By Robert Barnes, IAFTP President
[Editor’s Note: This discussion is based upon a paper presented by IAFTP before the Royal Aeronautical Society (RAeS) Annual International Flight Crew Training Conference, 27-29 September 2011. To read the entire paper, CLICK HERE.]
A COMPLEMENTARY PROGRAM. IAFTP’s global clearinghouse for pilot training best practices and techniques complements other flight training initiatives, such as ICAO’s NGAP and IATA’s ITQI, in their collective efforts to improve global aviation safety through more effective pilot training. The key term, however, is “complements” because, like both ICAO and IATA, IAFTP is approaching the same goal from a slightly different yet complementary perspective.
NGAP’s focus is on employing training and assessment that are characterized by a performance orientation, emphasis on standards of performance and their measurement, and the development of training to specified performance standards. This is referred to as competency-based training (CBT).
ITQI’s philosophy is to base pilot training curriculum on industry evidence rather than individual experienced opinion. The current evidence base for ITQI EBT comes from a 2-year analysis of 40 years of airline accidents and incidents from all available data bases, through all airliner generations.
Applying these two concepts, there would seem to be no question, for example, that every pilot needs to demonstrate stall recognition and recovery competence at all levels of training both in general concept and specifically for the airplane being flown.
This simple example illustrates how NGAP’s concept of competency-based training (CBT) and ITQI’s focus on evidence-based training (EBT) can be very complementary.
HOWEVER, how an individual instructor develops such competency with an individual student in order to comply with a CBT training standard based upon an EBT operational analysis is another issue altogether.
What IAFTP is seeking to have posted to its training practices clearinghouse are those few unique gems of wisdom that every good instructor tries to impart upon his or her students to make them better pilots.
Any instructor who has ever had more than one student knows that he/she needs to have a variety of techniques available to help students achieve task competency because every student learns differently even if they are highly screened and selected. That’s where IAFTP’s effort to create a global clearinghouse of pilot training practices and techniques becomes complementary to the higher level flight training initiatives.
SOME LESSONS ALREADY LEARNED. Much has been accomplished by IAFTP since last year’s RAeS Flight Crew Training Conference. In the six months that the IAFTP website has been online, it has attracted more than 7,000 visitors. Not everyone who visits the website registers as a Guest or Member but those who have registered already represent more than 40 countries from around the world. And, the comments that our monthly articles are generating have enlightened us about some core issues involved with improving global pilot training effectiveness. For example:
-
Concepts of Professionalism. “Its lack is noticed by both peers and students.”
-
Flight Instructor Motivation. “What’s in it for me?”
-
Proprietary Issues. “Major training practices are considered proprietary.”
-
Simply Getting Instructors to Share Their Experience.
One of the questions that will be discussed at the RAeS 2011 International Flight Crew Training Conference in London will be:
September 9th, 2011 | 
Category:
The paper is very clear and asks an interesting and very proper question about how we can improve flight training globally. Another question might be: How we can have better aviation professionals?
My question is this: Is to be a pilot the same as to be an aviator and does flight training cover all the necessary knowledge to be a pilot?
The question of: how many flight training hours are necessary to “create” a competent pilot, to me is quite like how many surgery room hours are necessary to “create” a competent surgeon?… Without the discussion of how to transmit the theories and what theories may be necessary to fly (or to be a physician), the question seems incomplete to me.
In the peer review section, page 9, n.5, an airline captain pointed that we are not sure that “higher standard of flight instruction increases flight safety”. My personal view as an aircraft accident investigator, flight instructor and aviator researcher (at Brazilian Air Force), shows to me that the “handling skills” are just a (small but very important) part of the necessary skills to become a competent pilot.
To pilot an aircraft is just one part of the aviator’s competencies (develop a training plan is another example of an aviator job, accident investigation is another and there are much more). And doing these “non flying competencies”, pilots learn very important things that allow us to decide better during flight, and how to avoid accidents.
There is a huge amount of knowledge, strictly necessary to fly an aircraft, that are not taught during training flights, are taught at classroom, on the ground. Actually, just a very small part of that necessary knowledge is required by the regulations and standards.
One of the theories that show it at a very clear way was established by Rasmussen and is known as the Skill, Rule, Knowledge based (SRK) approach.
Simplifying it: Skills are trained at flight, rules (SOP, checklists, etc) are trained at ground but knowledge requires a more classroom-based traditional way of teaching. That was not discussed in the paper.
Student lack of knowledge affects the flight instruction and, at the end, even if he goes forward at the flight trainning, there will be “holes” at the pilot competencies that will be just partially filled with further flying experience.
This maybe explain that kind of accidents involving pilots with a respectable amount of flight hours but few hours of theory. The Rasmussen theory states that are situations we need deeply theory-based knowledge (not just few) to recognize situations and to decide correctly what to do.
The AF447 loss of control at the Atlantic Ocean may be an example of this situation. At the occasion meteorological theory, aerodynamics, electronics, software design, human factors, decision making, technical-mechanical considerations communication and flying skills are all necessary to understand the situation and to decide what to do. In just 3.5 minutes.
Two papers about Rasmussen SKR approach can be accessed by the links below.
http://www.carlosrighi.com.br/177/Ergonomia/Skills%20rules%20and%20knowledge%20-%20Rasmussen%20seg.pdf
http://zonecours.hec.ca/documents/A2007-1-1399575.UnderstandingHumanBehaviourandError.pdf