Frank, you wrote:
“In commercial aviation, as I understand it, there was a
major push starting a few decades ago to give the copilot more authority to
question the captain in the cockpit. Not just by rules and regulation, but by
training. A number of deadly accidents were blamed in part on crew members too
timid or too respectful to speak up to the captain.”
I’ll add to this…
We know this as Crew Resource Management (CRM) in the
military aviation community. Training
consists of an initial course accompanied by annual refresher training. The initial training takes the better part of
an afternoon. Refresher training is
usually completed concurrently with annual simulator training and is completed
in an hour or two. You might find it
interesting that while simulator training may be waived or extended, current
regulations do not permit CRM training extensions. When you expire, you’re grounded…period.
I recall reading about a pre-CRM
experiment during my initial training. The story goes…
Inexperienced co-pilots reported for their
annual simulator training, where they were met by a multi-thousand hour, highly experienced,
white haired, legendary captain. During
an approach for landing, the captain would simply play dead. I don’t recall the numbers, but the majority
of co-pilots never took control of the aircraft. At most, they would call out the deviation
but never take the controls resulting in the worst possible outcome.
CRM has done a lot to break barriers to communication. The antidote to the situation in the
experiment is known as the “two-challenge rule”. A crewmember with a concern challenges the
offender. If the challenge goes unacknowledged
twice, the challenging crewmember immediately assumes the duty.
Possible CRM topics that come to mind with the Costa
Concordia accident may include:
EXCESSIVE
PROFESSIONAL COURTESY: Hesitancy to say anything for fear of
insulting the other pilot's skills, especially if that pilot is a friend or
superior.
HALO
EFFECT: Hesitancy to speak up when the erring pilot
is known to be an expert, or has more experience than yourself.
DEVIATION NORMALIZATION: It’s been done wrong for so long that it
becomes the new normal.
v/r
Dave Harwood
From: FrankReed@HistoricalAtlas.com
To: NavList@fer3.com
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 21:06:06 -0800
Subject: [NavList] Re: A credible AIS track for the Costa Concordia
Geoffrey, you wrote:
"Historically, there never was a backup to the captain on the bridge. He was God, his word was law and if you questioned it, then it was mutiny. How is that different today?"
That's a good question. In commercial aviation, as I understand it, there was a major push starting a few decades ago to give the copilot more authority to question the captain in the cockpit. Not just by rules and regulation, but by training. A number of deadly accidents were blamed in part on crew members too timid or too respectful to speak up to the captain.
And you wrote:
"And reading between the lines, this captain had probably done this dozens of times before. It sounds like it was a macho thing."
I think it's being portrayed in the media as a macho thing, but I am not convinced. There's no question that the cruise line knew about these detours and left them up to the captain's discretion. His job, in part, was to entertain the passengers with a beautiful cruise (obviously within limits, which he tragically exceeded this time). What I see here is a "carefree" attitude towards the navigation of the vessel. It worked before; it will work again. What can go wrong when sailing such a modern vessel? It's all "so easy".
And:
"The other officers on the bridge were probably quite relaxed about it until about 30 seconds before the crunch. Not much time to do anything about it then..."
Yes, I would imagine so. People get careless. But were there no automated systems? This was one hundred percent detectable by simple software. The ship knew exactly where it was. The ship had extensive databases available to it showing exactly where the shallows were. The ship knew how long it would take to decelerate or make a safe (and comfortable) turn. The ship should have saved itself.
I watched an hour of the old Kubrick movie "2001" last night, and I had in my head an image of the "Hal 9000" computer installed aboard the Costa Concordia suggesting in that sinister, comforting voice to the captain, "Francesco, perhaps you should have a glass of wine and let me steer for a while. You know how concerned I am about the success of our mission" ...as a computer-driven arm swings out and shoves him over the side. More seriously, these huge ships and their thousands of passengers are too valuable and too easily damaged to leave it all in the hands of human judgement. Surely there are alarm systems that can calculate the minimum safe distance no matter who is "driving" the vessel.
-FER
----------------------------------------------------------------
NavList message boards and member settings: www.fer3.com/NavList
Members may optionally receive posts by email.
To cancel email delivery, send a message to NoMail[at]fer3.com
----------------------------------------------------------------
