As this PhD research develops, one of the most important refinements has been conceptual rather than technical. The central question is no longer simply how pilots react to startle and surprise in highly automated cockpits. That part of the story is already well recognised in aviation human factors. The more pressing and underexplored question is what happens next.

When routine performance is disrupted, the first seconds matter. A sudden warning, unexpected automation behaviour, or a rapidly changing operational picture can generate a very human response. Yet safety is not decided by the initial jolt alone. It is shaped by the crew’s ability to regain orientation, interpret what is happening, manage workload, challenge assumptions, and adapt their actions under pressure. That is where this research now places its main focus.

This refinement matters because it helps draw a clearer boundary around the concept of Cognitive Resilience (CR). Rather than treating CR as a vague synonym for calmness, toughness, or generic competence, the research is increasingly defining it as a post-disruption capacity. In other words, CR is not simply about being startled less. It is about recovering more effectively once the disruption has already occurred.

That shift also strengthens the practical value of the work. Commercial aviation is now deeply shaped by automation, procedural sophistication, and reduced exposure to non-routine manual intervention. In normal operations, that brings enormous benefits. But it can also mean that opportunities to practise reorientation, adaptation, and recovery are less frequent in everyday flying. The challenge is not just whether crews know procedures. It is whether they can rebuild understanding and act effectively when the situation no longer fits the expected script.