MISSION PRESSURE—Understanding the Motivation and Its Pitfalls

Although we may not recognize the term “mission pressure,” we can probably remember situations in which we felt mission pressure. Here is an Airman Safety Action Program (ASAP) excerpt that will help describe mission pressure:

After engine start, Lead encountered a maintenance issue, shut down, and turned the jet over to maintenance personnel. To preserve training, the crew swapped to the number 3 aircraft, and the number 3 crew moved to the broken aircraft with the intent to rejoin later in the sortie if the maintenance problem could be fixed. The maintenance problem was able to be fixed within an hour, giving us as the number 3 crew the opportunity to rejoin if we hurried and launched…This was a classic case of hurrying to meet an objective…
ASAP #29700 Excerpt

Sound familiar? Mission pressure is that overwhelming desire for mission accomplishment and the pressure we feel (real or perceived) to get it done. The motivation for mission accomplishment is not necessarily a misplaced motivation. However, pitfalls are associated with our overwhelming desire to “hack the mish” when it leads to rushing, not following procedures, or negative behaviors that accept unnecessary risk.

UNDERSTANDING OUR MOTIVATION FOR MISSION SUCCESS

Mission success is trained in us from day one in the military. We are warriors, and our ethos demands mission accomplishment. Our culture reinforces that positive behavior with unit mottos, recalling famous historical battles, slang sayings such as “hacking the mish,” and a competitive atmosphere that guarantees we will respond with that same aggressive spirit in a contingency operation. Of course, the intent and culture behind our motivation for mission success is right and just. We have sworn an oath to support and defend our constitution and our way of life.

SO, WHAT IS THE DOWNSIDE?

Although our drive for mission success is a well-intended motivation, the downside is the pressure aspect. As we have seen in major exercises and famous historical battles, things do not always go according to plan—thus, the adage of Murphy’s law: “Anything that can go wrong will go wrong and at the worst possible time.” Sometimes, our response to mission challenges or issues, especially short-notice ones, is reactionary rather than the deliberative steps needed to resolve them. The pressure to fix or resolve issues, to “hack the mish,” becomes a negative influence, which creates an opportunity for error and mishap.

Although we might not recognize it, mission pressure is quite often observed during preflight duties. To understand why mission pressure is more prevalent during preflight duties, we must remember that a mission is a “team sport,” with functional areas working together to launch a mission. Mission launch is a herculean effort that must come together in a schedule of events, culminating at launch time. When things go wrong, we feel the pressure to react to keep the mission moving forward.

THE PITFALLS OF MISSION PRESSURE

As you might guess, rushing is the negative behavior we often experience when faced with a time crunch. Time pressure quite often results in negative behaviors, errors, and, ultimately, the increased risk of a mishap. More importantly, rushing is not unique to military operations. It is a human response when put under pressure. Returning to the ASAP in our introduction, we see how mission pressure can lead to errors:

We were launching on a 3-ship training flight from home station during daytime with good weather to conduct low-level threat training. Lead and 2 were the primary aircraft for training, and the number 3 aircraft had a basic crew of 2 instructor pilots and an instructor loadmaster only to provide the third aircraft. After engine start, Lead encountered a maintenance issue, shut down, and turned the jet over to maintenance personnel. To preserve training, the crew swapped to the number 3 aircraft, and the number 3 crew moved to the broken aircraft with the intent to rejoin later in the sortie if the maintenance problem could be fixed. The maintenance problem was able to be fixed within an hour, giving us as the number 3 crew the opportunity to rejoin if we hurried and launched. The preflight was already complete and our mission computer was already built, meaning all we needed to do was start engines and launch and we could meet the 2-ship halfway through their profile. We pressed forward and started engines. After starting the number 4 engine, the PM [Pilot Monitoring] felt the aircraft move forward and stepped on the brakes. At the same time the loadmaster on [the] ground said “hey! you’re moving!” In total the aircraft moved 6–8 feet forward with the loadmaster and ground maintenance personnel in front of the aircraft. We had failed to ensure the parking brakes were set, per the checklist…

This was a classic case of hurrying to meet an objective leading to complacency, a lapse in checklist discipline…setting the parking brakes is one of the first steps taken when pre-flighting the C-17. Since the preflight was already complete, OF COURSE the parking brakes were set, or so we very incorrectly assumed getting in the seat, failing to realize that the parking brakes had been released as a part of the maintenance performed. When we reached the “Parking Brakes” step of the “Before Starting Engines Checklist,” we made the correct verbalizations, but in our desire to hurry, e continued our bad assumption and failed to accurately check the parking brakes or verify the annunciation on the WAP [Warning Advisory Panel].
ASAP #29700 Excerpt

Even though we might think we are “cool under pressure,” it is not always true. A March 1993 article titled Hurry-Up Syndrome was an adaptation of a research study that examined 125 Aviation Safety Report System reports, with events involving time-related problems.

We define Hurry-Up Syndrome as any situation where a pilot’s human performance is degraded by a perceived or actual need to hurry or rush tasks or duties for any reason. These time-related pressures include the need of a company agent or ground personnel to open a gate for another aircraft, pressure from ATC [Air Traffic Control] to expedite taxi for takeoff or to meet a restriction in clearance time, the pressure to keep on schedule when delays have occurred due to maintenance or weather, or the inclination to hurry to avoid exceeding duty time regulations.
https://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/publications/directline/dl5_hurry.htm

The analysis’s results showed that “a large majority of incidents (sixty-three percent) had their origins in the preflight phase of operations,” which resulted in errors. Ultimately, the study showed a clear correlation between rushing (pressure—real or perceived) and errors.

Beyond the increased potential for errors, mission pressure can also lead to intentional deviations from procedures, better known as “workarounds” or “shortcuts.” To save time, crews may intentionally deviate from checklist protocols or technical order procedures, such as one pilot doing the entire interior preflight check, including steps calling for both pilots to accomplish certain tasks, or from flight management system (FMS) cross-verification procedures in which one pilot loads and checks the FMS flight plan. These intentional deviations might save time, but they also increase the possibility of those deviations becoming the norm (or bad habits).

The final pitfall of mission pressure is accepting unnecessary risk. To be clear, risks are inherent in flying aircraft and executing military missions. The concern is when we accept risk that is not commensurate with our mission directives or tasks, thus accepting unnecessary risk. Assessing risk requires a deliberative and logical decision-making process. Unfortunately, mission pressure can negatively impact decision-making as our need to act quickly (impulsively) overwhelms our otherwise methodical decision-making process.

Ultimately, mission pressure can be counterproductive to our well-intentioned desire for mission success. A mishap is a mission failure through our misdeeds. Previous aviation mishap investigations have cited rushing as a contributing factor. The investigation into the worst aviation mishap—in which two 747s collided on the runway in Tenerife, Canary Islands, in March 1977—revealed that duty concerns for the Royal Dutch Airlines (KLM) crew and weather delays due to fog contributed to the KLM and Pan Am crews rushing to depart the airfield (Flight Safety Foundation, Human Factors & Aviation Medicine, September/October 1993 https://flightsafety.org/hf/hf_sep-oct93.pdf).

MANAGING MISSION PRESSURE

Although we should all strive for mission success, we need to be mindful when mission pressure becomes a negative to mission accomplishment. Consider the following techniques to manage those situations in which mission pressure can become a negative influence on performance:

Mission planning and analysis. Deliberate and thorough mission planning provides an opportunity at “ground speed zero” to examine the mission task and ensure the operation has been properly evaluated and resourced. In addition, mission planning allows for the opportunity to anticipate possible threats and potential errors and devise contingency plans, which help reduce mission pressure.

Mission priority and risk assessment. Not all our missions are the “zero fail option.” Thus, we need to keep the mission we are performing in the proper context. Mission priority codes help us assess and manage the risk during decision-making. A high-priority contingency mission might require additional risk, but we should not consider or accept that same level of risk with a training mission that can be done tomorrow. Keep the mission priority in context when evaluating the situation.

Our technical order procedures are contingency procedures. Be careful justifying procedural deviations or shortcuts in the name of “mission accomplishment.” Technical order procedures are the contingency procedures. We utilize and train to those procedures every day. How much time will you really save with shortcuts? The antidote to rushing and errors is procedural discipline.

“Slow is smooth, and smooth is fast.” Fight the urge to rush! When we feel the “pinch” to act, it is our negative reaction to time pressure. Rushing leads to errors and jeopardizes mission success. Just remember, “slow is smooth, and smooth is fast!”

Good Crew Resource Management (CRM) keeps mission pressure in check. CRM is our countermeasure to rushing. When you see your crew rushing, ensure your crew recognizes the mission pressure. Speak up with assertive statements, and do not allow mission pressure to lead to errors or poor decision-making.