Worksheet — Scenario Cards (type-agnostic)
MaxFli Aviation TRI Course
British English · For LP-03 briefs, Module 05 peer review, and LP-08 workshop
Reusable handouts — customise airport / type / weather to the house fleet without copying Operator manuals.
How to use
- Assign one card per pair (or rotate).
- Design or brief against the Module 05 template (competencies = aim; scenario = vehicle).
- Peer reviewers check quality checks in Module 05 §1 and design faults in §6.
- Facilitation prompts support Module 07 craft — do not turn the card into a gotcha script.
Card 1 — Weather & diversion pressure
| Field |
Content |
| Title |
Weather & diversion pressure |
| Suggested phase |
Scenario-based training phase (or Evaluation if used as baseline — announce rules) |
| Brief setup |
Night sector into a destination with deteriorating weather. Fuel on arrival is adequate but not generous. Alternate is open but ATIS suggests a possible runway change and holding. Cabin reports a non-urgent passenger medical that may become time-sensitive. |
| Primary competencies |
Problem Solving & Decision Making · Situation Awareness · Communication · Workload Management |
| Deliberate threats |
Environmental (weather / holding) · Operational (runway change, commercial time pressure script — use carefully) · Human (startle / dual task with cabin) |
| Trigger ideas |
ATIS update mid-descent; late runway change; cabin call during approach brief; optional secondary: moderate system advisory that forces automation/manual choice |
| Must-achieve (examples) |
Stable approach criteria / go-around decision; fuel/diversion decision process; PM involvement before commit |
| Facilitation prompts |
“What threats did you brief before top of descent?” · “What information did you still need before committing?” · “How did you protect the PM’s capacity?” · “If this repeated on the line, what would you change?” |
| Tailor-up |
Add time constraint or second weather update after diversion decision. |
| Tailor-down |
Remove cabin medical; allow full fuel brief; simplify weather to one clear alternate. |
Card 2 — Automation surprise & mode awareness
| Field |
Content |
| Title |
Automation surprise & mode awareness |
| Suggested phase |
Scenario-based training phase; may follow a Manoeuvres block on automation/raw data |
| Brief setup |
Busy TMA arrival. Cleared for an approach that requires mode/FMA discipline. A realistic automation or guidance behaviour (type-appropriate — e.g. unexpected mode, capture not as briefed, or need to revert to a simpler mode) appears during a high communication load. |
| Primary competencies |
Flight Path — Automation · Situation Awareness · Communication · Application of Procedures/Knowledge |
| Deliberate threats |
Technical (automation/guidance behaviour) · Environmental (busy ATC) · Human (expectation bias) |
| Trigger ideas |
Mode/FMA not as briefed; ATC speed or level constraint during mode transition; optional PM distraction with radio |
| Must-achieve (examples) |
FMA callouts / cross-check; path control; go-around if unstable; clear PF/PM roles under surprise |
| Facilitation prompts |
“What did the FMA tell you — and when?” · “What was your shared mental model after the surprise?” · “Where did workload peak, and how did you trap it?” |
| Tailor-up |
Add a late runway or weather change after the automation event. |
| Tailor-down |
Reduce ATC load; freeze once to rebuild mode awareness, then continue lighter. |
Card 3 — Technical degradation & CRM
| Field |
Content |
| Title |
Technical degradation & CRM |
| Suggested phase |
Scenario-based training phase |
| Brief setup |
Cruise or early descent. A single significant system degradation appears (choose one type-realistic failure that forces procedure application and a plan — not a triple rare failure). Diversion or continuation remains a genuine crew decision. |
| Primary competencies |
Application of Procedures/Knowledge · Leadership & Teamwork · Problem Solving & Decision Making · TEM |
| Deliberate threats |
Technical (system degradation) · Operational (company/ATC information load) · Human (startle, conflicting priorities) |
| Trigger ideas |
Failure at a moment that allows memory items + checklist time; cabin or company call during QRH; optional ambiguous MEL/dispatch follow-on (keep fair and type-realistic) |
| Must-achieve (examples) |
Memory items / checklist discipline; PF flying / PM managing; decision briefed before irreversible commit |
| Facilitation prompts |
“What was the threat story — not only the ECAM/EICAS message?” · “How did leadership and assertiveness show?” · “What would ‘good’ look like for the non-handling pilot?” |
| Tailor-up |
Add environmental pressure (weather at diversion) after process is established. |
| Tailor-down |
Hold secondary calls; allow uninterrupted checklist; re-enter with lighter branch. |
Card 4 — Unstable approach & go-around discipline
| Field |
Content |
| Title |
Unstable approach & go-around discipline |
| Suggested phase |
Evaluation phase (observe) or Scenario-based (may intervene to develop) — declare which |
| Brief setup |
Visual or instrument approach with energy management challenge (tailwind component, late descent, or ATC keep-high — pick one). Stable-approach / go-around policy is the learning hinge. Second approach available. |
| Primary competencies |
Flight Path — Manual · Flight Path — Automation · Situation Awareness · Professional Standards (policy adherence) · Communication |
| Deliberate threats |
Environmental (energy / wind) · Operational (ATC keep-high or late change) · Human (plan continuation bias) |
| Trigger ideas |
Late configuration; speed trend high; unstable call expected by SOPs; optional PM challenge opportunity |
| Must-achieve (examples) |
Recognition of unstable criteria; go-around flown to a safe path; clear callouts; second approach plan |
| Facilitation prompts |
“What was your go-around trigger — and did both of you share it?” · “Where did continuation bias appear?” · “How did the PM’s challenge land?” |
| Tailor-up (Scenario only) |
Second-order threat on go-around (e.g. weather or simple system advisory). |
| Tailor-down |
Reduce energy challenge; rebuild in Manoeuvres-style loop, then lighter Scenario reinvest. |
| Phase caution |
If Evaluation: observe; safety intervention only. If Scenario: may interrupt to enable development. Announce in the brief. |
Peer-review quick score (optional)
| Check |
Y/N |
| Linked to stated competencies |
|
| Threats realistic and fair |
|
| Success possible with good TEM/CRM |
|
| Tailor-up / tailor-down stated |
|
| Avoids gotcha / firehose / no-exit |
|
| Debrief hooks planned |
|
Reviewer: __ Designer: __ Date: ___
MaxFli Aviation — Captain Graham Croft · London · Worldwide contracted training
