Welcome to episode four. We've done the theory. Now I want to talk about a normal Tuesday morning in the simulator. My airline has announced a transition to CBTA. I'm a line pilot. You're a simulator instructor. What does that actually mean for our day? Does the briefing change? Does the debrief change? As per usual, I'm here with Cédric Coffignal.
Let's walk through the lifestyle of a session. Cédric, in the old days, we spotted an error, we paused the Sim and taught the fix. We could redo the exercise with instructor input so there's a shared understanding of how to execute the task in question. In CBTA, do I have to sit on my hands as the instructor and reduce my input to assess the competency? Or can I still provide my standard instructor input that I did this morning in the simulator?
Speaker 1Happy to be with you again, Bryan, first, of course. To answer your question, of course not. It's important to understand the CBTA actually allows you to determine how to position yourself as an instructor and thus ensure to assess the trainee objectively. Why a competency can only be objectively? It has been demonstrated in a certain context, a very well-defined context. And this context takes into account a lot of different things. First, a training tool, demonstrating something inside an actual flight within a real aircraft and in a simulator is different, or demonstrating something in classroom or in a simulator is also different. So the context is defined by this, also by the nature of operation. If you are doing commercial and transport aircraft, or if you are doing non-commercial operation is not the same context. And finally, also the level of instructor assistance. Indeed, performing a task with a high support from the instructor or performing a task autonomously, it can change a lot the outcome. And the comparison point is not the same. Meaning that the outcome, the expected outcome is the same, but due to this difference of level of assistance, the assessment could change. So, thus, thanks to the course design in CBTA, the instructor knows exactly how to position themselves in relation to the trainee and what level of assistance they are supposed to give to the trainee. And thus the trainee can demonstrate their competencies through the various expected outcomes. In some cases, for example, at the beginning of the training or when encountering complex exercise, high instructor support is mandatory. Why? Because the goal is not for the pilot to fall in the trap, the goal for them is to be trained to improve. So that's why the associated evaluation, the assessment, will be based on succeed the exercise with instructor support. But opposed to this, at the end, they are going to have exactly the same exercise the first or the second session, but in this case it will be written and right now they have to succeed without any instructor support. The competencies that have to be demonstrated are the same because it's still the same task. So targeting situational awareness, workload management, leadership teamwork, but the condition of realization is no longer the same, meaning that compared to the first session and the last session, it will be required for me to demonstrate the same competencies, but with a different level of performance. Because right now I'm able to demonstrate these competencies
by myself without the support of the instructor.
SpeakerNow correct me if I'm wrong. Is that then defined by the training organization during the course build? So it's quite detailed the amount of information that's going to go into this tool to indicate to the instructor the level of input he's allowed to, he or she is allowed to give.
Speaker 1Yeah, exactly. U it has been determined during the course design phase. So at the end, all instructors will have the same information, thus guaranteeing consistent information and standardization and therefore objectivity in the assessment and data collection all along the course and all along also the different courses.
SpeakerSo it points again to the reality that the course build is critically, critically important. Exactly. And we did mention it in a previous episode, but just to go back to it again, the course build will be done by a dedicated person or team with instructor examiner input along the way.
Speaker 1Yeah, exactly. Right now, the course design is a good balance between pedagogical engineering, because behind it are a lot of pure pedagogical things for which a pilot is not trained at first because they are not they are they are trained to be a pilot and not a pedagogical engineer. However, in the opposite, there are still some specific things that a pedagogical engineer will never know.
SpeakerYes.
Speaker 1Why choosing this, especially this scenario and not another one? Because they don't have the experience to say, believe me, when you are simulating the monsoon just ahead in India, in this condition, this condition, this condition, believe me, the workload management will increase a lot. So this is an expertise they don't have. That's why right now it's purely
the good balance between these two jobs.
SpeakerOkay, and then just to go into the tool a little bit, we're not gonna go into detail about it, but if we have to look at legacy training, the instructor would tend to have either a digital, maybe a glorified PDF or a you know, maybe paper document, which has got the various exercises laid out, maybe a bit of information there for the instructor that ticks off various boxes. So you're saying that the CBTA tool, whatever tool your company decides to adopt, will basically house that same information in terms of task if you choose a specific task, but it actually goes into as much detail as to what sort of input you're going to give on this particular exercise.
Speaker 1Yes, of course. Whatever the tool you choose, the tool has to be for sure able to manage tasks. But behind each task, the tool has to be able to link this task to specific competencies, specific behavior, specific guidance, as well as assign some threats, assign some errors
in order to be able behind it to do correct assessment.
SpeakerOkay. All right, let's move now. We've completed the simulator session, we've done various exercises and we've walked out the sim. Normally, for the non-pilots out there or uh non-aviators that haven't been through this process, you normally go straight into a debrief where you sit opposite the instructor, and normally the instructor will sit you down and I would say something to the effect of you are high on the glide slope, be careful of making abrupt pitch changes on final approach or something to that effect. What does that conversation look like now in a CBTA environment, the debrief?
Speaker 1I think that after the first episode we had just done, you must be starting to get in general idea of what's going to change right. So, what in what you just told me, even according to you, in line with the principle of CBTA? What's going to change according to you in this case?
SpeakerWell, for me, I'm not gonna focus on the task. So I'm not going to speak about the specific cloud slope scenario. Exactly. Because it's irrelevant. Exactly. This is this.
Speaker 1So by doing this kind of debriefing, we are once again focused on task, which is not the goal at all. So the goal is to identify the root cause of the error and therefore identify areas of improvement in terms of competency. Why? Because maybe you have done three, four, six times the same error all along the session. So there is no specific interest of repeating okay, you have done this error, you have done this error, you have done this error. So in the end, it's better to understand why did you make six times the error and what is the root cause behind? So in CBTA, debriefing, like the briefing, the briefing it's like this, plays a very important role and is an integral part of the assessment. Purely. It's one of the fundamental elements of the teaching and learning pillar and is crucial for instructor standardization. Without debriefing, there is no possible final assessment and evaluation. And the ultimate goal of the debriefing is to encourage trainees to reflect for themselves to ask themselves questions, to identify by themselves areas of improvement, and also to find by themselves the solution they have to put in place in order to overcome the situation and to become better performer.
SpeakerRight. So the crew member plays a critical role here in their own debrief. Makes a lot of sense. And obviously, when I was asking you that question, it was obvious what the answer would be that you are not going to speak about that specific task. And I suppose what you might find is it's back to legacy training. If I'm talking about being high on the glide slope, I'm probably also talking about abrupt pitch changes during your steep turn and all the rest. So
you'll soon find it's all related. Now let's just talk about the root cause for a second. Is it my job as the instructor? Now let's take, you got an inexperienced instructor. Maybe you know, someone that got into it late in life hasn't done a huge amount of ab initio instruction, but now you're asking me to find the root cause of something that could potentially be quite complicated.
Speaker 1And once again, this is where your standard instructor will become a role of a coach, meaning that first it depends on the training, the type of training, experience of the trainee you have, and also your own experience. But, I think this is a point we're going to discuss later. But the best solution is clearly to use your facilitator role in order to ask relevant questions in order for them to identify by themselves the root cause. Remember what we said yesterday. Tell me I will remember. Involve me, I will understand. And by acting as a facilitator, you necessarily involve the trainee because you force them to remember what happened during the session. And to think about, okay, I did this, I did this, okay, what was wrong? Ah, yes, right now I remember. And with a little step back, saying, okay, if you have to think about again the situation, how could you improve? And say, okay, I think I can do this, do this, do this. Okay, and if you do this, what will be the change? Ah, the change will
be this, this. So you have found the root cause and you have also found the solution.
SpeakerLet me ask you a question. Yeah, I'll see if I can word this correctly, but something you could potentially see. Let's say you're doing a type rating, a relatively inexperienced crew, and they're dealing with an engine failure on the go-round, possibly with something else that increases their workload to the point where there's a loss of control, loss of control in flight. Would myself as the instructor, would I let that scenario play out to completion, even if it resulted in an accident? The screen on a simulator when there's an accident goes red. It gives quite a shock to the crew members if it happened. Do I let that play out so that there's maximum involvement and understanding from the crew member the importance of being able to handle a workload situation? Is that not going to kill the motivation of that particular crew member? I suppose there's a balance, and I'm just thinking of things maybe we do sort of naturally and trying. We can perhaps in session one might be worth just pausing the simulator there and saying, well, be careful of this. What's your opinion there? How does that fit in?
Speaker 1You have clearly the the good view on what CBTA is. And normally, again, as an instructor, you have the guidance, meaning that in a normal context, okay, it's the first session. If you are a good course designer, if it's a type rating, meaning the objective of the type rating is to learn your aircraft, the environment, etc. If your course designer wrote, okay, during the first session, they have to be able to handle a go-around, a one-engine go-around without any assistance, say, wow, I think it will be very rude. So I think here in this case, again, the course design come back saying, okay, normally you are supposed in this situation to assist the trainee. So I hope that with the instructor assistance, such situation will never happen. But maybe it can happen. How? Very simple. If I would say competency prerequisites are not met, meaning you receive, and this is I think what you are experiencing every day in your job as an instructor. Sometimes say, okay, it's a type rating. So trainees are supposed to arrive with a certain minimum level and say, okay, they don't have the level at all. So what can I do with this? And in this case, the solution to do this is okay, I'm not sure it's the good thing for the very first session to go up to the crash. So what you can do, it's even increase again your level of assistance, meaning by what you said, okay, I will pause the simulator, I will show you. But in this case, if you do this, it's also taken into account in the CBTA because you jump from facilitation role, which is written in your course design, by demonstration role. And if you increase the level of assistance, you change the context of demonstration. So in the end, it will be profitable for the trainee because there is no interest of letting them crash in this situation. They will understand something, but you as an instructor, you can say, okay, I have the proof that I had to adapt, I have to change my assistance with a higher level. So necessary in the end, in the assessment, I will take it into account.
SpeakerYeah, so what I'm hearing a lot is it's not this rigid platform that there's only one way to coach a windshear scenario or something. It seems very fluid and very much up to the type of training you have, where they are in their training schedule as to how you would approach it, which I suppose is where a lot of the pushback has maybe been from people that don't fully understand it. This is actually a system that is far more fluid, I suppose, the right word,
to work around whoever you're dealing with there in the flight deck. Let's just stick with the instructor for a second. A check ride. We've spoken about instruction and you know session one. Yeah, but is a check ride, in other words, maybe your final session of a type rating or a license renewal, is a check ride harder under CBTA as a pilot? Do I need to study differently for a CBTA check ride?
Speaker 1Yeah, it's a tough question because it all depends on your approach to your job as a pilot. Meaning that if you prepare your check ride by memorizing the program and the various associated situations, simply reacting mechanically to them because you know that okay, first failure will be this one, second will be this one, third will be this one. When faced with an unforeseen situation, you risk experiencing a startle effect which lead in the end to high difficulties for you to overcome the situation, and maybe can lead to a failure to your check ride. So in this case, we say if you approach your check ride like this by only going from one task to another learning them by heart and reacting accordingly, yes, it will become harder. If on the other you approach your check ride like a standard flight, where anything can happen at any time, and that your role as a pilot is just to do whatever you used to do in flight, meaning I have to adapt to my situation, I have no choice. It won't be harder at all. It will be more realistic, more effective, because it will demonstrate your performance capabilities on your actual job, and also more likely to help you to progress. A check is a check for sure, but a check is also an opportunity to improve.
SpeakerYeah.
Speaker 1A check is okay, pass, fail, but this is not because I pass, so I cannot improve myself.
SpeakerA check is part of the entire learning process there. So there's no because basically what happens today at an airline, I mean, it's no secret, but the airline will normally have maybe two, three, or four scenarios that play out. The word of those scenarios find their way to all the crew members pretty quickly, and they know they've already made up their mind that if when they get this failure at this altitude, they're going to divert to their the alternates or whatever. And yeah, the the words tends to spread across the pilot group. And also by having all your tasks laid
out, you've got a very good idea of what's going to happen in the session. Just in terms of preparation, obviously something that I want to know when I arrive for simulator training currently under normal legacy training. What airport am I at? I want to be prepared on having all the Jepperson charts available with frequencies and who I'm going to talk to and all the rest. Where am I flying to? I'd like to have a bit of a fuel figure in my head. How much fuel do I want to take on the sector? Is that still relevant or does that fall away? Do I find out where we're flying out during the briefing, or is that something I'd still know beforehand?
Speaker 1Again, it depends on the objective of the check or of the session. Sometimes, depending on the program, the check can be linked to more proficiency rather than competency. This is something which is still possible, especially if you target the ab initio branch, for instance. At the very beginning, before being able to handle the situation, you need to be clearly be able to handle your aircraft by itself. So, but in this case, depending on the scenario, for sure you will try to simulate realistic things and necessary - this is what you mentioned - Okay, I know what is the plan. I have to fly from airport A to airport B, but I have to plan my simulator session as a flight. So based on what is inside my in-flight folder, I say, okay, option one is this diversion airfield, option two is this one, option three in this one. And maybe during the session, an option D will come on, depending on okay, it was planned like this on airport C, but in real time, the weather conditions are not the same expected because it's life. So I need to adapt myself.
SpeakerYeah, we had a situation play out at my previous airline where we had quite a rigid simulator schedule, so everyone knew the plan. And this particular crew worked pretty hard on their preparation, they knew exactly what they were going to do. But during the session, the instructor totally turned it around. The weather was not the weather that these guys had planned for. And the session basically just fell apart because they had mentally planned what they were going to do, and then they were unable to make that change because they were going into a very fake environment. I mean, it's a simulator, you are simulating something real, not simulating a pre-planned set of events. Taking that scenario, going back into the debrief, you likely, from what I can gather, as the instructor, you're gonna ask me, you know, what do I think of the session? If you're integrating the the crew member, and what happens if I say to you, I had a breakdown in workload management? Am I setting myself up now for a failure of session because I've basically admitted to the instructor that I couldn't handle the workload?
Speaker 1Not at all, it's quite the opposite. Of course, there will always be cases of failure, for sure, especially when flight safety is engaged. Okay. I'm not telling that with CBTA everybody will pass. No, no, there's still failure, especially as soon as the safety is engaged. But generally speaking, the example you just gave is exactly what we are looking for in CBTA. And it's precisely this kind of reasoning that can lead you to go from a two to a three in a specific competency. It's clearly the opposite. Once again, this is why the debriefing is extremely important and the debriefing is part of the assessment. Because this is during this debriefing that I will be able, even for me, because I'm not inside the head of the pilot, so if I want to be sure that I have, as an instructor, I have identified the root cause, I have to ask questions to my trainee. And sometimes by asking questions, even me as an instructor, I say, okay, no, he was aware of everything. He just didn't manage the situation, but he was aware. So I will change my mind. And based on his way of thinking, okay, I have everything in my page. Okay, I did I did this for this reason, this reason, this reason, okay. I agree, it was not so good next time. I will do this, this, this, this. And for you as an institution, I said, okay, he has all the keys. So it's no longer, I would say, poor, it's not for sure, it's not very good, but by demonstrating his way of thinking, the trainee has demonstrated metacognitive skills. It's purely the definition of metacognitive skills. And if you remember what we said previously, metacognitive skills are included in behaviors, we expect to demonstrate competence.
SpeakerYes.
Speaker 1So this is the logical proof that by having this kind of reflection, they have demonstrated competencies. So if they have demonstrated competencies, I have to take it into account during my assessment. And this is why you can jump from a two to a three with this kind of reflection.
SpeakerThat makes a lot of sense. So you're saying I come to you had a breakdown workload management, I've identified where I was weak. It's not a case of I
thought it was perfect. I've actually identified the problem and I'm trying to fix the problem. What happens if I can't fix the problem? Well, in other words, what happens if there's a breakdown in communication during the flight? First of all, there's maybe a lack of communication with your fellow crew member. There was a lack of communication during various events that happened. Now it's obvious that communication gets a particularly low score, and in the debrief, the crew member doesn't say to you that my communication wasn't particularly good. How do we provide, does the instructor now provides that crew member with some resources to prove that his communication wasn't up to standard? Do we give some examples of what good communication looks like? How do we help him improve that negative aspect of his operation? Yeah.
Speaker 1So first, be careful not to misunderstand me. This doesn't mean that this kind of self-reaction, self-reflection from the trainee prevents all failures. Okay, the reason for failure, as I told you, remain numerous, but this kind of reflection that a trainee can have about themselves still allows us to demonstrate certain competence, and we wouldn't necessarily focus in a normal legacy training. So therefore, whatever the case, even in case of failure, our role of instructor is to find something positive on what the trainee did. Okay, you failed, but in the failure there were positive things. Okay, and this is what they called the positive reinforcement. And whatever the case, this positive reinforcement in this case will permit to create confidence in the trainee. So just be sure not to misunderstand that okay, there are cases of failure. So if I come back to your relevant question, this is a question which is frequently raised, and in this case, this is purely the role of the instructor. In one you are saying, I think there are two different aspects. The first aspect is the assessment / grading aspect. This one is very simple to tackle. Today the CBTA method gives all the tools to the instructor to manage the situation, meaning that if I take again your example, okay, the communication was poor all along the session. Maybe it never engaged the flight safety, but it was poor all along the session. And this is where the system is robust because in the assessment methodology, the system takes into account this notion of robustness. This is the dialogue that what they call the how often dimension. And by having this dimension, the instructor is able to say, okay, no safety engaged. However, all along the session, the communication was not at the expected level. So in the end, in communication, you're going to one, two. In the end. So for the grading, it's taken into account. The second pillar, the second thing is about clearly your instructor role. How can I react? How can I fix the issue for this? And in this case, this is the same thing we mentioned previously, is you have to try as an instructor to facilitate the discussion, to involve your trainee to ask them questions. Because at first they cannot find the solution by themselves. They didn't even encounter the fact that they were poor in communication. So what you can try to do is just facilitate be yourself, be an instructor, be a coach, saying, Okay, asking questions. Okay, can you remember what's going on at this moment of time? Okay. And do you think it's normal? I know, you're true, it was not normal. I okay. Why? And by asking questions, again, the role the goal of this is for themselves to say, okay, now I realize that.
SpeakerYes.
Speaker 1And by doing this, step by step, they are going to say, okay, yes, I realize that okay, I had a problem in communication at this moment of time. Okay, at this moment of time. At this moment of time also. And if we summarize, compared to what we have said, how do you characterize your communication competency all along the session? And necessary, they will say, Yes, you're true, maybe all along the session. I lacked clear communication. So in the end, it will be even better for you as an instructor to justify your grading.
SpeakerYes. So there's less sort of talking at the fellow crew member, you're talking with the crew member, having a conversation, and I myself, as the instructor, might not have the answer, but by being able to ask a good question, yeah, I might be able to bring the answer out of the student himself, which would be, I suppose, the optimum.
Speaker 1Yeah, it's definitely this is one of the important things. When I deliver standardization for instructor regarding this kind of behavior, I said, okay, I used to use a simple example. Evidently we know that when we start the approach, it's one of the main complex phases. Okay, and you say, okay, what you observe is okay. You have tailwind. So normally the student is supposed to recompute the top of descent, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. And then after, okay, they forgot totally the top of descent. So what you can write is, okay, I observe the top of descent was not recomputed. But are you sure it was not recomputed? No. The only one thing that you can observe is they didn't start the descent at a good point. That's all. Because if you say that at a debriefing and say, okay, what happened for the top of descent? And you can be very surprised. Say, okay, did you take yes, yes, I took the tailwind into account. I can tell you that instead of starting descent at 50, I was supposed to start the descent at 75 and say, what? But what did you start the descent at 40? Oh, because I was concentrating on what was happening on the radio. And you, as an instructor, say, okay, it's totally different competency that I target. He anticipates a lot the tailwind, but he was concentrating on another thing. So it's not necessarily this point that I will tackle, it's another point.
SpeakerYeah, I could make an assumption as the instructor. I know the error that he's making. I may have made that error myself,
so I've assumed that he's made that that same error. Exactly. Now, very interesting, Cédric. It gives us a really clear picture for the pilots listening. This isn't about finding new ways to fail you, it's about giving you tools to survive the situations that aren't in the manual. In our final episode of this series, we're going to look at the business case, why airlines must transition, the costs involved, and the roadmap for the future. I'm Bryan Roseveare with Cédric Coffignal. See you in the series finale.
Speaker 1Bye Bryan