Formative and Summative Assessment
Formative assessment falls under the basic assessment objective and assessing learning. An example of formative assessment would be giving an informal questioner to students halfway through the semester on what they like and dislike about the teaching level. “Modified before its completed” as the course reader would so put it.
Summative assessment on the other hand takes place at the end of a learning unit. A prime example of summative assessment would be the end of course professor evaluations. Gathering the information on assessment at the very end of the course.
What is the difference between Criterion, Norm, and self-referenced interpretations?
All of these examples are interpretations of the measurements used in making standards. The first being Criterion interpretations, a measurement tool to determine if the applicant has successfully completed a level of competency in a subject matter. This would demonstrated most apparently by the use of standard tests… Private, Instrument, and Commercial written tests area all good examples of Criterion interpretations
Norm referenced are based on comparing ones knowledge through a course or subject with all the other students. Norm tests students on mastery of the material through group and not individual.
Self-referenced is one that I don’t quite understand being an assessment trait. This type of assessment I feel has no place in the aviation industry. As if the stereotypical hippy is feeding this style. No way have gaging between one another what has been learned. Someone that has acquired information, but not able to be adequately measured.
What is Self-Directed Learning
The self-directed learners are “sophisticated leaners”, someone far away from comparing myself. These learners are given free range of finding the way of learning by setting self-goals and self-evaluations. “They want feedback on how successfully they have integrated alternative perspectives into their work”. Personally I believe this type of learning does have a place in this world. But nothing around sophisticated and philosophical learning rings a bell in any aviation class I have taken… maybe flight theory HA.
Monday, January 24, 2011
Monday, January 10, 2011
CFI Blog #1
What is an Epistomology?
Epistomology refers to the theory of knowledge is the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature and scope of knowledge It addresses the questions:
What is knowledge?
How is knowledge acquired?
How do we know what we know?
(Cited Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Volume 3, 1967, Macmillan, Inc.)
Epistomology is essentially the process of how we learn. How does a student get from point A to B and through what means did they achieve the said objectives they were after
Briefly describe the differences between Constructivist and Positivist
The article we were instructed to read with the chapter, Rethinking what we Know states Positivist beautifully by “For a positivist, then, knowledge constitutes factual and verifiable information”. This can translate easily into the things we have grown up doing through our education of reading a book filled with facts and then being tested on said facts. We are taught what is factual through scientific results and passed the information via a factual textual (or any other method) presentation.
Constructivist is knowledge through the experience of the facts. Again the article we read states this as “Knowledge comes into being only when a human being examines data and assigns meaning to it. Examples of this would be the teaching of something that is factual, and then in the flight lessons learning by means of experience. Thousands of possibilities are available for this example. We only truly tie things together after we have experienced them.
Which Epistomolgy do you identify with and why?
I believe that we need to have both to achieve a full well rounded experience of knowledge. A positivist environment must be in place first to have a well constructivist outcome though. How do would we understand the knowledge without first understanding the facts that we are trying to put together.
In instructing everything on the ground is all about being in the air. But how does one really all tie it together without actually experiencing it? A student could write down and chair fly the appropriate simulation of an engine fire during start tell he is blue in the face. But when its experienced for the first time (hopefully never), he can walk away from that experience having more knowledge than any book or instructor could ever teach him
Epistomology refers to the theory of knowledge is the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature and scope of knowledge It addresses the questions:
What is knowledge?
How is knowledge acquired?
How do we know what we know?
(Cited Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Volume 3, 1967, Macmillan, Inc.)
Epistomology is essentially the process of how we learn. How does a student get from point A to B and through what means did they achieve the said objectives they were after
Briefly describe the differences between Constructivist and Positivist
The article we were instructed to read with the chapter, Rethinking what we Know states Positivist beautifully by “For a positivist, then, knowledge constitutes factual and verifiable information”. This can translate easily into the things we have grown up doing through our education of reading a book filled with facts and then being tested on said facts. We are taught what is factual through scientific results and passed the information via a factual textual (or any other method) presentation.
Constructivist is knowledge through the experience of the facts. Again the article we read states this as “Knowledge comes into being only when a human being examines data and assigns meaning to it. Examples of this would be the teaching of something that is factual, and then in the flight lessons learning by means of experience. Thousands of possibilities are available for this example. We only truly tie things together after we have experienced them.
Which Epistomolgy do you identify with and why?
I believe that we need to have both to achieve a full well rounded experience of knowledge. A positivist environment must be in place first to have a well constructivist outcome though. How do would we understand the knowledge without first understanding the facts that we are trying to put together.
In instructing everything on the ground is all about being in the air. But how does one really all tie it together without actually experiencing it? A student could write down and chair fly the appropriate simulation of an engine fire during start tell he is blue in the face. But when its experienced for the first time (hopefully never), he can walk away from that experience having more knowledge than any book or instructor could ever teach him
Wednesday, October 06, 2010
Assignment #6- Final Blog
Two things I learned in Multi Engine ground school
• Having the understanding of what causes an engine to be critical. Although we don’t need to worry about this situation in our aircraft being that they are count rotating propellers. Being able to describe the acronym PAST and what every letter means to us if that left engine were to fail in a conventional twin.
• Knowing the full consequences in our aircraft if an engine really goes fail. Not that we loose 50% trust, but we have an overall loss of almost 80% performance. Understanding this in IMC on an actual approach and making the landing count. Because most likely will not get another shot. Two engines are a great benefit to have while flying, but much better with aircraft that have much larger engines. Being able to make the go/no decision on not just merely does it look good outside. Much more planning goes into play when performing a flight in a “light twin”
What would I change about the class?
• I don’t think I would change anything about the class. The reasons why are answered in the next questions
What did you like about the class?
• The diversity of the class! No I don’t mean about race and ethnicity. But how every assignment was different. Between reading the book, blogging, simulator, hands on, and the biggest one… Angel.
• I think every student really appreciates having all the information available to them at anytime they would need from Angel. We have come a long way from dropping off assignments in the drop box on the teachers desk from grade school
• The material was presented in multiple ways that kept us entertained even during 8am
What didn’t you like?
• I think some subjects needed to go over more in class. Only real big one would be Vmc and its effects on each of the items put out by the FAA. An exact and longer explanation between the correlation of the speed and the items.
What was beneficial?
• Being able to sit in the wrap around simulator and see what we have been studying first hand.
Blogging?
• This was my first time really blogging about anything. I actually really enjoyed these assignments. Was a great addition change to just answering the chapter questions at the end of the chapter sections
Did it help contribute to your learning?
• I think it was a positive to learning in the class. Continue this style of learning!
Julie you did an amazing job at putting this course together. I can only imagine how hard it must have been to compile so much information into such a little time. Don’t change anything about the course.
• Having the understanding of what causes an engine to be critical. Although we don’t need to worry about this situation in our aircraft being that they are count rotating propellers. Being able to describe the acronym PAST and what every letter means to us if that left engine were to fail in a conventional twin.
• Knowing the full consequences in our aircraft if an engine really goes fail. Not that we loose 50% trust, but we have an overall loss of almost 80% performance. Understanding this in IMC on an actual approach and making the landing count. Because most likely will not get another shot. Two engines are a great benefit to have while flying, but much better with aircraft that have much larger engines. Being able to make the go/no decision on not just merely does it look good outside. Much more planning goes into play when performing a flight in a “light twin”
What would I change about the class?
• I don’t think I would change anything about the class. The reasons why are answered in the next questions
What did you like about the class?
• The diversity of the class! No I don’t mean about race and ethnicity. But how every assignment was different. Between reading the book, blogging, simulator, hands on, and the biggest one… Angel.
• I think every student really appreciates having all the information available to them at anytime they would need from Angel. We have come a long way from dropping off assignments in the drop box on the teachers desk from grade school
• The material was presented in multiple ways that kept us entertained even during 8am
What didn’t you like?
• I think some subjects needed to go over more in class. Only real big one would be Vmc and its effects on each of the items put out by the FAA. An exact and longer explanation between the correlation of the speed and the items.
What was beneficial?
• Being able to sit in the wrap around simulator and see what we have been studying first hand.
Blogging?
• This was my first time really blogging about anything. I actually really enjoyed these assignments. Was a great addition change to just answering the chapter questions at the end of the chapter sections
Did it help contribute to your learning?
• I think it was a positive to learning in the class. Continue this style of learning!
Julie you did an amazing job at putting this course together. I can only imagine how hard it must have been to compile so much information into such a little time. Don’t change anything about the course.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Aspen Arrival
Overall thoughts on the Gulfstream III and the Aspen arrival at night were that of an incredibly intense situation. The contributing factors for this flight were as follows.
• Passengers delaying departure time
o Passengers that were not on time and not knowing the severity of their actions
• Upset and outraged passengers
o The “Boss” that had chartered the aircraft thinking that money can rule over regulations
• Pressure from having a passenger in the jump seat of aircraft
o Extremely unsafe practice to have a passenger in the jump seat during what was known as a difficult and dangerous approach
• Unfamiliar with approach during night/bad weather operations
o Very low clearances for Aspen reported by the ASOS
• Landing Configuration
o Spoilers were operational during last part of decent
The error chain was unfamiliar pilots flying a low clearance, night, bad weather approach, and into an airport nestled between high terrain. Not having full situational awareness of the approach is where the error chain broke down. These were very senior pilots with more time in that single aircraft then I have total time. Did they get complaisant during the approach? No, they were very meticulous with the actual approach up until someone dropped the spoilers during the approach and the first officers mistaking the airport for something else.
The ultimate question of what should they have done differently. The crew should have paid extreme close attention during the final approach section. You would think the FO would catch a full scale deflection from the VOR with being so far to the right of course when time of impact occurred. All in all, this crew should have keep on course and most likely would have had to execute a missed approach into Rifle.
How would I deal with a passenger if your job was on the line? Like we discussed in class this is a much different idea when you are faced with it. We all can definitely sit here and say we would not even let ourselves get close to a situation like this. We would just flat out change destinations and say tuff luck. But with having the passenger’s right in your face, knowing the charter company will loose money, and depending on your boss, you job might be gone as well. I don’t think any charter company has the right to fire a pilot over something he feels is completely unsafe, and/or goes against a regulations (i.e. arriving into Aspen during night arrival).
I would like to say in conclusion of “what I would do”, the right answer is to of diverted to Reifle and not to of conduced the approach. Along with telling the passenger we’re the pilots in command and this is the way it will be or go airline. Along with hopefully explaining how money can’t bend regulations…. Would I have changed the flight right at the beginning… no probably not… I would have been right there tracing the VOR/DME approach into Aspen. Holding a final approach track that would hopefully not lead to such an accident.
• Passengers delaying departure time
o Passengers that were not on time and not knowing the severity of their actions
• Upset and outraged passengers
o The “Boss” that had chartered the aircraft thinking that money can rule over regulations
• Pressure from having a passenger in the jump seat of aircraft
o Extremely unsafe practice to have a passenger in the jump seat during what was known as a difficult and dangerous approach
• Unfamiliar with approach during night/bad weather operations
o Very low clearances for Aspen reported by the ASOS
• Landing Configuration
o Spoilers were operational during last part of decent
The error chain was unfamiliar pilots flying a low clearance, night, bad weather approach, and into an airport nestled between high terrain. Not having full situational awareness of the approach is where the error chain broke down. These were very senior pilots with more time in that single aircraft then I have total time. Did they get complaisant during the approach? No, they were very meticulous with the actual approach up until someone dropped the spoilers during the approach and the first officers mistaking the airport for something else.
The ultimate question of what should they have done differently. The crew should have paid extreme close attention during the final approach section. You would think the FO would catch a full scale deflection from the VOR with being so far to the right of course when time of impact occurred. All in all, this crew should have keep on course and most likely would have had to execute a missed approach into Rifle.
How would I deal with a passenger if your job was on the line? Like we discussed in class this is a much different idea when you are faced with it. We all can definitely sit here and say we would not even let ourselves get close to a situation like this. We would just flat out change destinations and say tuff luck. But with having the passenger’s right in your face, knowing the charter company will loose money, and depending on your boss, you job might be gone as well. I don’t think any charter company has the right to fire a pilot over something he feels is completely unsafe, and/or goes against a regulations (i.e. arriving into Aspen during night arrival).
I would like to say in conclusion of “what I would do”, the right answer is to of diverted to Reifle and not to of conduced the approach. Along with telling the passenger we’re the pilots in command and this is the way it will be or go airline. Along with hopefully explaining how money can’t bend regulations…. Would I have changed the flight right at the beginning… no probably not… I would have been right there tracing the VOR/DME approach into Aspen. Holding a final approach track that would hopefully not lead to such an accident.
Monday, September 20, 2010
Single-Pilot IFR
Flying single pilot IFR seams to be the most challenging aspect of flying. Doing this in a multi engine high performance aircraft with critical time goals would be a large step into the flying world. Would I consider flying SPIFR? At some point in my career as a pilot I would hope to achieve the necessary skills to be completely competent and no questions asked whether I would attempt this task. But being inside the aviation community no for quite some time, I have learned these skills are far away from the new instrument pilot.
Consider the type of aircraft you are flying. On many occasions you hear in the cockpit from your instructor what aircraft they would take flying IFR no problem. The Cessna with G1000 has made huge leaps in the ability to be a little rusty and fly fantastic in IFR conditions. To answer the question of SPIFR right now? No, the answer is definitely no. We should all know enough in the multi class that we are out of instrument class, out of commercial, and now holding strong with new multi concepts. Do we have the skills? Yes, but are they proficient.. no
One tip this article showed me was having a backup hand radio and handheld GPS system. Can you imagine having a total electrical failure and just having a few back up instruments and plan on flying a full approach? Even the most experienced pilots would sweat a little bit. Having a back up, especially if the aircraft is rented and you don’t fly it a lot to know the “personality” of that aircraft. This could lend you a large helping hand in the event of this type of emergency.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
SLC2.TCH Climb Out
The Salt Lake Two Departure Procedure departing KSLC with runways 35 and 17 is the classic radar vector departure to assigned route or fix. Take-off minimums must be met while flying this approach. The DP states that for runway 17: minimum climb of 260’ per NM to 6000, and runway 35: minimum climb of 260’ per NM to 7800.
After dusting off a few books on the instrument shelves I was able to find the formula [(Ground Speed/60) x climb gradient=FPM] to help us determine if our aircraft is capable of performing such a DP.
First starting with determining our GS in the Seminole. Vy at climb out is 88 IKAS. Taking into the current conditions at KSLC with KSLC 161553Z 16008KT 10SM FEW200 21/02 A3011. Determining the pressure altitude to be 4417’ (4427+190), taking the current temp of 21 C we find the calibrated airspeed to TAS as 97. Last step would be our wind calculations. For the purpose of this exercise and different runways I’ll keep this as a no wind factor problem. Now with a ground speed of 97 we can determine what our minimum feet per minute climb out should be, [(97/60) x 260 = 420fpm]. Can the Seminole complete this task at the current weather condition to the maximum requirement of 7600 departing runway 35? Yes… with a scenario of both engines operational, gear up, and full max weight at take off the Seminole is to perform a minimum of 800 fpm climb at 7,800’. Surpassing the minimum difference by 380’fpm
After dusting off a few books on the instrument shelves I was able to find the formula [(Ground Speed/60) x climb gradient=FPM] to help us determine if our aircraft is capable of performing such a DP.
First starting with determining our GS in the Seminole. Vy at climb out is 88 IKAS. Taking into the current conditions at KSLC with KSLC 161553Z 16008KT 10SM FEW200 21/02 A3011. Determining the pressure altitude to be 4417’ (4427+190), taking the current temp of 21 C we find the calibrated airspeed to TAS as 97. Last step would be our wind calculations. For the purpose of this exercise and different runways I’ll keep this as a no wind factor problem. Now with a ground speed of 97 we can determine what our minimum feet per minute climb out should be, [(97/60) x 260 = 420fpm]. Can the Seminole complete this task at the current weather condition to the maximum requirement of 7600 departing runway 35? Yes… with a scenario of both engines operational, gear up, and full max weight at take off the Seminole is to perform a minimum of 800 fpm climb at 7,800’. Surpassing the minimum difference by 380’fpm
Wet and Dry Oil Sumps
What is a wet oil sump pump, apposed to a dry oil sump pump? We all know the engines we fly need a constant amount of oil used for lubrication and cooling during operation. But after we deposit the oil into the engine what happens next? With a wet sump system this oil flows over the engine components and is stored at the base of the critical parts as an oil pan. An oil pump then transfers the oil back to the necessary areas allowing the oil to spill down again to the oil pan. Everything stays wet and happy during the process.
The dry sump actually takes the oil out of the engine casing after its process is complete to a reservoir on the outside casing as an accessory box, and injecting oil back to the engine from the reservoir.
The dry sump actually takes the oil out of the engine casing after its process is complete to a reservoir on the outside casing as an accessory box, and injecting oil back to the engine from the reservoir.
Thursday, September 09, 2010
Blog post #2
Safety Brief of In-Flight Electrical Fires provided a better understanding of what can happen in a short period of time if simple odors or abnormal electrical failures are ignored while in flight. These small but yet large indicators could lead quickly to disaster if unattended.
What struck me as interesting is the need and know how of trouble shooting the problem in the event you have no way of quickly landing the aircraft (e.g. IFR enroute). The Electrical Fire Reenergize Attempt checklist can be a very useful tool, once practiced and understood to full extent. Something I believe we all over look as students while flying.
What is a short circuit? The safety brief defines this as “electricity is flowing along a different path than one intended”. If an unfortunate break in a wire component occurs, the electricity will still flow out and jump or arc to another part of the aircraft. Resulting a very efficient way to start an in-flight fire, especially with any type of aircraft fluids lingering about.
The safety brief hits all major points on executing a decision when an electrical fire could be present. Knowing the boxed items in the emergency checklist by memorization is key to stopping a strange odor from becoming a hazardous situation. Once a fire is secure, both our POH and checklist go far in-depth to determining where such an occurrence stemmed from. Being able to operate with the least amount of components turned off for a safe landing.
The type of flying we do as students is obviously quite different then what the article intended. Most of the safety brief focused on trouble shooting and how to accomplish this quickly. When in reality if an electrical fire should arise when solo, is to quickly execute the emergency procedures and find the nearest airport to land. Always remembering to make accurate radio call outs before shutting the radio master off in the event something should unfortunately happen.
What struck me as interesting is the need and know how of trouble shooting the problem in the event you have no way of quickly landing the aircraft (e.g. IFR enroute). The Electrical Fire Reenergize Attempt checklist can be a very useful tool, once practiced and understood to full extent. Something I believe we all over look as students while flying.
What is a short circuit? The safety brief defines this as “electricity is flowing along a different path than one intended”. If an unfortunate break in a wire component occurs, the electricity will still flow out and jump or arc to another part of the aircraft. Resulting a very efficient way to start an in-flight fire, especially with any type of aircraft fluids lingering about.
The safety brief hits all major points on executing a decision when an electrical fire could be present. Knowing the boxed items in the emergency checklist by memorization is key to stopping a strange odor from becoming a hazardous situation. Once a fire is secure, both our POH and checklist go far in-depth to determining where such an occurrence stemmed from. Being able to operate with the least amount of components turned off for a safe landing.
The type of flying we do as students is obviously quite different then what the article intended. Most of the safety brief focused on trouble shooting and how to accomplish this quickly. When in reality if an electrical fire should arise when solo, is to quickly execute the emergency procedures and find the nearest airport to land. Always remembering to make accurate radio call outs before shutting the radio master off in the event something should unfortunately happen.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)