frontlefthamster,
(re # 8 ?? time/post order errors)
Re (1), I would agree that most CRM discussions would benefit from clarity of the subject task, but there is little clarity in this ‘concept’. Thus providing a narrower view or specific aspects could help. Alternatively, a more abstract or generic description might be used, e.g. human behaviour.
Re (2), - ‘evidence’: This is a common (negative) terminating response to many difficult problems which defy definition, and have multiple contributing causes, are chaotic and where there may be unexpected self-generated outcomes without obvious solution.
CRM is a safety initiative which addresses aspects of the ‘human in aviation’ safety problem, and this problem stems from other problems ad-infinitum, thus neither a clear solution nor evidence of success will be available.
One view of CRM encompassing both (1) & (2) is that CRM is “the application of human factors”. This is useful as it describes a task or process to be explored without becoming entangled in problem definition or cause. Nor does it presuppose a solution, just activities to be undertaken in both training and daily operations.
Perhaps ‘CRM’ covers a few of those unusual training areas where there may be benefit from acting without too much forethought, i.e. no need for cause, problem definition, or predefined solution – no evidence of success, only of failure.
For
Pull what, something more positive, but still challenging.
Examples of ‘every day’ incidents with positive outcome, but many contributing factors
from the ICAO library.
And perhaps a futuristic view of some ‘CRM’ aspects by Hollnagel, particularly ‘performance variability’.
Human Factors From Liability to Asset.