often shuts-off subordinates and discourages communication. The more contemporary human resources style builds subordinates' confidence and encourages good communication. Human resources oriented flight crew leaders have been described as follows: The effective (cockpit) manager recognizes personal limitations and diminished decision-making in emergencies and encourages other crewmembers to question decisions and actions. This individual is sensitive to personal problems of other crewmembers that might affect operations and feels obligated to discuss personal limitations. He or she recognizes the need for the pilot flying to verbalize plans and the importance of the captain's role in training other crewmembers. The effective manager also recognizes the need for a relaxed and harmonious flightdeck and the fact that optimal management style varies as a function of both situations and the characteristics of fellow crewmembers. This individual also stresses the captain's responsibility for coordinating cabin crew activities [65, p. 1199-1200]. Helmreich and his associates administered a Cockpit Management Attitude Questionnaire to a large number of professional pilots [65], Scores reflect the extent to which respondents tended to follow traditional or human resources models. Performance data were available from the ratings accorded respondents by highly qualified "check pilots" who evaluated their performance during flight simulations. Results showed that pilots who followed the older, more authoritarian traditions received lower check-ratings than did those who subscribed to the human resources model. Other data suggests that in some cases unapproachable captains may have discouraged crewmembers from volunteering information that could have prevented actual accidents [63-66]. Such data force us to rethink the role of the individual in flight and hence criteria for choosing among crew candidates. Once flight is viewed as a group endeavor, social skills join technical requirements for crew membership, and the kind of person who is best suited for a solo mission is not necessarily the best suited for a multi-person mission. Furthermore, these results support the view that crew captains (in the air or in space) are likely to benefit from human relations training [66]. Conclusion Isolation and confinement are stressful and from this can flow many unwanted results. It is not the intent of this paper to divert attention from the psychological "downside" of spaceflight. Rather, we hope to underscore work suggesting that not only do many people survive isolation and confinement - they seem to enjoy it and even derive long-term benefits. The psychological "upside" is that spaceflight can: (1) contribute to a growing sense of competence mastery, and self-actualization; (2) foster coping skills which contribute to good health; (3) contribute to creativity; (4) give rise to peak experiences which have profound effects on spacefarers' lives; and (5) build social cohesion and high group morale. Furthermore, some of the psychological benefits of space exploration accrue to society at large.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTU5NjU0Mg==