Can you teach CRM (and how)?
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 1,256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An important issue in CRM courses is the use of Emergency Language. This is a process of a Junior pilot being given the tools to make a Captain aware that he must take notice of a subordinate. There are a number of stages but essentially it involves offering the Captain alternative courses of action and if necessary culminating in such phrases as 'You must listen to me Captain' and then if this is used it becomes a reportable incident. The emergency phrase can be varied to suit the airline culture. It must, however, get everyones attention. The procedure must also be incorporated in the ops manual so it is legitimised by the company. In some airlines the use of the Captain's first name can have the same effect.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kettering
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear Moderator
'impish', maybe. Fun? No.
I actually believe that CRM is important. What worried me is the muddled thinking that surrounds, first, the subject and, second, how the subject is dealt with.
I actually believe that CRM is important. What worried me is the muddled thinking that surrounds, first, the subject and, second, how the subject is dealt with.
Last edited by turbocharged; 21st May 2010 at 04:38.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kettering
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bugspeed,
If I was singleseat i'd still understand that CRM is a constant across any safety-related industry.
There are several problems with the way CRM is delivered. On the one hand there is a confused requirement and on the other hand there is confused delivery.
The requirement falls into 2 parts: a list of topics in a table and a set of markers to be used in assessment. The 2 are not coordinated because they have different histories. My point is that CRM should concentrate on improving performance - and thus should target the markers - rather than tick off the topics in the table over a 3 year cycle. In a perfect world facilitators ought to be able to link the markers to the table and construct training events accordingly. And here is the second issue: most facilitators are only part trained. They can deliver but they cannot create.
The industry, led by the CAA, has got hung up on the idea of 'facilitation' as being the only way. In fact - as speakers have pointed out at CAA CRM events - a facilitator 'makes things easy'. That's what the word means. A lecturer facilitates learning using a particular style. A technical manual facilitates learning. Unfortunately, we have confused 'facilitation' with what used to be known as the 'lesson method'. The Americans sometimes call it 'socratic dialogue'.
My beef is that CRM is being delivered by part trained people who then don't even do a good job. You only have to look at some of the cynicism in earlier posts to realise that. It is time to raise the game and this can only happen when, first, everyone involved in CRM delivery is trained to a higher standard and second the CAA 'gets' it.
If I was singleseat i'd still understand that CRM is a constant across any safety-related industry.
There are several problems with the way CRM is delivered. On the one hand there is a confused requirement and on the other hand there is confused delivery.
The requirement falls into 2 parts: a list of topics in a table and a set of markers to be used in assessment. The 2 are not coordinated because they have different histories. My point is that CRM should concentrate on improving performance - and thus should target the markers - rather than tick off the topics in the table over a 3 year cycle. In a perfect world facilitators ought to be able to link the markers to the table and construct training events accordingly. And here is the second issue: most facilitators are only part trained. They can deliver but they cannot create.
The industry, led by the CAA, has got hung up on the idea of 'facilitation' as being the only way. In fact - as speakers have pointed out at CAA CRM events - a facilitator 'makes things easy'. That's what the word means. A lecturer facilitates learning using a particular style. A technical manual facilitates learning. Unfortunately, we have confused 'facilitation' with what used to be known as the 'lesson method'. The Americans sometimes call it 'socratic dialogue'.
My beef is that CRM is being delivered by part trained people who then don't even do a good job. You only have to look at some of the cynicism in earlier posts to realise that. It is time to raise the game and this can only happen when, first, everyone involved in CRM delivery is trained to a higher standard and second the CAA 'gets' it.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Bugspeed, I'm single seat (but I have a good share of dual seat experience too)! This is good stuff Turbo, I think I understand your frustrations.
Yes, we divide CRM into two subject areas, the theory and the practical. The knowledge, skills and attitudes (all theory), followed up by the behaviours (the practical). Before you can fairly assess a crew on their behaviours they must have a good understanding of the theory. Wouldn't you agree?
The CAA reckons it can take 5 years to become a good facilitator. In my opinion good facilitation is almost invisible; you hardly know it's happening. But please tell me Turbo, how would you go about getting the best out of room full of experts? As a CRMI (in case you hadn't guessed already) I'm very open to any ideas that would help me to improve the way I deliver CRM.
CRM, How long has it been now? Around 30 years since the start. It seems to me that we're out of the 'pulling ourselves up by the boot straps' stage and we're into consolidation. It's an organic subject, open to change and reorganisation and the CAA are making substantial headway in refining the quality of delivery. See the introduction in Standards Doc No 29 freely downloadable from the CAA website. The bar is being raised.
Yes, we divide CRM into two subject areas, the theory and the practical. The knowledge, skills and attitudes (all theory), followed up by the behaviours (the practical). Before you can fairly assess a crew on their behaviours they must have a good understanding of the theory. Wouldn't you agree?
The CAA reckons it can take 5 years to become a good facilitator. In my opinion good facilitation is almost invisible; you hardly know it's happening. But please tell me Turbo, how would you go about getting the best out of room full of experts? As a CRMI (in case you hadn't guessed already) I'm very open to any ideas that would help me to improve the way I deliver CRM.
CRM, How long has it been now? Around 30 years since the start. It seems to me that we're out of the 'pulling ourselves up by the boot straps' stage and we're into consolidation. It's an organic subject, open to change and reorganisation and the CAA are making substantial headway in refining the quality of delivery. See the introduction in Standards Doc No 29 freely downloadable from the CAA website. The bar is being raised.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kettering
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Big Windy,
First, if you look at the history of CRM facilitator accreditation over the years it's actually an incremental restriction of who can be a facilitator rather than a progressive elaboration of the facilitator skill set. And as for the bar being raised, well I must have sat in the same audience as you and heard that. In fact, what we are seeing is a progressive erosion of CRM as more and more operators find ways of reducing the time allocated.
I've made the point before - and at the CAA - that Stds Doc 29 is all about style over substance. Provided the person at the front can somehow be seen to be 'chairing' a discussion then what the discussion is about, and whether it makes a change in the real world, doesn't matter.
How many Safety Managers task the CRM teams in their airline? How many CRM teams get a formal tasking from anyone or are they simply left to their own devices to come up with something to fill the training programme? If there is no clear loop between line performance, assessed behaviours and delivered training then CRM is little more than a moderately pleasant way to spend a day.
TC
First, if you look at the history of CRM facilitator accreditation over the years it's actually an incremental restriction of who can be a facilitator rather than a progressive elaboration of the facilitator skill set. And as for the bar being raised, well I must have sat in the same audience as you and heard that. In fact, what we are seeing is a progressive erosion of CRM as more and more operators find ways of reducing the time allocated.
I've made the point before - and at the CAA - that Stds Doc 29 is all about style over substance. Provided the person at the front can somehow be seen to be 'chairing' a discussion then what the discussion is about, and whether it makes a change in the real world, doesn't matter.
How many Safety Managers task the CRM teams in their airline? How many CRM teams get a formal tasking from anyone or are they simply left to their own devices to come up with something to fill the training programme? If there is no clear loop between line performance, assessed behaviours and delivered training then CRM is little more than a moderately pleasant way to spend a day.
TC
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Africa
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CRM
CRM is about Safety Culture nothing else nothing more.To teach it in the classroom is redundant if it is not applied through the company and enforced by the Accountable Executive.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: England
Posts: 858
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
Starting at the beginning you cannot teach anybody anything to anyone if they do not wish to learn, ask any secondary school teacher.
We had an instructor (large UK airline) who wasnt a pilot and had become a bit of a laughing stock, no one respected his opinion or his views, the course was dead in the water before it started.
So for starters you need properly motivated students and properly qualified instructors who can teach with authority and are respected. I cannot see how any instructor without years of airline flying experience can be a CRM instructor.
I also believe a lot more CRM checking should take place during line checks.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TC,
A couple of interesting points but I don't have the information at hand to dispute them. I'll just have to accept them as your (perhaps better informed) point of view. Can anyone else reading this thread jump in and help answer TCs enquiries?
I'm afraid I don't agree with:
'provided the person at the front can somehow be seen to be 'chairing' a discussion then what the discussion is about, and whether it makes a change in the real world, doesn't matter'.
If it's not relevant to CRM then why waste time discussing it?
I may have misinterpreted something but are you speaking from personal experience when you suggest that the line training and debriefs you have received have failed to close the loop between CRM academics and your objectively assessed behaviours? If so then perhaps the system in your company needs looking at? Perhaps you should suggest that it does get looked at if, on your next line assessment, the CRMI (line) doesn't pick up on valid points? A CRMI should adopt an adult to adult, expert to expert role and should be equally open to constructive suggestions for themselves as they are to giving constructive suggestions to you.
Mind if I ask you a question TC? What are you thinking when you go into a line check or a CRM training day?
A couple of interesting points but I don't have the information at hand to dispute them. I'll just have to accept them as your (perhaps better informed) point of view. Can anyone else reading this thread jump in and help answer TCs enquiries?
I'm afraid I don't agree with:
'provided the person at the front can somehow be seen to be 'chairing' a discussion then what the discussion is about, and whether it makes a change in the real world, doesn't matter'.
If it's not relevant to CRM then why waste time discussing it?
I may have misinterpreted something but are you speaking from personal experience when you suggest that the line training and debriefs you have received have failed to close the loop between CRM academics and your objectively assessed behaviours? If so then perhaps the system in your company needs looking at? Perhaps you should suggest that it does get looked at if, on your next line assessment, the CRMI (line) doesn't pick up on valid points? A CRMI should adopt an adult to adult, expert to expert role and should be equally open to constructive suggestions for themselves as they are to giving constructive suggestions to you.
Mind if I ask you a question TC? What are you thinking when you go into a line check or a CRM training day?
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kettering
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BW,
I think you might have got the wrong end of the stick. My point was that Stds Doc is heavy on the style - the 'chairing' skills - and light on substance - the 'what'. Of course, if the conversation is not directed at any clear goal then it's a pointless exercise.
In part, this is why I disagree with the views expressed about a facilitator being a 'teacher' and is CRM about 'teaching'. Of course it is. A CRM session, be it in the classroom, in a LOFT or in a Line Check debrief, is all about bringing about a change in behaviour, about sustaining a performance or, maybe, about providing insight. Because of this emphasis on form over substance we are not yet in a position where ALL facilitators have the necessary skill. There is no consistency.
To be fair. most of my work is outside of the UK where, in many cases, the bar is still resting on the ground.
I think you might have got the wrong end of the stick. My point was that Stds Doc is heavy on the style - the 'chairing' skills - and light on substance - the 'what'. Of course, if the conversation is not directed at any clear goal then it's a pointless exercise.
In part, this is why I disagree with the views expressed about a facilitator being a 'teacher' and is CRM about 'teaching'. Of course it is. A CRM session, be it in the classroom, in a LOFT or in a Line Check debrief, is all about bringing about a change in behaviour, about sustaining a performance or, maybe, about providing insight. Because of this emphasis on form over substance we are not yet in a position where ALL facilitators have the necessary skill. There is no consistency.
To be fair. most of my work is outside of the UK where, in many cases, the bar is still resting on the ground.
