alf,
'human error' is clearly a useful concept but we just need people to understand the difference between cause and effect. We tend to focus on developing taxonomies of effect rather than addressing cause (for example, through better and more effective initial and recurrent training).
TEM is the biggest bit of flip flam foisted on an ignorant industry I have ever seen. First, it isn't a 'process'. Never forget, this all came out a consulting project which then became the meat in a PhD thesis. LOSA - an audit schedule - came first and then TEM came along on the second iteration as a graphical representation of the audit. It shows how the audit points hang together. The problem is that it has been endorsed by ICAO and no one has the wits to challenge a very weak concept.
The real problem with TEM is that it is isn't a model of anything; it is a roadmap of the audit process. For each block on the map, you then need a model to explain how things work at that stage. These components have not been formulated.
You mention DECIDE (and you could substitute DODAR, FOR-DEC etc). These are all reformulations of classic problem solving strategies. If, for example, I want to relocate my head office of select which car to buy next, then the process works. By because we are very sloppy in the use of language in aviation, we confuse dynamic real-world decision-making with problem solving.
I'd agree with you that the task of the pilot (or any actor in the workplace) is to makes sense of the present circumstances and choose a course of action that will meet operational goals safely. Now, to force this process into 2 boxes called 'situation awareness' (although you were careful to use 'assessment') and 'decision making' simply because these are topics listed in the syllabus is to miss the point. Maybe it's time to cast off some of these labels and get CRM back to some position where it is actually useful.
Last edited by turbocharged; 16th Mar 2010 at 06:45.