Stress on the flight deck, Part 2

Last time I presented some results from the pilots who took the Aircrew Stress Study survey. The discussion focused on brief stressful events, not chronic stressors. Those brief stressful events that can occur during any civilian air transport pilot's 'day at the office' fell into three categories: events related to actually flying the aircraft; other operational events; and interpersonal events.

Pilots who took the survey were presented with a checklist of 25 such items, which they rated according to how stressful they thought each would be. The responses for most of the items were quite consistent. In other words, the pilots who rated them seemed to agree quite a lot on how stressful each would be.

Of course, there wasn't (and couldn't be) 100% agreement, so today I'll tell you about some of those differences. Remember, I'm talking about group differences, not individual differences.

First we compared the response patterns for each gender. For things having to do with flying the aircraft, and other operational events, men and women pilots concurred across the board. There were no significant differences between male and female pilots in their ratings of how stressful in-flight emergencies and other operational events would be.

The only gender difference that popped out had to do with interpersonal events -- in particular, the items about having unpleasant verbal exchanges with other members of the crew. Women pilots rated those items as more stressful than their male counterparts did. The difference wasn't huge, but it was enough to register as 'statistically significant.'

Next we looked for differences among age groups. The main finding here was that the oldest pilots in the sample -- those over age 50 -- rated most of the items as somewhat less stressful than their younger counterparts did. In particular, the older pilots rated the emergency events as significantly less stressful. My interpretation of this is that age can be considered as a kind of proxy for experience. Younger -- less experienced -- pilots have yet to encounter many of these stressful events, or they are still learning how to deal with them. Older pilots have "seen it all" and have a good handle on how to deal with most emergencies.

The only other age group difference that emerged in the data was that younger pilots, particularly those in their twenties and thirties, rated all of the interpersonal stressors as significantly less stressful than the older pilots did.

There were few differences among pilots from different regions of the world. The survey respondents were asked where they were based or domiciled. In the analysis, we grouped these according to regions: USA, Canada, Europe, Asia, and so on, to see if any there were any differences. For the event stressors, response patterns for pilots all over the world were essentially the same. The things about flying that bothered pilots in the USA the most were the same things that bothered pilots elsewhere.

Are you beginning to get a picture of pilots all over the world, male and female, responding very similarly to stressful events -- except for those older guys who aren't bothered about things as much as the younger guys? That's what it starts to look like -- until you compare the response patterns according to what type of carrier these pilots work for. That's where some differences emerged -- at least in this sample.

For this part of the analysis, we compared freight pilots, scheduled airline pilots, charter pilots, and corporate pilots. There were indeed some differences here. Let's have a look at what those were. Remember, we're looking only at brief stressful events here, not chronic stressors -- those will come later.

The responses for events having to do with flying the aircraft were quite consistent across the groups. An exception was that pilots who said they flew for US mainline carriers rated 'having to make an emergency landing' as less stressful than any other group. A cross-check of the data showed that most of the US mainline pilots in the sample were older -- so I think that this difference probably is a reflection of the 'older/more experienced' factor rather than anything about the carrier type per se.

The real differences emerged in regard to those 'other operational events.' The corporate pilots rated many of those items as more highly stressful. I've since done quite a bit of follow-up research with corporate crews, and I think I now understand why they would rate these items as more stressful. Let's look at some examples.

Compared with all other pilot groups, corporate pilots rated these items as much more stressful:

• Mechanical problem identified shortly before departure
• F/A informs you of a shortage in the cabin (meals, amenities, etc.)
• Passenger requires emergency medical care during the flight
• Security emergency at destination
  
• Having to file a NASA incident report

Airline crews rarely fly with the same crew, or on the same aircraft, and certainly not with the same passengers from one flight to the next. In contrast, corporate pilots often do fly with the same crew on the same aircraft on every trip. They are held directly responsible for the operation of the aircraft and its crew to an extent that airline pilots -- even airline captains -- are not.

Corporate pilots also fly the same passengers most of the time -- and those passengers are either the owners of the aircraft, or executives in charge of the company that owns the aircraft. In either case, they are VIPs who have high expectations in regard to reliability and service, and it is the pilot -- especially the captain -- who is held to account if things are not as they should be.

Airline pilots show up for their flight and board an aircraft that has been prepared for departure largely by others. If something goes amiss to delay departure, it's annoying, but it's not the end of the world. There are other aircraft, other crews -- other flights that the largely anonymous passengers can take, if it comes to that. Airline pilots essentially show up, fly the airplane, and then go home.

Not so for the corporate pilot, who is directly responsible for seeing that a particular aircraft is ready to go whenever the principal wishes to depart. It's the corporate pilot -- the captain -- who bears the blame if the aircraft is not in mechanical order, or if it is not properly provisioned. Likewise, the impact of a passenger becoming ill in flight are greater when that passenger owns the aircraft!

Next I'll begin to report some findings about stressful events in the aircraft cabin.

** Copyright © 2007 by Bobbie Sullivan. All rights reserved. **

Hassles in the air: Stress on the flight deck, Part 1

In my previous post, I introduced the topic of 'hassles in the air' -- the kinds of stressful events that can happen to people who work in the civilian air transport industry on any trip. I'm talking about events of relatively brief duration here, not chronic stressors. (We'll get to those later!)

Let's have a look at what kinds of 'hassles in the air' affect civilian pilots. As I explained earlier in this tale, I first interviewed working crew members, asking them what kinds of things happened to them on trips that were stressful. From those interviews I created a list of events, which survey participants then rated for stressfulness.

I found that what pilots labeled as stressful events fell into several categories. I'll call them flying events, other operational events, and interpersonal events. Flying events are just that -- events that have to do with flying the aircraft. Other operational events are things that happen on a trip that are not directly related to actually flying the ship. Interpersonal events are events involving other people.

The most stressful flying events for the pilots who took the survey have to do with actual emergencies. In fact, the one event that was rated consistently as the most stressful by all kinds of professional pilots in the sample was having to abort a takeoff at high speed. Airline, freight, charter and corporate pilots all rated that item as the most stressful on the list of 25 events. Period. The only variation was that pilots over age 50, as a group, gave the aborted takeoff a slightly lower stressfulness score than everyone else -- but it was still at the top of their list.

Now, imagine that we array all 25 events that the pilots rated in order, from the most stressful down to the least stressful. Since it's at the top of the list, let's say that having to abort takeoff at high speed is a '10.' That's the 'anchor score' for our stressfulness array. All of the other events were rated as less stressful than that, so we'll assign each a number that corresponds to how stressful they were rated to be, relative to the aborted takeoff item.

Here are the other items, and their stressfulness ratings. Remember, the ratings reflect how stressful they are relative to the aborted takeoff item. These are composite ratings for all 411 pilots who took the survey. Later on I'll mention a few variations that emerged.

Events having to do with flying the aircraft:

• 9.5 -- Having to make an emergency landing
• 7.6 -- Encountering thunderstorms en route
• 5.9 -- Having to return to the airport soon after takeoff due to a mechanical
• 4.9 -- Performing a go-around due to unstable approach
• 4.4 -- Making a hard landing
• 4.1 -- Flying into/out of a destination/departure city for the first time
• 3.5 -- Turbulence at all levels; can't find smooth air
• 3.2 -- Getting a complex re-routing/flight plan change en route
• 2.2 -- Flying a holding pattern at the destination

Other operational events:

• 8.8 -- Security emergency during the flight
• 7.6 -- Passenger requires emergency medical care during the flight
• 7.2 -- FAA line check
• 6.8 -- Member of the crew becomes ill or is injured
• 5.7 -- Having to file a NASA incident report
• 5.7 -- Having to wait for a room at your layover hotel
• 5.2 -- Flight is diverted to alternate airport due to bad weather
• 5.0 -- Mechanical problem identified shortly before departure
• 4.5 -- Departure delay at the gate after everyone has boarded
• 4.1 -- Long wait for a gate or parking space on arrival
• 2.5 -- F/A informs you of a shortage in the cabin (meals, amenities, etc.)
• 1.4 -- Having to take a random drug test on arrival

Interpersonal events:

• 7.7 -- You don't like or get along well with the other pilot
• 7.3 -- You have an unpleasant exchange with another member of your crew
• 7.3 -- You have an unpleasant exchange with a member of the ground crew

In the next post, we'll have a look at some variations within the whole sample. Yep, there were some. Any guesses (aside the fact that freight pilots don't have to deal with passengers or flight attendants)?

** Copyright © 2007 by Bobbie Sullivan. All rights reserved. **

Hassles in the air : Stressful events on trips

'Stress' is a term that can mean many things. It can be of the physical variety -- too hot, too cold, to damp, too dry -- too much exertion, not enough rest. It can be of the emotional variety -- worries, concerns, disappointments, frustrations, and so on.

My research focuses mostly on the emotional kind of stress -- the kind that causes anxiety and other uncomfortable feelings. This kind of stress can wear people down over time and affect their physical and emotional health and well-being.

There is a time element that is important in identifying stressors and evaluating their effects. Some stressors occur as brief events. Short-term stressful events usually can be managed quite well by the individual. You deal with the event, and then it passes. In and of itself, a brief stressful event does not do much damage (although if they happen often enough they certainly can add to the overall stress load).

I call these brief, stressful events that happen to crew 'hassles in the air.' For the pilots and flight attendants who took the Aircrew Stress Study survey, these turned out to contribute a relatively small amount to an individual's overall stress load.

At first, this surprised me -- but the more I learned about flying jobs, the better I understood why this was so. The kinds of 'hassles' encountered by crew in the course of a flight were mostly the kinds of things that they were specifically trained to handle. Thus they were more likely to be perceived as annoyances rather than as true stressors -- with a few exceptions.

The survey participants were presented with lists of statements that described things that could happen on any trip. They were asked to rate, on a four-point scale, how stressful they thought each would be: not at all stressful; mildly stressful; moderately stressful; or very stressful.

Pilots responded to a list of things related to operating the aircraft. Flight attendants responded to a list of things that could happen in the cabin. And everyone rated a list of things that could happen to any crew member during a trip.

For the analysis, the average scores for the items were compared to determine which were least and most stressful, overall. Next, the analysis looked for any differences between pilots and flight attendants. Finally, the responses were categorized according to gender, age group, domicile region, type of carrier, and so on, to see if any significant differences emerged.

There were quite a few differences in the response patterns of pilots compared to flight attendants, and vice versa. There also were some differences related to gender and age, and among crews who worked for different kinds of carriers.

In the next several posts I'll present some of the details about the results for these 'hassles in the air' -- the stressful things that can happen on any trip.

** Copyright © 2007 by Bobbie Sullivan. All rights reserved. **

What is stressful about flying jobs?

When people hear that I have been studying stress in the lives of people who fly for a living, they often ask, "So what is the most stressful thing about flying jobs?"

If they want to hear something specific, I have to begin my reply with "It depends..." It depends on whether the question refers to pilots or cabin crew. It depends on whether they work in corporate aviation, for a cargo carrier, or for a passenger airline -- and then it depends on which kind of airline: regional, mainline domestic, or international.

What is stressful about a flying job also can depend on whether an individual is senior or junior in the company, whether they commute, what kinds of trips they do and what kinds of routes they fly. For scheduled airline people, being on reserve is stressful. For people working for on-demand carriers, being on call is stressful. What is stressful can depend on the time of year, or even the time of day.

The specifics of what is stressful vary a lot. However, if I am asked to answer the question in a more general way -- if I had to sum up what is stressful in a single word -- I would say that what is most stressful is uncertainty. The day-to-day realities of flying jobs are full of uncertainties major and minor, and that is stressful.

I must admit that what my research eventually showed to be most stressful about flying jobs was not what I thought I was going to find when I began to design my study. At the outset I was quite focused on trying to learn what events in a normal duty day were stressful.

I interviewed pilots and flight attendants, asking them to describes things that happened aboard the aircraft that were stressful. They complied with my request, and I was able to come up with a list of 'event stressors' to include in the Aircrew Stress Study survey. The participants then rated how stressful each of those items would be for them.

Fortunately, I also asked those I interviewed to tell me about other things that were stressful to them, aside from things that happened aboard the plane. It turns out that there were a lot of other stressful things that people wanted to talk about. Not all of them were directly related to flying, per se. In fact, what happened aboard the aircraft often was the least stressful part of their lives.

I was told again and again that flying actually was '"the easy part," or "the fun part" of their lives. What was most stressful were worries about money and job stability. Would they be furloughed? Would they have to take another cut in pay and benefits? Would they have enough money for retirement? Those kinds of worries topped the list for so many of the people I listened to.

I also heard a lot about the stressfulness of combining a flying career with family life. In fact, even those who were single and unattached talked about how their flying jobs frequently made things difficult in their personal lives. Irregular schedules and frequent absences from home can wreak havoc with personal relationships and social lives.

Another big source of stress: rules and procedures that seemed to be constantly changing, especially those related to security measures, work rules and labor contracts. In fact, very little about civilian flying jobs is unambiguous, except, perhaps, the SOPs -- and even those are constantly amended. Schedules constantly change. So do destinations, loads, flying conditions -- and crews.

Some sectors of the aviation industry experience these things more acutely than others, but no one is completely spared. In sum, it seems that the common thread through all of the things that people who fly perceive as 'stressful' is uncertainty.

Next, we'll begin look at the specifics of what the people who answered the Aircrew Stress Study survey found stressful.

** Copyright © 2007 by Bobbie Sullivan. All rights reserved. **

Habits affect aircrew well-being

We've all been told again and again that our habits can affect our health and well-being. Eating a well-balanced diet, minding our weight, and getting regular exercise are supposed to be good for us. Habits like smoking, drinking too much, overeating and being sedentary are supposed to be bad for us. It turns out that, for the 411 pilots and 667 flight attendants who participated in the Aircrew Stress Study, the relation between habits and health really held true.

The survey questionnaire for the Aircrew Stress Study included a measure called the WHO-5 Well-being Index. It uses a series of questions to measure positive mood, vitality, and other indicators of overall well-being, not just physical health. For this measure, 'well-being' is construed as an individual's subjective 'quality of life.'

People who score high on the WHO-5 Index are likely to be physically and emotionally healthy, and enjoying their lives. People who score below a certain level on the same measure are considered to be 'at risk' for poor emotional and physical health.

To clarify, when we say that people are 'at risk' we do not mean that they are necessarily unhealthy, in the sense of being ill. We mean that there are indications that things may not be going so well in their lives. As a result they may be showing some early signs of anxiety, depression, or physical ill health.

The 1,078 people who took the Aircrew Stress Study survey were asked to indicate their height and weight, their exercise habits, and their use of nicotine products, alcohol, and caffeine. One part of the analysis looked at whether or not the pattern of answers to these items was related to well-being scores.

All of those items were related to well-being in one way or another:

Height and weight were used to compute Body Mass Index (BMI), according to a standard formula. BMI was then used to divide the sample into standard categories: Underweight, Normal Weight, Overweight, and Obese. BMI was found to be negatively correlated with the well-being scores. In other words, there was a trend: the greater the BMI, the lower the well-being score. Only 12% of the sample qualified as Obese. But for those who were obese, 41% had well-being scores low enough to indicate that they were 'at risk' for poor health.

The data for alcohol use showed an interesting result. When we divided the sample into alcohol users versus non-drinkers, there were no big differences between the groups' well-being scores. Then, if we looked at amount of alcohol consumed on a regular basis, the light and moderate drinkers' well-being scores were again similar to the non-users. However, those who answered that they regularly had more than two drinks every day tended to have lower well-being scores than the non-drinkers, as well as those who drank less. So we could say that, for alcohol use, the amount counts!

Nicotine use was a completely different story. There was a marked difference in the well-being scores of nicotine users vs. non-users -- period. It didn't matter if the nicotine users said that they smoked a little or a lot, or if they indicated that they got their nicotine from cigarettes, cigars, pipe tobacco, chewing tobacco, snuff -- or even nicotine replacement products like gum or lozenges. The results were clear: nicotine users across the board had significantly lower well-being scores, as a group, than non-users.

Caffeine use also was related to well-being scores -- sort of. The trend was like that for alcohol, in that amount seemed to matter. As a group, the heaviest caffeine users did tend to have somewhat lower well-being scores than those who used little or no caffeine -- but the relationship was relatively weak. I'd say that, based on the data from this study, we don't have to worry so much about caffeine use.

Of all the habits looked at in the Aircrew Stress Study, it turned out that exercise frequency had the strongest relationship to well-being. Here again, it definitely was the amount that mattered.

There was a strong positive relationship between exercise frequency and well-being scores: Those who said they hardly ever exercised had lower scores than those who said that they exercised some, but not on a regular schedule. Those who said they usually exercised several times a week had higher well-being scores. Those who said that they took time to exercise several times a week, no matter what, had the highest well-being scores of all. The take home message? Walk, run, bicycle, or hit the work-out room at your layover hotel, and do it on a regular basis.

As a final note I want to point out that, while each of the things mentioned here apparently plays a role -- for better or worse -- in overall well-being, none of these things by itself is the whole story. And please note that I've been saying throughout that these habits are related to well-being. That is, they co-occur with either positive or poor well-being. Co-occur is not the same as cause.

What we can say is that the people in our sample who had higher well-being scores were more likely to be non-smokers, to drink alcohol in moderation or not at all, and to exercise regularly. The people who had lower well-being scores were more likely to smoke, to be heavy drinkers, to exercise infrequently, and to be obese.

Next, we'll start to have a look at stress. We'll begin to explore just what is stressful about flying for a living, according to the pilots and flight attendants who participated in the Aircrew Stress Study.

** Copyright © 2007 by Bobbie Sullivan. All rights reserved. **

The well-being of civilian aircrews - Part 3

Let's take a look at those people in the Aircrew Stress Study sample who had the highest well-being scores. Let's look at those whose scores ranked above the 75th percentile -- that is, those who scored higher on the well-being measure than 75% of all the people in the sample. In what ways were they different from those with lower scores?

The main finding was that, as a group, high scorers on the well-being measure were older. In fact, if we chop up the sample into age groups -- those in their 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s -- the "over 50" age group had markedly higher scores. As a group, those in their 30s scored lowest.

I said earlier that I was not going to burden my readers with a lot of statistical gibberish, but there are a few things worth mentioning. One of those things is the concept of statistical significance.

In plain English, when we say something is 'significant' we mean that it is important. In statistical analysis, significance has a meaning that is a little more precise. It refers to the probability that a result could occur by chance, and it is expressed by a number. For example, if we read that a result has a significance level of .05, that means that the probability of it occurring by chance is 5%; a significance level of .01 means that the probability of the finding occurring by chance is 1%.

I'm telling you this so that you will understand how strong the relationship between age and well-being was for this sample of pilots and flight attendants. The significance level for the relation between age and well-being, as measured in this survey, was .001 -- that's a 0.1% probability that it happened by chance. Put another way, there's only one chance in a thousand that the relation between age and well-being that we found is not valid.

How can this be? Why would the older people in the sample score significantly higher on a measure of well-being than the younger people?

I can't say for certain, but I think that there may be several things at work here. One thing is a kind of self-selection process. Most of the older people who are flying for a living have been doing so for quite awhile -- perhaps 20 years or more by the time they reach the age of 50. Those who continue to fly after 20 or 30 years will have weathered a lot of storms, literally and figuratively. In a very real sense, they are 'survivors.' Their less hardy colleagues will have quit or been 'weeded out' over time for any of a variety of reasons.

Another factor may have to do with the way the seniority system that is entrenched in aviation occupations favors those who have been around for a long time. They have larger paychecks and are the least likely to be furloughed if a wave of downsizing comes along. That means more security and fewer financial worries than the younger crews. After all, job insecurities and financial worries are very stressful (as we shall soon see).

Senior crew also have more control over their work schedules than more junior people. By extension, this means that they also have more control over their lives in general. For example, senior crew are more likely to be able to bid for -- and get -- lines that will allow them to be at home for important occasions. The psychology research literature is full of examples of how 'control' favorably influences well-being -- and conversely, how one's sense of control mitigates perceived stress.

If we look at the relation between job title and well-being score, captains, as a group, had the highest scores. Captains who were over 50 had the highest scores of all. All that I said above for senior crew, in general, holds true even more for senior captains.

Coming up: One more post about general well-being -- and then I'll talk about what things the crews who participated in the Aircrew Stress Study found to be stressful in their jobs and in their lives.

** Copyright © 2007 by Bobbie Sullivan. All rights reserved. **

The well-being of civilian aircrews - Part 2

In the previous post, I began to discuss some survey results for crew well-being. I mentioned that about 28% of the pilots, and 40% of the flight attendants who took the Aircrew Stress Study survey had scores on a measure of well-being that suggested that they were 'at risk' for poor health.

Let's have a look at some of the characteristics of those who had poorer well-being scores (and next time we'll look at those whose scores were high). I already mentioned that age, gender, and education level seemed to matter to a certain extent, but what about job characteristics? After all, this is a study of an occupational group: people who fly for a living.

The survey participants were asked a number of questions about their work situation. For those who had low well-being scores, two job factors stood out prominently for both pilots and flight attendants: Commuting and being on reserve! In fact, about a quarter of all of those who had poor well-being scores said that they were commuters, and 23% said that they were on reserve.

For my readers from outside the aviation industry, I should briefly explain what we mean by "commuting" and "reserve" in airline-ese.

When airline people say that they commute, they don't mean what office workers mean. Crewmembers who live in a place that is distant from their base "commute" to work by flying. Sometimes that may be a relatively short distance -- say, from Portland to Seattle. But many crewmembers commute thousands of miles to get from their homes to work. Later on I'll talk more about commuting and why it is so stressful, aside from the obvious.

Now, about reserve: Airline crews get a new trip schedule each month. These schedules are referred to as "lines." But things sometimes happen to prevent the line-holders from flying when they're scheduled to fly. They may get sick; or events like weather or mechanical problems with an aircraft may prevent a crew from being where they should be at the right time for the next leg of their trip. When that happens, substitute crewmembers have to work in their place. Those substitute crewmembers are the reserves.

Most crewmembers -- pilots and cabin crew alike -- dread being on reserve. They have to stand by -- sometimes at the airport, sometimes at home -- waiting to be called for a trip. Sometimes they fly, sometimes they don't, but even if they don't they still have to be prepared to leave on short notice. Often when they do fly, they are not notified until the last moment.

Usually the most junior crews have to "sit reserve." But, depending on the airline (and things like provisions in labor contracts), some more senior people also have to be on reserve at least part of the time -- usually on some rotational basis.

Now, for my aviation industry readers, I should point out something about how the reserve vs. line holder question was posed. Participants answered the question "for this month," that is, they indicated their situation at the moment they answered the questionnaire. So, we don't know if people who said they were on reserve were on reserve all the time, or if it was 'their month' to be on reserve in some pattern of rotation.

In any case, both commuting and being on reserve seemed to 'go with' a poorer sense of well-being. They're not the only factors, or even the most important factors, as we shall see later on, but both of these situations clearly contribute to overall stress levels. (And a commuter who has to sit reserve has my complete sympathy!)

** Copyright © 2007 by Bobbie Sullivan. All rights reserved. **