Good info on Human Factors and Threat and Error Management

[ayavner]

Hi all - this is a good read which has alot of the definitions and concepts for the TEM stuff, if anyone is looking for additional info. Much of this is newer material than the PPL books many of us have around, so should be incorporated into your studies:

 

http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/download/caaps/ops/5_59_1.pdf

 

Looks like the primary audience is instructors, but from what I have gleaned on various practice tests and the sorts of questions that will be on there (situational or definitions) there's plenty in here to keep you busy when the prunes aren't kicking in...

 

They also have a full kit available, but so far this seems pretty inclusive of the info we need from day to day (or on the test).

 

i'm taking mine on Friday... after months of studying 2-4 hours every night, i will be truly glad to have this behind me!

 

 

[turboplanner]

That's some solid studying - great to see it and good luck with the exam.

 

 

[facthunter]

I don't like the way it is presented. Statements and definitions, that in themselves may have an element of contention. Understanding should flow from increased knowledge. If most of it is memorised items It fails the comprehension test, to a point. I realise I'm hard to please in this matter, but there is room for improvement. I shudder at the questions you could be asked after being expected to read this. The concept is valuable so we must persist. Nev

 

 

[ayavner]

thanks turbz... yeah its been quite a lot of revision, but I did alot of theory early on in the RAA training (2011) and studied the PPL books then (rather than the RAA books) and was shocked to find out how much of it I'd forgotten since then, once i had gotten through it and gotten on with flying. So it has been good to revisit all this stuff, but with the benefit of practical application, so i am getting quite a bit out of it this time around!

 

Guess I'm making the move from "not knowing what I don't know" to "knowing what I don't know", which is hopefully a step in the right direction...

 

 

[ayavner]

I don't like the way it is presented. Statements and definitions, that in themselves may have an element of contention. Understanding should flow from increased knowledge. If most of it is memorised items It fails the comprehension test, to a point. I realise I'm hard to please in this matter, but there is room for improvement. I shudder at the questions you could be asked after being expected to read this. The concept is valuable so we must persist. Nev

yeah its a pretty tough read, but at least it has the definitions in there, which is more than I had before. I'll give you an example of some questions I ahve seen in the practice exams (NOT the real one):

 

Timely information gathering on the current situation, comprehension (interpretation) of the current situation and projection of the future status (environment) are essential for effective:

 

a. threat and error management

 

b. risk management

 

c. situation awareness

 

d. information processing.

 

with the answer being C. which seems like common sense, but it pays to know what THEY want to see since its their test...

 

or this one -

 

Typical internal threats to a single-pilot aeroplane are:

 

a. peer pressure, no recent flying, stress, radio congestion

 

b. fatigue, complacency, poor flying skills, work overload

 

c. over confidence, inadequate knowledge, macho attitude, poor maintenance

 

d. no flight discipline, deference, fatigue, slippery runway.

 

and so on.... hope I haven't broken any copyright laws, those are just some examples from a PPL workbook i have found to be very thorough in preparing for the test.

 

 

[facthunter]

A lot of general knowledge around the subject can bring you undone. IF you know it is based on a specific book just confine yourself to it alone. (this is not the way it should be, but the exam must be passed). There is a better aim, but not being realised. Nev

 

 

[Yenn]

Has there been any improvement since they brought in the requirement to do the training. If there has then maybe it was a good thing, but if there hasn't been any improvement it points up that the training is not working.

 

I don't know what the situation is but there seems to me to be a great number of accidents, caused by bad airmanship lately. It would be good to see some figures about accidents and their causes on yearly basis.

 

 

[ayavner]

I actually found it difficult to get any definitive info on it, outside of re-buying textbooks with the updated information. Looking at most of it I think that while it amounts mostly to common sense, there can't be any harm in increasing awareness - even if its just a matter of giving names and a framework to things we already know if we took the time to think about it.

 

I mean of course a child being up all night can cause fatigue which can cause lapse in concentration, leading to ...? but seeing it written out as an example (i feel) does give me some tools to increase my awareness in my own context. So it is a good thing, even if it is a bit tedious just now because of the information overload on the test studies.

 

My own .02c is I had to seek out the information, so there seems to be a problem in standardising the way this stuff is delivered to the masses.

 

 

[facthunter]

Great concept poorly delivered. Nev

 

 

[M61A1]

After reading that, it's a whole lot better designed that the crap that's been shoved down my throat for the past 10 years. Earlier this week I had to do another 15-30 hours of HF to meet (I'm told) international requirements for HF in Aviation Maintenance. The content hasn't really changed in over ten years, but their definitions get narrower, so to be assessed you need to remember very specific terms for a very broad reality. Nev is certainly on the money with his idea,"good idea, poorly executed". The irony is that every HF course I've done ( about 6-7), is done in such a way that it ignores HF principles. Meaning large chunks of precise information delivered by a monotonous person in a stuffy room designed to put you to sleep, with no real structure tying the presentation together.

 

The stuff in the above CASA link, appears as though it's concept is ensure that pilots understand the principles, without demanding strict terminology.

 

 

[facthunter]

Terminology gets changed, and you think you are learning something new. Any kind of "conceptual" appreciation of what it is about would be a good start point. Some companies have bastardised the subject making it a pro company dogma opportunity, that should never have gotten past the regulator or approving body. Nev

 

 

[ayavner]

Nailed it.. .more later when I decompress....

 

 

[Bandit12]

The irony is that every HF course I've done ( about 6-7), is done in such a way that it ignores HF principles. Meaning large chunks of precise information delivered by a monotonous person in a stuffy room designed to put you to sleep, with no real structure tying the presentation together.

This right here shows more insight into HF than I suspect is really understood by the people who write the courses. Nev might be able to comment on how much really has changed in our real understanding of human factors over the last couple of decades, but I suspect that apart from the lingo, it is pretty much unchanged.

 

Ayavner, congrats on getting through. Sounds as though it was a marathon effort.

 

 

[ayavner]

Thanks!

 

It was challenging, but to be honest I found the practice exams I did - Bob Tait and Dyson Holland - to be significantly more challenging. They really made you think! Especially wtih loading questions - everything would look right numerically, until you realised that one of the units was in lbs instead of kilos.... same type of trickery with performance charts. On the actual PPL exam, I found most of the questions to be pretty straightforward with no real twists... i spent more time looking for the gotchas than actually answering the questions. I nailed all of the TEM and HF stuff, so glad I found this resource. Navs, fuel calc, loading, and performance were all easy. I missed a few, and they were on things like how to seat a disabled passenger, or certain BAK stuff where none of the answers looked right. But I got an 87%, and pretty sure I understand what I missed (mostly just issues with wording i believe).

 

onward and upward!

 

 

[facthunter]

Good work ayavner.

 

Bandit. The research is good and soundly based, and probably constantly improving, and broadening out.. The application is the problem. Those writing the courses and setting the exams get paid for something not done at all well, generally. There is a good deal of resistance to it ( often by those who would benefit from it most This shows on the courses where those who act like they are aces fall for traps or act like a one man (person?) band in a team situation. The recognition of this started at least 30 years ago. Am I right in saying it is still not in the PPL? Nev

 

 

[ayavner]

much of the TEM stuff, as explained in the linked doc in the OP, was on the PPL test.