Learning takes place continuously in ones life from the inception to the demise, this is common to all species in the animal kingdom and has become the most primitive yet the most sophisticated survival tool Mother Nature has bestowed on all living beings. The phenomenon is not limited merely on a common physiological organ “ The Brain “ or a similar distinctive component, but goes beyond biological aspects, where continuous learning & adapting takes place within complex molecular frameworks in physics and in some other cases, on unicellular organisms that has no intricate neurological network, yet sustains survival (Armstrong, 2009;Reid et al. 2016). Therefore, the essential, Life Long Learning “requires deliberate effort to create new knowledge in the face of uncertainty and failure; and opens the way to new, broader and deeper horizons of experience”(Passereli & Kolb 2012,p. 3).
According to Reid et al. (2016) on a particular type of Slime Mould “Physarum polycephalum” have revealed non-neurological organisms can solve complex mazes, anticipate regular changes and even avoid places that have been already explored or even construct super efficient transport networks within the colonies similar to human engineers.When considering early human learning patterns “helplessness” has being the prime motivational factor equipped with an extraordinary capacity to grasp not so familiar aspects in order to survive out of the usual comfort zone of a womb, Therein learning and forming of memories have begun even before the birth. (Heteran et al. 2000, cited in Gamon and Bragdon 2000).
All are born equally diverse, hence researches have focused most aviation related training to be based on cognitive mechanisms, that drives the favorable approach for an individual to process stimuli and convert them to meaningful data which could be then perceived as knowledge or as an experience. For an instance, some are more receptive to visual cues than others wherein some prefer auditory or kinesthetic approaches in learning (Rosewell, 2005; Kanske, 2001). Based on these facts, the concept of Experimental Learning has emerged where a more practical, hands – on approach to training has proved to be more effective than conventional classroom based knowledge impartation (Ramburuth, & Shirley 2011).
Honey & Mumford’s Learning Styles Questionnaire (1985) categorizes the Learning Styles into a model consisting of an Activist, Reflector Theorist and a Pragmatist. These quadrants share common characteristics with a Kolb’s Experiential Learning Model (1984) & Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory (2007), which consisted of Active Experimentation, Reflective Observation, Abstract Conceptualization and Concrete Experience (Cassidy, 2004; Kanske, 2001;Passereli & Kolb 2012).
Early Basic Flight Training methods in aviation lacked a cognitive/experimental learning opportunity for trainee pilots where “The task is presented, demonstrated, and then the student practices until the task is mastered. Appropriate feedback is provided by the instructor during the practice session” (Kanske, 2001, p.36). Additionally, The conventional training methods added unrealistic demands on trainee pilots, which required them to style – flex between Kolb’s 1985 LS model while attempting to master different technical competencies required of them, which was seen less effective for some trainees in terms of accomplishing the required standards (Cornett, 1983; Kolb, 1984 cited in Jones, C et al. 2003). In the same context, some argued that whether to introduce methods unfavorable or opposite to the learning styles of these trainees in order to flex their learning scope through manipulation to increase cognitive capacity (Sadler-Smith, 1996 cited in Kanske, 2001; Jaeggi et al 2008).
Further, due to strict Air Transport regulation compliance requirements Flight Crew Recurrent Training Methods haven’t changed for years and the personnel were trained on pre-defined fixed scenarios or modules, which had no real time application due to technological advancements and enhancements (Norden, 2014). Halskov–Jensen (2014, p.4) in his article emphasizes the severity of this matter by stating that If nobody remembers the reasons for having always done it this way, perhaps it’s about time to change something”.
However, modern day Air Transport Industry has seen major technological & economical advancements to meet the next generation flight safety standards, operational and environmental requirements. From ergonomic cockpits paired alongside sophisticated computers and mechanisms guiding aircraft from take off to landing with minimal human intervention requires the Airline Flight Crews to be thoroughly trained to deal with unforeseen situations which demand high levels of skill & competencies, when things don’t go as planned (Norden, 2014; Kalbow ,2014; Macleod ,2016 ). This concern is further aggravated due to strict company policies and procedures, which insist the use of Automation over manual control, pose a considerable threat for aviation Safety (Patton, 2015; Darrow, 2014).
In order to meet these industry benchmarks of safety for instance, requires holistic yet cost-effective training methods, which extend beyond conventional training techniques. In addition, it is eminent to improvise new training methodologies to cater the Generation Y entrants to the Industry (Kearns, 2015; Kalbow , 2014).
Considering these imperative social & operational demands, major aviation governing bodies such as International Air Transport Association, International Civil Aviation Organization and International Federation of Airline Pilots alongside with prominent aircraft manufactures have signed a treaty to implement enhanced training methods to mitigate catastrophic occurrences. (Norden, 2014 ; Kalbow , 2014).
According to Reid et al. (2016) on a particular type of Slime Mould “Physarum polycephalum” have revealed non-neurological organisms can solve complex mazes, anticipate regular changes and even avoid places that have been already explored or even construct super efficient transport networks within the colonies similar to human engineers.When considering early human learning patterns “helplessness” has being the prime motivational factor equipped with an extraordinary capacity to grasp not so familiar aspects in order to survive out of the usual comfort zone of a womb, Therein learning and forming of memories have begun even before the birth. (Heteran et al. 2000, cited in Gamon and Bragdon 2000).
All are born equally diverse, hence researches have focused most aviation related training to be based on cognitive mechanisms, that drives the favorable approach for an individual to process stimuli and convert them to meaningful data which could be then perceived as knowledge or as an experience. For an instance, some are more receptive to visual cues than others wherein some prefer auditory or kinesthetic approaches in learning (Rosewell, 2005; Kanske, 2001). Based on these facts, the concept of Experimental Learning has emerged where a more practical, hands – on approach to training has proved to be more effective than conventional classroom based knowledge impartation (Ramburuth, & Shirley 2011).
Honey & Mumford’s Learning Styles Questionnaire (1985) categorizes the Learning Styles into a model consisting of an Activist, Reflector Theorist and a Pragmatist. These quadrants share common characteristics with a Kolb’s Experiential Learning Model (1984) & Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory (2007), which consisted of Active Experimentation, Reflective Observation, Abstract Conceptualization and Concrete Experience (Cassidy, 2004; Kanske, 2001;Passereli & Kolb 2012).
Figure 1.0: The Learning Way: Learning from Experience as the Path to Lifelong Learning and Development
(Source: Passarelli, & Kolb, 2012)
Early Basic Flight Training methods in aviation lacked a cognitive/experimental learning opportunity for trainee pilots where “The task is presented, demonstrated, and then the student practices until the task is mastered. Appropriate feedback is provided by the instructor during the practice session” (Kanske, 2001, p.36). Additionally, The conventional training methods added unrealistic demands on trainee pilots, which required them to style – flex between Kolb’s 1985 LS model while attempting to master different technical competencies required of them, which was seen less effective for some trainees in terms of accomplishing the required standards (Cornett, 1983; Kolb, 1984 cited in Jones, C et al. 2003). In the same context, some argued that whether to introduce methods unfavorable or opposite to the learning styles of these trainees in order to flex their learning scope through manipulation to increase cognitive capacity (Sadler-Smith, 1996 cited in Kanske, 2001; Jaeggi et al 2008).
Further, due to strict Air Transport regulation compliance requirements Flight Crew Recurrent Training Methods haven’t changed for years and the personnel were trained on pre-defined fixed scenarios or modules, which had no real time application due to technological advancements and enhancements (Norden, 2014). Halskov–Jensen (2014, p.4) in his article emphasizes the severity of this matter by stating that If nobody remembers the reasons for having always done it this way, perhaps it’s about time to change something”.
However, modern day Air Transport Industry has seen major technological & economical advancements to meet the next generation flight safety standards, operational and environmental requirements. From ergonomic cockpits paired alongside sophisticated computers and mechanisms guiding aircraft from take off to landing with minimal human intervention requires the Airline Flight Crews to be thoroughly trained to deal with unforeseen situations which demand high levels of skill & competencies, when things don’t go as planned (Norden, 2014; Kalbow ,2014; Macleod ,2016 ). This concern is further aggravated due to strict company policies and procedures, which insist the use of Automation over manual control, pose a considerable threat for aviation Safety (Patton, 2015; Darrow, 2014).
In order to meet these industry benchmarks of safety for instance, requires holistic yet cost-effective training methods, which extend beyond conventional training techniques. In addition, it is eminent to improvise new training methodologies to cater the Generation Y entrants to the Industry (Kearns, 2015; Kalbow , 2014).
Considering these imperative social & operational demands, major aviation governing bodies such as International Air Transport Association, International Civil Aviation Organization and International Federation of Airline Pilots alongside with prominent aircraft manufactures have signed a treaty to implement enhanced training methods to mitigate catastrophic occurrences. (Norden, 2014 ; Kalbow , 2014).
Figure 2.0 : Airbus Cockpit
(Source: Airbus safety first magazine,2014)
Hence, a comprehensive training module must include methodologies to enhance competencies required by Flight Crews, which are categorized as technical & soft skills. Technical skills are related to handling skills of the aircraft and systems, which are more obvious on training environments which can be rectified & streamlined to meet the set standards. The latter being the most challenging attribute for development yet directly interconnected to a trainee’s interpersonal & intra-personal qualities. Lapses in these areas can go unnoticed for a prolonged period which can pose significant safety risk for airline operations (Patton, 2015).Aviation experts have therefore considered an enhanced training approach coupled with latest technologies to cater these demands and overcome identified threats in the current context while keeping the core learning concepts intact.As an initial step into a more refined collaborative cockpit space Crew Resource Management has been introduced. This concept addressed the underlying Experience Gradient between crew members & lack of effective communication, which has been identified as one of the major safety concerns in aviation related disasters (AAIASB, 2006).
In a nutshell CRM training refers to “Making use of all available resources information, equipment and people to achieve safe and efficient flight operations” while managing themselves (CAA UK, 2014;Pinsky et al. 2010, p.1).
“Competency is defined as combination of skills, knowledge and attitudes required performing a task to the prescribed standard” (ICAO, 2016, p.1 – 10).
According Airbus, the following competencies must be periodically assessed, evaluated and provided with recommendations for better retention & operational application alongside increased performance in real life situations, which has been suggested by practicing Psychologists (Airbus, 2014).
Ø Application of procedures
Ø Communication
Ø Flight path management – Automation
Ø Flight path management – Manual
Ø Knowledge
Ø Leadership and teamwork
Ø Problem solving and decision making
Ø Situation awareness
Ø Workload management
Therefore the Introduction of Competency Based Training linked with Evidence Base Training has played a pivotal role in minimizing the gap between conventional Scenario-based training, to assessing, developing of Core Competencies, for more realistic outcome (Kearns, 2015; Norden, 2014; ICAO ,2013; ICAO, 2015).These enhanced innovating methods to be integrated to current training strategies were possible mainly due the practice of "Just Culture Philosophy", where employees are not held liable for deviations from Standard Operating Procedures based on their judgment and severity of situation to minimize or mitigate risks involved provided that deliberate & gross negligence is counted for (Patton, 2014). Evidence Based Training therefore is purely based on similar occurrences’, voluntary flight crew reporting of incidents and on lessons learned (ICAO 2015; Norden, 2014; Patton, 2015).
When considering the latter stages of the process, the delivery of these enhanced training concepts were seamless due to existing technical and scientific advancements in the Industry.It was merely a transfer of real world to a virtual classroom where trainees learn by experimenting. Modern day aviation training environments consists of state-of-the-art Full Flight Simulators, Computer Based & Mobile Device Compatible Training Materials to Procedural Training Devices which acts as tools to enhance the stated Core Competencies through visual auditor & kinesthetic involvement (Airbus , 2014; Defalque ,2017).
Figure 3.0: Training simulator for pilots
(Source: Airbus safety first magazine,2014)
In Conclusion, Aviation Industry has been on a cycle of continuous growth, both in technological and operational advancements, while the training methods remained routine, regulation compliant, where it often lacked considerations for adapting methods to suit the demands of the new era. As the Industry itself proclaimed to be a center point for cutting edge innovation protocols, acted timely, with assistance of aviation professionals and governing bodies across the globe, working for enhanced training methodologies to further mitigate aviation related incidents by streamlining the interactions between the Humans & the Machines, to make the Air Transport Safer than ever before.
References
Air Accident Investigation & Aviation Safety Board (AAIASB) (2006) Aircraft accident report: Helios airways flight hcy522 Boeing 737-31s at grammatiko, hellas on 14 august 2005[Online].Helenic Republic : Air Accident Investigation & Aviation Safety Board. Available at: <http://www.aaiu.ie/sites/default/file/Hellenic%20Republic%20Accident%20Helios%20Airways%20B737-31S%20HCY522%20Grammatiko%20Hellas%202005-085-14.pdf>.[Accessed on 30 September 2018].
Cathelijne F van Heteren, P Focco Boekkooi, Henk W Jongsma, Jan G Nijhuis. (2000) Fetal Learning and memory. The Lancet 356 (9236): pp.1169-70[Online]. Available at : < https://www.icao.int/publications/journalsreports /2014/icao_training_report_vol4_no2.pdf>.
[Accessed on 21 August 2018].
Civil Aviation Authority of United Kingdom (CAAUK) (2016) Flight crew human factors handbook, CAP 737 [Online]. Available at :<https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP%20737%20DEC16.pdf>. [Accessed on 3 October 2018].
Darrow, G. (2014) Are pilots the new threat to aviation safety: Loss of fling skills must be addressed. ICAO Training report, 4(2), pp.36-39 [Online]. Available at : < https://www.icao.int/publications/journalsreports /2014/icao_training_report_vol4_no2.pdf>. [Accessed on 21 August 2018].
Gamon, D and Bragdon, A .(2008) Learn faster & remember more. New Lanark, Geddes & Grosset
Halskov-Jensen, A. (2014) Five ways to improve training. ICAO Training report, 4(2), pp.4-5 [Online]. Available at : < https://www.icao.int/publications/journalsreports/2014/icao_training_report_vol4_no2.pdf>. [Accessed on 21 August 2018].
Defalque, H. (2017) Competency based training and assessment. High-level seminar on loc-i and uprt [Online]. Available at:
<https://www.icao.int/ESAF/Documents/meetings/2017/LOC-I%20and%20UPRT%202017/Updated%20Documents/Amdt%205%20to%20PANS-TRG%20v2.pdf>.[Accessed on 2 October 2018].
International Civil Aviation Authority (ICAO) (2015) Doc 9868 : procedures for air navigation services, 2nd ed. Quebec, ICAO [Online]. Available at : <https://www.icao.int/SAM/Documents/2016CBT/Module%2043%20Doc%209868.Alltext.incl%20Amdt%204.pdf>. [Accessed on 2 October 2018].
International Civil Aviation Authority (ICAO) (2013) Doc 9995: Manual of evidence based training, 1st ed. Quebec, ICAO [Online]. Available at : <https://www.icao.int/SAM/Documents/2014AQP/EBT%20ICAO%20Manual%20Doc%209995.en.pdf>.[Accessed on 2 October 2018].
Jaeggi, SM., Buschkuehl, M., Jonides, J and Walter J, Perrig. (2008) Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory. New York, National Academy of Sciences.
Jones, C., Reichard, C. and Mokhtari, K (2003) Are students’ learning styles discipline specific?. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 27: pp.363–375[Online].Available at: <http://www.acousticslab.org/dots_sample/module4/JonesEtAl2003LearningStylesDisciplineSpecific.pdf>. [Accessed on 4 October 2018].
Kanske ,C.(2001) Learning styles of pilots currently qualified in united states airforce aircraft. Journal of air transportation world wide, 6(2), pp. 32-46 [Online]. Available at: < https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20010103208>. [Accessed on 3 October 2018>.
Kearns,S. (2015) The future of technology in aviation training, ICAO Training report, 5(1), pp.8-11 [Online]. Available at : <https://www.icao.int/publications/journalsreports/2015/icao_training_report_vol5_no1.pdf>. [Accessed on 21 August 2018].
Kolb, A & Kolb, D. (2005) The Kolb Learning Style Inventory—Version 3.1 2005 Technical Specifications [Online]. Available at : <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/241157771_The_Kolb_Learning_Style_InventoryVersion_31_2005_Technical_Specifi_cations>. [Accessed on 01 October 2018].
MacLeod, N.(2001). Training Design in Aviation. New York: Routledge.
Norden,C and Owens,D.(2014) Learning from evidence, Safety First Airbus Magazine (18)[Online].Availableat:<safetyfirst.airbus.com/app/themes/mh_newsdesk/pdf.php?p=10012>.[Accessed on 19 September 2018].
Passarelli, A & Kolb, D. (2012). The Learning Way: Learning from Experience as the Path to Lifelong Learning and Development, The Oxford Handbook of Lifelong Learning, In London, M. (Ed.) Chapter 6, pp.70 – 90, New York, Oxford University Press.
Pinsky, HM., Taichman, SR., Sarment, DP.(2010) Adaptation of airline crew resource management principles to dentistry.JADA,141(8),pp.1010 -1018[Online]. Available at : https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/4b75/65dc3bcb315e2272f48f76d6e5737537a395.pdf>. [ Accessed on 3 October 2018].
Rosewell, J. (2005) Networked living: exploring information and communication technologies. Learning styles, Open University[online]. Available at : <http://www.open.edu/openlearn/ocw/pluginfile.php/629607/mod_resource/content/1/t175_4_3.pdf >.[ Accessed on 21 August 2018].
Reid,CR.MacDonald H,Mann RP, Marshall JAR, Latty T, Garnier S. (2016) Decision-making without a brain:how an amoeboid organism solves the two-armed bandit.J. R. Soc, Interface13, p.12 [online]. Available at: <https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Richard_Mann2/publication/303869611_Decisionmaking_without_a_brain_How_an_amoeboid_organism_solves_the_two-armed_bandit/links/575c634e08aed88462133a/Decision-making-without-a-brain-How-an-amoeboid-organism-solves-the-two >.[Accessed on 23 August 2018].
Ramburuth, P & Shirley, D (2011). Integrating Experiential Learning and Cases in International Business. Journal of teaching in International business. 22 (1), 38-50[Online]. Available at : < https://doi.org/10.1080/08975930.2011.585917>. [Accessed on 30 September 2018].
Simon Cassidy (2004) Learning Styles: An overview of theories, models, and measures, Educational Psychology, 24(4),pp.420 - 44[Online]. Available at: <https://doi.org/10.1080/0144341042000228834>.[Accessed on 23 August 2018].
Pinsky, HM., Taichman, SR., Sarment, DP.(2010) Adaptation of airline crew resource management principles to dentistry.JADA,141(8),pp.1010 -1018[Online]. Available at : https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/4b75/65dc3bcb315e2272f48f76d6e5737537a395.pdf>. [ Accessed on 3 October 2018].
Rosewell, J. (2005) Networked living: exploring information and communication technologies. Learning styles, Open University[online]. Available at : <http://www.open.edu/openlearn/ocw/pluginfile.php/629607/mod_resource/content/1/t175_4_3.pdf >.[ Accessed on 21 August 2018].
Reid,CR.MacDonald H,Mann RP, Marshall JAR, Latty T, Garnier S. (2016) Decision-making without a brain:how an amoeboid organism solves the two-armed bandit.J. R. Soc, Interface13, p.12 [online]. Available at: <https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Richard_Mann2/publication/303869611_Decisionmaking_without_a_brain_How_an_amoeboid_organism_solves_the_two-armed_bandit/links/575c634e08aed88462133a/Decision-making-without-a-brain-How-an-amoeboid-organism-solves-the-two >.[Accessed on 23 August 2018].
Ramburuth, P & Shirley, D (2011). Integrating Experiential Learning and Cases in International Business. Journal of teaching in International business. 22 (1), 38-50[Online]. Available at : < https://doi.org/10.1080/08975930.2011.585917>. [Accessed on 30 September 2018].
Simon Cassidy (2004) Learning Styles: An overview of theories, models, and measures, Educational Psychology, 24(4),pp.420 - 44[Online]. Available at: <https://doi.org/10.1080/0144341042000228834>.[Accessed on 23 August 2018].
