Emergency Language

Gerald P. Joering (74220.336_at_CompuServe.COM)
Thu, 6 Feb 1997 15:54:45 -0500


In our recurrent program we ask pilots to respond with specific language to
a set of operational problems. In many cases the operating manual
specifies detailed responses to these situations. The discussions that
follow reveal that most pilots are initially reluctant to voice anything
that might be viewed as questioning the skill or knowledge of the other
crewmember. Captains naturally tend to be more direct, yet even the
captains show the same general tendency to be "polite".

The need to have some kind of attention signal that is clear and
unambiguous jumps out at you after facilitating these classes. The other
thing that always comes up is the belief that there should be escalating
levels of communication in developing situations. The concept is that the
effort to communicate becomes more strident as the danger becomes more
immediate. Unfortunately this is a cop out for many as they simply defer
action until things get really bad. They justify ineffective communication
by the hope that they can avoid embarassing the other crewmember and he or
she will catch the problem. Having more than one level of standardized
attention signal might be useful. I remember instructors who wacked you on
the helmet to get your attention. It could be effective, but overused and
absent other effective communication destroys the credibility of the
instuctor. "Time Out" has many conotations and maybe inappropriate in some
situations, yet is a great concept. "Capt you must listen" implies to me
that if he doesn't do what you want you are authorized to some next level
of action. What action? Language is what we employ lawyers to interpret.
Developing clear language should be a priority for operators.