Skip to main content

Crew Resource Management Revisited

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
How Could This Happen?
  • 1008 Accesses

Abstract

The author offers a long-overdue, critical evaluation of the application of crew resource management (CRM) in aviation. Three decades ago, CRM was developed to reduce the hierarchy gradient on the flight deck. The aim was to achieve open, factual exchanges of information and thought processes in order to ensure the safe operation of flights. However, initial results from an ongoing research study the author has conducted with others have shown that most of the interviewed pilots portrayed CRM not as a fixed, integrated part of their procedures for increasing safety but rather as an add-on that ranked below carrying out their mission, safety, and standard operating procedures. In other words, either CRM has to be reshaped or the training needs to be intensified.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 49.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 49.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The ECAM system on board an Airbus keeps the pilots up-to-date on the status of their aircraft’s systems. First and foremost, it displays faults, checklists, and procedures.

  2. 2.

    FORDEC is an acronym for decision making. It is the model used to structure a problem according to the following steps: F—Facts (what is the problem); O—Options (hold, divert, immediate landing etc.); R—Risks/benefits (what is the downside of each option, what is the upside); D—Decide (which option); E—Execute (carry out selected option); C—Check (did everything work/go according to plan, what else needs to be done).

References

  • Australian Transport Safety Bureau. 2013. ATSB transport safety report, aviation occurrence investigation – AO-2010-089, final investigation – In-flight uncontained engine failure overhead Batam Island, Indonesia, 4 November 2010, VH-OQA, Airbus A380-84. Canberra: Australian Transport Safety Bureau.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boeing Commercial Airplanes. 2016. Statistical summary of commercial jet airplane accidents worldwide operations – 1959–2015. N.p.

    Google Scholar 

  • Civil Aviation Authority—Safety Regulation Group. 2006. CAP 737, Flight-crew human factors handbook. December. N.p.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edmondson, A. 1999. Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly 44 (2): 350–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fraher, A.L. 2011. Thinking through crisis: Improving teamwork and leadership in high-risk fields. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Haynes, A.C. 1991. The crash of United Flight 232. Edwards: Dryden Flight Research Facility, NASA Ames Research Center. http://yarchive.net/air/airliners/dc10_sioux_city.html

  • Helmreich, R.L., A.C. Merritt, and J.A. Wilhelm. 1999. The evolution of Crew Resource Management training in commercial aviation. International Journal of Aviation Psychology 9 (1): 19–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lei, Z., M.J. Waller, J. Hagen, and S. Kaplan. 2016. Team adaptiveness in dynamic contexts: Contextualizing the roles of interaction patterns and in-process planning. Group & Organization Management 41 (4): 491–525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Transportation Safety Board. 1990. Aircraft accident report. United Airlines Flight 232, McDonnell-Douglas DC-10–10, Sioux City, Iowa, July 19, 1989. NTSB/AAR-90/06. Washington, DC: NTSB.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1992. Aircraft accident report. Explosive decompression – Loss of cargo door in flight, United Airlines Flight 811, Boeing 747–122, N4713U, February 24, 1989. NTSB/AAR-92/02. Washington, DC: NTSB.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1994. A review of flightcrew-involved, major accidents of U.S. air carriers, 1978 through 1990, safety study. NTSB SS-94/01. Washington, DC: NTSB.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schein, E.H. 2013. Humble inquiry: The gentle art of asking instead of telling. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Hagen, J.U. (2018). Crew Resource Management Revisited. In: Hagen, J. (eds) How Could This Happen?. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76403-0_14

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics