Competency Based Traing & Assessment

[Guest TOSGcentral]

Potteroo. I do not seriously believe CBT will change anything and could push things the other way by just giving instructors more crud paperwork to do! But your question was in two parts!

 

The second part asked if any changes to the RAA syllabus would improve things and that would most certainly make a positive and immediate impact on flight safety!

 

There are some of us who would just like to have a syllabus at all! The majority of us would do better with a syllabus that is relevant to what we have to do! But the big weak link is we have no standardised instructor training at all and that kicks the props from under everything! If we do not have that then we have no foundation to develop on.

 

Where I have been convinced that Recreational Aviaton has missed the boat is that it failed to realise that we have a totally different student market to what traditional flying instruction was built on and we so willingly inhertited.

 

We need different, competent but simplified expression and good quality exercise management that turns the flying training syllabus from a stepping stone path of isolated exercises into an interlinked and smooth progression which the average guy in the street can relate to!

 

We simply have to have more effective methods of bridging the gap between knowledge and practical application of that knowledge in the formation of skills. From that we can forge a valid safety consious culture. I worked it out over 30 years ago at both ab-initio and instructor training levels. But nobody was interested, except the people I taught and they were eager enough for it!

 

Rodger also put out a challenge - what ideas on how to make things better instead of saying what is, or may be, wrong.

 

There are answers but to get the safety culture you need the environment for it and we simply do not have that. I am working up what is becoming a massive paper on how we could do it founded on a lot of what we already have - providing we can get some change in control management thinking about this movement.

 

That will be posted here in due course. But there is no simple "snap your fingers and get a new safety culture". It is a most worthwhile desire but getting it is a little involved.

 

Aye

 

Tony

 

 

[Guest brentc]

I have views on safety, however I don't know that CBT will help out and make things safer. Take a look at what type of accidents we are having and think about whether it will help (particularly fatal ones).

 

How do you stop the following / how will it adress the following?

 

- Pressing on through bad weather in your rag and tube and ending up in cloud then crashing into trees?

 

- Leaving your radiator cap off and and ceasing your engine causing you to crash?

 

- Crashing into trees when your engine fails?

 

- Overloading your aircraft with 50 kilos of luggage in the rear and crashing because your C of G was way out?

 

Isn't it the 250+ hour pilots that are the problem that have been flying for years?

 

It's a safety culture, I do agree with that.

 

 

[Guest Roger]

I am glad that this still holds interest for some of us....

 

Tony I would love to see the suggestions you have but more importantly your experiences in putting them into practice. Because of the huge variance in what is an "average" adult student, a good instructor/trainer needs a multitude of weapons at his disposal.

 

I am always interested to see and hear the experiences of others no matter what they are training. I always manage to find something that I can add to my instructors toolbox.

 

Just to clear a point here so there are no misunderstandings - I am not a flying instructor of any sort ;). My field of expertise/instruction is in firefighting, in particular aggressive structural firefighting (Compartment Firefighting). No doubt there are some parallels that can be drawn especially in the consequences area.

 

I am also with Nev & Poteroo and would like to know what was said at Narromine. Perhaps Techman could enlighten us?

 

 

[Yenn]

I have just looked at the ASFA website and read the info about GPPP.

 

Isn't it wonderful we have to have all these acronyms instead of writing it all out in full which is so easy on a computer.

 

We have to be able to remember what all the acronyms mean and in aviation that amounts to a vast number. Of course this could never lead to any misunderstanding or a safety problem.

 

It seems we will all have to undergo ASFA training to retain or get our flying permits.I have seen this training used in industry and full day sessions on decision making and what if scenarios, only to see it all fall apart because the experts didn't think properly.

 

I was under the impression that pilot training was a competency based procedure as it exists now.

 

A lot of the GPPP syllabus will have been done by a lot of current pilots as it has been around for years. I have done most of it with the State Emergency Service and the bull**** it brought into the SES was the reason I dropped out.

 

From my experience if you do the course they will take the money and you will pass. It is practically impossible to fail as I have proved with 2 separate safety induction courses and a first aid course. If you fail the questions they will say you really know it and are having a bad day or being awkward, and you will get a pass.

 

It will be interesting to see how many of the instructors can demonstrate a history of safe flying and good decision making.

 

 

[Guest pelorus32]

Ian,

 

I never knew you were such a cynic:cool:. I was pretty shocked when I went to the ASFA website as well. But leaving aside the "vehicle" it is human factors that are killing us.

 

If you think about the major causes of fatal accidents and serious accidents it is not generally the aircraft, rather it is the mug driving it. I can't recall many instances of structural failure as causes for instance but I can certainly recall poor decision making causes.

 

Putting it bluntly one of two things will cause us to have serious problems. First because of our demographic some of us will have heart attacks whilst flying. And whilst we are on this subject let's not get onto medicals. Many sudden heart attacks wouldn't have been predicted anyway.

 

The other thing that will cause serious problems is us again: we will make a mistake or a series of mistakes and we will end up in the crap. Generally you don't cause yourself serious problems with one mistake it's when the string of mistakes comes together that it affects you.

 

CRM/Human Factors has demonstrably improved safety outcomes in aviation. No arguments, no question. Just reading the accident reports on large aircraft accidents you will find Human Factors as strong features very often. As examples Lockhart River, QF1, the Singapore tailstrike in Auckland a couple of years ago (read that one), and almost certainly the current Garuda one, just to name a few.

 

So we can sit here and say, yeah that's the heavies - complex ops, multi-crew, structured environment - what's that got to do with me having fun on Saturday?

 

The answer is: Everything! The same sorts of operational failures cause us grief. It's just that the approach to CRM/HF needs to be modified to accommodate the single pilot/simple ops/less structured environment.

 

In my mind CRM/HF is long overdue for us. The acid test will be the effectiveness with which it is rolled out to us.

 

But I can do something about it for me today. Classic example: I test flew a CT at the Shepparton during the Try and Fly day. As we got buckled in Leo, the distributor and a Singapore A340 captain, gave a great little briefing. It was solely focused on what he expected of me in terms of aircraft operation and threat reporting given the very busy and slightly chaotic circuit situation. That briefing took less than 30 seconds but it was really important in setting expectations and parameters given that we had never flown together before and that the traffic was busy. Also it was low key and a natural part of doing business for him. CRM in action.

 

Sorry for the length - sleepless in Melbourne:confused:

 

Regards

 

Mike

 

 

[Guest kylep]

Well i was at the instructor forums at Narromine. All i can say is i was really dissapointed.

 

The first session on the new Syllabus was good. It is good to hear that soon, whenever that may be, we will actually have a syllabus. As Tony said, any syllabus would be great, the current one still refers to MBZ's - how long ago did they go out of existance.

 

I was dissapointed however that the new syllabus is at this stage only related to 3 axis aircraft. I know there may be some people that wont agree, but arn't the principle of flight and air law all exactly the same. What is now going to happen is there will be another syllabus for trikes and this is going to be written by someone without much experience in trikes.

 

I also sat in on the "Ethics for Instructors" forum. What a waste of time and effort, the effort put into this session should have been put into making the new syllabus and ops manual a reality. If i was sitting in a boardroom at BHP getting a lesson on not bullying my peers i could understand this session, but to give it to a bunch of instructors who are running their own business - what a waste. If people are not happy with their instructors then they will leave.

 

I missed the rest of the forums, i understand Dr Carols lesson on breaking down the barriers was pretty good, i have worked with Dr C and she has some good ideas - including making sure your students are fed Breakfast so they can achieve their best.

 

So what can be done to improve the situation:-

 

1. Standardise instructor training - all instructors should be beating the same drum - not matter what you fly, including GA. We all share the same airspace.

 

2. A dynamic syllabus which is up to date and can change quickly when rules and regs change. Not two years and still waiting!!

 

3. A simpler approach to the paperwork, in my earlier post i outlined how much we have to do now, this needs to be reduced so instructors can get on with it.

 

4. More help for schools setting up, at the moment if you want to start a school it is very hard to get the actual information about what you need to do it. It should be a simple checklist that is available to everyone.

 

5. More examples of what instructors should be doing. Most instructors dont really get around to other schools to see what is going on. When our Ops Managers goes around to the schools and finds something that is really good, he should publish an example of it so all schools / students can see the good stuff.

 

6. Perhaps CFI forums. This used to be done with the HGFA. Maybe even make the narromine instructor forums more focused on the CFI's and people running their schools rather than every joe blow who wants to be there. Get the CFI's alone, smaller group and encourage input, rather than the big bad teacher waving a stick out the front.

 

So, onto Human Factors. I have been teaching HUman Factors stuff since before we came over from the HGFA. I think it is a very important part of flying, as Brentc and Mike said, it is human factors that are killing our pilots - more importantly - BAD DECISION MAKING.

 

The only problem with the GPPP course is it has not been taylored to RA Aus, so most people will not show any interest in it and just pass the course to keep the license. What we need is someone to design the course and present it in a way that actually gets through to people and sticks. I cant remember the guys name that taught me, but his catch phrase was "remember the cherries". This is referring to accident being like a poker machine, one cherry doesn't win you the jackpot, but when they all line up you've won the jackpot, unfortunately.

 

Kyle

 

 

[facthunter]

Human Factors.

 

I thank you,contributors, for the candidness of your contributions & your thoughtfullness. There is a lot in this material. Human factors (perhaps we could call it misguided motivation ) is very relevant in many accidents. Let us hope that we deal with it in an appropriate way, as no doubt it is upon us. It needs to be absorbed and not just an accreditation. Often those who need it the most will get the least out of it. Keep it going Nev...

 

 

[pylon500]

OK, I've looked at bits of this thread in passing and thought 'I must read this fully to see if it requires additional comment' before I go on to start a thread on GPPP.

 

WOW, there is a lot in this and to the untrained eye it probably appears as a lot of discussion between the odd instructor here and there.

 

How far from the truth!!?

 

First off I should lay out my background for relevance.

 

I think I would have to say my familiarity with aviation is almost complete, My father was a competitive model flyer as well as a gliding instructor while working in maintainance for Ansett after being in the RAAF.

 

I started flying models as a kid, joined the Air Cadets, learnt to fly gliders, joined the RAAF as a tradesman, taught myself how to fly hang-gliders (and survived, just) left the RAAF to build ultralights (Vampires), then worked for 19 years with a GA maintainance facility under the ever increasing complexity of complying with CASA's ass protecting systems.

 

I also joined a local ultralight club about 19 years ago and worked up to Senior Instructor.

 

I may only have about 1,800 hours in ultralights, not much by GA standards after 19 years but it's nearly all instructional time bashing circuits in a taildragger.

 

I've also flown around 40 something different types of ultralights, but that's not so relevant from an instructors point of view.

 

As mentioned earlier in the thread, we are in fact implementing a form of CBT in what we do, our students do not progress until they show competency in what they've been taught so far.

 

We (instructors) will however approach some of the training from different angles depending on what we learnt originally, and/or how we perceive the students understanding and grasp of what we've taught so far.

 

I agree a standard syllabus would be good, but it should only be as a reference to make sure we don't miss anything.

 

Any rigid syllabus tends to become a 'rote' system which smacks of being a "Because I say so" system instead of a "Well this happens because..." system.

 

I may have a slightly different feel for instructing as I only teach on weekends to students who are basically coming out to learn how to fly for fun.

 

I've had students that wanted to do a week course and learn quickly (sorry, couldn't really help.., GA pilots that thought they could get ticked off as ultralight pilots, only to find I had to almost go back to basics about how to fly straight!! (but they could talk on the radio real good), and the odd person that I've eventually had to tell "Maybe you should take up golf?".

 

That aside, I find that I teach each student slightly different in an attempt to customise my training to suit their particular abilities or problems.

 

This is where being an instructor is a personality and communication ability as much as a flying ability.

 

To that end, (and I've mentioned this elsewhere) I am suprised by the amount of actual in flight training that is required to achieve an instructors rating?

 

To become a flying instructor, ones' abilty to fly should almost be a 'given', and this will only come with experience, so I have no problems with saying that to become an instructor you should first have lots of hours, say at least 100 plus.

 

As for the PMI bit, this becomes hard to qualify...

 

Spending 20 hours of face to face lecturing with a Senior Instructor or CFI ties all these people up from flying or means they have to create time in their non flying live's.

 

I feel the creation of Instructors should be done the way it was when I was flying with the GFA in that a capable solo pilot was 'selected' to become an instructor, and sent through an instructors course, which back then was about a three day deal.

 

Many may think I've lost the plot here but I'm basing this on seeing the amount of time and effort, to say nothing of flying cost, that's being expended on trying to approve three of our club members up to instructor level.

 

One's a GA instructor already, one's a teacher with a good amount of ultralight flying and the other has similar amounts of flying but also has the ability to sell ice to Eskimo's, meaning he has the ability to communicate.

 

Trying to achieve their 20 hours flying, with another instructor! and get together with the CFI enough so he doesn't have to do 60 hours of lectures, ha smeant it's taken nearly a year for these guys to get close to becominig instructors!

 

The irony here is that any instructor will tell you, "As a beginner instructor, you will learn more in the first 5 hours with your first student than any course or previous flying you have ever done!

 

OK, on to GPPP (is it really that late!!?).

 

When first invited to do the General Pilot Proficiency Program at RAAus headquarters, I mistakenly thought it was going to be a dicussion forum about creating a Pilot Proficiency rating to add to our ultralight certificates like aerobatics, racing, gliding and formation work.

 

It turned out to be a course on 'How to teach people common sence, and make money at it!'

 

After completeing this 'non' course, I was annoyed at the whole scheme of it, but thought, 'We ultralight people are real flyers, and will see this scam for what it is', and tell the guy peddling it; "Don't call us, we'll call you."

 

Examples of this sort of thing can be found in lots of goverment bureaucracies, private individuals and even companies that will create a system with a name or set of letters that smacks of a government department, and then foist themselves on the unwitting public, or better yet, small isolated pockets of individuals, as something that they must have or subscribe to, to continue operating.

 

Grab the number one catchcry 'SAFETY' and not many will question it's legitimacy!

 

Now I hear this is to become a part of our training syllabus!

 

Is the RAAus going to supply a modified version (for copyright reasons) within the Operations Manual as a reference without testing, or are they expecting everyone to buy the training material and pay the $100 ~$200 for the course every two years?

 

The whole course is based on common sense and filled with 'damned if you do and damned if you dont' scenarios that guilt trip you into thinking 'there for the grace of god go I'.

 

I think this is the sort of learning we do when reading well detailed 'crash comics'.

 

Back in the 70's CASA (then DCA) put out their Aviation Safety magazine which was well detailed and graphic, leaving out only the names and rego's.

 

Some may say this is Shock learning, but hey, if it works.....

 

I read somewhere that we should get to see more final reports on serious and fatal crashes, but it was suggested that they only be included as a supplement in members copies of the 'Recreational Flyer' and not in the news stand copies.

 

Sorry if any of this offends, defames or bores, I'm trying to get this all out at once and it's well past my bed time!!

 

Arthur.

 

 

[poteroo]

It's evident from the recent postings that we all have concerns about where RAAus is heading in regards to instructing and 'make-believe' qualifications surrounding 'safety'.

 

The Dangerous Goods Certificate in GA is a good example of a rip-off course which changes little from year to year.

 

In GA, it's now more important to know the procedures for obtaining a clearance, than it is to fly the aircraft in balance. It's 'important' to read off a 20 item pre-landing checklist - when 5 is adequate.

 

Another case of book learning. It's bleedingly obvious that this trend isn't turning out as good PPL's as it used to - but, it fits into the training approach for the instrument flying environment of CHTR and RPT ops - which is where all the instructors aspire.

 

We are really losing the plot if we follow GA - believe me, the paperwork is awful, and the students' costs are continuing to blow-out. At over $200 per hour, plus other 'tack-on' costs such as ASA charges and landing charges - you now need $around $12,000 for a PPL. That's primarily why RAAus is being overwhelmed with business, which unfortunately, it can't cope with because there are not enough flying schools or instructors.

 

We musn't allow RAAus to follow GA by making it all toooo hard !!

 

As a newcomer to RAAus, my observations probably need to be taken with a pinch of salt. I hope we're able to stem the bureaucratic tide which seems to befall all who inhabit Canberra..... must be the water, or maybe the altitude ??

 

cheers,

 

 

[hihosland]

No acronym

 

paperwork

 

nor regulation

 

will ever replace common sense, respect and responsibility

 

Davidh

 

 

[Yenn]

Has anyone had a look at the CASA Instructors Manual.

 

As a fully paid up cynic / realist I think it should do what is necessary, rather than another load of Bull.

 

 

[facthunter]

Training.

 

Ian, I've seen worse documents than the CASA flight instructor manual ( I feel a little uncomfortable talking like this,as I'm usually the prime cynic ). I would use it as a GUIDE, and I think it presents as such. I haven't gone over it with a fine tooth-comb, but I can't remember any glaring errors. I wouldn't want to discourage anyone from using it as PART of their baseline approach to instructing.

 

I find any well prepared material on this subject extremely interesting and I have been fortunate at times to get access to some very early data on flying techniques pre-dating the first world war, SOME of which still has relevence. A Demoiselle is not much different to a thruster. A good Flying Training Manual From the mid-30's, would only be deficient in the high power/low inertia, low weight coverage, essentially. Some things don't change as much as we sometimes think they do. Regards ..Nev....

 

 

[Guest Juliette Lima]

The CASA flight instructor manual has been around forever and was the document used to successfully train more than ten thousand allied world war two pilots in Canada....About two years ago it was reviewed by a skilled local panel, marginally overhauled, and a draft made available to all instructors in Australia.

 

RAAus publicised its availability and presumably communicated with all instructors acordingly.

 

To those who have not seen it, there are a complete set of air excerises from start to finished accompanied by airmanship guidelines, fault correction, student guidlines etc.

 

It is a no nonsense thorough document.....it must be, it, in various formats, has been the instructor's bible forever.

 

Last week I had my BFR and had the good fortune to fly with a GREAT RAA instructor.....Keith Mc Gechie from Lake Macquarie.....wow, how much I've overlooked, incorrectly re-learned or taken for granted in such a short period, and how patiently Keith refreshed me and corrected my errors. After the BFR I 'dug up' the CASA flight instructor manual and scoured the excersises Keith had given me to look up some finer points.....sure enough, there it all was.....no more forgetting for me.

 

A huge THANK YOU to all dedicated instructors like those who have posted in this discussion.....I hope the KISS principle prevails for you.

 

PS. For what Keith charged for three hours of his valuable time, I can only conclude that he, and many like him, are not in the instructing game to make a heap of money.

 

Cheers JL

 

 

[Guest Juliette Lima]

A footnote on the foregoing post...

 

'The flying training manual was the bible of the Empire Air Training Scheme of WW2 which trained some 37500 Australians,New Zealanders, Canadians,and Rhodesians......That publication was the basis of the Australian Instructors Manual- Publication 45, which served the flight training industry from 1967 until 2005'

 

I'm unaware if the 2005 draft has been finalised ??

 

JL

 

 

[facthunter]

CASA. Flight Instructor Manual

 

The document I downloaded is dated December 2006. I believe it is the final document.

 

The service Instructor manual to which you refer was called AP.1732.a which I used in the early 60's.as the standard training manual. I think the AP stands for Air Patter.

 

It was eventually replaced by the DCA. Pub. 45.....N.....

 

 

[poteroo]

Agree with all the above postings on the CASA Flight Instructors Manual. I've usually given it a read before every Review I've done over many years, and it's helped me emphasise the important points.

 

Of course, all of the above discussions beg the question - what's really different between GA and RAAus instructing, (in 3-axis higher performance types)?. As an example.....Cessna 150/152 compared to Jabiru 160,or similar.

 

The US and UK both allow GA ratings to cover all other,(LSA,Microlight), flying in comparable types. Obviously, very different types such as weight shift are not.

 

cheers,

 

 

[Guest Roger]

I have just revisited and read the thread from start to finish. It appears to me that everyone is saying in a round about fashion that if its not broke dont try & fix it.

 

I fully agree with that philosophy but I would still like to see industry attempts made to improve how that is delivered. You all have a gazillion years of experience but you are not the focus here - its the bloke who is starting the journey. When you release him into the "wild blue yonder" is he (and I am talking about the collective here) is he a better pilot then you were turning out 10 years ago?

 

No change?

 

Better?

 

Worse?

 

Havent thought about it?

 

& Why? (is it a time thing, money? combination of factors)

 

Roger

 

 

[facthunter]

Human factors/CBT,etc

 

Roger, I have just put in about an hour on this matter.

 

I don't agree with your conclusion, (if it's not broke....)

 

I think we need more material ie. a relevant training manual, to start with.

 

If the student was provided with a summary of the knowledge & skills that are proposed to be imparted in the particular lesson ,he could satisfy himself that he had covered all the required material, in his own time & rectify any deficiencies with the instructor next time out.

 

Human factors are a big issue in the more serious outcomes affecting our members lives & consequentially threaten our freedoms & future of our movement. The treatment of this subject should be tailored to our specific problems, operations, & our people ( as diverse as they are ) and be seen to be.

 

I attended the first RAAus Generic Pilot Proficiency Course and expressed my concerns in this regard, & felt that I was not the only one with such views At that time.

 

It is my understanding that said course has been modified .Could someone care to comment ? It is hard to argue against the need for this training, when you analyse the unfortunate outcomes that are well documented, the pilot's motives / attitude can be the most dangerous thing on the aeroplane.

 

You don't always need a row of cherries to line up either. Leaving the oil filler cap off may be only one cherry that may ruin your day, but maybe going to the toilet, locking the car on the way back, chatting to one of your mates as he helped to push the aeroplane out of the hanger, helpfully closing the inspection cover for you, Whoops , there's that row of cherries again. Regards .. Nev..

 

 

[Guest TOSGcentral]

Improving Flying Training? Part 1 of 4.

 

(PLEASE NOTE. This is a very long post and has been split into numbered sections to meet forum maximum post size).

 

IMPROVING FLYING TRAINING.

 

Hmmmm! I do not want to get off topic but this thread is already broadening out anyway. So let us take a bit of a peek at some basic factors that can be done a different way more productively. I think it is time to explore (and invite other views) on how we can make things better rather than dwell upon “what is wrongâ€Â. But bear in mind the latter is an important point that needs debate because from it we can set goals and objectives rather than just flying a “new kiteâ€Â!

 

I am drawn into this by Roger’s invite of wanting to know a bit about what I do but also my experiences of putting the area into practice. So here we go and it will be yet another long one again! This is primarily aimed at instructor training, areas that can be improved simply, and the actual role of CBT in this.

 

Dealing with Rogers latter question first - Putting the techniques and methods into the work face is not difficult as they are simple and easily grasped concepts and working structure. Some care has to be exercised in teaching the methods to new instructors and how they are then applied to students. The methods are deceptively simple but very powerful and it is easy to overload or tire a student to the point of unexpected random errors. Good quality monitoring of the student’s fatigue status is essential.

 

Getting the method to the work face is a different matter. There appears to be two main impediments. Firstly the controllers of flying training are by definition highly experienced. They will also be set in their ways and there may be an element of what was good enough for them, and worked, is good enough for anyone else – so why change?

 

Secondly there is definitely an element of “we must be doing it right in the eyes of our peers†for acceptability reasons. So that encourages us to continue with traditional flying instructional methods that are fundamentally unchanged since the First World War (where they were developed) and were evolved for a totally different motivational base, physical fitness and educational standard of student than what may be attracted to Recreational Aviation today.

 

I have long believed that the real challenge to Recreational Aviation is to develop teaching methodology to suit our actual student base. I will put that in a different context because acceptability of training is as important to Movement growth as it is to flight safety.

 

In the mid 1990s I conducted a small membership statistical survey of AUF. Over that period the membership remained static at around 3000 but we were drawing 800 new members per year. By definition we were therefore losing 800 members a year!

 

That represents a membership turn-over of 28% and the vast majority of new members have no choice but to interface with the Movement other than by the training system. If the training system were made more acceptable and less of a complex assault course, and we had halved the drop out, then by even extrapolation we would (now in 2007) have a membership base of 9300 members. We would have achieved this without having to invade the bottom end of GA and move into more complex and expensive aircraft! Nothing to stop us doing that as well if we wished but the grass roots core of the original movement would still be thriving!

 

What I believe we should firmly understand and remember is that the objectives of our movement were to put safe and affordable flying within the reach of virtually everybody. That is our common denominator from which to found our basic training. How fast you can get from Brisbane to Melbourne; what controlled airspace we can fly in; a desire for IMC flight; night flying; aerobatics and all the rest of it – should play second fiddle to having the most apt and effective training method for our core reason for existence.

 

We have to realise that to so many people just flying itself is “magicâ€Â! The act of aviation brings, quite literally, a new dimension to life! Just being able to float around a few miles from the airfield for an hour once a week may well be sufficient, and is sufficient for so many! That does not take huge skill or vast amounts of learning that will never be needed – the latter can be covered by endorsement training for those that want it. We certainly do not need to make training unacceptably difficult and non valid for what the student’s goals actually are!

 

So how do we obtain more effective and acceptable teaching? I put together the method that follows over 30 years ago. I have had consistent success with it (and not just in flying – it is applicable to any skills/knowledge based training). With my students I have converted people who had been told they would never fly solo into safe and competent pilots who have subsequently had years of enjoyment. With my student instructors I have been able to give them the immediate ability of a long standing instructor who eventually came up with their own style, and without the usual couple of years practice on paying students to get there!

 

We will take a look at this in Part 2 that follows.

 

 

[Guest TOSGcentral]

Improving Flying Training? Part 2 of 4

 

PART 2.

 

 

RECREATIONAL INSTRUCTIONAL METHODOLOGY.

 

 

OVERVIEW. If we choose a reasonable target for what we propose to do as being the lowest common denominator of person capable of becoming a safe pilot – then we need to understand that we will have to be simple and very clear in our approach to the task such that the message gets through and stays there.

 

 

As an example: Instead of spending 45 minutes filling a white board with diagrams and equations, you can dangle a sheet of paper in front of your face and blow at it in two different ways. This will demonstrate exactly how a wing works in 30 seconds and nobody can miss the message!

 

 

Equally we need to be organised – partly to control the student and keep him/her focussed and learning efficiently, and partly to control ourselves and stay on a clear and effective path.

 

 

 

PERSPECTIVE OF APPROACH. The basic structure of teaching falls into two principle areas – How to Teach and What to teach. The former is controlled by PMI (Principles & Methods of Instructing) and the latter by the flying training syllabus.

 

 

Sensible and practical application of PMI at the workface enables the instructor to stamp their work with their own expression and style while remaining efficient. The flying training syllabus (if it is adequate) gives a statement of what must be taught and at the same time forms a progression of establishing skills, building these into techniques and then applying them as procedures.

 

 

So PMI gives a good element of flexibility to the individual instructor (if it is actually applied in practice) and the Syllabus gives a constant that is considerably more inflexible. Unfortunately the tangibility of the Syllabus leads to situations in instructor training where the key point is on delivering individual exercises – rather than overall exercise and syllabus management. We loose so much in this area which is the actual key point in both acceptability and depth of training from the student’s point of view!

 

 

PMI INTERFACE. I would have more patience with current instructor training if student instructors were not sat on their butt for 30 hours in a class room having their ears bent then there is an abrupt shift to the 20 hours of practical flying – yet so often (like most of the time) no bridges are built between the two in terms of how to apply PMI effectively at the workface.

 

 

Do you consider that a student pilot should have 30 hours straight of the Principles of Flight and then be given an aircraft and go and apply it by themselves? Is there any difference in teaching PMI to a student instructor and giving them a student pilot and require them to learn to apply their knowledge (if they have remembered it) to that paying student?

 

 

Let us try some examples of philosophy/practice as it too often happens.

 

 

PMI states clearly that a student’s learning span on intensive attention to new or unfamiliar exercises is around 30 minutes. Yet for administrative/financial reasons flying schools book students by the hour – so how much of the student’s flying time and money are they wasting? I very seldom fly ab initio students for more than 40 minutes. It is far more productive to end a flight on a positive note, get them out the aircraft for a rest and a chat and then go again. If they can only fly once a week or so then you double their advancement!

 

 

How many instructors reading this were taught not just the brain process of decision making in terms of Scanning, Processing & Controlling along with the attendant time lags, but how to effectively apply this in the cockpit to reduce student workload and get better decisions much faster?

 

 

How many instructors are taught to organise overall student workload? Take circuits. Suddenly the student has to do everything because “that is what happens in a circuit†Anybody ever think of breaking this down into manageable chunks that the student may more easily deal with?

 

 

How about say – splitting the circuit into Judgmental and Procedural, first teaching the Judgemental aspects as a pure flying exercise and then superimposing the Procedural aspects on that structure? Maybe going even further and terminating the circuit at the Base Leg turn and then teaching Base Leg Management as a focussed exercise by which to intercept a correct Final Turn? Teaching the Final Turn as a manipulative/judgemental exercise in its own right? Then teaching the Approach on the same basis? You get far easier and more successful landings out of that! You also get a damn sight more flight safety and less low altitude loss of control. But it is not in the syllabus so it does not happen!

 

 

For something so cut and dried there is actually a world of improvement that could be made by thinking beyond the ‘traditional square†whilst using practical PMI as a safety and control net! But who has the guts to take on a nearly 90 year old established system. As it happens I did and it works very well! 42 years accident free in command flying for myself (outside test flying) and also for my students!

 

 

SYLLABUS REORGANISATION. In the proceeding I have indicated how more precise and focussed division of syllabus elements can lead to more precise and effective training. But how about we do something a bit radical and practical with that Holy of Holies that the flying training syllabus is?

 

 

Why, for example why do we, on the very first training flight, put the student in the alien environment of the cockpit, in a new and distracting dimension where uncertainty and even fear may be involved – and then bombard them with look out, look in, look at attitude, primary and secondary effects of the controls, and engine control plus the engine instruments? Does that sound very logical in PMI terms?

 

 

How about we break down that workload and not waste time in doing so whilst getting far deeper confidence and understanding on the part of the student? How about we teach them aerodynamic energy control and engine energy control as separate subjects on different flights?

 

 

I cooked up this one when doing experimental training syllabus development back in 1970 at the UK National Gliding Centre. We were using SF25B and T61A Falke motor gliders. The objective was to beat the time loss inherent in launching gliders and go directly for straight aerodynamic control skills quickly and then put the students into real gliders for finishing off.

 

 

We were doing this in aircraft far superior in performance to the average ‘Traditional Ultralight’. Significantly, we were teaching people to fly virtually without any reference to the engine at all – the instructor looked after that and did not trouble the student with that additional complexity.

 

 

So, by definition, you can teach basic control of any powered aircraft in the same way. Teach the student to control the machine and then overlay engine operation on top. This works incredibly well! With the student now relaxed and confident in the environment and basic control of the machine, they have sufficient spare attention to really absorb the engine control sequences and the additional work load that is attendant. It is so easy it is unbelievable that has not been done before as you get so much understanding in so quickly.

 

 

Let us get even more basic in Recreational Aviation terms. When I commence with a student I startle them from the outset! I explain that I do not have the power or ability to teach them to fly! As an individual they are not equipped for flight by themselves!

 

 

But I do have the ability to teach them to control a machine that it itself capable of flight in it’s own right! This is, in principle, no different to learning to ride a bike, drive a car or handle a piece of complicated plant equipment.

 

 

Flying is not a Black Art and no supernatural powers are required! Defuse that ‘image’ from the start and you have established a confidence base in the student using what they already have confidence in and have themselves already mastered! They probably drove a car to the airfield for example!

 

 

So the Foundation Stone of flying instruction is really Stability. Used correctly this will immediately lead to a lot of other things. Things like understanding of weight and balance, practical application of angle of attack, relative airflow relevance – so much more – but applied as a natural part of pre flight briefings in relevant terms to practical flying instruction.

 

 

Yet Stability is not a part of either the RAAus or GA flying training syllabus!

 

 

Actually sit down and analyse it and you have a huge gulf between PMI and practical flying instruction, but you have an equally large gulf between essential Principles of Flight knowledge in practical form for students and the student’s flying exercises! All of this guff about CBT and APPP (or whatever it is) is an administrative ‘modern world image’ measure to attempt to suggest that we are up there and modern – when what we need is the guts and ability to address practical issues in a practical manner.

 

 

There is plenty to do, or what could be done, but let us move on a little to other areas on how we can weld all of these abstracts into a workable form.

 

 

Perhaps it is also wise at this stage to put down a definition of flying instruction so we can see clearly what the hell we are trying to achieve!

 

 

Effective Flying Instruction is: Transfer from instructor to student, at a controlled rate, of Knowledge, Skill, Confidence and Responsibility to meet a target standard of ability.

 

 

POINT OF CONTACT. This the active focal point of instruction on an exercise to exercise basis. It is best to view the student as the flying training syllabus as a progressive list of exercises starting at one end with no Knowledge or Skill and ending at the other at the Target standard. Where the instructor interfaces with the student is the Point of Contact. For top quality instruction it requires to be set carefully and accurately – neither holding back the student nor progressing them too fast.

 

 

(Continued in Part 3)

 

 

 

[Guest TOSGcentral]

Improving Flying Training? Part 3 of 4

 

PART 3.

 

METHOD. The following comprises a simple ten stage process (with an eleventh moveable element) that is a practical PMI control/memory jogger on the instructor and for the student a simple way to apply their efforts productively and enjoyably. It is deadly effective and once you have the student in this net the only way out for them is to say that they are giving up flying. Equally it is powerful enough to totally destroy a student unless the instructor is monitoring student stress and fatigue, exercise delivery intensity etc.

 

This method may be applied to a single exercise, a group of exercises or the entire flying training syllabus itself!

 

Note especially that exactly the same process is employed whether teaching manipulative or judgemental exercises! Many instructors have difficulty teaching judgement and allow the student to ‘pick it up’ over a period of exposure. This is wasteful as well as being ill defined teaching. You teach the mental skills exactly the same way as you teach the manual skills – explain what you are going to do, why, and how it is done. Demonstrate the parameters of judgement being made and then give the student full control and prompt them into making the decisions themselves. Over a period of practice withdraw the prompting as the student picks up the workload until they can do the task unaided.

 

The only significant difference is in the prompting area where prompting is done mainly by questions otherwise the instructor is making the decision. Eg – “You are too close in on this downwind leg†is better expressed as “Are you happy with our angle to the runway and if not what should you do about it?â€Â

 

ASSESSMENT 1. You cannot get anywhere effectively if you do not know where you are starting from! Every training flight must start with this step as from it you set a course of action for what comes next. For a new student half an hour may be spent exploring motivation, goals, prior experience, anticipated frequency of attendance etc. For an established student (and probably using school student progress records) the instructor reaffirms where the student is presently positioned in the syllabus.

 

EXERCISE ORGANISATION. Based on Assessment 1 the instructor constructs a game plan and sets a reasonable target to be met and the process by which it will be met. Equally importantly decisions are made on who will be doing what, and who will be responsible for what, at each stage of the flight. This defines points of responsibility transfer.

 

ORIENTATION 1. Once the instructor has planned the exercise then this must be outlined to the student so they know what is going to be happening and when, plus what their part in the proceedings are (especially in the responsibility area). You will get much better response from students if they know what the devil is going on!

 

Which of the following do you think would more acceptable and useful to the student – “Today I am going to teach you medium turns. Once you can do that you will have control over where you want the aircraft to go and this will allow us to soon get onto flying circuits.

 

This is how we will do the flight. You do the start up and taxi, I will do the take off with you following through on the controls. Then I will hand over control and we will climb away from the airfield with you lowering a wing, holding the bank angle and then levelling the wings on my direction – just like we were doing last flight. I will then demonstrate the Lookout, Going In, Staying In and Coming Out turn sequence and you will take over and practice that again under my direction. When we have finished we will return to the airfield with you practicing turning onto points and flying towards them, or flying parallel with line features. I will take over as we near the ground and do the landing. After that you taxi back in and close down. We are going to be up about 30 minutes – any questions?â€Â

 

Compared with “OK you are going to learn medium turns today. Get in!â€Â

 

EXPLANATION. Never demonstrate something new to the student that you have not already explained what it is and what it is for and what is going to happen. This totally removes natural anxiety of the unknown and that something horrible is about to happen!

 

This is the main part of the pre exercise briefing and must be contained to around 20 minutes. A considerable help here is if the school has a manual of pre flight briefing notes that the student may study between visits at their own learning rate. The instructor is then merely refreshing their memory and has ample time to emphasise key areas without extending the briefing time. Meantime the student is on the ground in a relaxed environment and can apply full concentration. NEVER attempt an Explanation of a new exercise when in the air!

 

Explanation will not appear on every flight unless a new step is being taken. However do not be afraid to repeat the Explanation if you have reasonable grounds to sense the student has not absorbed the initial one.

 

DEMONSTRATION. Never order the student to do something new without first giving them a clear demonstration of what it is, what it looks and feels like. Make demonstrations crystal clear and keep the student focussed on exactly what you want them to learn. For example: Teaching Primary Effects of the Controls in Roll. “Come on the stick and I will fly the aircraft through your hand so you may feel the amount of movement as well as how little pressure is required. Ignore what I am doing with the rudder pedals, we will come to that shortly, just concentrate on the stickâ€Â!

 

Demonstrations do not automatically appear every flight but can be usefully repeated, maybe several times if needed. Remember the demonstration is not just to allay any fears the student has of their ability to control the aircraft in something new, but primarily to give them a Target of activity to aim at and copy. Refreshing their memory (when needed) helps.

 

Note: Two males sitting in a confined space holding hands can have uncomfortable overtones. I normally wear flying gloves when instructing to depersonalise situations!

 

PROMPTING. Transfer responsibility to the student for the portion of the aircraft control that they must take. Now verbally prompt them into producing the new exercise by themselves. Bear in mind you are teaching them CONTROL so ensure that they exercise control and do what you request of them! For example the medium turn procedure of going in, staying in and coming out must be exactly that on your command – not some reasonable entry, a bit of turn and then allowing the aircraft to come out of its own accord!

 

PRACTICE. Over a subsequent period of practice (which may be just a few minutes or several flights – depending on the exercise) deliberately reduce prompting and so transfer the workload (and responsibility) fully to the student until they can do what is required on your request with no assistance.

 

This MUST be an organised process that is deliberately controlled by the instructor to achieve the Transfer of Skill, Confidence and Responsibility to the student. Continue applying the period of practice on each exercise until you are confident the student can do the exercise on command with no assistance.

 

An important note here is that you MUST NOT aim for perfection in most of the exercises – simply obtain adequate performance from the student and then move them on. The design of the flying training syllabus is such that the student is going to get plenty of further practice anyway as a process of flying the aircraft!

 

Be constantly aware that the student will become frustrated. They know clearly what to do, how to do it, can do it – but maybe not perfectly. Every student feels they should be Superman and strives for perfection. You hit the Law of Diminishing Returns via over concentration. Near enough is usually good enough so move them on and they will get the fluidity required automatically while you have them distracted on something new.

 

(TAUGHT AND UNDERSTOOD LINE) This is the moveable part of the Method and is a line across the syllabus at the point the student is currently at. Once the current exercise is deemed Taught & Understood then the line will be moved on to the next exercise and takes the Point of Contact with it. The instructor thus has a very firm and tangible method of steering and controlling teaching.

 

If you think about it, this is the actual normal Competency Based Training aspect of flying instruction – you simply cannot progress a student onwards until they are competent at the Point of Contact! However on-going evaluation support is still required and this is supplied by the next part of the Method.

 

POSITIVE PROGRESS PROVING. For every prior exercise that precedes the Taught and Understood line the instructor monitors student performance during the normal process of operation. Here the instructional techniques changes markedly. If error is noted then the student is ASKED what is going on, what may not be right etc – not TOLD!

 

This is critical and is surprisingly difficult to do. It is the instructor’s main method of getting into the student’s mind and finding out how well exercises really have stuck. So it is the practical and ongoing support to Competency Based Training as a routine part of teaching/learning. The student’s response to the question will uncover either a random error or a deep seated lack of ability or knowledge application that may then be re-addressed.

 

If the instructor is using an organised delivery technique that simultaneously embraces the entire syllabus as well as the current exercise then it is impossible for the student to slip through with latent faults.

 

Failure to ask questions on error leads to the instructor prompting and then over-prompting and the student remaining over-reliant on the instructor. Remember that one day the instructor is going to leave the student to it alone. You have to be very sure that Confidence and Responsibility have been fully transferred and the student will not start falling apart or becoming unduly inhibited with the absence of your ever present prompting!

 

However there is one particular set of circumstances where the instructor will (briefly) fall back into direct prompting. This often happens at the commencement of new judgemental exercises. A student normally proficient at earlier exercises may generate random errors in the manipulative area. The instructor must now avoid the circular trap of going back to correct these but accept them as ‘expected’! So have some understanding and easily prompt the student past them to keep the overall tram running. Those errors will soon die away as the student picks up the new mental workload.

 

ASSESSMENT 2. At the conclusion of the exercise have a think if the objectives set in Exercise Organisation have been met. If not then what still remains to be done? Think about the current validity of the Point of Contact – can it move on now or what specifically still needs doing before it may do so!

 

ORIENTATION 2. With Assessment 2 completed now inform the student of what is going on, what is coming next and why. Couch this in terms that are specifically relevant to the student’s goals and their progress towards those goals! Especially leave the exercise on a positive note! Even the poorest of students gets a fair amount right! Sure you often have to put in helpful but firm comment on areas not going so well but never end it that way. Remember to praise, criticise, praise and leave the student feeling good.

 

This, I have found, is the single biggest failing in instructors – particularly commercial instructors where the area is vital to their future incomes. The instructor knows what is going on but the student may not! Keep your student’s informed and do so relevant to the student’s purpose of being there and you will keep your students!

 

Bear in mind that you may only see the student once a week or so. If you send the student away demotivated, feeling something of a failure, not being able to see progress to goals etc then the student has ample time to brood on whether it is all worth it! Sooner, rather than later, the student will stop coming!

 

There is no cost to the instructor to be kind while being fair and firm. To the student it is priceless!

 

Be very sure that the single largest cause of new member drop out in recreational aviation is poor (or no) application of Orientation 2, closely followed by unsympathetic and ineffective instructional methodology! It costs us hundreds of members each year!

 

THE SYLLABUS AS A WHOLE.

 

By nature the flying training syllabus is a progressive sequence of exercises in a logical order. The natural tendency is therefore to treat the syllabus as a series of stepping stones and treat each exercise individually.

 

This may work OK in Commercial and Military aviation training where the students are all of a pre-determined quality – highly career motivated, above a certain minimum educational and intelligence level, plus being in superb physical condition. Their motivation bridges the gaps!

 

The stepping stone concept works less well in recreational aviation where the student’s main motivational fulcrums operate around cost, time and “is it really worth doing thisâ€Â. To this we must couple a possibly low educational level, maybe not a high IQ, perhaps intolerance to cold or prolonged sun exposure, other physical ailments – and so on. Yet that person may be more than capable of becoming a competent pilot, in a simple aircraft, in a non-technical flying environment – and thus get a life time of enjoyment and satisfaction from the third dimension that so few of our kind ever aspire to?

 

Is it so necessary that by our instructional attitude, rather than any complexity of what we actually teach, we should deny them that by burning out their motivation or making it beyond their reach? Learning to fly a simple recreational aircraft is NOT a pre-induction course for QANTAS or the RAAF! It should be a simple and pleasurable experience, certainly hard and demanding at times, but it should and can be put more within reach.

 

If we examine the flying training syllabus as a pathway, say in terms of a brick wall that is being built to a plan with foundations being established and then built upon; each individual brick being cemented together by instructional methodology, then we start seeing a different picture!

 

For example we see some of the missing links in the syllabus that are not there! We see that syllabus exercise re-organisation can be done that reduces workload and increases instinctive understanding. As instructors we naturally orientate more to a flow of activity leading somewhere that fits in with student motivations so this dictates our work.

 

(Continued in Part 4)

 

 

[Guest TOSGcentral]

Improving Flying Training? Part 4 of 4

 

PART 4.

 

EXERCISE INTERLOCK.

 

For the instructor a major benefit of retaining perspective of the syllabus as an overall entity is that the inter-relationship of various exercises may be seen and thus much more effective methods of skill and knowledge transfer may happen that has more relevancy for the student.

 

For example: Teaching Stability puts the forthcoming task into perspective for the student. They clearly see that they are not about to be taught to fly but how to control and use a machine that is quite capable of flying by itself! Primary Effects of controls are seen as a means of overcoming Stability and both Positive and Negative use of the controls (something not normally taught) suddenly becomes a useful tool.

 

Secondary and Further Effects of the controls are consequential so follow naturally – but – are best treated as separate entities once Primary Effects have been absorbed rather than bundling everything together in one flight and causing confusion in the student via first showing that sideways movement of the stick rolls the aircraft and then a couple of minutes later showing that rudder also rolls the aircraft!

 

Accepting, and using, the inter-relation of different exercises thus begins to have an increasing influence on instructional method. The instructor will begin couching lectures, pre flight briefings and in-flight patter that meets the current exercise requirements and also begins laying foundations for exercises the student will not meet for several flights.

 

PASSIVE INSTRUCTING.

 

Accepting an overview of the syllabus as a whole leads to other things as well. Passive instruction is where you are getting the student to do something that you are not currently teaching and have not got to yet. An advantage of Passive Instructing is giving a lot of flexibility of thought to the instructor as well as breaking down some treasured beliefs that are most wasteful. Such methods also give the student exposure to an environment that a forthcoming exercise will be set in so it will not be all new and totally unfamiliar. Try the following simple example:

 

An aircraft turns as a function of the wings being banked – NOT the student having been taught Turns! In consequence once the student has been taught how to establish, hold and remove a wing bank, plus control the nose attitude, then there is no reason why the student should not be on the controls other than when a demonstration is being given, or, the air is that turbulent that leaving them on the controls is counterproductive to advancement of the stage they are currently at, or, the aircraft is being taken off or landed. So that means that from the first instructional flight onwards the student is manipulating the aircraft all the time! This is good because the more stick time they get then the faster they will progress!

 

This is not what often happens. A lot of instructors have a fixation that if an exercise has not been taught then the instructor has to do the flying – like take over for any turns, or to fly the circuit and approach with the student now effectively a passenger.

 

Let us consider a circuit! Angles, distance, procedural heights, pre landing checks etc certainly have to occur but the instructor can do those without distracting the student with what and why. It is simply a case of “lower the wing, hold it there, level the wing†and the student is getting valuable manipulative practice while the aircraft sails around a quite normal circuit from the point of view of an outside observer!

 

Once Turns have been taught you get more benefit because now you can say “Turn the aircraft and then fly parallel to that runway down thereâ€Â, “Turn the aircraft and fly perpendicular to the runway down thereâ€Â. “Now turn the aircraft and roll out so you are flying along the runwayâ€Â.

 

This is both Passive Instructing and Exercise Interlock in full swing and the student is picking up the essential manipulative skills that will be required when Circuit Planning is taught and so will then be able to concentrate more clearly on the Procedural and Judgemental aspects!

 

You may note that “Flying to Line Features†is an essential foundation part of Circuit skills. There is the spin off benefit of bringing the student to terms with track and heading (a basic understanding that will one day make them an effective navigator) – yet teaching it as an exercise is not a flying training syllabus set exercise! But it is an important part of my own syllabus and I get considerable other Passive Instructing benefit from it in addition.

 

There are many more aspects but there is no space here and that should be sufficient indication of how different instructional attitudes, backed by practical methodology can save hours of frustration, demotivation and dollars for the student.

 

KNOWLEDGE INTERFACE WITH SKILL.

 

This subject is one of my pet hates and I consider it one of the major areas of neglect in flying training! It is just as prevalent in instructor training as it is in ab-initio flight instruction. The trainee flight instructor goes through 30 hours of PMI but what effective methodology is given that fully and easily applies PMI to the practical work? The ab-initio student is sent away to read text books, or is given lectures, but how much effective bridging goes on in pre-flight briefings? Are we in fact here looking at basic causal reasons for later low speed loss of control accidents – because the instinctive understanding has never been established in practical terms?

 

Are we in fact just establishing theory in its own box so the trainee can pass an exam, then they pass a flight test and everything is wonderful? I think so and it is a tragedy because we should not just be leaving to the student the application of applying understanding – as instructors we should damn well be doing something practical about it!

 

A good starting point is a firm grasp of the concept that an instructors work is not churning out pilots with a lot of boxes ticked on a piece of paper, but is moulding and crafting Airmen! Airmen utilise skill and knowledge as a composite ability that is inextricably interwoven!

 

This does not mean that the situation should be arcane and only in the province of the highly alert, motivated and educated professional. In Recreational Aviation we require simple and effective modes of transfer that will both protect and enhance the enjoyment of the average Joe off the street!

 

TRAINING INSTRUCTORS.

 

Probably a number of readers will be acquainted with other posts of mine, papers and articles that I have written, and some of you will have been through my hands. Those people will be aware that I am unremitting on Standards but also achieve this in acceptable, human terms. My constant underlaying theme is methodology and control of achieving more effectively. That resides in training and the way training is conducted! In turn that is dependent on a uniform method, at National level, of what and how must be taught.

 

Demonstrating proficiency in a basic ab-initio flying training syllabus (that itself may be grievously flawed for our recreational purposes) then attempting to tack on superficial bits and pieces such as “advanced pilot qualificationsâ€Â, or CBT etc, to patch up fundamental weakness – will never be an answer.

 

The entire key is in Instructor Training and in this area AUF/RAAus have not only been inadequate, in my opinion the underlaying control to the “Standard†has been criminally negligent! Harsh words perhaps but let us call a spade a spade and the RAAus “method†has only passing similarity with those methods used in allied disciplines!

 

There are other, more appropriate and effective, ways of doing things! Take for example the granting of an Instructor Training approval. Given that the hours/time period requirements are met this is then a paperwork exercise of submitting a syllabus listing covering the PMI (that has no formal guide lines) and the flying component covers the ab-initio syllabus – you then get the rating! Several times now I have given (not sold) my own I/T syllabus to others wishing to upgrade – so they did not even have to demonstrate anything!

 

Add to that that only Pilot Examiners can recommend issue of, or renew, instructor ratings – yet there is no requirement that the PE has in instructor training rating himself or her self! Does not make a lot of sense does it?

 

Add some more? Many new instructors are nosewheel only. They can leap out and get a taildragger endorsement on something quite benign and then immediately begin instructing on tail wheel types. I shudder to think what would happen (again) if the next week they climbed into a Skyfox or Thruster and began teaching landings on it!

 

Try floats! I am float/amphibian endorsed so I could immediately begin instructing on them when I still had my ratings – On the basis of a 5 hour course that comprised just 16 water landings! OK that course was pretty good – but there was no laid down syllabus – that was left to the school and the judgement of the school operators I actually wrote a syllabus for the school after my training. This is not rocket science guys – aviation has been around for a few years now – why get dozens of individuals to re-invent the wheel according to what they personally believe!

 

And we want a “safety culture� What kind? Something based on differing experience, personal confidence, and different all around the country? Or something standardised and founded on decades of experience?

 

Compare one of our sister Rec Flying organisations – the GFA. You want an instructor training rating then you go through the National Gliding School and a laid down National syllabus! You will be familiar with the NGS because the only way you got your first instructor rating, and subsequent upgrades, was to go through their hands on a formal course(s). So you can move between clubs and everything is very familiar because there is a high degree of standardisation. Instructors will always differ somewhat in personal expression – but at least “what†to teach is laid down clearly and “how†to teach it is also very well supported!

 

How difficult is it? Not very, if you have the management skills as controllers to use time wisely, and a platform that draws on the huge member resource of skills and knowledge rather than bottleneck it through a single guy in a remote office in Canberra!

 

Time was not a problem – an early platform was established but then never developed and AUF/RAAus has had over 21 years to develop in critical flight safety areas and has done the square root of stuff all! Too busy playing politics I guess!

 

So here is an example of how instructor training may be made more effective – because remember that any student or fledgling pilot can only (initially) be as good as how and what they are taught, so that is the basics of any safety culture!

 

Extrapolate that and see that if there are obvious weakness in establishing our Tutor Instructors, then instructor training will be weak, and in consequence basic flying training will have weakness - weakness that causes accidents, injury, kills people, escalates insurance premiums and can have entire aviation movements held in contempt!

 

In my own instructor training programme I start it long before I meet the applicant. They get sent some detailed instructions on what to do. This broadly covers some basic demonstration exercises (eg aileron drag that requires exaggerated use of the controls to be initially convincing), flying with the other hand, and a few other things that can all be done solo in the applicant’s own time. My job is to teach them to teach – not fly a bloody aircraft or how to use it’s controls – so I will not waste course time doing that!

 

Once I have them they will spend 15 – 20 hours in front of a white board with me having PMI established and I establish that around the 10 step simple methodology of exercise management that you have read above. Then we can go into the air!

 

Now here I differ considerably from conventional instructor training! Nobody is going to go up and practice patter and demonstrations of probably a string of unrelated exercises in a single flight. I concentrate on teaching the applicant to manage a training exercise – all of it – inclusive of time control and responsibility transfer to an exercise target.

 

In the 20 hours practical flying required we can get through most of the entire syllabus and I will burn the remainder of the 30 hours PMI time in practical application to set up those flight exercises. Each exercise is a total event revolving around a set training objective – if the applicant stuffs it up then it is up to them to meet the exercise objective set prior to the flight as best they may. Then we have a little discussion about things while they have no other pressure on them!

 

I thus bridge that horrible gap between PMI and the flying and make PMI of practical value to instructor and student alike. In doing that I teach them how to bridge the other horrible gap between P of F (BAK) and the practical ab initio flying training syllabus!

 

Sure it is intensive and it takes a lot out of myself and my applicant – but it is logical, useful, and simple! Anyone found anything really complicated about what I have already written here? Most of it is just common sense and a bit of lateral thinking!

 

There are other ways of doing things other than what is regarded as “traditional†and therefore sacrosanct! But no effective instructor training can exist without a laid down syllabus and methodology that works effectively and that is standardised across the movement! That, I am afraid, in our system, resided and still resides in the province of a single person to make it happen – and it has simply not happened!

 

Continued in Part 5

 

 

[Guest TOSGcentral]

Improving Flying Training? Part 4 of 5

 

PART 5.

 

 

COMPETENCY BASED TRAINING (CBT).

 

 

So this Thread is really about CBT. What do you think now?

 

 

I hope that all this reading I have put you through (if you have got this far) demonstrates that you can ice the cake as much as you like but you will not solve anything (other than external appearance of “being modern and up with itâ€Â) until you change the recipe to something more digestible!

 

 

CBT as an administrative system has value in other training disciplines but not, I believe, in ours! We have no need of it because the basic work of the flying instructor is entirely CBT based automatically. We have no need to introduce complicated and time absorbing administration systems when it is already covered by the instructional task and authority the instructor has, in conjunction with student progress records that schools already have to maintain!

 

 

Why make it more difficult for instructor and student alike when we need every ounce of concentration and effort being applied to the task that will result in real pilots and a real safety culture!

 

 

Why not apply any effort into making the systems more effective in a practical sense?

 

 

CONCLUSION.

 

 

A very long read that I have had to split into several parts for the forum to accept. But I have only skimmed the surface. Setting up flying training systems is not difficult but you have to cover EVERYTHING – so just a skim to convey concepts has to be quite large.

 

 

As an example I am currently working on an Instructor Training Manual that will run probably to about 200,000 words plus illustrations. But to make it manageable it will be split into sections – pre instructor course training, initial instructor training, instructor upgrades, instructor training syllabi (several), training Tutor Instructors, pre flight briefing layouts for whiteboard, advice on progressing in instruction, commercial instruction – and probably a few other bits.

 

 

I do not expect to sell many but they will have decades of practical experience behind them. They may be of assistance to some. That is what it takes to cover the subject adequately!

 

 

Finally I would be interested in hearing the views of others on what I have had to say. I am well aware that in some circles I am regarded as a Heretic!

 

 

(PERSONAL NOTE – I leave before dawn this coming Monday 21st May for NSW to collect a T500 and do some airframe survey and test flying. After Sunday I will not be able to respond to any consequent posts until around Thursday)

 

 

Aye

 

 

Tony Hayes.

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest pelorus32]

Tony,

 

a huge effort and much food for thought - thank you.

 

I'm not a flying instructor and I can't therefore comment as one.

 

I do know the experience of being a flying student though and I will comment from that point of view.

 

Let's go back to the First War, students were young and society was a very hierarchical command and control setup. The flying training approach and syllabus arose out of that environment and an associated set of expectations on both sides. That has little to do with our movement.

 

Take me, I'm a bit of an anti-authoritarian; I'm not young; I learned first to fly gliders 30 years ago, then stopped; I have a brain and I like using it; I never have had and never will have the hand/eye skills of an athlete; I have been privileged to learn at the feet of some of the greater modern day educators; I don't suffer fools gladly.

 

So now mix me up with the syllabus and an instructor(s) and what happens? Well two notable things:

 

1. I take responsibility for my learning and I form a partnership with my instructor. There is not a power gradient in the cockpit (or out of it) - he/she knows things I want to know and I know things that are important to the learning process. We each contribute;
    
    
   
2. My instructors, whilst linked to the syllabus, use what I call scenario based training to impart all sorts of competence in me.
    
   

 

I rarely experienced "now we're going to do S&L..." or whatever. Rather I found myself at various stages invited to work through a scenario. Early on just the workload "holding" that you talked about happened. I couldn't fly and talk on the radio - so the instructor did....etc.

 

Scenarios were always used and later more complex scenarios emerged - you are at 900 feet AMSL, the cloudbase is at 1000 feet and the ground really is at 400 feet. This was on a turbulent, hot day. Manage the aircraft, navigate, monitor high ground around...etc, communicate. And the more I accomplished the greater the workload became - the base is coming down identify somewhere to land.... This was late in training but it had a very strong value for me and it mirrored all the other scenarios - simpler for sure - that had started from day 1.

 

It is important to note however that I am the product of some very innovative educators. I went through a university degree that was not taught as subjects but around a whole set of scenarios that required you to autonomously learn the necessary theory and skills to get an outcome. That gave me a background that meant I would always partner others in my learning and do my own learning as I saw the need.

 

I think our instructors - in my limited experience - are better than they are given credit for. That may well be in spite of the system!

 

For me, I'm convinced that pretty well anyone can learn the necessary stick and rudder and basic knowledge and judgement to fly our aircraft.

 

What I am much more worried about is the whole process beyond that - call it advanced airmanship or whatever. Situational awareness, management ability, decision making in complex situations...Attitudinal development...

 

That is the consolidational stuff that worries me - it's development must never stop.

 

Mindless meanderings.

 

Kindest regards

 

Mike

 

 

[Yenn]

From what I can see the whole push here is to get a training scheme set up so that someone can make money out of teaching us to do what we can already do.

 

I know there are lots of failures, but I doubt that more training in classrooms will change that. Telling others when we see them behave stupidly and also telling others of our own stupid decisions will help but there are some who never learn.

 

I believe quick decision making is far more important in car driving, than in the air and the reason for more deaths in the air is the fact that bad decisions in a car result in running off the road and wrecking a car from which you can walk away.

 

A similar idea was mooted for bushwalking. It was proposed that ll leaders of bushwalks should undergo training and be accredited. Luckily that fell by the way when it became apparent that rather than lead bushwalks most of the present leaders would just walk alone leaving less training than before.

 

As usual it is just a way for someone to get their hand in your pocket!