Flight Simulation Training Device Initial and Continuing Qualification and Use, 26478-26786 [08-1183]

Agencies

• Federal Aviation Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 91 (Friday, May 9, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 26478-26786]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 08-1183]



[[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

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 91 / Friday, May 9, 2008 / Rules and 
Regulations

[[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 duri