Scenario Based Training

[RkyMtnHI]

Thanks to tutelage of Michael Franz, our CFIs have been implementing scenario based training for a couple of weeks now, and I wanted to share with you the effect it has had on Heli-Ops. The first thing that I have noticed is the increased enthusiasm of all the team.. they seem to feel empowered by the fact that they are producing better pilots and training seems to make more sense to them. We honestly believe that this is a better way, and you will too when you see it in action. Our old system was focused on maneuvers based training, and for many flight schools, that’s what they teach, to fly around in circles at the airport and practice maneuvers… steep approaches, shallow, quick stops.. on and on and on.. the same stuff different day.. When we opened Heli-Ops we vowed to teach real flight training, and worked on that by having places to do off airport training, we flew in and out directly from the ramp.. many things to act like real helicopters.. but this stuff makes even more sense.. to teach the PT (pilots in training) to be pilots in command from day one, to think out of the box, to think like THEY are flying the helo all of the time. We know that this is a better way, and are honored to be on the leading edge of this movement.

 

http://www.justhelicopters.com/tabid/434/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/4113/Colorado+Heli-Ops+raises+the+bar+in+safety+awareness+with+FITS+designed+Scenario-Based+Training.aspx

 

Here are some comments from our instructors:

 

The things that stood out in a phone conversation with Jake:

 

Every flight is more fun!

 

There is more thinking involved at every level of the training..

 

Every flight is a mission! Just as in the ‘real world’, every flight has a purpose from the beginning to the end. Instead of the CFI and the student getting into the helicopter and then the CFI saying ‘so, what do you wanna do today?’

 

Here are a few words from Garin:

 

After digging through the "Train like you fly" book I am really starting to enjoy the idea of Scenario Based Training. Mainly because it gets the CFI way more involved in the training part. As a CFI I get to develop some cool real world scenarios and have the Pilot in Training do ALL of the planning, weather, GPS, everything in order to get the "job" done. What is also neat about it is the Pilot in Training (PT) might have a way better way of doing something that I might have not even thought about. It keeps the CFI more involved and away from the repetitious pattern training. I just returned from a Scenario where I was the photographer who wanted to take pictures of a nearby pinnacle and the PT needed to figure the Lat/Long, weather, performance, and all of the above for the flight and I was going to sit back and be a "photographer" and let him struggle through all the problems that came up, just as long as it didn't get dangerous. Once we were done with the mock photo shoot we debriefed, but not the kind where the CFI rambled about all the things they did wrong, but the kind where the PT debriefed and graded himself on everything. All in all SBT is pretty sweet and am looking forward to digging into this way more!

 

 

I sincerely hope you all will look into this system and start to use it in your daily training.. it is the way of the future in flight training, and it just makes sense!!

 

This is the book Garin was talking about.. if you are a CFI, you should order this book right now!! Wanna change the system? Be a part of that change.. make a difference!

 

http://www.amazon.com/Train-Like-You-Fly-Scenario-based/dp/1560277076

 

 

Aloha,

 

dp

[Mikemv]

To All, I have been working with Colorado Heli-Ops behind the scenes with guidance and info from their beginning. I have come to respect their Management, CFI staff and company goals regarding Flight Training.

 

In May of 2010, they hosted my "C&E Seminar" & RR250 Series Turbine Engine Ground School to help educate pilots.

 

Just a few weeks ago, I spent 3 days on site offering inital training to their CFI staff of 4 Instructors on FITS/SBT/LCG methods. Weekly follow up training and guidance has been happening via phone and e-mails. Another visit is planned sometime in the future to further solidify the training of their FITS/SBT Facilitators.

 

My goal is to reduce the accident rate in the helicopter industry by changing the flight training segment to modern Scenario Based Training which produces pilots with higher order thinking skills and better flying skill sets. I hope to work with any and every flight school in the US and possibly overseas to enact the change. I am not alone in this effort as many entities recognize the importance of the change to SBT.

 

 

The FAASTeam, NTSB, HAI, IHST, and insurance companies are all on board! My services are available to any school/staff ready to make the commitment to a better way. Switching to SBT takes more than reading a book but overall is not difficult with the proper training and assistance.

 

 

Feel free to e-mail me at mikefranz@embarqmail.com for assistance in any way to reduce helicopter accidents through SBT or a "C&E Seminar".

 

 

With a consolidated effort, we can change our industry for the better!

 

Sincerely,

 

Mike

Edited October 8, 2010 by Mikemv

[ADRidge]

The best training I've ever received has been scenario-based. Unfortunately, very little of that SBT has been through CFI's at the school I was training with at the time. I got lucky and happened to know a high-time fellow with easy access to an R-22 for most of it.

 

I'll tell ya, from a student's point of view, those are the lessons that always stuck with me and taught me the most. The ONE CFI at a school I attended who taught SBT taught it on a rental checkout, right before I took my girlfriend up. His words right after the exercise, and I will never forget this, were "what if it was just you and your girlfriend in the helicopter when this happened? What would you do?"

 

I'm a believer in SBT, and that's why I will continue to recommend schools like yours. Keep up the good work up there in Colorado!

[500E]

I must have been lucky training we always went out with a mission, in that were parts of his lesson plan eg. slope landing, confined area, restricted airspace, I then flew the mission without much input other than him suggesting what was wrong, after a few lessons you start to analyse your own flying and correct a lot of the mistakes, after he would say how did that go then & expect you to talk him through the flight.

I still do this if I fly with another pilot, very rare that I don't think there were places improvements could be made.

Anything that makes people think before acting is good, someone lost a 500 to wires a month or two ago coming into a site he used on a regular basis but from a different direction did he make a low rece or just forget the wires he must have seen on other approach? luckily he walked away but 500 rolled into ball,

Pet hate is towering take offs if there is no need, saw a 44 last week vertical to 200+ feet with clear ground for 3 miles with a 90 turn of the pad.

[r22butters]

...Pet hate is towering take offs if there is no need, saw a 44 last week vertical to 200+ feet with clear ground for 3 miles with a 90 turn of the pad.

 

Maybe he couldn't tell that it was clear for 3 miles (the other guy didn't see the wires!)?

 

If I'm unfamiliar with an off-airport area, I takeoff vertically.

 

Then again, maybe he was just having fun?

[500E]

If eyesight that bad look at pics of site in blog.

Why put yourself in the curve especially if there are people under you,that sort of fun can end in tears

[naflight]

You are 100% correct in stating that Scenario Based Training will change the way flight schools train their helicopter pilots. It's great to see other helicopter flight schools picking up on this type of training. We knew from the beginning that training "outside of the pattern" was the way to go. Adopting the FAA/Industry Training Standards that have been used in the fixed wing world for the last few years was a driving force for our advancing SBT/FITS in the helicopter training world.

 

Here at North Andover Flight Academy in Massachusetts we were early adopters of FITS principles and took scenario-based-training a step further and received Part 141 approval of the first helicopter scenario based training (FITS) commercial syllabus. At this point in time, we are the ONLY helicopter school authorized to use the FITS logo, but I'm sure other schools will follow suit. In fact, we offer our help to anyone that needs guidance with developing a syllabus.

 

It has been 18 months in the making, but with the FSDO approval FITS helicopter training has been validated. This syllabus is a complete Part 141 syllabus including notes to instructors, detailed scenarios, grading guidelines (since it's Part 141 thats a large part of the work), and very specific NTSB cases to go along with each scenario. (It's grown to a rather large 350 pages worth of work).In order to qualify for 141 approval, it was necessary to combine learner centered grading sheets with the proper task grading sheets required for each scenario. It was such an advanced syllabus that it required close work with FITS specialists at the FSDO who assisted in the fine-tuning of the Part 141 Commercial requirements.

 

Rotor and Wing had covered Scenario Based Training and highlighted our efforts earlier in the year, as did AOPA. Vertical Magazine will also be detailing the FITS syllabus in their upcoming issue. With all the work we've done on this syllabus and getting the helicopter training industry to catch on to FITS, it's great to see people adopting the principles of SBT and LCG.

 

Scenario Based Training As Real as it Gets

 

Where the "rubber hits the road" so to speak is when helicopter schools take these training principles and put them down on paper for all instructors to use and track appropriately. Hence the Part 141 approval.

 

Anyone interested in Part 141 approval of their scenario based training program give us a call here outside of Boston, Massachusetts. We have locations in Marlborough and Lawrence, Massachusetts and also in Alexandria Bay, New York.

 

If you would like to see our FITS information, check out our FITS Information Page.

[Mikemv]

NAflight, I hope that everyone recognizes and applauds your efforts in establishing the first FITS/SBT/141 Commercial Syllabus. I read the article on North Andover Flight Academy in Massachusetts in the June issue of Rotor & Wing magazine.

 

My goal as a FAASTeam Rep and experienced CFI R-H is to help reduce the helicopter accident rate by changing an antiquated training process to a modern FITS/SBT/LCG nation wide program. I have initiated this effort with Colorado Heli-Ops by training their CFIs to be FITS/SBT/LCG Facilitators and enacting all of their training as Scenario Based!

 

Schools like North Andover Flight Academy in Massachusetts & Colorado Heli-Ops in Broomfield, Colorado are leading the way and making history in flight training in helicopters!

 

I will be contacting you and hope to work with you and your staff in a joint effort to make the change to SBT!

 

Mike

[naflight]

Hi Mike,

 

I look forward to talking with you. I will be happy to help in any way I can. Exciting stuff isn't it?

 

Talk soon,

Curt Peredina

[Tom22]

Scenario based training definitely sounds like a better alternative to practicing autos in the traffic pattern and probably is (I like the concept); however, how has its effectives been measured in the domain of civilian helicopter pilot training? I know this method has been used in the military and supported by academia (ERAU & UND), industry associations, and manufactures but what methods have been used or are used to collect data to evaluate and validate this method on student’s critical cognitive skills and transfer in civilian helicopter operations? I’m really interested in knowing more on this training concept and its applicability to advanced helicopter students to the neophyte student.

[Mikemv]

Tom22, with only NAFA and CHO recently undertaking the initiative to introduce and apply SBT to the civilian helicopter world, I do not believe any studies on how FITS/SBT/LCG have changed things exist yet.

 

Having said the above, I know you are sincere in your question and therefore I state that I feel that flight training whether MBT or SBT, conducting in Fixed wing or Helicopters, would have the same end results/effects respectively(MBT or SBT). MBT produces pilots that can pass a practical test to PTS. SBT will produce pilots that have been "In Command" and making decisions ab initio when training in such SBT programs.

 

It appears that you aware of the research and summaries provided by ERAU and UND with FITS. FITS studies show that SBT/LCG applications DEFINATELY produce pilots with higher order thinking skills.

 

For those of you wanting to read and understand FITS research further, go to http://www.faa.gov/training_testing/training/fits/ and read everything you want about SBT and such.

 

Accident reduction will come through pilots using better ADM skills which are learned with SBT!

 

 

Everyone fly safe,

 

Mike

[Tom22]

Thanks Mike,

 

I’m thinking of conducting my research project on SBT in the helicopter domain or something to its effect.

[naflight]

At North Andover Flight Academy we are initially applying FITS to more advanced (commercial) level helicopter students that have already mastered the basic maneuvers while doing their private and instrument ratings. Theoretically, FITS can be applied to all students, but it's much more difficult to apply a scenario based lesson to a private student, who is, let's say, working through hours of hover training. Or, as a private student, is looking to master approaches. For these situations maneuver based training is still beneficial.

 

But the beauty of SBT is that we can apply scenarios from our commercial 141 syllabus to advanced private students. But writing a 141 FITS syllabus for the private helicopter PT would be tough due to the high level of "learning to control the helicopter" which dominates so much of the private syllabus. But certainly LCG can be applied to anyone at any level.

 

When I was teaching primary students in Cirrus SR-20's a few years ago is when I first started to pick up on FITS. UND had developed a very detailed syllabus for Cirrus transitions (pilots that were already licensed). We applied some of these to primary students on a limited basis. It was necessary since the Cirrus was a TAA to work some advanced concepts into normal lessons due to the PFD/MFD and vast amount of information in a primary students hands. Imagine you are learning to fly for the first time and have to worry about a BRS, multiple FD's and rather complex systems...some scenarios were necessary shortly after the student could handle the aircraft in normal flight envelopes.

 

As Mike mentioned, FITS will produce pilots that can "think on their feet" to a higher degree than those that are stuck with maneuver based training.

 

Think about this. One of our scenarios involves an EMS scenario where we have the PT preflight the helicopter, then give them coordinates of where we are picking up the "patient". Once they get the weather (we tell them to expect a "diversion" for weather), decide what the best options are for the off-airport site, and get ready to go, we have them do a load manifest for the trip. Then they complete a "performance data card" with all the specifics for today's trip. When we get to the "site" - which sometimes is a confined heliport, or sometimes is an elevated heliport, we throw a curve and tell them the "patient" is a different weight. Time to re-work the load manifest while on the ground. On the way back to the airport, we have them descend for lowering ceilings, and slow down for reduced visibilities (all within safety margins of course). What was their EDP? Did they have one? Are they paying attention to where they are? Did they plan the alternate correctly? Can they get there? This is just a sample of what we're trying to do with these PT's.

 

So what was covered in a lesson like this? Well we're obviously not teaching people to be EMS pilots - that's a given, but we're putting them into some "vanilla" situations that might be expected from a higher order commercial pilot. They get flight planning, GOM use, load manifest use, performance planning with the data card, confined operations, a lesson in understanding CFIT and how to avoid it, weather planning, and some emergency procedures thrown in for some extra task grading.

 

This is just 1 lesson out of the syllabus. As you can see, one of the issues with FITS is that it will also require a higher level of involvement of the instructor - not just the "ok - let's go out and do some maneuvers", that we've all either been exposed to or done ourselves. But that's what the syllabus is for. It packages it up and makes it ready to go.

 

My goal would be for there to be some type of recognition for FITS training, whether it's just a certificate or something from the FAA when someone passes a check ride.

 

Let's hope more schools pick up on this rather than just the 2 mentioned here.

 

Curt

[Rogue]

I bantered back and forth on another thread about this topic, I was reading a recent issue of AOPA Flight Training magazine, thought about this thread and I just wanted to share the thoughts of a very highly respected flight instructor - Rod Machado

 

Dear Rod:

 

I’m a chief pilot at a flight school and we’re considering using a scenario-based training program in our private pilot curriculum. I’m not familiar with these scenario-based training strategies so I’m wondering if you have any insight on the topic. —Mr. C.C.

 

Greetings Mr. C.C.:

 

Scenario-based training teaches you practical skills that you’ll use in real-world flying. That’s why private pilot training is, by its very nature, scenario-based training. If you read the FAA’s material on the subject, you’ll see they recommend constructing scenarios such as flying in circles over a house to simulate taking pictures as a means of learning how to avoid distractions and acquire wind correction skills. But isn’t that precisely what turns around a point teach? Aren’t short- and soft-field takeoffs and landings their own real-world scenarios, along with simulated emergency landings, slow flight, and so on? I can’t think of one thing in the private pilot curriculum that needs to be dressed up in the form of a scenario for it to have real-world utility. Private pilot skills are fundamental skills. Scenario-based training is not intended primarily as a means to teach fundamental skills. It’s intended to apply these fundamental skills to higher-order learning once the basics are learned.

 

I’ve never heard anyone say that scenario-based flight training shortens time in training or reduces the cost. The FAA’s scenario training brochure actually discourages taking students to the practice area to teach them the fundamental skills of flight. Instead, it encourages you to take your students on simulated cross-country flights prior to solo and teach them the fundamental flight maneuvers along the way. Doesn’t that seem like more of a mega-distraction than an aid to learning?

 

Scenario-based training was primarily an airline-training concept used in sophisticated flight simulators for sophisticated airplanes. If you’re teaching in non-technically advanced airplanes without the use of sophisticated simulators, I suggest you simply concentrate on teaching the basics of flying an airplane safely and resist anything that detracts from that goal.

 

http://flighttraining.aopa.org/magazine/2011/March/since_you_asked.html

 

I'm not trying to cast doubt upon CHO I just don't get all the reinventing of the wheel on a personal level. Anything we can do to make the learning experience better is a good thing, I just don't see anything wrong with the requirements of Part 61 if properly applied by an experienced hand.

[kodoz]

It’s intended to apply these fundamental skills to higher-order learning once the basics are learned.

Rod missed the point here. HOTs can be learned from day one. This is a deficiency in primary training.

 

I’ve never heard anyone say that scenario-based flight training shortens time in training or reduces the cost.

Several studies from the big fixed wing schools suggest an effect on training time/cost/effectiveness for professional pilots that go all the way to commercial level. Not voluminous research, but there are some data to back it up. There are also studies showing that pilots trained with SBT in TAAs make better decisions about things like ballistic parachute deployment than pilots who go thru standard training.

 

Scenario-based training was primarily an airline-training concept used in sophisticated flight simulators for sophisticated airplanes. If you’re teaching in non-technically advanced airplanes without the use of sophisticated simulators, I suggest you simply concentrate on teaching the basics of flying an airplane safely and resist anything that detracts from that goal.

 

"Technically Advanced" doesn't mean turbine gear with a bunch of switches. Part of SBT is dealing with technology in the cockpit, simple things like a GPS that can make your life easier or harder (like when it goes blank at night in the middle of the desert). SBT, like the airlines' expensive simulators, get you thinking about these things early in training. And, part of the reason the airlines needed to develop SBT-type programs in expensive simulators is because their pilots never developed HOTS during their training.

 

SBT focuses on the "flying...safely" part, whether it's doing the basic maneuvers or something 'real world'. We've all done it, but probably not to the extent we should have.

 

...if properly applied by an experienced hand.

 

And herein lies a serious problem...not many experienced hands doing the training. The partial remedy SBT offers is teaching you to think for yourself rather than to think what your inexperienced instructor thought.

[helonorth]

I have serious doubts about the worth of SBT for anyone still learning the basics. And I would say anyone training for any rating is still learning the basics. It's my opinion that SBT is more of a distraction than a useful learning tool. Flying and being instructed is, in itself, the "scenario". Your "inexprerienced" instructor probably knows more than you can handle.

Edited March 19, 2011 by helonorth

[Mikemv]

To All,

 

I to have always had great respect for Rod (still do) and applaud him for many superior books he has written to improve the information and quality of aviation training.

 

In his response to the question in the article he does show a lack of education and understanding of the application of FITS SBT Methodology, its concepts and elements. All of us that have not been educated about FITS SBT will have misconceptions about what it consists of and how effective it truly is.

 

Lately, I have been making presentations on this subject and an introduction to FITS SBT and many CFIs/pilots that attended initially had Rod's outlook.

 

Recently this was verified during my presentation at the HAI RR FIRC where almost all experienced CFIs thought they were using SBT in their curriculums but admitted afterwards that they really did not have a clear understanding of the FITS SBT Methodology and what the concepts and elements bring to improving instruction and reducing accidents. Many after the presentation asked thatI I be available to educate them and get them qualified as FITS Facilitators.

 

Entities that expressed this interest were Bristow Academy, Hillsboro Aviation, Bell Helicopter, FlyIt Simulators, etc.

 

Beginning Tuesday, March 22nd, I will be participating in the FAASTeam Helicopter National Industry Workshop in Portland, Oregon. I will be working in the Flight Training Workshops both afternoons and available afterwards to talk with anyone attending about the workings and benefits of FITS SBT Methods, Concepts & elements.

 

More flight schools are switching or have scheduled me to their facility to train their CFIs and change their training curriculums. Most of you know about NAFA and CHO, but recently in addition to the above mentioned entities, Vertex Helicopters in Houston has switched and Suncrest Helicopters in Utah are changing on April 11th.

 

I realize that it will take time for pilots to accept a new system but the Industry is supportive of the change and better, safer pilots will be the result. Who will want to train in an antiquated system that is not respected when many HR managers have already told me to send them every pilot that gets trained via FITS SBT?

 

Please join me in reducing accidents and making better pilots by getting educated in a modern Methodology.

 

Sincerely,

 

Mike

[rick1128]

 

Pet hate is towering take offs if there is no need, saw a 44 last week vertical to 200+ feet with clear ground for 3 miles with a 90 turn of the pad.

 

I did my initial training at a school that had some firm rules about solo students. No off airport landings, no autos, no confined area, etc. So to practice my confined takeoff and landings, I would use the runway and used a nearby tree to represent my obstacle (not over it though). So I was operating within the school's rules. As for the 90 degree turn, I have practiced it. It is a technique I learned from a couple of very experienced utility pilots. It is used when you find yourself power limited, but close to the minimum power required. In a real helicopter (not french) when you find you have run out of power you release a little left pedal which allows more power to the main rotor and gets you over the obstacle and with the additional wind in the rotor gets you through ETL. Of course it works better if you suspect you will be in this situation is to start with the helicopter 90 to 180 degrees to the left of the wind. It actually works quite well.

 

It's one of those things you stick in your back pocket and hope you don't need to use it, but you know in your heart and mind that someday you'll be jammed into a corner and it will get you out of it.

[Pohi]

Ooh, sounds like an offer of guaranteed job placement to me. I wonder if I am already ruined by the antiquated, and irrelevant teaching I recieved, or if I can relinquish my certificates and start over.

 

Worst case is I get a rock solid job.

[rick1128]

Recently this was verified during my presentation at the HAI RR FIRC where almost all experienced CFIs thought they were using SBT in their curriculums but admitted afterwards that they really did not have a clear understanding of the FITS SBT Methodology and what the concepts and elements bring to improving instruction and reducing accidents. Many after the presentation asked thatI I be available to educate them and get them qualified as FITS Facilitators.

 

For many years, I like a great many CFIs would use scenarios with our students. Things like try to get them turned around and lost, be a panicked passenger, direct them due to 'bad weather' to a small airport, etc. But none of this to the degree of SBT. Due to the nature of the aviation industry, we all tend to be conservative. New things take a while to catch on. It takes a while for the majority to see the benefits of the new ways. Keep in mind the old ways got to be the old ways for a reason. They work. That is not to say that the old ways are necessarily the best ways.

 

 

Beginning Tuesday, March 22nd, I will be participating in the FAASTeam Helicopter National Industry Workshop in Portland, Oregon. I will be working in the Flight Training Workshops both afternoons and available afterwards to talk with anyone attending about the workings and benefits of FITS SBT Methods, Concepts & elements.

 

Mike, I would love to attend but unfortunately, it is being held on the wrong coast.

[Mikemv]

Rick, it was good to see you at HAI. The National Industry workshop moves around. Last year it was in Kansas City. Not sure about next year but will let you know.

 

As far as the old ways working, the industry and accident rates agree that they do not work! That is why the industry is supporting a change to a modern system of developing pilots with Higher Order Thinking Skills, proven ADM, judgment and SRM techniques.

 

Pohi, no one offered a job! Your certificates and training are not invalid. Work to be a safe pilot with good judgment and fly safe.

 

Mike

[r22butters]

Every time I think I understand what SBT is, I find out that I was wrong.

 

All I am sure of, is that I'm perfectly happy with the way my Private training went. Afterwards I felt completely confident and capable of flying proficiently, and safetly in the GA world, (which I did, as I then started renting, for several years).

 

With my Commercial training, on the other hand, I left still a bit unsure as to what the 'every day flying' of an employed Commercial Pilot would be like. Would SBT solve that problem?

[rick1128]

Rick, it was good to see you at HAI. The National Industry workshop moves around. Last year it was in Kansas City. Not sure about next year but will let you know.

 

As far as the old ways working, the industry and accident rates agree that they do not work! That is why the industry is supporting a change to a modern system of developing pilots with Higher Order Thinking Skills, proven ADM, judgment and SRM techniques.

 

Mike, the point I was making that because of the nature of this industry it has always been quite conservative in its outlook. It has always been the this way in this industry. The old ways work. They may not work was well as some of the new ways, but they do work. I agree that the accident rates are telling us that the current training techniques are not working as well as we need. But until SBT becomes more common in the training environment and more accepted, there will be many out there that have a difficult time accepting it.

 

From what I have seen in training over the years, I have come to the opinion that some of the problems we are seeing are due to 'dumbing down' of the FAA. It used to be many years ago that as instructors, we would pop doors open in flight, have the student takeoff and land down wind, try to get them lost on a cross country and so on. Now a days if you even try to discuss doing these things, flight schools get all bent out of shape. Especially 141 schools. And I believe that a lot of this is due to the FAA pushing the schools to strictly stick to the curriculum. These things are not discussed in the curriculum. And every year we have students and higher, having accidents, incidents and good scares when a door pops open on takeoff, landing long going into a one way airport, getting lost and so on. Part of this is due to instructors who didn't have these things done to them during training and part is due to a misguided policies and guidance for standardization. Standardization in and of itself is good. If applied properly it can help develop a good pilot. However, when it prevents instructors from giving their students everything that they can, then it can become a hinderance.

 

While true simulators give the pilot one of the best training experiences they can get, even a flight training device can make major improvements to the quality of training the student receives. Why? Because the instructor can allow the student to much further than the instructor would ever consider in the aircraft. It really gets the students attention when the instruments tilt over and the screen goes all red. It becomes quite clear at that point why you told them NOT to do that.

[Trans Lift]

It used to be many years ago that as instructors, we would pop doors open in flight, have the student takeoff and land down wind, try to get them lost on a cross country and so on.

 

I used to do all of things with my students and I know other instructors at Bristow that did the same. Maybe some of us are just more comfortable doing these things than others, but every instructor should.

 

Taking off and landing down wind is examined on the JAA CPL checkride. I definitely think as a JAA instructor, we were given more freedom to do scenarios and things like above, than the FAA side. Less restrictive, so to speak.

 

Maye it's just because us Irish are a bit mad though, who knows!!

[rick1128]

I used to do all of things with my students and I know other instructors at Bristow that did the same. Maybe some of us are just more comfortable doing these things than others, but every instructor should.

 

Taking off and landing down wind is examined on the JAA CPL checkride. I definitely think as a JAA instructor, we were given more freedom to do scenarios and things like above, than the FAA side. Less restrictive, so to speak.

 

Maye it's just because us Irish are a bit mad though, who knows!!

 

I've always known that the Irish are quite mad.

 

The problem I am seeing is that over the last few years the FAA has had a major push towards standardization. While in some ways that is good, for training it is not always that good. Large schools like Bristow, have enough mass that the FAA doesn't mess with like they do smaller schools. It is not so much that the FAA is more restrictive, its because the FAA at the FSDO level is pushing that if it is not written in the curriculum then you shouldn't be doing it. And then it becomes self sustaining as new instructors come into the ranks, they have not had these things taught to them, so they don't teach them either.

 

A case in point. For many many years, the airlines conducted their approaches with the airplane passing over the outer marker at roughly 200 knots and gradually slowing the aircraft down, so that they crossed over the fence at 1.3 Vso and the threshold at between 1.1 to 1.2 Vso. They did this well into the early jet age with the 707's and DC8's. And no major landing accidents. The the FAA came out with shooting approach in landing configuration at 1.3 Vso plus 10 until the threshold. And then we start seeing a large number of accidents due to unstable approaches, micro-bursts, wind shear and so on. So what has happened? Are these new weather phenomenons? No, they have always been there. What has happened, is that we have changed the way we operate those aircraft. Was the change for the better or not? It is worthy of a good discussion, but on another forum. The point I am trying to bring up is that we as an industry need to keep our minds open toward new ideas, but we also need to be able to say is not right, when we start seeing unintended results.

Edited March 20, 2011 by rick1128