IG says CBTs don't work

[Gatordev]

You dont have those? The Army contracts with LSI to maintain its cockpit proceedure trainers. We've got them for all our platforms from the 67 to the Advanced airframes and you go through startup, runup, emergency shutdown, etc multiple times before you ever even meet your IP much less have to deal with the actual aircraft.

The difference is that all your airframes are located in one spot. On the Navy side, the flight schools have procedural trainers but the RAGs operate out of a different pot of money. And since the RAGs are all far, far away from flight school, they just don't have the assets to sit in.

 

[Pags]

We had the same problem at -41 when I went through. What we did was grab an aircraft in the hangar and jump in and just stare at stuff w/ our NATOPS in hand. It did a lot. You can run through a checklist while sitting in the real thing, even if the screens don't fire up for you glass guys. Just stop my Maint. Control and ask which bird you can sit in. Chances are, at least one will be available, even if it doesn't have all its seats.

You can also always ask to see if they can hook it up to external power. Worst they'll say is no.

 

[Uncle Fester]

I think CAIs aren't bad at all... (for the most part). They allow the user to go through at their own pace. I.E. Those that are former CFIIs don't need to spend an hour on 40 slides about how VORs work. A meteorology major doesn't need to sit through a 2 hour lecture about cold/warm fronts, instead they can just 'click' through and be done with it....

Bottom line, peeps can go at their own pace.

Yeah, and that's exactly what CNET said in the first place. Problem is, it just doesn't fucking work as advertised. What winds up happening is everybody just 'clicks' through as fast as possible and everyone figures out in about 15 seconds how to BS their way through the tests.

Then they get somewhere they need to know that information, and hey guess what..?

CBT's don't teach, don't reinforce, and don't evaluate. Other than that, great education method.

 

[BACONATOR]

Yeah, and that's exactly what CNET said in the first place. Problem is, it just doesn't fucking work as advertised. What winds up happening is everybody just 'clicks' through as fast as possible and everyone figures out in about 15 seconds how to BS their way through the tests.

Then they get somewhere they need to know that information, and hey guess what..?

CBT's don't teach, don't reinforce, and don't evaluate. Other than that, great education method.

EXACTLY and since you CAN'T expect someone to be prepared with only CBTs, they then become rather superfluous, since following the CBTs you'll complete some lecture or some CPT event with an instructor ANYWAY.

If you need to do X, Y, and Z, to learn about ONE thing, then why not cut X and Y out if Z can get the job done?

 

[Gatordev]

You can also always ask to see if they can hook it up to external power. Worst they'll say is no.

True, though as a CAT 1 that's trying to figure what's what in a cockpit, the LAST thing I wanted was to be able to accidentally turn on a BU Hyd pump or fire off the APU while in the hangar.

 

[NavAir42]

This goes back to the big problem with ACOL and NKO. If the material isn't important enough to have an actual person teaching it, then 99.99% of sailors aren't going to view the material as important enough to bother learning on their own.

.

No kidding. We wasted more man hours on deployment trying to ensure that our GMT was complete on NKO than we would have if we had everyone sit down for 30 minutes once a week and knock out the GMT lessons lecutre/discussion style.

While the GMT lessons done classroom style were still a little corny at least people retained some of the information because they were either actively arguing about it or actively making jokes about it. The same cannot be said about a CBT course that is clicked through with the goal of getting to the test at the end so you can trial and error your way through it.

 

[Uncle Fester]

The value of computer-based GMT is one thing...I think most of the topics are useless no matter how they're taught.

The big problem, and what the IG report focused on, is using CBT for initial training like A-Schools. Students don't learn or retain the basic information that forms the fundamentals for the rest of their education and advanced training, so instructors and supervisors have to waste classroom time and energy teaching them all over again. NASC is fighting this fight right now, as there's a push to make API a set of CBT's done in Primary (part of trying to make API JPATS-compatable).

There's absolutely no evidence, scientific or anecdotal, that says there's any advantage to CBT's over classroom instruction whatsoever except in cost savings. But $ is what counts, since we're making widgets here, not training students.

 

[Flash]

NASC is fighting this fight right now, as there's a push to make API a set of CBT's done in Primary (part of trying to make API JPATS-compatable).

How serious is the proposal to make API a bunch of CBT's? And how is the present form of API not 'JPATS compatible'? It is a new airplane, not a new way of doing business.

 

[Uncle Fester]

How serious is the proposal to make API a bunch of CBT's? And how is the present form of API not 'JPATS compatible'? It is a new airplane, not a new way of doing business.

No, it is a new way of doing business, or at least it's supposed to be. As envisioned, JPATS is supposed to be a system - airplane, sims, academics - and since it's an Air Force-designed system, there's no place for API in the syllabus. We're using a sort of hybrid with Wing Six (as JPATS wasn't really designed to train NFO's, either), but with NASWF's transition coming up, there's an effort now to nail down exactly how we're going to do it.

As to how serious that CBT proposal was and if it's not dead yet, that's all way above my paygrade. I do know I think it's a terrible idea.

 

[scoolbubba]

I don't get it. UPT right now includes an API style course, covering mostly the same topics as API. You get a lecture on an engine system, you look at some engines, you do a CBT on an engine. Are they trying to do away with phase 1 completely?

 

[HokiePilot]

I think this could end up costing the Navy money. API seemed to be a rather effective screening tool to prevent people who couldn't keep up with the academics from getting to the plane. A few extra flights in primary for those people who can't hack it would wash out any cost savings.

The thing that has annoyed me the most about CBTs is info that there is info that only in the CBTs. At least give me a book where I can go back and review. Trying to find some random bit of info in a CBT is rather hard and time consuming.

 

[BACONATOR]

I think this could end up costing the Navy money. API seemed to be a rather effective screening tool to prevent people who couldn't keep up with the academics from getting to the plane. A few extra flights in primary for those people who can't hack it would wash out any cost savings.

The thing that has annoyed me the most about CBTs is info that there is info that only in the CBTs. At least give me a book where I can go back and review. Trying to find some random bit of info in a CBT is rather hard and time consuming.

Ya, some studs were in the ready room talking and go "What gas is in the accumulator?"

Me: "Nitrogen"

Them: "Where the hell did you find that? I looked all through NATOPS!?"

Me: "Somewhere in the bowels of the ICWs"

Them: "Sonofabitch!"

Ridiculous how little tidbits that get asked during briefs can only be found in some places and not all.

The value of computer-based GMT is one thing...I think most of the topics are useless no matter how they're taught.

The big problem, and what the IG report focused on, is using CBT for initial training like A-Schools. Students don't learn or retain the basic information that forms the fundamentals for the rest of their education and advanced training, so instructors and supervisors have to waste classroom time and energy teaching them all over again. NASC is fighting this fight right now, as there's a push to make API a set of CBT's done in Primary (part of trying to make API JPATS-compatable).

There's absolutely no evidence, scientific or anecdotal, that says there's any advantage to CBT's over classroom instruction whatsoever except in cost savings. But $ is what counts, since we're making widgets here, not training students.

As an Astronautical Engineer, API was cake for me and I barely studied (just the gouge for specific test questions).

For a poly-sci major? CBTs would be a death sentence! How could they possibly justify this? A non-tech major CAN'T learn Aero/navigation/engines via CBTs. Shit, when I got my degree I couldn't either, so I'm not special. It was only easy for me because I had BEEN through that training (and more) but it was in PERSON with a PROFESSOR.

 

[Pags]

Ya, some studs were in the ready room talking and go "What gas is in the accumulator?"

Me: "Nitrogen"

Them: "Where the hell did you find that? I looked all through NATOPS!?"

Me: "Somewhere in the bowels of the ICWs"

Them: "Sonofabitch!"

Ridiculous how little tidbits that get asked during briefs can only be found in some places and not all.

Or in chapter 3 of the NATOPS.

 

[BACONATOR]

Or in chapter 3 of the NATOPS.

I haven't even read through all of Ch3 yet. I was a brand new check in and only piped in that answer because I overheard them and had JUST done the ICW that mentioned it.

Perhaps they are just slackers....

But I DO remember in the HTs an IP asked me something and I had NO idea, and then explained to me that the answer was in the MX manual, and I said "so why do I have to know this" followed by a glare from my IP.

 

[Pags]

But I DO remember in the HTs an IP asked me something and I had NO idea, and then explained to me that the answer was in the MX manual, and I said "so why do I have to know this" followed by a glare from my IP.

That may fly in HTs where you're only gonna fly that a/c for 6mo, but it's different with your fleet aircraft. Do I expect PQMs to know what's in WIETMS? no, but I expect them to know what it is. Do I expect them to be developing a working knowledge of the VIB-100 and other FCF related pubs? Yes, because they're gonna be FCPs within 1.5yrs.