Multi-Cultural Factors in the Crew Resource Management Environment: Promoting Aviation Safety for Airline Operations

There are many reasons why Multi-cultural flight crews fail to work together effectively. This research provides a review of the history of Crew Resource Management ( 0 , the CRM training classes, and the communication barriers among the flight crews. The national, organizational, and professional cultures of crew members influence flight safety. While the primary focus is on Saudi Arabian Airline, the findings can be generalized to any multicultural airline. CRM training has been shown to be efficient for both pilots and flight attendants when viewed separately, especially those flying in foreign countries. The authors address accidents which were caused as a result of the lack of communication between pilots and flight attendants. A survey was conducted o f 30 pilots and 30 flight attendants employed by Saudi Arabian Airlines. The results indicated the population was aware of the importance of mixed cultural differences as usekl aspects of training in areas of safety and the cooperation of crew members. Furthermore, it was revealed that good communication has significant effects on teamwork effectiveness and safety. The authors recommend that the airline should establish a joint annual CRM training class for both groups. Introduction Error is a normal event in the human condition. The Roman philosopher Cicero (Circa 50 A.D.) linked error to the basis of human behavior when he said, "To err is human. " Although common, errors in aviation have been minimized over the years. This was a direct result of better technologies and the implementation of strict regulations and rigid procedures that govern our modes of operation. Background and Significance For many years, culture has been a safety related issue in the aviation community. Globalization of the airline industry is now a reality and is expected to continue. As airlines of different nations continue to combine operations . and increase their international destinations, cultural issues will gain prominence. These new global air carriers will most likely develop a cultural mixture of cabin attendants that match those of the expected passenger load. Aircraft in commercial airlines are separated into two sociological and geographical environments, the cockpit and the cabin. Each area has different responsibilities which can be viewed as two separate cultures in the aircraft (Helmreich, Merritt, & Wilhelm, 1999). Those two cultures are administratively organized into separate departments. The pilots are under flight operations where safety is stressed. The cabin crews are typically part of the marketing departments in many airlines where passenger service is emphasized. Aircraft manufacturers are now designing 800 plus passenger aircraft. An increasing number of international airlines employ cockpit and cabin crews recruited from different countries and distinct cultures. In those airlines, the need for inter-cultural mixed Crew Resource Management (CRM) training arises. Furthermore, in view of the increasing use of multi-national crews by major international airlines, the need for universal inter-cultural training programs is also increasing. Airline industry accident analysis shows that cabin safety and effectiveness is directly related to the level of flight deck and cabin crew integration. Globalization of the aviation industry should consider the effects of multi-culture when discussing aviation safety and effectiveness. Saudi Airlines, for example, since its foundation in 1945, has been a multi-cultural airline. The airline's employees come from over 35 different nationalities on the flight deck and 50 different nationalities in the cabin. The addition of mixed JAAER, Winter 2009 Page 9 1 Metscher et al.: Multi-Cultural Factors in the Crew Resource Management Environmen Published by Scholarly Commons, 2009 Multi-cultural Factors in the CRM Environment CRM training to this foundation will feature human factors skill training that breathes additional life into how all the crew functions in the aircraft by increasing the effectiveness of how well crew members work together. Culture is a factor of how a person perceives the world. It is affected by such things as language, education, religion, and customs. There are both positive and negative effects. The overall advantages due to culturally mixed crews are that individual crew members can provide different interpretations of the same information and different approaches towards problem solving (Helmreich, Klinect, & Wilhelm, 1999). Conversely, when these cultural differences are not channeled properly, misinterpretation of information can cause misunderstandings that will reduce crew effectiveness or lead to an accident. Each airline must analyze its own cultural effects when it considers its options on flight crew integration. Most airlines' primary method for reducing any negative multi-cultural effects and building on the positive effects to increase cabin and cockpit safety is through a high level of training and standardization (Menitt & Helmreich, 1995). Since people of different cultures may have varying interpretations of the same situation, a high level of standardized training will refocus cultural variations so that crew members view a given situation with similar levels of understanding; such training is called mixed CRM. There are two critical safety obligations of the flight attendant. The first is to prevent accidents, primarily by means of the conveyance of information regarding hazardous conditions to the flight deck. If the accident cannot be prevented, the second obligation is to maximize its survivability. Both roles require effective communication between the two work areas. Standardization of communication is also a vital factor. Flight crews use standard words or phrases for specific situations to prevent cultural misunderstandings. The effect of non-standard words or phrases among multi-cultural crewmembers is similar in effect to the use of slang words among crew members in those countries where English is the primary language (Merritt & Helmreich, 1995). When CRM was introduced, it began a process of humanizing the duties of the flight crew. Today, CRM is too narrow in scope, as accidents still occur in which the lack of cabin and flight deck crew interaction is a major cause. On the other hand, emergencies have occurred during which the effective interaction of CRM trained cabin and flight deck crews either prevented an accident or minimized the effects of an accident (Barnes, Orlady, & Orlady, 1996). Mixed CRM training increases the effectiveness of how the cabin and flight deck crew operate as a single flight crew by dealing primarily with human factors as opposed to classical training methods. What works in an organization with one culture may not work in the same organization with many different cultures. This is primarily because it opens crew members to the concepts of working together by focusing on what, not who, is responsible. Mixed CRh4 emphasizes the need to respect each others' different backgrounds and beliefs while drawing on those differences to arrive at the best possible solutions. It will help all crews to understand how multi-cultures view the same situation and communicate with each other; adjusting to each others' styles. By attending mixed CRM courses for multi-cultural airlines, the crew will learn and practice human factor skills during the course that will have value during actual flight operations (Orlady & Orlady, 1999; Lusher, Leary, & Frakers, 1995). Problem Statement Today, most foreign airlines depend heavily on the effectiveness of their multi-national crew and the crosscultural CRM instruction they provide to their pilots and flight attendants. However, the lack of standardization and the restrictions of personnel receiving the training j eopardize the program's success in achieving its safety objectives. The purpose of this research was to identi@ the significance of implementing a mixed CRM training program for both cockpit crew and flight attendants fiom different cultural, geographical, and vernacular backgrounds. Review of the Literature Culture can be defined as the values and practices that a group shares with others that help define them as a group, especially in relation to other groups. Culture also influences the values, the beliefs and the behaviors that the people share with other members of the group. It serves to bind people together as members of a group and to provide signs and signals as to how to behave in normal and emergency situations (Memtt & Helmreich, 1995). History of Crew Resource Management The errors directly rooted fiom human interaction with technology are limited. In fact, technology has achieved high standards of reliability and efficiency in most aspects of its functions. On the other hand, the fact remains that the interaction of humans with technology remains the most common source of errors. Crew Resource Management (CRM) is perhaps the most common human-related dilemma of flight operations in an airline environment. In 1984, Dr. John Lauber, a member of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), defined CRM as "Using all available resources Information, Equipment, and People to achieve safe and Page 10 JAAER, Winter 2009 2 Journal of Aviation/Aerospace Education & Research, Vol. 18, No. 2 [2009], Art. 6 https://commons.erau. edu/jaaer/vol18/iss2/6 DOI: https://doi.org/10.15394/jaaer.2009. 1423 Multi-cultural Factors in the CRM Environment efficient flight operations" (Lauber, 1984, p. 20). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has defined CRM as the utilization of all available human, informational, and equipment resources toward a safe and efficient flight (FAA, 2001). In 195 1, a U.S. Air Force Inspector General (IG) report analyzed data for a study of major accidents which occurred between 1948 and 195 1 Wem, 200 1). The study's results showed that the majority of aircraft accidents were due to human