Flight Operation Officers

Role of Flight Operation Officers in an Airline

The flight operation officer (FOO) can be considered the wallflower of the aviation industry. Even in the airline business, many people do not know what kind of tasks are performed by FOOs working in operation control centers (OCC; also called “flight operation center” [FOC] or “airline operation center” [AOC]). Job designations such as dispatcher, operations controller, and mission supporter or navigation specialist have been combined under the function of FOO. Dispatch includes the preparation of the flight plan, cooperation with air traffic control, as well as the support of cockpit crews in case of in-flight problems. When preparing the necessary flight execution documents for cockpit crews, the meteorological conditions, the current air traffic situations, fuel calculations, as well as the condition of the aircraft and flight operation facilities at the relevant airports and any restrictions are taken into account (Deutsche Flugdienstberater Vereinigung [DFV], n.d.). Operation control offers solutions for flight program disruptions, taking into account safety, economy, and customer satisfaction. All components that contribute to an optimal result in the economic interest of the airline are monitored and supported if necessary. In the event of major disruptions, cooperation with the higher-level authorities of the regulatory authorities and international and national air traffic control is essential (DFV, n.d.). The navigation specialists or mission supporters in the back office do not have direct contact with the cockpit but work in a supportive and preparatory capacity. These task distinctions are not made in every OCC; however, in the present study all of them were considered as part of the target sample and brought under the umbrella term “FOO.”

Licensing and Training of FOOs

An international comparison shows differences in the licensing and training of FOOs. For example, in contrast to the United States, Europe does not have a robust legal system regarding the activities of FOOs and has no control of the activities and processes of individual operators (Pazourek, 2013). For instance, there is no common European flight dispatcher license. Germany, like other national authorities, issues a national license, which is based on International Civil Aviation Organization recommendations (Cordes, 2007). The studies by Pazourek (2013) and Cordes (2007) show that there is potential for improvement in Europe regarding licensing and training regulations. According to Pazourek (2013), it is not uncommon for European business aviation operators to operate OCCs with inexperienced personnel.

Another difference in international comparison relates to responsibility. There is a joint-responsibility dispatch system in commercial aviation in the United States and Canada. In this model, the pilot in command and the OCC share the responsibility for the flight (Pazourek, 2013). The non-shared responsibility of the German model means that the aircraft commander alone is responsible, including responsibility for the verification of the flight planning.

According to the professional association of German FOOs (DFV, n.d.) there are five approved training organizations (ATO) for FOOs in Germany. These must ensure that the aspirant has sufficient competence in mathematics, physics, and English. However, the level and scope of any aptitude test are up to the ATO. Theoretical training takes place at the ATO, that is, the flight school. This theoretical training is strongly oriented toward the training provided for commercial pilots (Cordes, 2007). Practical training takes place at a partner organization, for example, an airline. A potential employer, in turn, will define the criteria that an applicant must meet, such as school-leaving certificate or foreign language skills (DFV, n.d.).

Problems of Standardization

In the United States, personnel selection procedures only have legal validity if the connection between the selection procedures and professional activity can be demonstrated on the basis of a work analysis (Brannick & Levine, 2002). In Germany, the Deutsches Institut für Normung (DIN) 33430 (2016) provides recommendations that also emphasize the necessity of a job requirements analyses. A job analysis is a descriptive process in which information about work is collected, organized, analyzed, and documented (Wilson, 2014). Requirements in the airline aviation industry are a well-studied topic. Several job analyses concerning the job profiles of pilots and air traffic controllers have been reported (e.g., Goeters et al., 2004). Results of job analysis surveys have been used to create a very well thought-out pilot selection process at the German Aerospace Center (DLR; Goeters & Maschke, 1998; Oubaid, 2013). However, to date, such an analysis has not taken place for German FOOs. A hierarchical task analysis based on an interview with a former flight dispatcher was previously undertaken but this was limited to describing the dispatch of an airplane in detail (Boo, 2016). It also refers to the American market and thus assumes a shared responsibility. Moreover, the other areas of the FOO’s responsibilities are not covered and the study cannot be used as a basis for deriving personnel selection procedures.

An OCC simulation study has provided the first indications that memory functions and teamwork including problem solving, coordination, and information utilization are important factors for successful professional practice (Littlepage & Wertheimer, 2017). Thus, observer-rated teamwork was meaningfully related to two effectiveness measures, namely, trigger effectiveness and delay loss. Observer-rated teamwork also mediated the relationships between transactive memory and both effectiveness measures. It can be assumed that other factors are also relevant for successful professional practice. These could be identified with a job analysis.

Since FOOs are not immune to the upheavals in aviation and in the general economy, it is even more important to define the current requirements for the activity. Computers are already taking over the preparation of flight routes, which changes the task spectrum for dispatchers. As so-called third pilots, flight dispatchers can intervene in the case of in-flight problems and thus further contribute to safe flight operations (Boo, 2016). The FOO profession could change if an OCC is used to remotely control aircraft, such as intra-city air taxis (Nneji et al., 2018) or drones (Prats et al., 2008). This could change the requirements in the FOO profession, for example, by placing greater importance on psychomotor abilities. However, changing the requirements in a task area can only be addressed with specific training if the original requirements are known.

In summary, the current research situation is limited. The FOO profession has so far received too little attention. Currently, neither personnel selection nor training is based on an analysis of the required abilities and skills. For this reason, the purpose of the present paper is to define the job requirements for an FOO and give recommendations for selection. This could provide the basis for adapting the requirements for licensing and the specifications for other selection and training standards.

Participants and Sampling Procedure

Participation was voluntary and independent of any airline. Multiple German airlines were contacted and the professional association of German FOOs (DFV) provided additional support and helped to disseminate the survey. A total of 58 questionnaires were distributed to FOOs as subject matter experts, of whom 32 responded, resulting in a return rate of 55%.

Eight female and 24 male FOOs with an average of 12.64 years (SD = 11.36) of work experience and a mean age of 43.94 years (SD = 15.54 years) participated in the study. Half of the participants were working as trainers and one-quarter had a management function. Ten participants worked in small-sized airlines (up to 25 aircraft), 13 worked in medium-sized airlines (25–200 aircraft), while seven were employed by large airlines (over 200 aircraft; two were missing). In total, the 32 respondents were employed by nine airlines. Most of the participants reported additional experience in the aviation business, less than a quarter reported none.

The majority of participants were licensed by the German federal aviation authority (Luftfahrtbundesamt, LBA) and additionally two had an American FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) license. Six participants indicated that they had no licenses at all. Most of the participants worked as FOO at the time of the survey, but three of them were retired and made their ratings looking back at the time of their work. A supplementary analysis showed no differences in the rating of requirements between licensed versus not licensed and retired versus active FOOs; thus, the different groups were combined.

Questionnaire

The job holders acted as experts, and they assessed their own job demands. For this purpose, the participants answered a German adaptation of the Fleishman Job Analysis Survey (F-JAS; Kleinmann et al., 2010), an established job analysis instrument (Wilson, 2014). This trait-oriented and standardized tool is sufficient for assessing (required) human abilities. The revised version shows satisfactory psychometric properties (Kleinmann et al., 2010). The F-JAS consists of 73 rating scales covering five domains: cognitive, psychomotor, physical, sensory, and interactive-social skills. In the present study, two additional competency scales were added to the cognitive domain: operational monitoring and vigilance. Both scales were developed to anticipate future requirements in aviation jobs (Eißfeldt et al., 2009; Eißfeldt, 2016). The rating scales of the F-JAS are 7-point behaviorally anchored scales. Beside every behavioral indicator, a detailed definition and conceptual delimitations are provided to assist the respondent. The scores are indications of the level of ability or skill that is required to perform the job properly. Higher values indicate greater importance of this ability for doing the job. The recommended required number of at least 15 respondents (Kleinmann et al., 2010) was exceeded in this study.

Only abilities with an average rating greater or equal to 4 are considered to be of general significance for a particular activity (Kleinmann et al., 2010). Since stricter criteria are useful for more demanding professions, competency scales with means above 5.50 are considered relevant abilities in the present study.

Top Job Requirements for FOOs

The results of the survey suggest that cognitive and interactive-social requirements are the most important for professionally performing the job of FOO. With regard to the cognitive domain, operational monitoring, simultaneous information processing, problem sensitivity, selective attention, speed of closure, oral and written comprehension, and vigilance are all important. Whereas oral and written comprehension is quite self-explanatory, the other scales need further explanation (Kleinmann et al., 2010). Problem sensitivity is the ability to determine when something is going wrong and includes understanding the problem and its components. Speed of closure is the ability to quickly recognize the meaning of visual or auditory information that initially appears to be without meaning or order. Selective attention is the ability to concentrate on a (possibly boring) task without being distracted. Simultaneous information processing is the ability to switch back and forth between multiple information sources.

The two scales presented in addition to the F-JAS were also among those relevant for the FOO role. Vigilance is the ability to track information thoroughly and continuously over a long period of time, when active action is only rarely required (Eißfeldt et al., 2009). Operational monitoring is the ability to track meaningful information coming from different sources (e.g., automation) without having to act directly (Eißfeldt & Gayraud, 2015).

The most important social-interactive skills for a FOO are reliability, mental stamina, emotional control, independence, and coordination, and according to Kleinmann et al. (2010) these are defined as follows. Reliability is the ability to act reliably and responsibly toward others, for example, to be disciplined, conscientious, and trustworthy when fulfilling tasks. Mental stamina is the ability to maintain an optimal level of effort until work tasks are successfully completed, even if fatigue, distraction, or boredom make this difficult. Emotional control is the ability to stay calm and collected in stressful or unexpected situations. Independence is the ability to work in an unstructured environment with few instructions and control, for example, to make decisions without consulting others. Coordination is the ability to structure work plans and activities taking into account the pace, style, and timing of work.

The necessary sensory skills are mainly limited to basic communication skills and computer literacy. Compared with other operators in aviation (Goeters et al., 2004), the low level of psychomotor skills required is striking. No psychomotor requirement was found to be important for an FOO. The physical requirements seem to be negligible. The people should be healthy, but do not have to be athletic. The requirements do not differ with regard to airline size or position.

Practical Recommendations for Selection

As there are no differences in the assessment of the requirements between dispatch versus operation control versus back office, a common selection of personnel seems to be reasonable. This is also supported by the fact that this distinction is not made in all OCCs and that many FOOs change the focus of their activities during the course of their careers.

To use the results from the job analysis in a selection process, various selection process recommendations are suggested. Ability tests, multiple-task tests, and monitoring tasks should be performed to cover the cognitive domains. With a multiple-task test, simultaneous information processing and problem sensitivity can be assessed. Both vigilance and operational monitoring can be tested using a monitoring task. Selective attention and speed of closure can be covered by visual and auditory attention tests. An auditory task should be used to cover the sensory requirement for auditory attention. Oral and written comprehension should be tested by means of abilities tests. The English language should be used, since in the FOO profession a great deal of communication takes place in English. In addition, computer ability should be assessed by the computer presentation of tasks.

In the FOO profession there are always instances of working alone but also times when teamwork is required. To cover the interactive-social requirement, personality questionnaires and AC group tasks should be carried out. Reliability, including conscientiousness and emotional control, should be assessed using personality questionnaires. During the AC group tasks, behavioral observations should be carried out by trained personnel. Mental stamina can be evaluated during the AC tasks by assessing whether the optimal level of work is invested in a task until it is successfully completed. Independence can be judged in the AC task according to how the participants behave when there are few guidelines and decisions have to be made during the group task. To prove their coordination skills, participants should be able to demonstrate that they can manage time and materials to synchronize their tasks with the other participants. Since an AC group task requires the participants’ ability to communicate, the sensory domain can also be addressed.

The AC group task could be implemented with the computer-based Group Assessment of Performance and Behavior (GAP) tool (Zinn et al., 2020), which is currently used in the pilot selection at DLR. GAP is a turnkey solution for conducting fully digital group tasks comprising software and complementary hardware. Touch screens are used as input devices by both candidates and observers. On the candidates’ screens, instructions and an operating area for the ongoing task are displayed. Each candidate is supposed to adapt to a specific profile that includes individual goals and weaknesses. The candidates have to address all important information in the face-to-face group discussion. The candidates permanently have to enter the (intermediate) results achieved in the discussion on their individual touch screens. The candidates’ screens and entries are displayed on the observers’ screens in real time.

GAP usually comprises four sequences, addressing both planning and conflict-oriented aspects. The applicants should find cooperative group solutions and at the same time achieve work goals (Oubaid, 2013). In a conflict task, the applicants could be asked to decide which member of the group should be promoted. In a planning task, the applicants could be requested to relocate passengers in order to meet their individual wishes regarding their seats within a given timeline. During the sequences, the candidates must continuously solve low-level mathematical tasks displayed on their screen. This additional task increases candidates’ mental load with an apparent impact on their interactive performance (Zinn et al., 2020).

During the entire session, the observers press digital anchor buttons on their task screens reflecting behavioral indicators of the following competencies: leadership, teamwork, communication, adherence to procedures, and workload management (Zinn et al., 2020). After the session a summary of the candidates’ performance is displayed on the observers’ screens. Each observer individually carries out their evaluation on the candidates’ performance in each of the competencies on a 6-point rating scale. GAP also features candidates’ self-assessment regarding the given competencies. All results are forwarded automatically in a database.

In the selection process, the results of the AC group tasks should be considered together with the results of the described performance and personality tests. In an interview, the motivation for the job and the biographical background should be evaluated. If the personnel selection for FOO is implemented in the manner described here, the important requirements of the profession will be met and by taking these requirements into account, DIN 33430 (2016) will be complied with.