evaluation of attitudes of filipino pilots

7/30/2019 Evaluation of Attitudes of Filipino Pilots

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evaluation-of-attitudes-of-filipino-pilots 1/15

An Evaluation of CRM Attitudesof Filipino Pilots in Four Philippine

Aviation Companies

Rosemary R. Seva Department of Industrial Engineering

De La Salle University, Philippines

Alma Maria Jennifer A. Gutierrez Department of Industrial Engineering


Henry Been-Lirn Duh

School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Nanyang Technological University, Singapore

Jazmin Chong Department of Industrial Engineering


This study evaluated the attitudes and perception of pilots in the Philippine avia-

tion industry. The evaluation was made in terms of understanding crew resource

management (CRM) concepts and adoption of CRM attitudes by the pilots.

Eighty-eight pilots from different companies participated in this study. Results

showed that attitudes of Filipino pilots strongly adhered to CRM principles. This

may be attributed to strong management support for CRM practice and national

culture. The Filipino culture of pakikisama and pakikibagay reinforced CRM

teachings on teamwork and crew coordination. However, the large power gap in

the Filipino culture seems to hinder open communication with superiors. The

length of CRM training and its latency did not prove to be significant determinants

of CRM-related attitudes.

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AVIATION PSYCHOLOGY, 17 (3), 285–298Copyright © 2007, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.



THE PHILIPPINE AVIATION INDUSTRY

The Philippine commercial aviation industry was pioneered by the flagship carrierPhilippine Airlines (PAL) and has existed for more than 50 years. PAL enjoyed a

monopoly for many years until the airline industry was deregulated in 1995, pav-

ing the way for the entry of other airline companies (DOLE, 2006). At present

there are five domestic airline companies operating in the Philippines: PAL, Air

Philippines, Cebu Pacific, Southeast Asian Airline (SEAIR), and Asian Spirit. The

largest share of the market is held by PAL, which flies international and domestic

routes followed by Cebu Pacific, which has a smaller scale operation.

The air transport industry is strictly regulated by the Air Transportation Office

(ATO) of the Philippines. This office is in charge of implementing policies in civilaviation and ensuring that safety procedures are followed (DOTC, 2003). The

companies’desire to be at par with other airline companies in the world contributes

to the high standard of safety observed in the industry. Hence, they also refer to

policies and procedures imposed by other organizations such as the U.S. Fed-

eral Aviation Administration (FAA) and the European Aviation Safety Agency

(EASA) of the European Union (DOLE, 2006).

CREW RESOURCE MANAGEMENT IMPLEMENTATION

In an effort to enhance safety and improve the efficiency of flight operations, the

cockpit resource management program was introduced in the early 1980s (Fisher

& Phillips, 2000; Helmreich & Foushee, 1993). The name of the program was later

changed to crew resource management (CRM) which was conceived because of

the cognizance that 60 to 80% of aviation incidents and accidents can be attributed

to human error brought about by the lack of coordination among team members in

the cockpit (Fisher & Phillips, 2000; Salas et al., 1999). Salas et al. (1999) defined

CRM as the application of well-tested training methodologies aimed at improvingteamwork in the cockpit. The content and the manner in which the course was de-

livered had evolved several times since it was first introduced (Helmreich, Merritt,

& Wilhelm, 1999). Early CRM curriculum focused on knowledge and attitudes in

the cockpit whereas recent CRM courses evolved to include organizational cul-

tures and group and individual factors. The CRM concept was also extended to

other operational areas aside from the cockpit (Helmreich & Foushee, 1993).

Ninety-six percent of airlines affiliated with International Air Transport Asso-

ciation (IATA) conduct CRM courses for their crew members and about 60% have

been running the program for more than 5 years (O’Leary, 2002). Almost all theairlines in the world have this program and this includes the commercial aviation

286 SEVA, GUTIERREZ, DUH, CHONG



CULTURAL INFLUENCES ON CRM ATTITUDES

Culture is one factor that significantly influences the behavior of pilots in the cock -pit (Jing, Lu, Yong, & Wang, 2002). However, there are three cultures that shape

their attitudes, namely, national, professional, and organizational culture (Helm-

reich, 1999). National culture refers to the attributes such as behaviors and beliefs

that make a person distinct from people belonging to a different nation. Profes-

sional culture is related to the practice of a certain profession. Organizational cul-

ture is associated with membership in certain groups. These three cultures all in-

fluence the behavior of pilots in the cockpit. Although the national culture has the

strongest influence because it has surrounded the individual for quite a long time,

the other two cultures are equally important in shaping a pilot’s behavior (Helm-reich, 1999).

Cultures can be described according to the dimensions of culture proposed by

Hofstede (1980). Merritt and Helmreich (1996) discovered that pilots’ attitudes,

especially in terms of command and communication, were significantly related to

these dimensions of culture. Hofstede (1980) enumerated four dimensions of cul-

ture: power distance (PD), uncertainty avoidance (UAI), individualism (IDV), and

masculinity (MAS). The values of these dimensions give cultures their unique

characteristics. High PD refers to a strong belief and acceptance of unequal power

distribution. High UAI is associated with strong adherence to rules and regula-tions, and high IDV indicates preference for individual rather than group decision

making. High MAS is related to a strong belief in the distinct social roles of each

gender (Johnston, 1993).

The understanding of the cultures surrounding a pilot and the characteristics of

these cultures based on the dimensions proposed by Hofstede (1980) had been

used by researchers to design CRM programs that focus on error management.

Earlier applications of CRM showed that if applied mindlessly to non-Western pi-

lots, it lost some of its effectiveness (Helmreich, Wilhelm, Klinect, & Merritt,

2001).

CRM EVALUATION

Gregorich and Wilhelm (1993) suggested four domains in evaluating CRM train-

ing outcomes motivation, learning, change in mental attitudes among individual

students, and measures of crew behaviors in line-oriented flight training (LOFT).

This is a multifaceted approach that many researchers favored because of its thor-oughness (Salas et al., 1999). The change of attitude among individual students is

CRM ATTITUDES 287



Changes in a pilot’s attitudes may be measured by using questionnaires

that measure attitudes that are conceptually related to the objectives of CRM

training. Surveys like these give insights, to pilots’ perception of safety cultureand their acceptance of CRM concepts (Helmreich et al., 2001). The Cockpit

Management Attitudes Questionnaire (CMAQ) was specially developed by

Gregorich, Helmreich, and Wilhelm (1990) for this purpose. The questionnaire

has a stable and reliable three-factor structure: command responsibility, commu-

nication and coordination, and recognition of stressor effects. Pilots rate the de-

gree to which they agree to the 25 statements included in the questionnaire using

a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strong disagreement ) to 5 (strong agree-

ment ). The CMAQ, however, did not consider the effect of national and organi-

zational culture on cockpit behavior. Essentially, the Flight Management Atti-tudes Questionnaire (FMAQ) was developed to include 16 items about pilots’

values.

Although CRM had been integrated in pilot training for several years in all avia-

tion companies in the Philippines, no study had been done to describe the norms of

Filipino pilots in terms of CRM-related attitudes. This situation is not unique in the

Philippines, as few airlines evaluate transfer of CRM training on the job (Salas,

Rhodenizer, & Bowers, 2000).

The main objective of this study was to establish norms for CRM attitudes

among Filipino pilots and understand how length of training and training latencyinfluence the strength of these attitudes. The study focused on the pilots’ under-

standing of CRM concepts and adoption of CRM attitudes. The following hypoth-

eses were posited in the study:

H1: Company culture influences CRM attitudes of Filipino pilots.

CRM training aims to influence pilot attitudes. Company culture and orga-

nizational support, however, may also influence effective transfer of train-

ing (Wexley & Latham, 1991). This study aims to determine the trend of CRM attitudes per company and its relation with employees’ perceived

company culture.

H2: The length of CRM training reinforces CRM attitudes.

CRM training may vary from 1 to 5 days. This hypothesis aims to validate

whether number of training days is related to the strength of CRM

behavior.

H3: High latency of CRM training dampens CRM attitudes.

This hypothesis aims to validate if latency of training influences the strength

of CRM attitudes. The result may be used to justify the need to retrain pilotsin CRM at constant time intervals to refresh pilots’ knowledge on the topic




METHOD

Participants

A total of 88 experienced Filipino aircrews from four airline companies in the Phil-

ippines participated in the survey. All the participants were male, and most were

captains (40%) and first officers (41%). The rest were managers, check pilots, or

flight engineers. Eighty-two percent of the sample flew domestic routes and the

rest flew to international destinations. A majority of the participants (75%) were

trained in pilot school and the rest were trained in the military. The types of airline

operations of the companies surveyed are summarized in Table 1.

Questionnaire

Data were gathered using the Human Factors and Safety Culture Survey developed

by Lu et al. (2000). The questionnaire has three sections: CRM concept, CRM

commitment, and CRM skill. Each of the sections was subdivided into six subsec-

tions: communication, situational awareness, teamwork, workload management,

decision making, and culture. There were 96 items on the questionnaire that tack-

led employee attitudes, beliefs, and behavior such as stress understanding, com-

pany training, language skill problem, perceived safety record, and so on (Jing et

al., 2002). The detailed questionnaire can be found in Lu et al. (2000).

The questionnaire considered many variables in evaluating CRM attitudes that

included cultural factors such as culture barriers in training and power distance.

However, only variables that are free of those issues and relate directly to national

culture were analyzed in this study because all participants were Filipino pilots.

The effects of company culture, however, were included in the analysis consider-

ing that the samples came from four different airline companies. Only questions

pertaining to communication, teamwork, crew coordination, organizational cul-

ture, and personal attitude were analyzed in this study. Of the 96 items, only 18

were analyzed in the study. The questions that were subject to analysis are identi-

fied in Table 2.

CRM ATTITUDES 289

TABLE 1

Airline Operations of Companies Surveyed

Company Percentage of Participants Routes

A 33 International/domestic

B 17 International/domesticC 35 International/domestic

D 15 Domestic



Organizational culture refers to the company’s encouragement of CRM at-

titudes and training their employees on the different aspects of CRM. Communi-

cation indicates a pilot’s general attitude toward interacting with superiors and

subordinates. Crew coordination corresponds to pilots’ behaviors in adjusting todifferences in work styles and knowledge. This includes willingness to understand


TABLE 2

Categorized Survey Questions

Organizational culture

1 My immediate superior participates in CRM.

2 My immediate superior supports CRM behavior.

3 I think my company has a long-term safety plan.

4 In our company’s training the training materials are accurate and up to

date

5 Overall, the training that I have received from my company has been

useful and valuable on my job.

6 Management will compromise safety concerns for profitability or any

other reason.

Communication

7 When my crew members object to what I do, I am willing to discuss it

with them.

8 If I have a problem with the actions of my crew members, I will tell

them so and attempt to resolve it.

9 Crew members should not question actions of the captain, except when

they threaten the safety of the flight.

10 When I am communicating with my superiors, I need to be careful how I

approach them.

11 When I am communicating with my crew members, I need to be careful

how I phrase things.

12 I am encouraged by my supervisors to report any operational problems Imay observe.

Crew coordination

13 Crew coordination requires crew members to consider the work styles of

other crew members.

14 It is important for me to be aware of the different backgrounds of my

crew members, in addition to their technical skills.

15 When I am flying with a crew member who I have previously flown

with, it is still important to conduct the preflight debriefing.

Personal attitude

16 I would like to spend more time to improve my communication skills.

17 On my job I faithfully follow the company’s standard operatingprocedures.

18 I will try to understand the work style or personality of my crew

members.



RESULTS

Data gathered from the study were analyzed as a whole and on a per-company ba-sis. An overall analysis was deemed necessary to give a general picture of the sta-

tus of pilots’ attitudes and perceptions on CRM-related issues. Relevant descrip-

tive statistics for each question are given in Table 3.

Descriptive statistics show that management supports the CRM program

through active participation and encouragement to adopt CRM behavior. The par-

ticipants also appreciated the value of training that they received from their compa-

nies. In addition, they had a good perception of their companies’ safety policies

CRM ATTITUDES 291

TABLE 3

Descriptive Statistics

Questions M SD

Organizational culture

My immediate superior participates in CRM. 4.30 0.74

My immediate superior supports CRM behavior. 4.35 0.68

I think my company has a long-term safety plan. 3.94 0.91

In our company’s training the training materials are accurate and up to date. 4.06 0.80

Overall, the training that I have received from my company has been useful andvaluable on my job.

4.38 0.64

Management will compromise safety concerns for profitability or any other reason. 2.30 1.22

Communication

When my crew members object to what I do, I am willing to discuss it with them. 4.12 0.87

If I have a problem with the actions of my crew members, I will tell them so and

attempt to resolve it.

3.88 0.91

Crew members should not question actions of the captain, except when they

threaten the safety of the flight.

3.47 1.38

When I am communicating with my superiors, I need to be careful how I

approach them.

3.19 1.15

When I am communicating with my crew members, I need to be careful how Iphrase things.

3.24 1.12

I am encouraged by my supervisors to report any operational problems I may

observe.

4.21 0.82

Crew coordination

Crew coordination requires crew members to consider the work styles of other

crew members.

4.17 0.97

It is important for me to be aware of the different backgrounds of my crew

members, in addition to their technical skills.

4.03 0.90

When I am flying with a crew member who I have previously flown with, it is

still important to conduct the preflight debriefing.

4.80 0.40

Personal attitudeI would like to spend more time to improve my communication skills. 3.94 0.89

O j b I f ithf ll f ll th ’ t d d ti d 4 67 0 52



and programs. There was homogeneity in responses indicated by low standard de-

viations computed for Questions 3, 4, and 5. It was apparent from the results that

the participants practiced healthy communication by reporting identified problemswith superiors and discussing any disagreements with the crew (Questions 7 and

8). However, they did not feel strongly about the need to be careful when commu-

nicating ideas with superiors or crew members (Questions 9 and 10).

The participants conduct preflight debriefing and follow standard operating

procedure when flying. The consistency of this practice may be gleaned from the

low standard deviations computed for Questions 15 and 17. Generally, the partici-

pants showed flexibility in adjusting to the work styles of crew members and un-

derstanding their technical backgrounds as can be seen by the high ratings (greater

than 4) obtained from Questions 13 and 18.Collectively, it can be said that the participants have assimilated CRM teachings

in the area of crew coordination. All items under crew coordination garnered rat-

ings greater than 4, especially conducting preflight debriefing (Question 15) and

considering the work styles of other crew members (Question 13). However, there

is an obvious cautiousness in dealing with superiors as most respondents thought

that captains’ actions must not be questioned unless faced with a threat (Question

9) and that superiors must be approached carefully (Question 10).

One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to identify any signifi-

cant differences in organizational culture among the four companies in the study.The results in Table 4 show that there were no considerable differences in CRM

participation by superiors (Question 1). However, considerable difference was ob-

served in management’s attitude toward safety concerns (Question 6). Post-hoc

analysis of data using Dunnet’s test showed significant difference in the means of

Companies A and C ( p < .05) and Companies B and C ( p < .05) for Question 6.

Dunnett’s test was used for its appropriateness in small sample sizes per group and

the violation of the equality of variance assumption (Maxwell & Delaney, 2004). It

can be observed that the minimum value computed was 4.0 for CRM participation

by superiors, indicating that all companies have strong commitment to CRM. Rel-atively, Company C had the best results in terms of CRM and safety commitment.

The CRM attitudes of pilots from the four companies studied also showed sig-

nificant differences (see Table 5). Pilots from Companies B and D believed in the

inscrutable authority of the captain compared to pilots from Companies A and C.


TABLE 4

Mean Ratings of Organizational Culture Questions by Aviation Company

Questions A B C D Significance

My immediate superior participates in CRM. 4.29 4.00 4.59 4.07 .04

Management ill compromise safet concerns 2 67 2 86 1 66 2 36 00



Pilots from Companies A and C generally agreed that crew members should not

question the actions of the captain except when flight safety was threatened, as

manifested by mean ratings of 4 or higher for Question 9. Pilots from Companies

A and C also showed flexibility in dealing with crew members in terms of under-

standing their work styles and personalities.

It can be observed from Table 5 that pilots from Companies A and C adhered to

CRM attitudes more than Companies B and D. Post-hoc analysis using Dunnett’s

test revealed that significant mean differences can only be observed between com-panies A and D, Band C, and C and D in terms of relevant CRM attitudes, as can be

seen in Table 6.

Data obtained from the survey were also analyzed to determine how the length

of CRM training and training latency influence CRM attitudes across all compa-

nies. Tables 7 and 8 show the profile of CRM training days and training latency of

pilots by aviation company. It can be seen from Table 7 that most pilots (75%) took

their last CRM training 1 or 2 years ago and the majority (65%) took the course for

2 to 3 days. ANOVA results showed no significant results in any of the 18 CRM at-

CRM ATTITUDES 293

TABLE 5

Mean Ratings of Communication and Crew Coordination Questions

by Aviation Company

Questions A B C D Significance

Crew members should not question actions of the

captain, except when they threaten the safety of

the flight.

3.57 4.00 2.77 4.21 .00

Crew coordination requires crew members to

consider the work styles of other crew members.

4.50 3.80 4.35 3.50 .00

I will try to understand the work style or

personality of my crew members.

4.07 3.47 4.27 3.85 .01

TABLE 6

Dunnett’s Test of Mean Difference

Mean Difference

Questions A–D B–C C–D

Crew members should not question actions of the captain,

except when they threaten the safety of the flight.

— 1.23* –1.44*

Crew coordination requires crew members to consider the

work styles of other crew members.

1.0* — 0.85*

strightI will try to understand the work style or

personality of my crew members

— –0.80* —



titudes analyzed. Hence, it can be concluded that the number of training days and

training interval were notvery significant in strengthening CRM attitudes of pilots.

DISCUSSION

Pilots from different airlin e companies in the Philippines assimilated and prac-

ticed CRM principles based on the results of the survey. The pilots had good per-

ception of their companies’ CRM efforts and generally trust that their companies

have a long-term safety plan. It was apparent that the participants were aware of

their companies’ commitment to CRM principles from supervisor support, a cru-

cial factor in successful transfer of training (Baldwin & Ford, 1988). The supervi-

sor’s attitude conveys the company’s safety culture and is integral in shaping the

behavior of subordinates. Helmreich (1999) identified the organization as an en-

vironment where different cultures operate (i.e., national and professional). How-ever, the organizational culture has a strong influence on promoting a safety


TABLE 7

Training Latency Profile by Aviation Company

Training Latency (Years)

Company 1 2 3 4 >5 Total

A 17% 4% 0% 3% 5% 28%

B 14% 1% 0% 0% 1% 17%

C 15% 6% 4% 5% 6% 37%

D 6% 12% 0% 0% 0% 18%

Total 53% 23% 4% 8% 13% 100%

TABLE 8

CRM Training Days Profile by Aviation Company

Length of CRM Training (Days)

Company 1 2 3 4 5 >6 Total

A 2% 7% 19% 0% 2% 1% 32%

B 8% 6% 1% 1% 0% 0% 17%

C 12% 10% 8% 1% 0% 4% 35%

D 1% 11% 4% 0% 1% 0% 17%

Total 24% 33% 32% 2% 4% 5% 100%



the values they profess and show their commitment because employees are more

willing to accept changes if management shows sincerity.

The participants showed willingness to discuss problems with crew membersand reported problems to their supervisors. In relation to this, they also expressed

willingness to consider work styles of other crew members and their backgrounds.

This may be an offshoot of CRM training and an established safety culture within

the company. Ninety-six percent of respondents underwent CRM training and they

generally disagreed that their companies compromise safety concerns for profit-

ability. However, they did not show strong accord in being extra careful when com-

municating with superiors or crew members. Such an attitude may stem from the

casual communication environment to which Filipinos are accustomed. Because

they speak the same language and share the same culture, communication was notperceived as a problem.

Although the manner of communication with superiors and other crew mem-

bers was not a cause of concern among the participants, the authority of the captain

was viewed to be unquestionable. Many of the behaviors exhibited by the pilots in

this study can be explained by the presence of a strong national culture that influ-

enced behavior in the cockpit. People from higher PD cultures such as Filipinos,

Taiwanese, and Indians are more willing to accept authority and are afraid to ques-

tion superiors out of respect for fear of punishment. The results of this study sup-

port earlier studies conducted by Helmreich and Merritt (1980). Both studiesplaced the Philippines among nations with high PD, although Helmreich and Mer-

ritt’s (1998) study only included pilots.

The participants also followed standard operating procedures strictly and con-

ducted preflight debriefing even with crew members they have flown with in the

past as manifested by the high rating in Questions 15 and 17. This is a good safety

culture in terms of error prevention that is partly influenced by national culture.

Aside from having high PD, the Filipino culture is also characterized as high in

UAI, which explains the pilots’ strong adherence to rules and regulations (Helm-

reich & Merritt, 1998; Johnston, 1993).Pakikisama (being united with the group) and pakikibagay (conformity) are

two Filipino values that explain the participants’ willingness to adjust to the work

styles and personalities of other crew members (Enriquez, 1995). The Filipino cul-

ture is collectivist in nature, where group membership entails moral and personal

commitment (Johnston, 1993). The cultural values of conformity and unity make it

easy for them to assimilate the concept of teamwork and communication in the

cockpit because they have been used to it in society (Helmreich et al., 1999).

The level of commitment to CRM was different for the four companies studied.

The management of Companies A and C were more participative in CRM andwere perceived as safety rather than profit oriented by the participants. Organiza-

CRM ATTITUDES 295



CRM attitudes compared to the others. They were more willing to understand the

work styles and personalities of their crew members as manifested by the higher

mean values for Questions 13 and 18. They also expressed a weak belief in the irre-futable authority of the captain. The differences in the profiles of the companies

may explain the variability in organizational culture. Companies A and C are both

well established in the Philippine aviation industry. They have earned more profits

compared to the other two companies and may feel compelled to put their safety

standards at par with the other companies in the world. Because the two companies

are larger in terms of manpower, they employ pilots from other countries whose at-

titudes may influence the local pilots with whom they work. Essentially, the results

confirm that strong commitment to CRM by the organization can somehow mani-

fest in pilots’ attitudes.Most participants had CRM training for 2 (33%) or 3 (32%) days. The survey

did not specify if these are customized CRM training sessions. However, there

was no significant relation observed between the length of CRM training and

CRM attitudes in this study. The knowledge of CRM principles may be imparted

effectively within 2 or 3 days of CRM training. The insignificant result of train-

ing days to discriminate pilots’ CRM attitudes indicates that there are more sa-

lient factors that affect attitude, which in this study proved to be organizational

culture.

Similarly, the latency of CRM training did not influence CRM attitudes. Thismay be explained by the fact that a majority (53%) of the participants had their

last CRM training 1 year before, so the variation observed for the whole sample

was small. Essentially the knowledge is still fresh in the memory and acceptance

of the principles is still strong. Therefore, it is difficult to say if training latency

is indeed an important variable that affects pilots’ attitudes. In Helmreich and

Taggart’s (1995) study the strength of CRM acceptance and attitudes tended to

weaken with time. They attributed this to lack of management support and the

broad training goals of CRM that tried to cater to all crew members, including

flight attendants.One significant limitation of this study is the small sample size. The sample

constituted less than 10% of all registered pilots in the Philippines and may not ad-

equately represent the population. Because pilots participated on a voluntary basis

it is also possible that only those who have good attitudes about CRM were sam-

pled. It is reasonable to think that pilots who have strong feelings against CRM did

not feel obliged to respond to the survey.

The results of this study may be used by companies to justify the benefits of

CRM training programs from the perspective of improving pilots’ attitudes toward

communication, crew coordination, and personal attitude that impacts flight safetyand efficiency of operations. The results further illuminate the role of management




CONCLUSION

Attitudes of Filipino pilots strongly adhered to CRM principles. This positive at-titude may be attributed to strong management support for CRM practice and

national culture. The Filipino culture of pakikisama and pakikibagay reinforced

CRM teachings on teamwork and crew coordination. However, the high PD in

the Filipino culture also hindered open communication with superiors. The

length of CRM training and its latency did not prove to be significant determi-

nants of CRM attitudes. Organizational culture had a considerable influence in

pilots’ attitudes.

The outcome of this research elucidates the consequences of management atti-

tude for the successful implementation of a safety program. Training programsmay impart knowledge but obvious organizational support has a greater impact in

changing employees’ attitudes. Organizations must practice what they preach to

give integrity to their safety programs.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This research was partly funded by the University Research and Coordination Of-

fice of De La Salle University. We also acknowledge Professor Pong-Jeu Lu for

letting us use the Human Factors and Safety Culture Survey. Lastly, we thank

Captain Ismael Galisim for assisting us in distributing the survey questionnaires to

the participants.

REFERENCES

Baldwin, T. T., & Ford, J. K. (1988). Transfer of training: A review and directions for future research.

Personnel Psychology, 44, 51–65.

DOLE. (2006). The air transport industry: Think paper. Retrieved May 23, 2006, from http://

www.dole.gov.ph/nationalsummit/PS%20-%20Aviation%20Industry.pdf

DOTC. (2003). Sectoral and attached agencies. Retrieved May 22, 2006, from http://www.dotc.gov/

ph/actioncenter/agency/airtransport.htm

Enriquez, V. (1995). Sikolohiyang Pilipino: Perspektibo at Direksiyon. In R. Pe-Pua (Ed.), Filipino

Psychology: Perspective and Direction: Theory, Method, and Use (pp. 5–21). Quezon City, Philip-

pines: University of the Philippines Press.

Fisher, J., & Phillips, E. (2000). Does crew resource management work? Air Medical Journal, 19(4),

137–139.

Gregorich, S. E., Helmreich, R. L., & Wilhelm, J. A. (1990). The structure of cockpit management atti-tudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 682–690.

Gregorich, S. E., & Wilhelm, J. A. (1993). Crew resource management training assessment. In E. L.

CRM ATTITUDES 297



Helmreich, R. L. (1999). Building safety on the three cultures of aviation. In Proceedings of the IATA

Human Factors Seminar (pp. 39–43). Bangkok, Thailand.

Helmreich, R. L., & Foushee, H. C. (1993). Why crew resource management? Empirical and theoreti-

cal bases of human factors training in aviation. In E. L. Wiener, R. L. Helmreich, & B. G. Kanki

(Eds.), Cockpit resource management (p. 3–45). San Diego, CA: Academic.

Helmreich, R. L., & Merritt, A. C. (1998). Culture at work: National, organizational, and professional

influences. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.

Helmreich, R. L., Merritt, A. C., & Wilhelm, J. A. (1999). The evolution of crew resource management

training in commercial aviation. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 9, 19–32.

Helmreich, R. L., & Taggart, W. R. (1995). CRM: Where are we today? In Proceedings of the CRM In-

dustry Update Workshop. Seattle, WA.

Helmreich, R. L., Wilhelm, J. A., Klinect, J. R., & Merritt, A. C. (2001). Culture, error and crew re-

source management. In E. Salas, C. A. Bowers, R. L. Helmreich, J. A. Wilhelm, J. R. Klinect, &

A. C. Merritt (Eds.), Improving teamwork in organizations (pp. 305–331). Mahwah, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum Associates, Inc.

Hofstede,G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly

Hills, CA: Sage.

Jing, H. S., Lu, P. J., Yong, K., & Wang, H. C. (2002). The dragon in the cockpit: the faces of Chinese

authoritarianism. Human Factors and Aerospace Safety, 2, 257–275.

Johnston, N. (1993). CRM: Cross-cultural perspectives. In E. L. Wiener, B. G. Kanki, & R. L.

Helmreich (Eds.), Cockpit resource management (pp. 367–398). San Diego, CA: Academic.

Lu, P. J., Wang, S. E., Co, H. J., Jing, H. S., Yuan, S. F., & Dai, M. (2000). Cooperate resource manage-

ment and corporate culture research report. Taiwan: Aviation Safety Council.

Maxwell, S. E., & Delaney, H. D. (2004). Designing experiments and analyzing data. Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Merritt, A. C., & Helmreich, R. L. (1996). Human factors on the flight deck: The influence of national

culture. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 27 , 5–24.

O’Leary, M. (2002). The British Airways human factors reporting programme. Reliability Engineering

and System Safety, 75, 245–255.

Salas, E., Prince, C., Bowers, C. A., Stout, R. J., Oser, R. L., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (1999). A meth-

odology for enhancing crew resource management training. Human Factors, 41, 161–172.

Salas, E., Rhodenizer, L., & Bowers, C. A. (2000). The design and delivery of crew resource manage-

ment training: exploiting available resources. Human Factors, 42.

Wexley, K., & Latham, G. (1991). Developing and training human resources in organizations. New

York: HarperCollins.

Manuscript First Received: June 2006


evaluation of attitudes of filipino pilots

Documents