Safety Locus of Control
PsychologicalA self-insight questionnaire based on aviation-safety locus of control research. Rate 24 statements about why flights end safely — pilot skill and preparation versus luck, weather, and the system — and see your Internality and Externality profile with a full per-item breakdown.
Overview
Locus of control — a concept from Rotter's social-learning theory — describes whether you attribute outcomes to your own actions (internal) or to outside forces like luck, fate, and circumstances (external). Hunter's Aviation Safety Locus of Control research adapted this to pilots: aviation statements scored into separate Internality and Externality subscales, with lower internality associated with involvement in more hazardous aviation events. Airline psychological evaluations and interviews probe this attribution style — how you talk about incidents, setbacks, and near-misses. This questionnaire uses 24 original aviation-flavoured statements in the same format to show you your own profile, explain what the research associates with each pole, and help you reflect before an assessment. Results are saved to your account so you can track how your profile develops.
Example: one statement, two readings
Every statement is rated from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree and feeds one of two subscales — Internality (safety comes from what pilots do) or Externality (safety comes from luck, weather, and the system). Take this one:
“Whether a small mistake turns into an incident depends mainly on circumstances outside the crew's control.”
Strongly Agree — external reading
You're saying outcomes hinge on circumstances, not the crew. Scores 5/5 toward Externality.
Strongly Disagree — internal reading
You're saying crews catch and contain small mistakes before they grow. Scores 1/5 toward Externality — keeping your external score low.
Some statements are reverse-keyed — worded against their own subscale so that just agreeing with everything can't produce an extreme profile. For example, “Beyond basic competence, extra effort on preparation makes little difference to how safely a flight goes.” belongs to Internality, but agreeing with it denies the value of effort — so Strongly Agree scores 1/5 and Strongly Disagree scores highest. The report marks every reverse-keyed item so you can see exactly how each answer counted.
There are no right or wrong answers, and this isn't a test to beat — research links a stronger internal orientation with safer flying, but the value here is seeing your honest attribution style before an airline probes it in questionnaires and interviews.
Game Phases
Rate statements
Work through 24 short statements about accident causation, four per page, on a five-point agree–disagree scale.
No time pressure
There is no timer and no right or wrong answers — progress is saved on this device so you can resume later.
See your profile
Get your Internality and Externality scores with an honest summary of what safety research associates with each.
Review every item
A per-item breakdown shows how each answer counted — including the reverse-keyed statements — so nothing is a black box.
More Practice
Judgement & Attitudes
3 exercisesSituational Judgement Test
Read realistic cockpit and crew-room scenarios and judge how a professional flight crew would respond. A practice and reflection tool: after you commit, you compare your judgement with an expert reference and read the reasoning behind it. Play the classic format, or a chat presentation modelled on Aon's chatAssess.
Hazardous Attitudes
Learn and reflect on the FAA's Five Hazardous Attitudes from aeronautical decision-making training. Rate 25 statements for a per-attitude self-profile, or drill short scenarios: name the attitude a pilot's response shows, then pick its prescribed antidote.
CRM Scenarios
Work through evolving flight-deck situations in two or three steps. At each step you choose how to respond as a crewmember, then see how that response would land with the crew and which CRM principle is in play — authority gradient, closed-loop communication, PACE advocacy, shared mental model, workload management.