3-holer. This is the commonly accepted definition of a threat. I've taken it from the QF documentation but it's virtually identical to the stuff in the texts from my degree.
Events or errors that occur outside the influence of the Flight Crew (that is, not caused by the crew), and increase the operational complexity requiring crew attention and management if safety margins are to be maintained.
If we look at our tiredness example, it is well within the influence of the crew- we're either fit for the flight or we're not. I would argue that tiredness does not increase the operational complexity of the operation- that remains the same as it always does. The 'threat' (using the non CRM definition in the context of this sentence) is that tiredness may result in an increased
error rate. So the 'risk' (which many call a 'threat') is that errors occur more frequently when tired.
Again, the stressors you've highlighted are not 'threats' per se, they are an error by the crew member concerned in turning up not fit for flight. If the crew member doesn't identify them to other crew but is actually distracted by them then we're not actively managing the threat of a distracted crew member, we're dealing with their errors as the flight progresses. Sure, once we realise that they are in a state of stress we may put a plan in place to ensure that no further errors occur but this is still error management rather than threat management.
In both of the above examples, if they are threats then what are the 'crew actions' required to deal with it? SOPs? We do them anyway and it's through them we'll pick up the errors caused by tiredness. So when we mention that we're tired in the briefings in reality what we're saying is to expect an increased number of errors. If the crew member did identify being stressed at sign on and indicated that they would distract them from the operation, what is the 'crew attention' actions we're going to do in order to de-stress the other crew member from the divorce, sick kids, etc that we identify? I would argue that we either stand the person down or of they insist they're fit to fly then we fall back on SOPs to ensure that errors are rectified...again, error management.
It's semantics but you actually highlight why many crew see CRM/TEM as a useless thing. I agree that many crew would agree that tiredness is a threat to the safety of the operation. In the context of TEM though it's not actually a threat. We're using a word that we associate with a particular context and using it to define something that has quite a different context but in the same environment. Personally I reckon that in itself is a threat* to flight safety. (* Non TEM context of that word).
I think the problem with a lot of Human Factors and Crew Resource Management courses these days is that they are too complicated with models and theory. What's needed is a practical HF/CRM course with real life scenarios,videos and a clear definition of the behavioural markers experienced everyday in aviation that mere mortal aircrew can relate to and understand.
I think a bigger problem with HF courses is that we don't walk away from them having learned something about
ourselves. Quite often we look at 'what if' and work out why others stuffed up- good stuff to a point- but rarely do we get the opportunity to look at how we as individuals build a team, make decisions, gather information, plan a way out, deal with stress, etc. What is really useful to do this are experiential exercises- and they don't need to be in an aeroplane. I've learned more about myself doing a day's worth of leadership experiential exercises with what used to be known as the Airman Leadership Flight (RAAF) than I have in 13 years of CRM with Qantas. (I should add I've done more than one day with ALF also!). I think that this is the area that has real benefits. I know this because I've facilitated the exercises regularly and I watch the light bulbs come on with many people. The down side is that it's labour intensive and therefore expensive, it's a mentally taxing day for everyone and most interestingly, it's very, very confronting. Many don't cope well with some of the home truths that they learn during the day.
Thanks for the brain work out all. I've enjoyed it.
PS: FL610. Thanks.....I think?!?
I don't reckon I'm any different to the majority of other QF crew.
