A grad student recently asked me the following question.
"My . . . question concerns human error. In Chapter Fourteen (of Redefining
Airmanship) titled 'The Individual is the Answer' you seem to disagree with
others on the normalization of human error. Are you saying that human error
can be totally overcome with maximum individual effort? How does your
philosophy differ from Helreich and Hawkins (5th generation CRM - CRM as error
management)."
Hmmm, I pondered and replied with the following. I send it to the group with
the hopes of stimulating some discussion on the need or desireability for
training the high achiever as opposed to the marginal performer.
My reply.
Steve
I, too worship at the altar of the Great Ones like Bob and
Frank - but I take different approach, and for good reason. I believe that
many - perhaps most - aviators are chronic underachievers. That is to say,
they will not independently seek higher standards unless at the point of a
gun. (This is probably based upon experience although I claim it from
observation! ;-]) I maintain that the PURSUIT of perfection - error
elimination - should be the standard. To say that there will always be human
error in the cockpit leads, I believe to a tolerance factor in individuals
that is counterproductive, especially when it is related to the drive for
personal improvement and accountability.
While it may be true that all error will never be eliminated, I feel greater
gain can be achieved by moving INDIVIDUALS towards higher standards - fewer
errors - with the goal of perfection. Perfection doesn't necessarily mean
"forever" - that's too long for anyone to comprehend - BUT I as a crewmember
can seek perfection for the next five minutes or for the next flight, or for
the next week or month. Like they say in alcoholics anonymous "one day at a
time." That is my training perspective - expect perfection - and be
disappointed (but not to a debilitating state) when you don't achieve it.
Good individuals make better teams.
Second concern - the semantics of "generational CRM." Supposedly, we are now
in the midst of "fifth-generation CRM." This somehow connotes that all that
has come before has been overcome by a newer and "better way." I disagree.
New does not automatically mean "better." The fundamentals of hazardous
attitudes and subtle incapacitation that I saw in my very first exposure to
CRM in the early 1980s are still among the most valuable tools in my human
factors kit bag today.
Finally, it is my gut feeling that error management is deals primarily with
the "bottom feeders" (I know that will generate some hate mail) - i.e. "How
can we take crews performing at marginal levels and keep them from killing
themselves and others?" Because we are limited in resources (can't train both
the high and low ends of the performance spectrum) - and are interested first
and foremost in safety - this is a necessity - but it takes away from seeking
and achieving higher standards of performance. The entire American education
system is in disarray due to the two decade focus on the low achiever. We
should not repeat this mistake. High achievers raise the level of all around
them. We must not forget this fact or lose this leverage.
OK, OK, I'm calming down now - in reality I see the need for both approaches -
organizational foci on risk mitigation and error management - and pushing or
pulling high achievers to the next rung on the ladder to perfect
performance. Unfortunately we seem to be pursuing only one.
Forward to the new millennium.
Happy new year.
Tony Kern