DRTS Instructor Theory common mistakes
DRTS Instructor Theory · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Citing a regulation number or airspace class limit from memory without verifying the current text, then building a lesson or answer on the recalled figure.
Instructors often teach from long-standing habit and older editions of the rules; the underlying structure feels stable, so the exact numbers and applicability conditions are never re-checked.
What to do instead
Adopt a personal rule: any regulatory citation used in instruction or on a knowledge test must be traced to the current source document before use, and keep a dated reference sheet that is reviewed at the start of each teaching cycle.
Treating the national airspace system as a single uniform rule set, ignoring the differences between controlled, uncontrolled, and special-use airspace when explaining where and how operations are permitted.
Candidates learn one familiar operating environment well and generalize it, because the class-by-class distinctions are memorized as isolated facts rather than as a decision process.
What to do instead
Practice a repeatable airspace triage: identify the location, determine the class and any special-use or restriction, check the applicable authorization path, then state the operational limits aloud. Build lesson plans around scenarios rather than definitions.
Planning a flight without a documented site and airspace survey, then discovering obstacles, spectators, or conflicting traffic only after launch.
Pre-flight planning gets compressed under time pressure and the assumption that a familiar site is unchanged; the survey is treated as paperwork rather than a safety control.
What to do instead
Require a written site survey checklist completed before every operation, covering obstacles, boundaries, emergency landing areas, bystander control, and local airspace status, with a signature and time stamp that is reviewed in the pre-flight brief.
Teaching emergency procedures as a list to recite rather than as a sequence to perform, so learners can name the steps but freeze when a failure is injected.
Knowledge checks reward recall, and emergency content is easy to lecture; scenario practice is time-consuming and requires setup that instructors avoid.
What to do instead
Convert each emergency into a scripted drill with a trigger, a decision point, and observable actions, then run it in tabletop and live scenarios with a debrief. Assess performance against the script, not against verbal recall.
Designing instruction around the instructor's preferred teaching style instead of the learners' prior experience, motivation, and role, so experienced public-safety personnel sit through basic content while novices are rushed.
Instructors default to the format they were taught in, and needs analysis is skipped because the syllabus already exists and the audience is assumed to be homogeneous.
What to do instead
Conduct a short pre-course needs assessment covering role, prior experience, and learning goals, then map objectives to activities and adjust pacing. State the rationale for each activity so adult learners see its relevance to their job.
Writing lesson objectives as vague intentions such as understanding safety or being aware of rules, so neither the learner nor the evaluator can tell whether the objective was met.
Objectives are copied from topic headings rather than derived from observable performance, and verbs describing internal states feel natural to write.
What to do instead
Rewrite every objective with an observable action, a condition, and a standard, then verify that each assessment item maps to one objective. Reject any objective that cannot be measured in a scenario or a written item.
Recording a pass or fail without documenting the specific observed behaviour, conditions, and deviations, leaving a grade that cannot be defended or used for remediation.
Evaluation forms emphasize scores, and documentation is completed after the fact from memory when time is short.
What to do instead
Use a behaviourally anchored rubric completed during or immediately after the observation, with space for narrative notes on what was seen, the conditions present, and the standard applied. Review records for defensibility before filing.
Treating risk assessment as a form filled in after the plan is set, so the hazard list mirrors decisions already made and no mitigation changes the operation.
Checklists become compliance artifacts, and confirmation bias leads crews to rate risks as acceptable because the plan is already committed.
What to do instead
Run risk assessment before committing to the plan, include a second crew member to challenge ratings, and require that at least one mitigation be documented as a change to the operation or an explicit acceptance with rationale.
Assuming that because one person is flying, the rest of the crew has no active role, leading to passive observers who miss traffic, bystanders, or changing conditions.
Small crews blur responsibilities, and roles are never briefed because everyone assumes shared situational awareness.
What to do instead
Brief explicit roles before every operation, including who calls traffic, who monitors the airspace and battery or link status, and who holds authority to call an abort. Practice the abort call in drills so it is used without hesitation.
Maintaining training records and currency tracking informally, so the program cannot demonstrate that instructors and operators met requirements when asked.
Small programs rely on individual memory and scattered files, and recordkeeping is deferred until an audit or incident forces the issue.
What to do instead
Establish a single controlled record system with defined entries for each qualification, training event, and currency date, assign an owner, and audit it on a fixed schedule. Treat missing documentation as a finding requiring correction.