Crew Resource Management: The Debate
Guest
Posts: n/a
Unfortunately, the people who have the most to learn from CRM are also the people who consider it not to be needed, certainly not for themselves, anyway.
I think the basic CRM course is good, the refreshers we have can be pretty boring and when they start telling us about fatigue and the fact we should sleep well and eat well or we'll get tired, well, it grates a bit when the reason we get more tired than necessary is down to other departments.
So I agree with the person who said that Ops and Crewing should also go on the course. Add Rostering to that.
I think CRM is important, but ultimately you must continue to re-examine your own attitudes and actions to see if you need to change things you do too. Its much easier to see other's faults.
I think the basic CRM course is good, the refreshers we have can be pretty boring and when they start telling us about fatigue and the fact we should sleep well and eat well or we'll get tired, well, it grates a bit when the reason we get more tired than necessary is down to other departments.
So I agree with the person who said that Ops and Crewing should also go on the course. Add Rostering to that.
I think CRM is important, but ultimately you must continue to re-examine your own attitudes and actions to see if you need to change things you do too. Its much easier to see other's faults.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I am a believer in CRM. But I also think it is a bit incomplete. I am a U.S. Navy pilot who practiced ACT (Aircrew Coordination Training). My view is that ACT incorporates CRM, but CRM does not necessarily incorporate ACT. In other words, CRM is great but should include more than just communication in the cockpit. The basic tenants of ACT include, but are not limited to:
Decision Making
Assertiveness
Mission Analysis (more appropriate to a military assignment)
Communication
Leadership
Situational Awareness
And a few others I don't recall...
(Other U.S. military pilots in the audience can add the 2 I missed.) ACT classes include a session of case studies: Every aircraft incident can be attributed to one or more of these breaking down. Just makes you think about the most remote possibilty and that's a good thing - to think about it before it happens. Anyway, I agree that what goes on "in the tube" can be just as critical as what goes on "in the pointy end". The big picture is what matters, and ego has to take a back seat to safety and that IS addressed in CRM.
EPCronk
P.S. - If ever a situation is developing, I remind myself that my motto is "ditching sucks".
Decision Making
Assertiveness
Mission Analysis (more appropriate to a military assignment)
Communication
Leadership
Situational Awareness
And a few others I don't recall...
(Other U.S. military pilots in the audience can add the 2 I missed.) ACT classes include a session of case studies: Every aircraft incident can be attributed to one or more of these breaking down. Just makes you think about the most remote possibilty and that's a good thing - to think about it before it happens. Anyway, I agree that what goes on "in the tube" can be just as critical as what goes on "in the pointy end". The big picture is what matters, and ego has to take a back seat to safety and that IS addressed in CRM.
EPCronk
P.S. - If ever a situation is developing, I remind myself that my motto is "ditching sucks".
Guest
Posts: n/a
EPCronk -
I agree. Is there a Navy manual on the subject?
As to rostering, I also agree there too. I find it alymost hysterical that the USA companies very often won't observe the crew rest regulations, but they will advise the crews on techniques to over-extend their capabilities.
From experience, I can attest that when you push the crew-time envelope, when a crisis develops in that regime, the body & mind give up with a surprising rate.
In my case, the FAA invented a regulation & hammered me with a B.S violation, rather than admit the value of CRM or that crew fatigue ever happened. FAA Southwest Region again; protected up through the White House. 'Big money' talks; watch your 'six.'
I agree. Is there a Navy manual on the subject?
As to rostering, I also agree there too. I find it alymost hysterical that the USA companies very often won't observe the crew rest regulations, but they will advise the crews on techniques to over-extend their capabilities.
From experience, I can attest that when you push the crew-time envelope, when a crisis develops in that regime, the body & mind give up with a surprising rate.
In my case, the FAA invented a regulation & hammered me with a B.S violation, rather than admit the value of CRM or that crew fatigue ever happened. FAA Southwest Region again; protected up through the White House. 'Big money' talks; watch your 'six.'
Guest
Posts: n/a
Yes, Skydrifter, there's lots of material available - briefing slides, movies/tapes, case studies, etc. I might scrounge up some old stuff I have around, but would recommend contacting any U.S. Navy squardon for it. Don't know if the U.S. Air Force uses the same program or not, so check your local listings... I've noticed a lot of these postings come from overseas, so your nearest U.S. military facility can direct you where you want to search. When you find a squadron, I recommend the NATOPS (Naval Air Training and Operating Procedures Standardization) Department. (If the Navy does nothing, it makes up rediculous acronyms...) Their job is to train all aircrew and should be more than happy to send you stuff gratis. Good luck.
Guest
Posts: n/a
EPCronk -
Thanks. CRM is essentially professional management. You're correct in identifying the expanded horizon.
In the AK-261 transcript, the pilots unsuccessfully tried to scare up help from the training department. It didn't work, but it was terrific thinking on the pilots' part.
Thanks. CRM is essentially professional management. You're correct in identifying the expanded horizon.
In the AK-261 transcript, the pilots unsuccessfully tried to scare up help from the training department. It didn't work, but it was terrific thinking on the pilots' part.
Guest
Posts: n/a
411A -
The flap / slat extensions seem to be uniquely acts of understandable desperation. It's unlikely that the training department would encourage test-piloting in such a scenario.
If anything came from an objective academic mindset, I'd think the suggestion of ONLY extending the slats would be offered, staying away from trailing edge extension. Without normal control function, the trailing edge flaps would probably have only aggravated the pitch-down.
It's impossible to say with certainty, but I'm convinced that the slat / flap extension caused a disturbed airflow over the remanants of the horizontal stabilizer, as the final precipitating event.
The flap / slat extensions seem to be uniquely acts of understandable desperation. It's unlikely that the training department would encourage test-piloting in such a scenario.
If anything came from an objective academic mindset, I'd think the suggestion of ONLY extending the slats would be offered, staying away from trailing edge extension. Without normal control function, the trailing edge flaps would probably have only aggravated the pitch-down.
It's impossible to say with certainty, but I'm convinced that the slat / flap extension caused a disturbed airflow over the remanants of the horizontal stabilizer, as the final precipitating event.
Guest
Posts: n/a
What about similar courses for Operations and Management, after all they never seem to bother communicating with flight deck.......... Ops.. somebody already suggested that.
[This message has been edited by Cpt Nil Further (edited 18 January 2001).]
[This message has been edited by Cpt Nil Further (edited 18 January 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
WACO and Cpt Nil Further:
Interesting you guys hit on the same points.
I've seen Air Atlanta slammed recently in these annals.
However, they are the ONLY ones I know of, with certainty, who "routinely" include Flight Deck, Cabin Crew, Operations, Management and even wrench-turners in common CRM courses. Took a bit of cajoling, but when the brass saw the benefits at the MAD and JED bases, they did take notice.
I've departed AAI for sandier pastures but understand they're still at the front in this vein.
Interesting you guys hit on the same points.
I've seen Air Atlanta slammed recently in these annals.
However, they are the ONLY ones I know of, with certainty, who "routinely" include Flight Deck, Cabin Crew, Operations, Management and even wrench-turners in common CRM courses. Took a bit of cajoling, but when the brass saw the benefits at the MAD and JED bases, they did take notice.
I've departed AAI for sandier pastures but understand they're still at the front in this vein.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I think Mr Benn has a major point! I'd like to go further.
Those who most need to learn something about CRM can go on countless courses. It just doesn't get through to them that THEY are the problem.
The dinosaurs are dying out but they still have their admirers unfortunately.
That's not to say that I don't recognize and appreciate the work that went on to get aviation to where it is today. But the world is changing.
With that, the second wave of CRM is coming on-line after the backlash from its introduction. It can be an exciting tool and forum too discuss safety issues as they affect us. It can also just be a load of PCBS.
Let us use it as an effective tool towards greater air safety.
Those who most need to learn something about CRM can go on countless courses. It just doesn't get through to them that THEY are the problem.
The dinosaurs are dying out but they still have their admirers unfortunately.
That's not to say that I don't recognize and appreciate the work that went on to get aviation to where it is today. But the world is changing.
With that, the second wave of CRM is coming on-line after the backlash from its introduction. It can be an exciting tool and forum too discuss safety issues as they affect us. It can also just be a load of PCBS.
Let us use it as an effective tool towards greater air safety.
Guest
Posts: n/a
IN THE USA -
A major pitfall that's killing a bunch of people is the non-issuance of the regulations - the most primitive but powerful of resources.
The 'industry' line is that the Operations Manual is a sufficient and legal substitute for the regulations - WRONG!
The Amazing part is that ALPA goes along with that nonsense.
[This message has been edited by SKYDRIFTER (edited 08 May 2001).]
A major pitfall that's killing a bunch of people is the non-issuance of the regulations - the most primitive but powerful of resources.
The 'industry' line is that the Operations Manual is a sufficient and legal substitute for the regulations - WRONG!
The Amazing part is that ALPA goes along with that nonsense.
[This message has been edited by SKYDRIFTER (edited 08 May 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
We always had CRM we just didn't call it that. The airlines (and squadrons) that did it best had fewer problems. We called it Teamwork and Communication.
It has been dressed up now, but that doesn't make it better, just more acceptable.
I once asked Boeing how to identify the important areas of their operating procedures and checklists that applied to CRM. I didn't get a straight-forward reply, but the message was that if you fly the airplane the way they say it should be flown, you will achieve good CRM. Most airlines, though, think they know better and change or add to the basic Boeing procedures without realising that this degrades CRM. A similar case can probably be made for Airbus, but from what I have seen of that operation it is a long way from good CRM.
An example is the way the non-flying pilot will call all the bloody obvious stuff, including the FMA indications (which were put on the PFD just so they did NOT have to be called). A major distraction, and IF the PNF were to notice a problem during takeoff or landing (doubtful, since he is usually flat out reading off and reporting on the routine stuff) I doubt if the PF would even hear his call, since he has to tune out the constant verbal diarrhea.
To bore you to death, an example of what I mean: During a CAT3 approach (simulator) the IP failed the Flare at 50 feet. Since there was no FMA indication saying "Hey stupid! The flare has failed!" the FO sat there dumb as a plank. He actually called "Command" since the LAND 3 indication changed to CMD, but I did not have a clue what he meant by that. Hearing the Master Caution I went around anyway, but it would be better if the FO was tasked to call ONLY relevant things, and to call missing items as well. That way I would learn that what he has to say is important; the exact opposite of what I have to put up with now.
We are confusing useless chatter with CRM.
Real CRM is the same as it always was: Communication and Teamwork.
It has been dressed up now, but that doesn't make it better, just more acceptable.
I once asked Boeing how to identify the important areas of their operating procedures and checklists that applied to CRM. I didn't get a straight-forward reply, but the message was that if you fly the airplane the way they say it should be flown, you will achieve good CRM. Most airlines, though, think they know better and change or add to the basic Boeing procedures without realising that this degrades CRM. A similar case can probably be made for Airbus, but from what I have seen of that operation it is a long way from good CRM.
An example is the way the non-flying pilot will call all the bloody obvious stuff, including the FMA indications (which were put on the PFD just so they did NOT have to be called). A major distraction, and IF the PNF were to notice a problem during takeoff or landing (doubtful, since he is usually flat out reading off and reporting on the routine stuff) I doubt if the PF would even hear his call, since he has to tune out the constant verbal diarrhea.
To bore you to death, an example of what I mean: During a CAT3 approach (simulator) the IP failed the Flare at 50 feet. Since there was no FMA indication saying "Hey stupid! The flare has failed!" the FO sat there dumb as a plank. He actually called "Command" since the LAND 3 indication changed to CMD, but I did not have a clue what he meant by that. Hearing the Master Caution I went around anyway, but it would be better if the FO was tasked to call ONLY relevant things, and to call missing items as well. That way I would learn that what he has to say is important; the exact opposite of what I have to put up with now.
We are confusing useless chatter with CRM.
Real CRM is the same as it always was: Communication and Teamwork.
Guest
Posts: n/a
With respect, I think there is some rather convoluted logic being applied here.
Let's see now. According to some, there are those who are already good managers etc, and they DON'T need CRM but think it's good stuff. Then there are those in desperate need of it, but they apparently always think it's a load of the proverbial.
I take it then that it's beyond the realms of possibility that there are those who are already good managers etc, therefore DON'T need it, but still think its a load of the proverbial?
Sounds a bit like the argument that anyone who disapproves of gays is by definition a closet gay.
Let's see now. According to some, there are those who are already good managers etc, and they DON'T need CRM but think it's good stuff. Then there are those in desperate need of it, but they apparently always think it's a load of the proverbial.
I take it then that it's beyond the realms of possibility that there are those who are already good managers etc, therefore DON'T need it, but still think its a load of the proverbial?
Sounds a bit like the argument that anyone who disapproves of gays is by definition a closet gay.
Guest
Posts: n/a
One problem with CRM as preached by airlines is that the managers don't practice what they preach. The managers at the Company I work for have little regard for input from flight crew regarding operational issues.
Another problem is that issues that are identified in CRM classes never make it out the classroom door. I sat in a class where they used a training film that was made in a simulator about an actual event that occured on the line. The situation was not all that unique. The crew was presented with a problem that was inter-departmental, no APU and de-icing necessary, and no guidance was available to the flight crew in Company publications. The crew that was involved in the event and in the training film was present in class that day. I asked the captain, about one year after the film was made, if any changes in procedures or guidance were now available; his answer was no. Amazing. If it was so important to highlight in class wasn't it important enough to adress in actual operations?
As for reduced workload that is not the case. If anything workload is increased when airlines shorten ground times, in order to increase utilization, and then don't provide adequate means to plan flights and brief cabin crew, etc. Often times one enters an already boarded aircraft and then has to find, or make, the time to pre-flight the aircraft interior, find cabin crew to brief, and all the other stuff that goes along with proper pre-flight activity. At other times it is necessary to travel relatively long distances just to retrieve weather packets and flight plans. This of course is time that is wasted. Time that could be used to pre-plan and pre-flight.
Another problem is that cabin crew procedures and flight crew procedures are not the same. Cabin crew often don't know what we do up front and we don't know what they may do in the back. A good crew briefing obviates some of these problems, but not all of them.
Often times a flight crew will have a cabin crew change on every leg. This makes it even more difficult to manage if there are no common procedures.
In other words- CRM is a two way street. management must take some of the responsibility.
Another problem is that issues that are identified in CRM classes never make it out the classroom door. I sat in a class where they used a training film that was made in a simulator about an actual event that occured on the line. The situation was not all that unique. The crew was presented with a problem that was inter-departmental, no APU and de-icing necessary, and no guidance was available to the flight crew in Company publications. The crew that was involved in the event and in the training film was present in class that day. I asked the captain, about one year after the film was made, if any changes in procedures or guidance were now available; his answer was no. Amazing. If it was so important to highlight in class wasn't it important enough to adress in actual operations?
As for reduced workload that is not the case. If anything workload is increased when airlines shorten ground times, in order to increase utilization, and then don't provide adequate means to plan flights and brief cabin crew, etc. Often times one enters an already boarded aircraft and then has to find, or make, the time to pre-flight the aircraft interior, find cabin crew to brief, and all the other stuff that goes along with proper pre-flight activity. At other times it is necessary to travel relatively long distances just to retrieve weather packets and flight plans. This of course is time that is wasted. Time that could be used to pre-plan and pre-flight.
Another problem is that cabin crew procedures and flight crew procedures are not the same. Cabin crew often don't know what we do up front and we don't know what they may do in the back. A good crew briefing obviates some of these problems, but not all of them.
Often times a flight crew will have a cabin crew change on every leg. This makes it even more difficult to manage if there are no common procedures.
In other words- CRM is a two way street. management must take some of the responsibility.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I'm very heartened by some of the replies here,on my favourite subject.As new to the industry I was horrified how far the Airlines are behind Industry in the UK, 10 to 15 years perhaps. CRM principles have been alive and kicking to forge effective safe and productive working relationships in blue chip companies I have worked for, and been sustained with training courses, refreshers and appraisals. Complaints? Of course the unknowingly incompetent sit there and say "yes yes I know" and they are the dangerous ones, but at least in the small minority.But in the Airlines? Bigger problem.
Having recently sat through an abysmal CRM induction which bored the pants off the flight crew, delivered by a well meaning but insular 35 year + experienced pilot who has never known anything better, I then proceeded to be told by a Captain on a jumpseat ride (I am an FO) to only speak when spoken to. Interestingly I observed him give a FATALLY flawed incorrect safety brief, miss switches despite 3 challenges and responding "on" (incorrect) and trot through controlled airspace unsupported as he missed the handover and went off frequency. (yes it happens) He fell into the familiar trap of thinking good CRM was all about checklists ticking boxes and social chitchat. No wonder such incompetence and distraction. For myself and the rebuffal, I can only be reminded of the tragic Sonia Hardwick who failed to warn the Air Ontario Capt about snow on the wings because a previous Cpt had said a similar dismissive with fatal results.
I can't wait to see our Captain's reaction when he finds out I am a CRM instructor
Waco I can only endorse that CRM courses with Flight, cabin, Ops and maintenance crews does work. I did several for a forward thinking middle east airline and it was BRILLIANT. Quite the best and productive I have done and the groups were really very appreciative and got a lot out of it.
Critcaart, I agree too that pilots get too insular and think it's all about them, although of course they are the ones to stop them (let's not forget it's still 70-80% human error despite automation, which brings in other problems such as passive monitoring ) There is always a chain and unfortunately poor administration and management can start the ball rolling. A certain US Airline with a poor accident record has a checklist that panders more to the insurance companies than being a sensible operation in the cockpit. No wonder corners are cut.
We could go on, but I really would like to say a word for Pprune. In general many pilots lead a "ships that pass in the night" lifestyle unless they forged personal ties outside of work, so problems anxieties are rarely aired in a confidential form, so any worries are difficult to share with work colleagues, except for CHIRP and good old Pprune. A great forum if only some mischief makers could be ignored. I do encourage the CRM groups to use Pprune if not openly in posts but direct to Emails as a way of sharing a problem and thereby perhaps halving it. Small steps
Having recently sat through an abysmal CRM induction which bored the pants off the flight crew, delivered by a well meaning but insular 35 year + experienced pilot who has never known anything better, I then proceeded to be told by a Captain on a jumpseat ride (I am an FO) to only speak when spoken to. Interestingly I observed him give a FATALLY flawed incorrect safety brief, miss switches despite 3 challenges and responding "on" (incorrect) and trot through controlled airspace unsupported as he missed the handover and went off frequency. (yes it happens) He fell into the familiar trap of thinking good CRM was all about checklists ticking boxes and social chitchat. No wonder such incompetence and distraction. For myself and the rebuffal, I can only be reminded of the tragic Sonia Hardwick who failed to warn the Air Ontario Capt about snow on the wings because a previous Cpt had said a similar dismissive with fatal results.
I can't wait to see our Captain's reaction when he finds out I am a CRM instructor
Waco I can only endorse that CRM courses with Flight, cabin, Ops and maintenance crews does work. I did several for a forward thinking middle east airline and it was BRILLIANT. Quite the best and productive I have done and the groups were really very appreciative and got a lot out of it.
Critcaart, I agree too that pilots get too insular and think it's all about them, although of course they are the ones to stop them (let's not forget it's still 70-80% human error despite automation, which brings in other problems such as passive monitoring ) There is always a chain and unfortunately poor administration and management can start the ball rolling. A certain US Airline with a poor accident record has a checklist that panders more to the insurance companies than being a sensible operation in the cockpit. No wonder corners are cut.
We could go on, but I really would like to say a word for Pprune. In general many pilots lead a "ships that pass in the night" lifestyle unless they forged personal ties outside of work, so problems anxieties are rarely aired in a confidential form, so any worries are difficult to share with work colleagues, except for CHIRP and good old Pprune. A great forum if only some mischief makers could be ignored. I do encourage the CRM groups to use Pprune if not openly in posts but direct to Emails as a way of sharing a problem and thereby perhaps halving it. Small steps
Guest
Posts: n/a
Problem is not CRM, that is a given, however you describe it - either in jargon yuckspeak psychobabble, or as someone said, airmanship, common sense and communication, teamwork etc etc.
Problem is the industry growth, the empire building by CRM barons who, by boring the pants off people in irrelevant and monotonous ways, devalue the subject, and give it a bad name.
Its all encompassing. With the new LPC status, training captains are now supposed to evaluate and pass us on "behavoural markers" and CRM is a pass/fail box, yet an entirely subjective assessment. Sure, abysmal and excellent CRM are obvious to us all, but there is a huge grey area assessed by amateur psychologists building their careers and kissing ass in an attempt to further their careers.
Like the previous reporter, I have sat through several appallingly poor refreshers. This has the danger of degrading the subject matter - even though I KNOW there is a case to be made for learning from it.
Problem is the industry growth, the empire building by CRM barons who, by boring the pants off people in irrelevant and monotonous ways, devalue the subject, and give it a bad name.
Its all encompassing. With the new LPC status, training captains are now supposed to evaluate and pass us on "behavoural markers" and CRM is a pass/fail box, yet an entirely subjective assessment. Sure, abysmal and excellent CRM are obvious to us all, but there is a huge grey area assessed by amateur psychologists building their careers and kissing ass in an attempt to further their careers.
Like the previous reporter, I have sat through several appallingly poor refreshers. This has the danger of degrading the subject matter - even though I KNOW there is a case to be made for learning from it.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I think the essence of CRM is:
1. Captains make mistakes
2. Everyone has a stake in safe operations
3. No one should fear the authority of the captain when making a valid contribution to safety.
4. No one should be offended when his/her mistake is respectfully pointed out.
5. Everyone deserves respect
1. Captains make mistakes
2. Everyone has a stake in safe operations
3. No one should fear the authority of the captain when making a valid contribution to safety.
4. No one should be offended when his/her mistake is respectfully pointed out.
5. Everyone deserves respect
