Scenario Based Training

[Rogue]

Wow what are you five years old ? When and where did I call you a name ? I said you came off sounding LIKE a jerk. If you can't see that then you truly have blinders on.

 

Way to totally avoid the issue at hand by the way.

 

Again instead of directly addressing what I had to say, which is my opinion by the way - I'm not so ignorant to think that their isn't more than one way to skin a cat - you attempt to belittle me and you talk about dragging it down to the gutter when that is all you've done.

 

If it was such a laborious event for you to restate what you said in another thread then why in God's good name did you bother to reply ? There seems to be plenty of above grade talk going on in this thread between other posters. Your post was chock full of vitriol however. We don't need your ONE MORE ATTEMPT to explain how the world works to us, amazingly enough we all get by each day without you.

 

Maybe when you grow up we can continue to discuss in a rational manner, but I doubt seriously as that will happen, since none of us uneducated people don't have a clue.

[naflight]

The only thing I would chance about my training, was during the Commercial. I would add some "real life" type of flights, like a mock photo, or tour flight (things a new Commercial Pilot is likely to start out doing). Other than that, I feel my training was great. Is this SBT? I don't know,...and quite frankly, I don't care.

 

Its all up to the individual instructor, we don't need a new curriculum.

 

butters - appreciate the comments...thank you, you said a lot! I felt the exact same way about my commercial training...did NOTHING to prepare me for what came after - even a simple helicopter tour around Boston, photo flight, or anything other than the PTS maneuvers. Never mind learning about GOM's Op Spec's, etc. etc.

 

This is what I am trying to do with the comm. syllabus. Simple. It's building all the PTS maneuvers into a package that teaches a lot of the 'other stuff' along with it. An area which many schools are lacking - you just said it yourself - a piece of training even you missed.

 

It's the "other than that" in your "great training" statement - that void needing to be filled.

 

And you say "you don't care" "we don't need a new curriculum"- does that sum it all up? Is that really the attitude to have? Can anyone argue with that statement? Just dig a little deeper that's all. Not trashing anyone or anyone's training - just check it out, do some research, then fire away!

 

Thanks,

Curt

[naflight]

You Sincerely are coming off like a jerk. Just because someone doesn't agree with you does not mean that they do not understand or whatever other attempts you are making to belittle.

 

I personally found it 10 times harder to learn to navigate via fixed card ADF then I did with the GPS. So by definition which one is Advanced ?

 

Again I'll say - anything that makes training better is a good thing.

 

Again I'll say - I personally don't get it. I read your links, as stated it just sounds like a sales pitch bunch of acronyms compiled together to make some congress critter happy.

 

Again I'll say ( before my peers ) I haven't seen one piece of evidence submitted that is not already covered under Part 61 IF APPLIED PROPERLY WITH AN EXPERIENCED HAND.

 

Rogue,

 

I would be happy to go over what we've done up here offline (too much to talk about in a forum). The syllabus is 350 pages, 18 months worth of work. As I said before, the acronyms tend to throw some people off - especially those that are doubtful, makes it easy to pass it off as a 'marketing gimmick'. It's really not at all.

 

Check out the UND syllabus for the Cirrus aircraft. Teaching primary students in a Cirrus is quite a thing (first hand experience)- you can't teach the systems - MFD, PFD, multiple GPS, and the autopilot without putting it into a scenario format that covers all sorts of malfunctions and conditions one could get into using the systems in that airplane - ESPECIALLY a private level student or transitioning pilot. FITS came about because of TAA...but the principles can be applied elsewhere in aviation. I don't think anyone it touting it as perfect, but it sure is a good step.

 

I think it's easy to get excited and things come across wrong easily in forums. Nature of the communication I guess. And on that note one should not judge entirely by what they read in a forum either - I think we can all agree on that

 

Curt

[iChris]

EVALUATING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF SCENARIO BASED TRAINING IN THE COLLEGIATE FLIGHT TRAINING ENVIRONMENT

 

http://www.faa.gov/t...a/SBT_final.pdf

SUMMARY

This study compared the performance of Private Pilot students trained under scenario based concepts with students trained using traditional maneuver based techniques.

 

The Scenario Based students out-performed the Maneuver Based students in six of the seven research measures. Though the variation between groups was not statistically significant, the positive trend in accumulated data, in conjunction with highly favorable instructor comments, does suggest that Scenario Based Training had a positive impact on student performance. Additionally, a comparison of the required training times between SBT and MBT students showed that Scenario Based Training can be conducted without incurring a penalty in training time or cost. Researchers are confident that further studies, incorporating a larger sample size, in conjunction with refined instructor standardization and curriculum guidance, would enhance the SBT advantage.

 

 

DISCUSSION

The accumulated research data shows that students who received Scenario Based Training out-performed the Maneuver Based group in six out of seven measures. Examination of the Ground and Flight Training Time data shows that SBT students required 3.1 fewer aircraft hours and approximately 2.9 fewer pre- and post-lesson briefing hours than the MBT group.

 

They also experienced fewer repeat lessons and demonstrated higher performance on stage checks, Aeronautical Decision Making, and dead reckoning navigation. The only area in which the SBT group did not excel was in FTD hours, where they required approximately .13 hours more than the MBT group. Statistical analysis has shown that none of these variations was significant; however, the preponderance of scores favoring SBT implies that Scenario Based Training may have had a positive impact. The data also suggests that SBT can indeed be accomplished without incurring a significant training time penalty, and as evidenced by this study, may actually be accomplished in less overall time.

 

Regarding pre- and post-lesson briefing times, it is interesting to note that SBT students required .8 hours less than the MBT group in Block 1; and this advantage more than doubled to 1.8 hours in Block 2. A possible explanation for this widening lead on the MBT group between Blocks 1 and 2 is the requirement to front-load cross-country principles to SBT students in Block 1; which then streamlines the presentation of this same information in Block 2 (the cross-country block). The requirement to front-load information when conducting Scenario Based Training is a theme previously acknowledged in other FITS activities.

 

Even though the results of this study generally favored SBT, more definitive results may have been obtained with a larger sample size. In addition, several other confounding variables may have been present and are worthy of discussion.

 

For example, this study makes the assumption that the teaching abilities between the two flight instructor groups (SBT and MBT) were equal and that instructors conducted their assigned type of training as instructed. However, as previously noted, UND has traditionally employed a maneuver based approach to training, and considering that this study was conducted in an operational environment with a large group of instructors, it was difficult to ensure that SBT principles were fully embraced by the SBT instructor group. It is likely that as the UND instructor group becomes more educated and experienced on SBT concepts, the overall benefits of SBT would be more apparent.

 

Another factor that may have inhibited scenario based performance was the requirement to conduct SBT while adhering to a Part 141 maneuver based syllabus. It seems logical that training time could be reduced by developing a syllabus that employs SBT from the beginning, allowing course developers to select maneuvers that blend more favorably into a particular scenario—rather than converting a maneuver based lesson into a scenario.

 

It should also be noted that both MBT and SBT students were evaluated in accordance with the current FAA Private Pilot Practical Test Standard (PTS)--which is maneuver based. To complicate matters, students were also evaluated on their adherence to UND standard set-up procedures for each maneuver.

 

As one instructor explained, "Missing these items will get them in just as much trouble on the stage check as fumbling the maneuver." Instructors, therefore, had to ensure that their students received sufficient "drill and practice" to pass the stage check successfully. This undoubtedly had an additional negative impact on SBT training times. Researchers predict that a stand-alone SBT syllabus, in conjunction with a scenario based PTS, would enhance the SBT advantage.

 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++END

 

In the current context of the struggling flight training industry, some flight schools are seeking a competitive edge through so-called superior products or services. It may not be new under the sun, but it must be marketed as such. Always take note of the people that have a dog in this SBT/FITS hunt.

Edited March 21, 2011 by iChris

[naflight]

EVALUATING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF SCENARIO BASED TRAINING IN THE COLLEGIATE FLIGHT TRAINING ENVIRONMENT

 

http://www.faa.gov/t...a/SBT_final.pdf

SUMMARY

This study compared the performance of Private Pilot students trained under scenario based concepts with students trained using traditional maneuver based techniques.

 

The Scenario Based students out-performed the Maneuver Based students in six of the seven research measures. Though the variation between groups was not statistically significant, the positive trend in accumulated data, in conjunction with highly favorable instructor comments, does suggest that Scenario Based Training had a positive impact on student performance. Additionally, a comparison of the required training times between SBT and MBT students showed that Scenario Based Training can be conducted without incurring a penalty in training time or cost. Researchers are confident that further studies, incorporating a larger sample size, in conjunction with refined instructor standardization and curriculum guidance, would enhance the SBT advantage.

 

 

DISCUSSION

The accumulated research data shows that students who received Scenario Based Training out-performed the Maneuver Based group in six out of seven measures. Examination of the Ground and Flight Training Time data shows that SBT students required 3.1 fewer aircraft hours and approximately 2.9 fewer pre- and post-lesson briefing hours than the MBT group.

 

They also experienced fewer repeat lessons and demonstrated higher performance on stage checks, Aeronautical Decision Making, and dead reckoning navigation. The only area in which the SBT group did not excel was in FTD hours, where they required approximately .13 hours more than the MBT group. Statistical analysis has shown that none of these variations was significant; however, the preponderance of scores favoring SBT implies that Scenario Based Training may have had a positive impact. The data also suggests that SBT can indeed be accomplished without incurring a significant training time penalty, and as evidenced by this study, may actually be accomplished in less overall time.

 

Regarding pre- and post-lesson briefing times, it is interesting to note that SBT students required .8 hours less than the MBT group in Block 1; and this advantage more than doubled to 1.8 hours in Block 2. A possible explanation for this widening lead on the MBT group between Blocks 1 and 2 is the requirement to front-load cross-country principles to SBT students in Block 1; which then streamlines the presentation of this same information in Block 2 (the cross-country block). The requirement to front-load information when conducting Scenario Based Training is a theme previously acknowledged in other FITS activities.

 

Even though the results of this study generally favored SBT, more definitive results may have been obtained with a larger sample size. In addition, several other confounding variables may have been present and are worthy of discussion.

 

For example, this study makes the assumption that the teaching abilities between the two flight instructor groups (SBT and MBT) were equal and that instructors conducted their assigned type of training as instructed. However, as previously noted, UND has traditionally employed a maneuver based approach to training, and considering that this study was conducted in an operational environment with a large group of instructors, it was difficult to ensure that SBT principles were fully embraced by the SBT instructor group. It is likely that as the UND instructor group becomes more educated and experienced on SBT concepts, the overall benefits of SBT would be more apparent.

 

Another factor that may have inhibited scenario based performance was the requirement to conduct SBT while adhering to a Part 141 maneuver based syllabus. It seems logical that training time could be reduced by developing a syllabus that employs SBT from the beginning, allowing course developers to select maneuvers that blend more favorably into a particular scenario—rather than converting a maneuver based lesson into a scenario.

 

It should also be noted that both MBT and SBT students were evaluated in accordance with the current FAA Private Pilot Practical Test Standard (PTS)--which is maneuver based. To complicate matters, students were also evaluated on their adherence to UND standard set-up procedures for each maneuver.

 

As one instructor explained, "Missing these items will get them in just as much trouble on the stage check as fumbling the maneuver." Instructors, therefore, had to ensure that their students received sufficient "drill and practice" to pass the stage check successfully. This undoubtedly had an additional negative impact on SBT training times. Researchers predict that a stand-alone SBT syllabus, in conjunction with a scenario based PTS, would enhance the SBT advantage.

 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++END

 

In the current context of the struggling flight training industry, some flight schools are seeking a competitive edge through so-called superior products or services. It may not be new under the sun, but it must be marketed as such. Always take note of the people that have a dog in this SBT/FITS hunt.

 

Great post. I don't think anyone is marketing this as 'new'...'new' as applied to helicopter training, maybe. But not new by any stretch. Anyone trying to pass off something in a false manner in today's environment obviously underestimates peoples ability to use Google.

 

And it's really not a competitive edge either - would it basically be given away for free if it was? Would people be giving training to spread a 'competitive advantage'? And what would be so bad if some schools were looking to use something that's already out there to make their training better?

 

And the 'adherence to SBT while using a 141 syllabus' - that was something we noticed from the beginning - we solved that by working with the FSDO on a grading process which adheres to 141. AND creating tasks under each lesson which help with some of the 141 grading.

 

Keep the good posts coming!

[R22139RJ]

To me, SBT is a label that is put on something good flight instructors already do. When I fly I use all the USELESS maneuver based training around the traffic pattern and its worked out pretty good so far. Giving situations to students has its place and time but a day of autos without the precursor of, What happens if you're engine fails and you're here and this is there and you can only land here, works out pretty damn well when we fly over a vineyard and I say engine failure, and the student sees a spot and flies to the road in between the grape stakes. The end result is the student flies the aircraft.

 

If there is such a problem with pilots crashing, we make them fly to higher standards. There are people out there who shouldn't have ratings or be in charge of people's lives but DPEs have to make money too.

 

Mike, regardless if you are or aren't, people take your constant downplay of traditional flight training and the "support" of SBT as an advertisement for your services even if your goal is to improve flight training, it may be time to go about things differently on the forums.

[Falko]

I think we are all on the same page that , whatever reduces accidents & increases pilot skills in our industry is something we like to learn about and should be implemented.

 

I like the idea that Curt was talking about giving your student a scenario with changing variables during a simulated photo-flight flight or something like that and see how the student is reacting to it.

When i look back at my flight training at Hillsboro Aviation we pretty much focused on basic and some advanced helicopter operations as far as maneuvers ground school and stuff.

only little scenarios in during my flt training.

 

I don't know how you guys felt during your initial training (PVT-CFII) but in my case I was busy enough in the aircraft dealing with cockpit management, flying the helicopter, dealing with the tower in Class D, looking at my Alt and speed to keep the instructor happy and such. I thought i was better to be to get more comfortable with the machine before betting into advanced scenarios.

What does it do me good if so many factors are changing all around me if i dont reallt feel confrontation in my helicopter ?

 

Some students can multitask more than others and the less multitaskable "warning, new word" student gets fixated on one thing and forgets about everything else and the whole things gets out of hand.

 

We shouldn't forget its called "flight school" and not "TOP GUN". In flight school people learn the basics "pattern work, emergency procedure.. etc. We can not expect flight students to be a ready EMS pilot "Curt's Example" or what every the scenario we threw our student into.

 

Looking at what is written above by some people who are using FITS & SBT flight training raises some questions.

 

1)

A low or high time CFI is flying with a low time student giving him scenarios in araes like EMS, utility, offshore,you name it, even-though this CFI has never flown in such areas of operation and yet he is giving lessons in that ?

 

Its not rocket science but In my opinion if i want to be taught long line i want that from a high time long line pilot. same with mountain flying, offshore, Single pilot IFR, Fire Fighting.

 

Since we are speaking of training here. I thing the ground training should be taught by a mechanic when it comes to engine plant and other A/C components.

 

2)

Looking at the current flooded CFII market, will that FITS SBT give me a job ?

 

In my opinion " NO ". Will it put you in a better position " may to yes" but that wont make a difference if there are little to NO-jobs out there anyway.

 

3)

 

Is that another sales pitch of flight schools ?

 

 

Iam can imagine some schools may use it for that reason, since money is what keeps your school running and the student/bank is the one that has it .

 

 

4) Isn't FITS & SBT basically focusing on improving students judgment /attitude and awareness ?

 

That's what it sounds like to me but i will try to make it to one of mike F. seminars to get a better idea.I think it has good values/ideas to it that can increase GA safety.

 

 

As far as increase in accident over the last couple of years, to me its seems like pressure, bad decision making/ attitude/ judgment are a the big reasons for that. Not the WX, Wx is all the time, if its at or below your personal min. dont fly.

 

I find myself landing a the scenes, crew is talking you into the LZ, iam talking to the tower, dispatch is calling you with patient update. nurse pointing out a bird or tower a mile away from your landing site, the wind is pushing you around. There can be lots of distraction going on in certain moments.

 

Instructors tell their students dont do such and such... it can get out of hand and kill you and yet they do and die.

 

Your Attitude is something you bring to flight school/ Work. Lot of guys are set in their way and it takes lots of time/ Energy to change it, IF they realize their bad attitude / judgment.

 

There is only so much you can teach and your student, and the rest is something you have to teach yourself by doing it and learn from your own mistakes.

 

 

 

Alright, time to hit the gym. Fly safely

 

Falko

[RkyMtnHI]

Guys, guys, guys.. sigh.. you frustrate even me, so I can understand when Mike wants to give up on you.

 

Here is this guy, with over 40 years of helicopter CFI experience, over 7000 hours, been to who knows how many factory schools (he went every year for many years, many years, probably more years than some of you have been alive). Here is a gent that only wants to give back, one that sincerely can help us all be safer and bring a desperately needed change to a part of our industry that can build better pilots. This is not all about him; Curt got it over two years ago, the FAA gets it (FITS), we get it (we've spent over seven months and 200 hours on our syllabus), Bristow gets it (Mike was just there), UND and Emery Riddle got it (FW studies), in fact, every single school that invites Mike out and listens to him GETS it!! And you will too when you put your ego away long enough to pay attention (if you can, and if that is an issue for you, then you are in the wrong business, not being rude, just saying).

 

We are not saying that all of you have done this wrong, surely there are some great instructors out there, but frankly all the testosterone being slung around makes me seriously wonder. If you were indeed that great instructor you wouldn’t have to prove it to anyone, it would just be a fact, you would know it. I have said this before, the folks with the most hours are the most humble.. Weird.

 

I am sure there are CFIs out there that are amazing instructors and have produced amazing pilots.. but, in my humble experience, especially around here, they are most definitely the minority.. so if you are that person, then consider yourself one of the few and be proud of that and encourage others to emulate your ways.. I expect tho, the one’s that really are those folks would never criticize someone that is trying to make a difference, even if it did question their own prowess..

 

Some of you are making this all too complicated, there are many folks, and soon to be many many more, that see a way to find structure where there once was none.. and the outcome is SAFETY and lives saved, how in the world can you be arguing with that??? It is CLEAR from some of your posts that you have not done your research, this is a better way and it's a no brainer... What is your real agenda?? Can you just put your ego aside for a long enough to give it a chance?? What is the worst thing that could happen?? I wonder! What if Mike, Curt and the rest of us are right.. will that be such a bad thing??? I hope you will think about it.

 

Mike, you are amazing.

 

Curt, you have way more patience than the rest of us.. keep it up. Maybe you’ll teach us about more than just SBT.. lol

 

Very Sincerely,,

 

dp

[RkyMtnHI]

Oh boy, this is gonna date me for sure!!! :-)

 

You know, I was thinking, I had email thru the University of Hawaii in 1992, it was of course DOS based (do you guys know what that is???). When Mosaic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosaic_(web_browser)) came out a year later I was a hold out.. I didn’t need any new technology, I was happy with the old way. I laugh out loud at my stubbornness, who could imagine anything else now days. A few years ago my team was using txt messaging.. they told me I should get on board.. I said, nah, not me, too much trouble.. again, I am smiling ear to ear as I cannot imagine NOT txting now..

 

I hope you are getting my point.. Maybe you folks should think outside of the box for just a moment.. never know what might happen!! Lol

 

dp

[rjl2001]

From the little I have heard and read about Scenario Based Training in the last couple weeks, I agree it is the way to go. I also agree that the numerous acronyms can be confusing or frustrating. Right when I thought I knew a little about SBT I then had no idea what FITS, TAA, LCG, and SRM are. Also, I can empathize with those who might have viewed this as a marketing or money making scheme. At first it looked to me like all the SBT hype was coming from only a couple people, and the only way to learn about it was to pay to attend a conference or something. I have since realized this is not at all the case, with more people realizing its benefits and spreading relevant information about SBT.

 

In my view there are some schools/instructors that are already using certain techniques from the SBT methodology. Lots of commercial training flights or checkrides will involve placing the student pilot in a mock mission of some type. But I can also say from experience that some schools/instructors do not do much of that at all. Either way I think that is just one specific example, and doesn't address the totality of what SBT encompasses. Some other aspects that sound good to me are having a proper post-flight in which the student pilot (or Pilot in Training in SBT lingo) can first critique himself other than just the CFI saying you did x,y,and z wrong. More like an After Action Review (AAR) for the military folks. Also adhering to a mission or certain goal for each flight, keeps the student pilot more involved than just having the CFI asking 'what maneuvers do you want to do today?' each time.

 

I see SBT becoming much more popular, widespread, and accepted in the helo training community in the near future. As more schools adopt the program (like Colorado Heli-Ops and North Andover Academy), more future CFI's will have been taught this way and continue to teach their students this way. You can see how this leads to the quick spreading of SBT.

 

Finally, I wish I could attend the conference coming up in Portland to learn more about it. It sounds like I may have a couple friends attending though, so maybe they can fill me in on the latest.

 

Also wanted to add a link to a short article that gives some of the background: My link

Edited March 21, 2011 by rjl2001