working group - eamtc · alain schreck oem - airbus france pascal retif oem - snecma france ......

European Aviation Maintenance Training Committee

Working Group

Synthetic Training Devices

(MASTER DOCUMENT)

EAMTC WORKING GROUPMASTER DOCUMENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents................................................................................................................21 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION.........................................................................................3

1.1 Revision Record.........................................................................................................31.2 General Document Overview....................................................................................3

2 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................52.1 Working Group Organization....................................................................................52.2 Abbreviations.............................................................................................................52.3 Background................................................................................................................5

3 MEETING REPORT........................................................................................................63.1 Attendance.................................................................................................................63.2 Organization Categories (Original)............................................................................63.3 Organization Categories (New).................................................................................73.4 Organizational Representation(Original)...................................................................73.5 Organizational Representation (New)........................................................................83.6 Minutes of Previous Meetings...................................................................................8

4 DELIVERABLES.............................................................................................................94.1 Mission Statement......................................................................................................94.2 Objective Statement...................................................................................................94.3 Scope Statement.........................................................................................................94.4 Concept of Levels......................................................................................................9

4.4.1 Working Assumptions for Concept....................................................................94.4.2 Process Definition.............................................................................................104.4.3 Potential Improvements....................................................................................10

5 SPECIFICATIONS (Original)........................................................................................115.1 Model.......................................................................................................................11

5.1.1 Definition..........................................................................................................115.1.2 Discussion.........................................................................................................115.1.3 Diagram: ..........................................................................................................125.1.4 Diagram: ..........................................................................................................135.1.5 Discussion.........................................................................................................135.1.6 References.........................................................................................................14

6 SPECIFICATIONS (New).............................................................................................156.1 Model.......................................................................................................................15

6.1.1 Definition..........................................................................................................156.2 Model.......................................................................................................................18

6.2.1 Definition (updated)..........................................................................................186.2.1 Discussion.........................................................................................................20

6.3 Updated chart...........................................................................................................206.3.1 Discussion.........................................................................................................21

7 ACTION LISTS..............................................................................................................228 Group Action Rules....................................................................................................22

9 MEETING SCHEDULE.................................................................................................239.1 Meeting schedule.....................................................................................................23

08/08/11 of 23


1 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTIONPurpose: This document is issued by the EAMTC President when the WG is

established further to a GA vote for the establishment of such a group. The document is used to report the results of the WG to the EAMTC President and the GA.

Distribution: Participants of the Group and people designated by the WG President and / or EAMTC President

Maintenance: WG President or as assigned.Usage: This paper records the ongoing work of the WG. It is the report

document for the WG and is intended to be used to communicate the WG recommendations established to the EAMTC President and GA

Control: The control of the issuance of the document to the WG President rests with the EAMTC President. Once issued, the control of the document rests with the WG President.

Reference: MasterDocument_MS_R(revision)_(location)_(date).docVersion: Version number established by re-issue Revised: Revision number established by minor updates and editorial changesClassification: Restricted to members useValid from: Latest meeting minutes, i.e., Version relates to Location and DateSoftware: The software used to edit this document is MS Word, Open Office (or

similar). The document is normally distributed in Adobe® PDF format.

1.1 Revision Record

Ver Date Author Revision Highlights1 28/05/10 I. E. Williams 12 08/08/11 M. Voorwinde 2 New definition & chart3 03/10/11 M. Voorwinde 3 Updated chart4 23/03/12 M.Voorwinde 3a Word change in updated chart56789101112

1.2 General Document Overview

This document represents the results of the Working Group 08 Maintenance Synthetic Training Devices Classification and Impact on Practical Training as presented in October 2004. The WG was to make it possible to use STD’s for maintenance training as substitute for live aircraft in an EASA recognized manner.

08/08/11 of 23


The original WG material was used as the basis for a further WG opened at the October 2010 Lucerne meeting. The document has been subsequently updated to add details of further meetings held.

08/08/11 of 23


2 INTRODUCTION

2.1 Working Group Organization

Original President – New President Alain Schreck – Michel VoorwindeVice President

2.2 Abbreviations

APU Auxiliary Power UnitATA Air Transport AssociationBITE Built in Test EquipmentCB Circuit Breaker(s)EAMTC European Aviation Maintenance Training CommitteeGA General Assembly of the EAMTCJAA Joint Airworthiness AuthoritiesJAR Joint Airworthiness RequirementsJAR STD JAR StandardNAA National Airworthiness AuthoritySTD Synthetic Training Device(s)WG Working Group

2.3 Background

The Working Group originated because although the use of STD’s is allowed by Part66 and 147 there were found to be different interpretations by NAA’s, lack of clarity for using STD’s for maintenance training and that there was no STD standard for maintenance training.

The group’s objective was to define levels for Maintenance Training Devices that could be used by the industry, NAA and manufacturers.

08/08/11 of 23


3 MEETING REPORT

3.1 AttendanceMeeting attendance is open to all nominated WG participants and any specialists that may be called, as needed, periodically by the WG President to provide particular support.

3.2 Organization Categories (Original)Members and Attendees are categorized by the Organisation to which they belong.

Group Member Category - Company LocationAlain Schreck OEM - Airbus FrancePascal Retif OEM - Snecma FranceMichel Voorwinde Training Organisation - CAE NetherlandsDavid de al Eglesia Training Organsation – Iberia SpainThomas Bund Training Organisation - LTT GermanyTony Nugent Training Organisation – FLS UKJean-Francois Dolcini Air France – Airline France

08/08/11 of 23

3.3 Organization Categories (New)

Group Member Category - Company LocationMichel Voorwinde Secretary - EAMTC NetherlandsLuigi Baldini OEM - ATR FranceEric Colin OEM - Airbus FranceJean-Paul Bicheyre OEM - ATR FranceDuygu Totan Airline – Turkish Airlines TurkeyDominique Desjardins Airline – Air France FranceHolger Westerweld Airline – Air Berlin GermanyNicolas Pernet Training Company - i3M FranceLaurent Hart Training Company - i3M France

3.4 Organizational Representation(Original)The following table totals the represented category by organization. Only Active members are included in the totals.

Category Numbers

Air France – France 1

Airlines Total 1

Manufacturer – Airframe 1Manufacturer – Engines 1

Original Equipment Manufacturers Total 2

Training School / Iberia – Spain 1Training School / LTT – Germany 1Training School / FLS – UK 1Training School / CAE – Netherlands 1

Training Schools Total 4

Consultant – countryConsultants Total 0


3.5 Organizational Representation (New)The following table totals the represented category by organization. Only Active members are included in the totals.

Category Numbers

Airlines – Air France – France 1Airlines – Turkish Airlines - Turkey 1Airlines – Air Berlin - Germany 1

Airlines Total 3

OEM – Airframe – ATR - France 2OEM – Airframe – Airbus - France 1

Original Equipment Manufacturers Total 3

Training School / Company – Software manufacturer - i3M – France

2

Training Companies Total 2

Consultant – EAMTC - Secretary 1Consultants Total 1

3.6 Minutes of Previous MeetingsThe minutes of the meetings are replaced by this Master Document which was not in place at the time of the WG.

08/08/11 of 23


4 DELIVERABLES

4.1 Mission Statement“To develop Guidelines and Recommendations for Levels of Synthetic Training Devices for maintenance training that can be used for the training industry, NAA and manufacturers”

4.2 Objective Statement

The Working Group will develop STD levels that will make it possible to use STD’s for maintenance training as substitute for live aircraft in an EASA recognized manner.

4.3 Scope StatementThe target areas and focus of the Working Group are related to aircraft maintenance training.

4.4 Concept of Levels

4.4.1 Working Assumptions for ConceptConceptWithin the (then existing) JAA there were criteria for STD (JAR STD). These comprised:

1A FFS2A FTD3A FNPT4A BITD

The above JAR STD is for fixed wing aircraft and focuses on Flight Crew training only

GoalsThe goal of the (original) WG was to expand the JAR STD with new a category 5A. This new category would contain STD criteria for maintenance training that includes qualifying minimum STD requirements for Maintenance Training

RationaleThe rationale of the (original) WG was that an already existing STD could be easily extended or built on to include STD for maintenance training.

08/08/11 of 23


4.4.2 Process DefinitionThe processes required to achieve the objective are to work both in face-to-face WG sessions and remotely as the task requires. Face-to-face sessions would be used to consolidate the outcomes of the WG sessions in order to reach an agreed definition for the project.

The finished work would be presented to the EAMTC GA for approval.

4.4.3 Potential Improvements

The potential improvements for maintenance training and the advantages of using STD’s for practical type training include:

• Training based on fault introduction• The ability to carry out trouble shooting and fault isolation training including BITE• Training with an interactive cockpit in 2D or 3D environment• Component replacement training is possible• Around the clock availability• Easily transportable devices

08/08/11 of 23


5 SPECIFICATIONS (ORIGINAL)

5.1 Model

5.1.1 Definition

An STD for Maintenance Training shall use simulation programs installed on the Device necessary to represent the aircraft in ground conditions to the extent of the systems including BITE

An STD for Maintenance shall provide accurate and adequate interaction and feedback to the trainees to be able to perform the specified maintenance tasks as per the Aircraft Maintenance Manual and any other relevant instructions and tasks as appropriate for the type of Aircraft

5.1.2 Discussion

There are limitations using aircraft for practical type training:

Limited use and availability of aircraft• Aircraft cannot be allocated additional ground time for training to take place.• Aircraft cannot be powered by engines or (sometimes even) the APU• Maintenance activities take precedence over training events• Multiple training events may need to take place due to limited space on the

aircraft• Environmental factors may heavily influence the quality of the training

(temperature, humidity, noise etc)• Workplace hazards are everpresent and may detract from the quality of the

training

No fault rectification or trouble shoot training possible• Aircraft cannot be put into a “fault” condition in order for training to take place• Indications on a fault free aircraft are of little training value• Faults on an aircraft cannot be rectified by trainees

Limited deactivation training possible• Aircraft systems and components cannot be deactivated and reactivated (easily

or without due process) for training purposes.

08/08/11 of 23


• An appropriately Licensed Engineer or Approved Personnel is required to verify and sign for any items disturbed as a result of training.

5.1.3 Diagram:

Proposal for 2 LevelsQualificationlevel

General Technical requirements Suitable for

1 Any system or combination of systems fully simulated at cockpit level

System operationAdjustment testsOperational testsDeactivationTrouble shooting

2 Any system or combination of systems fully simulated at cockpit level including BITE

As above plusRemoval/installationServicing/groundhandlingMaintenance practicesInspections/checks

08/08/11 of 23


5.1.4 Diagram: Proposal for 3 Levels

Qualification level General Technical requirements Suitable for

1 Any system or combination of systems fully simulated at cockpit level including BITE’

System operationAdjustment testsOperational testsDeactivation

2 Any system or combination of systems fully simulated at cockpit level including BITE

As above plusTrouble shooting

3 Any system or combination of systems fully simulated at Cockpit and at Aircraft level including BITE

As above plusRemoval/InstallationServicing/Ground HandlingMaintenance PracticesInspection/Checks

5.1.5 Discussion

Criteria and benefits of the classification are as follows:

The most important criteria for classification is the maintenance Tasks to be performed on the Device.

The capabilities of the Training Device shall determine: • The point or time in the training programme that the device can be used for the

Practical Training• Which part of the training can be done using the device

Defined criteria are applicable for current generation STD and future developments of STD.

08/08/11 of 23


5.1.6 References

Part147.A.115 Instructional equipment(d) The aircraft type training organization as specified in 147.A.100(e) must have

access to the appropriate aircraft type. Synthetic training devices may be used when such synthetic training devices ensure adequate training standards

Part66 Appendix III 2.2 Practical elementThe practical training element must consist of performance of representative maintenance tasks and their assessment, in order to meet the following objectives: Ensure safe performance of maintenance, inspections and routine work according to the maintenance manual and other relevant instructions and tasks as appropriate for the type of aircraft, for example trouble shooting, repairs, adjustments, replacements, rigging and functional checks such as engine run, etc, if required.

Correctly use all technical literature and documentation for the aircraft

Correctly use specialist/special tooling and test equipment, perform removal and replacement of components and modules unique to type, including any onwing maintenance activity

08/08/11 of 23


6 SPECIFICATIONS (NEW)

6.1 Model

6.1.1 DefinitionBuilding on the work done by the original WG there was detailed discussion on the open questions. These concerned

• Do we need different STD with different levels?• What could be performed on a STD?• Up to which point may an STD be used?• How much practical training can be done on an STD?• Is it restricted to adding knowledge / skill about tasks that cannot be in reality for

operational reasons?

For practical training, six categories of task have been determined:

• Location• Trouble Shooting• Removal and Installation (R & I)• Functional and Operational Test• Ground line servicing• MEL

The WG decided to define a level for each practical training category.

Presentation: proposal for 3 STD levels:

1. any system or combination of systems fully simulated at cockpit level

2. any system or combination of systems fully simulated at cockpit level including BITE

3 any system or combination of systems fully simulated at cockpit and aircraft level including BITE

08/08/11 of 23


For 1 : system operation; adjustment test, operational level, deactivationFor 2 : for deeper trouble shootingFor 3 : R&I, Service Ground Handling, maintenance practices and inspection checks.

Comments:

We don’t need the full simulation to complete a task. We can start at a given point or step that is necessary to perform in order for the technician to be qualified from practical training.

Use of STD• Safety precaution

• Human factors

• Out of the cockpit

• In the cockpit

• Scenario based simulation

• Electronic documentation

• On board maintenance system

Real time animation:

• active schematics

• Components location

• Trouble Shooting

• Malfunction

• Standard practices

08/08/11 of 23


• Removal and installation

• Operational tasks

• Functional tests

• Tools selection

• Aircraft servicing

• Circuit Breaker panel

We can determine 3 types of environments:

• cockpit environment with CB

• external aircraft (servicing and components location)

• Maintenance tasks related to check A and C

Maintenance tasks should include Line and Base environments.

R & I discussion

We cannot do trouble shooting for only one thing. When the failed component is found, it is sufficient. There is no benefit in making a deeper demonstration of removal and installation.

Removal and installation is the biggest trouble in training. It must be simplified in training. The procedure on paper explains what to do.

Sometimes the complexity of task does not match with the complexity of tools.

Some specific components have to be demonstrated, we have to make a difference between a simple and a complex components. A good example is a propeller blade.

A theoretical course has to include malfunctions and the practical part should have trouble shooting exercises which finish with removal and installation, where applicable.

08/08/11 of 23


We have to determine what is a simple task and a complex task.

What is a representative task?

What is a normal operation?

What a simple task?

For each of them we have to make a definition.

Conclusions:

We have defined three levels of simulation.

• cockpit environment with CB

• external aircraft (servicing and components location)

• Maintenance tasks related to check A and C

6.2 Model

6.2.1 Definition (updated)From the previous meeting, the definitions were clarified. The word “fully” was agreed to be removed from the original text.

An estimated 80% of the total practical training could be done with STD..

Proposal for Synthetic Training Devices (STD) levels:

• Level A: ◦ any system or combination of systems at aircraft environment without

simulation

• Level B: ◦ any system or combination of systems simulated at cockpit level

08/08/11 of 23


• Level C: ◦ any system or combination of systems simulated at cockpit level including

BITE and/or maintenance onboard systems

• Level D: ◦ any system or combination of systems simulated at cockpit level including

BITE and maintenance onboard systems with virtual aircraft environment.

A chart or table showing the level of STD with the tasks that could be performed at each level was developed.

08/08/11 of 23


FOT simple means to test using only one locationFOT complex means to test using multiple locationsMEL simple means no special tools are necessaryMEL complex means special tools are necessary

6.2.1 Discussion

There was discussion on each of the six defined practical training categories.

We should not make a comparison between pilot and maintenance STDs. Pilots must be in a “real” cockpit with sound, environment etc, for maintenance this is not necessary.

6.3 Updated chart

08/08/11 of 23

CATEGORY REMARKS

LOC

SIMPLE X X

COCKPIT X X X X

COMPLEX X X Difficult

FOTSIMPLE X X X

COMPLEX X Depending on Aircraft availability

SGHSERVICING X X

X

R/ILRU X X X Difficult / Impossible in 147 environment

X X Difficult / Impossible in 147 environment

MELSIMPLE X X X

COMPLEX X X Difficult / Impossible in 147 environment

TS

LEVEL I X X X Difficult / Impossible in 147 environment

LEVEL II System failure X X Difficult / Impossible in 147 environment

LEVELL III X Difficult / Impossible in 147 environment

TASKTYPE

STDA (aircraft)

STDB (cockpit)

STDC (Cockpit

+Maintenance systems)

STDD (Virtual Aircraft)

AIRCRAFT(adequate for EAMTC presentation only)

Easy localisation with direct access

Localisation which necessitate access panels removalFunctional or operational test

GROUNDHANDLING

COMPLEXCOMPONENT

Component failure light (cockpit)

Complex System Failure


6.3.1 DiscussionThe WG discussed the concept of a Variable Percentage use of the real aircraft in order to complete the Practical Training. This is defined as: -

Practical Training Syllabus Time on Aircraft = 100% - % of tasks completed on STD

08/08/11 of 23


7 ACTION LISTS

8 Group Action Rules

All Working Group Members

• Comments (positive or negative) on meeting products (reports) to team leads within 7 days

• Confirmation of attendance to next meeting ASAPWeb site • EAMTC President to post minutes to the web siteRecorder (Note Taker)

• Issues minutes within 7 days to Working Group and EAMTC President

Working Group President

• Incorporate meeting highlights, updates Master Document and advises EAMTC President to post minutes to web site

• Advise next meeting agenda and date to all within 14 days prior to planned date

08/08/11 of 23


9 MEETING SCHEDULE

9.1 Meeting schedule

1st and 2nd February 2011

28th March 2011

3rd October 2011

08/08/11 of 23

working group - eamtc · alain schreck oem - airbus france pascal retif oem - snecma france ......

Documents