Training and education is evolving.

[Keith Page]

The traditional learning centres we have been accustomed are changing.

 

One very good example the TAFE in Rockhampton is combined with the University in Rockhampton.

 

I am in the middle of reading a thesis a lady wrote for her Ph.D. “Technical Education to Work Place Training”. I will not quote any part of the thesis. However a big mention is given to how education will be delivered. What we are accustomed:-is going, some gone already.

 

I have come from a work place which preached safety in each breath, to me what that regime developed was fear and apprehension, and it did. In the old training schemes everyone started on the bottom rung of the ladder and we developed the safety cultures on the way up the ladder these days people come on board half way up the ladder and have missed all the formative education. Look in the latest Sports Pilot mag:- “Safety Matters”’ Katie Jenkins. Do not get me wrong, this is a very good safety article necessitated by people bypassing their early formative training. This is the safety training we must undertake to capture those who have fallen through the net or a refresher to others.

 

At this stage I have to add another twist, Dr. Edward De Bono he is advocating we are taught to learn not taught to think to me he is correct, what happened to “Think about it”.

 

There is some very good safety training about, I have forgotten where. “Take five &Look Out” Look up, Look left, Look right, Look down, Look out for others:-for me it is all there. However we have to know what we are looking for, hence the reason for the risk management tools which are the prompts to help those think about the task at hand.

 

The risk management tools become a formal document which can be auditored.

 

The take 5 is part of what we do on our pre-landing checks and also a big extent on takeoff.

 

With all that said that is why I am advocating that RAAus developed as a RTO.

 

To facilitate the evolving education it would be very nice if RAAus became a RTO.

 

A RTO is just waiting to happen as there is no organisation out there which can deliver the complete package for training. I can hear the yells, for the time being the basic formative training which is what is needed. Some of subject which should be covered *basic maintenance *navigation * fuels* engine care * and the list goes on. With good planning the education will have good content and not be there just to appease the bureaucratic empires.

 

I know I will get some yells from about the crowd so be it, we must be very proactive in this department or we will be left behind and not grow to our full potential. We must forget, “This is how Grand Dad and Uncle Billy did it”. Society is changing it is now 2014 not 1914 .However why not embrace education now and not wait till we are forced to formulate a curriculum. When these things are formulated with care and thought they end up pretty good as if they are rushed quite often a dog’s breakfast is the result.

 

Even though we sit and scream regarding education delivery and design it will continue evolve so could it all be better done now, so we can have good input and be able to guide it to where we need to be, yes, this will take vision and will entail looking past the end of one nose.

 

Regards

 

Keith Page.

 

 

[David Isaac]

Setting up an RTO will be a costly exercise Keith.

 

Don't get me wrong, I am 100% supportive of competent education, usually the problem and the answer lie both in education.

 

I do not support academic theories espoused in a curriculum delivered by course facilitators who have no experience in the field and have no ability to expand beyond the script. Students gain so much more from a presenter who is knowledgeable in the subject.

 

If we are going to do this why don't we pool resources with other like minded organisations instead of bearing the total cost in RAAus?

 

 

[Keith Page]

Setting up an RTO will be a costly exercise Keith.Don't get me wrong, I am 100% supportive of competent education, usually the problem and the answer lie both in education.

 

I do not support academic theories espoused in a curriculum delivered by course facilitators who have no experience in the field and have no ability to expand beyond the script. Students gain so much more from a presenter who is knowledgeable in the subject.

 

If we are going to do this why don't we pool resources with other like minded organisations instead of bearing the total cost in RAAus?

Good David I put it out there so we can start pooling ideas.

 

If we get the bounce we will dodge those career facilitators who go about delivering everyones work.

 

When it comes to expansion time and Q&A...... they are drowned in their own B/S.

 

Yes it is costly however done with a bit of planning will not be that bad.. If you get a consultant in with all the bells and whistles, tag alongs, high rise building rent that will cost squillions.

 

Think and talk about it things will be gained.

 

Regard

 

KP.

 

 

[FlyingVizsla]

TAFE can tailor a course to suit your needs. This was some years ago, but 10 of us approached TAFE with the help of a qualified GA instructor who had worked as a TAFE instructor in another field. He designed and presented the course, we paid a fee and got a Statement of Attainment (or some other acknowledgement). Someone on this forum arranged a welding course through TAFE in Canberra. It can be done, and gets cheaper when done frequently.

 

 

 

There is scope to co-operate with SAAA who do building & maintenance courses. Some of the larger flying schools have RTO. The Educational institutions who teach Aviation Certificates, Degrees & Diplomas have qualified people in both aviation and education and can call on other disciplines such as safety, mechanics. Our own flying instructors are trained and have a syllabus. RAAus may not have to re-invent the wheel.

 

 

 

Sue

 

 

[Keith Page]

There are no specific welding courses provided by Rockhampton TAFE, the only way around it is an extention to a trade certificate.

 

I can not see what is going to happen with this amalgation with the universtity, as yet early stages. The TAFE tutors are happy about the amalgamation as they will be able to cross educate engineers and boiler makers/welders hence both will understand each other's plight in the construction world. The boiler maker tutors are excited about the boiler makers getting mettalurgy knowledge hence there is a positive outcome already. The tutors are very disapointed not to be able offer education outside the trades, the people out side the trades are generaly the one who really want to learn.

 

If we do not have a RTO under the RAAus banner we will need some other learning arrangement and RAAus deliver the education.

 

I am thinking further down the road regarding the CASA issues if things get too tough for us. We will be a well established teaching organisation and CASA will have the administration of regestrations and licences.

 

I am only thinking of some alternatives for later.

 

My way of thinking:- RAAus must have some system which can swing into action at a moments notice and incorperate a minimum number of people to have all functioning well. Not skipping all over Australia to collect the working systems.

 

Regards

 

Keith Page.

 

 

[FlyingVizsla]

We will be a well established teaching organisation and CASA will have the administration of regestrations and licences.

I am only thinking of some alternatives for later.

 

My way of thinking:- RAAus must have some system which can swing into action at a moments notice and incorperate a minimum number of people to have all functioning well. Not skipping all over Australia to collect the working systems.

 

 

 

Regards

 

Keith Page.

 

 

I am a bit confused. If CASA does rego & licence - what will RAA teach? Where do the Flying Training Schools fit into this? Are you suggesting a centralised training place? Canberra?

 

 

 

[rhysmcc]

If it's about making us (as members), better pilots, builders and maintainers then why does it need to be a RTO? Surely RA-AUS can design and run these courses without needing any official qualifications. Do we really need a Certificate III in Aviation (Recreational Pilot) or Certificate IV in Aviation (Recreational Aircraft Maintainer).

 

What are our other options for training besides RTO? It's a major hurdle for the organisation, and with our track history with administration I doubt we could even hold onto the accreditation.

 

 

[David Isaac]

Rhysmcc,

 

It is a sad sign of the times that a well run course by a knowledgeable presenter is simply not recognised as a structured course where the presenter does not hold at least a Cert IV in workplace training and assessment and the organisation that facilitated the course is not a RTO.

 

If we are going to do it, it should be done in a recognised form and structure. This typically means at great increased cost and may not utilise the best presenters available.

 

Whilst I do see value in a properly structured course, I sometimes despair at the obstacles placed in the way of potentially good education opportunities.

 

 

[dodo]

Just make sure any project like this doesn't end up like Human Factors - a good idea turned into an acadaemic exercise which appears to have achieved nothing.

 

dodo

 

 

[rhysmcc]

Rhysmcc,It is a sad sign of the times that a well run course by a knowledgeable presenter is simply not recognised as a structured course where the presenter does not hold at least a Cert IV in workplace training and assessment and the organisation that facilitated the course is not a RTO.

If we are going to do it, it should be done in a recognised form and structure. This typically means at great increased cost and may not utilise the best presenters available.

 

Whilst I do see value in a properly structured course, I sometimes despair at the obstacles placed in the way of potentially good education opportunities.

I don't see why it needs to be a recognised course though. It should be about educating members not costing them money for useless qualifications. I am all for RAA developing maintenance workshops and courses, but don't see why we'd be wasting our time with RTO. I fail to see where this fits in RAA's mission statement.

 

 

[Keith Page]

 

I am a bit confused. If CASA does rego & licence - what will RAA teach? Where do the Flying Training Schools fit into this? Are you suggesting a centralised training place? Canberra?

RAAus will be a training and assessing organisation with its many facets.

 

CASA will hold the rego and certificates which will become licences because CASA is a government organisation, plus our licence will be recognised OS.

 

Things will not change that much from what we have now only RAAus will be a RTO. What it is:- things will be in placed in a system which can be audited which will comply with these acts which are as high as Mt. Everest.

 

Regards

 

Keith Page.

 

 

[facthunter]

Where do you get all this from Keith? You are making some strong statements . A licence to be recognised overseas would have to be ICAO compliant. What would be the gain and what would be the losses in that? Nev

 

 

[Keith Page]

Hello Nev

 

Those words are answering Sue's questions.

 

They are only suggestions and can be modified, we have to do something regarding the situation we are in. You are not keen of what I have said. What are your ideas, then Nev?

 

Reserve funds getting depleted and CASA as I see it have wheels under the goal posts.

 

My task at the monment is trying to do the registration renewal thing and there is an internal audit in the tech. department. Well did not CASA oversee that 14-18 months ago?

 

Regards

 

Keith Page

 

 

[David Isaac]

Que .......

 

 

[kaz3g]

Qu'est-ce que?

 

 

[FlyingVizsla]

Keith, I still don't get it. If CASA does aircraft registration and pilot licences; there's no need to be a member of RAAus. No members, no income, so why become a school?

 

 

 

If you search for already established RTOs on https://training.gov.au/Search

 

There are 95 organisations offering just one of the courses - AVI08 - Aviation Training Package (which includes aerobatics, human factors, radio, flight planning) and no doubt there are courses for avionics, mechanics, airframe etc. Why would RAA want to compete?

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

I don't see why it needs to be a recognised course though. It should be about educating members not costing them money for useless qualifications. I am all for RAA developing maintenance workshops and courses, but don't see why we'd be wasting our time with RTO. I fail to see where this fits in RAA's mission statement.

The question is should our association foster training via already-established schools, or take on the training itself. I guess Kieth is suggesting that once RAAus gets on top of current issues, they try to get ahead of the game that CASA is playing.

 

I totally agree with rhysmcc: I'd be interested in training tailored to our needs and delivered by knowlegeable people.

 

But even if we built up an excellent program CASA could dismiss it as irrelevant if it does not fit with National standards. Competency-Based Training is a great idea in theory, but puts too much emphasis on paperwork.

 

 

[facthunter]

The training aspect of it is quite difficult. I think SAAA will discover this. Australia is a s big as the USA with 1/10th the people.( Not even that). Centralising it would not work. I have seen some universities try a degree in Piloting. I'm not impressed generally with the concept. There is a big shortage of "learned " people out there who want to do something that pays poorly ie. Instructing. The standards have dropped as you would expect when all the factors are considered. Nev

 

 

[storchy neil]

nev said The standards have dropped as you would expect when all the factors are considered.

 

I have said many times i was one off the lucky ones who had a 3 very understanding instructors who taught me (it cost me )

 

I now see what you are saying is nearly right to get a good instructor you have to pay more

 

after talking to a couple off blokes at temora when i asked them had they read the flight manual for that type of air craft they said no and these two blokes were 15 hr flight time

 

why have they not read the flight manual as I feel that by 15 hrs you should have a good understanding of the air craft on the other hand what you don't know gets the instructor more money neil

 

 

[Blueadventures]

RAAus will be a training and assessing organisation with its many facets.CASA will hold the rego and certificates which will become licences because CASA is a government organisation, plus our licence will be recognised OS.

Things will not change that much from what we have now only RAAus will be a RTO. What it is:- things will be in placed in a system which can be audited which will comply with these acts which are as high as Mt. Everest.

 

Regards

 

Keith Page.

The schools would be the RTP (Training provider) under the RTO.

 

 

[Keith Page]

The schools would be the RTP (Training provider) under the RTO.

You are on to it, that is exactly what I had in my mind.

 

 

[David Isaac]

Just out of curiosity is CASA an RTO?

 

 

[cherk]

Just out of curiosity is CASA an RTO?

............................................'Really THICK Operators ' ??

 

 

[David Isaac]

Nup .... Obstructers ...

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

I find this whole subject bewildering; may I ask some questions?

 

My personal experience is that there is no satisfactory substitute for a real understanding of WHY things work; when I started my flying, I did so by completing the full DCA PPL theory course before I got into an aeroplane as a student. Back then, the "short answer" style of theory course had not been invented; the exams required essay-type responses and the examiner was looking to see that the student really had an underlying comprehension of the principles involved. I saved all my course books; but when my wife tried to use them for her training, about five years later, it had all changed. Also, by then I had an aeronautical engineering degree; but when I tried to explain the basis behind the theory she was being expected to regurgitate, it emerged that the course was not at all interested in such basics; it taught glib, over-simplified "facts" and the trick was to understand what words the setter of the course expected to see, NOT what the underlying physics actually was.

 

This seems to have become progressively more the case as each generation of pilots set revised "newer" training courses; each generation seems to further distil the "knowledge" into yet a higher level of "pilot fiction" which is even more remote from the fundamental facts - it's very much folk-lore being progressively evolved. The RAA training material of recent times - from what I have seen of it - has made a notable effort to reverse that trend; but there are limits to what it can achieve.

 

People who look for a simplified, condensed "knowledge pill" that they swallow in order to be allowed to commit aviation, will never have that real underlying understanding.

 

One cannot, in my experience, simply sit there and allow somebody to shovel knowledge in. You get what you work for; others can teach, but you have to do the learning. That takes real effort. And a lot of reading. And actually doing it.

 

So, just exactly how are these "training providers" going to work?