*2.3. Procedure*

Table 1 provides an overview of the interview protocol. Each interview session took ~60 min to complete. The first part developed rapport with participants and elicited views of any substantive changes that had occurred across the industry. The second part applied the SITT and required the creation of a challenging workplace scenario (real or hypothetical). An A3-sized paper and felt-markers were provided to develop a pictographic scenario representation (see Figure 1 for example). With the aid of the illustration, the scenario was used to identify decisions, feelings and perceptions, and probe the role of the safety, regulation, impact of training, and the influence of someone with more/less experience. Pragmatic validity was ascertained through follow up checks of understanding with scenarios serving as concrete examples for broader views of safety and industry impacts. The study was approved by the Central Queensland University ethics committee (Approval no. H16/05-146).


### **Table 1.** Overview of the interview protocol.

**Figure 1.** Example pen-paper scenario drawing of a re-rigging landing gear task created by a participant in the study. The green figure (middle-right) depicts the avionics technician and the three red figures depict airframe engineers. Here, the Scenario Invention Task Technique (SITT) is being used to illustrate a coordinated effort of teamwork required between multiple airframe engineers and an avionics technician, highlighting the complexity and dynamism in the aircraft maintenance workplace, but also the perceived threat arising from interruptions, excessive bureaucracy, and issues related to education and training factors, and attitudes on ways of working.
