Just a word on the Integration question. I think that the programs we run on
both the C-130 and KC-10 programs are excellent examples of " using the
Instructional Systems Design (ISD) process "..to.."break required knowledge
and skills down into their component behaviors and then reintegrate them using
the Full Flight Simulator (FFS)". Both programs use ISD to define the tasks
and determine the media for training.
We start new crew members in academics and, as they progress, use CBT and Part
Task Trainers, and finally the FFS. We have (in test cases) taught new skills
using the FFS only. Though both methods work well, I think they each have
their place. The first is best suited for learning the entire weapon system
and its basic operation. The latter appears best for teaching tasks or groups
of tasks (e.g.,airdrop training) after crews learn how to fly the machine.
However, even in the latter role, academics, CBT and PTTs can have a place.
As to the value of integration, it is irreplaceable. I am aware of several CRM
programs that use some pretty hi-tech CBT and seminar approaches. The problem
is that the "gee-whiz" CRM training is not integrated into the total training
program. CRM is seldom mentioned in FFS training and then only when breaches
take place. The feed-back from crews, after they reach the point of
diminishing astonishment with the hi-tech CRM toys, is frequently less than
positive. That type of training program, in my opinion, commits three
cardinal sins: 1) Not using every means practical to take CRM into the
cockpit, 2) Wasting precious FFS resources, and 3) Not integrating the
training program.
The essence of a good training program is to get all the skills to the crew
and with them into the aircraft. A lack of integration, in that case, can lead
to disintegration. (Pardon the pun). ;-)
Dave Wilson
Raytheon