>>>
proposing introducing a phrase into our operation, as a
"bottom line" as Emergency Talk. If this phrase, which is after all other
assertion phrases are used, is ever used in anger on the line, it is
proposed that a debrief/inquiry with management would be required.
Qantas uses the phrase "Captain you must listen."
<<<
I'm currently looking at strategies for improving crew interaction for UK
RAF. I concluded last year that some co-ordination failures were caused
not by disagreement and excessive authority gradient but by what am
information engineer would consider a Signalling failure: the information
never reached its intended recipient because the information link had never
been established. So theoretically, where communication breaks down, the
attempt to transfer information would need to be preceded by a "signalling
message" - a specific coded piece of information which attempts to seize a
channel. But until Chris started this thread I wasn't aware that such
coded messages actually existed.
"Time Out" and "Captain you must listen" are "in band" signalling - the
attempt to establish the link uses the same part of the communications
bandwidth as the information content. If that (auditory) link is already
in use (R/T, stall warning, GPWS, annunciators...), and particularly under
conditions of personal stress, there is theoretical data (e.g. the Wickens
and Liu Conflicted Resourcing model) which says that these signalling
efforts may not succeed. In fact, as cognitive workload increases, the
chance of an effective interrupt probably decreases.
In these conditions it might be more effective to use a separate signalling
medium to set up the connection. Does anyone know of any operators who
advise, for example, that when using "Time Out" or an equivalent keyphrase
you should if possible supplement the phrase with a specific non-verbal
communication? Even turning to look at the person directly would arguably
make a difference. Any opinions on this point would be welcome.
Rick Heybroek
LOFTwork Ltd, UK.