(3) LOFT or LOE scenarios must run their full, uninterrupted course.
(4) A variety of scenarios, fully compatible with training objectives, are available and periodically updated to ensure that the LOS experience does not become repetitive or stale.
b. An operator who has an available range of training media will conduct LOS in the device that provides the appropriate simulation fidelity for the training/evaluation objectives. A major consideration for public safety is the maintenance of pilot skills, particularly for tasks that, due to the nature of a given fleet’s operations or to their low probability of occurrence, are rarely executed in normal flight operations. Providing interim practice on such skills using lower level devices may be one way to maintain these skills. Although the focus of LOS has been on the development of a methodology and tool set to generate valid and reliable LOS scenarios for training an evaluation in full-mission simulators, the methodology also has important capabilities for use in scenario-based training using equipment of lower physical fidelity.
c. The training value of LOS can be seriously diminished when inappropriate crew substitutions are made. Operators should not schedule any person other than “line-qualified” crewmembers for recurrent LOFT. For qualification LOFT, operators should schedule only linequalified crewmembers or those crewmembers that are in training for a particular duty position.
In both cases, operators should make every reasonable effort to meet these scheduling guidelines. When, due to reasons beyond the control of the operator, the need for substitution arises, the substitution tables in this AC may be used. However, these tables should be used only after the operator has made all reasonable efforts to provide a substitute crewmember of equal status to the person originally scheduled. LOE substitution tables will be included in the approved AQP documentation.
d. Interruption of LOFT scenarios is detrimental to the learning experience. Arbitrary interruption of LOFT or LOE is not acceptable. LOFT and LOE scenarios should be allowed to continue to their logical conclusion. In qualification LOFT, if the instructor is certain that negative training is occurring, the scenario may be interrupted. The FAA believes that wellthought-out and properly developed scenarios will not often lead to situations that require interruption.
e. Proper planning and development of LOS scenarios are essential to ensure that training objectives are met. This is a critical characteristic of any LOS program. Training value is diminished when students become familiar with scenarios. Therefore, a variety and a sufficient number of LOS scenarios are required to guard against crewmembers experiencing repetitious situations. In addition, operators should regularly update, at least annually, all LOS scenarios, thereby ensuring that crewmembers are exposed to new technology, procedures, and current operational problems.
Par 119 Page 13 (and 14)
CHAPTER 2. TYPES OF LINE-OPERATIONAL FLIGHT TRAINING
200. GENERAL. There are two types of line-operational flight training (LOFT): recurrent LOFT, and qualification LOFT. Guidelines for designing and conducting these types of LOFT are presented below.
201. RECURRENT LOFT. (See Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 121, sections 121.409, 121.427, 121.433, and 121.441.) Recurrent LOFT is designed to ensure that each crewmember maintains proficiency in the type of aircraft and crewmember duty position involved. Recurrent LOFT is intended for flight crewmembers who are presently qualified in a particular make model and series aircraft. Interruption of recurrent LOFT is not permitted.
202. GUIDELINES FOR RECURRENT LOFT. Recurrent LOFT should meet the following guidelines:
a. Instruction or Interruption. Recurrent LOFT does not permit direct instruction and does not permit interruption of the scenario by the instructor.
b. Crew Substitutes. Recurrent LOFT stresses scheduling of a complete crew who should be line-qualified. The use of substitutes is discouraged, and substitution should be rare. When the composition of the scheduled line-qualified crew cannot be maintained, the operator may use substitutions based on the guidelines in Table 2-1. However, the operator will attempt, first, to substitute with another line-qualified crewmember. This table should be used only as a last resort to prevent interruption of scheduled training.
c. Number of Segments. A recurrent LOFT scenario may include one or more flight segments, depending upon the training objectives.
d. Training Media. The highest fidelity flight simulator available should be scheduled for recurrent LOFT.
Par 200 Page 15
TABLE 2-1 Recurrent LOFT Substitution Table _____________________________________________________________________________ Pilot-in-Command Second-in-Com mand Flight Engineer Position Position (FE) Position _____________________________________________________________________________
1. PIC1 S IC1 F E1 _____________________________________________________________________________
2. SIC2 P IC1 FE Instructor3 _____________________________________________________________________________
3. Pilot Instructor3 Pilot Instructor3 _____________________________________________________________________________
1 Includes those who are either line-qualified, or in training, and are line and task familiar with the position in which they are substituting.
2 An SIC may be substituted for this position if the pilot has received a type certificate in the aircraft the simulator replicates.
3 An instructor (aircraft or simulator) as provided for under 14 CFR part 121, section 121.412 or part 135, section 135.338, as applicable. The instructor should not have previous knowledge of the scenario; however, when this is unavoidable, the instructor should not use that knowledge to influence or direct the scenario.
NOTE: The instructor conducting the LOS session will not act as a substitute crewmember.
203. QUALIFICATION LOFT (See part 121, appendix H.) Qualification LOFT is designed for crewmembers whose training has been provided in accordance with an Advanced Simulation Plan. Qualification LOFT provides training that facilitates the transition from flight simulator training to operational flying. Scenarios are designed to represent typical flight segments.
a. Crew Composition. Qualification LOFT requires a complete crew complement. It is preferable to schedule a crewmember, who is qualifying, with other crewmembers who are fully line-qualified. As a minimum, LOFT crewmembers will be task familiar with their assigned duty position. The use of substitutes is highly discouraged and substitution should be implemented rarely. When the composition of the scheduled crew cannot be maintained, the operator may substitute crewmembers using Table 2-2.
Page 16 Par 202
TABLE 2-2 Qualification LOFT Substitution Table _____________________________________________________________________________ Pilot-in-Command Second-in-Command Flight Engineer Position Position (FE) Position _____________________________________________________________________________
1. PIC 1 SIC1 F E1 _____________________________________________________________________________
2. SIC 1 PIC1 FE Instructor2 _____________________________________________________________________________
3. Pilot Instructor2 Pilot Instructor2 _____________________________________________________________________________
1 Includes those who are either line-qualified, or in training, and are task familiar with the position in which they are substituting.
2 An instructor (aircraft or simulator) as provided for under sections 121.412 or 135.338, as applicable. The instructor should not have previous knowledge of the scenario; however, when this is unavoidable, the instructor should not use that knowledge to influence or direct the scenario.
NOTE: The instructor conducting the LOS session may not act as a substitute crewmember.
b. Number and Type of Segments. Qualification LOFT consists of at least two flight segments, one containing normal line operations and one containing abnormal and emergency occurrences.
c. Training Media. Qualification LOFT will be conducted in flight simulators qualified in Levels B, C, or D (See part 121, appendix H).
Par 203 Page 17 (and 18)
CHAPTER 3. SPECIAL PURPOSE OPERATIONAL TRAINING
300. GENERAL. Special purpose operational training (SPOT) is designed for training crewmembers in a flight simulator or flight training device (FTD). SPOT is useful whenever coordinated crew performance is required. It may not be substituted for recurrent lineoperational flight training (LOFT) or qualification LOFT. SPOT may include training which:
a. Focuses on crew resource management skills.
b. Provides differences training on variant aircraft.
c. Provides specific phase of flight training.
d. Trains in special aircraft equipment (e.g., navigational equipment and flight management systems).
301. GUIDELINES FOR SPOT. The components of SPOT vary, depending on the purpose or objective of the training. Therefore, the following provides only general guidelines for SPOT.
a. Instruction and Interruption. SPOT permits direct instruction and allows for interruption of the scenario by the instructor.
b. Crew Composition. SPOT may include use of a complete or partial crew, depending upon the training objectives.
c. Crew Substitutes. The use of crew substitutes in SPOT depends upon the type of training being provided.
d. Number and Type of Segments. SPOT may contain any number of full or partial flight segments, depending upon the training objectives.
e. Training Media. SPOT may use a wide range of flight simulators and FTDs, depending upon the training objectives.
Par 300 Page 19 (and 20)
CHAPTER 4. LINE OPERATIONAL EVALUATION
400. GENERAL. The line operational evaluation (LOE) is the primary means of proficiency evaluation in Advanced Qualification Program (AQP). This evaluation addresses the individual’s ability to demonstrate technical and crew resource management (CRM) skills appropriate to fulfilling job requirements in a full mission scenario environment. The intent of an LOE is to evaluate and verify that an individual’s job knowledge, technical skills, and CRM skills are commensurate with AQP qualification standards. The LOE is conducted in a simulation device approved for its intended use in the AQP. LOE development methodology, substitution tables, success criteria, and remediation strategy will be included in the carrier’s approved AQP documentation.
401. ELEMENTS RESEMBLING LINE OPERATIONAL FLIGHT TRAINING (LOFT).
LOE contains elements similar to those in LOFT (i.e., line environment, complete crew, real world scenarios, real time, and must run uninterrupted). A complete crew complement should be scheduled and maintained. Flight crewmember substitution is highly discouraged. If crew substitutions are necessary, the substitute crewmember will be either another line-qualified crewmember or a task familiar crewmember in a training status comparable to the person being evaluated. Evaluators conducting the LOE may not serve as a substitute crewmember. The LOE substitution table/matrix will be part of the carrier’s approved AQP documentation.
402. EVALUATION. The LOE addresses the individual’s ability to demonstrate technical and CRM skills appropriate to fulfilling job requirements in an operational environment. The intent of an LOE is to evaluate and verify that an individual’s job knowledge, technical skills, and CRM skills are commensurate with AQP qualification standards. The evaluation assesses both technical and CRM skills. One method of assessing an aircrew’s proficiency is to grade an aircrew’s observed skill at accomplishing delineated technical and CRM criteria of success.
Another accepted method is to grade the aircrew’s technical proficiency (maneuver-based method), but, where applicable, (i.e., a maneuver is graded less that satisfactory or graded outstanding) the maneuver’s grade is linked to a CRM behavior/skill (observable) that may have contributed to the maneuver grade. Either method is acceptable.
403. EVALUATOR. A person who assesses the performance of crewmembers, instructors, or other evaluators. An evaluator must have satisfactorily completed the certificate holder’s AQP evaluator training. The Administrator must approve all LOE evaluators. It is essential that LOE evaluator training include specific exercises to achieve and verify standardization among such personnel in grading performance.
404. LOE MEDIA. Operators conducting LOE may be approved to use any level of flight simulation, depending on the objective of the evaluation and the capability of the device.
Par 400 Page 21 (and 22)
CHAPTER 5. THE ROLE OF INSTRUCTORS
500. MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS. Instructors should be trained in the philosophy, skills, and conduct of line operational simulations (LOS) and crew resource management (CRM). They should be able to effectively observe and critique both individual and crew performance during the scenario. To do this, they should meet the minimum requirements discussed in the following paragraphs:
a. Line Familiar. Flight instructors should be line familiar (i.e., familiar with the operations for which they are providing training). This will ensure that instructors accurately perceive and evaluate situations as they arise. In cases where instructors currently are not line-qualified, an approved line observation program should ensure that they are familiar with line operational procedures and problems. In this way, instructors will maintain an understanding of the operational demands confronting line crewmembers.
b. Qualified as Instructors. Flight instructors should be qualified as defined in Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations part 121, section 121.412, or part 135, section 135.338, and as required by the approved AQP, if appropriate.
c. Trained in CRM Skills. Instructors will receive training in CRM skills in order to observe and critique these areas in LOS. See AC 120-51, Cockpit Resource Management Training, current edition, for further information.
d. Trained in Methods for Briefing, Debriefing, and Critique. Instructors should be trained to conduct the briefing and debriefing/critique phases of LOS, including how to provide effective feedback.
501. INSTRUCTOR RESPONSIBILITIES. The following is a description of the roles and responsibilities of instructors:
a. Briefing and Preparation. Instructors should be able to effectively convey the purpose of the LOS and how it is representative of line operations. Instructors should also explain their role, as observers, during the training in that they are not considered present unless playing a non-crewmember role in the scenario (i.e., air traffic control (ATC), flight attendant, dispatch, etc.).
b. Flight Segment. Instructors should be able to observe and perform ancillary roles.
They should be trained in observing and assessing technical and CRM skills. The instructor should also be trained in proper pacing, proper introduction of abnormal/emergency procedures, and methods of handling unforeseen crew actions.
c. Simulation. Of vital importance to the effectiveness of LOFT or LOE is the creation of a strong illusion of reality in the simulated flights. This requirement dictates that many routine activities, such as flight paperwork, manuals, and communications should be carefully Par 500 Page 23
prepared. Previous experience with line-operational flight training (LOFT) or line operational evaluation (LOE) has shown that overlooking these activities can destroy this illusion.
d. Resources. The instructor/evaluator’s goal is to produce crew performance and behavior that is typical for an actual line flight in the same set of circumstances as those developed in the scenario. In keeping with this goal, it is essential that crews have access to all the resources they would have on an actual line flight. The briefing should include mention of the role-playing aspect of LOFT or LOE and its importance to overall LOFT or LOE effectiveness.
e. Instructor Role. The role of the instructor in LOFT or LOE should be viewed as that of communicator, observer, and moderator in the debriefing process. He/she is not an instructor in the traditional sense during the simulator period. He/she is the facilitator or manager of the flight, using appropriate radio calls or responses to direct the flight along the desired path. The instructor/evaluator must be prepared to accept and manage alternate courses of action that the crew may wish to follow. The instructor should remain as unobtrusive as possible within the physical limitations of the simulator. He/she should resist the temptation to instruct, and must not intrude in any way into the situation.
f. Communication. All communications must be conducted in the manner normally found on a line flight; that is, via radio from outside the “aircraft”; via interphone or normal conversations between flight deck crewmembers; or, in the case of flight deck cabin, via the usual aircraft equipment for this purpose. All external communications (i.e., ATC, ground crew, etc.) must be credible and realistic.
g. Recorded Feedback. The entire simulator phase of the flight, including initial flight deck setup, should be recorded on videotape, if the equipment is available. The importance of the correct use of video playback cannot be overstated: “LOFT or LOE with videotape feedback is one of the most powerful tools we have for reinforcing desirable behavior in cockpit resource management.” During debriefing, the videotape should be reviewed and discussed by the flightcrew with emphasis being placed upon crew performance, including their use of CRM elements. When crewmembers have learned and can appreciate the importance of open and direct critique for purposes of operational review and analysis, a platform is in place for effective post-LOFT or LOE discussion that reviews more than stick-and-rudder skills or systems knowledge. Following review of the videotape, the tape may be erased.
h. Debriefing and Critique. Instructors should provide both positive and negative feedback during critiques of individual and crew performance. Prior to the instructor’s critiques, crewmembers should be encouraged to critique themselves. Instructors will provide feedback to the crew to encourage the changes needed for improved performance. Instructors should also provide specific recommendations to improve individual crewmembers’ performance.
Page 24 Par 501