MINUTES OF THE 25TH MEETING OF THE RaeS



MINUTES OF THE 25TH MEETING OF THE RaeS

CRM ADVISORY PANEL MEETING

HELD ON MARCH 23RD 2006

AT THE AVIATION HOUSE

Present

Captain Graham Cruse (GC) - EasyJet - Chair

Captain Paul Field (PF) - BA

Captain Rob Calvert (RC) - CAA

Captain Peter Griffiths (PG) - CAA

Captain Peter Shaw (PS) - CAA

Captain Roger Benison (RB) - First Choice

Jeremy Butler (JB) - Consultant

Carey Edwards (CE) - LMQ

Captain David Harrison (DH) - BALPA

Mrs. Janice Fisher (JF) - CAA

Mrs. Jane Neal-Smith (JN-S) - Lond. Met. University

Nicole Svatex (NS) - Consultant

Richard Heybroek (RH) - Loftwork

Captain Kevin Lawrence (KL) - Bond Offshore Helicopters

Mrs. Elizabeth Afekare (EA) - CAA - Secretary (Minutes)

1. Apologies

Apologies were received from:

Simon Henderson (SH) - Emirates

Fleur Christie (FC) - GB Airways

Colin Budenberg (CB) - Britannia Airways

Rosanne Beale (RB) - Consultant

2. Introduction and Welcome

2.1 GC presided over the meeting and gave a special welcome to Captain Kevin Lawrence (KL) from Bond Offshore Helicopters who had been co-opted to the membership of CRMAP by Captain Rick Newson (subject to Panel approval) hoping to give an insight into CRM helicopter operations. There was a brief introduction by each Member.

2.2 PG informed KL, on behalf of the Panel, the role of CRM training and its relationship to the formation of CRMAP. He explained the Panel’s role in advising CAA on CRM operations, and the benefits of CRMAP that is then transferred to the industry.

3. Minutes of the last Meeting

The Minutes were approved subject to the following amendments:

1. Members pointed out that the meeting dates should read 2006 instead of 2005.

2. Captain Roger Benison was at the meeting and should not have been on the list of Apologies.

4. Matters Arising from the Minutes Not on the Agenda

1. A letter of appreciation would be written to Phil Smith and Paddy Carver the out-going CRMAP officials for their contribution and efforts.

4.2 Item 9: NPA OPS 42 – Captain G. Gray would be making a presentation on Tuesday 28th March 2006 in response to the comments.

5. Review of CRMIE Conference held on 26th January 2006

5.1 GC thanked everyone involved with the planning of the Conference and informed that the Conference had been successful and that lessons learned would be implemented at the next CRM conference.

2. PG also gave thanks and appreciation to everyone involved with the planning of the conference for their efforts. He mentioned that he had noticed from the feedback received following the Conference that there had been a misinterpretation of the presentation given by Colin Budenberg.

3. RC expressed concern that the exchange of emails emanating from Norman McLeod following the Conference had been disappointing and did not demonstrate good CRM and what it stands for. However, he added that the overall feedback received had been satisfactory and that future CRMIE conferences would be mandatory for Examiners

4. PF raised concern about the implications of CRMIE (Line) that were not being observed and pointed out that there could be problem with standardisation. RC explained that the companies run in-house workshops, which FOIs would then observe.

5. PS expressed concern that most people had missed out on the Conference because the invitations had not reached them. GC then clarified that reminders had also been sent following the initial invitations.

6. PG will forward the Conference Videos and CDs to RH. ACTION: PG

7. EA would provide a list of those who did not attend the conference and PF suggested that mandatory workshop should be run for those who did not attend the conference the day before Item 6 below. ACTION: EA

6. Plan for new CRMIE Line Conference

6.1 PG mentioned that a video of briefing and debriefing of a Line flight in the simulator was being proposed and requested for expertise and help from Members on what to cover in the video. It was suggested to have a small working group for key skills required.

1. Video Resources: NS informed Members that a generic video shop, which would be housed at CAA, was being proposed. It was Agreed that PF would look into JAR-TEL material and GC to provide Easyjet video.

2. It was agreed that a sub-group consisting of PF, CB, GC, PG, RC and JF would work on Conference planning.

3. It was agreed that PG, RC and PS would write the aims and objectives and agenda for the conference.

4. Suggestion was made that the Conference should be included on the Agenda for Training Managers meeting and the RETRE Conference in order to attract more participants.

6. CAP737 Standards Document 29 status

1. PG informed Members that the new version of CAP 737 had been placed on the web. Standards Doc 29 had also been included but it needed some amendment.

2. It was agreed that Standards Doc 29 should be a stand-alone document as it is a standards material while CAP 737 is a guidance material and should be placed on the web like that.

7. Protocols for booking CRMIE Renewals and Fee Standardisation

1. The newly appointed RECRMIEs have agreed on a fee of £850 for CRMIE revalidations on behalf of CAA. The observation booking process will be in line with the way TREs are revalidated by RETREs or the CAA.

9. Validation of amended Terms of Reference for the Panel

1. GC invited Members to give comments on the CRMAP Terms of Reference, which had earlier been emailed to them. Following were the comments and amendments:

9.1.1 The word ‘Flight’ should be removed from Item (p) on Page 3

2. The word ‘Trainers’ in Items 2 and 3 on Page 2 should replaced with the word ‘Instructor’

3. The word ‘Verifiers’ should be replaced with ‘Examiners’

4. Names of Members should not be on the list

5. Names of officials should be moved to the appendix. It was agreed that, list of names of panel members would be available on the CAA and HFG websites for transparency in due course.

10. Panel Membership Update

1. GC confirmed that EA now has an accurate Members’ list. He informed that he had contacted Michael Stonehewer and Rosanne Beal who had been absent at various meetings. They had complained about the problem with travel to meetings. GC then suggested to Members that their names would remain on the circulation list for a year and then make a decision about their continued membership.

10.2 GC informed that anyone who registers their interest for membership would be invited to sit at the Panel Meetings and each case would be subject to the decision of Panel Members.

10. Revalidation/Legislation reference CRMIEs to be assessed as CRMIs every 3 years

1. GC informed that a CRMIE had to demonstrate his/her Instructor’s competency every 3 years and raised concern this had not been documented anywhere and suggested that this should be clarified in Document 29.

2. CRMIE privileges are company specific and with the agreement of CAA the Examiner could revalidate/observe an Instructor from another company.

3. Members stressed the need for transparency in the revalidation requirements.

11. Risk Assessment of Future Problems

1. CE requested for this Item on the Agenda. Panel Members were to address possible problems in advance and it was suggested that Conferences could be used as part of the Standardisation process for prospective CRMIEs.

2. It was mentioned that CRM accreditation was only being done in the UK. Members anticipated future risks with companies questioning why they have to pay to have CRM accreditation and suggested to establish an action plan to identify possible risks this might bring.

3. The training of future examiners was discussed with the need to develop a standardisation course.

ACTION: JB: To design the framework to explore future risks at the next meeting.

12. North Sea Operators

RN had approached some operators on the North Sea but was not at the meeting. This item would be on the Agenda for next meeting.

13. Single Pilot Issues

PF pointed out that that there were no CRM expertise in the forces. It was proposed to put a working group together to work on this. This item would be kept on the Agenda for next meeting.

15. Standardisation of New CRMIEs

1. The need to assess Line Training CRMIEs was stressed.

2. RC emphasized the problem with the transition process from Instructor to Examiner and suggested to have a system in place for this. The use of CRM training providers in bridging the training and assessment was also mentioned.

3. RC also suggested the use of the TRE model but felt it could be too expensive.

4. PF pointed out the need for a task analysis to be conducted and standard defined, as it is generic at the moment.

5. It was mentioned that CAP 737 would be updated to include this transition. Members debated this point and agreed to ask third party training providers to develop training programmes and what would be involved.

a) ACTION: RB to contact third party TRE providers for guidance.

b) CE/RB to explore contents of Examiners’ course

c) GC to contact CTC

6. Members suggested that Examiners who fail should be urged not to present themselves for further observation unless they went through further training like the TREs.

7. The need to regulate and standardise course providers was stressed. Members were of the opinion that gain rather than standard would be the motivating factor for them.

8. JN-S volunteered to be involved as she could contribute from the teaching and learning perspective. ACTION: RB, CE and JN-S to work together on this point and come up with comments to be discussed at the next meeting.

9. PF advised that knowledge requirements for Examiners should be beefed up in CAP 737.

16. Any Other Business

1. PF highlighted the need to harmonise CAA and RECRMIE observations for consistency. He also stressed the need to make RECRMIE Authorisation portable and not sponsor/company specific.

ACTION: EA to amend all RECRMIE Authorities and remove the sponsor/company.

2. JN-S sought the Panel’s assistance for her proposed Research Project for Ground School CRMI on the development and delivering of courses. This was noted and supported and would be on the Agenda for next meeting.

3. JF expressed concern about the possible collapse of Cabin Crew Training and advised that standardisation of Trainings had to be looked at. This point would be discussed at the next meeting.

4. PS voiced concern about the management of CRM and felt that qualification criteria should be indicated in the guide. GC acknowledged this point and stated that it would be explored at the next meeting.

16. Date of Next Meeting

The next meeting will be held on Thursday 22nd June 2006.

The meeting closed at 3.55 p.m.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download