Effective Crew Communication Boosts Flight Safety

Unfamiliarity and lack of good communication between the cockpit and cabin crew complicates air safety. Keeping the same cockpit and cabin crews together as often as possible would engender air safety.WOLE SHADARE writes

The factor

Many factors have influenced the quality of communication between the cockpit and cabin crews over the years. But one factor that should be of utmost concern is the growth of the industry. Within small airlines, communication between the crew is rarely a problem; the same cockpit and cabin crews fly together often and tend to know each other quite well. As an airline grows, so does the number of crewmembers.

On a jumbo jet flight on a large airline, a flight attendant may know a few of the other flight attendants, but probably will not know any of the cockpit crewmembers. Of course, as the number of crewmembers on an aircraft increases, so does the complexity of crew communication.

Lack of coordination

Following a study of aviation mishaps over the 10-year period 1992-2002, the United States Air Force determined that close to 18 per cent of its aircraft mishaps were directly attributable to maintenance human error.

Unlike the more immediate impact of air crew error, maintenance human errors often occurred long before the flight where the problems were discovered. These “latent errors” included such mistakes as failure to follow published aircraft manuals, lack of assertive communication among maintenance technicians, poor supervision, and improper assembly practices.

Since effective communication between the two crews is a prerequisite for cockpit and cabin crew coordination, the terms “communication” and “coordination” are practically interchangeable in this context. The lack of coordination between the cockpit and cabin crew in most cases has led to the adoption of Crew resource management or Cockpit Resource Management (CRM) to eliminate disaster that could arise as a result of frosty relationship between the parties mentioned.

The term “cockpit resource management” (later generalised to “crew resource management”) was coined in 1979 by NASA psychologist John Lauber who had studied communication processes in cockpits for several years. While retaining a command hierarchy, the concept was intended to foster a less authoritarian cockpit culture, where co-pilots were encouraged to question captains if they observed them making mistakes. Crew Resource management grew out of the 1977 Tenerife airport disaster where two Boeing 747 aircraft collided on the runway killing 583 people.

A few weeks later, NASA held a workshop on the topic, endorsing this innovative training. United Airlines was the first airline to provide CRM training for its cockpit crews in 1981. By the 1990s, it had become a global standard.

Layers of enhanced communication

United Airlines additionally trained their flight attendants to use CRM in conjunction with the pilots to provide another layer of enhanced communication and teamwork. Studies have shown that by both work groups using CRM together, communication barriers are reduced and problems can be solved more efficiently, leading to increased safety. CRM training concepts have been modified for application to a wide range of activities where people must make dangerous time-critical decisions.

These arenas include air traffic control, ship handling, firefighting, and medical operating rooms. It recognises that a discrepancy between what is happening and what should be happening is often the first indicator that an error is occurring.

NCAA frets Concerned by the incessant cockpit, cabin relations that do damage or cause accidents, the Director General of Nigerian Civil Aviation Authority (NCAA), Capt. Muhtar Usman has stated that effective relationship between cockpit and cabin crew is key to flight safety.

This is just as he said that crew members in any flight are a team and that no one is inferior to the other. He said this shortly before declaring open the Cabin Safety Workshop with the theme, “Improving Cockpit –Cabin Crew Relationship for Effective Flight Safety” at NCAA Annex, international wing of the Murtala Muhammed Airport (MMA), Lagos, recently.

The Director General, who was represented by NCAA Director of Operations, Capt. Abdullahi Sidi, said that the Cabin Safety Inspectorate is always proactive and has decided to engage Cock-Pit –Cabin interaction in the workshop theme. Sidi added that he is very sure that that day’s discussions and interactions would trigger healthier though professional mutually beneficial aviation relationships as the cabin crew depends on one another for effective flight safety.

Showing respect

The representative of the DG noted that all the crew members in any flight are equal and that no one is superior to the other. He said: “All spheres of human endeavour require relationships and good relationships make us healthy and strong.

The crew members are a team and no one is inferior to the other.” In her welcome address, the Assistant General Manager, Cabin Crew, NCAA, Ordon Maria Ubong, stated that the essence of the workshop is to make cabin crew open up on what happens in the course of doing their job and also share experiences as it concerns the relationship between the cockpit crew and the cabin crew.

Other aims of organising the workshop, according to Ordon includes: to bring cabin crew operating up to date on regulations Standards and Recommended Practices (SARP),create an ambiance, where the regulator and the regulated could mingle and to foster an interaction in a virile social milieu. She added that their duties are very crucial to flight safety.

Cause of problem

On his part, the Chie Pilot of Aero, Capt Gerald Moka, posited that what is causing the problem between cockpit and cabin crew is the lack of communication between the cockpit and the cabin crew. Moka, while differentiating the office of the crew, stated that while the cockpit crew operate in a confined environment, cabin crew on the other hand operate in a spacious office inside the aircraft and that while cockpit crew are mostly male, cabin crew are mostly female, adding that not minding these differences, they all work to achieve flight safety.

He stated that while the job of the cockpit crew is technical in nature that of the cabin crew is more of social as they attend to passengers and make them comfortable but that despite the differences in their jobs, the main purpose of the flight is to ensure that passengers get to their destinations safely.

Psychometric test

Speaking at the event, a former pilot with Bristow Helicopters, Capt. Dung Rwang Pam called for introduction of psychometric test for both cockpit and cabin crew to detect individual mental ability, adding that this will go a long way to reduce the friction between the two parties.

They are designed to measure candidates’ suitability for a role based on the required personality characteristics and aptitude. They help identify the extent to which candidates’ personality and cognitive abilities match those required to perform the role. Pam stated that Nigerian aviation should go beyond punitive reporting but instead advocated for Whistle Blower Policy, where somebody who blows a whistle about an incident or an issue is protected. He stated that despite the not too rosy relationship between cabin crew and cockpit crew, the ultimate goal is to achieve flight safety.

He said, “The first responsibility of the cockpit is safety .The first responsibility of the cockpit is also safety. They both work towards the same goal.”

Conclusion

The primary goal of CRM is enhanced situational awareness, self-awareness, leadership, assertiveness, decision making, flexibility, adaptability, event and mission analysis, and communication. Specifically, CRM aims to foster a climate or culture where authority may be respectfully questioned.

Wole Shadare