Re: Emergency Talk
Joan Kleman Kuenzi (joan.kuenzi._at_nwa.com)
Tue, 04 Feb 1997 08:56:16 -0800
CRMDEEN_at_aol.com wrote:
>
> Tony Sasso makes excellent points, to which I agree with his vision. As much
> as I hope we will soon not need the assertiveness phrases, the reality is
> that sometimes they are crucial to use.
>
> 1. Must we get to the conflict stage? When the situation requires
> "nastiness" to break an error chain, then it is good that a crewmember have a
> nastiness tool, and uses it. I still believe CRM training can produce
> effective teamwork, and avoid such a need. In the meantime though, the tool
> needs to be there.
>
> 2. When I speak favorably of people using the "Time Out" procedure, I am
> coming from a history of banging my head against the wall for many years.
> That people are FINALLY speaking up, is to me, a sign of progress. I am now
> looking for the crews to start reporting they have never been in a situation
> where the tool needed to be used.( because of effective teamwork all along)
> In all fairness, I do get those indications also. Again, after so many years
> of CRM teaching, I can look back and see progress.
>
> 3. Part of the past includes dealing with those crewmembers who saw CRM as
> a call for hugging; group hugs, "holding hands in the hot tub" and all of
> that lovey-dovey stuff. I thought we were progressing past this also.
> Unfortunately, just today, a fellow instructor told me some of our C-130
> pilots returning for PIC and Instructor upgrade believe CRM is diluting their
> power and authority. AC's are afraid to continue a local trainer when one of
> the crewmembers complain about fatigue or distress. The complaints seem to be
> more common in the "active" forces, vice the guard/reserves. When I asked
> why the AC's are so quick to take an ultra-conservative course, the answer is
> they are "gun-shy about sticking their neck out--the commanders might not
> support them".
> Hummm, I wonder if unit culture has something to do with this.
> Thanks for the points, Tony.
>
> Greg Deen
> HTI-C-130 ATSThis is my biggest concern with CRM (or in my case, MRM). The fact that
organizational cultures cannot be changed by training alone. In the
maintenance arena, the very fact that we are perceived as being a
liability (meaning we spend much more than we make) seems to put us at
the bottom of the corporate totem pole. We can hold many successful
seminars, but if we don't practice (all of us from top to bottom of the
org.) what we are presenting, the program will fall into a "lovey dovey"
tailspin.
Along with our seminars, we are trying to make changes in the way we
communicate, as well as changes to the structure of the work that is
done here. I believe that in so doing, our mechanics will begin to see
that this is not "flavor of the month." One problem is that, while
the use of HF/Ergonomic principles have greatly enhanced the PHYSICAL
work setting on the flightdeck, it is only just beginning in
maintenance.
Maintenance work has seldom been studied in the field of HF/E. Ironic
huh? Could it be that the bias against designing for maintenance (as
opposed to designing for usability) is something we all have seen?
OK OK off my soap box... I do believe that in the future, there should
be a corporate CRM where the "team" has been expanded to include all
areas working together to achieve the carrier's goals. At NWA, we are
beginning that process with our pilots and line mechanics, as well as
already established pilot/FA programs.