Fli
Module 05 — Designing Scenario-Based & Tailored Training
Duration: ~2.5 hours
Competency focus: Problem Solving & Decision Making · TEM · Workload Management · Application of Procedures/Knowledge
Learning objectives
- Design a Scenario-based training phase session with clear objectives, competency targets, and deliberate threats (Doc 9995 Part I, 7.6 paraphrased).
- Build branching / tailoring options from Evaluation phase evidence without leaving the approved syllabus.
- Control scenario pace and complexity so evidence remains observable; know when the TRI may intervene to enable development (contrast with Evaluation).
- Avoid common design faults (overload, ambiguity, “gotcha” training).
- Keep the principle: competencies = aim; scenario = vehicle; train to competency.
1. What a good training scenario is
A scenario is a coherent operational story (typically line-oriented) that forces pilots to manage the aeroplane, the environment, and the crew — generating evidence across multiple competencies and developing TEM capability. It is not a random fault dump.
In Doc 9995 terms (Part I, 7.6, paraphrased): the Scenario-based training phase develops, retains, and practises competencies for managing threats and errors. Unlike the Evaluation phase, the instructor should intervene or interrupt where necessary to enable development or enhance learning. Adapt content toward weaker competencies identified in Evaluation.
Quality checks:
- Linked to stated objectives and competencies.
- Threats are realistic for the type and operation.
- Success is possible with good TEM and CRM — not only with insider knowledge.
- The TRI can increase or decrease pressure deliberately.
- Debrief hooks are planned in advance.
2. Scenario design template
| Element | Prompt |
|---|---|
| Phase | Scenario-based training phase (or Evaluation phase if used as baseline) |
| Crew context | Experience, seat, recent training themes |
| Operational setup | Route, airport, weather, fuel, time of day, cabin/ATC factors |
| Primary competencies | Choose 2–4 |
| Primary threats | Weather, technical, organisational, human, environmental |
| Trigger events | What you will insert, and when (or under what condition) |
| Must-achieve items | Any manoeuvre / procedural items embedded |
| Observable success | What you expect to see if competencies are effective |
| Tailor-up | If crew coping well — add complexity (examples) |
| Tailor-down | If overloaded — simplify, freeze, or re-brief objective |
| Safety / device | Freeze policy, catastrophic risks, instructor station plan |
| Debrief themes | Pre-planned 2–3 themes |
3. Threat generation (deliberate, not malicious)
Threats should train management, not humiliate.
Examples of useful threat classes (customise to type):
- Environmental — windshear potential, contaminated runway, significant weather on diversion.
- Technical — degradation that forces automation/manual decisions and procedure application.
- Operational — late runway change, holding, commercial pressure scripts (used carefully).
- Human / crew — startle, conflicting information, high communication load.
Rules of thumb:
- One major technical event plus environmental pressure often beats three simultaneous rare failures.
- Allow time for procedures to be applied; interrupting every checklist teaches nothing.
- Align threats with the competency you claim to be training.
4. Tailoring in the moment
| Evidence from session | Tailoring action |
|---|---|
| Strong path control, weak decisions | Reduce handling difficulty; increase optionality / ambiguity in plan |
| Overload, crumbling basics | Remove secondary threats; return to Manoeuvres-style rebuild; then re-enter lighter scenario |
| Excellent TEM on first event | Introduce a second-order threat or time constraint |
| One pilot dominating | Adjust role tasks; debrief Leadership & Teamwork explicitly; consider seat focus |
Document the tailoring decision briefly in notes — it is part of EBT discipline.
5. Embedding manoeuvres inside scenarios
Keep phase clarity. The Manoeuvres training phase is deliberately not line-oriented scenario training (Part I, 7.5). Regulatory / company manoeuvres can still sit inside a later scenario if the TRI obtains clean evidence and the trainee understands when a “manoeuvre spotlight” is occurring. Alternatives:
- Complete Manoeuvres training phase block, then enter Scenario-based training that reinvests the skill.
- Evaluation phase first, then focused manoeuvre repair, then short Scenario-based re-test tailored to Evaluation gaps.
State the plan in the brief so trainees are not guessing the rules of the game — and so the TRI matches intervention policy to the declared phase.
6. Design faults to avoid
- Gotcha — hidden trick that only the TRI can win.
- Firehose — continuous faults preventing any competent process.
- Objective drift — interesting story, forgotten training aim.
- Unobservable — so much happening that notes and debrief become guesswork.
- Type-unrealistic — threats that undermine credibility.
- No exit — scenario cannot be terminated cleanly for teaching reset.
7. Workshop
Each candidate designs a 45-minute scenario for their type using the template; peer review against quality checks; one scenario selected for sim practice days.
8. Key takeaways
- Design on a template; plan threats and debrief hooks; competencies are the aim.
- Tailor Scenario-based content from Evaluation evidence; stay inside approved objectives.
- In Scenario-based training the TRI may intervene to develop; in Evaluation, normally not.
- Manoeuvres training and Scenario-based training can sequence in one detail if phase clarity is maintained.
Instructor notes
- Provide example skeleton for the house type (777 or client type) without copying Operator manuals.
- Link to Module 07 for facilitation during threat insertion.
- Operator scenario libraries / Part II-style generation tables remain ATO/Operator programme design (ICAO Doc 9995 alignment).