Appendix H to TAA Advisory 2012-01

Operational Aircraft Evaluation

1.      Introduction

1.1.      This Appendix provides details of an operational evaluation to ensure that operations can be safely conducted using the proposed EFB procedures. This evaluation may be combined with the installation evaluation described in Appendix C, or conducted separately, as circumstances warrant.

1.2       The scope of this operational evaluation may be greater than that provided below, dependent on the actual implementation. However, at a minimum, the items listed below should be considered. An associated checklist is contained in Appendix I and can be customized as required.

2.      General Operation

2.1.      The guiding principle of operations with an EFB is that flights should be able to be conducted as safely with an EFB as with the methods or products that the EFB is intended to replace. The EFB should not add an unacceptable level of complexity for any critical activity or phase of flight. For systems with multiple EFBs, in the event of an output discrepancy, there should be a means for the crew to decide which output is correct.

3.      Workload

3.1.      The implementation of EFBs should not cause a significant increase in crew workload due to positioning, using and stowing, particularly during critical flight phases. Procedures should be put in place to minimize workload and prevent crew distraction. Factors which could increase pilot workload, such as loss of an EFB, should be considered.

4.      Installation Aspects Specific to the Operation

4.1.      All aspects of the proposed EFB procedures should be evaluated in the aircraft or a simulator representative of the aircraft to ensure that any installation issues specific to the proposed operation are identified and mitigated.

5.      Aircraft Performance Calculations

5.1.      The Fleet/Fleet WSM should have a means to verify that the EFB outputs for aircraft performance calculations match the AFM. The EFB should have been determined during the installation evaluation to minimize the possibility of confusion and data entry errors. It should be confirmed that flight crew members using the provided procedures find data entry to be easy and unambiguous. It should also be determined that the procedures allow for adequate crosscheck between crew members.

6.      Electronic Navigation Charts

6.1.       It should be determined that crews are able to use the electronic navigation charts as readily as paper charts. The ability to easily select charts should be evaluated and the ability of the system to accommodate short notice changes, such as a change of runway, should be assessed. The possibility of crew confusion resulting from chart orientation, automatic chart selection or de-cluttering should be evaluated and mitigation should be proposed for any issues arising.

 6.2       Visual, instrument and aerodrome charts (refer to ICAO Annex 4, Aeronautical Charts) should contain the information necessary, in appropriate form, to conduct the operation at a level of safety at least equivalent to the reliability provided by paper charts. The screen size and resolution should be demonstrated to display information in a comparable manner to paper aeronautical charts and the data it is intended to replace. The information should be equally readable to the paper chart it is replacing, in both light and dark conditions.

6.3        Instrument Approach Procedures (IAP). The screen should display an IAP chart in an acceptable aeronautical chart format similar to a published paper chart. The screen should be large enough to show the entire standard format, one-page IAP chart all at once, with a degree of legibility and clarity equivalent to the paper chart being replaced. This requirement is not meant to preclude panning and zooming features, but is intended to prevent a workload increase during the approach phase of flight.

 6.4       Aeronautical Charts. Aeronautical navigation charts (i.e., visual flight rules (VFR) navigation charts, low- and high-altitude enroute charts, and terminal procedure publications) require evaluation for operational suitability. Panning, scrolling, zooming, rotating, or other active manipulation is permissible for these Type B applications to meet legibility requirements. An EFB display may not be capable of presenting an entire aerodrome chart (airport diagram), if the chart is the expanded detail (fold over) type. In this case, a moving map-centering feature may be desirable. Aerodrome charts must include all information useful for airport operation. Any active manipulation (e.g., zooming, panning, or decluttering) should be easily returned to the default position

7.      Electronic Checklists

7.1.       Electronic checklist features should be evaluated to determine whether crews are able to use them as well as paper checklists. The status of checklist items should be clear to the crew and it should be easy for the crew to change the status of each item. The potential to skip checklist items or assign incorrect actions should be minimized. The complete or incomplete status of the checklist should be clear to the crew.

Top of page

Back to TAA Advisory 2012-01