[Federal Register: May 9, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 91)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 26477-26786]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr09my08-10]
[[Page 26477]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Department of Transportation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Aviation Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
14 CFR Part 60
Flight Simulation Training Device Initial and Continuing Qualification
and Use; Final Rule
[[Page 26478]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 60
[Docket No. FAA-2002-12461; Amendment No. 60-3]
RIN 2120-AJ12
Flight Simulation Training Device Initial and Continuing
Qualification and Use
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action amends the Qualification Performance Standards
(QPS) for flight simulation training devices (FSTD) to provide greater
harmonization with international standards for simulation. In addition,
the rule adds a new level of simulation for helicopter flight training
devices (FTD) and establishes FSTD Directive 1, which requires all
existing FSTD airport models that are beyond the number of airport
models required for qualification to meet specified requirements. The
intended effect of this rule is to ensure that the flight training and
testing environment is accurate and realistic. Except for the
requirements of FSTD Directive 1, these technical requirements do not
apply to simulators qualified before May 30, 2008. This rule results in
minimal to no cost increases for manufacturers and sponsors.
DATES: These amendments become effective May 30, 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning
this final rule, contact Edward Cook, Air Transportation Division (AFS-
200), Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 100
Hartsfield Centre Parkway, Suite 400, Atlanta, GA 30354; telephone:
404-832-4700; e-mail: Edward.D.Cook@faa.gov. For legal questions
concerning this final rule, contact Anne Bechdolt, Office of Chief
Counsel (AGC-200), Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone 202-267-7230; e-mail:
Anne.Bechdolt@faa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Authority for This Rulemaking
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in 49
U.S.C. 44701. Under that section, the FAA is charged with regulating
air commerce in a way that best promotes safety of civil aircraft.
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. Summary of the NPRM
B. Summary of the Final Rule
C. Summary of Comments
II. Discussion of the Final Rule and Comments
A. Administrative
B. Simulator Qualification and Evaluation
C. FSTD Testing: Objective and Subjective
1. General
2. Visual Systems
3. Motion or Vibration Requirements
4. Sound Requirements
D. Helicopters
E. Quality Management System (QMS)
F. Miscellaneous
III. Regulatory Evaluation, Regulatory Flexibility Determination,
International Trade Impact Assessment, and Unfunded Mandates
Assessment
IV. The Amendment
I. Background
On October 30, 2006, the FAA published Title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 60, with an effective date of October 30, 2007 (71 FR
63392). The intent of the rule was to promote standardization and
accountability for FSTD maintenance, qualification, and evaluation. The
regulation codified the standards contained in advisory circulars (ACs)
and implemented the Qualification Performance Standards (QPS)
appendices format. The QPS appendices allow regulatory requirements and
corresponding information to be presented in one location. The QPS
appendices format promotes ease of use and greater insight about the
FAA's intent behind the regulation and the required and approved
methods of compliance. On October 22, 2007 (72 FR 59598), the FAA
delayed the effective date of part 60 to coincide with the effective
date of this final rule, which revises the appendices of part 60 that
were originally published on October 30, 2006.
A. Summary of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)
On October 22, 2007, the FAA published an NPRM (72 FR 59600) to
revise the QPS appendices. The primary purpose of the NPRM was to
ensure that the flight training and testing environment is accurate and
realistic and to provide greater harmonization with the international
standards documents for simulation issued by the Joint Aviation
Authority (JAA) (JAR-STD 1A, Aeroplanes, and JAR-STD 1H, Helicopters),
and the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) (Doc 9625-AN/
938, as amended, Manual of Criteria for the Qualification of Flight
Simulators). The proposed requirements were expected to reduce expenses
and workload for simulator sponsors by eliminating conflicts between
the U.S. standards and the standards of other civil aviation
authorities. The proposed amendments incorporated technological
advances in simulation and standardized the initial and continuing
qualification requirements for FSTDs to harmonize with the
international standards documents. The comment period for the NPRM
closed December 21, 2007.
B. Summary of the Final Rule
This final rule:
Provides a listing of the tasks for which a simulator may
be qualified.
Requires, during aircraft certification testing, the
collection of objective test data for specific FSTD functions,
including: Idle and emergency descents and pitch trim rates for use in
airplane simulators; engine inoperative rejected takeoffs for use in
helicopter simulators; and takeoffs, hover, vertical climbs, and normal
landings for use in helicopter FTDs.
Provides in the QPS appendices additional information for
sponsors on the testing requirements for FSTDs, including the use of
alternative data sources when complete flight test data are not
available or less technically complex levels of simulation are being
developed.
Clarifies and standardizes existing requirements for
motion, visual, and sound systems, including subjective buffeting
motions, visual scene content, and sound replication.
Requires, by FSTD Directive 1, all existing FSTD airport
models used for training, testing, or checking under this chapter that
are beyond the number of airport models required for qualification to
meet the requirements described in Table A3C (Appendix A, Attachment 3)
or Table C3C (Appendix C, Attachment 3), as appropriate.
Except for FSTD Directive 1, manufacturers and sponsors are not
required to incorporate any of the changes listed above for existing
FSTDs. The appendices and attachments to part 60 affected by this final
rule only apply to FSTDs that come into service after part 60 is
effective (May 30, 2008). This final rule results in minimal to no cost
increases for manufacturers and sponsors.
C. Summary of Comments
The FAA received 18 comments on the proposed rule. Commenters
include airlines (Northwest, American, United, and FedEx), industry
organizations (Air Transport Association (ATA) and Helicopter
Association International (HAI)), training organizations (Alteon),
manufacturers (Boeing, Thales, CAE, and Rockwell Collins), and
individuals.
[[Page 26479]]
All of the commenters generally supported the proposal, but the
majority of commenters had specific suggestions to revise the proposed
rule. Most of these suggested revisions were technical edits. None of
the comments resulted in any substantive changes to the proposed
requirements, and we have incorporated the suggestions where
appropriate. We have also made minor editorial revisions where
appropriate.
The FAA received comments on the following general topics:
Administrative.
Simulator Qualification and Evaluation.
FSTD Testing: Objective and Subjective.
General.
Visual Systems.
Motion or Vibration Requirements.
Sound Requirements.
Helicopters.
Quality Management System (QMS).
Miscellaneous.
II. Discussion of the Final Rule and Comments
A. Administrative
The ATA recommended that the FAA make the effective date of the
final rule at least 90 days following the publication date.
Part 60 has been available to the public for review for over 1
year. The revisions to the appendices of Part 60 reflect international
standards that have been in existence for more than 4 years. Further,
when the FAA delayed the effective date to Part 60, we also delayed the
compliance dates of certain sections of the rule to provide adequate
time for transition. Because of the notice provided and delayed
compliance dates of certain sections, the FAA has determined that
delaying the effective date by 90 days is not necessary.
Several of the comments were beyond the scope of the proposal. For
example, CAE and others suggested including objective tests for Heads-
Up Displays (HUD) and Enhanced Visual Systems (EVS). Further, several
commenters suggested adopting standards currently being developed by
the International Working Group (IWG) of the Royal Aeronautical Society
(RAeS).
The FAA has not addressed in detail the comments that are beyond
the scope of the NPRM. In addition, the FAA has determined it would be
premature for the FAA to incorporate into this final rule the standards
currently under review by the IWG. Once the RAeS has adopted the IWG's
recommendations, the FAA will review them for incorporation in the QPS
appendices.
Several commenters noted differences between the proposed standards
and the current international standards and suggested adopting the
international standards. As stated, one of the purposes of this rule is
to harmonize with the current international standards documents for
simulation issued by the JAA and ICAO. These recommendations are within
the scope of the proposal and have been incorporated into this final
rule as appropriate.
Some commenters to the proposed rule noted typographical and
formatting errors in the proposal. The Office of the Federal Register
issued a correction document addressing some of the these errors on
March 5, 2008 (73 FR 11995). The FAA has addressed the remaining errors
in this document.
B. Simulator Qualification and Evaluation
CAE and others noted that the listing of tasks for which an FSTD
may be qualified do not correspond to the tasks set forth in the FAA
Air Carrier Operations Inspector's Handbook and are not the same as
those tasks in the tables that outline the Functions and Subjective
tests for which each FSTD may be evaluated. Commenters also suggested
that the objective and subjective tests used to evaluate the FSTD be
aligned with the tasks for which the FSTD may be qualified.
The FAA recognizes that the FSTD qualification tasks do not mirror
the tasks set forth in the FAA Air Carrier Operations Inspector's
Handbook, the ``Functions and Subjective tests'' tables in Attachment 3
of Appendices A-D, and the ``Tasks vs. Simulator Level'' tables in
Attachment 1 of Appendices A-D. However, there are differences between
the tasks used to evaluate the handling, performance, and other
characteristics of the FSTD and those tasks for which an FSTD may be
qualified for pilot training, testing, or checking activities. Thus,
the list of tasks set forth in the ``Functions and Subjective tests''
tables and ``Tasks vs. Simulator Level'' tables are not necessarily the
same, nor should they be the same.
CAE, ATA, Rockwell Collins, and others asked whether the Level B
simulator authorizations in Table A1B should be listed as an ``X''
instead of an ``R'' for most of the landing tasks.
As the legend in Table A1B indicates, the ``R'' denotes
authorization for Recurrent activities while the ``X'' denotes
authorization for Initial, Transition, Upgrade, and Recurrent
activities. The landing tasks for Level B simulators are restricted to
Recurrent activities and the ``R'' in the table at those points is the
correct reference. However, the FAA acknowledges that the
authorizations for Taxiing and for Normal and Crosswind Takeoffs for
the Level B simulator were inadvertently left blank, and the FAA has
placed an ``R'' in those positions in this table, indicating an
authorization for Recurrent activities in this level of simulation.
American, the ATA, and others stated that the differences between
``update'' and ``upgrade,'' as used in Appendix A, Paragraph 13,
Previously Qualified FFS, subparagraph ``h,'' were not clear. They
recommended clarifying the differences and moving the subparagraph from
the information section to the QPS Requirements section.
The information in subparagraph ``h'' allows for Full Flight
Simulators (FFS) to be updated without requiring an evaluation under
the new standards. Because this language is permissive in nature, we
have moved it to the QPS Requirements section as requested. To clarify
the meaning of these terms, we have added a definition of ``update''
that reflects current practice to Appendix F.
CAE and others suggested revising the note in Table A1B, entry 3.f,
Recovery from Unusual Attitudes, by replacing the statement ``supported
by applicable simulation validation data'' with ``supported by the
simulation models.''
The suggested revised language would allow an individual to go
beyond the flight-test-validated flight-envelope in a flight simulator.
This is not an acceptable practice because of the lack of information
about aircraft performance and handling beyond those limits. Therefore,
the FAA has not adopted the recommendation.
The ATA, Northwest, and others suggested clarifying that the 24-
hour ``look back'' period for the functional preflight check (Table E1,
entry E1.20) is from the beginning of the scheduled training period.
Additionally, commenters questioned whether the FSTD use-period, if
started within 24 hours of a functional preflight check, could continue
beyond that 24-hour ``look-back'' period and whether the functional
preflight check is required for Level 4 ``touch screen'' FTDs. Further,
commenters questioned whether Level 4 FTDs remain under the
responsibility of the Training Program Approval Authority (TPAA).
The proposed requirement for conducting a functional preflight
check within 24 hours prior to using the FSTD is to ensure that
technical personnel with the requisite preflight training have
determined the readiness level of the FSTD. An FSTD use-period does not
begin unless a functional preflight check
[[Page 26480]]
has been completed in the previous 24 hours. If a training session
begins near the end of the 24 hours after the functional preflight
check was completed, the training session may continue beyond that 24
hours. However, any subsequent training session may not begin until
another functional preflight check is conducted.
The National Simulator Program Manager (NSPM) is the FAA manager
responsible for the evaluation and qualification of all FSTDs qualified
under part 60, including Level 4 FTDs. The NSPM will continue to
exercise this responsibility through inspectors and engineers assigned
to the National Simulator Program (NSP) staff and others to whom the
NSPM may delegate that responsibility and authority. This
responsibility and authority is not intended to undermine or compromise
the duties and responsibilities of the assigned TPAA with regard to the
approved use of the FSTD.
CAE and others questioned when it would be necessary to complete an
additional initial qualification evaluation after a modification to the
FSTD. They also asked what principles would be used in determining
whether an evaluation for additional authorization(s) is necessary and
if an evaluation is necessary, when it must take place.
Whether a modification necessitates an additional initial
qualification evaluation, necessitates part of an initial qualification
evaluation, or does not necessitate an additional evaluation, depends
on (1) the extent of the modification; (2) whether the modification
impacts, or is impacted by, other systems or equipment in the FSTD; and
(3) whether, as a result of the modification, the FSTD operation is
consistent with the airplane system it is simulating. After review of
these factors, the FAA will determine on a case-by-case basis whether
an evaluation for additional authorizations is required and when it
will take place.
The ATA, Northwest, and others suggested that the windshear
provisions in Table A1A for each Level C and Level D FFS not be
required for evaluation and qualification purposes because not all
aircraft are required to have windshear equipment and not all pilots
are required to train on recovery from inadvertent windshear
encounters. Further, the commenters also suggested clarifying the
aircraft conditions under which the windshear demonstrations must be
conducted.
Only operations conducted in accordance with 14 CFR part 121 that
use aircraft listed in Sec. 121.358 require windshear training for
crewmembers. Accordingly, the FAA has modified Table A1A to address
only these operations. We have also clarified the aircraft conditions
under which the windshear demonstrations must be conducted.
C. FSTD Testing: Objective and Subjective
1. General
The ATA, Rockwell Collins, and others recommended requiring Level A
and Level B simulators to meet the standards in Table A2A, entry 1.b.7,
Dynamic Engine Failure After Takeoff.
The standards for testing of dynamic engine failures after takeoff
were first established by ICAO and were limited to advanced simulators,
now referred to as Level C and Level D. One purpose of this final rule
is to harmonize FAA standards with current international standards.
Because current international standards do not set forth standards for
testing dynamic engine failure after takeoff for level A and B
simulators, the FAA has not adopted the recommendation.
The ATA, Northwest, Boeing, CAE, and others suggested the FAA
review all the references in Appendix A, Attachment 2, Table A2A, Table
of Objective Tests, that include references to Computer Controlled
Aircraft (CCA) to ensure that the control state testing requirements
(i.e., normal control state or non-normal control state) are correctly
addressed.
The FAA recognizes that there were errors made in the proposal
regarding CCA testing requirements. The FAA has reviewed the CCA
testing requirements to address the correct control state and made
appropriate revisions.
CAE, Rockwell Collins, ATA, and others submitted several comments
on Appendix A, Attachment 1, Table A1A, General Simulator Requirements.
CAE suggested that (1) the manual and automatic testing, described in
entry 2.f, and simulator control feel dynamics, as described in entry
3.e, apply to Level A and Level B simulators in addition to Level C and
Level D simulators; (2) the NSPM should further clarify the number of
malfunctions that are required or provide a list of the necessary
malfunctions that should be present; and (3) the instructor controls,
as described in entry 4.c, either list all the expected environmental
conditions over which the instructor should have control or remove the
reference to ``wind speed and direction.'' The ATA and others requested
that the statements about additional field-of-view capability for Level
A and Level B simulators in entry 6.b of Table A1A be moved to the
Information/Notes column.
Automatic testing and control feel dynamics was first required in
1980 with the publication of the FAA's Advanced Simulation Plan and was
limited to advanced simulators, now referred to as Level C and Level D.
The FAA is not expanding the requirements for automatic testing and
control feel dynamics testing to Level A and Level B simulators because
that would result in differing technical requirements for these
simulator levels while authorizing the same training, testing, and
checking tasks. The additional field-of-view reference in entry 6.b was
designed to allow the option of including a larger field-of-view than
the provision requires, with the understanding that the minimum fields
of view would have to be retained. This reference is more informative
than regulatory and the FAA has moved the statements to the
Information/Notes column.
The ATA and others suggested defining the term ``least augmented
state'' as used in Appendix A, Attachment 2, paragraph 2.j, and
requested confirmation that the ``least augmented state'' is one that
the pilot may select using normal switches found in the airplane flight
deck.
The FAA has determined that a general definition of the term
``least augmented state'' is not appropriate because these states are
dependent on the aircraft type involved. Additionally, the least
augmented state is not necessarily achieved by the use of switches
found in the flight deck. Therefore, the FAA will evaluate FSTDs in
accordance with the least augmented state data supplied by the aircraft
manufacturer or other data supplier.
The ATA, Rockwell Collins, and others suggested that the primary
controls of the simulated aircraft should be tested objectively to
verify correct forces and responses whether simulated aircraft parts or
actual aircraft parts are used. Further, they recommended that the FAA
require a Statement of Compliance and Capability (SOC) that describes
how and where the control forces are generated in the aircraft, and
lists all hardware required to generate these control forces.
The FAA does not require testing of flight controls in these
circumstances because these aircraft controls must be maintained as if
they were installed in an aircraft to provide crewmembers the same
control feedback as felt in the actual aircraft. The sponsor is
required to provide a statement that the aircraft hardware meets the
appropriate manufacturer's specifications for the controls and the
sponsor must have
[[Page 26481]]
information supporting that statement available for NSPM review.
Accordingly, the FAA has not adopted the recommendation.
Boeing suggested, with regard to Table A2A, entry 1.c.2, that the
test for ``One Engine Inoperative'' should be named ``One Engine
Inoperative, Second Segment Climb.''
The test is required for airplanes certificated under both parts 23
and 25. The term ``Second Segment Climb'' applies only to airplanes
certificated under part 25. Therefore, the FAA has not adopted the
suggested change.
The ATA, Rockwell Collins, CAE, and others recommended that the
tests in entries 1.e.1 and 1.e.2, Stopping Time and Distance, of Table
A2A, not apply to Level A and Level B simulators because these
simulator levels are not authorized to perform this landing task.
The FAA did not adopt this change because both Level A and Level B
simulators are authorized to perform Rejected Takeoff Maneuvers. In
addition, Level B simulators are authorized to perform landings in
recurrent training and checking. Therefore, these tests are necessary
to determine the stopping capabilities of the FSTD.
The ATA, Boeing, CAE, and others expressed concern over how to read
the test requirements for Engine Acceleration and Engine Deceleration
(Table A2A, entries 1.f.1 and 1.f.2). The commenters recommended
various ways of publishing the established tolerances. CAE also
recommended defining the terms ``Ti'' and ``Tt.''
The published tolerances for these tests are consistent with
international standards documents. As proposed, Ti and
Tt were defined in the Tables as well as in the
Abbreviations list in Appendix F. For clarification, we have moved
these terms to the definitions section of Appendix F and added cross
references in the tables to Appendix F.
The ATA, Northwest, and others noted that the Short Period Dynamics
test in Table A2A, entry 2.c.10 erroneously did not to apply to Level A
simulators. They also noted that entry 2.d.7, Dutch Roll (yaw damper
off), erroneously applied to all levels of simulators when it should
apply only to Levels B, C, and D.
The FAA acknowledges that applicability to Level A simulators for
the Short Period test was inadvertently omitted and the Dutch Roll test
was inadvertently included, although the correct standards appear in
FAA standards documents and international standards documents. The FAA
has corrected these errors in this final rule.
CAE suggested the FAA clarify Table A2A, entry 2.d.8, Steady State
Sideslip, by stating that this test ``may be a series of snapshot test
results using at least two rudder positions, one of which should be
near maximum allowable rudder.''
The FAA agrees and has clarified the requirement where appropriate.
CAE and others suggested that the definition of the term ``snapshot''
be modified from ``a presentation of one or more variables at a given
instant of time'' to ``a presentation of one or more variables at a
given instant of time or from a time-average of a steady flight
condition.''
The FAA has determined that the suggested modification would create
confusion because of the subjective nature of the phrase ``steady
flight condition'' and has not adopted the suggestion.
The ATA and others suggested a change to Table A2A, entry 2.e.6,
All Engines Operating, Autopilot, Go-Around, to require a manual test
and, if applicable, an autopilot test.
The FAA currently requires a manual test when performing a one
engine inoperative go-around. The all engines operating, autopilot, go-
around test applies only when the airplane is authorized to use the
autopilot function during a go-around. Because both tests are currently
required, the FAA has not adopted the suggested changes.
The ATA, Rockwell Collins, and others suggested that the tests
described in entries 2.e.8 and 2.e.9 of Table A2A, should be conducted
differently (i.e., with the nosewheel steering disconnected or
castering), unless the FAA's intent was to evaluate overall aircraft
response, in which case no change is necessary.
The intent of these tests is to evaluate the aircraft response.
Therefore, no change is necessary.
CAE and Boeing recommended substituting the term ``mass
properties'' with the term ``fuel slosh'' in Appendices A and C,
paragraph 8.h(2)(c) because mass properties are rarely, if ever, run in
an integrated manner as described.
The FAA does not agree that mass properties are not run in an
integrated manner. The FAA has chosen the term mass properties because
it is consistent with international standards. Therefore, the FAA has
not adopted the suggested change.
CAE and Boeing recommended deleting paragraph 9.b(3) in Appendices
A and C because a data provider should not have to demonstrate that
data gathered from an engineering simulation (in lieu of a flight test
source) has necessary qualities to qualify an FSTD.
The FAA did not intend that an engineering simulation be qualified,
or be capable of being qualified, as an FSTD. The data obtained from
the engineering simulation would be appropriate as a replacement for
flight test data when the data obtained from the engineering simulation
is programmed into an FSTD. Therefore, we have clarified the
information in paragraph 9.b(3) to state that in these cases, the data
provider should submit validation data from an audited engineering
simulator/simulation to supplement specific segments of the flight test
data.
CAE and Boeing requested that paragraph 11.a(1) not apply to Table
A2A, entries 1.f.1 and 1.f.2, objective tests for engine acceleration
and deceleration. Rather, they suggested applying 100% of flight test
tolerances to these objective tests. CAE also suggested when flight
test data for an alternate engine fit is unavailable, the objective
testing of engine acceleration and engine deceleration (Table A2A,
tests 1.f.1 and 1.f.2) should be exempt from the 20% tolerance for the
application of engineering simulator/simulation because the actual
tolerance would be less than the simulation iteration rate.
Applying 100% of flight test tolerances to the objective tests
results in these entries is not an acceptable routine procedure. Full
flight test tolerances are appropriate when comparing FSTD results to
airplane data, and 20% of those airplane tolerances are appropriate
when comparing FSTD results to flight engineering simulation data
because it is easier to match ``computer to computer'' data than to
match ``computer to airplane'' data. Any circumstance that does not fit
within these parameters would likely be acceptable under the ``best
fit'' data selection set forth in Appendix A, Attachment 2, paragraph
2.d. Therefore, the FAA has not adopted these changes.
The ATA and others stated that the Rudder Response test in Table
B2A, entry 2.b.6.b is confusing because it would not test the rudder
power in the yaw axis. They suggested modifying the tolerance column to
read `` 2[deg]/sec or 10% yaw rate, OR Roll
rate 2[deg]/sec, bank angle 3[deg].''
This test was originally required as a rudder test using roll rate
and bank angle for the parameters. However, the FAA agrees that this
test may be accomplished using either yaw rate or roll rate and bank
angle. Therefore, the FAA has added a note in the Information/Notes
column that this test
[[Page 26482]]
may be accomplished as a yaw response test.
The ATA, Northwest, CAE, and others suggested eliminating the
2 degree tolerance on bank angle above stick shaker or
initial buffet speeds in Table A2A, entry 2.c.8, Stall Characteristics,
to be consistent with international standards.
The FAA acknowledges that the 2 degree tolerance on
bank angle above stick shaker or initial buffet speeds is not included
in the international standards. However, requiring zero tolerance in
these instances would be very stringent without appreciable difference
in FSTD performance or handling characteristics. Accordingly, the FAA
has not eliminated the tolerance.
Boeing, United, and others recommended clarifying paragraph 11.b(5)
Validation Test Tolerances, and adding a new paragraph 11.b(6) allowing
errors greater than 20% if the simulator sponsor provides an adequate
explanation.
The FAA generally agrees with the suggestion and has modified
paragraph 11.b(5) to reflect this information. The FAA has determined
that adding a new paragraph 11.b(6) is not necessary.
One commenter, citing paragraph 17.a, ``Alternative Data Sources,
Procedures, and Instrumentation: Level A and Level B Simulators Only,''
questioned whether the alternative data collection sources, procedures,
and instrumentation listed in Table A2E were the only sources for data
collection that the FAA would allow.
Appendix A, paragraph 11, Initial (and Upgrade) Qualification
Requirements, requires objective data to be acquired through
traditional aircraft flight testing. It also allows for the use of
``another approved'' source. The FAA has included Table A2E to provide
alternative sources, procedures, or instrumentation acceptable to the
FAA that may be used to acquire the necessary objective data for Level
A or Level B simulators. At this time, the alternative data collection
sources, procedures, and instrumentation listed in Table A2E are the
only alternatives acceptable without prior approval by the NSPM.
The ATA, Rockwell Collins, and others questioned the necessity of
having sounds of precipitation and rain removal devices for Level C
simulators but not requiring the corresponding visual effect.
The FAA recognizes the error in the proposed language and has made
the necessary changes. Level C simulators are required to be
subjectively tested for the sound, motion and visual effects of light,
medium and heavy precipitation near a thunderstorm and the effect of
rain removal devices.
The ATA and others requested that aircraft certified with auto-ice
detection coupled with auto-anti-ice or auto-de-ice capabilities be
exempt from the effects of airframe and engine icing tests listed in
Table A3F, Special Effects.
Because it is possible for flight crews to experience the effects
of airframe or engine icing if the auto-ice detection systems are
inoperative, the flight crews must be trained to recognize and respond
to icing situations. Therefore, the FAA has not adopted the
recommendation.
2. Visual Systems
The ATA, Northwest, Rockwell Collins, United, and several others
recognized that the definition of an FSTD Directive is ``a document
issued by the FAA to an FSTD sponsor requiring a modification to the
FSTD due to a safety-of-flight issue and amending the qualification
basis for the FSTD.'' These commenters asserted that the FAA has not
provided any safety analysis to support the issuance of FSTD Directive
1. Further, these commenters asked how the FAA determines what
constitutes a safety issue that would warrant the issuance of an FSTD
Directive. Some commenters asserted that updating airport modeling is a
complicated problem because of the difficulty in removing airport
models from the instructor operating station (IOS) in some FSTDs,
particularly in those FSTDs not owned or controlled by the sponsor. In
addition, some commenters noted the cost of updating an existing
airport model and suggested that the FAA continue to allow custom
airport models meeting individual training requirements to be used
without modification. Further, the commenters requested the FAA extend
the timeframe for updating airport models to match any modification to
the actual airport.
As proposed, FSTD Directive 1 requires each certificate holder to
ensure that each airport model used for training, testing or checking,
except those airport models used to qualify the simulator at the
designated level, meets the requirements of a Class II or Class III
airport model. The FAA acknowledges that FSTD Directives may be issued
only for safety-of-flight purposes. These determinations will be made
on a case-by-case basis. The FAA has determined that updating airport
modeling is a safety-of-flight concern because pilots have landed
airplanes on wrong runways, landed on taxiways, landed at the wrong
airport, unknowingly taxied across active runways, and taken off from
the wrong runway. Many FSTD users have expressed concern regarding the
accuracy of these models with respect to real world airports. Training,
testing, or checking in an FSTD with incomplete or inaccurate airport
models representing real world airports can contribute to incomplete
planning or poor decision making by pilots if they subsequently operate
into or out of that real world airport. While these potentially
disastrous occurrences happen infrequently, inaccurate airport modeling
is a safety-of-flight issue that warrants the issuance of this FSTD
Directive.
The proposed FSTD Directive is designed to address qualified FSTDs
that contain airport models that were not evaluated. The FSTD Directive
ensures that each model used in an FSTD for training, testing, or
checking activities meets the acceptable minimum standards. Although
the FAA is responsible for ensuring that these standards are met, the
FSTD sponsor is responsible for maintaining the FSTD, and each
certificate holder using the FSTD is responsible for ensuring that all
of the FSTD components are in compliance with these standards and
report any deficiencies.
Upon review of the comments, however, we have clarified the
language of the FSTD Directive. The FSTD Directive still requires each
certificate holder to ensure that, by May 30, 2009, except for the
airport model(s) used to qualify the FSTD at the designated level, each
airport model used by the certificate holder's instructors or
evaluators for training, testing, or checking under 14 CFR chapter I in
an FFS, meets the definition of a Class II, or Class III airport model
as defined in part 60, Appendix F. We originally proposed to require
removal of all airport models that did not meet the standards of a
Class II or Class III model. In light of comments regarding the expense
of such removal and issues regarding the sponsorship and leasing of
FSTDs, FSTD Directive 1 now requires only the airport models used for
training, testing or checking to meet the appropriate requirements; it
does not require removal of other airport models. Additionally, we have
revised the definition of a generic airport model in Appendix F to
clearly describe a Class III airport model that combines correct
navigation aids for a real world airport with an airport model that
does not depict that real world airport. Use of such an airport model
may require some limitations on that use. The clarified language in the
FSTD Directive and the
[[Page 26483]]
revised definitions may mitigate the actual cost of updating airport
models. In addition, the FAA recognizes that it takes time to design,
construct, and implement changes to computer programming. The FAA has
decided to modify the time requirements in paragraph 1(f) of Attachment
3, Appendix A, and clarify the process for requesting an extension for
the update in paragraph 1(g) of Attachment 3, Appendix A.
Further, the ATA and others suggested adding a statement in the
Information/Notes column of Table B1A regarding visual systems that
FSTD Directive 1 does not apply to Level A standards for an FTD visual
system.
If a visual system installed in any level of FTD is not being used
to acquire additional training credits, FSTD Directive 1 does not
apply. However, if the visual system is being used to acquire training
credits, the visual system must meet the requirements of at least a
Level A FFS visual system. In these circumstances, FSTD Directive 1
could affect the airport models used in that system. Therefore, the FAA
has not added the suggested statement.
The ATA, Rockwell Collins, and others noted that the terms visual
scenes, visual models, and airport models, appear to be used
interchangeably in the NPRM.
The FAA has adopted the term ``airport model'' instead of the terms
``visual scene''or ``visual model''throughout this final rule. We also
have deleted the definition of ``visual model'' from Appendix F and
changed the definition of ``visual database'' to ``a display that may
include one or more airport models'' for consistency. Since there are
three classes of airport models, we clarified the differences between
Class I, Class II, and Class III in the definition of airport model.
ATA, Rockwell Collins, and others questioned the need for 16 moving
models as well as the training tasks that would be able to be met by
having these moving models. The commenters also requested clarification
regarding what constitutes gate clutter.
The primary goal of the NPRM was to harmonize with international
standards. The intent of the 16 moving objects requirement, which is an
international standard, is to enhance the ``realism''of the displayed
visual scene. The FAA has added a definition of gate clutter in
Appendix F, as described in entry 2.f in Table A3B.
The ATA, Rockwell Collins, and others stated that the Class II
airport model requirements are excessive, especially for areas other
than the ``in-use'' runway itself and noted that there are no model
content requirements for ``generic airport models.''
The Class II airport model requirements mirror the long-standing
guidance in AC 120-40B, Airplane Simulator Qualification, Appendix 3,
and are consistent with international standards. The FAA has determined
that providing specific model content requirements for ``generic
airport models'' would restrict unnecessarily the capability and
flexibility that currently exists. Accordingly, the FAA has not made
any changes to the Class II airport model requirements or created any
specific requirements for ``generic airport models.''
The ATA, Rockwell Collins, CAE, and others questioned whether
``ambient lighting'' in Daylight Visual Scenes is required.
Ambient lighting is not required in daylight visual scenes because
of its distorting effects on the visual scene and inside the flight
deck. The FAA has removed the requirement for ambient flight deck
lighting where appropriate.
The ATA and others requested that the FAA clarify the Surface
Movement Guidance and Control System (SMGCS) as referenced in Table
A3B, entry 2.j.
Entry 2.j requires that a low visibility taxi route must be
demonstrated for qualification of a Level D simulator. A low visibility
taxi route could be satisfied, according to the Table A3B, by a
depiction of one of the following means: an SMGCS taxi route, a follow-
me truck, or low visibility daylight taxi lights. For further
information on SMGCS, see AC 120-57A (December 19, 1996).
The ATA, Rockwell Collins, and others questioned the language in
the preamble of the NPRM describing the visual system proposal as
requiring a ``field of view and system capacity requirements'' * * *
increased by 20 percent over the present requirement.'' The commenters
asserted that the proposed surfaces and light point requirements are
``considerably in excess of a 20% increase.''
The 20% increase, as described in the NPRM preamble, should have
applied only to the field-of-view requirements. However, the actual
requirements stated in the proposed rule language for field-of-view and
system capacity for generating surface and light points are consistent
with current international standards. Further, the metrics simulator
manufacturers are currently using to construct their equipment
correspond to the proposed system capacity for generating surface and
light points. Therefore, no changes to the rule language are necessary.
The ATA, Rockwell Collins, and others objected to the larger field-
of-view requirements for FSTDs previously built but not evaluated by
the FAA for qualification, and for FSTDs previously evaluated and
qualified, but returning to service after a 2-year inactive interval.
The concern is that these FSTDs would be required to meet the new
field-of-view requirements.
The first time an FSTD is evaluated by the FAA for qualification,
the FSTD is evaluated in accordance with the set of standards current
at that time. An FSTD placed into an inactive status for 2 or more
years will not necessarily be evaluated under any new criteria in
effect at the time of re-entry into service. The NSPM, however,
considers a full range of factors before deciding whether to require an
FSTD coming out of an inactive period to be evaluated in accordance
with its original qualification basis or in accordance with the set of
standards current at that time.
CAE and others recommended modifying in Table A1A, entry 6.p, to
require the visual system be free from apparent and distracting
quantization, instead of only apparent quantization.
Eliminating the slightest traces of quantization cannot be
technically accomplished. However, because distracting quantization can
be minimized to such a level that it does not affect the performance of
the visual system, the FAA has made this change.
CAE, ATA, Rockwell Collins, and others questioned why realistic
color and directionality of all airport lighting is not a requirement
for Level A, Level B, and Level C simulators in addition to Level D
simulators.
As proposed, the airport lighting requirements for Level A and B
simulators are consistent with international standards. Therefore, the
FAA has not made the requested change.
The ATA, Northwest, and others suggested including a test in Table
A2A, entry 4.b.3, for Level C simulators to evaluate visual systems
with 150[deg] horizontal and 30[deg] vertical field-of-view or a
monitor-based system.
The primary goal of the NPRM was to harmonize with international
standards. The current international standard, as reflected in the
NPRM, for Level C simulators is 180[deg] horizontal by 40[deg] vertical
field-of-view. Therefore, the FAA has not adopted the change.
The ATA, Rockwell Collins, and others stated that the test in Table
A2A, entry 4.f, Surface Resolution, does not reflect current practice
for runway markings. Commenters recommended that this test mirror the
current practice
[[Page 26484]]
and international standards that runway stripes and spaces be 5.75 feet
wide.
The FAA has modified this language where appropriate to reflect
current practice and international standards.
The ATA, Rockwell Collins, CAE, and others questioned why the
tolerances allowed in entry 4.i, Visual Ground Segment (VGS), of Table
A2A are different from the current international standards. They also
suggested that the Qualification Test Guide (QTG) contain calculations
to compare the altitude used against the altitude specified when
performing this test and questioned whether the test must be performed
manually. They also requested deleting or correcting the conversion of
feet to meters.
The international standards prescribe the application of the VGS
tolerance to the far end of the VGS with no tolerance provided at the
near end of the VGS. To ensure harmonization, the FAA has made the
appropriate changes to the application of this VGS tolerance. The
requirements for the QTG contain provisions regarding the calculation
of altitude references. The FAA has stated that the altitude
calculations are computed with the aircraft at 100 ft (30 m) above the
runway touchdown zone and centered on the Instrument Landing System
(ILS) electronic glide slope. The typical reference for modern turbojet
aircraft operations for height above touchdown is the height of the
main landing gear above that touchdown zone reference plane, with the
aircraft at a specified weight and landing configuration. To clarify
these calculations, the FAA has modified the Flight Conditions column
for entry 4.i of Table A2A to reflect this information. The distances
expressed in metric units are not direct conversions to U.S. customary
units, nor were they intended to be. Rather, these are the appropriate
standards depending on which system is being used. Therefore, the FAA
has not removed the metric references.
The ATA and others requested clarification regarding the term ``in-
use runway'' in Tables A3B and A3C. The commenters stated that using
the general term ``in-use runway'' would require modeling all taxiways
rather than the primary one used, which may overload the visual system
and negatively impact training.
Each ``in-use'' runway is a single, one-direction runway, used for
takeoffs and landings, that has the required surface lighting and
markings. New visual systems are capable of generating substantially
more detail than required by this final rule. However, because of the
concern raised regarding associated taxiways, the FAA has modified the
language in Appendices A, C, and D regarding airport model content to
require the use of only the primary taxi route from parking to the end
of the runway instead of requiring the modeling of all potential taxi
routes.
One commenter requested the FAA provide a definition of the term
``dynamic response programming,'' to clarify the requirements in Table
A1A, entry 6.h. CAE and others questioned the use of the terms
``correlate with integrated airplane systems, where fitted,'' and
``dynamic response programming,'' as they are used in Tables A3B and
A1A. Commenters also noted that Table A3B, entry 6.d erroneously
applied the requirements for ``correlate with integrated airplane
systems'' to all levels of simulators rather than just Levels C and D.
The term ``dynamic response'' is used in its typical engineering
context. As used in Tables A1A (entry 6.h) and C1A (entry 6.i)
``dynamic response programming'' requires the visual system display to
respond with the continuous movement of the simulated aircraft. We have
clarified the language in Tables A3b (entry 6.d), C3b (entry 6.d) and
D3B (entry 5.d) by removing the phrase ``where fitted.'' The
requirement that the visual scene correlate with the integrated
aircraft systems is to ensure that all installed integrated aircraft
systems correctly respond to what appears in the visual scene. This
visual correspondence requirement applies to only Level C and D
simulators and the FAA has corrected this error in Tables A3B and C3B.
The ATA, Rockwell Collins, and others suggested there should be no
difference between entries 6.e and 8.g in Table A3B.
These two entries are designed to test separate conditions. Entry
6.e tests the external lights to ensure correlation with the airplane
and associated equipment while entry 8.g tests the environmental
effects of the external lights in the visual system. Because of the
separate, distinct purposes of these entries, they should not be the
same, and the FAA has not adopted the recommendation.
The ATA, Rockwell Collins, and others objected to the inclusion of
several visual, sound, or motion systems features (e.g., the effect of
rain removal devices; sound of light, medium, and heavy precipitation;
and nosewheel scuffing) in the airport model presentations because they
are not airport model functions.
These features are a function of the visual, sound, or motion
systems. These features must be available and operate correctly in
conjunction with the airport models presented during training, testing,
or checking activities. These features are meaningful only when they
are presented as part of the airport model. Therefore, the FAA has not
removed these features from the airport model requirements.
The ATA, Northwest, Rockwell Collins, and others expressed concern
that the discussion of entry 10 in Table A3B regarding the combination
of two airport models to achieve two ``in-use'' runways at one airport,
may impede control of the radio aids and terrain elevation and create
distracting effects in the visual scene display.
The discussion in entry 10 of Table A3B is an authorization, not a
requirement. If an FSTD has limitations such that this combination
would impede control or create distracting effects, this particular
authorization is not applicable. The FAA has added clarifying language
in entry 10 to address this concern.
The ATA, Rockwell Collins, and others stated the requirement that
``slopes in runways, taxiways, and ramp areas must not cause
distracting or unrealistic effects'' in entry 4.b in Table A3C implies
that Level A and Level B simulators are required to have sloping
terrain modeling, making the Class II airport models more stringent
than Class I airport models.
Level A and B simulators are not required to have sloping terrain
modeling. This provision, however, sets forth the requirements for such
modeling if a sponsor elects to incorporate sloping terrain modeling in
the FSTD. The FAA has clarified this requirement by adding the
qualifier ``if depicted in the visual scene,'' in the appropriate
tables in Appendices A, C, and D.
CAE and others requested the FAA establish a list of individuals or
corporations who work as visual modelers and can provide detailed
information about airports without creating national security concerns.
Anyone with a legitimate need for the acquisition of detailed
airport information for accurate modeling of any U.S. airport for
simulation modeling purposes should contact the NSPM for assistance.
3. Motion or Vibration Requirements
Rockwell Collins, CAE, the ATA, and others stated that Motion
Cueing Performance Signature tests can provide an objective means of
determining loss in motion system performance. The commenters were
concerned that if these tests were conducted only during the Initial
Qualification Evaluation, sponsors would not have objective
[[Page 26485]]
information available to determine the continuing status of the motion
system.
The proposal required the results of these tests to be included in
the MQTG. Because sponsors are required to run the complete quarterly
MQTG inspections, these tests are not intended to be one-time-only
tests. The sponsor and NSPM regularly review these tests. The FAA
agrees that the statement ``this test is not required as part of
continuing qualification evaluations'' is misleading and has deleted
this statement where appropriate.
The ATA, Rockwell Collins, and others questioned whether Level B
simulators must be subjectively tested for nosewheel scuffing motion
effects when this level of simulator was not authorized for the taxi
task.
Level B simulators are authorized for Rejected Takeoff Maneuvers.
At higher speeds, the movement of the nosewheel steering mechanism can
be more sensitive and may cause the nosewheel to be turned beyond
smooth tracking angles, resulting in nosewheel scuffing during Rejected
Takeoff Maneuvers. Therefore, the FAA has determined that subjective
testing for nosewheel scuffing motion effects is necessary and did not
make any change.
4. Sound Requirements
The ATA, Rockwell Collins, and others suggested that in Table A2A,
entry 5, Sound Requirements, the tests listed should have a defined
frequency spectrum within which the tests should be conducted similar
to that set forth in international standards.
Because the text in the proposal describes these processes and
similar statements appear in international standards, the FAA has added
language similar to the international standards to the sound test
requirements of entry 5, Table A2A.
The ATA, Rockwell Collins, and others suggested requiring all
levels of FTDs to be able to represent all the flight deck aural
warning sounds and sounds from pilot actions instead of limiting this
standard to level 6 FTDs, as it currently appears in entry 7.a of Table
B1A.
A Level 6 FTD is the only level of FTD that is required to have all
aircraft systems installed and operational. This requirement has been
in effect for over 16 years and is consistent with current
international standards. The suggested requirement is also outside the
scope of this rulemaking. Accordingly, the FAA has not adopted the
change.
CAE and others suggested entry 7.c, Accurate Simulation of Sounds,
in Table A1A, address abnormal operations in addition to the sound of
normal operations and the sound of a crash.
The current international standards contain a requirement for
sounds addressing abnormal operations, which include the sound of a
crash, and normal operations. To harmonize with international standards
the FAA has made the change.
D. Helicopters
CAE and others noted that an SOC is not necessary for entries 1.a,
1.b, and 2.a in Table C1A. Thales also suggested that the language in
entry 2.a be modified to reflect helicopter operations.
The FAA has removed the SOC requirement in entries 1.a and 1.b
because it is not necessary. The SOC for entry 2.a is necessary because
it describes a flight dynamics model that must account for combinations
of drag and thrust normally encountered in flight. However, the FAA has
modified the language in entry 2.a to better reflect helicopter
operations.
Thales and others stated that the motion onset requirements in
Table C1A, entry 2.e, are new requirements for helicopter simulation.
The FAA included the requirements in this entry in the October 30,
2006, final rule (71 FR 63426), and again in the NPRM for this rule.
These requirements codify existing practice (e.g., AC 120-63,
Helicopter Simulator Qualification).
CAE and others suggested that the Information/Notes column in Table
C1A, entry 2.f, include ``roll'' as well as ``pitch,'' ``side
loading,'' and ``directional control characteristics,'' when simulating
brake and tire failure dynamics.
The FAA has clarified the Information/Notes column by adding the
phrase ``in the appropriate axes,'' which includes roll, pitch, yaw,
heave, sway (side loading), and surge.
Thales, CAE, and others suggested that the requirements in Table
C1A, entry 2.g.1, regarding ground effect should apply to Level B
simulators as it appears in table C1A, entry 2.c.1.
The FAA has separated these two requirements because helicopter
simulator Levels B, C, and D may be required to perform running
takeoffs and running landings, as described in entry 2.c.1. However,
only Level C and D simulators are required to perform takeoffs or
landings to or from a hover, as noted in entry 2.g, thus requiring
separate table entries. Accordingly, the FAA has not adopted the
recommendation.
CAE and others requested clarification regarding the kinds of
aircraft system variables and environmental conditions as listed in
Table C1A, entry 4, that must be used in simulation. Commenters
suggested removing the reference to ``wind speed,'' including other
environmental controls, and including ``water spray'' when hovering
over water.
There is no specific list of system variables that must be
available in a helicopter simulator. The requirement is that the
instructor or evaluator be able to control all the system variables and
insert all abnormal or emergency conditions into the simulated
helicopter systems as described in the sponsor's FAA-approved training
program, or as described in the relevant FSTD operating manual. The FAA
has reviewed the entries for environmental controls and has included
additional examples of environmental conditions that may be available
in the FSTD. We also have included ``water vapor'' as an example of
what may be expected to be re-circulated when hovering above the
surface, as suggested by the commenters.
CAE, Thales, and others suggested including vortex ring and high-
speed rotor vibrations for motion effects programming requirements in
Table C1A, entry 5.e. Commenters also suggested requiring Level B and C
simulators to demonstrate air turbulence models.
As proposed, entry 5.e included requirements for buffet due to
settling with power and rotor vibrations. As the commenters noted,
these terms are better expressed as buffet due to vortex ring, and
high-speed rotor vibrations. The FAA has clarified the requirements as
requested. The FAA also has clarified the statement in the Information/
Notes column regarding the use of air turbulence models. Further
changes regarding air turbulence modeling are beyond the scope of the
NPRM.
Thales and others recommended adjusting surface resolution from the
currently proposed three (3) arc-minutes to two (2) arc-minutes in
Table C1A, entry 6.i.(4). Additionally, Thales recommended the FAA add
``helipad'' or ``heliport'' lighting effects specific to helicopter
operations for subjective testing.
As noted by the commenter, the two (2) arc-minutes requirement is
the current international standard. Therefore, the FAA has made the
recommended change. However, there are specific requirements for both
airport and helicopter landing area models for training, testing, and
checking purposes in attachment 3, and the FAA has not included the
``helipad'' or ``heliport'' lighting effects in Table C1A.
[[Page 26486]]
CAE, Thales, and others suggested that the tolerance of 3 knots, in Table C2A, entry 1.c, Takeoff, and entry 1.j,
Landing, be applied to either airspeed or ground speed, because data
collected at airspeeds below 30-40 knots are often unreliable. Thales
suggested that for entries 1.c.2 and 1.c.3, the specific type of
takeoff (Category A, Performance, Confined area, etc,) be recorded so
proper comparisons can be made.
The FAA recognizes the difficulties in applying tolerances to
airspeeds when the airspeed value itself may not be accurate and has
added a general authorization for Takeoff tests and Landing tests.
Also, the FAA has added a note in the Information/Notes column to
address the differing types of takeoff profiles used for each of these
tests.
CAE and others stated that in helicopter simulation, flight test
data containing all the required parameters for a complete power-off
landing is not always available. CAE recommended modifying the language
in Tables C2A and D2A, entry 1.j.4, Autorotational Landing, to state
that in those cases where data are not available, and other qualified
flight test personnel are not available to acquire this data, the
sponsor must coordinate with the NSPM to determine if it is appropriate
to accept alternative testing means.
The FAA agrees that, in certain circumstances, the sponsor must
coordinate with the NSPM to determine if it is appropriate to accept an
alternative testing means. The FAA has made the appropriate changes.
CAE and others stated that Table C2A, entry 1.h.2, Autorotation
Performance, requires data be recorded for speeds from 50 knots, 5 knots, through at least maximum glide distance airspeed.
However, the maximum allowable autorotation airspeed is often slower
than the maximum glide distance airspeed, which would prevent accurate
data for autorotation entry.
The FAA has modified the test details to include maximum allowable
autorotation airspeed.
CAE and others suggested reducing the tolerance for control
displacement to 0.10 inches in Table C2A, entry 2.a.6,
Control System Freeplay. The commenters also suggested harmonizing the
tolerance requirements for FTDs in Table D2A, entry 2.a.6.
The FAA agrees and has made the appropriate changes, which reflect
current international standards.
CAE and others suggested that the proposed 10%
tolerances on pitch and airspeed for non-periodic responses, in Table
C2A, entry 2.c.3.a, Dynamic Stability, Long Term Response, be relaxed
because the proposal is too restrictive. They noted non-periodic
Augmentation-On responses generally exhibit less than 5 degrees peak
pitch attitude change from trim. Further, commenters recommended adding
a statement to the Information/Notes column to clarify the relationship
between non-periodic responses and flight-test data. The rationale for
these recommendations is to avoid requirements that are unduly
restrictive with divergent results, while ensuring that the non-
periodic responses are accurately reproduced.
The FAA agrees with the commenter's suggestions and rationale and
has made the appropriate changes in Table C2A for FFSs and in Table D2A
for FTDs.
CAE and others suggested relating the proposed tolerances in Table
C2A, entry 2.d.3.a, Dynamic Lateral and Directional Stability, Lateral-
Directional Oscillations test. The commenters stated that the non-
periodic responses may be divergent, weakly convergent, or deadbeat.
The commenters stated that the proposed tolerances may be too
restrictive for deadbeat responses. Additionally, the commenters stated
that oscillatory responses that satisfy the period and damping ratio
tolerances would not necessarily meet the proposed time history
tolerances because of the non-periodic nature of the response. The
rationale for these recommendations is to avoid requirements that are
unduly restrictive with divergent results while ensuring that the non-
periodic responses are reproduced with sufficient accuracy.
The FAA agrees with the commenters' suggestions and rationale and
has made the appropriate changes in Table C2A for FFSs and in Table D2A
for FTDs.
Thales, CAE, and others were concerned that there are no tolerances
specified for the tests listed in Table C2A, entry 3.a, Frequency
Response, 3.b, Leg Balance, and 3.c, Turn Around Check.
Because of the way the tests are used, the FAA has determined it is
appropriate that these specific tests do not have a specified tolerance
other than the performance as established by the FSTD manufacturer in
coordination with the sponsor. These tests are conducted during the
initial evaluation and made part of the MQTG. While the sponsor is not
required to run these tests again during continuing qualification
evaluations, the test results are available if a question arises about
the performance of the motion system hardware or the integrity of the
motion set-up at any time subsequent to the initial qualification
evaluation. The test results recorded during the initial qualification
evaluation provide a benchmark against which subsequent comparisons can
be made.
CAE and others questioned whether a motion signature (Table C2A,
entry 3.e, Motion Cueing Performance Signature) is required for a test
that only requires a snapshot test result or a series of snapshot test
results, and if a sponsor may submit a result of their choice if
multiple results are available for a specific test.
The specific motion cueing performance signature tests have
specifically associated tests that are indicated in the Information/
Notes column. When these tests are conducted, the sponsor records the
motion system as an additional parameter, providing a cross-sectional
benchmark for the motion system performance. When the test authorizes
the result to be provided as ``a series of snapshot tests,'' the
sponsor may choose to record the motion cueing performance signature
tests as a time history or as a series of snapshot tests.
Thales, HAI, and others requested that sponsors be allowed to use
alternative data sources for Helicopter FTDs, as authorized for
Airplane FTDs.
At this time, alternative data source information has not been
developed for Helicopter FTDs. The FAA developed the alternative data
source information for airplanes in coordination with industry prior to
this rulemaking. Anyone interested in researching and developing
alternatives for helicopter FTDs for future rulemakings should contact
the NSPM.
The HAI and others suggested expanding the vertical field-of-view
requirements for level 7 helicopter FTDs to at least 70[deg] in
paragraph 24 of Appendix D, Helicopter Flight Training Devices. CAE
further noted that the field-of-view requirements for Level 7 FTDs
appear to be more stringent than the requirements for a Level B
simulator.
Peripheral vision is a critical cue in helicopter operations.
Therefore, the FAA determined that the field-of-view standards for
Level C helicopter simulators, which have been in effect since 1994,
provide the adequate peripheral cues for the new level 7 helicopter
FTD. Because peripheral vision is the critical cue, the FAA has not
expanded the vertical field-of-view requirement.
CAE and others suggested revising the requirements for handling
qualities for the level 7 helicopter FTD listed in Table D1A, given the
list of tasks that may be authorized for the FTD.
Although the tasks listed in the referenced table may seem
extensive for a device that is not an FFS, the FAA
[[Page 26487]]
does not intend that a student would be completely trained or trained
to proficiency in any of the tasks authorized for that FTD. In each
case, the task requires additional training, either in an aircraft or
in a higher level FSTD, and a proficiency test in an aircraft or in a
higher level FSTD upon completion of such training. Therefore, the FAA
has not revised the handling qualities for the level 7 helicopter FTD.
CAE and others suggested modifying Table D1A, entries 1.a and 1.b,
to clarify the location of bulkheads and the location and operation of
circuit breakers.
The FAA has included clarifying language in entry 1.a of Table D1A.
CAE and others suggested removing the statement ``An SOC is
required'' from Table D1A, entries 1.a, 1.b, 2.a, 6.a.1, 6.a.2, 6.a.3,
6.a.4, 6.a.5, 6.a.6, and 6.b.
The FAA agrees with the commenters with respect to entries 1.a and
1.b and has removed the SOC statement because a visual observation is
sufficient. However, for the remainder of the entries, the SOC
statements are still necessary because a visual observation will not
reveal the data necessary to demonstrate and explain compliance with
the specific requirements.
CAE and others suggested including a requirement for an SOC to
explain how the computer will address the delay timing requirements for
relative responses in Table D1A, entry 2.c.
The entry preceding 2.c sets forth the requirement to have a
computer (analog or digital) with the capabilities necessary to meet
the qualification level sought. At this point, an SOC is required. The
SOC will supply the information about the delay timing tests.
Therefore, an additional SOC requirement in entry 2.c is not necessary.
CAE, HAI, and others suggested requiring in Table D1A, entry 5,
Motion system, that all FTD levels have a motion system instead of
allowing an open authorization with the limitation that, if installed,
it may not be distracting.
The current training equipment for helicopter FTDs is not designed
to include motion systems. The FAA recognizes, however, that some
sponsors may wish to include these systems as part of their training
equipment. If a sponsor elects to install a motion system, the system
must not be distracting. Further, if the system will be used for
additional training, testing, or checking credits, it must meet certain
other requirements outlined in Appendix C. Accordingly, the FAA has not
required helicopter FTDs to have motion systems. However, as proposed,
all level 7 FTDs are required, at the very least, to have a vibration
system.
HAI and others questioned why ``mast bumping'' was not authorized
for Level 6 FTDs, as it is for Level 7 FTDs.
As noted in entry 5.b of Table D1A, only Level 7 FTDs are required
to have a vibration system. Because the primary cue that would alert
the pilot to the onset of mast bumping would be an increase in the
vibration felt from the rotor system, this task is only authorized for
Level 7 FTDs.
CAE stated that in Table D2A, entry 2.b.3.d, Vertical Control
Response, the augmentation condition under the flight condition column
is not specified, which is different from the previous three tests for
control response in that table.
The FAA agrees with the commenter and has amended the referenced
flight condition column to indicate that the augmentation condition for
the test is both on and off, as it is for the preceding three control
response tests in Table D2A.
CAE and others questioned whether the requirements of FSTD
Directive 1 should be extended to helicopter FTDs.
The provisions of FSTD Directive 1 are applicable to those FSTD
airport models currently in existence. Currently, there are no
helicopter FTDs that have required visual systems. Therefore, there is
no need to extend the requirements set out in FSTD Directive 1 to
helicopter FTDs. The requirements for airport models are included in
attachment 3 of Appendix D and are applicable to newly qualified Level
7 helicopter FTDs.
HAI and others questioned the necessity and cost of requiring Table
D3B, entry 5.f, Effect of Rain Removal Devices.
The visual system requirement for the Level 7 helicopter FTD was
designed to mirror the Level C helicopter FFS visual system
requirement, which includes rain removal devices. This requirement is
necessary to ensure that the FTD adequately reflects the actual
helicopter being simulated. If the actual helicopter does not have rain
removal devices, the FTD is not required to demonstrate the effect of
rain removal devices. The FAA notes that these devices are not always a
``windshield wiper,'' but may be high-pressure air or an application of
rain-repelling fluid.
E. Quality Management System (QMS)
Federal Express, ATA, and others questioned which Quality
Management System (QMS) would apply when an FSTD (including FSTDs owned
by foreign entities), is installed in a Training Center with a
different QMS, or if the FSTD is maintained by a contractor with a
different QMS.
The system and processes outlined in the QMS should enable the
sponsor to monitor compliance with all applicable regulations and
ensure correct maintenance and performance of the FSTD in accordance
with part 60. Thus, the sponsor's QMS must include provisions to ensure
that the FSTD will only be used when it is in compliance with the
sponsor's own QMS and the regulatory requirements of part 60.
The ATA, Rockwell Collins, and others requested that the voluntary
elements for the QMS, as published on October 30, 2006 (71 FR 63426),
be included in Appendix E of the final rule. One commenter suggested
that the concept of a ``basic'' and a ``voluntary'' QMS be removed and
a single QMS be required.
As noted in the NPRM (72 FR 59604), the FAA removed the voluntary
QMS from Appendix E. As proposed, Appendix E sets forth the basic
requirements for a QMS. Although commenters requested that we include
in part 60 the voluntary program, the voluntary program does not
expand, further explain, or correspond to specific regulatory
requirements. Therefore, the FAA has not included the voluntary program
in the final rule.
The ATA, Northwest, and others questioned the inspection
responsibilities of the NSPM in evaluating the QMS as opposed to FAA
entities conducting ATOS audits.
The NSPM is responsible for evaluating the FSTD, including the QMS
associated with the FSTD. The ATOS inspections determine whether the
incorporation of the FSTD into an FAA-approved flight training program
provides the necessary tool(s) to complete the required training
program activities. The FAA has determined that the ATOS inspections
will not include review of the actual FSTD or the QMS associated with
that FSTD.
Federal Express and others questioned whether only the Management
Representative (MR) should receive Quality System training and brief
other personnel on procedures and suggested that the wording be changed
to allow others, besides the MR, to brief other personnel. They were
also concerned that the MR, in most cases, is the Director of
Operations. They also questioned what would be considered
``appropriate'' quality system training.
The FAA does not require that the MR be the Director of Operations
or hold any other specific position for a certificate holder. The MR,
as
[[Page 26488]]
determined by the sponsor, may delegate his or her responsibilities so
long as the delegation does not compromise the QMS. If the MR delegates
his or her responsibilities, the MR must ensure that the person to whom
the MR delegates his or her responsibilities is capable of adequately
briefing other personnel on QMS procedures. Further, anyone can receive
QMS training. The FAA, however, is requiring only that the MR receive
QMS training. The FAA agrees that the word ``appropriate'' is not
necessary in this context and has removed it.
Federal Express and others questioned the proposed requirement to
notify the NSPM within 10 working days of the sponsor becoming aware of
an addition to, or revision of, flight-related data or airplane
systems-related data used to program or operate a qualified FSTD. The
commenters are concerned because systems data may not be provided to
the sponsor in a timely manner. They requested the notification time be
changed to 10 working days of performing a modification, an addition,
or a revision of FSTD software that affects the flight or system
operations of a qualified FSTD.
The requirement that the sponsor must submit notification within 10
calendar days is only a statement that the sponsor is aware that an
addition to, amendment of, or a revision of data that may relate to FFS
performance or handling characteristics is available. This notification
does not require any information regarding how the change is to be
accomplished, nor does it commit the sponsor to implementing the
particular change. Rather, information regarding the sponsor's proposed
course of action must be submitted within 45 calendar days of the
sponsor becoming aware of the data. Therefore, the FAA did not change
the notification time requirement as requested by the commenters.
The ATA and others suggested the FAA set forth the minimum
requirements for a discrepancy prioritization system or include a note
in Appendix E (QMS Systems) that a prioritization system is a required
element in an acceptable QMS.
There is no requirement for the development or the implementation
of a discrepancy prioritization system for the correction of FSTD
discrepancies. Such a system is completely voluntary. If the sponsor
elects to develop such a system, the NSPM must approve the system. As
stated in Note 1 to entry E1.31.b of Appendix E, if a sponsor has an
approved prioritization system, the QMS must describe how discrepancies
are prioritized, what actions are taken, and how the sponsor will
notify the NSPM if a missing, malfunctioning, or inoperative component
(MMI) has not been repaired or replaced within the specified timeframe.
Because this prioritization system is voluntary, the FAA has not
adopted the changes.
F. Miscellaneous
United, the ATA, and others suggested that the FAA clarify and
confirm that elements of the QPS appendices that go beyond current
requirements not apply to FSTDs qualified before May 30, 2008. Also,
the commenters recommended continuing to allow currently qualified
FSTDs to be updated under the guidance effective when the simulator was
initially qualified.
Except for FSTD Directive 1, the rule as proposed does not require
currently qualified FSTDs to meet the requirements of the QPS
Appendices A-D, attachments 1, 2, and 3, as long as the FSTD continues
to meet the test requirements of its original qualification (see
paragraph 13, subparagraph b of Appendices A-D). In response to
comments, the FAA has clarified that FSTD updates will continue to be
allowed under the standards in the current Master Qualification Test
Guide (MQTG) for that FSTD.
CAE and others noted that the statement ``a subjective test is
required'' in Table C1A is inconsistent with international standards.
The references to ``a subjective test is required'' and ``an
objective test is required'' in Tables A1A, B1A, C1A, and D1A were
redundant of the requirements in Attachments 2 and 3 in Appendices A-D.
Therefore, we have removed these references. The objective and
subjective test requirements in Attachments 2 and 3 in Appendices A-D
are consistent with international standards.
The ATA, Northwest, Boeing, CAE, and others recommended adding
references to the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) in the regulatory
requirements sections of the QPS appendices.
The FAA is not referencing the AFM as requested because the AFM
provides specific standards based on aircraft type. Where the AFM
provides helpful data, it may be used as guidance and as an additional
data source, if appropriate.
CAE and others expressed concern that correcting known data
calibration errors may not be permitted because of the language
contained in Appendix A, Attachment 2, paragraph 9, (FSTD) Objective
Data Requirements, subparagraph b(5).
The FAA acknowledges that the correction of recognized data
calibration errors is often accomplished in data collection and
reduction exercises. Therefore, the FAA has added language where
appropriate in Appendices A-D to permit the correction of known data
calibration errors provided that an explanation of the methods used to
correct the errors appears in the QTG.
CAE requested the FAA explain how percentages are calculated when
tolerances are expressed as a percentage in attachment 2, paragraph
2.b, of Appendices A-D.
The FAA has included an explanation of how these percentages are
calculated in Appendices A-D, attachment 2, paragraph 2.b.
The ATA, Northwest, and others expressed concern over the
submission of an FSTD modification notification to the NSPM as
described in Appendix A, Paragraph 17, subparagraph a. The commenters
were concerned that the results of the modification might not be known
until after the notice of the modification is submitted to the NSPM.
The notification is not intended to be a detailed summary of each
specific result. The notification must simply include a plan of action
and a general description of the expected results.
The ATA, Rockwell Collins, and others requested clarification of
the use of the term MMI component. Some sought clarification as to
whether an MMI component was a hardware component, a software
component, or a component that directly affected the training mission
of the FSTD. In addition, some commenters requested an inclusive list
of components such as: Flight deck hardware, a system line replaceable
unit (LRU) of hardware or software, or a major FSTD system. Further,
commenters asked who is responsible for determining whether an MMI
component is necessary for a particular maneuver, procedure, or task.
The FAA has determined it is unnecessary to further clarify the
meaning of missing, malfunctioning, or inoperative component. These
words have their typical dictionary meanings. In this rule, an FSTD
component could be a piece of hardware, a piece of software that
performs as a piece of hardware (e.g., software functioning as an
autopilot), or a piece of software that is used in the operation of the
simulated aircraft or of the FSTD itself. Each FSTD component is
present to serve a purpose--whether that purpose is to allow the
simulation to work or to simulate a component of the aircraft being
simulated. Since an FSTD is used to train, test, or check flight
crewmembers, if one or more
[[Page 26489]]
component of the FSTD becomes missing, is not working, or is not
working correctly, there would be some impact on the function of the
FSTD. Developing an inclusive list of components that are necessary for
a particular maneuver, procedure, or task is impractical because of the
unique characteristics of each FSTD and unnecessary because of the
obvious nature and effect of an MMI component on the overall operation
of the FSTD. We have added language to the information in paragraph 18,
Operation with Missing, Malfunctioning, or Inoperative Components
(Sec. 60.25) in Appendices A-D to clarify that it is the
responsibility of the instructor, check airman, or representative of
the administrator conducting training, testing, or checking, to
exercise reasonable and prudent judgment to determine whether an MMI
component is necessary for a particular maneuver, procedure, or task.
Boeing and others commented on the repetition of the definitions of
the weight ranges (near maximum, medium, and light). In addition to
appearing in Appendix F, the definitions also appear in Attachment 2 of
Appendices A-D. The commenters are concerned that the repetition may
cause confusion in the application of these ranges. Further, CAE stated
that the terms may not apply to light-class helicopters.
The FAA has removed the definitions of these terms from the QPS
Requirement in Appendices A-D because they are defined in Appendix F.
In some cases, these gross weight ranges are not within the appropriate
ranges for light-class helicopters. Therefore, in Appendices C and D,
we have added a statement that these terms may not be appropriate for
light-class helicopters. Prior coordination with the NSPM is required
to determine the acceptable gross weight ranges for light-class
helicopters.
The ATA, Northwest, and others questioned how the FAA could use
Personally Identifiable Information (PII) for investigation,
compliance, or enforcement purposes and then bring enforcement action
against a person, not certificated by the FAA, who may have worked on
an FSTD.
The FAA must ensure that FSTDs used by flight crewmembers for
training, testing, and checking purposes are maintained and used
properly and in accordance with all regulatory requirements. If the FAA
finds grounds for investigation or enforcement action, the FAA may
request, administratively subpoena, or seek a court order for the
sponsor's records, which may contain PII. The FAA may use those
records, and any PII contained therein, in the course of inspection,
investigation, and enforcement. Furthermore, if, for example, the FAA
discovered during the course of such an investigation that an
individual made false or misleading statements, the FAA could use its
statutory and regulatory authority to issue a cease and desist order to
prohibit the individual from conducting any future maintenance on any
FSTD, regardless of whether he or she holds an FAA certificate.
Paperwork Reduction Act
Information collection requirements associated with this final rule
have been approved previously by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3507(d)) and have been assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0680.
International Compatibility
In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to comply with ICAO
Standards and Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable.
The FAA has reviewed the corresponding ICAO Standards and Recommended
Practices and has identified no differences with these regulations.
III. Regulatory Evaluation, Regulatory Flexibility Determination,
International Trade Impact Assessment, and Unfunded Mandates Assessment
Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs 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, the 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 rule.
Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies
and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations.
If the expected cost impact is so minimal that a proposed or final rule
does not warrant a full evaluation, this order permits that a statement
to that effect and the basis for it to be included in the preamble.
Such a determination has been made for this final rule. The reasoning
for this determination follows:
This final rule codifies existing practice by requiring all
existing FSTD visual scenes beyond the number required for
qualification to meet specified requirements. The final rule also
reorganizes certain sections of the QPS appendices and provides
additional information on validation tests, established parameters for
tolerances, acceptable data formats, and the use of alternative data
sources. The changes ensure that the training and testing environment
is accurate and realistic, codify existing practice, and provide
greater harmonization with the international standards document for
simulation. Except for the amendment to codify existing practice
regarding certain visual scene requirements, these technical
requirements do not apply to simulators qualified before May 30, 2008.
The impact of this final rule results in minimal to no cost increases
for manufacturers and sponsors.
The FAA has, therefore, 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.
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.
[[Page 26490]]
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.
This final rule codifies existing practice by requiring all
existing FSTD visual scenes beyond the number required for
qualification to meet specified requirements. The final rule also
reorganizes certain sections of the QPS appendices and provides
additional information on validation tests, established parameters for
tolerances, acceptable data formats, and the use of alternative data
sources. The changes ensure that the training and testing environment
is accurate and more realistic, codify existing practice, and provide
greater harmonization with the international standards document for
simulation. Except for the amendment to codify existing practice
regarding certain visual scene requirements, these technical
requirements do not apply to simulators qualified before May 30, 2008.
The impact of this rule results in minimal or no cost for manufacturers
and sponsors. Therefore, as the individual delegated with authority to
sign this final rule on behalf of the Acting Administrator of the FAA,
I certify that this rule does not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
International Trade Impact Assessment
The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits Federal
agencies from establishing any standards or engaging in related
activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of
the United States. Legitimate domestic objectives, such as safety, are
not considered unnecessary obstacles. The statute also requires
consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that
they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has assessed the effect
of this rule and has determined that it imposes the same costs on
domestic and international entities and thus has a neutral trade
impact.
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
(adjusted annually for inflation with the base year 1995) 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 $136.1 million in lieu of $100 million. This rule does not contain
such a mandate.
Executive Order 13132, Federalism
The FAA has analyzed this final rule under the principles and
criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We determined that this
action will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, or the
relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, and, therefore, does not have federalism implications.
Environmental Analysis
FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA actions that are categorically
excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy
Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has
determined this proposed rule action qualifies for the categorical
exclusion identified in paragraph 312f and involves no extraordinary
circumstances.
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use
The FAA has analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order
13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). We have determined that it
is not a ``significant energy action'' under the executive order
because it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866, and it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect
on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.
Availability of Rulemaking Documents
You can get an electronic copy of rulemaking documents using 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.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.
You can also get a copy by sending a request to the Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680. Make
sure to identify the amendment number or docket number of this
rulemaking.
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit
http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of
1996 requires FAA to comply with small entity requests for information
or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its
jurisdiction. If you are a small entity and you have a question
regarding this document, you may contact your local FAA official, or
the person listed under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT heading at
the beginning of the preamble. You can find out more about SBREFA on
the Internet at http://www.faa.gov/regulations--policies/rulemaking/
sbre--act/.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 60
Airmen, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
IV. The Amendment
0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration
amends Chapter I of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 60--FLIGHT SIMULATION TRAINING DEVICE INITIAL AND CONTINUING
QUALIFICATION AND USE
0
1. The authority citation for part 60 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, and 44701.
0
2. Part 60 is amended by revising appendices A-F to read as follows:
[[Page 26491]]
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 (Sec. Sec. 60.1 and 60.2).
3. Definitions (Sec. 60.3).
4. Qualification Performance Standards (Sec. 60.4).
5. Quality Management System (Sec. 60.5).
6. Sponsor Qualification Requirements (Sec. 60.7).
7. Additional Responsibilities of the Sponsor (Sec. 60.9).
8. FFS Use (Sec. 60.11).
9. FFS Objective Data Requirements (Sec. 60.13).
10. Special Equipment and Personnel Requirements for Qualification
of the FFS (Sec. 60.14).
11. Initial (and Upgrade) Qualification Requirements (Sec. 60.15).
12. Additional Qualifications for a Currently Qualified FFS (Sec.
60.16).
13. Previously Qualified FFSs (Sec. 60.17).
14. Inspection, Continuing Qualification Evaluation, and Maintenance
Requirements (Sec. 60.19).
15. Logging FFS Discrepancies (Sec. 60.20).
16. Interim Qualification of FFSs for New Airplane Types or Models
(Sec. 60.21).
17. Modifications to FFSs (Sec. 60.23).
18. Operations With Missing, Malfunctioning, or Inoperative
Components (Sec. 60.25).
19. Automatic Loss of Qualification and Procedures for Restoration
of Qualification (Sec. 60.27).
20. Other Losses of Qualification and Procedures for Restoration of
Qualification (Sec. 60.29).
21. Record Keeping and Reporting (Sec. 60.31).
22. Applications, Logbooks, Reports, and Records: Fraud,
Falsification, or Incorrect Statements (Sec. 60.33).
23. Specific FFS Compliance Requirements (Sec. 60.35).
24. [Reserved]
25. FFS Qualification on the Basis of a Bilateral Aviation Safety
Agreement (BASA) (Sec. 60.37).
Attachment 1 to Appendix A to Part 60--General Simulator
Requirements.
Attachment 2 to Appendix A to Part 60--FFS Objective Tests.
Attachment 3 to Appendix A to Part 60--Simulator Subjective
Evaluation.
Attachment 4 to Appendix A to Part 60--Sample Documents.
Attachment 5 to Appendix A to Part 60--Simulator Qualification
Requirements for Windshear Training Program Use.
Attachment 6 to Appendix A to Part 60--FSTD Directives Applicable to
Airplane Flight Simulators.
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 e-mail address for the
NSP office is: 9-aso-avr-sim-team@faa.gov. The NSP Internet Web site
address is: http://www.faa.gov/safety/programs--initiatives/
aircraft--aviation/nsp/. On this Web site you will find an NSP
personnel list with telephone and e-mail contact information for
each NSP staff member, a list of qualified flight simulation
devices, advisory circulars (ACs), a description of the
qualification process, NSP policy, and an NSP ``In-Works'' section.
Also linked from this site are additional information sources,
handbook bulletins, frequently asked questions, a listing and text
of the Federal Aviation Regulations, Flight Standards Inspector's
handbooks, and other FAA links.
c. The NSPM encourages the use of electronic media for all
communication, including any record, report, request, test, or
statement required by this appendix. The electronic media used must
have adequate security provisions and be acceptable to the NSPM. The
NSPM recommends inquiries on system compatibility, and minimum
system requirements are also included on the NSP Web site.
d. Related Reading References.
(1) 14 CFR part 60.
(2) 14 CFR part 61.
(3) 14 CFR part 63.
(4) 14 CFR part 119.
(5) 14 CFR part 121.
(6) 14 CFR part 125.
(7) 14 CFR part 135.
(8) 14 CFR part 141.
(9) 14 CFR part 142.
(10) AC 120-28, as amended, Criteria for Approval of Category
III Landing Weather Minima.
(11) AC 120-29, as amended, Criteria for Approving Category I
and Category II Landing Minima for part 121 operators.
(12) AC 120-35, as amended, Line Operational Simulations: Line-
Oriented Flight Training, Special Purpose Operational Training, Line
Operational Evaluation.
(13) AC 120-40, as amended, Airplane Simulator Qualification.
(14) AC 120-41, as amended, Criteria for Operational Approval of
Airborne Wind Shear Alerting and Flight Guidance Systems.
(15) AC 120-57, as amended, Surface Movement Guidance and
Control System (SMGCS).
(16) AC 150/5300-13, as amended, Airport Design.
(17) AC 150/5340-1, as amended, Standards for Airport Markings.
(18) AC 150/5340-4, as amended, Installation Details for Runway
Centerline Touchdown Zone Lighting Systems.
(19) AC 150/5340-19, as amended, Taxiway Centerline Lighting
System.
(20) AC 150/5340-24, as amended, Runway and Taxiway Edge
Lighting System.
(21) AC 150/5345-28, as amended, Precision Approach Path
Indicator (PAPI) Systems.
(22) International Air Transport Association document, ``Flight
Simulator Design and Performance Data Requirements,'' as amended.
(23) AC 25-7, as amended, Flight Test Guide for Certification of
Transport Category Airplanes.
(24) AC 23-8, as amended, Flight Test Guide for Certification of
Part 23 Airplanes.
(25) International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Manual of
Criteria for the Qualification of Flight Simulators, as amended.
(26) Airplane Flight Simulator Evaluation Handbook, Volume I, as
amended and Volume II, as amended, The Royal Aeronautical Society,
London, UK.
(27) FAA Publication FAA-S-8081 series (Practical Test Standards
for Airline Transport Pilot Certificate, Type Ratings, Commercial
Pilot, and Instrument Ratings).
(28) The FAA Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM). An
electronic version of the AIM is on the Internet at http://
www.faa.gov/atpubs.
(29) Aeronautical Radio, Inc. (ARINC) document number 436,
titled Guidelines For Electronic Qualification Test Guide (as
amended).
(30) Aeronautical Radio, Inc. (ARINC) document 610, Guidance for
Design and Integration of Aircraft Avionics Equipment in Simulators
(as amended).
End Information
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Applicability (Sec. Sec. 60.1 and 60.2)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Begin Information
No additional regulatory or informational material applies to
Sec. 60.1, Applicability, or to Sec. 60.2, Applicability of
sponsor rules to persons who are not sponsors and who are engaged in
certain unauthorized activities.
[[Page 26492]]
End Information
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Definitions (Sec. 60.3)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Begin Information
See Appendix F of this part for a list of definitions and
abbreviations from part 1 and part 60, including the appropriate
appendices of part 60.
End Information
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Qualification Performance Standards (Sec. 60.4)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Begin Information
No additional regulatory or informational material applies to
Sec. 60.4, Qualification Performance Standards.
End Information
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Quality Management System (Sec. 60.5)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Begin Information
See Appendix E of this part for additional regulatory and
informational material regarding Quality Management Systems.
End Information
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Sponsor Qualification Requirements (Sec. 60.7)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Begin Information
a. The intent of the language in Sec. 60.7(b) is to have a
specific FFS, identified by the sponsor, used at least once in an
FAA-approved flight training program for the airplane simulated
during the 12-month period described. The identification of the
specific FFS may change from one 12-month period to the next 12-
month period as long as the sponsor sponsors and uses at least one
FFS at least once during the prescribed period. No minimum number of
hours or minimum FFS periods are required.
b. The following examples describe acceptable operational
practices:
(1) Example One.
(a) A sponsor is sponsoring a single, specific FFS for its own
use, in its own facility or elsewhere--this single FFS forms the
basis for the sponsorship. The sponsor uses that FFS at least once
in each 12-month period in the sponsor's FAA-approved flight
training program for the airplane simulated. This 12-month period is
established according to the following schedule:
(i) If the FFS was qualified prior to May 30, 2008, the 12-month
period begins on the date of the first continuing qualification
evaluation conducted in accordance with Sec. 60.19 after May 30,
2008, and continues for each subsequent 12-month period;
(ii) A device qualified on or after May 30, 2008, will be
required to undergo an initial or upgrade evaluation in accordance
with Sec. 60.15. Once the initial or upgrade evaluation is
complete, the first continuing qualification evaluation will be
conducted within 6 months. The 12-month continuing qualification
evaluation cycle begins on that date and continues for each
subsequent 12-month period.
(b) There is no minimum number of hours of FFS use required.
(c) The identification of the specific FFS may change from one
12-month period to the next 12-month period as long as the sponsor
sponsors and uses at least one FFS at least once during the
prescribed period.
(2) Example Two.
(a) A sponsor sponsors an additional number of FFSs, in its
facility or elsewhere. Each additionally sponsored FFS must be--
(i) Used by the sponsor in the sponsor's FAA-approved flight
training program for the airplane simulated (as described in Sec.
60.7(d)(1));
OR
(ii) Used by another FAA certificate holder in that other
certificate holder's FAA-approved flight training program for the
airplane simulated (as described in Sec. 60.7(d)(1)). This 12-month
period is established in the same manner as in example one;
OR
(iii) Provided a statement each year from a qualified pilot
(after having flown the airplane, not the subject FFS or another
FFS, during the preceding 12-month period), stating that the subject
FFS's performance and handling qualities represent the airplane (as
described in Sec. 60.7(d)(2)). This statement is provided at least
once in each 12-month period established in the same manner as in
example one.
(b) No minimum number of hours of FFS use is required.
(3) Example Three.
(a) A sponsor in New York (in this example, a Part 142
certificate holder) establishes ``satellite'' training centers in
Chicago and Moscow.
(b) The satellite function means that the Chicago and Moscow
centers must operate under the New York center's certificate (in
accordance with all of the New York center's practices, procedures,
and policies; e.g., instructor and/or technician training/checking
requirements, record keeping, QMS program).
(c) All of the FFSs in the Chicago and Moscow centers could be
dry-leased (i.e., the certificate holder does not have and use FAA-
approved flight training programs for the FFSs in the Chicago and
Moscow centers) because--
(i) Each FFS in the Chicago center and each FFS in the Moscow
center is used at least once each 12-month period by another FAA
certificate holder in that other certificate holder's FAA-approved
flight training program for the airplane (as described in Sec.
60.7(d)(1));
OR
(ii) A statement is obtained from a qualified pilot (having
flown the airplane, not the subject FFS or another FFS, during the
preceding 12-month period) stating that the performance and handling
qualities of each FFS in the Chicago and Moscow centers represents
the airplane (as described in Sec. 60.7(d)(2)).
End Information
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Additional Responsibilities of the Sponsor (Sec. 60.9)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Begin Information
The phrase ``as soon as practicable'' in Sec. 60.9(a) means
without unnecessarily disrupting or delaying beyond a reasonable
time the training, evaluation, or experience being conducted in the
FFS.
End Information
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
8. FFS Use (Sec. 60.11)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Begin Information
No additional regulatory or informational material applies to
Sec. 60.11, Simulator Use.
End Information
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
9. FFS Objective Data Requirements (Sec. 60.13)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Begin QPS Requirements
a. Flight test data used to validate FFS performance and
handling qualities must have been gathered in accordance with a
flight test program containing the following:
(1) A flight test plan consisting of:
(a) The maneuvers and procedures required for aircraft
certification and simulation programming and validation.
(b) For each maneuver or procedure--
(i) The procedures and control input the flight test pilot and/
or engineer used.
(ii) The atmospheric and environmental conditions.
(iii) The initial flight conditions.
(iv) The airplane configuration, including weight and center of
gravity.
(v) The data to be gathered.
(vi) All other information necessary to recreate the flight test
conditions in the FFS.
(2) Appropriately qualified flight test personnel.
(3) An understanding of the accuracy of the data to be gathered
using appropriate alternative data sources, procedures, and
instrumentation that is traceable to a recognized standard as
described in Attachment 2, Table A2E of this appendix.
(4) Appropriate and sufficient data acquisition equipment or
system(s), including appropriate data reduction and analysis methods
and techniques, as would be acceptable to the FAA's Aircraft
Certification Service.
b. The data, regardless of source, must be presented as follows:
(1) In a format that supports the FFS validation process.
(2) In a manner that is clearly readable and annotated correctly
and completely.
(3) With resolution sufficient to determine compliance with the
tolerances set forth in Attachment 2, Table A2A of this appendix.
(4) With any necessary instructions or other details provided,
such as yaw damper or throttle position.
[[Page 26493]]
(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 Sec. 60.13(f), the sponsor must notify the
NSPM when it becomes aware that an addition to, an amendment to, or
a revision of data that may relate to FFS performance or handling
characteristics is available. The data referred to in this paragraph
is data used to validate the performance, handling qualities, or
other characteristics of the aircraft, including data related to any
relevant changes occurring after the type certificate was issued.
The sponsor must--
(1) Within 10 calendar days, notify the NSPM of the existence of
this data; and
(2) Within 45 calendar days, notify the NSPM of--
(a) The schedule to incorporate this data into the FFS; or
(b) The reason for not incorporating this data into the FFS.
e. In those cases where the objective test results authorize a
``snapshot test'' or a ``series of snapshot tests'' results in lieu
of a time-history result, the sponsor or other data provider must
ensure that a steady state condition exists at the instant of time
captured by the ``snapshot.'' The steady state condition must exist
from 4 seconds prior to, through 1 second following, the instant of
time captured by the snapshot.
End QPS Requirements
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Begin Information
f. The FFS sponsor is encouraged to maintain a liaison with the
manufacturer of the aircraft being simulated (or with the holder of
the aircraft type certificate for the aircraft being simulated if
the manufacturer is no longer in business), and, if appropriate,
with the person having supplied the aircraft data package for the
FFS in order to facilitate the notification required by Sec.
60.13(f).
g. It is the intent of the NSPM that for new aircraft entering
service, at a point well in advance of preparation of the
Qualification Test Guide (QTG), the sponsor should submit to the
NSPM for approval, a descriptive document (see Table A2C, Sample
Validation Data Roadmap for Airplanes) containing the plan for
acquiring the validation data, including data sources. This document
should clearly identify sources of data for all required tests, a
description of the validity of these data for a specific engine type
and thrust rating configuration, and the revision levels of all
avionics affecting the performance or flying qualities of the
aircraft. Additionally, this document should provide other
information, such as the rationale or explanation for cases where
data or data parameters are missing, instances where engineering
simulation data are used or where flight test methods require
further explanations. It should also provide a brief narrative
describing the cause and effect of any deviation from data
requirements. The aircraft manufacturer may provide this document.
h. There is no requirement for any flight test data supplier to
submit a flight test plan or program prior to gathering flight test
data. However, the NSPM notes that inexperienced data gatherers
often provide data that is irrelevant, improperly marked, or lacking
adequate justification for selection. Other problems include
inadequate information regarding initial conditions or test
maneuvers. The NSPM has been forced to refuse these data submissions
as validation data for an FFS evaluation. It is for this reason that
the NSPM recommends that any data supplier not previously
experienced in this area review the data necessary for programming
and for validating the performance of the FFS, and discuss the
flight test plan anticipated for acquiring such data with the NSPM
well in advance of commencing the flight tests.
i. The NSPM will consider, on a case-by-case basis, whether to
approve supplemental validation data derived from flight data
recording systems, such as a Quick Access Recorder or Flight Data
Recorder.
End Information
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Special Equipment and Personnel Requirements for Qualification of
the FFSs (Sec. 60.14)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Begin Information
a. In the event that the NSPM determines that special equipment
or specifically qualified persons will be required to conduct an
evaluation, the NSPM will make every attempt to notify the sponsor
at least one (1) week, but in no case less than 72 hours, in advance
of the evaluation. Examples of special equipment include spot
photometers, flight control measurement devices, and sound
analyzers. Examples of specially qualified personnel include
individuals specifically qualified to install or use any special
equipment when its use is required.
b. Examples of a special evaluation include an evaluation
conducted after an FFS is moved, at the request of the TPAA, or as a
result of comments received from users of the FFS that raise
questions about the continued qualification or use of the FFS.
End Information
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Initial (and Upgrade) Qualification Requirements (Sec. 60.15)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Begin QPS Requirements
a. In order to be qualified at a particular qualification level,
the FFS must:
(1) Meet the general requirements listed in Attachment 1 of this
appendix;
(2) Meet the objective testing requirements listed in Attachment
2 of this appendix; and
(3) Satisfactorily accomplish the subjective tests listed in
Attachment 3 of this appendix.
b. The request described in Sec. 60.15(a) must include all of
the following:
(1) A statement that the FFS meets all of the applicable
provisions of this part and all applicable provisions of the QPS.
(2) A confirmation that the sponsor will forward to the NSPM the
statement described in Sec. 60.15(b) in such time as to be received
no later than 5 business days prior to the scheduled evaluation and
may be forwarded to the NSPM via traditional or electronic means.
(3) A QTG, acceptable to the NSPM, that includes all of the
following:
(a) Objective data obtained from traditional aircraft testing or
another approved source.
(b) Correlating objective test results obtained from the
performance of the FFS as prescribed in the appropriate QPS.
(c) The result of FFS subjective tests prescribed in the
appropriate QPS.
(d) A description of the equipment necessary to perform the
evaluation for initial qualification and the continuing
qualification evaluations.
c. The QTG described in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, must
provide the documented proof of compliance with the simulator
objective tests in Attachment 2, Table A2A of this appendix.
d. The QTG is prepared and submitted by the sponsor, or the
sponsor's agent on behalf of the sponsor, to the NSPM for review and
approval, and must include, for each objective test:
(1) Parameters, tolerances, and flight conditions;
(2) Pertinent and complete instructions for the conduct of
automatic and manual tests;
(3) A means of comparing the FFS test results to the objective
data;
(4) Any other information as necessary, to assist in the
evaluation of the test results;
(5) Other information appropriate to the qualification level of
the FFS.
e. The QTG described in paragraphs (a)(3) and (b) of this
section, must include the following:
(1) A QTG cover page with sponsor and FAA approval signature
blocks (see Attachment 4, Figure A4C, of this appendix for a sample
QTG cover page).
(2) A continuing qualification evaluation requirements page.
This page will be used by the NSPM to establish and record the
frequency with which continuing qualification evaluations must be
conducted and any subsequent changes that may be determined by the
NSPM in accordance with Sec. 60.19. See Attachment 4, Figure A4G,
of this appendix for a sample Continuing Qualification Evaluation
Requirements page.
(3) An FFS information page that provides the information listed
in this paragraph (see Attachment 4, Figure A4B, of this appendix
for a sample FFS information page). For convertible FFSs, the
sponsor must submit a separate page for each configuration of the
FFS.
(a) The sponsor's FFS identification number or code.
(b) The airplane model and series being simulated.
(c) The aerodynamic data revision number or reference.
[[Page 26494]]
(d) The source of the basic aerodynamic model and the
aerodynamic coefficient data used to modify the basic model.
(e) The engine model(s) and its data revision number or
reference.
(f) The flight control data revision number or reference.
(g) The flight management system identification and revision
level.
(h) The FFS model and manufacturer.
(i) The date of FFS manufacture.
(j) The FFS computer identification.
(k) The visual system model and manufacturer, including display
type.
(l) The motion system type and manufacturer, including degrees
of freedom.
(4) A Table of Contents.
(5) A log of revisions and a list of effective pages.
(6) A list of all relevant data references.
(7) A glossary of terms and symbols used (including sign
conventions and units).
(8) Statements of Compliance and Capability (SOCs) with certain
requirements.
(9) Recording procedures or equipment required to accomplish the
objective tests.
(10) The following information for each objective test
designated in Attachment 2, Table A2A, of this appendix as
applicable to the qualification level sought:
(a) Name of the test.
(b) Objective of the test.
(c) Initial conditions.
(d) Manual test procedures.
(e) Automatic test procedures (if applicable).
(f) Method for evaluating FFS objective test results.
(g) List of all relevant parameters driven or constrained during
the automatically conducted test(s).
(h) List of all relevant parameters driven or constrained during
the manually conducted test(s).
(i) Tolerances for relevant parameters.
(j) Source of Validation Data (document and page number).
(k) Copy of the Validation Data (if located in a separate
binder, a cross reference for the identification and page number for
pertinent data location must be provided).
(l) Simulator Objective Test Results as obtained by the sponsor.
Each test result must reflect the date completed and must be clearly
labeled as a product of the device being tested.
f. A convertible FFS is addressed as a separate FFS for each
model and series airplane to which it will be converted and for the
FAA qualification level sought. If a sponsor seeks qualification for
two or more models of an airplane type using a convertible FFS, the
sponsor must submit a QTG for each airplane model, or a QTG for the
first airplane model and a supplement to that QTG for each
additional airplane model. The NSPM will conduct evaluations for
each airplane model.
g. Form and manner of presentation of objective test results in
the QTG:
(1) The sponsor's FFS test results must be recorded in a manner
acceptable to the NSPM, that allows easy comparison of the FFS test
results to the validation data (e.g., use of a multi-channel
recorder, line printer, cross plotting, overlays, transparencies).
(2) FFS results must be labeled using terminology common to
airplane parameters as opposed to computer software identifications.
(3) Validation data documents included in a QTG may be
photographically reduced only if such reduction will not alter the
graphic scaling or cause difficulties in scale interpretation or
resolution.
(4) Scaling on graphical presentations must provide the
resolution necessary to evaluate the parameters shown in Attachment
2, Table A2A of this appendix.
(5) Tests involving time histories, data sheets (or
transparencies thereof) and FFS test results must be clearly marked
with appropriate reference points to ensure an accurate comparison
between the FFS and the airplane with respect to time. Time
histories recorded via a line printer are to be clearly identified
for cross plotting on the airplane data. Over-plots must not obscure
the reference data.
h. The sponsor may elect to complete the QTG objective and
subjective tests at the manufacturer's facility or at the sponsor's
training facility. If the tests are conducted at the manufacturer's
facility, the sponsor must repeat at least one-third of the tests at
the sponsor's training facility in order to substantiate FFS
performance. The QTG must be clearly annotated to indicate when and
where each test was accomplished. Tests conducted at the
manufacturer's facility and at the sponsor's training facility must
be conducted after the FFS is assembled with systems and sub-systems
functional and operating in an interactive manner. The test results
must be submitted to the NSPM.
i. The sponsor must maintain a copy of the MQTG at the FFS
location.
j. All FFSs for which the initial qualification is conducted
after May 30, 2014, must have an electronic MQTG (eMQTG) including
all objective data obtaine