CREW RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 6
Crewinput factors are qualitative variables that determine teaminteraction and outcome from group processes. The input elementsinclude individual, group, management, regulation and environmentalcomponents that determine the safety and effectiveness of flightoperations. (CRM) provides that theselection of teamwork inclined individuals is imperative to achievingthe efficiency of group performance (Seamster & Kanki, 2002).
Thenature of management refers to administration, training, maintenancesupport, flight planning, scheduling practices, and dispatching.Regulatory factors influence crew behaviour as they determine theorganisational policies. Ambiguous regulations affect thedecision-making capability of businesses and their overall success(Seamster & Kanki, 2002).
Thenature of management controls groups’ personal factors such asmotivation, skills, traits, emotional, and physical states. It alsoaffects the group size, interaction, structure and roles of the crew.The paper observes that group elements are a collection of individualfactors in a team. They can be divisive, efficient, or rancorous,depending on the mix of people and their state at a given time (Salaset al., 2010).
Wheneverrules are unclear, the responsibility of a flight shifts to thecrewmembers and later to the captain. It affects the interactions andactions of the workers since they are not clear about what is rightor wrong. Regulations determine a squad’s subsequent interactionand roles. Well laid out rules motivate the employees to participatein team-based decision-making and coordinated actions to resolveflight problems (Penn, 2012).
Thefollowing paper evaluates the causes of variances in groups’ inputfactors such as the size, structure, and the roles on a flight deck.Specifically, the text assesses factors that are controlled bymanagement, design, or regulation. Group input factors refer todifferent characteristics of employees, organisations, teams, and theworking surroundings. Group functions are affected by the type andexcellence of interactions among the members. The nature of theoutcome from a team can change the components of the input elements.Besides, the qualitative nature of input factors affects the mode ofinteractions adopted by a crew (Kanki et al., 2010)
Thecharacteristics of the management change the nature of the availableStandard Operating Procedures (SOPs) as the first step in developinga safety culture. The management is in charge of developing a welllaid out set of guidelines based on the four Ps of the human factorparadigm- Philosophy, Policies, Procedures, and practices to monitorall the flight operations in an organisation (Salas & Maurino,2010).
First,the executive creates the philosophy of an organisation outlining thegeneral terms. The policies dictate the required combination of acrew’s input factors to ensure safe, efficient, and regulatorycompliant flight operations. The nature of the philosophy determinesinput factors such as the skills, interaction, structure, and roles,as well as, their application in various flight circumstances (LeSageet al., 2011).
Theoverall philosophy further dictates the formulation of ‘P-policies’ developed by the directors of the organisation. Policiesrelated to remuneration affect the motivation of a team while theadministrative laws impinge on the structure and the roles of thestaff. Regulations related to training and evaluation affects theskills attained by the team to ensure safety in the flights (Okray &Lubnau, 2004).
Thethird step entails the creation of the procedures, and the managersshould involve the staff in the process. The nature ofadministration, thus, dictates the procedures outlining the structureand roles of the workers. Weak systems determine the operationalenvironment, and they can influence the inputs, for instance, bymounting the level of stress among the crewmembers (Marshall, 2009).
Thefourth ‘p – practices’ defines the real world experiences inthe flight department. The nature of management determines the levelat which the practices in an organisation correspond to thephilosophies. They dictate how things are done concerning structure,roles, and group size within the flight department. Throughpractices, the management determines the norms of an organisationthat are hard to reverse and affect the behaviour of the crewmembers.Such standards, when well executed, provide motivation tocrewmembers. However, inadequate and unclear procedures becomehazards that are realised after the occurrence of an incidence(Bijlsma, 2015).
Regulatorypractices affect the roles of employees, crew performance andindividual authority. For example, in the past, the “sterilecockpit” rule called for non-operational communications below10,000 feet. The existence of prohibitory regulations may also hindereffective communication. For example, in the past, first officerswere prohibited from correcting the captain during proficiency checks(Penn, 2012).
Existingpolicies also influence the quality of training, which in turn,shapes the skills and interactions of the crew. For example, thecurrent training on regulations through the Line Oriented FlightTraining (LOFT) and the (CRM) guide teams to self-realisationcompared to lectures on observed deficiencies. The crew has anopportunity to experiment with new interaction strategies after whichthey receive feedback and reinforcement. The current training onregulations enhances the input factors by emphasising on instanceswhere the team behaviour is required. Besides, it dictates on thelevel of interaction, role performance as well as structure (Kanki etal., 2010).
Inthe past, a commendable operation of airline crew emanated fromsituations that required an immediate response to a singleauthoritative command. However, a study on the causes of severalaccidents has revealed that the use of centralised authoritydiscourage some members of the staff from commenting on the flawsthey may observe. As such, outdated administration approach reducedindividual input effort, such as the level of group interaction. Thechain of command placed excessive dependence on the captains as theleaders. As a result, the regulations hindered team communicationsince the colleagues’ contributions to solving assorted problemswere not voiced (Salas et al., 2010). Salas, Shuffler, andDiazGranados (2010) recount the circumstances surrounding AirFlorida Flight 90 crash.The pilot took off without doing the regular anti- icing strategies,just because the takeoff had been authorised by an individual withhigher authority.
Individualinput factors, such as communication, require the provision ofinformation at the right time. It provides efficiency in theunderstanding and utilisation of information. The interaction of theworkers enhances the use of official statements such as the “Positiverate gear up”, to ensure an easier way of transferring information.The policies may call for specific communication patterns andregulated exchanges between pilots. For example, captains areaccorded the right to give more commands compared to the firstofficers. On the contrary, the first officers are often required touse more of acknowledgment in communication (Salas et al., 2010).
Concerninginteraction, structure and roles, the captain is a crucial factorthat breathes life into a shell of the cabin crew to performpredefined roles in flight. The least that a commander should do isto affirm the constructive boundaries, definitions, norms andregulations to the staff. By confirming, the captain enhances theemployees’ input factors and helps them understand their roles.Teams under an affirmative captain perform well since they fill inthe dotted lines of responsibilities and proceed to exhibitbehaviours based on their expectations. In organisations that setefficient teamwork, undermining captains negate the pre-existingpositive crewmembers and affects their interaction (LeSage et al.,2011).
Inconclusion, the previous text has observed that crew input factorsemanate from the set regulations and the nature of management in theflight department. The flight management sector plays the role ofestablishing the philosophy, policies, procedures, and practices thatdetermine the individual input factors such as the size, structure,and the functions of the crew. The level of interaction is a personalelement and may vary from one person to the other. Besides, thepolicies affect the availability of resources such as training toimprove the input factors and the efficiency of a team.
Bijlsma,T. (2015). Crewresource management: Veilig en effectief samenwerken in teams.Alphen aan den Rijn: Vakmedianet.
Chidester,T.R., & Kanki, B.G. (1990). Personalityfactors in flight operations: Volume I. Leader characteristics andcrew performance in a full-mission air transport simulation.Moffet Field: NASA
Kanki,B.G. (2008). Aicraftmaintenance human factors.New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
Kanki,B.G., Helmreich, R. L., & Anca, J. M. (2010). Crewresource management.Amsterdam: Academic Press/Elsevier.
LeSage,P., Dyar, J.T., & Evans, B.E. (2011). Crewresource management: Principles and practice.Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett.
Marshall,D. (2009). Crewresource management: From patient safety to high reliability.Denver: Safer Healthcare Partners, LLC.
Okray,R., & Lubnau, T. (2004). Crewresource management for the fire service.Tulsa, OK: PennWell
Penn,R. (2012). Crewresource management.S.l.: Lulu Com.
Salas,E. L., Shuffler, M. L., & DiazGranados, D. (January 01, 2010).Team dynamics at 35,000 feet. HumanFactors in Aviation.
Salas,E., & Maurino, D.E. (2010). Humanfactors in aviation.Amsterdam: Academic Press/Elsevier.
Salas,E., Shuffler, M.L. & DiazGranados, D. (2010). Teamdynamics at 35,000 feet.Elsevier, Inc.
Seamster,T.L., & Kanki, B.G. (2002). Aviationinformation management: From documents to data.Aldershot, Hampshire, Eng.: Ashgate.