Footballer kicked in goolies failed TEM theory exam

[A37575]

I have had it up to the eyeballs with this psycho-babble called CRM and TEM, and I strongly suspect the silenty majority of aviators feel the same way.
The latest edition of "Australian Aviation" magazine Jan/Feb issue No. 257, at pages 66 and 67 reveal a perfect example of the gobbly-dook that is forced upon pilots under the guise of important principles of flight safety. The writer of the article is a highly qualified airline captain with a Masters Degree in Risk Management and no doubt an earnest well meaning individual.

But asking pilots to swallow the following extracts and in an earnest attempt to "educating" them in the theory of human factors psychology, is surely in direct contradiction of the eminently sensible adage, "KISS" which is short for for "Keep it simple, stupid".

The article is titled "Dynamic Decisions - Threat and Error (Mis) management"


"We usually have multiple goals which are often competing, hence needing to be prioritised - what we see is dependant on our plans and risk appetite and dynamically changes...the options to manage it appropriately are also dynamic simply by nature of the dynamic environment.........Appropriate Goals + Adequate Situational awareness + appropriate Level of Risk= Quality of Decision....our aymmetric risk appetite - because we feel losses twice as much as gains we have a tendency to be risk averse in terms of gains but risk seeking in terms of losses....this gives rise to what is termed "loss aversion, the status quo bias and the endowment effect which apply to ideas as well as goods....we don't see the world as it is but rather as we are"..

An astonished pilot reading this would no doubt exclaim "Huh?" And he would be right.

The other day I enjoyed a coffee with a former RAAF pilot with whom I flew fifty years ago. He is a retired Air Vice Marshal and a person of great intellect. The discussion turned from the good old days to the subject of CRM and TEM. He had fought in Vietnam so he knew a lot about threat and error management. Fly too low and slow and you get a missile up your clacker. Yet, this didn't have to be explained in words of psycho-babble - because the dangers of flying slow and low were painfully self evident.

The AVM said he could not remember ever flying with a arrogant Alpha-male type captain for whom he thought the original concept of CRM was coined. I must add that I also, had never met one of these mythical characters either in military or civil flying who was alleged to terrify subordinate first officers and thus cause accidents. Did these people really exist or did a sharp aviation psychologist seize upon one or two accidents that involved renegade captains and thought he could do a thesis and maybe make a dollar or two by publishing it.

One thing is for sure - and that is the money spent on buying books on the subject of CRM and shelled out by compliant operators and seized upon by regulatory authorities around the globe, is in the multi-millions of dollars. It is a huge con job and yet because the regulatory authorities have been conned by snake oil salesmen into swearing that CRM and TEM is the answer to fixing the accident rate, pilots have no option except to roll over and accept their medicine. No medicine- no licence to fly.

A few days ago in Melbourne, a couple of footballers had a scrap in front of the media. Very unwise move. One footballer got decked with a left and right combination and then to add insult to injury was kicked squarely in the goolies when he was on the ground. Now that must have really hurt. The description above illustrates the "KISS' principle.

However an aficionado of TEM would describe the incident differently - and certainly in a way that footballers reading his explanation would say "Huh?"

Converted the footballer story into TEM pilot-talk, one could say the victim was operating in an environment that was dynamic and constantly changing. His ability to adequately assess and manage the risk of getting kicked in the balls is termed "frequency gambling." Essentially, this implies that rather than properly assessing the operational risks on their own merit, we use a mental short-cut that since we've been in a similar situation before (for example the victim had insulted the attacker on previous occasions) and "gotten away with it", this time the same outcome could have been expected this time around. Over time this can produce an inappropriate insensitivity to certain risks - familiarity breeds contempt.

Obviously the footballer that got kicked in the balls was deficient in TEM training. :ok:

[Disco Stu]

Methinks you are flogging a dead horse.

The days are long past where the difference between God and a QANTAS Captain was that God did not think he was a QANTAS Captain.

The AVM (rtd) was able to run away at least at "bou or woka speeds from the T in TEM. Some didn't have that luxury.

CRM is all about team, infact it was originally called "Aircrew Team Management".

My memory of the RAAF of 40 years ago is of an autocratic organisation and team by decree was the way it happened. Joining QANTAS I found exactly the same, but the uniform was different.

Times have changed in the mean time and I don't see us in any rush to revert to the ways of the 60's or 70's any time soon.

I agree with your assessment of the Quote in red, reminds me of an old Army saying, "Booll**** baffles brains":ok:

[gunshy67]

A375....

What a breath of fresh air. TEM........I hear we have to assess threats and error management in every takeoff and landing briefing now?

Well bless my heart and soul. I suppose when I get up in the morning I must assess the threat of those dangerous carpeted stairs. I might fall. Oh well, stay in bed.

Whoa......that's a threat too.

We now have cottage industries in Human Factors. Risk Management TEM. My daughter has a Masters and teaches some of this stuff at Uni. There is a place for it........but in a takeoff brief.

A walk in the park is a place for me to consider HF (Bogans lurk) and TEM........but really........!

Pilots should fly. If they can't.....get out of the industry.

Yippee for some light thrown on the some of the biggest con perpetrated on the industry.........(Maybe like totally fly by wire aircraft?).

Mmmmm now that's sure to make me duck the missiles.

[Captain Sand Dune]

A37575,

Good post.

We in the RAAF have a similar imb*ggerance called AVRM, which IMHO is a complete load of cobblers.:yuk: However, it’s what the Yanks do so therefore it must be good!:hmm:
When “I were a lad”, CRM = captaincy and TEM = good planning and authorisation.
Suppose I’ll cop a good old fashioned flaming from the disciples of AVRM now!:eek:
The AVM said he could not remember ever flying with a arrogant Alpha-male type captain for whom he thought the original concept of CRM was coined
I reckon the good AVM was just lucky – unless he was the A-male!!:uhoh:
Have flown with with a few that could fit the “arrogant A-male type captain” descriptor, although thankfully they seem to be less in number these days.

[Hugh Jarse]

What cracks me up is that some ****** has written a paper on a topic that most of us do without even thinking about it every time we go flying.

What's even more astonishing is that people will read and actually believe that tripe.

Like Gunshy and Sand Dune wrote..........

It just keeps some academic ******** in a job (and fortunately out of the flight deck) and makes it look like this person has made a previosly undiscovered revelation that none of us has ever heard about.......

[Horatio Leafblower]

Everything you need to know about the touchy-feely side of flying is summarised in the title of Tony Kern's book "Flight Discipline".

The rest, as stated above, is a load of tosh.

Yeah I have a degree in "Aviation Science" and I even got Distinctions in Av Psych :rolleyes: I seem to recall that a lot of this academic twaddle was really either
1/. the boffins making up new words because they lacked the vocabulary to express themselves in plain english; or
2/. making up more crap because expressing it all in plain english makes it sound like plain ol' common sense :yuk:

[Joker 10]

Priceless a thesis defining common sense

[Arm out the window]

There are two factors feeding the proliferation of recurrent courses like this:

1. Arse-covering - organisations need to be able to say they've trained their employees in the relevant areas.

2. Content - you can get handy tips from said courses, if they're appropriately set up and run.

Better to have them than not, bull**** aside.

[Cypher]

A37575...

I have flown with one of those mythical Alpha Type captain beasts that you write about... and yes we came close to quite a few incidents.. they do exist..

But I'll agree with you on this.. that no amount of techno-psycho babble was ever gonna change this guy or make him less dangerous...

In the end it took a good chief pilot, probably using words that were just as long as those in the article, however maybe, a little more direct and a little less P.C .... to take care of the aforementioned problem... :ok:

[Gundog01]

To throw a monkey on the wrench (or os that a spanner in the works). Perhaps the good AVM (ret'd) was a most revered Knuck!! Therefore the only Alpha he had to convince was himself.

Having flown single seat and subsequently converted to multi crew, i can honestly say some CRM topics were most educating. Mostly about how complient co-pilots can be when confronted with senior captains (Alphas or not) and about communicating within the crew. Single pilot ops dosen't require any verbalisation about plans or approach intentions and hence it requires some extra thought to actually communicate what you intend to do to others.

launch the spears!!!!!

Must admit though, after sitting through CRM once, i would rather shoot myself with an ASRAAM than do it again!!

[Wally Mk2]

And here I was thinking that everyone thought CRM was the ants pants, it's the biggest crock of sh1t known to mankind:ugh:
Even we single drivers have to go thru a CRM course, hmmmm good for one thing, pushing out zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz's & getting paid for it! Otherwise a total waste of time.

CRM= Common Bloody Sense!


Wmk2

[Keg]

Putting threats in the take off brief adds to SA as long as the threats being briefed are relevant. I'm starting to get a little irked at hearing examples of threats such as as crossing an active runway (sure if the vis was poor but CAVOK?), 'a bit of weather on departure' when the cloud is SCT 040, or
it's late and we're a bit tired.

However I do think that stopping and considering as a crew the possible things that can bite us on the backside on this departure/arrival is probably not a bad practise to do- and something that I saw practised regularly well before the advent of TEM into the formal CRM programme. In that respect, formalising it was probably 'stating the obvious' to most crews but we all know that many SOPs aren't written for 'most crew'. I'm a big fan of 'I haven't noticed any threats, you got any? No? Excellent' and that's it.

[Arnold E]

CRM is another name in the ordinary world for OHAS. This is a "science" designed to give jobs to people who do not have the ability to do anything usefull for the population at large.:ugh:

[blueloo]

t's late and we're a bit tired

I think thats a pretty reasonable one actually - maybe the bloke says it because he is really feeling like ****e after a long day - multi sectors - and is really saying keep your guard up.

I know after a long day with a few early starts in a row - I feel like crap. I know the reaction times drop and you can be focused on one thing and completely miss something else.

I think most of the other TEM is pretty much rubbish.

[sixtiesrelic]

Geez I'm glad I don't work in this caper any more!

[tinpis]

Yeh its bloody ripper innit sixties?

Training at Ansett involved four simulator sessions a year, one line check, one CRM day, a corporate training day and one “CAO 20.11” day (known in Europe as SEP’s) – a day of life raft and evacuation training. This meant a training day every second month or so.
http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/360003-few-flying-stories-2.html#post4705208

[Captain Sand Dune]

Better to have them than not, bull**** aside.

Mate, when I hear someone say "gee, if it weren't for that TEM/AVRM/CRM course I did we would have died", I'll agree with you.

Anyway, when do start doing some real work down in the Gippsland Riviera?

[Keg]

Blueloo, 'threats' are supposed to be external to the crew and so from a purely academic point of view you could argue that 'being tired' is perhaps not a threat. Further, raising it as an issue to manage brings into question whether the individual is actually fit for the flight. If you put that particular point through the '60 minutes' test or the 'board of inquiry' test then it takes on a whole different life.

More often than not, on a 'normal' day my identification of threats is 'nil' and then I ask the other crew if they've got any that I've missed. This is when the trivial and pointless occasionally come to the fore.

Whilst a series of early starts, long days, etc is an issue to be managed, my major gripe is that the whole tiredness thing appears to be somewhat of a throw away line. Something to say because people are looking for something- anything- to list as a threat. I generally ask after someone brings it up exactly what strategy we're going to put in place to manage it. The answers are interesting and range from 'vigilance' to 'focus' to SOPs. I ask are when are we not vigilant and when do we not follow SOPs?

Of course my main point point is that people are jumping at shadows and going over the top to deal with a 'threat' and that whether we agree or disagree on the issue of tiredness, going looking for threats that we already have procedures in place to manage is a little pointless.

[fl610]

KEG you appear to be way too sensible to be working for QF. :D

[Arm out the window]

CSD, hey big fella; perhaps a better way of wording it would've been to say I've picked the odd good tip or 2 in CRM courses here and there!

They're already getting 3 waves a day outta me here on the see one, do one, teach one principle ... I think it's all there in the back of my head somewhere, just a bit slow to come out at times!

[4Greens]

The important part of CRM is Management, and in particular, good management on the Flight Deck - nothing wrong with that. Had an involvement in CRM design and it was our emphasis that 'Psycho babble' should be kept out of the system. Perhaps it is creeping in too much and destroying the vital lessons that can be learned. It still has valuable applications in coping with Captain Bligh and First Officer Awkward.

[3 Holer]

Keg, you say 'threats' are supposed to be external to the crew . Why "external" to the crew?
I always thought that a threat was anything that could result in an error being made. So if a crew member is tired or suffers from fatigue, there is the possibility he may make an error. The crew member may be suffering stress from personal problems such as financial, marital, death in the family etc,. this could also be identified as a threat which could lead to an error being made.

One now has to look at the types of possible errors resulting from fatigue and stress. Poor decision making is the most obvious. When you are tired or stressed your decision making is usually flawed. Failure to monitor or challenge the other crewmember during times of high workload. Decreased motivation resulting in possible loss of situation awareness.

Then, as you have correctly pointed out, one must be able to manage this threat. Fatigue and stress can be managed to a certain extent by the individual but may have to be addressed at an organisational level as well.

An airline (I think it was Continental) in the States had a good saying about Threat and Error Management:

“Threat Management is managing the future.”

“Error Management is managing the past”

I think the problem with a lot of Human Factors and Crew Resource Management courses these days is that they are too complicated with models and theory. What's needed is a practical HF/CRM course with real life scenarios,videos and a clear definition of the behavioural markers experienced everyday in aviation that mere mortal aircrew can relate to and understand.

[jack red]

I think the problem with a lot of Human Factors and Crew Resource Management courses these days is that they are too complicated with models and theory...........yeah and delivered by academics with more degrees than a thermometer.........as someone said before use the KISS method and get back to basics.....make them interesting and more crew may just stay awake until lunch anyways......

[4Greens]

Precisely the point of my post.

[Keg]

3-holer. This is the commonly accepted definition of a threat. I've taken it from the QF documentation but it's virtually identical to the stuff in the texts from my degree.

Events or errors that occur outside the influence of the Flight Crew (that is, not caused by the crew), and increase the operational complexity requiring crew attention and management if safety margins are to be maintained.

If we look at our tiredness example, it is well within the influence of the crew- we're either fit for the flight or we're not. I would argue that tiredness does not increase the operational complexity of the operation- that remains the same as it always does. The 'threat' (using the non CRM definition in the context of this sentence) is that tiredness may result in an increased error rate. So the 'risk' (which many call a 'threat') is that errors occur more frequently when tired.

Again, the stressors you've highlighted are not 'threats' per se, they are an error by the crew member concerned in turning up not fit for flight. If the crew member doesn't identify them to other crew but is actually distracted by them then we're not actively managing the threat of a distracted crew member, we're dealing with their errors as the flight progresses. Sure, once we realise that they are in a state of stress we may put a plan in place to ensure that no further errors occur but this is still error management rather than threat management.

In both of the above examples, if they are threats then what are the 'crew actions' required to deal with it? SOPs? We do them anyway and it's through them we'll pick up the errors caused by tiredness. So when we mention that we're tired in the briefings in reality what we're saying is to expect an increased number of errors. If the crew member did identify being stressed at sign on and indicated that they would distract them from the operation, what is the 'crew attention' actions we're going to do in order to de-stress the other crew member from the divorce, sick kids, etc that we identify? I would argue that we either stand the person down or of they insist they're fit to fly then we fall back on SOPs to ensure that errors are rectified...again, error management.

It's semantics but you actually highlight why many crew see CRM/TEM as a useless thing. I agree that many crew would agree that tiredness is a threat to the safety of the operation. In the context of TEM though it's not actually a threat. We're using a word that we associate with a particular context and using it to define something that has quite a different context but in the same environment. Personally I reckon that in itself is a threat* to flight safety. (* Non TEM context of that word).


I think the problem with a lot of Human Factors and Crew Resource Management courses these days is that they are too complicated with models and theory. What's needed is a practical HF/CRM course with real life scenarios,videos and a clear definition of the behavioural markers experienced everyday in aviation that mere mortal aircrew can relate to and understand.

I think a bigger problem with HF courses is that we don't walk away from them having learned something about ourselves. Quite often we look at 'what if' and work out why others stuffed up- good stuff to a point- but rarely do we get the opportunity to look at how we as individuals build a team, make decisions, gather information, plan a way out, deal with stress, etc. What is really useful to do this are experiential exercises- and they don't need to be in an aeroplane. I've learned more about myself doing a day's worth of leadership experiential exercises with what used to be known as the Airman Leadership Flight (RAAF) than I have in 13 years of CRM with Qantas. (I should add I've done more than one day with ALF also!). I think that this is the area that has real benefits. I know this because I've facilitated the exercises regularly and I watch the light bulbs come on with many people. The down side is that it's labour intensive and therefore expensive, it's a mentally taxing day for everyone and most interestingly, it's very, very confronting. Many don't cope well with some of the home truths that they learn during the day.

Thanks for the brain work out all. I've enjoyed it.

PS: FL610. Thanks.....I think?!? :confused: I don't reckon I'm any different to the majority of other QF crew. :cool:

[3 Holer]

Keg, you have a degree and 13 years of CRM with Qantas so no one would question your credentials to speak on the subject. In fact,you speak very well but you speak as an academic and herein lies the problem.

I say "real life scenarios" you say "leadership experiential exercises". Both statements are referring to the same thing and are very useful tools in CRM training. Your references to context in the non CRM definition/non TEM can be confusing to the new student and you will be waiting some time for those "light bulbs to come on".

It's semantics but you actually highlight why many crew see CRM/TEM as a useless thing. Where ?

I still believe the problem with developing good CRM courses is getting the right balance between academia and practicality.

[Captain Sand Dune]

:eek:Jeez, Keg, that amounts to a PhD dissitation mate! Those SYD - LAX legs must just fly by!
Youse QF guys have got far too much time on yer hands!

[Icarus53]

I think a bigger problem with HF courses is that we don't walk away from them having learned something about ourselves.

Keg - this line here is what I see as the crux of this issue.

I see CRM training as similar in many ways to Sexual Harassment/EEO training (which almost every employer is required to provide these days). What it seeks to do is change a person's behaviour/attitude - something that simply can't be achieved in a 1-2 day per year training cycle. Consequently, people who have basic attitude to treat people fairly and equitably sit through the lectures nodding their heads. Others who are in fact the problem walk out saying "What a load of crap" and continue to treat other people poorly.

If CRM is a complete waste of time that can be simply marked down to "common sense", why do I continue to fly with people who demonstrate poor CRM skills? Who think that CRM is something you have to start worrying about once the caution light comes on? I'll refrain from expanding this into one of my essays on leadership, but my point is this: While common sense plays a big role in decision making and CRM, people who nail every aspect of good CRM from flight planning to shutdown are surprisingly uncommon.

People who have a good approach to all this will continue to nod their heads in CRM training and attempt to take something away to improve themselves - they understand that leadership is something they will never perfect and will always look for new ideas on the subject (be they academic or practical). The rest will continue to shake their heads and say "What a load of crap" whilst believing they have it all squared away. If I could come up with a training system to change that attitude in a time/cost effective manner - I'd be making millions! Stay tuned!

Icarus

If you've read this post and thought "What a load of crap", don't worry about it and just do like Kegs says - don't fly tired.

[Keg]

3-holer. On your last point we're in agreement. That's why I think the more narrow definition of the term 'threat' by the CRM world has been confusing for those of us on the line that use the term in a much broader context- line ops as opposed to a research environment where the data needs to be quantified. The term threat when used by TEM exponents has been defined specifically by academics to be able to measure data so you're correct.

Hopefully having done the academic work though it enables me to translate it more readily into stuff that people can actually use on line. I've been regularly disappointed with QF CRM courses compared to stuff I see elsewhere in industry and the ADF. Some of the stuff the RAAF do with their airmen is phenomenal and if we did half of that we'd get a better skill set.

Captain SD, I actually did my degree whilst flogging around domestically on the 767- it was only worth a credit! :} I will admit to spending a lot of time discussion this with sort of stuff with (very patient) skippers between MEL-SYD-BNE as well as the occasional NRT, MNL and CGK trips With only six LAX trips in two years on the 744 I wouldn't have been able to get much work done there anyway. I'm not on the 744 any more. :ok:

Icarus53 gets my vote for post of the year thus far. I think one additional point to make is that often the CRM courses by their design enable people to just nod and walk away. They don't engage people and hold the mirror to their behaviour/ skill set/ methodologies and confront them with their own failings. As you say, the individual that designs a course that can do that in a cost effective manner is going to corner the market.

[zube]

Keg.

I like your first post here.

During those" Lets Use Our Imagination To Dream Up a Threat" talks during the briefing it starts to cause my eyes to glaze over and I start looking out the window.

Trouble is I have to be careful to listen to the real content of the briefing, when it finally comes.

Its actually distracting to pad out the briefing with bull****e.

[4Greens]

It should be remembered that CRM training helps you cope with the none believers. If nothing else "Emergency language" can save the day. It does of course have to be backed by the Company in the Ops manual.

[tinpis]

Soooo..it seems that this CRM thing works better than a kick in the nuts?

[A37575]

Talked to a senior cabin attendent today and we talked about the problem she was having with new cabin staff. Seems in her opinion they lack respect for her position and she has to more or less constantly explain the reasons why she asks them to do something. Seems she felt her brood were too assertive and this from CRM lectures. I replied that I had heard similar sentiments from young captains about some of their first officers.
Then she said darkly,"one day all those holes will line up in that cheese..."

I said "Huh?'.....and under my breath thought, "what bloody cheese?' Anyone here have any idea what the hell she was on about? - because I wasn't game to show my ignorance. Something about far better to keep one's mouth shut and let them think you are a dumb dumb rather than open it and prove it..

[4Greens]

Reason's swiss cheese model of accident causation. She knows her stuff.

[Keg]

So let me get this straight A37575. You start with this line:

I have had it up to the eyeballs with this psycho-babble called CRM and TEM......

...and yet you're so new to CRM concepts and terminology that you haven't heard of Reason's 'swiss cheese' model?!?!

Then she said darkly,"one day all those holes will line up in that cheese..."

I said "Huh?'..... "what bloody cheese?' Anyone here have any idea what the hell she was on about? - because I wasn't game to show my ignorance.

Who do you fly for? Is this a wind up? :confused:

[A37575]

Is this a wind up?

My dear Keg. Now, would I really do that?:ok:

[4Greens]

Nuff said.

[3 Holer]

What it seeks to do is change a person's behaviour/attitude Icarus53 - No, No, No !!!!

Good CRM training is designed to improve aircrew's understanding of communication, decision making, situation awareness, leadership,cockpit management, teamwork and more. It should never imply or demand "you do it this way or the highway"! If this were the case,that fundamental concept of good CRM training would be compromised.

A37575 you can come fishing with me any time!

[Keg]

Good CRM training is designed to improve aircrew's understanding of communication, decision making, situation awareness, leadership,cockpit management, teamwork and more.

No 3-holer, not 'understanding of....' but rather 'performance of....'. I agree that in order to change performance you must first ensure that there is a foundational level of understanding so I agree that CRM/HF training needs to ensure that crew understand the concepts. However, that understanding of TEM/CRM/HF will mean nothing if the individual concerned can't demonstrate it and/or doesn't improve their performance because of their increased level of understanding.

Changed behaviour certainly doesn't imply that the previous behaviour was 'bad' or 'poor' but a CRM program is essentially a failure if the increased understanding of the concepts fails to deliver a change in behaviour and (hopefully) enhanced safety.

[Icarus53]

3 Holer

It should never imply or demand "you do it this way or the highway"!

Not sure I ever said that was the case? Perhaps you have read too far into my parallel with EEO training, which is not intended? In fact at the soul of CRM is recognition of the fact that procedures and regulations cannot account for every single possibility we face as pilots. That is the point where we rely on top notch CRM to allow a pilot's (hopefully) superior judgement and abilities to operate in a team environment.

CRM training in its current form may only achieve what you say, but comments on this thread suggest that said training is not "good", and I believe that in order to be properly effective it needs to achieve more.

You can "improve aircrew understanding" all you like, but if they don't demonstrate good CRM by their actions on the line all day, every day, then it was wasted effort.

[kellykelpie]

Great first post Icarus.

Keg, I have to disagree with you regarding "tiredness" as being something worth briefing. Go to the Flight Safety Foundation and take a look at their ALAR tool kit.

http://www.mtc.gob.pe/portal/transportes/aereo/aeronauticacivil/alar_tool_kit/pdf/fsf_rat.pdf

Being tired might not be the result of turning up to work tired. Long duty periods mean you may feel much different at the end of a long day/night. Complacency and the effects of fatigue are risk factors that can be worth highlighting. If a guy mentions Terrain as a risk, I am sure you could use the same arguement of "what should we do differently". I think challenging a guy for raising a risk may be more counterproductive than hearing him out.

[Keg]

kelly, I'm averse to 'it's late, I'm tired' when used as a throw away line with no consideration given as to the strategies to mitigate it. I'm averse to the 'strategy' articulated being stuff that should be done all the time. I'd be much more impressed if the person said 'I'm tired and so I'll possibly make some errors' which is the type of sharing information that I like. I'd be even more impressed if they mentioned that well before the departure or arrival briefing. I suggest that if that's the first time it's rated a mention then it's been managed quite INappropriately. It should have been discussed and managed much earlier. If it was dealt with earlier then why do we need to flog ourselves with it yet again?

If a guy mentions Terrain as a risk, I am sure you could use the same arguement of "what should we do differently".

'Terrain is a threat, there is no weather, can you go to terrain switch now'.

'Terrain is a threat, there is some weather around, can you go to terrain switch at 10'000 feet'.

'Terrain is a threat, there is heaps of weather around, can you go to terrain when we're cleared to a level below LSALT'.

Somehow I think that they're further apart than you think.

Still, rather than get caught in semantics, let's go back to first principles. Threats are things that require crew management and are external to the crew. Errors are things the crew stuffs up.

[A Comfy Chair]

I think some are intepreting Keg as saying that tiredness can't be a "threat" (in the non CRM way) to aviation... of course it can.

I believe it is something that can be appropriate to brief as part of a threat assessment, but ONLY if its done with the consequential mitigator - what are we going to do about it.

I can say "Threats are Terrain, Weather, Crossing an active runway and Tiredness" all day... its useless stuff.

I strongly support the new requirement to identify and discuss threats when done properly, including crossing an active runway (if it is likely to be a threat, such as taxiing in CNS where it can be easily missed). Things like "High terrain around the airport is out to the west. We'll select terrain on one side and WX on the other. If we have any non normal issues we will stay to the east of the airfield" are good briefing practice and result in all pilots being on the same page. But only when terrain really IS an issue.

To the CRM knockers... the problem isn't with CRM, it is the way it is often taught. A session with a really good facilitator makes you look very hard at your own operation, and even the best seem to take something out of the session.

I'm sure with time crew will better understand the intent and not just use throw away lines to meet the requirement.

[Keg]

Fair points 'comfy chairs'.

I have been known on occasion to preface my 'threat' brief with the words 'things that can bite us on the backside during this approach/departure'. That actually enables me to expand on things that I've seen or heard of others stuffing up. These may not be threats in the pure sense of the word- as no management process may be needed- but they could become one later if circumstances change. Crossing an active runway in 'normal' circumstances wouldn't normally be considered a threat but given the config of Cairns then you're right about it being a worthy thing to talk about if it's going to come into play. Why is it a 'threat' and others not? It's something external to the crew (poor airport design) that requires an additional management step to avoid an error. Discussing it when landing on 33 (in the 767) would NOT be relevant.

[kellykelpie]

The first step in dealing with any threat is to acknowledge it. If someone says "It's been a long day and I'm tired" they're saying double check my work, I may be more prone to making errors. My judgement may even be impaired. Don't even think about practicing that manual thrust, raw data ILS and let's not do 340kts to 5100 feet, even if we're offered it. CRM is all about acknowledging that we are human and make mistakes and letting the other guy know that, at the moment, we are more human than normal.

I certainly hope that mentioning "I'm tired tonight, watch me" doesn't invoke any negative conotation like "well weren't you rested?" etc.

[Keg]

If someone says "It's been a long day and I'm tired" they're saying double check my work, I may be more prone to making errors.

I'm pretty sure that's what I said also. They're pointing out that our error management had better bet spot on. I also said that if the first time I'm hearing about it is in the takeoff/arrival brief when we're discussing the other 'threats' then it's not been dealt with appropriately. To get back to the semantics of it, it's not a 'threat' per se, it's highlighting the importance of error management.

I'm not averse to saying 'It's the last sector of a five day domestic trip and we're a bit 'over it' so let's work hard to make this a good one' but it ain't a threat and I'd never mention it as part of the 'threats' part of the briefing.

Sorry Dawg, having seen the changed behaviour in some individuals as a result of experiential exercises I can attest to the value of properly conducted scenarios. Next you'll be telling us that LOFT- which is close to the same thing- isn't worthwhile either.