Despite the high technical reliability of airliners and continuous efforts to improve flight safety, there has been no significant decrease in accidents in recent years. However, aviation incidents whose sole cause was equipment failure are rare. Most plain crushes are caused by personnel, a functional feature of humans to make mistakes. Any individual, even the most highly qualified one, who takes part in the process of flight support, can make a mistake that poses a direct threat or potential danger. Misunderstanding the situation, making erroneous decisions, and unsafe actions are the leading causes of most incidents. A prominent example of the human factor is the case of Flight 965, where despite the pilots’ high level of professionalism, human error caused numerous deaths.
Nowadays, the central emphasis in fighting for flight safety is aimed at human beings. Crew resource management (CRM) is a system of measurements to boost aviation security and efficiency by accurately applying human, technological, and data resources. The CRM philosophy is established on the fact that a crew can make mistakes regardless of professional experience, will, or conscience. The most striking reason for such conclusions was a plane crash near the mountains on December 20, 1995 (Aviation Safety Network, 1995). It is required to discuss in detail the points of the flight and analyze the violation of the principles of CRM, which in this case is obvious.
As already stated, both pilots had numerous years of experience and were considered the best among their colleagues; nevertheless, mistakes happen, and overconfidence can be fatal. The onboard computer was supposed to receive signals and change the plane’s direction. However, the ability to track the aircraft was disrupted due to damage to one of the airborne radars (Aviation Safety Network, 1995). Further chain of events became lethal because the pilot misunderstood the request of the air traffic controller to inform them about the point passing. The wrong decision to stop the course disregarding warning signals, ignoring rules of vertical navigation and terrain, and the inappropriate use of devices prove that the crew is responsible for what happened.
In the context of the principles of CRM, and specifically the aspect of performance, the misstep of the captain who instructed the first flight officer to give an earlier notification of descent should be emphasized. At the same time, the crew did not consider this requirement rationally and wished to compensate for the delay by complying with the requirement (Mizrak & Mizrak, 2020). Undoubtedly, this step contradicted the necessity of making thorough decisions. Instead, it was a rush and, thus, a violation of the principle of operational risk management.
Moreover, as the flight progressed, the failures only worsened, and their degree depended on the measure of deviation from the principles of CRM. When choosing the radio beacon of Roso, the wrong point was selected in the computer, and an error in the automatics control changed the course (Aeronautica Civil, 1995). The co-pilot did consider the captain’s mistake, as he was concentrating solely on landing. It may be noted that there was a complete failure of communication skills, which according to CRM, is indispensable (Mizrak & Mizrak, 2020). The pilot was giving confusing instructions, and the communication level was improper, thus violating principles of effective communication.
Later control of the situation was completely lost, and the plane went down in the mountains near Cali. However, according to the experts, the plane would have reached a safe altitude with the flaps retracted and made it over the mountain. The crew members likewise did not apply situational awareness, as they failed to put the instructions into practice, thus leading to the death of the people (Mizrak & Mizrak, 2020). At the same time, the incident could have been avoided by taking only a few measures.
Firstly, the crew should have reacted to threats according to instructions and communicated coherently. Loss of control should have caused an immediate reaction in the form of an ATC notification, which, in turn, could have affected the flight. Moreover, CRM errors in automatics could likewise have been effortlessly corrected if the pilot had asked for advice from the PF, who, at least, could have noticed a turn toward Bogota (Mizrak & Mizrak, 2020). Principles state that if there is a contradictory interpretation of a fact, an external source of information is brought in to resolve the contradiction. Moreover, crosschecking from an independent source is necessary whenever there is conflicting information, which did not happen but could have saved numerous lives.
It should likewise be noted that the principles of CRM are improving, leading to the emergence of a new generation of rules. Its essence lies in effectively identifying threat sources and their prevention in the shortest possible time. In this case, the concept of threat is interpreted quite broadly and varies from weather conditions to system failures (Mizrak & Mizrak, 2020). Errors can have many causes and consequences, but what is important is the ability to identify them and find an appropriate strategy that can solve the concern. For a flight to be safe, it is crucial to follow safety principles and apply the skills to get out of critical situations quickly.
CRM is an integral part of any flight department’s training and an important element of an airline pilot’s career knowledge. The focus is aviation decision-making, risk management, leadership, and error administration. CRM is an aspect of preparing the new modern configuration with which crews exercise their professional lives. The promise and potential of the program are enormous, and crew compliance is important to preserve the most meaningful thing, the value of human life.
References
Aeronautica Civil. (1995.) Aircraft accident report controlled flight into terrain American Airlines Flight 965 Boeing 757-223, N651AA near Cali, Colombia December 20, 1995. Business & Commercial Aviation, 1-102.
Aviation Safety Network. (1995). Database. Web.
Mizrak, K., & Mizrak, F. (2020). The impact of crew resource management on reducing the accidents in civil aviation. Journal of Aviation Research, 2(1), 1-25. Web.