RE: GAO Report on CRM

Mangold, Susan J (mangold_at_battelle.org)
Thu, 20 Aug 1998 12:23:11 -0400

In Vince's previous message, he made some comments that are inaccurate and
probably need to be corrected. A significant part of the CRM chapter that
has been developed for the draft AQP Advisory Circular describes the
methodology for creating integrated CRM and technical training that was
developed for the FAA as part of Battelle's work on the Model AQP Database.
Battelle's methodology applies the AQP process to the training of CRM.
Consequently, the methodology has an obvious AQP orientation. It is clearly
inaccurate to suggest that the AQP CRM methodology is simply a rehash of
the non-AQP approach described in the CRM Advisory Circular.

Vince also neglects to mention that the principal conclusion reached in
the GAO report was that the AQP process offers the greatest potential for
providing effective CRM training. The methodology in the AQP CRM chapter is
consistent with what the GAO concludes is the best approach currently
available for CRM training.

I also find Vince's continuing claims that researchers are isolated from the
industry to be somewhat puzzling. Especially since I am just back from a
two-day meeting that involved two folks from academia and five folks who
represented three major carriers. One of many such meetings I have attended
during my work on the Model AQP Database. Perhaps Vince could elaborate on
what he means by "isolated."

Perhaps Vince might also consider following Neil's recent suggestion that
the list focus on people's ideas rather than on what employment category
someone falls into.

Vince wrote:

> The troubling issue, however, is that the folks who were
> charged with the leadership role in writing the FAA guidance for non-AQP
> programs (namely CRM Advisory Circular 120-51) have been charged with
> writing the next generation of CRM guidance for the FAA. One of the
> messages that I extracted from the GAO report is that there is a clear
> role
> for research and academia in the drafting of operational policy. That
> role
> for research and academia is policy development support not operational
> policy development leadership. ALPA has spoken out against this isolated
> approach to CRM policy writing. It appears that there are some changes
> taking place. Time will tell if they are substantial or merely cosmetic.
>
>