Monitors, Reviews
and Adapts Decisions

Two failure modes sit either side of every decision on the flight deck. The first is the pilot who delays it: waiting for certainty that rarely arrives, hedging, letting the situation degrade while the options narrow. The second is less obvious and just as costly. It is the pilot who makes the decision and then considers it closed, who treats commitment as a virtue even when the circumstances have shifted underneath it.

The previous behaviour in this competency deals with the first: setting priorities, generating genuine options and committing. This one deals with the second. It is the half of decision making that starts the moment the decision is made.

Decisions Are Working Hypotheses

A decision is the end product of a process: gathering information, diagnosing the situation, developing options and committing to the most appropriate course of action available at that moment. The important words are at that moment. Aviation is a dynamic environment. The diagnosis that was accurate at top of descent may not be accurate on final. The contingency plan that made sense at the gate may not hold when two unexpected factors compound at low level.

What distinguishes high-performing crews is not the quality of their initial decisions under pressure. It is the quality of their review. Making a decision and reviewing it are not sequential steps; they run in parallel. The moment a decision is made, the review clock starts, and every new piece of information is a prompt to test whether that decision still holds.

The R in TDODAR

TDODAR (Time, Diagnosis, Options, Decision, Assign, Review) gives a crew the structure to move from a situation to a decision deliberately. The R is the letter most often treated as a formality. In a non-normal, it is the one that confirms whether everything before it has worked.

Review is not a debrief that happens after landing. It is an active, ongoing check: is the decision we made still the right one? Is it producing the outcome we intended? Has anything changed that should change our course of action? A decision that is made and then abandoned to execution without monitoring may be producing a different outcome to the one intended, without anyone on the flight deck noticing.

At its best, the review is not the end of the process but the beginning of the next cycle. Decision, execution, review, adaptation, maintained from the first moment of the event until it is resolved. The situation in a non-normal is rarely static. Conditions change, new information arrives, the consequences of the fault develop. The decision that was correct when it was made may not remain correct as the situation evolves.

Needs Time, or Needs Changing?

Not every decision produces its intended outcome immediately. Some need time to take effect, conditions to develop, or further actions to be completed before the result is visible. The core discipline of this behaviour is knowing the difference between a decision that needs time and one that is genuinely not working.

That judgement is far easier if the crew has defined what success looks like before it is needed. When the decision is made, say what you expect to see and by when: the indications, the flight path, the fuel, the weather, the response from ATC or the company. That expectation becomes the reference the review is measured against. Monitor the execution against it. If the outcome is developing as planned, maintain the decision. If the indicators show it is not producing what was intended, or the situation has changed so that the original decision no longer fits, adapt without delay.

There is a balance to keep. A leader who revisits a decision without new information creates uncertainty in the crew at the moment they most need certainty. Review is triggered by evidence, an agreed review point or a change in the situation, not by a vague unease. Commit clearly, execute decisively, and keep the picture updated.

Adapting Without Ego

When the review shows the decision needs to change, the response is to change it, promptly and without the pressure to protect a decision that is no longer serving the situation. Changing a decision is not a failure. Refusing to change it when the evidence demands it is.

A proposed change deserves the same scrutiny as the original decision. BRAN (Benefits, Risks, Alternatives, Nothing) tests its integrity quickly: what does the change achieve, what could go wrong, what else could we do, and what happens if we leave the plan as it is? Then brief the change clearly. A revised plan that lives only in one pilot's head is a divergence in the shared mental model waiting to surface. Confirm that both pilots are working from the updated picture before the next stage of execution begins, and assign any new tasks it creates.

Composure matters here. The crew takes its cue from the way the change is made. A calm "this isn't giving us what we expected, so we'll change the plan" keeps the structured process intact. A hurried reversal, made without explanation, can unsettle the crew as much as the original problem did.

Review Starts Before the Problem

This behaviour is not reserved for non-normals. Every plan made on the ground is a decision based on information available at the time. The weather at destination and alternate, the fuel against plan, the operational picture: all of it will have moved on by the cruise. A contingency plan that has not been updated since the briefing may no longer reflect the operation you are actually flying.

The cruise is the natural review point. While workload is low and options are still plentiful, work through the plan as a crew: what has changed, and what does it mean for the descent and approach? The crew that arrives at top of descent having already reviewed the weather, reassessed the alternate and confirmed the fuel has converted spare capacity in the cruise into resilience in the descent. Decisions reviewed under low workload are better decisions than the same ones made under descent workload.

Building the Habit on Ordinary Sectors

Good review under pressure is not a separate skill from good review on a quiet sector. It is the same skill, expressed at speed, by a crew that has built the habit across hundreds of ordinary flights. If the R in TDODAR is only ever practised in the simulator, it will be the first step dropped when the workload rises for real.

So use it when nothing much is at stake. When a minor irregularity arises (an unexpected clearance change, a systems message that needs a decision, a weather development that affects the plan) make the decision deliberately, state what you expect to happen, and then review it ten minutes later. Was the decision right? Is it still right? That small loop, repeated sector after sector, is what makes the review automatic on the day it really matters.

Frequently Asked Questions

What does 'monitors, reviews and adapts decisions' mean for pilots?

It is one of the observable behaviours of the Problem Solving and Decision Making competency. Once a decision has been made, the crew monitors whether it is producing the outcome it was meant to, reviews it as new information arrives, and changes it when the situation demands. A decision is treated as a working plan, not a finished one.

What is the review step in TDODAR?

TDODAR stands for Time, Diagnosis, Options, Decision, Assign and Review. The review is the step that checks whether the decision is still the right one: is it producing the expected result, and has anything changed that should change the course of action? It is an active, ongoing check during the flight, not a debrief after landing.

How do you know when to change a decision?

State what you expect to see, and by when, at the moment you make the decision. If the indicators are developing as expected, the decision may simply need time. If they are not, or the situation has changed in a way that makes the original decision inappropriate, change it. Review is triggered by new information or an agreed review point, not by doubt alone.

Isn't changing a decision a sign of indecision?

No. Indecision is revisiting options without new information, which creates uncertainty in the crew. Adapting is changing a decision because the evidence demands it. Committing clearly and changing the decision when the situation requires are not contradictory qualities; a good decision-maker needs both.

How is this behaviour assessed in the simulator?

Instructors look for whether the crew set a review point, monitored the outcome of their decision, noticed when it was not working or when conditions changed, and adapted promptly with the change briefed to the whole crew. A crew that reached a safe outcome but never revisited a decision that had stopped fitting the situation has not demonstrated the behaviour.

The Nine Behaviours

Problem Solving and Decision Making is assessed through nine observable behaviours. Each has its own deep dive.