TOWARDS THE ZERO ACCIDENT GOAL: ASSISTING THE FIRST OFFICER MONITOR AND CHALLENGE CAPTAIN ERRORS

intelligence and experience of the first officer should be utilized (high M&C), while at the
same time a structure of hierarchical accountability needs to be present (low M&C).
This is similar to Edward's conjecture that the trans-cockpit authority gradient should not
be too high, nor too low, but optimized (Edwards, 1975).

We begin by quantifying the M&C level by introducing intentional errors on the
captain’s part. These errors vary on a scale from small to large. Some of the decisions,
whether erroneous or not, will be challenged by the first pilot and others will not. Each
correct challenge will subtract a number from the overall M&C score of the captain-first
officer relationship, while incorrect challenges and each error not challenged will add a
number to the overall M&C score.

The intentional errors can be introduced at any time during LOFT. For illustrative
purposes, let's introduce errors on the checklist in Appendix I. The captain's
instructions include the point value of a first officer challenge. The point value is
negative if an appropriate instruction is challenged or if an intentional error goes
unchallenged and positive if an intentional errors is challenged. At the end of the
checklist procedure, the total score is added up and reported to the LOFT control tower.

The M&C score can now be used in three ways: First, the score can be
discussed by the trainer. If the score was too high, the first officer can be asked to
practice and challenge the captain according to a script, while the captain can be asked
to respond to those challenges in amenable ways. If the score was too low, the first
officer has to be told that the captain is in charge of the plane and cannot be challenged
that much and the captain should be taught how to deal more effectively with challenges
to his authority.

14

<<   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   >>

More intriguing information