Introduction
The tragedy in Little Rock was caused by a series of events that began with the captain’s decision to land in inclement weather conditions and culminated in a runway overrun and crash. The crash of American Airlines Flight 1420 on June 1, 1999, in Little Rock, Arkansas, resulted in the death of 11 passengers and crew members (Sumwalt et al., 2019). This analysis will evaluate the performance of the crew and other relevant parties, such as Air Traffic Control and dispatch, with respect to risk management and decision-making. The analysis will be based on the principles of 6th Generation Crew Resource Management (CRM) and Threat and Error Management, which emphasize the importance of standard procedures, effective communication, and teamwork in preventing accidents.
Risk Management
The discovery, appraisal, and prioritization of potential risks and hazards, as well as the implementation of methods to reduce those risks, are all part of risk management, a crucial aspect of aviation safety. Risk management is to reduce the likelihood and impact of adverse events. There were a number of dangers in the instance of American Airlines Flight 1420, which the crew did not appropriately manage.
The first risk was the captain’s decision to continue the landing despite knowing that the landing gear was not in the correct position and the warning lights were illuminated. As a result, the team failed to follow standard procedures and protocols, such as conducting a go-around, to address the issue (Wilson, 2023). Instead, he chose to continue with the landing, which resulted in a crash. This decision was not in line with risk management principles, as it failed to consider the potential consequences of a landing with the gear in the incorrect position. Another risk was the captain’s failure to communicate effectively with the first officer and air traffic control. The captain did not involve the first officer in the decision-making process, and there was a lack of clear and concise communication between the crew and air traffic control. This hindered the ability of the crew to manage the risks associated with the landing effectively.
Decision-Making
The crash of American Airlines Flight 1420 was primarily attributed to the captain’s poor decision-making. The team made several aeronautical decisions that were not in line with standard procedures and protocols. The decision to continue landing was not in line with the principles of aeronautical decision-making (ADM), which involves considering all relevant information, including weather conditions, aircraft performance, and the pilot’s abilities when making a decision.
Another example of poor decision-making was the captain’s failure to involve the first officer in the decision-making process. ADM principles dictate that the crew should work together as a team, sharing information and making decisions collaboratively (Wingelaar-Jagt et al., 2021). By not involving the first officer, the captain failed to take advantage of the first officer’s experience and knowledge and hindered the crew’s ability to manage the risks associated with the landing effectively.
Crew Resource Management
The accident of American Airlines Flight 1420 reveals a number of areas where crew resource management could be improved (CRM). CRM is a collection of methods and ideas created to improve flight crew productivity and, in turn, aviation safety (Campbell et al., 2018). The captain’s disregard for established practices and norms was one area that needed improvement. This demonstrates a disregard for conventional operating procedures and a failure to put safety before other factors. This is consistent with the 6th Generation CRM/Threat and Error Management principles, which stress the significance of adhering to established procedures and guidelines in order to reduce risks and hazards.
Additionally, the captain’s failure to communicate effectively with the first officer and air traffic control led to confusion and miscommunication during the approach and landing. The first officer was left in the dark about the captain’s intentions and could not effectively assist or challenge his decisions. This lack of communication also led to miscommunication with air traffic control, which could have significantly impacted the situation’s outcome (Dismukes et al., 2018). Effective communication is a cornerstone of 6th Generation CRM/Threat and Error Management, and the events leading up to the crash of American Airlines Flight 1420 highlight the need for ongoing training and emphasis on this aspect of aviation safety.
Positive Aspects of Crew Resource Management
Despite the many areas for improvement, there were also several positive aspects of the crew’s resource management performance. For example, the first officer demonstrated a solid commitment to safety by continuously trying to correct the captain’s actions and calling out the warning lights and gear position. This highlights the importance of having an assertive and proactive first officer who is willing to challenge the captain’s actions and decisions when necessary (Dismukes et al., 2018). Another positive aspect was the crew’s ability to maintain situational awareness and remain calm during a high-stress situation. Despite the captain’s poor decision-making, the crew was able to manage the situation and make necessary adjustments to minimize the impact of the crash. This highlights the importance of having a well-trained and experienced crew who can effectively manage risks and hazards in real-time.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the crash of American Airlines Flight 1420 highlights several areas for improvement in risk management, decision-making, and crew resource management. The captain’s poor decision-making and the team’s failure to follow standard procedures and protocols were the primary causes of the crash. However, the first officer’s assertiveness and commitment to safety, as well as the crew’s ability to maintain situational awareness, demonstrate some positive aspects of crew resource management. The principles of 6th Generation CRM/Threat and Error Management, which emphasize the importance of following standard procedures, effective communication, and teamwork, could have prevented the crash had they been adequately implemented.
References
Campbell, A., Zaal, P., Schroeder, J. A., & Shah, S. (2018). Development of possible go-around criteria for transport aircraft. 2018 Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations Conference. Web.
Dismukes, R. K., Kochan, J. A., & Goldsmith, T. E. (2018). Flight crew errors in challenging and stressful situations. Aviation Psychology and Applied Human Factors, 8(1), 35–46. Web.
Sumwalt, R. L., Lemos, K. A., & McKendrick, R. (2019). The accident investigator’s perspective. Crew Resource Management, 489–513. Web.
Wilson, K. A. (2023). Human factors in aviation accident investigations. Human Factors in Aviation and Aerospace, 257–278. Web.
Wingelaar-Jagt, Y. Q., Wingelaar, T. T., Riedel, W. J., & Ramaekers, J. G. (2021). Fatigue in aviation: Safety risks, preventive strategies, and pharmacological interventions. Frontiers in Physiology, 12. Web.