GM4 ORO.FC.231(f)(2) Evidence-based training

CAA ORS9 Decision No. 32

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.

(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).