Journal of Aviation/Aerospace

Education & Research

Volume 9
Number 1 JAAER Fall 1999

Article 7

Fall 1999

Interpersonal Skills in Aviation: Applications and

Development
Melissa M. Monfries
Phillip j. Moore

Follow this and additional works at: http://commons.erau.edu/jaaer

Scholarly Commons Citation
Monfries, M. M., & Moore, P. j. (1999). Interpersonal Skills in Aviation: Applications and Development. Journal of Aviation/Aerospace
Education & Research, 9(1). http://dx.doi.org/10.15394/JAAER.1999.1241

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by ERAU Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Aviation/
Aerospace Education & Research by an authorized administrator of ERAU Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact
[email protected].

Monfries and Moore: Interpersonal Skills in Aviation: Applications and Development

Interpersonal Skills in Aviation

INT2RPERTOiVA.L SKlLLS INA KC4 TION: APPLICATIONS RM)DE WLOPMENT

Melissa M. Monliies and Phillip J. Moore

The purpose of this paper is to highlight the critical role that interpersonal slalls play in the aviation environment. Many
volumes have been written on the matter and it is not our intention here to review every research endeavour in
intapmonal skills and aviation but rather to provide an overview of some of the more important research, drawing out
the implications for aviation management. The paper is organized in the following manner: We first examine what
interpersonal skills are and why they are important in aviation. This is followed by an examination of the literature on
interpersonal skills in selection (pilots, air traffic controllers), which in turn is followed by interpersonal skills and
training, especially in Crew Resource Management(CRM). The paper concludes with practical suggestions regardmg
interpersonal skill development.
Interpersond Skills
Think about someone whom you know who has good skiUs
when dealing with others. Now think of someone who lacks
those skills. How do these two people ddfer? Assuming all
other things are equal, with which one would you prefer to
work? Who would you employ? Why? Why on so many
occasions does the interview disc-ate
among people of
equivalent qualifications? This is the field of interpersonal
skills. It has been attracting increasing interest over the last
decade. Gardner, in fact, redehed the whole notion of
intelligence by including interpersonal intelligence among six
other factors which he believed indicated an individual's
"smartness".
He defined interpersonal intelligence as :
"..the ability to understand other people: what
motivates them, how they work, how to work cooperatively with them. Successful salespeople,
politicians, teachers, clinicians and religious
leaders are all likely to be individuals with high
degrees of interpersonal intelligence."
(Goleman, 1997, p. 39)
Interpersonal skills refer to effective communication skills
that individuals use to convey both simple and complex
messages to one another. People skills such as empathy,
encouragement, considerateness, helpfulness, supportiveness,
benevolence, sensitivity, social adeptness, motivation, and
understanding are attributes that come to mind when we
discuss interpersonal skills and it is not surprising that

JAAER, Fall 1999

Published by ERAU Scholarly Commons, 1999

---

organizational psychologists report floundering productivity

if these attributes are ignored when people are brought
together to work in teams mosene, 1997). Psychologists now
talk of two major intelligences, the more traditional
Intelligence Quotient (IQ) and the more recent Emotional
Intelligence quotient (EQ) developed by Goleman (1997).
EQ describes qualities of understanding one's own feelings,
empathy with others and the feelings of others, and the
regulation of emotions to enhance living. Of course, some
peopbdisplay both intelligences, some more of one than the
other (Think of the people we asked you to think of above).
Indeed, one of the leading figures in human factors in aviation,
Robert Hehmich, contends that effective aviators need strong
mtapersonalskills in addition to technical expertise, aptitude
and training (Helmreich, 1993; 1996). We extend this by
arguing that this need extends well beyond the cockpit to
include cabin crew, maintenance, and ramp crew, as well as
others in the organization, including managers and air tr&c
conmllers (AT Cs).
The concern for effective interpersonal communication
arises in the paradoxical social environment of increased
automation. Although society is becoming increasingly
automated, it is of particular importance to examine the
interpersonal skills of personnel in the aviation industry in
that their level of responsibdity for human lives is high and
that theyface the challenge of continual changes and increased
usage of automated equipment This concern has been echoed
by researchers investigating the recent automotive and

--

Page 2 1

Journal of Aviation/Aerospace Education & Research, Vol. 9, No. 1 [1999], Art. 7

Interpersonal Skills in Aviation

technological trends in the commercial aviation industry and

their effects on the quality of interpersonal communication on
the fhght deck and in air tr&c control. (Billings, 1991,1997;
Moore & Telfer, 1997;Mouloua & Parasuraman, 1994).
In a lengthy treatise relating social isolation to the increase
in human unhappiness, particularly in Western society, Karp
(19%) asserts that a withering community life brought about
by new technologies fosters a rootlessness and social
disintegrationthat contributes substantially to the growth of
emotionaldisorders. If such consequences can be observed in
society as a whole, then it could be expected that automation
in aviation is likely to produce some change in human
behavior. Karp also posits that occupational status and
identification with that status defines our interpersonal
behaviors. This is supportedby research which shows that the
type of occupation has a strong relationship with socialization
processes and outcomes (Holten 111 & Russell, 1997). The
changes in roles for aviation personnel as a result of
automation, therefore, also stand to have a s i m c a n t impact
on their self-definitions and their subsequent relationships
with others, and others with them.
The raising of such
issues is to be seen in a context in which interpersonal skills
may be receiving less attention (e.g., it may be easier to break
rekmships now, compared to 20 years ago). Moreover, the
importance of the individual's functioning within the group
has been replacedby the individual's satisfaction with the self
and the improvement of the self. More than a decade ago,
Lasch (1982) referred to this focus on the self as ''the culture
of narcissism." Yet despite this shift f?om communal to self
focus (a Western society phenomenon), more interpersonal
skills are being sought in the workplace while the
interpersonal aspects of human behavior (such as group
cohesion and abilities to work successfully in a team) are
being downplayed in society.
Given that interpersonal issues are in some way biologically
determined, the need for interpersonal communication and
interactions are central to being "human." Bowlby's (1 988)
theory on human attachment goes some way in explaining this
biologically d e t 6 e d need to relate to others. Bowlby
asserts that attachment is a fundamental form of behavior with
its internal motivation distinct from the basic drives (such as
feeding and sex) and is important for survival. Basically
attachment is &ed as any "behavior that results in a person
maintaining proximity to some other clearly identified
individual who is conceived as better able to cope with the

Page 22

http://commons.erau.edu/jaaer/vol9/iss1/7
DOI: 10.15394/JAAER.1999.1241

world(Bowlby, 1988, p 27). Such behavior becomes most

obvious in stressful situations as the attachment figure
encourages strong and pervasive feehgs of security, which
fiuther reinforces the attachment. The biological function
attributed to it, is that of protection. Clearly, then the benefit
of relating well to others helps to enhance attachment
behaviors and consequently protects the functioning of the
p u p . Beaumont (1995) applied attachment theory to aviation
management and has suggested that the development of
attachment between the employee and the organization (as a
mutually dependent process) produces harder working
orgauimlionalmembers, who are less likely to be absent from
work.
In summary,then, interpersonal skills, though essential in
group and organizational functioning have not received the
attention they deserve in terms of their impact on
organizations, which include selection, training, and
management of employees. In the area of aviation,
communication is of integral importance, because as the
following infixmation demonstrates, it is not simply a matter
of whether an organkhon is functional or not, but it becomes
a matter of life and death.
The Importance of Interpersonal SkiUs in Aviation
i) Human error in aviation : the contribution of
interpersonal communication
Perhaps the easiest way to understand the relevance of
interpersonal skills in aviation is to consider accidents and
incidents. Much has been written about the underlying causes
of these in commercial as well as military aviation (e.g.,
Brannick, Pnhce, Prince, & Salas, 1995; Leedam, 1991;
Wiegmam, 1997: and
NTSB Reports m the USA; S+U&
more gemrally in Reason, 1997; Weiner & Nagel, 1988; and
Weiner, Kanki & Helmreich, 1993). Threading its way
through these reports is a reasonably consistent theme of
human error resulting from failures in interpersonal
communication. Indeed, cockpit crew, cabin crew, match,
maintenance, air tr&c control and even the passengers are
implicated in some way or another, dependent upon the
particular case. For example, in the Kegworth B-737
incident, cabin crew were aware of an engine problem but
failed to i n f i cockpit crew who shut-down the other engine
which lead to a fatal crash. Passengers and cabin crew on the
Dryden Fokker F-28 were aware of a build-up of ice on the
wings before take-off but failed to communicate this to the
cockpit crew. The aircraft crashed shortly &er take-off w i t .

JAAER, Fall 1999

Monfries and Moore: Interpersonal Skills in Aviation: Applications and Development

Zntelpersonal Skills in Aviation

fatal consequences.
Recent research by Goeters (1995) with experienced pilots
showed that nearly half of the problem cases in a sample of
nearly 200 pilots were related to interpersonal factors, not
technical perfbmance. Sometime ago, Chidester and Foushee
(1989) examined Leader personality and crew effectiveness in
a full mission simulation experiment. Three-person crews
completed real-time flight segments in a high fidelity
simulator with captains of different goal orientations and
interpersonal skills. Some captains were highly motivated to
achieve, as well as having warmth and sensitivity towards
others. Other captains were assessed to be high on wanting to
achieve but low on the interpersonal dimension (e.g., verbally
aggressive). Still others were assessed as low on both
achieving and interpersonal skills. When ratings of
effectivenessof crews were examined, Chidester and Foushee
found that crews led by captains high on both achieving and
interpersonal skills outperformed others. In addition, crews
led by captains low on sensitivity to others made more
operational errors.
Reporting on a subset of the crews from the above study,
Kanki and Palmer (1993) took a communicationsperspective.
Again, crews were led by captains of three different profiles:
high on both achieving and mterpemnal; low on interpersonal
skills; and low on both achieving and interpersonal. The
preliminary findings show some interesting patterns of
commuuidon that reinforce the hdings from the Chidester
and Foushee (1989) study. Captains low on interpersonal
concerns initiated less total speech than other captains, and
imporkmtly, these crews committed most errors. For captains
high on both dimensions, the results showed that the flow of
infamation was encouraged, but not dominated by the leader.
The researchers also noted that providmg and seeking
infinmation were more prevalent in the crews led by captains
concerned with both doing well and enhancing interpersonal
r e l a t i o d q s on the flight deck. Not only do these findings
demonstrate the s i m c a n t impact that increasedfiequency
and fkedom to communicateto other team members have on
human errors leading to aviation disasters, but they support
the basic principles of attachment theory as applied to the
cockpit.High achieving (i.e., highly competent), yet warm and
sensitive captains create an atmosphere of security, where
individuals can communicate concerns because they feel
interpersonally protected. On the other hand, it could be
argued that captains low on interpersonal concerns do not

JAAER, Fall 1999

Published by ERAU Scholarly Commons, 1999

provide the protective and secure environment that encourages

a mutually dependent attachment and consequently impedes
indiwduals' confidence to express concern or seek
clarification ( Beaumont, 1995;Bowlby, 1988).
However, it is not only the frequency of communication that
effects efficiency, Orasanu and Fischer (1991) similarly
investigated communications in experienced aircrew
s i m ~ 0 1 l and
s found that shared communal goals impacted
on outcomes. Captains of effective crews in their study
planned (with their GO-pilots) during periods of light workload
for future difficulties and alerted crews to likely problems,
building a shared mental model of the situation. Bowers,
Deakm, Oser,Prince and Kolb (1995) also demonstrated that
effective crews used similar patterns of interpersonal
communication(observations, replies, statements of intent) in
automated and less automated cockpits. Less effective crews,
however, varied their interpersonal interactions, dependent
upon whether they were m an automated on less automated
context Hence another sigruficant interpersonal factor which
effects outcomes is the consistency ofthe communication.
This effective crew sharing is underpinned by interpersonal
skius. Of course, communication includes non-verbal cues
that are also an important component of flight deck
communication and coordination (Segal, 1994).
Nevertheless, these skills need to be considered in the
context of the social climate in the cockpit where relations
between the pilot and co-pilot are crucial in establishing
communication patterns. For jnstance, Farthofer and Kemmler
(1993) highlighted the stages at which interpersonal
relationships are critical in setting the social climate in the
cockpit. Their interview data indicated the importance of the
first contact between pilot an co-pilot when they meet at
dispatch. The interpersonal skills demonstrated at that stage
seem to set the climate for what follows throughout the flight.
iiJExamining interpersonal skills through psychometric
measurement
Another way of looking at the role of interpersonal skills in
aviation is to examine the psychometric properties of the
NASAlLTniversity of Texas Cockpit Management Attitudes
Questionuaire (CMAQ), a questionnaire used worldwide to
assess attitudes in the cockpit. While the CMAQ has been
updated by the addition of new items (related to culture,
automation, work values, team behaviors) and is now the
Flight Management Attitude Questionnaire (FMAQ), its
original factor structure shows a consistent pattern related to

Page 23

Journal of Aviation/Aerospace Education & Research, Vol. 9, No. 1 [1999], Art. 7

Intemersonal Skills in Aviation

mterpersonalskills (Gregorich, Helmreich & Wilhelm, 1990).

In their factor analyses based on nearly 5,000 aviators, the
questions that loaded most strongly on the Communication
. .
and Chodmhon scale were those related to the interpersonal
area of empathy towards others: (a)monitoring others for
signs of stress, (b) being sensitive to the personal problems of
others, and (c) taking into account others' personalities. It is
not smprising, then, that Hormann and Maschke (199 1)found
a s@cant refatiomhip between the Empathy scale fiom the
personality test, The Temperament Structure Scales, and the
CMAQ Cammunication and Coordination scale. The FMAQ
also shows interpersonal dimensions, many of which seem to
transcend cultnre (Merritt & Helmreich, 1995).(See also
LOFT below.)
iii) The effects of interpersonal skiUs on performance
Hormann, Manzey, Maschke and Pecena (1997) related
pilot operational performance to interpersonal skills. They
showed that pilots high on the interpersonal dimension of
empathy were independently rated as high on crew
coardination and performance in the cockpit. This finding is
all the more interesting in that the measure of empathy was
behavioral (rather than from a questionnaire or interview) and
had been obtained while the pilots were involved in group
activities during the selection process.
Also using behavioral measures, Jones (1 997) showed that
the avoidance of mishaps in air traffic control (ATC)
oprations was related to interpersonal factors. Observations
were taken as air t r a c controllers controlled air space with
task management, information sharing and interpersonal
relations emerging as predictors of performance. Individuals
who displayed sensitivity, flexibility and receptivity avoided
mishaps more than those who did not display such
interpersonal skills. Inadequate communication and coManbetween ATCs and between ATCs and pilots have
been identilied m a number of sbdies as the major contributor
to ATC opemtmd errors. Interpersonal skills, such as being
receptive to others' concerns and disagreeing but not allowing
such differences to enter into decision making, are vital for
the successful operation of a team in such a situation
(Herschler & Gilson, 1991).
Researchers examjning simulated emergency evacuations
from aircraft also clearly identlfL the critical role of the
interpersonal behavior of flight attendants. Mnir and Cobbett
(1996) studied passenger evacuations under two conditions,
competitive (simulating threat to life/evacuees paid cash

incentives to be in the first group off the aircraft) and cooperative (simulating non-life threatening with no cash
incentives). In both conditions, flight attendants who were
assertive, were more successful in exiting passengers in a
shorter time than ifthey were non-assertive. Muir and Corbett
reinforced the need to train flight attendants in assertive
behaviors in the required contexts. Even in aviation
maintenance, interpersonal factors are implicated. Hobbs and
Robertson (1996) refer to the "Duly Dozen7' in aviation
maintenance which includes lack of communication, lack of
teamwork, and lack of assertiveness.
In summary then, literature on interpersonal skills in
aviation, has been mostly concerned with pilots. Interpersonal
skills which include enhanced flow and frequency of
communication (Chidester & Fouschee, 1989; Kanki &
Palmer, 1993), shared communication goals or shared mental
models (Orasanu & Fisher, 1991), consistency in
communication patterns (Bowers et al., 1995); personality
traits such as empathy (Hormann & Maschke, 1991) ;and the
context in which they occur (i.e. cockpit, flightdeck, etc)
(Farthofa & W e r , 1993) effect performance and decision
making processes and have significant implications for
human ermr and safety maviation. In other words, teamwork,
open lines of communication, cooperation, listening and
spealung one's mind, the rudiments of social intelligence are
essentialfeatures for training pilots and go hand in hand with
the importance of their technical prowess (Goleman, 1997).
Interpersonal Skills and Selection
Much has been written about selection of pilots and
interpersonal skills, although it has often been the case that
p e m d t y tests designed to assess stable personal traits have
been used to assess interpersonal skills. It has been argued
elsewhere that interpersonal skills may, in fact, be more
amenable to change than the stable traits measured by
standard personality tests and as such may not be true
estimates of an individual' s interpersonal skill @Ionfries &
Moore, 1996).
In me of the most comprehensive reviews of pilot selection,
Hunter and M e (1994) employed meta-analytic methods to
illustrate the relatively low predictive power of personality
tests, when compared to mental abilities (spatial ability,
mechanical ability), for future pilot performance. Bartram's
(1993) research also demonstrates the relatively low
pmbctive power of selection measures. However, one of the
problems of correlating selection test scores with an

Page 24

http://commons.erau.edu/jaaer/vol9/iss1/7
DOI: 10.15394/JAAER.1999.1241

JAAER, Fall 1999

Monfries and Moore: Interpersonal Skills in Aviation: Applications and Development

Intelpersonal Skills in Aviation

individual's latter performance on some task is the nature of

the latter task Ifthe task does not require strong interpersonal
skills, then it may not be surprising that any relationship
would be low (See Cognitive Task Analyses below). What is
required early m a career (say as a second officer) may not be
what is required later in a career (say as a captain or line
manager).
Individualsdo develop in organizationsthrough professional
socialization (Farquharson, 1997; Goleman, 1997; Karp,
1996) and it might be said that IQ is important for selection
but EQ (the emotional intelligence) is important for
promotion. For instance, Goleman asserts that effective
leadership can only be achieved by excelling in emotional
intelligence.He stresses that leadership is not domination, but
the art of persuading people to work towards a common goal
wherein being attuned to others' feelings and being able to
manage disagreements so that they do not escalate are
paramount.
How, then, do organizations select individuals with good
interpersonal skills? While it has been noted that the
assessment of interpersonal skills is a c u l t (Hackman,
1993), this is no reason not to attempt such assessment, as
long as the problems of any selection process and its ability to
predict future performance are kept in mind (See Hunter &
Burke, 1994; Martinussen, 1996). Interpersonal skills
questionnaires such as the Survey of Interpersonal Skills
(Gordon, 1993),the Styles and Attitudes Survey (Tyler, 1992)
and the Personal Characteristics Inventory (Gregorich,
HeImreich, WilheIm, & Chidester, 1989), as well as
performance m interviews (Ramsay, Gallois, & Callan, 1997)
can shed IIght on the ways in which individuals see themselves
interacting with others. Observation of team activities,
personal presentations, and team operated simulationsduring
selection could be used hand-in-hand with the self-report
questionnaires to provide a broader understanding of an
individual's interpersonal skills (Hormann et al, 1997;
Monfiies & Moore, 1996, 1998).
Some of the work of M d e s and Moore (1996) and Moore
and M&es (1997) highlight the role of interpersonal skills
in selection of pilots. Working with experienced pilots who
were seeking entry into a small international carrier, they
showed interviews and the interpersonal dimension of
Conformity (Gordon, 1993) were the major predictors of
whether or not a pilot was selected. Conformiity refers to an
interpersonalpredqosition to follow the rules, and "do the

Published by ERAU Scholarly Commons, 1999

correct thing." The selection program involved the typical

measures of mental abilities, personality, interviews, and
simulator testing.
The recent use in selection of job analysis, task analysis and
cognitive task analysis (Redding & Seamster, 1994) also
showsthe importance of interpersonal skills. In job and task
analyses,the key w m p m t s of the job are identified through
methods such as interviews with experts and those on the job
and protocol analyses (analyzing think-alouds fiom
individuals while they work), as well as observations and
analyses of documentation. Those on the job are asked to
rank or rate each of the components or skills for its
importance for the job itself. For example, in air traIXc
control, Eissfeldt (1997) identified 21 different cognitive
abilities for ATC operations and had ATCs rate them for the
level of ability of each required for the job (Eissfeldt's item
did not include mtapemmlfactors though). Not surprisingly,
he reported time sharing and selective attention as the
cognitive abilities seen as important for ATC operations. In
other words, the knowledge, skills, and mental models that
underpin expert performance on the job are identified and
these provide guidance for selection and training (Redding &
Seamster, 1994).A number of organizations now use such an
approach, and interpersonal factors are clearly identified.
Pian, Kokorian, and Burke (1997), showed 'people" skills
such as questioning, listening, and directing others to achieve
goals as important for helicopter pilots on command.
Maschke, Gaeters, and Klamm's (1998) job analysis rating
fromover 140pilots showed cooperation, communication and
ckisionmakmg as important for efficient cockpit operations.
Maschke et al. concluded that the "classical" areas of
cognition, psychomotor skills, and personality (especially
communication and collaboration) stiU maintain their
relevance, irrespective of the methodology used.
In ATC selection, more attention is now being paid to
interpersonal competencies particularly as they relate to
performance. Hanuan's (1998) research exemplifies this
direction. His study was an examination of the characteristics
of a number of clusters of trainees (e.g., high probability of
success/liicensed, high probability of success/failed licence) to
determine the major discriminating factors. His results,
amongst others, showed a distinctive difference between the
above two clusters with the l i d group being more
socially confident, more f i a t i v e , in need of other's
company, and more inclined to be democratic, taking into

Journal of Aviation/Aerospace Education & Research, Vol. 9, No. 1 [1999], Art. 7

Interpersonal Skills in Aviation

account other's point of view. In discussing case studies,

Hannan reported on a successful candidate in the following
way: "The overall impression of this person was a likeable,
well respected individual who was always conversant and
confident in social as well as classroom settings...he was
clearly socially competent" @. 6). Similarly, S c M e r ,
Broach, and Fanner (1997) stressed the need for personality
characteristicsthat are critical in teamwork for future, more
automated ATC operations (See also Bailey, Broach, & Enos,
1997).
Interpelgonal Skills and Training
Perhaps one of the major changes in aviation training over
the last decade has been greater acceptance of human factors'
effects on the industry. Crew resource management (CRM)
or Error Mauagement (Helmreich, 1996) has been extensively
researched, and the inclusion of non-technical training for
pilots has been adsised or mandated by many
advisory/regulatory authorities in many countries (e.g.,
International Civil Aviation Organization; FAA; European
Joint Aviation Authority). The initial intention of such
programs was attitude change in pilots (e.g., Helmreich &
Wilhelm, 1991;Schiewe & Moore, 1997).
Helmreich and WilheIm studied the inter-relationships
among motivation to acheve, interpersonal sensitivity and
change in attitude to crew operations. Pilots with a profile
high on achieving and interpersonal dimensions showed
greatest positive changes in attitndes towards command
responsibility following CRM training whereas those low on
both actually showed a slight decrease in attitudes to
command responsibility. That is, training had positive and
negative effects but the direction of the effect was somewhat
attniutable to achieving and interpersonal predispositions of
the pilots. Gregorich, Helmreich, Wilhelm, and Chidester
(1989)M e r showed that individuals high on both achieving
and interpersonaldimensions were promoted more often than
those low on one or both of these dimensions. Certady these
characteristics are indicative of people high in emotional
intelligence which Goleman (1995) describes as "a master
aptitude, a capacity that profoundly affects all other abilities,
either facilitating or interfering with them" @. 80). Goleman
fbther suggests that for organizations to thrive corporations
should invest in boosting their collective emotional
intelligence.
More recently the focus has been on attitudes and active
practice (with feedback) for training in teamwork in the

Page 26

http://commons.erau.edu/jaaer/vol9/iss1/7
DOI: 10.15394/JAAER.1999.1241

cockpit, and beyond (Prince & Salas, 1997). For pilots, such
practice is often conducted under the guise of Line Oriented
Flight Training (LOFT). LOFT scenarios are used to develop
pilot skills, and assessment encompasses technical skills,
cognitive skills such as prioritising and workload
management, and interpersonal skills (Bertram & Dowd,
1997). In a typical LOFT exercise, crews are briefed on the
particular crew resource management strategies targeted in the
ex&,
then they "fly" a simulator in real time and the crew
interactions are videotaped. At the end of the li&
the video
is replayed and discussion centres on the interpersonal aspects
of crew communication and coordination (and other targeted
behaviors). LOFT scenarios typically include some event and
associated distracters which are designed to divert crew
attention fiom the event that is about to occur or has occurred.
Amundson (1995) identified a number of LOFT assessment
criteria including the explicit encouragement of participation,
seeking information and directing, provides crew self-critique
when needed, managing personal and operational conflict,
adapting to crew interpersonal Merences, and exercising
secure autbity. In a similar way, Hamman, Seamster, and
Edens (1995) reported the interpersonal factors of
communication, group climate, crew coordination, and
leadership/followership as critical components of LOFT
development and evaluation. Many organizations use the
NASA/UT Line LOS checklist (Helmreich, Butler, Taggarf
& WilheIm, 1996) for LOFT evaluation, the latest version
(Version 4) having over 30 behavioral markers for crew
interpersonal effectiveness.
Interpersonal Skills for Cockpit Crew, Cabin Crew and
Beyond
Goleman (1997) asserts that the media exposure of the
personality of Melburn McBroom highlighted the need to
include interpersonalskiUs training for pilots. McBroom was
apparently a domineering boss, with a temper that intimidated
those who worked with him. So intimidated were his co-pilots
that they were scared to inform McBroom of empty fuel
gauges while McBroom obsessed over landing gear. The
ensuing crash resulted in ten fatalities. Goleman uses this
example to emphasise the dramatic reality check that a plane
crash can result in instances of dysfunctional teamwork.
Not surprisingly, the development of interpersonal skills in
cabin crew/cockpit crew relations has recently been
undertaken by a number of airlines. These airlines have
recogwed that one of the problems facing interactions

JAAER, Fall 1999

Monfries and Moore: Interpersonal Skills in Aviation: Applications and Development

Interpersonal Skills in Aviation

between the two crews is an organizational barrier which has

relatively clear hierarchical implications. In order to reduce
such barriers, a large European camer has developed a
training program to meet a number of specitic targets
including encoumgbg interactive behavior between cabin and
cockpit. For a l l crew, the training emphasises active listening,
the development of questioning skills, and expression of
requests in an assertive manner (Proske, Foese, & Schiewe,
1997). Naef (1997) reported similarjoint training exercises.
Where it is not possible to have cabin and cockpit crews
together for training in interpersonal skius, other airlines use
separate programs in interpersonal skills for cabin and cockpit
crews with an emphasis on across the barrier communications
(Amundson, 1995).
Karlins, Koh, McCully, and Chan (1997) expanded
teamwork beyond the cockpit door to include pilots, cabin
crew, station managers, and tr&c and ground engineers.
Their Operational Areas Seminar in Synergy (OASIS)
program is designed to reduce inter-group conflict and
enhauce inter-group co-operation and teamwork. Evaluation
of OASIS showed positive interpersonal outcomes with
comments such as, "made me realize I was doing things to
cause problems for other staff I wasn't even aware of. Now
I know what these things are I can avoid doing them in the
future" @. 328).
Predmore, Mancuso, and Johnson (1997) conducted on-thejob training for ramp personnel working for a large US carrier
(Ramp personnel are responsible for ground handling
practices and procedures). Their program was designed to
increaseperfinmane. in a number of interpersonal dimensions
includmg htenmg actively and asking questions when unsure,
giving and accepting constructive feedback, and knowing
what is expected of each individual in the team. The program
encourages ramp personnel to speak up ifthey see anything
which is unsafe, irregular or not in accordancewith standard
procedures.
Predmore et al's report focused on early
experiences with the program and no speciic results were
detailed.
ATC and Training
Because of the increasing need for teamwork competencies
in ATC, a number of programs have been developed to
increase ATC interpersonal skills. Smith-Jentsch, Zeisig,
Cannon-Bowers, and Salas (1997) reported a program
designed to provide practice in a number of interpersonal

behavioral skills such as supporting behavior and feedback

skills. Indeed, team resource management (TRM) has been
developed for ATCs in Europe (Barbarino, 1997)where it is
reinforced that TRM is not intended to replace technical
training but rather to complement it, a sentiment reflected in
CRM training and other interpersonal skill training.
However, amidst this training there has been questioning of
interpersonal skills. Can
the overall eff&eness of gcall individuals be changed? For how long do the changes
maintain themselves? Do individualsrevert to their old styles
soon a k training? Some time ago, Cook (199 1) questioned
the ways in which CRM training has been conducted, and
Hormann and Mascbke (1991) signalled the dBculties in
changing attitudes, including interpersonal ones, suggesting
that more effort may be required to sustain change. Maurino
(1997) foregrounds the problems arguing for safety (and its
necessary interpersonal dimensions) to be a corporate value
and that different sub-cultures within an organization need to
be consideredin any training. It is perhaps timely to consider
whether or not the aviation industry really has a commitment
to training interpersonal skiUs (obviously amongst a range of
other skills). We have demonstrated by identifymg research
illat programs are in place, but the longer term effects of such
are rarely investigated. "Shots-in-the-arm" followed by "topups" are certainly not consistent with current perspectives on
training (Teifer & Moore, 1997). There needs to be a
cohesion across all levels in an organization from the pilots,
to the instructors and checkhaining captains, to the cabin
crew, ramp personnel, maintenance, engineers and so on to
management itself In Cohen's (1 987) terms, the system needs
to be aligned If any one component of the system is not
committed to, say interpersonal skills development, then it is
not likely that worthwhile change will occur. Pilots in a
company that ignores CRM (including interpersonal)
principles in its management operations may have difficulty
in accepting CRM training. Such a situation is akin to "Do as
I say" not "Do as I do." In other words, all the players need to
see the reasons for and the likely benefits of such training.
Maurino (1997) reinfaces this point by suggesting that pilots
(and others crews) be actively involved in training design
rather than simply its implementation. Here, at the macro
level is informed training and ownership, not training that is
blind and out of one's control. Research in other educational
contexts shows blind training and lack of control as serious
impediments to learning (Moore, 1994.).

JAAER, Fall 1999

Published by ERAU Scholarly Commons, 1999

Journal of Aviation/Aerospace Education & Research, Vol. 9, No. 1 [1999], Art. 7

Inteipersonal Skilkr in Aviation

Management Structure and Interpersonal Dynamics

Integral to the role of interpersonal skills training is the way
in which tbe organization operates. Indeed, Telfer and Moore
(1997) suggest that the personality of the organization is an
area of organizational climate that is yet to be recognized for
its impact in a number of areas in aviation. Though no
research into the effects of the organizational climate on
traininghave been done in aviation, Telfer and Moore suggest
that such a venture would be fitfid. Further, they suggest
that open (indicative of a supportive, high morale, strong
lead*
and considerate management structure) and closed
(indicative of low morale, high emphasis on rules and trivia,
close supervision and impersonal management structure)
climates would have very different effects on training and
selection.
Other researchers also imply that a healthy relationship
between the organizational structure and the individuals who
work within it, is paramount for effecting changes that are to
be positive. Apart fiom the more obvious factors such as
management flexibility reflected in willingness to constantly
monitor and reshapethe work environment ( Westrum, 1995),
there are other more complex factors which can contribute to
mutually beneficial changes. Most researchers agree that an
information flow is essential to creating a productive climate
in any organization, where two way communicationssystems
are encouraged fiom the top to the bottom, and bottom to the
top (Beaumont, 1995; Westrum, 1995). In line with our
previous references to attachment theory, Beaumont posits
that management needs to effect individuals' attachment to the
organization by supporting their active involvement in the
decision processes, which means that management gives
people a chance to be heard and values their input. By
effecting attachment in this way, the individual becomes
committed to the organization and contributes to the

organization'sgenerativity.
In conclusion, then, it is not merely s-cient
to implement
interpersonal skills training courses without examining the
climate in which those skills are to be used. Open climates
where communication among all levels is encouraged are
more likely to reap cost effective benefits. A s Peter Drucker
pointed out, the productivity of workers with highly
specialized expertise (such as pilots, ATCs, etc.) depends on
those efforts being coordinated as part of an organizational
team and "teams become the work unit rather than the
individual himself" ( Goleman, 1997, p. 149).
Practical Applications
To conclude the paper, a number of practical applications
are presented below:
1. Define the climate of the organization encourage an open
climate
2. Take notice of initial interactions between pilots, co-pilots,
cabin crew, maintenance crew etc
3. Include interpersonal skills and social intelligence as
h e a v e weighted criteria for selection of personnel
4. Ensure that interpersonal skills training programs include
those factors which have been shown to reduce human error,
such as frequency of speech, consistent patterns of
communication and shared mental models
5. Ensure that those who are undergoing training are attached
to the program, they have had some say in what it is about,
why it is needed, and maybe even how it might be conducted
6. Ensure that CRM principles are not only in the cockpit and
cabin, but permeate the whole organization.

Dr Melissa Monfries is a lecturer in the Faculty of Education at the University of Newcastle. She lectures in educational psychology
and social psychology and has published articles in these areas.
Pmfessor Phil Moore is currently in the Department of Educational Studies at the Hong Kong Institute of Education, Hong Kong
.Prior to this appointment,he was in the Facutty of Education at the University of Newcastle, Australia. He lecturers in both education
and aviation and has published books and articles in both areas

Page 28

http://commons.erau.edu/jaaer/vol9/iss1/7
DOI: 10.15394/JAAER.1999.1241

JAAER, Fall 1999

Monfries and Moore: Interpersonal Skills in Aviation: Applications and Development

Interpersonal Slalki in Aviation

Acknowiedgments: Paris of this research were completed while the authors were on sabbatical leave at Trinity College, Dublin, and
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Daytona Beach.

REFERENCES

Amundson, J.M. (1995). Line oriented flight training (LOFT) to improve cockpit-cabin wmmunications. In N.Johnston, RFuller
& N.McDonald (Eds.), Aviation psychology: Training and selection. Aldershot: Avebury Aviation @p. 8 1-86).
Bailey, L.L., Broach, D., & Enos, RJ. (1997). Controller teamwork evaluation and assessment methodology. In RJensen & L.
Rakovan (Eds.),Proceedings of the Ninth lnternational Symposium on Aviation Psychology, Columbus: Ohio State
University (pp. 175-180).
Barbarino, M. (1997). Team resource management in European air traftic services. In RJensen 62 L. Rakovan (Eds.),
187Proceedings of the Ninth Intemational Symposium on Aviation Psychology, Columbus: Ohio State University @p.
192).
Bartram, D. (1993). Aptitude testing and selection in aviation. In R.A.Telfer (Ed.), Aviation instruction and training. Aldershot:
Ashgate (pp. 43-5 1).
Beaumont, G. (1995). Achieving organizational attachment through resource management. In N. McDonald, N. Johnston,
R.FuSler (Eds.) Applications of Psychology to the Aviation System: Aldershot: Avebury Aviation (pp. 69-74).
Bertram, J, & Dowd, N. (1997). LOFT facilitator training. In RA. Telfer & P.J.Moore (Eds.), Aviation training: Learners,
instruction and organization. Aldeshot: Avebury Aviation. @p.155-170).
Billings, C. (1991). Toward a human-centred aircraft automation philosophy. International Joumal ofAvzationPsychoZ~~61.
Billings, C.E. (1997). Aviation automation: The search for a human centred approach. Mathway, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Bowers, C., Deaton, J., Oser, R., Prince, C., & Kolb, M. (1995). Impact of automation on aircrew communication and decisionmaking performance. International Journal ofAviation Psychology, 5, 145-168.
Bowlby, J. (1 988). A secure base. London: Routledge
Brannick, M., Prince,A., Prince, C., & Salas, E. (1995). The measurement of team process. Human Factors, 37,641-651.
Chidester, T.R & Foushee, H.C. (1989). Leadership personality and crew effectiveness: A full mission simulation experiment. In
RJensen (Ed.), Proceedings of the Fzjih Intemational Symposium on Aviation Psychology. Columbus: Ohio University Press,
pp. 676-681.
Chute, RD., & Weiner, E.L. (1995). Cockpit-cabin communication: 1. A tale of two cultures. IntemationalJoumal ofAviation
Psychology, 2,257-276.
Cohen, S.A. (1987). Instructional alignment: searching for a magic bullet. EducationalResearcher, 16, 8, 16-20.
Cook, G.N. (1991). Cockpit resource management training: Are current instructional methods likely to succeed?Journal of
AviatiodAerospace Education and Research, L 3,26-35.
Driskell, J.E.,& Salas, E. (1992). Collective behavior and team performance. Human Factors, 34.3,277-288.
Eissfeldt, H. (1997). Ability requirements for different ATC positions. In RJensen & L.Rakovan (Eds.), Proceedings of the
Ninth International Symposium on Aviation Psychology. Columbus: Ohio State University @p. 123-128).
Farthofer, A., & Kemmler, RW. (1993). Leadership behavior in high-tech cockpits (A320). In RJensen (Ed.), Proceedings of
the Seventh Intemational Symposium on Aviation Psychologv. Columbus: Ohio University Press. @p. 522-526).
Farquhmn, T. L. (1997). Training and developing the aircrew manager. In RA.Telfer & P.J.Moore (Eds.) Aviation training:
Learners, insnuction and organization.Aldershot: Avebury Aviation. @p. 286-299).
Goeters, K.M. (1995). Psychological evaluation of pilots: The present regulations and arguments for their application. In
N.Johnston, RFuller & N.McDonald (Eds.), Aviation psychology: Training and selection.Aldershot:Avebury Aviation. @p.

JAAER, Fall 1999

Published by ERAU Scholarly Commons, 1999

Page 29

Journal of Aviation/Aerospace Education & Research, Vol. 9, No. 1 [1999], Art. 7

Interpersonal Skills in Aviation

149-156.)
Goleman, D. (1997). Emotional intellzgence. Great Britain: Bloomsbury
Gordon, L.V. (1993). Survey of rntelpersonal values. USA: SRA MacMillanMcGraw-Hill.
Gregorich, S. (1993). The dynamics of CRM attitude change: Attitude stability. In RJensen (Ed.). Proceedings of the Seventh
International Symposium on Aviation Psychology, Columbus: Ohio University Press. @p. 509-512).
Gregorich, S., Helmreich, RL., & Wilhelm, J.A. (1990). The structure of cockpit management attitudes.Journal ofApplied
Psychology, 75,682-690.
Gregorich, S., Helmreich, RL., Wilhelm, J.A., & Chidester, T.R (1989). Personality based clusters as predictors of aviation
attitudes and performance. In RJensen (Ed.). Proceedings of the F$h International Symposium on Aviation
Psychology. Columbus: Ohio University Press. @p.686-691).
Hackman, J.R (1993). Teams, leaders and organizations:New directions for crew oriented flight training. In E.L.Weiner, B.G.
Kanki, & RL. Helmreich (Eds.), Cockpit resource management. @p47-70). San Diego: Academic Press.
Hamman, W., Seamster, T., & Edens, E. (1995). LOFTLOE in air carrier training. In N.Johuston, RFuller & N.McDonald
(eds.),Aviation psychology: Training and selection. Aldershot: Avebury Aviation. (Pp 87-92).
Hannan, G. (1998). Alternative approaches to gathering information in air traf3Cic control selection research. Paper presented at
the Fourth Australian Aviation Psychology Symposium, Manly, March.
Helmreich, RL. (1993). Whither CRM? Directions in crew resource management training in the cockpit and elsewhere. In
R.Jensen (Ed.), Proceedings of the Seventh International Symposium on Aviation Psychology, Columbus: Ohio
University Press, @p676-68 1).
Helmreich, R. L. (1996). The evolution of Crew Resource Management. Paper presented at the IATA Human Factors Seminar,
Warsaw, Poland, October.
Helmreich, R.L, Butler, R.E., Taggart, W.R., & Wilhelm, J.A. (1996). The NAWUniversity of Texas/FAA Line/LOS ChecWist:
A behavioral marker-based checklistfor CRM skills assessment. (LLC4 1996).Austin, TX: University of Texas.
Helmreich, R.L., & Wilhelm, J.A. (199 1). Outcomes of crew resource management. International Journal ofAv~ation
Psychology, 287-300.
Herschler, D.A., & Gilson, RD. (1991). Skill factors affecting team performance in simulated radar air trafic control. In
RJensen (Ed.), Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium on Aviation Psychology. Columbus: Ohio
University Press. @p526-53 1).
Hobbs, A., & Robertson, M.M. (1996). Human factors in aircraft maintenance workshop report. In B.Hayward & A.Lowe (Eds.).
Applied aviation psychology: Achievement, change and challenge. Aldershot: Averbury Aviation. @p 468-474).
Holten m,F.F. & Russell, C.J. (1997). The relationship of anticipationto newcomer socialization processes and outcomes: A
pilot study. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 70, 163-172
Hormann, H.J., & Maschke, P. (1991). Exogenous and endogenous determinants of cockpit management attitudes. In RJensen
(Ed.), Proceedings of the Sixth Intemational Symposium on Aviation Psychology. Columbus: Ohio University Press.
@p 384-390).
Hormann, H.J., Manzey, D., Maschke, P., & Pecena, Y. (1997). Behavior oriented assessment of interpersonal skiUs in pilot
selection: Concepts, methods and empirical findings. In RJensen & L.Rakovan (Eds.),Proceedings of the Ninth
International Symposium on Aviation Psychology, Columbus: Ohio State University.@p 1110-1115).
Hunter, D.R, & Burke, E.F. (1994). Predicting aircraft pilot-training success: A meta-analysis of published research.
International Journal ofAviation Psychology, 4,297-3 14.
Jones, S. (1997). Air tr&c control: A starting point. In RJensen & L. Rakovan (Eds.), Proceedings of the Ninth International
Aviation Psychology Symposium. Columbus: Ohio State University. (Pp 2 19-224).
KankiB.G., & Palmer, M.T. (1993). Communication and crew resource management. In E.L.Weiner, B.G.Kanki, & RL.
Helmreich (Eds.), Cockpit resource management. @p 99- 136). San Diego: Academic Press.

Page 30

http://commons.erau.edu/jaaer/vol9/iss1/7
DOI: 10.15394/JAAER.1999.1241

JAAER, Fall 1999

10

Monfries and Moore: Interpersonal Skills in Aviation: Applications and Development

Interpersonal Skills in Aviation

Karlins, M., Koh, F., McCully, L., & Chan, C.T. (1997). Expanding teamwork beyond the cockpit door: An integrative program
(OASIS) for pilots, cabin crew, station managersitrafiic and ground engineers. In RA. Telfer & P.J. Moore (Eds.)
Aviation training: Learners, instruction and organization. Aldershot: Averbury Aviation (pp 323-335).
Karp, D.A. (1996). Spealang of sadness. Oxford University Press: New York.
Lasch, C.(1982). The culture of narcissism. Great Britain: Abacus.
Leedom, D.K. (1991). Aircrew co-ordination for army helicopters: Research review. In RJensen (Ed.), Proceedings of the Sixth
International Synzposium on Aviation Psychology, Columbus: Ohio University Press. (pp 284-289).
M h u s s e n , M. (1996). Psychological measures as predictors of pilot performance: A meta-analysis. International Journal of
Aviation Psychology, 6, 1-20.
Maschke, P., Goeters, K.M., & Klamm, A. (1998). Job analysis of airline pilots: Results of a jobanalysis. Paper presented at the
Fourth Australian Aviation Psychology Symposium. Manly, Australia, March.
Maurino, D.E. (1997). CRM: Past, present and future. In RJensen & L. Rakovan (Eds.).Proceedings of the Ninth International
Symposium on Aviation Psychology. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio University Press. (Pp 547-549).
Menitt, A.C, & HeImreich, RL. (1995). Culture in the cockpit: A multi-airline study of pilot attitudes and values. In R Jensen &
L. Rakovan (Eds.). Proceedings of the Eighthlnternational Symposium on Aviation Psychology, Columbus: Ohio
University Press. (Pp. 676-68 1).
Monfiies, M.M. & Moore, P.J. (1996). Human resource management: An interpersonal perspective. In B.Hayward & A. Lowe
(Eds.).Applied aviation psychology: Achievement, change and challenge, (Pp 361-369). Aldershot: Avebury Aviation.
Modiies, M.M. & Moore, P.J. (1998). Pilot selection procedures: A case for individual Merences in applicant groups. Paper
presented at the Fourth Australian Aviation Psychology Symposium, Manly, March.
Moore, P.J. (1994). Metacognitive processing of diagrams, maps and graphs. Learning and instruction, 3,215-226.
Moore, P.J. & Monfiies, M.M. (1997). Interpersonal skills in airline pilot selection. Paper presented at the Industrial and
Organizational Psychology Conference, Melbourne, Australia, June.
Moore, P.J. & Telfkr, R.A. (1997). Learning for new technologies. In RA.Telfer & P.J.Moore (Eds.), Aviation training:
Learners, instnrction and organization. Aldershot: Averbury Aviation @p. 87-96).
Mouloua, M., & Parasuraman, R (1994). Human pei$onnance in automated systems: Current research and trench. Hillsdale:
Erlbaum.
Muir, H., 62 Cobbett, A. (1996). Flight attendant behavior in emergency evacuations. In B.Hayward & A.Lowe (Eds.). Applied
aviation psychology: Achievement, change and challenge. Aldershot: Avebury Aviation.@p. 81-88).
Naef, W. (1997). Joint training and the "real st&''. In RA. Telfer & P.J.Moore (Eds.), Aviation training: Learners, instruction
and organization. Aldershot: Averbury Aviation (pp. 128-141).
Nagel, D.C. (1988). Human error in aviation operations. In E.L.Weiner & D.C.Nage1 (Eds.), Human factors in aviation. @p.
263-303). New York: Academic Press.
National Transportation Safety Board (1992). Special investigation report: Flight attendant training andpei$omance during
emergency situations. (NTSB/SIR- 92/02j. Washington, DC.
Orasanu, J. & Fischer, V. (1991). Information transfer and shared mental models for decision making. In RJensen (Ed.),
Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium on Aviation Psychology. Columbus: Ohio University Press, @p.
272-277).
Pian, C., Kokorian, A., & Burke, E. (1997). Defining the critical aptitudes for attack helicopter crews. In RJensen & L.Rakovan
(Eds.), Proceedings of the Ninth International Symposium on Aviation Psychology. Columbus: Ohio State University
(pp. 1330-1334).
Predmore, S.C., Mancuso, V., & Johnson, T. On the job training of CRM principles on the ramp: One airline's early experiences.
In RJensen & L. Rakovan (Eds.), Proceedings of theNinth International Symposium on Aviation Psychology.
Columbus: Ohio State University @p. 918-92 1).
Prince,C, & Salas, E. (1997). What do we train when we train CRM? (And how do we know we have trained it?) In RJensen &

JAAER, Fall 1999

Published by ERAU Scholarly Commons, 1999

Page 3 I

11

Journal of Aviation/Aerospace Education & Research, Vol. 9, No. 1 [1999], Art. 7

Interpersonal Skills in Aviation

L. Rakovan (Eds.),Proceedings of the Ninth International Symposium on Aviation Psychology. Columbus: Ohio State
University bp.59 1-596).
Proske, S., Foese, B., & Schiewe, A. (1997). Development and implementation of a CRM course for cabin: An approach of
integrating regulations; scientific findings and the customers needs and objectives. In R. Jensen & L. Rakovan (Eds.),
Proceedings of the Ninth International Symposium on Aviation Psychology. Columbus: Ohio State University
@p. 597-602).
Ramsay, S., Gallois, C. & Callan, V.J. (1997). Social rules and attributions in the personnel selection i n t e ~ e w-Journal
.
of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 70,189-203.
Reason, J. (1997). Reducing the impact of human error on the world-wide aviation system. In R Jensen 62 L. Rakovan (Eds.).
Proceedings of the Ninth International Symposium on Aviation Psychology, Columbus: Ohio State University @p.
922-927).
Redding, RE., & Seamster, T.L.(1994). Cognitive Task Analysis in air tr&c control and aviation crew training. In N. Johnston,
N. McDonald, & RFuller (Eds.). Aviation psychology in practice Aldershot: Averbury Technical. @p. 190-222)
Rosene, L. R. (1997). Team personality. American Psychological Association Monitor September @p. 5)
Schiewe, A., & Moore, P.J. (1997). Individual Merences and CRM training. In RA. Telfer & P.J. Moore (Eds.),Aviation
training: Learners, instruction and organization. Aldershot: Avebuy Aviation @p.67-77).
Schroeder, D., Broach, D., & Fanner, W. (1997). Cment FAA controller workforce demographics,future requirements and
research questions. In R.Jensen & L.Rakovan (Eds.), Proceedings of the Ninth International Symposium on Aviation
Psychology. Columbus: Ohio State University @p. 135-141).
Segal, L.D. (1994). Actions speak louder than words: How pilots use non-verbal information for crew communication. In
Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 38th AnnualMeeting, Nashville, October @p. 21-25).
Shappell, S.C., & Weigmann, D.A. (1997). Why would an experienced aviator fly a perfectly good aircraftinto the ground? In
RJensen & L. Rakovan (Eds.). Proceedings of the NinthIntemational Symposium on Aviation Psychology, Columbus,
Ohio, ApriL @p. 26-32).
Smith-Jentsch,K.A., Zeiseg, RL., Cannon-Bowers, J., & Salas, E. (1997). Defining and training tower cab teamwork. In
RJensen & L.Rakovan (Eds.), Proceedings of the Ninth International Symposium on Aviation Psychology. Columbus:
Ohio State University @p. 20 1-206).
Taylor, J.C., Robertson, M.M., Peck, R, & Stelly, J.W. (1993). Validating the impact of maintenance CRM training. In RJensen
(Ed.), Proceedings of the Seventh International Symposium on Aviation psycho log^. Columbus: Ohio University
Press. @p.538-542).
Telfer, RA. & Moore, P.J. (1997).Aviation training: Learners, instruction, and organization. Aldershot: Avebury Aviation.
Tyler, B. (1992). Sgles and attitudes suwey and response indicator (Supplementaryinterpretation guide). London: Miller &
Tyler.
Weiner$.L., Kanki, B.G., & Helmreich, R.L. (1993). Cockpit resource management. San Diego: Academic Press.
Weiner, E.L., & Nagel, D.C. (1988). Human factors in aviation. New York: Academic Press
Westrum, R. (1995) Organizationaldynamics and safety. In N. McDonald, N. Johnston & R. Fuller (Eds.) ,Applications of
Psychology to the Aviation System: Aldershot: Avebury Aviation @p. 75-80.)

Page 32

http://commons.erau.edu/jaaer/vol9/iss1/7
DOI: 10.15394/JAAER.1999.1241

JAAER, Fall 1999

12