CS FCD.425 Evaluation process and evaluation descriptions

Definition of the evaluation process and evaluation descriptions:

(a)     Difference level evaluations

Tests T1 to T5 are used to evaluate a candidate aircraft on the pilot type rating, minimum syllabus, operational evaluations, and credit for operations on more than one type or variant. The T6 evaluation may be used to establish the CTLC between related aircraft when not previously demonstrated in a T2 evaluation.

One or more of these six evaluations are applied depending on the objectives of the applicant, difference level sought, and the successful outcome of any previous evaluations used in identifying MDRs.

(b)     Steps of the evaluation process

When an evaluation is carried out, the T1, T2, and T3 tests compare the candidate aircraft with the base aircraft. DR tables and MDR tables (between variants of aircraft types) are established, which address the differences between the base and the candidate aircraft

To establish data for a direction that was not previously assessed, an additional evaluation using the above T tests may be carried out based on an application. In general, level A and B differences do not require two-way testing.

(c)      Prior to the evaluation:

(1)     representative training programmes, difference programmes and the necessary supporting training material and information are developed as needed;

(2)     the proposed MDRs and DRs are identified;

(3)     the applicant proposes which evaluations and criteria apply; evaluations may be combined;

(4)     the applicant proposes which aircraft, variants, simulation devices, or analysis is needed to support the evaluation;

(5)     the aircraft, variants, training aids, FSTDs, or analyses that are needed to support the evaluation are identified;

(6)     the applicant proposes test procedures, schedules, and specific interpretation of the possible results.

(d)     Evaluation purpose and application

The evaluation purpose and application are summarised in the table below:

A detailed description of the purpose, process, and application of each of the six difference level evaluations is as follows:

(e)     Evaluation 1 (T1) — Functional equivalence

Evaluation purpose: to validate:

—          the functional equivalence between the base and the candidate aircraft; and

—          the level differences.

Evaluation subjects: as established by EASA based on a proposal by the applicant.

Evaluation process: administer appropriate portions of a proficiency check as agreed by EASA based on a proposal by the applicant. This evaluation may be carried out in an FSTD with the appropriate capability to achieve the training objectives, or an aircraft, as appropriate. Only those portions of the proficiency check which are affected by the differences from the base aircraft need to be evaluated. For minor level A or B differences, this evaluation may be conducted through analysis.

(1)     Successful evaluation validates that the base and candidate aircraft are sufficiently alike, to assign level A or B differences.

(2)     Failure of an evaluation generally requires completion of the T2 and T3 evaluations. Normally, re-evaluation is not appropriate; however, at the request of the applicant, re-evaluation may be accepted by EASA.

(3)     EASA may waive the T1 test if a T2 test, or T2 and T3 tests are to be performed.

(f)      Evaluation 2 (T2) — Handling qualities comparison

Evaluation purpose: to evaluate handling qualities using specific flight manoeuvres, to determine whether level A, B, C, or D training is appropriate to be validated via a T3 test, when required. At the discretion of EASA, the T2 evaluation may be completed through analysis when it is assessed that the nature of the proposed design changes does not affect the handling qualities of the candidate aircraft.

The test has also the purpose of validating the commonality, in terms of handling qualities, between two different aircraft types, when seeking approval for a reduced type rating training course.

Evaluation subjects: as established by EASA based on a proposal by the applicant.

Evaluation process: compare the handling qualities during a set of agreed manoeuvres. This evaluation is conducted in the base and the candidate aircraft, unless safety considerations dictate the use of an FFS, as defined in CS FCD.415(a) for Level E. Manoeuvres that are performed in the aircraft require a safety pilot who may only aid in areas not related to the evaluation. Normal crew call-outs and coordination are permitted; however, the safety pilot may not assist in any other manner unless directly related to a safety-of-flight issue, for example, no ‘coaching’ or instructing is permitted.

Successful evaluation: validates that the base and the candidate aircraft are sufficiently alike in handling qualities to permit the applicant to assign A, B, C, or D training levels. A successful T2 evaluation permits a subsequent T3 evaluation to assess the system differences and equipment differences, the training, or checking to be conducted. If a subsequent T3 test is not requested, level A or B training may be assigned.

When a T2 test is otherwise successfully completed, an FFS or aircraft for manoeuvre training, as mentioned in CS FCD.415(a), may be proposed within level D training for performing specific manoeuvres.

Failure of the evaluation: failure of the T2 evaluation indicates that major differences exist in handling qualities during the critical phases of flight (such as take-off or landing), or that numerous less critical but still significant differences in handling qualities exist between the base and the candidate aircraft. A failure of a T2 evaluation requires to assign level E training. Also with level E training, a separate type rating is normally assigned to the candidate aircraft being evaluated. Normally, a T2 re-evaluation is not appropriate; however, a re-evaluation may be proposed.

(g)     Evaluation 3 (T3)

This is a test of the system and equipment differences, and validation of the proposed difference training and checking or of the reduced type rating training, based on credit for previous experience on similar aircraft types.

Evaluation purpose: to evaluate the proposed difference training, and the checking and training devices at level A, B, C, or D. T3 is also used to evaluate reduced type rating training, checking, and currency, as well as training devices for reduced initial type rating training, based on credit for previous experience on similar aircraft types.

Evaluation subjects: pilots designated by EASA, trained and experienced in the base aircraft and having been given the proposed difference training or reduced initial type rating training for the candidate aircraft.

Evaluation process: if level A or B training is deemed appropriate, T3 may be completed by analysis. If level C or D training is deemed appropriate, administer appropriate portions of a proficiency check in system trainers or an FSTD for manoeuvre training, or in an aircraft, as mentioned in CS FCD.415(a). Following the completion of the proficiency check, a simulated LOF check may be administered by EASA. This LOF check is normally administered in an FSTD, but may be conducted in a test aircraft, as appropriate.

Successful evaluation: permits assignment of level A, B, C or D training and validates the proposed differences training or checking programmes.

Failure of evaluation: indicates that either the proposed training is inadequate and is in need of revision to qualify for a re-evaluation opportunity or T3 failure may require the assignment of level E training. With level E training a separate type rating is normally assigned to the candidate aircraft. Re-evaluation may be proposed.

(h)     Evaluation 4 (T4) — Currency validation

Evaluation purpose: used to evaluate relief from established currency requirements. This currency evaluation addresses systems, equipment, procedural and manoeuvring differences between aircraft, and does not address the recent experience requirements for take-off, approach, and landing, as mentioned in FCL.060(b) of Part-FCL.

Evaluation subjects: as established by EASA based on a proposal by the applicant.

Evaluation process: as established by EASA based on a proposal by the applicant, but normally involves a process for validating a specific currency proposal made by the applicant or alternative evaluation methods such as direct observation of proficiency checks or LOF FSTD sessions.

Successful evaluation: validates that the proposed currency provision(s) is (are) accepted as a means of compliance with the applicable requirements and provides an equivalent level of safety. T4 may be completed as part of an initial certification or evaluation process or as a follow-up of evaluation.

Failure of evaluation: indicates that the proposed currency requirements do not provide an equivalent level of safety and may lead to re-evaluation as determined by EASA based on a proposal by the applicant, if appropriate.

(i)      Evaluation 5 (T5) — Initial or transition training programme validation

Evaluation purpose: used to validate training courses at level E (new type rating). In accordance with the pilot prerequisites for the subject training course, training courses to be evaluated is (are) either a full type rating course(s) or reduced type rating courses with credit for previous experience on similar aircraft types.

Evaluation subjects: as established by EASA based on a proposal by the applicant, who meet the prerequisites that are established under Part-FCL for issuing a type rating.

Evaluation process: as established by EASA based on a proposal by the applicant, but normally involves evaluation subjects receiving the proposed training and EASA observing or administering the checking upon completion of the training. A T2 and T3 evaluation may be performed if credit for commonality is requested. This evaluation may be structured to evaluate specific commonality objectives as established by EASA based on a proposal by the applicant.

Successful evaluation: validates that the proposed training satisfies the appropriate requirements.

Failure of the evaluation: indicates that the proposed training programme requires changes to satisfy the appropriate requirements. A re-evaluation, as established by EASA based on a proposal by the applicant, would normally be required.

A T5 evaluation may give credit for an applicable evaluation that is carried out during T2 and T3 evaluations in the event of T2 or T3 evaluation failures.

(j)      Evaluation 6 (T6) — CTLC

Evaluation purpose: to establish credit between the base and candidate aircraft towards the recent experience requirements for take-off and landing.

Evaluation subjects: pilots designated by EASA, neither trained nor experienced in the candidate aircraft.

Evaluation process: the evaluation subjects are first provided with refresher training in the base aircraft to establish a baseline of proficiency. This training may be completed in the aircraft or in an approved level C or D FFS. The subject is then evaluated in the candidate aircraft, without any training in it, by accomplishing a minimum of three take-offs and landings without use of the autopilot. It may not be practical to conduct some evaluations in an aircraft, and in such cases, an FFS may be used to conduct these evaluations. The evaluation subjects should be evaluated on the ability to fly the aircraft manually through take-off, initial climb, approach, and landing (including the establishment of the final landing configuration).

Successful evaluation: validates that the proposed training satisfies the appropriate requirements, and that an equivalent level of safety can be maintained when full or partial credit for take-offs and landings is given between the base and candidate aircraft.

Failure of the evaluation: indicates that an equivalent level of safety cannot be maintained when either full or partial credit for take-offs and landings is given between the base and candidate aircraft.

(k)     Disposition of evaluation results

Evaluation results should be summarised by EASA and sent to the applicant, and the outcome should be documented in the OSD FC.

Prior to the issuance of the OSD, a statement declaring the results of the type rating determination may be issued.

[Issue No: FCD/2]