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

14. In managing automated cockpits, briefing becomes an critical crew coordination tool -- not so muchto reduce variance, but rather to reduce the level of ambiguity of other agents (e.g., PNF or F/O) byincreasing expectations. The more one allows for technique, the more one has to stress briefing.(Section 6.2.2)15. If the same procedure can yield significantly different outcomes, then the procedure must bemodified in order to eliminate its embedded ambiguity. In brief, a procedure should lead to a totallypredictable outcome. (Section 6.2.3)16. Particular attention should be paid in order to safeguard information transfer during critical and highworkload phases of flight. Callouts should be economical, unambiguous, and should convey onlythe information needed by the other crew member(s). They should not distract the crew memberfrom his primary task(s). Finally, we urge frequent review of callout procedures: as otherprocedures change, callouts should be reexamined. (Section 6.3)17. Procedure designers should always bear in mind the contribution which any procedure makes to totalworkload of the crew at any given time. They should be especially sensitive to procedures that mayrequire crew attention in times of high workload, and should strive to “manage” workload by movingtasks that are not time-critical to periods of low workload. (Section 7.2.3)18. The designer of flight-deck documentation should search for situations where procedures are tightlycoupled, and exploit the opportunity to decouple them. (Section 7.3)19. Frequent procedure and checklist changes lead flight crews to conclude that the system is unstable.This may diminish the importance they attribute to new and modified procedure. Therefore,management should minimize frequent procedures or checklist changes. It is probably better tobunch them together and make larger, less frequent “bundles” of changes if the items are not timecritical.(Section 7.4)20. The SOP documentation should not only explain the mechanics of the procedure, but also state thelogic behind it. A detailed account of the operational logic, system constraints, and the link to the“Four-P” model should be part of the documentation. (Section 7.4.2)21. While benefits of cross fleet standardization are quite obvious, there are certain situations where thistype of standardization is just inappropriate. It may lead to sub-optimal procedures bysuperimposing procedures that are suitable for one type of cockpit operation on another. (Section7.5.1)22. We recommend a three-way approach for a cross-fleet standardization. (1) Development of a crossfleetphilosophy, (2) creating a cross-fleet standardization forum, and (3) obtaining input forprocedural design from personnel that design, certify, teach, use, and check procedures. (Section7.5.1)23. The flow of any procedure through design, training, checking, implementation, and finally feedback,must be supported by the organizational structure. When a new procedure, or a modified procedureis established, it should be closely monitored (by standardization and check airmen, and LOFTinstructors) for compliance. (Section 7.5.4)60