It is interesting to see the "line" response to Psychologists
involvement in CRM.
I have heard for years that the researchers have been out of touch with
the reality of what "actually happens" on the flight deck. Clearly the
requirement that CRM instructors also be "current" serving line pilots
is over the top. There is, however, a grain of reality in this
concept. If you are not a pilot of some sort, have never shot an actual
approach to minimums on a hot, turbulent night, and many other things
which only a skilled pilot would appreciate, your EXPERIENTIAL treatment
of the materiels in CRM could be called into question.
("What does he knbow about workload on final approach that a book didn't
tell him?)
More importantly is the continued development on new CRM concepts and
programs which target line crews and seek to modify current behavior and
introduce error management and error avoidence activities/techniques.
Do these researchers have a good concept of the demands placed on a
flight crew in high workload situations if they have never been there??
Can these researchers actually develop a product/program which meets the
needs of the industry while actually enhancing safety if they have no
experience in the actual operation of a commercial cockpit? All of
these are fair questions.
I know we all have seen poor CRM programs constructed by well
intentioned but inexperienced or detached folks.
Another problem here is the psyche of the student CRMer. On the flight
deck credibility is everything. How many hours have you flown? Are you
current? Ever shot THIS approach into THIS field before? these are
questions we ask of ourselves and our crews as we go about our
business. Now you want to stand in front of ME and tell me to change
the way I do business.... but you have never actually flown an aircraft
before in your life? Good day sir, I think I smell the coffee down the
hall, you must excuse me.
A consortium of researchers, psychologists, pilots and educators will
fix this problem but only if they all work TOGETHER. No single group
has all the answers much less the corner on CRM.
LT Dan K. Patterson Ed.D.
Aerospace Experimental Psychologist
& Naval Pilot
Richard Heybroek wrote:
>
> Hi CRMers,
>
> Perhaps it's just been a long week, but I'm irritated by the contents of
> JAR-OPS Temporary Guidance Leaflet 5 on section 4/pt.3 - CRM. For anyone
> who hasn't seen it, para. 1 defines who may teach CRM. Interestingly, the
> first requirement is current commercial air transport experience.
> Exceptionally, a non-current CRM trainer/former crewmember may continue to
> train IF the authority agrees. However non-flight crew trainers who are
> not currently training are, in future and without exception, out.
>
> This may sound reasonable on the surface - of course we want our trainers
> to understand where we're coming from, the pressures we work with etc. -
> but on reflection I find it increasingly disturbing for a number of
> reasons.
>
> CRM was introduced by applied psychologists and much of the research,
> analysis and development has been and still is contributed by psychologists
> and other specialists. The first CRM courses were run by Dr. Bob Gennett
> at United. In the UK, one of the most effective CRM trainers I've ever met
> was Roger Green, also one of the pioneers of aviation human factors in this
> country. I find it ironic that someone who literally writes the book on
> CRM training would be inelegible to train.
>
> I also wonder about the notion that only someone currently on the flight
> deck can tell another pilot in a classroom about decision-making, teamwork,
> situational awareness or non-verbal communication, to name only a few.
> Many of the fundamental CRM problems arise precisely because the flight
> deck closed the door not only on the cabin, but on common human failings -
> get-home-itis, fatigue, complacency, rationalisation, denial. The idea
> that training specialists who are not ATPL and current are by definition
> not worth hearing I find an alarming piece of recidivism.
>
> More generally, why bother to write in an absolute exclusion? Do we really
> need a "Sterile Classroom" rule to stop psychologists from violating the
> cultural integrity of our flight crews? Why can't we simply certify
> instructors who are certifiably competent? Or does that not matter as long
> as they have the right stuff? If this regulatory intervention isn't
> *necessary* - and it is not - then why is it there?
>
> Of course I'm biased - but you don't have to be a psychologist to see the
> potential problems with this TGL, and I believe the ultimate risk is not
> 'jobs for shrinks' but an increasingly close-minded and non-responsive form
> of HF training. The nature of HF training in aviation is constantly
> evolving, as this list shows daily. IMO now, more than ever, is a poor
> time to start putting up barriers.
>
> A pleasant weekend to all,
>
> Rick Heybroek
> Loftwork ltd.