Mine is a new voice in this forum (tho' I suppose we all are at this time).
My background and experience is as a military pilot, evaluator, senior
manager (commander), ACT/CRM student, facilitator, courseware developer and
program manager.
I noticed with interest the announced "shift" form CRM programs to "skill
based programs fully integrated with technical curricula that systematically
identify (with data not just opinions) the conditions that lead to error and
build crew skill to defend against these error producing conditions" (thanks
for the words Vince).
Seems to me that this is not necessarily a shift from CRM principles. As
Vince noted, unless a CRM program, by whatever name, has a clear definition,
purpose and reason for being, it will die one way or another. Definition here
I think means more than words that describe it, the program itself requires
clear identity in the overall training program.
I think the danger in a shift is integrating CRM till it loses its identity.
We worked very hard several years ago to integrate a CRM program into a large
aircrew training system (ATS) for over 6000 crew members. We did it so well
that the CRM program lost its identity and its integrity. The crew members
and even some of the instructors could not recall the portion of the training
that had been devoted to CRM. Yet both academic and simulator time was
devoted to the subject, albeit mixed well with technical training.
After an independent review, we realized what was happening and revised the
program to provide distinct CRM training, still integrated, but clearly
defined in the technical program. Our responses on crew member CRM training
critiques are over 99% positive.
Positive critiques are not solid metrics, but they are the raw response of
the front line customer...the crew member. Perhaps the critiques, the input
from evaluators, check airmen, and instructors can provide some answers to
the metrics questions.
Dave Wilson
CRM Program Manager
Hughes Training Inc.