KSA100

Knowledge - Skill - Attitude

KSA: the “K”s are the “knowledge”, that is, the theoretical teachings that the school provides and that the student must learn to pass the exams; the “S”s are the “skills” that the student must have at the end of the course… and so far so good!

And what does the “A” refer to? To the student’s “attitude” towards aeronautical subjects. These attitudes are assessed with formative assessments, mental math exercises and summative assessments. The first two groups of tests refer to progress tests on the subject covered during a lesson or a series of lessons and on mental calculation skills. Up to this point there is nothing disconcerting for schools that must essentially do what they have always done by formalizing it in a different way.

The summative tests, however, must cover the following areas: Communication Leadership and Teamwork Problem solving and decision making, Situational awareness, Workload management, Application of knowledge, Upset recovery and prevention training and resilience.

CRM Concepts

These concepts are typical of the CRM courses that airlines do and are very subjective: subjective for the student being examined and for the instructor who examines him. Now, a CRM instructor needs training that lasts several months and we are not talking about a psychotherapist who takes years to reach the skills required for this profession; these people certainly have a certain attitude to make these assessments or at least they are part of the job they studied for and want to do.

So the questions arise spontaneously:

• Are we sure that flight instructors, with a day of training, can make these assessments calmly?
• Are we sure that they also have the attitudes to verify the attitudes?
• Are we sure that the school, in full conflict of interest with the student, makes an objective assessment?
• Are we sure that legally this has a value?
• Will a student be able to appeal this assessment if it is negative? And does he go to a competing school to get another opinion? Or maybe from a psychologist?
• What power will the school have against the power of a psychologist?

Conclusions

In “our humble opinion” perhaps it would be better if these assessments were conducted by those who really know how to do them: professionals, objective, independent, if not even by the aeronautical authority. Why take this responsibility away from the doctors who issue first-class medical examinations and give it to schools that do not have the capacity for assessment?

More serious schools will rely on external expert personnel and will not leave the instructor with such a responsibility, but the conflict of interest remains.

We believe that it is a great idea to introduce these tests, of course, but we believe that schools should not do them. They say that this regulation arises from problems encountered by airlines during the initial line training of new pilots.

Now, if a person is not psychologically “suitable” for flying, the doctor should stop them, while if a person is not suitable to fly in a scheduled airline, they will be trained by selections, however they could be a very good instructor, a firefighting pilot, a cargo pilot, an air taxi pilot. Why should schools be the ones to solve this problem that is not theirs either in terms of competence or ability?

We do not want to argue or as always blame the regulations, bureaucracy or authority, but in this case we think that a problem correctly identified is applied to an adequate solution, but applied by the wrong organizations. It would take very little to do something well!

Incidentally, the 100 at the end only refers to the numbering of the theoretical subjects of the professional courses. Now we have said it all.

This is the second article of our column “in our humble opinion” and as always we emphasize the fact that in the aeronautical world you never stop learning but we believe there is always the need to look for improvement.

Until next time.

Happy landings!