Par 2-9 Page 21
(3) Qualification and Continuing Qualification Curriculums. The qualification standards for both qualification and continuing qualification curricula can be combined into one document as long as the differences in conditions and media are addressed, and the tasks are annotated for applicable curriculums. However, if applicants find it more convenient to submit separate qualification standards documents for these curriculums (e.g., because of differences in conditions, contingencies, and media between the qualification and continuing qualification curricula), they may do so. In addition, some qualification standards may be “aircraft generic” in that they may apply to more than one aircraft type. For ease of use and definition of “fleet common” curricula, applicants may also find it convenient to specify these qualification standards separately from those qualification standards that apply to only one aircraft fleet type.
c. Qualification Standards Document. The qualification standards document is the third of the six documents unique to AQP that is maintained in a current status throughout the life of the program and must have a revision control methodology. It is the central AQP document because it provides the regulatory basis for all deviations from current regulations, and identifies the basic training and evaluation requirements. The qualification standards document has four parts: the prologue, a regulatory comparison, the evaluation/remediation methodology, and the specific TPO or SPO qualification standard.
(1) Prologue. The qualification standards document requires an introductory section that explains the methodology, format, and terminology of the standards to the broad range of company and FAA personnel who will need an in-depth understanding of the document to perform their job functions.
(2) Regulatory Requirements Comparison. The qualification standards document must also include regulatory comparison information. The comparison must meet the requirement of AQP regulatory guidance, which states that the AQP program “...must indicate specifically the requirements of part 61, 63, 65, 121, or 135, as applicable, that would be replaced by an AQP curriculum.” (see Appendix 3 for an example of a regulatory comparison chart).
NOTE: The purpose of these charts is not to justify differences from current traditional practices, but merely to document them once they have been justified. It is the quality control processes of AQP that form the basis for establishing an equivalent level of safety.
(3) Testing/Validation/Evaluation and Remediation Methodology. Before implementing an AQP curriculum, the applicant must decide how, when, where, and who will assess a student’s proficiency on each terminal and supporting objective. The guidelines in Figure 2-3 may be used to translate TPOs’ and SPOs’ criticality and currency ratings into testing strategies for the continuing qualification cycle. This testing strategy may include a discussion describing how similar SPOs will be addressed. For example, the TPO non-precision approach may have many SPOs, such as VOR, NDB, Localizer (LOC), etc. Depending on the criticality/currency rating, all of these approaches do not have to be evaluated each evaluation period. This section of the document is where the applicant can describe how these approaches will be alternated/sampled over multiple evaluation periods or continuing qualification cycles.
The testing/validation/evaluation methodology also addresses the applicant’s approach to
Par 2-9 Page 22 documenting the different qualifications of the instructor/evaluator, in terms of who will conduct the testing, validation, LOE, and line checks. In this section, the applicant can describe the level of device appropriate for conducting the evaluation. It also identifies the point in the curriculum when the testing/validation/evaluation methodology will be applied, and identifies what constitutes a failure and/or unsatisfactory performance. In addition, the applicant must specify the strategy for remedying unsatisfactory performance.
(a) General. For each terminal and supporting proficiency objective, the applicant will designate the testing/validation/evaluation strategy. These strategies could include, and are not limited to:
1. Train to proficiency.
2. Systems/knowledge validation.
3. Procedures validation.
4. Maneuvers validation.
5. LOE.
6. Operating experience.
7. Line check.
(b) Training Media. The applicant also will designate the level of training devices, simulators, or aircraft to be used to evaluate the proficiency objective.
(c) Rating Scale/Scoring. The applicant will identify the rating methodology that will be used to grade the performance of the proficiency objectives against the qualification standards. Typically, the measurement codes associated with performance events are ratings and reason codes or skill categories. Ratings are used to define different quality levels of performance. Rating codes usually are carrier specific and the FAA requires that something more sensitive to performance differences than a binary code is used (i.e., some rating method that provides more performance differentiation than pass/fail for individual items being evaluated.
Results of an evaluation event, such as an LOE, are still recorded on a pass/fail basis). Each carrier should ensure that the grades established on the rating scale are clearly defined, meaningful to the instructor/evaluator (I/E), and easily used for performance assessment.
Although consistency among fleets and across different types of evaluations (line check, maneuvers validation, and LOE) is important and generally desirable, rating scales may be slightly different when used for different purposes such as training vs. evaluation. Figure 2-4 provides an example of a rating scale that discriminates among performance levels:
Par 2-9 Page 23 FIGURE 2-4.
RATING SCALE FOR PROCEDURES VALIDATION, FIRST-LOOK, MANEUVERS
VALIDATION, LOE, OR LINE CHECK
GRADE CRITERIA 1 Unsatisfactory Major deviations from the prescribed qualification standards occur that are not recognized or corrected. Individual or crew performance could result in hull loss or loss of life.
CRM/DRM skills are not effective.
2 Below Standard Deviations from the prescribed qualification standards occur that are not recognized or corrected. Individual or crew performance is safe but would be unsatisfactory if diminished by any amount. CRM/DRM skills are not completely effective.
3 Standard with Debrief Deviations occur from the prescribed qualification standards that are recognized and most corrected. Individual or crew performance meets expectations. CRM/DRM skills are effective.
4 Standard Minor deviations occur from the prescribed qualification standards that are recognized and corrected in a timely manner. Individual or crew performance meets expectations.
CRM/DRM skills are clearly effective.
5 Excellent Performance remains well within the prescribed qualification standards. Individual or crew performance, management and CRM/DRM skills are exemplary.
NOTE: This example should not be taken as limiting possible intervals to a five-point scale. With appropriate scale construction and instructor/evaluator training, carriers may elect to define other scales that maximize the quality (sensitivity, reliability, validity) of the collected data.
(d) Remediation Strategy. This section of the qualification standards document should describe the methodology that will be used to remediate unsuccessful testing, validation, or evaluation sessions. This remediation strategy must detail when and what may be repeated and whether or not additional training is warranted. Remediation strategy must also specify when no more training will be offered to the individual and the resulting actions such as “Referred to Committee,” returned to previous position, etc. Chapter 3, subparagraph 3-4c has expanded discussions on validation, evaluation, and remediation in the qualification and continuing qualification curriculums. This strategy may be presented in narrative text or flowchart format.
(e) Special Tracking. Special tracking is the assignment of an individual trainee to an augmented training or evaluation schedule, or both. It should be applied to individuals who have failed to demonstrate proficiency during an evaluation event (e.g., LOE). There may be other criteria that the certificate holder may use to place an individual on special tracking.
Special tracking triggers could include failure to maintain proficiency, an extended absence from duty, for new PICs, or at the request of the individual trainee. However, the AQP participant may implement an AQP strategy such as reduced training intervals that would offset the need for a special tracking strategy. This section should discuss the following:
Par 2-9 Page 24
1. The situation(s) that requires an individual to be placed in special tracking.
2. The strategy to be used.
3. When special tracking is no longer required.
(4) The Qualification Standard. The information contained in the specific qualification standard is the basis for determining proficiency and evaluation criteria. The qualification standard is constructed by applying a performance statement, conditions, and standards to a task or subtask, thereby creating a TPO or an SPO. Although each operator will determine the format and content of its qualification standards, component fields have developed out of practice and are illustrated in Appendix 5. In this example, the phase of operations is
6.0 Approach Operations and Landing. The TPO is 6.1 Perform an Instrument Approach. The SPOs are 6.1.1 Perform a 2 Engine Precision Approach CAT I ILS (instrument landing system) Approach and 6.1.2 Perform a 1 Engine Inoperative CAT I ILS Approach.
NOTE: Variation in the format of a given air carrier’s qualification standards is permissible if all of the categories of information in the example are addressed.
(a) Header. A header identifies the airline and the document.
(b) Revision Control. Page revision control dates and revision numbers.
(c) Page Numbers. Consecutive page numbers.
(d) Phase of Operations. Number and title from task listing.
(e) Qualification Standard Title. Either TPO(s) or SPO(s).
(f) Hierarchical Task or Subtask. Identifier and title from task listing.
(g) Crew Duty Position(s). This identifies which crewmember(s) will be evaluated performing the task.
1. Pilot in Command = PIC.
2. Second in Command = SIC.
3. Flight Engineer = FE.
4. Captain, First Officer, Second Officer.
(h) Criticality/Currency Rating. This may be the first place that the task factors analysis is tied to the tasks.
NOTE: The qualification standards document for instructor/evaluators does not need to include conditions or a criticality/currency analysis.
Par 2-9 Page 25
(i) Curriculum. This field identifies the curriculum(s) in which the task will be trained and evaluated.
(j) Evaluation Strategy. The evaluation point for a particular qualification standard (e.g., (1) train to proficiency; (2) systems validation; (3) procedures validation; (4) maneuvers validation; (5) LOE; or (6) line check).
(k) Media. The specific media in which training and/or evaluation will be conducted. For qualification, the media is the lowest media used for final evaluation. For continuing qualification, the media includes the range of media used for training, validation, and evaluation.
(l) Performance Statement. An expanded statement of expected behavior that, when executed, will complete the work required for a specific portion of a job. A performance statement specifies precisely what behavior must be exhibited, and may include the knowledge and skill issues that comprise the enabling objective supporting that performance.
(m) Operational and Environmental Conditions. Conditions describe the range of circumstances under which student performance will be measured and evaluated. Conditions include the operational environment (Navigational Aid (NAVAID) inoperable, different aircraft weight, passengers not seated, aircraft configuration, etc.), and natural environment (ceiling, visibility, wind, turbulence, etc.). The qualification standard should: (1) indicate those specific conditions to be trained and tested as part of the qualification curriculum; and (2) provide a more exhaustive listing of conditions over which crewmembers will be trained and tested during the course of successive continuing qualification cycles.
(n) Contingencies. Contingencies include abnormal situations, minimum equipment list (MEL)/Configuration Deviation List (CDL), and emergencies. The qualification standard should (1) indicate those specific contingencies to be trained and tested as part of the qualification curriculum; and (2) provide a more exhaustive listing of contingencies over which crewmembers will be trained and tested during the course of successive continuing qualification cycles.
(o) Maneuver Standards. Observable, measurable parameters of performance with tolerances (e.g., course deviation degrees (+ or -)). Standards include maneuvers, procedures, and CRM considerations.
(p) References. Identify the primary references from which performance statements and associated standards were derived. Cite documents by title and where applicable, chapter or section. Page numbers are not required.
2-10. INSTRUCTIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT METHODOLOGY DOCUMENT. This is another of the six documents unique to AQP and must have an acceptable revision control methodology. Applicants with established curriculum development guidelines may submit these for consideration. Others should describe a systematic approach for developing a proficiency-based training system that is organized around the teaching and testing of terminal, supporting, and enabling proficiency objectives. The methodology identifies the rationale, justification, and subsequent documentation to be used in the applicant’s curriculum
Par 2-10 Page 26 development process. The instructional systems development methodology document describes the approach to be used by applicant airlines to develop and maintain all AQP curriculums. The Instructional Systems Development Methodology document should be finalized before constructing curriculums for each duty position. It applies to pilot, instructor, and evaluator programs, and may be expanded to include other personnel, such as F/As and dispatchers. This document is divided into two sections. The first section, Curriculum Development Procedures, describes the applicant’s approach for using the JTAs and qualification standards as baseline documents to construct their general training curriculums across all AQP courses. The second section, Line Operational Simulation (LOS) Methodology, describes the approach for developing LOS scenarios.
a. Curriculum Development Process. Applicants should describe the process they will use to build their curriculums based on the JTA, qualification standards, and proficiency objectives they develop for each duty position. This document should discuss how:
• TPOs and SPOs are allocated to curriculums.
• Learning and evaluation activities are developed to support these objectives.
• Instructional media and methods are assigned to objectives.
• Objectives are clustered and sequenced into lessons, modules, segments, and curriculums (see Figure 2-5 for an example).
• An audit trail (hierarchical numbering or a matrix) will be maintained to link job tasks, proficiency objectives, lesson activities/content, and test items.
NOTE: The resulting curriculums are translated into a course footprint and are documented in the curriculum outline. These curriculums are expanded in more detail in the student and instructor syllabi and in individual lessons and tests.
FIGURE 2-5.
CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT
Par 2-10 Page 27
b. LOS Methodology. While individual LOE scenario events are approved by the POI, the ERT must first approve the methodology that generates LOE scenarios. Unless the carrier has an alternative proposal, this methodology should follow the general guidelines for LOS development produced by the Airlines for America (A4A) AQP Working Group. This approach divides the typical scenario into a series of relatively independent segments, called event sets. A typical scenario might have six or eight event sets relating to the phases of operations (ground operations, takeoff, climb, cruise, descent, approach, landing, and after landing). Each event set consists of a series of training or evaluation events, which include both technical and CRM activities. This technique enables scenarios to be constructed in a building block approach, ensuring that each event set is carefully sequenced and considered in relation to the other event sets in the scenario.
2-11. CURRICULUM OUTLINE DOCUMENT. This is the fifth of the six documents unique to AQP that must have an acceptable revision control methodology. The curriculum outline is a listing of course material divided into segments, segments into modules, modules into lessons, and lessons into elements. Curriculum outlines are developed and submitted with the understanding that application of the course material may require some flexibility regarding the actual day on which each activity is accomplished. Each part of the curriculum outline must clearly indicate the subject matter to be taught and correspond directly to the hierarchical system of the task analysis. While the curriculum outline document need only go down to the level of the element under each lesson title, the applicant will be required to show the objectives (terminal, supporting and enabling) associated with each lesson. See Figure 2-5 for an illustration of this association. This is part of the necessary audit trail that links the job requirements (JTA) to the training requirements (qualification standards) to the training activities (curriculum outline). A curriculum outline provides the basis for the curriculum footprint, which is a high level graphical overview of the curriculum content depicting the training and evaluation activities and the planned hours for each day of the curriculum (see Figure 3-4). The curriculum outline document should reference the results of the student entry analysis, if one was conducted, and will include a curriculum footprint. Figure 2-7 provides an example of a curriculum outline showing portions of ground training and flight training segments.
a. Entry-Level Analysis. The applicant should develop and document a student entry-level performance analysis for TPOs and SPOs. This analysis compares the KSAs of the student population against the TPOs and SPOs in the JTA in order to fit the instruction to the student. A four-point performance difference rating scale is suggested (see Figure 2-6). Highly skilled instructors familiar with the experience and background of the student population and knowledgeable with the terminal and supporting proficiency objectives should make the rating.
This analysis provides guidance to determine efficient teaching strategies for the indoctrination and qualification curriculums. This analysis can also identify where training is not needed, where basic “enabling” skills must be taught, and what number of trials is needed for an applicant to reach TPO standards. More than one population group may be used in conducting the student entry analysis for a single duty position. The results of such an analysis may be used, for example, to justify alternative curriculum tracks or modules targeted at expected differences in entry background, and in order to achieve the most efficient use of training resources. The initial justification for alternative curriculum tracks must be validated though subsequent data analysis.
Par 2-11 Page 28 FIGURE 2-6.
PERFORMANCE DIFFERENCE RATING SCALE Performance Difference Code Performance Difference Description 4 Meets or exceeds the required performance.
3 Can accomplish tasks with minor errors or omissions. May take longer than expected or allowed.
2 Cannot accomplish tasks. Does demonstrate basic background skills and knowledge.
1 Does not demonstrate basic background experience, skills, or knowledge. Unfamiliar with simplest elements of a task.
b. Trainee and Instructor/Evaluator’s Curriculums. The instructor and evaluator curriculums associated with each duty position must be developed in the same systematic manner as those developed for the duty positions themselves. This requires the development of separate JTA, qualification standards, curriculum outlines and other documents for these positions although they may share some common modules or lessons. Instructors and evaluators require an indoctrination curriculum that is separate from the duty position indoctrination curriculum, as well as a separate qualification and continuing qualification curriculum.
c. Link Qualification Standards to Curriculums. Both the qualification and continuing qualification curriculums for a given duty position are derived from the same set of qualification standards. The link between qualification standards and a curriculum is the proficiency objective.
As a rule of thumb, qualification standards developed from TPOs focus more on the higher-level evaluation activities than qualification standards developed from SPOs. Qualification standards developed from SPOs focus more on the lower level learning activities that may be validated and represent the components of those higher level standards. Therefore, a qualification curriculum will focus equally on qualification standards developed from TPOs and SPOs, while the continuing qualification curriculum will focus more heavily on the qualification standards developed from TPOs. Indoctrination curriculums may or may not have qualification standards of their own. In either case, they provide training on common knowledge items (enabling objectives) that will support the mastery of qualification standards in the qualification and continuing qualification curriculums.
Par 2-11 Page 29 FIGURE 2-7.
SAMPLE AQP CURRICULUM OUTLINE B737 Qualification Curriculum Outline Segment: Ground Training Module: Introduction to Aircraft Lesson #: Aircraft Overview 9.1.4 Element: Fuselage 9.1.4.1 Element: Wings 9.1.4.2 Element: Flight Controls 9.1.4.4, 9.1.4.5, 9.1.4.6 Element: Landing Gear 9.1.4.7 Element: Powerplant 9.1.4.3 Element: Fuel System 9.1.4.8 Element: Hydraulic System 9.1.4.9 Element: Electrical System 9.1.4.10, 9.1.4.10.1, 9.1.4.10.2, 9.1.4.10.3 Lesson #: Aircraft Lighting 9.1.9 Element: Exterior Lighting 9.1.9.1 Element: Cockpit Lighting 9.1.9.2 Element: Cabin Signs and Lights 9.1.9.9, 9.1.9.4, 9.1.9.6 Element: Lighting Power Sources 9.1.9.5 Element: Emergency Lighting 9.1.9.5, 9.1.9.5.1, 9.1.4.10.2 B737 Qualification Curriculum Outline Segment: Flight Training (FT) Module: Flight Training Device (FTD) Lesson: FTD #1 Pre-Flight Normal Checklists Element: Flight Compartment Safety Inspection 1.2.5.1 Element: Flows 1.2.7.1 Element: Acceptance Checklist 1.2.8.1 Element: Before Starting Engines Checklist 1.2.11.1 Element: Normal APU First Engine Start 1.9.1.1 Element: Normal APU Second Engine Start 1.9.1.4 Element: Pushback 1.9.6.1 Element: Before Taxi Checklist 1.4.1.1 Element: Normal Taxi 1.4.2.1 Element: Before Takeoff Checklist 1.4.9.1 Element: Line-Up Checklist 1.4.4.1
Par 2-12 Page 30
2-12. IMPLEMENTATION AND OPERATIONS PLAN (I&O PLAN) DOCUMENT. This document, like the other five unique AQP documents, must have an acceptable revision control methodology. It must be updated as necessary to accurately reflect the status of the AQP applicant’s plan for implementing and operating each of the AQP curriculums. This document is a milestone schedule detailing the transition to an AQP for crewmembers, instructors, and evaluators and a blueprint describing provisions for maintenance, administration, data management, and continuing quality control of curriculums. As a document, the I&O Plan can be sectioned into two parts. The first part spells out how the operator proposes to implement the AQP. Included in this proposal is the schedule for Phase III, training and evaluation to include I/E training, and small group tryouts. It should also include provisos for evaluating the effectiveness of performance measurement tools, and provisions for evaluating facilities, courseware, and equipment before starting the plans for the small group tryouts. The second part explains how the certificate holder intends to operate the AQP in Phases IV and V. Included in this section are strategies for maintaining the program, crew pairing policy, first-look administration, and I/E requirements. The operations plan should also include the data management plan, a statement of understanding addressing the collection and analysis of performance/proficiency data, a description of the Performance Proficiency Database (PPDB), the data management collection process, and the FAA data submission, analysis, and reporting requirements.
a. Implementation. This section provides the schedule for evaluating curricula in the small group tryout, as well as I/E training, and the strategies for evaluating facilities, courseware, and equipment. It also includes the proposal for evaluating instructors, evaluators, and performance measurement tools such as the rating scale and grade sheets. The schedule for initiating Phase III should correlate with the Master AQP Transition Schedule as submitted in the application. This part of the I&O Plan is updated each time a new curriculum is added to the AQP and a small group tryout is planned.
NOTE: If the certificate holder is requesting no-jeopardy credit for the students in the small group tryout, it must be indicated in the I&O Plan and requested in writing to the appropriate Safety Standards office manager and the POI.
b. Operations. This section of the I&O Plan describes the guidance and policies that will be used to provide for AQP maintenance, first-look administration, crew pairing policy, instructor/evaluator requirements and data management. Once established, the operations section remains reasonably stable and does not necessarily change with the addition of a new curriculum.
(1) AQP Maintenance Strategy for Phases IV and V. This section describes quality control procedures (i.e., plans for acquiring and measuring data for tracking curricula, students, instructors, and evaluator performance). It also includes the strategy employed for curriculum maintenance and update. Maintenance includes the methodology for maintaining control of the AQP. It includes approval documents, maintaining curriculum currency, upgrading equipment, monitoring and responding to demographic changes, and for using training/evaluation feedback from the PPDB and other forms of surveillance to maintain and improve the AQP.
Par 2-12 Page 31
(2) First-Look Activity Administration. First-look performance items are graded procedures/maneuvers performed for the first time since the previous training cycle. The “first-look” grades are analyzed to determine trends of degraded proficiency due to numerous factors, including the length of the training interval. To maintain the validity of the performance proficiency data obtained from the performance of the “first-look” activities, this section must describe the strategy employed for those activities. This strategy must state that information or techniques that would unduly interfere with the “first-look” performance validity will not be briefed before the first execution of these items. In addition, this strategy should discuss how first-look maneuvers are selected and how they will be administered.
(3) Identify LOS Crew Scheduling and Pairing Strategy. A basic requirement of AQP is to train and evaluate crewmembers in a crew configuration identical to line operations. In AQP, 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). The FAA recognizes that circumstances will occur where the initial composition of the schedule cannot be maintained.
Hiring requirements, illness, high first officer to captain ratios, or failure of a crewmember to progress, are all situations that would necessitate providing a seat substitute to complete the training. This section must address the decision rules that will apply to the selection of seat substitutes for those circumstances. In all cases, the seat substitute must be task-familiar with the duty position.
(4) Instructor/Evaluator Requirements. This part will address the specific job functions, training, validation, or evaluation that instructors and evaluators are authorized to perform. It will identify the title of each position and describe the training that each receives in order to perform the job function associated with that event. The table in Chapter 5, Figure 5-1 illustrates the level of authorization needed for an individual to either train, validate, or evaluate an AQP event.
(5) Data Plan. Before an applicant can proceed with data collection and analysis, it must establish the intended purpose and method for the collection, entry, reporting, and analysis of AQP training/evaluation data for each curriculum. The plan must be thorough and accurately reflect the airline’s PPDB system. The AQP applicant must also acknowledge its responsibility to collect and analyze more data than required for submission to the FAA in order to adequately identify performance trends and requisite changes to factors that impact the performance. For example, the data that is submitted to the FAA is the result of the execution of TPOs and SPOs and is analyzed at that level by the FAA. See Chapter 8 for further explanation.
(a) Data Collection. Should address the methods used to collect performance/proficiency data for all curriculums. These methods will include the rationale for employing the method as well as providing the data input medium (e.g., grade sheets, computer-input screens, etc.) as examples that exemplify the data acquisition rationale. In addition, the data collection method should explain data input quality control, security, and usability.
(b) Data Management. Should explain the means and strategy the airline intends to employ to enter, access, and assimilate the AQP and the Single Visit Training Program (SVTP) performance/proficiency data that is collected. Included in this explanation should be:
Par 2-12 Page 32
1. The type of software data management system employed (e.g., relational database, spreadsheet etc.).
2. The organization of the information in the electronic medium (e.g., database definition, database table relationships, spreadsheet description, etc.).
3. A description of the user interface to this data management system.
(c) Data Analysis. Discuss the type of analysis that will be employed to facilitate the AQP performance information needs of the airline and the FAA. This discussion of the data analysis must address how each type of AQP data will be analyzed, including training and evaluation feedback as part of determining the effectiveness of the program. This discussion should be used as a prologue to the annual AQP report.
(d) Data Reporting. Discuss the FAA AQP data reporting requirements that must be met (to include format and frequency). In addition, discuss the internal quality assurance data reporting that will be employed, to include report types, frequency, and for which airline personnel the reports are intended.
2-13. APPROVAL. Approval of above documents marks the end of Phase II and the beginning of Phase III.
SECTION 4. PHASE III: SMALL GROUP TRYOUT (IMPLEMENTATION)
2-14. OVERVIEW. In Phase III, the AQP applicant will acquire and test the resources essential to support one or more of the indoctrination, qualification, or continuing qualification curriculums. These activities include developing courseware to implement the curriculum(s), training instructors and evaluators, conducting small group tryouts, making program revisions, and submitting data.
a. Resources. During this phase, the applicant will secure the training facility and equip classrooms with training aids, courseware, and other features that contribute to creating and maintaining a positive learning environment.
b. Train Instructors and Evaluators. The applicant must train, evaluate, qualify and provide an opportunity for the FAA to observe, if necessary, their instructors and evaluators before and during the small group tryouts (see Chapter 5 for more information on the training, observation, and quality control of instructors and evaluators).
c. Conduct the Approved Curriculum. This training and evaluation will consist of small group tryouts of all lessons using actual students and instructor/evaluators. The evaluation may involve no-jeopardy credit for students, since its primary purpose is to determine lesson suitability and effectiveness. The applicant may choose, however, to give student credit for part or all training and qualification achieved in this phase. The decision to give credit must be approved by the FAA before conducting the curriculum evaluation and the air carrier’s request to do so should be submitted by letter to the appropriate Safety Standards office manager and the POI.