CRM Training and Simulation Programs
Module 7 Presentation
CRM Training Goals
Increase efficiency of operations
Axioms Regarding Effective CRM Implementation
To be accepted, CRM concepts must be accorded the same status as adherence to technical standards that are continually measured and reinforced
If the concepts of CRM cannot be reinforced, there is no point in committing resources to the training. CRM will not be treated with the same seriousness as technical issues
Instructors and evaluators must be trained and skilled in assessment and reinforcement of human factors
Air Traffic Control
Interpretation of Hazards
TECHNICAL/ FLIGHT CONTROL SKILLS
Concern for Operations
Briefings / Debriefings
CREW RESOURCE MANAGEMENT SKILLS
Review of Differences
3. Type of Aircraft
5. Financial Resources
6. Developers of Course
Review of Principles Fundamental to a CRM Program
Effective Team coordination.
Crew members Attitudes & Behaviors.
Involves the Entire flight crew.
Active participation of all crew members.
Buy-in from the entire organization structure.
Tailored to the flight program and integrated into the Total training curriculum.
CRM Training Components
Classroom presentations focus on Communications, Decision making, Interpersonal relations, Crew coordination, Leadership, SOPs, & others
Recurrent Practice and Feedback
LOFT – Line orientated flight training
Embedded into entire organization culture
Research programs and airline operational experience suggest the greatest benefits are achieved by adhering to the following practices:
Assess the status of the organization before implementation
How widely are CRM concepts understood and practiced?
Survey crewmembers, management, training and standards personnel
Observe crews in line operations
Analysis of incident / accident reports
Get commitment from all management, especially senior managers
Commitment for resources
Flight ops and training manuals should include CRM concepts by providing crews with necessary policy and procedures guidance
Foster and support open communications (e.g. appropriate questioning, no reprisals, etc.)
Customize training to reflect the nature and needs of the organization
Establish priorities for topics to be covered
Define scope of the program and an implementation plan
Special training for check airmen, supervisors and instructors prior to training crewmembers and support personnel
Communicate nature and scope of program before startup
To prevent misunderstandings about focus of CRM training and implementation, provide crews, managers, and training and standards personnel with a preview of what CRM training will involve together with plans for initial and continuing training
Institute Quality Control procedures
Monitor delivery of training and determine areas where training can be strengthened
Use course feedback surveys to collect systematic feedback from participants in the training
Content of the Phases of CRM Training
Indoctrination/awareness training consists of classroom training and focuses areas such as:
Concepts are developed, defines and related to the safety of line operations
This component also provides a common conceptual framework and a common vocabulary for identifying flight operations and crew coordination problems
Include as many support personnel as possible (e.g. flight attendants, maintenance, flight dispatchers, managers, etc.)
Can be accomplished by a combination of training methods such as:
Video-taped examples of good/poor team behavior
Requires the development of a curriculum that addresses CRM skills that have been demonstrated to influence crew performance
Should define concepts involved and relate them directly to operational issues that crews encounter
Survey data collected prior to implementation can be useful in this area
Survey for current attitudes and perceptions
Pre-test knowledge of CRM
End of Course Exam
Post test (performance based)
Recognize that classroom instruction alone does not fundamentally change crewmember attitudes over the long term
It is only a necessary first step (awareness) that must be followed-up and reinforced
Phase II: Recurrent Practice and Feedback
Include as a part of recurrent training requirements (e.g. Part 121/135 recurrent training)
Classroom training and briefing room refresher training
Follow-up with LOFT and video taped feedback
Use full crews that train in their normal roles and positions
Both instructor and self-critique are important
Full mission, high fidelity sim’s
Scenario designed to present situations requiring crew coordination efforts
Emphasis on training, not checking, in a non-punitive setting
To protect anonymity, videotapes should be erased after each session
Phase III: Continuing Reinforcement
One-time exposures to classroom, role-playing and LOFT with feedback is not sufficient
Attitudes/norms may have developed over a period of many years
It is unrealistic to expect a short training program to reverse years of habits
CRM must be embedded in every stage of training, and reinforced daily in the operational environment
Goal should be to become an inseparable part of the organization’s culture
Communications topics should include both internal and external influences on interpersonal communications
Crew self-critique (decisions and actions)
Communications and decision-making
Team Building and Maintenance
Interpersonal relationships/group climate
Workload management and situational awareness
Workload distribution/distraction avoidance
Individual factors/stress reduction
Upgrading to captain
New hire orientation
CRM Training Focus
Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities (KSAs)
Motives related to cognitive processes
Interpersonal relationships that influence crew coordination
Management of resources in flight ops
Communication processes and decisions
Operational problem-solving & decision making
Workload management and situational awareness
Extent to which crewmembers maintain awareness of ops environment
Plan and allocate activities to manage stress and workload
Computer Based Instruction
Is cost effective
Does not require large number of instructors
Allows trainee to work at own pace
Specialized training modules can be on hand for refresher when needed
Evaluation Without Jeopardy
Balance must be struck between the organization’s evaluation needs and those of crewmember and organizational privacy
Data shared must be de-identified (off-site archives & summary-level collection) to avoid finding their way into accident investigations and courtrooms
Failure to de-identify puts orgs/individuals in jeopardy
Modes of Assessment
Evaluation of outcomes
Focuses on determining extent to which training programs were successful in achieve results (evidenced by successes and failures)
Evaluation of training program outcomes
Effects of training on CRM KSA’s targeted by the curriculum to determine which KSA’s are transferred to line ops and retained between recurrent training periods
Training Program Outcomes
Concerned with modifying/enhancing existing training programs through recommendations based on observations
Evaluates curriculum materials
Instructional behaviors as opposed to training program outcomes
Assessment of the characteristics of students, instructors, and their organizations before training may moderate effects of training program elements on training outcomes
Questionnaire responses are quantified, enabling estimation of their
Reliability (Are results consistent over time?)
Validity (Does the instrument measure what it is supposed to measure?)
Measures of Training Outcomes
Change in mental attitudes among individual students
Measures of crew behavior in LOFT and line operations
(see page 184 for LOFT evaluator survey)
Consider Individual & Organizational Characteristics
Individuals (students and instructors)
Top management commitment to CRM training is a key factor to success
Endorsement by pilot organizations
Endorsement by unions
Mergers effecting culture (when two cultures merge, usually one of them loses their identity)
Other Factors to Consider
Cultural climate – CMAQ attitude scales (p. 187)
Educational systems (page 190)
Advanced Crew Resource Management (ACRM) Training
Development of CRM procedures
Training instructors and evaluators
Training fleet crews
Assessment of crew based performance based on the airline’s operational environment
Examples of Content in SWA’s Crew Resource Management Training Program
Captain Upgrade Leadership
Why Is This Needed?
Avoiding ASAP and NASA reports
Skills to not get the “Call this number when you land” from the FAA
Avoiding, Trapping and Managing Error
Fewer letters in your file is good
Monitoring and Challenging Skills
Who makes the decisions in the cockpit?
Who is accountable?
Who is in charge?
Profile of Effective vs. Non-Effective Captains
|Trust In Crew||Micro Manages|
What Pushes Us to the Right?
When you feel it happening, take a step back and don’t go to the right side.
Disciplined and Professional Flying Skills
Professionalism vs. Foolish Pride
Standardization and Coordination
Creative in Servicing Customers
Threat and Error Management
We Know that Human Error is inevitable
Limited memory and processing capability
Limits imposed on us by
Poor Crew Teamwork / Cultural Influences
Types of Flight Crew Error
Performing a checklist from memory
Wrong altitude dialed into the MCP
Miscommunication with ATC
Flight Crew Error (Continued)
Lack of knowledge of automation
Unnecessary navigation through adverse weather
Threat and Error Countermeasures
Pilots are the Final Filter
Most Common Errors
Failure to Monitor and Challenge
How do we establish an Environment for Effective Monitoring and Challenging?
Set the tone for the entire trip
Key element for safety
Necessary for all crew members
“Crewmembers speak up, and state their information with appropriate persistence until there is a clear resolution.”
Flight Operations Manual
Alertness and Vigilance
Lowest Common Denominator is…Leadership!
Discussion about the abnormal experiences the new Captains had over the past 6 months
Recap on Effectiveness
Build the Crew vs. Tearing them down
Knows and Does his/her job
Leading by Example
We Gave you the Leadership Role….DO IT!
Louisville 5th Grade Class
Absorb New Ideas
Encouraging but doesn’t lie
If you say that you’ll do something…do it.
Listens to People
Since the Federal Aviation Regulations and the Flight Operations Manual gives the Captain full authority, does that make him/her a leader?
Authority is power which is delegated or assigned
Leadership is “the process of influencing the behavior of other people toward group goals in a way that fully respects their freedom.”
An Effective Leader
Maintains “Command Authority”
Maintains a Positive Attitude
Sets the Tone and Defines Expectations
Mentors, Trains and Takes Care of the Crew
Gets out in front; Manages and Directs Crew
Q & A
Questions posed from the Captains to lead members of:
Flight Operations Training
Communicate to Correct – Correct with Respect
Use Clear, Concise, Timely and Certain verbiage
Monitor Crew Situational Awareness
Pilot and Flight Attendants workloads are not concurrent
Asses the Risk (low, medium, high)
Manage the Risk
Why do Crews Make Unnecessary Risks?
72% of Errors from an omission in the FOM
Omission of a preflight briefing, etc.
Loss of Hull & its use
External Safety Audits
Lower Stock Value
Lower Image/financial rating/growth
Current “Trauma” Expense – $1-1.5 Billion
Think About Your Decisions
Does anyone want to Follow you?
Does anyone want to Emulate you?
“LEADERS” are always learning!
Extending Human Factors Training to Flight Attendants
FAA now requires Flight Attendants to undergo CRM training
Most airlines re-hash pilot CRM course, or focus on only pilot-F/A interactions
Few high quality diagnostic tools
Optimize F/A CRM Training
To build maximally effective training, it must be tailored to the:
specific duties and responsibilities of the F/A’s
organizational and national culture
leadership and authority structures
interactions between F/A’s and all groups with whom they have contact
types of safety-related errors F/A’s commit
Flight Attendant Safety Attitudes Questionnaire
Senior and base management evaluations
Employee group teamwork perceptions
Perceptions of leadership in the cabin
Leadership styles appropriate and encountered
Crew planning and scheduling
Flight attendant stressors
Interactions with the cockpit
Competence in emergency procedure
First Survey Results
F/A’s expect a much more directive style of leadership from the Captain than FO’s
Joint training based on the cockpit model may be too “consultative” for F/A’s
Captains who expect the same type of interaction from FO’s and F/A’s work under the wrong model
But appropriate leadership style within the cabin is more consultative (and also less well defined)
Domestic and International Data
Other Professions Using CRM Related Training Methods
Domains Utilizing Human Factors and Error Management Training
Non-Aviation Domains That Use HF and Error Management Training
Medicine (e.g. ER & OR teams)
Nuclear Reactor Teams
Line Operational Simulation
LOS is widely used to provide opportunities for crews to practice CRM concepts in realistic and challenging simulated flight situations.
LOS includes LOFT, Line Operational Evaluation (LOE), and Special Purpose Operational Training (SPOT).
LOFT is the original “non-jeopardy” form of simulation training in which crews are not graded on their performance. Like LOFT, SPOT is used for training rather than evaluative purposes.
Design of LOFT & SPOT
LOFT and SPOT simulation events should reflect the specific needs and requirements of the flight operation, considering
Consequence of error
Frequency of occurrence in specific operations
LOFT vs. LOE
Both LOFT and LOE are full-mission simulations that include all phases of flight, whereas SPOT may be full-mission or only a segment of a flight tailored to focus on a particular training point.
Line Operational Evalution (LOE) air crews are graded, which is required in those airlines that participate in the FAA’s Advanced Qualification Program (AQP)
AQP and Line Operational Evaluations (LOE)
AQP is has enabled crews to actually able to practice CRM, because poor CRM can cause crews to fail a LOE (Birnbach & Longridge, 1993; FAA, 1991).
In order for LOE programs to be effective and accepted, pilots must believe they are being graded on performance dimensions they understand and by criteria that seem appropriate and achievable.
The ability of crews to analyze and evaluate their own performance in LOFT may predict their acceptance of LOE grading.
CRM Events in Simulations
The use of LOS in a curriculum was originally proposed as a means of ensuring that CRM issues are adequately addressed for training and evaluation purposes
For this reason, many scenarios are designed around a CRM theme
The difficulty in LOS design arises in identifying events and event sets that address this theme
CRM in Simulations (cont.)
In many cases the theme used is one of the CRM categories, for example, situational awareness
The CRM concept of SA must then be translated into flight situation characteristics or activities
The designer can then determine which types of constraints to use (weather, terrain, fuel status, etc.)
Through identification of the range of flight activities required in the scenario, the range of CRM and technical activities that should be trained and/or evaluated can then be determined
Considerations in Preparing LOFT Simulations
Generation of workload
Creative problem solving
Scenario dominated approach
Line Oriented Flight Training (LOFT)
Instructors should facilitate self-discovery and self-critique by the crew rather than lecture on what they did right and wrong
Self discovery by the crew is believed to provide deeper learning and better retention.
Crews are more likely to enhance their performance of CRM in line operations if they develop their ability to analyze flight operations in terms of CRM and debrief themselves after line flights.
How much crews learn in LOFT and take back to the line depends on the effectiveness of the debriefing that follows the LOFT
The simulation itself is a busy, intense experience, and thoughtful discussion afterward is necessary for the crew to sort out and interpret what happened and why.
Instructors are expected to lead debriefings in a way that encourages crew members to analyze their LOFT performance for themselves.
Rather than lecturing to the crew on what they did right and wrong, the instructor is expected to facilitate self-discovery and self-critique by the crew
One purpose of the introduction is to let the crew know that participation and self-evaluation are expected of them, and why it is important.
Makes clear that his role is guide/facilitator and that crew should do most of the talking
Clearly conveys that crew should take an active role, initiating discussion rather than just responding to him
Clearly conveys that he wants crew to dig deep, critically analyzing the LOFT and their performance
Gives a persuasive rationale for the crew to participate actively and make their own analysis
Specifically and thoroughly explains that his role is guide/facilitator and that crew should do most of the talking and lead the discussion
Sets strong expectations for proactive crew participation, explicitly stating they should initiate discussion rather than just responding to IP questions
Explicitly and emphatically states that crew should dig deep, critically analyzing the LOFT and their performance
Gives a persuasive rationale for the crew to participate actively and make their own analysis and makes a strong case for why it is important to do it this way.
The purpose of asking questions is to get the crew to participate, focus the discussion on important topics, and enlist the crew in discussing the topics in depth.
Asks an appropriate number of questions to get crew talking & lead them to issues
Avoids answering for the crew when they do not respond immediately or correctly and uses a pattern of questioning that keeps the focus on the crew
Uses probing and follow-up questions to get crew to analyze in depth and to go beyond yes/no and brief factual answers
Uses questioning techniques to encourage interaction and sharing of perspectives among crew members
Asks questions as appropriate to get crew talking & lead them to issues
rewords questions or otherwise avoids answering for the crew when they do not respond immediately or correctly, and consistently uses a pattern of questioning that keeps the focus on the crew
uses probing and follow-up questions as a tool to evoke in-depth discussion and optimize crew self-discovery, while forcing crew to go beyond yes/no and brief factual answers
uses questioning techniques to encourage substantial interaction and sharing of perspectives among crew members
Encouragement refers to the degree to which the instructor encourages and enables the crew to actively and deeply participate in the debriefing.
Conveys sense of interest in crew views and works to get them to do most of the talking
Encourages continued discussion through active listening, strategic pauses, avoiding disruptive interruptions, and/or following up on crew-initiated topics
Encourages all members to participate fully, drawing out quiet members if necessary
Refrains from giving long soliloquies or giving his own analysis before crew has fully analyzed
Communicates an interest in crew views and actively strives to get them to do most of the talking and lead their own discussion.
Uses active listening and pauses, avoids interrupting, and follows up on crew topics.
Encourages all members to participate and draws out quiet members as necessary.
Refrains from lecturing and giving own analysis before crew.
The goal of the debriefing session is to get the crew to evaluate and analyze their own CRM performance so they will learn more deeply and can gain practice in debriefing themselves, a skill they can then begin to use on the line.
Encourages crew to analyze along CRM dimensions the situation that confronted them, what they did to manage the situation, and why they did it
Encourages crew to evaluate their performance and/or ways they might improve
Encourages crew to explore CRM issues and how they specifically affect LOFT performance and line operations
Encourages crew to analyze issues, factors, and outcomes in depth, going beyond simply describing what happened and what they did
Encourages and pushes crew to analyze along CRM dimensions the situation that confronted them, what they did to manage the situation, and why they did it.
Encourages and pushes crew to evaluate their performance and/or ways they might improve.
Encourages crew to explore CRM issues and how they specifically affect LOFT performance and line operations.
Encourages crew to analyze issues, factors, and outcomes in depth, going beyond simply describing what happened and what they did.
One stated purpose of showing videotaped segments of the LOFT is to enable the crew members to see how they performed from an objective viewpoint so they can better evaluate their performance. More realistically, perhaps, the video reminds the crew of the situation, aiding their memory and providing a focus for debriefings and further discussion.
Uses video equipment efficiently: is able to find desired segment without wasting time and pauses the video if substantial talk begins while playing
Consistently discusses video segments, using them as a springboard for discussion of specific topics
Has a point to make and uses the video to make that point.
Shows an appropriate number of videos of appropriate duration to illustrate/introduce topics.
Uses video equipment efficiently: is able to find desired segment without wasting time and pauses the video if talk begins while playing.
Evokes and consistently pursues thorough crew discussion of each video segment or topic.
Has a point to make and uses the video to make that point.
Crew Analysis and Evaluation
Crew analysis and evaluation refers to the depth to which the crew members analyze the LOFT situation and evaluate their performance.
Analyze along CRM dimensions the situation that confronted them, what they did to manage the situation, and why they did it
Evaluate their performance and ways they might improve
Explore CRM issues and how they affect LOFT performance and line operations
Analyze issues, factors, and outcomes in depth, going beyond simply describing what happened and what they did
Analyze along CRM dimensions the situation that confronted them, what they did to manage the situation, and why they did it.
Evaluate their performance and ways they might improve.
Explore CRM issues and how they affect LOFT performance and line operations.
Analyze issues, factors, and outcomes in depth, going beyond simply describing what happened and what they did.
Depth of Crew Activity
Activity refers to how actively, versus passively, and deeply the crew participates in and initiates discussion.
Go beyond minimal responses to IP questions
Participate deeply and thoughtfully
Initiate dialogue rather than just responding to questions, and/or interact with each other rather than only with the IP
Behave in a predominantly proactive rather than reactive manner, being actively involved rather than just passing through the training
Should go substantially beyond minimal responses to questions.
participate deeply and thoughtfully.
initiate dialogue and pursue issues to completion rather than just responding to questions, and consistently interact with each other rather than only with the IP.
proactive rather than reactive manner, being actively involved rather than just passing through the training.
Line Operations Safety Audit (LOSA)
Utilizes trained observers riding in cockpit jump seats to evaluate several aspects of crew performance
At the core of the LOSA process is a model of threat management and error management, which provides a framework for collection of data
In-flight observers record the various threats encountered by aircrew, the types of errors committed, and most importantly, they record how flight crews manage these situations to maintain safety
Line Operations Safety Audit (LOSA)
Observers also collect data on CRM performance and conduct a structured interview to ask pilots for their suggestions to improve safety
These combined data sources provide the airline conducting the LOSA with a diagnostic snapshot of safety strengths and weaknesses in normal flight operations
Line Operations Safety Audit (LOSA)
A large LOSA data set is maintained by the University of Texas Human Factors Research Project (over 1700 flights)
This allows study of crew performance issues across a number of different airlines with the commercial airline industry
Flight crew performance and procedural drift
Reasons for drift:
Following the “norm”
F/A Views of Captains
FO Views of Captains