Are we ruining years of CRM training...

[Crazycanuk]

Are we ruining years of CRM training with the advent of a cockpit door built like a fortress? I see the reason why they were installed on our airplanes but is it actually increasing or decreasing overall safety? Sure it would be harder for a hijacker to gain access to the flightdeck but I believe it is reducing the communication lines between us and the cabin crew, thereby reducing CRM.

Now, the question is what is more benificial for safety? Reducing the chance of stopping a very rare hijack attempt or keeping the lines of communication flowing thereby increasing Total CRM effectiveness.

I believe the CRM aspect of it is more important and if kept up will help overall safety.

[chox]

Yeh....its hard to even get a cup of coffee....sometimes I fly trips and barely meet the cabin crew.

[S76Heavy]

I think you're confusing CRM and ergonomics. While the ergonomics certainly have taken a turn for the worse by installing physical barriers, good CRM is a way of mentaly and communicatively overcoming those barriers. But you'll have to adjust your procedures and develop something that will work under the new circumstances, as the old routines no longer work.
Flying an offshore helicopter with no rear crew and only a small curtain to seperate me from my pax, my situation is totally different form yours but I think you can see my point.

[411A]

The cabin supervisor has been trained to handle the situation(s) in the cabin (and if not, they should have been...!).

Why not have confidence in your crew members capabilities?
And....if not, why not? :confused:

[Crazycanuk]

In a perfect world I would agree with you 411a but all to often the only thing the back end are worried about is what the hotel is like and where is the best place to buy a duvet. The truth is, especially when we fly new airplanes where things rarely go wrong, that the crew does not get hands on experience dealing with problems. I would have more confidence in a crew who regularly flies a L1011 or something in that generation because they no dought deal with more problems.

I believe the front end crew are an important part of the team and if there is an additional barrier between us and them then communication is comprimised.

Our company has been installing these new doors for over a year now and i recently flew with f/a who never even saw the door yet. Our procedures dictate that a f/a may not enter the cockpit unless it is for operational things. This in my opinion may prevent them from bringing things up with us because it is not done on a regular basis.

So what is better, preventing rare hijack or trying to keep good crm?

[alf5071h]

Crazycanuk

I agree with your concerns over the reduced communications between flt deck and cabin, but I am not so sure that it is CRM that will suffer, or at least not from the definition that I use.

I think that the latest on CRM is yet again explained by Prof Robert Helmreich et al: http://www.raes-hfg.com/reports/15oct03-RHelmreich.pdf

CRM is primarily error management. Yes, this does require high standards in many wide ranging human behaviors to support the aim, including good communications. We will be required to adapt our methods and standards of communication to mitigate the deficiencies of the flt deck door, but this is just a small part of the safety picture.

I am far more concerned that current focus on flt deck security by regulators and operators will detract from the larger and current threats – CFIT, ALA, LOC, etc, in which the use of CRM will make a difference.

[411A]

Many good points Crazycanuk...
And if indeed the cabin crews thoughts and ideas are directed elsewhere (other than their immediate duties), perhaps concentrated re- training is necessary.

Been done before, where cabin qualifications have been found to be deficient.

[Loftie]

When will other "casual" company factors be also considered potentially influential to Flight Crew performance (BEA Trident, LHR). General teaching (awareness) of CRM aspects appear to assume that a group can operate in isolation from other external factors, or where such factors exist, the group should be able to effectively disassociate themselves. Perhaps CRM awareness would be more effective if it is extended to include the organization as a whole. Unless of course, it can be shown that management style has no inpact on employee / operational performance.

Interestingly, in the UK this shared responsibility is now formally recognised in the new Corporate Manslaughter Law.

[BOAC]

Well Crazycanuck - that's a difficult one!

but is it actually increasing or decreasing overall safety?

IF there is an attempt to take the flight-deck it will almost certainly foil it, and therefore safety is INCREASED. IF, however, we go through for ever without, then it will have been a definite DECREASE.

It is still possible, though, with serious effort from both sides of the locked door, to 'manage' in the CRM style. It just takes that ongoing effort, and none of the 'them-and-us' attitude.


We'll have to excuse old 411A, I'm afraid, who has not caught up with phases 3 and 4 of CRM :D


PS Thanks for the link, alf5071h

[411A]

Actually BOAC, didn't think much of phases one and two either...:E :ooh:

[Crazycanuk]

Thanks guys. Seems to me it boils down to us. We are going to have to keep a proactive view and keep the lines of communication going.

Crazy

Ps alf5071 our company uses the model that your link refers to. One way to apply it is with good sop and the assess, action, manage model.

[Boomerang]

Heres something from way out there:

With the advent of UAVs, a built in remote override allowing a secure groundstation to control the aircraft flight path or autopilot inputs in the event something happens in the cockpit?

I know this brings up numerous other issues and it may take a looong time to be accepted, but then maybe we can get rid of the locked door? ;)

[flapsforty]

Good link alf :ok:
As you say, communicating with us in the back is only one of the many aspects of the overall safety picture.

But it is the aspect Canuk refers to in his original question and as such the answer from my perspective would be a definite yes.

However willing both cabin and cockpit crew are (and I am painting a best case scenario here) to achieve good communication, the Flying Fortress does inhibit the free flow of information between the 2 groups.
The telephone for starters.
I am hesitant to call. Not being able to see what the lads/ladies are doing and thus not being able to judge if I am disturbing them or not, I err on the side of silence.

Under stress, the one dimensional nature of a crackly phone call significantly lessens the effectiveness of the information exchange.

The physical barrier and the various procedures needed to gain access to the cockpit constrain the come in for a quick chat behaviour whic used to be so beneficient for mutual understanding, familiarity and trust in a crew.
All stuff not vital in normal operation, but aspects which can make a vital difference when effective cooperation becomes necessary in an emergency.

Before sept 11th,,. we used to fly with the cockpit door not only unlocked but wide open on most of our AC.
The difference in attitude between then and now is huge. :sad:
If the locked door increases overall safety?
I don't think so.

[greybeard]

I'm with you flapsforty, the locked door is a sop to the public opinion that the possibility of entry to the cockpit is impossible and the flights cannot be hijacked.
In my last A/C the door was at first BOLTED which necessitated one of us actually leaving our seat any time entry was require to unbolt the thing. On T/O and Ldg one of the ladies from the cabin was required to sit with us to enable the door to be unbolted in the case of an RTO or worse. Now due to the type of long gear the ladies wore we were NOT permitted to embarras them by making them use the crutch strap of the harness which meant that they would have been a real hazzard if we made an unscheduled stop!!!
It is a little better with entry code pads, cameras et all, but if people want to do something, NOTHING will stop them, and as for CRM between the front and back, it's gone to hell in a basket. The "40 minute see if they are awake" visit is gone, the supply of sensory and other distractions to boredom is lowered by the lack of other human contact, apart from the other sleepy sod, going to the loo is a structured event etc etc.

As I have said, miss the flying, but not the job

:ok:

[GlueBall]

El Al crews have been coping with two locked cockpit doors for years.

[alf5071h]

Whilst there is a degree on consensus in this tread, I fear that it could fade away with the usual negative conclusion; - we have a problem, it is a hazard, not much is happening.
Thus I question what are we doing about it? How have those operators who are coping changed? How to El Al or others maintain the communication element of CRM with locked doors? Any new ideas out there? Share a CRM safety tip if you have one, let us look for the positives in this thread.

I will kick off with a ‘Gosport tube’ … seriously! A simple, minimum technology communication device that could be used for speech or sound coded messages. Then there is the optical version; known as a mirror, or probably a series of mirrors (fiber optics now days). Both of these systems would enable a 40 min ‘peep’ and ‘squeak’ check on the flight crew.

[Crazycanuk]

It has also been said that the art of communication is 60% body language, 30% tone of voice, and only 10% what is said. This makes it so important for us to talk when face to face and not over some sort of electronic connection or else the jjist of the message may be lost.
\
crazy

[BOAC]

Well - I think we are all agreed that communication is far more of a problem, therefore 'CRM' IS degraded. The question of changes to 'safety' remains open. Do we really have any choice? My point was we have to learn to 'live'(!) with it.

[alf5071h]

I was hoping for much more response to my suggestion of a ‘Gosport tube’. The suggestion was to encourage people to think, not necessarily to seek a technical solution. For most problems in today’s world we either ‘have to live with it’ or use technology as a solution. Thus the response that I was seeking is how are we living with degraded communications / CRM? Will a simple thought process or change in behavior achieve a satisfactory solution?

So the problem posed by a locked door is the loss of some of the essential elements of communication:

1. Quick access, but for what?
Physical communication; the tap on the shoulder that attracts attention and solicits feedback. Body expression, pointing, indicating, waving, giving location, direction, motion, and severity.

2. Situation awareness; how do cabin crew tell if the flight crew are active or tired, and in particular, are they busy with an abnormal situation; and vice versa for the flight crew observing the cabin?
It is the loss of visual feed back that would give guidance before intervention or a request being made. The flight crew has lost the ‘view over the shoulder’, that with one glance explains why there is no coffee. Similarly the cabin crew has lost the valuable view of hands and arms flashing around the flight deck following the small ‘bump’ just after take off.

It is these aspects that have to be replaced by verbal communication (interphone). Thus all crew members should review the basics of communication skills.

Think before you call, ask your self; is this an essential message; what information is to be conveyed or sought, and what tone of voice or urgency should be used?

Use a common language with standard phases; is it left/right or port/starboard (which do you use?) and be absolutely sure which way you are facing (it should be relative to the front - the way the passengers face). What’s the definition of blindingly obvious?

Following the ‘big bang’ tell the cabin crew what it was – there is an engine problem; not that you have lost an engine; that’s difficult to explain to passengers … ‘to loose one is a misfortune, to loose two is careless’.

The flight deck may be following ‘emergency’ procedures, but the ensuing single engine landing may only be an ‘abnormal’ operation, don’t over excite the cabin by misuse of the word emergency. Similarly the cabin crew must not excite the flight deck crew, but concise and accurate information is essential.

Care is required when describing what is sensed or seen. What may be sensed as heavy vibration by one crew member may only be light vibration to another; use a common standard or scale e.g. ‘a sideways vibration that spills coffee from the cup’. Take care with words, a fire or flame is associated with a continuous process, whereas a flash is short term. Smoke is very emotive; it is usually seen, but the smell of smoke or burning has many differing definitions.

And then there is the need to listen … a greatly ignored skill.

References: Neil Krey's CRM Developers Forum, http://users2.ev1.net/~neilkrey/crmdevel/resources/misc/transcan/transcan3.htm
Article on listening in Flight Deck International July 2000; ‘Its good to Listen’
Airbus publication: ‘Getting to grips with ALAR’ – Communications, chapt 2-3, 2-4. Also in Flight Safety Foundation ALAR Tool Kit.

[Crazycanuk]

Wow, good stuff alf.

If I may say it also helps to get to know the "other" crew members both in an official and un-official way. By that I mean a formal briefing before the flight and also a casual meeting (perhaps drinks or dinner) after. The key is to break the boundries and create an open and free exchange of information.

crazy

[411A]

Crazycanuk,
Many airlines have the Captain (sometimes the whole tech crew) sit in on cabin crew briefings.
A very useful exercise in my opinion.

Have always told the cabin supervisor...you handle the ops in back, and if you need assistance, just ask.

Worked for over thirty years, for yours truly anyway.

No reason to think it will not work now, hardened door or otherwise.

OTOH, a few Commanders seem to want to stick their oar in the cabin crew waters at every opportunity.
Clearly these folks have no confidence in others ability...or training.

'Tis called....a pain, by the really competent folks in the back.
Will these Coimmanders never learn?...not in our lifetimes.

[Captain Stable]

A couple of points to add to 411A's post...

Dead right, let the CC1/CSD handle the cabin. It's what they're paid and trained to do. You're not. If they screw up on one leg, then maybe take a closer interest next one. But a skipper who wants to micro-manage the cabin degrades himself in the opinion of the cabin crew and thus erodes confidence in himself on their part. Not conducive to team-building.

I am not in favour of segregated briefings. The entire crew should have one mass briefing, so all are aware of all details affecting the flight. e.g., the FD crew should know of special needs pax (wheelchairs, VIPs, UNMINS, etc.)

Similarly, the cabin crew should know of weather en route and at destination, should know where we plan to refuel - will it be a quick refuel with minimum upload, or are we tankering? What defects are we carrying, so what are the implications throughout the aircraft?

Establish communication procedures. If any of the crew have had their circadian rhythms disturbed, perhaps a more frequent check than normal may be required?

etc. etc.

The more communication there is pre-flight, the more people will understand what is going on, the more they will be able to assist in the safe and expeditious conclusion to the flight.

And never operate on a "need to know" basis. That way lies disaster.

[Navitimer]

Locked door or not, I believe that flight deck crew should always find a way to enhance CRM. Our doors are fitted with a view window (bulletproof) where the cabin crew could look inside the cockpit every once in a while. They could chime us if they want to talk on the interphone or if they just want for us to look back at them. A smile or a friendly wave can sure make a long flight worth it. These things were made clear to them during the preflight briefing. We agreed on hand signals for some common replies or queries. I know it's quite hard to lose the personal touch in a face to face communication but we have no one else to blame but the fanatics, so I guess we'll just have to live with it.

But a skipper who wants to micro-manage the cabin degrades himself in the opinion of the cabin crew and thus erodes confidence in himself on their part. Not conducive to team-building. ...very true!

[Ignition Override]

As for a crew briefing which is more than a minute or so, with no unusual taxi procedures (powerback, short taxi, wheels up delay for ATC) or weather on climbout or enroute, the cabin crew sometimes ask "How long have you been a Captain?", and if that is the case, they might not be totally comfortable with the trip, assuming that you review things which are only done in a very rare emergency etc-and they are trained for these events. I'm not convinced that regurgitating basic things from their annual training class is needed, since most of our Lead FAs have been here for 10-20 years, or even more. Unless married etc, few can ever afford to retire.

Maybe I should review a few more things, however, almost all of our basic cabin crewmembers fly on "this" aircraft type very often, compared to the A-320 or 757.

We just saw "Master and Commander" tonight. Although many elements must be unrealistic, most of the time I liked Russell Crowe's style, although little of it applies to civilian transport aviation (?). :)

[Captain Stable]

I-O, I don't quite follow your first para. Can you explain pls?

[Ignition Override]

Hello Captain Stable. My main point is that our FAs have flown quite often, or almost exclusively on type Y aircraft for at least several years, maybe up to 15 or even 20 years. It was often my experience as FO that a Captain needed to say very little to the FA, they almost always knew each other and pilots rarely reviewed any basic emergency procedures ("easy victor"...). They often just gave them any news on any inop galley oven or a lav, powerback versus pushback, if turbulence was to be light or up to moderate strength, any other specific items that are expected on this flight or (i.e.) three-day trip, and are there any questions. When a new Captain starts briefing them on various scenarios (if we abort....) this tends to either cause their eyes to glaze over, or they simply might ask, how long have you been a Captain on this? However, if an FA mostly flies widebodies, we offer them more info, and want to know if they are rusty on the tailcone exit, jettison handle locations etc. In most cases, I mostly remind all cabin crewmembers to tell us if anything looks, sounds or smells strange-we are all here to help (we can't GO anywhere else). And if we don't respond the first time, try us again-there might be a reason we don't hear the first chime from the cabin and it can sound just like an ACARS wx update, a wedding ring clinking on some of our gnd. steering wheels, or at times we CAN'T respond very quickly.

In contrast to this, some Captains on a much larger narrowbody fleet have all (except for a few) come from the widebody FO seats. The longer briefing on the Boeing is partly so that the Captain can meet the various crewmembers and just get them in one group, and rarely is the cabin crew with the pilots for more than two legs-often just one 3 or 4-hour leg. After landing, they often disappear after one leg if at certain east or west coast cities. Example: when I flew as FO on that larger plane, often I was not there for the main briefing (and was not expected to be) having already begun the walk-around. Rarely did I actually have a chance to speak to have more than a very short chat with two or three FAs (in front galley) until one or two hours into the flight, if at all, due to the fact that many FAs at the rear galley did not come to the cockpit-and were trained by Inflight Instructors not to visit (quite true)-even before 9/11. But this is a very long story about the barely lukewarm corporate culture years ago and is difficult to explain to those whose airlines have always trained for and expected a friendly crew atmosphere. Fortunately, the foreign airlines we've ridden on, and even some US carriers appear to have consistently friendly atmospheres, i.e, KLM+Cityhopper, Eurowings, Lufthansa, Austrian, Air France, BA.

Airbubba or Huck might have heard some stories about the corporate atmosphere here long ago. FlapsForty, the Chief Wagon Dragon, can give you some examples of the old corporate culture which I'm referring to, but some of this is secondary to how a captain briefs the crew.

Pardon the very long attempt at clarification.

:)

[Aeropig1]

Hi All, have been doing some research into the effectcs of the door and as a result have spoken to a large number of flight deck and Cabin crew about the problems.

With few exceptions the indications from crew is that little diference has been noticed to the operation. Where difficulties were highlighted they invariably came down to company procedures rather than the legal requirements made by the contracting states competent authority. When you think about the design then it really should not affect the number of times coffee is brought into the flight deck or wether checks to see if the flight deck crew are OK as the procedure for getting in in its simplest form takes less than 20 seconds. Having read many company procedures many of them make it more complicated than it should be and some of the cabin crew are left confused as to exactly what is now expected of them with regard to flight deck entry.

The positive side of my research (far outweighs the negative) is that crews have adapted well on the whole and have got over many of the communication issues. Where this did work particularly well is in companies where CRM, SeP and Security training were conducted jointly with cabin crew and flight deck rather than train the two elements seperately. This enabled discussion and suggestions to flow and an understanding to build.

We now live in a world where we increasingly communicate remotely - mobile phone, text etc, so the interphone should not be a problem. I believe that from what I have found it is a case of getting used to the change.

The fact is that the door is here to stay and whatever the odds are on being the victim of a hijack two things need to be remembered:
1. the protection of persons on the ground is the responsibility of the industry as well as Governments and the doors are a measure to help ensure that safety
2. the impact on the industry of just one more 9/11 style attack will not be sustainable for many.
By setting reasonable and sensible procedures and working on communication you can get round this inconvenience.

I have found your comments invaluable to my research, and hope my finding are seen in a positive light.

[alf5071h]

Many of the more recent posts indicate how operators are apparently coping with normal operations, but has anyone consideration abnormal and emergency situations?

Are any of those Captains who would have called #1 to the flight deck for an emergency briefing now less inclined to do so due to the barrier of the door or the ‘new’, ‘easier’, and now standard communications via interphone? Dangers must exist where people under pressure could revert to their basic habits; the younger (and older technophile) crew members who are texting wiz kids may revert to ‘text speak’ or the mobile militia fall back on the universal get out clause - ‘you know what I mean’ (either verbally or mentally).

The importance of body language during emergency operations cannot be overstated. The Captain can impart a degree of calming and confidence to the cabin crew, or he will be able to asses concerns in the cabin through visual interaction with his all of crew. Is a locked door adding another excuse for crews not to meet face to face in the time critical phases of abnormal and emergency operation?

Remember that we are all basically lazy, wish to seek an easier route / solution, and will rush under the pressure of short timescales.

[Ralph the Bong]

There is much agreement that the provision of the new cockpit doors represents another barrier to cockpit/cabin communication. Before the introduction of the doors, we had cabin crew in and out of the cockpit all the time; a sound communicative environment for communicating and familiarity was achieved. However, when there is a multi-ethnic crew compliament there are several barriers to communication that need to be negotiated. These are(and not limited to): 1)Gradient of authority, 2)Language(consider a Thai FA conversing with a German Capt. both in English as their 2nd language). 3) Cultural perspective and 4) Finally, the new door. In addressing these issues, many carriers have established SOPs that seek to enhance communication by establish lines of communication pre-flight. These SOPs involve pre-departure breifings and crew introductions. The purpose of such briefings is to exchange information and requirements pre-flight and to establish the approachabilty of the the cockpit crew. Personally, I don't think that these SOPs fully address the deficiency in communication that the new doors has created. Perhaps SOPs could go further, such as requiring CC to eat meals in the flight deck (work load and space permitting) or somhow enhacing the interphone system.

[SydGirl]

Cockpit doors that are reinforced, bulletproof, made of superman-proof lead and goodness knows what else are most definitely a barrier to good CRM even in a normal situation.

Prior to Sept 11, we left the cockpit door open (yes OPEN) throughout the flight. Pax could basically just wander up there as they pleased, as could the FAs. Now of course things are different and there are "enhanced" security protocols to follow. I can now no longer stick my head in the cockpit and ask "are you ok? how are things going?" or the old favourite "are we there yet?". Using the interphone does not have the same effect.

I would hope that in an emergency situation (assuming we are not being simultaneously hijacked) that the cockpit crew would open the door, and allow me into their creche to explain the situation. This would give me an opportunity to express what may be happening in the cabin, and affect on pax - this can be done via interphone but as already mentioned it lacks the associated body language aspect of good communication.

Good CRM starts from the moment the crew meet and operate on the day as a crew. The cockpit door should not be a barrier, but since it is already a physical barrier it can easily transcend into a mental barrier as well. Another thing I would like to mention is that communication between flight deck and cabin should not be limited to communication with the CSM/CSD/Purser. All FAs should be encouraged to speak up if something concerns them. We are operating as a crew after all.

Interesting topic.
SG
:}

[Skunkie]

4111 A

I'm an Italian cabin crew and I got Jar Ops certification, valid in the world, as an instructor for CC and Pilots in CRM, HF and Situational Awareness.
I took it in Sweden, but , because of a critical period in my Company, I never had the possibility yet to lead a course.
After 13 1/2 years of flying , this is my next step and hope it will be realized, sooner or later....I really consider CRM as an integrant part of every basic and routine course, expecially after the introduction of enhanced doors, and aircraft like Airbus series.

Hope sooner or later Company will have again money to finance these kind of courses...at least in Italy (here everyone attended last CRM in1999) .

If everyone allover the world got any new about their own management , and how many times during the year it is performed, any new is really welcome...thanx a lot to everyone

Skunkie