| Intentional rule breaking is identified as a contributing factor in accidents. Thirty pilots are interviewed about their experiences with intentional rule breaking. Each pilot is asked to relate two stories; one where a rule was broken and one where the pilot thought about breaking a rule but did not. The motivating factors and the risks associated with those experiences are examined. The results indicate that economic factors, either in favor of the pilot or the pilot's employer, play a major role in tempting pilots to break the rules. A wide range of possible fears and consequences concerning the violation are identified. How the pilots calculate the likelihood that one outcome will be realized over another is not determined. Implications for industry and possible courses of action are discussed. The pilots' experiences are also compared to a rule breaking theory, Situational Control Theory, and its three elements: high reward, low probability of detection and no adverse reaction from peers. The events involving intentional rule breaking discovered in this research study validate this theory. In those cases where the pilot did not break the rule, the theory is again validated in that one of the three elements is not satisfied, and the violation does not take place. A modification to Situational Control Theory is discussed. |
