Review of Relevant Research
Considering the number of crew involved in flying a large aircraft, communication errors are a foregone conclusion. It is when these errors could have prevented an accident but either were not voiced or if they were voiced they were ignored or misunderstood that a major flaw in communications within CRM is recognized. Current statistics reflect 70-80 percent of all aircraft crashes are caused by human error (Shappell & Wiegmann, 2000; Taneja, 2002; Marcellin, 2014; Wagener & Ison, 2014).
According to a study by Grey Owl Aviation Consultants (1997), “As children we communicate freely, but as we become adults we develop shields created from being made fun of – ridiculed, harassed, etc.” Not all children communicate freely, however. Some children are shy and quiet and remain so throughout their lives, but assertiveness can be learned. We are also taught as children to respect authority—our parents, our teachers, policemen, et al, and while the authority of the PIC should be respected, it should also be challenged when the possibility of an error is recognized.
Communication errors can occur in a number of ways:
· through misinterpretation of internal or external communications;
· by taking one action when another action is required;
· by taking an action when you shouldn’t, by not taking action when you should, or by doing the wrong thing;
· by being reluctant to express yourself or lack of assertiveness when expressing yourself, especially when recognizing an error or a potential error;
Gibson (2007) in a status review of CRM states that despite criticisms that it is anachronistic, CRM is “flourishing” and is continuing to evolve. Improvements are noted in long-term flight operations and cross-cultural communications. Metscher, Smith, & Alghandi (2009) disagree to the extent that the multi-cultural factor wherein pilots and crew are of different nationalities remains an issue that needs renewed focus; and even regional differences exist within the United States, where use of the vernacular can sometimes cause miscommunication. According to Metscher, et al “Since people of different cultures may have varying interpretations of the same situation, a high level of standardized training will refocus cultural variations so that crew members view a given situation with similar levels of understanding; such training is called mixed CRM.
In 2006, Salas, Wilson, Burke, Wightman, & Howse documented that CRM training had not produced the desired safety outcomes despite having been in use for more than 20 years. Their research found that what is known about learning has not been integrated into CRM training. They suggest that CRM must be organizationally internalized much like Safety Management Systems (SMS) have been. They further suggest that CRM training is not getting the support it deserves, and until it is prioritized among aviation organizations and is made a part of the everyday activities of an organization, the money that has been invested in CRM will essentially be lost.
Although Salas, et al (2007) do not address communication issues specifically, they do include “task-related assertiveness” as an element of their suggested detailed training checklist which begins with an analysis of training needs to be used in designing a standardized training program. After the training program has been implemented, it should be followed up with a thorough evaluation. The success (or failure) of the program should not be based on surveyed responses from trainees but on standard typologies much like that developed by Kraiger in 1993. They concluded that “[t]raining design, development, and implementation should be guided by the science of training and learning.
Reynolds & Blickensderfer (2009), come closer to addressing communication issues in CRM with their proposed the use of “shared mental models” and “how both implicit communication and team performance can be linked to shared mental models.” Much like the axiom that couples who have been married for many years know what each other is thinking, Reynolds & Blickensderfer (2009) apply similar reasoning to team members who have trained together or who have worked together can communicate with a mental model of the task at hand and integrate that model into the actions that need to be taken. The mental models to which they refer include “stress, situation awareness, team performance, and implicit communication, a critical skill for teams operating in fast paced, high stress environments.” They conclude their article with the recommendation that the “shared mental model concept for team performance” should be included in CRM training programs.