Automatic Mimicry and Mirroring Behavior: Impact on Two Pilots – Pilot Flying and Pilot Monitoring

---

Introduction to Automatic Mimicry and Mirroring Behavior

Automatic mimicry and mirroring behaviour are common in social interactions, where individuals unconsciously imitate the body language, gestures, and even thoughts of those around them. In the high-stakes world of aviation, these behaviours can be beneficial and detrimental, particularly when they occur between pilot flying (PF) and pilot monitoring (PM). Understanding how automatic mimicry affects pilots in critical situations, such as during stressful flight operations, is crucial for ensuring cockpit safety.

---

The Science Behind Automatic Mimicry in Aviation

In the cockpit, automatic mimicry stems from mirror neurons, which fire when we observe someone else acting, leading to unconscious imitation. This is generally a positive force in social situations, as it helps individuals build rapport and understanding. However, in high-pressure environments like the flight deck, it can lead to unwanted consequences, particularly when it comes to role-specific tasks that require independent focus.

Mirror neurons are highly activated during stress, causing pilots to unknowingly mimic each other’s focus and behavior. In normal circumstances, the PF is responsible for handling the controls, while the PM should monitor the overall flight systems, including engine performance and navigation. When automatic mimicry kicks in during stressful situations, the PM may start focusing on the same instruments or actions as the PF, which can lead to a dangerous reduction in overall situational awareness.

---

Impact on Pilots: Pilot Flying vs. Pilot Monitoring

The PF and the PM dynamics are designed to ensure that both pilots share the workload without overlapping responsibilities. The PF handles direct flight control tasks, such as steering and altitude management, while the PM monitors the aircraft’s systems and ensures the flight progresses safely according to procedures. However, during high-stress situations or emergencies, automatic mimicry and mirroring behavior can erode this separation of duties.

Troxler effect too plays a key role in this kind of behaviour.

Example 1: Distraction During Turbulence

In severe turbulence, the PF’s focus is on controlling the aircraft’s attitude and stability. Ideally, the PM should scan the instruments to ensure the engines are operating normally and that the altitude and heading are maintained. However, if the PM begins to mirror the PF’s stress and focuses solely on the PF’s actions, they may overlook critical systems or alerts, such as a sudden engine anomaly or altitude deviation, because their attention has narrowed.

---

Real-Life Example: How Automatic Mimicry Leads to Tunnel Vision

A well-documented case in aviation history showcases the potential danger of automatic mimicry in the cockpit. In the 1978 United Airlines Flight 173 incident, the crew became so focused on troubleshooting a landing gear malfunction that they failed to properly monitor the fuel levels. Both the PF and PM were fixated on solving the immediate problem, neglecting to monitor other critical systems. This example illustrates how automatic mimicry, in which both pilots focused on the same issue, contributed to a loss of situational awareness, leading to the aircraft running out of fuel before landing.

This case exemplifies how automatic mimicry between the PF and PM can cause both pilots to adopt a similar focus, effectively leaving the aircraft without someone monitoring the broader situation.

---

The Role of Mirroring in High-Stress Flight Situations

In high-stress flight situations, mirroring behavior is even more pronounced. Stress can narrow a person’s focus, a phenomenon known as “tunnel vision,” which is particularly problematic in aviation where maintaining a broad awareness of the entire flight system is critical. When the PF is under pressure and becomes intensely focused on a single instrument or task, the PM might unconsciously mirror this focus, thinking that if the PF is zeroing in on a particular problem, it must be the most critical task at hand.

Example 2: Emergency Descent

During an emergency descent due to cabin depressurization, the PF is focused on safely bringing the plane to a lower altitude. The PM’s role is to monitor other systems, communicate with air traffic control, and ensure the descent follows proper procedures. However, if the PM begins mirroring the PF’s actions—watching the altimeter or focusing on the PF’s input—they may lose track of other critical tasks like monitoring engine performance or alerting cabin crew. This mirroring behavior reduces the teamwork efficiency, leaving gaps in oversight during a critical time.

---

Psychological Effects: Loss of Situational Awareness

The combination of automatic mimicry and mirroring behavior often leads to a phenomenon called channelized attention—a narrowed focus on a single task or set of instruments to the exclusion of other important data. This can cause a dangerous loss of situational awareness, as both pilots become focused on the same elements, leaving other critical systems or tasks unmonitored.

In the cockpit, situational awareness is vital for maintaining safety. When the PM mirrors the PF’s actions, their role as a system monitor becomes compromised, which can lead to missed warning signs, such as an off-course navigation or declining fuel levels. The PM’s role is to maintain a broad focus, ensuring that all aspects of the flight are running smoothly, but automatic mimicry during stressful situations can significantly impair this ability.

---

Preventing Automatic Mimicry in Aviation

To mitigate the risk of automatic mimicry and mirroring behavior in aviation, pilots undergo Crew Resource Management (CRM) training, which emphasizes communication, role clarity, and task separation. Ensuring each pilot is aware of their specific role and responsibilities can reduce the risk of mimicry during stressful situations.

Key Strategies:

1. Clear Role Assignments: Reinforcing the distinct roles of PF and PM can help prevent overlap in focus, ensuring both pilots are aware of their tasks at all times.
2. Frequent Cross-Checking: Regular verbal cross-checks between the PF and PM can ensure that both pilots maintain situational awareness. This encourages the PM to stay engaged in monitoring the broader flight status.
3. Use of Checklists: Adherence to standard operating procedures (SOPs) and checklists helps prevent the PM from becoming too focused on the PF’s tasks. Checklists are designed to guide the PM through necessary monitoring steps, reducing the risk of fixation.

---

Conclusion: Enhancing Safety and Efficiency in the Cockpit

Automatic mimicry and mirroring behavior can profoundly impact the dynamic between the pilot flying and the pilot monitoring. While these behaviors are essential in everyday social interactions, they can pose significant risks in the cockpit, where task separation is crucial for safety. By understanding the science behind mimicry and recognizing its effects, pilots can work to maintain situational awareness, reduce fixation, and enhance overall cockpit efficiency. CRM training, clear communication, and strict adherence to protocols can help mitigate the negative effects of automatic mimicry, ensuring that both pilots maintain focus on their distinct roles during critical situations.

Check out this article for further insights into crew resource management and its role in preventing automatic mimicry.

---

Image Alt Text: Pilot Monitoring Instruments to Prevent Automatic Mimicry