The University of Texas Flight Management Attitudes & Safety Survey  6/2001 Page 1

Flight Management Attitudes & Safety Survey (FMASS)1

A short Version of the FMAQ

Sexton, J.B., Wilhelm, J.A., Helmreich, R.L., Merritt, A.C., & Klinect, J.R.

This technical paper gives details of the psychometric properties of the scales used in Sexton &
Klinect 2001, which was a paper that detailed specific linkages between pilot attitudes and pilot
performance.

The University of Texas at Austin Human Factors Research Project

Technical Report 01-01

June 11, 2001

1
The development of this instrument was supported by the Federal Aviation Administration Grant 99-G-004, Robert L.
Helmreich, Principal Investigator.
The University of Texas Flight Management Attitudes & Safety Survey  6/2001 Page 2

A Brief History of the FMAQ

Investigations of accidents and incidents in commercial aviation led to the identification of

and focus on human factors components to flight safety. The two-pronged approach to addressing
this issue has typically focused on selection and training as the avenues for optimizing safe
behavior on the flight deck. Selection research has focused on the use of personality, which refers
to the relatively enduring characteristics of the individual that are resistant to change. Training,
however, by its very nature, usually focuses on aspects of the individual which are malleable,
sensitive to change, and related to performance. Research on attitudes has shown them to relate to
behavior, and be relatively malleable to interventions – making them a prime target for
investigations of behavior in safety-critical domains (aviation, space, medicine, maritime, nuclear
power, etc.). Analysis of data from accident investigations, Aviation Safety Reporting System
incident reports, simulator studies, and aviation safety researchers, have shown that there are
safety-related optimal responses to questions probing flight management attitudes.
In the early 1980’s, our lab began an investigation of these safety-related attitudes in
commercial aviation pilots using the Cockpit Management Attitudes Questionnaire (CMAQ:
Helmreich, 1984). As our understanding of the attitudes evolved, so did the need to broaden the
content of the questionnaire in order to collect data on the organizational, professional, and
national cultures in which pilots must function. To this end, a new version of the questionnaire
was developed incorporating Hofstede’s dimensions of national culture (Hofstede, 1980). This
new version was called the Flight Management Attitudes Questionnaire (FMAQ: Helmreich,
Merritt, Sherman, Gregorich & Weiner, 1993). The FMAQ has been used extensively in
commercial aviation (Helmreich & Merritt, 1998). In 1996, after an extensive analysis of cross-
cultural data as part of her Doctoral Dissertation, Merritt (Merritt, 1996) introduced two new
versions of the FMAQ – the FMAQ 2.0 – International Version and the FMAQ 2.1 – the
USA/Anglo FMAQ (Merritt, Helmreich, Wilhelm & Sherman (1996). As of the writing of this
document, over 40,000 FMAQs have been collected from pilots around the world.

The Line Operations Safety Audit

Since 1991, The University of Texas Human Factors Research Project has conducted
observational research on normal flight operations from inside the commercial aviation cockpit.
These projects are called Line Operational Safety Audits (LOSAs), and they have traditionally
been a cost-sharing endeavor between the airline and the Human Factors Research Project under
Federal Aviation Administration funding. The original aim of the LOSAs was to collect data on
behavioral markers (safety-related flight management behaviors) from the cockpit jumpseat. In
1997, the nature of LOSA evolved to include threat and error management data, in addition to the
behavioral markers. One of the project associates, James Klinect, started a concerted effort toward
refining the threat and error taxonomies used by the cockpit observers. Threat and error
management is the focus of his doctoral dissertation research (Klinect, Helmreich & Wilhelm,
1999; Helmreich, Klinect & Wilhelm, in press). To date there are approximately 1,500 LOSA
observations in the Threat and Error Management archive.

The FMASS

As part of a collaboration with a large U.S. carrier in late 1998, the project decided to
administer the FMAQ as part of the LOSA process. There was a concern, however, that the
FMAQ would be too long and that response rates among the pilots (observed as part of the LOSA)
would be low. To address this issue, Bryan Sexton and John Wilhelm used large FMAQ archives,
courtesy of the doctoral dissertation work of Ashleigh Merritt (Merritt, 1996) to conduct factor
The University of Texas Flight Management Attitudes & Safety Survey  6/2001 Page 3

analyses and parse down the FMAQ to its most diagnostic and psychometrically valid elements.
The aim of this truncation was to retain enough items to write survey feedback reports (as was
usually done with the FMAQ), while concentrating on those items which have the most predictive
validity relative to the performance data. The seminal work linking cockpit attitudes to
performance (Helmreich, Foushee, Benson, & Russini, 1986) was used as a guiding principle in
keeping items with predictive validity. A critical step in validating the psychometrics of the
surveys is to link them to safety-related outcomes. The FMAQ and FMASS have already been
used to this effect (Helmreich, Foushee, Benson & Russini, 1986; Sexton & Klinect, 2001). Since
the original attitude-performance linkage was conducted prior to the introduction of organizational
climate and safety culture items to the FMAQ, organizational climate and safety culture items were
deemed relevant to the attitude-LOSA data linkage study. The result of this endeavor was the
Flight Management Attitudes & Safety Survey (FMASS). The 119 items on the FMAQ 2.0 have
been reduced to 48 items on the FMASS, and the length of the survey went from 5 pages to 2
pages (single piece of 8.5 X 11 paper front and back). We feel these items are the most diagnostic
FMAQ items. However, if you intend to do cross-cultural research, you will need to use the
FMAQ 2.0. For some situations the FMAQ 2.1 (USA/Anglo version with more items on each
topic) may be preferred. We have added several items that are interesting and diagnostic, yet do
not contribute to any factor in order to make the survey more comprehensive and to address such
issues as command and automation over-reliance. The FMAQ is also available in medical
versions.2

The FMASS is a one page, front and back survey which takes 5 to 10 minutes to complete.
The open-ended items are optional, but their use is strongly recommended since there are safety
and operational issues that concern pilots that may not be tapped by the items.

The FMASS Scales

There are four scales imbedded in the FMASS, each of which tap into a construct with a
demonstrated link to flight safety:
• Safety Culture: the extent to which individuals perceive a genuine and proactive commitment to
safety by their organization.
• Job Attitudes: essentially morale and job satisfaction – the level of satisfaction with the
organization and the individual’s reaction to his or her job experience.
• Teamwork: the level of satisfaction with the quality of teamwork and cooperation experienced with
other crewmembers, gate agents, ramp personnel, flight attendants, dispatch, maintenance, and
crew scheduling.
• Stress Recognition: the extent to which individuals acknowledge personal vulnerability to
stressors such as fatigue, personal problems, and emergencies situations.
A Confirmatory Factor Analysis was performed on a sample of over 1,500 respondents from one
organization to demonstrate that these were empirically distinct (yet conceptually related) factors.
The resulting model is a superior fit to the data and is provided below. In general, Stress
Recognition is not related to the other three factors, whereas Safety Culture, Job Attitudes, and
Teamwork factors were moderately to highly correlated with one another. This four-factor model
was replicated across multiple airlines in multiple national cultures (see below).

2
The doctoral research of Bryan Sexton has been to link human factors attitudes to outcomes in aviation and medicine.
At the time of this writing the FMAQ versions in medicine are the Intensive Care Unit Management Attitudes
Questionnaire (ICUMAQ: Sexton, Helmreich, Glenn, Wilhelm & Thomas, 2000), and the Operating Room
Management Attitudes Questionnaire (ORMAQ: Sexton, Helmreich, Glenn, Wilhelm & Merritt, 2000). Both medical
surveys are currently available in a scan-tron format. The goal of this family of surveys is to provide useful diagnostic
information about the strengths and weaknesses at a given setting, relative to comparative norms.
The University of Texas Flight Management Attitudes & Safety Survey  6/2001 Page 4

.69 The managers in Flight Operations listen to us

CFA of FMASS Items

and care about our concerns.

.74 My suggestions about safety would be acted

upon if I expressed them to management.

.60 Management will never compromise

Safety safety concerns for profitability.

Culture .70
I am encouraged by my supervisors and
coworkers to report any unsafe conditions I observe.

I know the proper channels

.43 to report my safety concerns.

I am satisfied with Chief Pilot and

.54 Assistant Chief Pilot availability.

.68
.77 I am proud to work for this organization

.71 Pilot morale high

Senior management (VP and above)

.54 Job .66 at this airline is doing a good job

Attitudes .60 Working here is like being part of a large family

I like my job
.49
Pilots trust senior mangement at this airline
.66

.49
.07 .43 Teamwork with other cockpit crewmembers

.61 Teamwork with gate agents

.60 Teamwork with ramp personnel

Teamwork Teamwork with flight attendants

.06 .54
Teamwork with dispatch
.60
Teamwork with Maintenance
.60

Teamwork with crew scheduling

.51
.03
.70 Rev: I am more likely to make judgement
errors in abnormal or emergency situations

.72 My decision making ability is as good in

emergencies as in routine flying conditions

Rev: I am less effective when stressed or fatigued

Stress .28

Recognition .34 My performance is not adversely affected by working

with an inexperienced or less capable crew member

Fit Indices .39 Rev: Personal problems can adversely affect my performance

TLI = .986 A truly professional crewmember can

RMSEA = .053 .34 leave personal problems behind when flying

CFA Replication Across Cultures

Criterion Required N. America Asia N. Europe S. America
Fit Index: TLI TLI > .95 .981 .986 .983 .986
Fit Index: RMSEA RMSEA < .08 .061 .050 .061 .054
Figure 1. Overall Confirmatory Factor analysis and replication indices across cultures
The FMASS scales, reliabilities, and normative data across a sample of 13 airlines:
The University of Texas Flight Management Attitudes & Safety Survey  6/2001 Page 5

As a follow-up to the overall CFA, each factor was checked for its internal
reliability using three scale reliability statistics. The scale score is computed by taking the mean of
the items (from a five-point Likert scale) and converting it to a 0-100 scale where 100 represents
an ideal score. The factor loadings of each FMASS item are shown here, along with a chart of
scale score comparisons between airlines (the general geographic location of the country is given
in place of the airline name).
Safety Culture: the extent to which individuals perceive a genuine and proactive
commitment to safety by their organization.

Safety Culture Factor

The managers in Flight Operations listen to us
.64 and care about our concerns. e1

My suggestions about safety would be acted

.79 upon if I expressed them to management. e2

.56 Management will never compromise

safety concerns for profitability. e3
Safety
Culture I am encouraged by my supervisors and .26
.74 coworkers to report any unsafe conditions I observe. e4

I know the proper channels

.43 to report my safety concerns. e5

I am satisfied with Chief Pilot and

.47 Assistant Chief Pilot availability.
e7

Fit Indices
TLI = .997
RMSEA = .045
Safety Culture Scale Reliability Statistics: Alpha = .78 Split-half = .76 Guttman = .75
See also Appendix A

Safety Culture Across Airlines

100
90
80
70
60
Scale 0-100

50
40
30
20
10
0

Figure 2. Safety Culture Factor Items, loadings, reliabilities, and cross airline sample
Job Attitudes: essentially morale and job satisfaction – the level of satisfaction with the
The University of Texas Flight Management Attitudes & Safety Survey  6/2001 Page 6

organization and the individual’s reaction to his or her job experience.

Job Attitudes Factor

.76 I am proud to work for this organization. e14

.72 Pilot morale is high. e11

.64 Senior management (VP and above)

at this airline is doing good job.
e12 .28
Job
Attitudes
.60 Working here is like being part of a large family. e13

.17
.43 I like my job. e15

.65 Pilots trust senior management at this airline. e10

Fit Indices
TLI = .993
RMSEA = .071

Job Attitudes Scale Reliability Statistics: Alpha = . 81 Split-half = .76 Guttman = .78
See also Appendix A

Job Attitudes Across Airlines

100
90
80
70
60
Scale 0-100

50
40
30
20
10
0
1 1 1 2 2 2
rica erica urope erica urope erica urope
3 ia 1 ast rica 3 rica 4 rica 5 sia 2
e As id. E e e e A
Am . Am N. E Am N. E Am N. E M Am . Am . Am
N. S S. N. N. N N

Figure 3. Job Attitudes Factor Items, loadings, reliabilities, and cross airline sample

Teamwork: the level of satisfaction with the quality of teamwork and cooperation
experienced with other crewmembers, gate agents, ramp personnel, flight attendants,
dispatch, maintenance, and crew scheduling.
The University of Texas Flight Management Attitudes & Safety Survey  6/2001 Page 7

Teamwork Factor

.40 Teamwork with other cockpit crewmembers e14

.69 Teamwork with Gate Agents e11

.19
.63 Teamwork with Ramp Personnel e12

.51 Teamwork with Flight Attendants e13 -.27

Teamwork

.56 Teamwork with Dispatch e15

.66 Teamwork with Maintenance e10

.45 Teamwork with Crew Scheduling e9

Fit Indices
TLI = .993
RMSEA = .073

Team Factor Scale Reliability Statistics: Alpha = . 75 Split-half = .69 Guttman = .72
See also Appendix A

Teamwork Perceptions Across Airlines

100
90
80
70
60
Scale 0-100

50
40
30
20
10
0
1 1 2 3 2 4 st 5 1 3 2 ia 1 sia 2
erica urope erica erica urope erica id. E a erica erica urope erica As A
Am N. E Am . Am N. E Am M A m Am N. E Am
N. N. N N. N. S. S.

Figure 3. Teamwork Factor Items, loadings, reliabilities, and cross airline sample
The University of Texas Flight Management Attitudes & Safety Survey  6/2001 Page 8

Stress Recognition: the extent to which individuals acknowledge personal vulnerability to

stressors such as fatigue, personal problems, and emergencies situations.

Stress Recognition Factor

I am more likely to make

.46 judgement errors in emerg
e14

.31
.53 (Reversed) My decision making abilityis e11
in emergencies
as good as in routine flying conditions

.46 I am less effective when stressed or fatigued e15

Stress
Recognition (Reversed) My performance is not adversely affected by
.43working
with an inexperienced or less capable crew member
e10

Personal problems can

.52 adversely affect my performance
e9

.20
.46 (Reversed) A truly professional crewmember can e8
leave personal problems behind when flying

Fit Indices
TLI = .993
RMSEA = .061

Stress Recognition Scale Reliability Statistics: Alpha = .64 Split-half = .66 Guttman = .63
See also Appendix A

Stress Recognition Across Airlines

100
90
80
70
60
Scale 0-100

50
40
30
20
10
0
1 1 st 2 2 3 1 4 2 2 5 ia 1 sia 2
erica urope le E a urope erica erica erica erica erica urope erica As A
Am E d d E m m A m A m A m E A m
N. N. Mi N. N.
A
N.
A
S. N. S. N. N.

Figure 4. Stress Recognition Factor Items, loadings, reliabilities, and cross airline sample
The University of Texas Flight Management Attitudes & Safety Survey  6/2001 Page 9

There was substantial variability for each scale score within an airline. The charts below show the
relatively normal distributions of scale scores within a single airline.
140

120

100

80
number of respondents

60

40

20

0
.00 16.67 33.33 50.00 66.67 83.33 100.00
8.33 25.00 41.67 58.33 75.00 91.67

safety culture scale score

140

120

100

80
number of respondents

60

40

20

0
.00 16.67 33.33 50.00 66.67 83.33 100.00
8.33 25.00 41.67 58.33 75.00 91.67

job attitudes scale score

The University of Texas Flight Management Attitudes & Safety Survey  6/2001 Page 10

200

180

160

140

120

100
number of respondents

80

60

40

20

0
17.86 32.14 46.43 60.71 75.00 89.29
25.00 39.29 53.57 67.86 82.14 96.43

Teamwork factor scale score

200

180

160

140

120

100
number of respondents

80

60

40

20

0
.00 16.67 33.33 50.00 66.67 83.33 100.00
8.33 25.00 41.67 58.33 75.00 91.67

stress recognition scale score

Figure 5. Scale distributions within airline
The University of Texas Flight Management Attitudes & Safety Survey  6/2001 Page 11

Notes on FMASS Scales and Scale Development

In general, the Safety Culture, Job Attitudes, Teamwork, and Stress Recognition scales
were refined to capture attitudes that relate to performance. However, these scales were limited to
the items available in the attitude-performance link study (Sexton & Klinect, 2001), and did not
include all the items in our archives (e.g. items from the FMAQ 2.1). In fact, after the Safety
Culture scale was constructed and related to pilot performance / error management, we looked at
the archives and saw several items that would have likely loaded highly onto the Safety Culture
factor. For example, the items “This airline practices the highest maintenance standards,” and “I
feel comfortable going to the Chief Pilot’s office to discuss problems or operational issues” both loaded
highly onto the safety culture factor. With this in mind, future analyses should look at the items on
this version of the FMASS which are not included in the scales, and see if they are related to
performance. Also, the scales presented in this tech report should be revisited and further refined
(adding new items and dropping old ones) based on future data and analyses.
Lastly, the syntax for the Command scale is included below. This scale is of particular
relevance to airlines with multicultural or non-Anglo pilot populations. It is perhaps interesting to
note that the non-Anglo airlines had higher Command scale reliabilities than the Anglo airlines.
The scale reliabilities for Command range from .09 to .60 depending on the airline, with an overall
alpha of .54 averaged across 34 airlines. The items for this scale are included in the attached
version of the FMASS. Correlations among the scale scores reflected the overall CFA results,
whereby Stress Recognition was not related to the other scales, but Safety Culture, Job Attitudes,
and Teamwork were moderately correlated to one another. The command scale appears to be
orthogonal to the other four scales as well.
Correlations

job attitudes
safety culture scale score (job stress Teamwork
scale score (6 satisfaction & recognition factor scale command
items) morale - 6 items) scale score score (7 items) scale score
safety culture scale score (6 Pearson Correlation 1.000 .619** -.083** .494** .017
items) Sig. (2-tailed) . .000 .002 .000 .540
N 1372 1372 1372 1372 1372
job attitudes scale score (job Pearson Correlation .619** 1.000 -.087** .433** .012
satisfaction & morale - 6 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 . .001 .000 .652
items)
N 1372 1372 1372 1372 1372
stress recognition scale score Pearson Correlation -.083** -.087** 1.000 -.046 .098**
Sig. (2-tailed) .002 .001 . .090 .000
N 1372 1372 1372 1372 1372
Teamwork factor scale score Pearson Correlation .494** .433** -.046 1.000 .075**
(7 items) Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .090 . .005
N 1372 1372 1372 1372 1372
command scale score Pearson Correlation .017 .012 .098** .075** 1.000
Sig. (2-tailed) .540 .652 .000 .005 .
N 1372 1372 1372 1372 1372
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Figure 5. Correlation Matrix of Scale Scores

The University of Texas Flight Management Attitudes & Safety Survey  6/2001 Page 12

SPSS Scale Computation Syntax for Scales Used in This Report

**Reversed item computes for stress scale.

COMPUTE rcma25 = 6 - cma25.
VARIABLE LABELS rcma25 '(Reversed) My decision making ability is as good in emergencies as in routine
flying conditions' .
COMPUTE rcma17 = 6 - cma17 .
VARIABLE LABELS rcma17 '(Reversed) My performance is not adversely affected by working with an
inexperienced or less capable crew member' .
COMPUTE rcma24 = 6 - cma24.
VARIABLE LABELS rcma24 '(Reversed) A truly professional crew member can leave personal problems
behind when flying' .
EXECUTE.

**Scale Computes for FMASS items.

COMPUTE sculture = (((ftmgmt + fmavail +foplistn + safeactd + mgmtsafe +safeenco ) / 6) -1)*25.
VARIABLE LABELS sculture 'safety culture scale score (6 items)' .

COMPUTE jobattd =( ((pimorale + srtrust + srmgmt + uar45 + misc21 + misc35)/6)-1)*25.

VARIABLE LABELS jobattd 'job attitudes scale score (job satisfaction & morale - 6 items)' .

COMPUTE teamfact = (((teamcock + teamops + teamgsvc + teamfa + teamdisp + teammain +

teamsked)/7)-1) * 25 .
VARIABLE LABELS teamfact 'Teamwork factor scale score (7 items)' .

COMPUTE strssrec =( ((cma31 + cma32 + cma34 + rcma25 + rcma17 + rcma24)/6)-1)*25.

VARIABLE LABELS strssrec 'stress recognition scale score' .

COMPUTE COMMAND = ((((6-cma9)+(6-cma18)+(6-cma15)+(6-cma11))/4)-1)*25.

VARIABLE LABELS COMMAND 'command scale score' .
.
The University of Texas Flight Management Attitudes & Safety Survey  6/2001 Page 13

Bibliography

Gregorich, S.E., Helmreich, R.L., & Wilhelm, J.A. (1990). The structure of Cockpit Management Attitudes. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 75(6), 682-690.

Helmreich, R.L. (1984). Cockpit management attitudes. Human Factors, 26, 583-589.

Helmreich, R.L., Foushee, H.C., Benson, R., & Russini, R. (1986). Cockpit management attitudes: Exploring the
attitude-performance linkage. Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine, 57, 1198-1200.

Helmreich, R.L., Klinect, J.R., & Wilhelm, J.A. (in press). System safety and threat and error management: The line
operations safety audit (LOSA). In Proceedings of the Eleventh International Symposium on Aviation
Psychology. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University.

Helmreich, R. L., Merritt, A. C., Sherman, P. J., Gregorich, S. E., & Wiener, E. L. (1993). The Flight Management
Attitudes Questionnaire (FMAQ). NASA/UT/FAA Technical Report 93-4. Austin, TX: The University of
Texas.

Helmreich, R.L., Wilhelm, J.A., & Gregorich, S.E. Revised versions of the Cockpit Management Attitudes
Questionnaire (CMAQ) and CRM Seminar Evaluation Form. NASA/UT Technical Report 88-3. Austin, TX:
The University of Texas.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s Consequences: International differences in work-related values, Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage.

Irwin, C. (1991). The impact of initial and recurrent Cockpit Resource Management training on attitudes. In
Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium on Aviation Psychology (pp. 344-349). Columbus, OH:
The Ohio State University.

Klinect, J.R., Wilhelm, J.A., & Helmreich, R.L. (1999). Threat and error management: Data from line operations
safety audits. In Proceedings of the Tenth International Symposium on Aviation Psychology (pp. 683-688).
Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University.

Merritt, A.C. (1996). National Culture and Work Attitudes in Commercial Aviation: A Cross-Cultural Investigation.
Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. The University of Texas at Austin.

Merritt, A.C., Helmreich, R.L. Wilhelm, JA., & Sherman, P.J. (1996). Flight Management Attitudes Questionnaire 2.0
(International) and 2.1 (USA/Anglo). The University of Texas Aerospace Crew Research Project Technical
Report 96-5.

Sexton, J.B., Helmreich, R.L., Glenn, D., & Wilhelm, J.A. (2000). Intensive care unit management attitudes
questionnaire (ICUMAQ). The University of Texas at Austin Human Factors Research Project Technical
Report 00-01.

Sexton, J.B., Helmreich, R.L., Glenn, D., Wilhelm, J.A., & Merritt, A.C. (2000). Operating room management
attitudes questionnaire. The University of Texas at Austin Human Factors Research Project Technical Report
00-02.

Sexton J.B., Thomas, E.J. & Helmreich, R.L. (2000). Error, stress, and teamwork in aviation and medicine: cross
sectional surveys. British Medical Journal, 320,745-749.

Sexton J.B. & Klinect, J.R. (in press). The link between safety attitudes and observed performance in flight operations.
In Proceedings of the Eleventh International Symposium on Aviation Psychology. Columbus, OH: The Ohio
State University.
The University of Texas Flight Management Attitudes & Safety Survey  6/2001 Page 14

Appendix A
Scale Reliabilities

Safety Culture Scale Reliability

R E L I A B I L I T Y A N A L Y S I S - S C A L E (A L P H A)

1. FMAVAIL Chief Pilot availability

2. FOPLISTN Flt Ops listens
3. SAFEACTD My safety sugg acted upon
4. SAFEENCO Encouraged to report unsafe
5. SAFECHNL I know safety channels
6. MGMTSAFE Mgmt not compromise safety

Mean Std Dev Cases

1. FMAVAIL 3.2069 1.0115 1489.0

2. FOPLISTN 2.9362 1.2173 1489.0
3. SAFEACTD 2.9617 1.1526 1489.0
4. SAFEENCO 3.6172 1.1022 1489.0
5. SAFECHNL 3.7179 1.0917 1489.0
6. MGMTSAFE 3.0819 1.2313 1489.0

N of
Statistics for Mean Variance Std Dev Variables
SCALE 19.5218 22.3088 4.7232 6

Item-total Statistics

Scale Scale Corrected

Mean Variance Item- Alpha
if Item if Item Total if Item
Deleted Deleted Correlation Deleted

FMAVAIL 16.3150 17.3060 .4729 .7637

FOPLISTN 16.5856 15.2052 .5922 .7342
SAFEACTD 16.5601 15.1753 .6464 .7205
SAFEENCO 15.9046 15.6858 .6194 .7287
SAFECHNL 15.8039 17.6282 .3806 .7845
MGMTSAFE 16.4399 15.9912 .4876 .7622

Reliability Coefficients

N of Cases = 1489.0 N of Items = 6

Alpha = .7828
The University of Texas Flight Management Attitudes & Safety Survey  6/2001 Page 15

Job Attitudes Scale Reliability

R E L I A B I L I T Y A N A L Y S I S - S C A L E (A L P H A)

1. SRTRUST Pilots trust sr mgmt

2. PIMORALE Pilot morale high
3. SRMGMT Sr mgmt doing good job
4. MISC21 Part of a large family
5. MISC35 I'm proud to work for this org
6. UAR45 I like my job

Mean Std Dev Cases

1. SRTRUST 2.5209 1.2404 1486.0

2. PIMORALE 2.9569 1.1219 1486.0
3. SRMGMT 3.7934 1.0520 1486.0
4. MISC21 2.5585 1.2575 1486.0
5. MISC35 3.4993 1.1947 1486.0
6. UAR45 4.4980 .8415 1486.0

N of
Statistics for Mean Variance Std Dev Variables
SCALE 19.8271 23.4872 4.8464 6

Item-total Statistics

Scale Scale Corrected

Mean Variance Item- Alpha
if Item if Item Total if Item
Deleted Deleted Correlation Deleted

SRTRUST 17.3062 16.1318 .5838 .7787

PIMORALE 16.8701 16.5077 .6275 .7682
SRMGMT 16.0336 17.2797 .5832 .7788
MISC21 17.2685 16.5252 .5263 .7932
MISC35 16.3277 15.5080 .6963 .7508
UAR45 15.3291 19.6176 .4241 .8095

Reliability Coefficients

N of Cases = 1486.0 N of Items = 6

Alpha = .8106
The University of Texas Flight Management Attitudes & Safety Survey  6/2001 Page 16

Team Factor Scale Reliability

R E L I A B I L I T Y A N A L Y S I S - S C A L E (A L P H A)

1. TEAMCOCK Team other cockpit

2. TEAMOPS Team ops agents
3. TEAMGSVC Team ramp
4. TEAMFA Team F/A
5. TEAMDISP Team dispatch
6. TEAMMAIN Team MX
7. TEAMSKD Team crew sked

Mean Std Dev Cases

1. TEAMCOCK 4.1220 .6778 1483.0

2. TEAMOPS 3.3048 .8273 1483.0
3. TEAMGSVC 3.3061 .8210 1483.0
4. TEAMFA 3.6069 .7792 1483.0
5. TEAMDISP 3.7202 .7533 1483.0
6. TEAMMAIN 3.5152 .8167 1483.0
7. TEAMSKD 2.9575 1.0635 1483.0

N of
Statistics for Mean Variance Std Dev Variables
SCALE 24.5327 13.3894 3.6592 7

Item-total Statistics

Scale Scale Corrected

Mean Variance Item- Alpha
if Item if Item Total if Item
Deleted Deleted Correlation Deleted

TEAMCOCK 20.4107 11.2570 .3678 .7383

TEAMOPS 21.2279 9.9197 .5345 .7033
TEAMGSVC 21.2266 10.0310 .5162 .7076
TEAMFA 20.9258 10.4182 .4700 .7181
TEAMDISP 20.8125 10.3562 .5086 .7107
TEAMMAIN 21.0175 10.0280 .5209 .7066
TEAMSKD 21.5752 9.7276 .3815 .7486

Reliability Coefficients

N of Cases = 1483.0 N of Items = 7

Alpha = .7493
The University of Texas Flight Management Attitudes & Safety Survey  6/2001 Page 17

Stress Recognition Scale Reliability

R E L I A B I L I T Y A N A L Y S I S - S C A L E (A L P H A)

1. RCMA31 Rev more likely to make judgement errors

2. RCMA32 Rev I am less effective when stressed or
3. RCMA34 Rev personal problems can adversely affe
4. CMA25 My dec making same in emerg
5. CMA17 My perf. OK w/inexper crew
6. CMA24 Eff'v pilot leaves pers probs

Mean Std Dev Cases

1. RCMA31 3.4060 1.2317 1495.0

2. RCMA32 1.8468 .9980 1495.0
3. RCMA34 2.1565 1.0469 1495.0
4. CMA25 3.7960 1.1166 1495.0
5. CMA17 2.9826 1.2872 1495.0
6. CMA24 3.1906 1.2818 1495.0

N of
Statistics for Mean Variance Std Dev Variables
SCALE 17.3786 17.4750 4.1803 6

Item-total Statistics

Scale Scale Corrected

Mean Variance Item- Alpha
if Item if Item Total if Item
Deleted Deleted Correlation Deleted

RCMA31 13.9726 12.3962 .4107 .5806

RCMA32 15.5318 14.2973 .2891 .6240
RCMA34 15.2221 13.2170 .4154 .5823
CMA25 13.5826 12.6798 .4462 .5689
CMA17 14.3960 12.8431 .3224 .6175
CMA24 14.1880 12.6226 .3524 .6050

Reliability Coefficients

N of Cases = 1495.0 N of Items = 6

Alpha = .6399
 The University of Texas Flight Management Attitudes & Safety Survey  6/2001 Page 18

Appendix B
Flightdeck Management and Safety Survey
The success of this survey depends upon your contribution, so it is important that you answer
questions as honestly as you can. There are no right or wrong answers, and often the first answer
that comes to mind is best. Individual responses are absolutely confidential.
Part I –Pilot Views: This portion of the questionnaire asks you to express your perceptions of the
company. Please answer by writing a letter beside each item from the corresponding scale.
A B C D E
Very Low Low Adequate High Very High

A. Please evaluate your level of satisfaction with B. Please describe your personal perception of the
these different aspects of flight operations. quality of teamwork & cooperation you have
experienced with:
____1. Quality of initial training on this A/C
____2. Ground School ____1. Other cockpit crewmembers
____3. Simulator-based training ____2. Gate Agents
____4. Fairness of checking ____3. Ramp Personnel
____5. Flight Standards & Training Overall ____4. Flight Attendants
____6. Chief Pilot availability ____5. Dispatch
____7. Flight Ops Management ____6. Maintenance
____8. Checklists ____7. Crew Scheduling
____9. Pilot utilization & productivity
____10.Line relevance of training
____11.Instructor skills
____12.Operations Manuals
____13.Disciplinary policy and enforcement

C. Please answer the following safety and cockpit management attitudes by writing a letter beside each
item using the following scale.
A B C D E
Disagree Strongly Disagree Slightly Neutral Agree Slightly Agree Strongly

____1. The managers in Flight Operations listen to us
and care about our concerns.
____2. I am proud to work for this organization.
____3. My suggestions about safety would be acted
upon if I expressed them to management.
____4. Senior management (VP and above) at this
airline is doing a good job.
____5. Our training has prepared pilots and flight
attendants to work as a well-coordinated team.
____6. Crewmembers that I fly with comply with this
airline’s SOP’s.
____7. Pilot morale is high.
____8. Pilots trust senior management at this airline.
____9. I feel comfortable going to the Chief Pilot’s
office to discuss problems or operational issues.
____10. Crewmembers should not question actions of
the captain except when they threaten the safety
of the flight.
____11. Check airmen are respected role models in our
airline.
____12. Safety at this airline is better now than three
years ago.
____13. I like my job.
____14. My decision-making ability is as good in
emergencies as in routine flying conditions.
____15. Successful flight deck management is primarily
a function of the captain's flying proficiency.
____16. Management will never compromise safety
concerns for profitability.
____17. I am less effective when stressed or fatigued.
____18. Personal problems can adversely affect my
performance.
____19. This airline has a positive safety culture.
____20. I am encouraged by my supervisors and
coworkers to report any unsafe conditions I
may observe.
____21. This airline practices the highest maintenance
standards.
____22. An essential captain duty is training first
officers.
 The University of Texas Flight Management Attitudes & Safety Survey  6/2001 Page 19

____23. My performance is not adversely affected by
working with an inexperienced or less capable
crew member.
____24. I know the proper channels to report my safety
concerns.
____25. Except for total incapacitation of the captain,
the first officer should never assume command
of the aircraft.
____26. Cabin personnel should be included in the crew
briefing at the start of a duty day.
____27. Working here is like being part of a large
family.
____28. This airline’s rules should not be broken – even
when the employee thinks it is in the airline’s
best interest.
____29. Flight Operations Management fully supports
my daily efforts on the line.
____30. A truly professional crewmember can leave
personal problems behind when flying.
____31. Flight operations provides adequate, timely
information about events that might affect my
work.
____32. I am concerned that the use of automation will
cause me to lose flying skills.
____33. I am more likely to make judgment errors in
abnormal or emergency situations.
____34. The captain should take physical control and fly
the aircraft in emergency and nonstandard
situations.
____35. The effective crewmember always uses the
automation tools provided.
____36. Pilots should avoid disengaging automated
systems.
____37. My company expects me to always use
automation.
____38. We currently receive too much CRM training.
____39. Non-jeopardy line observations are a good
means of collecting operations and safety
data/information. (OPTIONAL ITEM)

Please name your top three recommendations to improve flight safety.

Please name your top three recommendations to improve flight operations & training.

Part II -Background Information.

__ Gender (M or F) ________ Base _____________Fleet (A/C type & series)
Years at this airline (circle one): less than 1yr 1yr to <3yrs 3yrs to <10yrs 10yrs or more
Years in position (this A/C): less than 1yr 1yr to <3yrs 3yrs to <8yrs 8yrs or more
Years experience all airlines: less than 10yrs 10yr to <15yrs 15yrs to <20yrs 20yrs or more
Do you have previous experience flying automated (FMC) aircraft? ( yes / no )?
Flying background (check one) _____ Military _____ Civilian _____ Both
Crew Position: ______CA ______FO ______SO ______ IRO1 ______ IRO2
Status: ___ Line Pilot ___ Instructor ___ Sim Check Airman ___ Line Check Airman ___ Mgmt
___ Other
I have been previously observed on a non-jeopardy line observation. Yes__ No__ (OPTIONAL ITEM)
Thank you for taking the time to complete the questionnaire. Your participation is appreciated.
 The University of Texas/FMASS Short Form  6/01 Page 20

Appendix C
CODING MASTER Flightdeck Management and Safety Survey 6-1-01
Included here are the item’s scale assignment (if any) in italics and its variable label in CAPS.
Scales: SC = Safety Culture Scale, SR = Stress Recognition Scale, CR = Command Scale,
JA = Job Attitudes Scale, TE = Teamwork Experienced Scale
Part I –Pilot Views:
A B C D E
1=Very Low 2=Low 3=Adequate 4=High 5=Very High

A. Please evaluate your level of satisfaction with ____13.MANUALS Operations Manuals

these different aspects of flight operations. ____14.DISCIP Disciplinary policy and enforcement

____1. NHTRNG Quality of initial training on this A/C
____2. GSCHOOL Ground School
____3. SIMTRNG Simulator-based training
____4. FTFAIR Fairness of checking
____5. FTOVERAL Flight Training Overall
____6. SC FMAVAIL Chief Pilot availability
____7. FTMGMT Flight Ops Management
____8. FTCHECKL Checklists
____9. PIUTIL Pilot utilization & productivity
____10.RELEVANC Line relevance of training
____11.FTINST Instructor skills
____12.
B. Please describe your personal perception of the
quality of teamwork & cooperation you have
experienced with:
____1. TE TEAMCOCK Other cockpit crewmembers
____2. TE TEAMOPS Gate Agents
____3. TE TEAMGSVC Ramp Personnel
____4. TE TEAMFA Flight Attendants
____5. TE TEAMDISP Dispatch
____6. TE TEAMMAIN Maintenance
____7. TE TEAMSKED Crew Scheduling

C. Please answer the following safety and cockpit management attitudes by writing a letter beside each
item using the following scale.
1=A 2=B 3=C 4=D 5=E
Disagree Strongly Disagree Slightly Neutral Agree Slightly Agree Strongly

____1. SC FOPLISTN The managers in Flight ____10. CR CMA11 Crewmembers should not question
Operations listen to us and care about our actions of the captain except when they threaten
concerns. the safety of the flight.
____2. JA MISC35 I am proud to work for this ____11. SAMESTDZ Check airmen are respected role
organization. models in our airline.
____3. SC SAFEACTD My suggestions about safety ____12. YRS3AGO Safety at this airline is better now
would be acted upon if I expressed them to than three years ago.
management. ____13. JA UAR45 I like my job.
____4. JA SRMGMT Senior management (VP and ____14. SR CMA25 My decision-making ability is as
above) at this airline is doing a good job. good in emergencies as in routine flying
____5. EMERG Our training has prepared pilots and conditions.
flight attendants to work as a well-coordinated ____15. CR CMA18 Successful flight deck
team. management is primarily a function of the
____6. SOP102 Crewmembers that I fly with comply captain's flying proficiency.
with this airline’s SOP’s. ____16. SC MGMTSAFE Management will never
____7. JA PIMORALE Pilot morale is high. compromise safety concerns for profitability.
____8. JA SRTRUST Pilots trust senior management ____17. SR CMA32 I am less effective when stressed or
at this airline. fatigued.
____9. CHFOPS89 I feel comfortable going to the ____18. SR CMA34 Personal problems can adversely
Chief Pilot’s office to discuss problems or affect my performance.
operational issues. ____19. SAFECULT This airline has a positive safety
culture.
 The University of Texas/FMASS Short Form  6/01 Page 21

____20. SC SAFEENCO I am encouraged by my ____30. SR CMA24 A truly professional crewmember

supervisors and coworkers to report any unsafe can leave personal problems behind when
conditions I may observe. flying.
____21. MXSTDS This airline practices the highest ____31. TIMELY Flight operations provides adequate,
maintenance standards. timely information about events that might
____22. CATRAIN An essential captain duty is training affect my work.
first officers. ____32. FS71 I am concerned that the use of automation
____23. SR CMA17 My performance is not adversely will cause me to lose flying skills.
affected by working with an inexperienced or ____33. SR CMA31 I am more likely to make judgment
less capable crew member. errors in abnormal or emergency situations.
____24. SC SAFECHNL I know the proper channels to
____34. CR CMA9 The captain should take physical
report my safety concerns.
control and fly the aircraft in emergency and
____25. CR CMA15 Except for total incapacitation of nonstandard situations.
the captain, the first officer should never
____35. AP69 The effective crewmember always uses
assume command of the aircraft.
the automation tools provided.
____26. BRFSTART Cabin personnel should be
included in the crew briefing at the start of a ____36. SC74 Pilots should avoid disengaging
duty day. automated systems.
____27. JA MISC21 Working here is like being part of ____37. AP80 My company expects me to always use
a large family. automation.
____28. HUA7 This airline’s rules should not be broken ____38. TOOMUCH We currently receive too much
– even when the employee thinks it is in the CRM training.
airline’s best interest. ____39. LOSAGOOD Non-jeopardy line observations
____29. MGMTSUP Flight Operations Management are a good means of collecting operations and
fully supports my daily efforts on the line. safety data/information. (OPTIONAL ITEM)

D. Comments:
COMSAFE Please name your top three recommendations to improve flight safety.
COMOPTRN Please name your top three recommendations to improve flight operations &
training.
Part II -Background Information.
SEX Gender (M or F) BASE Base AC Fleet (A/C type & series)
YRSORGC Years at this airline (circle one): 1=less than 1yr 2=1yr to <3yrs 3=3yrs to <10yrs
4=10yrs or more
YRSPOSC Years in position (this A/C): 1=less than 1yr 2=1yr to <3yrs 3=3yrs to <8yrs 4=8yrs
or more
YRSAVC Years experience all airlines: 1=less than 10yrs 2=10yr to <15yrs 3=15yrs to <20yrs
4=20yrs or more
PREVAUTO Do you have previous experience flying automated (FMC) aircraft? ( 1=yes / 2=no )?
BACKGRND Flying background (check one) ___1= Military ___2= Civilian ___3=Both
POS Crew Position: ____1=CA ____2=FO ____3=SO _____4=IRO1 _____5=IRO2
STATUS Status: __1= Line Pilot __ 2=Instructor __ 3=Sim Check Airman __ 4=Line Check Airman
__ 5=Mgmt __ 6=Other
OBSBEFOR I have been previously observed on a non-jeopardy line observation (1996/1998). 1=Yes_
2=No_ (OPTIONAL ITEM)

Thank you for taking the time to complete the questionnaire. Your participation is appreciated.