I found this on a previous thread (thank you Messiah), seems to more practical. As you say one of the main problems is untangling the academics theorising in order to be able to extract real - world practical advice ie "OK understand the reasoning but what do we
do?".
" believe in TEM. It is not CRM rehashed, it is a genuine proactive attempt to increase safety and operational awareness in a multi-crew environment. By your own admission airmanship is not what it was even 20 years ago, and with more cadets and low experience pilots on the flight deck there is less experience to draw from when assessing a safe departure or arrival in a heavy jet. Simply using the word threat now has changed the emphasis away from the old "ok this a xyz departure from rwy 21 etc etc blah blah" to really looking at the big picture from a threat point of view, whether it be sig terrain or sig weather or a/c MEL's or indeed RWY works, the focus is now those elements not what we have programmed in the box.
I'm sure in Taipei they all read the NOTAMS about the RWY like we had been for 30 years, but did not verbalise it as a threat and agree on a suitable strategy to avoid stuffing it up, it really is as basic as that. The threat was not the RWY works but the weather in fact. I agree sound airmanship would have dealt with it easily enough but 99% of the accidents in the last 10 years have shown very poor airmanship so what do we do? Do we just demand better airmanship? Obviously that is not possible so TEM is the next best thing. It is certainly not going to make aviation LESS safe."