Having spent 29 years working in human factors (mainly aviation related) I
would have to agree that many ideas come around on a regular basis (guess
we are due for another dose of Yerkes and Dodson - the dreaded U curve -
any time now). I also agree that when we have nailed an intervention, and
are getting all the success we can deal with, then don't mess with it. I
do not feel that CRM has reached that plateau as evidenced by much of the
discussion on this forum.
>From a major study we did for the CC-130 community in Canada (this was both
observational and experimental) we concluded that two areas were of need of
attention. They were (1) aircraft systems knowledge, and (2)
leadership/captaincy/decision making from ACs. CF CC-130 crews have been
receiving CRM training for many years now. Admittedly is somewhere around
Gen1/2, but it is done with skill and great enthusiasm by the trainers. I
believe that it is the content and not the delivery that needs help.
To address the leadership/captaincy/decision making area we proposed a
fleet wide comprehensive approach to human factors in decision-making
training. This approach is supposed to impact the total training and
operational infrastructure. It will introduced at ab initio level, it will
be assessed, it will be used as a framework by instructors to coach
students, and by check pilots during proficiency rides. It will be built
on at every stage of conversion and continuation training. It is all based
on a common framework that has theoretical underpinnings. The trick will
be to make the theory assessable by fine arts majors rather than engineers.
I tried to do this in a tongue-in-cheek article for the RAAF Flight Safety
Spotlight last year. That article addressed the issue of communication and
its role in resource management.
This approach is not classical CRM and applies equally to single seaters as
multi-crew aircraft. I can find parallels in other programmes. One of the
ANG F16 units is teaching a bucket-full-of-attention resource approach that
mirrors the IP model and therefore a part of our approach.
The point Gary was making is critical. Crews need to understand more about
the decision making process and why a person's actions may be inappropriate
under specific circumstances - such as the scenario he offered. We are
trying to put training in place that will give that understanding and
develop the skills necessary to break the error chain. It can't be based on
long sets of rules with exceptions - "...you should communicate a lot, but
not when the AC is busy/distracted/under load..."(see article by FAA
referred to by Vince Mancuso recently). It has to be reduced to a few one
liners if it is going to work under fire. We are trying to do just
that...have we succeeded...time (and ASSESSMENT) will tell.
Soooo...just what wheel was it that we are re-inventing ;-) Sorry,
couldn't resist. BTW my first boss told me that very few things in the
world are really new. Most are just built on old knowledge - William James
got a lot of things right 100 years ago - so perhaps the IP/PCT approach is
just old stuff in new packaging, but it's a really attractive
package...honest.
The final word is about "... by flight crew for flight crew." more than
once in this forum the tension between the "scientist" and the "operator"
has emerged. I do not think that lay flight crews have the knowledge to
put this training in place alone. Stories have been offered about idiot
researchers having no contact with the real world and making ridiculous
recommendations that show how we must keep them behind locked doors for
there own safety. Just as there are idiot researchers there are idiot
flight crews. Neither side has a monopoly on wisdom. When competent
people from the two sides are brought together, magic can happen (Gary,
looks like you have lot's to compensate for...).
Cheers
Keith Hendy
DCIEM, Toronto
>Gary,
>Not to take anything away from Mr. Hendy's work or the continuing work of
>our fine military but they always seem to have a habit of re-inventing the
>wheel. I was involved in the develoment and implementation of a Crew
>Resource Management program for MAG in the mid 80's. We looked at the Herc
>accidents like Edmonton and the near miss at Petawawa as well as many
>others. If you look in the past you may fiind what you are doing has been
>done already by flight crew for flight crew. The program was three days
>long and several crews from the Herc world attended. If I can be of any
>help please let me know.
>
>CHEERS!
>K. Parker
>Managing Director
>Aircrew Training Systems Ltd.
Keith Hendy
Systems Modelling Group
DCIEM
PO Box 2000
Toronto, ON M3M 3B9
CANADA
Ph: 416 635 2074