CRM Metrics
CRMWILSON_at_aol.com
Thu, 3 Oct 1996 16:54:28 -0400
John Wise is right on when he says that if we cannot measure CRM results in a
sound way - then perhaps developing valid measures is where we should be
spending our resources.
Al Diehl did some research a few years ago that showed, by review of accident
statistics, showing that CRM training had a positive effect where applied.
The problem was, as it has been for us to determine the impact of the courses
we offer, that aircrew training, military or civilian, is never static.
Neither is the operation nor is the tempo of operation. A further problem is
with the definition of the so-called CRM under-pinnings. They must certainly
include common sense, personality traits, and habits learned from ab initio
through advanced aviation training. Separating that kind of criteria would be
one tall order.
Maybe perception or attitude surveys (Bob Helmreich's work comes to mind) or
inputs from a highly trained check airman staff(perhaps trained to the level
of a CRM facilitator) are the best we can get.
Most would agree we can recognize "good" CRM when we see or experience it.
And, "bad" CRM is recognizable. Maybe our solutions are in some kind of + or
- system, pass-fail, administered by "evaluators" who can recognize that the
trouble on the ILS approach started with poor CRM before the final approach
fix; or that the ILS was excellent, in spite of the poor crew management
before the FAF.
That does not help in the never-ending battle to secure funding and keep a
program alive. Nor does it help put a ruler on CRM training, but it might
help further ingrain the CRM program into the overall crew training program.
Dave Wilson
CRM Program Manager
Hughes Training Inc.