Weight and balance course.

[Yenn]

I have just enrolled and had several issuae with the site.

 

I was given an ID and a password. Copied this from the site and was told incorrect. The password has two zeroes before it, I was not told that.

 

Next I have to accept the conditions, but cannot find what they are.

 

Finally when I get into the site it appears to be a load of headings which when picked do nothing. Has anyone else tried this site?

 

It looks as if it is the usual half cocked RAAus approach.

 

 

[Blueadventures]

I have just enrolled and had several issuae with the site.I was given an ID and a password. Copied this from the site and was told incorrect. The password has two zeroes before it, I was not told that.

Next I have to accept the conditions, but cannot find what they are.

 

Finally when I get into the site it appears to be a load of headings which when picked do nothing. Has anyone else tried this site?

 

It looks as if it is the usual half cocked RAAus approach.

Hi Yen

I completed mine a few nights ago. Had trouble with my still XP computer but ok on windows 7, I expect windows 10 is ok. Its a good relevant to topic tutorial and test. Having done GFA and RAAus w&b previous not many new bits. Cheers Mike

 

 

[rick morawski]

I have just enrolled and had several issuae with the site.I was given an ID and a password. Copied this from the site and was told incorrect. The password has two zeroes before it, I was not told that.

Next I have to accept the conditions, but cannot find what they are.

 

Finally when I get into the site it appears to be a load of headings which when picked do nothing. Has anyone else tried this site?

 

It looks as if it is the usual half cocked RAAus approach.

I did it a few nights ago, had no problems getting into the site, but agree that navigation once inside is a bit troublesome.

 

The thing I didn't like was communication once finished the exam, or should I say, lack of it. I got emails all the way through the preliminary study quizzes and exam results, but after that....nothing. Still don't know if I passed or failed or how long I should wait before trying to find out....frustrating!

 

 

[Geoff13]

Yep I did the Level one trial course 3 times. Each time I did it , the system crashed after submission and told me that I had timed out.

 

I question RAA's ability to test me if they can't get a simple online test to work.

 

 

[DrZoos]

I did mine twice. It is slightly more difficult to navigate than it needs to be, especially for people not used to working in SCORM type education packages. However this is the way new education systems are supposed to be designed so they have done the correct thing and built it as a SCORM type course for the future.

 

I got through the first sections no problems. But then got 18/23 twice for the final exams which is a fail. So I scored 89.58% for the entire course, but have technically failed the course. My issue that I failed twice and I got no feedback to tell me why or what I got wrong. So I have no way of studying or restudying the topic.

 

Credit where credits due though. They have designed the course properly, they have brought a paper based course and test that CASA has approved in law via the SAAA into the RAA universe and they have built a well designed and run LMS.

 

However if it is going to work , they are going to need to have someone or some software actively assist in giving feedback for the last section. I scored 18 twice, but I noticed the course average is only 12.6 out of 23. Using a Bell curve this would indicate about 5 % of people are passing the exam. To waste 6 hours reading and studying and fail twice with no feedback is not going to impress many people when 95% of people are failing with no feedback and no contact or follow up.

 

RRA are making a lot of positive IT and eLearning moves. This has potential, but the feedback needs improving. Unfortunately because its approved in legislation it requires a 90% pass mark. However the legislation does not stipulate how many attempts or whether feedback can be given, as I am sure it was given when it was done on pen and paper format. See: https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2015L00530

 

I work in LMS everyday and with a few minor changes, this course could be made very successful .

 

 

[spacesailor]

That's probably the reason I make No sense of this american system: "The standard uses XML, and it is based on the results of work done by AICC, IMS Global, IEEE, and Ariadne."

 

plus: "They have designed the course properly, they have brought a paper based course and test that CASA has approved in law via the SAAA into the RAA universe and they have built a well designed and run LMS." (they RAA)

 

scorn "oops" SCORM.

 

I recognize :IEEE , The input code for putting parts ( GPS/ counter's ETC, into computers)

 

LMS: London Midland Service: Railway in the UK.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[DrZoos]

LMS Learning Management System

 

SCORM Sharable Content Objects

 

Allows for components or objects of courses to be used wherever needed and the package to be zipped. They are not fully SCORM but they are almost compliant.

 

The next step is to go xAPI which then allows for sharing of content objects between different providers on different technology platforms . That way CASA RAA and SAAA HGFA FAA etc can share content that is applicable to each group. So as an example if they wrote a maint course on the Rotax 912 each organaisation could utilise it and share it within thier chosen groups on various platforms.

 

 

[spacesailor]

"So as an example if they wrote a maintenance course on the Rotax 912 each organization could utilize it and share it within their chosen groups on various platforms".

 

Who is the "they" writing a maintenance article for an engine manufacturing company in Germany. i

 

And should we (the public at large) trust unknown's putting out said paper's instead of getting the proper article's from the manufactures.

 

CASA & other Australian's should be weary of American influence, (FAA) putting the laws we have into a mix-mach of worst rubbish that we have now, ( it takes two lawyers to decipher our papers now, how many will it take to unravel them, with a team of American lawyers putting their two cents_worth in.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[kasper]

LMS Learning Management SystemSCORM Sharable Content Objects

Allows for components or objects of courses to be used wherever needed and the package to be zipped. They are not fully SCORM but they are almost compliant.

 

The next step is to go xAPI which then allows for sharing of content objects between different providers on different technology platforms . That way CASA RAA and SAAA HGFA FAA etc can share content that is applicable to each group. So as an example if they wrote a maint course on the Rotax 912 each organaisation could utilise it and share it within thier chosen groups on various platforms.

SCORM - you forgot the RM - Reference Model

My issue with the L1 as a pure online TEST is that it unfortunately IS trying to test reference knowledge of where the legislative requirements for maintenance are AND is trying to examine practical competence - it will not and cannot do the latter.

 

eg I can spot an incorrectly installed lockwire in a picture, I know that it can be done by hand and how many turns per inch is recommended ... but strangely it took me time in hands on actual training 25 years ago to learn how to install it accurately in any/all instances I was likely to find on an airframe in a safe manner... but this test cannot and does not do it.

 

and I am at a loss as to the structure of the actual exam. It appears to require that I do it twice - bugger off - I passed first time I did it and I AM NOT going back to take an exam that is not testing practical competence as I have passed on first go and they can issue/re-validate my L1 based on that.

 

I MIGHT go back and read some of the educational materials - didn't bother as I had two attempts available so just did the test as a starter to see the coverage and what I might have forgotten - apparently not much.

 

Oh and RAAus did not create an LMS - they have populated Canvas (the LMS they purchased access to) with SCORM content ... its hardly rocket science - I set up the linkages and created the base level access to Moodle LMS - Axcelerate SMS - Wordpress online enrolment - MYOB accounting and Eway online payments to create a seamless ability to host SCORM content, enrol online, invoice online, take payments online, and keep all records for finance and ASQA ... and it took 2 of us less than a week to set it all up and then 4 weeks to populate 25 courses with all assessments into it ... and I am not an IT specialist.

 

Setting up the infrastructure for this is BASIC online VET/RTO operations in this century and really it is very much plug-and-play.

 

RAAus were responsible for content and assessments - and frankly there are still silly speclling errors (joke intended) that are in the final exams eg 'sing' instead of 'sign' - not critical BUT it does show that the area that was within their control was not perfectly managed - the fact that an online access system to an LMS works should be taken as a given

 

 

[spacesailor]

"- they have populated Canvas (the LMS they purchased access to) with SCORM content .."/- _Axcelerate_ SMS - Wordpress online enrolment"/keep all records for finance and_ ASQA ._./

 

"the fact that an online access system to an LMS works should be taken as a given"...........(given what?).

 

Way-wayyy over my poor head!.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[kasper]

"- they have populated Canvas (the LMS they purchased access to) with SCORM content .."/- _Axcelerate_ SMS - Wordpress online enrolment"/keep all records for finance and_ ASQA ._./"the fact that an online access system to an LMS works should be taken as a given"...........(given what?).

Way-wayyy over my poor head!.

 

spacesailor

It's equivalent to taking as given that if you are putting together a written manual its taken as given it will be printed in ink on paper. You do not get brownie points for the use of ink and paper ... if you have any involvement in online education the infrastructure and linked basic systems are a given and the experience of the student should be really simple and clear - even intiative and should address and answer basic queries by design. On those grounds the RAAus delivery gets a could do better grade as it's a bit clunky and does not address logical and expected student queries like I passed first time but he only option is to do the test again. Or I failed twice - show me the wrong ones so I can refocus study.

 

 

[P4D]

I sat the test and failed. I don't know where I failed and didn't get any direction on where to concentrate my studies. This was a complete waste of my time. I learnt nothing except I don't know enough and I got no assistance or direction in improving my knowledge. I have chosen to opt out of this

[turboplanner]

[quote="does not address logical and expected student queries like I passed first time but he only option is to do the test again. Or I failed twice - show me the wrong ones so I can refocus study.I sat the test and failed. I don't know where I failed and didn't get any direction on where to concentrate my studies. This was a complete waste of my time. I learnt nothing except I don't know enough and I got no assistance or direction in improving my knowledge. I have chosen to opt out of this

This is a test, not training.

So the questions are, was any training offered by your instructor, or the training organisation?

 

Were you referred to any written/online training material by your instructor/training organisation?

 

Was there any online/pdf etc training material available on the RAA website?

 

I've mentioned several times the need for Certificate IV in safety training, and it looks as if the training component is missing; if it was in place, and you failed the test, which we all do at some stages, then you would have the training material to fall back on.

 

For this to happen, it's also critical that the test is based on the training material, as against, for example, an instructor telling you to buy the Bob Tait books, but the tests being thought up by someone from RAA who has never seen them.

 

 

[facthunter]

Learning should be a Pleasant experience with an immediate effect on how you do things. Not ticking off some list/obstacle to being allowed something . Learning is behaviour modifying. One of it's basic definitions. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

have chosen to opt out of this

I can understand your frustration, but I hope you opt in to some professional training material.

As Facthunter says, training should be a pleasant experience, and W&B is based on very simple mathematics - the see saw principle.

 

From this diagramme, you can see there is a mathematic relationship between mass and distance.

 

Using a simple equation, and equation rules, if any one item here is missing, you can find it.

 

The aircraft loading envelope is set up slightly different to this, but is based on that series of equations, so can calculate your MTOW and stability to the exact kilogramme, or you can place your known weight to the exact millimetre.

 

Some aircraft manufacturers' weight and balance sheets defy logic to a learner, so sometimes it helps to pick a W&B sheet from someone like Piper or Cessna to practice on, and get comfortable with.

 

 

 

[spacesailor]

TurboPlanner.

 

Question 1, Not at lot! :an instructor telling you to buy the Bob Tait books, But I enjoyed the practical flying. (air-work)

 

Question 2, yes more then expected.

 

Question 3, It might have been there but with a very slow phone-modem, was not much help.

 

The question's were worded different to expectation,

 

" what causes icing?" while the answer could be correct, "moisture content of air molecule's", is not in any book of LIGHT aircraft training I've read.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[P4D]

This is a test, not training.So the questions are, was any training offered by your instructor, or the training organisation?

Were you referred to any written/online training material by your instructor/training organisation?

 

Was there any online/pdf etc training material available on the RAA website?.

Thanks for the criticism. If this is not an educational course why is there more than eight hours of reading material and several instructional videos contained in the "Exam" ?

 

Can you kindly point out any training organisation offering Weight and Balance educational courses.

 

Yes there was lots of online/pdf etc training material in the "Exam"

 

Thus still does not address my frustration in not knowing where the failure lies.

 

Without such information I am unwilling to learn the complete CAO's and CASA regulations verbatim to be able to "legally" weigh one aircraft.

 

A library of links to other organisations documents and a couple of videos of someone weighing their own plane is not a training course.

 

To be effective in disseminating this information and increasing the skills,ability and knowledge of builders and pilots like myself RAA need to come forward with a proper training course with measurable outcomes and and a feedback system for candidates. I personally had a poor experience as evidenced by the outcome.

 

 

[DrZoos]

Thanks for the criticism. If this is not an educational course why is there more than eight hours of reading material and several instructional videos contained in the "Exam" ?Can you kindly point out any training organisation offering Weight and Balance educational courses.

Yes there was lots of online/pdf etc training material in the "Exam"

 

Thus still does not address my frustration in not knowing where the failure lies.

 

Without such information I am unwilling to learn the complete CAO's and CASA regulations verbatim to be able to "legally" weigh one aircraft.

 

A library of links to other organisations documents and a couple of videos of someone weighing their own plane is not a training course.

 

To be effective in disseminating this information and increasing the skills,ability and knowledge of builders and pilots like myself RAA need to come forward with a proper training course with measurable outcomes and and a feedback system for candidates. I personally had a poor experience as evidenced by the outcome.

I agree this failing with n feedback after reading a tremendous amount of material is a serious flaw in the package, and I have contacted RAA to make them aware of this. I stumbled upon their course a day or two before it was announced and this struck me as a major problem that would really offend many participants. Its a trial period, so people need to contact RAA with these issues.

 

 

[turboplanner]

TurboPlanner.Question 1, Not at lot! :an instructor telling you to buy the Bob Tait books, But I enjoyed the practical flying. (air-work)

Over the years when we've had threads like this, a common factor is that the student appears to have been taught how to control the aircraft by the instructor, but the theory is someone else's problem. The instructor has a duty of care to ensure the student is safe in both.

Telling you to buy the Bob Tait books doesn't cut it; you need to be trained by modules and tested by modules, so you, and the instructor, and RAA know you are up to speed in every subject.

 

Giving someone a mass of reading/online material, then testing at random, then not being able to provide feedback is not teaching airmanship.

 

I was lucky enough to have instructors who ran night courses for the group of students they were teaching, and believe me, this kills trying to understand an obscure book.

 

Question 2, yes more then expected.

If RAA had more online/pdf training material than you expected, the next question is what was the issue?

Was the material clear and understandable or did it need a mentor, in the form of your instructor to go over each section so you understand it?

 

Question 3, It might have been there but with a very slow phone-modem, was not much help.The question's were worded different to expectation,

" what causes icing?" while the answer could be correct, "moisture content of air molecule's", is not in any book of LIGHT aircraft training I've read.

 

spacesailor

To have to deal with that is just BS, and should be corrected.

The tests questions MUST match the training material, and the correct answers MUST match the text, or obvious meaning from the training.

 

Where the test writer doesn't have enough experience/doesn't understand the subject enough to be concise and correct, urgent Certificate IV training is needed before subjecting students to the frustration of screw ups like this.

 

Answers should be provided, and the software should be set up so that different questions are asked in the next test, and safeguards are built in to prevent students from learning to parrot all the answers.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Thanks for the criticism. If this is not an educational course why is there more than eight hours of reading material and several instructional videos contained in the "Exam" ?Can you kindly point out any training organisation offering Weight and Balance educational courses.

Yes there was lots of online/pdf etc training material in the "Exam"

 

Thus still does not address my frustration in not knowing where the failure lies.

 

Without such information I am unwilling to learn the complete CAO's and CASA regulations verbatim to be able to "legally" weigh one aircraft.

 

A library of links to other organisations documents and a couple of videos of someone weighing their own plane is not a training course.

 

To be effective in disseminating this information and increasing the skills,ability and knowledge of builders and pilots like myself RAA need to come forward with a proper training course with measurable outcomes and and a feedback system for candidates. I personally had a poor experience as evidenced by the outcome.

I think the best course for you is to sit down with your Instructor and break this up into understandable tasks.

Most light aircraft will exceed MTOW with full fuel, full pax and full baggage; once you get to cross country flying you need to be able to check weights quickly and accurately.

 

A typical example, when you complete Pilot Cert/PAX/Nav is to fly to a friend's farm which might be a long distance away, so you need amost full fuel.

 

You fly in to the paddock, for an uneventful landing on the short strip and stay overnight, and fuel up for the return flight the next day.

 

The strip happens to be at 1500 feet.

 

The next day, it's late morning and 30 degrees, and your friend wants to look at a windmill problem, so you decide to take him up for the ten minutes or so involved.

 

Several new factors you've never experienced at the training facility are involved.

 

1. Your friend weighs 115 kg, compared to your skinny instructor at 78 kg

 

2. You have the weight of your overnight gear stored

 

3. The density of the air on this strip is much less than your sea level base

 

4. The density of the air is further thinned by the 30 degree temperature

 

5. The paddock strip length is about half that of your base

 

If you just wing it, it's probable that your aircraft is not going to get off the strip in time, or get off and drop its tail back onto the ground, bending the aircraft, or worse.

 

Just factoring those 5 points into the calculation before takeoff give you an easy go/no go decision, so you really do need to learn and understand them thoroughly.

 

 

[M61A1]

This is a test, not training.So the questions are, was any training offered by your instructor, or the training organisation?

Were you referred to any written/online training material by your instructor/training organisation?

 

Was there any online/pdf etc training material available on the RAA website?

 

I've mentioned several times the need for Certificate IV in safety training, and it looks as if the training component is missing; if it was in place, and you failed the test, which we all do at some stages, then you would have the training material to fall back on.

 

For this to happen, it's also critical that the test is based on the training material, as against, for example, an instructor telling you to buy the Bob Tait books, but the tests being thought up by someone from RAA who has never seen them.

Actually, it is training. It's an online course with reference material, stage quzzes on the way through and an exam at the end. Yes, weight and balance is a simple mathematical equation, but the regs aren't. Why for a rec flying w&b course you would need to reference RAA tech manual, CARs, FARs and the AC 43, is beyond me. Surely CARs and RAA material should be adequate..

In any case, my complaint, along with the others, would be the layout and lack of feedback. The quizzes through the course give feedback, but the final exam does not, other than a mark. I did the course in 38 minutes, off the top of my head, to see what I knew, and what the course quality was like ( as well as I was running late by the time I got to the exam). I scored in the high eighties but still don't know if I have passed or failed, it just tells you that you have one attempt left, despite having green ticks in all boxes.

 

 

[P4D]

I think the best course for you is to sit down with your Instructor and break this up into understandable tasks.Most light aircraft will exceed MTOW with full fuel, full pax and full baggage; once you get to cross country flying you need to be able to check weights quickly and accurately..

Thanks again for the unqualified comment.

 

As holder of an instructors certificate I find your comments quite condescending.

 

The problem remains one of a test designed with no supportive curriculum, feedback mechanism, learning objects or outcome measures.

 

As a qualified trainer and assessor this form of test falls far below the Australian Qualifications Framework requirements, even at Certificate II level (the lowest requirement) and does a serious disservice to those willing to learn.

 

The problem is not with the student it is with a poorly designed course that is designed to meet an academic outcome rather than deliver underpinning knowledge and understanding.

 

On this note choose not to persevere with such a gargantuan task over such a small matter.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Thanks again for the unqualified comment.As holder of an instructors certificate I find your comments quite condescending.

The problem remains one of a test designed with no supportive curriculum, feedback mechanism, learning objects or outcome measures.

 

As a qualified trainer and assessor this form of test falls far below the Australian Qualifications Framework requirements, even at Certificate II level (the lowest requirement) and does a serious disservice to those willing to learn.

 

The problem is not with the student it is with a poorly designed course that is designed to meet an academic outcome rather than deliver underpinning knowledge and understanding.

 

On this note choose not to persevere with such a gargantuan task over such a small matter.

Well, you learn something new every day.

 

 

[facthunter]

How long do the "qualifications" last? I person I know who has done more actual W&B checks and devised load sheets and given instruction in it, than anyone in CASA has, to renew his qualifications every TWO years. This sort of sunset clause seems to be part of the new approach. It would be "strange" if anyone's got it for longer than that, under these circumstances. Nev

 

 

[Yenn]

From memory this test was a beta test for the future training and testing. It was clear from the start that there would be on follow up on how you failed. The proper course and test will be starting sometime next year.