On the Design of Flight-Deck Procedures - Intelligent Systems ...

Humor. Humor is closely related to individualism, but its consequence may be similar to thatwhich results from complacency. Humor in the cockpit represents the desire to inject some variety andstimulation into an otherwise humorless situation. Humor, like individualism, has its place. It makeslife enjoyable, overcomes the tedium of a highly precise job, and establishes a form of communicationbetween crew members. It also carries potential hazards:I called for clearance to Saint Louis (STL) as follows: ‘clearance delivery, company identification, ATISinformation, federal aid to Saint Louis.' Federal aid was meant to mean FAA clearance in a joking fashion. Thecontroller misinterpreted this to mean that we were being hijacked and called the FBI and airport police....Minutes later police arrived at the aircraft.It was not my intent to indicate we had a hijacking. I was merely requesting a clearance.... The phrase federalaid to obtain a clearance has been a sarcastic term used for years in the cockpit and I thought [it] could not bemistaken to indicate other problems. I will use absolutely standard phraseology in the future... (ASRS ReportNo. 248982)During our cockpit observations, we noted checklist reading behavior when the pilot reads “gasoline”where the checklist requires a challenge of “fuel,” or use of the Spanish term uno mas instead of a 1000feet to level-off callout. These departures are inevitable, as they break the monotony of a highlystandardized and procedurized situation. The meanings are assumed to be clear and the departure fromSOP is usually harmless. But that is exactly what cockpit standardization is all about: trying to eliminatethe need to make unnecessary assumptions or interpretations during high-risk operations. The difficultdecision is where to draw the line. Unfortunately, the absolute distinction between what is humor andwhat is a deviation from SOP usually depends on the outcome. If this non-standard verbiage (e.g.,federal aid) caused a breakdown in communication that led to an incident, then it would be labeled“deviation from SOP.” If it did not result in an untoward consequence, then it would be humor.Nonetheless, we take the position that any deviations during critical phases of flight should not be takenlightly: We once observed a takeoff in which the captain was the pilot flying. The first officer wassupposed to make standard airspeed calls of V-1, V-r, and V-2. Instead, he combined the first two into anon-standard call of “V-one-r”, and at V-2 called, “two of 'em.” Apparently, the captain knew what wasmeant by these strange calls, and while one cannot say that this was a dangerous compromise withsafety, it did represent a potentially serious departure from SOPs. Perhaps worse, it established anatmosphere of tolerance on the part of the captain of non-standard (one may say sub-standard)performance, which laid the foundation for more serious SOP departures later in the flight.We may question what moved the first officer to depart from standard procedures and utter nonsensicalcallouts. This example could of course be attributed to complacency. The link may be that complacencyinduces the introduction of “humor” in place of standardization. A critical phase of flight operations,such as takeoff, is probably not an appropriate arena for humor.Perhaps the appropriateness of humor on the flight deck is an area addressable by cockpit resourcemanagement (CRM). It might be a relatively simple matter for the captain, during his initial briefing, toadvise the subordinate crew member(s) on how he or she feels about humor in the performance ofduties. However, in spite of the fact that CRM training stresses free two-way communication in thecockpit, it might be somewhat more difficult for the other crew persons to do the same for the“humorous” captain.Frustration. Pilots may feel that they have been driven to non-conformity by frustrating forcesbeyond their control. An example would be the failure to use the oxygen mask (above FL 250) whenone pilot leaves the cockpit in a modern, two-pilot aircraft. We repeatedly observed low conformity tothis regulation. First, it is not comfortable to wear any mask; and second, in some modern aircraft, it isdifficult to replace the inflatable masks in their receptacles. Pilots find it a frustrating task and avoid it bysimply not conforming to the regulation. “∆”, in this case, is equipment-induced.We observed an interesting technique (or ploy) to overcome the mask while still obeying the regulation.In a two-pilot aircraft with the inflatable mask, the captain left the cockpit briefly while the aircraft wasclimbing unrestricted to FL 330. At about FL 200 the first officer called ATC and requested level off atFL 250, which he maintained until the captain returned, and then requested continuation of his climb (themask is only required above FL 250). In this case the pilot conformed to the regulation and procedure,12