Can you teach CRM (and how)?
Thread Starter
Can you teach CRM (and how)?
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
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
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,091
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 332
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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....
Not every duck takes to water though....
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
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
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 – ‘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
New Horizons for Learning: Teaching and Learning Strategies
http://www.ara.com/KleinDiv/KleinBaxter_2009.pdf
and your interpretation of CAP 737 for the CRM and the regulatory aspects.
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 – ‘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
New Horizons for Learning: Teaching and Learning Strategies
http://www.ara.com/KleinDiv/KleinBaxter_2009.pdf
and your interpretation of CAP 737 for the CRM and the regulatory aspects.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Teaching people to think doesn’t have to stray into deep cognitive psychology, the instructional skill is to keep things simple.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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. 
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kettering
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe the wrong question?
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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Body
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,091
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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?
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: On the green bit near the blue wobbly stuff
Posts: 674
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
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.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: England
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kettering
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Errr
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
And 'if the aims of the session aren't being pulled out' an element of teaching will be needed?????
Can you clarify
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?