------=_NextPart_000_01BE3913.DCC962E0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Col. Kern and colleagues,
I'm still laughing at the term "bottom feeders." I agree that's one way to
look at it. But after reading Helmreich's article, it seems as though he
and his colleagues are looking for a way to make CRM as widely acceptable
as possible. In other words camouflage it so that the "dragoons" will not
recognize it and associate it with behavior modification.
To me, 5th generation CRM doesn't seem like too bad of an idea. Why can't
the "Airmanship Model" and "5th Generation CRM" coexist? In a perfect
world here's how they fit:
5th Generation CRM's first step--Error Avoidance--is accomplished by two
means: 1) The COMPANY screening process - Employing aviators with the
desirable traits. 2) The motivated INDIVIDUAL embracing the Airmanship
Model - the aviator striving to master all the traits of airmanship.
The second step--Error Trapping-- is accomplished by use of CRM techniques:
cross-checking, challenge response, and help from machines, etc.. Since we
can all admit that humans will eventually err, this is the a logical second
line of defense.
The third step of 5th Generation CRM is Error Mitigation. Here I'm a little
foggy. I know that this is the last defense before catastrophe and that
the idea is to reduce the consequences of error, but it's more difficult to
visualize what these measures might consist of. I assume error mitigation
would be like leveling off a the wrong altitude and then quickly continuing
to the correct altitude before there's a problem. Or, is error mitigation
the final effort of an aviator when he or she maneuvers to crash in the
nearby field rather than hit the school house? Some ideas here are
welcome!
To me, error elimination (the Airmanship Model) and error management (5th
Generation CRM) is kind of like believing that God created the earth by
means of evolution. The two different philosophies do not necessarily have
to conflict.
For those who are wondering what we're talking about, visit
http://www.psy.utexas.edu/psy/helmreich/iata96.htm and read Redefining
Airmanship. (See the CRM Developers book store)
The student now goes to sleep.
Best Regards,
Steve Mayes
smayes_at_ou.edu
----------
| From: Lt Col Tony T. Kern, X-3230 <KernTT.DFH.USAFA_at_usafa.af.mil>
| To: crm-devel_at_db.erau.edu
| Subject: CRM Millennium Manifesto
| Date: Tuesday, January 05, 1999 4:59 PM
|
|
| Colleagues
|
| 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
------=_NextPart_000_01BE3913.DCC962E0
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Col. Kern and colleagues,
I'm =
still laughing at the term "bottom feeders." I agree =
that's one way to look at it. But after reading Helmreich's =
article, it seems as though he and his colleagues are looking for a way =
to make CRM as widely acceptable as possible. In other words camouflage =
it so that the "dragoons" will not recognize it and associate =
it with behavior modification.
To me, 5th generation CRM doesn't =
seem like too bad of an idea. Why can't the "Airmanship Model" =
and "5th Generation CRM" coexist? In a perfect world =
here's how they fit:
5th Generation CRM's first =
step--Error Avoidance--is accomplished by two means: 1) The COMPANY =
screening process - Employing aviators with the desirable traits. 2) The =
motivated INDIVIDUAL embracing the Airmanship Model - the aviator =
striving to master all the traits of airmanship.
The second =
step--Error Trapping-- is accomplished by use of CRM techniques: =
cross-checking, challenge response, and help from machines, etc.. =
Since we can all admit that humans will eventually err, this is =
the a logical second line of defense.
The third step of 5th =
Generation CRM is Error Mitigation. Here I'm a little foggy. I =
know that this is the last defense before catastrophe and that the idea =
is to reduce the consequences of error, but it's more difficult to =
visualize what these measures might consist of. I assume error =
mitigation would be like leveling off a the wrong altitude and then =
quickly continuing to the correct altitude before there's a problem. =
Or, is error mitigation the final effort of an aviator when he or =
she maneuvers to crash in the nearby field rather than hit the school =
house? Some ideas here are welcome!
To me, error =
elimination (the Airmanship Model) and error management (5th Generation =
CRM) is kind of like believing that God created the earth by means of =
evolution. The two different philosophies do not necessarily have to =
conflict.
For those who are wondering what we're talking =
about, visit http://www.psy.utexas.edu/psy/helmreich/iata96.htm and =
read Redefining Airmanship. (See the CRM Developers book =
store)
The student now goes to sleep.
Best Regards,
Steve =
Mayes
smayes_at_ou.edu
----------
| From: Lt Col Tony T. =
Kern, X-3230 <KernTT.DFH.USAFA_at_usafa.af.mil>
| To: crm-devel_at_db.erau.edu
| Subject: CRM Millennium Manifesto
| Date: =
Tuesday, January 05, 1999 4:59 PM
|
|
| Colleagues
|
| =
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