Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-hqrjx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-13T12:51:04.422Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

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

A. Singh Open the ORCID record for A. Singh [Opens in a new window]
A. Singh*
Affiliation:
Safety Matters Foundation, Gurugram, India
*
Email: amit@safetymatters.co.in
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

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

aviation safetycognitive lockupcrew resource management (CRM)framing effectgo-around decision-makinghuman factorsmindfulness in aviationpilot decision-makingsunk cost fallacytask completion biastask switchingtime pressureunstable approach

Information

Type
Survey Paper
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 130 , Issue 1344 , February 2026 , pp. 303 - 311
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Royal Aeronautical Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cacciabue, P.C., Hjälmdahl, M., Luedtke, A. and Riccioli, C. Human Modelling in Assisted Transportation. Springer-Verlag Italia, 2011.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arkes, H. and Blumer, C. The psychology of sunk cost, Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis Processes, 1985, 35, (1), pp 124–140.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice, Science, 1981, 211, (4481), pp 453–458.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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