Opinion: Co-Designing Safer Skies

Crew resource management (CRM) is the bedrock of human factors and aviation safety and has evolved alongside the needs of the industry. Psychologist and human factors specialist Robert Helmreich, CRM’s founding father, anticipated its generational shifts, including the introduction of threat and error management (TEM) in the late 1990s. TEM was a great idea for its era — now, what is our era’s great idea for the next generation of CRM?

This paper makes the case for infusing training with deeper academic rigor, while offering a cautionary tale about not being so focused on details that the bigger picture is forgotten. This is a call to action for subject matter experts to co-design what we’re calling Adaptive Dynamics for Resilient Systems (ADRS) — a framework for the next chapter in human factors training. ADRS addresses the intricate interpersonal and sociotechnical challenges of the flight deck environment and integrates individual competencies such as emotional intelligence with interpersonal dynamics, including power hierarchies and psychological safety. Designed to address the sociotechnical challenges of the flight deck, it goes beyond technical expertise to cultivate adaptive interpersonal skills — enhancing safety, strengthening team dynamics, and improving overall system resilience across diverse operational environments.

Helmreich’s Blueprint

CRM has become a cornerstone of the global aviation industry, earning widespread acclaim and adoption over the years. While subsequent generations have introduced complementary frameworks like TEM, few individuals have shaped CRM as profoundly as Helmreich. Widely regarded as one of its most influential pioneers, Helmreich witnessed CRM evolve from a peripheral topic to a central pillar of aviation safety. One of his final contributions to the field was a 2010 book chapter co-authored with his research partner, H. Clayton Foushee, titled “Why CRM? Empirical and Theoretical Bases of Human Factors Training.” This piece, penned two years before Helmreich’s passing, offered profound insights into the factors that shape CRM’s success.

The authors touched on the intricate web of individual and group dynamics that underpin CRM but stopped short of diving into the details. They flagged key contributors to CRM success, listing factors like personality and emotional state as individual inputs. On the group side, composition, climate, structure, and norms emerged as powerful influencers shaping CRM effectiveness and, ultimately, safety outcomes. They delivered a succinct observation:

• Because of the many individual and group factors identified, research into these issues and their effects is difficult and time-consuming. As a result, there is not an extensive literature on the outcome effects of systematically varying multiple individual- and group-level variables, especially in the aviation environment.¹

Translation: It’s complicated.

Simplifying the Complicated

Fast forward 15 years, and what once seemed elusive in individual and group climate dynamics is now backed by a wealth of research. A critical missing piece of Helmreich’s “it’s complicated” observation has come into focus: psychological safety.

This team condition — fostering open communication and enabling effective CRM and leadership — has become a buzzword in many industries, including aviation. Psychological safety has been explored, adopted, and used to explain the intersection of group composition, climate, and norms, illuminating how these factors directly influence safety outcomes.

What Helmreich could only hint at in his time we now have empirical data to unpack: The intricate individual and group dynamics he observed are no longer a mystery but a rich and actionable field of study. This emerging research is not only shaping the evolution of CRM but also redefining what effective teamwork and safety mean across high-stakes environments.

Exactly what is psychological safety?

Psychological safety is rooted in the science of human behavior and has emerged as a cornerstone of high-performance team research. It’s the team dynamic that ensures individuals feel as though they can raise safety concerns, admit mistakes, or speak up about safety issues without fear of humiliation, dismissal, or blame.² It empowers someone to ask, “Am I missing something here?” instead of staying silent when they are not sure about a shared decision.³

Research on psychological safety has sparked a transformative shift, connecting what were once isolated conversations. Fatigue, mental health, employee turnover, and safety performance are often treated as separate entities, analyzed in isolation without considering their intersections. Psychological safety research challenges that approach, offering a framework to uncover the overlapping spaces where these issues converge.

The Human Factor

The American Psychological Association reports that teams with higher psychological safety experience better job satisfaction, stronger retention rates, and improved mental health.⁴ Conversely, individuals working in teams lacking psychological safety report significantly worse outcomes: poor mental health, loneliness at work, and heightened emotional exhaustion, potentially leading to fatigue, burnout, and mistakes. Even when the issue lies within team dynamics rather than broader corporate culture, individuals in teams with low psychological safety are more likely to be on the hunt for a new employer, driving up turnover rates.

The takeaway is that small team dynamics and the perceived level of psychological safety wield an outsized influence on morale, mental health, and employee retention.

For the aviation industry, these findings should sound alarm bells. A 2016 study found that pilots report moderate to severe depression at nearly 1.6 times the rate of the average U.S. adult. Shockingly, even deployed military personnel in combat zones report lower rates of depression than the average airline professional.⁵

Several events in the past decade have cast a spotlight on the critical need to address mental health in aviation. The off-duty Alaska Airlines pilot who experienced mushroom-induced hallucinations while sitting in a jump seat in the flight deck and tried to cut fuel to the engines during a 2023 flight (see The New York Times: “Lie to Fly” documentary)⁶ and the 2015 Germanwings crash in which a suicidal pilot flew the airplane into the ground, killing all 150 passengers and crew, serve as stark reminders of the stakes involved.⁷ But there are also countless hidden struggles faced by aviation professionals behind the scenes.

The connection between psychological safety, team dynamics, and mental health is undeniable. As evidence mounts, aviation leaders and policymakers must recognize that fostering psychological safety isn’t just a team-building exercise but a critical intervention to mitigate fatigue, reduce depression, and improve safety outcomes.

The Silent Variable

Google’s Aristotle Project unearthed a compelling statistic: Teams with psychological safety experience a 27 percent reduction in errors.⁸ This finding dovetails with recent aviation safety research, reinforcing the critical role of psychological safety in high-stakes environments, such as the flight deck.

In the aviation context, the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration emphasizes that effective CRM requires a strong focus on “the importance of clear and unambiguous communication.”⁹ Let’s think of this “clear and unambiguous” style as safety voice.¹⁰ Research shows that when pilots feel a reduction of psychological safety in the flight deck, they transition from safety voice to muted safety voice (tentatively sharing concerns or framing them as questions) or, worse, falling into safety silence (withholding safety information). Alarmingly, in a study of over 800 pilots, 75 percent reported engaging in muted safety voice, and 57 percent admitted to withholding critical safety information at least once a year due to a negative tone established by the captain; this resulted in reduced psychological safety.¹¹

Flight deck psychological safety fosters a culture where crewmembers feel comfortable sharing safety concerns, seeking help, and admitting mistakes — behaviors that are vital for operational safety.¹² The data speaks volumes: Captains are three times  more likely to get first officers to share safety information when they establish psychological safety in the flight deck.¹³ For an industry where safety hinges on spoken clarity — clear and unambiguous communication — these figures are far from trivial. They underscore the profound influence of psychological safety on operational outcomes, proving that fostering an environment where speaking up is the norm is essential for safety performance.

Strengthening CRM

Psychological safety is not primarily a morale booster or a tool for reducing turnover; it directly impacts aviation’s top priority: safety. It increases the likelihood that crews will properly identify threats and errors; it strengthens CRM and improves communication. So, with empirical evidence highlighting its benefits, why aren’t we teaching psychological safety in CRM training?

The answer lies within a complex web of politics, resistance from a small yet vocal group opposed to change, and emotionally charged reactions to the broader conversation on culture.

As part of doctoral research, one academic introduced the concept of psychological safety to 1,600 airline pilots within the context of CRM.¹⁴ The majority of participants found psychological safety to be both highly practical and an essential evolution for next-generation CRM. However, a vocal minority responded with emotional and, at times, confused reactions, often rooted in a misunderstanding of the term.

Their responses revealed not just confusion, but also a misinterpretation of the term. For example, when asked about psychological safety, some professional airline pilots conflated the term with unrelated socio-political concepts, such as:

• “It reeks of ‘safe spaces’ and ‘woke agendas,’ none of which belong in aviation.”
• “Psychological safety is an ill-defined term. But it reeks of ‘trigger warnings’ and ‘safe spaces’ and woke nonsense.”
• “Everything is getting to[o] touchy-feely.”

It’s a curious critique. Psychological safety has nothing to do with any current political agenda but is an evidence-based construct, developed over three decades ago in the crucible of organizational psychology. Its application in industries like health care and technology has demonstrated measurable improvements in team outcomes and safety performance. Yet, in aviation — a field defined by discipline and rigor — the term has been misinterpreted as a cultural Trojan horse rather than a scientifically validated tool.

But these negative reactions are important data. A thematic analysis revealed that the hesitancy to embrace psychological safety exhibited by some seasoned pilots was rooted in critiques of the younger generation of pilots.

Comments by some of these seasoned pilots — including “[t]he millennials and younger just need to do their jobs. Speak up when you don’t see SOP [standard operating procedure], otherwise, sit there and be a good FO [first officer]” — mirror early skeptical reactions to the introduction of CRM training.¹⁵ These responses underscore the difficulty of integrating social and organizational psychology, along with behavioral science, into a field rooted in tradition, hierarchy, discipline, and technical precision. For psychological safety to truly take off in aviation, it needs a fresh approach — one that aligns with the industry’s deeply held values while clearly defining its role in enhancing safety-critical communication and team dynamics.

Beyond Buzzwords

Critics of psychological safety argue that it oversimplifies flight deck dynamics, and to some extent, they’re right. Psychological safety isn’t a cure-all for communication breakdowns. For example, some pilots refrain from speaking up not out of fear but as a gesture of empathy or deference, respecting the emotional state of their counterpart.¹⁶ In such cases, muted communication isn’t a failure of psychological safety but a complex interplay of social norms, professional courtesy, and operational focus.

Research indicates that pilots tend to score lower than the general population on emotional intelligence, particularly in dimensions such as well-being, emotionality, and sociability.¹⁷ Emotional intelligence encompasses the ability to understand and regulate one’s emotions while also empathizing and effectively interacting with others. Given that pilot training primarily focuses on technical precision, procedural adherence, and decisive action under pressure, the concept of psychological safety may appear abstract, uncomfortable, or even irrelevant, especially when framed as a “soft skill.” This perception poses a challenge, as evidence demonstrates a clear connection between higher emotional intelligence, improved decision-making, enhanced psychological safety,¹⁸ and better overall safety outcomes.¹⁹

This brings us to the much-needed evolution of CRM into its next generation. As Helmreich aptly emphasized, CRM training is not a static concept; it must evolve to incorporate new ideas — provided those ideas are grounded in practical applications rather than abstract generalizations. With a growing body of academic literature offering insights into safety outcomes, SOP compliance, emotional intelligence, and psychological safety, the time has come to weave these findings into the everyday realities of the flight deck.

The next generation of CRM should go beyond a simple syllabus update. It must harness technological advancements to introduce microlearning opportunities and micronudges (cues that encourage or remind someone to perform a task that might otherwise have been forgotten), embedding these concepts into pilots’ daily workflows. By bridging academic research with cutting-edge technology, the aviation industry can equip pilots with the tools they need to operationalize critical competencies like leadership, teamwork, and communication, ensuring that CRM remains as dynamic and effective as the environments it serves.

Adaptive Dynamics for Resilient Systems

Building on a foundation of extensive aviation-related academic research, as well as advancements in social and organizational psychology, organizational sociology, and behavioral science, we propose a new framework for the next generation of CRM: Adaptive Dynamics for Resilient Systems (ADRS).

What distinguishes ADRS as the next evolution of CRM is its dual focus on established safety metrics and progressive insights. While ADRS recognizes the foundational importance of models like line operations safety audits, flight operational quality assurance, and TEM, it also incorporates Safety-II principles. These principles emphasize analyzing and leveraging what works well within systems to design for success, rather than focusing exclusively on failure-prevention. By embedding these insights, ADRS prioritizes the integration of best practices and fosters systems in which individual and flight deck resilience are at the core of safety and performance.

As part of the ADRS design, a comprehensive research project is currently underway identifying how resilience-building variables can be systematically scaled and integrated into pilot training programs to enhance both mental resilience and operational performance. 

Resilience is traditionally understood as the ability to recover from setbacks. However, ADRS argues for a more dynamic conceptualization of resilience, where individuals and systems are capable not only of recovery but also of adapting, expanding, and strengthening in response to challenges.²⁰ This reframing of resilience calls for more than enduring hardship. Instead, true resilience involves transformative growth — the capacity to learn from external forces, integrate new strategies, and emerge stronger and more adaptable.

What sets ADRS apart is its integration of cutting-edge academic research and innovative technology to create the aviation industry’s first interactive tool designed to operationalize pilot competencies. By focusing on syllabus content development, training modalities that are aligned with aviation realities, and evidence-based methodologies, ADRS represents a paradigm shift in addressing the complex demands of the aviation industry.

But ADRS cannot — and should not — be developed in isolation. To ensure its success, we are calling on subject matter experts from across the industry to join the conversation. Your expertise is critical to co-designing a system that meets the diverse and dynamic needs of aviation. Co-designed frameworks have a proven track record of staying relevant and impactful far longer than those developed in a vacuum. Through collaboration with subject matter experts, ADRS will not only address the current challenges of aviation but also remain adaptable and effective for years to come.

If you are a subject matter expert and passionate about shaping the future of aviation training, we invite you to join us in co-designing this transformative initiative. ADRS is not a solitary effort; it thrives on the collective wisdom of a diverse community. By working together, we can ensure ADRS reaches its full potential, creating a framework that incorporates resilience, elevates safety, and strengthens operational excellence. True innovation and progress are born from collaboration, and we believe that the aviation community is strongest when we design solutions together. Your insights and expertise are invaluable, and we look forward to having you join our conversation. 

Image: DC Studio / Shutterstock

Kimberly Perkins holds a doctorate from the University of Washington, where she focused on optimizing risk mitigation through advanced sociotechnical skills training. She continues human factors research in her roles as a research scientist at the University of Washington and an honorary fellow at the University of Melbourne. She is also a Boeing 787 airline pilot.

Fabio Mattioli is associate professor of social anthropology at the University of Melbourne and affiliated with the ARC Center for Automated Decision Making and Society. His research focuses on the social implications of economic and technological change.

A version of this article appeared in the Royal Aeronautical Society’s AEROSPACE magazine.

Notes

1. Helmreich, R.L.; Foushee, H.C. (2010). “Why CRM? Empirical and Theoretical Bases of Human Factors Training.” In Crew Resource Management. Academic Press, p. 3-57.
2. 1) Edmondson, A. (1999). “Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350-383; 2) Leroy, H.; Dierynck, B.; Anseel, F.; Simons, T.; Halbesleben, J.R.; McCaughey, D.; Sels, L. (2012). “Behavioral Integrity for Safety, Priority of Safety, Psychological Safety, and Patient Safety: A Team-Level Study.” Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(6), 1273-1281; 3) Carmeli, A.; Gittell, J.H. (2009). “High-Quality Relationships, Psychological Safety, and Learning From Failures in Work Organizations.” Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(6), 709-729.
3. Rosenbaum, L. (2019). “Cursed by Knowledge — Building a Culture of Psychological Safety.” The New England Journal of Medicine, 390(8), 786-790. 
4. American Psychological Association. (2024). Work in America 2024 Report.

5. Wu, A.C.; Donnelly-McLay, D.; Weisskopf, M.G.; et al. “Airplane Pilot Mental Health and Suicidal Thoughts: A Cross-Sectional Descriptive Study via Anonymous Web-Based Survey.” Environmental Health 15, 121 (2016).
6. García Durazo, Carmen. (Director). (Aug. 23, 2024). The New York Times Presents: Lie to Fly [Documentary]. FX.
7. Pasha, Terouz; Stokes, Paul R.A. (2018) “Reflecting on the Germanwings Disaster: A Systematic Review of Depression and Suicide in Commercial Airline Pilots.” Frontiers in Psychiatry 9:86. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2018.00086
8. Rozovsky, J. (2015). The five keys to a successful Google team. Google Re:Work. Retrieved from https://rework.withgoogle.com/
9. U.S. Federal Aviation Administration. (2004). Crew Resource Management Training. Advisory Circular, AFS-210.

10. Noort, M.C.; Reader, T.W.; Gillespie, A. (2021). “Safety Voice and Safety Listening During Aviation Accidents: Cockpit voice recordings reveal that speaking-up to power is not enough.” Safety Science, 139.
11. Perkins, K.; Ghosh, S.; Vera, J.; Aragon, C.; Hyland, A. (2022). “The Persistence of Safety Silence: How Flight Deck Microcultures Influence the Efficacy of Crew Resource Management.” International Journal of Aviation, Aeronautics, and Aerospace, 9(3).

12. Perkins, K.; Ghosh, S.; Hall, C. (2024). “Interpersonal Skills in a Sociotechnical System: A Training Gap in Flight Decks.” Journal of Aviation/Aerospace Education & Research, 33(2). DOI: <;https://doi.org/10.58940/2329-258X.2022>.
13. Perkins, K.; Ghosh, S.; Hall, C. (2024). “Interpersonal Skills in a Sociotechnical System: A Training Gap in Flight Decks.” Journal of Aviation/Aerospace Education & Research, 33(2). DOI: <https://doi.org/10.58940/2329-258X.2022>.
14. Perkins, K. (2024). Optimizing Risk Mitigation With Advanced Interpersonal Skills Training (Doctoral dissertation). University of Washington. Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. <https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/optimizing-risk-mitigation-withadvanced/docview/3081566656/se-2?accountid=14784>
15. Ashcraft, K.L. (2005). “Resistance Through Consent? Occupational Identify, Organizational Form, and the Maintenance of Masculinity Among Commercial Airline Pilots.” Management Communication Quarterly.
16. Mattioli, F. (2024) “The Aviator’s Ball: Imagination, AI, and Diverging Career Pathways for Airline Pilots.” Paper delivered at the Society for Economic Anthropology/Society for the Anthropology of Work Conference, April 18-20, 2024, Tufts University. 2024.
17. Dugger, Z.; Petrides, K.V.; Carnegie, N.; McCrory, B. (2022). “Trait Emotional Intelligence in American Pilots.” Scientific Reports.
18. Zhou, W.; Zhu, Z.; Vredenburgh, D. (2020), “Emotional Intelligence, Psychological Safety, and Team Decision Making,” Team Performance Management, Volume 26 No. 1/2, pp. 123-141.< https://doi.org/10.1108/TPM-10-2019-0105>.
19. Bates, S.G. (2023). “Emotional Intelligence and Safety Culture in Business Aviation.” ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.
20.  Woods, D. (2015). “Four Concepts for Resilience and the Implications for the Future of Resilience Engineering. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 141, 5-9.