A problem to be avoided is that TEM, or at least TEM training, could turn out like CRM training, where each person, operator, culture, etc, makes his or her own interpretation of its content and application.
Where a restrictive regulatory definition of CRM is used, TEM might be viewed as another bolt-on such as ‘Aeronautical Decision Making’ to support or make good the shortfall in the cognitive aspects of CRM. Alternatively, the error management aspects of TEM could be introduced independently as the
5th generation CRM.
The situation is not aided by the ICAO view – TEM as an overarching concept of safety. Whilst at the highest levels this is correct, an operator has to separate the organizational aspects of an SMS (audit, data, culture, reporting) and the much needed sharp-end operational defences represented to-date by CRM, airmanship, leadership, etc.
A problem with the ICAO view (now being taken up by FAA, AC 120-90) is that the University of Texas led concept, intertwines the high level view of TEM and the specifics of LOSA, (an audit) with other items of a SMS (too much of a hard sell), but it only provides the operator/individual with a theoretical model of TEM (a process). There is no ‘what and how’ content for a training programme. There is some insight in the ICAO HF Training Manual Doc 9683, chap 2, ‘CRM’ (revised 2003); where the 5th generation CRM and the TEM model are used together, and the guidance for training suggests integrating TEM into CRM training – “CRM is the training tool to achieve the objective of TEM”. Yet elsewhere ICAO states that TEM is not CRM; confused? Perhaps in recognition of the muddled situation the UT has written a further paper titled
An introduction to TEM.
A much more practical approach stems from an Australian study of
Error Management Training.
I prefer a simpler view still. The threat aspects of TEM can be likened to a personal SMS; by use of self audits during preflight, in-flight, and always of your thoughts. This can be related to situation awareness and monitoring; Scan - Plane, Path, People (PPP).
Error management (defenses) should be aligned with the principle instigators of error – poor attention for slips and lapses, or mistakes in intended action. For problem solving mistakes involving intended actions, the errors come from a poor plan, or inappropriate choice of action.
Attention defenses are strengthened with behavior training, i.e. aspects of CRM.
Problem solving involves situation awareness, decision making, knowledge (experience), and judgment, which are key components of airmanship.
Violations, intended action other than willful intent, also require behavioral training and SMS input to check or provide appropriate procedures.
Simpler still … TEM could be seen as teaching pilots to think!
Will964 Evidence? TEM proven to be a very useful tool? I have yet to see anything meaningful, will you please elaborate.