Hi Shiellsy,
Welcome to the wonderful world of TEM
Let's look at your questions in turn:
Question 1 page 10.20 in the TEM Update supplement
First off, the TEM supplement in the errata is an early summary of the TEM material now present in the HPL textbook and serves as a primer for students with older copies of the textbook before TEM was included. The question you refer to has been changed since indeed a noisy, intoxicated passenger is an example of an external threat.
The question now reads:
Select the item which best describes an external threat
(a) pilot fatigue
(b) a pilot suffering from the effects of a hangover
(c) another aircraft entering the runway while you are on late final
(d) difficulty in understanding the transmission of a foreign pilot.
This is an example of knowing you CAAP 5.59. Time schedule pressures are explicitly listed as an example of a latent threat (CAAP 5.59 14.1.3). Latent threats are those threats that won't always cause an error but when they do, everyone is able to point at the latent threat and mutter wisely "Aha!".
Think of latent threats as accidents waiting to happen or threats hovering in the background waiting to catch the unwary. In this case, the pilot is feeling time pressure and 9 times out of 10 he will not commit an error. However, one day he does and everyone says "Aha! It is because you were rushing!".
Now, why was he rushing? Perhaps the schedules are too tight. In which case this latent threat of a rushing pilot is caused by the organisational threat of poor scheduling (CAAP 5.59 14.1.13).
Question 7 on page 10.27
The correct answer to this question is "(b) an external threat leading to a handling error". Answer option (a) is not correct since passengers are not environmental threats nor is there such a thing as a "configuration error". Errors are communication, handling or procedural.
You are not alone in your thoughts about TEM. It can be confusing at least at first and the current strong emphasis on TEM assessment in a theory context is perhaps a shot in the wrong direction. However, it is there now and won't be removed from the syllabus any time soon.
The problem is "common sense" is no where near as "common" as it used to be. TEM tries to get pilots to take a proactive approach to safety by giving them a framework of thinking and analysis. This would be most useful during flight planning and also the usual post-flight review at the aeroclub bar afterwards.
Who knows, maybe TEM will get more pilots thinking in a formal way about their flying to the point where perhaps what used to be common sense in the old days really will be "common" sense again.
Cheers,
Rich
