T (Paddy) Carver (PC)CTC Aviation / Chair

MINUTES OF THE 22nd MEETING OF THE CREW RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ADVISORY PANEL HELD AT AVIATION HOUSE 25 FEBRUARY 2005

1Attendance

1.1Present

T (Paddy) Carver (PC)CTC Aviation / Chair

Janice.Fisher (JF)Cabin Safety, CAA

Fleur Christie (FC)GB Airways

R. LoleCTC Aviation

Peter Shaw (PS)CAA (FOI) Manchester

Simon Henderson (SH)Emirates

Carey Edwards (CE)LMQ

Rick Heybroek (RH)Loftwork Ltd. / Secretary

Graham Cruse (GC)Easyjet

Peter Griffiths (PG)NRM, FOS, FOD, SRG, CAA

Nicole Svatek (NS)

Jeremy Butler (JB)

Paul Field (PF)B.A.

1.1.1Introductions

The Chairman welcomed attendees and in particular Fleur Christie as an industry delegate with experience in Cabin Crew CRM training and SEP. It was noted that RH had volunteered to take Minutes in place of Margaret Mathews, who was warmly thanked for her efficient and unstinting administrative support.

1.2Apologies

Roger Benison (RBen)

Colin Lerch

Rob Calvert (RC)HOTS, FOS, SRG, CAA

Phil Smith (PSm)Cranfield Business School

Ian Burns (IB)FOI, FOS

Roseanne Beale (RB)Aviation Consultant

1.3Copy to:

Giles Porter (GP)FOD, SRG, CAA

Graham Dainty (GD)Helisim, France

2Minutes

The Minutes were approved as presented.

3Matters Arising

• CAA Contract Issue – Resolved
• Single Plot Forum (AIC 27 item 6 requiring new Single Pilot chapter in CAP737) – defered to main agenda
• CRMI Accreditation – deferred to main agenda
• Ground Guide for CRMIEs – agreed, correct on instance of “373” to “737”
• Terms of Reference revision – agreed, item closed
• AOB – GC Comments on constitution deferred to main agenda AOB

4Agenda

4.1AIC 27/2005

PG led the discussion. The aim “is to bring helicopters into line with fixed wing”. CAA launched the accreditation system but helicopters were only brought in at JAR OPS 3 / NPA27. This is an update on progress to give helicopter community time to adapt to NOTECHS and provides a legal basis for it. It also announces the addition of a new Single Pilot chapter of CAP 737 and reflects the results of the Single Pilot Forum.

Note that NPA Ops24 when incorporated into JAR OPS was worded differently – it does not require formal accreditation of Cabin Crew and their approval by CAA, therefore there is no formal Cabin Crew accreditation process.

Responding to the point that the 30sep04 cutoff for single pilot accreditation is much earlier than helicopter and could benefit from comparable alleviation to allow single pilot operators to implement meaningful CRMI programmes, PG noted that JAR OPS has no alleviation provision, but CAA excluded single pilot/single engine. However the first step in the field would be to ask for an Action Plan. PC pointed out that early AICs never excluded Single Pilot ops.

There was some discussion about the circulation and availability of AICs. PG said that there is a new advisory service pilots can sign up for which distributes FODCOMs and AICs by email. Action PG to make this available to all panel members.

The consultation period for the AIC was also discussed. CE said that Panel did not have an opportunity to consult on the AIC. It was agreed that the Panel must be in a position to offer consistent advice on new AICs to avoid conflicting interpretations and later dispute.

PG: Panel should receive draft AICs prior to legal final edit. Replying to an NS question re grandfather rights (section 3.3.1) – aim is to encourgae early compliance. JAR OPS requirement came out in April 04, this section simply sets an outer limit marker for compliance. An AIC has no inherent legal status. It is the Authority’s interpretation and expression of the intent of JAR OPS and other legislation.

4.2NPS – FCL 27

PG reported that this was out for comment. The Authority has a rep on the committee – Mike Dobson – and PG will ask him to take a panel member to the next meeting. Agreed PF to delegate for Panel. Action PG.

4.3Update of CAP737

PG: The document has been amended to include comments, edited and returned to the web team. It will be circulated for Panel review on return from web design. At that point final comments will be required ASAP.

PC: Please use Change Tracking when editing or commenting the draft. Otherwise changes will be lost. Action: All

JF: Is there a separate Cabin Crew chapter? [Several members noted that this had been discussed at the previous Panel meeting.]

PG: This is not fully addressed. It would be a new initiative, based on information from the Cabin Crew Forum and focused on JF as key coordinator if not drafter.

The Panel considered how best to reflect the balance between appearing to make all of CAP 737 a Cabin Crew requirement and appearing to exclude all of it except the cabin crew portion. This mirrored the difficulty in defining how to integrate cabin and flight deck CRM training, since concepts such as Situation Awareness in practice may mean quite different things. Options considered included a new CAP 737 chapter, a CAP360 ANO supplement and Standards Doc 29 standalone version for cabin crew. Agreed that the requirement must be limited to JAR OPS requirements, covering operational areas over which the Panel had some remit.

The Panel confirmed that its remit did in fact include Cabin Crew CRM subject to the Authority’s agreement; and that JF and FC should be asked to present a report on the commonalities and differences to be addressed. Action JF and FC

4.4Update Doc 29

PG requested any final review comments by the end of June, submission direct to PG. Action: All.

4.5Report on Cabin Crew Forum

JF reported on the recent CAA/Industry Cabin Crew Forum, which was primarily intended to clarify regulation in response to the volume of questions from industry. There were over 80 delegates, and presentations from FlyBe, Monarch, LMQ and others. The day was well-received with productive workshop sessions and detailed and complex Q&A. The main point for discussion was the issue of whether and in what circumstances Cabin Crew CRMIs might teach Flight Deck crew. JF noted that cabin crew CRM staff feel isolated from FD CRM and are concerned that CC CRM skills might be inconsistent without formal assessment. Essentially, cabin crew CRMIs want to be assessed and accredited.

GC as one of the presenters suggested several lessons to be learned:

• Workshops were best part of the day – the presentations could have been cut back
• Flight crew and Cabin crew managers and trainers do not talk to each other
• Seminar coffee and lunch breaks are crucial and could be longer
• Especially in workshops, learning was largely self-directed and the interaction happened naturally.

PG noted that FOI feedback did not reflect operator training management feedback.

FC reiterated the desire of cabin crew CRMIs to gain accreditation, particularly where they would be co-teaching in an integrated training context with fully-accredited FD CRMIs.

PG clarified the position on Cabin crew CRMIs historically: JAR OPS CRMI requirement is that one should have, or have held a pilot’s licence. Some companies had used cabin staff to teach CRM to FD crew, which was not authorized by JAR OPS – a point reiterated in the AIC. Where this practice predated AIC 27 and had been done in good faith, the Authority was prepared to allow the accreditation to stand. However some trainers had not been FD accredited and CAA had withdrawn approval. The current position is that integrated training with one Cabin CRMI and one FD CRMI is acceptable.

Recommendations:

The Panel felt that terminology such as “CRMI” which meant different things in different places was confused and should be referred to JF as Chair of the Subpart O committee. Action: JF

The Panel recommended to the Authority that Cabin Crew should only be accredited as CRMI when CAA has observed training performance in a strictly FD environment.

4.6Terms of Reference (TORs) and Group Remit

GC presented the revised TORs which had been amended and updated to reflect current regulation and practice. Responsibilities (b) should read 2 meetings a year. The Panel agreed that “Cabin Crew Member” should read “Cabin Crew Instructor”. Some oversights were noted and will be corrected. Action All, to check, refer to CE and PF to collate and forward a unified version to PG by July 1.

4.7CRMI/E Appointment Criteria

PF presented inspector standardization as an intrinsic part of the process for which the standardization briefing document and checklists were developed by PF and reviewed by CB and RBen, but one which requires PG’s input for the Authority.

PG suggested aligning the criteria for CRMI/E Inspectors with the RE/TRE process during a short refresher course at CAA.

There is probably a need for a standardization meeting with follow-up during supervised revalidation, and PG also proposed a CRMI/E conference run by new CRM/E/TRE who can pass on standardization guidance to newcomers, tentatively later this year. This approach has already been agreed by the Panel but a conference date is required.

Recommendation: The Panel consensus was that there should be standardization training at Examiner level.

The Panel discussed and agreed several points relevant to the topic:

• Conference dates – agreed November 15, 16 or 17th, title to be “First CRMI Standardization Meeting”. Action PG for room booking and management approval.
• Whether conference should be mandatory or not –it should not be mandatory, but contains essential knowledge: ‘It will be on the exam’.
• Need for prompt revalidation of CRM AdPanel inspectors since many CRMI/Es will require revalidation this year. CAA should in principle revalidate CRMI/Es from the AdPanel, ideally with observation by another member.
• Process for CRMI/E revalidation or appointment - apply to CAA who will allocate an inspector who is already a CRMI/E, whether from industry or the Advisory Panel. An AIC should be released to clarify this for industry, with a list of CRMI/E Inspectors.
• The proposed conference is for CRMI/Es, organised by CRMI/E Inspectors who due to the limited time available will probably be from CAA and the Advisory Panel.

4.7.1Panel Standardization of ReCRMI/E

PG proposed a seminar at CAA to discussion standardization of ReCRMI/Es. ReCRMI/E are not specifically tied to CAA or a specific company, but must be routinely engaged in CRMI/E work to qualify. Although CRMI/E status per CAP 737 lapses on departure from a company, it does not prevent such an examiner from immediately reapplying to the Authority as self-sponsored employee of an independent company.

The Panel consensus was that PG would designate some panel members who have volunteered to be ReCRMI/E, and meet with them and CAA staff to discuss the standardization process and briefing information. Members may wish to request a dispensation to postpone in-house revalidation of CRMI/E until the ReCRMI/E revalidation is completed. In-house CRMI/E revalidation is subject to a small charge. ReCRMI/E who are not CAA staff may revalidate for another company at a negotiated cost rather than the full £1000 ‘RRP’.

The Panel agreed to announce the CRMI/E Forum on the HFG website. Action RH

4.8The Long Guide and other Publicity Matters

PC reminded the Panel that at the last meeting it had been agreed to allow the Long Guide to lapse and revert to the RaeS HFG Committee, which had produced it and owned any residual intellectual property. RH noted that it still attracted more than 150 international downloads a year and had continuing value for researchers outside the UK. However the HFG should be aware that the Long Guide was now considered obsolete by the Authority and it should be presented as such on, for example, the HFG website if retained there as an archive document. Action RH to update the HFG website accordingly, subject to HFG committee agreement.

More generally, it was agreed to include bullet points in Advisroy Panel Minutes which can be collected into a public summary for circulation or publication on the HFG website and forums. [Ed note: Suggested bullet points are shown in italics in these Minutes. RH]

5AOB

Concerning 3.1.11 Accreditation of CRMIs, PG stated the Authority’s decision that in accordance with JAR OPS qualification requires that candidates be observed while conducting a ‘live’ course in their sponsoring company, not just in the CRMI training environment.

An example of adverse reaction to CRM facilitation training was dscussed. CE commented that there was still considerable anxiety about the need to demonstrate facilitation skills.

NS reminded the Panel of the need to focus on AOC holders to ensure consistent culture change – change starts at the top. The consensus was that facilitation skills required frequent reinforcement, and a key corporate vector was ReTREs. PG noted that it was always difficult to get the right people. There was further discussion on this point.

There was a wide-ranging discussion of issues in integrated training and the accreditation of cabin crew CRM instructors to conduct flight crew HF training, reverting back to Agenda item 4.5, Report on the Cabin Crew CRM Forum. PC advised that the Panel should now turn its attention back to line and sim elements, particularly to see how (and whether) new TRIs are integrating CRM into their curriculum.

6DONM

Friday September 2, 10am at CAA Aviation House, LGW.