Getting mature-age men who are (or believe they are) highly competent at
flying, to accept that they might need to do something differently is
borderline impossible. Is 'Give up' and option? No. Back to basic
training theory, then. (I'll leave to others any discourse on the
psychology of resistance to learning.)
Vince Mancuso gave a terrific presentation on learning phenomena. It
reminds that training is objective-oriented. The need for training is
established by appraisal of existing skills and or knowledge and
attitudes. You then design your course, knowing what it is you wish to
improve upon.
There are tests for Situational Awareness under stress capacity. The
WOMBAT is the one I'm familiar with. It has a two-place version (Duo),
that assesses co-ordination within the crew as well. Could you get your
pilots to sit down at such a test? Almost certainly not. Tell them the
underwriters of the aeroplanes are going to give a discount on premiums
when all crew have demonstrated, through test, high SA-capacity levels.
That won't work either, huh? 'Give up' still not an option? I thought as
much.
The gist of several of the Thorndike Laws Vince sent our way can be
summed up as 'motivation'. People will submit to the discomfort of
change in their lives if the reasons for doing it are compelling enough.
So how do you activate these guys' interest in getting close to where
you want them? Here's an approach I have used with like folk.
You create the scenario. It is to produce training materials for
inexperienced pilots - ab initio trainees, actually - to be taught crew
operations similar to those your blokes fly. They will have learned many
tricks, including aspects of crew co-ordination, through experience,
intuitively. You now want to capture all of that so it can be passed on.
If the appeal of thus producing something to hand down to following
generations of aviatiors is not strong, then maybe there's a commercial
angle. If the resultant program is good enough, the package will sell to
a large market. They will be co-owners, with a real interest in quality.
They won't be able to do the 'collecting' in the actual cockpit. So you
will provide a DuoWOMBAT, or rig a couple of PCs up as Florian Jentsch
has suggested, to run through a range of 'missions' and note down the
procedures being used, especially those related to command
decision-making under stress (when two captains are flying). As this
exercise will itself comprise the test/diagnosis-of-status-quo I
mentioned above, there will be plenty of static electricity around.
You'd be better off to engage an academic or instructor from a real
flying school to do the oversight and note-taking. Keep clear. Give them
plenty of time and space, no pressure, no deadlines. Let them work
through the thing - and discover their own training needs, if, indeed,
there are any, and matching prescriptions.
Another, perhaps less risky, approach is to use self-development
materials aimed at the pilot population - say my book, or Tony Kern's
Redifining Airmanship - and ask them, 'What is there in this for our
operation? How do we turn this into practical training programs relevant
to what we do?'
OK, enough. There's plenty more you could do, based on these principles,
the most important of which is to awaken in them the desire to do
something new.
Good luck.
Doug
PS Getting them to take a look at my paper at:
http://www.caar.db.erau.edu/crm/resources/paper/edwards/edwards.html
Might be useful in motivating terms, but it might also kindle resentful
resistance. Your judgement on that. Take care.