[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 132 (Thursday, July 10, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 39462-39753]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-15432]



[[Page 39461]]

Vol. 79

Thursday,

No. 132

July 10, 2014

Part II





Department of Transportation





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





Federal Aviation Administration





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





14 CFR Part 60





Flight Simulation Training Device Qualification Standards for Extended 
Envelope and Adverse Weather Event Training Tasks; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 79 , No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 39462]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 60

[Docket No.: FAA-2014-0391; Notice No. 2014-04]
RIN 2120-AK08


Flight Simulation Training Device Qualification Standards for 
Extended Envelope and Adverse Weather Event Training Tasks

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to amend the Qualification Performance 
Standards for flight simulation training devices (FSTDs) for the 
primary purpose of improving existing technical standards and 
introducing new technical standards for evaluating an FSTD for full 
stall and stick pusher maneuvers, upset recognition and recovery 
maneuvers, maneuvers conducted in airborne icing conditions, takeoff 
and landing maneuvers in gusting crosswinds, and bounced landing 
recovery maneuvers. These new and improved technical standards are 
intended to fully define FSTD fidelity requirements for conducting new 
flight training tasks introduced through recent changes in the air 
carrier training requirements as well as to address various National 
Transportation Safety Board and Aviation Rulemaking Committee 
recommendations. The proposal also updates the FSTD technical standards 
to better align with the current international FSTD evaluation guidance 
and introduces a new FSTD level that expands the number of qualified 
flight training tasks in a fixed-base flight training device. The 
proposed changes would ensure that the training and testing environment 
is accurate and realistic, would codify existing practice, and would 
provide greater harmonization with international guidance for 
simulation. With the exception of the proposal to codify new FSTD 
technical standards for specific training tasks through an FSTD 
Directive, the proposed amendments would not apply to previously 
qualified FSTDs.

DATES: Send comments on or before October 8, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2014-0391 
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your 
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S. 
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room 
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket 
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., 
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at 202-493-2251.
    Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments 
from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts 
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the 
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system 
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at 
www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at 
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions 
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140 
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning 
this action, contact Larry McDonald, Air Transportation Division/
National Simulator Program Branch, AFS-205, Federal Aviation 
Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, GA 30320; telephone (404) 474-
5620; email [email protected].
    For legal questions concerning this action, contact Robert H. 
Frenzel, Manager, Operations Law Branch, Office of the Chief Counsel, 
Regulations Division (AGC-200), Federal Aviation Administration, 800 
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-
3073; email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA's) authority to issue 
rules on aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States 
Code. Subtitle I, Section 106(f) describes the authority of the FAA 
Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more 
detail the scope of the agency's authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in 49 
U.S.C. 44701(a)(5), which requires the Administrator to promulgate 
regulations and minimum standards for other practices, methods, and 
procedures necessary for safety in air commerce and national security. 
This amendment to the regulation is within the scope of that authority 
because it prescribes an accepted method for testing and evaluating 
flight simulation training devices used to train and evaluate 
flightcrew members.
    In addition, the Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration 
Extension Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-216) specifically required the FAA 
to conduct rulemaking to ensure that all flightcrew members receive 
flight training in recognizing and avoiding stalls, recovering from 
stalls, and recognizing and avoiding upset of an aircraft, as well as 
the proper techniques to recover from upset. This rulemaking is within 
the scope of the authority in Public Law 111-216 and is necessary to 
fully implement the training requirements recently adopted in the 
Qualification, Service, and Use of Crewmembers and Aircraft Dispatchers 
final rule (Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule), 
RIN 2120-AJ00. See 78 FR 67800 (Nov. 12, 2013).

List of Abbreviations and Acronyms Frequently Used in This Document

AC--Advisory Circular
ARC--Aviation Rulemaking Committee
AURTA--Airplane Upset Recovery Training Aid
FFS--Full Flight Simulator
FTD--Flight Training Device
FSTD--Flight Simulation Training Device
ICATEE--International Committee on Aviation Training in Extended 
Envelopes
LOCART--Loss of Control Avoidance and Recovery Training Working 
Group
NPRM--Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
QPS--Qualification performance standards
SNPRM--Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
SPAW ARC--Stick Pusher and Adverse Weather Event Training Aviation 
Rulemaking Committee

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary
II. Background
    A. Statement of the Problem
    B. History
    1. Industry Stall and Stick Pusher Working Group
    2. International Committee on Aviation Training in Extended 
Envelopes (ICATEE)
    3. Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Extension 
Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-216)
    4. Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule

[[Page 39463]]

    5. Stick Pusher and Adverse Weather Event Training Aviation 
Rulemaking Committee (SPAW ARC)
    6. Advisory Circular (AC) 120-109 (Stall and Stick Pusher 
Training)
    7. Loss of Control Avoidance and Recovery Training (LOCART) 
Working Group
    C. Deficiencies in FSTD Evaluation Requirements
    1. Full Stall Training Maneuvers
    2. Upset Recognition and Recovery Training Maneuvers
    3. Airborne Icing Training Maneuvers
    4. Microburst and Windshear Recovery Maneuvers
    5. Takeoff and Landing in Gusting Crosswinds
    6. Bounced Landing Recovery Maneuvers
    D. Related Actions
    E. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Recommendations
III. Discussion of the Proposal
    A. The FSTD Evaluation Process
    B. General Rationale for the Proposal
    C. Requirements Applicable to Previously Qualified FSTDs--FSTD 
Directive 2 (Appendix A, Attachment 6)
    D. FSTD Evaluation Requirements for Full Stall Training Tasks 
(Appendix A; Table A1a, Section 2.1.7.S, Table A2A, Tests 
2.a.10.c.8, and 3.f.8; Table A3a, Test 5.b.1; and Attachment 7)
    E. FSTD Evaluation Requirements for Upset Recognition and 
Recovery Training Tasks (Appendix A; Table A1A, Section 2.1.6.S and 
Attachment 7)
    F. FSTD Evaluation Requirements for Airborne Icing Training 
Tasks (Appendix A; Table A1A, Section 2.1.5.S; Table A2A, Test 2.i. 
and Attachment 7)
    G. FSTD Evaluation Requirements for Takeoff and Landing Training 
Tasks in Gusting Crosswinds (Appendix A, Table A1A, Sections 3.1.S, 
3.1.R, and 11.4.R)
    H. FSTD Evaluation Requirements for Bounced Landing Training 
Tasks (Appendix A, Table A1A, Section 3.1.S)
    I. FSTD Evaluation Requirements for Windshear Training Tasks 
(Appendix A, Table A1a, Section 11.2.R)
    J. Significant Changes To Align With the International FSTD 
Evaluation Guidance (Appendix A)
    1. Table A1A (General Requirements)
    2. Table A2A (Objective Testing Requirements)
    3. Table A3A (Functions and Subjective Testing Requirements)
    4. Table A3B (Class I Airport Models)
    5. Table A3D (Motion System Effects)
    K. New Level 7 Fixed Wing FSTD Requirements--Appendix B Changes 
(Appendix B, Tables B1A, B1B, B2A, B3A, B3B, B3C, B3D, and B3E)
    L. Miscellaneous Amendments To Improve and Codify FSTD 
Evaluation Procedures (Sec. Sec.  60.15, 60.17, 60.19, 60.23, 
Appendix A Paragraph 11)
IV. Regulatory Notices and Analysis
V. Executive Order Determinations
VI. Additional Information

I. Executive Summary

    The primary purpose of this proposal is to define simulator 
fidelity requirements for new training tasks that were mandated for air 
carrier training programs by Public Law 111-216. The notice of proposed 
rulemaking (NPRM) proposes to accomplish this by establishing new or 
updated Flight Simulation Training Device (FSTD) technical evaluation 
standards for full stall and upset recognition and recovery training 
tasks as required in the Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training 
Final Rule and as proposed by the Stick Pusher and Adverse Weather 
Event Training ARC (SPAW ARC).
    The Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule added 
training requirements for pilots that target the prevention of and 
recovery from stall and upset conditions, recovery from bounced 
landings, enhanced runway safety training, and enhanced training on 
crosswind takeoffs and landings with gusts. Stall and upset prevention 
requires pilot skill in manual handling maneuvers and procedures. 
Therefore, the manual handling maneuvers most critical to stall and 
upset prevention (i.e., slow flight, loss of reliable airspeed, and 
manually controlled departure and arrival) are included as part of the 
agency's overall stall and upset mitigation strategy. These maneuvers 
are identified in the Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final 
Rule within the ``extended envelope'' training provision, which further 
requires that these maneuvers be completed in an FSTD. As a result, 
revisions to all part 121 training programs will be necessary and 
revisions to part 60 will be required to fully implement the extended 
envelope, bounced landing, and gusty crosswinds flight training 
required by the Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule.
    In addition, this proposal addresses a potential lack of simulator 
fidelity as identified in several NTSB safety recommendations and 
Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) recommendations concerning flight 
training tasks, such as anti-icing, bounced landing, gusty crosswind, 
and extended envelope training. These changes are necessary to ensure a 
realistic crew training environment and to prevent incorrect simulator 
training.
    For the purpose of this rulemaking, the term ``extended envelope 
training tasks'' (such as full stall and aircraft upset recovery) 
refers to maneuvers and procedures conducted in a FSTD that may extend 
beyond the limits where typical FSTD performance and handling qualities 
have been validated with heavy reliance on flight data to represent the 
actual aircraft. In instances when obtaining such flight data is 
hazardous or impractical, engineering predictive methods and subject-
matter-expert assessment are used to program and validate the 
aircraft's behavior in the simulator.
    The secondary purpose of this NPRM is to align the technical 
standards for Level C and D (fixed wing) FSTDs that are defined in 
Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 60 with the 
current international FSTD evaluation guidelines published in the 
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) document 9625 Edition 
3, Manual of Criteria for the Qualification of Flight Simulation 
Training Devices (ICAO 9625, Edition 3). These changes would 
incorporate the technical guidelines for the highest level of ICAO-
defined FSTD (Type VII) into the part 60 Level C and Level D FSTD 
standards, where appropriate. This proposal also introduces a new level 
of fixed-wing FSTD (a Level 7 flight training device (FTD)) that is 
based upon the ICAO 9625, Edition 3, Type V FSTD technical guidance. 
Changes intended to align with the ICAO guidance would address new 
aircraft and simulation technology introduced since the original 
issuance of part 60, incorporate general improvements to the FSTD 
evaluation standards, and provide air carriers and flight training 
providers with additional options for conducting approved training 
tasks in an FTD as opposed to a more costly full flight simulator 
(FFS).
    In general, the proposed changes to the technical standards would 
apply only to those FSTDs that are initially qualified or upgraded in 
qualification level after the final rule becomes effective. For 
previously qualified FSTDs used to conduct extended envelope, airborne 
icing, gusting crosswind, and bounced landing training, the FAA is also 
seeking comment on a proposed FSTD Directive that would require FSTD 
Sponsors to retroactively evaluate those FSTDs against certain 
objective and subjective testing requirements as defined in the QPS 
appendices and modify them if necessary to meet the proposed 
requirements. This proposed FSTD Directive would be applicable to any 
FSTD being used to conduct these training tasks, including those FSTDs 
being used to conduct such training on a voluntary basis in a non-air 
carrier flight training program. Those previously qualified devices 
that would not be used to conduct these specified training tasks would 
not require modification or evaluation.
    For all FSTDs that are initially qualified or upgraded in 
qualification level after implementation of these regulations, the 
proposed changes to the

[[Page 39464]]

QPS appendices would become effective 30 days after publication of a 
final rule. However, new FSTDs may still be initially qualified under 
existing standards after this date, subject to up to a 24 month grace 
period as currently defined in Sec.  60.15(c). For previously qualified 
FSTDs that will be used to conduct certain extended envelope and other 
training tasks described in the Crewmember and Dispatcher Training 
Final Rule, compliance with the proposed FSTD Directive would be 
required within three years of the publication date of a final rule 
implementing these provisions. The FAA is seeking comment on these 
proposed compliance dates.
    A summary of the cost and benefit information is presented below.
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.236
    
II. Background

A. Statement of the Problem

    In order to mitigate aircraft loss of control accidents and to 
comply with the requirements of Public Law 111-216, the FAA has 
required new or revised flight training requirements in the Crewmember 
and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule for flight maneuvers such 
as full stall and upset recovery training. Through participation with 
various industry working groups and recommendations received from the 
SPAW ARC, the FAA determined that many existing FSTDs used by air 
carriers to conduct such training may not adequately represent the 
simulated aircraft to a degree necessary for successful completion of 
required training tasks. Additionally, the FAA evaluated several recent 
air carrier accidents and determined that low FSTD fidelity or the lack 
of ability for an FSTD to adequately conduct certain training tasks may 
have been a contributing factor in these accidents. A potential lack of 
simulator fidelity could contribute to inaccurate or incomplete 
training on new training tasks that are required by the Crewmember and 
Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule, which could lead to an 
associated and unnecessary safety risk.
    Furthermore, since the initial publication of the part 60 final 
rule in 2008, the international FSTD qualification guidance published 
in ICAO 9625, Edition 3 have been updated to incorporate general 
improvements to new aircraft and simulation technology and the 
introduction of new FSTD levels that better align FSTD fidelity with 
required training tasks. The ICAO 9625 document is an internationally 
recognized set of FSTD evaluation guidelines that was developed by a 
wide range of government and industry experts on flight simulation 
training and technology and has been used as a basis for national 
regulation and guidance material for FSTD evaluation in many countries. 
Internationally aligned FSTD standards facilitate cost savings for FSTD 
operators because they effectively reduce the number of different FSTD 
designs that are required to meet multiple national regulations and 
standards for FSTD qualification.
    The proposals in this NPRM were largely developed using 
recommendations from the SPAW ARC \1\ and the international FSTD 
qualification guidelines that are published in ICAO Document 9625, 
Edition 3.\2\ These proposals are primarily directed at improving the 
fidelity of FSTDs that would be used in air carrier pilot training. 
They would also have an added benefit of improving the fidelity of all 
FSTDs qualified after the proposed rule becomes effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A copy of the SPAW ARC final report has been placed in the 
docket for this rulemaking.
    \2\ International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) 
publications can be located on their public internet site at: http://www.icao.int/.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 39465]]

B. History

1. Industry Stall and Stick Pusher Working Group
    In March 2010, the FAA worked with industry leaders to address 
concerns arising from the increase in stall and loss of control 
accidents. The Stall and Stick Pusher Working Group met over a 9 month 
period and produced many training recommendations to prevent stall 
events. This working group included members from aircraft 
manufacturers, simulator manufacturers, training companies, pilot 
associations, airlines, and the FAA.
    In addition to providing best training practices using current 
simulation, the working group recommended that simulators in use today 
should not be used for training to or past the aerodynamic stall unless 
further testing and validation in that flight regime are performed for 
the specific simulator and approved by the FAA. This working group did 
not recommend post-stall training because the roll and yaw 
characteristics and the stall buffet characteristics of the simulator 
may not be representative of the aircraft.
2. International Committee on Aviation Training in Extended Envelopes 
(ICATEE)
    In 2009, the Royal Aeronautical Society formed the International 
Committee on Aviation Training in Extended Envelopes (ICATEE) working 
group to examine aircraft upset recovery training and recommend 
improvements to both training and simulation devices used to conduct 
training. This working group was comprised of subject matter experts in 
many facets of industry and government including airlines, flight 
training providers, research entities, FSTD manufacturers, airframe 
manufacturers, regulatory authorities, and airline pilots associations. 
The ICATEE working methodology was to first conduct a training needs 
analysis using subject matter experts in the area of pilot training and 
then determine the training device requirements as a function of the 
identified training needs. Once the training needs were established, 
subject matter experts in FSTD technology developed proposed 
modifications to the FSTD qualification standards to support the 
recommended training tasks. While the ICATEE final report has not been 
published yet, several interim recommendations from ICATEE on FSTD 
technical evaluation standards for stall, upset recovery, and airborne 
icing maneuvers were provided to the SPAW ARC for consideration in 
developing its recommendations.
3. Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 
2010 (Pub. L. 111-216)
    On August 1, 2010, President Obama signed into law Public Law 111-
216. In addition to extending the FAA's authorization, Public Law 111-
216 included provisions to improve airline safety and pilot training. 
Specifically, section 208 of Public Law 111-216, Implementation of NTSB 
Flight Crewmember Training Recommendations, pertains directly to this 
rulemaking in that stall training and upset recovery training were 
mandated for part 121 air carrier flightcrew members.
4. Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule
    On November 12, 2013, the FAA published the Crewmember and Aircraft 
Dispatcher Training Final Rule, adding the training tasks required by 
Public Law 111-216, specifically targeting extended envelope training, 
recovery from bounced landings, enhanced runway safety training, and 
enhanced training on crosswind takeoffs and landings with gusts which 
further requires that these maneuvers be completed in an FSTD. As a 
result, revisions to all part 121 training programs will be necessary 
and the revisions to part 60 as proposed in this rule will be required 
to ensure FSTDs are properly evaluated in order to fully implement the 
flight training required in the Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher 
Training Final Rule.
    In the Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule, the 
FAA established a 5-year compliance period for air carriers to update 
their training programs because of the need to revise both the FSTD 
standards and to allow for FSTD sponsors to have a sufficient amount of 
time to make any required modifications to their FSTDs as a result of 
this rulemaking. The FAA recognizes that a significant amount of 
engineering, testing, and subject matter expert evaluation time will be 
required to evaluate and modify the numerous FSTDs that will be 
required to conduct such tasks in part 121 training programs. As a 
result, the FAA has proposed a 3-year compliance period in the FSTD 
Directive that would require the evaluation and modification of 
previously qualified FSTDs that will be used for certain ``extended 
envelope'' and other training tasks in the Crewmember and Aircraft 
Dispatcher Training Final Rule. The FAA believes that the 5-year 
compliance period in the Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training 
Final Rule provides sufficient time to complete this rulemaking and 
also to give FSTD sponsors enough time to comply with the proposed 3-
year compliance period in the FSTD Directive. While the FAA recognizes 
that some sponsors and operators may already have the technology and 
simulation knowledge necessary to make the changes proposed in the FSTD 
Directive, we recognize that there is a significant variation in the 
capability of previously qualified FSTDs as well as the technical 
expertise available to FSTD sponsors which could require more or less 
compliance time than what the FAA has anticipated. We request comment 
on whether the 3-year compliance period in the FSTD Directive is 
adequate, too short, or too long. The comments should also take into 
consideration the March 2019 compliance date for the new training task 
requirements in the Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final 
Rule and indicate whether that time is adequate, too short, or too 
long.
5. Stick Pusher and Adverse Weather Event Training Aviation Rulemaking 
Committee
    The formation of the SPAW ARC was mandated by Public Law 111-216, 
Section 208. It held its first meeting on November 30, 2010, and held 
its last full group meeting on May 12, 2011. The SPAW ARC included 
members from aircraft manufacturers, simulator manufacturers, training 
companies, pilot associations, and airlines.
    The final report provided numerous recommendations to the FAA on 
stall and stick pusher training, upset recovery training, icing 
training, and microburst and windshear training. In addition to the 
training recommendations, the ARC made recommendations to the FAA in 
its final report concerning the potential lack of simulator fidelity 
and proposed modifications to part 60 to address those deficiencies. 
The ARC cited several specific areas of improvement to simulation 
including modeling of flight dynamics and performance changes due to 
ice accretion, modeling of aircraft response in a stall, and providing 
flight instructors with improved feedback concerning the validity of 
the simulation during upset prevention and recovery training maneuvers. 
A copy of the SPAW ARC's final report has been placed in the docket for 
this rulemaking.
6. Advisory Circular (AC) 120-109 (Stall and Stick Pusher Training)
    In August 2012, the FAA issued AC 120-109 (Stall and Stick Pusher

[[Page 39466]]

Training),\3\ which provided a series of best practices relating to 
training, testing, and checking of stall warnings; aerodynamic stalls 
and stick pusher activations; and recommended recovery procedures. The 
content of this AC was developed using the recommendations of previous 
working groups and was intended to provide guidance to training 
providers and air carriers to ensure correct and consistent responses 
to unexpected stall warnings and stick pusher activations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ FAA Advisory Circulars can be located on the FAA's public 
internet site at: http://www.airweb.faa.gov/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

7. Loss of Control Avoidance and Recovery Training (LOCART) Working 
Group
    In March 2012, the FAA reconvened the SPAW ARC to seek more 
detailed recommendations on academic and flight training programs to 
support the upset prevention and recovery training that was proposed by 
the SNPRM on air carrier crewmember training. The ARC was also tasked 
with examining the training device requirements to support upset 
prevention and recovery training in an FSTD. The final report from this 
ARC included technical recommendations to revise the part 60 FSTD 
standards to include minimum FSTD evaluation requirements for upset 
prevention and recovery training maneuvers. Some of these 
recommendations to amend part 60 expanded upon the previous 
recommendations made in the original SPAW ARC report. A copy of this 
final report has also been placed in the docket for this rulemaking.

C. Deficiencies in FSTD Evaluation Requirements

1. Full Stall Training Maneuvers
    The SPAW ARC examined various issues involving stall training and 
recommended against any simulator training being conducted beyond the 
first indication of the stall unless the simulator modeling and 
fidelity are such that the simulation of the specific airplane is 
representative in this flight regime. Particular concerns addressed by 
the SPAW ARC regarding FSTD fidelity in full stall maneuvers were the 
modeling of aircraft stability and aircraft response to control inputs, 
improved motion response for acceleration cueing, and improved modeling 
of the stall buffet to cover a broader range of flight conditions. The 
SPAW ARC also made recommendations concerning the evaluation of FSTD 
stall characteristics in flight conditions other than wings-level 
stalls. These include stall training maneuvers such as high altitude 
cruise stall, turning flight (accelerated) stall, and the objective 
validation of stick pusher forces (where equipped in the aircraft).
    The exposure of flightcrews to a low fidelity representation of an 
airplane's stall characteristics in an FSTD can lead to improper 
recovery techniques being reinforced during training. Such improper 
recovery techniques can be evidenced in the investigation of the 1996 
Airborne Express DC-8 aircraft accident in Narrows, Virginia. In this 
investigation, the NTSB concluded that the flightcrew had been exposed 
to a low fidelity reproduction of the DC-8's stall characteristics in 
the company's flight simulator that likely contributed to their 
inappropriate response to an actual stall in the aircraft. The NTSB 
report stated:
    The simulator's benign flight characteristics when flown more into 
the stall provided the flightcrew with a misleading expectation of the 
handling characteristics of the actual airplane. The [pilot flying 
(PF)] initial target pitch attitudes during the attempted stall 
recovery (from 10 degrees to 14 degrees) may have resulted in a 
successful recovery during his practice and teaching in the simulator. 
Further, because their experience with stalls in the DC-8 was obtained 
in a simulator without a stall break, the PF and [pilot not flying 
(PNF)] could not practice the nose-down control inputs required to 
recover a stalled airplane that is pitching down or at a nose-low 
attitude. Moreover, because the PF and PNF were exposed during 
extensive simulator experience to what they presumed was the stall 
behavior of the DC-8, the stall break that occurred in the airplane 
most likely surprised them. The Safety Board concludes that the 
flightcrew's exposure to a low fidelity reproduction of the DC-8's 
stall characteristics in the ABX DC-8 flight training simulator was a 
factor in the PF holding aft (stall-inducing) control column inputs 
when the airplane began to pitch down and roll, which contributed to 
the accident.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See NTSB aircraft accident report number NTSB/AAR-97/05: 
Uncontrolled Flight into Terrain; ABX Air (Airborne Express); 
Douglas DC-8-63, N827AX; Narrows, Virginia (Dec. 22, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA notes that because there has never been a requirement for 
an air carrier to conduct training in a simulator to a full stall,\5\ 
there has been relatively little exposure of flightcrews to such low 
fidelity stall characteristics in a simulator. However, once full stall 
training becomes a mandatory training requirement for air carriers, it 
is imperative that any FSTD being used to conduct such training is 
properly evaluated to ensure such negative training does not take place 
as evidenced in the Airborne Express accident. Failing to properly 
evaluate air carrier FSTDs to deliver this training would potentially 
expose many crewmembers to incorrect stall characteristics in an FSTD 
and thereby introducing an associated safety risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Air carrier flight training is currently only required to 
train to an ``approach to stall'' flight condition where recovery is 
initiated at the activation of the stall warning system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Upset Recognition and Recovery Training Maneuvers
    The SPAW ARC recommended that simulator and academic training in 
upset prevention and recovery should be based on the Airplane Upset 
Recovery Training Aid (AURTA).\6\ The SPAW ARC further stated that 
instructors do not always have the proper tools to provide adequate 
feedback to students with respect to control responses and aircraft 
operating limits during upset prevention and recovery training. 
Additionally, they noted if part of the training is conducted outside 
of the simulator's validated envelope,\7\ there is an increased risk 
that the simulator will no longer accurately replicate the aircraft, 
which could result in negative training. The SPAW ARC recommended 
improved instructor feedback tools which can display when a training 
pilot has exceeded either the accepted simulator model envelope or the 
known aircraft load factor envelope. These instructor feedback tools 
would allow the instructor to identify and inform the student that he 
or she is exceeding those limits, thus mitigating potentially negative 
training. Furthermore, the SPAW ARC recommended employing the AURTA 
methods in assessing an FSTD's capability to conduct such maneuvers and 
to provide improved instructor feedback mechanisms to better evaluate 
both the FSTD's and the student's performance during such training.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Airplane Upset Recovery Training Aid can be located on 
the FAA's public Internet site at: http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/airline_operators/training/.
    \7\ An FSTD's validation envelope generally consists of those 
combinations of angle of attack and sideslip where the FSTD's 
aerodynamic model has been validated using flight test data or 
reliable predictive methods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When an FSTD is used to conduct upset recovery training, the 
instructor must be provided with the necessary tools to assess a 
student's performance when executing the recovery. When an instructor 
does not have these tools, potentially dangerous or inappropriate 
control strategies may be learned in the

[[Page 39467]]

FSTD. In the case of the 2001 American Airlines flight 587 accident, 
the NTSB determined that an unrealistic portrayal of the aircraft's 
response to a wake vortex incident in the simulator may have 
contributed to the flying pilot applying unnecessary and excessive 
control inputs that ultimately led to the structural failure of the 
aircraft. Among the deficiencies the NTSB noted in the American 
Airlines Advanced Aircraft Maneuvering Program, the following were 
directly related to simulator functionality with regard to training 
upset recovery maneuvers to flightcrew members: \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See NTSB aircraft accident report number NTSB/AAR-04/04: In-
Flight Separation of Vertical Stabilizer; American Airlines Flight 
587; Airbus Industrie A-300-605R, N14053; Belle Harbor, New York; 
November 12, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     This simulator exercise could have caused the first 
officer of the accident flight to have an ``unrealistic and exaggerated 
view of the effects of wake turbulence; erroneously associate wake 
turbulence encounters with the need for aggressive roll upset recovery 
techniques; and develop control strategies that would produce a much 
different, and potentially surprising and confusing response if 
performed during flight.''
     The simulator exercise provided ``unrealistic portrayals 
of the airplane response to wake turbulence and significantly 
suppressed control input effectiveness to induce a large rolling 
potential that was unlikely to occur with an airplane as large as an 
A300-600.''
     The simulator exercise ``encouraged the use of rudder in a 
highly dynamic situation without portraying the large buildup in 
sideslip angle and side load that would accompany such rudder inputs in 
an actual airplane.''
    Because the current FSTD evaluation standards do not contain 
minimum requirements on the implementation of aircraft upset scenarios, 
the potential remains for training to occur using such unrealistic 
upset scenarios. Furthermore, with improved instructor situational 
awareness available in the simulator (including improved feedback on 
student flight control inputs and simulator/aircraft operational 
limitations), it is possible that such aggressive roll upset recovery 
techniques as evidenced in the American 587 accident may have been 
identified and corrected during simulator training.
3. Airborne Icing Training Maneuvers
    Although the simulation of engine and airframe icing has been an 
evaluation requirement for all Level C and Level D FSTDs since the 
early 1980's, the SPAW ARC recommended improving the fidelity of the 
aerodynamic effects of aircraft icing conditions in FSTDs used in 
flightcrew member training. The SPAW ARC stated specific aircraft data 
should be used when available; lacking that, other sources of 
engineering data may be used. The SPAW ARC further cited specific 
simulator improvements that the FAA should consider in developing 
improved standards for ice accretion models, such as the aerodynamic 
effects of lift, drag, and rotational moments (e.g. pitch, roll, and 
yaw effects) through means other than weight; the effects of icing on 
control feel, airframe buffeting, and control effectiveness; the 
potential to have the aircraft stall before the stall warning systems 
activate; the simulation of ice protection equipment failures; and the 
effect on engine performance due to ice ingestion.
    Some current FSTD icing models simply employ a weight additive to 
the aircraft's gross weight in order to simulate more sluggish handling 
characteristics and higher stall speeds than expected. Although these 
characteristics may be representative of some effects of icing, the FAA 
believes the improved icing models that have been proposed would have 
an appreciable benefit to flightcrew training. FSTD icing models that 
incorporate the aerodynamic effects of ice accretion on lifting 
surfaces can provide critical recognition cues of dangerous ice 
buildup, such as changes in pitching moment, control effectiveness, and 
buffet characteristics. Furthermore, ice accretion on wing surfaces can 
disrupt the airflow over a wing, significantly in some cases, leading 
to an aerodynamic stall. Aerodynamic stall as a result of icing can 
occur at angles of attack much lower than stall warning systems are 
designed to activate. The ability to replicate these conditions in a 
simulator can provide invaluable training to flightcrews on the hazards 
of wing ice accretion and provide a higher awareness of the potential 
effects of icing conditions.\9\ These proposed improvements would 
enhance the anti-icing training tasks that are currently required for 
air carrier training programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See NTSB aircraft accident report number NTSB/AAR-96/01: In-
Flight Icing Encounter and Loss of Control; Simmons Airlines, d.b.a. 
American Eagle Flight 4184; Avions de Transport Regional (ATR) Model 
72-121, N401AM; Roselawn, Indiana (Oct. 31, 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Microburst and Windshear Recovery Maneuvers
    While accidents involving windshear and microburst have decreased 
significantly since the late 1980's, the SPAW ARC recommended improving 
FSTD evaluation requirements to support the standardization and quality 
of current training practices. Specific recommendations made by the 
SPAW ARC to improve FSTD functionality for windshear training included 
the addition of ``complex'' windshear models (as defined in the 
Windshear Training Aid) to provide flightcrew members experience in 
more realistic windshear encounters; employing methods to ensure an 
FSTD is properly configured for a windshear training profile; and 
including realistic levels of turbulence with existing windshear 
profiles.
5. Takeoff and Landing in Gusting Crosswinds
    The Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule 
introduced a new requirement to address an NTSB safety recommendation 
for the incorporation of ``realistic, gusty crosswind profiles'' into 
pilot simulator training programs. This recommendation was based on the 
results of an aircraft accident investigation in which the NTSB 
determined that a contributing factor of the accident was ``inadequate 
crosswind training in the airline industry due to deficient simulator 
wind gust modeling'' (see NTSB report AAR-10/04). During the course of 
the accident investigation, NTSB found that the airline's simulator did 
not have the capability to incorporate such realistic gusting crosswind 
scenarios for use in pilot training. Furthermore, the FAA reviewed the 
current part 60 FSTD evaluation standards and found that no such 
minimum requirement exists for the qualification of an FSTD for use in 
training.
6. Bounced Landing Training Maneuvers
    The Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule 
introduced a new requirement for bounced landing recovery training 
based on a review of accidents and various NTSB safety recommendations. 
As a result of public comments received in response to the Crewmember 
and Aircraft Dispatcher Training SNPRM, the FAA reviewed the part 60 
minimum FSTD evaluation requirements to ensure that bounced landing 
maneuvers are adequately evaluated for crew training. The FAA notes 
that bounced landing

[[Page 39468]]

maneuvers are not specifically included in the current part 60 
technical evaluation requirements and, as a result, FSTDs used for this 
training may not have the required fidelity to properly conduct the 
training.

D. Related Actions

    As a result of information gathered from various working groups, 
the FAA has taken action on loss of control training and simulator 
fidelity deficiencies by issuing the following voluntary guidance 
material:
    [ssquf] FAA Safety Alert for Operators (SAFO 10012)--Possible 
Misinterpretation of the Practical Test Standards (PTS) Language 
``Minimal Loss of Altitude.'' The purpose of this alert bulletin is to 
clarify the meaning of the approach to stall evaluation criteria as it 
related to ``minimal loss of altitude'' in the Airline Transport Pilot 
PTS.
    [ssquf] FAA Information for Operators Bulletin (InFO 10010)--
Enhanced Upset Recovery Training. This information bulletin recommends 
the incorporation of the material in the AURTA into flightcrew 
training. The AURTA contains guidance for upset recovery training 
programs for air carrier flightcrews as well as the evaluation guidance 
for FSTDs used in such training.
    [ssquf] FAA National Simulator Program (NSP) Guidance Bulletin 
11-04--FSTD Modeling and Evaluation Recommendations for Engine 
and Airframe Icing
    [ssquf] FAA National Simulator Program (NSP) Guidance Bulletin 
11-05--FSTD Evaluation Recommendations for Upset Recovery 
Training Maneuvers
    [ssquf] AC 120-109--Stall and Stick Pusher Training
    [ssquf] Airline Transport Pilot Practical Test Standards (Change 
4).
    Portions of this guidance material provide FSTD operators with 
recommended evaluation methods to improve FSTD fidelity for selected 
training tasks. To ensure that all FSTDs used to conduct such training 
are evaluated and modified to a consistent standard, the applicable 
part 60 technical requirements must be modified.

E. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Recommendations

    This proposal would incorporate changes into part 60 that would 
either directly or indirectly address the following NTSB Safety 
Recommendations through improved FSTD evaluation standards to support 
the outlined training tasks:

[ssquf] Stall training and/or stick pusher training (Recommendations A-
10-22, A-10-23, A-97-47, A-07-03, and A-10-24)
[ssquf] Upset Recognition and recovery training (Recommendations A-042-
62 and A-96-120)
[ssquf] Engine and airframe icing training (Recommendations A-11-46 and 
A-11-47)
[ssquf] Takeoff and landing training in gusting crosswind conditions 
(Recommendations A-10-110 and A-10-111)
[ssquf] Bounced landing training (Recommendations A-00-93 and A-11-69).

III. Discussion of the Proposal

A. The FSTD Evaluation Process

    For a new FSTD to be used in an FAA approved training program, it 
must be evaluated in accordance with the technical standards defined in 
the Qualification Performance Standards (QPS) appendices in part 60 and 
issued a Statement of Qualification. The QPS appendices in part 60 
consist of general requirements, objective testing requirements, and 
subjective testing requirements that the FSTD must be evaluated against 
for qualification at a specific level. To validate an FSTD's 
aerodynamic and ground model programming, objective tests are required 
that compare the FSTD's performance and handling qualities against 
flight-test-collected validation data within prescribed tolerances. 
These objective tests that are required for the qualification of an 
FSTD are defined in the part 60 QPS appendices. Although part 60 
prescribes a minimum number of objective tests required for 
qualification, FSTD manufacturers and aerodynamic data providers often 
independently conduct additional tests to fully assess the FSTD's 
performance beyond the minimum requirements. This additional testing 
may consist of supplemental validation using flight test data, 
engineering simulation data, or wind tunnel analysis to expand the 
validation envelope of an FSTD.
    While objective testing using flight test data is generally the 
preferred method for FSTD validation, many flight training maneuvers 
cannot be practically validated in such a manner due either to the wide 
variance that arises in the flight test response due to unsteady 
aerodynamics and airplane stability, or to the safety risk associated 
with the flight data collection. These maneuvers include flight at 
angles of attack beyond stall identification, flight characteristics 
associated with significant icing, or other maneuvers where significant 
safety risks exist in the collection of flight test data. For such 
maneuvers, reliance on engineering and analytical data to extend an 
FSTD's validation envelope may be both appropriate and acceptable where 
the flight training objectives can be accomplished.

B. General Rationale for the Proposal

    The primary objective of this NPRM is to introduce FSTD technical 
standards that adequately evaluate an FSTD's ability to replicate the 
performance and flight handling characteristics of an aircraft during 
specific new and revised training tasks required as part of an air 
carrier training program. For many of these new training requirements, 
the current part 60 and previously grandfathered FSTD evaluation 
standards do not adequately assess an FSTD's fidelity beyond the normal 
flight envelope. New FSTD evaluation standards therefore must be 
developed prior to requiring these enhanced training tasks. An accurate 
and realistic training environment is necessary to ensure flightcrew 
members are properly trained in the recognition of a dangerous onset of 
an upset or a stall condition as well as being able to properly react 
if the recognition cues are missed. Accident history has shown that 
unrealistic recognition cues and recovery techniques learned in an FSTD 
can contribute to an improper recovery technique being attempted in the 
aircraft.
    A secondary objective of this NPRM is to promote harmonization with 
the current international FSTD qualification guidance to the maximum 
extent possible. To meet this objective, the FAA is proposing to adopt 
portions of the ICAO 9625, Edition 3 FSTD evaluation guidance into the 
appropriate part 60 QPS appendices. This would be limited to revising 
the part 60 Appendix A standards for Level C and Level D FSTDs with the 
updated guidelines in ICAO 9625 for a Type VII device. It would also 
introduce a new FTD level in Appendix B of part 60 using the ICAO 9625 
guidelines for a Type V device.
    The part 60 technical standards for the evaluation of an FSTD are 
contained in the QPS appendices of the rule. These QPS appendices are 
further subdivided into various attachments and tables containing 
General Simulator Requirements, Objective Testing Requirements, and 
Subjective Testing Requirements. Due to the extensive reorganization 
required to align the tables within the part 60 QPS appendices to match 
the ICAO 9625, Edition 3 structure and numbering

[[Page 39469]]

format, the FAA is proposing to reissue both appendix A and appendix B 
in their entirety. All significant amendments are discussed in the 
following sections as they relate to the intended objectives.
    Under this proposal, the changes to the technical evaluation 
standards in the QPS appendices would become effective for all FSTDs 
that are newly qualified or upgraded in qualification level 30 days 
after publication of a final rule implementing these provisions. 
However, FSTD sponsors may elect to use the existing part 60 standards 
to qualify new or upgraded FSTDs for up to 24 months after the 
effective date of a final rule under the grace period provisions that 
are currently defined in Sec.  60.15(c). All FSTDs (including 
previously qualified or grandfathered FSTDs) that would be used conduct 
certain extended envelope and other training tasks required by the 
Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule would require 
evaluation within three years of the effective date of a final rule in 
accordance with the proposed FSTD Directive. See section III.C. for 
additional information on the proposed FSTD Directive.

C. Requirements Applicable to Previously Qualified FSTDs--FSTD 
Directive 2 (Appendix A, Attachment 6)

    Previously qualified FSTDs retain ``grandfather rights'' in 
accordance with the current part 60 rule.\10\ As a result, most changes 
made to the part 60 QPS appendices would not be applicable to 
previously qualified FSTDs. Because the majority of FSTDs that would be 
used to conduct the training required by the Crewmember and Dispatcher 
Training Final Rule would retain grandfather rights and would not 
require requalification under the new standards, the FAA must issue an 
FSTD Directive to ensure these previously qualified FSTDs are properly 
evaluated. The primary purpose of this proposal is to address the 
potential lack of FSTD fidelity in certain individually identified 
training tasks that will be required for air carrier training when the 
Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule becomes 
effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Sec.  60.17, Previously Qualified FSTDs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An FSTD Directive is defined in Sec.  60.23 for existing FSTDs and 
provides the FAA with a mechanism to mandate FSTD modifications where 
necessary for safety of flight reasons. Some of the training tasks that 
have been mandated by Public Law 111-216 and required in the Crewmember 
and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule have significant potential 
to introduce either inappropriate or incomplete training to flightcrew 
members due to a lack of FSTD fidelity. In most of these training 
tasks, the flight conditions the crews would be exposed to have never 
been previously experienced in the aircraft, making the accuracy and 
realism of the FSTD of prime importance. The potential of inadequate 
fidelity of an FSTD used to conduct such training can lead to a 
misunderstanding of recognition cues, learning of inappropriate 
recovery techniques, and an unrealistic understanding, or a lack of 
understanding of dangerous flight conditions that must be avoided. As a 
result, the FAA believes that proper evaluation of any FSTD (including 
those previously qualified FSTDs that hold grandfather rights) used to 
conduct these training tasks must be accomplished. To keep the cost of 
evaluating and modifying previously qualified FSTDs to a minimum, the 
FAA is proposing to apply the requirements of the FSTD Directive only 
to those FSTDs that would be used to accomplish specific training tasks 
as described in the FSTD Directive. Under this proposal, FSTD Sponsors 
may choose to qualify any number of FSTDs to conduct any of the 
individual tasks as required to meet the needs of their training 
programs. FSTDs that have been evaluated and modified in accordance 
with the FSTD Directive would have their Statements of Qualification 
modified to indicate the FSTD has been evaluated and qualified for the 
tasks.
    The QPS requirements for the qualification of full stall maneuvers 
and upset recognition and recovery maneuvers are generally applicably 
to Level C and Level D FSTDs that have minimum requirements for both 
six degree of freedom motions cues and motion special effects (stall 
buffet) cues. Particularly for full stall maneuvers that involve 
significant roll and yaw deviations as well as high bank angle upset 
recovery maneuvers, motion cues in all six degrees of freedom are 
critical to provide the pilot with the cues necessary to learn 
effective recovery techniques. Additionally, motion vibration (buffet) 
cueing is necessary for the qualification of full stall maneuvers in 
order to provide the pilot with the proper recognition cues of an 
impending stall.
    The FAA recognizes that some of the full stall and upset 
recognition and recovery maneuvers described in this proposal may not 
necessarily result in significant roll or yaw deviations (such as wings 
level stalls and nose high/nose low upsets with no bank angle) and 
could potentially be conducted in a Level A or a Level B FFS equipped 
with a three degree of freedom motion cueing system.\11\ Furthermore, 
many Level A FFSs that do not have a minimum requirement for the 
simulation of stall buffets may, in fact, be equipped with such a 
system on a voluntary basis.\12\ It is for these reasons, the FAA has 
proposed that Level A and Level B FFSs may be considered for the 
qualification of certain full stall and upset recognition and recovery 
maneuvers in accordance with the FSTD Directive where the motion and 
vibration cueing systems have been specifically evaluated to provide 
adequate cues for the accomplishment of the particular training tasks. 
Specific full stall or upset recovery maneuvers (such as high bank 
angle upset recovery maneuvers) may be excluded from qualification 
where it has been determined that the FSTD cannot provide the proper 
motion or vibration cues to accomplish the particular training tasks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Level A and Level B FFSs have minimum requirements for 
three degrees of freedom motion cues. See 14 CFR Part 60, Table A1A, 
Section 5.b.
    \12\ Level A FFSs do not have a minimum requirement for motion 
effects (stall buffets). See 14 CFR Part 60, Table A1A, Section 5.e.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA has considered the potential cost impact of imposing new 
evaluation requirements on previously qualified FSTDs where aerodynamic 
data and associated validation data for objective testing may not 
exist. Particularly with older aircraft and FSTDs that have been out of 
production for a number of years or may no longer be supported by the 
original aerodynamic data provider, the FAA recognizes that the 
collection of such data may prove to be very costly. In order to 
mitigate this potential cost impact, the FAA has proposed a number of 
cost relieving provisions in the FSTD Directive that would reduce the 
overall cost of compliance with the Directive. These provisions 
include:
     All new objective test cases for stall maneuvers include 
those maneuvers that are typically required for aircraft certification, 
such as turning flight stall and cruise configuration stalls. This 
would increase the likelihood that the aircraft manufacturer may 
already have flight test validation data on hand for use in validating 
required objective tests.
     Where an FSTD's aerodynamic data package is supplied by an 
aircraft manufacturer, the FAA is proposing to allow the use of 
approved engineering simulation data \13\ for the purposes of

[[Page 39470]]

meeting the objective testing requirements of the FSTD Directive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 14 CFR part 60, Appendix A, Attachment 2, paragraph 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Where no adequate flight test data or engineering 
simulation data is available for use in validating required objective 
tests for stall maneuvers, the FAA is proposing to allow the validation 
of objective tests through evaluation by a subject matter expert pilot 
with relevant experience in the aircraft.
     For evaluating full stall maneuvers, where aerodynamic 
modeling data or validation data is not available or insufficient to 
fully meet the requirements of the Directive, the National Simulator 
Program Manager (NSPM) may restrict FSTD qualification to certain 
maneuvers where adequate validation data exists. For example, if 
validation data exists only for wings level stall maneuvers at angles 
of attack at or below the stick pusher activation, the NSPM may still 
qualify the FSTD for those limited stall maneuvers where data exists 
(in this example, wings level stalls where recovery is initiated at 
stick pusher activation).
    The primary focus of this FSTD Directive is for those FSTDs that 
would be used to meet the air carrier training requirements in the 
Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule. However, 
because the same safety risk exists for inappropriate simulator 
training in non-air carrier training programs, other qualified FSTDs 
that would be used to conduct such training tasks in any FAA-approved 
flight training program would also have to meet the requirements of 
this FSTD Directive. Since existing air carriers would not have to 
comply with the mandatory training requirements until 5 years after the 
Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training rulemaking becomes 
effective, the FAA believes there is sufficient time for the affected 
previously qualified FSTDs to be evaluated and modified in accordance 
with the FSTD Directive before such training takes place. In cases 
where affected training tasks are currently being conducted on a 
voluntary basis and the FSTD has been evaluated by the sponsor to 
conduct such maneuvers, the FAA has no intent to immediately halt such 
training. In order for such FSTDs to be modified and evaluated in a 
timely manner as described in the Directive, the FAA is proposing a 
compliance date of 3 years after this rule (and associated FSTD 
Directive) becomes effective. After that date, any FSTD being used in 
an FAA-approved training program for the following training tasks must 
be evaluated and issued an amended Statement of Qualification (SOQ) by 
the NSP in accordance with the FSTD Directive:
    [ssquf] Stall training maneuvers that are conducted at angles of 
attack higher than the activation of the stall warning system. This 
does not include approach-to-stall (stall prevention) maneuvers where 
recovery is initiated at the activation of the stall warning system.
    [ssquf] Upset Recognition and Recovery training maneuvers.
    [ssquf] Engine and Airframe Icing training maneuvers that 
demonstrate the aircraft specific effects of engine and airframe ice 
accretion.
    [ssquf] Takeoff and landing training tasks with gusting crosswinds.
    [ssquf] Bounced landing recovery training tasks.
    Specific evaluation requirements that have been proposed for 
previously qualified FSTDs by FSTD Directive are indicated in the 
following sections by topic (sections D through H).

D. FSTD Evaluation Requirements for Full Stall Training Tasks (Appendix 
A; Table A1A, Section 2.1.7.S, Table A2A, Tests 2.a.10, 2.c.8, and 
3.f.8; Table A3A, Test 5.b.1; and Attachment 7)

    The current and previous FSTD qualification standards (dating back 
to AC 121-14C in 1980) contain both objective and subjective testing 
requirements for full stall maneuver evaluation. While these 
requirements include the evaluation of full stall maneuvers, the 
objective testing requirements are limited to only validating stall 
warning speeds, stall buffet onset speeds, and the stall speeds in 
flight conditions typically used for aircraft certification testing in 
a very controlled environment (such as wings level stalls in approach 
and climb configurations). Because there has never previously been a 
requirement to conduct full stall training in an FSTD (historically, 
stall training ends at the first indication of the stall), relatively 
little emphasis has been placed on the objective validation of 
simulator performance and handling qualities at airspeeds lower than 
the activation of the stall warning system.
    When flight training to a full stall is provided to crewmembers, 
recognition cues and performance and handling characteristics in the 
FSTD must be accurate to ensure pilots properly respond to stall events 
or low energy states. Where a stall is imminent, critical seconds can 
be lost if the crew is not aware of the low energy cues indicating that 
the aircraft is approaching a dangerous flight condition. Furthermore, 
if a stalled condition is encountered in flight, accurate and repeated 
training helps pilots react and apply appropriate control input(s), to 
maintain or regain the desired flight path. Training in accurate and 
realistic scenarios may also help mitigate the startle factor that 
often accompanies such an event.
    While the existing FSTD stall evaluation requirements have 
generally proven to be sufficient for approach to stall training tasks 
that terminate at the first indication of the stall, these standards do 
not adequately extend beyond the activation of the stall warning system 
for the purpose of validating the FSTD's performance and handling 
qualities at the stall through recovery. New FSTD evaluation 
requirements for stall recognition and aircraft handling qualities are 
necessary if training is to be conducted to a full stall. Most 
aerodynamic modeling on modern FSTDs assumes a certain amount of 
linearity from objectively validated test points to extrapolate 
aircraft performance and handling qualities between test points. As an 
aircraft approaches a stalled flight condition, this linearity can no 
longer be assumed, and more test points are required to validate the 
fidelity of the model.
    Through the work of ICATEE and the SPAW ARC, several subject matter 
experts on pilot training concluded that stall recovery training does 
not require, nor is it practical, that the post stall behavior of the 
aircraft be exactly replicated in the FSTD. They also concluded that a 
``type representative'' post stall model should suffice in properly 
training the recovery maneuver. Because of the typically unstable 
behavior of the aircraft at or beyond the stall angle of attack, it is 
not reasonable or practical to require tight tolerances applied to 
objective tests against flight test validation data beyond the stall 
angle of attack. In lieu of mandating objective tolerances in the post 
stall flight regime, it was recommended that the use of analytical 
methods, engineering simulation, and wind tunnel methods in combination 
with subject matter expert pilot assessment be authorized to develop 
and validate ``type representative'' post stall models.
    In consideration of the recommendations of the SPAW ARC, the FAA 
proposes to amend the appendix A QPS requirements to improve the FSTD 
evaluation requirements for full stall training tasks. These amendments 
are intended to accomplish the following objectives to improve FSTD 
fidelity for flightcrews conducting full stall training tasks:
     Improve the fidelity of the FSTD's aerodynamic model and 
cueing systems

[[Page 39471]]

at angles of attack beyond the first indication of the stall (stall 
warning, stick shaker, etc.) to better match the aircraft specific 
recognition cues of an impending stall. This is accomplished through:
    [cir] Improved objective testing to include additional test cases 
against approved validation data (flight test data, engineering 
simulation data, etc.) in training critical maneuvers such as turning 
flight (accelerated) stalls, high altitude (clean configuration) 
stalls, power-on stalls, and stalls at multiple flap settings.
    [cir] New and improved objective testing tolerances to better 
validate performance and handling qualities, control inputs, stall 
buffet, and stick pusher forces (if equipped) of the FSTD as the stall 
is approached.
     Improve the fidelity of the FSTD's aerodynamic model and 
cueing systems at the stall break (if present) through stall recovery. 
This is accomplished through:
    [cir] Defining a minimum level of fidelity and modeling 
requirements to develop ``type representative'' extended full stall 
models using available flight test data and alternate methods, such as 
engineering simulation, analytical methods, and wind tunnel analysis.
    [cir] Defining functional evaluation criteria for qualified subject 
matter expert evaluation to determine suitability of a representative 
full stall model that supports training requirements.
    In order to accomplish these objectives to improve FSTD fidelity in 
full stall training maneuvers, the FAA is proposing revisions to the 
following sections in appendix A of the QPS for FFSs. Where a specific 
requirement has been proposed for previously qualified FSTDs by FSTD 
Directive, it is indicated as such with an ``FD'':

Table A1A (General Simulator Requirements)

 Section 2.1.7.S/[FD] (High Angle of Attack Modeling)

Table A1B (Table of Tasks vs. Simulator Level)

 Table A1B, Section 3.b. (High Angle of Attack Maneuvers)

Table A2A (Full Flight Simulator Objective Tests)

 Test 2.a.10/[FD] (Stick Pusher System Force Calibration)
 Tests 2.c.8.a. and 2.c.8.b/[FD] (Stall Characteristics)
 Test 2.f.8. (Characteristic Motion Vibrations--Buffet at 
Stall)

Table A3A (Functions and Subjective Tests)

 Tests 5.b.1.a and 5.b.1.b/[FD] (Maneuvers--High Angle of 
Attack)

Attachment 7 (Additional Simulator Qualification Requirements for 
Stall, Upset Recognition and Recovery, and Airborne Icing Training 
Tasks)

 High Angle of Attack Model Evaluation [FD]

E. FSTD Evaluation Requirements for Upset Recognition and Recovery 
Training Tasks (Appendix A; Table A1A, Section 2.1.6.S and Attachment 
7)

    The current part 60 requirements do not explicitly define a minimum 
envelope of FSTD aerodynamic model validity required for training 
purposes. The objective validation of an FSTD is primarily based on 
direct comparison of the FSTD's performance and handling qualities 
against that of flight test collected validation data in a 
representative cross section of the flight envelope that includes many 
relevant training maneuvers. Outside of these objectively validated 
test conditions, an FSTD's aerodynamics are typically interpolated or 
extrapolated using predictive methods and data sources such as wind 
tunnel data and analytically derived data. Many of the recommended 
upset recovery training maneuvers (as defined in the AURTA) are 
conducted in flight regimes that make direct comparison against flight 
test data impractical due to safety concerns. However, since much of 
the aerodynamic characteristics necessary to program an FSTD to conduct 
such maneuvers are based on angle of attack and sideslip ranges that 
can be derived from flight testing and reliable predictive methods, a 
certain amount of aerodynamic model fidelity can be accurately implied 
across a large range of pitch, roll, and heading values. This 
aerodynamic model fidelity would necessarily be a function of the 
quality and amount of data sources, ranging from flight test and wind 
tunnel data sources through established extrapolation methods.
    In addition to defining and measuring aerodynamic model fidelity in 
upset recovery maneuvers, it is important that the instructor have 
real-time situational awareness with respect to the aircraft's 
operational limits (including the degree to which the simulation being 
used accurately portrays the actual reaction of the airplane) and the 
flight control inputs being used by the student to conduct the 
recovery. It is critical for the instructor to be able to assess the 
student's application of control inputs, including those that may not 
be readily visible from the instructor's station (such as rudder pedal 
displacements and forces) to ascertain that control inputs to affect 
recovery do not result in exceeding either the aircraft's operational 
load limits or the simulator's validation data limits.
    In order to properly conduct upset recovery training in an FSTD, a 
feedback mechanism is necessary to provide full situational awareness 
to the instructor to properly assess the student's recovery technique. 
The FAA proposes new requirements to define minimum requirements for a 
feedback mechanism necessary for upset recovery training in an FSTD. 
However, because FSTD sponsors may choose a number of methods to 
accomplish this, the FAA has not prescribed the exact content and 
layout of such a feedback mechanism. In this proposal, the FAA has 
included examples of recommended Instructor Operating Station displays 
the information section of appendix A.
    In order to codify all of the proposed qualification requirements 
for upset recovery training in an FSTD, the FAA is proposing the 
following changes to Table A1A (General Simulator Requirements) and 
Attachment 7 of appendix A:
     The FSTD's validation limits (as a function of angle of 
attack and sideslip angle) must be defined by the aerodynamic data 
provider for use in establishing a validation envelope of the FSTD for 
upset recovery training maneuvers.
     For airplane upset conditions or scenarios,\14\ the FSTD's 
aerodynamics must be evaluated to ensure the FSTD can stay within the 
flight tested or wind tunnel validation envelope during the execution 
of the recovery maneuvers. A minimum of three defined maneuvers 
(consistent with the maneuvers described in the AURTA) must be 
evaluated for FSTD qualification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The AURTA generally defines an airplane upset as one of the 
following unintentional conditions: Pitch attitude greater than 25 
degrees nose up; Pitch attitude greater than 10 degrees nose down; 
Bank angle greater than 45 degrees; or flying at airspeeds 
inappropriate for the conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Externally driven dynamic upset scenarios must be 
realistic, based on relevant data sources, and must not artificially 
degrade the simulated aircraft's performance capability without clear 
indication to the instructor.
     An instructor feedback mechanism must be provided to 
notify the instructor where the FSTD's validation envelope or the 
aircraft's operating limits has been exceeded. This feedback mechanism 
must also provide the

[[Page 39472]]

instructor with relevant flight control position information and have 
the ability to record and playback for debriefing purposes.
    In order to accomplish these objectives to improve FSTD 
functionality for upset recognition and recovery maneuvers, the FAA is 
proposing revisions to the following sections in appendix A of the QPS 
for FFSs. Where a specific requirement has been proposed for previously 
qualified FSTDs by FSTD Directive, it is indicated as such with an 
``FD'':

Table A1A (General Simulator Requirements)

 Section 2.1.6.S/[FD] (Upset Recognition and Recovery)

Table A1B (Table of Tasks vs. Simulator Level)

 Section 3.f. (Upset Recognition and Recovery)

Table A3A (Functions and Subjective Tests)

 Test 5.b.15/[FD] (Maneuvers--Upset Recognition and Recovery)

Attachment 7 (Additional Simulator Qualification Requirements for 
Stall, Upset Recognition and Recovery, and Airborne Icing Training 
Tasks)

 Upset Recognition and Recovery Evaluation [FD]

F. FSTD Evaluation Requirements for Airborne Icing Training Tasks 
(Appendix A; Table A1A, Section 2.1.5.S; Table A2A, Test 2.i. and 
Attachment 7)

    The FAA is proposing to amend the evaluation requirements for the 
simulation of engine and airframe icing as currently required in part 
60 for Level C and Level D FSTDs. The proposed changes would require 
that an FSTD have ice accretion models that simulate the aerodynamic 
effects of ice accretion on the lifting surfaces of the aircraft. These 
ice accretion models must be realistic and based upon relevant data 
sources, such as aircraft manufacturer's data or other acceptable 
analytical methods. The SPAW ARC recommendations form the basis for 
these proposed requirements. The SPAW ARC recommended that aircraft 
type-specific flight training be conducted on the aerodynamic effects 
of ice accumulation; the use and failure of aircraft ice equipment; the 
use of autopilot; and the performance and handling effects of ice 
accumulation. The SPAW ARC cites incidents in which aircraft have 
encountered stall warning, stall buffet, and aerodynamic stall at lower 
than normal angles of attack due to ice accretion. Accordingly, the 
SPAW ARC found it to be important that flightcrews are appropriately 
trained on this phenomenon in a simulator training scenario that 
emphasizes that in icing conditions, the stall warning or protection 
system may not activate and stall margins may be significantly reduced.
    The SPAW ARC further noted that some simulators may lack the 
fidelity to accurately portray the aerodynamic effects of ice 
accumulation. While minimum requirements for engine and airframe icing 
have existed in the FSTD qualification standards since the early 
1980's, these requirements have lacked the specific detail for 
aerodynamic effects to be simulated. On many older simulators, the 
effects of ice accumulation have been approximated by adding weight 
increments to the simulated aircraft. While some icing effects can be 
approximated using this method, many other critical icing 
characteristics are not realistically replicated in this manner. For 
example, neither the altered critical angle of attack due to ice 
accumulation nor the actual weight indicative of the accumulation are 
accurately replicated using such weight increments.
    To improve flightcrew training for such events, the FAA is 
proposing to amend some of the current requirements for FSTD evaluation 
of engine and airframe icing. These amendments would enhance the 
existing flightcrew training requirement for anti-icing operations by 
improving the recognition cues and realistic aerodynamic effects of ice 
accretion. The changes are based on the updated engine and airframe 
icing requirements that are published in the ICAO 9625, Edition 3 
international FSTD qualification guidance as well as the following 
additional improvements that were recommended by the SPAW ARC:
    [ssquf] Ice accretion models must incorporate the aerodynamic 
effects of icing (where appropriate for the aircraft) such as reduced 
stall angle of attack, loss of lift, changes in pitching moment, and 
control effectiveness. These models must be based on aircraft original 
equipment manufacturer data or other analytical methods.
    [ssquf] Aircraft systems, such as autoflight systems and stall 
protection systems must respond properly to the effects of ice 
accretion.
    [ssquf] Objective tests must be developed to demonstrate the 
intended aerodynamic effects of simulated ice accretion.
    In order to accomplish these objectives to improve FSTD fidelity in 
airborne icing training maneuvers, the FAA is proposing specific 
revisions to the following sections in appendix A of the QPS for FFSs. 
Where a specific requirement has been proposed for previously qualified 
FSTDs by FSTD Directive, it is indicated as such with an ``FD'':

Table A1A (General Simulator Requirements)

 Section 2.1.5.S/[FD] (Engine and Airframe Icing)

Table A2A (Full Flight Simulator Objective Tests)

 Test 2.i (Engine and Airframe Icing Effects Demonstration)

Attachment 7 (Additional Simulator Qualification Requirements for 
Stall, Upset Recognition and Recovery, and Airborne Icing Training 
Tasks)

 Engine and Airframe Icing Evaluation [FD]

G. FSTD Evaluation Requirements for Takeoff and Landing Training Tasks 
in Gusting Crosswinds (Appendix A, Table A1A, Sections 3.1.S, 3.1.R, 
and 11.4.R)

    The FAA has introduced new FSTD evaluation requirements for the 
modeling of gusting crosswinds for takeoff and landing training tasks. 
The basis for this change is due to a recent air carrier accident where 
the aircraft experienced strong and gusty crosswinds during takeoff 
roll and departed the runway. The NTSB concluded the following in their 
final accident report:

    Because Continental's simulator training did not replicate the 
ground-level disturbances and gusting crosswinds that often occur at 
or near the runway surface, and it is unlikely that the accident 
captain had previously encountered gusting surface crosswinds like 
those he encountered the night of the accident, the captain was not 
adequately prepared to respond to the changes in heading encountered 
during this takeoff.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Runway Side Excursion During Attempted Takeoff in Strong 
and Gusty Crosswind Conditions, Continental Flight 1404, December 
20, 2008, NTSB Final Report, NTSB/AAR-10/04.

    While the current part 60 requirements have both objective and 
subjective evaluation requirements for crosswind takeoff and landing 
maneuvers, there is no current requirement for the modeling of gusting 
crosswinds. Since steady state crosswinds are currently validated with 
objective testing, the FAA believes most FSTDs should have adequate 
aerodynamic and ground modeling to react properly when stimulated with 
gusting crosswind profiles. Furthermore, the FAA agrees with the

[[Page 39473]]

NTSB's recommendations that such gusting crosswind profiles should be 
realistic and based on data sources. However, the FAA believes that 
such realistic gusting crosswind profiles can be derived from existing 
sources, such as the FAA Windshear Training Aid, and evaluated for 
training by subject matter expert pilots.
    To ensure the FSTD supports a realistic training environment, the 
FAA proposes to add the following minimum requirements for the modeling 
of gusting crosswind profiles and the evaluation of the ground handling 
characteristics of the FSTD:
    [ssquf] Realistic gusting crosswind profiles must be available to 
the instructor. The profiles must be tuned in intensity and variation 
to require pilot intervention to avoid runway departure during takeoff 
or landing roll.
    [ssquf] A Statement of Compliance would be required that describes 
the source data used to develop the crosswind profiles. Additional 
information material in the QPS appendix recommends the use of the FAA 
Windshear Training Aid or other acceptable data sources in determining 
appropriate wind profiles.
    [ssquf] The FSTD's ground reaction model must be subjectively 
assessed to ensure it reacts appropriately to the gusting crosswind 
profiles.
    In order to accomplish these objectives to improve FSTD 
functionality for gusting crosswinds, the FAA is proposing revisions to 
the following sections in appendix A of the QPS for FFSs. Where a 
specific requirement has been proposed for previously qualified FSTDs 
by FSTD Directive, it is indicated as such with an ``FD'':

Table A1A (General Simulator Requirements)

 Section 3.1.S(2)/[FD] (Ground Handling Characteristics)
 Section 11.4.R/[FD] (Atmosphere and Weather--Instructor 
Controls)

Table A3A (Functions and Subjective Tests)

 Test 3.a.3/[FD] (Takeoff--Crosswind--maximum demonstrated and 
gusting crosswind)
 Test 8.d./[FD] (Approach and Landing with crosswind--maximum 
demonstrated and gusting crosswind)

H. FSTD Evaluation Requirements for Bounced Landing Training Tasks 
(Appendix A, Table A1A, Section 3.1.S)

    The Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training SNPRM proposed new 
requirements for bounced landing training tasks to address various 
aircraft accidents and NTSB Safety Recommendations. In response to the 
SNPRM, the FAA received a comment from the Air Line Pilots Association 
International (Docket entry FAA-2008-0677-0307) with concerns about the 
ability of an FSTD to adequately represent a bounced landing.
    The FAA reviewed the current FSTD qualification standards and found 
that many of the currently required objective tests do, in fact, test 
the fidelity on an FSTD in this phase of flight. Objective tests, such 
as the required minimum unstick speed takeoff test (Vmu), landing 
tests, and ground effect tests should provide for a reasonable 
validation of the FSTD's aerodynamic performance in this phase of 
flight. Furthermore, the current part 60 rule has explicit motion 
system effects requirements for tail and engine pod strikes that can 
typically be a result of an incorrectly performed touchdown that could 
lead to the necessity of a bounced landing recovery. However, it was 
noted that the current part 60 general requirements for ground reaction 
and ground handling did not address the effects that should be 
accounted for in the models. To address this deficiency, the FAA is 
proposing to add new general requirements for ground reaction modeling 
to ensure the effects of a bounced landing and related tail strike are 
properly modeled and evaluated. Because of the safety risk involved in 
collecting airplane flight test data for such a maneuver, no new 
objective testing would be required and only subjective assessment of 
the FSTD would be conducted for this particular task.
    In order to accomplish these objectives to improve FSTD 
functionality for bounced landing training tasks, the FAA is proposing 
revisions to the following sections in appendix A of the QPS for FFSs. 
Where a specific requirement has been proposed for previously qualified 
FSTDs by FSTD Directive, it is indicated as such with an ``FD'':

Table A1A (General Simulator Requirements)

 Section 3.1.S(1)/[FD] (Ground Reaction Characteristics)

Table A3A (Functions and Subjective Tests)

 Test 9.3./[FD] (Missed Approach--Bounced landing)

I. FSTD Evaluation Requirements for Windshear Training Tasks (Appendix 
A, Table A1A, Section 11.2.R)

    One of the mandates of Public Law 111-216 was for the FAA to form a 
multidisciplinary panel to study ``. . . methods to increase the 
familiarity of flightcrew members with, and improve the response of 
flightcrew members to, stick pusher systems, icing conditions, and 
microburst and windshear weather events.'' \16\ The FAA chartered the 
SPAW ARC in response to this mandate. While the SPAW ARC agreed that 
microburst and windshear events have decreased significantly since the 
introduction of the Windshear Training Aid,\17\ it recommended a number 
of improvements to enhance the current FSTD windshear qualification 
requirements. The FAA is proposing to adopt the following three 
recommendations of the SPAW ARC, which would improve on the realism and 
provide better standardization of windshear training events:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Public Law 111-216, Section 208(b).
    \17\ Windshear Training Aid, U.S. Department of Transportation, 
Federal Aviation Administration 1987.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [ssquf] All required windshear profiles must be selectable and 
clearly labeled on the FSTD's instructor operating station. A method 
must be employed (such as an FSTD preset) to ensure that the FSTD is 
properly configured for the selected windshear profile. This 
requirement is to ensure that the proper windshear cues are present in 
crew training as originally qualified on the FSTD.
    [ssquf] Realistic levels of turbulence associated with each 
windshear profile must be available and selectable to the instructor.
    [ssquf] In addition to the four basic windshear models that are 
currently required, two additional ``complex'' models would be required 
that represent the complexity of an actual windshear encounter. These 
additional models may be derived from the example complex models 
published in the Windshear Training Aid. This requirement would provide 
an opportunity for crew training and practice in responding to more 
challenging and realistic windshear events.
    In order to accomplish these objectives to improve FSTD 
functionality for windshear training tasks, the FAA is proposing to 
revise the following section of appendix A in the QPS for FFSs. No 
retroactive requirements have been proposed for windshear qualification 
by FSTD Directive:

Table A1A (General Simulator Requirements)

 Section 11.2.R (Windshear Qualification)

[[Page 39474]]

J. Significant Changes To Align With the International FSTD Evaluation 
Guidance (Appendix A)

    In addition to the part 60 changes to address extended envelope and 
adverse weather event training, the FAA is also proposing to 
incorporate select portions of the latest ICAO FSTD qualification 
guidance \18\ into the part 60 QPS requirements where practical. ICAO 
9625, Edition 3 represents a major industry effort that redefined all 
qualification levels of FSTDs to better align FSTD fidelity with the 
intended pilot training tasks. The FAA is not proposing to align with 
the entire ICAO 9625, Edition 3 guidance document because it contains 
FSTD levels that differ significantly from the FAA's existing hierarchy 
of FSTD levels. There are several device levels in the new ICAO 
guidance document that currently have no basis in the FAA's existing 
regulations or in the FAA's existing guidance on flight training. 
Because of the far reaching implications beyond part 60 if changes were 
made to the FAA's existing FSTD hierarchy, we have limited our 
alignment to those FSTDs and associated evaluation guidance in the ICAO 
9625, Edition 3 document that have an equivalent device in the FAA 
(Level C and D) or could potentially be used in the future (Level 7 
FTD) with minimal impact to the existing hierarchy. Incorporation of 
the other device levels and evaluation guidance would require careful 
consideration and additional rulemaking. The FAA notes that the primary 
purpose of this proposal is to address the weather event, stall, stick 
pusher, and upset recovery training tasks required by Public Law 111-
216. The FAA will continue to assess the possibility of incorporating 
additional ICAO 9625, Edition 3 FSTD qualification levels and 
evaluation guidance; however any changes made in this proposal cannot 
jeopardize the timely implementation of updated FSTD standards to 
address new and revised training tasks mandated by Public Law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Manual of Criteria for the Qualification of Flight 
Simulation Training Devices, ICAO 9625, Edition 3, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After an assessment of the ICAO 9625, Edition 3 document, the FAA 
is proposing to make the following changes to appendix A (Qualification 
Performance Standards for Airplane Full Flight Simulators) to better 
align the evaluation standards for Level C and Level D FSTDs with that 
of the current international guidance. The FAA has not proposed to 
align the evaluation standards for Level A and Level B FSTDs because 
similar devices do not exist in the ICAO 9625, Edition 3 document. 
Additional changes to introduce a new FTD level as defined in ICAO 9625 
have been proposed in appendix B (fixed wing Qualification Performance 
Standards for Airplane Flight Training Devices) and will be discussed 
in a later section.
    In its review of the new ICAO 9625, Edition 3 guidance, the FAA 
finds that some of the guidelines necessary for inclusion into part 60 
are more restrictive and may impose additional cost (such as the 
increased visual field of view requirements). However, a majority of 
the changes are less restrictive or reflect established FSTD evaluation 
practice. The proposed requirements in part 60 that would align with 
the new ICAO guidance are expected to reduce expenses and workload for 
FSTD Sponsors by avoiding conflicting compliance standards between the 
FAA and other Civil Aviation Authorities. These amendments incorporate 
technological advances in, encourage innovation of, and standardize the 
initial and continuing qualification requirements for FSTDs that are 
consistent with the guidance recently established by the international 
flight simulation community.
    1. Table A1A (General Requirements): The FAA is proposing to 
rewrite table A1A to incorporate the ICAO 9625, Edition 3 language and 
numbering system where appropriate. The FAA changed the numbering 
system to use the ICAO 9625, Edition 3 fidelity definitions for each 
simulation feature and to incorporate all general requirements for the 
ICAO 9625, Edition 3 Type VII FSTD into the FAA Level C and Level D 
FSTDs where appropriate. The general requirements for Level A and Level 
B FSTDs have been left mostly unchanged to maintain continuity with the 
current hierarchy of FSTD qualification levels. Where such a fidelity 
level is not used for any part 60 defined FSTD, the FAA kept the 
numbering intact and marked it as ``reserved'' for future use. The 
following sections within Table A1A contain notable changes to align 
with the ICAO 9625, Edition 3 requirements:
    [ssquf] Section 1.1.S (Flight Deck Layout and Structure)--
Introduces minimum requirements for electronically displayed 
representations of cockpit instrumentation. This amendment to the 
existing standard would give FSTD sponsors a lower cost option of 
simulating costly aircraft components with digital representations.
    [ssquf] Section 6.4.R (Sound Volume)--Requires indication to the 
instructor when FSTD sound volume is in an abnormal setting. This is a 
new standard though some FSTDs already have this functionality.
    [ssquf] Section 6.5.R (Sound Directionality)--Requires cockpit 
sounds to be directionally representative. This is a new standard, but 
generally reflects existing practice.
    [ssquf] Section 7.1.1.S (Visual System Field of View)--Increases 
minimum visual display system field of view requirements from 180 
(horizontal) x 40 (vertical) degrees to 200 x 40 degrees.
    [ssquf] Section 7.1.6.S (Visual System Lightpoint Brightness)--
Introduces a new minimum brightness requirement of 8.8 foot-lamberts 
for visual scene lightpoints.
    [ssquf] Section 7.1.8 (Visual System Black Level and Sequential 
Contrast)--Introduces a new maximum visual system black level and 
sequential brightness level requirements (applicable only to light 
valve projectors).
    [ssquf] Section 7.1.9 (Visual Motion Blur)--Introduces a new 
maximum visual system motion blurring requirements (applicable only to 
light valve projectors).
    [ssquf] Section 7.1.10 (Visual Speckle Test)--Introduces a new 
maximum visual system speckle contrast requirement (applicable only to 
laser projectors).
    [ssquf] Section 7.2.1 (Visual--Heads-Up Display)--Introduces new 
minimum general requirements for the simulation of heads-up display 
systems.
    [ssquf] Section 7.2.2 (Visual--EFVS)--Introduces new minimum 
general requirements for the simulation of enhanced flight vision 
systems.
    [ssquf] Section 13.8.S (Miscellaneous--Transport Delay)--Reduces 
the maximum transport delay requirements from 150 ms to 100 ms (more 
restrictive).
    2. Table A2A (Objective Testing Requirements): The FAA is proposing 
to rewrite table A2A to incorporate all of the ICAO 9625, Edition 3 
language and test tolerances. Most changes to this section are less 
restrictive as compared to the current part 60 standards. Less 
restrictive test tolerances or testing conditions are expected to 
reduce overall cost to an FSTD Sponsor due to a reduction in the 
engineering hours required to match objective test results to 
validation data. The FAA is proposing to change the tolerances and test 
conditions in the following tests to align with the ICAO 9625, Edition 
3 objective testing requirements:
    [ssquf] Test 1.a.1 (Minimum Radius Turn)--Adds a new requirement 
for ``key engine parameters.''

[[Page 39475]]

    [ssquf] Test 1.b.1 (Ground Acceleration)--Revises the tolerance 
from 5% of time to 1.5 seconds or 5% of time (less restrictive).
    [ssquf] Test 1.b.7 (Rejected Takeoff)--Adds an acceptable 
alternative to requiring maximum braking (80% of maximum braking).
    [ssquf] Test 1.d.1 (Level Acceleration)--Relaxes the speed change 
requirement from a minimum of 50 kts of speed increase to 80% of 
operational speed range (for airplanes with a small operating speed 
range).
    [ssquf] Test 1.d.2 (Level Deceleration)--Relaxes the speed change 
requirement from a minimum of 50 kts of speed increase to 80% of 
operational speed range (for airplanes with a small operating speed 
range).
    [ssquf] Test 1.e.1 (Deceleration Time and Distance)--Revises the 
tolerance from 5% of time to 1.5 seconds or 
5% of time (less restrictive).
    [ssquf] Test 1.e.2 (Deceleration Time and Distance, Reverse 
Thrust)--Revises the tolerance from 5% of time to 1.5 seconds or 5% of time (less restrictive).
    [ssquf] Test 1.f.1 (Engine Acceleration)--Revises the total time of 
engine acceleration (Tt) from 10% to 10% or 
0.25 seconds (less restrictive).
    [ssquf] Test 1.f.2 (Engine Deceleration)--Revises the total time of 
engine deceleration (Tt) from 10% to 10% or 
0.25 seconds (less restrictive).
    [ssquf] Test 2.a.7 (Pitch Trim Rate)--Revises the tolerance on trim 
rate from 10% to 10% or 0.1 deg/sec 
(less restrictive).
    [ssquf] Tests 2.b.1, 2.b.2, 2.b.3 (Dynamic Control Checks)--Places 
a minimum absolute (less restrictive) tolerance on both time (0.05 s) 
and amplitude (0.5% of total control travel) where minimum tolerances 
did not previously exist. This prevents the rigid application of very 
small tolerances (10% of time and 10% of 
amplitude) on certain flight control systems.
    [ssquf] Test 2.c.7 (Longitudinal Static Stability)--Adds a new test 
condition that ``the speed range should be sufficient to demonstrate 
stick force versus speed characteristics.''
    [ssquf] Test 2.e.3 (Crosswind Landing)--Adds a new test tolerance 
on column force for airplanes with reversible flight control systems. 
This additional tolerance will improve the overall validation of 
cockpit control forces during the landing maneuver. Previous standards 
only included control force tolerances for the wheel and rudder pedal 
inputs.
    [ssquf] Test 3.b. (Motion Leg Balance)--Removes the testing 
requirement for motion leg balance. This test was determined to have 
not provided additional value in assessing the capability of a motion 
cueing platform and was recommended for removal during the development 
of the ICAO 9625 document.
    [ssquf] Test 3.e.1 (Motion Cueing Fidelity)--Replaces the existing 
part 60 tests for ``motion cueing performance signature'' (MCPS) with 
an objective test for motion cueing developed by the ICAO 9625, Edition 
3 International Working Group. This test is designed to better compare 
motion platform cueing with the actual translational and rotational 
motion experienced in the aircraft.
    [ssquf] Test 4.a.1 (Visual--Field of View)--Increases the minimum 
visual system field of view from 176 x 36 degrees to 200 x 40 degrees.
    [ssquf] Test 4.a.2.a (Visual--System Geometry)--Defines new system 
geometry tolerances for image position, absolute geometry, and relative 
geometry.
    [ssquf] Test 4.a.7 (Visual--Lightpoint Brightness)--Defines a new 
minimum lightpoint brightness tolerance
    [ssquf] Test 4.a.9 (Visual--Black Level)--Defines new maximum black 
level requirements
    [ssquf] Test 4.a.10 (Visual--Motion Blur)--Defines new tolerances 
for motion blur of visual scenes
    [ssquf] Test 4.a.11 (Visual--Laser Speckle)--Defines a new maximum 
laser speckle contrast tolerance for applicable display systems
    [ssquf] Tests 4.b.1, 4.b.2, 4.b.3 (Heads-Up Display)--Defines new 
minimum tolerances for HUD alignment, display, and attitude.
    [ssquf] Tests 4.c.1, 4.c.2, 4.c.3 (Enhanced Flight Vision 
Systems)--Defines new minimum tolerances for EFVS registration, RVR, 
and thermal crossover.
    [ssquf] Tests 5.a and 5.b. (Sound System)--Revised objective sound 
testing tolerances to address subjective tuning and repeatability for 
recurrent evaluations
    [ssquf] Tests 6.a.1 (Systems Integration--Transport Delay)--
Transport delay tolerances are reduced from 150 ms to 100 ms.
    [ssquf] Paragraph 6.d. (Motion Cueing--Frequency Domain Testing)--
Additional background and recommended testing procedures for the OMCT 
tests (replaces existing guidance on the MCPS tests).
    [ssquf] Paragraphs 11.a.1 and 11.b.5 (Validation Test Tolerances)--
Extends reduced tolerances for engineering simulation validation data 
from 20% of flight test tolerances to 40% of flight test tolerances 
(less restrictive).
    3. Table A3A (Functions and Subjective Testing Requirements): The 
FAA added is proposing to add subjective tests in the following 
sections to align with ICAO 9625, Edition 3:
[ssquf] Test 2.b.6 and 2.b.7 (Taxi)
[ssquf] Test 5.b.2 (Slow Flight)
[ssquf] Tests 5.b.1 (High Angle of Attack)
[ssquf] Test 5.b.13 (Gliding to a Forced Landing)
[ssquf] Tests 5.b.14 (Visual Resolution and FSTD Handling and 
Performance)
[ssquf] Tests 7.a.1, 10.a.1, 11.a.20 (HUD/EFVS)
[ssquf] Tests 11.a.16, 11.a.20, 11.a.25, 11.a.26, 11.a.27 (New 
Technology)

4. Table A3B (Class I Airport Models)

    [ssquf] The FAA is proposing to restructure this table to align 
with the ICAO 9625, Edition 3 airport model requirements. No 
significant differences exist between this proposed table and the 
current part 60 requirements.
    5. Table A3D (Motion System Effects): The FAA is proposing to add 
or modify tests in the following sections to align with ICAO 9625, 
Edition 3:
    [ssquf] Test 1 (Taxi)--Introduces a new requirement for lateral and 
directional motion cueing effects during taxi maneuvers.
    [ssquf] Test 2 (Runway Contamination)--Introduces a new requirement 
for motion effects due to runway contamination and associated anti-skid 
system characteristics.
    [ssquf] Test 7 (Buffet Due to Atmospheric Disturbance)--Introduces 
a new requirement for motion cueing effects due to atmospheric 
disturbances.

K. New Level 7 Fixed Wing FSTD Requirements--Appendix B Changes 
(Appendix B, Tables B1A, B1B, B2A, B3A, B3B, B3C, B3D, and B3E)

    In addition to the changes proposed for FFS requirements in 
appendix A, the FAA is also proposing to add a new FTD qualification 
level (Level 7 FTD) in appendix B of part 60. This new FTD level would 
be modeled after the ICAO 9625, Edition 3 Type V FSTD and would 
incorporate all of the general requirements, objective testing 
requirements, and subjective testing requirements as defined in ICAO 
9625, Edition 3 for this level of FSTD. The purpose of adding this new 
FSTD level would be to expand the number of training tasks that can be 
qualified for training in a lower cost, fixed-base FSTD. The highest 
FTD level currently defined in the part 60 FSTD qualification standards 
is the Level 6 FTD. Because the standards for a Level 6 FTD do not 
include minimum requirements for ground reaction and ground handling 
modeling and also do

[[Page 39476]]

not require objective testing to validate the FSTD's performance in 
related maneuvers such as takeoff, landing, and taxi training tasks, 
the Level 6 FTD cannot be used for training these tasks.
    In order to qualify such an FTD for these training tasks, new 
evaluation requirements would be required to properly evaluate the 
aerodynamic ground effect, ground handling, and visual display system 
characteristics to ensure an adequate level of fidelity for related 
training maneuvers. In ICAO 9625, Edition 3, such a new FSTD level (the 
ICAO Type V FSTD) was defined to expand the number of introductory 
training tasks that can be conducted in a fixed base FSTD. The Type V 
FSTD evaluation guidance introduce new objective testing requirements 
in the takeoff, landing, and taxi flight maneuvers in a fixed base FTD 
that do not currently exist in a part 60 defined Level 6 FTD. This 
additional validation testing would allow for additional training to be 
qualified for such maneuvers beyond what a current FAA Level 6 FTD is 
capable of performing. Consistent with the ICAO Type V guidance 
material, some testing and checking tasks would still be limited to 
upper level FFSs that have the six degree of freedom motion cueing 
systems. The minimum requirements for the Type V FSTD as defined in the 
ICAO 9625, Edition 3 are essentially that of an ICAO Type VII simulator 
without motion cueing requirements and less restrictive visual display 
system requirements.
    The addition of this new FTD qualification level would be 
beneficial to industry because it would provide FSTD Sponsors with more 
options for conducting lower cost training in fixed base FSTDs rather 
than using more expensive Level D FFS for certain training tasks. The 
qualification and use of such FTDs in an FAA approved training program 
would be voluntary and would not impose additional cost on FSTD 
Sponsors.
    To incorporate the proposed addition of the Level 7 FTD into 
appendix B of part 60, the FAA is proposing to make several 
modifications to the existing tables to define the technical evaluation 
requirements for the new FTD level while keeping the requirements 
intact for the current Level 4, 5, and 6 FTDs. The FAA proposes the 
following changes to appendix B to achieve this objective:
    [ssquf] Minimum FTD Requirements (Table B1A): The FAA has rewritten 
the minimum FTD requirements table to use the ICAO 9625, Edition 3 
format and numbering system. The FAA has integrated the new Level 7 FTD 
requirements into the table and based them on the proposed Level D FFS 
requirements as defined in Table A1A with the exception of the motion 
and visual display system requirements. The FAA is proposing to leave 
all other FTD levels essentially unchanged from the current part 60 
requirements.
    [ssquf] Table of Tasks vs FTD Level (Table B1B): The FAA is 
proposing to modify the minimum qualified task list to include the new 
Level 7 FTD device. The FAA based the qualified tasks for the Level 7 
FTD upon the recommendations in ICAO 9625, Edition 3 for a Type V FSTD. 
Where a specific training task is limited to training only and not 
qualified for training to proficiency tasks (testing or checking), the 
FAA is proposing to annotate it in the table with a ``T.''
    [ssquf] Objective Testing Requirements (Table B2A): The FAA is 
proposing to update the table of objective tests to include new testing 
requirements for the Level 7 FTD. The FAA based these requirements on 
the FFS Level D requirements proposed in Table A2A with the exception 
of the motion system and visual system requirements.
    [ssquf] Functions and Subjective Testing Requirements (Tables B3A, 
B3B, B3C, B3D, and B3E): The FAA is proposing to add new and updated 
subjective tests to address the new tasks that may be accomplished in a 
Level 7 FTD. The FAA left the existing requirements for Level 4, 5, and 
6 FTDs unchanged.

L. Miscellaneous Amendments To Improve and Codify FSTD Evaluation 
Procedures (Sec. Sec.  60.15, 60.17, 60.19, 60.23, Appendix A Paragraph 
11)

    The FAA is further proposing to make minor amendments to the FSTD 
evaluation and oversight process as defined in several sections of the 
main rule. The part 60 rule was originally published in 2008 and 
codified many of the existing FSTD evaluation practices that had 
previously been defined in guidance material. Since the rule originally 
became effective, the FAA has found a number of requirements in the 
rule that have had unintentional negative consequences in the FAA's 
ability to oversee FSTD qualification issues. The proposed changes 
would allow for more flexibility in scheduling FSTD evaluations and 
reduce some of the paperwork that FSTD Sponsors currently submit to the 
FAA. The changes being proposed would be less restrictive and would not 
have a cost impact on FSTD Sponsors.
    [ssquf] Corrects language in the initial evaluation requirements 
where FSTD objective testing must be accomplished at the ``sponsor's 
training facility.'' This has been corrected to the FSTD's ``permanent 
location'' to accommodate for FSTDs that are not located at the 
sponsor's training facility, but at a third party location. (Sec.  
60.15 and appendix A, paragraph 11).
    [ssquf] Modifies the ``grace month'' for conducting annual 
Continuing Qualification (CQ) evaluations from one month to three 
months.
    [ssquf] Establishes the CQ evaluation schedule on the Statement of 
Qualification rather than in the Master Qualification Test Guide 
(MQTG). These changes would provide more flexibility in scheduling CQ 
evaluations to accommodate both the FAA and FSTD Sponsors. (Sec.  
60.19).
    [ssquf] Amends the date before which previously qualified FSTDs 
retain the qualification basis under which they were originally 
evaluated. This would ensure that FSTDs which were qualified after the 
original publication of part 60 (May 30, 2008) do not inadvertently 
lose grandfather rights. (Sec.  60.17).
    [ssquf] Clarifies the requirement to notify the FAA of changes made 
to an FSTD's MQTG. This requirement has been modified to require FAA 
reporting only for changes that would have a material impact on the 
MQTG content or the FSTD's qualification basis. This change would 
reduce the amount of reporting the FSTD Sponsors would have to conduct 
for minor text changes in the MQTG document. (Sec.  60.23).
    [ssquf] Reduces the minimum time prior to an initial evaluation 
that an FSTD Sponsor is required to send a confirmation statement to 
the FAA that an FSTD has been evaluated in accordance with the part 60 
QPS, provided there is prior coordination and approval by the NSPM. 
This change would allow more flexibility for the FSTD sponsors in 
complex FSTD installations where on-site testing cannot be accomplished 
before the current 5 day time limit. (appendix A, Paragraph 11).

IV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses

A. Regulatory Evaluation

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic 
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 direct 
that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon 
a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation 
justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. 
L. 96-354) requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of 
regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act 
(Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits agencies

[[Page 39477]]

from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 
commerce of the United States. In developing U.S. standards, this Trade 
Act requires agencies to consider international standards and, where 
appropriate, that they be the basis of U.S. standards. Fourth, the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies 
to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other 
effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate 
likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 
million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of 
1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of 
the economic impacts of this proposed rule. We suggest readers seeking 
greater detail read the full regulatory evaluation, a copy of which we 
have placed in the docket for this rulemaking.
    In conducting these analyses, FAA has determined this proposed rule 
has benefits that justify its costs. It has also been determined that 
this rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' as defined in 
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, and is not ``significant'' as 
defined in DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures. The proposed rule, 
if adopted, will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities, will not create unnecessary 
obstacles to international trade and will not impose an unfunded 
mandate on state, local, or tribal governments, or on the private 
sector.
Total Benefits and Costs of This Rule
Total Costs and Benefits
    The FAA estimated three separate sets of costs, and provide 
separate benefit bases. The first set of costs would be incurred to 
make the necessary upgrades to the FSTDs to enable training required by 
the new Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule. The 
training cost for the Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final 
Rule provides rental revenue to simulator sponsors which will fully 
compensate them for their FSTD upgrade expenses. These simulator 
revenues were accounted for as costs of the additional training and 
were fully justified by the benefits in that final rule. The second set 
of costs would be incurred for the evaluation and modification of 
engine and airframe icing models which would enhance existing training 
requirements for operations using anti-icing/de-icing equipment. Just 
avoiding one serious injury provides sufficient benefits to justify the 
estimated cost. Lastly there are a set of changes to part 60 QPS 
appendices which would align the simulator standards for some FSTD 
levels with those of the latest ICAO simulator evaluation guidance. 
This last set of changes would only apply to newly qualified FSTDs. The 
FAA expects unquantified safety improvements to result from these 
changes through more realistic training and possibly cost savings 
through avoiding conflicting compliance standards with other aviation 
authorities. The changes are expected to improve overall simulator 
fidelity with new and revised visual system and other FSTD evaluation 
standards, such as visual display resolution, visual system field of 
view, and system transport delay.
    The table below summarizes the costs and benefits of this proposal 
over a ten year period:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.000


[[Page 39478]]


Costs
    We now discuss the three separate sets of costs.
    Upgrade Previously Qualified FSTDs for New Training Requirements. 
The first set of costs would be incurred to make the necessary upgrades 
to the FSTDs to enable training required by the new Crewmember and 
Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule. In order to avoid 
inappropriate or negative training, FSTDs being used to comply with 
certain ``extended envelope'' training tasks in the new training rule 
would require evaluation and modification as defined in the FSTD 
Directive of this proposed part 60 rule.
    Icing Provisions. The second set of costs would be incurred for the 
evaluation and modification of engine and airframe icing models which 
would enhance existing training requirements. These costs were 
estimated as a percentage of the total cost of the FSTD aerodynamic 
model development costs proposed by this rule. We did not include 
additional model implementation and FSTD downtime costs because it was 
assumed that these modifications would likely be conducted concurrently 
with the modifications required for the stall training tasks.
    Aligning Standards With ICAO. Lastly there are a set of changes to 
part 60 QPS appendices which would align the simulator standards for 
some FSTD levels with those of the latest ICAO FSTD evaluation guidance 
document. These changes would only apply to newly qualified FSTDs.
Benefits
    Upgrade Previously Qualified FSTDs for New Training Requirements. 
The best way to understand the benefits of this proposed rule is to 
view it in conjunction with the new Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher 
Training Final Rule. The costs of that training rule were justified by 
the expected benefits. The training rule cost/benefit analysis assumes 
that the simulators will be able to provide the required training at an 
hourly rate of $500. The part 60 proposed rule specifies the necessary 
simulator upgrade specifications. These upgrades require simulator 
owners to purchase and install upgrade packages, the costs of which are 
a cost of this proposed rule. Revenues received by simulator owners for 
providing training from the upgraded simulators are costs already 
incurred in the training rule that have been justified by the benefits 
of that rule. This revenue over time exceeds the cost of this proposed 
rule.
    The proposed part 60 standards and upgrade simulator expense 
supporting the new training is $45 million ($32 million in present 
value at 7%) and has been fully justified by the new Crewmember and 
Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule.
    Icing Provisions. The second area for benefits is for the icing 
upgrade. Although this upgrade is not in response to a new training 
requirement, it would enhance existing training requirements for 
operations involving anti-icing/de-icing equipment and further address 
NTSB 19 20 and ARC recommendations to the FAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ NTSB recommendations A-11-46 and A-11-47 address engine and 
airframe icing.
    \20\ www.ntsb.gov
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These costs are minor at less than a million dollars and are 
expected to comprise a small percentage of the total cost of compliance 
with the FSTD Directive. One avoided serious injury would justify the 
minor costs of complying with these icing requirements.
    Aligning Standards with ICAO. Lastly, we have not quantified 
benefits of aligning part 60 qualification standards with those 
recommended by ICAO, but we expect aligned FSTD standards to contribute 
to improved safety as they are developed by a broad coalition of 
experts with a combined pool of knowledge and experience and to result 
in cost savings through avoiding conflicting compliance standards with 
other aviation authorities. The changes are expected to improve overall 
simulator fidelity with new and revised visual system and other FSTD 
evaluation standards, such as visual display resolution, visual system 
field of view, and system transport delay.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA) 
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall 
endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable 
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale 
of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions 
subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required 
to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain 
the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given 
serious consideration.'' The RFA covers a wide-range of small entities, 
including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small 
governmental jurisdictions.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must 
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.
    However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the 
agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not 
required. The certification must include a statement providing the 
factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be 
clear.
Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities
    Only FSTD sponsors are affected by this rule. FSTD sponsors are air 
carriers who own simulators to train their pilots or training centers 
who own simulators and sell simulator training time. To identify FSTD 
sponsors that would be affected retroactively by the FSTD 
directive,\21\ the FAA subjected the 811 FSTDs with an active 
qualification by the FAA to qualifying criteria designed to eliminate 
FSTDs not likely to be used in a part 121 training program for the 
applicable training tasks (i.e., stall training, upset recovery 
training, etc.). The remaining list of 322 FSTDs (included in Appendix 
A of the regulatory evaluation) were sponsored by the 26 companies 
presented in the table below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Part 60 contains grandfather rights for previously 
qualified FSTD so the FAA would invoke an FSTD Directive to require 
modification of previously qualified devices. The FSTD Directive 
process has provisions for mandating modifications to FSTDs 
retroactively for safety of flight reasons. See 14 CFR Part 60, 
Sec.  60.23(b).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 39479]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.001

    To determine which of the 26 organizations listed in the previous 
table are small entities, the FAA consulted the U.S. Small Business 
Administration Table of Small Business Size Standards Matched to North 
American Industry Classification System Codes.\22\ For flight training 
(NAICS Code 611512) the threshold for small business is revenue of 
$25.5 million or less. The size standard for scheduled passenger air 
transportation (NAICS Code 481111) and scheduled freight air 
transportation (NAICS Code 481112) and non-scheduled charter passenger 
air transportation (NAICS Code 481211) is 1,500 employees. After 
consulting the World Aviation Directory, and other on-line sources, for 
employees and annual revenues, the FAA identified six companies that 
are qualified as small entities. In this instance, the FAA considers 
six a substantial number of small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ http://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/Size_Standards_Table.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Economic Impact
    The economic impact of this rule applies differently to previously 
qualified FSTD sponsors than it would to newly qualified FSTD sponsors. 
Below is a summary of the two separate analyses performed. One 
determines the impact of the proposal on small entities that would have 
to upgrade their previously qualified devices and the other analysis 
determines the impact on those that would have to purchase a newly 
qualified devices.
Economic Impact of Upgrading Previously Qualified FSTDs
    Four of the small entities are training providers. If these 
companies choose to offer training in the extended envelope training 
tasks as required by the Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training 
Final Rule, they could do so only in an upgraded FSTD. However, if they 
offer this new required training there would be increased demand for 
training time in their FSTDs because in addition to current 
requirements for training, captains and first officers have two hours 
of additional training in the first year and additional training time 
in the future. The FAA estimated the cost of upgrading each simulator 
would be recovered in less than 300 hours at a simulator rental rate of 
$500 per hour. The training companies could therefore recover their 
upgrade costs for each simulator in less than one year. Therefore, the 
rule would not impose a significant economic impact on these companies.
    Two of the companies identified as small businesses are part 121 
air carriers. They have to comply with the Crewmember and Aircraft 
Dispatcher Training Final Rule by training their pilots in simulators 
that meet the standards of this part 60 rule. The additional pilot 
training cost in an upgraded simulator was accounted for and justified 
in that training final rule. This part 60 rule simply specifies how the 
simulators need to be upgraded such that the new training will be in 
compliance with the training final rule. These part 121 operators have 
two options. They can purchase training time for their pilots at a 
qualified training center. Alternatively they could choose to comply 
with the FSTD Directive by upgrading their own devices to train their 
pilots for the new training tasks. For these operators who already own 
simulators, the cost of complying with the FSTD Directive is estimated 
to be less than the cost of renting time at a training center to comply 
with the new requirements. Therefore, we expect that they would choose 
to upgrade their devices because it would be less costly to offer 
training in-house than to send pilots out to

[[Page 39480]]

training centers. The cost to train pilots in the tasks required by the 
training rule is a cost of the training rule and not this rule. Thus, 
the rule would not impose a significant economic impact on these 
companies, because by upgrading their simulators these operators would 
lower their costs.
Economics of Newly Qualified Devices
    It is unknown how many sponsors of newly qualified FSTDs in the 
future may qualify as small entities, but we expect it would be a 
substantial number as it could likely include the six identified above. 
The FAA expects the proposed requirements that address the new training 
tasks and upgrade the icing FSTD requirements to be included in future 
training packages and the cost would be minimal for a newly qualified 
FSTD. The requirement to align with ICAO guidance however, would result 
in some cost. The FAA does not know who in the future will be 
purchasing and qualifying FSTDs after the rule becomes effective. The 
FAA estimates that the incremental cost per newly qualified FSTD would 
be approximately $34,000. This is less than 0.5 percent of the cost of 
a new FSTD, which generally costs $10 million or more. Therefore we do 
not believe the proposed rule would have a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities that purchase newly qualified 
FSTDs after the rule is in effect.
    Thus this proposed rule is expected to impact a substantial number 
of small entities, but not impose a significant economic impact. 
Therefore, as provided in section 605(b), the head of the FAA certifies 
that this rulemaking will not result in a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities. The FAA solicits comments 
regarding this determination.

C. International Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the 
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal 
agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities 
that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United 
States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not 
considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the 
United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic 
objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not operate in a 
manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also 
requires consideration of international standards and, where 
appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has 
assessed the potential effect of this proposed rule and determined that 
it uses international standards as its basis and does not create 
unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States.

D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement 
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final 
agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more 
(in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate 
is deemed to be a ``significant regulatory action.'' The FAA currently 
uses an inflation-adjusted value of $151 million in lieu of $100 
million. This proposed rule does not contain such a mandate; therefore, 
the requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires 
that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information 
collection burdens imposed on the public. According to the 1995 
amendments to the Paperwork Reduction Act (5 CFR 1320.8(b)(2)(vi)), an 
agency may not collect or sponsor the collection of information, nor 
may it impose an information collection requirement unless it displays 
a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
    This action contains the following proposed amendments to the 
existing information collection requirements previously approved under 
OMB Control Number 2120-0680. As required by the Paperwork Reduction 
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)), the FAA has submitted these proposed 
information collection amendments to OMB for its review.
    Summary: Under this proposal, an increase in information collection 
requirements would be imposed on Sponsors of previously qualified FSTDs 
that require modification for the qualification of certain training 
tasks as defined in FSTD Directive 2. These Sponsors would be required 
to report FSTD modifications to the FAA as described in Sec.  60.23 and 
Sec.  60.16 which would result in a one-time information collection. 
Additionally, because compliance with the FSTD Directive (for 
previously qualified FSTDs) and the new QPS requirements (for newly 
qualified FSTDs) would increase the overall amount of objective testing 
necessary to maintain FSTD qualification under Sec.  60.19, a slight 
increase in annual information collection would be required to document 
such testing.
    Use: For previously qualified FSTDs, the information collection 
would be used to determine that the requirements of the FSTD Directive 
have been met. The FAA will use this information to issue amended 
Statements of Qualification (SOQ) for those FSTDs that have been found 
to meet those requirements and also to determine if the FSTDs annual 
inspection and maintenance requirements have been met.
    Respondents (including number of): The additional information 
collection burden in this proposal is limited to those FSTD Sponsors 
that would require specific FSTD qualification for certain training 
tasks as defined in FSTD Directive 2. Approximately 322 previously 
qualified FSTDs \23\ may require evaluation as described in the FSTD 
Directive to support the Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training 
Final Rule. The number of respondents would be limited to those 
Sponsors that maintain FSTDs which may require additional qualification 
in accordance with the FSTD Directive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ The FAA estimated this from the number of previously 
qualified FSTDs that simulate aircraft which are currently used in 
U.S. part 121 air carrier operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Frequency: This additional information collection would include 
both a one-time event and an increase to the annual part 60 information 
collection requirements.
    Annual Burden Estimate: The FAA estimates that for each additional 
qualified task required in accordance with FSTD Directive 2, the one-
time information collection burden to each FSTD Sponsor would be 
approximately 0.85 hours per FSTD for each additional qualified 
task.\24\ Assuming all five of the additional qualified tasks would be 
required for each of the estimated 322 FSTDs (including qualification 
for full stall training, upset recovery training, airborne icing 
training, takeoff and landing in gusting crosswinds, and bounced 
landing training), the cumulative one-time information collection 
burden would be approximately 1,369 hours. This collection burden would 
be distributed over a time period of approximately 3

[[Page 39481]]

years. This 3 year time period represents the compliance period of the 
proposed FSTD Directive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ The 0.85 hour burden is derived from the existing Part 60 
Paperwork Reduction Act supporting statement (OMB-2120-0680), Table 
5 (Sec.  60.16) and includes estimated time for the FSTD Sponsor's 
staff to draft and send the letter as well as estimated time for 
updating the approved MQTG with new test results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The one-time information collection burden to the Federal 
government is estimated at approximately 0.6 hours per FSTD for each 
qualified task to include Aerospace Engineer review and preparation of 
an FAA response.\25\ Assuming all five of the additional qualified 
tasks would be required for each of the estimated 322 FSTDs, the 
cumulative one-time information collection burden to the Federal 
government would be approximately 966 hours. The modification of the 
FSTD's Statement of Qualification would be incorporated with the FSTD's 
next scheduled evaluation, so this would not impose additional burden.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ The 0.6 hour burden on the Federal government is also 
derived from the existing Part 60 Paperwork Reduction Act supporting 
statement (OMB-2120-0680), Table 5 (Sec.  60.16).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because the number of objective tests required to maintain FSTD 
qualification would increase slightly with this proposal, the annual 
information collection burden would also increase under the FSTD 
inspection and maintenance requirements of Sec.  60.19. This additional 
information collection burden is estimated by increasing the average 
number of required objective tests for Level C and Level D FSTDs by 
four tests.\26\ For the estimated 322 FSTDs that may be affected by the 
FSTD Directive, this will result in an additional 129 hours of annual 
information collection burden to FSTD Sponsors. This additional 
collection burden is based upon 0.1 hours \27\ per test for a simulator 
technician to document as required by Sec.  60.19. The additional 
information collection burden to the Federal government would also 
increase by approximately 43 hours \28\ due to the additional tests 
that may be sampled and reviewed by the FAA during continuing 
qualification evaluations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ For previously qualified FSTDs, the requirements of FSTD 
Directive 2 will add a maximum of four additional objective 
test cases to the existing requirements.
    \27\ The 0.1 hour burden is derived from the existing Part 60 
Paperwork Reduction Act supporting statement (OMB-2120-0680), Table 
6 (Sec.  60.19) and includes estimated time for the FSTD Sponsor's 
staff to document the completion of required annual objective 
testing.
    \28\ This information collection burden is based upon 0.1 hours 
per test required for FAA personnel to review. These four additional 
tests are subject to the approximately 33% of which may be spot 
checked by FAA personnel on site during a continuing qualification 
evaluation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For new FSTDs qualified after the proposal becomes effective, the 
changes to the QPS appendices proposed to align with ICAO 9625 as well 
as the new requirements for the evaluation of stall and icing training 
maneuvers would result in an estimated average increase of four 
objective tests \29\ that would require annual documentation as 
described in Sec.  60.19. For the estimated 22 new \30\ Level C and 
Level D FSTDs that may be initially qualified annually by the FAA, this 
will result in an additional 9 hours of annual information collection 
burden to FSTD Sponsors and an additional 3 hours of annual information 
collection burden to the Federal government. For newly qualified FSTDs, 
this proposal does not increase the frequency of reporting for FSTD 
sponsors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ These four additional tests were estimated through 
comparison between the current and proposed list of objective tests 
required for qualification (Table A2A). Note that the total number 
of tests can vary between FSTDs as a function of aircraft type, test 
implementation, and the employment of certain technologies that 
would require additional testing.
    \30\ Based upon internal records review, the FAA calculated the 
number of newly qualified FSTDs at approximately 22 per year over a 
ten year period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency is soliciting comments to--
    (1) Evaluate whether the proposed information requirement is 
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, 
including whether the information would have practical utility;
    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden;
    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to 
be collected; and
    (4) Minimize the burden of collecting information on those who are 
to respond, including by using appropriate automated, electronic, 
mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms 
of information technology.
    Individuals and organizations may send comments on the information 
collection requirement to the address listed in the ADDRESSES section 
at the beginning of this preamble by October 8, 2014. Comments also 
should be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Desk Officer for FAA, 
New Executive Building, Room 10202, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 
20053.

F. International Compatibility and Cooperation

    In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on 
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to conform to ICAO 
Standards and Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. 
The FAA has determined that there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended 
Practices that correspond to these proposed changes to the part 60 
regulations. While the FAA has proposed to align the part 60 
qualification standards for Level 7 FTDs and Level D fixed wing FFSs 
with that of ICAO Document 9625, the FSTD qualification guidance 
contained within ICAO 9625 are not defined in an ICAO Annex as a 
Standard and Recommended Practice and are considered guidance material.
    Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory 
Cooperation, (77 FR 26413, May 4, 2012) promotes international 
regulatory cooperation to meet shared challenges involving health, 
safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues and reduce, 
eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory 
requirements. The FAA has analyzed this action under the policy and 
agency responsibilities of Executive Order 13609, Promoting 
International Regulatory Cooperation. The agency has determined that 
this action would promote the elimination of differences between U.S. 
aviation standards and those of other civil aviation authorities by 
aligning evaluation standards for similar FSTD fidelity levels to the 
latest internationally recognized FSTD evaluation guidance in the ICAO 
9625 document.

G. Environmental Analysis

    FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA actions that are categorically 
excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or 
environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy 
Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has 
determined this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical 
exclusion identified in paragraph 312f and involves no extraordinary 
circumstances.

V. Executive Order Determinations

A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    The FAA has analyzed this proposed rule under the principles and 
criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The agency has 
determined that this action would not have a substantial direct effect 
on the States, or the relationship between the Federal Government and 
the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among 
the various levels of government, and, therefore, would not have 
Federalism implications.

[[Page 39482]]

B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    The FAA analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, 
Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The agency has determined that it 
would not be a ``significant energy action'' under the executive order 
and would not be likely to have a significant adverse effect on the 
supply, distribution, or use of energy.

VI. Additional Information

A. Comments Invited

    The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this 
rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. The agency 
also invites comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, 
or federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in 
this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion 
of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and 
include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain 
duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written 
comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should 
submit only one time.
    The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well 
as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA 
personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this 
proposal, the FAA will consider all comments it receives on or before 
the closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed 
after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without 
incurring expense or delay. The agency may change this proposal in 
light of the comments it receives.
    Proprietary or Confidential Business Information: Commenters should 
not file proprietary or confidential business information in the 
docket. Such information must be sent or delivered directly to the 
person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of 
this document, and marked as proprietary or confidential. If submitting 
information on a disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD 
ROM, and identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific 
information that is proprietary or confidential.
    Under 14 CFR 11.35(b), if the FAA is aware of proprietary 
information filed with a comment, the agency does not place it in the 
docket. It is held in a separate file to which the public does not have 
access, and the FAA places a note in the docket that it has received 
it. If the FAA receives a request to examine or copy this information, 
it treats it as any other request under the Freedom of Information Act 
(5 U.S.C. 552). The FAA processes such a request under Department of 
Transportation procedures found in 49 CFR part 7.

B. Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    An electronic copy of rulemaking documents may be obtained from the 
Internet by--
    1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov);
    2. Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies or
    3. Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at http://www.fdsys.gov.
    Copies may also be obtained by sending a request to the Federal 
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence 
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680. 
Commenters must identify the docket or notice number of this 
rulemaking.
    All documents the FAA considered in developing this proposed rule, 
including economic analyses and technical reports, may be accessed from 
the Internet through the Federal eRulemaking Portal referenced in item 
(1) above.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 60

    Airmen, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation 
Administration proposes to amend chapter I of title 14, Code of Federal 
Regulations as follows:

PART 60--FLIGHT SIMULATION TRAINING DEVICE INITIAL AND CONTINUING 
QUALIFICATION AND USE

0
1. The authority citation for part 60 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, and 44701; Pub. L. 
111-216, 124 Stat. 2348 (49 U.S.C. 44701 note).

0
2. Amend Sec.  60.15 by revising paragraph (e) to read as follows:


Sec.  60.15  Initial Qualification requirements.

* * * * *
    (e) The subjective tests that form the basis for the statements 
described in paragraph (b) of this section and the objective tests 
referenced in paragraph (f) of this section must be accomplished at the 
FSTD's permanent location, except as provided for in the applicable 
QPS.
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec.  60.17 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:


Sec.  60.17  Previously qualified FSTDs.

    (a) Unless otherwise specified by an FSTD Directive, further 
referenced in the applicable QPS, or as specified in paragraph (e) of 
this section, an FSTD qualified before [effective date of final rule] 
will retain its qualification basis as long as it continues to meet the 
standards, including the objective test results recorded in the MQTG 
and subjective tests, under which it was originally evaluated, 
regardless of sponsor. The sponsor of such an FSTD must comply with the 
other applicable provisions of this part.
0
4. Amend Sec.  60.19 by revising paragraphs (b)(4) and (b)(5) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  60.19  Inspection, continuing qualification evaluation, and 
maintenance requirements.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (4) The frequency of NSPM-conducted continuing qualification 
evaluations for each FSTD will be established by the NSPM and specified 
in the Statement of Qualification.
    (5) Continuing qualification evaluations conducted in the 3 
calendar months before or after the calendar month in which these 
continuing qualification evaluations are required will be considered to 
have been conducted in the calendar month in which they were required.
* * * * *
0
5. Amend Sec.  60.23 by adding new paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows:


Sec.  60.23  Modifications to FSTDs.

    (a) * * *
    (3) Changes to the MQTG which do not affect required objective 
testing results or validation data approved during the initial 
evaluation of the FSTD are not considered modifications under this 
section.
* * * * *
0
6. Part 60 is amended by revising Appendix A to read as follows:

Appendix A to Part 60--Qualification Performance Standards for Airplane 
Full Flight Simulators

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin Information

    This appendix establishes the standards for Airplane FFS 
evaluation and qualification. The NSPM is responsible for the 
development, application, and

[[Page 39483]]

implementation of the standards contained within this appendix. The 
procedures and criteria specified in this appendix will be used by 
the NSPM, or a person assigned by the NSPM, when conducting airplane 
FFS evaluations.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction.
2. Applicability (Sec. Sec.  60.1 and 60.2).
3. Definitions (Sec.  60.3).
4. Qualification Performance Standards (Sec.  60.4).
5. Quality Management System (Sec.  60.5).
6. Sponsor Qualification Requirements (Sec.  60.7).
7. Additional Responsibilities of the Sponsor (Sec.  60.9).
8. FFS Use (Sec.  60.11).
9. FFS Objective Data Requirements (Sec.  60.13).
10. Special Equipment and Personnel Requirements for Qualification 
of the FFS (Sec.  60.14).
11. Initial (and Upgrade) Qualification Requirements (Sec.  60.15).
12. Additional Qualifications for a Currently Qualified FFS (Sec.  
60.16).
13. Previously Qualified FFSs (Sec.  60.17).
14. Inspection, Continuing Qualification Evaluation, and Maintenance 
Requirements (Sec.  60.19).
15. Logging FFS Discrepancies (Sec.  60.20).
16. Interim Qualification of FFSs for New Airplane Types or Models 
(Sec.  60.21).
17. Modifications to FFSs (Sec.  60.23).
18. Operations With Missing, Malfunctioning, or Inoperative 
Components (Sec.  60.25).
19. Automatic Loss of Qualification and Procedures for Restoration 
of Qualification (Sec.  60.27).
20. Other Losses of Qualification and Procedures for Restoration of 
Qualification (Sec.  60.29).
21. Record Keeping and Reporting (Sec.  60.31).
22. Applications, Logbooks, Reports, and Records: Fraud, 
Falsification, or Incorrect Statements (Sec.  60.33).
23. Specific FFS Compliance Requirements (Sec.  60.35).
24. [Reserved]
25. FFS Qualification on the Basis of a Bilateral Aviation Safety 
Agreement (BASA) (Sec.  60.37).
Attachment 1 to Appendix A to Part 60--General Simulator 
Requirements.
Attachment 2 to Appendix A to Part 60--FFS Objective Tests.
Attachment 3 to Appendix A to Part 60--Simulator Subjective 
Evaluation.
Attachment 4 to Appendix A to Part 60--Sample Documents.
Attachment 5 to Appendix A to Part 60--Simulator Qualification 
Requirements for Windshear Training Program Use.
Attachment 6 to Appendix A to Part 60--FSTD Directives Applicable to 
Airplane Flight Simulators.
Attachment 7 to Appendix A to Part 60--Additional Simulator 
Qualification Requirements for Stall, Upset Recognition and 
Recovery, and Engine and Airframe Icing Training Tasks.

End Information

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Introduction

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin Information

    a. This appendix contains background information as well as 
regulatory and informative material as described later in this 
section. To assist the reader in determining what areas are required 
and what areas are permissive, the text in this appendix is divided 
into two sections: ``QPS Requirements'' and ``Information.'' The QPS 
Requirements sections contain details regarding compliance with the 
part 60 rule language. These details are regulatory, but are found 
only in this appendix. The Information sections contain material 
that is advisory in nature, and designed to give the user general 
information about the regulation.
    b. Questions regarding the contents of this publication should 
be sent to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation 
Administration, Flight Standards Service, National Simulator Program 
Staff, AFS-205, 100 Hartsfield Centre Parkway, Suite 400, Atlanta, 
Georgia, 30354. Telephone contact numbers for the NSP are: Phone, 
404-832-4700; fax, 404-761-8906. The general email address for the 
NSP office is: [email protected]. The NSP Internet Web site 
address is: http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/nsp/. On this Web 
site you will find an NSP personnel list with telephone and email 
contact information for each NSP staff member, a list of qualified 
flight simulation devices, advisory circulars (ACs), a description 
of the qualification process, NSP policy, and an NSP ``In-Works'' 
section. Also linked from this site are additional information 
sources, handbook bulletins, frequently asked questions, a listing 
and text of the Federal Aviation Regulations, Flight Standards 
Inspector's handbooks, and other FAA links.
    c. The NSPM encourages the use of electronic media for all 
communication, including any record, report, request, test, or 
statement required by this appendix. The electronic media used must 
have adequate security provisions and be acceptable to the NSPM. The 
NSPM recommends inquiries on system compatibility, and minimum 
system requirements are also included on the NSP Web site.
    d. Related Reading References.
    (1) 14 CFR part 60.
    (2) 14 CFR part 61.
    (3) 14 CFR part 63.
    (4) 14 CFR part 119.
    (5) 14 CFR part 121.
    (6) 14 CFR part 125.
    (7) 14 CFR part 135.
    (8) 14 CFR part 141.
    (9) 14 CFR part 142.
    (10) AC 120-28, as amended, Criteria for Approval of Category 
III Landing Weather Minima.
    (11) AC 120-29, as amended, Criteria for Approving Category I 
and Category II Landing Minima for part 121 operators.
    (12) AC 120-35, as amended, Line Operational Simulations: Line-
Oriented Flight Training, Special Purpose Operational Training, Line 
Operational Evaluation.
    (13) AC 120-40, as amended, Airplane Simulator Qualification.
    (14) AC 120-41, as amended, Criteria for Operational Approval of 
Airborne Wind Shear Alerting and Flight Guidance Systems.
    (15) AC 120-57, as amended, Surface Movement Guidance and 
Control System (SMGCS).
    (16) AC 150/5300-13, as amended, Airport Design.
    (17) AC 150/5340-1, as amended, Standards for Airport Markings.
    (18) AC 150/5340-4, as amended, Installation Details for Runway 
Centerline Touchdown Zone Lighting Systems.
    (19) AC 150/5340-19, as amended, Taxiway Centerline Lighting 
System.
    (20) AC 150/5340-24, as amended, Runway and Taxiway Edge 
Lighting System.
    (21) AC 150/5345-28, as amended, Precision Approach Path 
Indicator (PAPI) Systems.
    (22) International Air Transport Association document, ``Flight 
Simulator Design and Performance Data Requirements,'' as amended.
    (23) AC 25-7, as amended, Flight Test Guide for Certification of 
Transport Category Airplanes.
    (24) AC 23-8, as amended, Flight Test Guide for Certification of 
Part 23 Airplanes.
    (25) International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Manual of 
Criteria for the Qualification of Flight Simulators, as amended.
    (26) Airplane Flight Simulator Evaluation Handbook, Volume I, as 
amended and Volume II, as amended, The Royal Aeronautical Society, 
London, UK.
    (27) FAA Publication FAA-S-8081 series (Practical Test Standards 
for Airline Transport Pilot Certificate, Type Ratings, Commercial 
Pilot, and Instrument Ratings).
    (28) The FAA Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM). An 
electronic version of the AIM is on the internet at http://www.faa.gov/atpubs.
    (29) Aeronautical Radio, Inc. (ARINC) document number 436, 
titled Guidelines For Electronic Qualification Test Guide (as 
amended).
    (30) Aeronautical Radio, Inc. (ARINC) document 610, Guidance for 
Design and Integration of Aircraft Avionics Equipment in Simulators 
(as amended).

End Information

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Applicability (Sec. Sec.  60.1 and 60.2)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin Information

    No additional regulatory or informational material applies to 
Sec.  60.1, Applicability, or to Sec.  60.2, Applicability of 
sponsor rules to person who are not sponsors and who are engaged in 
certain unauthorized activities.

End Information

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Definitions (Sec.  60.3)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin Information

    See Appendix F of this part for a list of definitions and 
abbreviations from part 1 and part 60, including the appropriate 
appendices of part 60.

[[Page 39484]]

End Information

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Qualification Performance Standards (Sec.  60.4)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin Information

    No additional regulatory or informational material applies to 
Sec.  60.4, Qualification Performance Standards.

End Information

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Quality Management System (Sec.  60.5)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin Information

    See Appendix E of this part for additional regulatory and 
informational material regarding Quality Management Systems.

End Information

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Sponsor Qualification Requirements (Sec.  60.7)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin Information

    a. The intent of the language in Sec.  60.7(b) is to have a 
specific FFS, identified by the sponsor, used at least once in an 
FAA-approved flight training program for the airplane simulated 
during the 12-month period described. The identification of the 
specific FFS may change from one 12-month period to the next 12-
month period as long as the sponsor sponsors and uses at least one 
FFS at least once during the prescribed period. No minimum number of 
hours or minimum FFS periods are required.
    b. The following examples describe acceptable operational 
practices:
    (1) Example One.
    (a) A sponsor is sponsoring a single, specific FFS for its own 
use, in its own facility or elsewhere--this single FFS forms the 
basis for the sponsorship. The sponsor uses that FFS at least once 
in each 12-month period in the sponsor's FAA-approved flight 
training program for the airplane simulated. This 12-month period is 
established according to the following schedule:
    (i) If the FFS was qualified prior to May 30, 2008, the 12-month 
period begins on the date of the first continuing qualification 
evaluation conducted in accordance with Sec.  60.19 after May 30, 
2008, and continues for each subsequent 12-month period;
    (ii) A device qualified on or after May 30, 2008, will be 
required to undergo an initial or upgrade evaluation in accordance 
with Sec.  60.15. Once the initial or upgrade evaluation is 
complete, the first continuing qualification evaluation will be 
conducted within 6 months. The 12 month continuing qualification 
evaluation cycle begins on that date and continues for each 
subsequent 12-month period.
    (b) There is no minimum number of hours of FFS use required.
    (c) The identification of the specific FFS may change from one 
12-month period to the next 12-month period as long as the sponsor 
sponsors and uses at least one FFS at least once during the 
prescribed period.
    (2) Example Two.
    (a) A sponsor sponsors an additional number of FFSs, in its 
facility or elsewhere. Each additionally sponsored FFS must be--
    (i) Used by the sponsor in the sponsor's FAA-approved flight 
training program for the airplane simulated (as described in Sec.  
60.7(d)(1));
    OR
    (ii) Used by another FAA certificate holder in that other 
certificate holder's FAA-approved flight training program for the 
airplane simulated (as described in Sec.  60.7(d)(1)). This 12-month 
period is established in the same manner as in example one;
    OR
    (iii) Provided a statement each year from a qualified pilot, 
(after having flown the airplane, not the subject FFS or another 
FFS, during the preceding 12-month period) stating that the subject 
FFSs performance and handling qualities represent the airplane (as 
described in Sec.  60.7(d)(2)). This statement is provided at least 
once in each 12-month period established in the same manner as in 
example one.
    (b) No minimum number of hours of FFS use is required.
    (3) Example Three.
    (a) A sponsor in New York (in this example, a Part 142 
certificate holder) establishes ``satellite'' training centers in 
Chicago and Moscow.
    (b) The satellite function means that the Chicago and Moscow 
centers must operate under the New York center's certificate (in 
accordance with all of the New York center's practices, procedures, 
and policies; e.g., instructor and/or technician training/checking 
requirements, record keeping, QMS program).
    (c) All of the FFSs in the Chicago and Moscow centers could be 
dry-leased (i.e., the certificate holder does not have and use FAA-
approved flight training programs for the FFSs in the Chicago and 
Moscow centers) because--
    (i) Each FFS in the Chicago center and each FFS in the Moscow 
center is used at least once each 12-month period by another FAA 
certificate holder in that other certificate holder's FAA-approved 
flight training program for the airplane (as described in Sec.  
60.7(d)(1));
    OR
    (ii) A statement is obtained from a qualified pilot (having 
flown the airplane, not the subject FFS or another FFS during the 
preceding 12-month period) stating that the performance and handling 
qualities of each FFS in the Chicago and Moscow centers represents 
the airplane (as described in Sec.  60.7(d)(2)).

End Information

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

7. Additional Responsibilities of the Sponsor (Sec.  60.9)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin Information

    The phrase ``as soon as practicable'' in Sec.  60.9(a) means 
without unnecessarily disrupting or delaying beyond a reasonable 
time the training, evaluation, or experience being conducted in the 
FFS.

End Information

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

8. FFS Use (Sec.  60.11)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin Information

    No additional regulatory or informational material applies to 
Sec.  60.11, Simulator Use.

End Information

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

9. FFS Objective Data Requirements (Sec.  60.13)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin QPS Requirements

    a. Flight test data used to validate FFS performance and 
handling qualities must have been gathered in accordance with a 
flight test program containing the following:
    (1) A flight test plan consisting of:
    (a) The maneuvers and procedures required for aircraft 
certification and simulation programming and validation.
    (b) For each maneuver or procedure--
    (i) The procedures and control input the flight test pilot and/
or engineer used.
    (ii) The atmospheric and environmental conditions.
    (iii) The initial flight conditions.
    (iv) The airplane configuration, including weight and center of 
gravity.
    (v) The data to be gathered.
    (vi) All other information necessary to recreate the flight test 
conditions in the FFS.
    (2) Appropriately qualified flight test personnel.
    (3) An understanding of the accuracy of the data to be gathered 
using appropriate alternative data sources, procedures, and 
instrumentation that is traceable to a recognized standard as 
described in Attachment 2, Table A2E of this appendix.
    (4) Appropriate and sufficient data acquisition equipment or 
system(s), including appropriate data reduction and analysis methods 
and techniques, as would be acceptable to the FAA's Aircraft 
Certification Service.
    b. The data, regardless of source, must be presented as follows:
    (1) In a format that supports the FFS validation process.
    (2) In a manner that is clearly readable and annotated correctly 
and completely.
    (3) With resolution sufficient to determine compliance with the 
tolerances set forth in Attachment 2, Table A2A of this appendix.
    (4) With any necessary instructions or other details provided, 
such as yaw damper or throttle position.
    (5) Without alteration, adjustments, or bias. Data may be 
corrected to address known data calibration errors provided that an 
explanation of the methods used to correct the errors appears in the 
QTG. The corrected data may be re-scaled, digitized, or otherwise 
manipulated to fit the desired presentation.
    c. After completion of any additional flight test, a flight test 
report must be submitted in support of the validation data. The 
report must contain sufficient data and rationale to

[[Page 39485]]

support qualification of the FFS at the level requested.
    d. As required by Sec.  60.13(f), the sponsor must notify the 
NSPM when it becomes aware that an addition to, an amendment to, or 
a revision of data that may relate to FFS performance or handling 
characteristics is available. The data referred to in this paragraph 
is data used to validate the performance, handling qualities, or 
other characteristics of the aircraft, including data related to any 
relevant changes occurring after the type certificate was issued. 
The sponsor must--
    (1) Within 10 calendar days, notify the NSPM of the existence of 
this data; and
    (2) Within 45 calendar days, notify the NSPM of--
    (a) The schedule to incorporate this data into the FFS; or
    (b) The reason for not incorporating this data into the FFS.
    e. In those cases where the objective test results authorize a 
``snapshot test'' or a ``series of snapshot tests'' results in lieu 
of a time-history result, the sponsor or other data provider must 
ensure that a steady state condition exists at the instant of time 
captured by the ``snapshot.'' The steady state condition must exist 
from 4 seconds prior to, through 1 second following, the instant of 
time captured by the snapshot.

End QPS Requirements

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin Information

    f. The FFS sponsor is encouraged to maintain a liaison with the 
manufacturer of the aircraft being simulated (or with the holder of 
the aircraft type certificate for the aircraft being simulated if 
the manufacturer is no longer in business), and, if appropriate, 
with the person having supplied the aircraft data package for the 
FFS in order to facilitate the notification required by Sec.  
60.13(f).
    g. It is the intent of the NSPM that for new aircraft entering 
service, at a point well in advance of preparation of the 
Qualification Test Guide (QTG), the sponsor should submit to the 
NSPM for approval, a descriptive document (see Table A2C, Sample 
Validation Data Roadmap for Airplanes) containing the plan for 
acquiring the validation data, including data sources. This document 
should clearly identify sources of data for all required tests, a 
description of the validity of these data for a specific engine type 
and thrust rating configuration, and the revision levels of all 
avionics affecting the performance or flying qualities of the 
aircraft. Additionally, this document should provide other 
information, such as the rationale or explanation for cases where 
data or data parameters are missing, instances where engineering 
simulation data are used or where flight test methods require 
further explanations. It should also provide a brief narrative 
describing the cause and effect of any deviation from data 
requirements. The aircraft manufacturer may provide this document.
    h. There is no requirement for any flight test data supplier to 
submit a flight test plan or program prior to gathering flight test 
data. However, the NSPM notes that inexperienced data gatherers 
often provide data that is irrelevant, improperly marked, or lacking 
adequate justification for selection. Other problems include 
inadequate information regarding initial conditions or test 
maneuvers. The NSPM has been forced to refuse these data submissions 
as validation data for an FFS evaluation. It is for this reason that 
the NSPM recommends that any data supplier not previously 
experienced in this area review the data necessary for programming 
and for validating the performance of the FFS, and discuss the 
flight test plan anticipated for acquiring such data with the NSPM 
well in advance of commencing the flight tests.
    i. The NSPM will consider, on a case-by-case basis, whether to 
approve supplemental validation data derived from flight data 
recording systems, such as a Quick Access Recorder or Flight Data 
Recorder.

End Information

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

10. Special Equipment and Personnel Requirements for Qualification of 
the FFSs (Sec.  60.14)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin Information

    a. In the event that the NSPM determines that special equipment 
or specifically qualified persons will be required to conduct an 
evaluation, the NSPM will make every attempt to notify the sponsor 
at least one (1) week, but in no case less than 72 hours, in advance 
of the evaluation. Examples of special equipment include spot 
photometers, flight control measurement devices, and sound 
analyzers. Examples of specially qualified personnel include 
individuals specifically qualified to install or use any special 
equipment when its use is required.
    b. Examples of a special evaluation include an evaluation 
conducted after an FFS is moved, at the request of the TPAA, or as a 
result of comments received from users of the FFS that raise 
questions about the continued qualification or use of the FFS.

End Information

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

11. Initial (and Upgrade) Qualification Requirements (Sec.  60.15)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin QPS Requirements

    a. In order to be qualified at a particular qualification level, 
the FFS must:
    (1) Meet the general requirements listed in Attachment 1 of this 
appendix;
    (2) Meet the objective testing requirements listed in Attachment 
2 of this appendix; and
    (3) Satisfactorily accomplish the subjective tests listed in 
Attachment 3 of this appendix.
    b. The request described in Sec.  60.15(a) must include all of 
the following:
    (1) A statement that the FFS meets all of the applicable 
provisions of this part and all applicable provisions of the QPS.
    (2) Unless otherwise authorized through prior coordination with 
the NSPM, a confirmation that the sponsor will forward to the NSPM 
the statement described in Sec.  60.15(b) in such time as to be 
received no later than 5 business days prior to the scheduled 
evaluation and may be forwarded to the NSPM via traditional or 
electronic means.
    (3) A QTG, acceptable to the NSPM, that includes all of the 
following:
    (a) Objective data obtained from traditional aircraft testing or 
another approved source.
    (b) Correlating objective test results obtained from the 
performance of the FFS as prescribed in the appropriate QPS.
    (c) The result of FFS subjective tests prescribed in the 
appropriate QPS.
    (d) A description of the equipment necessary to perform the 
evaluation for initial qualification and the continuing 
qualification evaluations.
    c. The QTG described in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, must 
provide the documented proof of compliance with the simulator 
objective tests in Attachment 2, Table A2A of this appendix.
    d. The QTG is prepared and submitted by the sponsor, or the 
sponsor's agent on behalf of the sponsor, to the NSPM for review and 
approval, and must include, for each objective test:
    (1) Parameters, tolerances, and flight conditions;
    (2) Pertinent and complete instructions for the conduct of 
automatic and manual tests;
    (3) A means of comparing the FFS test results to the objective 
data;
    (4) Any other information as necessary, to assist in the 
evaluation of the test results;
    (5) Other information appropriate to the qualification level of 
the FFS.
    e. The QTG described in paragraphs (a)(3) and (b) of this 
section, must include the following:
    (1) A QTG cover page with sponsor and FAA approval signature 
blocks (see Attachment 4, Figure A4C, of this appendix for a sample 
QTG cover page).
    (2) A continuing qualification evaluation requirements page. 
This page will be used by the NSPM to establish and record the 
frequency with which continuing qualification evaluations must be 
conducted and any subsequent changes that may be determined by the 
NSPM in accordance with Sec.  60.19. See Attachment 4, Figure A4G, 
of this appendix for a sample Continuing Qualification Evaluation 
Requirements page.
    (3) An FFS information page that provides the information listed 
in this paragraph (see Attachment 4, Figure A4B, of this appendix 
for a sample FFS information page). For convertible FFSs, the 
sponsor must submit a separate page for each configuration of the 
FFS.
    (a) The sponsor's FFS identification number or code.
    (b) The airplane model and series being simulated.
    (c) The aerodynamic data revision number or reference.
    (d) The source of the basic aerodynamic model and the 
aerodynamic coefficient data used to modify the basic model.
    (e) The engine model(s) and its data revision number or 
reference.
    (f) The flight control data revision number or reference.
    (g) The flight management system identification and revision 
level.

[[Page 39486]]

    (h) The FFS model and manufacturer.
    (i) The date of FFS manufacture.
    (j) The FFS computer identification.
    (k) The visual system model and manufacturer, including display 
type.
    (l) The motion system type and manufacturer, including degrees 
of freedom.
    (4) A Table of Contents.
    (5) A log of revisions and a list of effective pages.
    (6) A list of all relevant data references.
    (7) A glossary of terms and symbols used (including sign 
conventions and units).
    (8) Statements of Compliance and Capability (SOCs) with certain 
requirements.
    (9) Recording procedures or equipment required to accomplish the 
objective tests.
    (10) The following information for each objective test 
designated in Attachment 2, Table A2A, of this appendix as 
applicable to the qualification level sought:
    (a) Name of the test.
    (b) Objective of the test.
    (c) Initial conditions.
    (d) Manual test procedures.
    (e) Automatic test procedures (if applicable).
    (f) Method for evaluating FFS objective test results.
    (g) List of all relevant parameters driven or constrained during 
the automatically conducted test(s).
    (h) List of all relevant parameters driven or constrained during 
the manually conducted test(s).
    (i) Tolerances for relevant parameters.
    (j) Source of Validation Data (document and page number).
    (k) Copy of the Validation Data (if located in a separate 
binder, a cross reference for the identification and page number for 
pertinent data location must be provided).
    (l) Simulator Objective Test Results as obtained by the sponsor. 
Each test result must reflect the date completed and must be clearly 
labeled as a product of the device being tested.
    f. A convertible FFS is addressed as a separate FFS for each 
model and series airplane to which it will be converted and for the 
FAA qualification level sought. If a sponsor seeks qualification for 
two or more models of an airplane type using a convertible FFS, the 
sponsor must submit a QTG for each airplane model, or a QTG for the 
first airplane model and a supplement to that QTG for each 
additional airplane model. The NSPM will conduct evaluations for 
each airplane model.
    g. Form and manner of presentation of objective test results in 
the QTG:
    (1) The sponsor's FFS test results must be recorded in a manner 
acceptable to the NSPM, that allows easy comparison of the FFS test 
results to the validation data (e.g., use of a multi-channel 
recorder, line printer, cross plotting, overlays, transparencies).
    (2) FFS results must be labeled using terminology common to 
airplane parameters as opposed to computer software identifications.
    (3) Validation data documents included in a QTG may be 
photographically reduced only if such reduction will not alter the 
graphic scaling or cause difficulties in scale interpretation or 
resolution.
    (4) Scaling on graphical presentations must provide the 
resolution necessary to evaluate the parameters shown in Attachment 
2, Table A2A of this appendix.
    (5) Tests involving time histories, data sheets (or 
transparencies thereof) and FFS test results must be clearly marked 
with appropriate reference points to ensure an accurate comparison 
between the FFS and the airplane with respect to time. Time 
histories recorded via a line printer are to be clearly identified 
for cross plotting on the airplane data. Over-plots must not obscure 
the reference data.
    h. The sponsor may elect to complete the QTG objective and 
subjective tests at the manufacturer's facility or at the sponsor's 
training facility. If the tests are conducted at the manufacturer's 
facility, the sponsor must repeat at least one-third of the tests at 
the sponsor's training facility in order to substantiate FFS 
performance. The QTG must be clearly annotated to indicate when and 
where each test was accomplished. Tests conducted at the 
manufacturer's facility and at the sponsor's training facility must 
be conducted after the FFS is assembled with systems and sub-systems 
functional and operating in an interactive manner. The test results 
must be submitted to the NSPM.
    i. The sponsor must maintain a copy of the MQTG at the FFS 
location.
    j. All FFSs for which the initial qualification is conducted 
after May 30, 2014, must have an electronic MQTG (eMQTG) including 
all objective data obtained from airplane testing, or another 
approved source (reformatted or digitized), together with 
correlating objective test results obtained from the performance of 
the FFS (reformatted or digitized) as prescribed in this appendix. 
The eMQTG must also contain the general FFS performance or 
demonstration results (reformatted or digitized) prescribed in this 
appendix, and a description of the equipment necessary to perform 
the initial qualification evaluation and the continuing 
qualification evaluations. The eMQTG must include the original 
validation data used to validate FFS performance and handling 
qualities in either the original digitized format from the data 
supplier or an electronic scan of the original time-history plots 
that were provided by the data supplier. A copy of the eMQTG must be 
provided to the NSPM.
    k. All other FFSs not covered in subparagraph ``j'' must have an 
electronic copy of the MQTG by May 30, 2014. An electronic copy of 
the MQTG must be provided to the NSPM. This may be provided by an 
electronic scan presented in a Portable Document File (PDF), or 
similar format acceptable to the NSPM.
    l. During the initial (or upgrade) qualification evaluation 
conducted by the NSPM, the sponsor must also provide a person who is 
a user of the device (e.g., a qualified pilot or instructor pilot 
with flight time experience in that aircraft) and knowledgeable 
about the operation of the aircraft and the operation of the FFS.

End QPS Requirements

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin Information

    m. Only those FFSs that are sponsored by a certificate holder as 
defined in Appendix F of this part will be evaluated by the NSPM. 
However, other FFS evaluations may be conducted on a case-by-case 
basis as the Administrator deems appropriate, but only in accordance 
with applicable agreements.
    n. The NSPM will conduct an evaluation for each configuration, 
and each FFS must be evaluated as completely as possible. To ensure 
a thorough and uniform evaluation, each FFS is subjected to the 
general simulator requirements in Attachment 1 of this appendix, the 
objective tests listed in Attachment 2 of this appendix, and the 
subjective tests listed in Attachment 3 of this appendix. The 
evaluations described herein will include, but not necessarily be 
limited to the following:
    (1) Airplane responses, including longitudinal and lateral-
directional control responses (see Attachment 2 of this appendix);
    (2) Performance in authorized portions of the simulated 
airplane's operating envelope, to include tasks evaluated by the 
NSPM in the areas of surface operations, takeoff, climb, cruise, 
descent, approach, and landing as well as abnormal and emergency 
operations (see Attachment 2 of this appendix);
    (3) Control checks (see Attachment 1 and Attachment 2 of this 
appendix);
    (4) Flight deck configuration (see Attachment 1 of this 
appendix);
    (5) Pilot, flight engineer, and instructor station functions 
checks (see Attachment 1 and Attachment 3 of this appendix);
    (6) Airplane systems and sub-systems (as appropriate) as 
compared to the airplane simulated (see Attachment 1 and Attachment 
3 of this appendix);
    (7) FFS systems and sub-systems, including force cueing 
(motion), visual, and aural (sound) systems, as appropriate (see 
Attachment 1 and Attachment 2 of this appendix); and
    (8) Certain additional requirements, depending upon the 
qualification level sought, including equipment or circumstances 
that may become hazardous to the occupants. The sponsor may be 
subject to Occupational Safety and Health Administration 
requirements.
    o. The NSPM administers the objective and subjective tests, 
which includes an examination of functions. The tests include a 
qualitative assessment of the FFS by an NSP pilot. The NSP 
evaluation team leader may assign other qualified personnel to 
assist in accomplishing the functions examination and/or the 
objective and subjective tests performed during an evaluation when 
required.
    (1) Objective tests provide a basis for measuring and evaluating 
FFS performance and determining compliance with the requirements of 
this part.
    (2) Subjective tests provide a basis for:
    (a) Evaluating the capability of the FFS to perform over a 
typical utilization period;
    (b) Determining that the FFS satisfactorily simulates each 
required task;
    (c) Verifying correct operation of the FFS controls, 
instruments, and systems; and
    (d) Demonstrating compliance with the requirements of this part.

[[Page 39487]]

    p. The tolerances for the test parameters listed in Attachment 2 
of this appendix reflect the range of tolerances acceptable to the 
NSPM for FFS validation and are not to be confused with design 
tolerances specified for FFS manufacture. In making decisions 
regarding tests and test results, the NSPM relies on the use of 
operational and engineering judgment in the application of data 
(including consideration of the way in which the flight test was 
flown and way the data was gathered and applied) data presentations, 
and the applicable tolerances for each test.
    q. In addition to the scheduled continuing qualification 
evaluation, each FFS is subject to evaluations conducted by the NSPM 
at any time without prior notification to the sponsor. Such 
evaluations would be accomplished in a normal manner (i.e., 
requiring exclusive use of the FFS for the conduct of objective and 
subjective tests and an examination of functions) if the FFS is not 
being used for flightcrew member training, testing, or checking. 
However, if the FFS were being used, the evaluation would be 
conducted in a non-exclusive manner. This non-exclusive evaluation 
will be conducted by the FFS evaluator accompanying the check 
airman, instructor, Aircrew Program Designee (APD), or FAA inspector 
aboard the FFS along with the student(s) and observing the operation 
of the FFS during the training, testing, or checking activities.
    r. Problems with objective test results are handled as follows:
    (1) If a problem with an objective test result is detected by 
the NSP evaluation team during an evaluation, the test may be 
repeated or the QTG may be amended.
    (2) If it is determined that the results of an objective test do 
not support the level requested but do support a lower level, the 
NSPM may qualify the FFS at that lower level. For example, if a 
Level D evaluation is requested and the FFS fails to meet sound test 
tolerances, it could be qualified at Level C.
    s. After an FFS is successfully evaluated, the NSPM issues a 
Statement of Qualification (SOQ) to the sponsor. The NSPM recommends 
the FFS to the TPAA, who will approve the FFS for use in a flight 
training program. The SOQ will be issued at the satisfactory 
conclusion of the initial or continuing qualification evaluation and 
will list the tasks for which the FFS is qualified, referencing the 
tasks described in Table A1B in Attachment 1 of this appendix. 
However, it is the sponsor's responsibility to obtain TPAA approval 
prior to using the FFS in an FAA-approved flight training program.
    t. Under normal circumstances, the NSPM establishes a date for 
the initial or upgrade evaluation within ten (10) working days after 
determining that a complete QTG is acceptable. Unusual circumstances 
may warrant establishing an evaluation date before this 
determination is made. A sponsor may schedule an evaluation date as 
early as 6 months in advance. However, there may be a delay of 45 
days or more in rescheduling and completing the evaluation if the 
sponsor is unable to meet the scheduled date. See Attachment 4 of 
this appendix, Figure A4A, Sample Request for Initial, Upgrade, or 
Reinstatement Evaluation.
    u. The numbering system used for objective test results in the 
QTG should closely follow the numbering system set out in Attachment 
2 of this appendix, FFS Objective Tests, Table A2A.
    v. Contact the NSPM or visit the NSPM Web site for additional 
information regarding the preferred qualifications of pilots used to 
meet the requirements of Sec.  60.15(d).
    w. Examples of the exclusions for which the FFS might not have 
been subjectively tested by the sponsor or the NSPM and for which 
qualification might not be sought or granted, as described in Sec.  
60.15(g)(6), include windshear training and circling approaches.

End Information

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

12. Additional Qualifications for a Currently Qualified FFS (Sec.  
60.16)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin Information

    No additional regulatory or informational material applies to 
Sec.  60.16, Additional Qualifications for a Currently Qualified 
FFS.

End Information

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

13. Previously Qualified FFSs (Sec.  60.17)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin QPS Requirements

    a. In instances where a sponsor plans to remove an FFS from 
active status for a period of less than two years, the following 
procedures apply:
    (1) The NSPM must be notified in writing and the notification 
must include an estimate of the period that the FFS will be 
inactive;
    (2) Continuing Qualification evaluations will not be scheduled 
during the inactive period;
    (3) The NSPM will remove the FFS from the list of qualified 
FSTDs on a mutually established date not later than the date on 
which the first missed continuing qualification evaluation would 
have been scheduled;
    (4) Before the FFS is restored to qualified status, it must be 
evaluated by the NSPM. The evaluation content and the time required 
to accomplish the evaluation is based on the number of continuing 
qualification evaluations and sponsor-conducted quarterly 
inspections missed during the period of inactivity.
    (5) The sponsor must notify the NSPM of any changes to the 
original scheduled time out of service;
    b. Simulators qualified prior to May 30, 2008, are not required 
to meet the general simulation requirements, the objective test 
requirements or the subjective test requirements of attachments 1, 
2, and 3 of this appendix as long as the simulator continues to meet 
the test requirements contained in the MQTG developed under the 
original qualification basis.
    c. After May 30, 2009, each visual scene or airport model beyond 
the minimum required for the FFS qualification level that is 
installed in and available for use in a qualified FFS must meet the 
requirements described in attachment 3 of this appendix.
    d. Simulators qualified prior to May 30, 2008, may be updated. 
If an evaluation is deemed appropriate or necessary by the NSPM 
after such an update, the evaluation will not require an evaluation 
to standards beyond those against which the simulator was originally 
qualified.

End QPS Requirements

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin Information

    e. Other certificate holders or persons desiring to use an FFS 
may contract with FFS sponsors to use FFSs previously qualified at a 
particular level for an airplane type and approved for use within an 
FAA-approved flight training program. Such FFSs are not required to 
undergo an additional qualification process, except as described in 
Sec.  60.16.
    f. Each FFS user must obtain approval from the appropriate TPAA 
to use any FFS in an FAA-approved flight training program.
    g. The intent of the requirement listed in Sec.  60.17(b), for 
each FFS to have a SOQ within 6 years, is to have the availability 
of that statement (including the configuration list and the 
limitations to authorizations) to provide a complete picture of the 
FFS inventory regulated by the FAA. The issuance of the statement 
will not require any additional evaluation or require any adjustment 
to the evaluation basis for the FFS.
    h. Downgrading of an FFS is a permanent change in qualification 
level and will necessitate the issuance of a revised SOQ to reflect 
the revised qualification level, as appropriate. If a temporary 
restriction is placed on an FFS because of a missing, 
malfunctioning, or inoperative component or on-going repairs, the 
restriction is not a permanent change in qualification level. 
Instead, the restriction is temporary and is removed when the reason 
for the restriction has been resolved.
    i. The NSPM will determine the evaluation criteria for an FFS 
that has been removed from active status. The criteria will be based 
on the number of continuing qualification evaluations and quarterly 
inspections missed during the period of inactivity. For example, if 
the FFS were out of service for a 1 year period, it would be 
necessary to complete the entire QTG, since all of the quarterly 
evaluations would have been missed. The NSPM will also consider how 
the FFS was stored, whether parts were removed from the FFS and 
whether the FFS was disassembled.
    j. The FFS will normally be requalified using the FAA-approved 
MQTG and the criteria that was in effect prior to its removal from 
qualification. However, inactive periods of 2 years or more will 
require requalification under the standards in effect and current at 
the time of requalification.

End Information

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

14. Inspection, Continuing Qualification Evaluation, and Maintenance 
Requirements (Sec.  60.19)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 39488]]

Begin QPS Requirements

    a. The sponsor must conduct a minimum of four evenly spaced 
inspections throughout the year. The objective test sequence and 
content of each inspection must be developed by the sponsor and must 
be acceptable to the NSPM.
    b. The description of the functional preflight check must be 
contained in the sponsor's QMS.
    c. Record ``functional preflight'' in the FFS discrepancy log 
book or other acceptable location, including any item found to be 
missing, malfunctioning, or inoperative.
    d. During the continuing qualification evaluation conducted by 
the NSPM, the sponsor must also provide a person knowledgeable about 
the operation of the aircraft and the operation of the FFS.
    e. The NSPM will conduct continuing qualification evaluations 
every 12 months unless:
    (1) The NSPM becomes aware of discrepancies or performance 
problems with the device that warrants more frequent evaluations; or
    (2) The sponsor implements a QMS that justifies less frequent 
evaluations. However, in no case shall the frequency of a continuing 
qualification evaluation exceed 36 months.

End QPS Requirements

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin Information

    f. The sponsor's test sequence and the content of each quarterly 
inspection required in Sec.  60.19(a)(1) should include a balance 
and a mix from the objective test requirement areas listed as 
follows:
    (1) Performance.
    (2) Handling qualities.
    (3) Motion system (where appropriate).
    (4) Visual system (where appropriate).
    (5) Sound system (where appropriate).
    (6) Other FFS systems.
    g. If the NSP evaluator plans to accomplish specific tests 
during a normal continuing qualification evaluation that requires 
the use of special equipment or technicians, the sponsor will be 
notified as far in advance of the evaluation as practical; but not 
less than 72 hours. Examples of such tests include latencies, 
control dynamics, sounds and vibrations, motion, and/or some visual 
system tests.
    h. The continuing qualification evaluations, described in Sec.  
60.19(b), will normally require 4 hours of FFS time. However, 
flexibility is necessary to address abnormal situations or 
situations involving aircraft with additional levels of complexity 
(e.g., computer controlled aircraft). The sponsor should anticipate 
that some tests may require additional time. The continuing 
qualification evaluations will consist of the following:
    (1) Review of the results of the quarterly inspections conducted 
by the sponsor since the last scheduled continuing qualification 
evaluation.
    (2) A selection of approximately 8 to 15 objective tests from 
the MQTG that provide an adequate opportunity to evaluate the 
performance of the FFS. The tests chosen will be performed either 
automatically or manually and should be able to be conducted within 
approximately one-third (\1/3\) of the allotted FFS time.
    (3) A subjective evaluation of the FFS to perform a 
representative sampling of the tasks set out in attachment 3 of this 
appendix. This portion of the evaluation should take approximately 
two-thirds (\2/3\) of the allotted FFS time.
    (4) An examination of the functions of the FFS may include the 
motion system, visual system, sound system, instructor operating 
station, and the normal functions and simulated malfunctions of the 
airplane systems. This examination is normally accomplished 
simultaneously with the subjective evaluation requirements.

End Information

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

15. Logging FFSs Discrepancies (Sec.  60.20)

Begin Information

    No additional regulatory or informational material applies to 
Sec.  60.20. Logging FFS Discrepancies.

End Information

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

16. Interim Qualification of FFSs for New Airplane Types or Models 
(Sec.  60.21)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin Information

    No additional regulatory or informational material applies to 
Sec.  60.21, Interim Qualification of FFSs for New Airplane Types or 
Models.

End Information

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

17. Modifications to FFSs (Sec.  60.23)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin QPS Requirements

    a. The notification described in Sec.  60.23(c)(2) must include 
a complete description of the planned modification, with a 
description of the operational and engineering effect the proposed 
modification will have on the operation of the FFS and the results 
that are expected with the modification incorporated.
    b. Prior to using the modified FFS:
    (1) All the applicable objective tests completed with the 
modification incorporated, including any necessary updates to the 
MQTG (e.g., accomplishment of FSTD Directives) must be acceptable to 
the NSPM; and
    (2) The sponsor must provide the NSPM with a statement signed by 
the MR that the factors listed in Sec.  60.15(b) are addressed by 
the appropriate personnel as described in that section.

End QPS Requirements

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin Information

    c. FSTD Directives are considered modifications of an FFS. See 
Attachment 4 of this appendix for a sample index of effective FSTD 
Directives. See Attachment 6 of this appendix for a list of all 
effective FSTD Directives applicable to Airplane FFSs.
    d. Examples of MQTG changes that do not require FAA notification 
under Sec.  60.23(a) are limited to repagination, correction of 
typographical or grammatical errors, typesetting, or presenting 
additional parameters on existing test result formats. All changes 
regardless of nature should be documented in the MQTG revision 
history.

End Information

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

18. Operation With Missing, Malfunctioning, or Inoperative Components 
(Sec.  60.25)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin Information

    a. The sponsor's responsibility with respect to Sec.  60.25(a) 
is satisfied when the sponsor fairly and accurately advises the user 
of the current status of an FFS, including any missing, 
malfunctioning, or inoperative (MMI) component(s).
    b. It is the responsibility of the instructor, check airman, or 
representative of the administrator conducting training, testing, or 
checking to exercise reasonable and prudent judgment to determine if 
any MMI component is necessary for the satisfactory completion of a 
specific maneuver, procedure, or task.
    c. If the 29th or 30th day of the 30-day period described in 
Sec.  60.25(b) is on a Saturday, a Sunday, or a holiday, the FAA 
will extend the deadline until the next business day.
    d. In accordance with the authorization described in Sec.  
60.25(b), the sponsor may develop a discrepancy prioritizing system 
to accomplish repairs based on the level of impact on the capability 
of the FFS. Repairs having a larger impact on FFS capability to 
provide the required training, evaluation, or flight experience will 
have a higher priority for repair or replacement.

End Information

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

19. Automatic Loss of Qualification and Procedures for Restoration of 
Qualification (Sec.  60.27)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin Information

    If the sponsor provides a plan for how the FFS will be 
maintained during its out-of-service period (e.g., periodic exercise 
of mechanical, hydraulic, and electrical systems; routine 
replacement of hydraulic fluid; control of the environmental factors 
in which the FFS is to be maintained) there is a greater likelihood 
that the NSPM will be able to determine the amount of testing 
required for requalification.

End Information

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

20. Other Losses of Qualification and Procedures for Restoration of 
Qualification (Sec.  60.29)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 39489]]

Begin Information

    If the sponsor provides a plan for how the FFS will be 
maintained during its out-of-service period (e.g., periodic exercise 
of mechanical, hydraulic, and electrical systems; routine 
replacement of hydraulic fluid; control of the environmental factors 
in which the FFS is to be maintained) there is a greater likelihood 
that the NSPM will be able to determine the amount of testing 
required for requalification.

End Information

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

21. Recordkeeping and Reporting (Sec.  60.31)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin QPS Requirements

    a. FFS modifications can include hardware or software changes. 
For FFS modifications involving software programming changes, the 
record required by Sec.  60.31(a)(2) must consist of the name of the 
aircraft system software, aerodynamic model, or engine model change, 
the date of the change, a summary of the change, and the reason for 
the change.
    b. If a coded form for record keeping is used, it must provide 
for the preservation and retrieval of information with appropriate 
security or controls to prevent the inappropriate alteration of such 
records after the fact.

End QPS Requirements

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

22. Applications, Logbooks, Reports, and Records: Fraud, Falsification, 
or Incorrect Statements (Sec.  60.33)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin Information

    No additional regulatory or informational material applies to 
Sec.  60.33, Applications, Logbooks, Reports, and Records: Fraud, 
Falsification, or Incorrect Statements.

23. Specific FFS Compliance Requirements (Sec.  60.35)

    No additional regulatory or informational material applies to 
Sec.  60.35, Specific FFS Compliance Requirements.

24. [Reserved]

25. FFS Qualification on the Basis of a Bilateral Aviation Safety 
Agreement (BASA) (Sec.  60.37)

    No additional regulatory or informational material applies to 
Sec.  60.37, FFS Qualification on the Basis of a Bilateral Aviation 
Safety Agreement (BASA).

End Information

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Attachment 1 to Appendix A to Part 60--General Simulator Requirements

Begin QPS Requirements

1. Requirements

    a. Certain requirements included in this appendix must be 
supported with an SOC as defined in Appendix F, which may include 
objective and subjective tests. The requirements for SOCs are 
indicated in the ``General Simulator Requirements'' column in Table 
A1A of this appendix.
    b. Table A1A describes the requirements for the indicated level 
of FFS. Many devices include operational systems or functions that 
exceed the requirements outlined in this section. However, all 
systems will be tested and evaluated in accordance with this 
appendix to ensure proper operation.

End QPS Requirements

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin Information

2. Discussion

    a. This attachment describes the general simulator requirements 
for qualifying an airplane FFS. The sponsor should also consult the 
objective tests in Attachment 2 of this appendix and the examination 
of functions and subjective tests listed in Attachment 3 of this 
appendix to determine the complete requirements for a specific level 
simulator.
    b. The material contained in this attachment is divided into the 
following categories:
    (1) General flight deck configuration.
    (2) Simulator programming.
    (3) Equipment operation.
    (4) Equipment and facilities for instructor/evaluator functions.
    (5) Motion system.
    (6) Visual system.
    (7) Sound system.
    c. Table A1A provides the standards for the General Simulator 
Requirements.
    d. Table A1B provides the tasks that the sponsor will examine to 
determine whether the FFS satisfactorily meets the requirements for 
flight crew training, testing, and experience, and provides the 
tasks for which the simulator may be qualified.
    e. Table A1C provides the functions that an instructor/check 
airman must be able to control in the simulator.
    f. It is not required that all of the tasks that appear on the 
List of Qualified Tasks (part of the SOQ) be accomplished during the 
initial or continuing qualification evaluation.

End Information

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 39490]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.002


[[Page 39491]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.003


[[Page 39492]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.004


[[Page 39493]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.005


[[Page 39494]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.006


[[Page 39495]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.007


[[Page 39496]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.008


[[Page 39497]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.009


[[Page 39498]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.010


[[Page 39499]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.011


[[Page 39500]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.012


[[Page 39501]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.013


[[Page 39502]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.014


[[Page 39503]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.015


[[Page 39504]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.016


[[Page 39505]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.017


[[Page 39506]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.018


[[Page 39507]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.019


[[Page 39508]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.020


[[Page 39509]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.021


[[Page 39510]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.022


[[Page 39511]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.023


[[Page 39512]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.024


[[Page 39513]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.025


[[Page 39514]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.026


[[Page 39515]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.027


[[Page 39516]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.028


[[Page 39517]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.029


[[Page 39518]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.030


[[Page 39519]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.031

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin Information

1. Introduction

    a. For the purposes of this attachment, the flight conditions 
specified in the Flight Conditions Column of Table A2A of this 
appendix, are defined as follows:
    (1) Ground--on ground, independent of airplane configuration;
    (2) Take-off--gear down with flaps/slats in any certified 
takeoff position;
    (3) First segment climb--gear down with flaps/slats in any 
certified takeoff position (normally not above 50 ft AGL);
    (4) Second segment climb--gear up with flaps/slats in any 
certified takeoff position (normally between 50 ft and 400 ft AGL);
    (5) Clean--flaps/slats retracted and gear up;
    (6) Cruise--clean configuration at cruise altitude and airspeed;
    (7) Approach--gear up or down with flaps/slats at any normal 
approach position as recommended by the airplane manufacturer; and
    (8) Landing--gear down with flaps/slats in any certified landing 
position.
    b. The format for numbering the objective tests in Appendix A, 
Attachment 2, Table A2A, and the objective tests in Appendix B, 
Attachment 2, Table B2A, is identical. However, each test required 
for FFSs is not necessarily required for FTDs. Also, each test 
required for FTDs is not necessarily required for FFSs. Therefore, 
when a test number (or series of numbers) is not required, the term 
``Reserved'' is used in the table at that location. Following this 
numbering format provides a degree of commonality between the two 
tables and substantially reduces the potential for confusion when 
referring to objective test numbers for either FFSs or FTDs.
    c. The reader is encouraged to review the Airplane Flight 
Simulator Evaluation Handbook, Volumes I and II, published by the 
Royal Aeronautical Society, London, UK, and AC 25-7, as amended, 
Flight Test Guide for Certification of Transport Category Airplanes, 
and AC 23-8, as amended, Flight Test Guide for Certification of Part 
23 Airplanes, for references and examples regarding flight testing 
requirements and techniques.
    d. If relevant winds are present in the objective data, the wind 
vector should be clearly noted as part of the data presentation, 
expressed in conventional terminology, and related to the runway 
being used for the test.

End Information

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin QPS Requirements

2. Test Requirements

    a. The ground and flight tests required for qualification are 
listed in Table of A2A, FFS Objective Tests. Computer generated 
simulator test results must be provided for each test except where 
an alternative test is specifically authorized by the NSPM. If a 
flight condition or operating condition is required for the test but 
does not apply to the airplane being simulated or to the 
qualification level sought, it may be disregarded (e.g., an engine 
out missed approach for a single-engine airplane or a maneuver using 
reverse thrust for an airplane without reverse thrust capability). 
Each test result is compared against the validation data described 
in Sec.  60.13 and in this appendix. Although use of a driver 
program designed to automatically accomplish the tests is encouraged 
for all simulators and required for Level C and Level D simulators, 
it must be possible to conduct each test manually while recording 
all appropriate parameters. The results must be produced on an 
appropriate recording device acceptable to the NSPM and must include 
simulator number, date, time, conditions, tolerances, and 
appropriate dependent variables portrayed in comparison to the 
validation data. Time histories are required unless

[[Page 39520]]

otherwise indicated in Table A2A. All results must be labeled using 
the tolerances and units given.
    b. Table A2A in this attachment sets out the test results 
required, including the parameters, tolerances, and flight 
conditions for simulator validation. Tolerances are provided for the 
listed tests because mathematical modeling and acquisition and 
development of reference data are often inexact. All tolerances 
listed in the following tables are applied to simulator performance. 
When two tolerance values are given for a parameter, the less 
restrictive may be used unless otherwise indicated. In those cases 
where a tolerance is expressed only as a percentage, the tolerance 
percentage applies to the maximum value of that parameter within its 
normal operating range as measured from the neutral or zero position 
unless otherwise indicated.
    c. Certain tests included in this attachment must be supported 
with an SOC. In Table A2A, requirements for SOCs are indicated in 
the ``Test Details'' column.
    d. When operational or engineering judgment is used in making 
assessments for flight test data applications for simulator 
validity, such judgment must not be limited to a single parameter. 
For example, data that exhibit rapid variations of the measured 
parameters may require interpolations or a ``best fit'' data 
selection. All relevant parameters related to a given maneuver or 
flight condition must be provided to allow overall interpretation. 
When it is difficult or impossible to match simulator to airplane 
data throughout a time history, differences must be justified by 
providing a comparison of other related variables for the condition 
being assessed.
    e. It is not acceptable to program the FFS so that the 
mathematical modeling is correct only at the validation test points. 
Unless otherwise noted, simulator tests must represent airplane 
performance and handling qualities at operating weights and centers 
of gravity (CG) typical of normal operation. If a test is supported 
by airplane data at one extreme weight or CG, another test supported 
by airplane data at mid-conditions or as close as possible to the 
other extreme must be included. Certain tests that are relevant only 
at one extreme CG or weight condition need not be repeated at the 
other extreme. Tests of handling qualities must include validation 
of augmentation devices.
    f. When comparing the parameters listed to those of the 
airplane, sufficient data must also be provided to verify the 
correct flight condition and airplane configuration changes. For 
example, to show that control force is within the parameters for a 
static stability test, data to show the correct airspeed, power, 
thrust or torque, airplane configuration, altitude, and other 
appropriate datum identification parameters must also be given. If 
comparing short period dynamics, normal acceleration may be used to 
establish a match to the airplane, but airspeed, altitude, control 
input, airplane configuration, and other appropriate data must also 
be given. If comparing landing gear change dynamics, pitch, 
airspeed, and altitude may be used to establish a match to the 
airplane, but landing gear position must also be provided. All 
airspeed values must be properly annotated (e.g., indicated versus 
calibrated). In addition, the same variables must be used for 
comparison (e.g., compare inches to inches rather than inches to 
centimeters).
    g. The QTG provided by the sponsor must clearly describe how the 
simulator will be set up and operated for each test. Each simulator 
subsystem may be tested independently, but overall integrated 
testing of the simulator must be accomplished to assure that the 
total simulator system meets the prescribed standards. A manual test 
procedure with explicit and detailed steps for completing each test 
must also be provided.
    h. For previously qualified simulators, the tests and tolerances 
of this attachment may be used in subsequent continuing 
qualification evaluations for any given test if the sponsor has 
submitted a proposed MQTG revision to the NSPM and has received NSPM 
approval.
    i. Simulators are evaluated and qualified with an engine model 
simulating the airplane data supplier's flight test engine. For 
qualification of alternative engine models (either variations of the 
flight test engines or other manufacturer's engines) additional 
tests with the alternative engine models may be required. This 
attachment contains guidelines for alternative engines.
    j. For testing Computer Controlled Aircraft (CCA) simulators, or 
other highly augmented airplane simulators, flight test data is 
required for the Normal (N) and/or Non-normal (NN) control states, 
as indicated in this attachment. Where test results are independent 
of control state, Normal or Non-normal control data may be used. All 
tests in Table A2A require test results in the Normal control state 
unless specifically noted otherwise in the Test Details section 
following the CCA designation. The NSPM will determine what tests 
are appropriate for airplane simulation data. When making this 
determination, the NSPM may require other levels of control state 
degradation for specific airplane tests. Where Non-normal control 
states are required, test data must be provided for one or more Non-
normal control states, and must include the least augmented state. 
Where applicable, flight test data must record Normal and Non-normal 
states for:
    (1) Pilot controller deflections or electronically generated 
inputs, including location of input; and
    (2) Flight control surface positions unless test results are not 
affected by, or are independent of, surface positions.
    k. Tests of handling qualities must include validation of 
augmentation devices. FFSs for highly augmented airplanes will be 
validated both in the unaugmented configuration (or failure state 
with the maximum permitted degradation in handling qualities) and 
the augmented configuration. Where various levels of handling 
qualities result from failure states, validation of the effect of 
the failure is necessary. Requirements for testing will be mutually 
agreed to between the sponsor and the NSPM on a case-by-case basis.
    l. Some tests will not be required for airplanes using airplane 
hardware in the simulator flight deck (e.g., ``side stick 
controller''). These exceptions are noted in Section 2 ``Handling 
Qualities'' in Table A2A of this attachment. However, in these 
cases, the sponsor must provide a statement that the airplane 
hardware meets the appropriate manufacturer's specifications and the 
sponsor must have supporting information to that fact available for 
NSPM review.
    m. For objective test purposes, see Appendix F of this part for 
the definitions of ``Near maximum,'' ``Light,'' and ``Medium'' gross 
weight.

End QPS Requirements

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin Information

    n. In those cases where the objective test results authorize a 
``snapshot test'' or a ``series of snapshot tests'' results in lieu 
of a time-history result, the sponsor or other data provider must 
ensure that a steady state condition exists at the instant of time 
captured by the ``snapshot.'' The steady state condition should 
exist from 4 seconds prior to, through 1 second following, the 
instant of time captured by the snap shot.
    o. For references on basic operating weight, see AC 120-27, 
``Aircraft Weight and Balance;'' and FAA- H-8083-1, ``Aircraft 
Weight and Balance Handbook.''

End Information

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 39521]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.033


[[Page 39522]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.034


[[Page 39523]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.035


[[Page 39524]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.036


[[Page 39525]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.037


[[Page 39526]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.038


[[Page 39527]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.039


[[Page 39528]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.040


[[Page 39529]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.041


[[Page 39530]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.042


[[Page 39531]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.043


[[Page 39532]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.044


[[Page 39533]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.045


[[Page 39534]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.046


[[Page 39535]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.047


[[Page 39536]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.048


[[Page 39537]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.049


[[Page 39538]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.050


[[Page 39539]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.051


[[Page 39540]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.052


[[Page 39541]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.053


[[Page 39542]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.054


[[Page 39543]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.055


[[Page 39544]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.056


[[Page 39545]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.057


[[Page 39546]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.058


[[Page 39547]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.059


[[Page 39548]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.060


[[Page 39549]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.061


[[Page 39550]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.062


[[Page 39551]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.063


[[Page 39552]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.064


[[Page 39553]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.065


[[Page 39554]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.066


[[Page 39555]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.067


[[Page 39556]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.068


[[Page 39557]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.069


[[Page 39558]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.070


[[Page 39559]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.071


[[Page 39560]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.072


[[Page 39561]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.073


[[Page 39562]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.074


[[Page 39563]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.075


[[Page 39564]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.076


[[Page 39565]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin Information

3. General

    a. If relevant winds are present in the objective data, the wind 
vector should be clearly noted as part of the data presentation, 
expressed in conventional terminology, and related to the runway 
being used for test near the ground.
    b. The reader is encouraged to review the Airplane Flight 
Simulator Evaluation Handbook, Volumes I and II, published by the 
Royal Aeronautical Society, London, UK, and AC 25-7, as amended, 
Flight Test Guide for Certification of Transport Category Airplanes, 
and AC 23-8, as amended, Flight Test Guide for Certification of Part 
23 Airplanes, for references and examples regarding flight testing 
requirements and techniques.

4. Control Dynamics

    a. General. The characteristics of an airplane flight control 
system have a major effect on handling qualities. A significant 
consideration in pilot acceptability of an airplane is the ``feel'' 
provided through the flight controls. Considerable effort is 
expended on airplane feel system design so that pilots will be 
comfortable and will consider the airplane desirable to fly. In 
order for an FFS to be representative, it should ``feel'' like the 
airplane being simulated. Compliance with this requirement is 
determined by comparing a recording of the control feel dynamics of 
the FFS to actual airplane measurements in the takeoff, cruise and 
landing configurations.
    (1) Recordings such as free response to an impulse or step 
function are classically used to estimate the dynamic properties of 
electromechanical systems. In any case, it is only possible to 
estimate the dynamic properties as a result of being able to 
estimate true inputs and responses. Therefore, it is imperative that 
the best possible data be collected since close matching of the FFS 
control loading system to the airplane system is essential. The 
required dynamic control tests are described in Table A2A of this 
attachment.
    (2) For initial and upgrade evaluations, the QPS requires that 
control dynamics characteristics be measured and recorded directly 
from the flight controls (Handling Qualities--Table A2A). This 
procedure is usually accomplished by measuring the free response of 
the controls using a step or impulse input to excite the system. The 
procedure should be accomplished in the takeoff, cruise and landing 
flight conditions and configurations.
    (3) For airplanes with irreversible control systems, 
measurements may be obtained on the ground if proper pitot-static 
inputs are provided to represent airspeeds typical of those 
encountered in flight. Likewise, it may be shown that for some 
airplanes, takeoff, cruise, and landing configurations have like 
effects. Thus, one may suffice for another. In either case, 
engineering validation or airplane manufacturer rationale should be 
submitted as justification for ground tests or for eliminating a 
configuration. For FFSs requiring static and dynamic tests at the 
controls, special test fixtures will not be required during initial 
and upgrade evaluations if the QTG shows both test fixture results 
and the results of an alternate approach (e.g., computer plots that 
were produced concurrently and show satisfactory agreement). Repeat 
of the alternate method during the initial evaluation satisfies this 
test requirement.
    b. Control Dynamics Evaluation. The dynamic properties of 
control systems are often stated in terms of frequency, damping and 
a number of other classical measurements. In order to establish a 
consistent means of validating test results for FFS control loading, 
criteria are needed that will clearly define the measurement 
interpretation and the applied tolerances. Criteria are needed for 
underdamped, critically damped and overdamped systems. In the case 
of an underdamped system with very light damping, the system may be 
quantified in terms of frequency and damping. In critically damped 
or overdamped systems, the frequency and damping are not readily 
measured from a response time history. Therefore, the following 
suggested measurements may be used:
    (1) For Level C and D simulators. Tests to verify that control 
feel dynamics represent the airplane should show that the dynamic 
damping cycles (free response of the controls) match those of the 
airplane within specified tolerances. The NSPM recognizes that 
several different testing methods may be used to verify the control 
feel dynamic response. The NSPM will consider the merits of testing 
methods based on reliability and consistency. One acceptable method 
of evaluating the response and the tolerance to be applied is 
described below for the underdamped and critically damped cases. A 
sponsor using this method to comply with the QPS requirements should 
perform the tests as follows:
    (a) Underdamped response. Two measurements are required for the 
period, the time to first zero crossing (in case a rate limit is 
present) and the subsequent frequency of oscillation. It is 
necessary to measure cycles on an individual basis in case there are 
non-uniform periods in the response. Each period will be 
independently compared to the respective period of the airplane 
control system and, consequently, will enjoy the full tolerance 
specified for that period. The damping tolerance will be applied to 
overshoots on an individual basis. Care should be taken when 
applying the tolerance to small overshoots since the significance of 
such overshoots becomes questionable. Only those overshoots larger 
than 5 per cent of the total initial displacement should be 
considered. The residual band, labeled T(Ad) on Figure 
A2A is 5 percent of the initial displacement amplitude 
Ad from the steady state value of the oscillation. Only 
oscillations outside the residual band are considered significant. 
When comparing FFS data to airplane data, the process should begin 
by overlaying or aligning the FFS and airplane steady state values 
and then comparing amplitudes of oscillation peaks, the time of the 
first zero crossing and individual periods of oscillation. The FFS 
should show the same number of significant overshoots to within one 
when compared against the airplane data. The procedure for 
evaluating the response is illustrated in Figure A2A.
    (b) Critically damped and overdamped response. Due to the nature 
of critically damped and overdamped responses (no overshoots), the 
time to reach 90 percent of the steady state (neutral point) value 
should be the same as the airplane within 10 percent. 
Figure A2B illustrates the procedure.
    (c) Special considerations. Control systems that exhibit 
characteristics other than classical overdamped or underdamped 
responses should meet specified tolerances. In addition, special 
consideration should be given to ensure that significant trends are 
maintained.
    (2) Tolerances.
    (a) The following table summarizes the tolerances, T, for 
underdamped systems, and ``n'' is the sequential period of a full 
cycle of oscillation. See Figure A2A of this attachment for an 
illustration of the referenced measurements.

T(P0) 10% of P0
T(P1) 20% of P1
T(P2) 30% of P2
T(Pn) 10(n+1)% of Pn
T(An) 10% of A1
T(Ad) 5% of Ad = residual band
Significant overshoots First overshoot and 1 subsequent 
overshoots

    (b) The following tolerance applies to critically damped and 
overdamped systems only. See Figure A2B for an illustration of the 
reference measurements:

T(P0) 10% of P0

End Information

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin QPS Requirement

    c. Alternative method for control dynamics evaluation.
    (1) An alternative means for validating control dynamics for 
aircraft with hydraulically powered flight controls and artificial 
feel systems is by the measurement of control force and rate of 
movement. For each axis of pitch, roll, and yaw, the control must be 
forced to its maximum extreme position for the following distinct 
rates. These tests are conducted under normal flight and ground 
conditions.
    (a) Static test--Slowly move the control so that a full sweep is 
achieved within 95 to 105 seconds. A full sweep is defined as 
movement of the controller from neutral to the stop, usually aft or 
right stop, then to the opposite stop, then to the neutral position.
    (b) Slow dynamic test--Achieve a full sweep within 8-12 seconds.
    (c) Fast dynamic test--Achieve a full sweep within 3-5 seconds.
    Note: Dynamic sweeps may be limited to forces not exceeding 100 
lbs. (44.5 daN).
    (d) Tolerances
    (i) Static test; see Table A2A, FFS Objective Tests, Entries 
2.a.1., 2.a.2., and 2.a.3.
    (ii) Dynamic test-- 2 lbs (0.9 daN) or  
10% on dynamic increment above static test.

[[Page 39566]]

End QPS Requirement

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin Information

    d. The FAA is open to alternative means such as the one 
described above. The alternatives should be justified and 
appropriate to the application. For example, the method described 
here may not apply to all manufacturers' systems and certainly not 
to aircraft with reversible control systems. Each case is considered 
on its own merit on an ad hoc basis. If the FAA finds that 
alternative methods do not result in satisfactory performance, more 
conventionally accepted methods will have to be used.
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P

[[Page 39567]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.077

BILLING CODE 4910-13-C

5. Ground Effect

    a. For an FFS to be used for take-off and landing (not 
applicable to Level A simulators in that the landing maneuver may 
not be credited in a Level A simulator) it should reproduce the 
aerodynamic changes that occur in ground effect. The parameters

[[Page 39568]]

chosen for FFS validation should indicate these changes.
    (1) A dedicated test should be provided that will validate the 
aerodynamic ground effect characteristics.
    (2) The organization performing the flight tests may select 
appropriate test methods and procedures to validate ground effect. 
However, the flight tests should be performed with enough duration 
near the ground to sufficiently validate the ground-effect model.
    b. The NSPM will consider the merits of testing methods based on 
reliability and consistency. Acceptable methods of validating ground 
effect are described below. If other methods are proposed, rationale 
should be provided to conclude that the tests performed validate the 
ground-effect model. A sponsor using the methods described below to 
comply with the QPS requirements should perform the tests as 
follows:
    (1) Level fly-bys. The level fly-bys should be conducted at a 
minimum of three altitudes within the ground effect, including one 
at no more than 10% of the wingspan above the ground, one each at 
approximately 30% and 50% of the wingspan where height refers to 
main gear tire above the ground. In addition, one level-flight trim 
condition should be conducted out of ground effect (e.g., at 150% of 
wingspan).
    (2) Shallow approach landing. The shallow approach landing 
should be performed at a glide slope of approximately one degree 
with negligible pilot activity until flare.
    c. The lateral-directional characteristics are also altered by 
ground effect. For example, because of changes in lift, roll damping 
is affected. The change in roll damping will affect other dynamic 
modes usually evaluated for FFS validation. In fact, Dutch roll 
dynamics, spiral stability, and roll-rate for a given lateral 
control input are altered by ground effect. Steady heading sideslips 
will also be affected. These effects should be accounted for in the 
FFS modeling. Several tests such as crosswind landing, one engine 
inoperative landing, and engine failure on take-off serve to 
validate lateral-directional ground effect since portions of these 
tests are accomplished as the aircraft is descending through heights 
above the runway at which ground effect is an important factor.

6. Motion System

    a. General.
    (1) Pilots use continuous information signals to regulate the 
state of the airplane. In concert with the instruments and outside-
world visual information, whole-body motion feedback is essential in 
assisting the pilot to control the airplane dynamics, particularly 
in the presence of external disturbances. The motion system should 
meet basic objective performance criteria, and should be 
subjectively tuned at the pilot's seat position to represent the 
linear and angular accelerations of the airplane during a prescribed 
minimum set of maneuvers and conditions. The response of the motion 
cueing system should also be repeatable.
    (2) The Motion System tests in Section 3 of Table A2A are 
intended to qualify the FFS motion cueing system from a mechanical 
performance standpoint. Additionally, the list of motion effects 
provides a representative sample of dynamic conditions that should 
be present in the flight simulator. An additional list of 
representative, training-critical maneuvers, selected from Section 1 
(Performance tests), and Section 2 (Handling Qualities tests), in 
Table A2A, that should be recorded during initial qualification (but 
without tolerance) to indicate the flight simulator motion cueing 
performance signature have been identified (reference Section 3.e). 
These tests are intended to help improve the overall standard of FFS 
motion cueing.
    b. Motion System Checks. The intent of test 3a, Frequency 
Response, test 3b, Leg Balance, and test 3c, Turn-Around Check, as 
described in the Table of Objective Tests, is to demonstrate the 
performance of the motion system hardware, and to check the 
integrity of the motion set-up with regard to calibration and wear. 
These tests are independent of the motion cueing software and should 
be considered robotic tests.
    c. Motion System Repeatability. The intent of this test is to 
ensure that the motion system software and motion system hardware 
have not degraded or changed over time. This diagnostic test should 
be completed during continuing qualification checks in lieu of the 
robotic tests. This will allow an improved ability to determine 
changes in the software or determine degradation in the hardware. 
The following information delineates the methodology that should be 
used for this test.
    (1) Input: The inputs should be such that rotational 
accelerations, rotational rates, and linear accelerations are 
inserted before the transfer from airplane center of gravity to 
pilot reference point with a minimum amplitude of 5 deg/sec/sec, 10 
deg/sec and 0.3 g, respectively, to provide adequate analysis of the 
output.
    (2) Recommended output:
    (a) Actual platform linear accelerations; the output will 
comprise accelerations due to both the linear and rotational motion 
acceleration;
    (b) Motion actuators position.
    d. Objective Motion Cueing Test--Frequency Domain
    (1) Background. This test quantifies the response of the motion 
cueing system from the output of the flight model to the motion 
platform response. Other motion tests, such as the motion system 
frequency response, concentrate on the mechanical performance of the 
motion system hardware alone. The intent of this test is to provide 
quantitative frequency response records of the entire motion system 
for specified degree-of-freedom transfer relationships over a range 
of frequencies. This range should be representative of the manual 
control range for that particular aircraft type and the simulator as 
set up during qualification. The measurements of this test should 
include the combined influence of the motion cueing algorithm, the 
motion platform dynamics, and the transport delay associated with 
the motion cueing and control system implementation. Specified 
frequency responses describing the ability of the FSTD to reproduce 
aircraft translations and rotations, as well as the cross-coupling 
relations, are required as part of these measurements. When 
simulating forward aircraft acceleration, the simulator is 
accelerated momentarily in the forward direction to provide the 
onset cueing. This is considered the direct transfer relation. The 
simulator is simultaneously tilted nose-up due to the low-pass 
filter in order to generate a sustained specific force. The tilt 
associated with the generation of the sustained specific force, and 
the angular rates and angular accelerations associated with the 
initiation of the sustained specific force, are considered cross-
coupling relations. The specific force is required for the 
perception of the aircraft sustained specific force, while the 
angular rates and accelerations do not occur in the aircraft and 
should be minimized.
    (2) Frequency response test. This test requires the frequency 
response to be measured for the motion cueing system. Reference 
sinusoidal signals are inserted at the pilot reference position 
prior to the motion cueing computations. The response of the motion 
platform in the corresponding degree-of-freedom (the direct transfer 
relations), as well as the motions resulting from cross-coupling 
(the cross-coupling relations), are recorded. These are the tests 
that are important to pilot motion cueing and are general tests 
applicable to all types of airplanes. These tests can be run at any 
time deemed acceptable to the NSPM prior to and/or during the 
initial qualification.
    (3) Transfer Functions. The frequency responses describe the 
relations between aircraft motions and simulator motions. The 
relations are explained below per individual test. Tests 1, 3, 5, 6, 
8 and 10 show the direct transfer relations, while tests 2, 4, 7 and 
9 show the cross-coupling relations.

1. FSTD pitch response to aircraft pitch input
2. FSTD surge specific force response due to aircraft pitch input
3. FSTD roll response to aircraft roll input
4. FSTD sway specific force response due to aircraft roll input
5. FSTD yaw response to aircraft yaw input
6. FSTD surge specific force response to aircraft surge input
7. FSTD pitch rate and pitch acceleration response to aircraft surge 
input
8. FSTD sway specific force response to aircraft sway input
9. FSTD roll rate and pitch acceleration response to aircraft sway 
input
10. FSTD heave specific force response to aircraft heave input

    (4) Frequency Range. The tests should be conducted by 
introducing sinusoidal inputs at discrete input frequencies entered 
at the output of the flight model, transformed to the pilot 
reference position just before the motion cueing computations, and 
measured at the response of the FSTD platform. For each relation 
defined in section (3), measurements must be taken in at least 12 
discrete frequencies within a range of 0.0159 and 2.515 Hz.
    (5) Input Signal Amplitude. The tests applied here to the motion 
cueing system are intended to qualify its response to normal control 
inputs during maneuvering (i.e. not aggressive or excessively hard 
control inputs). It is necessary to excite the system in such a 
manner that the response is measured with a high signal-to-noise 
ratio,

[[Page 39569]]

and that the possible non-linear elements in the motion cueing 
system are not overly excited.
    (6) Presentation of Results. The measured modulus and phase 
should be tabulated for the twelve frequencies and for each of the 
transfer relations given section (3). The results should also be 
plotted for each component in a modulus versus phase plot. The 
modulus should range from 0.0 to 1.0 along the horizontal axis, and 
the absolute value of the phase from 0 to 180 degrees along the 
vertical axis. An example is shown in Figure A2C.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.079

    e. Motion Vibrations.
    (1) Presentation of results. The characteristic motion 
vibrations may be used to verify that the flight simulator can 
reproduce the frequency content of the airplane when flown in 
specific conditions. The test results should be presented as a Power 
Spectral Density (PSD) plot with frequencies on the horizontal axis 
and amplitude on the vertical axis. The airplane data and flight 
simulator data should be presented in the same format with the same 
scaling. The algorithms used for generating the flight simulator 
data should be the same as those used for the airplane data. If they 
are not the same then the algorithms used for the flight simulator 
data should be proven to be sufficiently comparable. As a minimum, 
the results along the dominant axes should be presented and a 
rationale for not presenting the other axes should be provided.
    (2) Interpretation of results. The overall trend of the PSD plot 
should be considered while focusing on the dominant frequencies. 
Less emphasis should be placed on the differences at the high 
frequency and low amplitude portions of the PSD plot. During the 
analysis, certain structural components of the flight simulator have 
resonant frequencies that are filtered and may not appear in the PSD 
plot. If filtering is required, the notch filter bandwidth should be 
limited to 1 Hz to ensure that the buffet feel is not adversely 
affected. In addition, a rationale should be provided to explain 
that the characteristic motion vibration is not being adversely 
affected by the filtering. The amplitude should match airplane data 
as described below. However, if the PSD plot was altered for 
subjective reasons, a rationale should be provided to justify the 
change. If the plot is on a logarithmic scale, it may be difficult 
to interpret the amplitude of the buffet in terms of acceleration. 
For example, a 1 x 10-3 g-rms\2\/Hz would describe a 
heavy buffet and may be seen in the deep stall regime. 
Alternatively, a 1 x 10-6 g-rms\2\/Hz buffet is almost 
not perceivable; but may represent a flap buffet at low speed. The 
previous two examples differ in magnitude by 1000. On a PSD plot 
this represents three decades (one decade is a change in order of 
magnitude of 10; and two decades is a change in order of magnitude 
of 100).
    Note: In the example, ``g-rms\2\ is the mathematical expression 
for ``g's root mean squared.''

7. Sound System

    a. General. The total sound environment in the airplane is very 
complex, and changes with atmospheric conditions, airplane 
configuration, airspeed, altitude, and power settings. Flight deck 
sounds are an important component of the flight deck operational 
environment and provide valuable information to the flight crew. 
These aural cues can either assist the crew (as an indication of an 
abnormal situation), or hinder the crew (as a distraction or 
nuisance). For effective training, the flight simulator should 
provide flight deck sounds that are perceptible to the pilot during 
normal and abnormal operations, and comparable to those of the 
airplane. The flight simulator operator should carefully evaluate 
background noises in the location where the device will be 
installed. To demonstrate compliance with the sound requirements, 
the objective or validation tests in this attachment were selected 
to provide a representative sample of normal static conditions 
typically experienced by a pilot.
    b. Alternate propulsion. For FFS with multiple propulsion 
configurations, any condition listed in Table A2A of this attachment 
should be presented for evaluation as part of the QTG if identified 
by the airplane manufacturer or other data supplier as significantly 
different due to a change in propulsion system (engine or 
propeller).
    c. Data and Data Collection System.
    (1) Information provided to the flight simulator manufacturer 
should be presented in the format suggested by the International Air 
Transport Association (IATA) ``Flight Simulator Design and 
Performance Data Requirements,'' as amended. This information should 
contain calibration and frequency response data.

[[Page 39570]]

    (2) The system used to perform the tests listed in Table A2A 
should comply with the following standards:
    (a) The specifications for octave, half octave, and third octave 
band filter sets may be found in American National Standards 
Institute (ANSI) S1.11-1986;
    (b) Measurement microphones should be type WS2 or better, as 
described in International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) 1094-4-
1995.
    (3) Headsets. If headsets are used during normal operation of 
the airplane they should also be used during the flight simulator 
evaluation.
    (4) Playback equipment. Playback equipment and recordings of the 
QTG conditions should be provided during initial evaluations.
    (5) Background noise.
    (a) Background noise is the noise in the flight simulator that 
is not associated with the airplane, but is caused by the flight 
simulator's cooling and hydraulic systems and extraneous noise from 
other locations in the building. Background noise can seriously 
impact the correct simulation of airplane sounds and should be kept 
below the airplane sounds. In some cases, the sound level of the 
simulation can be increased to compensate for the background noise. 
However, this approach is limited by the specified tolerances and by 
the subjective acceptability of the sound environment to the 
evaluation pilot.
    (b) The acceptability of the background noise levels is 
dependent upon the normal sound levels in the airplane being 
represented. Background noise levels that fall below the lines 
defined by the following points, may be acceptable:
    (i) 70 dB @ 50 Hz;
    (ii) 55 dB @ 1000 Hz;
    (iii) 30 dB @ 16 kHz
    (Note: These limits are for unweighted 1/3 octave band sound 
levels. Meeting these limits for background noise does not ensure an 
acceptable flight simulator. Airplane sounds that fall below this 
limit require careful review and may require lower limits on 
background noise.)
    (6) Validation testing. Deficiencies in airplane recordings 
should be considered when applying the specified tolerances to 
ensure that the simulation is representative of the airplane. 
Examples of typical deficiencies are:
    (a) Variation of data between tail numbers;
    (b) Frequency response of microphones;
    (c) Repeatability of the measurements.

                Table A2B--Example of Continuing Qualification Frequency Response Test Tolerance
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Continuing
                                                                      Initial      qualification     Absolute
                      Band center frequency                           results         results       difference
                                                                      (dBSPL)         (dBSPL)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
50..............................................................            75.0            73.8             1.2
63..............................................................            75.9            75.6             0.3
80..............................................................            77.1            76.5             0.6
100.............................................................            78.0            78.3             0.3
125.............................................................            81.9            81.3             0.6
160.............................................................            79.8            80.1             0.3
200.............................................................            83.1            84.9             1.8
250.............................................................            78.6            78.9             0.3
315.............................................................            79.5            78.3             1.2
400.............................................................            80.1            79.5             0.9
500.............................................................            80.7            79.8             0.9
630.............................................................            81.9            80.4             1.5
800.............................................................            73.2            74.1             0.9
1000............................................................            79.2            80.1             0.9
1250............................................................            80.7            82.8             2.1
1600............................................................            81.6            78.6             3.0
2000............................................................            76.2            74.4             1.8
2500............................................................            79.5            80.7             1.2
3150............................................................            80.1            77.1             3.0
4000............................................................            78.9            78.6             0.3
5000............................................................            80.1            77.1             3.0
6300............................................................            80.7            80.4             0.3
8000............................................................            84.3            85.5             1.2
10000...........................................................            81.3            79.8             1.5
12500...........................................................            80.7            80.1             0.6
16000...........................................................            71.1            71.1             0.0
                                                                 --------------------------------
                                                                              Average                        1.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

8. Additional Information About Flight Simulator Qualification for New 
or Derivative Airplanes

    a. Typically, an airplane manufacturer's approved final data for 
performance, handling qualities, systems or avionics is not 
available until well after a new or derivative airplane has entered 
service. However, flight crew training and certification often 
begins several months prior to the entry of the first airplane into 
service. Consequently, it may be necessary to use preliminary data 
provided by the airplane manufacturer for interim qualification of 
flight simulators.
    b. In these cases, the NSPM may accept certain partially 
validated preliminary airplane and systems data, and early release 
(`red label') avionics data in order to permit the necessary program 
schedule for training, certification, and service introduction.
    c. Simulator sponsors seeking qualification based on preliminary 
data should consult the NSPM to make special arrangements for using 
preliminary data for flight simulator qualification. The sponsor 
should also consult the airplane and flight simulator manufacturers 
to develop a data plan and flight simulator qualification plan.
    d. The procedure to be followed to gain NSPM acceptance of 
preliminary data will vary from case to case and between airplane 
manufacturers. Each airplane manufacturer's new airplane development 
and test program is designed to suit the needs of the particular 
project and may not contain the same events or sequence of events as 
another manufacturer's program, or even the same manufacturer's 
program for a different airplane. Therefore, there cannot be a 
prescribed invariable procedure for acceptance of preliminary data, 
but instead there should be a statement describing the final 
sequence of events, data sources, and validation procedures agreed 
by the simulator sponsor, the airplane manufacturer, the flight 
simulator manufacturer, and the NSPM.
    Note: A description of airplane manufacturer-provided data 
needed for flight simulator modeling and validation is to be

[[Page 39571]]

found in the IATA Document ``Flight Simulator Design and Performance 
Data Requirements,'' as amended.
    e. The preliminary data should be the manufacturer's best 
representation of the airplane, with assurance that the final data 
will not significantly deviate from the preliminary estimates. Data 
derived from these predictive or preliminary techniques should be 
validated against available sources including, at least, the 
following:
    (1) Manufacturer's engineering report. The report should explain 
the predictive method used and illustrate past success of the method 
on similar projects. For example, the manufacturer could show the 
application of the method to an earlier airplane model or predict 
the characteristics of an earlier model and compare the results to 
final data for that model.
    (2) Early flight test results. This data is often derived from 
airplane certification tests, and should be used to maximum 
advantage for early flight simulator validation. Certain critical 
tests that would normally be done early in the airplane 
certification program should be included to validate essential pilot 
training and certification maneuvers. These include cases where a 
pilot is expected to cope with an airplane failure mode or an engine 
failure. Flight test data that will be available early in the flight 
test program will depend on the airplane manufacturer's flight test 
program design and may not be the same in each case. The flight test 
program of the airplane manufacturer should include provisions for 
generation of very early flight test results for flight simulator 
validation.
    f. The use of preliminary data is not indefinite. The airplane 
manufacturer's final data should be available within 12 months after 
the airplane's first entry into service or as agreed by the NSPM, 
the simulator sponsor, and the airplane manufacturer. When applying 
for interim qualification using preliminary data, the simulator 
sponsor and the NSPM should agree on the update program. This 
includes specifying that the final data update will be installed in 
the flight simulator within a period of 12 months following the 
final data release, unless special conditions exist and a different 
schedule is acceptable. The flight simulator performance and 
handling validation would then be based on data derived from flight 
tests or from other approved sources. Initial airplane systems data 
should be updated after engineering tests. Final airplane systems 
data should also be used for flight simulator programming and 
validation.
    g. Flight simulator avionics should stay essentially in step 
with airplane avionics (hardware and software) updates. The 
permitted time lapse between airplane and flight simulator updates 
should be minimal. It may depend on the magnitude of the update and 
whether the QTG and pilot training and certification are affected. 
Differences in airplane and flight simulator avionics versions and 
the resulting effects on flight simulator qualification should be 
agreed between the simulator sponsor and the NSPM. Consultation with 
the flight simulator manufacturer is desirable throughout the 
qualification process.
    h. The following describes an example of the design data and 
sources that might be used in the development of an interim 
qualification plan.
    (1) The plan should consist of the development of a QTG based 
upon a mix of flight test and engineering simulation data. For data 
collected from specific airplane flight tests or other flights, the 
required design model or data changes necessary to support an 
acceptable Proof of Match (POM) should be generated by the airplane 
manufacturer.
    (2) For proper validation of the two sets of data, the airplane 
manufacturer should compare their simulation model responses against 
the flight test data, when driven by the same control inputs and 
subjected to the same atmospheric conditions as recorded in the 
flight test. The model responses should result from a simulation 
where the following systems are run in an integrated fashion and are 
consistent with the design data released to the flight simulator 
manufacturer:
    (a) Propulsion
    (b) Aerodynamics;
    (c) Mass properties;
    (d) Flight controls;
    (e) Stability augmentation; and
    (f) Brakes/landing gear.
    i. A qualified test pilot should be used to assess handling 
qualities and performance evaluations for the qualification of 
flight simulators of new airplane types.

End Information

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin QPS Requirement

9. Engineering Simulator--Validation Data

    a. When a fully validated simulation (i.e., validated with 
flight test results) is modified due to changes to the simulated 
airplane configuration, the airplane manufacturer or other 
acceptable data supplier must coordinate with the NSPM if they 
propose to supply validation data from an ``audited'' engineering 
simulator/simulation to selectively supplement flight test data. The 
NSPM must be provided an opportunity to audit the engineering 
simulation or the engineering simulator used to generate the 
validation data. Validation data from an audited engineering 
simulation may be used for changes that are incremental in nature. 
Manufacturers or other data suppliers must be able to demonstrate 
that the predicted changes in aircraft performance are based on 
acceptable aeronautical principles with proven success history and 
valid outcomes. This must include comparisons of predicted and 
flight test validated data.
    b. Airplane manufacturers or other acceptable data suppliers 
seeking to use an engineering simulator for simulation validation 
data as an alternative to flight-test derived validation data, must 
contact the NSPM and provide the following:
    (1) A description of the proposed aircraft changes, a 
description of the proposed simulation model changes, and the use of 
an integral configuration management process, including a 
description of the actual simulation model modifications that 
includes a step-by-step description leading from the original 
model(s) to the current model(s).
    (2) A schedule for review by the NSPM of the proposed plan and 
the subsequent validation data to establish acceptability of the 
proposal.
    (3) Validation data from an audited engineering simulator/
simulation to supplement specific segments of the flight test data.
    c. To be qualified to supply engineering simulator validation 
data, for aerodynamic, engine, flight control, or ground handling 
models, an airplane manufacturer or other acceptable data supplier 
must:
    (1) Be able to verify their ability able to:
    (a) Develop and implement high fidelity simulation models; and
    (b) Predict the handling and performance characteristics of an 
airplane with sufficient accuracy to avoid additional flight test 
activities for those handling and performance characteristics.
    (2) Have an engineering simulator that:
    (a) Is a physical entity, complete with a flight deck 
representative of the simulated class of airplane;
    (b) Has controls sufficient for manual flight;
    (c) Has models that run in an integrated manner;
    (d) Has fully flight-test validated simulation models as the 
original or baseline simulation models;
    (e) Has an out-of-the-flight deck visual system;
    (f) Has actual avionics boxes interchangeable with the 
equivalent software simulations to support validation of released 
software;
    (g) Uses the same models as released to the training community 
(which are also used to produce stand-alone proof-of-match and 
checkout documents);
    (h) Is used to support airplane development and certification; 
and
    (i) Has been found to be a high fidelity representation of the 
airplane by the manufacturer's pilots (or other acceptable data 
supplier), certificate holders, and the NSPM.
    (3) Use the engineering simulator/simulation to produce a 
representative set of integrated proof-of-match cases.
    (4) Use a configuration control system covering hardware and 
software for the operating components of the engineering simulator/
simulation.
    (5) Demonstrate that the predicted effects of the change(s) are 
within the provisions of sub-paragraph ``a'' of this section, and 
confirm that additional flight test data are not required.
    d. Additional Requirements for Validation Data
    (1) When used to provide validation data, an engineering 
simulator must meet the simulator standards currently applicable to 
training simulators except for the data package.
    (2) The data package used must be:
    (a) Comprised of the engineering predictions derived from the 
airplane design, development, or certification process;
    (b) Based on acceptable aeronautical principles with proven 
success history and valid outcomes for aerodynamics, engine 
operations, avionics operations, flight control applications, or 
ground handling;

[[Page 39572]]

    (c) Verified with existing flight-test data; and
    (d) Applicable to the configuration of a production airplane, as 
opposed to a flight-test airplane.
    (3) Where engineering simulator data are used as part of a QTG, 
an essential match must exist between the training simulator and the 
validation data.
    (4) Training flight simulator(s) using these baseline and 
modified simulation models must be qualified to at least 
internationally recognized standards, such as contained in the ICAO 
Document 9625, the ``Manual of Criteria for the Qualification of 
Flight Simulators.''

End QPS Requirement

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

10. [Reserved]

11. Validation Test Tolerances

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin Information

a. Non-Flight-Test Tolerances

    (1) If engineering simulator data or other non-flight-test data 
are used as an allowable form of reference validation data for the 
objective tests listed in Table A2A of this attachment, the data 
provider must supply a well-documented mathematical model and 
testing procedure that enables a replication of the engineering 
simulation results within 40% of the corresponding flight test 
tolerances.

b. Background

    (1) The tolerances listed in Table A2A of this attachment are 
designed to measure the quality of the match using flight-test data 
as a reference.
    (2) Good engineering judgment should be applied to all 
tolerances in any test. A test is failed when the results clearly 
fall outside of the prescribed tolerance(s).
    (3) Engineering simulator data are acceptable because the same 
simulation models used to produce the reference data are also used 
to test the flight training simulator (i.e., the two sets of results 
should be ``essentially'' similar).
    (4) The results from the two sources may differ for the 
following reasons:
    (a) Hardware (avionics units and flight controls);
    (b) Iteration rates;
    (c) Execution order;
    (d) Integration methods;
    (e) Processor architecture;
    (f) Digital drift, including:
    (i) Interpolation methods;
    (ii) Data handling differences; and
    (iii) Auto-test trim tolerances.
    (5) The tolerance limit between the reference data and the 
flight simulator results is generally 40% of the corresponding 
`flight-test' tolerances. However, there may be cases where the 
simulator models used are of higher fidelity, or the manner in which 
they are cascaded in the integrated testing loop have the effect of 
a higher fidelity, than those supplied by the data provider. Under 
these circumstances, it is possible that an error greater than 20% 
may be generated. An error greater than 40% may be acceptable if 
simulator sponsor can provide an adequate explanation.
    (6) Guidelines are needed for the application of tolerances to 
engineering-simulator-generated validation data because:
    (a) Flight-test data are often not available due to technical 
reasons;
    (b) Alternative technical solutions are being advanced; and
    (c) High costs.

12. Validation Data Roadmap

    a. Airplane manufacturers or other data suppliers should supply 
a validation data roadmap (VDR) document as part of the data 
package. A VDR document contains guidance material from the airplane 
validation data supplier recommending the best possible sources of 
data to be used as validation data in the QTG. A VDR is of special 
value when requesting interim qualification, qualification of 
simulators for airplanes certificated prior to 1992, and 
qualification of alternate engine or avionics fits. A sponsor 
seeking to have a device qualified in accordance with the standards 
contained in this QPS appendix should submit a VDR to the NSPM as 
early as possible in the planning stages. The NSPM is the final 
authority to approve the data to be used as validation material for 
the QTG. The NSPM and the Joint Aviation Authorities' Synthetic 
Training Devices Advisory Board have committed to maintain a list of 
agreed VDRs.
    b. The VDR should identify (in matrix format) sources of data 
for all required tests. It should also provide guidance regarding 
the validity of these data for a specific engine type, thrust rating 
configuration, and the revision levels of all avionics affecting 
airplane handling qualities and performance. The VDR should include 
rationale or explanation in cases where data or parameters are 
missing, engineering simulation data are to be used, flight test 
methods require explanation, or there is any deviation from data 
requirements. Additionally, the document should refer to other 
appropriate sources of validation data (e.g., sound and vibration 
data documents).
    c. The Sample Validation Data Roadmap (VDR) for airplanes, shown 
in Table A2C, depicts a generic roadmap matrix identifying sources 
of validation data for an abbreviated list of tests. This document 
is merely a sample and does not provide actual data. A complete 
matrix should address all test conditions and provide actual data 
and data sources.
    d. Two examples of rationale pages are presented in Appendix F 
of the IATA ``Flight Simulator Design and Performance Data 
Requirements.'' These illustrate the type of airplane and avionics 
configuration information and descriptive engineering rationale used 
to describe data anomalies or provide an acceptable basis for using 
alternative data for QTG validation requirements.

End Information

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P

[[Page 39573]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.080


[[Page 39574]]


BILLING CODE 4910-13-C

Begin Information

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

13. Acceptance Guidelines for Alternative Engines Data

a. Background

    (1) For a new airplane type, the majority of flight validation 
data are collected on the first airplane configuration with a 
``baseline'' engine type. These data are then used to validate all 
flight simulators representing that airplane type.
    (2) Additional flight test validation data may be needed for 
flight simulators representing an airplane with engines of a 
different type than the baseline, or for engines with thrust rating 
that is different from previously validated configurations.
    (3) When a flight simulator with alternate engines is to be 
qualified, the QTG should contain tests against flight test 
validation data for selected cases where engine differences are 
expected to be significant.

b. Approval Guidelines For Validating Alternate Engine Applications

    (1) The following guidelines apply to flight simulators 
representing airplanes with alternate engine applications or with 
more than one engine type or thrust rating.
    (2) Validation tests can be segmented into two groups, those 
that are dependent on engine type or thrust rating and those that 
are not.
    (3) For tests that are independent of engine type or thrust 
rating, the QTG can be based on validation data from any engine 
application. Tests in this category should be designated as 
independent of engine type or thrust rating.
    (4) For tests that are affected by engine type, the QTG should 
contain selected engine-specific flight test data sufficient to 
validate that particular airplane-engine configuration. These 
effects may be due to engine dynamic characteristics, thrust levels 
or engine-related airplane configuration changes. This category is 
primarily characterized by variations between different engine 
manufacturers' products, but also includes differences due to 
significant engine design changes from a previously flight-validated 
configuration within a single engine type. See Table A2D, Alternate 
Engine Validation Flight Tests in this section for a list of 
acceptable tests.
    (5) Alternate engine validation data should be based on flight 
test data, except as noted in sub-paragraphs 13.c.(1) and (2), or 
where other data are specifically allowed (e.g., engineering 
simulator/simulation data). If certification of the flight 
characteristics of the airplane with a new thrust rating (regardless 
of percentage change) does require certification flight testing with 
a comprehensive stability and control flight instrumentation 
package, then the conditions described in Table A2D in this section 
should be obtained from flight testing and presented in the QTG. 
Flight test data, other than throttle calibration data, are not 
required if the new thrust rating is certified on the airplane 
without need for a comprehensive stability and control flight 
instrumentation package.
    (6) As a supplement to the engine-specific flight tests listed 
in Table A2D and baseline engine-independent tests, additional 
engine-specific engineering validation data should be provided in 
the QTG, as appropriate, to facilitate running the entire QTG with 
the alternate engine configuration. The sponsor and the NSPM should 
agree in advance on the specific validation tests to be supported by 
engineering simulation data.
    (7) A matrix or VDR should be provided with the QTG indicating 
the appropriate validation data source for each test.
    (8) The flight test conditions in Table A2D are appropriate and 
should be sufficient to validate implementation of alternate engines 
in a flight simulator.

End Information

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin QPS Requirement

c. Test Requirements

    (1) The QTG must contain selected engine-specific flight test 
data sufficient to validate the alternative thrust level when:
    (a) the engine type is the same, but the thrust rating exceeds 
that of a previously flight-test validated configuration by five 
percent (5%) or more; or
    (b) the engine type is the same, but the thrust rating is less 
than the lowest previously flight-test validated rating by fifteen 
percent (15%) or more. See Table A2D for a list of acceptable tests.
    (2) Flight test data is not required if the thrust increase is 
greater than 5%, but flight tests have confirmed that the thrust 
increase does not change the airplane's flight characteristics.
    (3) Throttle calibration data (i.e., commanded power setting 
parameter versus throttle position) must be provided to validate all 
alternate engine types and engine thrust ratings that are higher or 
lower than a previously validated engine. Data from a test airplane 
or engineering test bench with the correct engine controller (both 
hardware and software) are required.

End QPS Requirement

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin QPS Requirement

                              Table A2D--Alternative Engine Validation Flight Tests
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Entry No.                            Test description                     Alternative      Alternative
                                                                                engine type      thrust rating
                                                                                                 \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.b.1....................      Normal take-off/ground acceleration time and                  X                X
1.b.4....................                        distance
1.b.2....................     Vmcg, if performed for airplane certification                  X                X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.b.5....................  Engine-out take-off......  Either test may be                     X   ...............
                                                       performed..
1.b.8....................  Dynamic engine failure
                            after take-off
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.b.7....................      Rejected take-off if performed for airplane                   X
                                               certification
1.d.1....................                   Cruise performance                               X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.f.1....................          Engine acceleration and deceleration                      X                X
1.f.2....................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.a.8....................                Throttle calibration \1\                            X                X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.c.1....................          Power change dynamics (acceleration)                      X                X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.d.1....................      Vmca if performed for airplane certification                  X                X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.d.5....................                Engine inoperative trim                             X                X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.e.1....................                     Normal landing                                 X   ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Must be provided for all changes in engine type or thrust rating; see paragraph 13.c.(3).
\2\ See paragraphs 13.c.(1) through13.c.(3), for a definition of applicable thrust ratings.


[[Page 39575]]

End QPS Requirement

Begin Information

14. Acceptance Guidelines for Alternative Avionics (Flight-Related 
Computers and Controllers)

    a. Background
    (1) For a new airplane type, the majority of flight validation 
data are collected on the first airplane configuration with a 
``baseline'' flight-related avionics ship-set; (see subparagraph 
b.(2) of this section). These data are then used to validate all 
flight simulators representing that airplane type.
    (2) Additional validation data may be required for flight 
simulators representing an airplane with avionics of a different 
hardware design than the baseline, or a different software revision 
than previously validated configurations.
    (3) When a flight simulator with additional or alternate 
avionics configurations is to be qualified, the QTG should contain 
tests against validation data for selected cases where avionics 
differences are expected to be significant.
    b. Approval Guidelines For Validating Alternate Avionics
    (1) The following guidelines apply to flight simulators 
representing airplanes with a revised avionics configuration, or 
more than one avionics configuration.
    (2) The baseline validation data should be based on flight test 
data, except where other data are specifically allowed (e.g., 
engineering flight simulator data).
    (3) The airplane avionics can be segmented into two groups, 
systems or components whose functional behavior contributes to the 
aircraft response presented in the QTG results, and systems that do 
not. The following avionics are examples of contributory systems for 
which hardware design changes or software revisions may lead to 
significant differences in the aircraft response relative to the 
baseline avionics configuration: Flight control computers and 
controllers for engines, autopilot, braking system, nosewheel 
steering system, and high lift system. Related avionics such as 
stall warning and augmentation systems should also be considered.
    (4) The acceptability of validation data used in the QTG for an 
alternative avionics fit should be determined as follows:
    (a) For changes to an avionics system or component that do not 
affect QTG validation test response, the QTG test can be based on 
validation data from the previously validated avionics 
configuration.
    (b) For an avionics change to a contributory system, where a 
specific test is not affected by the change (e.g., the avionics 
change is a Built In Test Equipment (BITE) update or a modification 
in a different flight phase), the QTG test can be based on 
validation data from the previously-validated avionics 
configuration. The QTG should include authoritative justification 
(e.g., from the airplane manufacturer or system supplier) that this 
avionics change does not affect the test.
    (c) For an avionics change to a contributory system, the QTG may 
be based on validation data from the previously-validated avionics 
configuration if no new functionality is added and the impact of the 
avionics change on the airplane response is small and based on 
acceptable aeronautical principles with proven success history and 
valid outcomes. This should be supplemented with avionics-specific 
validation data from the airplane manufacturer's engineering 
simulation, generated with the revised avionics configuration. The 
QTG should also include an explanation of the nature of the change 
and its effect on the airplane response.
    (d) For an avionics change to a contributory system that 
significantly affects some tests in the QTG or where new 
functionality is added, the QTG should be based on validation data 
from the previously validated avionics configuration and 
supplemental avionics-specific flight test data sufficient to 
validate the alternate avionics revision. Additional flight test 
validation data may not be needed if the avionics changes were 
certified without the need for testing with a comprehensive flight 
instrumentation package. The airplane manufacturer should coordinate 
flight simulator data requirements, in advance with the NSPM.
    (5) A matrix or ``roadmap'' should be provided with the QTG 
indicating the appropriate validation data source for each test. The 
roadmap should include identification of the revision state of those 
contributory avionics systems that could affect specific test 
responses if changed.

15. Transport Delay Testing

    a. This paragraph explains how to determine the introduced 
transport delay through the flight simulator system so that it does 
not exceed a specific time delay. The transport delay should be 
measured from control inputs through the interface, through each of 
the host computer modules and back through the interface to motion, 
flight instrument, and visual systems. The transport delay should 
not exceed the maximum allowable interval.
    b. Four specific examples of transport delay are:
    (1) Simulation of classic non-computer controlled aircraft;
    (2) Simulation of computer controlled aircraft using real 
airplane black boxes;
    (3) Simulation of computer controlled aircraft using software 
emulation of airplane boxes;
    (4) Simulation using software avionics or re-hosted instruments.
    c. Figure A2D illustrates the total transport delay for a non-
computer-controlled airplane or the classic transport delay test. 
Since there are no airplane-induced delays for this case, the total 
transport delay is equivalent to the introduced delay.
    d. Figure A2E illustrates the transport delay testing method 
using the real airplane controller system.
    e. To obtain the induced transport delay for the motion, 
instrument and visual signal, the delay induced by the airplane 
controller should be subtracted from the total transport delay. This 
difference represents the introduced delay and should not exceed the 
standards prescribed in Table A1A.
    f. Introduced transport delay is measured from the flight deck 
control input to the reaction of the instruments and motion and 
visual systems (See Figure A2D).
    g. The control input may also be introduced after the airplane 
controller system and the introduced transport delay measured 
directly from the control input to the reaction of the instruments, 
and simulator motion and visual systems (See Figure A2E).
    h. Figure A2F illustrates the transport delay testing method 
used on a flight simulator that uses a software emulated airplane 
controller system.
    i. It is not possible to measure the introduced transport delay 
using the simulated airplane controller system architecture for the 
pitch, roll and yaw axes. Therefore, the signal should be measured 
directly from the pilot controller. The flight simulator 
manufacturer should measure the total transport delay and subtract 
the inherent delay of the actual airplane components because the 
real airplane controller system has an inherent delay provided by 
the airplane manufacturer. The flight simulator manufacturer should 
ensure that the introduced delay does not exceed the standards 
prescribed in Table A1A.
    j. Special measurements for instrument signals for flight 
simulators using a real airplane instrument display system instead 
of a simulated or re-hosted display. For flight instrument systems, 
the total transport delay should be measured and the inherent delay 
of the actual airplane components subtracted to ensure that the 
introduced delay does not exceed the standards prescribed in Table 
A1A.
    (1) Figure A2GA illustrates the transport delay procedure 
without airplane display simulation. The introduced delay consists 
of the delay between the control movement and the instrument change 
on the data bus.
    (2) Figure A2GB illustrates the modified testing method required 
to measure introduced delay due to software avionics or re-hosted 
instruments. The total simulated instrument transport delay is 
measured and the airplane delay should be subtracted from this 
total. This difference represents the introduced delay and should 
not exceed the standards prescribed in Table A1A. The inherent delay 
of the airplane between the data bus and the displays is indicated 
in figure A2GA. The display manufacturer should provide this delay 
time.
    k. Recorded signals. The signals recorded to conduct the 
transport delay calculations should be explained on a schematic 
block diagram. The flight simulator manufacturer should also provide 
an explanation of why each signal was selected and how they relate 
to the above descriptions.
    l. Interpretation of results. Flight simulator results vary over 
time from test to test due to ``sampling uncertainty.'' All flight 
simulators run at a specific rate where all modules are executed 
sequentially in the host computer. The flight controls input can 
occur at any time in the iteration, but these data will not be 
processed before the start of the new iteration. For example, a 
flight simulator running at 60 Hz may have a difference of as much 
as 16.67 msec between test results. This does not mean that the test 
has failed. Instead, the difference is

[[Page 39576]]

attributed to variations in input processing. In some conditions, 
the host simulator and the visual system do not run at the same 
iteration rate, so the output of the host computer to the visual 
system will not always be synchronized.
    m. The transport delay test should account for both daylight and 
night modes of operation of the visual system. In both cases, the 
tolerances prescribed in Table A1A must be met and the motion 
response should occur before the end of the first video scan 
containing new information.
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.081


[[Page 39577]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.082

BILLING CODE 4910-13-C
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin Information

16. Continuing Qualification Evaluations--Validation Test Data 
Presentation

a. Background

    (1) The MQTG is created during the initial evaluation of a 
flight simulator. This is the master document, as amended, to which 
flight simulator continuing qualification evaluation test results 
are compared.
    (2) The currently accepted method of presenting continuing 
qualification evaluation test results is to provide flight simulator 
results over-plotted with reference data. Test results are carefully 
reviewed to determine if the test is within the specified 
tolerances. This can be a time consuming process, particularly when 
reference data exhibits rapid variations or an apparent anomaly 
requiring engineering judgment in the application of the tolerances. 
In these cases, the solution is to compare the results to the MQTG. 
The continuing qualification results are compared to the results in 
the MQTG for acceptance. The flight simulator operator and the NSPM 
should look for any change in the flight simulator performance since 
initial qualification.

b. Continuing Qualification Evaluation Test Results Presentation

    (1) Flight simulator operators are encouraged to over-plot 
continuing qualification validation test results with MQTG flight 
simulator results recorded during the initial evaluation and as 
amended. Any change in a validation test will be readily apparent. 
In addition to plotting continuing qualification validation test and 
MQTG results, operators may elect to plot reference data as well.
    (2) There are no suggested tolerances between flight simulator 
continuing qualification and MQTG validation test results. 
Investigation of any discrepancy between the MQTG and continuing 
qualification flight simulator performance is left to the discretion 
of the flight simulator operator and the NSPM.
    (3) Differences between the two sets of results, other than 
variations attributable to repeatability issues that cannot be 
explained, should be investigated.
    (4) The flight simulator should retain the ability to over-plot 
both automatic and manual validation test results with reference 
data.

End Information

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin QPS Requirements

17. Alternative Data Sources, Procedures, and Instrumentation: Level A 
and Level B Simulators Only

    a. Sponsors are not required to use the alternative data 
sources, procedures, and instrumentation. However, a sponsor may 
choose to use one or more of the alternative sources, procedures, 
and instrumentation described in Table A2E.

End QPS Requirements

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin Information

    b. It has become standard practice for experienced simulator 
manufacturers to use

[[Page 39578]]

modeling techniques to establish data bases for new simulator 
configurations while awaiting the availability of actual flight test 
data. The data generated from the aerodynamic modeling techniques is 
then compared to the flight test data when it becomes available. The 
results of such comparisons have become increasingly consistent, 
indicating that these techniques, applied with the appropriate 
experience, are dependable and accurate for the development of 
aerodynamic models for use in Level A and Level B simulators.
    c. Based on this history of successful comparisons, the NSPM has 
concluded that those who are experienced in the development of 
aerodynamic models may use modeling techniques to alter the method 
for acquiring flight test data for Level A or Level B simulators.
    d. The information in Table A2E (Alternative Data Sources, 
Procedures, and Instrumentation) is presented to describe an 
acceptable alternative to data sources for simulator modeling and 
validation and an acceptable alternative to the procedures and 
instrumentation traditionally used to gather such modeling and 
validation data.
    (1) Alternative data sources that may be used for part or all of 
a data requirement are the Airplane Maintenance Manual, the Airplane 
Flight Manual (AFM), Airplane Design Data, the Type Inspection 
Report (TIR), Certification Data or acceptable supplemental flight 
test data.
    (2) The sponsor should coordinate with the NSPM prior to using 
alternative data sources in a flight test or data gathering effort.
    e. The NSPM position regarding the use of these alternative data 
sources, procedures, and instrumentation is based on the following 
presumptions:
    (1) Data gathered through the alternative means does not require 
angle of attack (AOA) measurements or control surface position 
measurements for any flight test. However, AOA can be sufficiently 
derived if the flight test program ensures the collection of 
acceptable level, unaccelerated, trimmed flight data. All of the 
simulator time history tests that begin in level, unaccelerated, and 
trimmed flight, including the three basic trim tests and ``fly-by'' 
trims, can be a successful validation of angle of attack by 
comparison with flight test pitch angle. (Note: Due to the 
criticality of angle of attack in the development of the ground 
effects model, particularly critical for normal landings and 
landings involving cross-control input applicable to Level B 
simulators, stable ``fly-by'' trim data will be the acceptable norm 
for normal and cross-control input landing objective data for these 
applications.)
    (2) The use of a rigorously defined and fully mature simulation 
controls system model that includes accurate gearing and cable 
stretch characteristics (where applicable), determined from actual 
aircraft measurements. Such a model does not require control surface 
position measurements in the flight test objective data in these 
limited applications.
    f. The sponsor is urged to contact the NSPM for clarification of 
any issue regarding airplanes with reversible control systems. Table 
A2E is not applicable to Computer Controlled Aircraft FFSs.
    g. Utilization of these alternate data sources, procedures, and 
instrumentation (Table A2E) does not relieve the sponsor from 
compliance with the balance of the information contained in this 
document relative to Level A or Level B FFSs.
    h. The term ``inertial measurement system'' is used in the 
following table to include the use of a functional global 
positioning system (GPS).
    i. Synchronized video for the use of alternative data sources, 
procedures, and instrumentation should have:
    (1) Sufficient resolution to allow magnification of the display 
to make appropriate measurement and comparisons; and
    (2) Sufficient size and incremental marking to allow similar 
measurement and comparison. The detail provided by the video should 
provide sufficient clarity and accuracy to measure the necessary 
parameter(s) to at least \1/2\ of the tolerance authorized for the 
specific test being conducted and allow an integration of the 
parameter(s) in question to obtain a rate of change.

End Information

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P

[[Page 39579]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.083


[[Page 39580]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.084


[[Page 39581]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.085


[[Page 39582]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.086


[[Page 39583]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.087


[[Page 39584]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.088


[[Page 39585]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.089


[[Page 39586]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.090

End Information

BILLING CODE 4910-13-C
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin Information

18. Visual Display Systems--Additional Information on Image Geometry 
Testing

    a. Background.
    (1) The geometry of the final image as displayed to each pilot 
should meet the criteria defined. This assumes that the individual 
optical components have been tested to demonstrate a performance 
that is adequate to achieve this end result.
    b. Image Position. See test 4.a.2.a.1.
    (1) When measured from the pilot's and co-pilot's eyepoint the 
centre of the image should be positioned horizontally between 0 
degrees and 2 degrees inboard and within  0.25 degree 
vertically relative to the aircraft centreline taking into account 
any designed vertical offset.
    (2) The differential between the measurements of horizontal 
position between each eyepoint should not exceed 1 degree.
    (3) The tolerances are based on eye spacings of up to 53.3 cm (21 inches). Greater eye spacings should 
be accompanied by an explanation of any additional tolerance 
required.
    c. Image Absolute Geometry. See test 4.a.2.a.2.
    (1) The absolute geometry of any point on the image should not 
exceed 3 degrees from the theoretical position. This tolerance 
applies to the central 200 degrees by 40 degrees. For larger fields 
of view, there should be no distracting discontinuities outside this 
area.
    d. Image Relative Geometry. See test 4.a.2.a.3.
    (1) The relative geometry check is intended to test the 
displayed image to demonstrate that there are no significant changes 
in image size over a small angle of view. With high detail visual 
systems, the eye can be a very

[[Page 39587]]

powerful comparator to discern changes in geometric size. If there 
are large changes in image magnification over a small area of the 
picture the image can appear to `swim' as it moves across the 
mirror.
    (2) The typical Mylar-based mirror system will naturally tend to 
form a `bathtub' shape. This can cause magnification or `rush' 
effects at the bottom and top of the image. These can be 
particularly distracting in the lower half of the mirror when in the 
final approach phase and hence should be minimized. The tolerances 
are designed to try to keep these effects to an acceptable level 
while accepting the technology is limited in its ability to produce 
a perfect spherical shape.
    (3) The 200[deg] x 40[deg] Field of View is divided up into 3 
zones to set tolerances for relative geometry as shown in Figure B-
9. The testing of the relative geometry should be conducted as 
follows:
    (a) From the pilot's eye position, measure every visible 5 
degree point on the vertical lines and horizontal lines. Also, at -
90, -60, -30, 0 and +15 degrees in azimuth, measure all visible 1 
degree points from the -10[deg] point to the lowest visible point. 
Note.--Not all points depicted on the pattern are measured, but they 
may be measured if observation suggests a problem.
    (b) From the co-pilot's eye position, measure every visible 5 
degree point on the vertical lines and horizontal lines. Also, at 
+90, +60, +30, 0 and -15 degrees in azimuth, measure all visible 1 
degree points from the -10[deg] point to the lowest visible point. 
Note.-- Not all points depicted on the pattern are measured, but 
they may be measured if observation suggests a problem.
    (c) The relative spacing of points should not exceed the 
following tolerances when comparing the gap between one pair of dots 
with the gap between an adjacent pair:
    Zone 1 < 0.075 degree/degree.
    Zone 2 < 0.15 degree/degree.
    Zone 3 < 0.2 degree/degree.
    (d) Where 5 degree gaps are being measured the tolerances should 
be multiplied by 5, e.g., one 5 degree gap should not be more than 
(5*0.075) = 0.375 deg. more or less than the adjacent gap when in 
zone 1.
    (e) For larger fields of view, there should be no distracting 
discontinuities outside this area.
    (4) For continuing qualification testing, the use of an optical 
checking device is encouraged. This device should typically consist 
of a hand-held go/no go gauge to check that the relative positioning 
is maintained.

Figure A2H

Relative Geometry Test Pattern Showing Zones.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.091

Attachment 3 to Appendix A to Part 60--Simulator Subjective Evaluation

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin QPS Requirements

1. Requirements.

    a. Except for special use airport models, described as Class 
III, all airport models required by this part must be 
representations of real-world, operational airports or 
representations of fictional airports and must meet the requirements 
set out in Tables A3B or A3C of this attachment, as appropriate.
    b. If fictional airports are used, the sponsor must ensure that 
navigational aids and all appropriate maps, charts, and other 
navigational reference material for the fictional airports (and 
surrounding areas as necessary) are compatible, complete, and 
accurate with respect to the visual presentation of the airport 
model of this fictional airport. An SOC must be submitted that 
addresses navigation aid installation and performance and other 
criteria (including obstruction clearance protection) for all 
instrument approaches to the fictional airports that are available 
in the simulator. The SOC must reference and account for information 
in the terminal instrument procedures manual and the construction 
and availability of the required maps, charts, and other 
navigational material. This material must be clearly marked ``for 
training purposes only.''
    c. When the simulator is being used by an instructor or 
evaluator for purposes of training, checking, or testing under this 
chapter, only airport models classified as Class I, Class II, or 
Class III may be used by the instructor or evaluator. Detailed 
descriptions/definitions of these classifications are found in 
Appendix F of this part.
    d. When a person sponsors an FFS maintained by a person other 
than a U.S. certificate holder, the sponsor is accountable for that 
FFS originally meeting, and continuing to meet, the criteria under 
which it was originally qualified and the appropriate Part 60 
criteria, including the airport models that may be used by 
instructors or evaluators for purposes of training, checking, or 
testing under this chapter.
    e. Neither Class II nor Class III airport visual models are 
required to appear on the SOQ, and the method used for keeping 
instructors and evaluators apprised of the airport models that meet 
Class II or Class III requirements on any given simulator is at the 
option of the sponsor, but the method used must be available for 
review by the TPAA.
    f. When an airport model represents a real world airport and a 
permanent change is made to that real world airport (e.g., a new 
runway, an extended taxiway, a new lighting system, a runway 
closure) without a written extension grant from the NSPM (described 
in paragraph 1.g. of this section), an update to that airport model 
must be made in accordance with the following time limits:
    (1) For a new airport runway, a runway extension, a new airport 
taxiway, a taxiway extension, or a runway/taxiway closure--within 90 
days of the opening for use of the new airport runway, runway 
extension, new airport taxiway, or taxiway extension; or within 90 
days of the closure of the runway or taxiway.
    (2) For a new or modified approach light system--within 45 days 
of the activation of the new or modified approach light system.
    (3) For other facility or structural changes on the airport 
(e.g., new terminal, relocation of Air Traffic Control Tower)--
within 180 days of the opening of the new or changed facility or 
structure.
    g. If a sponsor desires an extension to the time limit for an 
update to a visual scene or airport model or has an objection to 
what

[[Page 39588]]

must be updated in the specific airport model requirement, the 
sponsor must provide a written extension request to the NSPM stating 
the reason for the update delay and a proposed completion date, or 
explain why the update is not necessary (i.e., why the identified 
airport change will not have an impact on flight training, testing, 
or checking). A copy of this request or objection must also be sent 
to the POI/TCPM. The NSPM will send the official response to the 
sponsor and a copy to the POI/TCPM. If there is an objection, after 
consultation with the appropriate POI/TCPM regarding the training, 
testing, or checking impact, the NSPM will send the official 
response to the sponsor and a copy to the POI/TCPM.

End QPS Requirements

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin Information

2. Discussion

    a. The subjective tests provide a basis for evaluating the 
capability of the simulator to perform over a typical utilization 
period; determining that the simulator accurately simulates each 
required maneuver, procedure, or task; and verifying correct 
operation of the simulator controls, instruments, and systems. The 
items listed in the following Tables are for simulator evaluation 
purposes only. They may not be used to limit or exceed the 
authorizations for use of a given level of simulator, as described 
on the SOQ, or as approved by the TPAA.
    b. The tests in Table A3A, Operations Tasks, in this attachment, 
address pilot functions, including maneuvers and procedures (called 
flight tasks), and are divided by flight phases. The performance of 
these tasks by the NSPM includes an operational examination of the 
visual system and special effects. There are flight tasks included 
to address some features of advanced technology airplanes and 
innovative training programs. For example, ``high angle-of-attack 
maneuvering'' is included to provide a required alternative to 
``approach to stalls'' for airplanes employing flight envelope 
protection functions.
    c. The tests in Table A3A, Operations Tasks, and Table A3G, 
Instructor Operating Station of this attachment, address the overall 
function and control of the simulator including the various 
simulated environmental conditions; simulated airplane system 
operations (normal, abnormal, and emergency); visual system 
displays; and special effects necessary to meet flight crew 
training, evaluation, or flight experience requirements.
    d. All simulated airplane systems functions will be assessed for 
normal and, where appropriate, alternate operations. Normal, 
abnormal, and emergency operations associated with a flight phase 
will be assessed during the evaluation of flight tasks or events 
within that flight phase. Simulated airplane systems are listed 
separately under ``Any Flight Phase'' to ensure appropriate 
attention to systems checks. Operational navigation systems 
(including inertial navigation systems, global positioning systems, 
or other long-range systems) and the associated electronic display 
systems will be evaluated if installed. The NSP pilot will include 
in his report to the TPAA, the effect of the system operation and 
any system limitation.
    e. Simulators demonstrating a satisfactory circling approach 
will be qualified for the circling approach maneuver and may be 
approved for such use by the TPAA in the sponsor's FAA-approved 
flight training program. To be considered satisfactory, the circling 
approach will be flown at maximum gross weight for landing, with 
minimum visibility for the airplane approach category, and must 
allow proper alignment with a landing runway at least 90[deg] 
different from the instrument approach course while allowing the 
pilot to keep an identifiable portion of the airport in sight 
throughout the maneuver (reference--14 CFR 91.175(e)).
    f. At the request of the TPAA, the NSPM may assess a device to 
determine if it is capable of simulating certain training activities 
in a sponsor's training program, such as a portion of a Line 
Oriented Flight Training (LOFT) scenario. Unless directly related to 
a requirement for the qualification level, the results of such an 
evaluation would not affect the qualification level of the 
simulator. However, if the NSPM determines that the simulator does 
not accurately simulate that training activity, the simulator would 
not be approved for that training activity.
    g. The FAA intends to allow the use of Class III airport models 
when the sponsor provides the TPAA (or other regulatory authority) 
an appropriate analysis of the skills, knowledge, and abilities 
(SKAs) necessary for competent performance of the tasks in which 
this particular media element is used. The analysis should describe 
the ability of the FFS/visual media to provide an adequate 
environment in which the required SKAs are satisfactorily performed 
and learned. The analysis should also include the specific media 
element, such as the airport model. Additional sources of 
information on the conduct of task and capability analysis may be 
found on the FAA's Advanced Qualification Program (AQP) Web site at: 
http://www.faa.gov/education_research/training/aqp/.
    h. The TPAA may accept Class III airport models without 
individual observation provided the sponsor provides the TPAA with 
an acceptable description of the process for determining the 
acceptability of a specific airport model, outlines the conditions 
under which such an airport model may be used, and adequately 
describes what restrictions will be applied to each resulting 
airport or landing area model. Examples of situations that may 
warrant Class III model designation by the TPAA include the 
following:
    (a) Training, testing, or checking on very low visibility 
operations, including SMGCS operations.
    (b) Instrument operations training (including instrument 
takeoff, departure, arrival, approach, and missed approach training, 
testing, or checking) using--
    (i) A specific model that has been geographically ``moved'' to a 
different location and aligned with an instrument procedure for 
another airport.
    (ii) A model that does not match changes made at the real-world 
airport (or landing area for helicopters) being modeled.
    (iii) A model generated with an ``off-board'' or an ``on-board'' 
model development tool (by providing proper latitude/longitude 
reference; correct runway or landing area orientation, length, 
width, marking, and lighting information; and appropriate adjacent 
taxiway location) to generate a facsimile of a real world airport or 
landing area.
    i. Previously qualified simulators with certain early generation 
Computer Generated Image (CGI) visual systems, are limited by the 
capability of the Image Generator or the display system used. These 
systems are:
    (1) Early CGI visual systems that are excepted from the 
requirement of including runway numbers as a part of the specific 
runway marking requirements are:
    (a) Link NVS and DNVS.
    (b) Novoview 2500 and 6000.
    (c) FlightSafety VITAL series up to, and including, VITAL III, 
but not beyond.
    (d) Redifusion SP1, SP1T, and SP2.
    (2) Early CGI visual systems are excepted from the requirement 
of including runway numbers unless the runways are used for LOFT 
training sessions. These LOFT airport models require runway numbers 
but only for the specific runway end (one direction) used in the 
LOFT session. The systems required to display runway numbers only 
for LOFT scenes are:
    (a) FlightSafety VITAL IV.
    (b) Redifusion SP3 and SP3T.
    (c) Link-Miles Image II.
    (3) The following list of previously qualified CGI and display 
systems are incapable of generating blue lights. These systems are 
not required to have accurate taxi-way edge lighting:
    (a) Redifusion SP1.
    (b) FlightSafety Vital IV.
    (c) Link-Miles Image II and Image IIT
    (d) XKD displays (even though the XKD image generator is capable 
of generating blue colored lights, the display cannot accommodate 
that color).

End Information

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 39589]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.092


[[Page 39590]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.093


[[Page 39591]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.094


[[Page 39592]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.095


[[Page 39593]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.096


[[Page 39594]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.097


[[Page 39595]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.098


[[Page 39596]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.099


[[Page 39597]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.100


[[Page 39598]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.101


[[Page 39599]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.102


[[Page 39600]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.103


[[Page 39601]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.104


[[Page 39602]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.105


[[Page 39603]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.106


[[Page 39604]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.107


[[Page 39605]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.108


[[Page 39606]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.109


[[Page 39607]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.110


[[Page 39608]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.111


[[Page 39609]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.112


[[Page 39610]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.113


[[Page 39611]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.114


[[Page 39612]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.115

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin Information

1. Introduction

    a. The following is an example test schedule for an Initial/
Upgrade evaluation that covers the majority of the requirements set 
out in the Functions and Subjective test requirements. It is not 
intended that the schedule be followed line by line, rather, the 
example should be used as a guide for preparing a schedule that is 
tailored to the airplane, sponsor, and training task.
    b. Functions and subjective tests should be planned. This 
information has been organized as a reference document with the 
considerations, methods, and evaluation notes for each individual 
aspect of the simulator task presented as an individual item. In 
this way the evaluator can design his or her own test plan, using 
the appropriate sections to provide guidance on method and 
evaluation criteria. Two aspects should be present in any test plan 
structure:
    (1) An evaluation of the simulator to determine that it 
replicates the aircraft and performs reliably for an uninterrupted 
period equivalent to the length of a typical training session.
    (2) The simulator should be capable of operating reliably after 
the use of training device functions such as repositions or 
malfunctions.

[[Page 39613]]

    c. A detailed understanding of the training task will naturally 
lead to a list of objectives that the simulator should meet. This 
list will form the basis of the test plan. Additionally, once the 
test plan has been formulated, the initial conditions and the 
evaluation criteria should be established. The evaluator should 
consider all factors that may have an influence on the 
characteristics observed during particular training tasks in order 
to make the test plan successful.

2. Events

    a. Initial Conditions.
    (1) Airport.
    (2) QNH.
    (3) Temperature.
    (4) Wind/Crosswind.
    (5) Zero Fuel Weight/Fuel/Gross Weight/Center of Gravity.
    b. Initial Checks.
    (1) Documentation of Simulator.
    (a) Simulator Acceptance Test Manuals.
    (b) Simulator Approval Test Guide.
    (c) Technical Logbook Open Item List.
    (d) Daily Functional Pre-flight Check.
    (2) Documentation of User/Carrier Flight Logs.
    (a) Simulator Operating/Instructor Manual.
    (b) Difference List (Aircraft/Simulator).
    (c) Flight Crew Operating Manuals.
    (d) Performance Data for Different Fields.
    (e) Crew Training Manual.
    (f) Normal/Abnormal/Emergency Checklists.
    (3) Simulator External Checks.
    (a) Appearance and Cleanliness.
    (b) Stairway/Access Bridge.
    (c) Emergency Rope Ladders.
    (d) ``Motion On''/``Flight in Progress'' Lights.
    (4) Simulator Internal Checks.
    (a) Cleaning/Disinfecting Towels (for cleaning oxygen masks).
    (b) Flight deck Layout (compare with difference list).
    (5) Equipment.
    (a) Quick Donning Oxygen Masks.
    (b) Head Sets.
    (c) Smoke Goggles.
    (d) Sun Visors.
    (e) Escape Rope.
    (f) Chart Holders.
    (g) Flashlights.
    (h) Fire Extinguisher (inspection date).
    (i) Crash Axe.
    (j) Gear Pins.
    c. Power Supply and APU Start Checks.
    (1) Batteries and Static Inverter.
    (2) APU Start with Battery.
    (3) APU Shutdown using Fire Handle.
    (4) External Power Connection.
    (5) APU Start with External Power.
    (6) Abnormal APU Start/Operation.
    d. Flight deck Checks.
    (1) Flight deck Preparation Checks.
    (2) FMC Programming.
    (3) Communications and Navigational Aids Checks.
    e. Engine Start.
    (1) Before Start Checks.
    (2) Battery start with Ground Air Supply Unit.
    (3) Engine Crossbleed Start.
    (4) Normal Engine Start.
    (5) Abnormal Engine Starts.
    (6) Engine Idle Readings.
    (7) After Start Checks.
    f. Taxi Checks.
    (1) Pushback/Powerback.
    (2) Taxi Checks.
    (3) Ground Handling Check:
    (a) Power required to initiate ground roll.
    (b) Thrust response.
    (c) Nosewheel and Pedal Steering.
    (d) Nosewheel Scuffing.
    (e) Perform 180 degree turns.
    (f) Brakes Response and Differential Braking using Normal, 
Alternate and Emergency.
    (g) Brake Systems.
    (h) Eye height and fore/aft position.
    (4) Runway Roughness.
    g. Visual Scene--Ground Assessment. Select 3 different airport 
models and perform the following checks with Day, Dusk and Night 
selected, as appropriate:
    (1) Visual Controls.
    (a) Daylight, Dusk, Night Scene Controls.
    (b) Flight deck ``Daylight'' ambient lighting.
    (c) Environment Light Controls.
    (d) Runway Light Controls.
    (e) Taxiway Light Controls.
    (2) Airport Model Content.
    (a) Ramp area for buildings, gates, airbridges, maintenance 
ground Equipment, parked aircraft.
    (b) Daylight shadows, night time light pools.
    (c) Taxiways for correct markings, taxiway/runway, marker 
boards, CAT I and II/III hold points, taxiway shape/grass areas, 
taxiway light (positions and colors).
    (d) Runways for correct markings, lead-off lights, boards, 
runway slope, runway light positions, and colors, directionality of 
runway lights.
    (e) Airport environment for correct terrain and significant 
features.
    (f) Visual scene quantization (aliasing), color, and occulting 
levels.
    (3) Ground Traffic Selection.
    (4) Environment Effects.
    (a) Low cloud scene.
    (i) Rain:
    (A) Runway surface scene.
    (B) Windshield wiper--operation and sound.
    (ii) Hail:
    (A) Runway surface scene.
    (B) Windshield wiper--operation and sound.
    (b) Lightning/thunder.
    (c) Snow/ice runway surface scene.
    (d) Fog.
    h. Takeoff. Select one or several of the following test cases:
    (1) T/O Configuration Warnings.
    (2) Engine Takeoff Readings.
    (3) Rejected Takeoff (Dry/Wet/Icy Runway) and check the 
following:
    (a) Autobrake function.
    (b) Anti-skid operation.
    (c) Motion/visual effects during deceleration.
    (d) Record stopping distance (use runway plot or runway lights 
remaining).
    Continue taxiing along the runway while applying brakes and 
check the following:
    (e) Center line lights alternating red/white for 2000 feet/600 
meters.
    (f) Center line lights all red for 1000 feet/300 m.
    (g) Runway end, red stop bars.
    (h) Braking fade effect.
    (i) Brake temperature indications.
    (4) Engine Failure between VI and V2
    (5) Normal Takeoff:
    (a) During ground roll check the following:
    (i) Runway rumble.
    (ii) Acceleration cues.
    (iii) Groundspeed effects.
    (iv) Engine sounds.
    (v) Nosewheel and rudder pedal steering.
    (b) During and after rotation, check the following:
    (i) Rotation characteristics.
    (ii) Column force during rotation.
    (iii) Gear uplock sounds/bumps.
    (iv) Effect of slat/flap retraction during climbout.
    (6) Crosswind Takeoff (check the following):
    (a) Tendency to turn into or out of the wind.
    (b) Tendency to lift upwind wing as airspeed increase.
    (7) Windshear during Takeoff (check the following):
    (a) Controllable during windshear encounter.
    (b) Performance adequate when using correct techniques.
    (c) Windshear Indications satisfactory.
    (d) Motion cues satisfactory (particularly turbulence).
    (8) Normal Takeoff with Control Malfunction
    (9) Low Visibility T/O (check the following):
    (a) Visual cues.
    (b) Flying by reference to instruments.
    (c) SID Guidance on LNAV.
    i. Climb Performance. Select one or several of the following 
test cases:
    (1) Normal Climb--Climb while maintaining recommended speed 
profile and note fuel, distance and time.
    (2) Single Engine Climb--Trim aircraft in a zero wheel climb at 
V2.
    Note: Up to 5[deg] bank towards the operating engine(s) is 
permissible. Climb for 3 minutes and note fuel, distance, and time. 
Increase speed toward en route climb speed and retract flaps. Climb 
for 3 minutes and note fuel, distance, and time.
    j. Systems Operation During Climb.
    Check normal operation and malfunctions as appropriate for the 
following systems:
    (1) Air conditioning/Pressurization/Ventilation.
    (2) Autoflight.
    (3) Communications.
    (4) Electrical.
    (5) Fuel.
    (6) Icing Systems.
    (7) Indicating and Recording systems.
    (8) Navigation/FMS.
    (9) Pneumatics.
    k. Cruise Checks. Select one or several of the following test 
cases:
    (1) Cruise Performance.
    (2) High Speed/High Altitude Handling (check the following):
    (a) Overspeed warning.
    (b) High Speed buffet.
    (c) Aircraft control satisfactory.

[[Page 39614]]

    (d) Envelope limiting functions on Computer Controlled Aircraft.
    Reduce airspeed to below level flight buffet onset speed, start 
a turn, and check the following:
    (e) High Speed buffet increases with G loading.
    Reduce throttles to idle and start descent, deploy the 
speedbrake, and check the following:
    (f) Speedbrake indications.
    (g) Symmetrical deployment.
    (h) Airframe buffet.
    (i) Aircraft response hands off.
    (3) Yaw Damper Operation. Switch off yaw dampers and autopilot. 
Initiate a Dutch roll and check the following:
    (a) Aircraft dynamics.
    (b) Simulator motion effects.
    Switch on yaw dampers, re-initiate a Dutch roll and check the 
following:
    (c) Damped aircraft dynamics.
    (4) APU Operation.
    (5) Engine Gravity Feed.
    (6) Engine Shutdown and Driftdown Check: FMC operation Aircraft 
performance.
    (7) Engine Relight.
    l. Descent. Select one of the following test cases:
    (1) Normal Descent Descend while maintaining recommended speed 
profile and note fuel, distance And time.
    (2) Cabin Depressurization/Emergency Descent.
    m. Medium Altitude Checks. Select one or several of the 
following test cases:
    (1) High Angle of Attack/Stall. Trim the aircraft at 1.4 Vs, 
establish 1 kt/sec\2\ deceleration rate, and check the following--
    (a) System displays/operation satisfactory.
    (b) Handling characteristics satisfactory.
    (c) Stall and Stick shaker speed.
    (d) Buffet characteristics and onset speed.
    (e) Envelope limiting functions on Computer Controlled Aircraft.
    Recover to straight and level flight and check the following:
    (f) Handling characteristics satisfactory.
    (2) Turning Flight. Roll aircraft to left, establish a 30[deg] 
to 45[deg] bank angle, and check the following:
    (a) Stick force required, satisfactory.
    (b) Wheel requirement to maintain bank angle.
    (c) Slip ball response, satisfactory.
    (d) Time to turn 180[deg].
    Roll aircraft from 45[deg] bank one way to 45[deg] bank the 
opposite direction while maintaining altitude and airspeed--check 
the following:
    (e) Controllability during maneuver.
    (3) Degraded flight controls.
    (4) Holding Procedure (check the following:)
    (a) FMC operation.
    (b) Autopilot auto thrust performance.
    (5) Storm Selection (check the following:)
    (a) Weather radar controls.
    (b) Weather radar operation.
    (c) Visual scene corresponds with WXR pattern.
    (Fly through storm center, and check the following:)
    (d) Aircraft enters cloud.
    (e) Aircraft encounters representative turbulence.
    (f) Rain/hail sound effects evident.
    As aircraft leaves storm area, check the following:
    (g) Storm effects disappear.
    (6) TCAS (check the following:)
    (a) Traffic appears on visual display.
    (b) Traffic appears on TCAS display(s).
    As conflicting traffic approaches, take relevant avoiding 
action, and check the following:
    (c) Visual and TCAS system displays.
    n. Approach And Landing. Select one or several of the following 
test cases while monitoring flight control and hydraulic systems for 
normal operation and with malfunctions selected:
    (1) Flaps/Gear Normal Operation. Check the following:
    (a) Time for extension/retraction.
    (b) Buffet characteristics.
    (2) Normal Visual Approach and Landing.
    Fly a normal visual approach and landing--check the following:
    (a) Aircraft handling.
    (b) Spoiler operation.
    (c) Reverse thrust operation.
    (d) Directional control on the ground.
    (e) Touchdown cues for main and nosewheel.
    (f) Visual cues.
    (g) Motion cues.
    (h) Sound cues.
    (i) Brake and Anti-skid operation.
    (3) Flaps/Gear Abnormal Operation or with hydraulic 
malfunctions.
    (4) Abnormal Wing Flaps/Slats Landing.
    (5) Manual Landing with Control Malfunction.
    (a) Aircraft handling.
    (b) Radio Aids and instruments.
    (c) Airport model content and cues.
    (d) Motion cues.
    (e) Sound cues.
    (6) Non-precision Approach--All Engines Operating.
    (a) Aircraft handling.
    (b) Radio Aids and instruments.
    (c) Airport model content and cues.
    (d) Motion cues.
    (e) Sound cues.
    (7) Circling Approach.
    (a) Aircraft handling.
    (c) Radio Aids and instruments.
    (d) Airport model content and cues.
    (e) Motion cues.
    (f) Sound cues.
    (8) Non-precision Approach--One Engine Inoperative.
    (a) Aircraft handling.
    (b) Radio Aids and instruments.
    (c) Airport model content and cues.
    (d) Motion cues.
    (e) Sound cues.
    (9) One Engine Inoperative Go-around.
    (a) Aircraft handling.
    (b) Radio Aids and instruments.
    (c) Airport model content and cues.
    (d) Motion cues.
    (e) Sound cues.
    (10) CAT I Approach and Landing with raw-data ILS.
    (a) Aircraft handling.
    (b) Radio Aids and instruments.
    (c) Airport model content and cues.
    (d) Motion cues.
    (e) Sound cues.
    (11) CAT I Approach and Landing with Limiting Crosswind.
    (a) Aircraft handling.
    (b) Radio Aids and instruments.
    (c) Airport model content and cues.
    (d) Motion cues.
    (e) Sound cues.
    (12) CAT I Approach with Windshear. Check the following:
    (a) Controllable during windshear encounter.
    (b) Performance adequate when using correct techniques.
    (c) Windshear indications/warnings.
    (d) Motion cues (particularly turbulence).
    (13) CAT II Approach and Automatic Go-Around.
    (14) CAT Ill Approach and Landing--System Malfunctions.
    (15) CAT Ill Approach and Landing--1 Engine Inoperative.
    (16) GPWS evaluation.
    o. Visual Scene--In-Flight Assessment.
    Select three (3) different visual models and perform the 
following checks with ``day,'' ``dusk,'' and ``night'' (as 
appropriate) selected. Reposition the aircraft at or below 2000 feet 
within 10 nm of the airfield. Fly the aircraft around the airport 
environment and assess control of the visual system and evaluate the 
Airport model content as described below:
    (1) Visual Controls.
    (a) Daylight, Dusk, Night Scene Controls.
    (b) Environment Light Controls.
    (c) Runway Light Controls.
    (d) Taxiway Light Controls.
    (e) Approach Light Controls.
    (2) Airport model Content.
    (a) Airport environment for correct terrain and significant 
features.
    (b) Runways for correct markings, runway slope, directionality 
of runway lights.
    (c) Visual scene for quantization (aliasing), color, and 
occulting.
    Reposition the aircraft to a long, final approach for an ``ILS 
runway.'' Select flight freeze when the aircraft is 5-statute miles 
(sm)/8-kilometers (km) out and on the glide slope. Check the 
following:
    (3) Airport model content.
    (a) Airfield features.
    (b) Approach lights.
    (c) Runway definition.
    (d) Runway definition.
    (e) Runway edge lights and VASI lights.
    (f) Strobe lights.
    Release flight freeze. Continue flying the approach with NP 
engaged. Select flight freeze when aircraft is 3 sm/5 km out and on 
the glide slope. Check the following:
    (4) Airport model Content.
    (a) Runway centerline light.
    (b) Taxiway definition and lights.
    Release flight freeze and continue flying the approach with A/P 
engaged. Select flight freeze when aircraft is 2 sm/3 km out and on 
the glide slope. Check the following:
    (5) Airport model content.
    (a) Runway threshold lights.
    (b) Touchdown zone lights.
    At 200 ft radio altitude and still on glide slope, select Flight 
Freeze. Check the following:
    (6) Airport model content.
    (a) Runway markings.

[[Page 39615]]

    Set the weather to Category I conditions and check the 
following:
    (7) Airport model content.
    (a) Visual ground segment.
    Set the weather to Category II conditions, release Flight 
Freeze, re-select Flight.
    Freeze at 100 feet radio altitude, and check the following:
    (8) Airport model content.
    (a) Visual ground segment.
    Select night/dusk (twilight) conditions and check the following:
    (9) Airport model content.
    (a) Runway markings visible within landing light lobes.
    Set the weather to Category III conditions, release Flight 
Freeze, re-select Flight Freeze at 50 feet radio altitude and check 
the following:
    (10) Airport model content.
    (a) Visual ground segment.
    Set WX to a typical ``missed approach'' weather condition, 
release Flight Freeze, re-select Flight Freeze at 15 feet radio 
altitude, and check the following:
    (11) Airport model content.
    (a) Visual ground segment.
    When on the ground, stop the aircraft. Set 0 feet RVR, ensure 
strobe/beacon tights are switched on and check the following:
    (12) Airport model content.
    (a) Visual effect of strobe and beacon.
    Reposition to final approach, set weather to ``Clear,'' continue 
approach for an automatic landing, and check the following:
    (13) Airport model content.
    (a) Visual cues during flare to assess sink rate.
    (b) Visual cues during flare to assess Depth perception.
    (c) Flight deck height above ground.
    p. After Landing Operations.
    (1) After Landing Checks.
    (2) Taxi back to gate. Check the following:
    (a) Visual model satisfactory.
    (b) Parking brake operation satisfactory.
    (3) Shutdown Checks.
    q. Crash Function.
    (1) Gear-up Crash.
    (2) Excessive rate of descent Crash.
    (3) Excessive bank angle Crash.
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.116
    
Attachment 4 to Appendix A to Part 60--Sample Documents

Table of Contents

Title of Sample
Figure A4A--Sample Letter, Request for Initial, Upgrade, or 
Reinstatement Evaluation.
Figure A4B--Attachment: FFS Information Form
Figure A4C--Sample Letter of Compliance
Figure A4D--Sample Qualification Test Guide Cover Page
Figure A4E--Sample Statement of Qualification--Certificate
Figure A4F--Sample Statement of Qualification--Configuration List
Figure A4G--Sample Statement of Qualification--List of Qualified 
Tasks
Figure A4H--Sample Continuing Qualification Evaluation Requirements 
Page
Figure A4I--Sample MQTG Index of Effective FFS Directives

[[Page 39616]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.117


[[Page 39617]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.118


[[Page 39618]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.119


[[Page 39619]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.120


[[Page 39620]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.121


[[Page 39621]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.122


[[Page 39622]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.123


[[Page 39623]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.124


[[Page 39624]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.125


[[Page 39625]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.126


[[Page 39626]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.127


[[Page 39627]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.128


[[Page 39628]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.129

Attachment 5 to Appendix A to Part 60--Simulator Qualification 
Requirements For Windshear Training Program Use

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin QPS Requirements

1. Applicability

    This attachment applies to all simulators, regardless of 
qualification level, that are used to satisfy the training 
requirements of an FAA- approved low-altitude windshear flight 
training program, or any FAA-approved training program that 
addresses windshear encounters.

2. Statement of Compliance and Capability (SOC)

    a. The sponsor must submit an SOC confirming that the 
aerodynamic model is based on flight test data supplied by the 
airplane manufacturer or other approved data provider. The SOC must 
also confirm that any change to environmental wind parameters, 
including variances in those parameters for windshear conditions, 
once inserted for computation, result in the correct simulated 
performance. This statement must also include examples of 
environmental wind parameters currently evaluated in the simulator 
(such as crosswind takeoffs, crosswind approaches, and crosswind 
landings).
    b. For simulators without windshear warning, caution, or 
guidance hardware in the original equipment, the SOC must also state 
that the simulation of the added hardware and/or software, including 
associated flight deck displays and annunciations, replicates the 
system(s) installed in the airplane. The statement must be 
accompanied by a block diagram depicting the input and output signal 
flow, and comparing the signal flow to the equipment installed in 
the airplane.

3. Models

    The windshear models installed in the simulator software used 
for the qualification evaluation must do the following:
    a. Provide cues necessary for recognizing windshear onset and 
potential performance degradation requiring a pilot to initiate 
recovery procedures. The cues must include all of the following, as 
appropriate for the portion of the flight envelope:
    (1) Rapid airspeed change of at least 15 knots 
(kts).
    (2) Stagnation of airspeed during the takeoff roll.
    (3) Rapid vertical speed change of at least 500 feet 
per minute (fpm).
    (4) Rapid pitch change of at least 5[deg].
    b. Be adjustable in intensity (or other parameter to achieve an 
intensity effect) to at least two (2) levels so that upon 
encountering the windshear the pilot may identify its presence and 
apply the recommended procedures for escape from such a windshear.
    (1) If the intensity is lesser, the performance capability of 
the simulated airplane in the windshear permits the pilot to 
maintain a satisfactory flightpath; and
    (2) If the intensity is greater, the performance capability of 
the simulated airplane in the windshear does not permit the pilot to 
maintain a satisfactory flightpath (crash). Note: The means used to 
accomplish the ``nonsurvivable'' scenario of paragraph 3.b.(2) of 
this attachment, that involve operational elements of the simulated 
airplane, must reflect the dispatch limitations of the airplane.
    c. Be available for use in the FAA-approved windshear flight 
training program.

4. Demonstrations

    a. The sponsor must identify one survivable takeoff windshear 
training model and one survivable approach windshear training model. 
The wind components of the survivable models must be presented in 
graphical format so that all components of the windshear are shown, 
including initiation point, variance in magnitude, and time or 
distance correlations. The simulator must be operated at the same 
gross weight, airplane configuration, and initial airspeed during 
the takeoff demonstration (through calm air and through the first 
selected survivable windshear), and at the same gross weight, 
airplane configuration, and initial airspeed during the approach 
demonstration (through calm air and through the second selected 
survivable windshear).
    b. In each of these four situations, at an ``initiation point'' 
(i.e., where windshear onset is or should be recognized), the 
recommended procedures for windshear recovery are applied and the 
results are recorded as specified in paragraph 5 of this attachment.
    c. These recordings are made without inserting programmed random 
turbulence. Turbulence that results from the windshear model is to 
be expected, and no attempt may be made to neutralize turbulence 
from this source.
    d. The definition of the models and the results of the 
demonstrations of all four (4) cases described in paragraph 4.a of 
this attachment, must be made a part of the MQTG.

5. Recording Parameters

    a. In each of the four MQTG cases, an electronic recording (time 
history) must be made of the following parameters:

[[Page 39629]]

    (1) Indicated or calibrated airspeed.
    (2) Indicated vertical speed.
    (3) Pitch attitude.
    (4) Indicated or radio altitude.
    (5) Angle of attack.
    (6) Elevator position.
    (7) Engine data (thrust, N1, or throttle position).
    (8) Wind magnitudes (simple windshear model assumed).
    b. These recordings must be initiated at least 10 seconds prior 
to the initiation point, and continued until recovery is complete or 
ground contact is made.

6. Equipment Installation and Operation

    All windshear warning, caution, or guidance hardware installed 
in the simulator must operate as it operates in the airplane. For 
example, if a rapidly changing wind speed and/or direction would 
have caused a windshear warning in the airplane, the simulator must 
respond equivalently without instructor/evaluator intervention.

7. Qualification Test Guide

    a. All QTG material must be forwarded to the NSPM.
    b. A simulator windshear evaluation will be scheduled in 
accordance with normal procedures. Continuing qualification 
evaluation schedules will be used to the maximum extent possible.
    c. During the on-site evaluation, the evaluator will ask the 
operator to run the performance tests and record the results. The 
results of these on-site tests will be compared to those results 
previously approved and placed in the QTG or MQTG, as appropriate.
    d. QTGs for new (or MQTGs for upgraded) simulators must contain 
or reference the information described in paragraphs 2, 3, 4, and 5 
of this attachment.

End QPS Requirements

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin Information

8. Subjective Evaluation

    The NSPM will fly the simulator in at least two of the available 
windshear scenarios to subjectively evaluate simulator performance 
as it encounters the programmed windshear conditions.
    a. One scenario will include parameters that enable the pilot to 
maintain a satisfactory flightpath.
    b. One scenario will include parameters that will not enable the 
pilot to maintain a satisfactory flightpath (crash).
    c. Other scenarios may be examined at the NSPM's discretion.

9. Qualification Basis

    The addition of windshear programming to a simulator in order to 
comply with the qualification for required windshear training does 
not change the original qualification basis of the simulator.

10. Demonstration Repeatability

    For the purposes of demonstration repeatability, it is 
recommended that the simulator be flown by means of the simulator's 
autodrive function (for those simulators that have autodrive 
capability) during the demonstrations.

End Information

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Attachment 6 to Appendix A to Part 60--FSTD Directives Applicable to 
Airplane Flight Simulators

Flight Simulation Training Device (FSTD) Directive

    FSTD Directive 1. Applicable to all Full Flight Simulators 
(FFS), regardless of the original qualification basis and 
qualification date (original or upgrade), having Class II or Class 
III airport models available.
    Agency: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT
    Action: This is a retroactive requirement to have all Class II 
or Class III airport models meet current requirements.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Summary: Notwithstanding the authorization listed in paragraph 
13b in Appendices A and C of this part, this FSTD Directive requires 
each certificate holder to ensure that by May 30, 2009, except for 
the airport model(s) used to qualify the simulator at the designated 
level, each airport model used by the certificate holder's 
instructors or evaluators for training, checking, or testing under 
this chapter in an FFS, meets the definition of a Class II or Class 
III airport model as defined in 14 CFR part 60. The completion of 
this requirement will not require a report, and the method used for 
keeping instructors and evaluators apprised of the airport models 
that meet Class II or Class III requirements on any given simulator 
is at the option of the certificate holder whose employees are using 
the FFS, but the method used must be available for review by the 
TPAA for that certificate holder.
    Dates: FSTD Directive 1 becomes effective on May 30, 2008.
    For Further Information Contact: National Simulator Program 
Manager, Air Transportation Division, AFS-205, P.O. Box 20636, 
Atlanta, Georgia 30320: telephone: (404) 474-5620; fax: (404) 474-
5656.
    Specific Requirements:
    1. Part 60 requires that each FSTD be:
    a. Sponsored by a person holding or applying for an FAA 
operating certificate under Part 119, Part 141, or Part 142, or 
holding or applying for an FAA-approved training program under Part 
63, Appendix C, for flight engineers, and
    b. Evaluated and issued an SOQ for a specific FSTD level.
    2. FFSs also require the installation of a visual system that is 
capable of providing an out-of-the-flight-deck view of airport 
models. However, historically these airport models were not 
routinely evaluated or required to meet any standardized criteria. 
This has led to qualified simulators containing airport models being 
used to meet FAA-approved training, testing, or checking 
requirements with potentially incorrect or inappropriate visual 
references.
    3. To prevent this from occurring in the future, by May 30, 
2009, except for the airport model(s) used to qualify the simulator 
at the designated level, each certificate holder must assure that 
each airport model used for training, testing, or checking under 
this chapter in a qualified FFS meets definition of a Class II or 
Class III airport model as defined in Appendix F of this part.
    4. These references describe the requirements for visual scene 
management and the minimum distances from which runway or landing 
area features must be visible for all levels of simulator. The 
airport model must provide, for each ``in-use runway'' or ``in-use 
landing area,'' runway or landing area surface and markings, runway 
or landing area lighting, taxiway surface and markings, and taxiway 
lighting. Additional requirements include correlation of the v 
airport models with other aspects of the airport environment, 
correlation of the aircraft and associated equipment, scene quality 
assessment features, and the control of these models the instructor 
must be able to exercise.
    5. For circling approaches, all requirements of this section 
apply to the runway used for the initial approach and to the runway 
of intended landing.
    6. The details in these models must be developed using airport 
pictures, construction drawings and maps, or other similar data, or 
developed in accordance with published regulatory material. However, 
this FSTD DIRECTIVE 1 does not require that airport models contain 
details that are beyond the initially designed capability of the 
visual system, as currently qualified. The recognized limitations to 
visual systems are as follows:
    a. Visual systems not required to have runway numbers as a part 
of the specific runway marking requirements are:
    (1) Link NVS and DNVS.
    (2) Novoview 2500 and 6000.
    (3) FlightSafety VITAL series up to, and including, VITAL III, 
but not beyond.
    (4) Redifusion SP1, SP1T, and SP2.
    b. Visual systems required to display runway numbers only for 
LOFT scenes are:
    (1) FlightSafety VITAL IV.
    (2) Redifusion SP3 and SP3T.
    (3) Link-Miles Image II.
    c. Visual systems not required to have accurate taxiway edge 
lighting are:
    (1) Redifusion SP1.
    (2) FlightSafety Vital IV.
    (3) Link-Miles Image II and Image IIT
    (4) XKD displays (even though the XKD image generator is capable 
of generating blue colored lights, the display cannot accommodate 
that color).
    7. A copy of this Directive must be filed in the MQTG in the 
designated FSTD Directive Section, and its inclusion must be 
annotated on the Index of Effective FSTD Directives chart. See 
Attachment 4, Appendices A through D for a sample MQTG Index of 
Effective FSTD Directives chart.

Flight Simulation Training Device (FSTD) Directive

    FSTD Directive 2. Applicable to all airplane Full Flight 
Simulators (FFS), regardless of the original qualification basis and 
qualification date (original or upgrade), used to conduct full stall 
training, upset recovery training, airborne icing training, and 
other flight training tasks as described in this Directive.
    Agency: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

[[Page 39630]]

    Action: This is a retroactive requirement for any FSTD being 
used to obtain training, testing, or checking credit in an FAA 
approved flight training program to meet current FSTD evaluation 
requirements for the specific training maneuvers as defined in this 
Directive.
    Summary: Notwithstanding the authorization listed in paragraph 
13b in Appendix A of this Part, this FSTD Directive requires that 
each FSTD sponsor conduct additional subjective and objective 
testing, conduct required modifications, and apply for additional 
FSTD qualification under Sec.  60.16 to support continued 
qualification of the following flight training tasks where training, 
testing, or checking credit is being sought in a selected FSTD being 
used in an FAA approved flight training program:
a. Recognition of and Recovery from a Full Stall
b. Upset Recognition and Recovery
c. Airborne Icing (Engine and Airframe Ice Accretion)
d. Takeoff and Landing with Gusting Crosswinds
e. Recovery from a Bounced Landing

The FSTD sponsor may elect to apply for additional qualification for 
any, all, or none of the above defined training tasks for a 
particular FSTD. After [THE FAA WILL INSERT DATE 3 years FROM 
EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE PUBLISHED IN THE Federal Register], 
any FSTD used to conduct the above training tasks must be evaluated 
and issued additional qualification by the National Simulator 
Program Manager (NSPM) as defined in this Directive.
    Dates: FSTD Directive 2 becomes effective on [THE FAA WILL 
INSERT THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL 
REGISTER].
    For Further Information Contact: Larry McDonald, Air 
Transportation Division/National Simulator Program Branch, AFS-205, 
Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, GA 30320; 
telephone (404) 474-5620; email [email protected].

Specific Requirements

    1. Part 60 requires that each FSTD be:
    a. Sponsored by a person holding or applying for an FAA 
operating certificate under Part 119, Part 142, or Part 142, or 
holding or applying for an FAA-approved training program under Part 
63, Appendix C, for flight engineers, and
    b. Evaluated and issued a Statement of Qualification (SOQ) for a 
specific FSTD level.
    2. The evaluation criteria contained in this Directive is 
intended to address specific training tasks that require additional 
evaluation to ensure adequate FSTD fidelity.
    3. The requirements described in this Directive define 
additional qualification criteria for specific training tasks that 
are applicable only to those FSTDs that will be utilized to obtain 
training, testing, or checking credit in accordance with an FAA 
approved flight training program. In order to obtain additional 
qualification for the tasks described in this Directive, FSTD 
sponsors must request additional qualification in accordance with 
Sec.  60.16 and the requirements of this Directive. FSTDs that are 
found to meet the requirements of this Directive will have their 
Statement of Qualification (SOQ) amended to reflect the additional 
training tasks that the FSTD has been qualified to conduct. The 
additional qualification requirements as defined in this Directive 
are divided into the following training tasks:

a. Section I--Additional Qualification Requirements for Full Stall 
Training Tasks
b. Section II--Additional Qualification Requirements for Upset 
Recognition and Recovery Training Tasks
c. Section III--Additional Qualification Requirements for Airborne 
Engine and Airframe Icing Training Tasks
d. Section IV--Additional Qualification Requirements for Takeoff and 
Landing Tasks in Gusting Crosswinds
e. Section V--Additional Qualification Requirements for Bounced 
Landing Training Tasks

    4. A copy of this Directive (along with all required Statements 
of Compliance and objective test results) must be filed in the MQTG 
in the designated FSTD Directive Section, and its inclusion must be 
annotated on the Index of Effective FSTD Directives chart. See 
Attachment 4, Appendices A through D for a sample MQTG Index of 
Effective FSTD Directives chart.

Section I--Evaluation Requirements for Full Stall Training Tasks

    1. This section applies to previously qualified Level C and 
Level D FSTDs being utilized to obtain training, testing, or 
checking credits at angles of attack beyond the first indication of 
a stall (such as stall warning system activation, stick shaker, 
etc.). Qualification of full stall maneuvers for Level A and Level B 
FSTDs in accordance with this Directive may be considered where the 
FSTD's motion and vibration cueing systems have been evaluated to 
provide adequate stall recognition and recovery cues to conduct the 
specific stall maneuvers described in Table A1A, Section 2.1.7.S.
    2. The evaluation requirements in this Directive are intended to 
validate FSTD fidelity at angles of attack sufficient to identify 
the stall, to demonstrate aircraft performance degradation in the 
stall, and to train recovery techniques from a fully stalled flight 
condition.
    3. This Directive contains additional objective and subjective 
testing that exceed the evaluation requirements of previously 
qualified FSTDs. Where aerodynamic modeling data and/or validation 
data is not available or insufficient to fully meet the requirements 
of this Directive, the NSPM may restrict FSTD qualification to 
certain stall maneuvers where adequate validation data exists.
    4. By [THE FAA WILL INSERT DATE 3 years FROM EFFECTIVE DATE OF 
THE FINAL RULE PUBLISHED IN THE Federal Register], any FSTD being 
used to obtain training, testing, or checking credits for full stall 
training tasks in an FAA approved training program must be evaluated 
by the FSTD sponsor in accordance with the following sections of 
Appendix A of this Part:

a. Table A1A, General Requirements, Section 2.1.7.S (High Angle of 
Attack Maneuvers)
b. Table A2A, Objective Testing Requirements, Test 2.a.10 (Stick 
Pusher Force Calibration) [where applicable]
c. Table A2A, Objective Testing Requirements, Test 2.c.8.b (Stall 
Characteristics)
d. Table A3A, Functions and Subjective Testing Requirements, Test 
6.a.2 (High Angle of Attack Maneuvers)
e. Attachment 7, Additional QPS Requirements for Stall Maneuver 
Evaluation

    5. The validation data for the required stall characteristics 
tests may be derived from an approved engineering simulation data 
source or other data source acceptable to the FAA. An SOC must be 
provided by the validation data provider that the engineering 
simulation has been evaluated by an appropriate SME pilot in 
accordance with Table A1A, Section 2.1.7.S and Attachment 7. Where 
no flight test or engineering simulation validation data is 
available, baseline objective tests of the FSTD's performance may be 
acceptable where accompanied by an SME evaluation of each required 
objective test conditions.
    6. Where qualification is being sought to conduct full stall 
training tasks in accordance with this Directive, the FSTD Sponsor 
must conduct the required evaluations and modifications as 
prescribed in this Directive and report compliance to the NSPM in 
accordance with Sec.  60.23 using the NSP's standardized FSTD 
Sponsor Notification Form. At a minimum, this form must be 
accompanied with the following information:

a. A description of any modifications to the FSTD (in accordance 
with Sec.  60.23) necessary to meet the requirements of this 
Directive.
b. Statement of Compliance (Aerodynamics and Stick Pusher System 
Modeling)--See Table A1A, Section 2.1.7.S and Attachment 7
c. Statement of Compliance (SME Pilot Evaluation)--See Table A1A, 
Section 2.1.7.S and Attachment 7
d. Copies of the required objective test results as described above 
in sections 4.b. and 4.c.

7. The NSPM will review each submission to determine if the 
requirements of this Directive have been met and respond to the FSTD 
Sponsor as described in Sec.  60.23(c). This response, along with 
any noted restrictions, may serve as an interim update to the FSTD's 
Statement of Qualification (SOQ) until such time that a permanent 
change is made to the SOQ at the FSTD's next scheduled evaluation.

Section II--Evaluation Requirements for Upset Recovery Training Tasks

    1. This section applies to previously qualified FSTDs being 
utilized to obtain training, testing, or checking credits for upset 
recognition and recovery training tasks as defined in Appendix A, 
Table A1A, Section 2.1.6.S. of this Part. Qualification of upset 
recovery maneuvers for Level A and Level B FSTDs in accordance with 
this Directive may be considered where the FSTD's motion and 
vibration cueing systems have been evaluated to provide adequate 
cues to conduct the

[[Page 39631]]

specific upset recovery maneuvers described in Table A1A, Section 
2.1.6.S.
    2. The requirements contained in this section are intended to 
define minimum standards for evaluating an FSTD for use in upset 
recognition and recovery training maneuvers that may exceed an 
aircraft's normal flight envelope. These standards include the 
evaluation of qualified training maneuvers against the FSTD's 
validation envelope and providing the instructor with minimum 
feedback tools for the purpose of determining if a training maneuver 
is conducted within FSTD validation limits and the aircraft's 
structural/performance limitations.
    3. This Directive contains additional objective and subjective 
testing that exceeds the evaluation requirements of previously 
qualified FSTDs. Where aerodynamic modeling data and/or validation 
data is not available or insufficient to meet the requirements of 
this Directive, the NSPM may limit additional qualification to 
certain upset recovery maneuvers where adequate validation data 
exists.
    4. By [THE FAA WILL INSERT DATE 3 years FROM EFFECTIVE DATE OF 
THE FINAL RULE PUBLISHED IN THE Federal Register], any FSTD being 
used to obtain training, testing, or checking credit for upset 
recognition and recovery training tasks in an FAA approved flight 
training program must be evaluated by the FSTD sponsor in accordance 
with the following sections of Appendix A of this Part:

a. Table A1A, General Requirements, Section 2.1.6.S. (Upset 
Recognition and Recovery)
b. Table A3A, Functions and Subjective Testing, Test 5.b.15. (Upset 
Recovery and Recovery Maneuvers)
c. Attachment 7, Additional QPS Requirements for Upset Recognition 
and Recovery Maneuver Evaluation

    6. Where qualification is being sought to conduct upset 
recognition and recovery training tasks in accordance with this 
Directive, the FSTD Sponsor must conduct the required evaluations 
and modifications as prescribed in this Directive and report 
compliance to the NSPM in accordance with Sec.  60.23 using the 
NSP's standardized FSTD Sponsor Notification Form. At a minimum, 
this form must be accompanied with the following information:

a. A description of any modifications to the FSTD (in accordance 
with Sec.  60.23) necessary to meet the requirements of this 
Directive.
b. Statement of Compliance (FSTD Validation Envelope)--See Table 
A1A, Section 2.1.6.S and Attachment 7
c. A confirmation statement that the modified FSTD has been 
subjectively evaluated by a qualified pilot as described in Sec.  
60.16(a)(1)(iii).

    7. The NSPM will review each submission to determine if the 
requirements of this Directive have been met and respond to the FSTD 
Sponsor as described in Sec.  60.23(c). Additional NSPM conducted 
FSTD evaluations may be required before the modified FSTD is placed 
into service. This response, along with any noted restrictions, will 
serve as an interim update to the FSTD's Statement of Qualification 
(SOQ) until such time that a permanent change is made to the SOQ at 
the FSTD's next scheduled evaluation.

Section III--Evaluation Requirements for Engine and Airframe Icing 
Training Tasks

    1. This section applies to previously qualified Level C and 
Level D FSTDs being utilized to obtain training, testing, or 
checking credits in maneuvers that demonstrate the effects of engine 
and airframe ice accretion.
    2. The evaluation requirements in this section are intended to 
supersede and improve upon existing Level C and Level D FSTD 
evaluation requirements on the effects of engine and airframe icing. 
The requirements define a minimum level of fidelity required to 
adequately simulate the aircraft specific aerodynamic 
characteristics of an in-flight encounter with engine and airframe 
ice accretion as necessary to accomplish training objectives.
    3. This Directive contains additional subjective testing that 
exceeds the evaluation requirements of previously qualified FSTDs. 
Where aerodynamic modeling data is not available or insufficient to 
meet the requirements of this Directive, the NSPM may limit 
qualified engine and airframe icing maneuvers where sufficient 
aerodynamic modeling data exists.
    4. By [THE FAA WILL INSERT DATE 3 years FROM EFFECTIVE DATE OF 
THE FINAL RULE PUBLISHED IN THE Federal Register], any FSTD being 
used to conduct training tasks in engine and airframe icing must be 
evaluated by the FSTD sponsor in accordance with the following 
sections of Appendix A of this Part:

a. Table A1A, General Requirements, Section 2.1.5.S. (Engine and 
Airframe Icing)
b. Attachment 7, Additional QPS Requirements for Engine and Airframe 
Icing Evaluation (Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3). Objective demonstration 
testing is not required for previously qualified FSTDs.

    5. Where continued qualification is being sought to conduct 
engine and airframe icing training tasks in accordance with this 
Directive, the FSTD Sponsor must conduct the required evaluations 
and modifications as prescribed in this Directive and report 
compliance to the NSPM in accordance with Sec.  60.23 using the 
NSP's standardized FSTD Sponsor Notification Form. At a minimum, 
this form must be accompanied with the following information:

a. A description of any modifications to the FSTD (in accordance 
with Sec.  60.23) necessary to meet the requirements of this 
Directive.
b. Statement of Compliance (Ice Accretion Model)--See Table A1A, 
Section 2.1.5.S and Attachment 7
c. A confirmation statement that the modified FSTD has been 
subjectively evaluated by a qualified pilot as described in Sec.  
60.16(a)(1)(iii).

    6. The NSPM will review each submission to determine if the 
requirements of this Directive have been met and respond to the FSTD 
Sponsor as described in Sec.  60.23(c). Additional NSPM conducted 
FSTD evaluations may be required before the modified FSTD is placed 
into service. This response, along with any noted restrictions, will 
serve as an interim update to the FSTD's Statement of Qualification 
(SOQ) until such time that a permanent change is made to the SOQ at 
the FSTD's next scheduled evaluation.

Section IV--Evaluation Requirements for Gusting Crosswinds During 
Takeoff and Landing

    1. This section applies to previously qualified FSTDs that will 
be utilized to obtain training, testing, or checking credits in 
takeoff and landing tasks in gusting crosswinds as part of an FAA 
approved training program. The requirements of this Directive are 
applicable only to those Level B and higher FSTDs that are qualified 
to conduct takeoff and landing training tasks.
    2. The evaluation requirements in this section are intended to 
introduce new evaluation requirements for gusting crosswinds during 
takeoff and landing training tasks and contains additional 
subjective testing that exceeds the evaluation requirements of 
previously qualified FSTDs.
    3. By [THE FAA WILL INSERT DATE 3 years FROM EFFECTIVE DATE OF 
THE FINAL RULE PUBLISHED IN THE Federal Register], any FSTD that is 
utilized to conduct gusting crosswind takeoff and landing training 
tasks must be evaluated by the FSTD sponsor in accordance with the 
following sections of Appendix A of this Part:

a. Table A1A, General Requirements, Section 3.1.S.(2) (Ground 
Handling Characteristics)
b. Table A1A, General Requirements, Section 11.4.R.(1) (Atmosphere--
Instructor Controls, Gusting Crosswind)
c. Table A3A, Functions and Subjective Testing Requirements, Test 
3.a.3 (Takeoff, Crosswind--Maximum Demonstrated and Gusting 
Crosswind)
d. Table A3A, Functions and Subjective Testing Requirements, Test 
8.d. (Approach and landing with crosswind--Maximum Demonstrated and 
Gusting Crosswind)

    4. Where qualification is being sought to conduct gusting 
crosswind training tasks in accordance with this Directive, the FSTD 
Sponsor must conduct the required evaluations and modifications as 
prescribed in this Directive and report compliance to the NSPM in 
accordance with Sec.  60.23 using the NSP's standardized FSTD 
Sponsor Notification Form. At a minimum, this form must be 
accompanied with the following information:

a. A description of any modifications to the FSTD (in accordance 
with Sec.  60.23) necessary to meet the requirements of this 
Directive.
b. Statement of Compliance (Gusting Crosswind Profiles)--See Table 
A1A, Section 11.4.R.
c. A confirmation statement that the modified FSTD has been 
subjectively evaluated by a qualified pilot as described in Sec.  
60.16(a)(1)(iii).

    5. The NSPM will review each submission to determine if the 
requirements of this Directive have been met and respond to the

[[Page 39632]]

FSTD Sponsor as described in Sec.  60.23(c). Additional NSPM 
conducted FSTD evaluations may be required before the modified FSTD 
is placed into service. This response, along with any noted 
restrictions, will serve as an interim update to the FSTD's 
Statement of Qualification (SOQ) until such time that a permanent 
change is made to the SOQ at the FSTD's next scheduled evaluation.

Section V--Evaluation Requirements for Bounced Landing Recovery 
Training Tasks

    1. This section applies to previously qualified FSTDs that will 
be utilized to obtain training, testing, or checking credits in 
bounced landing recovery as part of an FAA approved training 
program. The requirements of this Directive are applicable only to 
those Level B and higher FSTDs that are qualified to conduct takeoff 
and landing training tasks.
    2. The evaluation requirements in this section are intended to 
introduce new evaluation requirements for bounced landing recovery 
training tasks and contains additional subjective testing that 
exceeds the evaluation requirements of previously qualified FSTDs.
    3. By [THE FAA WILL INSERT DATE 3 years FROM EFFECTIVE DATE OF 
THE FINAL RULE PUBLISHED IN THE Federal Register], any FSTD that is 
utilized to conduct bounced landing training tasks must be evaluated 
by the FSTD sponsor in accordance with the following sections of 
Appendix A of this Part:

a. Table A1A, General Requirements, Section 3.1.S.(1) (Ground 
Reaction Characteristics)
b. Table A3A, Functions and Subjective Testing Requirements, Test 
9.e. (Missed Approach--Bounced Landing)

    4. Where qualification is being sought to conduct bounced 
landing training tasks in accordance with this Directive, the FSTD 
Sponsor must conduct the required evaluations and modifications as 
prescribed in this Directive and report compliance to the NSPM in 
accordance with Sec.  60.23 using the NSP's standardized FSTD 
Sponsor Notification Form. At a minimum, this form must be 
accompanied with the following information:

a. A description of any modifications to the FSTD (in accordance 
with Sec.  60.23) necessary to meet the requirements of this 
Directive.
b. A confirmation statement that the modified FSTD has been 
subjectively evaluated by a qualified pilot as described in Sec.  
60.16(a)(1)(iii).

    5. The NSPM will review each submission to determine if the 
requirements of this Directive have been met and respond to the FSTD 
Sponsor as described in Sec.  60.23(c). Additional NSPM conducted 
FSTD evaluations may be required before the modified FSTD is placed 
into service. This response, along with any noted restrictions, will 
serve as an interim update to the FSTD's Statement of Qualification 
(SOQ) until such time that a permanent change is made to the SOQ at 
the FSTD's next scheduled evaluation.

Attachment 7 to Appendix A to Part 60--Additional Simulator 
Qualification Requirements for Stall, Upset Recognition and Recovery, 
and Engine and Airframe Icing Training Tasks

Begin QPS Requirements

High Angle of Attack Model Evaluation (Table A1A, Section 2.1.7.S.)

    1. Applicability: This attachment applies to all simulators that 
are used to satisfy training requirements for full stall maneuvers 
that are conducted at angles of attack beyond the activation of the 
stall warning system. This attachment is not applicable for those 
FSTDs that are only qualified for approach to stall maneuvers that 
cease after recovery from the first indication of the stall. The 
material in this section is intended to supplement the general 
requirements, objective testing requirements, and subjective testing 
requirements contained within Tables A1A, A2A, and A3A, 
respectively.
    2. General Requirements: The requirements for high angle of 
attack modeling are intended to provide aircraft specific 
recognition cues and performance and handling qualities of a 
developing stall through the stall break and recovery. It is 
recognized, however, that strict time-history-based evaluation 
against flight test data may not adequately validate the aerodynamic 
model in an unstable flight regime, such as stalled flight, 
particularly in cases where significant deviations are seen in the 
aircraft's stability and control. As a result, the objective testing 
requirements defined in Table A2A do not prescribe strict tolerances 
on any parameter at angles of attack beyond the stall angle of 
attack. In lieu of mandating objective tolerances to flight test 
data at angles of attack at and beyond the stall, a Statement of 
Compliance (SOC) will be required to define the source data and 
methods used to develop the stall aerodynamic model which 
incorporates defined stall characteristics as applicable for the 
simulated aircraft type. In this flight regime (at angles of attack 
above the stall angle of attack), the aerodynamic modeling is 
expected to simulate aircraft ``type representative'' post-stall 
behavior to the extent that the training objectives can be 
accomplished. This SOC must also include verification that the stall 
model has been evaluated by a subject matter expert (SME) pilot 
acceptable to the FAA.
    3. Statement of Compliance (Aerodynamic Model): At a minimum, 
the following must be addressed in the SOC:
    a. Source Data and Modeling Methods: The SOC must identify the 
sources of data used to develop the aerodynamic model. Of particular 
interest is a mapping of test points in the form of alpha/beta 
envelope plot for a minimum of flaps up and flaps down aircraft 
configurations. For the flight test data, a list of the types of 
maneuvers used to define the aerodynamic model for angle of attack 
ranges greater than the first indication of stall must be provided 
per flap setting. In cases where limited data is available to model 
and/or validate the stall characteristics (e.g. safety issues 
involving the collection flight test data), the data provider is 
expected to make a reasonable attempt to develop a stall model 
through analytical methods and utilization of the best available 
data.
    b. Validity Range: The FSTD Sponsor must declare the range of 
angle of attack and sideslip where the aerodynamic model remains 
valid. For full (aerodynamic) stall training tasks, model validation 
and/or analysis should be conducted through at least 10 degrees 
beyond the critical angle of attack. In cases where training is 
limited to the activation of a stall identification system (stick 
pusher), model validation may be conducted at a lower angle of 
attack range, but the FSTD Sponsor must specify and restrict the use 
of the FSTD to those maneuvers that have been appropriately 
validated.
    c. Model Characteristics: Within the declared range of model 
validity, the SOC must address and the aerodynamic model must 
incorporate the following typical stall characteristics where 
applicable by aircraft type:

i. Degradation in static/dynamic lateral-directional stability
ii. Degradation in control response (pitch, roll, yaw)
iii. Uncommanded roll response
iv. Apparent randomness or non-repeatability
v. Changes in pitch stability
vi. Stall hysteresis
vii. Mach effects
viii. Stall buffet

An overview of the methodology used to address these features must 
be provided.
    4. Statement of Compliance (SME Evaluation): The stall model 
must be evaluated by a subject matter expert (SME) pilot with 
knowledge of the cues necessary to accomplish the required training 
objectives and with experience in conducting stalls in the type of 
aircraft being simulated. In cases where such an SME pilot is not 
available, a pilot with experience in an aircraft with similar stall 
characteristics may be utilized. The SME pilot conducting the stall 
model evaluation must be acceptable to the NSPM. This evaluation may 
be conducted in the sponsor's FSTD or in an ``audited'' engineering 
simulation. The engineering simulation can then be used to provide 
objective checkout cases and subjective evaluation guidance material 
to the FSTD sponsor/operator for evaluation of the implemented model 
on the Sponsor's FSTD.
    Final evaluation and approval of the Sponsor's FSTD must be 
accomplished by an SME pilot with knowledge of the training 
requirements to conduct the stall training tasks. Where available, 
documentation, including checkout documentation from an acceptable 
data provider, AFM documentation, or other source documentation 
related to stall training tasks for the simulated aircraft should be 
utilized. Particular emphasis should be placed upon recognition cues 
of an impending aerodynamic stall (such as the stall buffet, 
lateral/directional instability, etc.), stall break (g-break, pitch 
break, roll off departure, etc.), response of aircraft automation 
(such as autopilot and auto throttles), and the necessary control 
input required to execute an immediate recovery from the stall.

[[Page 39633]]

Upset Recognition and Recovery Evaluation (Table A1A, Section 
2.1.6.S.)

    1. Applicability: This attachment applies to all simulators that 
are used to satisfy training requirements for upset recognition and 
recovery maneuvers. For the purposes of this attachment (as defined 
in the Airplane Upset Recovery Training Aid), an aircraft upset is 
generally defined as an airplane unintentionally exceeding the 
following parameters normally experienced in line operations or 
training:
     Pitch attitude greater than 25 degrees nose up.
     Pitch attitude greater than 10 degrees nose down.
     Bank angles greater than 45 degrees.
     Within the above parameters, but flying at airspeeds 
inappropriate for the conditions.

FSTDs that will be used to conduct upset recognition and recovery 
training maneuvers in which the FSTD is either repositioned into an 
aircraft upset condition or an artificial stimulus (such as weather 
phenomena or system failures) is applied that could potentially 
result in a flightcrew entering an aircraft upset condition must be 
evaluated and qualified in accordance with this section.
    2. General Requirements: The general requirement for upset 
recognition and recovery qualification in Table A1A defines three 
basic elements required for qualifying an FSTD for upset recognition 
and recovery maneuvers:
    a. FSTD Validation Envelope: The FSTD validation envelope must 
be defined and utilized to determine if qualified upset recovery 
maneuvers can be executed while remaining within FSTD validation 
limits.
    b. Instructor Feedback: In order to enhance the instructor's 
situational awareness, the FSTD must employ a method to provide a 
minimum set of feedback tools to determine if the FSTD remains 
within validation limits and the simulated aircraft remains within 
operating limits during a student's execution of an upset recovery 
maneuver.
    c. Upset Scenarios: Where dynamic upset scenarios or aircraft 
system malfunctions are used to stimulate the FSTD into an aircraft 
upset condition, such external stimuli/malfunctions must be 
realistic and supported by data sources where available. Acceptable 
data sources may include studies of environmental phenomena, 
aircraft accident/incident data, aircraft manufacturer's data, or 
other relevant data sources.
    3. Validation Envelopes: For the purposes of this attachment, 
the term ``flight envelope'' refers to the entire domain in which 
the FSTD is capable of being flown. This envelope can be further 
divided into three subdivisions (e.g. see Appendix 3-D of the 
Airplane Upset Recovery Training Aid):
    [ssquf] Flight Test Validated: This is the region of the flight 
envelope which has been validated with flight test data, typically 
by comparing the performance of the FSTD against the flight test 
data through tests incorporated in the QTG and other flight test 
data utilized to further extend the model beyond the minimum 
requirements. Within this region, there is high confidence that the 
simulator responds similarly to the aircraft. Note that this region 
is not strictly limited to what has been tested in the QTG; as long 
as the aerodynamic math model has been conformed to the flight test 
results, that portion of the math model can be considered to be 
within the Flight Test Validated region.
    [ssquf] Wind Tunnel and/or Analytical: This is the region of the 
flight envelope for which the FSTD has not been compared to flight 
test data, but for which there has been wind tunnel testing and/or 
the use of other reliable predictive methods (typically by the 
aircraft manufacturer) to define the aerodynamic model. Any 
extensions to the aerodynamic model that have been evaluated in 
accordance with the definition of a ``representative'' stall model 
(as described above in the stall maneuver section) must be clearly 
indicated. Within this region, there is moderate confidence that the 
simulator will respond similarly to the aircraft.
    [ssquf] Extrapolated: This is the region extrapolated beyond the 
flight test validated and wind tunnel/analytical regions. The 
extrapolation may be a linear extrapolation, a holding of the last 
value before the extrapolation began, or some other set of values. 
Whether this extrapolated data is provided by the aircraft or 
simulator manufacturer, it is a ``best guess'' only. Within this 
region, there is reduced confidence that the simulator will respond 
similarly to the aircraft. Brief excursions into this region may 
still retain a moderate confidence level in simulator fidelity; 
however, the instructor should be aware that the simulator's 
response may deviate from the actual aircraft.
    4. Instructor Feedback Mechanism: For the instructor/evaluator 
to provide feedback to the student during URT maneuver training, 
additional information must be accessible that indicates the 
relative fidelity of the simulation, magnitude of student control 
inputs, and aircraft operational limits that could potentially 
affect the successful completion of the maneuver(s). At a minimum, 
the following must be available to the instructor/evaluator:
    a. Simulator Validation Envelope: The FSTD must employ a method 
to record the FSTD's expected level of fidelity with respect to the 
designed validation envelope. This may be displayed as an ``alpha/
beta'' crossplot on the Instructor Operating System (IOS) or other 
alternate method acceptable to the FAA to clearly convey the 
simulator's expected fidelity level during the maneuver.
    b. Flight Control Inputs: The FSTD must employ a method for the 
instructor/evaluator to assess the student's flight control input 
used to execute the upset recovery maneuver. Parameters which may 
not be easily assessed visually from the instructor station, such as 
rudder pedal displacement and control forces, must be included in 
this feedback mechanism.
    c. Aircraft Operational Limits: The FSTD must employ a method to 
provide the instructor/evaluator with information concerning the 
aircraft operating limitations (such as normal load factor and 
airspeed limits found on a V-n diagram) that may affect the 
successful completion of the maneuver.

End QPS Requirements

Begin Information

    An example FSTD ``alpha/beta'' envelope display and IOS feedback 
mechanism are shown below in Figure 1 and Figure 2.

[[Page 39634]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.130


[[Page 39635]]



End Information

Begin QPS Requirements

Engine and Airframe Icing Evaluation (Table A1A, Section 2.1.5.S.)

    1. Applicability: This attachment applies to all simulators that 
are used to satisfy training requirements for engine and airframe 
ice accretion. New general requirements and objective requirements 
for simulator qualification have been developed to define aircraft 
specific icing models that support training objectives for the 
recognition and recovery from an in-flight ice accretion event.
    2. General Requirements: The qualification of engine and 
airframe icing consists of the following elements that must be 
considered when developing ice accretion models for use in training:
    a. Ice accretion models must be developed to account for 
training the specific skills required for recognition of ice 
accumulation and execution of the required response.
    b. Ice accretion models must be developed in a manner to contain 
aircraft specific recognition cues as determined with aircraft OEM 
supplied data or other suitable analytical methods.
    c. At least one qualified ice accretion model must be 
objectively tested to demonstrate that the model has been 
implemented correctly and generates the correct cues as necessary 
for training.
    3. Statement of Compliance: The SOC as described in Table A1A, 
Section 2.1.5.S. must contain the following information to support 
FSTD qualification of aircraft specific ice accretion models:
    a. A description of expected aircraft specific recognition cues 
and degradation effects due to a typical in-flight icing encounter. 
Typical cues may include loss of lift, decrease in stall angle of 
attack, change in pitching moment, decrease in control 
effectiveness, decrease in stall angle of attack, and changes in 
control forces in addition to any overall increase in drag. This 
description must be based upon relevant source data, such as 
aircraft OEM supplied data, accident/incident data, or other 
acceptable data source. Where a particular airframe has demonstrated 
vulnerabilities to a specific type of ice accretion (due to 
accident/incident history) which may require specific training, ice 
accretion models must be developed that address the training 
requirements.
    b. A description of the data sources utilized to develop the 
qualified ice accretion models. Acceptable data sources may be, but 
are not limited to, flight test data, aircraft certification data, 
aircraft OEM engineering simulation data, or other analytical 
methods based upon established engineering principles.
    4. Objective Demonstration Testing: The purpose of the objective 
demonstration test is to demonstrate that the ice accretion models 
as described in the Statement of Compliance have been implemented 
correctly and demonstrate the proper cues as defined in the approved 
data sources. At least one ice accretion model must be selected for 
testing and included in the Master Qualification Test Guide (MQTG). 
Two tests are required to demonstrate engine and airframe icing 
effects. One test will demonstrate the FSTDs baseline performance 
without icing, and the second test will demonstrate the aerodynamic 
effects of ice accretion relative to the baseline test.
    a. Recorded Parameters: In each of the two required MQTG cases, 
a time history recording must be made of the following parameters:

i. Altitude
ii. Airspeed
iii. Normal Acceleration
iv. Engine Power/settings
v. Angle of Attack/Pitch attitude
vi. Bank Angle
vii. Flight control inputs
viii. Stall warning and stall buffet onset
ix. Other parameters as necessary to demonstrate the effects of ice 
accretions

    b. Analysis: The FSTD sponsor must select an ice accretion model 
as identified in the SOC for testing. The selected maneuver must 
demonstrate the effects of ice accretion at high angles of attack 
from a trimmed condition through approach to stall and ``full'' 
stall as compared to a baseline (no ice build up) test. The ice 
accretion models must demonstrate the cues necessary to recognize 
the onset of ice accretion on the airframe, lifting surfaces, and 
engines and provide representative degradation in performance and 
handling qualities to the extent that a recovery can be executed. 
Typical recognition cues that may be present depending upon the 
simulated aircraft include:

i. Decrease in stall angle of attack
ii. Increase in stall warning speed
iii. Increase in stall buffet onset speed
iv. Changes in pitching moment
v. Changes in stall buffet characteristics
vi. Changes in control effectiveness or control forces
vii. Engine effects (power variation, vibration, etc.)

The demonstration test may be conducted by initializing and 
maintaining a fixed amount of ice accretion throughout the maneuver 
in order to consistently evaluate the aerodynamic effects.

End QPS Requirements

0
7. Part 60 is amended by revising Appendix B to read as follows:

Appendix B to Part 60--Qualification Performance Standards for Airplane 
Flight Training Devices

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin Information

    This appendix establishes the standards for Airplane FTD 
evaluation and qualification at Level 4, Level 5, Level 6, or Level 
7. The Flight Standards Service, NSPM, is responsible for the 
development, application, and implementation of the standards 
contained within this appendix. The procedures and criteria 
specified in this appendix will be used by the NSPM, or a person or 
persons assigned by the NSPM when conducting airplane FTD 
evaluations.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction
2. Applicability (Sec. Sec.  60.1 and 60.2).
3. Definitions (Sec.  60.3).
4. Qualification Performance Standards (Sec.  60.4).
5. Quality Management System (Sec.  60.5).
6. Sponsor Qualification Requirements (Sec.  60.7).
7. Additional Responsibilities of the Sponsor (Sec.  60.9).
8. FTD Use (Sec.  60.11).
9. FTD Objective Data Requirements (Sec.  60.13).
10. Special Equipment and Personnel Requirements for Qualification 
of the FTD (Sec.  60.14).
11. Initial (and Upgrade) Qualification Requirements (Sec.  60.15).
12. Additional Qualifications for Currently Qualified FTDs (Sec.  
60.16).
13. Previously Qualified FTDs (Sec.  60.17).
14. Inspection, Continuing Qualification Evaluation, and Maintenance 
Requirements (Sec.  60.19).
15. Logging FTD Discrepancies (Sec.  60.20).
16. Interim Qualification of FTDs for New Airplane Types or Models 
(Sec.  60.21).
17. Modifications to FTDs (Sec.  60.23).
18. Operations with Missing, Malfunctioning, or Inoperative 
Components (Sec.  60.25).
19. Automatic Loss of Qualification and Procedures for Restoration 
of Qualification (Sec.  60.27).
20. Other Losses of Qualification and Procedures for Restoration of 
Qualification (Sec.  60.29).
21. Record Keeping and Reporting (Sec.  60.31).
22. Applications, Logbooks, Reports, and Records: Fraud, 
Falsification, or Incorrect Statements (Sec.  60.33).
23. [Reserved]
24. Levels of FTD.
25. FTD Qualification on the Basis of a Bilateral Aviation Safety 
Agreement (BASA) (Sec.  60.37).
Attachment 1 to Appendix B to Part 60--General FTD Requirements.
Attachment 2 to Appendix B to Part 60--Flight Training Device (FTD) 
Objective Tests.
Attachment 3 to Appendix B to Part 60--Flight Training Device (FTD) 
Subjective Evaluation.
Attachment 4 to Appendix B to Part 60--Sample Documents.

End Information

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Introduction

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin Information

    a. This appendix contains background information as well as 
regulatory and informative material as described later in this 
section. To assist the reader in determining what areas are required 
and what areas are permissive, the text in this appendix is divided 
into two sections: ``QPS Requirements'' and ``Information.'' The QPS 
Requirements sections contain details regarding compliance with the 
part 60 rule language. These details are regulatory, but are found 
only in this appendix. The Information sections contain material 
that is advisory in nature, and designed to give the user general 
information about the regulation.

[[Page 39636]]

    b. Questions regarding the contents of this publication should 
be sent to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation 
Administration, Flight Standards Service, National Simulator Program 
Staff, AFS-205, 100 Hartsfield Centre Parkway, Suite 400, Atlanta, 
Georgia, 30354. Telephone contact numbers for the NSP are: phone, 
404-832-4700; fax, 404-761-8906. The general email address for the 
NSP office is: [email protected]. The NSP Internet Web site 
address is: http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/nsp/. On this Web 
site you will find an NSP personnel list with telephone and email 
contact information for each NSP staff member, a list of qualified 
flight simulation devices, ACs, a description of the qualification 
process, NSP policy, and an NSP ``In-Works'' section. Also linked 
from this site are additional information sources, handbook 
bulletins, frequently asked questions, a listing and text of the 
Federal Aviation Regulations, Flight Standards Inspector's 
handbooks, and other FAA links.
    c. The NSPM encourages the use of electronic media for all 
communication, including any record, report, request, test, or 
statement required by this appendix. The electronic media used must 
have adequate security provisions and be acceptable to the NSPM. The 
NSPM recommends inquiries on system compatibility, and minimum 
system requirements are also included on the NSP Web site.
    d. Related Reading References.
    (1) 14 CFR part 60.
    (2) 14 CFR part 61.
    (3) 14 CFR part 63.
    (4) 14 CFR part 119.
    (5) 14 CFR part 121.
    (6) 14 CFR part 125.
    (7) 14 CFR part 135.
    (8) 14 CFR part 141.
    (9) 14 CFR part 142.
    (10) AC 120-28, as amended, Criteria for Approval of Category 
III Landing Weather Minima.
    (11) AC 120-29, as amended, Criteria for Approving Category I 
and Category II Landing Minima for part 121 operators.
    (12) AC 120-35, as amended, Line Operational Simulations: Line-
Oriented Flight Training, Special Purpose Operational Training, Line 
Operational Evaluation.
    (13) AC 120-41, as amended, Criteria for Operational Approval of 
Airborne Wind Shear Alerting and Flight Guidance Systems.
    (14) AC 120-45, as amended, Airplane Flight Training Device 
Qualification.
    (14) AC 120-57, as amended, Surface Movement Guidance and 
Control System (SMGCS).
    (15) AC 150/5300-13, as amended, Airport Design.
    (16) AC 150/5340-1, as amended, Standards for Airport Markings.
    (17) AC 150/5340-4, as amended, Installation Details for Runway 
Centerline Touchdown Zone Lighting Systems.
    (18) AC 150/5340-19, as amended, Taxiway Centerline Lighting 
System.
    (19) AC 150/5340-24, as amended, Runway and Taxiway Edge 
Lighting System.
    (20) AC 150/5345-28, as amended, Precision Approach Path 
Indicator (PAPI) Systems.
    (21) International Air Transport Association document, ``Flight 
Simulator Design and Performance Data Requirements,'' as amended.
    (22) AC 25-7, as amended, Flight Test Guide for Certification of 
Transport Category Airplanes.
    (23) AC 23-8A, as amended, Flight Test Guide for Certification 
of Part 23 Airplanes.
    (24) International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Manual of 
Criteria for the Qualification of Flight Simulators, as amended.
    (25) Airplane Flight Simulator Evaluation Handbook, Volume I, as 
amended and Volume II, as amended, The Royal Aeronautical Society, 
London, UK.
    (26) FAA Publication FAA-S-8081 series (Practical Test Standards 
for Airline Transport Pilot Certificate, Type Ratings, Commercial 
Pilot, and Instrument Ratings).
    (27) The FAA Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM). An 
electronic version of the AIM is on the internet at http://www.faa.gov/atpubs.
    (28) Aeronautical Radio, Inc. (ARINC) document number 436, 
titled Guidelines For Electronic Qualification Test Guide (as 
amended).
    (29) Aeronautical Radio, Inc. (ARINC) document 610, Guidance for 
Design and Integration of Aircraft Avionics Equipment in Simulators 
(as amended).

End Information

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Applicability (Sec. Sec.  60.1 and 60.2)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin Information

    No additional regulatory or informational material applies to 
Sec.  60.1, Applicability, or to Sec.  60.2, Applicability of 
sponsor rules to persons who are not sponsors and who are engaged in 
certain unauthorized activities.

3. Definitions (Sec.  60.3)

    See Appendix F of this part for a list of definitions and 
abbreviations from part 1, part 60, and the QPS appendices of part 
60.

4. Qualification Performance Standards (Sec.  60.4)

    No additional regulatory or informational material applies to 
Sec.  60.4, Qualification Performance Standards.

5. Quality Management System (Sec.  60.5)

    Additional regulatory material and informational material 
regarding Quality Management Systems for FTDs may be found in 
Appendix E of this part.

End Information

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Sponsor Qualification Requirements. (Sec.  60.7)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin Information

    a. The intent of the language in Sec.  60.7(b) is to have a 
specific FTD, identified by the sponsor, used at least once in an 
FAA-approved flight training program for the airplane simulated 
during the 12-month period described. The identification of the 
specific FTD may change from one 12-month period to the next 12-
month period as long as that sponsor sponsors and uses at least one 
FTD at least once during the prescribed period. There is no minimum 
number of hours or minimum FTD periods required.
    b. The following examples describe acceptable operational 
practices:
    (1) Example One.
    (a) A sponsor is sponsoring a single, specific FTD for its own 
use, in its own facility or elsewhere--this single FTD forms the 
basis for the sponsorship. The sponsor uses that FTD at least once 
in each 12-month period in that sponsor's FAA-approved flight 
training program for the airplane simulated. This 12-month period is 
established according to the following schedule:
    (i) If the FTD was qualified prior to May 30, 2008, the 12-month 
period begins on the date of the first continuing qualification 
evaluation conducted in accordance with Sec.  60.19 after May 30, 
2008, and continues for each subsequent 12-month period;
    (ii) A device qualified on or after May 30, 2008, will be 
required to undergo an initial or upgrade evaluation in accordance 
with Sec.  60.15. Once the initial or upgrade evaluation is 
complete, the first continuing qualification evaluation will be 
conducted within 6 months. The 12 month continuing qualification 
evaluation cycle begins on that date and continues for each 
subsequent 12-month period.
    (b) There is no minimum number of hours of FTD use required.
    (c) The identification of the specific FTD may change from one 
12-month period to the next 12-month period as long as that sponsor 
sponsors and uses at least one FTD at least once during the 
prescribed period.
    (2) Example Two.
    (a) A sponsor sponsors an additional number of FTDs, in its 
facility or elsewhere. Each additionally sponsored FTD must be--
    (i) Used by the sponsor in the sponsor's FAA-approved flight 
training program for the airplane simulated (as described in Sec.  
60.7(d)(1));
    OR
    (ii) Used by another FAA certificate holder in that other 
certificate holder's FAA-approved flight training program for the 
airplane simulated (as described in Sec.  60.7(d)(1)). This 12-month 
period is established in the same manner as in example one.
    OR
    (iii) Provided a statement each year from a qualified pilot, 
(after having flown the airplane, not the subject FTD or another 
FTD, during the preceding 12-month period) stating that the subject 
FTD's performance and handling qualities represent the airplane (as 
described in Sec.  60.7(d)(2)). This statement is provided at least 
once in each 12-month period established in the same manner as in 
example one.
    (b) There is no minimum number of hours of FTD use required.
    (3) Example Three.
    (a) A sponsor in New York (in this example, a Part 142 
certificate holder) establishes ``satellite'' training centers in 
Chicago and Moscow.

[[Page 39637]]

    (b) The satellite function means that the Chicago and Moscow 
centers must operate under the New York center's certificate (in 
accordance with all of the New York center's practices, procedures, 
and policies; e.g., instructor and/or technician training/checking 
requirements, record keeping, QMS program).
    (c) All of the FTDs in the Chicago and Moscow centers could be 
dry-leased (i.e., the certificate holder does not have and use FAA-
approved flight training programs for the FTDs in the Chicago and 
Moscow centers) because--
    (i) Each FTD in the Chicago center and each FTD in the Moscow 
center is used at least once each 12-month period by another FAA 
certificate holder in that other certificate holder's FAA-approved 
flight training program for the airplane (as described in Sec.  
60.7(d)(1));
    OR
    (ii) A statement is obtained from a qualified pilot (having 
flown the airplane, not the subject FTD or another FTD during the 
preceding 12-month period) stating that the performance and handling 
qualities of each FTD in the Chicago and Moscow centers represents 
the airplane (as described in Sec.  60.7(d)(2)).

End Information

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

7. Additional Responsibilities of the Sponsor (Sec.  60.9)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin Information

    The phrase ``as soon as practicable'' in Sec.  60.9(a) means 
without unnecessarily disrupting or delaying beyond a reasonable 
time the training, evaluation, or experience being conducted in the 
FTD.

8. FTD Use (Sec.  60.11)

    No additional regulatory or informational material applies to 
Sec.  60.11, FTD use.

End Information

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

9. FTD Objective Data Requirements (Sec.  60.13)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin QPS Requirements

    a. Flight test data used to validate FTD performance and 
handling qualities must have been gathered in accordance with a 
flight test program containing the following:
    (1) A flight test plan consisting of:
    (a) The maneuvers and procedures required for aircraft 
certification and simulation programming and validation.
    (b) For each maneuver or procedure--
    (i) The procedures and control input the flight test pilot and/
or engineer used.
    (ii) The atmospheric and environmental conditions.
    (iii) The initial flight conditions.
    (iv) The airplane configuration, including weight and center of 
gravity.
    (v) The data to be gathered.
    (vi) All other information necessary to recreate the flight test 
conditions in the FTD.
    (2) Appropriately qualified flight test personnel.
    (3) An understanding of the accuracy of the data to be gathered 
using appropriate alternative data sources, procedures, and 
instrumentation that is traceable to a recognized standard as 
described in Attachment 2, Table B2F of this appendix.
    (4) Appropriate and sufficient data acquisition equipment or 
system(s), including appropriate data reduction and analysis methods 
and techniques, acceptable to the FAA's Aircraft Certification 
Service.
    b. The data, regardless of source, must be presented:
    (1) In a format that supports the FTD validation process;
    (2) In a manner that is clearly readable and annotated correctly 
and completely;
    (3) With resolution sufficient to determine compliance with the 
tolerances set forth in Attachment 2, Table B2A, Appendix B;
    (4) With any necessary guidance information provided; and
    (5) Without alteration, adjustments, or bias. Data may be 
corrected to address known data calibration errors provided that an 
explanation of the methods used to correct the errors appears in the 
QTG. The corrected data may be re-scaled, digitized, or otherwise 
manipulated to fit the desired presentation.
    c. After completion of any additional flight test, a flight test 
report must be submitted in support of the validation data. The 
report must contain sufficient data and rationale to support 
qualification of the FTD at the level requested.
    d. As required by Sec.  60.13(f), the sponsor must notify the 
NSPM when it becomes aware that an addition to or a revision of the 
flight related data or airplane systems related data is available if 
this data is used to program and operate a qualified FTD. The data 
referred to in this sub-section are those data that are used to 
validate the performance, handling qualities, or other 
characteristics of the aircraft, including data related to any 
relevant changes occurring after the type certification is issued. 
The sponsor must--
    (1) Within 10 calendar days, notify the NSPM of the existence of 
this data; and
    (2) Within 45 calendar days, notify the NSPM of--
    (i) The schedule to incorporate this data into the FTD; or
    (ii) The reason for not incorporating this data into the FTD.
    e. In those cases where the objective test results authorize a 
``snapshot test'' or a ``series of snapshot test results'' in lieu 
of a time-history result, the sponsor or other data provider must 
ensure that a steady state condition exists at the instant of time 
captured by the ``snapshot.'' The steady state condition must exist 
from 4 seconds prior to, through 1 second following, the instant of 
time captured by the snap shot.

End QPS Requirements

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin Information

    f. The FTD sponsor is encouraged to maintain a liaison with the 
manufacturer of the aircraft being simulated (or with the holder of 
the aircraft type certificate for the aircraft being simulated if 
the manufacturer is no longer in business), and if appropriate, with 
the person having supplied the aircraft data package for the FTD in 
order to facilitate the notification described in this paragraph.
    g. It is the intent of the NSPM that for new aircraft entering 
service, at a point well in advance of preparation of the QTG, the 
sponsor should submit to the NSPM for approval, a descriptive 
document (see Appendix A, Table A2C, Sample Validation Data Roadmap 
for Airplanes) containing the plan for acquiring the validation 
data, including data sources. This document should clearly identify 
sources of data for all required tests, a description of the 
validity of these data for a specific engine type and thrust rating 
configuration, and the revision levels of all avionics affecting the 
performance or flying qualities of the aircraft. Additionally, this 
document should provide other information such as the rationale or 
explanation for cases where data or data parameters are missing, 
instances where engineering simulation data are used, or where 
flight test methods require further explanations. It should also 
provide a brief narrative describing the cause and effect of any 
deviation from data requirements. The aircraft manufacturer may 
provide this document.
    h. There is no requirement for any flight test data supplier to 
submit a flight test plan or program prior to gathering flight test 
data. However, the NSPM notes that inexperienced data gatherers 
often provide data that is irrelevant, improperly marked, or lacking 
adequate justification for selection. Other problems include 
inadequate information regarding initial conditions or test 
maneuvers. The NSPM has been forced to refuse these data submissions 
as validation data for an FTD evaluation. It is for this reason that 
the NSPM recommends that any data supplier not previously 
experienced in this area review the data necessary for programming 
and for validating the performance of the FTD and discuss the flight 
test plan anticipated for acquiring such data with the NSPM well in 
advance of commencing the flight tests.
    i. The NSPM will consider, on a case-by-case basis, whether to 
approve supplemental validation data derived from flight data 
recording systems such as a Quick Access Recorder or Flight Data 
Recorder.

End Information

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

10. Special Equipment and Personnel Requirements for Qualification of 
the FTD (Sec.  60.14)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin Information

    a. In the event that the NSPM determines that special equipment 
or specifically qualified persons will be required to conduct an 
evaluation, the NSPM will make every attempt to notify the sponsor 
at least one (1) week, but in no case less than 72 hours, in advance 
of the evaluation. Examples of special equipment include flight 
control measurement devices, accelerometers, or oscilloscopes. 
Examples of specially qualified personnel include individuals

[[Page 39638]]

specifically qualified to install or use any special equipment when 
its use is required.
    b. Examples of a special evaluation include an evaluation 
conducted after: An FTD is moved; at the request of the TPAA; or as 
a result of comments received from users of the FTD that raise 
questions about the continued qualification or use of the FTD.

End Information

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

11. Initial (and Upgrade) Qualification Requirements (Sec.  60.15)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin QPS Requirement

    a. In order to be qualified at a particular qualification level, 
the FTD must:
    (1) Meet the general requirements listed in Attachment 1 of this 
appendix;
    (2) Meet the objective testing requirements listed in Attachment 
2 of this appendix (Level 4 FTDs do not require objective tests); 
and
    (3) Satisfactorily accomplish the subjective tests listed in 
Attachment 3 of this appendix.
    b. The request described in Sec.  60.15(a) must include all of 
the following:
    (1) A statement that the FTD meets all of the applicable 
provisions of this part and all applicable provisions of the QPS.
    (2) A confirmation that the sponsor will forward to the NSPM the 
statement described in Sec.  60.15(b) in such time as to be received 
no later than 5 business days prior to the scheduled evaluation and 
may be forwarded to the NSPM via traditional or electronic means.
    (3) Except for a Level 4 FTD, a QTG, acceptable to the NSPM, 
that includes all of the following:
    (a) Objective data obtained from aircraft testing or another 
approved source.
    (b) Correlating objective test results obtained from the 
performance of the FTD as prescribed in the appropriate QPS.
    (c) The result of FTD subjective tests prescribed in the 
appropriate QPS.
    (d) A description of the equipment necessary to perform the 
evaluation for initial qualification and the continuing 
qualification evaluations.
    c. The QTG described in paragraph a(3) of this section, must 
provide the documented proof of compliance with the FTD objective 
tests in Attachment 2, Table B2A of this appendix.
    d. The QTG is prepared and submitted by the sponsor, or the 
sponsor's agent on behalf of the sponsor, to the NSPM for review and 
approval, and must include, for each objective test:
    (1) Parameters, tolerances, and flight conditions;
    (2) Pertinent and complete instructions for conducting automatic 
and manual tests;
    (3) A means of comparing the FTD test results to the objective 
data;
    (4) Any other information as necessary to assist in the 
evaluation of the test results;
    (5) Other information appropriate to the qualification level of 
the FTD.
    e. The QTG described in paragraphs (a)(3) and (b) of this 
section, must include the following:
    (1) A QTG cover page with sponsor and FAA approval signature 
blocks (see Attachment 4, Figure B4C, of this appendix, for a sample 
QTG cover page).
    (2) A continuing qualification evaluation requirements page. 
This page will be used by the NSPM to establish and record the 
frequency with which continuing qualification evaluations must be 
conducted and any subsequent changes that may be determined by the 
NSPM in accordance with Sec.  60.19. See Attachment 4, Figure B4G, 
of this appendix, for a sample Continuing Qualification Evaluation 
Requirements page.
    (3) An FTD information page that provides the information listed 
in this paragraph, if applicable (see Attachment 4, Figure B4B, of 
this appendix, for a sample FTD information page). For convertible 
FTDs, the sponsor must submit a separate page for each configuration 
of the FTD.
    (a) The sponsor's FTD identification number or code.
    (b) The airplane model and series being simulated.
    (c) The aerodynamic data revision number or reference.
    (d) The source of the basic aerodynamic model and the 
aerodynamic coefficient data used to modify the basic model.
    (e) The engine model(s) and its data revision number or 
reference.
    (f) The flight control data revision number or reference.
    (g) The flight management system identification and revision 
level.
    (h) The FTD model and manufacturer.
    (i) The date of FTD manufacture.
    (j) The FTD computer identification.
    (k) The visual system model and manufacturer, including display 
type.
    (l) The motion system type and manufacturer, including degrees 
of freedom.
    (4) A Table of Contents.
    (5) A log of revisions and a list of effective pages.
    (6) List of all relevant data references.
    (7) A glossary of terms and symbols used (including sign 
conventions and units).
    (8) Statements of compliance and capability (SOCs) with certain 
requirements.
    (9) Recording procedures or equipment required to accomplish the 
objective tests.
    (10) The following information for each objective test 
designated in Attachment 2 of this appendix, as applicable to the 
qualification level sought:
    (a) Name of the test.
    (b) Objective of the test.
    (c) Initial conditions.
    (d) Manual test procedures.
    (e) Automatic test procedures (if applicable).
    (f) Method for evaluating FTD objective test results.
    (g) List of all relevant parameters driven or constrained during 
the automatic test(s).
    (h) List of all relevant parameters driven or constrained during 
the manual test(s).
    (i) Tolerances for relevant parameters.
    (j) Source of Validation Data (document and page number).
    (k) Copy of the Validation Data (if located in a separate 
binder, a cross reference for the identification and page number for 
pertinent data location must be provided).
    (l) FTD Objective Test Results as obtained by the sponsor. Each 
test result must reflect the date completed and must be clearly 
labeled as a product of the device being tested.
    f. A convertible FTD is addressed as a separate FTD for each 
model and series airplane to which it will be converted and for the 
FAA qualification level sought. The NSPM will conduct an evaluation 
for each configuration. If a sponsor seeks qualification for two or 
more models of an airplane type using a convertible FTD, the sponsor 
must provide a QTG for each airplane model, or a QTG for the first 
airplane model and a supplement to that QTG for each additional 
airplane model. The NSPM will conduct evaluations for each airplane 
model.
    g. The form and manner of presentation of objective test results 
in the QTG must include the following:
    (1) The sponsor's FTD test results must be recorded in a manner 
acceptable to the NSPM, that allows easy comparison of the FTD test 
results to the validation data (e.g., use of a multi-channel 
recorder, line printer, cross plotting, overlays, transparencies).
    (2) FTD results must be labeled using terminology common to 
airplane parameters as opposed to computer software identifications.
    (3) Validation data documents included in a QTG may be 
photographically reduced only if such reduction will not alter the 
graphic scaling or cause difficulties in scale interpretation or 
resolution.
    (4) Scaling on graphical presentations must provide the 
resolution necessary to evaluate the parameters shown in Attachment 
2, Table B2A of this appendix.
    (5) Tests involving time histories, data sheets (or 
transparencies thereof) and FTD test results must be clearly marked 
with appropriate reference points to ensure an accurate comparison 
between FTD and airplane with respect to time. Time histories 
recorded via a line printer are to be clearly identified for cross-
plotting on the airplane data. Over-plots may not obscure the 
reference data.
    h. The sponsor may elect to complete the QTG objective and 
subjective tests at the manufacturer's facility or at the sponsor's 
training facility. If the tests are conducted at the manufacturer's 
facility, the sponsor must repeat at least one-third of the tests at 
the sponsor's training facility in order to substantiate FTD 
performance. The QTG must be clearly annotated to indicate when and 
where each test was accomplished. Tests conducted at the 
manufacturer's facility and at the sponsor's training facility must 
be conducted after the FTD is assembled with systems and sub-systems 
functional and operating in an interactive manner. The test results 
must be submitted to the NSPM.
    i. The sponsor must maintain a copy of the MQTG at the FTD 
location.
    j. All FTDs for which the initial qualification is conducted 
after May 30, 2014, must have an electronic MQTG (eMQTG) including 
all objective data obtained from airplane testing, or another 
approved source (reformatted or digitized), together with 
correlating objective test results obtained from the performance of 
the FTD

[[Page 39639]]

(reformatted or digitized) as prescribed in this appendix. The eMQTG 
must also contain the general FTD performance or demonstration 
results (reformatted or digitized) prescribed in this appendix, and 
a description of the equipment necessary to perform the initial 
qualification evaluation and the continuing qualification 
evaluations. The eMQTG must include the original validation data 
used to validate FTD performance and handling qualities in either 
the original digitized format from the data supplier or an 
electronic scan of the original time-history plots that were 
provided by the data supplier. A copy of the eMQTG must be provided 
to the NSPM.
    k. All other FTDs (not covered in subparagraph ``j'') must have 
an electronic copy of the MQTG by and after May 30, 2014. An 
electronic copy of the copy of the MQTG must be provided to the 
NSPM. This may be provided by an electronic scan presented in a 
Portable Document File (PDF), or similar format acceptable to the 
NSPM.
    l. During the initial (or upgrade) qualification evaluation 
conducted by the NSPM, the sponsor must also provide a person 
knowledgeable about the operation of the aircraft and the operation 
of the FTD.

End QPS Requirements

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin Information

    m. Only those FTDs that are sponsored by a certificate holder as 
defined in Appendix F will be evaluated by the NSPM. However, other 
FTD evaluations may be conducted on a case-by-case basis as the 
Administrator deems appropriate, but only in accordance with 
applicable agreements.
    n. The NSPM will conduct an evaluation for each configuration, 
and each FTD must be evaluated as completely as possible. To ensure 
a thorough and uniform evaluation, each FTD is subjected to the 
general FTD requirements in Attachment 1 of this appendix, the 
objective tests listed in Attachment 2 of this appendix, and the 
subjective tests listed in Attachment 3 of this appendix. The 
evaluations described herein will include, but not necessarily be 
limited to the following:
    (1) Airplane responses, including longitudinal and lateral-
directional control responses (see Attachment 2 of this appendix);
    (2) Performance in authorized portions of the simulated 
airplane's operating envelope, to include tasks evaluated by the 
NSPM in the areas of surface operations, takeoff, climb, cruise, 
descent, approach and landing, as well as abnormal and emergency 
operations (see Attachment 2 of this appendix);
    (3) Control checks (see Attachment 1 and Attachment 2 of this 
appendix);
    (4) Flight deck configuration (see Attachment 1 of this 
appendix);
    (5) Pilot, flight engineer, and instructor station functions 
checks (see Attachment 1 and Attachment 3 of this appendix);
    (6) Airplane systems and sub-systems (as appropriate) as 
compared to the airplane simulated (see attachment 1 and attachment 
3 of this appendix);
    (7) FTD systems and sub-systems, including force cueing 
(motion), visual, and aural (sound) systems, as appropriate (see 
Attachment 1 and Attachment 2 of this appendix); and
    (8) Certain additional requirements, depending upon the 
qualification level sought, including equipment or circumstances 
that may become hazardous to the occupants. The sponsor may be 
subject to Occupational Safety and Health Administration 
requirements.
    o. The NSPM administers the objective and subjective tests, 
which include an examination of functions. The tests include a 
qualitative assessment of the FTD by an NSP pilot. The NSP 
evaluation team leader may assign other qualified personnel to 
assist in accomplishing the functions examination and/or the 
objective and subjective tests performed during an evaluation when 
required.
    (1) Objective tests provide a basis for measuring and evaluating 
FTD performance and determining compliance with the requirements of 
this part.
    (2) Subjective tests provide a basis for:
    (a) Evaluating the capability of the FTD to perform over a 
typical utilization period;
    (b) Determining that the FTD satisfactorily simulates each 
required task;
    (c) Verifying correct operation of the FTD controls, 
instruments, and systems; and
    (d) Demonstrating compliance with the requirements of this part.
    p. The tolerances for the test parameters listed in Attachment 2 
of this appendix reflect the range of tolerances acceptable to the 
NSPM for FTD validation and are not to be confused with design 
tolerances specified for FTD manufacture. In making decisions 
regarding tests and test results, the NSPM relies on the use of 
operational and engineering judgment in the application of data 
(including consideration of the way in which the flight test was 
flown and way the data was gathered and applied) data presentations, 
and the applicable tolerances for each test.
    q. In addition to the scheduled continuing qualification 
evaluation, each FTD is subject to evaluations conducted by the NSPM 
at any time without prior notification to the sponsor. Such 
evaluations would be accomplished in a normal manner (i.e., 
requiring exclusive use of the FTD for the conduct of objective and 
subjective tests and an examination of functions) if the FTD is not 
being used for flight crewmember training, testing, or checking. 
However, if the FTD were being used, the evaluation would be 
conducted in a nonexclusive manner. This nonexclusive evaluation 
will be conducted by the FTD evaluator accompanying the check 
airman, instructor, Aircrew Program Designee (APD), or FAA inspector 
aboard the FTD along with the student(s) and observing the operation 
of the FTD during the training, testing, or checking activities.
    r. Problems with objective test results are handled as follows:
    (1) If a problem with an objective test result is detected by 
the NSP evaluation team during an evaluation, the test may be 
repeated or the QTG may be amended.
    (2) If it is determined that the results of an objective test do 
not support the qualification level requested but do support a lower 
level, the NSPM may qualify the FTD at a lower level. For example, 
if a Level 6 evaluation is requested, but the FTD fails to meet the 
spiral stability test tolerances, it could be qualified at Level 5.
    s. After an FTD is successfully evaluated, the NSPM issues an 
SOQ to the sponsor. The NSPM recommends the FTD to the TPAA, who 
will approve the FTD for use in a flight training program. The SOQ 
will be issued at the satisfactory conclusion of the initial or 
continuing qualification evaluation and will list the tasks for 
which the FTD is qualified, referencing the tasks described in Table 
B1B in attachment 1 of this appendix. However, it is the sponsor's 
responsibility to obtain TPAA approval prior to using the FTD in an 
FAA-approved flight training program.
    t. Under normal circumstances, the NSPM establishes a date for 
the initial or upgrade evaluation within ten (10) working days after 
determining that a complete QTG is acceptable. Unusual circumstances 
may warrant establishing an evaluation date before this 
determination is made. A sponsor may schedule an evaluation date as 
early as 6 months in advance. However, there may be a delay of 45 
days or more in rescheduling and completing the evaluation if the 
sponsor is unable to meet the scheduled date. See Attachment 4, 
Figure B4A, Sample Request for Initial, Upgrade, or Reinstatement 
Evaluation, of this appendix.
    u. The numbering system used for objective test results in the 
QTG should closely follow the numbering system set out in Attachment 
2, FTD Objective Tests, Table B2A, of this appendix.
    v. Contact the NSPM or visit the NSPM Web site for additional 
information regarding the preferred qualifications of pilots used to 
meet the requirements of Sec.  60.15(d).
    w. Examples of the exclusions for which the FTD might not have 
been subjectively tested by the sponsor or the NSPM and for which 
qualification might not be sought or granted, as described in Sec.  
60.15(g)(6), include engine out maneuvers or circling approaches.

12. Additional Qualifications for Currently Qualified FTDs (Sec.  
60.16)

    No additional regulatory or informational material applies to 
Sec.  60.16, Additional Qualifications for a Currently Qualified 
FTD.

End Information

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

13. Previously Qualified FTDs (Sec.  60.17)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin QPS Requirements

    a. In instances where a sponsor plans to remove an FTD from 
active status for a period of less than two years, the following 
procedures apply:
    (1) The NSPM must be notified in writing and the notification 
must include an estimate of the period that the FTD will be 
inactive;
    (2) Continuing Qualification evaluations will not be scheduled 
during the inactive period;
    (3) The NSPM will remove the FTD from the list of qualified FTDs 
on a mutually established date not later than the date on which the 
first missed continuing

[[Page 39640]]

qualification evaluation would have been scheduled;
    (4) Before the FTD is restored to qualified status, it must be 
evaluated by the NSPM. The evaluation content and the time required 
to accomplish the evaluation is based on the number of continuing 
qualification evaluations and sponsor-conducted quarterly 
inspections missed during the period of inactivity.
    (5) The sponsor must notify the NSPM of any changes to the 
original scheduled time out of service;
    b. FTDs qualified prior to May 30, 2008, and replacement FTD 
systems, are not required to meet the general FTD requirements, the 
objective test requirements, and the subjective test requirements of 
Attachments 1, 2, and 3 of this appendix as long as the FTD 
continues to meet the test requirements contained in the MQTG 
developed under the original qualification basis.
    c. [Reserved]
    d. FTDs qualified prior to May 30, 2008, may be updated. If an 
evaluation is deemed appropriate or necessary by the NSPM after such 
an update, the evaluation will not require an evaluation to 
standards beyond those against which the FTD was originally 
qualified.

End QPS Requirements

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin Information

    e. Other certificate holders or persons desiring to use an FTD 
may contract with FTD sponsors to use FTDs previously qualified at a 
particular level for an airplane type and approved for use within an 
FAA-approved flight training program. Such FTDs are not required to 
undergo an additional qualification process, except as described in 
Sec.  60.16.
    f. Each FTD user must obtain approval from the appropriate TPAA 
to use any FTD in an FAA-approved flight training program.
    g. The intent of the requirement listed in Sec.  60.17(b), for 
each FTD to have an SOQ within 6 years, is to have the availability 
of that statement (including the configuration list and the 
limitations to authorizations) to provide a complete picture of the 
FTD inventory regulated by the FAA. The issuance of the statement 
will not require any additional evaluation or require any adjustment 
to the evaluation basis for the FTD.
    h. Downgrading of an FTD is a permanent change in qualification 
level and will necessitate the issuance of a revised SOQ to reflect 
the revised qualification level, as appropriate. If a temporary 
restriction is placed on an FTD because of a missing, 
malfunctioning, or inoperative component or on-going repairs, the 
restriction is not a permanent change in qualification level. 
Instead, the restriction is temporary and is removed when the reason 
for the restriction has been resolved.
    i. The NSPM will determine the evaluation criteria for an FTD 
that has been removed from active status for a prolonged period. The 
criteria will be based on the number of continuing qualification 
evaluations and quarterly inspections missed during the period of 
inactivity. For example, if the FTD were out of service for a 1 year 
period, it would be necessary to complete the entire QTG, since all 
of the quarterly evaluations would have been missed. The NSPM will 
also consider how the FTD was stored, whether parts were removed 
from the FTD and whether the FTD was disassembled.
    j. The FTD will normally be requalified using the FAA-approved 
MQTG and the criteria that was in effect prior to its removal from 
qualification. However, inactive periods of 2 years or more will 
require re-qualification under the standards in effect and current 
at the time of requalification.

End Information

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

14. Inspection, Continuing Qualification, Evaluation, and Maintenance 
Requirements (Sec.  60.19).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin QPS Requirement

    a. The sponsor must conduct a minimum of four evenly spaced 
inspections throughout the year. The objective test sequence and 
content of each inspection in this sequence must be developed by the 
sponsor and must be acceptable to the NSPM.
    b. The description of the functional preflight check must be 
contained in the sponsor's QMS.
    c. Record ``functional preflight'' in the FTD discrepancy log 
book or other acceptable location, including any item found to be 
missing, malfunctioning, or inoperative.
    d. During the continuing qualification evaluation conducted by 
the NSPM, the sponsor must also provide a person knowledgeable about 
the operation of the aircraft and the operation of the FTD.

End QPS Requirements

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin Information

    e. The sponsor's test sequence and the content of each quarterly 
inspection required in Sec.  60.19(a)(1) should include a balance 
and a mix from the objective test requirement areas listed as 
follows:
    (1) Performance.
    (2) Handling qualities.
    (3) Motion system (where appropriate).
    (4) Visual system (where appropriate).
    (5) Sound system (where appropriate).
    (6) Other FTD systems.
    f. If the NSP evaluator plans to accomplish specific tests 
during a normal continuing qualification evaluation that requires 
the use of special equipment or technicians, the sponsor will be 
notified as far in advance of the evaluation as practical; but not 
less than 72 hours. Examples of such tests include latencies, 
control sweeps, or motion or visual system tests.
    g. The continuing qualification evaluations described in Sec.  
60.19(b) will normally require 4 hours of FTD time. However, 
flexibility is necessary to address abnormal situations or 
situations involving aircraft with additional levels of complexity 
(e.g., computer controlled aircraft). The sponsor should anticipate 
that some tests may require additional time. The continuing 
qualification evaluations will consist of the following:
    (1) Review of the results of the quarterly inspections conducted 
by the sponsor since the last scheduled continuing qualification 
evaluation.
    (2) A selection of approximately 8 to 15 objective tests from 
the MQTG that provide an adequate opportunity to evaluate the 
performance of the FTD. The tests chosen will be performed either 
automatically or manually and should be able to be conducted within 
approximately one-third (\1/3\) of the allotted FTD time.
    (3) A subjective evaluation of the FTD to perform a 
representative sampling of the tasks set out in attachment 3 of this 
appendix. This portion of the evaluation should take approximately 
two-thirds (\2/3\) of the allotted FTD time.
    (4) An examination of the functions of the FTD may include the 
motion system, visual system, sound system as applicable, instructor 
operating station, and the normal functions and simulated 
malfunctions of the airplane systems. This examination is normally 
accomplished simultaneously with the subjective evaluation 
requirements.
    h. The requirement established in Sec.  60.19(b)(4) regarding 
the frequency of NSPM-conducted continuing qualification evaluations 
for each FTD is typically 12 months. However, the establishment and 
satisfactory implementation of an approved QMS for a sponsor will 
provide a basis for adjusting the frequency of evaluations to exceed 
12-month intervals.

15. Logging FTD Discrepancies (Sec.  60.20)

    No additional regulatory or informational material applies to 
Sec.  60.20. Logging FTD Discrepancies.

16. Interim Qualification of FTDs for New Airplane Types or Models 
(Sec.  60.21)

    No additional regulatory or informational material applies to 
Sec.  60.21, Interim Qualification of FTDs for New Airplane Types or 
Models.

End Information

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

17. Modifications to FTDs (Sec.  60.23)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin QPS Requirements

    a. The notification described in Sec.  60.23(c)(2) must include 
a complete description of the planned modification, with a 
description of the operational and engineering effect the proposed 
modification will have on the operation of the FTD and the results 
that are expected with the modification incorporated.
    b. Prior to using the modified FTD:
    (1) All the applicable objective tests completed with the 
modification incorporated, including any necessary updates to the 
MQTG (e.g., accomplishment of FSTD Directives) must be acceptable to 
the NSPM; and
    (2) The sponsor must provide the NSPM with a statement signed by 
the MR that the factors listed in Sec.  60.15(b) are addressed by 
the appropriate personnel as described in that section.

[[Page 39641]]

End QPS Requirements

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin Information

    c. FSTD Directives are considered modification of an FTD. See 
Attachment 4 of this appendix for a sample index of effective FSTD 
Directives.
    d. Examples of MQTG changes that do not require notification 
under Sec.  60.23(a) are limited to repagination, correction of 
typographical or grammatical errors, typesetting, or presenting 
additional parameters on existing test result formats. All changes 
regardless of nature should be reported in the MQTG revision 
history.

End Information

18. Operation With Missing, Malfunctioning, or Inoperative Components 
(Sec.  60.25)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin Information

    a. The sponsor's responsibility with respect to Sec.  60.25(a) 
is satisfied when the sponsor fairly and accurately advises the user 
of the current status of an FTD, including any missing, 
malfunctioning, or inoperative (MMI) component(s).
    b. It is the responsibility of the instructor, check airman, or 
representative of the administrator conducting training, testing, or 
checking to exercise reasonable and prudent judgment to determine if 
any MMI component is necessary for the satisfactory completion of a 
specific maneuver, procedure, or task.
    c. If the 29th or 30th day of the 30-day period described in 
Sec.  60.25(b) is on a Saturday, a Sunday, or a holiday, the FAA 
will extend the deadline until the next business day.
    d. In accordance with the authorization described in Sec.  
60.25(b), the sponsor may develop a discrepancy prioritizing system 
to accomplish repairs based on the level of impact on the capability 
of the FTD. Repairs having a larger impact on the FTD's ability to 
provide the required training, evaluation, or flight experience will 
have a higher priority for repair or replacement.

End Information

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

19. Automatic Loss of Qualification and Procedures for Restoration of 
Qualification (Sec.  60.27)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin Information

    If the sponsor provides a plan for how the FTD will be 
maintained during its out-of-service period (e.g., periodic exercise 
of mechanical, hydraulic, and electrical systems; routine 
replacement of hydraulic fluid; control of the environmental factors 
in which the FTD is to be maintained) there is a greater likelihood 
that the NSPM will be able to determine the amount of testing that 
required for requalification.

End Information

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

20. Other Losses of Qualification and Procedures for Restoration of 
Qualification (Sec.  60.29.)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin Information

    If the sponsor provides a plan for how the FTD will be 
maintained during its out-of-service period (e.g., periodic exercise 
of mechanical, hydraulic, and electrical systems; routine 
replacement of hydraulic fluid; control of the environmental factors 
in which the FTD is to be maintained) there is a greater likelihood 
that the NSPM will be able to determine the amount of testing that 
required for requalification.

End Information

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

21. Recordkeeping and Reporting (Sec.  60.31.)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin QPS Requirements

    a. FTD modifications can include hardware or software changes. 
For FTD modifications involving software programming changes, the 
record required by Sec.  60.31(a)(2) must consist of the name of the 
aircraft system software, aerodynamic model, or engine model change, 
the date of the change, a summary of the change, and the reason for 
the change.
    b. If a coded form for record keeping is used, it must provide 
for the preservation and retrieval of information with appropriate 
security or controls to prevent the inappropriate alteration of such 
records after the fact.

End QPS Requirements

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

22. Applications, Logbooks, Reports, and Records: Fraud, Falsification, 
or Incorrect Statements (Sec.  60.33)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin Information

    No additional regulatory or informational material applies to 
Sec.  60.33, Applications, Logbooks, Reports, and Records: Fraud, 
Falsification, or Incorrect Statements.

End Information

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

23. [Reserved]

24. Levels of FTD

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin Information

    a. The following is a general description of each level of FTD. 
Detailed standards and tests for the various levels of FTDs are 
fully defined in Attachments 1 through 3 of this appendix.
    (1) Level 4. A device that may have an open airplane-specific 
flight deck area, or an enclosed airplane-specific flight deck and 
at least one operating system. Air/ground logic is required (no 
aerodynamic programming required). All displays may be flat/LCD 
panel representations or actual representations of displays in the 
aircraft. All controls, switches, and knobs may be touch sensitive 
activation (not capable of manual manipulation of the flight 
controls) or may physically replicate the aircraft in control 
operation.
    (2) Level 5. A device that may have an open airplane-specific 
flight deck area, or an enclosed airplane-specific flight deck; 
generic aerodynamic programming; at least one operating system; and 
control loading that is representative of the simulated airplane 
only at an approach speed and configuration. All displays may be 
flat/LCD panel representations or actual representations of displays 
in the aircraft. Primary and secondary flight controls (e.g., 
rudder, aileron, elevator, flaps, spoilers/speed brakes, engine 
controls, landing gear, nosewheel steering, trim, brakes) must be 
physical controls. All other controls, switches, and knobs may be 
touch sensitive activation.
    (3) Level 6. A device that has an enclosed airplane-specific 
flight deck; airplane-specific aerodynamic programming; all 
applicable airplane systems operating; control loading that is 
representative of the simulated airplane throughout its ground and 
flight envelope; and significant sound representation. All displays 
may be flat/LCD panel representations or actual representations of 
displays in the aircraft, but all controls, switches, and knobs must 
physically replicate the aircraft in control operation.
    (4) Level 7. A Level 7 device is one that has an enclosed 
airplane-specific flight deck and aerodynamic program with all 
applicable airplane systems operating and control loading that is 
representative of the simulated airplane throughout its ground and 
flight envelope and significant sound representation. All displays 
may be flat/LCD panel representations or actual representations of 
displays in the aircraft, but all controls, switches, and knobs must 
physically replicate the aircraft in control operation. It also has 
a visual system that provides an out-of-the-flight deck view, 
providing cross-flight deck viewing (for both pilots simultaneously) 
of a field-of-view of at least 200[deg] horizontally and 40[deg] 
vertically.

End Information

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

25. FTD Qualification on the Basis of a Bilateral Aviation Safety 
Agreement (BASA) (Sec.  60.37)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin Information

    No additional regulatory or informational material applies to 
Sec.  60.37, FTD Qualification on the Basis of a Bilateral Aviation 
Safety Agreement (BASA).

End Information

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Attachment 1 to Appendix B to Part 60-- General FTD Requirements

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin QPS Requirements

1. Requirements

    a. Certain requirements included in this appendix must be 
supported with an SOC as

[[Page 39642]]

defined in Appendix F, which may include objective and subjective 
tests. The requirements for SOCs are indicated in the ``General FTD 
Requirements'' column in Table B1A of this appendix.
    b. Table B1A describes the requirements for the indicated level 
of FTD. Many devices include operational systems or functions that 
exceed the requirements outlined in this section. In any event, all 
systems will be tested and evaluated in accordance with this 
appendix to ensure proper operation.

End QPS Requirements

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin Information

2. Discussion

    a. This attachment describes the general requirements for 
qualifying Level 4 through Level 7 FTDs. The sponsor should also 
consult the objectives tests in Attachment 2 of this appendix and 
the examination of functions and subjective tests listed in 
Attachment 3 of this appendix to determine the complete requirements 
for a specific level FTD.
    b. The material contained in this attachment is divided into the 
following categories:
    (1) General Flight deck Configuration.
    (2) Programming.
    (3) Equipment Operation.
    (4) Equipment and facilities for instructor/evaluator functions.
    (5) Motion System.
    (6) Visual System.
    (7) Sound System.
    c. Table B1A provides the standards for the General FTD 
Requirements.
    d. Table B1B provides the tasks that the sponsor will examine to 
determine whether the FTD satisfactorily meets the requirements for 
flight crew training, testing, and experience, and provides the 
tasks for which the simulator may be qualified.
    e. Table B1C provides the functions that an instructor/check 
airman must be able to control in the simulator.
    f. It is not required that all of the tasks that appear on the 
List of Qualified Tasks (part of the SOQ) be accomplished during the 
initial or continuing qualification evaluation.

End Information

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 39643]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.131


[[Page 39644]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.132


[[Page 39645]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.133


[[Page 39646]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.134


[[Page 39647]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.135


[[Page 39648]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.136


[[Page 39649]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.137


[[Page 39650]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.138


[[Page 39651]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.139


[[Page 39652]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.140


[[Page 39653]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.141


[[Page 39654]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.142


[[Page 39655]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.143


[[Page 39656]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.144


[[Page 39657]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.145


[[Page 39658]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.146


[[Page 39659]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.147


[[Page 39660]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.148


[[Page 39661]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.149


[[Page 39662]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.150


[[Page 39663]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.152


[[Page 39664]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.153


[[Page 39665]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.154


[[Page 39666]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.155


[[Page 39667]]



Attachment 2 to Appendix B to Part 60--Flight Training Device (FTD) 
Objective Tests

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin Information

1. Discussion

    a. For the purposes of this attachment, the flight conditions 
specified in the Flight Conditions Column of Table B2A, are defined 
as follows:
    (1) Ground--on ground, independent of airplane configuration;
    (2) Take-off--gear down with flaps/slats in any certified 
takeoff position;
    (3) First segment climb--gear down with flaps/slats in any 
certified takeoff position (normally not above 50 ft AGL);
    (4) Second segment climb--gear up with flaps/slats in any 
certified takeoff position (normally between 50 ft and 400 ft AGL);
    (5) Clean--flaps/slats retracted and gear up;
    (6) Cruise--clean configuration at cruise altitude and airspeed;
    (7) Approach--gear up or down with flaps/slats at any normal 
approach position as recommended by the airplane manufacturer; and
    (8) Landing--gear down with flaps/slats in any certified landing 
position.
    b. The format for numbering the objective tests in Appendix A, 
Attachment 2, Table A2A, and the objective tests in Appendix B, 
Attachment 2, Table B2A, is identical. However, each test required 
for FFSs is not necessarily required for FTDs. Also, each test 
required for FTDs is not necessarily required for FFSs. Therefore, 
when a test number (or series of numbers) is not required, the term 
``Reserved'' is used in the table at that location. Following this 
numbering format provides a degree of commonality between the two 
tables and substantially reduces the potential for confusion when 
referring to objective test numbers for either FFSs or FTDs.
    c. The reader is encouraged to review the Airplane Flight 
Simulator Evaluation Handbook, Volumes I and II, published by the 
Royal Aeronautical Society, London, UK, and FAA AC 25-7, as amended, 
Flight Test Guide for Certification of Transport Category Airplanes, 
and AC 23-8, as amended, Flight Test Guide for Certification of Part 
23 Airplanes, for references and examples regarding flight testing 
requirements and techniques.
    d. If relevant winds are present in the objective data, the wind 
vector should be clearly noted as part of the data presentation, 
expressed in conventional terminology, and related to the runway 
being used for the test.
    e. A Level 4 FTD does not require objective tests and therefore, 
Level 4 is not addressed in the following table.

End Information

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin QPS Requirements

2. Test Requirements

    a. The ground and flight tests required for qualification are 
listed in Table B2A Objective Tests. Computer generated FTD test 
results must be provided for each test except where an alternate 
test is specifically authorized by the NSPM. If a flight condition 
or operating condition is required for the test but does not apply 
to the airplane being simulated or to the qualification level 
sought, it may be disregarded (e.g., an engine out missed approach 
for a single-engine airplane; a maneuver using reverse thrust for an 
airplane without reverse thrust capability). Each test result is 
compared against the validation data described in Sec.  60.13, and 
in Appendix B. The results must be produced on an appropriate 
recording device acceptable to the NSPM and must include FTD number, 
date, time, conditions, tolerances, and appropriate dependent 
variables portrayed in comparison to the validation data. Time 
histories are required unless otherwise indicated in Table B2A. All 
results must be labeled using the tolerances and units given.
    b. Table B2A in this attachment sets out the test results 
required, including the parameters, tolerances, and flight 
conditions for FTD validation. Tolerances are provided for the 
listed tests because mathematical modeling and acquisition and 
development of reference data are often inexact. All tolerances 
listed in the following tables are applied to FTD performance. When 
two tolerance values are given for a parameter, the less restrictive 
may be used unless otherwise indicated. In those cases where a 
tolerance is expressed only as a percentage, the tolerance 
percentage applies to the maximum value of that parameter within its 
normal operating range as measured from the neutral or zero position 
unless otherwise indicated.
    c. Certain tests included in this attachment must be supported 
with a SOC. In Table B2A, requirements for SOCs are indicated in the 
``Test Details'' column.
    d. When operational or engineering judgment is used in making 
assessments for flight test data applications for FTD validity, such 
judgment may not be limited to a single parameter. For example, data 
that exhibit rapid variations of the measured parameters may require 
interpolations or a ``best fit'' data section. All relevant 
parameters related to a given maneuver or flight condition must be 
provided to allow overall interpretation. When it is difficult or 
impossible to match FTD to airplane data throughout a time history, 
differences must be justified by providing a comparison of other 
related variables for the condition being assessed.
    e. It is not acceptable to program the FTD so that the 
mathematical modeling is correct only at the validation test points. 
Unless noted otherwise, tests must represent airplane performance 
and handling qualities at operating weights and centers of gravity 
(CG) typical of normal operation. If a test is supported by aircraft 
data at one extreme weight or CG, another test supported by aircraft 
data at mid-conditions or as close as possible to the other extreme 
is necessary. Certain tests that are relevant only at one extreme CG 
or weight condition need not be repeated at the other extreme. The 
results of the tests for Level 6 are expected to be indicative of 
the device's performance and handling qualities throughout all of 
the following:
    (1) The airplane weight and CG envelope;
    (2) The operational envelope; and
    (3) Varying atmospheric ambient and environmental conditions--
including the extremes authorized for the respective airplane or set 
of airplanes.
    f. When comparing the parameters listed to those of the 
airplane, sufficient data must also be provided to verify the 
correct flight condition and airplane configuration changes. For 
example, to show that control force is within the parameters for a 
static stability test, data to show the correct airspeed, power, 
thrust or torque, airplane configuration, altitude, and other 
appropriate datum identification parameters must also be given. If 
comparing short period dynamics, normal acceleration may be used to 
establish a match to the airplane, but airspeed, altitude, control 
input, airplane configuration, and other appropriate data must also 
be given. If comparing landing gear change dynamics, pitch, 
airspeed, and altitude may be used to establish a match to the 
airplane, but landing gear position must also be provided. All 
airspeed values must be properly annotated (e.g., indicated versus 
calibrated). In addition, the same variables must be used for 
comparison (e.g., compare inches to inches rather than inches to 
centimeters).
    g. The QTG provided by the sponsor must clearly describe how the 
FTD will be set up and operated for each test. Each FTD subsystem 
may be tested independently, but overall integrated testing of the 
FTD must be accomplished to assure that the total FTD system meets 
the prescribed standards. A manual test procedure with explicit and 
detailed steps for completing each test must also be provided.
    h. For previously qualified FTDs, the tests and tolerances of 
this attachment may be used in subsequent continuing qualification 
evaluations for any given test if the sponsor has submitted a 
proposed MQTG revision to the NSPM and has received NSPM approval.
    i. FTDs are evaluated and qualified with an engine model 
simulating the airplane data supplier's flight test engine. For 
qualification of alternative engine models (either variations of the 
flight test engines or other manufacturer's engines) additional 
tests with the alternative engine models may be required. This 
attachment contains guidelines for alternative engines.
    j. Testing Computer Controlled Aircraft (CCA) simulators, or 
other highly augmented airplane simulators, flight test data is 
required for the Normal (N) and/or Non-normal (NN) control states, 
as indicated in this attachment. Where test results are independent 
of control state, Normal or Non-normal control data may be used. All 
tests in Table B2A require test results in the Normal control state 
unless specifically noted otherwise in the Test Details section 
following the CCA designation. The NSPM will determine what tests 
are appropriate for airplane simulation data. When making this 
determination, the NSPM may require other levels of control state 
degradation for specific airplane tests. Where Non-normal control 
states are required, test data must be provided for one or more Non-
normal control states, and must include the least augmented

[[Page 39668]]

state. Where applicable, flight test data must record Normal and 
Non-normal states for:
    (1) Pilot controller deflections or electronically generated 
inputs, including location of input; and
    (2) Flight control surface positions unless test results are not 
affected by, or are independent of, surface positions.
    k. Tests of handling qualities must include validation of 
augmentation devices. FTDs for highly augmented airplanes will be 
validated both in the unaugmented configuration (or failure state 
with the maximum permitted degradation in handling qualities) and 
the augmented configuration. Where various levels of handling 
qualities result from failure states, validation of the effect of 
the failure is necessary. Requirements for testing will be mutually 
agreed to between the sponsor and the NSPM on a case-by-case basis.
    l. Some tests will not be required for airplanes using airplane 
hardware in the FTD flight deck (e.g., ``side stick controller''). 
These exceptions are noted in Section 2 ``Handling Qualities'' in 
Table B2A of this attachment. However, in these cases, the sponsor 
must provide a statement that the airplane hardware meets the 
appropriate manufacturer's specifications and the sponsor must have 
supporting information to that fact available for NSPM review.
    m. For objective test purposes, see Appendix F of this part for 
the definitions of ``Near maximum,'' ``Light,'' and ``Medium'' gross 
weight.

End QPS Requirements

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin Information

    n. In those cases where the objective test results authorize a 
``snapshot test'' or a ``series of snapshot test results'' in lieu 
of a time-history result, the sponsor or other data provider must 
ensure that a steady state condition exists at the instant of time 
captured by the ``snapshot.'' The steady state condition must exist 
from 4 seconds prior to, through 1 second following, the instant of 
time captured by the snap shot.
    o. Refer to AC 120-27, ``Aircraft Weight and Balance;'' and FAA-
H-8083-1, ``Aircraft Weight and Balance Handbook'' for more 
information.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

End Information

[[Page 39669]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.157


[[Page 39670]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.158


[[Page 39671]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.159


[[Page 39672]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.160


[[Page 39673]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.161


[[Page 39674]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.162


[[Page 39675]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.163


[[Page 39676]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.164


[[Page 39677]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.165


[[Page 39678]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.166


[[Page 39679]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.167


[[Page 39680]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.168


[[Page 39681]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.169


[[Page 39682]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.170


[[Page 39683]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.171


[[Page 39684]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.172


[[Page 39685]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.173


[[Page 39686]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.174


[[Page 39687]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.175


[[Page 39688]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.176


[[Page 39689]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.177


[[Page 39690]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.178


[[Page 39691]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.179


[[Page 39692]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.180


[[Page 39693]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.181


[[Page 39694]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.182


[[Page 39695]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.183


[[Page 39696]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.184


[[Page 39697]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.185


[[Page 39698]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.186


[[Page 39699]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.187


[[Page 39700]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.188


[[Page 39701]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.189


[[Page 39702]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.190


[[Page 39703]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.191


[[Page 39704]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.192


[[Page 39705]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.193


[[Page 39706]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.194


[[Page 39707]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.195


[[Page 39708]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin Information

3. For Additional Information on the Following Topics, Please Refer to 
Appendix A, Attachment 2, and the Indicated Paragraph Within That 
Attachment

     Control Dynamics, paragraph 4.
     Motion System, paragraph 6.
     Sound System, paragraph 7.
     Engineering Simulator Validation Data, paragraph 9.
     Validation Test Tolerances, paragraph 11.
     Validation Data Road Map, paragraph 12.
     Acceptance Guidelines for Alternative Engines Data, 
paragraph 13.
     Acceptance Guidelines for Alternative Avionics, 
paragraph 14.
     Transport Delay Testing, paragraph 15.
     Continuing Qualification Evaluation Validation Data 
Presentation, paragraph 16.

End Information

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Alternative Objective Data for FTD Level 5

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin QPS Requirements

    a. This paragraph (including the following tables) is relevant 
only to FTD Level 5. It is provided because this level is required 
to simulate the performance and handling characteristics of a set of 
airplanes with similar characteristics, such as normal airspeed/
altitude operating envelope and the same number and type of 
propulsion systems (engines).
    b. Tables B2B through B2E reflect FTD performance standards that 
are acceptable to the FAA. A sponsor must demonstrate that a device 
performs within these parameters, as applicable. If a device does 
not meet the established performance parameters for some or for all 
of the applicable tests listed in Tables B2B through B2E, the 
sponsor may use NSP accepted flight test data for comparison 
purposes for those tests.
    c. Sponsors using the data from Tables B2B through B2E must 
comply with the following:
    (1) Submit a complete QTG, including results from all of the 
objective tests appropriate for the level of qualification sought as 
set out in Table B2A. The QTG must highlight those results that 
demonstrate the performance of the FTD is within the allowable 
performance ranges indicated in Tables B2B through B2E, as 
appropriate.
    (2) The QTG test results must include all relevant information 
concerning the conditions under which the test was conducted; e.g., 
gross weight, center of gravity, airspeed, power setting, altitude 
(climbing, descending, or level), temperature, configuration, and 
any other parameter that impacts the conduct of the test.
    (3) The test results become the validation data against which 
the initial and all subsequent continuing qualification evaluations 
are compared. These subsequent evaluations will use the tolerances 
listed in Table B2A.
    (4) Subjective testing of the device must be performed to 
determine that the device performs and handles like an airplane 
within the appropriate set of airplanes.

End QPS Requirements

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin Information

    d. The reader is encouraged to consult the Airplane Flight 
Simulator Evaluation Handbook, Volumes I and II, published by the 
Royal Aeronautical Society, London, UK, and AC 25-7, Flight Test 
Guide for Certification of Transport Category Airplanes, and AC 23-
8A, Flight Test Guide for Certification of Part 23 Airplanes, as 
amended, for references and examples regarding flight testing 
requirements and techniques.

End Information

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 39709]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.196


[[Page 39710]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.197


[[Page 39711]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.198


[[Page 39712]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.199


[[Page 39713]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.200


[[Page 39714]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.201


[[Page 39715]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.202


[[Page 39716]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.203


[[Page 39717]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.204


[[Page 39718]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.205


[[Page 39719]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.206


[[Page 39720]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.207


[[Page 39721]]



End QPS Requirements

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin QPS Requirements

5. Alternative Data Sources, Procedures, and Instrumentation: Level 6 
FTD Only

    a. Sponsors are not required to use the alternative data 
sources, procedures, and instrumentation. However, a sponsor may 
choose to use one or more of the alternative sources, procedures, 
and instrumentation described in Table B2F.

End QPS Requirements

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin Information

    b. It has become standard practice for experienced FTD 
manufacturers to use such techniques as a means of establishing data 
bases for new FTD configurations while awaiting the availability of 
actual flight test data; and then comparing this new data with the 
newly available flight test data. The results of such comparisons 
have, as reported by some recognized and experienced simulation 
experts, become increasingly consistent and indicate that these 
techniques, applied with appropriate experience, are becoming 
dependably accurate for the development of aerodynamic models for 
use in Level 6 FTDs.
    c. In reviewing this history, the NSPM has concluded that, with 
proper care, those who are experienced in the development of 
aerodynamic models for FTD application can successfully use these 
modeling techniques to acceptably alter the method by which flight 
test data may be acquired and, when applied to Level 6 FTDs, does 
not compromise the quality of that simulation.
    d. The information in the table that follows (Table of 
Alternative Data Sources, Procedures, and Information: Level 6 FTD 
Only) is presented to describe an acceptable alternative to data 
sources for Level 6 FTD modeling and validation, and an acceptable 
alternative to the procedures and instrumentation found in the 
flight test methods traditionally accepted for gathering modeling 
and validation data.
    (1) Alternative data sources that may be used for part or all of 
a data requirement are the Airplane Maintenance Manual, the Airplane 
Flight Manual (AFM), Airplane Design Data, the Type Inspection 
Report (TIR), Certification Data or acceptable supplemental flight 
test data.
    (2) The NSPM recommends that use of the alternative 
instrumentation noted in Table B2F be coordinated with the NSPM 
prior to employment in a flight test or data gathering effort.
    e. The NSPM position regarding the use of these alternative data 
sources, procedures, and instrumentation is based on three primary 
preconditions and presumptions regarding the objective data and FTD 
aerodynamic program modeling.
    (1) Data gathered through the alternative means does not require 
angle of attack (AOA) measurements or control surface position 
measurements for any flight test. AOA can be sufficiently derived if 
the flight test program insures the collection of acceptable level, 
unaccelerated, trimmed flight data. Angle of attack may be validated 
by conducting the three basic ``fly-by'' trim tests. The FTD time 
history tests should begin in level, unaccelerated, and trimmed 
flight, and the results should be compared with the flight test 
pitch angle.
    (2) A simulation controls system model should be rigorously 
defined and fully mature. It should also include accurate gearing 
and cable stretch characteristics (where applicable) that are 
determined from actual aircraft measurements. Such a model does not 
require control surface position measurements in the flight test 
objective data for Level 6 FTD applications.
    f. Table B2F is not applicable to Computer Controlled Aircraft 
FTDs.
    g. Utilization of these alternate data sources, procedures, and 
instrumentation does not relieve the sponsor from compliance with 
the balance of the information contained in this document relative 
to Level 6 FTDs.
    h. The term ``inertial measurement system'' allows the use of a 
functional global positioning system (GPS).

End Information

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

                                Table B2F
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Alternative Data Sources, Procedures, and Intrumentation Level 6 FTD
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 QPS Requirements  The standards in this table are       Information
 required if the data gathering methods described  ---------------------
    in paragraph 9 of Appendix B are not used.
---------------------------------------------------
                                Alternative data            Notes
Objective test reference No.  sources, procedures,
          and title            and instrumentation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.b.1. Performance. Takeoff.  Data may be acquired  This test is
 Ground acceleration time.     through a             required only if
                               synchronized video    RTO is sought.
                               recording of a stop
                               watch and the
                               calibrated airplane
                               airspeed indicator.
                               Hand-record the
                               flight conditions
                               and airplane
                               configuration.
1.b.7. Performance. Takeoff.  Data may be acquired  This test is
 Rejected takeoff.             through a             required only if
                               synchronized video    RTO is sought.
                               recording of a stop
                               watch and the
                               calibrated airplane
                               airspeed indicator.
                               Hand-record the
                               flight conditions
                               and airplane
                               configuration.
1.c.1. Performance. Climb.    Data may be acquired
 Normal climb all engines      with a synchronized
 operating.                    video of calibrated
                               airplane
                               instruments and
                               engine power
                               throughout the
                               climb range.
1.f.1. Performance. Engines.  Data may be acquired
 Acceleration.                 with a synchronized
                               video recording of
                               engine instruments
                               and throttle
                               position.
1.f.2. Performance. Engines.  Data may be acquired
 Deceleration.                 with a synchronized
                               video recording of
                               engine instruments
                               and throttle
                               position.
2.a.1.a. Handling qualities.  Surface position      For airplanes with
 Static control tests. Pitch   data may be           reversible control
 controller position vs.       acquired from         systems, surface
 force and surface position    flight data           position data
 calibration.                  recorder (FDR)        acquisition should
                               sensor or, if no      be accomplished
                               FDR sensor, at        with winds less
                               selected,             than 5 kts.
                               significant column
                               positions
                               (encompassing
                               significant column
                               position data
                               points), acceptable
                               to the NSPM, using
                               a control surface
                               protractor on the
                               ground. Force data
                               may be acquired by
                               using a hand held
                               force gauge at the
                               same column
                               position data
                               points.

[[Page 39722]]

 
2.a.2.a. Handling qualities.  Surface position      For airplanes with
 Static control tests. Wheel   data may be           reversible control
 position vs. force and        acquired from         systems, surface
 surface position              flight data           position data
 calibration.                  recorder (FDR)        acquisition should
                               sensor or, if no      be accomplished
                               FDR sensor, at        with winds less
                               selected,             than 5 kts.
                               significant wheel
                               positions
                               (encompassing
                               significant wheel
                               position data
                               points), acceptable
                               to the NSPM, using
                               a control surface
                               protractor on the
                               ground. Force data
                               may be acquired by
                               using a hand held
                               force gauge at the
                               same wheel position
                               data points.
2.a.3.a. Handling qualities.  Surface position      For airplanes with
 Static control tests.         data may be           reversible control
 Rudder pedal position vs.     acquired from         systems, surface
 force and surface position    flight data           position data
 calibration.                  recorder (FDR)        acquisition should
                               sensor or, if no      be accomplished
                               FDR sensor, at        with winds less
                               selected,             than 5 kts.
                               significant rudder
                               pedal positions
                               (encompassing
                               significant rudder
                               pedal position data
                               points), acceptable
                               to the NSPM, using
                               a control surface
                               protractor on the
                               ground. Force data
                               may be acquired by
                               using a hand held
                               force gauge at the
                               same rudder pedal
                               position data
                               points.
2.a.4. Handling qualities.    Breakout data may be
 Static control tests.         acquired with a
 Nosewheel steering force.     hand held force
                               gauge. The
                               remainder of the
                               force to the stops
                               may be calculated
                               if the force gauge
                               and a protractor
                               are used to measure
                               force after
                               breakout for at
                               least 25% of the
                               total displacement
                               capability.
2.a.5. Handling qualities.    Data may be acquired
 Static control tests.         through the use of
 Rudder pedal steering         force pads on the
 calibration.                  rudder pedals and a
                               pedal position
                               measurement device,
                               together with
                               design data for
                               nosewheel position.
2.a.6. Handling qualities.    Data may be acquired
 Static control tests. Pitch   through
 trim indicator vs. surface    calculations.
 position calibration.
2.a.8. Handling qualities.    Data may be acquired
 Static control tests.         through the use of
 Alignment of power lever      a temporary
 angle vs. selected engine     throttle quadrant
 parameter (e.g., EPR, N1,     scale to document
 Torque, Manifold pressure).   throttle position.
                               Use a synchronized
                               video to record
                               steady state
                               instrument readings
                               or hand-record
                               steady state engine
                               performance
                               readings.
2.a.9. Handling qualities.    Use of design or
 Static control tests. Brake   predicted data is
 pedal position vs. force.     acceptable. Data
                               may be acquired by
                               measuring
                               deflection at
                               ``zero'' and at
                               ``maximum''.
2.c.1. Handling qualities.    Data may be acquired  Power change
 Longitudinal control tests.   by using an           dynamics test is
 Power change force.           inertial              acceptable using
                               measurement system    the same data
                               and a synchronized    acquisition
                               video of the          methodology.
                               calibrated airplane
                               instruments,
                               throttle position,
                               and the force/
                               position
                               measurements of
                               flight deck
                               controls.
2.c.2. Handling qualities.    Data may be acquired  Flap/slat change
 Longitudinal control tests.   by using an           dynamics test is
 Flap/slat change force.       inertial              acceptable using
                               measurement system    the same data
                               and a synchronized    acquisition
                               video of calibrated   methodology.
                               airplane
                               instruments, flap/
                               slat position, and
                               the force/position
                               measurements of
                               flight deck
                               controls.
2.c.4. Handling qualities.    Data may be acquired  Gear change dynamics
 Longitudinal control tests.   by using an           test is acceptable
 Gear change force.            inertial              using the same data
                               measurement system    acquisition
                               and a synchronized    methodology.
                               video of the
                               calibrated airplane
                               instruments, gear
                               position, and the
                               force/position
                               measurements of
                               flight deck
                               controls.
2.c.5. Handling qualities.    Data may be acquired
 Longitudinal control tests.   through use of an
 Longitudinal trim.            inertial
                               measurement system
                               and a synchronized
                               video of flight
                               deck controls
                               position
                               (previously
                               calibrated to show
                               related surface
                               position) and
                               engine instrument
                               readings.

[[Page 39723]]

 
2.c.6. Handling qualities.    Data may be acquired
 Longitudinal control tests.   through the use of
 Longitudinal maneuvering      an inertial
 stability (stick force/g).    measurement system
                               and a synchronized
                               video of the
                               calibrated airplane
                               instruments; a
                               temporary, high
                               resolution bank
                               angle scale affixed
                               to the attitude
                               indicator; and a
                               wheel and column
                               force measurement
                               indication.
2.c.7. Handling qualities.    Data may be acquired
 Longitudinal control tests.   through the use of
 Longitudinal static           a synchronized
 stability.                    video of the
                               airplane flight
                               instruments and a
                               hand held force
                               gauge.
2.c.8. Handling qualities.    Data may be acquired  Airspeeds may be
 Longitudinal control tests.   through a             cross checked with
 Stall Warning (activation     synchronized video    those in the TIR
 of stall warning device).     recording of a stop   and AFM.
                               watch and the
                               calibrated airplane
                               airspeed indicator.
                               Hand-record the
                               flight conditions
                               and airplane
                               configuration.
2.c.9.a. Handling qualities.  Data may be acquired
 Longitudinal control tests.   by using an
 Phugoid dynamics.             inertial
                               measurement system
                               and a synchronized
                               video of the
                               calibrated airplane
                               instruments and the
                               force/position
                               measurements of
                               flight deck
                               controls.
2.c.10. Handling qualities.   Data may be acquired
 Longitudinal control tests.   by using an
 Short period dynamics.        inertial
                               measurement system
                               and a synchronized
                               video of the
                               calibrated airplane
                               instruments and the
                               force/position
                               measurements of
                               flight deck
                               controls.
2.c.11. Handling qualities.   May use design data,
 Longitudinal control tests.   production flight
 Gear and flap/slat            test schedule, or
 operating times.              maintenance
                               specification,
                               together with an
                               SOC.
2.d.2. Handling qualities.    Data may be acquired
 Lateral directional tests.    by using an
 Roll response (rate).         inertial
                               measurement system
                               and a synchronized
                               video of the
                               calibrated airplane
                               instruments and the
                               force/position
                               measurements of
                               flight deck lateral
                               controls.
2.d.3. Handling qualities.    Data may be acquired
 Lateral directional tests.    by using an
 (a) Roll overshoot. OR (b)    inertial
 Roll response to flight       measurement system
 deck roll controller step     and a synchronized
 input.                        video of the
                               calibrated airplane
                               instruments and the
                               force/position
                               measurements of
                               flight deck lateral
                               controls.
2.d.4. Handling qualities.    Data may be acquired
 Lateral directional tests.    by using an
 Spiral stability.             inertial
                               measurement system
                               and a synchronized
                               video of the
                               calibrated airplane
                               instruments; the
                               force/position
                               measurements of
                               flight deck
                               controls; and a
                               stop watch.
2.d.6.a. Handling qualities.  Data may be acquired
 Lateral directional tests.    by using an
 Rudder response.              inertial
                               measurement system
                               and a synchronized
                               video of the
                               calibrated airplane
                               instruments; the
                               force/position
                               measurements of
                               rudder pedals.
2.d.7. Handling qualities.    Data may be acquired
 Lateral directional tests.    by using an
 Dutch roll, (yaw damper       inertial
 OFF).                         measurement system
                               and a synchronized
                               video of the
                               calibrated airplane
                               instruments and the
                               force/position
                               measurements of
                               flight deck
                               controls.
2.d.8. Handling qualities.    Data may be acquired
 Lateral directional tests.    by using an
 Steady state sideslip.        inertial
                               measurement system
                               and a synchronized
                               video of the
                               calibrated airplane
                               instruments and the
                               force/position
                               measurements of
                               flight deck
                               controls.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 39724]]

Attachment 3 to Appendix B to Part 60--Flight Training Device (FTD) 
Subjective Evaluation

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin Information

1. Discussion

    a. The subjective tests provide a basis for evaluating the 
capability of the FTD to perform over a typical utilization period. 
The items listed in the Table of Functions and Subjective Tests are 
used to determine whether the FTD competently simulates each 
required maneuver, procedure, or task; and verifying correct 
operation of the FTD controls, instruments, and systems. The tasks 
do not limit or exceed the authorizations for use of a given level 
of FTD as described on the SOQ or as approved by the TPAA. All items 
in the following paragraphs are subject to examination.
    b. All simulated airplane systems functions will be assessed for 
normal and, where appropriate, alternate operations. Simulated 
airplane systems are listed separately under ``Any Flight Phase'' to 
ensure appropriate attention to systems checks. Operational 
navigation systems (including inertial navigation systems, global 
positioning systems, or other long-range systems) and the associated 
electronic display systems will be evaluated if installed. The NSP 
pilot will include in his report to the TPAA, the effect of the 
system operation and any system limitation.
    c. At the request of the TPAA, the NSP Pilot may assess the FTD 
for a special aspect of a sponsor's training program during the 
functions and subjective portion of an evaluation. Such an 
assessment may include a portion of a specific operation (e.g., a 
Line Oriented Flight Training (LOFT) scenario) or special emphasis 
items in the sponsor's training program. Unless directly related to 
a requirement for the qualification level, the results of such an 
evaluation would not affect the qualification of the FTD.

End Information

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 39725]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.208


[[Page 39726]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.209


[[Page 39727]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.210


[[Page 39728]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.211


[[Page 39729]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.212


[[Page 39730]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.213


[[Page 39731]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.214


[[Page 39732]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.215


[[Page 39733]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.216


[[Page 39734]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.217


[[Page 39735]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.218


[[Page 39736]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.219


[[Page 39737]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.220


[[Page 39738]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.221


[[Page 39739]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.222


[[Page 39740]]



Attachment 4 to Appendix B to Part 60--Sample Documents

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin Information

Table of Contents

Title of Sample
    Figure B4A--Sample Letter, Request for Initial, Upgrade, or 
Reinstatement Evaluation.
    Figure B4B--Attachment: FTD Information Form
    Figure B4C--Sample Letter of Compliance
    Figure B4D--Sample Qualification Test Guide Cover Page
    Figure B4E--Sample Statement of Qualification--Certificate
    Figure B4F--Sample Statement of Qualification--Configuration 
List
    Figure B4G--Sample Statement of Qualification--List of Qualified 
Tasks
    Figure B4H--Sample Continuing Qualification Evaluation 
Requirements Page
    Figure B4I--Sample MQTG Index of Effective FTD Directives

[[Page 39741]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.223


[[Page 39742]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.225


[[Page 39743]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.226


[[Page 39744]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.227


[[Page 39745]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.228


[[Page 39746]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.229


[[Page 39747]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.230


[[Page 39748]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.231


[[Page 39749]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.232


[[Page 39750]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.233


[[Page 39751]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.234


[[Page 39752]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.235


[[Page 39753]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.237


    Issued under authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 44701(a), 
44703, and Pub. L. 111-216, 124 Stat. 2348 (49 U.S.C. 44701 note) in 
Washington, DC, on June 24, 2014.
John Barbagallo,
Acting Deputy Director, Flight Standards Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-15432 Filed 7-9-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P