By Skies Magazine | August 12, 2011 Estimated reading time 4 minutes, 51 seconds.
Communication is the dynamic process of transmitting, receiving and interpreting messages. In the context of aviation technical dispatch these messages are usually spoken or written. Making assumptions about unspoken or unwritten messages is a dangerous habit which can introduce risk where airworthiness is concerned.
Traditionally, there has always been room for improvement when it comes to communication between pilots and maintenance personnel. Poor communication causes delays and frustration on both sides. In fact, these two groups have often had a hard time merging their two distinct worlds together where it really counts, in the realm of technical dispatch. Yet both pilots and AMEs share responsibility for the airworthiness of an aircraft, so it only makes sense to bridge the communication gap. The solution starts with the establishment of clear company expectations, knowledge of documented processes and related training, and a positive attitude.
Much of what needs to be communicated is transmitted through log entries. These entries form the documented history of the aircraft. Maintenance inspection entries should highlight any deferrals or special dispatch requirements resulting from the inspection as this becomes part of the briefing for the next flight crew. The aircraft journey log or defect log is a tool that we use to communicate the status of the aircraft to all involved.
Flight crews using handwritten or computer-generated forms to report defects must communicate enough detail to focus the troubleshooting process closer to the core of the problem. Sometimes a verbal description of a defect is necessary to support what has been entered in the log. The maintenance response must then address the core of the problem as well as any other affected work. It unlikely that maintenance will discuss the resolution with various crew members so their entry needs to be very self-explanatory. A common source of friction between pilots and mechanics surrounds recurring defects that are not described with sufficient detail from the cockpit or hangar perspective. Sloppy communication will often lead to generalizations of incompetency and relationships degenerate from there.
Negative stereotypical images of pilots or mechanics must be abandoned. In most cases these images were learned and not experienced. There is little patience these days for outdated thinking when aircraft and crew safety are at stake. Communication barriers certainly exist between these two camps in the form of personality types, work environment and self-presentation. This is why lack of communication so often tops the list of human factors training in aviation. We need to simply talk to each other to gain a primary understanding of the other expectations.
Departmental responsibilities must also be identified through in-house training programs where both camps participate in the policy discussion. Representation from both sides can go a long way towards building a mutual respect for the overall process. A company value system built upon this increased level of trust encourages further communication as perceived barriers are removed.
While there have been longstanding communication challenges between pilots and mechanics, the need for improved teamwork is no less critical when we include dispatchers, ground crews, owners and even customers in the equation. Mastering effective communication is an ongoing process. Finding effective ways to get the message across should be as relevant as the message itself, in order for the information to be received and actioned as intended.
Pilots and mechanics share the responsibility of communication and it is essential for the ultimate goal of safe flight. The need for good communication tools also impacts everyone involved and corporate safety management initiatives must work towards closing the gap between departments. Although their working environments will always be different, corporate values must be shared by pilots and mechanics before being extended to those they serve.
Stuart McAulay has been in the aircraft maintenance industry for 25 years. Most of his time has been spent in the flight training environment as a Technician, Quality Manager and Director of Maintenance. Stuart also works closely with the AME Association of Ontario and has experience with the development of maintenance QA programs and company manuals. He is currently the Maintenance Manager with the Brantford Flying Club and enjoys writing on various topics within general aviation.
