Advanced Technology Aircraft Safety Survey Report - Australian ...

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY AIRCRAFT SAFETY SURVEY REPORT
28
Table B7.4 indicates a relatively even distribution across pilot ranks and aircraft manufac-
turers.
Table B7.4
’I sometimes find the automated systems taking over command of the aircraft.’
Cadain First officer
Airbus 17.4% 14.8%
Boeing 13.7% 18.5%
Conclusions
Pilots agree that their roles (pilot flying and pilot not flying) are well defined and that crew
management is generally not a problem on advanced technology aircraft.
There is evidence of ‘passive command’, and while the percentage of pilots who reported this
problem is relatively low ( l6%), this phenomenon requires continued monitoring. The topic
deserves to be addressed in CRM courses and during conversion/recurrent training.
One of the aims of CRM training is to create a cockpit environment where both crew can
communicate openly and effectively. The designers of CRM programs have recognised this
and attempted to minimise the effects of cross-cockpit gradient (age, pilot rank and cultural
differences between crew members) which may inhibit communication. The responses to
question B7.2 (‘There have been times when the other pilot has not told me something I
needed to know for the safe conduct of the flight’) suggest that more effort needs to be put
into the improvement of communications between crew. In the absence of historical data we
are unable to assess whether technology has specifically aided communication in the cockpit.
Recommendation
The Bureau of Air Safety Investigation recommends that airline operators (R9800028):
Employ appropriate methods and examples during initial and refresher CRM training to
enhance the transmission of safety information between flight crew members during flight.
Such training should stress the consequences of not communicating essential flight safety
information.