Certification of tactics and strategies in aviation

The paper suggests that the 'tactics and strategies' notion is a highly suitable paradigm to describe the cognitive involvement of human operators in advanced aviation systems (far more suitable than classical functional analysis), and that the workload and situational awareness of operators are intimately associated with the planning and execution of their tactics and strategies. If system designers have muddled views about the collective tactics and strategies to be used during operation, they will produce sub-optimum designs. If operators use unproven and/or inappropriate tactics and strategies, the system may fail. The author wants to make a point that, beyond certification of people or system designs, there may be a need to go into more detail and examine (certify?) the set of tactics and strategies (i.e., the Operational Concept) which makes the people and systems perform as expected. The collective tactics and strategies determine the information flows and situational awareness which exists in organizations and composite human-machine systems. The available infrastructure and equipment (automation) enable these information flows and situational awareness, but are at the same time the constraining factor. Frequently, the tactics and strategies are driven by technology, whereas we would rather like to see a system designed to support an optimized Operational Concept, i.e., to support a sufficiently coherent, cooperative and modular set of anticipation and planning mechanisms. Again, in line with the view of MacLeod and Taylor (1993), this technology driven situation may be caused by the system designer's and operator job designer's over-emphasis on functional analysis (a mechanistic engineering concept), at the expense of a subject which does not seem to be well understood today: the role of the (human cognitive and/or automated) tactics and strategies which are embedded in composite human-machine systems. Research would be needed to arrive at a generally accepted 'planning theory' which can elevate the analysis, description and design of tactics and strategies from today's cottage industry methods to an engineering discipline. The available infrastructure and equipment (automation) enable these information flows and situational awareness, but are at the same time the constraining factor. Frequently, the tactics and strategies are driven by technology, whereas we would rather like to see a system designed to support an optimized Operational Concept, i.e., to support a sufficiently coherent, cooperative and modular set of anticipation and planning mechanisms. Again, in line with the view of MacLeod and Taylor (1993), this technology driven situation may be caused by the system designer's and operator job designer's over-emphasis on functional analysis (a mechanistic engineering concept), at the expense of a subject which does not seem to be well understood today: the role of the (human cognitive and/or automated) tactics and strategies which are embedded in composite human-machine systems. Research would be needed to arrive at a generally accepted 'planning theory' which can evaluate the analysis, description and design of tactics and strategies from today's cottage industry methods to an engineering discipline.