I am much indebted to you for your paper. Thank you.
We have walked much the same analytic path in many ways. But I am not
yet prepared to concede that identifying, through test, personality
characteristics inimical to safety, should result in the 'pathogen
carrier's' dismissal. Close, maybe, but not quite there. I shall try
to explain why.
In this country the main stimulus to rule-disobedient behaviour (after
basic personality) was the poor esteem in which the regulatory body
was held. As I have argued elsewhere, if the Emperor was despised, so
too were his laws. Thus, as the Safety Authority and all of its
Inspectors and rule-makers were hated, their regulations' and edicts'
power and authority were accorded contempt.
So if loss of respect for the regulatory framework causes the problem,
what can be the antidote? Make the system work better? Nope. No matter
how hard the poor buggers try, I can't see the Authority getting its
name back up in lights, securing anything like the high esteem/respect
needed. That's why I turn to the individual and their potential for
self-respect. If I'm the one enforcing the laws, then I can surely do
it better than anyone else. We are all our own best regulators.
It's especially the case in a big country with vast remote areas and
overall low population. You can't possibly have an Inspector behind
every tree watching every pilot. Pilots can get away with so much,
here, certain they will go undetected. Under the circumstances, the
only possibility for a functioning control system is self-control.
My book is the instrument I use to get trainee pilots to commit to a
professional code of responsible self-regulation. It works. They like
the idea of developing pride in professionalism and dedication.
Mature pilots have difficulty doing that, coming to grips with the
book's prescriptions. I therefore devised the seminar series to assist
them, to get them started on training for cognitive fitness. It works,
too, though it's tough going for many.
However, these tools may be culture-specific. You have the book and
the seminar outline. You can form your own view on whether you think
they might 'work' in other environments. (Reviews in our two leading
aviation magazines classify the book as 'must-read' for Australian
pilots.)
If it does, then that's the answer to Greg Deen's question. Self-
examination (against, for example, benchmarks and profiles thrown up
in this debate) and work 'out' any area of concern. It can be done -
and it can be done in private. The individual becomes his or her own
personal (and trustily confidential) trainer.
(The self-evaluation is for high denial levels, their being correlated
with poor performance under stress. The exercises permit stress-
resistance to be strengthened. They must be done regularly, become
part of your life-style.)
Assisting pilots - and all other decision makers with flight=related
duties - to learn (it must be self-learning) how to deal with their
denial, and its effects on critical phases of flight, is the biggest
single thing a trainer or crm developer can do. It is the 'missing
link,' the answer to the '70% barrier' phenomenon, without doubt.
How pilots respond to that proposition will say a lot about their
denial - as well as assist them in their self-evaluation, their honest
introspection. 'Am I doggedly resistant to new ideas?' That's the same
mechanism that has caused pilots to refuse to accept the prospect that
danger factors were increasing, as they descended towards the hills
with unresolved confusion.
The idea of getting pilots to commit to responsible self-regulation
generally identifies me as a madman, or, at best, hopelessly naive.
What I say to scoffers who are pilots - once they recover from falling
around laughing - is that, when testing arrives - and it will - the
ones who have been in training will sail through with ease. 'Don't
leave it till too late to get yourself into cognitive shape,' I tell
them, 'Your job might be at stake.'
I would be pleased to have your views.
Regards
Doug