THE CAPT OF A DC10 EXTENDED OVERWATER FLT WAS CONCERNED THAT DIFFERENCES TRAINING FOR NEWLY INSTALLED NAVIGATIONAL EQUIP WAS INADEQUATE.

Narrative

MY CREW WAS SCHEDULED TO OPERATE A DC10-30. THE FLT WAS A MIL CHARTER FROM JACKSONVILLE; FL; TO SHANNON; IRELAND. THE ACFT HAD BEEN AT GREENSBORO; NC; FOR SCHEDULED MAINT AND INSTALLATION OF AN INERTIAL NAV SYS. THE ACFT WAS FERRIED TO JAX BY A COMPANY CREW. ON OCT/TUE/95; THE MEMBERS OF THE OPERATING CREW RECEIVED IN THE MAIL A CHANGE TO THE COMPANY FLC OPERATING MANUAL WITH THE DESCRIPTION AND ABBREVIATED OPERATING PROCS FOR THE INERTIAL NAV SYS. ALTHOUGH THE ACFT HAD COMPLETED INSTALLATION OF THE SYS; NO FORMAL TRAINING WAS CONDUCTED BY THE COMPANY PRIOR TO THE CREW BOARDING THE ACFT IN JAX FOR THE TRIP TO SHANNON. A PVT INSTALLATION COMPANY'S REPRESENTATIVE WHO HAD ACCOMPANIED THE ACFT TO JAX TO CHK OUT THE INS OP AFTER THE CONVERSION; REMAINED ABOARD DURING THE PREFLT TO ASSIST THE CREW IN PROGRAMMING AND SET UP OF THE SYS FOR THE FLT. HE PROVIDED A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE SYS OP AND PROCS TO BE USED IN OPERATING THE SYS. HE DID NOT DOCUMENT ANY TRAINING ACCOMPLISHMENT AND DEPLANED PRIOR TO DEP. THERE WAS AN OPERATING MANUAL FOR THE INS ABOARD THE ACFT. THE CREW OPERATED THE SYS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THAT MANUAL DURING THE FLT TO SHANNON. ENRTE TO SHANNON I GOT A PHONE PATCH TO OUR DISPATCH AND ADVISED THEM TO MAKE SURE THE CREW ACCEPTING THE ACFT AT SHANNON HAD OBTAINED THE CHANGE TO THEIR FCOM AND HAD ACCESS TO THE INFO PRIOR TO THEIR ARR AT THE ACFT. UPON ARR AT SHANNON I GAVE A SHORT FAMILIARIZATION OF THE SYS TO THE CAPT ASSUMING COMMAND AND INSTRUCTED HIM IN THE PROCS TO LOAD AND OPERATE THE SYS. HE HAD RECEIVED FACSIMILE INFO ON THE INS PRIOR TO THE ACFT ARR. I ALSO FAMILIARIZED HIM WITH THE OPERATING PROCS IN THE SYS BOOK ABOARD THE ACFT. THE ACFT THEN DEPARTED FOR CAIRO; EGYPT; FOR THE REST OF THE SCHEDULED MIL CHARTER. ON THE RETURN SEGMENT OF THE MIL CHARTER; MY CREW AGAIN OPERATED THE ACFT FROM SHANNON TO PHILADELPHIA; PA; TO ST LOUIS; MO. WE ENCOUNTERED NO PROBS WITH THE SYS INFLT. OUR COMPANY PROVIDED NO FORMAL TRAINING AND HAD NO PROCS TO ENSURE TRAINING ON THE SYS WAS ACCOMPLISHED AND DOCUMENTED PRIOR TO CREW OP OF THE SYS. THE CREW WAS ABLE TO SUCCESSFULLY OPERATE THE NAV SYS BECAUSE OF PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE WITH OTHER INERTIAL NAV SYS; WHICH HAD INCLUDED THIS SYS. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE RPTR; A CAPT; WAS UNCERTAIN REGARDING THE LEGALITIES OF HOW THE TRAINING WAS HANDLED ON THE INS; SO AN ASRS RPT WAS SUBMITTED AND THE PLT'S UNION INFORMED. OUTCOME WAS A RESPONSE FROM THE COMPANY TRAINING DEPT -- THE DIFFERENCES TRAINING NOW UTILIZES A VIDEO; NOT JUST A HANDOUT. THE RPTR ALSO STATES THAT HE HAS SINCE RECEIVED A PROGRAMMED LEARNING TOOL; AND THIS DISK HAS BEEN CIRCULATED AMONG THE DC10 PLTS. MOST OF THE PLTS IN THE COMPANY DID NOT HAVE OPERATING EXPERIENCE WITH THIS PARTICULAR INS; SO THE RPTR FELT THAT THE TRAINING RECEIVED THROUGH A HANDOUT WAS AN ISSUE; ESPECIALLY WITH THE OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS INVOLVED.