draad
Member
This boils down to a misunderstanding of both CTS and MIF. Not a surprise when the system is relatively new. Even less of a surprise when you have a bunch of guys who "always did it this way."
MIF has nothing to do with CTS. CTS is very easy to identify. A 3 is pretty much as easy to identify. If MIF is a 3 and the stud meets CTS, it's a 4 (or a 5). Trying to make a pretty pattern on the grade sheet or playing games with numbers just screws with the way the system was designed (regardless of whether we agree with the system or not).
I've grown to appreciate CTS and even MIF, especially in a BA/A/AA system whose instruction is written poorly.
Agree completely. The instructors in Primary seemed to grade much more based on CTS while the instructors here seem to base the gradesheet more on what MIF is. It's almost as if they're still in the mindset of the old system. They start with every x in the MIF column and then if you had an above average flight they'd bump a few of those up while if you had a below average flight they'd bump a few of those down. MPTS is pretty knew here so I expect it to come around it's just going to take time.