ARM sounds very good because is also "ALL " Resources Management. Thus is
lined up with the spirit and philosophy
Cheers,
Guillermo
CRM Facilitator Argentina
-----Mensaje original-----
De: charles gonzalez <cgonzale_at_kalitta.com>
Para: crm-devel_at_db.erau.edu <crm-devel_at_db.erau.edu>
Fecha: Martes 12 de Mayo de 1998 15:33
Asunto: Re: The name of the game
>
>suggestion: ARM (AIRCREW RESOURCE MANAGEMENT)
>SINCE, THE FAA WILL ENCOMPASS FLIGHT ATTENDANTS, DISPATCHERS, ETC...IN
YEARS TO
>COME...THIS IS WHAT WE'VE COME
>UP WITH...A SORT OF COMPROMISE BETWEEN CRM AND THE NEW
>MANDATES. SECONDLY, ARM IMPLIES MOBILITY AND STRENGTH-
>WE KINDA LIKE IT! JUST AN IDEA.
>
>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
>
>
>
>