be more incined to lose control)

In the two incidents I have been involved with in 10 years of flying, no-one 'panicked'. We used our training to resolve safely two potentially dangerous situations. A bit like Pavlov's dogs perhaps.:)

I have not seen panic - but occasionally see the "Stunned Mullet" syndrome. In the simulator there is a typical scenario where an engine fire is "arranged" on lift off. Bell rings loudly- red warning lights occur and the captain calmly directs the first officer to "Carry out the Recall Items for Engine Fire, Severe Damage, or Separation".

Enter the Stunned Mullet look by the startled first officer who for the life of him cannot remember the opening line of the Recall Items. Meanwhile the fire blazes merrily away in the engine lighting up the frightened faces of the passengers staring like more stunned mullets out of the windows.

Calmly and through gritted teeth the captain repeats his order to the first officer who by now has suffered total writers block. The bloody Recall Items for engine fire, he repeats to himself. What the stuff are they - I should know - Iv'e done it a thousand times in the sim before. Now that's where panic sets in....

Good distinction Hudson. The 'freeze' reaction consists of doing nothing when something must be done. I'd classify panic as doing the wrong thing through lack of training/thought/control etc.

Experience is by far the most important influence so the instances of inappropriate responses in Part 121 (and equivalent) are rare indeed, perhaps even to the point of non-existence. In other types of operation (some of which are 'commercial'), I suggest that these reactions can and do occur. And if we move into GA, a cursory look at the records reveals a depressing number of both 'inaction' and 'wrong action' accidents. How many other pilots have panicked but got away with it, nobody knows. A goodly proportion I'd imagine, truth be known.

For my research, I am using the FAA's definition of "loss of control":

"Loss of Control refers to accidents resulting from situations in which the pilot should have maintained or regained aircraft control but did not."
http://www.faa.gov/index.cfm/apa/105...9B2E02A8F969E4

See also: "Aerodynamic Principles of Large-Airplane Upsets"
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aer...y/fo01txt.html

Regards

Trish

Any thoughts Trish??

FE

Dear Trish
Back when I was flying I remember a couple of accidents that occurred in the early 70s in the vicinity of St Thomas, Virgin Islands. The accident investigator specifically attributed the cause of these accidents to the "fight or flight" response. He argued that this instinctual response caused the pilots to behave (in your words), "contrary to their training".

You might be interested in reading the accident reports, if you can get hold of them.

Cheers
Pondhopper

panic in pilots
 

Trish I believe the authors of the posts on this thread may agree with the stupidity of the statement, "No Fear". Perhaps they might even subscribe to a more realistic, "Respect Fear"?

In my experience when you find yourself in a situation outside of normal operations you are initaly exposed to the symptoms of, "Fight or Flight". It is how you react afterward, with the monster of "panic" dancing through your veins, that determines the final outcome. As has been mentioned often Trish, training and regimented procedure are the key to sucess, but also, a productive imagination will be of imense benifit when dealing with none standard emergencies. The above has always got me to the bar for a beer afterward :D Good luck.

Trish,

Well, you learn something every day. I must say I've never heard of "aircraft upset". I find the definition very interesting, too:

__________________________________________________

An airplane upset is defined as "an airplane unintentionally
exceeding the parameters normally experienced in line
operations or training." Specifically, an upset occurs when
pitch exceeds 25 degrees nose up or 10 degrees nose down,
or bank angle exceeds 45 degrees.
__________________________________________________


I realise that in normal line ops that the above are probably never going to be exceeded. It surprises me that they are not exceeded in training.
It may interest you to look at a military aviation perspective as many military types are regularly flown to greater angles of pitch and bank than that described above. I'm not talking about fast jets here, but transport and patrol aircraft such as C130 Hercules and P3 Orions. For example, a Herc pilot in normal ops will go to 60 AoB and, briefly, more nose up then 25 and nose down then 10.
In the sim, things can go even further. That said, just like the civvy jet guys, once you get past what you are used to, it gets your attention. I cannot say whether we do more UA (Unusual Attitude) recovery than our civilian counterparts or not. I do know that on pilots course (in training types rated to -4 to +7 g) that UA recoveries could see 90 nose up, down or anything in between. A good deal different to what I would expect in one of the big jets, of course, but we may have had an advantage in flying a PC9/Tucano/JPATS in ab initio flying than, say, a Warrior II in that we have been exposed to extreme aircraft upsets. Still, if I saw 90 degrees nose down in the Herc I may not be too calm about things.

When I was in the RAAF we used to do "Panics" on Monday nights in the Barracks before "Standby Beds" on Tuesday mornings. But me thinks this is not relevant to this conersation.

Panics in the RAAF usually comprise of the following:

1. Bed Rolls or Hospital Corners totally dependant on the Drill Seargants mood.
2. Brassod Urinals and Taps to Mirror finish.
3. Shoe Polished Skirting Boards to a sheen.
4. Buffed and polished floors
5. Every Item of you kit Labelled
6. Rifle Cleaned and disassembled on your bed.


So really not much to do with the word PANIC except that one panics to complete it all in time. Some never sleeped. I never slept for the first 2 weeks of RTU.

The level of Panic in aviation may be relative to the size of the catastrophic event. If the event was too overwhelming. Example loss of Wings in flight , like the C-130 Fire bomber a few years back. God rest their souls.



Regards
Sheep


Regards
Sheep

P.S. IS a Panic is ones quick response to a situation or imimenant dangerous occurence? The response being either not rational or rational

What I am very interested in, in the "fight or flight" part of the discussion.

Please define that a little better, as in my experience there is no such thing as a (sub)consious choice to either fight OR flee. Fleeing in putting yor head between your shoulders and kissing your behind goodbye.

As a pilot there is no other choice BUT to fight, as ANYTHING else results in disasterous outcomes.

Maybe as the options availabe become slimmer and fewer, then concer might turn into a slight panic-reaction. This doesn't have to mean doing the wrong action necessary

The word 'panic' refers to an encounter with the god Pan, doesn't it? A mere human is overwhelmed by the fearfulness of an encounter with such a powerful being: 'panic' fear results.

So you end up 'thirty thousand feet up, nothing on the clock but the maker's name, and that was in Bantu...' but of course none of us ever panic, or if we do we tend to push that memory into the back of the mind.

I sure wouldn't care to share any such moments of my own with someone named Trish who is supposedly working on a PhD. Might turn out to be a reporter for some tabloid; who knows?

I do remember once working with a survivor of a plane crash (when he had been the pilot-in-command). I found that this poor soul was just hanging on by his fingernails so that the first thing that went wrong saw him lose the plot. He would sit there telling me that everything from his end was going fine, but meanwhile that was the airport runway sliding past his side window, the runway we were supposedly lining up to land on.

It seemed pretty obvious that he was so overloaded with fear from his previous crash that he was unable to keep the mental balance necessary to strap an airplane to his ass and go flying. I told him to go get some psychiatric help before he hurt himself, advice he ignored, of course. Hey, he needed to work as a pilot, both for his self-image and for a daily crust. Light aircraft aviation isn't usually equipped to handle this sort of situation.

Hawker:-

"Fight or flight" refers to a physiological reaction. In an emergency, the human body produces masses of adrenalin. This increases the heart rate, increases the flow of blood to the muscles, and increases the respiration rate. Sweating is also increased, digestion slowed, and sugar is released from the liver.

Basically, the body is preparing itself for violent action, whether to stand up to danger, or do its darnedest to get away from it.

As you may conclude, not a very useful phenomenon for a pilot presented with an in-flight emergency. It's what we're left with from fighting sabre-toothed tigers a few hundreds of thousands of years ago.

It can result in tunnelling of vision, "red mist", systems shutting down, all sorts of things we don't really want when we're supposed to be getting the aircraft, passengers and crew down safely.

But we have to realise it's there, and account for it.

Chuks:- one small, pedantic point - "nothing on the clock but the maker's name" refers to the altimeter. So if you're at FL300, something is mechanically wrong! :ok:

Out of interest, our Advanced Manoeuvering Programme on the 737-3/4/5, involves recovery from UA's of 135 AOB and -30/+40 degrees of pitch.

We also practise recovery from two low level upsets one of which includes:

On ILS @ 10nm, 2500', 170kts, flap 5, raise nose to 20 degrees, AOB 135, recover as nose goes through 0 degrees.

FWIW.