Sakuma_at_BDZ.crane.jal.co.jp wrote:
> Dear Mike :
> I agree with some of your flight crew who are violently opposed to the current
> CRM program being "psychologically manipulated". I suppose they cannot find out
> how the current CRM program is related to the occurrences of real oparational
> world. One of the reasons why may be that we do not have any powerful
> methodology for investigating human factors aspect of aviation
> accidents/incidents. For example, neither aviation psychologists nor
> technitians( pilot, engineer ) can properly identify why the airplane was
> directed to the north( mountain side ) insted of the south and the flight crew
> were not aware of the wrong heading until the last moment in the Thai Air A310
> accident at Kathmandu on July 31, 1992. If we could develop a practical CRM
> program based upon the well established HF investigation process, your flight
> crew would understand the importance and effectivity of the CRM program and
> would be glad to accept it. Now we need real HF specialists who have sufficient
> knowledge and intelligence in both hard and soft sciences related to the
> aviation business. I think the acronym "CRM" is the best terminology which
> could be generally accepted not only in the aviation but also in other
> socio-technical industries.
>
> Hidetake Sakuma, Corporate Safety, JAL
>
> > Hello group,
> > In a posting earlier this week I mentioned that we were developing a CRM
> > program for a small flight department consisting of 8 very experienced
> > Captains, and that at least two of them were violently opposed to being
> > "psychologically manipulated at some darn touchy-feely, feel-good
> > seminar." (The exact words from one suggestion card submitted to the
> > chief pilot.) Talk about a tough audience!
> > By the way, I can identify with this person's feelings, because the
> > first CRM-type training I attended (some time in the late 1970's as I
> > recall) fit the "touchy-feely..." description perfectly. At that time
> > it was called the "Captain's Seminar" or the "First Officer's Seminar,"
> > and, though it was well intended, I'm afraid it produced more antagonism
> > toward the program than positive operational effect.
> > Captains and first officers did not attend common seminars, and second
> > officers were not included at all!!! One of the reluctant captains in
> > this flight department, may have attended one of those same seminars,
> > and, if he did, he obviously hasn't forgotten.
> > I think we have found a way to overcome the obvious reluctance exhibited
> > by some members of this group:
> > 1. Each of the pilots has been invited to participate in developing the
> > program by suggesting program content and mode of presentation. And we
> > will be certain that each captain who participates will recognize at
> > least some of what he suggested.
> > 2. We are abandoning the acronym "CRM" entirely. The program will be
> > called the "###### Flight Department Safety Program" or "Flight
> > Standards Program" or something similar. We are also going to ask them
> > to name the program.
> > 3. For this group the program will be procedure and technique oriented
> > and will avoid theory. Fortunately, we are also helping to develop a
> > new operations manual for the department, and the "safety program" can
> > be blended into the department's operational culture and procedures.
> > (As, of course, it should be.)
> > 4. Even though we are staying away from anything theoretical, we can
> > certainly explain why a particular technique or procedure works or
> > doesn't work. That way, we can back our way into some useful theory (I
> > hope). That's not psychological manipulation, is it?
> > Anyway, perhaps we can teach some old dogs some new tricks, and they
> > will undoubtedly teach us some too.
> > Also, we're still looking for some really basic videos about crew
> > coordination and multi-pilot operating techniques if anyone runs across
> > anything for complete beginners.
> > Mike Courtney