Computer Based Training (CBT)
 

What is the general opinion of CBT in the Aircraft world? I ask as I am researching the subject for a report I am writing.
Is it as good as "traditional" bench teaching?
What % of training could "safely" be delivered by CBT??:p

L1A2,
As ASFKAP, I also did my A320 course on VACBE and my opinion on that system is the same. However in 1999 I attended a B737 classic to NG difference course. It combined 'normal' classroom training with CBT in a very useful way. We had the Boeing CBT program and the JMIS(amm,ipc ETC) in front of us on a laptop, and that was very helpful.
I would say that a good instructor is irreplaceble as a classroom mentor, but if you get one of these useless twats from the land of darkness, you might aswell sit in front of a computer.
I don't think you can give a percentage of CBT traing as being safe, there is too many variables, such as student experience and class size.
Brgds
Doc

Thanks for the replies, its nice to know that I am not alone in my opinion!
:)

Have done quite a few type courses over the years.......general opinion is that they don't get any better, but thats down to the amount of money the airline is willing to invest in its Engineers (Usually as little as possible).

CBT done at TLS on the A320 series was one of the better ones for me......If you don't have to share a terminal you can go as fast or as slow as you like......Airbus issue a CD-Rom and a loan of a laptop, so you could do the learning in a timescale to suit your pace and circumstances. Combine this with normal classroom for detailed explainations and regular sim sessions/ aircraft visits and the result worked for me.

:cool:

Type rating course standards seem to be on a downward spiral!In the early ninties I completed a course of seven weeks duration, while in basic training,with several different instructors who all had 20+ experience on the type,the manual was one big book of diagrams ,no text so you had to listen and understand,every different system diagram possibility was gone trough.After qualifing the authorities said that this course was not acceptable! The subsequent modular course was thought by guys who had never worked on the aircraft who had sat in a classroom for a few weeks.We spent most of the course TELLING the instructor what actually happened!the CBT/VACBI is good but you need plenty of support material ie fcoms,mm, etc,and ESSENTIALLY INTREST ! There is an unfortunate trend whereby new type ratings are being thought by instructors who themselves have just completed type courses and never worked on the aircraft, you need "X" years to work on it but whats the min. to teach everybody else about it?(now that I think about it good question)Experienced engineers should be able to deal with inadequate courses due to thier experience but it is the guys on their first type ratings who I feel sorry for!:yuk:

In my opinion, it really comes down to the style of learning that is suitable for each student. In my airline, until recently we have had face to face instruction for all type courses.

We just introduced Airbus for the first time with the A330 and along with it came the CBT. The opinions were extremely varied. The main objections came from the older guys who weren't comfortable with being taught by a laptop and the youngest guys who needed everything explained as it was their first type course.

The guys in the middle (comfortable with computers and experienced on other types) who just needed to learn the systems were relatively happy. I suppose they, like me, have had instructors who simply don't know their stuff and lead the class astray. At least the computer will give the correct information. Our training facility (for some stupid reason) regularly allocates an Airframe Instructor to several of the subjects on an Avionics course. You should see some of these guys try to drive a schematic! It's not their fault. They are thrown in the deep end but because they are the instructors, they feel that they have to Bullsh#t their way through it. Some interesting arguments have resulted!

sORRY GUYS BUT I THINK AIRBUS TRAINING IS THE WORST EVERR

Eurocontrol are introducing quite a lot of CBT into their ATC training. We recently had to do the ADP (Aeronautical Data Processing- i.e. the Maastricht computer system (MADAP)) CBT. It's a complicated subject at the best of times, but the frustration of having to listen to the voice drone on and on and on and on and on.... plus having no text to back it up was really, really awful.

16 of us did it, and without exception we found it more tedious than classroom lectures. I personally would have preferred a book/folder that I can read through, make notes in the margin, re-read paragraphs I don't understand, flick back to something that I realise I didn't understand the concept of after coming across something further on in the training.

To give them credit, they've tried to introduce these functionalities to the CBT, but NOTHING, and I mean NOTHING can replace the tried and tested method of pen and paper!

FYI, I ended up copying the CBT commentary down word-for-word, then taking it home and writing it up. I think I understand it better by doing that that I ever would have done working through the damn course without doing that. I'm not the only one who did that.

So, in a nutshell... CBT? Don't waste your time, don't waste your students' time. Just produce a book, and tell the students to go away and study it. Sorted.