1. Andrew raised the issue of how to talk to trainees from other countries.
I would argue that open communication is not synomous with direct
communication. The former is a desired outcome in any cockpit, but the
latter is a communication model much more suited to Anglo-Westerners. CRM
in the USA has focused on assertion training and other means of direct
communication "say what you think, as you think it, regardless of its
interpersonal impact" This style of direct communication, which incidentally
we Anglos don't practise nearly as much as we think we do, allows the
comment to be separated from the speaker, to (supposedly) be evaluated
objectively. This can be a very harsh form of communication, and a form
which is much easier for the senior person to assume than the junior. (I
have a paper on this, happy to email to anyone who is interested...) There
are ways to develop open communication between instructor and instructee,
captain and first officer, other than forcing an unnatural style upon the
junior person (which the senior person may actually come to resent, as we
have seen with some of the backlash against overly assertive first officers
in the US).
I agree with Suren - if the instructor has a little knowledge/awareness of
cross-cultural differences, he/she will be a better instructor for every
trainee that they encounter. (And yes, the US culture can be overwhelming,
harsh, and strange to the outsider, so it is up to the host instructor to
make the guest trainee as comfortable as possible... I don't think it has
anything to do with political correctness - I think it involves optimizing
the learning environment for all trainees) Some training in culturally
influenced communication styles may be a great place to start with the
instructors - it may build their confidence with new trainees through
greater awareness of the differences.
2. The second thing I wanted to say relates generally to cross-cultural CRM
training .There are two universals in CRM which transcend national
boundaries and customs, the first is its rationale. Human performance has
limitations beyond which the potential for error increases. CRM is a set of
strategies which are premised on the recognition of those limitations, and
which aim to manage human error (avoid it, trap it, and/or mitigate its
consequences). [CRM in 10 words or less...] So, every human has
limitations, (limits on memory -that's why we have checklists- limits on
cognitive load, limits on alertness without "wandering" etc) so CRM is
universally "useful" to all human crews. The second universal is that
regardless of who is being taught, the outcomes are the same (safe &
efficient flight). Where the cross-cultural differences come into play is
in how those outcomes are achieved. A simple example: Role confusion, role
ambiguity and role conflicts should be avoided in the cockpit. Role
clarification is a universally good thing (told you it was a simple
example..), but that does not mean that the roles themselves have to be the
same across airlines. The captain and F/O roles may look completely
different across airlines, but as long as everyone knows what is expected of
them at the right (and wrong!) time, then an error management strategy is in
place.
There are more lucid papers on our homepage that explain these ideas better
than I just tried to do in two paragraphs, and I 'd be happy to talk (or
email) with anyone on more specific issues .
Thanks for your time.
Ashleigh.
>
Ashleigh Merritt, Ph.D.,
Aerospace Crew Research Project
1609 Shoal Creek Blvd., Suite 200, Austin TX 78757 USA
ph: 512 480 9997 fax: 512 480 0234 Homepage:
http://www.psy.utexas.edu/psy/helmreich/nasaut.htm