3-holer. On your last point we're in agreement. That's why I think the more narrow definition of the term 'threat' by the CRM world has been confusing for those of us on the line that use the term in a much broader context- line ops as opposed to a research environment where the data needs to be quantified. The term threat when used by TEM exponents has been defined specifically by academics to be able to measure data so you're correct.
Hopefully having done the academic work though it enables me to translate it more readily into stuff that people can actually use on line. I've been regularly disappointed with QF CRM courses compared to stuff I see elsewhere in industry and the ADF. Some of the stuff the RAAF do with their airmen is phenomenal and if we did half of that we'd get a better skill set.
Captain SD, I actually did my degree whilst flogging around domestically on the 767- it was only worth a credit!
I will admit to spending a lot of time discussion this with sort of stuff with (very patient) skippers between MEL-SYD-BNE as well as the occasional NRT, MNL and CGK trips With only six LAX trips in two years on the 744 I wouldn't have been able to get much work done there anyway. I'm not on the 744 any more.
Icarus53 gets my vote for post of the year thus far. I think one additional point to make is that often the CRM courses by their design enable people to just nod and walk away. They don't engage people and hold the mirror to their behaviour/ skill set/ methodologies and confront them with their own failings. As you say, the individual that designs a course that can do that in a cost effective manner is going to corner the market.