Flight Simulation Device Initial and Continuing Qualification and Use

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 1, 60, 61, 63, 141, and 142

[Docket No. FAA-2002-12461; Notice No. 02-11]

RIN 2120-AH07

Flight Simulation Device Initial and Continuing Qualification and Use

AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

SUMMARY:

The FAA proposes to amend the regulations to establish flight simulation device qualification requirements for all certificate holders in a new part. The basis of these requirements currently exists in different parts of the FAA's regulations and in advisory circulars, and the proposed changes would consolidate and update flight simulation device requirements. In addition, the FAA is proposing to require a Quality Assurance program. Currently, sponsors of flight simulation devices may elect to have, but are not required to have, a Quality Assurance program. The intended effect of these proposed changes is to ensure that users of flight simulation devices receive the best possible training in devices that closely match the performance and handling characteristics of the airplanes being simulated.

DATES:

Send your comments on or before December 24, 2002.

ADDRESSES:

Address your comments to the Docket Management System, U.S. Department of Transportation, Room Plaza 401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. You must identify the docket number FAA-2002-12461 at the beginning of your comments, and you should submit two copies of your comments. If you wish to receive confirmation that FAA received your comments, include a self-addressed, stamped postcard.

You may also submit comments through the Internet to

http://dms.dot.gov

. You may review the public docket containing comments to these proposed regulations in person in the Dockets Office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Dockets Office is on the plaza level of the NASSIF Building at the Department of Transportation at the above address. Also, you may review public dockets on the Internet at

http://dms.dot.gov

.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Edward Cook, National Simulator Program Staff (AFS-205), Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; telephone (404) 305-6100.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. We also invite 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. We ask that you send us two copies of written comments.

We will file in the docket all comments we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. The docket is available for public inspection before and after the comment closing date. If you wish to review the docket in person, go to the address in the

ADDRESSES

section of this preamble between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also review the docket using the Internet at the web address in the

ADDRESSES

section.

Before acting on this proposal, we will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for comments. We will consider comments filed late if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. We may change this proposal in light of the comments we receive.

If you want the FAA to acknowledge receipt of your comments on this proposal, include with your comments a pre-addressed, stamped postcard on which the docket number appears. We will stamp the date on the postcard and mail it to you.

Availability of Rulemaking Documents

You can get an electronic copy using the Internet by taking the following steps:

(1) Go to the search function of the Department of Transportation's electronic Docket Management System (DMS) web page (

http://dms.dot.gov/search

).

(2) On the search page type in the last four digits of the Docket number shown at the beginning of this notice. Click on “search.”

(3) On the next page, which contains the Docket summary information for the Docket you selected, click on the document number of the item you wish to view.

You can also get an electronic copy using the Internet through the Office of Rulemaking's web page at

http://www.faa.gov/avr/armhome.htm

or the Government Printing Office's web page at

http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aces140.html.

You can also get a copy by submitting a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680. Make sure to identify the docket number, notice number, or amendment number of this rulemaking.

Background

For many years the flightcrew training regulations in 14 CFR part 121 subparts N and O allowed simulator training as an enhancement to training and testing in the airplane, but not as a complete replacement for training in the airplane. Due to improvements in flight simulator performance, appendix H was added to part 121 in 1980. Appendix H permitted and expanded use of simulators by air carriers that took advantage of the new simulator performance through an “Advanced Simulation Training Program.” Appendix H permits simulators to be used for varying amounts (up to 100%) of the training, testing, and checking required by the FAA. The amount of training permitted depends on the simulator's qualification level.

As the state-of-the-art in simulator technology has advanced, more effective use has been made of the airplane simulator in training, checking, and certification of flightcrew members. Using flight simulators rather than airplanes in training allows for more in-depth training, including the practice of critical emergency procedures, in a safer environment. Not only do simulators provide improvements in safety and in safer training operations, they also provide such benefits as reducing noise, air pollution, and air traffic congestion, and conserving petroleum resources.

Appendix H of 14 CFR part 121 provides an Advanced Simulation plan outlining the steps towards optimum use of flight simulators. The plan consists of several phases of simulation devices and the training allowed in each simulation device level. The intent of including a phased simulation approach was to provide for certificate holders to transition to using the most technically advanced simulation training in order to achieve the maximum benefits of simulation training. Most major air

carriers have taken advantage of appendix H and conduct most or all of their training and checking in simulators.

The FAA originally placed simulator technical requirements in appendix H because part 121 air carriers were the primary users of airplane simulators. As the larger aviation community became interested in using simulators, the FAA in 1980 provided guidance in an advisory circular, AC 121-14C, Aircraft Simulator and Visual System Evaluation and Approval. The AC more fully described what the technical capabilities of simulators should be, how those capabilities might be verified, and how all these capabilities might be incorporated into training programs.

Over the next several years, the FAA in consultation with the aviation industry, refined and republished its guidance material several times. Because the regulations regarding advanced simulators remained in part 121, appendix H, certificate holders who operated under parts other than 121 (such as parts 125 and 135) had to obtain exemptions in order to use simulators as provided in part 121, appendix H. The number of these operators continued to grow.

The ability to manage the increasing number of exemptions, each one with slightly different provisions, conditions, and limitations, became increasingly difficult. The development of 14 CFR part 142, Certification of Training Centers, was seen to be a logical and necessary way to deal with those operators who wished to conduct training for flightcrew members but who did not and would not operate under any of the part 119, 121 125, or 135 passenger carrying rules. However, the regulatory requirements for the technical criteria for a majority of the simulators coming into the U.S. aviation inventory has remained in the part 121 operating rule.

As a result of the above, the FAA is proposing to remove the technical requirements for flight simulation devices (flight simulators and flight training devices) from part 121 and place them in a new part 60, titled “Flight Simulation Device Qualification.” The proposed new part 60 would establish flight simulation device (FSD) requirements that could be used by anyone who conducts flightcrew member training, evaluation, and flight experience under any of the Federal Aviation Regulations. The term FSD includes aircraft simulators and aircraft flight training devices (FTD). In short, a flight simulator is a full size replica of a specific type aircraft cockpit, including controls, a visual system, and a motion system; a flight training device is a full size replica of aircraft instruments, equipment, panels, and controls, but does not require a visual system or a motion system. (See proposed § 1.1 for complete definitions of these terms.) Under current 14 CFR Chapter I, there is no general term for these two types of devices.

General Discussion of Proposed Part 60

Proposed new part 60 would contain the requirements for the evaluation, qualification, and maintenance of FSD's. The proposed requirements are based on the current requirements on how to build and use simulators in appendix H of part 121 and in current § 121.407. In a separate rulemaking project that will follow this proposal, other portions of appendix H would be moved to a new subpart of part 121, and appendix H would be deleted.

Part 60 would also contain items (such as frequency, content, and method of evaluation) currently found in the advisory material in AC 120-40B, Airplane Flight Simulator Qualification, in AC 120-45A, Airplane Flight Training Device Qualification, and in AC 120-63, Helicopter Simulator Qualification. Standards from this advisory material and specific items that are subject to change through technological advancements would be placed into one of four appendices to part 60:

• Appendix A, “Airplane Flight Simulators Qualification Performance Standards.”

• Appendix B, “Helicopter Flight Simulators Qualification Performance Standards.”

• Appendix C, “Airplane Flight Training Devices Qualification Performance Standards.”

• Appendix D, “Helicopter Flight Training Devices Qualification Performance Standards.”

The Standards in these QPS documents are regulatory. Changes and additions to those standards would be subject to notice and comment procedures under the Administrative Procedures Act unless “good cause” {see 5 U.S.C.} exists to justify proceeding without notice and comment.

The current and proposed allowable and required uses of flight simulation devices would be in applicable operating, certification, and training center regulations in parts 61, 63, 121, 135, 141, and 142 and in the four QPS documents. The tasks approved for each qualification level would also be provided in the four QPS documents.

For a further discussion of the QPSs, see the preamble discussion on “Delegation of Authority for Standards Documents.” The remainder of this discussion of proposed part 60 explains how the proposed rules would be applied. The process described below for obtaining and maintaining FSD qualification is similar to current practice.

Obtaining and Maintaining FSD Qualification under the Proposed Rule

If a certificate holder intends to use an FSD in its training program in order for people to obtain credit toward FAA training, checking or testing requirements, the FSD must be evaluated and qualified by the FAA's National Simulator Program Manager (NSPM) or a person approved by the NSPM. The certificate holder may be the “sponsor” of the FSD. An FSD “sponsor” seeks qualification and subsequent approval for use of the FSD and agrees to assume responsibility for maintaining the FSD according to prescribed standards. The sponsor may contract with another person for services of document preparation and presentation, as well as FSD inspection, maintenance, repair, servicing, etc., but the sponsor retains ultimate responsibility for the qualification of the FSD. Other certificate holders may seek approval to use the same FSD for credit under an approved training program, but such certificate holders would not be sponsors of the FSD. “Credit” means use to meet initial and recurrent training, flight experience requirements or evaluation, such as checking and testing, etc. Although FSD's can be used for “credit” to meet certain flight experience requirements (

e.g.

, re-establishing lost recency of experience in landings), time spent in FSD's may not be “credited” toward “operating experience” requirements (

e.g.

, § 121.434).

Typically, a manufacturer produces an FSD that accurately represents the characteristics of an airplane type, model, and, if applicable, series, such as a Boeing 777-232. The sponsor buys, leases, or otherwise arranges for the use of the FSD in a specific training program, such as its Boeing 777 pilot training program for initial, upgrade, or transition training. First, the sponsor must successfully complete the required objective and subjective tests of the FSD as specified in the appropriate QPS. The findings of these tests indicate whether or not the FSD adequately represents the characteristics of the aircraft in the following areas: cockpit configuration, airplane systems and sub-systems, and performance and flying qualities. These findings also indicate whether or not the FSD adequately represents the

environment in which the aircraft actually operates.

The sponsor then applies for the NSPM evaluation. For the initial NSPM evaluation, the sponsor must allow the NSPM to test the FSD by conducting and comparing objective tests, subjective tests, and performance demonstrations with a series of specific tests conducted the same way in the aircraft. The comparison must show that the performance and flying qualities of the aircraft and FSD are the same, within established tolerances, and that the FSD functions correctly and adequately to perform its planned functions. A successful initial evaluation means that the NSPM agrees with the sponsor's findings that the FSD is an adequate representation of the aircraft.

Once the initial evaluation is successfully completed, the FAA issues a Statement of Qualification (statement). This statement indicates that the FSD is either a flight simulator or an FTD. The statement also indicates the level of qualification assigned to the FSD. Each FSD can be qualified as either a flight simulator (Level A, B, C, or D) or a flight training device (FTD) (Level 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6). The FAA is reserving the term “Level 1 FTD” for potential future use. For a further discussion of this issue, see the preamble discussion for “Conforming changes to other parts.” The statement also includes a list of all of the operations tasks or simulator systems in the subjective test appendix of the appropriate QPS for which the FSD has not been subjectively tested and for which the FSD is not qualified (

e.g.

, circling approaches, windshear training, etc.). Issuance of the statement means that the FSD: (1) Has been qualified as representative of the aircraft, or set of aircraft, as appropriate; and (2) has been qualified at a level authorized in the QPS.

A qualified FSD still cannot be used for training until it is approved for use in a certificate holder's training program in accordance with the training program regulations in parts 121, 135, 141, and 142. A certificate holder must obtain this approval from the FAA through the training program approval authority. Once the FSD has been approved for use in a training program (and the operator has been approved as the FSD sponsor), the FSD may also be approved for use in a non-sponsor's training program.

If the FSD has been evaluated and qualified and if it has been approved for use in the training program, then it may be used for credit as long as its qualification is maintained. To maintain a qualified FSD, the sponsor must comply with the following continuing qualification requirements. The sponsor must complete performance demonstrations and objective, quarterly checks of the simulator's performance and handling qualities. These quarterly checks are to be evenly spaced throughout the year and include approximately one-fourth of the performance demonstrations and validation tests in the Master Qualification Test Guide (MQTG). All of the MQTG demonstrations and tests would have to be completed annually. The sponsor must maintain the results of these quarterly checks for review by the NSPM. This review may be accomplished at any time, but regularly occurs during scheduled recurrent evaluations. The sponsor must also coordinate with the NSPM to ensure that recurrent evaluations are completed within the required interval. The NSPM conducts recurrent evaluations that consist of performance demonstrations and objective tests in the MQTG and subjective tests.

If an FSD is removed from service for moving, storage, or other purpose, the sponsor must take the additional steps proposed in the rule. In addition if the aircraft is modified to change cockpit configuration, if the certificate holder changes relevant flightcrew member duties, or if new data is developed on relevant performance characteristics, the FSD must be modified to comply with the aircraft changes and incorporate the appropriate information in order for time spent in the FSD to be credited toward meeting training, checking, testing, or experience requirements under Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

All of these requirements are explained in more detail in the section-by-section discussion below.

Section-by-Section Discussion of Proposed Part 60 and Conforming Changes to Other Parts

Part 1 Amendments

Several proposed definitions would be added to current § 1.1, including, “Flight simulation device,” “Flight simulator,” and “Flight training device.” The abbreviations “FSD” and “FTD,” for “flight simulation device” and “flight training device,” respectively, would be added to § 1.2. These terms are being added to the definitions and abbreviations in part 1 because they are used in several parts, including new proposed part 60 as well as current parts 61, 63, 121, 135, 141, and 142.

Section 60.1 Applicability

The proposed section outlines the subjects addressed in proposed part 60. Proposed paragraph (a) is based on language from the first introductory paragraph in the “Advanced Simulation” section of existing Appendix H. The proposed language states that part 60 contains requirements governing the initial and continuing qualification and use of all aircraft flight simulation devices (FSD) used for training, evaluation, or obtaining any flight experience (but not operating experience under part 121, 125, or 135) for meeting flightcrew member certification or qualification requirements.

Proposed paragraph (b) clarifies that part 60 applies to anyone who uses an FSD for flightcrew member training, qualification, or experience requirements of 14 CFR chapter I. This includes not only sponsors or owners of FSD's, but also each person who uses an FSD for training, evaluation, or obtaining flight experience required for flightcrew member certification or qualification.

Proposed paragraph (c) clarifies that the rules in proposed § 60.31 regarding falsification of applications, records, or reports apply not only to sponsors or owners of FSD's, but also to each person who uses an FSD for training, evaluation, or obtaining flight experience required for flightcrew member certification or qualification.

Section 60.2 Applicability of Sponsor Rules to Persons Who Are Not Sponsors and Who Are Engaged in Certain Unauthorized Activities

Proposed paragraph (a) proposes that the rules of this part that are addressed to FSD sponsors are also applicable to nonsponsors who inappropriately use or cause the use of an FSD. Proposed rules that are specifically addressed to sponsors included §§ 60.5(a), 60.19(a), 60.23(d), and 60.31. The purpose of § 60.2(a) would be to give the FAA a legal means by which it could charge a nonsponsor, who inappropriately uses or causes the use of an FSD, with violations of the safety rules that are directed to persons who have already become sponsors of FSDs. Because the word “person” is already defined in Part 1 of the regulations, this proposed section and all other proposed sections that refer to “person” or “persons” would apply to individuals and legal entities, including corporations, companies, and partnerships. Therefore, for example, if “Company A” made its FSD available to “Company B” with representations that the FSD was fully

qualified under Part 60, including a false representation that “Company A” was the FAA-approved sponsor for the FSD (see § 60.7(b)), then “Company A” could be charged with violating § 60.19(a). Even though § 60.19(a) directs a

sponsor

not to use or allow the use of an FSD to meet any of the requirements of the Federal Aviation Regulations unless certain requirements are met (

e.g.

, a functional “preflight” check each calendar day before the FSD is first used), “Company A” (a nonsponsor of the FSD) could also be charged with a violation of § 60.19(a) because its actions would meet the elements under proposed § 60.2(a). Meeting the elements under § 60.2(a) would make proposed § 60.19(a) applicable to Company A.

Proposed § 60.2(b) provides an example in which proposed § 60.2(a) would not apply. If an FSD manufacturer sold a FSD to an air carrier and merely made representations that the FSD was in a condition such that it should be able to obtain FAA approval and qualify as an FSD under proposed part 60, that manufacturer would not be subject to a possible violation of any proposed section directed to FSD sponsors as long as the other conditions of proposed paragraph (b) were also met. Thus, an FSD manufacturer that did not falsely claim to be the FSD's FAA-approved sponsor and did not make false representations that someone else was already FAA-approved as the FSD's sponsor and did not claim the FSD was already fully qualified under part 60 (in a case where it really was not qualified pursuant to part 60), would not be subject to § 60.2(a). Not being the FSD's sponsor and not being subject to § 60.2(a) would mean that the manufacturer would not be subject to proposed part 60 rules addressed to “sponsors.”

Section 60.3 Definitions

This proposed section contains definitions used throughout proposed part 60. The following definitions are included: “Certificate holder,” “Evaluation,” “Flight experience,” “Flight test data,” “FSD Directive,” “Master Qualification Test Guide (MQTG),” “National Simulator Program Manager (NSPM),” “Objective test,” “Predicted data,” “Qualification level,” “Qualification Performance Standard (QPS),” “Qualification Test Guide (QTG),” “Set of aircraft,” “Sponsor,” “Subjective test,” “Training Program Approval Authority (TPAA),” and “Upgrade.”

For purposes of proposed part 60 “certificate holder” refers to a person issued an operating certificate under part 119 to conduct operations under part 121 or 135, a person issued a pilot school certificate under part 141, a person issued a training center certificate under part 142, or a person that has FAA approval for a course of training for flight engineers under part 63.

For purposes of proposed part 60, flight experience means only that flight experience used to meet landing recency requirements.

As defined, an FSD Directive is a document issued by the FAA to an FSD sponsor, requiring a modification to the FSD due to a recognized safety-of-flight issue and amending the qualification basis for the FSD. There are several types of situations that might occur that would lead the FAA to issue an FSD Directive. If an aircraft manufacturer develops new data on an aircraft and the FAA decides that the new data might affect aircraft performance or handling qualities, then the FAA may issue an FSD Directive to require each sponsor of that type FSD to make a corresponding change to the FSD. Similarly, the FAA may issue an FSD Directive if a manufacturer or the FAA discovers that the existing data for an aircraft is not accurate. Also, if the FAA issues an Airworthiness Directive on a particular aircraft and the FAA determines that the change required for the aircraft would also affect aircraft performance or handling qualities, the FAA may issue an FSD Directive requiring that a change be made to each affected FSD. Each FSD Directive would be published in the

Federal Register

as an amendment to the Record of FSD Directives appendix for the appropriate QPS. In addition, each sponsor would maintain a list of FSD Directives applicable to each FSD in the Master Qualification Test Guide (MQTG) for that FSD. The list would include a record of the completion of the modification to the FSD.

As defined, an MQTG is approved individually for each FSD, not for each type of aircraft being simulated.

A definition is proposed for “set of aircraft” because traditionally an FSD has been qualified for aircraft that share similar handling and operating characteristics, share similar operating envelopes, and have the same number and type of engines or powerplants. Aircraft that meet these criteria are usually referred to as a “set of aircraft,” although the term has not previously been defined.

The term “Training Program Approval Authority” would be defined to mean a person authorized by the Administrator to approve the aircraft flight training program in which the FSD would be used. This would normally be the Principal Operations Inspector (POI), the Training Center Program Manager (TCPM), or the assigned operations inspector in the local Flight Standards District Office (FSDO).

The proposed definition for “upgrade” is “the improvement or enhancement of an FSD for the purpose of achieving a higher qualification level.” It is not considered an upgrade when a sponsor chooses to modernize some aspect of the FSD (

e.g.

, visual system, host computer, instructor operating station, etc.) without affecting the qualification level of the device.

Section 60.4 Qualification Performance Standards

Proposed § 60.4 would describe that Appendices A, B, C, and D would contain the Qualification Performance Standards for each family of flight simulation device (Airplane Flight Simulators, Helicopter Flight Simulators, Airplane Flight Training Devices, and Helicopter Flight Training Devices) and describe which appendix contains which QPS:

i.e.

, Appendix A, contains the QPS for Airplane Flight Simulators; Appendix B contains the QPS for Airplane Flight Training Devices; Appendix C contains the QPS for Helicopter Flight Simulators; and Appendix D contains the QPS for Helicopter Flight Training Devices.

Section 60.5 Quality Assurance Program

The basic precept of the quality assurance (QA) program described in this section is for the sponsor “to say what it does; to do what it says; and to keep good records.” The proposed requirement for a QA program would require each sponsor to develop a working knowledge of the requirements of part 60 and the relevant QPS document. This knowledge would be demonstrated to the NSPM through a written description of how, how often, when, where, and with what resources the sponsor's organization plans to comply with the requirements of part 60.

By having this written description, the NSPM and the sponsor would be able to compare what is actually done with what the sponsor agreed to do regarding FSD repair, modification, regular maintenance, and daily readiness. The standardization required for such satisfactory comparisons would add to the efficiency and effectiveness of the FSD. Through the reliability of the maintenance and the daily readiness provided by a sound QA program, flightcrew member training, evaluation, and flight experience would be obtained more reliably, on a planned schedule

with less interruption. Additionally, the students would more easily retain the knowledge and skills learned through such standardized, uninterrupted training.

The proposed QA Program would help provide consistent training and repetitive practice in the desirable environment of accurate and realistic simulation. Flightcrew members would be able to more readily, more directly, and more completely transfer and use in the airplane the skills and procedures learned, practiced, and reinforced in reliable FSDs. This process would yield a safer operating flightcrew and, therefore, a higher degree of safety for the traveling public.

Proposed paragraph (a) would state that a sponsor must establish and follow a quality assurance program before the sponsor can use or allow the use of an FSD for flightcrew member training or evaluation, or to obtain flight experience for a flightcrew member. Specific requirements for the quality assurance program are found in the appropriate QPS. The purpose of the quality assurance program is to ensure that the sponsor is capable of addressing their own ability to provide FSDs that continually meet the training, testing, checking, and experience requirements of their respective FAA-approved flight training program(s) and the regulatory requirements of part 60. The quality assurance program would include a complete written description of all of the procedures that the sponsor has developed for complying with all of the requirements of part 60. In addition the quality assurance program would include a regular assessment by the sponsor of the effectiveness of the sponsor's program for complying with part 60. See the “information” section of paragraph 5 in each of the QPS documents, published later in this document.

Proposed paragraph (b) would state that the sponsor is responsible for the program regardless of where the FSD is located and regardless of who the sponsor may contract with for inspection, maintenance, repair, servicing, testing, or document preparation and presentation.

Proposed paragraph (c) would state that the program must provide a means for correcting any deficiency in the program; provide a mechanism to incorporate any required or desired modification to the program; and include a means for documenting each such change or modification.

Proposed paragraph (d) would state that when the NSPM finds that the program does not contain adequate procedures and standards to meet the requirements described in this section of the rule, the NSPM may require the sponsor to make an appropriate modification to the program to correct those deficiencies. This paragraph would also state that the sponsor would have the right to appeal to the Administrator such a notification from the NSPM to modify the program. When such an appeal is filed within 30 days of the NSPM notification, the requirement to make the modification would be delayed pending a decision by the Administrator, unless an emergency involving safety of flight requires the immediate modification.

Proposed paragraph (e) would state that each sponsor of an FSD must designate one individual as the management representative (MR) for quality assurance program purposes. The individual would have to be employed by the sponsor and identified by name to the NSPM and TPAA. The MR would be the primary contact point for all matters between the sponsor and the FAA regarding the qualification of that FSD. This individual would be ultimately responsible for the initial and day-to-day qualification of the assigned FSD, although he or she may delegate certain duties associated with FSD qualification, such as maintenance, inspection, and conduct of tests. The FAA assumes that any current FSD sponsor would already have such an individual on staff.

Section 60.7 Sponsor Qualification Requirements

Proposed paragraph (a) would state that eligibility to become a sponsor is based on whether the person holds or is an applicant for a certificate under parts 119, 141, or 142 or whether the person holds or is an applicant for an approved flight engineer course under part 63. This paragraph would also require that the FSD will be used, or will be offered for use, in the sponsor's FAA-approved flight training program for the aircraft being simulated as evidenced in a request for evaluation submitted to the NSPM through the TPAA. The primary concern of the FAA regarding an FSD is whether or not the FSD will provide the proper performance and handling qualities to those who are to use it for training, evaluation, or flight experience. The FSD must provide an environment in which flightcrew members can learn, practice, and exhibit the same behavior patterns, the same control input strategies, and the same responses to input stimuli (

i.e.

, the motion, visual, sound, and instrument cueing) as they would expect to exhibit in the real environment. Pilots, instructors, and check airmen are critical in ensuring the FSD is providing what it is intended to provide. It is this group that really has “control” of the simulator and is most motivated to ensure it continues to be the appropriate tool for critical training, evaluation, and flight experience tasks. The people in this group are the first to know and in the best position to know when this is being accomplished and when it is not. In short the sponsor must be very motivated regarding the proper function of the FSD. The sponsor must be dependent on the FSD's use for its training program, with the most to lose or gain regarding the proper functioning of the FSD. It is the sponsor with whom the FAA's operational interest is most direct. Therefore, the FAA is proposing that the FSD will be used, or will be offered for use, in the sponsor's FAA-approved flight training program for the aircraft being simulated. The FAA specifically requests comments on the proposal regarding the FSD being used or offered for use in the sponsor's FAA-approved training program for the aircraft being simulated.

Under proposed paragraph (b) a person is a sponsor if the conditions under paragraph (a) continue and if the person has operations specifications for the aircraft type or set being simulated, or if the person has training specifications or a course of training authorizing the use of an FSD for that aircraft type or set. Also, the person would be required to have an approved quality assurance program in accordance with proposed § 60.5. Finally, the NSPM would have had to approve the person as a sponsor and not have withdrawn that approval.

Under proposed paragraph (c), a person would continue to be a sponsor of an FSD if (1) beginning 12 calendar months after the initial qualification and every 12 calendar months thereafter, the FSD is used in the sponsor's FAA-approved flight training program for the aircraft type or set of aircraft for a minimum of 600 hours annually and (2) the use of the FSD meets the requirements of parts 61, 63, 91, 121, or 135. The annual minimum number of hours is proposed to ensure that the sponsor retains the high level of interest needed when using and maintaining each FSD under the requirements of this part. In addition, this minimum number of hours also ensures that the time, effort, and expense incurred by the Administrator for initially and recurrently evaluating the FSD is appropriately incurred. In using the term “calendar month” the FAA is allowing flexibility in calculating these hours. For example, if an FSD was initially qualified on March 5, the

sponsor would have until March 31 of the following year to accumulate the minimum 600 hours of use for that FSD. This 600 requirement represents between 5 and 10 percent of the time the FSD could be used throughout the calendar year. For example, 24 hours in a day and 365 days in a year = 8760 hours in a year.

Proposed paragraph (c)(3) would state that if the use requirements in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) are not met, the person could continue to sponsor the FSD on a provisional basis for an additional 12 calendar months. If, during this additional 12-calendar-month period, the FSD is used as described in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2), the provisional status would be removed and regular sponsorship resumed. If, during this additional 12-calendar-month period, the FSD is not used as described in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2), the FSD would not be qualified and the sponsor could not apply to sponsor the FSD for at least 12 calendar months. This 12 month period in which a person could not sponsor an FSD is necessary to prevent a person from seeking repeated sponsorship of an FSD even though that person has no intention of using the FSD in accordance with the minimum use requirements in § 60.7. Such repeated applications would require the NSPM to expend fiscal and human resources unnecessarily.

Section 60.9 Additional Responsibilities of the Sponsor

Proposed paragraph (a) would state that the sponsor of each FSD used for flightcrew member training or evaluation under this chapter must allow the NSPM to inspect the FSD immediately, including all records and documents relating to the FSD in order to determine its compliance with proposed part 60. The proposed paragraph is similar to the second paragraph in existing Appendix H, “Advanced Simulation.” In most cases the inspection would be scheduled at a convenient time for the sponsor; however, the FAA proposes to add the word “immediately” to the regulatory language in order to provide authority for an immediate inspection, if warranted.

Proposed paragraph (b) would require each sponsor to develop a method for personnel using or performing work on the FSD (flightcrew members, instructors, check airmen, simulator technicians, and maintenance personnel) to provide comments on the FSD and its operation. The proposed paragraph would require the sponsor to examine each comment for content and importance and to take appropriate action. For example, a comment that indicates a potential malfunction or maintenance issue for the FSD would need to have follow-up action, whereas a comment on the carpet color inside the FSD would have a lower priority because it does not affect FSD performance. This requirement is intended to work in concert with the quality assurance program. It is intended as a mechanism to ensure that the sponsor knows how the FSD is operating and what must be done to maintain its usefulness.

Proposed paragraph (b) would also require that the sponsor maintain a liaison with the manufacturer of the aircraft being simulated by the FSD to facilitate compliance with § 60.13(f) when necessary.

Finally, proposed paragraph (b) would require that the sponsor post in or adjacent to the FSD the Statement of Qualification issued by the NSPM. This posting would alert users that they may not use the FSD for any specific function for which the FSD has not been qualified. For example, if the Statement of Qualification lists windshear training as a function for which the FSD has not been qualified, then the FSD may not be used for credit for windshear training.

Section 60.11 FSD Use

The introductory text of proposed § 60.11 contains language that assigns responsibility for complying with part 60 to any person who “uses,” “allows the use of,” or “offers the use of” an FSD for meeting training, evaluation, or flight experience requirements. Examples of people who “use” an FSD would be a certificate holder or an employee of the certificate holder, a flight instructor, or an individual flightcrew member. The person who “allows” or “offers” the use of an FSD would be an FSD sponsor who allows other certificate holders to use the FSD. Each flight instructor, check airman, or other evaluator is expected to be knowledgeable and aware of whether the equipment they are using is qualified for the task they are doing at that moment. This provision does not prohibit a person from using an FSD for other than meeting training, evaluation, or flight experience requirements. For example, an FSD that is not currently qualified under part 60 could be used for meeting foreign training requirements or the FSD could be demonstrated for a prospective customer.

Proposed paragraph (a) is similar to existing § 121.407(a)(1)(i). While the existing requirement states that each FSD be specifically approved for the certificate holder, the proposed paragraph would require that each FSD have a sponsor, and not more than one sponsor, who may be any person who meets the definition of “sponsor” and who is authorized under this chapter to use a qualified and approved FSD. This clarification is necessary because the current rule is not explicit regarding who the certificate holder must be. The proposed rule requires a specifically-identified certificate holder as the sponsor and sets out specific duties and responsibilities for that sponsor.

Proposed paragraph (a) is also based on existing § 121.407(b), which states that a particular airplane simulator or training device may be approved for use by more than one certificate holder. The proposed paragraph would state that other persons or certificate holders may arrange to use a sponsor's FSD that is already qualified and approved for use within an approved flight training program without an additional qualification process. (See proposed § 60.16 for specific requirements for certificate holders or other persons who wish to use a sponsor's FSD for purposes beyond what the FSD is already qualified for.) However, the sponsor would still remain responsible for ensuring that the FSD continually meets the requirements of proposed part 60 and the FSD would have to be approved separately for use in each approved training program.

Proposed paragraph (b) would state that the FSD must be qualified for the make, model, and series of aircraft or set of aircraft and for all tasks and configurations, as described in the posted Statement of Qualification required by proposed § 60.9(b)(4).

Proposed paragraph (c) would state that the FSD must remain qualified through satisfactory inspection, recurrent evaluations, appropriate maintenance, and use requirements in accordance with proposed part 60 and the appropriate QPS.

Proposed paragraph (d) would require the sponsor to ensure that the software and active programming used during regular flightcrew member training, evaluation, or flight experience is the same as that which is used during FSD evaluations. For example, it would not be acceptable to narrow the range of motion of a simulator or alter the programming, such that in actual training the range of motion or a handling characteristic such as pitch sensitivity is not the same as it was during the initial evaluation of the simulator by the NSPM. The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that people using the FSD receive the best possible training in a device that closely matches

the performance and handling characteristics of the aircraft being simulated.

Section 60.13 FSD Objective Data Requirements

Proposed paragraph (a) would require the sponsor to submit the aircraft manufacturer's flight test data to the NSPM for validating FSD performance and handling qualities during evaluation for qualification. This flight test data must come from the original certification flight tests and must include any data developed after the type certificate was issued (

e.g.

, data developed in response to an Airworthiness Directive) that incorporates a change in performance, handling qualities, functions, or other characteristics of the aircraft that must be considered during flightcrew member training, testing, or checking, or when meeting flightcrew member experience requirements. Also, this requirement would apply not only for initial qualification of an FSD, but also for subsequent recurrent evaluations of the FSD, and evaluations following any modifications to the FSD, including those made in response to an Airworthiness Directive or an FSD Directive. This is to help ensure that the FSD accurately simulates the aircraft being simulated.

Proposed paragraph (b) would state that the sponsor may submit flight test data to the NSPM from a source in addition to or independent of the aircraft manufacturer's data submitted in support of a FSD qualification. This data would have to be gathered and developed by that source in accordance with the flight test methods, including a flight test plan, as described in the appropriate QPS.

Proposed paragraph (c) would state that the sponsor may submit alternative data (such as engineering simulation or calculated or extrapolated data, etc.) acceptable to the NSPM for consideration, approval and possible use in particular applications for FSD qualification.

Proposed paragraph (d) would require that data or other material or elements must be submitted in a form and manner acceptable to the NSPM.

Proposed paragraph (e) would state that the NSPM may require additional flight testing to support certain FSD qualification requirements.

Proposed paragraph (f) would require that, when an FSD sponsor learns or is advised by an aircraft manufacturer or supplemental type certificate (STC) holder, that an addition to, an amendment to, or a revision of the data used to program and operate an FSD used in the sponsor's training program is available, the sponsor must immediately notify the NSPM. This would provide an opportunity for the NSPM to decide if action is needed to incorporate the data into that sponsor's or any other sponsor's FSD.

Section 60.14 Special Equipment and Personnel Requirements for Qualification of the FSD

The proposed new section would require that, when notified by the NSPM, the sponsor must make available all special equipment and specifically qualified personnel needed to accomplish tests during initial or recurrent evaluations.

The NSPM would notify the sponsor at least 24 hours in advance of the evaluation if special equipment or personnel would be required to conduct the evaluation. Examples of special equipment include spot photometers, flight control measurement devices, sound analyzer, etc. Examples of special personnel would be those specifically qualified to install or use any special equipment when its use is required. The purpose of this section is to ensure that the NSPM can conduct a meaningful and useful evaluation.

Section 60.15 Initial Qualification Requirements

Proposed paragraph (a) would require that a sponsor seeking an evaluation for an initial FSD qualification must submit a request to the NSPM through the training program approval authority (TPAA), who is defined in proposed § 60.3 as a person authorized by the Administrator to approve the aircraft flight training program in which the FSD will be used (normally the FAA's assigned POI or TCPM for the sponsor). The request would have to be submitted in a form and manner described in the appropriate QPS. An application for qualification under proposed part 60 would have to be submitted through the TPAA because the design of proposed part 60 is that an FSD evaluation is closely tied to its planned use in an FAA approved training program.

Proposed paragraph (b) outlines what must be included in the sponsor's request for an evaluation. Proposed paragraph (b)(1) would state that the request must include a statement that the FSD meets all of the applicable provisions of proposed part 60. Proposed paragraph (b)(2) would state that the request must include a statement that the sponsor has established a procedure to verify that the configuration of hardware and software present during the evaluation for initial qualification is maintained except where modified as authorized in proposed § 60.23. The statement must include a description of the procedure. Proposed paragraph (b)(3) would state that the request must include a statement signed by at least one pilot who meets the requirements of paragraph (c) asserting that each pilot so approved has determined that: (i) The FSD systems and sub-systems function in a manner that is equivalent to those in the aircraft or set of aircraft, (ii) the performance and flying qualities of the FSD are equivalent to those of the aircraft or set of aircraft, and (iii) for type specific FSD's, the cockpit configuration conforms to the configuration of the aircraft make, model, and series being simulated. These statements are necessary to ensure that the FSD has been thoroughly and competently assessed by the sponsor and that the assessment was done by someone who is competent to make that determination.

Proposed paragraph (b)(4) would require that the sponsor's request include a list of all of the operations tasks or simulator systems in the subjective test appendix of the appropriate QPS for which the FSD has not been subjectively tested (

e.g.

, circling approaches, windshear training, etc.) and for which qualification is not sought. This list would be required so that future or prospective users would be alerted if a particular FSD is not qualified for a particular task.

Proposed paragraph (b)(5) would require that the sponsor's request must include a qualification test guide (QTG) that includes: (i) Objective data from aircraft testing, or another approved source; (ii) correlating objective test results obtained from the performance of the FSD as prescribed in the appropriate QPS; (iii) the general FSD performance or demonstration results prescribed in the appropriate QPS; and (iv) a description of the equipment necessary to perform the evaluation for initial qualification and the recurrent evaluations for continuing qualification. The QTG is necessary to provide documentation of the results of the initial evaluation. The data will be used for comparison purposes in future recurrent evaluations.

Proposed paragraph (c) would require that, except for those FSD's previously qualified and described in § 60.17, each FSD evaluated for initial qualification would have to meet the standards that are in effect at the time of the evaluation. However, if a change to the standards (

i.e.

, tests, tolerances, or other requirements) for the evaluation for initial qualification are published by the FAA, a sponsor may request that the

NSPM apply the standards that were in effect when an FSD was ordered for delivery under certain circumstances listed in the proposal.

Proposed paragraph (d) would require that the pilot or pilots who make the statement required by paragraph (b)(3) must be designated by the sponsor and approved by the TPAA. In addition the pilot or pilots must be qualified in the aircraft or set of aircraft being simulated or, for aircraft types not yet issued a type certificate, the pilot or pilots must be qualified on an aircraft type similar in size and configuration.

Proposed paragraph (e) would require that the subjective tests that form the basis for the statements described in proposed paragraph (b)(3) and the objective tests described in proposed paragraph (b)(5) must be accomplished at the sponsor's training facility, except as provided for in the appropriate QPS. The procedures described in the QPS allow complete testing of the FSD at the manufacturer's facility but requires that this be followed by a re-test of at least a

1/3

cross-section of all tests at the training center location to ensure that any disassembly/reassembly has not affected the performance or handling qualities of the FSD as originally determined (

e.g.

; see paragraph 11(m) in the proposed Airplane Flight Simulators Qualification Performance Standards, FAA Document No. FAA-5-120-40C). If the FSD must be moved after the initial evaluation, the sponsor must follow specific procedures that allow the NSPM to require the sponsor to reaccomplish certain tests to ensure that the performance was not affected by the disassembly and reassembly.

Proposed paragraph (f) would require the person seeking to qualify the FSD to provide the NSPM with access to the FSD for the length of time necessary to complete the required evaluation of the FSD for initial qualification. This evaluation for initial qualification includes performance demonstrations, objective tests, and subjective tests, including general FSD requirements, to determine that the FSD meets the standards in the appropriate QPS.

Proposed paragraph (g) would state that a satisfactory evaluation for initial qualification results in the NSPM issuing a Statement of Qualification which would: (1) Identify the sponsor; (2) identify the make, model, and series of aircraft or set of aircraft being simulated; (3) state that the FSD is qualified as either a flight simulator or an FTD; (4) identify the configuration of the aircraft or set of aircraft being simulated,

e.g.

, engine model or models, flight instruments, navigation or other systems, etc.; (5) list all of the operations tasks or simulator systems in the subjective test appendix of the appropriate QPS for which the FSD has not been subjectively tested and for which the FSD is not qualified,

e.g.

, circling approaches, windshear training, etc.; and (6) indicate the qualification level of the FSD. All of this information would be included on the Statement of Qualification so that future or prospective users of an FSD can determine that the FSD can perform the tasks necessary for their training program.

Proposed paragraph (h) would require that after the NSPM completes the evaluation for initial qualification, the sponsor must update the QTG. The sponsor must incorporate the results of the FAA-witnessed tests and demonstrations, together with the results of all the objective tests and demonstrations described in the appropriate QPS.

Proposed paragraph (i) would provide that, upon issuance of the Statement of Qualification, the updated QTG would become the MQTG. The MQTG would have to be made available to the FAA upon request, so that the FAA can go to one source for all test results related to a specific FSD.

Section 60.16 Additional Qualifications for a Currently Qualified FSD

Proposed paragraph (a) would state the additional qualification process required if a user intends to use the FSD for meeting training, evaluation, of flight experience requirements beyond the qualification issued to the sponsor. Proposed paragraph (a) would require the sponsor to:

(i) Submit to the NSPM all modifications to the MQTG that are required to support the additional qualification; (ii) describe to the NSPM all modifications to the FSD that are required to support the additional qualification; and (iii) submit a statement to the NSPM that a pilot, designated by the sponsor and approved by the TPAA, has subjectively evaluated the FSD in those areas not previously evaluated. These requirements are necessary to ensure that training received in an FSD is adequate for a particular training program.

Proposed paragraph (a)(2) would require the FSD to successfully pass an evaluation as follows: (i) For initial qualification, in accordance with proposed § 60.15 if the NSPM has determined that a full evaluation for initial qualification is necessary; or (ii) for those elements of an evaluation for initial qualification (

e.g.

, objective tests, performance demonstrations, or subjective tests) designated as necessary by the NSPM.

Proposed paragraph (b) would require the NSPM, in making the determinations described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, to consider factors including the existing qualification of the FSD, any modifications to the FSD hardware or software that are involved, and any additions or modifications to the MQTG.

Proposed paragraph (c) would state that, except for those FSD's previously qualified and described in § 60.17, each FSD evaluated for initial qualification must meet the standards that are in effect at the time of the evaluation. However, if a change to the standards (

i.e.

, tests, tolerances, or other requirements) for the evaluation for initial qualification are published by the FAA, a sponsor may request that the NSPM apply the standards that were in effect when an FSD was ordered under certain circumstances listed in the proposal.

Proposed paragraph (d) would state that the FSD is qualified for the additional uses when the NSPM issues an amended Statement of Qualification in accordance with proposed § 60.15(f).

Proposed paragraph (e) would state that the sponsor could not modify the FSD except as described in § 60.23.

Section 60.17 Previously Qualified FSD's

Proposed paragraph (a) would state that any FSD qualified before the effective date of a final rule for part 60 will retain its qualification as long as it continues to meet the standards of its original evaluation, regardless of sponsor, and as long as the sponsor complies with the applicable provisions of proposed part 60. This requirement would be effective unless otherwise specified by an FSD Directive or unless the sponsor elects to comply with later standards, as specified in proposed paragraph (e). However, this grandfathering provision applies only to the qualification basis of the FSD. All of the use requirements in part 60, such as the sponsor responsibility for a quality assurance program and the recurrent evaluation, maintenance, and recordkeeping requirements would apply to these grandfathered FSD's.

Proposed paragraph (b) would require that sponsors of previously qualified FSD's obtain a Statement of Qualification, including the Configuration List and the Restrictions to Qualification List within six (6) years after the effective date of this rule in accordance with the procedures set out in the appropriate QPS. This is necessary so that all qualified FSD's will

have a Statement of Qualification, and the information contained therein and retained on file with the NSPM will be useful to the sponsor, potential users, and the FAA.

The FAA is allowing the grandfathering process described above to ensure a stable regulatory design for investment and use of FSD's as long as the FSD is used continually under the rules in proposed § 60.7. At the same time, the FAA wants to encourage industry to use the most up to date standards and in some cases will mandate the use of new standards by issuing an FSD Directive.

Proposed paragraph (c) would state that if the FSD qualification is lost under proposed § 60.27 and is not restored for two or more years, then the basis for requalification would be those standards in effect at the time the sponsor applies for requalification. This is important because the FAA does not want to expend resources to requalify an unused FSD using out of date standards; rather, the FAA wants to encourage industry to use the most up to date standards in the requalification process. In other words, the FAA wants to discourage new investment in old technology and expenditure of public funds to requalify old technology. However, if an FSD is continually in use, the FAA will allow the FSD to continue to operate under the original standards.

Proposed paragraph (d) would require that all changes to FSD qualification levels initiated on or after the effective date of a final rule would require an evaluation for initial qualification in accordance with part 60 unless the sponsor chooses to downgrade the FSD, as specified in proposed paragraph (e). Subsequent recurrent evaluations would use the existing MQTG, modified as necessary to reflect the new qualification level.

Proposed paragraph (f) describes the requirements when a sponsor elects to adopt tests and tolerances described in qualifications standards developed after an FSD was initially qualified. The sponsor would have to provide appropriate validation data and obtain the approval of the NSPM. The NSPM would make the updated tests and tolerances a permanent part of the QTG/MTQG.

The FAA would like to note that there is another category of training devices. Although proposed § 60.17 would not specifically disallow the use of these devices, they would not be considered FTDs under this proposal. These training devices, approved under § 61.4 for use in other than FAA-approved training programs, have been treated as Level 1 FTDs. However, because these devices were not originally qualified under FAA standards and no objective or subjective tests were required before their approval, they do not meet the proposed definition of an FTD. These devices would continue to be allowed under part 61 for certain training, evaluation, and flight experience requirements, as described under the preamble discussion for “Conforming changes to other parts.”

Section 60.19 Inspection, Recurrent Evaluation, and Maintenance Requirements

Proposed § 60.19 contains the specific requirements for conducting periodic inspections and evaluations and for maintaining FSD's. These requirements are necessary to ensure that the FSD continues to meet the standards under which it was originally qualified, so that any training, evaluation, and flight experience conducted in the FSD is reliable and adequate for meeting the objectives of the approved training program under which they occur.

Proposed paragraph (a)(1) would require that to maintain the qualification level for each FSD the sponsor must accomplish all appropriate QPS Appendix 1 performance demonstrations and all appropriate QPS Appendix 2 objective tests each year. To do this, the sponsor would be required to conduct quarterly inspections of the FSD evenly spaced throughout the year. All of the MQTG performance demonstrations and objective tests would have to be completed annually. The sequence and content of each inspection would be developed by the sponsor and submitted to the NSPM for approval. In deciding whether to approve the test sequence and the content of each inspection, the NSPM would look for a balance and a mix from the performance demonstrations and objective test requirement areas;

i.e.

, performance, handling qualities, motion system (where appropriate), visual system (where appropriate), sound system (where appropriate), and other FSD systems.

Proposed paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3) would require that to maintain the qualification level for each FSD the sponsor must ensure that the FSD be given a functional check-out, in accordance with the appropriate QPS, before each day's use, or not less than weekly when the FSD is not in use. The proposed paragraphs are similar to existing § 121.407(a)(4).

Proposed paragraph (a)(4) would state that to maintain the qualification level for each FSD the sponsor must maintain a discrepancy log. The discrepancy log would be maintained in or immediately adjacent to the FSD to advise users of the FSD of the current maintenance status and the status of each discrepancy, including the corrective action, recorded for at least the preceding 30 days. Under proposed paragraph (a)(5) the sponsor would have to ensure that, when a discrepancy is discovered, each discrepancy entry is maintained in the log until the discrepancy is corrected under the requirements of proposed § 60.25(b), and that the discrepancy entry, its corrective action, and the date the corrective action was taken remain in the log for at least 30 days after the discrepancy is corrected. Finally, the sponsor would be required to ensure that the discrepancy log be kept in a form and manner acceptable to the Administrator and must be kept in or immediately adjacent to the FSD. The proposed paragraphs are similar to existing § 121.407(a)(5).

Proposed paragraph (b) would specify the requirements for a recurrent evaluation to be conducted by the NSPM. Proposed paragraph (b)(1) would require that, with certain exceptions, a recurrent evaluation consist of performance demonstrations and objective and subjective tests in accordance with the qualification standards in effect at the time of the initial evaluation or as may be amended by an FSD Directive.

Proposed paragraph (b)(2) would require that the sponsor must coordinate with the NSPM to ensure that the FSD is evaluated within the established recurrent evaluation interval. The sponsor would have to contact the NSPM 60 days before the recurrent evaluation is due to schedule the evaluation.

Proposed paragraph (b)(3) would require that the sponsor must provide the NSPM access to the objective test results and general FSD performance or demonstration results in the MQTG and access to the FSD for the length of time necessary to complete the required recurrent evaluations. Access to the FSD would have to be provided weekdays between 6 AM and 6 PM (local time).

Proposed paragraph (b)(4) would provide that the frequency of NSPM-conducted recurrent evaluations for each FSD will be established by the NSPM and specified in the MQTG. Currently, NSPM evaluations are conducted annually. Proposed paragraph (b)(4) would allow these evaluations to be conducted at different intervals.

Proposed paragraph (b)(5) would provide that recurrent evaluations

conducted in the calendar month before or after the calendar month in which the recurrent evaluations are required will be considered to have been conducted in the calendar month in which they were required.

Proposed paragraph (b)(6) would prohibit the sponsor from using, or offering for use, an FSD for flightcrew member training or evaluation, or for obtaining flight experience under this chapter, unless the FSD has been recurrently evaluated by the NSPM within the timeframe specified in the MQTG.

Proposed paragraph (c) would state that the sponsor is responsible for not only the on-going preventive maintenance, but also for the continuing corrective maintenance. By preventive maintenance the FAA means those actions that are necessary to prevent maintenance discrepancies to the largest possible degree and to continue the FSD in proper service condition (

e.g.

, change hydraulic fluid and filters as prescribed by the manufacturer). By corrective maintenance the FAA means that the sponsor is to “repair” the device when it becomes necessary.

Section 60.20 Logging FSD Discrepancies

Proposed § 60.20 would require that each instructor, check airman, or representative of the Administrator conducting training or evaluation, or observing flight experience for flightcrew member certification or qualification, and each person conducting the preflight inspection (§ 60.19(a)(2), (3), and (4)), who discovers a discrepancy, including any missing, malfunctioning, or inoperative components in the FSD, would have to write or cause to be written a description of that discrepancy into the discrepancy log at the end of the FSD preflight or FSD use session. The FAA believes that the proposed section is important so that the sponsor will be alerted when a repair is necessary and the user will know that a particular task must not be done because any training, testing, or checking accomplished may result in incomplete or negative learning on the part of the pilot. The proposed section is similar to existing § 121.407(a)(5). Compliance with proposed § 60.20 would help FSD users comply with proposed § 60.25(a). In part, proposed § 60.25(a) provides that no person may use an FSD with a missing, malfunctioning, or inoperative component to meet any training, evaluation, or flight experience requirements for this chapter for which the correctly operating component is needed.

Section 60.21 Interim Qualification of FSD's for New Aircraft Types or Models

Proposed § 60.21 would provide for interim qualification of FSD's for new aircraft types or models under certain conditions when the final flight test data package has not been released by the aircraft manufacturer. In cases where an operator is adding a new aircraft type or model to its fleet, it may be necessary to begin training before the final flight test data is available, so that the operator can put the aircraft into service as soon as possible.

Under proposed § 60.21(a) the FSD may be eligible for interim qualification if the sponsor provides the aircraft manufacturer's predicted data, validated by a limited set of flight test data; the aircraft manufacturer's description of the prediction methodology used to develop the predicted data; and the QTG test results.

Proposed paragraph (b) states that in this situation, the interim qualification will be considered the same as initial qualification. The interim qualification would terminate one year after its issuance, if the sponsor has not applied for initial qualification using the final test data, unless the NSPM determines that specific conditions warrant otherwise. Under proposed paragraph (c), within six months of the release of the final flight test data package by the aircraft manufacturer, but no later than one year after the issuance of the interim qualification, the sponsor would have to apply for initial qualification based on the final flight test data package.

Proposed paragraph (d) states that an FSD with interim qualification may be modified only in accordance with § 60.23.

Section 60.23 Modifications to FSD's

Proposed § 60.23 outlines the circumstances under which a sponsor would have to modify an FSD and the procedural requirements the sponsor must follow for modifications. The purpose of this section is to ensure that the FSD continues to accurately simulate the aircraft and that if certain changes are made in the aircraft, the sponsor makes corresponding changes to the FSD. Proposed paragraph (a) would require that an FSD be modified when the FAA determines that the FSD cannot be used adequately for training, evaluating, or providing flight experience for flightcrew members, and when the sponsor or the FAA determines that any of the following circumstances exist:

(1) The aircraft manufacturer or another approved source develops new data regarding the performance, functions, or other characteristics of the aircraft being simulated;

(2) A change in aircraft performance, functions, or other characteristics occurs;

(3) A change in operational procedures or requirements occurs;

(4) Other circumstances as determined by the NSPM.

Proposed paragraph (b) would state that when the FAA determines that FSD modification is necessary for safety of flight reasons, then the sponsor of each affected FSD must ensure that the FSD is modified according to the FSD Directive, regardless of the FSD's original qualification standards.

Proposed paragraph (c) would set forth requirements for sponsors in notifying the NSPM and TPAA about FSD modifications. The notification would have to include a complete description of the planned modification, including a description of the operational and engineering effect the proposed modification will have on the operation of the FSD, and be submitted in a form and manner as specified in the appropriate QPS. This notification is considered important to ensure that the FAA agrees with the modification before the modification is incorporated into training. In addition, the notification would ensure that training is consistent with the latest data, changes in aircraft performance, and changes in procedures.

Proposed paragraph (d) would set forth notification requirements if the sponsor intends to do any of the following: add additional equipment or devices intended to simulate aircraft appliances; modify hardware or software that would affect flight or ground dynamics; or change the motion, visual, or control loading systems (or sound system for FSD levels requiring sound tests and measurements). In any of these cases the sponsor would have to follow paragraph (c) plus provide a statement of the results of all objective tests that have been rerun with the modification incorporated, including any necessary updates to the MQTG. These notification requirements would not apply to routine maintenance or repair, but only for modifications to the FSD. The modifications could not be implemented until the sponsor receives written approval from the NSPM, who may require that the modified FSD be evaluated for full or partial initial qualification. The NSPM would evaluate at least the newly installed or changed equipment, any device intended to simulate an aircraft appliance, the new or changed software or hardware, and any other aspect of the

original FSD that might affect or be affected by the installation or change.

Proposed paragraph (e) would state that the sponsor may not modify a qualified FSD until, for circumstances described in paragraph (b) or (d), the sponsor receives written approval from the NSPM that the modification is authorized. For circumstances other than those described in paragraph (b) or (d), if the NSPM or TPAA does not otherwise notify the sponsor within 21 days after receiving the sponsor's notification, the sponsor may modify the FSD after the 21 days have passed.

Proposed paragraph (f) would require the sponsor to notify certificate holders about modifications made to an FSD before the certificate holders' first use of the FSD after the modification.

Proposed paragraph (g) would require that each time an FSD is modified and the modification affects an objective test, then the MQTG must be updated accordingly. The MQTG should reflect current objective test results (in accordance with § 60.15(b)(4)) and appropriate flight test data (in accordance with § 60.13). If this update is initiated by the FAA, the requirement to make this modification would be found in an FSD Directive. The MQTG would also have to be updated with the direction to make these changes, along with the record of the completion of the modification.

Section 60.25 Operation With Missing, Malfunctioning, or Inoperative Components

The FAA is proposing this section because it believes that users must be alerted when an FSD has a missing, malfunctioning, or inoperative component thereby limiting its use for certain tasks, while also providing the sponsor a reasonable time period to make repairs. If a user is unaware of a missing, malfunctioning or inoperative component, the training may be incomplete or even have negative results.

Proposed paragraph (a) would limit the use of FSD's with a missing, malfunctioning, or inoperative component. This restriction would prevent the potential of incomplete or negative learning on the part of the pilot, by preventing all maneuvers, procedures, or tasks that require the use of the correctly operating component from being conducted during flight training, evaluation, or flight experience activities when that component is not present and operating correctly. Due to the fact that the typical use of a “minimum equipment list” is associated with “safety of flight operations,” which is not applicable to the use of simulation for training, testing, or checking, the FAA is not describing or requiring the use of an FSD “minimum equipment list.” Instead, the FAA believes that those who operate the FSD for credit purposes (

e.g.

, instructors, check airmen, Aircrew Program Designees, representatives of the Administrator, etc.) are familiar with the components of a normally operating aircraft for each particular task, and know that if a normally functioning component, otherwise required for that task, were to become missing, malfunctioning, or inoperative, that task would have to be omitted from the syllabus, or delayed, until such time as that component is repaired or replaced. Except as provided below, this is not intended to restrict the operation of the FSD for accomplishment of a given task when a component is missing, malfunctioning, or inoperative, if that component is listed in the airplane “minimum equipment list” and the FSD is operated as the airplane would be operated, in accordance with any requirements listed in the “minimum equipment list” and that task is accomplished through use of alternative equipment. However, if the FAA-approved training program being administered requires that the task be completed using the correctly operating component, using the provisions of a “minimum equipment list” to complete the task without that component operating properly would not be permitted under this regulation. The FAA believes that this paragraph, together with the requirements of proposed § 60.20 (that would require each person who discovers a discrepancy, including any missing, malfunctioning, or inoperative components in the FSD, would have to write or cause to be written a description of that discrepancy into the discrepancy log) is representative of the current practice in FSD's that has well served the FAA, the industry, and the individual pilot for at least two decades. The FAA has, at this time, no reason to change this practice; however, should this position be found to be deficient in some way, additional steps may have to be considered.

Proposed paragraph (b) would require that within 7 calendar days, each missing, malfunctioning, or inoperative component must be repaired or replaced, unless the NSPM requires a shorter time or authorizes a longer time. If the sponsor does not repair or replace the component within 7 calendar days (or the shorter period required or longer period authorized under paragraph (b)), the NSPM may consider taking some action, including removing the qualification of the FSD. The requirement to repair each missing, malfunctioning, or inoperative component applies not only to components that are necessary for flightcrew member training, evaluation, or flight experience, but also to all other components of the FSD.

Proposed paragraph (c) would require that missing, malfunctioning, or inoperative components must be placarded on or adjacent to the component or the control for that component in the FSD and that a list of currently missing, malfunctioning, or inoperative components must be readily available in or immediately adjacent to the FSD for review by users of the device.

Section 60.27 Automatic Loss of Qualification and Procedures for Restoration of Qualification

Proposed paragraph (a) would establish criteria that would indicate when an FSD is no longer qualified. When any of the circumstances in proposed paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(5) occur, the FSD is automatically no longer qualified, without notification by the NSPM. In these circumstances, something has happened without the FAA's knowledge that makes the FSD not qualified for training, so the FSD should not be used until the FAA can evaluate the FSD under the procedures in proposed paragraph (b).

Proposed paragraphs (b) and (c) would contain requirements for restoring FSD qualification when it is lost under proposed paragraph (a). The NSPM would determine how the FSD qualification must be restored. The NSPM determination could range from requiring no evaluation, a partial evaluation for initial qualification, or a full evaluation for initial qualification. The basis for determining the evaluation content and time required for the evaluation would include: The number of recurrent evaluations missed during the inactive period, the amount of disassembly and reassembly that was accomplished, and the care that had been taken of the device since the last evaluation and since its loss of qualification.

Section 60.29 Other Losses of Qualification and Procedures for Restoration of Qualification

Proposed § 60.29 contains the procedures to be followed when an FSD loses its qualification in circumstances other than those covered in proposed § 60.27. The purpose of this section is to allow a sponsor to officially question loss of FSD qualification before the FSD

actually loses its qualification, except in emergency situations.

Proposed paragraphs (a)(1)-(3) would set forth the procedures for the NSPM or TPAA to follow in communicating with the sponsor when an FSD no longer meets qualification standards, including written notification to the sponsor; establishing a time period in which the NSPM or TPAA may respond with written information, views, and arguments on FSD qualification; and consideration of the sponsor's arguments and notification to the sponsor of the FSD qualification.

Proposed paragraph (a)(4) would require that if the NSPM or TPAA determines that an FSD is no longer qualified, the loss of qualification would be effective 30 days after the sponsor receives notice. The exceptions to this requirement would be if the NSPM or TPAA finds under paragraph (c) of this section that there is an emergency requiring immediate action with respect to safety in air transportation or air commerce, or if the sponsor petitions for reconsideration of the NSPM or the TPAA finding under paragraph (b) of this section.

Proposed paragraph (b) would set forth the procedures for a sponsor to follow when the sponsor seeks reconsideration of the NSPM or TPAA decision regarding FSD qualification. This would include submitting a petition for reconsideration, addressed to the Director of Flight Standards Service, within 30 days after the sponsor receives notice that some or all of the FSD is no longer qualified. This petition for reconsideration would suspend the NSPM's or TPAA's determination that the FSD is no longer qualified. However, this provision would not apply if the NSPM or the TPAA finds that, under paragraph (c) of this section, an emergency exists requiring immediate action with respect to safety in air transportation or air commerce.

Proposed paragraph (c) would set forth the procedures for the NSPM or TPAA to follow if they find an emergency exists that would require immediate action with respect to safety in air transportation or air commerce; such an emergency would make the procedures set out in other parts of this section impracticable or contrary to the public interest. Proposed paragraph (c)(1) would allow the NSPM or TPAA to withdraw qualification of some or all of the FSD and make the withdrawal of qualification effective on the day the sponsor receives notice of it. Proposed paragraph (c)(2) would require that the NSPM's or TPAA's notice to the sponsor articulate the reasons for its finding that an emergency exists. The notice would have to state that such an emergency would require immediate action with respect to safety in air transportation or air commerce, or that the emergency makes it impracticable or contrary to the public interest to stay the effectiveness of the finding.

Examples of such emergencies described in proposed paragraph (c) include: A finding by the FAA that the training conducted in the FSD is or may be incomplete, inaccurate, or negative because of a specified finding of a problem with the FSD. The finding of a specific problem with the FSD could be a reasonable basis for the NSPM questioning whether or not the FSD continues to meet its qualification level. Aviation safety requires that if the FAA has a reasonable basis for questioning whether the FSD continues to meet its qualification level, that it not be used for required flightcrew member training, testing, or flight experience until its known that the FSD is qualified.

Section 60.31 Recordkeeping and Reporting

This proposed section is based on the current recordkeeping practices of FSD sponsors and is necessary to ensure that the FSD is complete and operating correctly; that problems are noted and due dates are identified for correcting malfunctions; that users are alerted to approved uses for the FSD; and that training is useful and adequate.

Proposed paragraphs (a)(1)-(3) would require the FSD sponsor to maintain the following records for each FSD: (1) The MQTG and each amendment to the MQTG; (2) A copy of the programming used during evaluation of the FSD for initial qualification or upgrade, as well as a copy of all programming changes made since the evaluation for initial qualification; (3) A copy of results of evaluations for initial and upgrade qualification; the results of the quarterly objective tests and the approved performance demonstrations, which must be kept for 2 years; the results of either the previous three recurrent evaluations or the recurrent evaluations from the previous 2 years, whichever covers a longer period; and any comments obtained under § 60.9(b)(1), which must be maintained for at least 18 months.

Proposed paragraph (a)(4) would require the FSD sponsor to maintain a record of all discrepancies entered in the discrepancy log over the previous 2 years, including a current listing of components/equipment that have become missing, malfunctioning, or inoperative; the action taken to correct the deficiency; and the date of the corrective action. The list must be available for NSPM review at any time.

This proposed requirement should not be confused with the proposed requirement in § 60.19(a)(5)(ii), where the sponsor would be required to maintain a record of the discrepancy, and the corrective action, in the discrepancy log for a period of at least 30 days. The proposal in this section would require the sponsor to maintain these records for an additional 23 months; however, the sponsor would not necessarily have to keep the records in the discrepancy log in or immediately adjacent to the FSD for more than 30 days. Wherever the sponsor elects to keep the records, they must be available for NSPM review.

Proposed paragraph (a)(5) would require the FSD sponsor to keep a record of all modifications to FSD hardware or software configurations from the initial qualification configuration.

Proposed paragraph (b) would require the FSD sponsor to keep a current record of each certificate holder using the FSD and to provide a copy of this list to the NSPM at least semiannually.

Proposed paragraph (c) states that the records specified in this section would have to be maintained in plain language form or in coded form, if the coded form provides for the preservation and retrieval of information in a manner acceptable to the NSPM. The FAA accepts and encourages the use of electronic records and reporting for all of these proposed requirements, assuming the sponsor has appropriate security or controls to prevent the illegal or inappropriate alteration of such records after the fact.

Proposed paragraph (d) would require the sponsor to submit an annual report certifying that the FSD continues to perform and handle as qualified by the NSPM. This report would have to be signed by the management representative.

Section 60.33 Applications, Logbooks, Reports, and Records: Fraud, Falsification, or Incorrect Statements

The proposed section is based on other FAA regulations addressing falsification of applications, reports, and records. The proposal is intended to ensure that a proposed sponsor or a user of an FSD understands that aviation safety requires accuracy and truthfulness in applications, reports, and records. Therefore, depending on the circumstances, there are consequences associated with falsification of applications, reports, and records.

Proposed paragraph (a) prohibits any person from making fraudulent or intentionally false statements, false entries, omissions, or fraudulent reproduction or alteration in any applications, reports, records, or test results required under proposed part 60 or the QPS, or to exercise any privileges under any other FAA regulation.

Proposed paragraph (b) would state that if any person commits any of the above acts, that person is subject to civil penalty, certificate suspension or revocation, or the removal of FSD qualification and approval for use in a training program issued under this part or QPS. The certificate suspension or revocation could apply to either an airman certificate, in a case involving an individual, or to an operating certificate, in a case involving a certificate holder.

Proposed paragraph (c) states the actions that could serve as a basis for removal of qualification of an FSD, including the withdrawal of authorization for use of an FSD or denying an application for a qualification. These actions include: (1) An incorrect statement, on which the FAA relied or could have relied, that was made in support of an application for a qualification or a request for approval for use; or (2) an incorrect entry, on which the FAA relied or could have relied, made in any logbook, record, or report that is kept, made, or used to show compliance with any requirement for an FSD qualification or an approval for use.

Section 60.35 Specific Simulator Compliance Requirements

The proposed section addresses the goal of providing complete, accurate training and evaluation of flightcrew members in a flight simulator. This proposed requirement would help ensure that all aspects of a flightcrew member's training needs will be able to be addressed competently in a flight simulator.

Proposed paragraph (a) sets forth simulator requirements that would take effect 18 months after the effective date of the final rule for proposed part 60. These proposed requirements state that the flight simulator being evaluated for initial or upgrade qualification must conform to the aircraft being simulated, and must simulate the operation of all equipment or devices intended to simulate aircraft appliances installed and operating on the aircraft. Any simulator that was qualified before that date would remain qualified; however, if the sponsor decided to upgrade the simulator for any reason, it would also have to be upgraded to comply with this paragraph.

Proposed paragraph (b) sets forth simulator requirements that would take effect 2 years after the effective date of the final rule for proposed part 60. These proposed requirements state that each flight simulator used for meeting flightcrew member training, evaluation, or flight experience requirements of this chapter for certification or qualification that cannot perform satisfactorily in ground operations, takeoff, climb, cruise, descent, approach, and landing (including normal, abnormal, and emergency landings) would no longer be qualified as a simulator. The only significant change from existing practice is the addition of landings to this list. The net effect of this added requirement would be to eliminate the use of level A simulators.

The FAA is proposing this change because landings are an essential part of complete training conducted in simulators. The concern is that level A simulators do not provide adequate training on takeoffs and landings in normal and asymmetrical thrust conditions. Sponsors of level A simulators would have the option of downgrading to an FTD or upgrading to a level B simulator within 2 years after the effective date of the final rule.

The level A simulator is the least sophisticated of today's simulator levels and is today's reference for the historic “visual” simulator that was referenced in the regulations as far back as the mid-to late 1960's, when visual systems first appeared as attachments to the (non-visual) simulators that had been used in pilot training activities up to that time.

The requirements for data applicable to simulators of this vintage, both “visual” and “non-visual,” were elementary, and relatively primitive when compared to today's standards. The two most common visual systems consisted of either a Visual Anthropomorphic Motion Picture system that projected a motion picture of the final approach course from approximately three to four miles from the approach end of the runway—sometimes, through the beginning of the missed approach; or a closed circuit television camera mounted on a movable “gondola” that provided TV pictures as the camera was “flown” over a model terrain board containing a model airport and its surrounding environment. In addition to the inherent propensity for malfunctions (e.g., the reduction of the final approach length due to continual breakage of brittle film and the resulting splicing, or the limitations of the TV cable to twist or turn and become unplugged), the “requirements” for a visual system were completely subjective and the direct projected system provided an agreeable presentation to only one pilot at a time. The guidance given was that “* * * visual systems may be approved for the specific maneuver(s), procedure(s), or function(s) requested by the applicant provided the evaluation indicates the training and checking objectives can be accomplished as well as in (the) airplane.”

Motion system requirements for visual and non-visual simulators were not as sophisticated as the requirements for a visual system. As the industry moved into the 1970's, the simulator motion system requirement stated that “* * * visual and non-visual simulators, to be approved for any of the maneuvers * * * to be performed in a simulator in lieu of the aircraft, must have motion.” Most such motion systems were either two or three degrees-of-freedom (dof), and not moving through much distance—just enough to let the occupants of the simulator know they were “moving.” While there was some effort expended in most cases to try to subjectively coordinate this simulator “movement” with what was thought to be what the pilot would feel in the airplane, there was little or no data on which to base this coordination and, therefore, no standards for such systems. Even though the industry formally acknowledged the value of a 6-dof motion system in the mid-1970's, the “standards” for motion systems had not yet pointed to a specific requirement for motion cueing or motion system operation. In fact, it wasn't until the beginning of the 1980's that any “requirements” for motion systems were formalized and published.

In the last two decades there have been two major advancements in the field of simulation. First, computer speed and capability have accelerated at a staggering rate; and second, there has been a recognition of the necessity for gathering meaningful airplane flight test data against which simulator performance and handling comparisons may be made. Computer speed and this newly acquired data have been incorporated rapidly into simulation and, overall, simulation has advanced considerably during this time period. Of significant note is that the levels of simulation that are the most affected by these advancements are the level C and level D simulators, with some, limited advancement in level B. Notably, however, there has not been an advancement in the data, nor in the data application, for the level A simulators probably due to the fact that very few new, level A simulators have been built and that it would be costly to modify current level A simulators to

incorporate the data/data applications that might be applicable.

The efficacy of training and testing using level A simulators has long been a topic of discussion among members of the industry and the FAA. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has also discussed the same topic when conducting investigations of several accidents/incidents during this same two decade period. Perhaps the most extensive discussion of this topic by the NTSB occurred during the investigation of the DC-9-14 accident at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, in September, 1985. In the report of that accident, the NTSB stated that “* * * advanced (6 dof) simulators are not available for that series DC-9 * * * (and) this results in a requirement that landing credits, which cannot be obtained in the simulator, must be acquired in the airplane.” The report went on to say, “However, the practicing of engine failure maneuvers on takeoff, are authorized in the visual flight simulator.”

The dichotomy that has existed with this position—and remains true today—is the premise that the level A simulator has sufficient performance and handling qualities, supported by data and data application (

e.g.

, for motion system response), for all takeoffs (including the engine-out takeoff), but does not have sufficient performance and handling qualities, supported by data and data application, for landing maneuvers. Since takeoffs and landings occur in the same portion of the flight envelope (in and through “ground effect”), the premise that takeoffs are supportable and landings are not supportable is clearly inconsistent. Either the data and their application are present and useable or they are not. This case is one where they are not present, and, therefore, cannot be useable.

Any authorizations must be based on the capability of the simulator to provide accurate simulation. This cannot occur without the availability of accurate data properly incorporated into the operation of the simulator.

Simplistically, an order changing the authorizations of level A simulators to disallow takeoff training, including the takeoff-with-engine-failure task, might seem to be all that is appropriate. However, the FAA is concerned that unnecessary confusion, perhaps confusion leading to misuse and possible negative training, might result. However, the FAA provides for additional levels of simulation that do not allow takeoff or landing tasks. One level of these flight training devices, FTD Level 6, equipped with a proper visual system and a proper motion system (which are not required but may be incorporated) may be authorized to conduct all of the flight training tasks that might otherwise be allowed in a “revised” approval of a level A simulator. FTDs, including those equipped with motion and/or visual systems, are not authorized for flightcrew member testing, checking, or review. Additionally, such an approach is more in line with the on-going harmonization effort currently underway with the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) in Europe for comparable simulation equipment.

Therefore, the FAA is proposing to eliminate the level A simulator from the inventory within the prescribed two year time frame described in the proposed rule.

Section 60.37 Simulator Qualification on the Basis of a Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreement (BASA)

The proposed section is based on existing Simulator Implementation Procedures, supported by existing BASAs, currently in place and others that are pending. Adding this to the rule provides the FAA with a regulatory basis for entering into such agreements for simulator evaluation/qualification purposes.

Proposed paragraph (a) would state that an evaluation or qualification of an airplane simulator by a contracting State to the Convention on International Civil Aviation for the sponsor of an aircraft simulator located in that contracting State may be used as the basis for the NSPM issuing a U.S. statement of qualification to the sponsor. A sample statement of qualification appears in the appropriate QPS, in appendix 5, figure 4. This would be in accordance with a BASA between the United States and the Contracting State that issued the qualification, and a Simulator Implementation Procedure (SIP) established under the BASA.

Proposed paragraph (b) would state that the SIP must contain any conditions and limitations on validation and issuance of such qualification by the U.S.

Conforming Changes to Parts 61, 63, 141, and 142

Because proposed part 60 contains the FAA requirements for evaluation and qualification of flight simulation devices, specific qualification requirements are no longer needed in other regulations that address the use of simulation in flightcrew member training. Therefore, changes are proposed in parts 61, 63, 141, and 142 to delete specific flight simulation device qualification requirements and substitute cross references to proposed part 60.

In addition, a number of changes are proposed for part 61 to provide for the continuing use of certain training devices that have been approved by the FAA under part 61 for use in other than FAA-approved training programs. These devices are currently designated as Level 1 flight training devices, but they do not meet the proposed definition for flight training devices in this NPRM. Under this proposed rule, these devices would retain their approval and can continue to be used for their current purposes; however, they would no longer be treated as flight training devices and would not fall under the qualification or use requirements of proposed part 60. Therefore, they would not need to follow the requirements for establishment of a quality assurance program, recurrent evaluation, maintenance, and recordkeeping. The approval for these devices is described in proposed § 61.4(b). They would be referred to as “other devices approved under § 61.4(b).” These devices could be used only for private pilot certificate and instrument rating training, evaluation, and flight experience requirements. A number of sections in part 61 would be amended to provide specific approval to use these devices for meeting certain requirements of part 61. The sections that would be amended are §§ 61.1, 61.23, 61.31, 61.51, 61.65 and 61.109.

Also, some minor clarifying changes are proposed to part 63. Section 63.39(b)(3) and Appendix C, paragraph (a)(3)(iv) refer to the activity to be accomplished “* * * in an airplane simulator, or in an approved flight engineer training device.” The FAA is proposing to use the term “appropriately equipped cockpit specific flight training device qualified in accordance with part 60 of this chapter” instead of “approved flight engineer training device” because flight training device is the term used in part 60. This should avoid confusion since part 60 describes qualification requirements for FTDs whereas “approved flight engineer training device” is not a defined term.

Delegation of Authority for Standards Documents

The FAA proposes to delegate final authority to review and issue amendments to the QPSs proposed elsewhere in this notice from the Administrator to the Director, Flight Standards Service. Specifically, these standards documents are the QPSs for: Airplane Flight Simulators; Airplane Flight Training Devices; Helicopter

Flight Simulators; and Helicopter Flight Training Devices.

The FAA anticipates that these documents will require routine changes for a variety of reasons,

e.g.

, increased knowledge about human factors, analysis of incident/accident data, and changes in aircraft or simulation technology. Because these standards will be regulatory in nature, current FAA policy provides for the Administrator to review changes before final action on them is complete. This process involves significant levels of participation in the review process by individuals at all levels of the agency.

The FAA expects that most future changes to the standards/rule sections of the QPS documents will be published in the

Federal Register

as NPRMs for public comment, just as they are published as part of this NPRM. This will be true unless “good cause” exists under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which would warrant the FAA publishing such a change to a QPS document without following the standard notice and comment procedures. Under the APA, in order for the FAA to issue a rule without following notice and comment procedures, the FAA would have to make a good cause finding that following such notice and public procedures would be impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.

The FAA does not expect that many changes to these standards documents will justify the expenditure of time and resources at the highest levels of the agency that the standard procedures for final review of rulemakings requires. Therefore, consistent with good government, the FAA proposes to streamline the process for making technical changes to these standards documents by delegating authority for final review and issuance from the Administrator to the Director, Flight Standards Service. The FAA believes that the delegation will result in more timely responses to incident/accident data and advances in aircraft or simulation technology.

Consistent with similar delegations of authority, this authority would be exercised with the concurrence of the Office of the Chief Counsel. If, at any time during the amendment process the Administrator or the Director, Flight Standards Service, determines that a proposed amendment would not be appropriate for this streamlined process, the rulemaking project would proceed in accordance with the agency's normal rulemaking procedures.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This proposal contains the following new information collection requirements. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)), the Department of Transportation has submitted the information requirements associated with this proposal to the Office of Management and Budget for its review.

Title:

Flight Simulation Device Initial and Continuing Qualification and Use.

Summary:

The FAA proposes to amend the regulations to establish flight simulation device qualification requirements for all certificate holders in a new part. The basis of these requirements currently exists in different parts of the FAA's regulations and in advisory circulars. The proposed changes would consolidate and update flight simulation device requirements.

Use of:

This proposal would support the information needs of the following initiatives under the FAA's Corporate Project, Safer Skies:

a. AFS Strategic Plan—Goal 1: Evolve to a Systems Approach for Safety Oversight.

b. AFS Business Plan Initiative 2.9: Improve the Requirements Process.

c. AFS Strategic Plan—Goal 4: Promote Positive, Responsive, and Focused Customer Relations.

d. AFS Business Plan Initiative 2.13: Continue Efforts Associated with Safer Skies—Commercial Aviation.

Respondents (including number of):

The likely respondents to this proposed information requirement are sponsors of Flight Simulation Devices. At this time, the likely number of respondents is 66.

Frequency:

The FAA estimates the 66 sponsors would have a total of 450 responses annually in the first year.

Annual Burden Estimate:

This proposal would result in an annual recordkeeping and reporting burden of 201,653 hours for the industry at a cost of $6,108,590. Out of that annual burden, however, the FAA believes that only 1,898 hours and $74,010 would be truly new; although not currently required by regulation, the industry is already doing much of what is proposed in this action. In addition to the burden stated above, there would be a one-time burden of 31,680 hours and $891,504. The recordkeeping and reporting burden is broken down into more detail as follows:

Section 60.5, Quality Assurance Program, would call for a sponsor to develop, review, and have approved by the FAA, a quality assurance program (or QAP) applicable for each flight simulation device. However, the FAA assumes that the sponsor will provide the same QAP for each FSD it sponsors. Therefore, a calculation of the time involved is on a “per sponsor” basis, rather than on a “per FSD” basis, is appropriate. The purpose of this QA program is to require the sponsor to systematically plan for and implement the requirements of part 60 and the associated QPS.

The quality assurance program would impose two types of cost on the industry and the FAA: a set-up, or one-time cost, and an annually recurring cost.

For the one-time cost on the industry side:

(1) an FSD technician and a pilot instructor would spend approximately 320 hours and 64 hours, respectively, to develop a quality assurance program:

(2) an FSD technician and a pilot instructor would spend approximately 16 hours each to work on the technical coordination of metrics for a QA program;

(3) a clerk would spend approximately 64 hours to do the paperwork associated with a QA program.

This yields a total of 31,680 hours and $891,504 for the one-time expense.

For the continuing, annual cost on the industry side:

(1) To maintain the QA program the Management Representative would spend 12 hours to do the paperwork:

(2) To maintain the QA program a clerk would spend approximately 2 hours to do the paperwork;

This yields a total of 924 hours and $33,984 for the continuing, annual expense.

Section 60.9(b)(3), Additional Responsibilities of the Sponsor, sets out a requirement for each sponsor to maintain a liaison with the manufacturer of the aircraft being simulated by the FSD. The time and costs involved would be as follows:

The Management Representative would spend 0.5 hours in drafting a letter to the manufacturer each quarter (

i.e.

, each 3 months or 4 times each year) and a clerk would spend 0.5 hours each quarter preparing the letter for mailing, for a total of 264 hours and $6,324.

Section 60.15(b), Initial Qualification Requirements, sets out the requirements for the contents of the request for evaluation and is broken into the following parts.

The request for an evaluation is a one-time event for each new FSD the sponsor wishes to include in the approved training program. Time and costs will be as follows:

(a) For the letter of request: The Management Representative, or a Pilot Instructor, would spend 0.5 hours in drafting a letter to the NSPM and a clerk

would spend 0.5 preparing the letter for mailing.

This yields 1 hour and $50.50 for each new FSD entering service with a given sponsor.

Estimates now are that approximately 70 new FSDs will enter service each year. This estimate would yield 70 hours and $3,535 each year.

(b) For the list of all operations tasks or simulated systems for which the sponsor is seeking or is not seeking qualification, the Management Representative, or a Pilot Instructor, would spend 1 hour developing the list and a clerk would spend 1.5 hours in preparing the list for attachment to the letter of request for evaluation.

This yields 2.5 hours and $108.50 for each new FSD entering service with a given sponsor. Estimates now are that approximately 70 new FSDs will enter service each year. This estimate would yield 175 hours and $7,595 each year.

(c) For the qualification test guide, an FSD technician would spend 40 hours developing the technical aspects of the qualification test guide and inserting the appropriate test results; the Management Representative or a Pilot Instructor, would spend 40 hours developing the operational aspects of the qualification test guide.

This yields 80 hours and $4,600 for each new FSD entering service with a given sponsor.

Estimates now are that approximately 70 new FSDs will enter service each year. This estimate would yield 5,600 hours and $322,000 each year.

Section 60.16, Additional Qualifications for a Currently Qualified FSD, sets out the requirements for the sponsor to submit to the NSPM a summary of all modifications to a qualified FSD if that FSD is going to be used by an additional user (other than the sponsor) for tasks not originally qualified. While it is not possible to predict with any accuracy what additional tasks might be needed beyond the qualified tasks for any FSD, the following is offered for consideration:

(a) For all additional tasks (beyond those originally qualified) that require no qualification test guide modification, the Management Representative or a pilot instructor would spend 0.5 hours in drafting a letter to the NSPM and a clerk would spend 0.5 preparing the letter for mailing. Assuming the following:

(1) That additional tasks (beyond those originally qualified) will be requested of 25% of all new FSDs and

(2) That 70 new FSDs will enter service each year.

(b) For each additional task (beyond those originally qualified) that requires qualification test guide modification, the FSD technician would spend 2.5 hours in developing an appropriate change, a clerk would spend 0.5 hours preparing the proposed change, the Management Representative or a pilot instructor would spend 0.5 hours drafting a letter to the NSPM, and a clerk would spend 0.5 hours preparing the letter for mailing. Assuming the following:

(1) That 2 additional tasks (beyond those originally qualified) will be requested on 5% of new FSDs;

(2) That 1 additional task will be requested on 20% of new FSDs and;

(3) That 70 new FSDs will enter service each year—

This yields 32 hours and $1,044.70×20%=14 FSDs with additional tasks; this yields 51 hours and $1,824.

Section 60.19, Inspection, Maintenance, and Recurrent Evaluation Requirements, requires sponsors to conduct inspections of each FSD each calendar quarter, with each such inspection addressing approximately one-fourth of the performance demonstrations and one-fourth of the objective tests required in the appropriate Qualification Performance Standard document. This inspection, conducted automatically, on modern FSDs would take an FSD technician 2 hours; and on older FSDs with more manually controlled functions, this inspection would take an FSD technician 6 hours to complete. Approximately 60% of the current 500 FSD inventory are modern FSDs and 40% are older FSDs. This yields 7,200 hours and $208,800.

This section also requires that a functional preflight check be completed prior to use each day and at least once each week when not regularly used. This preflight check would take an FSD technician 0.5 hours to complete. While it is not possible to predict with any accuracy what the frequency of use might be for any given FSD, the following is offered for consideration: Assume the following:

(1) That 70% of the qualified FSDs are used an average of 4 days each week for 42 weeks of the year and are used not more than once each week for the remainder of the 10 weeks each year;

(2) That 30% of the qualified FSDs are used an average of 6 days each week for 26 weeks, 3 days each week for 13 weeks, and not more than once each week for the remainder of the 13 weeks each year.

This yields 30,960 hours and $897,840.

This Sub-Section also requires that when a discrepancy is discovered at any time, the discrepancy and the corrective action taken must remain in the discrepancy log for at least 30 days after the discrepancy has been corrected. While it is not possible to predict accurately the frequency with which discrepancies might occur and the amount of time required to repair any given discrepancy would be directly dependent on the nature of that discrepancy, the following is offered for consideration: Assume the following:

(1) That there are an average of 2 discrepancies each week on each qualified FSD, for an average of 104 discrepancies each year on each qualified FSD;

(2) That 80% of these discrepancies is a minor discrepancy and will take an FSD technician an average of one hour to repair;

(3) That 15% of these discrepancies is moderate and will take an FSD technician an average of 4 hours to repair; and

(4) That 5% of these discrepancies is major and will take an FSD technician an average of 24 hours to repair.

It will take an FSD technician 0.25 hours to record each correction in the discrepancy log. This yields a total of 148,000 hours and $4,292,000.

This section also requires that each FSD be recurrently evaluated by the NSPM not less than once each year. This evaluation will require the time of a sponsor FSD technician and a sponsor pilot instructor. Each evaluation will require approximately 4 hours of time from both participants (time spent in the FSD) and approximately 2 additional hours of time from the sponsor's FSD technician. The FAA estimates that of the 500 FSDs currently qualified, approximately 30% are sponsored by 10% of the sponsors (large sponsor) and 70% are sponsored by 90% of the sponsors (small sponsor).

This yields a sub-total of 10 hours and $518 per FSD for each of the 30% of 500 FSDs, or a total of 10×150=1,500 hours and $518×150=$77,700.

For 90% of the sponsors (

i.e.

, small sponsors) representing 70% of the qualified FSDs: This yields a sub-total of 10 hours and $290 per FSD for each of the 70% of 500 FSDs, or a total of 10×350=3,500 hours and $290×350=$101,500. The total of the above is 5,000 hours and $179,200.

This section also requires the sponsor to contact the NSPM to schedule the FSD for the recurrent evaluation. This contact and schedule will require a clerk for the sponsor to write, fax, or e-mail the NSPM and will take 0.5 hours to gather the necessary data, complete

the contact, and arrange for the recurrent evaluation. A clerk for the NSPM will take 0.5 hours to complete the compatible schedule. With 500 FSDs this yields 0.5 hours × 500=250 hours and $ $7.50×500=$3,750.

Section 60.20, Logging FSD Discrepancies, requires that when a discrepancy is discovered at any time, the discrepancy must be written into the discrepancy log. While it is not possible to predict accurately the frequency with which discrepancies might occur, the following is offered for consideration: Assume the following:

(1) That there are an average of 2 discrepancies each week on each qualified FSD, for an average of 104 discrepancies each year on each qualified FSD.

(2) That 80% of these discrepancies are recognized by a pilot instructor and

(3) That 20% of these discrepancies are recognized by an FSD technician.

The entry of the discrepancy into the log would take 0.05 hour per entry.

The FAA estimates that of the 500 FSDs currently qualified, approximately 30% are sponsored by 10% of the sponsors (large sponsor) and 70% are sponsored by 90% of the sponsors (small sponsor). Together, this yields a total of 2600 hours and $119,860.

Section 60.23, Modifications to FSDs, describes what must be done in order to modify a qualified FSD. While it is not possible to predict accurately the frequency with which modifications might occur and the amount of time required to make any given modification would be directly dependent on the nature of that modification, the following is offered for consideration: Assume the following:

(1) There is an average of three modifications per year to 40% of the currently qualified FSDs;

(2) Two of these three modifications are minor in nature requiring review by, but not requiring written approval from, the NSPM;

(3) One of these modifications is major and requires both review and written approval from the NSPM; and

(4) One-quarter of the major modifications require NSPM on-site evaluation prior to returning the FSD to service.

The sponsor's FSD technician would take 2 hours to research and develop each required modification, followed by 0.5 hours to draft the notification the NSPM/TPAA. It would take a clerk 0.5 hours to prepare the notification for mailing. After the appropriate time or after receiving approval, it would take an FSD technician an average of 2 hours to complete each minor modification, and it would take the technician an average of 16 hours to complete each major modification.

This yields a total of 5,900 hours and $165,400.

Section 60.25, Operation with Missing, Malfunctioning, or Inoperative Components, requires that each missing, malfunctioning, or inoperative component in an FSD be placarded. While it is not possible to predict accurately the frequency with which components might become missing, might malfunction, or might not operate correctly, the following is offered for consideration: Assume the following:

(1) That an average of 2 components become missing, malfunctioning, or inoperative on each FSD each month;

(2) That it will take an FSD technician an average of 0.05 hours to placard each such component.

This yields a total of 50 hours and $1,450.

Section 60.31, Recordkeeping and Reporting, requires the sponsor to keep a record of each certificate holder using the FSD and to provide the NSPM with a copy of this record semiannually. This would take the Management Representative an average of 1.0 hour each six months (2.0 hours annually) to record this list and it would take a clerk an average of 0.5 hours to prepare this list for mailing. This yields a total of 132 hours and $5,334.

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 will 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 the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Individuals and organizations may submit comments on the information collection requirement by November 25, 2002, and should direct them to the address listed in the

ADDRESSES

section of this document.

According to the regulations implementing the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, (5 CFR 1320.8(b)(2)(vi)), an agency may not conduct or sponsor, a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control number for this information collection will be published in the

Federal Register

, after the Office of Management and Budget approves it.

International Compatibility

In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to comply with International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has reviewed the corresponding ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices and has identified no differences with these proposed regulations.

Regulatory Evaluation Summary

Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs each Federal agency proposing or adopting a regulation to first make a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act prohibits agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S. standards, this act requires agencies to consider international standards, and use them where appropriate as the basis of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs and benefits and other effects of proposed and final rules. An assessment must be prepared only for rules that impose a Federal mandate on State, local or tribal governments, or on the private sector, likely to result in a total expenditure of $100 million or more in any one year (adjusted for inflation.)

In conducting these analyses, the FAA has determined:

(1) This rule has benefits that justify its costs. This rulemaking does not impose costs sufficient to be considered “significant” under the economic standards for significance under Executive Order 12866 or under DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures. Due to public interest, however, it is considered significant under the Executive Order and DOT policy.

(2) This rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

(3) This rule has no affect on any trade-sensitive activity.

(4) This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on state, local, or

tribal governments, or on the private sector.

The FAA has placed these analyses in the docket and summarized them below.

The proposed rule for a new part 60 would contain the requirements for the evaluation, qualification, inspection, and maintenance of Flight Simulator Devices (FSDs) used for training, evaluating, or obtaining flight experience for flight crewmember certification or qualification. The proposed requirements are based on requirements in appendix H of part 121 and in the current § 121.407 as well as advisory circulars.

The estimated 10-year cost of this proposed rule would be approximately $1.9 million ($1.6 million, discounted) due to the development, review, and approval of a Quality Assurance (QA) program. The majority of the cost impact, estimated at approximately $1.3 million ($1.1 million, discounted) over a 10-year period, would be imposed on the industry. The FAA 10-year cost is estimated at approximately $571,000 ($413,000, discounted).

Based on safety considerations, the proposed rule would also eliminate the use of Level A simulators to meet flight crewmember training, evaluation, or flight experience for purposes of certification or qualification. The Level A simulator is the least sophisticated of today's simulator levels and the requirements for data applicable to simulators of this vintage are very elementary and relatively primitive when compared to today's standards for simulators. The FAA believes that all sponsors, as a result of this proposed rule, would either retire their Level A simulators or downgrade them to Level 6 Flight Training Devices at a minimal cost to the industry. The FAA believes that to upgrade to a Level B simulator would be an alternative the industry would reject because the costs ($350,000-$500,000 per simulator) to do so could not be recovered. The FAA has requested comments from the industry regarding this matter.

There are five types of safety and economic benefits of incorporating a QA program for each FSD sponsor. First, aviation safety would be better maintained because a QA program would identify, for the user and the FAA, flightcrew training problems that could or would arise due to problems with the maintenance and operation of the FSD. Second, when training is interrupted due to maintenance problems, those problems would be quickly and accurately corrected to allow the training process to resume. Third, sponsors would see cost savings due to a reduction of mistakes . Fourth, sponsors could see cost savings by having to support less frequent evaluations by NSP staff. And fifth, the FAA (and the tax payers) would realize cost savings by requiring less frequent on-site FSD evaluations; by not requiring commensurate growth of FAA personnel committed to individual evaluations of an ever-expanding fleet of FSDs; and by providing the ability to focus a more constant personnel resource on safety areas more deserving of individualized scrutiny.

Lastly, the proposed new part 60 would consolidate and update the existing FSD qualification requirements. Currently, regulations regarding advanced simulators are located in appendix H. Those who operate airplanes under other parts of the regulations and wish to use appendix H authorizations have to obtain exemptions from the certificate holding requirements of part 121 and have the appropriate simulator authorizations incorporated into their exemptions or would have to obtain a part 142 certificate. The proposed new part 60 would establish FSD requirements that could be used by any certificate holder as defined under part 60 who conducts training and evaluation, or intends to meet recent flight experience requirements. Its application, therefore, would be expanded beyond just those who operate under part 121.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Determination

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) establishes “as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor, consistent with the objective of the rule and of applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale of the business, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation.” To achieve that principle, the Act requires agencies to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the rationale for their actions. The Act covers a wide-range of small entities, including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations and small governmental jurisdictions.

Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a proposed or final rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If the determination is that it will, the agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the Act.

However, if an agency determines that a proposed or final rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, section 605(b) of the 1980 act provides that the head of the agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. The certification must include a statement providing the factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be clear.

The adoption of this proposal would impose an estimated 10-year cost of approximately $114,000 ($98,000, discounted) on approximately six small entities. Each of these sponsors would incur a one-time cost of approximately $13,000 to develop a QA program and an annual cost of approximately $600 to maintain the program. To determine the impact of the cost on these small entities, the FAA examined the relation of a small entity's annualized cost to its potential annual revenue. The FAA estimated that each flight simulation device, on average, is in use for training about 4,800 hours a year. Also, according to industry sources, most sponsors charge a minimum of $250 an hour for training in a Level B simulator. As a result, a sponsor's potential annual revenue from one Level B simulator is estimated at $1.2 million. Therefore, the annualized cost of this proposed rule for each small entity, approximately $2,300, would be considerably less than one percent of the estimated potential annual revenue ($1.2 million) for a small entity with only one Level B simulator. The FAA contends that these small entities would not be significantly impacted by the cost of this proposed rule.

Accordingly, pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the Federal Aviation Administration certifies that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The FAA solicits comments from affected entities with respect to this finding and determination and requests that all comments be accompanied by clear documentation.

International Trade Impact Assessment

The Trade Agreement Act of 1979 prohibits Federal agencies from engaging in any standards or related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Legitimate domestic objectives, such as safety, are not considered unnecessary obstacles. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards.

In accordance with the above statute, the FAA has assessed the potential effect of this proposed rule and has determined that it would have only a domestic impact and therefore create no

obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States.

Unfunded Mandates Assessment

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (the Act), enacted as Public Law 104-4 on March 22, 1995, is intended, among other things, to curb the practice of imposing unfunded Federal mandates on State, local, and tribal governments.

Title II of the Act requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency rule that may result in a $100 million or more expenditure (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate is deemed to be a “significant regulatory action.”

This proposed rule does not contain such a mandate. Therefore, the requirements of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 do not apply.

Executive Order 13132, Federalism

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

Environmental Analysis

FAA Order 1050.1D defines FAA actions that may be categorically excluded from preparation of a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) environmental impact statement. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1D, appendix 4, paragraph 4(j), this proposed rulemaking action qualifies for a categorical exclusion.

Energy Impact

The energy impact of this notice of proposed rulemaking has been assessed in accordance with the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) Public Law 94-163, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6362) and FAA Order 1053.1. It has been determined that this notice of proposed rulemaking is not a major regulatory action under the provisions of the EPCA.

List of Subjects

14 CFR Part 1

Air transportation.

14 CFR Part 60

Airmen, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

14 CFR Part 61

Aircraft, Airmen, Recreation and recreation areas, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Teachers.

14 CFR Part 63

Aircraft, Airmen, Navigation (air), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

14 CFR Part 141

Airmen, Educational facilities, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Schools.

14 CFR Part 142

Administrative practice and procedure, Airmen, Educational facilities, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Schools, Teachers.

The Proposed Amendment

The Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend parts 1, 11, 61, 63, 141 and 142 and to add part 60 to title 14, chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 1—DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS

1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read as follows:

Authority:

49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

2. Section 1.1 is amended by adding new definitions in alphabetical order to read as follows:

§ 1.1

General definitions.

Flight simulation device (FSD)

means a flight simulator or a flight training device.

Flight simulator

means a full size replica of a specific type or make, model, and series aircraft cockpit. It includes the assemblage of equipment and computer programs necessary to represent the aircraft in ground and flight operations, a visual system providing an out-of-the-cockpit view, a system that provides cues at least equivalent to those of a three-degree-of-freedom motion system, and having the full range of capabilities of the systems installed in the device as described in part 60 of this chapter and the qualification performance standards (QPS) for a specific qualification level.

Flight training device (FTD)

means a full size replica of aircraft instruments, equipment, panels, and controls in an open flight deck area or an enclosed aircraft cockpit replica. It includes the equipment and computer programs necessary to represent the aircraft or set of aircraft in ground and flight conditions having the full range of capabilities of the systems installed in the device as described in part 60 of this part and the qualification performance standard (QPS) for a specific qualification level.

3. Section 1.2 is amended by adding new abbreviations in alphabetical order to read as follows:

§ 1.2

Abbreviations and symbols.

FSD

means flight simulation device.

FTD

means flight training device.

4. Part 60 is added to subchapter D to read as follows:

PART 60—FLIGHT SIMULATION DEVICE INITIAL AND CONTINUING QUALIFICATION AND USE

Sec.

60.1

Applicability.

60.2

Applicability of sponsor rules to persons who are not sponsors and who are engaged in certain unauthorized activities.

60.3

Definitions.

60.4

Qualification Performance Standards.

60.5

Quality assurance program.

60.7

Sponsor qualification requirements.

60.9

Additional responsibilities of the sponsor.

60.11

FSD use.

60.13

FSD objective data requirements.

60.14

Special equipment and personnel requirements for qualification of the FSD.

60.15

Initial qualification requirements.

60.16

Additional qualifications for a currently qualified FSD.

60.17

Previously qualified FSD's.

60.19

Inspection, recurrent evaluation, and maintenance requirements.

60.20

Logging FSD discrepancies.

60.21

Interim qualification of FSD's for new aircraft types or models.

60.23

Modifications to FSD's.

60.25

Operation with missing, malfunctioning, or inoperative components.

60.27

Automatic loss of qualification and procedures for restoration of qualification.

60.29

Other losses of qualification and procedures for restoration of qualification.

60.31

Recordkeeping and reporting.

60.33

Applications, logbooks, reports, and records: Fraud, falsification, or incorrect statements.

60.35

Specific simulator compliance requirements.

60.37

Simulator qualification on the basis of a Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreement (BASA).

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

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

Appendix C to Part 60— Qualification Performance Standards for Helicopter Flight Simulators

Appendix D to Part 60— Qualification Performance Standards for Helicopter Flight Training Devices

Authority:

49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, and 44701.

§ 60.1

Applicability.

(a) This part prescribes the rules governing the initial and continuing qualification and use of all aircraft flight simulation devices (FSD) used for meeting training, evaluation, or flight experience requirements of this chapter for flightcrew member certification or qualification.

(b) The rules of this part apply to each person using or applying to use an FSD to meet any requirement of this chapter.

(c) The requirements of § 60.31 regarding falsification of applications, records, or reports also apply to each person who uses an FSD for training, evaluation, or obtaining flight experience required for flightcrew member certification or qualification under this chapter.

§ 60.2

Applicability of sponsor rules to persons who are not sponsors and who are engaged in certain unauthorized activities.

(a) The rules of this part, that are directed to a sponsor of an FSD, also apply to any person who uses or causes the use of an FSD when—

(1) That person knows that the FSD does not have an FAA-approved sponsor; and

(2) The use of the FSD by that person is nonetheless claimed for purposes of meeting any requirement of this chapter or that person knows or should have known that the person's acts or omissions would cause another person to mistakenly credits use of the FSD for purposes of meeting any requirement of this chapter.

(b) A situation in which paragraph (a) of this section would not apply to a person would be when each of the following conditions are met:

(1) The person sold or leased the FSD and merely represented to the purchaser or lessee that the FSD is in a condition in which it should be able to obtain FAA approval and qualification under this part;

(2) The person does not falsely claim to be the FAA-approved sponsor for the FSD;

(3) The person does not falsely make representations that someone else is the FAA-approved sponsor of the FSD at a time when that other person is not the FAA-approved sponsor of the FSD; and

(4) The person's acts or omissions do not cause another person to detrimentally rely on such acts or omissions for the mistaken conclusion that the FSD is FAA-approved and qualified under this part at the time the FSD is sold or leased.

§ 60.3

Definitions.

In addition to the definitions in part 1 of this chapter, for the purpose of this part, the following terms and definitions apply:

Certificate holder

. A person issued a certificate under parts 119, 141, or 142 of this chapter or a person holding an approved course of training for flight engineers in accordance with part 63 of this chapter.

Evaluation

. With respect to an individual, the checking, testing, or review associated with flightcrew member qualification, training, and certification under parts 61, 63, 121, or 135 of this chapter. With respect to an FSD, the qualification activities (objective and subjective tests, inspections, recurrent evaluation, etc.) associated with the requirements of this part.

Flight experience

. For purposes of this part,

flight experience

means recency of flight experience for landing credit purposes.

Flight test data

. Actual aircraft performance data collected by the aircraft manufacturer (or other supplier of data acceptable to the NSPM) during an aircraft flight test program.

FSD Directive

. A document issued by the FAA to an FSD sponsor, requiring a modification to the FSD due to a recognized safety-of-flight issue and amending the qualification basis for the FSD.

Master Qualification Test Guide (MQTG)

. The FAA-approved Qualification Test Guide with the addition of the FAA-witnessed test, performance, or demonstration results, applicable to each individual FSD.

National Simulator Program Manager (NSPM)

. The FAA manager responsible for the overall administration and direction of the National Simulator Program (NSP), or a person approved by the NSPM .

Objective test

. A quantitative comparison of simulator performance data to actual or predicted aircraft performance data to ensure that FSD performance is within the tolerances prescribed in the QPS.

Predicted data

. Aircraft performance data derived from sources other than direct physical measurement of, or flight tests on, the subject aircraft. Predicted data may include engineering analysis and simulation, design data, wind tunnel data, estimations or extrapolations based on existing flight test data, or data from other models.

Qualification level

. The categorization of the FSD, based on its demonstrated technical and operational capability as set out in the QPS.

Qualification Performance Standard (QPS)

. The collection of procedures and criteria published by the FAA to be used when conducting objective tests and subjective tests, including general FSD requirements, for establishing FSD qualification levels. The QPS are set forth in the following appendices: Appendix A, for Airplane Simulators; Appendix C, for Helicopter Simulators; Appendix B, for Airplane Flight Training Devices; and Appendix D, for Helicopter Flight Training Devices.

Qualification Test Guide (QTG)

. The primary reference document used for evaluating an aircraft FSD. It contains test results, performance or demonstration results, statements of compliance and capability, the configuration of the aircraft simulated, and other information for the evaluator to assess the FSD against the applicable regulatory criteria.

Set of aircraft

. Aircraft that share similar handling and operating characteristics and similar operating envelopes and have the same number and type of propulsion systems (

i.e.

, engines, or engine and propeller/rotor combinations).

Sponsor

. A certificate holder who seeks or maintains FSD qualification and is responsible for the prescribed actions as set out in this part and the QPS for the appropriate FSD and qualification level.

Subjective test

. A qualitative comparison to determine the extent to which the FSD performs and handles like the aircraft being simulated.

Training Program Approval Authority (TPAA)

. A person authorized by the Administrator to approve the aircraft flight training program in which the FSD will be used.

Upgrade

. The improvement or enhancement of an FSD for the purpose of achieving a higher qualification level.

§ 60.4

Qualification Performance Standards.

The Qualification Performance Standards (QPS) are published in Appendices to this part as follows:

(a) Appendix A contains the QPS for Airplane Flight Simulators.

(b) Appendix B contains the QPS for Airplane Flight Training Devices.

(c) Appendix C contains the QPS for Helicopter Flight Simulators.

(d) Appendix D contains the QPS for Helicopter Flight Training Devices.

§ 60.5

Quality assurance program.

(a) After [date 6 months after effective date of the final rule], no sponsor may use or allow the use of or offer the use of an FSD for flightcrew member training or evaluation or for obtaining flight experience to meet any requirement of this chapter unless the sponsor has established and follows a quality assurance (QA) program, approved by the NSPM, for the continuing surveillance and analysis of the sponsor's performance and effectiveness in providing a satisfactory FSD for use on a regular basis as described in the appropriate QPS.

(b) The QA program must provide a process for identifying deficiencies in the program and for documenting how the program will be changed to address these deficiencies.

(c) Whenever the NSPM finds that the QA program does not adequately address the procedures necessary to meet the requirements of this part, the sponsor must, after notification by the NSPM, change the program so the procedures meet the requirements of this part.

(d) Each sponsor of an FSD must identify to the NSPM and to the TPAA, by name, one individual, who is an employee of the sponsor, to be the management representative (MR) and the primary contact point for all matters between the sponsor and the FAA regarding the qualification of that FSD as provided for in this part.

§ 60.7

Sponsor qualification requirements.

(a) A person is eligible to apply to be a sponsor of an FSD if the following conditions are met:

(1) The person holds, or is an applicant for, a certificate under part 119, 141, or 142 of this chapter; or holds, or is an applicant for, an approved flight engineer course in accordance with part 63 of this chapter.

(2) The FSD will be used, or will be offered for use, in the sponsor's FAA-approved flight training program for the aircraft being simulated as evidenced in a request for evaluation submitted to the NSPM through the TPAA.

(b) A person is a sponsor of the FSD if the following conditions are met:

(1) The person is a certificate holder under part 119, 141, or 142 of this chapter or has an approved flight engineer course in accordance with part 63 of this chapter.

(2) The person has operations specifications authorizing the use of the aircraft type or set of aircraft being simulated by the FSD or has training specifications or a course of training authorizing the use of an FSD for that aircraft type or set of aircraft.

(3) The person has an approved quality assurance program in accordance with § 60.5.

(4) The NSPM has approved the person as the sponsor of the FSD and that approval has not been withdrawn by the FAA.

(c) A person continues to be a sponsor of an FSD, if the following conditions are met:

(1) Beginning 12 calendar months after the initial qualification of the FSD and every 12 calendar months thereafter, the FSD must have been used within the sponsor's FAA-approved flight training program for the aircraft type or set of aircraft for a minimum of 600 hours.

(2) The use of the FSD described in paragraph (c )(1) of this section must be dedicated to meeting the requirements of parts 61, 63, 91, 121, or 135 of this chapter.

(3) If the use requirements of paragraphs (c )(1) and (2) of this section are not met, the person will continue to sponsor the FSD on a provisional basis for an additional period not longer than 12 calendar months; and—

(i) If the FSD is used as described in paragraphs (c )(1) and (2) of this section within this additional 12 calendar month period, the provisional status will be removed and regular sponsorship resumed; or

(ii) If the FSD is not used as described in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section within the additional 12 calendar month period, the FSD is not qualified and the sponsor will not be eligible to apply to sponsor that FSD for at least 12 calendar months.

§ 60.9

Additional responsibilities of the sponsor.

(a) The sponsor must allow the NSPM upon request to inspect immediately the FSD, including all records and documents relating to the FSD, to determine its compliance with this part. If the sponsor fails to allow the NSPM to inspect the FSD, and all records and documents relating to the FSD, the sponsor may not allow the FSD to be used for flightcrew member training or evaluation or for obtaining flight experience to meet any of the requirements under this chapter.

(b) The sponsor must, for each FSD—

(1) Establish a mechanism for the following persons to provide comments regarding the FSD and its operation and provide for receipt of those comments:

(i) Flightcrew members recently completing training or evaluation or recently obtaining flight experience in the FSD;

(ii) Instructors and check airmen using the FSD for training, evaluation, or flight experience sessions; and

(iii) Simulator technicians and maintenance personnel performing work on the FSD.

(2) Examine each comment received under paragraph (b)(1) of this section for content and importance and take appropriate action.

(3) Maintain a liaison with the manufacturer of the aircraft, or the holder of the aircraft type certificate for the aircraft if the manufacturer is out of business, being simulated by the FSD to facilitate compliance with § 60.13(f) when necessary.

(4) Post in or adjacent to the FSD the Statement of Qualification issued by the NSPM.

§ 60.11

FSD use.

No person may use or allow the use of or offer the use of an FSD for flightcrew member training or evaluation or for obtaining flight experience to meet any of the requirements under this chapter unless, in accordance with the QPS for the specific device, the FSD—

(a) Has a single sponsor who is qualified under § 60.7. The sponsor may arrange with another person for services of document preparation and presentation, as well as FSD inspection, maintenance, repair, and servicing; however, the sponsor remains responsible for ensuring that these functions are conducted in a manner and with a result of continually meeting the requirements of this part.

(b) Is qualified as described in the Statement of Qualification that is required to be posted pursuant to § 60.9(b)(4)—

(1) For the make, model, and series of aircraft or set of aircraft; and

(2) For all tasks and configurations.

(c) Remains qualified, through satisfactory inspection, recurrent evaluations, appropriate maintenance, and use requirements in accordance with this part and the appropriate QPS.

(d) Functions during the training, evaluation, or flight experience with the same software and active programming that was evaluated by the NSPM.

§ 60.13

FSD objective data requirements.

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, for the purposes of validating FSD performance and handling qualities during evaluation for qualification, the sponsor must submit to the NSPM the aircraft manufacturer's flight test data including all data developed after the type certificate was issued (

e.g.

, data developed in response to an airworthiness directive) if such data results from a change in performance, handling qualities, functions, or other

characteristics of the aircraft that must be considered for flightcrew member training, evaluation, or for meeting experience requirements of this chapter.

(b) The sponsor may submit flight test data from a source in addition to or independent of the aircraft manufacturer's data to the NSPM in support of an FSD qualification, but only if this data is gathered and developed by that source in accordance with flight test methods, including a flight test plan, as described in the appropriate QPS.

(c) The sponsor may submit predicted data, data from pilot owner or pilot operating manuals, or data from public domain sources acceptable to the NSPM for consideration, approval and possible use in particular applications for FSD qualification.

(d) Data or other material or elements must be submitted in a form and manner acceptable to the NSPM.

(e) The NSPM may require additional flight testing to support certain FSD qualification requirements.

(f) When an FSD sponsor learns, or is advised by an aircraft manufacturer or supplemental type certificate (STC) holder, that an addition to, an amendment to, or a revision of the data used to program and operate an FSD used in the sponsor's training program is available, the sponsor must immediately notify the NSPM.

§ 60.14

Special equipment and personnel requirements for qualification of the FSD.

When notified by the NSPM, the sponsor must make available all special equipment and specifically qualified personnel needed to accomplish or assist in the accomplishment of tests during initial, recurrent, or special evaluations.

§ 60.15

Initial qualification requirements.

(a) For each FSD, the sponsor must submit a request through the TPAA to have the NSPM evaluate the FSD for initial qualification at a specific level. The request must be submitted in the form and manner described in the appropriate QPS.

(b) The request must include all of the following:

(1) A statement that the FSD meets all of the applicable provisions of this part and all applicable provisions of the QPS.

(2) A statement that the sponsor has established a procedure to verify that the configuration of hardware and software present during the evaluation for initial qualification will be maintained, except where modified as authorized in § 60.23. The statement must include a description of the procedure.

(3) A statement signed by at least one pilot who meets the requirements of paragraph (c) of this section asserting that each pilot so approved has determined that the following requirements have been met:

(i) The FSD systems and sub-systems function equivalently to those in the aircraft or set of aircraft.

(ii) The performance and flying qualities of the FSD are equivalent to those of the aircraft or set of aircraft.

(iii) For type specific FSD's, the cockpit configuration conforms to the configuration of the aircraft make, model, and series being simulated.

(4) A list of all of the operations tasks or simulator systems in the subjective test appendix of the appropriate QPS for which the FSD has not been subjectively tested (

e.g.

, circling approaches, windshear training, etc.) and for which qualification is not sought.

(5) A qualification test guide (QTG) that includes all of the following:

(i) Objective data obtained from aircraft testing or another approved source.

(ii) Correlating objective test results obtained from the performance of the FSD as prescribed in the appropriate QPS.

(iii) The result of FSD performance demonstrations prescribed in the appropriate QPS.

(iv) A description of the equipment necessary to perform the evaluation for initial qualification and the recurrent evaluations for continuing qualification.

(c) Except for those FSD's previously qualified and described in § 60.17, each FSD evaluated for initial qualification must meet the standard that is in effect at the time of the evaluation. However—

(1) If the FAA publishes a change to the existing standard or publishes a new standard for the evaluation for initial qualification, a sponsor may request that the NSPM apply the standard that was in effect when an FSD was ordered for delivery if the sponsor—

(i) Within 30 days of the publication of the change to the existing standard or publication of the new standard, notifies the NSPM that an FSD has been ordered;

(ii) Requests that the standard in effect at the time the order was placed be used for the evaluation for initial qualification; and

(iii) The evaluation is conducted within 24 months following the publication of the change to the existing standard or publication of the new standard, unless circumstances beyond the control of the sponsor prevent the evaluation from occurring within that time.

(2) This notification must include a description of the FSD; the anticipated qualification level of the FSD; the make, model, and series of aircraft simulated; and any other pertinent information.

(3) Any tests, tolerances, or other requirements that are current at the time of the evaluation may be used during the initial evaluation, at the request of the sponsor, if the sponsor provides acceptable updates to the required qualification test guide.

(4) The standards used for the evaluation for initial qualification will be used for all subsequent evaluations of the FSD.

(d) The pilot or pilots who make the statement required by paragraph (b)(3) of this section must—

(1) Be designated by the sponsor;

(2) Be approved by the TPAA; and

(3) Be qualified in—

(i) The aircraft or set of aircraft being simulated; or

(ii) For aircraft types not yet issued a type certificate, an aircraft type similar in size and configuration.

(e) The subjective tests that form the basis for the statements described in paragraph (b)(3) of this section and the objective tests referenced in paragraph (b)(5) of this section must be accomplished at the sponsor's training facility except as provided for in the appropriate QPS.

(f) The person seeking to qualify the FSD must provide the NSPM access to the FSD for the length of time necessary for the NSPM to complete the required evaluation of the FSD for initial qualification, which includes the conduct and evaluation of objective and subjective tests, including general FSD requirements, as described in the appropriate QPS, to determine that the FSD meets the standards in that QPS.

(g) When the FSD passes an evaluation for initial qualification, the NSPM issues a Statement of Qualification that includes all of the following:

(1) Identification of the sponsor.

(2) Identification of the make, model, and series of the aircraft or set of aircraft being simulated.

(3) Identification of the configuration of the aircraft of set or aircraft being simulated (

e.g.

, engine model or models, flight instruments, navigation or other systems, etc.).

(4) A statement that the FSD is qualified as either a flight simulator or a flight training device.

(5) Identification of the qualification level of the FSD.

(6) A list of all of the operations tasks or simulator systems in the subjective test appendix of the appropriate QPS for which the FSD has not been subjectively

tested and for which the FSD is not qualified (

e.g.

, circling approaches, windshear training, etc.).

(h) After the NSPM completes the evaluation for initial qualification, the sponsor must update the QTG, with the results of the FAA-witnessed tests and demonstrations together with the results of all the objective tests and demonstrations described in the appropriate QPS.

(i) Upon issuance of the Statement of Qualification the updated QTG becomes the MQTG and must be made available to the FAA upon request.

§ 60.16

Additional qualifications for a currently qualified FSD.

(a) A currently qualified FSD is required to undergo an additional qualification process if a user intends to use the FSD for meeting training, evaluation, or flight experience requ

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.