Back in December, I submitted a story of a crew faced with a delimma and
asked for inputs on "metrics." I was coming from the premise that "metrics"
is the "grading" of CRM behavior; CRM assessment, as some call it. My
premise may be wrong in that respect; is it possible we are not agreed on
what "metrics" is?
In either case, the three responses sent to me had a common theme; the crew
was marginally qualified, quite dangerous, and should be
re-trained—particularly the PIC in his application of leadership/captaincy.
One of the responses I received even went so far as to evaluate the
individual crewmembers' CRM behavior in technical terms.
What is different in this effort is that I, the facilitator and WST operator
of the day, was watching the crew through the entire mission, not just the
approach event which I published. I was not as critical to the crew as the
respondents were. Do we evaluate CRM of a whole mission, or of a specific
task within a mission? When a check-airman grades a flight, does the whole
flight and overall outcome of the flight outweigh a momentary event. Can a
crew do a really excellent job until they miss an item on a checklist, such
as a de-icing switch. Do we grade the result, or the process?
Using the evaluation criteria developed by Dr. Helmreich, et.al., on the
LLC-4, the responses I was sent would put the crew in the "1" category,
meaning poor and unsafe. Having watched the whole thing, I had them in the 2
and 3 category, with specific areas which are taught in the CRM courseware.
During the mission prior to the landing challenge, the crew was quite
effective in their communication tasks. There were no apparent barriers,
each spoke often with observations of mission progress and aircraft status.
The few challenges that appeared were discussed openly and the PIC made
clear decisions, which were also reviewed. After the landing challenge, the
crew was equally effective, returning the airplane to a suitable repair
facility and communicating the problems to the support agencies. So what
about the landing dilemma?
Perhaps the crew was lucky that the pilot flew a lousy approach into the
field. Had he performed the final approach properly, there is no doubt in my
mind he would have landed, placing a crippled aircraft in a small field
without the capability of repair or safe departure. Toward that end, the crew
was a "1" in assertiveness, policy/regulations, decision-making,
communication. They did a missed approach and entered the pattern, by
accident. The next phase was to me the more critical; they now had an
opportunity to resolve their ambiguities. Unfortunately, the pilot continued
to fly the airplane, and that task distracted him between flight and
judgement. The copilot should have taken control of the aircraft: he had the
best vision of the runway, thereby allowing him to fly a proper pattern.
Once relieved of the flying task, the pilot could have opened a dialogue
with the engineer and navigator to assess the situation. That discussion
might have produced a better decision.
So, do we assess the ends, or the means?