Merlin Helicopter Force Weight and Moment

Table of Contents

Abstract

Introduction

Literature Review

The structure of teaching event.

Development of Teaching and Learning Activities.

Reflection on teaching/training event(s) – A discussion on teaching delivery.

Evaluation

Conclusion

Works Cited

Appendices

Merlin Helicopter Force Weight and Moment Lesson Feedback

Merlin Helicopter Force – Weight and Moment Analysis Questionnaire

Merlin Helicopter Force – Weight and Moment Brief – (Analysis for learning event)

Merlin Helicopter Force Weight and Moment L-Spec

Weight and Moment (W&M) calculations within Merlin Helicopter Force (MHF) are inherently difficult and with the release of the Haddon-Cave QC report (QC, 2009) errors in W&M are deemed intolerable. Literature reviews linking learning theories and activities within the teaching environment, structure of the event, reflection on teaching and evaluation make the body of this report and detail the requirement for a training event.

Get Help With Your Essay
If you need assistance with writing your essay, our professional essay writing service is here to help!
Essay Writing Service

Termly within Royal Navy Air Station (RNAS) Culdrose, the Quality Assurance (QA) department and Continuous Airworthy Maintenance Organisation (CAMO) hold a Continuous Airworthiness Management Meeting (CAMM) (MHF, 2014) to discuss airworthiness issues across MHF. At a recent meeting the topic of Merlin W&M (MHF, 2018) management was raised; both at Airworthiness Review (AR) and by Internal Quality Audits (IQA), instances have been identified where W&M calculation errors have occurred.

Understanding needs analysis, training solutions and activities, this report and artefact covers the process of how W&M training has been introduced into the service. The Defence approach on training needs analysis (TNA) adopts a structured and methodical attitude to the analysis of the training requirement (MOD, 2018) ensuring it is Defence Systems Approach to Training (DSAT) compliant (Figure 1 – The DSAT Process) (MOD, 2018), with an aim to produce a lesson that can be delivered to juniors and seniors throughout the Fleet Air Arm (FAA), so they understand how to record and carry out W&M calculations correctly.

Figure 1 – The four-element DSAT Process (MOD, 2018)

Having reviewed several articles, Fleming & Mills’ set a precedent with the application of VARK learning styles (Shah, 2007). Since then with the development of increased understanding of learning Howard Gardner elevated this to seven styles (Collins, 2001). Regardless of how many learning styles are being used there is one common factor, of the diverse way in which the lesson is being delivered (Rahman, 2015).

It is fundamental that the teacher completely understands the topic or subject. Teachers delivery style differs, therefore the learning outcome for individuals could significantly vary between teachers despite the subject being the same. Consequently, it is recognized that teachers should have an awareness of the learners learning styles, capacity, need, and potential to have an effective classroom (University of Kentucky College of Pharmacy, 2009).

Pedagogy/Andragogy focuses a teacher’s need to understand their audience and get the best possible outcome. Pedagogy, the art and science of children learning is inherently different and opposing to Andragogy which is the method and principles of adult learning. Christopher Pappas highlights five main differences between pedagogy vs andragogy (Pappas, 2015) and concludes, ‘adult learners are more motivated, and more goal orientated then younger learners’ (Figure 2 – Andragogy vs Pedagogy) (Pappas, 2015).

Figure 2 – Andragogy vs Pedagogy (Pappas, 2015)

This topic is extensive and warrants further debate, however using an extensive approach, it could be argued that there is a closer relationship between young and adult learners than previous reports state (Abington-Cooper, 2000). Although previous experience and knowledge are drivers, the delivery method, learning style and teaching environment are even more essential to ensuring the learning outcomes are achieved regardless of age (Figure 3 – Engaging Learners with New Strategies and Tools) (Boese, 2012).

Figure 3 – Engaging Learners with New Strategies and Tools

(Boese, 2012)

Complexities in W&M processes coupled with a deficiency in aircraft specific training led to the introduction of a 30-day QA check (RNAS Culdrose, 2018) and a training requirement. Detailed in the artefact is a breakdown of requirements, analysis, training solutions and lesson to ensure it targeted the correct audience at the correct pitch in the correct format.

Training policy, requirements, throughput and good practice were evaluated, comparing training against cost-effectiveness and risk to find the most pragmatic solution (MOD, 2012). Using the analysis gained from the training solution v1, detailed in the artefact, identified that the most pragmatic and cost-effective solution would be a media-based lesson, instructor lead.

The training event is made up from three key learning points (KLP’s):

Introduction

Recoding processes

Aircraft specific particulars

with an overall objective to record and carry out aircraft W&M changes correctly.

To achieve the main objective would require six enabling objectives (EO’s) of:

Need

Equipment required

Authorisations

Training

Weight

Centre of Gravity.

Utilising the EO’s and learning activities effectively to emphasize the application and integration of knowledge gained during the training event, should allow the student to apply the knowledge gained resulting in the following learning outcomes:

Understand the need for correct W&M calculations (airworthiness implications, increased risk to life and fatigue life)

Adopt correct recording methods of W&M

Identify errors within W&M calculations

Know the different types of aircraft weight

How to calculate the correct moment

Provide assurance to the CAM that W&M calculations are being carried out correctly.

Detailed in the artefact under training solution v1: introduces the learning theories of cognitivism and constructivism (Dr. BADA, 2015). The cognitivism aspect of this training event will be learned from instructor led theory-based lesson, so the student can absorb information given, process it and come up with a conclusion from their understanding of the lesson. The constructivism theory would be developed from their previous experiences and fitting the new information gathered with what they already know (Figure 4 – Four perspectives on learning based upon theoretical principles) (Donachy, 2014).

Figure 4 – Four perspectives on learning based upon theoretical principles (Donachy, 2014)

Employing strategic learning activities to achieve the aim of the lesson is definitive for the teacher however, due to time restraints and cost, learning activities were limited resulting on additional pressures for the teacher due to operational requirements.

Using Blended Learning (MOD, 2018) to guided training and active learning resulted with a classroom, based lesson, instructor led lasting for one hour. The audience would consist of senior engineers and aircrew of various ranks and rates. The media of delivery would be presented in a theory-based lesson using flash player, text and pictures. The method would be instructor led using various teaching techniques based upon the Present, Apply and Review (PAR) Model (Figure 5 – PAR Model) (Pinto, 2012).

Figure 5 – PAR Model (Pinto, 2012)

Considering the learning theory outcomes, the learning activities needed to be intentional, useful and meaningful. Combining critical thinking and content focused learning activities to understand what they have learnt from engaging with the activity to use it in the context of how it is required. On reflection due to the complex content and varied audience, it was virtually impossible for me to stay within the allocated time frames and maintain the student’s engagement.

On completion of the event, direct verbal feedback was provided highlighting both positive and negatives. All students confirmed that they understood the need for correct W&M calculations, the types of aircraft weight and could employ the knowledge gained to carry out W&M calculations correctly.

Through internal validation (InVal) (RNAS Culdrose, 2018) and verbal feedback it was clear that the training solution v1 for elements of the lesson were faltering due to the complexities of the lesson content. As a result, junior officers and NCO’s may struggle to grasp the understanding of how to carry out changes in W&M resulting in an ineffective classroom by failing to achieve learning outcomes.

The learning styles of visual and verbal, used within this lesson were not totally effective due to the practical elements associated with W&M calculations. Exploiting additional learning styles such as physical and logical would be much more effective in developing the individuals less dominant styles whilst being able to develop further already enhanced ones.

Evaluating the training event from feedback gained through; the delivery of lesson-based media, questionnaires (MOD, 2018), departmental briefs, roadshows and InVal (RNAS Culdrose, 2018) identified underperformances in several areas of the training event.

Principally the confusion derived from the how calculations were being recorded and logged from an engineering point of view and how aircrew entered the results into the aircraft resulting in a paradox in learning theories.

To improve the situation, an overhaul of the training event was carried out to ensure;

Learning activities were effective.

Training activity is being delivered correctly and meets its requirement.

Learning outcomes are achievable.

Assurance can be provided on ensuring the training event is fit for purpose.

With the event reviewed and additional funds being made available, training solution v2 was produced, introducing several different media and methods of delivery opening the door for wider learning theories. Comprehensive and diverse learning environments were designed for specific platforms allowing numerous learning styles and theories to be used with the mind set of achieving positive learning outcomes.

In this report I have identified the need for W&M training, the process of its introduction and what I aimed to achieve. Linking literature reviews of pedagogy/andragogy to modern day learning styles, prompted me to consider the structure of the event, teaching environment, learning outcomes and how they are related to learning theories. Reflecting on the training event and evaluating it through feedback, ensured it was effective, delivered correctly to meet requirements and was fit for purpose.

The outcome of this within MHF has been measurable, resulting in training being delivered to multiple platforms across the service and the lesson has been inserted into targeted employment module (TEM) 431 merlin managers course. Subsequently evidence has shown that by improving the training given to personnel making the calculations and those conducting QA has led to a dramatic decrease in errors benefitting the service for the better.

Table of Figures

Figure 1 – The four-element DSAT Process (Ministry of Defence, 2018)

Figure 2 – Andragogy vs Pedagogy (Pappas, 2015)

Figure 3 – Engaging Learners with New Strategies and Tools

Figure 4 – Four perspectives on learning based upon theoretical principles (Donachy, 2014)

Figure 5 – PAR Model (Pinto, 2012)

Abington-Cooper, G. H. a. M., 2000. Pedagogy vs. Andragogy: A False Dichotomy?, Denver: Regis College.

Boese, M., 2012. Principles of Distance Education, None: Marc Boese.

Collins, J., 2001. Seven Kinds Of Smart. [Online] Available at: http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,140234,00.html[Accessed 29 January 2018].

Dethlefsen, A., None. The PAR (Present, Apply, Review) Model and Lesson Structure. [Online] Available at: http://www.teacherstoolbox.co.uk/PAR.htm[Accessed 22 Nov 2018].

Donachy, J., 2014. Four learning theories: BEHAVIORISM, COGNITIVISM, CONSTRUCTIVISM AND CONNECTIVISM. [Online] Available at: https://pypinub.wordpress.com/2014/11/09/four-learning-theories-behaviorism-cognitivism-constructivism-and-connectivism/[Accessed 05 December 2018].

Dr. BADA, S. O., 2015. Constructivism Learning Theory: A Paradigm for Teaching and Learning. [Online] Available at: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1c75/083a05630a663371136310a30060a2afe4b1.pdf[Accessed 22 November 2018].

GOV.UK, 2018. Manual of maintenance and airworthiness processes supplement: MOD form 700 series of forms (MAP-02). [Online] Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/manual-of-maintenance-and-airworthiness-process-02-map-02/chapter-13-catalogue-of-forms-700-719-series[Accessed 22 Nov 2018].

Merlin Helicopter Force, 2018. RNAS Culdrose Air Engineering Routine Orders (AERO) 2018. [Online] Available at: https://modgovuk.sharepoint.com/teams/8236/QA/SitePages/AERO%202018.aspx[Accessed 22 11 2018].

MHF, 2014. Merlin Continuous Airworthiness Management Meeting. [Online] Available at: https://modgovuk.sharepoint.com/teams/cui4-228/MHF/Merlin%20CAMO%20Meetings/default.aspx[Accessed 14 November 2018].

MHF, 2018. Merlin Continuous Airworthiness Management Meeting. [Online] Available at: https://modgovuk.sharepoint.com/teams/cui4-228/MHF/Merlin%20CAMO%20Meetings/Lists/Meeting%20Prepararations/AllItems.aspx[Accessed 29 November 2018].

Miro Technologies Inc, 2018. GOLDesp, s.l.: s.n.

MOD, 2012. JSP 822 Part 5: Chapter 5 Defence Learning Technologies Handbook. V3.1 Jul 18 ed. s.l.:MOD.

MOD, 2018. Defence direction and guidance for training and education (JSP 822). V3.0 Apr 17 ed. s.l.:Joint Service Publication (JSP).

MOD, 2018. Merlin Weigh and Moment Analysis Questionnaire, Helston: Engineering Training School.

Pappas, C., 2015. Pedagogy Vs Andragogy In eLearning: Can You Tell The Difference?. [Online] Available at: https://elearningindustry.com/pedagogy-vs-andragogy-in-elearning-can-you-tell-the-difference[Accessed 03 December 2018].

Pinto, L. E. (., 2012. Pedagogies in Context. In: H. Perigo, ed. 95 Strategies for Remodeling Instruction. California: SAGE, pp. 1 – 11.

QC, C. H.-C., 2009. THE NIMROD REVIEW, London: The Stationery Office.

Rahman, A. H. S. &. M. N. A., 2015. Understanding Learning Styles, Attitudes and Intentions in Using. [Online] Available at: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1158550.pdf[Accessed 29 November 2018].

RNAS Culdrose, 2018. Air Engineering Routine Orders (AERO) 2018. [Online] Available at: redacted Sy Reasons[Accessed 14 December 2018].

RNAS Culdrose, 2018. ETS Internal Validation Action Grid (INVALAG), s.l.: CU – Engineering Training School.

Shah, T. F. H. A. J., 2007. Using Learning Style Instruments to Enhance Student Learning. [Online] Available at: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1540-4609.2007.00125.x[Accessed 29 November 2018].

University of Kentucky College of Pharmacy, 2009. Learning Styles: A Review of Theory, Application, and Best Practices. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 73(1)(09), pp. 1 – 5.

Annex A

To MHF W&M Report

W&M Lesson Feedback

Dated Dec 18

Merlin Helicopter Force Weight and Moment Lesson Feedback

Course Name

Course No

Start Date

How Are We Doing?

At ETS we are committed to providing you with the best training possible and we welcome your comments and feedback. This feedback is pinpointed for the MHF W&M lesson only. Thank you.

1) The induction brief/BM brief was adequate.