Pilot shortage?

[Python]

I'd be interested to know what methods you would use to institute such a baseline.

The same that I had in both civilian and military primary flight training. FTI, SOP, lectures, simulators. It is not only theoretically possible, it actually happens.

IMO and experience, a student taught with a script baseline tends to think aviation actually is scripted, and much effort is required to have them internalize that it isn’t. That’s a general statement and I understand we can find outliers.

One negative consequence I’ve seen of scripted students compared to ones that aren’t is paying lip service to checklists. Just reciting things as done, rather than actually doing those things (or worse, not realizing that doing those things is actually important). I’ve seen many many students have the mindset that if I say it (because it’s on the script) the intent was satisfied. That is obviously really bad but still correctable. However, this could’ve been alleviated from the start. Again, just one example I’ve seen. There are others.

 

[wlawr005]

I'd argue that much of aviation is in fact scripted....especially when it comes to start up procedures, course rules, basic instrument procedures, landing patterns, taxi procedures, and ground ops (i.e., FTI, SOP, etc). Once they can show they understand that stuff I'll put them outside of their box and try to build their SA bubble with regards to how/when the script may or may not fit. I surely don't expect them to be able to just figure that stuff out themselves nor make the right decision every time. Case in point, when I do FAM check rides I tell them to make a decision....if the decision is the wrong one, but safe, I'll let them play it out to learn from their own mistakes. If the decision is unsafe then I'll intervene immediately. They don't know what they don't know, everyone had to start from somewhere. I surely don't ever expect someone to read an FTI and then be able to flawlessly execute every conceivable scenario.

 

[FinkUFreaky]

The same that I had in both civilian and military primary flight training. FTI, SOP, lectures, simulators. It is not only theoretically possible, it actually happens.

IMO and experience, a student taught with a script baseline tends to think aviation actually is scripted, and much effort is required to have them internalize that it isn’t. That’s a general statement and I understand we can find outliers.

One negative consequence I’ve seen of scripted students compared to ones that aren’t is paying lip service to checklists. Just reciting things as done, rather than actually doing those things (or worse, not realizing that doing those things is actually important). I’ve seen many many students have the mindset that if I say it (because it’s on the script) the intent was satisfied. That is obviously really bad but still correctable. However, this could’ve been alleviated from the start. Again, just one example I’ve seen. There are others.

Yep. As an IP I'd always move the flaps to landing on an ATS after they moved it to takeoff. What do I hear? "Gear down, flaps takeoff, SB retracted, BLC complete." Or extend the speedbrake on a no-flapper. "Gear down, flaps up, SB retracted, BLC complete." Just reciting the memorized verbiage.

Funny relatable anecdote: "Paying lip service to checklists" was one of the biggest things I harped on as an onwing or FAM checker. One of my favorite critiques said something along the lines of "Taught me the importance of paying mouth service." I never caught wind of a command investigation but wouldn't be surprised to find out if there was one.

 

[Gatordev]

Maybe script is the wrong word, template perhaps?

And then words...

As Brett was alluding to, I think some are taking the word "script" too literally. I agree, a template is a better word to use. As for the other stuff, what you're describing is using that template to chair fly, which is highly encouraged. As @wlawr005 is saying, there has to be a baseline.

Simulators are getting to the point where you could have hundreds of student pilots flying in the same air space, and let ATC trainees (or AI) run them.

The technology is there, but the Navy is nowhere near able to utilize it effectively.

I was Corpus. At the time I was a student I don’t know if standardization was lacking or not. But I do know there weren’t scripts, and IMO we are better for it.

See my comment above. Obviously script is too restrictive a word. More like mission flow, which we certainly all have briefed to, and deviated from as necessary.

 

[Python]

I'd argue that much of aviation is in fact scripted....especially when it comes to start up procedures, course rules, basic instrument procedures, landing patterns, taxi procedures, and ground ops (i.e., FTI, SOP, etc). Once they can show they understand that stuff I'll put them outside of their box and try to build their SA bubble with regards to how/when the script may or may not fit. I surely don't expect them to be able to just figure that stuff out themselves nor make the right decision every time. Case in point, when I do FAM check rides I tell them to make a decision....if the decision is the wrong one, but safe, I'll let them play it out to learn from their own mistakes. If the decision is unsafe then I'll intervene immediately. They don't know what they don't know, everyone had to start from somewhere. I surely don't ever expect someone to read an FTI and then be able to flawlessly execute every conceivable scenario.

They don’t know what they don’t know. Agree.

Shouldn’t expect them to perform well after just reading the FTI. Agree.

No global SA as an FNG. This needs to be nurtured and developed. Agree.

Script as the baseline. Disagree.

I understand what a new student is like. Sure if you want to count checklists as scripts, or the FTI guidance of how to say things, then of course some things are “scripted.” I use quotes because I’d argue that’s not scripts, that’s standardization.

That’s not what I was alluding to. I was talking about handing students a “Hollywood Script” which walks the student through every single second of the flight. It simply handcuffs the students. I don’t expect them to have all things figured out with such few hours of experience, but with a script I see them default to helmet-fire and defeat when anything goes off script.

 

[wlawr005]

I'm not sure who does that. We don't do it in Meridian aside from comm for the startup and shutdown.

 

[Python]

I'm not sure who does that. We don't do it in Meridian aside from comm for the startup and shutdown.

VT-10 has something along the lines of this.

 

[nugget81]

All this discussion about scripts and the like lead me to believe that people are unaware, at least formally, of the different levels of learning that take place, or as it’s called now “phases of knowledge”. The Aviation Instructor’s Handbook Ch 3 is an excellent source of information when it comes to how students learn, and how to foster learning. I was taught this back when I was in college getting my CFI, but I never had any training on it in the Navy—even as a FRS instructor. Hopefully the primary FITU covers it.

https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/aviation_instructors_handbook/media/05_aih_chapter_3.pdf

Generally speaking, scripts serve to meet the lowest level of learning: rote memorization. Obviously the goal is to get students beyond that level and into an area of understanding and correlation. If a student can’t do a task off script, then they are still at the lowest level.

 

[Birdbrain]

They don’t know what they don’t know. Agree.

Shouldn’t expect them to perform well after just reading the FTI. Agree.

No global SA as an FNG. This needs to be nurtured and developed. Agree.

Script as the baseline. Disagree.

I understand what a new student is like. Sure if you want to count checklists as scripts, or the FTI guidance of how to say things, then of course some things are “scripted.” I use quotes because I’d argue that’s not scripts, that’s standardization.

That’s not what I was alluding to. I was talking about handing students a “Hollywood Script” which walks the student through every single second of the flight. It simply handcuffs the students. I don’t expect them to have all things figured out with such few hours of experience, but with a script I see them default to helmet-fire and defeat when anything goes off script.

We had a Hollywood script at Whiting. It was a good way for me, with no experience, to start practicing comms and checklists on the ground. However when something deviated from the script (like an interloper in the North MOA on CBDR with me at 10,000’ causing a TCAS alert) I had no idea what to do but follow the script because that’s all I knew how to do, which on that flight resulted in my IP taking controls and very graciously debriefing aerially what had just occurred and if I understood what I should have done, which was anything else but the script.

Very eye opening experience to how a script can help and hurt you at the same time.

 

[Jim123]

One of my favorite critiques said something along the lines of "Taught me the importance of paying mouth service."

FWIW, I think we're talking about more than one different meaning of "script."

 

[wlawr005]

All this discussion about scripts and the like lead me to believe that people are unaware, at least formally, of the different levels of learning that take place, or as it’s called now “phases of knowledge”. The Aviation Instructor’s Handbook Ch 3 is an excellent source of information when it comes to how students learn, and how to foster learning. I was taught this back when I was in college getting my CFI, but I never had any training on it in the Navy—even as a FRS instructor. Hopefully the primary FITU covers it.

https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/aviation_instructors_handbook/media/05_aih_chapter_3.pdf

Generally speaking, scripts serve to meet the lowest level of learning: rote memorization. Obviously the goal is to get students beyond that level and into an area of understanding and correlation. If a student can’t do a task off script, then they are still at the lowest level.

I dove into that a little studying for the MILCOMP CFI test. It's certainly something that should be addressed at CNATRA is quite frankly is not. I also appreciated the text explaining how people experience things and until they experience something themselves they have little capacity to fully understand it the same way the instructor may be explaining it.

 

[Jim123]

I dove into that a little studying for the MILCOMP CFI test. It's certainly something that should be addressed at CNATRA is quite frankly is not. I also appreciated the text explaining how people experience things and until they experience something themselves they have little capacity to fully understand it the same way the instructor may be explaining it.

The Fundamentals of Instruction chapter (or something like that) was mandatory reading several years ago either in the FITC course or maybe it was a TW-5 requirement, I'm not sure which.

There was also the now-rescinded CNATRA P-905 series, Aviation Instructor's Handbook, (<100 pages cover to cover) that did a pretty decent job covering that stuff. I finally found it on the wayback machine (no, this isn't a Rick Roll, not this time anyway):

Wayback Machine

Excellent points about one person's learning style and another person's teaching style.

 

[wink]

VT-10 has something along the lines of this.

In the late 70s VT-10 started NFOs out with a Hollywood Script. I had a hard time with it as a 300 hour pilot with lots of cross country time. The script was not real world. I was used to operating in the real world and what I did or said based on similar stimulus was often not on the script. It communicated the proper message, but was not the script. Cool IPs let it go. Others gave me belows. When I got to the RAG, I was often praised for my aeronautical maturity and professionalism. "Ready for the fleet." Go figure.

 

[wlawr005]

The Fundamentals of Instruction chapter (or something like that) was mandatory reading several years ago either in the FITC course or maybe it was a TW-5 requirement, I'm not sure which.

There was also the now-rescinded CNATRA P-905 series, Aviation Instructor's Handbook, (<100 pages cover to cover) that did a pretty decent job covering that stuff. I finally found it on the wayback machine (no, this isn't a Rick Roll, not this time anyway):

Wayback Machine

Excellent points about one person's learning style and another person's teaching style.

Some of those illustrations are going to make great memes

 

[Python]

In the late 70s VT-10 started NFOs out with a Hollywood Script. I had a hard time with it as a 300 hour pilot with lots of cross country time. The script was not real world. I was used to operating in the real world and what I did or said based on similar stimulus was often not on the script. It communicated the proper message, but was not the script. Cool IPs let it go. Others gave me belows. When I got to the RAG, I was often praised for my aeronautical maturity and professionalism. "Ready for the fleet." Go figure.

Yup. Punishing someone for not following standardization is understandable. But for not following a script detailing every aspect of the flight? That will only reinforce the tunnel vision mindset coming from scripts.