[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 209 (Monday, October 30, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 63392-63640]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-8677]
[[Page 63391]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Department of Transportation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Aviation Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
14 CFR Parts 1, 11, 60, and 121
Flight Simulation Training Device Initial and Continuing Qualification
and Use; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 209 / Monday, October 30, 2006 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 63392]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Parts 1, 11, 60, and 121
[Docket No. FAA-2002-12461; Amendment Nos. 1-54, 11-52, 60-1, 121-327]
RIN 2120-AH07
Flight Simulation Training Device Initial and Continuing
Qualification and Use
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final Rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The FAA is amending the regulations to establish a new part to
set forth qualification requirements for flight simulation training
devices (FSTD). The new part consolidates and updates FSTD requirements
that currently exist in different parts of the FAA's regulations and in
advisory circulars. In addition, the FAA is requiring that sponsors of
FSTDs have a Quality Management System. These changes are necessary to
promote standardization and accountability for FSTD qualification,
maintenance, and evaluation. The intended effect of the new part is to
ensure that users of FSTDs receive training in devices that closely
match the performance and handling characteristics of the aircraft
being simulated.
EFFECTIVE DATE: These amendments become effective October 30, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ed Cook, Air Transportation Division
(AFS-200), Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration,
100 Hartsfield Centre Parkway, Suite 400, Atlanta, GA 30354; telephone:
404-832-4700.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Availability of Rulemaking Documents
You can get an electronic copy using the Internet by:
(1) Searching the Department of Transportation's electronic Docket
Management System (DMS) Web page (http://dms.dot.gov/search);
(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.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.
You can also get a copy 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. Make
sure to identify the amendment number or docket number of this
rulemaking.
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit
http://dms.dot.gov.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of
1996 requires FAA to comply with small entity requests for information
or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its
jurisdiction. If you are a small entity and you have a question
regarding this document, you may contact its local FAA official, or the
person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. You can find out
more about SBREFA on the Internet at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/sbre_act/.
Authority for This Rulemaking
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
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
Subtitle VII, Part A, subpart I, 49 U.S.C. 44701. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with regulating air commerce in a way that best
promotes safety.
Background
For many years the flightcrew training regulations in 14 CFR part
121 subparts N and O allowed simulator training as an enhancement to
training and testing in the aircraft, but not as a complete replacement
for training in the aircraft. Due to improvements in flight simulator
performance, appendix H was added to part 121 in 1980. Appendix H
permitted and expanded use of simulators by air carriers that took
advantage of the new simulator performance through an ``Advanced
Simulation Training Program.'' Appendix H permits simulators to be used
for varying amounts (up to 100%) of the training, testing, and checking
required by the FAA. The amount of training permitted depends on the
simulator's qualification level.
As the state-of-the-art in simulator technology has advanced, more
effective use has been made of the aircraft simulator in training,
checking, and certification of flight crewmembers. Using flight
simulators rather than aircraft in training allows for more in-depth
training, including the practice of critical emergency procedures, in a
safer environment. Not only do simulators provide improvements in
safety and in safer training operations, they also provide such
benefits as reducing noise, air pollution and air traffic congestion,
and conserving petroleum resources.
Since 1980 appendix H of 14 CFR part 121 has provided an Advanced
Simulation plan outlining the steps toward optimum use of flight
simulators. Most major air carriers have taken advantage of appendix H
and conduct most or all of their training and checking in simulators.
The FAA originally placed simulator technical requirements in
appendix H because part 121 air carriers were the primary users of
aircraft simulators. As the larger aviation community became interested
in using simulators, the FAA in 1980 provided guidance in an advisory
circular AC 121-14C, Aircraft Simulator and Visual System Evaluation
and Approval. The AC more fully described what the technical
capabilities of simulators should be, how those capabilities might be
verified, and how all these capabilities might be incorporated into
training programs.
Over the next several years following publication of AC 121-14C,
the FAA, in consultation with the aviation industry, refined and
republished its guidance material several times. Because the
regulations regarding advanced simulators remained in part 121,
appendix H, certificate holders who operated under parts other than 121
(such as parts 125 and 135) had to obtain exemptions in order to use
simulators as provided in part 121, appendix H. The number of these
operators has continued to grow.
The ability to manage the increasing number of exemptions, each one
with slightly different provisions, conditions and limitations, became
increasingly difficult. The development of 14 CFR part 142,
Certification of Training Centers, was seen to be a logical and
necessary way to deal with those operators who wished to conduct
training for flight crewmembers but who did not operate under any of
the part 121, 125 or 135 rules. However, the regulatory requirements
for the technical criteria for a majority of the simulators coming into
the U.S. aviation inventory has remained in the part 121 operating
rule.
[[Page 63393]]
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
The FAA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for part
60 and related amendments on September 25, 2002, (67 FR 60284) and
published a correction to the NPRM on October 25, 2002 (67 FR 65524).
From December 2 until December 13, 2002, the FAA hosted an on-line
public forum, which provided an opportunity for the public to answer
specific questions posed by the FAA and allowed the FAA to respond with
clarifying information. After an extension requested by commenters, the
comment period closed on February 24, 2003.
In the NPRM the FAA proposed to remove the technical requirements
for flight simulation devices (FSD) (flight simulators and flight
training devices) from part 121 and place them in a new part 60, titled
``Flight Simulation Device Initial and Continuing Qualification and
Use.'' The NPRM proposed to establish FSTD requirements for anyone
conducting flight crewmember training, evaluation, and flight
experience under any of the Federal Aviation Regulations.
Flight Simulation Device Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC)
In order to resolve comments and provide a forum for the FAA and
the aviation community to discuss issues regarding Flight Simulation
Training Devices (FSTDs), the FAA established the Flight Simulation
Device Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) on July 2, 2003. The ARC
included participants from: Air Line Pilots Association, Aircraft
Owners and Pilots Association, American Airlines, Alteon, Atlas Air,
Boeing, CAE Electronics, Continental Airlines, Delta Air Lines, Federal
Express, FlightSafety International, Northwest Airlines, Pan Am Flight
Academy, Thales Training and Simulation, United Airlines, U.S. Airways,
and FAA.
The general goal of the ARC was to provide advice, guidance, and
recommendations on FSTD issues including, but not limited to, safety of
flight; the suitability and the application of the simulation to flight
crewmember training, testing, or checking activities; and
implementation of technical changes or scientific advancements in
simulation. The ARC provided a forum for the FAA and affected members
of the aviation community to discuss issues. The ARC also allowed
members of the aviation community to reach consensus on certain
recommendations that would be submitted to the FAA and to develop
resolutions to facilitate the evolution of FSTDs. The ARC's initial
task was to review the FAA's September 25, 2002, proposed rule. On
November 24, 2003, the ARC submitted to the FAA its recommendations on
how the proposed rule language should be clarified and reorganized.
After the FAA received recommendations from the ARC the comment period
was reopened on February 10, 2004, to permit interested persons to
review these recommendations and submit additional comments. The
recommendations from the ARC are available online at http://dms.dot.gov
by searching for entry 84 in docket number FAA-2002-12461. The comment
period closed on March 11, 2004. The overwhelming majority of the
clarifications and revisions contained in the final rule are consistent
with the ARC recommendations.
Summary of the Final Rule
New part 60 contains the requirements for the evaluation,
qualification, and maintenance of FSTDs. These requirements are based
on the current guidance regarding the capability and performance of
simulators in appendix H of part 121 and Sec. 121.407. As part of this
rulemaking project, the FAA has amended appendix H of part 121 and
removed the Simulator Requirements and the Visual Requirements for
Level B, C and D devices. These requirements are now outlined in the
appropriate Qualification Performance Standards (QPS) appendices. In a
separate rulemaking project that will follow this final rule, the FAA
will propose to move Training and Checking Requirements of appendix H
to a new subpart of part 121, and to delete appendix H.
Part 60 also contains items (such as frequency, content, and method
of evaluation) previously found in the advisory material in AC 120-40B,
Airplane Flight Simulator Qualification, in AC 120-45A, Airplane Flight
Training Device Qualification, and in AC 120-63, Helicopter Simulator
Qualification. Standards from this advisory material and specific items
that are subject to change through technological advancements are being
placed into one of the first four appendices to part 60:
Appendix A, ``Qualification Performance Standards for
Airplane Full Flight Simulators.''
Appendix B, ``Qualification Performance Standards for
Airplane Flight Training Devices.''
Appendix C, ``Qualification Performance Standards for
Helicopter Full Flight Simulators.''
Appendix D, ``Qualification Performance Standards for
Helicopter Flight Training Devices.''
In addition, the FAA has reorganized and clarified some material
from the original NPRM into two appendices, Appendix E, ``Qualification
Performance Standards for Quality Management Systems for Flight
Simulation Training Devices,'' and Appendix F, ``Definitions and
Abbreviations.'' Appendix E will become the single appendix for
reference to Quality Management System (QMS) programs for FSTDs under
this part. Appendix F will become the single appendix for definitions
and abbreviations for terms used throughout part 60 and the QPS
appendices.
Some of the terms and abbreviations listed in the new appendix F
and added to part 1 are clarifications of terms that appeared in the
September 25, 2002, NPRM. For example, FSD has been replaced with the
more internationally compatible term--FSTD. The term FSTD more
accurately addresses the full range of uses for these devices as
addressed in part 60 and also harmonizes with the Joint Aviation
Authorities (JAA) of Europe. In addition, to more appropriately
describe the devices, the term Flight Simulator has been changed to
Full Flight Simulator (FFS). Another clarification the FAA has made
with respect to terms and definitions is that the Quality Assurance
Program (QAP) is now called a QMS.
The QPS requirements in appendices A through E are regulatory.
Future changes and additions to these standards are subject to notice
and comment rulemaking procedures under the Administrative Procedure
Act, unless ``good cause'' (see 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B)) exists to justify
proceeding without notice and comment. In addition, the FAA has issued
FAA Order 1110.136, ``Flight Simulation Device Aviation Rulemaking
Committee.''
What Action Is the Agency Taking?
The FAA is adding part 60 to Title 14 of the Code of Federal
Regulations to establish qualification requirements for flight
simulation training devices (FSTD). These requirements are based on the
current requirements found in appendix H of part 121 and Sec. 121.407
for the capability and performance of aircraft simulators. The new rule
also incorporates certain existing practices that were previously
described in the following Advisory Circulars: AC 120-40B, Airplane
Flight Simulator Qualification, AC 120-45A, Airplane Flight Training
Device Qualification, and AC 120-63, Helicopter Simulator
Qualification.
[[Page 63394]]
Why Is the Rule Necessary?
The rule is necessary to promote standardization and accountability
for FSTD maintenance, qualification and evaluation for use in an FAA
approved flight training program. FSTDs are often used in lieu of
aircraft to train and check individuals for purposes of issuing airmen
certificates and ratings. FSTDs are also used to meet FAA air carrier
training requirements for flight crewmembers. In fact, depending on the
status of the airman and the sophistication of the device, an FSTD may
be used for 100% of the training, testing, and checking required by the
FAA. Training in an FSTD is most effective when the FSTD closely
matches the performance and handling characteristics of the aircraft
being simulated. This rule sets forth the regulatory process for
establishing the qualification level of the FSTD and for the continuous
review and inspection of FSTD performance to identify potential
problems with FSTD maintenance and operation. The new rule will improve
flight crewmember training, reduce operational errors and increase
safety. It will also provide the standards that must be reached in
order for a device to be qualified at a certain level (i.e., Level A,
B, C, or D Simulators and Level 4, 5, or 6 Training Devices).
Generally speaking, the amount of training and testing that can be
conducted in an FSTD for the purpose of meeting FAA airmen
certification or training requirements is directly proportional to the
qualification level of the device. Thus, a device with a higher
qualification level (e.g., Level D) will be eligible for more
certification and training credits than a device with a lower
qualification level (e.g., Level A).
Qualification Performance Standards (QPS)
One of the unique features of the part 60 rule is the incorporation
of QPS. The QPS is an appendix to the regulation and outlines
requirements and other information regarding the qualification,
performance, evaluation and maintenance of FSTDs. The QPS contains
several charts. Some of the charts prescribe regulatory requirements,
while others outline general information and examples to assist the
user in meeting the regulatory requirements.
The charts containing regulatory material are labeled ``QPS
Requirements.'' Compliance with the criteria in these charts is
mandatory in order to receive and maintain approval from the FAA for
the qualification level and use of an FSTD. Changes to a QPS
Requirement are subject to notice and comment rulemaking procedures
under the Administrative Procedure Act, unless ``good cause'' (see 5
U.S.C. 553(b)(B)) exists to justify proceeding without notice and
comment. The charts containing general information and examples are
labeled ``Information.'' Compliance with the material contained in
these charts is not mandatory, and changes to an Information section
are generally not subject to notice and comment rulemaking procedures.
The Information charts are included simply to provide additional
guidance to the user.
Incorporating both the regulatory and advisory material into the
QPS consolidates all of the relevant information and makes it available
in one location. This promotes ease of use and greater uniformity among
those involved in every aspect of FSTD performance, including
manufacturers, airmen, training providers and regulators. Moreover, it
gives greater insight to the regulated community regarding the FAA's
intent behind the regulation, and the required and approved methods of
compliance.
Comments
The FAA received 54 comments in response to the NPRM. Commenters
included industry associations, airlines, training centers and schools,
aircraft manufacturers, simulator and flight training device
manufacturers, pilot associations, governmental organizations, and
individuals. The major concerns of the commenters were harmonization of
FAA standards with those of International Civil Aviation Organization
(ICAO) and the JAA, the cost of complying with the new requirements,
grandfathering existing simulators and other flight training devices,
the requirement for a Quality Assurance Program (QAP), and the proposed
requirements to be approved by the FAA as an FSTD ``sponsor.''
The FAA reviewed all comments. They are more fully explained in the
Discussion section to follow. With respect to the major concerns raised
by commenters, the FAA took the following actions:
Revised certain sections of the QPS Requirements to
incorporate ICAO/JAA standards that were within the scope of the
original NPRM. Changes that are beyond the scope will be incorporated
in future revisions to the QPS Requirements.
Revised certain requirements where appropriate in order to
reduce costs. The FAA notes, however, that part 60 is largely a
codification of existing practices, and therefore, the agency does not
anticipate that sponsors will incur many new or additional costs. The
FAA's cost projection is outlined in the Regulatory Evaluation.
Excluded Levels 2 and -3 Flight Training Devices from this
rulemaking effort. The FAA will review its existing advisory material
and determine the best method to continue to evaluate and qualify these
devices.
Replaced the QAP proposal with a Quality Management System
(QMS). The QMS is significantly less costly than the proposed QAP.
Eliminated the 600-hour annual use requirement for
sponsorship eligibility. Persons are now permitted to sponsor an FSTD
as long as the device is used at least once per year in an FAA approved
training program, or at least once per year a pilot, appropriately
qualified on the aircraft being simulated, flies the FSTD and confirms
that the performance and handling qualities are like the aircraft.
Many other detailed comments of an editorial nature were also
provided. These are not included in the summary, but have been
carefully reviewed by the FAA in preparing the Final Rule. In addition,
the specific comments on the QPS appendices are not summarized in the
Final Rule summary, but have been carefully reviewed and incorporated,
where appropriate, into the Final Rule. The FAA made certain changes to
the QPS appendices from the proposed language to include technical
corrections and clarifications that did not adversely affect safety and
were within the scope of the NPRM. There were other technical changes
that the FAA did not incorporate into this final rule because they were
beyond the scope of the NPRM. The FAA will issue another NPRM to
incorporate the changes that were beyond the scope of the original
NPRM, and will incorporate these changes before the rule becomes
effective. All of the comments are available for review at http://dms.dot.gov. The Docket Number is 12461.
Abbreviations Used in this Preamble
AC Advisory Circular
ALPA Airline Pilots Association
AOPA Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association
ARC Aviation Rulemaking Committee
ATA Air Transport Association
ATOS Air Transportation Oversight System
CBT Computer Based Training
DPE Designated Pilot Examiner
EASA European Aviation Safety Authority (formerly Joint Aviation
Authorities (JAA)
FFS Full Flight Simulator
FOQA Flight Operations Quality Assurance
FSB Flight Safety Boeing
FSD Flight Simulation Device
[[Page 63395]]
FSDO Flight Standards District Office
FSI FlightSafety International
FSTD Flight Simulation Training Device
FTD Flight Training Device
ICAO International Civil Aviation Organization
MQTG Master Qualification Test Guide
MR Management Representative
NAFI National Association of Flight Instructors
NATA National Air Transport Association
NBAA National Business Aviation Association
NDB Non-Directional Beacon
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
NSP National Simulator Program
NSPM National Simulator Program Manager
POI Principal Operations Inspector
QPS Qualification Performance Standards
QAP Quality Assurance Program
QMS Quality Management System
QS Quality System
QTG Qualification Test Guide
RAA Regional Airline Association
SITC Simulation and Instrument Training Center, Inc.
SOQ Statement of Qualification
TCPM Training Center Program Managers
Thales Thales Training & Simulation
TPAA Training Program Approval Authority
UA United Airlines
UAA University Aviation Association
UPS United Parcel Service
General Issues
General Comments
Eclipse, NLX Corporation, JAA, and an individual, applaud and
appreciate the FAA's attempt to amend the regulations for FSTDs. JAA
writes that the ``proposal takes care of the legal concern that
regulations in this area have to have a mandatory basis * * * and it
concentrates all related material in one document.'' This commenter
states that this proposal did not address the latest modifications
applied to the ICAO Manual and questions if using an FSTD instead of an
aircraft would be made mandatory. An individual writes that
simplification and consolidation of these regulations are appropriate
and more detailed regulations and device inspection will force flight
training schools to improve and that ``somewhat of a loophole'' in
flight training in flight simulators and flight training devices would
be closed. NLX indicates that these new regulations are a step forward
in the overall process of FSTD qualifications. An individual believes
that statistics proving that the use of simulator training has reduced
aviation accidents or incidents are needed.
FAA Response: This final rule does not mandate the use of FSTDs
instead of aircraft for training. This rule simply establishes FSTD
qualification requirements. The FAA is developing an NPRM that proposes
to revise the QPS appendices to achieve the desired level of
harmonization.
Disposition of Level 7 Flight Training Devices
Regional Airline Association states that the preamble should
discuss the disposition of Level 7 FTDs.
FAA Response: The original premise for the Level 7 FTD was that
there was to be an aircraft entering service that would not have an
``on-set motion cue'' with the failure of an engine, and that the
pilots training in an FSTD for that airplane type could be trained and
checked on such an engine failure without requiring a force (motion)
cueing system. The FAA determined that a Level C simulator aerodynamic
data package would be required for the level 7 FTD to accurately
simulate such an aircraft. However, the airplane never entered service
and the requirements for the Level 7 FTD quickly became superfluous.
Level 6 and Level 7 FTDs had the same authorizations (except for one
area involving ``icing accountability''), but the Level 7 FTD continued
to require significantly more aerodynamic data for no more value than
the Level 6 FTD. The elimination of the Level 7 FTD does not preclude
any Level 6 FTD from incorporating a Level C data package and having
essentially the same kind of device as the originally described Level 7
device. However, there has been essentially no difference between the
two levels in authorized use, and it made little sense to continue with
a Level 7 FTD when there was little difference between a Level 6 and
Level 7 FTD.
The FAA is considering future rulemaking to develop standards for
Level 7 FTDs for helicopters. Any new requirements would be subject to
notice and comment.
Rule vs. QPS
Continental asserts that there is a conflict between the rule and
the Qualification Performance Standards (QPS). Continental states that
the rule addresses a number of technical issues that would be best
delegated to the QPS, and also notes that parts of the rule and its
application have different definitions than the QPS.
FAA Response: In the final rule, we eliminated the repetition of
the rule language in the QPS appendices because it was never the FAA's
intent to have different definitions for terms in the rule and the QPS
appendices. The FAA has also revised the rule language and the QPS
appendices so that technical information is presented in the most
appropriate sections and formats.
Codified Design Criteria
Northwest writes, ``The proposed regulation should be streamlined
to centrally codify simulator design and qualification criteria.''
FAA Response: The FAA deems it appropriate to stop short of
establishing a regulation mandating the design and construction
criteria for these devices. While the FAA has type certificate
requirements for aircraft instead of individual qualification
requirements like we have for FSTDs, the FAA is not including such
requirements in this final rule. We believe requiring a type
certificate process would create the potential for enormous cost
increases with virtually no gain in the quality of the devices.
Clarification of Requirements and Oversight Responsibilities
TWA and CAE were concerned with the lack of clarity in the rule
language. Specifically, TWA wants the rule rewritten clearly stating
FAA's intentions and adding that the National Simulator Program Manager
(NSPM) has full authority over FSTDs and all results of other
inspections must go through the NSPM before action can be taken. CAE
expressed a similar concern.
FAA Response: The FAA revised the part 60 rule language and QPS
appendices to ensure the requirements are clear. The QPS appendices
provide examples and additional information and criteria outlining the
method of compliance with the regulations. In addition, the FAA has
clarified the NSPM will exercise oversight responsibility for the
evaluation and qualification of all FSTDs included in part 60.
Use of FSTDs in the Course of Training
FlightSafety Boeing (FSB) believes part 60 ``should be limited to
the definition, design criteria, required documentation and record-
keeping of Flight Simulation Devices, and the evaluation process to
assure continued functionality as designed, for the respective level of
device.'' In FSB's opinion the authority on planned or actual use of
FSTDs in the course of training should remain with the respective
sponsor of the device and the Training Program Approval Authority
(TPAA) as presently required in existing regulations. Also, FSB writes
that all proposed wording addressing the continued use of a device be
eliminated, including the words ``and use'' in the title of the
proposal.
FAA Response: The final rule addresses the definition, required
documentation and record keeping for
[[Page 63396]]
FSTDs. It also outlines the evaluation process to assure continued
functionality of FSTDs, including the objective and subjective
requirements. However, as stated earlier, the FAA has determined it is
not appropriate to include FSTD ``design criteria'' in the final rule.
Also, the phrase ``and use'' in the title of the part 60 rule does not
apply to the actual ``use'' of an FSTD in the course of training
approved by the TPAA. Rather, the term refers to those uses of the FSTD
for which representatives of the NSPM have qualified a specific FSTD.
NSP Office
TechniFlite states, ``There should be an official (rather than
implied or assumed) FAA office established at the Washington level to
be responsible for the oversight of the National Simulation Program.
This office could be responsible for reviewing appeals when disputes
with the NSP arise.''
FAA Response: The NSP is part of the Flight Standards Service.
Specifically, it is part of the Air Transportation Division, AFS-200,
and answers directly to the AFS-200 manager in Washington, DC. An
appeals process is outlined in Sec. Sec. 60.5(d) and 60.29(b). In both
cases, the Director of the Flight Standards Service, AFS-1, is the
person/office to whom appeals should be made.
Level of Detail in Regulations
Thales Training & Simulation (Thales) ``objects to the way that our
regulations are becoming so overly prescriptive.''
FAA Response: The part 60 rule is, for the most part, a
codification of existing practices. However, there are new requirements
such as the QMS requirement in Sec. 60.5. The FAA, working with the
ARC, including Thales, developed requirements that balance safety
concerns without being overly burdensome.
Necessity of the Rule
Several commenters question whether this rule is needed. American
Airlines states that it has worked closely with the NSPM to develop its
simulator program and it believes it has the highest quality simulator
program in the world. American sees ``nothing in the NPRM that will
result in an increase in the quality or effectiveness of the American
Airlines training program.'' Similarly the National Business Aviation
Association (NBAA) does not think the rule will result in a safety
enhancement, stating that, ``there has been no evidence that the
current system of certifying and maintaining flight simulator devices
has compromised safety in any way.'' The Aircraft Owners and Pilots
Association (AOPA) states that the proposed rule ``places an
unnecessary regulatory burden on the aviation industry, and it does not
address a safety problem or provide a net safety benefit.'' Storm Haven
Aviation and a flight instructor make similar comments.
FAA Response: Codifying simulation qualification standards provides
for a ``level playing field'' among FSTD manufacturers and sponsors in
the United States and a harmonization of interests internationally.
Further, these provisions, together with the provision for a QMS, will
provide each sponsor a clear understanding of what is required of them
for a satisfactory FSTD. The FAA also notes that part 60 is largely a
codification of existing practices, and does not impose significantly
new burdens. The FAA recognizes the close working relationship that
exists between the NSPM and a large portion of the aviation training
community. That close working relationship continues with this
rulemaking effort and should continue after the rule becomes effective.
The FAA believes that the rule will result in an increase in the
quality and effectiveness of flight training programs without an undue
burden on the industry.
Withdraw NPRM
Air Transport Association (ATA) requests the immediate withdrawal
of the NPRM and the formation of an industry-government advisory
committee to develop a new proposed rule. In support of this request,
ATA states five general concerns with the NPRM:
1. If published as currently written, the NPRM would eliminate
the use of a significant number of simulators until they could be
qualified or replaced.
2. The proposed rule ignores harmonization efforts between the
FAA, the JAA, and the simulator industry.
3. The FAA currently is revising Subparts N & O of FAR Part 121,
which deal directly with crew training and the practical use of
FSTD. However, the NPRM overlaps and implicates training
requirements, and thus it is impossible to determine the overall
impacts of the NPRM until the training requirements of Subparts N &
O are revised or clarified.
4. The NSP, or each responsible TPAA, would have to be manned on
a 24 hour/7 days per week basis to administer the proposed FAR Part
60 requirements in order to prevent unnecessary FSTD downtime.
5. The NPRM places a severe financial burden on U.S. airlines.
The cost of the NPRM is not justified by its benefits.
Several other commenters, including Bombardier, FedEx, American
Trans Air, TWA, Continental, and DHL agree with ATA's position that the
NPRM should be immediately withdrawn and that an industry-government
advisory committee should be convened to develop a new proposed rule.
Other commenters did not specifically cite the ATA position, but did
suggest that a more effective rule would be achieved through government
and industry collaboration.
FAA Response: Rather than withdraw the NPRM, the FAA established
the ARC. The overwhelming majority of the ARC members, including ATA
members and an ATA representative, participated in the development of
recommendations to the FAA. As proposed in the NPRM, each currently
qualified FSTD will continue to be evaluated against the criteria
current at the time of that FSTDs original evaluation (67 FR 60291). No
currently qualified FSTDs will be disqualified because of the new part
60 evaluation requirements. Therefore, the FAA does not expect that
anyone will be ``driven back into the airplane'' for training, testing,
or checking because of the part 60 final rule.
In addition, the standards contained in the final rule have been
modified so they are more in line with ICAO and JAA standards. Also, as
mentioned previously, the FAA is continuing its efforts to achieve the
desired level of harmonization. The FAA would like to note that part 60
is not interdependent with and does not overlap the rulemaking effort
to revise 14 CFR part 121, Subparts N and O. The part 121, Subparts N
and O rulemaking deals directly with flight crewmember training and the
practical use of FSTDs, while part 60 deals with the standards for FSTD
qualification and evaluation.
Cost of the Proposed Rule
A group of commenters cite cost as the reason the NPRM should be
withdrawn. AOPA states that the proposed rule places an unnecessary
regulatory burden by imposing a large cost without properly identifying
the cost impact. TechniFlite explains that with the cooperation of the
FAA and industry, initiatives can be taken to make significant
reductions in the cost of simulators thereby making simulators more
available to the broader needs of the industry. Professional Instrument
Courses believes that the proposed rule would add needless expense to
their company with no gain in the quality of safety of their program
and would put their successful 22-year-old instrument flight training
company out of business.
FAA Response: The FAA continues to believe that training in an FSTD
is most effective when the FSTD closely
[[Page 63397]]
matches the performance and handling characteristics of the aircraft
being simulated. Accordingly, training and checking activities should
be accomplished only in those devices that are objectively and
subjectively evaluated. The rule creates no new technical requirements
for qualification of the basic levels of FTDs. The NSPM has maintained
an open and continuous dialogue with aircraft simulator manufacturers
and users. This dialogue continues to enhance the quality of
simulation, improve the evaluation of simulation devices, and reduce
the costs of acquiring, evaluating, and using these devices for flight
crewmember training and checking. It is the FAA's intent to maintain
this on-going effort.
Advisory Circulars vs. Regulations (Appendices A-D)
Three commenters disagree with including the advisory language that
currently exists in the Advisory Circulars (ACs) for airplane
simulators and flight training devices in the proposed rule. Delta
states that the advisory language is very lengthy and detailed and that
after incorporating this language into the rule, the FAA and users will
need to strictly abide by it and any changes would need to go through a
lengthy revision process. Regional Airline Association (RAA) says the
proposed QPS appendices are written as ``engineering standards,'' as
opposed to performance standards. RAA believes the FAA should adopt
performance based regulations whenever possible because they allow for
flexibility and freedom for innovation. RAA states its concern that
even seemingly minor requests for deviations from the QPS appendices
content will require that operators/owners petition the FAA for
deviation approval, a process it says takes weeks and most often months
for approval. In addition, RAA notes, ``no specific instances of the
proposal were mentioned as to industry's failure to constructively use
and follow the content of the AC's.'' FSI says the NPRM preamble
incorrectly explains that the FAA is proposing to remove the technical
requirements from part 121 and place them in the new part 60. FSI
maintains that these requirements have always been advisory and not
regulatory, and recommends that the FAA clearly acknowledge that a
major purpose of this rulemaking is to make previously advisory
material mandatory.
The National Association of Flight Instructors (NAFI) agrees
completely with moving the requirements into the proposed rule. It
applauds and unequivocally supports the FAA's efforts to make these
requirements regulatory rather than advisory.
FAA Response: The FAA disagrees that the QPS appendices are written
as an engineering standard, rather than as a performance standard. The
QPS appendices are a codification of existing advisory material that
was used to determine whether or not a specific FSTD met FAA
requirements. These standards have always been ``performance
standards,'' involving an objective and subjective evaluation of the
device in comparison to the aircraft. There has never been a
requirement for an ``engineering standard'' in simulation beyond that
which is necessary to meet the stated performance objectives. Part 60
does not change these requirements.
The decision to codify FSTD qualification requirements was made
after careful consideration of facts and circumstances. This decision
is not a result of ``industry's failure to constructively use and
follow the content of the AC's.'' Rather, the FAA has determined that
continued oversight through the issuance and application of ACs is not
appropriate. Executive Order 12866 states ``(e)ach agency shall draft
its regulations to be simple and easy to understand, with the goal of
minimizing the potential for uncertainty and litigation arising from
such uncertainty'' [section 1(b)(12)]. Additionally, Section 5-1 of FAA
Order 1320.46A, ``Advisory Circular System,'' states that
AC's are not regulations and may not impose or lessen a burden
on anyone, nor have a mandatory effect. AC's may not be used to add
to, interpret, or relieve a duty imposed by a Federal Aviation
Regulation (FAR). Advisory circulars may set forth `acceptable
means' or `methods of compliance' with a particular FAR. However,
the language used to explain the compliance methods in the AC must
not imply that it is the only or minimum acceptable means, nor
require other methods of compliance to be `equivalent' to the one
described in the AC.
In order to be legally valid, a regulation must establish a
requirement or standard that is sufficiently clear to persons required
to comply with it so that they can have a reasonable understanding of
what is expected of them, without having to resort to material not
published in the rule. In other words, the regulation must be able to
stand on its own. The regulations that support the current set of ACs
describing simulation standards are found in 14 CFR part 121, Subpart N
and, since 1980, part 121, appendix H. However, in neither of these
rule sections is the regulatory language sufficient to meet the
requirement that persons would not have to resort to additional
material not published in the rule. Additionally, while FSTD
qualification standards have been contained in ACs, they have been
treated as though they were regulatory. Clearly, this practice is not
in compliance with either the EO or the FAA Order. Therefore, the
development of a rule for the qualification of FSTDs was imperative.
Due to a comment, the FAA recognized that it did not have rule
language in the part 60 NPRM that proposed to remove technical FSTD
requirements from part 121. In the final rule, we have removed from
part 121 those technical FSTD requirements that are in part 60. It was
an administrative oversight that we neglected to propose removing
technical FSTD requirements from part 121, but we were clear in the
NPRM that part 60 would serve as the regulatory part for FSTD
qualification and evaluation.
The FAA is aware that there are differences in the application of
what may be authorized under an advisory circular concept and what may
be required or authorized under a regulatory concept. However, the
language of this final rule has been carefully constructed to
accommodate ``operations and engineering judgment'' when applying
flight test data to objective test requirements and tolerances. The
goal was to allow the logical application of this judgment while, at
the same time, not allow complete ``free play'' with FAA standards.
QPS Document
FSI states ``The Qualification Performance Standard (QPS) contains
regulatory language that appears only in the QPS. The combination of
information, data, and regulatory language will create misunderstanding
between FAA and the industry.'' In addition, FSI believes that the
``tabular technical requirements in the QPS are also confusing due to
the outdated condition of the tolerances and test descriptions.'' FSI
further states, ``The most glaring of the unrealistic requirements in
the QPS is the motion system `specifications.' In the past when rules
have attempted to define hardware and software simulator system
`specifications,' the rules became obsolete before they were
published.'' Therefore, FSI recommends the QPS define tolerances, not
design specifications.
TWA states that the ``direct quote or a paraphrasing of the Part 60
rule'' in the QPS documents is sometimes very confusing and sometimes
they are in disagreement with the rule. TWA recommends removing them to
make the QPS smaller and easier to use.
[[Page 63398]]
FAA Response: The FAA has revised the final rule to eliminate the
motion system standards published in the NPRM. Additionally, the FAA
has removed the part 60 rule language from the QPS appendices to avoid
confusion and repetition. The FAA recognizes the necessity of
additional modifications to certain sections of the QPS appendices that
are beyond the scope of the NPRM. The FAA is continuing to revise the
QPS, and any recommendations for changes to part 60 will be available
for public review and comment as an NPRM prior to being adopted. It is
the FAA's intent the part 60 final rule not be effective until the
first revision of the QPS appendices have been published in the Federal
Register as a final rule.
Related to N&O Rulemaking
FSI notes that the preamble states ``In a separate rulemaking
project that will follow this proposal, other portions of appendix H
would be moved to a new subpart of part 121, and appendix H would be
deleted.'' Concerned that timely action may not be taken and
considering the length of time for rulemakings, FSI requests that the
FAA make the necessary and proper conforming changes now and amend
Sec. 121.407 and delete appendix H.
Air Transport Association (ATA) states that this NPRM and subparts
N and O of part 121 are very closely linked, and ``recommends that any
proposed changes to Subparts N and O be coordinated with this
rulemaking and, in particular, that any changes to Subparts N and O
precede this rulemaking.''
FAA Response: The FAA recognizes 14 CFR part 121, appendix H has
both technical requirements and operational authorizations. By
``removing and reserving'' certain sections in the current part 121,
appendix H, (i.e., those sections dealing with technical requirements
of FFSs) without canceling the entire appendix, the remaining sections
of appendix H will continue to serve operational necessities until such
time as appendix H is cancelled. The requirements contained in 14 CFR
121.407 are not contrary to the requirements contained in part 60.
Changes to 14 CFR part 121, Subparts N and O will include
references to FSTDs, but only to the extent of defining what tasks may
be authorized for part 121 flight crewmembers in a given level of FSTD.
Part 60, including all of the evaluation and qualification
requirements, is not dependent upon or interdependent with, any future
Subparts N and O changes that may be proposed or adopted.
Harmonization and ICAO
Many commenters address the issue of harmonization of FAA's FSD
qualification standards with those of ICAO and the JAA. Boeing, United,
Continental, American, FSI, FSB, NLX, CAE, and Eclipse are concerned
that the NPRM does not include recent industry efforts to harmonize the
latest regulatory standards for the qualification of FSDs. Delta
commented that an opportunity to revise the rule would provide a chance
to define an improved revision process for the advisory material and to
incorporate harmonization with the ICAO Manual of Criteria for the
Qualification of Flight Simulators. Eclipse states that the ICAO Manual
of the Criteria for the Qualification of Flight Simulators, 2nd
edition, which was endorsed by the FAA, should be incorporated into the
QPS appendices. Continental states that a lack of harmonization will
impose a financial burden on the carriers when they sponsor or use FSDs
that are currently approved under the ICAO standard. American states
that, instead of matching the ICAO criteria, the NPRM appendices
contain a version of the criteria contained in the Draft AC 120-40C,
modified with additional requirements. American states that since the
FAA is on record as planning to eventually adopt the ICAO criteria,
there is no reason not to do it in this rule.
NLX comments that although updating the QPS should not require the
lengthy time frames experienced with changes like AC 120-40C, the
industry has no assurance this will occur. NLX is concerned that after
the rule is in place, updating the QPS will result in an extended time
frame of possibly several years during which the industry must comply
with the obsolete requirements. NLX states that, without some guarantee
that this will not be the case, it recommends that the QPS be updated
to reflect the latest JAR/ICAO material before the rule is put into
effect.
FSB states that the proposed FAA standards are significantly
different from the JAR STD 1A requirements, which are stricter. FSB
urges the FAA to reconsider the timetable so as to include the recent
updates to the ICAO 9625, JAR STD 1A and to remove changes to the
motion standards in appendix A, which were vigorously disapproved by
industry when added to the AC 120-40C. If the plan is to go forth with
the rulemaking process with the existing differences, FSB strongly
suggests that the FAA comment on an implementation plan and timetable
for complete harmonization to take place.
United comments that the proposed standards decouple the functional
and subjective test requirements from the FSD qualification level and
require an FSD qualification task list without offering any criteria
against which such tasks would be approved. United states that this is
a break from past FAA practice, from the current JAA practice, and from
the recommendations in the ICAO Manual.
Boeing comments that considerable industry time and expense has
been expended over the past years to harmonize the standards. The
results of these efforts have been incorporated into the ICAO Manual
and are in the process of being incorporated into the JAA's JAR-STD 1A
document, Aeroplane Flight Simulators. In addition, Boeing states, a
set of ``best practices'' advisory material has been developed and is
being included in both JAR-STD 1A and ICAO Document 9625. According to
Boeing,
The latest standards and best practices material has not been
included in the FAA's proposed Part 60. If the NPRM were to go
forward as proposed, there would be two different sets of standards
for the regulated public to comply with. This would impose an
unnecessary adverse economic impact on the industry, including the
data provider. We consider that the proposed Part 60, as currently
structured, would be unacceptable to the industry, and both
difficult and costly for the FAA to administer. We strongly
recommend that the FAA revise the NPRM prior to any further action.
Boeing includes in its comments an extensive history of the
harmonization efforts and detailed suggestions on how to harmonize the
NPRM with the JAA and ICAO material.
CAE comments that ``The United States has been a leading voice in
encouraging other countries to adopt and maintain international
standards; implementation of Part 60 regulations that are inconsistent
with ICAO standards would undermine the U.S. Government's credibility
in making these arguments to other countries.''
Several commenters disagreed with the statement in the NPRM
paragraph on ``International Compatibility'' that the FAA had
identified ``no differences'' between the proposal and the ICAO
Standards and Recommended Practices. Thales Training and Simulation
states ``where there are major deviations between the proposed Part 60
standards and the latest agreed ICAO standards, the motion requirements
being a good example, industry needs to be aware of how the Part 60
standards will evolve towards the ICAO standards. It is
[[Page 63399]]
unreasonable for industry to be expected to expend major investment to
meet a standard that may only be in existence for a few months.'' CAE
states there are several instances in which the proposed rule
significantly differs from ICAO standards, including areas such as
latency, tolerances, organization of validation test cases, numbering,
and definitions. CAE recommends that the FAA identify and clarify the
differences between the two standards and confirm whether the ICAO
standards could be used as an acceptable alternative for obtaining FAA
qualification of an FSD. ATA states that the rule should not be
published until the QPS documents are updated to reflect the ICAO
guidance.
FAA Response: The FAA recognizes it is necessary for simulator
qualification technical requirements to reflect international standards
as appropriate. The FAA plans to harmonize the simulator qualification
technical requirements as part of the first revision of the QPS
appendices.
Impacts on General Aviation
Several commenters are concerned about the impact of the proposed
rule on the use of FSDs by general aviation, particularly with respect
to Level 1-3 FTDs.
FSI states that the NPRM preamble language stating that ``other
certificate holders may seek approval to use the same FSD'' seems to
eliminate non-certificate holders, such as corporate or private
operators under part 91, from doing the same thing. FSI comments that
fractional ownership operators would be precluded from being sponsors
by the same wording.
Fidelity comments that due to the recent advent of affordable,
significant computing power, general aviation is able to use advanced
simulation and that part 61 allows for a significant usage of FSDs.
Fidelity comments that the proposed rule is unclear as to whether a
sponsor must be a certificate holder in order to use the FSD for part
61 training.
NAFI is also concerned about the potential impact of the proposed
rule on general aviation flight instruction. NAFI states that the
required level of actual aircraft emulation for high-end, full motion
simulation should be vastly different from general aviation flight
training devices, and this proposed rule appears to lump them together.
Specifically, NAFI states, smaller operators with less sophisticated
FTDs will be unnecessarily burdened by the required establishment of
the QAP and daily inspections.
National Air Transportation Association (NATA) comments that the
proposal seems to give consideration only to training that targets
commercial and high-end corporate aircraft operators and makes no
attempt to provide a framework that enables the greater deployment of
these devices for light general aviation and corporate aircraft.
Furthermore, NATA states that placing the responsibility for
qualification of FSDs and FTDs with the National Simulator Program
Office will limit the ability of the aviation industry to use such
devices.
FAA Response: Only those persons required to have an FAA approved
flight training program or otherwise authorized under Sec. 60.7 are
eligible to sponsor an FSTD. The FAA acknowledges that Fractional
Ownership Program Managers are required by Sec. 91.1073 to have an FAA
approved flight training program. However, this requirement did not
exist when the proposed part 60 was being drafted because the
fractional program regulations had not been finalized. It is beyond the
scope of this rulemaking project to include Fractional Ownership
Program Managers as eligible FSTD sponsors. Therefore, the FAA will
initiate a separate rulemaking project to incorporate Fractional
Ownership Program Managers into the class of persons eligible to
sponsor FSTDs. The FAA does not intend to allow other part 91 operators
to be FSTD sponsors because they are not required to have an FAA
approved flight training program.
The FAA has not included the qualification requirements for Level 2
and 3 FTDs in this final rule. The FAA has determined that these
devices should continue to be monitored and qualified under advisory
material. The FAA has posted, for comment, an Advisory Circular
providing guidance about the evaluation and approval of Basic Aircraft
Training Devices and Advanced Aircraft Training Devices. To view and
comment on the Advisory Circular go to the following Web address:
http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/draft_docs
Conforming Changes (Parts 61, 63, 125, 137, 141, and 142)
FSI states that training, testing, and checking requirements of
parts 125 and 137 may be accomplished in FSDs, but there is no
reference to these parts. FSI suggests that the FAA clearly state the
permitted uses of FSDs.
FSI, NATA, University Aviation Association (UAA), and Purdue
University comment that the NPRM states that the devices described in
Sec. 61.4 may be used only for private pilot certification and
instrument ratings. These commenters state that training for a
commercial pilot certificate and training under part 141, Pilot
Schools, can also be done in an approved training device; they ask the
FAA to verify the uses permitted for approved training devices under
parts 61 and 141.
FSI states that it is mandatory to withdraw appendix H of part 121
in order for part 60 to be possible. FSI also cites other sections that
should be changed (e.g., Sec. Sec. 121.407, 135.335, 142.59, 141.41,
135.324, 135.321, and 121.402). FSI suggests that the FAA conduct a
comprehensive review of all rules that may be in contradiction to part
60 and make the appropriate changes.
FAA Response: The permitted uses of FSTDs for credit purposes
(i.e., to meet airmen certification standards or certain commercial
operator training requirements) are a topic for a different rule. Part
60 addresses only the requirements for the evaluation and qualification
of FSTDs. Section 61.4 does not state that FSTDs may only be used for
private pilot certification and the instrument rating. Rather, Sec.
61.4(a) specifically refers to ``any training, testing, or checking
requirement under this chapter.'' ``This chapter'' refers to Chapter I,
Subchapter D (Airmen), and specifically, all airmen, certificates, and
ratings falling under the purview of part 61, Certification of pilots,
flight instructors, and ground instructors.
It is not necessary to withdraw all of 14 CFR part 121, appendix H
because of part 60. As stated earlier, the FAA is ``removing and
reserving'' appropriate sections of appendix H to eliminate those
technical requirements that have been moved into part 60 and is
retaining those operational requirements in appendix H until such time
as those sections are combined in a subsequent rulemaking effort and
appendix H is cancelled. Additionally, the requirements contained in
Sec. Sec. 121.407, 135.335, 141.41, and 142.59 are not contrary to the
requirements contained in part 60. The FAA has reviewed all other
sections to see if any additional conforming changes need to be made
because of part 60.
In addition, the FAA has determined that the conforming changes to
parts 61, 141, and 142 proposed in the NPRM are no longer necessary
since Level 2 and 3 FTDs are not included in this final rule.
Impact on Part 142
FSI states that when part 142 was issued, training centers were
given regulatory assurance that if they did certain things, the
Administrator was obligated to issue a certificate under that part. FSI
believes that for the FAA to propose now that another step is
[[Page 63400]]
required, i.e., gaining approval as a sponsor, is improper. Also, FSI
states training centers were told they would not be required to have
any specific relationship with an air carrier, yet under this proposal
a training center may have to have an air carrier client as the sponsor
of the FSD, for example, to meet the minimum annual usage requirement.
FAA Response: The FAA eliminated the hourly usage requirements for
sponsor qualification. The FAA eliminated the proposed requirement for
sponsor utilization of additional simulators, except for the initial
FSTD to qualify an applicant for a part 142 Training Certificate or the
initial FSTD as part of a part 119 FAA-approved flight training
program. The FAA has determined that these proposed requirements are
not necessary because the requirements for an FAA approved training
program are sufficiently robust to ensure safety.
Elimination of Exemptions
AOPA states that the proposal places additional regulatory burdens
on the entire aviation industry, including small pilot training
centers, simply to allow the FAA to rid itself of the burden of issuing
exemptions to part 125 and 135 operators who wish to use Level A-D
flight simulators under part 121, appendix H. Instead, AOPA suggests
making the appropriate changes in parts 125, 135, and 142 by cross
referencing part 121, appendix H. According to AOPA, the proposal
should then be modified to address only part 125 and 135 operators and
Level A-D flight simulators.
FAA Response: The purpose of this final rule is not to relieve the
FAA of the task of issuing exemptions. The requirements set out under
part 60 are for the evaluation and qualification of FSTDs, a task that
the FAA has to perform regardless of whether the device will be used in
air carrier operations or not. This final rule codifies existing
practices and provides uniform standards for all FSTDs regardless of
where they will be used. Authorized uses under any individual part of
14 CFR are contained in the respective part. Therefore, even if a
device is evaluated and qualified for certain tasks and maneuvers, the
FAA, independent of part 60, will still need to determine whether the
device is suitable for use in a particular FAA approved training
program.
Comments Regarding Definitions
ATA states that the definition of flight simulator uses the term
``series'' of aircraft, while the definition of flight training device
uses ``set'' of aircraft. Since proposed Sec. 60.3 does not define
``series'' of aircraft and since an aircraft series meets the proposed
definition for ``set of aircraft'' and a definition for ``set of
aircraft'' is already proposed, ATA recommends that the term ``series''
should be deleted and replaced with the term ``set of aircraft''
throughout the document. In addition, the term ``ground operation''
should be replaced with the term ``surface operation,'' since surface
operation is utilized in Attachment 3 to appendix A as operational task
b. ``Surface Operations.'' Also, ATA notes that the definition of
flight training device uses the term ``full size replica,'' while
appendix B does not use this term in describing the FTD requirements.
ATA recommends using the language in appendix B, while Delta suggests
using ``realistic replica'' instead of ``full size replica.''
CAE states that in the definition of ``evaluation'' in the use of
``etc.'' is open to interpretation and should be removed. Likewise, CAE
claims that the word ``performance'' is used in a very general sense in
the definition of ``flight test data'' and in many other places. CAE
states, ``Performance in simulators has traditionally meant airplane
performance with regard to thrust/drag relationships, climb, range,
etc.'' CAE recommends defining ``Approved data supplier'' as ``the
aircraft manufacturer or other supplier of data acceptable to the
NSPM.'' CAE also recommends defining ``Performance'' as ``the overall
performance of the FSD to include aerodynamic performance as well as
flight and ground handling.'' Additionally, CAE recommends changing the
definition for ``flight test data'' to ``Actual aircraft performance
data collected by an approved data supplier during an aircraft flight
test program. This includes the aircraft on the ground test data as
well as in the air.''
FSI states that the definition of ``flight experience'' is at odds
with Sec. 61.1 and other parts of 14 CFR. FSI recommends deleting this
definition or more accurately defining it.
Boeing recommends changing the phrase ``actual or predicted
aircraft performance data'' in the definition of ``objective test'' to
``final test or approved aircraft data'' because it is not clear what
is meant by ``actual'' or ``predicted'' data. Boeing states that
``predicted data'' should apply to data that are truly predicted, i.e.,
data that are estimated for regions of the flight envelope where there
are no relevant flight test data (for example, for very high angle of
attack), or for a new airplane configuration that has not yet been
flight-tested. Boeing believes the definition should exclude
engineering simulation data from a simulation that has been flight test
updated and that the definition of ``predicted data'' should not
include all aircraft performance data derived from sources other than
flight data.
ATA states that the definition of ``Qualification Performance
Standard'' should refer to ``the collection of procedures and
regulatory criteria'' instead of ``the collection of procedures and
criteria.'' ATA further recommends that the definition of
``Qualification Test Guide'' refer to ``initial'' evaluation and that
``approved objective data'' be added to the list of contents. Also,
``MQTG is the reference document for subsequent evaluations'' should be
added to the definition of ``Master Qualification Test Guide.''
Boeing asks whether ``set of aircraft'' is a derivative series of
models produced by the same manufacturer or does it encompass a class
of aircraft, such as a medium twin-engine jet transport? CAE states
that in the definition of ``Set of Aircraft,'' a reference is made to
``handling,'' when in all previous places ``performance'' has been used
to cover both the conventional aerodynamic performance and handling. To
be more consistent, CAE recommends replacing ``handling'' with
``performance.''
FSB believes that the term ``Sponsor'' must be more clearly defined
to include who may be or must be the ``Sponsor'' of a particular
simulator (FSD). FSB states, ``There are many proposed references in
the NPRM that place a requirement, responsibility, or burden on the
actual owner of the FSD that will effectively eliminate the ability to
acquire and maintain U.S. certification of the FSD. The overall impact
of this NPRM, if adopted without major changes, could potentially
eliminate Part 142 Certificate Holders as providers of U.S. certified
FSDs.'' FSB recommends that the entity that is the financially
responsible owner of the FSD, and is a certificate holder, must be the
sponsor of the FSD. The rule must not disqualify this entity as the
sponsor because of arbitrary conditions such as how or how much the FSD
will be used as long as the device continues to meet applicable
qualification standards.
ATA states that the definition of ``Subjective test'' is
inconsistent with appendix A, Attachment 3, Item 3, Simulator Systems.
CAE states that in the definition of ``Subjective test,'' it is stated
``FSD performs and handles.'' CAE recommends changing the definition of
``Subjective test'' as
[[Page 63401]]
follows: ``A qualitative comparison to determine the extent to which
the FSD performs like the aircraft being simulated.''
CAE states, in reference to the definition for ``Training Program
Approval Authority,'' that parts 121, 135, and 142 are currently
established as to who may approve training programs. In CAE's opinion,
no new authority needs to be introduced or created by part 60.
FAA Response: The FAA wishes to clarify the distinction between a
``series'' and a ``set of aircraft.'' An example of ``series'' would be
the Boeing B-737 aircraft, where -200 is a ``series'' (e.g., -222, or -
252, or -265 are part of the -200 ``series'') as opposed to a -300
aircraft in the same make and model (Boeing, B-737 line). ``Set of
aircraft,'' is defined as ``aircraft that share similar handling and
operating characteristics and similar operating envelopes and have the
same number and type of engines or power plants.'' While aircraft in
the same ``series'' can certainly be described as being within the same
``set of aircraft,'' it is not true that aircraft that are legitimately
in the same ``set'' are necessarily in the same ``series.'' For
example, we can consider the Boeing B-737-222, the Boeing B-757-252,
and the Embraer EMB-170-100 within the same ``set'' of aircraft (i.e.,
they share similar handling and operating characteristics and similar
operating envelopes and have the same number and type of engines);
however, it is obvious that these three are not the same ``series'' of
aircraft. A ``series'' of an aircraft make and model is not the same as
a ``set'' of aircraft.
The FAA has clarified the definition of ``set of aircraft.'' In
response to Boeing's question about set of aircraft, the FAA notes that
while a ``set of aircraft'' may include a derivative series of models
produced by the same manufacturer, the definition does not restrict
``set'' to derivative series. Rather, ``set'' encompasses aircraft with
similar handling and operating characteristics, a similar operating
envelope, as well as the same number and type of engines or power
plants as in the commenter's example of a ``medium twin engine jet.''
In the NPRM, the FAA used the terms ``ground operation'' and
``surface operation'' interchangeably. The FAA recognizes that this
could be confusing and has clarified the final rule to use the term
``surface operations'' throughout the document to be consistent with
international harmonization.
In the final rule, we changed references from ``full size replica''
to the more simple term ``replica'' and clarified the definition by
changing the phrase ``ground and flight operations'' to ``operations in
ground and flight conditions.'' We made a similar change to the
definition of ``Flight Training Device (FTD)'' where we used the
simplified term ``replica'' instead of the term ``full size replica''
and to the phrase ``aircraft in ground and flight conditions'' where we
used ``aircraft operations in ground and flight conditions'' for
consistency with the definition of an FFS.
To avoid the confusion of including ``etc.'' in the definition of
``evaluation'' as raised by CAE, we have included ``e.g.'' instead so
the sentence now reads ``With respect to an FSTD, the qualification
activities (e.g., the objective and subjective tests, the inspections,
the continuing qualification evaluations) associated with the
requirements of this part.''
We have added a definition of ``FSTD Performance'' to read ``The
overall performance of the FSTD includes aircraft performance (e.g.,
thrust/drag relationships, climb, range) as well as flight and ground
handling.''
The definition of flight experience is limited to part 60.
Therefore, it does not conflict with other parts. The FAA has clarified
the definitions of ``flight test data,'' ``objective test'' and
``predicted data'' to be more precise. The FAA notes that the use of
engineering simulation, as an engineering analysis tool, may be
integrally involved in the development of aircraft performance
predictions.
The FAA did not revise the definition of ``Qualification
Performance Standard (QPS)'' except to include a reference to appendix
E, Quality Management System for Flight Simulation Training Devices.
Also, the FAA did not revise the definition for Master Qualification
Test Guide (MQTG); however, we did clarify the definition of
Qualification Test Guide (QTG). The FAA did not revise the definition
of ``sponsor.'' The FAA has not substantively changed the definitions
of QPS, MQTG, QTG, and sponsor from the definitions as proposed in the
NPRM. However, the FAA has addressed the concerns raised by the
commenters by making other appropriate changes to part 60 and the QPS
appendices. The definitions of these terms are consistent with the
recommendations made by the ARC.
The FAA has reformatted the material originally located in appendix
A, Attachment 3. That material is now found in a table entitled ``Table
of Functions and Subjective Tests,'' and is consistent with the title
of the appendix. Additionally, the FAA has clarified the definition of
``subjective test.'' The changes are consistent with the ARC
recommendation.
The FAA is not proposing to establish a new entity to approve
training programs. The term Training Program Approval Authority (TPAA)
was introduced as a ``shorthand'' way of listing the various
combinations of titles of those who are currently authorized to provide
such approvals; i.e., ``Principal Operations Inspectors (POI), Training
Center Program Managers (TCPM), or Flight Standards District Office
(FSDO) operations inspectors assigned the duties of training program
oversight and approval.'' The FAA has not changed the definition of
TPAA as proposed in the NPRM.
Comments Regarding Abbreviations
CAE suggests adding new abbreviations to differentiate between
airplanes and helicopters, as follows:
AFSD--Airplane Flight Simulation Device
HFSD--Helicopter Flight Simulation Device
AFTD--Airplane Flight Training Device
HFTD--Helicopter Flight Training Device
FAA Response: The FAA has not added these abbreviations and does
not consider them necessary for clarity.
Comments Regarding the Applicability of the Part 60 Rule and the Use of
Flight Simulators
Use of FSTDs
ATA states:
This rule provides regulatory information and further guidance
to those who wish to become Sponsors of one or more FSDs and how a
Sponsor must act to qualify and maintain the qualification of an
FSD. In addition, it provides the technical requirements for an FSD
to be awarded a specific level of qualification. This rule should
not address how an FSD is used. That information is contained within
other parts of this Chapter and should be between the Training
Program Approval Authority (TPAA), the Sponsor, and the user.
United agrees with ATA's recommendation to remove the words ``and
use'' from the title of part 60 and Sec. 60.1(a).
FAA Response: This rule is not intended to infringe upon the FAA
designated TPAA. The phrase ``and use'' in the title of the part 60
rule has specific and limited application: (1) To the ``use''
requirements for simulator sponsorship; (2) to the ``use'' limitations
with missing, malfunctioning, or inoperative components; (3) to those
for whom ``use'' of the FSTD is authorized and for whom its ``use'' may
apply; and (4) to those ``uses'' of the FSTD for which representatives
of the NSPM have evaluated and qualified a specific FSTD and may be
referenced in the Statement
[[Page 63402]]
of Qualification, Non-Qualified Maneuvers, Procedures, and Tasks (as
listed by exception to those maneuvers, procedures, and tasks listed in
the subjective evaluation contents found in Attachment 3 to each of the
applicable QPS appendices). Examples might include a circling approach;
windshear training in accordance with 14 CFR 121.409(d); Surface
Movement and Guidance System (SMGS); or Weather Radar System. These
``uses'' are not to be confused with the uses for which a specific FSTD
may or may not be approved by the FAA designated TPAA.
Qualified FSDs
ATA states:
* * * this applies to ALL FSDs. It does not address the use of
FSDs that are not qualified by the FAA but are used as part of an
approved training program even though no training credits are
granted. For example, one carrier has used their B727 CPT and a DC-
10 Level 4 equivalent device for training in an approved training
program even though neither was qualified by the NSP * * *. This
paragraph should be changed to allow for the use of non-qualified
FSDs as training aids in an approved training program. This is then
under the jurisdiction of the POI. This could be done in paragraph
1.1, definitions, to exclude unapproved devices from the definition
of FSDs. Similarly, the rules, requirements, and penalties
associated with using an FSD that is not qualified should themselves
be clarified to allow for the use of non-qualified FSDs with TPAA
approval.
FAA Response: The FAA recognizes the functionality of many pieces
of equipment (e.g., FSTDs, books, Computer Based Training Aids) that
can be used in an effective pilot or other flight crewmember training
program. This final rule does not prohibit a POI from authorizing the
use of any training aid that will provide valuable instruction to
flight crewmembers. While these devices can be authorized for use in a
training program, only those devices that meet the definitional
requirements in part 60 (i.e., that have been evaluated and found to be
qualified at a stated level) can be referred to as ``FSTDs.'' To be
called an FSTD, and to fall under this part, the device has to meet the
stated definition and evaluation requirements. Other equipment that may
or may not be found to be suitable for use in a pilot training
curriculum, whether or not that curriculum is approved by the FAA, may
not be called FSTDs (either FFSs or FTDs) when the device being
referenced does not meet the definition or evaluation requirements of
an FSTD.
Clarification of Terms
FSI states that the preamble statement regarding ``operating
experience'' makes it unclear what is prohibited in an FSD. FSI
recommends that the FAA list the sections of 14 CFR for which an FSD
may not be used.
Two commenters address the term ``each person'' in paragraphs (b)
and (c). JAA states, ``It is still difficult to understand why an
individual of an FSD user organization, which does not (necessarily)
own the FSD, would be responsible for the quality of the FSD and not
the FSD operator.'' CAE recommends that in paragraph (c) ``each
person'' should be the sponsor or a person leasing the equipment.
FAA Response: The FAA did not adopt a specific list of sections in
14 CFR for which an FSTD may not be used. The TPAA determines what the
FSTD may be used for on a case by case basis. However, the FSTD may
never be used for satisfying the operating experience requirements of
Sec. 121.434 or Sec. 135.244.
The term ``person'' is a multiple use term that, in the vernacular,
might be read ``the appropriate party.'' It is important to note that
the term ``person,'' as used in the referenced sections (i.e., ``each
person using'' and ``each person who uses''), is defined in 14 CFR part
1 as ``an individual, firm, partnership, corporation, company,
association, joint-stock association, or governmental entity. It
includes a trustee, receiver, assignee, or similar representative of
any of them.''
Comments Regarding the Applicability of Sponsor Rules to Persons Who
Conduct Sponsor Activities Without Being Qualified Sponsors (Sec.
60.2)
FSI states that, contrary to the NPRM preamble discussion, the
issue of a non-sponsor using or allowing the use of an FSD is clearly
an administrative rule, not a safety rule; even the discussion uses the
word ``inappropriately,'' not ``unsafely.'' FSI further states that the
FAA goes on to illustrate in the actual proposed section text with
examples of permitted practices rather than listing prohibited
practices. FSI recommends that the FAA clearly articulate those
practices that are prohibited in the actual text, and accurately
discuss applicability of this section to non-sponsors. In addition, FSI
states that paragraph (a)(1) adds another step in the process of being
able to use an FSD, i.e., separate approval as a sponsor.
CAE states that the use of the term ``causes'' in Sec. 60.2(a) is
too general. For example, a technician asked to switch the motion pump
on cannot be considered to be the cause for the use of the device for
unauthorized training. CAE recommends changing the text to be more
specific about the persons to which this rule applies.
FAA Response: The purpose of the rule language in Sec. 60.2(a) is
to give the FAA a legal means by which it could charge a nonsponsor
with violations of the safety rules if that person inappropriately used
or caused the use of an FSTD for the purpose of meeting an airmen
certification or training requirement under the Federal Aviation
Regulations. The FAA believes that a safety issue could be raised if a
non-sponsor uses or allows the use of an FSTD because the quality of
the device could be called into question. Therefore, the FAA believes
that the prohibition on non-sponsor use of a device is a safety rule
and did not adopt changes to this section other than changing the term
``FSD'' to FSTD.''
The FAA does not consider the term ``causes'' in paragraph (a) to
be too general. The FAA does not consider someone who merely turns on
the hydraulic motion pump to be the person who ``causes'' the use of
the FSTD. An example of ``causing'' the use of the device would be
someone fraudulently holding themselves out as a sponsor, thereby
``causing'' an unqualified device to be used in an FAA approved
training program.
Comments Regarding Quality Management System (Sec. 60.5)
JAA notes with appreciation that the FAA is introducing a mandatory
QAP. JAA suggests making the QAP into a full Quality System (QS) and
adding the components that are found in the required JAA QS.
CAE supports the requirement that each sponsor implement a QAP, but
believes that the sponsor should be allowed to use its own quality
assurance processes to meet the NSP standards. CAE states, ``It would
be inefficient and costly to force all sponsors to adopt quality
assurance measures based on a specific, FAA-selected QAP as described
in Section 60.5. Companies must be given the flexibility to implement a
QAP that is consistent with their operations and business practices and
plans.''
FAA Response: To harmonize with ICAO, the FAA changed the title of
Sec. 60.5 Quality Assurance Program to Quality Management System
(QMS). The new title is not just a name change, but is in fact a
complete revision of the quality assurance program that is
significantly less costly and onerous than what the FAA originally
proposed. The specific requirements for the QMS are outlined in a new
appendix to the QPS requirements entitled Appendix E, Quality
Management Systems for Flight
[[Page 63403]]
Simulation Training Devices. This new appendix does not add new
requirements outside the scope of the requirements proposed in the
NPRM, but expands on the rule language of Sec. 60.5, Quality
Management System.
The requirements contained in appendix E have been carefully
designed to allow each FSTD sponsor the capability of using its own QMS
process to meet the described standards.
Justification for Quality Programs
ATA does not oppose the concept of a QAP, but states that the FAA
has not offered any evidence that there currently exists a quality
control problem in the way part 121 operators maintain their FSDs. For
example, an analysis of nine years of FAA evaluations at one major
carrier yielded a discrepancy rate of 2.8 discrepancies per evaluation.
ATA believes the other regulations would allow the NSPM to take action
against an operator that does not meet minimum quality levels. ATA and
FedEx believe the incremental benefit of creating and administering a
QAP will not be worth the cost of doing so. NLX makes a similar
comment, citing the present state of the airline industry.
FAA Response: The FAA did not propose to incorporate a quality
assurance program, which differs from a traditional ``quality control''
program, to rectify bad or deteriorating maintenance practices for
individual FSTDs or at specific FSTD sponsor locations. As described in
the original NPRM, the basic precept of the program is for the sponsor
``to say what it does; to do what it says; and to keep good records.''
The QMS program will require each sponsor to develop a working
knowledge of the requirements of part 60 and the relevant QPS document.
This knowledge will be demonstrated to the NSPM through a written
description of how, how often, when, where, and with what resources the
sponsor's organization plans to comply with the requirements of part
60.
By having this written description, the NSPM and the sponsor will
be able to compare what is actually done with what the sponsor says is
done regarding FSTD repair, modification, regular maintenance, and
daily readiness. The FAA has determined that the standardization
required for such satisfactory comparisons will add to the already
existing efficiency and effectiveness of the FSTD--regardless of the
level of that existing efficiency and effectiveness. Through the added
reliability of the maintenance and the daily readiness provided by a
sound QMS program, any flight crewmember training, evaluation, and
flight experience should be able to be accomplished with less
interruption, more accuracy and more reliability. The QMS program will
help provide consistency in the current training and the availability
of repetitive practice in the desirable environment of accurate and
realistic simulation. The FAA continues to believe that under such
circumstances the students will more easily retain the knowledge and
skills learned through such an increase in reliability and through such
uninterrupted training.
There are three areas of significance in this regard:
The first, in two parts. Part one is an already existing precedence
for the regulatory requirement for a QMS program found in the
regulations covering air carrier aircraft maintenance. Part two is that
several air carriers currently participate in voluntary quality
programs (involving FFSs and FTDs) due to their participation in the
FAA's Air Transportation Oversight System (ATOS).
The second area is that of existing FSTD sponsors already obtaining
advantages from either developing an FSTD QMS program or contemplating
doing so. One major airline, in comments made to this NPRM, stated that
while reviewing the proposed QMS program requirements they recognized
that ``the proposed (QMS) did provide a vehicle for developing a more
efficient management tool for simulator maintenance and control.''
The third area is one of international perspective. The FAA has not
noticed that many of the world's regulatory authorities are beginning
to embrace QMS programs or quality management systems as a means of
conducting their regulatory responsibilities. Example of such
regulatory authorities include the individual regulatory authorities in
Europe, under the auspices of the European Aviation Safety Authority
(EASA) and several regulatory authorities in the Pacific Rim (the
Australian CAA and the Singapore CAAC are two examples), who are aiming
to pattern their systems after that of the JAA. Additionally, if FAA
requirements are to be truly ``harmonized'' with the JAA, then it must
be noted that the JAA's JAR-STD-1A document, Aeroplane Flight
Simulators, requires an FSTD operator to have, and operate under, a
quality management program, which is far more demanding than the QMS
that we adopted under part 60.
Cost Consequences of Quality Programs
RAA requests the removal of the proposed QAP requirement from the
final rule. RAA states that the FAA has made no effort to evaluate the
necessity or effectiveness of the proposed QAP. RAA believes the QAP
would require airline operators to maintain technical staff on site,
which would be particularly cost prohibitive for regional airline
operators who often buy time on simulators at distant and even foreign
locations. TechniFlite makes a similar comment. If the FAA retains the
requirement, RAA suggests allowing the owner-operator to designate a
simulator evaluator or to outsource QAP duties.
FAA Response: Neither the original NPRM nor the revised wording in
the final rule would require an airline to maintain their own technical
employees at the FSTD site, if that airline is using another sponsor's
FSTD, for QMS issues any more than the current practice of arranging
with another party to provide for maintenance, upkeep, modification,
evaluation, evaluation scheduling of an FSTD it sponsors. In either
case, the sponsor would be the responsible party concerning issues with
the FSTD that relate to technical aspects or to the QMS program.
Six Month Time Limit
UPS objects to the 6 month time limit for submission and approval
of a QAP, stating that the NSPM would have an influx of approximately
66 proposals from sponsors to review, comment and approve within that
timeframe. Also UPS states that 6 months is an insufficient amount of
time for UPS to develop and implement a program that would meet the
requirements. UPS recommends an 18 month timeframe, 6 months to submit
a proposed program, 6 months for the FAA to review and approve, and 6
months for the sponsor to implement the program. American makes a
similar comment. ATA suggests a longer timeframe, one year for
submitting a proposal, 6 months for the FAA to review and approve, and
one year to implement and audit the QAP.
FAA Response: The FAA has revised this time frame to 24 months. The
FAA has determined that this is a sufficient amount of time to
implement the QMS.
Dry Lease of Simulators
FSI suggests a problem with the concept of a sponsor for operators
who dry lease flight simulators that are used by several air carrier
certificate holders. FSI states, ``Under the proposed concept, quality
would be assured for only one (sponsor) user, but not for other
users.'' FSI believes that the
[[Page 63404]]
purpose of a QAP should be to ensure that any training provider (i.e.,
not just the sponsor) is capable of providing FSDs that continually
meet the training, testing, checking, and experience requirements of
its client's FAA-approved flight training programs. FSB makes a similar
comment, stating, ``Particularly in a part 142 operation, this would
result in each device within a single facility being subject to a
different Sponsor's QA program.'' In this situation FSB believes the
owner/certificate holder should qualify as the sponsor, even if they
don't otherwise meet the sponsorship qualifications, because they have
ultimate responsibility for the devices under the QAP.
The FAA has revised the language regarding sponsor qualification
requirements to address the concerns and recommendations raised by
commenters. The QMS program assures that any given FSTD continually
meets the training, testing, checking, and experience requirements of
the respective FAA-approved flight training program in which it is
used.Conflict With Other Quality Programs
ATA and United comment that inclusion of this quality program
places airlines under two dissimilar quality programs; that required by
Sec. 60.5 and the Air Transport Oversight System (ATOS) item 4.2.8,
Simulators/Training Devices. Since the goal of these two quality
requirements are the same--system safety--ATA and United suggest that
these two quality program requirements should be appropriately
harmonized so that a sponsor now subject to part 60 and ATOS will be
required to meet the standards of only one FSD quality program.
FAA Response: The FAA has revised the ATOS inspection checklists
and eliminated the Airworthiness SAI/EPI components for an FSS or an
FTD inspection to avoid different quality management programs for
aircraft simulators. The changes to the ATOS program checklists will
become effective at the same time as this final rule.
Conflict Between NPRM Preamble and Rule
Several commenters address an inconsistency between the preamble
discussion of proposed Sec. 60.5 and the rule text itself. Paragraphs
(b) and (d), as described in the preamble, do not appear in the rule
text.
FAA Response: The FAA recognizes that an error occurred with the
original publication of the NPRM. We removed paragraph (d) that
appeared in the NPRM and incorporated the requirements of that
paragraph into Sec. 60.9 in the final rule. The FAA has reinserted as
Sec. 60.5(d) the correct paragraph (d) that was described in the NPRM
preamble. This paragraph reads the same as a similar paragraph
published in the NPRM under Sec. 60.29(b).
Location of Simulator
ATA comments that the paragraph described in the preamble that
addressed the location of the simulator would be impossible to comply
with. ATA cites as an example, an operator who sponsors a foreign owned
simulator located in an area of the world where it bases pilots. It is
cost-effective to use that simulator rather than bring pilots back to
the U.S. for training. ATA states the paragraph would require operators
to impose a QAP on the foreign simulator owner, which would be
impossible for the FAA to enforce. Similarly, FedEx believes the
requirement should not appear in the final rule or should be modified
to facilitate the use of foreign simulators.
FAA Response: Prior to the use of any FSTD, regardless of its
location (domestic or foreign), the certificate holder is responsible
for determining that the FSTD meets the appropriate training program
requirements and that supplemental ``differences'' training is
accomplished to accommodate any differences that may exist. Similarly,
the certificate holder is responsible for ensuring that the current
maintenance and operational status of the FSTD is such that the planned
activities can be successfully accomplished or other arrangements are
suitably made. This level of familiarity with the FSTD and this level
of interaction with the owner/operator of the FSTD should certainly
support the QMS program requirements. The FAA has revised the
requirements so that when a sponsor includes a ``foreign simulator''
(i.e., one maintained by a non-U.S. certificate holder) under its
sponsorship, the sponsor will continue to be responsible for the QMS
program for that simulator; however, if that foreign simulator is
maintained under a QMS program accepted by that foreign regulatory
authority and that authority and the NSPM have agreed to accept each
other's QMS programs (e.g., QMS programs approved by the Joint Aviation
Authorities of Europe), no additional requirements must be met.
Alternatively, if that foreign simulator is not maintained under a QMS
program accepted by that foreign regulatory authority or that authority
and the NSPM have not agreed to accept each other's QMS programs, the
sponsor then will be required to reach an agreement with the NSPM
regarding those aspects of the sponsor's QMS program that may be met by
the sponsor in regard to this specific FSTD.
Appeal Process and Determination of Emergency
ATA believes the final rule should include another paragraph
described in the preamble, but not included in the proposed rule, which
addressed an appeal process for sponsors who disagree with an FAA
requirement to modify a QAP. Boeing, CAE, and FSI make similar
comments. FSI requests more specific statements on how the
determination of an emergency would be made and whether any sanctions
would apply to just one FSD or all FSDs operated by the sponsor.
FAA Response: As stated earlier, the FAA has now included the
material that was referenced in the original NPRM preamble language but
which was inadvertently omitted in the originally proposed rule
language. The FAA is reluctant to provide a list of what might
constitute an ``emergency'' in that all such possibilities simply
cannot be accurately listed. The purpose of this rule is to provide for
FSTDs that meet the established criteria to allow flight crewmembers to
acquire proper and complete training, testing, checking, and experience
for the particular aircraft for which they will be or are type rated.
While it is true that the FAA may have the authority to take
certificate action or seek monetary penalties for violations of the
rules, or seek to remove the qualification of an FSTD, or disqualify an
FSTD sponsor from sponsoring FSTDs, these types of actions are a last
resort taken only when absolutely necessary. When, how, to what, and to
whom any such sanctions might apply would be governed by the
circumstance, and therefore, the FAA is unable to provide specifics for
such possibilities.
Quality Program Guidance
ATA comments that neither the rule nor the QPS provide information
on how the QAP should be set up and administered. ATA also comments
that there is no reference to the current guidance documents that
appear on the NSP Web site. ATA suggests that the FAA reorganize the
QAP requirements by combining proposed Sec. 60.5(b), (c), and (d) with
the QAP requirements in appendix A, section 5, and moving them to a new
appendix E, which would be a QPS for a QAP. ATA recommends that the new
appendix contain appropriate
[[Page 63405]]
components of the current guidance and sample of an acceptable SQAP.
FAA Response: The FAA has reorganized the QMS requirements in the
QPS appendices and established one QMS appendix, appendix E, to provide
greater clarity and avoid redundancy.
Identification of Deficiencies
CAE believes the language of proposed Sec. 60.5(b) is too vague
and that the FAA should specify the level of detail required in the
documentation for correcting deficiencies in the QAP. CAE suggests
changing the words ``deficiency in the program'' to ``an issue that has
a direct impact on the quality.'' American states that it is unclear
whether the deficiencies being identified are in the QAP or in the FSD
maintenance program. ATA states that if the deficiency being identified
is in the QAP, then the FAA process should specify how it is to be
changed.
FAA Response: The FAA has made clarifications to Sec. 60.5. The
language of Sec. 60.5, Quality Management System, was chosen to allow
for future revisions to the QMS program, as described in appendix E.
One of the major precepts of any quality management system is that of
continual improvement--improvement as defined by the organization
utilizing the quality management system that can be recognized by an
outside observer. An improvement might manifest itself in the improved
maintenance or the reliability of the FSTD; it might manifest itself in
an increased efficiency in being able to track some aspect of the on-
going maintenance functions; or it might manifest itself in a more
detailed description of a job function or more clearly defined
documentation or a better way to ensure that management is involved in
decisions regarding the QMS program or the quality management system.
Grace Period for Required Changes
ATA suggests that Sec. 60.5(c) provide a 12 month time limit
within which the sponsor must make the required changes to the QAP, so
that it is not immediately in violation after being notified of the
required change. CAE makes a similar comment. ATA and United request
clarification of whether paragraph (c) addresses the pre-approval
process or the process when program deficiencies are discovered during
an audit.
FAA Response: The FAA made minor clarifications to Sec. 60.5(c).
The FAA did not adopt specific time limits as recommended by
commenters, because such revisions are outside the scope of the NPRM.
However, in future changes to the QPS requirements, the FAA will
consider adding specific timeframes as recommended by commenters. Such
changes would be subject to notice and comment. In addition, the FAA
notes that Sec. 60.5(d) allows sponsors to appeal to the Director of
Flight Standards (Director) if the sponsor disagrees with the NSPM's
deficiency notice. The filing of an appeal stays the NSPM's notice
pending the Director's decision. Thus, a sponsor can appeal to the
Director if it believes that the NSPM has not allowed adequate time to
resolve a deficiency.
Management Representative
FSI comments that identifying an employee of the sponsor to be the
management representative, under proposed paragraph (d), may result in
delayed or confused communication if that person is someone other than
the training center's designee. American Trans Air asks whether the
management representative under this section could be the same person
as the liaison with the manufacturer designated under Sec. 60.9(b)(3).
FAA Response: As previously mentioned, the FAA moved proposed
paragraph (d) to Sec. 60.9(c) in the final rule. (See the discussion
in Sec. 60.9 for additional responsibilities of the sponsor). In the
NPRM, the FAA proposed that a sponsor maintain liaison with the
aircraft manufacturer or the holder of the type certificate if the
manufacturer was out of business. The FAA notes that maintaining a
liaison with the aircraft manufacturer does not mean that the sponsor
must designate a specific person to serve as a ``liaison.'' The
Management Representative (MR) may perform this duty if necessary.
There is no requirement that the MR be the training center designee.
The only requirement is that the person so designated as the MR by the
sponsor have the responsibility and authority to accomplish duties
outlined in Sec. 60.9(c).
Comments Regarding Sponsor Qualification Requirements (Sec. 60.7)
Many commenters are concerned about the concept of FSD sponsorship
as proposed in Sec. 60.7(a) and (b). Some commenters request the FAA
delete, change, or clarify the sponsorship requirements.
RAA states that Sec. 60.7 proposes to have individuals such as
pilots, instructors, and check airmen be sponsors rather than a part
121 or part 135 (i.e., part 119) certificate holder. RAA agrees that
such individuals fit the criteria sought by this proposal, but believes
that a collective body of ``individuals'' that comprise an air carrier
also fit the criteria. RAA states, ``It makes no sense to make a
distinction between a person and a certificate holder, particularly
since both are subject to loss of their certificate by the FAA.'' RAA
requests that the concept of ``sponsor'' be eliminated from the
proposed rule.
FAA Response: The FAA has revised and clarified the sponsorship
requirements of Sec. 60.7.
The FAA defines the term ``person'' in 14 CFR part 1 as ``an
individual, firm, partnership, corporation, company, association,
joint-stock association, or governmental entity. It includes a trustee,
receiver, assignee, or similar representative of any of them.'' In
Sec. 60.7, the FAA uses ``person'' in accordance with the part 1
definition. Additionally, as used in this particular situation, the
``person'' being referred to would hold or be an applicant for a
certificate under part 119, 141, or 142, or have a course of training
approved under appendix C of part 63. A ``person'' whether corporate or
individual, can hold a certificate issued under part 119, 141, or 142.
However, an individual person who holds only an airman certificate
(e.g., issued under part 61), would not qualify to be an FSTD sponsor.
The National Simulator Program has operated under the concept of
``sponsor'' for over two decades. However, the National Simulator
Program has never been specific regarding the definition of the term,
nor has the agency been diligent in ensuring that all of the precepts
of FSTD utilization were scrupulously followed. The FAA believes that
it is time that this concept is completely understood by everyone in
the industry.
Sponsorship Qualification Requirements
FSB believes that the proposed sponsorship qualification criteria
will seriously affect third party operations and that the NPRM, if
adopted without major changes, could potentially eliminate part 142
certificate holders as providers of U.S. certified FSDs. Examples of
situations that FSB believes would no longer be allowed are cases where
the FSD is owned by a part 142 certificate holder but is used
principally by other certificate holders. If neither the owner nor any
of the other users met the specified minimum threshold of hours under
their approved training programs, none of these users would meet the
sponsorship standards, even though the FSD might serve many U.S.
certificated operators. Also, the owner might be forced to change the
sponsorship of some FSDs from time to time in order to continue to have
a sponsor who meets the conditions of
[[Page 63406]]
sponsorship. FSB recommends that if the owner is a U.S. certificate
holder, that the responsible certificate holder should be the sponsor
of the FSD, without having to meet all the requirements in this
section.
Further, FSB comments that there are circumstances in part 142
operations where FSD certification is necessary, but there is no plan
by the FSD owner to conduct training. FSB states, ``This proposal is a
case where a prerequisite for Sponsorship is based on intended use of
the device. It is the opinion of FSB that the proposed regulation
should focus on the quality and functionality of the device and that
approvals for how the device will be used should be left [to] the
Principle Operations Inspector (POI), or the Training Center Program
Manager (TCPM), or other appropriate approval authority.'' FSB
recommends that Sec. 60.7(a)(2) be deleted.
FSI objects to the NPRM preamble statements that the sponsorship
and approval process proposed is similar to the current practice. FSI
states, ``Currently, there are no `sponsors' of simulation. The FAA has
never defined the term; there has never been a requirement to have or
to be a sponsor. The term, concept, and obligation is proposed in this
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for the first time. The implication that
sponsors exist now and have been required tends to minimize the
operational and economic impact of the current proposal.'' Further, FSI
comments, ``The process outlined in the proposed part 60 is not at all
similar to current practice in one of the major features of the
proposed rule. That is, the current practice, (and practice for the
past many years), has been for the FAA to evaluate, qualify, and then
approve for use FSDs for a certificate holder having an approved
training program. Now the FAA would add the major step of approving a
person, not necessarily the developer, owner, or custodian of an FSD as
a sponsor. This is a major departure from current practice.'' FSI
recommends that the FAA delete any requirement for a sponsor to be a
certificate holder and specify that a training center may continue to
fulfill all proposed roles of a sponsor and the term sponsor be
eliminated.
ATA states that proposed Sec. 60.7 does not explain or provide a
process for gaining sponsorship approval. ATA recommends that the
sponsorship qualifications and systems and processes needed to manage
the new requirements be established in a pre-defined order over a
certain period as part 60 goes into effect.
In regard to proposed Sec. 60.7(b), FSI asks for clarification of
the relationship between the four conditions in this paragraph, i.e.,
whether the sponsor must meet any or all of the four conditions. ATA
identifies an inconsistency between proposed Sec. 60.5(a), which
allows a sponsor 6 months to develop a QAP after the final rule is
effective, and Sec. 60.7(b)(3), which states that a sponsor must have
an approved QAP. ATA recommends a long period of phase-in for the final
rule and an automatic qualification for items that were in good
standing before the effective date. ATA also comments that proposed
Sec. 60.7(b)(4) gives the NSPM full veto power over a candidate
sponsorship, with no definitions of how the NSPM will evaluate the
candidate sponsor's acceptability to the NSPM.
FAA Response: The changes to the sponsorship requirements discussed
previously adequately address the issues raised by the commenters. In
the final rule, the FAA eliminated the proposed requirement that a
sponsor use the device for 600 hours per year. We are now requiring
that at least one FSTD is used at least once per year within the
sponsor's FAA-approved flight training program. Also, the final rule
permits the sponsor to sponsor additional FSTDs, beyond the first FSTD,
without having a ``use'' requirement. If a sponsor sponsors an
additional FSTD that is not used within its approved training program
then one of the following conditions must be met:
(1) The FSTD must be used in another FAA-approved flight training
program.
(2) The sponsor must provide the FAA with a written statement from
a qualified pilot having flown the airplane that is simulated at least
once during the previous 12 months. The statement must indicate that
the configuration, performance, and handling of the FSTD are
appropriately representative of those features of the airplane being
simulated.
Additionally, while it is true that the FAA does not currently use
the specific term ``sponsor,'' the agency, under its existing
practices, does assign someone to ``oversee'' each qualified FSTD.
Thus, the requirements in Sec. 60.7 are simply a codification of the
agency's current policies.
The rule language is clear about what is necessary for a person to
become an FSTD sponsor and what requirements of part 60 will apply to
existing FSTDs. With limited exceptions, the continuing qualification
requirements for existing FSTDs will not change.
Role of TPAA
Eclipse states that the proposed rule puts the sponsor in a
precarious position between the NSPM and the sponsor's specific TPAA.
Eclipse Aviation would like to see a better delineation of duties and a
more formalized coordination process within the FAA between these two
bodies.
FAA Response: The FAA has modified its processes regarding
coordination and communication with Principal Operations Inspectors
(POI) and Training Center Program Managers (TCPM). The NSPM will
provide a Statement of Qualification directly to the sponsor (copying
the POI/TCPM) and will receive materials directly from the sponsor
(provided parallel communication is maintained with the POI/TCPM).
Part 61 Flight Schools
Fidelity states that the proposed rule does not allow a part 61
flight school to sponsor an FSD or FTD. Fidelity believes if an
organization is capable of maintaining the quality control program
specified by part 60, and if the local POI, FSDO, or TPAA is satisfied,
then the FAA should allow part 61 schools to sponsor an FSD. Fidelity
cites specific sections in part 61 that allow for FSD usage.
FAA Response: FSTD sponsorship is a very unique responsibility and
one that is irrevocably linked to an FAA-approved flight training
program along with other equally unique requirements. As a result, the
FAA has determined it would be inappropriate to allow a part 61
operator, with no requirement for FAA-approved training programs or
other required FAA oversight, to sponsor an FSTD.
Sponsor Responsibility
UPS states that it may not be feasible to place responsibility for
the qualification of an FSD owned, operated, and maintained by another
business entity on the sponsor because the sponsor would have no direct
control of that entity's operation. UPS believes this requirement would
further constrain the business of flight simulator training and should
be deleted.
In regard to proposed Sec. 60.7(a)(2), DHL agrees with the
apparent intent of the rule to give the users who hold vested interest
in the simulators (the carriers) the responsibility and motivation to
guarantee quality assurance of the simulators. Further, DHL states,
``It is also apparent that the FAA is shifting the responsibility from
the National Simulator Program Team (AFS-205) to other entities (the
sponsors) and allowing AFS-205 to provide oversight. It is unclear,
however, if this is a cost savings
[[Page 63407]]
measure for the Federal Government, which would place a financial
burden on the sponsors.''
FAA Response: The FAA is not shifting any responsibility with this
section of the rule, but is simply clarifying that to be a sponsor, one
would have to have an FSTD qualified and used as part of their own FAA-
approved training program.
Sponsors with Multiple Certificates
United comments that it holds certificates under both parts 119 and
142, offering contract training for aircraft currently flown by United
and aircraft no longer flown by United. United requests that the FAA
clarify the wording to allow a sponsor who operates FSDs under multiple
certificates to be the sole sponsor of those FSDs with only one quality
program and one management representative.
FAA Response: The FAA has added information to appendix E. The QMS
requirements should not be read to preclude a given QMS program from
being applicable to more than one certificate holder (e.g., part 119
and part 142 or two part 119 certificate holders). It should also not
be read to preclude an individual from being a Management
Representative (MR) for more than one certificate holder (e.g., part
119 and part 142 or two part 119 certificate holders) as long as the
other QMS program requirements and the other MR requirements are met
for each certificate holder.
Use of Qualified FSDs
TechniFlite states that limiting the use of a qualified FSD to an
approved course unduly limits the use of the FSD. TechniFlite states,
``A Designated Pilot Examiner (DPE) should be allowed to use a
qualified FSD for all or part of a check ride in accordance with the
practical test standards. * * *'' If a pilot applicant has the
experience and has otherwise received the appropriate training outside
of a 142 training program, that pilot or his employer should not be
required to pay for the expense of the 142 program. Many corporate
flight departments have excellent in-house training programs. If a
qualified FSD is available, the Designated Pilot Examiner should be
allowed to utilize the device.'' TechniFlite believes part 61 training
should not be denied access to FSDs.
FAA Response: There may have been a misunderstanding of the
proposal. Part 60 does not impose any limitations or prohibitions
regarding the use of a qualified FSTD for any appropriate, authorized
usage. A DPE certificated under part 61 may use an FSTD for any
authorized purpose, but a DPE may not sponsor an FSTD.
Minimum of 600 Hours
Most of the commenters on this section object to the proposed
requirement in Sec. 60.7(c)(1) that an FSD be used a minimum of 600
hours per year in the sponsor's training program. Commenters state that
the proposed minimum hour requirement is arbitrary, unfair, financially
burdensome, and creates an unfair financial advantage for large
training centers.
FAA Response: As discussed previously, the FAA eliminated the 600-
hour requirement. Instead, the sponsor must use at least one FSTD at
least once per year in an FAA approved training program. Any additional
FSTD sponsored by the sponsor must be used in another FAA-approved
flight training program or the sponsor must provide the FAA with a
written statement from a qualified pilot having flown the airplane
being simulated at least once during the previous 12 months. The
statement must indicate that the configuration, performance, and
handling of the FSTD is appropriately representative of those features
of the airplane being simulated. The revised rule language resolves the
concerns raised by commenters.
Sponsorship Under Parts 125 or 137
FSI suggests including parts 125 and 137 in the definition of
``Certificate Holder'' in Sec. 60.3 and in Sec. 60.7(c)(2) to allow
for future use of simulation under those parts.
FAA Response: As stated previously, only those persons required to
have an FAA approved flight training program are eligible to sponsor an
FSTD. The FAA has established an Aviation Rulemaking Committee to
review part 125. The FAA will review the recommendations of this
Aviation Rulemaking Committee when they are received to determine if an
FAA approved training program will be required under the new rules. The
FAA will initiate formal rulemaking at that time if warranted by the
recommendations. Also, operations conducted under part 137
(Agricultural Aircraft Operations) require the use of pilots with
either commercial or airline transport pilot certificates and a rating
for the aircraft that is to be used in the agricultural operation.
There is no requirement, however, for a part 137 operator to have an
FAA approved flight training program. Therefore, it is not appropriate
for those operators to sponsor an FSTD.
Dequalified Simulators
In regard to proposed Sec. 60.7(c)(3)(ii), CAE believes that
someone else may apply to sponsor the dequalified simulator
immediately, since only the current sponsor cannot reapply. American
states that this paragraph has the potential for significant impact on
sponsors of foreign simulators. American further states that if a valid
training requirement for a device exists, the FAA should not be in a
position of impacting business decisions. Similarly, ATA opposes any
attempt to require that an FSD remain out of service for any enforced
period of time. ATA suggests removing the sponsor's qualification, not
the FSDs. United and Delta make similar comments.
FAA Response: As discussed previously, the FAA has rewritten the
sponsor qualification requirements, specifically the use requirements.
Therefore it is highly unlikely that sponsorship will be taken away for
non-use of an FSTD. The revisions to Sec. 60.7 adequately address the
concerns raised in this area. The FAA has modified Sec. 60.7(c) to
remove the statement ``The FSD is not qualified.''
Comments Regarding Additional Responsibilities of the Sponsor (Sec.
60.9)
Several commenters object to the proposal in Sec. 60.9(a) that
sponsors must allow ``immediate'' inspection of the FSD, citing the
disruption and extra cost if training is interrupted without notice.
The amount of notice requested by commenters ranges from 24 hours to
seven days. ATA provides proposed revised rule language, allowing 48
hours notice. Several commenters state the NPRM does not provide any
rationale for the change in approach from the current language in
Sec. Sec. 142.29 and 142.73, which provides for inspection of
facilities, equipment, and records ``at a reasonable time.'' ATA and
United state that if the FAA needs authority to conduct ``emergency''
no-notice inspections, it should add a paragraph containing guidelines
for when such emergency inspection might be required.
FAA Response: The FAA has revised the rule language to require that
sponsors allow the NSPM upon request to inspect the FSTD ``as soon as
practicable.'' In addition, the FAA has clarified in the Information
section of the QPS that the phrase ``as soon as practicable'' means
without unnecessarily disrupting or delaying beyond a reasonable time
the training, evaluation, or experience being conducted in the FSTD.
These revisions should address the commenters'
[[Page 63408]]
concerns. The FAA did not intend for proposed Sec. 60.9 to imply that
the FAA would have the right to conduct ``emergency'' no-notice
inspections.
Comments Regarding Foreign Devices
FedEx and ATA state that paragraph Sec. 60.9(a) should be
applicable to FSDs that are directly under the sponsor's control, and
not applicable to those FSDs where the sponsor is not the operator of
the FSD.
FAA Response: The FAA appreciates those situations where a sponsor
is sponsoring an FSTD owned and operated by a foreign airline or
foreign training center located outside of the United States. It is not
the FAA's intent to conduct inspections on these FSTDs outside of those
times when such an FSTD is being used by the sponsor or another U.S.
certificate holder.
Collecting Comments on the FSD
Several commenters state that the proposed requirements in Sec.
60.9(b)(1) and (2) to collect and take action on comments on the FSD
and its operation would duplicate the maintenance and discrepancy log
requirements elsewhere in part 60 and should be removed. Commenters
fear that this paragraph would create the potential for irrelevant,
non-factual, personal or pejorative comments, which would be difficult
to examine, classify, and take action on, resulting in unnecessary
expenditure of time and resources. Commenters particularly state that
flight crewmembers might offer comments that reflect the trainee's
difficulty and not the performance of the simulator. Such comments
should be provided to the instructor or evaluator and not be a
requirement under this section.
FAA Response: The FAA adopted revisions to the comment collection
provisions in this section. The intent of this requirement is to
provide a mechanism for comments to be provided and for the sponsor to
be able to review those comments and take whatever action it deems
appropriate. The FAA did not specify the method used to collect this
information. However, a maintenance log or an addendum to a maintenance
log would suffice to meet this requirement. It was the FAA's intent not
only to allow, but to encourage comments. If a sponsor determines that
a particular comment is motivated by the trainee's difficulty and not
the performance of the FSTD, then the sponsor should indicate that
fact. Providing a source for comments such as these is logical and has
merit.
Liaison with Aircraft Manufacturer
DHL and FSI state that the proposed requirement in Sec. 60.9(b)(3)
to maintain a liaison with the aircraft manufacturer would be difficult
when the manufacturer is out of business or when the aircraft is no
longer being manufactured. FSI points out that the manufacturers would
also incur a cost from this requirement and would probably prefer to
maintain a liaison only with the FSD manufacturer, and not with every
sponsor for a particular FSD. ATA states that the relationship the air
carriers and their training departments maintain with the manufacturers
should be sufficient and for independent training centers, there should
be more specific direction on what constitutes liaison.
FAA Response: The FAA has revised this section of the rule by
eliminating the language that was referenced in these comments.
However, the FAA has included the following language in the applicable
QPS appendices, in the QPS Requirements section addressing Sec. 60.13:
The FSTD ``sponsor must 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/or, if appropriate, with the person having
supplied the aircraft data package for the'' FSTD ``in order to
facilitate the notification described in this paragraph.''
Posting of Statement of Qualification
ATA, FedEx, and United request that the FAA allow for electronic
posting of the document.
FAA Response: The FAA has determined that electronic posting would
be helpful to the sponsor and the user. Therefore, we have modified
Sec. 60.9 to allow for the electronic posting of the Statement of
Qualification. In addition, as a result of other changes to this
section we have moved the requirements in proposed Sec. 60.9(b)(4) to
Sec. 60.9(b)(2).
Comments Regarding FSD use (Sec. 60.11)
Delta Air Lines (Delta) suggests that Sec. 60.11(a) be reworded to
make the sponsor's responsibility limited to not knowingly allowing the
FSD to be misused. Delta states that a sponsor cannot ensure that, for
example, a rental crew is not using an FSD for training for a system
for which the FSD is not approved. Delta also suggests that the
preamble statement providing that other persons or certificate holders
may arrange to use a sponsor's FSD without an additional qualification
process be added to Sec. 60.11(a).
FAA Response: The requirements of this section of the rule do not
require that a sponsor keep a lessee from improperly using the FSTD.
Rather, this section is to require that the sponsor will not use the
FSTD or allow the FSTD to be used unless it: 1) Is properly sponsored
(paragraph (a)); 2) is qualified as described in the Statement of
Qualification (paragraph (b)); 3) remains qualified (paragraph (c)); 4)
is used with the original or properly modified programming (paragraph
(d)); and 5) is used in accordance with missing, malfunctioning, and
inoperative component requirements of Sec. 60.25 (paragraph (e)). The
standard briefing provided to those who ``dry lease'' an FSTD is
sufficient to address the concerns raised here.
Confusion About ``Type, Make, Model, and Series''
FSI states that the language of paragraph (b) is a significant
departure from current Sec. 142.59(a)(1), because that section does
not require that an FSD represent a specific ``configuration'' or even
``variant within type.'' FSI states, ``The intermingling of type, make,
model, and series, and ``configuration'' is confusing, contradictory,
and not consistent with the FAA's own aircraft nomenclature system. It
would preclude using a simulator representing a type of aircraft, for
training or testing for another of a common type rating, and then using
the FAA's own differences training scheme to address differences.'' FSI
states that FAA has not justified the change in the proposed section
and has not evaluated the cost of the impact. FSB makes a similar
comment, stating that, ``Many aircraft have multiple configurations,
which could potentially create the need for multiple Statements of
Qualification.''
FAA Response: The FAA has removed the terms ``make, model, and
series of aircraft or set of aircraft'' from the rule language in
paragraph (b). In the final rule, we only reference the Statement of
Qualification. However, the use of these terms is not a departure from
the current requirement in Sec. 142.59(a)(1) where the requirement is
that approval for use of an FSTD be based on ``each maneuver and
procedure for the make, model, and series of aircraft, set of aircraft,
or aircraft type simulated, as applicable.'' These requirements are
completely compatible and not interdependent. There is nothing in any
part 60 requirement, including the particular section referenced, that
would preclude the use of an FSTD representing a type of aircraft for
training or testing for a
[[Page 63409]]
common type rating, and then using an FAA-approved differences training
program to address any differences that may exist. The FAA reiterates
that the requirement is for the qualification of the FSTD. While it is
certainly true that many aircraft types have many different
configurations, it is also true that each FSTD will reflect a single
aircraft type (make, model, and series) and reflect one configuration.
There are provisions for ``convertible'' FSTDs and each configuration
to which the FSTD is convertible will be annotated on the configuration
list as part of the Statement of Qualification. Indeed, some
convertible FSTDs are so different they warrant a separate FAA
Identification number and a different series of evaluations. The
requirement here is that each FSTD meet the requirements stated in part
60, including the applicable QPS appendix, to be qualified. How that
FSTD is authorized for use has, and will continue to, come under the
jurisdiction of the TPAA.
Required Features
Regarding paragraph (b)(2), Delta states that an FSD should not be
required to have all features--just those for which training credits
are desired. Delta suggests that paragraph (b)(2) be changed to ``For
all tasks and configurations approved in the sponsor's or user's FAA
approved Flight Training Program.''
FAA Response: The FAA has removed paragraph (b)(2). There is no
requirement that any FSTD be configured to match all possible
configurations of a single aircraft type nor that it be able to be used
for training, testing or checking for all the tasks that the simulated
airplane type may be able to accomplish.
Changes in Software
ATA objects to proposed Sec. 60.11(d), stating that,
It will be impossible for the FSD to operate with the ``same
software and active programming'' that was evaluated by the NSPM.
After the initial eval and each recurrent eval, the operator
continues to make software changes to improve the utility of the
training device (adding malfunctions and features), to fix faults,
to improve reliability and maintainability, and to keep the
simulator current with the aircraft. Other sections in this Part 60
deal with how changes are to be evaluated and monitored by the NSPM.
These are sufficient and do not need to be duplicated in this clause
* * *. As worded, this paragraph implies that the FSD software and
active programming must remain static between NSPM evaluations. One
could also infer that the NSPM must evaluate every combination of
engine and avionic software variation available in the FSD prior to
that software being used for training * * *. This clause should be
deleted.
United, FedEx, Delta, FSI, Fidelity, and CAE make similar comments.
FSI states that changes might be the result of the requirements in
Sec. 60.19(c) or Sec. 60.23 and that most modern simulators require
the modification of software parameters to control the simulator
mechanics. CAE states that the clause potentially removes the
capability of allowing different users to emphasize specific aspects of
the training, for example the sponsor may have introduced one effect
that is unacceptable to another user who requires a different
implementation of cues. United, FSI, and CAE provide suggested language
to modify paragraph (d).
FSI questions the meaning of the terms ``active programming'' and
``regular flight crewmember'' in the preamble discussion of Sec.
60.11(d).
FAA Response: The reference to ``regular flight crewmember
training'' was used in the original part 60 preamble language to refer
to the normally conducted, or routine training of flight crewmembers.
However, the FAA has modified this section of the rule language such
that the FSTD would have to be operated ``with the software and
hardware that was evaluated as satisfactory by the NSPM and, if
modified, modified only in accordance with the provisions of this
part'' (Sec. 60.11(d)). This change addresses the concerns raised by
commenters.
Comments Regarding FSTD Objective Data Requirements (Sec. 60.13)
ATA comments that the requirement in proposed Sec. 60.13(a) for
aircraft manufacturers' flight test data and all data developed after
the type certificate was issued is too broad, impractical, and likely
impossible to satisfy. ATA comments that the sponsor has no control
over the data product and states, ``The aircraft manufacturer does not
provide `all data' as part of a data package; rather, they only provide
certain cases and sets of data. The flight test data package can
consist of numerous volumes (particularly for older airplanes), only a
portion of which are included in the Qualification Test Guide (QTG).
The data the sponsor does have is available for review during the
initial evaluation if a case is questionable; however, the logistics of
submitting the entire flight test package to the NSPM are
prohibitive.'' ATA suggests the data referred to in this section should
be limited to those data that are sufficient to validate the
performance, handling qualities, or other characteristics of the
aircraft, including data related to any relevant changes occurring
after type certification. Further, according to ATA, other than
paragraph (b), the sponsor should have no role in this section. It must
be the responsibility of the aircraft manufacturer or other data
provider to supply the appropriate validation data for use by the
sponsor in the QTG. Finally, ATA concludes, as a minimum, the NSPM
should pre-approve the airplane manufacturer's or data provider's
validation data roadmap (see the ICAO document, Manual of Criteria for
the Qualification of Flight Simulators, 2nd edition, Attachment D)
prior to allowing the data to be used for validation of a FSD.
NLX, Delta, American, and CAE make similar comments. ATA believes
the burden of responsibility for providing these data should be upon
the aircraft manufacturer or data provider, for use by the sponsor/
operator in the QTG or as additional reference data. (ATA provides
suggested new rule text for the entire section.)
FAA Response: The FAA, revised the language of this section to say
the following: ``The data made available to the NSPM (the validation
data package) must include the aircraft manufacturer's flight test data
and all relevant data developed after the type certificate was issued
(e.g., data developed in response to an airworthiness directive) if
such data results from a change in performance, handling qualities,
functions, or other characteristics of the aircraft that must be
considered for flight crewmember training, evaluation, or for meeting
experience requirements of this chapter.''
The FAA understands the position described by NLX, Delta, American,
and CAE regarding the burden of responsibility for providing aircraft
data; however, at this juncture, the scope of this rule does not permit
the FAA to levy simulation data requirements on those not falling under
the regulatory jurisdiction of part 60 (such as aircraft
manufacturers). As a result, the organizations that do fall directly
under the provisions of part 60 are the sponsors--and it makes sense to
levy these requirements on them. The FAA acknowledges that close
coordination must exist between the sponsor and the data provider
(aircraft manufacturer, simulator manufacturer, or other data supplier)
to ensure that the set of data ultimately made available for FSTD
evaluation will meet the part 60 requirements as indicated. However,
the FAA may task the ARC to consider alternative approaches to this
issue and
[[Page 63410]]
make recommendations. The FAA may consider these recommendations for
inclusion a future NPRM.
Validation Data
TWA states that the rule should require that a manufacturer receive
NSPM approval for the aerodynamic, engine and proof of match data on
all new aircraft types. This would provide for commonality between the
performances of various simulators and reduce the time required by
National Simulator Program engineers to review the data because for
each new type of aircraft they would need to review only one data
package. TWA says that the sponsors of new type aircraft would then
know they are working with approved data and could proceed accordingly.
United comments that this proposal continues to place the sponsor
between the FAA and the FSD data provider, thereby codifying the FAA's
ability to withhold FSD qualification because of poor data from the
data provider.
CAE believes this paragraph is geared to commercial operators and
not to business jet airplane manufacturers. CAE recommends revising the
text of Sec. 60.13(a) to read: ``Except as noted in paragraphs (b) and
(c) of this section, for the purposes of validating FSD performance
during evaluation for qualification, the sponsor must submit to the
NSPM the flight test data used to define the performance standards of
the FSD.''
FAA Response: The FAA adopted revisions to the ``exception'' phrase
to clarify that the wording in this section is geared to sponsors and
not to commercial operators, airplane manufacturers or individual
persons receiving training in a FSTD. The FAA recognizes that the new
rule places the sponsor between the FAA and the FSTD data provider,
thereby codifying the FAA's ability to withhold qualification of the
device if the data provided is inadequate. The FAA notes, however, that
it has no authority to compel information from a data provider, which
in most cases is proprietary information used, produced, and marketed
under exclusive legal right of the airplane manufacturer or other data
provider. The FAA expects that sponsors will be able to obtain
necessary data through the dictates of the marketplace, similar to the
current practices for the acquisition of other types of proprietary
information such as the technical requirements for a Supplemental Type
Certificate. Sponsors and data suppliers have a mutual interest in
ensuring that the FAA has the data it needs to qualify a FSTD, and the
agency encourages both parties to work together to achieve that end.
Data Related to Modifications
FSB comments that once a FSD is qualified under initial
certification test data, only the additional data related to
modifications need be submitted to NSPM. FSB believes this data must
fully support the proposed modification and must include appropriate
manufacturers' flight test data that relates to performance, handling
qualities, functions and aircraft characteristics required for flight
crewmember training, evaluation, or experience requirements.
FAA Response: The FAA has modified Sec. 60.13(a) to include
language indicating that ``all relevant data developed after the type
certificate was issued'' will be required. An example of such data is
data developed in response to an airworthiness directive.
Previously Approved Data
Thales Training and Simulation comments that the requirement for
prior submission of data to the NSPM for approval does not allow the
use of data previously approved by the NSPM by way of the Validation
Data Roadmap.
FAA Response: The term ``Validation Data Roadmap'' is used in the
Information Section of the QPS to describe the document that contains
the plan for acquiring the validation data and the data sources. The
Information Sections are advisory and provide general guidance to the
user. The Validation Data Roadmap will assist the user in meeting the
regulatory requirements.
Use of Flight Test Data
FSI comments that instead of using aircraft certification data,
aircraft manufacturers should work with simulator manufacturers to
produce flight test data specifically for the development of accurate
simulation and math models. FSI believes aircraft certification data
are generally incomplete for modeling purposes, that aircraft
certification and simulator development have different and specific
data requirements, and data developed for one purpose should not be
considered acceptable for the other.
Regarding proposed Sec. 60.13(e), ATA comments that this
paragraph, as written, could be used to place the sponsor in a position
to require the aircraft manufacturer to provide additional flight test
data. This has been the case in the recent past and has resulted in
sponsors continuing to carry data discrepancies that are years old. ATA
believes that, if the NSPM requires additional flight testing, that
should be strictly between the NSPM and the data provider. In addition,
this paragraph could subject the sponsor to large costs to obtain data
as required by the NSPM. This requirement seems inappropriate and too
broad, according to ATA. American and CAE make similar comments and
request that the FAA provide additional guidance on when additional
flight test data might be required.
FAA Response: While the data acquisition processes specifically
designed for simulation modeling and subsequent validation would be
highly desirable, the FAA acknowledges that the existing practices were
developed to minimize the cost of flight testing and to take maximum
advantage of the flight testing already required as a function of
aircraft certification. Additionally, while flight testing limited
strictly to simulation purposes has never been discouraged, the FAA
recognizes that a shift in requirements as suggested here might have an
unwanted and perhaps unnecessary impact on the cost versus quality of
the data as presently acquired and accepted for simulation purposes.
The FAA is interested in having each FSTD mimic as closely as
possible the performance and handling of the simulated aircraft. As
such, when new generation aircraft are designed, built, and placed into
service, it is possible that the existing set of data requirements or
the methods used to acquire those data may be found to be inadequate in
some way. ATA is correct that certain situations have resulted in some
sponsors carrying data discrepancies for much longer than the FAA would
desire. The NSPM, the aircraft manufacturer, and other interested
parties (e.g., foreign regulatory authorities with the same or similar
concerns, and other sponsors) continue to research the best and most
acceptable way of addressing the shortcomings. As solutions to these
data discrepancies are developed, the FAA may make appropriate changes
to the QPS appendices. These changes would be subject to notice and
comment.
Use of Flight Operations Quality Assurance (FOQA) Data
In regard to proposed Sec. 60.13(b), ATA comments that some
sponsors have on rare occasion used de-identified flight recorder data
available from the aircraft onboard FOQA data recorder. These data,
usually an averaging of many flights within certain specified
parameters, have been used to verify the handling qualities and
performance of the FSTD simulation where there is not a good match
between the simulation
[[Page 63411]]
and the manufacturer-supplied objective data in the MQTG. ATA states
that this paragraph, as written, makes no allowances for such data,
limiting data types to engineering or flight test data.
FAA Response: The FAA recognizes this limited but potentially
important source of simulation data. We have made an appropriate
adjustment in the alternative data source allowances by adding language
that addresses on-board FOQA recorder data into QPS Appendix A,
``Qualification Performance Standards for Airplane Full Flight
Simulators.''
Engineering Simulation Data
Boeing suggests adding ``engineering simulation data'' to proposed
Sec. 60.13(c) because it believes engineering data are an important
source of alternative data. Also, Boeing states that engineering
simulation data are not necessarily ``predicted'' data if they are
produced by a well-validated engineering simulation, and should not be
grouped under the heading ``predicted data.''
FAA Response: The FAA recognizes that engineering simulation data
is a valid source of data. Therefore, the FAA revised the rule language
to allow for the appropriate use of this type of data.
Form and Manner of Providing Data
ATA states that the form and manner that is acceptable to the NSPM
under proposed Sec. 60.13(d) should be defined. ATA states that the
sponsor has no direct control over the form and manner of data provided
and that the requirement should be placed on the aircraft manufacturer
or the STC holder.
FAA Response: The ``form and manner'' acceptable to the NSPM is
described in detail in the applicable QPS appendix and resolves the
issues raised by the commenter. For example, the QPS appendix states
that the information must be in a manner that is clearly readable and
annotated correctly and completely with resolution sufficient to
determine compliance with the applicable tolerances.
Notification Process
ATA states that if each sponsor follows the requirement in proposed
Sec. 60.13(f), the NSPM will receive many notifications from all the
various sponsors whenever a common change occurs, such as flight data,
avionics data, 28-day navigational ``Jepp'' data updates, visual system
database updates. American makes a similar comment. ATA believes this
paragraph should clearly identify the scope of data covered by this
notification process. Delta suggests limiting the requirement to data
``relevant to flight or ground dynamics, performance or handling
characteristics or additional aircraft appliances.'' Boeing believes it
should be the responsibility of the aircraft manufacturer or data
provider to provide the notification, to avoid redundant notifications
from multiple sponsors. However, FSI states that the aircraft
manufacturer is not required to provide such data to the sponsors and
in many cases would not even know who the sponsor or sponsors operating
FSDs representing its aircraft are. Therefore FSI thinks this provision
is unenforceable.
Delta and FSI object to the requirement for ``immediate''
notification. Delta suggests allowing at least 30 days to provide the
sponsor time to determine if the change will affect the FSTD in the
context of Sec. 60.13(a).
FAA Response: The commenters raise two main issues with respect to
notifying the FAA of new data. The first issue is that the commenters
were worried that we were requiring a notification every time they
receive any kind of new data. The second issue is that the commenters
were concerned that they would need to make a determination about how
the data affected the FSTD before submitting the notification. This
second issue was a concern for the commenters because of the proposed
requirement that the notification to the FAA be ``immediate.'' They
were concerned that they could not provide ``immediate'' notice to the
FAA regarding how the data would impact the use of the simulators in
their training programs.
In response to the first issue, the FAA has revised paragraph (f)
to clarify the type of data we are requesting. The data providers need
only provide notice for data related to the handling and performance of
the FSTD. The FAA has also added language to the applicable QPS
appendices to help clarify the type of data we are requesting. The
language states ``[t]he 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.''
With respect to the second issue, the FAA has also clarified that
we are not asking data providers to make a determination about the
effect of the new data before sending the notice to the FAA. The final
rule only requires that the sponsors give the FAA notice that new data
exists that ``may relate to FSTD performance or handling
characteristics.'' The applicable QPS appendices provide more
information about the type of dialogue the sponsors should have with
the NSPM regarding the determinations to be made about the effect of
the new data on FSTDs. In addition the FAA has removed the word
``immediately'' from paragraph (f) and provided the timeframe in the
applicable QPS appendices. Instead of ``immediately'' the FAA is
requiring that the sponsor notify the FAA within 10 working days of
receiving notice of the new data.
Comments Regarding Special Equipment and Personnel Requirements for
Qualification of the FSTD (Sec. 60.14)
Flight Safety Boeing (FSB) states that this section places a burden
on the sponsor that really should be a burden on the entity that owns
and maintains the FSD.
FAA Response: A sponsor may contract with another person for
services such as maintenance and scheduling. However, the sponsor still
retains the responsibility of ensuring that all of the actions are
completed as required. This responsibility extends to initial and
recurrent evaluation of the FSTD, including any special equipment and/
or personnel.
24 Hour Notice Requirement
Commenters are concerned about the amount of notice before a
sponsor must make special equipment and personnel available under Sec.
60.14, stating that the 24 hours notice mentioned in the NPRM preamble
and in the QPS is impractical. ATA and Fidelity recommend at least 7
days notice, while FSI recommends at least 10 calendar days notice to
prepare special test equipment, such as sound, motion, or control
measurement equipment and make operating personnel available. NBAA,
CAE, and an individual make similar comments.
FAA Response: The FAA recognizes it takes time for a sponsor to
arrange for special equipment and personnel to be made available to the
FAA. Therefore, the FAA has modified the language in the applicable QPS
appendices to state that ``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.''
Specifically Trained Persons
FSI questions whether the requirement for specifically trained
persons is not required for recurring evaluations and recommends that
the FAA state if there is a requirement for a person current and
qualified in the type of aircraft simulated to be present and a part of
the subjective testing and declarations for recurrent evaluations.
[[Page 63412]]
FAA Response: The FAA has removed the word ``specifically'' in
reference to qualified personnel. Qualified personnel are those persons
qualified to install or use any special equipment when its use is
required. The major focus of this section is on equipment not
necessarily used on a regular basis for recurring evaluations of the
FSTD. Language in the Information section in the applicable QPS
appendices for this section includes examples of special equipment
(e.g., spot photometers, flight control measurement devices, sound
analyzer).
Special Evaluation
NBAA asks what would constitute a special evaluation.
FAA Response: A special evaluation is an evaluation other than a
regularly scheduled initial or continuing (recurrent) evaluation or an
evaluation that is considered to be a regular no-notice (or limited
notice) evaluation. Special evaluations are conducted where it is
determined that a question exists regarding an FSTD's qualification and
the answer is not immediately available through any means other than an
on-site evaluation. The depth and duration of a special evaluation will
depend on the question that exists and the detail that must be acquired
to adequately address that question. This term is described in the
Sec. 60.14 discussion in appendices A, B, C, and D, and is defined in
appendix F.
Comments Regarding Initial Qualification Requirements (Sec. 60.15)
RAA, FSB, and United disagree with the proposal in Sec. 60.15(a)
that a request for initial FSD evaluation be submitted first to the
TPAA. These commenters believe TPAA inspectors do not have the
expertise to review a QTG and that the application should be made
directly to the NSPM, with a copy sent to the TPAA. United suggests
that the TPAA be asked to send a concurring letter to the NSPM.
FAA Response: The FAA revised this section to require the sponsor
to send the request directly to the NSPM and simultaneously request the
TPAA to forward a concurring letter to the NSPM. This clarifies the
process for initial qualification of the FSTD.
Request for Initial Qualification
ATA comments that the requirements of proposed Sec. 60.15(b) are
unnecessarily burdensome. For example, ATA states that paragraph (b)(2)
requires a description of a procedure that should have already been
accepted under the QAP. Delta and CAE make similar comments. ATA
suggests limiting the requirement to the ``statement'' outlined in
paragraph (b)(1).
NLX states that paragraph (b) does not appear to allow for a
sponsor to request an initial evaluation until the FSD or FTD is
completely tested, all items functional and all tests passing. NLX
states that with the lengthy time required to get an initial evaluation
scheduled, it is not practical to get an FSD or FTD completely finished
and then wait for the evaluation. Within reason, the FAA must allow for
some items to not be completed when the request for an initial
evaluation is submitted with the understanding that they will be before
the evaluation starts, according to NLX. Similarly, CAE requests
clarification of the timeline for the activities in paragraph (b) and
references the ``Sample Request for Initial Evaluation Date'' letter in
the appendix.
In regard to proposed Sec. 60.15(b)(2), FSI states that the
maintenance required by proposed Sec. 60.19(c) may also require
changes to the configuration of the software or hardware present during
the evaluation, in addition to modifications performed under proposed
Sec. 60.23.
FAA Response: The FAA has revised paragraph (b)(2) to delete the
requirement concerning procedures. Instead, the FAA is requiring a
statement from the Management Representative (MR) that is focused on
the operation of the FSTD (performance and handling qualities) assessed
by a pilot meeting the requirements of part 60. The QMS must contain
the procedure that the MR will use to generate this statement.
In response to the points raised regarding timing of the testing
and of the statement being sent, the FAA has slightly modified the
proposed language and has added language in the applicable QPS
appendices. This additional language provides that the statement may
contain a confirmation that the sponsor will forward to the NSPM
(either by traditional or electronic means) the complete 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. The language
also describes what must be communicated when or if required
maintenance results in modification to hardware or software that was
present and functioning at the time of the initial evaluation.
Pilot Statement
FSI states that pilots, particularly those of dry lease customers,
may be reluctant to sign the statement required by proposed Sec.
60.15(b)(3) because of perceived potential liability. FSI suggests that
this provision be made advisory and moved to the QPS or that an
appropriately qualified FAA official should sign such statements.
Similarly, ATA comments that the terms used in paragraphs (b)(3)(i)-
(iii) (``function equivalently,'' ``are equivalent to,'' and ``conforms
to'') require pilots to make assertions in writing that they cannot
realistically support. ATA states, ``This is particularly true in the
case where pilots are required to make these assertions for aircraft
types not yet issued a type certificate, a situation addressed in
paragraph (d). Also, there are many operations tasks that pilots have
never experienced in the aircraft, like a takeoff with an engine
malfunction or a windshear encounter during approach.'' ATA suggests
using the phrase ``adequately represents'' instead of a form of
``equivalent'' or ``conforms.'' ATA provides suggested rule text and
sample Letter of Request text, using the suggested terms. Delta makes a
similar comment.
FSB states that, regarding proposed Sec. 60.15(b)(3), it needs to
have the flexibility to have both a primary designated evaluation pilot
and an alternate, either of whom are certified by the FAA to conduct
the evaluation. FSB recommends changing Sec. 60.15(b)(3) to permit any
designated pilot to perform the subjective tests and sign the statement
that the listed requirements have been met.
FAA Response: In the final rule, the FAA requires that an
appropriately qualified pilot must make the comparisons as described.
The FAA also adopted revisions to this section to require the
appropriately qualified pilot to comment on the performance and
handling qualities of the FSTD with respect to the aircraft (or set of
aircraft) simulated but only within the normal operating envelope of
the aircraft. The pilot making this determination must have flown all
of the operational tasks listed in the Table of Functions and
Subjective Tests set out in the FSTD subjective tests attachment to the
applicable QPS appendix relevant to the qualification level of the
FSTD. Additionally, the FAA has modified the requirement to note if any
exceptions are necessary.
The FAA is not prescribing the individuals who must perform the
required subjective testing, other than to require that the pilot be
appropriately qualified and that he/she has actually flown the subject
aircraft within the previous 12 month period. It would be a safety
concern to have a pilot attest to the correct performance and handling
of the subject FSTD if that pilot is not familiar with the performance
and
[[Page 63413]]
handling qualities of the aircraft being simulated.
Tasks Not Tested
ATA comments that the requirements outlined in Sec. 60.15(b)(4)
would prevent an operator from requesting an initial evaluation until
all of the referenced tasks, systems, and tests are complete and
functional. This would result in project schedules being extended by
several months, adding a significant financial burden to every
certification project. ATA requests the operator be permitted to list
under this paragraph any item that, for whatever reason, cannot be
tested at the time of the submittal.
Also, ATA and United cite numerous specific problems with this
paragraph and state that the concept of requiring such a list is
fraught with problems, such as mixing tasks with systems and maneuvers.
ATA recommends that the requirement for the table of Qualified/Non-
qualified tasks be deleted.
FAA Response: The FAA has revised and reorganized Sec. 60.15 to
accommodate the large portion of the recommendations originally made by
commenters. As rewritten, the sponsor makes the request for initial
evaluation after an appropriately qualified pilot has flown all of the
Operations Tasks listed in the applicable QPS appendix relevant to the
qualification level of the FSTD. If the sponsor does not subjectively
test a task, it must note that in its request for initial evaluation.
The FAA also revised this section to separate operational piloting
tasks from systems and cockpit configuration determinations and to
allow for pilots and for persons other than pilots to make these
determinations.
Qualification Test Guide
TechniFlite comments that the NSPM should provide specific guidance
on the outline and format of the QTG required by proposed Sec.
60.15(b)(5), stating that the acceptance of the QTG often appears to be
subjective and the sponsor is not provided a clear understanding of
what is required for compliance. TechniFlite further suggests that the
NSPM should be required to respond to the submission of a QTG within 30
days and be required to complete the qualification process within 90
days.
In regard to proposed Sec. 60.15(b)(5)(iv), ATA comments that this
list will define the equipment that must be kept calibrated in
accordance with appendix A. According to ATA, most new FSDs have
internal test equipment built into them; this internal test equipment
would have to be removed to be calibrated in the traditional sense. ATA
recommends allowing the sponsor to develop repeatability tests with
tolerances as part of a quality system. Also ATA recommends changing
``description'' of the equipment to ``list'' of the equipment.
FAA Response: The FAA removed the QTG language that was in proposed
Sec. 60.15(b)(5) and placed specific guidance regarding the format and
content of the QTG in the applicable QPS appendix. Regarding the NSPM
response time for scheduling a QTG evaluation, the FAA notes that
typically, the NSPM responds to a scheduling request within days and
very rarely exceeds a week. Thus, under current practice, the NSPM
response time is well under the 30 days recommended by the commenter.
The FAA intends to continue this timely response. The commenter also
suggested that the NSPM be required to complete the QTG evaluation
within 90 days. The current practice consists of the sponsor being able
to request an evaluation up to 180 days in advance and provide an
``essentially complete'' QTG not later than 45 days prior to that
proposed evaluation date. The submission of the QTG at this point
allows the QTG to be assembled with data and tests that more likely
reflect the device's final form and provides adequate time for the NSPM
to review the document for compliance with the appropriate standards
and advise the sponsor if questions arise regarding either the quality
or quantity of data or the justifications used for comparisons. This
timing allows the sponsor to make necessary corrections, re-run tests,
provide additional data, and then provide a response with sufficient
time for the NSPM to evaluate this additional information for clarity
and completeness. This 180-day process provides the best timing and
allocation of resources for the sponsor and the FAA personnel. Various
processes have been tested over the past 20 years, and the 180 day
timeframe has yielded the best results.
New or Changed Standards
In response to proposed Sec. 60.15(c)(1), CAE and ATA question
what the effect of new standards would be on FSTDs that have been
ordered, but not yet delivered to the sponsor. They suggest that the
NSPM be required to notify all sponsors when a change to an existing
standard or a new standard is published. The sponsor should then be
given more time, e.g., 60 or 90 days, to determine whether the FSTD
should comply with the new standards or the standards that were in
effect when the FSTD was ordered.
FAA Response: If the FAA changes the standards for initial
qualification, a sponsor may request that the NSPM apply the standards
that were in effect when the FSTD was ordered for delivery or apply the
changed standards. The FAA recognizes that the sponsor needs time to
evaluate the changes to determine the standards under which the device
should be evaluated. Therefore, the FAA has revised the rule language
to give the sponsor 90 days to notify the NSPM which standards to
apply.
In the NPRM, proposed Sec. 60.15(c)(1)(iii) included the phrase
``unless circumstances beyond the control of the sponsor prevent the
evaluation from occurring within that time.'' In the final rule, the
FAA has removed this phrase. The intent of the language was to prevent
the sponsor from being penalized for extraordinary circumstances that
were beyond its control such as a labor dispute, natural disasters, or
NSPM scheduling conflicts. The FAA has determined that it is more
appropriate to resolve these extraordinary cases through the exemption
process rather than to include a blanket authorization in the
regulation.
Evaluation Pilots
Several commenters have questions and concerns about the evaluation
pilot requirements in proposed Sec. 60.15(d).
ALPA is concerned about the provision in proposed Sec. 60.15(d)
that allows the testing pilot to be an employee of the sponsor, but
does not require that the pilot be a line pilot.
CAE does not understand the process and criteria for obtaining
approval from the TPAA. Further, CAE believes the other requirements
adequately cover the qualification requirements for the evaluation
pilot. CAE recommends removing this requirement.
ATA and United believe the requirement is too restrictive because
it would be expensive to maintain line pilots with current
qualifications on staff. United says that its experience has shown that
a non-qualified pilot with a background in flight test is significantly
more effective than a qualified pilot with no such background. Delta
states the proposal would make it difficult to use retired or contract
personnel for simulator requirements testing. American makes a similar
comment. Also ATA and United object to what amounts to the TPAA's veto
power over selection of a simulator test pilot.
United believes that the only legitimate requirement for a pilot
who is current in the airplane is to evaluate the subjective
performance and handling
[[Page 63414]]
qualities tests. United states that requiring that this pilot sign an
overarching statement attesting to the accuracy of other than the
subjective tests would be problematic, given the threat to his license
contained in Sec. 60.33(b)(2), and prohibitively expensive. United
comments that elsewhere in this part, the NSPM requires the sponsor
designate an MR to be the primary point of contact with the NSPM.
United suggests that the MR should be required to sign this statement.
FAA Response: The FAA removed the requirement that the pilot be
approved by the TPAA. Thus, the concern raised by ATA and United is now
moot. The FAA did not adopt ALPA's suggestion to have a line-qualified
pilot provide the information required by this section. The FAA
understands the concern raised by ALPA and others, but the reason for
the pilot assistance is to ensure that the FSTD does, in fact, perform
and handle as the simulated aircraft performs and handles. If the
sponsor is able to supply an appropriately qualified pilot (whether or
not that pilot flies ``the line'') who is able to make those
determinations, the NSPM is satisfied that the FSTD will be adequately
evaluated.
The FAA has revised the rule language to require that the
confirmation statement reflect the performance and handling qualities
of the FSTD within the aircraft's (or set of aircraft) normal operating
envelope. This determination will be made after the pilot has flown all
of the operations tasks listed in the Table of Functions and Subjective
Tests set out in the FSTD subjective tests attachment to the applicable
QPS appendix relevant to the qualification level of the FSTD.
Statement of Qualification
FSI objects to the requirement in proposed Sec. 60.15(g) that
specific details for FSDs (make, model, series of aircraft,
configuration, e.g., engine model or models, flight instruments,
navigation or other systems) be identified on the Statement of
Qualification. FSI states, ``these specific details for FSDs are
unprecedented, not justified, and not even addressed in this proposal.
The clear implication, if not actual statement, would make each
qualification so specific that no other variation in type, or
differences in cockpit configuration could be accommodated.'' FSI
recommends that FAA continue to allow variants within type and cockpit
configuration and specifically to allow the use of a differences
training program.
JAA asks why the Statement of Qualification in proposed Sec.
60.15(g) contains the topics for which an FSTD is not qualified,
instead of all topics for which the FSTD is qualified. Delta suggests
deleting the requirement for ``all equipment and appliances'' in
proposed Sec. 60.35 and instead use the Statement of Qualification to
list the equipment and appliances that are not installed and therefore
cannot be used for training. Delta also requests clarification as to
whether the updated QTG needs to be completed prior to the issuance of
the Statement of Qualification.
FAA Response: The FAA has made changes to the language describing
the content of the Statement of Qualification (SOQ). The FAA has
concluded that listing the tasks for which the FSTD is qualified would
likely be an extensive list and redundant from FSTD to FSTD. A shorter
and more easily read and understood listing as part of each FSTD SOQ
would include the tasks for which that specific FSTD is not qualified.
Also, there is nothing in any part 60 requirement, including Sec.
60.15(g) that precludes the use of an FSTD representing a type of
aircraft for training or testing for a common type rating, and then
using an FAA-approved differences training program to address any
differences that may exist.
The FAA reiterates that the requirement is for the qualification of
the FSTD. While it is certainly true that many aircraft types have many
different configurations, it is also true that each FSTD will reflect a
single aircraft type (make, model, and series) and reflect one
configuration. As previously explained, there are provisions for
``convertible'' FSTDs and each configuration to which the FSTD is
convertible, will be annotated on the configuration list as part of the
SOQ. The TPAA will determine the authorized use of the FSTD.
With respect to Delta's question whether the QTG needs to be
updated prior to the issuance of the SOQ, the answer is no. The FAA
recognizes that there will be times when the SOQ will be issued prior
to the actual update of the QTG to the Master QTG. However, the FAA
will not issue an SOQ until the NSPM completes all required testing and
has found the test results to be acceptable.
Comments Regarding Additional Qualifications for a Currently Qualified
FSD (Sec. 60.16)
Table of Qualified/Non-qualified Tasks
United comments that this entire section seems to exist to only
support the requirement for the sponsor to maintain the table of
Qualified/Non-Qualified Tasks as required by proposed Sec.
60.15(b)(4). United believes that, if the FAA were to return to the
ICAO- and JAA-accepted practice of linking functions and subjective
tests to the FSD qualification level, then this section should be used
only by those sponsors wishing to remove a previously issued exemption
from the requirements of the Table of Functions and Subjective Tests
and should be clearly titled as such.
FAA Response: The FAA has moved the contents of the original Sec.
60.15(b)(4) to a new Sec. 60.15(g) and made minor clarifications. The
FAA is familiar with the ICAO and JAA practice of linking the functions
and subjective tests to the FSTD qualification level, but also notes
that not all tasks may be classified as a function of the level of FSTD
involved. For example, one Level D FSTD may be qualified for circling
approaches, while another Level D FSTD may not be qualified for
circling approaches. Therefore, simply stating that a particular FSTD
is qualified at Level D, without listing specific tasks, does not
indicate which tasks can be accomplished in that particular device.
Statement of Qualification
ATA comments that paragraph (a) implies that any additional
training, evaluation, or flight experience requirements not listed on
the FSTD SOQ will require that an extensive amount of paperwork be
submitted to the NSPM in order to generate a new SOQ even if this new
training, evaluation, or flight experience requirement is valid within
the initial qualification level of the FSTD and approved by the POI.
ATA believes this could present a significant delay in implementing a
new or updated training program.
FAA Response: The SOQ is not intended to be and will not be a
repository for training, evaluation, or flight experience requirements.
The SOQ is merely a convenient place to provide FSTD users with
information about whether or not the device is qualified to be used to
accomplish certain tasks (e.g., windshear training, circling
approaches). Should the sponsor wish to add ``circling approaches,''
for example, to the list of qualified tasks for a given FSTD, the
amount of paperwork involved would
[[Page 63415]]
be a single letter and may be accomplished after a verbal request. The
FAA would accomplish the evaluation as soon as practical after
receiving the request. This would include a special visit to the FSTD
if is necessary, as is done under current practice.
Grandfathering Provisions
Delta suggests that the FAA add language to this section clearly
stating that additional qualifications will continue to be qualified
under grandfather provisions, and will not require meeting the new part
60 requirements, as long as the original qualification was completed
prior to issuance of part 60.
FAA Response: Under the final rule, FSTDs qualified prior to the
effective date of part 60 will continue to be qualified in accordance
with the original MQTG that was issued at the time of qualification.
The FAA did not revise Sec. 60.16 to add language stating that new
tasks would be qualified under the grandfather provisions. If the
sponsor wants the FSTD qualified for a new task, the NSPM will conduct
the initial qualification of the new task in accordance with the part
60 standards for that task. The part 60 standards for the new task will
be incorporated into the existing MQTG. For example, a sponsor has a
currently qualified FSTD and desires to have the FSTD qualified for
windshear training. The sponsor will notify the NSPM of the
modifications, additions, or software or hardware changes that will
need to be added to the FSTD in order to have it qualified for
windshear training. The NSPM will then assess the FSTD to determine if
it meets the part 60 standards for windshear training. Once that
determination is made, the MQTG will be updated to include the
windshear training task. Nothing else in the MQTG will change from the
original qualification basis. The FAA does point out that NSPM
qualification of additional tasks does not constitute authorization for
the sponsor, or any other user of the FSTD, to use the device for
credit in any manner other than that approved by the appropriate TPAA.
Responsibility of NSPM vs. TPAA
TechniFlite states that the issue of whether the FSTD faithfully
replicates the actual aircraft should be the responsibility of the
NSPM, while how the FSTD is used should be the responsibility of the
training organization and the TPAA (POI or TCPM) as appropriate.
FAA Response: The NSPM is not involved in the approval of a
training program for a sponsor or any other user of an FSTD. Instead,
the NSPM qualifies the device while the TPAA approves the use of the
device in a particular training program. The qualification of a given
FSTD may or may not include qualification for a specific task. For
example, if the NSPM does not evaluate and qualify the FSTD for
windshear training, a TPAA may not approve that FSTD for use in meeting
windshear training tasks required by regulation.
Comments Regarding Previously Qualified FSDs (Sec. 60.17)
Delta requests clarification of ``other applicable provisions'' in
paragraph (a), and several commenters state that paragraph (a) and (b)
of proposed Sec. 60.17 appear to be at odds with each other. For
example, ATA states that in Sec. 60.17(a), the FAA appears to be
allowing for grandfathering along the terms that have been used by the
industry and the FAA for the past 20 or 30 years. However, in Sec.
60.17(b), requiring the SOQ implies that the grandfathering is only
good for the 6 year period, i.e., that the FAA would require the FSTD
to meet the new QPS standards. ATA strongly opposes removing
grandfather rights for previously qualified FSTDs, stating that 6 years
is an insufficient time and will be cost prohibitive. Similarly, RAA
states that for operators who use older aircraft, it is important that
they not lose their ability to access simulators that may not meet
current standards. TWA, American, and FSB make similar comments.
FSI states that if the FAA's intent was not to remove the
grandfathering, but instead to unilaterally issue a new SOQ to every
currently qualified FSTD, the language of the final rule should make
that intention clear. ATA and Delta ask why the FAA would allow 6
years, if the intention was merely to issue new paperwork. Delta
further requests clarification of ``Configuration List'' in paragraph
(b). CAE makes a similar comment.
FAA Response: In response to Delta's question regarding ``other
applicable provisions,'' the FAA notes that certain requirements in
part 60 apply to all FSTDs. For example, all FSTDs must have an
official sponsor that meets the requirements of this part, and all
sponsors must develop and implement a QMS. The FAA added language to
the applicable QPS requirements to clarify this issue.
The FAA does not intend to eliminate the practice of
grandfathering. All FSTDs qualified prior to the effective date of part
60 will retain their qualification as long as they continue to meet the
standards under which they were originally qualified. Although the FAA
is not eliminating grandfathering, the FAA is requiring all sponsors to
obtain an SOQ for each FSTD. The purpose of the SOQ is to provide a
complete picture of the simulator inventory regulated by the FAA,
including the configuration list and the limitations to authorizations.
The issuance of the SOQ will not require any additional evaluation or
require any adjustment to the qualification basis for the simulator.
The FAA added information in the applicable QPS appendices to clarify
this requirement. Under the final rule, sponsors have 6 years to obtain
an SOQ. This allows the sponsors sufficient time to meet the Sec.
60.17(b) requirements and reduces the sponsor's costs of implementing
part 60.
Simulators Not Requalified Within 2 Years
Several commenters object to the requirement in proposed Sec.
60.17(c) that a simulator that has lost its qualification and is not
requalified within 2 years, would have to meet the standards in effect
at the time of application for requalification. DHL states that if one
of its simulators became disqualified and then had to requalify under
the new standards, the simulator would have to be shut down, even if it
has provided effective training for decades. DHL states that the
disqualification of older simulators would severely cripple their
fleet. TechniFlite CAE, American, ATA, and FSI make similar comments.
FAA Response: The requirements contained in this section do not
significantly differ from the FAA's policy on out of service
simulators. For over 22 years, the FAA's policy has been that if an
FSTD is taken out of service for an ``extended period of time,'' it
must under go an evaluation prior to being returned to service. Current
practice is that if this ``out of service time'' is in excess of 12
months, the NSPM will review the qualification basis and may require
the evaluation to be in accordance with the standards in existence at
the time of requalification. The part 60 rule doubles the ``out of
service time'' that would likely result in evaluation in accordance
with the current standards at the time of requalification. The FAA
recognizes that there may be situations where a sponsor of a device
that has been unqualified for 2 or more years would desire
requalification under the standards that were previously in effect.
However, these are rare and extraordinary situations that are best
resolved by the exemption process.
[[Page 63416]]
Downgraded FSTDs
ATA and TWA comment that proposed Sec. 60.17(e) does not address
the process for a downgraded FSTD to regain its previous qualification
level. ATA and TWA believe the FSTD should be evaluated using the same
qualification standards under which it was originally qualified.
FAA Response: The FAA wishes to clarify the distinction between a
downgraded FSTD and an FSTD that is unable to function at its
qualification level due to missing, malfunctioning or inoperative
parts. A downgraded FSTD is a device that has had a permanent change of
qualification level. On the other hand, an FSTD may not be able to
function at its qualification level because of missing, malfunctioning
or inoperative parts. For example, if the daylight visual system is
inoperative on a level D FSTD, the FSTD may only be able to function as
a level C device. In this situation, the NSPM would temporarily
restrict the tasks that can be accomplished in the device, and impose
other requirements in accordance with Sec. 60.25. However, this
temporary restriction is not a ``downgrade'' of the device. Instead, it
is a limitation that can and is removed when the device is repaired and
able to function as originally qualified.
Finally, the FAA wishes to clarify what it means to upgrade an
FSTD. An upgraded FSTD is a device that was originally qualified at one
level and is being upgraded to a higher level, i.e., Level C to Level
D. An upgraded FSTD is required to undergo an evaluation in accordance
with the standards in existence at the time of the upgrade.
Comments Regarding Inspection, Recurrent Evaluation, and Maintenance
Requirements (Sec. 60.19)
Streamlining the Process
TechniFlite comments that the Sec. 60.19 process is a burden and
an undue expense. TechniFlite suggests that a panel outside of the NSPM
should be formed to overhaul the entire process, for example, a
streamlined process could include automated tests that the NSPM could
access as required online.
FAA Response: The FAA did not adopt changes to this section as
recommended by the commenter. The FAA has been conducting at least
annual inspections of each FSTD and a review of the quarterly tests
accomplished by the sponsor. This practice has been successful for over
20 years and should not present a significant new burden or increase in
expense for the sponsor. The NSPM is considering the feasibility of
``on-line''-testing and review of FSTDs. If the FAA determines ``on-
line'' testing has immediate or long term applicability, it would be
incorporated into the regulations in accordance with notice and comment
rulemaking procedures.
Level of Reliability
An individual suggests that to ensure good, uninterrupted training
the FAA should require a minimum average level of reliability as
evidenced by Mean Time Between Failures, Mean Time Between Unscheduled
Maintenance, or some other objective, definable criteria.
FAA Response: The FAA has determined that each individual sponsor
should have some flexibility to ensure satisfactory FSTD reliability on
its own. This flexibility, together with a viable QMS, will provide
each sponsor with a clearer picture of what is actually happening and
allow the sponsor (and the FAA) to determine whether or not the sponsor
has an acceptable level of reliability.
Performance Demonstrations
ATA, CAE, and FSI state that it is unclear which ``performance
demonstrations'' in Attachment 1 are being referred to in Sec.
60.19(a)(1). Commenters also state that breaking up the tests into four
evenly spaced inspections would increase costs and lose training time
for the sponsors. ATA cites the example of sound tests that are
normally all done in one quarter since it requires a complex test setup
using special equipment. TWA suggests allowing sponsors to group tests
that require complex test setups or special equipment. Similarly,
American states that the order in which the tests are performed should
not require NSPM approval. ATA states that the NSPM should not have
approval rights, only review rights and that the exact timing of the
inspections should be left up to the sponsor. Similarly, Delta states
that since the FAA has already approved the QAP process, there is no
need for a separate approval of the quarterly checks.
FAA Response: The FAA has removed the reference to ``Attachment 1
performance demonstrations'' and ``Attachment 2'' from paragraph
(a)(1). The intent of paragraph (a)(1) is to address only objective
tests. Performance demonstrations have been renamed as objective tests
or subjective tests and placed in the applicable QPS attachments.
During quarterly inspections the sponsor is only required to perform
objective tests. The FAA has also removed the requirement that the NSPM
approve the objective test sequence and content of each quarterly
inspection for each sponsor. Instead, the requirement is that the
sponsor develops the objective test sequence and content of each
quarterly inspection, which must be acceptable to the NSPM. We changed
the term from ``approved'' to ``acceptable'' to clarify that the
sponsor can perform the quarterly inspections without prior FAA review
and approval. If after review of the objective test sequence and
content of the inspections the FAA finds something not acceptable, the
FAA will notify the sponsor of the deficiency and require the sponsor
to make appropriate changes.
Inspections for Mobile Simulators
Professional Instrument Courses describes its maintenance and
repair process for its ATC 610J simulators, which are moved around the
country routinely, for reasons such as the location of instructors or
maintenance needs. PIC states that inspecting and testing each
simulator quarterly would be impossible due to the mobile nature of its
instrument training service.
FAA Response: All FSTDs are required to undergo the quarterly
inspections. However, the FAA removed the requirement that the
quarterly inspection plan for each sponsor be approved by the NSPM.
Instead, the sponsor must develop a quarterly inspection plan that is
acceptable to the NSPM.
Preflight Test
FSI states that the requirement in proposed Sec. 60.19(a)(2) for a
functional preflight test before the first FSTD use each calendar day
would be a burden for training operators using simulators that operate
close to 24 hours a day, because the simulator would need to be shut
down until a technician could complete the work. If the sponsor could
conduct one check in each calendar day the sponsor could spread the
simulator technicians' work across the entire day, thereby saving labor
costs. FSB and Embry-Riddle make similar comments. Embry-Riddle asks
whether the preflight could be conducted by the instructor pilot and
whether there are special training requirements for the person
conducting the preflight. United requests that it be allowed to use an
``operational'' day instead of a ``calendar'' day, since it schedules
training between 0600 and 0200 the following morning.
ATA, United, Delta, NBAA, and American state that the preflight
check is sufficient if the FSTD hasn't been checked in the previous 24
hours. These commenters also state that the 7-day functional check
requirement in
[[Page 63417]]
proposed Sec. 60.19(a)(3) would be difficult to track and makes no
provision for an FSTD that is being modified, overhauled, or is not
being used for some other reason. DHL states that this provision should
be expanded to allow periods of down time that would not disqualify the
simulator. Since DHL does more revenue flying in November and December,
it plans its pilot training to occur from January through October.
Paragraph (a)(3) would require needless checks during periods when its
instructors are needed for line operations and the simulators are not
being used, according to DHL. United makes a similar suggestion.
FAA Response: The FAA adopted several changes to the time
requirements in this section so that use of the FSTD will now require
the completion of a ``functional preflight inspection'' within the
previous 24 hours. In addition, the FAA has determined that the 24-hour
functional preflight inspection is sufficient, and therefore has not
included the proposed 7-day functional check.
Recurrent Evaluations
In regard to proposed Sec. 60.19(b), JAA questions why the term
``recurrent evaluation'' is used here, when ``continuing evaluation''
is used elsewhere.
ATA believes that requiring the sponsor to initiate the scheduling
for recurrent evaluations, as required in paragraph (b)(2), is not
logical because the NSPM will still be required to maintain resources
and an internal process for managing the scheduling. ATA recommends
continuing the current practice of the sponsor submitting a letter to
the NSPM with requested evaluation dates.
ATA comments that paragraph (b)(3) has no restriction on the amount
of FSTD time the NSPM can use for the recurrent evaluations. ATA knows
of no historical evidence that the traditional 1 day of FSD
availability is in any way insufficient. ATA suggests retaining the
current practice of specifying that the testing period will be 1 day,
unless otherwise agreed to by the evaluator and sponsor. American
states that the QPS doubles the amount of time that the simulator must
be available for the recurrent evaluations. American suggests that the
NSPM provide a list of those tests required to be run so that they can
be accomplished before the start of the evaluation.
FSB believes the specification of time of day and day of week in
paragraph (b)(3) is not appropriate for a regulatory document and
should be deleted. FSI comments that the FAA limits its availability to
the work week under this paragraph, but requires the industry to be
available seven days a week, under Sec. 60.9(a).
ATA and Delta object to the NSPM having full power over how often
it wishes to impose recurrent testing, through its approval of the
MQTG. Since the FAA switched from a biannual evaluation to an annual
evaluation for FSDs two years ago and the average number of FAA
discrepancies has not increased, ATA and Delta believe the FAA should
retain the practice of a 12-month recurrent evaluation period. CAE
recommends changing ``MQTG'' in this paragraph to ``QAP.''
ATA recommends adding ``or within the timeframe mentioned in
(b)(5)'' to paragraph (b)(6) so that training can continue during the
grace period.
ATA comments that it appears that a significant number of the FSTD
maintenance and reporting requirements in the proposed rule are
designed for a Sponsor who operates their FSTDs at a slower pace than a
large carrier, which operates around the clock in excess of 360 days
each year. ATA states the NSPM must allow for a high volume user to
operate unencumbered by artificially tight timelines and record keeping
requirements. If some of the requirements remain unchanged, ATA
believes the NSPM would have to staff its office around the clock or
immediately move to grant Designee authority to large select high-
volume Sponsors. ATA also comments that the section title is confusing
by including the word ``inspection,'' implying preventive maintenance,
when the section really addresses required recurrent tests. ATA
suggests using ``Required QPS testing'' in the section heading instead.
FAA Response: The FAA has replaced references to ``recurrent''
evaluations with ``continuing'' evaluations. The FAA has removed the
references to time of day and day of week and has added ``or within the
grace period as described in paragraph (b)(5) of this section'' to
Sec. 60.19(b)(6). Additionally, the FAA has included language in the
QPS appendices that specifically sets out the normal time and testing
requirements for such evaluations. In this final rule the FAA continues
the existing practice of having the sponsor and NSPM coordinate the
best times to conduct the required evaluations.
The final rule codifies the existing authority to impose continuing
testing through approval of the MQTG; therefore the FAA has not revised
the language regarding this issue. The FAA has retained the reference
to ``MQTG'' in paragraph (b)(4) instead of changing the reference to
``QMS'' (formerly QAP in the NPRM), because the MQTG is the FAA
approved test guide, whereas the QMS is for quality assurance purposes.
Also the FAA has retained the term ``inspection'' in the title
because a continuing qualification evaluation includes not only an
evaluation of the device, but also an inspection of records pertinent
to the FSTD.
Continuing Corrective and Preventive Maintenance
Delta requests a clarification of the reference to proposed Sec.
60.15(b) in paragraph (c), citing a possible interpretation that a
qualified pilot would be required to sign off on each recurrent
evaluation and on each change made to the FSTD. ATA suggests changing
``requirements of Sec. 60.15'' to ``requirements of all applicable
provisions of appropriate QPS.'' Delta believes the pilot's input
should not be required unless a change is made that affects handling
qualities. FSB states that this paragraph places a burden on the
sponsor that should really be a burden on the entity that owns and
maintains the FSD.
FAA Response: The FAA reorganized Sec. 60.19 for greater clarity
and ease of understanding. The FAA revised this section to clarify that
the sponsor is responsible for continuing corrective and preventive
maintenance on the FSTD to ensure that it continues to meet the
requirements of this part and the applicable QPS appendix. The FAA also
removed the reference to Sec. 60.15(b). In addition, the FAA has
clarified when a sponsor may use, allow the use of, or offer the use of
an FSTD for flight crewmember training, evaluation, or flight
experience. The FAA notes that part 60 is geared toward the sponsor.
The sponsor may contract out maintenance, but it still remains
responsible for meeting the requirements in this part no matter who
owns or maintains the FSTD.
Discrepancy List
In regard to proposed Sec. 60.19(a)(4) and (a)(5), ATA requests
that the FAA define specifically what constitutes a discrepancy that
must be maintained on a list in or immediately adjacent to the FSD and
states that historically, most FSD departments have posted all
discrepancies that have the possibility of impacting training or
checking. ATA states that if the intent is for every discrepancy
written by the flightcrew, preflight checker, or observer to be
included on the list, the list would be unnecessarily long.
Furthermore, ATA
[[Page 63418]]
states that almost all of the new documentation required under part 60
evolved or was taken directly from the Simulation Quality Assurance
Program for 2000 (SQAP 2000) and asks which parts, if any, of SQAP 2000
will continue to be in effect.
ATA also comments that the wording of paragraph (a)(5)(i) can be
construed to mean that discrepancies older than 30 days should
specifically not be in the log. ATA suggests changing the wording to
``until at least 30 days.''
ATA suggests that the entry required under paragraph (a)(5)(ii)
should also include the name of the individual doing the corrective
action. Pan Am states that there is nothing to be gained by maintaining
the record of the corrective action for 30 days and suggests reducing
the time period to no more than 10 days.
ATA states that the requirement in paragraph (a)(5)(iii) to keep
the discrepancy log in a ``form and manner acceptable to the
Administrator'' gives the NSPM full veto power over a sponsor's log
system, with no definition of what constitutes an acceptable system.
FAA Response: The FAA has changed the time requirements so that
discrepant items will remain in the log book until corrected, instead
of including a specific length of time. The requirements regarding the
recording and correction of discrepancies are now found in Sec.
60.19(c)(2)(i) through (iii). The FAA has revised Sec. 60.19(c)(2)(ii)
(formerly Sec. 60.19(a)(5)(ii)) to include the name of the individual
doing the corrective action. Also the FAA has modified Sec.
60.19(c)(2)(iii) to permit electronic record keeping.
For clarification the FAA has added a definition of the term
``discrepancy'' in appendix F. Discrepancy means ``an aspect of the
FSTD that is not correct with respect to the aircraft being
simulated.'' The use of a discrepancy log is not new. Sponsors have
been documenting the discrepancies found during the operation of an
FSTD for decades. The only difference here is that this process is now
coming under a regulatory requirement rather than just being consistent
with FAA guidance and good operating practice.
SQAP 2000 is a voluntary QMS program. Under the final rule, the QMS
is mandatory and must meet the requirements of appendix E of this part.
The phrase ``form and manner acceptable to the Administrator'' is
intended to be permissive rather than restrictive. However, an
acceptable discrepancy log will have at least the following
characteristics: (1) Be easily maintained by the sponsor; (2) be easily
audited; and (3) entries may not be easily altered or removed. Although
the FAA is not requiring a specific format, the FAA may request
additional information to clarify entries on the discrepancy log if
necessary.
Comments Regarding Logging FSD Discrepancies (Sec. 60.20)
Delta comments that this section should only require discrepancy
log write-ups for items that would adversely affect training or which
indicate a conflict with the Statement of Qualification. According to
Delta, this section could be interpreted to mean that equipment or
appliances not simulated would have to be written up every time. An
individual comments that this section does not appear to allow
maintaining a separate maintenance-only discrepancy log. The commenter
states that if discrepancy reports unrelated to the operation of the
simulator or simulated aircraft are included (such as shop type
supplies, touchup paint, and seat covers), a user might overlook a
discrepancy report that might be of significance to their training.
Also the commenter asks if the log could be computerized with a
terminal at or near the simulator. FSI questions the phrase ``flight
experience for flightcrew member certification or qualification,''
stating that its use in this section is inconsistent with the
definition of the term in Sec. 60.3. FSI recommends changing
``training or evaluation, or observing flight experience'' to
``training, testing, or checking'' to be consistent with the other
rules.
FAA Response: The requirement in Sec. 60.20 does not preclude an
FSTD sponsor from maintaining a separate log of items that are in need
of repair or replacement, the contents of which do not affect the
operation of the FSTD and do not affect the purposes for which the FSTD
may be used. However, the FAA does require that all discrepancies are
recorded in a log. The FAA has removed the phrase ``for flightcrew
member certification or qualification'' to be more clear. Additionally,
the phrase ``conducting training, evaluation, or flight experience'' is
consistent with other rules in this part. The term ``evaluation'' is
defined for use in part 60 as follows: ``with respect to an individual,
the checking, testing, or review associated with flight crewmember
qualification, training, and certification under parts 61, 63, 121, or
135 of this chapter.'' Also, the FAA modified Sec. 60.19(c)(2)(iii) to
permit keeping the discrepancy log in an electronic format.
Comments Regarding Interim Qualification of FSDs for New Aircraft Types
or Models (Sec. 60.21)
Boeing states that the phrase ``even though the flight test data
used has not received final approval by the aircraft manufacturer'' in
paragraph (a) should be changed to ``even though the aircraft
manufacturer's flight test data may be considered preliminary'' because
this data has been approved. CAE suggests changing ``aircraft
manufacturer'' with ``approved data supplier'' to allow other reliable
sources to produce data for this interim level of qualification. CAE
states that other sources are often used to produce data for business
jet aircraft.
Boeing suggests revising paragraph (a)(1) to more accurately
describe the type of data that would be acceptable for an interim
qualification.
FAA Response: In the final rule, the FAA has revised Sec. 60.21 to
allow a sponsor to apply for and the NSPM to issue an interim
qualification level for an FSTD for a new type or model of aircraft,
even though the aircraft manufacturer's aircraft data package is
preliminary. The additional safeguards in the final rule regarding the
use of preliminary data are sufficient to ensure safety until the final
data package is released.
The FAA recognizes that in some instances there may be other ``data
providers'' who will become involved with development of data, data
packages, or the development of simulation models. The FAA did not
change the term ``aircraft manufacturer.'' The FAA recognizes that some
of the data used might come from prediction or other methodologies
developed by another ``data provider'' that would allow for the
``interim'' classification without having full flight test data.
However, all such non-flight test data would be dependent on at least
some flight test data from the airplane manufacturer. In these cases,
the FAA would want not only the aircraft manufacturer's preliminary
data, but also the other data and the justification for that other data
supplied by whoever supplies that data.
In addition, the FAA revised paragraph (a)(1) to more clarify the
type of data that would be acceptable for an interim qualification.
Limit for Interim Qualification
Several commenters object to the one-year limit for interim
qualification in paragraphs (b) and (c). ATA states, ``The number of
factors that affect a new aircraft type or model is sufficiently
complex and unpredictable that there should not be a simple 1-year
death
[[Page 63419]]
penalty on the interim qualification. This issue needs to remain as
flexible as possible in order to facilitate new aircraft types and
models, because to do otherwise will delay training to the point that
too much training will be needed in too little time, resulting in
decreased air safety, not increased.'' FSI, Delta, TWA, and Boeing make
similar comments. TWA suggests the interim qualification should last
six months after the release of the final flight test data package,
unless specific conditions warrant a longer period as approved by the
NSPM. Boeing states that ``six months after release of final flight
data'' is typically at least 18 months after the end of the flight test
program and is much later than one year after the issuance of the
interim qualification status. Boeing suggests using language equivalent
to paragraph 1.6 of Attachment A of the 2nd Edition to the ICAO Manual
of Criteria for the Qualification of Flight Simulators.
FAA Response: The FAA has revised paragraph (c) to increase the
time frame to obtain final qualification. The FAA has reworded the
requirement to allow 12 months from the release of the final aircraft
data package by the aircraft manufacturer, but no later than 2 years
after the issuance of the interim qualification status, for the sponsor
to incorporate the final aircraft data package and have the NSPM
conduct an evaluation of the FSTD with the new data to remove the
``interim'' status of the FSTD qualification. The FAA considers 2 years
to be an adequate amount of time for the sponsor to incorporate the
final aircraft data package.
Comments Regarding Modifications to FSTDs (Sec. 60.23)
ATA, Continental, FSI, Delta, United, and several other commenters
ask for a more specific definition of the term modification in proposed
Sec. 60.23, stating that the term is subject to a wide range of
interpretation and judgment. Commenters believe that as proposed, Sec.
60.23 would place a severe burden on both the FAA and all FSTD sponsors
if the FAA does not provide greater clarification.
Boeing and FSI question how the FAA will determine when a
modification impacts safety of flight. Also FSI asks that the FAA
clearly define the circumstances under which it would produce an FSTD
Directive and whether the FSTD manufacturer or FSTD user has any
recourse.
FAA Response: The FAA revised this section to address commenters'
concerns about the definition of modification and the cost implications
if the term is defined too broadly. The FAA clarified the definition of
modification and reorganized this section. While the content of the
section has essentially remained the same, the rewrite has reduced the
length of the section and included sub-headings that should help the
reader understand how the main paragraphs and subparagraphs are
related. The rewrite has significantly clarified the original intent of
this section.
The FAA has not revised the words ``safety of flight'' in Sec.
60.23(b) as requested by commenters. An FSTD Directive would only be
issued if safety of flight was at issue and the effect of the FSTD
Directive would be to amend the qualification basis for the FSTD. As
stated in the NPRM (67 FR 60284, 60286) an FSTD Directive would only be
issued in response to a recognized safety-of-flight issue. For example,
the FAA may issue an FSTD Directive if a manufacturer or the FAA
discovers that the existing data for an aircraft is not accurate and
consequently would adversely affect FSTD performance and handling. The
FAA will publish each FSTD Directive in the Federal Register and will
comply with the Administrative Procedure Act requirements.
Comments regarding Operation with Missing, Malfunctioning, or
Inoperative Components (Sec. 60.25)
Many commenters object to the requirement in proposed Sec.
60.25(b) that each missing, malfunctioning, or inoperative component
must be repaired or replaced within 7 calendar days. UPS believes this
would be an unreasonable burden on both the sponsor and the FAA. UPS
predicts that FAA will be burdened with a daily onslaught of routine
requests to deviate from this provision. ATA recommends the rule should
be written such that if no response to a request to authorize deviation
from the rule is received within 2 hours, then it is granted. Also, the
commenters note that many simulator-specific parts cannot be obtained
within a seven-day timeframe. Further, if the problem is not a
malfunctioning part, but rather a computer programming fault, then
research, data, or other contractor assistance may be required.
American Trans Air makes a similar comment. American states that if the
NSPM or TPAA are not available, unnecessary training down time could
result.
DHL states that the proposal would, in many cases, be more
restrictive than a Minimum Equipment List (MEL) for an actual aircraft.
DHL notes there are no safety of flight issues in an FSD. DHL suggests
counting only ``training days'' so that the FSD would not need to be
repaired during periods of inactivity or when the training facility was
not open. CAE provides the example of an unserviceable third VHF radio:
The real aircraft can dispatch in this situation, while the simulator
would be grounded under this paragraph.
Several commenters believe the FAA would be burdened by an
obligation to provide an inspector 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. TWA
believes that the sponsors would not wait to find out if they will
receive the parts until the seventh day. Rather they would notify the
NSPM early, resulting in thousands of notifications, which would
unnecessarily burden the NSPM.
Delta, Eclipse, Evans and Sutherland, ATA, Fidelity, and FSI state
that the proposed rule allows only seven days for repairing or
replacing missing, malfunctioning, or inoperative components, while the
appendix states 30 days is allowed. These commenters say the 30 day
period is more realistic.
RAA believes the rule should be written in a form similar to the
MMEL requirements for an airplane, where specific time requirements are
not referenced in the rule itself.
United suggests allowing the sponsor to develop a discrepancy
prioritizing system, with the time allowed for replacement or repair
dependent on the priority.
FAA Response: In the final rule the FAA will require missing,
malfunctioning, or inoperative components to be repaired or replaced
within 30 calendar days (instead of the originally required 7 days),
while maintaining the original ``unless otherwise required or
authorized by the NSPM'' phrasing. Additionally, as stated in the QPS,
the FAA will consider a discrepancy prioritizing system where the
length of time authorized to repair or replace any given missing,
malfunctioning, or inoperative component is based on the level of
impact on the capability of the simulator to provide the required
training, evaluation, or flight experience, with the larger impact on
this capability associated with a higher priority for repair or
replacement.
The rewrite of this section provides adequate requirements without
getting into the specifics of individual components. This is not an
airworthiness issue, but is rather a training efficacy issue that is
adequately accommodated with the revisions indicated.
[[Page 63420]]
Discrepancies that Directly Affect Training
Eclipse also believes the proposed requirement is too stringent.
Eclipse believes this issue should be left to the discretion of the
sponsor or the sponsor in coordination with the TPAA for equipment
discrepancies that directly affect training. CAE and FSB make similar
suggestions.
NBAA states that the provision makes no allowance for components
that may be inoperable but are not required for training. NBAA
recommends that training be allowed to continue for components that are
not training critical. ATA suggests a reference to equipment required
in the current training scenario. Delta makes a similar comment.
FAA Response: The purpose of this section is to allow for the
operation of the FSTD with missing, malfunctioning, or inoperative
components. If a missing, malfunctioning, or inoperative component is
not required to be present and correctly operating for the satisfactory
completion of a specific maneuver, procedure, or task being performed
during the training, the FSTD can be used for that maneuver, procedure
or task.
Simulator MEL
FSI states that both appendix H of part 121 and Sec. 142.59
provide a simulator minimum equipment list and that handbook guidance
issued to FAA inspectors gives lengthy guidance. FSI recommends that
FAA withdraw appendix H and make a conforming change to Sec. 142.59.
FAA Response: In this final rule, the FAA is modifying existing
part 121, appendix H, to eliminate all technical requirements regarding
FSTDs, including the requirement for a ``simulator MEL.'' The language
of this section is not in conflict with and does not require any
modification to Sec. 142.59. Additionally, with the provisions of this
section, the FAA Handbook guidance issued to FAA inspectors regarding
operation of FFSs and FTDs with missing, malfunctioning, or inoperative
components will be withdrawn.
Placarding
ATA comments that proposed paragraph (c) would require a
maintenance technician to be at the ready (to perform the placarding)
when each FSD period is scheduled to begin, adding an enormous
financial burden for no perceived gain in training value. ATA and
United suggest that the requirement in paragraph (c) to have a list of
missing, malfunctioning, or inoperative components available should
suffice for daily operations. ATA adds that the placard system is very
time consuming and adds nothing to the training, if the item is already
in the discrepancy log, which is read before each training session
starts.
Pan Am comments that the requirement to placard items in the FSD
that do not work should only apply to those items that are missing or
malfunctioning, and not to items which are not simulated by design.
Systems or controls that are non-functional will be indicated on the
qualified or not qualified list in the FSD Statement or Qualification.
FAA Response: The FAA has removed the placarding requirement.
Having the list of missing, malfunctioning, and inoperative equipment
available for users of the FSTD is sufficient.
Comments Regarding Automatic Loss of Qualification and Procedures for
Restoration of Qualification (Sec. 60.27)
Continental states that the requirement to get NSPM approval prior
to putting a FSD back into service following any work that makes the
device ``unusable'' has the potential to place severe restrictions on
the airline's ability to schedule and use the device for training. It
would also mandate that the NSPM be available 24/7 to provide this
approval in a timely manner.
FAA Response: The FAA has clarified the requirements that must be
met prior to returning an FSTD to qualified service. The revisions
include Sec. 60.27(b)(2), which provides that the NSPM may authorize
the FSTD to return to service without completing an evaluation.
Qualified Use of FSTDs
ATA and FSB believe that the cross reference to Sec. 60.9(b)(4) in
proposed Sec. 60.27(a)(1) is in error, because that paragraph refers
to posting the Statement of Qualification, not to the sponsor's
training program. TechniFlite and Fidelity object to paragraph (a)(1)
because it implies that FSDs used for part 61 training, for personal
practice, or even for another certificate holder's training program are
not qualified.
FAA Response: The FAA has reviewed cross references and has
corrected them. A person is eligible to be a sponsor if the person
holds, or is an applicant for, a certificate under part 119, 141, or
142; or holds, or is an applicant for, an approved flight engineer
course in accordance with part 63. Therefore, a part 61 Fixed Base
Operator (FBO) that conducts training in accordance with part 61 may
not sponsor an FSTD, but the regulations do not restrict anyone from
using a qualified FSTD in accordance with that FSTD's authorizations.
Also, an FSTD may be used for training in another certificate holder's
training program as approved by the TPAA.
Moved or Disassembled FSTDs
Several commenters disagree with the proposed language of Sec.
60.27(a)(3) and (a)(4), stating that it is not necessary to disqualify
an FSTD in all cases when it is moved or disassembled. Fidelity states
that lower level FTDs can be moved without affecting their
capabilities. CAE believes that if a simulator is moved but has been
maintained in accordance with the approved SQAP, then requalification
should be conducted under the existing qualification basis of the
simulator. United and TechniFlite state they have moved simulators with
no adverse impact on their integrity. United proposes that the
requirement only apply if a simulator needs to be reinstalled, e.g., if
the wiring is disconnected and reconnected.
Eclipse states that simple regular maintenance on the FSTD would
result in ``disassemble for repair'' and thus require the sponsor to
contact the TPAA or NSPM on an almost daily basis. CAE requests
clarification or removal of this provision, since whenever maintenance
is done, the FSTD is not able to be used for training at that time. ATA
states that once an FSTD is reassembled, obtaining FAA approval for
returning the device to training will place a major burden on both the
sponsor and the FAA. United comments that the requirement should be
rewritten to allow normal FSTD maintenance activities. Delta, American,
FSB, and FSI make similar comments.
FAA Response: The FAA has revised Sec. 60.27(a) to address those
FSTDs that have been moved and reinstalled in a different location.
When an FSTD, regardless of level, is moved and reinstalled in a
different location, it must be re-evaluated by the NSPM to be sure that
it continues to meet the requirements for its original qualification.
This is true even in the example of an FSTD that was originally mounted
in a transportable conveyance.
The final rule lists four specific situations that result in
automatic loss of qualification. Disassembly is not one of them. The
proposed language about disassembly does not appear in the final rule.
For information on modifications, see Sec. 60.23. Although
``disassembly'' does not appear in Sec. 60.27 of the final rule, the
FAA recognizes that disassembly may occur in the course of routine or
non-routine repairs and maintenance. We want to emphasize
[[Page 63421]]
that the sponsor is responsible to ensure that the FSTD continues to
meet the requirements of this part and the applicable QPS appendix at
the completion of any repair or maintenance in accordance with Sec.
60.19(c).
Restoration of Qualification
ATA states that proposed Sec. 60.27(b)(1)(i) would eliminate
grandfather rights for older FSDs any time they are moved, repaired, or
modified. ATA recommends changing the requirement so that the initial
requalification is in accordance with the standards that the FSD was
most recently qualified under. ATA suggests including the provisions of
Sec. 60.17(c), which provides up to two years before requiring
requalification based on current standards. CAE makes a similar
comment.
FAA Response: There is nothing in the language that would indicate
that moving an FSTD would necessarily require re-evaluation in
accordance with newer standards. The FAA notes, however, that when an
FSTD is taken out of service, this does not automatically guarantee
that reevaluation for qualification will be against the original
qualification basis. The NSPM will conduct a review to determine the
care and under what circumstances the FSTD has been maintained before
determinations of qualification basis may be made. Moreover, if the
FSTD was out of service for 2 or more years, the FAA would require a
reevaluation under current standards that may be different than the
standards under which the FSTD was originally qualified.
Authority to Waive Evaluation
ATA and United request that the FAA clarify the lines of authority
in proposed Sec. 60.27(b)(2). United suggests removing the reference
to the TPAA and allowing only the NSPM the authority to waive the
evaluation requirement.
FAA Response: The FAA has clarified the lines of authority by
removing the TPAA from exercising authority to waive the evaluation
requirement.
Requalification Criteria
ATA and United believe the FAA should develop objective criteria
for proposed Sec. 60.27(c). For example, how would the FAA assess the
``care that had been taken of the device since the last evaluation?''
United suggests the FAA specify the number of normally scheduled
evaluations that can be missed and the performance of the particular
FSD against the sponsor's quality measurements in its QAP.
FAA Response: The FAA has added language to the Information section
of the QPS indicating that one of the factors the FAA uses to determine
what amount of testing will be required for requalification is how the
simulator is maintained during its out-of-service period (e.g.,
periodic exercise of mechanical, hydraulic, and electrical systems;
routine replacement of hydraulic fluid; and control of the
environmental factors in which the simulator is to be maintained).
Comments Regarding Other Losses of Qualification and Procedures for
Restoration of Qualification (Sec. 60.29)
ATA and United comment that this section blurs the lines of
authority between the NSPM and the TPAA. The commenters believe only
the NSPM should have jurisdiction over the qualification of any FSD
covered by this part and only the TPAA should have jurisdiction over
the use of a qualified FSD in an FAA-approved training program. United
suggests removing all references to the TPAA from this section. ATA
recommends adding a paragraph (d) to include the procedures for
restoring the qualification lost under this section since this issue is
not addressed in the proposed rule language.
In regard to the process for handling emergencies under paragraph
(c), FSI comments that no emergency in simulation is so dangerous that
there is no time to consult with the TPAA. FSI states that the NSPM
should not be allowed to suspend the use of an FSD in an approved
training program without agreement from the TPAA.
Delta suggests changing ``7 days'' in paragraph (a)(2) to ``30
days'' to be consistent with other references to 30 days in this
section.
FAA Response: The FAA has removed all references to the TPPA in
Sec. 60.29. Additionally, the FAA inadvertently left out of the NPRM
the sub-paragraph addressing procedures for restoring the qualification
lost under this section as described by the commenter. The FAA has
added such a paragraph in the final rule.
The FAA did not adopt the suggestion to replace ``7 days'' with
``30 days'' in Sec. 60.29(a)(2). The final rule provides time for the
sponsor to object to the notification that the FSTD no longer meets
some or all of its qualification standards. The 7-day period was
originally selected to provide the NSPM up to 23 days between the
receipt of the sponsor's objections and justifications and the
effective date of any action regarding the FSTD. This provides the most
benefit to all affected parties.
Comments Regarding Recordkeeping and Reporting (Sec. 60.31)
Regarding paragraph (a), ATA states that there will be an
additional administrative and storage location overhead cost to
maintain previous copies of the MQTG, each of which may be over 10
volumes. Also, ATA suggests changing the wording to require that the
sponsor have a system to trace the current version of the simulator
back to the original qualification software/hardware and deleting the
requirement for maintaining the actual copy of the programming. United
and Delta make similar comments. Also, ATA requests that the FAA
clarify that, for currently qualified simulators, only records made
after the effective date of the rule would be required. Similarly, FSI
states that the FAA appears to have little concept of the magnitude and
cost of proposed paragraph (a)(2). FSI suggests that instead, the NSPM
track changes to the FSD via the modification requirement in Sec.
60.23(e). ATA and United suggest shortening the required time period
proposed in Sec. 60.31(a)(3)(iv) to 18 months and Delta suggests
deleting paragraph (a)(3)(iv).
ATA suggests that proposed Sec. 60.31(a)(4) also require that
sponsors keep the name of the person who determines that a discrepancy
is corrected.
Delta suggests rewording proposed Sec. 60.31(a)(5) to say
``initial or upgrade qualification'' to cover upgrade situations that
are in effect new ``initial'' qualifications. ATA suggests that ``FSD
hardware configurations'' in paragraph (a)(5) should be changed to
``FSD hardware configurations, restricted to ground or flight dynamics
or performance and handling or aircraft system function.''
FAA Response: In the NPRM, Sec. 60.31(a)(2) proposed to require
the sponsor to maintain a copy of the programming used during the
evaluations for initial and upgrade qualifications and a copy of all
programming changes made since the evaluation for initial
qualification. Revised Sec. 60.31(a)(2) requires the sponsor to
maintain a record of all FSTD modifications affected under Sec. 60.23
since the issuance of the original Statement of Qualification. The
revision to Sec. 60.31(a)(2) captures the software and hardware
changes required in proposed Sec. 60.31(a)(2) and (a)(5). We have
therefore deleted Sec. 60.31(a)(5). Also, the FAA has modified Sec.
60.31(a)(4) to require that sponsors keep the name of the person who
determines that a discrepancy is corrected.
[[Page 63422]]
Record of FSD Users
ATA and United state that proposed Sec. 60.31(b) places an
unnecessary burden on the FSD sponsor. Instead they believe the burden
should be placed on the user in coordination with their respective
TPAA. ATA and United suggest deleting this requirement or requiring
that sponsors have 7 days to provide the report upon request of the
NSPM. FSB and CAE suggest that such a list of certificate holders may
be considered proprietary business information. FSB states that ``This
is another instance where the ongoing use of the FSD has been proposed
as within the purview of the NSPM as opposed to the operational
responsibility remaining with the certificate holder sponsor with the
approval of either the TCPM or POI under existing regulations.''
FAA Response: The FAA has eliminated the requirement to maintain
the records of users of the FSTD. If the FAA needs such records, it
would acquire them through normal FAA oversight channels.
Form of Records
In regard to proposed Sec. 60.31(c), ATA and United state that
most airlines have record systems that have proven effective and
accurate in actual use. ATA and United state that the NSPM's approval
of these systems should be immediate and that the rule language should
be changed to add ``information, with appropriate security or controls
to prevent the illegal or inappropriate alteration of such records
after the fact.''
FAA Response: The FAA added language in the QPS appendix that
provides for the preservation and retrieval of this information with
appropriate security or controls to prevent the illegal or
inappropriate alteration of such records after the fact.
Annual Report
ATA, UPS, Delta, United, FSI, American, Eclipse, American Trans
Air, and CAE object to proposed Sec. 60.31(d), stating that the annual
report would be redundant.
FAA Response: The FAA has eliminated the requirement for an annual
report that was in proposed Sec. 60.31(d). The other requirements of
part 60, including the discrepancy log, the recurring inspections, the
modification notification and approval, and the QMS are sufficient to
ensure that FSTDs are operating at their qualification level.
Comments Regarding Applications, Logbooks, Reports, and Records: Fraud,
Falsification, or Incorrect Statements (Sec. 60.33)
ATA is concerned that the language contained in this section does
not provide a clearly defined method for complying with requirements
like the quality assurance program, log books, reports, and requests.
ATA comments that paragraph (c) provides the authority to remove
qualification simply on the basis of an incorrect statement, which
could be made by any individual at any level of the organization.
According to ATA, while the NSPM has always maintained a cooperative
relationship with the industry, others, such as ATOS inspectors, only
apply the strict interpretation of requirements and often apply rules
without the benefit of the required knowledge of the flight training
device industry. ATA further states that, ``This section threatens not
only our qualifications but also our personal livelihood. A simple
misstatement, mistake, or omission without a clearly demonstrated
intent to mislead should not be a basis for action. It should be
applied to the intent of the operator and/or sponsor not the
individual.'' ATA suggests changing ``No person may make'' to ``No
sponsor may knowingly make'' and deleting paragraph (c).
Similarly DHL states that the omission of recording malfunctions or
inaccurate statements in logbook entries is very subjective. DHL is
concerned that honest mistakes and oversights could lead to the
revocation of an airman's ATP, and states ``Such perceived liability
could cause the ranks of qualified instructors to dwindle.'' Fidelity,
FSI, CAE, and Delta make similar comments.
FAA Response: This section is not intended to address a simple
misstatement, mistake, or omission as suggested might occur. The
language is included to provide notice to those who are involved with
or use FSTDs that the records and reports that are kept, made, or used
to show compliance with this part, or to exercise any privileges with
respect to FSTD upon which the FAA relies or could rely, is a serious
matter and that fraudulent practices will carry consequences. The
elements for a charge of making a false statement are: (1) A knowing,
(2) misrepresentation, (3) of a material fact. The elements for a
fraudulent statement are the same as for a false statement, plus: (4)
made with the intent to deceive, and (5) detrimentally relied upon. See
FAA v. Bell, NTSB Order No. 4764 (May 11, 1999). Thus, for either
charge, the FAA must have evidence that it was a knowing misstatement
and that the misstatement was material (i.e., about an important
matter). See FAA v. Twomey, 821 F.2d 63 (1st Cir. 1987). We have added
the word ``material'' to the phrase ``known omission'' to clarify that
only important, known omissions will constitute a violation and this
will put the violation on par with the fraud and intentionally false
statement violation.
Comments Regarding Specific Full Flight Simulator Compliance
Requirements (Sec. 60.35)
Many commenters address the impact of proposed Sec. 60.35 on Level
A simulators. The ATA strongly opposes degrading the qualification of
all level A simulators after a 2 year period. ATA believes that as long
as there are valid training objectives that can be accomplished in a
level A simulator it should be the sponsor's business decision as to
when the device is no longer viable and not determined by the NSPM. Pan
Am states that elimination of the Level A qualification would create
specific issues for those aircraft that are no longer manufactured, but
continue to operate. Pan Am states, ``These simulators are typically
not cost effective to upgrade to current technology standards but have
demonstrated and been used for many years as effective training devices
* *. We believe these simulators and the training permitted in them
should be grand-fathered in any new rule.'' Pan Am, FSI and Aerospace
Aviation are also concerned that this provision would result in a
return to using aircraft for training, which would have a negative
impact on both the training, safety, and pollution.
FSI addresses the impact on certain aircraft, stating, ``The bottom
line would be that users of many aircraft, such as the older King Air,
Turbo Commander, Lear 25, Gulfstream I, Jetstar, etc., would have no
simulation device at all available to them. The time-tested safety-
driven need for these simulators will be there as long as the aircraft
they represent are flying. It is obvious that new simulators, Level B
through D, will not be developed for these older aircraft, so the
withdrawal option is to withdraw all simulation safety advantage from
this segment of the aviation population.'' In addition, FSI states that
to convert the Level A simulators to Level 6 FTDs ``would be to lose
the advantage of motion, which the FAA, in particular the NSPM, has
strongly favored and embraced for realism in training and testing, as
opposed to simulation with visual cues only. Continuing to maintain a
motion system for a Level 6 FTD, for no credit in addition to that
[[Page 63423]]
afforded a Level 6 FTD, would represent a huge cost with no benefit to
offset it.'' FSI further comments, ``Just as the FAA would not propose
that all operators of those aircraft abandon their aircraft, it should
not propose that Training Centers abandon the representative
simulators.''
Similarly, TWA states, ``This paragraph puts an undue burden on the
sponsors of older flight simulators. The cost to make all aircraft
appliances functional whenever they upgrade an older simulator will
effectively eliminate all upgrades. This would severely limit
modernization and improvements to these simulators. There is no reason
for devices in an FSD to be functional if they are never to be used by
the approved training program.'' ATA makes a similar comment.
Several commenters question to what extent the FAA expects the
entire cockpit to be simulated, under paragraph (a). Boeing states that
for some aircraft there is not enough room in the simulator to simulate
the entire area directly behind the Captain and First Officer. ATA and
United comment that sponsors with no captive fleet would not have a
specific cockpit against which to match an FSD and sponsors with their
own fleet would have differences between cockpits of like aircraft.
Delta and CAE make similar comments.
DHL states that the language requiring the FSD to simulate the
operation of all equipment or devices intended to simulate aircraft
appliances is too rigid. DHL states, ``This language would require such
devices such as radar and TCAS systems to be fully functional. These
devices are often trained in such devices as FTDs or Computer Based
Training (CBT) programs. The FAA requires TCAS to be trained in a
flight simulator or CBT environment. DHL argues that some devices are
better trained in other environments such as CBT. This requirement also
usurps the intent of the Advanced Qualification Program that would
apply Instructional Systems Design principles to conduct training in
lower level devices that may not only be more cost effective but also
yield a higher level of learning.''
UPS comments that paragraph (a) would require that equipment not
related to flight training be installed at considerable expense. UPS
cites examples such as ``equipment used by maintenance personnel, e.g.,
BIT type diagnostic systems, or equipment used by flight crew but not
deemed essential to flight training by the operator or its TPAA, e.g.,
ACARS.'' Evans and Sutherland ask whether visual terrain and obstacle
correlation over the entire visual scene must be provided, e.g., for
future additions to the cockpit, such as the Moving Map Display, or for
aircraft fitted with EGPWS or TWAS? Also, for weather radar, must all
3D clouds, storms, etc., on the visual scene correlate with a dynamic
radar sweep?
FSI states that proposed paragraph (a) seems to say that 18 months
after the final rule is issued all simulators must simulate everything
in the aircraft they represent. FSI asks, ``Would this mean that a
Level B simulator must have color weather radar simulated if the
aircraft is outfitted with color weather radar, etc.?'' FSI states that
proposed QPS requirements for FTD levels 4, 5, and 6, as well as for
simulator Levels A, B, and C do not include simulating the operation of
all equipment and appliances installed on the airplane (aircraft) being
simulated. FTDs could fit the definition of a ``simulator'' and
therefore would not be compliant. FSI recommends that FAA strike the
all encompassing term ``all equipment or devices'' and clarify the
intent of this proposed section to include the equipment simulation
requirements for each level of ``flight simulator'' as well as
specifically refer to FSD levels A-D and clarify the definition of a
``flight simulator'' to refer to FSD levels A-D. ATA recommends that
paragraph (b) be changed to apply to ``any level A simulator'' instead
of to ``any flight simulator.''
Delta suggests that Sec. 60.35(b) or the QPS should define the
performance criteria that will be used under paragraph (b) and state
that a Level A simulator can be downgraded to a level 6 FTD without
having to undergo an additional evaluation.
FAA Response: The FAA adopted several changes to this section that
are less restrictive than proposed and codify existing practices. The
revisions include the following: Level A simulators will not be
eliminated as was proposed; the requirement for Level C and Level D
simulators in Sec. 60.35(a) will include the equipment and appliances
installed and operating to the extent necessary for the issuance of an
airman certificate or rating; the requirement for Level A and Level B
simulators in Sec. 60.35(b) will include the equipment and appliances
installed and operating to the extent necessary for the training,
testing, and checking that comprise the simulation portion of the
requirements for issuance of an airman certificate or rating. The FAA
has been careful to define FTD levels and FSS levels and to use the
appropriate term in the appropriate setting. This should eliminate any
confusion regarding qualification level and required equipment.
Comments in Response to ARC Recommendation
In order to give the public an opportunity to comment on the
recommendations received from the ARC, on February 10, 2004, the FAA
reopened the comment period for 30 days (69 FR 6216). The comment
period closed March 11, 2004. The FAA received approximately 30
comments during the reopened comment period. However, instead of
addressing the ARC proposal, many of the commenters addressed issues
from the original NPRM. These comments are similar to comments that
were previously submitted. Other comments included suggestions for
minor editorial changes from CAE Inc. and a question from the Co-
Chairman of the Air Transport Association Simulator Technical Issues
Group asking if part 60 provides for self disclosure of possible non-
compliance with part 60 requirements.
FAA Response: The FAA reviewed the ARC recommendation and the
comments received in response to the ARC recommendation. In response to
the comment regarding part 60 self-disclosure programs, the FAA
considers the correct vehicle for such self-disclosures to be Advisory
Circular (AC) 00-58, Voluntary Disclosure Reporting Program. The FAA
recognizes that the AC, as presently written, is applicable only to
certificate holders, but believes sponsors qualified under part 60
could develop a similar program based on the available guidance in the
advisory material.
Delegation of Authority for Standards Documents
The FAA has delegated in a separate document, final authority to
review and issue amendments to appendices A-F to part 60 from the
Administrator to the Director, Flight Standards Service. Specifically,
these appendices are the Qualification Performance Standards (QPS)
documents for: Airplane Full Flight Simulators; Airplane Flight
Training Devices; Helicopter Full Flight Simulators; Helicopter Flight
Training Devices; Quality Management Systems for FSTDs; and Definitions
and Abbreviations for FSTDs.
The FAA anticipates that these documents will require routine
changes for a variety of reasons, e.g., increased knowledge about human
factors, analysis of incident/accident data, and changes in aircraft or
simulation technology. Because these standards will be regulatory in
nature, current FAA policy provides for the
[[Page 63424]]
Administrator to review changes before final action on them is
complete. This process involves significant levels of participation in
the review process by individuals at all levels of the agency.
The FAA expects that most future changes to the QPS documents will
be published in the Federal Register as NPRMs for public comment, just
as they are published as part of this NPRM. This will be true unless
``good cause'' exists under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA),
which would warrant the FAA publishing a change to a QPS document
without following the standard notice and comment procedures. Under the
APA, in order for the FAA to issue a rule without following notice and
comment procedures, the FAA would have to make a good cause finding
that following notice and comment procedures would be impracticable,
unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.
The FAA does not expect that many changes to the QPS documents will
justify the expenditure of time and resources at the highest levels of
the agency that the standard procedures for final review of rulemakings
require. Therefore, consistent with good government, the FAA is
streamlining the process for making technical changes to the QPS
documents by delegating authority for final review and issuance from
the Administrator to the Director, Flight Standards Service. The FAA
believes that the delegation will result in more timely responses to
incident and accident data and advances in aircraft or simulation
technology.
Consistent with similar delegations of authority, this authority
will be exercised with the concurrence of the Office of the Chief
Counsel. If, at any time during the amendment process the Administrator
or the Director, Flight Standards Service, determines that a proposed
amendment would not be appropriate for this streamlined process, the
rulemaking project would proceed in accordance with the agency's normal
rulemaking procedures.
Paperwork Reduction Act
Information collection requirements associated with this final rule
have been approved previously by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3507(d)), and have been assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0680.
This final rule adds the OMB control number to the table of OMB control
numbers in 14 CFR 11.201(b). 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.
International Compatibility
In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to comply with
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and
Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has
reviewed the corresponding ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices and
has determined that additional modifications to certain QPS sections
need to be made before the final rule becomes effective. The FAA has
not included these QPS modifications in this final rule because they
are beyond the scope of the NPRM. The FAA will make these modifications
before this final rule becomes effective to comply with ICAO Standards
and Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable.
Regulatory Evaluation Summary
This final rule establishes 14 CFR part 60, which contains
requirements for the evaluation, qualification, and maintenance of
FSTDs.
Total Costs and Benefits of This Rulemaking
The FAA has determined that the total cost of implementing the new
part 60 from 2006 to 2015 will be approximately $1.3 million ($1.0
million, discounted). Nearly all of the $1.3 million over the 10-year
period will be imposed on the industry. The FAA 10-year cost is
estimated at $42,000.
The benefit of this rule is that it will ensure that flight
crewmembers using FSTDs receive training in a device that closely
matches the performance and handling characteristics of the aircraft
being simulated.
Who Is Potentially Affected by This Rulemaking?
Sponsors of FSTDs, which includes training centers and certain
airlines, are affected by this rulemaking.
Our Cost Assumptions and Sources of Information
Discount rate: 7%.
Period of Analysis: 2006-2015.
Monetary Values expressed in 2004 dollars.
Costs per individual action vary depending on whether the sponsor
is small, medium, or large.
Regulatory Flexibility Determination
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) establishes ``as a
principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor,
consistent with the objective of the rule and of applicable statutes,
to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale of the
business, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to
regulation.'' To achieve that principle, the Act requires agencies to
solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the
rationale for their actions. The Act 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 proposed or
final rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. If the determination is that it will, the
agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in
the Act.
However, if an agency determines that a proposed or final rule is
not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities, section 605(b) of the 1980 act 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.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) recommends 1,500 or fewer
employees as the ``small'' size standard that applies to Scheduled
Passenger Air Transportation (NAICS code 481111). We believe that this
size standard also applies to simulator sponsors, which include air
carriers and simulator training centers. For part 60, the FAA
identified a total of 11 simulator sponsors that meet this size
standard. For each of these sponsors, the FAA attempted to retrieve
their annual revenues and to calculate their annualized costs. Annual
revenue data was only available for 5 out of the 11 sponsors. After
calculating the prorated annualized costs using the same assumptions
that were used in the cost section, the FAA then compared annualized
costs with annualized revenues (see Table 14 for details).
[[Page 63425]]
Table 14.--Summary of RFA Determination of Economic Impact
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual revenues Annualized Compliance as percentage of Significant economic impact?
Number of ------------------------------------------ cost of annual revenues y/n
Sponsor employees compliance -----------------------------------------------------------
2000 2001 2002 \1\ 2000 2001 2002 2000 2001 2002
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................................................... 973 n.a. $150,712,673 n.a. $1,828 n.a. 0.00 n.a. n.a. N n.a.
2............................................................... 116 $63,902,519 53,065,814 $43,396,103 474 0.00 0.00 0.00 N N N
3............................................................... 563 274,420,131 111,560,208 4,350,617 474 0.00 0.00 0.01 N N N
4............................................................... 134 48,765,676 49,320,778 66,015,229 474 0.00 0.00 0.00 N N N
5............................................................... 410 224,249,551 96,951,552 92,035,880 474 0.00 0.00 0.00 N N N
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. Dept. of Trans., FAA, APO 310.
Notes: 1) Annualized using a capital recovery factor of 0.14238, over 10 years, using a 7 percent rate of interest.
For the 5 sponsors shown in Table 14, annualized costs of the rule
will be considerably less than one-tenth of one percent of their annual
revenues. The FAA contends that these costs will not have a significant
economic impact on these small entities.
Accordingly, pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C.
605(b), the Federal Aviation Administration certifies that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
International Trade Impact Assessment
The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 prohibits Federal agencies from
engaging in any standards or related activities that create unnecessary
obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Legitimate
domestic objectives, such as safety, are not considered unnecessary
obstacles. The statute also requires consideration of international
standards and where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S.
standards.
In accordance with the above statute, the FAA has assessed the
potential effect of this final rule and has determined that it will
have the same impact on foreign sponsors as on domestic sponsors and,
therefore, creates no obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United
States.
Unfunded Mandates Assessment
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (the Act) is intended,
among other things, to curb the practice of imposing unfunded Federal
mandates on State, local, and tribal governments. Title II of the Act
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 (adjusted
annually for inflation) 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 $128.1 million in lieu of $100
million.
This final rule does not contain an Unfunded Mandate. The
requirements of Title II do not apply.
Executive Order 13132, Federalism
The FAA has analyzed this final rule under the principles and
criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We determined that this
action will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. Therefore, we determined that this final rule will not have
federalism implications.
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.
Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use
The FAA has analyzed this final rule under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). We have determined that it is not
a ``significant energy action'' under the executive order because it is
not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866,
and it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy.
List of Subjects
14 CFR Part 1
Air transportation.
14 CFR Part 11
Administrative practice and procedure, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
14 CFR Part 60
Airmen, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
14 CFR Part 121
Air carriers, Aircraft, Airmen, Alcohol abuse, Aviation safety,
Charter flights, Drug abuse, Drug testing, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Safety, Transportation.
The Amendment
0
The Federal Aviation Administration amends Title 14, Chapter I of the
Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 1--DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS
0
1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
0
2. Section 1.1 is amended by adding new definitions in alphabetical
order to read as follows:
Sec. 1.1 General definitions.
* * * * *
Flight simulation training device (FSTD) means a flight simulator
or a flight training device.
* * * * *
Flight training device (FTD) means a replica of aircraft
instruments, equipment, panels, and controls in an open flight deck
area or an enclosed aircraft cockpit replica. It includes the equipment
and computer programs necessary to represent aircraft (or set of
aircraft) operations in ground and flight conditions having the full
range of capabilities of the systems installed in the device as
described in part 60 of this chapter and the qualification performance
standard (QPS) for a specific FTD qualification level.
* * * * *
Full flight simulator (FFS) means a replica of a specific type; or
make,
[[Page 63426]]
model, and series aircraft cockpit. It includes the assemblage of
equipment and computer programs necessary to represent aircraft
operations in ground and flight conditions, a visual system providing
an out-of-the-cockpit view, a system that provides cues at least
equivalent to those of a three-degree-of-freedom motion system, and has
the full range of capabilities of the systems installed in the device
as described in part 60 of this chapter and the qualification
performance standards (QPS) for a specific FFS qualification level.
* * * * *
0
3. Section 1.2 is amended by adding new abbreviations in alphabetical
order to read as follows:
Sec. 1.2 Abbreviations and symbols.
* * * * *
FFS means full flight simulator.
* * * * *
FSTD means flight simulation training device.
FTD means flight training device.
* * * * *
PART 11--GENERAL RULEMAKING PROCEDURES
0
4. The authority citation for part 11 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40101, 40103, 40105, 40109, 40113,
44110, 44502, 44701-44702, 44711, and 46102.
0
5. Amend the table in Sec. 11.201(b) by adding an entry for part 60 to
read as follows:
Sec. 11.201 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control numbers
assigned under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current OMB
14 CFR part or section identified and described control number
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Part 60................................................. 2120-0680
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
6. Part 60 is added to subchapter D to read as follows:
PART 60--FLIGHT SIMULATION TRAINING DEVICE INITIAL AND CONTINUING
QUALIFICATION AND USE
Sec.
60.1 Applicability.
60.2 Applicability of sponsor rules to persons who are not sponsors
and who are engaged in certain unauthorized activities.
60.3 Definitions.
60.4 Qualification Performance Standards.
60.5 Quality management system.
60.7 Sponsor qualification requirements.
60.9 Additional responsibilities of the sponsor.
60.11 FSTD use.
60.13 FSTD objective data requirements.
60.14 Special equipment and personnel requirements for qualification
of the FSTD.
60.15 Initial qualification requirements.
60.16 Additional qualifications for a currently qualified FSTD.
60.17 Previously qualified FSTDs.
60.19 Inspection, continuing qualification evaluation, and
maintenance requirements.
60.20 Logging FSTD discrepancies.
60.21 Interim qualification of FSTDs for new aircraft types or
models.
60.23 Modifications to FSTDs.
60.25 Operation with missing, malfunctioning, or inoperative
components.
60.27 Automatic loss of qualification and procedures for restoration
of qualification.
60.29 Other losses of qualification and procedures for restoration
of qualification.
60.31 Recordkeeping and reporting.
60.33 Applications, logbooks, reports, and records: Fraud,
falsification, or incorrect statements.
60.35 Specific full flight simulator compliance requirements.
60.37 FSTD qualification on the basis of a Bilateral Aviation Safety
Agreement (BASA).
Appendix A to Part 60--Qualification Performance Standards for
Airplane Full Flight Simulators
Appendix B to Part 60--Qualification Performance Standards for
Airplane Flight Training Devices
Appendix C to Part 60--Qualification Performance Standards for
Helicopter Full Flight Simulators
Appendix D to Part 60--Qualification Performance Standards for
Helicopter Flight Training Devices
Appendix E to Part 60--Quality Management Systems for Flight
Simulation Training Devices
Appendix F to Part 60--Definitions and Abbreviations for Flight
Simulation Training Devices
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, and 44701.
Sec. 60.1 Applicability.
(a) This part prescribes the rules governing the initial and
continuing qualification and use of all aircraft flight simulation
training devices (FSTD) used for meeting training, evaluation, or
flight experience requirements of this chapter for flight crewmember
certification or qualification.
(b) The rules of this part apply to each person using or applying
to use an FSTD to meet any requirement of this chapter.
(c) The requirements of Sec. 60.33 regarding falsification of
applications, records, or reports also apply to each person who uses an
FSTD for training, evaluation, or obtaining flight experience required
for flight crewmember certification or qualification under this
chapter.
Sec. 60.2 Applicability of sponsor rules to persons who are not
sponsors and who are engaged in certain unauthorized activities.
(a) The rules of this part that are directed to a sponsor of an
FSTD also apply to any person who uses or causes the use of an FSTD
when--
(1) That person knows that the FSTD does not have an FAA-approved
sponsor; and
(2) The use of the FSTD by that person is nonetheless claimed for
purposes of meeting any requirement of this chapter or that person
knows or should have known that the person's acts or omissions would
cause another person to mistakenly credit use of the FSTD for purposes
of meeting any requirement of this chapter.
(b) A situation in which paragraph (a) of this section would not
apply to a person would be when each of the following conditions are
met:
(1) The person sold or leased the FSTD and merely represented to
the purchaser or lessee that the FSTD is in a condition in which it
should be able to obtain FAA approval and qualification under this
part;
(2) The person does not falsely claim to be the FAA-approved
sponsor for the FSTD;
(3) The person does not falsely make representations that someone
else is the FAA-approved sponsor of the FSTD at a time when that other
person is not the FAA-approved sponsor of the FSTD; and
(4) The person's acts or omissions do not cause another person to
detrimentally rely on such acts or omissions for the mistaken
conclusion that the FSTD is FAA-approved and qualified under this part
at the time the FSTD is sold or leased.
Sec. 60.3 Definitions.
In addition to the definitions in part 1 of this chapter, other
terms and definitions applicable to this part are found in appendix F
of this part.
Sec. 60.4 Qualification Performance Standards.
The Qualification Performance Standards (QPS) are published in
appendices to this part as follows:
(a) Appendix A contains the QPS for Airplane Flight Simulators.
(b) Appendix B contains the QPS for Airplane Flight Training
Devices.
[[Page 63427]]
(c) Appendix C contains the QPS for Helicopter Flight Simulators.
(d) Appendix D contains the QPS for Helicopter Flight Training
Devices.
(e) Appendix E contains the QPS for Quality Management Systems for
FSTDs.
(f) Appendix F contains the QPS for Definitions and Abbreviations
for FSTDs.
Sec. 60.5 Quality management system.
(a) After October 30, 2009, no sponsor may use or allow the use of
or offer the use of an FSTD for flight crewmember training or
evaluation or for obtaining flight experience to meet any requirement
of this chapter unless the sponsor has established and follows a
quality management system (QMS), currently approved by the National
Simulator Program Manager (NSPM), for the continuing surveillance and
analysis of the sponsor's performance and effectiveness in providing a
satisfactory FSTD for use on a regular basis as described in QPS
appendix E of this part.
(b) The QMS program must provide a process for identifying
deficiencies in the program and for documenting how the program will be
changed to address these deficiencies.
(c) Whenever the NSPM finds that the QMS program does not
adequately address the procedures necessary to meet the requirements of
this part, the sponsor must, after notification by the NSPM, change the
program so the procedures meet the requirements of this part. Each such
change must be approved by the NSPM prior to implementation.
(d) Within 30 days after the sponsor receives a notice described in
paragraph (c) of this section, the sponsor may file a petition with the
Director of Flight Standards Service (the Director) for reconsideration
of the NSPM finding. The sponsor must address its petition to the
Director, Flight Standards Service, AFS-1, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20591. The
filing of such a petition to reconsider stays the notice pending a
decision by the Director. However, if the Director finds that there is
a situation that requires immediate action in the interest of safety in
air commerce, he may, upon a statement of the reasons, require a change
effective without stay.
Sec. 60.7 Sponsor qualification requirements.
(a) A person is eligible to apply to be a sponsor of an FSTD if the
following conditions are met:
(1) The person holds, or is an applicant for, a certificate under
part 119, 141, or 142 of this chapter; or holds, or is an applicant
for, an approved flight engineer course in accordance with part 63 of
this chapter.
(2) The FSTD will be used, or will be offered for use, in the
sponsor's FAA-approved flight training program for the aircraft being
simulated as evidenced in a request for evaluation submitted to the
NSPM.
(b) A person is a sponsor if the following conditions are met:
(1) The person is a certificate holder under part 119, 141, or 142
of this chapter or has an approved flight engineer course in accordance
with part 63 of this chapter.
(2) The person has--
(i) Operations specifications authorizing the use of the specific
aircraft or set of aircraft and has an FAA-approved training program
under which at least one FSTD, simulating the aircraft or set of
aircraft and for which the person is the sponsor, is used by the
sponsor as described in paragraphs (b)(5) or (b)(6) of this section; or
(ii) Training specifications or an FAA-approved course of training
under which at least one FSTD, simulating that aircraft or set of
aircraft and for which the person is the sponsor, is used by the
sponsor as described in paragraphs (b)(5) or (b)(6) of this section.
(3) The person has a quality management system currently approved
by the NSPM in accordance with Sec. 60.5.
(4) The NSPM has accepted the person as the sponsor of the FSTD and
that acceptance has not been withdrawn by the FAA.
(5) At least one FSTD (as referenced in paragraph (b)(2)(i) or
(b)(2)(ii) of this section) that is initially qualified on or after
October 30, 2007, is used within the sponsor's FAA-approved flight
training program for the aircraft or set of aircraft at least once
within the 12-month period following the initial/upgrade evaluation,
and at least once within each subsequent 12-month period thereafter.
(6) At least one FSTD (as referenced in paragraph (b)(2)(i) or
(b)(2)(ii) of this section) that was qualified before October 30, 2007,
is used within the sponsor's FAA-approved flight training program for
the aircraft or set of aircraft at least once within the 12-month
period following the first continuing qualification evaluation
conducted by the NSPM after October 30, 2007 and at least once within
each subsequent 12-month period thereafter.
(c) If the use requirements of paragraphs (b)(2) and either (b)(5)
or (b)(6) of this section are not met, the person will forfeit the
right to sponsor that FSTD and that person will not be eligible to
apply to sponsor that FSTD for at least 12 calendar months following
the expiration of the qualification status.
(d) In addition to the FSTD described in paragraph (b) of this
section, an FSTD sponsor may sponsor any number of other FSTDs
regardless of specific aircraft or set of aircraft provided either--
(1) During the preceding 12-month period, all of the other FSTDs
are used within the sponsor's or another certificate holder's FAA-
approved flight training program for the aircraft or set of aircraft
simulated; or
(2) The sponsor obtains a written statement at least annually from
a qualified pilot who has flown the aircraft or set of aircraft (as
appropriate) during the preceding 12-month period stating that the
subject FSTD's performance and handling qualities, within the normal
operating envelope, represent the aircraft or set of aircraft described
in the FAA Type Certificate and the type data sheet, if appropriate.
The sponsor must retain the two most current written statements for
review by the NSPM.
Sec. 60.9 Additional responsibilities of the sponsor.
(a) The sponsor must allow the NSPM upon request to inspect the
FSTD as soon as practicable. This inspection may include all records
and documents relating to the FSTD, to determine its compliance with
this part.
(b) The sponsor must do the following for each FSTD:
(1) Establish a mechanism to receive written comments regarding the
FSTD and its operation in accordance with the QPS appendix E of this
part.
(2) Post in or adjacent to the FSTD the Statement of Qualification
issued by the NSPM. An electronic copy of the Statement of
Qualification that may be accessed by an appropriate terminal or
display in or adjacent to the FSTD is satisfactory.
(c) Each sponsor of an FSTD must identify to the NSPM by name, one
individual to be the management representative (MR).
(1) One person may serve as an MR for more than one FSTD, but one
FSTD must not have more than one person serving in this capacity.
(2) Each MR must be an employee of the sponsor with the
responsibility and authority to--
(i) Monitor the on-going qualification of assigned FSTDs to ensure
that all matters regarding FSTD qualification are being carried out as
provided for in this part;
[[Page 63428]]
(ii) Ensure that the QMS is properly established, implemented, and
maintained by overseeing the structure (and modifying where necessary)
of the QMS policies, practices, and procedures; and
(iii) Regularly brief sponsor's management on the status of the on-
going FSTD qualification program and the effectiveness and efficiency
of the QMS.
(3) The MR serves as the primary contact point for all matters
between the sponsor and the NSPM regarding the qualification of that
FSTD as provided for in this part.
(4) The MR may delegate the duties described in paragraph (c)(2)
and (c)(3) of this section to an individual at each of the sponsor's
locations.
Sec. 60.11 FSTD use.
No person may use or allow the use of or offer the use of an FSTD
for flight crewmember training or evaluation or for obtaining flight
experience to meet any of the requirements under this chapter unless,
in accordance with the QPS for the specific device, the FSTD meets all
of the following:
(a) Has a single sponsor who is qualified under Sec. 60.7. The
sponsor may arrange with another person for services of document
preparation and presentation, as well as FSTD inspection, maintenance,
repair, and servicing; however, the sponsor remains responsible for
ensuring that these functions are conducted in a manner and with a
result of continually meeting the requirements of this part.
(b) Is qualified as described in the Statement of Qualification.
(c) Remains qualified, through satisfactory inspection, continuing
qualification evaluations, appropriate maintenance, and use
requirements in accordance with this part and the applicable QPS.
(d) Functions during day-to-day training, evaluation, or flight
experience activities with the software and hardware that was evaluated
as satisfactory by the NSPM and, if modified, modified only in
accordance with the provisions of this part. However, this section does
not apply to routine software or hardware changes that do not fall
under the requirements of Sec. 60.23.
(e) Is operated in accordance with the provisions and limitations
of Sec. 60.25.
Sec. 60.13 FSTD objective data requirements.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) and (c) of this section,
for the purposes of validating FSTD performance and handling qualities
during evaluation for qualification, the data made available to the
NSPM (the validation data package) must include the aircraft
manufacturer's flight test data and all relevant data developed after
the type certificate was issued (e.g., data developed in response to an
airworthiness directive) if such data results from a change in
performance, handling qualities, functions, or other characteristics of
the aircraft that must be considered for flight crewmember training,
evaluation, or for meeting experience requirements of this chapter.
(b) The validation data package may contain flight test data from a
source in addition to or independent of the aircraft manufacturer's
data in support of an FSTD qualification, but only if this data is
gathered and developed by that source in accordance with flight test
methods, including a flight test plan, as described in the applicable
QPS.
(c) The validation data package may also contain predicted data,
engineering simulation data, data from pilot owner or pilot operating
manuals, or data from public domain sources, provided this data is
acceptable to the NSPM. If found acceptable the data may then be used
in particular applications for FSTD qualification.
(d) Data or other material or elements must be submitted in a form
and manner acceptable to the NSPM.
(e) The NSPM may require additional objective data, which may
include flight testing if necessary, if the validation data package
does not support FSTD qualification requirements as described in this
part and the applicable QPS appendix.
(f) When an FSTD sponsor learns, or is advised by an aircraft
manufacturer or other data provider, that an addition to, an amendment
to, or a revision of data that may relate to FSTD performance or
handling characteristics is available, the sponsor must notify the NSPM
as described in the applicable QPS.
Sec. 60.14 Special equipment and personnel requirements for
qualification of the FSTD.
When notified by the NSPM, the sponsor must make available all
special equipment and qualified personnel needed to accomplish or
assist in the accomplishment of tests during initial qualification,
continuing qualification, or special evaluations.
Sec. 60.15 Initial qualification requirements.
(a) For each FSTD, the sponsor must submit a request to the NSPM to
evaluate the FSTD for initial qualification at a specific level and
simultaneously request the Training Program Approval Authority (TPAA)
forward a concurring letter to the NSPM. The request must be submitted
in the form and manner described in the applicable QPS.
(b) The management representative described in Sec. 60.9(c) must
sign a statement (electronic signature is acceptable for electronic
transmissions) after confirming the following:
(1) The performance and handling qualities of the FSTD represent
those of the aircraft or set of aircraft within the normal operating
envelope. This determination must be made by a pilot(s) meeting the
requirements of paragraph (d) of this section after having flown all of
the Operations Tasks listed in the applicable QPS appendix relevant to
the qualification level of the FSTD. Exceptions, if any, must be noted.
The name of the person(s) making this determination must be available
to the NSPM upon request.
(2) The FSTD systems and sub-systems (including the simulated
aircraft systems) functionally represent those in the aircraft or set
of aircraft. This determination must be made by the pilot(s) described
in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, or by a person(s) trained on
simulator systems/sub-systems and trained on the operation of the
simulated aircraft systems, after having exercised the operation of the
FSTD and the pertinent functions available through the Instructor
Operating Station(s). Exceptions, if any, must be noted. The name of
the person(s) making this determination must be available to the NSPM
upon request.
(3) The cockpit represents the configuration of the specific type;
or aircraft make, model, and series aircraft being simulated, as
appropriate. This determination must be made by the pilot(s) described
in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, or by a person(s) trained on the
configuration and operation of the aircraft simulated. Exceptions, if
any, must be noted. The name of the person(s) making this determination
must be available to the NSPM upon request.
(c) Except for those FSTDs previously qualified and described in
Sec. 60.17, each FSTD evaluated for initial qualification must meet
the standard that is in effect at the time of the evaluation. However--
(1) If the FAA publishes a change to the existing standard or
publishes a new standard for the evaluation for initial qualification,
a sponsor may request that the NSPM apply the standard that was in
effect when an FSTD was ordered for delivery if the sponsor--
(i) Within 30 days of the publication of the change to the existing
standard or publication of the new standard, notifies the NSPM that an
FSTD has been ordered;
[[Page 63429]]
(ii) Within 90 days of the NSPM notification described in paragraph
(c)(1)(i) of this section, requests that the standard in effect at the
time the order was placed be used for the evaluation for initial
qualification; and
(iii) The evaluation is conducted within 24 months following the
publication of the change to the existing standard or publication of
the new standard.
(2) This notification must include a description of the FSTD; the
anticipated qualification level of the FSTD; the make, model, and
series of aircraft simulated; and any other pertinent information.
(3) Any tests, tolerances, or other requirements that are current
at the time of the evaluation may be used during the initial
evaluation, at the request of the sponsor, if the sponsor provides
acceptable updates to the required qualification test guide.
(4) The standards used for the evaluation for initial qualification
will be used for all subsequent evaluations of the FSTD.
(d) The pilot(s) who contributes to the confirmation statement
required by paragraph (b) of this section must--
(1) Be designated by the sponsor; and
(2) Be qualified in--
(i) The aircraft or set of aircraft being simulated; or
(ii) For aircraft not yet issued a type certificate, or aircraft
not previously operated by the sponsor or not having previous FAA-
approved training programs conducted by the sponsor, an aircraft
similar in size and configuration.
(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
sponsor's training facility, except as provided for in the applicable
QPS.
(f) The person seeking to qualify the FSTD must provide the NSPM
access to the FSTD for the length of time necessary for the NSPM to
complete the required evaluation of the FSTD for initial qualification,
which includes the conduct and evaluation of objective and subjective
tests, including general FSTD requirements, as described in the
applicable QPS, to determine that the FSTD meets the standards in that
QPS.
(g) When the FSTD passes an evaluation for initial qualification,
the NSPM issues a Statement of Qualification that includes all of the
following:
(1) Identification of the sponsor.
(2) Identification of the make, model, and series of the aircraft
or set of aircraft being simulated.
(3) Identification of the configuration of the aircraft or set of
aircraft being simulated (e.g., engine model or models, flight
instruments, or navigation or other systems).
(4) A statement that the FSTD is qualified as either a full flight
simulator or a flight training device.
(5) Identification of the qualification level of the FSTD.
(6) A statement that (with the exception of the noted exclusions
for which the FSTD has not been subjectively tested by the sponsor or
the NSPM and for which qualification is not sought) the qualification
of the FSTD includes the tasks set out in the applicable QPS appendix
relevant to the qualification level of the FSTD.
(h) After the NSPM completes the evaluation for initial
qualification, the sponsor must update the Qualification Test Guide
(QTG), with the results of the FAA-witnessed tests together with the
results of all the objective tests described in the applicable QPS.
(i) Upon issuance of the Statement of Qualification the updated QTG
becomes the Master Qualification Test Guide (MQTG). The MQTG must be
made available to the NSPM upon request.
Sec. 60.16 Additional qualifications for a currently qualified FSTD.
(a) A currently qualified FSTD is required to undergo an additional
qualification process if a user intends to use the FSTD for meeting
training, evaluation, or flight experience requirements of this chapter
beyond the qualification issued for that FSTD. This process consists of
the following:
(1) The sponsor:
(i) Must submit to the NSPM all modifications to the MQTG that are
required to support the additional qualification.
(ii) Must describe to the NSPM all modifications to the FSTD that
are required to support the additional qualification.
(iii) Must submit to the NSPM a confirmation statement as described
in Sec. 60.15(c) that a pilot, designated by the sponsor in accordance
with Sec. 60.15(d), has subjectively evaluated the FSTD in those areas
not previously evaluated.
(2) The FSTD must successfully pass an evaluation--
(i) Consisting of all the elements of an initial evaluation for
qualification in those circumstances where the NSPM has determined that
all the elements of an initial evaluation for qualification is
necessary; or
(ii) Consisting of those elements of an initial evaluation for
qualification designated as necessary by the NSPM.
(b) In making the determinations described in paragraph (a)(2) of
this section, the NSPM considers factors including the existing
qualification of the FSTD, any modifications to the FSTD hardware or
software that are involved, and any additions or modifications to the
MQTG.
(c) The FSTD is qualified for the additional uses when the NSPM
issues an amended Statement of Qualification in accordance with Sec.
60.15(h).
(d) The sponsor may not modify the FSTD except as described in
Sec. 60.23.
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 October 30, 2007 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.
(b) For each FSTD qualified before October 30, 2007, no sponsor may
use or allow the use of or offer the use of such an FSTD after October
30, 2013 for flight crewmember training, evaluation or flight
experience to meet any of the requirements of this chapter, unless that
FSTD has been issued a Statement of Qualification, including the
Configuration List and the List of Qualified Tasks in accordance with
the procedures set out in the applicable QPS.
(c) If the FSTD qualification is lost under Sec. 60.27 and--
(i) Restored under Sec. 60.27 in less than (2) years, then the
qualification basis (in terms of objective tests and subjective tests)
for the re-qualification will be those against which the FSTD was
originally evaluated and qualified.
(ii) Not restored under Sec. 60.27 for two (2) years or more, then
the qualification basis (in terms of objective tests and subjective
tests) for the re-qualification will be those standards in effect and
current at the time of re-qualification application.
(d) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, any change
in FSTD qualification level initiated on or after October 30, 2007
requires an evaluation for initial qualification in accordance with
this part.
(e) A sponsor may request that an FSTD be permanently downgraded.
In such a case, the NSPM may downgrade a qualified FSTD without
requiring and without conducting an initial evaluation for the new
qualification level. Subsequent continuing qualification
[[Page 63430]]
evaluations will use the existing MQTG, modified as necessary to
reflect the new qualification level.
(f) When the sponsor has appropriate validation data available and
receives approval from the NSPM, the sponsor may adopt tests and
associated tolerances described in the current qualification standards
as the tests and tolerances applicable for the continuing qualification
of a previously qualified FSTD. The updated test(s) and tolerance(s)
must be made a permanent part of the MQTG.
Sec. 60.19 Inspection, continuing qualification evaluation, and
maintenance requirements.
(a) Inspection. No sponsor may use or allow the use of or offer the
use of an FSTD for flight crewmember training, evaluation, or flight
experience to meet any of the requirements of this chapter unless the
sponsor does the following:
(1) Accomplishes all appropriate objective tests each year as
specified in the applicable QPS.
(2) Completes a functional preflight check within the preceding 24
hours.
(b) Continuing qualification evaluation.
(1) This evaluation consists of objective tests, and subjective
tests, including general FSTD requirements, as described in the
applicable QPS or as may be amended by an FSTD Directive.
(2) The sponsor must contact the NSPM to schedule the FSTD for
continuing qualification evaluations not later than 60 days before the
evaluation is due.
(3) The sponsor must provide the NSPM access to the objective test
results in the MQTG and access to the FSTD for the length of time
necessary for the NSPM to complete the required continuing
qualification evaluations.
(4) The frequency of NSPM-conducted continuing qualification
evaluations for each FSTD will be established by the NSPM and specified
in the MQTG.
(5) Continuing qualification evaluations conducted in the calendar
month 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.
(6) No sponsor may use or allow the use of or offer the use of an
FSTD for flight crewmember training or evaluation or for obtaining
flight experience for the flight crewmember to meet any requirement of
this chapter unless the FSTD has passed an NSPM-conducted continuing
qualification evaluation within the time frame specified in the MQTG or
within the grace period as described in paragraph (b)(5) of this
section.
(c) Maintenance. The sponsor is responsible for continuing
corrective and preventive maintenance on the FSTD to ensure that it
continues to meet the requirements of this part and the applicable QPS
appendix. No sponsor may use or allow the use of or offer the use of an
FSTD for flight crewmember training, evaluation, or flight experience
to meet any of the requirements of this chapter unless the sponsor does
the following:
(1) Maintains a discrepancy log.
(2) Ensures that, when a discrepancy is discovered, the following
requirements are met:
(i) A description of each discrepancy is entered in the log and
remains in the log until the discrepancy is corrected as specified in
Sec. 60.25(b).
(ii) A description of the corrective action taken for each
discrepancy, the identity of the individual taking the action, and the
date that action is taken is entered in the log.
(iii) The discrepancy log is kept in a form and manner acceptable
to the Administrator and is kept in or adjacent to the FSTD. An
electronic log that may be accessed by an appropriate terminal or
display in or adjacent to the FSTD is satisfactory.
Sec. 60.20 Logging FSTD discrepancies.
Each instructor, check airman, or representative of the
Administrator conducting training, evaluation, or flight experience,
and each person conducting the preflight inspection who discovers a
discrepancy, including any missing, malfunctioning, or inoperative
components in the FSTD, must write or cause to be written a description
of that discrepancy into the discrepancy log at the end of the FSTD
preflight or FSTD use session.
Sec. 60.21 Interim qualification of FSTDs for new aircraft types or
models.
(a) A sponsor may apply for and the NSPM may issue an interim
qualification level for an FSTD for a new type or model of aircraft,
even though the aircraft manufacturer's aircraft data package is
preliminary, if the sponsor provides the following to the satisfaction
of the NSPM--
(1) The aircraft manufacturer's data, which consists of at least
predicted data, validated by a limited set of flight test data;
(2) The aircraft manufacturer's description of the prediction
methodology used to develop the predicted data; and
(3) The QTG test results.
(b) An FSTD that has been issued interim qualification is deemed to
have been issued initial qualification unless the NSPM rescinds the
qualification. Interim qualification terminates two years after its
issuance, unless the NSPM determines that specific conditions warrant
otherwise.
(c) Within twelve months of the release of the final aircraft data
package by the aircraft manufacturer, but no later than two years after
the issuance of the interim qualification status, the sponsor must
apply for initial qualification in accordance with Sec. 60.15 based on
the final aircraft data package approved by the aircraft manufacturer,
unless the NSPM determines that specific conditions warrant otherwise.
(d) An FSTD with interim qualification may be modified only in
accordance with Sec. 60.23.
Sec. 60.23 Modifications to FSTDs.
(a) Description of a modification. For the purposes of this part,
an FSTD is said to have been modified when:
(1) Equipment or devices intended to simulate aircraft appliances
are added to or removed from FSTD, which change the Statement of
Qualification or the MQTG; or
(2) Changes are made to either software or hardware that are
intended to impact flight or ground dynamics; changes are made that
impact performance or handling characteristics of the FSTD (including
motion, visual, control loading, or sound systems for those FSTD levels
requiring sound tests and measurements); or changes are made to the
MQTG.
(b) FSTD Directive. When the FAA determines that FSTD modification
is necessary for safety of flight reasons, the sponsor of each affected
FSTD must ensure that the FSTD is modified according to the FSTD
Directive regardless of the original qualification standards applicable
to any specific FSTD.
(c) Using the modified FSTD. The sponsor may not use, or allow the
use of, or offer the use of, the FSTD with the proposed modification
for flight crewmember training or evaluation or for obtaining flight
experience for the flight crewmember to meet any requirement of this
chapter unless:
(1) The sponsor has notified the NSPM and the TPAA of their intent
to incorporate the proposed modification, and one of the following has
occurred;
(i) Twenty-one days have passed since the sponsor notified the NSPM
and the TPAA of the proposed modification and the sponsor has not
received any response from either the NSPM or the TPAA;
(ii) Twenty-one days have passed since the sponsor notified the
NSPM
[[Page 63431]]
and the TPAA of the proposed modification and one has approved the
proposed modification and the other has not responded;
(iii) Fewer than twenty-one days have passed since the sponsor
notified the NSPM and the TPAA of the proposed modification and the
NSPM and TPAA both approve the proposed modification;
(iv) The sponsor has successfully completed any evaluation the NSPM
may require in accordance with the standards for an evaluation for
initial qualification or any part thereof before the modified FSTD is
placed in service.
(2) The notification is submitted with the content as, and in a
form and manner as, specified in the applicable QPS.
(d) User notification. When a modification is made to an FSTD that
affects the Statement of Qualification, the sponsor must post an
addendum to the Statement of Qualification until such time as a
permanent, updated statement is posted.
(e) MQTG update. The MQTG must be updated with current objective
test results in accordance with Sec. 60.15(h) and (i) and appropriate
objective data in accordance with Sec. 60.13, each time an FSTD is
modified and an objective test or other MQTG section is affected by the
modification. If an FSTD Directive is the cause of this update, the
direction to make the modification and the record of the modification
completion must be filed in the MQTG.
Sec. 60.25 Operation with missing, malfunctioning, or inoperative
components.
(a) No person may knowingly use or allow the use of or misrepresent
the capability of an FSTD for any maneuver, procedure, or task that is
to be accomplished to meet training, evaluation, or flight experience
requirements of this chapter for flight crewmember certification or
qualification when there is a missing, malfunctioning, or inoperative
(MMI) component that is required to be present and correctly operate
for the satisfactory completion of that maneuver, procedure, or task.
(b) Each MMI component as described in paragraph (a) of this
section, or any MMI component installed and required to operate
correctly to meet the current Statement of Qualification, must be
repaired or replaced within 30 calendar days, unless otherwise required
or authorized by the NSPM.
(c) A list of the current MMI components must be readily available
in or adjacent to the FSTD for review by users of the device.
Electronic access to this list via an appropriate terminal or display
in or adjacent to the FSTD is satisfactory. The discrepancy log may be
used to satisfy this requirement provided each currently MMI component
is listed in the discrepancy log.
Sec. 60.27 Automatic loss of qualification and procedures for
restoration of qualification.
(a) An FSTD qualification is automatically lost when any of the
following occurs:
(1) The FSTD is not used in the sponsor's FAA-approved flight
training program in accordance with Sec. 60.7(b)(5) or (b)(6) and the
sponsor does not obtain and maintain the written statement as described
in Sec. 60.7(d)(2).
(2) The FSTD is not inspected in accordance with Sec. 60.19.
(3) The FSTD is physically moved from one location and installed in
a different location, regardless of distance.
(4) The MQTG is missing or otherwise not available and a
replacement is not made within 30 days.
(b) If FSTD qualification is lost under paragraph (a) of this
section, qualification is restored when either of the following
provisions is met:
(1) The FSTD successfully passes an evaluation:
(i) For initial qualification, in accordance with Sec. Sec. 60.15
and 60.17(c) in those circumstances where the NSPM has determined that
a full evaluation for initial qualification is necessary; or
(ii) For those elements of an evaluation for initial qualification,
in accordance with Sec. Sec. 60.15 and 60.17(c), as determined to be
necessary by the NSPM.
(2) The NSPM advises the sponsor that an evaluation is not
necessary.
(c) In making the determinations described in paragraph (b) of this
section, the NSPM considers factors including the number of continuing
qualification evaluations missed, the number of sponsor-conducted
quarterly inspections missed, and the care that had been taken of the
device since the last evaluation.
Sec. 60.29 Other losses of qualification and procedures for
restoration of qualification.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, when the
NSPM determines that the FSTD no longer meets qualification standards,
the following procedure applies:
(1) The NSPM notifies the sponsor in writing that the FSTD no
longer meets some or all of its qualification standards.
(2) The NSPM sets a reasonable period (but not less than 7 days)
within which the sponsor may submit written information, views, and
arguments on the FSTD qualification.
(3) After considering all material presented, the NSPM notifies the
sponsor about the determination with regard to the qualification of the
FSTD.
(4) When the NSPM notifies the sponsor that some or all of the FSTD
is no longer qualified, the action described in the notification
becomes effective not less than 30 days after the sponsor receives that
notice unless--
(i) The NSPM finds under paragraph (c) of this section that there
is an emergency requiring immediate action with respect to safety in
air commerce; or
(ii) The sponsor petitions the Director of Flight Standards Service
for reconsideration of the NSPM finding under paragraph (b) of this
section.
(b) When a sponsor seeks reconsideration of a decision from the
NSPM concerning the FSTD qualification, the following procedure
applies:
(1) The sponsor must petition for reconsideration of that decision
within 30 days of the date that the sponsor receives a notice that some
or all of the FSTD is no longer qualified.
(2) The sponsor must address its petition to the Director, Flight
Standards Service, AFS-1, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20591.
(3) A petition for reconsideration, if filed within the 30-day
period, suspends the effectiveness of the determination by the NSPM
that the FSTD is no longer qualified unless the NSPM has found, under
paragraph (c) of this section, that an emergency exists requiring
immediate action with respect to safety in air commerce.
(c) If the NSPM find that an emergency exists requiring immediate
action with respect to safety in air commerce that makes the procedures
set out in this section impracticable or contrary to the public
interest:
(1) The NSPM withdraws qualification of some or all of the FSTD and
makes the withdrawal of qualification effective on the day the sponsor
receives notice of it.
(2) In the notice to the sponsor, the NSPM articulates the reasons
for its finding that an emergency exists requiring immediate action
with respect to safety in air transportation or air commerce or that
makes it impracticable or contrary to the public interest to stay the
effectiveness of the finding.
(d) FSTD qualification lost under paragraph (a) or (c) of this
section may be restored when either of the following provisions are
met:
(1) The FSTD successfully passes an evaluation for initial
qualification, in accordance with Sec. Sec. 60.15 and 60.17(c)
[[Page 63432]]
in those circumstances where the NSPM has determined that a full
evaluation for initial qualification is necessary; or
(2) The FSTD successfully passes an evaluation for those elements
of an initial qualification evaluation, in accordance with Sec. Sec.
60.15 and 60.17(c), as determined to be necessary by the NSPM.
(e) In making the determinations described in paragraph (d) of this
section, the NSPM considers factors including the reason for the loss
of qualification, any repairs or replacements that may have to have
been completed, the number of continuing qualification evaluations
missed, the number of sponsor-conducted quarterly inspections missed,
and the care that had been taken of the device since the loss of
qualification.
Sec. 60.31 Recordkeeping and reporting.
(a) The FSTD sponsor must maintain the following records for each
FSTD it sponsors:
(1) The MQTG and each amendment thereto.
(2) A record of all FSTD modifications affected under Sec. 60.23
since the issuance of the original Statement of Qualification.
(3) A copy of all of the following:
(i) Results of the qualification evaluations (initial and each
upgrade) since the issuance of the original Statement of Qualification.
(ii) Results of the objective tests conducted in accordance with
Sec. 60.19(a) for a period of 2 years.
(iii) Results of the previous three continuing qualification
evaluations, or the continuing qualification evaluations from the
previous 2 years, whichever covers a longer period.
(iv) Comments obtained in accordance with Sec. 60.9(b) for a
period of at least 90 days.
(4) A record of all discrepancies entered in the discrepancy log
over the previous 2 years, including the following:
(i) A list of the components or equipment that were or are missing,
malfunctioning, or inoperative.
(ii) The action taken to correct the discrepancy.
(iii) The date the corrective action was taken.
(iv) The identity of the person determining that the discrepancy
has been corrected.
(b) The records specified in this section must be maintained in
plain language form or in coded form if the coded form provides for the
preservation and retrieval of information in a manner acceptable to the
NSPM.
Sec. 60.33 Applications, logbooks, reports, and records: Fraud,
falsification, or incorrect statements.
(a) No person may make, or cause to be made, any of the following:
(1) A fraudulent or intentionally false statement in any
application or any amendment thereto, or any other report or test
result required by this part.
(2) A fraudulent or intentionally false statement in or a known
omission from any record or report that is kept, made, or used to show
compliance with this part, or to exercise any privileges under this
chapter.
(3) Any reproduction or alteration, for fraudulent purpose, of any
report, record, or test result required under this part.
(b) The commission by any person of any act prohibited under
paragraph (a) of this section is a basis for any one or any combination
of the following:
(1) A civil penalty.
(2) Suspension or revocation of any certificate held by that person
that was issued under this chapter.
(3) The removal of FSTD qualification and approval for use in a
training program.
(c) The following may serve as a basis for removal of qualification
of an FSTD including the withdrawal of approval for use of an FSTD; or
denying an application for a qualification:
(1) An incorrect statement, upon which the FAA relied or could have
relied, made in support of an application for a qualification or a
request for approval for use.
(2) An incorrect entry, upon which the FAA relied or could have
relied, made in any logbook, record, or report that is kept, made, or
used to show compliance with any requirement for an FSTD qualification
or an approval for use.
Sec. 60.35 Specific full flight simulator compliance requirements.
(a) No device will be eligible for initial or upgrade qualification
to a FFS at Level C or Level D under this part unless it includes the
equipment and appliances installed and operating to the extent
necessary for the issuance of an airman certificate or rating.
(b) No device will be eligible for initial or upgrade qualification
to a FFS at Level A or Level B under this part unless it includes the
equipment and appliances installed and operating to the extent
necessary for the training, testing, and/or checking that comprise the
simulation portion of the requirements for issuance of an airman
certificate or rating.
Sec. 60.37 FSTD qualification on the basis of a Bilateral Aviation
Safety Agreement (BASA).
(a) The evaluation and qualification of an FSTD by a contracting
State to the Convention on International Civil Aviation for the sponsor
of an FSTD located in that contracting State may be used as the basis
for issuing a U.S. statement of qualification (see applicable QPS,
attachment 4, figure 4) by the NSPM to the sponsor of that FSTD in
accordance with--
(1) A BASA between the United States and the Contracting State that
issued the original qualification; and
(2) A Simulator Implementation Procedure (SIP) established under
the BASA.
(b) The SIP must contain any conditions and limitations on
validation and issuance of such qualification by the U.S.
Appendix A to Part 60--Qualification Performance Standards for Airplane
Full Flight Simulators
----------------------------------------------------------------
Begin Information
This appendix establishes the standards for Airplane Full Flight
Simulator (FFS) evaluation and qualification. The Flight Standards
Service, National Simulator Program Manager (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 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. Simulator Use (Sec. 60.11).
9. Simulator Objective Data Requirements (Sec. 60.13).
10. Special Equipment and Personnel Requirements for
Qualification of the Simulator (Sec. 60.14).
11. Initial (and Upgrade) Qualification Requirements (Sec.
60.15).
12. Additional Qualifications for a Currently Qualified
Simulator (Sec. 60.16).
13. Previously Qualified Simulators (Sec. 60.17).
14. Inspection, Continuing Qualification Evaluation, and
Maintenance Requirements (Sec. 60.19).
15. Logging Simulator Discrepancies (Sec. 60.20).
16. Interim Qualification of Simulators for New Airplane Types
or Models (Sec. 60.21).
17. Modifications to Simulators (Sec. 60.23).
[[Page 63433]]
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 Full Flight Simulator Compliance Requirements
(Sec. 60.35).
24. [Reserved]
25. FSTD 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--Full Flight Simulator
(FFS) Objective Test.
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.
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. 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) Advisory Circular (AC) 120-28C, Criteria for Approval of
Category III Landing Weather Minima.
(11) AC 120-29, Criteria for Approving Category I and Category
II Landing Minima for part 121 operators.
(12) AC 120-35B, Line Operational Simulations: Line-Oriented
Flight Training, Special Purpose Operational Training, Line
Operational Evaluation.
(13) AC 120-41, Criteria for Operational Approval of Airborne
Wind Shear Alerting and Flight Guidance Systems.
(14) AC 120-57A, Surface Movement Guidance and Control System
(SMGS).
(15) AC 150/5300-13, Airport Design.
(16) AC 150/5340-1G, Standards for Airport Markings.
(17) AC 150/5340-4C, Installation Details for Runway Centerline
Touchdown Zone Lighting Systems.
(18) AC 150/5340-19, Taxiway Centerline Lighting System.
(19) AC 150/5340-24, Runway and Taxiway Edge Lighting System.
(20) AC 150/5345-28D, 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.
End Information
----------------------------------------------------------------
2. Applicability (Sec. Sec. 60.1 & 60.2)
----------------------------------------------------------------
Begin Information
There is no additional regulatory or informational material that
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.
End Information
----------------------------------------------------------------
3. Definitions (Sec. 60.3)
----------------------------------------------------------------
Begin Information
See appendix F for a list of definitions and abbreviations from
part 1 and part 60, including the appropriate appendices of part 60.
End Information
----------------------------------------------------------------
4. Qualification Performance Standards (Sec. 60.4)
----------------------------------------------------------------
Begin Information
There is no additional regulatory or informational material that
applies to Sec. 60.4, Qualification Performance Standards.
End Information
----------------------------------------------------------------
5. Quality Management System (Sec. 60.5)
----------------------------------------------------------------
Begin Information
See appendix E 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 that sponsor sponsors and uses at least one
FFS at least once during the prescribed period. There is no minimum
number of hours or minimum FFS periods 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 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 FFS was qualified prior to October 30, 2007 the 12-
month period begins on the date of the first continuing
qualification evaluation conducted in accordance with Sec. 60.19
after October 30, 2007 and continues for each subsequent 12-month
period;
(ii) A device qualified on or after October 30, 2007 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 that 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-
[[Page 63434]]
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) There is no minimum number of hours of FFS 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.
(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
FSTD.
End Information
----------------------------------------------------------------
8. Simulator Use (Sec. 60.11)
----------------------------------------------------------------
Begin Information
There is no additional regulatory or informational material that
applies to Sec. 60.11, Simulator Use.
End Information
----------------------------------------------------------------
9. Simulator 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 A2D.
(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:
(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; and
(5) Without alteration, adjustments, or bias; however the 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 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
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 certificate
was issued. This notification must be made within 10 working days.
End QPS Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------
Begin Information
e. 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).
f. 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 (a validation data
roadmap) 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.
g. 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.
h. 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, Attachment 2 requires the sponsor or other
data provider to ensure that a steady state condition exists at the
instant of time captured by the ``snapshot.'' This is often verified
by showing that a steady state condition existed from some period of
time during which the snap shot is taken. The time period most
frequently used is 5 seconds prior through 2 seconds following the
instant of time captured by the snap shot. This paragraph is
primarily addressing the source data and the method by which the
data provider ensures that the steady state condition for the snap
shot is representative.
i. The NSPM will consider, on a case-by-case basis, whether or
not to approve
[[Page 63435]]
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 Simulator (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 FFS that raise questions regarding
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;
(2) Meet the objective testing requirements listed in Attachment
2; and
(3) Satisfactorily accomplish the subjective tests listed in
Attachment 3.
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) 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 qualification test guide (QTG), acceptable to the NSPM,
that includes all of the following:
(i) Objective data obtained from aircraft testing or another
approved source.
(ii) Correlating objective test results obtained from the
performance of the FFS as prescribed in the applicable QPS.
(iii) The result of FFS subjective tests prescribed in the
applicable QPS.
(iv) 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, 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,
for a sample Continuing Qualification Evaluation Requirements page.
(3) A FFS information page that provides the information listed
in this paragraph (see Attachment 4, Figure A4B, 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 engine model(s) and its data revision number or
reference.
(e) The flight control data revision number or reference.
(f) The flight management system identification and revision
level.
(g) The FFS model and manufacturer.
(h) The date of FFS manufacture.
(i) The FFS computer identification.
(j) The visual system model and manufacturer, including display
type.
(k) 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. SOCs must provide references to the sources of
information that show the capability of the FFS to comply with the
requirements. SOCs must also provide a rationale explaining how the
referenced material is used, the mathematical equations and
parameter values used, and the conclusions reached. Refer to the
``Additional Details'' column in Attachment 1, Table A1A,
``Simulator Standards,'' or in the ``Test Details'' column in
Attachment 2, Table A2A, ``Simulator Objective Tests,'' to see when
SOCs are required.
(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, 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 supplemented
QTG for each 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
[[Page 63436]]
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 October 30, 2013 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 October 30, 2013. A copy of the eMQTG
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.
End QPS Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------
Begin Information
l. Only those FFSs that are sponsored by a certificate holder as
defined in appendix F 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.
m. 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, the objective tests
listed in Attachment 2, 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) Cockpit 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.
n. 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.
o. 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.
p. 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 flight crewmember 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.
q. 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.
r. 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. However, it
is the sponsor's responsibility to obtain TPAA approval prior to
using the FSTD in an FAA-approved flight training program.
s. 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 A4A, Sample Request for Initial, Upgrade, or Reinstatement
Evaluation.
t. The numbering system used for objective test results in the
QTG should closely follow the numbering system set out in Attachment
2, FFS Objective Tests, Table A2A.
u. 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).
v. 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 Simulator
(Sec. 60.16)
There is no additional regulatory or informational material that
applies to Sec. 60.16,
[[Page 63437]]
Additional Qualifications for a Currently Qualified FFS.
13. Previously Qualified Simulators (Sec. 60.17)
----------------------------------------------------------------
Begin QPS Requirements
a. In instances where a sponsor plans to remove a 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 October 30, 2007, are not
required to meet the general simulation requirements, the objective
test requirements, and the subjective test requirements of
attachments 1, 2, and 3, respectively, of this appendix.
c. [Reserved]
End QPS Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------
Begin Information
d. 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.
e. Each FFS user must obtain approval from the appropriate TPAA
to use any FFS in an FAA-approved flight training program.
f. The intent of the requirement listed in Sec. 60.17(b), for
each FFS to have a Statement of Qualification 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.
g. Downgrading of an FFS is a permanent change in qualification
level and will necessitate the issuance of a revised Statement of
Qualification 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.
h. It is not the intent of the NSPM to discourage the
improvement of existing simulation (e.g., the ``updating'' of a
visual system to a newer model, or the replacement of the IOS with a
more capable unit) by requiring the ``updated'' device to meet the
qualification standards current at the time of the update. Depending
on the extent of the update, the NSPM may require that the updated
device be evaluated and may require that an evaluation include all
or a portion of the elements of an initial evaluation. However, the
standards against which the device would be evaluated are those that
are found in the MQTG for that device.
i. The NSPM will determine the evaluation criteria for an FSTD
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)
----------------------------------------------------------------
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 inspection 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.
End QPS Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------
Begin Information
d. 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.
e. 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.
f. 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.
g. The requirement established in Sec. 60.19(b)(4) regarding
the frequency of NSPM-conducted continuing qualification evaluations
for each FFS 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.
End Information
----------------------------------------------------------------
15. Logging Simulator Discrepancies (Sec. 60.20)
There is no additional regulatory or informational material that
applies to Sec. 60.20. Logging FFS Discrepancies.
16. Interim Qualification of Simulators for New Airplane Types or
Models (Sec. 60.21)
There is no additional regulatory or informational material that
applies to Sec. 60.21, Interim Qualification of FFSs for New
Airplane Types or Models.
17. Modifications to Simulators (Sec. 60.23)
----------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 63438]]
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
FSTD Directives are considered modifications of an FFS. See
Attachment 4 for a sample index of effective FSTD Directives.
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. 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.
c. 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)
----------------------------------------------------------------
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. FSTD modifications can include hardware or software changes.
For FSTD 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)
There are no additional QPS requirements or informational
material that apply to Sec. 60.33, Applications, Logbooks, Reports,
and Records: Fraud, Falsification, or Incorrect Statements.
23. Specific Full Flight Simulator Compliance Requirements (Sec.
60.35)
There are no additional QPS requirements or informational
material that apply to Sec. 60.35, Specific FFS Compliance
Requirements.
24. [Reserved]
25. FSTD Qualification on the Basis of a Bilateral Aviation Safety
Agreement (BASA) (Sec. 60.37)
There are no additional QPS requirements or informational
material that apply to Sec. 60.37, FSTD Qualification on the Basis
of a Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreement (BASA).
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 a Statement of Compliance and Capability (SOC), which
may include objective and subjective tests. The SOC will confirm
that the requirement was satisfied, and describe how the requirement
was met, such as gear modeling approach or coefficient of friction
sources. The requirements for SOCs and tests 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 and the examination of functions and
subjective tests listed in attachment 3 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 cockpit 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.
End Information
[[Page 63439]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Table A1A.--Minimum Simulator Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
<<>> Simulator levels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
General simulator
No. requirements A B C D notes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. General Cockpit Configuration
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.a.......... The simulator must X X X X For simulator
have a cockpit purposes, the
that is a replica cockpit consists
of the airplane of all that
simulated with space forward of
controls, a cross section
equipment, of the flight
observable deck at the most
cockpit extreme aft
indicators, setting of the
circuit breakers, pilots' seats,
and bulkheads including
properly located, additional
functionally required
accurate and crewmember duty
replicating the stations and
airplane. The those required
direction of bulkheads aft of
movement of the pilot seats.
controls and For
switches must be clarification,
identical to the bulkheads
airplane. Pilot containing only
seats must allow items such as
the occupant to landing gear pin
achieve the storage
design ``eye compartments,
position'' fire axes or
established for extinguishers,
the airplane spare light
being simulated. bulbs, and
Equipment for the aircraft
operation of the document pouches
cockpit windows are not
must be included, considered
but the actual essential and
windows need not may be omitted.
be operable.
Additional
equipment such as
fire axes,
extinguishers,
and spare light
bulbs must be
available in the
FFS but may be
relocated to a
suitable location
as near as
practical to the
original
position. Fire
axes, landing
gear pins, and
any similar
purpose
instruments need
only be
represented in
silhouette.
An SOC is
required..
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.b.......... Those circuit X X X X
breakers that
affect procedures
or result in
observable
cockpit
indications must
be properly
located and
functionally
accurate.
An SOC is
required.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Programming
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.a.......... A flight dynamics X X X X
model that
accounts for
various
combinations of
drag and thrust
normally
encountered in
flight must
correspond to
actual flight
conditions,
including the
effect of change
in airplane
attitude, thrust,
drag, altitude,
temperature,
gross weight,
moments of
inertia, center
of gravity
location, and
configuration.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.b.......... The simulator must X X X X
have the computer
capacity,
accuracy,
resolution, and
dynamic response
needed to meet
the qualification
level sought.
An SOC is
required.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.c.......... Surface operations X
must be
represented to
the extent that
allows turns
within the
confines of the
runway and
adequate controls
on the landing
and roll-out from
a crosswind
approach to a
landing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A subjective test
is required.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.d.......... Ground handling
and aerodynamic
programming must
include the
following:
An SOC is
required.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.d.1........ Ground effect..... ... X X X Ground effect
includes
modeling that
accounts for
roundout, flare,
touchdown, lift,
drag, pitching
moment, trim,
and power while
in ground
effect.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.d.2........ Ground reaction... ... X X X Ground reaction
includes
modeling that
accounts for
strut
deflections,
tire friction,
and side forces.
This is the
reaction of the
airplane upon
contact with the
runway during
landing, and may
differ with
changes in
factors such as
gross weight,
airspeed, or
rate of descent
on touchdown.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.d.3........ Ground handling ... X X X
characteristics,
including
aerodynamic and
ground reaction
modeling
including
steering inputs,
operations with
crosswind,
braking, thrust
reversing,
deceleration, and
turning radius.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 63440]]
2.e.......... The simulator must ... ... X X If desired, Level
employ windshear A and B
models that simulators may
provide training qualify for
for recognition windshear
of windshear training by
phenomena and the meeting these
execution of standards; see
recovery Attachment 5 of
procedures. this appendix.
Models must be Windshear models
available to the may consist of
instructor/ independent
evaluator for the variable winds
following in multiple
critical phases simultaneous
of flight: components. The
(1) Prior to FAA Windshear
takeoff rotation.. Training Aid
(2) At liftoff.... presents one
(3) During initial acceptable means
climb.. of compliance
(4) On final with simulator
approach, below wind model
500 ft AGL.. requirements.
The QTG must
reference the FAA
Windshear
Training Aid or
present alternate
airplane related
data, including
the
implementation
method(s) used.
If the alternate
method is
selected, wind
models from the
Royal Windshear
Training
Aerospace
Establishment
(RAE), the Joint
Airport Weather
Studies (JAWS)
Project and other
recognized
sources may be
implemented, but
must be supported
and properly
referenced in the
QTG. Only those
simulators
meeting these
requirements may
be used to
satisfy the
training
requirements of
part 121
pertaining to a
certificate
holder's approved
low-altitude
windshear flight
training program
as described in
Sec. 121.409..
Objective tests
are required for
qualification;
see Attachment 2
and Attachment 5
of this appendix..
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.f.......... The simulator must ... ... X X Automatic
provide for ``flagging'' of
automatic testing out-of-tolerance
of simulator situations is
hardware and encouraged.
software
programming to
determine
compliance with
simulator
objective tests
as prescribed in
Attachment 2.
An SOC is
required.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.g.......... Relative responses ... ... ... ... The intent is to
of the motion verify that the
system, visual simulator
system, and provides
cockpit instrument,
instruments, motion, and
measured by visual cues that
latency tests or are, within the
transport delay stated time
tests. Motion delays, like the
onset should airplane
occur before the responses. For
start of the airplane
visual scene response,
change (the start acceleration in
of the scan of the appropriate,
the first video corresponding
field containing rotational axis
different is preferred.
information) but
must occur before
the end of the
scan of that
video field.
Instrument
response may not
occur prior to
motion onset.
Test results must
be within the
following limits:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.g.1........ 300 milliseconds X X
of the airplane
response.
Objective Tests
are required.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.g.2........ 150 milliseconds ... ... X X
of the airplane
response.
Objective Tests
are required.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.h.......... The simulator must ... ... X X
accurately
reproduce the
following runway
conditions:
(1) Dry........
(2) Wet........
(3) Icy........
(4) Patchy Wet.
(5) Patchy Icy.
(6) Wet on
Rubber Residue
in Touchdown
Zone..
An SOC is
required.
Objective tests
are required only
for dry, wet, and
icy runway
conditions; see
Attachment 2.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.i.......... The simulator must ... ... X X Simulator pitch,
simulate: side loading,
(1) brake and tire and directional
failure dynamics, control
including characteristics
antiskid failure.. should be
(2) decreased representative
brake efficiency of the airplane.
due to high brake
temperatures, if
applicable..
An SOC is
required..
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.j.......... The simulator must ... ... X X
replicate the
effects of
airframe icing.
A Subjective Test
is required.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 63441]]
2.k.......... The aerodynamic ... ... ... X See Attachment 2,
modeling in the paragraph 4, for
simulator must further
include: information on
(1) Low-altitude ground effect.
level-flight
ground effect;.
(2) Mach effect at
high altitude;.
(3) Normal and
reverse dynamic
thrust effect on
control surfaces;.
(4) Aeroelastic
representations;
and.
(5) Nonlinearities
due to sideslip..
An SOC is required
and must include
references to
computations of
aeroelastic
representations
and of
nonlinearities
due to sideslip.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.l.......... The simulator must ... X X X
have aerodynamic
and ground
reaction modeling
for the effects
of reverse thrust
on directional
control, if
applicable.
An SOC is
required.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Equipment Operation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.a.......... All relevant X X X X
instrument
indications
involved in the
simulation of the
airplane must
automatically
respond to
control movement
or external
disturbances to
the simulated
airplane; e.g.,
turbulence or
windshear.
Numerical values
must be presented
in the
appropriate units.
A subjective test
is required.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.b.......... Communications, X X X X See Attachment 3
navigation, for further
caution, and information
warning equipment regarding long-
must be installed range navigation
and operate equipment.
within the
tolerances
applicable for
the airplane.
A subjective test
is required..
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.c.......... Simulator systems X X X X
must operate as
the airplane
systems operate
under normal,
abnormal, and
emergency
operating
conditions on the
ground and in
flight.
A subjective test
is required.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.d.......... The simulator must X X X X
provide pilot
controls with
control forces
and control
travel that
correspond to the
simulated
airplane. The
simulator must
also react in the
same manner as in
the airplane
under the same
flight conditions.
A objective test
is required.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Instructor or Evaluator Facilities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.a.......... In addition to the X X X X The NSPM will
flight crewmember consider
stations, the alternatives to
simulator must this standard
have at least two for additional
suitable seats seats based on
for the unique cockpit
instructor/check configurations.
airman and FAA
inspector. These
seats must
provide adequate
vision to the
pilot's panel and
forward windows.
All seats other
than flight crew
seats need not
represent those
found in the
airplane, but
must be
adequately
secured to the
floor and
equipped with
similar positive
restraint devices.
A subjective test
is required.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.b.......... The simulator must X X X X
have controls
that enable the
instructor/
evaluator to
control all
required system
variables and
insert all
abnormal or
emergency
conditions into
the simulated
airplane systems
as described in
the sponsor's FAA-
approved training
program; or as
described in the
relevant
operating manual
as appropriate.
A subjective test
is required.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.c.......... The simulator must X X X X
have instructor
controls for
environmental
conditions
including wind
speed and
direction.
A subjective test
is required.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 63442]]
4.d.......... The simulator must ... ... X X For example,
provide the another airplane
instructor or crossing the
evaluator the active runway or
ability to converging
present ground airborne
and air hazards. traffic.
A subjective test
is required..
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Motion System
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.a.......... The simulator must X X X X For example,
have motion touchdown cues
(force) cues should be a
perceptible to function of the
the pilot that rate of descent
are (RoD) of the
representative of simulated
the motion in an airplane.
airplane.
A subjective test
is required..
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.b.......... The simulator must X X
have a motion
(force cueing)
system with a
minimum of three
degrees of
freedom (at least
pitch, roll, and
heave).
An SOC is
required.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.c.......... The simulator must ... ... X X
have a motion
(force cueing)
system that
produces cues at
least equivalent
to those of a six-
degrees-of-
freedom,
synergistic
platform motion
system (i.e.,
pitch, roll, yaw,
heave, sway, and
surge).
An SOC is
required.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.d.......... The simulator must X X X X
provide for the
recording of the
motion system
response time.
An SOC is
required.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.e.......... The simulator must X X X
provide motion
effects
programming to
include:
(1) Thrust
effect with
brakes set..
(2) Runway
rumble, oleo
deflections,
effects of
ground speed,
uneven runway,
centerline
lights, and
taxiway
characteristic
s..
(3) Buffets on
the ground due
to spoiler/
speedbrake
extension and
thrust
reversal..
(4) Bumps
associated
with the
landing gear..
(5) Buffet
during
extension and
retraction of
landing gear..
(6) Buffet in
the air due to
flap and
spoiler/
speedbrake
extension..
(7) Approach-to-
Stall buffet..
(8)
Representative
touchdown cues
for main and
nose gear..
(9) Nosewheel
scuffing, if
applicable..
(10) Mach and
maneuver
buffet..
A subjective test
is required.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.f.......... The simulator must ... ... ... X The simulator
provide should be
characteristic programmed and
motion vibrations instrumented in
that result from such a manner
operation of the that the
airplane if the characteristic
vibration marks buffet modes can
an event or be measured and
airplane state compared to
that can be airplane data.
sensed in the
cockpit.
A objective test
is required..
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Visual System
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6.a.......... The simulator must X X X X
have a visual
system providing
an out-of-the-
cockpit view.
A subjective test
is required.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6.b.......... The simulator must X X X X
have operational
landing lights
for night scenes.
Where used, dusk
(or twilight)
scenes require
operational
landing lights.
A subjective test
is required.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6.c.......... The simulator must X X X X
have instructor
controls for the
following:
(1) Cloudbase..
(2) Visibility
in statute
miles (km) and
runway visual
range (RVR) in
ft. (m)..
(3) Airport
selection..
(4) Airport
lighting..
[[Page 63443]]
A subjective test
is required.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6.d.......... Each airport scene X X X X
displayed must
include the
following:
(1) Airport
runways and
taxiways..
(2) Runway
definition..
(i) Runway
surface and
markings..
(ii) Lighting
for the
runway in
use,
including
runway
threshold,
edge,
centerline,
touchdown
zone, VASI
or PAPI, and
approach
lighting of
appropriate
colors, as
appropriate..
(iii) Taxiway
lights..
A subjective test
is required.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6.e.......... The distances at X X X X
which runway
features are
visible, as
measured from
runway threshold
to an airplane
aligned with the
runway on an
extended 3 [deg]
glide slope must
not be less than
listed below:
(1) Runway
definition,
strobe lights,
approach
lights, runway
edge white
lights VASI or
PAPI system
lights from 5
statute miles
(8 kilometers
(km)) of the
runway
threshold..
(2) Runway
centerline
lights and
taxiway
definition
from 3 statute
miles (4.8
km)..
(3) Threshold
lights and
touchdown zone
lights from 2
statute miles
(3.2 km)..
(4) Runway
markings
within range
of landing
lights for
night scenes
and as
required by
three (3) arc-
minutes
resolution on
day scenes..
A subjective test
is required.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6.f.......... The simulator must X X X X
provide visual
system
compatibility
with dynamic
response
programming.
A subjective test
is required.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6.g.......... The simulator must X X X X This will show
show that the the modeling
segment of the accuracy of RVR,
ground visible glideslope, and
from the localizer for a
simulator flight given weight,
deck is the same configuration,
as from the and speed within
airplane flight the airplane's
deck (within operational
established envelope for a
tolerances) when normal approach
at the correct and landing.
airspeed, in the
landing
configuration, at
a main wheel
height of 100
feet (30 meters)
above the
touchdown zone,
and with
visibility of
1,200 ft (350 m)
RVR.
An SOC is
required..
An objective test
is required..
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6.h.......... The simulator must ... X X X
provide visual
cues necessary to
assess sink rates
(provide depth
perception)
during takeoffs
and landings, to
include:
(1) Surface on
runways,
taxiways, and
ramps.
(2) Terrain
features.
A subjective test
is required.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6.i.......... The simulator must X X X X Visual attitude
provide for vs. simulator
accurate attitude is a
portrayal of the comparison of
visual pitch and roll
environment of the horizon
relating to the as displayed in
simulator the visual scene
attitude. compared to the
A subjective test display on the
is required.. attitude
indicator.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6.j.......... The simulator must ... ... X X
provide for quick
confirmation of
visual system
color, RVR,
focus, and
intensity.
An SOC is
required.
A subjective test
is required.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6.k.......... The simulator must ... ... X X
provide a minimum
of three airport
scenes including:
(1) Surfaces on
runways,
taxiways, and
ramps..
(2) Lighting of
appropriate
color for all
runways,
including
runway
threshold,
edge,
centerline,
VASI or PAPI,
and approach
lighting for
the runway in
use..
(3) Airport
taxiway
lighting..
[[Page 63444]]
(4) Ramps and
buildings that
correspond to
the sponsor's
Line Oriented
scenarios, as
appropriate..
A subjective test
is required.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6.l.......... The simulator must ... ... X X
be capable of
producing at
least 10 levels
of occulting.
A subjective test
is required.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6.m......... Night Visual X X X X
Scenes. When used
in training,
testing, or
checking
activities, the
simulator must
provide night
visual scenes
with sufficient
scene content to
recognize the
airport, the
terrain, and
major landmarks
around the
airport. The
scene content
must allow a
pilot to
successfully
accomplish a
visual landing.
Scenes must
include a
definable horizon
and typical
terrain
characteristics
such as fields,
roads and bodies
of water and
surfaces
illuminated by
airplane landing
lights.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6.n.......... Dusk (or Twilight) ... ... X X
Visual Scenes.
When used in
training,
testing, or
checking
activities, the
simulator must
provide dusk (or
twilight) visual
scenes with
sufficient scene
content to
recognize the
airport, the
terrain, and
major landmarks
around the
airport. The
scene content
must allow a
pilot to
successfully
accomplish a
visual landing.
Scenes must
include a
definable horizon
and typical
terrain
characteristics
such as fields,
roads and bodies
of water and
surfaces
illuminated by
airplane landing
lights.
An SOC is
required.
A subjective test
is required.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6.o.......... Daylight Visual ... ... ... X Brightness
Scenes. The capability may
simulator must be demonstrated
have night dusk with a test
(twilight), and pattern of white
daylight visual light using a
scenes with spot photometer.
sufficient scene Daylight visual
content to system is
recognize the defined as a
airport, the visual system
terrain, and capable of
major landmarks producing, at a
around the minimum, full
airport. The color
scene content presentations,
must allow a scene content
pilot to comparable in
successfully detail to that
accomplish a produced by
visual landing. 4,000 edges or
Any ambient 1,000 surfaces
lighting must not for daylight and
``washout'' the 4,000
displayed visual lightpoints for
scene. night and dusk
Note: These scenes, 6 foot-
requirements are lamberts (20 cd/
applicable to any m \2\) of light
level of measured at the
simulator pilot's eye
equipped with a position
``daylight'' (highlight
visual system.. brightness) and
An SOC is a display which
required.. is free of
A subjective test apparent
is required.. quantization and
other
distracting
visual effects
while the
simulator is in
motion.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6.p.......... The simulator must ... ... ... X For example:
provide short runways,
operational landing
visual scenes approaches over
that portray water, uphill or
physical downhill
relationships runways, rising
known to cause terrain on the
landing illusions approach path,
to pilots. unique
A subjective test topographic
is required.. features.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6.q.......... The simulator must ... ... ... X
provide special
weather
representations
of light, medium,
and heavy
precipitation
near a
thunderstorm on
takeoff and
during approach
and landing.
Representations
need only be
presented at and
below an altitude
of 2,000 ft. (610
m) above the
airport surface
and within 10
miles (16 km) of
the airport.
A subjective test
is required.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6.r.......... The simulator must ... ... ... X
present visual
scenes of wet and
snow-covered
runways,
including runway
lighting
reflections for
wet conditions,
partially
obscured lights
for snow
conditions, or
suitable
alternative
effects.
A subjective test
is required.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6.s.......... The simulator must ... ... ... X
present realistic
color and
directionality of
all airport
lighting.
A subjective test
is required.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 63445]]
7. Sound System
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7.a.......... The simulator must X X X X
provide cockpit
sounds that
result from pilot
actions that
correspond to
those that occur
in the airplane.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7.b.......... The simulator must ... ... X X
accurately
simulate the
sound of
precipitation,
windshield
wipers, and other
significant
airplane noises
perceptible to
the pilot during
normal
operations, and
include the sound
of a crash (when
the simulator is
landed in an
unusual attitude
or in excess of
the structural
gear
limitations);
normal engine and
thrust reversal
sounds; and the
sounds of flap,
gear, and spoiler
extension and
retraction.
An SOC is
required.
A subjective test
is required.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7.c.......... The simulator must ... ... ... X
provide realistic
amplitude and
frequency of
cockpit noises
and sounds.
Simulator
performance must
be recorded,
compared to
amplitude and
frequency of the
same sounds
recorded in the
airplane, and be
made a part of
the QTG.
Objective tests
are required.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table A1B--[Reserved]
Attachment 2 to Appendix A to Part 60--Full Flight Simulator (FFS)
Objective Test
----------------------------------------------------------------
Begin Information
1. For the purposes of this attachment, the flight conditions
specified in the Flight Conditions Column of Table A2A, are defined
as follows:
(a) Ground--on ground, independent of airplane configuration;
(b) Take-off--gear down with flaps/slats in any certified
takeoff position;
(c) First segment climb-- gear down with flaps/slats in any
certified takeoff position (normally not above 50 ft AGL);
(d) Second segment climb--gear up with flaps/slats in any
certified takeoff position (normally between 50 ft and 400 ft AGL);
(e) Clean--flaps/slats retracted and gear up;
(f) Cruise--clean configuration at cruise altitude and airspeed;
(g) Approach--gear up or down with flaps/slats at any normal
approach position as recommended by the airplane manufacturer; and
(h) Landing--gear down with flaps/slats in any certified landing
position.
2. 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.
3. The QPS Requirements section imposes a duty on the sponsor or
other data provider to ensure that a steady state condition exists
at the instant of time captured by the ``snapshot'' for cases where
the objective test results authorize a ``snapshot test'' or a
``series of snapshot tests'' results in lieu of a time-history. This
is often verified by showing that a steady state condition existed
from some period prior to, through some period following, the snap
shot. The time period most frequently used is from 5 seconds prior
through 2 seconds following the instant of time captured by the snap
shot. Other time periods may be acceptable as authorized by the
NSPM.
4. 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 Advisory Circulars
(AC) 25-7, as may be amended, Flight Test Guide for Certification of
Transport Category Airplanes, and (AC) 23-8, as may be amended,
Flight Test Guide for Certification of Part 23 Airplanes, for
references and examples regarding flight testing requirements and
techniques.
5. 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
1. 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 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.
c. Certain tests included in this attachment must be supported
with a Statement of Compliance and Capability (SOC). In Table
[[Page 63446]]
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, except as may be authorized by the
NSPM. 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. 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.''
i. 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.
j. 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.
k. For testing Computer Controlled Airplane (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.
l. 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.
m. Some tests will not be required for airplanes using airplane
hardware in the simulator cockpit (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.
n. For objective test purposes, ``Near maximum'' gross weight is
a weight chosen by the sponsor or data provider that is not less
than the basic operating weight (BOW) of the airplane being
simulated plus 80% of the difference between the maximum
certificated gross weight (either takeoff weight or landing weight,
as appropriate for the test) and the BOW. ``Light'' gross weight is
a weight chosen by the sponsor or data provider that is not more
than 120% of the BOW of the airplane being simulated or as limited
by the minimum practical operating weight of the test airplane.
``Medium'' gross weight is a weight chosen by the sponsor or data
provider that is approximately 10% of the average of the
numerical values of the BOW and the maximum certificated gross
weight. (Note: BOW is the empty weight of the aircraft plus the
weight of the following: normal oil quantity; lavatory servicing
fluid; potable water; required crewmembers and their baggage; and
emergency equipment. (References: Advisory Circular 120-27,
``Aircraft Weight and Balance;'' and FAA-H-8083-1, ``Aircraft Weight
and Balance Handbook.'').
End QPS Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------
Table A2A.--Full Flight Simulator (FFS) Objective Tests
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<<>>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Test Simulator Level Information notes
----------------------------------------- Tolerance Flight Conditions Test details --------------------
No. Title A B C D
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Performance
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.a. Taxi
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 63447]]
1.a.1............ Minimum Radius Turn.. 3 ft (0.9 Ground............... Record both Main and ... X X X
m) or 20% of Nose gear turning
airplane turn radius. radius. This test is
to be accomplished
without the use of
brakes and only
minimum thrust,
except for airplanes
requiring asymmetric
thrust or braking to
turn.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.a.2............ Rate of Turn vs. 10% or Ground............... Record a minimum of ... X X X
Nosewheel Steering 2% sec. two speeds, greater
Angle (NWA). turn rate. than minimum turning
radius speed, with a
spread of at least 5
knots groundspeed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.b.............. Takeoff All commonly used
takeoff flap
settings are to be
demonstrated at
least once in the
tests for minimum
unstick (1.b.3.),
normal takeoff
(1.b.4.), critical
engine failure on
takeoff (1.b.5.), or
crosswind takeoff
(1.b.6.).
1.b.1............ Ground Acceleration 5% time Takeoff.............. Record acceleration X X X X May be combined with
Time andDistance. and distance or time and distance normal takeoff
5% time for a minimum of 80% (1.b.4.) or rejected
and 200 of the time from takeoff (1.b.7.).
ft (61 m) of brake release to VR. Plotted data should
distance. Preliminary aircraft be shown using
certification data appropriate scales
may be used. for each portion of
the maneuver.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.b.2............ Minimum Control 25% of Takeoff.............. Engine failure speed X X X X If a Vmcg test is not
Speed--ground (Vmcg) maximum airplane must be within 1 knot of acceptable
controls only (per 5 ft airplane engine alternative is a
applicable (1.5 m). failure speed. flight test snap
airworthiness Additionally, for Engine thrust decay engine deceleration
standard or those simulators of must be that to idle at a speed
alternative) or airplanes with resulting from the between V11 and V1--
engine inoperative reversible flight mathematical model 10 knots, followed
test to demonstrate control systems: for the engine by control of
ground control Rudder pedal force; variant applicable heading using
characteristics. 10% or to the full flight aerodynamic control
5 lb simulator under only. Recovery
(2.2 daN). test. If the modeled should be achieved
engine is not the with the main gear
same as the airplane on the ground. To
manufacturer's ensure only
flight test engine, aerodynamic control
a further test may is used, nosewheel
be run with the same steering should be
initial conditions disabled (i.e.,
using the thrust castored) or the
from the flight test nosewheel held
data as the driving slightly off the
parameter. ground.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 63448]]
1.b.3............ Minimum Unstick Speed 3 kts Takeoff.............. Record main landing X X X X Vmu is defined as the
(Vmu) or equivalent airspeed, 1.5[deg] pitch compression or which the last main
early rotation angle. equivalent air/ landing gear leaves
takeoff ground signal. the ground. Main
characteristics. Record from 10 kt landing gear strut
before start of compression or
rotation until at equivalent air/
least 5 seconds ground signal should
after the occurrence be recorded. If a
of main gear lift- Vmu test is not
off. available,
alternative
acceptable flight
tests are a constant
high-attitude take-
off run through main
gear lift-off of an
early rotation take-
off.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.b.4............ Normal Takeoff....... 3 kts Takeoff.............. Record takeoff X X X X This test may be used
airspeed, 1.5[deg] pitch release to at least acceleration time
angle, 1.5[deg] angle ground level (AGL). (1.b.1.). Plotted
of attack, 20 ft (6 m) more than one using appropriate
height. certificated takeoff scales for each
Additionally, for configuration, a portion of the
those simulators of different maneuver.
airplanes with configuration must
reversible flight be used for each
control systems: weight. Data are
Stick/Column Force; required for a
10% or takeoff weight at
5 lb near maximum takeoff
(2.2 daN). weight with a mid-
center of gravity
and for a light
takeoff weight with
an aft center of
gravity, as defined
in appendix F.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.b.5............ Critical Engine 3 kts Takeoff.............. Record takeoff X X X X
Failure on Takeoff. airspeed, 1.5[deg] pitch maximum takeoff
angle, 1.5[deg] angle engine failure to at
of attack, 20 ft (6 m) AGL. Engine failure
height, 3[deg] heading 3 kts of
angle, 2[deg] bank
angle, 2[deg]
sideslip angle.
Additionally, for
those simulators of
airplanes with
reversible flight
control systems:
Stick/Column Force;
10% or
5 lb
(2.2 daN); Wheel
Force; 10% or 3 lb (1.3
daN); and Rudder
Pedal Force; 10% or 5 lb (2.2 daN).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.b.6............ Crosswind Takeoff.... 3 kts Takeoff.............. Record takeoff X X X X In those situations
airspeed, 1.5[deg] pitch release to at least crosswind or a
angle, 1.5[deg] angle Requires test data, crosswind is not
of attack, 20 ft (6 m) information on wind contact the NSPM.
height, 2[deg] bank crosswind component
angle, 2[deg] the maximum
sideslip angle; described in the
3[deg] Airplane Flight
heading angle. Manual (AFM), as
Additionally, for measured at 33 ft
those simulators of (10 m) above the
airplanes with runway.
reversible flight
control systems:
Stick/Column Force;
10% or
5 lb
(2.2 daN) stick/
column force, 10% or 3 lb (1.3 daN)
wheel force, 10% or 5 lb (2.2 daN)
rudder pedal force.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 63449]]
1.b.7............ Rejected Takeoff..... 5% time Takeoff.............. Record time and X X X X Autobrakes will be
or 1.5 distance from brake used where
sec, 7.5% distance stop. Speed for
or 250 initiation of the
ft (76 reject must be at
m). least 80% of V1
speed. The airplane
must be at or near
the maximum takeoff
gross weight. Use
maximum braking
effort, auto or
manual.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.b.8............ Dynamic Engine 20% or Takeoff.............. Engine failure speed ... ... X X For safety
Failure After 2[deg]/ must be within 3 kts of airplane flight test
rates. airplane data. may be performed out
Record Hands Off of ground effect at
from 5 secs. before a safe altitude, but
to at least 5 secs. with correct
after engine failure airplane
or 30[deg] Bank, configuration and
whichever occurs airspeed.
first. Engine
failure may be a
snap deceleration to
idle. (CCA: Test in
Normal and Non-
normal control
state.).
1.c.............. Climb
1.c.1............ Normal Climb, all 3 kts Clean................ Flight test data is X X X X
engines operating. airspeed, 5% or 100 FPM (0.5 m/ manual data is an
Sec.) climb rate. acceptable
alternative. Record
at nominal climb
speed and mid-
initial climb
altitude. Flight
simulator
performance must be
recorded over an
interval of at least
1,000 ft. (300m).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.c.2............ One engine 3 kts For part 23 Flight test data is X X X X
Inoperative. airspeed, 5% or 100 FPM (0.5 m/ 23. For part 25 manual data is an
Sec.) climb rate, airplanes, Second acceptable
but not less than Segment Climb. alternative. Test at
the FAA-Apprioved weight, altitude, or
Airplane Flight temperature limiting
Manual (AFM) values. conditions. Record
at nominal climb
speed. Flight
simulator
performance must be
recorded over an
interval of at least
1,000 ft. (300m).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.c.3............ One Engine 10% time, Clean................ Record results for at ... ... X X
Inoperative En route 10% least a 5000 ft
Climb. distance, 10% fuel used. segment. Flight test
data or airplane
performance manual
data may be used.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 63450]]
1.c.4............ One Engine 3 kts Approach............. Record results at X X X X The airplane should
Inoperative Approach airspeed, 5% or 100 FPM (0.5 m/ defined in appendix ice systems
requires specific Sec.) climb rate, F. Flight test data operating normally,
performance in icing but not less than or airplane with the gear up and
conditions). the climb gradient performance manual go-around flaps set.
requirements of 14 data may be used. All icing
CFR parts 23 or 25 Flight simulator accountability
climb gradient, as performance must be considerations
appropriate. recorded over an should be applied in
interval of at least accordance with the
1,000 ft. (300m). AFM for an approach
in icing conditions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.d.............. Cruise/Descent
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.d.1............ Level flight 5% Time.. Cruise............... Record results for a X X X X
acceleration. minimum of 50 kts
speed increase using
maximum continuous
thrust rating or
equivalent.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.d.2............ Level flight 5% Time.. Cruise............... Record results for a X X X X
deceleration. minimum of 50 kts
speed decrease using
idle power.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.d.3............ Cruise performance... 0.05 EPR Cruise............... May be a single ... ... X X
or 5% of snapshot showing
N1, or 5% of Torque, flow or a minimum of
5% of 2 consecutive
fuel flow. snapshots with a
spread of at least 3
minutes in steady
flight.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.e.............. Stopping
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.e.1............ Stopping time and 5% of Landing.............. Record time and X X X X
distance, using time. For distance distance for at
manual application up to 4000 ft (1220 least 80% of the
of wheel brakes and m): 200 total time from
no reverse thrust on ft (61 m) or 10%, whichever stop. Data is
is smaller. For required for weights
distance greater at medium and near
than 4000 ft (1220 maximum landing
m): 5% weights. Data for
of distance. brake system
pressure and
position of ground
spoilers (including
method of
deployment, if used)
must be provided.
Engineering data may
be used for the
medium gross weight
condition.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 63451]]
1.e.2............ Stopping time and 5% time Landing.............. Record time and X X X X
distance, using and the smaller of distance for at
reverse thrust and 10% or least 80% of the
no wheel brakes on a 200 ft total time from
dry runway. (61 m) of distance. initiation of
reverse thrust to
the minimum
operating speed with
full reverse thrust.
Data is required for
medium and near
maximum landing
gross weights. Data
on the position of
ground spoilers,
(including method of
deployment, if used)
must be provided.
Engineering data may
be used for the
medium gross weight
condition.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.e.3............ Stopping distance, 10% of Landing.............. Either flight test ... ... X X
using wheel brakes distance or 200 ft (61 m). manufacturer's
thrust on a wet performance manual
runway. data must be used
where available.
Engineering data
based on dry runway
flight test stopping
distance modified by
the effects of
contaminated runway
braking coefficients
are an acceptable
alternative.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.e.4............ Stopping distance, 10% of Landing.............. Either flight test or ... ... X X
using wheel brakes distance or 200 ft (61 m). performance manual
thrust on an icy data must be used,
runway. where available.
Engineering data
based on dry runway
flight test stopping
distance modified by
the effects of
contaminated runway
braking coefficients
are an acceptable
alternative.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.f.............. Engines
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.f.1............ Acceleration......... 10% Tt Approach or landing.. Record engine power X X X X T1 is the total time
and 10% (N1, N2, EPR, from initial
Ti, or 0.25 sec. idle to go-around until reaching a 10%
power for a rapid response of engine
(slam) throttle power.
movement. Tt is the total time
from initial
throttle movement to
reaching 90% of go
around power.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 63452]]
1.f.2............ Deceleration......... 10% Tt Ground............... Record engine power ... ... ... ... Ti is the total time
and 10% (N1, N2, EPR, from initial
Ti, or 0.25 sec. power to 90% decay until reaching a 10%
of Max T/O power for response of engine
a rapid (slam) power.
throttle movement. Tt is the total time
from initial
throttle movement to
reaching 90% decay
of maximum takeoff
power.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Handling Qualities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For simulators requiring Static or Dynamic tests at the controls (i.e., column, wheel, ... ... ... ... Contact the NSPM for
rudder pedal), special test fixtures will not be required during initial or upgrade clarification of any
evaluations if the sponsor's QTG/MQTG shows both text fixture results and the results of issue regarding
an alternative approach, such as computer plots produced concurrently, that provide airplanes with
satisfactory agreement. Repeat of the alternative method during the initial or upgrade reversible controls.
evaluation would then satisfy this test requirement. For initial and upgrade evaluations,
the control dynamic characteristics must be measured at and recorded directly from the
cockpit controls, and must be accomplished in takeoff, cruise, and landing flight
conditions and configurations. Testing of position versus force is not applicable if
forces are generated solely by use of airplane hardware in the full flight simulator
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.a.............. Static Control Tests
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.a.1.a.......... Pitch Controller 2 lb (0.9 Ground............... Record results for an X X X X Test results should
Position vs. Force daN) breakout, 10% or 5 lb (2.2 daN) stops. flight data from
force, 2[deg] longitudinal static
elevator. stability or stalls.
Static and dynamic
flight control tests
should be
accomplished at the
same feel or impact
pressures.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.a.1.b.......... (Reserved)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.a.2.a.......... Roll Controller 2 lb (0.9 Ground............... Record results for an X X X X Test results should
Position vs. Force daN) breakout, 10% or 3 lb (1.3 daN) stops. tests such as engine
force, 2[deg] state or sideslips.
aileron, 3[deg] spoiler flight control tests
angle. should be
accomplished at the
same feel or impact
pressures.
2.a.2.b.......... (Reserved)...........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.a.3.a.......... Rudder Pedal Position 5 lb (2.2 Ground............... Record results for an X X X X Test results should
vs. Force and daN) breakout, 10% or 5 lb (2.2 daN) stops. tests such as engine
force, 2\1/2\ rudder state or sideslips.
angle. Static and dynamic
flight control tests
should be
accomplished at the
same feel or impact
pressures.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.a.3.b.......... (Reserved)...........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.a.4............ Nosewheel Steering 2 lb (0.9 Ground............... Record results for an X X X X .....................
Controller Force & daN) breakout, 10% or 3 lb (1.3 daN) stops.
force, 2\1/2\
nosewheel angle.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 63453]]
2.a.5............ Rudder Pedal Steering [deg]nosewheel uninterrupted
angle. control sweep to the
stops.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.a.6............ Pitch Trim Indicator 0.5[deg] Ground............... ..................... X X X X The purpose of the
vs. Surface Position of computed trim test is to compare
Calibration. surface angle. full flight
simulator against
design data or
equivalent
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.a.7............ (Reserved)........... .....................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.a.8............ Alignment of Cockpit 5[deg] of Ground............... Requires simultaneous X X X X .....................
Throttle Lever vs. throttle lever recording for all
Selected Engine angle, or 3% N1 or 03 EPR, or against airplane
torque. data and between
For propeller-driven engines. In the case
airplanes where the of propeller powered
propeller control airplanes, if a
levers do not have propeller lever is
angular travel, a present, it must
tolerance of 0.8 inch airplanes with
(2 cm.) throttle
applies. ``detents,'' all
detents must be
presented. May be a
series of snapshot
test results..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.a.9............ Brake Pedal Position 5 lb (2.2 Ground............... Hydraulic system X X X X Full flight simulator
vs. Force and Brake daN) or 10% force, pressure must be computer output
System Pressure 150 psi related to pedal results may be used
Calibation. (1.0 MPa) or 10% brake ground static test.
system pressure.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.b.............. Dynamic Control Tests
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) Tests 2.b.1., 2.b.2., and 2.b.3 are not applicable if dynamic response is generated
solely by use of airplane hardware in the full flight simulator. Power setting is that
required for level flight unless otherwise specified.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.b.1............ Pitch Control........ For underdamped Takeoff, Cruise, and Data must show normal ... ... X X ``n'' is the
systems 10% of time in both directions. a full cycle of
from 90% of initial Tolerances apply oscillation. Refer
displacement (0.9 against the absolute to paragraph 3 of
Ad) to first zero values of each this attachment for
crossing and 10 (n+1)% of independently). Static and dynamic
period thereafter Normal control flight control tests
10% displacement for should be
amplitude of first this test is 25% to accomplished at the
overshoot applied to 50% of the maximum same feel or impact
all overshoots allowable pitch pressures.
greater than 5% of controller For the alternate
initial displacement deflection for method (see
(.05 Ad). 1 overshoot limited by the attachment).
(first significant maneuvering load The slow sweep is the
overshoot must be envelope. equivalent to the
matched). static test 2.a.1.
For overdamped For the moderate and
systems: 10% of time minus>2 lb (0.9 daN)
from 90% of initial or 10%
displacement (0.9 dynamic increment
Ad) to 10% of above the static
initial displacement force.
(0.1 Ad).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 63454]]
2.b.2............ Roll Control......... For underdamped Takeoff, Cruise, and Data must show normal ... ... X X ``n'' is the
systems: 10% of time in both directions. a full cycle of
from 90% of initial Tolerances apply oscillation. Refer
displacement (0.9 against the absolute to paragraph 3 of
Ad) to first zero values of each this attachment for
crossing, and 10 (n+1)% of independently). Static and dynamic
period thereafter. Normal control flight control tests
10% displacement for should be
amplitude of first this test is 25% to accomplished at the
overshoot, applied 50% of maximum same feel or impact
to all overshoots allowable roll pressures.
greater than 5% of controller For the alternate
initial displacement deflection for method (see
(.05 Ad), 1 overshoot limited by the attachment).
(first significant maneuvering load The slow sweep is the
overshoot must be envelope. equivalent to the
matched). static test 2.a.2.
For overdamped For the moderate and
systems: 10% of time minus>2 lb (0.9 daN)
from 90% of initial or 10%
displacement (0.9 dynamic increment
Ad) to 10% of above the static
initial displacement force.
(0.1 Ad).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.b.3............ Yaw Control.......... For underdamped Takeoff, Cruise, and Data must show normal ... ... X X ``n'' is the
systems: 10% of time in both directions. a full cycle of
from 90% of initial Tolerances apply oscillation. Refer
displacement (0.9 against the absolute to paragraph 3 of
Ad) to first zero values of each this attachment for
crossing, and 10 (n+1)% of independently). Static and dynamic
period thereafter Normal control flight control tests
10% displacement for should be
amplitude of first this test is 25% to accomplished at the
overshoot, applied 50% of full throw. same feel or impact
to all overshoots pressures.
greater than 5% of For the alternate
initial displacement method (see
(.05 Ad), 1 overshoot attachment).
(first significant The slow sweep is the
overshoot must be equivalent to the
matched). static test 2.a.3.
For overdamped For the moderate and
systems: 10% of time minus>2 lb (0.9 daN)
from 90% of initial or 10%
displacement (0.9 dynamic increment
Ad) to 10% of above the static
initial displacement force.
(0.1 Ad).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.b.4............ Small Control Inputs-- 0.15[deg]/ Approach or Landing.. Control inputs must ... ... X X
Pitch. sec body pitch rate be typical of minor
or 20% corrections made
of peak body pitch while established on
rate applied an ILS approach
throughout the time course
history. (approximately
0.5[deg]/sec to
2[deg]/sec pitch
rate). The test must
be in both
directions, showing
time history data
from 5 seconds
before until at
least 5 seconds
after initiation of
control input.
CCA: Test in normal
and non-normal
control states..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 63455]]
2.b.5............ Small Control Inputs-- 0.15[deg]/ Approach or landing.. Control inputs must ... ... X X
Roll. sec body roll rate be typical of minor
or 20% corrections made
of peak body roll while established on
rate applied an ILS approach
throughout the time course
history. (approximately
0.5[deg]/sec to
2[deg]/sec roll
rate). The test must
be run in only one
direction; however,
for airplanes that
exhibit non-
symmetrical
behavior, the test
must include both
directions. Time
history data must be
recorded from 5
seconds before until
at least 5 seconds
after initiation of
control input.
CCA: Test in normal
and non-normal
control states..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.b.6............ Small Control Inputs-- 0.15[deg]/ Approach or landing.. Control inputs must ... ... X X
Yaw. sec body yaw rate or be typical of minor
20% of corrections made
peak body yaw rate while established on
applied throughout an ILS approach
the time history. course
(approximately
0.5[deg]/sec to
2[deg]/sec yaw
rate). The test must
be run in only one
direction; however,
for airplanes that
exhibit non-
symmetrical
behavior, the test
must include both
directions. Time
history data must be
recorded from 5
seconds before until
at least 5 seconds
after initiation of
control input.
CCA: Test in normal
and non-normal
control states..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.c.............. Longitudinal Control Tests
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Power setting is that required for level flight unless otherwise specified
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 63456]]
2.c.1............ Power Change Dynamics 3 kt Approach............. Power is changed from X X X X
airspeed, 100 ft (30 m) required for
altitude, 20% or 1.5[deg] pitch continuous thrust or
angle. go-around power
setting. Record the
uncontrolled free
response from at
least 5 seconds
before the power
change is initiated
to 15 seconds after
the power change is
completed.
CCA: Test in normal
and non-normal
control states..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.c.2............ Flap/Slat Change 3 kt Takeoff through Record the X X X X
Dynamics. airspeed, 100 ft (30 m) retraction, and response from at
altitude, 20% or 1.5[deg] angle. configuration change
is initiated to 15
seconds after the
configuration change
is completed.
CCA: Test in normal
and non-normal
control states..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.c.3............ Spoiler/Speedb rake 3 kt Cruise............... Record the X X X X
Change Dynamics. airspeed, 100 ft (30 m) response from at
altitude, 20% or 1.5[deg] pitch configuration change
angle. is initiated to 15
seconds after the
configuration change
is completed. Record
results for both
extension and
retraction.
CCA: Test in normal
and non-normal
control states..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.c.4............ Gear Change Dynamics. 3 kt Takeoff (retraction), Record the time X X X X
airspeed, 100 ft (30 m) (extension). uncontrolled free
altitude, 20% or 1.5[deg] pitch least 5 seconds
angle. before the
configuration change
is initiated to 15
seconds after the
configuration change
is completed.
CCA: Test in normal
and non-normal
control states..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 63457]]
2.c.5............ Longitudinal Trim.... 0.5[deg] Cruise, Approach, and Record steady-state X X X X
stabilizer, 1[deg] level and thrust set
elevator, 1[deg] pitch May be a series of
angle, 5% net thrust CCA: Test in normal
or equivalent. and non-normal
control states..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.c.6............ Longitudinal 5 lb Cruise, Approach, and Continuous time X X X X
Maneuvering (2.2 Landing. history data or a
Stability (Stick daN) or 10% pitch tests may be used.
controller force.. Record results up to
Alternative method: approximately
1[deg] 30[deg] of bank for
or 10% approach and landing
change of elevator. configurations.
Record results for
up to approximately
45[deg] of bank for
the cruise
configuration. The
force tolerance is
not applicable if
forces are generated
solely by the use of
airplane hardware in
the full flight
simulator.
The alternative
method applies to
airplanes that do
not exhibit ``stick-
force-per-g''
characteristics..
CCA: Test in normal
and non-normal
control states..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.c.7............ Longitudinal......... 5 lb Approach............. Record results for at X X X X
(2.2 least 2 speeds above
daN) or 10% pitch trim speed. May be a
controller force.. series of snapshot
Alternative method: test results. The
1[deg] force tolerance is
or 10% not applicable if
change of elevator.. forces are generated
solely by the use of
airplane hardware in
the full flight
simulator.
The alternative
method applies to
airplanes that do
not exhibit speed
stability
characteristics..
CCA: Test in normal
and non-normal
control states..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 63458]]
2.c.8............ Stall Characteristics 3 kt Second Segment Climb, The stall maneuver X X X X
airspeed for initial and Approach or must be entered with
buffet, stall Landing. thrust at or near
warning, and stall idle power and wings
speeds. level (1g). Record
Additionally, for the stall warning
those simulators signal and initial
with reversible buffet, if
flight control applicable. Time
systems: 10% or 5 lb (2.2 staff and initiation
daN)) Stick/Column of recovery. The
force (prior to ``g stall warning signal
break'' only). must occur in the
proper relation to
buffet/stall. Full
flight simulators of
airplanes exhibiting
a sudden pitch
attitude change or
``g break'' must
demonstrate this
characteristic.
CCA: Test in normal
and non-normal
control states..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.c.9............ Phugoid Dynamics..... 10% Cruise............... The test must include X X X X
period, 10% of time to the following: Three
\1/2\ or double full cycles (six
amplitude or .02 of damping input is completed),
ratio. or the number of
cycles sufficient to
determine time to \1/
2\ or double
amplitude.
CCA: Test in Non-
normal and non-
normal control
states..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.c.10........... Short Period Dynamics 1.5[deg] Cruise............... CCA: Test in Normal ... X X ...
pitch angle or 2[deg]/sec control states.
pitch rate, 0.10g
acceleration.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.c.11........... (Reserved) ..................... ..................... ..................... ... ... ... ... .....................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.d Lateral Directional Tests
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Power setting is that required for level flight unless otherwise specified
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Power setting is that required for level flight unless otherwise specified
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.d.1............ Minimum Control 3 kt Takeoff or Landing Takeoff thrust must X X X X Low Speed Engine
Speed, Air (Vmca or airspeed. (whichever is most be used on the Inoperative Handling
Vmcl), per critical in the operating engine(s). may be governed by a
Applicable airplane). A time history or a performance or
Airworthiness series of snapshot control limit that
Standard or Low tests may be used. prevents
Speed Engine CCA: Test in Normal demonstration of
Inoperative Handling and Non-normal Vmca in the
Characteristics in control states. conventional manner.
the Air.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 63459]]
2.d.2............ Roll Response (Rate). 10% or Cruise, and Approach Record results for X X X X .....................
2[deg]/ or Landing. normal roll
sec roll rate. controller
Additionally, for deflection (about
those simulators of one-third of maximum
airplanes with roll controller
reversible flight travel). May be
control systems: combined with step
10% or input of flight deck
3lb (1.3 roll controller test
daN) wheel force. (2.d.3).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.d.3............ Roll Response to 10% or Approach or Landing.. Record from X X X X With wings level,
Cockpit Roll 2[deg] initiation of roll apply a step roll
Controller Step bank angle. through 10 seconds control input using
Input. after control is approximately one-
returned to neutral third of the roll
and released. May be controller travel.
combined with roll When reaching
response (rate) test approximately
(2.d.2). 20[deg] to 30[deg]
CCA: Test in Normal of bank, abruptly
and Non-normal return the roll
control states.. controller to
neutral and allow
approximately 10
seconds of airplane
free response.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.d.4............ Spiral Stability..... Correct trend and Cruise............... Record results for X X X X .....................
2[deg] both directions.
or 10% Airplane data
bank angle in 20 averaged from
seconds. multiple tests may
Alternate test be used.
requires correct As an alternate test,
trend and 2[deg] lateral control
aileron.. required to maintain
a steady turn with a
bank angle of
approximately
30[deg].
CCA: Test in Normal
and Non-normal
control states..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.d.5............ Engine Inoperative 1[deg] Second Segment Climb, May be a series of X X X X The test should be
Trim. rudder angle or and Approach or snapshot tests. performed in a
1[deg] Landing. manner similar to
tab angle or that for which a
equivalent pedal, pilot is trained to
2[deg] trim an engine
sideslip angle. failure condition.
Second segment climb
test should be at
takeoff thrust.
Approach or landing
test should be at
thrust for level
flight.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.d.6............ Rudder Response...... 2[deg]/ Approach or Landing.. Record results for X X X X .....................
sec or 10% yaw rate. augmentation system
ON and OFF. A rudder
step input of 20%-
30% rudder pedal
throw is used.
CCA: Test in Normal
and Non-normal
control states..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 63460]]
2.d.7............ Dutch Roll (Yaw 0.5 sec Cruise, and Approach Record results for at ... X X X .....................
Damper OFF). or 10% or Landing. least 6 complete
of period, 10% of time to stability
\1/2\ or double augmentation OFF.
amplitude or .02 of damping and Non-normal
ratio. 20% or 1 sec of time
difference between
peaks of bank and
sideslip.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.d.8............ Steady State Sideslip For given rudder Approach or Landing.. May be a series of X X X X .....................
position, 2[deg] bank results using at
angle, 1[deg] positions. Propeller
sideslip angle, driven airplanes
10% or must test in each
2[deg] direction.
aileron, 10% or 5[deg] spoiler
or equivalent roll,
controller position
or force.
Additionally, for
those simulators of
airplanes with
reversible flight
control systems:
10% or
3 lb
(1.3 daN) wheel
force 10% or 5 lb (2.2 daN)
rudder pedal force.
2.e.............. Landings
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.e.1............ Normal Landing....... 3 kt Landing.............. Record results from a ... X X X Tests should be
airspeed, 1.5[deg] pitch (61 m) AGL to nose- normal landing flap
angle, 1.5[deg] angle CCA: Test in Normal applicable). One
of attack, 10% or 10 ft (3 m) landing weight. The
height. other should be at
Additionally, for light or medium
those simulators of landing weight.
airplanes with
reversible flight
control systems:
10% or
5 lbs
(2.2
daN) stick/column
force.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.e.2............ Miminum Flap Landing. 3 kt Minimum Certified Record results from a ... ... X X
airspeed, 1.5[deg] pitch Configuration. (61 m) AGL to
angle, 1.5[deg] angle with airplane at
of attack, 10% or 10 ft (3 m)
height.
Additionally, for
those simulators of
airplanes with
reversible flight
control systems:
10% or
5 lbs
(2.2 daN) stick/
column force.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.e.3............ Crosswind Landing.... 3 kt Landing.............. Record results from a ... X X X Test data should
airspeed, 1.5[deg] pitch (61 m) AGL, through on wind profile, for
angle, 1.5[deg] angle to 50% decrease in component of 60% of
of attack, 10% or 10 ft (3 m) as measured at 33 ft
height 2[deg] bank runway.
angle, 2[deg]
sideslip angle,
3[deg]
heading angle.
Additionally, for
those simulators of
airplanes with
reversible flight
control systems:
10% or
3 lbs
(1.3 daN) wheel
force 10% or 5 lb (2.2 daN)
rudder pedal force.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.e.4............ One Engine 3 kt Landing.............. Record results from a ... X X X
Inoperative Landing. airspeed,