On first reading l have to admit that the whole thing sounded somewhat
silly; they may have been better advised to use "plain talk" rather than
psychobabble.
On second reading, l agree with Kerry that it could have some use if
used and conducted appropriately.
Kerry said,
> Check with them what the goals and objectives of the seminars are and how
> the facilitators intend to evaluate the program, also what sort of
> psychological support will they offer participants who may require it
> post-seminar.
>
> Presumably the training provider has public liability insurance,
> occasionally digging around with group therapy can backfire. Particularly
> if any participant is involved in an aviation accident post seminar. You
> don't want to make any recommendations and then have it come back on your
> head down the line!
>
> Its important that participants have the option to participate in the
> seminars, they should not be compulsory. Also check how much experience
> the facilitators have (real time) doing this work with the aviation industry.
The issues of psychological support, evaluation,etc are extremely
important. The RAAF went through a phase of using such training (as much
as l can surmise from your posting) for instructors. As a gross
generalisation, l would suggest that it worked well for those who least
needed it (eg: those who functioned effectively in their roles), some
people were psychologically harmed (and there was no inbuilt support for
these people), it was never properly evaluated and therefore the baby,
the water, and the bathtub were thrown out without really knowing the
effectiveness or not.
It sounds like many things, not all bad, not all good, potentially both.
Regards, Jo-Anne