Development of Crew Resource Management Concept in Civil Aviation

Yıl 2018, , 45 - 55, 26.06.2018

Tüzün Tolga İnan

https://doi.org/10.30518/jav.409931

Cited By: 6

Öz

The fact that 60% of
mortal accidents made by scheduled passenger transports in civil aviation
sector are human error initiated and more than 70% is direct cause of human
error is reported in past analysis. However, human error can not be reduced to
zero. Because human nature has potential to make mistakes in every condition
and/or situation, especially stress status. For this reason, it is impossible
to reduce the error margin to zero in human factor and also minimizing
constitutes main theme in this research. The concept of cockpit/crew resource
management (CRM) in civil aviation was first introduced by National Aeronautics
and Space Administration (NASA) in 1979 with aim of improving flight safety by
regulating communication principles between flight crews at the beginning.
Today, the concept has been further developed and a significant part of civil
aviation trainings. In this research, the concept of CRM is divided into five
generations under the name of cockpit and cabin resource management. The
concept of CRM, which has been exposed to great criticism in previous
generations has become a concept that needs to be included in the curriculum of
staff trainings. Especially flight crews in all airlines, the concept of CRM
has become more and more relevant with the analysis of error management in
fifth generation more deeply.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Cockpit resource management, Crew resource management, Error management, Human factor, Troika error model

Development of Crew Resource Management Concept in Civil Aviation

Öz

The fact that 60% of mortal accidents made by scheduled passenger transports in civil aviation sector are human error initiated and more than 70% is direct cause of human error is reported in past analysis. However, human error can not be reduced to zero. Because human nature has potential to make mistakes in every condition and/or situation, especially stress status. For this reason, it is impossible to reduce the error margin to zero in human factor and also minimizing constitutes main theme in this research. The concept of cockpit/crew resource management (CRM) in civil aviation was first introduced by National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) in 1979 with aim of improving flight safety by regulating communication principles between flight crews at the beginning. Today, the concept has been further developed and a significant part of civil aviation trainings. In this research, the concept of CRM is divided into five generations under the name of cockpit and cabin resource management. The concept of CRM, which has been exposed to great criticism in previous generations has become a concept that needs to be included in the curriculum of staff trainings. Especially flight crews in all airlines, the concept of CRM has become more and more relevant with the analysis of error management in fifth generation more deeply.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Cockpit Resource Management, Crew Resource Management, Error Management, Human Factor, Troika Error Model

Kaynakça

• (1) A. C. Merritt, R. L. Helmreich, Creating and sustaining a safety culture: Some practical strategies. In B. Hayward & A. Lowe (Eds.), Applied Aviation Psychology: Achievement, change, and challenge. London: Avebury Aviation, 135-142, 1997b.
• (2) A. C. Merritt, R. L. Helmreich, CRM: I hate it, what is it? (Error, stress, culture), In Proceedings of the Orient Airlines Association Air Safety Seminar, Jakarta, Indonesia, April 23, 1996, 123-134, (1997a).
• (3) A. C. Merritt, National Culture and Work Attitudes in Commercial Aviation: A CrossCultural Investigation, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin, 1996.
• (4) Federal Aviation Administration, Aviation safety action programs, Advisory Circular 120-66, Author, 1997.
• (5) F. Tullo, Instructor/evaluator training in error management. In R.S. Jensen (Ed.), Proceedings of the Ninth International Symposium on Aviation Psychology. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University. Results of a multination survey, International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 7(4), 311-329, 2000.
• (6) G. E. Cooper, M. D. White, J. K. Lauber, Resource Management on the Flightdeck: Proceedings of a NASA/Industry Workshop, (NASA CP-2120), Moffett Field, CA: NASA-Ames Research Center, 1980.
• (7) G. Hofstede, Culture’s consequences: International differences in work related values, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1980.
• (8) H. W. Orlady, H. C. Foushee, Cockpit Resource Management Training, (NASA CP2455), Moffett Field, CA: NASA-Ames Research Center, 1987.
• (9) J. Reason, Human Error. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
• (10) J. Reason, Managing the risks of organizational accidents. Aldershot, U. K: Ashgate, 1997.
• (11) National Transportation Safety Board Aircraft Accident Report: United Airlines, Inc., Douglas DC-8-54, N8082U, Portland, Oregon, December 28, 1978, (NTSB-AAR-79-7), Washington, DC: Author, 1979.
• (12) R. Birnbach, and T. Longridge, The regulatory perspective. In E. Wiener, B. Kanki, & R. Helmreich (Eds.), Cockpit Resource Management, San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 263-282, 1993.
• (13) R. R. Blake, and J. S. Mouton, The managerial grid. Houston: Gulf Press, 1964.
• (14) R. Byrnes, E. R. Black, Developing and implementing CRM programs. In E. Wiener, B. Kanki ve R. Helmreich (Eds.), Cockpit Resource Management San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 421-446, 1993.
• (15) R. L. Helmreich, A. C. Merritt, Culture at work in aviation and medicine: National, organizational, and professional influences, Aldershot, U.K.: Ashgate, 1998.
• (16) R. L. Helmreich, A. C. Merritt, J. A. Wilhelm, The evolution of Crew Resource Management training in commercial aviation, International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 9(1), 19-32, 1999.
• (17) R. L. Helmreich, A. C. Merritt, P. J. Sherman, Research project evaluates the effect ofnational culture on flight crew behaviour, International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Journal, 51(8), 14-16, 1997.
• (18) R. L. Helmreich, A. C. Merritt, P. J. Sherman, S. E. Gregorich, E. L. Wiener, The Flight Management Attitudes Questionnaire (FMAQ), NASA/UT/FAA Technical Report 93-4. Austin, TX: The University of Texas, 1993.
• (19) R. L. Helmreich, H. C. Foushee, Why Crew Resource Management? Empirical and theoretical bases of human factors training in aviation, In E. Wiener, B. Kanki, & R. Helmreich (Eds.), Cockpit Resource Management. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 3-45, 1993.
• (20) R. L. Helmreich, J. A. Wilhelm, Outcomes of Crew Resource Management training, International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 1(4), 287-300, 1991.
• (21) R. L. Helmreich, Managing human error in aviation, Scientific American, 62-67, 1997.
• (22) R. L. Helmreich, R. E. Butler, W. R. Taggart, J. A. Wilhelm, The NASA/University of Texas/FAA Line/LOS Checklist: A behavioral marker-based checklist for CRM skills assessment. NASA/UT/FAA Technical Report 94-02, Revised 12/8/95 Austin TX: The University of Texas, 1994.
• (23) P. J. Sherman, R. L. Helmreich, A. C. Merrıtt, National culture and flightdeck automation: Results of a multination survey, International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 7 (4), 311-329, 1997.
• (24) R. L. Helmreich, T. R. Chidester, H. C. Foushee, S. E. Gregorich, J. A. Wilhelm, How effective is Cockpit Resource Management training? Issues in evaluating the impact of programs to enhance crew coordination, Flight Safety Digest Arlington, VA: Flight Safety Foundation, 9(5), 1-17, 1990.
• (25) R. L. Helmreich, W. E. Hines, J. A. Wilhelm, Common issues in human factors and automation use: Data from line audits at three airlines, Austin, TX: NASA/University of Texas/FAA Technical Report 96-1, 1996.
• (26) R. L. Helmreich, W. R. Taggart, CRM: Where are we today? In Proceedings of the CRM Industry Update Workshop, Seattle, WA, September 12-13, l995, 1995.