What is TEM – IATA course

[PEI_3721]

Anyone attend the IATA “Train the Trainer CRM - Threat and Error Management” (http://www.iata.org/training/courses/talp06) course, if so any comments?

In particular did the course answer the question:- What is TEM? If so, please share the IATA views in comparison with those of ICAO / FAA.

Re the proposed item “Understand how Threat and Error Management integrates with Crew Resource Management”, was there anything new in this other than the ‘Texas’ TEM model?

[safetypee]

“Understand how Threat and Error Management integrates with Crew Resource Management” PEI you might wish to ask the questions again after this week’s ICAO TEM conference in Toulouse.

[PEI_3721]

OK, any views on TEM from the IATA course or Toulouse conference?
What is TEM? Explicit, not flippant; how is it taught, improved, etc.
How does TEM integrate with CRM?

[safetypee]

PEI See the presentations from the IATA/ICAO Toulouse Conference available from ICAO Human Factors (www.icao.int/ANB/humanfactors/)
I did not attend the conference, but the following initial impressions are based on the published materials.

The NASA presentation discussed the need to change philosophy:-
1. Move away from blame for errors.
2. Train crews to recognize threats and vulnerable situations and to detect errors.
3. Teach ways to manage threats and errors
This (TEM) requires specific tools, but other than monitoring and task design (procedures) there are few examples – yet another call for more research.

Boeing presented a similar theme, more data required, analysis, and thus retrospective action.

The University of Texas continued to seek money making opportunities (my comments might be a little harsh); LOSA for audits, TEM for investigation, but nothing practical for implementation.

IATA takes a more strategic review of threat analysis – TEM as part of a SMS? Yet again, more data and analysis.

IFALPA were selling their IOSA in parallel with LOSA; do we really need all these types of audit?

QANTAS, a good overview of LOSA, cost, complexity, etc, but just another audit. It identified threats, but where were the errors? Presented a good example of why EGPWS obstacle mode should be activated, but was this a solution within their TEM?

ICAO presented a strong case for SMS including LOSA (an audit) and TEM, the latter employed as the ‘principle’ of SMS and the ‘practice’ of CRM

UT database identified procedural error, violation and complacency as problems. It also confirmed that crew are poor error detectors (the observer is better), but in LOSA the observer does not ask the crew if they identified the error, nor what the crew were thinking.

Malaysia provided a good overview of their audit, but I wonder if a robust self (confidential) reporting scheme would have achieved similar results for threats at least.

Air NZ (Mt Cook) provided a stronger argument for LOSA, lessons were learnt and changes implemented. No specific TEM training was identified, but perhaps the organizational issues tie in with the UT database findings.

The Air Transat was a less convincing argument for LOSA, - that is if their audit was actually a LOSA.

“What is TEM? How is it taught, improved.” Probably not answered by the Toulouse conference, but “How Does TEM integrate with CRM?” was described by ICAO – TEM uses CRM skills, TEM complements and enhances CRM, … but exactly what is or how is TEM taught ??????

[alf5071h]

The proceedings of the Toulouse conference are also linked from the University of Texas (http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/homepage/group/HelmreichLAB/) web site.
In addition, there is a new paper (in defence of TEM) titled What is TEM? and a complementary report on ‘Line Operations Safety Audit (LOSA): Definition and operating characteristics’.
“What is TEM” is a sporty defence and explanation of TEM. It supports the ICAO position, which at best is a muddled description of the use ‘the TEM concept’ for most aspects of safety ranging from a high level SMS to crew behaviour (CRM).
The paper describes TEM and indicates what TEM training might consist of, but the overall impression is that the originating research (with cultural bias) results in a repackaging of other safety systems, which in many parts of the world are common place e.g. a line check/audit vs LOSA, robust Situation Awareness training (ESSAI (www2.nlr.nl/hosting/www.essai.net/)) and Decision Making vs TEM training.