Skill development model

A flying skill develops from first understanding through supported performance to unaided, stress-resistant automaticity. The skill development model is the instructor's map of that path: where the trainee is, what the next instructional move is, and why "fly it again until it works" is usually the wrong move when the manoeuvre fails.

Three threads converge in the skill development model: the learning curve and overlearning; the Operations Manual Part D (OM-D) proficiency ladder used in design and debrief; and the airborne and simulator instructional cycle Demonstrate–Direct–Monitor (DDM). EBT adds the rule that unsuccessful manoeuvres are analysed for root cause before more practice is ordered. Root-cause diagnosis is Fault analysis; the brain-side process is Learning theory. Together they form the acquisition ladder and the toolkit that moves trainees along it.

#Learning curve and overlearning

Skill against time rises quickly at first, then slows, then plateaux while elements consolidate. Complex skills rarely show one clean curve; intermediate plateaux appear as building blocks are assembled. Early success followed by "it doesn't make sense anymore" is normal, not failure of the trainee or the instructor.

Overlearning is the pilot-critical design rule: carry training past the minimum acceptable standard to the flat of the curve so performance holds under stress. A pilot trained only to the floor produces something below the floor under load; a pilot trained past the floor holds the floor under load. Prefer overlearning on critical psychomotor items (rejected take-off, engine-out handling, unusual-attitude recovery). Prefer principle teaching and transferable decision practice where the line problem will not look like the training example.

Complex manoeuvres need subdivision: break the task into known building blocks, master each, then integrate. Teach from what the student already can do toward what they cannot yet do. The same decomposition rule appears in classroom build-up and in airborne demonstration; only the medium changes.

#Motor programmes and action slips

Learning of piloting skills is largely the laying-down of motor programmes: behavioural sub-routines that no longer need continuous conscious control but still need conscious monitoring. That frees the central decision maker for scan, anomaly recognition, and decision work. Human information processing (HIP) is the architecture behind that claim; see Learning theory for the full model.

The cost of automation is action slips: an incorrect or inappropriate motor programme is triggered by a similar stimulus. Classic pattern: a frequent, well-rehearsed cancel-warning response fires on a rare warning with a similar tone. Action slips hit experienced performers when monitoring, arousal, or workload fails. They do not hit novices, who are still thinking through each step. The wrong fix is more basic practice of the motor skill; the usual targets are monitoring discipline, arousal management, and load.

Classify failures before remediating (skills, rules, knowledge (SRK) taxonomy):

Treating all three with "fly it again" is the dominant diagnostic failure. Full root-cause technique: Fault analysis.

#Proficiency ladder (design and debrief target)

Knowledge objectives and OM-D proficiency language set the depth each item must reach. Lesson plans pick the target level; the debrief confirms it.

A first exposure may aim at "be able to"; a recurrent rejected-take-off item aims at "be proficient." Training to proficiency means the trainee does not advance phases until the specified objectives are demonstrated, not merely observed. Exposure-based training counts hours; proficiency-based training counts capability against a written standard.

Cognitive depth for knowledge objectives (Remember through Evaluate) sits beside this ladder in Bloom's taxonomy; do not collapse the two. Bloom grades thinking about knowledge; the proficiency ladder grades operational performance of tasks.

#WSK → WTT → HTT

What the Student Knows (WSK) is the starting condition. Sources:

1. Syllabus (what should have been covered; floor, not proof of retention).
2. Student's file (what previous instructors recorded; fidelity depends on their discipline).
3. Eliciting during brief revision (behavioural WSK today).

Paper-WSK without eliciting is incomplete. WSK drives What to Teach (WTT) and How to Teach it (HTT). Same lesson title, different airborne method: a cadet on first type ILS needs full Demonstrate–Direct–Monitor; an experienced non-type pilot may need Monitor-heavy work on type differences. Update WSK through the sortie; write the behavioural update for the next instructor. The file is part of the skill-development system.

#DDM: Demonstrate, Direct, Monitor

Airborne and simulator skill work uses DDM as a toolkit, not a fixed ritual. Select the mix against WSK. As skill rises, Demonstrate shrinks and Monitor grows. Applying full DDM on every sequence regardless of WSK wastes time and erodes ownership; skipping Demonstrate when the student has no model forces trial-and-error in the aircraft.

#Demonstrate

Physical example with four tools:

• Subdivision. Chunk to the student's capacity; known blocks first, then integration.
• Direction of attention. Specific: where to look, what attitude or rate, what control movement. "See what happens" produces admiration without a transferable model. Rehearse three questions: how do I fly this, where do I look, what am I looking for?
• Follow-me-through (FMT). Student hands and feet light on the controls only to feel displacement, rate, or timing. Explain when to follow and when to release.
• Short pre-brief and keywords. Establish the vocabulary Direct will reuse; stay consistent across phases.

#Direct

Verbal keywords timed ahead of the sequence, not behind it. Stay ready to take control if safety is at risk. Do not "help" on the controls together with the student: take over cleanly with the control-transfer call required by the approved SOPs, recover, then return the controls. In the FSTD, pause, micro-debrief, rewind, and re-fly rather than watching a bad situation mature.

#Monitor

Check whether the student has grasped the concept unaided. Say and do nothing unless a dangerous situation is developing or significant training value is about to be lost. A few imperfect inputs are not the intervention threshold.

When time allows, give a short in-session micro-debrief between sequences (not during take-off, approach, or landing). Monitor output that fails the standard feeds the remedial loop, not more unfocused Direct.

#Unsuccessful manoeuvres: analyse, then train

1. Check whether the instructor failed to transfer: re-demonstrate, further subdivide, different HTT, before blaming the trainee.
2. Establish why (look, scan, prioritisation, mental model, load), not only the last wrong control input.
3. Classify skill / rule / knowledge; remediate the failing component; subdivide again if needed.
4. Teach, not test in training mode: remediate until the aim is achieved or time ends; record residual gaps. Checking mode observes and grades without coaching.

EBT manoeuvres training exists to build psychomotor skill with that discipline; line-oriented phases are not manoeuvre factories. Most recurrent skill work for airline crews happens in an FSTD; device choice and limitations: Flight simulation training device.

#Instructor use

1. State the target proficiency level for each lesson item before take-off or box time.
2. Build WSK from syllabus, file, and eliciting; choose DDM mix from that reading, not from habit.
3. Subdivide from known to unknown; use specific direction of attention; skip FMT on sidestick types.
4. Protect Monitor: tolerate recoverable error; over-direction is the default failure mode to catch in yourself.
5. On failure, classify skill / rule / knowledge; ask where the student is looking and prioritising; fix root cause before more whole-manoeuvre practice.
6. Prefer overlearning on critical psychomotor items; prefer principle transfer on decision skills.
7. Update the behavioural WSK in the file for the next instructor.

#Connections

• Learning theory. Curve, overlearning, motor programmes, transfer, and the HIP constraints behind DDM pacing.
• Fault analysis. Why-before-how root-cause discipline when Monitor shows the standard is not met.
• Bloom's taxonomy. Cognitive depth for knowledge objectives parallel to the proficiency ladder.
• Systematic Approach to Training. Training-to-proficiency gate inside the design cycle.
• Evidence-based training. Unsuccessful manoeuvres analysed for competency root cause, not mere repetition.
• Core competencies. What "proficient" is graded against in EBT.
• Flight simulation training device. Where most recurrent skill development happens; pause-and-rewind advantage under Direct.
• Type operating and training documentation. Type handling and control philosophy live in the FCOM/FCTM stack, not in methodology pages.
• Knowledge, skills and attitudes. Internal capabilities WSK reading and skill targets draw on.

#Sources

• 2.2 The Learning Process. Learning curve, overlearning, habits, transfer, subdivision of complex skills.
• 2.3 Behaviour. Skill / rule / knowledge error modes and mismatched remedies.
• 2.7 Human Information Processing and Memory. Motor programmes, action slips, working-memory limits.
• 1.4 Methods of Training and Checking. Training to proficiency; learning by doing; Systematic Approach to Training (SAT) cycle.
• 1.5 Knowledge Objectives. KNOW / BE FAMILIAR WITH / BE ABLE TO as design units.
• 7.3 General Debrief Techniques. OM-D proficiency levels the debrief confirms.
• 8.3 The Student. WSK → WTT → HTT.
• 8.4 Fundamentals of Airborne Instruction. DDM toolkit; subdivision; FMT; sidestick caveat; over-direction.
• 8.5 Remedial Instruction. Why-before-how remediation; instructor-fault check; teach not test.
• A4.B.5 Learning Theory. EBT as learning programme; conditions that help or obstruct skill acquisition.
• Doc 9995, Part I Ch 7 (Conduct of evidence-based training). Manoeuvres training for psychomotor skill; root-cause assessment in grading.