Role of Crew Resource Management in Aviation - Report Example

Introduction

Crew resource management is the in effect utilization of all resources available for airlift crew personnel to guarantee an efficient and safe operation, in the reduction of error, avoidance of stress and increase of efficiency. It comprises a bunch of training procedures which are used in situations where errors emanating from humans may result in overwhelming effects. It is primarily used to improve air safety, and its focus is on leadership, interpersonal communication and making decisions in the cockpit. It applies human factors, skills and knowledge in conducting flight operations with the aim of efficiently employing all existing resources (people, systems, and equipment). It aims at attaining flight processes which are safe through a combination of human aspect knowledge and personal skills with active coordination of the aircrew (Cooper, White, & Lauber, 1980).

The development of CRM was as the result of the need to respond to new understandings into the factors leading to aircraft accidents following from the institution of flight data resources (FDRs) as well as cockpit voice recorders (CVRs) into a modern jet airplane. Data gotten from the devices has shown that some accidents are not caused by the technical fault of the planes/their systems, poor handling skills leading to aircraft failure or inadequate technical knowledge from the crew. Rather it is revealed that they result from incapability of aircrews to react appropriately to the circumstances in which they find themselves. For instance, insufficient communications amongst crew associates and various parties would lead to situational awareness loss, a teamwork failure in the aircraft and eventually, to incorrect decision or sequences of decisions resulting to severe incidences or deadly accidents.

According to Cooper, White, & Lauber, (1980), Crew resource management resulted from the Tenerife airport disaster in 1977 in which two Boeing 747 aircraft had a collision on the runway and killed 583 persons. Later, NASA called for a workshop regarding the incident and endorsed the training innovativeness of CRM. The United Airlines became the air company in providing training of CRM for its cockpit crews in 1981 and throughout the 1990s, it was known to be a worldwide standard. The extensive establishment of the vigorous flight stimulator to aid in training permitted numerous new concepts on the causes of flight accidents to be explored in experimental settings. Based on the results, and in correcting the notable lack of crew skills, extra training in flight level management methods has been established by many airlines. After an era of research and development, the techniques incorporated in the new training ended up being referred to as crew resource management. The significance CRM theory and use of training to promote more efficient and safer aircraft operations are now recognized globally. Although CRM has existed for more than two decades, there is still confusion in the aviation industry and other industries on the precise implication of the term. Several people have the feeling that it is psychobabble conceived by the oblivious and bizarre, with a scheme to make frequently right persons having much leadership and airmanship into uncertain oddities possessing duplicated personalities.

Crew resources management skills and roles

According to Helmreich, & Foushee, (1993), CRM is not only concerned with technical expertise and knowledge, but also cognitive as well as interpersonal skills required in managing the flight in an organized system of aviation. In aviation, Cognitive skills are the mental processes which are used to gain and maintain situational awareness to solve problems and make decisions. On the other hand, interpersonal skills are communications and various behavioral manners related to teamwork. All the skills of aviation usually overlap with one another.

Cognitive skills

Situational awareness: it comprises conscious acknowledgment of all the features and conditions (technical, operational and human) which have effects on the secure aircraft operations. In establishing situational awareness, humans use their five senses of hearing, touching, smelling, tasting and seeing in taking in information and also intuitively or sub-consciously. The data is then converted by the brain into a situation of the mental model through the process of perception. The perceptive process rests on both present information and previous sensations and experience in evaluating a given situation. It is for that reason a product of instant feelings as well as social and cultural influences attained through experiences of a lifetime. In accordance, due to varied factors shaping lives of different people, they interpret situations in different manners. Besides, they may also be overly subjective to false information resulting from the senses like illusions. As a result of these factors, a great degree of situational consciousness is achieved solely when the perception of an individual regarding events faces the situation's reality (Helmreich, & Foushee, 1993).

Pilots in aircraft obtain most of the information concerning situational awareness from the instruments of flight and the equipment of navigation on board. The construction process of an accurate mental model of aircraft's position in the space, the crew and flight conditions is subject to various degrading effects like a distraction, inattention, stress, under-arousal, fatigue, and boredom (Helmreich, & Foushee, 1993). In circumstances like these, confirmation of the mental model accuracy with other members of the crew through information and perception sharing on the condition, and by affirming intentions, is an of supreme importance in the efficient and safe flight management. Moreover, info and knowledge sharing help in both avoiding the most precise events and accidents occurring from loss of circumstances awareness such as flight control into terrain and also sets a firm foundation for decisions of high quality concerning the entire flight management.

Planning and making of decisions: one of the fundamental aims of Crew Resource Management is ensuring taking of high-quality decisions in the whole flight operations spectrum. In aviation, full pre-flight planning provides a yardstick against which decisions on board are made and allows all the crew participants to successfully manage personal specific responsibilities. Also, comprehending the plan allows the team to participate effectively in the decision-making process in the flight. Therefore, it is important for the captain to give updates regularly on alterations made from the original plan as the flight continues to enable the crew team to maintain proper situational awareness. Moreover, frequent updates are vital during operations which are abnormal or emergency states where circumstances influencing the flight progress and aircraft safety have the likelihood of changing rapidly. In such situations, regular updates on flight status enable every crew member to be adequately aware of the state of affairs and momentarily needs to contribute effectively in decision making. When the junior members of the crew are allowed to take part in the process of decision-making, it does not show that every decision is to be made by committee. The level of participation or rather from juniors on the crew team depends heavily on the kind of the behavior in which the decision underlies (McAllister, 1997).

Actions based on skills rely mostly on previous learning, and any related decisions are majorly made subconsciously. In a situation like this, other members of the crew perform the passive role of monitoring, even though this may need assertive intervention where the degree of skill to being exhibited by the decision-maker is under a safe standard, for instance, if a non-flying team member perceives that the plane may be unintentionally descending in clouds heading to high ground. Behaviours based on rules depend on former courses of action considered like standard operational procedures (SOPs) and Standard Instrument Departures (SIDs), flight manuals. The decisions which are related are made relatively in the subconscious, in which prior training and experience are deployed as well as in the conscious mind in which past learning is related with present situation's realities (McAllister, 1997). In circumstances like these, other crew members involvement can be needed in verifying and validating the actions proposed by the one making decisions. Lastly, behaviors based on knowledge are used in conditions which were not experienced previously. In such situations, the crew is required to make a substantial scope for other members of the team involvement where the cases allow, even beyond agencies like Technical control or ATC.

The participation level in the process of decision-making depends considerably on the present social norms and the organizational culture. The factors encompass the perceptions of aircraft commanders on their authorities or roles, and the manner of understanding shared by other teams and different supporting agencies. Today, leaders managing the flight afflictively and openly, and who show their targets at various times during the flights, have more likelihood of securing the participation and co-operation of another crew team as opposed to the strict and overbearing ones. The style of command, however, usually depends on a perception of the company's/ organization's expectations from each crew member. The in effect CRM will thus succeed only where there is existence of organizational culture which encourages and empowers subordinate members of the team to help the captain through appropriate involvement in the process of decision making whenever they are needed.

Interpersonal skills

Communications: evidently, effective communication amongst the crew members is an essential requirement for proper CRM. Studies have revealed that in the same manner in which its most extensively perceived role of information transfer, the process of communication in flight also satisfies other essential functions. Conferring to McAllister, (1997), communication helps in both enabling the crew to develop a joint problems mental model that need resolution during the flight, thus improving situational awareness and also allows solving of problems to be shared among the team members. It is done through adding every crew member to contribute properly and efficiently to the decision-making process. Most significantly, it creates the interpersonal among the team and thus it is a vital element in tone setting for the flight management.

The process of communication invariably occurs in an organizational and social context. Therefore, it is intensely influenced by the corporate culture. Besides, its efficiency depends on the level of experience of the crew members/pilot taking part in the operation and the perceptions they have on their functions and positions in the command chain. Similarly, the communication process effectiveness, relies on the nature of the job and the context of operation in which the flight is happening, such as the phase of the aircraft as well as if it is conducted in, non-normal, emergency or typical situations. Moreover, it if influenced by the speech mode used and the context of linguistic where the transaction occurs. In such context, body language, personal styles, acts of speech patterns and grammatical styles all play their parts. As a result of the complexities, each member of the team is required to be aware of and subtle the degrees of effective communication. The team also should understand and evade if possible the elements that make barriers to effective communication.

Teamwork: for a fruitful cooperation, there must be greater group output compared to total efforts of each crew members acting solely. The process in which the crew works as a team is referred to as synergism. It is produced through interactions of the crew members, in which every person is empowered and promoted in contributing in the most efficient manner to the whole duty of the team. It is unlikely for interaction to happen, though, unless every individual participant of the crew thoroughly understands their responsibility in the group and the method of varying roles on circumstances in which decisions are made, and actions were taken. As a result, proper communication in a group, a greater situational awareness level and a full understanding of the process of decision-making by the whole team are all requirements for creating synergy and the overall team performance in an efficient way. For reasons of operations, some crew participants make a new flight team in every flight. Thus, it is vital that the entire company's culture promotes and nurtures an environment for good teamwork to flourish. It is also evident that an organizational culture which is healthy and vigorously encourages CRM will as well raise good partnership as CRM and co-ordination are inseparably intertwined in the jurisdiction of practical techniques of flight management (McAllister, 1997).

Stress and Emotional climate

Emotional climate: this is the way a team member feels about themselves as well as the others in flight operations. Research shows that features that create a constructive tone personally and jointly on a flight deck and amongst the broader operating group boost the efficacy of interpersonal and cognitive skills exhibited by the crew members. Factors which may disturb the emotional climate of team members during their operations include supportive communication, safety perceptions, job clarity and expectations, freedom of expression, acknowledgment for contribution, involvement, and participation. Despite the fact that the tone/climate of tasks relies majorly on the conduct and attitude of the pilot, each member of the crew must, however, conscious of the importance of a good working climate, and try to practice the behaviors which are favorable to it.

Stress: it can rapidly challenge the operating emotional climate of the crew. It is defined as a situation of greatly unfriendly emotional stimulation linked variedly with fear, overload, anger, anxiety and hostility which threaten personal and teamwork performance. Stress frequently results from a perceived break between the situational demands and the ability of a person to cope with the requirements. Because stress encompasses evaluation and perception process, it intrudes directly on the interpersonal and cognitive skills that form the foundation of good CRM. Mutually, alertness and arousal are essential in enabling every individual to attain optimal performance in skills which are related to CRM, although a lot of/petite arousal would result in an expressively adverse effect on crew's ability to work efficiently as a team. Therefore, it is significant for the crew to be alert on stress symptoms among others and themselves and understand the impacts of stress on CRM, so as to mitigate the effects of possible through countermeasure actions.

How to manage stress

In situations where there is high pressure, stress relieves can be through the establishment of priorities and delegation of tasks to other members of the crew. However, the technique can be efficaciously applied if only the culture of the organization has been set in the principal instance that gives power to the subordinates through training them in the interpersonal and cognitive skills which will facilitate them in taking extra responsibility in cases of emergency. Where the situation involves low pressure of boredom, fatigue and more than familiarity with the job as the extreme hazards, careful consideration to environmental settings like humidity, heat, vibration, lighting, and noise can assist in maintaining attention. The concern of personal crew team for their individual physical wellbeing by observing fitness and keeping a healthy life-style, by job demands, likewise, will guarantee contribution of their best ability to the efforts of the team in times of need.

How different personalities and cultures can be a barrier to CRM effectiveness.

National Transport Safety Board, Aircraft Accident Report No. HK2016 states that many flights of incidences accidents are as a result of human factors. The primary human factor is the pilot error. Pilot error is a decision, action/inaction take by a captain or crew members of a flight which are determined as a cause or the factor contributing to an incidence or accident. Pilot error may be an oversight, a mistake or lack of due diligence from pilots when carrying out their responsibilities. Pilot errors are caused by physiological and psychological human limits. There has been the implementation of different types of error and threat management by CRM into the training programs of crews and pilots on the ways of dealing with threatening situations which occur during flights. Where an accident happens due to pilot error, the assumption is that the captain made an unintentional mistake. Conversely, an intentional ignorance of a standard procedure of the operation (warning) is also seen as a pilot error, even where the actions of the pilot warranted criminal charges. Pilot error is evidently revealed in many plane crashes, and case studies involve the Korean Airlines flight 801 and Asiana flight 214 accidents. In both the accidents, differences in personalities and culture play a key role.

The crushing of the Asiana Flight 214, a Boeing 777 plane was majorly attributed the hierarchical culture of Korea. Reports show that there was possibility that Korean culture and language played a role the crush. The culture of Korea is made of two aspects: a rather an authoritarian style and respect for age and seniority which when combined may lead to downward communication which is one way. Likewise, the Korean language requires that one should speak to the seniors in an honorific form by use of more words which can be extra slanting than in English. Thus, when this type of culture and language style are combined in a cockpit context in which decision-making and seconds are vital, culture and communication may matter. The authoritarian structure of Korea, not astonishingly, is revealed in various sectors comprising aviation, in which the traditions does not encourage the co-pilots to contest with senior captains. It is, therefore, the lack of communication between the pilot and the co-pilot which led to the Asiana flight 214 crush. Similarly, the pilot is said to have had a miserable experience, and it was his first time to fly Boeing 777.

Besides, the crushing of Korean Air Flight 801 of 1997 according to the report by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) showed that the possible cause of the crush was due to the failure of the captain to update sufficiently and accomplish the non-precision approach. As well, the failure of flight engineers and first officers to successfully monitor and do a cross-check of the execution plan of the captain. The features which contributed to the failures were the pilot's fatigue and insufficient training of flight crew from the Korean Airline. Likewise, what added to the crush was the deliberate inhibition of the lowest secure altitude warning co-ordination by the Federal Aviation Administration in Guam and failing to manage the system efficiently. Also, according to NTSB aircraft accident report HK2016, Avianca Flight 052 crashed in 1992 as it tried to land for the second time in JKF International Airport New York City. From the report, there was a complete breakdown of communication between the captain and the crew, where the team failed to communicate emergency fuel state to the ATC as of fuel exhaustion. Likewise, there was unclear communication between the first officer and the captain, and the crew showed to have had difficulties in communicating in The English language.

Conclusion

Crew Resource Management concepts are not new, but they are an attempt of distilling traditional axioms into a management style which is more cogent and coherent in the flight system. Efficient and secure operations of flights rely on both acquirement of complete technical skills and knowledge and also on the manner in which flight crews mater the interpersonal and cognitive skills for their success which is the foundation of good CRM. Cognitive skills permit the growth and maintenance of proper situational awareness and reinforce high quality of solving problem and techniques of decision-making. Also, interpersonal relationships, which rely on the effectiveness of good communications, promote the formation of synergy and the advancement of productive teamwork.

Both interpersonal and cognitive skills are developed through good emotional climate among the team, although they are ruined by stress. Thus, stress and motional climate management is an important and integral component of good CRM. Presently, technical and CRM skills training is done separately, regarding the role each plays in aircraft operations which are efficient and safe. CRM embraces a combination of expertise and standards with significant levels of technical skill and knowledge, which will empower the crew in making best utilization of all resources available to attain optimal efficacy in conducting operations while maximizing flight safety at the same time.