Flight Simulation Training Device Qualification Standards for Extended Envelope and Adverse Weather Event Training Tasks
Federal RegisterJul 10, 2014
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 60
[Docket No.: FAA-2014-0391; Notice No. 2014-04]
RIN 2120-AK08
Flight Simulation Training Device Qualification Standards for Extended Envelope and Adverse Weather Event Training Tasks
AGENCY:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION:
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
SUMMARY:
The FAA proposes to amend the Qualification Performance Standards for flight simulation training devices (FSTDs) for the primary purpose of improving existing technical standards and introducing new technical standards for evaluating an FSTD for full stall and stick pusher maneuvers, upset recognition and recovery maneuvers, maneuvers conducted in airborne icing conditions, takeoff and landing maneuvers in gusting crosswinds, and bounced landing recovery maneuvers. These new and improved technical standards are intended to fully define FSTD fidelity requirements for conducting new flight training tasks introduced through recent changes in the air carrier training requirements as well as to address various National Transportation Safety Board and Aviation Rulemaking Committee recommendations. The proposal also updates the FSTD technical standards to better align with the current international FSTD evaluation guidance and introduces a new FSTD level that expands the number of qualified flight training tasks in a fixed-base flight training device. The proposed changes would ensure that the training and testing environment is accurate and realistic, would codify existing practice, and would provide greater harmonization with international guidance for simulation. With the exception of the proposal to codify new FSTD technical standards for specific training tasks through an FSTD Directive, the proposed amendments would not apply to previously qualified FSTDs.
DATES:
Send comments on or before October 8, 2014.
ADDRESSES:
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2014-0391 using any of the following methods:
•
Federal eRulemaking Portal:
Go to
http://www.regulations.gov
and follow the online instructions for sending your comments electronically.
•
Mail:
Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
•
Hand Delivery or Courier:
Take comments to Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
•
Fax:
Fax comments to Docket Operations at 202-493-2251.
Privacy:
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
www.regulations.gov
, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.
Docket:
Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov
at any time. Follow the online instructions for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For technical questions concerning this action, contact Larry McDonald, Air Transportation Division/National Simulator Program Branch, AFS-205, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, GA 30320; telephone (404) 474-5620; email
larry.e.mcdonald@faa.gov.
For legal questions concerning this action, contact Robert H. Frenzel, Manager, Operations Law Branch, Office of the Chief Counsel, Regulations Division (AGC-200), Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-3073; email
Robert.Frenzel@faa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Authority for This Rulemaking
The Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA's) authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106(f) describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in 49 U.S.C. 44701(a)(5), which requires the Administrator to promulgate regulations and minimum standards for other practices, methods, and procedures necessary for safety in air commerce and national security. This amendment to the regulation is within the scope of that authority because it prescribes an accepted method for testing and evaluating flight simulation training devices used to train and evaluate flightcrew members.
In addition, the Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-216) specifically required the FAA to conduct rulemaking to ensure that all flightcrew members receive flight training in recognizing and avoiding stalls, recovering from stalls, and recognizing and avoiding upset of an aircraft, as well as the proper techniques to recover from upset. This rulemaking is within the scope of the authority in Public Law 111-216 and is necessary to fully implement the training requirements recently adopted in the Qualification, Service, and Use of Crewmembers and Aircraft Dispatchers final rule (Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule), RIN 2120-AJ00. See 78 FR 67800 (Nov. 12, 2013).
List of Abbreviations and Acronyms Frequently Used in This Document
AC—Advisory Circular
ARC—Aviation Rulemaking Committee
AURTA—Airplane Upset Recovery Training Aid
FFS—Full Flight Simulator
FTD—Flight Training Device
FSTD—Flight Simulation Training Device
ICATEE—International Committee on Aviation Training in Extended Envelopes
LOCART—Loss of Control Avoidance and Recovery Training Working Group
NPRM—Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
QPS—Qualification performance standards
SNPRM—Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
SPAW ARC—Stick Pusher and Adverse Weather Event Training Aviation Rulemaking Committee
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
II. Background
A. Statement of the Problem
B. History
1. Industry Stall and Stick Pusher Working Group
2. International Committee on Aviation Training in Extended Envelopes (ICATEE)
3. Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-216)
4. Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule
5. Stick Pusher and Adverse Weather Event Training Aviation Rulemaking Committee (SPAW ARC)
6. Advisory Circular (AC) 120-109 (Stall and Stick Pusher Training)
7. Loss of Control Avoidance and Recovery Training (LOCART) Working Group
C. Deficiencies in FSTD Evaluation Requirements
1. Full Stall Training Maneuvers
2. Upset Recognition and Recovery Training Maneuvers
3. Airborne Icing Training Maneuvers
4. Microburst and Windshear Recovery Maneuvers
5. Takeoff and Landing in Gusting Crosswinds
6. Bounced Landing Recovery Maneuvers
D. Related Actions
E. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Recommendations
III. Discussion of the Proposal
A. The FSTD Evaluation Process
B. General Rationale for the Proposal
C. Requirements Applicable to Previously Qualified FSTDs—FSTD Directive 2 (Appendix A, Attachment 6)
D. FSTD Evaluation Requirements for Full Stall Training Tasks (Appendix A; Table A1a, Section 2.1.7.S, Table A2A, Tests 2.a.10.c.8, and 3.f.8; Table A3a, Test 5.b.1; and Attachment 7)
E. FSTD Evaluation Requirements for Upset Recognition and Recovery Training Tasks (Appendix A; Table A1A, Section 2.1.6.S and Attachment 7)
F. FSTD Evaluation Requirements for Airborne Icing Training Tasks (Appendix A; Table A1A, Section 2.1.5.S; Table A2A, Test 2.i. and Attachment 7)
G. FSTD Evaluation Requirements for Takeoff and Landing Training Tasks in Gusting Crosswinds (Appendix A, Table A1A, Sections 3.1.S, 3.1.R, and 11.4.R)
H. FSTD Evaluation Requirements for Bounced Landing Training Tasks (Appendix A, Table A1A, Section 3.1.S)
I. FSTD Evaluation Requirements for Windshear Training Tasks (Appendix A, Table A1a, Section 11.2.R)
J. Significant Changes To Align With the International FSTD Evaluation Guidance (Appendix A)
1. Table A1A (General Requirements)
2. Table A2A (Objective Testing Requirements)
3. Table A3A (Functions and Subjective Testing Requirements)
4. Table A3B (Class I Airport Models)
5. Table A3D (Motion System Effects)
K. New Level 7 Fixed Wing FSTD Requirements—Appendix B Changes (Appendix B, Tables B1A, B1B, B2A, B3A, B3B, B3C, B3D, and B3E)
L. Miscellaneous Amendments To Improve and Codify FSTD Evaluation Procedures (§§ 60.15, 60.17, 60.19, 60.23, Appendix A Paragraph 11)
IV. Regulatory Notices and Analysis
V. Executive Order Determinations
VI. Additional Information
I. Executive Summary
The primary purpose of this proposal is to define simulator fidelity requirements for new training tasks that were mandated for air carrier training programs by Public Law 111-216. The notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) proposes to accomplish this by establishing new or updated Flight Simulation Training Device (FSTD) technical evaluation standards for full stall and upset recognition and recovery training tasks as required in the Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule and as proposed by the Stick Pusher and Adverse Weather Event Training ARC (SPAW ARC).
The Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule added training requirements for pilots that target the prevention of and recovery from stall and upset conditions, recovery from bounced landings, enhanced runway safety training, and enhanced training on crosswind takeoffs and landings with gusts. Stall and upset prevention requires pilot skill in manual handling maneuvers and procedures. Therefore, the manual handling maneuvers most critical to stall and upset prevention (i.e., slow flight, loss of reliable airspeed, and manually controlled departure and arrival) are included as part of the agency's overall stall and upset mitigation strategy. These maneuvers are identified in the Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule within the “extended envelope” training provision, which further requires that these maneuvers be completed in an FSTD. As a result, revisions to all part 121 training programs will be necessary and revisions to part 60 will be required to fully implement the extended envelope, bounced landing, and gusty crosswinds flight training required by the Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule.
In addition, this proposal addresses a potential lack of simulator fidelity as identified in several NTSB safety recommendations and Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) recommendations concerning flight training tasks, such as anti-icing, bounced landing, gusty crosswind, and extended envelope training. These changes are necessary to ensure a realistic crew training environment and to prevent incorrect simulator training.
For the purpose of this rulemaking, the term “extended envelope training tasks” (such as full stall and aircraft upset recovery) refers to maneuvers and procedures conducted in a FSTD that may extend beyond the limits where typical FSTD performance and handling qualities have been validated with heavy reliance on flight data to represent the actual aircraft. In instances when obtaining such flight data is hazardous or impractical, engineering predictive methods and subject-matter-expert assessment are used to program and validate the aircraft's behavior in the simulator.
The secondary purpose of this NPRM is to align the technical standards for Level C and D (fixed wing) FSTDs that are defined in Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 60 with the current international FSTD evaluation guidelines published in the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) document 9625 Edition 3,
Manual of Criteria for the Qualification of Flight Simulation Training Devices
(ICAO 9625, Edition 3). These changes would incorporate the technical guidelines for the highest level of ICAO-defined FSTD (Type VII) into the part 60 Level C and Level D FSTD standards, where appropriate. This proposal also introduces a new level of fixed-wing FSTD (a Level 7 flight training device (FTD)) that is based upon the ICAO 9625, Edition 3, Type V FSTD technical guidance. Changes intended to align with the ICAO guidance would address new aircraft and simulation technology introduced since the original issuance of part 60, incorporate general improvements to the FSTD evaluation standards, and provide air carriers and flight training providers with additional options for conducting approved training tasks in an FTD as opposed to a more costly full flight simulator (FFS).
In general, the proposed changes to the technical standards would apply only to those FSTDs that are initially qualified or upgraded in qualification level after the final rule becomes effective. For previously qualified FSTDs used to conduct extended envelope, airborne icing, gusting crosswind, and bounced landing training, the FAA is also seeking comment on a proposed FSTD Directive that would require FSTD Sponsors to retroactively evaluate those FSTDs against certain objective and subjective testing requirements as defined in the QPS appendices and modify them if necessary to meet the proposed requirements. This proposed FSTD Directive would be applicable to any FSTD being used to conduct these training tasks, including those FSTDs being used to conduct such training on a voluntary basis in a non-air carrier flight training program. Those previously qualified devices that would not be used to conduct these specified training tasks would not require modification or evaluation.
For all FSTDs that are initially qualified or upgraded in qualification level after implementation of these regulations, the proposed changes to the
QPS appendices would become effective 30 days after publication of a final rule. However, new FSTDs may still be initially qualified under existing standards after this date, subject to up to a 24 month grace period as currently defined in § 60.15(c). For previously qualified FSTDs that will be used to conduct certain extended envelope and other training tasks described in the Crewmember and Dispatcher Training Final Rule, compliance with the proposed FSTD Directive would be required within three years of the publication date of a final rule implementing these provisions. The FAA is seeking comment on these proposed compliance dates.
A summary of the cost and benefit information is presented below.
EP10JY14.236
II. Background
A. Statement of the Problem
In order to mitigate aircraft loss of control accidents and to comply with the requirements of Public Law 111-216, the FAA has required new or revised flight training requirements in the Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule for flight maneuvers such as full stall and upset recovery training. Through participation with various industry working groups and recommendations received from the SPAW ARC, the FAA determined that many existing FSTDs used by air carriers to conduct such training may not adequately represent the simulated aircraft to a degree necessary for successful completion of required training tasks. Additionally, the FAA evaluated several recent air carrier accidents and determined that low FSTD fidelity or the lack of ability for an FSTD to adequately conduct certain training tasks may have been a contributing factor in these accidents. A potential lack of simulator fidelity could contribute to inaccurate or incomplete training on new training tasks that are required by the Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule, which could lead to an associated and unnecessary safety risk.
Furthermore, since the initial publication of the part 60 final rule in 2008, the international FSTD qualification guidance published in ICAO 9625, Edition 3 have been updated to incorporate general improvements to new aircraft and simulation technology and the introduction of new FSTD levels that better align FSTD fidelity with required training tasks. The ICAO 9625 document is an internationally recognized set of FSTD evaluation guidelines that was developed by a wide range of government and industry experts on flight simulation training and technology and has been used as a basis for national regulation and guidance material for FSTD evaluation in many countries. Internationally aligned FSTD standards facilitate cost savings for FSTD operators because they effectively reduce the number of different FSTD designs that are required to meet multiple national regulations and standards for FSTD qualification.
The proposals in this NPRM were largely developed using recommendations from the SPAW ARC
1
and the international FSTD qualification guidelines that are published in ICAO Document 9625, Edition 3.
2
These proposals are primarily directed at improving the fidelity of FSTDs that would be used in air carrier pilot training. They would also have an added benefit of improving the fidelity of all FSTDs qualified after the proposed rule becomes effective.
1
A copy of the SPAW ARC final report has been placed in the docket for this rulemaking.
2
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) publications can be located on their public internet site at:
http://www.icao.int/.
B. History
1. Industry Stall and Stick Pusher Working Group
In March 2010, the FAA worked with industry leaders to address concerns arising from the increase in stall and loss of control accidents. The Stall and Stick Pusher Working Group met over a 9 month period and produced many training recommendations to prevent stall events. This working group included members from aircraft manufacturers, simulator manufacturers, training companies, pilot associations, airlines, and the FAA.
In addition to providing best training practices using current simulation, the working group recommended that simulators in use today should not be used for training to or past the aerodynamic stall unless further testing and validation in that flight regime are performed for the specific simulator and approved by the FAA. This working group did not recommend post-stall training because the roll and yaw characteristics and the stall buffet characteristics of the simulator may not be representative of the aircraft.
2. International Committee on Aviation Training in Extended Envelopes (ICATEE)
In 2009, the Royal Aeronautical Society formed the International Committee on Aviation Training in Extended Envelopes (ICATEE) working group to examine aircraft upset recovery training and recommend improvements to both training and simulation devices used to conduct training. This working group was comprised of subject matter experts in many facets of industry and government including airlines, flight training providers, research entities, FSTD manufacturers, airframe manufacturers, regulatory authorities, and airline pilots associations. The ICATEE working methodology was to first conduct a training needs analysis using subject matter experts in the area of pilot training and then determine the training device requirements as a function of the identified training needs. Once the training needs were established, subject matter experts in FSTD technology developed proposed modifications to the FSTD qualification standards to support the recommended training tasks. While the ICATEE final report has not been published yet, several interim recommendations from ICATEE on FSTD technical evaluation standards for stall, upset recovery, and airborne icing maneuvers were provided to the SPAW ARC for consideration in developing its recommendations.
3. Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-216)
On August 1, 2010, President Obama signed into law Public Law 111-216. In addition to extending the FAA's authorization, Public Law 111-216 included provisions to improve airline safety and pilot training. Specifically, section 208 of Public Law 111-216, Implementation of NTSB Flight Crewmember Training Recommendations, pertains directly to this rulemaking in that stall training and upset recovery training were mandated for part 121 air carrier flightcrew members.
4. Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule
On November 12, 2013, the FAA published the Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule, adding the training tasks required by Public Law 111-216, specifically targeting extended envelope training, recovery from bounced landings, enhanced runway safety training, and enhanced training on crosswind takeoffs and landings with gusts which further requires that these maneuvers be completed in an FSTD. As a result, revisions to all part 121 training programs will be necessary and the revisions to part 60 as proposed in this rule will be required to ensure FSTDs are properly evaluated in order to fully implement the flight training required in the Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule.
In the Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule, the FAA established a 5-year compliance period for air carriers to update their training programs because of the need to revise both the FSTD standards and to allow for FSTD sponsors to have a sufficient amount of time to make any required modifications to their FSTDs as a result of this rulemaking. The FAA recognizes that a significant amount of engineering, testing, and subject matter expert evaluation time will be required to evaluate and modify the numerous FSTDs that will be required to conduct such tasks in part 121 training programs. As a result, the FAA has proposed a 3-year compliance period in the FSTD Directive that would require the evaluation and modification of previously qualified FSTDs that will be used for certain “extended envelope” and other training tasks in the Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule. The FAA believes that the 5-year compliance period in the Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule provides sufficient time to complete this rulemaking and also to give FSTD sponsors enough time to comply with the proposed 3-year compliance period in the FSTD Directive. While the FAA recognizes that some sponsors and operators may already have the technology and simulation knowledge necessary to make the changes proposed in the FSTD Directive, we recognize that there is a significant variation in the capability of previously qualified FSTDs as well as the technical expertise available to FSTD sponsors which could require more or less compliance time than what the FAA has anticipated. We request comment on whether the 3-year compliance period in the FSTD Directive is adequate, too short, or too long. The comments should also take into consideration the March 2019 compliance date for the new training task requirements in the Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule and indicate whether that time is adequate, too short, or too long.
5. Stick Pusher and Adverse Weather Event Training Aviation Rulemaking Committee
The formation of the SPAW ARC was mandated by Public Law 111-216, Section 208. It held its first meeting on November 30, 2010, and held its last full group meeting on May 12, 2011. The SPAW ARC included members from aircraft manufacturers, simulator manufacturers, training companies, pilot associations, and airlines.
The final report provided numerous recommendations to the FAA on stall and stick pusher training, upset recovery training, icing training, and microburst and windshear training. In addition to the training recommendations, the ARC made recommendations to the FAA in its final report concerning the potential lack of simulator fidelity and proposed modifications to part 60 to address those deficiencies. The ARC cited several specific areas of improvement to simulation including modeling of flight dynamics and performance changes due to ice accretion, modeling of aircraft response in a stall, and providing flight instructors with improved feedback concerning the validity of the simulation during upset prevention and recovery training maneuvers. A copy of the SPAW ARC's final report has been placed in the docket for this rulemaking.
6. Advisory Circular (AC) 120-109 (Stall and Stick Pusher Training)
In August 2012, the FAA issued AC 120-109 (Stall and Stick Pusher
Training),
3
which provided a series of best practices relating to training, testing, and checking of stall warnings; aerodynamic stalls and stick pusher activations; and recommended recovery procedures. The content of this AC was developed using the recommendations of previous working groups and was intended to provide guidance to training providers and air carriers to ensure correct and consistent responses to unexpected stall warnings and stick pusher activations.
3
FAA Advisory Circulars can be located on the FAA's public internet site at:
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/
.
7. Loss of Control Avoidance and Recovery Training (LOCART) Working Group
In March 2012, the FAA reconvened the SPAW ARC to seek more detailed recommendations on academic and flight training programs to support the upset prevention and recovery training that was proposed by the SNPRM on air carrier crewmember training. The ARC was also tasked with examining the training device requirements to support upset prevention and recovery training in an FSTD. The final report from this ARC included technical recommendations to revise the part 60 FSTD standards to include minimum FSTD evaluation requirements for upset prevention and recovery training maneuvers. Some of these recommendations to amend part 60 expanded upon the previous recommendations made in the original SPAW ARC report. A copy of this final report has also been placed in the docket for this rulemaking.
C. Deficiencies in FSTD Evaluation Requirements
1. Full Stall Training Maneuvers
The SPAW ARC examined various issues involving stall training and recommended against any simulator training being conducted beyond the first indication of the stall unless the simulator modeling and fidelity are such that the simulation of the specific airplane is representative in this flight regime. Particular concerns addressed by the SPAW ARC regarding FSTD fidelity in full stall maneuvers were the modeling of aircraft stability and aircraft response to control inputs, improved motion response for acceleration cueing, and improved modeling of the stall buffet to cover a broader range of flight conditions. The SPAW ARC also made recommendations concerning the evaluation of FSTD stall characteristics in flight conditions other than wings-level stalls. These include stall training maneuvers such as high altitude cruise stall, turning flight (accelerated) stall, and the objective validation of stick pusher forces (where equipped in the aircraft).
The exposure of flightcrews to a low fidelity representation of an airplane's stall characteristics in an FSTD can lead to improper recovery techniques being reinforced during training. Such improper recovery techniques can be evidenced in the investigation of the 1996 Airborne Express DC-8 aircraft accident in Narrows, Virginia. In this investigation, the NTSB concluded that the flightcrew had been exposed to a low fidelity reproduction of the DC-8's stall characteristics in the company's flight simulator that likely contributed to their inappropriate response to an actual stall in the aircraft. The NTSB report stated:
The simulator's benign flight characteristics when flown more into the stall provided the flightcrew with a misleading expectation of the handling characteristics of the actual airplane. The [pilot flying (PF)] initial target pitch attitudes during the attempted stall recovery (from 10 degrees to 14 degrees) may have resulted in a successful recovery during his practice and teaching in the simulator. Further, because their experience with stalls in the DC-8 was obtained in a simulator without a stall break, the PF and [pilot not flying (PNF)] could not practice the nose-down control inputs required to recover a stalled airplane that is pitching down or at a nose-low attitude. Moreover, because the PF and PNF were exposed during extensive simulator experience to what they presumed was the stall behavior of the DC-8, the stall break that occurred in the airplane most likely surprised them. The Safety Board concludes that the flightcrew's exposure to a low fidelity reproduction of the DC-8's stall characteristics in the ABX DC-8 flight training simulator was a factor in the PF holding aft (stall-inducing) control column inputs when the airplane began to pitch down and roll, which contributed to the accident.
4
4
See NTSB aircraft accident report number NTSB/AAR-97/05: Uncontrolled Flight into Terrain; ABX Air (Airborne Express); Douglas DC-8-63, N827AX; Narrows, Virginia (Dec. 22, 1996).
The FAA notes that because there has never been a requirement for an air carrier to conduct training in a simulator to a full stall,
5
there has been relatively little exposure of flightcrews to such low fidelity stall characteristics in a simulator. However, once full stall training becomes a mandatory training requirement for air carriers, it is imperative that any FSTD being used to conduct such training is properly evaluated to ensure such negative training does not take place as evidenced in the Airborne Express accident. Failing to properly evaluate air carrier FSTDs to deliver this training would potentially expose many crewmembers to incorrect stall characteristics in an FSTD and thereby introducing an associated safety risk.
5
Air carrier flight training is currently only required to train to an “approach to stall” flight condition where recovery is initiated at the activation of the stall warning system.
2. Upset Recognition and Recovery Training Maneuvers
The SPAW ARC recommended that simulator and academic training in upset prevention and recovery should be based on the Airplane Upset Recovery Training Aid (AURTA).
6
The SPAW ARC further stated that instructors do not always have the proper tools to provide adequate feedback to students with respect to control responses and aircraft operating limits during upset prevention and recovery training. Additionally, they noted if part of the training is conducted outside of the simulator's validated envelope,
7
there is an increased risk that the simulator will no longer accurately replicate the aircraft, which could result in negative training. The SPAW ARC recommended improved instructor feedback tools which can display when a training pilot has exceeded either the accepted simulator model envelope or the known aircraft load factor envelope. These instructor feedback tools would allow the instructor to identify and inform the student that he or she is exceeding those limits, thus mitigating potentially negative training. Furthermore, the SPAW ARC recommended employing the AURTA methods in assessing an FSTD's capability to conduct such maneuvers and to provide improved instructor feedback mechanisms to better evaluate both the FSTD's and the student's performance during such training.
6
The Airplane Upset Recovery Training Aid can be located on the FAA's public Internet site at:
http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/airline_operators/training/.
7
An FSTD's validation envelope generally consists of those combinations of angle of attack and sideslip where the FSTD's aerodynamic model has been validated using flight test data or reliable predictive methods.
When an FSTD is used to conduct upset recovery training, the instructor must be provided with the necessary tools to assess a student's performance when executing the recovery. When an instructor does not have these tools, potentially dangerous or inappropriate control strategies may be learned in the
FSTD. In the case of the 2001 American Airlines flight 587 accident, the NTSB determined that an unrealistic portrayal of the aircraft's response to a wake vortex incident in the simulator may have contributed to the flying pilot applying unnecessary and excessive control inputs that ultimately led to the structural failure of the aircraft. Among the deficiencies the NTSB noted in the American Airlines Advanced Aircraft Maneuvering Program, the following were directly related to simulator functionality with regard to training upset recovery maneuvers to flightcrew members:
8
8
See NTSB aircraft accident report number NTSB/AAR-04/04: In-Flight Separation of Vertical Stabilizer; American Airlines Flight 587; Airbus Industrie A-300-605R, N14053; Belle Harbor, New York; November 12, 2001.
• This simulator exercise could have caused the first officer of the accident flight to have an “unrealistic and exaggerated view of the effects of wake turbulence; erroneously associate wake turbulence encounters with the need for aggressive roll upset recovery techniques; and develop control strategies that would produce a much different, and potentially surprising and confusing response if performed during flight.”
• The simulator exercise provided “unrealistic portrayals of the airplane response to wake turbulence and significantly suppressed control input effectiveness to induce a large rolling potential that was unlikely to occur with an airplane as large as an A300-600.”
• The simulator exercise “encouraged the use of rudder in a highly dynamic situation without portraying the large buildup in sideslip angle and side load that would accompany such rudder inputs in an actual airplane.”
Because the current FSTD evaluation standards do not contain minimum requirements on the implementation of aircraft upset scenarios, the potential remains for training to occur using such unrealistic upset scenarios. Furthermore, with improved instructor situational awareness available in the simulator (including improved feedback on student flight control inputs and simulator/aircraft operational limitations), it is possible that such aggressive roll upset recovery techniques as evidenced in the American 587 accident may have been identified and corrected during simulator training.
3. Airborne Icing Training Maneuvers
Although the simulation of engine and airframe icing has been an evaluation requirement for all Level C and Level D FSTDs since the early 1980's, the SPAW ARC recommended improving the fidelity of the aerodynamic effects of aircraft icing conditions in FSTDs used in flightcrew member training. The SPAW ARC stated specific aircraft data should be used when available; lacking that, other sources of engineering data may be used. The SPAW ARC further cited specific simulator improvements that the FAA should consider in developing improved standards for ice accretion models, such as the aerodynamic effects of lift, drag, and rotational moments (e.g. pitch, roll, and yaw effects) through means other than weight; the effects of icing on control feel, airframe buffeting, and control effectiveness; the potential to have the aircraft stall before the stall warning systems activate; the simulation of ice protection equipment failures; and the effect on engine performance due to ice ingestion.
Some current FSTD icing models simply employ a weight additive to the aircraft's gross weight in order to simulate more sluggish handling characteristics and higher stall speeds than expected. Although these characteristics may be representative of some effects of icing, the FAA believes the improved icing models that have been proposed would have an appreciable benefit to flightcrew training. FSTD icing models that incorporate the aerodynamic effects of ice accretion on lifting surfaces can provide critical recognition cues of dangerous ice buildup, such as changes in pitching moment, control effectiveness, and buffet characteristics. Furthermore, ice accretion on wing surfaces can disrupt the airflow over a wing, significantly in some cases, leading to an aerodynamic stall. Aerodynamic stall as a result of icing can occur at angles of attack much lower than stall warning systems are designed to activate. The ability to replicate these conditions in a simulator can provide invaluable training to flightcrews on the hazards of wing ice accretion and provide a higher awareness of the potential effects of icing conditions.
9
These proposed improvements would enhance the anti-icing training tasks that are currently required for air carrier training programs.
9
See NTSB aircraft accident report number NTSB/AAR-96/01: In-Flight Icing Encounter and Loss of Control; Simmons Airlines, d.b.a. American Eagle Flight 4184; Avions de Transport Regional (ATR) Model 72-121, N401AM; Roselawn, Indiana (Oct. 31, 1994).
4. Microburst and Windshear Recovery Maneuvers
While accidents involving windshear and microburst have decreased significantly since the late 1980's, the SPAW ARC recommended improving FSTD evaluation requirements to support the standardization and quality of current training practices. Specific recommendations made by the SPAW ARC to improve FSTD functionality for windshear training included the addition of “complex” windshear models (as defined in the Windshear Training Aid) to provide flightcrew members experience in more realistic windshear encounters; employing methods to ensure an FSTD is properly configured for a windshear training profile; and including realistic levels of turbulence with existing windshear profiles.
5. Takeoff and Landing in Gusting Crosswinds
The Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule introduced a new requirement to address an NTSB safety recommendation for the incorporation of “realistic, gusty crosswind profiles” into pilot simulator training programs. This recommendation was based on the results of an aircraft accident investigation in which the NTSB determined that a contributing factor of the accident was “inadequate crosswind training in the airline industry due to deficient simulator wind gust modeling” (see NTSB report AAR-10/04). During the course of the accident investigation, NTSB found that the airline's simulator did not have the capability to incorporate such realistic gusting crosswind scenarios for use in pilot training. Furthermore, the FAA reviewed the current part 60 FSTD evaluation standards and found that no such minimum requirement exists for the qualification of an FSTD for use in training.
6. Bounced Landing Training Maneuvers
The Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule introduced a new requirement for bounced landing recovery training based on a review of accidents and various NTSB safety recommendations. As a result of public comments received in response to the Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training SNPRM, the FAA reviewed the part 60 minimum FSTD evaluation requirements to ensure that bounced landing maneuvers are adequately evaluated for crew training. The FAA notes that bounced landing
maneuvers are not specifically included in the current part 60 technical evaluation requirements and, as a result, FSTDs used for this training may not have the required fidelity to properly conduct the training.
D. Related Actions
As a result of information gathered from various working groups, the FAA has taken action on loss of control training and simulator fidelity deficiencies by issuing the following voluntary guidance material:
FAA Safety Alert for Operators (SAFO 10012)—Possible Misinterpretation of the Practical Test Standards (PTS) Language “Minimal Loss of Altitude.” The purpose of this alert bulletin is to clarify the meaning of the approach to stall evaluation criteria as it related to “minimal loss of altitude” in the Airline Transport Pilot PTS.
FAA Information for Operators Bulletin (InFO 10010)—Enhanced Upset Recovery Training. This information bulletin recommends the incorporation of the material in the AURTA into flightcrew training. The AURTA contains guidance for upset recovery training programs for air carrier flightcrews as well as the evaluation guidance for FSTDs used in such training.
FAA National Simulator Program (NSP) Guidance Bulletin #11-04—FSTD Modeling and Evaluation Recommendations for Engine and Airframe Icing
FAA National Simulator Program (NSP) Guidance Bulletin #11-05—FSTD Evaluation Recommendations for Upset Recovery Training Maneuvers
AC 120-109—Stall and Stick Pusher Training
Airline Transport Pilot Practical Test Standards (Change 4).
Portions of this guidance material provide FSTD operators with recommended evaluation methods to improve FSTD fidelity for selected training tasks. To ensure that all FSTDs used to conduct such training are evaluated and modified to a consistent standard, the applicable part 60 technical requirements must be modified.
E. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Recommendations
This proposal would incorporate changes into part 60 that would either directly or indirectly address the following NTSB Safety Recommendations through improved FSTD evaluation standards to support the outlined training tasks:
Stall training and/or stick pusher training (Recommendations A-10-22, A-10-23, A-97-47, A-07-03, and A-10-24)
Upset Recognition and recovery training (Recommendations A-042-62 and A-96-120)
Engine and airframe icing training (Recommendations A-11-46 and A-11-47)
Takeoff and landing training in gusting crosswind conditions (Recommendations A-10-110 and A-10-111)
Bounced landing training (Recommendations A-00-93 and A-11-69).
III. Discussion of the Proposal
A. The FSTD Evaluation Process
For a new FSTD to be used in an FAA approved training program, it must be evaluated in accordance with the technical standards defined in the Qualification Performance Standards (QPS) appendices in part 60 and issued a Statement of Qualification. The QPS appendices in part 60 consist of general requirements, objective testing requirements, and subjective testing requirements that the FSTD must be evaluated against for qualification at a specific level. To validate an FSTD's aerodynamic and ground model programming, objective tests are required that compare the FSTD's performance and handling qualities against flight-test-collected validation data within prescribed tolerances. These objective tests that are required for the qualification of an FSTD are defined in the part 60 QPS appendices. Although part 60 prescribes a minimum number of objective tests required for qualification, FSTD manufacturers and aerodynamic data providers often independently conduct additional tests to fully assess the FSTD's performance beyond the minimum requirements. This additional testing may consist of supplemental validation using flight test data, engineering simulation data, or wind tunnel analysis to expand the validation envelope of an FSTD.
While objective testing using flight test data is generally the preferred method for FSTD validation, many flight training maneuvers cannot be practically validated in such a manner due either to the wide variance that arises in the flight test response due to unsteady aerodynamics and airplane stability, or to the safety risk associated with the flight data collection. These maneuvers include flight at angles of attack beyond stall identification, flight characteristics associated with significant icing, or other maneuvers where significant safety risks exist in the collection of flight test data. For such maneuvers, reliance on engineering and analytical data to extend an FSTD's validation envelope may be both appropriate and acceptable where the flight training objectives can be accomplished.
B. General Rationale for the Proposal
The primary objective of this NPRM is to introduce FSTD technical standards that adequately evaluate an FSTD's ability to replicate the performance and flight handling characteristics of an aircraft during specific new and revised training tasks required as part of an air carrier training program. For many of these new training requirements, the current part 60 and previously grandfathered FSTD evaluation standards do not adequately assess an FSTD's fidelity beyond the normal flight envelope. New FSTD evaluation standards therefore must be developed prior to requiring these enhanced training tasks. An accurate and realistic training environment is necessary to ensure flightcrew members are properly trained in the recognition of a dangerous onset of an upset or a stall condition as well as being able to properly react if the recognition cues are missed. Accident history has shown that unrealistic recognition cues and recovery techniques learned in an FSTD can contribute to an improper recovery technique being attempted in the aircraft.
A secondary objective of this NPRM is to promote harmonization with the current international FSTD qualification guidance to the maximum extent possible. To meet this objective, the FAA is proposing to adopt portions of the ICAO 9625, Edition 3 FSTD evaluation guidance into the appropriate part 60 QPS appendices. This would be limited to revising the part 60 Appendix A standards for Level C and Level D FSTDs with the updated guidelines in ICAO 9625 for a Type VII device. It would also introduce a new FTD level in Appendix B of part 60 using the ICAO 9625 guidelines for a Type V device.
The part 60 technical standards for the evaluation of an FSTD are contained in the QPS appendices of the rule. These QPS appendices are further subdivided into various attachments and tables containing General Simulator Requirements, Objective Testing Requirements, and Subjective Testing Requirements. Due to the extensive reorganization required to align the tables within the part 60 QPS appendices to match the ICAO 9625, Edition 3 structure and numbering
format, the FAA is proposing to reissue both appendix A and appendix B in their entirety. All significant amendments are discussed in the following sections as they relate to the intended objectives.
Under this proposal, the changes to the technical evaluation standards in the QPS appendices would become effective for all FSTDs that are newly qualified or upgraded in qualification level 30 days after publication of a final rule implementing these provisions. However, FSTD sponsors may elect to use the existing part 60 standards to qualify new or upgraded FSTDs for up to 24 months after the effective date of a final rule under the grace period provisions that are currently defined in § 60.15(c). All FSTDs (including previously qualified or grandfathered FSTDs) that would be used conduct certain extended envelope and other training tasks required by the Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule would require evaluation within three years of the effective date of a final rule in accordance with the proposed FSTD Directive. See section III.C. for additional information on the proposed FSTD Directive.
C. Requirements Applicable to Previously Qualified FSTDs—FSTD Directive 2 (Appendix A, Attachment 6)
Previously qualified FSTDs retain “grandfather rights” in accordance with the current part 60 rule.
10
As a result, most changes made to the part 60 QPS appendices would not be applicable to previously qualified FSTDs. Because the majority of FSTDs that would be used to conduct the training required by the Crewmember and Dispatcher Training Final Rule would retain grandfather rights and would not require requalification under the new standards, the FAA must issue an FSTD Directive to ensure these previously qualified FSTDs are properly evaluated. The primary purpose of this proposal is to address the potential lack of FSTD fidelity in certain individually identified training tasks that will be required for air carrier training when the Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule becomes effective.
10
See § 60.17, Previously Qualified FSTDs.
An FSTD Directive is defined in § 60.23 for existing FSTDs and provides the FAA with a mechanism to mandate FSTD modifications where necessary for safety of flight reasons. Some of the training tasks that have been mandated by Public Law 111-216 and required in the Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule have significant potential to introduce either inappropriate or incomplete training to flightcrew members due to a lack of FSTD fidelity. In most of these training tasks, the flight conditions the crews would be exposed to have never been previously experienced in the aircraft, making the accuracy and realism of the FSTD of prime importance. The potential of inadequate fidelity of an FSTD used to conduct such training can lead to a misunderstanding of recognition cues, learning of inappropriate recovery techniques, and an unrealistic understanding, or a lack of understanding of dangerous flight conditions that must be avoided. As a result, the FAA believes that proper evaluation of any FSTD (including those previously qualified FSTDs that hold grandfather rights) used to conduct these training tasks must be accomplished. To keep the cost of evaluating and modifying previously qualified FSTDs to a minimum, the FAA is proposing to apply the requirements of the FSTD Directive only to those FSTDs that would be used to accomplish specific training tasks as described in the FSTD Directive. Under this proposal, FSTD Sponsors may choose to qualify any number of FSTDs to conduct any of the individual tasks as required to meet the needs of their training programs. FSTDs that have been evaluated and modified in accordance with the FSTD Directive would have their Statements of Qualification modified to indicate the FSTD has been evaluated and qualified for the tasks.
The QPS requirements for the qualification of full stall maneuvers and upset recognition and recovery maneuvers are generally applicably to Level C and Level D FSTDs that have minimum requirements for both six degree of freedom motions cues and motion special effects (stall buffet) cues. Particularly for full stall maneuvers that involve significant roll and yaw deviations as well as high bank angle upset recovery maneuvers, motion cues in all six degrees of freedom are critical to provide the pilot with the cues necessary to learn effective recovery techniques. Additionally, motion vibration (buffet) cueing is necessary for the qualification of full stall maneuvers in order to provide the pilot with the proper recognition cues of an impending stall.
The FAA recognizes that some of the full stall and upset recognition and recovery maneuvers described in this proposal may not necessarily result in significant roll or yaw deviations (such as wings level stalls and nose high/nose low upsets with no bank angle) and could potentially be conducted in a Level A or a Level B FFS equipped with a three degree of freedom motion cueing system.
11
Furthermore, many Level A FFSs that do not have a minimum requirement for the simulation of stall buffets may, in fact, be equipped with such a system on a voluntary basis.
12
It is for these reasons, the FAA has proposed that Level A and Level B FFSs may be considered for the qualification of certain full stall and upset recognition and recovery maneuvers in accordance with the FSTD Directive where the motion and vibration cueing systems have been specifically evaluated to provide adequate cues for the accomplishment of the particular training tasks. Specific full stall or upset recovery maneuvers (such as high bank angle upset recovery maneuvers) may be excluded from qualification where it has been determined that the FSTD cannot provide the proper motion or vibration cues to accomplish the particular training tasks.
11
Level A and Level B FFSs have minimum requirements for three degrees of freedom motion cues. See 14 CFR Part 60, Table A1A, Section 5.b.
12
Level A FFSs do not have a minimum requirement for motion effects (stall buffets). See 14 CFR Part 60, Table A1A, Section 5.e.
The FAA has considered the potential cost impact of imposing new evaluation requirements on previously qualified FSTDs where aerodynamic data and associated validation data for objective testing may not exist. Particularly with older aircraft and FSTDs that have been out of production for a number of years or may no longer be supported by the original aerodynamic data provider, the FAA recognizes that the collection of such data may prove to be very costly. In order to mitigate this potential cost impact, the FAA has proposed a number of cost relieving provisions in the FSTD Directive that would reduce the overall cost of compliance with the Directive. These provisions include:
• All new objective test cases for stall maneuvers include those maneuvers that are typically required for aircraft certification, such as turning flight stall and cruise configuration stalls. This would increase the likelihood that the aircraft manufacturer may already have flight test validation data on hand for use in validating required objective tests.
• Where an FSTD's aerodynamic data package is supplied by an aircraft manufacturer, the FAA is proposing to allow the use of approved engineering simulation data
13
for the purposes of
meeting the objective testing requirements of the FSTD Directive.
13
14 CFR part 60, Appendix A, Attachment 2, paragraph 9.
• Where no adequate flight test data or engineering simulation data is available for use in validating required objective tests for stall maneuvers, the FAA is proposing to allow the validation of objective tests through evaluation by a subject matter expert pilot with relevant experience in the aircraft.
• For evaluating full stall maneuvers, where aerodynamic modeling data or validation data is not available or insufficient to fully meet the requirements of the Directive, the National Simulator Program Manager (NSPM) may restrict FSTD qualification to certain maneuvers where adequate validation data exists. For example, if validation data exists only for wings level stall maneuvers at angles of attack at or below the stick pusher activation, the NSPM may still qualify the FSTD for those limited stall maneuvers where data exists (in this example, wings level stalls where recovery is initiated at stick pusher activation).
The primary focus of this FSTD Directive is for those FSTDs that would be used to meet the air carrier training requirements in the Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule. However, because the same safety risk exists for inappropriate simulator training in non-air carrier training programs, other qualified FSTDs that would be used to conduct such training tasks in any FAA-approved flight training program would also have to meet the requirements of this FSTD Directive. Since existing air carriers would not have to comply with the mandatory training requirements until 5 years after the Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training rulemaking becomes effective, the FAA believes there is sufficient time for the affected previously qualified FSTDs to be evaluated and modified in accordance with the FSTD Directive before such training takes place. In cases where affected training tasks are currently being conducted on a voluntary basis and the FSTD has been evaluated by the sponsor to conduct such maneuvers, the FAA has no intent to immediately halt such training. In order for such FSTDs to be modified and evaluated in a timely manner as described in the Directive, the FAA is proposing a compliance date of 3 years after this rule (and associated FSTD Directive) becomes effective. After that date, any FSTD being used in an FAA-approved training program for the following training tasks must be evaluated and issued an amended Statement of Qualification (SOQ) by the NSP in accordance with the FSTD Directive:
Stall training maneuvers that are conducted at angles of attack higher than the activation of the stall warning system. This does not include approach-to-stall (stall prevention) maneuvers where recovery is initiated at the activation of the stall warning system.
Upset Recognition and Recovery training maneuvers.
Engine and Airframe Icing training maneuvers that demonstrate the aircraft specific effects of engine and airframe ice accretion.
Takeoff and landing training tasks with gusting crosswinds.
Bounced landing recovery training tasks.
Specific evaluation requirements that have been proposed for previously qualified FSTDs by FSTD Directive are indicated in the following sections by topic (sections D through H).
D. FSTD Evaluation Requirements for Full Stall Training Tasks (Appendix A; Table A1A, Section 2.1.7.S, Table A2A, Tests 2.a.10, 2.c.8, and 3.f.8; Table A3A, Test 5.b.1; and Attachment 7)
The current and previous FSTD qualification standards (dating back to AC 121-14C in 1980) contain both objective and subjective testing requirements for full stall maneuver evaluation. While these requirements include the evaluation of full stall maneuvers, the objective testing requirements are limited to only validating stall warning speeds, stall buffet onset speeds, and the stall speeds in flight conditions typically used for aircraft certification testing in a very controlled environment (such as wings level stalls in approach and climb configurations). Because there has never previously been a requirement to conduct full stall training in an FSTD (historically, stall training ends at the first indication of the stall), relatively little emphasis has been placed on the objective validation of simulator performance and handling qualities at airspeeds lower than the activation of the stall warning system.
When flight training to a full stall is provided to crewmembers, recognition cues and performance and handling characteristics in the FSTD must be accurate to ensure pilots properly respond to stall events or low energy states. Where a stall is imminent, critical seconds can be lost if the crew is not aware of the low energy cues indicating that the aircraft is approaching a dangerous flight condition. Furthermore, if a stalled condition is encountered in flight, accurate and repeated training helps pilots react and apply appropriate control input(s), to maintain or regain the desired flight path. Training in accurate and realistic scenarios may also help mitigate the startle factor that often accompanies such an event.
While the existing FSTD stall evaluation requirements have generally proven to be sufficient for approach to stall training tasks that terminate at the first indication of the stall, these standards do not adequately extend beyond the activation of the stall warning system for the purpose of validating the FSTD's performance and handling qualities at the stall through recovery. New FSTD evaluation requirements for stall recognition and aircraft handling qualities are necessary if training is to be conducted to a full stall. Most aerodynamic modeling on modern FSTDs assumes a certain amount of linearity from objectively validated test points to extrapolate aircraft performance and handling qualities between test points. As an aircraft approaches a stalled flight condition, this linearity can no longer be assumed, and more test points are required to validate the fidelity of the model.
Through the work of ICATEE and the SPAW ARC, several subject matter experts on pilot training concluded that stall recovery training does not require, nor is it practical, that the post stall behavior of the aircraft be exactly replicated in the FSTD. They also concluded that a “type representative” post stall model should suffice in properly training the recovery maneuver. Because of the typically unstable behavior of the aircraft at or beyond the stall angle of attack, it is not reasonable or practical to require tight tolerances applied to objective tests against flight test validation data beyond the stall angle of attack. In lieu of mandating objective tolerances in the post stall flight regime, it was recommended that the use of analytical methods, engineering simulation, and wind tunnel methods in combination with subject matter expert pilot assessment be authorized to develop and validate “type representative” post stall models.
In consideration of the recommendations of the SPAW ARC, the FAA proposes to amend the appendix A QPS requirements to improve the FSTD evaluation requirements for full stall training tasks. These amendments are intended to accomplish the following objectives to improve FSTD fidelity for flightcrews conducting full stall training tasks:
• Improve the fidelity of the FSTD's aerodynamic model and cueing systems
at angles of attack beyond the first indication of the stall (stall warning, stick shaker, etc.) to better match the aircraft specific recognition cues of an impending stall. This is accomplished through:
○ Improved objective testing to include additional test cases against approved validation data (flight test data, engineering simulation data, etc.) in training critical maneuvers such as turning flight (accelerated) stalls, high altitude (clean configuration) stalls, power-on stalls, and stalls at multiple flap settings.
○ New and improved objective testing tolerances to better validate performance and handling qualities, control inputs, stall buffet, and stick pusher forces (if equipped) of the FSTD as the stall is approached.
• Improve the fidelity of the FSTD's aerodynamic model and cueing systems at the stall break (if present) through stall recovery. This is accomplished through:
○ Defining a minimum level of fidelity and modeling requirements to develop “type representative” extended full stall models using available flight test data and alternate methods, such as engineering simulation, analytical methods, and wind tunnel analysis.
○ Defining functional evaluation criteria for qualified subject matter expert evaluation to determine suitability of a representative full stall model that supports training requirements.
In order to accomplish these objectives to improve FSTD fidelity in full stall training maneuvers, the FAA is proposing revisions to the following sections in appendix A of the QPS for FFSs. Where a specific requirement has been proposed for previously qualified FSTDs by FSTD Directive, it is indicated as such with an “FD”:
Table A1A (General Simulator Requirements)
• Section 2.1.7.S/[FD] (High Angle of Attack Modeling)
Table A1B (Table of Tasks vs. Simulator Level)
• Table A1B, Section 3.b. (High Angle of Attack Maneuvers)
Table A2A (Full Flight Simulator Objective Tests)
• Test 2.a.10/[FD] (Stick Pusher System Force Calibration)
• Tests 2.c.8.a. and 2.c.8.b/[FD] (Stall Characteristics)
• Test 2.f.8. (Characteristic Motion Vibrations—Buffet at Stall)
Table A3A (Functions and Subjective Tests)
• Tests 5.b.1.a and 5.b.1.b/[FD] (Maneuvers—High Angle of Attack)
Attachment 7 (Additional Simulator Qualification Requirements for Stall, Upset Recognition and Recovery, and Airborne Icing Training Tasks)
• High Angle of Attack Model Evaluation [FD]
E. FSTD Evaluation Requirements for Upset Recognition and Recovery Training Tasks (Appendix A; Table A1A, Section 2.1.6.S and Attachment 7)
The current part 60 requirements do not explicitly define a minimum envelope of FSTD aerodynamic model validity required for training purposes. The objective validation of an FSTD is primarily based on direct comparison of the FSTD's performance and handling qualities against that of flight test collected validation data in a representative cross section of the flight envelope that includes many relevant training maneuvers. Outside of these objectively validated test conditions, an FSTD's aerodynamics are typically interpolated or extrapolated using predictive methods and data sources such as wind tunnel data and analytically derived data. Many of the recommended upset recovery training maneuvers (as defined in the AURTA) are conducted in flight regimes that make direct comparison against flight test data impractical due to safety concerns. However, since much of the aerodynamic characteristics necessary to program an FSTD to conduct such maneuvers are based on angle of attack and sideslip ranges that can be derived from flight testing and reliable predictive methods, a certain amount of aerodynamic model fidelity can be accurately implied across a large range of pitch, roll, and heading values. This aerodynamic model fidelity would necessarily be a function of the quality and amount of data sources, ranging from flight test and wind tunnel data sources through established extrapolation methods.
In addition to defining and measuring aerodynamic model fidelity in upset recovery maneuvers, it is important that the instructor have real-time situational awareness with respect to the aircraft's operational limits (including the degree to which the simulation being used accurately portrays the actual reaction of the airplane) and the flight control inputs being used by the student to conduct the recovery. It is critical for the instructor to be able to assess the student's application of control inputs, including those that may not be readily visible from the instructor's station (such as rudder pedal displacements and forces) to ascertain that control inputs to affect recovery do not result in exceeding either the aircraft's operational load limits or the simulator's validation data limits.
In order to properly conduct upset recovery training in an FSTD, a feedback mechanism is necessary to provide full situational awareness to the instructor to properly assess the student's recovery technique. The FAA proposes new requirements to define minimum requirements for a feedback mechanism necessary for upset recovery training in an FSTD. However, because FSTD sponsors may choose a number of methods to accomplish this, the FAA has not prescribed the exact content and layout of such a feedback mechanism. In this proposal, the FAA has included examples of recommended Instructor Operating Station displays the information section of appendix A.
In order to codify all of the proposed qualification requirements for upset recovery training in an FSTD, the FAA is proposing the following changes to Table A1A (General Simulator Requirements) and Attachment 7 of appendix A:
• The FSTD's validation limits (as a function of angle of attack and sideslip angle) must be defined by the aerodynamic data provider for use in establishing a validation envelope of the FSTD for upset recovery training maneuvers.
• For airplane upset conditions or scenarios,
14
the FSTD's aerodynamics must be evaluated to ensure the FSTD can stay within the flight tested or wind tunnel validation envelope during the execution of the recovery maneuvers. A minimum of three defined maneuvers (consistent with the maneuvers described in the AURTA) must be evaluated for FSTD qualification.
14
The AURTA generally defines an airplane upset as one of the following unintentional conditions: Pitch attitude greater than 25 degrees nose up; Pitch attitude greater than 10 degrees nose down; Bank angle greater than 45 degrees; or flying at airspeeds inappropriate for the conditions.
• Externally driven dynamic upset scenarios must be realistic, based on relevant data sources, and must not artificially degrade the simulated aircraft's performance capability without clear indication to the instructor.
• An instructor feedback mechanism must be provided to notify the instructor where the FSTD's validation envelope or the aircraft's operating limits has been exceeded. This feedback mechanism must also provide the
instructor with relevant flight control position information and have the ability to record and playback for debriefing purposes.
In order to accomplish these objectives to improve FSTD functionality for upset recognition and recovery maneuvers, the FAA is proposing revisions to the following sections in appendix A of the QPS for FFSs. Where a specific requirement has been proposed for previously qualified FSTDs by FSTD Directive, it is indicated as such with an “FD”:
Table A1A (General Simulator Requirements)
• Section 2.1.6.S/[FD] (Upset Recognition and Recovery)
Table A1B (Table of Tasks vs. Simulator Level)
• Section 3.f. (Upset Recognition and Recovery)
Table A3A (Functions and Subjective Tests)
• Test 5.b.15/[FD] (Maneuvers—Upset Recognition and Recovery)
Attachment 7 (Additional Simulator Qualification Requirements for Stall, Upset Recognition and Recovery, and Airborne Icing Training Tasks)
• Upset Recognition and Recovery Evaluation [FD]
F. FSTD Evaluation Requirements for Airborne Icing Training Tasks (Appendix A; Table A1A, Section 2.1.5.S; Table A2A, Test 2.i. and Attachment 7)
The FAA is proposing to amend the evaluation requirements for the simulation of engine and airframe icing as currently required in part 60 for Level C and Level D FSTDs. The proposed changes would require that an FSTD have ice accretion models that simulate the aerodynamic effects of ice accretion on the lifting surfaces of the aircraft. These ice accretion models must be realistic and based upon relevant data sources, such as aircraft manufacturer's data or other acceptable analytical methods. The SPAW ARC recommendations form the basis for these proposed requirements. The SPAW ARC recommended that aircraft type-specific flight training be conducted on the aerodynamic effects of ice accumulation; the use and failure of aircraft ice equipment; the use of autopilot; and the performance and handling effects of ice accumulation. The SPAW ARC cites incidents in which aircraft have encountered stall warning, stall buffet, and aerodynamic stall at lower than normal angles of attack due to ice accretion. Accordingly, the SPAW ARC found it to be important that flightcrews are appropriately trained on this phenomenon in a simulator training scenario that emphasizes that in icing conditions, the stall warning or protection system may not activate and stall margins may be significantly reduced.
The SPAW ARC further noted that some simulators may lack the fidelity to accurately portray the aerodynamic effects of ice accumulation. While minimum requirements for engine and airframe icing have existed in the FSTD qualification standards since the early 1980's, these requirements have lacked the specific detail for aerodynamic effects to be simulated. On many older simulators, the effects of ice accumulation have been approximated by adding weight increments to the simulated aircraft. While some icing effects can be approximated using this method, many other critical icing characteristics are not realistically replicated in this manner. For example, neither the altered critical angle of attack due to ice accumulation nor the actual weight indicative of the accumulation are accurately replicated using such weight increments.
To improve flightcrew training for such events, the FAA is proposing to amend some of the current requirements for FSTD evaluation of engine and airframe icing. These amendments would enhance the existing flightcrew training requirement for anti-icing operations by improving the recognition cues and realistic aerodynamic effects of ice accretion. The changes are based on the updated engine and airframe icing requirements that are published in the ICAO 9625, Edition 3 international FSTD qualification guidance as well as the following additional improvements that were recommended by the SPAW ARC:
Ice accretion models must incorporate the aerodynamic effects of icing (where appropriate for the aircraft) such as reduced stall angle of attack, loss of lift, changes in pitching moment, and control effectiveness. These models must be based on aircraft original equipment manufacturer data or other analytical methods.
Aircraft systems, such as autoflight systems and stall protection systems must respond properly to the effects of ice accretion.
Objective tests must be developed to demonstrate the intended aerodynamic effects of simulated ice accretion.
In order to accomplish these objectives to improve FSTD fidelity in airborne icing training maneuvers, the FAA is proposing specific revisions to the following sections in appendix A of the QPS for FFSs. Where a specific requirement has been proposed for previously qualified FSTDs by FSTD Directive, it is indicated as such with an “FD”:
Table A1A (General Simulator Requirements)
• Section 2.1.5.S/[FD] (Engine and Airframe Icing)
Table A2A (Full Flight Simulator Objective Tests)
• Test 2.i (Engine and Airframe Icing Effects Demonstration)
Attachment 7 (Additional Simulator Qualification Requirements for Stall, Upset Recognition and Recovery, and Airborne Icing Training Tasks)
• Engine and Airframe Icing Evaluation [FD]
G. FSTD Evaluation Requirements for Takeoff and Landing Training Tasks in Gusting Crosswinds (Appendix A, Table A1A, Sections 3.1.S, 3.1.R, and 11.4.R)
The FAA has introduced new FSTD evaluation requirements for the modeling of gusting crosswinds for takeoff and landing training tasks. The basis for this change is due to a recent air carrier accident where the aircraft experienced strong and gusty crosswinds during takeoff roll and departed the runway. The NTSB concluded the following in their final accident report:
Because Continental's simulator training did not replicate the ground-level disturbances and gusting crosswinds that often occur at or near the runway surface, and it is unlikely that the accident captain had previously encountered gusting surface crosswinds like those he encountered the night of the accident, the captain was not adequately prepared to respond to the changes in heading encountered during this takeoff.
15
15
Runway Side Excursion During Attempted Takeoff in Strong and Gusty Crosswind Conditions, Continental Flight 1404, December 20, 2008, NTSB Final Report, NTSB/AAR-10/04.
While the current part 60 requirements have both objective and subjective evaluation requirements for crosswind takeoff and landing maneuvers, there is no current requirement for the modeling of gusting crosswinds. Since steady state crosswinds are currently validated with objective testing, the FAA believes most FSTDs should have adequate aerodynamic and ground modeling to react properly when stimulated with gusting crosswind profiles. Furthermore, the FAA agrees with the
NTSB's recommendations that such gusting crosswind profiles should be realistic and based on data sources. However, the FAA believes that such realistic gusting crosswind profiles can be derived from existing sources, such as the FAA Windshear Training Aid, and evaluated for training by subject matter expert pilots.
To ensure the FSTD supports a realistic training environment, the FAA proposes to add the following minimum requirements for the modeling of gusting crosswind profiles and the evaluation of the ground handling characteristics of the FSTD:
Realistic gusting crosswind profiles must be available to the instructor. The profiles must be tuned in intensity and variation to require pilot intervention to avoid runway departure during takeoff or landing roll.
A Statement of Compliance would be required that describes the source data used to develop the crosswind profiles. Additional information material in the QPS appendix recommends the use of the FAA Windshear Training Aid or other acceptable data sources in determining appropriate wind profiles.
The FSTD's ground reaction model must be subjectively assessed to ensure it reacts appropriately to the gusting crosswind profiles.
In order to accomplish these objectives to improve FSTD functionality for gusting crosswinds, the FAA is proposing revisions to the following sections in appendix A of the QPS for FFSs. Where a specific requirement has been proposed for previously qualified FSTDs by FSTD Directive, it is indicated as such with an “FD”:
Table A1A (General Simulator Requirements)
• Section 3.1.S(2)/[FD] (Ground Handling Characteristics)
• Section 11.4.R/[FD] (Atmosphere and Weather—Instructor Controls)
Table A3A (Functions and Subjective Tests)
• Test 3.a.3/[FD] (Takeoff—Crosswind—maximum demonstrated and gusting crosswind)
• Test 8.d./[FD] (Approach and Landing with crosswind—maximum demonstrated and gusting crosswind)
H. FSTD Evaluation Requirements for Bounced Landing Training Tasks (Appendix A, Table A1A, Section 3.1.S)
The Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training SNPRM proposed new requirements for bounced landing training tasks to address various aircraft accidents and NTSB Safety Recommendations. In response to the SNPRM, the FAA received a comment from the Air Line Pilots Association International (Docket entry FAA-2008-0677-0307) with concerns about the ability of an FSTD to adequately represent a bounced landing.
The FAA reviewed the current FSTD qualification standards and found that many of the currently required objective tests do, in fact, test the fidelity on an FSTD in this phase of flight. Objective tests, such as the required minimum unstick speed takeoff test (Vmu), landing tests, and ground effect tests should provide for a reasonable validation of the FSTD's aerodynamic performance in this phase of flight. Furthermore, the current part 60 rule has explicit motion system effects requirements for tail and engine pod strikes that can typically be a result of an incorrectly performed touchdown that could lead to the necessity of a bounced landing recovery. However, it was noted that the current part 60 general requirements for ground reaction and ground handling did not address the effects that should be accounted for in the models. To address this deficiency, the FAA is proposing to add new general requirements for ground reaction modeling to ensure the effects of a bounced landing and related tail strike are properly modeled and evaluated. Because of the safety risk involved in collecting airplane flight test data for such a maneuver, no new objective testing would be required and only subjective assessment of the FSTD would be conducted for this particular task.
In order to accomplish these objectives to improve FSTD functionality for bounced landing training tasks, the FAA is proposing revisions to the following sections in appendix A of the QPS for FFSs. Where a specific requirement has been proposed for previously qualified FSTDs by FSTD Directive, it is indicated as such with an “FD”:
Table A1A (General Simulator Requirements)
• Section 3.1.S(1)/[FD] (Ground Reaction Characteristics)
Table A3A (Functions and Subjective Tests)
• Test 9.3./[FD] (Missed Approach—Bounced landing)
I. FSTD Evaluation Requirements for Windshear Training Tasks (Appendix A, Table A1A, Section 11.2.R)
One of the mandates of Public Law 111-216 was for the FAA to form a multidisciplinary panel to study “. . . methods to increase the familiarity of flightcrew members with, and improve the response of flightcrew members to, stick pusher systems, icing conditions, and microburst and windshear weather events.”
16
The FAA chartered the SPAW ARC in response to this mandate. While the SPAW ARC agreed that microburst and windshear events have decreased significantly since the introduction of the Windshear Training Aid,
17
it recommended a number of improvements to enhance the current FSTD windshear qualification requirements. The FAA is proposing to adopt the following three recommendations of the SPAW ARC, which would improve on the realism and provide better standardization of windshear training events:
16
Public Law 111-216, Section 208(b).
17
Windshear Training Aid, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration 1987.
All required windshear profiles must be selectable and clearly labeled on the FSTD's instructor operating station. A method must be employed (such as an FSTD preset) to ensure that the FSTD is properly configured for the selected windshear profile. This requirement is to ensure that the proper windshear cues are present in crew training as originally qualified on the FSTD.
Realistic levels of turbulence associated with each windshear profile must be available and selectable to the instructor.
In addition to the four basic windshear models that are currently required, two additional “complex” models would be required that represent the complexity of an actual windshear encounter. These additional models may be derived from the example complex models published in the Windshear Training Aid. This requirement would provide an opportunity for crew training and practice in responding to more challenging and realistic windshear events.
In order to accomplish these objectives to improve FSTD functionality for windshear training tasks, the FAA is proposing to revise the following section of appendix A in the QPS for FFSs. No retroactive requirements have been proposed for windshear qualification by FSTD Directive:
Table A1A (General Simulator Requirements)
• Section 11.2.R (Windshear Qualification)
J. Significant Changes To Align With the International FSTD Evaluation Guidance (Appendix A)
In addition to the part 60 changes to address extended envelope and adverse weather event training, the FAA is also proposing to incorporate select portions of the latest ICAO FSTD qualification guidance
18
into the part 60 QPS requirements where practical. ICAO 9625, Edition 3 represents a major industry effort that redefined all qualification levels of FSTDs to better align FSTD fidelity with the intended pilot training tasks. The FAA is not proposing to align with the entire ICAO 9625, Edition 3 guidance document because it contains FSTD levels that differ significantly from the FAA's existing hierarchy of FSTD levels. There are several device levels in the new ICAO guidance document that currently have no basis in the FAA's existing regulations or in the FAA's existing guidance on flight training. Because of the far reaching implications beyond part 60 if changes were made to the FAA's existing FSTD hierarchy, we have limited our alignment to those FSTDs and associated evaluation guidance in the ICAO 9625, Edition 3 document that have an equivalent device in the FAA (Level C and D) or could potentially be used in the future (Level 7 FTD) with minimal impact to the existing hierarchy. Incorporation of the other device levels and evaluation guidance would require careful consideration and additional rulemaking. The FAA notes that the primary purpose of this proposal is to address the weather event, stall, stick pusher, and upset recovery training tasks required by Public Law 111-216. The FAA will continue to assess the possibility of incorporating additional ICAO 9625, Edition 3 FSTD qualification levels and evaluation guidance; however any changes made in this proposal cannot jeopardize the timely implementation of updated FSTD standards to address new and revised training tasks mandated by Public Law.
18
Manual of Criteria for the Qualification of Flight Simulation Training Devices, ICAO 9625, Edition 3, 2009.
After an assessment of the ICAO 9625, Edition 3 document, the FAA is proposing to make the following changes to appendix A (Qualification Performance Standards for Airplane Full Flight Simulators) to better align the evaluation standards for Level C and Level D FSTDs with that of the current international guidance. The FAA has not proposed to align the evaluation standards for Level A and Level B FSTDs because similar devices do not exist in the ICAO 9625, Edition 3 document. Additional changes to introduce a new FTD level as defined in ICAO 9625 have been proposed in appendix B (fixed wing Qualification Performance Standards for Airplane Flight Training Devices) and will be discussed in a later section.
In its review of the new ICAO 9625, Edition 3 guidance, the FAA finds that some of the guidelines necessary for inclusion into part 60 are more restrictive and may impose additional cost (such as the increased visual field of view requirements). However, a majority of the changes are less restrictive or reflect established FSTD evaluation practice. The proposed requirements in part 60 that would align with the new ICAO guidance are expected to reduce expenses and workload for FSTD Sponsors by avoiding conflicting compliance standards between the FAA and other Civil Aviation Authorities. These amendments incorporate technological advances in, encourage innovation of, and standardize the initial and continuing qualification requirements for FSTDs that are consistent with the guidance recently established by the international flight simulation community.
1. Table A1A (General Requirements):
The FAA is proposing to rewrite table A1A to incorporate the ICAO 9625, Edition 3 language and numbering system where appropriate. The FAA changed the numbering system to use the ICAO 9625, Edition 3 fidelity definitions for each simulation feature and to incorporate all general requirements for the ICAO 9625, Edition 3 Type VII FSTD into the FAA Level C and Level D FSTDs where appropriate. The general requirements for Level A and Level B FSTDs have been left mostly unchanged to maintain continuity with the current hierarchy of FSTD qualification levels. Where such a fidelity level is not used for any part 60 defined FSTD, the FAA kept the numbering intact and marked it as “reserved” for future use. The following sections within Table A1A contain notable changes to align with the ICAO 9625, Edition 3 requirements:
Section 1.1.S (Flight Deck Layout and Structure)—Introduces minimum requirements for electronically displayed representations of cockpit instrumentation. This amendment to the existing standard would give FSTD sponsors a lower cost option of simulating costly aircraft components with digital representations.
Section 6.4.R (Sound Volume)—Requires indication to the instructor when FSTD sound volume is in an abnormal setting. This is a new standard though some FSTDs already have this functionality.
Section 6.5.R (Sound Directionality)—Requires cockpit sounds to be directionally representative. This is a new standard, but generally reflects existing practice.
Section 7.1.1.S (Visual System Field of View)—Increases minimum visual display system field of view requirements from 180 (horizontal) x 40 (vertical) degrees to 200 x 40 degrees.
Section 7.1.6.S (Visual System Lightpoint Brightness)—Introduces a new minimum brightness requirement of 8.8 foot-lamberts for visual scene lightpoints.
Section 7.1.8 (Visual System Black Level and Sequential Contrast)—Introduces a new maximum visual system black level and sequential brightness level requirements (applicable only to light valve projectors).
Section 7.1.9 (Visual Motion Blur)—Introduces a new maximum visual system motion blurring requirements (applicable only to light valve projectors).
Section 7.1.10 (Visual Speckle Test)—Introduces a new maximum visual system speckle contrast requirement (applicable only to laser projectors).
Section 7.2.1 (Visual—Heads-Up Display)—Introduces new minimum general requirements for the simulation of heads-up display systems.
Section 7.2.2 (Visual—EFVS)—Introduces new minimum general requirements for the simulation of enhanced flight vision systems.
Section 13.8.S (Miscellaneous—Transport Delay)—Reduces the maximum transport delay requirements from 150 ms to 100 ms (more restrictive).
2. Table A2A (Objective Testing Requirements):
The FAA is proposing to rewrite table A2A to incorporate all of the ICAO 9625, Edition 3 language and test tolerances. Most changes to this section are less restrictive as compared to the current part 60 standards. Less restrictive test tolerances or testing conditions are expected to reduce overall cost to an FSTD Sponsor due to a reduction in the engineering hours required to match objective test results to validation data. The FAA is proposing to change the tolerances and test conditions in the following tests to align with the ICAO 9625, Edition 3 objective testing requirements:
Test 1.a.1 (Minimum Radius Turn)—Adds a new requirement for “key engine parameters.”
Test 1.b.1 (Ground Acceleration)—Revises the tolerance from ±5% of time to ±1.5 seconds or ±5% of time (less restrictive).
Test 1.b.7 (Rejected Takeoff)—Adds an acceptable alternative to requiring maximum braking (80% of maximum braking).
Test 1.d.1 (Level Acceleration)—Relaxes the speed change requirement from a minimum of 50 kts of speed increase to 80% of operational speed range (for airplanes with a small operating speed range).
Test 1.d.2 (Level Deceleration)—Relaxes the speed change requirement from a minimum of 50 kts of speed increase to 80% of operational speed range (for airplanes with a small operating speed range).
Test 1.e.1 (Deceleration Time and Distance)—Revises the tolerance from ±5% of time to ±1.5 seconds or ±5% of time (less restrictive).
Test 1.e.2 (Deceleration Time and Distance, Reverse Thrust)—Revises the tolerance from ±5% of time to ±1.5 seconds or ±5% of time (less restrictive).
Test 1.f.1 (Engine Acceleration)—Revises the total time of engine acceleration (Tt) from ±10% to ±10% or ±0.25 seconds (less restrictive).
Test 1.f.2 (Engine Deceleration)—Revises the total time of engine deceleration (Tt) from ±10% to ±10% or ±0.25 seconds (less restrictive).
Test 2.a.7 (Pitch Trim Rate)—Revises the tolerance on trim rate from ±10% to ±10% or ±0.1 deg/sec (less restrictive).
Tests 2.b.1, 2.b.2, 2.b.3 (Dynamic Control Checks)—Places a minimum absolute (less restrictive) tolerance on both time (0.05 s) and amplitude (0.5% of total control travel) where minimum tolerances did not previously exist. This prevents the rigid application of very small tolerances (±10% of time and ±10% of amplitude) on certain flight control systems.
Test 2.c.7 (Longitudinal Static Stability)—Adds a new test condition that “the speed range should be sufficient to demonstrate stick force versus speed characteristics.”
Test 2.e.3 (Crosswind Landing)—Adds a new test tolerance on column force for airplanes with reversible flight control systems. This additional tolerance will improve the overall validation of cockpit control forces during the landing maneuver. Previous standards only included control force tolerances for the wheel and rudder pedal inputs.
Test 3.b. (Motion Leg Balance)—Removes the testing requirement for motion leg balance. This test was determined to have not provided additional value in assessing the capability of a motion cueing platform and was recommended for removal during the development of the ICAO 9625 document.
Test 3.e.1 (Motion Cueing Fidelity)—Replaces the existing part 60 tests for “motion cueing performance signature” (MCPS) with an objective test for motion cueing developed by the ICAO 9625, Edition 3 International Working Group. This test is designed to better compare motion platform cueing with the actual translational and rotational motion experienced in the aircraft.
Test 4.a.1 (Visual—Field of View)—Increases the minimum visual system field of view from 176 × 36 degrees to 200 × 40 degrees.
Test 4.a.2.a (Visual—System Geometry)—Defines new system geometry tolerances for image position, absolute geometry, and relative geometry.
Test 4.a.7 (Visual—Lightpoint Brightness)—Defines a new minimum lightpoint brightness tolerance
Test 4.a.9 (Visual—Black Level)—Defines new maximum black level requirements
Test 4.a.10 (Visual—Motion Blur)—Defines new tolerances for motion blur of visual scenes
Test 4.a.11 (Visual—Laser Speckle)—Defines a new maximum laser speckle contrast tolerance for applicable display systems
Tests 4.b.1, 4.b.2, 4.b.3 (Heads-Up Display)—Defines new minimum tolerances for HUD alignment, display, and attitude.
Tests 4.c.1, 4.c.2, 4.c.3 (Enhanced Flight Vision Systems)—Defines new minimum tolerances for EFVS registration, RVR, and thermal crossover.
Tests 5.a and 5.b. (Sound System)—Revised objective sound testing tolerances to address subjective tuning and repeatability for recurrent evaluations
Tests 6.a.1 (Systems Integration—Transport Delay)—Transport delay tolerances are reduced from 150 ms to 100 ms.
Paragraph 6.d. (Motion Cueing—Frequency Domain Testing)—Additional background and recommended testing procedures for the OMCT tests (replaces existing guidance on the MCPS tests).
Paragraphs 11.a.1 and 11.b.5 (Validation Test Tolerances)—Extends reduced tolerances for engineering simulation validation data from 20% of flight test tolerances to 40% of flight test tolerances (less restrictive).
3. Table A3A (Functions and Subjective Testing Requirements):
The FAA added is proposing to add subjective tests in the following sections to align with ICAO 9625, Edition 3:
Test 2.b.6 and 2.b.7 (Taxi)
Test 5.b.2 (Slow Flight)
Tests 5.b.1 (High Angle of Attack)
Test 5.b.13 (Gliding to a Forced Landing)
Tests 5.b.14 (Visual Resolution and FSTD Handling and Performance)
Tests 7.a.1, 10.a.1, 11.a.20 (HUD/EFVS)
Tests 11.a.16, 11.a.20, 11.a.25, 11.a.26, 11.a.27 (New Technology)
4. Table A3B (Class I Airport Models)
The FAA is proposing to restructure this table to align with the ICAO 9625, Edition 3 airport model requirements. No significant differences exist between this proposed table and the current part 60 requirements.
5. Table A3D (Motion System Effects):
The FAA is proposing to add or modify tests in the following sections to align with ICAO 9625, Edition 3:
Test 1 (Taxi)—Introduces a new requirement for lateral and directional motion cueing effects during taxi maneuvers.
Test 2 (Runway Contamination)—Introduces a new requirement for motion effects due to runway contamination and associated anti-skid system characteristics.
Test 7 (Buffet Due to Atmospheric Disturbance)—Introduces a new requirement for motion cueing effects due to atmospheric disturbances.
K. New Level 7 Fixed Wing FSTD Requirements—Appendix B Changes (Appendix B, Tables B1A, B1B, B2A, B3A, B3B, B3C, B3D, and B3E)
In addition to the changes proposed for FFS requirements in appendix A, the FAA is also proposing to add a new FTD qualification level (Level 7 FTD) in appendix B of part 60. This new FTD level would be modeled after the ICAO 9625, Edition 3 Type V FSTD and would incorporate all of the general requirements, objective testing requirements, and subjective testing requirements as defined in ICAO 9625, Edition 3 for this level of FSTD. The purpose of adding this new FSTD level would be to expand the number of training tasks that can be qualified for training in a lower cost, fixed-base FSTD. The highest FTD level currently defined in the part 60 FSTD qualification standards is the Level 6 FTD. Because the standards for a Level 6 FTD do not include minimum requirements for ground reaction and ground handling modeling and also do
not require objective testing to validate the FSTD's performance in related maneuvers such as takeoff, landing, and taxi training tasks, the Level 6 FTD cannot be used for training these tasks.
In order to qualify such an FTD for these training tasks, new evaluation requirements would be required to properly evaluate the aerodynamic ground effect, ground handling, and visual display system characteristics to ensure an adequate level of fidelity for related training maneuvers. In ICAO 9625, Edition 3, such a new FSTD level (the ICAO Type V FSTD) was defined to expand the number of introductory training tasks that can be conducted in a fixed base FSTD. The Type V FSTD evaluation guidance introduce new objective testing requirements in the takeoff, landing, and taxi flight maneuvers in a fixed base FTD that do not currently exist in a part 60 defined Level 6 FTD. This additional validation testing would allow for additional training to be qualified for such maneuvers beyond what a current FAA Level 6 FTD is capable of performing. Consistent with the ICAO Type V guidance material, some testing and checking tasks would still be limited to upper level FFSs that have the six degree of freedom motion cueing systems. The minimum requirements for the Type V FSTD as defined in the ICAO 9625, Edition 3 are essentially that of an ICAO Type VII simulator without motion cueing requirements and less restrictive visual display system requirements.
The addition of this new FTD qualification level would be beneficial to industry because it would provide FSTD Sponsors with more options for conducting lower cost training in fixed base FSTDs rather than using more expensive Level D FFS for certain training tasks. The qualification and use of such FTDs in an FAA approved training program would be voluntary and would not impose additional cost on FSTD Sponsors.
To incorporate the proposed addition of the Level 7 FTD into appendix B of part 60, the FAA is proposing to make several modifications to the existing tables to define the technical evaluation requirements for the new FTD level while keeping the requirements intact for the current Level 4, 5, and 6 FTDs. The FAA proposes the following changes to appendix B to achieve this objective:
Minimum FTD Requirements (Table B1A): The FAA has rewritten the minimum FTD requirements table to use the ICAO 9625, Edition 3 format and numbering system. The FAA has integrated the new Level 7 FTD requirements into the table and based them on the proposed Level D FFS requirements as defined in Table A1A with the exception of the motion and visual display system requirements. The FAA is proposing to leave all other FTD levels essentially unchanged from the current part 60 requirements.
Table of Tasks vs FTD Level (Table B1B): The FAA is proposing to modify the minimum qualified task list to include the new Level 7 FTD device. The FAA based the qualified tasks for the Level 7 FTD upon the recommendations in ICAO 9625, Edition 3 for a Type V FSTD. Where a specific training task is limited to training only and not qualified for training to proficiency tasks (testing or checking), the FAA is proposing to annotate it in the table with a “T.”
Objective Testing Requirements (Table B2A): The FAA is proposing to update the table of objective tests to include new testing requirements for the Level 7 FTD. The FAA based these requirements on the FFS Level D requirements proposed in Table A2A with the exception of the motion system and visual system requirements.
Functions and Subjective Testing Requirements (Tables B3A, B3B, B3C, B3D, and B3E): The FAA is proposing to add new and updated subjective tests to address the new tasks that may be accomplished in a Level 7 FTD. The FAA left the existing requirements for Level 4, 5, and 6 FTDs unchanged.
L. Miscellaneous Amendments To Improve and Codify FSTD Evaluation Procedures (§§ 60.15, 60.17, 60.19, 60.23, Appendix A Paragraph 11)
The FAA is further proposing to make minor amendments to the FSTD evaluation and oversight process as defined in several sections of the main rule. The part 60 rule was originally published in 2008 and codified many of the existing FSTD evaluation practices that had previously been defined in guidance material. Since the rule originally became effective, the FAA has found a number of requirements in the rule that have had unintentional negative consequences in the FAA's ability to oversee FSTD qualification issues. The proposed changes would allow for more flexibility in scheduling FSTD evaluations and reduce some of the paperwork that FSTD Sponsors currently submit to the FAA. The changes being proposed would be less restrictive and would not have a cost impact on FSTD Sponsors.
Corrects language in the initial evaluation requirements where FSTD objective testing must be accomplished at the “sponsor's training facility.” This has been corrected to the FSTD's “permanent location” to accommodate for FSTDs that are not located at the sponsor's training facility, but at a third party location. (§ 60.15 and appendix A, paragraph 11).
Modifies the “grace month” for conducting annual Continuing Qualification (CQ) evaluations from one month to three months.
Establishes the CQ evaluation schedule on the Statement of Qualification rather than in the Master Qualification Test Guide (MQTG). These changes would provide more flexibility in scheduling CQ evaluations to accommodate both the FAA and FSTD Sponsors. (§ 60.19).
Amends the date before which previously qualified FSTDs retain the qualification basis under which they were originally evaluated. This would ensure that FSTDs which were qualified after the original publication of part 60 (May 30, 2008) do not inadvertently lose grandfather rights. (§ 60.17).
Clarifies the requirement to notify the FAA of changes made to an FSTD's MQTG. This requirement has been modified to require FAA reporting only for changes that would have a material impact on the MQTG content or the FSTD's qualification basis. This change would reduce the amount of reporting the FSTD Sponsors would have to conduct for minor text changes in the MQTG document. (§ 60.23).
Reduces the minimum time prior to an initial evaluation that an FSTD Sponsor is required to send a confirmation statement to the FAA that an FSTD has been evaluated in accordance with the part 60 QPS, provided there is prior coordination and approval by the NSPM. This change would allow more flexibility for the FSTD sponsors in complex FSTD installations where on-site testing cannot be accomplished before the current 5 day time limit. (appendix A, Paragraph 11).
IV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses
A. Regulatory Evaluation
Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 direct that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits agencies
from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S. standards, this Trade Act requires agencies to consider international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of the economic impacts of this proposed rule. We suggest readers seeking greater detail read the full regulatory evaluation, a copy of which we have placed in the docket for this rulemaking.
In conducting these analyses, FAA has determined this proposed rule has benefits that justify its costs. It has also been determined that this rule is not a “significant regulatory action” as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, and is not “significant” as defined in DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures. The proposed rule, if adopted, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, will not create unnecessary obstacles to international trade and will not impose an unfunded mandate on state, local, or tribal governments, or on the private sector.
Total Benefits and Costs of This Rule
Total Costs and Benefits
The FAA estimated three separate sets of costs, and provide separate benefit bases. The first set of costs would be incurred to make the necessary upgrades to the FSTDs to enable training required by the new Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule. The training cost for the Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule provides rental revenue to simulator sponsors which will fully compensate them for their FSTD upgrade expenses. These simulator revenues were accounted for as costs of the additional training and were fully justified by the benefits in that final rule. The second set of costs would be incurred for the evaluation and modification of engine and airframe icing models which would enhance existing training requirements for operations using anti-icing/de-icing equipment. Just avoiding one serious injury provides sufficient benefits to justify the estimated cost. Lastly there are a set of changes to part 60 QPS appendices which would align the simulator standards for some FSTD levels with those of the latest ICAO simulator evaluation guidance. This last set of changes would only apply to newly qualified FSTDs. The FAA expects unquantified safety improvements to result from these changes through more realistic training and possibly cost savings through avoiding conflicting compliance standards with other aviation authorities. The changes are expected to improve overall simulator fidelity with new and revised visual system and other FSTD evaluation standards, such as visual display resolution, visual system field of view, and system transport delay.
The table below summarizes the costs and benefits of this proposal over a ten year period:
EP10JY14.000
Costs
We now discuss the three separate sets of costs.
Upgrade Previously Qualified FSTDs for New Training Requirements.
The first set of costs would be incurred to make the necessary upgrades to the FSTDs to enable training required by the new Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule. In order to avoid inappropriate or negative training, FSTDs being used to comply with certain “extended envelope” training tasks in the new training rule would require evaluation and modification as defined in the FSTD Directive of this proposed part 60 rule.
Icing Provisions.
The second set of costs would be incurred for the evaluation and modification of engine and airframe icing models which would enhance existing training requirements. These costs were estimated as a percentage of the total cost of the FSTD aerodynamic model development costs proposed by this rule. We did not include additional model implementation and FSTD downtime costs because it was assumed that these modifications would likely be conducted concurrently with the modifications required for the stall training tasks.
Aligning Standards With ICAO.
Lastly there are a set of changes to part 60 QPS appendices which would align the simulator standards for some FSTD levels with those of the latest ICAO FSTD evaluation guidance document. These changes would only apply to newly qualified FSTDs.
Benefits
Upgrade Previously Qualified FSTDs for New Training Requirements.
The best way to understand the benefits of this proposed rule is to view it in conjunction with the new Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule. The costs of that training rule were justified by the expected benefits. The training rule cost/benefit analysis assumes that the simulators will be able to provide the required training at an hourly rate of $500. The part 60 proposed rule specifies the necessary simulator upgrade specifications. These upgrades require simulator owners to purchase and install upgrade packages, the costs of which are a cost of this proposed rule. Revenues received by simulator owners for providing training from the upgraded simulators are costs already incurred in the training rule that have been justified by the benefits of that rule. This revenue over time exceeds the cost of this proposed rule.
The proposed part 60 standards and upgrade simulator expense supporting the new training is $45 million ($32 million in present value at 7%) and has been fully justified by the new Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule.
Icing Provisions.
The second area for benefits is for the icing upgrade. Although this upgrade is not in response to a new training requirement, it would enhance existing training requirements for operations involving anti-icing/de-icing equipment and further address NTSB
19 20
and ARC recommendations to the FAA.
19
NTSB recommendations A-11-46 and A-11-47 address engine and airframe icing.
20
www.ntsb.gov
These costs are minor at less than a million dollars and are expected to comprise a small percentage of the total cost of compliance with the FSTD Directive. One avoided serious injury would justify the minor costs of complying with these icing requirements.
Aligning Standards with ICAO.
Lastly, we have not quantified benefits of aligning part 60 qualification standards with those recommended by ICAO, but we expect aligned FSTD standards to contribute to improved safety as they are developed by a broad coalition of experts with a combined pool of knowledge and experience and to result in cost savings through avoiding conflicting compliance standards with other aviation authorities. The changes are expected to improve overall simulator fidelity with new and revised visual system and other FSTD evaluation standards, such as visual display resolution, visual system field of view, and system transport delay.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA) establishes “as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given serious consideration.” The RFA covers a wide-range of small entities, including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.
However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. The certification must include a statement providing the factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be clear.
Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities
Only FSTD sponsors are affected by this rule. FSTD sponsors are air carriers who own simulators to train their pilots or training centers who own simulators and sell simulator training time. To identify FSTD sponsors that would be affected retroactively by the FSTD directive,
21
the FAA subjected the 811 FSTDs with an active qualification by the FAA to qualifying criteria designed to eliminate FSTDs not likely to be used in a part 121 training program for the applicable training tasks (i.e., stall training, upset recovery training, etc.). The remaining list of 322 FSTDs (included in Appendix A of the regulatory evaluation) were sponsored by the 26 companies presented in the table below.
21
Part 60 contains grandfather rights for previously qualified FSTD so the FAA would invoke an FSTD Directive to require modification of previously qualified devices. The FSTD Directive process has provisions for mandating modifications to FSTDs retroactively for safety of flight reasons. See 14 CFR Part 60, § 60.23(b).
EP10JY14.001
To determine which of the 26 organizations listed in the previous table are small entities, the FAA consulted the U.S. Small Business Administration Table of Small Business Size Standards Matched to North American Industry Classification System Codes.
22
For flight training (NAICS Code 611512) the threshold for small business is revenue of $25.5 million or less. The size standard for scheduled passenger air transportation (NAICS Code 481111) and scheduled freight air transportation (NAICS Code 481112) and non-scheduled charter passenger air transportation (NAICS Code 481211) is 1,500 employees. After consulting the World Aviation Directory, and other on-line sources, for employees and annual revenues, the FAA identified six companies that are qualified as small entities. In this instance, the FAA considers six a substantial number of small entities.
22
http://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/Size_Standards_Table.pdf.
Economic Impact
The economic impact of this rule applies differently to previously qualified FSTD sponsors than it would to newly qualified FSTD sponsors. Below is a summary of the two separate analyses performed. One determines the impact of the proposal on small entities that would have to upgrade their previously qualified devices and the other analysis determines the impact on those that would have to purchase a newly qualified devices.
Economic Impact of Upgrading Previously Qualified FSTDs
Four of the small entities are training providers. If these companies choose to offer training in the extended envelope training tasks as required by the Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule, they could do so only in an upgraded FSTD. However, if they offer this new required training there would be increased demand for training time in their FSTDs because in addition to current requirements for training, captains and first officers have two hours of additional training in the first year and additional training time in the future. The FAA estimated the cost of upgrading each simulator would be recovered in less than 300 hours at a simulator rental rate of $500 per hour. The training companies could therefore recover their upgrade costs for each simulator in less than one year. Therefore, the rule would not impose a significant economic impact on these companies.
Two of the companies identified as small businesses are part 121 air carriers. They have to comply with the Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule by training their pilots in simulators that meet the standards of this part 60 rule. The additional pilot training cost in an upgraded simulator was accounted for and justified in that training final rule. This part 60 rule simply specifies how the simulators need to be upgraded such that the new training will be in compliance with the training final rule. These part 121 operators have two options. They can purchase training time for their pilots at a qualified training center. Alternatively they could choose to comply with the FSTD Directive by upgrading their own devices to train their pilots for the new training tasks. For these operators who already own simulators, the cost of complying with the FSTD Directive is estimated to be less than the cost of renting time at a training center to comply with the new requirements. Therefore, we expect that they would choose to upgrade their devices because it would be less costly to offer training in-house than to send pilots out to
training centers. The cost to train pilots in the tasks required by the training rule is a cost of the training rule and not this rule. Thus, the rule would not impose a significant economic impact on these companies, because by upgrading their simulators these operators would lower their costs.
Economics of Newly Qualified Devices
It is unknown how many sponsors of newly qualified FSTDs in the future may qualify as small entities, but we expect it would be a substantial number as it could likely include the six identified above. The FAA expects the proposed requirements that address the new training tasks and upgrade the icing FSTD requirements to be included in future training packages and the cost would be minimal for a newly qualified FSTD. The requirement to align with ICAO guidance however, would result in some cost. The FAA does not know who in the future will be purchasing and qualifying FSTDs after the rule becomes effective. The FAA estimates that the incremental cost per newly qualified FSTD would be approximately $34,000. This is less than 0.5 percent of the cost of a new FSTD, which generally costs $10 million or more. Therefore we do not believe the proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities that purchase newly qualified FSTDs after the rule is in effect.
Thus this proposed rule is expected to impact a substantial number of small entities, but not impose a significant economic impact. Therefore, as provided in section 605(b), the head of the FAA certifies that this rulemaking will not result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The FAA solicits comments regarding this determination.
C. International Trade Impact Assessment
The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not operate in a manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has assessed the potential effect of this proposed rule and determined that it uses international standards as its basis and does not create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States.
D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more (in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate is deemed to be a “significant regulatory action.” The FAA currently uses an inflation-adjusted value of $151 million in lieu of $100 million. This proposed rule does not contain such a mandate; therefore, the requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.
E. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public. According to the 1995 amendments to the Paperwork Reduction Act (5 CFR 1320.8(b)(2)(vi)), an agency may not collect or sponsor the collection of information, nor may it impose an information collection requirement unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
This action contains the following proposed amendments to the existing information collection requirements previously approved under OMB Control Number 2120-0680. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)), the FAA has submitted these proposed information collection amendments to OMB for its review.
Summary:
Under this proposal, an increase in information collection requirements would be imposed on Sponsors of previously qualified FSTDs that require modification for the qualification of certain training tasks as defined in FSTD Directive 2. These Sponsors would be required to report FSTD modifications to the FAA as described in § 60.23 and § 60.16 which would result in a one-time information collection. Additionally, because compliance with the FSTD Directive (for previously qualified FSTDs) and the new QPS requirements (for newly qualified FSTDs) would increase the overall amount of objective testing necessary to maintain FSTD qualification under § 60.19, a slight increase in annual information collection would be required to document such testing.
Use:
For previously qualified FSTDs, the information collection would be used to determine that the requirements of the FSTD Directive have been met. The FAA will use this information to issue amended Statements of Qualification (SOQ) for those FSTDs that have been found to meet those requirements and also to determine if the FSTDs annual inspection and maintenance requirements have been met.
Respondents (including number of):
The additional information collection burden in this proposal is limited to those FSTD Sponsors that would require specific FSTD qualification for certain training tasks as defined in FSTD Directive 2. Approximately 322 previously qualified FSTDs
23
may require evaluation as described in the FSTD Directive to support the Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule. The number of respondents would be limited to those Sponsors that maintain FSTDs which may require additional qualification in accordance with the FSTD Directive.
23
The FAA estimated this from the number of previously qualified FSTDs that simulate aircraft which are currently used in U.S. part 121 air carrier operations.
Frequency:
This additional information collection would include both a one-time event and an increase to the annual part 60 information collection requirements.
Annual Burden Estimate:
The FAA estimates that for each additional qualified task required in accordance with FSTD Directive 2, the one-time information collection burden to each FSTD Sponsor would be approximately 0.85 hours per FSTD for each additional qualified task.
24
Assuming all five of the additional qualified tasks would be required for each of the estimated 322 FSTDs (including qualification for full stall training, upset recovery training, airborne icing training, takeoff and landing in gusting crosswinds, and bounced landing training), the cumulative one-time information collection burden would be approximately 1,369 hours. This collection burden would be distributed over a time period of approximately 3
years. This 3 year time period represents the compliance period of the proposed FSTD Directive.
24
The 0.85 hour burden is derived from the existing Part 60 Paperwork Reduction Act supporting statement (OMB-2120-0680), Table 5 (§ 60.16) and includes estimated time for the FSTD Sponsor's staff to draft and send the letter as well as estimated time for updating the approved MQTG with new test results.
The one-time information collection burden to the Federal government is estimated at approximately 0.6 hours per FSTD for each qualified task to include Aerospace Engineer review and preparation of an FAA response.
25
Assuming all five of the additional qualified tasks would be required for each of the estimated 322 FSTDs, the cumulative one-time information collection burden to the Federal government would be approximately 966 hours. The modification of the FSTD's Statement of Qualification would be incorporated with the FSTD's next scheduled evaluation, so this would not impose additional burden.
25
The 0.6 hour burden on the Federal government is also derived from the existing Part 60 Paperwork Reduction Act supporting statement (OMB-2120-0680), Table 5 (§ 60.16).
Because the number of objective tests required to maintain FSTD qualification would increase slightly with this proposal, the annual information collection burden would also increase under the FSTD inspection and maintenance requirements of § 60.19. This additional information collection burden is estimated by increasing the average number of required objective tests for Level C and Level D FSTDs by four tests.
26
For the estimated 322 FSTDs that may be affected by the FSTD Directive, this will result in an additional 129 hours of annual information collection burden to FSTD Sponsors. This additional collection burden is based upon 0.1 hours
27
per test for a simulator technician to document as required by § 60.19. The additional information collection burden to the Federal government would also increase by approximately 43 hours
28
due to the additional tests that may be sampled and reviewed by the FAA during continuing qualification evaluations.
26
For previously qualified FSTDs, the requirements of FSTD Directive #2 will add a maximum of four additional objective test cases to the existing requirements.
27
The 0.1 hour burden is derived from the existing Part 60 Paperwork Reduction Act supporting statement (OMB-2120-0680), Table 6 (§ 60.19) and includes estimated time for the FSTD Sponsor's staff to document the completion of required annual objective testing.
28
This information collection burden is based upon 0.1 hours per test required for FAA personnel to review. These four additional tests are subject to the approximately 33% of which may be spot checked by FAA personnel on site during a continuing qualification evaluation.
For new FSTDs qualified after the proposal becomes effective, the changes to the QPS appendices proposed to align with ICAO 9625 as well as the new requirements for the evaluation of stall and icing training maneuvers would result in an estimated average increase of four objective tests
29
that would require annual documentation as described in § 60.19. For the estimated 22 new
30
Level C and Level D FSTDs that may be initially qualified annually by the FAA, this will result in an additional 9 hours of annual information collection burden to FSTD Sponsors and an additional 3 hours of annual information collection burden to the Federal government. For newly qualified FSTDs, this proposal does not increase the frequency of reporting for FSTD sponsors.
29
These four additional tests were estimated through comparison between the current and proposed list of objective tests required for qualification (Table A2A). Note that the total number of tests can vary between FSTDs as a function of aircraft type, test implementation, and the employment of certain technologies that would require additional testing.
30
Based upon internal records review, the FAA calculated the number of newly qualified FSTDs at approximately 22 per year over a ten year period.
The agency is soliciting comments to—
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed information requirement is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information would have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of collecting information on those who are to respond, including by using appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Individuals and organizations may send comments on the information collection requirement to the address listed in the
ADDRESSES
section at the beginning of this preamble by October 8, 2014. Comments also should be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Desk Officer for FAA, New Executive Building, Room 10202, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20053.
F. International Compatibility and Cooperation
In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to conform to ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has determined that there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices that correspond to these proposed changes to the part 60 regulations. While the FAA has proposed to align the part 60 qualification standards for Level 7 FTDs and Level D fixed wing FFSs with that of ICAO Document 9625, the FSTD qualification guidance contained within ICAO 9625 are not defined in an ICAO Annex as a Standard and Recommended Practice and are considered guidance material.
Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation, (77 FR 26413, May 4, 2012) promotes international regulatory cooperation to meet shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues and reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements. The FAA has analyzed this action under the policy and agency responsibilities of Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation. The agency has determined that this action would promote the elimination of differences between U.S. aviation standards and those of other civil aviation authorities by aligning evaluation standards for similar FSTD fidelity levels to the latest internationally recognized FSTD evaluation guidance in the ICAO 9625 document.
G. Environmental Analysis
FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA actions that are categorically excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has determined this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical exclusion identified in paragraph 312f and involves no extraordinary circumstances.
V. Executive Order Determinations
A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
The FAA has analyzed this proposed rule under the principles and criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The agency has determined that this action would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, or the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, and, therefore, would not have Federalism implications.
B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
The FAA analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The agency has determined that it would not be a “significant energy action” under the executive order and would not be likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.
VI. Additional Information
A. Comments Invited
The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. The agency also invites comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should submit only one time.
The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, the FAA will consider all comments it receives on or before the closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. The agency may change this proposal in light of the comments it receives.
Proprietary or Confidential Business Information: Commenters should not file proprietary or confidential business information in the docket. Such information must be sent or delivered directly to the person identified in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section of this document, and marked as proprietary or confidential. If submitting information on a disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM, and identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is proprietary or confidential.
Under 14 CFR 11.35(b), if the FAA is aware of proprietary information filed with a comment, the agency does not place it in the docket. It is held in a separate file to which the public does not have access, and the FAA places a note in the docket that it has received it. If the FAA receives a request to examine or copy this information, it treats it as any other request under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). The FAA processes such a request under Department of Transportation procedures found in 49 CFR part 7.
B. Availability of Rulemaking Documents
An electronic copy of rulemaking documents may be obtained from the Internet by—
1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (
http://www.regulations.gov
);
2. Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at
http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies
or
3. Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at
http://www.fdsys.gov
.
Copies may also be obtained by sending a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680. Commenters must identify the docket or notice number of this rulemaking.
All documents the FAA considered in developing this proposed rule, including economic analyses and technical reports, may be accessed from the Internet through the Federal eRulemaking Portal referenced in item (1) above.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 60
Airmen, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
The Proposed Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend chapter I of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 60—FLIGHT SIMULATION TRAINING DEVICE INITIAL AND CONTINUING QUALIFICATION AND USE
1. The authority citation for part 60 is revised to read as follows:
Authority:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, and 44701; Pub. L. 111-216, 124 Stat. 2348 (49 U.S.C. 44701 note).
2. Amend § 60.15 by revising paragraph (e) to read as follows:
§ 60.15
Initial Qualification requirements.
(e) The subjective tests that form the basis for the statements described in paragraph (b) of this section and the objective tests referenced in paragraph (f) of this section must be accomplished at the FSTD's permanent location, except as provided for in the applicable QPS.
3. Amend § 60.17 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
§ 60.17
Previously qualified FSTDs.
(a) Unless otherwise specified by an FSTD Directive, further referenced in the applicable QPS, or as specified in paragraph (e) of this section, an FSTD qualified before [effective date of final rule] will retain its qualification basis as long as it continues to meet the standards, including the objective test results recorded in the MQTG and subjective tests, under which it was originally evaluated, regardless of sponsor. The sponsor of such an FSTD must comply with the other applicable provisions of this part.
4. Amend § 60.19 by revising paragraphs (b)(4) and (b)(5) to read as follows:
§ 60.19
Inspection, continuing qualification evaluation, and maintenance requirements.
(b) * * *
(4) The frequency of NSPM-conducted continuing qualification evaluations for each FSTD will be established by the NSPM and specified in the Statement of Qualification.
(5) Continuing qualification evaluations conducted in the 3 calendar months before or after the calendar month in which these continuing qualification evaluations are required will be considered to have been conducted in the calendar month in which they were required.
5. Amend § 60.23 by adding new paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows:
§ 60.23
Modifications to FSTDs.
(a) * * *
(3) Changes to the MQTG which do not affect required objective testing results or validation data approved during the initial evaluation of the FSTD are not considered modifications under this section.
6. Part 60 is amended by revising Appendix A to read as follows:
Appendix A to Part 60—Qualification Performance Standards for Airplane Full Flight Simulators
Begin Information
This appendix establishes the standards for Airplane FFS evaluation and qualification. The NSPM is responsible for the development, application, and
implementation of the standards contained within this appendix. The procedures and criteria specified in this appendix will be used by the NSPM, or a person assigned by the NSPM, when conducting airplane FFS evaluations.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction.
2. Applicability (§§ 60.1 and 60.2).
3. Definitions (§ 60.3).
4. Qualification Performance Standards (§ 60.4).
5. Quality Management System (§ 60.5).
6. Sponsor Qualification Requirements (§ 60.7).
7. Additional Responsibilities of the Sponsor (§ 60.9).
8. FFS Use (§ 60.11).
9. FFS Objective Data Requirements (§ 60.13).
10. Special Equipment and Personnel Requirements for Qualification of the FFS (§ 60.14).
11. Initial (and Upgrade) Qualification Requirements (§ 60.15).
12. Additional Qualifications for a Currently Qualified FFS (§ 60.16).
13. Previously Qualified FFSs (§ 60.17).
14. Inspection, Continuing Qualification Evaluation, and Maintenance Requirements (§ 60.19).
15. Logging FFS Discrepancies (§ 60.20).
16. Interim Qualification of FFSs for New Airplane Types or Models (§ 60.21).
17. Modifications to FFSs (§ 60.23).
18. Operations With Missing, Malfunctioning, or Inoperative Components (§ 60.25).
19. Automatic Loss of Qualification and Procedures for Restoration of Qualification (§ 60.27).
20. Other Losses of Qualification and Procedures for Restoration of Qualification (§ 60.29).
21. Record Keeping and Reporting (§ 60.31).
22. Applications, Logbooks, Reports, and Records: Fraud, Falsification, or Incorrect Statements (§ 60.33).
23. Specific FFS Compliance Requirements (§ 60.35).
24. [Reserved]
25. FFS Qualification on the Basis of a Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreement (BASA) (§ 60.37).
Attachment 1 to Appendix A to Part 60—General Simulator Requirements.
Attachment 2 to Appendix A to Part 60—FFS Objective Tests.
Attachment 3 to Appendix A to Part 60—Simulator Subjective Evaluation.
Attachment 4 to Appendix A to Part 60—Sample Documents.
Attachment 5 to Appendix A to Part 60—Simulator Qualification Requirements for Windshear Training Program Use.
Attachment 6 to Appendix A to Part 60—FSTD Directives Applicable to Airplane Flight Simulators.
Attachment 7 to Appendix A to Part 60—Additional Simulator Qualification Requirements for Stall, Upset Recognition and Recovery, and Engine and Airframe Icing Training Tasks.
End Information
1. Introduction
Begin Information
a. This appendix contains background information as well as regulatory and informative material as described later in this section. To assist the reader in determining what areas are required and what areas are permissive, the text in this appendix is divided into two sections: “QPS Requirements” and “Information.” The QPS Requirements sections contain details regarding compliance with the part 60 rule language. These details are regulatory, but are found only in this appendix. The Information sections contain material that is advisory in nature, and designed to give the user general information about the regulation.
b. Questions regarding the contents of this publication should be sent to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Flight Standards Service, National Simulator Program Staff, AFS-205, 100 Hartsfield Centre Parkway, Suite 400, Atlanta, Georgia, 30354. Telephone contact numbers for the NSP are: Phone, 404-832-4700; fax, 404-761-8906. The general email address for the NSP office is:
9-aso-avs-sim-team@faa.gov.
The NSP Internet Web site address is:
http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/nsp/.
On this Web site you will find an NSP personnel list with telephone and email contact information for each NSP staff member, a list of qualified flight simulation devices, advisory circulars (ACs), a description of the qualification process, NSP policy, and an NSP “In-Works” section. Also linked from this site are additional information sources, handbook bulletins, frequently asked questions, a listing and text of the Federal Aviation Regulations, Flight Standards Inspector's handbooks, and other FAA links.
c. The NSPM encourages the use of electronic media for all communication, including any record, report, request, test, or statement required by this appendix. The electronic media used must have adequate security provisions and be acceptable to the NSPM. The NSPM recommends inquiries on system compatibility, and minimum system requirements are also included on the NSP Web site.
d. Related Reading References.
(1) 14 CFR part 60.
(2) 14 CFR part 61.
(3) 14 CFR part 63.
(4) 14 CFR part 119.
(5) 14 CFR part 121.
(6) 14 CFR part 125.
(7) 14 CFR part 135.
(8) 14 CFR part 141.
(9) 14 CFR part 142.
(10) AC 120-28, as amended, Criteria for Approval of Category III Landing Weather Minima.
(11) AC 120-29, as amended, Criteria for Approving Category I and Category II Landing Minima for part 121 operators.
(12) AC 120-35, as amended, Line Operational Simulations: Line-Oriented Flight Training, Special Purpose Operational Training, Line Operational Evaluation.
(13) AC 120-40, as amended, Airplane Simulator Qualification.
(14) AC 120-41, as amended, Criteria for Operational Approval of Airborne Wind Shear Alerting and Flight Guidance Systems.
(15) AC 120-57, as amended, Surface Movement Guidance and Control System (SMGCS).
(16) AC 150/5300-13, as amended, Airport Design.
(17) AC 150/5340-1, as amended, Standards for Airport Markings.
(18) AC 150/5340-4, as amended, Installation Details for Runway Centerline Touchdown Zone Lighting Systems.
(19) AC 150/5340-19, as amended, Taxiway Centerline Lighting System.
(20) AC 150/5340-24, as amended, Runway and Taxiway Edge Lighting System.
(21) AC 150/5345-28, as amended, Precision Approach Path Indicator (PAPI) Systems.
(22) International Air Transport Association document, “Flight Simulator Design and Performance Data Requirements,” as amended.
(23) AC 25-7, as amended, Flight Test Guide for Certification of Transport Category Airplanes.
(24) AC 23-8, as amended, Flight Test Guide for Certification of Part 23 Airplanes.
(25) International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Manual of Criteria for the Qualification of Flight Simulators, as amended.
(26) Airplane Flight Simulator Evaluation Handbook, Volume I, as amended and Volume II, as amended, The Royal Aeronautical Society, London, UK.
(27) FAA Publication FAA-S-8081 series (Practical Test Standards for Airline Transport Pilot Certificate, Type Ratings, Commercial Pilot, and Instrument Ratings).
(28) The FAA Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM). An electronic version of the AIM is on the internet at
http://www.faa.gov/atpubs.
(29) Aeronautical Radio, Inc. (ARINC) document number 436, titled Guidelines For Electronic Qualification Test Guide (as amended).
(30) Aeronautical Radio, Inc. (ARINC) document 610, Guidance for Design and Integration of Aircraft Avionics Equipment in Simulators (as amended).
End Information
2. Applicability (§§ 60.1 and 60.2)
Begin Information
No additional regulatory or informational material applies to § 60.1, Applicability, or to § 60.2, Applicability of sponsor rules to person who are not sponsors and who are engaged in certain unauthorized activities.
End Information
3. Definitions (§ 60.3)
Begin Information
See Appendix F of this part for a list of definitions and abbreviations from part 1 and part 60, including the appropriate appendices of part 60.
End Information
4. Qualification Performance Standards (§ 60.4)
Begin Information
No additional regulatory or informational material applies to § 60.4, Qualification Performance Standards.
End Information
5. Quality Management System (§ 60.5)
Begin Information
See Appendix E of this part for additional regulatory and informational material regarding Quality Management Systems.
End Information
6. Sponsor Qualification Requirements (§ 60.7)
Begin Information
a. The intent of the language in § 60.7(b) is to have a specific FFS, identified by the sponsor, used at least once in an FAA-approved flight training program for the airplane simulated during the 12-month period described. The identification of the specific FFS may change from one 12-month period to the next 12-month period as long as the sponsor sponsors and uses at least one FFS at least once during the prescribed period. No minimum number of hours or minimum FFS periods are required.
b. The following examples describe acceptable operational practices:
(1) Example One.
(a) A sponsor is sponsoring a single, specific FFS for its own use, in its own facility or elsewhere—this single FFS forms the basis for the sponsorship. The sponsor uses that FFS at least once in each 12-month period in the sponsor's FAA-approved flight training program for the airplane simulated. This 12-month period is established according to the following schedule:
(i) If the FFS was qualified prior to May 30, 2008, the 12-month period begins on the date of the first continuing qualification evaluation conducted in accordance with § 60.19 after May 30, 2008, and continues for each subsequent 12-month period;
(ii) A device qualified on or after May 30, 2008, will be required to undergo an initial or upgrade evaluation in accordance with § 60.15. Once the initial or upgrade evaluation is complete, the first continuing qualification evaluation will be conducted within 6 months. The 12 month continuing qualification evaluation cycle begins on that date and continues for each subsequent 12-month period.
(b) There is no minimum number of hours of FFS use required.
(c) The identification of the specific FFS may change from one 12-month period to the next 12-month period as long as the sponsor sponsors and uses at least one FFS at least once during the prescribed period.
(2) Example Two.
(a) A sponsor sponsors an additional number of FFSs, in its facility or elsewhere. Each additionally sponsored FFS must be—
(i) Used by the sponsor in the sponsor's FAA-approved flight training program for the airplane simulated (as described in § 60.7(d)(1));
OR
(ii) Used by another FAA certificate holder in that other certificate holder's FAA-approved flight training program for the airplane simulated (as described in § 60.7(d)(1)). This 12-month period is established in the same manner as in example one;
OR
(iii) Provided a statement each year from a qualified pilot, (after having flown the airplane, not the subject FFS or another FFS, during the preceding 12-month period) stating that the subject FFSs performance and handling qualities represent the airplane (as described in § 60.7(d)(2)). This statement is provided at least once in each 12-month period established in the same manner as in example one.
(b) No minimum number of hours of FFS use is required.
(3) Example Three.
(a) A sponsor in New York (in this example, a Part 142 certificate holder) establishes “satellite” training centers in Chicago and Moscow.
(b) The satellite function means that the Chicago and Moscow centers must operate under the New York center's certificate (in accordance with all of the New York center's practices, procedures, and policies; e.g., instructor and/or technician training/checking requirements, record keeping, QMS program).
(c) All of the FFSs in the Chicago and Moscow centers could be dry-leased (i.e., the certificate holder does not have and use FAA-approved flight training programs for the FFSs in the Chicago and Moscow centers) because—
(i) Each FFS in the Chicago center and each FFS in the Moscow center is used at least once each 12-month period by another FAA certificate holder in that other certificate holder's FAA-approved flight training program for the airplane (as described in § 60.7(d)(1));
OR
(ii) A statement is obtained from a qualified pilot (having flown the airplane, not the subject FFS or another FFS during the preceding 12-month period) stating that the performance and handling qualities of each FFS in the Chicago and Moscow centers represents the airplane (as described in § 60.7(d)(2)).
End Information
7. Additional Responsibilities of the Sponsor (§ 60.9)
Begin Information
The phrase “as soon as practicable” in § 60.9(a) means without unnecessarily disrupting or delaying beyond a reasonable time the training, evaluation, or experience being conducted in the FFS.
End Information
8. FFS Use (§ 60.11)
Begin Information
No additional regulatory or informational material applies to § 60.11, Simulator Use.
End Information
9. FFS Objective Data Requirements (§ 60.13)
Begin QPS Requirements
a. Flight test data used to validate FFS performance and handling qualities must have been gathered in accordance with a flight test program containing the following:
(1) A flight test plan consisting of:
(a) The maneuvers and procedures required for aircraft certification and simulation programming and validation.
(b) For each maneuver or procedure—
(i) The procedures and control input the flight test pilot and/or engineer used.
(ii) The atmospheric and environmental conditions.
(iii) The initial flight conditions.
(iv) The airplane configuration, including weight and center of gravity.
(v) The data to be gathered.
(vi) All other information necessary to recreate the flight test conditions in the FFS.
(2) Appropriately qualified flight test personnel.
(3) An understanding of the accuracy of the data to be gathered using appropriate alternative data sources, procedures, and instrumentation that is traceable to a recognized standard as described in Attachment 2, Table A2E of this appendix.
(4) Appropriate and sufficient data acquisition equipment or system(s), including appropriate data reduction and analysis methods and techniques, as would be acceptable to the FAA's Aircraft Certification Service.
b. The data, regardless of source, must be presented as follows:
(1) In a format that supports the FFS validation process.
(2) In a manner that is clearly readable and annotated correctly and completely.
(3) With resolution sufficient to determine compliance with the tolerances set forth in Attachment 2, Table A2A of this appendix.
(4) With any necessary instructions or other details provided, such as yaw damper or throttle position.
(5) Without alteration, adjustments, or bias. Data may be corrected to address known data calibration errors provided that an explanation of the methods used to correct the errors appears in the QTG. The corrected data may be re-scaled, digitized, or otherwise manipulated to fit the desired presentation.
c. After completion of any additional flight test, a flight test report must be submitted in support of the validation data. The report must contain sufficient data and rationale to
support qualification of the FFS at the level requested.
d. As required by § 60.13(f), the sponsor must notify the NSPM when it becomes aware that an addition to, an amendment to, or a revision of data that may relate to FFS performance or handling characteristics is available. The data referred to in this paragraph is data used to validate the performance, handling qualities, or other characteristics of the aircraft, including data related to any relevant changes occurring after the type certificate was issued. The sponsor must—
(1) Within 10 calendar days, notify the NSPM of the existence of this data; and
(2) Within 45 calendar days, notify the NSPM of—
(a) The schedule to incorporate this data into the FFS; or
(b) The reason for not incorporating this data into the FFS.
e. In those cases where the objective test results authorize a “snapshot test” or a “series of snapshot tests” results in lieu of a time-history result, the sponsor or other data provider must ensure that a steady state condition exists at the instant of time captured by the “snapshot.” The steady state condition must exist from 4 seconds prior to, through 1 second following, the instant of time captured by the snapshot.
End QPS Requirements
Begin Information
f. The FFS sponsor is encouraged to maintain a liaison with the manufacturer of the aircraft being simulated (or with the holder of the aircraft type certificate for the aircraft being simulated if the manufacturer is no longer in business), and, if appropriate, with the person having supplied the aircraft data package for the FFS in order to facilitate the notification required by § 60.13(f).
g. It is the intent of the NSPM that for new aircraft entering service, at a point well in advance of preparation of the Qualification Test Guide (QTG), the sponsor should submit to the NSPM for approval, a descriptive document (see Table A2C, Sample Validation Data Roadmap for Airplanes) containing the plan for acquiring the validation data, including data sources. This document should clearly identify sources of data for all required tests, a description of the validity of these data for a specific engine type and thrust rating configuration, and the revision levels of all avionics affecting the performance or flying qualities of the aircraft. Additionally, this document should provide other information, such as the rationale or explanation for cases where data or data parameters are missing, instances where engineering simulation data are used or where flight test methods require further explanations. It should also provide a brief narrative describing the cause and effect of any deviation from data requirements. The aircraft manufacturer may provide this document.
h. There is no requirement for any flight test data supplier to submit a flight test plan or program prior to gathering flight test data. However, the NSPM notes that inexperienced data gatherers often provide data that is irrelevant, improperly marked, or lacking adequate justification for selection. Other problems include inadequate information regarding initial conditions or test maneuvers. The NSPM has been forced to refuse these data submissions as validation data for an FFS evaluation. It is for this reason that the NSPM recommends that any data supplier not previously experienced in this area review the data necessary for programming and for validating the performance of the FFS, and discuss the flight test plan anticipated for acquiring such data with the NSPM well in advance of commencing the flight tests.
i. The NSPM will consider, on a case-by-case basis, whether to approve supplemental validation data derived from flight data recording systems, such as a Quick Access Recorder or Flight Data Recorder.
End Information
10. Special Equipment and Personnel Requirements for Qualification of the FFSs (§ 60.14)
Begin Information
a. In the event that the NSPM determines that special equipment or specifically qualified persons will be required to conduct an evaluation, the NSPM will make every attempt to notify the sponsor at least one (1) week, but in no case less than 72 hours, in advance of the evaluation. Examples of special equipment include spot photometers, flight control measurement devices, and sound analyzers. Examples of specially qualified personnel include individuals specifically qualified to install or use any special equipment when its use is required.
b. Examples of a special evaluation include an evaluation conducted after an FFS is moved, at the request of the TPAA, or as a result of comments received from users of the FFS that raise questions about the continued qualification or use of the FFS.
End Information
11. Initial (and Upgrade) Qualification Requirements (§ 60.15)
Begin QPS Requirements
a. In order to be qualified at a particular qualification level, the FFS must:
(1) Meet the general requirements listed in Attachment 1 of this appendix;
(2) Meet the objective testing requirements listed in Attachment 2 of this appendix; and
(3) Satisfactorily accomplish the subjective tests listed in Attachment 3 of this appendix.
b. The request described in § 60.15(a) must include all of the following:
(1) A statement that the FFS meets all of the applicable provisions of this part and all applicable provisions of the QPS.
(2) Unless otherwise authorized through prior coordination with the NSPM, a confirmation that the sponsor will forward to the NSPM the statement described in § 60.15(b) in such time as to be received no later than 5 business days prior to the scheduled evaluation and may be forwarded to the NSPM via traditional or electronic means.
(3) A QTG, acceptable to the NSPM, that includes all of the following:
(a) Objective data obtained from traditional aircraft testing or another approved source.
(b) Correlating objective test results obtained from the performance of the FFS as prescribed in the appropriate QPS.
(c) The result of FFS subjective tests prescribed in the appropriate QPS.
(d) A description of the equipment necessary to perform the evaluation for initial qualification and the continuing qualification evaluations.
c. The QTG described in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, must provide the documented proof of compliance with the simulator objective tests in Attachment 2, Table A2A of this appendix.
d. The QTG is prepared and submitted by the sponsor, or the sponsor's agent on behalf of the sponsor, to the NSPM for review and approval, and must include, for each objective test:
(1) Parameters, tolerances, and flight conditions;
(2) Pertinent and complete instructions for the conduct of automatic and manual tests;
(3) A means of comparing the FFS test results to the objective data;
(4) Any other information as necessary, to assist in the evaluation of the test results;
(5) Other information appropriate to the qualification level of the FFS.
e. The QTG described in paragraphs (a)(3) and (b) of this section, must include the following:
(1) A QTG cover page with sponsor and FAA approval signature blocks (see Attachment 4, Figure A4C, of this appendix for a sample QTG cover page).
(2) A continuing qualification evaluation requirements page. This page will be used by the NSPM to establish and record the frequency with which continuing qualification evaluations must be conducted and any subsequent changes that may be determined by the NSPM in accordance with § 60.19. See Attachment 4, Figure A4G, of this appendix for a sample Continuing Qualification Evaluation Requirements page.
(3) An FFS information page that provides the information listed in
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.