I think (I hope!) that we are seeing what you described in your last
paragraph in the trend to CRM as "Complete Resource Management". I have
worked both on the flight deck and in maintenance, and I fully agree
that we are only just beginning to deal with HF in the maintenance area
(not to mention all the other areas that make the mission possible).
And I remember well suggesting to some flight operations, especially
foreign ones, that dispatchers, maintenance technicians, managers, cabin
attendants, etc. should be included in the training, and have all too
often been greeted with "they don't need that kind of stuff--it would
only distract them."
Keep in touch.
Dave Keasal
>----------
>From: Joan Kleman Kuenzi[SMTP:joan.kuenzi._at_nwa.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 1997 11:56 AM
>To: crm-devel_at_db.erau.edu
>Subject: Re: Emergency Talk
>
>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.
>