Re: Emergency Talk
Anthony Sasso (Anthony.Sasso_at_nwa.com)
Mon, 03 Feb 1997 12:09:23 -0800
CRMDEEN_at_aol.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated 97-02-03 02:18:41 EST, you write:
> "Does anyone have experience with 'Emergency' talk"
> << kriechc_at_voyager.co.nz (Chris Kriechbaum) >>
> Yes, Chris, we have had some experience with this concept. Several years ago
> our Air Force C-130 program began aggressively advocating a systematic
> progression of assertiveness. Assertiveness has different levels of
> intensity, beginning with a simple suggestion, advancing through a
> "criticism" level, then confrontation, and finally (and unfortunately),
> conflict. Standardized phrases are then assigned to each level. The premise
> is that a functioning crew need only work at the "suggestion" level. When
> the asserting crewmember is ineffective, usually because of communication
> barriers, the assertion level is raised. Advancing to the next higher step is
> "emergency" in nature, just as declaring "go around" is necessary to elicit
> an immediate reaction to a challenge. The Air Force designed and developed
> the phrase "Time Out", and established specific, procedural responses to
> occur when a crewmember said this. These responses are contained within
> regulations.
> When the phrase was first published there was a lot of resistance to it.
> Some thought it would usurp the authority of the PIC, others thought it was
> some "psychobabble silver bullet" that would produce instant salvation.
> As we CRM facilitators continued to explain that accident reports
> often indicate someone on the aircraft knew there was a problem, but did not
> speak up. Why not? Perhaps they did not really know "how" to speak up. A
> published phrase might give them the tool they need to overcome whatever
> barrier is inhibiting them.
> Today, I am pleased to report, I hear of a story at least once a week
> in which a crew exercised this phrase, and a successful outcome was reached.
> PIC's have discovered that they did not lose their authority. Crew
> interaction actually improved. Available resources were better utilized. IT
> WORKS! One flying unit went so far as to establish a local SOP that says
> if, on a training flight, "Time Out" is said twice during the same flight,
> the mission is aborted and the crew returns.
> Tools that are properly designed, trained, and supported by management,
> will work. One of our more recent mishaps might have been averted if
> someone would have said it before the takeoff. As with any tool in any
> business, it won't work if you don't use it.
> Greg Deen
> HTI-C-130 ATS.
Greg: Obviously, I agree with the use of the words Time Out. However,
there are 2 points that I will throw at you. First, you mention that
"unfortunately" the situation may get to the conflict stage. I would
submit that sometimes the conflict stage is absolutely necessary, and
therefore the conflict is a fortunate occurence, rather than an
unfortunate one. I always try to dispell the rumor that CRM training
was invented to allow everyone to like each other. Sometimes you have
to get downright nasty in order to prevent an accident from occurring.
Secondly, I applaud the use of the words time out, and how you hear
stories every week about its use. But, is this a good sign? The main
intention is for the words to be a last resort, when the data transfer
and suggestion stages don't work. Should we be happy that "time out" is
used with such frequency? Points to ponder...
Tony Sasso
Northwest Airlines