CRM
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: FRANCE AIX EN PROVENCE
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CRM? It all depends on how you define it.
CRM is like a reversed bidet … Everyone knows what it’s for, (has their own view) but no one knows what it actually is. … OK the regulators define it but not in a practical way that enables easy training and application.
CRM can and does contribute to flight safety, however to do so successfully the training must concentrate on specific weaknesses – as identified in accidents and incidents. The history of CRM identifies that the initial need was for the ‘social’ skills involving teamwork and thence behavioural aspects. Latterly the need for cognitive skills were identified – Situation Awareness and Aeronautical Decision Making; and even more recently the need for Error Management.
Currently training for team skills predominates (a worldly view), possibly because these skills are easier to train than the cognitive ones – we still struggle to define ‘practical’ situation awareness (there are several good definitions of what it is, but how do pilots gain or lose SA?). Similarly decision-making is taught as a process – DECIDE, but in reality DM is natural, or recognition primed, which depend heavily on expertise; exactly how is expertise trained/gained?
In recent accidents and many incidents the need for both social and cognitive skills can be identified. Occasionally there are indicators that social aspects not only failed, but might have contributed to a failure to intervene – cognitive dissonance; not wishing to be out of step, or destroy the team harmony, all of which has been promoted (or over-promoted) by social CRM.
Thus it is time to bias CRM more towards cognitive issues, training individuals to think, think about their own thinking, and maintain a questioning attitude (open mind). This will improve the quality of the individuals who form the team, who are then further moulded with individual (behavioural) and group CRM training.
I prefer not to use those CRM definitions which list the components – what it is, but instead use the definition given by Helmreich – ‘the application of human factors’, which provides the basis for training and achieving the aim of embedded CRM in everyday operations. Start with a good understanding of HF, and then develop the cognitive skills before combining these with the behavioural and teamwork aspects. Relating this approach with the SHELL model, CRM deals with all aspects around the branches of ‘SHEL’, but currently does not focus sufficiently on the central ‘L’ - the individual’s thinking skills. Think inside the box (the individual’s mind) before thinking outside the box.
Refs:
Critical thinking.
Promoting critical thinking.
Four kinds of questions for any position.
Metacognition; before during and after.
Knowledge of one’s self.
Reasons For The Failure of CRM Training in Aviation.
CRM can and does contribute to flight safety, however to do so successfully the training must concentrate on specific weaknesses – as identified in accidents and incidents. The history of CRM identifies that the initial need was for the ‘social’ skills involving teamwork and thence behavioural aspects. Latterly the need for cognitive skills were identified – Situation Awareness and Aeronautical Decision Making; and even more recently the need for Error Management.
Currently training for team skills predominates (a worldly view), possibly because these skills are easier to train than the cognitive ones – we still struggle to define ‘practical’ situation awareness (there are several good definitions of what it is, but how do pilots gain or lose SA?). Similarly decision-making is taught as a process – DECIDE, but in reality DM is natural, or recognition primed, which depend heavily on expertise; exactly how is expertise trained/gained?
In recent accidents and many incidents the need for both social and cognitive skills can be identified. Occasionally there are indicators that social aspects not only failed, but might have contributed to a failure to intervene – cognitive dissonance; not wishing to be out of step, or destroy the team harmony, all of which has been promoted (or over-promoted) by social CRM.
Thus it is time to bias CRM more towards cognitive issues, training individuals to think, think about their own thinking, and maintain a questioning attitude (open mind). This will improve the quality of the individuals who form the team, who are then further moulded with individual (behavioural) and group CRM training.
I prefer not to use those CRM definitions which list the components – what it is, but instead use the definition given by Helmreich – ‘the application of human factors’, which provides the basis for training and achieving the aim of embedded CRM in everyday operations. Start with a good understanding of HF, and then develop the cognitive skills before combining these with the behavioural and teamwork aspects. Relating this approach with the SHELL model, CRM deals with all aspects around the branches of ‘SHEL’, but currently does not focus sufficiently on the central ‘L’ - the individual’s thinking skills. Think inside the box (the individual’s mind) before thinking outside the box.
Refs:
Critical thinking.
Promoting critical thinking.
Four kinds of questions for any position.
Metacognition; before during and after.
Knowledge of one’s self.
Reasons For The Failure of CRM Training in Aviation.
Alf, here is a link that provides an alternative view of Error Management Training.
The research (interview and simulator) and report provide a well balanced explanation of the background science and some practical solutions of how to train error management.
This is significantly better than the FAA’s muddled thinking presented under the guise of LOSA (AC 120-90), a ‘research’ program coupled with a model of error management, which is little more than a process description.
The Australian work provides a basis for implementing error management in parallel with CRM, as described in the 5th generation. But considering the Australian safety culture, we should have not expected anything less.
The research (interview and simulator) and report provide a well balanced explanation of the background science and some practical solutions of how to train error management.
This is significantly better than the FAA’s muddled thinking presented under the guise of LOSA (AC 120-90), a ‘research’ program coupled with a model of error management, which is little more than a process description.
The Australian work provides a basis for implementing error management in parallel with CRM, as described in the 5th generation. But considering the Australian safety culture, we should have not expected anything less.
training individuals to think, think about their own thinking, and maintain a questioning attitude (open mind). This will improve the quality of the individuals who form the team, who are then further moulded with individual (behavioural) and group CRM training
As someone said earlier, it is a fact of aviation life that CRM (for that read good manners and commonsense) goes right over the head of those eppauletted fools that need it most - and CRM for those characters ain't never gonna happen.
Training for these topics (education), will depend on the skill of the instructor in conveying the appropriate message; or even more open minded, aspects of these topics should be embodied in everyday operations through self commitment – continuously improving personal performance.
Helping pilots ‘to think’ may only require a reminder of the essentials as indicated in ‘Basic Thinking Tools’ .
Some aspects of thinking – situation awareness, planning ahead, and visualisation, could be further developed with the determined use of structured flight briefings. We have to avoid the habit of using a ‘standard brief’ (or briefing by rote) by concentrating on, or identifying the differences in each situation – no takeoff or landing is the same. Check what is important and understand why, then brief what precautions are to be taken – experience can be gained even if the actions are not required.
Improve junior pilots experience by letting them brief more often. Memory is enhanced by the process of assembling information; ‘junior briefs’ also aid overall safety as the more experience pilot is the monitor who should be more able to identify error.
Crews should debrief for similar reasons, but time pressures often make this difficult, thus individuals must be encouraged to self-debrief. Self reflection is a powerful learning tool and if error is recognised it adds experience and may (re)shape attitudes. Most people have difficulty in discussing error, we tend to shroud ourselves in ‘a cloak of invisibility’ - 'it wasn’t me … I did not do that’. The learning value comes from recognising (understanding) the origins of error which more often are in the situation and not with the individual. Where organisation (system) weaknesses – error provoking situations are identified, they must be reported (in confidence if necessary).
I agree with your comment in the adjacent thread ‘CRM practical exercises’ please not more of this nonsense - the soft social skills, team building, leadership, etc.
These topics have been overplayed (because they are easier to teach than thinking?)
A recent FSF safety symposium identified the following human factors threats to safety (my interpretation): complacency – violation, risk assessment, and interaction with technology (automation). Thus our safety training should focus on these.
Avoiding complacency and violation involves self discipline, knowledge of risk, but also having an organisational attitude of not tolerating rule breaking (not necessarily the same as SOPs). This is an area for Captains to lead by example as well as help train other crewmembers on every flight.
Risk assessment depends on understanding (perception), and knowledge (experience). Then there are more deep seated issues of habit and belief (bad habit, false belief) much of which originates from training or experience on previous types, and are very difficult to change.
As for technology, some of the most important items are those which affect the subconscious (skill level) - something that enables insight - the sudden ‘oh that’s obvious’. Why do crews demand the latest technology – warning systems, etc, then when warnings are given i.e. EGPWS, ACAS, fail to act or react inappropriately.
Incorrectly taught these topics could be mumbo jumbo, but with education, self application, and organisational resolve they could be lifesavers.
Perhaps a little more thought by the CRM training fraternity might see that biasing CRM training more toward ‘thinking about our thinking’ is an ‘obvious’ requirement.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Scandiland
Posts: 480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CRM is not a course. You can inform people on what it is, but the fact is that some people have it and some dont. The attempts to make a course of it is the deperate attempt of those who have it, to teach those who don't have it. But those who don't have it, will never learn it.
MCC however can be taught and a rigid MCC system can in some cases make up for lack of CRM through procedures and regulations. I hope you understand my reasoning. The best result is achieved by combining a good MCC concept with someone who has a good CRM.
It all becomes evident when you split the abreviation and single out the word MANAGEMENT. Some people are born leaders and are able to direct coworkers to gain maximum performance. Some are simply unable to do this in a good way and hence lack CRM.
/LnS
MCC however can be taught and a rigid MCC system can in some cases make up for lack of CRM through procedures and regulations. I hope you understand my reasoning. The best result is achieved by combining a good MCC concept with someone who has a good CRM.
It all becomes evident when you split the abreviation and single out the word MANAGEMENT. Some people are born leaders and are able to direct coworkers to gain maximum performance. Some are simply unable to do this in a good way and hence lack CRM.
/LnS
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: White Waltham, Prestwick & Calgary
Age: 72
Posts: 4,156
Likes: 0
Received 29 Likes
on
14 Posts
Centaurus - I entirely agree! I specialise in single pilot CRM and the group hug stuff is way out of the window. I concentrate more on bulying management and customers and how to make decisions with minimum information. Goes down well.
Phil
Phil
mb2ai assuming that you are not taking the p…reverbial; - (where my assumption is an example of a weakness in understanding the situation). Then CRM is Crew Resource Management. I suggest that you start with ‘The evolution of CRM’ before seeking more in-depth reading.
Part of my argument above was that individuals should be trained to think, and whilst CRM encourages people to ask questions it does not exclude the need to seek information elsewhere – see the sticky thread on 'websites' above, use search, and learn to use Google.
On the other hand, if I misjudged the situation – a false assumption, then please go and p… in some other corner - (CRM also encourages clear and concise communication).
Part of my argument above was that individuals should be trained to think, and whilst CRM encourages people to ask questions it does not exclude the need to seek information elsewhere – see the sticky thread on 'websites' above, use search, and learn to use Google.
On the other hand, if I misjudged the situation – a false assumption, then please go and p… in some other corner - (CRM also encourages clear and concise communication).
Last edited by alf5071h; 18th Nov 2006 at 09:06.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Grand Com f'Ort
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CRM: A pointless deconstruction of some aspects of good airmanship which has generated a huge and pointless industry and brought about no noticeable change in the accident rate (qv).
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Lancashire
Age: 61
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh to be perfect...
Generally I like to make the point that CRM can be related to good airmanship and common sense, however not everyone is brimming over with these qualities and a little reminder or push in the right direction does no harm...........
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London
Posts: 507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The rise of CRM in the past 25 years or so has accompanied significant improvements in overall safety rates in major Western and international carriers. Just do a survey of fatal events in the past 25 years versus the previous 25, factoring in also the rate of growth in the industry. Now these two trends may just be coincidental, but on the other hand.......
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Grand Com f'Ort
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They're not coincidental, but down to the replacement of older 'less safe' aircraft, with newer 'safer' ones, thus driving the rate down. For a given aircraft design, the rate is reasonably static, typically after a short bedding-in period. Non-type specific rate changes are down to GPWS and other technological advances.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Lincolnshire, UK
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree that aircraft have become more reliable and accident rates are down but the accident rate is still there due to human error, be it flight crew or maintenance proceedures or personnel, being the dominant factor: CRM training helps to emphasise these problems and combining maintenance, ops, air traffic and flight crews in CRM training allows these problems to be fully aired. Knowing other peoples problems helps to build a better overall picture and understanding for all.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Scandiland
Posts: 480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's all very true that CRM training is a good initiative towards safer flight.
However, you can never teach someone to have good CRM. You can show them statistics, go through NTSB reports and evaluate different situations. For those who are unable to see the importance of this (most often "the old dogs" and young "hot shots", both types lacking in the ability to give self critique), it's a day wasted and loss in production. And for those who are proficient in using the CRM concept, it's also a day wasted, because for this group the things we go through are so obvious and self explanatory.
Instead of spending time and money on this in the middle of a pilots career, pre hire screenings should eliminate these types of pilots from ever becoming active in the buissness. I don't see myself as a godsend not needing to discuss things like this in an organised manner, that's not my point. I am however interested in all of this and I enjoy evaluating my days work in the form of a debriefing with the rest of my crew, what could be done better and what did we do well. The crews that are interested and do give and accept critique, usually are the ones that also read statistics and reports for their own good and give things like CRM a good thought on a regular basis, even between the refreshers. That's why I think it's basically a waste of time, because no-one really learns anything from these classes. This is ofcourse a very black and white point of view and perhaps there are those that aren't as keen about this as I am, but still don't mind taking the lessons into real life and making use of them on the line.
Perhaps a more sensible way would be instigating a course in the ATP theory about CRM (way more than what is being done today) to get graduates into the correct thinkpath from the beginning and also perhaps emphasizeing (spelling?) this more during the MCC course. It is an important topic that needs to be adressed, but for those who it genuinly concearns, it is a lost cause.
LnS
However, you can never teach someone to have good CRM. You can show them statistics, go through NTSB reports and evaluate different situations. For those who are unable to see the importance of this (most often "the old dogs" and young "hot shots", both types lacking in the ability to give self critique), it's a day wasted and loss in production. And for those who are proficient in using the CRM concept, it's also a day wasted, because for this group the things we go through are so obvious and self explanatory.
Instead of spending time and money on this in the middle of a pilots career, pre hire screenings should eliminate these types of pilots from ever becoming active in the buissness. I don't see myself as a godsend not needing to discuss things like this in an organised manner, that's not my point. I am however interested in all of this and I enjoy evaluating my days work in the form of a debriefing with the rest of my crew, what could be done better and what did we do well. The crews that are interested and do give and accept critique, usually are the ones that also read statistics and reports for their own good and give things like CRM a good thought on a regular basis, even between the refreshers. That's why I think it's basically a waste of time, because no-one really learns anything from these classes. This is ofcourse a very black and white point of view and perhaps there are those that aren't as keen about this as I am, but still don't mind taking the lessons into real life and making use of them on the line.
Perhaps a more sensible way would be instigating a course in the ATP theory about CRM (way more than what is being done today) to get graduates into the correct thinkpath from the beginning and also perhaps emphasizeing (spelling?) this more during the MCC course. It is an important topic that needs to be adressed, but for those who it genuinly concearns, it is a lost cause.
LnS
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Grand Com f'Ort
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Human-Error-...549053-1435933