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]

crm

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?

[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


PS Thanks for the link, alf5071h

[411A]

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

[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
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.
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

[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/crmd.../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