ML20151D679
| ML20151D679 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 06/10/1988 |
| From: | James Smith LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20151D407 | List:
|
| References | |
| 8.01, NUDOCS 8807250199 | |
| Download: ML20151D679 (22) | |
Text
.
q 8.01 2
{
OTP REV Lcp OFFICE OF TRAINING if8/88 g,,,,,;,, g,,,
waweuwrw PROCEDURES TITLE:
SIMULATOR EXAMINATION EVALUATION 1.0 PURPOSE This precedure establishes the Operations Training Section policy ior the preparation and administration of Shoreham Simulator Operat' exams.
2.0 SCOPE This procedure applies to all examinations givt.n un the Chureham Simulator for licensed and non-licensed opCIato! studentG.
3.0 DEFINITIONS 3.1 Simulator Examination A simulator e xa nii na t i on is a demonstrative exarination givon to 11 censed and non-licensed
(
students on the Shoreham Simulator to assess their nowicdge of plunt operaticas and procedures.
It ma y c c r... i s t of 1;.dividual graded events or one ca more graded scenarios.
2.1 Lead Instructor A Lead Instructor is an instructor designate; by the Operations Training Supervisor to manage a specific training prugram.
3.3 Event An event is a transient, manipulation, ana l f unct i on, action, or series of actions, which a student is to be trained or evaluated on.
3.4 Seenarlo A scenario is a predetermined sequence of events that provide guidance to the simulator instructors or evaluators.
r-. - - -
l TVV n
m JUN ;n m.,h
. ii, il.U,
- Jr
(
ee07250199 080715 PDR ADOCK 05000322
" ' - ~ ~
PNV p
AP vEn BY/DATE g
pj[
(-
a < ?7
t I
3.5 Lead Examiner lhe Lead Examiner shall be a Simulator Instructor, and may be the Lead Instructor for the training being conducted.
He will coordinate the administration of the simulator examination.
3.6 Simulator Instructor A Simulator Instructor is an instructor with the following qualifications:
o Holds a current or previous RO license or SRO certification.
o Has been designated by the Licensed Operator Training Supervisor to teach on the Shoreham Simulator.
o Has completed a vendor simulator workshop or equivalent.
o Has had training on job performance measure evaluations.
i 3.7 Senior Simulator Instructor A Senior Simulator Instructor is an instructor with the following qualifications:
o Holds a current or previous SRO license.
o Has been designated by the Licensed Operator Training Sopervisor to teach on the Shoreham Simulator.
Pas completed a vendor simulator workshop or o
equivalent.
l o
Has had training on job performance measure evaluations.
3.8 Simulator Evaluator A simulator evaluator is a person with the l
i following qualifications:
o Holds a current or previous SRO License or OTP 8.01 Rev.
i Page 2 of 22
o-Is a qualified instructor that holds a current or previous SRO certification and has been. designated by the License Operator Training Supervisor to evaluate on the Shoreham Simulator 3.9 Simulator Area l
The simulator area is the room containing the Shoreham simulator and associated control panels.
The simulator computer room and the instructor console area are not included in this area.
4.0 DISCUSSION 4.1 Th;s evaluation instrument is based on References 6.5 anc 6.6 and is meant to be used in conjunctiot; with simulater scenarioc (OTP 8.02).
4.2 This procedure is meant to address the evaluation of student per f ormance on the Shoreham Simulator only.
Generation of Simulator Scenarios and operation of the silaulator are covered in other procedures.
4 0 The c:.amir.atic:. f:equency chall be determined by the Operations Training Supervisor.
The length of the simulatur examination will be dictsted by the exsiainaticn scer.crio and/cr program requirements.
4.4 Job Performance measures will be used to evaluate single tackc.
Administrative Guide 12 will be used to evaluate students in initial license programs at least weekly.
OTp 8.01 will be used to evaluate overall perrormance at the end of a program.
5.0 RF.SPONSIDILITY AND AUTHORITY 5.1 Operations Training Supervisor The Licensed Operations Training Supervisor or his designee shall approve all simulator exam scenarios and designate qualified Lead Instructors and simulator instructors.
5.2 Lead Instructor The Lead Instructor shall review the copies of al; simulator exam scenarios and may act as lead examiner for simulator exams given in support of
.14 program.
OTP 8.01 Rev. 2 Page 1 of 22
o.
I.
5.3 Simulator Instructor The Simulator Instructor (s) shall ensure that simulator examinations are conducted in accordance with Section 7.0 of this procedure.
6.0 REFERENCES
6.1 NUREG 1021, Examiner Standards 6.2 ANSI 3.1, 1981 6.3 OTP 8.02, Simulator Scenarios 6.4 INPO 82-026', Technical Instructor Training and Qualification 6.5 INPO 06-C25, Guideline For Continuing Training of Licer. sed Personnel 6.6 INFO 06-226,. Guideline For Simu:stor Training 7.0 ACTIONS 7.*
Qualified Examiners 4
i 7.1.1 Any currently or previously SRO licensed or SRC certified person may be an examiner for the position of NASO and NSC.
7.1.2 It is preferred to have a previously or currently SRC licensed individual examine candidates in the positions of Watch Engineer and Watch Supervisor.
Ar.y previously or currently SRO licensed or SRO certified person may be an examiner for these positions.
7.1.3 The Lead Instructor for the training being conducted may be the lead examiner for any simulator exam given in support of his or her program.
7.1.4 It is preferred to have one qualified examiner for each student being evaluated.
OTP 0.01 Rev. 2 Page 4 of 21
l 1
7.1.5 In addition to qualified examiners, there should be an instructor designated to operate the simulator, answer the phones, and support the examination session.
7.2 Examination Content 7.2.1 No more than five students should be examined on the simulator at one time.
7.2.2 The events used in the examination scenario shall be based principally on the program ob.jectives.
These program objectives shall be derived from a job and/or task analysis.
7.3 Exam Scenarios 7.3.1 Exam scenarios shall be prepared in accordance with OTP 8.02.
7.3 2 A simulator examination cover sheet (Appendix 8.5) shall be filled out i
and attached to the simulator examination scenario.
7.3.3 The scenario shall be reviewed or prepared by the Lead Instructor for the training occurring, then routed to the Licensed Operations Training Supervisor or his designee for approval.
7.3.4 A copy of the approved simulator examination scenario shall be routed to the lead examiner for the simulator exam.
7.4 Simulator Examination Management 7.4.1 Prior to the examination, tb-Lead Examiner shall meet with all the examiners and simulator operator to review the scenario, distribute evaluation forms, and determine which student each e+.aminer will evaluate.
He shall also brief the examiners on eny special instructions involved in i;rading the student's performance.
OTP 8.01 Rev. 2 Page 5 of 22
(-
7.4.2 Prior to the examination, the following actions should be performed:
7.4.2.1 The simulator should be reset to the proper initial condition and taken out of freeze.
7.4.2.2 A shift turnover sheet, depicting plant conditions at the start of the examination, should be provided to the students.
7.4.2.3 The lead examiner should assign
-personnel to positions, inform ctudents of plant. conditions, and allow students to walk-down the control boart prior to taking the e i n.u la t o r out of freeze.
1 7.4.3 The examiner should avoid getting in the student's way or questioning the studen; so inuently that it detracts from his ability to operate the unit.
7.4.4 Video / audio taping of simulator examc j
can be a valuable tool for both student and exam.ner.
Taping of exams la encouraged.
The lead examiner should notify the students that the exam is being recordec.
All tapes shou'_d be erased or handed to the Watch Engineer or LILCO management under evaluation after Cach rGraio!.
7.4.5 Unnece.ssary interruptienc of the simulator examination should be avoided.
7,. E-Otudent Evaluation 7.5.'
Student evaluation shall be documented on the simulator examination report and simulator examination grade sheet (Appendices 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4).
7.5.2 7'4e Simulator Examination Report is used to evaluate the student in sevan or eight categories for one graded scenario or event.
For each graded exam scenario or event, there. will be a.eparare examination report form.
Each category will be graded on a 0 - 132 % scale.
A OTp 0.0' F.e v. 1 Page 6 c. ' 21
A 4
t specific category may be marked "N/A."
For example, if the graded event is "Shift Turnover," then the student will not be graded in the category of immediate actions.
7.5.3 The simulator examination report forms for each graded event or scenario and the simulator examination grade sheet shall be given to the examiners prior to the examination.
7.5.4 For each graded event or scenario, the scores for each category will be averaged and entered on the bottom of the form (Appendix 8.2 or 8.3).
The average score for each event or scenario will Le entered on the simulator examination grade sheet (Appendix 8.4),
along with the operator's name and other indicated informL:lon.
The examination score is the average of all the graded event or scenario scores.
The examiner completing the examina*.icn report and grade sheet will sign the bottcm of the grade sheet.
The re::.ar%s sectio:. should be used to record anawcrs given to quections and reports received from requests ror information.
7.5.5.
The crew will be evaluated on appendix 8.7 by the lead examiner for team skills.
The six area scores will be averaged and the average score is the team score: for the scenario or event.
7.E.6 An examiner should solicit observations and opinions from other examiners if he feels his student's performance is marginal or unsatisfactory.
This solicitation of observations should occur after the students have left the area.
7.5.7 Any exam failure shall be brought to the Licensed Operations Training Supervisor's attention as r.oon as possible. (OTp 5.01)
Exam failure is an overall score less than 80% or an area score less than 76%.
Also, the following can be a basis for examination failure:
(
OTp S.21 Rev. 2 Page 7 o 12
S t
--i' 7.5.7.1 Unnecessarily exceeding safety limits.
7.5.7.2 Unnecessarily exceeding criteria established by the
'NRC (later).
7.6 Exam Review 7.6.1 An exam review should occur with each.
student in. mediately following the examination if possible.
If the review is not possiale immediately after exam, it should be conducted as soon as is practical.
7.6.2 The exan. review may be on an individua; bcs!= or on a group basis, at_rhe diccretion of the lead examiner.
7.6.1 The results of tne Team skills Evaluation (Appendi) 6.7) should oe reviewed with the entire crew.
7.6.4 The exam review chall include a discussion of students weaknesces, strengths, and way2 In which i r..p r o Ye nd :4 '. 5 Uay occur.
7.7 Exam Filing 4 7.7.1 The exa::. utenari o, examination report, Team OXills Evaluation, and examination grade sheet shall be filed in accordance v.'ith OTP 1.04.
6.C APPENDICEO 3.1 Deleted EO simulator Examination Report 6.2 8.3 SRO Simulator Examination Report S.4 Simulator Exan.! nation Grade sheet S.5 Simulator Examination Cover Sheet 3.6 Simulator Exa::.ination Checklist P.?
Team Work Evaluation OTP C.0; Rev. 2 Fage C cf 21
1
(
Appendix 8.1 Page 1 of 1 DELETED OTP C.01 Kev. I P6;e! of 22
m Appendix 8.3 o
Page 1 of 4 Reactor Operator Simulator Examination Report Trainee:
Role (s): NSO NASO Ocenario/ event Number Evaluator (s):
Date:
Title 1.
Control Board Awareness Score 30 l
I 1
70 l
i 100 o inattentive to panels o attended to and observed all o habitually attentive to o ignored some part of panels parts of the panel panels o did not find appropriate indica-o recognized unexpected o recognized trends before tors or controls in a timely changes in important plant alarm conditions devel-manner parameters oped o lef t control room when assigned o found controls and indicat o quickly found appropriate as RO without tellef ors in a timely manner controls and indicators o unable to explain why annuncia-o used process computer and o anticipated changes in in-tors were in alarm condition sequence of events recorder d1 cations due to changing when requested plant conditions o able to explain why an.tuncl-o confirmed plant conditions ators were in alarm condition with other sources Remarks:
2.
Event Diagnosis 38 I
I I
78 I
I 188 responded to alarm cond1-o missed important transients o noticed important transients o
o made inappropriate responses to in sufficient time tions and spotted all alarm conditions o spotted most plant status changes to plant status o focused on wrong parameters changes o focused on significant o when asked, was unable to give o responded to alarms in a parameters Jurirg tran-useful input or possible reasons timely manner sients for event o when asked, gave input on o when given incorrect in-o gave incorrect information possible reasons for transient structions by WS/WE o responded to symptoms / alarms made correct recommen-rather than to condition or cause dations Remarks:
OTP 8 01 Re,v,. 2
.e L_
Appendix 8.2 Page 2 cf 4 3.
Immediate Actions / Entry Level Actions Score 38 I
I I
75 I
I 138 o does not verify certain automatic o verified that certain aubima-o vertfled that certain auto-actions tic actions took place matic actions took place o immediate actions were not per-o took correct immediate ac-o took corrective immediate f ormed or < were per f or med in-tions, but required some actions from memory, correctly prompting by WS/WE without prompting o performed manipulations o did not laitiate safety functions o performed minor manipula-when required tt'ons correctly, but indepen-with other RO's to an in-o did not recountze entry condi-dent of other RO's tegrated manner ~
a o initiated immediate actior.s recognized entry conditions tions to emergency operating o
procedures to emergency operating without prompting procedures Remarks:
- 4. Subseqtent Actions 3s l
I I
78 l
l 195 o did not werify automatic or in-o verifted all automatic actions o performed all automatic mediate actions took place and all immediate actions that did not take o could not stabilize plant when it actions were performed place
_as possible to o performed appropriate sub-o ensured all Immediate o could not expla'n purpose of sequent actions on direction actions were performed actions from WS/WE o performed subsequent o performed manipulations actions without excessive correctly but independently supervision o explained purpose of most o performed manipulations actions correctly correctly with other RO's in a coordinated manner o explained purposes of all actions correctly Remarks:
r OTP 8.01 Rev. 2 Done 11 af 77 m
n.
~
Appendix 6.2 Paga 3 of 4 sa. Control Board Mani latlo s - Normal Operations 30 l
I I
Fg l
l 199 Score o located controls and Indicators o located controls and indica-o smoothly manipulated the hesitantly tors with minor hesitatloa plant within controlled manipulated the plant safely parameters o did not control plant parameters o
o could not control automatic sys-o manually operated automatic o smoothly operated auto-tems manually system controls with some matic systems controls o could not recover from errors guidance manually o manipulations caused problems o recovered from errors with-o did not make errors o frequently r.eeded guidance out causing problems o was able to control multi-ple panels Remarks:
Sb. Control Board Manipulations - Abnormal / Emergency Operations 38 I
I I
78 I
I 188 o responded Incorrectly or did not o responded correctly to events o responded quickly and respond to an event with some hesitation correctly to events o could not locate montrols or indi-o located some controls or In-o located controls and Indl-cators dicators with hesitation cators unhesitantly a could not cont:ol plant o manipulated the plant safely o manipulated the plant parameters o manually operated automatic within controlled o could not recover from errors system control with direction parameters o manipulations caused problems o correctly compensated for o smoothly operated auto-o frequently needed direction malfunctions of automatic matic systems manually o improperly prioritized multiple equipment o easily compensated for problem conditions o recovered from errors with-malfunctions of automatic out causing problems equipment o did not make errors o did not need guidance o was able to control multi-ple panels o worked well with other operators in cootdinating recovery Remarks:
f
....,.01,Re,v. 2 OTP 8,.
Append [x 8.2
^
ige 4 cf 4
- 6. Us3 of Proceirrn/ Technical Specifications /::rterenca Data Scare 38 I
I I
75 I
I 183 g
a did not ose or disregarded o located and followed com-o readily located or request-manly used procedures ed all proper procedures procedures located appropriate tech o L3SS and safety limit tech e violated procedures or admints-o specs were memorized, trative controls and/or limits specs recognized plant conditions others were quickly looked e missed steps resulting in un-o covered by tech specs up planned trips /probless looked up reference data o used appropriate reference e could not located procedures, o
data without direction when directed tech specs, reference data o identifled procedural con-used procedures to address a did not use procedures to ad-o filets and/or inadequacles alarms dress alarms performed / signed survell-e did not review applicable turn-o lances as appropriate over documents Remarks:
- 7. Communications Is i
I i
10 I
I 198 L
did not Inform others of Indica-o informed others of Indica-o informed others of relevant tions of abnormal conditions tions or abnormal conditions /
Information immediately, o
clearly and concisely e did not inform of reconumenda alarms tions, intentions, or actions o informed of recommenda-o made clear and tim (ly tions, intentions and aettons recommendations o did not verify that informa-o communicated intentions taken gave irrelevant Information tion given was received and and actions clearly o
did not ask for information when understood o sought feedback that Infor-o o asked ror Information when mation given was received needed did not verf.fy that information and understood o
needed received was understood always ver111ed that infor-verified receipt of informa-o o was too assertive or argumen-o tion casually or irregularly mation or instruction was displayed positive verbal be-recelsed and understood tative had problems with voice clarity, o
o supported team process o
haviors amplitude, speed, emphasts, o informed others when per-verbally and nonverbally direction, or identity of receiver o communicated with wrong per-forming evolutions son or by wrong means o did not inform others when per-forming evolutions Remarks:
f OTP 8.01,Rev. 2
~~
Appe
. 8. 3 Senior Reactor Operator Simulator Examination Report Trainee:
Role (s): VS WE Scenario / event Number Evaluator (s):
Date Title l
l 1.
Control Board Awareness Score 33 l
l I
78 I
I 185 o did not scan annunciators, o intermittently scanned an-o regularly scanned annunci-panels, or other operator alds to nunciators, panels, or other ators, panels, or other look for information or Inter-operator aids and looked for operator aids and looked l
actions changes in plant Information for Information and inter-recognized chJnges In plant actions i
e did not recognize changes in o
I plant parameters or changes parameters and when o quickly ident! fled and which should have occurred changes should have oc-reacted to changes in plant cured parameters l
o anticipated changes in plant conditions due to events in progress Reserks:
2.
Event Diagnosis 33 I
I i
18 I
i 188 o recognized when plant recognized when plant o did not recognize when plant ex-o ceeded tech spec 11mits EXCEEDED tech spec limits APPROACHED tech spec stepped back and analyzed limits e did not step back and get the big o
picture the whole situation o set up and ran a structurei e did not ask the right questions o asked the right questions diagnostic process, in-e could not screen out irrelevant o screened out extraneous, it-ciudIng:
unimportant or inaccurate relevant, unimportant, inac-
- prioritizing problems inputs curate information
- determining most prob-o correctly diagnosed event (s) able cause e incorrectly diagnosed event (s) o could not recognize emergency o recognized emergency plan
- establishing objectives plan situation situations and goals e did not recognize when critical o did not anticipate trouble
- reviewing resources and safety function paraeeters ex-areas constraints ceeded 11 mitt o recognized when critical
- identifying success safety function parameters criteria EXCEEDED limits
- generating possible solutions
- selecting the best solution
- specIfying an action plan
- identifying potential trouble areas 8
o recognized when critical safety function parameters APPROACHED limits Remar ks:
OTP 8.01 Rev. 2
a e
Appendix 8.3 Page 2 of 4 3.
Immediate Actions / Entry Level Actions Score 38 I
i I
78 I
i 133 o did not verify that manual or o vertfled that manual and au-o ensured all immediate ac-4t cometic actions took place tomatic cettons took place tions were taken told RO's immediate actions o ensured correct Integration' e s11 not tell RO's proper in-o and directed multiple mediate actions when appropri-when appropriate directed multiple actions and casualties and procedures ate o
o did not integrate or direct multi-procedure use vertfled initiation of safety ple casualties and procedure use o
did not verify initiations of safety functions when required o
functions when required o recognized EOP entry con-o did not recognize EOP entry ditions conditions Remarks:
4.
Subsequent Actions 38 I
I i
75 I
i 198 o directed RO's to respond to o recognized when plant ap-I5Ld not direct RO's response to proached tech spec limits o
events event:
o did not aerognize the plant ex-o recognized when plant ex-o made contingency plans ceeded tech spec limits ceeded tech spec limits for anticipate 1 problems o did not direct plant maneuvers o directed plant maneuvers to-o ef fectively and correctly In-toward more favorable cond1-ward more favorable condt-tegrated the steps of differ-tions after limits were exceeded tions af ter limits were ent emergency, abnormal, and normal procedures in o made incorrect decisions for exceeded events not covered by proce-o made correct decisions for combating a multiple dures or when multiple alterna-events not covered by casualty.
o corrected RO's and his tives were available procedures could rit integrate direct multi-o correctly integrated the steps own mistakes using ap-o ple casualties and procedure use of several dif ferent proce-propriate means o did not recognize conditions dures during multiple o did not correct afstakes
. casualties Remarks:
i e
i OTP 8 01.Rev. 2
e e
j i
l Appendix 8.3 page 3 of 4 5.
Control aoard Score i
33 I
I l
73 I
f 198 o used the computer, SpDS, e could not use the computer, etc., correctly SpDS, etc., correctly; per-o manipulated the panel when formed RO role and manipula-the RO's were available tions when not necessary offered direction to panel o
operators as appropriate Remarks:
6.
Use of procedures / Technical Specifications / Reference Data le 1
I I
7s I
f 188 e could not locate appropriate o located most required proce-o requested or readily locat-procedures, tech specs, or refer-dures, tech specs and refer-ed all appropriate proce-ence data ence data in reasonable time dures, tech specs and e could not follow procedures or o followed procedures cor-o followed procedures ac-missed steps rectly curately and quickly e caused trips or unplanned tran-o could explain bases of tech o could distinguish between step-by-step procedures sients specs e telled too heavily on R0s' o interpreted tech specs cor-and guidance-only knowledge of procedures and rectly procedures limits o vertfled compliance with o identified procedural con-e interpreted tech specs or refer-tech spec limits and actions (11 cts and inadequacles and ence data incorrectly o LSSS and safety limit tech could explain how to re-specs were memortzed, solve them others were quickly looked o ensured procedure up changes were made as l
appropriate l
R:Imarks:
1 l
OTP 8.51 Rev. 2
'"* R a 30x0.U~
~
Pige 4 cf 4 7.
Communicitton)
Score 3e i
I I
is I
f 188 I
o give understandable o gave clear and concise gave unclear, garrled, confusing o
and incomplete 47tections directions directions o failed to ask for Information o asked for Information when o actively listened and vert-when necessary necessary fled that the message was o occasionally asked for input understood ignored loput or did not Indicate o
understanding from RO's o actively sougt.t ideas and o communicated with the wrong o initiated communications input from team wembers o provided period sun-person or by the wrong method with appropriate peuple o f ailed to communicate with ap-(NRC, etc.) when required marles of plant conditions propriate people (NRC, etc.)
and by correct means and actions taken when required Remarks:
8.
Supervisory Ability I
35 I
I I
75 I
I ISS g
o did not implement the emergen-o implemented the emergency o set clear goals cy plan when required plan when required o prioritized and integrated o did not set goals or priorttles for o prioritize some of the peo-the actions of the whole people's actions ple's actions according to his team as appropriate o gave unnecessary direction or own goals o provided guidance ap-failed to give direction when o 'provided direction when propriate for the situation necessary necessary and the team members c did not coordinate actions of o coordinated actions of o coordinated Ros' actions operators operators smoothly based on their o did not assign people to others' o assigned people to others' abilities tasks when desirable tasks when desirable o changed people's assign-o let administrative duties distract o occasionally disrupted Ros '
ments so time and sk111s from leadership role actions were used efficiently o did not anticipate potential o did not allow operators to be-problems or operator limitations come overloaded o direction to CRO's consistently o maintaine6 a professional at-lagged behind their actions titude in the control room o Jilowed operators to become overloaded o did not maintain a professional attitude in the control room Remarks:
OTP 8.01 Rev. 2
. e 9
('
Appendlx 8.4 Page 1 of 1 Sirt.u'atcr Examination Gzace Sheet Operator License Position Examiner Program Date Scenaric/Ever.c 1 Number Title Average Score Scenario /2 vent 2 Nu::1cr T;t;e Average Score
'ScenaIlo/ Event 3 Number Tit;e Average Score See:.aric/Ever.t 4 Nu::.tt r Titic Average Score Scenar'o/ Event 5 Nu::Juer Tit;e Average Secre Scenario / Event 6 Number Title Average Score Sect.cr io/E.er.t 7 Number Title Average Score Scer.ario/ Event 8 Number Title Average Score Examination Average (average of 1 - 8 above:
hs::.ir.cr 's signature Late Operator Reviev iigt.ature Date 07P 8.01 Rev. 2
i
?".
ll Appendix 8.5 Page 1 of 1 Simulator Examination Program 4
Course Duration T
Examinatien Date Scenaric/ Event Numbers i
g Examination prepared by Training Instructor Date Examination reviewed by Lead Instructor Date E.<s.t.; nation approved by Licensed Operations Date Training Supervisor OTP C,01 Rev. 2
c n
.Q"-
.. r.
Appendix 8.6 Page 1 of 1 Simulator Examination Checklist (This form may be used to assist in the
'(
prepa:ation of a simulator exam...ation)
Check when I.
Examination Preparation
~ complete A.
Simulator Examination scenario prepared per OTP 8.02 B.
Simulato: examination cover sheet (Appendix 8.5) filled out, attached to exam scenario, submitted to c:
prepared by Lead Instructor C.
Simulator exan.! nation submitted'to and approved by the Operations Training Supe: visor or designee D.
Copy of app:cved simulator examir.-
a !:n distribcted te Leac Examiner for the exam.
Examir. tion Admir.istraticn.
A.
Le a d E>.3 r..! n e : distributes evaluation ic:ss to ar.d briefs examiners on scenarie c: events to be graded i
. I.
Examiners. assigned to students C.
Sla.ula to: reset to proper IC L.
It der.ts provided with shift tu:n:ver sheet or p:e-scenario brief E.
Otuder.t b: arf Malk-dowr. Complete F.
Simulater exam c:mplete, studtnts out ci area G.
Appendices 8.2 cr S.3 and 8.4 filled l
cut for each student
~
~ ~ Appendix S.7 filled out for the crew H.
.I.
Examinati c. results :eviewed with students J.
Training bupervisor made aware of examination failures (OTP 5.21)
I i
K.
Examinatien scenarios, examination report and exaulnation grade sheet I
filed in accc: dunce with O!? 1.24 l
OTP 8.21 Rev. 2
(
Page 22 of 22
^
N 3
Appendin 8.7 P,. g I nr 2 Tene Work Evaluntion A.
Feedback - anticipating Input needs, providing unnoticited feedback 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Members wait to be asked for in-Some members volunteered infor-Abundant unsolicited feed-puts.
Inputs answered ovely the
== tion.
Annwers were complete.
back.
Few questions required.
quegtlone maked.
even when quegtions were not.
Inputs complete and useful.
R.
Communicataan Monitoring - monitoring team communications to assure fidelity 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 M*mbers ignora ol har conver==-
Members listened to each others Members msgume responsibili-tionw.
Fidelity of team communica-conversations.
Major technical ty for fidelity of Lene commu-tions low.
errors corrected.
nications.
Errors corrected quickly.
C.
Strategic Development - Lendarship overall plan; whole situation pernpective 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 No one "in charge" Plan is insuf-Team leader "in charge."
Team leader clearly directed ficient.
Procadures not used, or Plan was well developed, and team activities.
Plan was vio.mted.
Loss of overall perspec-ndequate.
Overall perspective detailed and comprehensive.
Panoramic perspective of Live.
of critical conditions was maintained.
situation==intained.
D.
Task Assignment - Assignments to accomplish specific tasks 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Unable to Justify deviations from Task assignments appropriate for Task assignments were consis-procedural assignments.
Important the situation. Team members tent with crew strategy.
tasks not done/done incorrectly accepted assignment strategy.
Assigne nts promoted team deve-because of poor assignment. Team lopment.
Members willingly members rejected assignments.
necepted all assignments.
R.
Decision Making - employing an ef fective group decision-making process.
30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Individuals presented conclusions.
Mixture of reasons and conclu-Team developed a common data not reasons.
Process dominated alons presented.
Decisions base.
Decisions evolved from by one or two people.
Conflict made by consensus.
Most. tena common data.
All team mem-was suppressed.
members supported decisions.
bers supported decision.
OTP 8.01 Rev. O Page 21 of 22
4 4
t t
)
s b
H i
l t
p n
m e
oki 0
cnc 0
ai sTf 1
e f.e i
t irt ves ih o tt m co a n hi l c aad 0
uee.
d t
9 ider vel e it pn dnmn neoa O
me:m O O S
- 7. 2 I
S S
A 8
A A
N f
N N
t o i
O d2 R
n ee t
pg pn pn me AP od c*
cv n
ae o
i 0 kd
~:
t 7
sr 2
u ao c
t c e
s v2 x
fi O
e2 e
od E
3 S
R U
N f
k se o
s t m 1
a co g
02 t
eS r
2 p
e 8
o s
b e
m t
a.
MP g
0 d
e a
g 6 re M
)
n oh i
j s w
y d
ai e
l a
Ml r
n e
C O
l E
s s
T e
n A
r o
D u
wl i
t
/
ei c
n.
ia vF a
0 at.
r 5
mcn e
e ie Rr t
mlt o
n aff d
r i
eno e
os To t
sm m
cd o
ie a
e N
vl e
.ek rb T
dvc s
eo el a e
pr hor i
uP sst c
S n
iee-n e
o 0 l rd e
nc i
4 p
l i
on t
moa t
c ia a
ot n
i tm n
s e
f cr c
i r er v
e eo d
al e E
D Sf r
bb
/ r r
o t nm o o g
ge t
n nP o
one i
am r s i
i i
C r
n u e
n ne knm n
l r i im nra e
a o a ae
. 0 awe v
c r rT e
F 3
Tt T S
E S T TI h
i