Asheligh writes:
>I didn't want Key's suggestion for advanced training - that line pilots be
given some form of behavioral observation checklist and asked to rate a
videoed LOFT as part of their recurrent training - to go unheralded as I
thought it was a very clever idea. <
Greg Deen writes:
> I provided the crew and instructors with "debriefing guides" that were a
clear match to the academic language taught in the class prior to the
mission. This form even has the LLC-4 grading scale on it. My hope was
that the crew would recognize their application, or lack of, the academic
discussions, and be willing to "grade" themselves. The result was a wall
of fatigue and apathy. <
I will share my experience in trying to implement the idea that Key
highlighted and Ashleigh endorsed...
In 1996, I consulted with Key and others to implement this exact type of
program at a major north american carrier for the 1997 recurrent LOS/LOFT
training program. We used a 5 minute video vignette in the LOFT prebrief
of a crew flying an exact sequence that the training crew would face in
their LOFT session. To obtain the videos without overstepping the
confidentiality boundaries of LOFT tapes, we used management pilots who
were current and qualified in that specific jet. Since each fleet had
different scenarios, we created a "jet specific" vignettes that matched the
fleets recurrent training scenario.
We had the training crew rate the performance of the video crew during
their LOFT prebrief. The rating form used a subset of Delta's Management
Skill (CRM) performance markers. The crew then flew the LOFT profile in
the sim. In the debrief, we had them rate their performance with the same
rating scale looking at the same task they saw in the prebrief.
The video vignette used in the prebrief displayed crew performance in an
exact flight sequence the training crew would perform in the upcoming LOFT.
This accomplished two things... 1. It got them thinking about what the
performance markers (which are the learning objectives for a LOFT) look
like in their specific flight deck. 2. It got them discussing the specific
CRM actions and tasks they would do things differently or the same when
they faced the same scenario in the LOFT.
Critiquing CRM performance of a crew performing familiar tasks in a
familiar flight deck is one of the most effective ways I know to take
academic concepts and translate them into a picture pilots can understand.
We chose to extend that value to both the prebrief as well as the debrief.
Pilots need to see it in motion not in writing!!! They need to see what it
looks like in a flight deck, not just in a classroom role play. Crews can
pattern their behavior from watching a crew much more readily than they can
by trying to translate academic abstractions into actions. The prebrief
video discussion gave them the opportunity to highlight the SPECIFIC
ACTIONS they will take given the same set of circumstances. This
effectively set the stage for modifying their behavior in the sim.
After the LOFT, we had crews rate their own performance of the same segment
they saw on the video prebrief. The ratings were destroyed after they were
done since their only purpose was to facilitate training transfer.
The rating scale died a quick and violent death in the prototype testing of
the courseware we did with the flight instructors in November of 1996.
There were about a half-dozen reasons the prototype testers cited for
killing it. The Ph.D. side of me found the reasons difficult to accept but
the line pilot side of me found the reasons totally reasonable and
understandable.
The bottom line.... using CRM ratings in LOFT training is a good idea but
not a new one. I hope that other developers in the audience have an
organizational climate that allows them to extend this methodology. My
advice is to have a really good marketing plan for selling it to your
instructors and senior managers.
Best regards,
Vince Mancuso, Ph.D.