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
CHAPTER 6. LINE OPERATIONAL SIMULATION SCENARIO DESIGN
600. LINE OPERATIONAL SIMULATION (LOS) SCENARIO DESIGN METHODOLOGIES. This chapter provides an LOS scenario design methodology that has proven effective. There may be other, equally effective, LOS development methods. The important aspect of LOS development is that a disciplined methodology is employed.
601. PHILOSOPHY OF LOS DESIGN AND CONDUCT.
a. LOS scenarios are best designed to be operationally relevant, believable, and a good test of the crew’s technical and crew resource management (CRM) skills. LOS training is systematic and is intended to simulate actual problem situations on the line that require good crew skills for effective resolution and decisionmaking.
b. Because LOS requires as much realism as possible, LOS design and evaluation guidelines should maximize line realism. Preflight activities and detailed review of flight paperwork, manuals and conduct of communications should be included in the scenario. This requirement does not preclude employing scenarios that use short segments beginning or ending in an en route environment if the objectives of the LOS can be met. If the scenario is designed to begin in an enroute environment, enough quiet time should be present for the crew to become acclimated to the flight routine. These en route segments are identified as special purpose operational training (SPOT).
c. LOS scenarios should be designed to foster an environment where free and open communication is practiced. This encourages crewmembers to provide necessary information at the appropriate time (e.g., initiating checklists, advocating positions, and problem definition).
Furthermore, the LOS design should encourage active participation in the decisionmaking process and questioning of actions and decisions by all crewmembers.
d. One misconception is the belief that LOS training should continuously increase crew workload until the crew becomes overloaded. This is not the purpose or intent of LOS and can actually help to defeat its effectiveness. The difficulty of the line operational evaluation (LOE) should not be designed to saturate an aircrew or impose an unrealistic level of difficulty or complexity. On the other hand, the LOE must provide enough difficulty to adequately test the aircrew’s skills and capabilities. LOS scenarios are most effective if they are straightforward.
For example, choosing a departure airport that requires an effective preflight briefing might be one way to begin. A scenario that allows the crew to choose from different options is very useful. One scenario can have a wide variety of outcomes and choices depending on the decision and course of action that a crew undertakes. Again, the scenario should be realistic, and the situation should be one where crewmembers live with whatever problems they have until the situation is either resolved or the “aircraft” (simulator) is back on the ground.
e. The effective LOS experience begins with a briefing to discuss the LOS objectives and expectations. To be complete, the LOS must include a debriefing to examine the crew performance demonstrated during the LOS. The facilitator draws on personal experience and Par 600 Page 25
training in CRM and technical issues to elicit discussions of points of interest and operational relevance. Positive comments regarding crew performance should be emphasized in the debriefing, as well as comments regarding areas of crew performance that need improvement.
Crewmembers must be given the opportunity to critique and analyze their own performance and review key points.
602. SCENARIO DESIGN PROCESS.
a. The framework described here for developing LOS scenarios is based on the concept of an event set, a group of related tasks and conditions that are part of the scenario and are integrated into the LOS session with specific CRM and technical training objectives. Included in the framework is a new method for identifying specific CRM skills appropriate for the event sets and a tool for developing the CRM category profile of LOS scenarios. The result is an approach that makes LOS sessions more manageable and easier to assess by allowing the instructor or evaluator to concentrate on a few CRM categories within any given event set.
b. The primary unit of both LOS design and CRM assessment is the event set. The event set is made up of one or more events, including an event trigger, distracters, and supporting events. The event trigger is the condition or conditions under which the event is fully activated.
The distracters are conditions inserted within the event set timeframe that are designed to divert the crew’s attention from other events that are occurring or are about to occur. Finally, supporting events are other events taking place within the event set designed to further CRM and technical training objectives.
c. In LOS scenario design, the CRM and technical training objectives should be integrated into the event sets. This event set framework allows the design team to present the appropriate degree of realism in the LOS. Instead of focusing on a single technical issue, the event set integrates the entire complex line environment (e.g., terrain, air traffic control (ATC), weather issues, etc.) to facilitate and maximize the crew’s performance in response to specified CRM and technical issues. With the LOS scenario now defined by event sets, scenario validation is performed at the event set level rather than limiting validation to the overall LOS.
d. The event set framework supports the development of LOS scenarios based on complex events rather than the simple events. Simple events have no further consequences on the conduct of the flight once they have been diagnosed and corrected. Overuse of simple problems or events detracts from LOS realism. Routine prestart problems, followed by a start problem, followed by a taxi problem, intrude on the crew’s perception that the LOS is an actual flight.
However, one or two of these events can be useful for setting a proper environment to facilitate a CRM LOS when the objectives are stated properly within the event set framework.
e. Complex events have ongoing consequences that must be dealt within flight and cannot be solved by simply selecting and executing an abnormal checklist. Event set-based scenarios require the coordinated actions of all crewmembers for successful completion. Complex event set problems tend to be ambiguous, with no simple corrective checklist solution. The properly Page 26 Par 601
designed event set does not necessarily have a single solution. Rather, it may have a number of possible and reasonable solutions. Thus, the well-designed event promotes the management of a complex situation.
f. Table 6-1 describes an LOS development process. The overall purpose of the LOS development methodology is to build event sets that allow for the examination of the crew’s CRM and technical skills.
g. This design methodology provides a rigorous validation process to assure training and evaluation of all critical technical and CRM tasks identified by a training program. In addition, it allows for adaptation based on the operational environment of a particular organization. The remainder of this chapter analyzes each component of the design methodology in detail.
Par 602 Page 27
TABLE 6-1 LOS Design Methodology
1) Identification of primary Crew Resource Management (CRM)/technical training objectives.
1.1 Identify the primary CRM categories (e.g., decisionmaking, communication, workload management) and integrate with the primary technical training objectives.
1.2 Identify the related skills for the CRM categories identified in 1.1.
1.3 Identify the primary technical training objectives.
2) Identification of possible incidents that will produce the training objectives.
2.1 Identify incidents through a search of the Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) database, own-carrier incident reporting, and own-carrier flight safety programs, such as Aviation Safety/Accident Prevention (ASAP) system and flight operational quality assurance (FOQA).
2.2 Develop a preliminary list of relevant incidents and events.
2.3 Refine the listing of incidents and events, and correlate with the CRM categories and observable behaviors.
3) Specification and development of line operational simulation (LOS) scenario event sets.
3.1 Specify LOS scenario objectives, related proficiency objectives, primary and secondary CRM categories, and observable crew behaviors for each scenario event set.
3.2 Translate incidents and situations into scenario event sets by identifying the event trigger, distracters, and supporting events, and specify the phase of flight.
3.3 Integrate the individual scenario event sets into the overall scenario.
3.4 Administer the LOS validation instrument to ensure event sets are specified and organized consistent with the CRM and technical training objectives or proficiency objectives.
Page 28 Par 602
TABLE 6-1 LOS Design Methodology (Continued)
4) Evaluation, modification and, if appropriate, FAA approval of the LOS scenario.
4.1 Represent the LOS scenario showing the event sets, event trigger, ATC communications, and the related CRM categories (e.g., use the CRM category profile and matrix methods to represent the frequency of CRM categories over the entire scenario).
4.2 Fly the LOS scenario using at least two different crews. Invite the principal operations inspector (POI)/automated performance measurement system (APM) to participate. Consider taping some of these sessions for use in developing instructor training materials.
4.3 Administer the LOS validation instrument form to crews and instructors that fly the scenario.
4.4 Make required modifications to the revised LOS scenario.
4.5 Submit LOFT or LOE scenario to the POI for approval.
5) Instructor training implementation and evaluation of LOS scenarios.
5.1 Develop the final representation of LOS for instructors with the emphasis on event sets.
5.2 Develop the training plan and materials for recurrent training instructors and train the instructors/evaluators.
5.3 Implement the LOS scenario at the fleet level, and evaluate using actual instructor and crew feedback.
Par 602 Page 29
603. IDENTIFICATION OF PRIMARY CRM TRAINING OBJECTIVES.
a. Before an operator can develop a meaningful LOS, it must identify the CRM concepts and definitions that are meaningful within its own culture (see AC 120-51, Crew Resource Management Training, current edition). Several different organizations of CRM concepts can be used but all of them follow a similar structure:
(1) High-level categories or elements, such as situational awareness and workload management.
(2) Supporting each category are knowledge and skills that should be trained. For example, in workload management, the knowledge would include how to prioritize tasks, while the skill would be the clear assignment of tasks that are understood by all crewmembers.
b. To measure proficiency in the LOS, there should be a set of observable behaviors to look for. For example, in workload management, communicating task priorities is an observable behavior.
604. IDENTIFICATION OF PRIMARY TECHNICAL OBJECTIVES. Each carrier’s flight operations department develops technical training objectives. Identification of these objectives, in the form of proficiency objectives, is a specific requirement of Advanced Qualification Program (AQP). A subset of these objectives can be selected as the technical objectives for each LOS. These objectives will serve an important role in selecting the event sets that will comprise the LOS scenario. Technical objectives might include:
a. Origin, routing, and destination.
b. Revised departure or arrival procedures.
c. Alternate operation of flight management systems.
d. Partial or full loss of integrated flight management systems.
e. Abnormal and emergency events.
f. Adverse weather and environmental conditions.
605. DEVELOPING LOS SCENARIOS WITH AUTOMATION THEMES.
a. Automation is the replacement of a human function, either manual or cognitive, with a machine function. This definition applies to all levels of automation in all aircraft. Effective use of automation means using that level most appropriate to support the priorities of safety, economy, and stated flight operations policies of the individual air carrier.
b. Pilots must be proficient in operating their aircraft in all levels of automation. They must Page 30 Par 603
be knowledgeable in the selection of the appropriate degree of automation, and must have the skills needed to move from one level of automation to another.
c. When developing LOS scenarios with an automation theme, the following items should be considered:
(1) The unique workload distribution between pilot flying and pilot not flying the aircraft.
(2) The effects of varying levels of automation on situational awareness and workload distribution.
(3) Pilots’ proficiency at dealing with ATC communications, clearance and weather changes in the automated cockpit.
(4) Company policy and guidelines on high technology procedures.
(5) The effects of lowering levels of automation with decreased levels of crew situational awareness.
d. Scenario designs should be guided by the skills necessary for the individual pilot as well as the skills necessary for the fully integrated crew. Scenarios should attempt to engage all crewmembers in CRM activities and should be based on specific training and performance objectives.
606. IDENTIFICATION OF POSSIBLE INCIDENTS THAT WILL PRODUCE THE TRAINING OBJECTIVES.
a. Candidate incidents can be identified through a search of the ASRS database, company incident reports, or company ASAP reports and FOQA events. Categories and primary issues identified by the airline for the new LOS scenario. Examples of primary issues include:
Rerouting/amended clearance incidents, low fuel during excessive vectoring, and airborne conflicts attributed to flightcrew workload (e.g., delayed approaches, similar call signs, autoflight incidents).
b. Some other excellent sources for candidate incidents are:
(1) Frequently misused or misunderstood sections of the flight manuals.
(2) Incident reports from other databases, including the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) incident database.
(3) Maintenance-difficulty areas identified in line and simulator proficiency checks and training.
Par 605 Page 31
(4) Poor performance areas identified in line and simulator proficiency checks and training.
c. These sources focus primarily on operational abnormalities and emergencies. However, CRM skills are required in all aspects of flight operations, including normal operations. By focusing on a specific set of event triggers and associated crew behaviors, a more useful breakdown of these behaviors is obtained. Each type of trigger, whether occurring during normal or abnormal operations, has its own unique CRM requirements:
(1) Normal Operations. CRM behaviors should appear during briefings, crew formation/team building, communications (e.g., inquiry and advocacy), contingency planning, and workload distribution.
(2) Abnormal Operations. Once operations become abnormal or excessively demanding, the required CRM skills will be altered. Some examples include:
(a) Detection of an Abnormal Event.
1 To detect abnormalities, the crew must maintain workload and situational awareness at acceptable levels.
2 Knowledge of checklists, systems and procedures is required.
(b) Diagnosis and Assessment of an Abnormal Event.
1 Once detected, the abnormal event must be correctly diagnosed and appraised.
2 Appropriate information must be integrated.
3 Essential and non-essential information must be recognized requiring ongoing situational awareness.
4 The assessment must be communicated to, and acknowledged by, other crewmembers. Challenges should be made when appropriate and all information should be shared.
607. EVENT SET SOLUTION VERSUS MANAGEMENT AND EVENT TRIGGER SELECTION.
a. Selection of event sets should take into account the types of problems they raise. A mix of simple and complex problems increases the benefits offered by an LOS.
(1) Simple Problems:
Page 32 Par 606
(a) Have no further consequences on the conduct of the flight once they have been diagnosed and corrected.
(b) If overused, will detract from realism. Use of one or two of these events can set a proper stage for CRM LOS, but including a number of these events, without logical connection or reason, detracts from the training. If the LOS training objectives are stated properly, they will help to preclude excessive use of nuisance events in the scenario.
(2) Complex Problems:
(a) Have ongoing consequences that must be dealt with in flight, but cannot be fixed.
(b) Add sufficient complexity to the scenario to require the coordinated action of all crewmembers for successful completion, but not to the extent that they induce complete crew failure such as a crash.
(c) Can be compounded by other events such as weather or ATC induced complications.
b. The impact of an event set is also influenced by the extent to which the solution to the problem can be solved by means of established standard operating procedures (SOP). The combination of simple versus complex, and proceduralized versus non-proceduralized problem characteristics produces three basic categories likely to be found in realistic event sets.
(1) SOP Event Trigger Solution.
(a) These event problems have specific rules or procedures for resolution.
(b) The book procedure for problem solution resolves or reverses the abnormal condition.
(c) After diagnosis, this situation requires no crew decision. The crew selects and uses the appropriate rule (i.e., manual gear extension).
(d) The nature of this type of problem is unlikely to require a high level of CRM skill, unless the event set is already particularly demanding or time compressed, requiring multi-task prioritization. In this case, the events are interrelated in the same time frame.
(2) SOP Event Trigger Management.
(a) This type of event often entails continuous monitoring or system compensation.
(b) The defining characteristic is the corrective procedure does not solve the problem.
Par 607 Page 33