Re: results

Tracy Day (tmday_at_southeast.net)
Sun, 18 Jan 1998 12:31:08 -0500

Charlie,
Thanks for the comments. It is true that it is cheaper to try something
and risk reducing error and increasing effectiveness vice doing nothing and
guarantee that error will not decrease. However, the problem we are facing
is that if there is blind belief in a training program that is not working
we will never look for a better way. What I am hoping to find out is
whether or not ACT is improving a effectiveness through Causal Comparative
research (i.e. before ACT v.s. after ACT). We have graded flight events
that may show something. However, I am aware that causal comparative
research, especially involving military grading, will not be a effective as
a true experiment. A true experiment as you pointed out would probably be
unethical or too expansive for my project. Thanks again, I appreciate any
further inputs you could provide.

----------
> From: CharlieRU <CharlieRU_at_aol.com>
> To: crm-devel_at_db.erau.edu
> Subject: Re: results
> Date: Sunday, January 11, 1998 9:09 PM
>
>
> LT Day,
> You're asking the question that many of us a struggling with to
answer for
> senior managers. Just a comment. Do these same managers, COs, etc ask
the
> question about chemical warfare training, or survival training,or egress
> training, or Protection of the President, or Security practices, or flu
shots,
> or sensitivity training, or whatever?
> Many training events have little or no measurable outcome or at
least one
> which is unethical to do controlled research on. An option to answer
this
> kind of inquiry is to state that as long as the primary causal factor in
80%
> of aircraft mishaps is human error this is our, and their, best hope in
> reducing mishaps. When we figure that the Air Force looses 26 aircraft a
year
> (or so) how do they hope to replace lost assets? CRM training is
cheaper.
> Have Fun Fly Safe
> Charlie