Graham said:
>>>The use of videos as a CRM development tool can, in my opinion, be
enhanced
through the use of positive scenarios. In other words, don't use a film of
extreme mess ups whereby the audience can, as Brent points out, "shake
their heads and chuckle", but try and go for examples of "here is a problem
that has the potential to be a disaster but here is how good CRM got them
out of it". I know they aren't as dramatic, but there gets a point where
TOO dramatic means that the scenario appears unreal such that crews can no
longer relate.<<<
I agree with Graham that positive reinforcement is more effective than
extreme mess-ups, but I don't see them as mutually exclusive. Brent made
the point that the Riyadh fire video discourages crew identification, and
that is very likely if it's presented at face value. But more generally,
_any_ accident recreation tends to provoke disidentification or, more
accurately, denial. American, for example, has developed an incident
reporting approach which is (among other things) designed to capture
training-value incidents precisely because these are likely to promote
identification.
But will the use of incidents and positive CRM examples eliminate the
necessity for accident recreations? No, because even if "it couldn't
happen to me" I need to see the accident chain to understand why CRM
interventions work. Understand the problem, identify with the solution:
different training requirements, differing training resources.
Some of the most overstated videos I've seen (e.g. Fedex's Capt. Queeg and
Aer Lingus' Zig and Zag vignettes) are very effective precisely because
they don't pretend to be real, and they do provoke both laughter and
discussion. I think it was Bill Cosby who said, "when you get them
laughing you can tell them anything."
Regards,
Rick Heybroek
LOFTwork ltd.