Under your skin like a tattoo....Rockie wrote: ↑Thu Aug 16, 2018 9:14 am Pie in the sky B208. You say it can be done so explain in detail, don't refer me to someplace to do it for you. Pick a topic, say severe windshear recovery with established levels of turbulence and vertical shears, and explain in just that one circumstance in objective detail what makes one "good".
No Rockie, I'm not going to play your game because writing a good rubric requires input from more than one expert and requires more time than I am willing to commit to this forum.
Now, now Rockie. Just because you can't do something doesn't mean it can't be done. I have written rubrics that evaluate both motor and cognitive skills in great detail.
I don't know how one would define 'Vast". I tend to be more of a numbers guy, so I'll default to that. I've got 20 years of evaluating pilots for everything from being safe for first solo, to being safe for aerobatics to MEIFR PPCs. I've got 32 years of evaluating everything from lifeguarding skills, to student teachers to advanced first aiders, to woodworking abilities. I've got 25 years of training educators to teach and evaluate everything from physics to aerobatics to MEIFR. I have enough experience to know what I'm doing, but when I look at how much more there is to know, and how much more experience some of the people around me have, I would not describe my experience as 'vast'. However, I have no hesitation is stating that the standards (rubrics) currently used for evaluating pilot performance are not as detailed as they could be. They lack 'discrimination', which is the ability to sort out the adequate from the truly talented. If you go and audit that Curriculum Development course I recommended, you will learn these things.