Written by By Alaba Gabriel Idowu, Holly Augustine, Michael Adebola Shogbonyo, Olurotimi Adefemi Adeyeye. (New Mexico University).
Source: International Journal of Aviation Research
This study systematically compared Crew Resource Management (CRM) in commercial aviation with Single-Pilot Resource Management (SRM) in general aviation to assess how each contributes to safety outcomes. The authors analysed NTSB accident and fatality data from 2000–2019 and used mixed methods to evaluate how CRM implementation correlates with improved safety records.
They found that CRM has been effective at reducing human error and enhancing flight safety in commercial operations, largely due to structured, monitored human factors training and organisational support. In contrast, SRM in general aviation has not shown comparable effectiveness, which the authors link to inconsistent human factors training and lack of systematic implementation in GA.
For professionals, the paper’s significance lies in highlighting that mere adoption of SRM concepts is not enough—to improve GA safety, SRM needs consistent, monitored human factors training and integration of CRM-like principles into pilot development and organisational practices.
Abstract
Objective: This paper aimed to showcase the safety advancements achieved in both commercial aviation and general aviation by presenting accident and fatality data from 2000 to 2019. The primary objective was to unveil the influence of Crew Resource Management (CRM) in commercial aviation by examining its implementation process and contrasting it with Single-Pilot Resource Management (SRM) in general aviation, with the goal of determining a more effective approach for implementing SRM.
Background: Despite several efforts made in the last decade, general aviation still accounts for 94% of civil aviation accidents. In 2018, a slight increase in GA accidents was recorded compared to the previous year (2017). For this reason, general aviation safety has become a significant concern for the aviation industry. Therefore, it is important to evaluate the impact of CRM and SRM.
Methodology: A mixed-methods research design was used for this study. It is particularly valuable for showcasing the safety advancements achieved in both commercial aviation and general aviation. The data were collected from the report generated by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and advisory circular 120-51E.
Results: The analysis of the data revealed that CRM has played a critical role in mitigating human errors and enhancing flight safety in commercial aviation, and its effectiveness can be linked to the components and fundamentals of CRM training implementation. However, its counterpart, SRM, hasn’t produced significant results in general aviation compared to CRM.
Conclusions: Analysis of commercial aviation accident data from 2000 to 2019 revealed that CRM training has produced the desired outcomes, mitigated human error and improved safety. On the other hand, SRM has not been as effective compared to CRM in mitigating human errors and enhancing flight safety. Further investigation revealed that a lack of consistent and monitored human factors awareness training in GA might have contributed to the lower effectiveness of SRM. Therefore, an effective approach to implementing SRM will involve incorporating consistent and monitored human factors awareness training as part of SRM training.