TEM is utter bull**** and exists soley to provide psychologists some kind of paying employment.
Spot on,
das Uber Soldat
Although, instead of psychologists, I would have said: air safety "advisors", or air safety "professionals".
The idea of a formalised subject on TEM is laughable. There certainly are some clowns in ICAO and CASA.
The purpose of the formalised TEM subject, as far as I can tell, is to stress to us that there are such things as "threats" and "errors", and failure to manage them may result in a UAS (undesirable aircraft state).
Well, fancy that!
Every single aviator, from the moment of his first solo onwards, has been well aware of "threats", "errors" and the need to "manage" them. It is bull**** in the sense that TEM, as a formalised subject, serves ZERO practical purpose in aviation. What a joke - at taxpayers expense.
Here's a test for those of you that think the TEM subject may have some effect on air safety:
Consider two highly experienced airline crews, both with exactly 30,000 hours aeronautical experience between them.
Imagine that both crews are in the middle of a flight, when a serious threat presents itself. Let us imagine that one of the crews has been through a TEM course. The other hasn't.
If you had to be a passenger on one of these aircraft, would you rather be on the one with the crew that had undertaken the TEM course? Do you think it would make any difference?
I am not talking about CRM or HF training/courses. I am talking purely about TEM.
I would rather be on the plane
without the TEM enabled pilots. At least for them, their thought processes would be unencumbered. For the TEM pilots, some of their precious brain power could be diverted by efforts to fit TEM to their actions.
Hey,
das Uber Soldat, I reckon we could get our names in lights. All we have to do is come up with some fancy phrase that sounds really good for air safety.
How about
:
Positive Flightpath Management
It has a good ring to it. It sounds good as a three-letter-acronym (PFM), and, importantly, it has the word "management" in it.
"Loss Of Control" (LOC) is an accident category causing some concern at the moment. We just wait till the next ICAO air safety conference dealing with LOC, then we present some white papers on PFM.
These papers will talk about LOC, but from the viewpoint of PFM. Everything about control, or loss of it, will be presented, but in terms of PFM. And we will make sure the word "outcomes" appears frequently amongst the other airy and nebulously worded passages.
A few years later, and hey presto! PFM will be included in the CRM courses of the day. Of course, some smartarse on Pprune will probably notice that PFM is all really just a load of hot air...