In general, factual accuracy in our society is science based; an aspect can be tested and the result observed. Yet with CRM there is an underlying reluctance to involve science (avoid PhDs).
CRM and many CRM related safety programmes are supposedly based on research, but few, if any of these are testable in a way that provides material to support a proactive safety programme.
jg, you would like data to conduct a scientific test of CRM; yet with a sufficiently large data-set, almost any conclusion could be reached. Isn’t this the basis of our reluctance to involve PhD’s, - because of the many differing points of view in HF science, or their failure to produce practical material for use in training, or both?
CRM training may have contributed to safety; the industry’s accident rate has fallen and remains low. However, the HF content of accidents appears to be constant, possibly from before the advent of CRM.
Is this because the limit of HF training has been reached, or alternatively CRM has been successful and is now squeezing other HF problems into the open; I suspect that the real position is somewhere in between the two.
The main problem is with ‘us’ – humans. Behaviour is a highly complex, chaotic interaction with the world, which is difficult to observe, let alone analyse. To some observers much of the behaviour is irrational, but it is what we do every day.
Given this, then how can we expect to teach those aspects which will ‘cure’ our ‘errant’ behaviour? At best we might minimise the occurrence, detect error, and recover from adverse outcomes (TEM).
We should not stop what we are doing or continue to seek improvement as errant behaviour might resurface very quickly, and we need to identify and address the emerging HF problems anyway.
This small effort (CRM/HF training), in conjunction with other safety initiatives, should provide a continuing margin of safety above that required by public opinion. The main concern for the CRM practitioners might be the status of the other, complementary safety programs. Where is the HF training for senior management, the regulators (operational and certification), or the wider range of HF training in the design process?