1. Cultural differences in aviation

2. Past incidents
     Tenerife Disaster    Korean Air Flight 801    Avianca Flight 52  

3. Other impacts of culture in airline safety

4. References

Culture can affect aviation safety through its effect on how the flight crew deals with difficult situations; cultures with lower power distances and higher levels of individuality can result in better aviation safety outcomes. In higher power cultures subordinates are less likely to question their superiors. The crash of Korean Air Flight 801 in 1997 was attributed to the pilot's decision to land despite the junior officer's disagreement, while the crash of Avianca Flight 52 was caused by the failure to communicate critical low-fuel data between pilots and controllers, and by the failure of the controllers to ask the pilots if they were declaring an emergency and assist the pilots in landing the aircraft. The crashes have been blamed on aspects of the national cultures of the crews. {{Citation needed|date=January 2017}}

Cultural differences in aviation

Geert Hofstede classified national cultures into four dimensions, two of which can be applied to the flight deck: power distance, which defines the "nature of relations between subordinates and superiors", or "how often subordinates are afraid to express disagreement";^[1] and whether the culture is collectivist or individualist in nature. Western cultures are individualistic and have a low power distance, whereas most Asian and Latin cultures are on the other side of the spectrum.^[2] Low power-distance and high individualism in Western culture may have contributed to a better safety record than in Taiwan and India.{{citation needed|date=December 2015}} In a more collectivist society like Taiwan, a possible explanation for this might be that personal decision-making skills are not as developed.^[3] In Western society, the power-distance is lower in general; "making decisions, implementing them, and taking responsibility for their consequences" is part of their life, making personal decisions easier to make.^[4][5]{{clarify|date=December 2015}}

Past incidents

Tenerife Disaster

On March 27, 1977, two Boeing 747 passenger jets, KLM Flight 4805 and Pan Am Flight 1736, collided on the foggy runway at Los Rodeos Airport (now Tenerife North Airport), on the Spanish island of Tenerife, Canary Islands, killing 583 people, making it the deadliest accident in aviation history. Before takeoff, the KLM flight engineer expressed his concern about the Pan Am not being clear of the runway by asking the pilots in his own cockpit, "Is he not clear, that Pan American?" The KLM captain emphatically replied "Oh, yes" and continued with the takeoff, snubbing the junior officer's concern. This event led to widespread establishment of crew resource management as a fundamental part of airline pilots' training.^[6]

Korean Air Flight 801

On approach to Guam in 1997, Korean 801 crashed, mainly due to pilot fatigue and poor communication between the flight crew. The captain made the decision to land despite the junior officer's disagreements, eventually bringing the plane down short of the runway, highlighting how a pilot can contribute to a disaster.^[7] In high power distance cultures, it is uncommon for subordinates to question their superiors. "Leaders may be autocratic".^[8]{{importance|date=December 2015}} High power distance can be seen as the willingness to be in an unequal position, making it a challenge for an officer lower in the hierarchy to question the decisions of the one in power. At the same time, even in a high uncertainty avoidance culture, with the crew more likely to follow standard operating procedures (SOPs), the crew might react less efficiently to a novel situation.^[9]

Avianca Flight 52

Other impacts of culture in airline safety

Although crew resource management (CRM) can improve safety in the aviation industry, it is not widely accepted across all cultures. This is likely due to differences in uncertainty avoidance, or "the need for rule-governed behavior and clearly defined procedures". Standard operating procedures are more easily accepted in high uncertainty avoidance cultures, such as Greece, Korea, and some Latin cultures. In the United States, however, where flexibility is emphasized, pilots may not be as accepting of CRM culture.^[12]

Improvements can be made to CRM by drawing on the strengths of both individualistic and collectivisic cultures. Western assertiveness can be helpful in developing a low power-distance cockpit, while the Eastern interdependence brings cooperation, interdependence, and communication to create a safer flying environment.^[13]

Ideally, "CRM represents low power distance (free exchange of information among the crew) and collectivism (recognition and acceptance of crew interdependence), a rare cultural combination." ^[14]

References

• The Horseman on the Roof (1995)
• The Horseman's Word
• The Horsemen (1971 film)
• The Horsemen Project
• The Horse Named Jim
• The Horseshoe
• The Horseshoe Curve
• The Horse's Mouth (film)
• The Horses Mouth (film)
• The horse soldiers
• The Horse That Bud Bought
• The Horse Thief
• The Horse Trust
• The horse whisperer
• The Horse with the Flying Tail
• The Horsfield
• The Horst
• The Horst Wessel Lied
• The Horticulture and Food Research Institute of New Zealand Limited
• The Horus Heresy
• The Hospital (Chinese TV series)
• The Hospital Corporation of America
• The Hospital of the Protestant Episcopal Church
• The Hospitals
• The Hospital (TV series)