Aviation Psychology: Constructs, Research and Practices

EnglishTürkçe

CHAPTER


DOI :10.26650/B/SS32.2022.04.06   IUP :10.26650/B/SS32.2022.04.06    Full Text (PDF)

Communication in Flight Crews

Seda Çeken, Hakkı Aktaş

Communication-based processes constitute the majority of accidents involving human factors in aviation. Flight crews are in constant interaction with processes such as transmitting information, receiving instructions, and briefing before and during the flight mission. In the context of communication, some differences in language, pronunciation, tone of voice, vocabulary and culture create disagreements, and errors among flight crews. It has been observed in the literature that flight crews may experience communication failures due to language, culture, lack of education, personal characteristics, and organizational factors. Flight crews whose native language is not English might have problems with pronunciation, accent, and translation in particular. Due to certain cultural characteristics, such as respect for seniority, fear of punishment, feelings of shame, power distance and/or conflictual relationships, crew members might keep their ideas to themselves, even in times of crisis. The layers of hierarchy perceived by the members of the flight crews or thinking that one’s own task is superior to the others’ in the crew also hinders communication. This section deals with the communication process between flight crews, the communication process in aviation in general terms, the functioning of communication as a crew resource management skill, the communication process between the cockpit and cabin crews, communication processes between the cockpit and air traffic controllers (ATC), communication and culture interaction in-flight crews, communication-related aviation accidents, and research on communication processes in-flight crews. Alongside these topics, some suggestions for the aviation industry and researchers to strengthen communication processes have been put forward.


Keywords: Communication in aviation, Communication in flight crews, Communication-related accidents in aviation
DOI :10.26650/B/SS32.2022.04.06   IUP :10.26650/B/SS32.2022.04.06    Full Text (PDF)

Uçuş Ekiplerinde İletişim

Seda Çeken, Hakkı Aktaş

Havacılıkta insan unsuruna yönelik gerçekleşen kazaların büyük bölümünü iletişim kaynaklı süreçler oluşturmaktadır. Uçuş ekipleri uçuş görevi öncesi ve uçuş görevi esnasında bilginin iletilmesi, direktif alma, brifing gibi süreçlerde sürekli etkileşim halindedir. İletişim bağlamında dil, telaffuz, ses tonu, kelime bilgisi ve kültüre yönelik birtakım farklılıklar uçuş ekipleri arasında anlaşmazlıklar yaratmakta ve hatalar oluşturmaktadır. Alanyazında dil, kültür, eğitim eksikliği, kişisel özellikler ve örgütsel faktörler nedeniyle uçuş ekiplerinin iletişim işlevini doğru uygulayamadığı gözlemlenmiştir. Özellikle ana dili İngilizce olmayan uçuş ekipleri telaffuz, aksan ve çeviri gibi konularda problem yaşamaktadır. Uçuş ekiplerindeki bireyler kültüre has birtakım özelliklere bağlı olarak, örneğin kıdeme saygı, cezalandırılma korkusu, utanç duygusu, güç mesafesi ve/veya çatışmalı ilişkiler gibi nedenlerle kriz anında dahi fikirlerini kendine saklamaktadır. Uçuş ekibi üyeleri tarafından algılanan hiyerarşi ya da birinin kendi görevini diğerininkinden üstün görmesi de iletişimin önüne engel koymaktadır. Uçuş ekipleri arasındaki iletişim sürecini ele alan bu bölümde genel bağlamda havacılıkta iletişim süreci, iletişimin ekip kaynak yönetimi becerisi olarak işleyişi, kokpit ve kabin ekipleri arasındaki iletişim süreci, kokpit ve hava trafik kontrolörleri (ATC) arasındaki iletişim süreçleri, uçuş ekiplerinde iletişim ve kültür etkileşimi, iletişim kaynaklı havacılık kazaları, uçuş ekiplerindeki iletişim süreçlerine yönelik araştırmalar, iletişim süreçlerini güçlendirmeye yönelik havacılık sektörüne ve araştırmacılara yönelik birtakım öneriler ortaya konmuştur.


Keywords: Havacılıkta iletişim, Uçuş ekiplerinde iletişim, Havacılıkta iletişim kazaları

References

  • Airport Haber (2020). Pegasus Kazasında Flaş Gelişme! Ön Rapor Ortaya Çıktı! (13.09.2021 tarihinde https:// www.airporthaber.com/pegasus-haberleri/pegasus-kazasinda-flas-gelisme-on-rapor-ortaya-cikti.html adresinden alınmıştır.) google scholar
  • Aktaş, H. (2011). Sivil havacılık işletmelerinde beşerî faktörler perspektifinden uçuş ekibi kaynak yönetimi: Sivil havacılık işletmeleri pilotlarının kişilik yapıları ile uçuş ekibi kaynak yönetimi tutumları arasındaki ilişki. Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi. İstanbul, İstanbul Üniversitesi. google scholar
  • Aktaş, H. ve Tekarslan, E. (2013). Uçuş ekibi kaynak yönetimi: Pilotların uçuş ekibi kaynak yönetimi tutumları ile kişilik yapıları arasındaki ilişki. Journal of the School of Business Administration, Istanbul University, 42(2), 276-301. google scholar
  • Alam, M. A. (2015). Cockpit learning in power distant cockpits: The interaction effect of pilot’s interdependence and inclination to teamwork in airline industry. Journal of Air Transport Management, 42, 192-202. google scholar
  • Alderson, J. C. (2009). Air safety, language assessment policy and policy implementation: the case of aviation English. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 29(1), 168-187. google scholar
  • Altıngöz, F. (2018). Uçuş Ekibinin İnanılmaz Hatasıyla Meydana Gelen 19 Eylül 1976 Isparta Uçak Kazası. (13.09.2021 tarihinde https://seyler.eksisozluk.com/ucus-ekibinin-inanilmaz-hatasiyla-meydana-gelen-19-eylul-1976-isparta-ucak-kazasi adresinden alınmıştır.) google scholar
  • Aydoğdu, E. (2016). Tarihte Bugün 29 Aralık 1994 THY TK278 Van Kazası (13.09.2021 tarihinde https://www. goklerdeyiz.net/29-aralik-1994-thy-tk278-van-kazasi1/ adresinden alınmıştır.) google scholar
  • Bağımsız Havacılar (2017). Yılların Ardından Diyarbakır Kazası (13.09.2021 tarihinde https://www. bagimsizhavacilar.com/yillarin-ardindan-diyarbakir-kazasi/ adresinden alınmıştır.) google scholar
  • Bienefeld, N. ve Grote, G. (2011). Emergency at 35’000 Ft.: How Cockpit and Cabin Crews Lead Each Other to Safety. 16th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology, 130-135. google scholar
  • Bienefeld, N. ve Grote, G. (2012). Silence that may kill: When aircrew members don’t speak up and why. Aviation Psychology and Applied Human Factors, 2 (1), 1-10. google scholar
  • Bienefeld, N. ve Grote, G. (2014). Shared leadership in multiteam systems: How cockpit and cabin crews lead each other to safety. Human Factors, 56(2), 270-286. google scholar
  • Bluedorn, A. C., Kaufman, C. F. ve Lane, P. M. (1992). How many things do you like to do at once? An introduction to monochronic and polychronic time. Academy of Management Perspectives, 6(4), 17-26. google scholar
  • Boschen, A. C. ve Jones, R. K. (2004, September). Aviation language problem: improving pilot-controller communication. International Professional Communication Conference, 2004. IPCC 2004. Proceedings içinde. (291-299). google scholar
  • Bowers, C. A., Jentsch, F., Salas, E. ve Braun, C. C. (1998). Analyzing communication sequences for team training needs assessment. Human Factors, 40(4), 672-679. google scholar
  • Breul, C. (2013). Language in aviation: The relevance of linguistics and relevance theory. LSP Journal-Language for Special Purposes, Professional Communication, Knowledge Management and Cognition, 4(1), 71-86. google scholar
  • Brown, L. J. ve Rantz, W. G. (2010). The efficacy of flight attendant/pilot communication in a post-9/11 environment: Viewed from both sides of the fortress door. International Journal of Applied Aviation Studies, 10(1), 227-248. google scholar
  • Campbell-Laird, K. (2004). Aviation English: A review of the language of international civil aviation. International Professional Communication Conference, 2004. IPCC 2004. Proceedings içinde. (253-261). google scholar
  • Chute, R. (2001). Synergy in an emergency: The interface between flight-deck and cabin crews. In th Airbus Human Factors Symposium, July, Toronto, Canada. google scholar
  • Chute, R. D. (1994). Issues in cockpit/cabin communication and coordination. Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi. 737, USA. google scholar
  • Chute, R. D. ve Wiener, E. L. (1995a). Cockpit-cabin communication: I. A tale of two cultures. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 5(3), 257-276. google scholar
  • Chute, R. D. ve Wiener, E. L. (1996). Cockpit-cabin communication: II. Shall we tell the pilots?. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 6(3), 211-231. google scholar
  • Chute, R. D., Dunbar, M. G., Hoang, V. R., ve Wiener, E. L. (1995b). Cockpit/cabin crew performance: recent research. Annual International Air Safety Seminar içinde, 48 (487-507). Flıght Safety Foundatıon. google scholar
  • Cocklin, J. T. ve Hammhire, H. N. (2004). Swissair 111 human factors: Checklists and cockpit communication. Journal of Air Transportation, 9(3), 19-42. google scholar
  • Cookson, S. (2015). ‘We Need Priority Please’ Mitigated Speech in the Crash of Avianca Flight 052. 18th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology, 578-583. google scholar
  • Cookson, S. (2017). Culture in the cockpit: Implications for CRM training. Advances in Cross-Cultural Decision Making içinde. 119-131. google scholar
  • Cushing, S. (1995). Pilot-air traffic control Communications: It’s not (only) what you say, it’s how you say it. Flight Safety Digest, 14(7), 1-10. google scholar
  • Engle, M. (2000). Culture in the cockpit: CRM in a multicultural world. Journal of Air Transportation World Wide, 5(1), 107-114. google scholar
  • Erdem, R. ve Günlü, E. (2006). İletişim eğilimlerinin Yüksek bağlam-düşük bağlam ayırımı ile incelenmesi: Hastane Çalışanları Örneği. Hacettepe Sağlık İdaresi Dergisi, 9(2), 177-195. google scholar
  • Erden, N. (2020). Ekip Kaynak Yönetimi (EKY) Yetkinlikleri Çerçevesinde Sully Filmi İncelemesi: Kaptan Sullenberger Doğru Kararı Nasıl Verdi?. The Journal of International Scientific Researches, 5(2), 99-110. google scholar
  • Ergül, H. (2007). Hava Trafik Kontrolünde İletişim Ve Takım Çalışması. Journal of Aeronautics and Space Technologies, 3(2), 59-63. google scholar
  • Ergül, H. (2009). Havacılık ortamlarında iletişim biçimleri. Selçuk İletişim, 6(1), 99-106. google scholar
  • Farris, C., Trofimovich, P., Segalowitz, N. ve Gatbonton, E. (2008). Air traffic communication in a second language: Implications of cognitive factors for training and assessment. Tesol Quarterly, 42(3), 397-410. google scholar
  • Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) (2004). Crew Resource Management Training. U.S.Department of Transportation Advisory Circular.(26.03.2021tarihindehttps://www.faa.gov/documentlibrary/media/ advisory_circular/ac120-51e.pdf adresinden alınmıştır.) google scholar
  • Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) (2005). Automation.(26.03.2021tarihindehttps://www.faa.gov/about/ initiatives/maintenance_hf/library/documents/media/human_factors_maintenance/human_factors_guide_ for_aviation_maintenance_-_chapter.9.automation.pdf adresinden alınmıştır.) google scholar
  • Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) (2014). FAA Issues Rule on Personal PEDs in the Cockpit. (12.03.2021tarihindehttps://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=76028 adresinden alınmıştır.) google scholar
  • Flin, R. ve Martin, L. (2001). Behavioral markers for crew resource management: A review of current practice. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 11(1), 95-118. google scholar
  • Flin, R., O’Connor, P. ve Mearns, K. (2002). Crew resource management: improving team work in high reliability industries. Team Performance Management: An International Journal, 8 (3/4), 68-78. google scholar
  • Ford, J., Henderson, R. ve O’Hare, D. (2014). The effects of Crew Resource Management (CRM) training on flight attendants’ safety attitudes. Journal of Safety Research, 48, 49-56. google scholar
  • Ford, J., O’Hare, D. ve Henderson, R. (2013). Putting the “we” into teamwork: Effects of priming personal or social identity on flight attendants’ perceptions of teamwork and communication. Human Factors, 55(3), 499-508. google scholar
  • Foushee, H. C. ve Robert L. Helmreich(1988). Group interaction and flight crew performance. Human Factors in Aviation içinde, (189-227). google scholar
  • Geacâr, C. M. (2010). Reducing pilot/ATC communication errors using voice recognition. In Proceedings of ICAS, 1-7. google scholar
  • Gülağız, F. K., Furkan, Göz., Şahin, E., Albayrak, M. S. ve Kavak, A. (2016). Beacon Temelli Sanal Etiket Uygulaması. Bilecik Şeyh Edebali Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Dergisi, 3(1), 1-7. google scholar
  • Havacılık Tıbbı Derneği (2012). Hudson Nehri’ne İniş Kazası (10.09.2021 tarihinde http://www.hvtd.org/?p=868 adresinden alınmıştır.) google scholar
  • Hellesy, O. (1995). Cockpit-cabin crew interaction: satisfaction with communication and information exchange. Change, 66 (9), 841-8. google scholar
  • Helmreich, R. L. (1994). Anatomy of a system accident: The crash of Avianca Flight 052. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 4(3), 265-284. google scholar
  • Helmreich, R. L. Foushee, H. C., Benson, R. ve Russini, W. (1986). Cockpit resource management: Exploring the attitude-performance linkage. Aviation, Space, andEnvironmentalMedicine, 57(12, Sect I), 1198-1200. google scholar
  • Helmreich, R. L. ve Foushee, H. C. (1993). Why crew resource management? Empirical and theoretical bases of human factors training in aviation. Academic Press. google scholar
  • Helmreich, R. L. ve Merritt, A. C. (2019). Culture at work in aviation and medicine: National, organizational and professional influences. Routledge. google scholar
  • Hoang, V. R. (1996). Cockpit-cabin communication: the impact of national and occupational cultures. Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, USA. google scholar
  • Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1), 2307-0919. google scholar
  • Howard III, J. W. (2008). “Tower, am I cleared to land?”: Problematic communication in aviation discourse. Human Communication Research, 34(3), 370-391. google scholar
  • International Air Transport Association (IATA) (2020). Cabin Operations Safety Best Practices Guide, Edition 6, International Air Transport Association (IATA), January, ISBN 978-92-9264-035-4. google scholar
  • International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) (2006). ICAO Language Proficiency Requirements - Rated Speech Samples (CD-ROM). Montreal, ICAO. google scholar
  • International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) (2001). Aeronautical Telecommunications (13.09.2021 tarihinde https://www.icao.int/Meetings/anconf12/Document%20Archive/AN10_V2_cons%5B1%5D.pdf adresinden alınmıştır.) google scholar
  • International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) (2013). Model Regulatıon And Guıdance Materıal On Ground Proxımıty Warnıng System (Gpws). Model Regulation and Guidance Material., ICAO. google scholar
  • Jones, R. K. (2003). Miscommunication between pilots and air traffic control. Language Problems and Language Planning, 27(3), 233-248. google scholar
  • Kang, I., Han, S. ve Lee, J. (2017). Task-oriented and relationship-building communications between air traffic controllers and pilots. Sustainability, 9(10), 1770. google scholar
  • Kanki, B. G. (2019). Communication and crew resource management. Crew resource management içinde (103137). Academic Press, USA. google scholar
  • Kanki, B. G. ve Hart, S. G. (1996). Communication research in aviation and space operations: Symptoms and strategies of crew Coordination. This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the US Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for the contents or use thereof. google scholar
  • Kanki, B. G. ve Palmer, M. T. (1993). Communication and crew resource management. EL Weiner, BG Kanki, & R L. Helmreich (Eds.), Cockpit resource management içinde(99-136). google scholar
  • Kim, H. ve Elder, C. (2009). Understanding aviation English as a lingua franca: Perceptions of Korean aviation personnel. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 32(3), 23-1. google scholar
  • Krivonos, P. D. (2007). Communication in aviation safety: lessons learned and lessons required. Regional Seminar of the Australia and New Zealand Societies of Air Safety Investigators (Vol. 4). google scholar
  • Ligda, S. V., Fischer, U., Mosier, K., Matessa, M., Battiste, V. ve Johnson, W. W. (2015). Effectiveness of advanced collaboration tools on crew communication in reduced crew operations. International conference on engineering psychology and cognitive ergonomics içinde (416-427). Springer, Cham. google scholar
  • Linde, C. (1988). The quantitative study of communicative success: Politeness and accidents in aviation discourse. Language in Society, 375-399. google scholar
  • McCreary, J., Pollard, M., Stevenson, K. ve Wilson, M. B. (1998). Human factors: Tenerife revisited. Journal of Air Transportation World Wide, 3 (1), 23-32. google scholar
  • Mearns, K., Flin, R. ve O’Connor, P. (2001). Sharing’worlds of risk’; improving communication with crew resource management. Journal of Risk Research, 4(4), 377-392. google scholar
  • Merritt, A. (2000). Culture in the cockpit: Do Hofstede’s Dimensions replicate?. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31(3), 283-301. google scholar
  • Molesworth, B. R. ve Estival, D. (2015). Miscommunication in general aviation: The influence of external factors on communication errors. Safety Science, 73 (2015), 73-79. google scholar
  • Morrow, D. G., Menard, W. E., Stine-Morrow, E. A., Teller, T. ve Bryant, D. (2001). The influence of expertise and task factors on age differences in pilot communication. Psychology and Aging, 16(1), 31. google scholar
  • Morrow, D., Lee, A. ve Rodvold, M. (1993). Analysis of problems in routine controller-pilot communication. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 3(4), 285-302. google scholar
  • Murphy, A. (2001). The flight attendant dilemma: An analysis of communication and sensemaking during in-flight emergencies. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 29(1), 30-53. google scholar
  • National Transportation Safety Board (2010). Loss of Thrust in Both Engines After Encountering a Flock of Birds and Subsequent Ditching on the Hudson River, US Airways Flight 1549, Airbus A320-214, N106US, Weehawken, New Jersey Aircraft Accident Report. (10.09.2021 tarihinde https://www.ntsb.gov/ investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/AAR1003.pdf adresinden alınmıştır.) google scholar
  • Nevile, M. (2012). Conversation analysis and cockpit communication. The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford. google scholar
  • Noort, M. C., Reader, T. W. ve Gillespie, A. (2021). Safety voice and safety listening during aviation accidents: Cockpit voice recordings reveal that speaking-up to power is not enough. Safety Science, 139 (2021), 105260. google scholar
  • Orasanu, J. M. (2017). 12 Shared problem models and flight crew performance. Aviation Psychology in Practice, 255. google scholar
  • Orasanu, J., Fischer, U. ve Davison, J. (1997). Cross-cultural barriers to effective communication in aviation. Cross-Cultural Work Groups, (415), 134-160. google scholar
  • Panhwar, M. S. ve Kalra, A. (2019). Breaking Down the Hierarchy of Medicine: The airline industry has taken the lead to improve communications for pilots, it is now time for medicine to follow with physicians. European Heart Journal, 40 (19), 1482-1483. google scholar
  • Prinzo, O. V., Hendrix, A. M. ve Hendrix, R. (2008). Pilot English language proficiency and the prevalence of communication problems at five US air route traffic control centers. Federal Avıatıon Admınıstratıon Oklahoma Cıty Ok Cıvıl Aeromedıcal Inst. google scholar
  • Ragan, P. H. (2007). Cross-cultural communication in aviation. Evidence-based LSP: Translation, text and terminology, 119-141. google scholar
  • Read, J. ve Knoch, U. (2009). Clearing the air: Applied linguistic perspectives on aviation communication. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 32(3), 21-1. google scholar
  • Salas, E., Fowlkes, J. E., Stout, R. J., Milanovich, D. M. ve Prince, C. (1999). Does CRM training improve teamwork skills in the cockpit?: Two evaluation studies. Human Factors, 41(2), 326-343. google scholar
  • Salas, E., Wilson, K. A., Burke, C. S. ve Wightman, D. C. (2006). Does crew resource management training work? An update, an extension, and some critical needs. Human Factors, 48(2), 392-412. google scholar
  • Sexton, J. B. ve Helmreich, R. L. (2000). Analyzing cockpit communications: the links between language, performance, error, and workload. Human Performance in Extreme Environments, 5(1), 63-68. google scholar
  • Soeters, J. L. ve Boer, P. C. (2000). Culture and flight safety in military aviation. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 10(2), 111-133. google scholar
  • Şekerli, E. B. ve Gerede, E. (2011). Kültürün EKY’ye etkileri ve Türk pilotların Hofstede kültür boyutları açısından durumları. ISGUC The Journal of Industrial Relations and Human Resources, 13(1), 17-38. google scholar
  • Tiewtrakul, T. ve Fletcher, S. R. (2010). The challenge of regional accents for aviation English language proficiency standards: A study of difficulties in understanding in air traffic control-pilot communications. Ergonomics, 53(2), 229-239. google scholar
  • Weick, K. E. (1990). The vulnerable system: An analysis of the Tenerife air disaster. Journal of Management, 16(3), 571-593. google scholar
  • Zhu, S. ve Ma, W. (2015a). Cockpit/cabin crew communication: Problems and countermeasures. In International Conference on Education, Management, Commerce and Society (EMCS-15) (500-504). January, Atlantis Press. google scholar
  • Zhu, S. ve Ma, W. (2015b). Culture’s influence on cockpit communication. In International Conference on Management, Computer and Education Informatization (414-417). June, Atlantis Press. google scholar


SHARE




Istanbul University Press aims to contribute to the dissemination of ever growing scientific knowledge through publication of high quality scientific journals and books in accordance with the international publishing standards and ethics. Istanbul University Press follows an open access, non-commercial, scholarly publishing.