To be continued..... Oh please no.
Is it really necessary to explain the complete TEM concept, to use this model to fit the few facts that are available, or is it that the facts are fitted the model in order to understand an individual’s (preconceived) viewpoint.
‘
All models are wrong, but some are useful’ (George Box). The value of a model, like a tool is to select the appropriate one and know how it should be used; particularly its limits.
If you start with the human as a threat then you will conclude human error; alternatively starting with the human as an asset, pilot, designer, regulator, then with open thought, guided by a model, it may be possible to identify influencing factors, which in combination enabled the outcome.
Limitations of TEM Model
Assumes technical competency appropriate for role.
The threat-error-undesired states relationship is not necessarily straightforward and it may not always be possible to establish a linear relationship, or one-to-one linkage between threats, errors and undesired states. e.g. threats can on occasion lead directly to undesired states without the inclusion of errors;
and operational personnel may on occasion make errors when no threats are observable.
Essentially a ‘deficit’ model.
Benchmarks against a standard ‘safe’ or ‘safe enough’ i.e., other operators.
Descriptive: It describes an outcome or end state not how to get there.
Little focus on minimisation of error
Links the management of threats and errors to potential deficiencies in HF & NTS skills but not the processes supporting good TEM behaviour.
Same challenge as ‘Airmanship’
(
https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/g/file.../banks-tem.pdf)