[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 132 (Thursday, July 10, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 39462-39753]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-15432]
[[Page 39461]]
Vol. 79
Thursday,
No. 132
July 10, 2014
Part II
Department of Transportation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Aviation Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
14 CFR Part 60
Flight Simulation Training Device Qualification Standards for Extended
Envelope and Adverse Weather Event Training Tasks; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 79 , No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 39462]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 60
[Docket No.: FAA-2014-0391; Notice No. 2014-04]
RIN 2120-AK08
Flight Simulation Training Device Qualification Standards for
Extended Envelope and Adverse Weather Event Training Tasks
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to amend the Qualification Performance
Standards for flight simulation training devices (FSTDs) for the
primary purpose of improving existing technical standards and
introducing new technical standards for evaluating an FSTD for full
stall and stick pusher maneuvers, upset recognition and recovery
maneuvers, maneuvers conducted in airborne icing conditions, takeoff
and landing maneuvers in gusting crosswinds, and bounced landing
recovery maneuvers. These new and improved technical standards are
intended to fully define FSTD fidelity requirements for conducting new
flight training tasks introduced through recent changes in the air
carrier training requirements as well as to address various National
Transportation Safety Board and Aviation Rulemaking Committee
recommendations. The proposal also updates the FSTD technical standards
to better align with the current international FSTD evaluation guidance
and introduces a new FSTD level that expands the number of qualified
flight training tasks in a fixed-base flight training device. The
proposed changes would ensure that the training and testing environment
is accurate and realistic, would codify existing practice, and would
provide greater harmonization with international guidance for
simulation. With the exception of the proposal to codify new FSTD
technical standards for specific training tasks through an FSTD
Directive, the proposed amendments would not apply to previously
qualified FSTDs.
DATES: Send comments on or before October 8, 2014.
ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2014-0391
using any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at 202-493-2251.
Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.
Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning
this action, contact Larry McDonald, Air Transportation Division/
National Simulator Program Branch, AFS-205, Federal Aviation
Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, GA 30320; telephone (404) 474-
5620; email [email protected].
For legal questions concerning this action, contact Robert H.
Frenzel, Manager, Operations Law Branch, Office of the Chief Counsel,
Regulations Division (AGC-200), Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-
3073; email [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Authority for This Rulemaking
The Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA's) authority to issue
rules on aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States
Code. Subtitle I, Section 106(f) describes the authority of the FAA
Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more
detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in 49
U.S.C. 44701(a)(5), which requires the Administrator to promulgate
regulations and minimum standards for other practices, methods, and
procedures necessary for safety in air commerce and national security.
This amendment to the regulation is within the scope of that authority
because it prescribes an accepted method for testing and evaluating
flight simulation training devices used to train and evaluate
flightcrew members.
In addition, the Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration
Extension Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-216) specifically required the FAA
to conduct rulemaking to ensure that all flightcrew members receive
flight training in recognizing and avoiding stalls, recovering from
stalls, and recognizing and avoiding upset of an aircraft, as well as
the proper techniques to recover from upset. This rulemaking is within
the scope of the authority in Public Law 111-216 and is necessary to
fully implement the training requirements recently adopted in the
Qualification, Service, and Use of Crewmembers and Aircraft Dispatchers
final rule (Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule),
RIN 2120-AJ00. See 78 FR 67800 (Nov. 12, 2013).
List of Abbreviations and Acronyms Frequently Used in This Document
AC--Advisory Circular
ARC--Aviation Rulemaking Committee
AURTA--Airplane Upset Recovery Training Aid
FFS--Full Flight Simulator
FTD--Flight Training Device
FSTD--Flight Simulation Training Device
ICATEE--International Committee on Aviation Training in Extended
Envelopes
LOCART--Loss of Control Avoidance and Recovery Training Working
Group
NPRM--Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
QPS--Qualification performance standards
SNPRM--Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
SPAW ARC--Stick Pusher and Adverse Weather Event Training Aviation
Rulemaking Committee
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
II. Background
A. Statement of the Problem
B. History
1. Industry Stall and Stick Pusher Working Group
2. International Committee on Aviation Training in Extended
Envelopes (ICATEE)
3. Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Extension
Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-216)
4. Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule
[[Page 39463]]
5. Stick Pusher and Adverse Weather Event Training Aviation
Rulemaking Committee (SPAW ARC)
6. Advisory Circular (AC) 120-109 (Stall and Stick Pusher
Training)
7. Loss of Control Avoidance and Recovery Training (LOCART)
Working Group
C. Deficiencies in FSTD Evaluation Requirements
1. Full Stall Training Maneuvers
2. Upset Recognition and Recovery Training Maneuvers
3. Airborne Icing Training Maneuvers
4. Microburst and Windshear Recovery Maneuvers
5. Takeoff and Landing in Gusting Crosswinds
6. Bounced Landing Recovery Maneuvers
D. Related Actions
E. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Recommendations
III. Discussion of the Proposal
A. The FSTD Evaluation Process
B. General Rationale for the Proposal
C. Requirements Applicable to Previously Qualified FSTDs--FSTD
Directive 2 (Appendix A, Attachment 6)
D. FSTD Evaluation Requirements for Full Stall Training Tasks
(Appendix A; Table A1a, Section 2.1.7.S, Table A2A, Tests
2.a.10.c.8, and 3.f.8; Table A3a, Test 5.b.1; and Attachment 7)
E. FSTD Evaluation Requirements for Upset Recognition and
Recovery Training Tasks (Appendix A; Table A1A, Section 2.1.6.S and
Attachment 7)
F. FSTD Evaluation Requirements for Airborne Icing Training
Tasks (Appendix A; Table A1A, Section 2.1.5.S; Table A2A, Test 2.i.
and Attachment 7)
G. FSTD Evaluation Requirements for Takeoff and Landing Training
Tasks in Gusting Crosswinds (Appendix A, Table A1A, Sections 3.1.S,
3.1.R, and 11.4.R)
H. FSTD Evaluation Requirements for Bounced Landing Training
Tasks (Appendix A, Table A1A, Section 3.1.S)
I. FSTD Evaluation Requirements for Windshear Training Tasks
(Appendix A, Table A1a, Section 11.2.R)
J. Significant Changes To Align With the International FSTD
Evaluation Guidance (Appendix A)
1. Table A1A (General Requirements)
2. Table A2A (Objective Testing Requirements)
3. Table A3A (Functions and Subjective Testing Requirements)
4. Table A3B (Class I Airport Models)
5. Table A3D (Motion System Effects)
K. New Level 7 Fixed Wing FSTD Requirements--Appendix B Changes
(Appendix B, Tables B1A, B1B, B2A, B3A, B3B, B3C, B3D, and B3E)
L. Miscellaneous Amendments To Improve and Codify FSTD
Evaluation Procedures (Sec. Sec. 60.15, 60.17, 60.19, 60.23,
Appendix A Paragraph 11)
IV. Regulatory Notices and Analysis
V. Executive Order Determinations
VI. Additional Information
I. Executive Summary
The primary purpose of this proposal is to define simulator
fidelity requirements for new training tasks that were mandated for air
carrier training programs by Public Law 111-216. The notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) proposes to accomplish this by establishing new or
updated Flight Simulation Training Device (FSTD) technical evaluation
standards for full stall and upset recognition and recovery training
tasks as required in the Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training
Final Rule and as proposed by the Stick Pusher and Adverse Weather
Event Training ARC (SPAW ARC).
The Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule added
training requirements for pilots that target the prevention of and
recovery from stall and upset conditions, recovery from bounced
landings, enhanced runway safety training, and enhanced training on
crosswind takeoffs and landings with gusts. Stall and upset prevention
requires pilot skill in manual handling maneuvers and procedures.
Therefore, the manual handling maneuvers most critical to stall and
upset prevention (i.e., slow flight, loss of reliable airspeed, and
manually controlled departure and arrival) are included as part of the
agency's overall stall and upset mitigation strategy. These maneuvers
are identified in the Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final
Rule within the ``extended envelope'' training provision, which further
requires that these maneuvers be completed in an FSTD. As a result,
revisions to all part 121 training programs will be necessary and
revisions to part 60 will be required to fully implement the extended
envelope, bounced landing, and gusty crosswinds flight training
required by the Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule.
In addition, this proposal addresses a potential lack of simulator
fidelity as identified in several NTSB safety recommendations and
Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) recommendations concerning flight
training tasks, such as anti-icing, bounced landing, gusty crosswind,
and extended envelope training. These changes are necessary to ensure a
realistic crew training environment and to prevent incorrect simulator
training.
For the purpose of this rulemaking, the term ``extended envelope
training tasks'' (such as full stall and aircraft upset recovery)
refers to maneuvers and procedures conducted in a FSTD that may extend
beyond the limits where typical FSTD performance and handling qualities
have been validated with heavy reliance on flight data to represent the
actual aircraft. In instances when obtaining such flight data is
hazardous or impractical, engineering predictive methods and subject-
matter-expert assessment are used to program and validate the
aircraft's behavior in the simulator.
The secondary purpose of this NPRM is to align the technical
standards for Level C and D (fixed wing) FSTDs that are defined in
Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 60 with the
current international FSTD evaluation guidelines published in the
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) document 9625 Edition
3, Manual of Criteria for the Qualification of Flight Simulation
Training Devices (ICAO 9625, Edition 3). These changes would
incorporate the technical guidelines for the highest level of ICAO-
defined FSTD (Type VII) into the part 60 Level C and Level D FSTD
standards, where appropriate. This proposal also introduces a new level
of fixed-wing FSTD (a Level 7 flight training device (FTD)) that is
based upon the ICAO 9625, Edition 3, Type V FSTD technical guidance.
Changes intended to align with the ICAO guidance would address new
aircraft and simulation technology introduced since the original
issuance of part 60, incorporate general improvements to the FSTD
evaluation standards, and provide air carriers and flight training
providers with additional options for conducting approved training
tasks in an FTD as opposed to a more costly full flight simulator
(FFS).
In general, the proposed changes to the technical standards would
apply only to those FSTDs that are initially qualified or upgraded in
qualification level after the final rule becomes effective. For
previously qualified FSTDs used to conduct extended envelope, airborne
icing, gusting crosswind, and bounced landing training, the FAA is also
seeking comment on a proposed FSTD Directive that would require FSTD
Sponsors to retroactively evaluate those FSTDs against certain
objective and subjective testing requirements as defined in the QPS
appendices and modify them if necessary to meet the proposed
requirements. This proposed FSTD Directive would be applicable to any
FSTD being used to conduct these training tasks, including those FSTDs
being used to conduct such training on a voluntary basis in a non-air
carrier flight training program. Those previously qualified devices
that would not be used to conduct these specified training tasks would
not require modification or evaluation.
For all FSTDs that are initially qualified or upgraded in
qualification level after implementation of these regulations, the
proposed changes to the
[[Page 39464]]
QPS appendices would become effective 30 days after publication of a
final rule. However, new FSTDs may still be initially qualified under
existing standards after this date, subject to up to a 24 month grace
period as currently defined in Sec. 60.15(c). For previously qualified
FSTDs that will be used to conduct certain extended envelope and other
training tasks described in the Crewmember and Dispatcher Training
Final Rule, compliance with the proposed FSTD Directive would be
required within three years of the publication date of a final rule
implementing these provisions. The FAA is seeking comment on these
proposed compliance dates.
A summary of the cost and benefit information is presented below.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.236
II. Background
A. Statement of the Problem
In order to mitigate aircraft loss of control accidents and to
comply with the requirements of Public Law 111-216, the FAA has
required new or revised flight training requirements in the Crewmember
and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule for flight maneuvers such
as full stall and upset recovery training. Through participation with
various industry working groups and recommendations received from the
SPAW ARC, the FAA determined that many existing FSTDs used by air
carriers to conduct such training may not adequately represent the
simulated aircraft to a degree necessary for successful completion of
required training tasks. Additionally, the FAA evaluated several recent
air carrier accidents and determined that low FSTD fidelity or the lack
of ability for an FSTD to adequately conduct certain training tasks may
have been a contributing factor in these accidents. A potential lack of
simulator fidelity could contribute to inaccurate or incomplete
training on new training tasks that are required by the Crewmember and
Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule, which could lead to an
associated and unnecessary safety risk.
Furthermore, since the initial publication of the part 60 final
rule in 2008, the international FSTD qualification guidance published
in ICAO 9625, Edition 3 have been updated to incorporate general
improvements to new aircraft and simulation technology and the
introduction of new FSTD levels that better align FSTD fidelity with
required training tasks. The ICAO 9625 document is an internationally
recognized set of FSTD evaluation guidelines that was developed by a
wide range of government and industry experts on flight simulation
training and technology and has been used as a basis for national
regulation and guidance material for FSTD evaluation in many countries.
Internationally aligned FSTD standards facilitate cost savings for FSTD
operators because they effectively reduce the number of different FSTD
designs that are required to meet multiple national regulations and
standards for FSTD qualification.
The proposals in this NPRM were largely developed using
recommendations from the SPAW ARC \1\ and the international FSTD
qualification guidelines that are published in ICAO Document 9625,
Edition 3.\2\ These proposals are primarily directed at improving the
fidelity of FSTDs that would be used in air carrier pilot training.
They would also have an added benefit of improving the fidelity of all
FSTDs qualified after the proposed rule becomes effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A copy of the SPAW ARC final report has been placed in the
docket for this rulemaking.
\2\ International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)
publications can be located on their public internet site at: http://www.icao.int/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 39465]]
B. History
1. Industry Stall and Stick Pusher Working Group
In March 2010, the FAA worked with industry leaders to address
concerns arising from the increase in stall and loss of control
accidents. The Stall and Stick Pusher Working Group met over a 9 month
period and produced many training recommendations to prevent stall
events. This working group included members from aircraft
manufacturers, simulator manufacturers, training companies, pilot
associations, airlines, and the FAA.
In addition to providing best training practices using current
simulation, the working group recommended that simulators in use today
should not be used for training to or past the aerodynamic stall unless
further testing and validation in that flight regime are performed for
the specific simulator and approved by the FAA. This working group did
not recommend post-stall training because the roll and yaw
characteristics and the stall buffet characteristics of the simulator
may not be representative of the aircraft.
2. International Committee on Aviation Training in Extended Envelopes
(ICATEE)
In 2009, the Royal Aeronautical Society formed the International
Committee on Aviation Training in Extended Envelopes (ICATEE) working
group to examine aircraft upset recovery training and recommend
improvements to both training and simulation devices used to conduct
training. This working group was comprised of subject matter experts in
many facets of industry and government including airlines, flight
training providers, research entities, FSTD manufacturers, airframe
manufacturers, regulatory authorities, and airline pilots associations.
The ICATEE working methodology was to first conduct a training needs
analysis using subject matter experts in the area of pilot training and
then determine the training device requirements as a function of the
identified training needs. Once the training needs were established,
subject matter experts in FSTD technology developed proposed
modifications to the FSTD qualification standards to support the
recommended training tasks. While the ICATEE final report has not been
published yet, several interim recommendations from ICATEE on FSTD
technical evaluation standards for stall, upset recovery, and airborne
icing maneuvers were provided to the SPAW ARC for consideration in
developing its recommendations.
3. Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of
2010 (Pub. L. 111-216)
On August 1, 2010, President Obama signed into law Public Law 111-
216. In addition to extending the FAA's authorization, Public Law 111-
216 included provisions to improve airline safety and pilot training.
Specifically, section 208 of Public Law 111-216, Implementation of NTSB
Flight Crewmember Training Recommendations, pertains directly to this
rulemaking in that stall training and upset recovery training were
mandated for part 121 air carrier flightcrew members.
4. Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule
On November 12, 2013, the FAA published the Crewmember and Aircraft
Dispatcher Training Final Rule, adding the training tasks required by
Public Law 111-216, specifically targeting extended envelope training,
recovery from bounced landings, enhanced runway safety training, and
enhanced training on crosswind takeoffs and landings with gusts which
further requires that these maneuvers be completed in an FSTD. As a
result, revisions to all part 121 training programs will be necessary
and the revisions to part 60 as proposed in this rule will be required
to ensure FSTDs are properly evaluated in order to fully implement the
flight training required in the Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher
Training Final Rule.
In the Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule, the
FAA established a 5-year compliance period for air carriers to update
their training programs because of the need to revise both the FSTD
standards and to allow for FSTD sponsors to have a sufficient amount of
time to make any required modifications to their FSTDs as a result of
this rulemaking. The FAA recognizes that a significant amount of
engineering, testing, and subject matter expert evaluation time will be
required to evaluate and modify the numerous FSTDs that will be
required to conduct such tasks in part 121 training programs. As a
result, the FAA has proposed a 3-year compliance period in the FSTD
Directive that would require the evaluation and modification of
previously qualified FSTDs that will be used for certain ``extended
envelope'' and other training tasks in the Crewmember and Aircraft
Dispatcher Training Final Rule. The FAA believes that the 5-year
compliance period in the Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training
Final Rule provides sufficient time to complete this rulemaking and
also to give FSTD sponsors enough time to comply with the proposed 3-
year compliance period in the FSTD Directive. While the FAA recognizes
that some sponsors and operators may already have the technology and
simulation knowledge necessary to make the changes proposed in the FSTD
Directive, we recognize that there is a significant variation in the
capability of previously qualified FSTDs as well as the technical
expertise available to FSTD sponsors which could require more or less
compliance time than what the FAA has anticipated. We request comment
on whether the 3-year compliance period in the FSTD Directive is
adequate, too short, or too long. The comments should also take into
consideration the March 2019 compliance date for the new training task
requirements in the Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final
Rule and indicate whether that time is adequate, too short, or too
long.
5. Stick Pusher and Adverse Weather Event Training Aviation Rulemaking
Committee
The formation of the SPAW ARC was mandated by Public Law 111-216,
Section 208. It held its first meeting on November 30, 2010, and held
its last full group meeting on May 12, 2011. The SPAW ARC included
members from aircraft manufacturers, simulator manufacturers, training
companies, pilot associations, and airlines.
The final report provided numerous recommendations to the FAA on
stall and stick pusher training, upset recovery training, icing
training, and microburst and windshear training. In addition to the
training recommendations, the ARC made recommendations to the FAA in
its final report concerning the potential lack of simulator fidelity
and proposed modifications to part 60 to address those deficiencies.
The ARC cited several specific areas of improvement to simulation
including modeling of flight dynamics and performance changes due to
ice accretion, modeling of aircraft response in a stall, and providing
flight instructors with improved feedback concerning the validity of
the simulation during upset prevention and recovery training maneuvers.
A copy of the SPAW ARC's final report has been placed in the docket for
this rulemaking.
6. Advisory Circular (AC) 120-109 (Stall and Stick Pusher Training)
In August 2012, the FAA issued AC 120-109 (Stall and Stick Pusher
[[Page 39466]]
Training),\3\ which provided a series of best practices relating to
training, testing, and checking of stall warnings; aerodynamic stalls
and stick pusher activations; and recommended recovery procedures. The
content of this AC was developed using the recommendations of previous
working groups and was intended to provide guidance to training
providers and air carriers to ensure correct and consistent responses
to unexpected stall warnings and stick pusher activations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ FAA Advisory Circulars can be located on the FAA's public
internet site at: http://www.airweb.faa.gov/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Loss of Control Avoidance and Recovery Training (LOCART) Working
Group
In March 2012, the FAA reconvened the SPAW ARC to seek more
detailed recommendations on academic and flight training programs to
support the upset prevention and recovery training that was proposed by
the SNPRM on air carrier crewmember training. The ARC was also tasked
with examining the training device requirements to support upset
prevention and recovery training in an FSTD. The final report from this
ARC included technical recommendations to revise the part 60 FSTD
standards to include minimum FSTD evaluation requirements for upset
prevention and recovery training maneuvers. Some of these
recommendations to amend part 60 expanded upon the previous
recommendations made in the original SPAW ARC report. A copy of this
final report has also been placed in the docket for this rulemaking.
C. Deficiencies in FSTD Evaluation Requirements
1. Full Stall Training Maneuvers
The SPAW ARC examined various issues involving stall training and
recommended against any simulator training being conducted beyond the
first indication of the stall unless the simulator modeling and
fidelity are such that the simulation of the specific airplane is
representative in this flight regime. Particular concerns addressed by
the SPAW ARC regarding FSTD fidelity in full stall maneuvers were the
modeling of aircraft stability and aircraft response to control inputs,
improved motion response for acceleration cueing, and improved modeling
of the stall buffet to cover a broader range of flight conditions. The
SPAW ARC also made recommendations concerning the evaluation of FSTD
stall characteristics in flight conditions other than wings-level
stalls. These include stall training maneuvers such as high altitude
cruise stall, turning flight (accelerated) stall, and the objective
validation of stick pusher forces (where equipped in the aircraft).
The exposure of flightcrews to a low fidelity representation of an
airplane's stall characteristics in an FSTD can lead to improper
recovery techniques being reinforced during training. Such improper
recovery techniques can be evidenced in the investigation of the 1996
Airborne Express DC-8 aircraft accident in Narrows, Virginia. In this
investigation, the NTSB concluded that the flightcrew had been exposed
to a low fidelity reproduction of the DC-8's stall characteristics in
the company's flight simulator that likely contributed to their
inappropriate response to an actual stall in the aircraft. The NTSB
report stated:
The simulator's benign flight characteristics when flown more into
the stall provided the flightcrew with a misleading expectation of the
handling characteristics of the actual airplane. The [pilot flying
(PF)] initial target pitch attitudes during the attempted stall
recovery (from 10 degrees to 14 degrees) may have resulted in a
successful recovery during his practice and teaching in the simulator.
Further, because their experience with stalls in the DC-8 was obtained
in a simulator without a stall break, the PF and [pilot not flying
(PNF)] could not practice the nose-down control inputs required to
recover a stalled airplane that is pitching down or at a nose-low
attitude. Moreover, because the PF and PNF were exposed during
extensive simulator experience to what they presumed was the stall
behavior of the DC-8, the stall break that occurred in the airplane
most likely surprised them. The Safety Board concludes that the
flightcrew's exposure to a low fidelity reproduction of the DC-8's
stall characteristics in the ABX DC-8 flight training simulator was a
factor in the PF holding aft (stall-inducing) control column inputs
when the airplane began to pitch down and roll, which contributed to
the accident.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See NTSB aircraft accident report number NTSB/AAR-97/05:
Uncontrolled Flight into Terrain; ABX Air (Airborne Express);
Douglas DC-8-63, N827AX; Narrows, Virginia (Dec. 22, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA notes that because there has never been a requirement for
an air carrier to conduct training in a simulator to a full stall,\5\
there has been relatively little exposure of flightcrews to such low
fidelity stall characteristics in a simulator. However, once full stall
training becomes a mandatory training requirement for air carriers, it
is imperative that any FSTD being used to conduct such training is
properly evaluated to ensure such negative training does not take place
as evidenced in the Airborne Express accident. Failing to properly
evaluate air carrier FSTDs to deliver this training would potentially
expose many crewmembers to incorrect stall characteristics in an FSTD
and thereby introducing an associated safety risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Air carrier flight training is currently only required to
train to an ``approach to stall'' flight condition where recovery is
initiated at the activation of the stall warning system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Upset Recognition and Recovery Training Maneuvers
The SPAW ARC recommended that simulator and academic training in
upset prevention and recovery should be based on the Airplane Upset
Recovery Training Aid (AURTA).\6\ The SPAW ARC further stated that
instructors do not always have the proper tools to provide adequate
feedback to students with respect to control responses and aircraft
operating limits during upset prevention and recovery training.
Additionally, they noted if part of the training is conducted outside
of the simulator's validated envelope,\7\ there is an increased risk
that the simulator will no longer accurately replicate the aircraft,
which could result in negative training. The SPAW ARC recommended
improved instructor feedback tools which can display when a training
pilot has exceeded either the accepted simulator model envelope or the
known aircraft load factor envelope. These instructor feedback tools
would allow the instructor to identify and inform the student that he
or she is exceeding those limits, thus mitigating potentially negative
training. Furthermore, the SPAW ARC recommended employing the AURTA
methods in assessing an FSTD's capability to conduct such maneuvers and
to provide improved instructor feedback mechanisms to better evaluate
both the FSTD's and the student's performance during such training.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The Airplane Upset Recovery Training Aid can be located on
the FAA's public Internet site at: http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/airline_operators/training/.
\7\ An FSTD's validation envelope generally consists of those
combinations of angle of attack and sideslip where the FSTD's
aerodynamic model has been validated using flight test data or
reliable predictive methods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When an FSTD is used to conduct upset recovery training, the
instructor must be provided with the necessary tools to assess a
student's performance when executing the recovery. When an instructor
does not have these tools, potentially dangerous or inappropriate
control strategies may be learned in the
[[Page 39467]]
FSTD. In the case of the 2001 American Airlines flight 587 accident,
the NTSB determined that an unrealistic portrayal of the aircraft's
response to a wake vortex incident in the simulator may have
contributed to the flying pilot applying unnecessary and excessive
control inputs that ultimately led to the structural failure of the
aircraft. Among the deficiencies the NTSB noted in the American
Airlines Advanced Aircraft Maneuvering Program, the following were
directly related to simulator functionality with regard to training
upset recovery maneuvers to flightcrew members: \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See NTSB aircraft accident report number NTSB/AAR-04/04: In-
Flight Separation of Vertical Stabilizer; American Airlines Flight
587; Airbus Industrie A-300-605R, N14053; Belle Harbor, New York;
November 12, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This simulator exercise could have caused the first
officer of the accident flight to have an ``unrealistic and exaggerated
view of the effects of wake turbulence; erroneously associate wake
turbulence encounters with the need for aggressive roll upset recovery
techniques; and develop control strategies that would produce a much
different, and potentially surprising and confusing response if
performed during flight.''
The simulator exercise provided ``unrealistic portrayals
of the airplane response to wake turbulence and significantly
suppressed control input effectiveness to induce a large rolling
potential that was unlikely to occur with an airplane as large as an
A300-600.''
The simulator exercise ``encouraged the use of rudder in a
highly dynamic situation without portraying the large buildup in
sideslip angle and side load that would accompany such rudder inputs in
an actual airplane.''
Because the current FSTD evaluation standards do not contain
minimum requirements on the implementation of aircraft upset scenarios,
the potential remains for training to occur using such unrealistic
upset scenarios. Furthermore, with improved instructor situational
awareness available in the simulator (including improved feedback on
student flight control inputs and simulator/aircraft operational
limitations), it is possible that such aggressive roll upset recovery
techniques as evidenced in the American 587 accident may have been
identified and corrected during simulator training.
3. Airborne Icing Training Maneuvers
Although the simulation of engine and airframe icing has been an
evaluation requirement for all Level C and Level D FSTDs since the
early 1980's, the SPAW ARC recommended improving the fidelity of the
aerodynamic effects of aircraft icing conditions in FSTDs used in
flightcrew member training. The SPAW ARC stated specific aircraft data
should be used when available; lacking that, other sources of
engineering data may be used. The SPAW ARC further cited specific
simulator improvements that the FAA should consider in developing
improved standards for ice accretion models, such as the aerodynamic
effects of lift, drag, and rotational moments (e.g. pitch, roll, and
yaw effects) through means other than weight; the effects of icing on
control feel, airframe buffeting, and control effectiveness; the
potential to have the aircraft stall before the stall warning systems
activate; the simulation of ice protection equipment failures; and the
effect on engine performance due to ice ingestion.
Some current FSTD icing models simply employ a weight additive to
the aircraft's gross weight in order to simulate more sluggish handling
characteristics and higher stall speeds than expected. Although these
characteristics may be representative of some effects of icing, the FAA
believes the improved icing models that have been proposed would have
an appreciable benefit to flightcrew training. FSTD icing models that
incorporate the aerodynamic effects of ice accretion on lifting
surfaces can provide critical recognition cues of dangerous ice
buildup, such as changes in pitching moment, control effectiveness, and
buffet characteristics. Furthermore, ice accretion on wing surfaces can
disrupt the airflow over a wing, significantly in some cases, leading
to an aerodynamic stall. Aerodynamic stall as a result of icing can
occur at angles of attack much lower than stall warning systems are
designed to activate. The ability to replicate these conditions in a
simulator can provide invaluable training to flightcrews on the hazards
of wing ice accretion and provide a higher awareness of the potential
effects of icing conditions.\9\ These proposed improvements would
enhance the anti-icing training tasks that are currently required for
air carrier training programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See NTSB aircraft accident report number NTSB/AAR-96/01: In-
Flight Icing Encounter and Loss of Control; Simmons Airlines, d.b.a.
American Eagle Flight 4184; Avions de Transport Regional (ATR) Model
72-121, N401AM; Roselawn, Indiana (Oct. 31, 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Microburst and Windshear Recovery Maneuvers
While accidents involving windshear and microburst have decreased
significantly since the late 1980's, the SPAW ARC recommended improving
FSTD evaluation requirements to support the standardization and quality
of current training practices. Specific recommendations made by the
SPAW ARC to improve FSTD functionality for windshear training included
the addition of ``complex'' windshear models (as defined in the
Windshear Training Aid) to provide flightcrew members experience in
more realistic windshear encounters; employing methods to ensure an
FSTD is properly configured for a windshear training profile; and
including realistic levels of turbulence with existing windshear
profiles.
5. Takeoff and Landing in Gusting Crosswinds
The Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule
introduced a new requirement to address an NTSB safety recommendation
for the incorporation of ``realistic, gusty crosswind profiles'' into
pilot simulator training programs. This recommendation was based on the
results of an aircraft accident investigation in which the NTSB
determined that a contributing factor of the accident was ``inadequate
crosswind training in the airline industry due to deficient simulator
wind gust modeling'' (see NTSB report AAR-10/04). During the course of
the accident investigation, NTSB found that the airline's simulator did
not have the capability to incorporate such realistic gusting crosswind
scenarios for use in pilot training. Furthermore, the FAA reviewed the
current part 60 FSTD evaluation standards and found that no such
minimum requirement exists for the qualification of an FSTD for use in
training.
6. Bounced Landing Training Maneuvers
The Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule
introduced a new requirement for bounced landing recovery training
based on a review of accidents and various NTSB safety recommendations.
As a result of public comments received in response to the Crewmember
and Aircraft Dispatcher Training SNPRM, the FAA reviewed the part 60
minimum FSTD evaluation requirements to ensure that bounced landing
maneuvers are adequately evaluated for crew training. The FAA notes
that bounced landing
[[Page 39468]]
maneuvers are not specifically included in the current part 60
technical evaluation requirements and, as a result, FSTDs used for this
training may not have the required fidelity to properly conduct the
training.
D. Related Actions
As a result of information gathered from various working groups,
the FAA has taken action on loss of control training and simulator
fidelity deficiencies by issuing the following voluntary guidance
material:
[ssquf] FAA Safety Alert for Operators (SAFO 10012)--Possible
Misinterpretation of the Practical Test Standards (PTS) Language
``Minimal Loss of Altitude.'' The purpose of this alert bulletin is to
clarify the meaning of the approach to stall evaluation criteria as it
related to ``minimal loss of altitude'' in the Airline Transport Pilot
PTS.
[ssquf] FAA Information for Operators Bulletin (InFO 10010)--
Enhanced Upset Recovery Training. This information bulletin recommends
the incorporation of the material in the AURTA into flightcrew
training. The AURTA contains guidance for upset recovery training
programs for air carrier flightcrews as well as the evaluation guidance
for FSTDs used in such training.
[ssquf] FAA National Simulator Program (NSP) Guidance Bulletin
11-04--FSTD Modeling and Evaluation Recommendations for Engine
and Airframe Icing
[ssquf] FAA National Simulator Program (NSP) Guidance Bulletin
11-05--FSTD Evaluation Recommendations for Upset Recovery
Training Maneuvers
[ssquf] AC 120-109--Stall and Stick Pusher Training
[ssquf] Airline Transport Pilot Practical Test Standards (Change
4).
Portions of this guidance material provide FSTD operators with
recommended evaluation methods to improve FSTD fidelity for selected
training tasks. To ensure that all FSTDs used to conduct such training
are evaluated and modified to a consistent standard, the applicable
part 60 technical requirements must be modified.
E. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Recommendations
This proposal would incorporate changes into part 60 that would
either directly or indirectly address the following NTSB Safety
Recommendations through improved FSTD evaluation standards to support
the outlined training tasks:
[ssquf] Stall training and/or stick pusher training (Recommendations A-
10-22, A-10-23, A-97-47, A-07-03, and A-10-24)
[ssquf] Upset Recognition and recovery training (Recommendations A-042-
62 and A-96-120)
[ssquf] Engine and airframe icing training (Recommendations A-11-46 and
A-11-47)
[ssquf] Takeoff and landing training in gusting crosswind conditions
(Recommendations A-10-110 and A-10-111)
[ssquf] Bounced landing training (Recommendations A-00-93 and A-11-69).
III. Discussion of the Proposal
A. The FSTD Evaluation Process
For a new FSTD to be used in an FAA approved training program, it
must be evaluated in accordance with the technical standards defined in
the Qualification Performance Standards (QPS) appendices in part 60 and
issued a Statement of Qualification. The QPS appendices in part 60
consist of general requirements, objective testing requirements, and
subjective testing requirements that the FSTD must be evaluated against
for qualification at a specific level. To validate an FSTD's
aerodynamic and ground model programming, objective tests are required
that compare the FSTD's performance and handling qualities against
flight-test-collected validation data within prescribed tolerances.
These objective tests that are required for the qualification of an
FSTD are defined in the part 60 QPS appendices. Although part 60
prescribes a minimum number of objective tests required for
qualification, FSTD manufacturers and aerodynamic data providers often
independently conduct additional tests to fully assess the FSTD's
performance beyond the minimum requirements. This additional testing
may consist of supplemental validation using flight test data,
engineering simulation data, or wind tunnel analysis to expand the
validation envelope of an FSTD.
While objective testing using flight test data is generally the
preferred method for FSTD validation, many flight training maneuvers
cannot be practically validated in such a manner due either to the wide
variance that arises in the flight test response due to unsteady
aerodynamics and airplane stability, or to the safety risk associated
with the flight data collection. These maneuvers include flight at
angles of attack beyond stall identification, flight characteristics
associated with significant icing, or other maneuvers where significant
safety risks exist in the collection of flight test data. For such
maneuvers, reliance on engineering and analytical data to extend an
FSTD's validation envelope may be both appropriate and acceptable where
the flight training objectives can be accomplished.
B. General Rationale for the Proposal
The primary objective of this NPRM is to introduce FSTD technical
standards that adequately evaluate an FSTD's ability to replicate the
performance and flight handling characteristics of an aircraft during
specific new and revised training tasks required as part of an air
carrier training program. For many of these new training requirements,
the current part 60 and previously grandfathered FSTD evaluation
standards do not adequately assess an FSTD's fidelity beyond the normal
flight envelope. New FSTD evaluation standards therefore must be
developed prior to requiring these enhanced training tasks. An accurate
and realistic training environment is necessary to ensure flightcrew
members are properly trained in the recognition of a dangerous onset of
an upset or a stall condition as well as being able to properly react
if the recognition cues are missed. Accident history has shown that
unrealistic recognition cues and recovery techniques learned in an FSTD
can contribute to an improper recovery technique being attempted in the
aircraft.
A secondary objective of this NPRM is to promote harmonization with
the current international FSTD qualification guidance to the maximum
extent possible. To meet this objective, the FAA is proposing to adopt
portions of the ICAO 9625, Edition 3 FSTD evaluation guidance into the
appropriate part 60 QPS appendices. This would be limited to revising
the part 60 Appendix A standards for Level C and Level D FSTDs with the
updated guidelines in ICAO 9625 for a Type VII device. It would also
introduce a new FTD level in Appendix B of part 60 using the ICAO 9625
guidelines for a Type V device.
The part 60 technical standards for the evaluation of an FSTD are
contained in the QPS appendices of the rule. These QPS appendices are
further subdivided into various attachments and tables containing
General Simulator Requirements, Objective Testing Requirements, and
Subjective Testing Requirements. Due to the extensive reorganization
required to align the tables within the part 60 QPS appendices to match
the ICAO 9625, Edition 3 structure and numbering
[[Page 39469]]
format, the FAA is proposing to reissue both appendix A and appendix B
in their entirety. All significant amendments are discussed in the
following sections as they relate to the intended objectives.
Under this proposal, the changes to the technical evaluation
standards in the QPS appendices would become effective for all FSTDs
that are newly qualified or upgraded in qualification level 30 days
after publication of a final rule implementing these provisions.
However, FSTD sponsors may elect to use the existing part 60 standards
to qualify new or upgraded FSTDs for up to 24 months after the
effective date of a final rule under the grace period provisions that
are currently defined in Sec. 60.15(c). All FSTDs (including
previously qualified or grandfathered FSTDs) that would be used conduct
certain extended envelope and other training tasks required by the
Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule would require
evaluation within three years of the effective date of a final rule in
accordance with the proposed FSTD Directive. See section III.C. for
additional information on the proposed FSTD Directive.
C. Requirements Applicable to Previously Qualified FSTDs--FSTD
Directive 2 (Appendix A, Attachment 6)
Previously qualified FSTDs retain ``grandfather rights'' in
accordance with the current part 60 rule.\10\ As a result, most changes
made to the part 60 QPS appendices would not be applicable to
previously qualified FSTDs. Because the majority of FSTDs that would be
used to conduct the training required by the Crewmember and Dispatcher
Training Final Rule would retain grandfather rights and would not
require requalification under the new standards, the FAA must issue an
FSTD Directive to ensure these previously qualified FSTDs are properly
evaluated. The primary purpose of this proposal is to address the
potential lack of FSTD fidelity in certain individually identified
training tasks that will be required for air carrier training when the
Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule becomes
effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See Sec. 60.17, Previously Qualified FSTDs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An FSTD Directive is defined in Sec. 60.23 for existing FSTDs and
provides the FAA with a mechanism to mandate FSTD modifications where
necessary for safety of flight reasons. Some of the training tasks that
have been mandated by Public Law 111-216 and required in the Crewmember
and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule have significant potential
to introduce either inappropriate or incomplete training to flightcrew
members due to a lack of FSTD fidelity. In most of these training
tasks, the flight conditions the crews would be exposed to have never
been previously experienced in the aircraft, making the accuracy and
realism of the FSTD of prime importance. The potential of inadequate
fidelity of an FSTD used to conduct such training can lead to a
misunderstanding of recognition cues, learning of inappropriate
recovery techniques, and an unrealistic understanding, or a lack of
understanding of dangerous flight conditions that must be avoided. As a
result, the FAA believes that proper evaluation of any FSTD (including
those previously qualified FSTDs that hold grandfather rights) used to
conduct these training tasks must be accomplished. To keep the cost of
evaluating and modifying previously qualified FSTDs to a minimum, the
FAA is proposing to apply the requirements of the FSTD Directive only
to those FSTDs that would be used to accomplish specific training tasks
as described in the FSTD Directive. Under this proposal, FSTD Sponsors
may choose to qualify any number of FSTDs to conduct any of the
individual tasks as required to meet the needs of their training
programs. FSTDs that have been evaluated and modified in accordance
with the FSTD Directive would have their Statements of Qualification
modified to indicate the FSTD has been evaluated and qualified for the
tasks.
The QPS requirements for the qualification of full stall maneuvers
and upset recognition and recovery maneuvers are generally applicably
to Level C and Level D FSTDs that have minimum requirements for both
six degree of freedom motions cues and motion special effects (stall
buffet) cues. Particularly for full stall maneuvers that involve
significant roll and yaw deviations as well as high bank angle upset
recovery maneuvers, motion cues in all six degrees of freedom are
critical to provide the pilot with the cues necessary to learn
effective recovery techniques. Additionally, motion vibration (buffet)
cueing is necessary for the qualification of full stall maneuvers in
order to provide the pilot with the proper recognition cues of an
impending stall.
The FAA recognizes that some of the full stall and upset
recognition and recovery maneuvers described in this proposal may not
necessarily result in significant roll or yaw deviations (such as wings
level stalls and nose high/nose low upsets with no bank angle) and
could potentially be conducted in a Level A or a Level B FFS equipped
with a three degree of freedom motion cueing system.\11\ Furthermore,
many Level A FFSs that do not have a minimum requirement for the
simulation of stall buffets may, in fact, be equipped with such a
system on a voluntary basis.\12\ It is for these reasons, the FAA has
proposed that Level A and Level B FFSs may be considered for the
qualification of certain full stall and upset recognition and recovery
maneuvers in accordance with the FSTD Directive where the motion and
vibration cueing systems have been specifically evaluated to provide
adequate cues for the accomplishment of the particular training tasks.
Specific full stall or upset recovery maneuvers (such as high bank
angle upset recovery maneuvers) may be excluded from qualification
where it has been determined that the FSTD cannot provide the proper
motion or vibration cues to accomplish the particular training tasks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Level A and Level B FFSs have minimum requirements for
three degrees of freedom motion cues. See 14 CFR Part 60, Table A1A,
Section 5.b.
\12\ Level A FFSs do not have a minimum requirement for motion
effects (stall buffets). See 14 CFR Part 60, Table A1A, Section 5.e.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA has considered the potential cost impact of imposing new
evaluation requirements on previously qualified FSTDs where aerodynamic
data and associated validation data for objective testing may not
exist. Particularly with older aircraft and FSTDs that have been out of
production for a number of years or may no longer be supported by the
original aerodynamic data provider, the FAA recognizes that the
collection of such data may prove to be very costly. In order to
mitigate this potential cost impact, the FAA has proposed a number of
cost relieving provisions in the FSTD Directive that would reduce the
overall cost of compliance with the Directive. These provisions
include:
All new objective test cases for stall maneuvers include
those maneuvers that are typically required for aircraft certification,
such as turning flight stall and cruise configuration stalls. This
would increase the likelihood that the aircraft manufacturer may
already have flight test validation data on hand for use in validating
required objective tests.
Where an FSTD's aerodynamic data package is supplied by an
aircraft manufacturer, the FAA is proposing to allow the use of
approved engineering simulation data \13\ for the purposes of
[[Page 39470]]
meeting the objective testing requirements of the FSTD Directive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ 14 CFR part 60, Appendix A, Attachment 2, paragraph 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where no adequate flight test data or engineering
simulation data is available for use in validating required objective
tests for stall maneuvers, the FAA is proposing to allow the validation
of objective tests through evaluation by a subject matter expert pilot
with relevant experience in the aircraft.
For evaluating full stall maneuvers, where aerodynamic
modeling data or validation data is not available or insufficient to
fully meet the requirements of the Directive, the National Simulator
Program Manager (NSPM) may restrict FSTD qualification to certain
maneuvers where adequate validation data exists. For example, if
validation data exists only for wings level stall maneuvers at angles
of attack at or below the stick pusher activation, the NSPM may still
qualify the FSTD for those limited stall maneuvers where data exists
(in this example, wings level stalls where recovery is initiated at
stick pusher activation).
The primary focus of this FSTD Directive is for those FSTDs that
would be used to meet the air carrier training requirements in the
Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule. However,
because the same safety risk exists for inappropriate simulator
training in non-air carrier training programs, other qualified FSTDs
that would be used to conduct such training tasks in any FAA-approved
flight training program would also have to meet the requirements of
this FSTD Directive. Since existing air carriers would not have to
comply with the mandatory training requirements until 5 years after the
Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training rulemaking becomes
effective, the FAA believes there is sufficient time for the affected
previously qualified FSTDs to be evaluated and modified in accordance
with the FSTD Directive before such training takes place. In cases
where affected training tasks are currently being conducted on a
voluntary basis and the FSTD has been evaluated by the sponsor to
conduct such maneuvers, the FAA has no intent to immediately halt such
training. In order for such FSTDs to be modified and evaluated in a
timely manner as described in the Directive, the FAA is proposing a
compliance date of 3 years after this rule (and associated FSTD
Directive) becomes effective. After that date, any FSTD being used in
an FAA-approved training program for the following training tasks must
be evaluated and issued an amended Statement of Qualification (SOQ) by
the NSP in accordance with the FSTD Directive:
[ssquf] Stall training maneuvers that are conducted at angles of
attack higher than the activation of the stall warning system. This
does not include approach-to-stall (stall prevention) maneuvers where
recovery is initiated at the activation of the stall warning system.
[ssquf] Upset Recognition and Recovery training maneuvers.
[ssquf] Engine and Airframe Icing training maneuvers that
demonstrate the aircraft specific effects of engine and airframe ice
accretion.
[ssquf] Takeoff and landing training tasks with gusting crosswinds.
[ssquf] Bounced landing recovery training tasks.
Specific evaluation requirements that have been proposed for
previously qualified FSTDs by FSTD Directive are indicated in the
following sections by topic (sections D through H).
D. FSTD Evaluation Requirements for Full Stall Training Tasks (Appendix
A; Table A1A, Section 2.1.7.S, Table A2A, Tests 2.a.10, 2.c.8, and
3.f.8; Table A3A, Test 5.b.1; and Attachment 7)
The current and previous FSTD qualification standards (dating back
to AC 121-14C in 1980) contain both objective and subjective testing
requirements for full stall maneuver evaluation. While these
requirements include the evaluation of full stall maneuvers, the
objective testing requirements are limited to only validating stall
warning speeds, stall buffet onset speeds, and the stall speeds in
flight conditions typically used for aircraft certification testing in
a very controlled environment (such as wings level stalls in approach
and climb configurations). Because there has never previously been a
requirement to conduct full stall training in an FSTD (historically,
stall training ends at the first indication of the stall), relatively
little emphasis has been placed on the objective validation of
simulator performance and handling qualities at airspeeds lower than
the activation of the stall warning system.
When flight training to a full stall is provided to crewmembers,
recognition cues and performance and handling characteristics in the
FSTD must be accurate to ensure pilots properly respond to stall events
or low energy states. Where a stall is imminent, critical seconds can
be lost if the crew is not aware of the low energy cues indicating that
the aircraft is approaching a dangerous flight condition. Furthermore,
if a stalled condition is encountered in flight, accurate and repeated
training helps pilots react and apply appropriate control input(s), to
maintain or regain the desired flight path. Training in accurate and
realistic scenarios may also help mitigate the startle factor that
often accompanies such an event.
While the existing FSTD stall evaluation requirements have
generally proven to be sufficient for approach to stall training tasks
that terminate at the first indication of the stall, these standards do
not adequately extend beyond the activation of the stall warning system
for the purpose of validating the FSTD's performance and handling
qualities at the stall through recovery. New FSTD evaluation
requirements for stall recognition and aircraft handling qualities are
necessary if training is to be conducted to a full stall. Most
aerodynamic modeling on modern FSTDs assumes a certain amount of
linearity from objectively validated test points to extrapolate
aircraft performance and handling qualities between test points. As an
aircraft approaches a stalled flight condition, this linearity can no
longer be assumed, and more test points are required to validate the
fidelity of the model.
Through the work of ICATEE and the SPAW ARC, several subject matter
experts on pilot training concluded that stall recovery training does
not require, nor is it practical, that the post stall behavior of the
aircraft be exactly replicated in the FSTD. They also concluded that a
``type representative'' post stall model should suffice in properly
training the recovery maneuver. Because of the typically unstable
behavior of the aircraft at or beyond the stall angle of attack, it is
not reasonable or practical to require tight tolerances applied to
objective tests against flight test validation data beyond the stall
angle of attack. In lieu of mandating objective tolerances in the post
stall flight regime, it was recommended that the use of analytical
methods, engineering simulation, and wind tunnel methods in combination
with subject matter expert pilot assessment be authorized to develop
and validate ``type representative'' post stall models.
In consideration of the recommendations of the SPAW ARC, the FAA
proposes to amend the appendix A QPS requirements to improve the FSTD
evaluation requirements for full stall training tasks. These amendments
are intended to accomplish the following objectives to improve FSTD
fidelity for flightcrews conducting full stall training tasks:
Improve the fidelity of the FSTD's aerodynamic model and
cueing systems
[[Page 39471]]
at angles of attack beyond the first indication of the stall (stall
warning, stick shaker, etc.) to better match the aircraft specific
recognition cues of an impending stall. This is accomplished through:
[cir] Improved objective testing to include additional test cases
against approved validation data (flight test data, engineering
simulation data, etc.) in training critical maneuvers such as turning
flight (accelerated) stalls, high altitude (clean configuration)
stalls, power-on stalls, and stalls at multiple flap settings.
[cir] New and improved objective testing tolerances to better
validate performance and handling qualities, control inputs, stall
buffet, and stick pusher forces (if equipped) of the FSTD as the stall
is approached.
Improve the fidelity of the FSTD's aerodynamic model and
cueing systems at the stall break (if present) through stall recovery.
This is accomplished through:
[cir] Defining a minimum level of fidelity and modeling
requirements to develop ``type representative'' extended full stall
models using available flight test data and alternate methods, such as
engineering simulation, analytical methods, and wind tunnel analysis.
[cir] Defining functional evaluation criteria for qualified subject
matter expert evaluation to determine suitability of a representative
full stall model that supports training requirements.
In order to accomplish these objectives to improve FSTD fidelity in
full stall training maneuvers, the FAA is proposing revisions to the
following sections in appendix A of the QPS for FFSs. Where a specific
requirement has been proposed for previously qualified FSTDs by FSTD
Directive, it is indicated as such with an ``FD'':
Table A1A (General Simulator Requirements)
Section 2.1.7.S/[FD] (High Angle of Attack Modeling)
Table A1B (Table of Tasks vs. Simulator Level)
Table A1B, Section 3.b. (High Angle of Attack Maneuvers)
Table A2A (Full Flight Simulator Objective Tests)
Test 2.a.10/[FD] (Stick Pusher System Force Calibration)
Tests 2.c.8.a. and 2.c.8.b/[FD] (Stall Characteristics)
Test 2.f.8. (Characteristic Motion Vibrations--Buffet at
Stall)
Table A3A (Functions and Subjective Tests)
Tests 5.b.1.a and 5.b.1.b/[FD] (Maneuvers--High Angle of
Attack)
Attachment 7 (Additional Simulator Qualification Requirements for
Stall, Upset Recognition and Recovery, and Airborne Icing Training
Tasks)
High Angle of Attack Model Evaluation [FD]
E. FSTD Evaluation Requirements for Upset Recognition and Recovery
Training Tasks (Appendix A; Table A1A, Section 2.1.6.S and Attachment
7)
The current part 60 requirements do not explicitly define a minimum
envelope of FSTD aerodynamic model validity required for training
purposes. The objective validation of an FSTD is primarily based on
direct comparison of the FSTD's performance and handling qualities
against that of flight test collected validation data in a
representative cross section of the flight envelope that includes many
relevant training maneuvers. Outside of these objectively validated
test conditions, an FSTD's aerodynamics are typically interpolated or
extrapolated using predictive methods and data sources such as wind
tunnel data and analytically derived data. Many of the recommended
upset recovery training maneuvers (as defined in the AURTA) are
conducted in flight regimes that make direct comparison against flight
test data impractical due to safety concerns. However, since much of
the aerodynamic characteristics necessary to program an FSTD to conduct
such maneuvers are based on angle of attack and sideslip ranges that
can be derived from flight testing and reliable predictive methods, a
certain amount of aerodynamic model fidelity can be accurately implied
across a large range of pitch, roll, and heading values. This
aerodynamic model fidelity would necessarily be a function of the
quality and amount of data sources, ranging from flight test and wind
tunnel data sources through established extrapolation methods.
In addition to defining and measuring aerodynamic model fidelity in
upset recovery maneuvers, it is important that the instructor have
real-time situational awareness with respect to the aircraft's
operational limits (including the degree to which the simulation being
used accurately portrays the actual reaction of the airplane) and the
flight control inputs being used by the student to conduct the
recovery. It is critical for the instructor to be able to assess the
student's application of control inputs, including those that may not
be readily visible from the instructor's station (such as rudder pedal
displacements and forces) to ascertain that control inputs to affect
recovery do not result in exceeding either the aircraft's operational
load limits or the simulator's validation data limits.
In order to properly conduct upset recovery training in an FSTD, a
feedback mechanism is necessary to provide full situational awareness
to the instructor to properly assess the student's recovery technique.
The FAA proposes new requirements to define minimum requirements for a
feedback mechanism necessary for upset recovery training in an FSTD.
However, because FSTD sponsors may choose a number of methods to
accomplish this, the FAA has not prescribed the exact content and
layout of such a feedback mechanism. In this proposal, the FAA has
included examples of recommended Instructor Operating Station displays
the information section of appendix A.
In order to codify all of the proposed qualification requirements
for upset recovery training in an FSTD, the FAA is proposing the
following changes to Table A1A (General Simulator Requirements) and
Attachment 7 of appendix A:
The FSTD's validation limits (as a function of angle of
attack and sideslip angle) must be defined by the aerodynamic data
provider for use in establishing a validation envelope of the FSTD for
upset recovery training maneuvers.
For airplane upset conditions or scenarios,\14\ the FSTD's
aerodynamics must be evaluated to ensure the FSTD can stay within the
flight tested or wind tunnel validation envelope during the execution
of the recovery maneuvers. A minimum of three defined maneuvers
(consistent with the maneuvers described in the AURTA) must be
evaluated for FSTD qualification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ The AURTA generally defines an airplane upset as one of the
following unintentional conditions: Pitch attitude greater than 25
degrees nose up; Pitch attitude greater than 10 degrees nose down;
Bank angle greater than 45 degrees; or flying at airspeeds
inappropriate for the conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Externally driven dynamic upset scenarios must be
realistic, based on relevant data sources, and must not artificially
degrade the simulated aircraft's performance capability without clear
indication to the instructor.
An instructor feedback mechanism must be provided to
notify the instructor where the FSTD's validation envelope or the
aircraft's operating limits has been exceeded. This feedback mechanism
must also provide the
[[Page 39472]]
instructor with relevant flight control position information and have
the ability to record and playback for debriefing purposes.
In order to accomplish these objectives to improve FSTD
functionality for upset recognition and recovery maneuvers, the FAA is
proposing revisions to the following sections in appendix A of the QPS
for FFSs. Where a specific requirement has been proposed for previously
qualified FSTDs by FSTD Directive, it is indicated as such with an
``FD'':
Table A1A (General Simulator Requirements)
Section 2.1.6.S/[FD] (Upset Recognition and Recovery)
Table A1B (Table of Tasks vs. Simulator Level)
Section 3.f. (Upset Recognition and Recovery)
Table A3A (Functions and Subjective Tests)
Test 5.b.15/[FD] (Maneuvers--Upset Recognition and Recovery)
Attachment 7 (Additional Simulator Qualification Requirements for
Stall, Upset Recognition and Recovery, and Airborne Icing Training
Tasks)
Upset Recognition and Recovery Evaluation [FD]
F. FSTD Evaluation Requirements for Airborne Icing Training Tasks
(Appendix A; Table A1A, Section 2.1.5.S; Table A2A, Test 2.i. and
Attachment 7)
The FAA is proposing to amend the evaluation requirements for the
simulation of engine and airframe icing as currently required in part
60 for Level C and Level D FSTDs. The proposed changes would require
that an FSTD have ice accretion models that simulate the aerodynamic
effects of ice accretion on the lifting surfaces of the aircraft. These
ice accretion models must be realistic and based upon relevant data
sources, such as aircraft manufacturer's data or other acceptable
analytical methods. The SPAW ARC recommendations form the basis for
these proposed requirements. The SPAW ARC recommended that aircraft
type-specific flight training be conducted on the aerodynamic effects
of ice accumulation; the use and failure of aircraft ice equipment; the
use of autopilot; and the performance and handling effects of ice
accumulation. The SPAW ARC cites incidents in which aircraft have
encountered stall warning, stall buffet, and aerodynamic stall at lower
than normal angles of attack due to ice accretion. Accordingly, the
SPAW ARC found it to be important that flightcrews are appropriately
trained on this phenomenon in a simulator training scenario that
emphasizes that in icing conditions, the stall warning or protection
system may not activate and stall margins may be significantly reduced.
The SPAW ARC further noted that some simulators may lack the
fidelity to accurately portray the aerodynamic effects of ice
accumulation. While minimum requirements for engine and airframe icing
have existed in the FSTD qualification standards since the early
1980's, these requirements have lacked the specific detail for
aerodynamic effects to be simulated. On many older simulators, the
effects of ice accumulation have been approximated by adding weight
increments to the simulated aircraft. While some icing effects can be
approximated using this method, many other critical icing
characteristics are not realistically replicated in this manner. For
example, neither the altered critical angle of attack due to ice
accumulation nor the actual weight indicative of the accumulation are
accurately replicated using such weight increments.
To improve flightcrew training for such events, the FAA is
proposing to amend some of the current requirements for FSTD evaluation
of engine and airframe icing. These amendments would enhance the
existing flightcrew training requirement for anti-icing operations by
improving the recognition cues and realistic aerodynamic effects of ice
accretion. The changes are based on the updated engine and airframe
icing requirements that are published in the ICAO 9625, Edition 3
international FSTD qualification guidance as well as the following
additional improvements that were recommended by the SPAW ARC:
[ssquf] Ice accretion models must incorporate the aerodynamic
effects of icing (where appropriate for the aircraft) such as reduced
stall angle of attack, loss of lift, changes in pitching moment, and
control effectiveness. These models must be based on aircraft original
equipment manufacturer data or other analytical methods.
[ssquf] Aircraft systems, such as autoflight systems and stall
protection systems must respond properly to the effects of ice
accretion.
[ssquf] Objective tests must be developed to demonstrate the
intended aerodynamic effects of simulated ice accretion.
In order to accomplish these objectives to improve FSTD fidelity in
airborne icing training maneuvers, the FAA is proposing specific
revisions to the following sections in appendix A of the QPS for FFSs.
Where a specific requirement has been proposed for previously qualified
FSTDs by FSTD Directive, it is indicated as such with an ``FD'':
Table A1A (General Simulator Requirements)
Section 2.1.5.S/[FD] (Engine and Airframe Icing)
Table A2A (Full Flight Simulator Objective Tests)
Test 2.i (Engine and Airframe Icing Effects Demonstration)
Attachment 7 (Additional Simulator Qualification Requirements for
Stall, Upset Recognition and Recovery, and Airborne Icing Training
Tasks)
Engine and Airframe Icing Evaluation [FD]
G. FSTD Evaluation Requirements for Takeoff and Landing Training Tasks
in Gusting Crosswinds (Appendix A, Table A1A, Sections 3.1.S, 3.1.R,
and 11.4.R)
The FAA has introduced new FSTD evaluation requirements for the
modeling of gusting crosswinds for takeoff and landing training tasks.
The basis for this change is due to a recent air carrier accident where
the aircraft experienced strong and gusty crosswinds during takeoff
roll and departed the runway. The NTSB concluded the following in their
final accident report:
Because Continental's simulator training did not replicate the
ground-level disturbances and gusting crosswinds that often occur at
or near the runway surface, and it is unlikely that the accident
captain had previously encountered gusting surface crosswinds like
those he encountered the night of the accident, the captain was not
adequately prepared to respond to the changes in heading encountered
during this takeoff.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Runway Side Excursion During Attempted Takeoff in Strong
and Gusty Crosswind Conditions, Continental Flight 1404, December
20, 2008, NTSB Final Report, NTSB/AAR-10/04.
While the current part 60 requirements have both objective and
subjective evaluation requirements for crosswind takeoff and landing
maneuvers, there is no current requirement for the modeling of gusting
crosswinds. Since steady state crosswinds are currently validated with
objective testing, the FAA believes most FSTDs should have adequate
aerodynamic and ground modeling to react properly when stimulated with
gusting crosswind profiles. Furthermore, the FAA agrees with the
[[Page 39473]]
NTSB's recommendations that such gusting crosswind profiles should be
realistic and based on data sources. However, the FAA believes that
such realistic gusting crosswind profiles can be derived from existing
sources, such as the FAA Windshear Training Aid, and evaluated for
training by subject matter expert pilots.
To ensure the FSTD supports a realistic training environment, the
FAA proposes to add the following minimum requirements for the modeling
of gusting crosswind profiles and the evaluation of the ground handling
characteristics of the FSTD:
[ssquf] Realistic gusting crosswind profiles must be available to
the instructor. The profiles must be tuned in intensity and variation
to require pilot intervention to avoid runway departure during takeoff
or landing roll.
[ssquf] A Statement of Compliance would be required that describes
the source data used to develop the crosswind profiles. Additional
information material in the QPS appendix recommends the use of the FAA
Windshear Training Aid or other acceptable data sources in determining
appropriate wind profiles.
[ssquf] The FSTD's ground reaction model must be subjectively
assessed to ensure it reacts appropriately to the gusting crosswind
profiles.
In order to accomplish these objectives to improve FSTD
functionality for gusting crosswinds, the FAA is proposing revisions to
the following sections in appendix A of the QPS for FFSs. Where a
specific requirement has been proposed for previously qualified FSTDs
by FSTD Directive, it is indicated as such with an ``FD'':
Table A1A (General Simulator Requirements)
Section 3.1.S(2)/[FD] (Ground Handling Characteristics)
Section 11.4.R/[FD] (Atmosphere and Weather--Instructor
Controls)
Table A3A (Functions and Subjective Tests)
Test 3.a.3/[FD] (Takeoff--Crosswind--maximum demonstrated and
gusting crosswind)
Test 8.d./[FD] (Approach and Landing with crosswind--maximum
demonstrated and gusting crosswind)
H. FSTD Evaluation Requirements for Bounced Landing Training Tasks
(Appendix A, Table A1A, Section 3.1.S)
The Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training SNPRM proposed new
requirements for bounced landing training tasks to address various
aircraft accidents and NTSB Safety Recommendations. In response to the
SNPRM, the FAA received a comment from the Air Line Pilots Association
International (Docket entry FAA-2008-0677-0307) with concerns about the
ability of an FSTD to adequately represent a bounced landing.
The FAA reviewed the current FSTD qualification standards and found
that many of the currently required objective tests do, in fact, test
the fidelity on an FSTD in this phase of flight. Objective tests, such
as the required minimum unstick speed takeoff test (Vmu), landing
tests, and ground effect tests should provide for a reasonable
validation of the FSTD's aerodynamic performance in this phase of
flight. Furthermore, the current part 60 rule has explicit motion
system effects requirements for tail and engine pod strikes that can
typically be a result of an incorrectly performed touchdown that could
lead to the necessity of a bounced landing recovery. However, it was
noted that the current part 60 general requirements for ground reaction
and ground handling did not address the effects that should be
accounted for in the models. To address this deficiency, the FAA is
proposing to add new general requirements for ground reaction modeling
to ensure the effects of a bounced landing and related tail strike are
properly modeled and evaluated. Because of the safety risk involved in
collecting airplane flight test data for such a maneuver, no new
objective testing would be required and only subjective assessment of
the FSTD would be conducted for this particular task.
In order to accomplish these objectives to improve FSTD
functionality for bounced landing training tasks, the FAA is proposing
revisions to the following sections in appendix A of the QPS for FFSs.
Where a specific requirement has been proposed for previously qualified
FSTDs by FSTD Directive, it is indicated as such with an ``FD'':
Table A1A (General Simulator Requirements)
Section 3.1.S(1)/[FD] (Ground Reaction Characteristics)
Table A3A (Functions and Subjective Tests)
Test 9.3./[FD] (Missed Approach--Bounced landing)
I. FSTD Evaluation Requirements for Windshear Training Tasks (Appendix
A, Table A1A, Section 11.2.R)
One of the mandates of Public Law 111-216 was for the FAA to form a
multidisciplinary panel to study ``. . . methods to increase the
familiarity of flightcrew members with, and improve the response of
flightcrew members to, stick pusher systems, icing conditions, and
microburst and windshear weather events.'' \16\ The FAA chartered the
SPAW ARC in response to this mandate. While the SPAW ARC agreed that
microburst and windshear events have decreased significantly since the
introduction of the Windshear Training Aid,\17\ it recommended a number
of improvements to enhance the current FSTD windshear qualification
requirements. The FAA is proposing to adopt the following three
recommendations of the SPAW ARC, which would improve on the realism and
provide better standardization of windshear training events:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Public Law 111-216, Section 208(b).
\17\ Windshear Training Aid, U.S. Department of Transportation,
Federal Aviation Administration 1987.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ssquf] All required windshear profiles must be selectable and
clearly labeled on the FSTD's instructor operating station. A method
must be employed (such as an FSTD preset) to ensure that the FSTD is
properly configured for the selected windshear profile. This
requirement is to ensure that the proper windshear cues are present in
crew training as originally qualified on the FSTD.
[ssquf] Realistic levels of turbulence associated with each
windshear profile must be available and selectable to the instructor.
[ssquf] In addition to the four basic windshear models that are
currently required, two additional ``complex'' models would be required
that represent the complexity of an actual windshear encounter. These
additional models may be derived from the example complex models
published in the Windshear Training Aid. This requirement would provide
an opportunity for crew training and practice in responding to more
challenging and realistic windshear events.
In order to accomplish these objectives to improve FSTD
functionality for windshear training tasks, the FAA is proposing to
revise the following section of appendix A in the QPS for FFSs. No
retroactive requirements have been proposed for windshear qualification
by FSTD Directive:
Table A1A (General Simulator Requirements)
Section 11.2.R (Windshear Qualification)
[[Page 39474]]
J. Significant Changes To Align With the International FSTD Evaluation
Guidance (Appendix A)
In addition to the part 60 changes to address extended envelope and
adverse weather event training, the FAA is also proposing to
incorporate select portions of the latest ICAO FSTD qualification
guidance \18\ into the part 60 QPS requirements where practical. ICAO
9625, Edition 3 represents a major industry effort that redefined all
qualification levels of FSTDs to better align FSTD fidelity with the
intended pilot training tasks. The FAA is not proposing to align with
the entire ICAO 9625, Edition 3 guidance document because it contains
FSTD levels that differ significantly from the FAA's existing hierarchy
of FSTD levels. There are several device levels in the new ICAO
guidance document that currently have no basis in the FAA's existing
regulations or in the FAA's existing guidance on flight training.
Because of the far reaching implications beyond part 60 if changes were
made to the FAA's existing FSTD hierarchy, we have limited our
alignment to those FSTDs and associated evaluation guidance in the ICAO
9625, Edition 3 document that have an equivalent device in the FAA
(Level C and D) or could potentially be used in the future (Level 7
FTD) with minimal impact to the existing hierarchy. Incorporation of
the other device levels and evaluation guidance would require careful
consideration and additional rulemaking. The FAA notes that the primary
purpose of this proposal is to address the weather event, stall, stick
pusher, and upset recovery training tasks required by Public Law 111-
216. The FAA will continue to assess the possibility of incorporating
additional ICAO 9625, Edition 3 FSTD qualification levels and
evaluation guidance; however any changes made in this proposal cannot
jeopardize the timely implementation of updated FSTD standards to
address new and revised training tasks mandated by Public Law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Manual of Criteria for the Qualification of Flight
Simulation Training Devices, ICAO 9625, Edition 3, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After an assessment of the ICAO 9625, Edition 3 document, the FAA
is proposing to make the following changes to appendix A (Qualification
Performance Standards for Airplane Full Flight Simulators) to better
align the evaluation standards for Level C and Level D FSTDs with that
of the current international guidance. The FAA has not proposed to
align the evaluation standards for Level A and Level B FSTDs because
similar devices do not exist in the ICAO 9625, Edition 3 document.
Additional changes to introduce a new FTD level as defined in ICAO 9625
have been proposed in appendix B (fixed wing Qualification Performance
Standards for Airplane Flight Training Devices) and will be discussed
in a later section.
In its review of the new ICAO 9625, Edition 3 guidance, the FAA
finds that some of the guidelines necessary for inclusion into part 60
are more restrictive and may impose additional cost (such as the
increased visual field of view requirements). However, a majority of
the changes are less restrictive or reflect established FSTD evaluation
practice. The proposed requirements in part 60 that would align with
the new ICAO guidance are expected to reduce expenses and workload for
FSTD Sponsors by avoiding conflicting compliance standards between the
FAA and other Civil Aviation Authorities. These amendments incorporate
technological advances in, encourage innovation of, and standardize the
initial and continuing qualification requirements for FSTDs that are
consistent with the guidance recently established by the international
flight simulation community.
1. Table A1A (General Requirements): The FAA is proposing to
rewrite table A1A to incorporate the ICAO 9625, Edition 3 language and
numbering system where appropriate. The FAA changed the numbering
system to use the ICAO 9625, Edition 3 fidelity definitions for each
simulation feature and to incorporate all general requirements for the
ICAO 9625, Edition 3 Type VII FSTD into the FAA Level C and Level D
FSTDs where appropriate. The general requirements for Level A and Level
B FSTDs have been left mostly unchanged to maintain continuity with the
current hierarchy of FSTD qualification levels. Where such a fidelity
level is not used for any part 60 defined FSTD, the FAA kept the
numbering intact and marked it as ``reserved'' for future use. The
following sections within Table A1A contain notable changes to align
with the ICAO 9625, Edition 3 requirements:
[ssquf] Section 1.1.S (Flight Deck Layout and Structure)--
Introduces minimum requirements for electronically displayed
representations of cockpit instrumentation. This amendment to the
existing standard would give FSTD sponsors a lower cost option of
simulating costly aircraft components with digital representations.
[ssquf] Section 6.4.R (Sound Volume)--Requires indication to the
instructor when FSTD sound volume is in an abnormal setting. This is a
new standard though some FSTDs already have this functionality.
[ssquf] Section 6.5.R (Sound Directionality)--Requires cockpit
sounds to be directionally representative. This is a new standard, but
generally reflects existing practice.
[ssquf] Section 7.1.1.S (Visual System Field of View)--Increases
minimum visual display system field of view requirements from 180
(horizontal) x 40 (vertical) degrees to 200 x 40 degrees.
[ssquf] Section 7.1.6.S (Visual System Lightpoint Brightness)--
Introduces a new minimum brightness requirement of 8.8 foot-lamberts
for visual scene lightpoints.
[ssquf] Section 7.1.8 (Visual System Black Level and Sequential
Contrast)--Introduces a new maximum visual system black level and
sequential brightness level requirements (applicable only to light
valve projectors).
[ssquf] Section 7.1.9 (Visual Motion Blur)--Introduces a new
maximum visual system motion blurring requirements (applicable only to
light valve projectors).
[ssquf] Section 7.1.10 (Visual Speckle Test)--Introduces a new
maximum visual system speckle contrast requirement (applicable only to
laser projectors).
[ssquf] Section 7.2.1 (Visual--Heads-Up Display)--Introduces new
minimum general requirements for the simulation of heads-up display
systems.
[ssquf] Section 7.2.2 (Visual--EFVS)--Introduces new minimum
general requirements for the simulation of enhanced flight vision
systems.
[ssquf] Section 13.8.S (Miscellaneous--Transport Delay)--Reduces
the maximum transport delay requirements from 150 ms to 100 ms (more
restrictive).
2. Table A2A (Objective Testing Requirements): The FAA is proposing
to rewrite table A2A to incorporate all of the ICAO 9625, Edition 3
language and test tolerances. Most changes to this section are less
restrictive as compared to the current part 60 standards. Less
restrictive test tolerances or testing conditions are expected to
reduce overall cost to an FSTD Sponsor due to a reduction in the
engineering hours required to match objective test results to
validation data. The FAA is proposing to change the tolerances and test
conditions in the following tests to align with the ICAO 9625, Edition
3 objective testing requirements:
[ssquf] Test 1.a.1 (Minimum Radius Turn)--Adds a new requirement
for ``key engine parameters.''
[[Page 39475]]
[ssquf] Test 1.b.1 (Ground Acceleration)--Revises the tolerance
from 5% of time to 1.5 seconds or 5% of time (less restrictive).
[ssquf] Test 1.b.7 (Rejected Takeoff)--Adds an acceptable
alternative to requiring maximum braking (80% of maximum braking).
[ssquf] Test 1.d.1 (Level Acceleration)--Relaxes the speed change
requirement from a minimum of 50 kts of speed increase to 80% of
operational speed range (for airplanes with a small operating speed
range).
[ssquf] Test 1.d.2 (Level Deceleration)--Relaxes the speed change
requirement from a minimum of 50 kts of speed increase to 80% of
operational speed range (for airplanes with a small operating speed
range).
[ssquf] Test 1.e.1 (Deceleration Time and Distance)--Revises the
tolerance from 5% of time to 1.5 seconds or
5% of time (less restrictive).
[ssquf] Test 1.e.2 (Deceleration Time and Distance, Reverse
Thrust)--Revises the tolerance from 5% of time to 1.5 seconds or 5% of time (less restrictive).
[ssquf] Test 1.f.1 (Engine Acceleration)--Revises the total time of
engine acceleration (Tt) from 10% to 10% or
0.25 seconds (less restrictive).
[ssquf] Test 1.f.2 (Engine Deceleration)--Revises the total time of
engine deceleration (Tt) from 10% to 10% or
0.25 seconds (less restrictive).
[ssquf] Test 2.a.7 (Pitch Trim Rate)--Revises the tolerance on trim
rate from 10% to 10% or 0.1 deg/sec
(less restrictive).
[ssquf] Tests 2.b.1, 2.b.2, 2.b.3 (Dynamic Control Checks)--Places
a minimum absolute (less restrictive) tolerance on both time (0.05 s)
and amplitude (0.5% of total control travel) where minimum tolerances
did not previously exist. This prevents the rigid application of very
small tolerances (10% of time and 10% of
amplitude) on certain flight control systems.
[ssquf] Test 2.c.7 (Longitudinal Static Stability)--Adds a new test
condition that ``the speed range should be sufficient to demonstrate
stick force versus speed characteristics.''
[ssquf] Test 2.e.3 (Crosswind Landing)--Adds a new test tolerance
on column force for airplanes with reversible flight control systems.
This additional tolerance will improve the overall validation of
cockpit control forces during the landing maneuver. Previous standards
only included control force tolerances for the wheel and rudder pedal
inputs.
[ssquf] Test 3.b. (Motion Leg Balance)--Removes the testing
requirement for motion leg balance. This test was determined to have
not provided additional value in assessing the capability of a motion
cueing platform and was recommended for removal during the development
of the ICAO 9625 document.
[ssquf] Test 3.e.1 (Motion Cueing Fidelity)--Replaces the existing
part 60 tests for ``motion cueing performance signature'' (MCPS) with
an objective test for motion cueing developed by the ICAO 9625, Edition
3 International Working Group. This test is designed to better compare
motion platform cueing with the actual translational and rotational
motion experienced in the aircraft.
[ssquf] Test 4.a.1 (Visual--Field of View)--Increases the minimum
visual system field of view from 176 x 36 degrees to 200 x 40 degrees.
[ssquf] Test 4.a.2.a (Visual--System Geometry)--Defines new system
geometry tolerances for image position, absolute geometry, and relative
geometry.
[ssquf] Test 4.a.7 (Visual--Lightpoint Brightness)--Defines a new
minimum lightpoint brightness tolerance
[ssquf] Test 4.a.9 (Visual--Black Level)--Defines new maximum black
level requirements
[ssquf] Test 4.a.10 (Visual--Motion Blur)--Defines new tolerances
for motion blur of visual scenes
[ssquf] Test 4.a.11 (Visual--Laser Speckle)--Defines a new maximum
laser speckle contrast tolerance for applicable display systems
[ssquf] Tests 4.b.1, 4.b.2, 4.b.3 (Heads-Up Display)--Defines new
minimum tolerances for HUD alignment, display, and attitude.
[ssquf] Tests 4.c.1, 4.c.2, 4.c.3 (Enhanced Flight Vision
Systems)--Defines new minimum tolerances for EFVS registration, RVR,
and thermal crossover.
[ssquf] Tests 5.a and 5.b. (Sound System)--Revised objective sound
testing tolerances to address subjective tuning and repeatability for
recurrent evaluations
[ssquf] Tests 6.a.1 (Systems Integration--Transport Delay)--
Transport delay tolerances are reduced from 150 ms to 100 ms.
[ssquf] Paragraph 6.d. (Motion Cueing--Frequency Domain Testing)--
Additional background and recommended testing procedures for the OMCT
tests (replaces existing guidance on the MCPS tests).
[ssquf] Paragraphs 11.a.1 and 11.b.5 (Validation Test Tolerances)--
Extends reduced tolerances for engineering simulation validation data
from 20% of flight test tolerances to 40% of flight test tolerances
(less restrictive).
3. Table A3A (Functions and Subjective Testing Requirements): The
FAA added is proposing to add subjective tests in the following
sections to align with ICAO 9625, Edition 3:
[ssquf] Test 2.b.6 and 2.b.7 (Taxi)
[ssquf] Test 5.b.2 (Slow Flight)
[ssquf] Tests 5.b.1 (High Angle of Attack)
[ssquf] Test 5.b.13 (Gliding to a Forced Landing)
[ssquf] Tests 5.b.14 (Visual Resolution and FSTD Handling and
Performance)
[ssquf] Tests 7.a.1, 10.a.1, 11.a.20 (HUD/EFVS)
[ssquf] Tests 11.a.16, 11.a.20, 11.a.25, 11.a.26, 11.a.27 (New
Technology)
4. Table A3B (Class I Airport Models)
[ssquf] The FAA is proposing to restructure this table to align
with the ICAO 9625, Edition 3 airport model requirements. No
significant differences exist between this proposed table and the
current part 60 requirements.
5. Table A3D (Motion System Effects): The FAA is proposing to add
or modify tests in the following sections to align with ICAO 9625,
Edition 3:
[ssquf] Test 1 (Taxi)--Introduces a new requirement for lateral and
directional motion cueing effects during taxi maneuvers.
[ssquf] Test 2 (Runway Contamination)--Introduces a new requirement
for motion effects due to runway contamination and associated anti-skid
system characteristics.
[ssquf] Test 7 (Buffet Due to Atmospheric Disturbance)--Introduces
a new requirement for motion cueing effects due to atmospheric
disturbances.
K. New Level 7 Fixed Wing FSTD Requirements--Appendix B Changes
(Appendix B, Tables B1A, B1B, B2A, B3A, B3B, B3C, B3D, and B3E)
In addition to the changes proposed for FFS requirements in
appendix A, the FAA is also proposing to add a new FTD qualification
level (Level 7 FTD) in appendix B of part 60. This new FTD level would
be modeled after the ICAO 9625, Edition 3 Type V FSTD and would
incorporate all of the general requirements, objective testing
requirements, and subjective testing requirements as defined in ICAO
9625, Edition 3 for this level of FSTD. The purpose of adding this new
FSTD level would be to expand the number of training tasks that can be
qualified for training in a lower cost, fixed-base FSTD. The highest
FTD level currently defined in the part 60 FSTD qualification standards
is the Level 6 FTD. Because the standards for a Level 6 FTD do not
include minimum requirements for ground reaction and ground handling
modeling and also do
[[Page 39476]]
not require objective testing to validate the FSTD's performance in
related maneuvers such as takeoff, landing, and taxi training tasks,
the Level 6 FTD cannot be used for training these tasks.
In order to qualify such an FTD for these training tasks, new
evaluation requirements would be required to properly evaluate the
aerodynamic ground effect, ground handling, and visual display system
characteristics to ensure an adequate level of fidelity for related
training maneuvers. In ICAO 9625, Edition 3, such a new FSTD level (the
ICAO Type V FSTD) was defined to expand the number of introductory
training tasks that can be conducted in a fixed base FSTD. The Type V
FSTD evaluation guidance introduce new objective testing requirements
in the takeoff, landing, and taxi flight maneuvers in a fixed base FTD
that do not currently exist in a part 60 defined Level 6 FTD. This
additional validation testing would allow for additional training to be
qualified for such maneuvers beyond what a current FAA Level 6 FTD is
capable of performing. Consistent with the ICAO Type V guidance
material, some testing and checking tasks would still be limited to
upper level FFSs that have the six degree of freedom motion cueing
systems. The minimum requirements for the Type V FSTD as defined in the
ICAO 9625, Edition 3 are essentially that of an ICAO Type VII simulator
without motion cueing requirements and less restrictive visual display
system requirements.
The addition of this new FTD qualification level would be
beneficial to industry because it would provide FSTD Sponsors with more
options for conducting lower cost training in fixed base FSTDs rather
than using more expensive Level D FFS for certain training tasks. The
qualification and use of such FTDs in an FAA approved training program
would be voluntary and would not impose additional cost on FSTD
Sponsors.
To incorporate the proposed addition of the Level 7 FTD into
appendix B of part 60, the FAA is proposing to make several
modifications to the existing tables to define the technical evaluation
requirements for the new FTD level while keeping the requirements
intact for the current Level 4, 5, and 6 FTDs. The FAA proposes the
following changes to appendix B to achieve this objective:
[ssquf] Minimum FTD Requirements (Table B1A): The FAA has rewritten
the minimum FTD requirements table to use the ICAO 9625, Edition 3
format and numbering system. The FAA has integrated the new Level 7 FTD
requirements into the table and based them on the proposed Level D FFS
requirements as defined in Table A1A with the exception of the motion
and visual display system requirements. The FAA is proposing to leave
all other FTD levels essentially unchanged from the current part 60
requirements.
[ssquf] Table of Tasks vs FTD Level (Table B1B): The FAA is
proposing to modify the minimum qualified task list to include the new
Level 7 FTD device. The FAA based the qualified tasks for the Level 7
FTD upon the recommendations in ICAO 9625, Edition 3 for a Type V FSTD.
Where a specific training task is limited to training only and not
qualified for training to proficiency tasks (testing or checking), the
FAA is proposing to annotate it in the table with a ``T.''
[ssquf] Objective Testing Requirements (Table B2A): The FAA is
proposing to update the table of objective tests to include new testing
requirements for the Level 7 FTD. The FAA based these requirements on
the FFS Level D requirements proposed in Table A2A with the exception
of the motion system and visual system requirements.
[ssquf] Functions and Subjective Testing Requirements (Tables B3A,
B3B, B3C, B3D, and B3E): The FAA is proposing to add new and updated
subjective tests to address the new tasks that may be accomplished in a
Level 7 FTD. The FAA left the existing requirements for Level 4, 5, and
6 FTDs unchanged.
L. Miscellaneous Amendments To Improve and Codify FSTD Evaluation
Procedures (Sec. Sec. 60.15, 60.17, 60.19, 60.23, Appendix A Paragraph
11)
The FAA is further proposing to make minor amendments to the FSTD
evaluation and oversight process as defined in several sections of the
main rule. The part 60 rule was originally published in 2008 and
codified many of the existing FSTD evaluation practices that had
previously been defined in guidance material. Since the rule originally
became effective, the FAA has found a number of requirements in the
rule that have had unintentional negative consequences in the FAA's
ability to oversee FSTD qualification issues. The proposed changes
would allow for more flexibility in scheduling FSTD evaluations and
reduce some of the paperwork that FSTD Sponsors currently submit to the
FAA. The changes being proposed would be less restrictive and would not
have a cost impact on FSTD Sponsors.
[ssquf] Corrects language in the initial evaluation requirements
where FSTD objective testing must be accomplished at the ``sponsor's
training facility.'' This has been corrected to the FSTD's ``permanent
location'' to accommodate for FSTDs that are not located at the
sponsor's training facility, but at a third party location. (Sec.
60.15 and appendix A, paragraph 11).
[ssquf] Modifies the ``grace month'' for conducting annual
Continuing Qualification (CQ) evaluations from one month to three
months.
[ssquf] Establishes the CQ evaluation schedule on the Statement of
Qualification rather than in the Master Qualification Test Guide
(MQTG). These changes would provide more flexibility in scheduling CQ
evaluations to accommodate both the FAA and FSTD Sponsors. (Sec.
60.19).
[ssquf] Amends the date before which previously qualified FSTDs
retain the qualification basis under which they were originally
evaluated. This would ensure that FSTDs which were qualified after the
original publication of part 60 (May 30, 2008) do not inadvertently
lose grandfather rights. (Sec. 60.17).
[ssquf] Clarifies the requirement to notify the FAA of changes made
to an FSTD's MQTG. This requirement has been modified to require FAA
reporting only for changes that would have a material impact on the
MQTG content or the FSTD's qualification basis. This change would
reduce the amount of reporting the FSTD Sponsors would have to conduct
for minor text changes in the MQTG document. (Sec. 60.23).
[ssquf] Reduces the minimum time prior to an initial evaluation
that an FSTD Sponsor is required to send a confirmation statement to
the FAA that an FSTD has been evaluated in accordance with the part 60
QPS, provided there is prior coordination and approval by the NSPM.
This change would allow more flexibility for the FSTD sponsors in
complex FSTD installations where on-site testing cannot be accomplished
before the current 5 day time limit. (appendix A, Paragraph 11).
IV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses
A. Regulatory Evaluation
Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 direct
that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon
a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation
justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub.
L. 96-354) requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of
regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act
(Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits agencies
[[Page 39477]]
from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign
commerce of the United States. In developing U.S. standards, this Trade
Act requires agencies to consider international standards and, where
appropriate, that they be the basis of U.S. standards. Fourth, the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies
to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other
effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate
likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100
million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of
1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of
the economic impacts of this proposed rule. We suggest readers seeking
greater detail read the full regulatory evaluation, a copy of which we
have placed in the docket for this rulemaking.
In conducting these analyses, FAA has determined this proposed rule
has benefits that justify its costs. It has also been determined that
this rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' as defined in
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, and is not ``significant'' as
defined in DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures. The proposed rule,
if adopted, will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, will not create unnecessary
obstacles to international trade and will not impose an unfunded
mandate on state, local, or tribal governments, or on the private
sector.
Total Benefits and Costs of This Rule
Total Costs and Benefits
The FAA estimated three separate sets of costs, and provide
separate benefit bases. The first set of costs would be incurred to
make the necessary upgrades to the FSTDs to enable training required by
the new Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule. The
training cost for the Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final
Rule provides rental revenue to simulator sponsors which will fully
compensate them for their FSTD upgrade expenses. These simulator
revenues were accounted for as costs of the additional training and
were fully justified by the benefits in that final rule. The second set
of costs would be incurred for the evaluation and modification of
engine and airframe icing models which would enhance existing training
requirements for operations using anti-icing/de-icing equipment. Just
avoiding one serious injury provides sufficient benefits to justify the
estimated cost. Lastly there are a set of changes to part 60 QPS
appendices which would align the simulator standards for some FSTD
levels with those of the latest ICAO simulator evaluation guidance.
This last set of changes would only apply to newly qualified FSTDs. The
FAA expects unquantified safety improvements to result from these
changes through more realistic training and possibly cost savings
through avoiding conflicting compliance standards with other aviation
authorities. The changes are expected to improve overall simulator
fidelity with new and revised visual system and other FSTD evaluation
standards, such as visual display resolution, visual system field of
view, and system transport delay.
The table below summarizes the costs and benefits of this proposal
over a ten year period:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.000
[[Page 39478]]
Costs
We now discuss the three separate sets of costs.
Upgrade Previously Qualified FSTDs for New Training Requirements.
The first set of costs would be incurred to make the necessary upgrades
to the FSTDs to enable training required by the new Crewmember and
Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule. In order to avoid
inappropriate or negative training, FSTDs being used to comply with
certain ``extended envelope'' training tasks in the new training rule
would require evaluation and modification as defined in the FSTD
Directive of this proposed part 60 rule.
Icing Provisions. The second set of costs would be incurred for the
evaluation and modification of engine and airframe icing models which
would enhance existing training requirements. These costs were
estimated as a percentage of the total cost of the FSTD aerodynamic
model development costs proposed by this rule. We did not include
additional model implementation and FSTD downtime costs because it was
assumed that these modifications would likely be conducted concurrently
with the modifications required for the stall training tasks.
Aligning Standards With ICAO. Lastly there are a set of changes to
part 60 QPS appendices which would align the simulator standards for
some FSTD levels with those of the latest ICAO FSTD evaluation guidance
document. These changes would only apply to newly qualified FSTDs.
Benefits
Upgrade Previously Qualified FSTDs for New Training Requirements.
The best way to understand the benefits of this proposed rule is to
view it in conjunction with the new Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher
Training Final Rule. The costs of that training rule were justified by
the expected benefits. The training rule cost/benefit analysis assumes
that the simulators will be able to provide the required training at an
hourly rate of $500. The part 60 proposed rule specifies the necessary
simulator upgrade specifications. These upgrades require simulator
owners to purchase and install upgrade packages, the costs of which are
a cost of this proposed rule. Revenues received by simulator owners for
providing training from the upgraded simulators are costs already
incurred in the training rule that have been justified by the benefits
of that rule. This revenue over time exceeds the cost of this proposed
rule.
The proposed part 60 standards and upgrade simulator expense
supporting the new training is $45 million ($32 million in present
value at 7%) and has been fully justified by the new Crewmember and
Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule.
Icing Provisions. The second area for benefits is for the icing
upgrade. Although this upgrade is not in response to a new training
requirement, it would enhance existing training requirements for
operations involving anti-icing/de-icing equipment and further address
NTSB 19 20 and ARC recommendations to the FAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ NTSB recommendations A-11-46 and A-11-47 address engine and
airframe icing.
\20\ www.ntsb.gov
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These costs are minor at less than a million dollars and are
expected to comprise a small percentage of the total cost of compliance
with the FSTD Directive. One avoided serious injury would justify the
minor costs of complying with these icing requirements.
Aligning Standards with ICAO. Lastly, we have not quantified
benefits of aligning part 60 qualification standards with those
recommended by ICAO, but we expect aligned FSTD standards to contribute
to improved safety as they are developed by a broad coalition of
experts with a combined pool of knowledge and experience and to result
in cost savings through avoiding conflicting compliance standards with
other aviation authorities. The changes are expected to improve overall
simulator fidelity with new and revised visual system and other FSTD
evaluation standards, such as visual display resolution, visual system
field of view, and system transport delay.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA)
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall
endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale
of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions
subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required
to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain
the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given
serious consideration.'' The RFA covers a wide-range of small entities,
including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.
However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the
agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not
required. The certification must include a statement providing the
factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be
clear.
Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities
Only FSTD sponsors are affected by this rule. FSTD sponsors are air
carriers who own simulators to train their pilots or training centers
who own simulators and sell simulator training time. To identify FSTD
sponsors that would be affected retroactively by the FSTD
directive,\21\ the FAA subjected the 811 FSTDs with an active
qualification by the FAA to qualifying criteria designed to eliminate
FSTDs not likely to be used in a part 121 training program for the
applicable training tasks (i.e., stall training, upset recovery
training, etc.). The remaining list of 322 FSTDs (included in Appendix
A of the regulatory evaluation) were sponsored by the 26 companies
presented in the table below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Part 60 contains grandfather rights for previously
qualified FSTD so the FAA would invoke an FSTD Directive to require
modification of previously qualified devices. The FSTD Directive
process has provisions for mandating modifications to FSTDs
retroactively for safety of flight reasons. See 14 CFR Part 60,
Sec. 60.23(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 39479]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.001
To determine which of the 26 organizations listed in the previous
table are small entities, the FAA consulted the U.S. Small Business
Administration Table of Small Business Size Standards Matched to North
American Industry Classification System Codes.\22\ For flight training
(NAICS Code 611512) the threshold for small business is revenue of
$25.5 million or less. The size standard for scheduled passenger air
transportation (NAICS Code 481111) and scheduled freight air
transportation (NAICS Code 481112) and non-scheduled charter passenger
air transportation (NAICS Code 481211) is 1,500 employees. After
consulting the World Aviation Directory, and other on-line sources, for
employees and annual revenues, the FAA identified six companies that
are qualified as small entities. In this instance, the FAA considers
six a substantial number of small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ http://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/Size_Standards_Table.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Economic Impact
The economic impact of this rule applies differently to previously
qualified FSTD sponsors than it would to newly qualified FSTD sponsors.
Below is a summary of the two separate analyses performed. One
determines the impact of the proposal on small entities that would have
to upgrade their previously qualified devices and the other analysis
determines the impact on those that would have to purchase a newly
qualified devices.
Economic Impact of Upgrading Previously Qualified FSTDs
Four of the small entities are training providers. If these
companies choose to offer training in the extended envelope training
tasks as required by the Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training
Final Rule, they could do so only in an upgraded FSTD. However, if they
offer this new required training there would be increased demand for
training time in their FSTDs because in addition to current
requirements for training, captains and first officers have two hours
of additional training in the first year and additional training time
in the future. The FAA estimated the cost of upgrading each simulator
would be recovered in less than 300 hours at a simulator rental rate of
$500 per hour. The training companies could therefore recover their
upgrade costs for each simulator in less than one year. Therefore, the
rule would not impose a significant economic impact on these companies.
Two of the companies identified as small businesses are part 121
air carriers. They have to comply with the Crewmember and Aircraft
Dispatcher Training Final Rule by training their pilots in simulators
that meet the standards of this part 60 rule. The additional pilot
training cost in an upgraded simulator was accounted for and justified
in that training final rule. This part 60 rule simply specifies how the
simulators need to be upgraded such that the new training will be in
compliance with the training final rule. These part 121 operators have
two options. They can purchase training time for their pilots at a
qualified training center. Alternatively they could choose to comply
with the FSTD Directive by upgrading their own devices to train their
pilots for the new training tasks. For these operators who already own
simulators, the cost of complying with the FSTD Directive is estimated
to be less than the cost of renting time at a training center to comply
with the new requirements. Therefore, we expect that they would choose
to upgrade their devices because it would be less costly to offer
training in-house than to send pilots out to
[[Page 39480]]
training centers. The cost to train pilots in the tasks required by the
training rule is a cost of the training rule and not this rule. Thus,
the rule would not impose a significant economic impact on these
companies, because by upgrading their simulators these operators would
lower their costs.
Economics of Newly Qualified Devices
It is unknown how many sponsors of newly qualified FSTDs in the
future may qualify as small entities, but we expect it would be a
substantial number as it could likely include the six identified above.
The FAA expects the proposed requirements that address the new training
tasks and upgrade the icing FSTD requirements to be included in future
training packages and the cost would be minimal for a newly qualified
FSTD. The requirement to align with ICAO guidance however, would result
in some cost. The FAA does not know who in the future will be
purchasing and qualifying FSTDs after the rule becomes effective. The
FAA estimates that the incremental cost per newly qualified FSTD would
be approximately $34,000. This is less than 0.5 percent of the cost of
a new FSTD, which generally costs $10 million or more. Therefore we do
not believe the proposed rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities that purchase newly qualified
FSTDs after the rule is in effect.
Thus this proposed rule is expected to impact a substantial number
of small entities, but not impose a significant economic impact.
Therefore, as provided in section 605(b), the head of the FAA certifies
that this rulemaking will not result in a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The FAA solicits comments
regarding this determination.
C. International Trade Impact Assessment
The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal
agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities
that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United
States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not
considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the
United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic
objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not operate in a
manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also
requires consideration of international standards and, where
appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has
assessed the potential effect of this proposed rule and determined that
it uses international standards as its basis and does not create
unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States.
D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final
agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more
(in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate
is deemed to be a ``significant regulatory action.'' The FAA currently
uses an inflation-adjusted value of $151 million in lieu of $100
million. This proposed rule does not contain such a mandate; therefore,
the requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.
E. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires
that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information
collection burdens imposed on the public. According to the 1995
amendments to the Paperwork Reduction Act (5 CFR 1320.8(b)(2)(vi)), an
agency may not collect or sponsor the collection of information, nor
may it impose an information collection requirement unless it displays
a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
This action contains the following proposed amendments to the
existing information collection requirements previously approved under
OMB Control Number 2120-0680. As required by the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)), the FAA has submitted these proposed
information collection amendments to OMB for its review.
Summary: Under this proposal, an increase in information collection
requirements would be imposed on Sponsors of previously qualified FSTDs
that require modification for the qualification of certain training
tasks as defined in FSTD Directive 2. These Sponsors would be required
to report FSTD modifications to the FAA as described in Sec. 60.23 and
Sec. 60.16 which would result in a one-time information collection.
Additionally, because compliance with the FSTD Directive (for
previously qualified FSTDs) and the new QPS requirements (for newly
qualified FSTDs) would increase the overall amount of objective testing
necessary to maintain FSTD qualification under Sec. 60.19, a slight
increase in annual information collection would be required to document
such testing.
Use: For previously qualified FSTDs, the information collection
would be used to determine that the requirements of the FSTD Directive
have been met. The FAA will use this information to issue amended
Statements of Qualification (SOQ) for those FSTDs that have been found
to meet those requirements and also to determine if the FSTDs annual
inspection and maintenance requirements have been met.
Respondents (including number of): The additional information
collection burden in this proposal is limited to those FSTD Sponsors
that would require specific FSTD qualification for certain training
tasks as defined in FSTD Directive 2. Approximately 322 previously
qualified FSTDs \23\ may require evaluation as described in the FSTD
Directive to support the Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training
Final Rule. The number of respondents would be limited to those
Sponsors that maintain FSTDs which may require additional qualification
in accordance with the FSTD Directive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ The FAA estimated this from the number of previously
qualified FSTDs that simulate aircraft which are currently used in
U.S. part 121 air carrier operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frequency: This additional information collection would include
both a one-time event and an increase to the annual part 60 information
collection requirements.
Annual Burden Estimate: The FAA estimates that for each additional
qualified task required in accordance with FSTD Directive 2, the one-
time information collection burden to each FSTD Sponsor would be
approximately 0.85 hours per FSTD for each additional qualified
task.\24\ Assuming all five of the additional qualified tasks would be
required for each of the estimated 322 FSTDs (including qualification
for full stall training, upset recovery training, airborne icing
training, takeoff and landing in gusting crosswinds, and bounced
landing training), the cumulative one-time information collection
burden would be approximately 1,369 hours. This collection burden would
be distributed over a time period of approximately 3
[[Page 39481]]
years. This 3 year time period represents the compliance period of the
proposed FSTD Directive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ The 0.85 hour burden is derived from the existing Part 60
Paperwork Reduction Act supporting statement (OMB-2120-0680), Table
5 (Sec. 60.16) and includes estimated time for the FSTD Sponsor's
staff to draft and send the letter as well as estimated time for
updating the approved MQTG with new test results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The one-time information collection burden to the Federal
government is estimated at approximately 0.6 hours per FSTD for each
qualified task to include Aerospace Engineer review and preparation of
an FAA response.\25\ Assuming all five of the additional qualified
tasks would be required for each of the estimated 322 FSTDs, the
cumulative one-time information collection burden to the Federal
government would be approximately 966 hours. The modification of the
FSTD's Statement of Qualification would be incorporated with the FSTD's
next scheduled evaluation, so this would not impose additional burden.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ The 0.6 hour burden on the Federal government is also
derived from the existing Part 60 Paperwork Reduction Act supporting
statement (OMB-2120-0680), Table 5 (Sec. 60.16).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the number of objective tests required to maintain FSTD
qualification would increase slightly with this proposal, the annual
information collection burden would also increase under the FSTD
inspection and maintenance requirements of Sec. 60.19. This additional
information collection burden is estimated by increasing the average
number of required objective tests for Level C and Level D FSTDs by
four tests.\26\ For the estimated 322 FSTDs that may be affected by the
FSTD Directive, this will result in an additional 129 hours of annual
information collection burden to FSTD Sponsors. This additional
collection burden is based upon 0.1 hours \27\ per test for a simulator
technician to document as required by Sec. 60.19. The additional
information collection burden to the Federal government would also
increase by approximately 43 hours \28\ due to the additional tests
that may be sampled and reviewed by the FAA during continuing
qualification evaluations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ For previously qualified FSTDs, the requirements of FSTD
Directive 2 will add a maximum of four additional objective
test cases to the existing requirements.
\27\ The 0.1 hour burden is derived from the existing Part 60
Paperwork Reduction Act supporting statement (OMB-2120-0680), Table
6 (Sec. 60.19) and includes estimated time for the FSTD Sponsor's
staff to document the completion of required annual objective
testing.
\28\ This information collection burden is based upon 0.1 hours
per test required for FAA personnel to review. These four additional
tests are subject to the approximately 33% of which may be spot
checked by FAA personnel on site during a continuing qualification
evaluation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For new FSTDs qualified after the proposal becomes effective, the
changes to the QPS appendices proposed to align with ICAO 9625 as well
as the new requirements for the evaluation of stall and icing training
maneuvers would result in an estimated average increase of four
objective tests \29\ that would require annual documentation as
described in Sec. 60.19. For the estimated 22 new \30\ Level C and
Level D FSTDs that may be initially qualified annually by the FAA, this
will result in an additional 9 hours of annual information collection
burden to FSTD Sponsors and an additional 3 hours of annual information
collection burden to the Federal government. For newly qualified FSTDs,
this proposal does not increase the frequency of reporting for FSTD
sponsors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ These four additional tests were estimated through
comparison between the current and proposed list of objective tests
required for qualification (Table A2A). Note that the total number
of tests can vary between FSTDs as a function of aircraft type, test
implementation, and the employment of certain technologies that
would require additional testing.
\30\ Based upon internal records review, the FAA calculated the
number of newly qualified FSTDs at approximately 22 per year over a
ten year period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agency is soliciting comments to--
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed information requirement is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency,
including whether the information would have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of collecting information on those who are
to respond, including by using appropriate automated, electronic,
mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms
of information technology.
Individuals and organizations may send comments on the information
collection requirement to the address listed in the ADDRESSES section
at the beginning of this preamble by October 8, 2014. Comments also
should be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Desk Officer for FAA,
New Executive Building, Room 10202, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC
20053.
F. International Compatibility and Cooperation
In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to conform to ICAO
Standards and Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable.
The FAA has determined that there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended
Practices that correspond to these proposed changes to the part 60
regulations. While the FAA has proposed to align the part 60
qualification standards for Level 7 FTDs and Level D fixed wing FFSs
with that of ICAO Document 9625, the FSTD qualification guidance
contained within ICAO 9625 are not defined in an ICAO Annex as a
Standard and Recommended Practice and are considered guidance material.
Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory
Cooperation, (77 FR 26413, May 4, 2012) promotes international
regulatory cooperation to meet shared challenges involving health,
safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues and reduce,
eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory
requirements. The FAA has analyzed this action under the policy and
agency responsibilities of Executive Order 13609, Promoting
International Regulatory Cooperation. The agency has determined that
this action would promote the elimination of differences between U.S.
aviation standards and those of other civil aviation authorities by
aligning evaluation standards for similar FSTD fidelity levels to the
latest internationally recognized FSTD evaluation guidance in the ICAO
9625 document.
G. Environmental Analysis
FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA actions that are categorically
excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy
Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has
determined this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical
exclusion identified in paragraph 312f and involves no extraordinary
circumstances.
V. Executive Order Determinations
A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
The FAA has analyzed this proposed rule under the principles and
criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The agency has
determined that this action would not have a substantial direct effect
on the States, or the relationship between the Federal Government and
the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among
the various levels of government, and, therefore, would not have
Federalism implications.
[[Page 39482]]
B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
The FAA analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The agency has determined that it
would not be a ``significant energy action'' under the executive order
and would not be likely to have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy.
VI. Additional Information
A. Comments Invited
The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this
rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. The agency
also invites comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy,
or federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in
this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion
of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and
include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain
duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written
comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should
submit only one time.
The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well
as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA
personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this
proposal, the FAA will consider all comments it receives on or before
the closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed
after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without
incurring expense or delay. The agency may change this proposal in
light of the comments it receives.
Proprietary or Confidential Business Information: Commenters should
not file proprietary or confidential business information in the
docket. Such information must be sent or delivered directly to the
person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this document, and marked as proprietary or confidential. If submitting
information on a disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD
ROM, and identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific
information that is proprietary or confidential.
Under 14 CFR 11.35(b), if the FAA is aware of proprietary
information filed with a comment, the agency does not place it in the
docket. It is held in a separate file to which the public does not have
access, and the FAA places a note in the docket that it has received
it. If the FAA receives a request to examine or copy this information,
it treats it as any other request under the Freedom of Information Act
(5 U.S.C. 552). The FAA processes such a request under Department of
Transportation procedures found in 49 CFR part 7.
B. Availability of Rulemaking Documents
An electronic copy of rulemaking documents may be obtained from the
Internet by--
1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov);
2. Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies or
3. Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at http://www.fdsys.gov.
Copies may also be obtained by sending a request to the Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680.
Commenters must identify the docket or notice number of this
rulemaking.
All documents the FAA considered in developing this proposed rule,
including economic analyses and technical reports, may be accessed from
the Internet through the Federal eRulemaking Portal referenced in item
(1) above.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 60
Airmen, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
The Proposed Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend chapter I of title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations as follows:
PART 60--FLIGHT SIMULATION TRAINING DEVICE INITIAL AND CONTINUING
QUALIFICATION AND USE
0
1. The authority citation for part 60 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, and 44701; Pub. L.
111-216, 124 Stat. 2348 (49 U.S.C. 44701 note).
0
2. Amend Sec. 60.15 by revising paragraph (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 60.15 Initial Qualification requirements.
* * * * *
(e) The subjective tests that form the basis for the statements
described in paragraph (b) of this section and the objective tests
referenced in paragraph (f) of this section must be accomplished at the
FSTD's permanent location, except as provided for in the applicable
QPS.
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec. 60.17 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 60.17 Previously qualified FSTDs.
(a) Unless otherwise specified by an FSTD Directive, further
referenced in the applicable QPS, or as specified in paragraph (e) of
this section, an FSTD qualified before [effective date of final rule]
will retain its qualification basis as long as it continues to meet the
standards, including the objective test results recorded in the MQTG
and subjective tests, under which it was originally evaluated,
regardless of sponsor. The sponsor of such an FSTD must comply with the
other applicable provisions of this part.
0
4. Amend Sec. 60.19 by revising paragraphs (b)(4) and (b)(5) to read
as follows:
Sec. 60.19 Inspection, continuing qualification evaluation, and
maintenance requirements.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(4) The frequency of NSPM-conducted continuing qualification
evaluations for each FSTD will be established by the NSPM and specified
in the Statement of Qualification.
(5) Continuing qualification evaluations conducted in the 3
calendar months before or after the calendar month in which these
continuing qualification evaluations are required will be considered to
have been conducted in the calendar month in which they were required.
* * * * *
0
5. Amend Sec. 60.23 by adding new paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows:
Sec. 60.23 Modifications to FSTDs.
(a) * * *
(3) Changes to the MQTG which do not affect required objective
testing results or validation data approved during the initial
evaluation of the FSTD are not considered modifications under this
section.
* * * * *
0
6. Part 60 is amended by revising Appendix A to read as follows:
Appendix A to Part 60--Qualification Performance Standards for Airplane
Full Flight Simulators
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Begin Information
This appendix establishes the standards for Airplane FFS
evaluation and qualification. The NSPM is responsible for the
development, application, and
[[Page 39483]]
implementation of the standards contained within this appendix. The
procedures and criteria specified in this appendix will be used by
the NSPM, or a person assigned by the NSPM, when conducting airplane
FFS evaluations.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction.
2. Applicability (Sec. Sec. 60.1 and 60.2).
3. Definitions (Sec. 60.3).
4. Qualification Performance Standards (Sec. 60.4).
5. Quality Management System (Sec. 60.5).
6. Sponsor Qualification Requirements (Sec. 60.7).
7. Additional Responsibilities of the Sponsor (Sec. 60.9).
8. FFS Use (Sec. 60.11).
9. FFS Objective Data Requirements (Sec. 60.13).
10. Special Equipment and Personnel Requirements for Qualification
of the FFS (Sec. 60.14).
11. Initial (and Upgrade) Qualification Requirements (Sec. 60.15).
12. Additional Qualifications for a Currently Qualified FFS (Sec.
60.16).
13. Previously Qualified FFSs (Sec. 60.17).
14. Inspection, Continuing Qualification Evaluation, and Maintenance
Requirements (Sec. 60.19).
15. Logging FFS Discrepancies (Sec. 60.20).
16. Interim Qualification of FFSs for New Airplane Types or Models
(Sec. 60.21).
17. Modifications to FFSs (Sec. 60.23).
18. Operations With Missing, Malfunctioning, or Inoperative
Components (Sec. 60.25).
19. Automatic Loss of Qualification and Procedures for Restoration
of Qualification (Sec. 60.27).
20. Other Losses of Qualification and Procedures for Restoration of
Qualification (Sec. 60.29).
21. Record Keeping and Reporting (Sec. 60.31).
22. Applications, Logbooks, Reports, and Records: Fraud,
Falsification, or Incorrect Statements (Sec. 60.33).
23. Specific FFS Compliance Requirements (Sec. 60.35).
24. [Reserved]
25. FFS Qualification on the Basis of a Bilateral Aviation Safety
Agreement (BASA) (Sec. 60.37).
Attachment 1 to Appendix A to Part 60--General Simulator
Requirements.
Attachment 2 to Appendix A to Part 60--FFS Objective Tests.
Attachment 3 to Appendix A to Part 60--Simulator Subjective
Evaluation.
Attachment 4 to Appendix A to Part 60--Sample Documents.
Attachment 5 to Appendix A to Part 60--Simulator Qualification
Requirements for Windshear Training Program Use.
Attachment 6 to Appendix A to Part 60--FSTD Directives Applicable to
Airplane Flight Simulators.
Attachment 7 to Appendix A to Part 60--Additional Simulator
Qualification Requirements for Stall, Upset Recognition and
Recovery, and Engine and Airframe Icing Training Tasks.
End Information
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Introduction
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Begin Information
a. This appendix contains background information as well as
regulatory and informative material as described later in this
section. To assist the reader in determining what areas are required
and what areas are permissive, the text in this appendix is divided
into two sections: ``QPS Requirements'' and ``Information.'' The QPS
Requirements sections contain details regarding compliance with the
part 60 rule language. These details are regulatory, but are found
only in this appendix. The Information sections contain material
that is advisory in nature, and designed to give the user general
information about the regulation.
b. Questions regarding the contents of this publication should
be sent to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation
Administration, Flight Standards Service, National Simulator Program
Staff, AFS-205, 100 Hartsfield Centre Parkway, Suite 400, Atlanta,
Georgia, 30354. Telephone contact numbers for the NSP are: Phone,
404-832-4700; fax, 404-761-8906. The general email address for the
NSP office is: [email protected]. The NSP Internet Web site
address is: http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/nsp/. On this Web
site you will find an NSP personnel list with telephone and email
contact information for each NSP staff member, a list of qualified
flight simulation devices, advisory circulars (ACs), a description
of the qualification process, NSP policy, and an NSP ``In-Works''
section. Also linked from this site are additional information
sources, handbook bulletins, frequently asked questions, a listing
and text of the Federal Aviation Regulations, Flight Standards
Inspector's handbooks, and other FAA links.
c. The NSPM encourages the use of electronic media for all
communication, including any record, report, request, test, or
statement required by this appendix. The electronic media used must
have adequate security provisions and be acceptable to the NSPM. The
NSPM recommends inquiries on system compatibility, and minimum
system requirements are also included on the NSP Web site.
d. Related Reading References.
(1) 14 CFR part 60.
(2) 14 CFR part 61.
(3) 14 CFR part 63.
(4) 14 CFR part 119.
(5) 14 CFR part 121.
(6) 14 CFR part 125.
(7) 14 CFR part 135.
(8) 14 CFR part 141.
(9) 14 CFR part 142.
(10) AC 120-28, as amended, Criteria for Approval of Category
III Landing Weather Minima.
(11) AC 120-29, as amended, Criteria for Approving Category I
and Category II Landing Minima for part 121 operators.
(12) AC 120-35, as amended, Line Operational Simulations: Line-
Oriented Flight Training, Special Purpose Operational Training, Line
Operational Evaluation.
(13) AC 120-40, as amended, Airplane Simulator Qualification.
(14) AC 120-41, as amended, Criteria for Operational Approval of
Airborne Wind Shear Alerting and Flight Guidance Systems.
(15) AC 120-57, as amended, Surface Movement Guidance and
Control System (SMGCS).
(16) AC 150/5300-13, as amended, Airport Design.
(17) AC 150/5340-1, as amended, Standards for Airport Markings.
(18) AC 150/5340-4, as amended, Installation Details for Runway
Centerline Touchdown Zone Lighting Systems.
(19) AC 150/5340-19, as amended, Taxiway Centerline Lighting
System.
(20) AC 150/5340-24, as amended, Runway and Taxiway Edge
Lighting System.
(21) AC 150/5345-28, as amended, Precision Approach Path
Indicator (PAPI) Systems.
(22) International Air Transport Association document, ``Flight
Simulator Design and Performance Data Requirements,'' as amended.
(23) AC 25-7, as amended, Flight Test Guide for Certification of
Transport Category Airplanes.
(24) AC 23-8, as amended, Flight Test Guide for Certification of
Part 23 Airplanes.
(25) International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Manual of
Criteria for the Qualification of Flight Simulators, as amended.
(26) Airplane Flight Simulator Evaluation Handbook, Volume I, as
amended and Volume II, as amended, The Royal Aeronautical Society,
London, UK.
(27) FAA Publication FAA-S-8081 series (Practical Test Standards
for Airline Transport Pilot Certificate, Type Ratings, Commercial
Pilot, and Instrument Ratings).
(28) The FAA Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM). An
electronic version of the AIM is on the internet at http://www.faa.gov/atpubs.
(29) Aeronautical Radio, Inc. (ARINC) document number 436,
titled Guidelines For Electronic Qualification Test Guide (as
amended).
(30) Aeronautical Radio, Inc. (ARINC) document 610, Guidance for
Design and Integration of Aircraft Avionics Equipment in Simulators
(as amended).
End Information
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Applicability (Sec. Sec. 60.1 and 60.2)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Begin Information
No additional regulatory or informational material applies to
Sec. 60.1, Applicability, or to Sec. 60.2, Applicability of
sponsor rules to person who are not sponsors and who are engaged in
certain unauthorized activities.
End Information
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Definitions (Sec. 60.3)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Begin Information
See Appendix F of this part for a list of definitions and
abbreviations from part 1 and part 60, including the appropriate
appendices of part 60.
[[Page 39484]]
End Information
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Qualification Performance Standards (Sec. 60.4)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Begin Information
No additional regulatory or informational material applies to
Sec. 60.4, Qualification Performance Standards.
End Information
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Quality Management System (Sec. 60.5)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Begin Information
See Appendix E of this part for additional regulatory and
informational material regarding Quality Management Systems.
End Information
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Sponsor Qualification Requirements (Sec. 60.7)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Begin Information
a. The intent of the language in Sec. 60.7(b) is to have a
specific FFS, identified by the sponsor, used at least once in an
FAA-approved flight training program for the airplane simulated
during the 12-month period described. The identification of the
specific FFS may change from one 12-month period to the next 12-
month period as long as the sponsor sponsors and uses at least one
FFS at least once during the prescribed period. No minimum number of
hours or minimum FFS periods are required.
b. The following examples describe acceptable operational
practices:
(1) Example One.
(a) A sponsor is sponsoring a single, specific FFS for its own
use, in its own facility or elsewhere--this single FFS forms the
basis for the sponsorship. The sponsor uses that FFS at least once
in each 12-month period in the sponsor's FAA-approved flight
training program for the airplane simulated. This 12-month period is
established according to the following schedule:
(i) If the FFS was qualified prior to May 30, 2008, the 12-month
period begins on the date of the first continuing qualification
evaluation conducted in accordance with Sec. 60.19 after May 30,
2008, and continues for each subsequent 12-month period;
(ii) A device qualified on or after May 30, 2008, will be
required to undergo an initial or upgrade evaluation in accordance
with Sec. 60.15. Once the initial or upgrade evaluation is
complete, the first continuing qualification evaluation will be
conducted within 6 months. The 12 month continuing qualification
evaluation cycle begins on that date and continues for each
subsequent 12-month period.
(b) There is no minimum number of hours of FFS use required.
(c) The identification of the specific FFS may change from one
12-month period to the next 12-month period as long as the sponsor
sponsors and uses at least one FFS at least once during the
prescribed period.
(2) Example Two.
(a) A sponsor sponsors an additional number of FFSs, in its
facility or elsewhere. Each additionally sponsored FFS must be--
(i) Used by the sponsor in the sponsor's FAA-approved flight
training program for the airplane simulated (as described in Sec.
60.7(d)(1));
OR
(ii) Used by another FAA certificate holder in that other
certificate holder's FAA-approved flight training program for the
airplane simulated (as described in Sec. 60.7(d)(1)). This 12-month
period is established in the same manner as in example one;
OR
(iii) Provided a statement each year from a qualified pilot,
(after having flown the airplane, not the subject FFS or another
FFS, during the preceding 12-month period) stating that the subject
FFSs performance and handling qualities represent the airplane (as
described in Sec. 60.7(d)(2)). This statement is provided at least
once in each 12-month period established in the same manner as in
example one.
(b) No minimum number of hours of FFS use is required.
(3) Example Three.
(a) A sponsor in New York (in this example, a Part 142
certificate holder) establishes ``satellite'' training centers in
Chicago and Moscow.
(b) The satellite function means that the Chicago and Moscow
centers must operate under the New York center's certificate (in
accordance with all of the New York center's practices, procedures,
and policies; e.g., instructor and/or technician training/checking
requirements, record keeping, QMS program).
(c) All of the FFSs in the Chicago and Moscow centers could be
dry-leased (i.e., the certificate holder does not have and use FAA-
approved flight training programs for the FFSs in the Chicago and
Moscow centers) because--
(i) Each FFS in the Chicago center and each FFS in the Moscow
center is used at least once each 12-month period by another FAA
certificate holder in that other certificate holder's FAA-approved
flight training program for the airplane (as described in Sec.
60.7(d)(1));
OR
(ii) A statement is obtained from a qualified pilot (having
flown the airplane, not the subject FFS or another FFS during the
preceding 12-month period) stating that the performance and handling
qualities of each FFS in the Chicago and Moscow centers represents
the airplane (as described in Sec. 60.7(d)(2)).
End Information
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Additional Responsibilities of the Sponsor (Sec. 60.9)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Begin Information
The phrase ``as soon as practicable'' in Sec. 60.9(a) means
without unnecessarily disrupting or delaying beyond a reasonable
time the training, evaluation, or experience being conducted in the
FFS.
End Information
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
8. FFS Use (Sec. 60.11)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Begin Information
No additional regulatory or informational material applies to
Sec. 60.11, Simulator Use.
End Information
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
9. FFS Objective Data Requirements (Sec. 60.13)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Begin QPS Requirements
a. Flight test data used to validate FFS performance and
handling qualities must have been gathered in accordance with a
flight test program containing the following:
(1) A flight test plan consisting of:
(a) The maneuvers and procedures required for aircraft
certification and simulation programming and validation.
(b) For each maneuver or procedure--
(i) The procedures and control input the flight test pilot and/
or engineer used.
(ii) The atmospheric and environmental conditions.
(iii) The initial flight conditions.
(iv) The airplane configuration, including weight and center of
gravity.
(v) The data to be gathered.
(vi) All other information necessary to recreate the flight test
conditions in the FFS.
(2) Appropriately qualified flight test personnel.
(3) An understanding of the accuracy of the data to be gathered
using appropriate alternative data sources, procedures, and
instrumentation that is traceable to a recognized standard as
described in Attachment 2, Table A2E of this appendix.
(4) Appropriate and sufficient data acquisition equipment or
system(s), including appropriate data reduction and analysis methods
and techniques, as would be acceptable to the FAA's Aircraft
Certification Service.
b. The data, regardless of source, must be presented as follows:
(1) In a format that supports the FFS validation process.
(2) In a manner that is clearly readable and annotated correctly
and completely.
(3) With resolution sufficient to determine compliance with the
tolerances set forth in Attachment 2, Table A2A of this appendix.
(4) With any necessary instructions or other details provided,
such as yaw damper or throttle position.
(5) Without alteration, adjustments, or bias. Data may be
corrected to address known data calibration errors provided that an
explanation of the methods used to correct the errors appears in the
QTG. The corrected data may be re-scaled, digitized, or otherwise
manipulated to fit the desired presentation.
c. After completion of any additional flight test, a flight test
report must be submitted in support of the validation data. The
report must contain sufficient data and rationale to
[[Page 39485]]
support qualification of the FFS at the level requested.
d. As required by Sec. 60.13(f), the sponsor must notify the
NSPM when it becomes aware that an addition to, an amendment to, or
a revision of data that may relate to FFS performance or handling
characteristics is available. The data referred to in this paragraph
is data used to validate the performance, handling qualities, or
other characteristics of the aircraft, including data related to any
relevant changes occurring after the type certificate was issued.
The sponsor must--
(1) Within 10 calendar days, notify the NSPM of the existence of
this data; and
(2) Within 45 calendar days, notify the NSPM of--
(a) The schedule to incorporate this data into the FFS; or
(b) The reason for not incorporating this data into the FFS.
e. In those cases where the objective test results authorize a
``snapshot test'' or a ``series of snapshot tests'' results in lieu
of a time-history result, the sponsor or other data provider must
ensure that a steady state condition exists at the instant of time
captured by the ``snapshot.'' The steady state condition must exist
from 4 seconds prior to, through 1 second following, the instant of
time captured by the snapshot.
End QPS Requirements
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Begin Information
f. The FFS sponsor is encouraged to maintain a liaison with the
manufacturer of the aircraft being simulated (or with the holder of
the aircraft type certificate for the aircraft being simulated if
the manufacturer is no longer in business), and, if appropriate,
with the person having supplied the aircraft data package for the
FFS in order to facilitate the notification required by Sec.
60.13(f).
g. It is the intent of the NSPM that for new aircraft entering
service, at a point well in advance of preparation of the
Qualification Test Guide (QTG), the sponsor should submit to the
NSPM for approval, a descriptive document (see Table A2C, Sample
Validation Data Roadmap for Airplanes) containing the plan for
acquiring the validation data, including data sources. This document
should clearly identify sources of data for all required tests, a
description of the validity of these data for a specific engine type
and thrust rating configuration, and the revision levels of all
avionics affecting the performance or flying qualities of the
aircraft. Additionally, this document should provide other
information, such as the rationale or explanation for cases where
data or data parameters are missing, instances where engineering
simulation data are used or where flight test methods require
further explanations. It should also provide a brief narrative
describing the cause and effect of any deviation from data
requirements. The aircraft manufacturer may provide this document.
h. There is no requirement for any flight test data supplier to
submit a flight test plan or program prior to gathering flight test
data. However, the NSPM notes that inexperienced data gatherers
often provide data that is irrelevant, improperly marked, or lacking
adequate justification for selection. Other problems include
inadequate information regarding initial conditions or test
maneuvers. The NSPM has been forced to refuse these data submissions
as validation data for an FFS evaluation. It is for this reason that
the NSPM recommends that any data supplier not previously
experienced in this area review the data necessary for programming
and for validating the performance of the FFS, and discuss the
flight test plan anticipated for acquiring such data with the NSPM
well in advance of commencing the flight tests.
i. The NSPM will consider, on a case-by-case basis, whether to
approve supplemental validation data derived from flight data
recording systems, such as a Quick Access Recorder or Flight Data
Recorder.
End Information
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Special Equipment and Personnel Requirements for Qualification of
the FFSs (Sec. 60.14)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Begin Information
a. In the event that the NSPM determines that special equipment
or specifically qualified persons will be required to conduct an
evaluation, the NSPM will make every attempt to notify the sponsor
at least one (1) week, but in no case less than 72 hours, in advance
of the evaluation. Examples of special equipment include spot
photometers, flight control measurement devices, and sound
analyzers. Examples of specially qualified personnel include
individuals specifically qualified to install or use any special
equipment when its use is required.
b. Examples of a special evaluation include an evaluation
conducted after an FFS is moved, at the request of the TPAA, or as a
result of comments received from users of the FFS that raise
questions about the continued qualification or use of the FFS.
End Information
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Initial (and Upgrade) Qualification Requirements (Sec. 60.15)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Begin QPS Requirements
a. In order to be qualified at a particular qualification level,
the FFS must:
(1) Meet the general requirements listed in Attachment 1 of this
appendix;
(2) Meet the objective testing requirements listed in Attachment
2 of this appendix; and
(3) Satisfactorily accomplish the subjective tests listed in
Attachment 3 of this appendix.
b. The request described in Sec. 60.15(a) must include all of
the following:
(1) A statement that the FFS meets all of the applicable
provisions of this part and all applicable provisions of the QPS.
(2) Unless otherwise authorized through prior coordination with
the NSPM, a confirmation that the sponsor will forward to the NSPM
the statement described in Sec. 60.15(b) in such time as to be
received no later than 5 business days prior to the scheduled
evaluation and may be forwarded to the NSPM via traditional or
electronic means.
(3) A QTG, acceptable to the NSPM, that includes all of the
following:
(a) Objective data obtained from traditional aircraft testing or
another approved source.
(b) Correlating objective test results obtained from the
performance of the FFS as prescribed in the appropriate QPS.
(c) The result of FFS subjective tests prescribed in the
appropriate QPS.
(d) A description of the equipment necessary to perform the
evaluation for initial qualification and the continuing
qualification evaluations.
c. The QTG described in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, must
provide the documented proof of compliance with the simulator
objective tests in Attachment 2, Table A2A of this appendix.
d. The QTG is prepared and submitted by the sponsor, or the
sponsor's agent on behalf of the sponsor, to the NSPM for review and
approval, and must include, for each objective test:
(1) Parameters, tolerances, and flight conditions;
(2) Pertinent and complete instructions for the conduct of
automatic and manual tests;
(3) A means of comparing the FFS test results to the objective
data;
(4) Any other information as necessary, to assist in the
evaluation of the test results;
(5) Other information appropriate to the qualification level of
the FFS.
e. The QTG described in paragraphs (a)(3) and (b) of this
section, must include the following:
(1) A QTG cover page with sponsor and FAA approval signature
blocks (see Attachment 4, Figure A4C, of this appendix for a sample
QTG cover page).
(2) A continuing qualification evaluation requirements page.
This page will be used by the NSPM to establish and record the
frequency with which continuing qualification evaluations must be
conducted and any subsequent changes that may be determined by the
NSPM in accordance with Sec. 60.19. See Attachment 4, Figure A4G,
of this appendix for a sample Continuing Qualification Evaluation
Requirements page.
(3) An FFS information page that provides the information listed
in this paragraph (see Attachment 4, Figure A4B, of this appendix
for a sample FFS information page). For convertible FFSs, the
sponsor must submit a separate page for each configuration of the
FFS.
(a) The sponsor's FFS identification number or code.
(b) The airplane model and series being simulated.
(c) The aerodynamic data revision number or reference.
(d) The source of the basic aerodynamic model and the
aerodynamic coefficient data used to modify the basic model.
(e) The engine model(s) and its data revision number or
reference.
(f) The flight control data revision number or reference.
(g) The flight management system identification and revision
level.
[[Page 39486]]
(h) The FFS model and manufacturer.
(i) The date of FFS manufacture.
(j) The FFS computer identification.
(k) The visual system model and manufacturer, including display
type.
(l) The motion system type and manufacturer, including degrees
of freedom.
(4) A Table of Contents.
(5) A log of revisions and a list of effective pages.
(6) A list of all relevant data references.
(7) A glossary of terms and symbols used (including sign
conventions and units).
(8) Statements of Compliance and Capability (SOCs) with certain
requirements.
(9) Recording procedures or equipment required to accomplish the
objective tests.
(10) The following information for each objective test
designated in Attachment 2, Table A2A, of this appendix as
applicable to the qualification level sought:
(a) Name of the test.
(b) Objective of the test.
(c) Initial conditions.
(d) Manual test procedures.
(e) Automatic test procedures (if applicable).
(f) Method for evaluating FFS objective test results.
(g) List of all relevant parameters driven or constrained during
the automatically conducted test(s).
(h) List of all relevant parameters driven or constrained during
the manually conducted test(s).
(i) Tolerances for relevant parameters.
(j) Source of Validation Data (document and page number).
(k) Copy of the Validation Data (if located in a separate
binder, a cross reference for the identification and page number for
pertinent data location must be provided).
(l) Simulator Objective Test Results as obtained by the sponsor.
Each test result must reflect the date completed and must be clearly
labeled as a product of the device being tested.
f. A convertible FFS is addressed as a separate FFS for each
model and series airplane to which it will be converted and for the
FAA qualification level sought. If a sponsor seeks qualification for
two or more models of an airplane type using a convertible FFS, the
sponsor must submit a QTG for each airplane model, or a QTG for the
first airplane model and a supplement to that QTG for each
additional airplane model. The NSPM will conduct evaluations for
each airplane model.
g. Form and manner of presentation of objective test results in
the QTG:
(1) The sponsor's FFS test results must be recorded in a manner
acceptable to the NSPM, that allows easy comparison of the FFS test
results to the validation data (e.g., use of a multi-channel
recorder, line printer, cross plotting, overlays, transparencies).
(2) FFS results must be labeled using terminology common to
airplane parameters as opposed to computer software identifications.
(3) Validation data documents included in a QTG may be
photographically reduced only if such reduction will not alter the
graphic scaling or cause difficulties in scale interpretation or
resolution.
(4) Scaling on graphical presentations must provide the
resolution necessary to evaluate the parameters shown in Attachment
2, Table A2A of this appendix.
(5) Tests involving time histories, data sheets (or
transparencies thereof) and FFS test results must be clearly marked
with appropriate reference points to ensure an accurate comparison
between the FFS and the airplane with respect to time. Time
histories recorded via a line printer are to be clearly identified
for cross plotting on the airplane data. Over-plots must not obscure
the reference data.
h. The sponsor may elect to complete the QTG objective and
subjective tests at the manufacturer's facility or at the sponsor's
training facility. If the tests are conducted at the manufacturer's
facility, the sponsor must repeat at least one-third of the tests at
the sponsor's training facility in order to substantiate FFS
performance. The QTG must be clearly annotated to indicate when and
where each test was accomplished. Tests conducted at the
manufacturer's facility and at the sponsor's training facility must
be conducted after the FFS is assembled with systems and sub-systems
functional and operating in an interactive manner. The test results
must be submitted to the NSPM.
i. The sponsor must maintain a copy of the MQTG at the FFS
location.
j. All FFSs for which the initial qualification is conducted
after May 30, 2014, must have an electronic MQTG (eMQTG) including
all objective data obtained from airplane testing, or another
approved source (reformatted or digitized), together with
correlating objective test results obtained from the performance of
the FFS (reformatted or digitized) as prescribed in this appendix.
The eMQTG must also contain the general FFS performance or
demonstration results (reformatted or digitized) prescribed in this
appendix, and a description of the equipment necessary to perform
the initial qualification evaluation and the continuing
qualification evaluations. The eMQTG must include the original
validation data used to validate FFS performance and handling
qualities in either the original digitized format from the data
supplier or an electronic scan of the original time-history plots
that were provided by the data supplier. A copy of the eMQTG must be
provided to the NSPM.
k. All other FFSs not covered in subparagraph ``j'' must have an
electronic copy of the MQTG by May 30, 2014. An electronic copy of
the MQTG must be provided to the NSPM. This may be provided by an
electronic scan presented in a Portable Document File (PDF), or
similar format acceptable to the NSPM.
l. During the initial (or upgrade) qualification evaluation
conducted by the NSPM, the sponsor must also provide a person who is
a user of the device (e.g., a qualified pilot or instructor pilot
with flight time experience in that aircraft) and knowledgeable
about the operation of the aircraft and the operation of the FFS.
End QPS Requirements
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Begin Information
m. Only those FFSs that are sponsored by a certificate holder as
defined in Appendix F of this part will be evaluated by the NSPM.
However, other FFS evaluations may be conducted on a case-by-case
basis as the Administrator deems appropriate, but only in accordance
with applicable agreements.
n. The NSPM will conduct an evaluation for each configuration,
and each FFS must be evaluated as completely as possible. To ensure
a thorough and uniform evaluation, each FFS is subjected to the
general simulator requirements in Attachment 1 of this appendix, the
objective tests listed in Attachment 2 of this appendix, and the
subjective tests listed in Attachment 3 of this appendix. The
evaluations described herein will include, but not necessarily be
limited to the following:
(1) Airplane responses, including longitudinal and lateral-
directional control responses (see Attachment 2 of this appendix);
(2) Performance in authorized portions of the simulated
airplane's operating envelope, to include tasks evaluated by the
NSPM in the areas of surface operations, takeoff, climb, cruise,
descent, approach, and landing as well as abnormal and emergency
operations (see Attachment 2 of this appendix);
(3) Control checks (see Attachment 1 and Attachment 2 of this
appendix);
(4) Flight deck configuration (see Attachment 1 of this
appendix);
(5) Pilot, flight engineer, and instructor station functions
checks (see Attachment 1 and Attachment 3 of this appendix);
(6) Airplane systems and sub-systems (as appropriate) as
compared to the airplane simulated (see Attachment 1 and Attachment
3 of this appendix);
(7) FFS systems and sub-systems, including force cueing
(motion), visual, and aural (sound) systems, as appropriate (see
Attachment 1 and Attachment 2 of this appendix); and
(8) Certain additional requirements, depending upon the
qualification level sought, including equipment or circumstances
that may become hazardous to the occupants. The sponsor may be
subject to Occupational Safety and Health Administration
requirements.
o. The NSPM administers the objective and subjective tests,
which includes an examination of functions. The tests include a
qualitative assessment of the FFS by an NSP pilot. The NSP
evaluation team leader may assign other qualified personnel to
assist in accomplishing the functions examination and/or the
objective and subjective tests performed during an evaluation when
required.
(1) Objective tests provide a basis for measuring and evaluating
FFS performance and determining compliance with the requirements of
this part.
(2) Subjective tests provide a basis for:
(a) Evaluating the capability of the FFS to perform over a
typical utilization period;
(b) Determining that the FFS satisfactorily simulates each
required task;
(c) Verifying correct operation of the FFS controls,
instruments, and systems; and
(d) Demonstrating compliance with the requirements of this part.
[[Page 39487]]
p. The tolerances for the test parameters listed in Attachment 2
of this appendix reflect the range of tolerances acceptable to the
NSPM for FFS validation and are not to be confused with design
tolerances specified for FFS manufacture. In making decisions
regarding tests and test results, the NSPM relies on the use of
operational and engineering judgment in the application of data
(including consideration of the way in which the flight test was
flown and way the data was gathered and applied) data presentations,
and the applicable tolerances for each test.
q. In addition to the scheduled continuing qualification
evaluation, each FFS is subject to evaluations conducted by the NSPM
at any time without prior notification to the sponsor. Such
evaluations would be accomplished in a normal manner (i.e.,
requiring exclusive use of the FFS for the conduct of objective and
subjective tests and an examination of functions) if the FFS is not
being used for flightcrew member training, testing, or checking.
However, if the FFS were being used, the evaluation would be
conducted in a non-exclusive manner. This non-exclusive evaluation
will be conducted by the FFS evaluator accompanying the check
airman, instructor, Aircrew Program Designee (APD), or FAA inspector
aboard the FFS along with the student(s) and observing the operation
of the FFS during the training, testing, or checking activities.
r. Problems with objective test results are handled as follows:
(1) If a problem with an objective test result is detected by
the NSP evaluation team during an evaluation, the test may be
repeated or the QTG may be amended.
(2) If it is determined that the results of an objective test do
not support the level requested but do support a lower level, the
NSPM may qualify the FFS at that lower level. For example, if a
Level D evaluation is requested and the FFS fails to meet sound test
tolerances, it could be qualified at Level C.
s. After an FFS is successfully evaluated, the NSPM issues a
Statement of Qualification (SOQ) to the sponsor. The NSPM recommends
the FFS to the TPAA, who will approve the FFS for use in a flight
training program. The SOQ will be issued at the satisfactory
conclusion of the initial or continuing qualification evaluation and
will list the tasks for which the FFS is qualified, referencing the
tasks described in Table A1B in Attachment 1 of this appendix.
However, it is the sponsor's responsibility to obtain TPAA approval
prior to using the FFS in an FAA-approved flight training program.
t. Under normal circumstances, the NSPM establishes a date for
the initial or upgrade evaluation within ten (10) working days after
determining that a complete QTG is acceptable. Unusual circumstances
may warrant establishing an evaluation date before this
determination is made. A sponsor may schedule an evaluation date as
early as 6 months in advance. However, there may be a delay of 45
days or more in rescheduling and completing the evaluation if the
sponsor is unable to meet the scheduled date. See Attachment 4 of
this appendix, Figure A4A, Sample Request for Initial, Upgrade, or
Reinstatement Evaluation.
u. The numbering system used for objective test results in the
QTG should closely follow the numbering system set out in Attachment
2 of this appendix, FFS Objective Tests, Table A2A.
v. Contact the NSPM or visit the NSPM Web site for additional
information regarding the preferred qualifications of pilots used to
meet the requirements of Sec. 60.15(d).
w. Examples of the exclusions for which the FFS might not have
been subjectively tested by the sponsor or the NSPM and for which
qualification might not be sought or granted, as described in Sec.
60.15(g)(6), include windshear training and circling approaches.
End Information
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Additional Qualifications for a Currently Qualified FFS (Sec.
60.16)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Begin Information
No additional regulatory or informational material applies to
Sec. 60.16, Additional Qualifications for a Currently Qualified
FFS.
End Information
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Previously Qualified FFSs (Sec. 60.17)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Begin QPS Requirements
a. In instances where a sponsor plans to remove an FFS from
active status for a period of less than two years, the following
procedures apply:
(1) The NSPM must be notified in writing and the notification
must include an estimate of the period that the FFS will be
inactive;
(2) Continuing Qualification evaluations will not be scheduled
during the inactive period;
(3) The NSPM will remove the FFS from the list of qualified
FSTDs on a mutually established date not later than the date on
which the first missed continuing qualification evaluation would
have been scheduled;
(4) Before the FFS is restored to qualified status, it must be
evaluated by the NSPM. The evaluation content and the time required
to accomplish the evaluation is based on the number of continuing
qualification evaluations and sponsor-conducted quarterly
inspections missed during the period of inactivity.
(5) The sponsor must notify the NSPM of any changes to the
original scheduled time out of service;
b. Simulators qualified prior to May 30, 2008, are not required
to meet the general simulation requirements, the objective test
requirements or the subjective test requirements of attachments 1,
2, and 3 of this appendix as long as the simulator continues to meet
the test requirements contained in the MQTG developed under the
original qualification basis.
c. After May 30, 2009, each visual scene or airport model beyond
the minimum required for the FFS qualification level that is
installed in and available for use in a qualified FFS must meet the
requirements described in attachment 3 of this appendix.
d. Simulators qualified prior to May 30, 2008, may be updated.
If an evaluation is deemed appropriate or necessary by the NSPM
after such an update, the evaluation will not require an evaluation
to standards beyond those against which the simulator was originally
qualified.
End QPS Requirements
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Begin Information
e. Other certificate holders or persons desiring to use an FFS
may contract with FFS sponsors to use FFSs previously qualified at a
particular level for an airplane type and approved for use within an
FAA-approved flight training program. Such FFSs are not required to
undergo an additional qualification process, except as described in
Sec. 60.16.
f. Each FFS user must obtain approval from the appropriate TPAA
to use any FFS in an FAA-approved flight training program.
g. The intent of the requirement listed in Sec. 60.17(b), for
each FFS to have a SOQ within 6 years, is to have the availability
of that statement (including the configuration list and the
limitations to authorizations) to provide a complete picture of the
FFS inventory regulated by the FAA. The issuance of the statement
will not require any additional evaluation or require any adjustment
to the evaluation basis for the FFS.
h. Downgrading of an FFS is a permanent change in qualification
level and will necessitate the issuance of a revised SOQ to reflect
the revised qualification level, as appropriate. If a temporary
restriction is placed on an FFS because of a missing,
malfunctioning, or inoperative component or on-going repairs, the
restriction is not a permanent change in qualification level.
Instead, the restriction is temporary and is removed when the reason
for the restriction has been resolved.
i. The NSPM will determine the evaluation criteria for an FFS
that has been removed from active status. The criteria will be based
on the number of continuing qualification evaluations and quarterly
inspections missed during the period of inactivity. For example, if
the FFS were out of service for a 1 year period, it would be
necessary to complete the entire QTG, since all of the quarterly
evaluations would have been missed. The NSPM will also consider how
the FFS was stored, whether parts were removed from the FFS and
whether the FFS was disassembled.
j. The FFS will normally be requalified using the FAA-approved
MQTG and the criteria that was in effect prior to its removal from
qualification. However, inactive periods of 2 years or more will
require requalification under the standards in effect and current at
the time of requalification.
End Information
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Inspection, Continuing Qualification Evaluation, and Maintenance
Requirements (Sec. 60.19)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 39488]]
Begin QPS Requirements
a. The sponsor must conduct a minimum of four evenly spaced
inspections throughout the year. The objective test sequence and
content of each inspection must be developed by the sponsor and must
be acceptable to the NSPM.
b. The description of the functional preflight check must be
contained in the sponsor's QMS.
c. Record ``functional preflight'' in the FFS discrepancy log
book or other acceptable location, including any item found to be
missing, malfunctioning, or inoperative.
d. During the continuing qualification evaluation conducted by
the NSPM, the sponsor must also provide a person knowledgeable about
the operation of the aircraft and the operation of the FFS.
e. The NSPM will conduct continuing qualification evaluations
every 12 months unless:
(1) The NSPM becomes aware of discrepancies or performance
problems with the device that warrants more frequent evaluations; or
(2) The sponsor implements a QMS that justifies less frequent
evaluations. However, in no case shall the frequency of a continuing
qualification evaluation exceed 36 months.
End QPS Requirements
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Begin Information
f. The sponsor's test sequence and the content of each quarterly
inspection required in Sec. 60.19(a)(1) should include a balance
and a mix from the objective test requirement areas listed as
follows:
(1) Performance.
(2) Handling qualities.
(3) Motion system (where appropriate).
(4) Visual system (where appropriate).
(5) Sound system (where appropriate).
(6) Other FFS systems.
g. If the NSP evaluator plans to accomplish specific tests
during a normal continuing qualification evaluation that requires
the use of special equipment or technicians, the sponsor will be
notified as far in advance of the evaluation as practical; but not
less than 72 hours. Examples of such tests include latencies,
control dynamics, sounds and vibrations, motion, and/or some visual
system tests.
h. The continuing qualification evaluations, described in Sec.
60.19(b), will normally require 4 hours of FFS time. However,
flexibility is necessary to address abnormal situations or
situations involving aircraft with additional levels of complexity
(e.g., computer controlled aircraft). The sponsor should anticipate
that some tests may require additional time. The continuing
qualification evaluations will consist of the following:
(1) Review of the results of the quarterly inspections conducted
by the sponsor since the last scheduled continuing qualification
evaluation.
(2) A selection of approximately 8 to 15 objective tests from
the MQTG that provide an adequate opportunity to evaluate the
performance of the FFS. The tests chosen will be performed either
automatically or manually and should be able to be conducted within
approximately one-third (\1/3\) of the allotted FFS time.
(3) A subjective evaluation of the FFS to perform a
representative sampling of the tasks set out in attachment 3 of this
appendix. This portion of the evaluation should take approximately
two-thirds (\2/3\) of the allotted FFS time.
(4) An examination of the functions of the FFS may include the
motion system, visual system, sound system, instructor operating
station, and the normal functions and simulated malfunctions of the
airplane systems. This examination is normally accomplished
simultaneously with the subjective evaluation requirements.
End Information
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Logging FFSs Discrepancies (Sec. 60.20)
Begin Information
No additional regulatory or informational material applies to
Sec. 60.20. Logging FFS Discrepancies.
End Information
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Interim Qualification of FFSs for New Airplane Types or Models
(Sec. 60.21)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Begin Information
No additional regulatory or informational material applies to
Sec. 60.21, Interim Qualification of FFSs for New Airplane Types or
Models.
End Information
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Modifications to FFSs (Sec. 60.23)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Begin QPS Requirements
a. The notification described in Sec. 60.23(c)(2) must include
a complete description of the planned modification, with a
description of the operational and engineering effect the proposed
modification will have on the operation of the FFS and the results
that are expected with the modification incorporated.
b. Prior to using the modified FFS:
(1) All the applicable objective tests completed with the
modification incorporated, including any necessary updates to the
MQTG (e.g., accomplishment of FSTD Directives) must be acceptable to
the NSPM; and
(2) The sponsor must provide the NSPM with a statement signed by
the MR that the factors listed in Sec. 60.15(b) are addressed by
the appropriate personnel as described in that section.
End QPS Requirements
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Begin Information
c. FSTD Directives are considered modifications of an FFS. See
Attachment 4 of this appendix for a sample index of effective FSTD
Directives. See Attachment 6 of this appendix for a list of all
effective FSTD Directives applicable to Airplane FFSs.
d. Examples of MQTG changes that do not require FAA notification
under Sec. 60.23(a) are limited to repagination, correction of
typographical or grammatical errors, typesetting, or presenting
additional parameters on existing test result formats. All changes
regardless of nature should be documented in the MQTG revision
history.
End Information
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Operation With Missing, Malfunctioning, or Inoperative Components
(Sec. 60.25)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Begin Information
a. The sponsor's responsibility with respect to Sec. 60.25(a)
is satisfied when the sponsor fairly and accurately advises the user
of the current status of an FFS, including any missing,
malfunctioning, or inoperative (MMI) component(s).
b. It is the responsibility of the instructor, check airman, or
representative of the administrator conducting training, testing, or
checking to exercise reasonable and prudent judgment to determine if
any MMI component is necessary for the satisfactory completion of a
specific maneuver, procedure, or task.
c. If the 29th or 30th day of the 30-day period described in
Sec. 60.25(b) is on a Saturday, a Sunday, or a holiday, the FAA
will extend the deadline until the next business day.
d. In accordance with the authorization described in Sec.
60.25(b), the sponsor may develop a discrepancy prioritizing system
to accomplish repairs based on the level of impact on the capability
of the FFS. Repairs having a larger impact on FFS capability to
provide the required training, evaluation, or flight experience will
have a higher priority for repair or replacement.
End Information
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Automatic Loss of Qualification and Procedures for Restoration of
Qualification (Sec. 60.27)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Begin Information
If the sponsor provides a plan for how the FFS will be
maintained during its out-of-service period (e.g., periodic exercise
of mechanical, hydraulic, and electrical systems; routine
replacement of hydraulic fluid; control of the environmental factors
in which the FFS is to be maintained) there is a greater likelihood
that the NSPM will be able to determine the amount of testing
required for requalification.
End Information
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Other Losses of Qualification and Procedures for Restoration of
Qualification (Sec. 60.29)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 39489]]
Begin Information
If the sponsor provides a plan for how the FFS will be
maintained during its out-of-service period (e.g., periodic exercise
of mechanical, hydraulic, and electrical systems; routine
replacement of hydraulic fluid; control of the environmental factors
in which the FFS is to be maintained) there is a greater likelihood
that the NSPM will be able to determine the amount of testing
required for requalification.
End Information
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
21. Recordkeeping and Reporting (Sec. 60.31)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Begin QPS Requirements
a. FFS modifications can include hardware or software changes.
For FFS modifications involving software programming changes, the
record required by Sec. 60.31(a)(2) must consist of the name of the
aircraft system software, aerodynamic model, or engine model change,
the date of the change, a summary of the change, and the reason for
the change.
b. If a coded form for record keeping is used, it must provide
for the preservation and retrieval of information with appropriate
security or controls to prevent the inappropriate alteration of such
records after the fact.
End QPS Requirements
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
22. Applications, Logbooks, Reports, and Records: Fraud, Falsification,
or Incorrect Statements (Sec. 60.33)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Begin Information
No additional regulatory or informational material applies to
Sec. 60.33, Applications, Logbooks, Reports, and Records: Fraud,
Falsification, or Incorrect Statements.
23. Specific FFS Compliance Requirements (Sec. 60.35)
No additional regulatory or informational material applies to
Sec. 60.35, Specific FFS Compliance Requirements.
24. [Reserved]
25. FFS Qualification on the Basis of a Bilateral Aviation Safety
Agreement (BASA) (Sec. 60.37)
No additional regulatory or informational material applies to
Sec. 60.37, FFS Qualification on the Basis of a Bilateral Aviation
Safety Agreement (BASA).
End Information
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment 1 to Appendix A to Part 60--General Simulator Requirements
Begin QPS Requirements
1. Requirements
a. Certain requirements included in this appendix must be
supported with an SOC as defined in Appendix F, which may include
objective and subjective tests. The requirements for SOCs are
indicated in the ``General Simulator Requirements'' column in Table
A1A of this appendix.
b. Table A1A describes the requirements for the indicated level
of FFS. Many devices include operational systems or functions that
exceed the requirements outlined in this section. However, all
systems will be tested and evaluated in accordance with this
appendix to ensure proper operation.
End QPS Requirements
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Begin Information
2. Discussion
a. This attachment describes the general simulator requirements
for qualifying an airplane FFS. The sponsor should also consult the
objective tests in Attachment 2 of this appendix and the examination
of functions and subjective tests listed in Attachment 3 of this
appendix to determine the complete requirements for a specific level
simulator.
b. The material contained in this attachment is divided into the
following categories:
(1) General flight deck configuration.
(2) Simulator programming.
(3) Equipment operation.
(4) Equipment and facilities for instructor/evaluator functions.
(5) Motion system.
(6) Visual system.
(7) Sound system.
c. Table A1A provides the standards for the General Simulator
Requirements.
d. Table A1B provides the tasks that the sponsor will examine to
determine whether the FFS satisfactorily meets the requirements for
flight crew training, testing, and experience, and provides the
tasks for which the simulator may be qualified.
e. Table A1C provides the functions that an instructor/check
airman must be able to control in the simulator.
f. It is not required that all of the tasks that appear on the
List of Qualified Tasks (part of the SOQ) be accomplished during the
initial or continuing qualification evaluation.
End Information
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 39490]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.002
[[Page 39491]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.003
[[Page 39492]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.004
[[Page 39493]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.005
[[Page 39494]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.006
[[Page 39495]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.007
[[Page 39496]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.008
[[Page 39497]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.009
[[Page 39498]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.010
[[Page 39499]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.011
[[Page 39500]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.012
[[Page 39501]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.013
[[Page 39502]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.014
[[Page 39503]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.015
[[Page 39504]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.016
[[Page 39505]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.017
[[Page 39506]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.018
[[Page 39507]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.019
[[Page 39508]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.020
[[Page 39509]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.021
[[Page 39510]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.022
[[Page 39511]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.023
[[Page 39512]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.024
[[Page 39513]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.025
[[Page 39514]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.026
[[Page 39515]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.027
[[Page 39516]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.028
[[Page 39517]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.029
[[Page 39518]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.030
[[Page 39519]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.031
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Begin Information
1. Introduction
a. For the purposes of this attachment, the flight conditions
specified in the Flight Conditions Column of Table A2A of this
appendix, are defined as follows:
(1) Ground--on ground, independent of airplane configuration;
(2) Take-off--gear down with flaps/slats in any certified
takeoff position;
(3) First segment climb--gear down with flaps/slats in any
certified takeoff position (normally not above 50 ft AGL);
(4) Second segment climb--gear up with flaps/slats in any
certified takeoff position (normally between 50 ft and 400 ft AGL);
(5) Clean--flaps/slats retracted and gear up;
(6) Cruise--clean configuration at cruise altitude and airspeed;
(7) Approach--gear up or down with flaps/slats at any normal
approach position as recommended by the airplane manufacturer; and
(8) Landing--gear down with flaps/slats in any certified landing
position.
b. The format for numbering the objective tests in Appendix A,
Attachment 2, Table A2A, and the objective tests in Appendix B,
Attachment 2, Table B2A, is identical. However, each test required
for FFSs is not necessarily required for FTDs. Also, each test
required for FTDs is not necessarily required for FFSs. Therefore,
when a test number (or series of numbers) is not required, the term
``Reserved'' is used in the table at that location. Following this
numbering format provides a degree of commonality between the two
tables and substantially reduces the potential for confusion when
referring to objective test numbers for either FFSs or FTDs.
c. The reader is encouraged to review the Airplane Flight
Simulator Evaluation Handbook, Volumes I and II, published by the
Royal Aeronautical Society, London, UK, and AC 25-7, as amended,
Flight Test Guide for Certification of Transport Category Airplanes,
and AC 23-8, as amended, Flight Test Guide for Certification of Part
23 Airplanes, for references and examples regarding flight testing
requirements and techniques.
d. If relevant winds are present in the objective data, the wind
vector should be clearly noted as part of the data presentation,
expressed in conventional terminology, and related to the runway
being used for the test.
End Information
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Begin QPS Requirements
2. Test Requirements
a. The ground and flight tests required for qualification are
listed in Table of A2A, FFS Objective Tests. Computer generated
simulator test results must be provided for each test except where
an alternative test is specifically authorized by the NSPM. If a
flight condition or operating condition is required for the test but
does not apply to the airplane being simulated or to the
qualification level sought, it may be disregarded (e.g., an engine
out missed approach for a single-engine airplane or a maneuver using
reverse thrust for an airplane without reverse thrust capability).
Each test result is compared against the validation data described
in Sec. 60.13 and in this appendix. Although use of a driver
program designed to automatically accomplish the tests is encouraged
for all simulators and required for Level C and Level D simulators,
it must be possible to conduct each test manually while recording
all appropriate parameters. The results must be produced on an
appropriate recording device acceptable to the NSPM and must include
simulator number, date, time, conditions, tolerances, and
appropriate dependent variables portrayed in comparison to the
validation data. Time histories are required unless
[[Page 39520]]
otherwise indicated in Table A2A. All results must be labeled using
the tolerances and units given.
b. Table A2A in this attachment sets out the test results
required, including the parameters, tolerances, and flight
conditions for simulator validation. Tolerances are provided for the
listed tests because mathematical modeling and acquisition and
development of reference data are often inexact. All tolerances
listed in the following tables are applied to simulator performance.
When two tolerance values are given for a parameter, the less
restrictive may be used unless otherwise indicated. In those cases
where a tolerance is expressed only as a percentage, the tolerance
percentage applies to the maximum value of that parameter within its
normal operating range as measured from the neutral or zero position
unless otherwise indicated.
c. Certain tests included in this attachment must be supported
with an SOC. In Table A2A, requirements for SOCs are indicated in
the ``Test Details'' column.
d. When operational or engineering judgment is used in making
assessments for flight test data applications for simulator
validity, such judgment must not be limited to a single parameter.
For example, data that exhibit rapid variations of the measured
parameters may require interpolations or a ``best fit'' data
selection. All relevant parameters related to a given maneuver or
flight condition must be provided to allow overall interpretation.
When it is difficult or impossible to match simulator to airplane
data throughout a time history, differences must be justified by
providing a comparison of other related variables for the condition
being assessed.
e. It is not acceptable to program the FFS so that the
mathematical modeling is correct only at the validation test points.
Unless otherwise noted, simulator tests must represent airplane
performance and handling qualities at operating weights and centers
of gravity (CG) typical of normal operation. If a test is supported
by airplane data at one extreme weight or CG, another test supported
by airplane data at mid-conditions or as close as possible to the
other extreme must be included. Certain tests that are relevant only
at one extreme CG or weight condition need not be repeated at the
other extreme. Tests of handling qualities must include validation
of augmentation devices.
f. When comparing the parameters listed to those of the
airplane, sufficient data must also be provided to verify the
correct flight condition and airplane configuration changes. For
example, to show that control force is within the parameters for a
static stability test, data to show the correct airspeed, power,
thrust or torque, airplane configuration, altitude, and other
appropriate datum identification parameters must also be given. If
comparing short period dynamics, normal acceleration may be used to
establish a match to the airplane, but airspeed, altitude, control
input, airplane configuration, and other appropriate data must also
be given. If comparing landing gear change dynamics, pitch,
airspeed, and altitude may be used to establish a match to the
airplane, but landing gear position must also be provided. All
airspeed values must be properly annotated (e.g., indicated versus
calibrated). In addition, the same variables must be used for
comparison (e.g., compare inches to inches rather than inches to
centimeters).
g. The QTG provided by the sponsor must clearly describe how the
simulator will be set up and operated for each test. Each simulator
subsystem may be tested independently, but overall integrated
testing of the simulator must be accomplished to assure that the
total simulator system meets the prescribed standards. A manual test
procedure with explicit and detailed steps for completing each test
must also be provided.
h. For previously qualified simulators, the tests and tolerances
of this attachment may be used in subsequent continuing
qualification evaluations for any given test if the sponsor has
submitted a proposed MQTG revision to the NSPM and has received NSPM
approval.
i. Simulators are evaluated and qualified with an engine model
simulating the airplane data supplier's flight test engine. For
qualification of alternative engine models (either variations of the
flight test engines or other manufacturer's engines) additional
tests with the alternative engine models may be required. This
attachment contains guidelines for alternative engines.
j. For testing Computer Controlled Aircraft (CCA) simulators, or
other highly augmented airplane simulators, flight test data is
required for the Normal (N) and/or Non-normal (NN) control states,
as indicated in this attachment. Where test results are independent
of control state, Normal or Non-normal control data may be used. All
tests in Table A2A require test results in the Normal control state
unless specifically noted otherwise in the Test Details section
following the CCA designation. The NSPM will determine what tests
are appropriate for airplane simulation data. When making this
determination, the NSPM may require other levels of control state
degradation for specific airplane tests. Where Non-normal control
states are required, test data must be provided for one or more Non-
normal control states, and must include the least augmented state.
Where applicable, flight test data must record Normal and Non-normal
states for:
(1) Pilot controller deflections or electronically generated
inputs, including location of input; and
(2) Flight control surface positions unless test results are not
affected by, or are independent of, surface positions.
k. Tests of handling qualities must include validation of
augmentation devices. FFSs for highly augmented airplanes will be
validated both in the unaugmented configuration (or failure state
with the maximum permitted degradation in handling qualities) and
the augmented configuration. Where various levels of handling
qualities result from failure states, validation of the effect of
the failure is necessary. Requirements for testing will be mutually
agreed to between the sponsor and the NSPM on a case-by-case basis.
l. Some tests will not be required for airplanes using airplane
hardware in the simulator flight deck (e.g., ``side stick
controller''). These exceptions are noted in Section 2 ``Handling
Qualities'' in Table A2A of this attachment. However, in these
cases, the sponsor must provide a statement that the airplane
hardware meets the appropriate manufacturer's specifications and the
sponsor must have supporting information to that fact available for
NSPM review.
m. For objective test purposes, see Appendix F of this part for
the definitions of ``Near maximum,'' ``Light,'' and ``Medium'' gross
weight.
End QPS Requirements
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Begin Information
n. In those cases where the objective test results authorize a
``snapshot test'' or a ``series of snapshot tests'' results in lieu
of a time-history result, the sponsor or other data provider must
ensure that a steady state condition exists at the instant of time
captured by the ``snapshot.'' The steady state condition should
exist from 4 seconds prior to, through 1 second following, the
instant of time captured by the snap shot.
o. For references on basic operating weight, see AC 120-27,
``Aircraft Weight and Balance;'' and FAA- H-8083-1, ``Aircraft
Weight and Balance Handbook.''
End Information
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 39521]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.033
[[Page 39522]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.034
[[Page 39523]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.035
[[Page 39524]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.036
[[Page 39525]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.037
[[Page 39526]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.038
[[Page 39527]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.039
[[Page 39528]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.040
[[Page 39529]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.041
[[Page 39530]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.042
[[Page 39531]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.043
[[Page 39532]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.044
[[Page 39533]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.045
[[Page 39534]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.046
[[Page 39535]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.047
[[Page 39536]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.048
[[Page 39537]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.049
[[Page 39538]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.050
[[Page 39539]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.051
[[Page 39540]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.052
[[Page 39541]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.053
[[Page 39542]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.054
[[Page 39543]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.055
[[Page 39544]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.056
[[Page 39545]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.057
[[Page 39546]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.058
[[Page 39547]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.059
[[Page 39548]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.060
[[Page 39549]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.061
[[Page 39550]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.062
[[Page 39551]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.063
[[Page 39552]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.064
[[Page 39553]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.065
[[Page 39554]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.066
[[Page 39555]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.067
[[Page 39556]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.068
[[Page 39557]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.069
[[Page 39558]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.070
[[Page 39559]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.071
[[Page 39560]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.072
[[Page 39561]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.073
[[Page 39562]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.074
[[Page 39563]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.075
[[Page 39564]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.076
[[Page 39565]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Begin Information
3. General
a. If relevant winds are present in the objective data, the wind
vector should be clearly noted as part of the data presentation,
expressed in conventional terminology, and related to the runway
being used for test near the ground.
b. The reader is encouraged to review the Airplane Flight
Simulator Evaluation Handbook, Volumes I and II, published by the
Royal Aeronautical Society, London, UK, and AC 25-7, as amended,
Flight Test Guide for Certification of Transport Category Airplanes,
and AC 23-8, as amended, Flight Test Guide for Certification of Part
23 Airplanes, for references and examples regarding flight testing
requirements and techniques.
4. Control Dynamics
a. General. The characteristics of an airplane flight control
system have a major effect on handling qualities. A significant
consideration in pilot acceptability of an airplane is the ``feel''
provided through the flight controls. Considerable effort is
expended on airplane feel system design so that pilots will be
comfortable and will consider the airplane desirable to fly. In
order for an FFS to be representative, it should ``feel'' like the
airplane being simulated. Compliance with this requirement is
determined by comparing a recording of the control feel dynamics of
the FFS to actual airplane measurements in the takeoff, cruise and
landing configurations.
(1) Recordings such as free response to an impulse or step
function are classically used to estimate the dynamic properties of
electromechanical systems. In any case, it is only possible to
estimate the dynamic properties as a result of being able to
estimate true inputs and responses. Therefore, it is imperative that
the best possible data be collected since close matching of the FFS
control loading system to the airplane system is essential. The
required dynamic control tests are described in Table A2A of this
attachment.
(2) For initial and upgrade evaluations, the QPS requires that
control dynamics characteristics be measured and recorded directly
from the flight controls (Handling Qualities--Table A2A). This
procedure is usually accomplished by measuring the free response of
the controls using a step or impulse input to excite the system. The
procedure should be accomplished in the takeoff, cruise and landing
flight conditions and configurations.
(3) For airplanes with irreversible control systems,
measurements may be obtained on the ground if proper pitot-static
inputs are provided to represent airspeeds typical of those
encountered in flight. Likewise, it may be shown that for some
airplanes, takeoff, cruise, and landing configurations have like
effects. Thus, one may suffice for another. In either case,
engineering validation or airplane manufacturer rationale should be
submitted as justification for ground tests or for eliminating a
configuration. For FFSs requiring static and dynamic tests at the
controls, special test fixtures will not be required during initial
and upgrade evaluations if the QTG shows both test fixture results
and the results of an alternate approach (e.g., computer plots that
were produced concurrently and show satisfactory agreement). Repeat
of the alternate method during the initial evaluation satisfies this
test requirement.
b. Control Dynamics Evaluation. The dynamic properties of
control systems are often stated in terms of frequency, damping and
a number of other classical measurements. In order to establish a
consistent means of validating test results for FFS control loading,
criteria are needed that will clearly define the measurement
interpretation and the applied tolerances. Criteria are needed for
underdamped, critically damped and overdamped systems. In the case
of an underdamped system with very light damping, the system may be
quantified in terms of frequency and damping. In critically damped
or overdamped systems, the frequency and damping are not readily
measured from a response time history. Therefore, the following
suggested measurements may be used:
(1) For Level C and D simulators. Tests to verify that control
feel dynamics represent the airplane should show that the dynamic
damping cycles (free response of the controls) match those of the
airplane within specified tolerances. The NSPM recognizes that
several different testing methods may be used to verify the control
feel dynamic response. The NSPM will consider the merits of testing
methods based on reliability and consistency. One acceptable method
of evaluating the response and the tolerance to be applied is
described below for the underdamped and critically damped cases. A
sponsor using this method to comply with the QPS requirements should
perform the tests as follows:
(a) Underdamped response. Two measurements are required for the
period, the time to first zero crossing (in case a rate limit is
present) and the subsequent frequency of oscillation. It is
necessary to measure cycles on an individual basis in case there are
non-uniform periods in the response. Each period will be
independently compared to the respective period of the airplane
control system and, consequently, will enjoy the full tolerance
specified for that period. The damping tolerance will be applied to
overshoots on an individual basis. Care should be taken when
applying the tolerance to small overshoots since the significance of
such overshoots becomes questionable. Only those overshoots larger
than 5 per cent of the total initial displacement should be
considered. The residual band, labeled T(Ad) on Figure
A2A is 5 percent of the initial displacement amplitude
Ad from the steady state value of the oscillation. Only
oscillations outside the residual band are considered significant.
When comparing FFS data to airplane data, the process should begin
by overlaying or aligning the FFS and airplane steady state values
and then comparing amplitudes of oscillation peaks, the time of the
first zero crossing and individual periods of oscillation. The FFS
should show the same number of significant overshoots to within one
when compared against the airplane data. The procedure for
evaluating the response is illustrated in Figure A2A.
(b) Critically damped and overdamped response. Due to the nature
of critically damped and overdamped responses (no overshoots), the
time to reach 90 percent of the steady state (neutral point) value
should be the same as the airplane within 10 percent.
Figure A2B illustrates the procedure.
(c) Special considerations. Control systems that exhibit
characteristics other than classical overdamped or underdamped
responses should meet specified tolerances. In addition, special
consideration should be given to ensure that significant trends are
maintained.
(2) Tolerances.
(a) The following table summarizes the tolerances, T, for
underdamped systems, and ``n'' is the sequential period of a full
cycle of oscillation. See Figure A2A of this attachment for an
illustration of the referenced measurements.
T(P0) 10% of P0
T(P1) 20% of P1
T(P2) 30% of P2
T(Pn) 10(n+1)% of Pn
T(An) 10% of A1
T(Ad) 5% of Ad = residual band
Significant overshoots First overshoot and 1 subsequent
overshoots
(b) The following tolerance applies to critically damped and
overdamped systems only. See Figure A2B for an illustration of the
reference measurements:
T(P0) 10% of P0
End Information
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Begin QPS Requirement
c. Alternative method for control dynamics evaluation.
(1) An alternative means for validating control dynamics for
aircraft with hydraulically powered flight controls and artificial
feel systems is by the measurement of control force and rate of
movement. For each axis of pitch, roll, and yaw, the control must be
forced to its maximum extreme position for the following distinct
rates. These tests are conducted under normal flight and ground
conditions.
(a) Static test--Slowly move the control so that a full sweep is
achieved within 95 to 105 seconds. A full sweep is defined as
movement of the controller from neutral to the stop, usually aft or
right stop, then to the opposite stop, then to the neutral position.
(b) Slow dynamic test--Achieve a full sweep within 8-12 seconds.
(c) Fast dynamic test--Achieve a full sweep within 3-5 seconds.
Note: Dynamic sweeps may be limited to forces not exceeding 100
lbs. (44.5 daN).
(d) Tolerances
(i) Static test; see Table A2A, FFS Objective Tests, Entries
2.a.1., 2.a.2., and 2.a.3.
(ii) Dynamic test-- 2 lbs (0.9 daN) or
10% on dynamic increment above static test.
[[Page 39566]]
End QPS Requirement
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Begin Information
d. The FAA is open to alternative means such as the one
described above. The alternatives should be justified and
appropriate to the application. For example, the method described
here may not apply to all manufacturers' systems and certainly not
to aircraft with reversible control systems. Each case is considered
on its own merit on an ad hoc basis. If the FAA finds that
alternative methods do not result in satisfactory performance, more
conventionally accepted methods will have to be used.
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
[[Page 39567]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.077
BILLING CODE 4910-13-C
5. Ground Effect
a. For an FFS to be used for take-off and landing (not
applicable to Level A simulators in that the landing maneuver may
not be credited in a Level A simulator) it should reproduce the
aerodynamic changes that occur in ground effect. The parameters
[[Page 39568]]
chosen for FFS validation should indicate these changes.
(1) A dedicated test should be provided that will validate the
aerodynamic ground effect characteristics.
(2) The organization performing the flight tests may select
appropriate test methods and procedures to validate ground effect.
However, the flight tests should be performed with enough duration
near the ground to sufficiently validate the ground-effect model.
b. The NSPM will consider the merits of testing methods based on
reliability and consistency. Acceptable methods of validating ground
effect are described below. If other methods are proposed, rationale
should be provided to conclude that the tests performed validate the
ground-effect model. A sponsor using the methods described below to
comply with the QPS requirements should perform the tests as
follows:
(1) Level fly-bys. The level fly-bys should be conducted at a
minimum of three altitudes within the ground effect, including one
at no more than 10% of the wingspan above the ground, one each at
approximately 30% and 50% of the wingspan where height refers to
main gear tire above the ground. In addition, one level-flight trim
condition should be conducted out of ground effect (e.g., at 150% of
wingspan).
(2) Shallow approach landing. The shallow approach landing
should be performed at a glide slope of approximately one degree
with negligible pilot activity until flare.
c. The lateral-directional characteristics are also altered by
ground effect. For example, because of changes in lift, roll damping
is affected. The change in roll damping will affect other dynamic
modes usually evaluated for FFS validation. In fact, Dutch roll
dynamics, spiral stability, and roll-rate for a given lateral
control input are altered by ground effect. Steady heading sideslips
will also be affected. These effects should be accounted for in the
FFS modeling. Several tests such as crosswind landing, one engine
inoperative landing, and engine failure on take-off serve to
validate lateral-directional ground effect since portions of these
tests are accomplished as the aircraft is descending through heights
above the runway at which ground effect is an important factor.
6. Motion System
a. General.
(1) Pilots use continuous information signals to regulate the
state of the airplane. In concert with the instruments and outside-
world visual information, whole-body motion feedback is essential in
assisting the pilot to control the airplane dynamics, particularly
in the presence of external disturbances. The motion system should
meet basic objective performance criteria, and should be
subjectively tuned at the pilot's seat position to represent the
linear and angular accelerations of the airplane during a prescribed
minimum set of maneuvers and conditions. The response of the motion
cueing system should also be repeatable.
(2) The Motion System tests in Section 3 of Table A2A are
intended to qualify the FFS motion cueing system from a mechanical
performance standpoint. Additionally, the list of motion effects
provides a representative sample of dynamic conditions that should
be present in the flight simulator. An additional list of
representative, training-critical maneuvers, selected from Section 1
(Performance tests), and Section 2 (Handling Qualities tests), in
Table A2A, that should be recorded during initial qualification (but
without tolerance) to indicate the flight simulator motion cueing
performance signature have been identified (reference Section 3.e).
These tests are intended to help improve the overall standard of FFS
motion cueing.
b. Motion System Checks. The intent of test 3a, Frequency
Response, test 3b, Leg Balance, and test 3c, Turn-Around Check, as
described in the Table of Objective Tests, is to demonstrate the
performance of the motion system hardware, and to check the
integrity of the motion set-up with regard to calibration and wear.
These tests are independent of the motion cueing software and should
be considered robotic tests.
c. Motion System Repeatability. The intent of this test is to
ensure that the motion system software and motion system hardware
have not degraded or changed over time. This diagnostic test should
be completed during continuing qualification checks in lieu of the
robotic tests. This will allow an improved ability to determine
changes in the software or determine degradation in the hardware.
The following information delineates the methodology that should be
used for this test.
(1) Input: The inputs should be such that rotational
accelerations, rotational rates, and linear accelerations are
inserted before the transfer from airplane center of gravity to
pilot reference point with a minimum amplitude of 5 deg/sec/sec, 10
deg/sec and 0.3 g, respectively, to provide adequate analysis of the
output.
(2) Recommended output:
(a) Actual platform linear accelerations; the output will
comprise accelerations due to both the linear and rotational motion
acceleration;
(b) Motion actuators position.
d. Objective Motion Cueing Test--Frequency Domain
(1) Background. This test quantifies the response of the motion
cueing system from the output of the flight model to the motion
platform response. Other motion tests, such as the motion system
frequency response, concentrate on the mechanical performance of the
motion system hardware alone. The intent of this test is to provide
quantitative frequency response records of the entire motion system
for specified degree-of-freedom transfer relationships over a range
of frequencies. This range should be representative of the manual
control range for that particular aircraft type and the simulator as
set up during qualification. The measurements of this test should
include the combined influence of the motion cueing algorithm, the
motion platform dynamics, and the transport delay associated with
the motion cueing and control system implementation. Specified
frequency responses describing the ability of the FSTD to reproduce
aircraft translations and rotations, as well as the cross-coupling
relations, are required as part of these measurements. When
simulating forward aircraft acceleration, the simulator is
accelerated momentarily in the forward direction to provide the
onset cueing. This is considered the direct transfer relation. The
simulator is simultaneously tilted nose-up due to the low-pass
filter in order to generate a sustained specific force. The tilt
associated with the generation of the sustained specific force, and
the angular rates and angular accelerations associated with the
initiation of the sustained specific force, are considered cross-
coupling relations. The specific force is required for the
perception of the aircraft sustained specific force, while the
angular rates and accelerations do not occur in the aircraft and
should be minimized.
(2) Frequency response test. This test requires the frequency
response to be measured for the motion cueing system. Reference
sinusoidal signals are inserted at the pilot reference position
prior to the motion cueing computations. The response of the motion
platform in the corresponding degree-of-freedom (the direct transfer
relations), as well as the motions resulting from cross-coupling
(the cross-coupling relations), are recorded. These are the tests
that are important to pilot motion cueing and are general tests
applicable to all types of airplanes. These tests can be run at any
time deemed acceptable to the NSPM prior to and/or during the
initial qualification.
(3) Transfer Functions. The frequency responses describe the
relations between aircraft motions and simulator motions. The
relations are explained below per individual test. Tests 1, 3, 5, 6,
8 and 10 show the direct transfer relations, while tests 2, 4, 7 and
9 show the cross-coupling relations.
1. FSTD pitch response to aircraft pitch input
2. FSTD surge specific force response due to aircraft pitch input
3. FSTD roll response to aircraft roll input
4. FSTD sway specific force response due to aircraft roll input
5. FSTD yaw response to aircraft yaw input
6. FSTD surge specific force response to aircraft surge input
7. FSTD pitch rate and pitch acceleration response to aircraft surge
input
8. FSTD sway specific force response to aircraft sway input
9. FSTD roll rate and pitch acceleration response to aircraft sway
input
10. FSTD heave specific force response to aircraft heave input
(4) Frequency Range. The tests should be conducted by
introducing sinusoidal inputs at discrete input frequencies entered
at the output of the flight model, transformed to the pilot
reference position just before the motion cueing computations, and
measured at the response of the FSTD platform. For each relation
defined in section (3), measurements must be taken in at least 12
discrete frequencies within a range of 0.0159 and 2.515 Hz.
(5) Input Signal Amplitude. The tests applied here to the motion
cueing system are intended to qualify its response to normal control
inputs during maneuvering (i.e. not aggressive or excessively hard
control inputs). It is necessary to excite the system in such a
manner that the response is measured with a high signal-to-noise
ratio,
[[Page 39569]]
and that the possible non-linear elements in the motion cueing
system are not overly excited.
(6) Presentation of Results. The measured modulus and phase
should be tabulated for the twelve frequencies and for each of the
transfer relations given section (3). The results should also be
plotted for each component in a modulus versus phase plot. The
modulus should range from 0.0 to 1.0 along the horizontal axis, and
the absolute value of the phase from 0 to 180 degrees along the
vertical axis. An example is shown in Figure A2C.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.079
e. Motion Vibrations.
(1) Presentation of results. The characteristic motion
vibrations may be used to verify that the flight simulator can
reproduce the frequency content of the airplane when flown in
specific conditions. The test results should be presented as a Power
Spectral Density (PSD) plot with frequencies on the horizontal axis
and amplitude on the vertical axis. The airplane data and flight
simulator data should be presented in the same format with the same
scaling. The algorithms used for generating the flight simulator
data should be the same as those used for the airplane data. If they
are not the same then the algorithms used for the flight simulator
data should be proven to be sufficiently comparable. As a minimum,
the results along the dominant axes should be presented and a
rationale for not presenting the other axes should be provided.
(2) Interpretation of results. The overall trend of the PSD plot
should be considered while focusing on the dominant frequencies.
Less emphasis should be placed on the differences at the high
frequency and low amplitude portions of the PSD plot. During the
analysis, certain structural components of the flight simulator have
resonant frequencies that are filtered and may not appear in the PSD
plot. If filtering is required, the notch filter bandwidth should be
limited to 1 Hz to ensure that the buffet feel is not adversely
affected. In addition, a rationale should be provided to explain
that the characteristic motion vibration is not being adversely
affected by the filtering. The amplitude should match airplane data
as described below. However, if the PSD plot was altered for
subjective reasons, a rationale should be provided to justify the
change. If the plot is on a logarithmic scale, it may be difficult
to interpret the amplitude of the buffet in terms of acceleration.
For example, a 1 x 10-3 g-rms\2\/Hz would describe a
heavy buffet and may be seen in the deep stall regime.
Alternatively, a 1 x 10-6 g-rms\2\/Hz buffet is almost
not perceivable; but may represent a flap buffet at low speed. The
previous two examples differ in magnitude by 1000. On a PSD plot
this represents three decades (one decade is a change in order of
magnitude of 10; and two decades is a change in order of magnitude
of 100).
Note: In the example, ``g-rms\2\ is the mathematical expression
for ``g's root mean squared.''
7. Sound System
a. General. The total sound environment in the airplane is very
complex, and changes with atmospheric conditions, airplane
configuration, airspeed, altitude, and power settings. Flight deck
sounds are an important component of the flight deck operational
environment and provide valuable information to the flight crew.
These aural cues can either assist the crew (as an indication of an
abnormal situation), or hinder the crew (as a distraction or
nuisance). For effective training, the flight simulator should
provide flight deck sounds that are perceptible to the pilot during
normal and abnormal operations, and comparable to those of the
airplane. The flight simulator operator should carefully evaluate
background noises in the location where the device will be
installed. To demonstrate compliance with the sound requirements,
the objective or validation tests in this attachment were selected
to provide a representative sample of normal static conditions
typically experienced by a pilot.
b. Alternate propulsion. For FFS with multiple propulsion
configurations, any condition listed in Table A2A of this attachment
should be presented for evaluation as part of the QTG if identified
by the airplane manufacturer or other data supplier as significantly
different due to a change in propulsion system (engine or
propeller).
c. Data and Data Collection System.
(1) Information provided to the flight simulator manufacturer
should be presented in the format suggested by the International Air
Transport Association (IATA) ``Flight Simulator Design and
Performance Data Requirements,'' as amended. This information should
contain calibration and frequency response data.
[[Page 39570]]
(2) The system used to perform the tests listed in Table A2A
should comply with the following standards:
(a) The specifications for octave, half octave, and third octave
band filter sets may be found in American National Standards
Institute (ANSI) S1.11-1986;
(b) Measurement microphones should be type WS2 or better, as
described in International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) 1094-4-
1995.
(3) Headsets. If headsets are used during normal operation of
the airplane they should also be used during the flight simulator
evaluation.
(4) Playback equipment. Playback equipment and recordings of the
QTG conditions should be provided during initial evaluations.
(5) Background noise.
(a) Background noise is the noise in the flight simulator that
is not associated with the airplane, but is caused by the flight
simulator's cooling and hydraulic systems and extraneous noise from
other locations in the building. Background noise can seriously
impact the correct simulation of airplane sounds and should be kept
below the airplane sounds. In some cases, the sound level of the
simulation can be increased to compensate for the background noise.
However, this approach is limited by the specified tolerances and by
the subjective acceptability of the sound environment to the
evaluation pilot.
(b) The acceptability of the background noise levels is
dependent upon the normal sound levels in the airplane being
represented. Background noise levels that fall below the lines
defined by the following points, may be acceptable:
(i) 70 dB @ 50 Hz;
(ii) 55 dB @ 1000 Hz;
(iii) 30 dB @ 16 kHz
(Note: These limits are for unweighted 1/3 octave band sound
levels. Meeting these limits for background noise does not ensure an
acceptable flight simulator. Airplane sounds that fall below this
limit require careful review and may require lower limits on
background noise.)
(6) Validation testing. Deficiencies in airplane recordings
should be considered when applying the specified tolerances to
ensure that the simulation is representative of the airplane.
Examples of typical deficiencies are:
(a) Variation of data between tail numbers;
(b) Frequency response of microphones;
(c) Repeatability of the measurements.
Table A2B--Example of Continuing Qualification Frequency Response Test Tolerance
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Continuing
Initial qualification Absolute
Band center frequency results results difference
(dBSPL) (dBSPL)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
50.............................................................. 75.0 73.8 1.2
63.............................................................. 75.9 75.6 0.3
80.............................................................. 77.1 76.5 0.6
100............................................................. 78.0 78.3 0.3
125............................................................. 81.9 81.3 0.6
160............................................................. 79.8 80.1 0.3
200............................................................. 83.1 84.9 1.8
250............................................................. 78.6 78.9 0.3
315............................................................. 79.5 78.3 1.2
400............................................................. 80.1 79.5 0.9
500............................................................. 80.7 79.8 0.9
630............................................................. 81.9 80.4 1.5
800............................................................. 73.2 74.1 0.9
1000............................................................ 79.2 80.1 0.9
1250............................................................ 80.7 82.8 2.1
1600............................................................ 81.6 78.6 3.0
2000............................................................ 76.2 74.4 1.8
2500............................................................ 79.5 80.7 1.2
3150............................................................ 80.1 77.1 3.0
4000............................................................ 78.9 78.6 0.3
5000............................................................ 80.1 77.1 3.0
6300............................................................ 80.7 80.4 0.3
8000............................................................ 84.3 85.5 1.2
10000........................................................... 81.3 79.8 1.5
12500........................................................... 80.7 80.1 0.6
16000........................................................... 71.1 71.1 0.0
--------------------------------
Average 1.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Additional Information About Flight Simulator Qualification for New
or Derivative Airplanes
a. Typically, an airplane manufacturer's approved final data for
performance, handling qualities, systems or avionics is not
available until well after a new or derivative airplane has entered
service. However, flight crew training and certification often
begins several months prior to the entry of the first airplane into
service. Consequently, it may be necessary to use preliminary data
provided by the airplane manufacturer for interim qualification of
flight simulators.
b. In these cases, the NSPM may accept certain partially
validated preliminary airplane and systems data, and early release
(`red label') avionics data in order to permit the necessary program
schedule for training, certification, and service introduction.
c. Simulator sponsors seeking qualification based on preliminary
data should consult the NSPM to make special arrangements for using
preliminary data for flight simulator qualification. The sponsor
should also consult the airplane and flight simulator manufacturers
to develop a data plan and flight simulator qualification plan.
d. The procedure to be followed to gain NSPM acceptance of
preliminary data will vary from case to case and between airplane
manufacturers. Each airplane manufacturer's new airplane development
and test program is designed to suit the needs of the particular
project and may not contain the same events or sequence of events as
another manufacturer's program, or even the same manufacturer's
program for a different airplane. Therefore, there cannot be a
prescribed invariable procedure for acceptance of preliminary data,
but instead there should be a statement describing the final
sequence of events, data sources, and validation procedures agreed
by the simulator sponsor, the airplane manufacturer, the flight
simulator manufacturer, and the NSPM.
Note: A description of airplane manufacturer-provided data
needed for flight simulator modeling and validation is to be
[[Page 39571]]
found in the IATA Document ``Flight Simulator Design and Performance
Data Requirements,'' as amended.
e. The preliminary data should be the manufacturer's best
representation of the airplane, with assurance that the final data
will not significantly deviate from the preliminary estimates. Data
derived from these predictive or preliminary techniques should be
validated against available sources including, at least, the
following:
(1) Manufacturer's engineering report. The report should explain
the predictive method used and illustrate past success of the method
on similar projects. For example, the manufacturer could show the
application of the method to an earlier airplane model or predict
the characteristics of an earlier model and compare the results to
final data for that model.
(2) Early flight test results. This data is often derived from
airplane certification tests, and should be used to maximum
advantage for early flight simulator validation. Certain critical
tests that would normally be done early in the airplane
certification program should be included to validate essential pilot
training and certification maneuvers. These include cases where a
pilot is expected to cope with an airplane failure mode or an engine
failure. Flight test data that will be available early in the flight
test program will depend on the airplane manufacturer's flight test
program design and may not be the same in each case. The flight test
program of the airplane manufacturer should include provisions for
generation of very early flight test results for flight simulator
validation.
f. The use of preliminary data is not indefinite. The airplane
manufacturer's final data should be available within 12 months after
the airplane's first entry into service or as agreed by the NSPM,
the simulator sponsor, and the airplane manufacturer. When applying
for interim qualification using preliminary data, the simulator
sponsor and the NSPM should agree on the update program. This
includes specifying that the final data update will be installed in
the flight simulator within a period of 12 months following the
final data release, unless special conditions exist and a different
schedule is acceptable. The flight simulator performance and
handling validation would then be based on data derived from flight
tests or from other approved sources. Initial airplane systems data
should be updated after engineering tests. Final airplane systems
data should also be used for flight simulator programming and
validation.
g. Flight simulator avionics should stay essentially in step
with airplane avionics (hardware and software) updates. The
permitted time lapse between airplane and flight simulator updates
should be minimal. It may depend on the magnitude of the update and
whether the QTG and pilot training and certification are affected.
Differences in airplane and flight simulator avionics versions and
the resulting effects on flight simulator qualification should be
agreed between the simulator sponsor and the NSPM. Consultation with
the flight simulator manufacturer is desirable throughout the
qualification process.
h. The following describes an example of the design data and
sources that might be used in the development of an interim
qualification plan.
(1) The plan should consist of the development of a QTG based
upon a mix of flight test and engineering simulation data. For data
collected from specific airplane flight tests or other flights, the
required design model or data changes necessary to support an
acceptable Proof of Match (POM) should be generated by the airplane
manufacturer.
(2) For proper validation of the two sets of data, the airplane
manufacturer should compare their simulation model responses against
the flight test data, when driven by the same control inputs and
subjected to the same atmospheric conditions as recorded in the
flight test. The model responses should result from a simulation
where the following systems are run in an integrated fashion and are
consistent with the design data released to the flight simulator
manufacturer:
(a) Propulsion
(b) Aerodynamics;
(c) Mass properties;
(d) Flight controls;
(e) Stability augmentation; and
(f) Brakes/landing gear.
i. A qualified test pilot should be used to assess handling
qualities and performance evaluations for the qualification of
flight simulators of new airplane types.
End Information
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Begin QPS Requirement
9. Engineering Simulator--Validation Data
a. When a fully validated simulation (i.e., validated with
flight test results) is modified due to changes to the simulated
airplane configuration, the airplane manufacturer or other
acceptable data supplier must coordinate with the NSPM if they
propose to supply validation data from an ``audited'' engineering
simulator/simulation to selectively supplement flight test data. The
NSPM must be provided an opportunity to audit the engineering
simulation or the engineering simulator used to generate the
validation data. Validation data from an audited engineering
simulation may be used for changes that are incremental in nature.
Manufacturers or other data suppliers must be able to demonstrate
that the predicted changes in aircraft performance are based on
acceptable aeronautical principles with proven success history and
valid outcomes. This must include comparisons of predicted and
flight test validated data.
b. Airplane manufacturers or other acceptable data suppliers
seeking to use an engineering simulator for simulation validation
data as an alternative to flight-test derived validation data, must
contact the NSPM and provide the following:
(1) A description of the proposed aircraft changes, a
description of the proposed simulation model changes, and the use of
an integral configuration management process, including a
description of the actual simulation model modifications that
includes a step-by-step description leading from the original
model(s) to the current model(s).
(2) A schedule for review by the NSPM of the proposed plan and
the subsequent validation data to establish acceptability of the
proposal.
(3) Validation data from an audited engineering simulator/
simulation to supplement specific segments of the flight test data.
c. To be qualified to supply engineering simulator validation
data, for aerodynamic, engine, flight control, or ground handling
models, an airplane manufacturer or other acceptable data supplier
must:
(1) Be able to verify their ability able to:
(a) Develop and implement high fidelity simulation models; and
(b) Predict the handling and performance characteristics of an
airplane with sufficient accuracy to avoid additional flight test
activities for those handling and performance characteristics.
(2) Have an engineering simulator that:
(a) Is a physical entity, complete with a flight deck
representative of the simulated class of airplane;
(b) Has controls sufficient for manual flight;
(c) Has models that run in an integrated manner;
(d) Has fully flight-test validated simulation models as the
original or baseline simulation models;
(e) Has an out-of-the-flight deck visual system;
(f) Has actual avionics boxes interchangeable with the
equivalent software simulations to support validation of released
software;
(g) Uses the same models as released to the training community
(which are also used to produce stand-alone proof-of-match and
checkout documents);
(h) Is used to support airplane development and certification;
and
(i) Has been found to be a high fidelity representation of the
airplane by the manufacturer's pilots (or other acceptable data
supplier), certificate holders, and the NSPM.
(3) Use the engineering simulator/simulation to produce a
representative set of integrated proof-of-match cases.
(4) Use a configuration control system covering hardware and
software for the operating components of the engineering simulator/
simulation.
(5) Demonstrate that the predicted effects of the change(s) are
within the provisions of sub-paragraph ``a'' of this section, and
confirm that additional flight test data are not required.
d. Additional Requirements for Validation Data
(1) When used to provide validation data, an engineering
simulator must meet the simulator standards currently applicable to
training simulators except for the data package.
(2) The data package used must be:
(a) Comprised of the engineering predictions derived from the
airplane design, development, or certification process;
(b) Based on acceptable aeronautical principles with proven
success history and valid outcomes for aerodynamics, engine
operations, avionics operations, flight control applications, or
ground handling;
[[Page 39572]]
(c) Verified with existing flight-test data; and
(d) Applicable to the configuration of a production airplane, as
opposed to a flight-test airplane.
(3) Where engineering simulator data are used as part of a QTG,
an essential match must exist between the training simulator and the
validation data.
(4) Training flight simulator(s) using these baseline and
modified simulation models must be qualified to at least
internationally recognized standards, such as contained in the ICAO
Document 9625, the ``Manual of Criteria for the Qualification of
Flight Simulators.''
End QPS Requirement
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10. [Reserved]
11. Validation Test Tolerances
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Begin Information
a. Non-Flight-Test Tolerances
(1) If engineering simulator data or other non-flight-test data
are used as an allowable form of reference validation data for the
objective tests listed in Table A2A of this attachment, the data
provider must supply a well-documented mathematical model and
testing procedure that enables a replication of the engineering
simulation results within 40% of the corresponding flight test
tolerances.
b. Background
(1) The tolerances listed in Table A2A of this attachment are
designed to measure the quality of the match using flight-test data
as a reference.
(2) Good engineering judgment should be applied to all
tolerances in any test. A test is failed when the results clearly
fall outside of the prescribed tolerance(s).
(3) Engineering simulator data are acceptable because the same
simulation models used to produce the reference data are also used
to test the flight training simulator (i.e., the two sets of results
should be ``essentially'' similar).
(4) The results from the two sources may differ for the
following reasons:
(a) Hardware (avionics units and flight controls);
(b) Iteration rates;
(c) Execution order;
(d) Integration methods;
(e) Processor architecture;
(f) Digital drift, including:
(i) Interpolation methods;
(ii) Data handling differences; and
(iii) Auto-test trim tolerances.
(5) The tolerance limit between the reference data and the
flight simulator results is generally 40% of the corresponding
`flight-test' tolerances. However, there may be cases where the
simulator models used are of higher fidelity, or the manner in which
they are cascaded in the integrated testing loop have the effect of
a higher fidelity, than those supplied by the data provider. Under
these circumstances, it is possible that an error greater than 20%
may be generated. An error greater than 40% may be acceptable if
simulator sponsor can provide an adequate explanation.
(6) Guidelines are needed for the application of tolerances to
engineering-simulator-generated validation data because:
(a) Flight-test data are often not available due to technical
reasons;
(b) Alternative technical solutions are being advanced; and
(c) High costs.
12. Validation Data Roadmap
a. Airplane manufacturers or other data suppliers should supply
a validation data roadmap (VDR) document as part of the data
package. A VDR document contains guidance material from the airplane
validation data supplier recommending the best possible sources of
data to be used as validation data in the QTG. A VDR is of special
value when requesting interim qualification, qualification of
simulators for airplanes certificated prior to 1992, and
qualification of alternate engine or avionics fits. A sponsor
seeking to have a device qualified in accordance with the standards
contained in this QPS appendix should submit a VDR to the NSPM as
early as possible in the planning stages. The NSPM is the final
authority to approve the data to be used as validation material for
the QTG. The NSPM and the Joint Aviation Authorities' Synthetic
Training Devices Advisory Board have committed to maintain a list of
agreed VDRs.
b. The VDR should identify (in matrix format) sources of data
for all required tests. It should also provide guidance regarding
the validity of these data for a specific engine type, thrust rating
configuration, and the revision levels of all avionics affecting
airplane handling qualities and performance. The VDR should include
rationale or explanation in cases where data or parameters are
missing, engineering simulation data are to be used, flight test
methods require explanation, or there is any deviation from data
requirements. Additionally, the document should refer to other
appropriate sources of validation data (e.g., sound and vibration
data documents).
c. The Sample Validation Data Roadmap (VDR) for airplanes, shown
in Table A2C, depicts a generic roadmap matrix identifying sources
of validation data for an abbreviated list of tests. This document
is merely a sample and does not provide actual data. A complete
matrix should address all test conditions and provide actual data
and data sources.
d. Two examples of rationale pages are presented in Appendix F
of the IATA ``Flight Simulator Design and Performance Data
Requirements.'' These illustrate the type of airplane and avionics
configuration information and descriptive engineering rationale used
to describe data anomalies or provide an acceptable basis for using
alternative data for QTG validation requirements.
End Information
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
[[Page 39573]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.080
[[Page 39574]]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-C
Begin Information
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Acceptance Guidelines for Alternative Engines Data
a. Background
(1) For a new airplane type, the majority of flight validation
data are collected on the first airplane configuration with a
``baseline'' engine type. These data are then used to validate all
flight simulators representing that airplane type.
(2) Additional flight test validation data may be needed for
flight simulators representing an airplane with engines of a
different type than the baseline, or for engines with thrust rating
that is different from previously validated configurations.
(3) When a flight simulator with alternate engines is to be
qualified, the QTG should contain tests against flight test
validation data for selected cases where engine differences are
expected to be significant.
b. Approval Guidelines For Validating Alternate Engine Applications
(1) The following guidelines apply to flight simulators
representing airplanes with alternate engine applications or with
more than one engine type or thrust rating.
(2) Validation tests can be segmented into two groups, those
that are dependent on engine type or thrust rating and those that
are not.
(3) For tests that are independent of engine type or thrust
rating, the QTG can be based on validation data from any engine
application. Tests in this category should be designated as
independent of engine type or thrust rating.
(4) For tests that are affected by engine type, the QTG should
contain selected engine-specific flight test data sufficient to
validate that particular airplane-engine configuration. These
effects may be due to engine dynamic characteristics, thrust levels
or engine-related airplane configuration changes. This category is
primarily characterized by variations between different engine
manufacturers' products, but also includes differences due to
significant engine design changes from a previously flight-validated
configuration within a single engine type. See Table A2D, Alternate
Engine Validation Flight Tests in this section for a list of
acceptable tests.
(5) Alternate engine validation data should be based on flight
test data, except as noted in sub-paragraphs 13.c.(1) and (2), or
where other data are specifically allowed (e.g., engineering
simulator/simulation data). If certification of the flight
characteristics of the airplane with a new thrust rating (regardless
of percentage change) does require certification flight testing with
a comprehensive stability and control flight instrumentation
package, then the conditions described in Table A2D in this section
should be obtained from flight testing and presented in the QTG.
Flight test data, other than throttle calibration data, are not
required if the new thrust rating is certified on the airplane
without need for a comprehensive stability and control flight
instrumentation package.
(6) As a supplement to the engine-specific flight tests listed
in Table A2D and baseline engine-independent tests, additional
engine-specific engineering validation data should be provided in
the QTG, as appropriate, to facilitate running the entire QTG with
the alternate engine configuration. The sponsor and the NSPM should
agree in advance on the specific validation tests to be supported by
engineering simulation data.
(7) A matrix or VDR should be provided with the QTG indicating
the appropriate validation data source for each test.
(8) The flight test conditions in Table A2D are appropriate and
should be sufficient to validate implementation of alternate engines
in a flight simulator.
End Information
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Begin QPS Requirement
c. Test Requirements
(1) The QTG must contain selected engine-specific flight test
data sufficient to validate the alternative thrust level when:
(a) the engine type is the same, but the thrust rating exceeds
that of a previously flight-test validated configuration by five
percent (5%) or more; or
(b) the engine type is the same, but the thrust rating is less
than the lowest previously flight-test validated rating by fifteen
percent (15%) or more. See Table A2D for a list of acceptable tests.
(2) Flight test data is not required if the thrust increase is
greater than 5%, but flight tests have confirmed that the thrust
increase does not change the airplane's flight characteristics.
(3) Throttle calibration data (i.e., commanded power setting
parameter versus throttle position) must be provided to validate all
alternate engine types and engine thrust ratings that are higher or
lower than a previously validated engine. Data from a test airplane
or engineering test bench with the correct engine controller (both
hardware and software) are required.
End QPS Requirement
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Begin QPS Requirement
Table A2D--Alternative Engine Validation Flight Tests
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Entry No. Test description Alternative Alternative
engine type thrust rating
\2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.b.1.................... Normal take-off/ground acceleration time and X X
1.b.4.................... distance
1.b.2.................... Vmcg, if performed for airplane certification X X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.b.5.................... Engine-out take-off...... Either test may be X ...............
performed..
1.b.8.................... Dynamic engine failure
after take-off
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.b.7.................... Rejected take-off if performed for airplane X
certification
1.d.1.................... Cruise performance X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.f.1.................... Engine acceleration and deceleration X X
1.f.2....................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.a.8.................... Throttle calibration \1\ X X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.c.1.................... Power change dynamics (acceleration) X X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.d.1.................... Vmca if performed for airplane certification X X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.d.5.................... Engine inoperative trim X X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.e.1.................... Normal landing X ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Must be provided for all changes in engine type or thrust rating; see paragraph 13.c.(3).
\2\ See paragraphs 13.c.(1) through13.c.(3), for a definition of applicable thrust ratings.
[[Page 39575]]
End QPS Requirement
Begin Information
14. Acceptance Guidelines for Alternative Avionics (Flight-Related
Computers and Controllers)
a. Background
(1) For a new airplane type, the majority of flight validation
data are collected on the first airplane configuration with a
``baseline'' flight-related avionics ship-set; (see subparagraph
b.(2) of this section). These data are then used to validate all
flight simulators representing that airplane type.
(2) Additional validation data may be required for flight
simulators representing an airplane with avionics of a different
hardware design than the baseline, or a different software revision
than previously validated configurations.
(3) When a flight simulator with additional or alternate
avionics configurations is to be qualified, the QTG should contain
tests against validation data for selected cases where avionics
differences are expected to be significant.
b. Approval Guidelines For Validating Alternate Avionics
(1) The following guidelines apply to flight simulators
representing airplanes with a revised avionics configuration, or
more than one avionics configuration.
(2) The baseline validation data should be based on flight test
data, except where other data are specifically allowed (e.g.,
engineering flight simulator data).
(3) The airplane avionics can be segmented into two groups,
systems or components whose functional behavior contributes to the
aircraft response presented in the QTG results, and systems that do
not. The following avionics are examples of contributory systems for
which hardware design changes or software revisions may lead to
significant differences in the aircraft response relative to the
baseline avionics configuration: Flight control computers and
controllers for engines, autopilot, braking system, nosewheel
steering system, and high lift system. Related avionics such as
stall warning and augmentation systems should also be considered.
(4) The acceptability of validation data used in the QTG for an
alternative avionics fit should be determined as follows:
(a) For changes to an avionics system or component that do not
affect QTG validation test response, the QTG test can be based on
validation data from the previously validated avionics
configuration.
(b) For an avionics change to a contributory system, where a
specific test is not affected by the change (e.g., the avionics
change is a Built In Test Equipment (BITE) update or a modification
in a different flight phase), the QTG test can be based on
validation data from the previously-validated avionics
configuration. The QTG should include authoritative justification
(e.g., from the airplane manufacturer or system supplier) that this
avionics change does not affect the test.
(c) For an avionics change to a contributory system, the QTG may
be based on validation data from the previously-validated avionics
configuration if no new functionality is added and the impact of the
avionics change on the airplane response is small and based on
acceptable aeronautical principles with proven success history and
valid outcomes. This should be supplemented with avionics-specific
validation data from the airplane manufacturer's engineering
simulation, generated with the revised avionics configuration. The
QTG should also include an explanation of the nature of the change
and its effect on the airplane response.
(d) For an avionics change to a contributory system that
significantly affects some tests in the QTG or where new
functionality is added, the QTG should be based on validation data
from the previously validated avionics configuration and
supplemental avionics-specific flight test data sufficient to
validate the alternate avionics revision. Additional flight test
validation data may not be needed if the avionics changes were
certified without the need for testing with a comprehensive flight
instrumentation package. The airplane manufacturer should coordinate
flight simulator data requirements, in advance with the NSPM.
(5) A matrix or ``roadmap'' should be provided with the QTG
indicating the appropriate validation data source for each test. The
roadmap should include identification of the revision state of those
contributory avionics systems that could affect specific test
responses if changed.
15. Transport Delay Testing
a. This paragraph explains how to determine the introduced
transport delay through the flight simulator system so that it does
not exceed a specific time delay. The transport delay should be
measured from control inputs through the interface, through each of
the host computer modules and back through the interface to motion,
flight instrument, and visual systems. The transport delay should
not exceed the maximum allowable interval.
b. Four specific examples of transport delay are:
(1) Simulation of classic non-computer controlled aircraft;
(2) Simulation of computer controlled aircraft using real
airplane black boxes;
(3) Simulation of computer controlled aircraft using software
emulation of airplane boxes;
(4) Simulation using software avionics or re-hosted instruments.
c. Figure A2D illustrates the total transport delay for a non-
computer-controlled airplane or the classic transport delay test.
Since there are no airplane-induced delays for this case, the total
transport delay is equivalent to the introduced delay.
d. Figure A2E illustrates the transport delay testing method
using the real airplane controller system.
e. To obtain the induced transport delay for the motion,
instrument and visual signal, the delay induced by the airplane
controller should be subtracted from the total transport delay. This
difference represents the introduced delay and should not exceed the
standards prescribed in Table A1A.
f. Introduced transport delay is measured from the flight deck
control input to the reaction of the instruments and motion and
visual systems (See Figure A2D).
g. The control input may also be introduced after the airplane
controller system and the introduced transport delay measured
directly from the control input to the reaction of the instruments,
and simulator motion and visual systems (See Figure A2E).
h. Figure A2F illustrates the transport delay testing method
used on a flight simulator that uses a software emulated airplane
controller system.
i. It is not possible to measure the introduced transport delay
using the simulated airplane controller system architecture for the
pitch, roll and yaw axes. Therefore, the signal should be measured
directly from the pilot controller. The flight simulator
manufacturer should measure the total transport delay and subtract
the inherent delay of the actual airplane components because the
real airplane controller system has an inherent delay provided by
the airplane manufacturer. The flight simulator manufacturer should
ensure that the introduced delay does not exceed the standards
prescribed in Table A1A.
j. Special measurements for instrument signals for flight
simulators using a real airplane instrument display system instead
of a simulated or re-hosted display. For flight instrument systems,
the total transport delay should be measured and the inherent delay
of the actual airplane components subtracted to ensure that the
introduced delay does not exceed the standards prescribed in Table
A1A.
(1) Figure A2GA illustrates the transport delay procedure
without airplane display simulation. The introduced delay consists
of the delay between the control movement and the instrument change
on the data bus.
(2) Figure A2GB illustrates the modified testing method required
to measure introduced delay due to software avionics or re-hosted
instruments. The total simulated instrument transport delay is
measured and the airplane delay should be subtracted from this
total. This difference represents the introduced delay and should
not exceed the standards prescribed in Table A1A. The inherent delay
of the airplane between the data bus and the displays is indicated
in figure A2GA. The display manufacturer should provide this delay
time.
k. Recorded signals. The signals recorded to conduct the
transport delay calculations should be explained on a schematic
block diagram. The flight simulator manufacturer should also provide
an explanation of why each signal was selected and how they relate
to the above descriptions.
l. Interpretation of results. Flight simulator results vary over
time from test to test due to ``sampling uncertainty.'' All flight
simulators run at a specific rate where all modules are executed
sequentially in the host computer. The flight controls input can
occur at any time in the iteration, but these data will not be
processed before the start of the new iteration. For example, a
flight simulator running at 60 Hz may have a difference of as much
as 16.67 msec between test results. This does not mean that the test
has failed. Instead, the difference is
[[Page 39576]]
attributed to variations in input processing. In some conditions,
the host simulator and the visual system do not run at the same
iteration rate, so the output of the host computer to the visual
system will not always be synchronized.
m. The transport delay test should account for both daylight and
night modes of operation of the visual system. In both cases, the
tolerances prescribed in Table A1A must be met and the motion
response should occur before the end of the first video scan
containing new information.
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.081
[[Page 39577]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.082
BILLING CODE 4910-13-C
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Begin Information
16. Continuing Qualification Evaluations--Validation Test Data
Presentation
a. Background
(1) The MQTG is created during the initial evaluation of a
flight simulator. This is the master document, as amended, to which
flight simulator continuing qualification evaluation test results
are compared.
(2) The currently accepted method of presenting continuing
qualification evaluation test results is to provide flight simulator
results over-plotted with reference data. Test results are carefully
reviewed to determine if the test is within the specified
tolerances. This can be a time consuming process, particularly when
reference data exhibits rapid variations or an apparent anomaly
requiring engineering judgment in the application of the tolerances.
In these cases, the solution is to compare the results to the MQTG.
The continuing qualification results are compared to the results in
the MQTG for acceptance. The flight simulator operator and the NSPM
should look for any change in the flight simulator performance since
initial qualification.
b. Continuing Qualification Evaluation Test Results Presentation
(1) Flight simulator operators are encouraged to over-plot
continuing qualification validation test results with MQTG flight
simulator results recorded during the initial evaluation and as
amended. Any change in a validation test will be readily apparent.
In addition to plotting continuing qualification validation test and
MQTG results, operators may elect to plot reference data as well.
(2) There are no suggested tolerances between flight simulator
continuing qualification and MQTG validation test results.
Investigation of any discrepancy between the MQTG and continuing
qualification flight simulator performance is left to the discretion
of the flight simulator operator and the NSPM.
(3) Differences between the two sets of results, other than
variations attributable to repeatability issues that cannot be
explained, should be investigated.
(4) The flight simulator should retain the ability to over-plot
both automatic and manual validation test results with reference
data.
End Information
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Begin QPS Requirements
17. Alternative Data Sources, Procedures, and Instrumentation: Level A
and Level B Simulators Only
a. Sponsors are not required to use the alternative data
sources, procedures, and instrumentation. However, a sponsor may
choose to use one or more of the alternative sources, procedures,
and instrumentation described in Table A2E.
End QPS Requirements
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Begin Information
b. It has become standard practice for experienced simulator
manufacturers to use
[[Page 39578]]
modeling techniques to establish data bases for new simulator
configurations while awaiting the availability of actual flight test
data. The data generated from the aerodynamic modeling techniques is
then compared to the flight test data when it becomes available. The
results of such comparisons have become increasingly consistent,
indicating that these techniques, applied with the appropriate
experience, are dependable and accurate for the development of
aerodynamic models for use in Level A and Level B simulators.
c. Based on this history of successful comparisons, the NSPM has
concluded that those who are experienced in the development of
aerodynamic models may use modeling techniques to alter the method
for acquiring flight test data for Level A or Level B simulators.
d. The information in Table A2E (Alternative Data Sources,
Procedures, and Instrumentation) is presented to describe an
acceptable alternative to data sources for simulator modeling and
validation and an acceptable alternative to the procedures and
instrumentation traditionally used to gather such modeling and
validation data.
(1) Alternative data sources that may be used for part or all of
a data requirement are the Airplane Maintenance Manual, the Airplane
Flight Manual (AFM), Airplane Design Data, the Type Inspection
Report (TIR), Certification Data or acceptable supplemental flight
test data.
(2) The sponsor should coordinate with the NSPM prior to using
alternative data sources in a flight test or data gathering effort.
e. The NSPM position regarding the use of these alternative data
sources, procedures, and instrumentation is based on the following
presumptions:
(1) Data gathered through the alternative means does not require
angle of attack (AOA) measurements or control surface position
measurements for any flight test. However, AOA can be sufficiently
derived if the flight test program ensures the collection of
acceptable level, unaccelerated, trimmed flight data. All of the
simulator time history tests that begin in level, unaccelerated, and
trimmed flight, including the three basic trim tests and ``fly-by''
trims, can be a successful validation of angle of attack by
comparison with flight test pitch angle. (Note: Due to the
criticality of angle of attack in the development of the ground
effects model, particularly critical for normal landings and
landings involving cross-control input applicable to Level B
simulators, stable ``fly-by'' trim data will be the acceptable norm
for normal and cross-control input landing objective data for these
applications.)
(2) The use of a rigorously defined and fully mature simulation
controls system model that includes accurate gearing and cable
stretch characteristics (where applicable), determined from actual
aircraft measurements. Such a model does not require control surface
position measurements in the flight test objective data in these
limited applications.
f. The sponsor is urged to contact the NSPM for clarification of
any issue regarding airplanes with reversible control systems. Table
A2E is not applicable to Computer Controlled Aircraft FFSs.
g. Utilization of these alternate data sources, procedures, and
instrumentation (Table A2E) does not relieve the sponsor from
compliance with the balance of the information contained in this
document relative to Level A or Level B FFSs.
h. The term ``inertial measurement system'' is used in the
following table to include the use of a functional global
positioning system (GPS).
i. Synchronized video for the use of alternative data sources,
procedures, and instrumentation should have:
(1) Sufficient resolution to allow magnification of the display
to make appropriate measurement and comparisons; and
(2) Sufficient size and incremental marking to allow similar
measurement and comparison. The detail provided by the video should
provide sufficient clarity and accuracy to measure the necessary
parameter(s) to at least \1/2\ of the tolerance authorized for the
specific test being conducted and allow an integration of the
parameter(s) in question to obtain a rate of change.
End Information
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
[[Page 39579]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.083
[[Page 39580]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.084
[[Page 39581]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.085
[[Page 39582]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.086
[[Page 39583]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.087
[[Page 39584]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.088
[[Page 39585]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.089
[[Page 39586]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.090
End Information
BILLING CODE 4910-13-C
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Begin Information
18. Visual Display Systems--Additional Information on Image Geometry
Testing
a. Background.
(1) The geometry of the final image as displayed to each pilot
should meet the criteria defined. This assumes that the individual
optical components have been tested to demonstrate a performance
that is adequate to achieve this end result.
b. Image Position. See test 4.a.2.a.1.
(1) When measured from the pilot's and co-pilot's eyepoint the
centre of the image should be positioned horizontally between 0
degrees and 2 degrees inboard and within 0.25 degree
vertically relative to the aircraft centreline taking into account
any designed vertical offset.
(2) The differential between the measurements of horizontal
position between each eyepoint should not exceed 1 degree.
(3) The tolerances are based on eye spacings of up to 53.3 cm (21 inches). Greater eye spacings should
be accompanied by an explanation of any additional tolerance
required.
c. Image Absolute Geometry. See test 4.a.2.a.2.
(1) The absolute geometry of any point on the image should not
exceed 3 degrees from the theoretical position. This tolerance
applies to the central 200 degrees by 40 degrees. For larger fields
of view, there should be no distracting discontinuities outside this
area.
d. Image Relative Geometry. See test 4.a.2.a.3.
(1) The relative geometry check is intended to test the
displayed image to demonstrate that there are no significant changes
in image size over a small angle of view. With high detail visual
systems, the eye can be a very
[[Page 39587]]
powerful comparator to discern changes in geometric size. If there
are large changes in image magnification over a small area of the
picture the image can appear to `swim' as it moves across the
mirror.
(2) The typical Mylar-based mirror system will naturally tend to
form a `bathtub' shape. This can cause magnification or `rush'
effects at the bottom and top of the image. These can be
particularly distracting in the lower half of the mirror when in the
final approach phase and hence should be minimized. The tolerances
are designed to try to keep these effects to an acceptable level
while accepting the technology is limited in its ability to produce
a perfect spherical shape.
(3) The 200[deg] x 40[deg] Field of View is divided up into 3
zones to set tolerances for relative geometry as shown in Figure B-
9. The testing of the relative geometry should be conducted as
follows:
(a) From the pilot's eye position, measure every visible 5
degree point on the vertical lines and horizontal lines. Also, at -
90, -60, -30, 0 and +15 degrees in azimuth, measure all visible 1
degree points from the -10[deg] point to the lowest visible point.
Note.--Not all points depicted on the pattern are measured, but they
may be measured if observation suggests a problem.
(b) From the co-pilot's eye position, measure every visible 5
degree point on the vertical lines and horizontal lines. Also, at
+90, +60, +30, 0 and -15 degrees in azimuth, measure all visible 1
degree points from the -10[deg] point to the lowest visible point.
Note.-- Not all points depicted on the pattern are measured, but
they may be measured if observation suggests a problem.
(c) The relative spacing of points should not exceed the
following tolerances when comparing the gap between one pair of dots
with the gap between an adjacent pair:
Zone 1 < 0.075 degree/degree.
Zone 2 < 0.15 degree/degree.
Zone 3 < 0.2 degree/degree.
(d) Where 5 degree gaps are being measured the tolerances should
be multiplied by 5, e.g., one 5 degree gap should not be more than
(5*0.075) = 0.375 deg. more or less than the adjacent gap when in
zone 1.
(e) For larger fields of view, there should be no distracting
discontinuities outside this area.
(4) For continuing qualification testing, the use of an optical
checking device is encouraged. This device should typically consist
of a hand-held go/no go gauge to check that the relative positioning
is maintained.
Figure A2H
Relative Geometry Test Pattern Showing Zones.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.091
Attachment 3 to Appendix A to Part 60--Simulator Subjective Evaluation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Begin QPS Requirements
1. Requirements.
a. Except for special use airport models, described as Class
III, all airport models required by this part must be
representations of real-world, operational airports or
representations of fictional airports and must meet the requirements
set out in Tables A3B or A3C of this attachment, as appropriate.
b. If fictional airports are used, the sponsor must ensure that
navigational aids and all appropriate maps, charts, and other
navigational reference material for the fictional airports (and
surrounding areas as necessary) are compatible, complete, and
accurate with respect to the visual presentation of the airport
model of this fictional airport. An SOC must be submitted that
addresses navigation aid installation and performance and other
criteria (including obstruction clearance protection) for all
instrument approaches to the fictional airports that are available
in the simulator. The SOC must reference and account for information
in the terminal instrument procedures manual and the construction
and availability of the required maps, charts, and other
navigational material. This material must be clearly marked ``for
training purposes only.''
c. When the simulator is being used by an instructor or
evaluator for purposes of training, checking, or testing under this
chapter, only airport models classified as Class I, Class II, or
Class III may be used by the instructor or evaluator. Detailed
descriptions/definitions of these classifications are found in
Appendix F of this part.
d. When a person sponsors an FFS maintained by a person other
than a U.S. certificate holder, the sponsor is accountable for that
FFS originally meeting, and continuing to meet, the criteria under
which it was originally qualified and the appropriate Part 60
criteria, including the airport models that may be used by
instructors or evaluators for purposes of training, checking, or
testing under this chapter.
e. Neither Class II nor Class III airport visual models are
required to appear on the SOQ, and the method used for keeping
instructors and evaluators apprised of the airport models that meet
Class II or Class III requirements on any given simulator is at the
option of the sponsor, but the method used must be available for
review by the TPAA.
f. When an airport model represents a real world airport and a
permanent change is made to that real world airport (e.g., a new
runway, an extended taxiway, a new lighting system, a runway
closure) without a written extension grant from the NSPM (described
in paragraph 1.g. of this section), an update to that airport model
must be made in accordance with the following time limits:
(1) For a new airport runway, a runway extension, a new airport
taxiway, a taxiway extension, or a runway/taxiway closure--within 90
days of the opening for use of the new airport runway, runway
extension, new airport taxiway, or taxiway extension; or within 90
days of the closure of the runway or taxiway.
(2) For a new or modified approach light system--within 45 days
of the activation of the new or modified approach light system.
(3) For other facility or structural changes on the airport
(e.g., new terminal, relocation of Air Traffic Control Tower)--
within 180 days of the opening of the new or changed facility or
structure.
g. If a sponsor desires an extension to the time limit for an
update to a visual scene or airport model or has an objection to
what
[[Page 39588]]
must be updated in the specific airport model requirement, the
sponsor must provide a written extension request to the NSPM stating
the reason for the update delay and a proposed completion date, or
explain why the update is not necessary (i.e., why the identified
airport change will not have an impact on flight training, testing,
or checking). A copy of this request or objection must also be sent
to the POI/TCPM. The NSPM will send the official response to the
sponsor and a copy to the POI/TCPM. If there is an objection, after
consultation with the appropriate POI/TCPM regarding the training,
testing, or checking impact, the NSPM will send the official
response to the sponsor and a copy to the POI/TCPM.
End QPS Requirements
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Begin Information
2. Discussion
a. The subjective tests provide a basis for evaluating the
capability of the simulator to perform over a typical utilization
period; determining that the simulator accurately simulates each
required maneuver, procedure, or task; and verifying correct
operation of the simulator controls, instruments, and systems. The
items listed in the following Tables are for simulator evaluation
purposes only. They may not be used to limit or exceed the
authorizations for use of a given level of simulator, as described
on the SOQ, or as approved by the TPAA.
b. The tests in Table A3A, Operations Tasks, in this attachment,
address pilot functions, including maneuvers and procedures (called
flight tasks), and are divided by flight phases. The performance of
these tasks by the NSPM includes an operational examination of the
visual system and special effects. There are flight tasks included
to address some features of advanced technology airplanes and
innovative training programs. For example, ``high angle-of-attack
maneuvering'' is included to provide a required alternative to
``approach to stalls'' for airplanes employing flight envelope
protection functions.
c. The tests in Table A3A, Operations Tasks, and Table A3G,
Instructor Operating Station of this attachment, address the overall
function and control of the simulator including the various
simulated environmental conditions; simulated airplane system
operations (normal, abnormal, and emergency); visual system
displays; and special effects necessary to meet flight crew
training, evaluation, or flight experience requirements.
d. All simulated airplane systems functions will be assessed for
normal and, where appropriate, alternate operations. Normal,
abnormal, and emergency operations associated with a flight phase
will be assessed during the evaluation of flight tasks or events
within that flight phase. Simulated airplane systems are listed
separately under ``Any Flight Phase'' to ensure appropriate
attention to systems checks. Operational navigation systems
(including inertial navigation systems, global positioning systems,
or other long-range systems) and the associated electronic display
systems will be evaluated if installed. The NSP pilot will include
in his report to the TPAA, the effect of the system operation and
any system limitation.
e. Simulators demonstrating a satisfactory circling approach
will be qualified for the circling approach maneuver and may be
approved for such use by the TPAA in the sponsor's FAA-approved
flight training program. To be considered satisfactory, the circling
approach will be flown at maximum gross weight for landing, with
minimum visibility for the airplane approach category, and must
allow proper alignment with a landing runway at least 90[deg]
different from the instrument approach course while allowing the
pilot to keep an identifiable portion of the airport in sight
throughout the maneuver (reference--14 CFR 91.175(e)).
f. At the request of the TPAA, the NSPM may assess a device to
determine if it is capable of simulating certain training activities
in a sponsor's training program, such as a portion of a Line
Oriented Flight Training (LOFT) scenario. Unless directly related to
a requirement for the qualification level, the results of such an
evaluation would not affect the qualification level of the
simulator. However, if the NSPM determines that the simulator does
not accurately simulate that training activity, the simulator would
not be approved for that training activity.
g. The FAA intends to allow the use of Class III airport models
when the sponsor provides the TPAA (or other regulatory authority)
an appropriate analysis of the skills, knowledge, and abilities
(SKAs) necessary for competent performance of the tasks in which
this particular media element is used. The analysis should describe
the ability of the FFS/visual media to provide an adequate
environment in which the required SKAs are satisfactorily performed
and learned. The analysis should also include the specific media
element, such as the airport model. Additional sources of
information on the conduct of task and capability analysis may be
found on the FAA's Advanced Qualification Program (AQP) Web site at:
http://www.faa.gov/education_research/training/aqp/.
h. The TPAA may accept Class III airport models without
individual observation provided the sponsor provides the TPAA with
an acceptable description of the process for determining the
acceptability of a specific airport model, outlines the conditions
under which such an airport model may be used, and adequately
describes what restrictions will be applied to each resulting
airport or landing area model. Examples of situations that may
warrant Class III model designation by the TPAA include the
following:
(a) Training, testing, or checking on very low visibility
operations, including SMGCS operations.
(b) Instrument operations training (including instrument
takeoff, departure, arrival, approach, and missed approach training,
testing, or checking) using--
(i) A specific model that has been geographically ``moved'' to a
different location and aligned with an instrument procedure for
another airport.
(ii) A model that does not match changes made at the real-world
airport (or landing area for helicopters) being modeled.
(iii) A model generated with an ``off-board'' or an ``on-board''
model development tool (by providing proper latitude/longitude
reference; correct runway or landing area orientation, length,
width, marking, and lighting information; and appropriate adjacent
taxiway location) to generate a facsimile of a real world airport or
landing area.
i. Previously qualified simulators with certain early generation
Computer Generated Image (CGI) visual systems, are limited by the
capability of the Image Generator or the display system used. These
systems are:
(1) Early CGI visual systems that are excepted from the
requirement of including runway numbers as a part of the specific
runway marking requirements are:
(a) Link NVS and DNVS.
(b) Novoview 2500 and 6000.
(c) FlightSafety VITAL series up to, and including, VITAL III,
but not beyond.
(d) Redifusion SP1, SP1T, and SP2.
(2) Early CGI visual systems are excepted from the requirement
of including runway numbers unless the runways are used for LOFT
training sessions. These LOFT airport models require runway numbers
but only for the specific runway end (one direction) used in the
LOFT session. The systems required to display runway numbers only
for LOFT scenes are:
(a) FlightSafety VITAL IV.
(b) Redifusion SP3 and SP3T.
(c) Link-Miles Image II.
(3) The following list of previously qualified CGI and display
systems are incapable of generating blue lights. These systems are
not required to have accurate taxi-way edge lighting:
(a) Redifusion SP1.
(b) FlightSafety Vital IV.
(c) Link-Miles Image II and Image IIT
(d) XKD displays (even though the XKD image generator is capable
of generating blue colored lights, the display cannot accommodate
that color).
End Information
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 39589]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.092
[[Page 39590]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.093
[[Page 39591]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.094
[[Page 39592]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.095
[[Page 39593]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.096
[[Page 39594]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.097
[[Page 39595]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.098
[[Page 39596]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.099
[[Page 39597]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.100
[[Page 39598]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.101
[[Page 39599]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.102
[[Page 39600]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.103
[[Page 39601]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.104
[[Page 39602]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.105
[[Page 39603]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.106
[[Page 39604]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.107
[[Page 39605]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.108
[[Page 39606]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.109
[[Page 39607]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.110
[[Page 39608]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.111
[[Page 39609]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.112
[[Page 39610]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.113
[[Page 39611]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.114
[[Page 39612]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.115
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Begin Information
1. Introduction
a. The following is an example test schedule for an Initial/
Upgrade evaluation that covers the majority of the requirements set
out in the Functions and Subjective test requirements. It is not
intended that the schedule be followed line by line, rather, the
example should be used as a guide for preparing a schedule that is
tailored to the airplane, sponsor, and training task.
b. Functions and subjective tests should be planned. This
information has been organized as a reference document with the
considerations, methods, and evaluation notes for each individual
aspect of the simulator task presented as an individual item. In
this way the evaluator can design his or her own test plan, using
the appropriate sections to provide guidance on method and
evaluation criteria. Two aspects should be present in any test plan
structure:
(1) An evaluation of the simulator to determine that it
replicates the aircraft and performs reliably for an uninterrupted
period equivalent to the length of a typical training session.
(2) The simulator should be capable of operating reliably after
the use of training device functions such as repositions or
malfunctions.
[[Page 39613]]
c. A detailed understanding of the training task will naturally
lead to a list of objectives that the simulator should meet. This
list will form the basis of the test plan. Additionally, once the
test plan has been formulated, the initial conditions and the
evaluation criteria should be established. The evaluator should
consider all factors that may have an influence on the
characteristics observed during particular training tasks in order
to make the test plan successful.
2. Events
a. Initial Conditions.
(1) Airport.
(2) QNH.
(3) Temperature.
(4) Wind/Crosswind.
(5) Zero Fuel Weight/Fuel/Gross Weight/Center of Gravity.
b. Initial Checks.
(1) Documentation of Simulator.
(a) Simulator Acceptance Test Manuals.
(b) Simulator Approval Test Guide.
(c) Technical Logbook Open Item List.
(d) Daily Functional Pre-flight Check.
(2) Documentation of User/Carrier Flight Logs.
(a) Simulator Operating/Instructor Manual.
(b) Difference List (Aircraft/Simulator).
(c) Flight Crew Operating Manuals.
(d) Performance Data for Different Fields.
(e) Crew Training Manual.
(f) Normal/Abnormal/Emergency Checklists.
(3) Simulator External Checks.
(a) Appearance and Cleanliness.
(b) Stairway/Access Bridge.
(c) Emergency Rope Ladders.
(d) ``Motion On''/``Flight in Progress'' Lights.
(4) Simulator Internal Checks.
(a) Cleaning/Disinfecting Towels (for cleaning oxygen masks).
(b) Flight deck Layout (compare with difference list).
(5) Equipment.
(a) Quick Donning Oxygen Masks.
(b) Head Sets.
(c) Smoke Goggles.
(d) Sun Visors.
(e) Escape Rope.
(f) Chart Holders.
(g) Flashlights.
(h) Fire Extinguisher (inspection date).
(i) Crash Axe.
(j) Gear Pins.
c. Power Supply and APU Start Checks.
(1) Batteries and Static Inverter.
(2) APU Start with Battery.
(3) APU Shutdown using Fire Handle.
(4) External Power Connection.
(5) APU Start with External Power.
(6) Abnormal APU Start/Operation.
d. Flight deck Checks.
(1) Flight deck Preparation Checks.
(2) FMC Programming.
(3) Communications and Navigational Aids Checks.
e. Engine Start.
(1) Before Start Checks.
(2) Battery start with Ground Air Supply Unit.
(3) Engine Crossbleed Start.
(4) Normal Engine Start.
(5) Abnormal Engine Starts.
(6) Engine Idle Readings.
(7) After Start Checks.
f. Taxi Checks.
(1) Pushback/Powerback.
(2) Taxi Checks.
(3) Ground Handling Check:
(a) Power required to initiate ground roll.
(b) Thrust response.
(c) Nosewheel and Pedal Steering.
(d) Nosewheel Scuffing.
(e) Perform 180 degree turns.
(f) Brakes Response and Differential Braking using Normal,
Alternate and Emergency.
(g) Brake Systems.
(h) Eye height and fore/aft position.
(4) Runway Roughness.
g. Visual Scene--Ground Assessment. Select 3 different airport
models and perform the following checks with Day, Dusk and Night
selected, as appropriate:
(1) Visual Controls.
(a) Daylight, Dusk, Night Scene Controls.
(b) Flight deck ``Daylight'' ambient lighting.
(c) Environment Light Controls.
(d) Runway Light Controls.
(e) Taxiway Light Controls.
(2) Airport Model Content.
(a) Ramp area for buildings, gates, airbridges, maintenance
ground Equipment, parked aircraft.
(b) Daylight shadows, night time light pools.
(c) Taxiways for correct markings, taxiway/runway, marker
boards, CAT I and II/III hold points, taxiway shape/grass areas,
taxiway light (positions and colors).
(d) Runways for correct markings, lead-off lights, boards,
runway slope, runway light positions, and colors, directionality of
runway lights.
(e) Airport environment for correct terrain and significant
features.
(f) Visual scene quantization (aliasing), color, and occulting
levels.
(3) Ground Traffic Selection.
(4) Environment Effects.
(a) Low cloud scene.
(i) Rain:
(A) Runway surface scene.
(B) Windshield wiper--operation and sound.
(ii) Hail:
(A) Runway surface scene.
(B) Windshield wiper--operation and sound.
(b) Lightning/thunder.
(c) Snow/ice runway surface scene.
(d) Fog.
h. Takeoff. Select one or several of the following test cases:
(1) T/O Configuration Warnings.
(2) Engine Takeoff Readings.
(3) Rejected Takeoff (Dry/Wet/Icy Runway) and check the
following:
(a) Autobrake function.
(b) Anti-skid operation.
(c) Motion/visual effects during deceleration.
(d) Record stopping distance (use runway plot or runway lights
remaining).
Continue taxiing along the runway while applying brakes and
check the following:
(e) Center line lights alternating red/white for 2000 feet/600
meters.
(f) Center line lights all red for 1000 feet/300 m.
(g) Runway end, red stop bars.
(h) Braking fade effect.
(i) Brake temperature indications.
(4) Engine Failure between VI and V2
(5) Normal Takeoff:
(a) During ground roll check the following:
(i) Runway rumble.
(ii) Acceleration cues.
(iii) Groundspeed effects.
(iv) Engine sounds.
(v) Nosewheel and rudder pedal steering.
(b) During and after rotation, check the following:
(i) Rotation characteristics.
(ii) Column force during rotation.
(iii) Gear uplock sounds/bumps.
(iv) Effect of slat/flap retraction during climbout.
(6) Crosswind Takeoff (check the following):
(a) Tendency to turn into or out of the wind.
(b) Tendency to lift upwind wing as airspeed increase.
(7) Windshear during Takeoff (check the following):
(a) Controllable during windshear encounter.
(b) Performance adequate when using correct techniques.
(c) Windshear Indications satisfactory.
(d) Motion cues satisfactory (particularly turbulence).
(8) Normal Takeoff with Control Malfunction
(9) Low Visibility T/O (check the following):
(a) Visual cues.
(b) Flying by reference to instruments.
(c) SID Guidance on LNAV.
i. Climb Performance. Select one or several of the following
test cases:
(1) Normal Climb--Climb while maintaining recommended speed
profile and note fuel, distance and time.
(2) Single Engine Climb--Trim aircraft in a zero wheel climb at
V2.
Note: Up to 5[deg] bank towards the operating engine(s) is
permissible. Climb for 3 minutes and note fuel, distance, and time.
Increase speed toward en route climb speed and retract flaps. Climb
for 3 minutes and note fuel, distance, and time.
j. Systems Operation During Climb.
Check normal operation and malfunctions as appropriate for the
following systems:
(1) Air conditioning/Pressurization/Ventilation.
(2) Autoflight.
(3) Communications.
(4) Electrical.
(5) Fuel.
(6) Icing Systems.
(7) Indicating and Recording systems.
(8) Navigation/FMS.
(9) Pneumatics.
k. Cruise Checks. Select one or several of the following test
cases:
(1) Cruise Performance.
(2) High Speed/High Altitude Handling (check the following):
(a) Overspeed warning.
(b) High Speed buffet.
(c) Aircraft control satisfactory.
[[Page 39614]]
(d) Envelope limiting functions on Computer Controlled Aircraft.
Reduce airspeed to below level flight buffet onset speed, start
a turn, and check the following:
(e) High Speed buffet increases with G loading.
Reduce throttles to idle and start descent, deploy the
speedbrake, and check the following:
(f) Speedbrake indications.
(g) Symmetrical deployment.
(h) Airframe buffet.
(i) Aircraft response hands off.
(3) Yaw Damper Operation. Switch off yaw dampers and autopilot.
Initiate a Dutch roll and check the following:
(a) Aircraft dynamics.
(b) Simulator motion effects.
Switch on yaw dampers, re-initiate a Dutch roll and check the
following:
(c) Damped aircraft dynamics.
(4) APU Operation.
(5) Engine Gravity Feed.
(6) Engine Shutdown and Driftdown Check: FMC operation Aircraft
performance.
(7) Engine Relight.
l. Descent. Select one of the following test cases:
(1) Normal Descent Descend while maintaining recommended speed
profile and note fuel, distance And time.
(2) Cabin Depressurization/Emergency Descent.
m. Medium Altitude Checks. Select one or several of the
following test cases:
(1) High Angle of Attack/Stall. Trim the aircraft at 1.4 Vs,
establish 1 kt/sec\2\ deceleration rate, and check the following--
(a) System displays/operation satisfactory.
(b) Handling characteristics satisfactory.
(c) Stall and Stick shaker speed.
(d) Buffet characteristics and onset speed.
(e) Envelope limiting functions on Computer Controlled Aircraft.
Recover to straight and level flight and check the following:
(f) Handling characteristics satisfactory.
(2) Turning Flight. Roll aircraft to left, establish a 30[deg]
to 45[deg] bank angle, and check the following:
(a) Stick force required, satisfactory.
(b) Wheel requirement to maintain bank angle.
(c) Slip ball response, satisfactory.
(d) Time to turn 180[deg].
Roll aircraft from 45[deg] bank one way to 45[deg] bank the
opposite direction while maintaining altitude and airspeed--check
the following:
(e) Controllability during maneuver.
(3) Degraded flight controls.
(4) Holding Procedure (check the following:)
(a) FMC operation.
(b) Autopilot auto thrust performance.
(5) Storm Selection (check the following:)
(a) Weather radar controls.
(b) Weather radar operation.
(c) Visual scene corresponds with WXR pattern.
(Fly through storm center, and check the following:)
(d) Aircraft enters cloud.
(e) Aircraft encounters representative turbulence.
(f) Rain/hail sound effects evident.
As aircraft leaves storm area, check the following:
(g) Storm effects disappear.
(6) TCAS (check the following:)
(a) Traffic appears on visual display.
(b) Traffic appears on TCAS display(s).
As conflicting traffic approaches, take relevant avoiding
action, and check the following:
(c) Visual and TCAS system displays.
n. Approach And Landing. Select one or several of the following
test cases while monitoring flight control and hydraulic systems for
normal operation and with malfunctions selected:
(1) Flaps/Gear Normal Operation. Check the following:
(a) Time for extension/retraction.
(b) Buffet characteristics.
(2) Normal Visual Approach and Landing.
Fly a normal visual approach and landing--check the following:
(a) Aircraft handling.
(b) Spoiler operation.
(c) Reverse thrust operation.
(d) Directional control on the ground.
(e) Touchdown cues for main and nosewheel.
(f) Visual cues.
(g) Motion cues.
(h) Sound cues.
(i) Brake and Anti-skid operation.
(3) Flaps/Gear Abnormal Operation or with hydraulic
malfunctions.
(4) Abnormal Wing Flaps/Slats Landing.
(5) Manual Landing with Control Malfunction.
(a) Aircraft handling.
(b) Radio Aids and instruments.
(c) Airport model content and cues.
(d) Motion cues.
(e) Sound cues.
(6) Non-precision Approach--All Engines Operating.
(a) Aircraft handling.
(b) Radio Aids and instruments.
(c) Airport model content and cues.
(d) Motion cues.
(e) Sound cues.
(7) Circling Approach.
(a) Aircraft handling.
(c) Radio Aids and instruments.
(d) Airport model content and cues.
(e) Motion cues.
(f) Sound cues.
(8) Non-precision Approach--One Engine Inoperative.
(a) Aircraft handling.
(b) Radio Aids and instruments.
(c) Airport model content and cues.
(d) Motion cues.
(e) Sound cues.
(9) One Engine Inoperative Go-around.
(a) Aircraft handling.
(b) Radio Aids and instruments.
(c) Airport model content and cues.
(d) Motion cues.
(e) Sound cues.
(10) CAT I Approach and Landing with raw-data ILS.
(a) Aircraft handling.
(b) Radio Aids and instruments.
(c) Airport model content and cues.
(d) Motion cues.
(e) Sound cues.
(11) CAT I Approach and Landing with Limiting Crosswind.
(a) Aircraft handling.
(b) Radio Aids and instruments.
(c) Airport model content and cues.
(d) Motion cues.
(e) Sound cues.
(12) CAT I Approach with Windshear. Check the following:
(a) Controllable during windshear encounter.
(b) Performance adequate when using correct techniques.
(c) Windshear indications/warnings.
(d) Motion cues (particularly turbulence).
(13) CAT II Approach and Automatic Go-Around.
(14) CAT Ill Approach and Landing--System Malfunctions.
(15) CAT Ill Approach and Landing--1 Engine Inoperative.
(16) GPWS evaluation.
o. Visual Scene--In-Flight Assessment.
Select three (3) different visual models and perform the
following checks with ``day,'' ``dusk,'' and ``night'' (as
appropriate) selected. Reposition the aircraft at or below 2000 feet
within 10 nm of the airfield. Fly the aircraft around the airport
environment and assess control of the visual system and evaluate the
Airport model content as described below:
(1) Visual Controls.
(a) Daylight, Dusk, Night Scene Controls.
(b) Environment Light Controls.
(c) Runway Light Controls.
(d) Taxiway Light Controls.
(e) Approach Light Controls.
(2) Airport model Content.
(a) Airport environment for correct terrain and significant
features.
(b) Runways for correct markings, runway slope, directionality
of runway lights.
(c) Visual scene for quantization (aliasing), color, and
occulting.
Reposition the aircraft to a long, final approach for an ``ILS
runway.'' Select flight freeze when the aircraft is 5-statute miles
(sm)/8-kilometers (km) out and on the glide slope. Check the
following:
(3) Airport model content.
(a) Airfield features.
(b) Approach lights.
(c) Runway definition.
(d) Runway definition.
(e) Runway edge lights and VASI lights.
(f) Strobe lights.
Release flight freeze. Continue flying the approach with NP
engaged. Select flight freeze when aircraft is 3 sm/5 km out and on
the glide slope. Check the following:
(4) Airport model Content.
(a) Runway centerline light.
(b) Taxiway definition and lights.
Release flight freeze and continue flying the approach with A/P
engaged. Select flight freeze when aircraft is 2 sm/3 km out and on
the glide slope. Check the following:
(5) Airport model content.
(a) Runway threshold lights.
(b) Touchdown zone lights.
At 200 ft radio altitude and still on glide slope, select Flight
Freeze. Check the following:
(6) Airport model content.
(a) Runway markings.
[[Page 39615]]
Set the weather to Category I conditions and check the
following:
(7) Airport model content.
(a) Visual ground segment.
Set the weather to Category II conditions, release Flight
Freeze, re-select Flight.
Freeze at 100 feet radio altitude, and check the following:
(8) Airport model content.
(a) Visual ground segment.
Select night/dusk (twilight) conditions and check the following:
(9) Airport model content.
(a) Runway markings visible within landing light lobes.
Set the weather to Category III conditions, release Flight
Freeze, re-select Flight Freeze at 50 feet radio altitude and check
the following:
(10) Airport model content.
(a) Visual ground segment.
Set WX to a typical ``missed approach'' weather condition,
release Flight Freeze, re-select Flight Freeze at 15 feet radio
altitude, and check the following:
(11) Airport model content.
(a) Visual ground segment.
When on the ground, stop the aircraft. Set 0 feet RVR, ensure
strobe/beacon tights are switched on and check the following:
(12) Airport model content.
(a) Visual effect of strobe and beacon.
Reposition to final approach, set weather to ``Clear,'' continue
approach for an automatic landing, and check the following:
(13) Airport model content.
(a) Visual cues during flare to assess sink rate.
(b) Visual cues during flare to assess Depth perception.
(c) Flight deck height above ground.
p. After Landing Operations.
(1) After Landing Checks.
(2) Taxi back to gate. Check the following:
(a) Visual model satisfactory.
(b) Parking brake operation satisfactory.
(3) Shutdown Checks.
q. Crash Function.
(1) Gear-up Crash.
(2) Excessive rate of descent Crash.
(3) Excessive bank angle Crash.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.116
Attachment 4 to Appendix A to Part 60--Sample Documents
Table of Contents
Title of Sample
Figure A4A--Sample Letter, Request for Initial, Upgrade, or
Reinstatement Evaluation.
Figure A4B--Attachment: FFS Information Form
Figure A4C--Sample Letter of Compliance
Figure A4D--Sample Qualification Test Guide Cover Page
Figure A4E--Sample Statement of Qualification--Certificate
Figure A4F--Sample Statement of Qualification--Configuration List
Figure A4G--Sample Statement of Qualification--List of Qualified
Tasks
Figure A4H--Sample Continuing Qualification Evaluation Requirements
Page
Figure A4I--Sample MQTG Index of Effective FFS Directives
[[Page 39616]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.117
[[Page 39617]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.118
[[Page 39618]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.119
[[Page 39619]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.120
[[Page 39620]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.121
[[Page 39621]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.122
[[Page 39622]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.123
[[Page 39623]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.124
[[Page 39624]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.125
[[Page 39625]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.126
[[Page 39626]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.127
[[Page 39627]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.128
[[Page 39628]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.129
Attachment 5 to Appendix A to Part 60--Simulator Qualification
Requirements For Windshear Training Program Use
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Begin QPS Requirements
1. Applicability
This attachment applies to all simulators, regardless of
qualification level, that are used to satisfy the training
requirements of an FAA- approved low-altitude windshear flight
training program, or any FAA-approved training program that
addresses windshear encounters.
2. Statement of Compliance and Capability (SOC)
a. The sponsor must submit an SOC confirming that the
aerodynamic model is based on flight test data supplied by the
airplane manufacturer or other approved data provider. The SOC must
also confirm that any change to environmental wind parameters,
including variances in those parameters for windshear conditions,
once inserted for computation, result in the correct simulated
performance. This statement must also include examples of
environmental wind parameters currently evaluated in the simulator
(such as crosswind takeoffs, crosswind approaches, and crosswind
landings).
b. For simulators without windshear warning, caution, or
guidance hardware in the original equipment, the SOC must also state
that the simulation of the added hardware and/or software, including
associated flight deck displays and annunciations, replicates the
system(s) installed in the airplane. The statement must be
accompanied by a block diagram depicting the input and output signal
flow, and comparing the signal flow to the equipment installed in
the airplane.
3. Models
The windshear models installed in the simulator software used
for the qualification evaluation must do the following:
a. Provide cues necessary for recognizing windshear onset and
potential performance degradation requiring a pilot to initiate
recovery procedures. The cues must include all of the following, as
appropriate for the portion of the flight envelope:
(1) Rapid airspeed change of at least 15 knots
(kts).
(2) Stagnation of airspeed during the takeoff roll.
(3) Rapid vertical speed change of at least 500 feet
per minute (fpm).
(4) Rapid pitch change of at least 5[deg].
b. Be adjustable in intensity (or other parameter to achieve an
intensity effect) to at least two (2) levels so that upon
encountering the windshear the pilot may identify its presence and
apply the recommended procedures for escape from such a windshear.
(1) If the intensity is lesser, the performance capability of
the simulated airplane in the windshear permits the pilot to
maintain a satisfactory flightpath; and
(2) If the intensity is greater, the performance capability of
the simulated airplane in the windshear does not permit the pilot to
maintain a satisfactory flightpath (crash). Note: The means used to
accomplish the ``nonsurvivable'' scenario of paragraph 3.b.(2) of
this attachment, that involve operational elements of the simulated
airplane, must reflect the dispatch limitations of the airplane.
c. Be available for use in the FAA-approved windshear flight
training program.
4. Demonstrations
a. The sponsor must identify one survivable takeoff windshear
training model and one survivable approach windshear training model.
The wind components of the survivable models must be presented in
graphical format so that all components of the windshear are shown,
including initiation point, variance in magnitude, and time or
distance correlations. The simulator must be operated at the same
gross weight, airplane configuration, and initial airspeed during
the takeoff demonstration (through calm air and through the first
selected survivable windshear), and at the same gross weight,
airplane configuration, and initial airspeed during the approach
demonstration (through calm air and through the second selected
survivable windshear).
b. In each of these four situations, at an ``initiation point''
(i.e., where windshear onset is or should be recognized), the
recommended procedures for windshear recovery are applied and the
results are recorded as specified in paragraph 5 of this attachment.
c. These recordings are made without inserting programmed random
turbulence. Turbulence that results from the windshear model is to
be expected, and no attempt may be made to neutralize turbulence
from this source.
d. The definition of the models and the results of the
demonstrations of all four (4) cases described in paragraph 4.a of
this attachment, must be made a part of the MQTG.
5. Recording Parameters
a. In each of the four MQTG cases, an electronic recording (time
history) must be made of the following parameters:
[[Page 39629]]
(1) Indicated or calibrated airspeed.
(2) Indicated vertical speed.
(3) Pitch attitude.
(4) Indicated or radio altitude.
(5) Angle of attack.
(6) Elevator position.
(7) Engine data (thrust, N1, or throttle position).
(8) Wind magnitudes (simple windshear model assumed).
b. These recordings must be initiated at least 10 seconds prior
to the initiation point, and continued until recovery is complete or
ground contact is made.
6. Equipment Installation and Operation
All windshear warning, caution, or guidance hardware installed
in the simulator must operate as it operates in the airplane. For
example, if a rapidly changing wind speed and/or direction would
have caused a windshear warning in the airplane, the simulator must
respond equivalently without instructor/evaluator intervention.
7. Qualification Test Guide
a. All QTG material must be forwarded to the NSPM.
b. A simulator windshear evaluation will be scheduled in
accordance with normal procedures. Continuing qualification
evaluation schedules will be used to the maximum extent possible.
c. During the on-site evaluation, the evaluator will ask the
operator to run the performance tests and record the results. The
results of these on-site tests will be compared to those results
previously approved and placed in the QTG or MQTG, as appropriate.
d. QTGs for new (or MQTGs for upgraded) simulators must contain
or reference the information described in paragraphs 2, 3, 4, and 5
of this attachment.
End QPS Requirements
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Begin Information
8. Subjective Evaluation
The NSPM will fly the simulator in at least two of the available
windshear scenarios to subjectively evaluate simulator performance
as it encounters the programmed windshear conditions.
a. One scenario will include parameters that enable the pilot to
maintain a satisfactory flightpath.
b. One scenario will include parameters that will not enable the
pilot to maintain a satisfactory flightpath (crash).
c. Other scenarios may be examined at the NSPM's discretion.
9. Qualification Basis
The addition of windshear programming to a simulator in order to
comply with the qualification for required windshear training does
not change the original qualification basis of the simulator.
10. Demonstration Repeatability
For the purposes of demonstration repeatability, it is
recommended that the simulator be flown by means of the simulator's
autodrive function (for those simulators that have autodrive
capability) during the demonstrations.
End Information
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment 6 to Appendix A to Part 60--FSTD Directives Applicable to
Airplane Flight Simulators
Flight Simulation Training Device (FSTD) Directive
FSTD Directive 1. Applicable to all Full Flight Simulators
(FFS), regardless of the original qualification basis and
qualification date (original or upgrade), having Class II or Class
III airport models available.
Agency: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT
Action: This is a retroactive requirement to have all Class II
or Class III airport models meet current requirements.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary: Notwithstanding the authorization listed in paragraph
13b in Appendices A and C of this part, this FSTD Directive requires
each certificate holder to ensure that by May 30, 2009, except for
the airport model(s) used to qualify the simulator at the designated
level, each airport model used by the certificate holder's
instructors or evaluators for training, checking, or testing under
this chapter in an FFS, meets the definition of a Class II or Class
III airport model as defined in 14 CFR part 60. The completion of
this requirement will not require a report, and the method used for
keeping instructors and evaluators apprised of the airport models
that meet Class II or Class III requirements on any given simulator
is at the option of the certificate holder whose employees are using
the FFS, but the method used must be available for review by the
TPAA for that certificate holder.
Dates: FSTD Directive 1 becomes effective on May 30, 2008.
For Further Information Contact: National Simulator Program
Manager, Air Transportation Division, AFS-205, P.O. Box 20636,
Atlanta, Georgia 30320: telephone: (404) 474-5620; fax: (404) 474-
5656.
Specific Requirements:
1. Part 60 requires that each FSTD be:
a. Sponsored by a person holding or applying for an FAA
operating certificate under Part 119, Part 141, or Part 142, or
holding or applying for an FAA-approved training program under Part
63, Appendix C, for flight engineers, and
b. Evaluated and issued an SOQ for a specific FSTD level.
2. FFSs also require the installation of a visual system that is
capable of providing an out-of-the-flight-deck view of airport
models. However, historically these airport models were not
routinely evaluated or required to meet any standardized criteria.
This has led to qualified simulators containing airport models being
used to meet FAA-approved training, testing, or checking
requirements with potentially incorrect or inappropriate visual
references.
3. To prevent this from occurring in the future, by May 30,
2009, except for the airport model(s) used to qualify the simulator
at the designated level, each certificate holder must assure that
each airport model used for training, testing, or checking under
this chapter in a qualified FFS meets definition of a Class II or
Class III airport model as defined in Appendix F of this part.
4. These references describe the requirements for visual scene
management and the minimum distances from which runway or landing
area features must be visible for all levels of simulator. The
airport model must provide, for each ``in-use runway'' or ``in-use
landing area,'' runway or landing area surface and markings, runway
or landing area lighting, taxiway surface and markings, and taxiway
lighting. Additional requirements include correlation of the v
airport models with other aspects of the airport environment,
correlation of the aircraft and associated equipment, scene quality
assessment features, and the control of these models the instructor
must be able to exercise.
5. For circling approaches, all requirements of this section
apply to the runway used for the initial approach and to the runway
of intended landing.
6. The details in these models must be developed using airport
pictures, construction drawings and maps, or other similar data, or
developed in accordance with published regulatory material. However,
this FSTD DIRECTIVE 1 does not require that airport models contain
details that are beyond the initially designed capability of the
visual system, as currently qualified. The recognized limitations to
visual systems are as follows:
a. Visual systems not required to have runway numbers as a part
of the specific runway marking requirements are:
(1) Link NVS and DNVS.
(2) Novoview 2500 and 6000.
(3) FlightSafety VITAL series up to, and including, VITAL III,
but not beyond.
(4) Redifusion SP1, SP1T, and SP2.
b. Visual systems required to display runway numbers only for
LOFT scenes are:
(1) FlightSafety VITAL IV.
(2) Redifusion SP3 and SP3T.
(3) Link-Miles Image II.
c. Visual systems not required to have accurate taxiway edge
lighting are:
(1) Redifusion SP1.
(2) FlightSafety Vital IV.
(3) Link-Miles Image II and Image IIT
(4) XKD displays (even though the XKD image generator is capable
of generating blue colored lights, the display cannot accommodate
that color).
7. A copy of this Directive must be filed in the MQTG in the
designated FSTD Directive Section, and its inclusion must be
annotated on the Index of Effective FSTD Directives chart. See
Attachment 4, Appendices A through D for a sample MQTG Index of
Effective FSTD Directives chart.
Flight Simulation Training Device (FSTD) Directive
FSTD Directive 2. Applicable to all airplane Full Flight
Simulators (FFS), regardless of the original qualification basis and
qualification date (original or upgrade), used to conduct full stall
training, upset recovery training, airborne icing training, and
other flight training tasks as described in this Directive.
Agency: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
[[Page 39630]]
Action: This is a retroactive requirement for any FSTD being
used to obtain training, testing, or checking credit in an FAA
approved flight training program to meet current FSTD evaluation
requirements for the specific training maneuvers as defined in this
Directive.
Summary: Notwithstanding the authorization listed in paragraph
13b in Appendix A of this Part, this FSTD Directive requires that
each FSTD sponsor conduct additional subjective and objective
testing, conduct required modifications, and apply for additional
FSTD qualification under Sec. 60.16 to support continued
qualification of the following flight training tasks where training,
testing, or checking credit is being sought in a selected FSTD being
used in an FAA approved flight training program:
a. Recognition of and Recovery from a Full Stall
b. Upset Recognition and Recovery
c. Airborne Icing (Engine and Airframe Ice Accretion)
d. Takeoff and Landing with Gusting Crosswinds
e. Recovery from a Bounced Landing
The FSTD sponsor may elect to apply for additional qualification for
any, all, or none of the above defined training tasks for a
particular FSTD. After [THE FAA WILL INSERT DATE 3 years FROM
EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE PUBLISHED IN THE Federal Register],
any FSTD used to conduct the above training tasks must be evaluated
and issued additional qualification by the National Simulator
Program Manager (NSPM) as defined in this Directive.
Dates: FSTD Directive 2 becomes effective on [THE FAA WILL
INSERT THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER].
For Further Information Contact: Larry McDonald, Air
Transportation Division/National Simulator Program Branch, AFS-205,
Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, GA 30320;
telephone (404) 474-5620; email [email protected].
Specific Requirements
1. Part 60 requires that each FSTD be:
a. Sponsored by a person holding or applying for an FAA
operating certificate under Part 119, Part 142, or Part 142, or
holding or applying for an FAA-approved training program under Part
63, Appendix C, for flight engineers, and
b. Evaluated and issued a Statement of Qualification (SOQ) for a
specific FSTD level.
2. The evaluation criteria contained in this Directive is
intended to address specific training tasks that require additional
evaluation to ensure adequate FSTD fidelity.
3. The requirements described in this Directive define
additional qualification criteria for specific training tasks that
are applicable only to those FSTDs that will be utilized to obtain
training, testing, or checking credit in accordance with an FAA
approved flight training program. In order to obtain additional
qualification for the tasks described in this Directive, FSTD
sponsors must request additional qualification in accordance with
Sec. 60.16 and the requirements of this Directive. FSTDs that are
found to meet the requirements of this Directive will have their
Statement of Qualification (SOQ) amended to reflect the additional
training tasks that the FSTD has been qualified to conduct. The
additional qualification requirements as defined in this Directive
are divided into the following training tasks:
a. Section I--Additional Qualification Requirements for Full Stall
Training Tasks
b. Section II--Additional Qualification Requirements for Upset
Recognition and Recovery Training Tasks
c. Section III--Additional Qualification Requirements for Airborne
Engine and Airframe Icing Training Tasks
d. Section IV--Additional Qualification Requirements for Takeoff and
Landing Tasks in Gusting Crosswinds
e. Section V--Additional Qualification Requirements for Bounced
Landing Training Tasks
4. A copy of this Directive (along with all required Statements
of Compliance and objective test results) must be filed in the MQTG
in the designated FSTD Directive Section, and its inclusion must be
annotated on the Index of Effective FSTD Directives chart. See
Attachment 4, Appendices A through D for a sample MQTG Index of
Effective FSTD Directives chart.
Section I--Evaluation Requirements for Full Stall Training Tasks
1. This section applies to previously qualified Level C and
Level D FSTDs being utilized to obtain training, testing, or
checking credits at angles of attack beyond the first indication of
a stall (such as stall warning system activation, stick shaker,
etc.). Qualification of full stall maneuvers for Level A and Level B
FSTDs in accordance with this Directive may be considered where the
FSTD's motion and vibration cueing systems have been evaluated to
provide adequate stall recognition and recovery cues to conduct the
specific stall maneuvers described in Table A1A, Section 2.1.7.S.
2. The evaluation requirements in this Directive are intended to
validate FSTD fidelity at angles of attack sufficient to identify
the stall, to demonstrate aircraft performance degradation in the
stall, and to train recovery techniques from a fully stalled flight
condition.
3. This Directive contains additional objective and subjective
testing that exceed the evaluation requirements of previously
qualified FSTDs. Where aerodynamic modeling data and/or validation
data is not available or insufficient to fully meet the requirements
of this Directive, the NSPM may restrict FSTD qualification to
certain stall maneuvers where adequate validation data exists.
4. By [THE FAA WILL INSERT DATE 3 years FROM EFFECTIVE DATE OF
THE FINAL RULE PUBLISHED IN THE Federal Register], any FSTD being
used to obtain training, testing, or checking credits for full stall
training tasks in an FAA approved training program must be evaluated
by the FSTD sponsor in accordance with the following sections of
Appendix A of this Part:
a. Table A1A, General Requirements, Section 2.1.7.S (High Angle of
Attack Maneuvers)
b. Table A2A, Objective Testing Requirements, Test 2.a.10 (Stick
Pusher Force Calibration) [where applicable]
c. Table A2A, Objective Testing Requirements, Test 2.c.8.b (Stall
Characteristics)
d. Table A3A, Functions and Subjective Testing Requirements, Test
6.a.2 (High Angle of Attack Maneuvers)
e. Attachment 7, Additional QPS Requirements for Stall Maneuver
Evaluation
5. The validation data for the required stall characteristics
tests may be derived from an approved engineering simulation data
source or other data source acceptable to the FAA. An SOC must be
provided by the validation data provider that the engineering
simulation has been evaluated by an appropriate SME pilot in
accordance with Table A1A, Section 2.1.7.S and Attachment 7. Where
no flight test or engineering simulation validation data is
available, baseline objective tests of the FSTD's performance may be
acceptable where accompanied by an SME evaluation of each required
objective test conditions.
6. Where qualification is being sought to conduct full stall
training tasks in accordance with this Directive, the FSTD Sponsor
must conduct the required evaluations and modifications as
prescribed in this Directive and report compliance to the NSPM in
accordance with Sec. 60.23 using the NSP's standardized FSTD
Sponsor Notification Form. At a minimum, this form must be
accompanied with the following information:
a. A description of any modifications to the FSTD (in accordance
with Sec. 60.23) necessary to meet the requirements of this
Directive.
b. Statement of Compliance (Aerodynamics and Stick Pusher System
Modeling)--See Table A1A, Section 2.1.7.S and Attachment 7
c. Statement of Compliance (SME Pilot Evaluation)--See Table A1A,
Section 2.1.7.S and Attachment 7
d. Copies of the required objective test results as described above
in sections 4.b. and 4.c.
7. The NSPM will review each submission to determine if the
requirements of this Directive have been met and respond to the FSTD
Sponsor as described in Sec. 60.23(c). This response, along with
any noted restrictions, may serve as an interim update to the FSTD's
Statement of Qualification (SOQ) until such time that a permanent
change is made to the SOQ at the FSTD's next scheduled evaluation.
Section II--Evaluation Requirements for Upset Recovery Training Tasks
1. This section applies to previously qualified FSTDs being
utilized to obtain training, testing, or checking credits for upset
recognition and recovery training tasks as defined in Appendix A,
Table A1A, Section 2.1.6.S. of this Part. Qualification of upset
recovery maneuvers for Level A and Level B FSTDs in accordance with
this Directive may be considered where the FSTD's motion and
vibration cueing systems have been evaluated to provide adequate
cues to conduct the
[[Page 39631]]
specific upset recovery maneuvers described in Table A1A, Section
2.1.6.S.
2. The requirements contained in this section are intended to
define minimum standards for evaluating an FSTD for use in upset
recognition and recovery training maneuvers that may exceed an
aircraft's normal flight envelope. These standards include the
evaluation of qualified training maneuvers against the FSTD's
validation envelope and providing the instructor with minimum
feedback tools for the purpose of determining if a training maneuver
is conducted within FSTD validation limits and the aircraft's
structural/performance limitations.
3. This Directive contains additional objective and subjective
testing that exceeds the evaluation requirements of previously
qualified FSTDs. Where aerodynamic modeling data and/or validation
data is not available or insufficient to meet the requirements of
this Directive, the NSPM may limit additional qualification to
certain upset recovery maneuvers where adequate validation data
exists.
4. By [THE FAA WILL INSERT DATE 3 years FROM EFFECTIVE DATE OF
THE FINAL RULE PUBLISHED IN THE Federal Register], any FSTD being
used to obtain training, testing, or checking credit for upset
recognition and recovery training tasks in an FAA approved flight
training program must be evaluated by the FSTD sponsor in accordance
with the following sections of Appendix A of this Part:
a. Table A1A, General Requirements, Section 2.1.6.S. (Upset
Recognition and Recovery)
b. Table A3A, Functions and Subjective Testing, Test 5.b.15. (Upset
Recovery and Recovery Maneuvers)
c. Attachment 7, Additional QPS Requirements for Upset Recognition
and Recovery Maneuver Evaluation
6. Where qualification is being sought to conduct upset
recognition and recovery training tasks in accordance with this
Directive, the FSTD Sponsor must conduct the required evaluations
and modifications as prescribed in this Directive and report
compliance to the NSPM in accordance with Sec. 60.23 using the
NSP's standardized FSTD Sponsor Notification Form. At a minimum,
this form must be accompanied with the following information:
a. A description of any modifications to the FSTD (in accordance
with Sec. 60.23) necessary to meet the requirements of this
Directive.
b. Statement of Compliance (FSTD Validation Envelope)--See Table
A1A, Section 2.1.6.S and Attachment 7
c. A confirmation statement that the modified FSTD has been
subjectively evaluated by a qualified pilot as described in Sec.
60.16(a)(1)(iii).
7. The NSPM will review each submission to determine if the
requirements of this Directive have been met and respond to the FSTD
Sponsor as described in Sec. 60.23(c). Additional NSPM conducted
FSTD evaluations may be required before the modified FSTD is placed
into service. This response, along with any noted restrictions, will
serve as an interim update to the FSTD's Statement of Qualification
(SOQ) until such time that a permanent change is made to the SOQ at
the FSTD's next scheduled evaluation.
Section III--Evaluation Requirements for Engine and Airframe Icing
Training Tasks
1. This section applies to previously qualified Level C and
Level D FSTDs being utilized to obtain training, testing, or
checking credits in maneuvers that demonstrate the effects of engine
and airframe ice accretion.
2. The evaluation requirements in this section are intended to
supersede and improve upon existing Level C and Level D FSTD
evaluation requirements on the effects of engine and airframe icing.
The requirements define a minimum level of fidelity required to
adequately simulate the aircraft specific aerodynamic
characteristics of an in-flight encounter with engine and airframe
ice accretion as necessary to accomplish training objectives.
3. This Directive contains additional subjective testing that
exceeds the evaluation requirements of previously qualified FSTDs.
Where aerodynamic modeling data is not available or insufficient to
meet the requirements of this Directive, the NSPM may limit
qualified engine and airframe icing maneuvers where sufficient
aerodynamic modeling data exists.
4. By [THE FAA WILL INSERT DATE 3 years FROM EFFECTIVE DATE OF
THE FINAL RULE PUBLISHED IN THE Federal Register], any FSTD being
used to conduct training tasks in engine and airframe icing must be
evaluated by the FSTD sponsor in accordance with the following
sections of Appendix A of this Part:
a. Table A1A, General Requirements, Section 2.1.5.S. (Engine and
Airframe Icing)
b. Attachment 7, Additional QPS Requirements for Engine and Airframe
Icing Evaluation (Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3). Objective demonstration
testing is not required for previously qualified FSTDs.
5. Where continued qualification is being sought to conduct
engine and airframe icing training tasks in accordance with this
Directive, the FSTD Sponsor must conduct the required evaluations
and modifications as prescribed in this Directive and report
compliance to the NSPM in accordance with Sec. 60.23 using the
NSP's standardized FSTD Sponsor Notification Form. At a minimum,
this form must be accompanied with the following information:
a. A description of any modifications to the FSTD (in accordance
with Sec. 60.23) necessary to meet the requirements of this
Directive.
b. Statement of Compliance (Ice Accretion Model)--See Table A1A,
Section 2.1.5.S and Attachment 7
c. A confirmation statement that the modified FSTD has been
subjectively evaluated by a qualified pilot as described in Sec.
60.16(a)(1)(iii).
6. The NSPM will review each submission to determine if the
requirements of this Directive have been met and respond to the FSTD
Sponsor as described in Sec. 60.23(c). Additional NSPM conducted
FSTD evaluations may be required before the modified FSTD is placed
into service. This response, along with any noted restrictions, will
serve as an interim update to the FSTD's Statement of Qualification
(SOQ) until such time that a permanent change is made to the SOQ at
the FSTD's next scheduled evaluation.
Section IV--Evaluation Requirements for Gusting Crosswinds During
Takeoff and Landing
1. This section applies to previously qualified FSTDs that will
be utilized to obtain training, testing, or checking credits in
takeoff and landing tasks in gusting crosswinds as part of an FAA
approved training program. The requirements of this Directive are
applicable only to those Level B and higher FSTDs that are qualified
to conduct takeoff and landing training tasks.
2. The evaluation requirements in this section are intended to
introduce new evaluation requirements for gusting crosswinds during
takeoff and landing training tasks and contains additional
subjective testing that exceeds the evaluation requirements of
previously qualified FSTDs.
3. By [THE FAA WILL INSERT DATE 3 years FROM EFFECTIVE DATE OF
THE FINAL RULE PUBLISHED IN THE Federal Register], any FSTD that is
utilized to conduct gusting crosswind takeoff and landing training
tasks must be evaluated by the FSTD sponsor in accordance with the
following sections of Appendix A of this Part:
a. Table A1A, General Requirements, Section 3.1.S.(2) (Ground
Handling Characteristics)
b. Table A1A, General Requirements, Section 11.4.R.(1) (Atmosphere--
Instructor Controls, Gusting Crosswind)
c. Table A3A, Functions and Subjective Testing Requirements, Test
3.a.3 (Takeoff, Crosswind--Maximum Demonstrated and Gusting
Crosswind)
d. Table A3A, Functions and Subjective Testing Requirements, Test
8.d. (Approach and landing with crosswind--Maximum Demonstrated and
Gusting Crosswind)
4. Where qualification is being sought to conduct gusting
crosswind training tasks in accordance with this Directive, the FSTD
Sponsor must conduct the required evaluations and modifications as
prescribed in this Directive and report compliance to the NSPM in
accordance with Sec. 60.23 using the NSP's standardized FSTD
Sponsor Notification Form. At a minimum, this form must be
accompanied with the following information:
a. A description of any modifications to the FSTD (in accordance
with Sec. 60.23) necessary to meet the requirements of this
Directive.
b. Statement of Compliance (Gusting Crosswind Profiles)--See Table
A1A, Section 11.4.R.
c. A confirmation statement that the modified FSTD has been
subjectively evaluated by a qualified pilot as described in Sec.
60.16(a)(1)(iii).
5. The NSPM will review each submission to determine if the
requirements of this Directive have been met and respond to the
[[Page 39632]]
FSTD Sponsor as described in Sec. 60.23(c). Additional NSPM
conducted FSTD evaluations may be required before the modified FSTD
is placed into service. This response, along with any noted
restrictions, will serve as an interim update to the FSTD's
Statement of Qualification (SOQ) until such time that a permanent
change is made to the SOQ at the FSTD's next scheduled evaluation.
Section V--Evaluation Requirements for Bounced Landing Recovery
Training Tasks
1. This section applies to previously qualified FSTDs that will
be utilized to obtain training, testing, or checking credits in
bounced landing recovery as part of an FAA approved training
program. The requirements of this Directive are applicable only to
those Level B and higher FSTDs that are qualified to conduct takeoff
and landing training tasks.
2. The evaluation requirements in this section are intended to
introduce new evaluation requirements for bounced landing recovery
training tasks and contains additional subjective testing that
exceeds the evaluation requirements of previously qualified FSTDs.
3. By [THE FAA WILL INSERT DATE 3 years FROM EFFECTIVE DATE OF
THE FINAL RULE PUBLISHED IN THE Federal Register], any FSTD that is
utilized to conduct bounced landing training tasks must be evaluated
by the FSTD sponsor in accordance with the following sections of
Appendix A of this Part:
a. Table A1A, General Requirements, Section 3.1.S.(1) (Ground
Reaction Characteristics)
b. Table A3A, Functions and Subjective Testing Requirements, Test
9.e. (Missed Approach--Bounced Landing)
4. Where qualification is being sought to conduct bounced
landing training tasks in accordance with this Directive, the FSTD
Sponsor must conduct the required evaluations and modifications as
prescribed in this Directive and report compliance to the NSPM in
accordance with Sec. 60.23 using the NSP's standardized FSTD
Sponsor Notification Form. At a minimum, this form must be
accompanied with the following information:
a. A description of any modifications to the FSTD (in accordance
with Sec. 60.23) necessary to meet the requirements of this
Directive.
b. A confirmation statement that the modified FSTD has been
subjectively evaluated by a qualified pilot as described in Sec.
60.16(a)(1)(iii).
5. The NSPM will review each submission to determine if the
requirements of this Directive have been met and respond to the FSTD
Sponsor as described in Sec. 60.23(c). Additional NSPM conducted
FSTD evaluations may be required before the modified FSTD is placed
into service. This response, along with any noted restrictions, will
serve as an interim update to the FSTD's Statement of Qualification
(SOQ) until such time that a permanent change is made to the SOQ at
the FSTD's next scheduled evaluation.
Attachment 7 to Appendix A to Part 60--Additional Simulator
Qualification Requirements for Stall, Upset Recognition and Recovery,
and Engine and Airframe Icing Training Tasks
Begin QPS Requirements
High Angle of Attack Model Evaluation (Table A1A, Section 2.1.7.S.)
1. Applicability: This attachment applies to all simulators that
are used to satisfy training requirements for full stall maneuvers
that are conducted at angles of attack beyond the activation of the
stall warning system. This attachment is not applicable for those
FSTDs that are only qualified for approach to stall maneuvers that
cease after recovery from the first indication of the stall. The
material in this section is intended to supplement the general
requirements, objective testing requirements, and subjective testing
requirements contained within Tables A1A, A2A, and A3A,
respectively.
2. General Requirements: The requirements for high angle of
attack modeling are intended to provide aircraft specific
recognition cues and performance and handling qualities of a
developing stall through the stall break and recovery. It is
recognized, however, that strict time-history-based evaluation
against flight test data may not adequately validate the aerodynamic
model in an unstable flight regime, such as stalled flight,
particularly in cases where significant deviations are seen in the
aircraft's stability and control. As a result, the objective testing
requirements defined in Table A2A do not prescribe strict tolerances
on any parameter at angles of attack beyond the stall angle of
attack. In lieu of mandating objective tolerances to flight test
data at angles of attack at and beyond the stall, a Statement of
Compliance (SOC) will be required to define the source data and
methods used to develop the stall aerodynamic model which
incorporates defined stall characteristics as applicable for the
simulated aircraft type. In this flight regime (at angles of attack
above the stall angle of attack), the aerodynamic modeling is
expected to simulate aircraft ``type representative'' post-stall
behavior to the extent that the training objectives can be
accomplished. This SOC must also include verification that the stall
model has been evaluated by a subject matter expert (SME) pilot
acceptable to the FAA.
3. Statement of Compliance (Aerodynamic Model): At a minimum,
the following must be addressed in the SOC:
a. Source Data and Modeling Methods: The SOC must identify the
sources of data used to develop the aerodynamic model. Of particular
interest is a mapping of test points in the form of alpha/beta
envelope plot for a minimum of flaps up and flaps down aircraft
configurations. For the flight test data, a list of the types of
maneuvers used to define the aerodynamic model for angle of attack
ranges greater than the first indication of stall must be provided
per flap setting. In cases where limited data is available to model
and/or validate the stall characteristics (e.g. safety issues
involving the collection flight test data), the data provider is
expected to make a reasonable attempt to develop a stall model
through analytical methods and utilization of the best available
data.
b. Validity Range: The FSTD Sponsor must declare the range of
angle of attack and sideslip where the aerodynamic model remains
valid. For full (aerodynamic) stall training tasks, model validation
and/or analysis should be conducted through at least 10 degrees
beyond the critical angle of attack. In cases where training is
limited to the activation of a stall identification system (stick
pusher), model validation may be conducted at a lower angle of
attack range, but the FSTD Sponsor must specify and restrict the use
of the FSTD to those maneuvers that have been appropriately
validated.
c. Model Characteristics: Within the declared range of model
validity, the SOC must address and the aerodynamic model must
incorporate the following typical stall characteristics where
applicable by aircraft type:
i. Degradation in static/dynamic lateral-directional stability
ii. Degradation in control response (pitch, roll, yaw)
iii. Uncommanded roll response
iv. Apparent randomness or non-repeatability
v. Changes in pitch stability
vi. Stall hysteresis
vii. Mach effects
viii. Stall buffet
An overview of the methodology used to address these features must
be provided.
4. Statement of Compliance (SME Evaluation): The stall model
must be evaluated by a subject matter expert (SME) pilot with
knowledge of the cues necessary to accomplish the required training
objectives and with experience in conducting stalls in the type of
aircraft being simulated. In cases where such an SME pilot is not
available, a pilot with experience in an aircraft with similar stall
characteristics may be utilized. The SME pilot conducting the stall
model evaluation must be acceptable to the NSPM. This evaluation may
be conducted in the sponsor's FSTD or in an ``audited'' engineering
simulation. The engineering simulation can then be used to provide
objective checkout cases and subjective evaluation guidance material
to the FSTD sponsor/operator for evaluation of the implemented model
on the Sponsor's FSTD.
Final evaluation and approval of the Sponsor's FSTD must be
accomplished by an SME pilot with knowledge of the training
requirements to conduct the stall training tasks. Where available,
documentation, including checkout documentation from an acceptable
data provider, AFM documentation, or other source documentation
related to stall training tasks for the simulated aircraft should be
utilized. Particular emphasis should be placed upon recognition cues
of an impending aerodynamic stall (such as the stall buffet,
lateral/directional instability, etc.), stall break (g-break, pitch
break, roll off departure, etc.), response of aircraft automation
(such as autopilot and auto throttles), and the necessary control
input required to execute an immediate recovery from the stall.
[[Page 39633]]
Upset Recognition and Recovery Evaluation (Table A1A, Section
2.1.6.S.)
1. Applicability: This attachment applies to all simulators that
are used to satisfy training requirements for upset recognition and
recovery maneuvers. For the purposes of this attachment (as defined
in the Airplane Upset Recovery Training Aid), an aircraft upset is
generally defined as an airplane unintentionally exceeding the
following parameters normally experienced in line operations or
training:
Pitch attitude greater than 25 degrees nose up.
Pitch attitude greater than 10 degrees nose down.
Bank angles greater than 45 degrees.
Within the above parameters, but flying at airspeeds
inappropriate for the conditions.
FSTDs that will be used to conduct upset recognition and recovery
training maneuvers in which the FSTD is either repositioned into an
aircraft upset condition or an artificial stimulus (such as weather
phenomena or system failures) is applied that could potentially
result in a flightcrew entering an aircraft upset condition must be
evaluated and qualified in accordance with this section.
2. General Requirements: The general requirement for upset
recognition and recovery qualification in Table A1A defines three
basic elements required for qualifying an FSTD for upset recognition
and recovery maneuvers:
a. FSTD Validation Envelope: The FSTD validation envelope must
be defined and utilized to determine if qualified upset recovery
maneuvers can be executed while remaining within FSTD validation
limits.
b. Instructor Feedback: In order to enhance the instructor's
situational awareness, the FSTD must employ a method to provide a
minimum set of feedback tools to determine if the FSTD remains
within validation limits and the simulated aircraft remains within
operating limits during a student's execution of an upset recovery
maneuver.
c. Upset Scenarios: Where dynamic upset scenarios or aircraft
system malfunctions are used to stimulate the FSTD into an aircraft
upset condition, such external stimuli/malfunctions must be
realistic and supported by data sources where available. Acceptable
data sources may include studies of environmental phenomena,
aircraft accident/incident data, aircraft manufacturer's data, or
other relevant data sources.
3. Validation Envelopes: For the purposes of this attachment,
the term ``flight envelope'' refers to the entire domain in which
the FSTD is capable of being flown. This envelope can be further
divided into three subdivisions (e.g. see Appendix 3-D of the
Airplane Upset Recovery Training Aid):
[ssquf] Flight Test Validated: This is the region of the flight
envelope which has been validated with flight test data, typically
by comparing the performance of the FSTD against the flight test
data through tests incorporated in the QTG and other flight test
data utilized to further extend the model beyond the minimum
requirements. Within this region, there is high confidence that the
simulator responds similarly to the aircraft. Note that this region
is not strictly limited to what has been tested in the QTG; as long
as the aerodynamic math model has been conformed to the flight test
results, that portion of the math model can be considered to be
within the Flight Test Validated region.
[ssquf] Wind Tunnel and/or Analytical: This is the region of the
flight envelope for which the FSTD has not been compared to flight
test data, but for which there has been wind tunnel testing and/or
the use of other reliable predictive methods (typically by the
aircraft manufacturer) to define the aerodynamic model. Any
extensions to the aerodynamic model that have been evaluated in
accordance with the definition of a ``representative'' stall model
(as described above in the stall maneuver section) must be clearly
indicated. Within this region, there is moderate confidence that the
simulator will respond similarly to the aircraft.
[ssquf] Extrapolated: This is the region extrapolated beyond the
flight test validated and wind tunnel/analytical regions. The
extrapolation may be a linear extrapolation, a holding of the last
value before the extrapolation began, or some other set of values.
Whether this extrapolated data is provided by the aircraft or
simulator manufacturer, it is a ``best guess'' only. Within this
region, there is reduced confidence that the simulator will respond
similarly to the aircraft. Brief excursions into this region may
still retain a moderate confidence level in simulator fidelity;
however, the instructor should be aware that the simulator's
response may deviate from the actual aircraft.
4. Instructor Feedback Mechanism: For the instructor/evaluator
to provide feedback to the student during URT maneuver training,
additional information must be accessible that indicates the
relative fidelity of the simulation, magnitude of student control
inputs, and aircraft operational limits that could potentially
affect the successful completion of the maneuver(s). At a minimum,
the following must be available to the instructor/evaluator:
a. Simulator Validation Envelope: The FSTD must employ a method
to record the FSTD's expected level of fidelity with respect to the
designed validation envelope. This may be displayed as an ``alpha/
beta'' crossplot on the Instructor Operating System (IOS) or other
alternate method acceptable to the FAA to clearly convey the
simulator's expected fidelity level during the maneuver.
b. Flight Control Inputs: The FSTD must employ a method for the
instructor/evaluator to assess the student's flight control input
used to execute the upset recovery maneuver. Parameters which may
not be easily assessed visually from the instructor station, such as
rudder pedal displacement and control forces, must be included in
this feedback mechanism.
c. Aircraft Operational Limits: The FSTD must employ a method to
provide the instructor/evaluator with information concerning the
aircraft operating limitations (such as normal load factor and
airspeed limits found on a V-n diagram) that may affect the
successful completion of the maneuver.
End QPS Requirements
Begin Information
An example FSTD ``alpha/beta'' envelope display and IOS feedback
mechanism are shown below in Figure 1 and Figure 2.
[[Page 39634]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.130
[[Page 39635]]
End Information
Begin QPS Requirements
Engine and Airframe Icing Evaluation (Table A1A, Section 2.1.5.S.)
1. Applicability: This attachment applies to all simulators that
are used to satisfy training requirements for engine and airframe
ice accretion. New general requirements and objective requirements
for simulator qualification have been developed to define aircraft
specific icing models that support training objectives for the
recognition and recovery from an in-flight ice accretion event.
2. General Requirements: The qualification of engine and
airframe icing consists of the following elements that must be
considered when developing ice accretion models for use in training:
a. Ice accretion models must be developed to account for
training the specific skills required for recognition of ice
accumulation and execution of the required response.
b. Ice accretion models must be developed in a manner to contain
aircraft specific recognition cues as determined with aircraft OEM
supplied data or other suitable analytical methods.
c. At least one qualified ice accretion model must be
objectively tested to demonstrate that the model has been
implemented correctly and generates the correct cues as necessary
for training.
3. Statement of Compliance: The SOC as described in Table A1A,
Section 2.1.5.S. must contain the following information to support
FSTD qualification of aircraft specific ice accretion models:
a. A description of expected aircraft specific recognition cues
and degradation effects due to a typical in-flight icing encounter.
Typical cues may include loss of lift, decrease in stall angle of
attack, change in pitching moment, decrease in control
effectiveness, decrease in stall angle of attack, and changes in
control forces in addition to any overall increase in drag. This
description must be based upon relevant source data, such as
aircraft OEM supplied data, accident/incident data, or other
acceptable data source. Where a particular airframe has demonstrated
vulnerabilities to a specific type of ice accretion (due to
accident/incident history) which may require specific training, ice
accretion models must be developed that address the training
requirements.
b. A description of the data sources utilized to develop the
qualified ice accretion models. Acceptable data sources may be, but
are not limited to, flight test data, aircraft certification data,
aircraft OEM engineering simulation data, or other analytical
methods based upon established engineering principles.
4. Objective Demonstration Testing: The purpose of the objective
demonstration test is to demonstrate that the ice accretion models
as described in the Statement of Compliance have been implemented
correctly and demonstrate the proper cues as defined in the approved
data sources. At least one ice accretion model must be selected for
testing and included in the Master Qualification Test Guide (MQTG).
Two tests are required to demonstrate engine and airframe icing
effects. One test will demonstrate the FSTDs baseline performance
without icing, and the second test will demonstrate the aerodynamic
effects of ice accretion relative to the baseline test.
a. Recorded Parameters: In each of the two required MQTG cases,
a time history recording must be made of the following parameters:
i. Altitude
ii. Airspeed
iii. Normal Acceleration
iv. Engine Power/settings
v. Angle of Attack/Pitch attitude
vi. Bank Angle
vii. Flight control inputs
viii. Stall warning and stall buffet onset
ix. Other parameters as necessary to demonstrate the effects of ice
accretions
b. Analysis: The FSTD sponsor must select an ice accretion model
as identified in the SOC for testing. The selected maneuver must
demonstrate the effects of ice accretion at high angles of attack
from a trimmed condition through approach to stall and ``full''
stall as compared to a baseline (no ice build up) test. The ice
accretion models must demonstrate the cues necessary to recognize
the onset of ice accretion on the airframe, lifting surfaces, and
engines and provide representative degradation in performance and
handling qualities to the extent that a recovery can be executed.
Typical recognition cues that may be present depending upon the
simulated aircraft include:
i. Decrease in stall angle of attack
ii. Increase in stall warning speed
iii. Increase in stall buffet onset speed
iv. Changes in pitching moment
v. Changes in stall buffet characteristics
vi. Changes in control effectiveness or control forces
vii. Engine effects (power variation, vibration, etc.)
The demonstration test may be conducted by initializing and
maintaining a fixed amount of ice accretion throughout the maneuver
in order to consistently evaluate the aerodynamic effects.
End QPS Requirements
0
7. Part 60 is amended by revising Appendix B to read as follows:
Appendix B to Part 60--Qualification Performance Standards for Airplane
Flight Training Devices
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Begin Information
This appendix establishes the standards for Airplane FTD
evaluation and qualification at Level 4, Level 5, Level 6, or Level
7. The Flight Standards Service, NSPM, is responsible for the
development, application, and implementation of the standards
contained within this appendix. The procedures and criteria
specified in this appendix will be used by the NSPM, or a person or
persons assigned by the NSPM when conducting airplane FTD
evaluations.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Applicability (Sec. Sec. 60.1 and 60.2).
3. Definitions (Sec. 60.3).
4. Qualification Performance Standards (Sec. 60.4).
5. Quality Management System (Sec. 60.5).
6. Sponsor Qualification Requirements (Sec. 60.7).
7. Additional Responsibilities of the Sponsor (Sec. 60.9).
8. FTD Use (Sec. 60.11).
9. FTD Objective Data Requirements (Sec. 60.13).
10. Special Equipment and Personnel Requirements for Qualification
of the FTD (Sec. 60.14).
11. Initial (and Upgrade) Qualification Requirements (Sec. 60.15).
12. Additional Qualifications for Currently Qualified FTDs (Sec.
60.16).
13. Previously Qualified FTDs (Sec. 60.17).
14. Inspection, Continuing Qualification Evaluation, and Maintenance
Requirements (Sec. 60.19).
15. Logging FTD Discrepancies (Sec. 60.20).
16. Interim Qualification of FTDs for New Airplane Types or Models
(Sec. 60.21).
17. Modifications to FTDs (Sec. 60.23).
18. Operations with Missing, Malfunctioning, or Inoperative
Components (Sec. 60.25).
19. Automatic Loss of Qualification and Procedures for Restoration
of Qualification (Sec. 60.27).
20. Other Losses of Qualification and Procedures for Restoration of
Qualification (Sec. 60.29).
21. Record Keeping and Reporting (Sec. 60.31).
22. Applications, Logbooks, Reports, and Records: Fraud,
Falsification, or Incorrect Statements (Sec. 60.33).
23. [Reserved]
24. Levels of FTD.
25. FTD Qualification on the Basis of a Bilateral Aviation Safety
Agreement (BASA) (Sec. 60.37).
Attachment 1 to Appendix B to Part 60--General FTD Requirements.
Attachment 2 to Appendix B to Part 60--Flight Training Device (FTD)
Objective Tests.
Attachment 3 to Appendix B to Part 60--Flight Training Device (FTD)
Subjective Evaluation.
Attachment 4 to Appendix B to Part 60--Sample Documents.
End Information
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Introduction
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Begin Information
a. This appendix contains background information as well as
regulatory and informative material as described later in this
section. To assist the reader in determining what areas are required
and what areas are permissive, the text in this appendix is divided
into two sections: ``QPS Requirements'' and ``Information.'' The QPS
Requirements sections contain details regarding compliance with the
part 60 rule language. These details are regulatory, but are found
only in this appendix. The Information sections contain material
that is advisory in nature, and designed to give the user general
information about the regulation.
[[Page 39636]]
b. Questions regarding the contents of this publication should
be sent to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation
Administration, Flight Standards Service, National Simulator Program
Staff, AFS-205, 100 Hartsfield Centre Parkway, Suite 400, Atlanta,
Georgia, 30354. Telephone contact numbers for the NSP are: phone,
404-832-4700; fax, 404-761-8906. The general email address for the
NSP office is: [email protected]. The NSP Internet Web site
address is: http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/nsp/. On this Web
site you will find an NSP personnel list with telephone and email
contact information for each NSP staff member, a list of qualified
flight simulation devices, ACs, a description of the qualification
process, NSP policy, and an NSP ``In-Works'' section. Also linked
from this site are additional information sources, handbook
bulletins, frequently asked questions, a listing and text of the
Federal Aviation Regulations, Flight Standards Inspector's
handbooks, and other FAA links.
c. The NSPM encourages the use of electronic media for all
communication, including any record, report, request, test, or
statement required by this appendix. The electronic media used must
have adequate security provisions and be acceptable to the NSPM. The
NSPM recommends inquiries on system compatibility, and minimum
system requirements are also included on the NSP Web site.
d. Related Reading References.
(1) 14 CFR part 60.
(2) 14 CFR part 61.
(3) 14 CFR part 63.
(4) 14 CFR part 119.
(5) 14 CFR part 121.
(6) 14 CFR part 125.
(7) 14 CFR part 135.
(8) 14 CFR part 141.
(9) 14 CFR part 142.
(10) AC 120-28, as amended, Criteria for Approval of Category
III Landing Weather Minima.
(11) AC 120-29, as amended, Criteria for Approving Category I
and Category II Landing Minima for part 121 operators.
(12) AC 120-35, as amended, Line Operational Simulations: Line-
Oriented Flight Training, Special Purpose Operational Training, Line
Operational Evaluation.
(13) AC 120-41, as amended, Criteria for Operational Approval of
Airborne Wind Shear Alerting and Flight Guidance Systems.
(14) AC 120-45, as amended, Airplane Flight Training Device
Qualification.
(14) AC 120-57, as amended, Surface Movement Guidance and
Control System (SMGCS).
(15) AC 150/5300-13, as amended, Airport Design.
(16) AC 150/5340-1, as amended, Standards for Airport Markings.
(17) AC 150/5340-4, as amended, Installation Details for Runway
Centerline Touchdown Zone Lighting Systems.
(18) AC 150/5340-19, as amended, Taxiway Centerline Lighting
System.
(19) AC 150/5340-24, as amended, Runway and Taxiway Edge
Lighting System.
(20) AC 150/5345-28, as amended, Precision Approach Path
Indicator (PAPI) Systems.
(21) International Air Transport Association document, ``Flight
Simulator Design and Performance Data Requirements,'' as amended.
(22) AC 25-7, as amended, Flight Test Guide for Certification of
Transport Category Airplanes.
(23) AC 23-8A, as amended, Flight Test Guide for Certification
of Part 23 Airplanes.
(24) International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Manual of
Criteria for the Qualification of Flight Simulators, as amended.
(25) Airplane Flight Simulator Evaluation Handbook, Volume I, as
amended and Volume II, as amended, The Royal Aeronautical Society,
London, UK.
(26) FAA Publication FAA-S-8081 series (Practical Test Standards
for Airline Transport Pilot Certificate, Type Ratings, Commercial
Pilot, and Instrument Ratings).
(27) The FAA Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM). An
electronic version of the AIM is on the internet at http://www.faa.gov/atpubs.
(28) Aeronautical Radio, Inc. (ARINC) document number 436,
titled Guidelines For Electronic Qualification Test Guide (as
amended).
(29) Aeronautical Radio, Inc. (ARINC) document 610, Guidance for
Design and Integration of Aircraft Avionics Equipment in Simulators
(as amended).
End Information
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Applicability (Sec. Sec. 60.1 and 60.2)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Begin Information
No additional regulatory or informational material applies to
Sec. 60.1, Applicability, or to Sec. 60.2, Applicability of
sponsor rules to persons who are not sponsors and who are engaged in
certain unauthorized activities.
3. Definitions (Sec. 60.3)
See Appendix F of this part for a list of definitions and
abbreviations from part 1, part 60, and the QPS appendices of part
60.
4. Qualification Performance Standards (Sec. 60.4)
No additional regulatory or informational material applies to
Sec. 60.4, Qualification Performance Standards.
5. Quality Management System (Sec. 60.5)
Additional regulatory material and informational material
regarding Quality Management Systems for FTDs may be found in
Appendix E of this part.
End Information
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Sponsor Qualification Requirements. (Sec. 60.7)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Begin Information
a. The intent of the language in Sec. 60.7(b) is to have a
specific FTD, identified by the sponsor, used at least once in an
FAA-approved flight training program for the airplane simulated
during the 12-month period described. The identification of the
specific FTD may change from one 12-month period to the next 12-
month period as long as that sponsor sponsors and uses at least one
FTD at least once during the prescribed period. There is no minimum
number of hours or minimum FTD periods required.
b. The following examples describe acceptable operational
practices:
(1) Example One.
(a) A sponsor is sponsoring a single, specific FTD for its own
use, in its own facility or elsewhere--this single FTD forms the
basis for the sponsorship. The sponsor uses that FTD at least once
in each 12-month period in that sponsor's FAA-approved flight
training program for the airplane simulated. This 12-month period is
established according to the following schedule:
(i) If the FTD was qualified prior to May 30, 2008, the 12-month
period begins on the date of the first continuing qualification
evaluation conducted in accordance with Sec. 60.19 after May 30,
2008, and continues for each subsequent 12-month period;
(ii) A device qualified on or after May 30, 2008, will be
required to undergo an initial or upgrade evaluation in accordance
with Sec. 60.15. Once the initial or upgrade evaluation is
complete, the first continuing qualification evaluation will be
conducted within 6 months. The 12 month continuing qualification
evaluation cycle begins on that date and continues for each
subsequent 12-month period.
(b) There is no minimum number of hours of FTD use required.
(c) The identification of the specific FTD may change from one
12-month period to the next 12-month period as long as that sponsor
sponsors and uses at least one FTD at least once during the
prescribed period.
(2) Example Two.
(a) A sponsor sponsors an additional number of FTDs, in its
facility or elsewhere. Each additionally sponsored FTD must be--
(i) Used by the sponsor in the sponsor's FAA-approved flight
training program for the airplane simulated (as described in Sec.
60.7(d)(1));
OR
(ii) Used by another FAA certificate holder in that other
certificate holder's FAA-approved flight training program for the
airplane simulated (as described in Sec. 60.7(d)(1)). This 12-month
period is established in the same manner as in example one.
OR
(iii) Provided a statement each year from a qualified pilot,
(after having flown the airplane, not the subject FTD or another
FTD, during the preceding 12-month period) stating that the subject
FTD's performance and handling qualities represent the airplane (as
described in Sec. 60.7(d)(2)). This statement is provided at least
once in each 12-month period established in the same manner as in
example one.
(b) There is no minimum number of hours of FTD use required.
(3) Example Three.
(a) A sponsor in New York (in this example, a Part 142
certificate holder) establishes ``satellite'' training centers in
Chicago and Moscow.
[[Page 39637]]
(b) The satellite function means that the Chicago and Moscow
centers must operate under the New York center's certificate (in
accordance with all of the New York center's practices, procedures,
and policies; e.g., instructor and/or technician training/checking
requirements, record keeping, QMS program).
(c) All of the FTDs in the Chicago and Moscow centers could be
dry-leased (i.e., the certificate holder does not have and use FAA-
approved flight training programs for the FTDs in the Chicago and
Moscow centers) because--
(i) Each FTD in the Chicago center and each FTD in the Moscow
center is used at least once each 12-month period by another FAA
certificate holder in that other certificate holder's FAA-approved
flight training program for the airplane (as described in Sec.
60.7(d)(1));
OR
(ii) A statement is obtained from a qualified pilot (having
flown the airplane, not the subject FTD or another FTD during the
preceding 12-month period) stating that the performance and handling
qualities of each FTD in the Chicago and Moscow centers represents
the airplane (as described in Sec. 60.7(d)(2)).
End Information
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Additional Responsibilities of the Sponsor (Sec. 60.9)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Begin Information
The phrase ``as soon as practicable'' in Sec. 60.9(a) means
without unnecessarily disrupting or delaying beyond a reasonable
time the training, evaluation, or experience being conducted in the
FTD.
8. FTD Use (Sec. 60.11)
No additional regulatory or informational material applies to
Sec. 60.11, FTD use.
End Information
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
9. FTD Objective Data Requirements (Sec. 60.13)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Begin QPS Requirements
a. Flight test data used to validate FTD performance and
handling qualities must have been gathered in accordance with a
flight test program containing the following:
(1) A flight test plan consisting of:
(a) The maneuvers and procedures required for aircraft
certification and simulation programming and validation.
(b) For each maneuver or procedure--
(i) The procedures and control input the flight test pilot and/
or engineer used.
(ii) The atmospheric and environmental conditions.
(iii) The initial flight conditions.
(iv) The airplane configuration, including weight and center of
gravity.
(v) The data to be gathered.
(vi) All other information necessary to recreate the flight test
conditions in the FTD.
(2) Appropriately qualified flight test personnel.
(3) An understanding of the accuracy of the data to be gathered
using appropriate alternative data sources, procedures, and
instrumentation that is traceable to a recognized standard as
described in Attachment 2, Table B2F of this appendix.
(4) Appropriate and sufficient data acquisition equipment or
system(s), including appropriate data reduction and analysis methods
and techniques, acceptable to the FAA's Aircraft Certification
Service.
b. The data, regardless of source, must be presented:
(1) In a format that supports the FTD validation process;
(2) In a manner that is clearly readable and annotated correctly
and completely;
(3) With resolution sufficient to determine compliance with the
tolerances set forth in Attachment 2, Table B2A, Appendix B;
(4) With any necessary guidance information provided; and
(5) Without alteration, adjustments, or bias. Data may be
corrected to address known data calibration errors provided that an
explanation of the methods used to correct the errors appears in the
QTG. The corrected data may be re-scaled, digitized, or otherwise
manipulated to fit the desired presentation.
c. After completion of any additional flight test, a flight test
report must be submitted in support of the validation data. The
report must contain sufficient data and rationale to support
qualification of the FTD at the level requested.
d. As required by Sec. 60.13(f), the sponsor must notify the
NSPM when it becomes aware that an addition to or a revision of the
flight related data or airplane systems related data is available if
this data is used to program and operate a qualified FTD. The data
referred to in this sub-section are those data that are used to
validate the performance, handling qualities, or other
characteristics of the aircraft, including data related to any
relevant changes occurring after the type certification is issued.
The sponsor must--
(1) Within 10 calendar days, notify the NSPM of the existence of
this data; and
(2) Within 45 calendar days, notify the NSPM of--
(i) The schedule to incorporate this data into the FTD; or
(ii) The reason for not incorporating this data into the FTD.
e. In those cases where the objective test results authorize a
``snapshot test'' or a ``series of snapshot test results'' in lieu
of a time-history result, the sponsor or other data provider must
ensure that a steady state condition exists at the instant of time
captured by the ``snapshot.'' The steady state condition must exist
from 4 seconds prior to, through 1 second following, the instant of
time captured by the snap shot.
End QPS Requirements
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Begin Information
f. The FTD sponsor is encouraged to maintain a liaison with the
manufacturer of the aircraft being simulated (or with the holder of
the aircraft type certificate for the aircraft being simulated if
the manufacturer is no longer in business), and if appropriate, with
the person having supplied the aircraft data package for the FTD in
order to facilitate the notification described in this paragraph.
g. It is the intent of the NSPM that for new aircraft entering
service, at a point well in advance of preparation of the QTG, the
sponsor should submit to the NSPM for approval, a descriptive
document (see Appendix A, Table A2C, Sample Validation Data Roadmap
for Airplanes) containing the plan for acquiring the validation
data, including data sources. This document should clearly identify
sources of data for all required tests, a description of the
validity of these data for a specific engine type and thrust rating
configuration, and the revision levels of all avionics affecting the
performance or flying qualities of the aircraft. Additionally, this
document should provide other information such as the rationale or
explanation for cases where data or data parameters are missing,
instances where engineering simulation data are used, or where
flight test methods require further explanations. It should also
provide a brief narrative describing the cause and effect of any
deviation from data requirements. The aircraft manufacturer may
provide this document.
h. There is no requirement for any flight test data supplier to
submit a flight test plan or program prior to gathering flight test
data. However, the NSPM notes that inexperienced data gatherers
often provide data that is irrelevant, improperly marked, or lacking
adequate justification for selection. Other problems include
inadequate information regarding initial conditions or test
maneuvers. The NSPM has been forced to refuse these data submissions
as validation data for an FTD evaluation. It is for this reason that
the NSPM recommends that any data supplier not previously
experienced in this area review the data necessary for programming
and for validating the performance of the FTD and discuss the flight
test plan anticipated for acquiring such data with the NSPM well in
advance of commencing the flight tests.
i. The NSPM will consider, on a case-by-case basis, whether to
approve supplemental validation data derived from flight data
recording systems such as a Quick Access Recorder or Flight Data
Recorder.
End Information
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Special Equipment and Personnel Requirements for Qualification of
the FTD (Sec. 60.14)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Begin Information
a. In the event that the NSPM determines that special equipment
or specifically qualified persons will be required to conduct an
evaluation, the NSPM will make every attempt to notify the sponsor
at least one (1) week, but in no case less than 72 hours, in advance
of the evaluation. Examples of special equipment include flight
control measurement devices, accelerometers, or oscilloscopes.
Examples of specially qualified personnel include individuals
[[Page 39638]]
specifically qualified to install or use any special equipment when
its use is required.
b. Examples of a special evaluation include an evaluation
conducted after: An FTD is moved; at the request of the TPAA; or as
a result of comments received from users of the FTD that raise
questions about the continued qualification or use of the FTD.
End Information
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Initial (and Upgrade) Qualification Requirements (Sec. 60.15)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Begin QPS Requirement
a. In order to be qualified at a particular qualification level,
the FTD must:
(1) Meet the general requirements listed in Attachment 1 of this
appendix;
(2) Meet the objective testing requirements listed in Attachment
2 of this appendix (Level 4 FTDs do not require objective tests);
and
(3) Satisfactorily accomplish the subjective tests listed in
Attachment 3 of this appendix.
b. The request described in Sec. 60.15(a) must include all of
the following:
(1) A statement that the FTD meets all of the applicable
provisions of this part and all applicable provisions of the QPS.
(2) A confirmation that the sponsor will forward to the NSPM the
statement described in Sec. 60.15(b) in such time as to be received
no later than 5 business days prior to the scheduled evaluation and
may be forwarded to the NSPM via traditional or electronic means.
(3) Except for a Level 4 FTD, a QTG, acceptable to the NSPM,
that includes all of the following:
(a) Objective data obtained from aircraft testing or another
approved source.
(b) Correlating objective test results obtained from the
performance of the FTD as prescribed in the appropriate QPS.
(c) The result of FTD subjective tests prescribed in the
appropriate QPS.
(d) A description of the equipment necessary to perform the
evaluation for initial qualification and the continuing
qualification evaluations.
c. The QTG described in paragraph a(3) of this section, must
provide the documented proof of compliance with the FTD objective
tests in Attachment 2, Table B2A of this appendix.
d. The QTG is prepared and submitted by the sponsor, or the
sponsor's agent on behalf of the sponsor, to the NSPM for review and
approval, and must include, for each objective test:
(1) Parameters, tolerances, and flight conditions;
(2) Pertinent and complete instructions for conducting automatic
and manual tests;
(3) A means of comparing the FTD test results to the objective
data;
(4) Any other information as necessary to assist in the
evaluation of the test results;
(5) Other information appropriate to the qualification level of
the FTD.
e. The QTG described in paragraphs (a)(3) and (b) of this
section, must include the following:
(1) A QTG cover page with sponsor and FAA approval signature
blocks (see Attachment 4, Figure B4C, of this appendix, for a sample
QTG cover page).
(2) A continuing qualification evaluation requirements page.
This page will be used by the NSPM to establish and record the
frequency with which continuing qualification evaluations must be
conducted and any subsequent changes that may be determined by the
NSPM in accordance with Sec. 60.19. See Attachment 4, Figure B4G,
of this appendix, for a sample Continuing Qualification Evaluation
Requirements page.
(3) An FTD information page that provides the information listed
in this paragraph, if applicable (see Attachment 4, Figure B4B, of
this appendix, for a sample FTD information page). For convertible
FTDs, the sponsor must submit a separate page for each configuration
of the FTD.
(a) The sponsor's FTD identification number or code.
(b) The airplane model and series being simulated.
(c) The aerodynamic data revision number or reference.
(d) The source of the basic aerodynamic model and the
aerodynamic coefficient data used to modify the basic model.
(e) The engine model(s) and its data revision number or
reference.
(f) The flight control data revision number or reference.
(g) The flight management system identification and revision
level.
(h) The FTD model and manufacturer.
(i) The date of FTD manufacture.
(j) The FTD computer identification.
(k) The visual system model and manufacturer, including display
type.
(l) The motion system type and manufacturer, including degrees
of freedom.
(4) A Table of Contents.
(5) A log of revisions and a list of effective pages.
(6) List of all relevant data references.
(7) A glossary of terms and symbols used (including sign
conventions and units).
(8) Statements of compliance and capability (SOCs) with certain
requirements.
(9) Recording procedures or equipment required to accomplish the
objective tests.
(10) The following information for each objective test
designated in Attachment 2 of this appendix, as applicable to the
qualification level sought:
(a) Name of the test.
(b) Objective of the test.
(c) Initial conditions.
(d) Manual test procedures.
(e) Automatic test procedures (if applicable).
(f) Method for evaluating FTD objective test results.
(g) List of all relevant parameters driven or constrained during
the automatic test(s).
(h) List of all relevant parameters driven or constrained during
the manual test(s).
(i) Tolerances for relevant parameters.
(j) Source of Validation Data (document and page number).
(k) Copy of the Validation Data (if located in a separate
binder, a cross reference for the identification and page number for
pertinent data location must be provided).
(l) FTD Objective Test Results as obtained by the sponsor. Each
test result must reflect the date completed and must be clearly
labeled as a product of the device being tested.
f. A convertible FTD is addressed as a separate FTD for each
model and series airplane to which it will be converted and for the
FAA qualification level sought. The NSPM will conduct an evaluation
for each configuration. If a sponsor seeks qualification for two or
more models of an airplane type using a convertible FTD, the sponsor
must provide a QTG for each airplane model, or a QTG for the first
airplane model and a supplement to that QTG for each additional
airplane model. The NSPM will conduct evaluations for each airplane
model.
g. The form and manner of presentation of objective test results
in the QTG must include the following:
(1) The sponsor's FTD test results must be recorded in a manner
acceptable to the NSPM, that allows easy comparison of the FTD test
results to the validation data (e.g., use of a multi-channel
recorder, line printer, cross plotting, overlays, transparencies).
(2) FTD results must be labeled using terminology common to
airplane parameters as opposed to computer software identifications.
(3) Validation data documents included in a QTG may be
photographically reduced only if such reduction will not alter the
graphic scaling or cause difficulties in scale interpretation or
resolution.
(4) Scaling on graphical presentations must provide the
resolution necessary to evaluate the parameters shown in Attachment
2, Table B2A of this appendix.
(5) Tests involving time histories, data sheets (or
transparencies thereof) and FTD test results must be clearly marked
with appropriate reference points to ensure an accurate comparison
between FTD and airplane with respect to time. Time histories
recorded via a line printer are to be clearly identified for cross-
plotting on the airplane data. Over-plots may not obscure the
reference data.
h. The sponsor may elect to complete the QTG objective and
subjective tests at the manufacturer's facility or at the sponsor's
training facility. If the tests are conducted at the manufacturer's
facility, the sponsor must repeat at least one-third of the tests at
the sponsor's training facility in order to substantiate FTD
performance. The QTG must be clearly annotated to indicate when and
where each test was accomplished. Tests conducted at the
manufacturer's facility and at the sponsor's training facility must
be conducted after the FTD is assembled with systems and sub-systems
functional and operating in an interactive manner. The test results
must be submitted to the NSPM.
i. The sponsor must maintain a copy of the MQTG at the FTD
location.
j. All FTDs for which the initial qualification is conducted
after May 30, 2014, must have an electronic MQTG (eMQTG) including
all objective data obtained from airplane testing, or another
approved source (reformatted or digitized), together with
correlating objective test results obtained from the performance of
the FTD
[[Page 39639]]
(reformatted or digitized) as prescribed in this appendix. The eMQTG
must also contain the general FTD performance or demonstration
results (reformatted or digitized) prescribed in this appendix, and
a description of the equipment necessary to perform the initial
qualification evaluation and the continuing qualification
evaluations. The eMQTG must include the original validation data
used to validate FTD performance and handling qualities in either
the original digitized format from the data supplier or an
electronic scan of the original time-history plots that were
provided by the data supplier. A copy of the eMQTG must be provided
to the NSPM.
k. All other FTDs (not covered in subparagraph ``j'') must have
an electronic copy of the MQTG by and after May 30, 2014. An
electronic copy of the copy of the MQTG must be provided to the
NSPM. This may be provided by an electronic scan presented in a
Portable Document File (PDF), or similar format acceptable to the
NSPM.
l. During the initial (or upgrade) qualification evaluation
conducted by the NSPM, the sponsor must also provide a person
knowledgeable about the operation of the aircraft and the operation
of the FTD.
End QPS Requirements
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Begin Information
m. Only those FTDs that are sponsored by a certificate holder as
defined in Appendix F will be evaluated by the NSPM. However, other
FTD evaluations may be conducted on a case-by-case basis as the
Administrator deems appropriate, but only in accordance with
applicable agreements.
n. The NSPM will conduct an evaluation for each configuration,
and each FTD must be evaluated as completely as possible. To ensure
a thorough and uniform evaluation, each FTD is subjected to the
general FTD requirements in Attachment 1 of this appendix, the
objective tests listed in Attachment 2 of this appendix, and the
subjective tests listed in Attachment 3 of this appendix. The
evaluations described herein will include, but not necessarily be
limited to the following:
(1) Airplane responses, including longitudinal and lateral-
directional control responses (see Attachment 2 of this appendix);
(2) Performance in authorized portions of the simulated
airplane's operating envelope, to include tasks evaluated by the
NSPM in the areas of surface operations, takeoff, climb, cruise,
descent, approach and landing, as well as abnormal and emergency
operations (see Attachment 2 of this appendix);
(3) Control checks (see Attachment 1 and Attachment 2 of this
appendix);
(4) Flight deck configuration (see Attachment 1 of this
appendix);
(5) Pilot, flight engineer, and instructor station functions
checks (see Attachment 1 and Attachment 3 of this appendix);
(6) Airplane systems and sub-systems (as appropriate) as
compared to the airplane simulated (see attachment 1 and attachment
3 of this appendix);
(7) FTD systems and sub-systems, including force cueing
(motion), visual, and aural (sound) systems, as appropriate (see
Attachment 1 and Attachment 2 of this appendix); and
(8) Certain additional requirements, depending upon the
qualification level sought, including equipment or circumstances
that may become hazardous to the occupants. The sponsor may be
subject to Occupational Safety and Health Administration
requirements.
o. The NSPM administers the objective and subjective tests,
which include an examination of functions. The tests include a
qualitative assessment of the FTD by an NSP pilot. The NSP
evaluation team leader may assign other qualified personnel to
assist in accomplishing the functions examination and/or the
objective and subjective tests performed during an evaluation when
required.
(1) Objective tests provide a basis for measuring and evaluating
FTD performance and determining compliance with the requirements of
this part.
(2) Subjective tests provide a basis for:
(a) Evaluating the capability of the FTD to perform over a
typical utilization period;
(b) Determining that the FTD satisfactorily simulates each
required task;
(c) Verifying correct operation of the FTD controls,
instruments, and systems; and
(d) Demonstrating compliance with the requirements of this part.
p. The tolerances for the test parameters listed in Attachment 2
of this appendix reflect the range of tolerances acceptable to the
NSPM for FTD validation and are not to be confused with design
tolerances specified for FTD manufacture. In making decisions
regarding tests and test results, the NSPM relies on the use of
operational and engineering judgment in the application of data
(including consideration of the way in which the flight test was
flown and way the data was gathered and applied) data presentations,
and the applicable tolerances for each test.
q. In addition to the scheduled continuing qualification
evaluation, each FTD is subject to evaluations conducted by the NSPM
at any time without prior notification to the sponsor. Such
evaluations would be accomplished in a normal manner (i.e.,
requiring exclusive use of the FTD for the conduct of objective and
subjective tests and an examination of functions) if the FTD is not
being used for flight crewmember training, testing, or checking.
However, if the FTD were being used, the evaluation would be
conducted in a nonexclusive manner. This nonexclusive evaluation
will be conducted by the FTD evaluator accompanying the check
airman, instructor, Aircrew Program Designee (APD), or FAA inspector
aboard the FTD along with the student(s) and observing the operation
of the FTD during the training, testing, or checking activities.
r. Problems with objective test results are handled as follows:
(1) If a problem with an objective test result is detected by
the NSP evaluation team during an evaluation, the test may be
repeated or the QTG may be amended.
(2) If it is determined that the results of an objective test do
not support the qualification level requested but do support a lower
level, the NSPM may qualify the FTD at a lower level. For example,
if a Level 6 evaluation is requested, but the FTD fails to meet the
spiral stability test tolerances, it could be qualified at Level 5.
s. After an FTD is successfully evaluated, the NSPM issues an
SOQ to the sponsor. The NSPM recommends the FTD to the TPAA, who
will approve the FTD for use in a flight training program. The SOQ
will be issued at the satisfactory conclusion of the initial or
continuing qualification evaluation and will list the tasks for
which the FTD is qualified, referencing the tasks described in Table
B1B in attachment 1 of this appendix. However, it is the sponsor's
responsibility to obtain TPAA approval prior to using the FTD in an
FAA-approved flight training program.
t. Under normal circumstances, the NSPM establishes a date for
the initial or upgrade evaluation within ten (10) working days after
determining that a complete QTG is acceptable. Unusual circumstances
may warrant establishing an evaluation date before this
determination is made. A sponsor may schedule an evaluation date as
early as 6 months in advance. However, there may be a delay of 45
days or more in rescheduling and completing the evaluation if the
sponsor is unable to meet the scheduled date. See Attachment 4,
Figure B4A, Sample Request for Initial, Upgrade, or Reinstatement
Evaluation, of this appendix.
u. The numbering system used for objective test results in the
QTG should closely follow the numbering system set out in Attachment
2, FTD Objective Tests, Table B2A, of this appendix.
v. Contact the NSPM or visit the NSPM Web site for additional
information regarding the preferred qualifications of pilots used to
meet the requirements of Sec. 60.15(d).
w. Examples of the exclusions for which the FTD might not have
been subjectively tested by the sponsor or the NSPM and for which
qualification might not be sought or granted, as described in Sec.
60.15(g)(6), include engine out maneuvers or circling approaches.
12. Additional Qualifications for Currently Qualified FTDs (Sec.
60.16)
No additional regulatory or informational material applies to
Sec. 60.16, Additional Qualifications for a Currently Qualified
FTD.
End Information
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Previously Qualified FTDs (Sec. 60.17)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Begin QPS Requirements
a. In instances where a sponsor plans to remove an FTD from
active status for a period of less than two years, the following
procedures apply:
(1) The NSPM must be notified in writing and the notification
must include an estimate of the period that the FTD will be
inactive;
(2) Continuing Qualification evaluations will not be scheduled
during the inactive period;
(3) The NSPM will remove the FTD from the list of qualified FTDs
on a mutually established date not later than the date on which the
first missed continuing
[[Page 39640]]
qualification evaluation would have been scheduled;
(4) Before the FTD is restored to qualified status, it must be
evaluated by the NSPM. The evaluation content and the time required
to accomplish the evaluation is based on the number of continuing
qualification evaluations and sponsor-conducted quarterly
inspections missed during the period of inactivity.
(5) The sponsor must notify the NSPM of any changes to the
original scheduled time out of service;
b. FTDs qualified prior to May 30, 2008, and replacement FTD
systems, are not required to meet the general FTD requirements, the
objective test requirements, and the subjective test requirements of
Attachments 1, 2, and 3 of this appendix as long as the FTD
continues to meet the test requirements contained in the MQTG
developed under the original qualification basis.
c. [Reserved]
d. FTDs qualified prior to May 30, 2008, may be updated. If an
evaluation is deemed appropriate or necessary by the NSPM after such
an update, the evaluation will not require an evaluation to
standards beyond those against which the FTD was originally
qualified.
End QPS Requirements
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Begin Information
e. Other certificate holders or persons desiring to use an FTD
may contract with FTD sponsors to use FTDs previously qualified at a
particular level for an airplane type and approved for use within an
FAA-approved flight training program. Such FTDs are not required to
undergo an additional qualification process, except as described in
Sec. 60.16.
f. Each FTD user must obtain approval from the appropriate TPAA
to use any FTD in an FAA-approved flight training program.
g. The intent of the requirement listed in Sec. 60.17(b), for
each FTD to have an SOQ within 6 years, is to have the availability
of that statement (including the configuration list and the
limitations to authorizations) to provide a complete picture of the
FTD inventory regulated by the FAA. The issuance of the statement
will not require any additional evaluation or require any adjustment
to the evaluation basis for the FTD.
h. Downgrading of an FTD is a permanent change in qualification
level and will necessitate the issuance of a revised SOQ to reflect
the revised qualification level, as appropriate. If a temporary
restriction is placed on an FTD because of a missing,
malfunctioning, or inoperative component or on-going repairs, the
restriction is not a permanent change in qualification level.
Instead, the restriction is temporary and is removed when the reason
for the restriction has been resolved.
i. The NSPM will determine the evaluation criteria for an FTD
that has been removed from active status for a prolonged period. The
criteria will be based on the number of continuing qualification
evaluations and quarterly inspections missed during the period of
inactivity. For example, if the FTD were out of service for a 1 year
period, it would be necessary to complete the entire QTG, since all
of the quarterly evaluations would have been missed. The NSPM will
also consider how the FTD was stored, whether parts were removed
from the FTD and whether the FTD was disassembled.
j. The FTD will normally be requalified using the FAA-approved
MQTG and the criteria that was in effect prior to its removal from
qualification. However, inactive periods of 2 years or more will
require re-qualification under the standards in effect and current
at the time of requalification.
End Information
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Inspection, Continuing Qualification, Evaluation, and Maintenance
Requirements (Sec. 60.19).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Begin QPS Requirement
a. The sponsor must conduct a minimum of four evenly spaced
inspections throughout the year. The objective test sequence and
content of each inspection in this sequence must be developed by the
sponsor and must be acceptable to the NSPM.
b. The description of the functional preflight check must be
contained in the sponsor's QMS.
c. Record ``functional preflight'' in the FTD discrepancy log
book or other acceptable location, including any item found to be
missing, malfunctioning, or inoperative.
d. During the continuing qualification evaluation conducted by
the NSPM, the sponsor must also provide a person knowledgeable about
the operation of the aircraft and the operation of the FTD.
End QPS Requirements
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Begin Information
e. The sponsor's test sequence and the content of each quarterly
inspection required in Sec. 60.19(a)(1) should include a balance
and a mix from the objective test requirement areas listed as
follows:
(1) Performance.
(2) Handling qualities.
(3) Motion system (where appropriate).
(4) Visual system (where appropriate).
(5) Sound system (where appropriate).
(6) Other FTD systems.
f. If the NSP evaluator plans to accomplish specific tests
during a normal continuing qualification evaluation that requires
the use of special equipment or technicians, the sponsor will be
notified as far in advance of the evaluation as practical; but not
less than 72 hours. Examples of such tests include latencies,
control sweeps, or motion or visual system tests.
g. The continuing qualification evaluations described in Sec.
60.19(b) will normally require 4 hours of FTD time. However,
flexibility is necessary to address abnormal situations or
situations involving aircraft with additional levels of complexity
(e.g., computer controlled aircraft). The sponsor should anticipate
that some tests may require additional time. The continuing
qualification evaluations will consist of the following:
(1) Review of the results of the quarterly inspections conducted
by the sponsor since the last scheduled continuing qualification
evaluation.
(2) A selection of approximately 8 to 15 objective tests from
the MQTG that provide an adequate opportunity to evaluate the
performance of the FTD. The tests chosen will be performed either
automatically or manually and should be able to be conducted within
approximately one-third (\1/3\) of the allotted FTD time.
(3) A subjective evaluation of the FTD to perform a
representative sampling of the tasks set out in attachment 3 of this
appendix. This portion of the evaluation should take approximately
two-thirds (\2/3\) of the allotted FTD time.
(4) An examination of the functions of the FTD may include the
motion system, visual system, sound system as applicable, instructor
operating station, and the normal functions and simulated
malfunctions of the airplane systems. This examination is normally
accomplished simultaneously with the subjective evaluation
requirements.
h. The requirement established in Sec. 60.19(b)(4) regarding
the frequency of NSPM-conducted continuing qualification evaluations
for each FTD is typically 12 months. However, the establishment and
satisfactory implementation of an approved QMS for a sponsor will
provide a basis for adjusting the frequency of evaluations to exceed
12-month intervals.
15. Logging FTD Discrepancies (Sec. 60.20)
No additional regulatory or informational material applies to
Sec. 60.20. Logging FTD Discrepancies.
16. Interim Qualification of FTDs for New Airplane Types or Models
(Sec. 60.21)
No additional regulatory or informational material applies to
Sec. 60.21, Interim Qualification of FTDs for New Airplane Types or
Models.
End Information
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Modifications to FTDs (Sec. 60.23)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Begin QPS Requirements
a. The notification described in Sec. 60.23(c)(2) must include
a complete description of the planned modification, with a
description of the operational and engineering effect the proposed
modification will have on the operation of the FTD and the results
that are expected with the modification incorporated.
b. Prior to using the modified FTD:
(1) All the applicable objective tests completed with the
modification incorporated, including any necessary updates to the
MQTG (e.g., accomplishment of FSTD Directives) must be acceptable to
the NSPM; and
(2) The sponsor must provide the NSPM with a statement signed by
the MR that the factors listed in Sec. 60.15(b) are addressed by
the appropriate personnel as described in that section.
[[Page 39641]]
End QPS Requirements
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Begin Information
c. FSTD Directives are considered modification of an FTD. See
Attachment 4 of this appendix for a sample index of effective FSTD
Directives.
d. Examples of MQTG changes that do not require notification
under Sec. 60.23(a) are limited to repagination, correction of
typographical or grammatical errors, typesetting, or presenting
additional parameters on existing test result formats. All changes
regardless of nature should be reported in the MQTG revision
history.
End Information
18. Operation With Missing, Malfunctioning, or Inoperative Components
(Sec. 60.25)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Begin Information
a. The sponsor's responsibility with respect to Sec. 60.25(a)
is satisfied when the sponsor fairly and accurately advises the user
of the current status of an FTD, including any missing,
malfunctioning, or inoperative (MMI) component(s).
b. It is the responsibility of the instructor, check airman, or
representative of the administrator conducting training, testing, or
checking to exercise reasonable and prudent judgment to determine if
any MMI component is necessary for the satisfactory completion of a
specific maneuver, procedure, or task.
c. If the 29th or 30th day of the 30-day period described in
Sec. 60.25(b) is on a Saturday, a Sunday, or a holiday, the FAA
will extend the deadline until the next business day.
d. In accordance with the authorization described in Sec.
60.25(b), the sponsor may develop a discrepancy prioritizing system
to accomplish repairs based on the level of impact on the capability
of the FTD. Repairs having a larger impact on the FTD's ability to
provide the required training, evaluation, or flight experience will
have a higher priority for repair or replacement.
End Information
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Automatic Loss of Qualification and Procedures for Restoration of
Qualification (Sec. 60.27)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Begin Information
If the sponsor provides a plan for how the FTD will be
maintained during its out-of-service period (e.g., periodic exercise
of mechanical, hydraulic, and electrical systems; routine
replacement of hydraulic fluid; control of the environmental factors
in which the FTD is to be maintained) there is a greater likelihood
that the NSPM will be able to determine the amount of testing that
required for requalification.
End Information
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Other Losses of Qualification and Procedures for Restoration of
Qualification (Sec. 60.29.)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Begin Information
If the sponsor provides a plan for how the FTD will be
maintained during its out-of-service period (e.g., periodic exercise
of mechanical, hydraulic, and electrical systems; routine
replacement of hydraulic fluid; control of the environmental factors
in which the FTD is to be maintained) there is a greater likelihood
that the NSPM will be able to determine the amount of testing that
required for requalification.
End Information
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
21. Recordkeeping and Reporting (Sec. 60.31.)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Begin QPS Requirements
a. FTD modifications can include hardware or software changes.
For FTD modifications involving software programming changes, the
record required by Sec. 60.31(a)(2) must consist of the name of the
aircraft system software, aerodynamic model, or engine model change,
the date of the change, a summary of the change, and the reason for
the change.
b. If a coded form for record keeping is used, it must provide
for the preservation and retrieval of information with appropriate
security or controls to prevent the inappropriate alteration of such
records after the fact.
End QPS Requirements
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
22. Applications, Logbooks, Reports, and Records: Fraud, Falsification,
or Incorrect Statements (Sec. 60.33)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Begin Information
No additional regulatory or informational material applies to
Sec. 60.33, Applications, Logbooks, Reports, and Records: Fraud,
Falsification, or Incorrect Statements.
End Information
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
23. [Reserved]
24. Levels of FTD
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Begin Information
a. The following is a general description of each level of FTD.
Detailed standards and tests for the various levels of FTDs are
fully defined in Attachments 1 through 3 of this appendix.
(1) Level 4. A device that may have an open airplane-specific
flight deck area, or an enclosed airplane-specific flight deck and
at least one operating system. Air/ground logic is required (no
aerodynamic programming required). All displays may be flat/LCD
panel representations or actual representations of displays in the
aircraft. All controls, switches, and knobs may be touch sensitive
activation (not capable of manual manipulation of the flight
controls) or may physically replicate the aircraft in control
operation.
(2) Level 5. A device that may have an open airplane-specific
flight deck area, or an enclosed airplane-specific flight deck;
generic aerodynamic programming; at least one operating system; and
control loading that is representative of the simulated airplane
only at an approach speed and configuration. All displays may be
flat/LCD panel representations or actual representations of displays
in the aircraft. Primary and secondary flight controls (e.g.,
rudder, aileron, elevator, flaps, spoilers/speed brakes, engine
controls, landing gear, nosewheel steering, trim, brakes) must be
physical controls. All other controls, switches, and knobs may be
touch sensitive activation.
(3) Level 6. A device that has an enclosed airplane-specific
flight deck; airplane-specific aerodynamic programming; all
applicable airplane systems operating; control loading that is
representative of the simulated airplane throughout its ground and
flight envelope; and significant sound representation. All displays
may be flat/LCD panel representations or actual representations of
displays in the aircraft, but all controls, switches, and knobs must
physically replicate the aircraft in control operation.
(4) Level 7. A Level 7 device is one that has an enclosed
airplane-specific flight deck and aerodynamic program with all
applicable airplane systems operating and control loading that is
representative of the simulated airplane throughout its ground and
flight envelope and significant sound representation. All displays
may be flat/LCD panel representations or actual representations of
displays in the aircraft, but all controls, switches, and knobs must
physically replicate the aircraft in control operation. It also has
a visual system that provides an out-of-the-flight deck view,
providing cross-flight deck viewing (for both pilots simultaneously)
of a field-of-view of at least 200[deg] horizontally and 40[deg]
vertically.
End Information
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
25. FTD Qualification on the Basis of a Bilateral Aviation Safety
Agreement (BASA) (Sec. 60.37)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Begin Information
No additional regulatory or informational material applies to
Sec. 60.37, FTD Qualification on the Basis of a Bilateral Aviation
Safety Agreement (BASA).
End Information
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment 1 to Appendix B to Part 60-- General FTD Requirements
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Begin QPS Requirements
1. Requirements
a. Certain requirements included in this appendix must be
supported with an SOC as
[[Page 39642]]
defined in Appendix F, which may include objective and subjective
tests. The requirements for SOCs are indicated in the ``General FTD
Requirements'' column in Table B1A of this appendix.
b. Table B1A describes the requirements for the indicated level
of FTD. Many devices include operational systems or functions that
exceed the requirements outlined in this section. In any event, all
systems will be tested and evaluated in accordance with this
appendix to ensure proper operation.
End QPS Requirements
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Begin Information
2. Discussion
a. This attachment describes the general requirements for
qualifying Level 4 through Level 7 FTDs. The sponsor should also
consult the objectives tests in Attachment 2 of this appendix and
the examination of functions and subjective tests listed in
Attachment 3 of this appendix to determine the complete requirements
for a specific level FTD.
b. The material contained in this attachment is divided into the
following categories:
(1) General Flight deck Configuration.
(2) Programming.
(3) Equipment Operation.
(4) Equipment and facilities for instructor/evaluator functions.
(5) Motion System.
(6) Visual System.
(7) Sound System.
c. Table B1A provides the standards for the General FTD
Requirements.
d. Table B1B provides the tasks that the sponsor will examine to
determine whether the FTD satisfactorily meets the requirements for
flight crew training, testing, and experience, and provides the
tasks for which the simulator may be qualified.
e. Table B1C provides the functions that an instructor/check
airman must be able to control in the simulator.
f. It is not required that all of the tasks that appear on the
List of Qualified Tasks (part of the SOQ) be accomplished during the
initial or continuing qualification evaluation.
End Information
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 39643]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.131
[[Page 39644]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.132
[[Page 39645]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.133
[[Page 39646]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.134
[[Page 39647]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.135
[[Page 39648]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.136
[[Page 39649]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.137
[[Page 39650]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.138
[[Page 39651]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.139
[[Page 39652]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.140
[[Page 39653]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.141
[[Page 39654]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.142
[[Page 39655]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.143
[[Page 39656]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.144
[[Page 39657]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.145
[[Page 39658]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.146
[[Page 39659]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.147
[[Page 39660]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.148
[[Page 39661]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.149
[[Page 39662]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.150
[[Page 39663]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.152
[[Page 39664]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.153
[[Page 39665]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.154
[[Page 39666]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.155
[[Page 39667]]
Attachment 2 to Appendix B to Part 60--Flight Training Device (FTD)
Objective Tests
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Begin Information
1. Discussion
a. For the purposes of this attachment, the flight conditions
specified in the Flight Conditions Column of Table B2A, are defined
as follows:
(1) Ground--on ground, independent of airplane configuration;
(2) Take-off--gear down with flaps/slats in any certified
takeoff position;
(3) First segment climb--gear down with flaps/slats in any
certified takeoff position (normally not above 50 ft AGL);
(4) Second segment climb--gear up with flaps/slats in any
certified takeoff position (normally between 50 ft and 400 ft AGL);
(5) Clean--flaps/slats retracted and gear up;
(6) Cruise--clean configuration at cruise altitude and airspeed;
(7) Approach--gear up or down with flaps/slats at any normal
approach position as recommended by the airplane manufacturer; and
(8) Landing--gear down with flaps/slats in any certified landing
position.
b. The format for numbering the objective tests in Appendix A,
Attachment 2, Table A2A, and the objective tests in Appendix B,
Attachment 2, Table B2A, is identical. However, each test required
for FFSs is not necessarily required for FTDs. Also, each test
required for FTDs is not necessarily required for FFSs. Therefore,
when a test number (or series of numbers) is not required, the term
``Reserved'' is used in the table at that location. Following this
numbering format provides a degree of commonality between the two
tables and substantially reduces the potential for confusion when
referring to objective test numbers for either FFSs or FTDs.
c. The reader is encouraged to review the Airplane Flight
Simulator Evaluation Handbook, Volumes I and II, published by the
Royal Aeronautical Society, London, UK, and FAA AC 25-7, as amended,
Flight Test Guide for Certification of Transport Category Airplanes,
and AC 23-8, as amended, Flight Test Guide for Certification of Part
23 Airplanes, for references and examples regarding flight testing
requirements and techniques.
d. If relevant winds are present in the objective data, the wind
vector should be clearly noted as part of the data presentation,
expressed in conventional terminology, and related to the runway
being used for the test.
e. A Level 4 FTD does not require objective tests and therefore,
Level 4 is not addressed in the following table.
End Information
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Begin QPS Requirements
2. Test Requirements
a. The ground and flight tests required for qualification are
listed in Table B2A Objective Tests. Computer generated FTD test
results must be provided for each test except where an alternate
test is specifically authorized by the NSPM. If a flight condition
or operating condition is required for the test but does not apply
to the airplane being simulated or to the qualification level
sought, it may be disregarded (e.g., an engine out missed approach
for a single-engine airplane; a maneuver using reverse thrust for an
airplane without reverse thrust capability). Each test result is
compared against the validation data described in Sec. 60.13, and
in Appendix B. The results must be produced on an appropriate
recording device acceptable to the NSPM and must include FTD number,
date, time, conditions, tolerances, and appropriate dependent
variables portrayed in comparison to the validation data. Time
histories are required unless otherwise indicated in Table B2A. All
results must be labeled using the tolerances and units given.
b. Table B2A in this attachment sets out the test results
required, including the parameters, tolerances, and flight
conditions for FTD validation. Tolerances are provided for the
listed tests because mathematical modeling and acquisition and
development of reference data are often inexact. All tolerances
listed in the following tables are applied to FTD performance. When
two tolerance values are given for a parameter, the less restrictive
may be used unless otherwise indicated. In those cases where a
tolerance is expressed only as a percentage, the tolerance
percentage applies to the maximum value of that parameter within its
normal operating range as measured from the neutral or zero position
unless otherwise indicated.
c. Certain tests included in this attachment must be supported
with a SOC. In Table B2A, requirements for SOCs are indicated in the
``Test Details'' column.
d. When operational or engineering judgment is used in making
assessments for flight test data applications for FTD validity, such
judgment may not be limited to a single parameter. For example, data
that exhibit rapid variations of the measured parameters may require
interpolations or a ``best fit'' data section. All relevant
parameters related to a given maneuver or flight condition must be
provided to allow overall interpretation. When it is difficult or
impossible to match FTD to airplane data throughout a time history,
differences must be justified by providing a comparison of other
related variables for the condition being assessed.
e. It is not acceptable to program the FTD so that the
mathematical modeling is correct only at the validation test points.
Unless noted otherwise, tests must represent airplane performance
and handling qualities at operating weights and centers of gravity
(CG) typical of normal operation. If a test is supported by aircraft
data at one extreme weight or CG, another test supported by aircraft
data at mid-conditions or as close as possible to the other extreme
is necessary. Certain tests that are relevant only at one extreme CG
or weight condition need not be repeated at the other extreme. The
results of the tests for Level 6 are expected to be indicative of
the device's performance and handling qualities throughout all of
the following:
(1) The airplane weight and CG envelope;
(2) The operational envelope; and
(3) Varying atmospheric ambient and environmental conditions--
including the extremes authorized for the respective airplane or set
of airplanes.
f. When comparing the parameters listed to those of the
airplane, sufficient data must also be provided to verify the
correct flight condition and airplane configuration changes. For
example, to show that control force is within the parameters for a
static stability test, data to show the correct airspeed, power,
thrust or torque, airplane configuration, altitude, and other
appropriate datum identification parameters must also be given. If
comparing short period dynamics, normal acceleration may be used to
establish a match to the airplane, but airspeed, altitude, control
input, airplane configuration, and other appropriate data must also
be given. If comparing landing gear change dynamics, pitch,
airspeed, and altitude may be used to establish a match to the
airplane, but landing gear position must also be provided. All
airspeed values must be properly annotated (e.g., indicated versus
calibrated). In addition, the same variables must be used for
comparison (e.g., compare inches to inches rather than inches to
centimeters).
g. The QTG provided by the sponsor must clearly describe how the
FTD will be set up and operated for each test. Each FTD subsystem
may be tested independently, but overall integrated testing of the
FTD must be accomplished to assure that the total FTD system meets
the prescribed standards. A manual test procedure with explicit and
detailed steps for completing each test must also be provided.
h. For previously qualified FTDs, the tests and tolerances of
this attachment may be used in subsequent continuing qualification
evaluations for any given test if the sponsor has submitted a
proposed MQTG revision to the NSPM and has received NSPM approval.
i. FTDs are evaluated and qualified with an engine model
simulating the airplane data supplier's flight test engine. For
qualification of alternative engine models (either variations of the
flight test engines or other manufacturer's engines) additional
tests with the alternative engine models may be required. This
attachment contains guidelines for alternative engines.
j. Testing Computer Controlled Aircraft (CCA) simulators, or
other highly augmented airplane simulators, flight test data is
required for the Normal (N) and/or Non-normal (NN) control states,
as indicated in this attachment. Where test results are independent
of control state, Normal or Non-normal control data may be used. All
tests in Table B2A require test results in the Normal control state
unless specifically noted otherwise in the Test Details section
following the CCA designation. The NSPM will determine what tests
are appropriate for airplane simulation data. When making this
determination, the NSPM may require other levels of control state
degradation for specific airplane tests. Where Non-normal control
states are required, test data must be provided for one or more Non-
normal control states, and must include the least augmented
[[Page 39668]]
state. Where applicable, flight test data must record Normal and
Non-normal states for:
(1) Pilot controller deflections or electronically generated
inputs, including location of input; and
(2) Flight control surface positions unless test results are not
affected by, or are independent of, surface positions.
k. Tests of handling qualities must include validation of
augmentation devices. FTDs for highly augmented airplanes will be
validated both in the unaugmented configuration (or failure state
with the maximum permitted degradation in handling qualities) and
the augmented configuration. Where various levels of handling
qualities result from failure states, validation of the effect of
the failure is necessary. Requirements for testing will be mutually
agreed to between the sponsor and the NSPM on a case-by-case basis.
l. Some tests will not be required for airplanes using airplane
hardware in the FTD flight deck (e.g., ``side stick controller'').
These exceptions are noted in Section 2 ``Handling Qualities'' in
Table B2A of this attachment. However, in these cases, the sponsor
must provide a statement that the airplane hardware meets the
appropriate manufacturer's specifications and the sponsor must have
supporting information to that fact available for NSPM review.
m. For objective test purposes, see Appendix F of this part for
the definitions of ``Near maximum,'' ``Light,'' and ``Medium'' gross
weight.
End QPS Requirements
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Begin Information
n. In those cases where the objective test results authorize a
``snapshot test'' or a ``series of snapshot test results'' in lieu
of a time-history result, the sponsor or other data provider must
ensure that a steady state condition exists at the instant of time
captured by the ``snapshot.'' The steady state condition must exist
from 4 seconds prior to, through 1 second following, the instant of
time captured by the snap shot.
o. Refer to AC 120-27, ``Aircraft Weight and Balance;'' and FAA-
H-8083-1, ``Aircraft Weight and Balance Handbook'' for more
information.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
End Information
[[Page 39669]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.157
[[Page 39670]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.158
[[Page 39671]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.159
[[Page 39672]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.160
[[Page 39673]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.161
[[Page 39674]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.162
[[Page 39675]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.163
[[Page 39676]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.164
[[Page 39677]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.165
[[Page 39678]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.166
[[Page 39679]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.167
[[Page 39680]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.168
[[Page 39681]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.169
[[Page 39682]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.170
[[Page 39683]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.171
[[Page 39684]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.172
[[Page 39685]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.173
[[Page 39686]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.174
[[Page 39687]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.175
[[Page 39688]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.176
[[Page 39689]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.177
[[Page 39690]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.178
[[Page 39691]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.179
[[Page 39692]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.180
[[Page 39693]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.181
[[Page 39694]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.182
[[Page 39695]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.183
[[Page 39696]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.184
[[Page 39697]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.185
[[Page 39698]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.186
[[Page 39699]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.187
[[Page 39700]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.188
[[Page 39701]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.189
[[Page 39702]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.190
[[Page 39703]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.191
[[Page 39704]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.192
[[Page 39705]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.193
[[Page 39706]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.194
[[Page 39707]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.195
[[Page 39708]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Begin Information
3. For Additional Information on the Following Topics, Please Refer to
Appendix A, Attachment 2, and the Indicated Paragraph Within That
Attachment
Control Dynamics, paragraph 4.
Motion System, paragraph 6.
Sound System, paragraph 7.
Engineering Simulator Validation Data, paragraph 9.
Validation Test Tolerances, paragraph 11.
Validation Data Road Map, paragraph 12.
Acceptance Guidelines for Alternative Engines Data,
paragraph 13.
Acceptance Guidelines for Alternative Avionics,
paragraph 14.
Transport Delay Testing, paragraph 15.
Continuing Qualification Evaluation Validation Data
Presentation, paragraph 16.
End Information
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Alternative Objective Data for FTD Level 5
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Begin QPS Requirements
a. This paragraph (including the following tables) is relevant
only to FTD Level 5. It is provided because this level is required
to simulate the performance and handling characteristics of a set of
airplanes with similar characteristics, such as normal airspeed/
altitude operating envelope and the same number and type of
propulsion systems (engines).
b. Tables B2B through B2E reflect FTD performance standards that
are acceptable to the FAA. A sponsor must demonstrate that a device
performs within these parameters, as applicable. If a device does
not meet the established performance parameters for some or for all
of the applicable tests listed in Tables B2B through B2E, the
sponsor may use NSP accepted flight test data for comparison
purposes for those tests.
c. Sponsors using the data from Tables B2B through B2E must
comply with the following:
(1) Submit a complete QTG, including results from all of the
objective tests appropriate for the level of qualification sought as
set out in Table B2A. The QTG must highlight those results that
demonstrate the performance of the FTD is within the allowable
performance ranges indicated in Tables B2B through B2E, as
appropriate.
(2) The QTG test results must include all relevant information
concerning the conditions under which the test was conducted; e.g.,
gross weight, center of gravity, airspeed, power setting, altitude
(climbing, descending, or level), temperature, configuration, and
any other parameter that impacts the conduct of the test.
(3) The test results become the validation data against which
the initial and all subsequent continuing qualification evaluations
are compared. These subsequent evaluations will use the tolerances
listed in Table B2A.
(4) Subjective testing of the device must be performed to
determine that the device performs and handles like an airplane
within the appropriate set of airplanes.
End QPS Requirements
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Begin Information
d. The reader is encouraged to consult the Airplane Flight
Simulator Evaluation Handbook, Volumes I and II, published by the
Royal Aeronautical Society, London, UK, and AC 25-7, Flight Test
Guide for Certification of Transport Category Airplanes, and AC 23-
8A, Flight Test Guide for Certification of Part 23 Airplanes, as
amended, for references and examples regarding flight testing
requirements and techniques.
End Information
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 39709]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.196
[[Page 39710]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.197
[[Page 39711]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.198
[[Page 39712]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.199
[[Page 39713]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.200
[[Page 39714]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.201
[[Page 39715]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.202
[[Page 39716]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.203
[[Page 39717]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.204
[[Page 39718]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.205
[[Page 39719]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.206
[[Page 39720]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.207
[[Page 39721]]
End QPS Requirements
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Begin QPS Requirements
5. Alternative Data Sources, Procedures, and Instrumentation: Level 6
FTD Only
a. Sponsors are not required to use the alternative data
sources, procedures, and instrumentation. However, a sponsor may
choose to use one or more of the alternative sources, procedures,
and instrumentation described in Table B2F.
End QPS Requirements
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Begin Information
b. It has become standard practice for experienced FTD
manufacturers to use such techniques as a means of establishing data
bases for new FTD configurations while awaiting the availability of
actual flight test data; and then comparing this new data with the
newly available flight test data. The results of such comparisons
have, as reported by some recognized and experienced simulation
experts, become increasingly consistent and indicate that these
techniques, applied with appropriate experience, are becoming
dependably accurate for the development of aerodynamic models for
use in Level 6 FTDs.
c. In reviewing this history, the NSPM has concluded that, with
proper care, those who are experienced in the development of
aerodynamic models for FTD application can successfully use these
modeling techniques to acceptably alter the method by which flight
test data may be acquired and, when applied to Level 6 FTDs, does
not compromise the quality of that simulation.
d. The information in the table that follows (Table of
Alternative Data Sources, Procedures, and Information: Level 6 FTD
Only) is presented to describe an acceptable alternative to data
sources for Level 6 FTD modeling and validation, and an acceptable
alternative to the procedures and instrumentation found in the
flight test methods traditionally accepted for gathering modeling
and validation data.
(1) Alternative data sources that may be used for part or all of
a data requirement are the Airplane Maintenance Manual, the Airplane
Flight Manual (AFM), Airplane Design Data, the Type Inspection
Report (TIR), Certification Data or acceptable supplemental flight
test data.
(2) The NSPM recommends that use of the alternative
instrumentation noted in Table B2F be coordinated with the NSPM
prior to employment in a flight test or data gathering effort.
e. The NSPM position regarding the use of these alternative data
sources, procedures, and instrumentation is based on three primary
preconditions and presumptions regarding the objective data and FTD
aerodynamic program modeling.
(1) Data gathered through the alternative means does not require
angle of attack (AOA) measurements or control surface position
measurements for any flight test. AOA can be sufficiently derived if
the flight test program insures the collection of acceptable level,
unaccelerated, trimmed flight data. Angle of attack may be validated
by conducting the three basic ``fly-by'' trim tests. The FTD time
history tests should begin in level, unaccelerated, and trimmed
flight, and the results should be compared with the flight test
pitch angle.
(2) A simulation controls system model should be rigorously
defined and fully mature. It should also include accurate gearing
and cable stretch characteristics (where applicable) that are
determined from actual aircraft measurements. Such a model does not
require control surface position measurements in the flight test
objective data for Level 6 FTD applications.
f. Table B2F is not applicable to Computer Controlled Aircraft
FTDs.
g. Utilization of these alternate data sources, procedures, and
instrumentation does not relieve the sponsor from compliance with
the balance of the information contained in this document relative
to Level 6 FTDs.
h. The term ``inertial measurement system'' allows the use of a
functional global positioning system (GPS).
End Information
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Table B2F
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternative Data Sources, Procedures, and Intrumentation Level 6 FTD
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
QPS Requirements The standards in this table are Information
required if the data gathering methods described ---------------------
in paragraph 9 of Appendix B are not used.
---------------------------------------------------
Alternative data Notes
Objective test reference No. sources, procedures,
and title and instrumentation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.b.1. Performance. Takeoff. Data may be acquired This test is
Ground acceleration time. through a required only if
synchronized video RTO is sought.
recording of a stop
watch and the
calibrated airplane
airspeed indicator.
Hand-record the
flight conditions
and airplane
configuration.
1.b.7. Performance. Takeoff. Data may be acquired This test is
Rejected takeoff. through a required only if
synchronized video RTO is sought.
recording of a stop
watch and the
calibrated airplane
airspeed indicator.
Hand-record the
flight conditions
and airplane
configuration.
1.c.1. Performance. Climb. Data may be acquired
Normal climb all engines with a synchronized
operating. video of calibrated
airplane
instruments and
engine power
throughout the
climb range.
1.f.1. Performance. Engines. Data may be acquired
Acceleration. with a synchronized
video recording of
engine instruments
and throttle
position.
1.f.2. Performance. Engines. Data may be acquired
Deceleration. with a synchronized
video recording of
engine instruments
and throttle
position.
2.a.1.a. Handling qualities. Surface position For airplanes with
Static control tests. Pitch data may be reversible control
controller position vs. acquired from systems, surface
force and surface position flight data position data
calibration. recorder (FDR) acquisition should
sensor or, if no be accomplished
FDR sensor, at with winds less
selected, than 5 kts.
significant column
positions
(encompassing
significant column
position data
points), acceptable
to the NSPM, using
a control surface
protractor on the
ground. Force data
may be acquired by
using a hand held
force gauge at the
same column
position data
points.
[[Page 39722]]
2.a.2.a. Handling qualities. Surface position For airplanes with
Static control tests. Wheel data may be reversible control
position vs. force and acquired from systems, surface
surface position flight data position data
calibration. recorder (FDR) acquisition should
sensor or, if no be accomplished
FDR sensor, at with winds less
selected, than 5 kts.
significant wheel
positions
(encompassing
significant wheel
position data
points), acceptable
to the NSPM, using
a control surface
protractor on the
ground. Force data
may be acquired by
using a hand held
force gauge at the
same wheel position
data points.
2.a.3.a. Handling qualities. Surface position For airplanes with
Static control tests. data may be reversible control
Rudder pedal position vs. acquired from systems, surface
force and surface position flight data position data
calibration. recorder (FDR) acquisition should
sensor or, if no be accomplished
FDR sensor, at with winds less
selected, than 5 kts.
significant rudder
pedal positions
(encompassing
significant rudder
pedal position data
points), acceptable
to the NSPM, using
a control surface
protractor on the
ground. Force data
may be acquired by
using a hand held
force gauge at the
same rudder pedal
position data
points.
2.a.4. Handling qualities. Breakout data may be
Static control tests. acquired with a
Nosewheel steering force. hand held force
gauge. The
remainder of the
force to the stops
may be calculated
if the force gauge
and a protractor
are used to measure
force after
breakout for at
least 25% of the
total displacement
capability.
2.a.5. Handling qualities. Data may be acquired
Static control tests. through the use of
Rudder pedal steering force pads on the
calibration. rudder pedals and a
pedal position
measurement device,
together with
design data for
nosewheel position.
2.a.6. Handling qualities. Data may be acquired
Static control tests. Pitch through
trim indicator vs. surface calculations.
position calibration.
2.a.8. Handling qualities. Data may be acquired
Static control tests. through the use of
Alignment of power lever a temporary
angle vs. selected engine throttle quadrant
parameter (e.g., EPR, N1, scale to document
Torque, Manifold pressure). throttle position.
Use a synchronized
video to record
steady state
instrument readings
or hand-record
steady state engine
performance
readings.
2.a.9. Handling qualities. Use of design or
Static control tests. Brake predicted data is
pedal position vs. force. acceptable. Data
may be acquired by
measuring
deflection at
``zero'' and at
``maximum''.
2.c.1. Handling qualities. Data may be acquired Power change
Longitudinal control tests. by using an dynamics test is
Power change force. inertial acceptable using
measurement system the same data
and a synchronized acquisition
video of the methodology.
calibrated airplane
instruments,
throttle position,
and the force/
position
measurements of
flight deck
controls.
2.c.2. Handling qualities. Data may be acquired Flap/slat change
Longitudinal control tests. by using an dynamics test is
Flap/slat change force. inertial acceptable using
measurement system the same data
and a synchronized acquisition
video of calibrated methodology.
airplane
instruments, flap/
slat position, and
the force/position
measurements of
flight deck
controls.
2.c.4. Handling qualities. Data may be acquired Gear change dynamics
Longitudinal control tests. by using an test is acceptable
Gear change force. inertial using the same data
measurement system acquisition
and a synchronized methodology.
video of the
calibrated airplane
instruments, gear
position, and the
force/position
measurements of
flight deck
controls.
2.c.5. Handling qualities. Data may be acquired
Longitudinal control tests. through use of an
Longitudinal trim. inertial
measurement system
and a synchronized
video of flight
deck controls
position
(previously
calibrated to show
related surface
position) and
engine instrument
readings.
[[Page 39723]]
2.c.6. Handling qualities. Data may be acquired
Longitudinal control tests. through the use of
Longitudinal maneuvering an inertial
stability (stick force/g). measurement system
and a synchronized
video of the
calibrated airplane
instruments; a
temporary, high
resolution bank
angle scale affixed
to the attitude
indicator; and a
wheel and column
force measurement
indication.
2.c.7. Handling qualities. Data may be acquired
Longitudinal control tests. through the use of
Longitudinal static a synchronized
stability. video of the
airplane flight
instruments and a
hand held force
gauge.
2.c.8. Handling qualities. Data may be acquired Airspeeds may be
Longitudinal control tests. through a cross checked with
Stall Warning (activation synchronized video those in the TIR
of stall warning device). recording of a stop and AFM.
watch and the
calibrated airplane
airspeed indicator.
Hand-record the
flight conditions
and airplane
configuration.
2.c.9.a. Handling qualities. Data may be acquired
Longitudinal control tests. by using an
Phugoid dynamics. inertial
measurement system
and a synchronized
video of the
calibrated airplane
instruments and the
force/position
measurements of
flight deck
controls.
2.c.10. Handling qualities. Data may be acquired
Longitudinal control tests. by using an
Short period dynamics. inertial
measurement system
and a synchronized
video of the
calibrated airplane
instruments and the
force/position
measurements of
flight deck
controls.
2.c.11. Handling qualities. May use design data,
Longitudinal control tests. production flight
Gear and flap/slat test schedule, or
operating times. maintenance
specification,
together with an
SOC.
2.d.2. Handling qualities. Data may be acquired
Lateral directional tests. by using an
Roll response (rate). inertial
measurement system
and a synchronized
video of the
calibrated airplane
instruments and the
force/position
measurements of
flight deck lateral
controls.
2.d.3. Handling qualities. Data may be acquired
Lateral directional tests. by using an
(a) Roll overshoot. OR (b) inertial
Roll response to flight measurement system
deck roll controller step and a synchronized
input. video of the
calibrated airplane
instruments and the
force/position
measurements of
flight deck lateral
controls.
2.d.4. Handling qualities. Data may be acquired
Lateral directional tests. by using an
Spiral stability. inertial
measurement system
and a synchronized
video of the
calibrated airplane
instruments; the
force/position
measurements of
flight deck
controls; and a
stop watch.
2.d.6.a. Handling qualities. Data may be acquired
Lateral directional tests. by using an
Rudder response. inertial
measurement system
and a synchronized
video of the
calibrated airplane
instruments; the
force/position
measurements of
rudder pedals.
2.d.7. Handling qualities. Data may be acquired
Lateral directional tests. by using an
Dutch roll, (yaw damper inertial
OFF). measurement system
and a synchronized
video of the
calibrated airplane
instruments and the
force/position
measurements of
flight deck
controls.
2.d.8. Handling qualities. Data may be acquired
Lateral directional tests. by using an
Steady state sideslip. inertial
measurement system
and a synchronized
video of the
calibrated airplane
instruments and the
force/position
measurements of
flight deck
controls.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 39724]]
Attachment 3 to Appendix B to Part 60--Flight Training Device (FTD)
Subjective Evaluation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Begin Information
1. Discussion
a. The subjective tests provide a basis for evaluating the
capability of the FTD to perform over a typical utilization period.
The items listed in the Table of Functions and Subjective Tests are
used to determine whether the FTD competently simulates each
required maneuver, procedure, or task; and verifying correct
operation of the FTD controls, instruments, and systems. The tasks
do not limit or exceed the authorizations for use of a given level
of FTD as described on the SOQ or as approved by the TPAA. All items
in the following paragraphs are subject to examination.
b. All simulated airplane systems functions will be assessed for
normal and, where appropriate, alternate operations. Simulated
airplane systems are listed separately under ``Any Flight Phase'' to
ensure appropriate attention to systems checks. Operational
navigation systems (including inertial navigation systems, global
positioning systems, or other long-range systems) and the associated
electronic display systems will be evaluated if installed. The NSP
pilot will include in his report to the TPAA, the effect of the
system operation and any system limitation.
c. At the request of the TPAA, the NSP Pilot may assess the FTD
for a special aspect of a sponsor's training program during the
functions and subjective portion of an evaluation. Such an
assessment may include a portion of a specific operation (e.g., a
Line Oriented Flight Training (LOFT) scenario) or special emphasis
items in the sponsor's training program. Unless directly related to
a requirement for the qualification level, the results of such an
evaluation would not affect the qualification of the FTD.
End Information
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 39725]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.208
[[Page 39726]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.209
[[Page 39727]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.210
[[Page 39728]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.211
[[Page 39729]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.212
[[Page 39730]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.213
[[Page 39731]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.214
[[Page 39732]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.215
[[Page 39733]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.216
[[Page 39734]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.217
[[Page 39735]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.218
[[Page 39736]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.219
[[Page 39737]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.220
[[Page 39738]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.221
[[Page 39739]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.222
[[Page 39740]]
Attachment 4 to Appendix B to Part 60--Sample Documents
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Begin Information
Table of Contents
Title of Sample
Figure B4A--Sample Letter, Request for Initial, Upgrade, or
Reinstatement Evaluation.
Figure B4B--Attachment: FTD Information Form
Figure B4C--Sample Letter of Compliance
Figure B4D--Sample Qualification Test Guide Cover Page
Figure B4E--Sample Statement of Qualification--Certificate
Figure B4F--Sample Statement of Qualification--Configuration
List
Figure B4G--Sample Statement of Qualification--List of Qualified
Tasks
Figure B4H--Sample Continuing Qualification Evaluation
Requirements Page
Figure B4I--Sample MQTG Index of Effective FTD Directives
[[Page 39741]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.223
[[Page 39742]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.225
[[Page 39743]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.226
[[Page 39744]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.227
[[Page 39745]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.228
[[Page 39746]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.229
[[Page 39747]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.230
[[Page 39748]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.231
[[Page 39749]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.232
[[Page 39750]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.233
[[Page 39751]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.234
[[Page 39752]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.235
[[Page 39753]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.237
Issued under authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 44701(a),
44703, and Pub. L. 111-216, 124 Stat. 2348 (49 U.S.C. 44701 note) in
Washington, DC, on June 24, 2014.
John Barbagallo,
Acting Deputy Director, Flight Standards Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-15432 Filed 7-9-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P