Communication and Cooperation — Page 271, Lesson 442

I want to walk you through the barriers to good crew cooperation and the attitudes that can make teamwork dangerous in the cockpit. We'll also look at what genuine good teamwork looks like, and then I'll share a real accident caused by miscommunication so you can see how these factors play out in practice. Let's start with the barriers. Just as there are rules that help crew communications and cooperation, there are also factors that actively hinder the establishment of good synergy. Certain personality types or individuals with specific attitudes are not only likely to have poor communication skills, but they are also likely to make poor judgements in a problem-resolving situation. There are five special types of attitude that have been shown to be a major contributing factor in the inability to satisfactorily cope with accident and incident scenarios. These are therefore especially dangerous in flight. Let me name each one and give you the exact phrase that characterises it. First is anti-authority: the attitude that says 'Don't tell me what to do!' This person resists instructions and procedures simply because they come from someone else. Second is impulsive: the attitude that says 'We must do something quick!' This person acts without thinking, driven by a sense of urgency rather than careful analysis. Third is invulnerable: the attitude that says 'That can't happen to me.' This person believes they are immune to accidents, so they don't take precautions seriously. Fourth is macho: the attitude that says 'I'll show them!' This person feels the need to prove themselves, often taking unnecessary risks to demonstrate their capability. Fifth is resigned: the attitude that says 'Too bad, there's nothing more I can do.' This person gives up when faced with difficulty, accepting failure rather than continuing to try. Now, let's contrast those dangerous attitudes with the essential conditions for good teamwork. There are nine conditions listed here, and I want you to hear each one clearly. First, team objectives are clearly understood by all members. Second, all members are committed to the team objectives. Third, mutual trust is high. Fourth, support for one another is high. Fifth, communications are open and reliable — not guarded and cautious. Sixth, team members listen to one another; they understand and are understood. Seventh, the team is self-controlling. Eighth, conflicts are accepted and worked through. Ninth, members' abilities, knowledge and experience are fully used by the team. So the summary of rules to improve crew cooperation and teamwork is this: use a professional language. Respect the activities of others. Never abandon dialogue with other crew members to concentrate exclusively on dialogue with the machine. Use communication as a tool to mutual benefit. Comply with communication procedures — announcements of modes, altitudes, and so on are the only guarantee that all the crew share the same model of the situation — and attempt to improve those procedures. Now, let me give you a real-world example of miscommunication. This description is taken from The Private Pilot Manual published by Jeppesen Sanderson. A Boeing 727-200 inadvertently landed with its gear retracted after the following miscommunication. The First Officer, who was seated in the Captain's seat, gave the order 'gear down'. The Captain, who was in the right seat and flying the aircraft, assumed the First Officer was stating that the gear was down. The before-landing checklist was interrupted by a radio communication and never completed. The GPWS — that's the Ground Proximity Warning System — alerted the crew to 'pull up', due to the aircraft's proximity to the ground with the gear retracted. However, the Flight Engineer believed that the GPWS warning was caused by flaps not in the landing position. The Flight Engineer disengaged the GPWS system by pulling the circuit breaker and the warning was silenced. When it was observed that the 727 was on final approach with the gear retracted, the Tower Controller radioed 'go around' but used the wrong aircraft call sign. So you can see how a single ambiguous phrase — 'gear down' — combined with an interrupted checklist, a misinterpreted warning, and a misdirected radio call, led to a complete breakdown of shared situational awareness. That is exactly why we have the rules and conditions for good teamwork that we just covered.