Page:KAL801Finalreport.pdf/161

 preparation for monitoring the approach. If the captain had briefed the details of the approach, including the various navigational fix definitions and associated altitude constraints, he would have enhanced the flight crew's ability to monitor the approach and challenge any errors he made.

Even if the first officer was attempting to monitor the approach, his ability to identify errors made by the captain would have been impaired by the requirement that he tune his navigation receiver to the UNZ VOR, thus forcing him to look across the cockpit to the captain's instruments to monitor the glideslope/FD status, any indications of glideslope capture on the captain's ADI and HSI, and the airplane's lateral position on the localizer. However, the first officer would have had information on his own HSI and radio magnetic indicator about the airplane's position relative to the VOR (the step-down fix for the descent to 560 feet) and the DME readings that defined the remaining fixes of the approach.

The first officer's ability to monitor the captain was also possibly hindered by the likelihood that he was using a different instrument chart than the captain for the localizer approach. The Safety Board found an out-of-date chart for this approach (dated January 19, 1996) in the cockpit. On the basis of the captain's comments on the CVR, it appears that the captain was using the correct chart (dated August 2, 1996), which included different definitions and names of DME fixes and different crossing altitudes than the out-of-date chart. Thus, if the first officer was using the out-of-date chart, he would have been hindered in monitoring the captain's compliance with the altitude constraints at the fixes.

Although the precise reason(s) for the lack of monitoring by the flight crew could not be determined, the Safety Board concludes that the first officer and flight engineer failed to properly monitor and/or challenge the captain's performance, which was causal to the accident.

Problems associated with subordinate officers challenging a captain are well known. For example, in its study of flight crew-involved major air carrier accidents in the United States, the Safety Board found that more than 80 percent of the accidents studied occurred when the captain was the flying pilot and the first officer was the nonflying pilot (responsible for monitoring). Only 20 percent of the accidents occurred when the first officer was flying and the captain was monitoring. This finding is consistent with testimony at the Safety Board's public hearing, indicating that CFIT accidents are more likely to occur (on a worldwide basis) when the captain is the flying pilot. (See section 2.8 for a discussion of CFIT accidents and prevention strategies, including monitored approaches.) The Board's study found that the failure of first officers to challenge errors (especially tactical decision errors) made by a flying captain was a frequent factor in accidents involving such errors. In addition, the study noted that, while monitoring and challenging a captain's tactical decision error, "a first officer may have difficulty both in deciding that the captain has made a faulty decision, and in choosing the correct time to