View Full Version : Defence Standards Approach to Training - Flying Training
sarboy w****r
2nd Mar 2011, 09:21
Hi All,
Would someone please mind briefly explaining just exactly what it means if someone says a training course is Defence Standards Approach to Training (DSAT) compliant?
If someone were to design a flying-training or flying-training-related course, how would it become compliant: would it need to be validated by some official accreditor or something, and if so, who would this be? How is it assessed?
Many thanks,
SBW
Daf Hucker
2nd Mar 2011, 09:40
Talk to an educator, they will bore you about it for hours.
getsometimein
2nd Mar 2011, 11:37
Search for DSAT on the defence intranet (I'm assuming since you're on SAR then you have access). Top result leads you to the Defence Centre for Training Support.
The manuals and information for validation is on there.
sarboy w****r
2nd Mar 2011, 12:06
I'm afraid I haven't got access to the intranet...
patrickthepilot
2nd Mar 2011, 12:56
PM me. I can probably help you out
Toddington Ted
2nd Mar 2011, 15:52
err, It's Defence Systems Approach to Training actually and yes, I was an educator and yes I could bore you to death about it but would much rather discuss the merits of the Westland Whirlwind (fixed wing model) fighter or the differences and similarities between LMS and GWR locomotive design before WWII. Another thread on another site perhaps? God I dislike the 21st Century!
The DSAT process is supposed to be an 'educator's standard' with training objectives and enabling objectives defining exactly what you are supposed to teach on any given course.
Great as a concept which may work well for classroom based education but a total waste of time (other than for a*se-covering) when applied to flying training.
You end up with a huge document that lists all the elements of the teaching (list the components of the MRGB, for example) including what teaching aids, pens, pencils etc you need, but not in fact what to teach (ie what are the components of the MRGB) how to teach it or any top tips to get the information across.
As a result, the document is only of use for 'resourcing' the course - most of which is self evident and common sense and any member of aircrew required to instruct said course will go straight to someone who has done it before and sit in on their lesson briefing to see what is actually needed.
The a*se-covering comes when you have to put a student on air or ground warnings for poor progress - the course has to be DSAT compliant so there is a clear audit trail in case the student contests the warning/suspension.
We recently had to go through this process for a conversion to type course and the document produced will sit gathering dust forever while those of us who actually teach the course get on with the job just the way we did before DSAT.
The fundamental flaw with applying it to flying training is that it lacks the flexibility required (change of sequence, change of content etc) that regularly has to be applied when conditions of the day mean instructing on the hoof or losing the sortie.
Mostly a waste of time but makes the educators feel important;)
Two's in
2nd Mar 2011, 16:40
Simple overview here;
https://acc.dau.mil/CommunityBrowser.aspx?id=31224
Just click "File"
Two's in - that document neatly sums up all that is wrong with DSAT:)
I suspect that they mean it meets the DSAT Quality Standard. It's the military equivilant to ISO9001.
Roland Pulfrew
2nd Mar 2011, 17:39
What Crab said:D
Hard to believe that the UK military has been teaching people to fly very successful for a hundred or so years without the need for the bureaucracy that is DSAT. Complete overkill when it comes to flying training.
Toddington Ted
2nd Mar 2011, 18:06
Roland. I agree with you regarding the application of DSAT to flying training.
[email protected]'s last line of his post no 7 is also not without some truth!
Uncle Ginsters
2nd Mar 2011, 18:51
...and with DSAT QS now sweeping through all fg trg, can someone remind Gp that somewhere in the early pages of the JSP on DSAT it clearly states that the process should not be allowed to become an admin burdon!
Currently, we have a single Flt Lt on the sqn doing the job of a committee at Gp in preparing our OCU for DSAT....and what will it change in what we physically teach...nowt!
As a CFS agent I cannot believe that such utter bolleaux has been allowed to flourish - yet another hurdle to stop those in cockpits doing the job they are actually employed to do:ugh:
radar101
2nd Mar 2011, 19:40
Talk to an educator, they will bore you about it for hours.
They are not educators - educators could teach as well as administer training. I was an educator in a past life - they are merely trainers!!
Tiger_mate
2nd Mar 2011, 20:01
It is a ball-ache to set up but works very well once established. Managed properly it formally caters for customer feedback which is a good thing. The Cranwell Flying Training Managers Course is nowhere near as bad as it sounds and they do a good job at making a mundane subject easy to grasp. It is best done with a pet educator capable of asking the trade specific questions and writing it all down in bluntie speak. I like the principals but it is a royal PITA to start from scratch unless you nick SARTUs from the Shawbury intranet and bastardise it to your own needs. DHFS is seen as the fleet leader for compliance which is all down to a Navy Lt Educator that was there a few years ago. (Fleet leader - Navy - I'll get my coat.......)
Tigermate - I think you needed to get your coat when you said Managed properly it formally caters for customer feedback which is a good thing.Unfortunately it is all about 'feedback', 'monitoring' 'evaluation' and 'appraisal' and cock-all to do with teaching pilots to fly.
Uncle Ginsters
2nd Mar 2011, 21:05
I like the principals but it is a royal PITA to start from scratch
It is indeed! And the main problem is that there's no unanimously agreed (between Groups) example to follow. If we had that, the whole process would be a lot easier, instead of every unit muddling through learning by their mistakes...
You define your output standard, but how much is taken as given...you could go as far as "1.1.0 - Wipe your arse after sh!tting, up & down thrice, medium pressure":{
tarantonight
2nd Mar 2011, 21:10
What training...........................................?!:ugh:
TorqueOfTheDevil
2nd Mar 2011, 21:19
Uncle G,
I note with some concern that there's no mention of bog roll in your instructions for wiping. I can deduce two possible explanations, both somewhat unsavoury: either you don't use said defecatory accessory, or you've assumed prior knowledge, which these days is almost as unpalatable...:hmm:
TOTD
exMudmover
3rd Mar 2011, 09:40
Back in the 80s DSAT bull**** was just coming into the business ( I believe we called it "Systems Approach to Training" or "Learning by Objectives" then).
As a Standards Sqn Instructor on a large Fast Jet OCU I had just taken over responsibility for updating the syllabus and Sortie Briefing Guides. I took great pleasure in tearing out all the extra pages of DSAT bull**** and reissuing the whole lot without them. Nobody on the Wing noticed.
nice castle
3rd Mar 2011, 19:02
It is possible to write DSAT compliant stuff which instructors will find useful, it just needs to be written by an instructor not an educator, that's all, and a lot of guys are so frantically busy it doesn't get done properly, if at all. The end result is it is a load of guff which doesn't alter the trg given at all, so, ultimately is a waste of time.
If you're going to have to do it, do it well, and set up the trg system to work long term for all involved, would be my advice.