Scenario Based Training

[Trans Lift]

Agreed Rick. Good points!

[naflight]

Good discussion. As a practicing chief of a 141 school and instructor, I know it's so easy to just 'teach to the test', which is what many instructors I've run into have been taught, and continue to teach. It's too tempting as a busy instructor to work with a student and just run through the maneuvers without much thought or preparation other than the standard pre-flight and post-flight discussion surrounding the maneuvers.

 

The Boston FSDO was instrumental in getting our commercial FITS syllabus approved and worked very closely with us to get it all put together - never happened in the helicopter training arena before. Having that 141 syllabus (350 pages) there, even using it for Part 61 commercial students, has been an excellent resource. It's not just about going out and quizzing the student or throwing an emergency here or there. It's about the preparation and decision making that goes into a flight. And it's not about teaching the students to be an EMS, 135, power line, or law enforcement pilot - the scenarios are not that specific (they don't have to be).

 

Why did we put this syllabus together? When I first started teaching, it was evident that new helicopter instructors, especially some from the 'larger' schools, had absolutely no decision making skills concerning weather or any other facets of aviation which took them outside the traffic pattern. When veteran pilots joke that a CFI has the same hour 1,000 times, well it's partially true..but it's our fault.

 

FITS/SBT should not be a revolution, and it won't. I believe it will excite a small change each and every year in the training industry. And that's the way it should be. Small changes are usually the best. It will always have it's opponents, and that's good too. Valid criticism has the ability to refine.

 

We use our syllabus on the higher level commercial pilots in training - that's where we found it works best. That doesn't mean it won't work with private level training, we just have not adopted it in that fashion. These are guys that will quickly move onto their CFI and take these skills with them when they get to the level of performing the entry level commercial jobs.

 

For example, one of my Part 61 commercial students came in today. He's getting close to taking his check ride. We were going to do an maneuver based lesson - go around the pattern, shoot some advanced autos (zero airspeed, pedal turn, etc). We had some extra time in the schedule, so he requested we do a lesson from the FITS syllabus...perfect.

 

So, we did the "Wildlife Spotting" lesson. C-VFR 3 - a lower lesson, but interesting anyway.

 

Instead of the instructor, I became the client. A biologist who wanted to go count deer in a certain area of Southern New Hampshire, about 15 miles away from the airport. I showed him on a topo where I wanted to go, he had to find it using the sectional/Bing, and figure out how to get there. He made performance plans, flight times, and scouted the general layout for what I needed to do - take pictures, fly at low level (how low? well as low as I wanted right? I'm the paying client). After the planning was complete, we talked a bit about what type of flight this was? 135? 119? 91? What were all of the rules governing this? If 135 does he need other qualifications? Dispatch? What's his sample GOM say? Etc. etc.

 

So off we go. Heading out to the site, he tells me we have enough fuel for 15 minutes up and 1 hour on site. This is with plenty of reserve to get back given the strong NW wind we usually have up here in New England.

 

We get to the site and I tell him I need to fly up one side of the area (a rocky, tree ridden, bush covered site with plenty of slopes, rocks, etc). How low can we fly, can we slow it up? Where's the wind? Can we turn here right now? Go back this way - head that way. Lots of decision making last second on what can and can't be accomplished.

 

Ok, so now I need to land over there. Right on the edge of the field. Can we go there? Make the approach, close to the upwind trees. Now can we depart downwind from that pinnacle since we're so close to the trees? Are downwind departures ok from this angle? What's the planning for a turn after the downwind departure? How do we move across to get to a better departure site?

 

Time to head out and make another approach to a different area. This one is not so great. Last minute obstacles in our way, small trees that weren't visible. Need to switch to a different landing area. When do we make the adjustment in our approach? What happened to the "go/no go" decision point?

 

What happens here is something that wouldn't happen in the normal "let's do a confined approach to that hole" type of lesson. The decision making overloads to the point that a somewhat simple maneuver goes to complete garbage very quickly. That plus the added pressure of a client who has no understanding of the machine and is asking to do things that need to be questioned (while still flying the machine).

 

Many instructors say they've been doing this all along, and that's great. All that FITS/SBT does is put this into a formalized structure to help those other instructors along that may not have the ability to do what the more experienced instructors have been doing all along without even thinking about it.

 

What about my student today? He believes he got his money worth from the lesson, and then some. It did take extra effort form both of us and it didn't cost him a penny more than just flying around the pattern.

 

We're in a cycle of low-time instructors making new low-time instructors doing circles and teaching to the PTS. I've seen it in action and it's not good. It's in a flight school's nature to churn out the flight hours and students as efficiently as possible, something at which the larger schools excel.

 

This is what FITS/SBT is looking to improve. Our commercial students are asking for it, and we're trying to deliver it. I'm guessing more schools will do the same, maybe not next year, but someday.

 

If anyone wants info on the syllabus, they just need to ask.

 

Curt

[280fxColorado]

Many instructors say they've been doing this all along, and that's great. All that FITS/SBT does is put this into a formalized structure to help those other instructors along that may not have the ability to do what the more experienced instructors have been doing all along without even thinking about it.

 

--

Edited March 20, 2011 by 280fxColorado

[r22butters]

...I know it's so easy to just 'teach to the test',...

 

We're in a cycle of low-time instructors making new low-time instructors doing circles and teaching to the PTS. I've seen it in action and it's not good. It's in a flight school's nature to churn out the flight hours and students as efficiently as possible, something at which the larger schools excel...

 

This is what happens when you make something as important as creating new pilots the only way to "pay your dues".

 

Its just like that other thread. Employers only want "experienced' pilots, and you all want instructors that teach to higher standards. You can't have it both ways.

 

Most instructors are low-time guys, who just want to "pay their dues", and get out as quickly as they can, and teaching to the PTS, ("or teaching to the test"), is the way to do that.

 

If you really want things to change, so that instructors are teaching to higher standards, then you have to make teaching a career position, desireable to more experienced pilots, instead of the stepping stone forced onto all of us inexperienced low-timers (most of whom probably don't want to teach, and are just tolerating it, to get in).

Edited March 20, 2011 by r22butters

[helonorth]

No offense Curt, but it sounds like you just went out and did some confined areas with some verbal questioning. Good training, sure, but nothing new.

[Rogue]

I guess I should relate some of my training experience. Yeah, all of that stuff ya'll talk about, forced to make tough decisions, distractions, all kinds of good stuff.

 

My first helicopter solo was in 18G22 ! some schools won't even let their helos startup in more than 10 knots !!!

 

The "real world" is right outside the hangar doors, get out and do it. Too many schools have too many limits, you can sit around talking about wind all day until you get out and play in it you don't know crap about wind. Same goes for confined areas, you can talk about it all day but until you fly that approach into that place and your sphincter muscle tightens up you don't know crap !!!

 

Touch down autos, I did them before I was allowed to solo. Most schools won't even allow them.

 

I couldn't disagree more on the subject of TAA. I definitely believe that is exactly what a Technically Advanced Aircraft is. Sorry but there is no way on God's green earth that the Bell 47 or the 300 C I used is "Technically Advanced" just because it had a GPS in it - for Christ's sake it is the definition of the word - ADVANCED !!!!!!!!!!

"doesn't mean turbine gear with a bunch of switches"

Edited March 20, 2011 by Rogue

[Rogue]

This is what happens when you make something as important as creating new pilots the only way to "pay your dues".

 

Its just like that other thread. Employers only want "experienced' pilots, and you all want instructors that teach to higher standards. You can't have it both ways.

 

Most instructors are low-time guys, who just want to "pay their dues", and get out as quickly as they can, and teaching to the PTS, ("or teaching to the test"), is the way to do that.

 

If you really want things to change, so that instructors are teaching to higher standards, then you have to make teaching a career position, desireable to more experienced pilots, instead of the stepping stone forced onto all of us inexperienced low-timers (most of whom probably don't want to teach, and are just tolerating it, to get in).

 

Yes sir indeed

[captkirkyota]

Ummm, ok, I'll be the one to risk looking stupid but did I miss the acronym crib sheet?

I know what SBT is, but fits and a few others are escaping me, I may have read them at one time, but since I've been off the board for a while working full-time and other things going on I don't always have time to read everything and keep up. So a little help......

Also, since I went to said restrictive type 141 school, no door popping took place and I am trying to think why that is something to panic about, is that just it, to see if the student will remain calm and continue to take off and calmly close the door or lose all brain functionality is a tizzy?

 

Someone mentioned 141 schools and if I were to start all over again, I'd have gone part 61 for sure, since my learning style is more of a go and do, watch, then go read it. I'd have saved prolly close to 5-10 k had I gone to a school that could actually use the techniques of the fundamentals of instruction and learning methods with a little more latitude than 141 permits, there are clearly people who are more inclined to auditory/visual learning and some who do better reading about it first. I have twin boys that we home school and we have to adjust because we have just that, one like my wife, who we can just let him read the instructions and he has less need to be shown, the other you show him once, or explain to him and he's on his way, both learn the same material, and usually at the same pace, they just require a different method of teaching and both are about 1 grade or more ahead of their age in some of the curriculum, I believe that for this reason a 61 school may be a bit better for some, now if the 141 schools can flex the way their curriculum is taught, then it is not an issue.

[Pohi]

 

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

 

Well, that is half good news I guess. At least there is some hope :-)

 

No offense Curt, but it sounds like you just went out and did some confined areas with some verbal questioning. Good training, sure, but nothing new.

 

I see what you are saying and it is interesting and nice to have some sort of formal scenario that can be planned ahead of time and evaluated after the flight. I guess it all depends on how a person looks at training. I avoid the traffic pattern like the plague. I try to do everything possible off airport and never make any flight the same thing for the students.

 

With the lack of a published scenario by the school, I do think that the task falls heavily on the instructor to provide both accurate and interesting situations for the student to work through.

[Trans Lift]

Why did we put this syllabus together? When I first started teaching, it was evident that new helicopter instructors, especially some from the 'larger' schools, had absolutely no decision making skills concerning weather or any other facets of aviation which took them outside the traffic pattern.

 

I have to disagree with that statement to a certain extent. I think this whole FITS/SBT things is what a lot of us have been doing for ages and now they decide to give it a name. I hate the pattern and most of our training areas were away from the school/airport and had all sorts of confined areas, rivers, etc.

 

A lot of the scenarios I put students through was not necessarily shown to me, but I used my imagination. I have done full down autos to soccer pitches, landed in newly constructed housing areas (at the weekend, when no-one was working) and all sorts of things like that. Alot of things were planned ahead of time, alot were spontaneous. We just called it training.

 

Whatever name they decide to put on it is fine. If it makes this type of teaching more common, all the better. I just don't want to hear people saying that they were FITS trained and thinking they are better. Most of us were, we just didn't use that acronym!

Edited March 20, 2011 by Trans Lift

[naflight]

No offense Curt, but it sounds like you just went out and did some confined areas with some verbal questioning. Good training, sure, but nothing new.

 

None taken. It was really much more than the verbal questioning as we were flying, I just didn't want to make the post longer than it was (or more boring). I'll try not to make this boring - it's difficult to explain in a single post.

 

It was the preparation before the lesson, and the grading of the lesson after the flight. After the flight, we use the desired outcome grading sheets (one for the instructor and one for the student), which have the activities from the lesson and the resource management segments of the flight broken out into identifiable components. What are the resource management components? Take for example the "Low Altitude Operations" - within this is Safe Aircraft Control, Situational Awareness, and other "misc." pilot resource management items for that activity - LZ selection, go around decision making, etc. Instructor freedom for the misc. items is good.

 

That is just one activity in this lesson - there are a dozen of these activities within this lesson that provide the grading criteria. In addition to the desired outcome sheet is the use of the ASA folders to grade each individual "task" within the lesson as outlined in the lesson. In this lesson, one of the "tasks" would have been the slope landing/departure. This lesson has 11 "tasks" which are evaluated, just one of which is the slope landing/departure.

 

(For the Part 141 syllabus there is a distinct grading used, as the 141 needs a well defined completion standard and grade for each lesson in order to have progression for the 141 student).

 

Using the grading sheets, the instructor and student grade individually then get together and discuss the flight, using these sheets as guidance and a method to drive the discussion. There are notes to the instructor for each lesson as well, defining the "tasks" to evaluate and the best method for setting up the scenario.

 

Like I said before, it's more challenging for the student and instructor, and there's going to be resistance to it - it's interesting to see the comments ranging from "it's just the same old teaching" to "it's too radical" - polar opposites. That seems to show that people are making judgments without research. And that's all I'm trying to do it spark a small change and a little research. This syllabus really provides the guidance for the instructor to put the lesson together properly, define the little pieces within the lesson (tasks),and even group together the larger, more vague activities within the lesson (the SRM components) and put it into a nice package ready for use by the instructor and student.

 

The "old" way would have been to just go out and fly and throw a few things here and there and come back and chat about it.

 

Even if you don't end up using it, just try to learn more about it. As I said, I welcome inquiries and constructive criticism..I believe we're all looking for the same thing here.

 

Curt

[naflight]

I have to disagree with that statement to a certain extent. I think this whole FITS/SBT things is what a lot of us have been doing for ages and now they decide to give it a name. I hate the pattern and most of our training areas were away from the school/airport and had all sorts of confined areas, rivers, etc.

 

A lot of the scenarios I put students through was not necessarily shown to me, but I used my imagination. I have done full down autos to soccer pitches, landed in newly constructed housing areas (at the weekend, when no-one was working) and all sorts of things like that. Alot of things were planned ahead of time, alot were spontaneous. We just called it training.

 

Whatever name they decide to put on it is fine. If it makes this type of teaching more common, all the better. I just don't want to hear people saying that they were FITS trained and thinking they are better. Most of us were, we just didn't use that acronym!

 

Good input....

 

Why would you take offense to formalizing the process and improving upon it if you say you "were doing it all along"? Why not take your "imagination" and formalize it for those that are not as creative as you are/were and make it a better process?

 

Wouldn't that make a "FITS trained" pilot better?

 

And would that make it okay for someone who is FITS trained not to only "think" they were better - but maybe actually be better?

 

And saying most pilots were FITS trained (in principle) may be a wee bit of a stretch

 

Just a thought.

[280fxColorado]

Why would you take offense to formalizing the process and improving upon it if you say you "were doing it all along"? Why not take your "imagination" and formalize it for those that are not as creative as you are/were and make it a better process?

 

Wouldn't that make a "FITS trained" pilot better?

 

I think the main thing some find offensive is the implication that training not done in accordance with a confusing litany of acronyms IS inferior. There's more than one way to skin a cat. A training method doesn't need this specific set of labels to be effective. Insisting on this particular brand seems more like a sales pitch than a genuine effort to improve. Perhaps its just the presentation, not the content...

Edited March 20, 2011 by 280fxColorado

[rick1128]

I see what you are saying and it is interesting and nice to have some sort of formal scenario that can be planned ahead of time and evaluated after the flight. I guess it all depends on how a person looks at training. I avoid the traffic pattern like the plague. I try to do everything possible off airport and never make any flight the same thing for the students.

 

With the lack of a published scenario by the school, I do think that the task falls heavily on the instructor to provide both accurate and interesting situations for the student to work through.

 

Pohi,

 

Publish scenarios are great, but when an instructor can bring real world experience to the table, it can be more beneficial to the student. However, the scenarios need to be realistic. When I was doing my initial helicopter training, the quick stop was taught with the scenario that we needed to stop for an aircraft moving on the airport. And yes we need to know how to operate on airports, because all helicopters will go to airports from time to time, cause that is where the fuel usually is. But because of the helicopter's ability to operate outside the limits of a hard surface, would the helicopter normally have to do a quick stop on an airport for an airplane? It is more probable that the helicopter would have to do a quick stop for some other kind of obstacle, like wires. I had a discussion with another flight instructor late last year which brought forth some interesting points. Since we train like we fly and fly like we train, are we giving our students wrong or more likely incomplete information. If we had to do a quick stop for i.e. wires, would we really want to descend or settle into the wires? No. So it might be worth while to mix the reason for stopping up a bit.

 

As for going completely SBT for training, I see the best approach would be a mixture of MBT and SBT. For pre-solo students it would really be more MBT. Why, first of all they need to get a good handle on the basic building blocks, straight and level, turns, climbs, descents, hovering, takeoffs and landings. It has been my experience, that most primary students early in their training are so overloaded mentally that they already missing information. Adding a story line to the process only means that they will be missing more information. The more time the instructor puts between the student's repeat of the maneuver only increases the time the student needs to get an understanding of the maneuver. The more repetition and closer together, the quicker the student picks it up. It is like the two student pilots. One flies 2 or 3 times a week and the other flies twice a month. Who will pick up the maneuvers quicker and in less flight time? The one who flies more often. And I would also consider a instrument student in the same boat until they got the basics down pat. So personally, I believe that what we will see happening is a mixture of MBT and SBT with the MBT occurring early in training and changing over to SBT.

 

As for the door open comment, until you are really in that situation, you really do not know how you will react. The one accident I remember happened in Phoenix in 1988. A 650 hour Private Pilot took off from PHX and the door opened in flight. The pilot undid their seatbelt and tried to close the door. Control of the aircraft was lost and the aircraft crashed into a backyard pool. At the time the occupants of the house were having a backyard BBQ. Many pilots will try to close the door because they are afraid the door will come off. Most of the doors are hinged at the front for a reason.

[naflight]

Pohi,

 

So personally, I believe that what we will see happening is a mixture of MBT and SBT with the MBT occurring early in training and changing over to SBT.

 

 

Rick, good point. There are several lessons in the syllabus that concentrate on maneuvers only. There are three lesson types VFR, IFR, and Maneuvers.

[naflight]

I think the main thing some find offensive is the implication that training not done in accordance with a confusing litany of acronyms IS inferior. There's more than one way to skin a cat. A training method doesn't need this specific set of labels to be effective. Insisting on this particular brand seems more like a sales pitch than a genuine effort to improve. Perhaps its just the presentation, not the content...

 

Possibly. It's also the "well what was wrong with the way I was trained"...and that's not what it's about at all.

 

There's a middle ground for sure. And it seems that the more people that comment, the more it appears it's just a way to get together what the better instructors have been doing all along anyway. The acronyms I agree are confusing and can kinda turn it into a marketing effort more than a training effort. For us at NAFA it's a pure training effort. Believe me there are easier ways to market a flight school!

 

Like I said I would be happy to share anything I've done with anyone.

 

Curt

[Trans Lift]

From what I hear Curt, you guys are doing a great job up there at NAFA. I think it is a good system but it has to be implemented purely for training and not marketing, which I have no doubt that you guys do.

I would like to come up for a visit at some stage and have a chat with you about it.

 

I hope my red-haired, leprechaun friend is being good up there!

[Mikemv]

OK, one more attempt to get everyone to understand what FITS SBT Methodology is. For those of you that asked for help!

 

http://www.faa.gov/training_testing/training/fits/ This link has been posted previously.

 

Many of the same posters that posted when this thread first started are still posting and have no clue about the FITS SBT Methodology, the concepts and elements and how they are applied by Facilitators in flight instruction. How can you knock what you do not understand?

 

For many years the initials SBT have been used by pilots in many ways. Just because you have a scenario around a maneuver or during a portion of a flight does not mean you are using SBT. Ask yourself, What does the "B" in SBT mean. Most training has been Scenario Interjection Training and called SBT. Tell us how you used LCG & SRM during every lesson!

 

It is clear that without education about FITS SBT concepts that you will not understand how it produces better, safer pilots with instilled HOTS.

 

For all of you that have an opinion, can you stand before your peers and aviation hierarchy and make a presentation of fact about what SBT really is and why you disagree with the given methodology?

 

Would you stand before HR departments or company owners and tell them how it has been done for years, or how you do not want to hear about FITs or you define what a TAA is and not the FAA?

 

The more you post without the understanding of a principle and how it is applied the less valid you appear.

 

Please get educated and then have a valid opinion to offer.

 

I am off to Portland to participate in the National industry Workshop. If you attend, I would be happy to talk about SBT in its totality with any of you.

 

Sincerely,

 

Mike

[naflight]

From what I hear Curt, you guys are doing a great job up there at NAFA. I think it is a good system but it has to be implemented purely for training and not marketing, which I have no doubt that you guys do.

I would like to come up for a visit at some stage and have a chat with you about it.

 

I hope my red-haired, leprechaun friend is being good up there!

 

Cmon up anytime. Would love to catch up with you again (we met at PYM briefly with Simon)...many thanks for the excellent input, and would love to get more from you.

 

Yes - he's having a grand time and he has nothing but excellent things to say about you. He's a good guy too! We should all get together ASAP!

[Pohi]

Rick,

I couldn't agree more.

 

Most of the time, I use situations tailored to the specific student.

 

For the LE students, it's sar and patrol things, we had a few guys who do prospecting so we would go up to the mountains and rivers, and a few times to their actual sites and land and practice there.

 

As a great pilot said once, just fly the aircraft.

 

When it really comes down to it, a good pilot can adapt to changing situations. It may make me a horrible instructor, but I do not have any lesson plans anymore, I just use the approved publications and teach from those.

 

Good thread so far though, I approve :-)

[Pohi]

But, I will be the first to admit that I am non educated, and therefore do not have valid opinons to offer.

 

I do, however, strive to produce safe and competent pilots and will continue to do so. At least until one of my students successfully manages to kill me.

[r22butters]

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.

[Rogue]

I think the main thing some find offensive is the implication that training not done in accordance with a confusing litany of acronyms IS inferior. There's more than one way to skin a cat. A training method doesn't need this specific set of labels to be effective. Insisting on this particular brand seems more like a sales pitch than a genuine effort to improve. Perhaps its just the presentation, not the content...

 

Roger that.

[Rogue]

 

Sincerely,

 

Mike

 

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.

[Mikemv]

Wow Rogue, moved down to name calling now. Thanks, every time you post you make my point.

 

Mike