----------
> Van: Guy Standen <gstanden_at_ozemail.com.au>
> Aan: crm-devel_at_db.erau.edu
> Onderwerp: Re: About role playing in CRM training
> Datum: donderdag 20 augustus 1998 6:43
>
>
>
>
> Pam and Kim,
>
> Following on from your points about the use of role plays to allow crew
members to
> "walk in another's shoes", I saw a link between such role plays and some
training
> I carried out for cabin crew a number of years ago. Drawing on the work
of
> Rebecca Chute and Earl Wiener, I re-examined the basic concepts upon
which CRM was
> founded. As the "C" started out as "cockpit", originally CRM training
was based
> around one group, and concentrated on intragroup processes. When the
training
> broadened to include other personnel, the single group situation evolved
to
> include two or more groups, working together as one team. The need to
reconsider
> the basic principles in the light of intergroup processes, as well as the
original
> intragroup basis was sometimes overlooked. In my opinion, the biggest
intergroup
> factor is the potential for conflict. I felt that improving the
knowledge of
> roles and procedures from one group to another might help.
>
> At the time, I was flying B707's for the Royal Australian Air Force. We
had a
> very keen, enthusiastic bunch of cabin crew, many of whom were very
junior (< 1
> year in the job). In light of their low experience levels, and the work
discussed
> above, I put together a 1 day course aimed at improving cabin crew
knowledge of
> flight crew roles and procedures. The format included a 1 hour classroom
session
> in which I outlined crew roles for the Captain, First Officer and Flight
Engineer,
> as well as duties for Pilot Flying and Pilot Not Flying, and a brief look
at how
> checklists are used. Next, we moved into the simulator, which space-wise
limited
> the group size to ~5. The course participants then observed a flight
crew
> carrying out their duties. We ran through the normal checklist, pausing
to
> explain actions that had particular relevance to the cabin, such as
galley power
> being turned off prior to engine start. Then we covered some
emergencies, such as
> a rejected take-off, cabin depressurisation etc. Finally, each
participant was
> given an oppurtunity to fly the simulator for a take-off, some handling
exercises,
> and an attempt at landing (with motion off, as some did not have pretty
results!).
>
> Feedback from participants was very positive. Junior crew members found
that
> reasons for some parts of their initial training became more clear, and
were able
> to put their role in the team into perspective. Senior crew, often
involved in
> training, found that they learnt a suprising amount, and thought that the
> information would enable them to improve the abinitio training they
provided.
> Many participants commented on the time taken to accomplish tasks on the
> flightdeck, and were suprised to see how high the workload can be. They
all
> enjoyed having a fly, even though it was only included as a fun item to
round the
> day off.
>
> Overall, I was very pleased with the feedback and outcomes from the
course. An
> unintended, but valuable spin off was the interaction between the
participants and
> the crew carrying out their duties in the simulator. Some pilots and
engineers
> commented that they thought they gained as much from the course as the
cabin
> crew. Perhaps some form of training in reverse for flight crew in the
cabin might
> be equally useful? Resource difficulties make it hard for many
organisations to
> carry out such training, but I believe it goes a long way toward
verifying Chute
> and Wiener's recommendations re knowledge of one another's roles and
procedures.
>
> Guy Standen