Termination of formal CRM training
 

Is it true that worldwide CRM training is falling out of vogue? Perhaps the continual recurrent training is seen as an "unnecessary" cost?
I've been told by a colleague that their feeder airline still does CRM training but now it's done while they do their simulator recurrency.
Is this a general trend and development worldwide now?

I think CRM is now being seen as a sub-set of "non-technical skills", a broad term used to catch all the Human-factors related stuff.

The focus is growing - in Australia at least, and most other ICAO nations too I believe - towards NTS training and assessment ie: practical hands-on training and discussion in the sim, rather than the same old same old classroom chalk'n'talk routine.

Not all bad. :ok:

I think of all the crap I have taken by the airline lemmings on my stand on the sillyness of CRM...and now it's going away.

and where are they now.....

There is only so much theory and so many case studies before the average CRM trainer runs out of steam. Here in Cnada one of the problems is TCCA trying to dictate course content PPT slide by slide.

Facilitated CRM debriefs after sim sessions and self faciulitated post-flight debriefs offer plenty of options for earning IF they are done right.

Just my view, but I think there's still plenty of work to be done in the conventional classroom dissemination of CRM wisdom. I recognise that keeping the momentum going can be difficult but a good CRMI should be able to reinforce a selection of key points with a pertinent lesson plan. Some CRMIs have a natural stage presence, call it charisma, or whatever, but, at the end of the day, the ability to keep your audience is directly dependant on the material you use. I admit, it took me a while to learn how to pick on one seemingly small item in the syllabus and expand it into a lesson plan but keeping it original and refreshing is a good trick for those who can carry it off. and I'm not sying that I hit the all the time, every time. Delivery is crucial however.

Professor Reason states that we should not lose sight of our objectives in "the safety war". He asks, does an organisation have the understanding, culture and commitment to be effective? So, when talking about classroom CRM, I think we should ask ourselves is the consideration that it's now defunct, indicative of a lack of commitment, understanding and poor culture?

All are important. But does repetative chalk and talk change the former and latter?

I do fear some CRMIs are still using showy techniques, trying to convince people CRM is 'cool' rather than actually creating a valuable learning environment. In contrast, but no better, the TCCA approved approach is very much to broadcast (deliver) the official propoganda on auto-pilot rather than have a two way discussion that acknowledges that all crew have knowledge and experiences to contribute. My 2c anyway. Maybe it is better in JAAland.

Anything - but ANYTHING as long as interminable Power Points presentations on CRM/TEM et al, are cast to the Devil. CRM has been done to death in Western countries and in any case, all the enthusiastic bushy tailed bright eyed CRM facilitators in the business, will never change the mind-set of those personalities for whom the original CRM theory was targetted.

CRM Course Validity?
 

It may be a little off track but do CRM certificates issued for those operating out of Australia have an expiry?

Cheers.

I would imagine so freightforlife. You'll have to check with your local authority.

You're right A37. We all know that having the right attitude is important and I don't have an answer, those who don't want to listen won't hear the message and won't change as a result. But is that an excuse for not trying?

CRM asks people to change their core personality and that's a tall order. They have to be convinced by the arguments put forward of course. I wonder how much learning is done zalt, when you're just told what to do.

It's incumbent on everyone to bring something to the table on the day. An outstanding issue, a near miss, an observation, anything that doesn't get discussed on a routine basis in a like minded forum. That's got to be a good start to any session?

There is a world of difference between what is taught as CRM (don't be frightened to be assertive - speak up - ask questions - seek several opinions - suggest politely - use certain planned phrases like "Captain you are too low - we MUST climb etc"

AND

Flight deck etiquette. Such as not snapping at the other pilot when he is attempting to assert himself. On the other hand, asserting oneself to the captain in the guise of a "support" call, is often counter-productive in that it arouses ire.

"Supporting" the PF by reaching and placing your hand on the gear lever after lift-off to signify you are on the ball and waiting for his command of gear up. Also known as "hovering".

"Supporting" the PF by casually holding the finger on the heading select knob waiting for the command "set heading 180 etc"

"Supporting" the PF by placing your hand behind the throttles as he pushes them forward to take off power and at the same time actually pushing the throttles under the PF's hand when the PF is attempting to make a smooth application of take off power. Now that is really annoying.

"Supporting" the PF by riding the rudder pedals during the PF's take off and landing run and especially nearing rotation, sliding both hands very subtly under the control wheel to "assist" his rotation in case he forgets to rotate.

"Supporting" the PF by changing navaid frequencies even though he has not asked for them but you think it is a good idea at the time. All done in a non-threatening manner of course - but in fact these are not "support" actions. They are done by individuals who just can't keep their grubby hands of knobs and levers because they see themselves as a member of the team up front and feel the urge to be seen as on the ball.

There is an art to keeping opinions and hands to yourself lest you be labelled as a fly-by-mouth personality and allow "support" calls to become an excuse for back seat driving.

CRM and Cockpit Etiquette are different birds. Airline induction courses stress CRM usage. Yet, for such an important human factors subject, rarely is cockpit etiquette discussed in the class room as a specfic subject on its own. It needs to be.

Absolutely correct.
For these type of personalities discussed above, there is one tried and proven technique to alter the situation...gear up and shut up.
Works like a charm.
Even better is to have each line Captain provide an assessment of each First Officer he/she flies with (on a monthly basis) and bring these undesirable personality traits to the attention of the fleet manager or chief pilot....as these folks can take positive corrective action, as in 'knock it off bud, or out the door you go.'
Also been known to work very well.

In an ideal world yes you are right, 411A.

On the other hand, and depending on the airline ethos, duck shoving complaints to management types up the line, more often than not earns you the title of "maker of waves" and complaints are shoved under the office carpet with an under the breath exhortation that you are the captain of the aircraft - it's your problem - not management's. Fix the bastard yourself. :D

Sometimes.
Occasionally, the threat of downgrading the errant First Officer to a lower fleet has the desired result.
I have seen it happen several times....with superb results.:E

I wonder if CRM is going bye because the training costs money, takes time, and they are not forced to implement it.

Ironically, the dinosaur mentality displayed with this quote is exactly the thing that CRM was designed to destroy.

Spot on SNS but look who we're talking about, the very antithesis of the dinosaur :rolleyes:

In 411's little world he's never wrong. He's a captain and, damn your eyes, captains are never wrong. Notice how A3 described the etiquette challenges as a PM problem but 411 read that as 'FO'. On HIS flight deck that's probably the case because he does not possess the attributes to 'give away' sectors (after all, how can anyone who isn't a captain fly an aircraft) but for the rest of us, that PM is more than likely going to be a captain, who isn't confident enough to trust his colleague to do his PF job.

Never mind proper debriefing or guidance, the MIGHTY AND ALL KNOWING 411 has the solution:


I think the above conveys your thoughts without going on and on. JT

You've got that part right, it IS my flight deck.
There is no such thing as a democracy on a civil airliner flight deck, as there can only one individual in charge.
The airline says so.
The regulatory authority says so.
Just the way it is.

Wrong.
The First Officer normally is the handling pilot at least fifty percent of the time on MY flights.
Some folks apparently have an authority problem...they clearly do not understand the concept.
IF those folks are First Officers, there are those in attendance to help them understand...one way or another.:}

411A - I'm now slightly worried about what militaristic, heirarchical culture you operator has.:sad:

Not to worry, SM...it is highly unlikely you would be invited to join...:rolleyes:

It's OK 411A, SM known nothing of aviation, command responsibility, or safety in particular. Bolding mine.
Every thing 411A says in his post is backed by the regs, at least in Oz, and I'm sure by every other regulator.

Australian CAR 224

Pilot in command
(1) For each flight the operator shall designate one pilot to act as pilot in command.
Penalty: 5 penalty units.
(1A) An offence against subregulation (1) is an offence of strict liability.
Note For strict liability, see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code.
(2) A pilot in command of an aircraft is responsible for:
(a) the start, continuation, diversion and end of a flight by the aircraft; and
(b) the operation and safety of the aircraft during flight time; and
(c) the safety of persons and cargo carried on the aircraft; and
(d) the conduct and safety of members of the crew on the aircraft.
(2A) A pilot in command must discharge his or her responsibility under
paragraph (2) (a) in accordance with:
(a) any information, instructions or directions, relating to the start,
continuation, diversion or end of a flight, that are made available,
or issued, under the Act or these Regulations; and
(b) if applicable, the operations manual provided by the operator of
the aircraft.
(3) The pilot in command shall have final authority as to the disposition of
the aircraft while he or she is in command and for the maintenance of
discipline by all persons on board.