Speak Like a Pilot, Not a Parrot: Threshold Concepts in Aviation

October 28, 2024 Daniel

Category: Popular

Speak Like a Pilot, Not a Parrot: Threshold Concepts in Aviation

In aviation, threshold concepts are fundamental ideas that, once understood, transform a student’s perspective and approach to learning. It can also be a way of looking at something that allows deep understanding of something in the world (Mossley, 2017). A widely accepted way of understanding threshold concepts is to envision our students crossing an irreversible line, (i.e. a “threshold”) which, once crossed, allows them to approach knowledge in a more advanced way. Crossing this line is transformative; it changes the way we think, perceive, or experience phenomena (Meyer & Land, 2003). However, such thresholds come with challenges. Transformations can be so drastic and frightening that students may resist learning them. Nevertheless, once a concept is accepted and internalized, students can then progress with their learning. In aviation education, these concepts play a crucial role in shaping the mindset and skills not just of student pilots, but also of active aviation professionals. Threshold concepts “bind a subject together, being fundamental to ways of thinking and practicing” (Land et al, 2005, p. 54).

When creating an aviation curriculum, whether it be preparatory ground instruction material for student pilots or a course on oceanic airspace, instructors must identify and address threshold concepts. Let’s consider two examples: one of an ab-initio student learning about stalls, and another of a two-crew environment in a 705 operation. For student pilots, once it is fundamentally understood that an airfoil stalls due to its angle of attack, the student may, from that point forward, begin to learn the correct and proper techniques for stall prevention and recovery. By mastering this ab-initio concept relating to stalls, students will be better prepared for any subsequent transition to higher performance aircraft where stall recoveries may be more dangerous and difficult. As for the example of a two-crew 705 operation, this requires transitioning pilots to understand how best to make a two-crew scenario work. Once a pilot can transition their mindset away from single-pilot operations and embrace the skills necessary to work as a crew, they will be able to tackle complex problems that require task sharing, workload management, leadership, or other crew resource management related proficiencies. Transitioning into a two-crew environment for the first time may be difficult and troublesome for some pilots as it requires a fundamental change in how they approach flying. No longer are they an individual decision-maker, instead, they are now a part of a coordinated team effort. Once this threshold in mindset is crossed, skills flourish and become irreversibly ingrained.

In aviation training, it is important to emphasize that our teachings must be correct and inclusive of threshold concepts. They must also incorporate the accurate language and phraseology used within the Canadian aviation environment. Terms such as “Certified Flight Instructor – CFI” (a term found in American aviation) must be replaced by the correct Canadian equivalent (in this case, “Flight Instructor”). Similarly, the term “class of medical” should be correctly referred to as a “Category” of a medical. Using correct verbiage is not a matter of semantics; it embodies a comprehensive understanding of the Canadian Aviation Regulations (CARs) which fosters the professional mindset we seek in our students. Using correct and standardized language when discussing a topic represents the cognitive and procedural shift that define a threshold concept, thus reshaping how the individual engages with aviation. With this greater engagement comes a reduction in misunderstandings, in errors, in misinterpretations, and in unsafe practices in the cockpit.

Using the correct language is a crucial threshold concept to grasp; the next step is applying it effectively in real-world scenarios. A look at aviation medicals will demonstrate the importance of a language threshold concept. CAR 404.04(6) defines the validity periods of medicals, while the relevant standards in Part 4 of the CARs define which medicals will validate a license. The basic premise of CAR 404.04(6) is that the validity period of a medical is based on the license held, not the category of medical held. This means that any medical that validates a PPL for anyone less than 40 years of age is 60 months. Standard 421.26(2) outlines that a PPL is maintained by a valid Category 1 or 3 medical. Therefore, if a 23-year-old private pilot held a Category 1 medical, their medical would be valid for 60 months. Some pilots may argue that section 404.04 (6.1) states that the validity period in such a case would be reduced to 12 months; however, this only applies to someone who holds a CPL, MPL, or ATPL, and not our 23 year old with a PPL. The misinterpretation of these regulations may lead to confusion, and to students unnecessarily renewing their medicals early, which will increase training costs and put more strain on the Civil Aviation medical processing system.

Such misinterpretation, resulting from the misapplication of regulations, can be the result of oversimplification, curriculum gaps, or a lack of instructor knowledge. In the case of aviation medicals, instructors may feel that it is easier to teach students that the categories of medicals change after a year instead of properly explaining the regulations. Examples such as this are found at all levels of aviation in Canada, from a flight instructor poorly explaining how a wing makes lift to an airline Captain asserting that their own personal flying techniques are their employer’s Standard Operating Procedures when they are not. We must ensure that our own interpretations and assumptions do not replace reality; instead, we should rely on the literature provided by the companies for which we work, by Transport Canada, and by our application of accepted principles extracted from evidence-based aviation research.

It is also imperative that we do not impede on a student’s ability to learn necessary threshold concepts as this may result in students taking unnecessary or unsafe actions when flying aircraft. If instructors focus too much on surface level facts or memorization, they may fail to encourage the deeper learning necessary to grasp a threshold concept. If we use incorrect terminology, neglect context in our teachings, or teach something incorrectly, students will struggle to grasp the threshold concepts that are necessary for their growth as aviators. Paradoxically, a strict teaching style may discourage critical thinking to a point where students are prevented from navigating the difficult aspects of a threshold concept. For student learning to be effective, instructors must be mindful of these potential consequences and create learning environments where students can actively engage, experiment, and explore foundational threshold concepts in aviation.

Questions for thought

To better apply threshold concepts to your own aviation journey, I encourage you to think about points:

What role does feedback play in helping students navigate a threshold concept?
In a transition from single pilot to multi-crew operations, what behavioural changes are necessary for pilots to properly integrate CRM into their flying?
What is the key threshold concept that someone must fully understand to effectively perform their role in aviation? What about your role in aviation?
How does the mastery of a threshold concept, like angle of attack, transform pilot’s approach to decision making and risk management during a flight?

References

Land, R., Cousin, G., Meyer, J.H., & Davies, P. (2005). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge (3)*: implications for course design and evaluation.

Meyer, J. H. F., & Land, R. (2003). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge: Linkages to ways of thinking and practising within the disciplines. In C. Rust (Ed.), Improving student learning: Improving student learning theory and practice – 10 years on (pp. 412-424). Oxford, UK: Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development.

Mossley, D. (2017). Reflecting on threshold concepts: an introductory tool. Higher Education Academy.