Monitoring & Intervention
Thread Starter
My original questions addressed ‘monitoring and intervention’ as a single process, but on reflection the examples were all biased towards awareness within monitoring.
PJ2 and Tee Emm identified cultural weaknesses in intervention as a separate issue, similarly in later debates, monitoring is identified as a separate issue.
Updating my views, I believe that monitoring and intervention can be considered as independent safety processes, but the need for intervention results from an output of monitoring. Both involve situation assessment, awareness, and decision making. Intervention is concerned mainly with communicating.
MountainBear raised an interesting view with “the difference between active and passive monitoring”.
I had not previously considered this idea; I am not sure what the difference between them is.
However, thinking about it, together with the debate on SOPs, then perhaps active monitoring represents the ‘by rote’ calls required by SOP – standard crosschecks.
Passive monitoring represents the general overview and comparison required in all operations.
Or vice versa???
Does the process of crosschecking (active monitoring?) really involve awareness (understanding)? Usually only a single parameter is considered, and the response is a ‘canned’ yes/no, go/no go, or confirmation value.
The alternative process (passive monitoring?) should involve the wider situation – ‘plane, path, people’. This will require all aspects of situation awareness; seeing, understanding, and projecting ahead.
The need for intervention – questioning, alerting, warning, arises where one or more items in the situation do not match the planned (expected) situation, i.e. there is a mismatch in the crew’s mental models. This would appear to be most relevant in abnormal or unexpected situations.
There may also be some similarities with the ideas of tactical and strategic awareness, i.e. what’s happening now (tactical) and what might happen – thinking ahead (strategic).
Thus the original questions could be reconsidered as:-
PJ2 and Tee Emm identified cultural weaknesses in intervention as a separate issue, similarly in later debates, monitoring is identified as a separate issue.
Updating my views, I believe that monitoring and intervention can be considered as independent safety processes, but the need for intervention results from an output of monitoring. Both involve situation assessment, awareness, and decision making. Intervention is concerned mainly with communicating.
MountainBear raised an interesting view with “the difference between active and passive monitoring”.
I had not previously considered this idea; I am not sure what the difference between them is.
However, thinking about it, together with the debate on SOPs, then perhaps active monitoring represents the ‘by rote’ calls required by SOP – standard crosschecks.
Passive monitoring represents the general overview and comparison required in all operations.
Or vice versa???
Does the process of crosschecking (active monitoring?) really involve awareness (understanding)? Usually only a single parameter is considered, and the response is a ‘canned’ yes/no, go/no go, or confirmation value.
The alternative process (passive monitoring?) should involve the wider situation – ‘plane, path, people’. This will require all aspects of situation awareness; seeing, understanding, and projecting ahead.
The need for intervention – questioning, alerting, warning, arises where one or more items in the situation do not match the planned (expected) situation, i.e. there is a mismatch in the crew’s mental models. This would appear to be most relevant in abnormal or unexpected situations.
There may also be some similarities with the ideas of tactical and strategic awareness, i.e. what’s happening now (tactical) and what might happen – thinking ahead (strategic).
Thus the original questions could be reconsidered as:-
- Does crosschecking work? and
- Do the ‘by rote’ callouts really provide an alerting function?
. - Does passive monitoring work? and
- Does intervention really work in rare unexpected situations?
Last edited by safetypee; 16th May 2012 at 15:34.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MountainBear raised an interesting view with “the difference between active and passive monitoring”.
I had not previously considered this idea; I am not sure what the difference between them is.
However, thinking about it, together with the debate on SOPs, then perhaps active monitoring represents the ‘by rote’ calls required by SOP – standard crosschecks.
Passive monitoring represents the general overview and comparison required in all operations.
Or vice versa???
I had not previously considered this idea; I am not sure what the difference between them is.
However, thinking about it, together with the debate on SOPs, then perhaps active monitoring represents the ‘by rote’ calls required by SOP – standard crosschecks.
Passive monitoring represents the general overview and comparison required in all operations.
Or vice versa???
Such natter by the first officer as "I got the runway coming into in sight a bit to your left, Jack - bring it around a bit more -that's the idea. OK have you got it visual yet? OK get it down now and bring it back a bit further Jack"...etc ad nauseum.
The airline calls it "Soft" monitoring. An example of "Hard" monitoring" would be something urgent like "Christ Almighty! Go-Around Jack..."
I can only assume if the first officer's name was also Jack, the captain could reply by saying "Fkcuk you Jack - I'm OK"
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SORRY.CRM is all about BEHAVIOUR and ATTITUDE
SafetyPee is close in his guess of the difference between active and passive listening but he has them reversed.
Passive monitoring is the canned response. Active monitoring (AM) is an engaged mental response. It doesn't have anything to do with talking but with attitude. When the PM is engaged in AM he isn't merely repeating data to the PF (though he is doing that) he's also engaged in probabilistic and even possibility thinking. He engaged in a mental process of "what does this data that I am relaying to the pilot actually mean". How does it fit within the context of the situation the plane is in.
Passive monitoring is concerned with what is happening exclusively. Active monitoring is concerned with what is happening, why is it happening, and what are the future implications. And it's doing so consciously. Many skilled pilots do this unconsciously and they call it "intuition" or even "experience". But when we break down what they are doing at the mental level what separates them out is their level of engagement with the situation. They are not merely passive receptors, middle men, a second pair of eyes. They are a second brain interacting with the world around them in ways that enhance the safety of the plane.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Passive monitoring is concerned with what is happening exclusively. Active monitoring is concerned with what is happening, why is it happening, and what are the future implications. And it's doing so consciously. Many skilled pilots do this unconsciously and they call it "intuition" or even "experience". But when we break down what they are doing at the mental level what separates them out is their level of engagement with the situation. They are not merely passive receptors, middle men, a second pair of eyes. They are a second brain interacting with the world around them in ways that enhance the safety of the plane.
