Footballer kicked in goolies failed TEM theory exam
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 1,256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Whispering "T" Jet
Keg, you say
. 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.
'threats' are supposed to be 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.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: oz (30% of the time)
Age: 62
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Nunc est bibendum
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.
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 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?!?
I don't reckon I'm any different to the majority of other QF crew. 
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.
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.
Thanks for the brain work out all. I've enjoyed it.
PS: FL610. Thanks.....I think?!?
I don't reckon I'm any different to the majority of other QF crew.
Whispering "T" Jet
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".
Where ?
I still believe the problem with developing good CRM courses is getting the right balance between academia and practicality.
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.
I still believe the problem with developing good CRM courses is getting the right balance between academia and practicality.
Jeez, Keg, that amounts to a PhD dissitation mate! Those SYD - LAX legs must just fly by!Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Wherever the hotel drink ticket is valid
Posts: 281
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think a bigger problem with HF courses is that we don't walk away from them having learned something about ourselves.
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.
Nunc est bibendum
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. 
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.
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. 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.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: sydney
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 1,256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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..
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..
Nunc est bibendum
So let me get this straight A37575. You start with this line:
...and yet you're so new to CRM concepts and terminology that you haven't heard of Reason's 'swiss cheese' model?!?!
Who do you fly for? Is this a wind up?
I have had it up to the eyeballs with this psycho-babble called CRM and TEM......
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.
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.
Whispering "T" Jet
What it seeks to do is change a person's behaviour/attitude
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!
Nunc est bibendum
Good CRM training is designed to improve aircrew's understanding of communication, decision making, situation awareness, leadership,cockpit management, teamwork and more.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Wherever the hotel drink ticket is valid
Posts: 281
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
3 Holer
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.
It should never imply or demand "you do it this way or the highway"!
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.