Following on from your points about the use of role plays to allow crew members to
"walk in another's shoes", I saw a link between such role plays and some training
I carried out for cabin crew a number of years ago. Drawing on the work of
Rebecca Chute and Earl Wiener, I re-examined the basic concepts upon which CRM was
founded. As the "C" started out as "cockpit", originally CRM training was based
around one group, and concentrated on intragroup processes. When the training
broadened to include other personnel, the single group situation evolved to
include two or more groups, working together as one team. The need to reconsider
the basic principles in the light of intergroup processes, as well as the original
intragroup basis was sometimes overlooked. In my opinion, the biggest intergroup
factor is the potential for conflict. I felt that improving the knowledge of
roles and procedures from one group to another might help.
At the time, I was flying B707's for the Royal Australian Air Force. We had a
very keen, enthusiastic bunch of cabin crew, many of whom were very junior (< 1
year in the job). In light of their low experience levels, and the work discussed
above, I put together a 1 day course aimed at improving cabin crew knowledge of
flight crew roles and procedures. The format included a 1 hour classroom session
in which I outlined crew roles for the Captain, First Officer and Flight Engineer,
as well as duties for Pilot Flying and Pilot Not Flying, and a brief look at how
checklists are used. Next, we moved into the simulator, which space-wise limited
the group size to ~5. The course participants then observed a flight crew
carrying out their duties. We ran through the normal checklist, pausing to
explain actions that had particular relevance to the cabin, such as galley power
being turned off prior to engine start. Then we covered some emergencies, such as
a rejected take-off, cabin depressurisation etc. Finally, each participant was
given an oppurtunity to fly the simulator for a take-off, some handling exercises,
and an attempt at landing (with motion off, as some did not have pretty results!).
Feedback from participants was very positive. Junior crew members found that
reasons for some parts of their initial training became more clear, and were able
to put their role in the team into perspective. Senior crew, often involved in
training, found that they learnt a suprising amount, and thought that the
information would enable them to improve the abinitio training they provided.
Many participants commented on the time taken to accomplish tasks on the
flightdeck, and were suprised to see how high the workload can be. They all
enjoyed having a fly, even though it was only included as a fun item to round the
day off.
Overall, I was very pleased with the feedback and outcomes from the course. An
unintended, but valuable spin off was the interaction between the participants and
the crew carrying out their duties in the simulator. Some pilots and engineers
commented that they thought they gained as much from the course as the cabin
crew. Perhaps some form of training in reverse for flight crew in the cabin might
be equally useful? Resource difficulties make it hard for many organisations to
carry out such training, but I believe it goes a long way toward verifying Chute
and Wiener's recommendations re knowledge of one another's roles and procedures.
Guy Standen