曝光臺 注意防騙 網曝天貓店富美金盛家居專營店坑蒙拐騙欺詐消費者

In addition, instructors should utilize SBT to create lessons that are specifically designed to test whether students are applying SRM skills. Planning a flight lesson in which the student is presented with simulated emergencies, a heavy workload, or other operational problems can be valuable in assessing the student’s judgment and decision-making skills. During the flight, student performance can be evaluated for workload and/or stress management.
As discussed in chapter 5, SRM grades are based on these four components:
• Explain—the student can verbally identify, describe, and understand the risks inherent in the flight scenario. The student needs to be prompted to identify risks and make decisions.
• Practice—the student is able to identify, understand, and apply SRM principles to the actual flight situation. Coaching, instruction, and/or assistance from the CFI quickly corrects minor deviations and errors identified by the CFI. The student is an active decision maker.
• Manage/Decide—the student can correctly gather the most important data available both within and outside the flight deck, identify possible courses of action, evaluate the risk inherent in each course of action, and make the appropriate decision. Instructor intervention is not required for the safe completion of the flight.
• Not Observed—any event not accomplished or required.
Postflight, collaborative assessment or learner centered grading (LCG) (also discussed in chapter 5), is a vital component of assessing a student’s SRM skills. As a reminder, collaborative assessment includes two parts: learner self-assessment and a detailed assessment by the flight instructor. The purpose of the self-assessment is to stimulate growth in the student’s thought processes and, in turn, behaviors. The self-assessment is followed by an in-depth discussion between the flight instructor and the student which compares the CFI’s assessment to the student’s self-assessment.
An important element of SRM skills assessment is that the CFI provides a clear picture of the progress the student is making during the training. Grading should also be progressive. During each flight, the student should achieve a new level of learning. For flight one, the automation management area might be a “describe” item. By flight three, it would be a “practice” item, and by flight five, a “manage-decide” item.Chapter Summary
This chapter introduced aviation instructors to the underlying concepts of safety risk management, which the FAA is integrating into all levels of the aviation community.
A-1
Ashcraft, M.H., 1994: Human Memory and Cognition. New York: Harper Collins.
Bloom, B.S. (Ed.), 1956: Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals, Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay.
Bloom, B.S., and others, 1971: Handbook on Formative and Summative Evaluation of Student Learning. New York: McGraw-Hill
Brookfield, S.D., 1991: Understanding and Facilitating Adult Learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Claxton, C.S., & Murrell, P.H., 1987: Learning Styles: Implications for Improving Instructional Practices. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 4, Association for the Study of Higher Education.
Council of Aviation Accreditation, 1995: Accreditation Standards Manual. Auburn: Council of Aviation Accreditation.
Davis, J.R., 1993: Better Teaching, More Learning: Strategies for Success in Postsecondary Settings. Phoenix: Oryx Press.
Dick, W., & Carey, L., 2000: The Systematic Design of Instruction. New York: Harper Collins.
Driscoll, M.P., 1999: Psychology of Learning for Instruction. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Duncan, P.A., 1998, 1999: Surfing the Aviation Web, Parts 1, 2, and 3, FAA Aviation News, Nov/Dec, Jan/Feb, Mar. Washington: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration.
ERIC (Educational Resources Information Center), 1992-1997: ERIC Digests. Washington: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
FAA, 1991: Aeronautical Decision Making. AC 60-22. Washington: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration.
Appendix A
References
FAA, 2005: Certification: Pilots and Flight Instructors. AC 61-65. Washington: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration.
FAA, 2000: Stall and Spin Awareness Training. AC 61-67. Washington: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration.
FAA, 1995: Nationally Scheduled FAA-Approved, Industry-Conducted Flight Instructor Refresher Clinics. AC 61-83. Washington: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration.
FAA, 2000: Pilot Certificates: Aircraft Type Ratings. AC 61-89. Washington: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration.
FAA, 1996: Pilot Proficiency Award Program. AC 61-91. Washington: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration.
　
中國航空網 www.k6050.com
航空翻譯 www.aviation.cn
本文鏈接地址：Aviation Instructor’s Handbook下(89)