Par 2-20 Page 19
c. Substitutions. 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 line-qualified crewmembers or those crewmembers that are in training for a particular flightcrew member 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. Interruptions. Interruption of LOFT scenarios is detrimental to the learning experience. Arbitrary interruption of LOFT or LOE is not acceptable. LOFT and LOE event sets 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, but only in extreme situations. The FAA believes that well-thought-out and properly developed scenarios will not often lead to situations that require interruption.
e. Summary. Proper planning, development, approval, and execution of LOS scenarios are essential to ensure that training objectives are met in promotion of safety and the public interest. Training objectives must be carefully determined in a manner that gives consideration to operator- and/or FAA-identified hazards and provides training in controlling the resultant risks.
Moreover, the promotion of safe operations requires both the training and evaluation of all crewmembers to continually identify, avoid, and manage operational risks. These are critical characteristics of any LOS program and a requirement of Safety Management Systems (SMS).
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 currently in use, thereby ensuring that crewmembers are exposed to new technology, procedures, and current operational problems.
2-21. SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS (SMS). SMSs provide a formal, top-down business approach to managing safety risks, which includes a systemic approach to managing safety. SMSs set forth all necessary organizational structures, accountabilities, policies, and procedures (refer to the current edition of AC 120-92, Safety Management Systems for Aviation Service Providers). In the execution of an SMS, the general design expectations for any participating air operator requires that training be accomplished as an integral part of the complete scope and life cycle of the organization’s safety system.
2-22. CRM/THREAT AND ERROR MANAGEMENT (TEM)/RISK AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (RRM). Conceptual frameworks for integrating the traditional CRM markers and skill sets, such as TEM and RRM, provide an additional layer of safety by providing strategies and toolkits for the appropriate deployment of CRM skills in the operational environment. They may also be used as classifications to record and respond to risks in the operational environment, in direct support of an air operator’s SMS. As such they bring risk assessment and management tools to the flight deck, the cabin, and the dispatch desk.
Par 2-23 Page 20
2-23. CRM PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS. The following is a sampling of threats/compounding conditions that flightcrews may encounter:
a. Expected Risks/Threats/Compounding Conditions. Thorough briefings are used for managing expected risks. They include a planned course of action for anticipating how the crewmembers will mitigate each risk.
b. Unexpected Risks/Threats/Compounding Conditions. Crewmembers react to these types of risks as they occur, using their CRM skills acquired from past experiences and training.
The goal is to give crewmembers a CRM process to proactively handle these threats and manage associated errors.
c. Time Risks/Threats/Compounding Conditions. The majority of risks during flight are time risks. Examples include, but are not limited to, most aircraft system malfunctions, deteriorating weather conditions, or runway changes. Misdiagnosing a time risk and/or rushing through a plan to manage time risks are among the most common errors that crewmembers make.
d. No-Time Risks/Threats/Compounding Conditions. These include unexpected risks that are time critical and usually require the crew to land as soon as safely possible. These types of risks are best managed when the PIC has an alternative plan of action (plan B) in mind before an actual event occurs. No-time risks are sometimes aircraft specific. Examples of no-time risks may include, but are not limited to, fire of unknown origin, smoke from an unknown source, or a security issue. Having a plan B suggests that each PIC should have a plan of action in mind before an actual no-time event occurs.
2-24. CRM (HUMAN FACTORS) BEHAVIORAL MARKERS.
a. Behavioral Markers. Behavioral markers are CRM-observable, nontechnical behaviors that contribute to flightcrew and cabin crew performance.
(1) Each CRM behavioral marker is specifically developed by the operator, as derived from data analysis and structured into a set of human factor categories.
(2) CRM behavioral marker lists are used to plan, script, train, and evaluate human factor proficiency requirements.
(3) CRM behavioral markers are utilized during training, LOS, Line Operations Safety Audits (LOSA), and other line-related auditing activities, as they pertain to nontechnical, human factor CRM skills.
(4) Behavioral markers reduce instructor workload by allowing attention to be directed on a few key CRM categories, rather than having to monitor all aspects of human factors continually.
Par 2-24 Page 21 (and 22)
(5) Once developed, each operator should maintain a behavioral marker consistency throughout the CRM training, evaluating, and auditing processes.
(6) The following is a sampling of operator-developed, CRM human factors observable behavioral markers:
• Situational awareness.
• Communication.
• Decisionmaking.
• Workload management.
• Automation management.
b. Observable Skills. The practical application and evaluation of CRM behavioral observable skills may be demonstrated by crewmembers, as scripted around events, event sets, and LOS themes.
(1) Situational Awareness. The closer the crewmember’s mental model is to reality, the better his or her situational awareness. Accessing a variety of resources and using good communication skills can raise situational awareness.
(2) Communication. Good communication includes the use of inquiry, advocacy, and assertion.
(3) Decisionmaking. In the decisionmaking process, crewmembers expand their CRM team (deadhead crew, dispatch, maintenance, etc.) and use onboard resources (e.g., quick reference handbooks (QRH) and manuals), to assist in formulating a plan. The plan is communicated, as necessary. Decisionmaking includes determining the criticality of the risk (time or no-time).
(4) Workload Management. In essence, workload management is time management.
Crewmembers can create time to reduce task saturation by slowing down (e.g., requesting vectors and holding). Fuel remaining must be considered during this process. A crewmember should not risk task saturation by attempting to multitask (e.g., flying the aircraft, responding to ATC, and accomplishing non-normal checklists). Use of effective workload management divides crewmember duties. Examples are:
(a) Pilot Flying (PF). Uses an appropriate level of automation to reduce workload in times of task saturation. Situational awareness is maintained by periodic communication with the pilot monitoring (PM). The PM is involved if flying difficulties are encountered.
(b) Pilot Monitoring (PM). Maintains constant situational awareness. Prioritizes risks. Manages the highest risk by expanding the CRM team (if needed) for inputs. A plan is formulated, communicated, and tested for reception.
(5) Automation Management. Automation management is the use of appropriate flight guidance to manage crew workloads and maintain situational awareness. Automation management is consistent with an operator’s policies and procedures.
Par 3-1 Page 23 CHAPTER 3. TYPES OF LINE-ORIENTED FLIGHT TRAINING
3-1. GENERAL. There are two types of Line-Oriented Flight Training (LOFT): recurrent LOFT and qualification LOFT. Guidelines for designing and conducting these types of LOFT are presented below.
3-2. RECURRENT LOFT. Recurrent LOFT is designed to ensure that each crewmember maintains proficiency in the type of aircraft and flightcrew member duty position involved.
Recurrent LOFT is intended for flightcrew members who are presently qualified in a particular make, model, and series (M/M/S) aircraft. (Refer to part 121, §§ 121.409, 121.427, 121.433, and 121.441.)
3-3. 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, except for the nondisruptive acceleration of uneventful en route segments.
b. Crew Substitutes. Recurrent LOFT must utilize a complete flightcrew, who should be line qualified. The use of substitutes is discouraged, and substitution should be rare. When the composition of the scheduled line-qualified flightcrew cannot be maintained, the operator may use substitutions based on the guidelines in Table 3-1, Recurrent LOFT Substitution Table.
However, the operator will first attempt to substitute with another line-qualified flightcrew member. This table should be used only as a last resort, to prevent interruption of scheduled training.
c. Number of Segments. Recurrent LOFT must include at least two flight segments that are representative of the operations conducted by the operator. However, two gate-to-gate operating cycles are not necessary. The flightcrew completing recurrent LOFT must perform at least one taxi-out and one taxi-in. Additional segments need only consist of takeoff, climb, en route, descent, and landing.
d. Stall Prevention Training (Approach to Stall). Recurrent LOFT must include scenario-based or maneuver-based stall prevention training (approach to stall) before, during, or after the LOFT scenario for each pilot.
e. Scenario. Recurrent LOFT must provide an opportunity for each pilot to demonstrate workload management and pilot monitoring skills. Recurrent LOFT must also include at least the maneuvers and procedures (abnormal and emergency) that may be expected during line operations.
f. Training Media. The highest fidelity full flight simulator (FFS) available should be scheduled for recurrent LOFT.
Par 3-3 Page 24 TABLE 3-1. RECURRENT LOFT SUBSTITUTION TABLE Pilot in Command (PIC) Position Second in Command (SIC) Position Flight Engineer (FE) Position
1. PIC1 SIC1 FE1
2. SIC2 PIC1 FE Instructor3
3. Pilot Instructor3 Pilot Instructor3 1Includes those who are either line qualified or in training and are line and task familiar with the position in which they are substituting.
2An SIC may be substituted for this position if the pilot holds a type rating in the aircraft the flight simulation training device (FSTD) replicates.
3An instructor (aircraft or simulator) as provided for under part 121, § 121.412 or part 135, § 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 Line Operational Simulation (LOS) session will not act as a substitute crewmember.
3-4. QUALIFICATION LOFT. Qualification LOFT is designed for crewmembers whose training has been provided using advanced simulation. Qualification LOFT provides training that facilitates the transition from FSTD training to operational flying. Scenarios are designed to represent typical flight segments. (Refer to part 121 appendix H.)
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 flightcrew member 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 3-2, Qualification LOFT Substitution Table.
TABLE 3-2. QUALIFICATION LOFT SUBSTITUTION TABLE Pilot in Command (PIC) Position Second in Command (SIC) Position Flight Engineer (FE) Position
1. PIC1 SIC1 FE1
2. SIC1 PIC1 FE Instructor2
3. Pilot Instructor2 Pilot Instructor2 1Includes those who are either line qualified or in training and are task familiar with the position in which they are substituting.
2An instructor (aircraft or simulator) as provided for under part 121, § 121.412 or part 135, § 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.
Par 3-4 Page 25 (and 26) NOTE: The instructor conducting the Line Operational Simulation (LOS) session may not act as a substitute crewmember.
b. Scenario and Number of Segments. Qualification LOFT must consist of at least two flight segments representative of the operations conducted by the operator. One segment must contain strictly normal operating procedures from pushback at one airport until arrival at the gate at another airport. Another flight segment must contain appropriate abnormal and emergency operations. Qualification LOFT must provide an opportunity for each pilot to demonstrate workload management and pilot monitoring skills.
c. Training Media. Qualification LOFT will be conducted in a level C or higher FFS (refer to part 121 appendix H).
Par 4-1 Page 27 (and 28) CHAPTER 4. SPECIAL PURPOSE OPERATIONAL TRAINING
4-1. GENERAL. Special purpose operational training (SPOT) is designed for training crewmembers in a flight simulation training device (FSTD). SPOT is useful whenever coordinated crew performance is required. It may not be substituted for recurrent LOFT or qualification LOFT. SPOT may include training which:
• Focuses on Crew Resource Management (CRM) skills.
• Provides differences training on variant aircraft.
• Provides specific phase of flight training.
• Trains in special aircraft equipment (e.g., navigational equipment and flight management system (FMS)).
4-2. 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 FSTDs, depending upon the training objectives.
4-3. SPECIFIC SCENARIOS FOR OPERATORS OF ALL-CARGO AIRCRAFT OR COMBINATION CARGO/PASSENGER (COMBI) AIRCRAFT. Operators of all-cargo or combi aircraft should conduct SPOT to provide pilots training on situations unique to all-cargo and combi operations, such as:
• Indications of improper loading during preflight, taxi, and initial takeoff roll.
• Indications of cargo shifting during taxi and initial takeoff roll, resulting in an aborted takeoff.
• Indications of cargo shifting, leading to excessive pitch changes during takeoff and initial climb.
• Unanticipated pitch mistrim during takeoff, resulting in an aborted takeoff.
Par 5-1 Page 29 (and 30) CHAPTER 5. LINE OPERATIONAL EVALUATION
5-1. GENERAL. The line operational evaluation (LOE) is the primary means of proficiency evaluation in an 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 flight simulation training device (FSTD) qualified and 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.
5-2. ELEMENTS RESEMBLING LINE-ORIENTED FLIGHT TRAINING (LOFT). LOE contains elements similar to those in LOFT (e.g., line environment, complete crew, real-world scenarios, real time, and must run uninterrupted). A complete crew complement should be scheduled and maintained. Flightcrew member 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.
5-3. 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. Part 121, § 121.907 requires that the LOE evaluate both CRM and technical skills in a scenario which is designed to test both.
While encouraged and widely practiced, it is not mandatory that CRM be graded on a pass/fail basis. The alternative is to assume that failed CRM performance will, in almost all cases, drive a technical failure. That technical failure will then be recorded with CRM annotated as a contributing factor. This still allows CRM shortfalls to be documented and remediated.
5-4. EVALUATOR. 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.
5-5. LOE MEDIA. Operators conducting LOE may be approved to use any level of FSTD, depending on the objective of the evaluation and the capability of the device.