Fits

[rcaligan]

I'm hoping Ron will chime in on this, and everyone else is welcome, too.

I read the link Ron provided about FITS, and while reading the FITS Q&A, Question #8 discussed FITS in non-TAA aircraft.

Have any CFIs or schools significantly changed the way they teach private pilots? Perhaps something that is more in line with FITS? More emphasis on scenario-based training than maneuver-based?

 

[Areeda]

Roy,

I remember reading about one university that went completely to a FITS program, I'll see if I can find the aritcle before I rely on my fading memory.

I don't know of any curriculums going completely scenario based including Cirrus primary training. I do see many CFI's incorporating scenarios in their lessons.

The problem is the PTS and therefore the practical test is maneuver based. I feel we're doing our students a disservice if we don't concentrate on the maneuvers being tested. It's also a disservice if that's all we do.

Scenario based training is a very good approach to the higher levels of learning, they are thought provoking and the only way I know of to exercise and evaluate decision making.

Actually it might be fun to put up some scenarios as thread topics.

Joe

ps: The capitalization of the subject had me half expecting a discussion of petit-mal siezures (which is not that far from this topic).

 

[tonycondon]

Actually it might be fun to put up some scenarios as thread topics.

That would be great! I am always having trouble coming up with good comprehensive scenarios.

 

[poadeleted20]

Have any CFIs or schools significantly changed the way they teach private pilots? Perhaps something that is more in line with FITS? More emphasis on scenario-based training than maneuver-based?

Right now, FITS is in its infancy. The schools involved in the FITS program (especially MTSU) are doing as much research as they are training. Some more commercialized operations like Delta Connection are getting involved (and they're putting in for FITS syllabi for everything including CFI and ME) but it will be some time before we see FITS on a widely available basis at your local flight school.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

It's a good concept even without yet another alphabet name to try to remember the words to, so that's probably why I've seen so many good CFIs & flight schools using it to various levels since the early 90s combined of course, with the PTS. I can hardly imagine flight training without this "new" concept and I've never known any examiners both FAA and DEs, to not employ the concept in their ground and flight tests either.

 

[rcaligan]

It seems to me that there's still not enough emphasis (training, I guess) on in-flight scenarios that could develop good ADM, especially in private pilot training. Granted, some instructors introduce scenarios that the student has to think through and act on, but it's not being done enough. Especially when a lot of students simply don't want anything that will prolong training time.

 

[MauleSkinner]

It seems to me that there's still not enough emphasis (training, I guess) on in-flight scenarios that could develop good ADM, especially in private pilot training. Granted, some instructors introduce scenarios that the student has to think through and act on, but it's not being done enough. Especially when a lot of students simply don't want anything that will prolong training time.

Therein lies the key...everybody's looking for the "quick and easy" way to get things done. Students want to learn in minimum time with minimum expense, and instructors want to spend minimal effort planning the lessons. It's just easier to learn and/or teach things in little tiny increments, rather than emphasize the relationship to the whole package.

IMO, this is largely what brought about the FITS-type solution. It probably wasn't the actual thought process, or at least is oversimplified, but nonethless is the basic cause.

I've also seen a dramatic reduction in people "hanging out at the airport talking airplanes" over the last 20 years. These scenarios and ADM discussions used to happen on a regular basis in the normal course of a weekend, and a large percentage of active pilots participated. That just doesn't seem to happen anymore. We have that here on these boards, which is in some says better, and in some ways worse, but I think the percentage of pilots involved is still substantially lower.

Fly safe!

David

 

[rcaligan]

Therein lies the key...everybody's looking for the "quick and easy" way to get things done. Students want to learn in minimum time with minimum expense, and instructors want to spend minimal effort planning the lessons. It's just easier to learn and/or teach things in little tiny increments, rather than emphasize the relationship to the whole package.

That's true, but there's too much emphasis placed on time to solo. You know the banter:

"How many hours did it take you to solo?"
"Fifteen."
"I did it in ten."
"Years ago you could do it in five!"

Blah, blah, blah. If you really want to look at something meaningful to the pocketbook, look at total time to get the private.

But I think if we get over this hurdle of "short time to solo means a better pilot," then we can integrate more ADM scenarios in the training, and still not increase the average time to get the private. What I see are hours wasted solely in landing practice when the student gets to 10 or so hours total time, simply because "the student should be soloing around this time."

If you ignore that and simply march on with the dual lessons, then you can use that extra time (probably even less) for your ADM scenarios. The solo lessons can be flown at the instructor's discretion and the student's leisure later in the syllabus when no extra preparation is needed. The result will be a better quaity pilot, who gets their private in the same amount of time, and who has the same total number of dual and solo hours as everyone else.

 

[poadeleted20]

As I said earlier, the FITS program has, at MTSU, dramatically reduced flight time to Pvt/IR. And when properly applied, it does involve a lot more ADM exercise. IOW, when done right, FITS lets you have your cake and eat it, too. The problem is that it requires a lot more ground training, and that training is largely done in a group environment. How this can be applied to the average trainee in an environment other than a professional training program where students go through in groups remains to be seen.