ML: Aviation psychology WF-PS-NPL

1. Introduction to aviation psychology.
2. Definition and areas of interest in aviation psychology
3. Test methods and statistics of aviation accidents.
4. Aviation psychology, human factor and design of aviation systems
5. Personnel selection and classification
6. Training processes taking into account the achievements of aviation psychology
7. Characteristics of the aircraft operator - cognitive perspective
8. Human-aircraft interaction
9. Situational awareness of operatota in the context of transport safety
10. Stress, reactions and human reactions
11. Culture, organizations and leadership
12. Security at airports
13. In-flight safety
14. Human factor participation in the level of aviation systems security
15. Impact of non-vision goggles on visual perception of the pilotlying, driving a car or cruising compared to covering a distance by a person on foot bring not only the chance of shortening the travel time but also the increased likelihood of an accident, related, among others, to the risk of hitting an obstacle or loss of control over the machine being controlled. It can even be said that the safest for people is a walk (but no longer running), because during it, even if someone or something is hit, it usually does not lead to any serious consequences. The development of civilization is associated with, inter alia, the changing environmental conditions in which man comes to work, work at different times of the day, bringing a significant change in the requirements for the operator, in the form of increasing levels of psychophysical stressors, proper tolerance of acceleration and speed, making decisions burdened with the possibility of committing error in adverse circumstances, including the need to operate in variable light conditions and varying weather conditions. My interest in the issue of functioning of the mechanisms of visual attention in the context of various lighting conditions, as well as the proper use of modern night vision devices "strengthening" the vision process resulted more from observing the practical consequences of piloting modern aircraft, including primarily military ones, than from purely theoretical cognitive curiosity. The experiences regarding Polish drivers and their behavior on the road were also significant. For many years, I learned about the special role and responsibility of man in operating aircraft, moving at high and low altitudes, at speeds exceeding the natural experience of man. Contemporary psychology defines a person cooperating with technologically advanced systems (including aircraft and road vehicles) as the weakest, most unreliable link. You don't quite agree with these opinions. Man can be both the weakest and the strongest link in this cooperation, and the correct diagnosis should always be made in relation to a specific case imposed on a broader environmental, situational, psychological, organizational and social context. Man's "weakness" is primarily due to the possibility of making mistakes and violations of operational and security procedures, while his "strength" is the ability to compensate for all imperfections, both his own and the system in which he had to function and to come out unscathed from situations that they bring potential threats to life Contemporary aircraft, both military and civilian, are machines with very advanced technology and their piloting is an operator operation with a high level of complexity and difficulty (Wickens, 2002; Wickens, Dixon and Chang, 2003). The latest trends noticeable in both civil and combat aviation relate to the construction of unmanned aerial vehicles, but a human being assisted by sophisticated avionics systems still remains fully responsible for the implementation of the air mission. wind conditions can be described in terms of a hierarchy of specific pilot tasks. Specifying them in order they are: control, navigation, communication and management of on-board subsystems. They are known as the "ANCS" (aviate, navigate, communicate, system-management) model (Schutte and Trujillo, 1996). The first, extremely important task of the pilot is the controlled control of the aircraft in such a way as to maintain its lift at an optimal level in each phase of the flight (Wickens, 2002). This is a complicated activity, because you must remember about various aspects of the flight. Aircraft control can be understood as the pilot's cognitive activity, which allows him not only to follow procedures but also to solve problems in dynamic and ambiguous situations (Yu, Wang, Li and Braithwaite, 2014). Many pilots in the past made significant pilot errors, such as fixation on one, sometimes very important aspect of the flight (e.g. searching for airport lights in difficult weather conditions), and they forgot the need to control the level of altitude and safe piloting. As a result, a catastrophe occurred as a result of the aircraft collision with the ground (including Gibb and Olson, 2008). Therefore, the most important task of the pilot is to maintain constant control over the position of the aircraft regardless of difficulties and unexpected events that may occur during the flight. Pilot training involves shaping various pilot skills, including dealing with unexpected events (Cahill, McDonald and Losa, 2014).As a side note, it should be noted that unexpected events should also be included in the driver training program. For example, drivers should be trained in a situation of slipping, sudden pedestrian intrusion into the road or an unexpected break in the weather, as well as driving at different times of the day. Therefore, aircraft control should be understood as visual-movement behavior in which eyesight plays a critical role and maneuvering is a precise executive act related to the "perceptual diagnosis" of the current pilot situation. A comprehensive analysis of the piloting process must take into account not only the perceptual processes whose task is to assist the pilot in the implementation of the prescribed flight plan (Starter and Woods, 1991; Yu, Wang, Li and Braithwaite, 2014), but also all the executive aspects that determine the real level flight safety. Taking this perspective, the most interesting issue for the researcher is the statement that the pilot must rely on his perceptive-motor skills on the one hand, and on the other hand that his senses are not adapted to operate at high altitudes, which may have negative consequences for the level of orientation in space. This imminent dissonance was and will certainly continue to be the cause of many disasters and accidents, and at best aviation incidents. In this context, flight safety depends on the pilot's ability to efficiently process pilot information in order to constantly control the position of the aircraft and make accurate executive decisions based on the acquired information, taking into account time pressure (Bellenkes, Wickens and Kramer, 1997). The second element of the ANCS model is navigating the aircraft. Means maintaining a safe aircraft position if the flight is proceeding as planned or initiating emergency landing procedures due to unexpected events. It contains elements for planning individual phases of flight, recoding pilot signals, controlling the movement of the aircraft and its position when moving from one point to another. The navigation should also indicate skills such as object and obstacle recognition. In-flight air traffic detection rates are around 65% (Prinzo, 2001, Wickens, Helleberg and Xu, 2002), and the associated threat recognition is not always certain, both in visual flight rules (VFR) with and without ground visibility, as per IFR (instrumental flight rules), (Keel, Stancil, Eckert et al., 2000). The difference between these conditions is that in the case of the VFR the pilot must locate the movement and position of the aircraft by visual search of visual indicators outside the aircraft and also coordinate them with the indications of the pilot instruments. In the event of an IFR flight, the pilot is primarily forced to use the pilot information in the cockpit. However, it should be remembered that in reality the cockpit of a modern aircraft is very complicated and the occurrence of the phenomenon of visual clutter (Wickens, Dixon and Chang, 2003; Wickens, Goh, Helleberg et al., 2003) associated with a multitude of sources of information and the possibility to omit those really important from the point of view of flight safety. Particularly on IFR flights, anticipating a pilot situation is extremely complex because it runs without the help of external visual stimuli. Even a seemingly easy flight requires pilots to make accurate and quick decisions in response to the planned flight route, air traffic control commands, changing weather conditions and lighting levels, as well as various flight situations, including possible collision situations, classified in aviation in the categories' see- i-skip "(ang. see and avoid), (Federal Aviation Administration, 2008a, 2008b). In the event of an emergency, when a pilot is alerted to an emergency, the information from the pilot indicating the danger must be registered by him and have absolute priority over all other operational aspects of the flight. Despite such difficulties, the pilot is expected to correctly navigate the flight, in accordance with the procedures for communicating the whole situation and maintaining at least a good level of flight safety. The pilot information should be unambiguous and available as soon as possible so that the motor response time of the pilot under all conditions is as short as possible.The third element of the ANCS model is related to the effectiveness of communication between all crew members, and above all between pilots and air traffic controllers. In the context of communication processes, two types of errors can be encountered: procedural, concerning the situation of incomplete or incorrect reading of pilot information and transmission related to incorrect verbal transmission, which may cause illegible broadcast messages. Verbal communication still dominates in aviation, but may be a source of misunderstanding or even errors related to the ambiguity of formulations or language barriers (Morrow and Rodvold, 1993). Weakness of the communication process can be related to procedural knowledge, cognitive load, expectations and limitations of working memory. Sexton and Helmreich (2000) stated that misunderstanding and communication errors are the cause of 70-80% of all aviation accidents. They also examined the impact of communication style on the number of mistakes made by the crew. They showed that the use of short words (consisting of less than six letters) and the use of the first person plural (we) not only reduces errors and creates a good atmosphere, but above all, thanks to good communication efficiency, you can use more cognitive resources to carry out other tasks. The basic factors affecting communication between the captain and the co-pilot are the hierarchical barrier (Chute, 1995). Communication between the pilot and the air traffic controller is also very important. In the circumstances caused by incomplete or incorrect reading of the pilot data, there is communication irregularity on the part of the pilot. In turn, controllers can sometimes transmit a single message, which is much longer than the procedural recommended (Morrow et al., 1993) due to the exceeding of the pilot's working memory capacity. Errors of this type can be reinforced by significant workload and time pressure. (Redding 1992). The last, fourth level in the hierarchy of tasks necessary for the pilot to perform is system management. Studies have shown (Jones, Endsley, 1996) that 75% of pilots' perceptual errors are the result of improper perceptual recoding of information contained in pilot instruments. It involves monitoring important parameters during the flight, such as the amount of fuel remaining, engine temperature, oil pressure, etc. The pilot does this by visual scanning of pilot instruments and cognitive activity known as "cockpit task management" (Wickens, 2002). And it is the pilot's ability to visually monitor the aircraft systems and the actual flight path of the aircraft is one of the flight safety conditions. Controlling the position and movement of an aircraft in the air can be described in terms of a hierarchy of specific pilot tasks. Specifying them in order they are: control, navigation, communication and management of on-board subsystems. They are known as the "ANCS" (aviate, navigate, communicate, system-management) model (Schutte and Trujillo, 1996). The first, extremely important task of the pilot is the controlled control of the aircraft in such a way as to maintain its lift at an optimal level in each phase of the flight (Wickens, 2002). This is a complicated activity, because you must remember about various aspects of the flight. Aircraft control can be understood as the pilot's cognitive activity, which allows him not only to follow procedures but also to solve problems in dynamic and ambiguous situations (Yu, Wang, Li and Braithwaite, 2014). Many pilots in the past made significant pilot errors, such as fixation on one, sometimes very important aspect of the flight (e.g. searching for airport lights in difficult weather conditions), and they forgot the need to control the level of altitude and safe piloting. As a result, a catastrophe occurred as a result of the aircraft collision with the ground (including Gibb and Olson, 2008). Therefore, the most important task of the pilot is to maintain constant control over the position of the aircraft regardless of difficulties and unexpected events that may occur during the flight. Pilot training involves shaping various pilot skills, including dealing with unexpected events (Cahill, McDonald and Losa, 2014). As a side note, it should be noted that unexpected events should also be included in the driver training program. For example, drivers should be trained in a situation of slipping, sudden pedestrian intrusion into the road or an unexpected break in the weather, as well as driving at different times of the day.
Interrupting and resuming lower priority tasks are also involved. Monitoring of aircraft systems is of great importance in the event of irregularities in the technical functioning of aircraft systems. Then the critical factor becomes the speed of detecting any errors or faults. (add) Recently, another element has been added to this four-factor model, which seems only indirectly related to the above. It is weather information management. It should be noted that the weather is one of the most important risk factors in flight, which is why the addition of this fifth factor seems to be the most justified (in accordance with the guidelines of the National Aviation Society; AOPA, 2007). All of the above-mentioned elements must be skilfully used by the pilot to effectively deal with the difficulties that may be encountered during the flight, including unusual situations that have never been the subject of vocational training.
The example of a successful landing of the aircraft on the Hudson River is very informative, both in terms of the role of pilot's visual perception in dealing with an emergency situation, as well as the above-mentioned integration of all four elements of the task hierarchy. Captain Sullenberger was a fully trained passenger pilot. He also had a military pilot career, and was also trained in Crew Resource Management. So he had a unique aviation experience, which certainly mattered in the case of such an unusual landing. At the same time, he had to demonstrate extremely precise skill in visual assessment of distance and height. The pilot's skills regarding the proper use of visual information from various sources affect the success of the mission, including for crew and aircraft survival. These sources are primarily the conditions outside the aircraft, a set of information from pilot instruments, head-up displays containing, for example, an image of the artificial horizon, compass and information about the current speed and ceiling. The reason for the problems of the aircraft commanded by Captain Sullenberger was the collision with Canadian geese flying nearby. As a result, both aircraft engines were damaged. This is an example of the failure of both human perception and aircraft warning systems against collisions. Sullenberger, in an emergency and time pressure, despite the suggestion of the flight controller to try to return to the airport from which he took off, made a rapid decision to land on the Hudson River. Sullenberger determined the descent angle of the aircraft in a very precise way in such a way as to hit the plane of the river as light as possible, while maintaining the front of the aircraft in a slightly raised position (nose-up). During the flight, which should be qualified as a VFR, the pilot should have external information related to both the presence of visual invariants and dynamically moving objects in the field of view. They are necessary to shape the spatial orientation and, consequently, maintain full control over the position of the aircraft. Visual invariants may be less well seen in flight when clouds or other adverse weather conditions such as rain, fog or dusk and night appear. The two main hazards associated with flying in conditions of limited visibility are the loss of spatial and situational orientation, which results in deterioration or worse, total loss of control over the aircraft and the possibility of collision with another object during the flight (Gibb et al., 2011). An important risk factor is also the flight altitude of the aircraft, according to the principle that the lower the more dangerous. From this point of view, a helicopter flight is more risky than a plane flight because it takes place at a lower altitude (Cain and McKeon, 2014). In military operations using helicopters, flying at very low altitudes and at high speed are particularly important, in which it is important to recognize the configuration of the terrain and the perception of objects that can be an obstacle to flight. The basic means of helicopter protection during military activities is the low flight altitude and the ability to use masking associated with the terrain. Maintaining high speeds is key to reducing tracking time. The main danger in such flights is the possibility of collision with the ground. Almost 49% of all passenger aircraft accidents occur during landing approaches and the landing process itself, although the duration of this flight phase is only 1% of total time (Boeing, 2015). Among them, the most common are the so-called control flight into terrain (CFIT), which account for over half of all aviation deaths (Phillips, 2001; Robinson, 2009; Scott, 1996). CFIT accidents are worth analyzing because they relate to technically sound aircraft, while in which the pilot probably did not see any obstacles due to the lack of external reference points or he had disturbed situational awareness (Neville, Stanton, Salmon et al., 2010 ). This has not changed since the beginning of the air combat, which then took the form of a direct fight (dog fight). Nowadays, modern warplanes can attack targets far away from the pilot's visual range, but also in this case, threat recognition plays a very important role. A competent pilot is able to search the visual space outside the aircraft and at the same time use the pilot instruments in the cockpit of the aircraft (enter data from the brand) smoothly switching from one source to another and optimizing the assimilation of information in such a way as to be able to react appropriately to the existing situation in during the flight and maneuver the aircraft safely (Sullivan, Yang, Day and Kennedy, 2011). A separate issue is the challenges associated with flights at different times of the day, in varying weather and light conditions (Nakagawara, Montgomery and Wood, 2006).
Signal processing from the peripheral subsystem regarding movement and spatial position helps to orientate in the environment (Parmet and Gillingham, 2002). Previc (2004) indicates that this system also ensures the perception of stable Earth coordinates and that assures the pilot of the existence of three-dimensional space, including the existence of distance and slope. Although the pilot does not fully consciously use this information, it helps him to maintain the correct position of the aircraft. This phenomenon is called visual positioning (Previc, 2004). The ability to make a proper assessment of distance also plays an important role in road traffic and has a direct impact on the level of safety. A driver who does not have this skill can also expect serious problems while driving, e.g. when approaching another vehicle or pedestrians. Situational awereness can be defined as a process of proper understanding of the phenomena happening around the pilot and the aircraft he controls, as well as predicting the consequences of his actions. This is possible, among others, by creating a mental model of the current position (Bellenkes, Wickens and Kramer, 1997; Carbonnell, Ward and Senders, 1968). One of the most important tasks of the aviator is the need to maintain situational awareness at a high level throughout the flight. This is all the more important because piloting an aircraft is associated more with isolated processes such as steering, navigation etc. Pilots must always strive to mentally model the space around their aircraft (Bass, 2010; Bellenkes, Wickens and Kramer, 1997). This is directly related to shaping situational awareness and is implemented mainly through visual search (Endsley, 1995; Findlay, 2005). One can even risk the claim that a properly shaped process of situational awareness begins before takeoff in the form of proper preparation of the pilot for the flight.If we assume that adequate shaping of situational awareness depends on both the objective factors of flight and individual variables, then one should carefully consider all the consequences of its defective formation. In fact, from the beginning of the development of aviation technique, the emphasis was on enriching situational awareness of pilots and air traffic controllers (Jensen, 1997) in the context of safety. This is not uncommon in relation to psychological theories that it is shaped in some sense parallel to aviation practice and technological progress. It is currently observed that situational awareness research is associated with an increasing level of flight automation. Many researchers cite the fact that they are installing more and more perfect pilot instruments as well as automatic flight systems (including autopilot) as a significant facilitation in controlling the position of the aircraft. On the other hand, it allows the pilot to "distance" from direct piloting, in which the autopilot becomes a kind of intermediary but also a barrier between the pilot and increasingly automated aircraft control systems (Adams, Tenney and Pew, 1995). This should be considered a dangerous phenomenon because the pilot is still fully responsible for the process of controlling the aircraft. If a pilot controls an aircraft in not very complicated conditions but for some reason his level of situational awareness deteriorates, it may put the aircraft in danger, objectively for no reason. Another hypothetical example, a pilot in difficult conditions at low altitude at night is forced to divide his attention resources between observing pilot instruments in the cockpit and weather conditions outside the cockpit. This can lead to a gradual loss of altitude, which may not be noticed by the pilot in time. The second option, unfortunately also negative, is the need to observe any terrain obstacles and control the flight altitude can lead to unintentional loss of speed and, consequently, loss of stability of the aircraft's position. Ultimately, both scenarios lead to a decrease in control of the aircraft and lead to a dangerous situation. The division of attention is particularly important when flying at low altitude. The pilot is then more dependent on external signals necessary to maintain a stable position of the aircraft than on the indications of the pilot devices. Analysis of air disasters indicates that the relationship between a difficult air task and deteriorating light conditions has a direct impact on the weakening of pilot's situational awareness. According to Gilson (1995), the concept of situational awareness was first used during World War I by Oswald Boelke, who was aware of the importance of properly shaped image of the enemy's potential in the performance of air mission goals. So he sought to develop methods to achieve an advantage in this regard. So, the more realistic the assessment, the better the pilot's ability to function in war conditions. This idea already met with great interest of technical, military and academic circles. Woods (1988) indicates that in order for pilots to maintain an appropriate level of situational awareness, they should follow the dynamics of developments. Situational awareness defined by Endsley concerned the adequate perception of the elements of the environment in time and space, understanding their significance and projecting their status in the near future (Endsley, 1995). a three-stage model of situational awareness (ibid., 1995) was initially developed to understand the specific tasks of pilots, which are required to maintain proper control of the aircraft in a dynamically changing environment, to become familiar with the task being carried out, the purpose of the mission, the space in which the aircraft moves , the area over which the plane flies, the intensity of the air movement, the division of tasks among the crew, weather forecast, light conditions and finally the check list to determine the technical efficiency of important aircraft subsystems and the inclusion of all elements necessary for piloting the ship aircraft. It is currently believed that the application of this concept can be extended to other areas, such as supervision over security and power transmission systems in power plants, command, control of complex technical systems, human-machine relations, medicine, etc. Model Endsley (1995) assumes that each subsequent stage is necessary but not sufficient to obtain full awareness of the situation. This model follows the information processing chain, from perception through interpretation and forecast. The first, preliminary, is associated with the perception of elements of the environment. This particularly applies to the pilot's perception of pilot information, people in the cockpit, other aircraft being movedhis particularly concerns the pilot's perception of pilot information, people in the cockpit, other aircraft moving in the airspace, the content of communication with air traffic control. The data perceived at this stage allows the pilot to determine the level of selected flight parameters, such as speed, altitude, engine speed, fuel status, location, aircraft position, and it should be noted that they are not subject to integration. Stage 1 therefore involves detecting relevant information related to the location of the aircraft. Stage 2 already includes the process of understanding the current situation, which is to see the relationship between the perceived elements, of course, provided that the data can be integrated (not contradictory). Stage 2 involving understanding the pilot situation is necessary to create a picture of the situation (e.g. time and distance to travel by aircraft compared to the amount of fuel, actual threat status, mission status, etc.). Stage 3 and the most difficult is the ability to predict events and possible threats, based on information and results of previous activities. It should be noted that this last stage, at the same time the most important in shaping the optimal level of situational awareness is a top-down process depending on higher cognitive processes. However, it is largely conditioned by the quality of stage I perception processes, which are an example of bottom-up attention processes (Yu, Wang, Li, Braithwaite, Greaves, 2016). In other words, if the pilot does not notice the essential elements of the situation, he will not be able to predict future events or positions of objects that he did not register at the early stage of situational awareness. Interrelations between individual levels can also be analyzed in the context of the pilot-airplane functional state, understanding it in such a way that the correct representation of the reality used by the pilot pilot is extremely important (Zacharias, Miao, Illgen, Yara and Siouris, 1996). So if the pilot distributes attention correctly to pilot instruments in the cockpit, this will seriously affect his situational awareness (Jones and Endsley, 1996). The pilot develops situational awareness as a result of experience and also as a result of training in flight simulators, usually in a very complex environment. An experienced pilot will be able not only to effectively acquire pilot information but also to decide to set up task prophets faster, which he will consistently implement later (Yang, Huston, Day, Balogh, 2012). Neisser (1976) draws the conclusion that human thought is closely linked to the outside world and creating a future perspective. It is these states that represent the most difficult level of activity, which does not yet exist, depend on the precision of the lower stages (receiving and processing information). Of course, this is a simplification, because you can immediately see that there are a multitude and complexity of factors that play a role in situational awareness. Endsley (1995) believes that the theory of situational awareness should always be understood from a three-factor perspective, and although errors at the stage of event perception are the most serious source of interference, however, the interaction of all factors is the essence of this theory. Situational awareness shaped at a high level is therefore the effect of synergies between the correct assimilation of external information, working and long-term memory, and above all anticipatory mechanisms (Sarter and Woods, 1991). For example, if we get up at night from our own bed, despite the lack of sufficient light, we move quite efficiently. We have a cognitive map that allows you to anticipate the location of furniture and other obstacles, and thus safely navigate in your own apartment. If, despite this map, we fall into one of these obstacles, we can modify the map and thus change our actions. However, there are people whose individual predispositions do not allow to flexibly change the created representations of situations. Piloting an aircraft requires above all to maintain control over its dynamics, position, speed and altitude. The history of aviation knows many cases that led to disasters and human casualties, where one of the most important causative factors was the weakening of situational awareness. A review of over 200 air accidents showed that low situational awareness was their main cause (Hartel, Smith and Prince, 1991). What's more, these accidents often took place in difficult weather conditions. So it is a concept that can be enriched with new elements, in accordance with the latest examples of threats related to the safety of flying. An example of such a supplement may be the creation of a common team situational awareness, involving the cooperation of crew members and an adequate division of flight tasks to obtainThe tactical level is closely related to the strategic level, because the goals set at the strategic level (e.g. driving from city X to city Y) are accomplished precisely by maneuvering and steering the vehicle. The operational level is largely automatic and involves the performance of driving activities. In a sense, this concept can be considered as the prototype of the situational awareness theory (Jones and Endsley, 1996), developed in aviation precisely because of the three-factor structure and clear references to the time perspective. Visual data in these models are necessary for perception and movement regulation and contain important information, e.g. how to react to unforeseen events. In aviation, referring to the concept of Sheridan and Michon, it should be recognized that the strategic level is the most important, because it aims to prepare for the best possible flight, by anticipating the largest possible number of distractors during the flight and adopting the highest possible safety standards. The tactical level is associated with performing a specific maneuver or several successive maneuvers, and the operator level is e.g. control of speed, altitude and course during approach to landing. Decisions taken at each of these levels can directly affect flight safety. Janssen (1979) also created a similar model, creating a hierarchical structure of tasks. A slightly different model developed by Rasmussen (1990) concerns the classification related to various behaviors, based in order on the learned skills, principles and knowledge. In this case, Rasmussen refers to automatic vs controlled behavior.
James Reason (1990), in turn, using the Rasmussen classification, created his own theory of operator errors, which he consistently developed over the next years. His theory is called the Swiss Chees Theory (Reason 2000). According to his views, errors appear at every level of the herarchic model, but they have a different nature. At the skill level, errors are either slips or due to lack of attention (lapses). Translating this into aviation, one can cite the example of incorrect piloting of aircraft or incorrect operation of pilotage instruments. At the level of the rules, the pilot may make mistakes related to the incorrect selection of well mastered rules or he may apply the rule well but do it badly in practice. For example, inaccurate reading of the weather forecast may result in surprise reactions and incorrect responses to rapidly deteriorating light conditions due to sudden cloudiness. On the other hand, the level of knowledge results in other types of errors. They are associated with insufficient information and most often relate to unusual situations that may occur during the flight. An example of such errors may be the crash of the Helios Airways 522 aircraft. The reason for the disaster was the switch, by mechanics checking the aircraft at the airport, of the button controlling the oxygen equalizing system inside the aircraft from the "auto" position to the "manual" position. In the "manual" position inside the cabin, the constant oxygen pressure is not automatically maintained and therefore decreases accordingly to the height of flight resulting in decompression and fainting of people inside the aircraft. Pilots were not able to find the real cause of increasing decompression or switch the button to the "auto" position, probably due to the lack of proper knowledge and proper response to such an unusual situation, of course, the consequences of hypoxia for people suffering from acute hypoxia were not insignificant. (Truszczyński, 1997). As a result, all crew and passengers were killed. (Lit). Returning to the issue of situational awareness, a key element is to anticipate potential threats in line with the principle that predictable threats are easier to control. This thought has always accompanied pilots, it seems to be much more than drivers. The practical application of Endsley theory suggests increasing training hours for candidates for drivers in predicting the consequences of their own actions and adequate response to unpredictable events. It is also important to develop the concept of human functioning in unpredictable circumstances when you have to work under time pressure, as opposed to ordinary routine operations (Wickens, 2000, 2002; Taleb, 2007). It should be emphasized that the key to understanding the idea of ​​situational awareness theory is the integration of external and internal information as well as skills, principles and knowledge in confrontation with the assumed goals and plans. According to Stanton, Chambers and Piggott (2001), there are three definitions and, consequently, theoretical perspectives associated with them. hese are: the three-level Endsley model (Endsley, 1995a), the perceptive cycle model (Smith and Hancock, 1995) and the activity theory model (Bedny and Meister, 1999). The three-level model describes situational awareness in hierarchical terms. The perceptual model of the cycle (Smith and Hancock, 1995) emphasizes the cyclical process of achieving and updating situational awareness, suggesting that it arises and develops through the effective interaction of the subject with the world and describes it in terms of cognitive processes used to shape it, as well as constant updating of its effects . Theory of activity (Bedny and Meister, 1999) refers to situational awareness through the perspective of the theory of action, describing it as a conscious reflection on the dynamics of the situation. The main controversy between these theories is the question of what mental processes are involved in creating and maintaining situational awareness and what is its final result. However, it can be assumed that the final product is the creation of a real model of the mental position of the aircraft, which helps the pilot operate the aircraft in all phases of flight. The term "location" is used here in a very broad sense, because it takes into account not only the location of the aircraft in space, but also the awareness of the impact of other important factors, such as the location of other aircraft or the appearance of dangerous phenomena. In general, situational awareness seems to be a dynamic process that involves both central information processing and peripheral information shaping attention priorities and its allocation, especially in non-standard situations. Thanks to this, it becomes the key to understanding risk factors and managing aviation tasks carried out simultaneously. On this occasion, the connection between peripheral processes of visual information processing should also be considered, especially by considering attention processes attracted by stimuli suddenly appearing in the peripheral field of view, and with situational awareness. Research shows that the majority of its components can be improved and improved as experience is gained, and what's more, it positively correlates with flight and driving safety. Therefore, the distinction between normal and alarm information becomes important, as the pilot's responses to it should also be different. This problem should find the right place in the designed interfaces (Vicente, 2002, Vicente and Rasmussen, 1992
It should also be noted that there is a group of critics who question the validity of the concept of situational awareness (Dekker and Hollnagel, 2004) as an unnecessary construct, replacing the notion of visual attention in a not very successful way. However, it seems that from the pilot's point of view, situational awareness is a valuable concept positioned between cognitive psychology and application applications (Parasuraman, Sheridan and Wickens, 2000). You should seriously consider what kind of information the cockpit pilot or driver on the car dashboard is looking for. However, we know with fullness that the information provided to the operator of a complex system should be cognitively "digestible", and therefore adapted to the dynamically changing situation.