THE EVOLUTION OF AIRLINE PILOT RECURRENT TRAINING

By Captain Arthur Gatland

John here - It is always wonderful to have our enthusiastic and skilled Arthur Gatland make a contribution to our blog articles. These invariably are initiated by a thought I have on a subject and feel our audience would both learn from and enjoy reading about.

We have been blessed with a large group of contributors who have both expertise and many stories of experiences. I would now like to expand on a few items Arthur brings up which from personal experience dovetail into what he is saying. Arthur has initiated many changes that have become standard practice not only in Air NZ but in some cases other airlines across the world have adopted his ideas - eg Standard pilots selection procedures.

Again, he was instrumental in the Zero Flight Time space. At a personal level my first experience of this was conversion onto the B777. We completed many circuits in the simulator under several conditions. My first experience of stepping onto a scheduled operation B777 as a passenger or pilot was into the front left seat as PIC under training!

This aircraft was performing an AKL - NAN - AKL scheduled service. The instructor said at the get go "you fly both sectors!" While I got on with the job it caused reflection afterward and the overwhelming conclusion was the real aircraft felt exactly the same as the simulator. (Maybe even easier!)

In earlier aircraft conversions I did the base training of mainly circuits in an empty aircraft in the airport environment. One of the more memorable was turning up for circuit training in the B767 in Auckland. The weather forecast was for strong winds and thunderstorms, with my colleague and myself wondering if the exercise was going to go ahead. Later our instructor walked into the briefing room with a big cheesy smile and stated "Boys! Tonight, we are going to have fun!" Sure enough he asked us a number of times if we were happy to continue as the weather deteriorated. Both of us trainees freshly off the B737-200 flying through lots of rough weather said "yes please." That in turn put a further cheesy smile on the instructor’s face. While ZFT removes these stories we practice circuits with simulated distractions to a good result in the simulator.

Another aspect Arthur addresses is the expansion of the Pilot Flying / Pilot Monitoring roles. Mentioned by me earlier, when joining Air NZ there was a steep cockpit gradient which always felt did not fully utilise the flight deck resources. So it was great to see in the mid 1980s Air NZ adopt CRM and later concentrate on support as well as flying roles. So not only is Human factors examinable in every stage of flight training it is good to have it explained how it works and is assesed.

Over to you, Arthur!

The indomitable Captain Arthur Gatland

 After most trade apprentices or University students complete their studies and gain a qualification, they hold that for life. There are perhaps a small number of jobs where a trained person is required to pass further exams or assessments to continue exercising the privileges of their qualification.

Pilots are a notable exception to this generalisation. Airline Pilots are required to pass a Competency Assessments in a flight simulator every 180 days and pass an oral or written test of knowledge and pass a Route Check on normal line operations annually. Additionally, pilots must pass an assessment of instrument flying skills to the same standards as the initial Instrument Rating flight test.  Failure to pass these assessments will – ultimately – result in loss of licence and job loss. However, all pilots recognise the reasons for these Rules and the importance of maintaining skills and knowledge, given the responsibility of carrying hundreds of passengers from A to B in a variety of weather conditions, while having the ability to deal with a potential myriad of abnormal or emergency situations or aircraft technical issues.

Over the years there have been a number of significant improvements in the way training and recurrent training and checks are conducted. I was heavily involved in these as an Air New Zealand Flight Instructor and Examiner (30 years) and as Air NZ Senior Manager for Flight Standards and Training for 10 of those years, and currently a B787 / B777 Simulator Flight Examiner.  

Flying the Sim

Up to the end of the 1980s, a flight simulator was used for type rating courses, but these were completed with a flight in the aircraft doing circuits. Some airlines also did “base training checks” for annual competency – and still do this. Air New Zealand was one of early airlines to make full use of a Zero Flight Time (ZFT) flight simulator, whose motion fidelity and visual display was lifelike enough to be used for all training. This was started with the Boeing 747-400 simulator, and now, all flight simulators in Air NZ are ZFT.

I recall attending an Airbus Training Conference in Seville, Spain and being asked by Airbus to speak about ZFT training. At that stage, no Airbus courses were ZFT but Airbus planned to introduce it for future types. Some questions from other airlines suggested a reluctance to endorse ZFT training or a lack of understanding. “When you are doing training in a ZFT flight simulator, can you do circuits” (of course) and “for engine failure training, do you just close one thrust lever to simulate a failure as we would do on base training?” (No, of course not). We give a realistic engine failure, perhaps with severe damage – which of course you can’t do in a real aircraft – and we can pre-set the desired weather conditions, unlike base training in aircraft.

How do you manage this? 😬

Recurrent Training:

In the 1980s, a pilot’s recurrent training and checks consisted of four simulator details, one every 3 months, known as Sim A, B, C and D. One of these (Sim A) was the instrument rating renewal flight test, almost exactly the same as the initial flight test. Sim B, C and D were scripted with a series of exercises that needed to be completed every 3, 6, 12 and 24 months depending on the nature of the failure or fault (this was written into a Training Matrix.)

This was changed to two simulator details together, every 6 months. This provided some continuity and focussed training over the two days.

We successfully persuaded NZ Civil Aviation that the elements of the Instrument Rating Renewal flight test could be incorporated into all four simulator details, rather than one dedicated flight test. This still assessed the required IFR skills and knowledge as part of other practical assessment scenarios – much better use of time.

In the 1980-90s, pilots were only checked as Pilot Flying (PF), and there was no training or assessment as Support Pilot - now called Pilot Monitoring (PM). One of my first changes as Manager was to require assessments in the Support Pilot role, now considered equally important to crew outcome as the PF role. I also introduced a Threat and Error Management programme into Air NZ, written with the help of CRM gurus Captain Bob Henderson and Captain Chris Kriechbaum, and this is now an integral part of our training and operating procedures.

It’s all in there….

All simulator exercises were assessed as Pass / Fail initially, but a Grading System was introduced which allowed a more accurate overall assessment. Air NZ settled on a 1-5, with 4 being Proficient, and 5 being Proficient with some aspect done particularly well. Grades 1-3 varied from Fail, Minimum Pass (or Pass after a repeat), or Pass with Comments made.

Any action or outcome that would have involved aircraft damage or injury to crew or passengers (albeit simulated) was an automatic Grade 1. This resulted in failure of the whole simulator detail, resulting in extra training prior to flying the detail again.

One advantage of a Grading System is that it allowed Training Managers to see data on which exercises were done well overall, or frequently had a less-than-ideal average score, and therefore this needed further training or practice across that fleet. We also had a process of “Rater Reliability” that tried to ensure grading consistency across all Flight Examiners who conducted simulator checks or route checks.

The gradings were supported by the introduction of “Reason Codes” or core competencies, listed under two main headings of Knowledge and Skills, and CRM (Crew Resource Management.) In the event of any grades of 1, 2, or 5 it was a requirement to specify a Reason Code – this could be one Knowledge and Skills and one CRM if appropriate. This also provided more information for Training Managers when assessment general deficiencies across the fleet that required further focussed training.

Knowledge and Skills

M -Manipulative skills

C – Communication

K – Knowledge of systems and procedures

W – Workload management

CRM

A – Automated system usage

S – Situational awareness

E – Execution of procedures

P – Problem solving and decision making

B787 Sim

The recurrent simulator A, B, C, D programme evolved into a TD/PD sequence (Training Detail followed by Proficiency Detail.) The TD consisted of a choice of non-normal scenarios on a typical line flight, for the crew to deal with the issues while managing the flight path, and then making decisions regarding continuing the flight, returning or diverting to another airport – very realistic. This Line-Oriented Flight Training (LOFT) or Line Oriented Evaluation (LOE) is an excellent and realistic way to maintain and improve crew performance. The TD LOFT scenario was followed by “focussed training” where each pilot would practise several manoeuvres - whatever was required from the 24-month Matrix – for example, engine failure on take-off with single-engine approach and missed approach, followed by a single engine landing (three Matrix items).

Although the two TD/PD details were referred to as training then proficiency, it is important to note that as far as Air NZ is concerned, there is no such thing as “non-jeopardy”. To put it in a less threatening way, every pilot who turns up for a simulator detail, whether training or proficiency, or even called out to act as a Crew Member, is required to perform to at least a minimum standard. After all – every pilot who carries passengers on a line flight is expected to perform to a required standard of knowledge and safety! A good instructor will not just assess – ensuring the minimum standard is met – but add training value in the simulator or in the debrief, to lift pilots’ knowledge and thinking to a higher level. We never stop learning or gaining experience as pilots.

Even though the Line-oriented part of the TD/PD sequence required the instructor to decide on the exact scenario on the day (from a short list of options), inevitably pilots would phone each other to try and find out “what’s the scenario and emergencies for this 6-month period?” While pre-simulator study is beneficial, in a perfect world it should cover all possible situations that might occur on line, not just focused on passing a simulator check!

A further improvement from Air NZ’s TD/PD recurrent simulator training has been the recent introduction of EBT – evidence-based training. This is now used by many airlines worldwide. For some airlines it has been a quantum change, but my opinion is that for Air NZ in many ways it is fine-tuning a system we mostly already had in place.

The greatest video game ever? Or a torture chamber? What scores would you get if your job relies on them?

Evidence-Based Training:

EBT is a two-day recurrent simulator training / assessment programme (no change there). Day 1 involves an Evaluation Phase, involving a line flight with a number of scenarios, challenges or non-normal issues for the crew to manage. Each pilot will fly a segment as Pilot Flying, for example a departure from Sydney on a flight Auckland, and the second segment might be the arrival into Auckland. Or the flight may start mid-flight, for example in the cruise over Mexico on a Houston to Auckland flight with a possible diversion to an en-route alternate. There is no additional briefing for these scenarios, apart from the crew familiarising themselves with the flight plan and weathers etc.

Once the instructor is happy that each scenario has played out to a conclusion – which may or may not involve a landing – that scenario is complete. In the facilitated debrief, the crew will discuss how they managed each challenge, and in particular how they used the various required Competencies to achieve a safe and successful outcome – or which areas they could have done better, if appropriate. These are ultimately Graded by the Instructor using a 1-5 scale, where 3 is “expected performance”. More on this later.

Competencies:

Application of Procedures

Communication

Leadership and Teamwork

Flight Path Management - Automation

Knowledge

Problem Solving & Decision Making

Flight Path Management - Manual

Situational Awareness

Workload Management

Day 1 also includes Manoeuvre Validation, where a series of specific manoeuvres are practiced, and assessed as Proficient, Proficient after a repeat, or Not Proficient. Each 6-month period will include around 6 manoeuvres as part of a 2-year Matrix, as with the TD/PD series.

After the Evaluation phase debrief, based on the crew’s self-appraisal and/or instructor’s comments and Grades, there may be some Competencies in which the crew could improve. These will include, of course, any Competencies that were graded less than Grade 3 (expected performance). The instructor will provide classroom training as required, and the EBT system allows for scenarios on Day 2, the Scenario-based Training, to provide opportunity to practise and improve these skill areas.

Day 2 also includes “In-seat Instruction”, where the Instructor sits in an operating seat for one exercise as pilot-flying and one as pilot-monitoring, and various errors or omissions are introduced to enable to pilots under training to practice monitoring, calling errors with increasing advocacy as the situation develops. The benefits rely a lot on the Instructor’s “Hollywood” abilities, and the skill to cause distraction as the errors are committed – obviously the trainees are extremely alert during this exercise!

The EBT programme is relatively new at Air New Zealand, but initially feedback from line pilots is that they find the scenarios realistic and provide valuable training.

Route Checks: In addition to the simulator Recurrent Training and Competency Assessment, most countries’ Civil Aviation Rules require pilots to undergo a Route Check at the end of training on a new aircraft type, or for some new routes. In addition, a Pilot-in-Command must undergo an annual Route Check over one sector and demonstrate competency in performing the duties and responsibilities of PiC in the appropriate air operations.

In Air New Zealand, we carry out the Route Check over two sectors (as pilot flying and pilot monitoring), and this is also done with First Officers over two sectors. Second Officers undergo a single sector Route Check. While the primary aim is to assess and confirm pilot knowledge and proficiency, there is an opportunity for training in various areas to enhance knowledge above the minimum standard. We never stop learning!

You can trust us - we know what we are doing!

The Goal: is, of course, to make sure that all airline pilots are trained and skilled enough to deal with any unusual or emergency situation at any time – during and after take-off, enroute, and on approach and landing. Naturally, in the flight simulator they are half-expecting something to happen, so the “startle” factor is not as high. (Melissa here - The movie ‘Sully’ - about the successful ditching of an aircraft in the Hudson in 2009 - discusses the ‘Startle Factor’ very well)

During line flights it is extremely important that they are similarly ready and able to deal with any unexpected situation at any phase of flight. This is why I have always said to myself – and I train ALL pilots to say to themselves “Today’s the day. I’m ready.”

The vast majority of flights are an anti-climax – nothing major happens. May it always be that way!