Fault analysis

Fault analysis is the discipline of finding why a performance breakdown happened, not only what went wrong at the end of the chain. In competency-based and EBT, it replaces the habit of ordering another repetition of a failed manoeuvre until the outcome looks better. Symptom-level fixes produce temporary success under instruction and failure again under load.

The instructional shift

Legacy check-oriented practice: manoeuvre fails → fly it again → hope.

EBT airborne remedial standard: manoeuvre fails → identify root cause against competencies and cognitive process → train the cause → then re-fly if needed.

Fault-analysis ability is a major determinant in instructor selection for competency-based programmes. Instructors who cannot do it cannot deliver the programme as designed: grades miss the cause, remediation misses the target, and training data becomes noise.

Diagnostic sequence

1. Check the instructor first (airborne / device)

Before concluding the trainee is at fault:

  • Re-demonstrate (was Direction of Attention clear?).
  • Further subdivide (was the task chunked for this trainee?).
  • Change method (was How to Teach it wrong for What the Student Knows?).

Only after those are exhausted, shift the analysis fully onto the trainee.

2. Ask WHY, not only WHAT

Fundamental probes:

  • Where is the student looking?
  • What instruments are in the scan during the sequence?
  • How is the student prioritising actions?

A consistent undershoot on visual approach may be a handling symptom of a scan that never includes the aim point, or a wrong visual cue for path. More flare practice without fixing the scan yields a student who lands under instruction and fails alone.

3. Classify the error mode

Mode Typical picture Usual focus
Skill-based Action slip on familiar task Monitoring, arousal, workload, fatigue
Rule-based Wrong procedure or deliberate deviation Situation recognition, procedure selection
Knowledge-based Decision under novel conditions Decision frame, TEM, crew involvement

Same remedial for all three (more practice) is the common failure.

4. Trace with a human-factors scaffold

The Performance-Influences model walks from:

  • Direct factors (decision, dexterity, attention, awareness) →
  • Potential factors (fatigue, time, design, stress, procedures, weather, …) →
  • Managing factors (organisation: SOPs, training, tools; individual: TEM, communication, workload management, …).

Use the model for exemplary performance too: reinforce what worked.

5. Grade and remediate at competency root cause

Doc 9995 assessment steps: observe → record → classify against observable behaviours → determine root cause(s) in the competency framework. Low performance indicates the area to remediate next. Competency assessment includes TEM outcome for that competency as a countermeasure.

Instructor use

  1. Cap debrief learning outcomes at two or three root-cause themes; do not chronologically tour the whole session.
  2. Cite evidence: grade → missing performance indicator → concrete session example.
  3. Prefer facilitation so the crew surfaces the why; deliver instruction when discovery will not reach a safety-critical truth in time.
  4. Record root causes in notes for the next instructor and for programme trends; anonymised aggregates improve the system.
  5. In selection and standardisation of instructors, treat fault analysis as a scored skill, not a personality trait.

Connections

Sources