Bugspeed,
If I was singleseat i'd still understand that CRM is a constant across any safety-related industry.
There are several problems with the way CRM is delivered. On the one hand there is a confused requirement and on the other hand there is confused delivery.
The requirement falls into 2 parts: a list of topics in a table and a set of markers to be used in assessment. The 2 are not coordinated because they have different histories. My point is that CRM should concentrate on improving performance - and thus should target the markers - rather than tick off the topics in the table over a 3 year cycle. In a perfect world facilitators ought to be able to link the markers to the table and construct training events accordingly. And here is the second issue: most facilitators are only part trained. They can deliver but they cannot create.
The industry, led by the CAA, has got hung up on the idea of 'facilitation' as being the only way. In fact - as speakers have pointed out at CAA CRM events - a facilitator 'makes things easy'. That's what the word means. A lecturer facilitates learning using a particular style. A technical manual facilitates learning. Unfortunately, we have confused 'facilitation' with what used to be known as the 'lesson method'. The Americans sometimes call it 'socratic dialogue'.
My beef is that CRM is being delivered by part trained people who then don't even do a good job. You only have to look at some of the cynicism in earlier posts to realise that. It is time to raise the game and this can only happen when, first, everyone involved in CRM delivery is trained to a higher standard and second the CAA 'gets' it.