.  
Automation can induce a breakdown in the traditional roles of the controlling pilot and monitoring pilot, and there is a less clear demarcation of who does what. This is particularly relevant, since it has already been mentioned that standardisation is one of the foundations of safety. The answer to this problem might be found in procedures and standard operating procedures

.  
Automated flight decks can produce a redistribution of authority from the captain to the first officer. This is unintended, and is a product of an apparently greater proficiency of some first officers in CDU data entry compared to that of the captains, plus the delegation of these duties to the first officer. Particularly in times of high workload, the captain may surrender some responsibility to the first officer in order to accomplish the task. A somewhat shallower trans-authority gradient1 may be the result, although captains, recognizing the superior CDU skills of their first officers, may follow good CRM principles and use them to their advantage.

.  
There is a tendency of the crew to help each other with programming duties when workload increases, which can dissolve a clear demarcation of duties. This seems to be computer-induced behaviour, since no similar situation is observed in traditional aircraft.

Although little is known about the implications of automation for the design and conduct of Line-Oriented Flight Training, some particular issues can be highlighted. The automated flight deck offers new opportunities for scenario design. In conventional flight decks it was necessary to introduce system failures to elevate the workload and stress of the crew in a realistic manner, but the automated flight deck has enough built-in stressors to do this job, especially in the area of ATC instructions.
1.  Trans-cockpit authority gradient is the authority relationship between captain and first officer. The term was first introduced by Prof. Elwyn Edwards. For example, in the case of a domineering captain and an unassertive first officer, the gradient will be steep. If two captains are rostered together, the gradient may be shallow.
The “glass cockpit” presents new opportunities for scenario design that do not require abnormal conditions or emergencies - difficult problems at the human-automation interface will suffice. There now exists the opportunity to design scenarios that will address the problems and opportunities of working in automated flight decks, where their peculiar characteristics can be stressed and where CRM principles can be easily exercised. For example, an ATC instruction including an unexpected, non-depicted holding pattern over a fix defined by a radial/DME value, provides considerable opportunities to practice CRM principles without the necessity of introducing any system failure.
Aircraft manufacturers are giving more importance to human performance issues in automated flight decks. At least one of them has joined efforts with a training development company to integrate present and future training programmes in Cockpit Resource Management into the transition training courses for its aircraft. The manufacturer's instructor pilots will receive CRM training. Current training courses for pilots and maintenance technicians will also incorporate CRM programmes. This particular manufacturer claims that CRM courses to be developed will be airplane-tailored, with a different CRM course for each specific model of aircraft in the production line. The justification for this decision is based on the need to align training with longer-term behaviourial education, as well as to concentrate on the assigned duties and responsibilities of the flight crews. Most importantly, it is the tacit recognition that Human Factors education is no longer an exclusive responsibility of the operators, but an integral part of present-day system operations.
　
中國航空網 www.k6050.com
航空翻譯 www.aviation.cn
本文鏈接地址：CAP 737 Crew Resource Management (CRM) Training 機組資源管理培訓(82)