Worksheet — Borderline Judgement Cases

MaxFli Aviation TRI Course
British English · Matches Module 06 §7 workshop themes · For LP-06
Type-agnostic. Do not invent regulatory pass/fail rules — use the operator/ATO standard you are briefed to apply.

Instructions (groups)

For each case, produce:

1. Evidence summary (observable facts only)
2. Competency / TEM tags (and CRM/NTS if relevant)
3. Outcome (continue / additional training / stop pending review / meet–not meet standard as applicable)
4. Further training plan (specific action, not “more CRM”)

Then compare plenary. If borderline remains after discussion — escalate (Module 06 MaxFli expectation); do not gamble quietly.

Case A — Borderline unstable approach continuation

Theme (Module 06 §7): Borderline unstable approach continuation

Narrative
Crew briefed a stable-approach policy. On final, speed was high and configuration late. At the published gate, the approach did not fully meet stable criteria. PF stated “continuing — correcting,” PM said “speed” once, then went quiet. Path remained within what you judge as recoverable; touchdown was firm but on the aiming zone. No go-around. Fuel and weather were not limiting. In the box, no safety intervention was required.

Hints for discussion
- One-off slip vs pattern?
- Leadership & Teamwork / Communication (PM assertiveness)?
- Professional Standards / Application of Procedures (policy)?
- What would “additional training” look like (Scenario Card 4 / Manoeuvres energy management)?

Case B — Excellent handling but closed leadership

Theme (Module 06 §7): Excellent handling but closed leadership

Narrative
PF flew an accurate manual path through a go-around and subsequent approach — Flight Path Manual evidence was strong. PF made all plan decisions unilaterally, interrupted PM inputs, and dismissed a timely PM threat call about fuel for the alternate with “I’ve got it.” Landing was successful. PM later said in debrief they “didn’t want to push.” Technical procedures were completed, mostly by PF prompting.

Hints for discussion
- Strengths must be recorded (Module 06 / Doc 9995 6.3.3 paraphrased).
- Leadership & Teamwork · Communication · TEM (threat not trapped as a crew).
- Would another TRI, with your notes, reach the same call?
- Training plan: scenario weighted to shared decision-making and PM empowerment — not more handling drill.

Case C — Solid process with one critical checklist error caught by PM

Theme (Module 06 §7): Solid process with one critical checklist error caught by PM

Narrative
After a system degradation, the crew ran memory items correctly and began the checklist with good workload split. PF (handling) called for a checklist item; PM skipped one critical step (or mis-read a branch) — then caught the error themselves on cross-check before irreversible action. They rewound, completed correctly, and briefed a sound diversion plan. Remainder of the session showed calm TEM and clear communication. No repeat of the checklist miss.

Hints for discussion
- Error trapped — resilience vs prevention?
- Application of Procedures · Situation Awareness · Communication (challenge/response).
- Sufficient sample for “meet standard” vs targeted practice?
- Notes must show the miss and the recovery; avoid “all OK.”

Plenary calibration prompts (tutor)

• Where did groups diverge — evidence, standard, or risk appetite?
• Did every group record strengths as well as gaps?
• Was the further-training plan specific enough for the next TRI?
• Any temptation to soften/harden criteria for “experienced” vs “new” crew? (Avoid — SD29 v9.1 §10.3 paraphrased; use the published standard.)

MaxFli Aviation — Captain Graham Croft · London · Worldwide contracted training