Hello gang,
It's very difficult to quantify the effectiviness of a long range
program. There are some magazine articles available, but I'm not sure how
well they'd hold up to a truly analytical inspection.
I believe in the proceedings of a NASA/MAC conference back in 1986 was an
article reporting a 51% decrease in mishaps within the MAC C-130 communtiy.
This decrease was attributed to the Aircrew Coordination Training (ACT) and
Mission Oriented Simulator Training (MOST-LOFT) efforts we started just a
couple of years prior.
In a Navy aviation magazine, titled ATTACK, (I think), was a article that
reported a 52% drop in mishaps among the A-6 community, and "similar"
decreases among the other aircraft types. These were attribitued to the
introduction of the Aircrew Coordination Training (ACT) which was developed
by Bob Alcov and others associated with Simuflite/Allen/Singer/Link etc.
family. If memory serves well, that magazine was published about 1990, and
was a special about human factors.
There is also some "statistical" data that shows the C-130 mishap rate
going up just before CRM training, then coming down, then going back up again
a few years after the training was abandoned, then coming down when the
training was restarted. These numbers are property of the Air Force, and
publishing them might be a challenge. They do support a conclusion that the
training must be a constant force within the flying community, or the effect
will be lost. Do the "numbers" really say that, in absolute facts? Who
knows.
Using these numbers to justify a training expense has a shallow
effect. The objective of our C-130 program is to improve mission
effectiveness (as stated in the Air Force policy). Safety, and reduced
mishaps, is a byproduct of a good CRM program. That's why we in this
business need to be studying the "little" stuff; to show how the operation of
aircraft is getting more efficient, and cost effective, in this more complex
and stressful world of ours.
Greg Deen
HTI: C-130 ATS