David Carman
April 10th, 2008, 09:30 PM
Beginning shortly, the instructing staff will be grading practical evaluation on a new system. It is only fair that everyone understand how they will be graded on all practical evaluations, so following are the guidelines for the new system.
To introduce the new system, I must give credit where credit is due, I borrowed the overall idea of this from the way performance evaluations are conducted at UND, and then made changes to adapt it to our unique environment.
The new system is based on a points system. At the beginning of an evaluation the student has 100 points (a perfect score) and can lose points as the evaluation progresses. Points can be lost in numerous ways, and either one, two or five at a time depending on the error.
One Point will be lost for the following:
Incorrect Phraseology
Failing to keep the scratch pad and temporary altitude accurate and up to date
Lapses in professionalism
The demonstration of poor judgment (this is intentionally vague)
Two points will be lost for:
Not applying merging target procedures
Failing to abide by local procedures (including but not limited to SOPs and LOAs)
Not taking expeditious action to correct mistakes.
Five points will be lost for:
Loss of separation (including with airspace, terrain, traffic, wake turbulence, etc.) This is also ground for immediate discontinuance of the evaluation at the instructor's discretion!
Not promptly issuing safety alerts. (Think of a bust as losing 10 points, but if a safety alert is issued you get 5 of those points back.)
Currently, 80 points is required to pass, however this may or may not be realistic and can (and likely will) be changed as a few evaluations are completed.
In addition to the scoring, certain operations must occur, as well as have certain areas covered either verbally or on sweatbox in order for an evaluation to be complete. These area's are too numerous to list here but I will provide a position by position break down to anyone who requests it.
This new procedure is being instituted with the intent to make the evaluations more accurate and consistent which will improve the overall quality and uniformity of our roster. I want to make it clear that this new procedure is NOT designed to single anyone out, cause stress, make the evaluations "harder," or worst of all, make them less fun! However, with the sake of consistency and quality in mind, and the knowledge that no system is perfect, all evaluations may be failed or discontinued at any time if the instructor determines the student is unprepared for the evaluation, or does not demonstrate the knowledge and skill necessary for the certification they are attempting. I am aware that this could potentially cause problems, however I will be conducting reviews on all evaluations failed or discontinued to try and prevent abuse of this power.
Lastly, as will all policies and procedures, the staff requests you to raise any comments or concerns you may have. We value everyone's opinion and take each suggestion seriously.
Thank you for your time and again, if you have any comments or questions, please do not hesitate to contact me or another member of the staff.
David Carman
Training Administrator
To introduce the new system, I must give credit where credit is due, I borrowed the overall idea of this from the way performance evaluations are conducted at UND, and then made changes to adapt it to our unique environment.
The new system is based on a points system. At the beginning of an evaluation the student has 100 points (a perfect score) and can lose points as the evaluation progresses. Points can be lost in numerous ways, and either one, two or five at a time depending on the error.
One Point will be lost for the following:
Incorrect Phraseology
Failing to keep the scratch pad and temporary altitude accurate and up to date
Lapses in professionalism
The demonstration of poor judgment (this is intentionally vague)
Two points will be lost for:
Not applying merging target procedures
Failing to abide by local procedures (including but not limited to SOPs and LOAs)
Not taking expeditious action to correct mistakes.
Five points will be lost for:
Loss of separation (including with airspace, terrain, traffic, wake turbulence, etc.) This is also ground for immediate discontinuance of the evaluation at the instructor's discretion!
Not promptly issuing safety alerts. (Think of a bust as losing 10 points, but if a safety alert is issued you get 5 of those points back.)
Currently, 80 points is required to pass, however this may or may not be realistic and can (and likely will) be changed as a few evaluations are completed.
In addition to the scoring, certain operations must occur, as well as have certain areas covered either verbally or on sweatbox in order for an evaluation to be complete. These area's are too numerous to list here but I will provide a position by position break down to anyone who requests it.
This new procedure is being instituted with the intent to make the evaluations more accurate and consistent which will improve the overall quality and uniformity of our roster. I want to make it clear that this new procedure is NOT designed to single anyone out, cause stress, make the evaluations "harder," or worst of all, make them less fun! However, with the sake of consistency and quality in mind, and the knowledge that no system is perfect, all evaluations may be failed or discontinued at any time if the instructor determines the student is unprepared for the evaluation, or does not demonstrate the knowledge and skill necessary for the certification they are attempting. I am aware that this could potentially cause problems, however I will be conducting reviews on all evaluations failed or discontinued to try and prevent abuse of this power.
Lastly, as will all policies and procedures, the staff requests you to raise any comments or concerns you may have. We value everyone's opinion and take each suggestion seriously.
Thank you for your time and again, if you have any comments or questions, please do not hesitate to contact me or another member of the staff.
David Carman
Training Administrator