ORO.FC.200 Composition of flight crew

Regulation (EU) 2021/2237

(a) There shall not be more than one inexperienced flight crew member in any flight crew.

(b) The commander may delegate the conduct of the flight to another pilot suitably qualified in accordance with Annex I (Part-FCL) to Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 provided that the requirements of ORO.FC.105(b)(1), (b)(2) and (c) are complied with.

(c) Specific requirements for aeroplane operations under instrument flight rules (IFR) or at night.

(1) The minimum flight crew shall be two pilots for all turbo-propeller aeroplanes with a maximum operational passenger seating configuration (MOPSC) of more than nine and all turbojet aeroplanes.

(2) Aeroplanes other than those covered by (c)(1) shall be operated with a minimum crew of two pilots, unless the requirements of ORO.FC.202 are complied with, in which case they may be operated by a single pilot.

(d) Specific requirements for helicopter operations

For all operations of helicopters with an MOPSC of more than 19 and for operations under IFR of helicopters with an MOPSC of more than 9, the minimum flight crew shall be two pilots.

AMC1 ORO.FC.200(a) Composition of flight crew

ED Decision 2014/017/R

CREWING OF INEXPERIENCED FLIGHT CREW MEMBERS

The operator should establish procedures in the operations manual taking into account the following elements:

Aeroplanes

(a) The operator should consider that a flight crew member is inexperienced, following completion of a type rating or command course, and the associated line flying under supervision, until he/she has achieved on the type either:

(1) 100 flight hours and flown 10 sectors within a consolidation period of 120 consecutive days; or

(2) 150 flight hours and flown 20 sectors (no time limit).

(b) A lesser number of flight hours or sectors, subject to any other conditions that the competent authority may impose, may be acceptable to the competent authority when one of the following applies:

(1) a new operator is commencing operations;

(2) an operator introduces a new aeroplane type;

(3) flight crew members have previously completed a type conversion course with the same operator;

(4) credits are defined in the operational suitability data established in accordance with Commission Regulation (EU) No 748/2012; or

(5) the aeroplane has a maximum take-off mass of less than 10 tonnes or a maximum operational passenger seating configuration (MOPSC) of less than 20.

Helicopters

(c) The operator should consider that, when two flight crew members are required, a flight crew member, following completion of a type rating or command course, and the associated line flying under supervision, is inexperienced until either:

(1) he/she has achieved 50 flight hours on the type and/or in the role within a period of 60 days; or

(2) he/she has achieved 100 flight hours on the type and/or in the role (no time limit).

(d) A lesser number of flight hours, on the type and/or in the role, and subject to any other conditions which the competent authority may impose, may be acceptable to the competent authority when one of the following applies:

(1) a new operator is commencing operations;

(2) an operator introduces a new helicopter type;

(3) flight crew members have previously completed a type conversion course with the same operator (reconversion); or

(4) credits are defined in the operational suitability data established in accordance with Commission Regulation (EU) No 748/2012.

ORO.FC.A.201 In-flight relief of flight crew members

Regulation (EU) No 965/2012

(a) The commander may delegate the conduct of the flight to:

(1) another qualified commander; or

(2) for operations only above flight level (FL) 200, a pilot who complies with the following minimum qualifications:

(i) ATPL;

(ii) conversion training and checking, including type rating training, in accordance with ORO.FC.220;

(iii) all recurrent training and checking in accordance with ORO.FC.230 and ORO.FC.240;

(iv) route/area and aerodrome competence in accordance with ORO.FC.105.

(b) The co-pilot may be relieved by:

(1) another suitably qualified pilot;

(2) for operations only above FL 200, a cruise relief co-pilot that complies with the following minimum qualifications:

(i) valid commercial pilot licence (CPL) with an instrument rating;

(ii) conversion training and checking, including type rating training, in accordance with ORO.FC.220 except the requirement for take-off and landing training;

(iii) recurrent training and checking in accordance with ORO.FC.230 except the requirement for take-off and landing training.

(c) A flight engineer may be relieved in flight by a crew member suitably qualified in accordance with applicable national rules.

ORO.FC.202 Single-pilot operations under IFR or at night

Regulation (EU) 2021/2237

In order to be able to fly under IFR or at night with a minimum flight crew of one pilot, the following shall be complied with:

(a) The operator shall include in the operations manual a pilot’s conversion and recurrent training programme that includes the additional requirements for a single-pilot operation. The pilot shall have undertaken training on the operator’s procedures, in particular regarding:

(1) engine management and emergency handling;

(2) use of normal, abnormal and emergency checklist;

(3) air traffic control (ATC) communication;

(4) departure and approach procedures;

(5) autopilot management, if applicable;

(6) use of simplified in-flight documentation;

(7) single-pilot crew resource management.

(b) INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

(c) For aeroplane operations under IFR the pilot shall have:

(1) a minimum of 50 hours flight time under IFR on the relevant type or class of aeroplane, of which 10 hours are as commander; and

(2) completed during the preceding 90 days on the relevant type or class of aeroplane:

(i) five IFR flights, including three instrument approaches, in a single-pilot role; or

(ii) an IFR instrument approach check.

(d) For aeroplane operations at night the pilot shall have:

(1) a minimum of 15 hours flight time at night which may be included in the 50 hours flight time under IFR in (c)(1); and

(2) completed during the preceding 90 days on the relevant type or class of aeroplane:

(i) three take-offs and landings at night in the single pilot role; or

(ii) a night take-off and landing check.

(e) For helicopter operations under IFR the pilot shall have:

(1) 25 hours total IFR flight experience in the relevant operating environment; and

(2) 25 hours flight experience as a single pilot on the specific type of helicopter, approved for single-pilot IFR, of which 10 hours may be flown under supervision, including five sectors of IFR line flying under supervision using the single-pilot procedures; and

(3) completed during the preceding 90 days:

(i) five IFR flights as a single pilot, including three instrument approaches, carried out on a helicopter approved for this purpose; or

(ii) an IFR instrument approach check as a single pilot on the relevant type of helicopter, flight training device (FTD) or full flight simulator (FFS).

ORO.FC.205 Command course

Regulation (EU) No 965/2012

(a) For aeroplane and helicopter operations, the command course shall include at least the following elements:

(1) training in an FSTD, which includes line oriented flight training (LOFT) and/or flight training;

(2) the operator proficiency check, operating as commander;

(3) command responsibilities training;

(4) line training as commander under supervision, for a minimum of:

(i) 10 flight sectors, in the case of aeroplanes; and

(ii) 10 hours, including at least 10 flight sectors, in the case of helicopters;

(5) completion of a line check as commander and demonstration of adequate knowledge of the route or area to be flown and of the aerodromes, including alternate aerodromes, facilities and procedures to be used; and

(6) crew resource management training.

AMC1 ORO.FC.205 Command course

ED Decision 2022/014/R

COMBINED UPGRADING AND CONVERSION COURSE — HELICOPTER

If a pilot is converting from one helicopter type to another when upgrading to commander:

(a) the command course should also include a conversion course in accordance with ORO.FC.220; and

(b) additional flight sectors should be required for a pilot transitioning onto a new type of helicopter.

ORO.FC.215 Initial operator’s crew resource management (CRM) training

Regulation (EU) No 965/2012

(a) The flight crew member shall have completed an initial CRM training course before commencing unsupervised line flying.

(b) Initial CRM training shall be conducted by at least one suitably qualified CRM trainer who may be assisted by experts in order to address specific areas.

(c) If the flight crew member has not previously received theoretical training in human factors to the ATPL level, he/she shall complete, before or combined with the initial CRM training, a theoretical course provided by the operator and based on the human performance and limitations syllabus for the ATPL as established in Annex I (Part-FCL) to Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011.

AMC1 ORO.FC.215 Initial operator’s crew resource management (CRM) training

ED Decision 2022/014/R

TRAINING ELEMENTS AND TRAINER QUALIFICATION

Initial operator’s CRM training should:

(a) cover the applicable provisions of AMC1 ORO.FC.115, including the training elements as specified in Table 1 thereof; and

(b) be conducted by a flight crew CRM trainer who is qualified as specified in AMC2 ORO.FC.146.

ORO.FC.220 Operator conversion training and checking

Regulation (EU) 2021/2237

(a) CRM training shall be integrated into the operator conversion training course.

(b) Once an operator conversion course has been commenced, the flight crew member shall not be assigned to flying duties on another type or class of aircraft until the course is completed or terminated. Crew members operating only performance class B aeroplanes may be assigned to flights on other types of performance class B aeroplanes during conversion courses to the extent necessary to maintain the operation. Crew members may be assigned to flights on single‑engined helicopters during an operator conversion course on a single-engined helicopter, provided that the training is unaffected.

(c) The amount of training required by the flight crew member for the operator’s conversion course shall be determined in accordance with the standards of qualification and experience specified in the operations manual, taking into account his/her previous training and experience.

(d) The flight crew member shall complete:

(1) the operator proficiency check and the emergency and safety equipment training and checking before commencing line flying under supervision (LIFUS); and

(2) the line check upon completion of line flying under supervision. For performance class B aeroplanes, LIFUS may be performed on any aeroplane within the applicable class.

(e) In the case of aeroplanes, pilots that have been issued a type rating based on a zero flight-time training (‘ZFTT’) course shall:

(1) commence line flying under supervision not later than 21 days after the completion of the skill test or after appropriate training provided by the operator. The content of that training shall be described in the operations manual;

(2) complete six take-offs and landings in an FSTD not later than 21 days after the completion of the skill test under the supervision of a type rating instructor for aeroplanes (‘TRI(A)’) occupying the other pilot seat. The number of take-offs and landings may be reduced when credits are defined in the mandatory part of the operational suitability data established in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 748/2012. If those take-offs and landings have not been performed within 21 days, the operator shall provide refresher training the content of which shall be described in the operations manual;

(3) conduct the first four take-offs and landings of the LIFUS in the aeroplane under the supervision of a TRI(A) occupying the other pilot seat. The number of take-offs and landings may be reduced when credits are defined in the mandatory part of the operational suitability data established in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 748/2012.

(f) If operational circumstances, such as applying for a new AOC or adding a new aircraft type or class to the fleet, do not allow the operator to comply with the requirements in (d), the operator may develop a specific conversion course, to be used temporarily for a limited number of pilots.

AMC1 ORO.FC.220 Operator conversion training and checking

ED Decision 2022/014/R

OPERATOR CONVERSION TRAINING SYLLABUS

(a) General

(1) The operator conversion training should include, in the following order:

(i) ground training and checking, including all of the following:

(A) aircraft systems;

(B) normal procedures, which include flight planning and ground-handling and flight operations, including performance, mass and balance, fuel schemes, selection of alternates, and ground de-icing/anti-icing;

(C) abnormal and emergency procedures, which include pilot incapacitation as applicable;

(D) a review of relevant samples of accident/incident and occurrences to increase awareness of the occurrences that may be relevant for the intended operation;

(ii) emergency and safety equipment training and checking (completed before any flight training in an aircraft commences);

(iii) flight training and checking (aircraft and/or FSTD); and

(iv) line flying under supervision and line check.

(2) When the flight crew member has not previously completed an operator’s conversion course, he/she should undergo general first-aid training and, if applicable, ditching procedures training using the equipment in water.

(3) Where the emergency drills require action by the non-handling pilot, the check should additionally cover knowledge of these drills.

(4) The operator’s conversion may be combined with a new type/class rating training, as required by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011.

(5) The operator should ensure that:

(i) applicable elements of CRM training, as specified in Table 1 of AMC1 ORO.FC.115, are integrated into all appropriate phases of the conversion training; and

(ii) the personnel integrating elements of CRM into conversion training are suitably qualified, as specified in AMC2 ORO.FC.146.

(b) Ground training

(1) Ground training should comprise a properly organised programme of ground instruction supervised by training staff with adequate facilities, including any necessary audio, mechanical and visual aids. Self-study using appropriate electronic learning aids, computer-based training (CBT), etc., may be used with adequate supervision of the standards achieved. However, if the aircraft concerned is relatively simple, unsupervised private study may be adequate if the operator provides suitable manuals and/or study notes.

(2) The course of ground instruction should incorporate formal tests.

(c) Emergency and safety equipment training and checking

(1) Emergency and safety equipment training should take place in conjunction with cabin/technical crew undergoing similar training with emphasis on coordinated procedures and two-way communication between the flight crew compartment and the cabin.

(2) On the initial conversion course and on subsequent conversion courses as applicable, the following should be addressed:

(i) Instruction on first-aid in general (initial conversion course only); instruction on first-aid as relevant to the aircraft type of operation and crew complement, including those situations where no cabin crew is required to be carried (initial and subsequent).

(ii) Aero-medical topics, including:

(A) hypoxia;

(B) hyperventilation;

(C) contamination of the skin/eyes by aviation fuel or hydraulic or other fluids;

(D) hygiene and food poisoning; and

(E) malaria.

(iii) The effect of smoke in an enclosed area and actual use of all relevant equipment in a simulated smoke-filled environment.

(iv) Actual fire fighting, using equipment representative of that carried in the aircraft on an actual or simulated fire except that, with Halon extinguishers, an alternative extinguisher may be used.

(v) The operational procedures of security, rescue and emergency services.

(vi) Survival information appropriate to their areas of operation (e.g. polar, desert, jungle or sea) and training in the use of any survival equipment required to be carried.

(vii) A comprehensive drill to cover all ditching procedures where flotation equipment is carried. This should include practice of the actual donning and inflation of a life-jacket, together with a demonstration or audio-visual presentation of the inflation of life-rafts and/or slide-rafts and associated equipment. This practice should, on an initial conversion course, be conducted using the equipment in water, although previous certified training with another operator or the use of similar equipment will be accepted in lieu of further wet-drill training.

(viii) Instruction on the location of emergency and safety equipment, correct use of all appropriate drills, and procedures that could be required of flight crew in different emergency situations. Evacuation of the aircraft (or a representative training device) by use of a slide where fitted should be included when the operations manual procedure requires the early evacuation of flight crew to assist on the ground.

(3) Operations where no cabin crew is required

(i) Passenger handling

Other than general training on dealing with people, emphasis should be placed on the following:

(A) advice on the recognition and management of passengers who appear or are intoxicated with alcohol, under the influence of drugs or aggressive;

(B) methods used to motivate passengers and the crowd control necessary to expedite an aircraft evacuation; and

(C) the importance of correct seat allocation with reference to aircraft mass and balance. Particular emphasis should also be given on the seating of special categories of passengers.

(ii) Discipline and responsibilities

Emphasis should be placed on discipline and an individual’s responsibilities in relation to:

(A) his or her ongoing competence and fitness to operate as a crew member with special regard to flight and duty time limitation (FTL) requirements; and

(B) security procedures.

(iii) Passenger briefing/safety demonstrations

Training should be given in the preparation of passengers for normal and emergency situations.

(d) Flight training

(1) Flight training should be conducted to familiarise the flight crew member thoroughly with all aspects of limitations and normal, abnormal and emergency procedures associated with the aircraft and should be carried out by suitably qualified class and type rating instructors and/or examiners. For specific operations, such as steep approaches, ETOPS, or operations based on QFE, additional training should be carried out, based on any additional elements of training defined for the aircraft type in the operational suitability data in accordance with Commission Regulation (EU) No 748/2012, where they exist.

(2) In planning flight training on aircraft with a flight crew of two or more, particular emphasis should be placed on the practice of LOFT with emphasis on CRM, and the use of crew coordination procedures, including coping with incapacitation.

(3) Normally, the same training and practice in the flying of the aircraft should be given to co-pilots as well as commanders. The ‘flight handling’ sections of the syllabus for commanders and co-pilots alike should include all the requirements of the operator proficiency check required by ORO.FC.230.

(4) Unless the type rating training programme has been carried out in an FSTD usable for ZFTT, the training should include at least three take-offs and landings in the aircraft.

(e) Operator proficiency check

(1) For aeroplanes, the operator proficiency check that is part of the operator’s conversion checking should follow the provisions in AMC1 ORO.FC.230. For EBT, the operator should include either an EBT module in accordance with ORO.FC.231 or an OPC in accordance with AMC1 ORO.FC.230.

(2) For helicopters, the operator proficiency check that is part of the operator’s conversion checking should include at least the following emergency/abnormal procedures as relevant to the helicopter and operations:

(i) engine fire;

(ii) interior helicopter fire or smoke;

(iii) emergency operation of undercarriage;

(iv) hydraulic failure;

(v) electrical failure;

(vi) flight and engine control system malfunctions;

(vii) recovery from unusual attitudes;

(viii) landing with one or more engine(s) inoperative;

(ix) instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) autorotation techniques;

(x) autorotation to a designated area;

(xi) pilot incapacitation;

(xii) directional control failures and malfunctions; and

(xiii) engine failure and if relevant, relight;

and for multi-engined helicopters:

(xiv) engine failure during take-off before decision point;

(xv) engine failure during take-off after decision point;

(xvi) engine failure during landing before decision point; and

(xvii) engine failure during landing after decision point.

(3) For helicopter pilots required to engage in IFR operations, the proficiency check should include the following additional normal/abnormal/emergency procedures:

(i) 3D approach operation to minima;

(ii) go-around on instruments;

(iii) 2D approach operation to minima;

(iv) if relevant, at least one of the 3D or 2D approach operations should be an RNP APCH or RNP AR APCH operation;

(v) in the case of multi-engined helicopters, a simulated failure of one engine to be included in either the 3D or 2D approach operation to minima; and

(vi) where appropriate to the helicopter type, approach with flight control system/flight director system malfunctions, flight instrument and navigation equipment failures.

(4) For helicopters, the flight crew should be assessed on their CRM skills in accordance with the methodology described in AMC1 ORO.FC.115 and as specified in the operations manual.

(5) The use of FSTDs, composition of the flight crew, and the possible combinations with training or with the licence proficiency check should be defined as per AMC1 ORO.FC.230.

(f) Line flying under supervision (LIFUS)

(1) Following completion of flight training and checking as part of the operator’s conversion course, each flight crew member should operate a minimum number of sectors and/or flight hours under the supervision of a flight crew member nominated by the operator.

(2) The minimum flight sectors/hours should be specified in the operations manual and should be determined by the following:

(i) previous experience of the flight crew member;

(ii) complexity of the aircraft; and

(iii) the type and area of operation.

(3) For performance class B aeroplanes, the amount of LIFUS required is dependent on the complexity of the operations to be performed.

AMC2 ORO.FC.220 Operator conversion training and checking

ED Decision 2014/017/R

OPERATOR CONVERSION TRAINING SYLLABUS — FLIGHT ENGINEERS

(a) Operator conversion training for flight engineers should approximate to that of pilots.

(b) If the flight crew includes a pilot with the duties of a flight engineer, he/she should, after training and the initial check in these duties, operate a minimum number of flight sectors under the supervision of a nominated additional flight crew member. The minimum figures should be specified in the operations manual and should be selected after due note has been taken of the complexity of the aircraft and the experience of the flight crew member.

AMC3 ORO.FC.220 Operator conversion training and checking

ED Decision 2022/014/R

TRAINING PROGRAMMES

The operator should ensure that training programmes include the relevant de-identified feedback from the management system, including occurrence reporting and flight data monitoring programmes.

AMC1 ORO.FC.220(b) Operator conversion training and checking

ED Decision 2022/014/R

ASSIGNMENT TO FLIGHTS DURING AN OPERATOR CONVERSION COURSE — HELICOPTERS

(a) A group of helicopter types should include either only single-engined turbine helicopters operated only under VFR or only single-engined piston helicopters operated only under VFR.

(b) The flight crew member should only be assigned to flights on a helicopter within the same group of helicopter types as the type used for the operator conversion training and checking.

(c) Once an operator conversion course has been commenced, the flight crew member should not start another operator conversion course on another helicopter type until that course is completed or terminated.

GM1 ORO.FC.220(b) Operator conversion training and checking

ED Decision 2014/017/R

COMPLETION OF AN OPERATOR’S CONVERSION COURSE

(a) The operator conversion course is deemed to have started when the flight training has begun. The theoretical element of the course may be undertaken ahead of the practical element.

(b) Under certain circumstances the course may have started and reached a stage where, for unforeseen reasons, it is not possible to complete it without a delay. In these circumstances, the operator may allow the pilot to revert to the original type.

(c) Before the resumption of the operator conversion course, the operator should evaluate how much of the course needs to be repeated before continuing with the remainder of the course.

GM1 ORO.FC.220(c) Operator conversion training and checking

ED Decision 2016/008/R

OPERATOR CONVERSION COURSE (OCC) FOR MULTI-CREW PILOT LICENCE (MPL) HOLDERS

When defining the amount of training for MPL holders, who undertake their first conversion course on a new type or at an operator other than the one that was involved in their training for the MPL, the operator should put a process in place to ensure that corrective action can be taken if post-MPL licence training evaluation indicates the need to do so.

GM1 ORO.FC.220(d) Operator conversion training and checking

ED Decision 2014/017/R

LINE FLYING UNDER SUPERVISION

(a) Line flying under supervision provides the opportunity for a flight crew member to carry into practice the procedures and techniques he/she has been made familiar with during the ground and flight training of an operator conversion course. This is accomplished under the supervision of a flight crew member specifically nominated and trained for the task. At the end of line flying under supervision the respective crew member should be able to perform a safe and efficient flight conducted within the tasks of his/her crew member station.

(b) A variety of reasonable combinations may exist with respect to:

(1) a flight crew member's previous experience;

(2) the complexity of the aircraft concerned; and

(3) the type of route/role/area operations.

(c) Aeroplanes

The following minimum figures for details to be flown under supervision are guidelines for operators to use when establishing their individual requirements:

(1) turbo-jet aircraft

(i) co-pilot undertaking first operator conversion course:

(A) total accumulated 100 hours or minimum 40 flight sectors;

(ii) co-pilot upgrading to commander:

(A) minimum 20 flight sectors when converting to a new type;

(B) minimum 10 flight sectors when already qualified on the aeroplane type.

AMC1 ORO.FC.220(f) Operator conversion training and checking

ED Decision 2022/014/R

SPECIFIC CONVERSION COURSE — SUITABLY QUALIFIED COMMANDER NOMINATED BY THE OPERATOR — PILOTS WHO TEMPORARILY JOIN THE OPERATOR AND WILL BE NOMINATED TO CONDUCT LINE CHECKS

(a) In some cases, operational circumstances may require the operator to develop a specific conversion course to nominate pilots as suitably qualified commanders to conduct line checks in accordance with the requirements of ORO.FC.146. In this case, the operator conversion training should include training as follows:

(1) normal procedures, which include flight planning and ground-handling and flight operations, including performance, mass and balance, fuel schemes, selection of alternates, and ground de-icing/anti-icing;

(2) abnormal and emergency procedures, which include pilot incapacitation as applicable.

(b) The operator should ensure that the line checker is familiar with:

(1) the operating procedures and the use of checklists used by the operator;

(2) the emergency and safety equipment installed or carried on the operated aircraft.

(c) After the completion of the specific conversion course, the following apply:

(1) The line checker should not exercise duties at the controls of the aircraft.

(2) The line checker should only conduct recurrent line checks of pilots whose previous line check has not expired, in accordance with ORO.FC.230.

(d) The validity of the specific conversion course should be limited to 6 months.

GM1 ORO.FC.220(f) Operator conversion training and checking

ED Decision 2022/014/R

SPECIF CONVERSION COURSE TO BE USE TEMPORARILY FOR A LIMITED NUMBER OF PILOTS — NEW AOC OR ADDITION OF A NEW AIRCRAFT TYPE OR CLASS TO THE FLEET

For a new AOC or for the addition of a new aircraft type or class to the fleet, the operator may contact the competent authority to agree on a specific conversion course to be included in the operations manual (CAT requires approval in accordance with ORO.FC.145 point (c)) to be used temporarily for a limited number of pilots. The specific course may include an agreement on the minimum experience of the pilots, the required experience of the line supervisor and line checkers amongst others.

AMC1 ORO.FC.220&230 Operator conversion training and checking & recurrent training and checking

ED Decision 2019/025/R

UPSET PREVENTION AND RECOVERY TRAINING (UPRT) FOR COMPLEX MOTOR-POWERED AEROPLANES WITH A MAXIMUM OPERATIONAL PASSENGER SEATING CONFIGURATION (MOPSC) OF MORE THAN 19

(a) Upset prevention training should:

(1) consist of ground training and flight training in an FSTD or an aeroplane;

(2) include upset prevention elements from Table 1 for the conversion training course; and

(3) include upset prevention elements in Table 1 for the recurrent training programme at least every 12 calendar months, such that all the elements are covered over a period not exceeding 3 years.

Table 1: Elements and respective components of upset prevention training

(b) Upset recovery training should:

(1) consist of ground training and flight training in an FFS qualified for the training task;

(2) be completed from each seat in which a pilot’s duties require him/her to operate; and

(3) include the recovery exercises in Table 2 for the recurrent training programme, such that all the exercises are covered over a period not exceeding 3 years.

Table 2: Exercises for upset recovery training

(c) The operator should ensure that personnel providing FSTD UPRT are competent and current to deliver the training, and understand the capabilities and limitations of the device used.

(d) An FFS that is used for the training referred to in point (b)(1) should be qualified in accordance with the special evaluation requirements set out in CS-FSTD(A) (Issue 2 or later).

AMC2 ORO.FC.220&230 Operator conversion training and checking & recurrent training and checking

ED Decision 2019/025/R

UPSET PREVENTION AND RECOVERY TRAINING (UPRT) FOR COMPLEX MOTOR-POWERED AEROPLANES WITH A MAXIMUM OPERATIONAL PASSENGER SEATING CONFIGURATION (MOPSC) OF 19 OR LESS

(a) Upset prevention training should:

(1) consist of ground training and flight training in an FSTD or an aeroplane;

(2) include upset prevention elements in Table 1 of AMC1 ORO.FC.220&230 for the conversion training course; and

(3) include upset prevention elements in Table 1 of AMC1 ORO.FC.220&230 for the recurrent training programme at least every 12 calendar months, such that all the elements are covered over a period not exceeding 3 years.

(b) Upset recovery training should:

(1) consist of ground training and flight training in an FFS qualified for the training task, if available;

(2) be completed from each seat in which a pilot’s duties require him/her to operate; and

(3) include the recovery exercises in Table 2 of AMC1 ORO.FC.220&230 for the recurrent training programme, such that all the exercises are covered over a period not exceeding 3 years.

(c) The operator should ensure that personnel providing FSTD UPRT are competent and current to deliver the training, and understand the capabilities and limitations of the device used.

(d) An FFS that is used for the training referred to in point (b)(1) should be qualified in accordance with the special evaluation requirements set out in CS-FSTD(A) (Issue 2 or later).

GM1 ORO.FC.220&230 Operator conversion training and checking & recurrent training and checking

ED Decision 2019/005/R

UPSET PREVENTION AND RECOVERY TRAINING (UPRT) FOR COMPLEX MOTOR-POWERED AEROPLANES

The objective of the UPRT is to help flight crew acquire the required competencies in order to prevent or recover from a developing or developed aeroplane upset. Prevention training prepares flight crew to avoid incidents whereas recovery training prepares flight crew to prevent an accident once an upset condition has developed.

HUMAN FACTORS

Threat and Error Management (TEM) and Crew Resource Management (CRM) principles should be integrated into the UPRT. In particular, the surprise and startle effect, and the importance of resilience development should be emphasised.

Training should also emphasise that an actual upset condition may expose flight crew to significant physiological and psychological challenges, such as visual illusions, spatial disorientation and unusual g-forces, with the objective to develop strategies to deal with such challenges.

USE OF FSTD FOR UPRT

The use of an FSTD provides valuable training without the risks associated with aeroplane training. The training envelope (envelope within which all training exercises will be carried out) should be specified by the operator in terms of the range of attitudes, speed and g-loads that can be used for training, taking into account:

(1) the training environment;

(2) the capabilities of the instructors; and

(3) in the case of training in FSTDs, the limitations of the FSTD (as per GM15 to Annex I (Definitions) to Commission Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 for the FSTD training envelope); and

(4) in the case of training in aeroplanes, the capabilities and certification of the aeroplane, while considering a margin of safety in order to ensure that unintentional deviations from the training envelope will not exceed aeroplane limitations. Different training envelopes may be specified for different aeroplane types even within a single training course.

ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE

Specific guidance to the UPRT elements and exercises contained in the AMC is available from the latest revision of the ICAO Document 10011 (‘Manual on UPRT’).

Further guidance is available in:

—             Revision 2 (as regards training scenarios for UPRT) and Revision 3 of the Aeroplane Upset Recovery Training Aid (AURTA (Revision 2) / AUPRTA (Revision 3)); and

—             the Flight Safety Foundation Publication (‘A Practical Guide for Improving Flight Path Monitoring’), November 2014.

GM2 ORO.FC.220&230 Operator conversion training and checking & recurrent training and checking

ED Decision 2019/005/R

UPSET PREVENTION TRAINING FOR COMPLEX MOTOR-POWERED AEROPLANES

The recurrent training should prioritise the upset prevention elements and respective components according to the operator’s safety risk assessment.

Upset prevention training should use a combination of manoeuvre-based and scenario-based training. Scenario-based training may be used to introduce flight crew to situations which, if not correctly managed, could lead to an upset condition. Relevant TEM and CRM aspects should be included in scenario-based training and the flight crew should understand the limitations of the FSTD in replicating the physiological and psychological aspects of exposure to upset prevention scenarios.

In order to avoid negative training and negative transfer of training, operators should ensure that the selected upset prevention scenarios and exercises take into consideration the limitations of the FSTD and the extent to which it represents the handling characteristics of the actual aeroplane. If it is determined that the FSTD is not suitable, the operator should ensure that the required training outcome can be achieved by other means.

GO-AROUNDS FROM VARIOUS STAGES DURING THE APPROACH

Guidance on go-around training is provided in point (d) of GM1 to Appendix 9 to Part-FCL.

GM3 ORO.FC.220&230 Operator conversion training and checking & Recurrent training and checking

ED Decision 2019/025/R

UPSET RECOVERY TRAINING FOR COMPLEX MOTOR-POWERED AEROPLANES

The upset recovery training exercises should be manoeuvre-based, which enables flight crew to apply their handling skills and recovery strategy whilst leveraging CRM principles to return the aeroplane from an upset condition to a stabilised flight path.

The flight crew should understand the limitations of the FFS in replicating the physiological and psychological aspects of upset recovery exercises.

In order to avoid negative training and negative transfer of training, operators should ensure that the selected upset recovery exercises take into consideration the limitations of the FFS.

STALL EVENT RECOVERY TRAINING

It is of utmost importance that stall event recovery training takes into account the capabilities of the FFS used. To deliver stall event recovery training, the FFS should be qualified against the relevant UPRT elements of CS-FSTD(A) (Issue 2 or later). Stall event recovery training should include training up to the stall (approach-to-stall). Post-stall training may be delivered, provided the device has been qualified against the relevant optional elements of CS-FSTD(A) (Issue 2 or later) and the operator demonstrates that negative training or negative transfer of training is avoided. A ‘stall event’ is defined as an occurrence whereby the aeroplane experiences one or more conditions associated with an approach-to-stall or stall.

Stall event recovery training should emphasise the requirement to reduce the angle of attack (AOA) whilst accepting the resulting altitude loss. High-altitude stall event training should be included so that flight crew appreciate the aeroplane control response, the significant altitude loss during the recovery, and the increased time required. The training should also emphasise the risk of triggering a secondary stall event during the recovery.

Recovery from a stall event should always be in accordance with the stall event recovery procedures of the OEMs. If an OEM-approved recovery procedure does not exist, operators should develop and train the aeroplane-specific stall recovery procedure based on the template in Table 1 below.

Refer to Revision 3 of the Airplane Upset Prevention and Recovery Training Aid (AUPRTA) for a detailed explanation and rationale on the stall event recovery template as recommended by the OEMs.

Table 1: Recommended Stall Event Recovery Template

NOSE HIGH AND NOSE LOW RECOVERY TRAINING

Nose-high and nose-low recovery training should be in accordance with the strategies recommended by the OEMs contained in the Tables 2 and 3 below. As the OEM procedures always take precedence over the recommendations, operators should consult their OEM on whether any approved type-specific recovery procedures are available prior to using the templates.

Refer to Revision 3 of the Airplane Upset Prevention and Recovery Training Aid (AUPRTA) for a detailed explanation and rationale on the nose high and nose low recovery strategies as recommended by the OEMs.

Table 2: Recommended Nose High Recovery Strategy Template

Table 3: Recommended Nose Low Recovery Strategy Template

GM4 ORO.FC.220&230 Operator conversion training and checking & recurrent training and checking

ED Decision 2015/012/R

[deleted]

GM5 ORO.FC.220&230 Operator conversion training and checking & recurrent training and checking

ED Decision 2019/005/R

PERSONNEL PROVIDING FSTD UPSET PREVENTION AND RECOVERY TRAINING (UPRT)

It is of paramount importance that personnel providing UPRT in FSTDs have the specific competence to deliver such training, which may not have been demonstrated during previous instructor qualification training. Operators should, therefore, have a comprehensive training and standardisation programme in place, and may need to provide FSTD instructors with additional training to ensure such instructors have and maintain complete knowledge and understanding of the UPRT operating environment, and skill sets.

Standardisation and training should ensure that personnel providing FSTD UPRT:

(1) are able to demonstrate the correct upset recovery techniques for the specific aeroplane type;

(2) understand the importance of applying type-specific Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) procedures for recovery manoeuvres;

(3) are able to distinguish between the applicable SOPs and the OEMs recommendations (if available);

(4) understand the capabilities and limitations of the FSTD used for UPRT, based on the applicable FSTD training envelope;

(5) are aware of the potential of negative transfer of training that may exist when training outside the capabilities of the FSTD;

(6) understand and are able to use the IOS of the FSTD in the context of effective UPRT delivery;

(7) understand and are able to use the FSTD instructor tools available for providing accurate feedback on flight crew performance;

(8) understand the importance of adhering to the FSTD UPRT scenarios that have been validated by the training programme developer; and

(9) understand the missing critical human factor aspects due to the limitations of the FSTD and convey this to the flight crew receiving the training.

ORO.FC.230 Recurrent training and checking

Regulation (EU) 2021/2237

(a) Each flight crew member shall complete recurrent training and checking relevant to the type or variant, and associated equipment of aircraft on which they operate.

(b) Operator proficiency check

(1) Each flight crew member shall complete operator proficiency checks as part of the normal crew complement.

(2) When the flight crew member will be required to operate under IFR, the operator proficiency check shall be conducted without external visual reference, as appropriate.

(3) The validity period of the operator proficiency check shall be 6 calendar months. For operations under VFR by day of performance class B aeroplanes that are conducted during seasons not longer than 8 consecutive months, one operator proficiency check shall be sufficient. The proficiency check shall be undertaken before commencing CAT operations.

(c) Line check

Each flight crew member shall complete a line check on the aircraft. The validity period of the line check shall be 12 calendar months.

(d) Emergency and safety equipment training and checking

Each flight crew member shall complete recurrent training and checking on the location and use of all emergency and safety equipment carried on board the aircraft. The validity period of an emergency and safety equipment training and checking shall be 12 calendar months.

(e) CRM training

(1) Elements of CRM shall be integrated into all appropriate phases of the recurrent training.

(2) Each flight crew member shall undergo specific modular CRM training. All major topics of CRM training shall be covered by distributing modular training sessions as evenly as possible over each 3-year period.

(f) Each flight crew member shall undergo ground training and flight training in an FSTD or an aircraft, or a combination of FSTD and aircraft training, at least every 12 calendar months.

AMC1 ORO.FC.230 Recurrent training and checking

ED Decision 2022/014/R

RECURRENT TRAINING AND CHECKING SYLLABUS

(a) Recurrent training

Recurrent training should comprise the following:

(1) Ground training

(i) The ground training programme should include:

(A) aircraft systems;

(B) normal procedures, which include flight planning and ground-handling and flight operations, including performance, mass and balance, fuel schemes, selection of alternates, and ground de-icing/anti-icing;

(C) abnormal and emergency procedures, which include pilot incapacitation as applicable;

(D) a review of relevant samples of accident/incident and occurrences to increase awareness of the occurrences that may be relevant for the intended operation.

(ii) Knowledge of the ground training should be verified by a questionnaire or other suitable methods.

(2) Emergency and safety equipment training

(i) Emergency and safety equipment training may be combined with emergency and safety equipment checking and should be conducted in an aircraft or a suitable alternative training device.

(ii) Every year the emergency and safety equipment training programme should include the following:

(A) actual donning of a life-jacket, where fitted;

(B) actual donning of protective breathing equipment, where fitted;

(C) actual handling of fire extinguishers of the type used;

(D) instruction on the location and use of all emergency and safety equipment carried on the aircraft;

(E) instruction on the location and use of all types of exits;

(F) security procedures.

(iii) Every 3 years the programme of training should include the following:

(A) actual operation of all types of exits;

(B) demonstration of the method used to operate a slide where fitted;

(C) actual fire-fighting using equipment representative of that carried in the aircraft on an actual or simulated fire except that, with Halon extinguishers, an alternative extinguisher may be used;

(D) the effects of smoke in an enclosed area and actual use of all relevant equipment in a simulated smoke-filled environment;

(E) actual handling of pyrotechnics, real or simulated, where applicable;

(F) demonstration in the use of the life-rafts where fitted. In the case of helicopters involved in extended over water operations, demonstration and use of the life-rafts.

Helicopter water survival training

Where life-rafts are fitted for helicopter extended overwater operations (such as sea pilot transfer, offshore operations, regular, or scheduled, coast-to-coast overwater operations), a comprehensive wet drill to cover all ditching procedures should be practised by aircraft crew. This wet drill should include, as appropriate, practice of the actual donning and inflation of a life-jacket, together with a demonstration or audio-visual presentation of the inflation of life-rafts. Crews should board the same (or similar) life-rafts from the water whilst wearing a life-jacket. Training should include the use of all survival equipment carried on board life-rafts and any additional survival equipment carried separately on board the aircraft;

—             consideration should be given to the provision of further specialist training such as underwater escape training. Where operations are predominately conducted offshore, operators should conduct 3-yearly helicopter underwater escape training at an appropriate facility;

—             wet practice drill should always be given in initial training unless the crew member concerned has received similar training provided by another operator;

(G) particularly in the case where no cabin crew is required, first-aid, appropriate to the aircraft type, the kind of operation and crew complement.

(iv) The successful resolution of aircraft emergencies requires interaction between flight crew and cabin/technical crew and emphasis should be placed on the importance of effective coordination and two-way communication between all crew members in various emergency situations.

(v) Emergency and safety equipment training should include joint practice in aircraft evacuations so that all who are involved are aware of the duties other crew members should perform. When such practice is not possible, combined flight crew and cabin/technical crew training should include joint discussion of emergency scenarios.

(vi) Emergency and safety equipment training should, as far as practicable, take place in conjunction with cabin/technical crew undergoing similar training with emphasis on coordinated procedures and two-way communication between the flight crew compartment and the cabin.

(3) CRM

Elements of CRM training, as specified in Table 1 of AMC1 ORO.FC.115, should be integrated into all appropriate phases of recurrent training.

(4) Aircraft/FSTD training

(i) General

(A) The aircraft/FSTD training programme should be established in a way that all major failures of aircraft systems and associated procedures will have been trained in the preceding 3-year period.

(B) When engine-out manoeuvres are carried out in an aircraft, the engine failure should be simulated.

(C) The recurrent aircraft/FSTD training of a single task or manoeuvre should be separate from, and should not take place at the same time as, an operator proficiency check of the item.

(ii) Helicopters

(A) If the operator is able to demonstrate, on the basis of a compliance and risk assessment, that alternating the use of an FSTD with the use of an aircraft for this training provides equivalent standards of training with safety levels similar to those achieved using an FSTD, the aircraft may be used (alternating with the use of an FSTD) for this training to the extent necessary.

(B) Where a suitable FSTD is available and accessible, it should be used to complete the following additional items:

—             settling with power and vortex ring;

—             loss of tail rotor effectiveness.

(5) For operations with other-than-complex motor-powered aeroplanes, all training and checking should be relevant to the type of operation and class of aeroplane on which the flight crew member operates with due account taken of any specialised equipment used.

(b) Recurrent checking

Recurrent checking should comprise the following:

(1) Operator proficiency checks

(i) Aeroplanes

 Operator proficiency checks should take place as part of the normal crew complement and should include, where applicable, the following manoeuvres as pilot flying:

(A) rejected take-off when an FSTD is available to represent that specific aeroplane, otherwise touch drills only;

(B) take-off with engine failure between V1 and V2 (take-off safety speed) or, if carried out in an aeroplane, at a safe speed above V2;

(C) 3D approach operation to minima with, in the case of multi-engined aeroplanes, one-engine-inoperative;

(D) 2D approach operation to minima;

(E) at least one of the 3D or 2D approach operations should be an RNP APCH or RNP AR APCH operation;

(F) missed approach on instruments from minima with, in the case of multi-engined aeroplanes, one-engine-inoperative;

(G) landing with one-engine-inoperative. For single-engined aeroplanes, a practice forced landing is required.

(ii) Helicopters

(A) The aircraft/FSTD checking programme should be established in a way that all major failures of aircraft systems and associated procedures will have been checked in the preceding 3-year period.

The operator should define which failures are major for the purpose of the operator proficiency check based on a risk assessment, taking the following into account:

(a) cautions or warnings associated with the failure;

(b) the criticality of the situation or failure;

(c) the outcome of the procedure (land immediately or as soon as possible as opposed to land as soon as practical);

(d) when available, manufacturer documentation; and

(e) the list of abnormal/emergency procedures described in point (e)(1) of AMC1 ORO.FC.220.

In addition, for single-engined helicopters, each operator proficiency check should include at least the following procedures:

(f) engine failure;

(g) directional control failures and malfunctions; and

(h) hydraulic failure as applicable.

(B) When a group of single-engine turbine or single-engine piston helicopter types is defined for the purpose of extending the validity of the operator proficiency check, all major system failures should nevertheless be checked on every type within a 3-year cycle unless credits related to the training, checking and recent experience requirements are defined in the operational suitability data established in accordance with Commission Regulation (EU) No 748/2012 for the relevant types or variants.

(C) For pilots required to engage in IFR operations, proficiency checks include the following additional normal/abnormal/emergency procedures:

—             3D approach operation to minima;

—             go-around on instruments;

—             2D approach operation to minima;

—             if relevant, at least one of the 3D or 2D approach operations should be an RNP APCH or RNP AR APCH operation;

—             in the case of multi-engined helicopters, a simulated failure of one engine to be included in either the 3D or 2D approach operation to minima;

—             where appropriate to the helicopter type, approach with flight control system/flight director system malfunctions, flight instrument and navigation equipment failures.

(D) Before a flight crew member without a valid instrument rating is allowed to operate in VMC at night, they should be required to undergo a proficiency check at night. Thereafter, each second proficiency check should be conducted at night.

(E) Operator proficiency checks should be conducted with two qualified pilots in multi-pilot operations, and one qualified pilot in single-pilot operations. A pilot flying both single-pilot and multi-pilot operations should be checked in multi-pilot conditions with the essential malfunctions or manoeuvres below being also checked in the single-pilot role:

(a) at least two abnormal or emergency manoeuvres relevant to the type based on a risk assessment;

(b) one instrument approach for IFR operations.

(F) The flight crew should be assessed on their CRM skills in accordance with the methodology described in AMC1 and AMC2 ORO.FC.115 and as specified in the operations manual.

(G) If the operator is able to demonstrate, on the basis of a compliance and risk assessment, that alternating the use of an FSTD with the use of an aircraft for this training provides equivalent standards of checking with safety levels similar to those achieved using an FSTD, the aircraft may be used (alternating with the use of an FSTD) for this checking to the extent necessary.

(iii) The checks prescribed in (b)(1) may be combined with the skill test or proficiency check required for the issue, the revalidation or renewal of the aircraft type rating and with the skill test required for the issue of the ATPL licence.

(2) Emergency and safety equipment checks

The items to be checked should be those for which training has been carried out in accordance with (a)(2).

(3) Line checks

(i) A line check should establish the ability to perform satisfactorily a complete line operation, including pre-flight and post-flight procedures and use of the equipment provided, as specified in the operations manual. The route chosen should be such as to give adequate representation of the scope of a pilot’s normal operations. When weather conditions preclude a manual landing, an automatic landing is acceptable. The commander, or any pilot who may be required to relieve the commander, should also demonstrate their ability to ‘manage’ the operation and take appropriate command decisions.

(ii) The flight crew should be assessed on their CRM skills in accordance with the methodology described in AMC1 ORO.FC.115 and as specified in the operations manual.

(iii) CRM assessment should not be used as a reason for a failure of the line check, unless the observed behaviour could lead to an unacceptable reduction in safety margin.

(iv) When pilots are assigned duties as pilot flying and pilot monitoring, they should be checked in both functions.

(v) A line check should be conducted by a commander nominated by the operator. The operator should maintain a list of nominated commanders and inform the competent authority about the persons nominated. The person conducting the line check should occupy an observer’s seat where installed.

(A) For aeroplanes, in the case of long-haul operations where additional operating flight crew are carried, the person conducting the line check may fulfil the function of a cruise relief pilot and should not occupy either pilot’s seat during take-off, departure, initial cruise, descent, approach and landing.

(B) If an observer’s seat is not installed but a forward-facing passenger seat allows a good view and sound of the cockpit and the crew, this seat should be used as an observer’s seat.

(C) If an observer’s seat is not available and cannot be installed, the commander nominated by the operator should occupy a pilot seat to conduct the line check.

(vi) CRM assessment during the line check

(A) The CRM assessment taking place during the line check should be solely based on observations made during the initial briefing, cabin briefing, flight crew compartment briefing and those phases where the line checker occupies the observer’s seat.

(B) If an observer’s seat is not available and cannot be installed, then the operator should define the best way to assess CRM taking into account the CRM principles above.

(vii) Complementary CRM assessment

 If a suitable FSTD is available and accessible for operator proficiency checks or FSTD training, then a CRM assessment should take place in a line-oriented flight scenario (LOFT or line-oriented section of the OPC) of an FSTD session. This assessment complements the CRM assessment taking place during the line check, but is not part of the line check.

(viii) Where a pilot is required to operate as pilot flying and pilot monitoring, they should be checked on one flight sector as pilot flying and on another flight sector as pilot monitoring.

(4) In the case of single-pilot operations, the recurrent checks referred to in (b)(1) and (3) should be performed in the single-pilot role in an environment representative of the operation.

(c) Flight crew incapacitation training, except single-pilot operations

(1) Procedures should be established to train flight crew to recognise and handle flight crew incapacitation. This training should be conducted every year and can form part of other recurrent training. It should take the form of classroom instruction, discussion, audio-visual presentation or other similar means.

(2) If an FSTD is available for the type of aircraft operated, practical training on flight crew incapacitation should be carried out at intervals not exceeding 3 years.

(d) Use of FSTD

(1) Training and checking provide an opportunity to practise abnormal/emergency procedures that rarely arise in normal operations and should be part of a structured programme of recurrent training. This should be carried out in an FSTD when available and accessible.

(2) The line check should be performed in the aircraft. All other training and checking should be performed in an FSTD, or, if it is not reasonably practicable to gain access to such devices, in an aircraft of the same type or in the case of emergency and safety equipment training, in a representative training device. The type of equipment used for training and checking should be representative of the instrumentation, equipment and layout of the aircraft type operated by the flight crew member.

(3) Because of the unacceptable risk when simulating emergencies such as engine failure, icing problems, certain types of engine(s) (e.g. during continued take-off or go-around, total hydraulic failure), or because of environmental considerations associated with some emergencies (e.g. fuel dumping) these emergencies should preferably be covered in an FSTD. If no FSTD is available, these emergencies may be covered in the aircraft using a safe airborne simulation, bearing in mind the effect of any subsequent failure, and the exercise must be preceded by a comprehensive briefing.

AMC2 ORO.FC.230 Recurrent training and checking

ED Decision 2014/017/R

FLIGHT ENGINEERS

(a) The recurrent training and checking for flight engineers should meet the requirements for pilots and any additional specific duties, omitting those items that do not apply to flight engineers.

(b) Recurrent training and checking for flight engineers should, whenever possible, take place concurrently with a pilot undergoing recurrent training and checking.

(c) The line check should be conducted by a commander or by a flight engineer nominated by the operator, in accordance with national rules, if applicable.

AMC3 ORO.FC.230 Recurrent training and checking

ED Decision 2022/014/R

TRAINING PROGRAMMES

The operator should ensure that training programmes include the relevant de-identified feedback from the management system, including occurrence reporting and flight data monitoring programmes.

GM1 ORO.FC.230 Recurrent training and checking

ED Decision 2022/014/R

LINE CHECK AND PROFICIENCY TRAINING AND CHECKING

(a) Line checks, route and aerodrome knowledge and recent experience requirements are intended to ensure the crew member’s ability to operate efficiently under normal conditions, whereas other checks and emergency and safety equipment training are primarily intended to prepare the crew member for abnormal/emergency procedures.

(b) The line check is considered a particularly important factor in the development, maintenance and refinement of high operating standards, and can provide the operator with a valuable indication of the usefulness of its training policy and methods. Line checks are a test of a flight crew member’s ability to perform a complete line operation, including pre-flight and post-flight procedures and use of the equipment provided, and an opportunity for an overall assessment of their ability to perform the duties required as specified in the operations manual. The line check is not intended to determine knowledge on any particular route.

(c) Proficiency training and checking

When an FSTD is used, the opportunity should be taken, where possible, to use LOFT.

MAJOR FAILURES — HELICOPTERS

(d) The list of major failures as defined by the operator in AMC1 ORO.FC.230 for the purpose of training may be more extensive than the list covered in the 3-yearly operator proficiency checking programme for the following reasons:

(1) It may happen that several training elements are covered by a single check; and

(2) Certain complex system malfunctions are best explored under recurrent training, where the trainee will derive more benefit and training to proficiency is also employed.

GM1 ORO.FC.230(a);(b);(f) Recurrent training and checking

ED Decision 2021/002/R

MIXED EVIDENCE-BASED RECURRENT TRAINING AND CHECKING OF FLIGHT CREW CONDUCTED IN FLIGHT SIMULATION TRAINING DEVICES (FSTDs)

ICAO has developed Doc 9995 ‘Manual of Evidence-based Training’, followed by the EASA EBT manual, which is intended to provide guidance to the competent authorities, operators and approved training organisations on the recurrent assessment and training of pilots by establishing a new methodology for the development and conduct of a recurrent assessment and training programme, titled evidence-based training (EBT).

ICAO Doc 9995 and the EASA EBT manual are the reference documents for operators seeking to implement mixed EBT. The purpose of this guidance material (GM) is to enable the implementation of mixed EBT according to the principles established in ICAO Doc 9995 and the EASA EBT manual in the context of the European regulatory framework.

In the current regulatory framework, it is possible to achieve mixed EBT implementation. Implementation of a mixed EBT programme means that some portion of the recurrent assessment and training is dedicated to the application of EBT. This includes the licence proficiency check (LPC) and the operator proficiency check (OPC).

As it is possible to combine LPC and OPC in ORO.FC, this GM is applicable to both checks. Therefore, the EBT programme described in this GM refers to the recurrent training and checking of flight crew, including LPCs and OPCs.

The EBT programme takes into account the differences between aircraft of different generations and the effect of these differences on training. The operator should acquire a thorough knowledge of ICAO Doc 9995 or the EASA EBT manual before implementing this GM. For applicability, see ICAO Doc 9995 or the EASA tables of applicable aeroplane/helicopter types by generation.

Mixed EBT programme

The operator may undertake implementation of the mixed EBT programme according to this GM. The ICAO table of assessment and training topics is defined in ICAO Doc 9995 Chapter 4.3.1 and in Appendices 2 to 7; the EASA EBT programme is defined in AMC2 to AMC7 to ORO.FC.232.

The mixed EBT programme provides operators with the flexibility to adapt programmes according to their specific risks.

The operator should contact the competent authority in order for them to assess the application of the process described in ICAO Doc 9995 or the EBT manual.

Personnel providing training and checking in EBT (Refers to AMC1 ORO.FC.230(d))

ICAO Doc 9995 Chapter 6, or EASA AMC1 and AMC2 to ORO.FC.146(c), contain(s) the guidance for the assessment and training of personnel involved in the conduct of EBT.

Equivalency of malfunctions (Refers to ICAO Doc 9995 Paragraph 3.8.3)

According to the concept of EASA and ICAO Doc 9995 Chapter 3.8.3, major failures reduce the capability of the aircraft or the ability of the crew to cope with operating conditions to the extent that there would be a significant reduction in functional capabilities, significant increase in crew workload or in conditions impairing crew efficiency.

Clusters of major failures of aircraft systems are determined by reference to malfunction characteristics and the underlying elements of crew performance required to manage them. Equivalency of malfunctions may be used to guide the operator towards the implementation of a mixed EBT programme according to AMC1 ORO.FC.230(a)(4)(i)(A) and ORO.FC.145(d).

Conduct of licence and operator proficiency checks

The EASA EBT programme described in ORO.FC.231 and the ICAO EBT programme described in ICAO Doc 9995 contains modules with three phases: the EVAL, the MT, and the SBT. In order to comply with the regulatory framework, in the mixed EBT programme the LPC and OPC requirements are fulfilled by a combination of the EVAL and the manoeuvres validation phase, which replaces the MT described in the EASA EBT programme or ICAO Doc 9995. The manoeuvres validation phase is defined in Section 2 below. This is a form of mixed EBT implementation, which is described as follows:

1. Evaluation phase: This includes check scenarios referred to in Part-FCL Appendix 9 within an approved mixed EBT programme.

 In order to facilitate the provision of simple and realistic scenarios in accordance with ICAO Doc 9995 Chapters 3.8 and 7.4, the EVAL is not intended to be a comprehensive assessment of all Part-FCL Appendix 9 items; nevertheless, the list below includes the items that should be included in the EVAL only.

2. Manoeuvres validation phase: The purpose of the manoeuvres validation phase is to check the handling skills necessary to fly critical flight manoeuvres so that they are maintained to a defined level of proficiency. This replaces the MT described in ICAO Doc 9995 Chapter 7.5 and ORO.FC.231(a)(2)(iv)(B)(a). Manoeuvres in this context are not part of the line-orientated flight scenario; they are a sequence of deliberate actions to achieve a prescribed flight path or to perform a prescribed event to a prescribed outcome. All remaining items listed in Part-FCL Appendix 9, and not included in the EVAL, should be included here. The manoeuvres listed in Doc 9995 or the EASA table of assessment and training topics for the MT that do not form part of the Part-FCL Appendix 9 mandatory items may be trained after the manoeuvres validation phase.

3. Scenario-based training phase: The purpose of the SBT is to further develop pilot core competencies in a learning environment. This does not form part of any LPC or OPC requirement.

It should be noted that if the operator is following an alternative means of compliance to ORO.FC.230 (b) Operator proficiency check, the equivalence of using EBT evaluation and manoeuvres validation phases may no longer exist.

Conduct of CRM assessment

The operator is advised to use the EBT grading system (AMC1 ORO.FC.231(d)(1)) and the EBT competencies (AMC1 ORO.FC.231(b)) for the non-technical skills assessment.

Additional guidance on mixed EBT implementation is available in the EASA checklist ‘Oversight guidance for transition to Mixed EBT Implementation’.

ORO.FC.231 Evidence-based training

Regulation (EU) 2020/2036

(a) EBT PROGRAMME

(1) The operator may substitute the requirements of ORO.FC.230 by establishing, implementing and maintaining a suitable EBT programme approved by the competent authority.

 The operator shall demonstrate its capability to support the implementation of the EBT programme (including an implementation plan) and perform a safety risk assessment demonstrating how an equivalent level of safety is achieved.

(2) The EBT programme shall:

(i) correspond to the size of the operator, and the nature and complexity of its activities, taking into account the hazards and associated risks inherent in those activities;

(ii) ensure pilot competence by assessing and developing pilot competencies required for a safe, effective and efficient operation of aircraft;

(iii) ensure that each pilot is exposed to the assessment and training topics derived in accordance with ORO.FC.232;

(iv) include at least six EBT modules distributed across a 3-year programme; each EBT module shall consist of an evaluation phase and a training phase. The validity period of a EBT module shall be 12 months;

(A) The evaluation phase comprises a line-orientated flight scenario (or scenarios) to assess all competencies and identify individual training needs.

(B)  The training phase comprises:

(a) the manoeuvres training phase, comprising training to proficiency in certain defined manoeuvres;

(b) the scenario-based training phase, comprising a line-orientated flight scenario (or scenarios) to develop competencies and address individual training needs.

The training phase shall be conducted in a timely manner after the evaluation phase.

(3) The operator shall ensure that each pilot enrolled in the EBT programme completes:

(i) a minimum of two EBT modules within the validity period of the type rating, separated by a period of not less than 3 months. The EBT module is completed when:

(A) the content of the EBT programme is completed for that EBT module (exposure of the pilot to the assessment and training topics); and

(B) an acceptable level of performance in all observed competencies has been demonstrated;

(ii) line evaluation(s) of competence; and

(iii) ground training.

(4) The operator shall establish an EBT instructor standardisation and concordance assurance programme to ensure that the instructors involved in EBT are properly qualified to perform their tasks.

(i) All instructors must be subject to this programme;

(ii) The operator shall use appropriate methods and metrics to assess concordance;

(iii) The operator shall demonstrate that the instructors have sufficient concordance.

(5) The EBT programme may include contingency procedures for unforeseen circumstances that could affect the delivery of the EBT modules. The operator shall demonstrate the need for those procedures. The procedures shall ensure that a pilot does not continue line operations if the performance observed was below the minimum acceptable level. They may include:

(i) a different separation period between EBT modules; and

(ii) different order of the phases of the EBT module.

(b) COMPETENCY FRAMEWORK

The operator shall use a competency framework for all aspects of assessment and training within an EBT programme. The competency framework shall:

(1) be comprehensive, accurate, and usable;

(2) include observable behaviours required for safe, effective and efficient operations;

(3) include a defined set of competencies, their descriptions and their associated observable behaviours.

(c) TRAINING SYSTEM PERFORMANCE

(1) The EBT system performance shall be measured and evaluated through a feedback process in order to:

(i) validate and refine the operator’s EBT programme;

(ii) ascertain that the operator’s EBT programme develops pilot competencies.

(2) The feedback process shall be included in the operator’s management system.

(3) The operator shall develop procedures governing the protection of EBT data.

(d) GRADING SYSTEM

(1) The operator shall use a grading system to assess the pilot competencies. The grading system shall ensure:

(i) a sufficient level of detail to enable accurate and useful measurements of individual performance;

(ii) a performance criterion and a scale for each competency, with a point on the scale which determines the minimum acceptable level to be achieved for the conduct of line operations. The operator shall develop procedures to address low performance of the pilot;

(iii) data integrity;

(iv) data security.

(2) The operator shall verify at regular intervals the accuracy of the grading system against a criterion-referenced system.

(e) SUITABLE TRAINING DEVICES AND VOLUME OF HOURS TO COMPLETE THE OPERATOR’S EBT PROGRAMME

(1) Each EBT module shall be conducted in an FSTD with a qualification level adequate to ensure the correct delivery of the assessment and training topics.

(2) The operator shall provide a sufficient volume of hours in the suitable training device for the pilot to complete the operator’s EBT programme. The criteria to determine the volume of the EBT programme are as follows:

(i) The volume corresponds to the size and complexity of the EBT programme;

(ii) The volume is sufficient to complete the EBT programme;

(iii) The volume ensures an effective EBT programme taking into account the recommendations provided by ICAO, the Agency, and the competent authority;

(iv) The volume corresponds to the technology of the training devices used.

(f) EQUIVALENCY OF MALFUNCTIONS

(1) Each pilot shall receive assessment and training in the management of aircraft system malfunctions.

(2) Aircraft system malfunctions that place a significant demand on a proficient crew shall be organised by reference to the following characteristics:

(i) immediacy;

(ii) complexity;

(iii) degradation of aircraft control;

(iv) loss of instrumentation;

(v) management of consequences.

(3) Each pilot shall be exposed to at least one malfunction for each characteristic at the frequency determined by the table of assessment and training topics.

(4) Demonstrated proficiency in the management of one malfunction is considered equivalent to demonstrated proficiency in the management of other malfunctions with the same characteristics.

(g) EQUIVALENCY OF APPROACHES RELEVANT TO OPERATIONS

(1) The operator shall ensure that each pilot receives regular training in the conduct of approach types and approach methods relevant to operations.

(2) This training shall include approaches that place an additional demand on a proficient crew.

(3) This training shall include the approaches that require specific approval in accordance with Annex V (Part-SPA) to this Regulation.

(h) LINE EVALUATION OF COMPETENCE

(1) Each pilot shall periodically undertake a line evaluation of competence in an aircraft to demonstrate the safe, effective and efficient conduct of normal line operations described in the operations manual.

(2) The validity period of a line evaluation of competence shall be 12 months.

(3) The operator approved for EBT may, with the approval of the competent authority, extend the validity of the line evaluation of competence to:

(i) either 2 years, subject to a risk assessment;

(ii) or 3 years, subject to a feedback process for the monitoring of line operations which identifies threats to the operations, minimises the risks of such threats, and implements measures to manage human error in the operations.

(4) For successful completion of the line evaluation of competence, the pilot shall demonstrate an acceptable level of performance in all observed competencies.

(i) GROUND TRAINING

(1) Every 12 calendar months, each pilot shall undergo:

(i) technical ground training;

(ii) assessment and training on the location and use of all emergency and safety equipment carried on the aircraft.

(2) The operator may, with the approval of the competent authority and subject to a risk assessment, extend the period of assessment and training on the location and use of all emergency and safety equipment carried on the aircraft to 24 months.

AMC1 ORO.FC.231(a) Evidence-based training

ED Decision 2021/002/R

EBT PROGRAMME SUITABILITY

An operator’s EBT programme is one in which:

(a) training is focused on development of competencies, rather than repetition of tasks;

(b) the development of the programme is based on data-driven EBT training topics with a link to the operator’s competency framework;

(c) training needs are addressed through training based on underlying competencies;

(d) the programme includes:

(1) an evaluation phase to identify training needs based on competencies and collect population-based data; to identify the training needs means, the root cause of the deficiency observed should be identified rather than the symptoms of the deficiency;

(2) a manoeuvres training phase (skill retention): to train skill-based manoeuvres (body memory actions). These manoeuvres should place a significant demand on a proficient pilot; and

(3) a scenario-based training phase to focus on identified training needs based on competencies rather than repetition of tasks;

(e) the programme includes the conduct of objective observations based on a competency framework, and documents evidence of the behaviour observed;

(f) there is a customisation of syllabi:

(1) The operator should describe in the operations manual the procedure to customise syllabi. It should include how to:

(i) select the example scenario elements within a training topic that should be included in the EBT programme; and

(ii) contextualise the example scenario elements based on the operator’s operational data (e.g. input from SMS, FDM programme, etc.) and training data.

(2) This customisation should be based on evidence both internal and external to the operator;

(g) performance is evaluated using a competency-based grading system;

(h) instructors grade competencies based on observable behaviours (OBs);

(i) instructors grade the pilot using a defined methodology — observe, record, classify and assess/evaluate (ORCA) is recommended;

(j) instructors have completed the EBT instructor standardisation;

(k) instructors have sufficient concordance based on defined criteria (instructor concordance assurance programme);

(l) the analysis of the pilot's performance is used to determine competency-based training needs;

(m) there is a range of teaching styles during simulator training to accommodate trainee learning needs; and

(n) facilitation techniques in debriefing are incorporated.

AMC2 ORO.FC.231(a) Evidence-based training

ED Decision 2021/002/R

UPSET PREVENTION AND RECOVERY TRAINING (UPRT) FOR COMPLEX MOTOR-POWERED AEROPLANES WITH A MAXIMUM OPERATIONAL PASSENGER SEATING CONFIGURATION (MOPSC) OF MORE THAN 19

Operators approved for EBT should follow the provisions for upset prevention and recovery training (UPRT) contained in AMC1 ORO.FC.220&230 ‘Operator conversion training and checking & recurrent training and checking’. These provisions should be included in the tables of assessment and training topics detailed in ORO.FC.232.

AMC3 ORO.FC.231(a) Evidence-based training

ED Decision 2021/002/R

PERSONNEL CONDUCTING ASSESSMENT AND PROVIDING TRAINING

(a) Ground and refresher training should be provided by suitably qualified personnel.

(b) For non-EBT assessment and training: flight training should be provided by a flight instructor (FI), type rating instructor (TRI) or class rating instructor (CRI) or, in the case of the FSTD content, a synthetic flight instructor (SFI). The FI, TRI, CRI or SFI should satisfy the operator's standardisation, experience and knowledge requirements.

(c) Emergency and safety equipment training should be provided by suitably qualified personnel.

(d) CRM training should be provided by an EBT instructor or, for the classroom CRM training, a CRM trainer.

(e) Additional personnel requirements are described in ORO.FC.146 and ORO.FC.231 and in the associated AMC and GM.

GM1 ORO.FC.231(a) Evidence-based training

ED Decision 2021/002/R

RECURRENT CREW RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (CRM)

Operators implementing EBT in accordance with ORO.FC.231 may demonstrate compliance with ORO.FC.115 by showing how the recurrent CRM requirements are integrated within the operator’s EBT programme. An example of how this may be done is provided in the safety promotion material of EASA (e.g. ‘EASA EBT manual´).

GM2 ORO.FC.231(a) Evidence-based training

ED Decision 2021/002/R

EBT PROGRAMME — TRANSITION FROM MIXED EBT

The operator may agree with the competent authority the transition measures from mixed EBT to EBT baseline, which may include amongst others that the 3-year programme may include one or more modules in mixed EBT and one or more modules in EBT baseline, provided that all assessment and training topics in ORO.FC.232 are completed in the 3-year programme.

GM3 ORO.FC.231(a) Evidence-based training

ED Decision 2022/014/R

CUSTOMISATION OF THE EBT PROGRAMME (SYLLABI)

(a) Syllabi can be customised at three different steps:

(1) The first step would be a syllabus for the whole pilots’ population (customisation only at type rating level and/or aircraft generation level). At this step, the operator customises the example scenario elements based on relevant operational data (safety management system, state safety plan, OSD, occurrences, manufacturer data, etc.), and the training topics within the module are the same (same syllabus). At this level, it may be necessary to have a different example scenario element for the different crews within the same module to ensure that pilots are exposed to surprise and unexpected events and thus avoid pilots knowing all the details of the simulator session beforehand.

(2) The second step would be a different syllabus or part of it for the different populations of pilots. For example, some parts of the syllabus are different for the co-pilot and the captain, or the syllabus is different for the B747 pilots or for the Airbus pilots, etc. At this step, the module or part of the module is different for each population; this may include a different example scenario element for each population (or a different training topic; however, the customisation at training topic level is more difficult to control).

(3) The third step would be syllabi tailored to the individual pilot (pilot customisation — individual syllabus). This step is linked to the procedures established for the tailored training and the additional training of the pilots following the VENN model.

(b) The procedure to describe the customisation of syllabi must be described in the OM. Customisation is based on evidence that can be gathered on three different levels, two from the inner loop, one from the outer loop.

(1) Inner loop

(i) Individual evidence based on training data (e.g. grading metrics, training reports, questionnaires, etc.), analysed either for an individual pilot or a group of pilots (for example, all co-pilots, all B747 pilots, all pilots flying an Airbus model, etc.).

(ii) Operator-specific evidence gathered through the safety management process in accordance with ORO.GEN.200.

(2) Outer loop

 Evidence gathered from external sources such as authorities (e.g. state safety plan, etc.), OEMs (e.g. OEBs, OSD, safety documentation such as getting to grip, etc.

GM4 ORO.FC.231(a) Evidence-based training

ED Decision 2021/002/R

EBT PROGRAMME

Further guidance on the EBT programme can be found in the EASA EBT manual.

AMC1 ORO.FC.231(a)(1) Evidence-based training

ED Decision 2021/002/R

EXPERIENCE IN MIXED EBT TO SUBSTITUTE ORO.FC.230

(a) The operator should have a minimum experience of 3 years of a mixed EBT programme. Note: More information on a mixed EBT programme is provided in GM1 ORO.FC.230(a);(b);(f) and in GM2 ORO.FC.A.245.

(b) The operator should demonstrate 2 years of an instructor concordance assurance programme.

(c) The operator should demonstrate 1 year of a valid equivalency of malfunctions.

(d) The operator should demonstrate 1 year of integration of the training data in the customisation of the EBT programme and SMS data for the contextualisation of the example scenario elements.

(e) The operator should demonstrate that there is a verification of the grading system and feedback is provided to the training system performance and to the instructor standardisation concordance assurance.

SUBSTITUTION OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF ORO.FC.230

(f) One complete EBT module substitutes one operator proficiency check (OPC).

(g) The line evaluation of competence substitutes the line check.

AMC1 ORO.FC.231(a)(2) Evidence-based training

ED Decision 2021/002/R

EBT PROGRAMME AND ASSSESMENT AND TRAINING TOPICS — RESILIENCE

(a) Compliance with the table of assessment and training topics ensures that crews are presented with an array of realistic changing events that allow for resilience development purposes.

(b) The EBT programme should be designed observing the following principles for resilience development:

(1) Resilience, surprise, and unexpected events

  The EBT programme should be designed in such a way that in every cycle the simulator session (or part of it) allows variations so that the pilots are not familiar with the scenarios presented in the simulator session. Variations should be the focus of EBT programme design, and should not be left to the discretion of individual instructors, in order to preserve programme integrity and fairness.

(2) Resilience and decision-making (dilemma)

  The EBT programme should be designed in such a way that in every cycle the crews are exposed to a scenario where more than one possible and less than ideal solutions exist, with some unfavourable conditions attached to each solution.

AMC2 ORO.FC.231(a)(2) Evidence-based training

ED Decision 2021/002/R

VALIDITY OF THE EBT MODULE

(a) The validity period should be counted from the end of the month when the module was completed. When the module is undertaken within the last 3 months of the validity period, the new validity period should be counted from the original expiry date.

(b) In the context of ORO.FC.130 point (a), the pilot should have a valid module.

GM1 ORO.FC.231(a)(2) Evidence-based training

ED Decision 2021/002/R

EBT PROGRAMME AND ASSSESMENT AND TRAINING TOPICS — RESILIENCE

(a) For resilience development, crews should be exposed to an array of realistic changing scenarios. The strategies developed by the crews whilst coping with different causes of action will create opportunities for resilience development.

(b) Resilience and surprise

 The operator may create a comprehensive list of scenarios to ensure that each crew is trained in different scenarios avoiding the same scenarios for all crews. This relates to training topic ‘surprise’ and to the customisation of the EBT programme.

(c) Resilience and unexpected events

 Exposing crews to rare, fortuitous, events may prepare crews to deal with other unexpected events. For instance, the table of assessment and training topics offers infrequent example scenario elements such as flying over ‘no fly zone’, etc. The operator may also take infrequent examples from occurrence reporting, or SMS, or manufacturer reports, etc. This relates to decision-making (PSD) — see OB 6.9 ‘Demonstrates resilience when encountering an unexpected event’.

(d) Dilemma

 The operator may create scenarios suitable for training of threat assessment, threat management processes and option generation, leading to an optimum decision-making process. At programme design, as in real life, one ‘correct answer’ should be avoided; instead, the EBT programme should offer the crews a number of less than ideal courses of actions; some with unfavourable conditions attached. This relates to decision-making (PSD) and to the contextualisation of the example scenario element.

GM2 ORO.FC.231(a)(2) Evidence-based training

ED Decision 2021/002/R

EBT PROGRAMME —TRAINING PHASE — IN-SEAT INSTRUCTION (ISI)

(a) Effective monitoring and error detection are increasingly important when operating highly reliable automated aircraft.

(b) In-seat instruction may be used as a valuable tool to maintain and develop the training objectives of some of the training topics, such as skills of monitoring, cross-checking, error management, and recognition of mismanaged aircraft state.

GM3 ORO.FC.231(a)(2) Evidence-based training

ED Decision 2022/014/R

EBT PROGRAMME — ORDER OF THE PHASES

The order of the phases is intended as follows:

(a) First, the EVAL; and

(b) Second, and in a timely manner after the EVAL, the training phases. The training phases are the MT and the SBT and may be delivered in any order.

Further guidance can be found in the EASA EBT manual.

AMC1 ORO.FC.231(a)(3) Evidence-based training

ED Decision 2021/002/R

EBT PROGRAMME — ENROLMENT

(a) Enrolment is when a flight crew member commences the first EBT module.

(b) A flight crew member is considered to leave the operator’s EBT programme (de-enrolled) when the operator is no longer responsible for the administrative action for the flight crew’s licence revalidation under an EBT programme.

(c) The operator should inform the flight crew members who fail to demonstrate an acceptable level of competence and leave the operator’s EBT programme (de-enrolled) that they should not exercise the privileges of that type rating.

GM1 ORO.FC.231(a)(3) Evidence-based training

ED Decision 2021/002/R

MODULE SEPARATION BY A PERIOD OF NOT LESS THAN 3 MONTHS

(a) The separation begins when the first module finished (end of the training phase) and the second module begins (EVAL).

(b) When the operator decides to do more than two modules during the validity period of the type rating (approximately 1 year), the operator may count the 3 months of separation between the first and the third module if it so wishes.

(c) The separation of 3 months applies even between modules in different validity periods.

AMC1 ORO.FC.231(a)(4) Evidence-based training

ED Decision 2021/002/R

INSTRUCTOR CONCORDANCE ASSURANCE PROGRAMME (ICAP)

(a) The ICAP should be able to identify areas of weak concordance to drive improvement in the quality and validity of the grading system.

(b) The ICAP should be adapted to the size and complexity of the instructors’ group and the complexity of the operator’s EBT programme.

(c) Complex operators should include an ICAP-specific data analysis, demonstrating:

(1) instructor-group assessment homogeneity (agreement);

(2) instructor assessment accuracy (alignment).

(d) The operator should verify the concordance of the instructors:

(1) once every cycle;

(2) for a sufficient number of competency-grade combinations.

(e) The operator should establish procedures to address those instructors who do not meet the standards required.

(f) The operator should maintain a list with the EBT instructors qualified to deliver the EBT programme.

GM1 ORO.FC.231(a)(4) Evidence-based training

ED Decision 2021/002/R

INSTRUCTOR CONCORDANCE ASSURANCE PROGRAMME (ICAP)

(a) Instructor concordance is a tool for continuous improvement of the EBT programme as data reliability results in a more accurate and effective training.

(b) The operator may have a more frequent, or even a continuous, assessment of concordance as it provides more opportunities to improve.

(c) Concordance standards are normally set by the operator; however, the competent authority may recommend criteria, as licences’ revalidation is performed under EBT.

(d) Individual instructor concordance may be verified:

(1) through uniform standardisation material where at least three different levels of performance are included and for all the competencies at a frequency of 72 months;

(2) by reference to the analysis of the data produced by the instructor every 12 months; normalisation may be necessary as there is no homogeneity of all EBT modules and the pilots that the instructor assessed; and

(e) Instructor-group assessment homogeneity (agreement) may be inferred from instructors who have observed the same content.

(f) Instructor assessment accuracy (alignment) may be inferred from comparing instructor assessments with an ‘assessment standard’ consisting of correctly identified competency(-ies) and correctly identified grade levels. Neither the competency(-ies) nor the grade level(s) may be communicated in advance to the instructors. The assessment standards may be set by consensus of a standards group, in order to guard against individual biases.

(g) When the operator uses a small group of instructors (e.g. 10), the data-driven concordance assurance programme may be directly integrated into the annual refresher training, removing the need for the above guidance.

(h) Operators with a complex group of instructors (e.g. a big rotation of instructors, subcontracted instructors, big number of instructors, many different fleets, etc.) may need to implement a more extensive concordance assessment system.

AMC1 ORO.FC.231(a)(5) Evidence-based training

ED Decision 2021/002/R

CONTINGENCY PROCEDURES FOR UNFORESEEN CIRCUMSTANCES THAT MAY AFFECT THE DELIVERY OF THE MODULE

(a) The operator should detail in the EBT programme the contingency procedures in the event of unforeseen circumstances that may affect the delivery of the module (e.g. long-term sick pilot).

(b) In case of unforeseen interruption of a module at any point, the missing parts of the module should be rescheduled.

(1) The pilot may continue line flying until the expiry of the validity period unless the performance observed was below the minimum acceptable level.

(2) If the interruption results in an instructor change, the operator should ensure that the instructor completing the module is provided with the details of the performance of the pilots.

(c) In case the pilot misses modules and does not meet the requirements of recent experience (FCL.060):

(1) when the pilot misses one module out of the two modules required, the EVAL of the missing module should be rescheduled before the pilot can resume line operations. The MT and SBT phases of the missing module should be completed 30 days after the EVAL or before the expiry date, whichever occurs first;

(2) when the pilot misses one module in the preceding 12 months but the pilot’s rating is expired by less than 3 months, the missing module should be rescheduled before the pilot can resume line operations;

(3) when the pilot misses one module in the preceding 12 months but the pilot’s rating is expired by longer than 3 months but shorter than 1 year, the missing module should be rescheduled. The evaluation should be delivered by an EBT instructor (or instructors) with examiner privileges before the pilot can resume line operations;

(4) when the pilot misses two modules and the pilot’s rating is valid:

(i) one module should be rescheduled before the pilot can resume line operations using an EBT instructor (or instructors) with examiner privileges; and

(ii) training topics B and C of the other module should be rescheduled before the expiry date.

In such case, the 3-month separation requirement between modules may not apply;

(5) when the pilot misses two modules and the pilot’s rating is expired by less than 1 year:

(i) one module should be rescheduled using an EBT instructor (or instructors) with examiner privileges; and

(ii) training topics B and C of the other module should be rescheduled before the pilot can resume line operations.

In such case, the period of 3-month separation between modules may not apply; and

(6) if the amount of time elapsed since the expiry of the rating is more than 1 year, the pilot is de-enrolled. AMC1 FCL.625(c) ‘IR — Validity, revalidation and renewal’ and AMC1 FCL.740(b)‘Validity and renewal of class and type ratings’ apply.

(d) In the case of other situations not covered by points (b) or (c), point (a) applies.

GM1 ORO.FC.231(a)(5) Evidence-based training

ED Decision 2022/014/R

CONTINGENCY PROCEDURES — RATINGS RENEWAL

(a) The renewal of ratings (e.g. type rating or instrument rating) in EBT follows the Annex I (Part-FCL) to the Aircrew Regulation provisions (IRs and AMC) and is complemented with the provisions covered in AMC1 ORO.FC.231(a)(5). The ATO or the operator will determine the amount of training following Part-FCL; however, as EBT combines assessment and training, the following guidance is applicable:

(1) Expiry shorter than 3 months may not require additional training in Part-FCL. In EBT, the missing module is rescheduled with an EBT instructor. Following that, the EBT manager for the type rating may renew the licence without extra training, as the EBT programme is now completed (at least two modules in the last 12 months).

(2) In Part-FCL, when the expiry is longer than 3 months but shorter than 1 year, there need to be two training sessions. In EBT, there are two cases:

(i) One module is missing: the pilot must complete the missing module (two simulator sessions) before resuming line operations. Following that, the EBT manager for the type rating may renew the licence in accordance with Appendix 10 as the EBT programme is now completed (two modules in the last 12 months).

(ii) Two modules are missing: the pilot must complete one module (two simulator sessions) and training topics B and C of the other missing module (an extra simulator session) with a total of three simulator sessions. Training data is gathered in a short time period; therefore, an EBT instructor with examiner privilege is involved to ensure the proficiency of the pilot.

(b) In case of an expiry longer than 1 year, the requirements of Part-FCL will be followed and the proficiency checks will be performed in accordance with Appendix 9 as the EBT system may not have sufficient training data for the pilot.

Expiry longer than 1 year but shorter than 3 years: a minimum of three training sessions in which the most important malfunctions in the available system are covered plus a proficiency check in accordance with Appendix 9 to renew the licence.

AMC1 ORO.FC.231(b) Evidence-based training

ED Decision 2021/002/R

RECOMMENDED EBT COMPETENCIES (EASA COMPETENCY FRAMEWORK)

(a) The operator should include in its EBT programme at least the following competencies:

AMC2 ORO.FC.231(b) Evidence-based training

ED Decision 2021/002/R

ADAPTED COMPETENCY MODEL

(a) An operator seeking to develop an adapted competency model under ORO.GEN.120 should:

(1) identify positive behaviours and use language that avoids ambiguity; and

(2) demonstrate equivalence to the recommended EBT competencies in AMC1 ORO.FC.231(b).

(b) In order to demonstrate equivalence, the operator should map the competencies and observable behaviours to the recommended EBT competencies.

(c) When the operator is translating AMC1 ORO.FC.231(b) into its common language, the application of ORO.GEN.120 may not be necessary. The translation may not be literal.

GM1 ORO.FC.231(b) Evidence-based training

ED Decision 2021/002/R

ADAPTED COMPETENCY MODEL/POSITIVE OBSERVABLE BEHAVIOUR

(a) OBs should describe behaviours that contribute to positive pilot performance.

(b) The indicators should clearly describe how a competency is expected to be demonstrated by a crew member in the context of the operational environment.

(c) If the operator makes small adjustments in the wording used to describe the OBs of the EASA competency framework in order to improve the understanding of the pilots while maintaining the same meaning, it may be considered as EASA competency framework and not as an adapted competency model.

AMC1 ORO.FC.231(c) Evidence-based training

ED Decision 2022/014/R

TRAINING SYSTEM PERFORMANCE — FEEDBACK PROCESS

(a) Feedback process is the continuous process of collecting and analysing assessment and training data from an EBT programme.

(b) The feedback process should use defined metrics to collect data in order to:

(1) identify trends and ensure corrective action where necessary;

(2) identify collective training needs;

(3) review, adjust and continuously improve the training programme;

(4) further develop the training system; and

(5) standardise the instructors (when the standardisation and concordance assurance programme is integrated into the training system performance).

(c) The following defined metrics should be collected as a minimum:

(1) level 0 grading metrics (competent metrics): data metrics providing the information whether the pilot(s) is (are) competent or not;

(2) level 1 grading metrics (competency metrics): quantifiable data from the grading system — numeric grade of the competencies (e.g. 1 to 5);

(3) level 2 grading metrics (observable behaviour metrics): the instructors record predetermined OBs during the session;

(4) level 3 grading metrics (other metrics): the instructors may record other data (e.g. abstract, specific tasks, actions, questions, etc.).

(d) Alternatively, where a system for the measurement of training system performance already exists, the operator may use it and, if necessary, adapt it to meet the demands of EBT.

AMC2 ORO.FC.231(c) Evidence-based training

ED Decision 2021/002/R

FEEDBACK PROCESS — DATA PROTECTION – GRADING SYSTEM

(a) The objective of protecting the EBT data is to avoid inappropriate use of it in order to ensure the continued availability of such data, to maintain and improve pilot competencies.

(b) The data access and security policy should restrict information access to authorised persons.

(c) The data access and security policy should include the measures to ensure the security of the data (e.g. information security standard).

(d) The data access and security policy (including the procedure to prevent disclosure of crew identity) should be agreed by all parties involved (airline management and flight crew member representatives nominated either by the union or the flight crew themselves).

(e) The data access and security policy should be in line with the organisation safety policy in order to not make available or to not make use of the EBT data to attribute blame or liability.

(f) The operator may integrate the security policy within other management systems already in place (e.g. information security management).

GM1 ORO.FC.231(c) Evidence-based training

ED Decision 2021/002/R

TRAINING SYSTEM PERFORMANCE — FEEDBACK PROCESS — METRICS

(a) Training metrics within the feedback process are a valuable source of data. Typical metrics may include but are not limited to:

(1) differences in success rates between training topics;

(2) the trainees’ feedback (e.g. surveys), which provides a different perspective as to the quality and effectiveness of the training;

(3) instructor concordance assurance: this system is important to measure the effectiveness of the instructor calibration process. It is important to remind that the purpose of this system is not to spy on instructors or to pressure individuals to change their grading;

(4) level 0 grading metrics (competent metrics): Metrics examples: distribution of pilots not competent after the SBT, distribution of pilots not competent in the EVAL and competent after the SBT;

(5) level 1 grading metrics (competency metrics): Metrics examples:

(i) distribution of level of performance within the range of competencies;

(ii) differences in grades between aircraft types;

(6) level 2 grading metrics (observable behaviour metrics): e.g. in specific example scenario elements. Metrics example: differences in displaying OBs between ranks of pilots;

(7) level 3 grading metrics (other metrics such as data based on tasks): for instance, did the pilot calculate the landing distance? Or, did the pilots make a call-out in a specific manoeuvre? This level is usually linked to data collection of the SMS or EBT feedback loop (e.g. was the call-out of the TCAS manoeuvre correct? ‘TCAS I have control’). Metrics example: distribution of errors for various training scenarios and aircraft types.

(8) during the simulator session, the operator may consider the level of grading metrics that the instructor needs to collect, taking into consideration the workload of the instructor.

(b) Training metrics are an invaluable component in supporting an EBT programme, but they must be placed in the context of operational data because only the latter can justify the importance of specific training. For this purpose, data from the line evaluation of competence is important to measure the effectiveness of the EBT programme in operations. It may include data from the process for the monitoring of line operations.

(c) Complex operators may, in the context of their safety management system, establish a safety action group dedicated to training: ‘training safety action group’. This may be a best practice to meet the implementing rule.

GM2 ORO.FC.231(c) Evidence-based training

ED Decision 2021/002/R

FEEDBACK PROCESS — DATA PROTECTION – GRADING SYSTEM

(a) The data access and security policy may, as a minimum, define:

(1) a policy for access to information only to specifically authorised persons identified by their position in order to perform their duties. The required authorised person(s) does (do) not need to be the EBT manager; it could be the EBT programme manager or a third party mutually acceptable to unions or staff and management. The third party may also be in charge of ensuring the correct application of the data access and security policy (e.g. the third party is the one activating the system to allow access to the authorised persons);

(2) the identified data retention policy and accountability;

(3) the measures to ensure that the security of the data includes the information security standard (e.g. information security management systems standard e.g. ISO 2700x-ISO 27001, NIST SP 800-53, etc.);

(4) the method to obtain de-identified crew feedback on those occasions that require specific follow-up; and

(b) When there is a need for data protection, it is preferable to de-identify the data rather than anonymise it.

AMC1 ORO.FC.231(d)(1) Evidence-based training

ED Decision 2021/002/R

GRADING SYSTEM

(a) The grading system should provide quantifiable data for the measurement of the training system performance.

(b) The grading scale should be 1 to 5, where:

(1) Grade 1 — NOT COMPETENT — determines that the minimum acceptable level of performance was not achieved for the conduct of line operations. An outcome of ADDITIONAL TRAINING REQUIRED and level 2 grading metrics should be recorded.

(2) Grade 2 to 5 determine an outcome of COMPETENT for the conduct of line operations.

(3) Grade 2 (below the average) determines that the minimum acceptable level was achieved for the conduct of line operations. Additionally, level 2 grading metrics should be recorded.

  Minimum performance indicates a need for training (e.g. tailored or additional) to elevate performance. It includes:

(i) a competency graded continuously with 2 in multiple modules, or

(ii) the majority of competencies graded with 2 in a module.

(4) Grade 3 is the average.

(5) Grade 4 determines that the pilot is above the average.

(6) Grade 5 (exemplary) determines that the pilot is above the average and the outcome is enhanced safety, effectiveness and efficiency.

(c) The operator should develop further grading guidance to the above points to help the instructors determine the grade of the pilots they assess.

AMC2 ORO.FC.231(d)(1) Evidence-based training

ED Decision 2021/002/R

GRADING SYSTEM — ALTERNATIVE SYSTEM

(a) An operator seeking to develop an alternative grading system under ORO.GEN.120 should:

(1) provide quantifiable data for the measurement of the training system performance; and

(2) demonstrate equivalence to the recommended grading system in AMC1 ORO.FC.231(d)(1).

(b) The grading scale for each competency should:

(1) determine the grade at which the performance is considered:

(i) NOT COMPETENT for the conduct of line operations. An outcome of ADDITIONAL TRAINING REQUIRED and level 2 grading metrics should be recorded; and

(ii) COMPETENT for the conduct of line operations; and

(2) determine for the pilot whose performance is considered competent for the conduct of line operations:

(i) if the pilot needs more training (e.g. tailored or additional training) to elevate their performance to the operator specified norm;

(ii) if the pilot is at the operator specified norm;

(iii) if the pilot is above the average (it can be one or more grades e.g. above the average and exemplary).

(c) The operator should develop further guidance to the above points to help the instructors determine the grade of the pilots they assess.

AMC3 ORO.FC.231(d)(1) Evidence-based training

ED Decision 2021/002/R

RECOMMENDED CONDUCT OF THE GRADING — ORCA

(a) Grading the performance of flight crew members during an EBT module should include the following steps:

(1) Observe performance (behaviours) during the simulator session.

(2) Record details of effective and ineffective performance (behaviours) observed during the simulator session (‘record’ in this context refers to instructors taking notes).

(3) Classify observations against the OBs and allocate the OBs to each competency (or competencies), using amongst others the facilitation technique.

(4) Assess and evaluate (grade): assess the performance by determining the root cause(s) according to the competency framework. Low performance would normally indicate the area of performance to be remediated in subsequent phases or modules. Evaluate (grade) the performance by determining a grade for each competency using a methodology defined by the operator.

(b) As a minimum, the instructor should grade all the observed competencies at:

(1) the end of the EVAL (de-briefing) by providing at least level 1 grading metrics;

(2) the end of the MT (de-briefing) by providing at least level 0 grading metrics; and

(3) at the end of the EBT module (de-briefing) by providing at least level 0 grading metrics (level 1 grading metrics are recommended).

AMC4 ORO.FC.231(d)(1) Evidence-based training

ED Decision 2022/014/R

RECOMMENDED GRADING SYSTEM METHODOLOGY — VENN MODEL

(a) To grade a competency, the instructor should assess the associated OBs of each competency against the following dimensions by determining:

(1) what was the outcome of the threat management, error management and undesired aircraft state management relating specifically to the competency being assessed;

(2) how well the flight crew member demonstrated the OB(s) when they were required. This includes:

(i) how many OBs the flight crew member demonstrated over the EBT phase (e.g. EVAL, MT, SBT) when they were required; and

(ii) how often the flight crew member demonstrated the OB(s) when they were required;

(b) Grades should be determined during each EBT module as follows:

(1) EVAL — overall performance of the phase for each competency at level 1 grading metrics.

(2) MT — overall performance of the phase at level 0 grading metrics. When the phase is graded ‘not competent’, it requires level 2 grading metrics.

 Note: Only a limited number of competencies may be observed and graded in this phase (e.g. PRO, FPA, FPM); the others are ‘to be left in blank’.

(3) SBT — overall performance of the phase for each competency at level 1 grading metrics. Unless just culture and the necessary non-jeopardy environment during training may be compromised. In that case, level 0 grading metrics.

Note: In-seat instruction (ISI) should not be included in any assessment.

(c) Where any competency is graded below the minimum acceptable level of performance (grade 1 on a 5-point scale), an outcome of additional FSTD training is required.

(1) Additional level 2 grading metrics must be recorded.

(2) The flight crew member should not be released to unsupervised line operations until each competency is demonstrated at or above the minimum acceptable level of performance.

(d) Where all competencies are determined at or above the minimum acceptable level of performance (grade 2 on a 5-point scale), the outcome should be COMPETENT. Consistent grading below the average (2 on a 5-point scale) may indicate a need for training to elevate the performance to the average (grade 3 on a 5-point scale). As a minimum, the following conditions apply:

(1) Any competency graded with 2 requires level 2 grading metrics.

(2) Any competency graded with 2 in any simulator session of the 1st module followed by a grade 2 in the same competency in the EVAL of the 2nd module requires individual tailored training in the SBT of the 2nd module. (First example: 1st Module SBT graded with 2, 2nd Module EVAL graded with 2 in the same competency, thus the 2nd SBT should be an individual tailored training on that competency. Second example: 1s module EVAL graded 2, 2nd module EVAL graded 2 on the same competency, thus the 2nd module SBT should be individual tailored training on that competency).

(3) Any competency graded with 2 in three consecutive modules requires individual tailored training. If at the end of the tailored training (3rd SBT) the competency continues being graded with 2, additional FSTD training is required within the next 3 months. For instance, following the example above, the SBT in the 2nd Module was an individual tailored training. In the 3rd Module during the EVAL the same competency is graded with 2 and individual tailored training is applied. The SBT is graded with 2 again. The pilot may continue line operations but should receive additional FSTD training within the next 3 months.

(4) The operator should not release a flight crew member to unsupervised line operations when more than four competencies (the majority of the competencies — five competencies or above) are graded with 2 in any single simulator session of the module.

(5) Any EVAL graded with 2 in more than three competencies requires individual tailored training in the SBT. If at the end of the module more than three competencies continue being graded with 2, the pilot may continue line operations but should receive additional FSTD training within the next 3 months.

(e) ‘Individual tailored training’ refers to a simulator session tailored to the pilot’s individual training needs, which may require a different programme or syllabus. Normally, it may be done during the SBT and normally there is not an increase of FSTD volume (no extra simulator session). It may require an increased volume of training such as CBT, additional briefings, etc. Any individual tailored training may be substituted by additional FSTD training before the start of the next module.

(f) ‘Additional FSTD training’ refers to the fact that in addition to the requirements of tailored training, there is an increase of FSTD volume (extra simulator session). It normally happens after individual tailored training.

GM1 ORO.FC.231(d)(1) Evidence-based training

ED Decision 2022/014/R

RECOMMENDED CONDUCT OF THE GRADING — ORCA

(a) At the end of the EVAL, after the facilitated de-briefing, the instructor may, as a minimum, record level 1 grading metrics.

(b) The instructor may conduct the simulator session of the EVAL following the principles of a summative assessment and the facilitated de-briefing following the principles of a formative assessment. The MT and SBT simulator sessions may be conducted as a formative assessment.

(c) At the end of each training phase, it is recommended to record level 1 grading metrics unless just culture and the necessary non-jeopardy environment during training may be compromised. In that case, the following alternative may be recommended: level 0 grading metrics for all competencies may be recorded (exceptionally ‘not observed’ or ‘left in blank’ may be recorded) and de-identified level 1 grading metrics may be recorded for the data collection and analysis purposes.

(d) A simple practice to classify the observations recorded during the simulator session is to classify the OB as positive, negative, neutral.

GM2 ORO.FC.231(d)(1) Evidence-based training

ED Decision 2022/014/R

RECOMMENDED GRADING SYSTEM METHODOLOGY — VENN MODEL

(a) Grades may be determined during each EBT module as follows:

(1) For each assigned grade:

(i) the observed performance should be identified with one or more OBs; and

(ii) the OB(s) should simply link the observed performance to the competency; they are not to be used as a checklist.

(2)  At the completion of the EVAL, the grade should be the overall assessment of the performance of each competency during the EVAL. Although it is not recommended, if the instructor performs an overall grade (additional to level 1), it should be at level 0 grading metric (competent or not).

(3) The underlying philosophy of the individual tailored training and additional FSTD training is the identification of the pilot’s individual training needs during the EVAL or EVALs. However, there may be cases in which such an identification may be complemented using other phases or combination of phases along the EBT programme. Nevertheless, when this happens consistently to a large number of pilots, it may indicate a problem of instructor standardisation.

(4) At the completion of the MT, only a limited number of competencies can be graded. The others are to be left in blank. Note: The grade of a competency as ‘not observed’ is a relevant set of data to be used in the EBT programme (e.g. may be used for instructor concordance assurance programme, programme design, etc.), while ‘competency left in blank’ is stating the obvious, which is that MT is a skill retention phase and therefore it focuses on only some of the competencies which may provide NO opportunity to observe all the competencies.

(5) At the completion of the module, grades should be assigned for each competency, based on the overall assessment of training during the SBT.

(6) In exceptional occasions, the instructor may have been unable to assess one or two competencies in the EVAL or SBT. A ‘not observed’ may be graded. The training system performance and concordance assurance system may use these metrics to improve instructors’ standardisation and the EBT programme design. When the operator grades the MT alone (instead of grading the MT and EVAL together), a ‘not observed’ grading may be frequent. It also occurs when the instructor grades each one of the manoeuvres.

(b) The word pictures are standardised according to the VENN model but may be simplified once instructors become familiar with the system.

AMC1 ORO.FC.231(d)(2) Evidence-based training

ED Decision 2022/014/R

VERIFICATION OF THE ACCURACY OF THE GRADING SYSTEM

(a) The purpose is to provide data to assess the accuracy of the grading system.

(b) The items defined below are based on Part-FCL Appendix 9. They should be included in the EVAL and MT of the applicable module. The minimum items to be included are: rejected take-off, failure of critical engine between V1 & V2, 3D approaches down to a decision height (DH) not less than 60 m (200 ft), engine-out approach & go-around, 2D approach down to the MDH/A, engine-out approach & go-around, engine-out landing.

(c) Instructors should record if the exercises are flown to proficiency using Appendix 9 references (define criteria). Note: Individual pilots’ grading and assessment remains according to the EBT grading system and Appendix 10.

(d) This verification should be performed once every 3 years.

GM1 ORO.FC.231(d)(2) Evidence-based training

ED Decision 2021/002/R

VERIFICATION OF THE ACCURACY OF THE GRADING SYSTEM

Items that may be included in a verification of the accuracy of the grading system:

GM2 ORO.FC.231(d)(2) Evidence-based training

ED Decision 2021/002/R

VERIFICATION OF THE ACCURACY OF THE GRADING SYSTEM — FEEDBACK PROCESS

The verification of the accuracy of the grading system provides valuable data for the training system performance and concordance assurance. Therefore, the verification is necessary from a systemic point of view and the intention is not to measure individual pilot against Appendix 9 criteria.

Concordance agreement between instructors may be high; however, the whole community of instructors may be grading too low or too high (accuracy).

The statistical result of the verification against Appendix 9 criteria can provide the operator with a criterion-referenced system to adjust the accuracy of the grading system. The verification does not require an examiner; EBT instructors may provide the necessary data.

Example 1: For the last 36 months, the operator has a rate of 3 % of pilots scoring 1 (assuming the data is statistically relevant). In this example, the rate of 3 % of the pilots scoring 1 is maintained across all the technical competencies. When the operator performs a verification, the rate of failure would have been only 0,5 %. This may indicate that instructors are rating too low in EBT and therefore some of the pilots scoring 1 should have been graded with a score higher than 1. This may be economically negative for the operator. On the other hand, it could be that the operator has decided to implement higher standards.

Example 2: The operator has an EBT programme with a negligible rate of pilots scoring 1 and a 1 % of pilots scoring 2 in two consecutive recurrent modules. The verification of the technical competencies against Appendix 9 criteria provides a rate of 5 % failure. The EBT manager should further investigate the reason behind this mismatch between EBT and Appendix 9 in the technical competencies. There may be factors influencing this mismatch (e.g. statistical issues, the events in the EBT modules are too benign compared to the events in Appendix 9), which may lead to a corrective action (e.g. redesign of the EBT modules). If the difficulty of the EBT scenarios is equivalent to Appendix 9 and the concordance is high between instructors, then the discrepancy in outcomes might be because the community of instructors are grading too high in the technical competencies (they are grading with 2 when they should have graded 1). Further instructor standardisation will be needed to address this.

The implementation of mixed EBT following GM1 ORO.FC.230(a);(b);(f) provides a good opportunity to fine-tune and verify the accuracy of the grading system because an Appendix 9 licence proficiency check is carried out every year. The authority may not allow full EBT unless the accuracy of the grading system is demonstrated.

Further guidance can be found in the EASA EBT manual.

AMC1 ORO.FC.231(e) Evidence-based training

ED Decision 2021/002/R

VOLUME AND FSTD QUALIFICATION LEVEL

(a) The EBT programme has been developed to include a notional exemplar of 48 FSTD hours over a 3-year programme for each flight crew member.

(b) Subject to ORO.GEN.120, the operator may reduce the number of FSTD hours provided that an equivalent level of safety is achieved. The programme should not be less than 36 FSTD hours.

(c) Each EBT module should be conducted in an FSTD with a qualification level adequate to complete proficiency checks; therefore, it should be conducted in a full-flight simulator (FFS) level C or D.

AMC1 ORO.FC.231(f) Evidence-based training

ED Decision 2021/002/R

EQUIVALENCY OF MALFUNCTIONS — PROCESS

(a) The equivalency of malfunctions process should be undertaken by subject matter experts (SMEs) who hold or have held a type rating on the aeroplane type.

(b) Steps of the equivalency of malfunctions

Step 1: Look at (review) all aircraft system malfunctions provided by the OEM. For example, FCOM for Airbus, or AFM for other manufacturers, does not normally provide an exhaustive list of malfunctions.

Step 2: Determine and retain in a list only malfunctions that place a significant demand on a proficient crew, in isolation from an environmental or operational context.

Step 3: For each retained malfunction, determine the applicable characteristic or characteristics.

Step 4: Develop the EBT FSTD programme to incorporate malfunctions at the frequency specified in the table of assessment and training topics.

(c) Malfunctions included in the equivalency of malfunctions but not included in the EBT FSTD programme require review and appropriate procedural knowledge training, conducted in a less qualified but suitable alternative environment (classroom, flight procedure training device, advance computer-based training, aviation blended learning environment (ABLE), etc.). Further guidance can be found in the EASA EBT manual.

(d) The operator should establish procedures to determine what malfunctions should be included in the FSTD. This may include a different malfunction difficulty between the EVAL and the SBT.

AMC1 ORO.FC.231(f)(3) Evidence-based training

ED Decision 2021/002/R

CREW EXPOSURE TO AT LEAST ONE MALFUNCTION FOR EACH CHARACTERISTIC

(a) Unless specified in the OSD, each crew member should be exposed to the characteristics of degraded control and loss of instrumentation in the role of pilot flying.

(b) Notwithstanding point (a), for aircraft types with a limited number of malfunctions in the characteristic of degraded control or loss of instrumentation, the operator may use an alternative means of compliance in accordance with ORO.GEN.120.

GM1 ORO.FC.231(f) Evidence-based training

ED Decision 2021/002/R

EQUIVALENCY OF MALFUNCTIONS — SIGNIFICANT DEMAND ON A PROFICIENT CREW

(a) The criteria to determine that a malfunction places a significant demand on a proficient crew are the following:

(1) The procedure includes one or more action items and not only a set of information for crew awareness.

(2) The flight crew’s cognitive load (resources required by the mental processes of perception, memory, judgement, and reasoning) significantly increases during or after the application of the associated abnormal or emergency procedure. The cognitive load is considered to be significantly increased when it is well above the cognitive load induced by the application of the normal standard operating procedures.

(3) The flight crew’s workload significantly increases during or after the application of the associated abnormal or emergency procedure. The workload is considered to be significantly increased when it is well above the workload induced by the application of the normal standard operating procedures.

(4) The aircraft handling perceived by the pilot when flying in abnormal conditions is different compared to the aircraft handling in normal conditions; e.g. the symmetry of the flight is affected.

(b) The criteria to determine that a malfunction places a significant demand on a proficient crew allow the identification of:

(1) the pilot competencies that are specifically challenged during the management of the related procedure, and

(2) the characteristic of the aircraft system malfunction procedure.

Note: The identification of the pilot competencies allows a consistent assessment to determine the proficiency of the crew member.

(c) When a malfunction is placing a significant demand on a proficient crew, it means it has one or more of the malfunction characteristics (see more in GM2.ORO.FC.231(f)).

GM2 ORO.FC.231(f) Evidence-based training

ED Decision 2021/002/R

EQUIVALENCY OF MALFUNCTIONS — MALFUNCTION CHARACTERISTICS

The following may be considered suitable definitions for each of the characteristics:

(a) ‘Immediacy’: System malfunctions that require immediate and urgent crew intervention or decision (e.g. malfunctions with memory items, loss of pressurisation at high altitude, brake failure during landing).

(b) ‘Complexity’: System malfunctions that require recovery procedures with multiple options to analyse and/or multiple decision paths to apply (e.g. multiple hydraulic system failures, smoke and fumes procedures).

(c) ‘Degradation of aircraft control’: System malfunctions that result in significant degradation of flight controls in combination with abnormal handling characteristics, such as modification of the normal pitch attitude during approach and landing or reconfiguration of the flight control laws or modes (e.g. jammed stabiliser, flaps/slats inoperative)

(d) ‘Loss of instrumentation’: System malfunctions that require monitoring and management of the flight path using degraded or alternative displays such as temporary or permanent loss of any flight-path-related parameter displayed on the primary flight display (PFD), head-up display (HUD) or navigation display (ND), including loss of any setting capability of one of these indications. It includes primary instrumentation to monitor and manage primary aircraft systems (e.g. FLAPS indication, loss of fuel indications, etc.).

(e) ‘Management of consequences’: System malfunctions that affect significantly the flight crew standard task sharing and/or the workload management and/or the decision-making process during an extensive period after the management of the malfunction itself (e.g. fuel leak or fuel not usable, altitude/speed limitations, malfunctions with ‘deferred’ items in later flight phases).

Note: Equivalency of malfunctions may be undertaken in consultation with the aircraft OEM. The objective of the OEM consultation is to review the operator analysis regarding the OEM operational certification (e.g. OSD) documents and the general OEM operation and training policy.

GM3 ORO.FC.231(f) Evidence-based training

ED Decision 2021/002/R

EQUIVALENCY OF MALFUNCTIONS — ISOLATION FROM AN ENVIRONMENTAL OR OPERATIONAL CONTEXT

When considering significant demand on a proficient crew, SMEs may consider that there are no significant environmental and operational threats. For example, the aircraft is close to a suitable aerodrome with environmental conditions permitting all published approaches to be made, with no pre-existing malfunctions and sufficient fuel for several hours (e.g. A320 or B737 overhead Ibiza - Spain, at FL350 with visible moisture at 30 000 ft, at the aerodrome wind calm, CAVOK, ISA).

GM4 ORO.FC.231(f) Evidence-based training

ED Decision 2021/002/R

EQUIVALENCY OF MALFUNCTIONS PROCESS — DELPHI

(a) The operator reviews/looks at aircraft system malfunctions provided in the official documentation of the OEM — for example, FCOM for Airbus, or AFM for other manufacturers.

(b) Before launching the equivalency of malfunctions survey and when the aircraft system malfunctions list is very long, the operator may slightly shorten the list by removing the malfunctions that surely will not place a significant demand of a proficient crew (see GM on SIGNIFICANT DEMAND ON A PROFICIENT CREW).

(c) A group of EBT instructors statistically relevant will be selected to perform the equivalency of malfunctions survey. 50 % of the instructors’ community will be used as a reference. In small instructors’ communities, it may be necessary to refer to 100 %. In operators with large instructors’ communities, the number of instructors statistically relevant may be less than 50 %.

(d) The group of instructors selected in point (c) will rate each of the malfunctions listed in points (a) and (b)

(1) Each instructor will rate each one of the 5 characteristics in each malfunction listed in point (b).

(2) The rate will be 0 when the malfunction does not have the characteristic (the characteristic does not appear in the malfunction).

(3) The rate will be 1 to 5 when the characteristic appears in the malfunction. Rating 1 when the characteristic is not relevant for the malfunction and rate 5 when the characteristic is very relevant.

(4) The instructors will rate individually (e.g. home, classroom, etc.) to avoid exchange of opinions with other instructors.

(e) An average rate of the whole instructors’ community as a result of point (d) will be calculated for each characteristic of each malfunction.

(f) A second round of survey will be performed with the same instructors and the same list. This time the operator will provide the average calculated in point (e) and ask them if in light of the average they would like to change their rating. Group discussion may substitute or complement the second survey.

(g) When an instructor changes their rating, the old rate will be discarded.

(h) A new average will be calculated for each characteristic of each malfunction at the end of the second survey. The final average will be rounded to the closest integer number.

(i) The operator may select an average rate of the characteristics (e.g. rate 2 or 3) at which or above which the characteristic is considered to be present in the malfunction, thus it places a significant demand on a proficient crew.

(j) The operator may use the rates of the characteristics to determine the difficulty of the malfunction. As SBT is a developing phase, the operator may select a higher difficulty of the malfunctions selected in this phase. Further guidance can be found in the EASA EBT manual.

(k) The operator may refer to an aircraft OEM malfunction analysis to support all the steps of the session.

(l) A simpler version of the process may be acceptable provided that:

(1) the aircraft manufacturer provides equivalency of malfunction documentation;

(2) there is a minimum of three EBT instructors who have a deep knowledge of aircraft systems; and

(3) the instructors referred to in (2) above are properly standardised. The standardisation is based on the EBT programme design knowledge and in particular the concept, definitions and process of the equivalency of malfunctions. The simplified process may or may not use a survey and use either a two-point scale (0 and 1), three-point scale (1, 2 and 3) or five-point scale (1 to 5).

AMC1 ORO.FC.231(g) Evidence-based training

APPROACHES THAT PLACE AN ADDITIONAL DEMAND ON A PROFICIENT CREW

(a) In order to identify approaches that place an additional demand on a proficient crew, an operator should:

(1) review its operational network;

(2) select approaches with one or more of the following characteristics:

(i) unusual design;

(ii) low frequency of exposure; and

(iii) degraded approach guidance;

(3) select at least one approach of each type and method and include them in the EBT programme at the frequency given in the table of assessment and training topics; and

(4) ensure the approaches selected in (3) cover all the characteristics at the frequency given in the table of assessment and training topics.

 Note: The approaches listed within Section 2 of the table of assessment and training topics should be selected in this process.

(b) Any approach that is required to be flown in the PF role specifically should be classified as ‘skills retention’ and may be trained in the MT.

AMC2 ORO.FC.231(g) Evidence-based training

ED Decision 2021/002/R

EQUIVALENCY OF APPROACHES RELEVANT TO OPERATIONS — SPECIFIC APPROVAL

The operator may extend the interval for recurrent training and checking of approaches that require specific approval as defined in the AMC to Part-SPA (e.g. SPA.LVO) to the frequency given in the EBT programme.

GM1 ORO.FC.231(g) Evidence-based training

ED Decision 2021/002/R

EQUIVALENCY OF APPROACHES RELEVANT TO OPERATIONS — APPROACH CHARACTERISTICS

The following may be considered suitable examples for each of the approach characteristics:

(a) Design

(1) Unusual approach design feature — for example, offset final approach track or steep approach, etc.

(2) Unusual runway design feature — for example, non-standard lighting or marking

(b) Frequency

(1) Infrequently visited airfields — for example, alternate airfields

(2) Infrequently flown approaches at commonly visited airfields — for example, circling approach, CAT 2, SA CATI

(c) Degraded guidance

(1) Degraded internal guidance or aircraft equipment — for example, head-up display (HUD) failure

(2) Degraded external guidance or ground equipment — for example, GPS signal failure

GM2 ORO.FC.231(g) Evidence-based training

ED Decision 2021/002/R

SELECTED APPROACHES AT THE FREQUENCY GIVEN IN THE EBT PROGRAMME

The table of assessment and training topics for each generation provides the type of approach, flight method and frequency for the crew.

AMC1 ORO.FC.231(h) Evidence-based training

ED Decision 2021/002/R

LINE EVALUATION OF COMPETENCE

(a) The purpose of the line evaluation of competence is to verify the capability of the flight crew member(s) to undertake line operations, including preflight and post-flight activities as specified in the operations manual. Therefore, the line evaluation of competence should be performed in the aircraft. The route should be representative of typical sectors undertaken in normal operations. The commander, or any pilot who may be required to relieve the commander, should also demonstrate their competency in the role.

(b) Each flight crew member should be assessed according to the competency framework and grading system approved for their operator’s EBT programme.

(c) Flight crew members should be assessed in duties as pilot flying and pilot monitoring; they should be evaluated in each role. Therefore, they should be checked on one flight sector as pilot flying and on another flight sector as pilot monitoring.

(d) The operator should maintain a list and inform the competent authority about the line evaluators suitably qualified to undertake line evaluations of competence.

(e) The person that conducts the line evaluation of competence should occupy an observer’s seat. For aeroplanes, in the case of long-haul operations where additional operating flight crew members are carried, the person that conducts the line evaluation of competence may fulfil the function of a cruise relief pilot and should not occupy either pilot’s seat during take-off, departure, initial cruise, descent, approach and landing.

(f) The validity period should be counted from the end of the month when the line evaluation of competence was undertaken. When the line evaluation of competence is undertaken within the last 3 months of the validity period, the new validity period should be counted from the original expiry date.

AMC2 ORO.FC.231(h) Evidence-based training

ED Decision 2021/002/R

LINE EVALUATION OF COMPETENCE — LINE EVALUATOR

(a) The line evaluator should have a valid line evaluation of competence.

(b) The line evaluator should receive an acceptable training based on the EBT instructor training. The EBT assessment of competence is not required.

AMC1 ORO.FC.231(h)(3) Evidence-based training

ED Decision 2021/002/R

LINE EVALUATION OF COMPETENCE — EXTENSION OF THE VALIDITY

In order to extend the validity of the line evaluation of competence to:

(a) 2 years, in every cycle, one EVAL for each pilot should be conducted by an EBT instructor (EBT instructors) who has (have) a valid line evaluation of competence in the same operator;

(b) 3 years, in addition to point (a) above, the operator should have a feedback process for the monitoring of line operations which:

(1) identifies threats in the airline’s operating environment;

(2) identifies threats within the airline’s operations;

(3) assesses the degree of transference of training to the line operations;

(4) checks the quality and usability of procedures;

(5) identifies design problems in the human-machine interface;

(6) understands pilots’ shortcuts and workarounds; and

(7) assesses safety margins.

GM1 ORO.FC.231(h) Evidence-based training

ED Decision 2021/002/R

LINE EVALUATION OF COMPETENCE

(a) Line evaluation of competence, route and aerodrome knowledge, and recent experience requirements are intended to verify the capability of the flight crew member(s) to operate safely, effectively and efficiently under line operating conditions, including preflight and post-flight activities as specified in the operations manual. Other EBT assessments, legacy checks and emergency and safety equipment training are primarily intended to prepare flight crew members for abnormal/emergency procedures.

(b) The line evaluation of competence is considered a particularly important factor in the development, maintenance and refinement of high operating standards, and can provide the operator with a valuable indication of the usefulness of its training policy and methods.

GM1 ORO.FC.231(h)(4) Evidence-based training

ED Decision 2021/002/R

LINE EVALUATOR

(a) AMC1.ORO.FC.146(c) ‘EBT instructor training’ provides some learning objectives which may be used to qualify the commander nominated by the operator to perform line evaluation of competence. The training may be a minimum of 7 hours, where 1 hour may be done outside the classroom. The use of advance training environments such as advance computer-based training or ABLE may reduce further the need of classroom training. The assessment of competence may not be required. Further guidance can be found in the EASA EBT manual.

(b) The line evaluator training may be included in the EBT instructor standardisation and concordance programme. This option is however limited due to the limited number of line evaluations of competence that are required (every 2 or 3 years), the difficulties in observing the whole range of performance of competencies and the lack of control of the environment during a line evaluation of competence. Therefore, the operator may need to use EBT instructors to maintain an acceptable level of standardisation.

AMC1 ORO.FC.231(i) Evidence-based training

ED Decision 2021/002/R

PERFORMANCE-BASED CONTINUOUS TECHNICAL GROUND TRAINING

(a) Technical ground training programme

(1) The objective of the technical ground training programme is to ensure that pilots have adequate:

(i)  knowledge of:

(A) the aircraft systems; and

(B) the operational procedures and requirements; and

(ii)  awareness of:

(A) the most significant accidents or incidents that could affect their operations following the ‘threat and error management model’ or an alternative risk model agreed with the authority; and

(B) the occurrences in the airline or occurrences from other airlines that may be relevant for their operations, accident/incident and occurrence review.

(2) The technical ground training should:

(i) be conducted as part of a 3-year programme;

(ii) allow a customisation of syllabi. The operator should describe in the operations manual the procedure to determine the customisation of syllabi. This customisation should be based on evidence both internal and external to the operator.

(iii) as a minimum, allow the pilot to receive technical ground training every 12 months. The validity period should be counted from the end of the month. When this training is conducted within the last 3 months of the validity period, the new validity period should be counted from the original expiry date.

(3) The technical ground training syllabi should be delivered using different methods and tools.

(i) The selection of the method and tool results from a combination of the learning objectives and the target group receiving the training (WHAT needs to be trained and WHO needs to be trained).

(ii) The selection of the appropriate method and tool should be driven by the desired outcome in terms of adequate knowledge.

(iii) The delivery of the technical ground training syllabi should include the methods or tools to verify if the pilot has acquired the objective of the technical ground training programme. This may be achieved by means a questionnaire, assessment of application of the competency ‘knowledge’ (KNO) or other suitable methods.

(4) The measurement and evaluation of the training system performance through the feedback process should include the performance of the technical ground training.

(b) Emergency and safety equipment training

(1) Training on the location and use of all emergency and safety equipment should be conducted in an aircraft or a suitable alternative training device.

(2) Every year the emergency and safety equipment training programme should include the following:

(i) actual donning of a life jacket, where fitted;

(ii) actual donning of protective breathing equipment, where fitted;

(iii) actual handling of fire extinguishers of the type used;

(iv) instruction on the location and use of all emergency and safety equipment carried on the aircraft;

(v) instruction on the location and use of all types of exits; and

(vi) security procedures.

(3) Every 3 years the programme of training should include the following:

(i) actual operation of all types of exits;

(ii) demonstration of the method used to operate a slide, where fitted;

(iii) actual firefighting using equipment representative of that carried on the aircraft on an actual or simulated fire except that, with Halon extinguishers, an alternative extinguisher may be used;

(iv) the effects of smoke in an enclosed area and actual use of all relevant equipment in a simulated smoke-filled environment;

(v) actual handling of pyrotechnics, real or simulated, where applicable;

(vi) demonstration in the use of the life rafts, where fitted; and

(vii) particularly in the case where no cabin crew is required, first aid appropriate to the aircraft type, the kind of operation and the crew complement.

(4) The successful resolution of aircraft emergencies requires interaction between flight crew and cabin/technical crew and emphasis should be placed on the importance of effective coordination and two-way communication between all crew members in various emergency situations.

(5) Emergency and safety equipment training should include joint practice in aircraft evacuations so that all who are involved are aware of the duties other crew members should perform. When such practice is not possible, combined flight crew and cabin/technical crew training should include joint discussion of emergency scenarios.

(6) Emergency and safety equipment training should, as far as practicable, take place in conjunction with cabin/technical crew undergoing similar training with emphasis on coordinated procedures and two-way communication between the flight crew compartment and the cabin.

(7) The emergency and safety equipment training should include a pilot’s assessment of the training received; as a minimum, by means of a questionnaire, or computer-based exercises, or other suitable methods.

(8) When the emergency and safety equipment training is conducted within 3 calendar months prior to the expiry of the 12-calendar-month period, the next emergency and safety equipment training should be completed within 12 calendar months of the original expiry date of the previous training.

(c) Emergency and safety equipment training — extension of period of training

(1) The emergency and safety equipment training programme should establish and maintain at least an equivalent level of proficiency achieved by complying with the provisions of (b). The level of flight crew proficiency in the use of emergency and safety equipment should be demonstrated prior to being granted approval to extend the period of training by the competent authority.

(2) The operator applying for an approval to extend the period of emergency and safety equipment training should provide the competent authority with an implementation plan, including a description of the level of flight crew proficiency to be achieved in the use of emergency and safety equipment. The implementation plan should comprise the following:

(i) A safety case which should:

(A) demonstrate that the required or equivalent level of proficiency in the use of emergency and safety equipment is maintained;

(B) incorporate the programme of implementation, to include controls and validity checks;

(C) minimise risk during all phases of the programme’s implementation and operation; and

(D) include oversight, including review and audits.

(ii) The measurement and evaluation of the training system performance through the feedback process should include the performance of the emergency and safety equipment training. The feedback should be used as a tool to validate that the emergency and safety equipment training is correctly implemented; this enables substantiation of the emergency and safety equipment training and ensures that objectives have been met.

(iii) Documentation that details the scope and requirements of the programme, including the following:

(A) the operator’s training needs and established operational and training objectives;

(B) a description of the process for designing and obtaining approval for the operator’s emergency and safety equipment training programmes. This should include quantified operational and training objectives identified by the operator’s internal monitoring programmes. External sources may also be used; and

(C) a description of how the programme will develop a support and feedback process to form a self-correcting training system.

(3) When the emergency and safety equipment training is conducted within 6 calendar months prior to the expiry of the 24-calendar-month period, the next emergency and safety equipment training should be completed within 24 calendar months of the original expiry date of the previous training.

GM1 ORO.FC.231(i) Evidence-based training

ED Decision 2021/002/R

PERFORMANCE-BASED CONTINUOUS GROUND TRAINING — INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL EVIDENCE

(a) Operator evidence (inner loop)

(1) Pilot data (individual or group);

(2) Population-based data according to the training metrics determined in the training system performance;

(3) Evidence identified or recognised through the safety management process covered in ORO.GEN.200.

(b) External evidence from the authority and manufacturers (external loop)

(1) Revision of existing rules and regulations, updated versions of the EBT data report, state safety plan;

(2) Training needs derived from updated OSD (if appropriate for ground training), etc.

(c) The evidence drives the selection of the methods and tools.

GM2 ORO.FC.231(i) Evidence-based training

ED Decision 2021/002/R

PERFORMANCE-BASED CONTINUOUS GROUND TRAINING — METHODS AND TOOLS

This is a non-exhaustive list of methods and tools to deliver ground training:

— classroom, presentations,

— web-based training,

— self-learning instructions,

— advance CBT such as virtual reality, chatbots, interactive scenario trainers.

ORO.FC.232 EBT programme assessment and training topics

Regulation (EU) 2020/2036

(a) The operator shall ensure that each pilot is exposed to the assessment and training topics.

(b) The assessment and training topics shall be:

(1) derived from safety and operational data that are used to identify the areas for improvement and prioritisation of pilot training to guide in the construction of suitable EBT programmes;

(2) distributed across a 3-year period at a defined frequency;

(3) relevant to the type or variant of aircraft on which the pilot operates. 

AMC1 ORO.FC.232 EBT programme assessment and training topics

ED Decision 2021/002/R

ASSESSMENT AND TRAINING TOPICS

Each table of assessment and training topics is specific to the aeroplane generation specified in the title. The component elements in the column headings of the matrix are as follows:

(a) Assessment and training topic. A topic or grouping of topics derived from threats, errors or findings from data analysis, to be considered for assessment and mitigation by training.

(b) Frequency. The priority of the topic to be considered in an EBT programme, according to the evidence derived from a large-scale analysis of operational data, is linked to a recommended frequency. There are three levels of frequency:

(1) A — assessment and training topic to be included with defined scenario elements during every EBT module;

(2) B — assessment and training topic to be included with defined scenario elements during every cycle;

(3) C — assessment and training topic to be included with defined scenario elements at least once in the 3-year period of the EBT programme.

(c) Flight phase for activation. The flight phase for the realisation of the critical threat or error in the assessment and training scenario.

(d) Description (includes type of topic, being threat, error or focus). A description of the training topic.

(e) Desired outcome (includes performance criteria or training outcome). Simple evaluative statements on the desired outcome.

(f) Example scenario elements (guidance material). The example scenario elements address the training topic and detail the threat and/or error that the crew are exposed to.

(g) Competency map. Competencies marked are those considered critical in managing the scenario.

AMC2 ORO.FC.232 EBT programme assessment and training topics

ED Decision 2022/014/R

GENERATION 4 (JET) — TABLE OF ASSESSMENT AND TRAINING TOPICS