The Falcon, the Helios, Two Scenarios, and Framework

  • Theodoros Katerinakis
Part of the Innovation, Technology, and Knowledge Management book series (ITKM)


Aviation is the safest form of transportation. Expert performers – narrators, Ifaistos Limnios, as the pilot, and Megas Alexandros, as the investigator – explain the two paradigmatic flights and two scenarios to formulate the reference framework of the book, for effective problem-solving and handling rules and exceptions. The “shaking Falcon VIP flight” connects the concept of silence with accountability; a major incident of rapid descent without controls occurred, but the pilot was able to hold the shaking aircraft and to prevent it from crashing. Another paradigmatic flight Helios 522, silent ghost plane, signaled the rethinking of the silence concept inside and outside the plane, as the “no reply” activated the Renegade alert in the Greek FIR Space. It was a challenge for the sterile cockpit rule. In the scenario of silence, several accidents have shown that crew members’ failure to speak up can have devastating consequences with a risk to flight safety. A second major scenario was about the experience of hesitation in interaction that may leave incomplete information and truncated messages, generate uncertainty, and result to insufficient knowledge in the cockpit-controller interaction. The chapter explains flights and scenarios as the instrument for grounded theory to be applied and lessons from protocol analysis to develop. Cockpit acts of conversation are consistent with individual members’ tacit knowledge. Thus, human operators in flights must build mutual trust with all the other participants. The framework concludes with human factors explanation of the interactions among humans and other elements of a system and applies design principles to optimize human well-being and overall system performance.


Falcon VIP flight Helios 522 Silence Hesitation ASRS Renegade alert Sterile cockpit Mutual trust 


  1. Argyle, M. (1991). Cooperation: The basis of sociability. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. ASRS (Aviation Safety Reporting System). (2013, January). What would you have done? Callback 396 (situation #4). NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System. Available at
  3. Barber, B. (1983). The logic and limits of trust. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Barnard, C. (1938/2005). The functions of the executive (30th anniversary ed.). Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bienefeld, N., & Grote, G. (2012). Silence that may kill when aircrew members don’t speak up and why. Aviation Psychology and Applied Human Factors, 2(1), 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cicourel, A. (1973). Cognitive sociology: Language and meaning in social interaction. Harmodsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
  7. Collins, R. (2005). Interaction ritual chains. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Dance, F. E. X. (1967). A helical model of communication. In F. E. X. Dance, (ed). Human Communication Theory. New York : Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  9. Dekker, S. W. A. (2010). Pilots, controllers and mechanics on trial: Cases, concerns and countermeasures. International Journal of Applied Aviation Studies, 10(1), 31–50.Google Scholar
  10. Dekker, S. W. A. (2012). Just culture: Balancing safety and accountability (2nd ed.). Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  11. Deutsch, M. (1958). Trust and suspicion. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2, 265–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Deutsch, M. (1962). Cooperation and trust: Some theoretical notes. In M. R. Jones (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (pp. 275–319). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
  13. DeVito, J. A. (2011). Human communication the basic course (12th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  14. Edwards, E. (1988). Introductory overview. In E. Wiener & D. Nagel (Eds.), Human factors in aviation (pp. 3–25). San Diego: Academic.Google Scholar
  15. Ericsson, K. A. (2002). Toward a procedure for eliciting verbal expression of nonverbal experience without reactivity: Interpreting the verbal overshadowing effect within the theoretical framework for protocol analysis. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 16, 981–987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. EUROCONTROL. (2008). What is ‘human factors’ all about? Eurocontrol white paper. Online. Available Accessed 3 Nov 2011.
  17. Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behaviour. New York: Doubleday & Co. Anchor Books. (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1972).Google Scholar
  18. Golembiewski, R. T., & McConkie, M. (1975). The centrality of interpersonal trust in group processes. In G. L. Cooper (Ed.), Theories of group processes (pp. 131–185). London: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  19. Griffioen, H. (2009). Air crash investigations: The crash of helios airways flight 522. ( Edition).
  20. Hellenic Air Accident Investigation and Security Board (HAAISB). (2006). Helios airways flight HCY522, boeing 737-31S at Grammatiko Hellas on 14 August 2005. Athens: Ministry of Transportation & Communications.Google Scholar
  21. (ICAO) International Civil Aviation Organization. (2011a). State of global aviation safety – 2011. Montreal: ICAO Publication. Online. Available Accessed 3 Nov 2011.
  22. (ICAO) International Civil Aviation Organization. (2011b). Strategic objectives: Safety. Online. Available Accessed 3 Nov 2011.
  23. Kendon, A. (1977). Studies in the behavior of social interaction studies in the behavior of face-to-face interaction (pp. viii + 260). Lisse: Peter De Ridder Press (Vol. 6, Studies in Semiotics. Research Center for Language and Semiotic Studies, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN).Google Scholar
  24. Laios, L., & Giannacourou, M. (1995). Human factors issues of advanced ATC systems. In N. McDonald, N. Johnston, & R. Fuller (Eds.), Applications of psychology to the aviation system. Proceedings of the 21st Conference of the European Association for Aviation Psychology (EAAP) (Vol. 1, Chap. 17).Google Scholar
  25. Lee, J. P., & Moray, N. (1994). Trust, self-confidence and operators’ adaptation to automation. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 40, 153–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lee, J. D., & See, K. A. (2004). Trust in Automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human Factors, 46(1, Spring), 50–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Leydesdorff, L. (2016).Information, meaning, and intellectual organization in networks of inter-human communication. In C. R. Sugimoto (Ed.), Theories of informetrics: A Festschrift in honor of blaise cronin (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  28. Michaelides-Mateou, S., & Mateou, A. (2010). Flying in the face of criminalization; the safety implications of prosecuting aviation professionals for accidents. London: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  29. Moray, N. P., & Huey, B. M. (Eds.). (1988). Human factors research and nuclear safety. Washington, DC: National Research Council, National Academic Press.Google Scholar
  30. Moss, J., Xiao, Y., & Zubaidah, S. (2002). The operating room charge nurse: Coordinator and communicator. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 9(6), S70–S74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Muir, B. M. (1987). Trust between humans and machines; the design of decision aids. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 27, 527–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Muir, B. M. (1994). Trust in automation: Part I. Theoretical issues in the study of trust and human intervention in automated systems. Ergonomics, 37(11), 1905–1922.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Muir, B. M., & Moray, N. (1996). Trust in automation. Part II. Experimental studies of trust and human intervention in a process control simulation. Ergonomics, 39(3), 429–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Muller, G. (1996). Secure communication – Trust in technology or trust with technology? Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 21, 336–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  36. Ostrom, E. (1998). A behavioral approach to the rational choice theory of collective action. American Political Science Review, 92, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Polanyi, M. (1966). The tacit dimension. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  38. Polychronopoulos, A., Tsogas, M., Amditis, A., & Andreone, L. (2007). Sensor fusion for predicting vehicles’ path for collision avoidance systems. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 8(3), 549–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rempel, J. K., Holmes, J. G., & Zanna, M. (1985). Trust in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(1), 95–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Romanian Civil Aviation Inspectorate (RCAI). (2000). Final Report on the accident of the Falcon 900B SX-ECH- 14 September 1999. Bucharest.Google Scholar
  41. Rowland-Morin, P. A., & Carroll, J. G. (1990). Verbal communication skills and patient satisfaction: A study of doctor-patient interviews. Evaluation & the Health Professions, 13(2), 168–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Salem, J. P. (2009). The complexity of human communication. Cresskill: Hampton Press.Google Scholar
  43. Shannon, C., & Weaver, W. (1949). A mathematical model of communication. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  44. Tsolakis, A. D. (2013). Dare! A way of life (Tolma! Enas Tropos Zois). Athens: 11Aviation Publications.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Theodoros Katerinakis
    • 1
  1. 1.Drexel On-Line CouncilDrexel UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations