Stan Chell posted in Air Operations
Problems with interpreting and training Resilience - CRM.
Re: ORO.FC.115 Crew resource management (CRM) training.
This research paper identifies difficulties with training resilience and recommends EASA regulatory revision.
https://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=9140012…
What are the experiences of other operators ?
"In terms of resilience, the current EASA regulation on Crew Resource Management (CRM) appears somewhat vague and has a flavour of a compromise and reductionism. While it outlines the "what," it falls short in explaining the "how."
It presents resilience as an individual's property, without receiving support from human factors and system safety research."
Recommends "… importantly, a revision of the current EASA regulation on CRM and EBT, sharpening the concept of resilience to represent systemic safety and recognising the importance of anticipation, would be necessary in aligning them with modern scientific perspectives and fostering resilient behaviour in airline organizations and their flight crews."
Dear Stan,
Thanks for sharing this interesting research paper.
I was involved in developing the AMC on CRM.
Does the present text prevent from addressing what this paper suggests?
Rather than being a individual's property, resilience is a competence that CRM and EBT (notably) develop in individuals to enable resilient teams.
In large airlines for instance, pilots often fly with pilots they rarely or never flew with before. It is therefore essential to first develop resilience in individuals.
Crises on the flight deck are however managed by the flight crew, not by individual pilots.
That team dimension is duly acknowledged.
This is why the Resilience module should be considered together with the other CRM modules, not in isolation.
I would also recommend reading this other article on resilience by FSF:
https://flightsafety.org/asw-article/defining-resilience/.
A very interesting debate, thanks again for sharing your views!
Michel, the crew team aspects are within the existing CRM training; no need for some 'new' competence.
Resilience is a property of a system; by limiting the 'system' to a crew, which misses the point of improving safety from a wider viewpoint.
The article 'Defining Resilience' identifies a general issue.
'Training by Definition' assumes understanding, - incorrect. Definitions also constrain, limiting practical aspects. e.g. from the research paper "… it outlines the "what," it falls short in explaining the "how."
and from the FSF article;
"Explaining the term is easy; putting the concept into practice is more challenging."
"From a resilience development perspective, humans are seen as a trained resource that provides system flexibility and resilience."
“Individual resilience can be developed through training and operational experience"
… gross assumptions about human behaviour, - and CRM training. The need is for a resilient system which is compatible with human behaviour. (Compare US / FAA / FSF views of CRM vs EASA)
Also see the discussion and references at: https://www.pprune.org/safety-crm-qa-emergency-response-planning/643738…
Resilience is better seen as a new way of thinking about safety - safety management; something which EASA needs to consider.
Is EASA resilient, has resilient qualities, or is willing to embrace resilience as a way of safety thinking; along with Safety-I & Safety-II ?
Sign up or Log in to join the discussion