RQ1: How do Anti-Authority and Macho attitudes predict risk perception in general aviation pilots?

H01: Neither Anti-Authority nor Macho attitude is a significant predictor of risk perception.

Ha1: Both Anti-Authority and Macho are significant predictors of risk perception.

Risk has been defined in the literature in various ways [4] . Hunter stated that risk is inherent in any situation, to some degree, and that threats can differ according to how great a likelihood they have of contributing to an adverse event and the level of severity such an event would have. Dumitru and Stoiculete [5] described the risk as emerging from a combination of technical, human, and organizational factors. Multiple researchers have examined how general aviation pilots perceive risk. Risks have also been considered from the specific perspective of aviation itself. In general aviation, the threat is more pervasive than scheduled civilian air carrier operations and capable of prompting a more comprehensive range of responses due to a lack of protocols that pilots must follow. There is more significant variability in aircraft components and maintenance, aircraft built with different safety specifications, and a more permissive regulatory setting [6] . Researchers on aviation risks initially focused on technical factors contributing to dangerous outcomes. However, even perfectly maintained aircraft with excellent systems can still be flown into risky situations and involved in incidents [5] [7] .

Thus, subsequent studies have focused on human factors issues that interface with risk in aviation. Human factors studies on risk in aviation have revealed that pilots perceive risks differently depending on various factors. For example, pilots’ personalities and emotions can conceivably lead to differences in how severe and likely they perceive a given risk and whether they think they can maintain a safe flight when exposed [8] . Training can modify the perception of risk considering pilots’ self-confidence in their abilities, yet social and organizational influences can also play a role by reinforcing the running of stakes or encouraging safe responses to perceived risks [6] [9] .

Risk has been defined in the literature in various ways [10] . Hunter stated that risk is inherent in any situation, to some degree, and threats can differ according to how great a likelihood they have of contributing to an adverse event and the level of severity such an event would have [5] . Dumitru and Stoiculete described the risk as emerging from a combination of technical, human, and organizational factors. Risk in the context of general aviation should be considered to emerge from a variety of environmental conditions, technical characteristics of an aircraft and its instruments, and the behavior of the pilot, all of which contribute to the possibility of an unwanted and/or dangerous outcome [7] [11] .

Multiple researchers have examined how general aviation pilots perceive risk [10] . Hunter stated that pilots look at risk regarding environmental assessments as they scan their environments and weigh risk in their perceived ability to fly an aircraft in specific conditions, given their perceptions of their own skills. In the work of Walmsley and Gilbey [12] , risk perception among general aviation pilots has been found to incorporate elements of environmental perception, pilots’ goals in safely navigating potential hazards, and the perceived costs and benefits of avoiding versus navigating certain risks.

Risks have also been considered from the specific perspective of aviation itself. In general aviation, the threat is more pervasive than in scheduled civilian air carrier operations and capable of prompting a more comprehensive range of responses due to a lack of protocols that pilots are required to follow, more significant variability in aircraft components and maintenance, aircraft that are built with different safety specifications, and a more permissive regulatory setting [6] . Researchers on aviation risks initially focused on technical factors contributing to dangerous outcomes. However, even perfectly maintained aircraft with excellent systems can still be flown into risky situations and involved in incidents [5] [7] . Thus, subsequent studies have focused on human factors issues that interface with risk in aviation.

Human factors studies on risk in aviation have revealed that pilots perceive risks differently depending on various factors. For example, pilots’ personalities and emotions can conceivably lead to differences in how severely and likely they perceive a given risk and whether they think they can maintain a safe flight when exposed to the risk [8] . Training can modify the perception of risk considering pilots’ self-confidence in their abilities, yet social and organizational influences can also play a role by reinforcing the running of stakes or encouraging safe responses to perceived risks [6] [9] .

Anti-authority has been described as an attitude of rejection toward other persons or an individual deems social messages to tell that individual how to act or behave [10] . This attitude is hazardous because it can be conducive to the intentional rejection of sound perceptions of threats or safe responses to risks that have been perceived [4] . Although the anti-authority attitude may not directly induce pilots to engage in unsafe behaviors, it can cause pilots to overestimate their own efficacy in responding to risky situations, particularly if they feel that the messages from a source of authority are devaluing their own abilities [13] .

Cessna 150 Crash—Anti-Authority Attitude, Accident Summary

On a fateful journey in Baraboo, Wisconsin, a Cessna 150 aircraft met a tragic end, resulting in the aircraft being destroyed and the loss of two lives on board. The student pilot, “lacking an instrument rating, embarked on a 108-nautical-mile cross-country flight without the required instructor’s endorsement” [16] . Adding to the recklessness, he also carried a passenger, which was a clear breach of regulations. Although he had a mere 0.5 hours of simulated instrument training, there was no record of him obtaining a weather briefing before departure. According to Godlewski [16] , the initial weather conditions seemed favorable, with a few clouds and good visibility. However, as he approached his destination, he faced instrument meteorological conditions, including reduced visibility and low overcast ceilings.

The radar data depicted a tumultuous flight path, especially in the last 15 miles, which showcased erratic altitude and course changes. This erratic behavior culminated in a spiral of approximately 1 - 1/2 turns before the data cut off, with the last known position roughly 0.57 miles from where the aircraft was found wrecked [16] . The tragic incident was primarily attributed to the student pilot’s insufficient preflight planning and his ill-advised decision to venture into challenging weather conditions, leading to a catastrophic loss of control over the aircraft [16] .

Overlapping Characteristics

While each hazardous attitude has unique traits, Anti-Authority and Macho attitudes often manifest concurrently. A pilot with a strong Anti-Authority attitude might also display Macho tendencies when challenged. Addressing both can offer comprehensive insights into how they might reinforce each other.

Macho is an “attitude characterized by the individual looking for and taking advantage of opportunities to utilize their skills in potentially unsafe situations to prove these skills to others or oneself” [13] . Despite its name, male and female pilots can experience high levels of this attitude [8] . This attitude is higher among pilots who have a perceived need to prove their own skills in flight to themselves and others and may be covariant with the level of the anti-authority attitude in many pilots. However, it is distinct enough to exist as an entirely separate construct [4] .

The Younkin Legacy and Double-Edged Sword of Aerobatics, Accident Summary

In the shadowed realm of aerobatic aviation, the legacy of familial prowess and the compulsion to carry forward a generational torch can be overwhelmingly potent. “Matt Younkin’s crash near Siloam Springs Municipal Airport is a stark reminder of the high stakes and risks tied to stunt flying” [17] . While the incident saw Matt fortunately sustaining only minor injuries, it dredges up memories of a tragic event that hit the Younkin family four years prior. Bobby Younkin, Matt’s father, and a seasoned stunt pilot met his untimely demise in a mid-air collision during an airshow in 2005 [17] .

Such tragic events can oftentimes become an indomitable force, pushing surviving family members to either retreat from the perilous world of aerobatics or to dive deeper, perhaps driven by a “macho” attitude to uphold and extend family legacies. In Matt’s case, he opted for the latter. Despite the clear-cut dangers and personal trauma, Matt, in a 2006 interview, expressed his intention to perpetuate his father’s legacy in stunt flying.

This choice, while admirable in showcasing grit and determination, also reflects the “macho” mindset, where taking risks, embracing challenges, and showcasing one’s mettle become intertwined with personal identity. The drive to not only follow but to excel in a familial tradition as illustrious and perilous as stunt flying, especially after such a personal tragedy, is emblematic of a “macho” attitude. Tommy Lee, a close family friend’s remark underscores this, emphasizing that for Matt, flying was not just a passion but an intrinsic part of who he is—it was “in his blood” [17] . This, combined with the weight of a storied family legacy, might have contributed to Matt’s decision to take to the skies, even in the face of immense personal and professional risk. The perception and handling of risk in aviation differ among pilots due to various factors. Personality, training, and environmental factors are crucial in how pilots perceive and respond to risks. Recent studies have indicated that while technical factors are essential, human factors, especially attitudes like Anti-Authority and Macho, play a decisive role in risk management and decision-making.