Crew Resource Management: The Debate
Guest
Posts: n/a
Crew Resource Management: The Debate
Well, recently I have been speaking to several people about CRM. Airlines seem to have CRM down as an absolute must to be in line for a job with them. The question I am asking is whether there is "Crew Resource Management."
For example, I can't imagine the fighter pilots and bombers in World War Two not co-operating in and out of the cockpit with each other and the ground staff, can you? Everyone on that bomber would need to be talking to each other and co-operating; the bomber needs to know when to drop the bombs, the gunner needs to tell the pilots when to take action to avoid enemy aircraft as much as possible, the navigator needs to tell the pilots where to fly etc. etc.
As I see it, today, airlines seem to portray an image of ther being a lack of CRM within airlines years ago and that today, times have moved on.
Then, of course, while on the flight deck , pilots need to talk to each other baout checklists, emergency procedures etc. etc. or do they??? Especially with the aid of, for example, a GPS sustem. Obviously co-operation is needed before hand to talk the flight through, but not as much monitering between pilots is needed as the computer kindly does this for you!!!
Any thoughts????
For example, I can't imagine the fighter pilots and bombers in World War Two not co-operating in and out of the cockpit with each other and the ground staff, can you? Everyone on that bomber would need to be talking to each other and co-operating; the bomber needs to know when to drop the bombs, the gunner needs to tell the pilots when to take action to avoid enemy aircraft as much as possible, the navigator needs to tell the pilots where to fly etc. etc.
As I see it, today, airlines seem to portray an image of ther being a lack of CRM within airlines years ago and that today, times have moved on.
Then, of course, while on the flight deck , pilots need to talk to each other baout checklists, emergency procedures etc. etc. or do they??? Especially with the aid of, for example, a GPS sustem. Obviously co-operation is needed before hand to talk the flight through, but not as much monitering between pilots is needed as the computer kindly does this for you!!!
Any thoughts????
Guest
Posts: n/a
CRM -
CRM is actually a big topic. Check out Tony Kern's book, "Flight Discipline" as an indicator.
Imagine the Delta Airlines MD-80 that recently landed short of the runway at SLC. At the first indication of significant glideslope deviation, one pilot hollaring, "Go around!" It wouldn't have happened. That's CRM. Similarly, imagine the pilot on the controls immediately initiating the missed approach upon hearing the command.
All the computers in the world won't save the situation when things go wrong. Look at the American Airlines crash at Cali. The computer only did what it was told. In the mean time, nobody was monitoring/flying the aircraft. CRM is a professional application of common sense and airmanship.
Check out the site at -
www.webpak.net/~skydream
Look at the CS-985 incident and the AK-506 story. For some bizarre reason, CRM is highly political. Can you imagine professionalism and common sense being political?
In the mean time, one incident and accident after the other happen with the missing element of CRM; yet the FAA does nothing and has officially refused to change anything where it counts - in the cockpit.
Check out the "Letter to Jane Garvey" at the Web site above; she still won't answer the letters referred to. The FAA very selectively enforces safety regulations and reserves the right to do so. They are not particularly in the safety business.
Look at the CRM failings in the case of AK-261, AK-259 a few weeks later & shortly afterward, AK-506. After 88 dead & two pilots out of a job, the Alaska pilots woke up to CRM - no more headlines for them - it works. Ask Captain Al Haynes (UA-232), he swears by it as well; he should know.
CRM is actually a big topic. Check out Tony Kern's book, "Flight Discipline" as an indicator.
Imagine the Delta Airlines MD-80 that recently landed short of the runway at SLC. At the first indication of significant glideslope deviation, one pilot hollaring, "Go around!" It wouldn't have happened. That's CRM. Similarly, imagine the pilot on the controls immediately initiating the missed approach upon hearing the command.
All the computers in the world won't save the situation when things go wrong. Look at the American Airlines crash at Cali. The computer only did what it was told. In the mean time, nobody was monitoring/flying the aircraft. CRM is a professional application of common sense and airmanship.
Check out the site at -
www.webpak.net/~skydream
Look at the CS-985 incident and the AK-506 story. For some bizarre reason, CRM is highly political. Can you imagine professionalism and common sense being political?
In the mean time, one incident and accident after the other happen with the missing element of CRM; yet the FAA does nothing and has officially refused to change anything where it counts - in the cockpit.
Check out the "Letter to Jane Garvey" at the Web site above; she still won't answer the letters referred to. The FAA very selectively enforces safety regulations and reserves the right to do so. They are not particularly in the safety business.
Look at the CRM failings in the case of AK-261, AK-259 a few weeks later & shortly afterward, AK-506. After 88 dead & two pilots out of a job, the Alaska pilots woke up to CRM - no more headlines for them - it works. Ask Captain Al Haynes (UA-232), he swears by it as well; he should know.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Sure there was CRM going on many years ago, wittingly or maybe unwittingly, but to suggest that it may not be needed now due to automation etc seems a little naive. If anything it is needed more to 'keep the picture'. Surely training specifically in CRM can help us all to do things more safely.........and that can't be a bad thing.
PP
PP
Guest
Posts: n/a
Quite simple really. In your post WW2 days, equipment reliability was low and killed many people. Today, the machines are reliable, the people not. Many events have been determined to be caused by a breakdown in communication on the flight deck. In the early days of CRM it was a case of getting junior co-pilots to speak up against beligerent "Atlantic Barons" (eg Staines Trident), nowadays the issue is far more subtle (American Cali). CRM is definitely an important flight deck issue that also crosses the flight deck threshold too.
Bob
[This message has been edited by AYLGR (edited 16 January 2001).]
Bob
[This message has been edited by AYLGR (edited 16 January 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
I quite agree with you there, SKYDRIFTER, but my point is that there always has been CRM, but in this day and age of recruiting, CRM is seen as a new thing and that it is modern and the way that you carry tasks out in the cockpit is going to make you a better pilot.
It seems ironic to me that airlines are publicising this so much, but crew workload is dropping all the time, suggesting that less CRM is required. Don't get me wrong, of course we all need CRM, especially in emergency cases (such as Al Haynes' case). I feel that CRM is needed more now for monitering rather than actually carrying out tasks.
It seems ironic to me that airlines are publicising this so much, but crew workload is dropping all the time, suggesting that less CRM is required. Don't get me wrong, of course we all need CRM, especially in emergency cases (such as Al Haynes' case). I feel that CRM is needed more now for monitering rather than actually carrying out tasks.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I don't think CRM has always existed.
Until "recently", as a pilot you were supposed to know the limitations of your plane, but nobody ever asked you to know the limitations of the human beings (including yourself in particular) and of teamworking.
A typical CRM courses starts with some biology, talks about circadian rythms and a whole bunch of other medical stuff. Then you'd talk about the limitations and abilities of every person, about the stress, about the errors and reliability in cockpits. Then you'd spend some time talking about teamworking: how communication works between people, the different types of characters, how decisions are made, how to efficiently manage the "human resources" in the cockpit, etc.
This whole idea to make things better in that field always existed, but it took some time before were managed to put it into practice and "master" that subject (even though progress can still be made).
By the way, have you ever attended a CRM course ? (just asking)
Until "recently", as a pilot you were supposed to know the limitations of your plane, but nobody ever asked you to know the limitations of the human beings (including yourself in particular) and of teamworking.
A typical CRM courses starts with some biology, talks about circadian rythms and a whole bunch of other medical stuff. Then you'd talk about the limitations and abilities of every person, about the stress, about the errors and reliability in cockpits. Then you'd spend some time talking about teamworking: how communication works between people, the different types of characters, how decisions are made, how to efficiently manage the "human resources" in the cockpit, etc.
This whole idea to make things better in that field always existed, but it took some time before were managed to put it into practice and "master" that subject (even though progress can still be made).
By the way, have you ever attended a CRM course ? (just asking
)Guest
Posts: n/a
Oh, I forgot one thing... 
Ok, workload might be dropping, but in case of an emergency in a two-man cockpit I'm sure that CRM can make the difference between life and death, because workload is rocketting !
I guess we're on the same frequency here: if in that situation you don't have a crew where communication and decision-making processes are 100% efficient they might not see the next sunrise. But CRM needs to be practised, I think ! It's not like riding on a bike, you forget quite quickly.
Ok, workload might be dropping, but in case of an emergency in a two-man cockpit I'm sure that CRM can make the difference between life and death, because workload is rocketting !
I guess we're on the same frequency here: if in that situation you don't have a crew where communication and decision-making processes are 100% efficient they might not see the next sunrise. But CRM needs to be practised, I think ! It's not like riding on a bike, you forget quite quickly.
Guest
Posts: n/a
WORKLOAD DROPPING?
There has been a major shift in the workload, but it's a bit difficult to cite the load as actually dropping below that of a basic autopilot.
While the term struck me as a 'yuppie - ism' when I first heard it, the term 'information management' is now appropriate to take seriously.
Instead of staying ahead of an aircraft, the modern airliner ADDITIONALLY requires staying ahead of a computer. In many cases, it's a case of fine-tuning or reviewing the computer functions.
Although many flights are conducted with an en route chart untouched, that is a very poor practice. Enough power problems and electrical fires are showing up that elementary flying skills have to be maintained, including basic situational / position awareness.Theoretically, no reduction in workload.
The Cali crash demonstrated the permanent need for traditional situation / position awareness.
As an example, examine the 'escape route' from Bogota to Cali. Will your passenger oxygen canisters meet the requirement of the FARs? The computer doesn't know & can't care. Thinking (workload)is still required, including a discussion with the other crew members - CRM.
The computerized world also requires the CRM effort of the crew, as a whole, being "one-with-the-computer.' Now that state of mind also has to incorporate traditional knowledge and wisdom.
Imagine yourself forced into some place like Jackson Hole with an engine failure on a B-737-300 with moderate to heavy icing. No radar mandates a procedure turn. An experienced pilot will tell you that a missed approach with moderate to heavy icing will give you a nearly fatal surprise in the event of a missed approach. You're not supposed to know about the missed approach characteristics with the tail iced up - it can get nasty.
Now, the experienced pilot says to the other, "Given the icing on the tail, how 'bout adding an extra 20 knots until short final?" With CRM, the answer is, "Good idea!"
In another scenario, a flight is dispatched into an airport with heavy rain & crosswinds forecast to be gusting to 45K. One pilot mentions that the escape slides are only rated to 30 knots and the ability of the flight attendants to open the doors in high winds is a total mystery. Given elementary logic and the FAA's penchant for emergency revocations of pilot certificates, the flight is delayed until the winds are at lease forecast to subside. Good CRM. The AK-506 pilots will tell you that the NTSB judges don't go near mitigating circumstances.
Computerized flight planning, performance data and weight-and-balance calculation are the big changes, but those have been around for quite a while.
CRM is professional teamwork. Attitude is the major component.
There has been a major shift in the workload, but it's a bit difficult to cite the load as actually dropping below that of a basic autopilot.
While the term struck me as a 'yuppie - ism' when I first heard it, the term 'information management' is now appropriate to take seriously.
Instead of staying ahead of an aircraft, the modern airliner ADDITIONALLY requires staying ahead of a computer. In many cases, it's a case of fine-tuning or reviewing the computer functions.
Although many flights are conducted with an en route chart untouched, that is a very poor practice. Enough power problems and electrical fires are showing up that elementary flying skills have to be maintained, including basic situational / position awareness.Theoretically, no reduction in workload.
The Cali crash demonstrated the permanent need for traditional situation / position awareness.
As an example, examine the 'escape route' from Bogota to Cali. Will your passenger oxygen canisters meet the requirement of the FARs? The computer doesn't know & can't care. Thinking (workload)is still required, including a discussion with the other crew members - CRM.
The computerized world also requires the CRM effort of the crew, as a whole, being "one-with-the-computer.' Now that state of mind also has to incorporate traditional knowledge and wisdom.
Imagine yourself forced into some place like Jackson Hole with an engine failure on a B-737-300 with moderate to heavy icing. No radar mandates a procedure turn. An experienced pilot will tell you that a missed approach with moderate to heavy icing will give you a nearly fatal surprise in the event of a missed approach. You're not supposed to know about the missed approach characteristics with the tail iced up - it can get nasty.
Now, the experienced pilot says to the other, "Given the icing on the tail, how 'bout adding an extra 20 knots until short final?" With CRM, the answer is, "Good idea!"
In another scenario, a flight is dispatched into an airport with heavy rain & crosswinds forecast to be gusting to 45K. One pilot mentions that the escape slides are only rated to 30 knots and the ability of the flight attendants to open the doors in high winds is a total mystery. Given elementary logic and the FAA's penchant for emergency revocations of pilot certificates, the flight is delayed until the winds are at lease forecast to subside. Good CRM. The AK-506 pilots will tell you that the NTSB judges don't go near mitigating circumstances.
Computerized flight planning, performance data and weight-and-balance calculation are the big changes, but those have been around for quite a while.
CRM is professional teamwork. Attitude is the major component.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Skydrifter has more or less hit the nail on the head. The first CRM course I attended in 1995 was generally well organized with the exception of the "parlour games" during the second day. I got bored and left to look at a positivly pristine DC-6B on the ramp (no oil drips, amazing) and so did 5 others.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Workload decreasing in modern cockpits? I don't think so.
Read the BASI Automation study and also the more recent BA comparision between "steam" and glass 737s. Workload is perceived to be higher in EFIS airplanes, especially in a non-normal scenario.
CRM courses for the most part are a distillation of "best practices" in the industry and dissemination of this information to line pilots. What's shown may well save your life one day. Whether you choose to listen and learn, or go off to gawk at antique airplanes is entirely up to you.
Read the BASI Automation study and also the more recent BA comparision between "steam" and glass 737s. Workload is perceived to be higher in EFIS airplanes, especially in a non-normal scenario.
CRM courses for the most part are a distillation of "best practices" in the industry and dissemination of this information to line pilots. What's shown may well save your life one day. Whether you choose to listen and learn, or go off to gawk at antique airplanes is entirely up to you.
Guest
Posts: n/a
There seems to be a lot of emphasis on CRM within the flight deck and its importance, however in order for CRM to work it has to be implemented with all crew members, and that includes the people who work down at the back. I have worked for airlines whereby the flight deck door has not been considered a 'barrier'. I've also worked for airlines whereby going up on to the flight deck to report something out of the ordinary, or just to let them know what is going on has been difficult to say the least.
CRM is definately the way forward, but can only work if airlines bring cabin crew and flight deck together when training to break down the 'them and us' scenario that unfortunately is still prevalent in a lot of cases.
CRM is definately the way forward, but can only work if airlines bring cabin crew and flight deck together when training to break down the 'them and us' scenario that unfortunately is still prevalent in a lot of cases.
Guest
Posts: n/a
The need for Resource Management on an aircraft has always existed as has the need for Resource Management in our economy for example. The change that has taken place is the recognition of that need and the inplementation of specific training in the way we manage the human resouces at our disposal. As in economics it is an inexact science and therefore opinion and debate is part of the developement process.
The fact that recruiters see an awareness and knowledge of this area as a requirement is not surprising as so many accident investigations have shown poor CRM to be a contributary factor. The problem they face is that a quick read through any of the text books and attendance at a course is enough for any individual to gain a reasonable knowledge of the principals involve and to be able to demonstrate that knowledge at interview. Far more difficult to detect is whether the candidate recognises and accepts the need for it. How many CRM refresher courses consist of dozing through the videos, a bit of play acting and quoting a few buzz words then back to the old habits for another twelve months? Laziness is the biggest obstacle to sound Crew Resource Management. It actually takes considerable effort to apply best practice every time you turn up for work.
The fact that recruiters see an awareness and knowledge of this area as a requirement is not surprising as so many accident investigations have shown poor CRM to be a contributary factor. The problem they face is that a quick read through any of the text books and attendance at a course is enough for any individual to gain a reasonable knowledge of the principals involve and to be able to demonstrate that knowledge at interview. Far more difficult to detect is whether the candidate recognises and accepts the need for it. How many CRM refresher courses consist of dozing through the videos, a bit of play acting and quoting a few buzz words then back to the old habits for another twelve months? Laziness is the biggest obstacle to sound Crew Resource Management. It actually takes considerable effort to apply best practice every time you turn up for work.
Guest
Posts: n/a
F390,
if you still have any doubts as to the need for CRM I suggest that you go to the Uni of Texas site and examine the figures airlines a willing to have published showing the improvement in performance following CRM training.
Having flown in the early 70's in the military I can assure you that we got the job doen but there was not a lot of CRM happening - in deed it is a wonder that some crews made it home. The situation was the same in WW2, Korea and Vietnam. People do not readily inter react in a productive fashion without some training and awareness - hence the need for CRM. If you still have doubts go look at the United crashes in the late 70's early 80's that lead to the growth of CRM; you do not need to be Einstien to realise that the crews WERE NOT working together. The tales of "Sit down shut up and do what I tell you" from the Capt are not fairy tales they all have a strong base in cold hard facts. So if you have not yet undertaken a CRM course I for one would strongly suggest that you are in dire need.
if you still have any doubts as to the need for CRM I suggest that you go to the Uni of Texas site and examine the figures airlines a willing to have published showing the improvement in performance following CRM training.
Having flown in the early 70's in the military I can assure you that we got the job doen but there was not a lot of CRM happening - in deed it is a wonder that some crews made it home. The situation was the same in WW2, Korea and Vietnam. People do not readily inter react in a productive fashion without some training and awareness - hence the need for CRM. If you still have doubts go look at the United crashes in the late 70's early 80's that lead to the growth of CRM; you do not need to be Einstien to realise that the crews WERE NOT working together. The tales of "Sit down shut up and do what I tell you" from the Capt are not fairy tales they all have a strong base in cold hard facts. So if you have not yet undertaken a CRM course I for one would strongly suggest that you are in dire need.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Bash -
Good points. Examining the list of incidents & accidents, if one looks at the CRM failures, it quickly becomes apparent that CRM alone would have been the difference in probably at least 98% of the cases, regardless of other contributing factors.
CRM isn't the total solution, but makes such a radical difference that the FAA is nothing less than nuts to have put it in writing that they wouldn't take it to the cockpit level (in a letter exchange with the NTSB, for those not familiar).
In the Seattle news is a freight carrier who allegedly busted minimums & nearly nailed the brand-new tower cab. The major question is, "How did they make it that far?"
CRM isn't limited to aircraft assetts. My question is, Where was ATC, with a fogged-in airport?" I'm glad it was a miss.
Personally, I'm curious as to whether or not this was another crew fatigue incident.
Good points. Examining the list of incidents & accidents, if one looks at the CRM failures, it quickly becomes apparent that CRM alone would have been the difference in probably at least 98% of the cases, regardless of other contributing factors.
CRM isn't the total solution, but makes such a radical difference that the FAA is nothing less than nuts to have put it in writing that they wouldn't take it to the cockpit level (in a letter exchange with the NTSB, for those not familiar).
In the Seattle news is a freight carrier who allegedly busted minimums & nearly nailed the brand-new tower cab. The major question is, "How did they make it that far?"
CRM isn't limited to aircraft assetts. My question is, Where was ATC, with a fogged-in airport?" I'm glad it was a miss.
Personally, I'm curious as to whether or not this was another crew fatigue incident.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Response to flygirl28
I agree with your comments wholeheartedly regarding "Coed" CRM.
After a bit of coaxing, I finally got to conduct CRM courses with both drivers and Cabin Staff for my last company (an 747 and L1011 ACMI operator).
The feedback from flight deck and the back end was very encouraging (With the 'odd dissention'). One can't overestimate the benefit, especially in a company with over 32 different nationalities working for it on the flight ops side. I can imagine that the 'big boys' could get their money's worth too.
[This message has been edited by Kato747 (edited 17 January 2001).]
I agree with your comments wholeheartedly regarding "Coed" CRM.
After a bit of coaxing, I finally got to conduct CRM courses with both drivers and Cabin Staff for my last company (an 747 and L1011 ACMI operator).
The feedback from flight deck and the back end was very encouraging (With the 'odd dissention'). One can't overestimate the benefit, especially in a company with over 32 different nationalities working for it on the flight ops side. I can imagine that the 'big boys' could get their money's worth too.
[This message has been edited by Kato747 (edited 17 January 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
IMHO, the "barrier" between pilots and cabin crew seems to be growing. The more common problem we face nowadays are pax related (air-rage, sick pax etc.) so perhaps CRM (in its current version) should be modified to improve the interaction between pilots and cabin crew.
Also, I think that Star Trek is a good example of CRM (no flaming please).
Also, I think that Star Trek is a good example of CRM (no flaming please).
Guest
Posts: n/a
Kato747 & Elevation -
I agree wholeheartedly on breaking down the cockpit door barrier.
As a captain, I assess a flight attendant in terms of, "Will she/he come looking for me if we stick the aircraft in a ditch & manage to torch it?"
The AK-506 hearings were a real eye opener on cockpit / cabin CRM. The flight attendants claimed that they went to the cockpit, but never mentioned that the pax oxygen masks had actually been used. Nor, did they claim, that they questioned the captain's decision to continue, while actually in the cockpit.
The sad result is a subsequent distrust of the flight attendants to consider the welfare of the cockpit in any regard, as opposed to being prepared to testify against them in a hearing.
With the FAA's mediocre response to the CRM issue, I don't blame any of the 506 crew for the event, but I detest the FAA for overlooking the FAA role in the setup, then attacking the pilots as scapegoats while never caring about CRM, except as a lever to batter the pilots.
AK-506 should have been a lesson for all, nothing more. Additionally, the NASA reports & self-disclosure were demonstrated as useless / self-incrimination. Trusting the FAA is extremely risky business.
Using the same logic applied to the pilots, the same violation argument can be made against the flight attendants. The first officer filed a comparable violation against the flight attendants - no action.
Whether it's a cabin fire or a case of sky-rage, CRM involves everybody. As a safety precaution, I advise thinking in terms of the monday-morning-quarter-backing which is guaranteed.
Unfortunately, the typical flight attendant can cite numerous accounts wherein the cockpit was advised of a problem, but chose non-involvement; the story does have two sides. A lot of change needs to be accomplished.
The issue isn't about right-wrong, but about achieving results. CRM works! It needs to be a line 'norm,' not a transient classroom feel-good exercise.
I agree wholeheartedly on breaking down the cockpit door barrier.
As a captain, I assess a flight attendant in terms of, "Will she/he come looking for me if we stick the aircraft in a ditch & manage to torch it?"
The AK-506 hearings were a real eye opener on cockpit / cabin CRM. The flight attendants claimed that they went to the cockpit, but never mentioned that the pax oxygen masks had actually been used. Nor, did they claim, that they questioned the captain's decision to continue, while actually in the cockpit.
The sad result is a subsequent distrust of the flight attendants to consider the welfare of the cockpit in any regard, as opposed to being prepared to testify against them in a hearing.
With the FAA's mediocre response to the CRM issue, I don't blame any of the 506 crew for the event, but I detest the FAA for overlooking the FAA role in the setup, then attacking the pilots as scapegoats while never caring about CRM, except as a lever to batter the pilots.
AK-506 should have been a lesson for all, nothing more. Additionally, the NASA reports & self-disclosure were demonstrated as useless / self-incrimination. Trusting the FAA is extremely risky business.
Using the same logic applied to the pilots, the same violation argument can be made against the flight attendants. The first officer filed a comparable violation against the flight attendants - no action.
Whether it's a cabin fire or a case of sky-rage, CRM involves everybody. As a safety precaution, I advise thinking in terms of the monday-morning-quarter-backing which is guaranteed.
Unfortunately, the typical flight attendant can cite numerous accounts wherein the cockpit was advised of a problem, but chose non-involvement; the story does have two sides. A lot of change needs to be accomplished.
The issue isn't about right-wrong, but about achieving results. CRM works! It needs to be a line 'norm,' not a transient classroom feel-good exercise.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Well said WACO, drove in for a flight recently to find that the A/C type had been change and nobody had bothered to tell us. The reserve crew hauled in had been told 8 hours before, the new flight plans printed 6 hours before etc. Everbody knew before us, it just doesn't help to have stresses like this added to our job.
That said it probably would be a good idea to ensure full application of CRM in the cockpit before widening the net. The Atlantic baron still exists...
That said it probably would be a good idea to ensure full application of CRM in the cockpit before widening the net. The Atlantic baron still exists...
