The development and implementation of cockpit resource management in UAL recurrent training
David H. Shroyer
Abstract
Open-access reader
David H. Shroyer
Abstract
Open-access reader
Line Oriented Flight Training (LOFT) for United Airlines started in 1976. At that time it was basically no more than a line-simulated training function conducted in a full-mission simulator with no attention or stress on its human factor content. Very soon after the implementation of the LOFT program concerns were voiced about certain crew behavioral situations they were observing in the flight crew's execution of cockpit duties. These duties involved emergency procedures as well as irregular and normal procedures and situations. It was evident that new information was surfacing concerning crew interaction, or its lack thereof, in the cockpit and its effect on satisfactory performance. These observations naturally raised the question of how this information translated into the safety of aircraft operations. A training system had to be repetitive, the crew interactive, and the training had to be conducted under the crew concept. The foundation had to have two other factors: (1) it was necessary to have adequate human factor content, and (2) an advanced state-of-the-art simulator and appropriate electronic devices were required. These concepts are further discussed.
A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Line Oriented Flight Training (LOFT) for United Airlines started in 1976. At that time it was basically no more than a line-simulated training function conducted in a full-mission simulator with no attention or stress on its human factor content. Very soon after the implementation of the LOFT program concerns were voiced about certain crew behavioral situations they were observing in the flight crew's execution of cockpit duties. These duties involved emergency procedures as well as irregular and normal procedures and situations. It was evident that new information was surfacing concerning crew interaction, or its lack thereof, in the cockpit and its effect on satisfactory performance. These observations naturally raised the question of how this information translated into the safety of aircraft operations. A training system had to be repetitive, the crew interactive, and the training had to be conducted under the crew concept. The foundation had to have two other factors: (1) it was necessary to have adequate human factor content, and (2) an advanced state-of-the-art simulator and appropriate electronic devices were required. These concepts are further discussed.
Key concepts: Cockpit, Crew, Aeronautics, Crew resource management, Training (meteorology), Flight training, Function (biology), Engineering