If your aircrews talk like that and understand what the "psycho"s are babbling
about, then perhaps the material could find some usefullness in a CRM training
program. However, aircrews in my experience are more oriented toward the
'what' and 'how' of things rather than the why. We have our greatest success
in CRM training by focusing on the things that the crew can take into and use
in the aircraft.
I think Kerry is right on point in asking what are the objectives and goals to
such training. Vince (among others) has written a much about the value of
defining CRM skills to be taught. I wonder what skill your submitters are
trying to teach/develop with their "psycho-babble"?
By the way, as I am not a psychologist, does what they say make good sense? Is
it fact, an educated opinion, or unsupportable theory? The answer to your
question may lie in the answers to those questions?
Cheers
Dave Wilson
Raytheon
<<Hi gang,
<I would like (actually I need) to know what do you think about this issue,
and eventually your wise advise.
<Since Argentina is perhaps the country with more psychologists per
inhabitants ;), CRM here is also "psycho-oriented".
But last week in the Civil Aviation CRM Advisory Office we received the CRM
syllabus from one of our principal airlines which cought us off guard.
<In the Introduction the authors state, under the title "Ideological Frame"
(sic), concepts like "accidents are meaningfull acts, unconscious
constructs, just like lapsus linguae, etc... They occurr in personal crisis
contexts... Normally the individual remain unaware of the hidden meaning of
these events". And so on.
<These authors also have written about the Challanger accident, describing it
as a collective organizational suicide...
<After this introduction I expected to read something like a strong
recomendation for endless psychoanalysis for all pilots, cabincrew and
dispachers. They propose instead, a group-therapy-like series of seminars,
with a lot of tools for self-evaluation, etc.
<I'm rather disoriented, should I accept this program, should I propose some
modification. In the last case, which one.
<Thanks in advance for your inputs.
<Hugo>>>