Human Factors Training - Aviation Africa-EU | Support to … E... · 2016-01-26 · Human Factors Training ... Introduction to Human Factors (Module 1), ... Participants were nominated

European Aviation Safety Agency

Strategy & Safety Management Directorate

International Cooperation Department

Human Factors Training

Assessment Report

Grant Contract 2012/299-316

December 2015

This project is funded by the European Union and implemented by EASA

Human Factors Training Report

December 2015

International Cooperation Department Page ii

Page 2 of 32

TE.GEN.00400-002 © European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA-Internet/Intranet.

Description

Title of the Activity Human Factors Training

Start and end date of the reporting period 17/11/2014 – 30/11/2015

Target countries or regions - SADC

- UEMOA

- CASSOA

- BAGASOO

Final beneficiaries &/or target groups Regional and National Aviation Safety

Oversight Organisation and their

personnel

Countries in which the activity took place Swaziland, Togo, Malawi, Ghana

Authorisation :

Name Position Date

Prepared Alexis Droin Analyst 03/12/2015

Reviewed Anabel Miralles Operational Manager 03/12/2015

Authorised Yves Koning Project Manager 06/12/2015

Disclaimer:

This document has been produced with the financial assistance of the European Union. The

contents of this document are the sole responsibility of EASA and can under no circumstances

be regarded as reflecting the position of the European Union.


December 2015

International Cooperation Department Page iii

Page 3 of 32



Table of Contents

1 Organisation of the Training ........................................................................... 1

1.1 Training needs assessment ................................................................................ 1

1.2 Training Programme .......................................................................................... 1

1.3 Procedure applied for the selection of participants ................................................. 1

1.4 Delivery of the training activity ........................................................................... 2

2 Training Evaluation ....................................................................................... 3

2.1 Participants Statistics ........................................................................................ 3

2.2 Post-training Evaluation by session ..................................................................... 5

2.2.1 Human Factors training in Swaziland (Session 1) ........................................ 5

2.2.2 Human Factors training in Togo (Session 2) ............................................... 6

2.2.3 Human Factors training in Ghana (Session 3) ............................................. 7

2.2.4 Human Factors IASOM training in Malawi ................................................... 7

2.3 Training Overall Performance .............................................................................. 9

2.4 Follow-up evaluation ....................................................................................... 11

3 Conclusion ................................................................................................. 14

3.1 Participants performance assessment ................................................................ 14

3.2 Follow-up Feedback assessment ....................................................................... 14

3.3 Recommendations for Future Trainings .............................................................. 14

Annex A. Acronyms and definitions .................................................................. 16

Annex B. Invitation Letter .............................................................................. 17

Annex C. Registration Form ............................................................................ 18

Annex D. Letter to Host Country ...................................................................... 19

Annex E. Training Agenda .............................................................................. 20

Annex F. Post-Session Questionnaire ............................................................... 25

Annex G. Follow-up Questionnaire ................................................................... 28


December 2015

International Cooperation Department Page 1 of 29

Page 1 of 32



1 Organisation of the Training

1.1 Training needs assessment

It has been an ICAO requirement to address Human Factors (HF) issues in the PEL, OPS,

AIR and ANS domains for some time now. Yet some countries still experience difficulties

with this subject matter.

It was stated in SIASA’s inception report that “one of the recurrent complaints was the

lack of understanding of the human factors principles by the local authority inspectors.

This prevented a fair evaluation of the courses and trainings provided by companies they

oversee.”

It was thus proposed to offer a course in this domain for national/regional aviation

authorities technical personnel.

The purpose of this training was to enhance the knowledge of inspectors of CAAs of in the

area of HF based on ICAO SARPs and associated documents.

The training session was set up according to the following objectives:

1. Provide inspectors with sufficient background to interpret HF principles in their

area.

2. Make them able to assess HF course curricula related to the specific activity (OPS,

AIR and ATM), by providing them the current ICAO framework.

3. Awareness that national legislation may impose requirements in addition to the

ICAO standards.

4. Competence on developing checklist points for manual and training programmes

evaluation related to human factors.

ICAO Doc 8335 6.3.1 requires that the inspectors initial training addresses “Human Factors

Principles”.

1.2 Training Programme

The training course was organised around five modules (see also agenda in Annex E):

Introduction to Human Factors (Module 1),

Operators - Pilots and Controllers (Module 2),

Crew Cooperation (Module 3),

Impact of Technology - Global System (Module 4) and

Human Factors Training Methods and Tools (Module 5).

1.3 Procedure applied for the selection of participants

Participants were nominated by the directors of the civil aviation authorities, upon EASA’s

request. Nominated participants had to submit their CVs which were checked by EASA.

Only suitable candidates were accepted to attend the training.


December 2015


Page 2 of 32



For instance, some candidates’ application had to be rejected as they had not been

nominated by their CAA to attend the training sessions. Others did not match the targeted

profile and were thus not accepted. The successful candidates met the following criteria:

Official belonging to Civil Aviation Authority or RSOOs;

Aviation background, preferably in oversight function either in PEL, OPS, AIR or

ANS;

1.4 Delivery of the training activity

Being almost unknown to the majority of the authorities in Sub-Saharan Africa, this course

was set at an introductory level. The purpose of the course was to allow participants to

acquire some knowledge to help them evaluate the HF training delivered to aviation

professionals. The material was based on ICAO documentations.

The training reflected the latest developments in the flight operations, airworthiness, ATM,

safety management and authority requirements from ICAO.

The training and associated training materials were delivered in English or in French

(depending on the targeted region).

Three training sessions have been delivered under the SIASA project:

- Session 1 in Swaziland, from 17 to 21 November 2014.

- Session 2 in Togo, from 9 to 13 March 2015.

- Session 3 in Ghana, from 1 to 5 June 2015.

Also, four SIASA beneficiaries from the CASSOA Member States attended a Human Factors

training course organised under the EU funded IASOM project, in Malawi, from 16 to 19

February 2015. The modules and training content for this session differed slightly from the

SIASA project’s Human Factors training.

A similar training was conducted as well in French under the EU funded ATA-AC project,

in Brazzaville, Congo.


December 2015


Page 3 of 32



2 Training Evaluation

2.1 Participants Statistics

Participating Organizations

Gender Parity, in number of participants

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

SADC UEMOA CASSOA BAGASOO

Par

tici

pan

ts

Overall Distribution by Regional Organization

42

6

Overall Gender Parity

Male

Female


December 2015


Page 4 of 32



Job Distribution

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Par

tici

pan

ts

Overall Job Distribution


December 2015


Page 5 of 32



2.2 Post-training Evaluation by session

2.2.1 Human Factors training in Swaziland (Session 1)

General Average Rating:

Overall average score reveals:

a. Good reception of the training in general: almost all points of evaluation have a

score equivalent or superior to 4/5, with the Training Environment being the best

rated.

b. Only exception: Module 5, which got 3.8/5. Although it is an honourable score, it

remains the session’s lowest. This module would benefit from a revision, as the

other scores suggest there is room for improvement.

c. Relatively homogeneous results overall, suggesting the session’s preparation was

well balanced.

Comments by participants:

- Need to extend the time frame of the training.

- Need to provide support material (in this case handed out at the end of the session).

- Need to make the training recurrent to regularly refresh and update knowledge.

1

2

3

4

5

Ave

rage

Gra

de

Training Classification


December 2015


Page 6 of 32



2.2.2 Human Factors training in Togo (Session 2)



a. Progress of training’s general content, and particularly of Modules 2, 3 and 5.

b. Module 4’s grade remains unchanged.

c. Module 1 got the lowest score among modules, when it was one of the best rated

at the previous session.

d. The revision of Module 5 was much welcomed: this module gets the best score of

all points of evaluation for this session.

e. Training environment fell to the lowest score of all points of evaluation.

Actions:

Review Module 1 and see what may have changed from a session to the other.


- Need for more exercises and case studies.

- Extend examples and case studies to a wider range of functions.

- Extend training’s overall time frame, but reduce daily hours.

- Provide support material in hard copy.

1

2

3

4

5

Ave

rage

Gra

de



December 2015


Page 7 of 32



2.2.3 Human Factors training in Ghana (Session 3)



a. Aside from Training Organization, all scores are equal or above 4/5, suggesting a

very good reception of the training overall.

b. Some participants complained about the quality of the instructor’s English – this

may explain the lower score for the Training Organization.

c. That aside, the results are very homogeneous, suggesting a good, well-balanced

preparation of the training.


- Videos, practical examples, experience-sharing and other interactions were a

particularly beneficial added value.

- More case studies, videos and debates.

- Offer a Module on maintenance.

- Extend training’s time-frame.

- Include the training’s videos in the support material provided.

2.2.4 Human Factors IASOM training in Malawi

Four SIASA beneficiaries (from CASSOA) have attended a Human Factors training

organised under the IASOM project in Malawi. The assessment for this session was thus

1

2

3

4

5

TrainingOrganization

TrainingEnvironment

GeneralContent

Module 1 Module 2 Module 3 Module 4 Module 5

Ave

rage

Gra

de



December 2015


Page 8 of 32



added to this report. However since the structure of the course provided in Malawi is

different from the one provided under the SIASA project, this set of data is not

incorporated in the overall data and thus is not included in the evaluation of paragraph

2.3.



a. Different training modules: Human Factors Main Items, Safety Culture vs Human

Factors and Human Factors Implementation.

b. Poor rating for Training General Content, despite all modules being rated above

4/5. This may suggest that, although the modules efficiently covered their

respective topic, they were defined in such a way that other important issues were

left out.

c. Great homogeneity in scores, with all modules rated at the same level. This

suggests the session’s organisation was well balanced.


- Need to increase time frame of the training and make it recurrent.

- Need more exercises and evaluation tests at the end of modules to better assess

what has been assimilated and what needs to be reviewed.

- Need more diversity in the areas chosen for examples.

- Give all modules' material on the first day, so that participants can review them

before and take the opportunity of the course to ask questions and dig into further

details.

1

2

3

4

5

TrainingOrganization

Training GenContent

Module 1 Module 2' Module 3' Module 4'

Ave

rage

Gra

de



December 2015


Page 9 of 32



2.3 Training Overall Performance

(Excluding IASOM Session)

General Average Ratings:

Overall average scores reveal:

a. The training was generally very well received: aside from the Environment, all

points of evaluation received an average grade equal or superior to 4/5. This means

that, on average, most participants found the training to be either “Very Good” or

“Excellent”.

b. Despite its lower score, the Training Environment remains honourably rated at

3.96/5.

c. The scores tend to be very homogeneous overall, meaning the training’s

preparation was well-balanced and that the participants’ perception of it was

relatively consensual.

1

2

3

4

5

Ave

rage

Gra

de

Overall Performance


December 2015


Page 10 of 32



Detailed Scores – General Consideration

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Poor Satisfactory Good Very Good Excellent

Par

tici

op

ants

Training Organization

Session 1

Session 2

Session 3

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14


Par

tici

pan

ts

Training Environment

Session 1

Session 2

Session 3

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14


Par

tici

pan

ts

Training Gen Content

Session 1

Session 2

Session 3

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14


Par

tici

pan

tsModule 1

Session 1

Session 2

Session 3

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14


Par

tici

pan

ts

Module 2

Session 1

Session 2

Session 3

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14


Par

tici

pan

ts

Module 3

Session 1

Session 2

Session 3

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14


Par

tici

pan

ts

Module 4

Session 1

Session 2

Session 3

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14


Par

tici

pan

ts

Module 5

Session 1

Session 2

Session 3


December 2015


Page 11 of 32



Overall Comments by participants:

a. Training content

The training's content was generally well appreciated for all sessions. Many participants

got a new insight into the importance of Human Factors for aviation and aviation safety.

The models presented were also well received. However, participants wished for more

diversity in the areas of functions covered, particularly for the examples provided.

b. Time Frame

Participants of all sessions have expressed the wish for an extended time frame to better

assimilate the large quantity of information, and get more opportunities to exchange

experiences and learn from each other. In the meantime, some participants of Session 2

have wished for shorter daily hours of training, to avoid a negative impact on the

participants’ concentration and the assimilation of knowledge. However this can be

explained due to the fact that the opening ceremony prior to the course took much longer

that planned and forced the instructor to adapt the training hours to cover the full

programme.

Participants have also wished for the training to become recurrent in order to regularly

refresh and update their knowledge.

c. Interactivity

The interactivity of the training itself was very much appreciated. Case studies and

exercises, in group as well as individually, were very well received, and many participants

have wished for more of these in future trainings.

Most participants have also welcomed the opportunities that the training provided to

interact together and learn from each other's experience.

However, some have suggested that a greater diversity of function could have been

represented.

Several participants have also pointed out the importance of providing support material in

hard copies. One of them suggested that all the material should be distributed on the first

day, so that participants can prepare before and take opportunity of the course to ask

questions and study the topic in further details.

2.4 Follow-up evaluation

About six months after the last training session, the participants were sent a follow-up

questionnaire (see Annex G). The purpose of this questionnaire was to evaluate the

effective usefulness of the training and its impact on the participants’ daily job. The follow-

up questionnaire was sent to all participants of SIASA supported training sessions.

The following results are based on the feedback received from 24 (51.06%) of the

participants. While this general return rate can be considered as satisfactory, it must be

noted that the feedback return rate for Session 3 was considerably lower (37.5%) than

for the other sessions, despite the several reminders sent. This may have partially biased

this session’s follow-up score, as fewer feedbacks carry more weight.


December 2015


Page 12 of 32



General Average Ratings:

Overall average scores reveal:

1. Follow-up scores are generally lower than the ones collected just after the training

sessions. Partly to be expected, as the memory of the training and the knowledge

acquired is less vivid.

2. All averages are above 3/5 (“Good”) however, which confirms the participants’

general good opinion of the training and the positive impact it had for their

performances on the job.

3. In particular, it can be noted that the “Usefulness” criteria received one of the

highest scores. This suggests that the acquired knowledge has been efficiently

integrated to the participants’ daily activity.

4. The score of “Support to Organization” also suggests some spread of the training’s

benefits to the rest of the participants’ organization. On the other hand, while the

score of “Benefit to Others” is acceptable, there seems to be some ground for

improvement for this criteria.


- “Thank you. We need more EASA training”

- “I wish to express my thanks to EASA for having given me the opportunity to follow

the above-mentioned course as it was a pre-requisite for service delivery as the

first and only auditor/inspector for Air Navigation Services (ANS).

It has enhanced my knowledge and understanding regarding safety oversight,

providing a better insight of various factors to be considered by both service

providers and regulators in ensuring an effective oversight in the ANS field. This

1

2

3

4

5

Ave

rage

Gra

de

Follow-up Overall


December 2015


Page 13 of 32



course was really beneficial to me. I learned much as we had very interactive

classes and idea sharing and discussions. The course has also served as a forum

for discussions and sharing of experience on problems encountered by States in

the implementation of an effective safety oversight system and considering ways

and means of remedial actions for ensuring safety in the provision of ANS. I have

been able to share these interesting topics with my colleagues through power-point

presentation and make use of the incident analysis techniques to discuss many

incidents and to identify undesired state and latent threats.”

- “I appreciate the opportunity you have given us, confess I learned a lot and apply

the knowledge in my day to day activities as an airworthiness inspector during

audits of maintenance organization and air operators, aircraft ramp inspection and

jury theoretical examinations and practical mechanics aircraft maintenance.”

- “The Course was helpful and enlightening in my field of work.”

- “Training was very good and Instructor was well knowledgeable.”

- “Thanks to EASA for the SIASA project; to our instructor Nadia MAS and to all

attendants to this course.”

- “I learnt more during this training. I thank SIASA project that organised this

training. I give also thanks to our great teacher who gave us knowledge and skills

in Human Factors. This skills changed the way I behave.”

- “The course materials were at good quality. The lecturer is knowledgeable and very

professional.”


December 2015


Page 14 of 32



3 Conclusion

3.1 Participants performance assessment

The participants’ performance was assessed by the instructors as follows:

“By the end of the course delegates were able to understand and apply the main concept

of Human Factors in their professional activities. They were also able to conduct effective

investigations and inspections of other organisations, based on guidance material and the

EASA implementing rules and material from ICAO.

The full commitment of delegates in an interactive and participative training atmosphere

enabled to achieve this objective. The delegates provided many good examples that were

relevant to the exercises conducted during the training, and which permitted good

illustrations in all subjects.

The delegates were very enthusiastic. All of them worked willingly and in a very

conscientious manner. The variety of the delegates’ backgrounds also enhanced the

benefit of the course. The Friday Workshop, as a result of the course, revealed their

increasing knowledge and understanding.”

3.2 Follow-up Feedback assessment

Several months after the sessions, participants have expressed once again their gratitude

to the SIASA project for organising this training, which they have found to be very useful.

They have praised the instructors’ expertise and professionalism, and have acknowledged

to have learned much from the training. They have wished to get more EASA trainings.

They however pointed out that the time frame needs to be reviewed and extended, in

order to study all the modules in further details. They have also reasserted their

enthusiasm for interactive sessions, and wished to get more practical examples, exercises

and group discussions in future trainings. Regarding the training content, participants

particularly enjoyed covering Crew Cooperation and Impact of Technology – Global

Systems (Modules 3 and 4), and wished they could have studied them in more depth. They

have also wished they could have covered in further details the topics of human factors in

the field of maintenance, as well as the applications of human factors for accident

investigation. Finally, they also believed future participants could benefit from an

extension of the training’s focus to other job fields and personnel.

3.3 Recommendations for Future Trainings

Taking this information into account, it appears the time frame of future trainings should

be reviewed. The general time frame should be extended to allow more interactions,

mutual experience-sharing and a deeper study of new concepts. On the other hand, the

daily hours of the training course should be kept to a reasonable amount to avoid a

negative impact on participants’ focus and ability to assimilate the knowledge delivered.

This in turn suggests that official opening ceremonies should be kept to the minimum or

should be avoided in the future.

Regarding the distribution of the supporting materials, the lesson of the first two sessions

was learned and the material was distributed at the very beginning of the session, upon


December 2015


Page 15 of 32



participant’s arrival at the training’s venue. By doing this, participants could review the

material in advance and take the opportunity of the course to focus on the topics they do

not fully understand.

Finally, the possibility of offering this training to a larger and/or more diverse group of

functions should also be considered. If so, the courses’ examples, exercises and case

studies should be updated accordingly.


December 2015


Page 16 of 32



Annex A. Acronyms and definitions

AIR Airworthiness

ANS Air Navigation Services

ATA-AC Amélioration du Transport Aérien en Afrique Centrale

ATM Air Traffic Management

BAG Banjul Accord Group

BAGASOO BAG Aviation Safety Oversight Organisation

CAA Civil Aviation Authority

CASSOA Civil Aviation Safety and Security Oversight Agency

CEMAC Communauté Économique et Monétaire de l’Afrique Centrale

COSCAP Cooperative Development of Operational Safety and Continuing Airworthiness

Programmes

EASA European Aviation Safety Agency

EU European Union

HF Human Factors

IASOM Improvement of Aviation Safety Oversight in Malawi

ICAO International Civil Aviation Organisation

OPS Operations

PEL Personnel licencing

RSOO Regional Safety Oversight Organisation

SADC Southern Africa Development Community

SARPs Standards and Recommended Practices

SIASA Support to the Improvement of Aviation Safety in Africa

UEMOA Union Economique et Monétaire Ouest Africaine (WAEMU in English)


December 2015


Page 17 of 32



Annex B. Invitation Letter


December 2015


Page 18 of 32



Annex C. Registration Form


December 2015


Page 19 of 32



Annex D. Letter to Host Country


December 2015


Page 20 of 32



Annex E. Training Agenda


December 2015


Page 21 of 32




December 2015


Page 22 of 32




December 2015


Page 23 of 32




December 2015


Page 24 of 32




December 2015


Page 25 of 32



Annex F. Post-Session Questionnaire


December 2015


Page 26 of 32




December 2015


Page 27 of 32




December 2015


Page 28 of 32



Annex G. Follow-up Questionnaire


December 2015


Page 29 of 32



Documents

Human Factors Training - Aviation Africa-EU | Support to … E... · 2016-01-26 · Human Factors Training ... Introduction to Human Factors (Module 1), ... Participants were nominated