APPROVED: ____________________ DATE: 15 April 2001
Trevor R Owen
Team Leader, DHC8-400 Operational Evaluation Team
Transport Canada, Safety and Security
Commercial & Business Aviation, Operational Standards
Place de Ville, Tower C, 330 Sparks Street
Ottawa ON K1A 0N8
Telephone: (613) 990-1065
Fax: (613) 954-1602
Chief, Operational Standards
Commercial & Business Aviation
|Merlin R Preuss
Director, Commercial & Business Aviation
Transport Canada, Safety and Security
- Revision Record
- Conduct of OE
- OET Composition
- Application of OE Report
- Pilot Type Rating Requirements
- Master Common Requirements (MCRS)
- Master Difference Requirements (MDRS)
- Acceptable Operator Differences Requirements (ODRS) Tables
- OE Specifications for Training
- OE Specifications for Checking
- OE Specifications for Currency
- Regulatory Compliance Checklist
- Alternate Symbology
- Alternate Means of Compliance
- Supporting Documentation
|Revision No.||Page #s||Date|
|Original||Appendix 1||Oct 99|
|1||Appendix 2||Jan 00|
Note: Revisions to the text will be shown in BOLD type.
This Operational Evaluation Report specifies the Transport Canada type rating, master training, checking and currency requirements applicable to pilots operating the Bombardier DHC8-400, referred to hereafter as the Q400. As of 15 April 2001, it also specifies the Transport Canada master training, checking and currency requirements for pilots holding the DH8 type rating who convert to the Q400, and for pilots converting from the Q400 to the DHC8-100, -200 and -300, hereafter referred to as the Q100, Q200 and Q300. In addition, the report addresses the operational suitability of the Q400 for private service in Canada under Canadian Aviation Regulation (CAR) 604 or commercial service under CAR 705. Canadian private and commercial operators may use this report in the development of flight crew training programmes required by the applicable CAR. Principal Operations Inspectors (POI) may use it for guidance in the approval of training programmes, for the conduct of Pilot Proficiency Checks (PPC) required by CAR 604.66 and 705.106, and for application of CAR Part IV requirements for issuance of type ratings.
The provisions of this report are effective until amended, superseded, or withdrawn as a result of a subsequent operational evaluation.
The following acronyms are used in this report:
|AFCS||Automatic Flight Control System|
|AFM||Aircraft Flight Manual|
|AOM||Aircraft Operating Manual|
|ARCDU||Audio and Radio Control Display Unit|
|CAA||Civil Aviation Authority|
|CAR||Canadian Aviation Regulations|
|CASS||Commercial Air Service Standard|
|CBA||Commercial &Business Aviation|
|CCQ||Common Crew Qualification|
|CPT||Cockpit Procedures Trainer|
|EFIS||Electronic Flight Instrument System|
|FAA||Federal Aviation Administration|
|FAR||Federal Aviation Regulation|
|FCOM||Flight Crew Operating Manual|
|FMS||Flight Management System|
|FSB||Flight Standards Board|
|FSC||Flight Safety Canada, deHavilland Training Centre|
|FTD||Flight Training Device|
|JAA||Joint Aviation Authority|
|MCDRS||Master Common Differences Requirements|
|MDRS||Master Differences Requirements|
|NSEP||National Simulator Evaluation Programme|
|ODRS||Operator Differences Requirements|
|OET||Operational Evaluation Team|
|PFD||Primary Flight Display|
|POI||Principal Operations Inspector|
|PPC||Pilot Proficiency Check|
|PTT||Part Task Trainer|
|QRH||Quick Reference handbook|
Conduct of the Operational Evaluation
TC, the FAA and the JAA conducted the original OE as a joint effort to simultaneously meet the Canadian requirement for an OE, and the American and European requirements for a FSB. Each CAA used the results of the OE to produce a report specific to its particular requirements, which while similar in intent among the three CAAs involved, differ in detail. Subsequently, the FAA has amended the existing FSB Report covering the DHC8-100, -200 and -300 models to include the Q400.
Two representatives of the CAA of the Republic of China (Taiwan) were also present as observers during most of the OE. They did not, however, participate in any of the evaluation activities, nor did they participate in the decision making process.
BA had proposed the Q400 was a variant of the Q200, the base aircraft for comparison purposes for the OE, and should therefore have the same type rating (for Canada, DH8) as the earlier aircraft. In addition, BA submitted pilots holding a DH8 rating (or FAA/JAA equivalent) achieved on the Q200 should be able to convert to the Q400 after completion of differences training and checking. The same qualification criteria should apply to pilots who achieve the DH8 rating on the Q400, and subsequently convert to the Q200. The differences training would include ground school to cover technical differences, and training in a manoeuvre device or the aircraft to cover specific handling differences. Checking would occur in either an appropriately approved manoeuvre device or the aircraft. The manufacturer provided the OET with proposed Operator Differences Requirements (ODRS) Tables to be used as a basis for the evaluation.
The OE was conducted in three phases using the processes detailed in TC document Aircraft Type Qualification, dated 29 January 1999, and the FAA document AC 120-53 Crew Qualification and Pilot Type Rating Requirements for Transport Category Aircraft Operated Under FAR Part 121, dated 13 May 1991. Objectives of the OE were as discussed under PURPOSE above.
In Phase 1, four pilots who did not hold a DH8 type rating were given the proposed Q400 Initial Training Course by FSC, BA’s contracted training provider. Ground school was completed over the period 14-26 June, and training in the Q400 simulator began on 10 August, after a break during which the NSEP granted Interim Level C certification to the simulator. All four pilots successfully completed simulator and airborne proficiency checks on the Q400 that met the requirements for issuance of a type rating by the three participating CAAs.
For Phase 2, eight pilots already type rated on the DH8 received BA’s proposed differences training for pilots upgrading to the Q400 from the Q200. Prior to the commencement of the course, each pilot was given a baseline proficiency check in the Q200 simulator to confirm competency on the base aircraft. All candidates completed these to a high standard. In addition, test T2 as detailed in AC 120-53 was conducted on a sample of five of the 200-400 upgrade pilots. In the event, simulator difficulties only permitted three of the group to be assessed; however, results of the three tested indicated a high probability the remaining two candidates would successfully pass T2, so the test was then terminated. Successful passing of T2 allowed the OE to proceed to T3 or the differences training validation. After training all upgrade candidates successfully passed simulator and airborne proficiency checks on the Q400.
During Phase 3 the four pilots who had just successfully completed the Q400 Initial Course were given the proposed differences training to convert pilots who had achieved the DH8 type rating on the Q400 to the base aircraft. All successfully passed simulator and airborne proficiency checks on the Q200.
In February 2001 the scope of this report was expanded to cover all members of the DHC8 family, by incorporation of relevant portions of the FAA FSB Report on the DHC8.
|Trevor Owen||TC, OE Team Leader|
|Phases 1 & 3|
|Erling Bakken||SAS Commuter|
|Bo Persson||SAS Commuter|
|Michael Nyman||Air Ontario|
|Donald Wiens||Horizon Airlines|
|Ming-Ho Lee||China CAA (Taiwan)|
|Chien-Jimm Chang||China CAA|
Application of OE Report
The guidelines and recommendations contained in this report apply to Commercial &Business Aviation Inspectors and Approved Check Pilots employed by Canadian air and private operators.
Pilot Type Rating Requirements
In accordance with Personnel Licensing and Training Standard 421.40, the pilot type rating for the Q400 in Canada is designated “DH8”. Training, checking and currency requirements for pilots who convert to the Q400 from other DHC8 variants, and vice versa, will be discussed below.
Master Common Requirements (MCRS)
MCRS are training and checking requirements common to all DHC8 variants.
No Flap Approach
Training and checking applicable to all DHC8 variants requires demonstration of “no flap” approaches. Demonstration of a “no flap” approach in a Q100 meets the requirement for the Q200, and vice versa. “No flap” approaches must be demonstrated in both the Q300 and Q400.
There are no other special or unique requirements common to the DHC8 family beyond those contained in CAR 602, 604 and 705.
Master Differences Requirements (MDRS)
MDRS for the DHC8 family are shown in the table below. These apply to operators whose crews operate multiple variants, and may also apply for transition between variants. The Difference Level Definitions (A/B/A etc.) are specified in accordance with the criteria contained in “Aircraft Type Qualification” and AC 120-53, where the first letter refers to training requirements, the second to checking requirements, and the third to currency requirements.
|From Aeroplane (Base Model)|
*Because of differences in pitch attitude and landing technique proficiency in landing manoeuvres, including flapless landings, shall be demonstrated in a simulator certified to Level “C” or higher, or the aircraft.
Various FMS configurations have not been evaluated, but need to be considered in ODR training, checking, and currency requirements.
Acceptable Operator Differences Requirements Tables
ODR tables are used to show an operator's compliance method. Acceptable ODR tables for operators conducting mixed fleet operations with the Q200 and Q400 are shown in Appendix 1. The ODR tables represent an acceptable means to comply with MDR provisions, for the aircraft evaluated, based on those differences and compliance methods shown. The tables do not necessarily represent the only acceptable means of compliance for operators with aircraft having other differences, where compliance methods (e.g., devices, simulators, etc) are different, or for combinations of aircraft not evaluated. For operators flying variants, which are the same as the aircraft used for the ODR table development, and using the same compliance methods, the ODR tables in Appendix 1 have been found acceptable by TC. Equivalent tables, therefore, may be approved by a POI for a particular operator.
Operators flying other variants with differences not shown on, or addressed by, the acceptable ODR tables attached in Appendix 1, or operators seeking different means of compliance, must prepare and seek TC approval of specific ODR tables applicable to their fleet.
New ODR tables proposed by operators should be coordinated with the Programme Manager Flight Technical to ensure consistent treatment of variants between various operators’ ODR tables and compatibility of the MDR table with MDR provisions.
The operator retains the originals of the approved ODR tables. The Programme Manager Flight Technical in Commercial & Business Aviation Operational Standards will retain copies of approved DHC8 ODR tables.
DHC8 Mixed Fleet Flying is defined as operations in which crews alternately fly members of the DHC8 family within a bid period or between PPC/ training events.
OE Specifications for Training
All training required by CAR 604 and CAR 705 applies to initial and recurrent qualification on the Q400, and to transition qualification/CCQ between the Q400 and other DHC8 variants.
Take-off and Landing
Because of the pitch attitudes and techniques involved, especially in the “0” flap condition, training for take-off and landing in the Q400 must take place in a simulator certified to Level C or higher, or in the aircraft if a Level “A” or “B” simulator is used.
Training in all DHC8 variants requires demonstration of “no flap” approaches. Demonstration of a “no flap” approach in a Q100 meets the requirement for the Q200, and vice versa. “No flap” approaches must be demonstrated in both the Q300 and Q400.
Mixed Fleet Flying - Alternating Training
Air operators with flight crews operating the Q400 and another DHC8 variant may alternate simulator training every six months provided the currency requirements detailed below are maintained. The operator may choose one variant as its base aircraft, and provide annual technical ground training on the base aircraft with differences technical ground training on the variant.
Q400 Initial Training
The syllabus submitted to the OET by FSC titled “Core Curriculum-DHC8-400 Series Initial Equipment/ Transition Training”, and dated Aug 99, meets all the requirements of CAR 604 and CAR 705, and is approved for the initial training of Canadian pilots to operate the Q400 in private and commercial service.
Q200-Q400 Transition Training
Based on the experience of candidates who received this training as part of the OE, the syllabus submitted to the OET by FSC titled “Specialty Curriculum-DHC8-400 Series CCQ Common Crew Qualification”, and dated Aug 99, requires an amendment in order to meet all the requirements of CAR 604 and CAR 705. This amendment will require the addition of a CPT/PTT session of 2.0 hours duration to provide pilots with hands-on exposure to the ARCDU and EFIS controls before the first simulator session. The device used for the training must have functional controls and displays, and could range from desk-top trainers to the full simulator. More than one crew could be present during the session, providing each trainee receives hands-on practise with both devices.
Q400-Q200 Transition Training
The syllabus submitted to the OET by FSC titled “Specialty Curriculum-DHC8-200 Series CCQ Common Crew Qualification”, and dated Aug 99, meets all the requirements of CAR 604 and CAR 705, and is approved for training Canadian pilots who obtained their DH8 rating on the Q400 to operate the Q200 in private and commercial service.
OE Specifications for Checking
All checking specified by CAR 604 and CAR 705 applies to initial and recurrent qualification on the Q400, and transition qualification/ CCQ between the Q400 and other DHC8 variants and vice versa.
Flapless landings must be demonstrated during an Initial PPC on the Q400, and on a PPC following completion of transition/CCQ from other DHC8 variants to the Q400. Flapless landings must be demonstrated in a simulator approved to Level C or higher or the aircraft if a Level “A” or “B” simulator is used.
Checking on all DHC8 variants requires demonstration of “no flap” approaches. Demonstration of a “no flap” approach in a Q100 meets the requirement for the Q200, and vice versa. “No flap” approaches must be demonstrated in both the Q300 and Q400.
Air operators with flight crews operating the Q400 and another DHC8 variant may alternate PPCs every six months provided the currency requirements detailed below are maintained.
OE Specifications for Currency
All currency requirements contained in CAR Part VI and CAR Part VII apply.
Mixed Fleet Currency Requirements
Flight crews operating both the Q400 and another DHC8 variant must have completed at least one sector as defined in CAR 725.124(33) as PF and/or PNF in the variant to be flown within the previous 90 days before acting as PF and/or PNF.
Aircraft Regulatory Compliance Checklist
BA has submitted a Regulatory Compliance Checklist for the production standard Q400, showing compliance with the equipment requirements of CARs 605 and 705. Canadian operators may submit the checklists to their certificate-holding regional CBA office to show that each aircraft to be operated complies fully with all applicable Canadian operating rules and standards.
At the request of BA, on 9 November 1999 an evaluation was made of the training delta required to convert from the production standard aircraft fitted with the analogue presentation of the pitot-static instruments on the PFDs to one configured with the alternate vertical tape symbology. Two OET members conducted the evaluation. FSC provided a 1.5 hour classroom session which highlighted all the differences in cockpit presentation and systems checks between the standard aircraft and one fitted with the alternate symbology, following which each OET member flew the Q400 simulator in a variety of VFR and IFR manoeuvres for 45 minutes.
Conversion between the two symbologies was effected without difficulty. The vertical tape symbology is superior in every way to the standard presentation, both in terms of the amount of information provided and the intuitive response to the presentation. The OET believes that pilots converting from the tapes to the round dial presentation would initially miss the additional information provided by the tapes, but would adapt quickly.
Installation of alternate symbology will have no impact on the type rating assigned to the Q400. No check is required following the conversion training of 1.5 hours ground school followed by a 1.5 hour simulator session (45 minutes PF, 45 minutes PNF). If mixed fleet flying is conducted with Q400s equipped with both symbologies, a pilot should have flown the symbology to be flown within the past 90 days before acting as PF or PNF on revenue service.
The FMS was not functional during the OE, and no assessment was made of its functionality or operational integration in the Q400 cockpit. Given the normal mode of operation of an aircraft of this class and performance will be managed flight with the AFCS engaged, an evaluation of the FMS will have to occur before the Q400 enters service with a Canadian operator. This evaluation may affect the training/checking/currency requirements for mixed fleet flying and CCQ.
While CAR 705 does not require operators to have an AOM, those that opt to do so must submit their AOM to TC for approval. The three volumes of the FCOM provided to the OET were in an interim state, and almost totally lacking in performance data. An assessment of the FCOM’s suitability for use by Canadian line crews cannot be made until the volumes for the production standard aircraft are provided.
Alternate Means of Compliance
POIs should consult Commercial & Business Aviation Operational Standards’ Programme Manager Flight Technical when operators propose means of compliance other than those specified in this report. Alternate means of compliance must be approved the Chief, Commercial and Business Aviation Operational Standards. If an alternate means of compliance is sought, operators will be required to submit a proposed alternate means for approval that provides an equivalent level of safety to the provisions of the CARs and this OE Report. Analysis, demonstrations, proof of concept testing, differences documentation, and/or other evidence may be required.
In the event that alternate compliance is sought, training program hour reductions, simulator approvals, and device approvals may be significantly limited and reporting requirements may be increased to ensure an equivalent level of training, checking, and currency. Transport Canada will generally not consider relief through alternate compliance means unless sufficient lead time has been planned by an operator to allow for any necessary testing and evaluation.
The documents provided by BA to support this OE and which have been used in the preparation of this report will be kept on file by the Programme Manager, Flight Technical, Transport Canada Safety and Security, Commercial &Business Aviation Operational Standards, Ottawa ON, K1A 0N8.
The OE archive contains the following documents:
- Q400 FCOM Volumes 1, 2 and 3
- Q400 QRH
- Q200 FCOM Volumes 1, 2 and 3
- Q200 QRH
- Q400 Initial Equipment/Transition Training Syllabus
- Q400 Specialty Curriculum Common Crew Qualification
- Q200 Specialty Curriculum Common Crew Qualification
- OE Proficiency Check Script
- Phase 1 Q400 Proficiency Check forms
- Phase 2 Baseline Proficiency Check forms
- T2 Check Forms
- Phase 2 Q400 Proficiency Check forms
- Phase 3 Q200 Proficiency Check forms
- Date modified: