How often do you make a decision based on an assumption?  You “paint with a broad stroke” instead of taking the time to investigate with an open mind?

If you were the recipient of an unfair decision, how would you feel?  Too often we are immersed in our own world and not realizing that the “others” we are dealing with have thoughts, feelings and motivations just like we do.

Communication is difficult enough without having to think through and explain absolutely everything we say.  In certain professions, however, vague communications can be disastrous or even deadly.  The solutions to many of our mistakes, or our friction, is quite simple — if you are unsure, ask questions and verify your information.

I ran across this recently in an aviation forum .. the names have been changed to protect the innocent and the guilty!

A pilot left the airport in Class B airspace with radar following.  He requested 12,500′.  He was cleared to climb to 4500′ and stay on his course.  He complied and continued over the airport.  ATC tells him “to resume own navigation”.  So he turns to his orignally stated direction and climbs to 12,500′.  WRONG!  ATC promptly and angrily questioned the pilot’s actions.  The pilot responded that he was doing what ATC told him to do. Or what he thought he heard ATC tell him.

He was in violation for “an unauthorized climb through Class B airspace.”

In your opinion, was the pilot mistaken?  Was the pilot to blame, or ATC?

It seems “resume own navigation” is the set of ambiguous words here.  Does ‘navigation’ include both vertical and horizontal?  And are both the pilots and ATC using the same definition?  Would restating the approved navigation by ATC have taken too long?

“Resume own navigation” sounds like the pilot is to continue with his intended, pre-stated path.  That’s what is sounds like to me.

It wasn’t what ATC said, it’s what the pilot thought he heard.

Captainitis, the phenomenon that occurs when subordinates do not speak up to “the person in charge”, can rear its ugly head in many ways.

In February 1980, a United Airlines career second officer [based on his lower than desired level of pilot proficiency], became the first officer!  The captain, a friendly grandfather-type figure, did not challenge the decision when the first officer announced that he and the second officer would be changing positions. 

Even though the cockpit recordings contained inferences of uncomfortableness, encouragement and helpful cues, the captain did not acknowledge the tension these officers were feeling.  Unfortunately, this story ends with a crash and no survivors.

Both officers wanted to please the captain.  The original second officer [who became the first officer] wanted to please his ’superior’, and did not communicate his uneasiness in becoming the first officer.  The captain wanted to please his first and second officers, and to build the confidence in the second officer. 

Back in those days, CRM – crew resource management – was not prevalent and though of very highly.  Senior Captains considered CRM – essentially a form of team building – for sissies and psycho-babble.  They could not understand why they had to be ‘part of the team’ and how that would promote safety.

CRM back then is very much like EI – Emotional Intelligence – today.  What benefits will come from understanding our own emotional triggers, and understanding what other people are experiencing?  Not just physically – sweaty palms, squirming – but linking these actions to what they are emotionally experiencing.    Empathy and compassion may be the two most difficult emotions for leaders to show. 

What would have happened if the second officer spoke up with his true feelings? If the captain would have spoken up and stopped the officers from swapping?

It wan’t what the officers said, it’s what the others thought they heard.

I’ve been doing research on the aviation accident that happened in Tenerife in the Canary Islands, Spain in 1977. This is an absolutely fascinating study in looking at how each element contributed to the fiery crash.

A chain of events is a sequence of events that, occurring consecutively, caused an accident. Had only one or two of these events happened, the accident may not have happened.

It all began with a bomb explosion in the Las Palmas terminal, diverting all flights to Tenerife. The KLM captain opted to let his passengers off the aircraft. Heavy fog rolled in. When it rolled back out, briefly, passengers were not quick to reboard.

From a communications perspective, the dialogue between the air traffic controllers, the KLM pilot, and the Pan Am pilot is a comedy of errors. When people from two aircraft talk on the radio at the same time, squelching occurs. This happened at a critical time when Pam Am stated they were still taxiing down the runway.

We will never know exactly what was rolling through the Captain’s mind … possibly expiring crew duty times, possibly the monies the airline would have to spend if the flight stayed overnight, perhaps “we’ve come this far we need to complete the task” …. was it loss avoidance or a tightly-held commitment?

As in all our lives, it isn’t what you said, it’s what they think they heard.

In my leadership and communications seminars, we talk about ambiguous words …. words like ‘always’ , ‘almost always’, ‘rarely’ and ‘never’.  The meaning of these words may seem clear to you…and yet you would be surprised at the responses. 

According to my research with flight departments, ‘always’ happens between 50% and 100% of the time. ‘Almost always’ happens 90% – 95% of the time. In other words, if they heard ‘the sun always rises in the east’, according to at least one person, half the time the sun would NOT rise in the east! Another example, perhaps more realistic: ‘I always leave my house at least 30 minutes early when I have a trip in the morning.’ Half the time, they leave less than 30 minutes early?

Those people that are more meticulous, more detail-oriented, will be more precise in their definition of their interpretation of their words.  Those that are more visionary, more global-speaking, are more likely to be less concise in their meanings.

So what does this mean to you?  Understanding the communication style of the person you’re talking with can help clear up any ambiguities from the beginning, instead of waiting until it’s nearly too late. 

Remember,  it’s not “always”what you said, it’s what they think they heard!

I have just returned from NYC and an exciting conference … Air Carriers Purchasing Conference. The primary purpose of this organization is to connect airlines and ’suppliers’ — those of us that want to do business with suppliers.

This was my sixth year to attend.  Although there were many new faces, it was reassuring and energizing to have dozens of people ask me “Shari, when is your breakout session? I want to be there!” To those of you that asked, I appreciate your interest and check my website for my future sessions and keynote appearances.

There were numerous instances where the people I was with experienced the “It wasn’t what they said, it’s what the other person thinks they heard.” In fact, we laughed about it and re-clarified our communication.

It was fascinating to witness the actual instances …. being intelligent, articulate professionals that have known one another for years, we  experienced the same communication. Yet our minds interpreted the words and the meanings in different ways.  So it happens to the best of us!

It’s not what you said, it’s what they think they heard

Years ago I did my Master’s [in Aeronautical Science from ERAU] on “Personalities in the Cockpit”. In that research, I surveyed career Part 91 pilots as to their communication style. These were all pilots in flight departments; I did not designate which were chief pilots and which were safety officers or Directors of Aviation. I am continuing this research, and have widened it to include all members in flight departments.

Part of my current research in communications deals with the ego of the pilot, and how this affects their communications. Being strong, being right, maintaining his status and reputation. All these are [or were] critical to the pilot’s self-image. And Captainitis.

At one time, captains were described as arrogant, over-confident, aggressive, incompetent and authoritarian by their co-pilots. This is according to the RAF Institute of Aviation Medicine. Captains, on the other hand, describe their co-pilots as lazy, difficult, complainer, resentful and bullying.

Aviation accidents, whether they be commercial aviation or business aviation, are fascinating studies.  Reading over the cockpit data recorders, you can glean much information about the Captain and First Officer.  How do they relate to each other?  How do they communicate with the flight attendants? with ATC? What is said between them … and what is not said?

I have nearly completed my white paper on the Colgan Air Accident, with a focus on the personal situational awareness of the Captain.  Email me if you’d like a copy … or stay tuned!

Remember, it isn’t what he said, it’s what they think they heard.

The human factors in aviation accidents is fascinating. Looking at this from a communications perspective, one of the events that sticks out in my mind, probably because it happens frequently to all of us, is the air traffic controller made a statement to the Captain. The Captain, unsure he heard it correctly, repeated it to the co-pilot, in the form of a question. The co-pilot heard it as a statement.

This accident occurred in 1980. ATC gave a Dan Air pilot clearance to descend with no delay. Very quickly after that communication, the controller gave a holding command. This was not standard, and was unclear. The Captain immediately acknowledged the command and accepted the hold by repeating what he thought he heard.

The Captain, not wanting to appear rude [culturally incorrect to ask to have the command repeated after it has been acknowledged], repeated it to the first officer in the form of a question. The Captain’s personality was fairly non-communicative, and the first officer took his question as a statement. The first officer, reluctant to admit that he was unsure, responded with “Yeah”.

The Captain then mentioned his own doubts, as did the first officer. A lengthy dialogue ensued, trying to clear up the command confusion. The communication between the two never became clear. All too soon the Ground Proximity Warning System [GPWS] sounded. After the captain turned the aircraft, the sound went off, giving the Captain and first officer a false sense of security.

Less than ten minutes after the original clearance, the plane crashed below the summit of Pico de Cinguel. There were no survivors.

It wasn’t what ATC said, it’s what the Captain thought he heard … then questioned himself.

Your words, voice tone and inflection can elicit powerful emotions from others, without you realizing it.

“Fightin’ Words” are those words that can trigger your emotions and cause you to become defensive.  In my leadership and communication workshops, participants do a skit using as many of these words they can.

Although each group comes up with different words, there are some that are universal:

• “But …”
• “Yeah-but…”
• “Whatever…”
• “Yeah, right…”
• “It’s not my job / responsibility…”
• “My workday is done…”
• “Like I said before…”
• “In my previous email I said…”
• “And…?”
• “What’s your question?”
• “I don’t understand this..can you explain it to me?”
• “You didn’t tell me!”

A fellow traveler in the Orlando airport said one of his fightin’ words was any sentence starting with the word:“Look”

I’ve been twittering on this, and thanks to Jason for “take care” and “can you tell me why?” and Galynn for “you people”.

How about you? Twitter Me or Contact Me and let me know your personal fightin’ words.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In the stresses of today’s political climate, we become inwardly focused.  We are less cognizant of how we respond to our internal customers – pilots, schedulers/dispatchers, mechanics, flight attendants, even our boss – than we are to our external clients – executives, admins, passengers – and those other personalities we deal with – FBO’s, line service personnel, handlers – fall somewhere in between.    Being aware of how you react to stress is key to avoiding conflict.  Read my blog for details on regression and how it impacted the 1982 Malaysian Airbus accident.

The airlines don’t take cash … will they take change?   

Ryanair may charge passengers to use the toilet
Feb 27, 2009 – (Aviation Industry Group):  Irish carrier Ryanair, Europe’s largest budget airline, might start charging passengers for using the toilet while flying, said Michael O’Leary, CEO. “One thing we have looked at in the past and are looking at again is the possibility of maybe putting a coin slot on the toilet door so that people might actually have to spend a pound to spend a penny in future,” he told a TV news station. Although some may say this is talking cost cutting to extremes, O’Leary remains unrepentant: “I don’t think there is anybody in history that has got on board a Ryanair aircraft with less than a pound.” Last week, Ryanair announced it was to shut all check-in desks at airports and have passengers check in online instead.

Aviation Industry Newsletter – Friday 27th February 2009