Flight Simulation Training Device Initial and Continuing Qualification and Use

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 1, 11, 60, and 121

[Docket No. FAA-2002-12461; Amendment Nos. 1-54, 11-52, 60-1, 121-327]

RIN 2120-AH07

Flight Simulation Training Device Initial and Continuing Qualification and Use

AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final Rule.

SUMMARY:

The FAA is amending the regulations to establish a new part to set forth qualification requirements for flight simulation training devices (FSTD). The new part consolidates and updates FSTD requirements that currently exist in different parts of the FAA's regulations and in advisory circulars. In addition, the FAA is requiring that sponsors of FSTDs have a Quality Management System. These changes are necessary to promote standardization and accountability for FSTD qualification, maintenance, and evaluation. The intended effect of the new part is to ensure that users of FSTDs receive training in devices that closely match the performance and handling characteristics of the aircraft being simulated.

EFFECTIVE DATE:

These amendments become effective October 30, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ed Cook, Air Transportation Division (AFS-200), Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 100 Hartsfield Centre Parkway, Suite 400, Atlanta, GA 30354; telephone: 404-832-4700.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Availability of Rulemaking Documents

You can get an electronic copy using the Internet by:

(1) Searching the Department of Transportation's electronic Docket Management System (DMS) Web page (

http://dms.dot.gov/search

);

(2) Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at

http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/;

or

(3) Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.

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

Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act statement in the

Federal Register

published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit

http://dms.dot.gov.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996 requires FAA to comply with small entity requests for information or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its jurisdiction. If you are a small entity and you have a question regarding this document, you may contact its local FAA official, or the person listed under

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

You can find out more about SBREFA on the Internet at

http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/sbre_act/.

Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.

This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, subpart I, 49 U.S.C. 44701. Under that section, the FAA is charged with regulating air commerce in a way that best promotes safety.

Background

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

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

Since 1980 appendix H of 14 CFR part 121 has provided an Advanced Simulation plan outlining the steps toward optimum use of flight simulators. Most major air carriers have taken advantage of appendix H and conduct most or all of their training and checking in simulators.

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

Over the next several years following publication of AC 121-14C, the FAA, in consultation with the aviation industry, refined and republished its guidance material several times. Because the regulations regarding advanced simulators remained in part 121, appendix H, certificate holders who operated under parts other than 121 (such as parts 125 and 135) had to obtain exemptions in order to use simulators as provided in part 121, appendix H. The number of these operators has continued to grow.

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

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

The FAA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for part 60 and related amendments on September 25, 2002, (67 FR 60284) and published a correction to the NPRM on October 25, 2002 (67 FR 65524). From December 2 until December 13, 2002, the FAA hosted an on-line public forum, which provided an opportunity for the public to answer specific questions posed by the FAA and allowed the FAA to respond with clarifying information. After an extension requested by commenters, the comment period closed on February 24, 2003.

In the NPRM the FAA proposed to remove the technical requirements for flight simulation devices (FSD) (flight simulators and flight training devices) from part 121 and place them in a new part 60, titled “Flight Simulation Device Initial and Continuing Qualification and Use.” The NPRM proposed to establish FSTD requirements for anyone conducting flight crewmember training, evaluation, and flight experience under any of the Federal Aviation Regulations.

Flight Simulation Device Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC)

In order to resolve comments and provide a forum for the FAA and the aviation community to discuss issues regarding Flight Simulation Training Devices (FSTDs), the FAA established the Flight Simulation Device Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) on July 2, 2003. The ARC included participants from: Air Line Pilots Association, Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, American Airlines, Alteon, Atlas Air, Boeing, CAE Electronics, Continental Airlines, Delta Air Lines, Federal Express, FlightSafety International, Northwest Airlines, Pan Am Flight Academy, Thales Training and Simulation, United Airlines, U.S. Airways, and FAA.

The general goal of the ARC was to provide advice, guidance, and recommendations on FSTD issues including, but not limited to, safety of flight; the suitability and the application of the simulation to flight crewmember training, testing, or checking activities; and implementation of technical changes or scientific advancements in simulation. The ARC provided a forum for the FAA and affected members of the aviation community to discuss issues. The ARC also allowed members of the aviation community to reach consensus on certain recommendations that would be submitted to the FAA and to develop resolutions to facilitate the evolution of FSTDs. The ARC's initial task was to review the FAA's September 25, 2002, proposed rule. On November 24, 2003, the ARC submitted to the FAA its recommendations on how the proposed rule language should be clarified and reorganized. After the FAA received recommendations from the ARC the comment period was reopened on February 10, 2004, to permit interested persons to review these recommendations and submit additional comments. The recommendations from the ARC are available online at

http://dms.dot.gov

by searching for entry 84 in docket number FAA-2002-12461. The comment period closed on March 11, 2004. The overwhelming majority of the clarifications and revisions contained in the final rule are consistent with the ARC recommendations.

Summary of the Final Rule

New part 60 contains the requirements for the evaluation, qualification, and maintenance of FSTDs. These requirements are based on the current guidance regarding the capability and performance of simulators in appendix H of part 121 and § 121.407. As part of this rulemaking project, the FAA has amended appendix H of part 121 and removed the Simulator Requirements and the Visual Requirements for Level B, C and D devices. These requirements are now outlined in the appropriate Qualification Performance Standards (QPS) appendices. In a separate rulemaking project that will follow this final rule, the FAA will propose to move Training and Checking Requirements of appendix H to a new subpart of part 121, and to delete appendix H.

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

•

Appendix A

, “Qualification Performance Standards for Airplane Full Flight Simulators.”

•

Appendix B

, “Qualification Performance Standards for Airplane Flight Training Devices.”

•

Appendix C

, “Qualification Performance Standards for Helicopter Full Flight Simulators.”

•

Appendix D

, “Qualification Performance Standards for Helicopter Flight Training Devices.”

In addition, the FAA has reorganized and clarified some material from the original NPRM into two appendices,

Appendix E

, “Qualification Performance Standards for Quality Management Systems for Flight Simulation Training Devices,” and

Appendix F

, “Definitions and Abbreviations.” Appendix E will become the single appendix for reference to Quality Management System (QMS) programs for FSTDs under this part. Appendix F will become the single appendix for definitions and abbreviations for terms used throughout part 60 and the QPS appendices.

Some of the terms and abbreviations listed in the new appendix F and added to part 1 are clarifications of terms that appeared in the September 25, 2002, NPRM. For example, FSD has been replaced with the more internationally compatible term—FSTD. The term FSTD more accurately addresses the full range of uses for these devices as addressed in part 60 and also harmonizes with the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) of Europe. In addition, to more appropriately describe the devices, the term Flight Simulator has been changed to Full Flight Simulator (FFS). Another clarification the FAA has made with respect to terms and definitions is that the Quality Assurance Program (QAP) is now called a QMS.

The QPS requirements in appendices A through E are regulatory. Future changes and additions to these standards are subject to notice and comment rulemaking procedures under the Administrative Procedure Act, unless “good cause” (see 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B)) exists to justify proceeding without notice and comment. In addition, the FAA has issued FAA Order 1110.136, “Flight Simulation Device Aviation Rulemaking Committee.”

What Action Is the Agency Taking?

The FAA is adding part 60 to Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations to establish qualification requirements for flight simulation training devices (FSTD). These requirements are based on the current requirements found in appendix H of part 121 and § 121.407 for the capability and performance of aircraft simulators. The new rule also incorporates certain existing practices that were previously described in the following Advisory Circulars: AC 120-40B, Airplane Flight Simulator Qualification, AC 120-45A, Airplane Flight Training Device Qualification, and AC 120-63, Helicopter Simulator Qualification.

Why Is the Rule Necessary?

The rule is necessary to promote standardization and accountability for FSTD maintenance, qualification and evaluation for use in an FAA approved flight training program. FSTDs are often used in lieu of aircraft to train and check individuals for purposes of issuing airmen certificates and ratings. FSTDs are also used to meet FAA air carrier training requirements for flight crewmembers. In fact, depending on the status of the airman and the sophistication of the device, an FSTD may be used for 100% of the training, testing, and checking required by the FAA. Training in an FSTD is most effective when the FSTD closely matches the performance and handling characteristics of the aircraft being simulated. This rule sets forth the regulatory process for establishing the qualification level of the FSTD and for the continuous review and inspection of FSTD performance to identify potential problems with FSTD maintenance and operation. The new rule will improve flight crewmember training, reduce operational errors and increase safety. It will also provide the standards that must be reached in order for a device to be qualified at a certain level (

i.e.

, Level A, B, C, or D Simulators and Level 4, 5, or 6 Training Devices).

Generally speaking, the amount of training and testing that can be conducted in an FSTD for the purpose of meeting FAA airmen certification or training requirements is directly proportional to the qualification level of the device. Thus, a device with a higher qualification level (

e.g.

, Level D) will be eligible for more certification and training credits than a device with a lower qualification level (

e.g.

, Level A).

Qualification Performance Standards (QPS)

One of the unique features of the part 60 rule is the incorporation of QPS. The QPS is an appendix to the regulation and outlines requirements and other information regarding the qualification, performance, evaluation and maintenance of FSTDs. The QPS contains several charts. Some of the charts prescribe regulatory requirements, while others outline general information and examples to assist the user in meeting the regulatory requirements.

The charts containing regulatory material are labeled “QPS Requirements.” Compliance with the criteria in these charts is mandatory in order to receive and maintain approval from the FAA for the qualification level and use of an FSTD. Changes to a QPS Requirement are subject to notice and comment rulemaking procedures under the Administrative Procedure Act, unless “good cause” (see 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B)) exists to justify proceeding without notice and comment. The charts containing general information and examples are labeled “Information.” Compliance with the material contained in these charts is not mandatory, and changes to an Information section are generally not subject to notice and comment rulemaking procedures. The Information charts are included simply to provide additional guidance to the user.

Incorporating both the regulatory and advisory material into the QPS consolidates all of the relevant information and makes it available in one location. This promotes ease of use and greater uniformity among those involved in every aspect of FSTD performance, including manufacturers, airmen, training providers and regulators. Moreover, it gives greater insight to the regulated community regarding the FAA's intent behind the regulation, and the required and approved methods of compliance.

Comments

The FAA received 54 comments in response to the NPRM. Commenters included industry associations, airlines, training centers and schools, aircraft manufacturers, simulator and flight training device manufacturers, pilot associations, governmental organizations, and individuals. The major concerns of the commenters were harmonization of FAA standards with those of International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and the JAA, the cost of complying with the new requirements, grandfathering existing simulators and other flight training devices, the requirement for a Quality Assurance Program (QAP), and the proposed requirements to be approved by the FAA as an FSTD “sponsor.”

The FAA reviewed all comments. They are more fully explained in the Discussion section to follow. With respect to the major concerns raised by commenters, the FAA took the following actions:

• Revised certain sections of the QPS Requirements to incorporate ICAO/JAA standards that were within the scope of the original NPRM. Changes that are beyond the scope will be incorporated in future revisions to the QPS Requirements.

• Revised certain requirements where appropriate in order to reduce costs. The FAA notes, however, that part 60 is largely a codification of existing practices, and therefore, the agency does not anticipate that sponsors will incur many new or additional costs. The FAA's cost projection is outlined in the Regulatory Evaluation.

• Excluded Levels 2 and -3 Flight Training Devices from this rulemaking effort. The FAA will review its existing advisory material and determine the best method to continue to evaluate and qualify these devices.

• Replaced the QAP proposal with a Quality Management System (QMS). The QMS is significantly less costly than the proposed QAP.

• Eliminated the 600-hour annual use requirement for sponsorship eligibility. Persons are now permitted to sponsor an FSTD as long as the device is used at least once per year in an FAA approved training program, or at least once per year a pilot, appropriately qualified on the aircraft being simulated, flies the FSTD and confirms that the performance and handling qualities are like the aircraft.

Many other detailed comments of an editorial nature were also provided. These are not included in the summary, but have been carefully reviewed by the FAA in preparing the Final Rule. In addition, the specific comments on the QPS appendices are not summarized in the Final Rule summary, but have been carefully reviewed and incorporated, where appropriate, into the Final Rule. The FAA made certain changes to the QPS appendices from the proposed language to include technical corrections and clarifications that did not adversely affect safety and were within the scope of the NPRM. There were other technical changes that the FAA did not incorporate into this final rule because they were beyond the scope of the NPRM. The FAA will issue another NPRM to incorporate the changes that were beyond the scope of the original NPRM, and will incorporate these changes before the rule becomes effective. All of the comments are available for review at

http://dms.dot.gov.

The Docket Number is 12461.

Abbreviations Used in this Preamble

AC Advisory Circular

ALPA Airline Pilots Association

AOPA Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association

ARC Aviation Rulemaking Committee

ATA Air Transport Association

ATOS Air Transportation Oversight System

CBT Computer Based Training

DPE Designated Pilot Examiner

EASA European Aviation Safety Authority (formerly Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA)

FFS Full Flight Simulator

FOQA Flight Operations Quality Assurance

FSB Flight Safety Boeing

FSD Flight Simulation Device

FSDO Flight Standards District Office

FSI FlightSafety International

FSTD Flight Simulation Training Device

FTD Flight Training Device

ICAO International Civil Aviation Organization

MQTG Master Qualification Test Guide

MR Management Representative

NAFI National Association of Flight Instructors

NATA National Air Transport Association

NBAA National Business Aviation Association

NDB Non-Directional Beacon

NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

NSP National Simulator Program

NSPM National Simulator Program Manager

POI Principal Operations Inspector

QPS Qualification Performance Standards

QAP Quality Assurance Program

QMS Quality Management System

QS Quality System

QTG Qualification Test Guide

RAA Regional Airline Association

SITC Simulation and Instrument Training Center, Inc.

SOQ Statement of Qualification

TCPM Training Center Program Managers

Thales Thales Training & Simulation

TPAA Training Program Approval Authority

UA United Airlines

UAA University Aviation Association

UPS United Parcel Service

General Issues

General Comments

Eclipse, NLX Corporation, JAA, and an individual, applaud and appreciate the FAA's attempt to amend the regulations for FSTDs. JAA writes that the “proposal takes care of the legal concern that regulations in this area have to have a mandatory basis * * * and it concentrates all related material in one document.” This commenter states that this proposal did not address the latest modifications applied to the ICAO Manual and questions if using an FSTD instead of an aircraft would be made mandatory. An individual writes that simplification and consolidation of these regulations are appropriate and more detailed regulations and device inspection will force flight training schools to improve and that “somewhat of a loophole” in flight training in flight simulators and flight training devices would be closed. NLX indicates that these new regulations are a step forward in the overall process of FSTD qualifications. An individual believes that statistics proving that the use of simulator training has reduced aviation accidents or incidents are needed.

FAA Response:

This final rule does not mandate the use of FSTDs instead of aircraft for training. This rule simply establishes FSTD qualification requirements. The FAA is developing an NPRM that proposes to revise the QPS appendices to achieve the desired level of harmonization.

Disposition of Level 7 Flight Training Devices

Regional Airline Association states that the preamble should discuss the disposition of Level 7 FTDs.

FAA Response:

The original premise for the Level 7 FTD was that there was to be an aircraft entering service that would not have an “on-set motion cue” with the failure of an engine, and that the pilots training in an FSTD for that airplane type could be trained and checked on such an engine failure without requiring a force (motion) cueing system. The FAA determined that a Level C simulator aerodynamic data package would be required for the level 7 FTD to accurately simulate such an aircraft. However, the airplane never entered service and the requirements for the Level 7 FTD quickly became superfluous. Level 6 and Level 7 FTDs had the same authorizations (except for one area involving “icing accountability”), but the Level 7 FTD continued to require significantly more aerodynamic data for no more value than the Level 6 FTD. The elimination of the Level 7 FTD does not preclude any Level 6 FTD from incorporating a Level C data package and having essentially the same kind of device as the originally described Level 7 device. However, there has been essentially no difference between the two levels in authorized use, and it made little sense to continue with a Level 7 FTD when there was little difference between a Level 6 and Level 7 FTD.

The FAA is considering future rulemaking to develop standards for Level 7 FTDs for helicopters. Any new requirements would be subject to notice and comment.

Rule vs. QPS

Continental asserts that there is a conflict between the rule and the Qualification Performance Standards (QPS). Continental states that the rule addresses a number of technical issues that would be best delegated to the QPS, and also notes that parts of the rule and its application have different definitions than the QPS.

FAA Response:

In the final rule, we eliminated the repetition of the rule language in the QPS appendices because it was never the FAA's intent to have different definitions for terms in the rule and the QPS appendices. The FAA has also revised the rule language and the QPS appendices so that technical information is presented in the most appropriate sections and formats.

Codified Design Criteria

Northwest writes, “The proposed regulation should be streamlined to centrally codify simulator design and qualification criteria.”

FAA Response:

The FAA deems it appropriate to stop short of establishing a regulation mandating the design and construction criteria for these devices. While the FAA has type certificate requirements for aircraft instead of individual qualification requirements like we have for FSTDs, the FAA is not including such requirements in this final rule. We believe requiring a type certificate process would create the potential for enormous cost increases with virtually no gain in the quality of the devices.

Clarification of Requirements and Oversight Responsibilities

TWA and CAE were concerned with the lack of clarity in the rule language. Specifically, TWA wants the rule rewritten clearly stating FAA's intentions and adding that the National Simulator Program Manager (NSPM) has full authority over FSTDs and all results of other inspections must go through the NSPM before action can be taken. CAE expressed a similar concern.

FAA Response:

The FAA revised the part 60 rule language and QPS appendices to ensure the requirements are clear. The QPS appendices provide examples and additional information and criteria outlining the method of compliance with the regulations. In addition, the FAA has clarified the NSPM will exercise oversight responsibility for the evaluation and qualification of all FSTDs included in part 60.

Use of FSTDs in the Course of Training

FlightSafety Boeing (FSB) believes part 60 “should be limited to the definition, design criteria, required documentation and record-keeping of Flight Simulation Devices, and the evaluation process to assure continued functionality as designed, for the respective level of device.” In FSB's opinion the authority on planned or actual use of FSTDs in the course of training should remain with the respective sponsor of the device and the Training Program Approval Authority (TPAA) as presently required in existing regulations. Also, FSB writes that all proposed wording addressing the continued use of a device be eliminated, including the words “and use” in the title of the proposal.

FAA Response:

The final rule addresses the definition, required documentation and record keeping for

FSTDs. It also outlines the evaluation process to assure continued functionality of FSTDs, including the objective and subjective requirements. However, as stated earlier, the FAA has determined it is not appropriate to include FSTD “design criteria” in the final rule. Also, the phrase “and use” in the title of the part 60 rule does not apply to the actual “use” of an FSTD in the course of training approved by the TPAA. Rather, the term refers to those uses of the FSTD for which representatives of the NSPM have qualified a specific FSTD.

NSP Office

TechniFlite states, “There should be an official (rather than implied or assumed) FAA office established at the Washington level to be responsible for the oversight of the National Simulation Program. This office could be responsible for reviewing appeals when disputes with the NSP arise.”

FAA Response:

The NSP is part of the Flight Standards Service. Specifically, it is part of the Air Transportation Division, AFS-200, and answers directly to the AFS-200 manager in Washington, DC. An appeals process is outlined in §§ 60.5(d) and 60.29(b). In both cases, the Director of the Flight Standards Service, AFS-1, is the person/office to whom appeals should be made.

Level of Detail in Regulations

Thales Training & Simulation (Thales) “objects to the way that our regulations are becoming so overly prescriptive.”

FAA Response:

The part 60 rule is, for the most part, a codification of existing practices. However, there are new requirements such as the QMS requirement in § 60.5. The FAA, working with the ARC, including Thales, developed requirements that balance safety concerns without being overly burdensome.

Necessity of the Rule

Several commenters question whether this rule is needed. American Airlines states that it has worked closely with the NSPM to develop its simulator program and it believes it has the highest quality simulator program in the world. American sees “nothing in the NPRM that will result in an increase in the quality or effectiveness of the American Airlines training program.” Similarly the National Business Aviation Association (NBAA) does not think the rule will result in a safety enhancement, stating that, “there has been no evidence that the current system of certifying and maintaining flight simulator devices has compromised safety in any way.” The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) states that the proposed rule “places an unnecessary regulatory burden on the aviation industry, and it does not address a safety problem or provide a net safety benefit.” Storm Haven Aviation and a flight instructor make similar comments.

FAA Response:

Codifying simulation qualification standards provides for a “level playing field” among FSTD manufacturers and sponsors in the United States and a harmonization of interests internationally. Further, these provisions, together with the provision for a QMS, will provide each sponsor a clear understanding of what is required of them for a satisfactory FSTD. The FAA also notes that part 60 is largely a codification of existing practices, and does not impose significantly new burdens. The FAA recognizes the close working relationship that exists between the NSPM and a large portion of the aviation training community. That close working relationship continues with this rulemaking effort and should continue after the rule becomes effective. The FAA believes that the rule will result in an increase in the quality and effectiveness of flight training programs without an undue burden on the industry.

Withdraw NPRM

Air Transport Association (ATA) requests the immediate withdrawal of the NPRM and the formation of an industry-government advisory committee to develop a new proposed rule. In support of this request, ATA states five general concerns with the NPRM:

1. If published as currently written, the NPRM would eliminate the use of a significant number of simulators until they could be qualified or replaced.

2. The proposed rule ignores harmonization efforts between the FAA, the JAA, and the simulator industry.

3. The FAA currently is revising Subparts N & O of FAR Part 121, which deal directly with crew training and the practical use of FSTD. However, the NPRM overlaps and implicates training requirements, and thus it is impossible to determine the overall impacts of the NPRM until the training requirements of Subparts N & O are revised or clarified.

4. The NSP, or each responsible TPAA, would have to be manned on a 24 hour/7 days per week basis to administer the proposed FAR Part 60 requirements in order to prevent unnecessary FSTD downtime.

5. The NPRM places a severe financial burden on U.S. airlines. The cost of the NPRM is not justified by its benefits.

Several other commenters, including Bombardier, FedEx, American Trans Air, TWA, Continental, and DHL agree with ATA's position that the NPRM should be immediately withdrawn and that an industry-government advisory committee should be convened to develop a new proposed rule. Other commenters did not specifically cite the ATA position, but did suggest that a more effective rule would be achieved through government and industry collaboration.

FAA Response:

Rather than withdraw the NPRM, the FAA established the ARC. The overwhelming majority of the ARC members, including ATA members and an ATA representative, participated in the development of recommendations to the FAA. As proposed in the NPRM, each currently qualified FSTD will continue to be evaluated against the criteria current at the time of that FSTDs original evaluation (67 FR 60291). No currently qualified FSTDs will be disqualified because of the new part 60 evaluation requirements. Therefore, the FAA does not expect that anyone will be “driven back into the airplane” for training, testing, or checking because of the part 60 final rule.

In addition, the standards contained in the final rule have been modified so they are more in line with ICAO and JAA standards. Also, as mentioned previously, the FAA is continuing its efforts to achieve the desired level of harmonization. The FAA would like to note that part 60 is not interdependent with and does not overlap the rulemaking effort to revise 14 CFR part 121, Subparts N and O. The part 121, Subparts N and O rulemaking deals directly with flight crewmember training and the practical use of FSTDs, while part 60 deals with the standards for FSTD qualification and evaluation.

Cost of the Proposed Rule

A group of commenters cite cost as the reason the NPRM should be withdrawn. AOPA states that the proposed rule places an unnecessary regulatory burden by imposing a large cost without properly identifying the cost impact. TechniFlite explains that with the cooperation of the FAA and industry, initiatives can be taken to make significant reductions in the cost of simulators thereby making simulators more available to the broader needs of the industry. Professional Instrument Courses believes that the proposed rule would add needless expense to their company with no gain in the quality of safety of their program and would put their successful 22-year-old instrument flight training company out of business.

FAA Response:

The FAA continues to believe that training in an FSTD is most effective when the FSTD closely

matches the performance and handling characteristics of the aircraft being simulated. Accordingly, training and checking activities should be accomplished only in those devices that are objectively and subjectively evaluated. The rule creates no new technical requirements for qualification of the basic levels of FTDs. The NSPM has maintained an open and continuous dialogue with aircraft simulator manufacturers and users. This dialogue continues to enhance the quality of simulation, improve the evaluation of simulation devices, and reduce the costs of acquiring, evaluating, and using these devices for flight crewmember training and checking. It is the FAA's intent to maintain this on-going effort.

Advisory Circulars vs. Regulations (Appendices A-D)

Three commenters disagree with including the advisory language that currently exists in the Advisory Circulars (ACs) for airplane simulators and flight training devices in the proposed rule. Delta states that the advisory language is very lengthy and detailed and that after incorporating this language into the rule, the FAA and users will need to strictly abide by it and any changes would need to go through a lengthy revision process. Regional Airline Association (RAA) says the proposed QPS appendices are written as “engineering standards,” as opposed to performance standards. RAA believes the FAA should adopt performance based regulations whenever possible because they allow for flexibility and freedom for innovation. RAA states its concern that even seemingly minor requests for deviations from the QPS appendices content will require that operators/owners petition the FAA for deviation approval, a process it says takes weeks and most often months for approval. In addition, RAA notes, “no specific instances of the proposal were mentioned as to industry's failure to constructively use and follow the content of the AC's.” FSI says the NPRM preamble incorrectly explains that the FAA is proposing to remove the technical requirements from part 121 and place them in the new part 60. FSI maintains that these requirements have always been advisory and not regulatory, and recommends that the FAA clearly acknowledge that a major purpose of this rulemaking is to make previously advisory material mandatory.

The National Association of Flight Instructors (NAFI) agrees completely with moving the requirements into the proposed rule. It applauds and unequivocally supports the FAA's efforts to make these requirements regulatory rather than advisory.

FAA Response:

The FAA disagrees that the QPS appendices are written as an engineering standard, rather than as a performance standard. The QPS appendices are a codification of existing advisory material that was used to determine whether or not a specific FSTD met FAA requirements. These standards have always been “performance standards,” involving an objective and subjective evaluation of the device in comparison to the aircraft. There has never been a requirement for an “engineering standard” in simulation beyond that which is necessary to meet the stated performance objectives. Part 60 does not change these requirements.

The decision to codify FSTD qualification requirements was made after careful consideration of facts and circumstances. This decision is not a result of “industry's failure to constructively use and follow the content of the AC's.” Rather, the FAA has determined that continued oversight through the issuance and application of ACs is not appropriate. Executive Order 12866 states “(e)ach agency shall draft its regulations to be simple and easy to understand, with the goal of minimizing the potential for uncertainty and litigation arising from such uncertainty” [section 1(b)(12)]. Additionally, Section 5-1 of FAA Order 1320.46A, “Advisory Circular System,” states that

AC's are not regulations and may not impose or lessen a burden on anyone, nor have a mandatory effect. AC's may not be used to add to, interpret, or relieve a duty imposed by a Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR). Advisory circulars may set forth ‘acceptable means’ or ‘methods of compliance’ with a particular FAR. However, the language used to explain the compliance methods in the AC must not imply that it is the only or minimum acceptable means, nor require other methods of compliance to be ‘equivalent’ to the one described in the AC.

In order to be legally valid, a regulation must establish a requirement or standard that is sufficiently clear to persons required to comply with it so that they can have a reasonable understanding of what is expected of them, without having to resort to material not published in the rule. In other words, the regulation must be able to stand on its own. The regulations that support the current set of ACs describing simulation standards are found in 14 CFR part 121, Subpart N and, since 1980, part 121, appendix H. However, in neither of these rule sections is the regulatory language sufficient to meet the requirement that persons would not have to resort to additional material not published in the rule. Additionally, while FSTD qualification standards have been contained in ACs, they have been treated as though they were regulatory. Clearly, this practice is not in compliance with either the EO or the FAA Order. Therefore, the development of a rule for the qualification of FSTDs was imperative.

Due to a comment, the FAA recognized that it did not have rule language in the part 60 NPRM that proposed to remove technical FSTD requirements from part 121. In the final rule, we have removed from part 121 those technical FSTD requirements that are in part 60. It was an administrative oversight that we neglected to propose removing technical FSTD requirements from part 121, but we were clear in the NPRM that part 60 would serve as the regulatory part for FSTD qualification and evaluation.

The FAA is aware that there are differences in the application of what may be authorized under an advisory circular concept and what may be required or authorized under a regulatory concept. However, the language of this final rule has been carefully constructed to accommodate “operations and engineering judgment” when applying flight test data to objective test requirements and tolerances. The goal was to allow the logical application of this judgment while, at the same time, not allow complete “free play” with FAA standards.

QPS Document

FSI states “The Qualification Performance Standard (QPS) contains regulatory language that appears only in the QPS. The combination of information, data, and regulatory language will create misunderstanding between FAA and the industry.” In addition, FSI believes that the “tabular technical requirements in the QPS are also confusing due to the outdated condition of the tolerances and test descriptions.” FSI further states, “The most glaring of the unrealistic requirements in the QPS is the motion system ‘specifications.’ In the past when rules have attempted to define hardware and software simulator system ‘specifications,’ the rules became obsolete before they were published.” Therefore, FSI recommends the QPS define tolerances, not design specifications.

TWA states that the “direct quote or a paraphrasing of the Part 60 rule” in the QPS documents is sometimes very confusing and sometimes they are in disagreement with the rule. TWA recommends removing them to make the QPS smaller and easier to use.

FAA Response:

The FAA has revised the final rule to eliminate the motion system standards published in the NPRM. Additionally, the FAA has removed the part 60 rule language from the QPS appendices to avoid confusion and repetition. The FAA recognizes the necessity of additional modifications to certain sections of the QPS appendices that are beyond the scope of the NPRM. The FAA is continuing to revise the QPS, and any recommendations for changes to part 60 will be available for public review and comment as an NPRM prior to being adopted. It is the FAA's intent the part 60 final rule not be effective until the first revision of the QPS appendices have been published in the

Federal Register

as a final rule.

Related to N&O Rulemaking

FSI notes that the preamble states “In a separate rulemaking project that will follow this proposal, other portions of appendix H would be moved to a new subpart of part 121, and appendix H would be deleted.” Concerned that timely action may not be taken and considering the length of time for rulemakings, FSI requests that the FAA make the necessary and proper conforming changes now and amend § 121.407 and delete appendix H.

Air Transport Association (ATA) states that this NPRM and subparts N and O of part 121 are very closely linked, and “recommends that any proposed changes to Subparts N and O be coordinated with this rulemaking and, in particular, that any changes to Subparts N and O precede this rulemaking.”

FAA Response:

The FAA recognizes 14 CFR part 121, appendix H has both technical requirements and operational authorizations. By “removing and reserving” certain sections in the current part 121, appendix H, (

i.e.

, those sections dealing with technical requirements of FFSs) without canceling the entire appendix, the remaining sections of appendix H will continue to serve operational necessities until such time as appendix H is cancelled. The requirements contained in 14 CFR 121.407 are not contrary to the requirements contained in part 60.

Changes to 14 CFR part 121, Subparts N and O will include references to FSTDs, but only to the extent of defining what tasks may be authorized for part 121 flight crewmembers in a given level of FSTD. Part 60, including all of the evaluation and qualification requirements, is not dependent upon or interdependent with, any future Subparts N and O changes that may be proposed or adopted.

Harmonization and ICAO

Many commenters address the issue of harmonization of FAA's FSD qualification standards with those of ICAO and the JAA. Boeing, United, Continental, American, FSI, FSB, NLX, CAE, and Eclipse are concerned that the NPRM does not include recent industry efforts to harmonize the latest regulatory standards for the qualification of FSDs. Delta commented that an opportunity to revise the rule would provide a chance to define an improved revision process for the advisory material and to incorporate harmonization with the ICAO Manual of Criteria for the Qualification of Flight Simulators. Eclipse states that the ICAO Manual of the Criteria for the Qualification of Flight Simulators, 2nd edition, which was endorsed by the FAA, should be incorporated into the QPS appendices. Continental states that a lack of harmonization will impose a financial burden on the carriers when they sponsor or use FSDs that are currently approved under the ICAO standard. American states that, instead of matching the ICAO criteria, the NPRM appendices contain a version of the criteria contained in the Draft AC 120-40C, modified with additional requirements. American states that since the FAA is on record as planning to eventually adopt the ICAO criteria, there is no reason not to do it in this rule.

NLX comments that although updating the QPS should not require the lengthy time frames experienced with changes like AC 120-40C, the industry has no assurance this will occur. NLX is concerned that after the rule is in place, updating the QPS will result in an extended time frame of possibly several years during which the industry must comply with the obsolete requirements. NLX states that, without some guarantee that this will not be the case, it recommends that the QPS be updated to reflect the latest JAR/ICAO material before the rule is put into effect.

FSB states that the proposed FAA standards are significantly different from the JAR STD 1A requirements, which are stricter. FSB urges the FAA to reconsider the timetable so as to include the recent updates to the ICAO 9625, JAR STD 1A and to remove changes to the motion standards in appendix A, which were vigorously disapproved by industry when added to the AC 120-40C. If the plan is to go forth with the rulemaking process with the existing differences, FSB strongly suggests that the FAA comment on an implementation plan and timetable for complete harmonization to take place.

United comments that the proposed standards decouple the functional and subjective test requirements from the FSD qualification level and require an FSD qualification task list without offering any criteria against which such tasks would be approved. United states that this is a break from past FAA practice, from the current JAA practice, and from the recommendations in the ICAO Manual.

Boeing comments that considerable industry time and expense has been expended over the past years to harmonize the standards. The results of these efforts have been incorporated into the ICAO Manual and are in the process of being incorporated into the JAA's JAR-STD 1A document,

Aeroplane Flight Simulators.

In addition, Boeing states, a set of “best practices” advisory material has been developed and is being included in both JAR-STD 1A and ICAO Document 9625. According to Boeing,

The latest standards and best practices material has not been included in the FAA's proposed Part 60. If the NPRM were to go forward as proposed, there would be two different sets of standards for the regulated public to comply with. This would impose an unnecessary adverse economic impact on the industry, including the data provider. We consider that the proposed Part 60, as currently structured, would be unacceptable to the industry, and both difficult and costly for the FAA to administer. We strongly recommend that the FAA revise the NPRM prior to any further action.

Boeing includes in its comments an extensive history of the harmonization efforts and detailed suggestions on how to harmonize the NPRM with the JAA and ICAO material.

CAE comments that “The United States has been a leading voice in encouraging other countries to adopt and maintain international standards; implementation of Part 60 regulations that are inconsistent with ICAO standards would undermine the U.S. Government's credibility in making these arguments to other countries.”

Several commenters disagreed with the statement in the NPRM paragraph on “International Compatibility” that the FAA had identified “no differences” between the proposal and the ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices. Thales Training and Simulation states “where there are major deviations between the proposed Part 60 standards and the latest agreed ICAO standards, the motion requirements being a good example, industry needs to be aware of how the Part 60 standards will evolve towards the ICAO standards. It is

unreasonable for industry to be expected to expend major investment to meet a standard that may only be in existence for a few months.” CAE states there are several instances in which the proposed rule significantly differs from ICAO standards, including areas such as latency, tolerances, organization of validation test cases, numbering, and definitions. CAE recommends that the FAA identify and clarify the differences between the two standards and confirm whether the ICAO standards could be used as an acceptable alternative for obtaining FAA qualification of an FSD. ATA states that the rule should not be published until the QPS documents are updated to reflect the ICAO guidance.

FAA Response:

The FAA recognizes it is necessary for simulator qualification technical requirements to reflect international standards as appropriate. The FAA plans to harmonize the simulator qualification technical requirements as part of the first revision of the QPS appendices.

Impacts on General Aviation

Several commenters are concerned about the impact of the proposed rule on the use of FSDs by general aviation, particularly with respect to Level 1-3 FTDs.

FSI states that the NPRM preamble language stating that “other certificate holders may seek approval to use the same FSD” seems to eliminate non-certificate holders, such as corporate or private operators under part 91, from doing the same thing. FSI comments that fractional ownership operators would be precluded from being sponsors by the same wording.

Fidelity comments that due to the recent advent of affordable, significant computing power, general aviation is able to use advanced simulation and that part 61 allows for a significant usage of FSDs. Fidelity comments that the proposed rule is unclear as to whether a sponsor must be a certificate holder in order to use the FSD for part 61 training.

NAFI is also concerned about the potential impact of the proposed rule on general aviation flight instruction. NAFI states that the required level of actual aircraft emulation for high-end, full motion simulation should be vastly different from general aviation flight training devices, and this proposed rule appears to lump them together. Specifically, NAFI states, smaller operators with less sophisticated FTDs will be unnecessarily burdened by the required establishment of the QAP and daily inspections.

National Air Transportation Association (NATA) comments that the proposal seems to give consideration only to training that targets commercial and high-end corporate aircraft operators and makes no attempt to provide a framework that enables the greater deployment of these devices for light general aviation and corporate aircraft. Furthermore, NATA states that placing the responsibility for qualification of FSDs and FTDs with the National Simulator Program Office will limit the ability of the aviation industry to use such devices.

FAA Response:

Only those persons required to have an FAA approved flight training program or otherwise authorized under § 60.7 are eligible to sponsor an FSTD. The FAA acknowledges that Fractional Ownership Program Managers are required by § 91.1073 to have an FAA approved flight training program. However, this requirement did not exist when the proposed part 60 was being drafted because the fractional program regulations had not been finalized. It is beyond the scope of this rulemaking project to include Fractional Ownership Program Managers as eligible FSTD sponsors. Therefore, the FAA will initiate a separate rulemaking project to incorporate Fractional Ownership Program Managers into the class of persons eligible to sponsor FSTDs. The FAA does not intend to allow other part 91 operators to be FSTD sponsors because they are not required to have an FAA approved flight training program.

The FAA has not included the qualification requirements for Level 2 and 3 FTDs in this final rule. The FAA has determined that these devices should continue to be monitored and qualified under advisory material. The FAA has posted, for comment, an Advisory Circular providing guidance about the evaluation and approval of Basic Aircraft Training Devices and Advanced Aircraft Training Devices. To view and comment on the Advisory Circular go to the following Web address:

http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/draft_docs

Conforming Changes (Parts 61, 63, 125, 137, 141, and 142)

FSI states that training, testing, and checking requirements of parts 125 and 137 may be accomplished in FSDs, but there is no reference to these parts. FSI suggests that the FAA clearly state the permitted uses of FSDs.

FSI, NATA, University Aviation Association (UAA), and Purdue University comment that the NPRM states that the devices described in § 61.4 may be used only for private pilot certification and instrument ratings. These commenters state that training for a commercial pilot certificate and training under part 141, Pilot Schools, can also be done in an approved training device; they ask the FAA to verify the uses permitted for approved training devices under parts 61 and 141.

FSI states that it is mandatory to withdraw appendix H of part 121 in order for part 60 to be possible. FSI also cites other sections that should be changed (

e.g.

, §§ 121.407, 135.335, 142.59, 141.41, 135.324, 135.321, and 121.402). FSI suggests that the FAA conduct a comprehensive review of all rules that may be in contradiction to part 60 and make the appropriate changes.

FAA Response:

The permitted uses of FSTDs for credit purposes (

i.e.

, to meet airmen certification standards or certain commercial operator training requirements) are a topic for a different rule. Part 60 addresses only the requirements for the evaluation and qualification of FSTDs. Section 61.4 does not state that FSTDs may only be used for private pilot certification and the instrument rating. Rather, § 61.4(a) specifically refers to “any training, testing, or checking requirement under this chapter.” “This chapter” refers to Chapter I, Subchapter D (Airmen), and specifically, all airmen, certificates, and ratings falling under the purview of part 61, Certification of pilots, flight instructors, and ground instructors.

It is not necessary to withdraw all of 14 CFR part 121, appendix H because of part 60. As stated earlier, the FAA is “removing and reserving” appropriate sections of appendix H to eliminate those technical requirements that have been moved into part 60 and is retaining those operational requirements in appendix H until such time as those sections are combined in a subsequent rulemaking effort and appendix H is cancelled. Additionally, the requirements contained in §§ 121.407, 135.335, 141.41, and 142.59 are not contrary to the requirements contained in part 60. The FAA has reviewed all other sections to see if any additional conforming changes need to be made because of part 60.

In addition, the FAA has determined that the conforming changes to parts 61, 141, and 142 proposed in the NPRM are no longer necessary since Level 2 and 3 FTDs are not included in this final rule.

Impact on Part 142

FSI states that when part 142 was issued, training centers were given regulatory assurance that if they did certain things, the Administrator was obligated to issue a certificate under that part. FSI believes that for the FAA to propose now that another step is

required,

i.e.

, gaining approval as a sponsor, is improper. Also, FSI states training centers were told they would not be required to have any specific relationship with an air carrier, yet under this proposal a training center may have to have an air carrier client as the sponsor of the FSD, for example, to meet the minimum annual usage requirement.

FAA Response:

The FAA eliminated the hourly usage requirements for sponsor qualification. The FAA eliminated the proposed requirement for sponsor utilization of additional simulators, except for the initial FSTD to qualify an applicant for a part 142 Training Certificate or the initial FSTD as part of a part 119 FAA-approved flight training program. The FAA has determined that these proposed requirements are not necessary because the requirements for an FAA approved training program are sufficiently robust to ensure safety.

Elimination of Exemptions

AOPA states that the proposal places additional regulatory burdens on the entire aviation industry, including small pilot training centers, simply to allow the FAA to rid itself of the burden of issuing exemptions to part 125 and 135 operators who wish to use Level A-D flight simulators under part 121, appendix H. Instead, AOPA suggests making the appropriate changes in parts 125, 135, and 142 by cross referencing part 121, appendix H. According to AOPA, the proposal should then be modified to address only part 125 and 135 operators and Level A-D flight simulators.

FAA Response:

The purpose of this final rule is not to relieve the FAA of the task of issuing exemptions. The requirements set out under part 60 are for the evaluation and qualification of FSTDs, a task that the FAA has to perform regardless of whether the device will be used in air carrier operations or not. This final rule codifies existing practices and provides uniform standards for all FSTDs regardless of where they will be used. Authorized uses under any individual part of 14 CFR are contained in the respective part. Therefore, even if a device is evaluated and qualified for certain tasks and maneuvers, the FAA, independent of part 60, will still need to determine whether the device is suitable for use in a particular FAA approved training program.

Comments Regarding Definitions

ATA states that the definition of flight simulator uses the term “series” of aircraft, while the definition of flight training device uses “set” of aircraft. Since proposed § 60.3 does not define “series” of aircraft and since an aircraft series meets the proposed definition for “set of aircraft” and a definition for “set of aircraft” is already proposed, ATA recommends that the term “series” should be deleted and replaced with the term “set of aircraft” throughout the document. In addition, the term “ground operation” should be replaced with the term “surface operation,” since surface operation is utilized in Attachment 3 to appendix A as operational task b. “Surface Operations.” Also, ATA notes that the definition of flight training device uses the term “full size replica,” while appendix B does not use this term in describing the FTD requirements. ATA recommends using the language in appendix B, while Delta suggests using “realistic replica” instead of “full size replica.”

CAE states that in the definition of “evaluation” in the use of “etc.” is open to interpretation and should be removed. Likewise, CAE claims that the word “performance” is used in a very general sense in the definition of “flight test data” and in many other places. CAE states, “Performance in simulators has traditionally meant airplane performance with regard to thrust/drag relationships, climb, range, etc.” CAE recommends defining “Approved data supplier” as “the aircraft manufacturer or other supplier of data acceptable to the NSPM.” CAE also recommends defining “Performance” as “the overall performance of the FSD to include aerodynamic performance as well as flight and ground handling.” Additionally, CAE recommends changing the definition for “flight test data” to “Actual aircraft performance data collected by an approved data supplier during an aircraft flight test program. This includes the aircraft on the ground test data as well as in the air.”

FSI states that the definition of “flight experience” is at odds with § 61.1 and other parts of 14 CFR. FSI recommends deleting this definition or more accurately defining it.

Boeing recommends changing the phrase “actual or predicted aircraft performance data” in the definition of “objective test” to “final test or approved aircraft data” because it is not clear what is meant by “actual” or “predicted” data. Boeing states that “predicted data” should apply to data that are truly predicted,

i.e.

, data that are estimated for regions of the flight envelope where there are no relevant flight test data (for example, for very high angle of attack), or for a new airplane configuration that has not yet been flight-tested. Boeing believes the definition should exclude engineering simulation data from a simulation that has been flight test updated and that the definition of “predicted data” should not include all aircraft performance data derived from sources other than flight data.

ATA states that the definition of “Qualification Performance Standard” should refer to “the collection of procedures and regulatory criteria” instead of “the collection of procedures and criteria.” ATA further recommends that the definition of “Qualification Test Guide” refer to “initial” evaluation and that “approved objective data” be added to the list of contents. Also, “MQTG is the reference document for subsequent evaluations” should be added to the definition of “Master Qualification Test Guide.”

Boeing asks whether “set of aircraft” is a derivative series of models produced by the same manufacturer or does it encompass a class of aircraft, such as a medium twin-engine jet transport? CAE states that in the definition of “Set of Aircraft,” a reference is made to “handling,” when in all previous places “performance” has been used to cover both the conventional aerodynamic performance and handling. To be more consistent, CAE recommends replacing “handling” with “performance.”

FSB believes that the term “Sponsor” must be more clearly defined to include who may be or must be the “Sponsor” of a particular simulator (FSD). FSB states, “There are many proposed references in the NPRM that place a requirement, responsibility, or burden on the actual owner of the FSD that will effectively eliminate the ability to acquire and maintain U.S. certification of the FSD. The overall impact of this NPRM, if adopted without major changes, could potentially eliminate Part 142 Certificate Holders as providers of U.S. certified FSDs.” FSB recommends that the entity that is the financially responsible owner of the FSD, and is a certificate holder, must be the sponsor of the FSD. The rule must not disqualify this entity as the sponsor because of arbitrary conditions such as how or how much the FSD will be used as long as the device continues to meet applicable qualification standards.

ATA states that the definition of “Subjective test” is inconsistent with appendix A, Attachment 3, Item 3, Simulator Systems. CAE states that in the definition of “Subjective test,” it is stated “FSD performs and handles.” CAE recommends changing the definition of “Subjective test” as

follows: “A qualitative comparison to determine the extent to which the FSD performs like the aircraft being simulated.”

CAE states, in reference to the definition for “Training Program Approval Authority,” that parts 121, 135, and 142 are currently established as to who may approve training programs. In CAE's opinion, no new authority needs to be introduced or created by part 60.

FAA Response:

The FAA wishes to clarify the distinction between a “series” and a “set of aircraft.” An example of “series” would be the Boeing B-737 aircraft, where -200 is a “series” (

e.g.

, -222, or -252, or -265 are part of the -200 “series”) as opposed to a -300 aircraft in the same make and model (Boeing, B-737 line). “Set of aircraft,” is defined as “aircraft that share similar handling and operating characteristics and similar operating envelopes and have the same number and type of engines or power plants.” While aircraft in the same “series” can certainly be described as being within the same “set of aircraft,” it is not true that aircraft that are legitimately in the same “set” are necessarily in the same “series.” For example, we can consider the Boeing B-737-222, the Boeing B-757-252, and the Embraer EMB-170-100 within the same “set” of aircraft (

i.e.

, they share similar handling and operating characteristics and similar operating envelopes and have the same number and type of engines); however, it is obvious that these three are not the same “series” of aircraft. A “series” of an aircraft make and model is not the same as a “set” of aircraft.

The FAA has clarified the definition of “set of aircraft.” In response to Boeing's question about set of aircraft, the FAA notes that while a “set of aircraft” may include a derivative series of models produced by the same manufacturer, the definition does not restrict “set” to derivative series. Rather, “set” encompasses aircraft with similar handling and operating characteristics, a similar operating envelope, as well as the same number and type of engines or power plants as in the commenter's example of a “medium twin engine jet.”

In the NPRM, the FAA used the terms “ground operation” and “surface operation” interchangeably. The FAA recognizes that this could be confusing and has clarified the final rule to use the term “surface operations” throughout the document to be consistent with international harmonization.

In the final rule, we changed references from “full size replica” to the more simple term “replica” and clarified the definition by changing the phrase “ground and flight operations” to “operations in ground and flight conditions.” We made a similar change to the definition of “Flight Training Device (FTD)” where we used the simplified term “replica” instead of the term “full size replica” and to the phrase “aircraft in ground and flight conditions” where we used “aircraft operations in ground and flight conditions” for consistency with the definition of an FFS.

To avoid the confusion of including “etc.” in the definition of “evaluation” as raised by CAE, we have included “

e.g.

” instead so the sentence now reads “With respect to an FSTD, the qualification activities (

e.g.

, the objective and subjective tests, the inspections, the continuing qualification evaluations) associated with the requirements of this part.”

We have added a definition of “FSTD Performance” to read “The overall performance of the FSTD includes aircraft performance (

e.g.

, thrust/drag relationships, climb, range) as well as flight and ground handling.”

The definition of flight experience is limited to part 60. Therefore, it does not conflict with other parts. The FAA has clarified the definitions of “flight test data,” “objective test” and “predicted data” to be more precise. The FAA notes that the use of engineering simulation, as an engineering analysis tool, may be integrally involved in the development of aircraft performance predictions.

The FAA did not revise the definition of “Qualification Performance Standard (QPS)” except to include a reference to appendix E, Quality Management System for Flight Simulation Training Devices. Also, the FAA did not revise the definition for Master Qualification Test Guide (MQTG); however, we did clarify the definition of Qualification Test Guide (QTG). The FAA did not revise the definition of “sponsor.” The FAA has not substantively changed the definitions of QPS, MQTG, QTG, and sponsor from the definitions as proposed in the NPRM. However, the FAA has addressed the concerns raised by the commenters by making other appropriate changes to part 60 and the QPS appendices. The definitions of these terms are consistent with the recommendations made by the ARC.

The FAA has reformatted the material originally located in appendix A, Attachment 3. That material is now found in a table entitled “Table of Functions and Subjective Tests,” and is consistent with the title of the appendix. Additionally, the FAA has clarified the definition of “subjective test.” The changes are consistent with the ARC recommendation.

The FAA is not proposing to establish a new entity to approve training programs. The term Training Program Approval Authority (TPAA) was introduced as a “shorthand” way of listing the various combinations of titles of those who are currently authorized to provide such approvals;

i.e.

, “Principal Operations Inspectors (POI), Training Center Program Managers (TCPM), or Flight Standards District Office (FSDO) operations inspectors assigned the duties of training program oversight and approval.” The FAA has not changed the definition of TPAA as proposed in the NPRM.

Comments Regarding Abbreviations

CAE suggests adding new abbreviations to differentiate between airplanes and helicopters, as follows:

AFSD—Airplane Flight Simulation Device

HFSD—Helicopter Flight Simulation Device

AFTD—Airplane Flight Training Device

HFTD—Helicopter Flight Training Device

FAA Response:

The FAA has not added these abbreviations and does not consider them necessary for clarity.

Comments Regarding the Applicability of the Part 60 Rule and the Use of Flight Simulators

Use of FSTDs

ATA states:

This rule provides regulatory information and further guidance to those who wish to become Sponsors of one or more FSDs and how a Sponsor must act to qualify and maintain the qualification of an FSD. In addition, it provides the technical requirements for an FSD to be awarded a specific level of qualification. This rule should not address how an FSD is used. That information is contained within other parts of this Chapter and should be between the Training Program Approval Authority (TPAA), the Sponsor, and the user.

United agrees with ATA's recommendation to remove the words “and use” from the title of part 60 and § 60.1(a).

FAA Response:

This rule is not intended to infringe upon the FAA designated TPAA. The phrase “and use” in the title of the part 60 rule has specific and limited application: (1) To the “use” requirements for simulator sponsorship; (2) to the “use” limitations with missing, malfunctioning, or inoperative components; (3) to those for whom “use” of the FSTD is authorized and for whom its “use” may apply; and (4) to those “uses” of the FSTD for which representatives of the NSPM have evaluated and qualified a specific FSTD and may be referenced in the Statement

of Qualification, Non-Qualified Maneuvers, Procedures, and Tasks (as listed by exception to those maneuvers, procedures, and tasks listed in the subjective evaluation contents found in Attachment 3 to each of the applicable QPS appendices). Examples might include a circling approach; windshear training in accordance with 14 CFR 121.409(d); Surface Movement and Guidance System (SMGS); or Weather Radar System. These “uses” are not to be confused with the uses for which a specific FSTD may or may not be approved by the FAA designated TPAA.

Qualified FSDs

ATA states:

* * * this applies to ALL FSDs. It does not address the use of FSDs that are not qualified by the FAA but are used as part of an approved training program even though no training credits are granted. For example, one carrier has used their B727 CPT and a DC-10 Level 4 equivalent device for training in an approved training program even though neither was qualified by the NSP * * *. This paragraph should be changed to allow for the use of non-qualified FSDs as training aids in an approved training program. This is then under the jurisdiction of the POI. This could be done in paragraph 1.1, definitions, to exclude unapproved devices from the definition of FSDs. Similarly, the rules, requirements, and penalties associated with using an FSD that is not qualified should themselves be clarified to allow for the use of non-qualified FSDs with TPAA approval.

FAA Response:

The FAA recognizes the functionality of many pieces of equipment (

e.g.

, FSTDs, books, Computer Based Training Aids) that can be used in an effective pilot or other flight crewmember training program. This final rule does not prohibit a POI from authorizing the use of any training aid that will provide valuable instruction to flight crewmembers. While these devices can be authorized for use in a training program, only those devices that meet the definitional requirements in part 60 (

i.e.

, that have been evaluated and found to be qualified at a stated level) can be referred to as “FSTDs.” To be called an FSTD, and to fall under this part, the device has to meet the stated definition and evaluation requirements. Other equipment that may or may not be found to be suitable for use in a pilot training curriculum, whether or not that curriculum is approved by the FAA, may not be called FSTDs (either FFSs or FTDs) when the device being referenced does not meet the definition or evaluation requirements of an FSTD.

Clarification of Terms

FSI states that the preamble statement regarding “operating experience” makes it unclear what is prohibited in an FSD. FSI recommends that the FAA list the sections of 14 CFR for which an FSD may not be used.

Two commenters address the term “each person” in paragraphs (b) and (c). JAA states, “It is still difficult to understand why an individual of an FSD user organization, which does not (necessarily) own the FSD, would be responsible for the quality of the FSD and not the FSD operator.” CAE recommends that in paragraph (c) “each person” should be the sponsor or a person leasing the equipment.

FAA Response:

The FAA did not adopt a specific list of sections in 14 CFR for which an FSTD may not be used. The TPAA determines what the FSTD may be used for on a case by case basis. However, the FSTD may never be used for satisfying the operating experience requirements of § 121.434 or § 135.244.

The term “person” is a multiple use term that, in the vernacular, might be read “the appropriate party.” It is important to note that the term “person,” as used in the referenced sections (

i.e.

, “each person using” and “each person who uses”), is defined in 14 CFR part 1 as “an individual, firm, partnership, corporation, company, association, joint-stock association, or governmental entity. It includes a trustee, receiver, assignee, or similar representative of any of them.”

Comments Regarding the Applicability of Sponsor Rules to Persons Who Conduct Sponsor Activities Without Being Qualified Sponsors (§ 60.2)

FSI states that, contrary to the NPRM preamble discussion, the issue of a non-sponsor using or allowing the use of an FSD is clearly an administrative rule, not a safety rule; even the discussion uses the word “inappropriately,” not “unsafely.” FSI further states that the FAA goes on to illustrate in the actual proposed section text with examples of permitted practices rather than listing prohibited practices. FSI recommends that the FAA clearly articulate those practices that are prohibited in the actual text, and accurately discuss applicability of this section to non-sponsors. In addition, FSI states that paragraph (a)(1) adds another step in the process of being able to use an FSD,

i.e.

, separate approval as a sponsor.

CAE states that the use of the term “causes” in § 60.2(a) is too general. For example, a technician asked to switch the motion pump on cannot be considered to be the cause for the use of the device for unauthorized training. CAE recommends changing the text to be more specific about the persons to which this rule applies.

FAA Response:

The purpose of the rule language in § 60.2(a) is to give the FAA a legal means by which it could charge a nonsponsor with violations of the safety rules if that person inappropriately used or caused the use of an FSTD for the purpose of meeting an airmen certification or training requirement under the Federal Aviation Regulations. The FAA believes that a safety issue could be raised if a non-sponsor uses or allows the use of an FSTD because the quality of the device could be called into question. Therefore, the FAA believes that the prohibition on non-sponsor use of a device is a safety rule and did not adopt changes to this section other than changing the term “FSD” to FSTD.”

The FAA does not consider the term “causes” in paragraph (a) to be too general. The FAA does not consider someone who merely turns on the hydraulic motion pump to be the person who “causes” the use of the FSTD. An example of “causing” the use of the device would be someone fraudulently holding themselves out as a sponsor, thereby “causing” an unqualified device to be used in an FAA approved training program.

Comments Regarding Quality Management System (§ 60.5)

JAA notes with appreciation that the FAA is introducing a mandatory QAP. JAA suggests making the QAP into a full Quality System (QS) and adding the components that are found in the required JAA QS.

CAE supports the requirement that each sponsor implement a QAP, but believes that the sponsor should be allowed to use its own quality assurance processes to meet the NSP standards. CAE states, “It would be inefficient and costly to force all sponsors to adopt quality assurance measures based on a specific, FAA-selected QAP as described in Section 60.5. Companies must be given the flexibility to implement a QAP that is consistent with their operations and business practices and plans.”

FAA Response:

To harmonize with ICAO, the FAA changed the title of § 60.5 Quality Assurance Program to Quality Management System (QMS). The new title is not just a name change, but is in fact a complete revision of the quality assurance program that is significantly less costly and onerous than what the FAA originally proposed. The specific requirements for the QMS are outlined in a new appendix to the QPS requirements entitled Appendix E, Quality Management Systems for Flight

Simulation Training Devices. This new appendix does not add new requirements outside the scope of the requirements proposed in the NPRM, but expands on the rule language of § 60.5, Quality Management System.

The requirements contained in appendix E have been carefully designed to allow each FSTD sponsor the capability of using its own QMS process to meet the described standards.

Justification for Quality Programs

ATA does not oppose the concept of a QAP, but states that the FAA has not offered any evidence that there currently exists a quality control problem in the way part 121 operators maintain their FSDs. For example, an analysis of nine years of FAA evaluations at one major carrier yielded a discrepancy rate of 2.8 discrepancies per evaluation. ATA believes the other regulations would allow the NSPM to take action against an operator that does not meet minimum quality levels. ATA and FedEx believe the incremental benefit of creating and administering a QAP will not be worth the cost of doing so. NLX makes a similar comment, citing the present state of the airline industry.

FAA Response:

The FAA did not propose to incorporate a quality assurance program, which differs from a traditional “quality control” program, to rectify bad or deteriorating maintenance practices for individual FSTDs or at specific FSTD sponsor locations. As described in the original NPRM, the basic precept of the program is for the sponsor “to say what it does; to do what it says; and to keep good records.” The QMS program will require each sponsor to develop a working knowledge of the requirements of part 60 and the relevant QPS document. This knowledge will be demonstrated to the NSPM through a written description of how, how often, when, where, and with what resources the sponsor's organization plans to comply with the requirements of part 60.

By having this written description, the NSPM and the sponsor will be able to compare what is actually done with what the sponsor says is done regarding FSTD repair, modification, regular maintenance, and daily readiness. The FAA has determined that the standardization required for such satisfactory comparisons will add to the already existing efficiency and effectiveness of the FSTD—regardless of the level of that existing efficiency and effectiveness. Through the added reliability of the maintenance and the daily readiness provided by a sound QMS program, any flight crewmember training, evaluation, and flight experience should be able to be accomplished with less interruption, more accuracy and more reliability. The QMS program will help provide consistency in the current training and the availability of repetitive practice in the desirable environment of accurate and realistic simulation. The FAA continues to believe that under such circumstances the students will more easily retain the knowledge and skills learned through such an increase in reliability and through such uninterrupted training.

There are three areas of significance in this regard:

The first, in two parts. Part one is an already existing precedence for the regulatory requirement for a QMS program found in the regulations covering air carrier aircraft maintenance. Part two is that several air carriers currently participate in voluntary quality programs (involving FFSs and FTDs) due to their participation in the FAA's Air Transportation Oversight System (ATOS).

The second area is that of existing FSTD sponsors already obtaining advantages from either developing an FSTD QMS program or contemplating doing so. One major airline, in comments made to this NPRM, stated that while reviewing the proposed QMS program requirements they recognized that “the proposed (QMS) did provide a vehicle for developing a more efficient management tool for simulator maintenance and control.”

The third area is one of international perspective. The FAA has not noticed that many of the world's regulatory authorities are beginning to embrace QMS programs or quality management systems as a means of conducting their regulatory responsibilities. Example of such regulatory authorities include the individual regulatory authorities in Europe, under the auspices of the European Aviation Safety Authority (EASA) and several regulatory authorities in the Pacific Rim (the Australian CAA and the Singapore CAAC are two examples), who are aiming to pattern their systems after that of the JAA. Additionally, if FAA requirements are to be truly “harmonized” with the JAA, then it must be noted that the JAA's JAR-STD-1A document,

Aeroplane Flight Simulators

, requires an FSTD operator to have, and operate under, a quality management program, which is far more demanding than the QMS that we adopted under part 60.

Cost Consequences of Quality Programs

RAA requests the removal of the proposed QAP requirement from the final rule. RAA states that the FAA has made no effort to evaluate the necessity or effectiveness of the proposed QAP. RAA believes the QAP would require airline operators to maintain technical staff on site, which would be particularly cost prohibitive for regional airline operators who often buy time on simulators at distant and even foreign locations. TechniFlite makes a similar comment. If the FAA retains the requirement, RAA suggests allowing the owner-operator to designate a simulator evaluator or to outsource QAP duties.

FAA Response:

Neither the original NPRM nor the revised wording in the final rule would require an airline to maintain their own technical employees at the FSTD site, if that airline is using another sponsor's FSTD, for QMS issues any more than the current practice of arranging with another party to provide for maintenance, upkeep, modification, evaluation, evaluation scheduling of an FSTD it sponsors. In either case, the sponsor would be the responsible party concerning issues with the FSTD that relate to technical aspects or to the QMS program.

Six Month Time Limit

UPS objects to the 6 month time limit for submission and approval of a QAP, stating that the NSPM would have an influx of approximately 66 proposals from sponsors to review, comment and approve within that timeframe. Also UPS states that 6 months is an insufficient amount of time for UPS to develop and implement a program that would meet the requirements. UPS recommends an 18 month timeframe, 6 months to submit a proposed program, 6 months for the FAA to review and approve, and 6 months for the sponsor to implement the program. American makes a similar comment. ATA suggests a longer timeframe, one year for submitting a proposal, 6 months for the FAA to review and approve, and one year to implement and audit the QAP.

FAA Response:

The FAA has revised this time frame to 24 months. The FAA has determined that this is a sufficient amount of time to implement the QMS.

Dry Lease of Simulators

FSI suggests a problem with the concept of a sponsor for operators who dry lease flight simulators that are used by several air carrier certificate holders. FSI states, “Under the proposed concept, quality would be assured for only one (sponsor) user, but not for other users.” FSI believes that the

purpose of a QAP should be to ensure that any training provider (

i.e.

, not just the sponsor) is capable of providing FSDs that continually meet the training, testing, checking, and experience requirements of its client's FAA-approved flight training programs. FSB makes a similar comment, stating, “Particularly in a part 142 operation, this would result in each device within a single facility being subject to a different Sponsor's QA program.” In this situation FSB believes the owner/certificate holder should qualify as the sponsor, even if they don't otherwise meet the sponsorship qualifications, because they have ultimate responsibility for the devices under the QAP.

The FAA has revised the language regarding sponsor qualification requirements to address the concerns and recommendations raised by commenters. The QMS program assures that any given FSTD continually meets the training, testing, checking, and experience requirements of the respective FAA-approved flight training program in which it is used.

Conflict With Other Quality Programs

ATA and United comment that inclusion of this quality program places airlines under two dissimilar quality programs; that required by § 60.5 and the Air Transport Oversight System (ATOS) item 4.2.8, Simulators/Training Devices. Since the goal of these two quality requirements are the same—system safety—ATA and United suggest that these two quality program requirements should be appropriately harmonized so that a sponsor now subject to part 60 and ATOS will be required to meet the standards of only one FSD quality program.

FAA Response:

The FAA has revised the ATOS inspection checklists and eliminated the Airworthiness SAI/EPI components for an FSS or an FTD inspection to avoid different quality management programs for aircraft simulators. The changes to the ATOS program checklists will become effective at the same time as this final rule.

Conflict Between NPRM Preamble and Rule

Several commenters address an inconsistency between the preamble discussion of proposed § 60.5 and the rule text itself. Paragraphs (b) and (d), as described in the preamble, do not appear in the rule text.

FAA Response:

The FAA recognizes that an error occurred with the original publication of the NPRM. We removed paragraph (d) that appeared in the NPRM and incorporated the requirements of that paragraph into § 60.9 in the final rule. The FAA has reinserted as § 60.5(d) the correct paragraph (d) that was described in the NPRM preamble. This paragraph reads the same as a similar paragraph published in the NPRM under § 60.29(b).

Location of Simulator

ATA comments that the paragraph described in the preamble that addressed the location of the simulator would be impossible to comply with. ATA cites as an example, an operator who sponsors a foreign owned simulator located in an area of the world where it bases pilots. It is cost-effective to use that simulator rather than bring pilots back to the U.S. for training. ATA states the paragraph would require operators to impose a QAP on the foreign simulator owner, which would be impossible for the FAA to enforce. Similarly, FedEx believes the requirement should not appear in the final rule or should be modified to facilitate the use of foreign simulators.

FAA Response:

Prior to the use of any FSTD, regardless of its location (domestic or foreign), the certificate holder is responsible for determining that the FSTD meets the appropriate training program requirements and that supplemental “differences” training is accomplished to accommodate any differences that may exist. Similarly, the certificate holder is responsible for ensuring that the current maintenance and operational status of the FSTD is such that the planned activities can be successfully accomplished or other arrangements are suitably made. This level of familiarity with the FSTD and this level of interaction with the owner/operator of the FSTD should certainly support the QMS program requirements. The FAA has revised the requirements so that when a sponsor includes a “foreign simulator” (

i.e.

, one maintained by a non-U.S. certificate holder) under its sponsorship, the sponsor will continue to be responsible for the QMS program for that simulator; however, if that foreign simulator is maintained under a QMS program accepted by that foreign regulatory authority and that authority and the NSPM have agreed to accept each other's QMS programs (

e.g.

, QMS programs approved by the Joint Aviation Authorities of Europe), no additional requirements must be met. Alternatively, if that foreign simulator is not maintained under a QMS program accepted by that foreign regulatory authority or that authority and the NSPM have not agreed to accept each other's QMS programs, the sponsor then will be required to reach an agreement with the NSPM regarding those aspects of the sponsor's QMS program that may be met by the sponsor in regard to this specific FSTD.

Appeal Process and Determination of Emergency

ATA believes the final rule should include another paragraph described in the preamble, but not included in the proposed rule, which addressed an appeal process for sponsors who disagree with an FAA requirement to modify a QAP. Boeing, CAE, and FSI make similar comments. FSI requests more specific statements on how the determination of an emergency would be made and whether any sanctions would apply to just one FSD or all FSDs operated by the sponsor.

FAA Response:

As stated earlier, the FAA has now included the material that was referenced in the original NPRM preamble language but which was inadvertently omitted in the originally proposed rule language. The FAA is reluctant to provide a list of what might constitute an “emergency” in that all such possibilities simply cannot be accurately listed. The purpose of this rule is to provide for FSTDs that meet the established criteria to allow flight crewmembers to acquire proper and complete training, testing, checking, and experience for the particular aircraft for which they will be or are type rated. While it is true that the FAA may have the authority to take certificate action or seek monetary penalties for violations of the rules, or seek to remove the qualification of an FSTD, or disqualify an FSTD sponsor from sponsoring FSTDs, these types of actions are a last resort taken only when absolutely necessary. When, how, to what, and to whom any such sanctions might apply would be governed by the circumstance, and therefore, the FAA is unable to provide specifics for such possibilities.

Quality Program Guidance

ATA comments that neither the rule nor the QPS provide information on how the QAP should be set up and administered. ATA also comments that there is no reference to the current guidance documents that appear on the NSP Web site. ATA suggests that the FAA reorganize the QAP requirements by combining proposed § 60.5(b), (c), and (d) with the QAP requirements in appendix A, section 5, and moving them to a new appendix E, which would be a QPS for a QAP. ATA recommends that the new appendix contain appropriate

components of the current guidance and sample of an acceptable SQAP.

FAA Response:

The FAA has reorganized the QMS requirements in the QPS appendices and established one QMS appendix, appendix E, to provide greater clarity and avoid redundancy.

Identification of Deficiencies

CAE believes the language of proposed § 60.5(b) is too vague and that the FAA should specify the level of detail required in the documentation for correcting deficiencies in the QAP. CAE suggests changing the words “deficiency in the program” to “an issue that has a direct impact on the quality.” American states that it is unclear whether the deficiencies being identified are in the QAP or in the FSD maintenance program. ATA states that if the deficiency being identified is in the QAP, then the FAA process should specify how it is to be changed.

FAA Response:

The FAA has made clarifications to § 60.5. The language of § 60.5, Quality Management System, was chosen to allow for future revisions to the QMS program, as described in appendix E. One of the major precepts of any quality management system is that of continual improvement—improvement as defined by the organization utilizing the quality management system that can be recognized by an outside observer. An improvement might manifest itself in the improved maintenance or the reliability of the FSTD; it might manifest itself in an increased efficiency in being able to track some aspect of the on-going maintenance functions; or it might manifest itself in a more detailed description of a job function or more clearly defined documentation or a better way to ensure that management is involved in decisions regarding the QMS program or the quality management system.

Grace Period for Required Changes

ATA suggests that § 60.5(c) provide a 12 month time limit within which the sponsor must make the required changes to the QAP, so that it is not immediately in violation after being notified of the required change. CAE makes a similar comment. ATA and United request clarification of whether paragraph (c) addresses the pre-approval process or the process when program deficiencies are discovered during an audit.

FAA Response:

The FAA made minor clarifications to § 60.5(c). The FAA did not adopt specific time limits as recommended by commenters, because such revisions are outside the scope of the NPRM. However, in future changes to the QPS requirements, the FAA will consider adding specific timeframes as recommended by commenters. Such changes would be subject to notice and comment. In addition, the FAA notes that § 60.5(d) allows sponsors to appeal to the Director of Flight Standards (Director) if the sponsor disagrees with the NSPM's deficiency notice. The filing of an appeal stays the NSPM's notice pending the Director's decision. Thus, a sponsor can appeal to the Director if it believes that the NSPM has not allowed adequate time to resolve a deficiency.

Management Representative

FSI comments that identifying an employee of the sponsor to be the management representative, under proposed paragraph (d), may result in delayed or confused communication if that person is someone other than the training center's designee. American Trans Air asks whether the management representative under this section could be the same person as the liaison with the manufacturer designated under § 60.9(b)(3).

FAA Response:

As previously mentioned, the FAA moved proposed paragraph (d) to § 60.9(c) in the final rule. (See the discussion in § 60.9 for additional responsibilities of the sponsor). In the NPRM, the FAA proposed that a sponsor maintain liaison with the aircraft manufacturer or the holder of the type certificate if the manufacturer was out of business. The FAA notes that maintaining a liaison with the aircraft manufacturer does not mean that the sponsor must designate a specific person to serve as a “liaison.” The Management Representative (MR) may perform this duty if necessary. There is no requirement that the MR be the training center designee. The only requirement is that the person so designated as the MR by the sponsor have the responsibility and authority to accomplish duties outlined in § 60.9(c).

Comments Regarding Sponsor Qualification Requirements (§ 60.7)

Many commenters are concerned about the concept of FSD sponsorship as proposed in § 60.7(a) and (b). Some commenters request the FAA delete, change, or clarify the sponsorship requirements.

RAA states that § 60.7 proposes to have individuals such as pilots, instructors, and check airmen be sponsors rather than a part 121 or part 135 (

i.e.

, part 119) certificate holder. RAA agrees that such individuals fit the criteria sought by this proposal, but believes that a collective body of “individuals” that comprise an air carrier also fit the criteria. RAA states, “It makes no sense to make a distinction between a person and a certificate holder, particularly since both are subject to loss of their certificate by the FAA.” RAA requests that the concept of “sponsor” be eliminated from the proposed rule.

FAA Response:

The FAA has revised and clarified the sponsorship requirements of § 60.7.

The FAA defines the term “person” in 14 CFR part 1 as “an individual, firm, partnership, corporation, company, association, joint-stock association, or governmental entity. It includes a trustee, receiver, assignee, or similar representative of any of them.” In § 60.7, the FAA uses “person” in accordance with the part 1 definition. Additionally, as used in this particular situation, the “person” being referred to would hold or be an applicant for a certificate under part 119, 141, or 142, or have a course of training approved under appendix C of part 63. A “person” whether corporate or individual, can hold a certificate issued under part 119, 141, or 142. However, an individual person who holds only an airman certificate (

e.g.

, issued under part 61), would not qualify to be an FSTD sponsor.

The National Simulator Program has operated under the concept of “sponsor” for over two decades. However, the National Simulator Program has never been specific regarding the definition of the term, nor has the agency been diligent in ensuring that all of the precepts of FSTD utilization were scrupulously followed. The FAA believes that it is time that this concept is completely understood by everyone in the industry.

Sponsorship Qualification Requirements

FSB believes that the proposed sponsorship qualification criteria will seriously affect third party operations and that the NPRM, if adopted without major changes, could potentially eliminate part 142 certificate holders as providers of U.S. certified FSDs. Examples of situations that FSB believes would no longer be allowed are cases where the FSD is owned by a part 142 certificate holder but is used principally by other certificate holders. If neither the owner nor any of the other users met the specified minimum threshold of hours under their approved training programs, none of these users would meet the sponsorship standards, even though the FSD might serve many U.S. certificated operators. Also, the owner might be forced to change the sponsorship of some FSDs from time to time in order to continue to have a sponsor who meets the conditions of

sponsorship. FSB recommends that if the owner is a U.S. certificate holder, that the responsible certificate holder should be the sponsor of the FSD, without having to meet all the requirements in this section.

Further, FSB comments that there are circumstances in part 142 operations where FSD certification is necessary, but there is no plan by the FSD owner to conduct training. FSB states, “This proposal is a case where a prerequisite for Sponsorship is based on intended use of the device. It is the opinion of FSB that the proposed regulation should focus on the quality and functionality of the device and that approvals for how the device will be used should be left [to] the Principle Operations Inspector (POI), or the Training Center Program Manager (TCPM), or other appropriate approval authority.” FSB recommends that § 60.7(a)(2) be deleted.

FSI objects to the NPRM preamble statements that the sponsorship and approval process proposed is similar to the current practice. FSI states, “Currently, there are no ‘sponsors’ of simulation. The FAA has never defined the term; there has never been a requirement to have or to be a sponsor. The term, concept, and obligation is proposed in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for the first time. The implication that sponsors exist now and have been required tends to minimize the operational and economic impact of the current proposal.” Further, FSI comments, “The process outlined in the proposed part 60 is not at all similar to current practice in one of the major features of the proposed rule. That is, the current practice, (and practice for the past many years), has been for the FAA to evaluate, qualify, and then approve for use FSDs for a certificate holder having an approved training program. Now the FAA would add the major step of approving a person, not necessarily the developer, owner, or custodian of an FSD as a sponsor. This is a major departure from current practice.” FSI recommends that the FAA delete any requirement for a sponsor to be a certificate holder and specify that a training center may continue to fulfill all proposed roles of a sponsor and the term sponsor be eliminated.

ATA states that proposed § 60.7 does not explain or provide a process for gaining sponsorship approval. ATA recommends that the sponsorship qualifications and systems and processes needed to manage the new requirements be established in a pre-defined order over a certain period as part 60 goes into effect.

In regard to proposed § 60.7(b), FSI asks for clarification of the relationship between the four conditions in this paragraph,

i.e.

, whether the sponsor must meet any or all of the four conditions. ATA identifies an inconsistency between proposed § 60.5(a), which allows a sponsor 6 months to develop a QAP after the final rule is effective, and § 60.7(b)(3), which states that a sponsor must have an approved QAP. ATA recommends a long period of phase-in for the final rule and an automatic qualification for items that were in good standing before the effective date. ATA also comments that proposed § 60.7(b)(4) gives the NSPM full veto power over a candidate sponsorship, with no definitions of how the NSPM will evaluate the candidate sponsor's acceptability to the NSPM.

FAA Response:

The changes to the sponsorship requirements discussed previously adequately address the issues raised by the commenters. In the final rule, the FAA eliminated the proposed requirement that a sponsor use the device for 600 hours per year. We are now requiring that at least one FSTD is used at least once per year within the sponsor's FAA-approved flight training program. Also, the final rule permits the sponsor to sponsor additional FSTDs, beyond the first FSTD, without having a “use” requirement. If a sponsor sponsors an additional FSTD that is not used within its approved training program then one of the following conditions must be met:

(1) The FSTD must be used in another FAA-approved flight training program.

(2) The sponsor must provide the FAA with a written statement from a qualified pilot having flown the airplane that is simulated at least once during the previous 12 months. The statement must indicate that the configuration, performance, and handling of the FSTD are appropriately representative of those features of the airplane being simulated.

Additionally, while it is true that the FAA does not currently use the specific term “sponsor,” the agency, under its existing practices, does assign someone to “oversee” each qualified FSTD. Thus, the requirements in § 60.7 are simply a codification of the agency's current policies.

The rule language is clear about what is necessary for a person to become an FSTD sponsor and what requirements of part 60 will apply to existing FSTDs. With limited exceptions, the continuing qualification requirements for existing FSTDs will not change.

Role of TPAA

Eclipse states that the proposed rule puts the sponsor in a precarious position between the NSPM and the sponsor's specific TPAA. Eclipse Aviation would like to see a better delineation of duties and a more formalized coordination process within the FAA between these two bodies.

FAA Response:

The FAA has modified its processes regarding coordination and communication with Principal Operations Inspectors (POI) and Training Center Program Managers (TCPM). The NSPM will provide a Statement of Qualification directly to the sponsor (copying the POI/TCPM) and will receive materials directly from the sponsor (provided parallel communication is maintained with the POI/TCPM).

Part 61 Flight Schools

Fidelity states that the proposed rule does not allow a part 61 flight school to sponsor an FSD or FTD. Fidelity believes if an organization is capable of maintaining the quality control program specified by part 60, and if the local POI, FSDO, or TPAA is satisfied, then the FAA should allow part 61 schools to sponsor an FSD. Fidelity cites specific sections in part 61 that allow for FSD usage.

FAA Response:

FSTD sponsorship is a very unique responsibility and one that is irrevocably linked to an FAA-approved flight training program along with other equally unique requirements. As a result, the FAA has determined it would be inappropriate to allow a part 61 operator, with no requirement for FAA-approved training programs or other required FAA oversight, to sponsor an FSTD.

Sponsor Responsibility

UPS states that it may not be feasible to place responsibility for the qualification of an FSD owned, operated, and maintained by another business entity on the sponsor because the sponsor would have no direct control of that entity's operation. UPS believes this requirement would further constrain the business of flight simulator training and should be deleted.

In regard to proposed § 60.7(a)(2), DHL agrees with the apparent intent of the rule to give the users who hold vested interest in the simulators (the carriers) the responsibility and motivation to guarantee quality assurance of the simulators. Further, DHL states, “It is also apparent that the FAA is shifting the responsibility from the National Simulator Program Team (AFS-205) to other entities (the sponsors) and allowing AFS-205 to provide oversight. It is unclear, however, if this is a cost savings

measure for the Federal Government, which would place a financial burden on the sponsors.”

FAA Response:

The FAA is not shifting any responsibility with this section of the rule, but is simply clarifying that to be a sponsor, one would have to have an FSTD qualified and used as part of their own FAA-approved training program.

Sponsors with Multiple Certificates

United comments that it holds certificates under both parts 119 and 142, offering contract training for aircraft currently flown by United and aircraft no longer flown by United. United requests that the FAA clarify the wording to allow a sponsor who operates FSDs under multiple certificates to be the sole sponsor of those FSDs with only one quality program and one management representative.

FAA Response:

The FAA has added information to appendix E. The QMS requirements should not be read to preclude a given QMS program from being applicable to more than one certificate holder (

e.g.

, part 119 and part 142 or two part 119 certificate holders). It should also not be read to preclude an individual from being a Management Representative (MR) for more than one certificate holder (

e.g.

, part 119 and part 142 or two part 119 certificate holders) as long as the other QMS program requirements and the other MR requirements are met for each certificate holder.

Use of Qualified FSDs

TechniFlite states that limiting the use of a qualified FSD to an approved course unduly limits the use of the FSD. TechniFlite states, “A Designated Pilot Examiner (DPE) should be allowed to use a qualified FSD for all or part of a check ride in accordance with the practical test standards. * * *” If a pilot applicant has the experience and has otherwise received the appropriate training outside of a 142 training program, that pilot or his employer should not be required to pay for the expense of the 142 program. Many corporate flight departments have excellent in-house training programs. If a qualified FSD is available, the Designated Pilot Examiner should be allowed to utilize the device.” TechniFlite believes part 61 training should not be denied access to FSDs.

FAA Response:

There may have been a misunderstanding of the proposal. Part 60 does not impose any limitations or prohibitions regarding the use of a qualified FSTD for any appropriate, authorized usage. A DPE certificated under part 61 may use an FSTD for any authorized purpose, but a DPE may not sponsor an FSTD.

Minimum of 600 Hours

Most of the commenters on this section object to the proposed requirement in § 60.7(c)(1) that an FSD be used a minimum of 600 hours per year in the sponsor's training program. Commenters state that the proposed minimum hour requirement is arbitrary, unfair, financially burdensome, and creates an unfair financial advantage for large training centers.

FAA Response:

As discussed previously, the FAA eliminated the 600-hour requirement. Instead, the sponsor must use at least one FSTD at least once per year in an FAA approved training program. Any additional FSTD sponsored by the sponsor must be used in another FAA-approved flight training program or the sponsor must provide the FAA with a written statement from a qualified pilot having flown the airplane being simulated at least once during the previous 12 months. The statement must indicate that the configuration, performance, and handling of the FSTD is appropriately representative of those features of the airplane being simulated. The revised rule language resolves the concerns raised by commenters.

Sponsorship Under Parts 125 or 137

FSI suggests including parts 125 and 137 in the definition of “Certificate Holder” in § 60.3 and in § 60.7(c)(2) to allow for future use of simulation under those parts.

FAA Response:

As stated previously, only those persons required to have an FAA approved flight training program are eligible to sponsor an FSTD. The FAA has established an Aviation Rulemaking Committee to review part 125. The FAA will review the recommendations of this Aviation Rulemaking Committee when they are received to determine if an FAA approved training program will be required under the new rules. The FAA will initiate formal rulemaking at that time if warranted by the recommendations. Also, operations conducted under part 137 (Agricultural Aircraft Operations) require the use of pilots with either commercial or airline transport pilot certificates and a rating for the aircraft that is to be used in the agricultural operation. There is no requirement, however, for a part 137 operator to have an FAA approved flight training program. Therefore, it is not appropriate for those operators to sponsor an FSTD.

Dequalified Simulators

In regard to proposed § 60.7(c)(3)(ii), CAE believes that someone else may apply to sponsor the dequalified simulator immediately, since only the current sponsor cannot reapply. American states that this paragraph has the potential for significant impact on sponsors of foreign simulators. American further states that if a valid training requirement for a device exists, the FAA should not be in a position of impacting business decisions. Similarly, ATA opposes any attempt to require that an FSD remain out of service for any enforced period of time. ATA suggests removing the sponsor's qualification, not the FSDs. United and Delta make similar comments.

FAA Response:

As discussed previously, the FAA has rewritten the sponsor qualification requirements, specifically the use requirements. Therefore it is highly unlikely that sponsorship will be taken away for non-use of an FSTD. The revisions to § 60.7 adequately address the concerns raised in this area. The FAA has modified § 60.7(c) to remove the statement “The FSD is not qualified.”

Comments Regarding Additional Responsibilities of the Sponsor (§ 60.9)

Several commenters object to the proposal in § 60.9(a) that sponsors must allow “immediate” inspection of the FSD, citing the disruption and extra cost if training is interrupted without notice. The amount of notice requested by commenters ranges from 24 hours to seven days. ATA provides proposed revised rule language, allowing 48 hours notice. Several commenters state the NPRM does not provide any rationale for the change in approach from the current language in §§ 142.29 and 142.73, which provides for inspection of facilities, equipment, and records “at a reasonable time.” ATA and United state that if the FAA needs authority to conduct “emergency” no-notice inspections, it should add a paragraph containing guidelines for when such emergency inspection might be required.

FAA Response:

The FAA has revised the rule language to require that sponsors allow the NSPM upon request to inspect the FSTD “as soon as practicable.” In addition, the FAA has clarified in the Information section of the QPS that the phrase “as soon as practicable” means without unnecessarily disrupting or delaying beyond a reasonable time the training, evaluation, or experience being conducted in the FSTD. These revisions should address the commenters'

concerns. The FAA did not intend for proposed § 60.9 to imply that the FAA would have the right to conduct “emergency” no-notice inspections.

Comments Regarding Foreign Devices

FedEx and ATA state that paragraph § 60.9(a) should be applicable to FSDs that are directly under the sponsor's control, and not applicable to those FSDs where the sponsor is not the operator of the FSD.

FAA Response:

The FAA appreciates those situations where a sponsor is sponsoring an FSTD owned and operated by a foreign airline or foreign training center located outside of the United States. It is not the FAA's intent to conduct inspections on these FSTDs outside of those times when such an FSTD is being used by the sponsor or another U.S. certificate holder.

Collecting Comments on the FSD

Several commenters state that the proposed requirements in § 60.9(b)(1) and (2) to collect and take action on comments on the FSD and its operation would duplicate the maintenance and discrepancy log requirements elsewhere in part 60 and should be removed. Commenters fear that this paragraph would create the potential for irrelevant, non-factual, personal or pejorative comments, which would be difficult to examine, classify, and take action on, resulting in unnecessary expenditure of time and resources. Commenters particularly state that flight crewmembers might offer comments that reflect the trainee's difficulty and not the performance of the simulator. Such comments should be provided to the instructor or evaluator and not be a requirement under this section.

FAA Response:

The FAA adopted revisions to the comment collection provisions in this section. The intent of this requirement is to provide a mechanism for comments to be provided and for the sponsor to be able to review those comments and take whatever action it deems appropriate. The FAA did not specify the method used to collect this information. However, a maintenance log or an addendum to a maintenance log would suffice to meet this requirement. It was the FAA's intent not only to allow, but to encourage comments. If a sponsor determines that a particular comment is motivated by the trainee's difficulty and not the performance of the FSTD, then the sponsor should indicate that fact. Providing a source for comments such as these is logical and has merit.

Liaison with Aircraft Manufacturer

DHL and FSI state that the proposed requirement in § 60.9(b)(3) to maintain a liaison with the aircraft manufacturer would be difficult when the manufacturer is out of business or when the aircraft is no longer being manufactured. FSI points out that the manufacturers would also incur a cost from this requirement and would probably prefer to maintain a liaison only with the FSD manufacturer, and not with every sponsor for a particular FSD. ATA states that the relationship the air carriers and their training departments maintain with the manufacturers should be sufficient and for independent training centers, there should be more specific direction on what constitutes liaison.

FAA Response:

The FAA has revised this section of the rule by eliminating the language that was referenced in these comments. However, the FAA has included the following language in the applicable QPS appendices, in the QPS Requirements section addressing § 60.13: The FSTD “sponsor must maintain a liaison with the manufacturer of the aircraft being simulated (or with the holder of the aircraft type certificate for the aircraft being simulated if the manufacturer is no longer in business), and/or, if appropriate, with the person having supplied the aircraft data package for the” FSTD “in order to facilitate the notification described in this paragraph.”

Posting of Statement of Qualification

ATA, FedEx, and United request that the FAA allow for electronic posting of the document.

FAA Response:

The FAA has determined that electronic posting would be helpful to the sponsor and the user. Therefore, we have modified § 60.9 to allow for the electronic posting of the Statement of Qualification. In addition, as a result of other changes to this section we have moved the requirements in proposed § 60.9(b)(4) to § 60.9(b)(2).

Comments Regarding FSD use (§ 60.11)

Delta Air Lines (Delta) suggests that § 60.11(a) be reworded to make the sponsor's responsibility limited to not knowingly allowing the FSD to be misused. Delta states that a sponsor cannot ensure that, for example, a rental crew is not using an FSD for training for a system for which the FSD is not approved. Delta also suggests that the preamble statement providing that other persons or certificate holders may arrange to use a sponsor's FSD without an additional qualification process be added to § 60.11(a).

FAA Response:

The requirements of this section of the rule do not require that a sponsor keep a lessee from improperly using the FSTD. Rather, this section is to require that the sponsor will not use the FSTD or allow the FSTD to be used unless it: 1) Is properly sponsored (paragraph (a)); 2) is qualified as described in the Statement of Qualification (paragraph (b)); 3) remains qualified (paragraph (c)); 4) is used with the original or properly modified programming (paragraph (d)); and 5) is used in accordance with missing, malfunctioning, and inoperative component requirements of § 60.25 (paragraph (e)). The standard briefing provided to those who “dry lease” an FSTD is sufficient to address the concerns raised here.

Confusion About “Type, Make, Model, and Series”

FSI states that the language of paragraph (b) is a significant departure from current § 142.59(a)(1), because that section does not require that an FSD represent a specific “configuration” or even “variant within type.” FSI states, “The intermingling of type, make, model, and series, and “configuration” is confusing, contradictory, and not consistent with the FAA's own aircraft nomenclature system. It would preclude using a simulator representing a type of aircraft, for training or testing for another of a common type rating, and then using the FAA's own differences training scheme to address differences.” FSI states that FAA has not justified the change in the proposed section and has not evaluated the cost of the impact. FSB makes a similar comment, stating that, “Many aircraft have multiple configurations, which could potentially create the need for multiple Statements of Qualification.”

FAA Response:

The FAA has removed the terms “make, model, and series of aircraft or set of aircraft” from the rule language in paragraph (b). In the final rule, we only reference the Statement of Qualification. However, the use of these terms is not a departure from the current requirement in § 142.59(a)(1) where the requirement is that approval for use of an FSTD be based on “each maneuver and procedure for the make, model, and series of aircraft, set of aircraft, or aircraft type simulated, as applicable.” These requirements are completely compatible and not interdependent. There is nothing in any part 60 requirement, including the particular section referenced, that would preclude the use of an FSTD representing a type of aircraft for training or testing for a

common type rating, and then using an FAA-approved differences training program to address any differences that may exist. The FAA reiterates that the requirement is for the qualification of the FSTD. While it is certainly true that many aircraft types have many different configurations, it is also true that each FSTD will reflect a single aircraft type (make, model, and series) and reflect one configuration. There are provisions for “convertible” FSTDs and each configuration to which the FSTD is convertible will be annotated on the configuration list as part of the Statement of Qualification. Indeed, some convertible FSTDs are so different they warrant a separate FAA Identification number and a different series of evaluations. The requirement here is that each FSTD meet the requirements stated in part 60, including the applicable QPS appendix, to be qualified. How that FSTD is authorized for use has, and will continue to, come under the jurisdiction of the TPAA.

Required Features

Regarding paragraph (b)(2), Delta states that an FSD should not be required to have all features—just those for which training credits are desired. Delta suggests that paragraph (b)(2) be changed to “For all tasks and configurations approved in the sponsor's or user's FAA approved Flight Training Program.”

FAA Response:

The FAA has removed paragraph (b)(2). There is no requirement that any FSTD be configured to match all possible configurations of a single aircraft type nor that it be able to be used for training, testing or checking for all the tasks that the simulated airplane type may be able to accomplish.

Changes in Software

ATA objects to proposed § 60.11(d), stating that,

It will be impossible for the FSD to operate with the “same software and active programming” that was evaluated by the NSPM. After the initial eval and each recurrent eval, the operator continues to make software changes to improve the utility of the training device (adding malfunctions and features), to fix faults, to improve reliability and maintainability, and to keep the simulator current with the aircraft. Other sections in this Part 60 deal with how changes are to be evaluated and monitored by the NSPM. These are sufficient and do not need to be duplicated in this clause * * *. As worded, this paragraph implies that the FSD software and active programming must remain static between NSPM evaluations. One could also infer that the NSPM must evaluate every combination of engine and avionic software variation available in the FSD prior to that software being used for training * * *. This clause should be deleted.

United, FedEx, Delta, FSI, Fidelity, and CAE make similar comments. FSI states that changes might be the result of the requirements in § 60.19(c) or § 60.23 and that most modern simulators require the modification of software parameters to control the simulator mechanics. CAE states that the clause potentially removes the capability of allowing different users to emphasize specific aspects of the training, for example the sponsor may have introduced one effect that is unacceptable to another user who requires a different implementation of cues. United, FSI, and CAE provide suggested language to modify paragraph (d).

FSI questions the meaning of the terms “active programming” and “regular flight crewmember” in the preamble discussion of § 60.11(d).

FAA Response:

The reference to “regular flight crewmember training” was used in the original part 60 preamble language to refer to the normally conducted, or routine training of flight crewmembers. However, the FAA has modified this section of the rule language such that the FSTD would have to be operated “with the software and hardware that was evaluated as satisfactory by the NSPM and, if modified, modified only in accordance with the provisions of this part” (§ 60.11(d)). This change addresses the concerns raised by commenters.

Comments Regarding FSTD Objective Data Requirements (§ 60.13)

ATA comments that the requirement in proposed § 60.13(a) for aircraft manufacturers' flight test data and all data developed after the type certificate was issued is too broad, impractical, and likely impossible to satisfy. ATA comments that the sponsor has no control over the data product and states, “The aircraft manufacturer does not provide ‘all data’ as part of a data package; rather, they only provide certain cases and sets of data. The flight test data package can consist of numerous volumes (particularly for older airplanes), only a portion of which are included in the Qualification Test Guide (QTG). The data the sponsor

does

have is available for review during the initial evaluation if a case is questionable; however, the logistics of submitting the entire flight test package to the NSPM are prohibitive.” ATA suggests the data referred to in this section should be limited to those data that are sufficient to validate the performance, handling qualities, or other characteristics of the aircraft, including data related to any relevant changes occurring after type certification. Further, according to ATA, other than paragraph (b), the sponsor should have no role in this section. It must be the responsibility of the aircraft manufacturer or other data provider to supply the appropriate validation data for use by the sponsor in the QTG. Finally, ATA concludes, as a minimum, the NSPM should pre-approve the airplane manufacturer's or data provider's validation data roadmap (see the ICAO document,

Manual of Criteria for the Qualification of Flight Simulators

, 2nd edition, Attachment D) prior to allowing the data to be used for validation of a FSD.

NLX, Delta, American, and CAE make similar comments. ATA believes the burden of responsibility for providing these data should be upon the aircraft manufacturer or data provider, for use by the sponsor/operator in the QTG or as additional reference data. (ATA provides suggested new rule text for the entire section.)

FAA Response:

The FAA, revised the language of this section to say the following: “The data made available to the NSPM (the validation data package) must include the aircraft manufacturer's flight test data and all relevant data developed after the type certificate was issued (

e.g.

, data developed in response to an airworthiness directive) if such data results from a change in performance, handling qualities, functions, or other characteristics of the aircraft that must be considered for flight crewmember training, evaluation, or for meeting experience requirements of this chapter.”

The FAA understands the position described by NLX, Delta, American, and CAE regarding the burden of responsibility for providing aircraft data; however, at this juncture, the scope of this rule does not permit the FAA to levy simulation data requirements on those not falling under the regulatory jurisdiction of part 60 (such as aircraft manufacturers). As a result, the organizations that do fall directly under the provisions of part 60 are the sponsors—and it makes sense to levy these requirements on them. The FAA acknowledges that close coordination must exist between the sponsor and the data provider (aircraft manufacturer, simulator manufacturer, or other data supplier) to ensure that the set of data ultimately made available for FSTD evaluation will meet the part 60 requirements as indicated. However, the FAA may task the ARC to consider alternative approaches to this issue and

make recommendations. The FAA may consider these recommendations for inclusion a future NPRM.

Validation Data

TWA states that the rule should require that a manufacturer receive NSPM approval for the aerodynamic, engine and proof of match data on all new aircraft types. This would provide for commonality between the performances of various simulators and reduce the time required by National Simulator Program engineers to review the data because for each new type of aircraft they would need to review only one data package. TWA says that the sponsors of new type aircraft would then know they are working with approved data and could proceed accordingly.

United comments that this proposal continues to place the sponsor between the FAA and the FSD data provider, thereby codifying the FAA's ability to

withhold

FSD qualification because of poor data from the data provider.

CAE believes this paragraph is geared to commercial operators and not to business jet airplane manufacturers. CAE recommends revising the text of § 60.13(a) to read: “Except as noted in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, for the purposes of validating FSD performance during evaluation for qualification, the sponsor must submit to the NSPM the flight test data used to define the performance standards of the FSD.”

FAA Response:

The FAA adopted revisions to the “exception” phrase to clarify that the wording in this section is geared to sponsors and not to commercial operators, airplane manufacturers or individual persons receiving training in a FSTD. The FAA recognizes that the new rule places the sponsor between the FAA and the FSTD data provider, thereby codifying the FAA's ability to withhold qualification of the device if the data provided is inadequate. The FAA notes, however, that it has no authority to compel information from a data provider, which in most cases is proprietary information used, produced, and marketed under exclusive legal right of the airplane manufacturer or other data provider. The FAA expects that sponsors will be able to obtain necessary data through the dictates of the marketplace, similar to the current practices for the acquisition of other types of proprietary information such as the technical requirements for a Supplemental Type Certificate. Sponsors and data suppliers have a mutual interest in ensuring that the FAA has the data it needs to qualify a FSTD, and the agency encourages both parties to work together to achieve that end.

Data Related to Modifications

FSB comments that once a FSD is qualified under initial certification test data, only the additional data related to modifications need be submitted to NSPM. FSB believes this data must fully support the proposed modification and must include appropriate manufacturers' flight test data that relates to performance, handling qualities, functions and aircraft characteristics required for flight crewmember training, evaluation, or experience requirements.

FAA Response:

The FAA has modified § 60.13(a) to include language indicating that “all relevant data developed after the type certificate was issued” will be required. An example of such data is data developed in response to an airworthiness directive.

Previously Approved Data

Thales Training and Simulation comments that the requirement for prior submission of data to the NSPM for approval does not allow the use of data previously approved by the NSPM by way of the Validation Data Roadmap.

FAA Response:

The term “Validation Data Roadmap” is used in the Information Section of the QPS to describe the document that contains the plan for acquiring the validation data and the data sources. The Information Sections are advisory and provide general guidance to the user. The Validation Data Roadmap will assist the user in meeting the regulatory requirements.

Use of Flight Test Data

FSI comments that instead of using aircraft certification data, aircraft manufacturers should work with simulator manufacturers to produce flight test data specifically for the development of accurate simulation and math models. FSI believes aircraft certification data are generally incomplete for modeling purposes, that aircraft certification and simulator development have different and specific data requirements, and data developed for one purpose should not be considered acceptable for the other.

Regarding proposed § 60.13(e), ATA comments that this paragraph, as written, could be used to place the sponsor in a position to require the aircraft manufacturer to provide additional flight test data. This has been the case in the recent past and has resulted in sponsors continuing to carry data discrepancies that are years old. ATA believes that, if the NSPM requires additional flight testing, that should be strictly between the NSPM and the data provider. In addition, this paragraph could subject the sponsor to large costs to obtain data as required by the NSPM. This requirement seems inappropriate and too broad, according to ATA. American and CAE make similar comments and request that the FAA provide additional guidance on when additional flight test data might be required.

FAA Response:

While the data acquisition processes specifically designed for simulation modeling and subsequent validation would be highly desirable, the FAA acknowledges that the existing practices were developed to minimize the cost of flight testing and to take maximum advantage of the flight testing already required as a function of aircraft certification. Additionally, while flight testing limited strictly to simulation purposes has never been discouraged, the FAA recognizes that a shift in requirements as suggested here might have an unwanted and perhaps unnecessary impact on the cost versus quality of the data as presently acquired and accepted for simulation purposes.

The FAA is interested in having each FSTD mimic as closely as possible the performance and handling of the simulated aircraft. As such, when new generation aircraft are designed, built, and placed into service, it is possible that the existing set of data requirements or the methods used to acquire those data may be found to be inadequate in some way. ATA is correct that certain situations have resulted in some sponsors carrying data discrepancies for much longer than the FAA would desire. The NSPM, the aircraft manufacturer, and other interested parties (

e.g.,

foreign regulatory authorities with the same or similar concerns, and other sponsors) continue to research the best and most acceptable way of addressing the shortcomings. As solutions to these data discrepancies are developed, the FAA may make appropriate changes to the QPS appendices. These changes would be subject to notice and comment.

Use of Flight Operations Quality Assurance (FOQA) Data

In regard to proposed § 60.13(b), ATA comments that some sponsors have on rare occasion used de-identified flight recorder data available from the aircraft onboard FOQA data recorder. These data, usually an averaging of many flights within certain specified parameters, have been used to verify the handling qualities and performance of the FSTD simulation where there is not a good match between the simulation

and the manufacturer-supplied objective data in the MQTG. ATA states that this paragraph, as written, makes no allowances for such data, limiting data types to engineering or flight test data.

FAA Response:

The FAA recognizes this limited but potentially important source of simulation data. We have made an appropriate adjustment in the alternative data source allowances by adding language that addresses on-board FOQA recorder data into QPS Appendix A, “Qualification Performance Standards for Airplane Full Flight Simulators.”

Engineering Simulation Data

Boeing suggests adding “engineering simulation data” to proposed § 60.13(c) because it believes engineering data are an important source of alternative data. Also, Boeing states that engineering simulation data are not necessarily “predicted” data if they are produced by a well-validated engineering simulation, and should not be grouped under the heading “predicted data.”

FAA Response:

The FAA recognizes that engineering simulation data is a valid source of data. Therefore, the FAA revised the rule language to allow for the appropriate use of this type of data.

Form and Manner of Providing Data

ATA states that the form and manner that is acceptable to the NSPM under proposed § 60.13(d) should be defined. ATA states that the sponsor has no direct control over the form and manner of data provided and that the requirement should be placed on the aircraft manufacturer or the STC holder.

FAA Response:

The “form and manner” acceptable to the NSPM is described in detail in the applicable QPS appendix and resolves the issues raised by the commenter. For example, the QPS appendix states that the information must be in a manner that is clearly readable and annotated correctly and completely with resolution sufficient to determine compliance with the applicable tolerances.

Notification Process

ATA states that if each sponsor follows the requirement in proposed § 60.13(f), the NSPM will receive many notifications from all the various sponsors whenever a common change occurs, such as flight data, avionics data, 28-day navigational “Jepp” data updates, visual system database updates. American makes a similar comment. ATA believes this paragraph should clearly identify the scope of data covered by this notification process. Delta suggests limiting the requirement to data “relevant to flight or ground dynamics, performance or handling characteristics or additional aircraft appliances.” Boeing believes it should be the responsibility of the aircraft manufacturer or data provider to provide the notification, to avoid redundant notifications from multiple sponsors. However, FSI states that the aircraft manufacturer is not required to provide such data to the sponsors and in many cases would not even know who the sponsor or sponsors operating FSDs representing its aircraft are. Therefore FSI thinks this provision is unenforceable.

Delta and FSI object to the requirement for “immediate” notification. Delta suggests allowing at least 30 days to provide the sponsor time to determine if the change will affect the FSTD in the context of § 60.13(a).

FAA Response:

The commenters raise two main issues with respect to notifying the FAA of new data. The first issue is that the commenters were worried that we were requiring a notification every time they receive any kind of new data. The second issue is that the commenters were concerned that they would need to make a determination about how the data affected the FSTD before submitting the notification. This second issue was a concern for the commenters because of the proposed requirement that the notification to the FAA be “immediate.” They were concerned that they could not provide “immediate” notice to the FAA regarding how the data would impact the use of the simulators in their training programs.

In response to the first issue, the FAA has revised paragraph (f) to clarify the type of data we are requesting. The data providers need only provide notice for data related to the handling and performance of the FSTD. The FAA has also added language to the applicable QPS appendices to help clarify the type of data we are requesting. The language states “[t]he data referred to in this sub-section are those data that are used to validate the performance, handling qualities, or other characteristics of the aircraft, including data related to any relevant changes occurring after the type certification is issued.”

With respect to the second issue, the FAA has also clarified that we are not asking data providers to make a determination about the effect of the new data before sending the notice to the FAA. The final rule only requires that the sponsors give the FAA notice that new data exists that “may relate to FSTD performance or handling characteristics.” The applicable QPS appendices provide more information about the type of dialogue the sponsors should have with the NSPM regarding the determinations to be made about the effect of the new data on FSTDs. In addition the FAA has removed the word “immediately” from paragraph (f) and provided the timeframe in the applicable QPS appendices. Instead of “immediately” the FAA is requiring that the sponsor notify the FAA within 10 working days of receiving notice of the new data.

Comments Regarding Special Equipment and Personnel Requirements for Qualification of the FSTD (§ 60.14)

Flight Safety Boeing (FSB) states that this section places a burden on the sponsor that really should be a burden on the entity that owns and maintains the FSD.

FAA Response:

A sponsor may contract with another person for services such as maintenance and scheduling. However, the sponsor still retains the responsibility of ensuring that all of the actions are completed as required. This responsibility extends to initial and recurrent evaluation of the FSTD, including any special equipment and/or personnel.

24 Hour Notice Requirement

Commenters are concerned about the amount of notice before a sponsor must make special equipment and personnel available under § 60.14, stating that the 24 hours notice mentioned in the NPRM preamble and in the QPS is impractical. ATA and Fidelity recommend at least 7 days notice, while FSI recommends at least 10 calendar days notice to prepare special test equipment, such as sound, motion, or control measurement equipment and make operating personnel available. NBAA, CAE, and an individual make similar comments.

FAA Response:

The FAA recognizes it takes time for a sponsor to arrange for special equipment and personnel to be made available to the FAA. Therefore, the FAA has modified the language in the applicable QPS appendices to state that “the NSPM will make every attempt to notify the sponsor at least one (1) week, but in no case less than 72 hours, in advance of the evaluation.”

Specifically Trained Persons

FSI questions whether the requirement for specifically trained persons is not required for recurring evaluations and recommends that the FAA state if there is a requirement for a person current and qualified in the type of aircraft simulated to be present and a part of the subjective testing and declarations for recurrent evaluations.

FAA Response:

The FAA has removed the word “specifically” in reference to qualified personnel. Qualified personnel are those persons qualified to install or use any special equipment when its use is required. The major focus of this section is on equipment not necessarily used on a regular basis for recurring evaluations of the FSTD. Language in the Information section in the applicable QPS appendices for this section includes examples of special equipment (

e.g.

, spot photometers, flight control measurement devices, sound analyzer).

Special Evaluation

NBAA asks what would constitute a special evaluation.

FAA Response:

A special evaluation is an evaluation other than a regularly scheduled initial or continuing (recurrent) evaluation or an evaluation that is considered to be a regular no-notice (or limited notice) evaluation. Special evaluations are conducted where it is determined that a question exists regarding an FSTD's qualification and the answer is not immediately available through any means other than an on-site evaluation. The depth and duration of a special evaluation will depend on the question that exists and the detail that must be acquired to adequately address that question. This term is described in the § 60.14 discussion in appendices A, B, C, and D, and is defined in appendix F.

Comments Regarding Initial Qualification Requirements (§ 60.15)

RAA, FSB, and United disagree with the proposal in § 60.15(a) that a request for initial FSD evaluation be submitted first to the TPAA. These commenters believe TPAA inspectors do not have the expertise to review a QTG and that the application should be made directly to the NSPM, with a copy sent to the TPAA. United suggests that the TPAA be asked to send a concurring letter to the NSPM.

FAA Response:

The FAA revised this section to require the sponsor to send the request directly to the NSPM and simultaneously request the TPAA to forward a concurring letter to the NSPM. This clarifies the process for initial qualification of the FSTD.

Request for Initial Qualification

ATA comments that the requirements of proposed § 60.15(b) are unnecessarily burdensome. For example, ATA states that paragraph (b)(2) requires a description of a procedure that should have already been accepted under the QAP. Delta and CAE make similar comments. ATA suggests limiting the requirement to the “statement” outlined in paragraph (b)(1).

NLX states that paragraph (b) does not appear to allow for a sponsor to request an initial evaluation until the FSD or FTD is completely tested, all items functional and all tests passing. NLX states that with the lengthy time required to get an initial evaluation scheduled, it is not practical to get an FSD or FTD completely finished and then wait for the evaluation. Within reason, the FAA must allow for some items to not be completed when the request for an initial evaluation is submitted with the understanding that they will be before the evaluation starts, according to NLX. Similarly, CAE requests clarification of the timeline for the activities in paragraph (b) and references the “Sample Request for Initial Evaluation Date” letter in the appendix.

In regard to proposed § 60.15(b)(2), FSI states that the maintenance required by proposed § 60.19(c) may also require changes to the configuration of the software or hardware present during the evaluation, in addition to modifications performed under proposed § 60.23.

FAA Response:

The FAA has revised paragraph (b)(2) to delete the requirement concerning procedures. Instead, the FAA is requiring a statement from the Management Representative (MR) that is focused on the operation of the FSTD (performance and handling qualities) assessed by a pilot meeting the requirements of part 60. The QMS must contain the procedure that the MR will use to generate this statement.

In response to the points raised regarding timing of the testing and of the statement being sent, the FAA has slightly modified the proposed language and has added language in the applicable QPS appendices. This additional language provides that the statement may contain a confirmation that the sponsor will forward to the NSPM (either by traditional or electronic means) the complete statement described in § 60.15(b) in such time as to be received no later than 5 business days prior to the scheduled evaluation. The language also describes what must be communicated when or if required maintenance results in modification to hardware or software that was present and functioning at the time of the initial evaluation.

Pilot Statement

FSI states that pilots, particularly those of dry lease customers, may be reluctant to sign the statement required by proposed § 60.15(b)(3) because of perceived potential liability. FSI suggests that this provision be made advisory and moved to the QPS or that an appropriately qualified FAA official should sign such statements. Similarly, ATA comments that the terms used in paragraphs (b)(3)(i)-(iii) (“function equivalently,” “are equivalent to,” and “conforms to”) require pilots to make assertions in writing that they cannot realistically support. ATA states, “This is particularly true in the case where pilots are required to make these assertions for aircraft types not yet issued a type certificate, a situation addressed in paragraph (d). Also, there are many operations tasks that pilots have never experienced in the aircraft, like a takeoff with an engine malfunction or a windshear encounter during approach.” ATA suggests using the phrase “adequately represents” instead of a form of “equivalent” or “conforms.” ATA provides suggested rule text and sample Letter of Request text, using the suggested terms. Delta makes a similar comment.

FSB states that, regarding proposed § 60.15(b)(3), it needs to have the flexibility to have both a primary designated evaluation pilot and an alternate, either of whom are certified by the FAA to conduct the evaluation. FSB recommends changing § 60.15(b)(3) to permit any designated pilot to perform the subjective tests and sign the statement that the listed requirements have been met.

FAA Response:

In the final rule, the FAA requires that an appropriately qualified pilot must make the comparisons as described. The FAA also adopted revisions to this section to require the appropriately qualified pilot to comment on the performance and handling qualities of the FSTD with respect to the aircraft (or set of aircraft) simulated but only within the normal operating envelope of the aircraft. The pilot making this determination must have flown all of the operational tasks listed in the Table of Functions and Subjective Tests set out in the FSTD subjective tests attachment to the applicable QPS appendix relevant to the qualification level of the FSTD. Additionally, the FAA has modified the requirement to note if any exceptions are necessary.

The FAA is not prescribing the individuals who must perform the required subjective testing, other than to require that the pilot be appropriately qualified and that he/she has actually flown the subject aircraft within the previous 12 month period. It would be a safety concern to have a pilot attest to the correct performance and handling of the subject FSTD if that pilot is not familiar with the performance and

handling qualities of the aircraft being simulated.

Tasks Not Tested

ATA comments that the requirements outlined in § 60.15(b)(4) would prevent an operator from requesting an initial evaluation until all of the referenced tasks, systems, and tests are complete and functional. This would result in project schedules being extended by several months, adding a significant financial burden to every certification project. ATA requests the operator be permitted to list under this paragraph any item that, for whatever reason, cannot be tested at the time of the submittal.

Also, ATA and United cite numerous specific problems with this paragraph and state that the concept of requiring such a list is fraught with problems, such as mixing tasks with systems and maneuvers. ATA recommends that the requirement for the table of Qualified/Non-qualified tasks be deleted.

FAA Response:

The FAA has revised and reorganized § 60.15 to accommodate the large portion of the recommendations originally made by commenters. As rewritten, the sponsor makes the request for initial evaluation after an appropriately qualified pilot has flown all of the Operations Tasks listed in the applicable QPS appendix relevant to the qualification level of the FSTD. If the sponsor does not subjectively test a task, it must note that in its request for initial evaluation. The FAA also revised this section to separate operational piloting tasks from systems and cockpit configuration determinations and to allow for pilots and for persons other than pilots to make these determinations.

Qualification Test Guide

TechniFlite comments that the NSPM should provide specific guidance on the outline and format of the QTG required by proposed § 60.15(b)(5), stating that the acceptance of the QTG often appears to be subjective and the sponsor is not provided a clear understanding of what is required for compliance. TechniFlite further suggests that the NSPM should be required to respond to the submission of a QTG within 30 days and be required to complete the qualification process within 90 days.

In regard to proposed § 60.15(b)(5)(iv), ATA comments that this list will define the equipment that must be kept calibrated in accordance with appendix A. According to ATA, most new FSDs have internal test equipment built into them; this internal test equipment would have to be removed to be calibrated in the traditional sense. ATA recommends allowing the sponsor to develop repeatability tests with tolerances as part of a quality system. Also ATA recommends changing “description” of the equipment to “list” of the equipment.

FAA Response:

The FAA removed the QTG language that was in proposed § 60.15(b)(5) and placed specific guidance regarding the format and content of the QTG in the applicable QPS appendix. Regarding the NSPM response time for scheduling a QTG evaluation, the FAA notes that typically, the NSPM responds to a scheduling request within days and very rarely exceeds a week. Thus, under current practice, the NSPM response time is well under the 30 days recommended by the commenter. The FAA intends to continue this timely response. The commenter also suggested that the NSPM be required to complete the QTG evaluation within 90 days. The current practice consists of the sponsor being able to request an evaluation up to 180 days in advance and provide an “essentially complete” QTG not later than 45 days prior to that proposed evaluation date. The submission of the QTG at this point allows the QTG to be assembled with data and tests that more likely reflect the device's final form and provides adequate time for the NSPM to review the document for compliance with the appropriate standards and advise the sponsor if questions arise regarding either the quality or quantity of data or the justifications used for comparisons. This timing allows the sponsor to make necessary corrections, re-run tests, provide additional data, and then provide a response with sufficient time for the NSPM to evaluate this additional information for clarity and completeness. This 180-day process provides the best timing and allocation of resources for the sponsor and the FAA personnel. Various processes have been tested over the past 20 years, and the 180 day timeframe has yielded the best results.

New or Changed Standards

In response to proposed § 60.15(c)(1), CAE and ATA question what the effect of new standards would be on FSTDs that have been ordered, but not yet delivered to the sponsor. They suggest that the NSPM be required to notify all sponsors when a change to an existing standard or a new standard is published. The sponsor should then be given more time,

e.g.

, 60 or 90 days, to determine whether the FSTD should comply with the new standards or the standards that were in effect when the FSTD was ordered.

FAA Response:

If the FAA changes the standards for initial qualification, a sponsor may request that the NSPM apply the standards that were in effect when the FSTD was ordered for delivery or apply the changed standards. The FAA recognizes that the sponsor needs time to evaluate the changes to determine the standards under which the device should be evaluated. Therefore, the FAA has revised the rule language to give the sponsor 90 days to notify the NSPM which standards to apply.

In the NPRM, proposed § 60.15(c)(1)(iii) included the phrase “unless circumstances beyond the control of the sponsor prevent the evaluation from occurring within that time.” In the final rule, the FAA has removed this phrase. The intent of the language was to prevent the sponsor from being penalized for extraordinary circumstances that were beyond its control such as a labor dispute, natural disasters, or NSPM scheduling conflicts. The FAA has determined that it is more appropriate to resolve these extraordinary cases through the exemption process rather than to include a blanket authorization in the regulation.

Evaluation Pilots

Several commenters have questions and concerns about the evaluation pilot requirements in proposed § 60.15(d).

ALPA is concerned about the provision in proposed § 60.15(d) that allows the testing pilot to be an employee of the sponsor, but does not require that the pilot be a line pilot.

CAE does not understand the process and criteria for obtaining approval from the TPAA. Further, CAE believes the other requirements adequately cover the qualification requirements for the evaluation pilot. CAE recommends removing this requirement.

ATA and United believe the requirement is too restrictive because it would be expensive to maintain line pilots with current qualifications on staff. United says that its experience has shown that a non-qualified pilot with a background in flight test is significantly more effective than a qualified pilot with no such background. Delta states the proposal would make it difficult to use retired or contract personnel for simulator requirements testing. American makes a simi

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