One of the problems in our industry – perhaps in all human activity – is that we like ‘new and shiny’ items, and that ‘management’ use these to generate or reinvigorate subject interest. This approach can be valuable, but if misused or overdone it can detract from the objective.
The tools of training – the generation of knowledge and understanding – can be described in psychological terms, even more so as new research provides more and varied views of human cognition. Similarly for the behaviours and activities in flight operations.
This does not necessarily mean that the any new scientific view is more or less suited to aviation training, or that that aviation should reject a new view out of hand.
However, for example, the history of CRM illustrates a drawback of misjudging the use a psychological approach (instructors and/or subject) even though the theories were applicable (“psychobabble”).
Some people saw CRM as an extension of Airmanship to crews / teams, which then expanded well beyond its original aim and now perhaps to the detriment of teaching / using Airmanship.
Instead of looking for a ‘brand new’ cockpit communication to meet the ‘sterile cockpit’ concept, we could look at what previously has been done successfully and /or what is the objective of the concept in current operations.
Crews have to communicate to achieve safe and efficient operations, yet there is a need to avoid distraction.
So what can NLP offer?
From
Wiki; the view that NLP is “
a model of interpersonal communication chiefly concerned with the relationship between successful patterns of behaviour and the subjective experiences (esp. patterns of thought) underlying them" offers encouragement, but how do you teach ‘models’ (cf TEM).
However, "
a system of alternative therapy …” and “
an extraordinarily effective and rapid form of psychological therapy …” suggest trouble ahead, which may be confirmed by “
the absence of any firm empirical evidence supporting its sometimes extravagant claims…”
So what can NLP offer, … not much?
Crew communication and avoiding distraction have roots in airmanship – discipline. Other views of ‘crew’ problems below 10K in recent accidents point to the lack of ‘flying the aircraft’ – more airmanship issues – skill, proficiency, knowledge, and awareness.
So revisiting some of the old concepts – back to basics with airmanship - might be better than attempting to grasp something 'new and shiny', even if it has been around for some time.