Can you teach CRM (and how)?

[Rwy in Sight]

In an other thread gatbusdriver said:

CRM stands for crew resource management, the definition of which is something along the lines of..........a management system which makes optimum use of all available resources - equipment, procedures and people - to promote safety and enhance the efficiency of flight operations.

My question is can you seriously tech CRM? You can put individuals in a classroom, you can force into them all the theory and they will learn all the right answers. But when it comes into applying them will they do it willingly if they don't have to?

Rwy in Sight

[parabellum]

You can show people the right way and the wrong way but the extent to which they take notice is usually dependant on the amount of impact and change the 'right' way will have on them and their way of operating. Don't expect any Damascen conversions.

Decades before it was called CRM it was called Man Management and taught from Junior NCO level, (Military), or Junior Supervisory level, (civil), upwards, with mixed success.

[Pilot Positive]

Can you teach CRM? Yes you can: you can simulate potential pressures through training. Of course, training is never like the real thing but it shores up positive conditioning and exposes the crew to likely scenarios helping to shape and form a cooperative mindset that promotes safety. The result? A reduction, not an eradication, of incidents.

Not every duck takes to water though.... :hmm:

[Genghis the Engineer]

Technically no, you can't - because it's almost impossible to actually teach anything to adults.

What you can do is firstly provide people with the opportunity to learn, and secondly assess whether they seem to have done so.

The first is probably best done as it generally is - by a combination of theory presentation, anecdote and exercises.

The second is much more difficult, and perhaps is best left to colleagues in the aircraft and mutual evaluation and debrief?

G

[alf5071h]

The tone of the originating question suggests that CRM cannot be taught – as argued by Genghis. Alternative views are that CRM is being taught but not particularly well or is not effective, or what ever is being taught as CRM is not actual CRM as envisaged.
I believe that CRM can be taught, but in many operations the alternative views dominate.

CRM has many and wide ranging definitions. The ‘standard’ definition (#1) can and should be interpreted in different ways as the concept demands adaptation to cultural norms and application within daily operations, i.e. operator specific. However, within such a broad remit there is opportunity for many misunderstandings.

IMHO, the overview provided in CAP 737 (www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP737.PDF) – ‘CRM defined’, has significant practical value and is a good basis for training.
In particular, CAP 737 considers the individual first – cognitive skills, before the ‘team’ interpersonal skills (paras 3-4). This can circumvent concentrating on the person–person aspects in many interpretations of CRM, which unfortunately has been perpetuated by ICAO team concept.

In many instances the person–person, or social skills have been given a dominant role because they are perceived as easier to teach, often based on managing behavioral aspects or team building ideas. Whilst these are valuable in crew operations, the cognitive (individual) qualities have even greater value in promoting safety by first improving the individual and thence crew capabilities utilising the well trained individuals.

The cognitive aspects, generalized as ‘thinking’, are more difficult to teach, but as a skill, they can be taught and improved, used in team work, and embedded in everyday operations.

Yes CRM – ‘thinking’ - can be taught. If you teach people to improve their thinking ability, then most if not all of the other aspects associated with CRM can also be improved.
Teaching people to think doesn’t have to stray into deep cognitive psychology, the instructional skill is to keep things simple.

- How?

http://www.edwdebono.com/course/index.htm
AN ANNOTATED LIST OF CRITICAL THINKING TESTS (http://www.criticalthinking.net/goals.html)
New Horizons for Learning: Teaching and Learning Strategies (http://www.newhorizons.org/strategies/thinking/costa2.htm)
http://www.ara.com/KleinDiv/KleinBaxter_2009.pdf

and your interpretation of CAP 737 for the CRM and the regulatory aspects.

[A37575]

Teaching people to think doesn’t have to stray into deep cognitive psychology, the instructional skill is to keep things simple.


Every scheduled CRM white-board or Power Point presentation I have been press-ganged (along with many other equally reluctants) into, has caused the eyes to glaze over at the amount of psycho-babble that pours from the eager beaver lecturer.

One has to only read the extraordinary number of definitions of CRM that are presented to those sitting as captive audience in a darkened briefing room all eyes sleepily on the moving screen, to realise that it is all a great big con and a thoroughly well thought out cottage industry that can make millions for those entrepeneurs that care to write a book or three and flog them to countless airlines who are forced to accept them by the regulators.

Look at the number of accident reports where the first question asked is not why did the aircraft crash - but had the unfortunate crew completed a CRM course. If by chance they hadn't - then there you go then..the crash was inevitable so go no further.:ok:

[paco]

CRM in a nutshell = teaching you how to work with people you normally wouldn't go down the pub with.

Phil

[GlueBall]

The most potent and captivating CRM ingredient is to analyze the probable cause of every accident or incident that ever occured in the airplane that YOU are flying right now. :ooh:

[alf5071h]

A37575, I wonder how you would judge the self-study presentation (visual guide) “Critical Thinking” in the library section of <aviation.org> also see the material on situation awareness and decision making. There is little if any psychobabble, nor mention of ‘CRM’.
Will the content improve CRM or at least contribute to the human factors aspects of safety?
I think that there is merit in this form of teaching. The industry needs CRM – professional improvement. In many cases the current CRM initiatives are failing, or at lest they are stalled. Thus there is need for a new way of depicting CRM, but without inventing a new subject or system; just a different way of presenting and thus perceiving the existing material. Hopefully some of this will stick and the skills will develop.

paco, whilst your nutshell has some safety value, training this aspect alone would not meet the majority of CRM regulatory requirements.
CRM’s recent history tracks the emergent views and developing knowledge of human factors. The person – person approach had to be strengthened with ‘aeronautical decision making’, and more recently with concepts of ‘management’, threats, errors, risk and resource, depending on the chosen view. I avoid the diffusion from Cockpit to Crew in CRM, to … ‘C’ whatever, these are labeling distractions.

In order for CRM to work, ‘teaching’ has to promote the application of human factors. This starts with knowledge of human factors and how that knowledge should be applied, thinking skills – aimed at behavioral change. In turn these depend on the situation / context, thus it also important to understand the situation, another thinking skill, etc, etc.
CRM not a panacea for safety, it has to be integrated with other programmes. CRM, the HF knowledge, application, behaviors, etc, have to be lived, they have to be a central to and embedded in every element of daily operations, both safety and economics.

Thus, this concept of ‘teaching’ CRM, and for its success, requires that everyone is both a teacher and a student. The senior pilots, trainers/checkers, captains, and more experienced individuals must set an example, be mentors and facilitators, yet still be willing to learn and seek professional improvement. The younger pilots must also be willing to learn, to gain knowledge, and advance in their profession.
CRM training depends on a willingness to learn, but I wonder how many programs have cleared this first hurdle using the existing concepts and training materials.
A hindrance in these areas is that CRM is often depicted as a course of instruction and once the exam is taken (‘I am qualified’) or the recurrent training undertaken (‘jumped through the hoop’), CRM is shelved.
The industry lacks incentive for professional improvement - a willingness to participate, an attitude of self improvement, a belief in being a professional.

[turbocharged]

Maybe we need to ask 'what are we teaching it for' rather than 'can we teach it'.

CRM was introduced as a way of changing behaviour. CRM is not an academic domain in its own right. The problem is, we tend to treat it like a high school subject and CRM training is configured accordingly.

Time to wipe the slate clean and ask what the purpose of CRM 'training' really is.

[blueplume]

Having seen CRM demonstrated competently and absolutely incompetently (the latter by individuals who are more interested in their rank and being CRM "Instructors" than in the attainment of a co-operative environment), I can safely say that CRM can be demonstrated but not taught. Those who are not capable of leaving their rank and ego behind will be a hindrance to the said co-operative environment. This applies to F/Os as much as Captains. For some the CRMI qualification is nothing more than another line on the CV to look important with.
You can always tell when someone knows what they are doing because they are able to explain what they do and why without any loss of face or respect. If it is explained properly it will be understood the first time without the need to repeat it. Of course this implies that it is understood in the first place by the person trying to impart knowledge. Nobody knows everything, neither F/O nor Captain. The Captain must be allowed to take responsibility and make decisions while allowing the F/O and other Crew members to exercise their right and duty to contribute to the best possible outcome.

[flythisway]

As we can all see from the above posts pilots do not need CRM courses they are unique breed of the human species who know everything and never make mistakes.

[Fire and brimstone]

To answer the initial question, no I can't.

Is anyone else in a similar position?

:zzz:

[parabellum]

As we can all see from the above posts pilots do not need CRM courses they are unique breed of the human species who know everything and never make mistakes.


Well flythisway, if you can deduce that from the posts on this thread then you have powers of deduction and perception most of us can only dream of!

All I can see is a majority of people tying to give an honest answer to a sensible question, largely based on their experience.

I hope your post was tongue in cheek and that you are not just another facetious **** that enjoys trolling a professional pilots bulletin board?

[NEWYEAR]

Well, in my opinion you can try to teach and on the other hand they can try to learn.

[Non-PC Plod]

Perhaps you can't teach CRM in the traditional sense of the word - its better to facilitate it - that is to say you give people the right information/ scenario/post-incident report etc, and let them (with a bit of encouragement/steering) have their "Eureka" moment, and realise for themselves that non-technical skills can contribute to either disater or heroic recovery, just as technical skills can.

[Big-Windy]

I'm with you Non-PC. The 'teach' word has been too prevalent throughout the previous posts. A good CRMI will allow the participants to discover for themselves. Tricky sometimes.

The delivery is critical, the CRMI has to be convincing. Why should anyone listen to a CRMI who obviously has little energy or belief in the subject? A good CRMI will also be flexible and allow the subject matter to go wherever it needs to because that's probably where the biggest issues are for that group. They should be prepared to abandon the 'lesson plan' altogether if needs be.

Ideally, it should be the group doing most of the talking, almost a debate. IMHO, if you can get to a stage where the CRMI is simply 'chairing' the dicussion then that's a good session. This is true facilitation, because the group is discovering for themselves and will change their behaviour because they become convinced about the value of the subject being discussed.

[BugSpeed]

Big-Windy, well said.

The CRMI Core Course is entirely geared around providing would be CRMI's with the skill set to become a competent facilitator.

The CAA have estimated that it takes a CRMI five years to become a competent facilitator.

Following on from that, CRM is not a subject that, after an initial crew course at company indcution, should be "taught"; it should be facilitated. The crew know the answers, it is the CRMI's job to chair the discussion to drag them out of the group discussion. That said, if the aims of the session aren't being pulled out that way then yes, an element of teaching will have to be conducted.

We are on the cross over between 5th and 6th generation CRM now. It has taken over 25 years for NASA's initial idea to be so ingrained into airline training that it can be taken seriously enough for the ultimate aim of Threat and Error Management (TEM) to be an actual syllabus.

TEM is the crux of all the CRM skills you will learn.

Over the last 25 years or so, CRM lost its way slightly in a sort of "lets all be nice to each other and hold hands to solve the problem" way. THIS IS NOT WHAT CRM IS ABOUT. CAP 737, as far as I am aware, does not have this as a definition!

CRM is all about flight safety and NOT necessarily being nice to people. It just so happens that a by-product of being nice to people is (more often than not) productive problem solving.

So, for all you line pilots out there, just remember: CRM's primary concern is flight safety, however that is acheived.

BS

[turbocharged]

If the crew 'know all the answers' why do we even a 'facilitator' to 'drag' it out of them?

And 'if the aims of the session aren't being pulled out' an element of teaching will be needed?????

Can you clarify

[Big-Windy]

Having fun Turbo? Without wanting to answer for Bugspeed but I'll have a go.

I think he's implying that a CRMI doesn't hold a superior position, they approach the subject matter as an equal within the group. The idea being to pull peoples disparate experiences, and prior knowledge into coherent strategies that make them safer in the cockpit.

An element of teaching will be needed? There has to be a lesson plan of some sort, to set the stage, to remind people of the rationale behind the item being discussed. Once the parameters are set then the group can be set free to roam within it and discover for themselves.

Remember that CRM subject matter has been designed around mistakes that have been made before, sometimes repeatedly. We're flawed. Rather like an alcoholic having to admit that he's such before he can get better, as professional aircrew we know that errors are inevitable and we should be open to any method that helps to avoid, trap and mitigate those errors.

Does that help?

[4Greens]

An important issue in CRM courses is the use of Emergency Language. This is a process of a Junior pilot being given the tools to make a Captain aware that he must take notice of a subordinate. There are a number of stages but essentially it involves offering the Captain alternative courses of action and if necessary culminating in such phrases as 'You must listen to me Captain' and then if this is used it becomes a reportable incident. The emergency phrase can be varied to suit the airline culture. It must, however, get everyones attention. The procedure must also be incorporated in the ops manual so it is legitimised by the company. In some airlines the use of the Captain's first name can have the same effect.

[turbocharged]

'impish', maybe. Fun? No.

I actually believe that CRM is important. What worried me is the muddled thinking that surrounds, first, the subject and, second, how the subject is dealt with.

[BugSpeed]

Couldnt have put it better myself Big-W!!!! :D

I guess turbo is a single seat operator :ugh: ;)

[turbocharged]

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.

[Big-Windy]

Hey Bugspeed, I'm single seat (but I have a good share of dual seat experience too)! This is good stuff Turbo, I think I understand your frustrations.

Yes, we divide CRM into two subject areas, the theory and the practical. The knowledge, skills and attitudes (all theory), followed up by the behaviours (the practical). Before you can fairly assess a crew on their behaviours they must have a good understanding of the theory. Wouldn't you agree?

The CAA reckons it can take 5 years to become a good facilitator. In my opinion good facilitation is almost invisible; you hardly know it's happening. But please tell me Turbo, how would you go about getting the best out of room full of experts? As a CRMI (in case you hadn't guessed already) I'm very open to any ideas that would help me to improve the way I deliver CRM.

CRM, How long has it been now? Around 30 years since the start. It seems to me that we're out of the 'pulling ourselves up by the boot straps' stage and we're into consolidation. It's an organic subject, open to change and reorganisation and the CAA are making substantial headway in refining the quality of delivery. See the introduction in Standards Doc No 29 freely downloadable from the CAA website. The bar is being raised.

[turbocharged]

Big Windy,

First, if you look at the history of CRM facilitator accreditation over the years it's actually an incremental restriction of who can be a facilitator rather than a progressive elaboration of the facilitator skill set. And as for the bar being raised, well I must have sat in the same audience as you and heard that. In fact, what we are seeing is a progressive erosion of CRM as more and more operators find ways of reducing the time allocated.

I've made the point before - and at the CAA - that Stds Doc 29 is all about style over substance. Provided the person at the front can somehow be seen to be 'chairing' a discussion then what the discussion is about, and whether it makes a change in the real world, doesn't matter.

How many Safety Managers task the CRM teams in their airline? How many CRM teams get a formal tasking from anyone or are they simply left to their own devices to come up with something to fill the training programme? If there is no clear loop between line performance, assessed behaviours and delivered training then CRM is little more than a moderately pleasant way to spend a day.

TC

[CONTROLOCKS]

CRM is about Safety Culture nothing else nothing more.To teach it in the classroom is redundant if it is not applied through the company and enforced by the Accountable Executive.

[Pull what]

My question is can you seriously tech CRM? You can put individuals in a classroom, you can force into them all the theory and they will learn all the right answers. But when it comes into applying them will they do it willingly if they don't have to?

This is a very good question not really addressed by most of the answers above.

Starting at the beginning you cannot teach anybody anything to anyone if they do not wish to learn, ask any secondary school teacher.

We had an instructor (large UK airline) who wasnt a pilot and had become a bit of a laughing stock, no one respected his opinion or his views, the course was dead in the water before it started.

So for starters you need properly motivated students and properly qualified instructors who can teach with authority and are respected. I cannot see how any instructor without years of airline flying experience can be a CRM instructor.

I also believe a lot more CRM checking should take place during line checks.

[Big-Windy]

TC,

A couple of interesting points but I don't have the information at hand to dispute them. I'll just have to accept them as your (perhaps better informed) point of view. Can anyone else reading this thread jump in and help answer TCs enquiries?

I'm afraid I don't agree with:

'provided the person at the front can somehow be seen to be 'chairing' a discussion then what the discussion is about, and whether it makes a change in the real world, doesn't matter'.

If it's not relevant to CRM then why waste time discussing it?

I may have misinterpreted something but are you speaking from personal experience when you suggest that the line training and debriefs you have received have failed to close the loop between CRM academics and your objectively assessed behaviours? If so then perhaps the system in your company needs looking at? Perhaps you should suggest that it does get looked at if, on your next line assessment, the CRMI (line) doesn't pick up on valid points? A CRMI should adopt an adult to adult, expert to expert role and should be equally open to constructive suggestions for themselves as they are to giving constructive suggestions to you.

Mind if I ask you a question TC? What are you thinking when you go into a line check or a CRM training day?

[turbocharged]

BW,

I think you might have got the wrong end of the stick. My point was that Stds Doc is heavy on the style - the 'chairing' skills - and light on substance - the 'what'. Of course, if the conversation is not directed at any clear goal then it's a pointless exercise.

In part, this is why I disagree with the views expressed about a facilitator being a 'teacher' and is CRM about 'teaching'. Of course it is. A CRM session, be it in the classroom, in a LOFT or in a Line Check debrief, is all about bringing about a change in behaviour, about sustaining a performance or, maybe, about providing insight. Because of this emphasis on form over substance we are not yet in a position where ALL facilitators have the necessary skill. There is no consistency.

To be fair. most of my work is outside of the UK where, in many cases, the bar is still resting on the ground.