No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Failure to switch tasks due to cognitive lockup in airline pilots: a review of mechanisms, influences and mitigation strategies
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 17 October 2025
Abstract
Unstable approaches contribute significantly to accidents during the critical approach and landing phases of flight, many of which could have been prevented by executing a go-around. This review investigates cognitive lockup, a tendency to adhere to task completion despite shifting priorities, and its role in aviation incidents. Specifically, we explore the psychological underpinnings of cognitive lockup, the influence on pilot decision-making and potential mitigation strategies. We examine factors such as task completion bias, framing effects and the perceived cost of task switching, and provide recommendations for training and policy modifications to reduce cognitive lockup. Aviation safety in critical flight phases can be improved through enhanced pilot training, mindfulness techniques, positive policy framing and AI-based alert systems.
Keywords
Information
- Type
- Survey Paper
- Information
- Copyright
- © The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Royal Aeronautical Society
References
Boeing. Statistical Summary of Commercial Jet Airplane Accidents: Worldwide Operations 1959–2023, 2024. https://www.boeing.com/company/about-bca/statistical-summary.page
Google Scholar
Blajev, T. and Curtis, C. Go-Around Decision-Making and Execution Project, Flight Safety Foundation, 2017.Google Scholar
Moray, N. and Rotenberg, I. Fault management in process control: Eye movements and action, Ergonomics, 1989, 32, (11), pp 1319–1342.10.1080/00140138908966910CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cacciabue, P.C., Hjälmdahl, M., Luedtke, A. and Riccioli, C. Human Modelling in Assisted Transportation. Springer-Verlag Italia, 2011.10.1007/978-88-470-1821-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boehne, D. and Paese, P. Deciding whether to complete or terminate an unfinished project: A strong test of the project completion hypothesis, Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis Process., 2000, 81, (2), pp 178–194.10.1006/obhd.1999.2877CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arkes, H. and Blumer, C. The psychology of sunk cost, Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis Processes, 1985, 35, (1), pp 124–140.10.1016/0749-5978(85)90049-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beevis, D. Analysis techniques for man-machine system design, Def. Res Sect. NATO Headquarters, 1992, pp 91–105.Google Scholar
Zeigarnik, B. On finished and unfinished tasks, In Ellis, W.D. (Ed.), A Source Book of Gestalt Psychology, pp 300–314. Harcourt, Brace, 1927.10.1037/11496-025CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnston, N. Eastern Air Lines Flight 401 – A case study in CRM failure, In Proceedings of the Australian Aviation Psychology Symposium, 1993.Google Scholar
Schreuder, E. and Mioch, T. The effect of time pressure and task completion on the occurrence of cognitive lockup, In CEUR Proceedings of the 4th Workshop on Human Centered Processes (pp 63–74). University of Genoa, 2011.Google Scholar
Leveson, N. Engineering a Safer World: Systems Thinking Applied to Safety. MIT Press, 2022.Google Scholar
Dorobantu, S., Gruber, M., Ravasi, D. and Wellman, N. The AMJ management research canvas: A tool for conducting and reporting empirical research. Acad. Manage. J., 2024, 67, (5), pp 1163–1174.10.5465/amj.2024.4005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rasmussen, J. Skills, rules, and knowledge: Signals, signs, and symbols, and other distinctions in human performance models, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern., 1983, SMC-13, (3), pp 257–266.10.1109/TSMC.1983.6313160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garland, H. and Conlon, D. Too close to quit: The role of project completion in maintaining commitment, J. Appl. Social Psychol., 1998, 28, (22), pp 2025–2048.10.1111/j.1559-1816.1998.tb01359.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice, Science, 1981, 211, (4481), pp 453–458.10.1126/science.7455683CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jha, A.P., Stanley, E.A., Kiyonaga, A., Wong, L. and Gelfand, L. Examining the protective effects of mindfulness training on working memory capacity and affective experience, Emotion, 2010, 10, (1), pp 54–64.Google ScholarPubMed
Leonard, N.R., Casarjian, B. and Nemecek, D.A. Piloting mindfulness: Exploring mindfulness training for airline crew and air traffic control personnel, J. Air Transp. Manage., 2021, 96, p 102111.Google Scholar
van den Hurk, P.A.M., Giommi, F., Gielen, S.C., Speckens, A.E.M. and Barendregt, H.P. Greater efficiency in attentional processing related to mindfulness meditation, Q. J. Exp. Psychol., 2010, 63, (6), pp 1168–1180.10.1080/17470210903249365CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tang, Y.Y., Hölzel, B.K. and Posner, M.I. The neuroscience of mindfulness meditation. Nat. Rev. Neurosci., 2015, 16, (4), pp 213–225.10.1038/nrn3916CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zeidan, F., Johnson, S.K., Diamond, B.J., David, Z. and Goolkasian, P. Mindfulness meditation improves cognition: Evidence of brief mental training, Conscious Cogn., 2010, 19, (2), pp 597–605.10.1016/j.concog.2010.03.014CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shao, Y., Wang, M., Yang, J. and Zhang, H. Brief mindfulness training enhances cognitive control in task-switching. Conscious Cogn., 2016, 45, pp 190–197.Google Scholar