Multi-Cultural Training in Human Factors For Transport Aircraft Certification
by
Robert B. Barnes (USA), Harry W. Orlady (USA), and Linda M. Orlady (USA)
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)
Third Global Flight Safety & Human Factors Symposium
Auckland, New Zealand
April 1996
Note:
More information about this topic is available from the authors on a multi-media
interactive CD-ROM.
Abstract
Current international efforts towards harmonization in transport aircraft certification have led to an increased requirement for multi-cultural understanding, particularly in the area of human factors. It must be recognized that nations may approach the same technical or commercial opportunities from very different perspectives due to basic cultural differences. While these different perspectives may not be right or wrong when viewed in the context of an individual country, at appropriate times it is necessary for professionals from different cultures to recognize and appreciate the regulatory parameters of another country. This is especially important when attempting bilateral certification and when dealing with issues, such as operational safety, which cannot be compromised.
Present-day certification, although a multifaceted process, must essentially address two quite different areas of concern. The first involves traditional engineering concepts regarding measurement and standards. These issues tend to be relatively straight-forward, even in a multicultural context. The second area is considerably more complex since it evaluates human behavioral issues. The focus is on the expected performance from any pilot population likely to be involved, including the effect of cultural biases and organizational variables. This second area requires that "modem human factors" concepts become an integral part of today's transport certification process. In order to do so, all participants must understand the certification process, the rationale -supporting it, and the cultural basis for such evaluations.
This paper and its associated poster session will describe the design, implementation, and results of a bilingual workshop developed by the authors in support of the US-Russian Bi-Lateral Program. This workshop was based upon a high level of mutual respect between the professional aviation communities of the United States of America and the Russian Federation. The authors believe that such bilingual workshops are an effective communications tool and that they are proving to be a necessary adjunct to this difficult and often misunderstood part of the certification process.
The Impact of Language and Culture
The language and culture of nations involved in bilateral certifications are frequently quite different. Invariably, this further complicates an already complex process. Words, phrases, and concepts can mean very different things when translated into a different language and culture. The following headline from a U.S. newspaper is a good example of the misinterpretations and misunderstandings that can be created with as common a word as "football."
"Dallas Cowboys Win Super Bowl -- Become World
Champions of Professional Football"
-Newspaper Headline, 29 January 1996
The Dallas Cowboys are a prominent American football team. To the people of Texas, which is a U.S. state, and in particular to the people who live in the city of Dallas, Texas, that Super Bowl game reinforced their belief that living in Dallas gives them the best of all possible worlds. They believe Texas is a perfect place in which to live. It has a mild climate, great universities, and vast open spaces. They believe their football team is the best in the world and is indeed the world champion of professional football.
People in the world community, and even other people throughout the United States, almost certainly have a significantly different point-of-view. For example, not everyone in the United States would agree that Texas is virtually the center of the universe--for football or anything else. And, to most people in the world community, American football does not even represent the "true" sport of international football (which Americans refer to as "soccer."). Even the citizens of Dallas would not maintain that their beloved Cowboys are the world champions of professional soccer!
Should these different points-of-view have a negative impact on effective communications and cooperation in the future between Texans and non-Texans? They do not have to. There should be no difficulty if both sides are reasonably tolerant, if they understand each other, and d they understand the particular points of view of the other side.
This brings us to the point of this paper. It must be recognized that nations may, and probably do, approach opportunities (and problems) from quite different perspectives because of their basic language and cultural differences. Naturally enough, individual nations may feel that their point of view is correct, especially for them, and that ft also provides the best answer. Such a situation can tend to polarize the participants in any discussion and can lead to total inaction or to ineffective and unsatisfactory compromises. Either of these results is completely unacceptable to anyone interested in aviation safety.
One key to achieving international agreement on how to address opportunities (or solve mutual problems) becomes finding a way to help all parties better understand the different points-of-view of the participants to such agreements. Only when everyone has a mutual understanding of the key issues from the other's perspective can effective solutions be achieved. The authors had a unique opportunity to see this fact validated during a recent workshop program they developed to support the US-Russian Bi-Lateral Certification Program.
This paper will summarize the key elements that the authors consider essential in achieving such mutual understanding in an international environment. It includes a description of the workshop--its design, goals, objectives, and methodology.
FAA Flight Test
Russian Training Program
Minimum Crew Certification Workshop
The design of this workshop was based upon a high level of mutual respect between the professional aviation communities of the United States of America and the Russian Federation. It was mutually recognized that each nation approaches the same technical or commercial opportunities from different perspectives due to basic cultural differences. While neither of these perspectives may be entirely right or wrong within one or the other nation, it was considered essential that at appropriate times and during bilateral activities, professionals from both cultures recognize and be able to logically operate within the regulatory parameters of either country.
The Minimum Crew Certification Workshop was developed in response to a specific request from Russia that the United States provide its representatives with both a technical and an operational understanding of the specific issues involved with the minimum crew certification process in the United States.
The United States, through its regulatory aviation organization--the Federal Aviation Administration--recognized that fulfilling this request of the Russian Federation was not merely a case of providing copies of regulations and simply saying "do this." Achieving their joint goal required a basic understanding of the complex interactions existing within the U.S. aviation industry, an overview of the applicable regulatory issues, an actual demonstration of how compliance is accomplished, and finally an opportunity to apply the principles discussed to an actual certification problem.
The specific focus of this workshop was on the interaction between the company applying for a minimum crew certification (the applicant) and the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The workshop was conducted by both FAA personnel who understood the regulatory issues and independent aviation professionals who were qualified to discuss this process from the applicant's point-of-view. Thus, through a series of lectures, discussions, and practice sessions, participants received both a regulatory and applicant's perspective of the steps required to achieve minimum crew certification in the United States.
It was recognized early that both cultural understanding and language differences would be a challenge to effective communication during this workshop. For example, none of the Russian participants were fluent in English (although they were much better at basic English than were the Americans with basic Russian). Therefore, the workshop was designed to provide information through structured lectures and guided discussions in English with Russian interpretation plus group exercises which could be accomplished in Russian with a minimum of English interpretation. The participants reported the results of their exercises to the workshop in Russian, which were translated into English for comment by the workshop facilitators.
The workshop was organized to be fully participatory rather than merely a note-taking exercise. A bilingual workbook (with one page in Russian and the opposite page in English) was given to the participants which provided both continuity and structure for the entire workshop.
At the completion of the workshop, it was expected that each participant would be able to:
- Demonstrate an understanding of the steps required for minimum crew certification in the United States;
- Identify the key issues in U.S. minimum crew certification from both the FAA's and applicant's perspectives;
- Find and use appropriate U.S. regulations, advisory circulars, research data, historical data, and other resources as may be required to support the application process; and
- Design and conduct a basic crew workload analysis plan.
The workshop required eighty (80) classroom hours over a two week period. During the first week, participants were introduced to the evolution of the U.S. crew concept. Relevant historical references were provided to help each participant understand how current U.S. certification policy has evolved and, most importantly, why it has evolved the way in which it has.
This led into a demonstration of the U.S. crew concept through an introduction to Crew Resource Management (CRM) training. Discussions of basic CRM principles from an American perspective were used to assist participants in understanding how inter-personal and inter-group communications affect the design, certification, and operation of a U.S. commercial transport.
Next, the regulatory aspects of minimum crew certification were introduced and current approaches to evaluating workload discussed. Actual examples from recent certification activities were used to facilitate understanding.
During the second week, a typical air transport minimum crew certification was used as a teaching model to lead participants through the actual certification process. It included the complete design and implementation of a workload evaluation plan. Following this example, participants were separated into two teams and assigned the task of designing and implementing a Minimum Crew Certification Plan for an advanced two-person cockpit. A full motion simulator and a qualified flight crew were available to support each group's test plan so that they could collect actual data. A summary presentation by each group of its findings and an overall critique completed the workshop.
Examples of Different Points-of-View Within the U.S. Commercial Aviation Community
It was noted early in the workshop that the existence of different points-of-view within the U.S. commercial aviation community plus how those various organizations and groups work together could be confusing to outsiders. Participants found it helpful to understand that the U.S. aviation community is comprised of a complex matrix of organizations and groups with both very specific interests and responsibilities.
Of particular interest was the fact that while each of these organizations or groups of individuals sometimes have a different point-of-view regarding a certification, they all have agreement on the major goals of operational safety and efficiency. Such different points-of-view occur among:
- Engineers, with their technical creativity and problem solving skills, who are seeking the perfect airplane design;
- Pilots, with their operational experience and unique understanding of the human element of aviation, who are responsible for the daily operation of the airplane;
- Companies (both large and small) that specialize in developing aviation products (airplanes, engines, instruments, etc.) or services (training, maintenance, food, cargo handling, cleaning, etc.) in order to provide employment and make a profit for their owners and shareholders;
- Airlines that use these airplanes to transport people and/or cargo for a fee which provides employment and makes a profit for their owners and shareholders;
- Labor Unions which represent and protect the unique interests of specialized groups of people within the aviation community such as pilots, flight attendants, mechanics, manufacturing personnel, and air traffic controllers;
- Special Interest Organizations which represent and protect the unique interests of other groups of people affected by the airline industry such as states, counties, cities, towns, neighborhoods, and passengers; and
- Regulatory Organizations which consider these many different points-of-view and provide a necessary balance of opinion through the issuance and enforcement of performance guidelines, rules, and regulations to ensure that the entire industry will continue to grow in both a safe and profitable manner.
Some Examples of Cross-Cultural Issues When Teaching or Implementing Crew Resource Management
In the United States, we believe that appropriate use of Crew Resource Management (CRM) and effective CRM training are important additions to air transport operations, and that CRM must be considered during the certification process. However, CRM is a potentially confusing concept when addressed across different cultures.
Some of the areas that the authors found require specific consideration by workshop designers and facilitators include:
- Language. If all participants are not totally comfortable and proficient in using both spoken and written English, then professional, aviation-oriented interpreters to assist workshop facilitators plus a well-organized bilingual workbook are essential. Facilitators also need to be attentive to specific vocabulary. Participants will probably know individual words but these words may often have a different usage and/or application, especially when they are applied to CRM and used in their own language and culture.
- Starting Point, What is the prior level of knowledge or exposure to the concept of CRM? Are the participants receptive to the basic concept or do they already have either a positive or negative opinion of CRM? Is this simply an "American phenomena" which "unfortunately" they are having to deal with because of U.S. aircraft certification issues? How does the FAA's role in the U.S. compare with the role of the regulating agency in the participant's country? etc.
- Specific Objectives, CRM objectives, like all workshop objectives, must be clearly specified. The goal is to have participants gain an understanding of the point-of-view behind CRM and the certification process. They should not develop the false perception that they must blindly embrace each concept as something that will automatically fit within their own culture or organization. Participant reaction can vary dramatically depending upon facilitator sensitivity to this point.
- Instructional Techniques, Instructors must facilitate genuine understanding and avoid lecturing. Just as the group should be learning about CRM, the instructor should be learning about the group and its typical work environment. This will make R possible for the instructor to change the content and/or delivery of material as appropriate for the group. Part of this "learning" comes from constantly "reading" the individual group members to measure who is not talking, who is always talking, who is troubled by some point, etc. It is important that the facilitator be aware of passive vs. active listening tendencies; the customary concept of command (do only captains or supervisors seem to participate in class and why?); the role of gender in society-, and other ramifications which relate to the particular composition of the group.
The course must be extremely dynamic and instructor flexibility is mandatory. These points are essential and their importance cannot be overemphasized. Rigid course outlines may have to be abandoned as groups explore and learn about some of their own organizational strengths and weaknesses. Group exercises offer an excellent opportunity to evaluate where the group is going and what the obstacles (d any) to progressing might be.
- Organizational and Cultural Issues, It is critical to explore several organizational areas such as task descriptions, norms of behaviors and environmental supports. For example, are operators regulated to the same degree as in the United States? What are the norms of behavior in the cockpit and how are deviations from these norms addressed? What sort of support exists to help a crew complete its mission?
Understanding the organizational structure enables the participants to gain insight into other group members' perspectives which is a necessary step N they are to work together as a team. Depending upon the composition of the group, there may need to be some active team building before moving on to other topics. Basic concerns include: Are they all from the same organization or the same company? Do they have differing responsibilities within their company or organization? etc.
- Misunderstandings/Misinterpretations, This actually applies to more than CRM for there is no limit as to what can be misunderstood or misinterpreted. There will always be valid differences of opinion which must be clarified or resolved. Simple concepts such as upgrades in the cockpit based upon seniority instead of performance may be very difficult for the group to understand. These types of misunderstandings early in a workshop can prove to be terminal blocks to reaching some of the later course objectives. Allowing the differences to be aired and, in fact, exploring these differences, can be effective tools for learning more about the group and for the group members learning more about one another. It is essential that progress and understanding be evaluated continuously in a cross-cultural environment.
Evaluation of Workshop Effectiveness
Three forms of evaluation were used to measure the overall effectiveness of the Minimum Crew Certification Workshop. They were:
- Class participation, The method of instruction required considerable participant interaction with both the instructors and other participants. This provided instructors with an opportunity to immediately measure understanding of all key issues. The bilingual Participant's Workbook was an essential element of this methodology.
- Group Exercises- Each module of instruction contained a team assignment which required participants to apply the information provided to them during the previous lecture. They would then make a presentation back to the entire class and an open discussion/review guided by the instructor reinforced the concepts presented. The final demonstration of workshop effectiveness was each team's successful accomplishment of a workload evaluation in the MD-11 flight simulator and presentation of the team's test results.
- Participants' Critiques. During the last block of the Workshop, a simple critique form was completed by each participant in Russian and then subsequently translated into English. The participant comments included:
"Friendly teamwork ... Perfect organization of the Workshop ... Sufficient reference materials."
"[I liked the] training techniques ... the topics of the workshop are consistent and clear ... logical transition from the previous subject to the next one ... easy way of teaching ... feedback between instructors and students training was not professorial."
"[There were] high professional skills in the organization of the workshop ... [I liked the] teaching techniques ... friendly attitude ... the opportunity to meet with and talk to the FAA on the IL-96T certification."
[I liked the] organization and training technique ... the high professional skills of the instructors ... organization of leisure time and accommodations."
Lessons Learned and Some Thoughts for the Future
"Analysis of our accident data clearly indicates that our historic trends towards reducing accident rates can only be resumed if we address and solve the problem of why critical human beings fail to fulfill expectations ... The issues we now call 'human factors'... are the critical issues."
--Knut Hammarskyold, IATA's 20th Technical Conference, 1975
Today, more than 20 years after the IATA Conference, R appears that our entire aviation industry is finally on the right track towards an increased awareness of Human Factors. It is recognized as important by nearly all segments of our industry. In addition, we have learned-that the conventional, and often narrow, use of the term "human factors" can be a gross over-simplification. Thanks to a growing consensus throughout our industry, helped considerably by leadership of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), human factors is now recognized as a "core aviation technology" in most parts of the world.
While there are relatively few states (or groups of states) that have the resources and expertise required to certify modern transport aircraft and whose air transport certification is generally accepted by other states, R can be agreed that all states genuinely wish to achieve a high level of product acceptability and safety. A major obstacle to such acceptability is to find ways to ensure that each state not only fully understands both the rules and regulations of the certification process for a given state but also the rationale behind such bureaucratic guidelines.
When faced with both language and cultural differences, behavioral issues are much more difficult to fully understand than those regulations which can be stated in engineering terms. Therefore, bilingual and cross-cultural workshops offer the only effective means of achieving better mutual understanding of these critical issues. This requires that, in addition to the primary instructors, interpreters be expected to play an active part throughout the workshop by helping with both language and cultural understanding. It also means that interpreters must be aviation-oriented and prepared in advance for their facilitation responsibilities.
Such workshops require considerable preparation yet, in the long run, will save appreciable amounts of time and money due to the improved understanding and mutual respect achieved between the parties. It is essential that workshop participants actively participate in the day-to-day learning process. In no case should cross-cultural workshops ever be allowed to deteriorate into "lecture sessions."
Attempting to compress such an interactive experience into one or two days can be a false economy.
The learning process should be thorough and, as a result, it will take time. Effective understanding is a function of continued interaction with new and sometimes difficult concepts. If the interactive opportunity is too short, effective understanding will almost certainly not be achieved. The importance of understanding and respecting different points-of-view can not be overstated-particularly when something as important as flight safety is involved.
Bi-lingual and cross-cultural workshops offer an effective means of achieving better mutual understanding of the critical issues that are part of international air transport certification. This paper has provided a summary of one such workshop and some of the lessons learned from ft.
About the Authors
Robert B. Barnes is a management consultant who specializes in helping technology-based companies enter the commercial marketplace. He is regularly involved with the commercialization of leading-edge systems. Frequently, he provides human factors-related project management assistance to aerospace companies.
He holds a Bachelor's Degree in Aerospace Engineering and a Master's Degree in Educational Psychology plus a Professional Certificate in Aviation Safety. A former USAF instructor pilot and flying safety officer, he also holds a Certificate of Master Instructor in USAF Flying Training.
His recent aviation-related experience includes the development and direction of the Cockpit Workload and Crew Complement Compliance Plans for a two-pilot cockpit conversion of the Boeing 727 and for a two pilot conversion of the Lockheed 188 "Electra". He is currently developing the Cockpit Workload Compliance Plan for an automated flight deck management system to be used in two-pilot versions Of the Boeing 727 and other large transport airplanes.
Mr. Barnes is a member of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Society of Automotive Engineers, System Safety Society, Association of Aviation Psychologists, and the SAE's G-10 Committee on Aerospace Behavioral Engineering Technology. (U.S. Tel: +500442-4311 and Fax: +602-5855703)
Captain Harry W. Orlady is an Aviation Human Factors Consultant and former Senior Research Scientist for the Aviation Safety Research System (ASRS). He has worked with NASA/Ames, with private research firms and with the FAA in its certification of the Boeing 747-400 and the McDonnell-Douglas MD-1 1 . During his 39 years as a pilot for United Airlines, he flew ten types of aircraft ranging from the DC-3 to the Boeing 747. He has conducted studies in the ground and flight training, human factors, aviation safety and aeromedical fields.
Captain Orlady has received several major aviation awards and presented nearly 100 papers or lectures. He is an elected fellow of the Aerospace Medical Association and of its Human Factors Association; a member of the Human Factors Society, of ICAO's Flight Safety and Human Factors Study Group, and of the SAE Human Behavioral Technology and G-1 0 Committees.
Captain Orlady is also the editor of the 2nd Edition of Human Factors In Flight, which sold over 3,000 copies in its first year; the author of the chapter "Airline Pilot Training Today and Tomorrow" in Cockpit Resource Management, which was edited by Drs. Earl L. Wiener, Barbara G. Kanki, and Robert L. Helmreich; and the author of the article 'Airline pilot training programmes have undergone important and necessary changes in the past decade," in the April, 1994 ICAO JOURNAL. (U-S. Tel: +408-356-6807 and Fax: +408-356-6292)
First Officer Linda M. Orlady has over 6,000 hours of total flight time and has been a pilot for a major U.S. international airline since 1985. Her Airline Transport Rating (ATR) includes type ratings in the Boeing 747-400, Boeing 757, Boeing 767, and rotorwing. She has also flown the DC-10 and Boeing 737-300 aircraft. Ms. Orlady is an FAA-certified instrument and multi-engine flight instructor with over 1,000 hours of instructing time and is a certified basic, advanced, and instrument ground school instructor.
Prior to returning to active international line flying in the Boeing 767 and Boeing 747-400, Ms. Orlady served in her company's Command-Leadership-Resource Management Department within its Flight Training Center for four years and managed that department for 2-1/2 years.
Ms. Orlady is an experienced lecturer and instructor who has had significant involvement with CRM since 1979. She has worked on both Harvard and Yale University CRM research teams sponsored by NASA to examine organizational variables and the team performance of airline flight crews, with particular interest in the differences between two and three-pilot crews and advanced and standard technology aircraft.
Ms. Orlady holds a Masters of Business Administration in Organizational Behavior from Ohio State University and has authored numerous papers on aviation human factors. (U.S. Tel: +216338-3225 and Fax: +216-3381122)
Copyright © 1996-2005 by Neil C. Krey unless otherwise indicated.
Non-commercial reproduction rights granted if the following notice is included:
"Source: Neil Krey's CRM Developers Forum, http://www.crm-devel.org"