Par 2-1 Page 7 CHAPTER 2. BASIC ELEMENTS OF LINE OPERATIONAL SIMULATION
2-1. GENERAL. Certain elements about Line Operational Simulation (LOS) must be understood to ensure that its primary objective, to provide realistic line-oriented training and evaluation, are met. These elements apply to both recurrent and qualification Line-Oriented Flight Training (LOFT), and are described in this chapter.
2-2. LOS PHILOSOPHY.
a. LOS. The overall objective of LOS is to improve total flightcrew performance by integrating Crew Resource Management (CRM) and technical skills. CRM skills include techniques that allow and encourage crewmembers and aircraft dispatchers to become better problem solvers and resource managers. The LOS context must be structured to enable CRM behaviors to emerge and the crew to become aware of them; that is, the scenario must last long enough for crew traits to become evident and should require CRM skills to be displayed in response to specific circumstances. Similarly, scenario construction should focus on the CRM and technical objectives integrated into a training program.
b. LOFT and SPOT. LOFT and SPOT are training events in which flightcrews can enhance their CRM and technical skills. Line Operational Evaluation (LOE) contains events in which CRM and technical skills are assessed. LOS learning and assessment should not be artificially stress free; crewmembers should maintain performance parameters applicable to their phase of training. This will require crews to handle failures and their consequences. If the LOS facilitator identifies flightcrew member performance deficiencies, additional training should be provided.
2-3. CREW COMPOSITION AND PARTICIPATION. LOSs should take place in a line operational environment with a complete flightcrew. A complete flightcrew concept allows crewmembers to use their full resources and creativity to support a complete learning experience.
During LOS, each flightcrew member performs both as an individual and as a member of a team, as is expected during line operations. Line crewmembers must be scheduled and paired together, as much as practical, in a standard crew configuration (e.g., line captain with line first officer).
Circumstances will occur where the initial composition of the schedule cannot be maintained.
Hiring requirements, high first-officer-to-captain ratios, illness, or failure of a crewmember to progress are all situations that would necessitate providing a seat substitute to complete the training. In all cases, the seat substitute must be task familiar with the flightcrew member duty position.
2-4. REAL-WORLD SITUATIONS. LOS should contain scenarios of real-world, line operational situations, which progress in real time. These scenarios should be representative of flight segments where an entire en route operation is completed. In cases of flights with flight segments involving repetitive events, the en route segments may be compressed. However, if the scenario is compressed, enough time should be allotted for crewmembers to resume or restart the scenario without confusion. In addition, the scenario compression method must be designed and executed to minimize degradation of scenario realism and enhance training or evaluation. It is common practice for scenarios to be based upon actual events reported through the Aviation Safety Action Program (ASAP), Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS), flight operational
Par 2-4 Page 8 quality assurance (FOQA), Line Operations Safety Audit (LOSA), and other event-reporting programs.
2-5. NO-JEOPARDY TRAINING. LOFT and SPOT are “no-jeopardy” training (i.e., not pass/fail). If the LOFT or SPOT instructor identifies flightcrew member performance deficiencies, additional training will be provided. This training should be in a form most appropriate to correct the specific performance deficiency, including additional LOFT. Before the crewmember may return to line operations, the performance deficiencies must be corrected, and the instructor must document the training as satisfactorily completed. The no-jeopardy concept allows crewmembers to use their full resources and creativity. At the end of a LOFT session and after debriefing, if the flightcrew member has demonstrated satisfactory performance, the instructor must certify as to the proficiency and knowledge of the crewmember.
This includes situations where the instructor provided additional training following the LOFT in order to correct any performance deficiencies. The certification must be made in accordance with part 121, § 121.401(c) or part 135, § 135.323(c), as applicable. However, if the flightcrew member was not able to demonstrate satisfactory performance, even after additional training following the LOFT, the instructor may not certify the flightcrew member’s proficiency and an additional LOFT session should be scheduled.
2-6. PHASES OF LOS. LOS scenarios should contain the following phases:
a. Briefing. Before the flight begins, the LOS facilitator should brief crewmembers on the LOS scenario, including the training objectives, and the role of the LOS facilitator (i.e., the LOS facilitator is considered not present, except as to perform other roles in support of the scenario, such as flight attendant (F/A), aircraft dispatcher, or air traffic control (ATC)). The role of the flightcrew should be discussed in the briefing (i.e., flightcrew members should perform their duties just as they would in line operations). Information about the environmental setting of the scenario, when appropriate, should also be discussed.
b. Preflight Planning Documents and Activities. Preflight planning documents
(e.g., weather reports and flight plans) should be prepared with the operator’s particular training objectives in mind. For example, the operator may choose to have crewmembers learn how to handle unfavorable weather conditions or how to correct improper fuel loads. Preflight activities include flight deck setup and computation of takeoff data.
c. Flight Segment. The flight segment includes taxi-out, takeoff, climb, cruise, descent, landing, and taxi-in, as appropriate. It should also include the time in which communication with ATC and other ground agencies takes place.
d. Debriefing. Debriefing should include feedback to crewmembers on their performance.
The FAA recommends use of the facilitated or reverse debrief, wherein the LOS facilitator first allows the students to debrief and provide their observations. Positive comments regarding crew performance should be emphasized in the debriefing, as well as crew performance that needs improvement. The debriefing involves LOS facilitator critiques of individual crewmembers and of the crew as a team. Also, it is important that crewmembers be given the opportunity to critique and analyze their own performance and review key points of the recording, if used. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Technical Memorandum 112192, Facilitating
DATE “DRAFT” AC 120-35D Par Page 1 LOS Debriefings: A Training Manual, provides guidance on facilitated debrief techniques. This document is available at:
http://humansystems.arc.nasa.gov/flightcognition/Publications/Final_Training_TM.pdf.
2-7. TRAINING HOURS, LOE, RECURRENT LOFT, AND QUALIFICATION LOFT.
The Administrator will approve the content and duration of LOFT/LOE scenarios. By regulation, recurrent LOFT and qualification LOFT must be planned for at least 4 hours. The 4 hours of flight simulation training device (FSTD) training should include flight deck preparation, preflight activities, crew briefings, and interactions with flight dispatch and other ground agencies.
Reasonable amounts of time should be allowed for problem solving (e.g., consulting minimum equipment lists (MEL) and operations manuals, preparing takeoff data, as well as other crew actions that are occasioned by the training scenario). All crewmembers participating in a LOFT session are credited with 4 hours of training time.
2-8. LOS SCENARIOS. LOS scenarios should be developed using the following guidelines:
a. Objectives. The operator should assign specific training and/or evaluation objectives to each scenario, as applicable. These objectives should be based on the particular needs of the operator. For example, if an operator is experiencing an unusual frequency of a specific operational problem, such as wet or icy runways, the scenarios should be designed to include exposure to that particular operational problem. Other specific objectives may include winter operations training, unusual airport or runway operations, alternate operation of automated systems, etc. LOS continuously trains and/or evaluates the development of the essential human factor elements of crew performance in the accomplishment of their duties. LOS scripting must ensure that both the training and/or evaluation process support a wide range of both technical and CRM considerations. In addition to the objectives established by the operator, the FAA may also identify objectives based upon documented trends.
b. Scenario Construction. A variety of scenarios can be constructed by choosing different combinations of elements from the suggested categories listed below. Scenarios should be representative of the flight segment appropriate to the operations being conducted by the operator.
(1) Preflight activities might contain elements such as icing or cargo-loading anomalies that the crew must address during preflight planning and flight deck preparation.
(2) Taxi operations, including the concept of navigating the aircraft from the gate to the runway or from the runway to the gate, using available signage and charts to prevent runway incursions.
(3) Origin, routing, and destination (e.g., short versus long routes).
(4) Revised arrival procedures (e.g., an unexpected runway change).
(5) Alternate operation of flight management systems (FMS).
Par 2-8 Page 10
(6) Abnormal and emergency conditions, including simple conditions (e.g., a potential hot start) and complex conditions that continue for the entire flight (e.g., a failed essential alternating current bus).
(7) Adverse weather conditions.
(8) Partial or full loss of integrated FMS.
c. Scenario Cues. In general, the scenario should provide all students the same cues and distractions they would encounter in a line environment. Other than the case of the SPOT, no cueing should come from the LOS facilitator other than what has been built into the script of the scenario in advance. During an LOS scenario many pilots are hypervigilant in their search for cues, fully expecting the sort of event that would surprise them on the line, but which is expected during training and evaluation. Some scenarios should introduce cues that would indicate grossly incorrect pitch trim setting.
d. Scenario Timing. Scenarios should run in real time, to the extent possible. This may include inactive time to realistically resemble actual operations.
e. Scenario Development. Scenarios should contain realistic circumstances such as incoming and outgoing messages from ATC or the F/A(s), as well as routine interruptions.
Scenarios should also be developed to observe checklist management procedures, standard callouts, leadership qualities, assertiveness, crew coordination, communication, and ground movement operations. Operators may use these elements to design full-length, real-time scenarios, as well as shorter scenarios that teach specific skills (e.g., wind shear, special navigation equipment, Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System (TCAS), incorrect pitch trim settings, and incorrect cargo loading.).
f. Scenario Updates. Scenarios used in recurrent or continuing qualification training should be updated periodically (at least annually) to help ensure they continue to meet evolving training objectives. Each update of an LOFT or LOE must be approved by the principal operations inspector (POI). Just as crewmembers cannot anticipate all flight operational situations, operators should try to prevent crewmembers from anticipating the content of the scenarios. Under normal circumstances, no student should ever experience an identical scenario more than once. (See Chapter 7, Line Operational Simulation Scenario Design, for a more detailed description of the scenario development process. This chapter includes techniques for updating and altering scenarios to keep them fresh.)
2-9. APPROVAL OF SCENARIOS. The Administrator will approve LOFT and LOE scenarios. When submitting LOFT or LOE scenarios for approval, operators should state what training and/or evaluation objectives they expect to achieve. Operators must submit specific LOFT or LOE scenarios to the POI for approval. Scenarios that comply with the elements provided in this AC and meet the operator’s stated training and/or evaluation objectives may be approved. Detailed scripts of the scenarios may be submitted to the FAA, but are not required for FAA approval. Scenarios must be scripted to the extent that each student is given a standardized scenario experience that allows the LOFT or LOE to be used for training and/or evaluation
DATE “DRAFT” AC 120-35D Par Page 1 purposes. Nonstandard application of evaluation scenarios is unfair to the student, who may experience an advantage or disadvantage due to the different execution of the evaluation event.
2-10. PRE-LOS BRIEFING.
a. Philosophy. The philosophy underlying the particular LOS being administered should be thoroughly explained before the crew begins to plan for the flight. Inadequate LOS briefings often set the stage for problems that later interfere with LOS realism. One common difficulty is failure to convince the crew that the LOS facilitator is functionally not present during the event—that he or she will not be available for communication except in roles as scenario support, such as ATC, company, or maintenance.
b. Conduct. The following LOS conduct principles should be presented in the pre-event briefing:
(1) Except for the LOE, LOS is designed as a pure learning experience.
(2) The facilitator’s role in LOS is to manage the event to maximize learning. This does not include scenario interruptions to teach right solutions, or to test the trainees, except for SPOT. The opportunity for full self-analysis is provided during the debriefing. The LOS facilitator will take notes only to assist in this debriefing.
(3) LOS is a training concept designed to accent CRM skills, as well as the integration of CRM and technical skills. Other training and evaluation events already focus exclusively on technical skills and knowledge. Therefore, technical proficiency, while important, is not the driving force behind the addition of LOS scenarios to an otherwise technical curriculum. Realism is maintained to the greatest extent possible.
(4) All phases of flight will be sequenced in real time. Center-stored routing will be followed unless the crew or ATC requests rerouting. This guidance does not apply to SPOT.
(5) Mistakes may be made, just as they sometimes occur on the line, and the flightcrew is expected to continue the operation. The ability to detect and correct errors is an important safety skill, so opportunities to practice error management strategies in the safety of the simulated setting should not be discouraged.
(6) Frequently, there is no book solution to an LOS exercise—there may be no one correct solution. For example, the crew may decide that a diversion is more prudent than landing at the filed destination. Scenarios should be written to offer several operational choices. This is discussed in more detail in Chapter 7, Line Operational Simulation Scenario Design.
(7) All abnormal or emergency situations will be handled in the appropriate manner.
These situations will last throughout the flight, unless they can be corrected by the use of alternate operations or any line resources normally at the crew’s disposal.
(8) Equipment will be placarded according to MEL procedure and noted in the logbook.
The flightcrew will consider placarded items legal per the aircraft’s MEL. The LOS facilitator
Par 2-10 Page 12 has the responsibility to determine whether effective training/evaluation can take place with the inoperative equipment.
(9) During an Advanced Qualification Program (AQP) LOE, the crew will be given realistic situations to address as a part of the evaluation. The crew will be expected to perform to standards in both technical and CRM skills that have been previously trained as part of the AQP curriculum. The evaluator will be assessing outcomes of event sets that have been designed with specific documented success criteria unique to that scenario. In addition, the evaluator will assess the technical and CRM skills of the flightcrew against relatively standard global criteria that apply to all evaluation events (e.g., the aircraft must land safely).
(10) All crewmembers will use headsets and emergency breathing equipment as required in line operations.
2-11. CRM COMPONENT OF THE PRE-LOS BRIEFING.
a. Reverse Briefing. In addition to establishing the rules for the conduct of LOS, the LOS briefing should include a reverse briefing on CRM factors affecting crew performance. The concept of reverse briefing is to elicit information from the crew by encouraging them to brief themselves, helping to determine their level of expertise. Reverse briefing makes the crew active participants rather than passive recipients of briefings on issues already understood. Questions using the CRM behavioral markers (refer to the current edition of Advisory Circular (AC) 120-51, Crew Resource Management Training, Appendix 1), mentioned in subparagraphs b, c, and d below, can effectively elicit the level of understanding that the crew has about human factors and technical proficiency issues.
b. Crew-Oriented Briefing. The crew could be asked to discuss the conduct and quality of an effective crew-oriented briefing. Crew performance is highly associated with the quality of the initial crew briefing. The following are examples of opening questions that may help to initiate the discussion:
(1) What can be said to create an atmosphere for establishing the team concept and open environment within the flight deck and with the cabin crew?
(2) What are the components of a briefing that is operationally thorough and interesting and addresses coordination, planning, and problems?
(3) Overall responsibility is primarily a captain’s function; what are the responsibilities of the other crewmembers and how can they add significantly to planning and definition of potential problem areas?
(4) What can be done to make cabin crewmembers feel they are part of the team? The importance of the crew briefing cannot be overstated.
Par 2-11 Page 13
c. Communication. Questions that encourage crews to consider communication issues include:
(1) How does the crew view inquiry and advocacy?
(2) To what extent should crewmembers advocate a course of action they feel is best, even when it involves conflict and disagreements with others?
(3) What is their feeling towards the relationship between inquiry and advocacy and the captain’s authority?
(4) How do they define the proper balance between authority and assertiveness?
(5) What are the indications that a crew is concerned with the effective accomplishment of necessary tasks?
(6) Can they give examples where poor workload management or the lack of situational awareness has contributed to accidents or incidents?
(7) Does casual social conversation during periods of low workload indicate a lack of vigilance?
(8) What can be done to avoid overloading individual crewmembers?
d. Technical Proficiency. The relationship between CRM and technical proficiency is a rich area for crew discussion. Some important questions to ask include:
(1) What is their understanding of the relationship between technical proficiency and CRM?
(2) Can CRM overcome a lack of technical proficiency or vice versa?
e. Crew Coordination. LOS assumes knowledge of systems and an understanding of, and proficiency in, skills involving procedures and techniques. Training programs have always been concerned with developing the specialized skills required to be technically proficient crewmembers. However, how well the entire crew discharges the technical aspects of the flight reflects awareness that a high degree of technical proficiency is essential for safe and efficient operations. In the briefing, it must be made very clear that demonstrated mastery of CRM concepts cannot overcome a lack of proficiency, but just as importantly, high technical proficiency cannot guarantee safe operations in the absence of effective crew coordination.
f. Self-Critique. Also useful is a discussion of the crew attitudes toward self-critique.
What is their understanding of critique? Do they see any benefit in reviewing positive behavior?
Have the crewmembers used critique on line operations? When do they feel critique is appropriate?
g. Summary. These are just a few of the issues that can be addressed in an LOS briefing.
The proper briefing will reinforce CRM principles and technical procedures learned during initial
Par 2-11 Page 14 and recurrent training and qualification and continuing qualification training. Without a proper briefing, LOS becomes a full mission simulation without a focus. Though it can be a positive learning experience, it may easily become centered on individual technical proficiency and abnormal checklist usage.
2-12. LOS CRM BRIEFING AND CREW ORIENTATION.
a. Briefing and Orientation. A thorough LOS CRM briefing provides the following:
(1) Establishes an environment for open and interactive communication (e.g., the facilitator calls for questions or comments, answers questions directly, listens with patience, does not interrupt or talk over crewmembers, does not rush through the briefing, and makes eye contact as appropriate).
(2) Is interactive and two-way, and emphasizes the importance of questions, critique, and the offering of information.
(3) Sets the agenda, outlines expectations, and establishes a team concept.
(4) Covers pertinent safety and operational issues.
(5) Identifies potential problems such as weather, delays, and abnormal system operations.
(6) Provides guidelines for crew actions; addresses division of labor and crew workload.
(7) Sets expectations for how deviations in FSTD performance and mechanical problems are to be handled.
b. The LOS Facilitator. The briefing that includes CRM issues will also give direction to the LOS facilitator’s conduct of the LOS. It will help to focus the facilitator’s observations on the operator’s tailored CRM behavioral markers (e.g., situational awareness, communication, decisionmaking, workload management, automation management, and team-building) that will later be highlighted in debriefing. This may lower the LOS facilitator’s workload by allowing attention to be directed to a few key CRM categories, rather than having to monitor for all categories continuously.
c. Summary. The briefing should prepare the crew for an effective training experience.
A good briefing is operationally thorough and interesting, and will provide an overview of the overall LOS. Effective facilitators create the appropriate training environment and demonstrate their own commitment to LOS. The crew will be prepared to participate in an authentic simulation of the line operations and the crew debriefing following the training or evaluation.
2-13. PREFLIGHT ACTIVITIES.
a. Documentation. LOS facilitators will provide the crew with complete flight planning documentation. An effort should be made to duplicate, as closely as possible, the preflight and
Par 2-13 Page 15 dispatch process. The weather reports, Weight and Balance (W&B), and other documents should be the same as those provided prior to line flights, and include the following LOS planning and preparation documents:
• Dispatch or flight release with center-stored flight plan and flight plan analysis.
• W&B, loading, and fuel loading instructions.
• Weather reports and forecasts.
• Notices to Airmen (NOTAM).
• Performance data sheets.
• Inbound maintenance log sheets signed off.
• MEL placards.
• Company documents.
b. Flightcrew Preparation. The flightcrew should be in the FSTD early enough to allow adequate time for the crew to perform a normal flight deck preflight setup. If it is customary for the Flight Engineer (FE) to enter the flight deck before the captain and first officer, that sequence should be adhered to. However, in the interest of saving time, it is possible to modify the scenario to provide shorter ground times, as on a through flight. A planned departure time toward which all preparations can be directed helps to ensure that these activities are performed efficiently, and also helps to enhance the realism of an LOS scenario.
c. FTSD Interference. Certain FSTD problems that cause interference with the realism associated with LOS can occur. If a component required for a given scenario is inoperative, that scenario should not be flown. However, minor FSTD malfunctions can be placarded, in accordance with MEL procedures, just as the maintenance crew would do on the line. If an actual equipment failure occurs in flight, and it is consistent with failures that could occur in an aircraft, the scenario can proceed, with modification if necessary.
2-14. CREWMEMBER RESPONSIBILITIES. Crewmembers’ duties include:
• Performing their normal flight duties.
• Using avionics equipment as they would normally do during flight. Radio frequencies must be changed as required.
• Being natural in character and operation. They should not be inhibited or try to operate in a manner calculated to give the Academy solution or to please the LOS facilitator.
• Planning the flight as one would a real line flight, with any service the company or ATC normally provides available to the crew.
• Performing all normal procedures and communications, such as final weight checks, departure reports, and in-range reports.
• Using headsets and emergency breathing equipment, to the same extent as required in line operations.
2-15. DEBRIEFING THE LOS.
a. Debriefing Manner. After the LOS is completed, the manner in which the debriefing is handled by the facilitator is of key importance if CRM skills are to be reinforced and improved.
Par 2-15 Page 16 The facilitator should not handle the debrief in a teacher-tell manner. Instead, the facilitator should operate as a resource to crewmembers by highlighting different portions of the LOS that may be suitable for review, critique, and discussion. The discussion should be led by the crewmembers themselves, using the facilitator and, if the scenario is recorded, the recording as resources during their critique. Handled in this way, crew-led debriefs may occur with increasing frequency on the line after a difficult segment, or in other cases where crew critique and review is appropriate.
b. Debriefing Topics. Because the focus of LOS is on the integration of CRM skills into the technical skills normally assessed in flight training, the LOS debriefing session will concentrate on this area. Key items for discussion include workload management, crew coordination, crew communications, and technical proficiency. The use of systems and other resources are other areas for attention. The discussion should include the crew’s use of ATC and company communications; manuals, charts, and software; the use of other crewmembers; and the use of autopilot, autothrottle, and other potential workload-reducing devices. It is the facilitator’s responsibility to ensure that these items are fully explored during the debriefing sessions.
c. Self-Criticism. Frequently, crews are more critical of themselves than the facilitator would ever be. Self-criticism and self-examination are almost always present in these situations, and in many cases they are much more effective than facilitator criticism. Thus, the facilitator should do everything possible to foster this sort of self-analysis. In the role of moderator, the facilitator can guide the discussion to areas that he or she has noted. Questions about certain procedures, decisions, and mistakes should be asked. However, the facilitator should minimize lectures about what is right and wrong. Obviously, the facilitator should avoid embarrassing the crewmembers. In order to be effective, the facilitator should use the following guidelines:
(1) Actively state the debriefing and critique agenda and solicit agenda topics from the crew on items they would like to cover; set time limits.
(2) Ask the crew for their overall self-appraisal of the flight.
(3) State own reaction to the LOS in an objective and performance-oriented way.
Actively guard against making the crew defensive.
(4) Highlight key incidents and examples from the recording that include technical as well as CRM performance examples. Select material for discussion that illustrates key behaviors using the company’s behavioral markers. When using a recording, show only enough material to make the point.
(5) Effectively integrate technical and CRM feedback into the debriefing. Do not preach to the flightcrew, and do not gloss over items worthy of discussion.
(6) Exercise patience, and do not be reluctant to probe into key areas where individual and/or crew improvement is needed.
(7) Ensure that all crewmembers participate in the discussion, and effectively draw out quiet or hostile crewmembers.
Par 2-15 Page 17
(8) Provide a clear summary and recap of key learning points.
(9) Ask the crew, and individual crewmembers, for specific feedback on their performance.
(10) Be effective in both technical and CRM debriefing.
d. Crew and Individual Debriefing. During debriefing, the facilitator should openly discuss and assess crew performance and individual performances. The facilitator can mention constructive assessment of an individual in the presence of the full crew.
e. Debriefing Goals. One of the goals of LOS is to enable crewmembers to gain a greater understanding of their behaviors and their consequences, and be able to explore new behavioral strategies in an LOS training environment where formal, mandated evaluation is explicitly omitted. The debriefing should respect this goal and build on it to provide a positive learning experience.
f. Summarize the Debriefing. At the appropriate time, the facilitator should summarize the debriefing. In the summary, every effort should be made to relate the training experience to line operations. It is most desirable if the crewmembers recognize, for themselves, behaviors used in the LOS that they can carry back to the line, as feedback or critique is seldom used on the line. The LOS debriefing can help reinforce the importance of feedback even on routine line flights. Just a few minutes are needed to reinforce what went well or to discuss ways to improve crew performance at appropriate times during or at the conclusion of the flight.
g. Summary. In summary, the effective LOS facilitator will lead the crewmembers through self-critique of their performance. The debriefing and crew analysis period will include both technical and CRM discussion items. Positive points of crew performance as well as areas for improvement will be discussed. At the conclusion of the session, key learning points will be summarized.
2-16. LOE. The LOS briefing/debriefing guide must be modified for the LOE administered under an approved AQP. In the LOE, the facilitator is now an evaluator and must perform a different role. This role is to evaluate the standard performance of the proficiency objectives assigned to the event sets. Although the briefing will set the stage for the LOE, most carriers use this period to perform an oral review of crew knowledge concerning the operational issues presented in the LOE. For example, the briefing might cover issues such as takeoff visibility and required alternates based on operations specifications (OpSpecs). The debriefing is used to review the event sets and compare the success criteria assigned to these sets versus actual crew performance. However, in this review, there still will be many opportunities for crewmembers to discuss their CRM and technical performance.
2-17. USE OF AUDIOVISUAL EQUIPMENT AND ANIMATION SOFTWARE. Although not required, recorded audiovisual/animation feedback is very useful as a debriefing aid for most types of LOS. It allows crewmembers to view themselves from a third-person perspective. This feedback helps crewmembers to better understand their performance, identify and accept their weak areas, and build upon their strong areas, thereby encouraging positive changes in attitudes
Par 2-17 Page 18 and behavior. Recorded audiovisual feedback should be destroyed at completion of the debriefing.
2-18. ADDITIONAL TRAINING/LOFT AND SPOT COMPLETION. Decisions that produce unwanted results do not indicate a training failure, but serve as a learning experience that may indicate need for additional training. The additional training could come in many forms, including additional LOS. In any case, required additional training shall be provided and documented as satisfactorily completed prior to the crewmember’s return to line operations.
2-19. BASIC ELEMENTS OF LOS SUMMARIZED. LOS is defined by the following basic concepts:
• It takes place in a simulated line-operational environment.
• It uses a complete crew with total participation.
• It contains real-world incidents, unfolding in real time.
• LOFT and SPOT are used for no-jeopardy training, while LOE is used for evaluation.
• LOFT and LOE contain scenarios and segments that run uninterrupted; SPOT can be interrupted and segments interactively accomplished.
• It contains scenarios tailored to the operator’s learning objectives.
• It incorporates CRM skills.
• It provides critique of individual and crew performance.
2-20. FAA PHILOSOPHY.
a. Effectiveness. The effectiveness of LOS is dependent on four important aspects.
(1) Use of the most appropriate FSTD.
(2) Ensuring that training and evaluation are conducted to the maximum extent feasible using a full crew complement, consisting of a pilot in command (PIC), a second in command (SIC), and, where applicable, an FE.
(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. Choice of FSTD. An operator who has an available range of training media will conduct LOS in the FSTD that provides the appropriate simulation fidelity for the training/evaluation objectives. A major consideration for public safety is the maintenance of flightcrew member 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 and evaluation in full flight simulators (FFS), the methodology also has important capabilities for use in scenario-based training using equipment of lower physical fidelity.