3. Meeting his own predisposed objective of landing at Craig 

The pilot failed to be objective in this case. The identification of courses of action were for his psychological success and not the safety of his family. 

D o take the necessary action. In this case, the pilot contaminates his decision-making process and selects an approach to the instrument landing system (ILS) runway 32 at Craig where the weather was reported and observed far below the minimums. 

E valuate the effect of the action. In many cases like this, the pilot is so sure of his or her decision that the evaluation phase of his or her action is simply on track and on glideslope, despite impossible conditions. Because the situation seems in control, no other evaluation of the progress is employed. 

The outcome of this accident was predictable considering the motivation of the pilot and his failure to monitor the approach using standard and accepted techniques. It was ascertained that the pilot, well above the decision height, saw a row of lights to his right that was interpreted as the runway environment. Instead of confirming with his aircraft’s situational position, the pilot instead took over manually and flew toward the lights, descended below the glidepath, and impacted terrain. The passengers survived, but the pilot was killed. 

## $^{ }$Automatic Decision-Making 

In an emergency situation, a pilot might not survive if he or she rigorously applied analytical models to every decision made; there is not enough time to go through all the options. But under these circumstances, does he or she find the best possible solution to every problem? 

For the past several decades, research into how people actually make decisions has revealed that when pressed for time, experts faced with a task loaded with uncertainty, first assess whether the situation strikes them as familiar. Rather than comparing the pros and cons of different approaches, they quickly imagine how one or a few possible courses of action in such situations will play out. Experts take the first workable option they can find. While it may not be the best of all possible choices, it often yields remarkably good results. 

The terms naturalistic and automatic decision-making have been coined to describe this type of decision-making. These processes were pioneered by Mr. Gary Kleinn, a research psychologist famous for his work in the field of automatic/ naturalistic decision-making. He discovered that laboratory models of decision-making could not describe decision- making under uncertainty and fast dynamic conditions. 

His processes have influenced changes in the ways the Marines and Army train their officers to make decisions and are now impacting decision-making as used within the aviation environment. The ability to make automatic decisions holds true for a range of experts from fire fighters to police officers. It appears the expert’s ability hinges on the recognition of patterns and consistencies that clarify options in complex situations. Experts appear to make provisional sense of a situation, without actually reaching a decision, by launching experience-based actions that in turn trigger creative revisions. 

This is a reflexive type of decision-making anchored in training and experience and is most often used in times of emergencies when there is no time to practice analytical decision-making. Naturalistic or automatic decision-making improves with training and experience, and a pilot will find himself or herself using a combination of decision-making tools that correlate with individual experience and training. Figure 5-2  illustrates the differences between traditional, analytical decision-making and naturalistic decision-making, both related to human behavior. Instances of human factor accidents include operational errors that relate to loss of situational awareness and flying outside the envelope. These can be termed as operational pitfalls. 

## Operational Pitfalls 

Operational pitfalls are traps that pilots fall into, avoidance of which is actually simple in nature. A pilot should always have an alternate flight plan for where to land in case of an emergency on every flight. For example, a pilot may decide to spend a morning flying the traffic pattern but does not top off the fuel tanks because he or she is only flying the traffic pattern. Make considerations for the unexpected. What if another aircraft blows a tire during landing and the runway is closed? What will the pilot in the traffic pattern do? Although the odds may be low for something of this nature to happen, every pilot should have an alternate plan that answers the question, “Where can I land?” and the follow-up question, “Do I have enough fuel?” 

Weather is the largest single cause of aviation fatalities. Most of these accidents occur to a GA operator, usually flying a light single- or twin-engine aircraft, who encounters instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) conditions while operating under VFR. Over half the pilots involved in weather accidents did not receive an official weather briefing. Once the flight is under way, the number of pilots who receive a weather update from automated flight service station (AFSS) is dismal. An analysis done by FAA’s Aviation Safety Information Analysis System (ASIAS) found that during a recent five-year period, only 19 pilots out of 586 fatal accident flights received any information 

