Defence Standards Approach to Training - Flying Training
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Defence Standards Approach to Training - Flying Training
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
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
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Blighty
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
The manuals and information for validation is on there.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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 - that document neatly sums up all that is wrong with DSAT
What Crab said
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: In the Ether
Posts: 437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...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!
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
Talk to an educator, they will bore you about it for hours.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Unfortunately it is all about 'feedback', 'monitoring' 'evaluation' and 'appraisal' and cock-all to do with teaching pilots to fly.
Managed properly it formally caters for customer feedback which is a good thing.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: In the Ether
Posts: 437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I like the principals but it is a royal PITA to start from scratch
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"
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...
TOTD
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...
TOTD