Crew Resource Management and Cross-Cultural Aviation Automation

Introduction: Automation and Safety in International Aviation

A defining feature of modern aviation is automation. Automation has been part of aviation far longer than it has been part of any other industry, and aviation has been multicultural since the first transatlantic flight. In light of recent global changes in aviation — particularly following major terrorist incidents — there is a much greater international need for a culture of safety that alleviates the rational fears of the public. The challenges of international collaboration are now more important than ever. Chief among those challenges are the ways in which pilots and managers view automation and how they use it. The aviation industry is, in many respects, a trendsetter in the field of human–computer interaction, having grappled with the complexities of technological advance and its time- and energy-saving effects almost before those ideas were fully articulated in other domains.

In aviation, technology was used from the earliest stages to automate flight subtasks (e.g., the Sperry autopilot) and to provide a clearer picture of an aircraft's attitude (e.g., the artificial horizon). In today's commercial or military aircraft, complex flight management systems can perform nearly every subtask in flight automatically (Ziegler & International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, 1999, p. 1271).

Yet within this system are inherent drawbacks and dangers. Despite technological advances and undoubted benefits, the relative safety level (hull losses per million departures) in commercial aviation remained at a constant level for the last twenty years (Ziegler & International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, 1999, p. 1271).

The marked flat rate of major incidents over the last two decades raises the concern that, while aviation may be much safer in absolute historical terms, relative expansion has kept incident numbers steady. "As the aviation system is still expanding (an estimated doubling of departures every twenty years), absolute accident rates will also increase. An accident rate of one major crash per week seems not far away" (Ziegler & International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, 1999, p. 1271).

Approximately 70% of all flight accidents are at least partially caused by pilots. A closer look, however, reveals that it is not the pilot's fault alone, but rather that the inappropriate design of automation exceeded pilots' cognitive limitations — resulting in deficits such as reduced situation awareness that inevitably led to fatal outcomes (Ziegler & International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, 1999, p. 1271).

The historical and current development of Crew Resource Management (CRM) — in development for more than 20 years — represents the most promising tool available to the industry to help manage the transition to highly successful automation and human collaboration. Without CRM's most current focus on cultural perspectives, a successful transition to reliance on automation would seem impossible (Helmreich, Wilhelm, Klinect, & Merritt, 2001, p. 1).

The cultural perspectives embedded in CRM have largely developed in response to conflicts and concerns that arose during international implementation. Within the literature, there is evidence that professional culture plays a role similar to the other cultural dynamics, as pilots tend to share similar professional cultures across organizational and national lines. The greater challenges arise from organizational and national cultures, both of which can vary considerably and can have a substantial impact on the acceptance and use of automation (Helmreich, Wilhelm, Klinect, & Merritt, 2001, p. 9).

It is within this international scope — of attempted implementation and within the recognition of professional, organizational, and national culture as driving factors behind human functioning in a highly stressed environment — that CRM has begun to develop ways to combat error in aviation internationally, fostering what may be called a culture of safety. Research has shown that national culture plays a powerful role in determining the effectiveness of CRM training programs (Maurino, 1994; Merritt & Helmreich, 1995b). Specifically, attitudes that define the core concepts of CRM differ dramatically across national borders — for example, individualism/collectivism, power distance, uncertainty avoidance, and division of roles between the sexes (Hofstede, 1988). As a result, initial attempts to apply CRM globally were often unsuccessful because of a failure to recognize the power of national culture (Helmreich, Wilhelm, Klinect, & Merritt, 2001; Salas, Burke, Bowers, & Wilson, 2001).

Recognizing — through careful and professional industry research — the particular characteristics and possible errors arising from cultural dynamics in any given context is crucial to the successful use of automation in the aviation industry. CRM human resource management is the tool by which solutions will be reached.