簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

研究生: 曾于娟
Tseng, Yu-chuan
論文名稱: 航空公司客艙組員及駕駛員溝通品質與飛航安全關係之研究
Cockpit-Cabin Communication Quality and Safety Hazards
指導教授: 張有恆
Chang, Yu-Hern
學位類別: 碩士
Master
系所名稱: 管理學院 - 交通管理科學系
Department of Transportation and Communication Management Science
論文出版年: 2007
畢業學年度: 95
語文別: 中文
論文頁數: 87
中文關鍵詞: 飛航安全複迴歸分析客艙組員駕駛員溝通品質
外文關鍵詞: cabin crew, pilots, communication quality, safety hazards, Multiple Regression
相關次數: 點閱:126下載:4
分享至:
查詢本校圖書館目錄 查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統 勘誤回報
  •   如何維持最安全的飛行,一直以來是航空相關單位最重視的課題之一,而人為因素著實為影響飛航安全之主因,本研究便為探討與人為因素息息相關之前後艙溝通問題。早期航空運輸探討溝通這項課題,大多著重於駕駛艙內的駕駛員相互溝通問題,一直到1990年代之後,客艙組員與駕駛員之溝通才逐漸受到各界重視,相關研究也指出,客艙組員與駕駛員之溝通問題,對飛航安全可能造成的潛在危機。

      然國內少有文獻探討客艙組員與駕駛員溝通協調的相關議題,本研究便以駕駛員與客艙組員之口語溝通作為討論主軸,並以個案航空公司之客艙組員與駕駛員作為研究對象,進行問卷調查。本研究利用因素分析找出影響客艙組員與駕駛員有效溝通之因素,並瞭解客艙組員與駕駛員對這些因素之認知是否具差異性。其次,探討各因素與客艙組員及駕駛員溝通品質之關聯性,最後探討溝通品質與飛安間互動關係,以提供實務界做為參考,增進飛航安全。

      本研究經由因素分析萃取出影響客艙組員與駕駛員溝通品質之因素,分別為「靜默駕駛艙認知」、「客艙組員能力」、「低權力差距」、「相同組員同機執勤」、「客艙組員狀況警覺」、「聯合訓練與內容」、「客艙組員主動溝通」等七項因素。經由T檢定發現,客艙組員與駕駛員對於各因素構面具有認知差異,故本研究分別對兩群體進行複迴歸分析。

      研究結果發現,對客艙組員而言,上述七項因素均會影響兩者之溝通品質;而對駕駛員而言,僅靜默駕駛艙認知、客艙組員能力、低權力差距、客艙組員主動溝通等四項因素會影響兩者之溝通品質,且兩者皆認為溝通品質對飛航安全有正向影響。由此可知,可藉由改善各影響因素,如:加強客艙組員能力、強化兩者對靜默駕駛艙規範的瞭解等,以增進客艙組員與駕駛員之溝通品質,並間接提升飛航安全。

      How to maintain flight safety is one of the most important issues in the air transportation industry. As a human factor, cockpit-cabin communication may affect flight safety.

      Few studies have addressed this issue in the context of airline safety. The study first examines the factors which affect the effective communications between cabin crew and pilots using the data collected from cabin crew and pilots. The study then investigates communication quality between cabin crews and pilots and explores the relationships between communication quality and safety hazards. Finally, the study provides some managerial implications and suggestions.

      The study uses factor analysis to extract seven important factors, including the understanding of the sterile cockpit rule, cabin crew’s abilities, low power distances, crew pairings, situational awareness, joint training and active communication.

      The study finds that in cabin crew’s opinions, all of seven factors affect communication quality. As for pilots’ opinions, only four factors affect communication quality, such as the understanding of the sterile cockpit rule, cabin crew’s abilities, low power distances and active communication. The study finds that communication quality does affect safety hazards. The result of the study suggests that if those seven factors can be improved, a better communication quality can be achieved, thus reducing the flight safety risk.

    第一章 緒論..............................................1   1.1 研究背景與動機...................................1   1.2 研究目的.........................................4   1.3 研究範圍與限制...................................4   1.4 研究流程.........................................5 第二章 文獻回顧..........................................7   2.1 客艙組員.........................................7     2.1.1 客艙組員之定義.............................7     2.1.2 客艙組員的工作特性.........................7   2.2 駕駛員...........................................8     2.2.1 駕駛員之定義...............................8     2.2.2 駕駛員的工作特性...........................9   2.3 影響有效溝通因素相關文獻回顧.....................9     2.3.1 溝通流程..................................10     2.3.2 影響有效溝通之相關研究....................13   2.4 溝通品質........................................18   2.5 飛航安全........................................19 第三章 研究方法.........................................21   3.1 研究架構與假設..................................21     3.1.1 研究架構..................................21     3.1.2 研究假設..................................24   3.2 問卷設計........................................24     3.2.1 問卷設計流程..............................24     3.2.2 專家效度..................................25     3.2.3 正式問卷內容..............................26   3.3 資料分析方法....................................30 第四章 研究結果.........................................33   4.1 基本敘述統計分析................................33     4.1.1 問卷回收情形..............................33     4.1.2 基本資料敘述性統計分析....................34     4.1.3 影響客艙組員與駕駛員溝通因素敘述性統計分析37     4.1.4 客艙組員與駕駛員溝通品質敘述性統計分析....39     4.1.5 航空公司飛航安全敘述性統計分析............40   4.2 因素分析與信度分析..............................41   4.3 客艙組員與駕駛員對各因素構面之平均數差異檢定....49   4.4 客艙組員及駕駛員屬性與各構面間之變異數分析......50   4.5 影響溝通因素、溝通品質與飛航安全關係分析........55   4.6 小結............................................57 第五章 結論與建議.......................................59   5.1 研究結論........................................59   5.2 研究建議........................................61   5.3 後續研究建議....................................62 參考文獻.................................................63 附錄一:專家效度問卷.....................................67 附錄二:研究問卷.........................................76 附錄三:因素之相關分析表.................................86

    一、中文參考文獻

    王小娥、曾秀亞,2006,維修資源管理(MRM)訓練成效評估之研究,運輸計劃季刊,第三十五卷,第二期,頁159-190。

    交通部民用航空局,2006,民航統計年報,交通部民用航空局編印。

    交通部民用航空局,2004,民航局航空器飛航作業管理規則。

    任靜怡、賓立亞,2001,第四章:人為因素訓練規劃,航空安全人為因素探討及案例分析,台北:交通部民用航空局。

    何慶生、梁季鈰、陳德,2001,第三章:組員資源管理與疏失管理,航空安全人為因素探討及案例分析,台北:交通部民用航空局。

    吳明隆、涂金堂,2006,SPSS與統計應用分析,第二版,台北:五南。

    洪廣朋、李文瑞、翁宗志,2002,廠商間長期合作關係模式之研究—台灣資訊電子代工廠商之實證,管理學報,第十九卷,第五期,頁781-810。

    許士軍,1985,管理學,台北:台灣東華。

    陳順宇,2000,迴歸分析,第三版,台北:華泰。

    陳順宇,2004,多變量分析,第三版,台北:華泰。

    郭名龍,2003,從航空公司組員資源管理探討飛航安全問題─以T航空公司為例,私立世新大學觀光研究所碩士論文。

    張有恆,2005,飛航安全管理,第一版,台北:華泰。

    張恆瑜,2004,領導者口語溝通內容、領導行為與部屬信任之探討,國立中山大學人力資源管理研究所碩士論文。

    張有恆、萬怡灼,2001,航空公司經營管理對飛航安全水準之影響,民航季刊,第三卷,第一期,頁81-106。

    張淑昭、李啟誠、蔡宗憲,2001,聯盟合作網路、知識流通、創新績效之關連性研究---以我國電子廠商為例,企業管理學報,第57卷,頁1-36。

    張紹勳,2001,研究方法,修訂版,台中:滄海。

    二、英文參考文獻

    Barnett, A. and Higgins, M. K., 1989, “Airline Safety: The Last Decade,” Management Science, Vol.35, No.1, pp.1-21.

    Candace, Y. Y. and Wiersema, M., 1999, “Strategic Flexibility in Information Technology Alliances: The Influence of Transaction Cost Economics and Social Exchange Theory,” Organization Science, Vol.10, No.4, pp.439-459.

    Chang, Y. H. and Yeh, C. H., 2004, “A New Airline Safety Index,” Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Vol.38, No.4, pp.369-383.

    Chute, R. D. and Wiener, E. L., 1995, “Cockpit Cabin Communication: I. A Tale of Two Cultures,” The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, Vol.5, No.3, pp.257-276.

    Chute, R. D. and Wiener, E. L., 1996, “Cockpit/Cabin Communication: II. Shall We Tell the Pilots?” The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, Vol.6, No.3, pp.211-231.

    Chute, R. D., Wiener, E. L., Dunbar, M. G. and Hoang, V. R., 1995, “Cockpit/Cabin Crew Performance: Recent Research,” Published in the Proceedings of the 48th International Air Safety Seminar, Seattle WA, November, pp.7-9.

    Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F., 1981, “Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable and Measurement Error,” Journal of Marketing Research, Vol.18, No.1, pp.39-50.

    Goldhaber, G. M. and Krivonos, P. D., 1977, “The ICA Communication Audit: Process, Status, Critique,” The Journal of Business Communication, Vol.15, No.1, pp.41-56.

    International Civil Aviation Organization(ICAO), 2002, Annual Report of the Coucil.

    Logan, T. J., 1999, “Trend toward Wider Sharing of Safety Data Is Resisted by Industry Concerns,” ICAO Journal, Vol.54, No.1, pp.7-9.

    Mohr, J. and Spekman, P., 1994, “Characteristics of Partnership Success: Partnership Attributes, Communication Behavior, and Conflict Resolution Techniques,” Strategic Management Journal, Vol.15, No.2, pp.135-152.

    National Transportation Safety Board, 1995a, Runway overrun following rejected takeoff; Continental Airlines Flight 795, McDonnell Douglas MD-82; LaGuardia Airport, Flushing, New York; March 2, 1994. (NTSB/AAR-95/01).Washington, DC: Author.

    National Transportation Safety Board, 1995b, Survival Factors Specialist Report, Simmons Airlines (dba American Eagle) Flight 4127, Chicago, Illinois; July, 9, 1995, (NTSB/CHI-IA-A215), Washington, DC: Author.

    Phillips, D., 1995, October 1, “U.S. Jet Bound for Germany Mistakenly Lands in Belgium,” The Washington Post, pp.A1, A5.

    Robbins, S. P., 2003, 組織行為第七版 (林財丁、林瑞發編譯),台北:培生。

    Rhoades, L.D. and Jr, B. W., 2000, “Judging A Book by It’s Cover: the Relationship between Service and Safety Quality in US National and Regional Airlines,” Journal of Air Transport Management, Vol.6, No.2, pp.87-94.

    Shannon, C. E., 1949, “A Mathematical Theory of Communication,” The Mathematical Theory of Communication, by the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois, Used with the permission of University of Illinois Press.

    Shelby, A. N., 1988, “A Macro Theory of Management Communication,” Journal of Business Communication, Vol.25, No.2, pp.13-27.

    Sivadas, E. and Dwyer, F. R., 2000, “An Examination of Organizational Factors Influencing New Product Success in Internal and Alliance-based Processes,” Journal of Marketing, Vol.64, No.1, pp.31-49.

    Smeltzer, L. R. and Thomas, G. F., 1994, “Managers as Writers: A Metaanalysis of Research in Context,” Journal of Business and Technical Communication, Vol.8, No.2, pp.186-211.

    Verderber, R. F. and Verderber, K. S., 1996, 人際關係與溝通 (曾瑞真、曾玲珉譯),台北:揚智。

    三、網站資料

    客艙安全檢查員手冊,交通部民用航空局網站:http://www.caa.gov.tw

    交通部民用航空局飛安公告網站:http://www.caa.gov.tw/big5/content/index.asp?sno=67

    下載圖示 校內:2008-06-27公開
    校外:2010-06-27公開
    QR CODE