Where next for CRM?
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 176
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, as expected, after nearly three decades no one can agree what it is or what it's for or what it's achieved or how it might become worthwhile...
Sorry, if it looks like a dead duck and it smells like a dead duck, then...
Interesting though the thread about reading the paper might be, I fear that de-skilling through automation and highly reliable 'systems' in the broadest sense are more to blame there... Folk are filling their time because there really is nothing else worth their attention. There's no need to operate an A320 like a Tristar.
Sorry, if it looks like a dead duck and it smells like a dead duck, then...
Interesting though the thread about reading the paper might be, I fear that de-skilling through automation and highly reliable 'systems' in the broadest sense are more to blame there... Folk are filling their time because there really is nothing else worth their attention. There's no need to operate an A320 like a Tristar.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kettering
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KA
OK, now I have to say something. As I said ... and you seem not to have grasped ... CRM has shifted the focus away from simple hand-eye coordination as being the task of a pilot. My point about the 'newspaper' thread is that some of those who fail to see a problem also fail to grasp the risk. They just don't get it.
We used to talk about the boomerangs: those who were worse after CRM than they were before. We now have a new generation of boomerangs.
The problem is that systems may be highly reliable but they are not infallible. The talk about single pilot operations ignores the fact that RPVs have gone AWOL and Boeing, certainly, has discussed CRM for RPV control teams. With technology, the problem does not go away: it shifts to a new location.
It's not that "after nearly three decades no one can agree what it is or what it's for or what it's achieved or how it might become worthwhile...", it's that there is a dearth of insight and imagination being applied to making a useful concept work.
OK, now I have to say something. As I said ... and you seem not to have grasped ... CRM has shifted the focus away from simple hand-eye coordination as being the task of a pilot. My point about the 'newspaper' thread is that some of those who fail to see a problem also fail to grasp the risk. They just don't get it.
We used to talk about the boomerangs: those who were worse after CRM than they were before. We now have a new generation of boomerangs.
The problem is that systems may be highly reliable but they are not infallible. The talk about single pilot operations ignores the fact that RPVs have gone AWOL and Boeing, certainly, has discussed CRM for RPV control teams. With technology, the problem does not go away: it shifts to a new location.
It's not that "after nearly three decades no one can agree what it is or what it's for or what it's achieved or how it might become worthwhile...", it's that there is a dearth of insight and imagination being applied to making a useful concept work.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 176
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Turbo, you don't have to say anything at all, and if that's your tone then I and others are unlikely to listen.
CRM is a pointless waste of time. The brand is as dead as Ratners.
There are many areas for improvement in operational 'safety', but the areas where detrimental change is happening are in the majority, and for good reasons as I mentioned above.
Flog a dead horse if you want to, but some of us have moved on and may - one day - drag our short-sighted regulators with us.
Further debate on this point is, I fear, as pointless as the majority of the 'CRM training' that I was subjected to over a period of time.
CRM is a pointless waste of time. The brand is as dead as Ratners.
There are many areas for improvement in operational 'safety', but the areas where detrimental change is happening are in the majority, and for good reasons as I mentioned above.
Flog a dead horse if you want to, but some of us have moved on and may - one day - drag our short-sighted regulators with us.
Further debate on this point is, I fear, as pointless as the majority of the 'CRM training' that I was subjected to over a period of time.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: NW
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CRM is a unique airline concept, because Chief pilots despite having a truckload of experienced captains to hire from prefer scared marshmellow docile FOs to sit right seat and just do what the captain tells them..
And then we have a crash, because the legend in his own mind capt forgot how to fly a plane that day..
Oh my gosh...well I guess the answer is...rather then hiring better pilots...you teach the scared little 200 hr FO to communicate to the capt in such a way where he doesn't feel he will be fired, but still gives the capt his authority....all the while the plane ambles along toward the mountain...
And then we have a crash, because the legend in his own mind capt forgot how to fly a plane that day..
Oh my gosh...well I guess the answer is...rather then hiring better pilots...you teach the scared little 200 hr FO to communicate to the capt in such a way where he doesn't feel he will be fired, but still gives the capt his authority....all the while the plane ambles along toward the mountain...
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KAKG
May I suggest that you consider that any system or process that has the potential to prevent one our little errors (we are all human, after all) becoming a smoking hole with the demise of numerous fellow human beings (or even ourselves) should be considered and employed as often as possible. If you don't believe that knowledge of human factors, threat and risk management and CRM does this for anyone with the responsibilty of large masses of aluminium and flesh, then I feel for you. Sadly, I accept that CRM and Flight Safety are difficult concepts to measure (in terms of cost-effectiveness) but if you look at things from the perspective of money and lives wasted because of human/crew failures (which runs to many $/£ millions for most big airlines) then anything that that reduces that 'bill', is a bonus and money well spent. I firmly believe that human factors and CRM training and awareness does this and, if done properly, makes the company/organisation, safer, better to work for and itself more profitable. This is common-sense. The sad thing about common-sense is that it is not as common as people think!
May I suggest that you consider that any system or process that has the potential to prevent one our little errors (we are all human, after all) becoming a smoking hole with the demise of numerous fellow human beings (or even ourselves) should be considered and employed as often as possible. If you don't believe that knowledge of human factors, threat and risk management and CRM does this for anyone with the responsibilty of large masses of aluminium and flesh, then I feel for you. Sadly, I accept that CRM and Flight Safety are difficult concepts to measure (in terms of cost-effectiveness) but if you look at things from the perspective of money and lives wasted because of human/crew failures (which runs to many $/£ millions for most big airlines) then anything that that reduces that 'bill', is a bonus and money well spent. I firmly believe that human factors and CRM training and awareness does this and, if done properly, makes the company/organisation, safer, better to work for and itself more profitable. This is common-sense. The sad thing about common-sense is that it is not as common as people think!
Turbo, ”… the task of managing the aircraft. This, in turn, needs a curriculum more clearly linked to management skills. This then drives the training methodology and the skill set of the instructors.”
I agree, but often it is the emphasis of particular management skills where the system fails. There is too much on managing ‘the team’ and insufficient on managing ‘self’.
K-A KG, I suggest that your view is too narrow. Automation has a place in aviation, but the current and foreseeable standard does not have the unique abilities, and thus capability of a human. To a point, it is arguable that automation will be sufficiently error free, but with the inability to think (intelligence), automatic capability will be far less than a human will.
One solution is to constrained the operational environment (as far as possible) to match automation’s capability, but this would probably be too restrictive or add considerable cost to already costly automatic solutions; e.g. we could have automatic cars (costly), but constrain them to rails then some automatic railways can be viable.
Currently the industry judges that humans, even with their deficiencies, are more cost effective than automation provided the (low) accident rate remains acceptable to society.
I would argue that this is by no means assured (fickle public opinion), therefore options for future safety have to be considered. Broadly, these could be divided into human and system (automatic) related issues, but not discarding improving the much wider system in which we operate.
Turbo chooses to explore the human aspects, which I support as having potential as a contributor to safety. If you wish to focus on automatics or other areas of operational safety then I suggest that you put forward hard proposals with argued reasoning as why these would be so superior that CRM can be discarded, bearing in mind that no credible evidence of CRM failure has been presented.
Whilst I support CRM and its future, I do not discount major safety contributions from other areas. As accidents are increasingly combinations of factors, many different safety initiatives will be required to maintain safety, and some would argue that the human has a unique ability in preventing these adverse factors combing, i.e. humans generate safety; if so then accidents, rare events, occur when the human contribution is insufficient to prevent factors combination.
Man or machine?
I agree, but often it is the emphasis of particular management skills where the system fails. There is too much on managing ‘the team’ and insufficient on managing ‘self’.
K-A KG, I suggest that your view is too narrow. Automation has a place in aviation, but the current and foreseeable standard does not have the unique abilities, and thus capability of a human. To a point, it is arguable that automation will be sufficiently error free, but with the inability to think (intelligence), automatic capability will be far less than a human will.
One solution is to constrained the operational environment (as far as possible) to match automation’s capability, but this would probably be too restrictive or add considerable cost to already costly automatic solutions; e.g. we could have automatic cars (costly), but constrain them to rails then some automatic railways can be viable.
Currently the industry judges that humans, even with their deficiencies, are more cost effective than automation provided the (low) accident rate remains acceptable to society.
I would argue that this is by no means assured (fickle public opinion), therefore options for future safety have to be considered. Broadly, these could be divided into human and system (automatic) related issues, but not discarding improving the much wider system in which we operate.
Turbo chooses to explore the human aspects, which I support as having potential as a contributor to safety. If you wish to focus on automatics or other areas of operational safety then I suggest that you put forward hard proposals with argued reasoning as why these would be so superior that CRM can be discarded, bearing in mind that no credible evidence of CRM failure has been presented.
Whilst I support CRM and its future, I do not discount major safety contributions from other areas. As accidents are increasingly combinations of factors, many different safety initiatives will be required to maintain safety, and some would argue that the human has a unique ability in preventing these adverse factors combing, i.e. humans generate safety; if so then accidents, rare events, occur when the human contribution is insufficient to prevent factors combination.
Man or machine?
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kettering
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
alf
'There is too much on managing ‘the team’ and insufficient on managing ‘self’'.
In many ways this is what troubles me. CRM, in its current form, is only a partial solution because it focusses on behaviour in the public domain. And it is prepositioned. If you look at your statement it presumes that 'the team' is something that has to be managed and the 'I' do the managing. If you look at the words used in NOTECHS it strikes me that NOTECHS has been written by a bunch of airline captains (and I do know where NOTECHS started). Many of the behaviours describe what 'I' do in relation to 'others'.
But, all behaviours starts inside the head of an individual. Albeit much of it subconsciously and automatically, nonetheless, it starts inside me. Before 'I' can engage with the outside world 'I' have to do some thinking. Once I have acted, then I equally have to process the results of my action before I can take the next step.
This is the heart of interaction. It is also completely ignored in CRM. Now, some might chose to call this 'metacognition'. I'm happier with reflection or self-awareness.
But, there is an important point. If I do not understand the technology I am responsible for; if I don't understand the rules and procedures that frame my actions; if I cannot apply my 'Technical Skills' then my 'Non-Technical Skills' are flawed. In short, the distinction between the 2 is false and the separation of CRM from the job of being a pilot (or any other role) is equally false.
'There is too much on managing ‘the team’ and insufficient on managing ‘self’'.
In many ways this is what troubles me. CRM, in its current form, is only a partial solution because it focusses on behaviour in the public domain. And it is prepositioned. If you look at your statement it presumes that 'the team' is something that has to be managed and the 'I' do the managing. If you look at the words used in NOTECHS it strikes me that NOTECHS has been written by a bunch of airline captains (and I do know where NOTECHS started). Many of the behaviours describe what 'I' do in relation to 'others'.
But, all behaviours starts inside the head of an individual. Albeit much of it subconsciously and automatically, nonetheless, it starts inside me. Before 'I' can engage with the outside world 'I' have to do some thinking. Once I have acted, then I equally have to process the results of my action before I can take the next step.
This is the heart of interaction. It is also completely ignored in CRM. Now, some might chose to call this 'metacognition'. I'm happier with reflection or self-awareness.
But, there is an important point. If I do not understand the technology I am responsible for; if I don't understand the rules and procedures that frame my actions; if I cannot apply my 'Technical Skills' then my 'Non-Technical Skills' are flawed. In short, the distinction between the 2 is false and the separation of CRM from the job of being a pilot (or any other role) is equally false.
Several themes in this thread appear in presentations given at the recent NTSB Symposium on ‘Professionalism in Aviation’ (May 2010).
In particular the difficulty of defining professionalism (as with CRM), or deciding what elements should or could be taught.
One conclusion might be that poor professionalism represents a failure of CRM training or at least misapplied training due to poor instruction or incorrect subject choice – interpersonal vs cognitive skills.
The presentations on day 2 and the keynote from Kern provide a good summary of these issues, but few ideas of how to improve / train professionalism.
Where next for CRM?
Perhaps there is an opportunity for future CRM training. Apparently ‘Professionalism’ is to be the new safety focus (note FAA’s views) – at least until people understand the difficulties in achieving / improving professionalism.
The opportunity for CRM training comes from considering the similarities in CRM, Airmanship, and Professionalism, i.e. their involvement with behaviour, the effects of culture and operating climate, and difficulties in teaching (understanding) the subject.
CRM has the advantage of regulatory requirement and a structure for training and assessment. Future CRM training should focus on individual behaviour and the cognitive aspects of resource management (as in #47?). Also, on how individuals might control their thoughts and develop a particular awareness of situations which place behaviour in context, and thus this is a basis for improving CRM / Airmanship / Professionalism.
NTSB Symposium on Professionalism in Aviation.
In particular the difficulty of defining professionalism (as with CRM), or deciding what elements should or could be taught.
One conclusion might be that poor professionalism represents a failure of CRM training or at least misapplied training due to poor instruction or incorrect subject choice – interpersonal vs cognitive skills.
The presentations on day 2 and the keynote from Kern provide a good summary of these issues, but few ideas of how to improve / train professionalism.
Where next for CRM?
Perhaps there is an opportunity for future CRM training. Apparently ‘Professionalism’ is to be the new safety focus (note FAA’s views) – at least until people understand the difficulties in achieving / improving professionalism.
The opportunity for CRM training comes from considering the similarities in CRM, Airmanship, and Professionalism, i.e. their involvement with behaviour, the effects of culture and operating climate, and difficulties in teaching (understanding) the subject.
CRM has the advantage of regulatory requirement and a structure for training and assessment. Future CRM training should focus on individual behaviour and the cognitive aspects of resource management (as in #47?). Also, on how individuals might control their thoughts and develop a particular awareness of situations which place behaviour in context, and thus this is a basis for improving CRM / Airmanship / Professionalism.
NTSB Symposium on Professionalism in Aviation.
At the risk of an over simplification, there are two parts to a safe operation:
1) The hands and feet skills
2) The pilot decision making, interpersonal skills with other crewmembers, and personal discipline to adhere to SOPs, limitations ets. These can be loosely grouped under the "human factors" term.
Aviation training has traditionally been all about No 1 with No 2 added on as an after thought.
My personal experience is organisational safety is ultimately completely based on company culture. The organizations that get the most out of CRM are the ones who need it the least. The operators who tolerate or even encourage poor CRM are the ones who will be completely resistant to CRM training. Any courses run will be a total tick in the box and will have zero effect on system safety.
I think CRM "next gen" should be MSRM (manager safety resource management). This industry has not in my opinion done a very good job at presenting the link between management decisons and safety. I think there are lot of managers that truely do not understand the safety consequences of many mangement decisons and policies. A mandatory progran aimed at them will IMO have a positive long term safety impact.
In the short term CRM courses only work the first time. Repeating the same course has IMO zero benefit. If organizations are serious about CRM they should insist on a new supplier for every cycle of CRM training.
1) The hands and feet skills
2) The pilot decision making, interpersonal skills with other crewmembers, and personal discipline to adhere to SOPs, limitations ets. These can be loosely grouped under the "human factors" term.
Aviation training has traditionally been all about No 1 with No 2 added on as an after thought.
My personal experience is organisational safety is ultimately completely based on company culture. The organizations that get the most out of CRM are the ones who need it the least. The operators who tolerate or even encourage poor CRM are the ones who will be completely resistant to CRM training. Any courses run will be a total tick in the box and will have zero effect on system safety.
I think CRM "next gen" should be MSRM (manager safety resource management). This industry has not in my opinion done a very good job at presenting the link between management decisons and safety. I think there are lot of managers that truely do not understand the safety consequences of many mangement decisons and policies. A mandatory progran aimed at them will IMO have a positive long term safety impact.
In the short term CRM courses only work the first time. Repeating the same course has IMO zero benefit. If organizations are serious about CRM they should insist on a new supplier for every cycle of CRM training.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kettering
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BPF - your comment about repeating courses and new suppliers goes to the heart of a serious issue I have with current CRM. We train CRMIs to present but we do not train them to create new material. If CRMIs were also effective course developers then you wouldn't have the repetition syndrome problem.
I agree that 'management' need enlightenment but I see this as an additional training need and doesn't remove the ongoing need for crew CRM.
alf - the concept of a 'professional' is clear in other domains: a person with sufficient competence to act in an autonomous sense. Unfortunately, in aviation we have attached 'god-like' tendencies to the concept of an aviation professional. The term has become a cultural icon rather than a unit of analysis.
I agree that 'management' need enlightenment but I see this as an additional training need and doesn't remove the ongoing need for crew CRM.
alf - the concept of a 'professional' is clear in other domains: a person with sufficient competence to act in an autonomous sense. Unfortunately, in aviation we have attached 'god-like' tendencies to the concept of an aviation professional. The term has become a cultural icon rather than a unit of analysis.
turbo, the definition of professionalism which you give is new to me – I don’t disagree.
Perhaps one of the problems is that a range of definitions exist matching the range of aviation cultures and thus ‘cultural’ professionalism is like ‘cultural’ CRM – it can mean whatever you like within your own cultural environment.
Re creating new material. I assume that you mean new methods of presenting the required subjects – be these social or cognitive; or are there new views of behaviour or eliciting the required behaviour?
If the issue is primarily one of presenting existing subjects, then this should be solvable:-
CRMI’s - either the concept is flawed; or it’s practical, but lacks the required application.
Who are the trainers, who train the trainers, what is ‘appropriate’ presentation material and how is this best conveyed, exactly what enables behaviour change, and how success can be judged.
Perhaps these questions might be answered with conventional training / education techniques.
Perhaps one of the problems is that a range of definitions exist matching the range of aviation cultures and thus ‘cultural’ professionalism is like ‘cultural’ CRM – it can mean whatever you like within your own cultural environment.
Re creating new material. I assume that you mean new methods of presenting the required subjects – be these social or cognitive; or are there new views of behaviour or eliciting the required behaviour?
If the issue is primarily one of presenting existing subjects, then this should be solvable:-
CRMI’s - either the concept is flawed; or it’s practical, but lacks the required application.
Who are the trainers, who train the trainers, what is ‘appropriate’ presentation material and how is this best conveyed, exactly what enables behaviour change, and how success can be judged.
Perhaps these questions might be answered with conventional training / education techniques.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the risk of an over simplification, there are two parts to a safe operation:
1) The hands and feet skills
1) The hands and feet skills
I think CRM "next gen" should be MSRM (manager safety resource management). This industry has not in my opinion done a very good job at presenting the link between management decisons and safety. I think there are lot of managers that truely do not understand the safety consequences of many mangement decisons and policies.
