What counts?

[Murdr]

Strategic Awareness + Tactical Awareness = Situational Awareness

What about System Awareness?  The status of your aircraft, its instrument data, its expendable resources
What about Spatial/Temporal Awareness?  Your location and orientation in a 4d enviornment (3d+time)
What about Environmental/Geographical Awareness?  The physical terrain around you, atmospheric conditions, visiblity.

[Zazen13]

It is not just from a "military standpoint".  This goes across the board into commercial and private aviation.  The same analysis that evaluates poor decisions and accidents in real life results in forming training simulation scenarios.  Repetition of training simulations with unpredictable problems posed to the trainee is then evaluated again as a learning tool.  The AH situation is not unique or set apart from that. 

I evaluate films for players often enough.  Observing a breakdown in SA is clear.  Observing a bad decision is clear.  It's often not too hard to spot when a bad decision resulted from poor SA, though it helps when there is feedback from the player.  A breakdown in SA does not always lead to a bad decision.  A bad decision cannot be assumed to have resulted from poor SA.  This is exactly why they can be separated for the sake of discussion.  I see no practial purpose in coupling them back together.

They can and should be coupled if there is no actual interface between the SA and the decision mentally. To artificially place the gap there when it naturally is not present separates the experience from the action which creates unnecessary thought about something that perfect without it. With practice and experience the observation itself tells you what to do. You don't have to go through a laundry list of possible decisions and select one based on any other criteria. In fast paced air combat, the majority of decisions are made in a quasi-instinctive way in a direct response to SA. In a lot of situations if you take more than 2 seconds to deliberate over decisions, where timing is critical, you'll find yourself warm n' cozy back in the tower real quick.

[Zazen13]

What about System Awareness?  The status of your aircraft, its instrument data, its expendable resources
What about Spatial/Temporal Awareness?  Your location and orientation in a 4d enviornment (3d+time)
What about Environmental/Geographical Awareness?  The physical terrain around you, atmospheric conditions, visiblity.

You'd need to be aware of all of that in any situation. Even a passenger jet from New York to Chicago has to remain reasonably aware of that information just flying straight and level in a non-combat role.

[TequilaChaser]

Umm, someone's SA is lacking here!  Mica Endsley is a Female who contracts for Nasa, the Military and other large organizations......

[Murdr]

In fast paced air combat, the majority of decisions are made in a quasi-instinctive way in a direct response to SA.

There ya go, the decision is not really a part of SA but a product of.

You'd need to be aware of all of that in any situation. Even a passenger jet from New York to Chicago has to remain reasonably aware of that information just flying straight and level in a non-combat role.

There ya go, and that is why it is also part of SA.
"..... problems with SA were found to be the leading causal factors in a review of military aviation mishaps, and in a study of accidents among major aircarriers, 88% of those involving human error could be attributed to problems with situation awareness" (Endsley)
That is also why it is still SA not only in 1v1 but also in no combat at all.

[betty]

what counts for me is winging with my squadies and the TSM squad. bs'n on vox, laughin...jokin around, now thats what makes the game fun for me. finding great 1v1's is a bonus, hunting the AK's, A8's, CH's....ohhhhhhh yeah! now thats HELLA FUN!

[moot]

1:1 fights require and sharpen certain skills that are PERTINENT to furballing.  Any biatchfooting around this is for the sake of saving face in an argument.

End of story.

[Zazen13]

There ya go, the decision is not really a part of SA but a product of.

Something is only a product of something else if it's a separate and distinct mental process. Which in real-time SA and reactions to it are usually not. While cogitating about it after the fact may make it seem that way or may make it easier to dissect retrospectively for analysis, that is the actual reason Endsley gives for arbitrarily choosing to unlink the two, not because they are necessarily two different and distinct mental processes. Certainly if a person really worked at it they could mentally divorce or override the observations from the brain's automatic connection to a most prudent decision, but in combat, especially air combat, that could be relatively time-consuming and therefore unhealthy. The only time SA/Decision would truly be separate, as Endsley talks about, is if you consciously overrule the automatic decision made immediately by your brain with a different one for reasons outside of the realm of SA (force of personality, deception, unpredictability, etc.).

It's like smelling freshly baked chocolate chip cookies and deciding the instant you smell them that you want to eat those chocolate chip cookies. While there is an instantaneous cause and effect relationship there it was only insofar as the brain connected a stimulus to a decision in one action, it wasn't a consciously formulated decision. That's how the brain works, real-time sensory information doesn't just sit in a holding tank patiently waiting for us to cogitate about it and contort it into a decision, it actually causes a decision to fire in the instant of perception. It's part of our survival instinct we gained through evolution sometimes combined with contextually driven conditioned responses.. There was no separate cogitation, "Hey I smell cookies..What should I do with them? Should I eat them? Should I shove one up my bum? Should I throw them at my cat?"...

The act of smelling the cookies and the decision to eat them was one fluid mental motion, stimuli>decision. If you ever get the chance watch someone getting a PET scan, you can actually see this happening in real-time. It's quite fascinating, it looks a lot like lightning dancing in a cloud lighting it up.

[2bighorn]

but in combat, especially air combat, that could be relatively time-consuming and therefore unhealthy.

That's where the training comes in.

[Zazen13]

That's where the training comes in.

Agreed, later in that post I even mention that contextually driven conditioned responses create instantaneous instinctive decisions without a separate and distinct process from observations. That is really just another way to say training is one human factor that allows the SA>Decision dynamic to function as a single mental action as you need not consciously think about it.

[2bighorn]

training allows the SA>Decision dynamic to function as a single mental action as you need not consciously think about it.

It is not really a single action. It's a process which you can break down into smaller units. Why it is broken down as it is, is results of studies. Endsley did not group certain things under SA because she thought it's neat. It's based on previous scientific discoveries, how we as human beings perceive environment and how we react to it, either consciously or unconsciously.

To me the biggest proof why they are not single action is possibility to train both separately and actually measure them as well.

[Zazen13]

To me the biggest proof why they are not single action is possibility to train both separately and actually measure them as well.

You went a bit too far there. The SA>decision dynamic can be a the same process as a result of training. But, it can also be the same process as a result of common sense, simple powers of observation and survival instinct.

For example, I don't need any special training to see a mean dog running at me to instinctively decide to run away from it with one fluid mental operation.

 If you actually read it, there is specific mention that the SA>Decision dynamic can be and often is a function of one, single mental process. Of course, as in my example of the new pilot joining a squadron, you can articulate through training the aspects particular to just the observational component and then aspects particular to the decision/reaction component. But, once both aspects are integrated in real-time, they become one mental process through a combination of conditioning and instinct. Only if consciously overruled or scrutinized would that single mental process become two distinct mental operations.

[2bighorn]

Yes, if you look at Endsley graph or OODA Loop by Boyd, they are practically the same. It is a process and the faster it is the better. When of sufficient speed it is seemingly one and the same. Yet, they can be broken down into specific parts, and no matter of your SA, you don't have to make decision, even less act upon it.

It was mainly about your definition of SA and specifics of application (1vs1, 1vs many). You renamed it and redefined it. You are free to do it. But do not expect us to be on the same frequency when we talk about SA. We have specific terminology so we can understand each other and discuss without the need of defining the term and context of it every and each time.

[Zazen13]

Yes, if you look at Endsley graph or OODA Loop by Boyd, they are practically the same. It is a process and the faster it is the better. When of sufficient speed it is seemingly one and the same. Yet, they can be broken down into specific parts, and no matter of your SA, you don't have to make decision, even less act upon it.

It was mainly about your definition of SA and specifics of application (1vs1, 1vs many). You renamed it and redefined it. You are free to do it. But do not expect us to be on the same frequency when we talk about SA. We have specific terminology so we can understand each other and discuss without the need of defining the term and context of it every and each time.

Did you actually read the document or are you just looking at the chart? The flowchart has nothing to do with the true nature of the mental process in your brain, it's an arbitrary subdivision for the purpose of retrospective analysis. We can only dream of understanding, through compartmentalization, brain function that simplistically. By its very nature retrospective analysis is the examination of "dead things", contrived symbolic artifacts of what actually historically occurred in real time. Endlsey acknowledges that in the document, noting that in actuality the SA>Decision dynamic is often a single mental operation. But, the choice to treat them separately is made to artificially dissect the component aspects of the often indivisible mental process of SA for the purpose of evaluation and 3rd party inspection of events after the fact...Let me create some other examples that may help...

Example #1:

Let's say there's an athlete who is "in the zone". Say it's a wide receiver in football. The ball is hiked, he runs his pattern, the QB throws the ball, he sees the ball, sees the defender coming toward him, he observes the trajectory and velocity of the ball, he arrives at the place where he knew it would be, jumps up and catches it. If we had the ability to do a PET scan on the receiver during that entire process there would be just one continuous mental operation. There would not be an interface or temporal gap between the information he was aware of and the performance of the various actions resulting in the catch. The decision how, when and where to catch the ball was a singular and ongoing function of the continuous real time observations not a separate operation. If he had separated his observations from his actions he would not be "in the zone" first of all. He would also almost certainly destroy his timing and fail to catch the ball even if the decision he arrived at "manually" was the same as the "automatic" one his brain produced as the observations were actually taking place. He would not be a professional athlete for long if he mentally separated the single SA>Decision process.

Example #2:

You are walking along the sidewalk talking to your friend. Suddenly, you trip on a raised concrete sidewalk tile, your brain instantly realizes you're falling via your senses and without your assent or intervention decides to move both of your arms quickly in an effort to protect your skull and break your fall. That is one single mental process of SA>Decision. If the SA>Decision process was actually separate in your brain, you would be unable to respond quickly enough with a formulated decision based on the deliberate analysis of observation and you'd crack your skull open on the sidewalk.
 

[TequilaChaser]

Endlsey acknowledges that in the document, noting that in actuality the SA>Decision dynamic is often a single mental operation.

pardon me for a second, for hijacking this discussion/debate/arguement.......what have you.

but which document are you refering to?  by Endsley?

Theory of SA documents
http://www.satechnologies.com/publications/list.php?topic=19

Aviation SA documents
http://www.satechnologies.com/publications/list.php?topic=4

Index Page of all of Endsley's SA Documents from 2007 back to earlier than 1992
http://www.satechnologies.com/publications/

just so everyone is on the same page.......

edit: SA ( Situational Awareness ) has been one of my most favorite and recommended practices/learning to understand what SA is "subjects" every since I got my SA Lesson from Bug back in AW......

carry on