The reporter raises an interesting and important point around the psychology and effectiveness of training.  The operator changed its strategy several years ago after feedback showed cabin crew were nervous about the annual recurrent training event.  Their entire focus was on passing the exams.  The exams were old fashioned written papers which required the delegates to precisely answer the wording in the manuals.    This led to a behaviour that instructors would deliver training focused on passing the exams and the delegates would just remember those bits.  The wider purpose of the day was lost.  Furthermore, the whole class was given the same or similar questions, which were then circulated.

We want to drive a joint pilot/cabin crew training day that allowed delegates to focus on developing their skills and learning from group facilitation.  We want them to leave not just with a pass, but to take safety and CRM “to the aircraft”.  The intent is to make the training day a professional-to-professional event, in style more like a conference or workshop than a school class.  So, in conjunction with the authority, it was decided to publish the entire question bank to allow revision prior to the event.  On the day, no one person receives the same exam.  Each delegate is pushed a random selection electronically to their electronic device.

Cognitively, revising by self-testing is for most people more effective than simply reading a manual.  Forcing the brain to retrieve information builds pathways to make subsequent retention easier.  That is why Computer Based Training generally has questions at the end to test understanding and reinforce the learning.

Whilst there are differing opinions as to the efficacy, evidence appears to show that this approach has not unacceptably reduced knowledge, although the operator does accept the industry wide problem that generation Z does not like rote learning.

Let’s examine safety incidents for which crew error is the primary cause, for example, inadvertent slide deployment.  Crew interviewed after these events can invariably recount the correct procedure and process – so applied knowledge is not the problem.  Normally the problem is either inattention (rare), fatigue (sometimes), distraction (common) combined with another simultaneous task that should have been given a lower priority (very common).

If we look at safety incidents that are not crew errors (e.g.  oven fires, disruptive passengers, medical emergencies, etc…), these are generally well handled using a mixture of knowledge, CRM and reference to the Cabin Crew Quick Reference material which is held on each crew members iPad.  This leads us to conclude that our training events are effective and focussed correctly on competency rather than just raw knowledge.  All the operator’s cabin safety instructors are also qualified CRM instructors.

The operator will continue to monitor the effectiveness of the training approach, but current evidence suggests that on balance this is the right strategy. Crew are also encouraged to report any concerns or hazards via our safety reporting system. Reports are treated confidentially but if they wish to protect their identity further they have the ability to submit anonymous reports.

Training is intended to provide a benefit to those attending that they can apply in the operational environment.  In making this comment, the number of questions in the question bank is not known, however, it should be such that it would make it very difficult for trainees to effectively remember each question.