I have to agree with you. I have audited several of the courses that are
taught to the USAF T-37 students after they have had about 1 month of
flying experience in the tweet. Even then, after they have seen the
aircraft, and flown it with a nagging instructor in the busy traffic
environment of the base, they have a great deal of trouble identifying the
skills necessary to mitigate human error. I researched this via a survey
of how they have found CRM useful in the flight program (everyday
environment--excluding unusual circumstances, EP's etc) after they went
through an awareness-level CRM course, and the best responses I have gotten
resemble "good CRM is the instructor dialing in the ground frequency for me
so I don't have to." While a lawyer could prove this is a good workload
management skill I don't think any of us believe even the weakest student
desperately needs the IP to dial in a ground frequency during a standard
workload. We have have also had some followership problems (i.e. from the
survey "now is my chance to nag the instructor that he is 50 feet off HIS
altitude") possibly due to a strong bit of assertiveness training for the
student and a lack of followership/group dynamics training. I strongly
believe CRM has its place in student training, but I also believe timing is
critical.
Here, it is taught to the students during the week of their first
checkride. If the course is in the middle of technical or early in
technical training the student's mind is likely to be on the tech training
test he has coming up, definitely not on the CRM information we work so
hard to get across. In fact, CRM can get a bad name if it gets in the way
(in a student's frame of mind) of their technical training by being in the
middle of it. Since CRM is both a left and right brain program, I believe
you need to give the class when there are little diversions. Or the
diversion could go something like this (this is directed to your 18 year
old fresh out of high school who hasn't seen the plane yet, Greg), "Now
just imagine you have a hung jumper out of the left troop door after red
light, now I know you don't know what this is like or where the left troop
door is, but anyway the airplane is turning right and you want to tell the
Aircraft Commander..." To tell people how to interact with one another
when they haven't a foundation is like making them fight with one hand
behind their back. The students always have an instructor with them when
they begin the actual flying. So it is not critical that they are able to
function as the only representative of their crew position since the
instructor will always be able to step in as necessary (idealy).
That foundation can make that light bulb appear much earlier in the CRM
program and make facilitating a productive discussion possible, which (I
think) is when productive learning begins.
Capt Andy Newman, USAF
Air Education and Training Command
----------
> From: CRMDEEN_at_aol.com
> To: crm-devel_at_db.erau.edu
> Subject: ab-initio CRM training
> Date: Sunday, March 30, 1997 4:46 PM
>
> Hello CRM'ers,
> I'd like to inject a slight subject change, and ask for some
advice.
> Our current initial CRM training is accomplished AFTER aviators have
> completed their "Initital Qualification" training. Many of our students
> report to us only knowing what the airplane looks like, and it is
possible
> some of them have never been inside of an aircraft of any type ever
before.
> One of our crew positions has students who were in high school six
months
> ago. It has always been mine and my collegues' position that individual
> crewmembers should have their basic "technical" skills prior to engaging
> seminat training about crew/team behavior, especially to the
sophistication
> of recognizing error chains in sufficient time to recover.
> Recently there has been some strong advocacy from an agent of our
> customer to alter the sequence of training. Their proposal is to
accomplish
> the CRM training prior to their receiving ANY actual aircraft flight
> training. I have repeatedly debated that the individuals should have had
an
> opportunity to experience the actual flight environment and interact with
the
> other crew positions (since they each have very different positional
skills)
> BEFORE the formal CRM training. Additionally, the flight simulators used
by
> some of the trainees does NOT fully replicate the holistic flight
> environment, nor utilize each of the crew positions simultaneously.
> The debate continues, and I am increasingly challenged to tell
the
> customer's agent that they are wrong. Toward this challenge, I ask for
> help: when should a truly inexperienced aviator be trained in the
language
> and process of CRM? By this training, I mean to the level of recognizing
the
> concepts of human factors, not just inteacting through a checklist. Also,
> during the initial flight qualification training, each positional student
has
> a respective instructor, and the communication flow is not the same as a
> flight without instructor supervision.
> Is a research project indicated? Should there be a study of the
> cultural impacts which affect our different crewmembers. Is there a
research
> facility available to examine the current methods, and evaluate the
> effectiveness of the current methodology compared to the possible changes
> this agent wishes to effect?
> Admittedly, it is possible that I and my collegues do not have all
of
> the answers, and the customer might possibly be right ( although I
seriously
> doubt it).
> So how do I tell the customer that they are truly about to upset the
> apple cart, which translated means, leave the current training sequence
as it
> is. (?)
> Thanks for your help!
> Greg Deen-HTI