Navy Times Story on IG report
Amazing....apparently CBTs/NKO/etc don't produce a quality product. Who'd a thunk it?
Amazing....apparently CBTs/NKO/etc don't produce a quality product. Who'd a thunk it?
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
IG says CBTs don't work
- Thread starter Pags
- Start date
For crying out loud. If there was ever a single thing to show how out of touch big Navy/higher ups are regarding CBTs, it's this article.
So despite a report detailing the problems of CBTs, the fleets unanimous call for reducing CBTs, and the fact that CBTs ARE actually the sole way content is delivered, or at least the prime method of study to be done, CBTs "aren't bad."
Man that is frustrating.
NETC Admiral said:
So despite a report detailing the problems of CBTs, the fleets unanimous call for reducing CBTs, and the fact that CBTs ARE actually the sole way content is delivered, or at least the prime method of study to be done, CBTs "aren't bad."
Man that is frustrating.
MasterBates
Well-Known Member
My most recent HATE affair with CBTs.
First CBT for E-2C ground school that I MUST complete before even being able to SEE other CBTs..
ENGINE START EMERGENCIES.
I did not even know how to start the friggin engine. Or know JACK about the engine. (we had just gotten NATOPS manuals the night before)
How to start the engine, not even discussed until 3-4 CBTs in. After you have mastered the start EPs.
How about descibing how something is SUPPOSED to work, and what you will see when it's NOT working right, before discussing EPs related to it.
First CBT for E-2C ground school that I MUST complete before even being able to SEE other CBTs..
ENGINE START EMERGENCIES.
I did not even know how to start the friggin engine. Or know JACK about the engine. (we had just gotten NATOPS manuals the night before)
How to start the engine, not even discussed until 3-4 CBTs in. After you have mastered the start EPs.
How about descibing how something is SUPPOSED to work, and what you will see when it's NOT working right, before discussing EPs related to it.
Yeah, the first CBT you saw in the 60S RAG was on all the various avionics boxes. So, before you learn about anything else, you're answering questions about ADCs, AMCs, ADTs, DTCs, EGIs and 1553 buses. You'd think it'd start with an overview of the aircraft the same way NATOPS does, but that'd just make sense.
MasterBates
Well-Known Member
I have repressed most memories of the HSL RAG but I think there was a similar sort of logic disconnect on the order of CBTs there as well.
The big Shift in Army Tradoc is getting rid of study guides with "check on learnings" so instead of being able to use the study guide as your primary source you are forced into the actual book and all the study guide gives you is practical excercises....
Sounds great till they fail to adjust the sylubus for flightschool and your already on 12-14 hour days.
Sounds great till they fail to adjust the sylubus for flightschool and your already on 12-14 hour days.
"... that means sailors are getting to the fleet faster, at a lower cost"
Bottom line (No pun intended), I agree that the CBT based system has it's faults in content organization and flow. But the onus IS on the individual to learn the material, without gundeckin' it, by taking notes and trying to regurgitate the stuff on a basic level. THAT is where disconnect is coming in.
A big however..., Learning hands on, asking questions and being 'taught' with said sea stories provides the practical application along with the 'what if's' and 'there I was'. Luckily in Aviation, I think we get a better mix of that than the 19 year old off the street.
Nonetheless, it comes down to human capital, what it takes to train a man, and streamlining the process so big Navy can say "We gave all the sailors the same standardized training, without influence of a third party instructor, therefore, they should ALL have the same knowledge level on the output side" Sadly....., not ever gonna be the case. I guess you get out what you put in on both the micro and macro. We're too far now to turn back
Bottom line (No pun intended), I agree that the CBT based system has it's faults in content organization and flow. But the onus IS on the individual to learn the material, without gundeckin' it, by taking notes and trying to regurgitate the stuff on a basic level. THAT is where disconnect is coming in.
A big however..., Learning hands on, asking questions and being 'taught' with said sea stories provides the practical application along with the 'what if's' and 'there I was'. Luckily in Aviation, I think we get a better mix of that than the 19 year old off the street.
Nonetheless, it comes down to human capital, what it takes to train a man, and streamlining the process so big Navy can say "We gave all the sailors the same standardized training, without influence of a third party instructor, therefore, they should ALL have the same knowledge level on the output side" Sadly....., not ever gonna be the case. I guess you get out what you put in on both the micro and macro. We're too far now to turn back
Does this surprise anyone? How many of us have been told to train ourselves on our equipment by using a computer based trainer...instead of going out and putting power on the aircraft or having a ground unit to play with, i'm supposed to remember how to load up a flight plan in an FMS by clicking a mouse on a screen repeatedly? idiotic.
wastes. of. time.
wastes. of. time.
**Feel free to ignore all text not in bold**
CBT is military and civilian. It's cheap. It's not going anywhere.. until someone dies.. if then. We used them at Gulfstream and every single week: "Our department still does not have 100% completion of our CBTs, as a reminder, you need to complete all assigned CBTs by such-and-such a date. (or.... *nothing*)
While their usefulness and mandatory...ness may not be consistent between the military and civilian sectors; It's cheap.
btw.. Its cheap.
CBT is military and civilian. It's cheap. It's not going anywhere.. until someone dies.. if then. We used them at Gulfstream and every single week: "Our department still does not have 100% completion of our CBTs, as a reminder, you need to complete all assigned CBTs by such-and-such a date. (or.... *nothing*)
While their usefulness and mandatory...ness may not be consistent between the military and civilian sectors; It's cheap.
btw.. Its cheap.
It's fun when the information on the CBT is out of date too. Nothing like reinforcing the wrong info.
That's fine, but don't make it mandatory. That was always my biggest complaint w/ flight school. Sitting in front of a CBT does very little to help me learn/study/memorize. It's just not what works for me. But I would have to execute the method that did work for me AND THEN take the extra time to go do the CBTs. So in the end, I didn't gundeck, I just wasted time.
Regardless, this is bigger than just flight school. A huge problem is the amount of training that's supposed to be done online but many (we are the Navy, so probably the majority) of the people who need to do it are in a position w/ little to no connectivity. That's where the huge problem lies.
Troof. I did one CBT for a P-3 system that asked me questions on the final test on stuff that was never in the brief. I'll admit though, I have had some good ones that I actually learned from, but they're few and far in between and the frustration of the other ones make them far from practical.