Single pilot CRM

[Shawn Coyle]

CRM for single pilots is not a bad thing. It's a bit like taking a refresher in Defensive Driving - with the right attitude, you'll learn something. With the wrong attitude you won't.
On a hopefully related note, I just read of people failing the test for being a forestry-approved pilot because they were unable to complete a weight and balance form within 30 minutes... Doesn't that say something about some of the resources we all need - like training?

[flyer43]

I'm a firm believer in CRM (Cockpit or Crew Resource Management), whether multi pilot or single pilot is immaterial. And it does work in the far eastern culture, I've seen it first and second hand.

Sadly, unless the C for Company is also attended to, things can still end up going badly wrong. The aircrew, and that includes cabin crew, winchmen and anybody remotely connected to the safe operation of the aircraft, need the full support and trust of the Company in order to safely complete their tasks.
C also stands for Conflict of interest ............... until we can do away with that C, there is little hope for some of our fraternity.

[paco]

I don't think the word airmanship, though close, cuts it any more, and after 9 years in Canada, I can tell you that most of what happens is not common sense on that side of the water. The single pilots who fly overweight into hills in bad weather are doing it in North Alberta/BC - it's the reason why the Beaver has an inordinately high insurance charge even though it's one of the best aeroplanes that was ever made.

Airmanship won't help you on the 42nd day on duty without a day off, and you have chronic fatigue, or stop the person who hands over an instructor certificate on payment of $150 without even a training course (Canada/USA, respectively), or allow somebody who is barely literate to pass a pilot licence (UK). I am sick and tired of insurance companies and "consultants" putting us in the position of having to hire people who have the right numbers in terms of hours but who are nevertheless total idiots who will overtorque the machine at the earliest opportunity.

Almost universally, pilots are expected to fudge duty hours, loadsheets, get the job done, etc etc, and when you try to look after the company or the customer by refusing to do unsafe things you are run off the job. I am not the only one who will not work for the oil patch any more, and I know many who used customer attitude as a good reason to retire.

But then, it's always been my view that management and customers should be the ones on CRM courses anyway.

I agree with joedirt, however, on the training - the European authorities could learn a thing or two from Canada and USA on relevance, and I have the highest respect for the integrity of Transport Canada examiners.

Phil

[[email protected]]

Sadly it is the sort of course that should be mandatory periodic training for crews and management but unless the CAA legislates for it that won't happen. The military have a tri service Flight Safety setup that runs regular courses for all levels of experience (and not just for aircrew) and includes training for senior officers who make the big decisions just like company management.
Any course that raises awareness of Flight Safety issues and gets people thinking about how easy it is to have an accident but also how easy it is to prevent one, has got to be worthwhile.

[paco]

Sometimes you just have to explain things in words with one syllable.

Actually, for those who don't know, the single pilot CRM thing is about to become mandatory, if it hasn't already - JAR OPS 9.43 has it all in there.

Phil

[JimL]

Paco,

The reference is JAR-OPS 3.943 and has been incorporated since April 1st 2004. Whether or not it is mandated is dependent upon the member State as, up to the time that EASA adopts JAR-OPS 3 (or the amended version EU OPS 3), it is reliant upon each State incorporating the text (or pointing to the text) in its regulations.

As you may have seen discussed on other threads; Germany has only translated the first edition; France has adopted and translated a slightly amended version; the UK has encouraged its operators to comply (against an exemption from the various clauses of the ANO - all done in the operator's AOC); and Italy is in the process of amending its regulations to take account of the requirements of JAR-OPS 3.

Norway on the other hand is ahead of the game and is considering adopting parts of the not-yet-issued NPA-38 for its offshore operations (due to recommendations from a Parliamentary Commission).

Jim

[paco]

Thanks for that - that last post was a verbal barf. I got the impression from that last CRM conference that it was all in the process of being tidied up, but maybe that isn't the case.

JAR OPS is confusing anyway - on the one hand it says that there shall be no unsupervised line flying without a CRM course, and about two paragraphs later it says that new hires have a year to do a course - the CAA tell me that the latter will prevail but quien sabe?

Phil

[tripletach]

CRM needs a new name

The problem now with the term 'CRM' when you are talking single pilot ops, is not what is in the course, but what people think the course is about when it is called a 'CRM' course. The old types of CRM courses with lots of personality type theory and useless Jargon like 'Synergy' may have been interesting, but had little practical application.

A modern 'CRM' course is more about recognising the limitations and short comings of all humans (yes all, not just the ones with so called poor airmanship) and provides tactics to combat the errors and poor decisions that occur from being human.

Anyone that thinks they get all the training in this area that they need at flight school is kidding themselves.

Some of these training concepts can have huge improvements in operator safety. PHI introduced Aeronautical Decision Making training in 1986. By 1988 their company accident rate had reduced by 54%. Bell helicopters, US Navy, USAF, Transport Canada Civilian Cadets, all saw similar improvements when implementing this type of training.

I think it just needs a new name.

[paco]

You're quite right - the Canadians call it Decision Making, and this is indeed what I concentrate on out of all the subjects available, but if I called it that nobody would think it was relevant!

It's unfortunate that the concept was ruined by picking up a lot of psycho baggage along the way, although it is true that some part of the aim is to help people get along a little better and take the ego out of the cockpit. The single pilot still has to talk to engineers and customers

Phil

[Tigs2]

Paco
You are not very clued up on JAROPS, thats ok, unless you stand talking to people charging £120 per day per person, then you really should know the rules and regs surrounding CRM. Tradition has it on PPRUNE that you can contact the advertising section to publicise things of a commercial interest, instead of trying to use the forum to pull people in for free.

[paco]

As for JAR OPs, well, nobody is very clued up on it, especially when they contradict themselves so much, as paragraph .943 proves. I meant to put the decimal point before the 9 in my previous reference, because the same paragaph is relevant in JAR OPS 1 and 3.

I say again, having finished with multi-crew, the CAA are now turning their attention to single crew, hence the last conference in Gatport Airwick about mandating it. The original intent was to have it all formalised around October last year, but that seems to have slipped a bit

Phil

[JimL]

Paco,

Your previous reference was concerned with training; the absolute requirement for CRM is contained in JAR-OPS 3.940 - there can be no confusion here as it appears to be absolute.

JAR-OPS 3.940 Composition of Flight Crew

(a) An operator shall ensure that:

(7) For crew members serving the operator as a commander, initial operator’s Crew Resource Management (CRM) training shall be completed before commencing unsupervised line flying.

I think that you will find that the intitial paragraph of 3.943 is intended also for multi-crew operations (which includes crew members who are other than flight crew) and, in that sense, JAR-OPS 3.940(a)(7) is the defining rule. The reason that the text differs between JAR-OPS 1 & 3 is that, in JAR-OPS 3, the applicability date (2002) was already past before the amendment became effective. A comprehensive reading of the other amended rules (see the [] brackets and dates) in Subpart N will indicate that an integrated revision has been conducted.

As for JAR OPs, well, nobody is very clued up on it...

I'm sure a number of esteemed readers and contributers to this forum would disagree with that broad statement.

Jim

[paco]

Thanks once again - but paragraph 3.943 still contradicts 3.940 - as you say, the requirement for CRM training is absolute in this paragraph, but it just says that commanders shall not fly unsupervised line flying without initial CRM training (although it doesn't specify where that training comes from, as long as it is presumably approved). 3.943 then says that new employees, which presumably includes the aforesaid commanders, have a year to do initial training. 3.943 doesn't mention multi-crew at all.


I can't help feeling that all this will be redundant anyway once EASA changes everything

Phil

[JimL]

Paco,

I'm not sure you are correct in your assessment of the future of JAR-OPS 3; recent indications are that EASA will accept a modified (in the same way as EU OPS 1) JAR-OPS 3. The stated intent is to remain in compliance with ICAO Annex 6 Part III - it is that which drives the content of regulations.

There is an amendment of Annex 6 Part III in the system which is likely to include the introduction of Exposure (a la JAR-OPS 3) along with Risk Assessment. Expect also some simplification of SARPs - I would say it will be evolutionary rather than revolutionary.

With regard to single pilot CRM; most of what has been said here is correct, in North America Aeronautical Decision Making, in Australia Risk Assessment, in the past Airmanship and now CRM all have as their aim increased pilot awareness of his likely failings. I think that tripletach has it about right:

A modern 'CRM' course is more about recognising the limitations and short comings of all humans (yes all, not just the ones with so called poor airmanship) and provides tactics to combat the errors and poor decisions that occur from being human.

Anyone that thinks they get all the training in this area that they need at flight school is kidding themselves.

Some of these training concepts can have huge improvements in operator safety. PHI introduced Aeronautical Decision Making training in 1986. By 1988 their company accident rate had reduced by 54%. Bell helicopters, US Navy, USAF, Transport Canada Civilian Cadets, all saw similar improvements when implementing this type of training.

Jim

[paco]

Don't mind me, I was just getting depressive about it all

Yes, others are right, the name does need changing, and I think the Australians and Canadians both have good ones. As mentioned, I concentrate on the decision making, and it seems to go down well, which is more than I can say for the jokes

phil

[tgilson]

Need to do crm course for single pilot public tranport , so I can safely talk to myself !!!! Have phoned around but all very minty ..... anyone got any leads ? This is my first message so hello to anyone who recognises my name.

[Hummingfrog]

Check your PMs

HF

[paco]

My next one is in about a week's time

Phil

[VeeAny]

Paco is indeed the man for single pilot CRM courses.

I've never done one with him, however I know he speaks sense, and one of my (ex)students has just done one with him and he comes highly recommended.

V.

[tgilson]

CRM

Thanks VeeAny , Hummingfrog and paco for your replies on crm . Paco , can I get more details - price , where , how long and more dates . Not sure if I can make next week so when next one. Did one with Bond back in 97 , so will a refresher do ?

Thanx guys .