apiaguy Posted January 26, 2011 Posted January 26, 2011 (edited) Thanks for the more detailed response. I must admit I still don't have a working knowledge of the benefits of SBT but I believe you know what you're talking about. Here we have the beginning of this new concept in Helicopter training and it is amazing how quickly the idea becomes diluted to the point that everyone believes they have been given SBT... yee haa... yes, I'm going to HeliExpo! Edited January 27, 2011 by apiaguy 1 Quote
Rogue Posted January 26, 2011 Posted January 26, 2011 (edited) Again I'm at a loss. How would SBT-LCG-SRM be different than the purpose of 61.105 ( b ) in general and specifically ( b )(12)? and 61.107( b )(3)? and 61.109 ( c )- those are actual scenarios right - ? Ya know I worked for a lot of years in the automotive field before joining the military and I used to work for this guy... GM calls an ignition module an "ignition module" and Toyota calls it an "igniter" - long story short he would tell customers with GM cars that their "igniter" was bad so that they couldn't cross-reference that part with the parts store to see how much markup he was charging them or buy it and install it themselves for that matter, in a way pretty business savvy, but at the end of the day. Well you call it what you want. I just don't see the distinction, not saying what you are doing is bad/good or whatever. Edited January 26, 2011 by Rogue 3 Quote
DS_HMMR Posted January 26, 2011 Author Posted January 26, 2011 (edited) - Edited May 28, 2012 by DS_HMMR 1 Quote
Mikemv Posted January 26, 2011 Posted January 26, 2011 Hammer, a quick clarification. FITS-SBT-LCG methodology is not a named program that I am selling nor created but rather an Aviation Industry methodology that has evolved from the LOFT programs used by the airlines. For more education and a knowledge base on all FITS methodologies go to: http://www.faa.gov/training_testing/training/fits/ and read as much as you like. I do provide training services for a fee and that may be what you meant by selling. I also do mentoring free as a FAASTeam Rep like I did at Bristow Academy in Titusville, Florida in December, 2010! Rogue, reading and researching the above provided link will answer all of your valid questions. Sincerely, Mike 2 Quote
Rogue Posted January 26, 2011 Posted January 26, 2011 Great link, good to know I'm not the only one asking those questions. I guess I'm a "legacy" kind of guy, and while I acknowledge that some of this newer technology requires training of its own right - ummmm.... didn't ADF and VOR require training also ? Again, IMHO properly executed 61.105 ( b ) ( 4 ) should cover Technically Advanced Aircraft. I agree on the concept of putting out a better product, however I differ in the idea of execution. I would rather pay a higher rate for the same amount of hours the FAA requires by a CFI that is required to have an ATP and the better product result in the elimination of time builders, quality pay for instructor and fresh ink certificate holders that can actually be put to work in areas other than instruction leaving that for people that really want to do it number one and number two might actually want to if they could earn a good salary. 3 Quote
SBuzzkill Posted January 26, 2011 Posted January 26, 2011 (edited) Sure I can do a max performance takeoff, but am I going to be able to recognize when I need to use those skills having learned only those skills? No. That's where the scenarios should come in. I have no idea if that's how it works as I'm not familiar with the concept but that's how I think scenario based training should be. Edited January 26, 2011 by SBuzzkill 1 Quote
Trans Lift Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 It is hard to do scenarios before a student can actually do the maneuver though. Once the maneuver can be performed to satisfactory standards, then introduce scenarios. 2 Quote
Mikemv Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 (edited) It is hard to do scenarios before a student can actually do the maneuver though. Once the maneuver can be performed to satisfactory standards, then introduce scenarios. Trans Lift, for the interjection of a Scenario you are correct in your statement. FITS/SBT/LCG programs are not just about interjecting a Scenario but moreso about developing HOTS and this training begins on the first flight. It is not a new concept but it is new to so many of us, especially in the helicopter training world. Part of my mission is to educate CFI's and qualify them as FITS Facilitators but not on the internet. Everyone fly safe Mike Edited January 27, 2011 by Mikemv 2 Quote
The Guardian Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 Mike, I understand that your time and experience is valuable and that the internet is most likely not the best place to delve really deep into FITS/SBT/LCG programs at the CFI level but how about wading in a little for the prospective student who is interested in choosing a flight school? What would the first lesson truly be like in a SBT program as opposed to a MBT program? Will it really help me be a better pilot?I've traveled around the country to check out a few different schools and was considering checking out Heli-Ops. I guess I could ask them these questions directly but having the info on the forum directly from the source could help others in making a valid comparison of schools/methods/costs, etc. Eric Quote
Rogue Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 (edited) Sure I can do a max performance takeoff, but am I going to be able to recognize when I need to use those skills having learned only those skills? No. That's where the scenarios should come in. I have no idea if that's how it works as I'm not familiar with the concept but that's how I think scenario based training should be. Ummmm.... you just landed in a confined area and now are faced with 50 foot tall trees in your exit path ( i pray you executed SOWAT or something beforehand and performance calculations to boot ).... I hope you could recognize trees in your exit path..... seriously, not trying to make you feel stupid here but.... seriously ? this isn't rocket science here...... Eric hit the nail on the head here, for a prospective student how does this play out ? financially, emotionally and whatnot. Edited January 27, 2011 by Rogue 2 Quote
Spike Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 (edited) The type of training a student receives should be left up to the imagination of the instructor and not dictated by a flight school policy. In the past, flight schools simply trained students by what was required by PART61 or PART141 of the Reg’s. From there, it was left up to the imagination of the instructor to conduct the training as necessary. As flight schools evolved, they became overly paranoid about liability and/or aircraft damage and restricted what flight instructors could do. With implementation of training policies, practices and/or controls, the flight schools basically programmed the CFI’s. Over time, as “programmed CFI’s” became prevalent they produced pilots who barley met the PTS’s for the checkride. Why? The instructors followed the program. Lots of pattern time, brushed over EP’s (with a trend to eliminate full downs), minimum night, lots of C-X, and minimum off airport maneuvers. In the end, this produced a CFI with little imagination. Furthermore, the instructor was teaching the student to follow the program as well and, nothing more. Today, the industry has identified this shortcoming and gave it a definition, SBT. Is it new? No. In the past, it was loosely known as “Real World Training” and existed as a culture rather than an established training program. SBT has simply taken that culture and defined it. Some flight schools didn’t develop this paranoia and continued to allow their instructors the freedom to teach as they saw fit. Unfortunately, due to the economic times and the proliferation of the “pilot factories” these schools are now few and far between. IMO, schools should develop and institute “train the trainer” programs which bring in industry professionals in to strengthen and expand the flight instructor’s knowledge base. Additionally, the reputation of a flight school should be based on the quality of the graduate and not the number of graduates. Quality defined as a pilot who is fundamentally ready for any job in the industry. Not just another cookie-cutter CFI… IMO of course and yep, red, negative, lower right……. Edited January 27, 2011 by Spike 6 Quote
RkyMtnHI Posted January 29, 2011 Posted January 29, 2011 I have to agree with Spike on his comments, unfortunately this one; The type of training a student receives should be left up to the imagination of the instructor and not dictated by a flight school policy. doesn't work now-days due to the rest of his statement! I am not saying this about all flight schools, or instructors, but for the most part, as he outlined in his following post, it just can't work. These are just some of the issues i saw in my training experience before Heli-Ops (and you don't want to get me started on the financial/safety/ethical end of it)!! This program that Mike is working on will change the industry. Period. He is not the only one that sees it, nor will he be the one that single handily makes it happen.. but, if folks out there would take the time to really research it like he and others have done, it would be very clear to them that it is 'simply a better way'. Heli-Ops was awarded the Rotor & Wing Editor's Choice Award for Flight training for 2010 because of Mike's program and efforts.. this didn't happen by chance nor did we pay for it, in fact, we have not paid for any of the articles, nor adds in the magazines that ran the articles. People that take the time to get the whole picture realize that it is amazing. Mike is not 'selling' this program for the money, nor is he motivated by anything other than making our industry better and safer, and anyone that knows this gentleman gets that right from the start (if fact, he has been giving back his whole career, many folks that are movers and shakers now in our industry took some of their first flights with Mike). I can tell you from our experience the FITS/SBT/LCG 'program' (for lack of a better word) is amazing.. amazing. It is 'simply a better way', and i put it in those terms because, after you learn the details, it is simple.. and you will agree that it's a no-brainer and wonder why it wasn't done this way from the start! (in fact, parts of it has been used in some areas of training; military, 121 operators, simulation programs and others). Please keep an open mind about this, and respect this guy, he deserves it, and, before you discount any of this, do your research, don't get hung up on the term SBT, as that's just a small part of the whole picture. This is not a sales pitch, this is fact. Our instructors are amazed at the progress of their pilots in training AND their progress as well, as it works both ways.. it makes better pilots period.. and isn't that the point? respectfully, dp 3 Quote
Pohi Posted January 29, 2011 Posted January 29, 2011 I am 100% in agreement of being the best at what I do. On the surface, I can see why several of the members here could take offense to being told that they are sub par instructors and that they have no idea what they are doing. Furthermore, in order for them to become better, they need to attend a seminar. I pulled some of the Q and A from the FAA website about FITS and would love some clarification before I schedule training. Here goes... 1. What is FITS?In partnership with industry and academia, the FAA/Industry Training Standards (FITS) program creates scenario-based, learner-focused training materials that encourage practical application of knowledge and skills. The goal is to help pilots of technically-advanced aircraft (TAAs) -- which have more automation and often greater performance capability -- develop the risk management skills and in-depth systems knowledge needed to safely operate and maximize the capability of these aircraft in the National Airspace System (NAS).2. What is a technically advanced aircraft (TAA)?A TAA is an aircraft that contains GPS navigator with a moving map, plus any additional systems (e.g., an autopilot combined with a GPS navigator is also a TAA). Many new TAAs have highly integrated systems, including advanced engine management, integrated cockpit systems, and “glass cockpit” avionics (i.e., primary flight displays and multifunctional displays). Typically, new TAAs also have a greater performance envelope (speed, range, altitude) than “legacy” aircraft.8. Does the FAA intend to expand FITS to training for “legacy” aircraft?The FITS program was established to address the need for targeted training on technically advanced aircraft (TAAs). FITS itself was not intended for training on non-TAA aircraft. I wonder if this program is necessary for my particular training environment since I trained, fly, and teach in just about the most non technically advanced aircraft. I skip half the chapters in the Instrument Flying Handbook because those chapters revolve around glass cockpit and other instruments that I probably will never see in my flying career. Is "the program" for everybody, or aircraft specific? Quote
r22butters Posted January 29, 2011 Posted January 29, 2011 (edited) ...I would rather pay a higher rate for the same amount of hours the FAA requires by a CFI that is required to have an ATP and the better product result in the elimination of time builders, quality pay for instructor and fresh ink certificate holders that can actually be put to work in areas other than instruction leaving that for people that really want to do it number one and number two might actually want to if they could earn a good salary. Most of us "fresh ink cert." guys are actually more than capable of doing things, other than teaching. I've done plenty of sight-seeing flights, and I've flown a Turbine. Hell, a monkey could fly Tours! The reason we can't (at least from what they keep telling me), is insurance, not the quality (or lack thereof) of our training/instructors. At least 98% of my rejections, have been without so much as a phone interview. That means that all these employers are rejecting me with absolutly no idea of my knowledge, or skill level, making my instructors experience level,...irrelevant! Requiring a Cfi to have an ATP (although a great idea), would completely close off the civilian route. Edited January 29, 2011 by r22butters Quote
rick1128 Posted January 29, 2011 Posted January 29, 2011 Since this tread is starting to become a discussion on types of training, I am going to stir the pot a little bit. As a holder of both FW and RW CFI's including Multi Engine, I will cover instruction on both sides of the fence. Even though this is a helicopter board, I am going to discuss airplane training as well, as some of our members also fly airplanes. And maybe start some discussion on training techniques. As flight training becomes more and more of an Ab Initio type training and more and more standardized, I see where we as instructors are short changing our students. Many , many years ago when I started instructing, it was normal to pop a door open on a student. In fact I would even pop both doors open and show the student how it was possible to control the yaw of the airplane with just the doors. The main purpose of this was to show the student that a door popping open is NOT an emergency. It is just a minor problem that does not require an immediate response. However, now a days if an instructor tries this, they are criticized by their peers. The result is that a new pilot has a door open in flight, they stop flying the airplane to close the door, usually with fatal results. Down wind takeoffs and landings. Many instructors now don't even discuss them. And even when they do, the student doesn't really grasp the significances of the information. There will be times that a pilot will need to do a down wind takeoff or landing. One way airports or landing areas, weather or terrain considerations, etc. The takeoff and landing performance change from a no wind to a down wind is much more significant than the change from no wind to up wind. We can show it to the student all day long, but until they see it actually for themselves, they will have difficulty grasping the concept. I have heard of too many incidents and accidents where a pilot tried to takeoff uphill because it was into the wind. For night flying, I see few instructors even discussing takeoff and landing without a landing light. The landing light is a great aid. However, one can takeoff or land without one. Lets face it, landing lights usually don't fail on preflight. The usually fail right when you need them. It is not an emergency, the takeoff and landing can be done safely as long as the pilot properly compensates for this. How does a pilot properly compensate for this? By relaxing, not getting upset, the airplane flies the same with or without the landing light. I also try to get my students a few landings without the runway lights. For the RW side of the fence, it is not a problem as it is done quite a bit. However, on the FW side, it is a different story. There are many airports that have pilot controlled lighting. The lights stay on for a set period of time, usually 15 minutes. Guess where you are when the usually go out? That's right, in the flare. It has been my experience that if the student has been introduced to this and is shown that they can see adequately enough to safely land with just the landing light, they are much less likely to panic. After all the airplane doesn't know if its night or day. In multi engine training, it is quite rare for an instructor to actually shutdown an engine in flight during training. There are all sorts of reasons given. It's hard on the engine, it's an unsafe practice, we can do it in the sim just as well and so on. These reasons do have some validity. So it is quite likely that the first time a pilot actually shuts down an engine is for a real engine failure. The problem I see in this is psychological. No matter how many times you have shut an engine down in a sim, it is a totally different world, when you can look out of the cockpit windshield and see the stopped propeller. There is nothing that compares to it. How many of the CFII's out there have their instrument students do at least one of each approach you can do, downwind? Probably not a lot. What is your student going to do, if the place he is going into has only one approach and that approach requires him to do it with a 15 kt tailwind? The dynamics of the approach change considerably with a tailwind. All my instrument students get some actual instrument time. Including an actual approach. For safety reasons, I have created several approach charts based on the local approaches, but I crank the altitudes on the approach up to where the student will get to minimums and see nothing and have to go miss. With airplanes this is fairly easy as they are normally certificated for IFR flight. For the training helicopters, I will take my student in an airplane to do this. While the the simulator does replicate flying in the clouds reasonably well, I have always felt something was missing. The sim has always felt artificial to me. It misses the ambiance of an aircraft flying in the clouds. I don't know why. The initial reaction I get from my helicopter students usually is, 'I can't do this as I am not airplane rated.' Actually you can. You would not be flying solo, your instructor has to be an airplane rated instructor, but does not have to be a rated instrument instructor, although that would be best. The time does count toward your instrument time, since only 15 of the 40 hours has to be in a helicopter. I have been not only a primary flight instructor, I have also been a training pilot under Part 135 as well as a check airman. I have seen over the years some of the results of the move toward more standardized training, and away from instructor initiative and input. Things like pilots using the checklist as a do list. Not having a good understanding of why things are where they are in the checklist. Not having a good understanding of how systems inter-relate. While standardized training and SBT have many good points, maybe we are going in the wrong direction in some areas. I don't believe that we as instructors are giving our student everything we can in the way of knowledge. Some of this does require the student to put forth an effort to find and digest the information. In many ways, we shouldn't just give them the information, we need to guide them and encourage them to find this information themselves. Which helps it stick better in the student's knowledge receptors. Having worked with the Cessna and Piper pilot training materials as well as the training materials of companies like Flight Safety and Simuflite, you don't see the same things out there for the helicopter training industry. There might be a few schools doing things like that, however, I haven't run into a school that does. Plus of all the flight schools that I have been through in the last few years, I haven't seen any helicopter schools doing any sort of organized ground school, like one would see at most airplane flight schools. I believe that we as an industry can and must do better. 1 Quote
SBuzzkill Posted January 29, 2011 Posted January 29, 2011 Ummmm.... you just landed in a confined area and now are faced with 50 foot tall trees in your exit path ( i pray you executed SOWAT or something beforehand and performance calculations to boot ).... I hope you could recognize trees in your exit path..... seriously, not trying to make you feel stupid here but.... seriously ? this isn't rocket science here...... Eric hit the nail on the head here, for a prospective student how does this play out ? financially, emotionally and whatnot. It was just a stupid example to make a point. Quote
CaptainDune Posted January 29, 2011 Posted January 29, 2011 I am at about the same place in training as the OP sounds like he is. Just throwing my 2 cents in here, but If i can get 30 more hours of r22 time or 10 (being generous) hours of 206 time for the same price. I would take the 30 hours of r22 time. I would rather apply for a job at a flight school as an instructor with more time in a 22 than a few hours in a 206. No flight school is going to put me ahead of another CFI just cause I have 10 hours of turbine time. But if I have 30 more hours of r22 time, the aircraft they are more than likely operating, then that would have more impact on the Cheifs decision. I think we all know tons of instructors with 1300-1500 hours of r22 and r44 and NOTHING else. My instructor from my private just left with not a single hour of turbine time, and got a job flying a 206. I think that first job after being a CFI expects that the people they hire don't have turbine time and are more than prepared to give you the few hours needed to familiarize with the aircraft. I think its also important to mention that the instructor I just mentioned flew in the 206 during his interview (first time out of a 22/44) and he killed it. I am just confused why people even think training in a 206 would help at all in that first job? People have been doing it this way for years and they still get all their turbine time before they hit 2000-2500. Would it be awesome to fly a 206? Yes. Is it necessary or even more than very slightly helpfull? No. 1 Quote
Spike Posted January 29, 2011 Posted January 29, 2011 (edited) I wonder if this program is necessary for my particular training environment since I trained, fly, and teach in just about the most non technically advanced aircraft. I skip half the chapters in the Instrument Flying Handbook because those chapters revolve around glass cockpit and other instruments that I probably will never see in my flying career. Dont sell yourself short. When I decided to enter into this business, my initial goal was to fly yours in Hawaii. You know, live in paradise, fly jazzed tourists around Kauai in a simple single engine turbine and fly the same route over and over to become so familiar that I could fly it with my eyes closed…. By Butters definition, do what a monkey can do…. Alas, it wasnt to be (at least not as of yet). Not in my wildest dreams would I have predicted, Id be flying a Public Safety aircraft with 3D EFIS with WAAS Bata 3 GPS, Helicopter Terrain Warning System (HTAWS), Traffic Collision Avoidance Device (TCAD), Flight Management System (FMS), on NVGs! Just because youre not doing it now, doesnt mean you possibly wont be in the future. Furthermore, employers like to see verity and this includes your knowledge base. In short, for you own benefit, become familiar with these systems and know what they can do. Do you need to be an expert? Heck no! But certainly have a basic understanding and know the buzz words (terminology) like PFD or MFD. Why? Because this is the future of the industry. Shoot, you cant buy a new AS350 without a VEMD and the 407s have had SAVITADs since its inception….. Edited January 29, 2011 by Spike Quote
Falko Posted January 29, 2011 Posted January 29, 2011 I agree with spike. It seems like current CFII's think it is essential to have turbine time to land a job outside of instruction.But that is not true. For example: Sundance Helicopters and Papillon rather hire CFII's with NO Turbine time at all. All you need is 1000-1250hrs TT, the interpersonal communication skills of a great Tour guy, a clean cut, be easy on the weight scale(High DA in NV > low payload) and you should be good to go. Or show up at companies that do utility type ops. If they see potential in you, they will let you fly their 206B/L to start out doing seismic work or whatever they do.having turbine time is helpful but not essential. Flying turbine is not as difficult as some people make it sounds like.... it is easy. Now, in this industry you find most experienced pilots in turbine driven helos. Depending on the thickness of your wallet, savings account of your parents, pile of banknotes underneath grandmas bed or how much the bank likes or trusts you.... ect. flying with a high time guy would not be a bad idea at all. I remember when i had the chance to fly in a turbine helicopter with a 7000+hr utility pilot ( i only had 200+hrs or so) i was overwhelmed with the amount of input "knowledge" he was throwing at me. Lot of things he told me didn't make sense to me back then. It came to me slowly step by step while I was giving instruction for couple of years...and I am still learning and will keep on learning new things(things= all aviation related stuff) until i retire. I personally believe its better to start your flying career in a smaller "weaker" piston helicopters than jumping into a turbine. Eventhough they are weak too under certain conditions....yes,even twines. That way your brain connects the dots better during your learning curve. Besides the flying part you learn/ form / adjust your judgment skill as well. keep the amount of takeoffs and landings equal.... Falko 2 Quote
Inferno Posted January 30, 2011 Posted January 30, 2011 Time for me to weigh in. As a Earlier on, I don't see turbine time hurting someone, but if hees paying full freight for it, it's just not worth the extra cost. Spend that extra money on a FW Private or something else to bulk up your resume. And spike, you make some great points, but like others have said, theoretical and practical experience are 2 very different beasts. Sure, I've read the chapters on glass cockpits, but unless I had numerous hours of sitting in a glass ship, I probably wouldn't know which way was up. Even moving from a Garmin 150 to a 430 was shock and probably took a couple hours to get used to, and I'm not a complete idiot when it comes to computers.... For OP, if you have the extra money, do it. Have fun with it, but once you get over the fact that for the most part all helicopters basically fly the same, and a turbine start is easy enough once you know the procedures, turbines aren't a big deal.... Just my $.02 Quote
kodoz Posted February 1, 2011 Posted February 1, 2011 While standardized training and SBT have many good points, maybe we are going in the wrong direction in some areas...In many ways, we shouldn't just give them the information, we need to guide them and encourage them to find this information themselves. Which helps it stick better in the student's knowledge receptors. In many ways, this is exactly what true SBT does. Rather than having one low time pilot tell another what he needs to know, part of SBT is teaching the student to figure it out himself. (good post by the way) Quote
Rogue Posted March 19, 2011 Posted March 19, 2011 Bringing this back from the dead, as I was reading a recent issue of AOPA Flight Training magazine. 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 So while I know I'm not crazy for thinking "why reinvent the wheel" I guess its good to share with the world that at least one very well respected person agrees with me Quote
DS_HMMR Posted September 10, 2011 Author Posted September 10, 2011 (edited) - Edited May 28, 2012 by DS_HMMR Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.