Competency Based Traing & Assessment

[Guest Roger]

This may have been a previous topic - if so I apologise....

 

In most industries or occupations instructors hold an appropriate nationally recognised qualification. In my line of work I need Certificate IV in Workplace Training & Assesment as a minimum (this will shortly be upgraded to the new Cert IV in Training and Assessment). This qual is pretty much the standard for anyone delivering commercial training in any form. I need to upgrade everytime the standard changes - this keeps me current as an Instructor. I would hate to count the number of hours I have put in keeping my delivery skills up to date (this is as opposed to the competency I am delivering).

 

Part of that qualification deals with assessment and gathering evidence to support the granting of a particular competency. A pivotal part of that process is that the person delivering the training should not be the assessor.

 

This is not hard to achieve especially in Flying Schools that have more then one instructor. For those single instructor schools I would be surprised if a neighbouring school would be more then 1 hours flying away.

 

So I suppose my two questions are this:

 

Why doesn't our syllabus follow the national guidelines of competency based training and assessment?

 

Why are the same instructors able to train and assess the same student?

 

I know the RAA is looking into the whole gambit of pilot training etc but I would be interested to hear some thoughts on this especially from our current instructors.

 

Roger

 

 

[Guest kylep]

Roger,

 

You may be surprised to know that the national qualification in training does NOT meet the RA Aus' requirement for the Principles and Methods of Instruction part of the instructor rating, but there is no set syllabus for the PMI course, so anyone can get their course approved and everyone will be doing something different.

 

Apparently the RA Aus is going to launch a new Competency based system at Narromine, it will be interesting to see.

 

But, the Cert 4 does not say the trainer cannot be the assesor, just that it is not recommended. The whole basis of competency based is to be assessed competent you either can or cannot meet the competencies, so i would think that if i train someone, i should be able to assess them with a simple yes/no tick sheet. I'm sure not going to let anyone fly away from my school if they are not up to scratch.

 

Another interesting little story, I recently completed training a new Instructor. The course i ran, i had to set, so there is no consistency in the training of instructors. Then, when i thought my trainee instructor was ready to be assessed, he was assessed by a 3 axis instructor, not weightshift. Granted, the 3 axis instructor can assess the trainee's abilty to get his point across, but he had no idea if it was the right point.

 

This is a good topic, i hope other people have some input, not just instructors but students too.

 

For those who have trained at more than one school, how do the standards vary.

 

Kyle

 

 

[Guest Roger]

Thanks for your reply Kyle - you raise some interesting points.

 

You did touch briefly on the point of working as the instructor and assessor on the same student. As you say in the absence of an independent assessor the instructor can act in that role. However this would be something I would work very hard to avoid in the interests of both the Instructor & the Student.

 

Let me say before I go on - I truly believe that no Flying Instructor would consciously let anyone fly if they didnt believe they were competent at the time.

 

Herein lies a potential problem.

 

If a crucial element or skill has been misinterpreted or "unlearned" by the instructor. If a certain competency isn't given the "weight" it should be. When it comes time to assess that student the Instructor who is now the Assessor cannot see any shortcoming in his student. Student is found competent and leaves carrying a potentially fatal shortfall in his training. An independent assessor would hopefully pick it up and correct it.

 

Nothing is perfect.....any more thoughts on this?

 

 

[Guest pelorus32]

This is a pretty interesting issue - about instructor standardisation. I know that Tony is concerned about this issue.

 

It should come as no surprise that even quite large professional organisations have difficulty in standardising key parts of their training organisation. Further there is often difference not only about the standard required for a particular competency but also about which competencies are important.

 

As I understand it there are some standardisation processes in place. If you design instructor training, not only is the training programme reviewed by RAAus but someone else examines at least the first two or three students through the programme. Just what Roger is suggesting. Albeit Kyle raises the issue of the relevance of the particular competencies exhibited by the external instructor.

 

Is anyone atttending Thursday at Narromine? It seems to be the instructors' day. I'd like to but can't get there.

 

Regards

 

Mike

 

 

[Guest kylep]

I hope more people get interested in this topic. I really would like to hear some comments on how standards vary between schools, we dont have to name names.

 

I plan to be at Narromine on thursday for the instructor forums, i hope as many instructors as possible get there to have their say.

 

Roger, you are right that i may overlook some competencies with a student or not relise they haven't actually learnt something. One thing we do in my school is send students with different instructors, but i can do this as i have 3 instructors in the school.

 

Mike, even though my instructor course is reviewed by the RA Aus, i didnt really have any guidelines to structure my course. And when i sent in course guide for review, it was only 6 pages long and i was told it was one of the most comprehensive ones they had recieved. When i used to work in Training and Assessment, 6 pages was what i usually needed for a 4 - 6 hour session, not a 50 hour course. I have since reviewed my course and am constantly updating it.

 

Something else to consider, once i have had my trainee instructor assessed, they can go and teach people so long as i supervise. But, the trainee instructor will not be a decent instructor until they have actually been teaching for at least 100 - 200 hours. I think that instead of having an instructor course which has to be completed, the course should be included in an apprenticeship type arrangement, where i teach the trainee how to teach say straight and level, then they go and try to teach someone else. If the student then learns from the trainee, then something must be going right.

 

More to come at the instructor forums.

 

Cheers

 

Kyle

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

I thinks theres some merit in Kyles concept of instructor training but also a snag. A lot of people do instruction part-time with a "proper" job to pay the bills. Unless there is a nearby school which offered on-going instructor training the only alternative is to do an intensive residential course away from home.

 

Its lamentable that every school doing instructor training has to work out its course. Whats worse IMO is that the existing syllabus for pilot training doesn't cover 10% (?) of RAA aircraft - trikes and powered parachutes. If you don't believe the current syllabus adequately covers the range of RAA 3-axis aircraft (from Thruster to Texan for example) then the situation is even worse. Whilst I applaud any attempt to improve pilot training, I think these are bigger issues than whether the person doing the training can also do the assessment.

 

Instructors do have a bi-annual assessment by a pilot-examiner which should catch any "mis-interpretation". And pilots obviously have a BFR also so there is a system of checks in place. AFAIK this model is used by aviation worldwide not just RAA.

 

I'm not sure how many schools do have more than 1 instructor - in these cases presumably CFI check flys the students trained by the other instructor anyway.

 

Re "For those single instructor schools I would be surprised if a neighbouring school would be more then 1 hours flying away" - an hour by Boeing or an hour by school aircraft (trike, drifter, powered parachute ?).

 

Unfortunately I'll not be at Natfly on Thurs - any idea if the notes from the instructor seminars will available electronically ?

 

John

 

 

[Guest Roger]

Its lamentable that every school doing instructor training has to work out its course. Instructors do have a bi-annual assessment by a pilot-examiner which should catch any "mis-interpretation".

 

And pilots obviously have a BFR also so there is a system of checks in place.

 

John

Hi John,

 

It great to see you "instructor types" are at least thinking about these issues.

 

I agree that having to work out your own course is not only lamentable but also leaves major gaps regarding validity, reliability, repeatable etc. Not only that but does your instructor training actually show you how to construct a training session, modules & course. (I am playing devils advocate here - dont burr up too much :confused:).

 

Granted a bi-annual review would hopefully catch any shortfalls but what happens in the meantime?

 

And to finish and this one I do have genuine concerns with. Once again in relation to the Instructor who did the initial training doing the BFR. This would be the case in the majority of country Australia and no doubt the most practical but do you think its making the best pilots?

 

I am just throwing a few things back into the ring here - dont string me up. I am really interested in seeing the instructional side of flying, particularly the ultralight scene, improve rather then stagnate on a model developed some time ago. It will be interesting to see how far the imminent release of CBT goes and how the ultralight community recieves it.

 

Manage change - Dont let change manage you!

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

I con only comment on the instructor training I received which I believe did equip me to plan a training session etc. I'm sure anybody who has read Tony Hayes' posts on this forum would not be surprised by that.

 

I can see some attraction in the BFR being with a different instructor - I've flown with a lot of different instructors over the years & I have learnt something from all of them (even if, in certain cases, it was what NOT to do). I fear it would be tough on a lot of pilots who don't have a convenient choice of schools & whether it would make better pilots is at least debatable - a big factor would be the quality of the instructor.

 

I did a lot of flying in the UK and I don't think there is much doubt that the training regime is more formal / defined / organised than here. It seems to me that the regime here allows the best instructors to exceed those in the UK but conversely the worse instructors here are significantly worse than any I encountered in the UK. And that is a big worry.

 

In the UK there are restrictions on how frequently an instructor rating can be renewed with the examiner who granted the rating. However the distances are such that this is not such an onerous restriction as it would be here. Interestingly there has been no requirement there for a BFR for non-instructor pilots - you simply have to produce your logbook to prove that you have flown sufficient hours that year (5 IIRC) and get an instructor to sign it off. The vast majority of pilots are also examined for their licence by the instructor who trained them. Despite this I believe the safety record there is significantly better than here. I guess this might suggest that quality initial training is far more critical than follow on appraisals - which brings us back to the quality of instructor training.

 

Weighing a pig more often doesn't make it any heavier !

 

Cheers

 

John

 

 

[Guest Coffee_high]

Apprentice Intsructor

 

I think that instead of having an instructor course which has to be completed, the course should be included in an apprenticeship type arrangement, where i teach the trainee how to teach say straight and level, then they go and try to teach someone else. If the student then learns from the trainee, then something must be going right.Kyle

G'day,

 

Just another insight

 

I'm a member of both the RAA and Hgfa for different reasons, and as Kyle has suggested above, am under an apprenticeship (HGFA apprentice instructor) that includes completing a standardized course with an instructor examiner. And have done what he pretty much describes, I was taught, then I conveyed my knowledge to a student, who was then assessed by the examiner. (This is a system within the HGFA to standardize instructor training). It will be interesting what approach the RAA is planning in the future.

 

Cheers

 

Rob

 

 

[slartibartfast]

Excellent topic Roger - I have nothing to add coz I'm a newbie.

 

However I would like to welcome Coffee_high to the forum.

 

I was intrigued, did a google, found your family's website and history. Dude, I am amazed by the size of the collective cohunas your family possesses. Welcome to the site and good luck with the coffee. Perhaps Ian can become a distributor of your coffee to contribute to the wakefulness of all aviators.

 

For other forum members, their site is here. Check the Jaques history link.

 

PS - sorry for the slight thread hijack. I've had a couple.

 

Ross

 

 

[Guest pelorus32]

I'd be interested to know how many people here trained in single instructor schools and/or trained only with a single instructor including their certificate and endorsement tests.

 

For me I trained at a single school but flew with 4 different instructors during the course of my training. Pretty well all of the basic competency development was done with instructors other than the CFI. Then towards the end I flew with him more and did my flight tests with him.

 

There were/are certainly differences between the instructors in their approach to competency development and in their personal view of how to tackle a particular issue. However there was a great deal of consistency in what was expected of you and how evolutions should be undertaken. I think that that is a good thing - everyone learns differently and therefore differences in training approach are positive. However you need consistency of the competencies that are being trained for.

 

I also found that the different instructor approaches were important for me at different stages of my training and so I tended to select on the basis of who I thought was good for me now. Nevertheless I still got a substantial number of hours with each of them. I would worry if I only ever flew with and was examined by a single instructor I think.

 

Does this mean bigger is better? Hmmmm...

 

What was the experience of others?

 

Regards

 

Mike

 

 

[Guest TOSGcentral]

Requested Feedback Pt 1 of 2

 

REQUESTED FEEDBACK PART 1 OF 2.

 

 

My apologies in advance! I am going to put my views forward – because it is a subject dear to my heart and I shall not spare my words. It is not a subject that can be written about on a postcard so you are in for another of my long ‘diatripes’. If your reading skills or interest are not up to it (tick one or both) then nick off and read the ‘funnies’!

 

 

I will have to split this into parts to get it on the forums so read the other bit(s) to get a fuller picture. As in most of my writing I will attempt to give you a ‘hands on’ feel rather than some pious opinion that has little relevance in the actual work face world that we have.

 

 

To kick off – Roger! You are preaching a counsel of excellence that has no place in the real world that is recreational flying as it presently stands! I am not bagging you mate – sincerely. I do not actually disagree with what you say and support most of it. But it is not going to work and there are good reasons for why that is so! So let us look at some realities!

 

 

One of your central points Roger is the training/assessment interface. Now this may be possible (and is certainly desireable) in a large, well appointed school on the outskirts of Melbourne etc. The reality is a great number of our schools are single owner operation, out of a tin shed in the middle of nowhere and miles from anywhere!

 

 

The other practicality is quite simply that there are not enough instructors! As an example Pilot Examiners that are active at any one time, and are normally restricted to about 12 in number across the country. Accessing their services can be time consuming and expensive if only because of the distance problem and they are busy anyway so expect you to go to them, not the other way around – although they sometimes have to travel to do certain tasks!

 

 

While CFIs and hand picked Senior Instructors can be used to share the endorsing and assessing functions, you also have to consider that they run their own schools and if they are adjacent then they are also in commercial competition. Some people find it difficult to be impartial in something like recreational aviation and can use it to point fingers along the lines of ‘he is having a go at me’ to someone doing exactly that! Naturally, when we climb on a high horse of standards we would refuse to accept that such things happen. Just the suspicion that they might can be unsettling to a fragile community.

 

 

Anyway let us take a look at one ‘patch’ of Pilot Examiners in SE Queensland as an example of the difficulties of independent assessment.

 

 

When I was active as a PE there were three of us. Myself, John McBride and Neil Cavenough and we shared out the work according to access distance. Neil was best value because he had closed his school and was a free-lance, impartial ‘roving agent’. Neil died though. Next up was Dave Cameron. I was instrumental in helping Dave get his PE appointment as we were desperately short in the area after Neil went.

 

 

We are always short because, for some reason, it seems to be AUF/RAAus unwritten policy that there should be only a few at any one time. All of those are appointed by the Board so you are looking at decisions on our top instructors being made politically by politically appointed people who have no automatic requirement to be technically competent in instructing – or anything else for that matter other than popularity or they were the ones to put their hands up! Such appointments should be nearly exclusively on the decision of the Operations Manager who should be hands on and filling needs around the ridges!

 

 

This puts considerable strain at the workface! I got on with Dave well. We did our own low level routine training/assessment combination in our own schools because that was the only practical way of making the system work. But when it came to instructor endorsement then we went for independent assessment between ourselves.

 

 

But Dave had to move from his airfield – pushed out by political resistance to the standards he was attempting to establish (just routine stuff but not actually what people want when it comes down to doing it) and then he also died.

 

 

His replacement was a a guy I had only endorsed as CFI the year before and in my opinion was far too short of experience for PE – but then I was never consulted, why should I have been? He suicided a while later. I do not know what has happened locally since – I had lost interest and resigned.

 

 

But my resignation was more over what I had experienced and I did not like it one bit! I cannot put the last grim parts in writing – it would be counter productive to a struggling movement. The following should suffice and put Roger’s observations in a context of reality.

 

 

I have been training instructors for over 30 years, have a broad experience base and have worked at senior or top level in the largest rec flying schools in the world. I have at least a passing grasp of what I am doing! But that experience worked against me rather than for me. I have no time for this ‘god’ image some of the experienced like so much and felt very keenly the need for independent assessment as I am just a human being. But I did not get it.

 

 

Time after time I took instructors through from starting then through upgrading to CFI – entirely through my hands alone! I wound up being asked to inspect or do initial approvals on their schools as well! I howled and lamented, wrote some very pointed emails – but if the system was to work then that was the only way it apparently could work. Even though there were other PEs adjacent that could have been called in or the candidates could be sent to. They were sent to me.

 

 

So what price independent assessment Roger? If we cannot do it at the top then as sure as sin we have no hope down the bottom - unless we indulge in some positive lateral thinking. But we will come to that because we have a way to go yet!

 

 

Now let us visit this Competency Based Training (CBT) for a bit and take a realistic look at that. What do you readers actually understand about it? It seems sensible and logical – but is it? Or is it just another flag waving exercise that will be destructive rather than enhancing? Here is some practical ‘hands on’ history.

 

 

I go back (indirectly) with CBT many years but I got a practical insight to it via Mike Valentine.

 

 

At the time Mike was GFA Director of Operations and would not miss any opportunity to enhance the gliding movement he was working for – if it was practical, because Mike was a very practical person! Mike was not looking at any enhancement to the training system itself – he had that firmly enough by the nuts – but he was looking at something else!

 

 

Our society is increasingly moving into a high degree of regimentation and ‘putting people in boxes’ via education and certification. You damn near need a university degree these days to empty a dustbin for a living and you need a course of training and a certificate to just wave a lollipop about to stop traffic at roadworks. We had a case of the latter at Watts Bridge.

 

 

We periodically closed a hardly used public road (just leads to a single small property) so the gliding club can get the full legal runway length for winch launching. We were stopped dead. The road must be manned at all times! Those manning it had to take the ‘lollipop course’! You can imagine the reaction! The gliding club have not been back for over a year! No flying for no really good reason other than two people standing out in the sun all day on the off chance a single car may come by!

 

 

CBT can be equated (in some respects) to Quality Assurance. If a business wanted contracts or to be ‘socially acceptable’ then they had to be QA endorsed. So sprang up a lucrative industry of what became approved trainers to do the training etc etc. I am not knocking QA or what it stood for, any more than I am knocking CBT and what it is intended for. What I am doing is pointing out that you can put people very firmly in boxes and restrict their activities, and the activities they represent, by the need for approvals!

 

 

This is what Mike V met. Gliding Instructors were becoming ‘non approved trainers’ as accreditation became the new buzz word. That did not prevent what they were doing but with CBT endorsement they could become also recognised ‘sporting coaches’. That would open up a lot of doors for grants and general acceptance etc. It had nothing to do with instructing per se – it had everything to do with current ‘social acceptability’!

 

 

So Mike went to a major early lecture on the subject. He fell asleep half way through and unfortunately Mike snored quite a bit! After the presentation the lecturer (a quite senior person) took him on one side and asked if it had all been that boring. Mike agreed that while it all made sense it was mainly non-relevant!

 

 

Mike pointed out that ALL of flying instruction was competency based and you did not need a maze of administration, forms and tick boxes to demonstrate that. It was the instructor’s core work! The flying training syllabus is designed such that nobody can progress beyond their competency level – it really is that simple! We are talking about putting an aircraft in the command hands of an individual for the first time ever in their lives and they have to be able to survive that.

 

 

I had an interesting experience where two would be flying instructors were steered my way. They were really solid guys and high up in fire, search and rescue. They had their approved government ‘trainers tickets’ and were so absolved from the 30 hour Principles and Methods of Instruction (PMI) part of instructor training. But they may have been good at their own work but did not have a clue about how to actually handle a student in a flying training exercise. That appeared not to matter, they just wanted to get on with it and me give them another ticket to do so. They did not survive more than three days with me I am afraid and one only survived two!

 

 

We are NOT talking about a course of training to make somebody job suitable or a business be market acceptable – so you stick in controls quality assurance for (basically) liability consequence reasons that somebody has been taught something and has understood it and themselves signs to say so! We are not looking at a maybe inferior employee or a less than excellent business – that sorts itself out relatively harmlessly and is self solving – instead we are looking right down the barrel of the cemetery if we are wrong! Nothing sorts that out other than ingrained instructor natural competency! No piece of paper will do that – it is understanding, ability and consistency! It always has been and always will be – that is flying!

 

 

(Continued in Part 2)

 

 

 

[Guest TOSGcentral]

Rquested Feedback Part 2 of 2.

 

REQUESTED FEEDBACK PART 2 OF 2.

 

 

(Continued from Part 1)

 

 

Flying instruction is primarily a skill area with a huge back up of required knowledge. Our system, traditionally and currently, applies a huge dividing line of neglect between the two! Go take your BAK exam (all 50 vote for Joe questions) meantime ‘learn to fly’. No required bridge between the two! No requirement for demonstrated competence on that interface in the air. No effective requirement to training of it for instructors that all this high flown ‘administrative’ stuff is not going to fix, not even a nationally required full coverage of syllabi in our own movement! What do you base CBT upon? How can you?

 

 

I personally took a look at the CBT training schedule several years ago, I had need to. I was just embarking on a series of plain language training manuals for recreational flying – a different approach to the subject but more effective. Through the mail and magazine I got the grand announcement that AUF/RAAus was going CBT forthwith – this was the new order. But there was nothing else! Neither has there been anything else since. No supporting literature, no even proposed training courses, not even an indication for anyone on how to do it! You can do that sort of crap in a system based on ‘member responsibility’ and leave them responsible for finding out how. You cannot do that in any responsible flying training organisation that I have ever been involved with before I got into this one!

 

 

But I tried to find out how – just what was the definition of CBT and what the instructor would have to deal with. AUF/RAAus did not know and referred me to CASA. I spent the rest of the day on endless phone calls. To cut it short it amounted to this. Yes CASA had introduced CBT but had only a few modules prepared. No, there was nothing for ultralight training and unlikely to be so for some time.

 

 

They did give me some web site references for CBT itself but I would just be inventing the application myself independently. They said I could not do that as specific wording was required which needed an expert, then it would need approving and there was no mechanism to do that! So my manuals are still not written yet – but when they are CBT will not be part of them in that sense but actual CBT most certainly will be.

 

 

So that was just yet another flag waving exhibit of political crap that has since gone nowhere and everything went quiet. Just as the time a few years ago when we got a bad rash of fatals. That produced an importance from the office and the CFIs & PEs got circulars about an ‘Advanced Pilot Badge†what is your input etc! Nothing happened. Of more importance was a circular about Biennial Flight Reviews and what should happen – with a lot of good responses. Nothing happened except flag waving ‘we are doing something’! We bloody did nothing except a bit of admin!

 

 

Now we have CBT again at Narromine. I will not be there. I have better things to do with my time than listen to a bunch of idealistic crap being floated for political reasons – that cannot succeed for very obvious lack of foundation reasons. You CANNOT have CBT unless you have something to measure it against!

 

 

But you can if you are just reinforcing a ‘member responsibility’ requirement and leaving it to the members to sort out – or hang if found guilty! With lack of comprehensive flying training and instructor training syllabi accepted at national level it will just get more chaotic. Worse, it will close down schools. So let us look briefly at that angle.

 

 

Like it or not Sportsfans we are in a movement in which individuals (mainly) will not keep aircraft log books at all, often will not keep their personal flying log books, schools have grave difficulty in keeping decent written student records, and a lot do not use the lecture facilities that they have to have and that are mandatory to have!

 

 

Do you seriously believe such people are going to willingly embrace an intensive and detailed written recording system that CBT brings with it! Or use it? The small school operator operates on a shoe string. A few hours of extra unpaid pure admin per day will not close them down – they will simply walk away from it – just as they did when the movement ‘evolved’ and started getting into the low end of GA along with the insurance requirements that went with it. Unfortunately that stuffed insurance for all of ultralighting and schools closed down wholesale!

 

 

So we get closer to the actual reality. I am not knocking CBT per se – but new systems should fit into and enhance what they are grafted to – not what they are being grafted to simply having to automatically embrace the new system ‘because they have to’!

 

 

So step back a bit and view CBT in the perspective of our movement. Is it going to give us gain, or is it going to push us yet further backwards by overloading?

 

 

Step back a bit further and look again. What is our movement for? CBT represents what is effectively just an administrative burden on schools that the only people likely to look close at are solicitors in a litigation case!

 

 

It also represents the antithesis of what this movement was created for – freedom, low costs - all what so many present readers were attracted to. Instead we are looking at an intensively paper orientated administrative nightmare for many small schools whose instructors would be better employed concentrating on their real instructional jobs without further requirements and distraction.

 

 

So let us go yet another step further – standardisation. For CBT to work we have to have some degree of standarisation across the schools.

 

 

This is totally impossible while we still have huge chunks (even total) of basic flying training syllabi missing from so many of the areas that that RAAus is presuming to take ‘responsibility’ for. That is not a ‘rant’ on my part – go look it up!

 

 

The one thing we most definitely should have is something in Group A tri axis on systems that the ‘controllers’ have done so much to attract members to but done absolutely nothing about providing any training mandates for (retracting undercarriage. Flaps, variable pitch, mixture etc).

 

 

So what about ‘Standardisation’? Bit of a curly one here. There is a big distinction between WHAT we have to teach and HOW we have to teach it! Hence my total contempt for the current CBT proposal!

 

 

Until we have comprehensively defined training syllabi across the board that instructors are able to work to; until we have standardised instructor training that is mandatory as well as practical; until we have a movement prepared to take at least some responsibility for it’s standards instead of dumping them on their uneducated and untrained membership (in too many cases but certainly not all) – then what possible base do you feel CBT has any valid base to exist upon?

 

 

So I am afraid Roger that while I support your ethics fully, and in no way diminish your obvious training expertise and intent – in practical terms they do not agree with my own views! There can be no independent assessment in our present movement, there is no standardisation or anything really that standarisation can yet be built on; and CBT cannot responsibly exist in that particular environment – other than to just shovel more responsibility back onto the members.

 

 

I am going to cease here but I will follow up shortly with something more positive. CBT may eventually have a place (I seriously doubt it in recreational flying) but a lot of the foundations that CBT needs to rest on can be had – and not with a great deal of difficulty for most of us – but a helluva lot of difficulty for our ‘controllers’!

 

 

PS. For anyone who wishes to leap in and say if I feel that strongly about it then why do I not do something about it – I have a response. Been there and done that, and failed. 42 years in rec aviation, over 30 years teaching instructors, working at every work face at just about any level, held the highest appointments (or very nearly), been on the Board, tried to contact Board members via their usual invite of a ‘democratically run movement’ and soon ran into total silence very quickly; watched while the AUF Chat forum was closed down overnight to silence members and undertakings made to inform members were soon discarded, watched while this movement was prostituted without the members consent or knowledge, watched while obvious opportunities (particularly time) were squandered on an image and not a standard!

 

 

You want to criticise my words then go for it – but please do your homework first and respond in practical terms that exist rather than ethical terms we wished existed.

 

 

Aye

 

 

Tony

 

 

 

[Guest TOSGcentral]

Addendum

 

Woops! I have just started writing a paper for this forum that dwells less on what is wrong but rather how we can make things much better.

 

During the course of this I realised that this thread has so far been almost exclusively on flying instruction. I must state that I put equal, or more, import on Airworthiness Training. So please read my comments above as applicable to that area as well - with the notable challenge that most of those comments are non valid as we have NO airworthiness training system to build anything upon.

 

So be assured that I shall be addressing that area.

 

Aye

 

Tony

 

 

[Guest Juliette Lima]

I usually tend to put off reading Tony's offerings until time permits....for the very reason he suggests....they are far removed from the funnies, but mostly spot on.

 

"Lucrative industry associated with QA",... and now CBT.

 

"Maze of forms and tick boxes"

 

"Administrative burden"

 

"Backwards by overloading"

 

I have a team of great staff that I have gathered over the years... average term of employment for the 20 or so employees, is around 15 years.

 

Not many degrees amongst this lot, in fact none.

 

These guys are dedicated, skilled, committed and giving.....much like the array of instructors I have tormented over the years of gliding and recreational flying.

 

A few years ago we had QA thrust upon us.....and now the more fashionable CBT.

 

We are not quite in the situation of "cemetry if we are wrong", however the whole process has been the single biggest threat to our survival....due entirely to the mountains of useless paperwork that continues to annually gather dust.

 

Out of respect for their practical skills and learned abilities, I have generally shielded my staff from the excesses of the whole process, and have learned some neat survival tricks to meet my annual paperwork requirements.

 

Tony, although my fying experiences are limited, I concur with your sentiments as they translate to my situation. Thank you for having what it takes to call a spade a spade.

 

As for the length of your presentations, all I can say is thank you for your article on airmanship (RAAus website)....essential reading. I refer to it often....and your recent worthy contributions on pre and inflight checks (Pacific Flyer). Incidently, the stories have terrific practical impact and are a great way of learning.

 

I wonder if Ian Mc Phee would survive CBT.

 

Kind Regards

 

John Leddy

 

 

[Guest Roger]

Yep - I have to agree CBT is not the "end all" solution to instructional methods. The paperwork is definitely a nightmare thats for sure.....

 

....but, there's always a but, are there some things we can adapt from those mainstream systems to make better/safer pilots whilst not burdening our training schools?

 

There is obviously mountains of experience and ideas out there amoungst you guys. Maybe this is a chance to put your best thought foward?

 

"Rome wasnt built in a day!"

 

Roger

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

"Thank you for having what it takes to call a spade a spade"

 

Hear Hear !

 

John

 

 

[Guest TOSGcentral]

Indeed Roger, we can and should take the best from what is around us for our own purposes and member safety.

 

 

But perhaps, as a now 23 year old organisation, we should have the maturity to take what is suitable to our specific needs as an enhancement to our objectives – not an anchor to drag us back? Also the wisdom to put in place the means to get what we ourselves need!

 

 

Perhaps also we should have the technical excellence to demonstrate that what we put in place is sound and worthy of recognition and accreditation other than blindly following a generic ‘broad brush’ of requirement that may equally be applied to teaching somebody to paint a door or mend a shoe!

 

 

Tony

 

 

 

[Guest kylep]

Tony,

 

Interesting points you raised. I am going to read it again when i've got 5 minutes and after the seminars at Narromine this arvo.

 

One comment thought, the burden of paper work is already upon us if we do everything the RAA wants us to do.

 

For example, a TIF flight:-

 

1. Temporary Membership form

 

2. Indemnity Form

 

3. Student Membership form

 

4. Student records, not the same at each school but a record of where the student is up to

 

5. Student comments, this one is so the next instructor can no want is not going right for the student

 

6. Student Log Book

 

7. Instructor Log Book

 

8. School Log Book

 

9. Aircraft Log Book

 

9 different bits of paper, most of which collecting the same info more than once. For a lesson after the TIF there is still 6 bits of paper!!!!!

 

Will report back after Narromine.

 

Kyle

 

 

[poteroo]

Competency Based Training

 

CBT, and it's education equivalent of Outcomes Based Education,(OBE), are systems designed to produce a paper trail which can then be audited as part of the expanding compliance industry. Compliance is, of course, about protecting bums, and shedding responsibility. It has already created hours more paperwork for every GA AOC holder, for no discernable improvement in aviation skills. QA is another ill-conceived system designed to produce a paper trail, at great cost to industry, and usually for no premium on the product.

 

Clever 'learning' systems, paper trails, auditing, compliance, and liability concerns are all direct costs. As such, they reduce our efficiency and competitiveness.

 

Our bureaucracies are placing greater value on the process, rather than the result. (Heaven forbid that I use the dreaded outcome word!)

 

A pox on them all !!

 

But, the PC diseases are pervasive. They are already invading all fields of aviation.

 

To talk of CBT being good for aviation, when at the same time placing arbitary hours limitations upon licences and certificates, is inconsistent and hypocritical. If a student or pilot meets the skill levels - why then should they still have to meet a minimum hours figure? This is an artificial barrier, and has no role in a truly CBT system. We complain about the same principle being applied by a country like Japan,or the EU, where it's used to keep competition out of their marketplace - but overlook our own artifices.

 

A classic example is the 5 hours minimum for conversion from GA to RAAus. If this was done on skills alone, ie, using CBT, then many pilots should be through in an hour. Whats different when you change the rego numbers on the side of an aircraft?

 

Another example,somewhat parallel to the above, could well be the conversion of GA instructors over to RAAus. Is it about proven instructing competency or whether the hours were in GA or RAAus registered aircraft? The principles remain the same.

 

CASA have been talking up Reg 103 as being simple rules for simple aircraft - but will they really oversee this principle right through the industry? More to the point, perhaps, is whether the industry really wants to hold to a sensible 'KISS' principle, or will we be diverted into meaningless paperchases?

 

We need to be careful not to overcomplicate things in the training of RAAus pilots. Lets learn from the experience of GA. After all, that's why RAAus is being overwhelmed by student and pilot numbers.

 

In conclusion, I found a lot to agree with in Tony's posts.

 

poteroo

 

 

[Yenn]

This demonstrates what a poor country Australia has become. We used to be able to get on with the job and achieve a good outcome without all the bull****. Now we have to have a piece of paper to let us do anything and the controlling bodies spend vast amounts of time and effort changing things.

 

They work on the principle that change is inevitable but progress is optional.

 

 

[Guest Roger]

Yep - I have to agree CBT is not the "end all" solution to instructional methods. The paperwork is definitely a nightmare thats for sure.........but, there's always a but, are there some things we can adapt from those mainstream systems to make better/safer pilots whilst not burdening our training schools?

 

There is obviously mountains of experience and ideas out there amoungst you guys. Maybe this is a chance to put your best thought foward?"

Ok guys...At the risk of pushin' your buttons.....(read this will fire em' up )

 

How can the current sytem be improved. You have all spoken of problems without offering solutions!

 

Did the Narromine enlightenment on the future direction of training sound workable?

 

\\me sits back & waits for next round of flaming to commence...;) and no I am not an agitator.

 

 

[facthunter]

CBT etc

 

I have read all the above several times, and am in furious agreement with the thrust of it.

 

10 days have elapsed since the last post here & this subject is not exhausted by a long shot.

 

With the passing of the Instructor seminars at Narromine,surely some of the above concerns were raised.

 

As I was unable to attend Narromine, could at least one person familiar with these forums, who did attend, provide some info.

 

Some time back Tony(TOSG) suggested that as only a small percentage of us can (or do) go to Narromine. that some method of making this information available more widely should be structured... Comments anyone?

 

Regards ..Nev..

 

 

[Guest brentc]

The same problem(s) must also apply to GA also where it possible to do your entire syllabus with the CFI who also holds ATO approvals and can do your test. I did it that way and I'm sure many others have.

 

 

[poteroo]

I'm with Facthunter in regards to seeing a report on what happened re proposed instructing changes at Narromine.

 

My question is...... 'will CBT,or any other changes to the RAA training syllabus, really improve safety outcomes?'

 

cheers,