<<Just a few questions. Any answers or opinions are appreciated.
There is currently a concern for standardization and level of sophistication
in CRM training. We have basically three approaches to CRM training for
operational aircrew. A classroom only lecture/facilitation type, a classroom
facilitation with Mission oriented simulator training (LOFT) reinforcement
type, and a PC based interactive mission type. Which one is the correct
approach? >>
Each aproach has its own best use. The classroom is probably the best place
to open the subject up for persons not familiar with CRM. It is in the
classroom that awareness training is best presented. The classroom and/or a
PC based system also provides a method to provide at least some elementary
refresher training for the aircrews who do not have a simulator in which to
apply the lessons of CRM. MOST/LOFT training provides a method to extnd the
awareness phase into the cockpit, an is probably the best training vehicle
outside the aircraft itself. A PC based system has a place in refresher
training, but anything that moves CRM farther away from the cockpit detracts
from the training. A PC based system would be a good in-unit trainer to fill
in between the MOST/LOFT periods. One should be very careful about
substituting the PC system for CRM training in the simulator or WST.
<<Is there a wrong approach? >>
Putting an ab initio student in a MOST/LOFT scenario would not be too
productive. Nor would substituting a PC for the MOST/LOFT if a WST were
available.
How often is CRM training required?
<<CRM training should be a normal part of all training in a weapon system, in
the classroom, sim and aircraft. It should be inextricable from technical
training. I frequently hear people describe a particular simulator training
mission as a CRM mission. My question is, When is any mission, sim or
aircraft, not a CRM mission? The direct answer to your question is: Anytime
there is aircrew training, other than ancillary, CRM should be a part of it.
<< Can currency requirements be based on experience level of (the) aircrew?>>
The consensus for MOST/LOFT training is that to be effective it must be
administered to the entire crew. How many crewmembers have equal experience?
Do we stratify technical training by experience level? How do we develop
crews for sim training? Do we develop crews for actual missions by trying to
equate experience levels? Given the answers to those questions and the fact
that CRM training should be administered to the entire crew, the answer to
your question would be no. Of course, training for a fully qualified crew
could (and should) be different from that provided to a crew in initial
training.
<<How much CRM training is required?>>
I do not know of any studies that quantify how much is enough. Consensus
seems to be refresher training somewhere between semi-annually and annually.
Our program calls for annual training, 4 hours in the classroom and 8 hours
in the WST.
<<How do you measure it's effectiveness?>>
The "where" is in the cockpit. The "how" is a good question. AMC has an
assessment sheet that they use in their program. The Helmreich behavioral
markers are used by some. However, I do not know of a universally accepted
method of measurement. Take a look at the CRM Developer's Home Page, in the
What's New section for a compilation of thoughts on the subject of metrics,
that I recently put together.
<<What do you do for aircrew members that do not have a station in the
simulator? >>
Another good question. The folks with Ed Salas at the Navy Training Systems
Center developed a PC based system that they connected to a helicopter WST so
the crew chief (a flying crew member) could participate with the pilot crew
members on sim missions. We have used the Loadmaster in the sim in an
instructor's seat participating with the crew on checklists, etc. We have
also entered problems for the crew through the LM, by way of printed cards.
This has been on partially successful, and more so with the younger LMs. The
more mature LMs see it as a waste of time, though most of them get into the
spirit pretty quickly. They all express appreciation for getting to see what
the front end guys have to deal with during these exercises.
<<How realistic does the training have to be?>>
Again the consensus seems to be "as realistic as we can make it". Another
discussion thread is on the server now as to the requirement for fidelity.
One school seems to think it is an absolute necessity for effective training.
Another seems to feel that PC based simulation is sufficient. I suspect that
the answer lies between the two. It is probably centered around the answer to
the question, "what and who are you trying to train?"
<<Should CRM be integrated in the everyday environment in place of or in
addition to annual CRM training?>>
CRM must be an integral part of every crew member's daily crew activities.
Anything less would be a compromise of the very essence of what CRM is: The
efficient efforts of every crew member to get the mission completed. Annual,
semi annual, or monthly CRM training is for naught if the results are not
manifested in the aircraft.
<<How do you integrate the training into everyday operations without it
becoming just another square filler in the over tasked mission environment?>>
I do not know of a crew member who does not recognize the value of good CRM.
Even the so-called boomerangs and nay-sayers on close questioning begin to
express the same principles that any good CRM program espouses. If a CRM
program is a square filler, the problem lies with the program, not the
subject.
Good questions, Alex. Keep stirring the pot.
Dave Wilson
HTI