I've always believed that some CRM Skills could be taught, and evaluated,
as a technical skill. Reaction to a Fire Warning light is often considered
"technical", simply because the preferred reaction is published in a book.
That makes it fit the three tests Vince listed:
1. A lack of procedural knowledge? (testable)
2. A lack of procedural skill? (testable)
3. An inability to recognize the conditions requiring the procedure?
(partially testable with today's methods)
I have repeatedly created a situation in the MOST mission in which the
pilot has attempted to land from an unstable, too fast, and too long approach.
Most of the time, the copilot's just sat there and let it happen. The simple
task of saying "Go Around" seems to be a "non-technical" artform. (as are many
other CRM technical skills)
What confuses me is that in an academic classroom pilots and non-pilots
can easliy define situations that should require a go-around--and I didn't
teach these conditions; they learned them early in the flight training
process. So what the heck is going on?
Is it possible, even using the respected ISD process, to establish a
training objective that would create conditions, that even on a normal day,
would stimulate the words "Go Around" from the pilot, or non-pilot, who is not
flying? Why do so many pilots think that the decision to go-around is soley
the domain of the flying pilot?
In my opinion, there are a lot of "CRM skills that could be, and should
be, considered "technical" skills. As such, they can be published, trained,
tested, and re-trained if necessary. Their behaviors could be "standardized",
regardless of culture. This CRM insdustry has the knowledge and skill to make
it happen; so what's holding us back?
If someone was serious about this type of training, and I mean SERIOUS, I
know of a facility that has a tremendous amount of training going on 20 hours
of a day. The students are pilots, and non-pilots. Some are experienced
aviators, some are ab-initio. There are CRM classes located through several
stages of training. The actual flight training is being conducted at the
same location.
If a research group, or person, wanted to see a progressive training
system, from ab-initio through instructor level, with academics, part-task
trainers, full-mission simulation, and actual aircraft flight training, I know
of such a place. I can't think of a better source for research and
observation of CRM skills, as well as "other" technical skills.
"There is a time to prove, and a time to move"--can't remember the wise man
who said that--sorry.
Greg Deen
HTI