Flight Simulation Training Device Qualification Standards for Extended Envelope and Adverse Weather Event Training Tasks, 39461-39753 [2014-15432]

Download as PDF Vol. 79 Thursday, No. 132 July 10, 2014 Part II Department of Transportation sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 60 Flight Simulation Training Device Qualification Standards for Extended Envelope and Adverse Weather Event Training Tasks; Proposed Rule VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 39462 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 60 [Docket No.: FAA–2014–0391; Notice No. 2014–04] RIN 2120–AK08 Flight Simulation Training Device Qualification Standards for Extended Envelope and Adverse Weather Event Training Tasks Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS AGENCY: SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to amend the Qualification Performance Standards for flight simulation training devices (FSTDs) for the primary purpose of improving existing technical standards and introducing new technical standards for evaluating an FSTD for full stall and stick pusher maneuvers, upset recognition and recovery maneuvers, maneuvers conducted in airborne icing conditions, takeoff and landing maneuvers in gusting crosswinds, and bounced landing recovery maneuvers. These new and improved technical standards are intended to fully define FSTD fidelity requirements for conducting new flight training tasks introduced through recent changes in the air carrier training requirements as well as to address various National Transportation Safety Board and Aviation Rulemaking Committee recommendations. The proposal also updates the FSTD technical standards to better align with the current international FSTD evaluation guidance and introduces a new FSTD level that expands the number of qualified flight training tasks in a fixed-base flight training device. The proposed changes would ensure that the training and testing environment is accurate and realistic, would codify existing practice, and would provide greater harmonization with international guidance for simulation. With the exception of the proposal to codify new FSTD technical standards for specific training tasks through an FSTD Directive, the proposed amendments would not apply to previously qualified FSTDs. DATES: Send comments on or before October 8, 2014. ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA–2014–0391 using any of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and follow VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 the online instructions for sending your comments electronically. • Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M–30; U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12–140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590–0001. • Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket Operations in Room W12–140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. • Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at 202–493–2251. Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL– 14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy. Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at https://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12–140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning this action, contact Larry McDonald, Air Transportation Division/National Simulator Program Branch, AFS–205, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, GA 30320; telephone (404) 474–5620; email larry.e.mcdonald@faa.gov. For legal questions concerning this action, contact Robert H. Frenzel, Manager, Operations Law Branch, Office of the Chief Counsel, Regulations Division (AGC–200), Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267–3073; email Robert.Frenzel@faa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority for This Rulemaking The Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA’s) authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106(f) describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency’s authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in 49 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 U.S.C. 44701(a)(5), which requires the Administrator to promulgate regulations and minimum standards for other practices, methods, and procedures necessary for safety in air commerce and national security. This amendment to the regulation is within the scope of that authority because it prescribes an accepted method for testing and evaluating flight simulation training devices used to train and evaluate flightcrew members. In addition, the Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111–216) specifically required the FAA to conduct rulemaking to ensure that all flightcrew members receive flight training in recognizing and avoiding stalls, recovering from stalls, and recognizing and avoiding upset of an aircraft, as well as the proper techniques to recover from upset. This rulemaking is within the scope of the authority in Public Law 111–216 and is necessary to fully implement the training requirements recently adopted in the Qualification, Service, and Use of Crewmembers and Aircraft Dispatchers final rule (Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule), RIN 2120–AJ00. See 78 FR 67800 (Nov. 12, 2013). List of Abbreviations and Acronyms Frequently Used in This Document AC—Advisory Circular ARC—Aviation Rulemaking Committee AURTA—Airplane Upset Recovery Training Aid FFS—Full Flight Simulator FTD—Flight Training Device FSTD—Flight Simulation Training Device ICATEE—International Committee on Aviation Training in Extended Envelopes LOCART—Loss of Control Avoidance and Recovery Training Working Group NPRM—Notice of Proposed Rulemaking QPS—Qualification performance standards SNPRM—Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking SPAW ARC—Stick Pusher and Adverse Weather Event Training Aviation Rulemaking Committee Table of Contents I. Executive Summary II. Background A. Statement of the Problem B. History 1. Industry Stall and Stick Pusher Working Group 2. International Committee on Aviation Training in Extended Envelopes (ICATEE) 3. Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111–216) 4. Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 5. Stick Pusher and Adverse Weather Event Training Aviation Rulemaking Committee (SPAW ARC) 6. Advisory Circular (AC) 120–109 (Stall and Stick Pusher Training) 7. Loss of Control Avoidance and Recovery Training (LOCART) Working Group C. Deficiencies in FSTD Evaluation Requirements 1. Full Stall Training Maneuvers 2. Upset Recognition and Recovery Training Maneuvers 3. Airborne Icing Training Maneuvers 4. Microburst and Windshear Recovery Maneuvers 5. Takeoff and Landing in Gusting Crosswinds 6. Bounced Landing Recovery Maneuvers D. Related Actions E. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Recommendations III. Discussion of the Proposal A. The FSTD Evaluation Process B. General Rationale for the Proposal C. Requirements Applicable to Previously Qualified FSTDs—FSTD Directive 2 (Appendix A, Attachment 6) D. FSTD Evaluation Requirements for Full Stall Training Tasks (Appendix A; Table A1a, Section 2.1.7.S, Table A2A, Tests 2.a.10.c.8, and 3.f.8; Table A3a, Test 5.b.1; and Attachment 7) E. FSTD Evaluation Requirements for Upset Recognition and Recovery Training Tasks (Appendix A; Table A1A, Section 2.1.6.S and Attachment 7) F. FSTD Evaluation Requirements for Airborne Icing Training Tasks (Appendix A; Table A1A, Section 2.1.5.S; Table A2A, Test 2.i. and Attachment 7) G. FSTD Evaluation Requirements for Takeoff and Landing Training Tasks in Gusting Crosswinds (Appendix A, Table A1A, Sections 3.1.S, 3.1.R, and 11.4.R) H. FSTD Evaluation Requirements for Bounced Landing Training Tasks (Appendix A, Table A1A, Section 3.1.S) I. FSTD Evaluation Requirements for Windshear Training Tasks (Appendix A, Table A1a, Section 11.2.R) J. Significant Changes To Align With the International FSTD Evaluation Guidance (Appendix A) 1. Table A1A (General Requirements) 2. Table A2A (Objective Testing Requirements) 3. Table A3A (Functions and Subjective Testing Requirements) 4. Table A3B (Class I Airport Models) 5. Table A3D (Motion System Effects) K. New Level 7 Fixed Wing FSTD Requirements—Appendix B Changes (Appendix B, Tables B1A, B1B, B2A, B3A, B3B, B3C, B3D, and B3E) L. Miscellaneous Amendments To Improve and Codify FSTD Evaluation Procedures (§§ 60.15, 60.17, 60.19, 60.23, Appendix A Paragraph 11) IV. Regulatory Notices and Analysis V. Executive Order Determinations VI. Additional Information I. Executive Summary The primary purpose of this proposal is to define simulator fidelity requirements for new training tasks that VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 were mandated for air carrier training programs by Public Law 111–216. The notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) proposes to accomplish this by establishing new or updated Flight Simulation Training Device (FSTD) technical evaluation standards for full stall and upset recognition and recovery training tasks as required in the Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule and as proposed by the Stick Pusher and Adverse Weather Event Training ARC (SPAW ARC). The Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule added training requirements for pilots that target the prevention of and recovery from stall and upset conditions, recovery from bounced landings, enhanced runway safety training, and enhanced training on crosswind takeoffs and landings with gusts. Stall and upset prevention requires pilot skill in manual handling maneuvers and procedures. Therefore, the manual handling maneuvers most critical to stall and upset prevention (i.e., slow flight, loss of reliable airspeed, and manually controlled departure and arrival) are included as part of the agency’s overall stall and upset mitigation strategy. These maneuvers are identified in the Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule within the ‘‘extended envelope’’ training provision, which further requires that these maneuvers be completed in an FSTD. As a result, revisions to all part 121 training programs will be necessary and revisions to part 60 will be required to fully implement the extended envelope, bounced landing, and gusty crosswinds flight training required by the Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule. In addition, this proposal addresses a potential lack of simulator fidelity as identified in several NTSB safety recommendations and Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) recommendations concerning flight training tasks, such as anti-icing, bounced landing, gusty crosswind, and extended envelope training. These changes are necessary to ensure a realistic crew training environment and to prevent incorrect simulator training. For the purpose of this rulemaking, the term ‘‘extended envelope training tasks’’ (such as full stall and aircraft upset recovery) refers to maneuvers and procedures conducted in a FSTD that may extend beyond the limits where typical FSTD performance and handling qualities have been validated with heavy reliance on flight data to represent the actual aircraft. In instances when obtaining such flight data is hazardous or impractical, engineering PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 39463 predictive methods and subject-matterexpert assessment are used to program and validate the aircraft’s behavior in the simulator. The secondary purpose of this NPRM is to align the technical standards for Level C and D (fixed wing) FSTDs that are defined in Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 60 with the current international FSTD evaluation guidelines published in the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) document 9625 Edition 3, Manual of Criteria for the Qualification of Flight Simulation Training Devices (ICAO 9625, Edition 3). These changes would incorporate the technical guidelines for the highest level of ICAO-defined FSTD (Type VII) into the part 60 Level C and Level D FSTD standards, where appropriate. This proposal also introduces a new level of fixed-wing FSTD (a Level 7 flight training device (FTD)) that is based upon the ICAO 9625, Edition 3, Type V FSTD technical guidance. Changes intended to align with the ICAO guidance would address new aircraft and simulation technology introduced since the original issuance of part 60, incorporate general improvements to the FSTD evaluation standards, and provide air carriers and flight training providers with additional options for conducting approved training tasks in an FTD as opposed to a more costly full flight simulator (FFS). In general, the proposed changes to the technical standards would apply only to those FSTDs that are initially qualified or upgraded in qualification level after the final rule becomes effective. For previously qualified FSTDs used to conduct extended envelope, airborne icing, gusting crosswind, and bounced landing training, the FAA is also seeking comment on a proposed FSTD Directive that would require FSTD Sponsors to retroactively evaluate those FSTDs against certain objective and subjective testing requirements as defined in the QPS appendices and modify them if necessary to meet the proposed requirements. This proposed FSTD Directive would be applicable to any FSTD being used to conduct these training tasks, including those FSTDs being used to conduct such training on a voluntary basis in a non-air carrier flight training program. Those previously qualified devices that would not be used to conduct these specified training tasks would not require modification or evaluation. For all FSTDs that are initially qualified or upgraded in qualification level after implementation of these regulations, the proposed changes to the E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 39464 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules qualified FSTDs that will be used to conduct certain extended envelope and other training tasks described in the Crewmember and Dispatcher Training Final Rule, compliance with the proposed FSTD Directive would be required within three years of the publication date of a final rule implementing these provisions. The FAA is seeking comment on these proposed compliance dates. A summary of the cost and benefit information is presented below. II. Background potential lack of simulator fidelity could contribute to inaccurate or incomplete training on new training tasks that are required by the Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule, which could lead to an associated and unnecessary safety risk. Furthermore, since the initial publication of the part 60 final rule in 2008, the international FSTD qualification guidance published in ICAO 9625, Edition 3 have been updated to incorporate general improvements to new aircraft and simulation technology and the introduction of new FSTD levels that better align FSTD fidelity with required training tasks. The ICAO 9625 document is an internationally recognized set of FSTD evaluation guidelines that was developed by a wide range of government and industry experts on flight simulation training and technology and has been used as a basis for national regulation and guidance material for FSTD evaluation in many countries. Internationally aligned FSTD standards facilitate cost savings for FSTD operators because they effectively reduce the number of different FSTD designs that are required to meet multiple national regulations and standards for FSTD qualification. The proposals in this NPRM were largely developed using recommendations from the SPAW ARC 1 and the international FSTD qualification guidelines that are published in ICAO Document 9625, Edition 3.2 These proposals are primarily directed at improving the fidelity of FSTDs that would be used in air carrier pilot training. They would also have an added benefit of improving the fidelity of all FSTDs qualified after the proposed rule becomes effective. sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS A. Statement of the Problem In order to mitigate aircraft loss of control accidents and to comply with the requirements of Public Law 111– 216, the FAA has required new or revised flight training requirements in the Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule for flight maneuvers such as full stall and upset recovery training. Through participation with various industry working groups and recommendations received from the SPAW ARC, the FAA determined that many existing FSTDs used by air carriers to conduct such training may not adequately represent the simulated aircraft to a degree necessary for successful completion of required training tasks. Additionally, the FAA evaluated several recent air carrier accidents and determined that low FSTD fidelity or the lack of ability for an FSTD to adequately conduct certain training tasks may have been a contributing factor in these accidents. A VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 1 A copy of the SPAW ARC final report has been placed in the docket for this rulemaking. 2 International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) publications can be located on their public internet site at: https://www.icao.int/. E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 EP10JY14.236</GPH> QPS appendices would become effective 30 days after publication of a final rule. However, new FSTDs may still be initially qualified under existing standards after this date, subject to up to a 24 month grace period as currently defined in § 60.15(c). For previously Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules B. History sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 1. Industry Stall and Stick Pusher Working Group In March 2010, the FAA worked with industry leaders to address concerns arising from the increase in stall and loss of control accidents. The Stall and Stick Pusher Working Group met over a 9 month period and produced many training recommendations to prevent stall events. This working group included members from aircraft manufacturers, simulator manufacturers, training companies, pilot associations, airlines, and the FAA. In addition to providing best training practices using current simulation, the working group recommended that simulators in use today should not be used for training to or past the aerodynamic stall unless further testing and validation in that flight regime are performed for the specific simulator and approved by the FAA. This working group did not recommend post-stall training because the roll and yaw characteristics and the stall buffet characteristics of the simulator may not be representative of the aircraft. 2. International Committee on Aviation Training in Extended Envelopes (ICATEE) In 2009, the Royal Aeronautical Society formed the International Committee on Aviation Training in Extended Envelopes (ICATEE) working group to examine aircraft upset recovery training and recommend improvements to both training and simulation devices used to conduct training. This working group was comprised of subject matter experts in many facets of industry and government including airlines, flight training providers, research entities, FSTD manufacturers, airframe manufacturers, regulatory authorities, and airline pilots associations. The ICATEE working methodology was to first conduct a training needs analysis using subject matter experts in the area of pilot training and then determine the training device requirements as a function of the identified training needs. Once the training needs were established, subject matter experts in FSTD technology developed proposed modifications to the FSTD qualification standards to support the recommended training tasks. While the ICATEE final report has not been published yet, several interim recommendations from ICATEE on FSTD technical evaluation standards for stall, upset recovery, and airborne icing maneuvers were provided to the SPAW ARC for consideration in developing its recommendations. VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 3. Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111–216) On August 1, 2010, President Obama signed into law Public Law 111–216. In addition to extending the FAA’s authorization, Public Law 111–216 included provisions to improve airline safety and pilot training. Specifically, section 208 of Public Law 111–216, Implementation of NTSB Flight Crewmember Training Recommendations, pertains directly to this rulemaking in that stall training and upset recovery training were mandated for part 121 air carrier flightcrew members. 4. Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule On November 12, 2013, the FAA published the Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule, adding the training tasks required by Public Law 111–216, specifically targeting extended envelope training, recovery from bounced landings, enhanced runway safety training, and enhanced training on crosswind takeoffs and landings with gusts which further requires that these maneuvers be completed in an FSTD. As a result, revisions to all part 121 training programs will be necessary and the revisions to part 60 as proposed in this rule will be required to ensure FSTDs are properly evaluated in order to fully implement the flight training required in the Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule. In the Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule, the FAA established a 5-year compliance period for air carriers to update their training programs because of the need to revise both the FSTD standards and to allow for FSTD sponsors to have a sufficient amount of time to make any required modifications to their FSTDs as a result of this rulemaking. The FAA recognizes that a significant amount of engineering, testing, and subject matter expert evaluation time will be required to evaluate and modify the numerous FSTDs that will be required to conduct such tasks in part 121 training programs. As a result, the FAA has proposed a 3-year compliance period in the FSTD Directive that would require the evaluation and modification of previously qualified FSTDs that will be used for certain ‘‘extended envelope’’ and other training tasks in the Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule. The FAA believes that the 5-year compliance period in the Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule provides sufficient PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 39465 time to complete this rulemaking and also to give FSTD sponsors enough time to comply with the proposed 3-year compliance period in the FSTD Directive. While the FAA recognizes that some sponsors and operators may already have the technology and simulation knowledge necessary to make the changes proposed in the FSTD Directive, we recognize that there is a significant variation in the capability of previously qualified FSTDs as well as the technical expertise available to FSTD sponsors which could require more or less compliance time than what the FAA has anticipated. We request comment on whether the 3-year compliance period in the FSTD Directive is adequate, too short, or too long. The comments should also take into consideration the March 2019 compliance date for the new training task requirements in the Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule and indicate whether that time is adequate, too short, or too long. 5. Stick Pusher and Adverse Weather Event Training Aviation Rulemaking Committee The formation of the SPAW ARC was mandated by Public Law 111–216, Section 208. It held its first meeting on November 30, 2010, and held its last full group meeting on May 12, 2011. The SPAW ARC included members from aircraft manufacturers, simulator manufacturers, training companies, pilot associations, and airlines. The final report provided numerous recommendations to the FAA on stall and stick pusher training, upset recovery training, icing training, and microburst and windshear training. In addition to the training recommendations, the ARC made recommendations to the FAA in its final report concerning the potential lack of simulator fidelity and proposed modifications to part 60 to address those deficiencies. The ARC cited several specific areas of improvement to simulation including modeling of flight dynamics and performance changes due to ice accretion, modeling of aircraft response in a stall, and providing flight instructors with improved feedback concerning the validity of the simulation during upset prevention and recovery training maneuvers. A copy of the SPAW ARC’s final report has been placed in the docket for this rulemaking. 6. Advisory Circular (AC) 120–109 (Stall and Stick Pusher Training) In August 2012, the FAA issued AC 120–109 (Stall and Stick Pusher E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 39466 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules Training),3 which provided a series of best practices relating to training, testing, and checking of stall warnings; aerodynamic stalls and stick pusher activations; and recommended recovery procedures. The content of this AC was developed using the recommendations of previous working groups and was intended to provide guidance to training providers and air carriers to ensure correct and consistent responses to unexpected stall warnings and stick pusher activations. 7. Loss of Control Avoidance and Recovery Training (LOCART) Working Group In March 2012, the FAA reconvened the SPAW ARC to seek more detailed recommendations on academic and flight training programs to support the upset prevention and recovery training that was proposed by the SNPRM on air carrier crewmember training. The ARC was also tasked with examining the training device requirements to support upset prevention and recovery training in an FSTD. The final report from this ARC included technical recommendations to revise the part 60 FSTD standards to include minimum FSTD evaluation requirements for upset prevention and recovery training maneuvers. Some of these recommendations to amend part 60 expanded upon the previous recommendations made in the original SPAW ARC report. A copy of this final report has also been placed in the docket for this rulemaking. sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS C. Deficiencies in FSTD Evaluation Requirements 1. Full Stall Training Maneuvers The SPAW ARC examined various issues involving stall training and recommended against any simulator training being conducted beyond the first indication of the stall unless the simulator modeling and fidelity are such that the simulation of the specific airplane is representative in this flight regime. Particular concerns addressed by the SPAW ARC regarding FSTD fidelity in full stall maneuvers were the modeling of aircraft stability and aircraft response to control inputs, improved motion response for acceleration cueing, and improved modeling of the stall buffet to cover a broader range of flight conditions. The SPAW ARC also made recommendations concerning the evaluation of FSTD stall characteristics in flight conditions other than wingslevel stalls. These include stall training 3 FAA Advisory Circulars can be located on the FAA’s public internet site at: https:// www.airweb.faa.gov/. VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 maneuvers such as high altitude cruise stall, turning flight (accelerated) stall, and the objective validation of stick pusher forces (where equipped in the aircraft). The exposure of flightcrews to a low fidelity representation of an airplane’s stall characteristics in an FSTD can lead to improper recovery techniques being reinforced during training. Such improper recovery techniques can be evidenced in the investigation of the 1996 Airborne Express DC–8 aircraft accident in Narrows, Virginia. In this investigation, the NTSB concluded that the flightcrew had been exposed to a low fidelity reproduction of the DC–8’s stall characteristics in the company’s flight simulator that likely contributed to their inappropriate response to an actual stall in the aircraft. The NTSB report stated: The simulator’s benign flight characteristics when flown more into the stall provided the flightcrew with a misleading expectation of the handling characteristics of the actual airplane. The [pilot flying (PF)] initial target pitch attitudes during the attempted stall recovery (from 10 degrees to 14 degrees) may have resulted in a successful recovery during his practice and teaching in the simulator. Further, because their experience with stalls in the DC–8 was obtained in a simulator without a stall break, the PF and [pilot not flying (PNF)] could not practice the nose-down control inputs required to recover a stalled airplane that is pitching down or at a nose-low attitude. Moreover, because the PF and PNF were exposed during extensive simulator experience to what they presumed was the stall behavior of the DC–8, the stall break that occurred in the airplane most likely surprised them. The Safety Board concludes that the flightcrew’s exposure to a low fidelity reproduction of the DC– 8’s stall characteristics in the ABX DC– 8 flight training simulator was a factor in the PF holding aft (stall-inducing) control column inputs when the airplane began to pitch down and roll, which contributed to the accident.4 The FAA notes that because there has never been a requirement for an air carrier to conduct training in a simulator to a full stall,5 there has been relatively little exposure of flightcrews to such low fidelity stall characteristics in a simulator. However, once full stall NTSB aircraft accident report number NTSB/AAR–97/05: Uncontrolled Flight into Terrain; ABX Air (Airborne Express); Douglas DC– 8–63, N827AX; Narrows, Virginia (Dec. 22, 1996). 5 Air carrier flight training is currently only required to train to an ‘‘approach to stall’’ flight condition where recovery is initiated at the activation of the stall warning system. PO 00000 4 See Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 training becomes a mandatory training requirement for air carriers, it is imperative that any FSTD being used to conduct such training is properly evaluated to ensure such negative training does not take place as evidenced in the Airborne Express accident. Failing to properly evaluate air carrier FSTDs to deliver this training would potentially expose many crewmembers to incorrect stall characteristics in an FSTD and thereby introducing an associated safety risk. 2. Upset Recognition and Recovery Training Maneuvers The SPAW ARC recommended that simulator and academic training in upset prevention and recovery should be based on the Airplane Upset Recovery Training Aid (AURTA).6 The SPAW ARC further stated that instructors do not always have the proper tools to provide adequate feedback to students with respect to control responses and aircraft operating limits during upset prevention and recovery training. Additionally, they noted if part of the training is conducted outside of the simulator’s validated envelope,7 there is an increased risk that the simulator will no longer accurately replicate the aircraft, which could result in negative training. The SPAW ARC recommended improved instructor feedback tools which can display when a training pilot has exceeded either the accepted simulator model envelope or the known aircraft load factor envelope. These instructor feedback tools would allow the instructor to identify and inform the student that he or she is exceeding those limits, thus mitigating potentially negative training. Furthermore, the SPAW ARC recommended employing the AURTA methods in assessing an FSTD’s capability to conduct such maneuvers and to provide improved instructor feedback mechanisms to better evaluate both the FSTD’s and the student’s performance during such training. When an FSTD is used to conduct upset recovery training, the instructor must be provided with the necessary tools to assess a student’s performance when executing the recovery. When an instructor does not have these tools, potentially dangerous or inappropriate control strategies may be learned in the 6 The Airplane Upset Recovery Training Aid can be located on the FAA’s public Internet site at: https://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/ airline_operators/training/. 7 An FSTD’s validation envelope generally consists of those combinations of angle of attack and sideslip where the FSTD’s aerodynamic model has been validated using flight test data or reliable predictive methods. E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS FSTD. In the case of the 2001 American Airlines flight 587 accident, the NTSB determined that an unrealistic portrayal of the aircraft’s response to a wake vortex incident in the simulator may have contributed to the flying pilot applying unnecessary and excessive control inputs that ultimately led to the structural failure of the aircraft. Among the deficiencies the NTSB noted in the American Airlines Advanced Aircraft Maneuvering Program, the following were directly related to simulator functionality with regard to training upset recovery maneuvers to flightcrew members: 8 • This simulator exercise could have caused the first officer of the accident flight to have an ‘‘unrealistic and exaggerated view of the effects of wake turbulence; erroneously associate wake turbulence encounters with the need for aggressive roll upset recovery techniques; and develop control strategies that would produce a much different, and potentially surprising and confusing response if performed during flight.’’ • The simulator exercise provided ‘‘unrealistic portrayals of the airplane response to wake turbulence and significantly suppressed control input effectiveness to induce a large rolling potential that was unlikely to occur with an airplane as large as an A300– 600.’’ • The simulator exercise ‘‘encouraged the use of rudder in a highly dynamic situation without portraying the large buildup in sideslip angle and side load that would accompany such rudder inputs in an actual airplane.’’ Because the current FSTD evaluation standards do not contain minimum requirements on the implementation of aircraft upset scenarios, the potential remains for training to occur using such unrealistic upset scenarios. Furthermore, with improved instructor situational awareness available in the simulator (including improved feedback on student flight control inputs and simulator/aircraft operational limitations), it is possible that such aggressive roll upset recovery techniques as evidenced in the American 587 accident may have been identified and corrected during simulator training. 3. Airborne Icing Training Maneuvers Although the simulation of engine and airframe icing has been an evaluation requirement for all Level C 8 See NTSB aircraft accident report number NTSB/AAR–04/04: In-Flight Separation of Vertical Stabilizer; American Airlines Flight 587; Airbus Industrie A–300–605R, N14053; Belle Harbor, New York; November 12, 2001. VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 and Level D FSTDs since the early 1980’s, the SPAW ARC recommended improving the fidelity of the aerodynamic effects of aircraft icing conditions in FSTDs used in flightcrew member training. The SPAW ARC stated specific aircraft data should be used when available; lacking that, other sources of engineering data may be used. The SPAW ARC further cited specific simulator improvements that the FAA should consider in developing improved standards for ice accretion models, such as the aerodynamic effects of lift, drag, and rotational moments (e.g. pitch, roll, and yaw effects) through means other than weight; the effects of icing on control feel, airframe buffeting, and control effectiveness; the potential to have the aircraft stall before the stall warning systems activate; the simulation of ice protection equipment failures; and the effect on engine performance due to ice ingestion. Some current FSTD icing models simply employ a weight additive to the aircraft’s gross weight in order to simulate more sluggish handling characteristics and higher stall speeds than expected. Although these characteristics may be representative of some effects of icing, the FAA believes the improved icing models that have been proposed would have an appreciable benefit to flightcrew training. FSTD icing models that incorporate the aerodynamic effects of ice accretion on lifting surfaces can provide critical recognition cues of dangerous ice buildup, such as changes in pitching moment, control effectiveness, and buffet characteristics. Furthermore, ice accretion on wing surfaces can disrupt the airflow over a wing, significantly in some cases, leading to an aerodynamic stall. Aerodynamic stall as a result of icing can occur at angles of attack much lower than stall warning systems are designed to activate. The ability to replicate these conditions in a simulator can provide invaluable training to flightcrews on the hazards of wing ice accretion and provide a higher awareness of the potential effects of icing conditions.9 These proposed improvements would enhance the anti-icing training tasks that are currently required for air carrier training programs. 9 See NTSB aircraft accident report number NTSB/AAR–96/01: In-Flight Icing Encounter and Loss of Control; Simmons Airlines, d.b.a. American Eagle Flight 4184; Avions de Transport Regional (ATR) Model 72–121, N401AM; Roselawn, Indiana (Oct. 31, 1994). PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 39467 4. Microburst and Windshear Recovery Maneuvers While accidents involving windshear and microburst have decreased significantly since the late 1980’s, the SPAW ARC recommended improving FSTD evaluation requirements to support the standardization and quality of current training practices. Specific recommendations made by the SPAW ARC to improve FSTD functionality for windshear training included the addition of ‘‘complex’’ windshear models (as defined in the Windshear Training Aid) to provide flightcrew members experience in more realistic windshear encounters; employing methods to ensure an FSTD is properly configured for a windshear training profile; and including realistic levels of turbulence with existing windshear profiles. 5. Takeoff and Landing in Gusting Crosswinds The Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule introduced a new requirement to address an NTSB safety recommendation for the incorporation of ‘‘realistic, gusty crosswind profiles’’ into pilot simulator training programs. This recommendation was based on the results of an aircraft accident investigation in which the NTSB determined that a contributing factor of the accident was ‘‘inadequate crosswind training in the airline industry due to deficient simulator wind gust modeling’’ (see NTSB report AAR–10/ 04). During the course of the accident investigation, NTSB found that the airline’s simulator did not have the capability to incorporate such realistic gusting crosswind scenarios for use in pilot training. Furthermore, the FAA reviewed the current part 60 FSTD evaluation standards and found that no such minimum requirement exists for the qualification of an FSTD for use in training. 6. Bounced Landing Training Maneuvers The Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule introduced a new requirement for bounced landing recovery training based on a review of accidents and various NTSB safety recommendations. As a result of public comments received in response to the Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training SNPRM, the FAA reviewed the part 60 minimum FSTD evaluation requirements to ensure that bounced landing maneuvers are adequately evaluated for crew training. The FAA notes that bounced landing E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 39468 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules maneuvers are not specifically included in the current part 60 technical evaluation requirements and, as a result, FSTDs used for this training may not have the required fidelity to properly conduct the training. D. Related Actions sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS As a result of information gathered from various working groups, the FAA has taken action on loss of control training and simulator fidelity deficiencies by issuing the following voluntary guidance material: D FAA Safety Alert for Operators (SAFO 10012)—Possible Misinterpretation of the Practical Test Standards (PTS) Language ‘‘Minimal Loss of Altitude.’’ The purpose of this alert bulletin is to clarify the meaning of the approach to stall evaluation criteria as it related to ‘‘minimal loss of altitude’’ in the Airline Transport Pilot PTS. D FAA Information for Operators Bulletin (InFO 10010)—Enhanced Upset Recovery Training. This information bulletin recommends the incorporation of the material in the AURTA into flightcrew training. The AURTA contains guidance for upset recovery training programs for air carrier flightcrews as well as the evaluation guidance for FSTDs used in such training. D FAA National Simulator Program (NSP) Guidance Bulletin #11–04—FSTD Modeling and Evaluation Recommendations for Engine and Airframe Icing D FAA National Simulator Program (NSP) Guidance Bulletin #11–05—FSTD Evaluation Recommendations for Upset Recovery Training Maneuvers D AC 120–109—Stall and Stick Pusher Training D Airline Transport Pilot Practical Test Standards (Change 4). Portions of this guidance material provide FSTD operators with recommended evaluation methods to improve FSTD fidelity for selected training tasks. To ensure that all FSTDs used to conduct such training are evaluated and modified to a consistent standard, the applicable part 60 technical requirements must be modified. E. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Recommendations This proposal would incorporate changes into part 60 that would either directly or indirectly address the following NTSB Safety Recommendations through improved FSTD evaluation standards to support the outlined training tasks: VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 D Stall training and/or stick pusher training (Recommendations A–10–22, A–10–23, A–97–47, A–07–03, and A– 10–24) D Upset Recognition and recovery training (Recommendations A–042–62 and A–96–120) D Engine and airframe icing training (Recommendations A–11–46 and A– 11–47) D Takeoff and landing training in gusting crosswind conditions (Recommendations A–10–110 and A– 10–111) D Bounced landing training (Recommendations A–00–93 and A– 11–69). III. Discussion of the Proposal A. The FSTD Evaluation Process For a new FSTD to be used in an FAA approved training program, it must be evaluated in accordance with the technical standards defined in the Qualification Performance Standards (QPS) appendices in part 60 and issued a Statement of Qualification. The QPS appendices in part 60 consist of general requirements, objective testing requirements, and subjective testing requirements that the FSTD must be evaluated against for qualification at a specific level. To validate an FSTD’s aerodynamic and ground model programming, objective tests are required that compare the FSTD’s performance and handling qualities against flight-test-collected validation data within prescribed tolerances. These objective tests that are required for the qualification of an FSTD are defined in the part 60 QPS appendices. Although part 60 prescribes a minimum number of objective tests required for qualification, FSTD manufacturers and aerodynamic data providers often independently conduct additional tests to fully assess the FSTD’s performance beyond the minimum requirements. This additional testing may consist of supplemental validation using flight test data, engineering simulation data, or wind tunnel analysis to expand the validation envelope of an FSTD. While objective testing using flight test data is generally the preferred method for FSTD validation, many flight training maneuvers cannot be practically validated in such a manner due either to the wide variance that arises in the flight test response due to unsteady aerodynamics and airplane stability, or to the safety risk associated with the flight data collection. These maneuvers include flight at angles of attack beyond stall identification, flight characteristics associated with significant icing, or other maneuvers PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 where significant safety risks exist in the collection of flight test data. For such maneuvers, reliance on engineering and analytical data to extend an FSTD’s validation envelope may be both appropriate and acceptable where the flight training objectives can be accomplished. B. General Rationale for the Proposal The primary objective of this NPRM is to introduce FSTD technical standards that adequately evaluate an FSTD’s ability to replicate the performance and flight handling characteristics of an aircraft during specific new and revised training tasks required as part of an air carrier training program. For many of these new training requirements, the current part 60 and previously grandfathered FSTD evaluation standards do not adequately assess an FSTD’s fidelity beyond the normal flight envelope. New FSTD evaluation standards therefore must be developed prior to requiring these enhanced training tasks. An accurate and realistic training environment is necessary to ensure flightcrew members are properly trained in the recognition of a dangerous onset of an upset or a stall condition as well as being able to properly react if the recognition cues are missed. Accident history has shown that unrealistic recognition cues and recovery techniques learned in an FSTD can contribute to an improper recovery technique being attempted in the aircraft. A secondary objective of this NPRM is to promote harmonization with the current international FSTD qualification guidance to the maximum extent possible. To meet this objective, the FAA is proposing to adopt portions of the ICAO 9625, Edition 3 FSTD evaluation guidance into the appropriate part 60 QPS appendices. This would be limited to revising the part 60 Appendix A standards for Level C and Level D FSTDs with the updated guidelines in ICAO 9625 for a Type VII device. It would also introduce a new FTD level in Appendix B of part 60 using the ICAO 9625 guidelines for a Type V device. The part 60 technical standards for the evaluation of an FSTD are contained in the QPS appendices of the rule. These QPS appendices are further subdivided into various attachments and tables containing General Simulator Requirements, Objective Testing Requirements, and Subjective Testing Requirements. Due to the extensive reorganization required to align the tables within the part 60 QPS appendices to match the ICAO 9625, Edition 3 structure and numbering E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS format, the FAA is proposing to reissue both appendix A and appendix B in their entirety. All significant amendments are discussed in the following sections as they relate to the intended objectives. Under this proposal, the changes to the technical evaluation standards in the QPS appendices would become effective for all FSTDs that are newly qualified or upgraded in qualification level 30 days after publication of a final rule implementing these provisions. However, FSTD sponsors may elect to use the existing part 60 standards to qualify new or upgraded FSTDs for up to 24 months after the effective date of a final rule under the grace period provisions that are currently defined in § 60.15(c). All FSTDs (including previously qualified or grandfathered FSTDs) that would be used conduct certain extended envelope and other training tasks required by the Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule would require evaluation within three years of the effective date of a final rule in accordance with the proposed FSTD Directive. See section III.C. for additional information on the proposed FSTD Directive. C. Requirements Applicable to Previously Qualified FSTDs—FSTD Directive 2 (Appendix A, Attachment 6) Previously qualified FSTDs retain ‘‘grandfather rights’’ in accordance with the current part 60 rule.10 As a result, most changes made to the part 60 QPS appendices would not be applicable to previously qualified FSTDs. Because the majority of FSTDs that would be used to conduct the training required by the Crewmember and Dispatcher Training Final Rule would retain grandfather rights and would not require requalification under the new standards, the FAA must issue an FSTD Directive to ensure these previously qualified FSTDs are properly evaluated. The primary purpose of this proposal is to address the potential lack of FSTD fidelity in certain individually identified training tasks that will be required for air carrier training when the Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule becomes effective. An FSTD Directive is defined in § 60.23 for existing FSTDs and provides the FAA with a mechanism to mandate FSTD modifications where necessary for safety of flight reasons. Some of the training tasks that have been mandated by Public Law 111–216 and required in the Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule have 10 See § 60.17, Previously Qualified FSTDs. VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 significant potential to introduce either inappropriate or incomplete training to flightcrew members due to a lack of FSTD fidelity. In most of these training tasks, the flight conditions the crews would be exposed to have never been previously experienced in the aircraft, making the accuracy and realism of the FSTD of prime importance. The potential of inadequate fidelity of an FSTD used to conduct such training can lead to a misunderstanding of recognition cues, learning of inappropriate recovery techniques, and an unrealistic understanding, or a lack of understanding of dangerous flight conditions that must be avoided. As a result, the FAA believes that proper evaluation of any FSTD (including those previously qualified FSTDs that hold grandfather rights) used to conduct these training tasks must be accomplished. To keep the cost of evaluating and modifying previously qualified FSTDs to a minimum, the FAA is proposing to apply the requirements of the FSTD Directive only to those FSTDs that would be used to accomplish specific training tasks as described in the FSTD Directive. Under this proposal, FSTD Sponsors may choose to qualify any number of FSTDs to conduct any of the individual tasks as required to meet the needs of their training programs. FSTDs that have been evaluated and modified in accordance with the FSTD Directive would have their Statements of Qualification modified to indicate the FSTD has been evaluated and qualified for the tasks. The QPS requirements for the qualification of full stall maneuvers and upset recognition and recovery maneuvers are generally applicably to Level C and Level D FSTDs that have minimum requirements for both six degree of freedom motions cues and motion special effects (stall buffet) cues. Particularly for full stall maneuvers that involve significant roll and yaw deviations as well as high bank angle upset recovery maneuvers, motion cues in all six degrees of freedom are critical to provide the pilot with the cues necessary to learn effective recovery techniques. Additionally, motion vibration (buffet) cueing is necessary for the qualification of full stall maneuvers in order to provide the pilot with the proper recognition cues of an impending stall. The FAA recognizes that some of the full stall and upset recognition and recovery maneuvers described in this proposal may not necessarily result in significant roll or yaw deviations (such as wings level stalls and nose high/nose low upsets with no bank angle) and PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 39469 could potentially be conducted in a Level A or a Level B FFS equipped with a three degree of freedom motion cueing system.11 Furthermore, many Level A FFSs that do not have a minimum requirement for the simulation of stall buffets may, in fact, be equipped with such a system on a voluntary basis.12 It is for these reasons, the FAA has proposed that Level A and Level B FFSs may be considered for the qualification of certain full stall and upset recognition and recovery maneuvers in accordance with the FSTD Directive where the motion and vibration cueing systems have been specifically evaluated to provide adequate cues for the accomplishment of the particular training tasks. Specific full stall or upset recovery maneuvers (such as high bank angle upset recovery maneuvers) may be excluded from qualification where it has been determined that the FSTD cannot provide the proper motion or vibration cues to accomplish the particular training tasks. The FAA has considered the potential cost impact of imposing new evaluation requirements on previously qualified FSTDs where aerodynamic data and associated validation data for objective testing may not exist. Particularly with older aircraft and FSTDs that have been out of production for a number of years or may no longer be supported by the original aerodynamic data provider, the FAA recognizes that the collection of such data may prove to be very costly. In order to mitigate this potential cost impact, the FAA has proposed a number of cost relieving provisions in the FSTD Directive that would reduce the overall cost of compliance with the Directive. These provisions include: • All new objective test cases for stall maneuvers include those maneuvers that are typically required for aircraft certification, such as turning flight stall and cruise configuration stalls. This would increase the likelihood that the aircraft manufacturer may already have flight test validation data on hand for use in validating required objective tests. • Where an FSTD’s aerodynamic data package is supplied by an aircraft manufacturer, the FAA is proposing to allow the use of approved engineering simulation data 13 for the purposes of 11 Level A and Level B FFSs have minimum requirements for three degrees of freedom motion cues. See 14 CFR Part 60, Table A1A, Section 5.b. 12 Level A FFSs do not have a minimum requirement for motion effects (stall buffets). See 14 CFR Part 60, Table A1A, Section 5.e. 13 14 CFR part 60, Appendix A, Attachment 2, paragraph 9. E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 39470 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules meeting the objective testing requirements of the FSTD Directive. • Where no adequate flight test data or engineering simulation data is available for use in validating required objective tests for stall maneuvers, the FAA is proposing to allow the validation of objective tests through evaluation by a subject matter expert pilot with relevant experience in the aircraft. • For evaluating full stall maneuvers, where aerodynamic modeling data or validation data is not available or insufficient to fully meet the requirements of the Directive, the National Simulator Program Manager (NSPM) may restrict FSTD qualification to certain maneuvers where adequate validation data exists. For example, if validation data exists only for wings level stall maneuvers at angles of attack at or below the stick pusher activation, the NSPM may still qualify the FSTD for those limited stall maneuvers where data exists (in this example, wings level stalls where recovery is initiated at stick pusher activation). The primary focus of this FSTD Directive is for those FSTDs that would be used to meet the air carrier training requirements in the Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule. However, because the same safety risk exists for inappropriate simulator training in non-air carrier training programs, other qualified FSTDs that would be used to conduct such training tasks in any FAA-approved flight training program would also have to meet the requirements of this FSTD Directive. Since existing air carriers would not have to comply with the mandatory training requirements until 5 years after the Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training rulemaking becomes effective, the FAA believes there is sufficient time for the affected previously qualified FSTDs to be evaluated and modified in accordance with the FSTD Directive before such training takes place. In cases where affected training tasks are currently being conducted on a voluntary basis and the FSTD has been evaluated by the sponsor to conduct such maneuvers, the FAA has no intent to immediately halt such training. In order for such FSTDs to be modified and evaluated in a timely manner as described in the Directive, the FAA is proposing a compliance date of 3 years after this rule (and associated FSTD Directive) becomes effective. After that date, any FSTD being used in an FAA-approved training program for the following training tasks must be evaluated and issued an amended Statement of Qualification (SOQ) by the VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 NSP in accordance with the FSTD Directive: D Stall training maneuvers that are conducted at angles of attack higher than the activation of the stall warning system. This does not include approachto-stall (stall prevention) maneuvers where recovery is initiated at the activation of the stall warning system. D Upset Recognition and Recovery training maneuvers. D Engine and Airframe Icing training maneuvers that demonstrate the aircraft specific effects of engine and airframe ice accretion. D Takeoff and landing training tasks with gusting crosswinds. D Bounced landing recovery training tasks. Specific evaluation requirements that have been proposed for previously qualified FSTDs by FSTD Directive are indicated in the following sections by topic (sections D through H). D. FSTD Evaluation Requirements for Full Stall Training Tasks (Appendix A; Table A1A, Section 2.1.7.S, Table A2A, Tests 2.a.10, 2.c.8, and 3.f.8; Table A3A, Test 5.b.1; and Attachment 7) The current and previous FSTD qualification standards (dating back to AC 121–14C in 1980) contain both objective and subjective testing requirements for full stall maneuver evaluation. While these requirements include the evaluation of full stall maneuvers, the objective testing requirements are limited to only validating stall warning speeds, stall buffet onset speeds, and the stall speeds in flight conditions typically used for aircraft certification testing in a very controlled environment (such as wings level stalls in approach and climb configurations). Because there has never previously been a requirement to conduct full stall training in an FSTD (historically, stall training ends at the first indication of the stall), relatively little emphasis has been placed on the objective validation of simulator performance and handling qualities at airspeeds lower than the activation of the stall warning system. When flight training to a full stall is provided to crewmembers, recognition cues and performance and handling characteristics in the FSTD must be accurate to ensure pilots properly respond to stall events or low energy states. Where a stall is imminent, critical seconds can be lost if the crew is not aware of the low energy cues indicating that the aircraft is approaching a dangerous flight condition. Furthermore, if a stalled condition is encountered in flight, accurate and repeated training helps PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 pilots react and apply appropriate control input(s), to maintain or regain the desired flight path. Training in accurate and realistic scenarios may also help mitigate the startle factor that often accompanies such an event. While the existing FSTD stall evaluation requirements have generally proven to be sufficient for approach to stall training tasks that terminate at the first indication of the stall, these standards do not adequately extend beyond the activation of the stall warning system for the purpose of validating the FSTD’s performance and handling qualities at the stall through recovery. New FSTD evaluation requirements for stall recognition and aircraft handling qualities are necessary if training is to be conducted to a full stall. Most aerodynamic modeling on modern FSTDs assumes a certain amount of linearity from objectively validated test points to extrapolate aircraft performance and handling qualities between test points. As an aircraft approaches a stalled flight condition, this linearity can no longer be assumed, and more test points are required to validate the fidelity of the model. Through the work of ICATEE and the SPAW ARC, several subject matter experts on pilot training concluded that stall recovery training does not require, nor is it practical, that the post stall behavior of the aircraft be exactly replicated in the FSTD. They also concluded that a ‘‘type representative’’ post stall model should suffice in properly training the recovery maneuver. Because of the typically unstable behavior of the aircraft at or beyond the stall angle of attack, it is not reasonable or practical to require tight tolerances applied to objective tests against flight test validation data beyond the stall angle of attack. In lieu of mandating objective tolerances in the post stall flight regime, it was recommended that the use of analytical methods, engineering simulation, and wind tunnel methods in combination with subject matter expert pilot assessment be authorized to develop and validate ‘‘type representative’’ post stall models. In consideration of the recommendations of the SPAW ARC, the FAA proposes to amend the appendix A QPS requirements to improve the FSTD evaluation requirements for full stall training tasks. These amendments are intended to accomplish the following objectives to improve FSTD fidelity for flightcrews conducting full stall training tasks: • Improve the fidelity of the FSTD’s aerodynamic model and cueing systems E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules at angles of attack beyond the first indication of the stall (stall warning, stick shaker, etc.) to better match the aircraft specific recognition cues of an impending stall. This is accomplished through: Æ Improved objective testing to include additional test cases against approved validation data (flight test data, engineering simulation data, etc.) in training critical maneuvers such as turning flight (accelerated) stalls, high altitude (clean configuration) stalls, power-on stalls, and stalls at multiple flap settings. Æ New and improved objective testing tolerances to better validate performance and handling qualities, control inputs, stall buffet, and stick pusher forces (if equipped) of the FSTD as the stall is approached. • Improve the fidelity of the FSTD’s aerodynamic model and cueing systems at the stall break (if present) through stall recovery. This is accomplished through: Æ Defining a minimum level of fidelity and modeling requirements to develop ‘‘type representative’’ extended full stall models using available flight test data and alternate methods, such as engineering simulation, analytical methods, and wind tunnel analysis. Æ Defining functional evaluation criteria for qualified subject matter expert evaluation to determine suitability of a representative full stall model that supports training requirements. In order to accomplish these objectives to improve FSTD fidelity in full stall training maneuvers, the FAA is proposing revisions to the following sections in appendix A of the QPS for FFSs. Where a specific requirement has been proposed for previously qualified FSTDs by FSTD Directive, it is indicated as such with an ‘‘FD’’: Table A1A (General Simulator Requirements) • Section 2.1.7.S/[FD] (High Angle of Attack Modeling) Table A1B (Table of Tasks vs. Simulator Level) sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS • Table A1B, Section 3.b. (High Angle of Attack Maneuvers) Table A2A (Full Flight Simulator Objective Tests) • Test 2.a.10/[FD] (Stick Pusher System Force Calibration) • Tests 2.c.8.a. and 2.c.8.b/[FD] (Stall Characteristics) • Test 2.f.8. (Characteristic Motion Vibrations—Buffet at Stall) VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 Table A3A (Functions and Subjective Tests) • Tests 5.b.1.a and 5.b.1.b/[FD] (Maneuvers—High Angle of Attack) Attachment 7 (Additional Simulator Qualification Requirements for Stall, Upset Recognition and Recovery, and Airborne Icing Training Tasks) • High Angle of Attack Model Evaluation [FD] E. FSTD Evaluation Requirements for Upset Recognition and Recovery Training Tasks (Appendix A; Table A1A, Section 2.1.6.S and Attachment 7) The current part 60 requirements do not explicitly define a minimum envelope of FSTD aerodynamic model validity required for training purposes. The objective validation of an FSTD is primarily based on direct comparison of the FSTD’s performance and handling qualities against that of flight test collected validation data in a representative cross section of the flight envelope that includes many relevant training maneuvers. Outside of these objectively validated test conditions, an FSTD’s aerodynamics are typically interpolated or extrapolated using predictive methods and data sources such as wind tunnel data and analytically derived data. Many of the recommended upset recovery training maneuvers (as defined in the AURTA) are conducted in flight regimes that make direct comparison against flight test data impractical due to safety concerns. However, since much of the aerodynamic characteristics necessary to program an FSTD to conduct such maneuvers are based on angle of attack and sideslip ranges that can be derived from flight testing and reliable predictive methods, a certain amount of aerodynamic model fidelity can be accurately implied across a large range of pitch, roll, and heading values. This aerodynamic model fidelity would necessarily be a function of the quality and amount of data sources, ranging from flight test and wind tunnel data sources through established extrapolation methods. In addition to defining and measuring aerodynamic model fidelity in upset recovery maneuvers, it is important that the instructor have real-time situational awareness with respect to the aircraft’s operational limits (including the degree to which the simulation being used accurately portrays the actual reaction of the airplane) and the flight control inputs being used by the student to conduct the recovery. It is critical for the instructor to be able to assess the student’s application of control inputs, PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 39471 including those that may not be readily visible from the instructor’s station (such as rudder pedal displacements and forces) to ascertain that control inputs to affect recovery do not result in exceeding either the aircraft’s operational load limits or the simulator’s validation data limits. In order to properly conduct upset recovery training in an FSTD, a feedback mechanism is necessary to provide full situational awareness to the instructor to properly assess the student’s recovery technique. The FAA proposes new requirements to define minimum requirements for a feedback mechanism necessary for upset recovery training in an FSTD. However, because FSTD sponsors may choose a number of methods to accomplish this, the FAA has not prescribed the exact content and layout of such a feedback mechanism. In this proposal, the FAA has included examples of recommended Instructor Operating Station displays the information section of appendix A. In order to codify all of the proposed qualification requirements for upset recovery training in an FSTD, the FAA is proposing the following changes to Table A1A (General Simulator Requirements) and Attachment 7 of appendix A: • The FSTD’s validation limits (as a function of angle of attack and sideslip angle) must be defined by the aerodynamic data provider for use in establishing a validation envelope of the FSTD for upset recovery training maneuvers. • For airplane upset conditions or scenarios,14 the FSTD’s aerodynamics must be evaluated to ensure the FSTD can stay within the flight tested or wind tunnel validation envelope during the execution of the recovery maneuvers. A minimum of three defined maneuvers (consistent with the maneuvers described in the AURTA) must be evaluated for FSTD qualification. • Externally driven dynamic upset scenarios must be realistic, based on relevant data sources, and must not artificially degrade the simulated aircraft’s performance capability without clear indication to the instructor. • An instructor feedback mechanism must be provided to notify the instructor where the FSTD’s validation envelope or the aircraft’s operating limits has been exceeded. This feedback mechanism must also provide the 14 The AURTA generally defines an airplane upset as one of the following unintentional conditions: Pitch attitude greater than 25 degrees nose up; Pitch attitude greater than 10 degrees nose down; Bank angle greater than 45 degrees; or flying at airspeeds inappropriate for the conditions. E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 39472 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules instructor with relevant flight control position information and have the ability to record and playback for debriefing purposes. In order to accomplish these objectives to improve FSTD functionality for upset recognition and recovery maneuvers, the FAA is proposing revisions to the following sections in appendix A of the QPS for FFSs. Where a specific requirement has been proposed for previously qualified FSTDs by FSTD Directive, it is indicated as such with an ‘‘FD’’: Table A1A (General Simulator Requirements) • Section 2.1.6.S/[FD] (Upset Recognition and Recovery) Table A1B (Table of Tasks vs. Simulator Level) • Section 3.f. (Upset Recognition and Recovery) Table A3A (Functions and Subjective Tests) • Test 5.b.15/[FD] (Maneuvers—Upset Recognition and Recovery) sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Attachment 7 (Additional Simulator Qualification Requirements for Stall, Upset Recognition and Recovery, and Airborne Icing Training Tasks) • Upset Recognition and Recovery Evaluation [FD] F. FSTD Evaluation Requirements for Airborne Icing Training Tasks (Appendix A; Table A1A, Section 2.1.5.S; Table A2A, Test 2.i. and Attachment 7) The FAA is proposing to amend the evaluation requirements for the simulation of engine and airframe icing as currently required in part 60 for Level C and Level D FSTDs. The proposed changes would require that an FSTD have ice accretion models that simulate the aerodynamic effects of ice accretion on the lifting surfaces of the aircraft. These ice accretion models must be realistic and based upon relevant data sources, such as aircraft manufacturer’s data or other acceptable analytical methods. The SPAW ARC recommendations form the basis for these proposed requirements. The SPAW ARC recommended that aircraft type-specific flight training be conducted on the aerodynamic effects of ice accumulation; the use and failure of aircraft ice equipment; the use of autopilot; and the performance and handling effects of ice accumulation. The SPAW ARC cites incidents in which aircraft have encountered stall warning, stall buffet, and aerodynamic stall at lower than normal angles of VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 attack due to ice accretion. Accordingly, the SPAW ARC found it to be important that flightcrews are appropriately trained on this phenomenon in a simulator training scenario that emphasizes that in icing conditions, the stall warning or protection system may not activate and stall margins may be significantly reduced. The SPAW ARC further noted that some simulators may lack the fidelity to accurately portray the aerodynamic effects of ice accumulation. While minimum requirements for engine and airframe icing have existed in the FSTD qualification standards since the early 1980’s, these requirements have lacked the specific detail for aerodynamic effects to be simulated. On many older simulators, the effects of ice accumulation have been approximated by adding weight increments to the simulated aircraft. While some icing effects can be approximated using this method, many other critical icing characteristics are not realistically replicated in this manner. For example, neither the altered critical angle of attack due to ice accumulation nor the actual weight indicative of the accumulation are accurately replicated using such weight increments. To improve flightcrew training for such events, the FAA is proposing to amend some of the current requirements for FSTD evaluation of engine and airframe icing. These amendments would enhance the existing flightcrew training requirement for anti-icing operations by improving the recognition cues and realistic aerodynamic effects of ice accretion. The changes are based on the updated engine and airframe icing requirements that are published in the ICAO 9625, Edition 3 international FSTD qualification guidance as well as the following additional improvements that were recommended by the SPAW ARC: D Ice accretion models must incorporate the aerodynamic effects of icing (where appropriate for the aircraft) such as reduced stall angle of attack, loss of lift, changes in pitching moment, and control effectiveness. These models must be based on aircraft original equipment manufacturer data or other analytical methods. D Aircraft systems, such as autoflight systems and stall protection systems must respond properly to the effects of ice accretion. D Objective tests must be developed to demonstrate the intended aerodynamic effects of simulated ice accretion. In order to accomplish these objectives to improve FSTD fidelity in airborne icing training maneuvers, the PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 FAA is proposing specific revisions to the following sections in appendix A of the QPS for FFSs. Where a specific requirement has been proposed for previously qualified FSTDs by FSTD Directive, it is indicated as such with an ‘‘FD’’: Table A1A (General Simulator Requirements) • Section 2.1.5.S/[FD] (Engine and Airframe Icing) Table A2A (Full Flight Simulator Objective Tests) • Test 2.i (Engine and Airframe Icing Effects Demonstration) Attachment 7 (Additional Simulator Qualification Requirements for Stall, Upset Recognition and Recovery, and Airborne Icing Training Tasks) • Engine and Airframe Icing Evaluation [FD] G. FSTD Evaluation Requirements for Takeoff and Landing Training Tasks in Gusting Crosswinds (Appendix A, Table A1A, Sections 3.1.S, 3.1.R, and 11.4.R) The FAA has introduced new FSTD evaluation requirements for the modeling of gusting crosswinds for takeoff and landing training tasks. The basis for this change is due to a recent air carrier accident where the aircraft experienced strong and gusty crosswinds during takeoff roll and departed the runway. The NTSB concluded the following in their final accident report: Because Continental’s simulator training did not replicate the ground-level disturbances and gusting crosswinds that often occur at or near the runway surface, and it is unlikely that the accident captain had previously encountered gusting surface crosswinds like those he encountered the night of the accident, the captain was not adequately prepared to respond to the changes in heading encountered during this takeoff.15 While the current part 60 requirements have both objective and subjective evaluation requirements for crosswind takeoff and landing maneuvers, there is no current requirement for the modeling of gusting crosswinds. Since steady state crosswinds are currently validated with objective testing, the FAA believes most FSTDs should have adequate aerodynamic and ground modeling to react properly when stimulated with gusting crosswind profiles. Furthermore, the FAA agrees with the 15 Runway Side Excursion During Attempted Takeoff in Strong and Gusty Crosswind Conditions, Continental Flight 1404, December 20, 2008, NTSB Final Report, NTSB/AAR–10/04. E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules NTSB’s recommendations that such gusting crosswind profiles should be realistic and based on data sources. However, the FAA believes that such realistic gusting crosswind profiles can be derived from existing sources, such as the FAA Windshear Training Aid, and evaluated for training by subject matter expert pilots. To ensure the FSTD supports a realistic training environment, the FAA proposes to add the following minimum requirements for the modeling of gusting crosswind profiles and the evaluation of the ground handling characteristics of the FSTD: D Realistic gusting crosswind profiles must be available to the instructor. The profiles must be tuned in intensity and variation to require pilot intervention to avoid runway departure during takeoff or landing roll. D A Statement of Compliance would be required that describes the source data used to develop the crosswind profiles. Additional information material in the QPS appendix recommends the use of the FAA Windshear Training Aid or other acceptable data sources in determining appropriate wind profiles. D The FSTD’s ground reaction model must be subjectively assessed to ensure it reacts appropriately to the gusting crosswind profiles. In order to accomplish these objectives to improve FSTD functionality for gusting crosswinds, the FAA is proposing revisions to the following sections in appendix A of the QPS for FFSs. Where a specific requirement has been proposed for previously qualified FSTDs by FSTD Directive, it is indicated as such with an ‘‘FD’’: sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Table A1A (General Simulator Requirements) • Section 3.1.S(2)/[FD] (Ground Handling Characteristics) • Section 11.4.R/[FD] (Atmosphere and Weather—Instructor Controls) Table A3A (Functions and Subjective Tests) • Test 3.a.3/[FD] (Takeoff— Crosswind—maximum demonstrated and gusting crosswind) • Test 8.d./[FD] (Approach and Landing with crosswind—maximum demonstrated and gusting crosswind) H. FSTD Evaluation Requirements for Bounced Landing Training Tasks (Appendix A, Table A1A, Section 3.1.S) The Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training SNPRM proposed new requirements for bounced landing training tasks to address various aircraft VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 accidents and NTSB Safety Recommendations. In response to the SNPRM, the FAA received a comment from the Air Line Pilots Association International (Docket entry FAA–2008– 0677–0307) with concerns about the ability of an FSTD to adequately represent a bounced landing. The FAA reviewed the current FSTD qualification standards and found that many of the currently required objective tests do, in fact, test the fidelity on an FSTD in this phase of flight. Objective tests, such as the required minimum unstick speed takeoff test (Vmu), landing tests, and ground effect tests should provide for a reasonable validation of the FSTD’s aerodynamic performance in this phase of flight. Furthermore, the current part 60 rule has explicit motion system effects requirements for tail and engine pod strikes that can typically be a result of an incorrectly performed touchdown that could lead to the necessity of a bounced landing recovery. However, it was noted that the current part 60 general requirements for ground reaction and ground handling did not address the effects that should be accounted for in the models. To address this deficiency, the FAA is proposing to add new general requirements for ground reaction modeling to ensure the effects of a bounced landing and related tail strike are properly modeled and evaluated. Because of the safety risk involved in collecting airplane flight test data for such a maneuver, no new objective testing would be required and only subjective assessment of the FSTD would be conducted for this particular task. In order to accomplish these objectives to improve FSTD functionality for bounced landing training tasks, the FAA is proposing revisions to the following sections in appendix A of the QPS for FFSs. Where a specific requirement has been proposed for previously qualified FSTDs by FSTD Directive, it is indicated as such with an ‘‘FD’’: Table A1A (General Simulator Requirements) • Section 3.1.S(1)/[FD] (Ground Reaction Characteristics) Table A3A (Functions and Subjective Tests) • Test 9.3./[FD] (Missed Approach— Bounced landing) I. FSTD Evaluation Requirements for Windshear Training Tasks (Appendix A, Table A1A, Section 11.2.R) One of the mandates of Public Law 111–216 was for the FAA to form a PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 39473 multidisciplinary panel to study ‘‘. . . methods to increase the familiarity of flightcrew members with, and improve the response of flightcrew members to, stick pusher systems, icing conditions, and microburst and windshear weather events.’’ 16 The FAA chartered the SPAW ARC in response to this mandate. While the SPAW ARC agreed that microburst and windshear events have decreased significantly since the introduction of the Windshear Training Aid,17 it recommended a number of improvements to enhance the current FSTD windshear qualification requirements. The FAA is proposing to adopt the following three recommendations of the SPAW ARC, which would improve on the realism and provide better standardization of windshear training events: D All required windshear profiles must be selectable and clearly labeled on the FSTD’s instructor operating station. A method must be employed (such as an FSTD preset) to ensure that the FSTD is properly configured for the selected windshear profile. This requirement is to ensure that the proper windshear cues are present in crew training as originally qualified on the FSTD. D Realistic levels of turbulence associated with each windshear profile must be available and selectable to the instructor. D In addition to the four basic windshear models that are currently required, two additional ‘‘complex’’ models would be required that represent the complexity of an actual windshear encounter. These additional models may be derived from the example complex models published in the Windshear Training Aid. This requirement would provide an opportunity for crew training and practice in responding to more challenging and realistic windshear events. In order to accomplish these objectives to improve FSTD functionality for windshear training tasks, the FAA is proposing to revise the following section of appendix A in the QPS for FFSs. No retroactive requirements have been proposed for windshear qualification by FSTD Directive: Table A1A (General Simulator Requirements) • Section 11.2.R (Windshear Qualification) 16 Public Law 111–216, Section 208(b). Training Aid, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration 1987. 17 Windshear E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 39474 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules J. Significant Changes To Align With the International FSTD Evaluation Guidance (Appendix A) In addition to the part 60 changes to address extended envelope and adverse weather event training, the FAA is also proposing to incorporate select portions of the latest ICAO FSTD qualification guidance 18 into the part 60 QPS requirements where practical. ICAO 9625, Edition 3 represents a major industry effort that redefined all qualification levels of FSTDs to better align FSTD fidelity with the intended pilot training tasks. The FAA is not proposing to align with the entire ICAO 9625, Edition 3 guidance document because it contains FSTD levels that differ significantly from the FAA’s existing hierarchy of FSTD levels. There are several device levels in the new ICAO guidance document that currently have no basis in the FAA’s existing regulations or in the FAA’s existing guidance on flight training. Because of the far reaching implications beyond part 60 if changes were made to the FAA’s existing FSTD hierarchy, we have limited our alignment to those FSTDs and associated evaluation guidance in the ICAO 9625, Edition 3 document that have an equivalent device in the FAA (Level C and D) or could potentially be used in the future (Level 7 FTD) with minimal impact to the existing hierarchy. Incorporation of the other device levels and evaluation guidance would require careful consideration and additional rulemaking. The FAA notes that the primary purpose of this proposal is to address the weather event, stall, stick pusher, and upset recovery training tasks required by Public Law 111–216. The FAA will continue to assess the possibility of incorporating additional ICAO 9625, Edition 3 FSTD qualification levels and evaluation guidance; however any changes made in this proposal cannot jeopardize the timely implementation of updated FSTD standards to address new and revised training tasks mandated by Public Law. After an assessment of the ICAO 9625, Edition 3 document, the FAA is proposing to make the following changes to appendix A (Qualification Performance Standards for Airplane Full Flight Simulators) to better align the evaluation standards for Level C and Level D FSTDs with that of the current international guidance. The FAA has not proposed to align the evaluation standards for Level A and Level B FSTDs because similar devices do not 18 Manual of Criteria for the Qualification of Flight Simulation Training Devices, ICAO 9625, Edition 3, 2009. VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 exist in the ICAO 9625, Edition 3 document. Additional changes to introduce a new FTD level as defined in ICAO 9625 have been proposed in appendix B (fixed wing Qualification Performance Standards for Airplane Flight Training Devices) and will be discussed in a later section. In its review of the new ICAO 9625, Edition 3 guidance, the FAA finds that some of the guidelines necessary for inclusion into part 60 are more restrictive and may impose additional cost (such as the increased visual field of view requirements). However, a majority of the changes are less restrictive or reflect established FSTD evaluation practice. The proposed requirements in part 60 that would align with the new ICAO guidance are expected to reduce expenses and workload for FSTD Sponsors by avoiding conflicting compliance standards between the FAA and other Civil Aviation Authorities. These amendments incorporate technological advances in, encourage innovation of, and standardize the initial and continuing qualification requirements for FSTDs that are consistent with the guidance recently established by the international flight simulation community. 1. Table A1A (General Requirements): The FAA is proposing to rewrite table A1A to incorporate the ICAO 9625, Edition 3 language and numbering system where appropriate. The FAA changed the numbering system to use the ICAO 9625, Edition 3 fidelity definitions for each simulation feature and to incorporate all general requirements for the ICAO 9625, Edition 3 Type VII FSTD into the FAA Level C and Level D FSTDs where appropriate. The general requirements for Level A and Level B FSTDs have been left mostly unchanged to maintain continuity with the current hierarchy of FSTD qualification levels. Where such a fidelity level is not used for any part 60 defined FSTD, the FAA kept the numbering intact and marked it as ‘‘reserved’’ for future use. The following sections within Table A1A contain notable changes to align with the ICAO 9625, Edition 3 requirements: D Section 1.1.S (Flight Deck Layout and Structure)—Introduces minimum requirements for electronically displayed representations of cockpit instrumentation. This amendment to the existing standard would give FSTD sponsors a lower cost option of simulating costly aircraft components with digital representations. D Section 6.4.R (Sound Volume)— Requires indication to the instructor when FSTD sound volume is in an PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 abnormal setting. This is a new standard though some FSTDs already have this functionality. D Section 6.5.R (Sound Directionality)—Requires cockpit sounds to be directionally representative. This is a new standard, but generally reflects existing practice. D Section 7.1.1.S (Visual System Field of View)—Increases minimum visual display system field of view requirements from 180 (horizontal) x 40 (vertical) degrees to 200 x 40 degrees. D Section 7.1.6.S (Visual System Lightpoint Brightness)—Introduces a new minimum brightness requirement of 8.8 foot-lamberts for visual scene lightpoints. D Section 7.1.8 (Visual System Black Level and Sequential Contrast)— Introduces a new maximum visual system black level and sequential brightness level requirements (applicable only to light valve projectors). D Section 7.1.9 (Visual Motion Blur)— Introduces a new maximum visual system motion blurring requirements (applicable only to light valve projectors). D Section 7.1.10 (Visual Speckle Test)—Introduces a new maximum visual system speckle contrast requirement (applicable only to laser projectors). D Section 7.2.1 (Visual—Heads-Up Display)—Introduces new minimum general requirements for the simulation of heads-up display systems. D Section 7.2.2 (Visual—EFVS)— Introduces new minimum general requirements for the simulation of enhanced flight vision systems. D Section 13.8.S (Miscellaneous— Transport Delay)—Reduces the maximum transport delay requirements from 150 ms to 100 ms (more restrictive). 2. Table A2A (Objective Testing Requirements): The FAA is proposing to rewrite table A2A to incorporate all of the ICAO 9625, Edition 3 language and test tolerances. Most changes to this section are less restrictive as compared to the current part 60 standards. Less restrictive test tolerances or testing conditions are expected to reduce overall cost to an FSTD Sponsor due to a reduction in the engineering hours required to match objective test results to validation data. The FAA is proposing to change the tolerances and test conditions in the following tests to align with the ICAO 9625, Edition 3 objective testing requirements: D Test 1.a.1 (Minimum Radius Turn)—Adds a new requirement for ‘‘key engine parameters.’’ E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules D Test 1.b.1 (Ground Acceleration)— Revises the tolerance from ±5% of time to ±1.5 seconds or ±5% of time (less restrictive). D Test 1.b.7 (Rejected Takeoff)—Adds an acceptable alternative to requiring maximum braking (80% of maximum braking). D Test 1.d.1 (Level Acceleration)— Relaxes the speed change requirement from a minimum of 50 kts of speed increase to 80% of operational speed range (for airplanes with a small operating speed range). D Test 1.d.2 (Level Deceleration)— Relaxes the speed change requirement from a minimum of 50 kts of speed increase to 80% of operational speed range (for airplanes with a small operating speed range). D Test 1.e.1 (Deceleration Time and Distance)—Revises the tolerance from ±5% of time to ±1.5 seconds or ±5% of time (less restrictive). D Test 1.e.2 (Deceleration Time and Distance, Reverse Thrust)—Revises the tolerance from ±5% of time to ±1.5 seconds or ±5% of time (less restrictive). D Test 1.f.1 (Engine Acceleration)— Revises the total time of engine acceleration (Tt) from ±10% to ±10% or ±0.25 seconds (less restrictive). D Test 1.f.2 (Engine Deceleration)— Revises the total time of engine deceleration (Tt) from ±10% to ±10% or ±0.25 seconds (less restrictive). D Test 2.a.7 (Pitch Trim Rate)— Revises the tolerance on trim rate from ±10% to ±10% or ±0.1 deg/sec (less restrictive). D Tests 2.b.1, 2.b.2, 2.b.3 (Dynamic Control Checks)—Places a minimum absolute (less restrictive) tolerance on both time (0.05 s) and amplitude (0.5% of total control travel) where minimum tolerances did not previously exist. This prevents the rigid application of very small tolerances (±10% of time and ±10% of amplitude) on certain flight control systems. D Test 2.c.7 (Longitudinal Static Stability)—Adds a new test condition that ‘‘the speed range should be sufficient to demonstrate stick force versus speed characteristics.’’ D Test 2.e.3 (Crosswind Landing)— Adds a new test tolerance on column force for airplanes with reversible flight control systems. This additional tolerance will improve the overall validation of cockpit control forces during the landing maneuver. Previous standards only included control force tolerances for the wheel and rudder pedal inputs. D Test 3.b. (Motion Leg Balance)— Removes the testing requirement for motion leg balance. This test was determined to have not provided VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 additional value in assessing the capability of a motion cueing platform and was recommended for removal during the development of the ICAO 9625 document. D Test 3.e.1 (Motion Cueing Fidelity)—Replaces the existing part 60 tests for ‘‘motion cueing performance signature’’ (MCPS) with an objective test for motion cueing developed by the ICAO 9625, Edition 3 International Working Group. This test is designed to better compare motion platform cueing with the actual translational and rotational motion experienced in the aircraft. D Test 4.a.1 (Visual—Field of View)— Increases the minimum visual system field of view from 176 × 36 degrees to 200 × 40 degrees. D Test 4.a.2.a (Visual—System Geometry)—Defines new system geometry tolerances for image position, absolute geometry, and relative geometry. D Test 4.a.7 (Visual—Lightpoint Brightness)—Defines a new minimum lightpoint brightness tolerance D Test 4.a.9 (Visual—Black Level)— Defines new maximum black level requirements D Test 4.a.10 (Visual—Motion Blur)— Defines new tolerances for motion blur of visual scenes D Test 4.a.11 (Visual—Laser Speckle)—Defines a new maximum laser speckle contrast tolerance for applicable display systems D Tests 4.b.1, 4.b.2, 4.b.3 (Heads-Up Display)—Defines new minimum tolerances for HUD alignment, display, and attitude. D Tests 4.c.1, 4.c.2, 4.c.3 (Enhanced Flight Vision Systems)—Defines new minimum tolerances for EFVS registration, RVR, and thermal crossover. D Tests 5.a and 5.b. (Sound System)— Revised objective sound testing tolerances to address subjective tuning and repeatability for recurrent evaluations D Tests 6.a.1 (Systems Integration— Transport Delay)—Transport delay tolerances are reduced from 150 ms to 100 ms. D Paragraph 6.d. (Motion Cueing— Frequency Domain Testing)— Additional background and recommended testing procedures for the OMCT tests (replaces existing guidance on the MCPS tests). D Paragraphs 11.a.1 and 11.b.5 (Validation Test Tolerances)—Extends reduced tolerances for engineering simulation validation data from 20% of flight test tolerances to 40% of flight test tolerances (less restrictive). PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 39475 3. Table A3A (Functions and Subjective Testing Requirements): The FAA added is proposing to add subjective tests in the following sections to align with ICAO 9625, Edition 3: D Test 2.b.6 and 2.b.7 (Taxi) D Test 5.b.2 (Slow Flight) D Tests 5.b.1 (High Angle of Attack) D Test 5.b.13 (Gliding to a Forced Landing) D Tests 5.b.14 (Visual Resolution and FSTD Handling and Performance) D Tests 7.a.1, 10.a.1, 11.a.20 (HUD/ EFVS) D Tests 11.a.16, 11.a.20, 11.a.25, 11.a.26, 11.a.27 (New Technology) 4. Table A3B (Class I Airport Models) D The FAA is proposing to restructure this table to align with the ICAO 9625, Edition 3 airport model requirements. No significant differences exist between this proposed table and the current part 60 requirements. 5. Table A3D (Motion System Effects): The FAA is proposing to add or modify tests in the following sections to align with ICAO 9625, Edition 3: D Test 1 (Taxi)—Introduces a new requirement for lateral and directional motion cueing effects during taxi maneuvers. D Test 2 (Runway Contamination)— Introduces a new requirement for motion effects due to runway contamination and associated anti-skid system characteristics. D Test 7 (Buffet Due to Atmospheric Disturbance)—Introduces a new requirement for motion cueing effects due to atmospheric disturbances. K. New Level 7 Fixed Wing FSTD Requirements—Appendix B Changes (Appendix B, Tables B1A, B1B, B2A, B3A, B3B, B3C, B3D, and B3E) In addition to the changes proposed for FFS requirements in appendix A, the FAA is also proposing to add a new FTD qualification level (Level 7 FTD) in appendix B of part 60. This new FTD level would be modeled after the ICAO 9625, Edition 3 Type V FSTD and would incorporate all of the general requirements, objective testing requirements, and subjective testing requirements as defined in ICAO 9625, Edition 3 for this level of FSTD. The purpose of adding this new FSTD level would be to expand the number of training tasks that can be qualified for training in a lower cost, fixed-base FSTD. The highest FTD level currently defined in the part 60 FSTD qualification standards is the Level 6 FTD. Because the standards for a Level 6 FTD do not include minimum requirements for ground reaction and ground handling modeling and also do E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 39476 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules not require objective testing to validate the FSTD’s performance in related maneuvers such as takeoff, landing, and taxi training tasks, the Level 6 FTD cannot be used for training these tasks. In order to qualify such an FTD for these training tasks, new evaluation requirements would be required to properly evaluate the aerodynamic ground effect, ground handling, and visual display system characteristics to ensure an adequate level of fidelity for related training maneuvers. In ICAO 9625, Edition 3, such a new FSTD level (the ICAO Type V FSTD) was defined to expand the number of introductory training tasks that can be conducted in a fixed base FSTD. The Type V FSTD evaluation guidance introduce new objective testing requirements in the takeoff, landing, and taxi flight maneuvers in a fixed base FTD that do not currently exist in a part 60 defined Level 6 FTD. This additional validation testing would allow for additional training to be qualified for such maneuvers beyond what a current FAA Level 6 FTD is capable of performing. Consistent with the ICAO Type V guidance material, some testing and checking tasks would still be limited to upper level FFSs that have the six degree of freedom motion cueing systems. The minimum requirements for the Type V FSTD as defined in the ICAO 9625, Edition 3 are essentially that of an ICAO Type VII simulator without motion cueing requirements and less restrictive visual display system requirements. The addition of this new FTD qualification level would be beneficial to industry because it would provide FSTD Sponsors with more options for conducting lower cost training in fixed base FSTDs rather than using more expensive Level D FFS for certain training tasks. The qualification and use of such FTDs in an FAA approved training program would be voluntary and would not impose additional cost on FSTD Sponsors. To incorporate the proposed addition of the Level 7 FTD into appendix B of part 60, the FAA is proposing to make several modifications to the existing tables to define the technical evaluation requirements for the new FTD level while keeping the requirements intact for the current Level 4, 5, and 6 FTDs. The FAA proposes the following changes to appendix B to achieve this objective: D Minimum FTD Requirements (Table B1A): The FAA has rewritten the minimum FTD requirements table to use the ICAO 9625, Edition 3 format and numbering system. The FAA has integrated the new Level 7 FTD VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 requirements into the table and based them on the proposed Level D FFS requirements as defined in Table A1A with the exception of the motion and visual display system requirements. The FAA is proposing to leave all other FTD levels essentially unchanged from the current part 60 requirements. D Table of Tasks vs FTD Level (Table B1B): The FAA is proposing to modify the minimum qualified task list to include the new Level 7 FTD device. The FAA based the qualified tasks for the Level 7 FTD upon the recommendations in ICAO 9625, Edition 3 for a Type V FSTD. Where a specific training task is limited to training only and not qualified for training to proficiency tasks (testing or checking), the FAA is proposing to annotate it in the table with a ‘‘T.’’ D Objective Testing Requirements (Table B2A): The FAA is proposing to update the table of objective tests to include new testing requirements for the Level 7 FTD. The FAA based these requirements on the FFS Level D requirements proposed in Table A2A with the exception of the motion system and visual system requirements. D Functions and Subjective Testing Requirements (Tables B3A, B3B, B3C, B3D, and B3E): The FAA is proposing to add new and updated subjective tests to address the new tasks that may be accomplished in a Level 7 FTD. The FAA left the existing requirements for Level 4, 5, and 6 FTDs unchanged. L. Miscellaneous Amendments To Improve and Codify FSTD Evaluation Procedures (§§ 60.15, 60.17, 60.19, 60.23, Appendix A Paragraph 11) The FAA is further proposing to make minor amendments to the FSTD evaluation and oversight process as defined in several sections of the main rule. The part 60 rule was originally published in 2008 and codified many of the existing FSTD evaluation practices that had previously been defined in guidance material. Since the rule originally became effective, the FAA has found a number of requirements in the rule that have had unintentional negative consequences in the FAA’s ability to oversee FSTD qualification issues. The proposed changes would allow for more flexibility in scheduling FSTD evaluations and reduce some of the paperwork that FSTD Sponsors currently submit to the FAA. The changes being proposed would be less restrictive and would not have a cost impact on FSTD Sponsors. D Corrects language in the initial evaluation requirements where FSTD objective testing must be accomplished at the ‘‘sponsor’s training facility.’’ This PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 has been corrected to the FSTD’s ‘‘permanent location’’ to accommodate for FSTDs that are not located at the sponsor’s training facility, but at a third party location. (§ 60.15 and appendix A, paragraph 11). D Modifies the ‘‘grace month’’ for conducting annual Continuing Qualification (CQ) evaluations from one month to three months. D Establishes the CQ evaluation schedule on the Statement of Qualification rather than in the Master Qualification Test Guide (MQTG). These changes would provide more flexibility in scheduling CQ evaluations to accommodate both the FAA and FSTD Sponsors. (§ 60.19). D Amends the date before which previously qualified FSTDs retain the qualification basis under which they were originally evaluated. This would ensure that FSTDs which were qualified after the original publication of part 60 (May 30, 2008) do not inadvertently lose grandfather rights. (§ 60.17). D Clarifies the requirement to notify the FAA of changes made to an FSTD’s MQTG. This requirement has been modified to require FAA reporting only for changes that would have a material impact on the MQTG content or the FSTD’s qualification basis. This change would reduce the amount of reporting the FSTD Sponsors would have to conduct for minor text changes in the MQTG document. (§ 60.23). D Reduces the minimum time prior to an initial evaluation that an FSTD Sponsor is required to send a confirmation statement to the FAA that an FSTD has been evaluated in accordance with the part 60 QPS, provided there is prior coordination and approval by the NSPM. This change would allow more flexibility for the FSTD sponsors in complex FSTD installations where on-site testing cannot be accomplished before the current 5 day time limit. (appendix A, Paragraph 11). IV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses A. Regulatory Evaluation Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 direct that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96–354) requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96–39) prohibits agencies E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 Order 12866, and is not ‘‘significant’’ as defined in DOT’s Regulatory Policies and Procedures. The proposed rule, if adopted, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, will not create unnecessary obstacles to international trade and will not impose an unfunded mandate on state, local, or tribal governments, or on the private sector. Total Benefits and Costs of This Rule Total Costs and Benefits The FAA estimated three separate sets of costs, and provide separate benefit bases. The first set of costs would be incurred to make the necessary upgrades to the FSTDs to enable training required by the new Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule. The training cost for the Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule provides rental revenue to simulator sponsors which will fully compensate them for their FSTD upgrade expenses. These simulator revenues were accounted for as costs of the additional training and were fully justified by the benefits in that final rule. The second set of costs would be incurred for the evaluation PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 and modification of engine and airframe icing models which would enhance existing training requirements for operations using anti-icing/de-icing equipment. Just avoiding one serious injury provides sufficient benefits to justify the estimated cost. Lastly there are a set of changes to part 60 QPS appendices which would align the simulator standards for some FSTD levels with those of the latest ICAO simulator evaluation guidance. This last set of changes would only apply to newly qualified FSTDs. The FAA expects unquantified safety improvements to result from these changes through more realistic training and possibly cost savings through avoiding conflicting compliance standards with other aviation authorities. The changes are expected to improve overall simulator fidelity with new and revised visual system and other FSTD evaluation standards, such as visual display resolution, visual system field of view, and system transport delay. The table below summarizes the costs and benefits of this proposal over a ten year period: E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 EP10JY14.000</GPH> sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S. standards, this Trade Act requires agencies to consider international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA’s analysis of the economic impacts of this proposed rule. We suggest readers seeking greater detail read the full regulatory evaluation, a copy of which we have placed in the docket for this rulemaking. In conducting these analyses, FAA has determined this proposed rule has benefits that justify its costs. It has also been determined that this rule is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as defined in section 3(f) of Executive 39477 39478 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Costs We now discuss the three separate sets of costs. Upgrade Previously Qualified FSTDs for New Training Requirements. The first set of costs would be incurred to make the necessary upgrades to the FSTDs to enable training required by the new Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule. In order to avoid inappropriate or negative training, FSTDs being used to comply with certain ‘‘extended envelope’’ training tasks in the new training rule would require evaluation and modification as defined in the FSTD Directive of this proposed part 60 rule. Icing Provisions. The second set of costs would be incurred for the evaluation and modification of engine and airframe icing models which would enhance existing training requirements. These costs were estimated as a percentage of the total cost of the FSTD aerodynamic model development costs proposed by this rule. We did not include additional model implementation and FSTD downtime costs because it was assumed that these modifications would likely be conducted concurrently with the modifications required for the stall training tasks. Aligning Standards With ICAO. Lastly there are a set of changes to part 60 QPS appendices which would align the simulator standards for some FSTD levels with those of the latest ICAO FSTD evaluation guidance document. These changes would only apply to newly qualified FSTDs. Benefits Upgrade Previously Qualified FSTDs for New Training Requirements. The best way to understand the benefits of this proposed rule is to view it in conjunction with the new Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule. The costs of that training rule were justified by the expected benefits. The training rule cost/benefit analysis assumes that the simulators will be able to provide the required training at an hourly rate of $500. The part 60 proposed rule specifies the necessary simulator upgrade specifications. These upgrades require simulator owners to purchase and install upgrade packages, the costs of which are a cost of this proposed rule. Revenues received by VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 simulator owners for providing training from the upgraded simulators are costs already incurred in the training rule that have been justified by the benefits of that rule. This revenue over time exceeds the cost of this proposed rule. The proposed part 60 standards and upgrade simulator expense supporting the new training is $45 million ($32 million in present value at 7%) and has been fully justified by the new Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule. Icing Provisions. The second area for benefits is for the icing upgrade. Although this upgrade is not in response to a new training requirement, it would enhance existing training requirements for operations involving anti-icing/de-icing equipment and further address NTSB 19 20 and ARC recommendations to the FAA. These costs are minor at less than a million dollars and are expected to comprise a small percentage of the total cost of compliance with the FSTD Directive. One avoided serious injury would justify the minor costs of complying with these icing requirements. Aligning Standards with ICAO. Lastly, we have not quantified benefits of aligning part 60 qualification standards with those recommended by ICAO, but we expect aligned FSTD standards to contribute to improved safety as they are developed by a broad coalition of experts with a combined pool of knowledge and experience and to result in cost savings through avoiding conflicting compliance standards with other aviation authorities. The changes are expected to improve overall simulator fidelity with new and revised visual system and other FSTD evaluation standards, such as visual display resolution, visual system field of view, and system transport delay. B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96–354) (RFA) establishes ‘‘as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale 19 NTSB recommendations A–11–46 and A–11– 47 address engine and airframe icing. 20 www.ntsb.gov PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 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-forprofit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA. However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. The certification must include a statement providing the factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be clear. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities Only FSTD sponsors are affected by this rule. FSTD sponsors are air carriers who own simulators to train their pilots or training centers who own simulators and sell simulator training time. To identify FSTD sponsors that would be affected retroactively by the FSTD directive,21 the FAA subjected the 811 FSTDs with an active qualification by the FAA to qualifying criteria designed to eliminate FSTDs not likely to be used in a part 121 training program for the applicable training tasks (i.e., stall training, upset recovery training, etc.). The remaining list of 322 FSTDs (included in Appendix A of the regulatory evaluation) were sponsored by the 26 companies presented in the table below. 21 Part 60 contains grandfather rights for previously qualified FSTD so the FAA would invoke an FSTD Directive to require modification of previously qualified devices. The FSTD Directive process has provisions for mandating modifications to FSTDs retroactively for safety of flight reasons. See 14 CFR Part 60, § 60.23(b). E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS To determine which of the 26 organizations listed in the previous table are small entities, the FAA consulted the U.S. Small Business Administration Table of Small Business Size Standards Matched to North American Industry Classification System Codes.22 For flight training (NAICS Code 611512) the threshold for small business is revenue of $25.5 million or less. The size standard for scheduled passenger air transportation (NAICS Code 481111) and scheduled freight air transportation (NAICS Code 481112) and non-scheduled charter passenger air transportation (NAICS Code 481211) is 1,500 employees. After consulting the World Aviation Directory, and other on-line sources, for employees and annual revenues, the FAA identified six companies that are qualified as small entities. In this instance, the FAA considers six a substantial number of small entities. Economic Impact The economic impact of this rule applies differently to previously qualified FSTD sponsors than it would to newly qualified FSTD sponsors. 22 https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/ Size_Standards_Table.pdf. VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 Below is a summary of the two separate analyses performed. One determines the impact of the proposal on small entities that would have to upgrade their previously qualified devices and the other analysis determines the impact on those that would have to purchase a newly qualified devices. Economic Impact of Upgrading Previously Qualified FSTDs Four of the small entities are training providers. If these companies choose to offer training in the extended envelope training tasks as required by the Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule, they could do so only in an upgraded FSTD. However, if they offer this new required training there would be increased demand for training time in their FSTDs because in addition to current requirements for training, captains and first officers have two hours of additional training in the first year and additional training time in the future. The FAA estimated the cost of upgrading each simulator would be recovered in less than 300 hours at a simulator rental rate of $500 per hour. The training companies could therefore recover their upgrade costs for each simulator in less than one year. Therefore, the rule would not impose a PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 39479 significant economic impact on these companies. Two of the companies identified as small businesses are part 121 air carriers. They have to comply with the Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule by training their pilots in simulators that meet the standards of this part 60 rule. The additional pilot training cost in an upgraded simulator was accounted for and justified in that training final rule. This part 60 rule simply specifies how the simulators need to be upgraded such that the new training will be in compliance with the training final rule. These part 121 operators have two options. They can purchase training time for their pilots at a qualified training center. Alternatively they could choose to comply with the FSTD Directive by upgrading their own devices to train their pilots for the new training tasks. For these operators who already own simulators, the cost of complying with the FSTD Directive is estimated to be less than the cost of renting time at a training center to comply with the new requirements. Therefore, we expect that they would choose to upgrade their devices because it would be less costly to offer training in-house than to send pilots out to E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 EP10JY14.001</GPH> Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 39480 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has assessed the potential effect of this proposed rule and determined that it uses international standards as its basis and does not create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Economics of Newly Qualified Devices It is unknown how many sponsors of newly qualified FSTDs in the future may qualify as small entities, but we expect it would be a substantial number as it could likely include the six identified above. The FAA expects the proposed requirements that address the new training tasks and upgrade the icing FSTD requirements to be included in future training packages and the cost would be minimal for a newly qualified FSTD. The requirement to align with ICAO guidance however, would result in some cost. The FAA does not know who in the future will be purchasing and qualifying FSTDs after the rule becomes effective. The FAA estimates that the incremental cost per newly qualified FSTD would be approximately $34,000. This is less than 0.5 percent of the cost of a new FSTD, which generally costs $10 million or more. Therefore we do not believe the proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities that purchase newly qualified FSTDs after the rule is in effect. Thus this proposed rule is expected to impact a substantial number of small entities, but not impose a significant economic impact. Therefore, as provided in section 605(b), the head of the FAA certifies that this rulemaking will not result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The FAA solicits comments regarding this determination. sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS training centers. The cost to train pilots in the tasks required by the training rule is a cost of the training rule and not this rule. Thus, the rule would not impose a significant economic impact on these companies, because by upgrading their simulators these operators would lower their costs. D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more (in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate is deemed to be a ‘‘significant regulatory action.’’ The FAA currently uses an inflation-adjusted value of $151 million in lieu of $100 million. This proposed rule does not contain such a mandate; therefore, the requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply. C. International Trade Impact Assessment The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96–39), as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103–465), prohibits Federal agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not operate in a manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 E. Paperwork Reduction Act The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public. According to the 1995 amendments to the Paperwork Reduction Act (5 CFR 1320.8(b)(2)(vi)), an agency may not collect or sponsor the collection of information, nor may it impose an information collection requirement unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. This action contains the following proposed amendments to the existing information collection requirements previously approved under OMB Control Number 2120–0680. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)), the FAA has submitted these proposed information collection amendments to OMB for its review. Summary: Under this proposal, an increase in information collection requirements would be imposed on Sponsors of previously qualified FSTDs that require modification for the qualification of certain training tasks as defined in FSTD Directive 2. These Sponsors would be required to report FSTD modifications to the FAA as described in § 60.23 and § 60.16 which would result in a one-time information collection. Additionally, because compliance with the FSTD Directive (for previously qualified FSTDs) and the new QPS requirements (for newly qualified FSTDs) would increase the PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 overall amount of objective testing necessary to maintain FSTD qualification under § 60.19, a slight increase in annual information collection would be required to document such testing. Use: For previously qualified FSTDs, the information collection would be used to determine that the requirements of the FSTD Directive have been met. The FAA will use this information to issue amended Statements of Qualification (SOQ) for those FSTDs that have been found to meet those requirements and also to determine if the FSTDs annual inspection and maintenance requirements have been met. Respondents (including number of): The additional information collection burden in this proposal is limited to those FSTD Sponsors that would require specific FSTD qualification for certain training tasks as defined in FSTD Directive 2. Approximately 322 previously qualified FSTDs 23 may require evaluation as described in the FSTD Directive to support the Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule. The number of respondents would be limited to those Sponsors that maintain FSTDs which may require additional qualification in accordance with the FSTD Directive. Frequency: This additional information collection would include both a one-time event and an increase to the annual part 60 information collection requirements. Annual Burden Estimate: The FAA estimates that for each additional qualified task required in accordance with FSTD Directive 2, the one-time information collection burden to each FSTD Sponsor would be approximately 0.85 hours per FSTD for each additional qualified task.24 Assuming all five of the additional qualified tasks would be required for each of the estimated 322 FSTDs (including qualification for full stall training, upset recovery training, airborne icing training, takeoff and landing in gusting crosswinds, and bounced landing training), the cumulative one-time information collection burden would be approximately 1,369 hours. This collection burden would be distributed over a time period of approximately 3 23 The FAA estimated this from the number of previously qualified FSTDs that simulate aircraft which are currently used in U.S. part 121 air carrier operations. 24 The 0.85 hour burden is derived from the existing Part 60 Paperwork Reduction Act supporting statement (OMB–2120–0680), Table 5 (§ 60.16) and includes estimated time for the FSTD Sponsor’s staff to draft and send the letter as well as estimated time for updating the approved MQTG with new test results. E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS years. This 3 year time period represents the compliance period of the proposed FSTD Directive. The one-time information collection burden to the Federal government is estimated at approximately 0.6 hours per FSTD for each qualified task to include Aerospace Engineer review and preparation of an FAA response.25 Assuming all five of the additional qualified tasks would be required for each of the estimated 322 FSTDs, the cumulative one-time information collection burden to the Federal government would be approximately 966 hours. The modification of the FSTD’s Statement of Qualification would be incorporated with the FSTD’s next scheduled evaluation, so this would not impose additional burden. Because the number of objective tests required to maintain FSTD qualification would increase slightly with this proposal, the annual information collection burden would also increase under the FSTD inspection and maintenance requirements of § 60.19. This additional information collection burden is estimated by increasing the average number of required objective tests for Level C and Level D FSTDs by four tests.26 For the estimated 322 FSTDs that may be affected by the FSTD Directive, this will result in an additional 129 hours of annual information collection burden to FSTD Sponsors. This additional collection burden is based upon 0.1 hours 27 per test for a simulator technician to document as required by § 60.19. The additional information collection burden to the Federal government would also increase by approximately 43 hours 28 due to the additional tests that may be sampled and reviewed by the FAA during continuing qualification evaluations. For new FSTDs qualified after the proposal becomes effective, the changes to the QPS appendices proposed to align with ICAO 9625 as well as the new 25 The 0.6 hour burden on the Federal government is also derived from the existing Part 60 Paperwork Reduction Act supporting statement (OMB–2120–0680), Table 5 (§ 60.16). 26 For previously qualified FSTDs, the requirements of FSTD Directive #2 will add a maximum of four additional objective test cases to the existing requirements. 27 The 0.1 hour burden is derived from the existing Part 60 Paperwork Reduction Act supporting statement (OMB–2120–0680), Table 6 (§ 60.19) and includes estimated time for the FSTD Sponsor’s staff to document the completion of required annual objective testing. 28 This information collection burden is based upon 0.1 hours per test required for FAA personnel to review. These four additional tests are subject to the approximately 33% of which may be spot checked by FAA personnel on site during a continuing qualification evaluation. VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 requirements for the evaluation of stall and icing training maneuvers would result in an estimated average increase of four objective tests 29 that would require annual documentation as described in § 60.19. For the estimated 22 new 30 Level C and Level D FSTDs that may be initially qualified annually by the FAA, this will result in an additional 9 hours of annual information collection burden to FSTD Sponsors and an additional 3 hours of annual information collection burden to the Federal government. For newly qualified FSTDs, this proposal does not increase the frequency of reporting for FSTD sponsors. The agency is soliciting comments to— (1) Evaluate whether the proposed information requirement is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information would have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the burden; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of collecting information on those who are to respond, including by using appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Individuals and organizations may send comments on the information collection requirement to the address listed in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this preamble by October 8, 2014. Comments also should be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Desk Officer for FAA, New Executive Building, Room 10202, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20053. F. International Compatibility and Cooperation In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to conform to ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has determined that there are no ICAO 29 These four additional tests were estimated through comparison between the current and proposed list of objective tests required for qualification (Table A2A). Note that the total number of tests can vary between FSTDs as a function of aircraft type, test implementation, and the employment of certain technologies that would require additional testing. 30 Based upon internal records review, the FAA calculated the number of newly qualified FSTDs at approximately 22 per year over a ten year period. PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 39481 Standards and Recommended Practices that correspond to these proposed changes to the part 60 regulations. While the FAA has proposed to align the part 60 qualification standards for Level 7 FTDs and Level D fixed wing FFSs with that of ICAO Document 9625, the FSTD qualification guidance contained within ICAO 9625 are not defined in an ICAO Annex as a Standard and Recommended Practice and are considered guidance material. Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation, (77 FR 26413, May 4, 2012) promotes international regulatory cooperation to meet shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues and reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements. The FAA has analyzed this action under the policy and agency responsibilities of Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation. The agency has determined that this action would promote the elimination of differences between U.S. aviation standards and those of other civil aviation authorities by aligning evaluation standards for similar FSTD fidelity levels to the latest internationally recognized FSTD evaluation guidance in the ICAO 9625 document. G. Environmental Analysis FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA actions that are categorically excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has determined this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical exclusion identified in paragraph 312f and involves no extraordinary circumstances. V. Executive Order Determinations A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism The FAA has analyzed this proposed rule under the principles and criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The agency has determined that this action would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, or the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, and, therefore, would not have Federalism implications. E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 39482 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use The FAA analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The agency has determined that it would not be a ‘‘significant energy action’’ under the executive order and would not be likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. VI. Additional Information A. Comments Invited The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. The agency also invites comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should submit only one time. The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, the FAA will consider all comments it receives on or before the closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. The agency may change this proposal in light of the comments it receives. Proprietary or Confidential Business Information: Commenters should not file proprietary or confidential business information in the docket. Such information must be sent or delivered directly to the person identified in the sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document, and marked as proprietary or confidential. If submitting information on a disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM, and identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is proprietary or confidential. Under 14 CFR 11.35(b), if the FAA is aware of proprietary information filed with a comment, the agency does not place it in the docket. It is held in a separate file to which the public does VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 not have access, and the FAA places a note in the docket that it has received it. If the FAA receives a request to examine or copy this information, it treats it as any other request under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). The FAA processes such a request under Department of Transportation procedures found in 49 CFR part 7. B. Availability of Rulemaking Documents An electronic copy of rulemaking documents may be obtained from the Internet by— 1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (https://www.regulations.gov); 2. Visiting the FAA’s Regulations and Policies Web page at https:// www.faa.gov/regulations_policies or 3. Accessing the Government Printing Office’s Web page at https:// www.fdsys.gov. Copies may also be obtained by sending a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM–1, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267–9680. Commenters must identify the docket or notice number of this rulemaking. All documents the FAA considered in developing this proposed rule, including economic analyses and technical reports, may be accessed from the Internet through the Federal eRulemaking Portal referenced in item (1) above. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 60 Airmen, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. The Proposed Amendment In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend chapter I of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations as follows: PART 60—FLIGHT SIMULATION TRAINING DEVICE INITIAL AND CONTINUING QUALIFICATION AND USE 1. The authority citation for part 60 is revised to read as follows: ■ Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, and 44701; Pub. L. 111–216, 124 Stat. 2348 (49 U.S.C. 44701 note). 2. Amend § 60.15 by revising paragraph (e) to read as follows: ■ § 60.15 Initial Qualification requirements. * * * * * (e) The subjective tests that form the basis for the statements described in paragraph (b) of this section and the objective tests referenced in paragraph (f) of this section must be accomplished PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 at the FSTD’s permanent location, except as provided for in the applicable QPS. * * * * * ■ 3. Amend § 60.17 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: § 60.17 Previously qualified FSTDs. (a) Unless otherwise specified by an FSTD Directive, further referenced in the applicable QPS, or as specified in paragraph (e) of this section, an FSTD qualified before [effective date of final rule] will retain its qualification basis as long as it continues to meet the standards, including the objective test results recorded in the MQTG and subjective tests, under which it was originally evaluated, regardless of sponsor. The sponsor of such an FSTD must comply with the other applicable provisions of this part. ■ 4. Amend § 60.19 by revising paragraphs (b)(4) and (b)(5) to read as follows: § 60.19 Inspection, continuing qualification evaluation, and maintenance requirements. * * * * * (b) * * * (4) The frequency of NSPM-conducted continuing qualification evaluations for each FSTD will be established by the NSPM and specified in the Statement of Qualification. (5) Continuing qualification evaluations conducted in the 3 calendar months before or after the calendar month in which these continuing qualification evaluations are required will be considered to have been conducted in the calendar month in which they were required. * * * * * ■ 5. Amend § 60.23 by adding new paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows: § 60.23 Modifications to FSTDs. (a) * * * (3) Changes to the MQTG which do not affect required objective testing results or validation data approved during the initial evaluation of the FSTD are not considered modifications under this section. * * * * * ■ 6. Part 60 is amended by revising Appendix A to read as follows: Appendix A to Part 60—Qualification Performance Standards for Airplane Full Flight Simulators lllllllllllllllllllll Begin Information This appendix establishes the standards for Airplane FFS evaluation and qualification. The NSPM is responsible for the development, application, and E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS implementation of the standards contained within this appendix. The procedures and criteria specified in this appendix will be used by the NSPM, or a person assigned by the NSPM, when conducting airplane FFS evaluations. Table of Contents 1. Introduction. 2. Applicability (§§ 60.1 and 60.2). 3. Definitions (§ 60.3). 4. Qualification Performance Standards (§ 60.4). 5. Quality Management System (§ 60.5). 6. Sponsor Qualification Requirements (§ 60.7). 7. Additional Responsibilities of the Sponsor (§ 60.9). 8. FFS Use (§ 60.11). 9. FFS Objective Data Requirements (§ 60.13). 10. Special Equipment and Personnel Requirements for Qualification of the FFS (§ 60.14). 11. Initial (and Upgrade) Qualification Requirements (§ 60.15). 12. Additional Qualifications for a Currently Qualified FFS (§ 60.16). 13. Previously Qualified FFSs (§ 60.17). 14. Inspection, Continuing Qualification Evaluation, and Maintenance Requirements (§ 60.19). 15. Logging FFS Discrepancies (§ 60.20). 16. Interim Qualification of FFSs for New Airplane Types or Models (§ 60.21). 17. Modifications to FFSs (§ 60.23). 18. Operations With Missing, Malfunctioning, or Inoperative Components (§ 60.25). 19. Automatic Loss of Qualification and Procedures for Restoration of Qualification (§ 60.27). 20. Other Losses of Qualification and Procedures for Restoration of Qualification (§ 60.29). 21. Record Keeping and Reporting (§ 60.31). 22. Applications, Logbooks, Reports, and Records: Fraud, Falsification, or Incorrect Statements (§ 60.33). 23. Specific FFS Compliance Requirements (§ 60.35). 24. [Reserved] 25. FFS Qualification on the Basis of a Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreement (BASA) (§ 60.37). Attachment 1 to Appendix A to Part 60— General Simulator Requirements. Attachment 2 to Appendix A to Part 60—FFS Objective Tests. Attachment 3 to Appendix A to Part 60— Simulator Subjective Evaluation. Attachment 4 to Appendix A to Part 60— Sample Documents. Attachment 5 to Appendix A to Part 60— Simulator Qualification Requirements for Windshear Training Program Use. Attachment 6 to Appendix A to Part 60— FSTD Directives Applicable to Airplane Flight Simulators. Attachment 7 to Appendix A to Part 60— Additional Simulator Qualification Requirements for Stall, Upset Recognition and Recovery, and Engine and Airframe Icing Training Tasks. End Information lllllllllllllllllllll VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 1. Introduction lllllllllllllllllllll Begin Information a. This appendix contains background information as well as regulatory and informative material as described later in this section. To assist the reader in determining what areas are required and what areas are permissive, the text in this appendix is divided into two sections: ‘‘QPS Requirements’’ and ‘‘Information.’’ The QPS Requirements sections contain details regarding compliance with the part 60 rule language. These details are regulatory, but are found only in this appendix. The Information sections contain material that is advisory in nature, and designed to give the user general information about the regulation. b. Questions regarding the contents of this publication should be sent to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Flight Standards Service, National Simulator Program Staff, AFS–205, 100 Hartsfield Centre Parkway, Suite 400, Atlanta, Georgia, 30354. Telephone contact numbers for the NSP are: Phone, 404–832–4700; fax, 404–761–8906. The general email address for the NSP office is: 9-aso-avs-sim-team@faa.gov. The NSP Internet Web site address is: https:// www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/nsp/. On this Web site you will find an NSP personnel list with telephone and email contact information for each NSP staff member, a list of qualified flight simulation devices, advisory circulars (ACs), a description of the qualification process, NSP policy, and an NSP ‘‘In-Works’’ section. Also linked from this site are additional information sources, handbook bulletins, frequently asked questions, a listing and text of the Federal Aviation Regulations, Flight Standards Inspector’s handbooks, and other FAA links. c. The NSPM encourages the use of electronic media for all communication, including any record, report, request, test, or statement required by this appendix. The electronic media used must have adequate security provisions and be acceptable to the NSPM. The NSPM recommends inquiries on system compatibility, and minimum system requirements are also included on the NSP Web site. d. Related Reading References. (1) 14 CFR part 60. (2) 14 CFR part 61. (3) 14 CFR part 63. (4) 14 CFR part 119. (5) 14 CFR part 121. (6) 14 CFR part 125. (7) 14 CFR part 135. (8) 14 CFR part 141. (9) 14 CFR part 142. (10) AC 120–28, as amended, Criteria for Approval of Category III Landing Weather Minima. (11) AC 120–29, as amended, Criteria for Approving Category I and Category II Landing Minima for part 121 operators. (12) AC 120–35, as amended, Line Operational Simulations: Line-Oriented Flight Training, Special Purpose Operational Training, Line Operational Evaluation. (13) AC 120–40, as amended, Airplane Simulator Qualification. PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 39483 (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 https://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 lllllllllllllllllllll 2. Applicability (§§ 60.1 and 60.2) lllllllllllllllllllll Begin Information No additional regulatory or informational material applies to § 60.1, Applicability, or to § 60.2, Applicability of sponsor rules to person who are not sponsors and who are engaged in certain unauthorized activities. End Information lllllllllllllllllllll 3. Definitions (§ 60.3) lllllllllllllllllllll 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. E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 39484 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules End Information lllllllllllllllllllll 4. Qualification Performance Standards (§ 60.4) lllllllllllllllllllll Begin Information No additional regulatory or informational material applies to § 60.4, Qualification Performance Standards. End Information lllllllllllllllllllll 5. Quality Management System (§ 60.5) lllllllllllllllllllll Begin Information See Appendix E of this part for additional regulatory and informational material regarding Quality Management Systems. End Information lllllllllllllllllllll 6. Sponsor Qualification Requirements (§ 60.7) lllllllllllllllllllll sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Begin Information a. The intent of the language in § 60.7(b) is to have a specific FFS, identified by the sponsor, used at least once in an FAAapproved flight training program for the airplane simulated during the 12-month period described. The identification of the specific FFS may change from one 12-month period to the next 12-month period as long as the sponsor sponsors and uses at least one FFS at least once during the prescribed period. No minimum number of hours or minimum FFS periods are required. b. The following examples describe acceptable operational practices: (1) Example One. (a) A sponsor is sponsoring a single, specific FFS for its own use, in its own facility or elsewhere—this single FFS forms the basis for the sponsorship. The sponsor uses that FFS at least once in each 12-month period in the sponsor’s FAA-approved flight training program for the airplane simulated. This 12-month period is established according to the following schedule: (i) If the FFS was qualified prior to May 30, 2008, the 12-month period begins on the date of the first continuing qualification evaluation conducted in accordance with § 60.19 after May 30, 2008, and continues for each subsequent 12-month period; (ii) A device qualified on or after May 30, 2008, will be required to undergo an initial or upgrade evaluation in accordance with § 60.15. Once the initial or upgrade evaluation is complete, the first continuing qualification evaluation will be conducted within 6 months. The 12 month continuing qualification evaluation cycle begins on that date and continues for each subsequent 12month 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 VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 sponsors and uses at least one FFS at least once during the prescribed period. (2) Example Two. (a) A sponsor sponsors an additional number of FFSs, in its facility or elsewhere. Each additionally sponsored FFS must be— (i) Used by the sponsor in the sponsor’s FAA-approved flight training program for the airplane simulated (as described in § 60.7(d)(1)); OR (ii) Used by another FAA certificate holder in that other certificate holder’s FAAapproved flight training program for the airplane simulated (as described in § 60.7(d)(1)). This 12-month period is established in the same manner as in example one; OR (iii) Provided a statement each year from a qualified pilot, (after having flown the airplane, not the subject FFS or another FFS, during the preceding 12-month period) stating that the subject FFSs performance and handling qualities represent the airplane (as described in § 60.7(d)(2)). This statement is provided at least once in each 12-month period established in the same manner as in example one. (b) No minimum number of hours of FFS use is required. (3) Example Three. (a) A sponsor in New York (in this example, a Part 142 certificate holder) establishes ‘‘satellite’’ training centers in Chicago and Moscow. (b) The satellite function means that the Chicago and Moscow centers must operate under the New York center’s certificate (in accordance with all of the New York center’s practices, procedures, and policies; e.g., instructor and/or technician training/ checking requirements, record keeping, QMS program). (c) All of the FFSs in the Chicago and Moscow centers could be dry-leased (i.e., the certificate holder does not have and use FAA-approved flight training programs for the FFSs in the Chicago and Moscow centers) because— (i) Each FFS in the Chicago center and each FFS in the Moscow center is used at least once each 12-month period by another FAA certificate holder in that other certificate holder’s FAA-approved flight training program for the airplane (as described in § 60.7(d)(1)); OR (ii) A statement is obtained from a qualified pilot (having flown the airplane, not the subject FFS or another FFS during the preceding 12-month period) stating that the performance and handling qualities of each FFS in the Chicago and Moscow centers represents the airplane (as described in § 60.7(d)(2)). End Information lllllllllllllllllllll 7. Additional Responsibilities of the Sponsor (§ 60.9) lllllllllllllllllllll Begin Information The phrase ‘‘as soon as practicable’’ in § 60.9(a) means without unnecessarily PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 disrupting or delaying beyond a reasonable time the training, evaluation, or experience being conducted in the FFS. End Information lllllllllllllllllllll 8. FFS Use (§ 60.11) lllllllllllllllllllll Begin Information No additional regulatory or informational material applies to § 60.11, Simulator Use. End Information lllllllllllllllllllll 9. FFS Objective Data Requirements (§ 60.13) lllllllllllllllllllll Begin QPS Requirements a. Flight test data used to validate FFS performance and handling qualities must have been gathered in accordance with a flight test program containing the following: (1) A flight test plan consisting of: (a) The maneuvers and procedures required for aircraft certification and simulation programming and validation. (b) For each maneuver or procedure— (i) The procedures and control input the flight test pilot and/or engineer used. (ii) The atmospheric and environmental conditions. (iii) The initial flight conditions. (iv) The airplane configuration, including weight and center of gravity. (v) The data to be gathered. (vi) All other information necessary to recreate the flight test conditions in the FFS. (2) Appropriately qualified flight test personnel. (3) An understanding of the accuracy of the data to be gathered using appropriate alternative data sources, procedures, and instrumentation that is traceable to a recognized standard as described in Attachment 2, Table A2E of this appendix. (4) Appropriate and sufficient data acquisition equipment or system(s), including appropriate data reduction and analysis methods and techniques, as would be acceptable to the FAA’s Aircraft Certification Service. b. The data, regardless of source, must be presented as follows: (1) In a format that supports the FFS validation process. (2) In a manner that is clearly readable and annotated correctly and completely. (3) With resolution sufficient to determine compliance with the tolerances set forth in Attachment 2, Table A2A of this appendix. (4) With any necessary instructions or other details provided, such as yaw damper or throttle position. (5) Without alteration, adjustments, or bias. Data may be corrected to address known data calibration errors provided that an explanation of the methods used to correct the errors appears in the QTG. The corrected data may be re-scaled, digitized, or otherwise manipulated to fit the desired presentation. c. After completion of any additional flight test, a flight test report must be submitted in support of the validation data. The report must contain sufficient data and rationale to E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules support qualification of the FFS at the level requested. d. As required by § 60.13(f), the sponsor must notify the NSPM when it becomes aware that an addition to, an amendment to, or a revision of data that may relate to FFS performance or handling characteristics is available. The data referred to in this paragraph is data used to validate the performance, handling qualities, or other characteristics of the aircraft, including data related to any relevant changes occurring after the type certificate was issued. The sponsor must— (1) Within 10 calendar days, notify the NSPM of the existence of this data; and (2) Within 45 calendar days, notify the NSPM of— (a) The schedule to incorporate this data into the FFS; or (b) The reason for not incorporating this data into the FFS. e. In those cases where the objective test results authorize a ‘‘snapshot test’’ or a ‘‘series of snapshot tests’’ results in lieu of a time-history result, the sponsor or other data provider must ensure that a steady state condition exists at the instant of time captured by the ‘‘snapshot.’’ The steady state condition must exist from 4 seconds prior to, through 1 second following, the instant of time captured by the snapshot. sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS End QPS Requirements lllllllllllllllllllll Begin Information f. The FFS sponsor is encouraged to maintain a liaison with the manufacturer of the aircraft being simulated (or with the holder of the aircraft type certificate for the aircraft being simulated if the manufacturer is no longer in business), and, if appropriate, with the person having supplied the aircraft data package for the FFS in order to facilitate the notification required by § 60.13(f). g. It is the intent of the NSPM that for new aircraft entering service, at a point well in advance of preparation of the Qualification Test Guide (QTG), the sponsor should submit to the NSPM for approval, a descriptive document (see Table A2C, Sample Validation Data Roadmap for Airplanes) containing the plan for acquiring the validation data, including data sources. This document should clearly identify sources of data for all required tests, a description of the validity of these data for a specific engine type and thrust rating configuration, and the revision levels of all avionics affecting the performance or flying qualities of the aircraft. Additionally, this document should provide other information, such as the rationale or explanation for cases where data or data parameters are missing, instances where engineering simulation data are used or where flight test methods require further explanations. It should also provide a brief narrative describing the cause and effect of any deviation from data requirements. The aircraft manufacturer may provide this document. h. There is no requirement for any flight test data supplier to submit a flight test plan or program prior to gathering flight test data. However, the NSPM notes that inexperienced VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 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-bycase 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 lllllllllllllllllllll 10. Special Equipment and Personnel Requirements for Qualification of the FFSs (§ 60.14) lllllllllllllllllllll 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 lllllllllllllllllllll 11. Initial (and Upgrade) Qualification Requirements (§ 60.15) lllllllllllllllllllll Begin QPS Requirements a. In order to be qualified at a particular qualification level, the FFS must: (1) Meet the general requirements listed in Attachment 1 of this appendix; (2) Meet the objective testing requirements listed in Attachment 2 of this appendix; and (3) Satisfactorily accomplish the subjective tests listed in Attachment 3 of this appendix. b. The request described in § 60.15(a) must include all of the following: (1) A statement that the FFS meets all of the applicable provisions of this part and all applicable provisions of the QPS. (2) Unless otherwise authorized through prior coordination with the NSPM, a confirmation that the sponsor will forward to the NSPM the statement described in § 60.15(b) in such time as to be received no PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 39485 later than 5 business days prior to the scheduled evaluation and may be forwarded to the NSPM via traditional or electronic means. (3) A QTG, acceptable to the NSPM, that includes all of the following: (a) Objective data obtained from traditional aircraft testing or another approved source. (b) Correlating objective test results obtained from the performance of the FFS as prescribed in the appropriate QPS. (c) The result of FFS subjective tests prescribed in the appropriate QPS. (d) A description of the equipment necessary to perform the evaluation for initial qualification and the continuing qualification evaluations. c. The QTG described in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, must provide the documented proof of compliance with the simulator objective tests in Attachment 2, Table A2A of this appendix. d. The QTG is prepared and submitted by the sponsor, or the sponsor’s agent on behalf of the sponsor, to the NSPM for review and approval, and must include, for each objective test: (1) Parameters, tolerances, and flight conditions; (2) Pertinent and complete instructions for the conduct of automatic and manual tests; (3) A means of comparing the FFS test results to the objective data; (4) Any other information as necessary, to assist in the evaluation of the test results; (5) Other information appropriate to the qualification level of the FFS. e. The QTG described in paragraphs (a)(3) and (b) of this section, must include the following: (1) A QTG cover page with sponsor and FAA approval signature blocks (see Attachment 4, Figure A4C, of this appendix for a sample QTG cover page). (2) A continuing qualification evaluation requirements page. This page will be used by the NSPM to establish and record the frequency with which continuing qualification evaluations must be conducted and any subsequent changes that may be determined by the NSPM in accordance with § 60.19. See Attachment 4, Figure A4G, of this appendix for a sample Continuing Qualification Evaluation Requirements page. (3) An FFS information page that provides the information listed in this 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. (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. E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 39486 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules (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. VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 (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 obtained from airplane testing, or another approved source (reformatted or digitized), together with correlating objective test results obtained from the performance of the FFS (reformatted or digitized) as prescribed in this appendix. The eMQTG must also contain the general FFS performance or demonstration results (reformatted or digitized) prescribed in this appendix, and a description of the equipment necessary to perform the initial qualification evaluation and the continuing qualification evaluations. The eMQTG must include the original validation data used to validate FFS performance and handling qualities in either the original digitized format from the data supplier or an electronic scan of the original time-history plots that were provided by the data supplier. A copy of the eMQTG must be provided to the NSPM. k. All other FFSs not covered in subparagraph ‘‘j’’ must have an electronic copy of the MQTG by May 30, 2014. An electronic copy of the MQTG must be provided to the NSPM. This may be provided by an electronic scan presented in a Portable Document File (PDF), or similar format acceptable to the NSPM. l. During the initial (or upgrade) qualification evaluation conducted by the NSPM, the sponsor must also provide a person who is a user of the device (e.g., a qualified pilot or instructor pilot with flight time experience in that aircraft) and knowledgeable about the operation of the aircraft and the operation of the FFS. End QPS Requirements lllllllllllllllllllll PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 Begin Information m. Only those FFSs that are sponsored by a certificate holder as defined in Appendix F of this part will be evaluated by the NSPM. However, other FFS evaluations may be conducted on a case-by-case basis as the Administrator deems appropriate, but only in accordance with applicable agreements. n. The NSPM will conduct an evaluation for each configuration, and each FFS must be evaluated as completely as possible. To ensure a thorough and uniform evaluation, each FFS is subjected to the general simulator requirements in Attachment 1 of this appendix, the objective tests listed in Attachment 2 of this appendix, and the subjective tests listed in Attachment 3 of this appendix. The evaluations described herein will include, but not necessarily be limited to the following: (1) Airplane responses, including longitudinal and lateral-directional control responses (see Attachment 2 of this appendix); (2) Performance in authorized portions of the simulated airplane’s operating envelope, to include tasks evaluated by the NSPM in the areas of surface operations, takeoff, climb, cruise, descent, approach, and landing as well as abnormal and emergency operations (see Attachment 2 of this appendix); (3) Control checks (see Attachment 1 and Attachment 2 of this appendix); (4) Flight deck configuration (see Attachment 1 of this appendix); (5) Pilot, flight engineer, and instructor station functions checks (see Attachment 1 and Attachment 3 of this appendix); (6) Airplane systems and sub-systems (as appropriate) as compared to the airplane simulated (see Attachment 1 and Attachment 3 of this appendix); (7) FFS systems and sub-systems, including force cueing (motion), visual, and aural (sound) systems, as appropriate (see Attachment 1 and Attachment 2 of this appendix); and (8) Certain additional requirements, depending upon the qualification level sought, including equipment or circumstances that may become hazardous to the occupants. The sponsor may be subject to Occupational Safety and Health Administration requirements. o. The NSPM administers the objective and subjective tests, which includes an examination of functions. The tests include a qualitative assessment of the FFS by an NSP pilot. The NSP evaluation team leader may assign other qualified personnel to assist in accomplishing the functions examination and/or the objective and subjective tests performed during an evaluation when required. (1) Objective tests provide a basis for measuring and evaluating FFS performance and determining compliance with the requirements of this part. (2) Subjective tests provide a basis for: (a) Evaluating the capability of the FFS to perform over a typical utilization period; (b) Determining that the FFS satisfactorily simulates each required task; (c) Verifying correct operation of the FFS controls, instruments, and systems; and (d) Demonstrating compliance with the requirements of this part. E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules p. The tolerances for the test parameters listed in Attachment 2 of this appendix reflect the range of tolerances acceptable to the NSPM for FFS validation and are not to be confused with design tolerances specified for FFS manufacture. In making decisions regarding tests and test results, the NSPM relies on the use of operational and engineering judgment in the application of data (including consideration of the way in which the flight test was flown and way the data was gathered and applied) data presentations, and the applicable tolerances for each test. q. In addition to the scheduled continuing qualification evaluation, each FFS is subject to evaluations conducted by the NSPM at any time without prior notification to the sponsor. Such evaluations would be accomplished in a normal manner (i.e., requiring exclusive use of the FFS for the conduct of objective and subjective tests and an examination of functions) if the FFS is not being used for flightcrew member training, testing, or checking. However, if the FFS were being used, the evaluation would be conducted in a non-exclusive manner. This non-exclusive evaluation will be conducted by the FFS evaluator accompanying the check airman, instructor, Aircrew Program Designee (APD), or FAA inspector aboard the FFS along with the student(s) and observing the operation of the FFS during the training, testing, or checking activities. r. Problems with objective test results are handled as follows: (1) If a problem with an objective test result is detected by the NSP evaluation team during an evaluation, the test may be repeated or the QTG may be amended. (2) If it is determined that the results of an objective test do not support the level requested but do support a lower level, the NSPM may qualify the FFS at that lower level. For example, if a Level D evaluation is requested and the FFS fails to meet sound test tolerances, it could be qualified at Level C. s. After an FFS is successfully evaluated, the NSPM issues a Statement of Qualification (SOQ) to the sponsor. The NSPM recommends the FFS to the TPAA, who will approve the FFS for use in a flight training program. The SOQ will be issued at the satisfactory conclusion of the initial or continuing qualification evaluation and will list the tasks for which the FFS is qualified, referencing the tasks described in Table A1B in Attachment 1 of this appendix. However, it is the sponsor’s responsibility to obtain TPAA approval prior to using the FFS in an FAA-approved flight training program. t. Under normal circumstances, the NSPM establishes a date for the initial or upgrade evaluation within ten (10) working days after determining that a complete QTG is acceptable. Unusual circumstances may warrant establishing an evaluation date before this determination is made. A sponsor may schedule an evaluation date as early as 6 months in advance. However, there may be a delay of 45 days or more in rescheduling and completing the evaluation if the sponsor is unable to meet the scheduled date. See Attachment 4 of this appendix, Figure A4A, Sample Request for Initial, Upgrade, or Reinstatement Evaluation. VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 u. The numbering system used for objective test results in the QTG should closely follow the numbering system set out in Attachment 2 of this appendix, FFS Objective Tests, Table A2A. v. Contact the NSPM or visit the NSPM Web site for additional information regarding the preferred qualifications of pilots used to meet the requirements of § 60.15(d). w. Examples of the exclusions for which the FFS might not have been subjectively tested by the sponsor or the NSPM and for which qualification might not be sought or granted, as described in § 60.15(g)(6), include windshear training and circling approaches. End Information lllllllllllllllllllll 12. Additional Qualifications for a Currently Qualified FFS (§ 60.16) lllllllllllllllllllll Begin Information No additional regulatory or informational material applies to § 60.16, Additional Qualifications for a Currently Qualified FFS. End Information lllllllllllllllllllll 13. Previously Qualified FFSs (§ 60.17) lllllllllllllllllllll Begin QPS Requirements a. In instances where a sponsor plans to remove an FFS from active status for a period of less than two years, the following procedures apply: (1) The NSPM must be notified in writing and the notification must include an estimate of the period that the FFS will be inactive; (2) Continuing Qualification evaluations will not be scheduled during the inactive period; (3) The NSPM will remove the FFS from the list of qualified FSTDs on a mutually established date not later than the date on which the first missed continuing qualification evaluation would have been scheduled; (4) Before the FFS is restored to qualified status, it must be evaluated by the NSPM. The evaluation content and the time required to accomplish the evaluation is based on the number of continuing qualification evaluations and sponsor-conducted quarterly inspections missed during the period of inactivity. (5) The sponsor must notify the NSPM of any changes to the original scheduled time out of service; b. Simulators qualified prior to May 30, 2008, are not required to meet the general simulation requirements, the objective test requirements or the subjective test requirements of attachments 1, 2, and 3 of this appendix as long as the simulator continues to meet the test requirements contained in the MQTG developed under the original qualification basis. c. After May 30, 2009, each visual scene or airport model beyond the minimum required for the FFS qualification level that is installed in and available for use in a qualified FFS must meet the requirements described in attachment 3 of this appendix. PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 39487 d. Simulators qualified prior to May 30, 2008, may be updated. If an evaluation is deemed appropriate or necessary by the NSPM after such an update, the evaluation will not require an evaluation to standards beyond those against which the simulator was originally qualified. End QPS Requirements lllllllllllllllllllll Begin Information e. Other certificate holders or persons desiring to use an FFS may contract with FFS sponsors to use FFSs previously qualified at a particular level for an airplane type and approved for use within an FAA-approved flight training program. Such FFSs are not required to undergo an additional qualification process, except as described in § 60.16. f. Each FFS user must obtain approval from the appropriate TPAA to use any FFS in an FAA-approved flight training program. g. The intent of the requirement listed in § 60.17(b), for each FFS to have a SOQ within 6 years, is to have the availability of that statement (including the configuration list and the limitations to authorizations) to provide a complete picture of the FFS inventory regulated by the FAA. The issuance of the statement will not require any additional evaluation or require any adjustment to the evaluation basis for the FFS. h. Downgrading of an FFS is a permanent change in qualification level and will necessitate the issuance of a revised SOQ to reflect the revised qualification level, as appropriate. If a temporary restriction is placed on an FFS because of a missing, malfunctioning, or inoperative component or on-going repairs, the restriction is not a permanent change in qualification level. Instead, the restriction is temporary and is removed when the reason for the restriction has been resolved. i. The NSPM will determine the evaluation criteria for an FFS that has been removed from active status. The criteria will be based on the number of continuing qualification evaluations and quarterly inspections missed during the period of inactivity. For example, if the FFS were out of service for a 1 year period, it would be necessary to complete the entire QTG, since all of the quarterly evaluations would have been missed. The NSPM will also consider how the FFS was stored, whether parts were removed from the FFS and whether the FFS was disassembled. j. The FFS will normally be requalified using the FAA-approved MQTG and the criteria that was in effect prior to its removal from qualification. However, inactive periods of 2 years or more will require requalification under the standards in effect and current at the time of requalification. End Information lllllllllllllllllllll 14. Inspection, Continuing Qualification Evaluation, and Maintenance Requirements (§ 60.19) lllllllllllllllllllll E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 39488 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules manually and should be able to be conducted within approximately one-third (1⁄3) of the allotted FFS time. (3) A subjective evaluation of the FFS to perform a representative sampling of the tasks set out in attachment 3 of this appendix. This portion of the evaluation should take approximately two-thirds (2⁄3) of the allotted FFS time. (4) An examination of the functions of the FFS may include the motion system, visual system, sound system, instructor operating station, and the normal functions and simulated malfunctions of the airplane systems. This examination is normally accomplished simultaneously with the subjective evaluation requirements. appendix for a list of all effective FSTD Directives applicable to Airplane FFSs. d. Examples of MQTG changes that do not require FAA notification under § 60.23(a) are limited to repagination, correction of typographical or grammatical errors, typesetting, or presenting additional parameters on existing test result formats. All changes regardless of nature should be documented in the MQTG revision history. End Information Begin Information lllllllllllllllllllll End QPS Requirements lllllllllllllllllllll sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Begin QPS Requirements a. The sponsor must conduct a minimum of four evenly spaced inspections throughout the year. The objective test sequence and content of each inspection must be developed by the sponsor and must be acceptable to the NSPM. b. The description of the functional preflight check must be contained in the sponsor’s QMS. c. Record ‘‘functional preflight’’ in the FFS discrepancy log book or other acceptable location, including any item found to be missing, malfunctioning, or inoperative. d. During the continuing qualification evaluation conducted by the NSPM, the sponsor must also provide a person knowledgeable about the operation of the aircraft and the operation of the FFS. e. The NSPM will conduct continuing qualification evaluations every 12 months unless: (1) The NSPM becomes aware of discrepancies or performance problems with the device that warrants more frequent evaluations; or (2) The sponsor implements a QMS that justifies less frequent evaluations. However, in no case shall the frequency of a continuing qualification evaluation exceed 36 months. 16. Interim Qualification of FFSs for New Airplane Types or Models (§ 60.21) Begin Information f. The sponsor’s test sequence and the content of each quarterly inspection required in § 60.19(a)(1) should include a balance and a mix from the objective test requirement areas listed as follows: (1) Performance. (2) Handling qualities. (3) Motion system (where appropriate). (4) Visual system (where appropriate). (5) Sound system (where appropriate). (6) Other FFS systems. g. If the NSP evaluator plans to accomplish specific tests during a normal continuing qualification evaluation that requires the use of special equipment or technicians, the sponsor will be notified as far in advance of the evaluation as practical; but not less than 72 hours. Examples of such tests include latencies, control dynamics, sounds and vibrations, motion, and/or some visual system tests. h. The continuing qualification evaluations, described in § 60.19(b), will normally require 4 hours of FFS time. However, flexibility is necessary to address abnormal situations or situations involving aircraft with additional levels of complexity (e.g., computer controlled aircraft). The sponsor should anticipate that some tests may require additional time. The continuing qualification evaluations will consist of the following: (1) Review of the results of the quarterly inspections conducted by the sponsor since the last scheduled continuing qualification evaluation. (2) A selection of approximately 8 to 15 objective tests from the MQTG that provide an adequate opportunity to evaluate the performance of the FFS. The tests chosen will be performed either automatically or Begin Information a. The sponsor’s responsibility with respect to § 60.25(a) is satisfied when the sponsor fairly and accurately advises the user of the current status of an FFS, including any missing, malfunctioning, or inoperative (MMI) component(s). b. 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 if any MMI component is necessary for the satisfactory completion of a specific maneuver, procedure, or task. c. If the 29th or 30th day of the 30-day period described in § 60.25(b) is on a Saturday, a Sunday, or a holiday, the FAA will extend the deadline until the next business day. d. In accordance with the authorization described in § 60.25(b), the sponsor may develop a discrepancy prioritizing system to accomplish repairs based on the level of impact on the capability of the FFS. Repairs having a larger impact on FFS capability to provide the required training, evaluation, or flight experience will have a higher priority for repair or replacement. VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 15. Logging FFSs Discrepancies (§ 60.20) Begin Information No additional regulatory or informational material applies to § 60.20. Logging FFS Discrepancies. End Information lllllllllllllllllllll lllllllllllllllllllll No additional regulatory or informational material applies to § 60.21, Interim Qualification of FFSs for New Airplane Types or Models. End Information lllllllllllllllllllll 17. Modifications to FFSs (§ 60.23) lllllllllllllllllllll Begin QPS Requirements a. The notification described in § 60.23(c)(2) must include a complete description of the planned modification, with a description of the operational and engineering effect the proposed modification will have on the operation of the FFS and the results that are expected with the modification incorporated. b. Prior to using the modified FFS: (1) All the applicable objective tests completed with the modification incorporated, including any necessary updates to the MQTG (e.g., accomplishment of FSTD Directives) must be acceptable to the NSPM; and (2) The sponsor must provide the NSPM with a statement signed by the MR that the factors listed in § 60.15(b) are addressed by the appropriate personnel as described in that section. End QPS Requirements lllllllllllllllllllll Begin Information c. FSTD Directives are considered modifications of an FFS. See Attachment 4 of this appendix for a sample index of effective FSTD Directives. See Attachment 6 of this PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 End Information lllllllllllllllllllll 18. Operation With Missing, Malfunctioning, or Inoperative Components (§ 60.25) lllllllllllllllllllll End Information lllllllllllllllllllll 19. Automatic Loss of Qualification and Procedures for Restoration of Qualification (§ 60.27) lllllllllllllllllllll Begin Information If the sponsor provides a plan for how the FFS will be maintained during its out-ofservice period (e.g., periodic exercise of mechanical, hydraulic, and electrical systems; routine replacement of hydraulic fluid; control of the environmental factors in which the FFS is to be maintained) there is a greater likelihood that the NSPM will be able to determine the amount of testing required for requalification. End Information lllllllllllllllllllll 20. Other Losses of Qualification and Procedures for Restoration of Qualification (§ 60.29) lllllllllllllllllllll E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules Begin Information Begin Information If the sponsor provides a plan for how the FFS will be maintained during its out-ofservice period (e.g., periodic exercise of mechanical, hydraulic, and electrical systems; routine replacement of hydraulic fluid; control of the environmental factors in which the FFS is to be maintained) there is a greater likelihood that the NSPM will be able to determine the amount of testing required for requalification. No additional regulatory or informational material applies to § 60.33, Applications, Logbooks, Reports, and Records: Fraud, Falsification, or Incorrect Statements. End Information lllllllllllllllllllll 21. Recordkeeping and Reporting (§ 60.31) lllllllllllllllllllll Begin QPS Requirements a. FFS modifications can include hardware or software changes. For FFS modifications involving software programming changes, the record required by § 60.31(a)(2) must consist of the name of the aircraft system software, aerodynamic model, or engine model change, the date of the change, a summary of the change, and the reason for the change. b. If a coded form for record keeping is used, it must provide for the preservation and retrieval of information with appropriate security or controls to prevent the inappropriate alteration of such records after the fact. End QPS Requirements lllllllllllllllllllll 22. Applications, Logbooks, Reports, and Records: Fraud, Falsification, or Incorrect Statements (§ 60.33) sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS lllllllllllllllllllll VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 23. Specific FFS Compliance Requirements (§ 60.35) No additional regulatory or informational material applies to § 60.35, Specific FFS Compliance Requirements. 24. [Reserved] 25. FFS Qualification on the Basis of a Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreement (BASA) (§ 60.37) No additional regulatory or informational material applies to § 60.37, FFS Qualification on the Basis of a Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreement (BASA). End Information lllllllllllllllllllll Attachment 1 to Appendix A to Part 60— General Simulator Requirements Begin QPS Requirements 1. Requirements a. Certain requirements included in this appendix must be supported with an SOC as defined in Appendix F, which may include objective and subjective tests. The requirements for SOCs are indicated in the ‘‘General Simulator Requirements’’ column in Table A1A of this appendix. b. Table A1A describes the requirements for the indicated level of FFS. Many devices include operational systems or functions that exceed the requirements outlined in this section. However, all systems will be tested and evaluated in accordance with this appendix to ensure proper operation. PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 39489 End QPS Requirements lllllllllllllllllllll Begin Information 2. Discussion a. This attachment describes the general simulator requirements for qualifying an airplane FFS. The sponsor should also consult the objective tests in Attachment 2 of this appendix and the examination of functions and subjective tests listed in Attachment 3 of this appendix to determine the complete requirements for a specific level simulator. b. The material contained in this attachment is divided into the following categories: (1) General flight deck configuration. (2) Simulator programming. (3) Equipment operation. (4) Equipment and facilities for instructor/ evaluator functions. (5) Motion system. (6) Visual system. (7) Sound system. c. Table A1A provides the standards for the General Simulator Requirements. d. Table A1B provides the tasks that the sponsor will examine to determine whether the FFS satisfactorily meets the requirements for flight crew training, testing, and experience, and provides the tasks for which the simulator may be qualified. e. Table A1C provides the functions that an instructor/check airman must be able to control in the simulator. f. It is not required that all of the tasks that appear on the List of Qualified Tasks (part of the SOQ) be accomplished during the initial or continuing qualification evaluation. End Information lllllllllllllllllllll E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 39490 VerDate Mar<15>2010 Table AlA Minimum Simulator Requirements Simulator QPS REQUIREMENTS 1. AT~,f~l D .. General Simulator Requirements FEATURE GENERAL REQUIREMENT FLIGHT DECK LA YOlJT & STRUCTURE An enclosed full scale replica of the airplane cockpit/flight deck, which will have fully functional controls, instruments and switches to support the approved use. l.S Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 1.1 X X X X X X X X Reserved FEATURE TECHNICAL REQUIREMENT COCKPIT/FLIGHT DECK LAYOUT & STRUCTURE COCKPIT/FLIGHT DECK STRUCTURE An enclosed, tull scale replica of the cockpit/tlight deck of the airplane being simulated. X Anything not required to be accessed by the flight crew during normal, abnormal, emergency and, where applicable, non-normal operations does not need to be functional. Reserved l.G X X l.R X Notes l.l.S.a Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 Reserved l.l.S.c An enclosed, full scale replica of the cockpit/flight deck of the airplane being simulated including all: structure and panels; primary and secondary flight controls; engine and propeller controls, as applicable; equipment and systems with associated controls and observable indicators; circuit breakers; flight instruments; navigation, communications and similar use equipment; caution and warning systems and emergency equipment. The tactile feel, technique, effort, travel and direction required to manipulate the preceding, as applicable, must replicate those in the airplane. E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM l.l.S.b As applicable, equipment for operation of the cockpit/flight deck windows must be included but the actual windows need not be operable. Airplane observer seats are not considered to he additional flight crew member duty stations and may be omitted. The use of electronically displayed images with physical overlay or masking for FSTD instruments amJiur instrument panels is acceptable prov1ded: - 10JYP2 Additional required flight crew member duty stations and those bulkheads aft of the pilots' seats containing items such as switches, circuit breakers, supplementary radio panels, etc., to which the flight crew may require access duting any event after pre-flight cockpit/!light deck preparation is complete, are also considered part of the cockpit/flight deck and must replicate the airplane. Note.- The cockpit/flight deck, for/light simulation purposes, consists o(all that space forward o( a cross section of the.fitselage at the most extreme aft setting oftheflight crew members' seats or ij'applicable, to that cross section immediate(v a(t o( additional flight crew member seats and/or required bulkheads. all instruments and instrument panel layouts are dimensionally correct with differences, if any, being imperceptible to the pilot; instruments replicate those of the airplane including full instrument functionality and embedded logic; instruments displayed are free of quantization (stepping); ----- EP10JY14.002</GPH> ------------------- ----- --- - ----- - -- -- - --- --------------- ------ ------ instrument display characteristics replicate those of the airplane including: resolution, colors, lummance, brightness, fonts, fill pattetlls, line. stylesand Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Entry Number !~FORMATION sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS VerDate Mar<15>2010 Table AlA Minimum Simulator Requirements Entry Number General Simulator Requirements A B c I~FORMATION D Notes symbology; Jkt 232001 overlay or masking, including bezels and bugs, as applicable, replicates the airplane panel(s); PO 00000 instrument controls and switches replicate aml operate with the same technique, effort, travel and in the same direction as those in the airplane; Frm 00031 instrument lighting replicates that of the airplane and is operated from the FSTD control for that lighting and, if applicable, is at a level commensurate with other lighting operated by that same control; Fmt 4701 - Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM Level D only: • the display image of any three dimensional instrument, Stich as an electro-mechanical instrument, should appear to have the same three dimensional depth as the replicated instmment. The appearance of the simulated instrument, when viewed from any angle, should replicate that of the actual airplane instrument. Any instmment reading inaccuracy due to viewing angle and parallax present in the actual airplane instrument should be duplicated in the simulated instrument display image. 10JYP2 Reserved 1.2 Reserved SEATING 1.2.1.S Flight crew member seats must replicate those in the airplane being simulated. 1.2.LR Reserved 1.2.1.G Reserved X X X X 39491 I.I.R l.l.G EP10JY14.003</GPH> as applicable, instruments should have faceplates that replicate those in the airplane; and Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Simulator Levels QPS REQUIREMENTS sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 39492 VerDate Mar<15>2010 Table AlA Minimum Simulator Requirements Simulator Levels QPS REQUIREMENTS 1.2.2.S.a General Simulator Requirements A B c D In addition to the flight crew member seats, there must be one instructor station seat and two suitable seats for an observer and an authority inspector. The location of at least one of these seats must provide an adequate view of the pilots' panels aud fmward windows. X X X X Notes The NSPM may consider options to this requirement based on unique cockpit/flight deck configurations. Jkt 232001 PO 00000 The seaN need not represent those found in the airplane but should be adequately secured and fitted with positive restraint devices of sufficient intq,'lity to safely restrain the occupant during any known or predicted motion system excursion. Frm 00032 Both scats should have adequate lighting to permit note taking and a system to permit selective monitoring of all flight crew member and instmctor communications. Fmt 4701 Both seals should be of adequate comfort for the occupant to remain seated for a two-hour training session. Sfmt 4725 l.2.2.S.h Reserved 1.2.2.R Reserved 1.2.2.G Reserved 1.3 COCKPJT/FLTGHT DECK LIGHTING E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM l.3.S Cockpitlt1ight deck lighting must replicate that in the airplane l.3.R Reserved l.3.G Reserved 2. 2.S X X 10JYP2 Must address ground effect, mach effect, aeroelastic representations, non-Iinearities due to sideslip, effects of airframe icing, forward and reverse dynamic thrust effect on control surfaces. Realistic airplane mass properties, including mass, center of gravity and moments of inertia as a function of payload and fuel loading must be implemented. 2.Sl Extended envelope modeling to the extent necessary for full stall training and upset recovery training. Aerodynamic and engine modeling for all combinations of drag and thrust, including the effects of change in airplane attitude, sideslip, altitude, temperature, gross mass, center of gravity location and configuration to support the approved use. Realistic airplane mass properties, including mass, center of gravity and moments of inertia as a function of payload and fuel loading must be implemented. EP10JY14.004</GPH> X X X X FEATURE GENERAL REQUIREMENT FLIGHT MOilRL Aerodynamic and engine modeling for all combinations of drag and thrust, including the effects of change in airplane attitude, sideslip, altitude, temperature, gross mass, center of gravity location and configuration to support the approved use. X X Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Entry Number I~FORMATION sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS VerDate Mar<15>2010 Table AlA Minimum Simulator Requirements 2.R General Simulator Requirements I~FORMATION Jkt 232001 PO 00000 A B c D X X X X X X Notes Reserved 2.G Reserved 2.1 FEATURE TECHNICAL REQUIREMENT FLIGHT MODEL FLIGHT DYNAMICS MODEL 2.1. LS,SI 2.1.2.S Flight dynamics model that accounts tor various combinations of drag and thrm,t normally encotmtered in flight supported by type-specific flight test data, including the effect of change in airplane attitude, sideslip, thrust, drag, altitude, temperature, gross mass, moments of ine1iia, center of gravity location and configuration to support the approved use_ Aerodyuamic modeling that includes, for airplanes issued an original type certificate after 30 Jtme 1980, Mach effect, normal and reverse dynamic thrust effect on control surfaces, aeroelastic effect and representations of nonlinearities due to side-slip based on airplane flight test data provided by the airplane manufacturer. Frm 00033 SOC required. Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 2.1.4.S,SI E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 2.1.5.S Mach effect, aeroelastic representations and non-linearities due to side-s lip are nonnally included in the flight simulator aerodynamic model. The SOC should address each of these items. Aerodynamic modeling to include ground eftect derived from type-specific flight test data. For example: round-out, flare and touchdo\\,1. This requires data on lift, drag. pitching moment. trim and power in ground effect. Separate tests for thrust effects and an SOC are required. See Attachment 2, paragraph 5 and test 2. f for fwiher information on ground effect SOC required. Aerodynamic modeling for the eflects of reverse thrust on directional control. Engine and Airframe Icing Modeling that includes the etlects of icing, where appropriate, on the airframe. aerodynamics, and the engine(s). Icing models must simulate the aerodynamic degradation effects of ice accretion on the airplane lifting surfaces including loss of lift, decrease in stall angle of attack, change in pitching moment, decrease in control effectiveness, and changes in control forces in addition to any overall increase in drag. Aircraft systems (such as the stall protection system and autoflight system) must respond properly to icc accretion consistent with the simulated aircraft. X X X X X X X 10JYP2 Aircraft OEM data or other acceptable analytical methods must be utilized to develop ice accretion models that are representative of the simulated aircraft's performance degradation in a typical in-flight icing encounter. Icing effects simulation models are only required for those airplanes authorized for operations in icing conditions. Icing simulation models should be developed to provide training in the specific skills required for recognition of ice accumulation and execution of the required response. SOC and tests required. See objective testing requirements. 2.L6.S X X See Attachment 7 of this Appendix for further guidance material. This section generally applies to the qualification of airplane upset recovery training maneuvers that may exceed one or 39493 Upset Recognition and Recovery. Aerodynamics Evaluation: The simulator must be evaluated for specific upset recovery maneuvers for the purpose of determining that the combination ofanole of attack and sideslip does nol exceed the range of flioht test validated Tests required. See Attachment 2, tests 2.e.8 and 2.c.9 (directional control). SOC should be provided describing the effects which provide training in the specific skills required for recognition of icing phenomena and execution of recovery. The SOC should describe the source data and any analytical methods used to develop icc accretion models including verification that these effects have been tested. Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Entry Number 2.1.3.S EP10JY14.005</GPH> Simulator Levels QPS REQUIREMENTS sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS I~FORMA TION General Simulator Requirements Entry Number Simulator Levels AIBICID Notes data or wind tunnel/analytical data while pcrfonning the recovery maneuver. The following minimum set of upset recovery maneuvers must be evaluated in this manner and made available to the instructor/evaluator. Other upset recovery scenarios as developed by the FSTD sponsor must be evaluated in the same manner: Jkt 232001 • • • A nose-high, wings level aircraft upset. A nose-low, wings level aircraft upset. A high bank angle aircraft upset. PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Upset Scenarios: Selectable dynamic airplane upsets must provide guidance to the instructor concerning the method utilized to drive the FSTD into an upset condition including any malfunction or degradation in the FSTD's functionality required to initiate the upset. To avoid a potential negative transfer of training, the intentional degradation of simulator functionality (such as degrading flight control effectiveness) to drive an airplane upset is ger1erally not acceptable unless used purely as a tool for repositionir1g the FSTD with the pilot out of the loop. Aircraft system malfunctions or other malfunctions may be utilized to stimulate an aircraft upset, however the effects of these malfunctions must be representative of the aircraft and, where possible, supported by data. lOS selectable dynamic airplane upsets that simulate external events (such as a wake vortex encounter) that require pilot intervention to avoid and/or recover from an upset condition must be realistic and based upon relevant data sources. Sfmt 4725 Instructor Operating System (lOS): TI1e simulator must have a feedback mechanism in place to notify the instructor/evaluator when the simulator's validated aerodynamic envelope (in tenns of angle of attack and sideslip) and aircraft operating limits have been exceeded during an upset recovery training task. To allow tor controlled training of upset prevention and recovery maneuvers, the following features as listed below, or equivalent, must be provided: E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM o o A means to playback audio and video A means to record and playback pertinent parameters including: • Aircraft weight and center of gravity • Attitudes, airspeed, altitude, angle of attack, sideslip, and g-loading. • Primary flight control position and force • Secondary flight controls: stabilizer/trim, speed brake, flaps, and gear positions • Warnings (audible and visual), stick shaker/pusher trigger and limits (Cl-max) The data recording may be in time history or graphical fonnat. 10JYP2 Specific Features and/or malfunctions for use in upset prevention and recovery training are not prescribed. The operator may use appropriate available features/malfunctions to ensure a minimum are available to allow for the following: o o Selection of features or malfunctions specifically tailored to allow for the training of crew '·awareness" of a potential upset condition must be provided. Selection of features or maltunctions specifically tailored to allow for the training of crew "recognition" of a developing upset condition must be provided. Selection of features or malfunctions specifically tailored to allow for the training of crew '·recovery" of a developed upset condition must be provided. These features/malfunctions must be evaluated in conjunction with the aerodynamic assessment described above. Statement of Compliance (SOC): more of the tollowing conditions: • Pitch attitude greater than 25 degrees, nose up • Pitch attitude greater than I 0 degrees, nose down • Bank angle greater than 45 degrees • Flight at airspeeds inappropriate for conditions. Airplane upsets should be based primarily upon the criteria defined in the Airplane Upset Recovery Training Aid (revision 2). FSTDs used to conduct upset recovery maneuvers at angles of attack above the stu11 warning system activation must meet the requirements for high angle of attack modeling as described in section 2.1.7.S. Special consideration should be given to the motion system response during upset prevention and recovery maneuvers. Notwithstanding the limitations of simulator motion, specific emphasis should be placed on tuning out motion system responses and effects that have the potentia 1for the transfer of negative traming. Sec Attachment 7 of this Appendix for further guidance material. Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 QPS REQUIREMENTS o EP10JY14.006</GPH> 39494 VerDate Mar<15>2010 Table AlA Minimum Simulator Requirements sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS VerDate Mar<15>2010 Table AlA Minimum Simulator Requirements General Simulator Requirements I~FORMATION B D Notes X See Attachment 7 of this Appendix tor further guidance material. • Jkt 232001 PO 00000 c X A An SOC is required that defines the source data used to constmct the flight test and wind tunnel/analytical envelope. • The SOC must verifY that each upset prevention and recovery feature programmed at the instructor station and the associated training maneuver has been evaluated by a suitably qualified pilot using methods described in this section. The statement must confirm that the recovery maneuver can be performed such that the FSTD does not exceed the flight test and wind tunnel envelope described above, or when exceeded, that it is within the realm of conildence in the simulation accuracy. The SOC must confirm the source of data used for the aircraft operating limits which are used to provide the instructor indications or warnings on approaching or exceeding these limits. High Angle of Attack Modeling The simulator must include aerodynamic modeling for high angle of attack maneuvers to at least ten degrees beyond the stall angle of attack or as required to execute a recovery from a fully stalled flight condition. The following stall maneuvers must be evaluated for qualification: . 2.l.7.S Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 . . . . Sfmt 4725 Specific guidance should be available to the instructor which clearly communicates the flight configurations and stall maneuvers that have been evaluated in the FSTD for use in training. The use of an "alpha/beta" validation envelope that defines the range of stall model validation is encouraged (see section 2.1.6.S.on upset recognition and recovery). Stall entry at wings level (lg) Stall entry in turning flight of at least 25° bank angle (accelerated stall) Stall entry in a power-on condition (required only for propeller driven aircraft) Aircrafl configurations of second segment climb, high altitude cmise (near performance limited condition), and approach or landing. Tests required E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM For stick pusher equipped aircraft, a Statement of Compliance (SOC) is required verifying that the stick pusher system has been modeled, programmed, and validated using the aircraft manufacturer's design data or other acceptable data source. The SOC must address, at a minimum, stick pusher activation and cancellation logic as well as system dynamics, control displacement and torces as a result of the stick pusher activation. A Statement of Compliance (SOC) is required which describes the aerodynamic modeling methods, validation, and checkout of the stall characteristics of the FSl U. The SOC must also include verification that the FSTU has been evaluated by a subject matter expert pilot with acceptable supporting documentation and/or direct experience of the stall characteristics of the aircraft being simulated. Sec Attachment 7 of this Appendix for detailed requirements. 2.1.0 Reserved 2.2 MASS PROPERTIES 2.2.S Type specific implementation of airplane mass propetties, including mass, center of gravity and moments of inertia as a function of payload and fuel loading. 10JYP2 For aircraft equipped with a stall identification system (e.g. stick pusher) that is required for aircraft dispatch, objedive testing will only be re4uired through activation of the stall identification system to recovery to a normal flight attitude. The aerodynamic model must be programmed and evaluated using the best available data to demonstrate the expected aircraft behavior should the stall identification system be overridden or disabled as required for training. Specific FSTD limitations due to data availability must be identified to the NSPM and indicated on the Statement ofQualillcation. See objective testing requirements for details. Reserved Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Entry Number 2.l.R X X X X SOC should include a range of tabulated target values to enable a demonstration of the mass properties model to be conducted from the instructor's station. 39495 The effects of pitch attitude and of fuel slosh on the aircraft center of gravity must be simulated. EP10JY14.007</GPH> Simulator Levels QPS REQUIREMENTS sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Entry Number General Simulator Requirements A B c l~FORMATION D SOC required. 2.2.R Jkt 232001 2.2.0 3. 3.S Notes The SOC should include the effects of t\.tel slosh on center of gravity. Reserved Reserved PO 00000 FEATURE GENERAL REQUIREMENT GROUND REACTION AND HANDLING CHARACTERISTICS Represents ground reaction and handling characteristics of the airplane during surface operations to support the approved use. Frm 00036 Brake and tire failure dynamics (including antiskid) and decreased brake efficiency must be specific to the aircraft simulated. Stopping and directional control forces must he representative for all environmental runway conditions. Represents ground reaction and handling, airplane-like, derived from and appropriate to class. 3.G Represents ground reaction, airplane-like, derived from and appropriate to class. 3.1 3.1.S Sfmt 4725 X Airplane type specific ground handling simulation to include: X X Simple airplane like !(round reactions, appropriate to the airplane mass and l(eomelry. FEATURE TECHNICAL REQUIREMENT GROUND REACTION AND HANDLING CHARACTERISTICS GROUND REACTION AND HANDLING CHARACTERISTICS Fmt 4701 3.R X X X Tests required. E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM ( 1) Ground reaction. Reaction of the airplane upon contact with the runway during take-off, landing and ground operations to include strut deflections, tine friction, side forces, environmental effects and other appropriate data, such as weight and speed, necessary to identify the flight condition and configuration. Ground reaction modeling must simulate the effects of a bounced or skipped landing (to include indications of a rail strike or nosewheel exceedances) as appropriate for the simulated aircraft and conditions; and 10JYP2 (2) Ground handling characteristics. Steering inputs to include crosswind, gusting crosswind, braking, thrust reversing, deceleration and turning radius. Ground handling must react properly to crosswind and gusting crosswind up to the aircraft's maximum demonstrated crosswind component. SOC required. Representative airplane ground handling simulation to include: ( 1) Ground reaction. Reaction of the airplane upon contact with the runway during take-off, landing and ground operations to include strut deflections, tire friction. side forces and other appropriate data, such as weight and speed. necessary to identify the flight condition and configuration; and (2) Ground handling characteristics. Steering inputs to include crosswind, gusting crosswind, braking, thrust reversing, deceleration and turning radius. Ground handling must react properly to crosswind and gusting crosswind up to the aircraft's maximum demonstrated crosswind component. X Tests required. Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Simulator Levels QPS REQUIREMENTS 3.1.R EP10JY14.008</GPH> 39496 VerDate Mar<15>2010 Table AlA Minimum Simulator Requirements sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS VerDate Mar<15>2010 Table AlA Minimum Simulator Requirements Entry Number l~FORMATION Jkt 232001 A 3.2.S Stopping and directional control forces for at least the following runway conditions based on airplane related data: D X X 3.2 SOC required. Surra~t: operations must be represented to the exlentthal allows turns within lhe confines of the runway and adeljuate controls on the landing and roll-out from a crosswind approach to a landing. RUNWAY CONDITIONS c X General Simulator Requirements 3.l.G B Notes Objective tests required for (I). (2) and (3 ). See Attachment 2, tests I.e (stopping). PO 00000 (I) dry; Subjective tests for (4), (5) and (6). See Attachment 3. (2)wet; Frm 00037 (3) 1cy; (4) patchy wet; Fmt 4701 ( 5) patchy icy; and (6) wet on rubber residue in touchdown zone. Sfmt 4725 3.2.R SOC required. Stopping and directional control forces must be representative for at least the following runway conditions based on airplane related data: X E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM (1) dry; and 10JYP2 3.2.G (2)wet. Stopping and directional control forces for dry runway conditions. 3.3 BRAKE AND TIRE FAILURES 3.3.S Brake and tire failure dynamics (including anti-skid) and decreased braking efficiency due to brake temperatures. 3.3.R SOC required. Reserved 3.3.G 4. 4.S X X X X Reserved FEATURE GENERAL REQUIREMENT AIRPLANE SYSTEMS (ATA) Airplane systems must be replicated with sufficient functionality for tlight crew operation to support the approved use. X X X Subjective tests required for decreased braking efficiency due to brake temperature, if applicable. Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Simulator Levels QPS REQUIREMENTS System functionality must enable all normal, abnormal, and emergency operating procedures to be accomplished to include communications, navigation, caution and warning equipment corresponding to the airplane. EP10JY14.009</GPH> Circuit breakers required for operations must be functional. Reserved 39497 4.R sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 39498 VerDate Mar<15>2010 Table AlA Minimum Simulator Requirements Entry Number General Simulator Requirements Jkt 232001 4.G A B c D Notes X X X X Airplane system operation should be predicated on, and traceable to. the system data supplied by the airplane manufacturer, original equipment manufacturer or alternative approved data for the airplane system or component. Reserved 4.1 l~FORMATION FEATURE TECHNICAL REQUIREMENT AIRPLANE SYSTEMS (ATA) NORMAL, ABNORMAL AND EMERGENCY SYSTEMS OPERATION 4.l.S PO 00000 All airplane systems represented in the FSTD must simulate the specific airplane type system operation including system interdependencies, both on the ground and in flight. Systems must be operative to the extent that all normal, abnormal and emergency operating procedures can be accomplished. Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Once activated, proper systems operation should result from system management by the crew member and not require any further input from the instructor's conrrols. 4.1.R Reserved Sfmt 4725 4.l.G E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM Reserved 4.2 CIRCUIT BREAKERS 4.2.S Circuit breakers that affect procedures and/or result in observable cockpit/flight deck indications must be functionally accurate Reserved 4.2.R 4.2.G All relevant instmment indications involved in the simulation of the airplane must automatically respond to control movement by a t1ight crew member or to atmospheric disturbance and also respond to effects resulting from icing. Reserved 4.3.R X X X X X X X X X X X X X N/A. 4.4 COMMU"'ICAT!ONS, NAVIGATION AND CAUTION AND W ARNit\G SYSTEMS 4.4.S Communications, navigation, and caution and waming equipment corresponding to that installed in a specific airplane type must operate within the tolerances prescribed for the applicable airborne equipment. Reserved 4.4.G 10JYP2 4.3.G 4.4.R N/A. 4.5 ANTI-ICING SYSTEMS 4.5.S 4.5.G Operation of anti-icing systems corresponding to those installed in the specific airplane type must operate with appropriate effects upon icc fom1ation on airframe, engines and instrument sensors. Reserved N/A. 5. FEATURE GENERAL REQUIREMENT FLIGHT CONTROLS AND FORCES 4.5.R EP10JY14.010</GPH> X INSTRUMENT INDICATIONS 4.3.S X Reserved 4.3 X Numerical values should be presented in the appropriate units. Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Simulator Levels QPS REQUIREMENTS sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS VerDate Mar<15>2010 Table AlA Minimum Simulator Requirements Entry Number s.s General Simulator Requirements I~FORMATION B Control forces and control travel must correspond to that of the airplane to support the approved use. c D X A X Notes Jkt 232001 Control displacement must generate the same effect as the airplane under the same flight conditions. S.Sl Control reel dynamics must replicate the airplane simulated. Control forces and control travel must correspond to that of the airplane to support the approved usc. X X S.R Reserved Frm 00039 S.Rl Reserved S.G Reserved Fmt 4701 PO 00000 Control displacement must generate the same effect as the airplane under the same flight conditions. 5.1 FEATURE TECHNICAL REQUIREMENT FLIGHT CONTROLS AND FORCES CONTROL FORCES AND TRAVEL 5.1.S, Sl Sfmt 4725 Control forces, control travel and surface position must correspond to that of the type-specific airplane being replicated. Control travel, forces and surfaces must react in the same manner as in the airplane under the same flight and system conditions. E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 5.l.R 10JYP2 X X X X X X Reserved 5.1.0 Reserved 5.2 CONTROL FEEL DYNAMICS 5.2.S Control feel dynamics must replicate the airplane simulated. 5.2.SI,R,G See Attachment 2, paragraph 4 for a discussion of acceptable methods of validating control dynamics. Tests required. See Attachment 2, tests 2.b.l through 2.b.3 (dynamic control checks). N/A. 5.3 CONTROL SYSTEM OPERATION 5.3.S, Sl Reserved 6. 6.S FEATURE GENERAL REQUIREMENT SOUNDCLES N/A. 6.R Significant sounds perceptible to the flight crew during flight operations to support the approved use. X X X Objective tests required. See Attachment 2, 39499 5.3.R, Rl Control systems must replicate airplane operation for the normal and any non-normal modes including back-up systems and should reflect failures of associated systems. Appropriate cockpit indications and messages must be replicated. Reserved 5.3.0 EP10JY14.011</GPH> X Reserved 5.l.RI X Tesling ofpDsilion versus force is nul applicable if forces are generated solely by use of airplane hardware in the FSTD. Active Force feedback required if appropriate to the airplane installation. Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Simulator Levels QPS REQUIREMENTS sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Entry Number General Simulator Requirements A B c l~FORMATION Notes D Section 5. Comparable engine, airframe and environmental sounds. Jkt 232001 6.Rl The volume control must have an indication of sound level setting. Significant sounds perceptible to the flight crew during flight operations to support the approved use. X PO 00000 Comparable engine, airframe and environmental sounds. 6.R2 The volume control must have an indication of sound level setting. Significant sounds perceptible to the flight crew during flight operations to support the approved use. X X Frm 00040 Comparable engine and airframe sounds. Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 6.G The volume control must have an indication of sound level setting. Reserved fi.l FEATURE TECHNICAL REQUIREMENT SOUND CUES SOUND SYSTEM 6.1.R Significant cockpit/flight deck sounds during normal and abnormal operations corresponding to those ofthe airplane, including et1gine and airframe sounds as well as those which result from pilot or instmctor-induced actions. X See Attachment 2. E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM SOC requird. fi.l.RI, R2 6.1.0 Tests required Significant cockpit/flight deck sounds during normal and abnormal operations concsponding to those of the airplane, including engine and airframe sounds as well as those which result from pilot or instructor-induced actions. X X X SOC required Reserved CRASH SOUNDS 6.2.R, Rl The sound of a crash when the simulated airplane exceeds limitations. 6.2.0 Reserved fi.3 10JYP2 6.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SOU "'DS Environmental sounds are not required. [f environmental sounds are pre:,mt, they must be coordinated with the simulated weather. Reserved 6.3.0 6.4 The volume control must have an indication of sound level setting which meets all qualification requirements. X X SOUND VOLUMC 6.4.R X X X Significant environmental sounds must be coordmated with the simulated weather. fi.3.R2 X Full volutne n1ust correspond toactualvolutne levels in the approved data set.\Vhen full volurne_isnotselected, an X The abnormal setting should consist of an anmmciation on a main lOS page which is always visible to the instructor. Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Simulator Levels QPS REQUIREMENTS 6.3.R, Rl EP10JY14.012</GPH> 39500 VerDate Mar<15>2010 Table AlA Minimum Simulator Requirements sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS VerDate Mar<15>2010 Table AlA Minimum Simulator Requirements Entry Number 6.4.Rl, R2 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 6.4.G ()5 General Simulator Requirements indication of abnonnal setting must be provided to the instmctor. The volume control must have an indication of sound kvel selling which meets all qualification requircrnents. A B c X X X D Notes Full volume must correspond to actual volume level agreed at the initial evaluation. \Vhen full volume is not selected, an indication of abnom1al setting must be provided to the instructor. Reserved SOUND DIRECTIONALITY Frm 00041 li.5.R, Rl Sound must be directionally representative. 6.5.R2 SOC required. Sound not required to be directional. Fmt 4701 7. 7.S l~FORMATION Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 X X X X X X X X FEATURE GENERAL REQUIREMENT VISUAL DISPLAV CUE Continuous field of view with infinity perspective and textured representation of all ambient conditions for each pilot, to support the approved use. Horizontal and vertical field of view to support the most demanding maneuvers requiring a continuous view of the runway. 7.S1 A minimum of 200° horizontal and 40° vertical field of view. Continuous field of view with infinity perspective and textured representation of all ambient conditions for each pilot, to support the approved use. X X Horizontal and vertical field of view to support the most demanding maneuvers requiring a continuous view of the runway. 7.R A minimum of 45° horizontal and 30° Vel'tical field of view. Reserved 7.G Reserved 7.1 FEATURE TECHNICAL REQUIREMENT VISUAL CUES DISPLAY 7.1.1 DISPLAY GEOMETRY AND FIELD OF VIEW 7.l.l.S Continuous, cross-cockpit, collimated visual. Display providing each pilot with a minimum 200° horizontal and 40° vertical field of view. The system must be free ftom optical discontinuities and artifacts that create non-realistic cues. See Attachment 2 -Test 4.a.l. An SOC is acceptable in place of this test. EP10JY14.013</GPH> 39501 Note. Where the training task includes circling approaches with the landing on the reciprocal runway, a visualfield of view in excess o(200° horizontal and 40° vertical willlike~v be required. Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Simulator Levels QPS REQUIREMENTS sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 39502 VerDate Mar<15>2010 Table AlA Minimum Simulator Requirements Entry Number 7.1.1.Sl Jkt 232001 General Simulator Requirements A B The simulator must provide a continuous collimated field-of-view of at least 45° horizontally and 30° vertically per pilot seat or the number of degrees necessary to meet the visual ground segment requirement, whichever is greater. Both pilot seat visual systems must be operable simultaneously. The system must be free from optical discontinuities and artifacts that create non-realistic cues. X c l~FORMATION X D Notes See Attachment 2 -Test 4.a.l. Additional field-of-view capability may be added at the sponsor's discretion provided the minimum fields of view are retained. An SOC is required and must explain the system geometry measurements including system linearity and field-olview. PO 00000 7.1.l.R 7.1.2 DISPLAY RESOLUTION Display resolution demonstrated by a test pattern of objects shown to occupy a visual angle of not greater than 2 arc minutes in the visual display mcd on a scene from the pilot's eye point. Reserved 7.1.l.G Reserved SOC required containing calculations con tinning resolution. Reserved 7.1.2.G Reserved 7.1.3 LIGHT-POI"ST SIZE Light-point siLe- not greater than 5 arc minutes. 7.1.3.R SOC required confirnring te"t pallem repre,ents lights used for airport lighting. Reserved 7.1.3.S E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM Fmt 4701 7.1.2.R Sfmt 4725 Frm 00042 7.12.S 7.1.3.G 7.1.4.R X X See Attachment 2- Test 4.a.4. X X See Allachrnenl2 (surface contrast ratio) Test 4.a.5. X Display Contrast ratio- not less than5:1. See Attachment 2 (surtace resolution)- Test 4.a.3. X See Attachment 2 (light-point contrast ratio) Test 4.a.6. Sec Attachment 2 (light-point contrast ratio) Test 4.a.6. X X See Attachment 2, (light-point brighmess)Test 4.a.7. DISPLAY CONTRAST RATIO 7.1.4.S X Reserved 7.!.4 X Reserved Reserved 7.1.5 LIGHT-PO!:\T CO:-.JTRAST RATIO 7.1.5.S Light-point contrast ratio- not less than 25:1. 7.1.5.SI Light-point contrast ratio 7.1.5.R 10JYP2 7.1.4.G Reserved not less than 10: 1. 7.1.5.G I .ight-point brightness- not less than 30 cd/m2 (8.8 foot-lamherts). 7.l.6.R Reserved 7.1.6.G Reserved 7.1.7 EP10JY14.014</GPH> LIGHT-POI:'H BRIGHTNESS 7.1.6.S DISPLAY BRIGHTNESS X Reserved 7.1.6 X Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Simulator Levels QPS REQUIREMENTS sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS VerDate Mar<15>2010 Table AlA Minimum Simulator Requirements Entry Number 7.1.7.S General Simulator Requirements Jkt 232001 7.1.7.R B c D X A Display brightness must be demonstrated using a raster drawn test pattern. The surface brightness must not be less than 20 cdlm1 (5.8 foot-lambcrts). Reserved 7.1.7.G I~FORMATION X See Attachment 2- Test 4.a.8. X X A test is generally only required for light valve projectors. Notes Reserved BLACK LEVEL AND SEQUENTL'\L CONTRAST (Light valve systems only) 7.1.8.S, Sl The black level and sequential contrast need to be measured to determine it is sufficient for training in all times of day 7.l.8.R Reserved 7.1.8.G Reserved 7.1.9 MOTION BLUR (Light valve systems only) Tests are required to determine the amount of motion blur that is typical of certain types of display equipment. A test must be provided that demonstrates the amount of blurring at a pre-defined rate of movement across the image. PO 00000 7.1.8 X X See Attachment 2- Test 4.a 9. Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 7.l.9.S, Sl Sfmt 4725 7.1.9.R E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 7.1.1 O.S, Sl X X X X A test is generally only required for light valve projectors. See Attachment 2- Test 4.a.10. Reserved 7.!.9.G Reserved 7.1.10 SPECKLE TEST (Laser systems only) A test is required to determine that the speckle typical of laser-based displays is below a distracting level. 7.1.10.R Reserved 7.1.10.0 Reserved X X X X A test is generally only required for laser projectors. See Attachment 2 -Test 4.a.ll. 10JYP2 7.2 ADDITIONAL DISPLAY SYSTEMS 7.2.1 HEAD-UP DISPLAY (where fitted) 7.2.1.S, S 1 The system must be shown to perform its intended function for each operation and phase of flight. X X X X See Attachment 2 Test 4.b. X X X X See Attachment 2- Test 4.c. An active display (repeater) of all parameters displayed on the pilot's combiner must be located on tbe instructor operating station (lOS), or other location approved by the NSPM. Display fom1at of the repeater must represent that of the combiner. 7.2.1.R SOC reqLtired. Reserved ENHANCED FLIGHT VISION SYSTEM (EFVS) (Where fitted) 7.2.2.S, Sl EP10JY14.015</GPH> N/A. 7.2.2 The EFVS simulator hardware/software, including associated cockpit displays and annunciation, must function the same or egtli_v<tl_ent to_th"._ EFV~systern install~d inthe airJJ.I<trJ_e._ _ _ 39503 7.2.1.G Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Simulator Levels QPS REQUIREMENTS sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Entry Number General Simulator Requirements l~FORMATION Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 B c D X X X X See Attachment 2- Test 4.d. X Chamcteristic motion vibrations must be measured and compared to airplane data. Notes A minimum of one airport must be modeled for EFVS operation. The model must include an ILS and a nonprecision approach (with VI'\AV if required for that airplane type). Jkt 232001 PO 00000 A Image must be repeated on the !OS as per HUD requirement in section 7.2.l.S. 7.2.2.R lOS weather presets must be provided for EFVS minimums. Reserved 7.2.2.G N/A. 7.3 VISUAL GROUND SEGMENT 7.3.S, Sl A test is required to demonstrate that the visibility is correct on final approach in CAT II conditions and the positioning of the airplane is correct relative to the runway. Reserved 7.3.R 7.3.G Reserved 8. 8.S FEATURE GENERAL REQUIREMENT MOTION CUES N/A. Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 8.Rl 8.R2 Pilot receives an effective and representative motion cue and stimulus, which provides the appropriate sensations of acceleration of the airplane's 6 degrees of freedom (DOF). Motion cues and vibration cues should always provide the correct sensation, to support the approved use. Reserved Pilot receives an effective and representative motion cue and stimulus, which provides the appropriate sensations of acceleration of the airplane's 6 degrees of freedom (DOF). Motion cues should always provide the correct sensation, to support the appi'Oved use. The simulator must have a motion (force cueing) system with a minimum of three degrees of freedom (at least pitch, roll, and heave). Motion effects programming is required. 8.R4 The simulator must have a motion (force cueing) system with a minimum of three degrees offreedom (at least pitch, roll, and heave). 8.G N/A. 8.1 10JYP2 8.R3 X FEATURE TECHNICAL REQUIREMENT MOTION CUES MOTION CUES GENERAL 8.1.R,R2 S.l.RI Motion cues (force) in 6 DOF, as perceived by the pilot, must be representative of the simulated airplane's motion (e.g. touchdown cues must be a function of the rate of descent (RID) of the simulated airplane). SOC required. Reserved X X X X Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Simulator Levels QPS REQUIREMENTS 8.R EP10JY14.016</GPH> 39504 VerDate Mar<15>2010 Table AlA Minimum Simulator Requirements sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS VerDate Mar<15>2010 Table AlA Minimum Simulator Requirements 8.2.R3 General Simulator Requirements A Motion cues (force) in 3 DOF, as perceived by the pilot, must be representative of the simulated airplane's motion (e.g. touchdown cues must be a function of the rate of descent (RID) of the simulated airplane). Jkt 232001 PO 00000 8.2.R4 SOC required. Motion cues (force) in 3 DOF, as perceived by the pilot, must be representative of the simulated airplane's motion. 8.2 B c l~FORMATION D Notes X SOC required. MOTION FORCE CUEING 8.2.R,R2 Frm 00045 8.2.RI 8.2.R3,R4 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 8.3 8.3.R,R2,R3 A motion system (force cueing) must produce cues at least equivalent to those of a 6 DOF platform motion system (i.e., pitch, roll, yaw, heave, sway, and surge). X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X SOC requiretl. Reserved A motion system (force cueing) must produce cues at least equivalent to those of a 3 DOF platform motion system (i.e., pitch, roll, and heave). X X SOC required. MOTION EFFECTS E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 8.3.R,R2,R3 8.3.R,R2,R3 (4) Bumps associated with the landing gear. 8.3.R,R2,R3 (5) Butfet during extension and retraction oflanding gear. 8.3.R,R2,R3 (6) Buffet in the air due to flap and spoilerispeedbrake extension. 10JYP2 Motion effects must include characteristic motion vibrations, buffets and humps that result from operation of the airplane, in so far as these mark an event or airplane state that can be sensed at the cockpitlf1ight deck. Such effects must be in at least 3 axes, x, y and z, to represent the effects as experienced in the airplane: ( l) Taxiing effects such as lateral and directional cues resulting from steering and braking inputs. (2) Effects of runway and taxiway rumble, oleo deflections, uneven runway, runway contamination with associatetl anti-skid characteristics, center line lights characteristics (such effects should be a function of groundspeed). (3) Buffets on the ground due to spoilerispeedbrake extension and thrust reversal 8.3.R,R2,R3 (7) Buffet due to atmospheric disturbances, e.g. turbulence in three linear axes (isotropic). 8.3.R,R2,R3 (8) Approach to stall buffet 8.3.R,R2,R3 (9) Touchdown cues for main and nose gear. 8.3.R.R2,R3 (10) 'Josewheel scutting (if applicable). 8.3.R,R2,R3 ( 11) Thrust effect with brakes set 8.3.R,R2,R3 (12) Y!ach and maneuver buffet 8.3.R,R2,R3 ( 13) Tire failure d)Tiamics. 8.3.R,R2,R3 (14) Engine failures, malfunctions and engine damage. 8.3.R,R2,R3 Touchdown cues should be a function of the rate of descent (R/0) of the simulated airplane X Sec Attachment 3. Touchdown bumps should reflect the effects of lateral and directional cues resulting ftom crab or crosswind lantlings. 39505 Appropriate cues to aid recognition of failures for flight critical cases (e.g. directional and lateral cues for asymmetric engine failure). Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Entry Number 8.3.R,R2,R3 EP10JY14.017</GPH> Simulator Levels QPS REQUIREMENTS sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 39506 VerDate Mar<15>2010 Table AlA Minimum Simulator Requirements Entry Number General Simulator Requirements Jkt 232001 8.3.R,R2,R3 8.3.Rl (16) Other significant vibrations, buffets and bumps that are not mentioned above (e.g. RAT), or checklist items such as motion effects due to pre-flight flight control inputs. Reserved K3.R4 B c D X X A ( 15) Tail and pod strike. 8.3.R,R2,R3 X X X X Notes N/A PO 00000 8.4 MOTION VIBRATIONS 8.4.R Motion vibrations tests are required and must include recorded results that allow the comparison of relative amplitudes versus frequency (relevant frequencies up to at least 20Hz). X See Attachment 2 ~Table A2A, Section 3.f. Frm 00046 Characteristic motion vibrations that result from operation of the airplane must be present, in so far as vibration marks an event or airplane state that can be sensed at the cockpit/flight deck. The FSTD must be programmed and instrumented in such a manner that the characteristic vibration modes can be measured and compared to airplane data. Fmt 4701 K4.R An SOC is required ( l ) Thrust effects with brakes set. 8.4.R (2) Landing gear extended buffet. Sfmt 4725 8.4.R 8.4.R E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 8.4.R X X (7) In-flight vibrations. (8) Stall buffet X (I\) High speed or Mach huffet. 8.4.R,R2 X X X X X X X X (5) Approach to stall buffet. 8.4.R (3) Flaps extended buffet. 8.4.R (4) Speedbrah deployed buffet. 10JYP2 8.4.RI Reserved 8.4.R2 N/A 8.4.R3 N/A 8.4.R4 N/A 9. Reserved FEATURE GENERAL REQUIREMENT ENVIRONMENT- NAVIGATION Navigational data with the corresponding approach facilities to support the approved use. 10 lO.S Navigation aids must be usable within range or line-of-sight without restriction, as applicable to the geographic area. lO.Sl EP10JY14.018</GPH> l~FORMATION A complete navigational database is required for at least 3 airport models Navigational data with the corresponding approach facilities to support the approved use. X X Propener-driven airplanes only. Stall buffet vibration measurements are required for alll'STDs qualified to conduct full stall training tasks. See Attachment 2, Table A2A, test 3.f. Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Simulator Levels QPS REQUIREMENTS sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS VerDate Mar<15>2010 Table AlA Minimum Simulator Requirements General Simulator Requirements l~FORMATION Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 A B c D X X X X X X Notes Navigation aids must be usable within range or line-of-sight without restriction, as applicable to the geographic area. tO.R A complete navigational database is required for at least I airport model N/A. tO.G N/A. !0.1 FEATURE TECHNICAL REQUIREMENT ENVIRONMENT-NAVIGATION NAVIGATION DATABASE lO.l.S,SI Navigation database sufficient to support simulated airplane systems for real world operations. IO.l.R N/A. lO.l.G N/A. Sfmt 4725 10.2 MINIMUM AIRPORT REQUIRE'v:IENT 10.2.S Complete navigation databa~e for atlea~t 3 airports with curre~ponuing pred~ion and non-pred~ion approach procedures. including navigational database updates. Complete navigation database for at least 1 airport with corresponding precision and non-precision approach procedures, includina navigational database updates. N/A. 10.2.SI l0.2.R E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10.2.G Instructor controls of internal and external navigational aids. 10JYP2 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X INSTRUCTOR CONTROLS 10.3.S,Sl X N/A. 10.3 X 10.3.R N/A. 10.3.G E.g. airplane ILS glides! ope receiver failure compared to ground facility glideslope failure. N/A. 10.4 ARRIVAL/DEPARTURE FEATURES 10.4.S,SI Navigational data with all the corresponding standard arrival and depmture procedures. 10.4.R N/A. l0.4.G N/A. NAVIGATION AIDS RANGE l0.5.S,SI Navigation aids must be usable within range or line-of-sight without restriction, as applicable to the geogmphic area. 10.5.R N/A. 10.5.G N/A. 11 tl.S Replication of the geographic environment with its specific limitations. Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Entry Number 10.5 FEATURE GENERAL REQUIREMENT ENVIRONMENT -ATMOSPHERE AND WEATHER N/A. Fully integrated dynamic environment simulation including a representative atmosphere with weather effects to support the approved use. 39507 ll.R EP10JY14.019</GPH> Simulator Levels QPS REQUIREMENTS sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Entry Number Jkt 232001 ll.G A B The environment must be synchronized with appropriate airplane and simulation features to provide integrity. Environment simulation must include thunderstorms, wind shear, turbulence, microbursts and appropriate types of precipitation. Basic atmospheric model, pressure, temperature, visibility, cloud base and winds to support the approved use. X X Fmt 4701 D X X X X X X c Notes The environment must be synchronized with appropriate airplane and simulation features to provide integrity. f'EATURE TECHNICAL REQUIREMENT ENVIRONMENT- ATMOSPHERE AND WEATHER PO 00000 Frm 00048 General Simulator Requirements l~FORMATION 11.1 STANDARD ATMOSPHERE ll.l.S ll.l.R,G Nit\. Simulation of the standard atmosphere including instructor control over key parameters. Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 11.2 WlNDSI-lEAR 11.2.S 11.2.R N/A. If the aircraft being simulated is one of the aircraft listed in § 121.358, Low-altitude windshear system equipment requirements, the simulator must employ windshear models that provide training for recognition ofwindshear phenomena and the execution of recovery procedures. Models must be available to the instructor/evaluator for the following critical phases of flight: (1) Prior to takeotT rotation. (2) At liftoff. (3) During initial climb. (4) On final approach, below 500ft AGL. 10JYP2 The QTG must reference the FAA Wind shear Training Aid or present alternate airplane related data, including the implementation method(s) used. lfthe alternate method is selected, wind models from the Royal Aerospace Establishment (RAE), the Joint Airport Weather Studies (JAWS) Project and other recognized smu-ces may be implemented, but must he supported and properly referenced in the QTG. Only those simulators meeting these requirements may be used to satisfy the training requirements of part 121 pertaining to a certificate holder's approved low-altitude windshear flight training program as described in§ 121.409. The addition ofreahsllc levels of turbulence associated with each required windshear profile must be available and selectable to the instmctor. lnstmctor Operating Station (lOS): All required windshear models must be selectable and clearly labeled on the !OS. Additionally. all IOS selectable windshear models must employ a method, such as a simulator preset, to ensure that the FFS is properly configured for use in training. This method must address variables such as windshear Refer to Attachment 2- Table A2A, Test 2.g. The QTG should reference the FAA Wind Shear Training Aid or present alternate airplane-related data, including the implementation method(s) used. lfthe alternate method is selected, wind models from the Royal Aeroplane Establishment (RAE) Wind Shear Training, the Joint Airport Weather Studies rJA WS) Project and other recognized sources may be implemented, but should be supported and properly referenced in the QTG. If desired, Level A and B simulators may qualify for windshcar training by meeting these standards; see Attachment 5 of this appendix. Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Simulator Levels QPS REQUIREMENTS In addition to the four basic windshear models required for qualification, at least two additional "complex" windshcar models must be available to the instructor which represent the complexity of actual windshear encounters. These models must be available in the takeoff and landing configurdtions and must consist of independent variable winds in multiple simultaneous components. The Windshear Training Aid provides two such example "complex" windshcar models that may be used to satisfy this requirement. Any proposed alternate wind models used to meet this requirement must be properly suppmted and referenced in the Master QTG. EP10JY14.020</GPH> 39508 VerDate Mar<15>2010 Table AlA Minimum Simulator Requirements sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS VerDate Mar<15>2010 Table AlA Minimum Simulator Requirements General Simulator Requirements l~FORMATION B Jkt 232001 c D X A X Notes intensity, aircraft configurations (weights, flap settings, etc.), and ambient conditions to ensure that the proper windshear recognition cues and training objectives are present as originally qualified. 11.2.G Reserved WEATHER EFFECTS !U.S 11.3.R N/A. The following weather effects as observed on the visual system must be simulated and respective instmctor controls provided. PO 00000 11.3 Multiple cloud layers with adjustable bases, tops, sky coverage and scud effect. Storm cells activation and/or deactivation. (3) Frm 00049 ( 1) (2) Visibility and runway visual range (RVR), including fog and patchy fog effect. (4) Etrects on ownship exteruallighting. (5) Objective test required. Refer to Attachment 2 -Test 4.d. Etrects on airpmt lighting (including vatiable intensity and fog effects). Fmt 4701 (6) Surface contaminants (including wind blowing effect). (7) Variable precipitation effects (rain, hail, snow). (R) In-cloud airspeed effect. Sfmt 4725 Gradual visibility changes entering and breaking out of cloud. The following weather effects as observed on the visual system must be simulated and respective instmctor controls provided. (9) 11.3 G E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM X X X X (l) Visibility. 11.4 l1.4.S 11.4.R,G INSTRUCTOR CONTROLS N/A. The following features must be simulated with appropriate instructor controls provided: (I) surface wind speed, direction and gusts. Realistic gusting crosswind profiles must be available to the instmctor that have been tuned in intensity and variation to require pilot intervention to avoid runway departure during takeoff or landing roll; 10JYP2 An SOC is required describing source data used to construct gusting crosswind profiles. (3) (4) X Programmed gusting crosswind intensity and rate of change should be based upon data sources such as the FAA Windshear Training Aid or other acceptable source data. Additional tuning of the gusting crosswind profile(s) by a subject matter expert pilot in order to achieve the required tmining objectives is encouraged. thunderstorms anu micrubursts; and turbulence. FEATURE GENERAL REQUIREMENT ENVIRONMENTAIRPORTS AND TERRAIN N/A. 39509 12 12.S intermediate and high altitude wind speed and direction; X Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Entry Number (2) EP10JY14.021</GPH> Simulator Levels QPS REQUIREMENTS sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Entry Number 12.R General Simulator Requirements l~FORMATION Specific airport models with topographical features to support the approved use. Frm 00050 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM Notes X See Table A3B and Table A3C in Attachment 3 for specific Class I and Class II airport model requirements. X X X Correct terrain modeling, runway orientation, markings, lighting, dimensions and taxiways. Visual terrain and EGPWS databases must be matched to support training to avoid CFIT accidents. Jkt 232001 PO 00000 D X B c X A 12.Rl Where the device is required to perform low visibility operations, at least one airport scene with functionality to support the required approval type, e.g. low visibility taxi route with marker boards, stop bars, runway guard lights plus the required approach and runway lighting. Specific airport models with topographical features to support the approved use. 12.R(S) Correct terrain modeling, runway orientation, markings, lighting, dimensions and taxiways. Visual terrain and EGPWS databases must be matched to support training to avoid CFIT accidents. Reset·ved 12.G Reserved 12.G(S) Reserved 12.1 X VISUAL CUES 12. 1.1 R(S) G(S) 12.1.1R X Reservec1 Visual cues to assess sink rate and depth perception during take-off and landing must be provided. This must include: (I) (2) l2.1.1Rl surface on runways, taxiways, and ramps; terrain features; and (3) highly detailed and accurate surface depiction of the terrain surface within an approximate area from 400 m (l/4 sm) before the runway approach end to 400 m (1/4 sm) beyond the runway departure end with a total width of approximatelv 400 m (1/4 sm) including the width of the nmway. Visual cues to assess sink rate and depth perception during take-off and landing must be provided. 10JYP2 X This must include: 12.1.1U surface on runways, taxiways. and ramps; and (2) terrain features. Reserved 12.2 VISUAL EFFECTS 12.2.1R The system mnst provide visual effects for: (l) light poles; (2) raised edge lights as appropriate; and Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Simulator Levels QPS REQUIREMENTS (1) EP10JY14.022</GPH> 39510 VerDate Mar<15>2010 Table AlA Minimum Simulator Requirements sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS VerDate Mar<15>2010 Table AlA Minimum Simulator Requirements Entry Number General Simulator Requirements Jkt 232001 12.3 The FSTD must provide for accurate portrayal of the visual environment relating to the FSTD attitude. A B c D Notes X X X X Visual attitude versus FSTD attitude is a comparison of pitch and roll of the horizon as displayed in the visual scene compared to the display on the attitude indicator. (3) glow associated with approach lights in low visibility before physical lights are seen. ENVIRONMENT ATTITUDE 12.3.1R,Rl l~FORMATION PO 00000 Required for initial qualification only (SOC acceptable). Frm 00051 Fmt 4701 12.4 AIRPORT SCENES 12.4.1R The system must include at least 3 designated real-world airports available in daylight, twilight (dusk or dawn) and night illumination states. 12.4.1RI The system must include at least 1 designated real-world airport available in daylight, twilight (dusk or dawn) and night illumination states. X Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM X The three required airport models are intended to demonstrate visual system capability and must meet the Class l airport model requirements in Attachment 3, Table A3B. The required airport model is intended to demonstrate visual system capability and must meet the Class l airport model requirements in Attachment 3, Table A3B. System objective tests are required. See Attachment 2 (visual scene 4uality) Test 4.a. X 10JYP2 12.4.1(1 Reserved 12.4.2.1R Daylight Capability. X X SOC required for system capability. The system must provide fhll-color presentations and sufficient surfaces with appropriate textural cues to successfully accomplish a visual approach, landing and airport movement (taxi). SurfilCe shading etlects must be consistent with simulated sun position. X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 12.4.2.2R 12.4.2.3R l2.4.2.4R 12.4.2.4G Total scene content comparable in detail to that produced by 10 000 visible textured surfaces and 6 000 visible lights must be provided. Reserved 12.4.2.5R The system must have sufficient capacity to display I G simultaneously moving objects. 12.4.3.1R Twilight (dusk) capability. 12.4.3.2R The system must provide twilight (or dusk) visual scenes with full colour presentations of reduced ambient intensity and typical terrain characteristics such as fields, roads and bodies of water and surfaces illuminated by representative ovmship lighting (e.g. landing lights) sufficient to successfhlly accomplish visual approach, landing and airport movement (taxi). Total scene content comparable in detail to that produced by 10 000 visible textured surfaces and I 5 000 visible lights must be provided. Scenes must include self-illuminated objects such as road networks, ramp lighting and airport signage, to conduct a visual approach, landing and airport movement (taxi). The system must include a definable horizon. 12.4.3.3R 12.4.3.3R l2.4.3.4R This does not imply continuous time of day. X X If provided, directional horizon lighting should have correct mientation and be consistent with surface shading effects. 39511 EP10JY14.023</GPH> X Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Simulator Levels QPS REQUIREMENTS sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Entry Number General Simulator Requirements Jkt 232001 12.4.3.6R Night capability. 12.4.4.1R,Rl ·1 he system must provrde at night all features applicable to the twilight scene, as defined above, with the addition of 12.5 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4701 A B c D X X X X X X X X X X X X Clutter need not be dynamic unless required (e.g. ATC correlation). X X Speciiic requirements for maintaining airport model currency are described in Attachment 3, Paragraph (f). X X The system must have sufficient capacity to display 16 simultaneously moving objects. 12.4.4R,R I l~FORMATION Notes the need to portray reduced ambient intensity that removes ground cues that are not self-illuminating or illuminated by airplane lights (e.g. landing lights). AIRPORT CLUTTER 12.5.1R Airport models must include representative static and dynamic clutter such as gates, airplanes, and ground handling equipment. 12.6 DATABASECURRE~CY l2.6.1R,Rl The specific airports used in the system must be maintained current with the state of the corresponding real-world airports as identified in the airport charts. 12.7 Reserved Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 12.8 LOW VISIBILITY TRAINING 12.9.1R 13 13.S The system must include at least one airport scene with functionality to support the required approval type, e.g. low visibility taxi route with marker boards, stop bars, runway guard lights plus the required approach and runway lighting. FEATURE GENERAL REQUIREMENT MISCELLANEOUS N/A. l3.Sl X Reserved 12.9 X N/A. 10JYP2 l3.R N/A. l3.G N/A. 13 13.1 FEATURE TECHNICAL REQUIREMENT MISCELLANEOUS INSTRUCTOR OPERA TIN(; STATION 13.1S,Sl The instmctor station must provide an adequate view of the pilots' panels and forward windows. 13.1R X X X X X X X X Reserved N/A. 13.2 INSTRUCTOR CONTROLS 13.2 S,Sl Instmctor controls must be provided for all required system variables, freezes, resets and for insertion of malfunctions to simulate abnonnal or emergency conditions. The effects of these malfunctions must be sufficient to correctly exercise the procedures in relevant operating manuals. SELF DIAGNOSTIC TESTI'IG 13.3 For an FSTD with a motion cueing system, any on board instructor seat should be adequately secured and fitted with positive restraint devices of sufficient integrity to safely restrain the occupant during any known or predicted motion system excursion. Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Simulator Levels QPS REQUIREMENTS 13.1G EP10JY14.024</GPH> 39512 VerDate Mar<15>2010 Table AlA Minimum Simulator Requirements sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS VerDate Mar<15>2010 Table AlA Minimum Simulator Requirements Entry Number 13.3S.S1 l~FORMATION Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM General Simulator Requirements A B c D Self-diagnostic testing of the FSTD must be available to detennine the integrity of hardware and software operation and to provide a means for quickly and effectively conducting daily testing of the FSTD software and hardware. X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 13.4 An SOC is required COMPUTER CAPACITY 13.4 S.Sl Sufficient FSTD computer capacity, accuracy, resolution and dynamic response must be provided to fully support the overall FSTD fidelity needed to meet the qualification type sought. 13.5 Notes An SOC is required AUTOMATIC TESTING FACILITIES 13.5S,SI Automatic QTG/validation testing ofFSTD hardware and software to determine compliance with the validatior1 requirements must be available. 13.5 R,G 13.6 Reserved 13.6 S,SI 13.60 Timely petmanent update ofFSTD hardware and software must be conducted subsequent to airplane modification where it affects training, sufficient for the qualification type sought. Reserved 13.7 DAILY PRE-FLIGHT DOCUMENTATION 13.7 S.SI 13.8 Daily pre-flight documentation either in the daily log or in a location easily accessible for review is required. 13.8 10JYP2 lHS Evidence of testing should include test identification, FSTD number, date, time, conditions, tolerances, and the appropriate dependent variables portrayed in comparison with the airplane standard. UPDATES TO fSTD I lARDW ARE AND SOfTWARE SYSTEM INTEGRATION System lnte!,'fation. Relative response of the visual system, cock.pit111ight deck instruments and initial motion system coupled closely to provide integrated sensory cues. Visual scene changes from steady state disturbance (i.e. the start of the scan of the first video field containing different infonnation) must o~~ur within the system uynamic response limit of 100 milliseconds (ms). Motion onset must also occur within the system dynamic response limit of I 00 ms. While motion onset must occur before the start of the scan of the first video iield containing different infom1ation, it needs to o~cur before the end of the scan of the same video field. The test to detem1ine compliance with these requirements must include simultaneously recording the output from the pilot's pitch, roll and yaw controllers, the output from the accelerometer attached to the motion system platform located at an acceptable location near the pilots' seats, the output signal to the visual system display (including visual system analo6>ue delays) and the output si!,'l1al to the pilot's attitude indicator or an equivalent test approved by the NSPM. Transport delay: Test required. See Attachment 2, Table A2A, Transport delay- Test 6.a. Latency test may be used as an alternate means of compliance in place of the transpoti delay test. Attachment 2, Paragraph 15 provides guidance for transport delay test methodology and also latency. X X Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Simulator Levels QPS REQUIREMENTS Results required for instruments, motion and visual systems. A transport delay test may be used to demonstrate that the FSTD system response does not exceed I00 ms. EP10JY14.025</GPH> Additional transport delay test results are required where H UD systems are installed, which are simulated and not actual airplane 39513 Where EFVS systems are installed, they must respond within+ or- 30 ms from the visual system, and not before the motion response. sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 39514 VerDate Mar<15>2010 Jkt 232001 QPS PO 00000 Entry Number i Simulator Levels REQUIREME~TS General Simulator Requirements A B D Notes systems. Frm 00054 Where a visual system's mode of operation (daylight, twilight and night) can affect performance, additional tests are required. Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 13.8Sl Transp01t delay: X X An SOC is required where the visual system's mode of operation does not affect performance, precluding the need to submit additional tests. Results required for instmments, motion and visual systems. A transpoti delay test may be used to demonstrate that the FSTD system response does not exceed 300 ms. E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM Where EFVS systems are installed, they must respond within+ or- 30 ms from the visual system. and not before the motion response. Additional transport delay test results are required where HUD systems are installed, which are simulated and not actual airplane systems. Where a visual system's mode of operation (daylight, twilight and night) can affect performance, additional tests are required. 10JYP2 An SOC is required where the visual system· s mode of operation does not affect performance, precluding the need to submit additional tests. 13.8 R,G EP10JY14.026</GPH> c INFORMATION Reserved Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Table AlA Minimum Simulator Requirements sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS VerDate Mar<15>2010 Table AlB Table of Tasks vs. Simulator Level QPS REQUIREMENTS Subjective Requirements In order to be qualified at the simulator qualification level indicated, the simulator must be able to perform at least the tasks associated with that level of qualification. Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 1. Preflight Procedures. Preflight Inspection (flight deck only) l.a. Engine Start l.b. Taxiing l.c. Pre-takeoff Checks l.d. 2. Takeoff and Departure Phase. Normal and Crosswind Takeoff 2.a. Instrument Takeotl 2.b. Engine Failure During Takeoff 2.c. Rejected Takeoff 2.d. Departure Procedure 2.e. 3. Inflight Maneuvers. Steep Turns 3.a. High Angle of Attack Maneuvers 3.b. Approaches to Stalls 3.b.l Full Stalls 3.b.2 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 3.c. 3.d. 3.e. 3.f. Engine Failure-Multiengine Airplane Engine Failure-Single-Engine Airplane Specific Flight Characteristics incorporated into the user's FAA approved flight training program. Upset Recognition and Recovery 10JYP2 4. Instrument Procedures. Standard Terminal Arrival I Flight Management System Arrivals Procedures 4.a. Holding 4.b. Precision Instrument 4.c. All engines operating. 4.c.l. A X X I Bl c I Notes D X X X R X X X X X X X X X X A X X R X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X A X X A X X X X A X X A X X X X X X X X X Upset recovery maneuvers conducted within the FSTD's defined validation envelope. X X X Stall maneuvers at angles of attack above the activation of the stall warning system. e.g., Autopilot, Manual (Fit. Dir. Assisted), Manual (Raw Data) EP10JY14.027</GPH> 39515 "A"- indicates that the system, task, or procedure may be examined if the appropriate aircraft system or control is simulated in the FSTD and is working properly. "R"- indicates that the simulator may be qualified for this task for continuing qualification training. "X" - indicates that the simulator must be able to perform this task for this level of qualification. Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Entry Number INFORMATION Simulator Levels sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 39516 VerDate Mar<15>2010 INFORMATION Simulator Levels Subjective Requirements Jkt 232001 Entry Number In order to be qualified at the simulator qualification level indicated, the simulator must be able to pcrfonn at least the tasks associated with that level of qualification. A 4.c.2. One engine inoperative. X X X X 4.d. Non-precision Instrument Approach X X X X IBI c ID Notes PO 00000 e.g., Manual (Flt. Dir. Assisted), Manual (Raw Data) e.g., NDB, VOR, VOR/DME, VOR/TAC, RNAV, LOC, LOC/BC, ADF, and SDF. Specific authorization required. Frm 00056 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 Circling Approach 4.e. X X X X Missed Approach 4.f. Normal. 4.f.l. X X X X One engine Inoperative. 4.f.2. X X X X 5. Landings and Approaches to Landings. Normal and Crosswind Approaches and Landings R X X S.a. Landing From a Precision I Non-Precision Approach S.b. R X X Approach and Landing with (Simulated) Engine Failure Multiengine Airplane S.c. R X X Landing From Circling Approach S.d. R X X Rejected Landing S.e. X X X X Landing From a No Flap or a Nonstandard Flap Configuration Approach S.f. R X X 6. Normal and Abnormal Procedures. Engine (including shutdown and restart) 6.a. X X X X Fuel System 6.b. X X X X Electrical System 6.c. X X X X Hydraulic System 6.d. X X X X Environmental and Pressurization Systems 6.e. X X X X Fire Detection and Extinguisher Systems 6.f. X X X X Navigation and Avionics Systems 6.g. X X X X Automatic Flight Control System, Electronic Flight Instrument System, and 6.h. X X X X Related Subsystems Flight Control Systems 6.i. X X X X Anti-ice and Deice Systems 6.,j. X X X X Aircraft and Personal Emergency Equipment 6.k. X X X X 7. Emergency Procedures. X X X X 7.a. E '"''"'"'t~,;y Descent (Max. Rate) "A"- indicates that the system, task, or procedure may be examined if the appropriate aircraft system or control is simulated in the FSTD and is workmg properly. "R"- indicates that the simulator may be qualified for this task for continuing qualification training. "X" - indicates that the simulator must be able to perform this task for this level of qualification. Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 EP10JY14.028</GPH> Table AlB Table of Tasks vs. Simulator Level QPS REQUIREMENTS sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS VerDate Mar<15>2010 Table AlB Table of Tasks vs. Simulator Level QPS REQUIREMENTS Subjective Requirements In order to be qualified at the simulator qualification level indicated, the simulator must be able to pcrfonn at least the tasks associated with that level of qualification. Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Inflight Fire and Smoke Removal 7.b. Rapid Decompression 7.c. 7.d. Emergency Evacuation 8. Postflight Procedures. After-Landing Procedures B.a. I Parking and Securing 8.b. A X X X X IX IBI c ID X X X X X X Notes X X X X X X IX IX IX Frm 00057 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 EP10JY14.029</GPH> 39517 "A"- indicates that the system, task, or procedure may be examined if the appropriate aircraft system or control is simulated in the FSTD and is working properly. "R"- indicates that the simulator may be qualified for this task for continuing qualification training. "X" - indicates that the simulator must be able to perform this task for this level of qualification. Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Entry Number INFORMATION Simulator Levels sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 39518 VerDate Mar<15>2010 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Entry Number In order to be qualified at the simulator qualification level indicated, the simulator must be able to perfonn at least the tasks associated with that level of qualification. Frm 00058 Fmt 4701 1. Instructor Operating Station (lOS), as appropriate. Power switch( es). I. a. Airplane conditions. Lb. INFORMATION Simulator Levels A IB Ic ID X X X X X X X X Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 l.c. Airports I Runways. X X X X l.d. Environmental controls. X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Airplane system malfunctions (Insertion I deletion) I.e. Locks, Freezes, and Repositioning. l.f. 2. Sound Controls. On I off I adjustment 2.a. 3. Motion I Control Loading System. On I off I emergency stop. 3.a. 4. Observer Seats I Stations. Position I Adjustment I Positive restraint system. , 4.a. X I X I X I X Notes e.g., GW, CG, Fuel loading and Systems. e.g., Selection, Surface, Presets, Lighting controls. e.g., Clouds, Visibility, RVR, Temp, Wind, Ice, Snow, Rain, and Windshear. Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 EP10JY14.030</GPH> Table AIC Table of Simulator System Tasks QPS REQUIREMENTS Subjective Requirements Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Begin Information 1. Introduction a. For the purposes of this attachment, the flight conditions specified in the Flight Conditions Column of Table A2A of this appendix, are defined as follows: (1) Ground—on ground, independent of airplane configuration; (2) Take-off—gear down with flaps/slats in any certified takeoff position; (3) First segment climb—gear down with flaps/slats in any certified takeoff position (normally not above 50 ft AGL); (4) Second segment climb—gear up with flaps/slats in any certified takeoff position (normally between 50 ft and 400 ft AGL); (5) Clean—flaps/slats retracted and gear up; (6) Cruise—clean configuration at cruise altitude and airspeed; (7) Approach—gear up or down with flaps/ slats at any normal approach position as recommended by the airplane manufacturer; and (8) Landing—gear down with flaps/slats in any certified landing position. b. The format for numbering the objective tests in Appendix A, Attachment 2, Table A2A, and the objective tests in Appendix B, Attachment 2, Table B2A, is identical. VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 However, each test required for FFSs is not necessarily required for FTDs. Also, each test required for FTDs is not necessarily required for FFSs. Therefore, when a test number (or series of numbers) is not required, the term ‘‘Reserved’’ is used in the table at that location. Following this numbering format provides a degree of commonality between the two tables and substantially reduces the potential for confusion when referring to objective test numbers for either FFSs or FTDs. c. The reader is encouraged to review the Airplane Flight Simulator Evaluation Handbook, Volumes I and II, published by the Royal Aeronautical Society, London, UK, and AC 25–7, as amended, Flight Test Guide for Certification of Transport Category Airplanes, and AC 23–8, as amended, Flight Test Guide for Certification of Part 23 Airplanes, for references and examples regarding flight testing requirements and techniques. d. If relevant winds are present in the objective data, the wind vector should be clearly noted as part of the data presentation, expressed in conventional terminology, and related to the runway being used for the test. End Information lllllllllllllllllllll PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 Begin QPS Requirements 2. Test Requirements a. The ground and flight tests required for qualification are listed in Table of A2A, FFS Objective Tests. Computer generated simulator test results must be provided for each test except where an alternative test is specifically authorized by the NSPM. If a flight condition or operating condition is required for the test but does not apply to the airplane being simulated or to the qualification level sought, it may be disregarded (e.g., an engine out missed approach for a single-engine airplane or a maneuver using reverse thrust for an airplane without reverse thrust capability). Each test result is compared against the validation data described in § 60.13 and in this appendix. Although use of a driver program designed to automatically accomplish the tests is encouraged for all simulators and required for Level C and Level D simulators, it must be possible to conduct each test manually while recording all appropriate parameters. The results must be produced on an appropriate recording device acceptable to the NSPM and must include simulator number, date, time, conditions, tolerances, and appropriate dependent variables portrayed in comparison to the validation data. Time histories are required unless E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 EP10JY14.031</GPH> lllllllllllllllllllll 39519 39520 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS otherwise indicated in Table A2A. All results must be labeled using the tolerances and units given. b. Table A2A in this attachment sets out the test results required, including the parameters, tolerances, and flight conditions for simulator validation. Tolerances are provided for the listed tests because mathematical modeling and acquisition and development of reference data are often inexact. All tolerances listed in the following tables are applied to simulator performance. When two tolerance values are given for a parameter, the less restrictive may be used unless otherwise indicated. In those cases where a tolerance is expressed only as a percentage, the tolerance percentage applies to the maximum value of that parameter within its normal operating range as measured from the neutral or zero position unless otherwise indicated. c. Certain tests included in this attachment must be supported with an SOC. In Table A2A, requirements for SOCs are indicated in the ‘‘Test Details’’ column. d. When operational or engineering judgment is used in making assessments for flight test data applications for simulator validity, such judgment must not be limited to a single parameter. For example, data that exhibit rapid variations of the measured parameters may require interpolations or a ‘‘best fit’’ data selection. All relevant parameters related to a given maneuver or flight condition must be provided to allow overall interpretation. When it is difficult or impossible to match simulator to airplane data throughout a time history, differences must be justified by providing a comparison of other related variables for the condition being assessed. e. It is not acceptable to program the FFS so that the mathematical modeling is correct only at the validation test points. Unless otherwise noted, simulator tests must represent airplane performance and handling qualities at operating weights and centers of gravity (CG) typical of normal operation. If a test is supported by airplane data at one extreme weight or CG, another test supported by airplane data at mid-conditions or as close as possible to the other extreme must be included. Certain tests that are relevant only at one extreme CG or weight condition need not be repeated at the other extreme. Tests of handling qualities must include validation of augmentation devices. f. When comparing the parameters listed to those of the airplane, sufficient data must also be provided to verify the correct flight condition and airplane configuration changes. For example, to show that control VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 force is within the parameters for a static stability test, data to show the correct airspeed, power, thrust or torque, airplane configuration, altitude, and other appropriate datum identification parameters must also be given. If comparing short period dynamics, normal acceleration may be used to establish a match to the airplane, but airspeed, altitude, control input, airplane configuration, and other appropriate data must also be given. If comparing landing gear change dynamics, pitch, airspeed, and altitude may be used to establish a match to the airplane, but landing gear position must also be provided. All airspeed values must be properly annotated (e.g., indicated versus calibrated). In addition, the same variables must be used for comparison (e.g., compare inches to inches rather than inches to centimeters). g. The QTG provided by the sponsor must clearly describe how the simulator will be set up and operated for each test. Each simulator subsystem may be tested independently, but overall integrated testing of the simulator must be accomplished to assure that the total simulator system meets the prescribed standards. A manual test procedure with explicit and detailed steps for completing each test must also be provided. h. For previously qualified simulators, the tests and tolerances of this attachment may be used in subsequent continuing qualification evaluations for any given test if the sponsor has submitted a proposed MQTG revision to the NSPM and has received NSPM approval. i. Simulators are evaluated and qualified with an engine model simulating the airplane data supplier’s flight test engine. For qualification of alternative engine models (either variations of the flight test engines or other manufacturer’s engines) additional tests with the alternative engine models may be required. This attachment contains guidelines for alternative engines. j. For testing Computer Controlled Aircraft (CCA) simulators, or other highly augmented airplane simulators, flight test data is required for the Normal (N) and/or Nonnormal (NN) control states, as indicated in this attachment. Where test results are independent of control state, Normal or Nonnormal control data may be used. All tests in Table A2A require test results in the Normal control state unless specifically noted otherwise in the Test Details section following the CCA designation. The NSPM will determine what tests are appropriate for airplane simulation data. When making this determination, the NSPM may require other levels of control state degradation for specific PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 airplane tests. Where Non-normal control states are required, test data must be provided for one or more Non-normal control states, and must include the least augmented state. Where applicable, flight test data must record Normal and Non-normal states for: (1) Pilot controller deflections or electronically generated inputs, including location of input; and (2) Flight control surface positions unless test results are not affected by, or are independent of, surface positions. k. Tests of handling qualities must include validation of augmentation devices. FFSs for highly augmented airplanes will be validated both in the unaugmented configuration (or failure state with the maximum permitted degradation in handling qualities) and the augmented configuration. Where various levels of handling qualities result from failure states, validation of the effect of the failure is necessary. Requirements for testing will be mutually agreed to between the sponsor and the NSPM on a case-by-case basis. l. Some tests will not be required for airplanes using airplane hardware in the simulator flight deck (e.g., ‘‘side stick controller’’). These exceptions are noted in Section 2 ‘‘Handling Qualities’’ in Table A2A of this attachment. However, in these cases, the sponsor must provide a statement that the airplane hardware meets the appropriate manufacturer’s specifications and the sponsor must have supporting information to that fact available for NSPM review. m. For objective test purposes, see Appendix F of this part for the definitions of ‘‘Near maximum,’’ ‘‘Light,’’ and ‘‘Medium’’ gross weight. End QPS Requirements lllllllllllllllllllll Begin Information n. 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 should exist from 4 seconds prior to, through 1 second following, the instant of time captured by the snap shot. o. For references on basic operating weight, see AC 120–27, ‘‘Aircraft Weight and Balance;’’ and FAA- H–8083–1, ‘‘Aircraft Weight and Balance Handbook.’’ End Information lllllllllllllllllllll E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS VerDate Mar<15>2010 TableA2A Full Flight Simulator (FFS) Objective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS Tolerance Entry Number Title Flight Conditions Simulator Level Notes Jkt 232001 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM D X X X X X X X X X X May be combined with normal takeoff(l.b.4.) or rejected takeoff(l.b.7.). Plotted data should be shown using appropriate scales for each portion of the maneuver. Minimum radius tum. ±0.9 m (3ft) or ±20% of airplane tum radius. Ground. l.a.2 Rate of tum versus nosewhee1 steering angle (NW A). ± 10% or ±2°/s oftum rate. Ground. l.b. Takeoff. l.b.l Ground acceleration time and distance. ±1.5 s or ±5% of time; and ±61 m (200 ft) or ±5% of distance. Takeoff. l.b.2 Minimum control speed, ground (Vmeg) using aerodynamic controls only per applicable airworthiness requirement or alternative engine inoperative test to demonstrate ground control characteristics. ±25% of maximum airplane lateral deviation reached or ±1.5 m (5 ft). Takeoff. Engine failure speed must be within ± 1 kt of airplane engine failure speed. Engine thrust decay must be that resulting from the mathematical model for the engine applicable to the FSTD under test. If the modeled engine is not the same as the airplane manufacturer's flight test engine, a further test may be run with the same initial conditions using the thrust from the flight test data as the driving parameter. To ensure only aerodynamic control, nosewheel steering must be disabled (i.e. castored) or the nosewheel held slightly off the ground. X X X X If a Vmeg test is not available, an acceptable alternative is a flight test snap engine deceleration to idle at a speed between v, and v,-10 kt, followed by control of heading using aerodynamic control only and recovery should be achieved with the main gear on the ground. Minimum unstick speed (Ymul or equivalent test to demonstrate early ±3 kt airspeed. ± 1.5° pitch angle. Takeoff. Record time history data from I 0 knots before start of rotation until at least 5 seconds after the occurtence of main gear lit1-off. X X X X Ymu is defined as the 10JYP2 For airplanes with reversible flight control systems: _L]O% or _L2.2 daN (5 lbf) rudder pedal force. Plot both main and nose gear loci and key engine parameter(s). Data for no brakes and the minimum thrust required to maintain a steady tum except for airplanes requiring asymmetric thrust or braking to achieve the minimum radius tum. Record for a minimum of two speeds, greater than minimum turning mdius speed with one at a typical taxi speed, and with a spread of at least 5 kt. Note.~- All airplane manufacturer commonZv~used certificated take~offflap settings must be demonstrated at least once either in minimum unstick speed (l.h.3). normal take-()ff (l.b.4), critical engine failure on take-off(!. b. 5) or crosswind take-off (I. b. 6). Acceleration time and distance must be recorded for a minimum of 80% of the total time from brake release to V,. Preliminary aircraft certification data may be used. minimum speed at which the last main landing gear leaves 39521 Taxi. La. I Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 c l.a. PO 00000 Frm 00061 B A l. Performance. l.b.3 EP10JY14.033</GPH> Test Details • Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Test INFORMATION sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 39522 VerDate Mar<15>2010 TableA2A Full Flight Simulator (FFS) Ob.fective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS Entry Number Tolerance Title Flight Conditions Test Details Simulator Level A B c Notes D Jkt 232001 rotation take-off characteristics. PO 00000 the ground. Main landing gear strut compression or equivalent air/ground signal should be recorded. If a Ymu test is not available, alternative acceptable flight tests are a constant highattitude takeoff run through main gear lift-off or an early rotation takeoff. Frm 00062 Fmt 4701 If either of these alternative solutions is selected, aft body contact/tail strike protection functionality. if present on the airplane, should be active. Sfmt 4725 l.b.4 Nanna! take-off. ±3 kt airspeed. ±1.5° pitch angle. E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM +1.5° AOA. ±6 m (20ft) height. 10JYP2 Critical engine failure on take-off. ±2.2 daN (5 lbJ) or ±1 0% of column force. ±3 kt airspeed. ± 1.5° pitch angle. ±1.5° AOA. ±6 m (20 ft) height. ±2° roll angle. ±2° side-slip angle. ±3° heading angle. for airplanes with Data required for near maximum certificated takeoff weight at mid center of gravity location and light takeoff weight at an aft center of gravity location. If the airplane has more than one certificated takeoff configuration, a different wnfiguralion must be used for each weight. X X X X Takeoff Record takeoff profile to at least 61 m (200ft) AGL. Engine failure speed must be within ±3 kt of airplane data. Test at near maximum takeoff weight. The test may be used for ground acceleration time and distance (I. b.!). Plotted data should be shown using appropriate scales for each portion of the maneuver. Record takeoff profile from brake release to at least 61 m (200ft) AGL. For airplanes with reversible flight control systems: l.b.5 EP10JY14.034</GPH> Takeoff. X X X X Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Test INI<'ORMA'flON sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS VerDate Mar<15>2010 TableA2A Full Flight Simulator (FFS) Objective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS Entry Number Tolerance Title Flight Conditions Test Details Simulator Level Notes A B c D X X X X Jkt 232001 ±2.2 daN (5 lbf) or ±I 0% of column force; PO 00000 ± 1.3 daN (3 lbf) or ±10% of wheel force; and Frm 00063 reversible flight control systems: ±2.2 daN (5 lbf) or ±I 0% of rudder pedal force. ± 3 kt airspeed. l.b.6 Crosswind takeoff. Fmt 4701 Record takeoff profile from brake release to at least 61 m (200ft) AGL. ± 1.5° pitch angle. ±1.5° AOA. Sfmt 4725 ±6 m (20 ft) height. ±2° roll angle. E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM ±2° side-slip angle. ±3° heading angle. 10JYP2 Correct trends at ground speeds below 40 kt for rudder/pedal and heading angle. For airplanes with reversible flight control systems: ±2.2 daN (5 lbf) or ±10% of column force; This test requires test data, including wind profile, for a crosswind component of at least 60% of the airplane performance data value measured at I 0 m (3 3 ft) above the runway. Wind components must be provided as headwind and crosswind values with respect to the runway. In those situations where a maximum crosswind or a maximum demonstrated crosswind is not known, contact the NSPM. 39523 ± 1.3 daN (3 lbf) or ±!0% of wheel force; and EP10JY14.035</GPH> Takeoff. • Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Test INFORMATION sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 39524 VerDate Mar<15>2010 TableA2A Full Flight Simulator (FFS) Objective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS Tolerance Entry Nnmber Jkt 232001 l.b.7. Title Rejected Takeoff. ±2.2 daN (5 lbf) or ±I 0% of mdder pedal force. ±5% of time or ±1.5 s. Flight Conditions Takeoff. Test Details Record at mass near maximum takeoff weight. Notes PO 00000 A B c D X X X X Autobrakes will be used where applicable. X X For safety considerations, airplane flight test may be performed out of ground effect at a safe altitude, but with correct airplane configuration and airspeed. Speed for reject must be at least 80% ofV 1• ± 7.5% of distance or ± 76 m (250ft). Maximum braking effort, auto or manual. Frm 00064 Where a maximum braking demonstration is not available, an acceptable alternative is a test using approximately 80% braking and full reverse, if applicable. Fmt 4701 Time and distance must be recorded from brake release to a full stop. Engine failure speed must be within ±3 kt of airplane data. l.b.S. Sfmt 4725 Dynamic Engine Failure After Takeoff. ±2°/s or ±20% of body angular rates. Takeoff. Engine failure may be a snap deceleration to idle. E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM Record hands-off from 5 s before engine failure to +5 s or 30° roll angle, whichever occurs first. CCA: Test in J\ormal and Non-normal control state. l.c. Climb. l.c.l. Normal Climb. all engines operating. ±3 kt airspeed. Clean. 10JYP2 ±0.5 m/s (100ft/ min) or ±5% of rate of climb. Flight test data are preferred; however, airplane performance manual data are an acceptable altemative. X X X X X X X X Record at nominal climb speed and mid initial climb altitude. FSTD performance is to be recorded over an interval of at least 300m (I 000 ft). l.c.2. EP10JY14.036</GPH> One-engineinoperative 2nd segment climb. ±3 kt airspeed. ±0.5 m/s (100ft/ min) or ±5% of rate of climb, but not less than airplane performance 2nd segment climb. Flight test data is preferred; however, airplane performance manual data is an acceptable alternative. Record at nominal climb speed. Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Test INI<'ORMA'flON Simulator Level sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS VerDate Mar<15>2010 TableA2A Full Flight Simulator (FFS) Objective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS Entry Number Tolerance Title Flight Conditions data requirements. B Notes Frm 00065 D X X X FSTD performance is to be recorded over an interval of at least 300 m (I 000 ft). Jkt 232001 PO 00000 c X A Test at WAT (weight, altitude or temperature) limiting condition. One Engine Inoperative En route Climb. ±10% time, ±10% distance, ±I 0% fuel used Clean l.c.4. One Engine Inoperative Approach Climb for airplanes with icing accountability if provided in the airplane performance data for this phase of flight. ±3 kt airspeed. Approach Fmt 4701 1.c.3. Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM l.d. Level flight acceleration ±0.5 m/s (100ft/ min) or ±5% rate of climb, but not less than airplane performance data. Flight test data or airplane performance manual data may be used. Test for at least a 1550 m (5 000 ft) segment. Flight test data or airplane performance manual data may be Lrsed. X X FSTD performance to be recorded over an interval of at least 300 m (I 000 ft ). 10JYP2 l.d.2. Level flight deceleration. l.d.4. Idle descent. :=5% Time ±.05 EPR or ±3% Nl or ±5% of torque. ±5% of fuel flow. ±3 kt airspeed. Cruise Cruise Cruise. Clean. Time required to increase airspeed a minimum of 50 kt, using maximum continuous thrust rating or equivalent. For airplanes with a small operating speed range, speed change may be reduced to 80% of operational speed change. Time required to decrease airspeed a minimum of 50 kt, using idle power. X X X X X X X X X X X X For airplanes with a small operating speed range, speed change may be reduced to 80% of operational speed change. The test may be a single snapshot showing instantaneous fuel flow, or a minimum of two consecutive snapshots with a spread of at least 3 minutes in steady flight. Idle power stabilized descent at normal descent speed at mid altitude. X X 39525 Cruise perfom1ance. .iS% Time Airplane should be contlgured with all anti-ice and de-ice systems operating normally, gear up and goaround flap. All icing accountability considerations, in accordance with the airplane perfom1ance data for an approach in icing conditions, should be applied. Test near maximum certificated landing weight as may be applicable to an approach in icing conditions. Cruise I Descent. l.d.t. l.d.3. EP10JY14.037</GPH> Test Details Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Test INI<'ORMA'flON Simulator Level sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 39526 VerDate Mar<15>2010 Test Entry Number Tolerance Title Flight Conditions Jkt 232001 ±1.0 m/s (200ft/min) or ±5% of rate of descent. l.d.S. Emergency descent. ±5 kt airspeed. As per airplane performance data. Test Details FSTD performance to be recorded over an interval of at least 300m ( 1 000 ft). FSTD performance to be recorded over an interval of at least 900 m (3 000 ft). INFORMATION Simulator Level Notes PO 00000 Frm 00066 B c D X X X X X X X X X X X X X X ±1.5 m/s (300ft/min) or ±5% of rate of descent. I.e. Stopping. l.e.l. Deceleration time and distance, manual wheel brakes, dry runway, no reverse thmst. Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM A ±1.5 s or±5% oftime. Landing. For distances up to I 220m (4 000 ft). the smaller of ±61 m (200 ft) or ±10% of distance. Time and distance must be recorded for at least 80%, of the total time from touchdown to a full stop. Position of ground spoilers and brake system pressure must be plotted (if applicable). For distances greater than I 220 m (4 000 ft), ±5% of distance. l.e.2. Deceleration time and distance, reverse thrust, no wheel brakes, dry runway. Data required for medium and near maximum certificated landing mass. ±1.5 s or ±5% of time; and Engineering data may be used for the medium mass condition. Time and distance must be recorded for at least 80% of the total time from initiation of reverse thrust to full thrust reverser minimum operating speed. Landing 10JYP2 the smaller of ±61 m (200ft) or ±l oo;;, of distance. Position of ground spoilers must be plotted (if applicable). Data required for medium and near maximum certificated landing mass. l.e.3. EP10JY14.038</GPH> Stopping distance, wheel brakes, wet runway. ±61 m (200ft) or ±I 0% of distance. Landing. Engineering data may be used for the medium mass condition. Either flight test or manufacturer's performance manual data must be used, where available. Engineering data, based on dry runway flight test sloppinl!: distance amlth~ effects of contaminated Stabilized descent to be conducted with speed brakes extended if applicable, at mid altitude and near v mo or according to emergency descent procedure. Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 TableA2A Full Flight Simulator (FFS) Ob.iective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS VerDate Mar<15>2010 Test Entry Number Jkt 232001 l.e.4. Tolerance Title Stopping distance, wheel brakes, icy runway. ±61 m (200ft) or± 10% of distance. Flight Conditions Landing. Test Details INFORMATION Simulator Level B Notes runway braking coeflicients, are an acceptable alternative. Either flight test or manufacturer's performance manual data must be used, where available. c D X A • X X PO 00000 Engineering data, based on dry runway flight test stopping distance and the effects of contaminated runway braking coefficients, are an acceptable alternative. Frm 00067 l.f. l.f.]. Acceleration. ±I 0% Ti or ±0.25 s; and ±10% Tt or ±0.25 s. Approach or landing Total response is the incremental change in the critical engine parameter from idle power to goaround power. X X See Appendix F of this part for definitions ofT;. and T,. Fmt 4701 l.f.2. Deceleration. ±10% Ti or ±0.25 s; and Ground Total response is the incremental change in the critical engine parameter from maximum takeoff power to idle power. X X X X See Appendix F of this part for definitions ofT;. and T,. Engines. ±10% Tt or ±0.25 s. X Sfmt 4725 2. Handling Qualities. Contact the NSPM for clarification of any issue regarding airplanes with reversible controls. E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM Note I. Pitch, roll and yaw controller position versus force or time must be measured at the control. An alternative method in lieu of' external test fixtures at the flight controls would be to have recording and measuring instrumentation built into the FSTD. The force and position data from this instrumentation could be directly recorded and matched to the airplane data. Provided the instrumentation was verified by using external measuring equipment while conducting the static control checks, or equivalent means, and that evidence of the smi5factory comparison is included in the MQTG, the instrumentation could be usedfor both initial and recurrent evaluationsjiJr the measurement of all required control checks. Verification of the instrumentation by using external measuring equipment should be repeated if major modifications and/or repairs are made to the control loading ~yslem. Such a permanent installation could be used without any time being lo~t for the installation of external device~. Static and dynamic flight control tests must be accomplished at the samej(xl or impact pressures as the validation data where applicable. 10JYP2 2.a. • Note 2. "" FSTD testingfi'om the second set ofpilot controls is only required if both sets of controls are not mechanically interconnected on the FSTD. A rationale is requiredfrom the data provider if' a single set of data is applicable to both sides. ll controls are mechanically interconnected in the FSTD, a single set o{tests is sufficient. Static Control Tests. Note.- Testing o{position versus force is not applicable if(orces are generated solely by use o{airplane hardware in the FSTD. 2.a.l.a. Pitch controller position versus force and surface position calibration. ±0.9 daN (2 lbf) breakout. ±2.2 daN (5 lbf) or ±10% of force. Ground. Record results for an uninteiTUpted control sweep to the stops. X X X X Test results should be validated with in-flight data from tests such as longitudinal static stability. stalls, etc. • EP10JY14.039</GPH> 39527 ±2° elevator angle. Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 TableA2A Full Flight Simulator (FFS) Objective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 39528 VerDate Mar<15>2010 TableA2A Full Flight Simulator (FFS) Objective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS Tolerance Entry Number Title Jkt 232001 2.a.l.b. Roll controller position versus force and surface position calibration. Test Details Simulator Level Notes PO 00000 Frm 00068 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 B c D ±0.9 daN (2 lbf) breakout. Record results fur an uninterrupted control sweep to the stops. X X X X Record results for an uninterrupted control sweep to the stops. X Ground. Record results of an uninterrupted control sweep to the stops. X X X X Record results of an uninterrupted control sweep to the stops. X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Ground. H .3 daN (3 lbf) or ±10% of force. Test results should be validated with in-flight data from tests such as engine-out trims, steady state side-slips, etc. • ±3° spoiler angle. 2.a.2.b. (Reserved) 2.a.3.a. Rudder pedal position versus force and surface position calibration. ±2.2 daN (5 lbf) breakout. Ground. X X X ±2.2 daN (5 lbf) or ±I 0% of force. Test results should be validated with in-flight data from tests such as engine-out trims, steady state side-slips, etc. ±2° rudder angle. 2.a.3.b. (Reserved) 2.a.4. Nosewheel Steering Controller Force and Position Calibration. " "" -·--·-·--··-·-·-~- -·- ··-··--········ ±0.9 daN (2 lbf) breakout. ··-·· ± 1.3 daN (3 lbf) or ±10% of force. ±2° NWA. Rudder Pedal Steering Calibration. Pitch Trim Indicator vs. Surface Position Calibration. ±2°NWA. Ground. 2.a.6. ±0.5° trim angle. Ground. 2.a.7. Pitch Trim Rate. ±I 0% of trim rate ( 0 /s) or Ground and approach. 2.a.5. Trim rate to be checked at pilot primary induced trim rate (ground) and autopilot or pilot primary trim rate in-flight at go-around flight conditions. The purpose of the test is to compare FSTD surface position and indicator against the software value. ±0.1 °/s trim rate. 2.a.8. EP10JY14.040</GPH> • ±2° aileron angle. Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 A (Reserved} 2.a.2.a. Flight Conditions • Alignment of cockpit When matching engine Ground. For CCA, representative flight test conditions must be used. Simultaneous recording for all engines. The Data from a test airplane or • Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Test INFORMATION sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS VerDate Mar<15>2010 Table A2A Full Flight Simulator (FFS) Ob.fective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS Entry Number Tolerance Title Jkt 232001 throttle lever versus selected engine parameter. ±5° ofTLA. PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 2.a.10 Brake pedal position versus force and brake system pressure calibration. A B c Ground. engineering test bench are acceptable, provided the correct engine controller (both hardware and software) is used. In the case of propeller-driven airplanes, if an additional lever, usually referred to as the propeller lever, is present, it should also he checked. This test may he a series of snapshot tests. X X X X FFS computer output results may be used to show compliance. X X X X Aircraft manufacturer design data may be utilized as validation data as determined acceptable by the NSPM. Both left and right pedals must be checked. ±1.0 MPa(l50 psi) or ±10% ofbrake system pressure. ±10% or ±5 lb (2.2 daN)) Stick/Column force Relate the hydraulic system pressure to pedal position in a ground static test. Ground or Flight Test is intended to validate the stick/column transient forces as a result of a stick pusher system activation. 10JYP2 This test may be conducted in an on-ground condition through stimulation of the stall protection system in a manner that generates a stick pusher response that is representative of an in-flight condition. 2.b.l. : Notes D For airplanes with throttle detents, all detents to be presented and at least one position between detents/ endpoints (where practical). For airplanes without detents, end points and at least three other positions are to be presented. Where the levers do not have angular travel, a tolerance of _L2 em (+0.8 in) applies. ±22 daN (5 lbt) or ±IO'Yo of force. Stick Pusher System Force Calibration Simulator Level tolerances apply against airplane data. ±3% N 1 or ±.03 EPR or ±3% torque, or equivalent. 2.a.9. Test Details pammeters: When matching detents: 2.b. Test requirement may be met through column force validation testing in conjunction with the Stall Characteristics test (2.c.8). Dynamic Control Tests. Note.- Tests 2.h.l, 2.h.2 and 2.h.3 are not applicahlefor F:'iTDs where the controlfhrces are completely generated within the airplane controller unit installed in the FSTD. Power setting may be that required fiJr !eve/flight unless otherwise specified. See paragraph 4 of this attachment.. Takeoff, Cruise, and Pitch Control. For underdamped Data must be for normal control displacements in Landing. systems: both directions (approximately 25% to 50% of full throw or approximately 25% to SO% of T(Po) ±I 0% of Po or maximum allowable pitch controller deflection _LQ.OS s. for flight conditions limited by the maneuvering load envelope). X X 'i n = the sequential period of a full oscillation. Refer to paragraph 4 of this Attachment. 39529 EP10JY14.041</GPH> Flight Conditions • Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Test INI:<'ORMATION sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Entry Number Tolerance Title Flight Conditions Test Details INFORMATION Simulator Level A B c Notes D • Jkt 232001 T(P 1) c!c20% ofP 1 or ±0.05 s. T(P,) ±30% ofP, or ±0.05 s. PO 00000 T(Pn) ± IO*(n+ I)% ofPn or ±0.05 s. Frm 00070 Fmt 4701 T(An) ±10% of Amnx, where Am" is the largest amplitude or ±0.5% of the total control travel (stop to stop). Sfmt 4725 T(Act) ±5% of Act= residual band or ±0.5% of the maximum control travel = residual band. E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM ± 1 significant overshoots (minimum of I significant overshoot). Steady state position within residual band. 10JYP2 Note 1.- Tolerances should not be applied on period or amplitude after the last significant overshoot. -------------- ---------- --------- ---- - - - Foroverdan1ped and __ Tolerances apply against the absolute values of each period (considered independently). • Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Test Note2.Oscillations within the residual hand are not considered significant and are not subject to tolerances. EP10JY14.042</GPH> 39530 VerDate Mar<15>2010 TableA2A Full Flight Simulator (FFS) Ob.fective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS VerDate Mar<15>2010 Test Entry Nnmber Tolerance Title Jkt 232001 PO 00000 2.b.2. Roll Control. critically damped systems only. the following tolerance applies: T(Po) ±10% of Po or ±0.05 s. Same as 2.b.l. Flight Conditions Test Details • INFORMATION Simulator Level A B c • Notes • D • Data must be for normal control displacement (approximately 25% to 50% of full throw or approximately 25% to 50% of maximum allowable roll controller deflection for flight conditions limited by the maneuvering load envelope). X Frm 00071 Takeoff, Cruise, and Landing. X Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 Yaw Control. Same as 2.b.l. Takeoff, Cmise, and Landing. Data must be for normal control displacement (approximately 25% to 50% of full throw). X X 2.b.4. Small Control Inputs -Pitch. ..LO.I5°/s body pitch rate or +20% of peak body pitch rate applied throughout the time history. Approach or Landing. Control iupuls must be typical of minor corrections made while established on an ILS approach (approximately 0.5 to 2°/s pitch rate). X X X X E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 2.b.3. Refer to paragraphs 4 of this Attachment. • • Refer to paragraphs 4 of this Attachment. • Test in both directions. Show time history data from 5 s before until at least 5 s after initiation of control input. 10JYP2 If a single test is used to demonstrate both directions, there must be a minimum of 5 s before control reversal to the opposite direction. 2.h.5. Small Control Inputs Roll. ±0.15°/s body roll rate or ±20% of peak body roll rate applied throughout the time history. Approach or landing. CCA: Test in normal and non-normal control state. Control inputs must be typical of minor corrections made while established on an ILS approach (approximately 0.5 to 2°/s roll rate). • Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 TableA2A Full Flight Simulator (FFS) Ob.fective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS Test in one direction. For airplanes that exhibit non-symmetrical behavior, test in both directions. • EP10JY14.043</GPH> 39531 Show time history data from 5 s before until at least 5 s after initiation of control input. sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 39532 VerDate Mar<15>2010 Test Entry Nnmber Tolerance Title Flight Conditions Test Details INFORMATION Simulator Level B Notes D X If a single test is used to demonstrate both directions, there must be a minimum of 5 s before control reversal to the opposite direction. Jkt 232001 PO 00000 c X A Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 TableA2A Full Flight Simulator (FFS) Ob.fective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS 2.b.6. Frm 00072 Small Control Inputs -Yaw. ±0.15°/s body yaw rate or ±20% of peak body yaw rate applied throughout the time history. Approach or landing. CCA: Test in normal and non-normal control state. Control inputs must be typical of minor corrections made while established on an lLS approach (approximately 0.5 to 2°/s yaw rate). Test in both directions. Fmt 4701 Show time history data from 5 s before until at least 5 s after initiation of control input. Sfmt 4725 If a single test is used to demonstrate both directions, there must be a minimum of 5 s before control reversal to the opposite direction. E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM CCA: Test in nonnal and non-normal control state. 2.c. Longitudinal Control Tests. 2.c.l. Power Change Dynamics. Power setting is that required for level flight unless otherwise specified. 10JYP2 ±3 kt airspeed. ±30 m (I 00 ft) altitude. ±1.5" or ±20% of pitch angle. Approach. Power change from thmst for approach or level flight to maximum continuous or go-around power. X X X X X X X X Time history of uncontrolled free response for a time increment equal to at least 5 s before initiation of the power change to the completion of the power change + 15 s. 2.c.2. Flap/Slat Change Dynamics. ±3 kt airspeed. ±30 m (I 00 ft) altitude. Takeotlthrough initial flap retraction, and approach to landing. CCA: Test in normal and non-normal control mode Time history of uncontrolled free response for a time increment equal to at least 5 s before initiation of the reconfiguration change to the completion of the reconfil,'Uration change+ 15 s. . • EP10JY14.044</GPH> sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS VerDate Mar<15>2010 TableA2A Full Flight Simulator (FFS) Ob.fective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS Entry Nnmber Tolerance Title Flight Conditions Jkt 232001 ±1.5° or ±20% of pitch angle. 2.c.3. PO 00000 Spoiler/Spccdbrakc Change Dynamics. ±3 kt airspeed. Cruise. Frm 00073 ±1.5° or ±20% of pitch angle. Fmt 4701 Gear Change Dynamics. ±3 kt airspeed. Takeoff (retraction), and Approach (extension). Sfmt 4725 ± 1.5° or ±20% of pitch angle. E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM Longitudinal Trim. ±I o elevator angle. 10JYP2 c D Time history of uncontrolled free response for a time increment equal to at least 5 s before initiation of the configuration change to the completion of the configuration change+ 15 s. X X X X Cruise, Approach, and Landing. CCA: Test in normal and non-normal control mode Time history of uncontrolled free response for a time increment equal to at least 5 s before initiation of the confif,'llration change to the completion of the configuration change 15 s. X X X X CCA: Test in normal and non-normal control mode Steady-state wings level trim with thrust for level flight. This test may be a series of snapshot tests. X X X X X X X X ±0.5° stabilizer angle. CCA: Test in normal or non-normal control mode. as applicable. ±I 0 pitch angle. 2.c.6. Longitudinal Maneuvering Stability (Stick Force/g). ±5% of net thmst or equivalent. ±2.2 daN (5 lbf) or ±I 0% of pitch controller force. Alternative method: =I our ±10% ufthe change of elevator angle. Cruise, Approach, and Landing. Continuous time history data or a series of snapshot tests may be used. Test up to approximately 30° of roll angle for approach and landing configurations. Test up to approximately 45° of roll angle tor the cruise configuration. 39533 Force tolerance not applicable if forces arc generated solely by the use of airplane hardware in the FSTD. EP10JY14.045</GPH> B Results required for both extension and retraction. ±30 m (I 00 ft) altitude. 2.c.5. Notes A CCA: Test in normal and non-normal control mode ±30 m (I 00 ft) altitude. 2.c.4. Test Details Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Test INI<'ORMA"flON Simulator Level sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 39534 VerDate Mar<15>2010 Test Entry Nnmber Tolerance Title Flight Conditions Test Details • INFORMATION Simulator Level A B c • Notes D Jkt 232001 Alternative method applies to airplanes which do not exhibit stick-forcc-pcr-g characteristics. • PO 00000 2.c.7. Longitudinal Static Stability. Frm 00074 ±2.2 daN (5 lbf) or ±10% of pitch controller force. Approach. CCA: Test in nonnal or non-nom1al control mode Data for at least two speeds above and two speeds below trim speed. The speed range must be sufficient to demonstrate stick force versus speed characteristics. X X X X X . X Altemative method: This test may be a series of snapshot tests. Fmt 4701 =I 0 or ±10% ofthe change of elevator angle. Force tolerance is not applicahle if forces are generated solely by the use of airplane hardware in the FSTD. Sfmt 4725 Alternative method applies to airplanes which do not exhibit speed stability characteristics. E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM CCA: Test in normal or non-normal control mode, as app licab Ie. Each of the following approach to stall entry methods must be demonstrated in at least one of the three required flight conditions: 2.c.8.a ~pproach to Stall ~haracteristics ±3 kt airspeed for initial buffet, stall waming, and stall speeds. 10JYP2 Control displacements and flight control surfaces must be plotted and demonstrate correct trend and magnitude. Second Segment Climb, High Altitude Cruise (Near Performance Limited Condition), and Approach or Landing . . . Stall entry at wings !eve I (1 g) Stall ently in turning flight of at least 25° bank angle (accelerated stall) Stall entry in a power-on condition (required only for propeller driven aircraft) ±2.0° pitch angle ±2.0° angle of attack ±2.0° bank angle ±2.0° sideslip angle The required cruise condition must be conducted in a flaps-up (clean) confi1,ruration. The second segment climb and approach/landing conditions must be conducted at different flap settings. ±I 0% or ±5 lb (2.2 daN)) Stick/Column force EP10JY14.046</GPH> • CCA: Test in Nonnal and Non-nollllal control states as applicable. Tests may be conducted at centers of gravity and weights typically required for airplane certification stall testing. Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 TableA2A Full Flight Simulator (FFS) Ob.fective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS VerDate Mar<15>2010 Test Entry Number Jkt 232001 2.c.8.b Tolerance Title Stall Characteristics ±3 kt airspeed for initial buffet, stall warning. and stall speeds. PO 00000 Control displacements and flight control surfaces must be plotted and demonstrate correct trend and magnitude. Frm 00075 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 For speeds greater than slick shaker or initial buffet speed: ±2.0° pitch angle ±2.0° angle of attack ±2.0° bank angle ±2.0° sideslip angle E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM For speeds less than stick shaker or initial buffet speed to stall break: ±2.0° pitch angle ±2.0° angle of attack Correct trend and magnitude for roll rate and yaw rate. 10JYP2 Stall Break and Recovery: SOC Required (see Attachment 7) Test Details Second Segment Climb, High Altitude Cmise (Near Performance Limited Condition), and Approach or Landing Each of the following stall entry methods must be demonstrated in at least one of the three required flight conditions: Stall entry at wings level (l g) Stall entry in turning flight of at least 25° bank angle (accelerated stall) Stall entry in a power-on condition (required only for propeller driven aircraft) . . . The required cruise condition must be conducted in a flaps-up (clean) configuration. The second segment climb ami approach/landing wnditions must be conducted at different flap settings. Record the stall warning signal and initial buffet, if applicable. Time history data must be recorded for full stall through recovery to normal flight. The stall waming signal must occur in the proper relation to buffet/stall. FSTDs of airplanes exhibiting a sudden pitch attitude change or "g break" must demonstrate this characteristic. FSTDs of airplanes exhibiting a roll off and/or loss of roll control authority must demonstrate this characteristic. Simulator Level A B • Notes c D X X • Initial buffet onset speed should be based on .03 g peak to peak normal acceleration above the background noise at the pilot seat. Demonstrate correct trend in growth of buffet amplitude from initial buffet to stall speed for normal and lateral acceleration- device manufacturer may limit maximum buffet based on motion platform capability/limitations • Tests may be conducted at centers of gravity and weights typically required for airplane certification stall testing. Numerical tolerances on pitch angle and angle of attack arc not applicable past the aerodynamic stall (g-break, pitch break, etc.) but must demonstrate correct trend through recovery. For aircraft equipped with a stall identification system (e.g. stick pusher), flight test validation data to the aerodynamic stall is not required where the system is required to be operational for aircraft dispatch. CCA: Test in Norn1al and Non-normal control states as applicable .. • EP10JY14.047</GPH> 39535 ±10% or ±5lb (2.2 daN)) Stick/Colnrnn force (prior to "g break'' only). See general requirements (high angle of attack modeling) for additional requirements on stick pusher system modeling. Flight Conditions • INFORMATION Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 TableA2A Full Flight Simulator (FFS) Ob.fective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Entry Number 2.c.9. Tolerance Title Phugoid Dynamics. ±10% ofperiod. Flight Conditions Cruise. Jkt 232001 PO 00000 ± 10% of time to one half or double amplitude or ±0.02 of damping ratio. 2.c.10 Short Period Dynamics. ± 1.5° pitch angle or ±2°/s pitch rate. Cruise. Test Details Test must include three full cycles or that necessary to determine time to one half or double amplitude, whichever is less. CCA: Test in non-normal control mode. CCA: Test in normal and non-normal control mode. INI<'ORMA'flON Simulator Level • Notes A B c D X X X X X X X X . Frm 00076 ±0.1 gnormal acceleration 2.c.11. Fmt 4701 2.d. (Reserved) Lateral Directional Tests. Power setting is that required for level flight unless otherwise specified. 2.d.l. Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 2.d.2. Minimum control speed, air (Ymca) or landing (VmcJ), per applicable airworthiness requirement or low speed engineinoperative handling characteristics in the air. Roll Response (Rate). ±3 kt airspeed. Takeoff or Landing (whichever is most critical in the airplane). Takeoff thrust must be set on the operating engine(s). 10JYP2 X X X X X X X X X X X Minimum speed may be defined by a performance or control limit which prevents demonstration of V mea or Ymc~ in the conventional manner. X Time history or snapshot data may be used. CCA: Test in normal or non-normal control state, as applicable. ±2°/s or +10% of roll rate. Cruise, and Approach or Landing. For airplanes with reversible flight control systems: Step input of flight deck roll controller. • ± 1.3 daN (3 lbt) or ±10% ofwheel force. ±2° or±l 0% of roll angle. Test with normal roll control displacement (approximately one-third of maximum roll controller travel). This test may be combined with step input of flight deck roll controller test 2.d.3. i Approach or Landing. This test may be combined with roll response (rate) test 2.d.2. CCA: Test in normal and non-normal control mode With wings level, apply a step • roll control input using approximately one-third of the roll controller travel. When reaching approximately 20° to 30° of bank, abruptly return the roll controller to neutral and allow Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Test 2.d.3. EP10JY14.048</GPH> 39536 VerDate Mar<15>2010 TableA2A Full Flight Simulator (FFS) Objective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS VerDate Mar<15>2010 Test Entry Nnmber Tolerance Title Flight Conditions Test Details INFORMATION Simulator Level A B c Notes D Jkt 232001 approximately 10 seconds of airplane free response. 2.d.4. Spiral Stability. PO 00000 Correct trend and ±2° or +10% of roll angle in 20 s. Cruise. and Approach or Landing. Airplane data averaged from multiple tests may be used. Frm 00077 X X X X X X X X Test for both directions. As an alternative test, show lateral control required to maintain a steady turn with a roll angle of approximately 30°. If alternate test is used: correct trend and ±2° aileron angle. CCA: Test in non-normal control mode. 2.d.5. Fmt 4701 Engine Inoperative Trim. ± 1o rudder angle or± 1o tab angle or equivalent rudder pedal. Second Segment Climb, and Approach or Landing. This test may consist of snapshot tests. ±2° side-slip angle. Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 2nd segment climb test should be at takeoff thrust. Approach or landing test should be at thrust for level flight. 2.d.6. Rudder Response. ±2°/s or ±I 0% of yaw rate. Approach or Landing. Test with stability augmentation on and off. X 10JYP2 X X X X X X Test with a step input at approximately 25% of full rudder pedal throw. 2.d.7. Dutch Roll ±0.5 s or ±10% of period. ±I 0% of time to one half or double amplitude or ±.02 of damping ratio. Cmise, and Approach or Landing. CCA: Test in normal and non-normal control mode Test for at least six cycles with stability augmentation oti CCA: Test in non-normal control mode. 39537 ± 1 s or ±20% of time difference between peaks of roll angle and EP10JY14.049</GPH> Test should be performed in a manner similar to that for which a pilot is trained to trim an engine failure condition. Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 TableA2A Full Flight Simulator (FFS) Ob.fective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 39538 VerDate Mar<15>2010 TableA2A Full Flight Simulator (FFS) Ob.fective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS Entry Number Tolerance Title Flight Conditions Test Details Simulator Level A B c Notes D • . side-slip angle. Jkt 232001 2.d.8. Steady State Sideslip. For a given rudder position: PO 00000 Approach or Landing. This test may be a series of snapshot tests using at least two rudder positions (in each direction for propeller-driven airplanes), one of which must be near maximum allowable mdder. Landing. Test from a minimum of61 m (200ft) AGL to nosewheel touchdown. ±2° roll angle; X X X X X X X ± 1o side-slip angle; Frm 00078 ±2° or± 10% of aileron angle; and Fmt 4701 ±5° or± 10% of spoiler or equivalent roll controller position or force. Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM For airplanes with reversible flight control systems: ± 1.3 daN (3 lbf) or ±10% of wheel force. ±2.2 daN (5 lbf) or ± 10% of mdder peda I force. 10JYP2 2.e. Landings. 2.e.l. Normal Landing. ±3 kt airspeed. ±1.5° pitch angle. CCA: Test in normal and ±1.5° AOA. ±3m (10ft) or ±10% of height. For airplanes with reversible flight control EP10JY14.050</GPH> non-nmmal control mode, if applicable. Two tests should be shown, including two nmmal landing f1aps (if applicable) one of which should be near maximum certificated landing mass, the other at light or medium mass. Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Test INI<'ORMA'flON sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS VerDate Mar<15>2010 Test Entry Nnmber Tolerance Title Flight Conditions Test Details INFORMATION Simulator Level A B c • Notes D • Jkt 232001 systems: PO 00000 2.e.2. Minimum Flap Landing. ±2.2 daN (5 lbt) or ±I 0% of column force. ±3 kt airspeed. ± 1.5° pitch angle. • I Minimum Certified Landing Flap Configuration. Test from a minimum of61 m (200 fi) AGL to noscwhccl touchdown. X X • Test at near maximum certificated landing weight. Frm 00079 ±l.5° AOA. ±3m (10ft) or±lO% of height. Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 For airplanes with reversible flight control systems: E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 2.e.3. Crosswind Landing. ±2.2 daN (5 lbf) or ±I 0% of column force. ±3 kt airspeed. ±1.5° pitch angle. ±1.5° AOA. ±3m (10ft) or±IO% of height. 10JYP2 ±2° roll angle. • Landing. Test ftom a minimum of 61 m (200 ft) AGL to a 50% decrease in main landing gear touchdown speed. Test data is required, including wind profile, for a crosswind component of at least 60% of airplane performance data value measured at 10m (33ft) above the runway. X X X ln those situations where a maximum crosswind or a maximum demonstrated crosswind is not known, contact the NSPM. • Wind components must be provided as headwind and crosswind values with respect to the runway. ±2° side-slip angle. ±3 o heading angle. Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 TableA2A Full Flight Simulator (FFS) Objective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS For airplanes with reversible flight control systems: • EP10JY14.051</GPH> 39539 ±2.2 daN (5 lbf) or ±10%of sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 39540 VerDate Mar<15>2010 TableA2A Full Flight Simulator (FFS) Objective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS Entry Number Tolerance Title Flight Conditions Simulator Level Test Details A B c Notes D column force. • Jkt 232001 ±1.3 daN (3 lbf) or +10% of wheel force. PO 00000 Frm 00080 2.e.4. One Engine Inoperative Landing. +2.2 daN (5 lbf) or ±I 0% of rudder peda I force. ±3 kt airspeed. ! Test from a minimum of61 m (200ft) AGL to a 50% decrease in main landing gear touchdown speed. X X X Landing. If autopilot provides roll-out guidance. record lateral deviation from touchdown to a 50% decrease in main landing gear touchdown speed. X X X X X X X X X ±1.5° AOA. Fmt 4701 ±3m (10ft) or±IO%, of height. Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM Landing. ± 1.5° pitch angle. ±2° roll angle. ±2° side-slip angle. 2.e.5. Autopilot landing (if applicable). ±3° heading angle. ±1.5 m (5 ft) flare height. ±0.5 s or± 10% ofTf. 10JYP2 Time of autopilot flare mode engage and main gear touchdown must be noted. ±0.7 m/s (140ft/min) rate of descent at touchdown. 2.e.6. All-engine autopilot go-around. ±3m (10ft) lateral deviation during rollout. ±3 kt airspeed. As per airplane performance data. Normal all-engine autopilot go-around must be demonstrated (if applicable) at medium weight. As per airplane Engine inoperative ±1.5° pitch angle. 2.e.7. EP10JY14.052</GPH> • One engine =1.5° AOA. ±3 kt airspeed. go~around required near See Appendix F of this part for definition ofT f. • Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Test INI<'ORMA'flON sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS VerDate Mar<15>2010 TableA2A Full Flight Simulator (FFS) Ob.fective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS Entry Nnmber Tolerance Title Jkt 232001 inoperative go around. Flight Conditions perfom1ance data. ± 1.5° pitch angle. Test Details INI<'ORMA"flON Simulator Level A B c • Notes • D maximum cetiificated landing weight with critical engine inoperative. • Provide one test with autopilot (if applicable) and one without autopilot. ±1.5° AOA. PO 00000 ±2° roll angle. CCA: Non-autopilot test to be conducted in nonnormal mode. ±2° side-slip angle. Frm 00081 2.e.8. Fmt 4701 2.e.9. Sfmt 4725 2.f. Directional control (mdder effectiveness) with symmetric reverse thrust. Directional control (rudder effectiveness) with asymmetric reverse thrust. ±5 kt airspeed. Apply mdder pedal input in both directions using full reverse thmst until reaching full thmst reverser minimum operating speed. X X X Landing. With full reverse thrust on the operating engine(s), maintain heading with rudder pedal input until maximum rudder pedal input or thrust reverser minimum operation speed is reached. X X X Landing. A rationale must be provided with justification of results. X X X ±2°/S yaw rate. +5 kt airspeed. ±3° heading angle. . • Ground Effect. Test to demonstrate Ground Effect. E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM Landing. ± l 0 elevator angle. ±0.5° stabilizer angle. See paragraph 5 of this Attachment for additional infonnation. CCA: Test in normal or non-normal control mode. as applicable. ±5% of net thmst or equivalent. ±1° AOA. 10JYP2 ±1.5 rn (5 ft) or ±10%> of height. ±3 kt airspeed. ±I 0 pitch angle. 2.g. See Attachment 5 of this appendix. Takeoff and Landing. Requires windshear models that provide training in the specific skills needed to recognize windshear phenomena and to execute recovery procedures. See Attachment 5 of this appendix for tests, tolerances, and procedures. X X See Attachment 5 of this appendix for information related to Level A and B simulators. • • 39541 Four tests, two takeoff and two landing, with one of each conducted in still air and the other with windshear active EP10JY14.053</GPH> • Windshear. Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Test • sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 39542 VerDate Mar<15>2010 Test Entry Number Flight Conditions Tolerance Title Test Details INFORMATION Simulator Level Notes PO 00000 2.h.2. Minimum Speed. ±3 kt airspeed. 2.h.3. Load Factor. ±O.Ig normal load factor Takeoff: Cruise, and Approach or Landing. Takeoff, Cruise. 2.h.4. Pitch Angle. ±!.5° pitch angle Cruise, Approach. 2.h.5. Bank Angle. ±2° or± I 0% bank angle Approach. 2.h.6. Angle of Attack. ±1.5° angle of attack 2.i. Engine and Airframe Icing Effects Demonstration (Aerodynamic Stall) Second Segment Climb, and Approach or Landing. Takeoff, Approach, or Landing Frm 00082 Jkt 232001 2.h.l. c D X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X to demonstrate windsheaT models. Flight Maneuver and Envelope Protection Functions. The requirements of"2.h are only applicable to computer-controlled ailplanes. Time history results of response Note. to control inputs during entry into each envelope protectionfimction (i.e. with normal and degraded control states if their fimction is different) are required. Set thrust as required to reach the envelope protection fimction. Overspeed. ±5 kt airspeed. Cruise. B X X X X 2.h. A • Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 EP10JY14.054</GPH> • • Time history of a full stall and initiation of the recovery. Tests are intended to demonstrate representative aerodynamic effects caused by inflight ice accretion. Flight test validation data is not required. Two tests are required to demonstrate engine and airframe icing effects. One test will demonstrate the FSTDs baseline performance without icc accretion, and the second test will demonstrate the aerodynamic effects of ice accretion relative to the baseline test. The test must utilize the icing model(s) as described in the required Statement of Compliance in Table AlA, Section 2.j. Test must include rationale that describes the icing effects being demonstrated. Icing effects must include, but are not limited to the following effects as applicable to the particular airplane: • Decrease in stall angle of attack • Changes in pitching moment • Decrease in control effectiveness • Changes in control forces • Increase in drag • Change in stall buffet characteristics and onset. Tests will be evaluated for representative effects on relevant aerodynamic parameters such as angle of attack, control inputs, and thrust/power settings. Plotted parameters must include: • Altitude • Airspeed • Nonnal acceleration • Engine power • Angle of attack • Pitch attitude • Bank angle • Flight control inputs • Stall warning and stall buffet onset • Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 TableA2A Full Flight Simulator (FFS) Objective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS VerDate Mar<15>2010 TableA2A Full Flight Simulator (FFS) Objective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS Tolerance Rntry Number Title Flight Conditions Test Details Simulator Level A B c • Notes D Jkt 232001 • Engine eftects (power reduction/variation, vibration, etc.) 3. Motion System. 3.a. Frequency response. • • PO 00000 As specified by the sponsor for FSTD qualification. Frm 00083 3.b. Not applicable. Appropriate test to demonstrate required frequency response. X X X X See paragraph 6 of this Attachment. • Turn-around check. As specified by the sponsor tor FSTD qualification. Appropriate test to demonstrate required smooth tum-around. Fmt 4701 Motion effects. 3.d. Not applicable. X X X X See paragraph 6 of this Attachment. X 3.c X X X Refer to Appendix C of this Part on subjective testing. Motion system repeatability. Sfmt 4725 Motion system repeatability +0.05 g actual platfom1 linear accelerations. • None. X X X X E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM Ensure that motion system hardware and software (in normal FSTD operating mode) continue to perform as originally qualified. Performance changes from the original baseline can be readily identified with this information. • See paragraph 6.c. of this Attachment. 10JYP2 3.e. 3.e.l. Motion cueing fidelity Motion cueing As specified by the fidelity- Frequencysponsor for flight domain criterion. simulator qualification. Characteristic motion vibrations. The following tests For the motion system as applied during training, record the combined modulus and phase of the motion cueing algorithm and motion platform over the frequency range appropriate to the characteristics of the simulated aircraft. This test is only required during the initial FSTD qualification. X X X X See paragraph 6.d. of this Attachment. • Reserved 3.f Ground and flight. None. Ground and flight. X The recorded test results for characteristic buffets should allow the comparison of 39543 3.e.2. EP10JY14.055</GPH> • Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Test INI<'ORMA'flON sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 39544 VerDate Mar<15>2010 TableA2A Full Flight Simulator (FFS) Ob.fective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS Entry Number Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00084 3.f.I. Tolerance Title with recorded results and an SOC are required for characteristic motion vibrations, which can be sensed at the flight deck where applicable by airplane type. Thmst effect with brakes set. Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 3.f.3. Buffet with flaps extended. Buffet with speedbrakes deployed. 10JYP2 Buffet with landing gear extended. 3.f.4. E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 3.f.2. Flight Conditions Test Details Simulator Level A B c Notes I D relative amplitude versus frequency. • See also paragraph 6.e. of this Attachment. The FSTD test results must exhibit the overall appearance and trends of the airplane data. with at least three (3) of the predominant frequency "spikes" being present within ± 2 Hz of the airplane data. The FSTD test results must exhibit the overall appearance and trends of the airplane data, with at least three ( 3) of the predominant frequency "spikes" being present within ± 2 Hz of the airplane data. The FSTD test results must exhibit the overall appearance and trends of the airplane data, with at least three (3) of the predominant frequency "spikes" being present within± 2 Hz of the airplane data. The FSTIJ test results must exhibit the overall appearance and trends of the airplane data, with at least three (3) of the predominant frequency "spikes" being present within ± 2 Ground. Test must be conducted at maximum possible thrust with brakes set. X Flight. Test condition must be for a normal operational speed and not at the gear limiting speed. X Flight. Test condition must be at a normal operational speed and not at the flap limiting speed. X Flight. Test condition must be at a typical speed for a representative buffet. X • EP10JY14.056</GPH> Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Test INI<'ORMA'flON sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS VerDate Mar<15>2010 TableA2A Full Flight Simulator (FFS) Objective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS Tolerance Rntry Number Title Jkt 232001 Buffet at approachto-stall. 3.f.6. Buffet at high airspeeds or high Mach. 3.f.7. In-flight vibrations for propeller driven airplanes. 3.f.8 Buffet at stall. PO 00000 3.f.5. Frm 00085 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 liz of the airplane data. The FSTD test results must exhibit the overall appearance and trends of the airplane data, with at least three (3) of the predominant frequency "spikes" being present within ± 2 Hz of the airplane data. The FSTD test results must exhibit the overall appearance and trends of the airplane data, with at least three (3) of the predominant frequency "spikes" being present within ± 2 Hz of the airplane data. The FSTD test results must exhibit the overall appearance and trends of the airplane data, with at least three (3) of the predominant frequency "spikes" being present within ± 2 Hz of the airplane data. The FSTD test results must exhibit the overall appearance and trends of the airplane data, with at least three (3) of the predominant frequency "spikes" being present within± 2 Hz of the airplane data. Flight Conditions Test Details Flight. Simulator Level c B A • Notes D . X Test condition must be at approach to stall. Post-stall characteristics are not required. • Flight. X Test condition should be for high-speed maneuver buffet/wind-up-turn or alternatively Mach buffet. Flight (clean configuration). X Test should be conducted to be representative ofin-tlight vibrations for propellerdriven airplanes. X ff stabilized flight data between initial buffet and stall speed are not available, PSD analysis should be conducted for a time span between initial buffet and stall speed. Cruise (High Altitude) and Second Segment Climb, or Approach or Landing X Tests must be conducted for approach to stall at angles of attack between the initial buffet and the critical angle of attack. Post stall characteristics are not required. Test required only for those FSTDs qualified for full stall training tasks. • Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Test INI<'ORMA'flON 4. Visual System. Visual scene quality 4.a.l. Continuous collimated crosscockpit visual field of VlCW. ' EP10JY14.057</GPH> Cross-cockpit, collimated visual display providing each pilot with a minimum of Not applicable. Required as part ofMQTG but not required as part of continuing evaluations. ' X . ' X Field of view should be measured using a visual test pattern filling the entire visual scene (all channels) • • 39545 4.a. sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Entry Number Flight Conditions Tolerance Title Test Details INFORMATION Simulator Level A B c Notes D Jkt 232001 200° horizontal and 40° vertical continuous field of view. PO 00000 Frm 00086 Continuous collimated crosscockpit visual field of vrew. Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 4.a.2. System geometry Image position. consisting of a matrix of black and white 5° squares. Not applicable. Required as part ofMQTG but not required as part of continuing evaluations. X i Installed alignment should be confirmed in an SOC (this would generally consist of results from acceptance testing). A vertical field-of-view of 30° may be insufficient to meet visual ground segment requirements. X System geometry 4.a.2.a. I Continuous collimated field-of-view providing at least 45° horizontal and 30° vertical fieldof-view for each pilot seat. Both pilot seat visual systems must be operable simultaneously. • • E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM From each eyepoint position the center of the image is between oo and 2o inboard in the horizontal plane and within +/-0.25° vertically. 10JYP2 The difference between the left and right horizontal angles must not exceed I Within the central 200° x 40°, all points on a 5degree grid must fall within 3 ° of the design position as measured from each pilot eyepoint. Measurements of relative dot positions must be made every 5 degrees. Not X X The image position should be ' checked relative to the FSTD centerline. • Where there is a design offset in the vertical display center this should be stated. 0 • 4.a.2.a.2 System geometry Absolute geometry. System geometryRelative geometry. Not applicable. Not applicable. X X X X Where a >ystem with more than 200° x 40° is supplied, the geometry outside the central area should not have any distracting discontinuities. For a diagram showing zones L 2 and 3 and further discussion ofthis test, see paragraph 18 ofthis Attachment. • • ! Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Test 4.a.2.a.3 EP10JY14.058</GPH> 39546 VerDate Mar<15>2010 TableA2A Full Flight Simulator (FFS) Objective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS VerDate Mar<15>2010 Test Entry Nnmber Tolerance Title Flight Conditions Test Details • INFORMATION Simulator Level A B c • Notes • D Jkt 232001 In the area from -I oo to the lowest visible point at 15° azimuth inboard, 0°, 30°, 60° and 90° degrees outboard for each pilot position, vertical measurements must be made every 1° to the edge of the visible image. PO 00000 Note.- A means to perform this check with a simple golno go gauge is encouraged for recurrent testing. • Frm 00087 Fmt 4701 The relative position from one point to the next must not exceed: Zone 1: 0.075°/degree; Sfmt 4725 Zone 2: 0.15°/degree; 4.a.3 Surface resolution (object detection). Zone 3: 0.2°/degree. Not greater than 2 arc minutes. Not applicable. X X E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM Resolution will be demonstrated by a test of objects shown to occupy the required visual angle in each visual display used on a scene from the pilot's eyepoint. The object will subtend 2 arc minutes to the eye. 10JYP2 This may be demonstrated using threshold bars for a horizontal test. A vertical test should also be demonstrated. 4.a.4 Not greater than 5 arc minutes. Not applicable. X X i • 39547 EP10JY14.059</GPH> Light point size. The subtended angles should be confirmed by calculations in an SOC. Light point size should be measured using a test pattern consisting of a centrally located single row of white light points displayed as both Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 TableA2A Full Flight Simulator (FFS) Ob.fective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 39548 VerDate Mar<15>2010 TableA2A Full Flight Simulator (FFS) Ob.fective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS Entry Nnmber Tolerance Title Flight Conditions Test Details INI<'ORMA"flON Simulator Level A B c • Notes • D Jkt 232001 a horizontal and vertical row. ! It should be possible to move the light points relative to the eyepoint in all axes. PO 00000 Frm 00088 At a point where modulation is just discernible in each visual channel, a calculation should be made to determine the light spacing. Fmt 4701 4.a.5 Sfmt 4725 An SOC is required to state dation. test method and ---.. -j-l• Surface contrast ratio should be measured using a raster drawn test pattern tilling the entire visual scene (all channels). -~--·· Raster surface contrast ratio. Not less than 5: I. Not applicau'"· X X E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM The test pattern should consist of black and white squares, 5° per square, with a white square in the center of each channel. 10JYP2 Measurement should be made on the center bright square for each channel using a I" spot photometer. This value should have a minimum brightness of7 cd/rn2 (2 ftlamberts). Measure any adjacent dark squares. The contrast ratio is the bright square value divided by the dark square value. Note f. -During contrast ratio testing, FSTD ajl-cab . and flight deck ambient light EP10JY14.060</GPH> Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Test • sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS VerDate Mar<15>2010 Test Entry Nnmber Tolerance Title Flight Conditions Test Details • INFORMATION Simulator Level A B c • Notes • D Jkt 232001 levels should be as low as possible. PO 00000 Frm 00089 4.a.6 Light point contrast ratio. Not less than 25: I. Not applicable. X X Fmt 4701 Note2. Measure· ments should be taken at the center ofsquares to avoid light spilt into the measurement device. Light point contrast ratio should be measured using a test pattern demonstrating an area of greater than 1o area filled with white light points and should be compared to the adjacent background. Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM Note. Light point modulation should bejust discernible on calligraphic systems but will not be discern able on raster systems. Measurements of the background should be taken such that the bright square is just out of the light meter rov. 10JYP2 During Note. contrast ratio testing. FSTD qfi-cab and.flight deck ambient light levels should be as low as practical. 4.a.7 Light point contrast ratio. Light point brightness. Not less than 10:1. Not applicable. Not less than 30 cdlrn 2 (8.8 ft-lamberts ). Not applicable. X X X X Light points should be displayed as a matlix creating a square. Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 TableA2A Full Flight Simulator (FFS) Ob.fective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS . • 39549 EP10JY14.061</GPH> sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 39550 VerDate Mar<15>2010 Test Entry Nnmber Tolerance Title Flight Conditions Test Details • INFORMATION Simulator Level A B c • Notes D Jkt 232001 On calligraphic systems the light points should just merge. PO 00000 Frm 00090 4.a.8 Surface brightness. Not less than 20 cd/m 2 (5.8 ft-lamberts) on the display. Not applicable. X X Fmt 4701 • On raster systems the light points should overlap such th2t the square is continuous (individual light points will not be visible). Surface brightness should be measured on a white raster, measuring the brightness using the Io spot photometer. Light points are not acceptable. Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 EP10JY14.062</GPH> • 4.a.9 Black level and sequential contrast. Black intensity: Background brightness Black polygon brightness< 0.015 cd/m 2 (0.004 ftlam berts). Sequential contrast: Maximum brightness (Background brightness - Black polygon brightness)> 2 000:1. Not applicable. X X X X Use of calligraphic capabilities to enhance raster brightness is acceptab !e. The light meter should be mounted in a fixed position viewing the forward center area of each display. All projectors should be turned otT and the cockpit environment made as dark as possible. A background reading should be taken of the remaining ambient light on the screen. The projectors should then be turned on and a black polygon displayed. A second reading should then be taken and the difference between this and the ambient level recorded. • Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 TableA2A Full Flight Simulator (FFS) Ob.fective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS VerDate Mar<15>2010 TableA2A Full Flight Simulator (FFS) Objective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS Entry Number Tolerance Title Flight Conditions Test Details Simulator Level A B c Notes D Jkt 232001 A full brightness white polygon should then be measured for the sequential contrast test. Frm 00091 An SOC should be provided if the test is not run, stating why. A test pattern consists of an array of 5 peak white squares with black gaps between them of decreasing width. Fmt 4701 PO 00000 This test is generally only required for light valve projectors. 4.a.IO Motion blur. Sfmt 4725 When a pattern is rotated ahout the eyepoint at I 0"/s, the smallest detectable gap must be 4 arc min or less. Not applicable. X X X X E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM The range of black gap widths should at least extend above and below the required detectable gap, and be in steps of I arc min. The pattern is rotated at the required rate. 10JYP2 Two arrays of squares should be provided, one rotating in heading and the other in pitch, to provide testing in both axes. A series of stationary numbers identifies the gap number. • 39551 Note.-- This test can be limited by the display technology. Where this is the case the NSPM should be consulted on the limitations. EP10JY14.063</GPH> • Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Test INFORMATION sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 39552 VerDate Mar<15>2010 Test Tolerance Entry Number Title Flight Conditions Test Details INFORMATION Simulator Level A B c • Notes D PO 00000 An SOC should be provided ifthe test is not run, stating why. This test is generally only required for laser projectors. Frm 00092 Jkt 232001 This test is generally only required for light valve projectors. • 4.a.ll Speckle contrast must be< 10%. Not applicable. An SOC is required describing the test method. X X X X Fmt 4701 An SOC should be provided if the test is not run, stating why. Sfmt 4725 4.b Head-Up Display 4.b.l Static Alignment. (HUD) • Static alignment with displayed image. E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 X X X X Alignment requirement applies to any HUD system in use or both simultaneously if they are used simultaneously for training. X X X X A statement of the system capabilities should be provided and the capabilities demonstrated HGD bore sight must align with the center of the displayed image spherical pattern. 4.b.2 System display. 4.b.3 HUD attitude versus FSTD attitude indicator (pitch and roll of horizon). Enhanced Flight Vision System (EFVS) Registration test. 4.c 4.c.l EP10JY14.064</GPH> Speckle test. Tolerance+/- 6 arc min. All functionality in all flight modes must be demonstrated. Pitch and roll align with aircraft instruments. Flight X X X X Alignment between EFVS display and out of the window image must represent the alignment Takeoff point and on approach at 200 ft. X X X X • Note. The e.f!i:xts ()/ the alignment tolerance in 4.b. I should be taken into account. • Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 TableA2A Full Flight Simulator (FFS) Objective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS VerDate Mar<15>2010 TableA2A Full Flight Simulator (FFS) Objective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS Entry Number Jkt 232001 4.c.2 Tolerance Title typical ofthe aircraft and system type. The scene represents the EFVS view at 350m (1200 ft) and 1609 m (1 sm) RVR including correct light intensity. EFVS RVRand visibility calibration. PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 4701 4.c.3 Thermal crossover. 4.d Visual ground segment (VGS). Simulator Level Test Details Notes A Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM Demonstrate thermal crossover effects during day to night transition. Day and night. Near end: the COITeCt number of approach lights within the computed VGS must be visible. Trimmed in the landing configuration at 30 m (100ft) wheel height above touchdown zone on glide slope at an R VR setting of 300 m (1 000 ft) or 350m (I 200ft). c D X Flight. B X X X Infra-red scene representative • of both 350m ( 1 200ft), and I 609 m (I sm) RVR. Visual scene may be removed. The scene will cotTectly represent the thermal characteristics of the scene during a day to night transition. Visual ground segment 4.d.l Flight Conditions • Far end: ±20% of the computed VGS. X X X X X X Pre-position tor this test is encouraged hut may he achieved via manual or autopilot control to the desired position. X The threshold lights computed to be visible must be visible in the FSTD. This test is designed to assess items impacting the accuracy of the visual scene presented to a pilot at DH on an lLS approach. These items include: X X Uemonstrated through use of a visual scene rendered with the same_i_mage_ge_11eriltor ___• • I) RVR/Visibility; 2) glide slope (GIS) and localizer modeling accuracy (location and slope) for an ILS; 10JYP2 3) for a given weight, configuration and speed representative of a point within the airplane's operational envelope for a nom1al approach and landing; and 4) Radio altimeter. Ifnon-homogeneousfog is Note. used, the vertical vurialiun in hurizunial visibility should be described and included in the slant range visibili(v calculation used in the VGS computation. 4.e 4.e.l EP10JY14.065</GPH> Visual System Capacity System capacityDay mode. Not less than: 10 000 visible textured _st1rfaces,_6 000 light Not applicable. - ---------- ------------------- ------- - ------- - 39553 X Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Test INFORMATION sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 39554 VerDate Mar<15>2010 Jkt 232001 Test PO 00000 Tolerance Entry Nnmber Title Test Details Simulator Level A B c • Notes • D points, 16 moving models. Frm 00094 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 EP10JY14.066</GPH> Flight Conditions • INFORMATION 4.e.2 System capacity ~ Twilight/night mode. modes used to produce scenes • for training. Not less than: lO 000 visible textured surfaces, 15 000 light points, 16 moving models. The required surfaces, light points, and moving models should be displayed simultaneously. Demonstrated through use of a visual scene rendered with the same image generator modes used to produce scenes for training. Not applicable. X X ! The required surfaces, light points, and moving models should be displayed simultaneously. 5. Sound System. The sponsor will not be required to repeat the airplane tests (i.e., tests 5.a.l. through 5.a.8. (or 5.b.l. through 5.b.9.) and 5.c., as appropriate) during continuing qualification evaluations if frequency response and background noise test results are within tolerance when compared to the initial qualification evaluation results, and the sponsor shows that no software changes have occurred that will affect the airplane test results. If the frequency response test method is chosen and fails, the sponsor may elect to fix the frequency response problem and repeat the test or the sponsor may elect to repeat the airplane tests. lfthe airplane tests are repeated during continuing qualification evaluations, the results may be compared against initial qualification evaluation results or airplane master data. All tests in this section must be presented using an unweighted 1/3-octave band format from band 17 to 42 (50 Hz to 16kHz). A minimum 20 second average must be taken at the location corresponding to the airplane data set. The airplane and flight simulator results must be produced using comparable data analysis techniques. • • • Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 TableA2A Full Flight Simulator (FFS) Ob.fective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS VerDate Mar<15>2010 TableA2A Full Flight Simulator (FFS) Ob.fective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS Rntry .1 Number Tolerance Title Flight Conditions Test Details Simulator Level A B c Notes D • 5.a. Turbo-jet airplanes. Jkt 232001 All tests in this section should • be presented using an unweightcd 1/3-octave band fonnat from at least band 17 to 42 (50 Hz to 16 kHz). PO 00000 Frm 00095 A measurement of minimum 20 s should be taken at the location corresponding to the approved data set. Fmt 4701 The approved data set and FSTD results should be produced using comparable data analysis techniques. Sfmt 4725 5.a.l. Ready for engine start. E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM Initial evaluation: ± 5 dB per 1/3 octave band. Normal condition prior to engine start. X The APU should be on if appropriate. 10JYP2 Recurrent evaluation: cannot exceed ±5 dB difference on three consecutive bands when compared to initial evaluation and the average of the absolute differences between initial and recurrent evaluation results cannot exceed 2 dB. 5.a.2. All engines at idle. Initial evaluation: ± 5 dB per 1/3 octave band. Ground. Normal condition prior to takeoff. X Where initial evaluation employs approved subjective tuning to develop the approved reference standard, recurrent evaluation tolerances should be used during recurrent evaluations. It is acceptable to have some 1/3 octave bands out of± 5 dB tolerance but not more than 2 that are consecutive and in any case within ± 7 dB from approved reference data, • • 39555 Recunent evaluation: cannot exceed ±5 dB difference on three EP10JY14.067</GPH> Ground. Refer to paragraph 7 of this Attachment It is acceptable to have some I /3 octave bands out of± 5 dB tolerance but not more than 2 that are consecutive and in any case within ± 7 dB from approved reference data, providing that the overall trend is correct. Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Test INI<'ORMA'flON sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Entrv .1 Nnmber Tolerance Title Flight Conditions Test Details INFORMATION Simulator Level A B c Notes D Jkt 232001 consecutive bands when compared to initial evaluation and the average of the absolute differences between initial and recurrent evaluation results cannot exceed 2 dB. PO 00000 Frm 00096 5.a.3. Fmt 4701 All engines at maximum allowable thrust with brakes set Initial evaluation: ± 5 dB per 1/3 octave band. providing that the overall trend is correct. Ground. Nonnal condition prior to takeoff 10JYP2 X Where initial evaluation employs approved subjective tuning to develop the approved reference standard, recurrent evaluation tolerances should be used during recurrent evaluations. It is acceptable to have some 1/3 octave bands out of± 5 dB tolerance but not more than 2 that are consecutive and in any case within ± 7 dB from approved reference data, providing that the overall trend is correct. Recurrent evaluation: cannot exceed ±5 dfl difference on three consecutive bands when compared to initial evaluation and the average of the absolute differences between initial and recmTent evaluation results cannot exceed 2 dB. Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM X Where initial evaluation employs approved subjective tuning to develop the approved reference standard, recurrent evaluation tolerances should be used during recurrent evaluations. It is acceptable to have some 1/3 octave bands out of± 5 dB tolerance but not more than 2 that are consecutive and in any case within± 7 dB from approved reference data, providing that the overall trend is correct. 5.a.4. Climb Initial evaluation: ± 5 dB per 1/3 octave band. En-route climb. Medium altitude. Where initial evaluation employs approved subjective luning lo develop the approved reference standard, recurrent evaluation Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Test Recurrent evaluation: cannot exceed ±5 dB difference on three consecutive bands when compared to initial evaluation and the average of the absolute differences between initial and recurrent evaluation results cannot exceed 2 dB. EP10JY14.068</GPH> 39556 VerDate Mar<15>2010 TableA2A Full Flight Simulator (FFS) Objective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS VerDate Mar<15>2010 TableA2A Full Flight Simulator (FFS) Ob.fective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS Entrv .1 Number Tolerance Title Test Details Simulator Level A B c Notes D • Jkt 232001 S.a.S. Cruise Initial evaluation: + 5 dB per I /3 octave band. Cruise. Normal cruise configuration. X PO 00000 Frm 00097 Recurrent evaluation: cannot exceed ±5 dB difference on three consecutive bands when compared to initial evaluation and the average of the absolute differences between initial and recurrent evaluation results cannot exceed 2 dB. Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 5.a.6. E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM Speed brake/spoilers extended (as appropriate). Initial evaluation: ± 5 dB per 1/3 octave band. Cruise. Normal and constant speed brake deflection for descent at a constant airspeed and power setting. X 10JYP2 Recurrent evaluation: cannot exceed ±5 dB difference on three consecutive bands when compared to initial evaluation and the average of the absolute differences between initial and recurrent evaluation results cannot exceed 2 dB. 5.a.7 Initial approach. Initial evaluation: ± 5 dB per 1/3 octave band. Approach. Constant airspeed, gear up, flaps/slats as appropriate. X tolerances should be used during recurrent evaluations. It is acceptable to have some I /3 octave bands out of+ 5 dB tolerance but not more than 2 that are consecutive and in any case within ± 7 dB from approved reference data, providing that the overall trend is correct. Where initial evaluation employs approved subjective tuning to develop the approved reference standard, recurrent evaluation tolerances should be used during recurrent evaluations . It is acceptable to have some 1/3 octave bands out of± 5 dB tolerance but not more than 2 that are consecutive and in any case within± 7 dB from approved reference data, providing that the overall trend is correct. Where initial evaluation employs approved subjective tuning to develop the approved reference standard, recurrent evaluation tolerances should be used during recurrent evaluations. It is acceptable to have some 1/3 octave bands out of± 5 dB tolerance but not more than 2 that are consecutive and in anv case within± 7 dB from app~oved reference data, • • ! 39557 Recurrent evaluation: cannot exceed ±5 dB difference on three EP10JY14.069</GPH> Flight Conditions Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Test INFORMATION sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 39558 VerDate Mar<15>2010 Jkt 232001 Test PO 00000 Entrv .1 Nnmber Tolerance Title Test Details Simulator Level A B c Notes D consecutive bands when compared to initial evaluation and the average of the absolute differences between initial and recurrent evaluation results cannot exceed 2 dB. Frm 00098 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 EP10JY14.070</GPH> Flight Conditions INFORMATION 5.a)i Final approach. Initial evaluation: ± 5 dl3 per 1/3 octave band. Recurrent evaluation: cannot exceed ±5 dB difference on three consecutive bands when compared to initial evaluation and the average of the absolute differences between initial and recurrent evaluation results cannot exceed 2 dB. providing that the overall trend is correct. Landing. Constant airspeed, gear down, landing configuration flaps. X Where initial evaluation employs approved subjective tuning to develop the approved reference standard, recurrent evaluation tolerances should be used during recurrent evaluations. It is acceptable to have some 1/3 octave bands out of± 5 dB tolerance but not more than 2 that are consecutive and in any case within ± 7 dB from approved reference data, providing that the overall trend is correct. Where initial evaluation employs approved subjective tuning to develop the approved reference standard, recurrent evaluation tolerances should be used during recurrent evaluations. • Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 TableA2A Full Flight Simulator (FFS) Objective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS VerDate Mar<15>2010 Test Entrv .1 Nnmber Jkt 232001 5.b Tolerance Title Flight Conditions Test Details • INFORMATION Simulator Level A B c • Notes D Propeller-driven airplanes PO 00000 All tests in this section should be presented using an unwcightcd 1/3-octavc band format from at least band 17 to 42 (50 Hz to 16 kHz). Frm 00099 A measurement of minimum 20 s should be taken at the location corresponding to the approved data set. Fmt 4701 The approved data set and FSTD results should be produced using comparable data analysis techniques. Sfmt 4725 5.b.l. E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM Ready for engine start. Initial evaluation: ± 5 dB per 1/3 octave band. Ground. Normal condition prior to engine start. X The APU should be on if appropriate. 10JYP2 Recurrent evaluation: cannot exceed ±5 dB difference on three consecutive bands when compared to initial evaluation and the average of the absolute differences between initial and recurrent evaluation results cannot exceed 2 dB. 5.b.2 All propellers feathered, if applicable. Initial evaluation: ± 5 dB per 1/3 octave band. Refer to paragraph 3. 7 of this Appendix. It is acceptable to have some 1/3 octave bands out of± 5 dB tolerance but not more than 2 that are consecutive and in any case within ± 7 dB from approved reference data, providing that the overall trend is cmTect. Where initial evaluation employs approved subjective tuning to develop the approved reference standard, renment evaluation tolerances should be used during recurrent evaluations. Ground. Nonnal condition prior to takeoff. X It is acceptable to have some I /3 octave bands out of± 5 dB tolerance but not more than 2 that are consecutive and in any case within j_ 7 dB • • 39559 EP10JY14.071</GPH> • Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 TableA2A Full Flight Simulator (FFS) Ob.fective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Entrv .1 Number Tolerance Title Flight Conditions Test Details INI<'ORMA'flON Simulator Level A B c Notes D Jkt 232001 Recurrent evaluation: cannot exceed ±5 dB difference on three consecutive bands when compared to initial evaluation and the average of the absolute differences between initial and recurrent evaluation results cannot exceed 2 dB. PO 00000 Frm 00100 5.b.3. Fmt 4701 Ground idle or equivalent. Initial evaluation: ± 5 dB per 1/3 octave band. from approwd reference data, providing that the overall trend is cotTect. Ground. Nonnal condition prior to takeoff. X Where initial evaluation employs approved subjective tuning to develop the approved reference standard, recurrent evaluation tolerances should be used during recurrent evaluations. It is acceptable to have some 1/3 octave bands out of± 5 dB tolerance but not more than 2 that are consecutive and in any case within ± 7 dB ti·om approved relerence data, providing that the overall trend is correct. Recurrent evaluation: cannot exceed ±5 dB difference on three consecutive bands when compared to initial evaluation and the average of the absolute diflerences between initial and recun·ent evaluation results cannot exceed 2 dB. Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 X Where initial evaluation employs approved subjective tuning to develop the approved reference standard, recurrent evaluation tolerances should be used during recurrent evaluations. It is acceptable to have some 1/3 octave bands out of± 5 dB tolerance but not more than 2 that are consecutive and in any case within ± 7 dB from approved reference data, providing that the overall trend is correct. 5.b.4 Flight idle or equivalent. Initial evaluation: ± 5 dB per I /3 octave band. Ground. Normal condition prior to takeoff. Where initial evaluation employs approved subjective tuning to develop the approved reference standard, recurrent evaluation Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Test Recurrent evaluation: cannot exceed .L5 dD difference on three consecutive bands when compared to initial evaluation and the average of the absolute differences between initial and recurrent evaluation results EP10JY14.072</GPH> 39560 VerDate Mar<15>2010 TableA2A Full Flight Simulator (FFS) Ob.fective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS VerDate Mar<15>2010 TableA2A Full Flight Simulator (FFS) Ob.fective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS Entrv .1 Number Tolerance Title Test Details Simulator Level A B c Notes D cannot exceed 2 dB. Jkt 232001 5.b.5 PO 00000 All engines at maximum allowable power with brakes set. Initial evaluation: ± 5 dB per l/3 octave band. Ground. Normal condition prior to takeoff X Frm 00101 Recurrent evaluation: cannot exceed ±5 dB difference on three consecutive bands when compared to initial evaluation and the average of the absolute differences between initial and recurrent evaluation results cannot exceed 2 dB. Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 5.b.6 Climb. E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM Initial evaluation: ± 5 dB per I /3 octave band. En-route climb. Medium altitude. 10JYP2 Cruise Initial evaluation: ± 5 dB per l/3 octave band. X X Where initial evaluation employs approved subjective tuning to develop the approved reference standard, recurrent evaluation tolerances should be used during recurrent evaluations. It is acceptable to have some I /3 octave bands out of± 5 dB tolerance but not more than 2 that are consecutive and in any case within ± 7 dB from approved reterence data, providing that the overall trend is con·ect. Normal cruise configuration. 39561 Recurrent evaluation: cannot excet!d ±5 dB difference on three consecutive bands when Cruise. tolerances should be used during recurrent evaluations. ft is acceptable to have some l /3 octave bands out of± 5 dB tolerance but not more than 2 that are consecutive and in any case within ± 7 dB from approved reference data, providing that the overall trend is correct. Where initial evaluation employs approved subjective tuning to develop the approved reference standard, recurrent evaluation tolerances should be used during recurrent evaluations. It is acceptable to have some I /3 octave bands out of± 5 dB tolerance but not more than 2 that are consecutive and in any case within ± 7 dB from approved reference data, providing that the overall trend is correct. Recurrent evaluation: cannot exceed ±5 dB dinerence on three consecutive hands when compared to initial evaluation and the average of the absolute differences between initial and recurrent evaluation results cannot exceed 2 dB. 5.b.7 EP10JY14.073</GPH> Flight Conditions Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Test INI<'ORMA'flON sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Entrv .1 Nnmber Tolerance Title Flight Conditions Test Details INI<'ORMA"flON Simulator Level A B c Notes D Jkt 232001 compared to initial evaluation and the average of the absolute differences between initial and recun·ent evaluation results cannot exceed 2 dB. PO 00000 5.b.8 Initial approach. Frm 00102 Initial evaluation: ± 5 dB per 1/3 octave band. Approach. Constant airspeed, gear up, flaps extended as appropriate, RPM as per operating manual. Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM X Where initial evaluation employs approved subjective tuning to develop the approved reference standard, recurrent evaluation tolerances should be used during recurrent evaluations. It is acceptable to have some I /3 octave bands out of± 5 dB tolerance but not more than 2 that are consecutive and in any case within ± 7 dB from approved reference data, providing that the overall trend is correct. X Where initial evaluation employs approved subjective tuning to develop the approved reference standard, recurrent evaluation tolerances should be used during recurrent evaluations. It is acceptable to have some I /3 octave bands out of± 5 dB tolerance but not more than 2 that are consecutive and in any case within ± 7 dB from approved reference data, providing that the overall trend is correct. Recurrent evaluation: cannot exceed ±5 dB difference on three consecutive bands when compared to initial evaluation and the average of the absolute differences between initial and recurrent evaluation results cannot exceed 2 dB. 5.b.9 Final approach. Initial evaluation: ± 5 dB per l/3 octave band. Landing. Constant airspeed, gear down, landing configuration flaps, RPM as per operating manual. 10JYP2 Recunent evaluation: cannot exceed ±5 dB difference on three consecutive bands when compared to initial evaluation and the average of the absolute differences between initial and recurrent evaluation results cannot exceed 2 dB. Special cases. Initial evaluation: ± 5 dB per 1/3 octave As appropriate. Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Test S.c. EP10JY14.074</GPH> 39562 VerDate Mar<15>2010 TableA2A Full Flight Simulator (FFS) Ob.fective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS X Where initial evaluation employs approved subjective tuning to develop the approved reference standard, recurrent evaluation tolerances should be used during recurrent evaluations. This applies to special steadystate cases identified as • sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS VerDate Mar<15>2010 TableA2A Full Flight Simulator (FFS) Ob.fective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS Entrv .1 Nnmber Tolerance Title Flight Conditions Test Details INI<'ORMA"flON Simulator Level A B c • Notes D Jkt 232001 band. particularly sil,'llificant to the • pilot, important in training, or unique to a specific airplane type or model. PO 00000 Recurrent evaluation: cannot exceed ±5 dB difference on three consecutive bands when compared to initial evaluation and the average of the absolute differences between initial and recurrent evaluation results cannot exceed 2 dB. Frm 00103 It is acceptable to have some 1/3 octave bands out of± 5 dB tolerance but not more than 2 that are consecutive and in any case within ± 7 dB ti·om approved reference data, providing that the overall trend is correct. Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 5.d FSTD background noise Initial evaluation: background noise levels must fall below the sound levels described in Paral,'faph 7.c (5) of this Attachment. 10JYP2 Frequency response Initial evaluation: not applicable. X Where initial evaluation employs approved subjective tuning to develop the approved reference standard, recurrent evaluation tolerances should be used during recurrent evaluations The simulated sound will be evaluated to ensure that the background noise does not interfere with training. • Refer to paragraph 7 of this Attachment. This test should be presented using an unweighted 1/3 octave band format from band 17 to 42 (50 l-Iz to 16 kl-lz). X Only required if the results are to be used during continuing qualification evaluations in lieu of airplane tests. • • 39563 Recurrent evaluation: cannot exceed ±5 dB difference on three EP10JY14.075</GPH> Results of the background noise at initial qualification must be included in the QTG document and approved by the NSPM. The measurements are to be made with the simulation running, the sound muted and a dead cockpit. Recurrent evaluation: ±3 dB per 1/3 octave band compared to initial evaluation. 5.e • Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Test • sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 39564 VerDate Mar<15>2010 Test Jkt 232001 Entrv .1 Number Tolerance Title Flight Conditions Test Details INI<'ORMA'flON Simulator Level A B Notes D PO 00000 consecutive bands when compared to initial evaluation and the average of the absolute differences between initial and recurrent evaluation resu Its cannot exceed 2 dB. Frm 00104 Fmt 4701 6 6.a. Sfmt 4702 6.a.l SYSTEMS INTEGRATION System resJ>onse time Transport delay. l 00 milliseconds or less after controller movement. The results must be approved by the NSPM during the initial qualification. This test should be presented using an unweightcd 1/3 octave band format from band 17 to 42 (50 Hz to 16kHz). Pitch, roll and yaw. X X One separate test is required in each axis. • E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM Where EFVS systems are installed, the EFVS response should be within+ or- 30 ms from visual system response, and not before motion system response. 10JYP2 Note.- The delay from the airplane EFVS electronic elements should be added to the 30 ms tolerance before comparison with visual system reference as described in Attachment G oj'this Part. Transport delay. EP10JY14.076</GPH> c • 300 milliseconds or less after controller movement. Pitch, roll and yaw. X X i . Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 TableA2A Full Flight Simulator (FFS) Objective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules lllllllllllllllllllll Begin Information sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 3. General a. If relevant winds are present in the objective data, the wind vector should be clearly noted as part of the data presentation, expressed in conventional terminology, and related to the runway being used for test near the ground. b. The reader is encouraged to review the Airplane Flight Simulator Evaluation Handbook, Volumes I and II, published by the Royal Aeronautical Society, London, UK, and AC 25–7, as amended, Flight Test Guide for Certification of Transport Category Airplanes, and AC 23–8, as amended, Flight Test Guide for Certification of Part 23 Airplanes, for references and examples regarding flight testing requirements and techniques. 4. Control Dynamics a. General. The characteristics of an airplane flight control system have a major effect on handling qualities. A significant consideration in pilot acceptability of an airplane is the ‘‘feel’’ provided through the flight controls. Considerable effort is expended on airplane feel system design so that pilots will be comfortable and will consider the airplane desirable to fly. In order for an FFS to be representative, it should ‘‘feel’’ like the airplane being simulated. Compliance with this requirement is determined by comparing a recording of the control feel dynamics of the FFS to actual airplane measurements in the takeoff, cruise and landing configurations. (1) Recordings such as free response to an impulse or step function are classically used to estimate the dynamic properties of electromechanical systems. In any case, it is only possible to estimate the dynamic properties as a result of being able to estimate true inputs and responses. Therefore, it is imperative that the best possible data be collected since close matching of the FFS control loading system to the airplane system is essential. The required dynamic control tests are described in Table A2A of this attachment. (2) For initial and upgrade evaluations, the QPS requires that control dynamics characteristics be measured and recorded directly from the flight controls (Handling Qualities—Table A2A). This procedure is usually accomplished by measuring the free response of the controls using a step or impulse input to excite the system. The procedure should be accomplished in the takeoff, cruise and landing flight conditions and configurations. (3) For airplanes with irreversible control systems, measurements may be obtained on the ground if proper pitot-static inputs are provided to represent airspeeds typical of those encountered in flight. Likewise, it may be shown that for some airplanes, takeoff, cruise, and landing configurations have like effects. Thus, one may suffice for another. In either case, engineering validation or airplane manufacturer rationale should be submitted as justification for ground tests or for eliminating a configuration. For FFSs requiring static and dynamic tests at the VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 controls, special test fixtures will not be required during initial and upgrade evaluations if the QTG shows both test fixture results and the results of an alternate approach (e.g., computer plots that were produced concurrently and show satisfactory agreement). Repeat of the alternate method during the initial evaluation satisfies this test requirement. b. Control Dynamics Evaluation. The dynamic properties of control systems are often stated in terms of frequency, damping and a number of other classical measurements. In order to establish a consistent means of validating test results for FFS control loading, criteria are needed that will clearly define the measurement interpretation and the applied tolerances. Criteria are needed for underdamped, critically damped and overdamped systems. In the case of an underdamped system with very light damping, the system may be quantified in terms of frequency and damping. In critically damped or overdamped systems, the frequency and damping are not readily measured from a response time history. Therefore, the following suggested measurements may be used: (1) For Level C and D simulators. Tests to verify that control feel dynamics represent the airplane should show that the dynamic damping cycles (free response of the controls) match those of the airplane within specified tolerances. The NSPM recognizes that several different testing methods may be used to verify the control feel dynamic response. The NSPM will consider the merits of testing methods based on reliability and consistency. One acceptable method of evaluating the response and the tolerance to be applied is described below for the underdamped and critically damped cases. A sponsor using this method to comply with the QPS requirements should perform the tests as follows: (a) Underdamped response. Two measurements are required for the period, the time to first zero crossing (in case a rate limit is present) and the subsequent frequency of oscillation. It is necessary to measure cycles on an individual basis in case there are nonuniform periods in the response. Each period will be independently compared to the respective period of the airplane control system and, consequently, will enjoy the full tolerance specified for that period. The damping tolerance will be applied to overshoots on an individual basis. Care should be taken when applying the tolerance to small overshoots since the significance of such overshoots becomes questionable. Only those overshoots larger than 5 per cent of the total initial displacement should be considered. The residual band, labeled T(Ad) on Figure A2A is ±5 percent of the initial displacement amplitude Ad from the steady state value of the oscillation. Only oscillations outside the residual band are considered significant. When comparing FFS data to airplane data, the process should begin by overlaying or aligning the FFS and airplane steady state values and then comparing amplitudes of oscillation peaks, the time of the first zero crossing and individual periods of oscillation. The FFS PO 00000 Frm 00105 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 39565 should show the same number of significant overshoots to within one when compared against the airplane data. The procedure for evaluating the response is illustrated in Figure A2A. (b) Critically damped and overdamped response. Due to the nature of critically damped and overdamped responses (no overshoots), the time to reach 90 percent of the steady state (neutral point) value should be the same as the airplane within ±10 percent. Figure A2B illustrates the procedure. (c) Special considerations. Control systems that exhibit characteristics other than classical overdamped or underdamped responses should meet specified tolerances. In addition, special consideration should be given to ensure that significant trends are maintained. (2) Tolerances. (a) The following table summarizes the tolerances, T, for underdamped systems, and ‘‘n’’ is the sequential period of a full cycle of oscillation. See Figure A2A of this attachment for an illustration of the referenced measurements. T(P0) ±10% of P0 T(P1) ±20% of P1 T(P2) ±30% of P2 T(Pn) ±10(n+1)% of Pn T(An) ±10% of A1 T(Ad) ±5% of Ad = residual band Significant overshoots First overshoot and ±1 subsequent overshoots (b) The following tolerance applies to critically damped and overdamped systems only. See Figure A2B for an illustration of the reference measurements: T(P0) ±10% of P0 End Information lllllllllllllllllllll Begin QPS Requirement c. Alternative method for control dynamics evaluation. (1) An alternative means for validating control dynamics for aircraft with hydraulically powered flight controls and artificial feel systems is by the measurement of control force and rate of movement. For each axis of pitch, roll, and yaw, the control must be forced to its maximum extreme position for the following distinct rates. These tests are conducted under normal flight and ground conditions. (a) Static test—Slowly move the control so that a full sweep is achieved within 95 to 105 seconds. A full sweep is defined as movement of the controller from neutral to the stop, usually aft or right stop, then to the opposite stop, then to the neutral position. (b) Slow dynamic test—Achieve a full sweep within 8–12 seconds. (c) Fast dynamic test—Achieve a full sweep within 3–5 seconds. Note: Dynamic sweeps may be limited to forces not exceeding 100 lbs. (44.5 daN). (d) Tolerances (i) Static test; see Table A2A, FFS Objective Tests, Entries 2.a.1., 2.a.2., and 2.a.3. (ii) Dynamic test—± 2 lbs (0.9 daN) or ± 10% on dynamic increment above static test. E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 39566 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules End QPS Requirement lllllllllllllllllllll sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Begin Information d. The FAA is open to alternative means such as the one described above. The VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 alternatives should be justified and appropriate to the application. For example, the method described here may not apply to all manufacturers’ systems and certainly not to aircraft with reversible control systems. Each case is considered on its own merit on PO 00000 Frm 00106 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 an ad hoc basis. If the FAA finds that alternative methods do not result in satisfactory performance, more conventionally accepted methods will have to be used. BILLING CODE 4910–13–P E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 39567 P = Period A= Pmpllude !(P) = Tolerance applied to period (1 (I'% of I !£."\! = Tolerance applied to anplltude (D. 1 . 0.9-A:t+-----------------l. \J ~--------------~-4-~!(A) p, Po FigureA2A Underdamped Step Response \ "'-"/ 0.1 A. ~ ,, D~pbcl!mf! 1t FigureA2B Critically and Overdamped Step Response BILLING CODE 4910–13–C 5. Ground Effect a. For an FFS to be used for take-off and landing (not applicable to Level A simulators VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00107 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 in that the landing maneuver may not be credited in a Level A simulator) it should reproduce the aerodynamic changes that occur in ground effect. The parameters E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 EP10JY14.077</GPH> sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS "' Tm• 39568 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS chosen for FFS validation should indicate these changes. (1) A dedicated test should be provided that will validate the aerodynamic ground effect characteristics. (2) The organization performing the flight tests may select appropriate test methods and procedures to validate ground effect. However, the flight tests should be performed with enough duration near the ground to sufficiently validate the ground-effect model. b. The NSPM will consider the merits of testing methods based on reliability and consistency. Acceptable methods of validating ground effect are described below. If other methods are proposed, rationale should be provided to conclude that the tests performed validate the ground-effect model. A sponsor using the methods described below to comply with the QPS requirements should perform the tests as follows: (1) Level fly-bys. The level fly-bys should be conducted at a minimum of three altitudes within the ground effect, including one at no more than 10% of the wingspan above the ground, one each at approximately 30% and 50% of the wingspan where height refers to main gear tire above the ground. In addition, one level-flight trim condition should be conducted out of ground effect (e.g., at 150% of wingspan). (2) Shallow approach landing. The shallow approach landing should be performed at a glide slope of approximately one degree with negligible pilot activity until flare. c. The lateral-directional characteristics are also altered by ground effect. For example, because of changes in lift, roll damping is affected. The change in roll damping will affect other dynamic modes usually evaluated for FFS validation. In fact, Dutch roll dynamics, spiral stability, and roll-rate for a given lateral control input are altered by ground effect. Steady heading sideslips will also be affected. These effects should be accounted for in the FFS modeling. Several tests such as crosswind landing, one engine inoperative landing, and engine failure on take-off serve to validate lateral-directional ground effect since portions of these tests are accomplished as the aircraft is descending through heights above the runway at which ground effect is an important factor. 6. Motion System a. General. (1) Pilots use continuous information signals to regulate the state of the airplane. In concert with the instruments and outsideworld visual information, whole-body motion feedback is essential in assisting the pilot to control the airplane dynamics, particularly in the presence of external disturbances. The motion system should meet basic objective performance criteria, and should be subjectively tuned at the pilot’s seat position to represent the linear and angular accelerations of the airplane during a prescribed minimum set of maneuvers and conditions. The response of the motion cueing system should also be repeatable. (2) The Motion System tests in Section 3 of Table A2A are intended to qualify the FFS motion cueing system from a mechanical performance standpoint. Additionally, the VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 list of motion effects provides a representative sample of dynamic conditions that should be present in the flight simulator. An additional list of representative, trainingcritical maneuvers, selected from Section 1 (Performance tests), and Section 2 (Handling Qualities tests), in Table A2A, that should be recorded during initial qualification (but without tolerance) to indicate the flight simulator motion cueing performance signature have been identified (reference Section 3.e). These tests are intended to help improve the overall standard of FFS motion cueing. b. Motion System Checks. The intent of test 3a, Frequency Response, test 3b, Leg Balance, and test 3c, Turn-Around Check, as described in the Table of Objective Tests, is to demonstrate the performance of the motion system hardware, and to check the integrity of the motion set-up with regard to calibration and wear. These tests are independent of the motion cueing software and should be considered robotic tests. c. Motion System Repeatability. The intent of this test is to ensure that the motion system software and motion system hardware have not degraded or changed over time. This diagnostic test should be completed during continuing qualification checks in lieu of the robotic tests. This will allow an improved ability to determine changes in the software or determine degradation in the hardware. The following information delineates the methodology that should be used for this test. (1) Input: The inputs should be such that rotational accelerations, rotational rates, and linear accelerations are inserted before the transfer from airplane center of gravity to pilot reference point with a minimum amplitude of 5 deg/sec/sec, 10 deg/sec and 0.3 g, respectively, to provide adequate analysis of the output. (2) Recommended output: (a) Actual platform linear accelerations; the output will comprise accelerations due to both the linear and rotational motion acceleration; (b) Motion actuators position. d. Objective Motion Cueing Test— Frequency Domain (1) Background. This test quantifies the response of the motion cueing system from the output of the flight model to the motion platform response. Other motion tests, such as the motion system frequency response, concentrate on the mechanical performance of the motion system hardware alone. The intent of this test is to provide quantitative frequency response records of the entire motion system for specified degree-offreedom transfer relationships over a range of frequencies. This range should be representative of the manual control range for that particular aircraft type and the simulator as set up during qualification. The measurements of this test should include the combined influence of the motion cueing algorithm, the motion platform dynamics, and the transport delay associated with the motion cueing and control system implementation. Specified frequency responses describing the ability of the FSTD to reproduce aircraft translations and rotations, as well as the cross-coupling relations, are required as part of these PO 00000 Frm 00108 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 measurements. When simulating forward aircraft acceleration, the simulator is accelerated momentarily in the forward direction to provide the onset cueing. This is considered the direct transfer relation. The simulator is simultaneously tilted nose-up due to the low-pass filter in order to generate a sustained specific force. The tilt associated with the generation of the sustained specific force, and the angular rates and angular accelerations associated with the initiation of the sustained specific force, are considered cross-coupling relations. The specific force is required for the perception of the aircraft sustained specific force, while the angular rates and accelerations do not occur in the aircraft and should be minimized. (2) Frequency response test. This test requires the frequency response to be measured for the motion cueing system. Reference sinusoidal signals are inserted at the pilot reference position prior to the motion cueing computations. The response of the motion platform in the corresponding degree-of-freedom (the direct transfer relations), as well as the motions resulting from cross-coupling (the cross-coupling relations), are recorded. These are the tests that are important to pilot motion cueing and are general tests applicable to all types of airplanes. These tests can be run at any time deemed acceptable to the NSPM prior to and/or during the initial qualification. (3) Transfer Functions. The frequency responses describe the relations between aircraft motions and simulator motions. The relations are explained below per individual test. Tests 1, 3, 5, 6, 8 and 10 show the direct transfer relations, while tests 2, 4, 7 and 9 show the cross-coupling relations. 1. FSTD pitch response to aircraft pitch input 2. FSTD surge specific force response due to aircraft pitch input 3. FSTD roll response to aircraft roll input 4. FSTD sway specific force response due to aircraft roll input 5. FSTD yaw response to aircraft yaw input 6. FSTD surge specific force response to aircraft surge input 7. FSTD pitch rate and pitch acceleration response to aircraft surge input 8. FSTD sway specific force response to aircraft sway input 9. FSTD roll rate and pitch acceleration response to aircraft sway input 10. FSTD heave specific force response to aircraft heave input (4) Frequency Range. The tests should be conducted by introducing sinusoidal inputs at discrete input frequencies entered at the output of the flight model, transformed to the pilot reference position just before the motion cueing computations, and measured at the response of the FSTD platform. For each relation defined in section (3), measurements must be taken in at least 12 discrete frequencies within a range of 0.0159 and 2.515 Hz. (5) Input Signal Amplitude. The tests applied here to the motion cueing system are intended to qualify its response to normal control inputs during maneuvering (i.e. not aggressive or excessively hard control inputs). It is necessary to excite the system in such a manner that the response is measured with a high signal-to-noise ratio, E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 39569 the twelve frequencies and for each of the transfer relations given section (3). The results should also be plotted for each component in a modulus versus phase plot. The modulus should range from 0.0 to 1.0 along the horizontal axis, and the absolute value of the phase from 0 to 180 degrees along the vertical axis. An example is shown in Figure A2C. e. Motion Vibrations. (1) Presentation of results. The characteristic motion vibrations may be used to verify that the flight simulator can reproduce the frequency content of the airplane when flown in specific conditions. The test results should be presented as a Power Spectral Density (PSD) plot with frequencies on the horizontal axis and amplitude on the vertical axis. The airplane data and flight simulator data should be presented in the same format with the same scaling. The algorithms used for generating the flight simulator data should be the same as those used for the airplane data. If they are not the same then the algorithms used for the flight simulator data should be proven to be sufficiently comparable. As a minimum, the results along the dominant axes should be presented and a rationale for not presenting the other axes should be provided. (2) Interpretation of results. The overall trend of the PSD plot should be considered while focusing on the dominant frequencies. Less emphasis should be placed on the differences at the high frequency and low amplitude portions of the PSD plot. During the analysis, certain structural components of the flight simulator have resonant frequencies that are filtered and may not appear in the PSD plot. If filtering is required, the notch filter bandwidth should be limited to 1 Hz to ensure that the buffet feel is not adversely affected. In addition, a rationale should be provided to explain that the characteristic motion vibration is not being adversely affected by the filtering. The amplitude should match airplane data as described below. However, if the PSD plot was altered for subjective reasons, a rationale should be provided to justify the change. If the plot is on a logarithmic scale, it may be difficult to interpret the amplitude of the buffet in terms of acceleration. For example, a 1 × 10¥3 g-rms2/Hz would describe a heavy buffet and may be seen in the deep stall regime. Alternatively, a 1 × 10¥6 g-rms2/Hz buffet is almost not perceivable; but may represent a flap buffet at low speed. The previous two examples differ in magnitude by 1000. On a PSD plot this represents three decades (one decade is a change in order of magnitude of 10; and two decades is a change in order of magnitude of 100). Note: In the example, ‘‘g-rms2 is the mathematical expression for ‘‘g’s root mean squared.’’ cues can either assist the crew (as an indication of an abnormal situation), or hinder the crew (as a distraction or nuisance). For effective training, the flight simulator should provide flight deck sounds that are perceptible to the pilot during normal and abnormal operations, and comparable to those of the airplane. The flight simulator operator should carefully evaluate background noises in the location where the device will be installed. To demonstrate compliance with the sound requirements, the objective or validation tests in this attachment were selected to provide a representative sample of normal static conditions typically experienced by a pilot. b. Alternate propulsion. For FFS with multiple propulsion configurations, any condition listed in Table A2A of this attachment should be presented for evaluation as part of the QTG if identified by the airplane manufacturer or other data supplier as significantly different due to a change in propulsion system (engine or propeller). c. Data and Data Collection System. (1) Information provided to the flight simulator manufacturer should be presented in the format suggested by the International Air Transport Association (IATA) ‘‘Flight Simulator Design and Performance Data Requirements,’’ as amended. This information should contain calibration and frequency response data. VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 7. Sound System a. General. The total sound environment in the airplane is very complex, and changes with atmospheric conditions, airplane configuration, airspeed, altitude, and power settings. Flight deck sounds are an important component of the flight deck operational environment and provide valuable information to the flight crew. These aural PO 00000 Frm 00109 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 EP10JY14.079</GPH> sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS and that the possible non-linear elements in the motion cueing system are not overly excited. (6) Presentation of Results. The measured modulus and phase should be tabulated for 39570 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules (2) The system used to perform the tests listed in Table A2A should comply with the following standards: (a) The specifications for octave, half octave, and third octave band filter sets may be found in American National Standards Institute (ANSI) S1.11–1986; (b) Measurement microphones should be type WS2 or better, as described in International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) 1094–4–1995. (3) Headsets. If headsets are used during normal operation of the airplane they should also be used during the flight simulator evaluation. (4) Playback equipment. Playback equipment and recordings of the QTG conditions should be provided during initial evaluations. (5) Background noise. (a) Background noise is the noise in the flight simulator that is not associated with the airplane, but is caused by the flight simulator’s cooling and hydraulic systems and extraneous noise from other locations in the building. Background noise can seriously impact the correct simulation of airplane sounds and should be kept below the airplane sounds. In some cases, the sound level of the simulation can be increased to compensate for the background noise. However, this approach is limited by the specified tolerances and by the subjective acceptability of the sound environment to the evaluation pilot. (b) The acceptability of the background noise levels is dependent upon the normal sound levels in the airplane being represented. Background noise levels that fall below the lines defined by the following points, may be acceptable: (i) 70 dB @ 50 Hz; (ii) 55 dB @ 1000 Hz; (iii) 30 dB @ 16 kHz (Note: These limits are for unweighted 1/3 octave band sound levels. Meeting these limits for background noise does not ensure an acceptable flight simulator. Airplane sounds that fall below this limit require careful review and may require lower limits on background noise.) (6) Validation testing. Deficiencies in airplane recordings should be considered when applying the specified tolerances to ensure that the simulation is representative of the airplane. Examples of typical deficiencies are: (a) Variation of data between tail numbers; (b) Frequency response of microphones; (c) Repeatability of the measurements. TABLE A2B—EXAMPLE OF CONTINUING QUALIFICATION FREQUENCY RESPONSE TEST TOLERANCE Initial results (dBSPL) Band center frequency 50 ................................................................................................................................................. 63 ................................................................................................................................................. 80 ................................................................................................................................................. 100 ............................................................................................................................................... 125 ............................................................................................................................................... 160 ............................................................................................................................................... 200 ............................................................................................................................................... 250 ............................................................................................................................................... 315 ............................................................................................................................................... 400 ............................................................................................................................................... 500 ............................................................................................................................................... 630 ............................................................................................................................................... 800 ............................................................................................................................................... 1000 ............................................................................................................................................. 1250 ............................................................................................................................................. 1600 ............................................................................................................................................. 2000 ............................................................................................................................................. 2500 ............................................................................................................................................. 3150 ............................................................................................................................................. 4000 ............................................................................................................................................. 5000 ............................................................................................................................................. 6300 ............................................................................................................................................. 8000 ............................................................................................................................................. 10000 ........................................................................................................................................... 12500 ........................................................................................................................................... 16000 ........................................................................................................................................... Continuing qualification results (dBSPL) 75.0 75.9 77.1 78.0 81.9 79.8 83.1 78.6 79.5 80.1 80.7 81.9 73.2 79.2 80.7 81.6 76.2 79.5 80.1 78.9 80.1 80.7 84.3 81.3 80.7 71.1 Average sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 8. Additional Information About Flight Simulator Qualification for New or Derivative Airplanes a. Typically, an airplane manufacturer’s approved final data for performance, handling qualities, systems or avionics is not available until well after a new or derivative airplane has entered service. However, flight crew training and certification often begins several months prior to the entry of the first airplane into service. Consequently, it may be necessary to use preliminary data provided by the airplane manufacturer for interim qualification of flight simulators. b. In these cases, the NSPM may accept certain partially validated preliminary VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 airplane and systems data, and early release (‘red label’) avionics data in order to permit the necessary program schedule for training, certification, and service introduction. c. Simulator sponsors seeking qualification based on preliminary data should consult the NSPM to make special arrangements for using preliminary data for flight simulator qualification. The sponsor should also consult the airplane and flight simulator manufacturers to develop a data plan and flight simulator qualification plan. d. The procedure to be followed to gain NSPM acceptance of preliminary data will vary from case to case and between airplane manufacturers. Each airplane manufacturer’s new airplane development and test program PO 00000 Frm 00110 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 73.8 75.6 76.5 78.3 81.3 80.1 84.9 78.9 78.3 79.5 79.8 80.4 74.1 80.1 82.8 78.6 74.4 80.7 77.1 78.6 77.1 80.4 85.5 79.8 80.1 71.1 Absolute difference 1.2 0.3 0.6 0.3 0.6 0.3 1.8 0.3 1.2 0.9 0.9 1.5 0.9 0.9 2.1 3.0 1.8 1.2 3.0 0.3 3.0 0.3 1.2 1.5 0.6 0.0 1.1 is designed to suit the needs of the particular project and may not contain the same events or sequence of events as another manufacturer’s program, or even the same manufacturer’s program for a different airplane. Therefore, there cannot be a prescribed invariable procedure for acceptance of preliminary data, but instead there should be a statement describing the final sequence of events, data sources, and validation procedures agreed by the simulator sponsor, the airplane manufacturer, the flight simulator manufacturer, and the NSPM. Note: A description of airplane manufacturer-provided data needed for flight simulator modeling and validation is to be E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules found in the IATA Document ‘‘Flight Simulator Design and Performance Data Requirements,’’ as amended. e. The preliminary data should be the manufacturer’s best representation of the airplane, with assurance that the final data will not significantly deviate from the preliminary estimates. Data derived from these predictive or preliminary techniques should be validated against available sources including, at least, the following: (1) Manufacturer’s engineering report. The report should explain the predictive method used and illustrate past success of the method on similar projects. For example, the manufacturer could show the application of the method to an earlier airplane model or predict the characteristics of an earlier model and compare the results to final data for that model. (2) Early flight test results. This data is often derived from airplane certification tests, and should be used to maximum advantage for early flight simulator validation. Certain critical tests that would normally be done early in the airplane certification program should be included to validate essential pilot training and certification maneuvers. These include cases where a pilot is expected to cope with an airplane failure mode or an engine failure. Flight test data that will be available early in the flight test program will depend on the airplane manufacturer’s flight test program design and may not be the same in each case. The flight test program of the airplane manufacturer should include provisions for generation of very early flight test results for flight simulator validation. f. The use of preliminary data is not indefinite. The airplane manufacturer’s final data should be available within 12 months after the airplane’s first entry into service or as agreed by the NSPM, the simulator sponsor, and the airplane manufacturer. When applying for interim qualification using preliminary data, the simulator sponsor and the NSPM should agree on the update program. This includes specifying that the final data update will be installed in the flight simulator within a period of 12 months following the final data release, unless special conditions exist and a different schedule is acceptable. The flight simulator performance and handling validation would then be based on data derived from flight tests or from other approved sources. Initial airplane systems data should be updated after engineering tests. Final airplane systems data should also be used for flight simulator programming and validation. g. Flight simulator avionics should stay essentially in step with airplane avionics (hardware and software) updates. The permitted time lapse between airplane and flight simulator updates should be minimal. It may depend on the magnitude of the update and whether the QTG and pilot training and certification are affected. Differences in airplane and flight simulator avionics versions and the resulting effects on flight simulator qualification should be agreed between the simulator sponsor and the NSPM. Consultation with the flight simulator manufacturer is desirable throughout the qualification process. VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 h. The following describes an example of the design data and sources that might be used in the development of an interim qualification plan. (1) The plan should consist of the development of a QTG based upon a mix of flight test and engineering simulation data. For data collected from specific airplane flight tests or other flights, the required design model or data changes necessary to support an acceptable Proof of Match (POM) should be generated by the airplane manufacturer. (2) For proper validation of the two sets of data, the airplane manufacturer should compare their simulation model responses against the flight test data, when driven by the same control inputs and subjected to the same atmospheric conditions as recorded in the flight test. The model responses should result from a simulation where the following systems are run in an integrated fashion and are consistent with the design data released to the flight simulator manufacturer: (a) Propulsion (b) Aerodynamics; (c) Mass properties; (d) Flight controls; (e) Stability augmentation; and (f) Brakes/landing gear. i. A qualified test pilot should be used to assess handling qualities and performance evaluations for the qualification of flight simulators of new airplane types. End Information lllllllllllllllllllll Begin QPS Requirement 9. Engineering Simulator—Validation Data a. When a fully validated simulation (i.e., validated with flight test results) is modified due to changes to the simulated airplane configuration, the airplane manufacturer or other acceptable data supplier must coordinate with the NSPM if they propose to supply validation data from an ‘‘audited’’ engineering simulator/simulation to selectively supplement flight test data. The NSPM must be provided an opportunity to audit the engineering simulation or the engineering simulator used to generate the validation data. Validation data from an audited engineering simulation may be used for changes that are incremental in nature. Manufacturers or other data suppliers must be able to demonstrate that the predicted changes in aircraft performance are based on acceptable aeronautical principles with proven success history and valid outcomes. This must include comparisons of predicted and flight test validated data. b. Airplane manufacturers or other acceptable data suppliers seeking to use an engineering simulator for simulation validation data as an alternative to flight-test derived validation data, must contact the NSPM and provide the following: (1) A description of the proposed aircraft changes, a description of the proposed simulation model changes, and the use of an integral configuration management process, including a description of the actual simulation model modifications that includes a step-by-step description leading from the original model(s) to the current model(s). PO 00000 Frm 00111 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 39571 (2) A schedule for review by the NSPM of the proposed plan and the subsequent validation data to establish acceptability of the proposal. (3) Validation data from an audited engineering simulator/simulation to supplement specific segments of the flight test data. c. To be qualified to supply engineering simulator validation data, for aerodynamic, engine, flight control, or ground handling models, an airplane manufacturer or other acceptable data supplier must: (1) Be able to verify their ability able to: (a) Develop and implement high fidelity simulation models; and (b) Predict the handling and performance characteristics of an airplane with sufficient accuracy to avoid additional flight test activities for those handling and performance characteristics. (2) Have an engineering simulator that: (a) Is a physical entity, complete with a flight deck representative of the simulated class of airplane; (b) Has controls sufficient for manual flight; (c) Has models that run in an integrated manner; (d) Has fully flight-test validated simulation models as the original or baseline simulation models; (e) Has an out-of-the-flight deck visual system; (f) Has actual avionics boxes interchangeable with the equivalent software simulations to support validation of released software; (g) Uses the same models as released to the training community (which are also used to produce stand-alone proof-of-match and checkout documents); (h) Is used to support airplane development and certification; and (i) Has been found to be a high fidelity representation of the airplane by the manufacturer’s pilots (or other acceptable data supplier), certificate holders, and the NSPM. (3) Use the engineering simulator/ simulation to produce a representative set of integrated proof-of-match cases. (4) Use a configuration control system covering hardware and software for the operating components of the engineering simulator/simulation. (5) Demonstrate that the predicted effects of the change(s) are within the provisions of sub-paragraph ‘‘a’’ of this section, and confirm that additional flight test data are not required. d. Additional Requirements for Validation Data (1) When used to provide validation data, an engineering simulator must meet the simulator standards currently applicable to training simulators except for the data package. (2) The data package used must be: (a) Comprised of the engineering predictions derived from the airplane design, development, or certification process; (b) Based on acceptable aeronautical principles with proven success history and valid outcomes for aerodynamics, engine operations, avionics operations, flight control applications, or ground handling; E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 39572 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules (c) Verified with existing flight-test data; and (d) Applicable to the configuration of a production airplane, as opposed to a flighttest airplane. (3) Where engineering simulator data are used as part of a QTG, an essential match must exist between the training simulator and the validation data. (4) Training flight simulator(s) using these baseline and modified simulation models must be qualified to at least internationally recognized standards, such as contained in the ICAO Document 9625, the ‘‘Manual of Criteria for the Qualification of Flight Simulators.’’ a. Non-Flight-Test Tolerances (1) If engineering simulator data or other non-flight-test data are used as an allowable form of reference validation data for the objective tests listed in Table A2A of this attachment, the data provider must supply a well-documented mathematical model and testing procedure that enables a replication of the engineering simulation results within 40% of the corresponding flight test tolerances. simulator (i.e., the two sets of results should be ‘‘essentially’’ similar). (4) The results from the two sources may differ for the following reasons: (a) Hardware (avionics units and flight controls); (b) Iteration rates; (c) Execution order; (d) Integration methods; (e) Processor architecture; (f) Digital drift, including: (i) Interpolation methods; (ii) Data handling differences; and (iii) Auto-test trim tolerances. (5) The tolerance limit between the reference data and the flight simulator results is generally 40% of the corresponding ‘flighttest’ tolerances. However, there may be cases where the simulator models used are of higher fidelity, or the manner in which they are cascaded in the integrated testing loop have the effect of a higher fidelity, than those supplied by the data provider. Under these circumstances, it is possible that an error greater than 20% may be generated. An error greater than 40% may be acceptable if simulator sponsor can provide an adequate explanation. (6) Guidelines are needed for the application of tolerances to engineeringsimulator-generated validation data because: (a) Flight-test data are often not available due to technical reasons; (b) Alternative technical solutions are being advanced; and (c) High costs. b. Background (1) The tolerances listed in Table A2A of this attachment are designed to measure the quality of the match using flight-test data as a reference. (2) Good engineering judgment should be applied to all tolerances in any test. A test is failed when the results clearly fall outside of the prescribed tolerance(s). (3) Engineering simulator data are acceptable because the same simulation models used to produce the reference data are also used to test the flight training 12. Validation Data Roadmap a. Airplane manufacturers or other data suppliers should supply a validation data roadmap (VDR) document as part of the data package. A VDR document contains guidance material from the airplane validation data supplier recommending the best possible sources of data to be used as validation data in the QTG. A VDR is of special value when requesting interim qualification, qualification of simulators for airplanes certificated prior to 1992, and qualification of alternate engine or avionics fits. A sponsor seeking to have a End QPS Requirement lllllllllllllllllllll 10. [Reserved] 11. Validation Test Tolerances lllllllllllllllllllll sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Begin Information VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00112 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 device qualified in accordance with the standards contained in this QPS appendix should submit a VDR to the NSPM as early as possible in the planning stages. The NSPM is the final authority to approve the data to be used as validation material for the QTG. The NSPM and the Joint Aviation Authorities’ Synthetic Training Devices Advisory Board have committed to maintain a list of agreed VDRs. b. The VDR should identify (in matrix format) sources of data for all required tests. It should also provide guidance regarding the validity of these data for a specific engine type, thrust rating configuration, and the revision levels of all avionics affecting airplane handling qualities and performance. The VDR should include rationale or explanation in cases where data or parameters are missing, engineering simulation data are to be used, flight test methods require explanation, or there is any deviation from data requirements. Additionally, the document should refer to other appropriate sources of validation data (e.g., sound and vibration data documents). c. The Sample Validation Data Roadmap (VDR) for airplanes, shown in Table A2C, depicts a generic roadmap matrix identifying sources of validation data for an abbreviated list of tests. This document is merely a sample and does not provide actual data. A complete matrix should address all test conditions and provide actual data and data sources. d. Two examples of rationale pages are presented in Appendix F of the IATA ‘‘Flight Simulator Design and Performance Data Requirements.’’ These illustrate the type of airplane and avionics configuration information and descriptive engineering rationale used to describe data anomalies or provide an acceptable basis for using alternative data for QTG validation requirements. End Information lllllllllllllllllllll BILLING CODE 4910–13–P E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS VerDate Mar<15>2010 Table A2C - Sample Validation Data Roadmap for Airplanes or lATA# Notes: Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00113 1. Only one page is shown; and some test conditions were deleted for brevity. 2. Relevant regulatory material should be consulted and all applicable tests addressed. 3. Validation source, document and comments provided herein are for reference only and do not constitute approval for use. u 4. CCA mode must be described for each test condition. 5. If more than one aircraft type (e.g., derivative and baseline) are used as validation data more columns may be necessary. I.a.!. I Minimum Radius Tum. I l.a.2. I Rate ofTurn vs. Noscwheel Angle (2 speeds). I u 0 ~<:( ~ Cl ..... "" ~ Ei: ctj .5 '0 oiJ ~ "'~~ u t: ~g _g~ 0 "" e+:: u <l) <(" Ei:o 0 ·C Jj Fmt 4701 I X I II X I II I ~X I I I (x) ! X I X I Sfmt 4702 I X E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 Rtjected Takeoff. Dynamic Engine Failure After Takeoff. Normal Climb- All Engines. Climb - Engine-out, Second Segment. Climb Engine-out, Enroute. Engine-out, Approach Climb. Level Flight Acceleration. Level Flight Deceleration. Cruise Performance. Stopping Time & Distance (Wheel brakes I Light weight). Stopping Time & Distance (Wheel brakes/ Med. weight). Stopping Time & Distance (Wheel brakes I Heavy weight). Stopping Time & Distance (Reverse thrust I Light weight). Stopping Time & Distance (Reverse thrust I Med. Weight). §.--: I I (d71) II D71 lljd73) -Boo Bold upper case ~~ Oiler. ;:; K K K K Lower case, within parentheses = alternative validation source. ·~ -o "" <=r-- 0~ 0 ""0"" Cl ~Cl I D71 I D71 d7~LL_~3 I I I D73 (d71) D73 D71 R D73 (d71) (d71) X X (d71) D71 (d73) (d73) D71 X X X primary validation source. R Rationale included in the data package Appendix. t-f'!_imary. data.contai.ned it1_IPOM_.-::-----c.:-::-=-=-----i 1 See engmeermg ratiOnale for test data m VDR. I Primal]'_data contained in IPOM. D73 (d71) ; X X (x) "' (.) v .,.0. D73 X (x) ·~ . -"' g ""a ~ r-: .8~ sn~ .8 :tl:: 0 '- c -g~ .~ "'\D N .,.. = "" ::r: ~ IL_H·( I II X l.c.3. l.c.4. l.c.S.a. l.c.S.b. !.d.!. l.c.l.a. I X l.b.7. l.b.8. !.c.!. J.c.2. X K S2~ ""'..£ ""O'f) 0 ;'; "' K ' ~~ ~ ~ ""cr. c.. ;'; :§oo: •f) < D71 =Engine Type (Thrust Rating of71.5K) D73 =Engine Type (Thrust Rating of73K) u. ~ . <= K "0 ~ 1 0 --.o "Ob Crosswind Takeoff. l.e.2.b. I c...z §i-'J ·;: :.:;:: O:r.l <l) Cl ~::Q ""cr.' u <l) ~ :::: C"-.l {/)C"ti ~r- q:: l.b.6. l.e.2.a. I "- "' ~ <l) ~~ 0 ;> Cl f- I l.e.l.c. I Comments Legend: "" 8 ~ 25 l:b.l. I G~<:J';Ind Accekrati~ T~e and Qist~l!~e. l.b.2:-ll\1mtmum Control Speed, Ground (vmcg). l.b.J. I Minimum Unstick Speed (Vmu). l.b.4. I Nonml Takeoff. l.b.5. I Critical Engine Failure on Takeoff. Validation Document rl ~ l.e.l.b. I 071 D73 D73 Alternative engine thrust rating flight test data in VDR. Alternative engine thrust rating flight test data in VDR. Test procedure anomaly; see rationale. No flight test data available; see rationale. Primary data contained in IPOM. Altemative engine thrust rating night test data in VDR. I AF\1 data available (73K). D73 U73 X D71 (d73) X (X) D71 (d73) X (x) D71 (d73) X (x) U71 (d73) X (d71) D73 Eng sim data w/ modified EEC accel rate in VDR. Eng sim data w/ modified EEC accel rate in VDR. 1 No ±light test data available; see rationale. I No flight test data available; see rationale. i 39573 EP10JY14.080</GPH> Validation Source Test Description Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 TCAO 39574 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules BILLING CODE 4910–13–C Begin Information lllllllllllllllllllll 13. Acceptance Guidelines for Alternative Engines Data a. Background (1) For a new airplane type, the majority of flight validation data are collected on the first airplane configuration with a ‘‘baseline’’ engine type. These data are then used to validate all flight simulators representing that airplane type. (2) Additional flight test validation data may be needed for flight simulators representing an airplane with engines of a different type than the baseline, or for engines with thrust rating that is different from previously validated configurations. (3) When a flight simulator with alternate engines is to be qualified, the QTG should contain tests against flight test validation data for selected cases where engine differences are expected to be significant. b. Approval Guidelines For Validating Alternate Engine Applications (1) The following guidelines apply to flight simulators representing airplanes with alternate engine applications or with more than one engine type or thrust rating. (2) Validation tests can be segmented into two groups, those that are dependent on engine type or thrust rating and those that are not. (3) For tests that are independent of engine type or thrust rating, the QTG can be based on validation data from any engine application. Tests in this category should be designated as independent of engine type or thrust rating. (4) For tests that are affected by engine type, the QTG should contain selected engine-specific flight test data sufficient to validate that particular airplane-engine configuration. These effects may be due to engine dynamic characteristics, thrust levels or engine-related airplane configuration changes. This category is primarily characterized by variations between different engine manufacturers’ products, but also includes differences due to significant engine design changes from a previously flightvalidated configuration within a single engine type. See Table A2D, Alternate Engine Validation Flight Tests in this section for a list of acceptable tests. (5) Alternate engine validation data should be based on flight test data, except as noted in sub-paragraphs 13.c.(1) and (2), or where other data are specifically allowed (e.g., engineering simulator/simulation data). If certification of the flight characteristics of the airplane with a new thrust rating (regardless of percentage change) does require certification flight testing with a comprehensive stability and control flight instrumentation package, then the conditions described in Table A2D in this section should be obtained from flight testing and presented in the QTG. Flight test data, other than throttle calibration data, are not required if the new thrust rating is certified on the airplane without need for a comprehensive stability and control flight instrumentation package. (6) As a supplement to the engine-specific flight tests listed in Table A2D and baseline engine-independent tests, additional enginespecific engineering validation data should be provided in the QTG, as appropriate, to facilitate running the entire QTG with the alternate engine configuration. The sponsor and the NSPM should agree in advance on the specific validation tests to be supported by engineering simulation data. (7) A matrix or VDR should be provided with the QTG indicating the appropriate validation data source for each test. (8) The flight test conditions in Table A2D are appropriate and should be sufficient to validate implementation of alternate engines in a flight simulator. End Information lllllllllllllllllllll Begin QPS Requirement c. Test Requirements (1) The QTG must contain selected enginespecific flight test data sufficient to validate the alternative thrust level when: (a) the engine type is the same, but the thrust rating exceeds that of a previously flight-test validated configuration by five percent (5%) or more; or (b) the engine type is the same, but the thrust rating is less than the lowest previously flight-test validated rating by fifteen percent (15%) or more. See Table A2D for a list of acceptable tests. (2) Flight test data is not required if the thrust increase is greater than 5%, but flight tests have confirmed that the thrust increase does not change the airplane’s flight characteristics. (3) Throttle calibration data (i.e., commanded power setting parameter versus throttle position) must be provided to validate all alternate engine types and engine thrust ratings that are higher or lower than a previously validated engine. Data from a test airplane or engineering test bench with the correct engine controller (both hardware and software) are required. End QPS Requirement lllllllllllllllllllll Begin QPS Requirement TABLE A2D—ALTERNATIVE ENGINE VALIDATION FLIGHT TESTS Entry No. Test description Alternative engine type Alternative thrust rating 2 1.b.1. .................. 1.b.4. 1.b.2. .................. Normal take-off/ground acceleration time and distance X X Vmcg, if performed for airplane certification X X 1.b.5. .................. 1.b.8. .................. Engine-out take-off ....................................... Dynamic engine failure after take-off Either test may be performed. ..................... X Rejected take-off if performed for airplane certification Cruise performance X X 1.f.1. ................... 1.f.2. ................... Engine acceleration and deceleration X X 2.a.8. .................. Throttle calibration 1 X X 2.c.1. .................. sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 1.b.7. .................. 1.d.1. .................. Power change dynamics (acceleration) X X 2.d.1. .................. Vmca if performed for airplane certification X X 2.d.5. .................. Engine inoperative trim X X 2.e.1. .................. Normal landing X 1 Must be provided for all changes in engine type or thrust rating; see paragraph 13.c.(3). 2 See paragraphs 13.c.(1) through13.c.(3), for a definition of applicable thrust ratings. VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00114 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules End QPS Requirement sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Begin Information 14. Acceptance Guidelines for Alternative Avionics (Flight-Related Computers and Controllers) a. Background (1) For a new airplane type, the majority of flight validation data are collected on the first airplane configuration with a ‘‘baseline’’ flight-related avionics ship-set; (see subparagraph b.(2) of this section). These data are then used to validate all flight simulators representing that airplane type. (2) Additional validation data may be required for flight simulators representing an airplane with avionics of a different hardware design than the baseline, or a different software revision than previously validated configurations. (3) When a flight simulator with additional or alternate avionics configurations is to be qualified, the QTG should contain tests against validation data for selected cases where avionics differences are expected to be significant. b. Approval Guidelines For Validating Alternate Avionics (1) The following guidelines apply to flight simulators representing airplanes with a revised avionics configuration, or more than one avionics configuration. (2) The baseline validation data should be based on flight test data, except where other data are specifically allowed (e.g., engineering flight simulator data). (3) The airplane avionics can be segmented into two groups, systems or components whose functional behavior contributes to the aircraft response presented in the QTG results, and systems that do not. The following avionics are examples of contributory systems for which hardware design changes or software revisions may lead to significant differences in the aircraft response relative to the baseline avionics configuration: Flight control computers and controllers for engines, autopilot, braking system, nosewheel steering system, and high lift system. Related avionics such as stall warning and augmentation systems should also be considered. (4) The acceptability of validation data used in the QTG for an alternative avionics fit should be determined as follows: (a) For changes to an avionics system or component that do not affect QTG validation test response, the QTG test can be based on validation data from the previously validated avionics configuration. (b) For an avionics change to a contributory system, where a specific test is not affected by the change (e.g., the avionics change is a Built In Test Equipment (BITE) update or a modification in a different flight phase), the QTG test can be based on validation data from the previously-validated avionics configuration. The QTG should include authoritative justification (e.g., from the airplane manufacturer or system supplier) that this avionics change does not affect the test. (c) For an avionics change to a contributory system, the QTG may be based on validation data from the previously-validated avionics configuration if no new functionality is VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 added and the impact of the avionics change on the airplane response is small and based on acceptable aeronautical principles with proven success history and valid outcomes. This should be supplemented with avionicsspecific validation data from the airplane manufacturer’s engineering simulation, generated with the revised avionics configuration. The QTG should also include an explanation of the nature of the change and its effect on the airplane response. (d) For an avionics change to a contributory system that significantly affects some tests in the QTG or where new functionality is added, the QTG should be based on validation data from the previously validated avionics configuration and supplemental avionics-specific flight test data sufficient to validate the alternate avionics revision. Additional flight test validation data may not be needed if the avionics changes were certified without the need for testing with a comprehensive flight instrumentation package. The airplane manufacturer should coordinate flight simulator data requirements, in advance with the NSPM. (5) A matrix or ‘‘roadmap’’ should be provided with the QTG indicating the appropriate validation data source for each test. The roadmap should include identification of the revision state of those contributory avionics systems that could affect specific test responses if changed. 15. Transport Delay Testing a. This paragraph explains how to determine the introduced transport delay through the flight simulator system so that it does not exceed a specific time delay. The transport delay should be measured from control inputs through the interface, through each of the host computer modules and back through the interface to motion, flight instrument, and visual systems. The transport delay should not exceed the maximum allowable interval. b. Four specific examples of transport delay are: (1) Simulation of classic non-computer controlled aircraft; (2) Simulation of computer controlled aircraft using real airplane black boxes; (3) Simulation of computer controlled aircraft using software emulation of airplane boxes; (4) Simulation using software avionics or re-hosted instruments. c. Figure A2D illustrates the total transport delay for a non-computer-controlled airplane or the classic transport delay test. Since there are no airplane-induced delays for this case, the total transport delay is equivalent to the introduced delay. d. Figure A2E illustrates the transport delay testing method using the real airplane controller system. e. To obtain the induced transport delay for the motion, instrument and visual signal, the delay induced by the airplane controller should be subtracted from the total transport delay. This difference represents the introduced delay and should not exceed the standards prescribed in Table A1A. f. Introduced transport delay is measured from the flight deck control input to the PO 00000 Frm 00115 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 39575 reaction of the instruments and motion and visual systems (See Figure A2D). g. The control input may also be introduced after the airplane controller system and the introduced transport delay measured directly from the control input to the reaction of the instruments, and simulator motion and visual systems (See Figure A2E). h. Figure A2F illustrates the transport delay testing method used on a flight simulator that uses a software emulated airplane controller system. i. It is not possible to measure the introduced transport delay using the simulated airplane controller system architecture for the pitch, roll and yaw axes. Therefore, the signal should be measured directly from the pilot controller. The flight simulator manufacturer should measure the total transport delay and subtract the inherent delay of the actual airplane components because the real airplane controller system has an inherent delay provided by the airplane manufacturer. The flight simulator manufacturer should ensure that the introduced delay does not exceed the standards prescribed in Table A1A. j. Special measurements for instrument signals for flight simulators using a real airplane instrument display system instead of a simulated or re-hosted display. For flight instrument systems, the total transport delay should be measured and the inherent delay of the actual airplane components subtracted to ensure that the introduced delay does not exceed the standards prescribed in Table A1A. (1) Figure A2GA illustrates the transport delay procedure without airplane display simulation. The introduced delay consists of the delay between the control movement and the instrument change on the data bus. (2) Figure A2GB illustrates the modified testing method required to measure introduced delay due to software avionics or re-hosted instruments. The total simulated instrument transport delay is measured and the airplane delay should be subtracted from this total. This difference represents the introduced delay and should not exceed the standards prescribed in Table A1A. The inherent delay of the airplane between the data bus and the displays is indicated in figure A2GA. The display manufacturer should provide this delay time. k. Recorded signals. The signals recorded to conduct the transport delay calculations should be explained on a schematic block diagram. The flight simulator manufacturer should also provide an explanation of why each signal was selected and how they relate to the above descriptions. l. Interpretation of results. Flight simulator results vary over time from test to test due to ‘‘sampling uncertainty.’’ All flight simulators run at a specific rate where all modules are executed sequentially in the host computer. The flight controls input can occur at any time in the iteration, but these data will not be processed before the start of the new iteration. For example, a flight simulator running at 60 Hz may have a difference of as much as 16.67 msec between test results. This does not mean that the test has failed. Instead, the difference is E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 39576 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules attributed to variations in input processing. In some conditions, the host simulator and the visual system do not run at the same iteration rate, so the output of the host computer to the visual system will not always be synchronized. m. The transport delay test should account for both daylight and night modes of operation of the visual system. In both cases, the tolerances prescribed in Table A1A must be met and the motion response should occur before the end of the first video scan containing new information. BILLING CODE 4910–13–P Figure A2D Transport Delay for simulation of classic non-computer controlled aircraft. '. / ( c-- -- --- --- - - - - - 1/-- ---- - ------------ - ~\ Flight controls input ! ; Simulator ! t---+; flight control i : HOST ~\ interface !• : ~~Instruments ! ~ ------ -~--- -- - __-') Instruments reaction Motion reaction Visual reaction 1Motion I• ____ j Simulator introduced transport delay Total simulator transport delay Figure A2E Transport Delay for simulation of computer controlled aircraft using real airplane black boxes / . ht Fl 19 controls input '· \ I \ • Simulator 1 : tr ht ---+1 •gt 1 : con ro ' ; I interface ' , , A. 1rp1 ane ~ controller ' system 1 1 1 _____ __;' I\____ ''-------~--) _ _/ . ·• ' Motion ' 1 Visual reaction Motion reaction Visual reaction I • '---------- .. Aircraft delay Instruments ~.; • i'---+i Instruments 1 '- HOST ! . Simulator introduced delay Total simulator transport delay Figure A2F Transport Delay for simulation of computer controlled aircraft using software emulation of airplane boxes ! I 1 Flight controls in ut P_~ _ ) l -·- flight control 0terfac_!__; \ (Simulated~\ HOST airplane i I ~ controller i I • l_system ) I (. 1. 1, Instruments ~ • Motion ! Visual J 1• \.. __~ _____ j 1 • 1 l Instruments! reaction Motion reaction Visual : reaction ) ----~ Total simulator transport delay VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00116 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 EP10JY14.081</GPH> sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS r-i ~r Simulator\ I Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules lllllllllllllllllllll Begin Information MQTG for acceptance. The flight simulator operator and the NSPM should look for any change in the flight simulator performance since initial qualification. b. Continuing Qualification Evaluation Test Results Presentation a. Background sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 16. Continuing Qualification Evaluations— Validation Test Data Presentation (1) Flight simulator operators are encouraged to over-plot continuing qualification validation test results with MQTG flight simulator results recorded during the initial evaluation and as amended. Any change in a validation test will be readily apparent. In addition to plotting continuing qualification validation test and MQTG results, operators may elect to plot reference data as well. (2) There are no suggested tolerances between flight simulator continuing qualification and MQTG validation test results. Investigation of any discrepancy between the MQTG and continuing qualification flight simulator performance is left to the discretion of the flight simulator operator and the NSPM. (3) Differences between the two sets of results, other than variations attributable to (1) The MQTG is created during the initial evaluation of a flight simulator. This is the master document, as amended, to which flight simulator continuing qualification evaluation test results are compared. (2) The currently accepted method of presenting continuing qualification evaluation test results is to provide flight simulator results over-plotted with reference data. Test results are carefully reviewed to determine if the test is within the specified tolerances. This can be a time consuming process, particularly when reference data exhibits rapid variations or an apparent anomaly requiring engineering judgment in the application of the tolerances. In these cases, the solution is to compare the results to the MQTG. The continuing qualification results are compared to the results in the VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00117 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 repeatability issues that cannot be explained, should be investigated. (4) The flight simulator should retain the ability to over-plot both automatic and manual validation test results with reference data. End Information lllllllllllllllllllll Begin QPS Requirements 17. Alternative Data Sources, Procedures, and Instrumentation: Level A and Level B Simulators Only a. Sponsors are not required to use the alternative data sources, procedures, and instrumentation. However, a sponsor may choose to use one or more of the alternative sources, procedures, and instrumentation described in Table A2E. End QPS Requirements lllllllllllllllllllll Begin Information b. It has become standard practice for experienced simulator manufacturers to use E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 EP10JY14.082</GPH> BILLING CODE 4910–13–C 39577 39578 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS modeling techniques to establish data bases for new simulator configurations while awaiting the availability of actual flight test data. The data generated from the aerodynamic modeling techniques is then compared to the flight test data when it becomes available. The results of such comparisons have become increasingly consistent, indicating that these techniques, applied with the appropriate experience, are dependable and accurate for the development of aerodynamic models for use in Level A and Level B simulators. c. Based on this history of successful comparisons, the NSPM has concluded that those who are experienced in the development of aerodynamic models may use modeling techniques to alter the method for acquiring flight test data for Level A or Level B simulators. d. The information in Table A2E (Alternative Data Sources, Procedures, and Instrumentation) is presented to describe an acceptable alternative to data sources for simulator modeling and validation and an acceptable alternative to the procedures and instrumentation traditionally used to gather such modeling and validation data. (1) Alternative data sources that may be used for part or all of a data requirement are the Airplane Maintenance Manual, the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM), Airplane Design Data, the Type Inspection Report (TIR), Certification Data or acceptable supplemental flight test data. VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 (2) The sponsor should coordinate with the NSPM prior to using alternative data sources in a flight test or data gathering effort. e. The NSPM position regarding the use of these alternative data sources, procedures, and instrumentation is based on the following presumptions: (1) Data gathered through the alternative means does not require angle of attack (AOA) measurements or control surface position measurements for any flight test. However, AOA can be sufficiently derived if the flight test program ensures the collection of acceptable level, unaccelerated, trimmed flight data. All of the simulator time history tests that begin in level, unaccelerated, and trimmed flight, including the three basic trim tests and ‘‘fly-by’’ trims, can be a successful validation of angle of attack by comparison with flight test pitch angle. (Note: Due to the criticality of angle of attack in the development of the ground effects model, particularly critical for normal landings and landings involving cross-control input applicable to Level B simulators, stable ‘‘flyby’’ trim data will be the acceptable norm for normal and cross-control input landing objective data for these applications.) (2) The use of a rigorously defined and fully mature simulation controls system model that includes accurate gearing and cable stretch characteristics (where applicable), determined from actual aircraft measurements. Such a model does not require control surface position measurements in the flight test objective data in these limited applications. PO 00000 Frm 00118 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 f. The sponsor is urged to contact the NSPM for clarification of any issue regarding airplanes with reversible control systems. Table A2E is not applicable to Computer Controlled Aircraft FFSs. g. Utilization of these alternate data sources, procedures, and instrumentation (Table A2E) does not relieve the sponsor from compliance with the balance of the information contained in this document relative to Level A or Level B FFSs. h. The term ‘‘inertial measurement system’’ is used in the following table to include the use of a functional global positioning system (GPS). i. Synchronized video for the use of alternative data sources, procedures, and instrumentation should have: (1) Sufficient resolution to allow magnification of the display to make appropriate measurement and comparisons; and (2) Sufficient size and incremental marking to allow similar measurement and comparison. The detail provided by the video should provide sufficient clarity and accuracy to measure the necessary parameter(s) to at least 1⁄2 of the tolerance authorized for the specific test being conducted and allow an integration of the parameter(s) in question to obtain a rate of change. End Information lllllllllllllllllllll BILLING CODE 4910–13–P E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules Table A2E Alternative Data Sources, Procedures and Instrumentation QPS REQUIREMENTS The standards in this table arc required if the data gathering methods described in paragraph 9 of Appendix A are not used. Table of Objective Tests Sim Alternative Data Level Sources, Procedures, Test Entry Number and Instrumentation and Title A B X Data may be acquired by using a constant tiller position, measured with a protractor or full rudder pedal application for steady state tum, and synchronized video of heading indicator. If less than full rudder pedal is used, pedal position must be recorded. X X l.b.2. Performance. Takeoff. Minimum Control Speed ground (V meg) using aerodynamic controls only (per applicable airworthiness standard) or low speed, engine inoperative ground control characteristics l.b.3. Performance. Takeoff. Minimum Unstick Speed (V mu) or equivalent test to demonstrate early rotation takeoff characteristics. l.b.4. Performance. Takeoff. Normal Takeoff X X Preliminary certification data may be used. Data may be acquired by using a stop watch, calibrated airspeed, and runway markers during a takeoff with power set before brake release. Power settings may be hand recorded. If an inertial measurement system is installed, speed and distance may be derived from acceleration measurements. Data may be acquired by using an inertial measurement system and a synchronized video of calibrated airplane instmments and force/position measurements of flight deck controls. X X X X l.b.S. X X Notes X l.b.l. Performance. Takeoff. Ground Acceleration Time and Distance VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Data may be acquired by using an inertial measurement system and a synchronized video of calibrated airplane instruments and the force/position measurements of flight deck controls. Data may be acquired by using an inertial measurement system and a synchronized video of calibrated airplane instruments and force/position measurements of flight deck controls. AOA can be calculated from pitch attitude and flight path. Data may be acquired by using an Frm 00119 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM A single procedure may not be adequate for all airplane steering systems, therefore appropriate measurement procedures must be devised and proposed for NSPM concurrence. Rapid throttle reductions at speeds ncar v meg may be used while recording appropriate parameters. The nosewheel must be free to caster, or equivalently freed of sideforce generation. Record airplane dynamic 10JYP2 EP10JY14.083</GPH> l.a.l. Performance. Taxi. Minimum Radius tum l.a.2. Performance. Taxi Rate ofTum vs. Nosewheel Steering Angle sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS INFORMATION TIR, AFM, or Design data may be used. X 39579 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules Table A2E Alternative Data Sources, Procedures, and Instrumentation QPS REQUIREMENTS The stamlards in this table are required ifthe data gathering methods described in paragraph 9 of Appendix A are not used. Sim Alternative Data Table of Ob.jective Tests Level Sources, Procedures, Test Entry Number and Instrumentation and Title A B Perfonnance. Takeoff. Critical Engine Failure during Takeoti X X l.b. 7. Performance. Takeoff. Rejected Takeoff X X l.c. 1. Performance. Climb. Normal Climb all engines operating. l.c.2. Pcrfonnancc. Climb. One engine Inoperative Climb X X X X l.c.4. Performance. Climb. One Engine Inoperative Approach Climb (if operations in icing conditions are authorized) l.d.l. Cruise I Descent. Level flight acceleration. X X X X l.d.2. Cruise I Descent. Level flight deceleration. sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS l.b. 6. Perfonnance. Takeoff. Crosswind Takeoff X X l.d.4. Cruise I Descent. Idle descent. X X 1.d.S. X X VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 inertial measurement system and a synchronized video of calibrated airplane instruments and force/position measurements of flight deck controls. Data may be acquired by using an inertial measurement system and a synchronized video of calibrated airplane instruments and force/position measurements of flight deck controls. Data may be acquired with a synchronized video of calibrated airplane instruments, thrust lever position, engine parameters, and distance (e.g., runway markers). A stop watch is required. Data may be acquired with a synchronized video of calibrated airplane instruments and engine power throughout the climb range. Data may be acquired with a synchronized video of calibrated airplane instruments and engine power throughout the climb range. Data may be acquired with a synchronized video of calibrated airplane instruments and engine power throughout the climb range. INFORMATION Notes response to engine failure and control inputs required to correct flight path. The "1:7law" to 100 feet (30 meters) is an acceptable wind profile. Data may be acquired with a synchronized video of calibrated airplane instruments, thrust lever position, engine parameters, and elapsed time. Data may be acquired with a synchronized video of calibrated airplane instruments, thrust lever position, engine parameters, and elapsed time. Data may be acquired with a synchronized video of calibrated airplane instruments, thrust lever position, engine parameters, and elapsed time. Data may be acquired with a Frm 00120 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 EP10JY14.084</GPH> 39580 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules Table A2E Alternative Data Sources, Procedures, and Instrumentation QPS REQUIREMENTS The standards in this table are required if the data gathering methods described in paragraph 9 of Appendix A are not used. Cruise I Descent. Emergency Descent. X X X X l.f.l. Performance. Engines. Acceleration l.f.2. Performance. Engines. Deceleration 2.a.l.a. Handling Qualities. Static Control Checks. Pitch Controller Position vs. Force and Surface Position Calibration X X X X X X 2.a.2.a. Handling Qualities. Static Control Checks. Roll Controller Position vs. Force and Surface Position Calibration sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS l.e.l. Performance. Stopping. Deceleration time and distance, using manual application of wheel brakes and no reverse thrust on a dry runway. l.e.2. Performance. Ground. Deceleration Time and Distance, using reverse thmst and no wheel brakes. X X 2.a.3.a. X X VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 INFORMATION Alternative Data Sources, Procedures, and Instrumentation Notes synchronized video of calibrated airplane instruments, thrust lever position, engine parameters, and elapsed time. Data may be acquired during landing tests using a stop watch, runway markers, and a synchronized video of calibrated airplane instruments, thrust lever position and the pertinent parameters of engine power. Data may be acquired during landing tests using a stop watch, runway markers, and a synchronized video of calibrated airplane instruments, thmst lever position and pertinent parameters of engine power. Data may be acquired with a synchronized video recording of engine instruments and throttle position. Data may be acquired with a synchronized video recording of engine instmments and throttle position. Surface position data may be acquired from night data recorder (FDR) sensor or, if no FDR sensor, at selected, significant column positions (encompassing significant column position data points), acceptable to the NSPM, using a control surface protractor on the ground. Force data may be acquired by using a hand held force gauge at the same column position data points. Surface position data may be acquired from flight data recorder (FDR) sensor or, if no FDR sensor, at selected, significant wheel positions (encompassing significant wheel position data points), acceptable to the NSPM, using a control surface protractor on the ground. Force data may be acquired by using a hand held force gauge at the same wheel position data points. Surface position data may be acquired Frm 00121 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM For airplanes with reversible control systems, surface position data acquisition should be accomplished with winds less than 5 kts. For airplanes with reversible control systems, surface position data acquisition should be accomplished with winds less than 5 kts. For airplanes with 10JYP2 EP10JY14.085</GPH> Sim Level A B Table of Ob.iective Tests Test Entry Number and Title 39581 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules Table A2E Alternative Data Sources, Procedures, and Instrumentation QPS REQUIREMENTS The standards in this table are required if the data gathering methods described in paragraph 9 of Appendix A are not used. Sim Alternative Data Table of Ob.jective Tests Level Sources, Procedures, Test Entry Number and Instrumentation and Title A B Handling Qualities. Static Control Checks. Rudder Pedal Position vs. Force and Surface Position Calibration 2.a.4. X X X X X X X X X X 2.a.9. Handling qualities. Static control tests. Brake pedal position vs. force and brake system pressure calibration. X X 2.c.l. X X Handling Qualities. Static Control Checks. Nosewheel Steering Controller Force and Position 2.a.5. Handling Qualities. Static Control Checks. Rudder Pedal Steering Calibration 2.a.6. Handling Qualities. Static Control Checks. Pitch Trim Indicator vs. Surface Position Calibration. 2.a.7. Handling qualities. Static control tests. Pitch trim rate. 2.a.8. sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Handling Qualities. Static Control tests. Alignment of Flight deck Throttle Lever Angle vs. Selected engine parameter . VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 from flight data recorder (FDR) sensor or, if no FDR sensor, at selected, significant rudder pedal positions (encompassing significant rudder pedal position data points), acceptable to the NSPM, using a control surface protractor on the ground. Force data may be acquired by using a hand held force gauge at the same rudder pedal position data points. Breakout data may be acquired with a hand held force gauge. The remainder of the force to the stops may be calculated if the force gauge and a protractor are used to measure force after breakout for at least 25% of the total displacement capability. Data may be acquired through the use of force pads on the rudder pedals and a pedal position measurement device, together with design data for nosewheel position. Data may be acquired through calculations. I~FORMATION Notes reversible control systems, surface position data acquisition should be accomplished with winds less than 5 kts. Data may be acquired by using a synchronized video of pitch trim indication and elapsed time through range of trim indication. Data may be acquired through the use of a temporary throttle quadrant scale to document throttle position. Use a synchronized video to record steady state instrument readings or hand-record steady state engine performance readings. Use of design or predicted data is acceptable. Data may be acquired by measuring deflection at "zero" and "maximum" and calculating deflections between the extremes using the airplane design data curve. Data may be acquired by using an Frm 00122 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 EP10JY14.086</GPH> 39582 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules Table A2E Alternative Data Sources, Procedures, and Instrumentation QPS REQUIREMENTS The stamlards in this table are required ifthe data gathering methods described in paragraph 9 of Appendix A are not used. Sim Alternative Data Table of Ob.jective Tests Level Sources, Procedures, Test Entry Number and Instrumentation and Title A B X X 2.c.3. Handling qualities. Longitudinal control tests. Spoiler/speedbrake change dynamics 2.c.4. Handling qualities. Longitudinal control tests. Gear change dynamics 2.c.5. Handling qualities. Longitudinal control tests. Longitudinal trim X X X X X X 2.c.6. Handling qualities. Longitudinal control tests. Longitudinal maneuvering stability (stick force/g) X X 2.c.7. Handling qualities. Longitudinal control tests. Longitudinal static stability 2.c.8. Handling qualities. Longitudinal control tests. Stall characteristics sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 2.c.2. Handling qualities. Longitudinal control tests. Flap/slat change dynamics X X X X 2.c.9. Handling qualities. Longitudinal control tests. Phugoid dynamics X X VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 inertial measurement system and a synchronized video of calibrated airplane instruments and throttle position. Data may be acquired by using an inertial measurement system and a synchronized video of calibrated airplane instruments and flap/slat position. Data may be acquired by using an inertial measurement system and a synchronized video of calibrated airplane instruments and spoiler/speedbrake position. Data may be acquired by using an inertial measurement system and a synchronized video of calibrated airplane instruments and gear position. Data may be acquired through use of an inertial measurement system and a synchronized video of flight deck controls position (previously calibrated to show related surface position) and the engine instrument readings. Data may be acquired through the use of an inertial measurement system and a synchronized video of calibrated airplane instruments; a temporary, high resolution bank angle scale affixed to the attitude indicator; and a wheel and column force measurement indication. Data may be acquired through the use of a synchronized video of airplane t1ight instruments and a hand held force gauge. Data may be acquired through a synchronized video recording of a stop watch and calibrated airplane airspeed indicator. Hand-record the flight conditions and airplane configuration. Data may be acquired by using an inertial measurement system and a synchronized video of calibrated airplane instruments and force/position measurements of flight deck controls. Frm 00123 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM INFORMATION Notes Airspeeds may be cross checked with those in the TIR and AFM. 10JYP2 EP10JY14.087</GPH> Handling qualities. Longitudinal control tests. Power change dynamics 39583 39584 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules Table A2E Alternative Data Sources, Procedures and Instrumentation QPS REQUIREMENTS The standards in this table are required if the data gathering methods described in paragraph 9 of Appendix A are not used. Table of Ob.iective Tests Test Entry Number and Title 2.c.l0. Handling qualities. Longitudinal control tests. Short period dynamics Sim Level A B X 2.d.l. Handling qualities. Lateral directional tests. Minimum control speed, air (Ymca or VmcD. per applicable airworthiness standard or Low speed engine inoperative handling characteristics in the air 2.d.2. Handling qualities. Lateral directional tests. Roll response (rate). X X X X 2.d.3. Handling qualities. Lateral directional tests. Roll response to flight deck roll controller step input X X 2.d.4. Handling qualities. Lateral directional tests. Spiral stability X X 2.d.5. Handling qualities. Lateral directional tests. Engine inoperative trim X X INJ<'ORMATION Alternative Data Sources, Procedures, and Instrumentation Notes Data may be acquired by using an inertial measurement system and a synchronized video of calibrated airplane instruments and force/position measurements of flight deck controls. Data may be acquired by using an inertial measurement system and a synchronized video of calibrated airplane instruments and force/position measurements of flight deck controls. Data may be acquired by using an inertial measurement system and a synchronized video of calibrated airplane instmments and force/position measurements of flight deck lateral controls. Data may be acquired by using an inertial measurement system and a synchronized video of calibrated airplane instruments and force/position measurements of flight deck lateral controls. Data may be acquired by using an inertial measurement system and a synchronized video of calibrated airplane instruments; force/position measurements of flight deck controls; and a stop watch. Data may be hand recorded in-flight using high resolution scales affixed to trim controls that have been calibrated on the ground using protractors on the control I trim surfaces with winds less than 5 kts. May be combined with step input of flight deck roll controller test, 2.d.3. Trimming during second segment climb is not a certification task and should not be conducted until a safe altitude is reached. VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00124 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 EP10JY14.088</GPH> sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS OR Data may be acquired during second segment climb (with proper pilot control input for an engine-out condition) by using a synchronized video of calibrated airplane instruments and force/position measurements of Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 39585 Table A2E Alternative Data Sources, Procedures, and Instrumentation QPS REQUIREMENTS The standards in this table are required if the data gathering methods described in paragraph 9 of Appendix A are not used. Sim Level A B 2.d.6. Handling qualities. Lateral directional tests. Rudder response. X X 2.d.7. Handling qualities. Lateral directional tests. Dutch roll, (yaw damper OFF) X X 2.d.8. Handling qualities. Lateral directional tests. Steady state sideslip X X X 2.e.3. Handling qualities. Landings. Crosswind landing. X 2.e.4. Handling qualities. Landings. One engine inoperative landing. X 2.e.5. Handling qualities. Landings. Autopilot landing (if applicable) sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 2.e.l. Hamlling qualities. Landings. Normal landing. X 2.e.6. Handling qualities. X VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Alternative Data Sources, Procedures, and Instrumentation Notes flight deck controls. Data may be acquired by using an inertial measurement system and a synchronized video of calibrated airplane instruments andforce/position measurements of rudder pedals. Data may be acquired by using an inertial measurement system and a synchronized video of calibrated airplane instruments and force/position measurements of flight deck controls. Data may be acquired by using an inertial measurement system and a synchronized video of calibrated airplane instruments and force/position measurements of flight deck controls. Ground track and wind corrected heading may be used for sideslip angle. Data may be acquired by using an inertial measurement system and a synchronized video of calibrated airplane instruments and force/position measurements of flight deck controls. Data may be acquired by using an inertial measurement system and a synchronized video of calibrated airplane instruments and force/position measurements of flight deck controls. Data may be acquired by using an inertial measurement system and a synchronized video of calibrated airplane instruments and the force/position measurements offlight deck controls. Nonnal and lateral accelerations may be recorded in lieu of AOA and sideslip. Data may be acquired by using an inertial measurement system and a synchronized video of calibrated airplane instruments and force/position measurements of flight deck controls. Normal and lateral accelerations may be recorded in lieu of AOA and sideslip. Data may he acquired by using an inertial measurement system and a Frm 00125 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 EP10JY14.089</GPH> Table of Ob.jective Tests Test Entry Number and Title I~FORMATION 39586 End Information BILLING CODE 4910–13–C lllllllllllllllllllll sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Begin Information 18. Visual Display Systems—Additional Information on Image Geometry Testing a. Background. (1) The geometry of the final image as displayed to each pilot should meet the criteria defined. This assumes that the individual optical components have been tested to demonstrate a performance that is adequate to achieve this end result. b. Image Position. See test 4.a.2.a.1. VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 (1) When measured from the pilot’s and copilot’s eyepoint the centre of the image should be positioned horizontally between 0 degrees and 2 degrees inboard and within ± 0.25 degree vertically relative to the aircraft centreline taking into account any designed vertical offset. (2) The differential between the measurements of horizontal position between each eyepoint should not exceed 1 degree. (3) The tolerances are based on eye spacings of up to ±53.3 cm (±21 inches). Greater eye spacings should be accompanied by an explanation of any additional tolerance required. PO 00000 Frm 00126 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 c. Image Absolute Geometry. See test 4.a.2.a.2. (1) The absolute geometry of any point on the image should not exceed 3 degrees from the theoretical position. This tolerance applies to the central 200 degrees by 40 degrees. For larger fields of view, there should be no distracting discontinuities outside this area. d. Image Relative Geometry. See test 4.a.2.a.3. (1) The relative geometry check is intended to test the displayed image to demonstrate that there are no significant changes in image size over a small angle of view. With high detail visual systems, the eye can be a very E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 EP10JY14.090</GPH> Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 39587 powerful comparator to discern changes in geometric size. If there are large changes in image magnification over a small area of the picture the image can appear to ‘swim’ as it moves across the mirror. (2) The typical Mylar-based mirror system will naturally tend to form a ‘bathtub’ shape. This can cause magnification or ‘rush’ effects at the bottom and top of the image. These can be particularly distracting in the lower half of the mirror when in the final approach phase and hence should be minimized. The tolerances are designed to try to keep these effects to an acceptable level while accepting the technology is limited in its ability to produce a perfect spherical shape. (3) The 200° × 40° Field of View is divided up into 3 zones to set tolerances for relative geometry as shown in Figure B–9. The testing of the relative geometry should be conducted as follows: (a) From the pilot’s eye position, measure every visible 5 degree point on the vertical lines and horizontal lines. Also, at ¥90, ¥60, ¥30, 0 and +15 degrees in azimuth, measure all visible 1 degree points from the –10° point to the lowest visible point. Note.— Not all points depicted on the pattern are measured, but they may be measured if observation suggests a problem. (b) From the co-pilot’s eye position, measure every visible 5 degree point on the vertical lines and horizontal lines. Also, at +90, +60, +30, 0 and ¥15 degrees in azimuth, measure all visible 1 degree points from the –10° point to the lowest visible point. Note.— Not all points depicted on the pattern are measured, but they may be measured if observation suggests a problem. (c) The relative spacing of points should not exceed the following tolerances when comparing the gap between one pair of dots with the gap between an adjacent pair: Zone 1 < 0.075 degree/degree. Zone 2 < 0.15 degree/degree. Zone 3 < 0.2 degree/degree. (d) Where 5 degree gaps are being measured the tolerances should be multiplied by 5, e.g., one 5 degree gap should not be more than (5*0.075) = 0.375 deg. more or less than the adjacent gap when in zone 1. (e) For larger fields of view, there should be no distracting discontinuities outside this area. (4) For continuing qualification testing, the use of an optical checking device is encouraged. This device should typically consist of a hand-held go/no go gauge to check that the relative positioning is maintained. Attachment 3 to Appendix A to Part 60— Simulator Subjective Evaluation lllllllllllllllllllll availability of the required maps, charts, and other navigational material. This material must be clearly marked ‘‘for training purposes only.’’ c. When the simulator is being used by an instructor or evaluator for purposes of training, checking, or testing under this chapter, only airport models classified as Class I, Class II, or Class III may be used by the instructor or evaluator. Detailed descriptions/definitions of these classifications are found in Appendix F of this part. d. When a person sponsors an FFS maintained by a person other than a U.S. certificate holder, the sponsor is accountable for that FFS originally meeting, and continuing to meet, the criteria under which it was originally qualified and the appropriate Part 60 criteria, including the airport models that may be used by instructors or evaluators for purposes of training, checking, or testing under this chapter. e. Neither Class II nor Class III airport visual models are required to appear on the SOQ, and the method used for keeping instructors and evaluators apprised of the airport models that meet Class II or Class III requirements on any given simulator is at the option of the sponsor, but the method used must be available for review by the TPAA. f. When an airport model represents a real world airport and a permanent change is made to that real world airport (e.g., a new runway, an extended taxiway, a new lighting system, a runway closure) without a written extension grant from the NSPM (described in paragraph 1.g. of this section), an update to that airport model must be made in accordance with the following time limits: (1) For a new airport runway, a runway extension, a new airport taxiway, a taxiway extension, or a runway/taxiway closure— within 90 days of the opening for use of the new airport runway, runway extension, new airport taxiway, or taxiway extension; or within 90 days of the closure of the runway or taxiway. (2) For a new or modified approach light system—within 45 days of the activation of the new or modified approach light system. (3) For other facility or structural changes on the airport (e.g., new terminal, relocation of Air Traffic Control Tower)—within 180 days of the opening of the new or changed facility or structure. g. If a sponsor desires an extension to the time limit for an update to a visual scene or airport model or has an objection to what 1. Requirements. a. Except for special use airport models, described as Class III, all airport models required by this part must be representations of real-world, operational airports or representations of fictional airports and must meet the requirements set out in Tables A3B or A3C of this attachment, as appropriate. b. If fictional airports are used, the sponsor must ensure that navigational aids and all appropriate maps, charts, and other navigational reference material for the fictional airports (and surrounding areas as necessary) are compatible, complete, and accurate with respect to the visual presentation of the airport model of this fictional airport. An SOC must be submitted that addresses navigation aid installation and performance and other criteria (including obstruction clearance protection) for all instrument approaches to the fictional airports that are available in the simulator. The SOC must reference and account for information in the terminal instrument procedures manual and the construction and VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00127 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 Relative Geometry Test Pattern Showing Zones. E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 EP10JY14.091</GPH> sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Begin QPS Requirements Figure A2H 39588 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules must be updated in the specific airport model requirement, the sponsor must provide a written extension request to the NSPM stating the reason for the update delay and a proposed completion date, or explain why the update is not necessary (i.e., why the identified airport change will not have an impact on flight training, testing, or checking). A copy of this request or objection must also be sent to the POI/TCPM. The NSPM will send the official response to the sponsor and a copy to the POI/TCPM. If there is an objection, after consultation with the appropriate POI/TCPM regarding the training, testing, or checking impact, the NSPM will send the official response to the sponsor and a copy to the POI/TCPM. End QPS Requirements lllllllllllllllllllll sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Begin Information 2. Discussion a. The subjective tests provide a basis for evaluating the capability of the simulator to perform over a typical utilization period; determining that the simulator accurately simulates each required maneuver, procedure, or task; and verifying correct operation of the simulator controls, instruments, and systems. The items listed in the following Tables are for simulator evaluation purposes only. They may not be used to limit or exceed the authorizations for use of a given level of simulator, as described on the SOQ, or as approved by the TPAA. b. The tests in Table A3A, Operations Tasks, in this attachment, address pilot functions, including maneuvers and procedures (called flight tasks), and are divided by flight phases. The performance of these tasks by the NSPM includes an operational examination of the visual system and special effects. There are flight tasks included to address some features of advanced technology airplanes and innovative training programs. For example, ‘‘high angle-of-attack maneuvering’’ is included to provide a required alternative to ‘‘approach to stalls’’ for airplanes employing flight envelope protection functions. c. The tests in Table A3A, Operations Tasks, and Table A3G, Instructor Operating Station of this attachment, address the overall function and control of the simulator including the various simulated environmental conditions; simulated airplane system operations (normal, abnormal, and emergency); visual system displays; and special effects necessary to meet flight crew training, evaluation, or flight experience requirements. d. All simulated airplane systems functions will be assessed for normal and, where appropriate, alternate operations. Normal, abnormal, and emergency operations associated with a flight phase will be assessed during the evaluation of flight tasks VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 or events within that flight phase. Simulated airplane systems are listed separately under ‘‘Any Flight Phase’’ to ensure appropriate attention to systems checks. Operational navigation systems (including inertial navigation systems, global positioning systems, or other long-range systems) and the associated electronic display systems will be evaluated if installed. The NSP pilot will include in his report to the TPAA, the effect of the system operation and any system limitation. e. Simulators demonstrating a satisfactory circling approach will be qualified for the circling approach maneuver and may be approved for such use by the TPAA in the sponsor’s FAA-approved flight training program. To be considered satisfactory, the circling approach will be flown at maximum gross weight for landing, with minimum visibility for the airplane approach category, and must allow proper alignment with a landing runway at least 90° different from the instrument approach course while allowing the pilot to keep an identifiable portion of the airport in sight throughout the maneuver (reference—14 CFR 91.175(e)). f. At the request of the TPAA, the NSPM may assess a device to determine if it is capable of simulating certain training activities in a sponsor’s training program, such as a portion of a Line Oriented Flight Training (LOFT) scenario. Unless directly related to a requirement for the qualification level, the results of such an evaluation would not affect the qualification level of the simulator. However, if the NSPM determines that the simulator does not accurately simulate that training activity, the simulator would not be approved for that training activity. g. The FAA intends to allow the use of Class III airport models when the sponsor provides the TPAA (or other regulatory authority) an appropriate analysis of the skills, knowledge, and abilities (SKAs) necessary for competent performance of the tasks in which this particular media element is used. The analysis should describe the ability of the FFS/visual media to provide an adequate environment in which the required SKAs are satisfactorily performed and learned. The analysis should also include the specific media element, such as the airport model. Additional sources of information on the conduct of task and capability analysis may be found on the FAA’s Advanced Qualification Program (AQP) Web site at: https://www.faa.gov/education_research/ training/aqp/. h. The TPAA may accept Class III airport models without individual observation provided the sponsor provides the TPAA with an acceptable description of the process for determining the acceptability of a specific airport model, outlines the conditions under which such an airport model may be used, and adequately describes what restrictions will be applied to each resulting airport or PO 00000 Frm 00128 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 landing area model. Examples of situations that may warrant Class III model designation by the TPAA include the following: (a) Training, testing, or checking on very low visibility operations, including SMGCS operations. (b) Instrument operations training (including instrument takeoff, departure, arrival, approach, and missed approach training, testing, or checking) using— (i) A specific model that has been geographically ‘‘moved’’ to a different location and aligned with an instrument procedure for another airport. (ii) A model that does not match changes made at the real-world airport (or landing area for helicopters) being modeled. (iii) A model generated with an ‘‘off-board’’ or an ‘‘on-board’’ model development tool (by providing proper latitude/longitude reference; correct runway or landing area orientation, length, width, marking, and lighting information; and appropriate adjacent taxiway location) to generate a facsimile of a real world airport or landing area. i. Previously qualified simulators with certain early generation Computer Generated Image (CGI) visual systems, are limited by the capability of the Image Generator or the display system used. These systems are: (1) Early CGI visual systems that are excepted from the requirement of including runway numbers as a part of the specific runway marking requirements are: (a) Link NVS and DNVS. (b) Novoview 2500 and 6000. (c) FlightSafety VITAL series up to, and including, VITAL III, but not beyond. (d) Redifusion SP1, SP1T, and SP2. (2) Early CGI visual systems are excepted from the requirement of including runway numbers unless the runways are used for LOFT training sessions. These LOFT airport models require runway numbers but only for the specific runway end (one direction) used in the LOFT session. The systems required to display runway numbers only for LOFT scenes are: (a) FlightSafety VITAL IV. (b) Redifusion SP3 and SP3T. (c) Link-Miles Image II. (3) The following list of previously qualified CGI and display systems are incapable of generating blue lights. These systems are not required to have accurate taxi-way edge lighting: (a) Redifusion SP1. (b) FlightSafety Vital IV. (c) Link-Miles Image II and Image IIT (d) XKD displays (even though the XKD image generator is capable of generating blue colored lights, the display cannot accommodate that color). End Information lllllllllllllllllllll E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 39589 TableA3A Functions And Subjective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS ""' >.<:II ... s ~z = '"",.Q La. ---------· l.a.l l.a.2 l.a.3 2. 2.a. 2.a.l. 2.a.2. 2.a.3. 2.b. 2.b.l 2.b.2. 2.b.3. 2.b.4. 2.b.5. 2.b.6. 2.b.7. 2.c. 2.c.l. 2.c.2. 2.d sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 3. 3.a. 3.a.l. 3.a.2. 3.a.3. 3.a.4. 3.a.4.a 3.a.4.b 3.a.4.c 3.a.4.d 3.a.4.e 3.a.5. 3.a.6. 3.a.7. VerDate Mar<15>2010 AIBICID Tasks in this table are subject to evaluation if appropriate for the airplane simulated as indicated in the SOQ Configuration List or the level of simulator qualification involved. Items not installed or not functional on the simulator and, therefore, not appearing on the SOQ Co11figuration List, ar~-~~I_~g~!!ed t2_~\.!_!~ted !1§~~-~ption~~:m th_e_ SO_Q_.-------·--·Preparation For Flight Pre-flight. Accomplish a functions check of all switches, indicators, systems, and equipment at all crew members' and instructors' stations and determine that: ·-The flight deck design and functions are identical to that of the X X X X airplane simulated. Reserved Reserved Surface Operations (pre-flight). Engine Start. Normal start. X X X Alternate start procedures. X X X X Abnormal starts and shutdowns (e.g., hot/hung start, tail pipe X X X X fire). Taxi. Pushback/powerback X X X X Thrust response. X X X X Power lever friction. X X X X Ground handling. X X X X Nosewheel scuffing. X X Taxi aids (e.g. taxi camera, moving map) X X Low visibility (taxi route, signage, lighting, markings, etc.) X X Brake Operation Brake operation (normal and alternate/emergency). X X X X Brake fade (if applicable). X X X X Other Take-off. Normal. Airplane/engine parameter relationships, including run-up. X X X X Nosewheel and rudder steering. X X X X Crosswind (maximum demo_!!~!!l:ted and gusting crosswind). X X X X Special performance Reduced V 1 X X X X Maximum engine de-rate. X X X X Soft surface. X X Short field/short take-off and landing (STOL) operations. X X X X Obstacle (performance over visual obstacle). X X Low visibility take-ot1~ X X X X Landing gear, wing flap leading edge device operation. X X X X Contaminated runway operation. X X 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00129 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 EP10JY14.092</GPH> 1. Simulator Level Operations Tasks 39590 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules TableA3A Functions And Subjective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS :... ,.~ :..,,Q .... 8 := ~z = 3.b.3. 3.b.4. 3.b.5. 3.b.6. 4. 4.a. 4.b. 4.c. 4.d. 5. S.a. S.a.l. 5.a.2. 5.a.3. 5.a.4. -·~~--~~-- S.a.S. 5.a.6. 5.a.7. S.b. S.b.l. S.b.l.a sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS S.b.l.b 5.b.2. 5.b.3. 5.b.4. VerDate Mar<15>2010 AIBICID Other Abnormal/emergency. Rejected Take-off. X X Rejected special performance (e.g., reduced V~, max de-rate, X X short field operations). Rejected take-off with contaminated runway. Takeoff with a propulsion system malfunction (allowing an X X analysis of causes, symptoms, recognition, and the effects on aircraft performance and handling) at the following points: . (i) Prior to Vl decision speed. (ii) Between Vl and Vr (rotation speed). (iii)Between Vr and 500 feet above ground level. Flight control system failures, reconfiguration modes, manual X X reversion and associated handling. Other Climb. Normal. X X One or more engines inoperative. X X Approach climb in icing (for airplanes with icing accountability). X X Other Cruise. Performance characteristics (speed vs. power, configuration, and attitude) Straight and level flight. X X Change of airspeed. X X High altitude handling. X X High Mach number handling (Mach tuck, Mach buffet) and X X recovery (trim change). Overspeed warning (in excess ofYmo or Mm0 ). X X High lAS handling. X X Other Maneuvers. High Angle of Attack High angle of attack, approach to stalls, stall warning, stall buffet, and stall (take-off, cruise, approach, and landing configuration) including reaction of the auto flight system and stall protection system. High angle of attack, approach to stalls, stall warning, and stall X X buffet (take-off, cruise, approach, and landing configuration) including reaction of the autoflight system and stall protection system. X X Sl~'-"_flight ----Reserved Flight envelope protection (high angle of attack, bank limit, X X 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 X X X X X X X X I X I X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X I X X X X I ----~-~--~--·--·-----·~------------~~----· ~- Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00130 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 X X X ~- I I I EP10JY14.093</GPH> 3.a.8. 3.b. 3.b.1. 3.b.2. Simulator Level Operations Tasks Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 39591 TableA3A Functions And Subjective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS ;.. >.<:II ;....Q .... e Simulator Level Operations Tasks == ~z AIBICID overspeed, etc.). Turns with/without speedbrake/spoilers deployed. X X X X Normal and standard rate turns. X X X X Steep turns X X X X Performance turn X X X X In t1ight engine shutdown and restart (assisted and windmill). X X X X Maneuvering with one or more engines inoperative, as X X X X appropriate. Specific flight characteristics (e.g., direct lift control). S.b.ll. X X X X Flight control system failures, reconfiguration modes, manual X X X X 5.b.12. reversion and associated handling. Gliding to a forced landing. 5.b.l3 X X Visual resolution and FSTD handling and performance for the following (where applicable 5.b.14 by aircraft type and training program): Terrain accuracy for forced landing area selection. 5.b.14.a X X Terrain accuracy for VFR Navigation. 5.b.14.b X X Eights on pylons (visual resolution). X X 5.b.14.c Turns about a point. 5.b.14.d X X S-tums about a road or section line. X X 5.h.14.e Upset recognition and recovery 5.b.15 X X Other. 5.b.16 6. Descent. Normal. X X X X 6.a. Maximum rate/emergency (clean and with speedbrake, etc.). X X X X 6.b. With autopilot. 6.c. X X X X Flight control system failures, rcconfiguration modes, manual 6.d. X X X X reversion and associated handling. Other 6.e. 7. Instrument Approaches And Landing. Those instrument approach and landing tests relevant to the simulated airplane type are selected from the following list. Some tests are made with limiting wind velocities, under windshear conditions, and with relevant system failures, including the failure of the Flight Director. If Standard Operating Procedures allow use autopilot for non-precision approaches, evaluation of the autopilot will be included. Level A simulators arc not authorized to credit the landing maneuver. Precision approach 7.a. 7.a.l CAT I published approaches. Manual approach with/without flight director including 7.a.l.a X X X X landing. Autopilot/autothrottle coupled approach and manual landing. X X X X 7.a.l.b Autopilot/autothrottle coupled approach, engine(s) 7.a.l.c X X X X inoperative. Manual approach, engine(s) inoperative. X X X X 7.a.l.d VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00131 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 EP10JY14.094</GPH> sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS S.b.S. 5.b.6. 5.b.7. S.b.S. 5.b.9. S.b.IO. 39592 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules TableA3A Functions And Subjective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS ... ;;;..<:~~ ;..,.Q ..... 8 Simulator Level Operations Tasks == ~z AIBICID 7.a.l.e 7.a.2 7.a.2.a 7.a.2.b 7.a.2.c 7.a.3 7.a.3.a 7.a.3.b 7.a.3.c 7.a.3.d 7.a.3.e 7.a.4 7.a.4.a 7.a.4.b 7.a.4.c 7.a.5 7.a.6 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 7.b.4 7.b.5 7.b.6 VerDate Mar<15>2010 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Surveillance radar approach, all engine(s) operating and with one or more PnmnP(S) uuJJt:l<:tuve. -NDB approach, all engine(s) operating and with one or more engine(s) inoperative. VOR, VOR/DME, T ACAN approach, all engines(s) operating , __<l:nd with one or more e11g_ine_(s)_i_}1~perative. RNA V I RNP I GNSS (RNP at nominal and minimum authorized temperatures) approach, all engine(s) operating and with one or more engine(s) inoperative. ILS LLZ (LOC), LLZ back course (or LOC-BC) approach, all engine(s) operating and with one or more engine(s) inoperative. ILS offset localizer approach, all engine(s) operating and with one or more engine(s) inoperative. X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00132 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM X 10JYP2 __ ,________ ---- EP10JY14.095</GPH> - 7.b.3 X Non-precision approach. 7.b. 7.b.1 7.b.2 HUD/EFVS. CAT II published approaches. Autopilot/autothrottle coupled approach to DH and landing (manual and auto land). Autopilot/autothrottle coupled approach with one-engineinoperative approach to DH and go-around (manual and autopilot). HUD/EFVS. CAI III published approaches. Autopilot/autothrottle coupled approach to landing and rollout (if applicable) guidance (manual and auto land). Autopilot/autothrottle coupled approach to DH and go-around (manual and autopilot). Autopilotlautothrottle coupled approach to land and roll-out (if applicable) guidance with one engine inoperative (manual and autoland). Autopilotlautothrottle coupled approach to DH and go-around with one engine inoperative (manual and autopilot). HUD/EFVS. Autopilotlautothrottle coupled approach (to a landing or to a goaround): With generator failure. With maximum tail wind component certified or authorized. With maximum crosswind component demonstrated or authorized. PAR approach, all engine( s) operating and with one or more engine(s) inoperative. MLS, GBAS, all engine(s) operating and with one or more engine(s) inoperative. 39593 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules TableA3A Functions And Subjective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS "" >.<:II "",.Q .... e Simulator Level Operations Tasks = := ~z 7.c 7.c.l 7.c.2 8. AIBICID Approach procedures with vertical guidance (APV), e.g. SBAS, flight path vector. APV/baro-VNAV approach, all engine( s) operating and with one or more engine(s) inoperative. Area navigation (RNA V) approach procedures based on SBAS, all engine(s) operating and with one or more engine(s) inoperative. Visual Approaches (Visual Segment) And Landings. X X X X Flight simulators with visual systems, which permit completing a special approach procedure in accordance with applicable regulations, may be approved for that particular approach procedure. S.b. S.c. S.d. S.e. S.e.l. S.e.l.a S.e.l.b S.f. 8.g. S.h. 8.i. 8._j. 8.k. sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 9. 9.a. 9.b. 9.c. 9.d. 9.e. 10. tO.a VerDate Mar<15>2010 Maneuvering, normal approach and landing, all engines operating with and without visual approach aid guidance. Approach and landing with one or more engines inoperative. Operation of landing gear, flap/slats and speed brakes (normal and abnormal). Approach and landing with crosswind (max. demonstrated and gusting crosswind). Approach and landing with flight control system failures, reconfiguration modes, manual reversion and associated handling (most significant degradation which is probable). Approach and landing with trim malfunctions. Longitudinal trim malfunction. Lateral-directional trim malfunction. Approach and landing with standby (minimum) electrical/hydraulic power. Approach and landing from circling conditions (circling approach). Approach and landing from visual traffic pattern. Approach and landing from non-precision approach. Approach and landing from precision approach. Other Missed Approach. All engines, manual and autopilot. Engine( s) inoperative, manual and autopilot. Rejected landing With flight control system failures, reconfiguration modes, manual reversion and associated handling. Bounced landing Surface Operations (landing, after-landing and post-flight). Landing roll and taxi. 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00133 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 10JYP2 X X X X X EP10JY14.096</GPH> S.a. 39594 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules TableA3A .Functions And Subjective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS ""' >,QJ lo..C -;.. 5 := ~z Simulator Level Operations Tasks = AIBICID sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00134 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X-X X X X X X X X X X X X ·--X X X X X X X ··~~~- ;·~ ;~-· X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 10JYP2 EP10JY14.097</GPH> HUD/EFVS. Spoiler operation. Reverse thrust operation. Directional control and ground handling, both with and without reverse thrust. Reduction of mdder effectiveness with increased reverse thmst 10.a.5. (rear pod-mounted engines). Brake and anti-skid operation 10.a.6. 10.a.6.a Brake and anti-skid operation with dry, patchy wet, wet on mbber residue, and patchy icy conditions. 10.a.6.b Brake and anti-skid operation with dry and wet conditions. 10.a.6.c Brake and anti-skid operation with dry conditions. 10.a.6.d Auto-braking system operation. Other 10.a.7 Engine shutdown and parking. lO.b Engine and systems operation. 10.b.l Parking brake operation. 10.b.2 Other. 10.b.3 11. Any Flight Phase. ll.a. Airplane and engine systems operation (where fitted). Air conditioning and pressurization (ECS). ll.a.l. De-icing/anti-icing. ll.a.2. Auxiliary power unit (APU). ll.a.3. Communications. ll.a.4. Electrical. 11.a.5. Fire and smoke detection and suppression. ll.a.6. Flight controls (primary and secondary). ll.a.7. Fuel and oil ll.a.S. Hydraulic ll.a.9. ll.a.lO. Pneumatic 11.a.11. Landing gear. ll.a.12. Oxygen. ll.a.13. Engine. ll.a.14. Airborne radar. 11.a.15. ~~ }\~t~pjlot an<!_~lig~! Director. ll.a.16. Terrain awareness warning systems and collision avoidance systems (e.g. EGPWS, GPWS, TCAS). ll.a.l7. Flight control computers including stability and control augmentation. 11.a.18. Flight display systems. ll.a.l9. Flight management computers. ll.a.20. Head-up displays (including EFVS, if appropriate). 11.a.21. Navigation systems lO.a.l 10.a.2. 10.a.3. 10.a.4. 39595 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules TableA3A Functions And Sub.iective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS "" >.<:II '"',.t::;. ..... 8 Simulator Level Operations Tasks == ~z ll.a.27. lt.a.28. ll.b. ll.b.l. ll.b.2. sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS tt.b.3. ll.b.3.a ll.b.3.b 1t.b.3.c 11.b.3.d tl.b.4. VerDate Mar<15>2010 Stall warning/avoidance Wind shear avoidance/recovery guidance equipment Flight envelope protections Electronic flight bag Automatic checklists (normal, abnormal and emergency procedures). Runway alerting and advisory system. Other Airborne procedures. Holding. Air hazard avoidance (traffic, weather, including visual correlation). Windshear. Prior to take-off rotation. At lift-off During initial climb. On final approach, below 150m (500ft) AGL. Effects of airframe ice. 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00135 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 10JYP2 X X X X X X X X X X EP10JY14.098</GPH> ll.a.22. ll.a.23. lt.a.24. lt.a.25. ll.a.26. AIBICID 39596 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules TableA3B Functions and Subjective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS ;... ~~ ;...~ For Qualification At The Stated Level - e == Class 1 Airport Models AIBICID This table specifies the minimum airport model content and functionality to qualify a simulator at the indicated level. This table applies only to the airport models required for simulator qualification; i.e., one airport model for Level A and Level B simulators; three airport models for Level C and Level D simulators. Begin QPS Requirements 1. Functional test content requirements for Level A and Level B simulators. The following is the minimum airport model content requirement to satisfy visual capability tests, and provides suitable visual cues to allow completion of all functions and subjective tests described in this attachment for simulators at Levels A and B. A minimum of one (1) representative airport model. This model X X La. identification must be acceptable to the sponsor's TPAA, selectable from the lOS, and listed on the SOQ. The fidelity of the airport model must be sufficient for the aircrew X X l.b. to visually identify the airport; determine the position of the simulated airplane within a night visual scene; successfully accomplish take-offs, approaches, and landings; and maneuver around the airport on the ground as necessary. Runways: X X l.c. Visible runway number. X X l.c.l. 1.c.2. Runway threshold elevations and locations must be modeled to X X provide sufficient correlation with airplane systems (e.g., altimeter). Runway surface and markings. X X 1.c.3. Lighting for the runway in use including runway edge and X X l.c.4. centerline. Lighting, visual approach aid and approach lighting of appropriate l.c.S. X X colors. Representative taxiway lights. X X l.c.6. Additional functional test content requirements ~.a. 2.a.l Airport scenes A minimum of three (3) real-world airport models to be consistent X X 2.a.l.a with published data used for airplane operations and capable of demonstrating all the visual system features below. Not all of the elements described in this section must be found in a single airport model. Each model should be in a different visual scene to permit assessment of FSTD automatic visual scene changes. The model identifications must be acceptable to the sponsor's TPAA, selectable from the IOS, and listed on the SOQ. Reserved 2.a.l.b Reserved 2.a.l.c 2.a.l.d Airport model content. X X X X For circling approaches, all tests apply to the runway used for the initial approach and to the runway of intended landing. If all runways in an airport model used to meet the requirements of this attachment are not designated as "in use," then the "in use" VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00136 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 EP10JY14.099</GPH> sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS ~z Simulator Level 39597 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules TableA3B Functions and Subjective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS ... >.IIJ For Qualification At The Stated Level == Class I Airport Models ~ .. s ~z 2.a.2 2.a.2.a 2.a.2.b 2.a.2.c 2.a.3 2.a.3.a 2.a.3.b 2.a.3.c2.a.4 2.a.5 2.a.6 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 2.a.7 2.a.7.a 2.a.7.b 2.a.7.c 2.a.7.d 2.a.7.e 2.a.7.f 2.a.7.g VerDate Mar<15>2010 Simulator Level A I B I c I D runways must be listed on the SOQ (e.g., KORD, Rwys 9R, 14L, 22R). Models of airports with more than one runway must have all significant runways not "in-use" visually depicted for airport and runway recognition purposes. The use of white or off white light strings that identify the runway threshold, edges, and ends for twilight and night scenes are acceptable for this requirement. Rectangular surface depictions are acceptable for daylight scenes. A visual system's capabilities must be balanced between providing airport models with an accurate representation of the airport and a realistic representation of the surrounding environment. Airport model detail must be developed using airport pictures, construction drawings and maps, or other similar data, or developed in accordance with published regulatory material; however, this does not require that such models contain details that are beyond the design capability of the currently qualified visual system. Only one "primary" taxi route from parking to the runway end will be req!:l~ed tor each "in-use" runway. 1---------Visual scene fidelity. The visual scene should correctly represent the parts of the airport X X X X and its surroundings used in the training program. Reserved Reserved Runways and taxiways. The airport runways and taxiways. X X X X Reserved Reserved --If appropriate to the airport, two parallel runways and one crossing X X runway displayed simultaneously; at least two runways should be capable of being lit simultaneously. Runway threshold elevations and locations should be modelled to X X provide correlation with airplane systems (e.g. HUD, GPS, compass, altimeter). Slopes in runways, taxiways, and ramp areas should not cause X X distracting or unrealistic effects, including pilot eye-point height variation. Runway surface and markings for each "in-use" runway should include the following, if appropriate: Threshold markings. X X X X Runway numbers. X X X X Touchdown zone markings. X X X X Fixed distance markings. X X X X Edge markings. X X X X Center line markings. X X X X Distance remaining signs. X X X X 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00137 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 EP10JY14.100</GPH> ... 39598 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules TableA3B Functions and Subjective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS ~:II For Qualification At The Stated Level - e == ~z Class I Airport Models 2.a.7.h 2.a.7.i 2.a.8 2.a.8.a 2.a.8.b 2.a.8.c 2.a.8.d 2.a.8.e 2.a.8.f 2.a.8.g 2.a.8.h 2.a.9 2.a.9.a 2.a.9.b 2.a.9.c 2.a.9.d 2.a.9.e 2.a.10 2.a.10.a 2.a.10.b 2.a.IO.c 2.a.ll 2.a.ll.a sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 2.a.ll.b 2.a.12 2.a.12.a 2.a.12.a. 2.a.12.a. 2.a.12.a. 2.a.12.b 2.a.12.c VerDate Mar<15>2010 Simulator Level AIBICID Signs at intersecting runways and taxiways. X X X Windsock that gives appropriate wind cues. X Runway lighting of appropriate colors, directionality, behavior and spacing for the "in-use" runway including the following: Threshold lights. X X X Edge lights. X X X End lights. X X X Center line lights. X X X Touchdown zone lights. X X X Lead-off lights. X X X Appropriate visual landing aid(s) for that runway. X X X Appropriate approach lighting system for that runway. X X X Taxiway surface and markin2s (associated with each "in-use" runway): Edge markings X X X Center line markings. X X X Runway holding position markings. X X X ILS critical area markings. X X X All taxiway markings, lighting, and signage to taxi, as a minimum, from a designated parking position to a designated runway and return, after landing on the designated runway, to a designated parking position; a low visibility taxi route (e.g. surface movement guidance control system, follow-me truck, daylight taxi lights) should also be demonstrated for those operations authorized in low visibilities. The designated runway and taxi routing should be consistent with that airpmi for operations in low visibilities. Taxiway lighting of appropriate colors, directionality, behavior and spacing (associated with each "in-use" runway): Edge lights. X X X Center line lights. X X X Runway holding position and ILS critical area lights. X X X Required visual model correlation with other aspects of the airport environment simulation. The airport model should be properly aligned with the navigational X X X aids that are associated with operations at the runway "in-use". The simulation of runway contaminants should be correlated with the displayed runwav surface and lighting. Airport buildings, structures and lighting. Buildings, structures and lighting: The airport buildings, structures and lighting. X Reserved Reserved At least one useable gate, set at the appropriate height (required X only for those airplanes that typically operate from tenninal gates). Representative moving and static gate clutter (e.g. other airplanes, X 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00138 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X EP10JY14.101</GPH> :.. :...c Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 39599 TableA3B Functions and Subjective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS ;... ~~ ;...~ For Qualification At The Stated Level - e == Class 1 Airport Models AIBICID power carts, tugs, fuel trucks, additional gates). 2.a.12.d Gate/apron markings (e.g. hazard markings, lead-in lines, gate X X numbering), lighting and gate docking aids or a marshaller. 2.a.13 Terrain and obstacles. X X 2.a.13.a Terrain and obstacles within 46 km (25 NM) of the reterence airport. 2.a.13.b Reserved 2.a.14 Si2nificant, identifiable natural and cultural features. 2.a.l4.a Significant, identifiable natural and cultural features within 46 km X X (25 NM) of the reference airport. Note.- This refers to natural and culturalfeatures that are typically usedfor pilot orientation in/light. Outlying airports not intended for landing need only provide a reasonable facsimile of runway orientation. 2.a.14.b Reserved 2.a.14.c Representative moving airborne traft1c (including the capability to X X present air hazards - e.g. airborne traffic on a possible collision course). Visual scene management. l2.b All airport runway, approach and taxiway lighting and cultural X X 2.b.l lighting intensity for any approach should be capable of being set to six (6) different intensities (0 to 5); all visual scene light points should fade into view appropriately. Airport runway, approach and taxiway lighting and cultural lighting 2.b.2 X X intensity for any approach should be set at an intensity representative of that used in training for the visibility set; all visual scene light points should fade into view appropriately. The directionality of strobe lights, approach lights, runway edge 2.b.3 X X X X lights, visual landing aids, runway center line lights, threshold lights, and touchdown zone lights on the runway of intended landing should be realistically replicated. Visual feature recognition. l2.c Note.- The following are the minimum distances at which runway features should be visible. Distances are measured from runway threshold to an airplane aligned vvith the runway on an extended 3-degree glide slope in suitable simulated meteorological conditions. For circling approaches, all tests below apply both to the runway usedfor the initial approach and to the runway of intended landing Runway definition, strobe lights, approach lights, and runway edge 2.c.l X X X X white lights from 8 km (5 sm) of the runway threshold. 2.c.2 Visual approach aids lights. Visual approach aids lights from 8 km (5 sm) of the runway 2.c.2.a X X threshold. Visual approach aids lights from 4.8 km (3 sm) of the runway 2.c.2.b X X threshold. VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00139 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 EP10JY14.102</GPH> sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS ~z Simulator Level 39600 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules TableA3B Functions and Subjective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS For Qualification At The Stated Level == Class I Airport Models ... s ~z 2.c.3 2.c.4 2.c.5 2.c.6 2.d 2.d.1 2.d.2 2.d.3 2.d.4 2.d.5 2.e 2.e.1 2.e.2 2.e.2.a 2.e.2.b 2.e.3 2.e.4 2.e.5 ~.f sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 2.f.l 2.f.l.a 2.f.l.b VerDate Mar<15>2010 Simulator Level AIBICID Runway center line lights and taxiway definition from 4.8 km (3 sm). Threshold lights and touchdown zone lights from 3.2 km (2 sm). Runway markings within range of landing lights for night scenes; as required by the surface resolution test on day scenes. For circling approaches, the nmway of intended landing and associated lighting should fade into view in a non-distracting manner. Selectable airport visual scene capability for: Night. Twilight. Day. Dynamic effects - the capability to present multiple ground and air hazards such as another airplane crossing the active runway or converging airborne traffic; hazards should be selectable via controls at the instructor station. Tllusions- operational visual scenes which portray representative physical relationships known to cause landing illusions, for example short runways, landing approaches over water, uphill or downhill runways, rising terrain on the approach path and unique topographic features. No/e.-Illusions may be demonstrated at a generic airport or at a specific airport. Correlation with airplane and associated equipment. Visual cues to relate to actual airplane responses. Visual cues durin2 take-off. approach and Iandin2. Visual cues to assess sink rate and depth perception during landings. Visual cueing sufficient to support changes in approach path by using runway perspective. Changes in visual cues during take-off, approach and landing should not distract the pilot. Accurate portrayal of environment relating to airplane attitudes. The visual scene should correlate with integrated airplane systems, where fitted (e.g. terrain, traffic and weather avoidance systems and HUD/EFVS). The effect of rain removal devices should be provided. Scene qualitv. Quantization. Surfaces and textural cues should be free from apparent quantization (aliasing). Surfaces and textural cues should not create distracting quantization (aliasing). 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00140 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 10JYP2 X EP10JY14.103</GPH> :... ~- ~ :...~ 39601 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules TableA3B Functions and Sub.iective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS For Qualification At The Stated Level Simulator Level - 8 == ~z Class I Airport Models AIBICID 2.f.2 System capable of portraying full color realistic textural cues. 2.f.3 The system light points should be free from distracting jitter, smearing or streaking. System capable of providing focus effects that simulate rain. System capable of providing light point perspective growth. Environmental effects. The displayed scene should correspond to the appropriate surface contaminants and include runway lighting reflections for wet, partially obscured lights for snow, or suitable alternative effects. Special weather representations which include the sound, motion and visual effects of light, medium and heavy precipitation near a thunderstorm on take-off, approach and landings at and below an altitude of 600 m (2 000 ft) above the airport surface and within a radius of 16 km ( 10 sm) from the airport. One airport with a snow scene, if appropriate to the operator's area of operations, to include terrain snow and snow-covered taxiways and runways. In-cloud effects such as variable cloud density, speed cues and ambient changes should be provided. The effect of multiple cloud layers representing few, scattered, broken and overcast conditions giving partial or complete obstruction of the ground scene. Gradual break-out to ambient visibility/RVR, defined as up to 10% of the respective cloud base or top, 20ft :S transition layer :S 200ft; cloud effects should be checked at and below a height of 600 m (2 000 ft) above the airport and within a radius of 16 km ( 10 sm) from the airport. Transition effects should be complete when the IOS cloud base or top is reached when exiting and start when entering the cloud, i.e. transition effects should occur within the IOS defined cloud layer. Visibility and RVR measured in tenus of distance. Visibility/RVR should be checked at and below a height of600 m (2 000 ft) above the airport and within a radius of 16 km ( 10 sm) from the airport. Patchy fog (sometimes referred to as patchy RVR) giving the effect of variable RVR. The lowest RVR should be that selected on the lOS, ie. variability is only> IOS RVR. Effects of fog on airport lighting such as halos and defocus. Effect of ownship lighting in reduced visibility, such as reflected glare, to include landing lights, strobes, and beacons. Wind cues to provide the effect of blowing snow or sand across a dry runway or taxiway should be selectable from the instructor station. 2.f.4 2.f.S 2.2; 2.g.l 2.g.2 2.g.3 2.g.4 2.g.S 2.g.6 2.g.7 2.g.8 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 2.g.9 2.g.10 2.g.ll VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00141 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM X X X X X X X X 10JYP2 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X EP10JY14.104</GPH> ;... >.~ ;..,Q 39602 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules TableA3B Functions and Sub.iective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS ;... For Qualification At The Stated Level ,.~ ;...,.Q == - 8 ~z Simulator Level Class I Airport Models A!BICID End QPS Requirement Be~in 3. 4. Information An example of being able to "combine two airport models to achieve two "in-use" runways: One runway designated as the "in use" runway in the first model of the airport, and the second runway designated as the "in use" runway in the second model of the same airport. For example, the clearance is for the ILS approach to Runway 27, Circle to Land on Runway 18 right. Two airport visual models might be used: the first with Runway 27 designated as the "in use" runway for the approach to runway 27, and the second with Runway 18 Right designated as the "in use" runway. When the pilot breaks off the ILS approach to runway 27, the instructor may change to the second airport visual model in which runway 18 Right is designated as the "in use" runway, and the pilot would make a visual approach and landing. This process is acceptable to the FAA as long as the temporary interruption due to the visual model change is not distracting to the pilot, does not cause changes in navigational radio frequencies, and does not cause undue instructor/evaluator time. Sponsors are not required to provide every detail of a runway, but the detail that is provided should be correct within the capabilities of the system. VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00142 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 EP10JY14.105</GPH> sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS End Information Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 39603 Table A3C Functions and Subjective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS ;.... ..... <l) ;.....=< ... e == Simulator Level AIBICID This table specifies the minimum airport model content and functionality necessary to add airport models to a simulator's model library, beyond those necessary for qualification at the stated level, without the necessity of further involvement of the NSPM or TPAA. Be~in QPS Requirements Airport model management. 1. The following is the minimum airport model management requirements for simulators at Levels A, B, C, and D. The direction of strobe lights, approach lights, runway edge lights, X X X X l.a. visual landing aids, nmway centerline lights, threshold lights, and touchdown zone lights on the "in-use" runway must be renlicated -·--···-··-··-·-·---· --· -----·-· 2. Visual feature recognition. The following are the minimum distances at which runway features must be visible for simulators at Levels A, B, C, and D. Distances arc measured from runway threshold to an airplane aligned with the nmway on an extended 3° glide-slope in simulated meteorological conditions that recreate the minimum distances for visibility. For circling approaches, all requirements of this section apply to the runway used for the initial approach and to the runway of intended landing. Runway definition, strobe lights, approach lights, and runway edge 2.a. X X X X white lights from 5 sm (8 km) from the runwav threshold. Visual Approach Aid lights (VASI or PAPI) from 5 sm (8 km) from 2.b. X X the runway threshold. Visual Approach Aid lights (VASI or P API) from 3 sm ( 5 km) from 2.c. X X the runway threshold. Runway centerline lights and taxiway definition from 3 sm (5 km) 2.d. X X X X from the runway threshold. Threshold lights and touchdown zone lights from 2 sm (3 km) from X X X X 2.e. the runway threshold. Runway markings within range oflanding lights for night scenes 2.f. X X X X and as required by the surface resolution requirements on day scenes. --1------For circling approaches, the runway of intended landing and 2.g. X X X X associated lighting must fade into view in a non-distracting manner. Airport model content. 3. The following prescribes the minimum requirements for what must be provided in an airport model and identifies other aspects of the airport environment that must correspond with that model for simulators at Levels A, B, C, and D. The detail must be developed using airport pictures, construction drawings and maps, or other similar data, or developed in accordance with published regulatory material; however, this does not require that airport models contain details that are beyond the designed capability of the currently qualified visual system. For circling approaches, all requirements of this section apply to the runway used for the initial approach and to the runway of intended landing. Only one "primary" taxi route from parking to the runway end will be required for each "in-use" runway. The surface and markings for each "in-use" runway: 3.a. Threshold markings. X X 3.a.l. X X VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00143 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 EP10JY14.106</GPH> sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS ~z Additional Airport Models Beyond Minimum Required for Qualification Class II Airport Models 39604 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules TableA3C .Functions and Subjective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS Cl) ..... 8 = = ~ 'Z 3.a.2. 3.a.3. 3.a.4. 3.a.5. 3.a.6. 3.b. 3.b.l. 3.b.2. -3.b.3. 3.b.4. 3.b.5. 3.b.6. 3.b.7. 3.b.8. 3.c. 3.c.l. 3.c.2. 3.c.3. 3.c.4. 3.d. 3.d.l. 3.d.2. 3.d.3. 4. 4.a. 4.b. 5. S.a. S.b. sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS S.c. S.d. 6. 6.a. 6.b. VerDate Mar<15>2010 Additional Airport Models Beyond Minimum Required for Qualification Class II Airport Models Simulator Level AI B I c I D Runway numbers. X X X X Touchdown zone markings. X X X X Fixed distance markings. X X X X Edge markings. X X X X Centerline stripes. X X X X The lighting for each "in-use" runway. Threshold lights. X X X X ~dge lights. X X X X End lights. X X X X Centerline lights. X X X X Touchdown zone lights, if appropriate. X X X X Leadoff lights, if appropriate. X X X X Appropriate visual landing aid(s) for that runway. X X X X Appropriate approach lighting system for that runway. X X X X The taxiway surface and markings associated with each "in-use" runway: Edge. X X X X Centerline. X X X X Runway hold lines. X X X X ILS critical area markings. X X X X The taxiway lighting associated with each "in-use" runway: Edge. X X Centerline. X X X X Runway hold and ILS critical area lights. X X X X Required model correlation with other aspects of the airport environment simulation. The following are the minimum model correlation tests that must be conducted for simulators at Levels A, B, C, and D. The airport model must be properly aligned with the navigational X X X X aids that are associated with operations at the "in-use" runway. Slopes in runways, taxiways, and ramp areas, if depicted in the X X X X visual scene, must not cause distracting or unrealistic effects. Correlation with airplane and associated equipment. The following are the minimum correlation comparisons that must be made for simulators at Levels A, B, C, and D. Visual system compatibility with aerodynamic programming. X X X X Accurate portrayal of environment relating to flight simulator X X X X attitudes. Visual cues to assess sink rate and depth perception during landings. X X X Visual effects for each visible, own-ship, airplane extemallight(s). X X X Scene quality. The following are the minimum scene quality tests that must be conducted for simulators at Levels A, B, C, and D. Surfaces and textural cues must be free of apparent and distracting X X quantization (aliasing). Correct color and realistic textural cues. X X 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00144 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 EP10JY14.107</GPH> ;.... ;;..-. ;....&< 39605 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules TableA3C Functions and Sub.iective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS -~ ..... 9 == ~z 6.c. 7. 7.a. 7.b. 7.c. 7.d. sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 8. VerDate Mar<15>2010 Additional Airport Models Beyond Minimum Required for Qualification Class II Airport Models Simulator Level AIBICID Light points free from distracting jitter, smearing or streaking. X X X Instructor controls of the folJowing: The following are the minimum instmctor controls that must be available in simulators at Levels A, B, C, and D. Environmental effects, e.g., cloud base (if used), cloud effects, X X X cloud density, visibility in statute miles/kilometers and RVR in feet/meters. Airport selection. X X X Airport lighting including variable intensity. X X X Dynamic effects including ground and flight traffic. X End QPS Requirements Begin Information Sponsors are not required to provide every detail of a mnway, but the detail that is provided must be correct within the capabilities of the system. End Information 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00145 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM X 10JYP2 X X X X X X X X EP10JY14.108</GPH> ;.... ;;....QJ sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 39606 VerDate Mar<15>2010 Table A3D ;;...Q.i ... e :..,.Q == Motion System Effects ~z A B c D Notes Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00146 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM This table specifies motion effects that are required to indicate when a flight crewmember must be able to recognize an event or situation. Where applicable, flight simulator pitch, side loading and directional control characteristics must be representative of the airplane. X X 1. Taxiing effects such as lateral and directional cues resulting from steering and braking inputs. X X X Different gross weights can also 2. Runway rumble, oleo deflection, ground speed, uneven runway, be selected, which may also runway/taxiway centerline light characteristics, runway affect the associated vibrations contamination with associated anti-skid and taxiway depending on airplane type. The characteristics: associated motion effects for the Procedure: After the airplane has been pre-set to the takeoff position above tests should also include an and then released, taxi at various speeds with a smooth runway and assessment of the effects of note the general characteristics of the simulated runway rumble effects rolling over centerline lights, of oleo deflections. Repeat the maneuver with a runway roughness of surface discontinuities of uneven 50%, then with maximum roughness. Note the associated motion runways, and various taxiway vibrations affected by ground speed and runway roughness. characteristics. X X X Buffets on the ground due to spoiler/speedbrake extension and 3. reverse thrust: Procedure: Perform a normal landing and use ground spoilers and reverse thrust- either individually or in combination- to decelerate the simulated airplane. Do not use wheel braking so that only the buffet due to the ground spoilers and thrust reversers is felt. Bumps associated with the landing gear: X X X 5. Procedure: Perform a normal take-off paying special attention to the bumps that could be perceptible due to maximum oleo extension after lift-off. When the landing gear is extended or retracted, motion bumps can be felt when the gear locks into position. Buffet during extension and retraction of landing gear: X X X 10JYP2 4. Procedure: Operate the landing gear. Check that the motion cues of EP10JY14.109</GPH> INFORMATION Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 :.. Functions and Sub.iective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS Simulator Level sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS VerDate Mar<15>2010 Table A3D ;;...Q.i ... e :..,.Q Motion System Effects Jkt 232001 B c D the buffet experienced represent the actual airplane. Buffet in the air due to flap and spoiler/speedbrake extension: X X 8. Procedure: Perform an approach and extend the flaps and slats with airspeeds deliberately in excess of the normal approach speeds. In cruise configuration, verify the buffets associated with the spoiler/speedbrake extension. The above effects can also be verified with different combinations of spoiler/speedbrake, flap, and landing gear settings to assess the interaction effects. Buffet due to atmospheric disturbances. Approach to stall buffet: X X X X X 9. Procedure: Conduct an approach-to-stall with engines at idle and a deceleration of 1 knot/second. Check that the motion cues of the buffet, including the level of buffet increase with decreasing speed, are representative of the actual airplane. Touchdown cues for main and nose gear: X X X 10. Procedure: Conduct several normal approaches with various rates of descent. Check that the motion cues for the touchdown bumps for each descent rate are representative of the actual airplane. Nosewheel scuffing: X X X Procedure: Taxi at various ground speeds and manipulate the nosewheel steering to cause yaw rates to develop that cause the nosewheel to vibrate against the ground ("scuffing"). Evaluate the speed/nosewheel combination needed to produce scuffing and check that the resultant vibrations are representative of the actual airplane. Thrust effect with brakes set: X X X Notes X 11. == ~z 6. PO 00000 Frm 00147 Fmt 4701 7. Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 A This effect is most discernible with wing-mounted engines. 39607 Procedure: Set the brakes on at the take-off point and increase the engine power until buffet is experienced. Evaluate its characteristics. EP10JY14.110</GPH> INFORMATION Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 :.. Functions and Sub.iective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS Simulator Level sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 39608 VerDate Mar<15>2010 Table A3D ;;...Q.i ... e :..,.Q == Motion System Effects ~z Jkt 232001 PO 00000 13. A Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM B c D X X X X X X Procedure: Simulate a single tire failure and a multiple tire failure. 10JYP2 Engine failures, malfunction, engine, and airframe structural damage: Procedure: The characteristics of an engine malfunction as stipulated Notes X Procedure: With the simulated airplane trimmed in 1 g flight while at high altitude, increase the engine power so that the Mach number exceeds the documented value at which Mach buffet is experienced. Check that the buffet begins at the same Mach number as it does in the airplane (for the same configuration) and that buffet levels are representative of the actual airplane. For certain airplanes, maneuver buffet can also be verified for the same effects. Maneuver buffet can occur during turning flight at conditions greater than 1 g, particularly at higher altitudes. Tire failure dynamics: Frm 00148 12. Confirm that the buffet increases appropriately with increasing engine thrust. Mach and maneuver buffet: 14. EP10JY14.111</GPH> INFORMATION X The pilot may notice some yawing with a multiple tire failure selected on the same side. This should require the use of the rudder to maintain control of the airplane. Dependent on airplane type, a single tire failure may not be noticed by the pilot and should not have any special motion effect. Sound or vibration may be associated with the actual tire losing pressure. Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 :.. Functions and Subjective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS Simulator Level sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS VerDate Mar<15>2010 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 :.. INFORMATION Frm 00149 ;;...Q.i ... e :..,.Q == Motion System Effects ~z Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 15. in the malfunction definition document for the particular flight simulator must describe the special motion effects felt by the pilot. Note the associated engine instruments varying according to the nature of the malfunction and note the replication of the effects of the airframe vibration. Tail strikes, engine pod/propeller, wing strikes: Procedure: Tail-strikes can be checked by over-rotation of the airplane at a speed below Vr while performing a takeoff. The effects can also be verified during a landing. 10JYP2 Excessive banking of the airplane during its take-off/landing roll can cause a pod strike. A B c D X X X Notes The motion effect should be felt as a noticeable bump. If the tail strike affects the airplane angular rates, the cueing provided by the motion system should have an associated effect. Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Table A3D Functions and Sub.fective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS Simulator Level 39609 EP10JY14.112</GPH> 39610 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules Table A3E Functions and Sub.iective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS ;.... ;;....<l.l Simulator Level ;....,Q =z8 = Sound System ~ 4. sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 5. VerDate Mar<15>2010 The following checks are performed during a normal flight profile with motion system ON. X Precipitation. X Rain removal equipment. X Significant airplane noises perceptible to the pilot during normal operations. X Abnormal operations for which there are associated sound cues including, engine malfunctions, landing gear/tire malfunctions, tail and engine pod strike and pressurization malfunction. X Sound of a crash when the flight simulator is landed in excess of limitations. 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00150 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 X X X X X EP10JY14.113</GPH> 1. 2. 3. AIBICID 39611 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules Table A3F .... Functions and Subjective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS .. Q,f .... .o. . e Simulator Level Special Effects == ~z 1. 2. AI B I c I This table specifies the minimum special effects necessary for the specified simulator level. Braking Dynamics: X Representations of the dynamics of brake failure (flight simulator pitch, side-loading, and directional control characteristics representative of the airplane), including antiskid and decreased brake efficiency due to high brake temperatures (based on airplane related data), sufficient to enable pilot identification of the problem and implementation of appropriate procedures. Effects of Airframe and Engine Icing: X Required only for those airplanes authorized for operations in known icing conditions. D X X VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00151 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 EP10JY14.114</GPH> sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Procedure: With the simulator airborne, in a clean configuration, nominal altitude and cruise airspeed, autopilot on and auto-throttles off, engine and airfoil anti-ice/de-ice systems deactivated; activate icing conditions at a rate that allows monitoring of simulator and systems response. Icing recognition will include an increase in gross weight, airspeed decay, change in simulator pitch attitude, change in engine performance indications (other than due to airspeed changes), and change in data from pitot/static system. Activate heating, antiice, or de-ice systems independently. Recognition will include proper effects of these systems, eventually returning the simulated airplane to normal flight. 39612 lllllllllllllllllllll sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Begin Information 1. Introduction a. The following is an example test schedule for an Initial/Upgrade evaluation that covers the majority of the requirements set out in the Functions and Subjective test requirements. It is not intended that the schedule be followed line by line, rather, the example should be used as a guide for VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 preparing a schedule that is tailored to the airplane, sponsor, and training task. b. Functions and subjective tests should be planned. This information has been organized as a reference document with the considerations, methods, and evaluation notes for each individual aspect of the simulator task presented as an individual item. In this way the evaluator can design his or her own test plan, using the appropriate sections to provide guidance on method and PO 00000 Frm 00152 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 evaluation criteria. Two aspects should be present in any test plan structure: (1) An evaluation of the simulator to determine that it replicates the aircraft and performs reliably for an uninterrupted period equivalent to the length of a typical training session. (2) The simulator should be capable of operating reliably after the use of training device functions such as repositions or malfunctions. E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 EP10JY14.115</GPH> Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS c. A detailed understanding of the training task will naturally lead to a list of objectives that the simulator should meet. This list will form the basis of the test plan. Additionally, once the test plan has been formulated, the initial conditions and the evaluation criteria should be established. The evaluator should consider all factors that may have an influence on the characteristics observed during particular training tasks in order to make the test plan successful. 2. Events a. Initial Conditions. (1) Airport. (2) QNH. (3) Temperature. (4) Wind/Crosswind. (5) Zero Fuel Weight/Fuel/Gross Weight/ Center of Gravity. b. Initial Checks. (1) Documentation of Simulator. (a) Simulator Acceptance Test Manuals. (b) Simulator Approval Test Guide. (c) Technical Logbook Open Item List. (d) Daily Functional Pre-flight Check. (2) Documentation of User/Carrier Flight Logs. (a) Simulator Operating/Instructor Manual. (b) Difference List (Aircraft/Simulator). (c) Flight Crew Operating Manuals. (d) Performance Data for Different Fields. (e) Crew Training Manual. (f) Normal/Abnormal/Emergency Checklists. (3) Simulator External Checks. (a) Appearance and Cleanliness. (b) Stairway/Access Bridge. (c) Emergency Rope Ladders. (d) ‘‘Motion On’’/‘‘Flight in Progress’’ Lights. (4) Simulator Internal Checks. (a) Cleaning/Disinfecting Towels (for cleaning oxygen masks). (b) Flight deck Layout (compare with difference list). (5) Equipment. (a) Quick Donning Oxygen Masks. (b) Head Sets. (c) Smoke Goggles. (d) Sun Visors. (e) Escape Rope. (f) Chart Holders. (g) Flashlights. (h) Fire Extinguisher (inspection date). (i) Crash Axe. (j) Gear Pins. c. Power Supply and APU Start Checks. (1) Batteries and Static Inverter. (2) APU Start with Battery. (3) APU Shutdown using Fire Handle. (4) External Power Connection. (5) APU Start with External Power. (6) Abnormal APU Start/Operation. d. Flight deck Checks. (1) Flight deck Preparation Checks. (2) FMC Programming. (3) Communications and Navigational Aids Checks. e. Engine Start. (1) Before Start Checks. (2) Battery start with Ground Air Supply Unit. (3) Engine Crossbleed Start. (4) Normal Engine Start. (5) Abnormal Engine Starts. VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 (6) Engine Idle Readings. (7) After Start Checks. f. Taxi Checks. (1) Pushback/Powerback. (2) Taxi Checks. (3) Ground Handling Check: (a) Power required to initiate ground roll. (b) Thrust response. (c) Nosewheel and Pedal Steering. (d) Nosewheel Scuffing. (e) Perform 180 degree turns. (f) Brakes Response and Differential Braking using Normal, Alternate and Emergency. (g) Brake Systems. (h) Eye height and fore/aft position. (4) Runway Roughness. g. Visual Scene—Ground Assessment. Select 3 different airport models and perform the following checks with Day, Dusk and Night selected, as appropriate: (1) Visual Controls. (a) Daylight, Dusk, Night Scene Controls. (b) Flight deck ‘‘Daylight’’ ambient lighting. (c) Environment Light Controls. (d) Runway Light Controls. (e) Taxiway Light Controls. (2) Airport Model Content. (a) Ramp area for buildings, gates, airbridges, maintenance ground Equipment, parked aircraft. (b) Daylight shadows, night time light pools. (c) Taxiways for correct markings, taxiway/ runway, marker boards, CAT I and II/III hold points, taxiway shape/grass areas, taxiway light (positions and colors). (d) Runways for correct markings, lead-off lights, boards, runway slope, runway light positions, and colors, directionality of runway lights. (e) Airport environment for correct terrain and significant features. (f) Visual scene quantization (aliasing), color, and occulting levels. (3) Ground Traffic Selection. (4) Environment Effects. (a) Low cloud scene. (i) Rain: (A) Runway surface scene. (B) Windshield wiper—operation and sound. (ii) Hail: (A) Runway surface scene. (B) Windshield wiper—operation and sound. (b) Lightning/thunder. (c) Snow/ice runway surface scene. (d) Fog. h. Takeoff. Select one or several of the following test cases: (1) T/O Configuration Warnings. (2) Engine Takeoff Readings. (3) Rejected Takeoff (Dry/Wet/Icy Runway) and check the following: (a) Autobrake function. (b) Anti-skid operation. (c) Motion/visual effects during deceleration. (d) Record stopping distance (use runway plot or runway lights remaining). Continue taxiing along the runway while applying brakes and check the following: (e) Center line lights alternating red/white for 2000 feet/600 meters. PO 00000 Frm 00153 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 39613 (f) Center line lights all red for 1000 feet/ 300 m. (g) Runway end, red stop bars. (h) Braking fade effect. (i) Brake temperature indications. (4) Engine Failure between VI and V2 (5) Normal Takeoff: (a) During ground roll check the following: (i) Runway rumble. (ii) Acceleration cues. (iii) Groundspeed effects. (iv) Engine sounds. (v) Nosewheel and rudder pedal steering. (b) During and after rotation, check the following: (i) Rotation characteristics. (ii) Column force during rotation. (iii) Gear uplock sounds/bumps. (iv) Effect of slat/flap retraction during climbout. (6) Crosswind Takeoff (check the following): (a) Tendency to turn into or out of the wind. (b) Tendency to lift upwind wing as airspeed increase. (7) Windshear during Takeoff (check the following): (a) Controllable during windshear encounter. (b) Performance adequate when using correct techniques. (c) Windshear Indications satisfactory. (d) Motion cues satisfactory (particularly turbulence). (8) Normal Takeoff with Control Malfunction (9) Low Visibility T/O (check the following): (a) Visual cues. (b) Flying by reference to instruments. (c) SID Guidance on LNAV. i. Climb Performance. Select one or several of the following test cases: (1) Normal Climb—Climb while maintaining recommended speed profile and note fuel, distance and time. (2) Single Engine Climb—Trim aircraft in a zero wheel climb at V2. Note: Up to 5° bank towards the operating engine(s) is permissible. Climb for 3 minutes and note fuel, distance, and time. Increase speed toward en route climb speed and retract flaps. Climb for 3 minutes and note fuel, distance, and time. j. Systems Operation During Climb. Check normal operation and malfunctions as appropriate for the following systems: (1) Air conditioning/Pressurization/ Ventilation. (2) Autoflight. (3) Communications. (4) Electrical. (5) Fuel. (6) Icing Systems. (7) Indicating and Recording systems. (8) Navigation/FMS. (9) Pneumatics. k. Cruise Checks. Select one or several of the following test cases: (1) Cruise Performance. (2) High Speed/High Altitude Handling (check the following): (a) Overspeed warning. (b) High Speed buffet. (c) Aircraft control satisfactory. E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 39614 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules (d) Envelope limiting functions on Computer Controlled Aircraft. Reduce airspeed to below level flight buffet onset speed, start a turn, and check the following: (e) High Speed buffet increases with G loading. Reduce throttles to idle and start descent, deploy the speedbrake, and check the following: (f) Speedbrake indications. (g) Symmetrical deployment. (h) Airframe buffet. (i) Aircraft response hands off. (3) Yaw Damper Operation. Switch off yaw dampers and autopilot. Initiate a Dutch roll and check the following: (a) Aircraft dynamics. (b) Simulator motion effects. Switch on yaw dampers, re-initiate a Dutch roll and check the following: (c) Damped aircraft dynamics. (4) APU Operation. (5) Engine Gravity Feed. (6) Engine Shutdown and Driftdown Check: FMC operation Aircraft performance. (7) Engine Relight. l. Descent. Select one of the following test cases: (1) Normal Descent Descend while maintaining recommended speed profile and note fuel, distance And time. (2) Cabin Depressurization/Emergency Descent. m. Medium Altitude Checks. Select one or several of the following test cases: (1) High Angle of Attack/Stall. Trim the aircraft at 1.4 Vs, establish 1 kt/sec2 deceleration rate, and check the following— (a) System displays/operation satisfactory. (b) Handling characteristics satisfactory. (c) Stall and Stick shaker speed. (d) Buffet characteristics and onset speed. (e) Envelope limiting functions on Computer Controlled Aircraft. Recover to straight and level flight and check the following: (f) Handling characteristics satisfactory. (2) Turning Flight. Roll aircraft to left, establish a 30° to 45° bank angle, and check the following: (a) Stick force required, satisfactory. (b) Wheel requirement to maintain bank angle. (c) Slip ball response, satisfactory. (d) Time to turn 180°. Roll aircraft from 45° bank one way to 45° bank the opposite direction while maintaining altitude and airspeed—check the following: (e) Controllability during maneuver. (3) Degraded flight controls. (4) Holding Procedure (check the following:) (a) FMC operation. (b) Autopilot auto thrust performance. (5) Storm Selection (check the following:) (a) Weather radar controls. (b) Weather radar operation. (c) Visual scene corresponds with WXR pattern. (Fly through storm center, and check the following:) (d) Aircraft enters cloud. (e) Aircraft encounters representative turbulence. VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 (f) Rain/hail sound effects evident. As aircraft leaves storm area, check the following: (g) Storm effects disappear. (6) TCAS (check the following:) (a) Traffic appears on visual display. (b) Traffic appears on TCAS display(s). As conflicting traffic approaches, take relevant avoiding action, and check the following: (c) Visual and TCAS system displays. n. Approach And Landing. Select one or several of the following test cases while monitoring flight control and hydraulic systems for normal operation and with malfunctions selected: (1) Flaps/Gear Normal Operation. Check the following: (a) Time for extension/retraction. (b) Buffet characteristics. (2) Normal Visual Approach and Landing. Fly a normal visual approach and landing—check the following: (a) Aircraft handling. (b) Spoiler operation. (c) Reverse thrust operation. (d) Directional control on the ground. (e) Touchdown cues for main and nosewheel. (f) Visual cues. (g) Motion cues. (h) Sound cues. (i) Brake and Anti-skid operation. (3) Flaps/Gear Abnormal Operation or with hydraulic malfunctions. (4) Abnormal Wing Flaps/Slats Landing. (5) Manual Landing with Control Malfunction. (a) Aircraft handling. (b) Radio Aids and instruments. (c) Airport model content and cues. (d) Motion cues. (e) Sound cues. (6) Non-precision Approach—All Engines Operating. (a) Aircraft handling. (b) Radio Aids and instruments. (c) Airport model content and cues. (d) Motion cues. (e) Sound cues. (7) Circling Approach. (a) Aircraft handling. (c) Radio Aids and instruments. (d) Airport model content and cues. (e) Motion cues. (f) Sound cues. (8) Non-precision Approach—One Engine Inoperative. (a) Aircraft handling. (b) Radio Aids and instruments. (c) Airport model content and cues. (d) Motion cues. (e) Sound cues. (9) One Engine Inoperative Go-around. (a) Aircraft handling. (b) Radio Aids and instruments. (c) Airport model content and cues. (d) Motion cues. (e) Sound cues. (10) CAT I Approach and Landing with raw-data ILS. (a) Aircraft handling. (b) Radio Aids and instruments. (c) Airport model content and cues. (d) Motion cues. (e) Sound cues. PO 00000 Frm 00154 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 (11) CAT I Approach and Landing with Limiting Crosswind. (a) Aircraft handling. (b) Radio Aids and instruments. (c) Airport model content and cues. (d) Motion cues. (e) Sound cues. (12) CAT I Approach with Windshear. Check the following: (a) Controllable during windshear encounter. (b) Performance adequate when using correct techniques. (c) Windshear indications/warnings. (d) Motion cues (particularly turbulence). (13) CAT II Approach and Automatic GoAround. (14) CAT Ill Approach and Landing— System Malfunctions. (15) CAT Ill Approach and Landing—1 Engine Inoperative. (16) GPWS evaluation. o. Visual Scene—In-Flight Assessment. Select three (3) different visual models and perform the following checks with ‘‘day,’’ ‘‘dusk,’’ and ‘‘night’’ (as appropriate) selected. Reposition the aircraft at or below 2000 feet within 10 nm of the airfield. Fly the aircraft around the airport environment and assess control of the visual system and evaluate the Airport model content as described below: (1) Visual Controls. (a) Daylight, Dusk, Night Scene Controls. (b) Environment Light Controls. (c) Runway Light Controls. (d) Taxiway Light Controls. (e) Approach Light Controls. (2) Airport model Content. (a) Airport environment for correct terrain and significant features. (b) Runways for correct markings, runway slope, directionality of runway lights. (c) Visual scene for quantization (aliasing), color, and occulting. Reposition the aircraft to a long, final approach for an ‘‘ILS runway.’’ Select flight freeze when the aircraft is 5-statute miles (sm)/8-kilometers (km) out and on the glide slope. Check the following: (3) Airport model content. (a) Airfield features. (b) Approach lights. (c) Runway definition. (d) Runway definition. (e) Runway edge lights and VASI lights. (f) Strobe lights. Release flight freeze. Continue flying the approach with NP engaged. Select flight freeze when aircraft is 3 sm/5 km out and on the glide slope. Check the following: (4) Airport model Content. (a) Runway centerline light. (b) Taxiway definition and lights. Release flight freeze and continue flying the approach with A/P engaged. Select flight freeze when aircraft is 2 sm/3 km out and on the glide slope. Check the following: (5) Airport model content. (a) Runway threshold lights. (b) Touchdown zone lights. At 200 ft radio altitude and still on glide slope, select Flight Freeze. Check the following: (6) Airport model content. (a) Runway markings. E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 39615 at 50 feet radio altitude and check the following: (10) Airport model content. (a) Visual ground segment. Set WX to a typical ‘‘missed approach’’ weather condition, release Flight Freeze, reselect Flight Freeze at 15 feet radio altitude, and check the following: (11) Airport model content. (a) Visual ground segment. When on the ground, stop the aircraft. Set 0 feet RVR, ensure strobe/beacon tights are switched on and check the following: (12) Airport model content. (a) Visual effect of strobe and beacon. Reposition to final approach, set weather to ‘‘Clear,’’ continue approach for an automatic landing, and check the following: (13) Airport model content. (a) Visual cues during flare to assess sink rate. (b) Visual cues during flare to assess Depth perception. (c) Flight deck height above ground. p. After Landing Operations. (1) After Landing Checks. (2) Taxi back to gate. Check the following: (a) Visual model satisfactory. (b) Parking brake operation satisfactory. (3) Shutdown Checks. q. Crash Function. (1) Gear-up Crash. (2) Excessive rate of descent Crash. (3) Excessive bank angle Crash. Attachment 4 to Appendix A to Part 60— Sample Documents Figure A4B—Attachment: FFS Information Form Figure A4C—Sample Letter of Compliance Figure A4D—Sample Qualification Test Guide Cover Page Figure A4E—Sample Statement of Qualification—Certificate Figure A4F—Sample Statement of Qualification—Configuration List Figure A4G—Sample Statement of Qualification—List of Qualified Tasks Figure A4H—Sample Continuing Qualification Evaluation Requirements Page Figure A4I—Sample MQTG Index of Effective FFS Directives Table of Contents sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Title of Sample Figure A4A—Sample Letter, Request for Initial, Upgrade, or Reinstatement Evaluation. VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00155 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 EP10JY14.116</GPH> Set the weather to Category I conditions and check the following: (7) Airport model content. (a) Visual ground segment. Set the weather to Category II conditions, release Flight Freeze, re-select Flight. Freeze at 100 feet radio altitude, and check the following: (8) Airport model content. (a) Visual ground segment. Select night/dusk (twilight) conditions and check the following: (9) Airport model content. (a) Runway markings visible within landing light lobes. Set the weather to Category III conditions, release Flight Freeze, re-select Flight Freeze 39616 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules Attachment 4 to Appendix A to Part 60Figure A4A- Sample Letter, Request for Initial, Upgrade, or Reinstatement Evaluation INFORMATION Date _ __ Edward D. Cook, Ph.D. Manager, National Simulator Program Federal Aviation Administration 100 Hartsfield Centre Parkway, Suite 400 Atlanta, GA 30354 Dear Dr. Cook: RE: Request for InitiaJ/Upgrade Evaluation Date This is to advise you of our intent to request an (initial or upgrade) evaluation of our (FFS Manufacturer), (Aircraft Type/Level) Full Flight Simulator (FFS), (FAA ID Number, if previously qualified), located in (City, State) at the (Facility) on (Proposed Evaluation Date). (The proposed evaluation date shall not be more than 180 days following the date ofthis letter.) The FFS will be sponsored by (Name of Training Center/Air Carrier), FAA Designator (1 Letter Code). The FFS will be sponsored as follows: (Select One) D The FFS will be used within the sponsor's FAA approved training program and placed on the sponsor's Training/Operations Specifications. D The FFS will be used for dry lease only. We agree to provide the formal request for the evaluation to your staff as follows: (check one) D For QTG tests run at the factory, not later, than 45 days prior to the proposed evaluation date with the additional "1/3 on-site" tests provided not later than 14 days prior to the proposed evaluation date. D For QTG tests run on-site, not later than 30 days prior to the proposed evaluation date. We understand that the formal request will contain the following documents: 1. Sponsor's Letter of Request (Company Compliance Letter). 2. Principal Operations Inspector (POI) or Training Center Program Manager's (TCPM) endorsement. 3. Complete QTG. If we are unable to meet the above requirements, we understand this may result in a significunt delay, perhaps 45 days or more, in rescheduling and completing the evaluation. (The sponsor should add additional comments as necessary). Please contact (Name Telephone and Fax Number of Sponsor's Contact) to confirm the date for this initial evaluation. We understand a member of your National Simulator Program staff will respond to this request within 14 days. Sincerely, Attachment: FFS Information Form cc: POI/TCPM VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00156 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 EP10JY14.117</GPH> sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS A copy of this letter of intent has been provided to (Name), the Principal Operations Inspector (POI) and/or Training Center Program Manager (TCPM). 39617 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules Attachment 4 to Appendix A to Part 60Figure A4B- Sample Letter, Request for Initial, Upgrade, or Reinstatement Evaluation Attachment: FSTD Information Form INFORMATION Date: Section 1.. FSTD Information and Characteristics FSTD Location: -Physical Address: --- Sponsor Name: Address: City: City: Country: ZIP: Manager Country: Sponsor ID No: -- (Airport Designator) ID Type of Evaluation Requested: Aircraft Make/model/series: Initial Qualification: -- Nearest Airport: -- (Four Letter FAA Designator) --- ZIP: -- -- State: ----- State: .· Initial D Upgrade D Continuing Qualification D Special D Reinstatement (If Applicable) -Date: - - Level - MM/DD/YYYY Upgrade Qualification: Date: (If Applicable) MM/DD/YYYY Manufacturer's Identification or Serial Number DeMQTG - - Level - - Qualification Basis: ·. IDA . !DC ID Interim C I D Provisional Status !DB ID6 ID7 I IDD ·. Other Technical Information: FAA FSTD ID No: -- FSTD Manufacturer: -- Convertible FSTD: DYes: Date of Manufacture: -MM/DD/YYYY Related FAA ID No. ------ Sponsor FSTD ID No: - - (If Applicable) (If Applicable) Engine model(s) and data revision: FMS identification and revision level: Visual system manufacturer/model: Flight control data revision: Mot ion system manufacturer/type: Source of aerodynamic model: Source of aerodynamic coefficient data: Aerodynamic data revision number: Visual system display: FSTD computer(s) identification: .· National Aviation Authority (NAA): -- (If Applicable) NAA FSTD ID No: -- NAA Qualification Level: - NAA Qualification Basis: Last NAA Evaluation Date: -- -- Visual System Manufacturer and Type: VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 -- Jkt 232001 PO 00000 FSTD Seats Motion System Manufacturer Available: - - and Type: Frm 00157 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 -- EP10JY14.118</GPH> sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS ·.· 39618 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules Attachment 4 to Appendix A to Part 60Figure A4B- Sample Letter , Request for Initial, Upgrade, or Reinstatement Evaluation Attachment: FSTD Information Form INFORMATION Aircraft Equipment: Engine Type(s): Flight Instrumentation: DEFIS 0HUD D HGSD EFVS D TCAS D GPWS D Plain View 0GPS 0FMSType:_ D WX Radar D Other: _ --- Engine Instrumentation: D EICAS D FADEC D Other: .. Airport Models: 3.6.1 Airport Designator 3. 7.1 - Airport Designator 3.8.1 - Airport Designator -- Circle to Land: Visual Ground Segment 3.6.2- Airport Designator 3. 7.2- Approach 3.8 .2- Approach 3.6.3 Airport Designator 3. 7.3 - Landing Runway 3. 8.3 - Landing Runway -- Section 2. Supplementary Information FAA Training Program Approval Authority: D POI D TCPM D Other: - - - Name: Office: --- --- Tel: Fax: --- --- Email: ··. --- ·. .· FSTD Scheduling Person: Name: Address 2 Address 1: --- --- City: State: --- --- ZIP: Email: --- --- Tel: Fax: --- --- FSTD Technical Contact: Name: --- Address 1: Address 2 --- --- City: State: --- - ZIP: Email: --- --Fax: Tel: Section.3. Training, Testing and Checking Considerations Requested Private Pilot- Training I Checks: (142) D Commercial Pilot - Training /Checks:( 142) D Multi-Engine Rating- Training I Checks (142) D Instrument Rating-Training I Checks (142) D Type Rating -Training I Checks (135/121/142) D Proficiency Checks (135/1211142) D VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00158 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 Remarks --- --------- E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 EP10JY14.119</GPH> sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Area/Function/Maneuver Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 39619 Attachment 4 to Appendix A to Part 60Figure A4B- Sample Letter , Request for Initial, Upgrade, or Reinstatement Evaluation Attachment: FSTD Information Form INFORMATION CAT II: (RVR 1200 ft. DH 100ft) CAT III* (lowest minimum) RVR D ft. ----*State CAT III(< 700ft.), CAT Ilib (<150ft.), or CAT lllc (0 ft.) Circling Approach D D Windshear Training: Windshear Training IA W 121.409(d) (121 Turbojets Only) Generic Unusual Attitudes and Recoveries within the Normal Flight Envelope Specific Unusual Attitudes Recoveries D D D D D D D Auto-coupled Approach/Auto Go Around Auto-land I Roll Out Guidance TCAS/ACAS I I II WX-Radar D D D D HUD HGS EFVS Future Air Navigation Systems D D D D D GPWS/EGPWS ETOPS Capability GPS SMGCS Helicopter Slope Landings Helicopter Night Vision Maneuvers D D D Helicopter Category A Takeoffs D Helicopter External Load Operations sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Helicopter Pinnacle Approach to Landings VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00159 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 --- ------- ,_ --------------------- --------- - ------- ,_ --- E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 EP10JY14.120</GPH> D D CAT I: (RVR 240011800 ft. DH200 ft) 39620 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules Attachment 4 to Appendix A to Part 60Figure A4C- Sample Letter of Compliance INFORMATION (Date) Mr. (Name of Training Program Approval Authority): (Name ofFAA FSDO) (Address) (City/State/Zip) Dear Mr. (Name ofTPAA): RE: Letter of Compliance (Operator Sponsor Name) requests evaluation of our (Aircraft Type) FFS for Level (_) qualification. The (FFS Manufacturer Name) FFS with (Visual System Manufacturer Name/Model) system is fully defined on the FFS Information page of the accompanying Qualification Test Guide (QTG). We have completed the tests of the FFS and certifY that it meets all applicable requirements ofF AR parts 121, 125, or 135), and the guidance of (AC 120-40B or 14 CFR Part 60). Appropriate hardware and software configuration control procedures have been established. Our Pilot(s), (Name(s)), who are qualified on (Aircraft Type) aircraft have assessed the FFS and have found that it conforms to the (Operator/Sponsor) (Aircraft Type) flight deck configuration and that the simulated systems and subsystems function equivalently to those in the aircraft. The above named pilot(s) have also assessed the performance and the flying qualities of the FFS and find that it represents the respective aircraft. (Added Comments may be placed here) Sincerely, (Sponsor Representative) VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00160 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 EP10JY14.121</GPH> sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS cc: FAA, National Simulator Program Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 39621 Attachment 4 to Appendix A to Part 60Figure A4D - Sample Qualification Test Guide Cover Page INFORMATION SPONSOR NAME SPONSOR ADDRESS FAA QUALIFICATION TEST GUIDE (SPECIFIC AIRPLANE MODEL) for example Stratos BA797-320A (Type of Simulator) (Simulator Identification Including Manufacturer, Serial Number, Visual System Used) (Simulator Level) (Qualification Performance Standard Used) (Simulator Location) FAA Initial Evaluation Date: _ _ _ _ __ Date: (Sponsor) Date: VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00161 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 EP10JY14.122</GPH> sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Manager, National Simulator Program, FAA 39622 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules Attachment 4 to Appendix A to Part 60Figure A4E -Sample Statement of Qualification - Certificate INFORMATION Federal Aviation Administration National Simulato1 Program This is to certify that representatives of the National Simulator Program Completed an evaluation of the Go-Fast Airlines Farnsworth Z,-100 F'ull F h.t Simulator FAA 1dentificatjon Number 999 And pursuant to 14 CFR Part 60 found it to meet its original qualification basis, AC 1204GB (MM/DD/YY) The Master Qualification Test Guide and the attached Configuration List and Restrictions List Provide the Qualification Basis for this device to operate at L.evel D Until Apri130, 2010 Unless sooner rescinded or extended by the National Simulator Program Manager March 15, 2009 B. Williamson VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 (for the NSPM) Frm 00162 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 EP10JY14.123</GPH> sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS (date) Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 39623 Attachment 4 to Appendix A to Part 60Figure A4F- Sample Statement of Qualification; Configuration List INFORMATION Date: Section 1. FSTD Information and Characteristics · Sponsor Name: -- FSTD Location: Address: -- Physical Address: -- City: ----- City: State: --- Country: ZIP: --- State: Country: ZIP: Manal':er -- Sponsor ID No: -- (Four Letter FAA Designator) Nearest Airport: (Airport Designator) -··. I!:J Initial D Upgrade D Continuing Qualification 0 Special D Reinstatement Type of Evaluation Requested: Aircraft Make/model/series: -Date: - - Level - MM/DD/YYYY Initial Qualification: (lf Applicable) Upgrade Qualification: Date: (If Applicable) 1\'Ianufacturer's Identification or Serial Number DeMQTG . MM!DD/YYYY - - Level - - Qualitication Basis: IDA ID6 !Dc ID Interim C I D Provisional Status !DB ID7 IDD I Other Techuicallnformatiou: FAA FSTD ID No: -- FSTD Manufacturer: -- Convertible FSTD: DYes: Date of Manufacture: -MM/DD/YYYY Related FAA ID No. ------ Sponsor FSTD ID No: (If Applicable) (If Applicable) Engine model(s) and data revision: --- FMS identification and revision level: Visual system manufacturer/model: Flight control data revision: --- Source of aerodynamic coefficient data: --- Aerodynamic data revision number: --- Visual system display: --- Mot ion system manufacturer/type: --- Source of aerodynamic model: --- --- FSTD computer(s) identification: --- --- --- .. National Aviation Authority (NAA): --- (If Applicable) Last NAA Evaluation Date: --- --- NAA Qualification Level: NAA Qualification Basis: VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 -- Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00163 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 EP10JY14.124</GPH> sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS NAA FSTD ID No: 39624 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules Attachment 4 to Appendix A to Part 60Figure A4F- Sample Statement of Qualification; Configuration List INFORMATION .· Visual System Manufacturer and Type: FSTD Seats --- Available: l\'lotion System Manufacturer and Type: --- -- - Aircraft Equipment: Engine Type(s): --Airport Models: Flight Instrumentation: OEFIS 0 IIUD 0 IIGS0 EFVS 0 TCAS 0 GPWS 0 Plain View 0GPS 0FMSType:_ 0 WX Radar 0 Other:_ 3.6.1 - Airport Designator 3. 7.1 - Airport Designator 3.8.1 - Airport Designator Circle to Land: Visual Ground Segment Engine Instrumentation: 0 EICAS 0 FADEC 0 Other: 3.6.2 -Airport Designator 3. 7.2- Approach 3.8 .2- Approach 3.6.3 - Airport Designator 3. 7.3 - Landing Runway 3. 8.3 - Landing Runway Section 2. Supplementary Information FAA Training Program Approval Authority: 0 POI 0 TCPM 0 Other: - - - Name: Office: --- --- Tel: Fax: --- --- Email: . --- .· .. FSTD Scheduling Person: Name: --Address 1: Address 2 --- --- City: State: --- --- ZIP: Email: Tel: Fax: ----- --- .. FSTD Technical Contact: Name: --- Address 1: Address 2 --- --- City: State: --- --- ZIP: Email: --- --- Tel: Fax: --- --- Section 3. Training, Testing and.CheckingConsiderations Requested Private Pilot- Training I Checks: (142) 0 Commercial Pilot- Training 1Checks:(l42) 0 Multi-Engine Rating- Training I Checks (142) 0 Remarks ----- VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00164 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 --- E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 EP10JY14.125</GPH> sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Area/Function/Maneuver Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 39625 Attachment 4 to Appendix A to Part 60Figure A4F- Sample Statement of Qualification; Configuration List INFORMATION D D D D Type Rating -Training I Checks (1351121/142) Proficiency Checks (1351121/142) CAT 1: (RVR 240011800 ft. DH200 ft) --- RVR --- Windshear Training: Windshear Training JAW 121.409(d) (121 Turbojets Only) Generic Unusual Attitudes and Recoveries within the Normal Flight Envelope Specific Unusual Attitudes Recoveries Auto-land I Roll Out Guidance TCAS/ACAS I I II WX-Radar HGS EFVS Future Air Navigation Systems D D D D D D GPWS/EGPWS ETOPS Capability GPS D D D D SMGCS Helicopter Slope Landings Helicopter External Load Operations Helicopter Pinnacle Approach to Landings D D Helicopter Night Vision Maneuvers Helicopter Category A Takeoffs sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS --- D D D D HUD Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00165 ----- D D D D Auto-coupled Approach/Auto Go Around 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 --- D D ft. *State CAT III(< 700ft.), CAT Illb (<150ft.), or CAT IIIc (0 ft.) Circling Approach VerDate Mar<15>2010 --- D D CAT II: (RVR 1200 ft. DH 100ft) CAT Ill* (lowest minimum) --- Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 --- :- ----------- --:- ------- --------------:- ----- E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 EP10JY14.126</GPH> Instrument Rating -Training I Checks (142) 39626 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules Attachment 4 to Appendix A to Part 60Figure A4G - Sample Statement of Qualification - List of Qualified Tasks INFORMATION Go Fast Airline Tratining ~~· FamsWOJth Z-100 -- L.evel D ~-FAA JD# 999 The FFS is qualified to perform all of the Maneuvers, Procedures, Tasks, and Functions Listed in Appendix A, Attachment 1, Table AlB, Minimum FFS Requirements In Effect on [mm/dd/yyyyl except for the followin2listed Tasks or Functions. Qualified for all tasks in Table A 1B, for which the sponsor has requested qualification, except for the following: 3.e(l )(i) 3.f. 4.3. NDB approach Recovery from Unusual Attitudes Circling Approach Additional tasks for which this FFS is qualified (i.e., in addition to the list in Table AlB) I. 2. Enhanced Visual System Windshear Training lAW Section 121.409(d). The airport visual models evaluated for qualification at this level are: VerDate Mar<15>2010 Atlanta Hartsfield International Airport (KATL) Miami International Airport (KMIA) Dallas/Ft. Worth Regional Airport (KDFW) 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00166 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 EP10JY14.127</GPH> sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 1. 2. 3. Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 39627 Attachment 4 to Appendix A to Part 60Figure A4H- Sample Continuing Qualification Evaluation Requirements Page INFORMATION Continuing Qualification Evaluation Requirements Completed at conclusion of Initial Evaluation Continuing qualification Evaluations to be conducted each (fill in) months Continuing qualification evaluations are due as follows: (month) and (month) and (month) (enter or strike out, as appropriate) Allotting - - - hours of FTD time. Signed: _______________________________ NSPM I Evaluation Team Leader Date Revision: Based on (enter reasoning): Continuing qualification Evaluations are to be conducted each (fill in} months. Allotting hours. Signed: NSPM I Evaluation Team Leader Continuing qualification evaluations are due as follows: (month} and (month} and (month) (enter or strike out, as appropriate) Date Revision: Based on (enter reasoning): Continuing qualification Evaluations are to be conducted each (fill in) months. Allotting hours. (month) and (month) and (month) (enter or strike out, as appropriate) Date (Repeat as Necessary) VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00167 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 EP10JY14.128</GPH> sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Signed: NSPM I Evaluation Team Leader Continuing qualification evaluations are due as follows: Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules Attachment 5 to Appendix A to Part 60— Simulator Qualification Requirements For Windshear Training Program Use lllllllllllllllllllll Begin QPS Requirements sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 1. Applicability This attachment applies to all simulators, regardless of qualification level, that are used to satisfy the training requirements of an FAA- approved low-altitude windshear flight training program, or any FAA-approved training program that addresses windshear encounters. 2. Statement of Compliance and Capability (SOC) a. The sponsor must submit an SOC confirming that the aerodynamic model is based on flight test data supplied by the airplane manufacturer or other approved data provider. The SOC must also confirm that any change to environmental wind parameters, including variances in those parameters for windshear conditions, once inserted for computation, result in the correct simulated performance. This statement must also include examples of environmental wind parameters currently evaluated in the simulator (such as crosswind takeoffs, crosswind approaches, and crosswind landings). b. For simulators without windshear warning, caution, or guidance hardware in the original equipment, the SOC must also state that the simulation of the added hardware and/or software, including associated flight deck displays and annunciations, replicates the system(s) installed in the airplane. The statement must be accompanied by a block diagram depicting the input and output signal flow, and VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 comparing the signal flow to the equipment installed in the airplane. 3. Models The windshear models installed in the simulator software used for the qualification evaluation must do the following: a. Provide cues necessary for recognizing windshear onset and potential performance degradation requiring a pilot to initiate recovery procedures. The cues must include all of the following, as appropriate for the portion of the flight envelope: (1) Rapid airspeed change of at least ±15 knots (kts). (2) Stagnation of airspeed during the takeoff roll. (3) Rapid vertical speed change of at least ±500 feet per minute (fpm). (4) Rapid pitch change of at least ±5°. b. Be adjustable in intensity (or other parameter to achieve an intensity effect) to at least two (2) levels so that upon encountering the windshear the pilot may identify its presence and apply the recommended procedures for escape from such a windshear. (1) If the intensity is lesser, the performance capability of the simulated airplane in the windshear permits the pilot to maintain a satisfactory flightpath; and (2) If the intensity is greater, the performance capability of the simulated airplane in the windshear does not permit the pilot to maintain a satisfactory flightpath (crash). Note: The means used to accomplish the ‘‘nonsurvivable’’ scenario of paragraph 3.b.(2) of this attachment, that involve operational elements of the simulated airplane, must reflect the dispatch limitations of the airplane. c. Be available for use in the FAAapproved windshear flight training program. PO 00000 Frm 00168 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 4. Demonstrations a. The sponsor must identify one survivable takeoff windshear training model and one survivable approach windshear training model. The wind components of the survivable models must be presented in graphical format so that all components of the windshear are shown, including initiation point, variance in magnitude, and time or distance correlations. The simulator must be operated at the same gross weight, airplane configuration, and initial airspeed during the takeoff demonstration (through calm air and through the first selected survivable windshear), and at the same gross weight, airplane configuration, and initial airspeed during the approach demonstration (through calm air and through the second selected survivable windshear). b. In each of these four situations, at an ‘‘initiation point’’ (i.e., where windshear onset is or should be recognized), the recommended procedures for windshear recovery are applied and the results are recorded as specified in paragraph 5 of this attachment. c. These recordings are made without inserting programmed random turbulence. Turbulence that results from the windshear model is to be expected, and no attempt may be made to neutralize turbulence from this source. d. The definition of the models and the results of the demonstrations of all four (4) cases described in paragraph 4.a of this attachment, must be made a part of the MQTG. 5. Recording Parameters a. In each of the four MQTG cases, an electronic recording (time history) must be made of the following parameters: E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 EP10JY14.129</GPH> 39628 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules (1) Indicated or calibrated airspeed. (2) Indicated vertical speed. (3) Pitch attitude. (4) Indicated or radio altitude. (5) Angle of attack. (6) Elevator position. (7) Engine data (thrust, N1, or throttle position). (8) Wind magnitudes (simple windshear model assumed). b. These recordings must be initiated at least 10 seconds prior to the initiation point, and continued until recovery is complete or ground contact is made. 6. Equipment Installation and Operation All windshear warning, caution, or guidance hardware installed in the simulator must operate as it operates in the airplane. For example, if a rapidly changing wind speed and/or direction would have caused a windshear warning in the airplane, the simulator must respond equivalently without instructor/evaluator intervention. 7. Qualification Test Guide a. All QTG material must be forwarded to the NSPM. b. A simulator windshear evaluation will be scheduled in accordance with normal procedures. Continuing qualification evaluation schedules will be used to the maximum extent possible. c. During the on-site evaluation, the evaluator will ask the operator to run the performance tests and record the results. The results of these on-site tests will be compared to those results previously approved and placed in the QTG or MQTG, as appropriate. d. QTGs for new (or MQTGs for upgraded) simulators must contain or reference the information described in paragraphs 2, 3, 4, and 5 of this attachment. End QPS Requirements lllllllllllllllllllll Begin Information sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 8. Subjective Evaluation The NSPM will fly the simulator in at least two of the available windshear scenarios to subjectively evaluate simulator performance as it encounters the programmed windshear conditions. a. One scenario will include parameters that enable the pilot to maintain a satisfactory flightpath. b. One scenario will include parameters that will not enable the pilot to maintain a satisfactory flightpath (crash). c. Other scenarios may be examined at the NSPM’s discretion. 9. Qualification Basis The addition of windshear programming to a simulator in order to comply with the qualification for required windshear training does not change the original qualification basis of the simulator. 10. Demonstration Repeatability For the purposes of demonstration repeatability, it is recommended that the simulator be flown by means of the simulator’s autodrive function (for those simulators that have autodrive capability) during the demonstrations. VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 End Information lllllllllllllllllllll Attachment 6 to Appendix A to Part 60— FSTD Directives Applicable to Airplane Flight Simulators Flight Simulation Training Device (FSTD) Directive FSTD Directive 1. Applicable to all Full Flight Simulators (FFS), regardless of the original qualification basis and qualification date (original or upgrade), having Class II or Class III airport models available. Agency: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT Action: This is a retroactive requirement to have all Class II or Class III airport models meet current requirements. lllllllllllllllllllll Summary: Notwithstanding the authorization listed in paragraph 13b in Appendices A and C of this part, this FSTD Directive requires each certificate holder to ensure that by May 30, 2009, except for the airport model(s) used to qualify the simulator at the designated level, each airport model used by the certificate holder’s instructors or evaluators for training, checking, or testing under this chapter in an FFS, meets the definition of a Class II or Class III airport model as defined in 14 CFR part 60. The completion of this requirement will not require a report, and the method used for keeping instructors and evaluators apprised of the airport models that meet Class II or Class III requirements on any given simulator is at the option of the certificate holder whose employees are using the FFS, but the method used must be available for review by the TPAA for that certificate holder. Dates: FSTD Directive 1 becomes effective on May 30, 2008. For Further Information Contact: National Simulator Program Manager, Air Transportation Division, AFS–205, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320: telephone: (404) 474–5620; fax: (404) 474–5656. Specific Requirements: 1. Part 60 requires that each FSTD be: a. Sponsored by a person holding or applying for an FAA operating certificate under Part 119, Part 141, or Part 142, or holding or applying for an FAA-approved training program under Part 63, Appendix C, for flight engineers, and b. Evaluated and issued an SOQ for a specific FSTD level. 2. FFSs also require the installation of a visual system that is capable of providing an out-of-the-flight-deck view of airport models. However, historically these airport models were not routinely evaluated or required to meet any standardized criteria. This has led to qualified simulators containing airport models being used to meet FAA-approved training, testing, or checking requirements with potentially incorrect or inappropriate visual references. 3. To prevent this from occurring in the future, by May 30, 2009, except for the airport model(s) used to qualify the simulator at the designated level, each certificate holder must assure that each airport model used for training, testing, or checking under this chapter in a qualified FFS meets PO 00000 Frm 00169 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 39629 definition of a Class II or Class III airport model as defined in Appendix F of this part. 4. These references describe the requirements for visual scene management and the minimum distances from which runway or landing area features must be visible for all levels of simulator. The airport model must provide, for each ‘‘in-use runway’’ or ‘‘in-use landing area,’’ runway or landing area surface and markings, runway or landing area lighting, taxiway surface and markings, and taxiway lighting. Additional requirements include correlation of the v airport models with other aspects of the airport environment, correlation of the aircraft and associated equipment, scene quality assessment features, and the control of these models the instructor must be able to exercise. 5. For circling approaches, all requirements of this section apply to the runway used for the initial approach and to the runway of intended landing. 6. The details in these models must be developed using airport pictures, construction drawings and maps, or other similar data, or developed in accordance with published regulatory material. However, this FSTD DIRECTIVE 1 does not require that airport models contain details that are beyond the initially designed capability of the visual system, as currently qualified. The recognized limitations to visual systems are as follows: a. Visual systems not required to have runway numbers as a part of the specific runway marking requirements are: (1) Link NVS and DNVS. (2) Novoview 2500 and 6000. (3) FlightSafety VITAL series up to, and including, VITAL III, but not beyond. (4) Redifusion SP1, SP1T, and SP2. b. Visual systems required to display runway numbers only for LOFT scenes are: (1) FlightSafety VITAL IV. (2) Redifusion SP3 and SP3T. (3) Link-Miles Image II. c. Visual systems not required to have accurate taxiway edge lighting are: (1) Redifusion SP1. (2) FlightSafety Vital IV. (3) Link-Miles Image II and Image IIT (4) XKD displays (even though the XKD image generator is capable of generating blue colored lights, the display cannot accommodate that color). 7. A copy of this Directive must be filed in the MQTG in the designated FSTD Directive Section, and its inclusion must be annotated on the Index of Effective FSTD Directives chart. See Attachment 4, Appendices A through D for a sample MQTG Index of Effective FSTD Directives chart. Flight Simulation Training Device (FSTD) Directive FSTD Directive 2. Applicable to all airplane Full Flight Simulators (FFS), regardless of the original qualification basis and qualification date (original or upgrade), used to conduct full stall training, upset recovery training, airborne icing training, and other flight training tasks as described in this Directive. Agency: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 39630 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Action: This is a retroactive requirement for any FSTD being used to obtain training, testing, or checking credit in an FAA approved flight training program to meet current FSTD evaluation requirements for the specific training maneuvers as defined in this Directive. Summary: Notwithstanding the authorization listed in paragraph 13b in Appendix A of this Part, this FSTD Directive requires that each FSTD sponsor conduct additional subjective and objective testing, conduct required modifications, and apply for additional FSTD qualification under § 60.16 to support continued qualification of the following flight training tasks where training, testing, or checking credit is being sought in a selected FSTD being used in an FAA approved flight training program: a. Recognition of and Recovery from a Full Stall b. Upset Recognition and Recovery c. Airborne Icing (Engine and Airframe Ice Accretion) d. Takeoff and Landing with Gusting Crosswinds e. Recovery from a Bounced Landing The FSTD sponsor may elect to apply for additional qualification for any, all, or none of the above defined training tasks for a particular FSTD. After [THE FAA WILL INSERT DATE 3 years FROM EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE PUBLISHED IN THE Federal Register], any FSTD used to conduct the above training tasks must be evaluated and issued additional qualification by the National Simulator Program Manager (NSPM) as defined in this Directive. Dates: FSTD Directive 2 becomes effective on [THE FAA WILL INSERT THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. For Further Information Contact: Larry McDonald, Air Transportation Division/ National Simulator Program Branch, AFS– 205, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, GA 30320; telephone (404) 474–5620; email larry.e.mcdonald@faa.gov. Specific Requirements 1. Part 60 requires that each FSTD be: a. Sponsored by a person holding or applying for an FAA operating certificate under Part 119, Part 142, or Part 142, or holding or applying for an FAA-approved training program under Part 63, Appendix C, for flight engineers, and b. Evaluated and issued a Statement of Qualification (SOQ) for a specific FSTD level. 2. The evaluation criteria contained in this Directive is intended to address specific training tasks that require additional evaluation to ensure adequate FSTD fidelity. 3. The requirements described in this Directive define additional qualification criteria for specific training tasks that are applicable only to those FSTDs that will be utilized to obtain training, testing, or checking credit in accordance with an FAA approved flight training program. In order to obtain additional qualification for the tasks described in this Directive, FSTD sponsors must request additional qualification in accordance with § 60.16 and the requirements of this Directive. FSTDs that are VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 found to meet the requirements of this Directive will have their Statement of Qualification (SOQ) amended to reflect the additional training tasks that the FSTD has been qualified to conduct. The additional qualification requirements as defined in this Directive are divided into the following training tasks: a. Section I—Additional Qualification Requirements for Full Stall Training Tasks b. Section II—Additional Qualification Requirements for Upset Recognition and Recovery Training Tasks c. Section III—Additional Qualification Requirements for Airborne Engine and Airframe Icing Training Tasks d. Section IV—Additional Qualification Requirements for Takeoff and Landing Tasks in Gusting Crosswinds e. Section V—Additional Qualification Requirements for Bounced Landing Training Tasks 4. A copy of this Directive (along with all required Statements of Compliance and objective test results) must be filed in the MQTG in the designated FSTD Directive Section, and its inclusion must be annotated on the Index of Effective FSTD Directives chart. See Attachment 4, Appendices A through D for a sample MQTG Index of Effective FSTD Directives chart. Section I—Evaluation Requirements for Full Stall Training Tasks 1. This section applies to previously qualified Level C and Level D FSTDs being utilized to obtain training, testing, or checking credits at angles of attack beyond the first indication of a stall (such as stall warning system activation, stick shaker, etc.). Qualification of full stall maneuvers for Level A and Level B FSTDs in accordance with this Directive may be considered where the FSTD’s motion and vibration cueing systems have been evaluated to provide adequate stall recognition and recovery cues to conduct the specific stall maneuvers described in Table A1A, Section 2.1.7.S. 2. The evaluation requirements in this Directive are intended to validate FSTD fidelity at angles of attack sufficient to identify the stall, to demonstrate aircraft performance degradation in the stall, and to train recovery techniques from a fully stalled flight condition. 3. This Directive contains additional objective and subjective testing that exceed the evaluation requirements of previously qualified FSTDs. Where aerodynamic modeling data and/or validation data is not available or insufficient to fully meet the requirements of this Directive, the NSPM may restrict FSTD qualification to certain stall maneuvers where adequate validation data exists. 4. By [THE FAA WILL INSERT DATE 3 years FROM EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE PUBLISHED IN THE Federal Register], any FSTD being used to obtain training, testing, or checking credits for full stall training tasks in an FAA approved training program must be evaluated by the FSTD sponsor in accordance with the following sections of Appendix A of this Part: PO 00000 Frm 00170 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 a. Table A1A, General Requirements, Section 2.1.7.S (High Angle of Attack Maneuvers) b. Table A2A, Objective Testing Requirements, Test 2.a.10 (Stick Pusher Force Calibration) [where applicable] c. Table A2A, Objective Testing Requirements, Test 2.c.8.b (Stall Characteristics) d. Table A3A, Functions and Subjective Testing Requirements, Test 6.a.2 (High Angle of Attack Maneuvers) e. Attachment 7, Additional QPS Requirements for Stall Maneuver Evaluation 5. The validation data for the required stall characteristics tests may be derived from an approved engineering simulation data source or other data source acceptable to the FAA. An SOC must be provided by the validation data provider that the engineering simulation has been evaluated by an appropriate SME pilot in accordance with Table A1A, Section 2.1.7.S and Attachment 7. Where no flight test or engineering simulation validation data is available, baseline objective tests of the FSTD’s performance may be acceptable where accompanied by an SME evaluation of each required objective test conditions. 6. Where qualification is being sought to conduct full stall training tasks in accordance with this Directive, the FSTD Sponsor must conduct the required evaluations and modifications as prescribed in this Directive and report compliance to the NSPM in accordance with § 60.23 using the NSP’s standardized FSTD Sponsor Notification Form. At a minimum, this form must be accompanied with the following information: a. A description of any modifications to the FSTD (in accordance with § 60.23) necessary to meet the requirements of this Directive. b. Statement of Compliance (Aerodynamics and Stick Pusher System Modeling)—See Table A1A, Section 2.1.7.S and Attachment 7 c. Statement of Compliance (SME Pilot Evaluation)—See Table A1A, Section 2.1.7.S and Attachment 7 d. Copies of the required objective test results as described above in sections 4.b. and 4.c. 7. The NSPM will review each submission to determine if the requirements of this Directive have been met and respond to the FSTD Sponsor as described in § 60.23(c). This response, along with any noted restrictions, may serve as an interim update to the FSTD’s Statement of Qualification (SOQ) until such time that a permanent change is made to the SOQ at the FSTD’s next scheduled evaluation. Section II—Evaluation Requirements for Upset Recovery Training Tasks 1. This section applies to previously qualified FSTDs being utilized to obtain training, testing, or checking credits for upset recognition and recovery training tasks as defined in Appendix A, Table A1A, Section 2.1.6.S. of this Part. Qualification of upset recovery maneuvers for Level A and Level B FSTDs in accordance with this Directive may be considered where the FSTD’s motion and vibration cueing systems have been evaluated to provide adequate cues to conduct the E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules specific upset recovery maneuvers described in Table A1A, Section 2.1.6.S. 2. The requirements contained in this section are intended to define minimum standards for evaluating an FSTD for use in upset recognition and recovery training maneuvers that may exceed an aircraft’s normal flight envelope. These standards include the evaluation of qualified training maneuvers against the FSTD’s validation envelope and providing the instructor with minimum feedback tools for the purpose of determining if a training maneuver is conducted within FSTD validation limits and the aircraft’s structural/performance limitations. 3. This Directive contains additional objective and subjective testing that exceeds the evaluation requirements of previously qualified FSTDs. Where aerodynamic modeling data and/or validation data is not available or insufficient to meet the requirements of this Directive, the NSPM may limit additional qualification to certain upset recovery maneuvers where adequate validation data exists. 4. By [THE FAA WILL INSERT DATE 3 years FROM EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE PUBLISHED IN THE Federal Register], any FSTD being used to obtain training, testing, or checking credit for upset recognition and recovery training tasks in an FAA approved flight training program must be evaluated by the FSTD sponsor in accordance with the following sections of Appendix A of this Part: a. Table A1A, General Requirements, Section 2.1.6.S. (Upset Recognition and Recovery) b. Table A3A, Functions and Subjective Testing, Test 5.b.15. (Upset Recovery and Recovery Maneuvers) c. Attachment 7, Additional QPS Requirements for Upset Recognition and Recovery Maneuver Evaluation 6. Where qualification is being sought to conduct upset recognition and recovery training tasks in accordance with this Directive, the FSTD Sponsor must conduct the required evaluations and modifications as prescribed in this Directive and report compliance to the NSPM in accordance with § 60.23 using the NSP’s standardized FSTD Sponsor Notification Form. At a minimum, this form must be accompanied with the following information: a. A description of any modifications to the FSTD (in accordance with § 60.23) necessary to meet the requirements of this Directive. b. Statement of Compliance (FSTD Validation Envelope)—See Table A1A, Section 2.1.6.S and Attachment 7 c. A confirmation statement that the modified FSTD has been subjectively evaluated by a qualified pilot as described in § 60.16(a)(1)(iii). 7. The NSPM will review each submission to determine if the requirements of this Directive have been met and respond to the FSTD Sponsor as described in § 60.23(c). Additional NSPM conducted FSTD evaluations may be required before the modified FSTD is placed into service. This response, along with any noted restrictions, will serve as an interim update to the FSTD’s VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 Statement of Qualification (SOQ) until such time that a permanent change is made to the SOQ at the FSTD’s next scheduled evaluation. Section III—Evaluation Requirements for Engine and Airframe Icing Training Tasks 1. This section applies to previously qualified Level C and Level D FSTDs being utilized to obtain training, testing, or checking credits in maneuvers that demonstrate the effects of engine and airframe ice accretion. 2. The evaluation requirements in this section are intended to supersede and improve upon existing Level C and Level D FSTD evaluation requirements on the effects of engine and airframe icing. The requirements define a minimum level of fidelity required to adequately simulate the aircraft specific aerodynamic characteristics of an in-flight encounter with engine and airframe ice accretion as necessary to accomplish training objectives. 3. This Directive contains additional subjective testing that exceeds the evaluation requirements of previously qualified FSTDs. Where aerodynamic modeling data is not available or insufficient to meet the requirements of this Directive, the NSPM may limit qualified engine and airframe icing maneuvers where sufficient aerodynamic modeling data exists. 4. By [THE FAA WILL INSERT DATE 3 years FROM EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE PUBLISHED IN THE Federal Register], any FSTD being used to conduct training tasks in engine and airframe icing must be evaluated by the FSTD sponsor in accordance with the following sections of Appendix A of this Part: a. Table A1A, General Requirements, Section 2.1.5.S. (Engine and Airframe Icing) b. Attachment 7, Additional QPS Requirements for Engine and Airframe Icing Evaluation (Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3). Objective demonstration testing is not required for previously qualified FSTDs. 5. Where continued qualification is being sought to conduct engine and airframe icing training tasks in accordance with this Directive, the FSTD Sponsor must conduct the required evaluations and modifications as prescribed in this Directive and report compliance to the NSPM in accordance with § 60.23 using the NSP’s standardized FSTD Sponsor Notification Form. At a minimum, this form must be accompanied with the following information: a. A description of any modifications to the FSTD (in accordance with § 60.23) necessary to meet the requirements of this Directive. b. Statement of Compliance (Ice Accretion Model)—See Table A1A, Section 2.1.5.S and Attachment 7 c. A confirmation statement that the modified FSTD has been subjectively evaluated by a qualified pilot as described in § 60.16(a)(1)(iii). 6. The NSPM will review each submission to determine if the requirements of this Directive have been met and respond to the FSTD Sponsor as described in § 60.23(c). Additional NSPM conducted FSTD PO 00000 Frm 00171 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 39631 evaluations may be required before the modified FSTD is placed into service. This response, along with any noted restrictions, will serve as an interim update to the FSTD’s Statement of Qualification (SOQ) until such time that a permanent change is made to the SOQ at the FSTD’s next scheduled evaluation. Section IV—Evaluation Requirements for Gusting Crosswinds During Takeoff and Landing 1. This section applies to previously qualified FSTDs that will be utilized to obtain training, testing, or checking credits in takeoff and landing tasks in gusting crosswinds as part of an FAA approved training program. The requirements of this Directive are applicable only to those Level B and higher FSTDs that are qualified to conduct takeoff and landing training tasks. 2. The evaluation requirements in this section are intended to introduce new evaluation requirements for gusting crosswinds during takeoff and landing training tasks and contains additional subjective testing that exceeds the evaluation requirements of previously qualified FSTDs. 3. By [THE FAA WILL INSERT DATE 3 years FROM EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE PUBLISHED IN THE Federal Register], any FSTD that is utilized to conduct gusting crosswind takeoff and landing training tasks must be evaluated by the FSTD sponsor in accordance with the following sections of Appendix A of this Part: a. Table A1A, General Requirements, Section 3.1.S.(2) (Ground Handling Characteristics) b. Table A1A, General Requirements, Section 11.4.R.(1) (Atmosphere—Instructor Controls, Gusting Crosswind) c. Table A3A, Functions and Subjective Testing Requirements, Test 3.a.3 (Takeoff, Crosswind—Maximum Demonstrated and Gusting Crosswind) d. Table A3A, Functions and Subjective Testing Requirements, Test 8.d. (Approach and landing with crosswind—Maximum Demonstrated and Gusting Crosswind) 4. Where qualification is being sought to conduct gusting crosswind training tasks in accordance with this Directive, the FSTD Sponsor must conduct the required evaluations and modifications as prescribed in this Directive and report compliance to the NSPM in accordance with § 60.23 using the NSP’s standardized FSTD Sponsor Notification Form. At a minimum, this form must be accompanied with the following information: a. A description of any modifications to the FSTD (in accordance with § 60.23) necessary to meet the requirements of this Directive. b. Statement of Compliance (Gusting Crosswind Profiles)—See Table A1A, Section 11.4.R. c. A confirmation statement that the modified FSTD has been subjectively evaluated by a qualified pilot as described in § 60.16(a)(1)(iii). 5. The NSPM will review each submission to determine if the requirements of this Directive have been met and respond to the E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 39632 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules FSTD Sponsor as described in § 60.23(c). Additional NSPM conducted FSTD evaluations may be required before the modified FSTD is placed into service. This response, along with any noted restrictions, will serve as an interim update to the FSTD’s Statement of Qualification (SOQ) until such time that a permanent change is made to the SOQ at the FSTD’s next scheduled evaluation. sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Section V—Evaluation Requirements for Bounced Landing Recovery Training Tasks 1. This section applies to previously qualified FSTDs that will be utilized to obtain training, testing, or checking credits in bounced landing recovery as part of an FAA approved training program. The requirements of this Directive are applicable only to those Level B and higher FSTDs that are qualified to conduct takeoff and landing training tasks. 2. The evaluation requirements in this section are intended to introduce new evaluation requirements for bounced landing recovery training tasks and contains additional subjective testing that exceeds the evaluation requirements of previously qualified FSTDs. 3. By [THE FAA WILL INSERT DATE 3 years FROM EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE PUBLISHED IN THE Federal Register], any FSTD that is utilized to conduct bounced landing training tasks must be evaluated by the FSTD sponsor in accordance with the following sections of Appendix A of this Part: a. Table A1A, General Requirements, Section 3.1.S.(1) (Ground Reaction Characteristics) b. Table A3A, Functions and Subjective Testing Requirements, Test 9.e. (Missed Approach—Bounced Landing) 4. Where qualification is being sought to conduct bounced landing training tasks in accordance with this Directive, the FSTD Sponsor must conduct the required evaluations and modifications as prescribed in this Directive and report compliance to the NSPM in accordance with § 60.23 using the NSP’s standardized FSTD Sponsor Notification Form. At a minimum, this form must be accompanied with the following information: a. A description of any modifications to the FSTD (in accordance with § 60.23) necessary to meet the requirements of this Directive. b. A confirmation statement that the modified FSTD has been subjectively evaluated by a qualified pilot as described in § 60.16(a)(1)(iii). 5. The NSPM will review each submission to determine if the requirements of this Directive have been met and respond to the FSTD Sponsor as described in § 60.23(c). Additional NSPM conducted FSTD evaluations may be required before the modified FSTD is placed into service. This response, along with any noted restrictions, will serve as an interim update to the FSTD’s Statement of Qualification (SOQ) until such time that a permanent change is made to the SOQ at the FSTD’s next scheduled evaluation. VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 Attachment 7 to Appendix A to Part 60— Additional Simulator Qualification Requirements for Stall, Upset Recognition and Recovery, and Engine and Airframe Icing Training Tasks Begin QPS Requirements High Angle of Attack Model Evaluation (Table A1A, Section 2.1.7.S.) 1. Applicability: This attachment applies to all simulators that are used to satisfy training requirements for full stall maneuvers that are conducted at angles of attack beyond the activation of the stall warning system. This attachment is not applicable for those FSTDs that are only qualified for approach to stall maneuvers that cease after recovery from the first indication of the stall. The material in this section is intended to supplement the general requirements, objective testing requirements, and subjective testing requirements contained within Tables A1A, A2A, and A3A, respectively. 2. General Requirements: The requirements for high angle of attack modeling are intended to provide aircraft specific recognition cues and performance and handling qualities of a developing stall through the stall break and recovery. It is recognized, however, that strict time-historybased evaluation against flight test data may not adequately validate the aerodynamic model in an unstable flight regime, such as stalled flight, particularly in cases where significant deviations are seen in the aircraft’s stability and control. As a result, the objective testing requirements defined in Table A2A do not prescribe strict tolerances on any parameter at angles of attack beyond the stall angle of attack. In lieu of mandating objective tolerances to flight test data at angles of attack at and beyond the stall, a Statement of Compliance (SOC) will be required to define the source data and methods used to develop the stall aerodynamic model which incorporates defined stall characteristics as applicable for the simulated aircraft type. In this flight regime (at angles of attack above the stall angle of attack), the aerodynamic modeling is expected to simulate aircraft ‘‘type representative’’ post-stall behavior to the extent that the training objectives can be accomplished. This SOC must also include verification that the stall model has been evaluated by a subject matter expert (SME) pilot acceptable to the FAA. 3. Statement of Compliance (Aerodynamic Model): At a minimum, the following must be addressed in the SOC: a. Source Data and Modeling Methods: The SOC must identify the sources of data used to develop the aerodynamic model. Of particular interest is a mapping of test points in the form of alpha/beta envelope plot for a minimum of flaps up and flaps down aircraft configurations. For the flight test data, a list of the types of maneuvers used to define the aerodynamic model for angle of attack ranges greater than the first indication of stall must be provided per flap setting. In cases where limited data is available to model and/or validate the stall characteristics (e.g. safety issues involving the collection flight test data), the data provider is expected to make a reasonable attempt to develop a PO 00000 Frm 00172 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 stall model through analytical methods and utilization of the best available data. b. Validity Range: The FSTD Sponsor must declare the range of angle of attack and sideslip where the aerodynamic model remains valid. For full (aerodynamic) stall training tasks, model validation and/or analysis should be conducted through at least 10 degrees beyond the critical angle of attack. In cases where training is limited to the activation of a stall identification system (stick pusher), model validation may be conducted at a lower angle of attack range, but the FSTD Sponsor must specify and restrict the use of the FSTD to those maneuvers that have been appropriately validated. c. Model Characteristics: Within the declared range of model validity, the SOC must address and the aerodynamic model must incorporate the following typical stall characteristics where applicable by aircraft type: i. Degradation in static/dynamic lateraldirectional stability ii. Degradation in control response (pitch, roll, yaw) iii. Uncommanded roll response iv. Apparent randomness or non-repeatability v. Changes in pitch stability vi. Stall hysteresis vii. Mach effects viii. Stall buffet An overview of the methodology used to address these features must be provided. 4. Statement of Compliance (SME Evaluation): The stall model must be evaluated by a subject matter expert (SME) pilot with knowledge of the cues necessary to accomplish the required training objectives and with experience in conducting stalls in the type of aircraft being simulated. In cases where such an SME pilot is not available, a pilot with experience in an aircraft with similar stall characteristics may be utilized. The SME pilot conducting the stall model evaluation must be acceptable to the NSPM. This evaluation may be conducted in the sponsor’s FSTD or in an ‘‘audited’’ engineering simulation. The engineering simulation can then be used to provide objective checkout cases and subjective evaluation guidance material to the FSTD sponsor/operator for evaluation of the implemented model on the Sponsor’s FSTD. Final evaluation and approval of the Sponsor’s FSTD must be accomplished by an SME pilot with knowledge of the training requirements to conduct the stall training tasks. Where available, documentation, including checkout documentation from an acceptable data provider, AFM documentation, or other source documentation related to stall training tasks for the simulated aircraft should be utilized. Particular emphasis should be placed upon recognition cues of an impending aerodynamic stall (such as the stall buffet, lateral/directional instability, etc.), stall break (g-break, pitch break, roll off departure, etc.), response of aircraft automation (such as autopilot and auto throttles), and the necessary control input required to execute an immediate recovery from the stall. E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Upset Recognition and Recovery Evaluation (Table A1A, Section 2.1.6.S.) 1. Applicability: This attachment applies to all simulators that are used to satisfy training requirements for upset recognition and recovery maneuvers. For the purposes of this attachment (as defined in the Airplane Upset Recovery Training Aid), an aircraft upset is generally defined as an airplane unintentionally exceeding the following parameters normally experienced in line operations or training: • Pitch attitude greater than 25 degrees nose up. • Pitch attitude greater than 10 degrees nose down. • Bank angles greater than 45 degrees. • Within the above parameters, but flying at airspeeds inappropriate for the conditions. FSTDs that will be used to conduct upset recognition and recovery training maneuvers in which the FSTD is either repositioned into an aircraft upset condition or an artificial stimulus (such as weather phenomena or system failures) is applied that could potentially result in a flightcrew entering an aircraft upset condition must be evaluated and qualified in accordance with this section. 2. General Requirements: The general requirement for upset recognition and recovery qualification in Table A1A defines three basic elements required for qualifying an FSTD for upset recognition and recovery maneuvers: a. FSTD Validation Envelope: The FSTD validation envelope must be defined and utilized to determine if qualified upset recovery maneuvers can be executed while remaining within FSTD validation limits. b. Instructor Feedback: In order to enhance the instructor’s situational awareness, the FSTD must employ a method to provide a minimum set of feedback tools to determine if the FSTD remains within validation limits and the simulated aircraft remains within operating limits during a student’s execution of an upset recovery maneuver. c. Upset Scenarios: Where dynamic upset scenarios or aircraft system malfunctions are used to stimulate the FSTD into an aircraft upset condition, such external stimuli/ malfunctions must be realistic and supported VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 by data sources where available. Acceptable data sources may include studies of environmental phenomena, aircraft accident/ incident data, aircraft manufacturer’s data, or other relevant data sources. 3. Validation Envelopes: For the purposes of this attachment, the term ‘‘flight envelope’’ refers to the entire domain in which the FSTD is capable of being flown. This envelope can be further divided into three subdivisions (e.g. see Appendix 3–D of the Airplane Upset Recovery Training Aid): D Flight Test Validated: This is the region of the flight envelope which has been validated with flight test data, typically by comparing the performance of the FSTD against the flight test data through tests incorporated in the QTG and other flight test data utilized to further extend the model beyond the minimum requirements. Within this region, there is high confidence that the simulator responds similarly to the aircraft. Note that this region is not strictly limited to what has been tested in the QTG; as long as the aerodynamic math model has been conformed to the flight test results, that portion of the math model can be considered to be within the Flight Test Validated region. D Wind Tunnel and/or Analytical: This is the region of the flight envelope for which the FSTD has not been compared to flight test data, but for which there has been wind tunnel testing and/or the use of other reliable predictive methods (typically by the aircraft manufacturer) to define the aerodynamic model. Any extensions to the aerodynamic model that have been evaluated in accordance with the definition of a ‘‘representative’’ stall model (as described above in the stall maneuver section) must be clearly indicated. Within this region, there is moderate confidence that the simulator will respond similarly to the aircraft. D Extrapolated: This is the region extrapolated beyond the flight test validated and wind tunnel/analytical regions. The extrapolation may be a linear extrapolation, a holding of the last value before the extrapolation began, or some other set of values. Whether this extrapolated data is provided by the aircraft or simulator manufacturer, it is a ‘‘best guess’’ only. Within this region, there is reduced PO 00000 Frm 00173 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 39633 confidence that the simulator will respond similarly to the aircraft. Brief excursions into this region may still retain a moderate confidence level in simulator fidelity; however, the instructor should be aware that the simulator’s response may deviate from the actual aircraft. 4. Instructor Feedback Mechanism: For the instructor/evaluator to provide feedback to the student during URT maneuver training, additional information must be accessible that indicates the relative fidelity of the simulation, magnitude of student control inputs, and aircraft operational limits that could potentially affect the successful completion of the maneuver(s). At a minimum, the following must be available to the instructor/evaluator: a. Simulator Validation Envelope: The FSTD must employ a method to record the FSTD’s expected level of fidelity with respect to the designed validation envelope. This may be displayed as an ‘‘alpha/beta’’ crossplot on the Instructor Operating System (IOS) or other alternate method acceptable to the FAA to clearly convey the simulator’s expected fidelity level during the maneuver. b. Flight Control Inputs: The FSTD must employ a method for the instructor/evaluator to assess the student’s flight control input used to execute the upset recovery maneuver. Parameters which may not be easily assessed visually from the instructor station, such as rudder pedal displacement and control forces, must be included in this feedback mechanism. c. Aircraft Operational Limits: The FSTD must employ a method to provide the instructor/evaluator with information concerning the aircraft operating limitations (such as normal load factor and airspeed limits found on a V-n diagram) that may affect the successful completion of the maneuver. End QPS Requirements Begin Information An example FSTD ‘‘alpha/beta’’ envelope display and IOS feedback mechanism are shown below in Figure 1 and Figure 2. E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 39634 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules Figure 1 - Example FSTD Alpha/Beta Envelope Plot VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00174 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 EP10JY14.130</GPH> sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Figure 2- Example lOS Instructor URT Feedback Display Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules End Information sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Begin QPS Requirements Engine and Airframe Icing Evaluation (Table A1A, Section 2.1.5.S.) 1. Applicability: This attachment applies to all simulators that are used to satisfy training requirements for engine and airframe ice accretion. New general requirements and objective requirements for simulator qualification have been developed to define aircraft specific icing models that support training objectives for the recognition and recovery from an in-flight ice accretion event. 2. General Requirements: The qualification of engine and airframe icing consists of the following elements that must be considered when developing ice accretion models for use in training: a. Ice accretion models must be developed to account for training the specific skills required for recognition of ice accumulation and execution of the required response. b. Ice accretion models must be developed in a manner to contain aircraft specific recognition cues as determined with aircraft OEM supplied data or other suitable analytical methods. c. At least one qualified ice accretion model must be objectively tested to demonstrate that the model has been implemented correctly and generates the correct cues as necessary for training. 3. Statement of Compliance: The SOC as described in Table A1A, Section 2.1.5.S. must contain the following information to support FSTD qualification of aircraft specific ice accretion models: a. A description of expected aircraft specific recognition cues and degradation effects due to a typical in-flight icing encounter. Typical cues may include loss of lift, decrease in stall angle of attack, change in pitching moment, decrease in control effectiveness, decrease in stall angle of attack, and changes in control forces in addition to any overall increase in drag. This description must be based upon relevant source data, such as aircraft OEM supplied data, accident/ incident data, or other acceptable data source. Where a particular airframe has demonstrated vulnerabilities to a specific type of ice accretion (due to accident/ incident history) which may require specific training, ice accretion models must be developed that address the training requirements. b. A description of the data sources utilized to develop the qualified ice accretion models. Acceptable data sources may be, but are not limited to, flight test data, aircraft certification data, aircraft OEM engineering simulation data, or other analytical methods based upon established engineering principles. 4. Objective Demonstration Testing: The purpose of the objective demonstration test is to demonstrate that the ice accretion models as described in the Statement of Compliance have been implemented correctly and demonstrate the proper cues as defined in the approved data sources. At least one ice accretion model must be selected for testing and included in the Master Qualification Test Guide (MQTG). Two tests are required to demonstrate engine and airframe icing VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 effects. One test will demonstrate the FSTDs baseline performance without icing, and the second test will demonstrate the aerodynamic effects of ice accretion relative to the baseline test. a. Recorded Parameters: In each of the two required MQTG cases, a time history recording must be made of the following parameters: i. Altitude ii. Airspeed iii. Normal Acceleration iv. Engine Power/settings v. Angle of Attack/Pitch attitude vi. Bank Angle vii. Flight control inputs viii. Stall warning and stall buffet onset ix. Other parameters as necessary to demonstrate the effects of ice accretions b. Analysis: The FSTD sponsor must select an ice accretion model as identified in the SOC for testing. The selected maneuver must demonstrate the effects of ice accretion at high angles of attack from a trimmed condition through approach to stall and ‘‘full’’ stall as compared to a baseline (no ice build up) test. The ice accretion models must demonstrate the cues necessary to recognize the onset of ice accretion on the airframe, lifting surfaces, and engines and provide representative degradation in performance and handling qualities to the extent that a recovery can be executed. Typical recognition cues that may be present depending upon the simulated aircraft include: i. Decrease in stall angle of attack ii. Increase in stall warning speed iii. Increase in stall buffet onset speed iv. Changes in pitching moment v. Changes in stall buffet characteristics vi. Changes in control effectiveness or control forces vii. Engine effects (power variation, vibration, etc.) The demonstration test may be conducted by initializing and maintaining a fixed amount of ice accretion throughout the maneuver in order to consistently evaluate the aerodynamic effects. End QPS Requirements 7. Part 60 is amended by revising Appendix B to read as follows: ■ Appendix B to Part 60—Qualification Performance Standards for Airplane Flight Training Devices lllllllllllllllllllll Begin Information This appendix establishes the standards for Airplane FTD evaluation and qualification at Level 4, Level 5, Level 6, or Level 7. The Flight Standards Service, 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 or persons assigned by the NSPM when conducting airplane FTD evaluations. Table of Contents 1. Introduction PO 00000 Frm 00175 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 39635 2. Applicability (§§ 60.1 and 60.2). 3. Definitions (§ 60.3). 4. Qualification Performance Standards (§ 60.4). 5. Quality Management System (§ 60.5). 6. Sponsor Qualification Requirements (§ 60.7). 7. Additional Responsibilities of the Sponsor (§ 60.9). 8. FTD Use (§ 60.11). 9. FTD Objective Data Requirements (§ 60.13). 10. Special Equipment and Personnel Requirements for Qualification of the FTD (§ 60.14). 11. Initial (and Upgrade) Qualification Requirements (§ 60.15). 12. Additional Qualifications for Currently Qualified FTDs (§ 60.16). 13. Previously Qualified FTDs (§ 60.17). 14. Inspection, Continuing Qualification Evaluation, and Maintenance Requirements (§ 60.19). 15. Logging FTD Discrepancies (§ 60.20). 16. Interim Qualification of FTDs for New Airplane Types or Models (§ 60.21). 17. Modifications to FTDs (§ 60.23). 18. Operations with Missing, Malfunctioning, or Inoperative Components (§ 60.25). 19. Automatic Loss of Qualification and Procedures for Restoration of Qualification (§ 60.27). 20. Other Losses of Qualification and Procedures for Restoration of Qualification (§ 60.29). 21. Record Keeping and Reporting (§ 60.31). 22. Applications, Logbooks, Reports, and Records: Fraud, Falsification, or Incorrect Statements (§ 60.33). 23. [Reserved] 24. Levels of FTD. 25. FTD Qualification on the Basis of a Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreement (BASA) (§ 60.37). Attachment 1 to Appendix B to Part 60— General FTD Requirements. Attachment 2 to Appendix B to Part 60— Flight Training Device (FTD) Objective Tests. Attachment 3 to Appendix B to Part 60— Flight Training Device (FTD) Subjective Evaluation. Attachment 4 to Appendix B to Part 60— Sample Documents. End Information lllllllllllllllllllll 1. Introduction lllllllllllllllllllll 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. E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 39636 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules b. Questions regarding the contents of this publication should be sent to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Flight Standards Service, National Simulator Program Staff, AFS–205, 100 Hartsfield Centre Parkway, Suite 400, Atlanta, Georgia, 30354. Telephone contact numbers for the NSP are: phone, 404–832–4700; fax, 404–761–8906. The general email address for the NSP office is: 9-aso-avs-sim-team@faa.gov. The NSP Internet Web site address is: https:// www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/nsp/. On this Web site you will find an NSP personnel list with telephone and email contact information for each NSP staff member, a list of qualified flight simulation devices, 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 120–41, as amended, Criteria for Operational Approval of Airborne Wind Shear Alerting and Flight Guidance Systems. (14) AC 120–45, as amended, Airplane Flight Training Device Qualification. (14) AC 120–57, as amended, Surface Movement Guidance and Control System (SMGCS). (15) AC 150/5300–13, as amended, Airport Design. (16) AC 150/5340–1, as amended, Standards for Airport Markings. (17) AC 150/5340–4, as amended, Installation Details for Runway Centerline Touchdown Zone Lighting Systems. (18) AC 150/5340–19, as amended, Taxiway Centerline Lighting System. (19) AC 150/5340–24, as amended, Runway and Taxiway Edge Lighting System. (20) AC 150/5345–28, as amended, Precision Approach Path Indicator (PAPI) Systems. VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 (21) International Air Transport Association document, ‘‘Flight Simulator Design and Performance Data Requirements,’’ as amended. (22) AC 25–7, as amended, Flight Test Guide for Certification of Transport Category Airplanes. (23) AC 23–8A, as amended, Flight Test Guide for Certification of Part 23 Airplanes. (24) International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Manual of Criteria for the Qualification of Flight Simulators, as amended. (25) Airplane Flight Simulator Evaluation Handbook, Volume I, as amended and Volume II, as amended, The Royal Aeronautical Society, London, UK. (26) FAA Publication FAA–S–8081 series (Practical Test Standards for Airline Transport Pilot Certificate, Type Ratings, Commercial Pilot, and Instrument Ratings). (27) The FAA Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM). An electronic version of the AIM is on the internet at https://www.faa.gov/ atpubs. (28) Aeronautical Radio, Inc. (ARINC) document number 436, titled Guidelines For Electronic Qualification Test Guide (as amended). (29) Aeronautical Radio, Inc. (ARINC) document 610, Guidance for Design and Integration of Aircraft Avionics Equipment in Simulators (as amended). End Information lllllllllllllllllllll 2. Applicability (§§ 60.1 and 60.2) lllllllllllllllllllll Begin Information No additional regulatory or informational material applies to § 60.1, Applicability, or to § 60.2, Applicability of sponsor rules to persons who are not sponsors and who are engaged in certain unauthorized activities. 3. Definitions (§ 60.3) See Appendix F of this part for a list of definitions and abbreviations from part 1, part 60, and the QPS appendices of part 60. 4. Qualification Performance Standards (§ 60.4) No additional regulatory or informational material applies to § 60.4, Qualification Performance Standards. 5. Quality Management System (§ 60.5) Additional regulatory material and informational material regarding Quality Management Systems for FTDs may be found in Appendix E of this part. End Information lllllllllllllllllllll 6. Sponsor Qualification Requirements. (§ 60.7) lllllllllllllllllllll Begin Information a. The intent of the language in § 60.7(b) is to have a specific FTD, identified by the sponsor, used at least once in an FAAapproved flight training program for the airplane simulated during the 12-month PO 00000 Frm 00176 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 period described. The identification of the specific FTD may change from one 12-month period to the next 12-month period as long as that sponsor sponsors and uses at least one FTD at least once during the prescribed period. There is no minimum number of hours or minimum FTD periods required. b. The following examples describe acceptable operational practices: (1) Example One. (a) A sponsor is sponsoring a single, specific FTD for its own use, in its own facility or elsewhere—this single FTD forms the basis for the sponsorship. The sponsor uses that FTD at least once in each 12-month period in that 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 FTD was qualified prior to May 30, 2008, the 12-month period begins on the date of the first continuing qualification evaluation conducted in accordance with § 60.19 after May 30, 2008, and continues for each subsequent 12-month period; (ii) A device qualified on or after May 30, 2008, will be required to undergo an initial or upgrade evaluation in accordance with § 60.15. Once the initial or upgrade evaluation is complete, the first continuing qualification evaluation will be conducted within 6 months. The 12 month continuing qualification evaluation cycle begins on that date and continues for each subsequent 12month period. (b) There is no minimum number of hours of FTD use required. (c) The identification of the specific FTD may change from one 12-month period to the next 12-month period as long as that sponsor sponsors and uses at least one FTD at least once during the prescribed period. (2) Example Two. (a) A sponsor sponsors an additional number of FTDs, in its facility or elsewhere. Each additionally sponsored FTD must be— (i) Used by the sponsor in the sponsor’s FAA-approved flight training program for the airplane simulated (as described in § 60.7(d)(1)); OR (ii) Used by another FAA certificate holder in that other certificate holder’s FAAapproved flight training program for the airplane simulated (as described in § 60.7(d)(1)). This 12-month period is established in the same manner as in example one. OR (iii) Provided a statement each year from a qualified pilot, (after having flown the airplane, not the subject FTD or another FTD, during the preceding 12-month period) stating that the subject FTD’s performance and handling qualities represent the airplane (as described in § 60.7(d)(2)). This statement is provided at least once in each 12-month period established in the same manner as in example one. (b) There is no minimum number of hours of FTD use 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. E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules (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 FTDs 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 FTDs in the Chicago and Moscow centers) because— (i) Each FTD in the Chicago center and each FTD in the Moscow center is used at least once each 12-month period by another FAA certificate holder in that other certificate holder’s FAA-approved flight training program for the airplane (as described in § 60.7(d)(1)); OR (ii) A statement is obtained from a qualified pilot (having flown the airplane, not the subject FTD or another FTD during the preceding 12-month period) stating that the performance and handling qualities of each FTD in the Chicago and Moscow centers represents the airplane (as described in § 60.7(d)(2)). End Information lllllllllllllllllllll 7. Additional Responsibilities of the Sponsor (§ 60.9) lllllllllllllllllllll Begin Information The phrase ‘‘as soon as practicable’’ in § 60.9(a) means without unnecessarily disrupting or delaying beyond a reasonable time the training, evaluation, or experience being conducted in the FTD. 8. FTD Use (§ 60.11) No additional regulatory or informational material applies to § 60.11, FTD use. End Information lllllllllllllllllllll sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 9. FTD Objective Data Requirements (§ 60.13) lllllllllllllllllllll Begin QPS Requirements a. Flight test data used to validate FTD 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 FTD. (2) Appropriately qualified flight test personnel. VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 (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 B2F of this appendix. (4) Appropriate and sufficient data acquisition equipment or system(s), including appropriate data reduction and analysis methods and techniques, acceptable to the FAA’s Aircraft Certification Service. b. The data, regardless of source, must be presented: (1) In a format that supports the FTD 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 B2A, Appendix B; (4) With any necessary guidance information provided; and (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 FTD at the level requested. d. As required by § 60.13(f), the sponsor must notify the NSPM when it becomes aware that an addition to or a revision of the flight related data or airplane systems related data is available if this data is used to program and operate a qualified FTD. The data referred to in this sub-section are those data that are used to validate the performance, handling qualities, or other characteristics of the aircraft, including data related to any relevant changes occurring after the type certification is issued. 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— (i) The schedule to incorporate this data into the FTD; or (ii) The reason for not incorporating this data into the FTD. e. In those cases where the objective test results authorize a ‘‘snapshot test’’ or a ‘‘series of snapshot test 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 snap shot. End QPS Requirements lllllllllllllllllllll Begin Information f. The FTD 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 PO 00000 Frm 00177 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 39637 is no longer in business), and if appropriate, with the person having supplied the aircraft data package for the FTD in order to facilitate the notification described in this paragraph. g. It is the intent of the NSPM that for new aircraft entering service, at a point well in advance of preparation of the QTG, the sponsor should submit to the NSPM for approval, a descriptive document (see Appendix A, 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 FTD 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 FTD 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-bycase 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 lllllllllllllllllllll 10. Special Equipment and Personnel Requirements for Qualification of the FTD (§ 60.14) lllllllllllllllllllll 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 flight control measurement devices, accelerometers, or oscilloscopes. Examples of specially qualified personnel include individuals E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 39638 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 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 FTD is moved; at the request of the TPAA; or as a result of comments received from users of the FTD that raise questions about the continued qualification or use of the FTD. End Information lllllllllllllllllllll sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 11. Initial (and Upgrade) Qualification Requirements (§ 60.15) lllllllllllllllllllll Begin QPS Requirement a. In order to be qualified at a particular qualification level, the FTD 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 (Level 4 FTDs do not require objective tests); and (3) Satisfactorily accomplish the subjective tests listed in Attachment 3 of this appendix. b. The request described in § 60.15(a) must include all of the following: (1) A statement that the FTD 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 § 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) Except for a Level 4 FTD, a QTG, acceptable to the NSPM, that includes all of the following: (a) Objective data obtained from aircraft testing or another approved source. (b) Correlating objective test results obtained from the performance of the FTD as prescribed in the appropriate QPS. (c) The result of FTD 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 FTD objective tests in Attachment 2, Table B2A 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 conducting automatic and manual tests; (3) A means of comparing the FTD 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 FTD. e. The QTG described in paragraphs (a)(3) and (b) of this section, must include the following: VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 (1) A QTG cover page with sponsor and FAA approval signature blocks (see Attachment 4, Figure B4C, of this appendix, for a sample QTG cover page). (2) A continuing qualification evaluation requirements page. This page will be used by the NSPM to establish and record the frequency with which continuing qualification evaluations must be conducted and any subsequent changes that may be determined by the NSPM in accordance with § 60.19. See Attachment 4, Figure B4G, of this appendix, for a sample Continuing Qualification Evaluation Requirements page. (3) An FTD information page that provides the information listed in this paragraph, if applicable (see Attachment 4, Figure B4B, of this appendix, for a sample FTD information page). For convertible FTDs, the sponsor must submit a separate page for each configuration of the FTD. (a) The sponsor’s FTD identification number or code. (b) The airplane model and series being simulated. (c) The aerodynamic data revision number or reference. (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 FTD model and manufacturer. (i) The date of FTD manufacture. (j) The FTD 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) 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 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 FTD objective test results. (g) List of all relevant parameters driven or constrained during the automatic test(s). (h) List of all relevant parameters driven or constrained during the manual 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). PO 00000 Frm 00178 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 (l) FTD 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 FTD is addressed as a separate FTD for each model and series airplane to which it will be converted and for the FAA qualification level sought. The NSPM will conduct an evaluation for each configuration. If a sponsor seeks qualification for two or more models of an airplane type using a convertible FTD, the sponsor must provide 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. The form and manner of presentation of objective test results in the QTG must include the following: (1) The sponsor’s FTD test results must be recorded in a manner acceptable to the NSPM, that allows easy comparison of the FTD test results to the validation data (e.g., use of a multi-channel recorder, line printer, cross plotting, overlays, transparencies). (2) FTD 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 B2A of this appendix. (5) Tests involving time histories, data sheets (or transparencies thereof) and FTD test results must be clearly marked with appropriate reference points to ensure an accurate comparison between FTD and 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 may 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 FTD 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 FTD 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 FTD location. j. All FTDs for which the initial qualification is conducted after May 30, 2014, must have an electronic MQTG (eMQTG) including all objective data obtained from airplane testing, or another approved source (reformatted or digitized), together with correlating objective test results obtained from the performance of the FTD E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules (reformatted or digitized) as prescribed in this appendix. The eMQTG must also contain the general FTD performance or demonstration results (reformatted or digitized) prescribed in this appendix, and a description of the equipment necessary to perform the initial qualification evaluation and the continuing qualification evaluations. The eMQTG must include the original validation data used to validate FTD performance and handling qualities in either the original digitized format from the data supplier or an electronic scan of the original time-history plots that were provided by the data supplier. A copy of the eMQTG must be provided to the NSPM. k. All other FTDs (not covered in subparagraph ‘‘j’’) must have an electronic copy of the MQTG by and after May 30, 2014. An electronic copy of the copy of the MQTG must be provided to the NSPM. This may be provided by an electronic scan presented in a Portable Document File (PDF), or similar format acceptable to the NSPM. l. During the initial (or upgrade) qualification evaluation conducted by the NSPM, the sponsor must also provide a person knowledgeable about the operation of the aircraft and the operation of the FTD. sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS End QPS Requirements lllllllllllllllllllll Begin Information m. Only those FTDs that are sponsored by a certificate holder as defined in Appendix F will be evaluated by the NSPM. However, other FTD evaluations may be conducted on a case-by-case basis as the Administrator deems appropriate, but only in accordance with applicable agreements. n. The NSPM will conduct an evaluation for each configuration, and each FTD must be evaluated as completely as possible. To ensure a thorough and uniform evaluation, each FTD is subjected to the general FTD requirements in Attachment 1 of this appendix, the objective tests listed in Attachment 2 of this appendix, and the subjective tests listed in Attachment 3 of this appendix. The evaluations described herein will include, but not necessarily be limited to the following: (1) Airplane responses, including longitudinal and lateral-directional control responses (see Attachment 2 of this appendix); (2) Performance in authorized portions of the simulated airplane’s operating envelope, to include tasks evaluated by the NSPM in the areas of surface operations, takeoff, climb, cruise, descent, approach and landing, as well as abnormal and emergency operations (see Attachment 2 of this appendix); (3) Control checks (see Attachment 1 and Attachment 2 of this appendix); (4) Flight deck configuration (see Attachment 1 of this appendix); (5) Pilot, flight engineer, and instructor station functions checks (see Attachment 1 and Attachment 3 of this appendix); (6) Airplane systems and sub-systems (as appropriate) as compared to the airplane simulated (see attachment 1 and attachment 3 of this appendix); (7) FTD systems and sub-systems, including force cueing (motion), visual, and VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 aural (sound) systems, as appropriate (see Attachment 1 and Attachment 2 of this appendix); and (8) Certain additional requirements, depending upon the qualification level sought, including equipment or circumstances that may become hazardous to the occupants. The sponsor may be subject to Occupational Safety and Health Administration requirements. o. The NSPM administers the objective and subjective tests, which include an examination of functions. The tests include a qualitative assessment of the FTD by an NSP pilot. The NSP evaluation team leader may assign other qualified personnel to assist in accomplishing the functions examination and/or the objective and subjective tests performed during an evaluation when required. (1) Objective tests provide a basis for measuring and evaluating FTD performance and determining compliance with the requirements of this part. (2) Subjective tests provide a basis for: (a) Evaluating the capability of the FTD to perform over a typical utilization period; (b) Determining that the FTD satisfactorily simulates each required task; (c) Verifying correct operation of the FTD controls, instruments, and systems; and (d) Demonstrating compliance with the requirements of this part. p. The tolerances for the test parameters listed in Attachment 2 of this appendix reflect the range of tolerances acceptable to the NSPM for FTD validation and are not to be confused with design tolerances specified for FTD manufacture. In making decisions regarding tests and test results, the NSPM relies on the use of operational and engineering judgment in the application of data (including consideration of the way in which the flight test was flown and way the data was gathered and applied) data presentations, and the applicable tolerances for each test. q. In addition to the scheduled continuing qualification evaluation, each FTD is subject to evaluations conducted by the NSPM at any time without prior notification to the sponsor. Such evaluations would be accomplished in a normal manner (i.e., requiring exclusive use of the FTD for the conduct of objective and subjective tests and an examination of functions) if the FTD is not being used for flight crewmember training, testing, or checking. However, if the FTD were being used, the evaluation would be conducted in a nonexclusive manner. This nonexclusive evaluation will be conducted by the FTD evaluator accompanying the check airman, instructor, Aircrew Program Designee (APD), or FAA inspector aboard the FTD along with the student(s) and observing the operation of the FTD during the training, testing, or checking activities. r. Problems with objective test results are handled as follows: (1) If a problem with an objective test result is detected by the NSP evaluation team during an evaluation, the test may be repeated or the QTG may be amended. (2) If it is determined that the results of an objective test do not support the qualification level requested but do support a lower level, PO 00000 Frm 00179 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 39639 the NSPM may qualify the FTD at a lower level. For example, if a Level 6 evaluation is requested, but the FTD fails to meet the spiral stability test tolerances, it could be qualified at Level 5. s. After an FTD is successfully evaluated, the NSPM issues an SOQ to the sponsor. The NSPM recommends the FTD to the TPAA, who will approve the FTD for use in a flight training program. The SOQ will be issued at the satisfactory conclusion of the initial or continuing qualification evaluation and will list the tasks for which the FTD is qualified, referencing the tasks described in Table B1B in attachment 1 of this appendix. However, it is the sponsor’s responsibility to obtain TPAA approval prior to using the FTD in an FAA-approved flight training program. t. Under normal circumstances, the NSPM establishes a date for the initial or upgrade evaluation within ten (10) working days after determining that a complete QTG is acceptable. Unusual circumstances may warrant establishing an evaluation date before this determination is made. A sponsor may schedule an evaluation date as early as 6 months in advance. However, there may be a delay of 45 days or more in rescheduling and completing the evaluation if the sponsor is unable to meet the scheduled date. See Attachment 4, Figure B4A, Sample Request for Initial, Upgrade, or Reinstatement Evaluation, of this appendix. u. The numbering system used for objective test results in the QTG should closely follow the numbering system set out in Attachment 2, FTD Objective Tests, Table B2A, of this appendix. v. Contact the NSPM or visit the NSPM Web site for additional information regarding the preferred qualifications of pilots used to meet the requirements of § 60.15(d). w. Examples of the exclusions for which the FTD might not have been subjectively tested by the sponsor or the NSPM and for which qualification might not be sought or granted, as described in § 60.15(g)(6), include engine out maneuvers or circling approaches. 12. Additional Qualifications for Currently Qualified FTDs (§ 60.16) No additional regulatory or informational material applies to § 60.16, Additional Qualifications for a Currently Qualified FTD. End Information lllllllllllllllllllll 13. Previously Qualified FTDs (§ 60.17) lllllllllllllllllllll Begin QPS Requirements a. In instances where a sponsor plans to remove an FTD from active status for a period of less than two years, the following procedures apply: (1) The NSPM must be notified in writing and the notification must include an estimate of the period that the FTD will be inactive; (2) Continuing Qualification evaluations will not be scheduled during the inactive period; (3) The NSPM will remove the FTD from the list of qualified FTDs on a mutually established date not later than the date on which the first missed continuing E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 39640 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules qualification evaluation would have been scheduled; (4) Before the FTD is restored to qualified status, it must be evaluated by the NSPM. The evaluation content and the time required to accomplish the evaluation is based on the number of continuing qualification evaluations and sponsor-conducted quarterly inspections missed during the period of inactivity. (5) The sponsor must notify the NSPM of any changes to the original scheduled time out of service; b. FTDs qualified prior to May 30, 2008, and replacement FTD systems, are not required to meet the general FTD requirements, the objective test requirements, and the subjective test requirements of Attachments 1, 2, and 3 of this appendix as long as the FTD continues to meet the test requirements contained in the MQTG developed under the original qualification basis. c. [Reserved] d. FTDs qualified prior to May 30, 2008, may be updated. If an evaluation is deemed appropriate or necessary by the NSPM after such an update, the evaluation will not require an evaluation to standards beyond those against which the FTD was originally qualified. sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS End QPS Requirements lllllllllllllllllllll Begin Information e. Other certificate holders or persons desiring to use an FTD may contract with FTD sponsors to use FTDs previously qualified at a particular level for an airplane type and approved for use within an FAAapproved flight training program. Such FTDs are not required to undergo an additional qualification process, except as described in § 60.16. f. Each FTD user must obtain approval from the appropriate TPAA to use any FTD in an FAA-approved flight training program. g. The intent of the requirement listed in § 60.17(b), for each FTD to have an SOQ within 6 years, is to have the availability of that statement (including the configuration list and the limitations to authorizations) to provide a complete picture of the FTD inventory regulated by the FAA. The issuance of the statement will not require any additional evaluation or require any adjustment to the evaluation basis for the FTD. h. Downgrading of an FTD is a permanent change in qualification level and will necessitate the issuance of a revised SOQ to reflect the revised qualification level, as appropriate. If a temporary restriction is placed on an FTD because of a missing, malfunctioning, or inoperative component or on-going repairs, the restriction is not a permanent change in qualification level. Instead, the restriction is temporary and is removed when the reason for the restriction has been resolved. i. The NSPM will determine the evaluation criteria for an FTD that has been removed from active status for a prolonged period. The criteria will be based on the number of continuing qualification evaluations and VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 quarterly inspections missed during the period of inactivity. For example, if the FTD were out of service for a 1 year period, it would be necessary to complete the entire QTG, since all of the quarterly evaluations would have been missed. The NSPM will also consider how the FTD was stored, whether parts were removed from the FTD and whether the FTD was disassembled. j. The FTD will normally be requalified using the FAA-approved MQTG and the criteria that was in effect prior to its removal from qualification. However, inactive periods of 2 years or more will require requalification under the standards in effect and current at the time of requalification. End Information lllllllllllllllllllll 14. Inspection, Continuing Qualification, Evaluation, and Maintenance Requirements (§ 60.19). lllllllllllllllllllll Begin QPS Requirement a. The sponsor must conduct a minimum of four evenly spaced inspections throughout the year. The objective test sequence and content of each inspection in this sequence must be developed by the sponsor and must be acceptable to the NSPM. b. The description of the functional preflight check must be contained in the sponsor’s QMS. c. Record ‘‘functional preflight’’ in the FTD discrepancy log book or other acceptable location, including any item found to be missing, malfunctioning, or inoperative. d. During the continuing qualification evaluation conducted by the NSPM, the sponsor must also provide a person knowledgeable about the operation of the aircraft and the operation of the FTD. End QPS Requirements lllllllllllllllllllll Begin Information e. The sponsor’s test sequence and the content of each quarterly inspection required in § 60.19(a)(1) should include a balance and a mix from the objective test requirement areas listed as follows: (1) Performance. (2) Handling qualities. (3) Motion system (where appropriate). (4) Visual system (where appropriate). (5) Sound system (where appropriate). (6) Other FTD systems. f. If the NSP evaluator plans to accomplish specific tests during a normal continuing qualification evaluation that requires the use of special equipment or technicians, the sponsor will be notified as far in advance of the evaluation as practical; but not less than 72 hours. Examples of such tests include latencies, control sweeps, or motion or visual system tests. g. The continuing qualification evaluations described in § 60.19(b) will normally require 4 hours of FTD time. However, flexibility is necessary to address abnormal situations or situations involving aircraft with additional levels of complexity (e.g., computer controlled aircraft). The sponsor should anticipate that some tests may require PO 00000 Frm 00180 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 additional time. The continuing qualification evaluations will consist of the following: (1) Review of the results of the quarterly inspections conducted by the sponsor since the last scheduled continuing qualification evaluation. (2) A selection of approximately 8 to 15 objective tests from the MQTG that provide an adequate opportunity to evaluate the performance of the FTD. The tests chosen will be performed either automatically or manually and should be able to be conducted within approximately one-third (1⁄3) of the allotted FTD time. (3) A subjective evaluation of the FTD to perform a representative sampling of the tasks set out in attachment 3 of this appendix. This portion of the evaluation should take approximately two-thirds (2⁄3) of the allotted FTD time. (4) An examination of the functions of the FTD may include the motion system, visual system, sound system as applicable, instructor operating station, and the normal functions and simulated malfunctions of the airplane systems. This examination is normally accomplished simultaneously with the subjective evaluation requirements. h. The requirement established in § 60.19(b)(4) regarding the frequency of NSPM-conducted continuing qualification evaluations for each FTD is typically 12 months. However, the establishment and satisfactory implementation of an approved QMS for a sponsor will provide a basis for adjusting the frequency of evaluations to exceed 12-month intervals. 15. Logging FTD Discrepancies (§ 60.20) No additional regulatory or informational material applies to § 60.20. Logging FTD Discrepancies. 16. Interim Qualification of FTDs for New Airplane Types or Models (§ 60.21) No additional regulatory or informational material applies to § 60.21, Interim Qualification of FTDs for New Airplane Types or Models. End Information lllllllllllllllllllll 17. Modifications to FTDs (§ 60.23) lllllllllllllllllllll Begin QPS Requirements a. The notification described in § 60.23(c)(2) must include a complete description of the planned modification, with a description of the operational and engineering effect the proposed modification will have on the operation of the FTD and the results that are expected with the modification incorporated. b. Prior to using the modified FTD: (1) All the applicable objective tests completed with the modification incorporated, including any necessary updates to the MQTG (e.g., accomplishment of FSTD Directives) must be acceptable to the NSPM; and (2) The sponsor must provide the NSPM with a statement signed by the MR that the factors listed in § 60.15(b) are addressed by the appropriate personnel as described in that section. E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules End QPS Requirements Begin Information 20. Other Losses of Qualification and Procedures for Restoration of Qualification (§ 60.29.) lllllllllllllllllllll c. FSTD Directives are considered modification of an FTD. See Attachment 4 of this appendix for a sample index of effective FSTD Directives. d. Examples of MQTG changes that do not require notification under § 60.23(a) are limited to repagination, correction of typographical or grammatical errors, typesetting, or presenting additional parameters on existing test result formats. All changes regardless of nature should be reported in the MQTG revision history. Begin Information If the sponsor provides a plan for how the FTD will be maintained during its out-ofservice period (e.g., periodic exercise of mechanical, hydraulic, and electrical systems; routine replacement of hydraulic fluid; control of the environmental factors in which the FTD is to be maintained) there is a greater likelihood that the NSPM will be able to determine the amount of testing that required for requalification. End Information End Information lllllllllllllllllllll lllllllllllllllllllll 18. Operation With Missing, Malfunctioning, or Inoperative Components (§ 60.25) lllllllllllllllllllll Begin Information a. The sponsor’s responsibility with respect to § 60.25(a) is satisfied when the sponsor fairly and accurately advises the user of the current status of an FTD, including any missing, malfunctioning, or inoperative (MMI) component(s). b. 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 if any MMI component is necessary for the satisfactory completion of a specific maneuver, procedure, or task. c. If the 29th or 30th day of the 30-day period described in § 60.25(b) is on a Saturday, a Sunday, or a holiday, the FAA will extend the deadline until the next business day. d. In accordance with the authorization described in § 60.25(b), the sponsor may develop a discrepancy prioritizing system to accomplish repairs based on the level of impact on the capability of the FTD. Repairs having a larger impact on the FTD’s ability to provide the required training, evaluation, or flight experience will have a higher priority for repair or replacement. 21. Recordkeeping and Reporting (§ 60.31.) lllllllllllllllllllll Begin QPS Requirements a. FTD modifications can include hardware or software changes. For FTD modifications involving software programming changes, the record required by § 60.31(a)(2) must consist of the name of the aircraft system software, aerodynamic model, or engine model change, the date of the change, a summary of the change, and the reason for the change. b. If a coded form for record keeping is used, it must provide for the preservation and retrieval of information with appropriate security or controls to prevent the inappropriate alteration of such records after the fact. End QPS Requirements lllllllllllllllllllll 22. Applications, Logbooks, Reports, and Records: Fraud, Falsification, or Incorrect Statements (§ 60.33) lllllllllllllllllllll Begin Information No additional regulatory or informational material applies to § 60.33, Applications, Logbooks, Reports, and Records: Fraud, Falsification, or Incorrect Statements. End Information End Information lllllllllllllllllllll lllllllllllllllllllll 23. [Reserved] 19. Automatic Loss of Qualification and Procedures for Restoration of Qualification (§ 60.27) 24. Levels of FTD lllllllllllllllllllll lllllllllllllllllllll Begin Information a. The following is a general description of each level of FTD. Detailed standards and tests for the various levels of FTDs are fully defined in Attachments 1 through 3 of this appendix. (1) Level 4. A device that may have an open airplane-specific flight deck area, or an enclosed airplane-specific flight deck and at least one operating system. Air/ground logic is required (no aerodynamic programming required). All displays may be flat/LCD panel representations or actual representations of displays in the aircraft. All controls, switches, and knobs may be touch sensitive activation (not capable of manual sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Begin Information If the sponsor provides a plan for how the FTD will be maintained during its out-ofservice period (e.g., periodic exercise of mechanical, hydraulic, and electrical systems; routine replacement of hydraulic fluid; control of the environmental factors in which the FTD is to be maintained) there is a greater likelihood that the NSPM will be able to determine the amount of testing that required for requalification. End Information lllllllllllllllllllll VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00181 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 39641 manipulation of the flight controls) or may physically replicate the aircraft in control operation. (2) Level 5. A device that may have an open airplane-specific flight deck area, or an enclosed airplane-specific flight deck; generic aerodynamic programming; at least one operating system; and control loading that is representative of the simulated airplane only at an approach speed and configuration. All displays may be flat/LCD panel representations or actual representations of displays in the aircraft. Primary and secondary flight controls (e.g., rudder, aileron, elevator, flaps, spoilers/ speed brakes, engine controls, landing gear, nosewheel steering, trim, brakes) must be physical controls. All other controls, switches, and knobs may be touch sensitive activation. (3) Level 6. A device that has an enclosed airplane-specific flight deck; airplanespecific aerodynamic programming; all applicable airplane systems operating; control loading that is representative of the simulated airplane throughout its ground and flight envelope; and significant sound representation. All displays may be flat/LCD panel representations or actual representations of displays in the aircraft, but all controls, switches, and knobs must physically replicate the aircraft in control operation. (4) Level 7. A Level 7 device is one that has an enclosed airplane-specific flight deck and aerodynamic program with all applicable airplane systems operating and control loading that is representative of the simulated airplane throughout its ground and flight envelope and significant sound representation. All displays may be flat/LCD panel representations or actual representations of displays in the aircraft, but all controls, switches, and knobs must physically replicate the aircraft in control operation. It also has a visual system that provides an out-of-the-flight deck view, providing cross-flight deck viewing (for both pilots simultaneously) of a field-of-view of at least 200° horizontally and 40° vertically. End Information lllllllllllllllllllll 25. FTD Qualification on the Basis of a Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreement (BASA) (§ 60.37) lllllllllllllllllllll Begin Information No additional regulatory or informational material applies to § 60.37, FTD Qualification on the Basis of a Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreement (BASA). End Information lllllllllllllllllllll Attachment 1 to Appendix B to Part 60— General FTD Requirements lllllllllllllllllllll Begin QPS Requirements 1. Requirements a. Certain requirements included in this appendix must be supported with an SOC as E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 39642 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules defined in Appendix F, which may include objective and subjective tests. The requirements for SOCs are indicated in the ‘‘General FTD Requirements’’ column in Table B1A of this appendix. b. Table B1A describes the requirements for the indicated level of FTD. Many devices include operational systems or functions that exceed the requirements outlined in this section. In any event, all systems will be tested and evaluated in accordance with this appendix to ensure proper operation. End QPS Requirements lllllllllllllllllllll Begin Information sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 2. Discussion a. This attachment describes the general requirements for qualifying Level 4 through VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 Level 7 FTDs. The sponsor should also consult the objectives tests in Attachment 2 of this appendix and the examination of functions and subjective tests listed in Attachment 3 of this appendix to determine the complete requirements for a specific level FTD. b. The material contained in this attachment is divided into the following categories: (1) General Flight deck Configuration. (2) Programming. (3) Equipment Operation. (4) Equipment and facilities for instructor/ evaluator functions. (5) Motion System. (6) Visual System. (7) Sound System. c. Table B1A provides the standards for the General FTD Requirements. PO 00000 Frm 00182 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 d. Table B1B provides the tasks that the sponsor will examine to determine whether the FTD satisfactorily meets the requirements for flight crew training, testing, and experience, and provides the tasks for which the simulator may be qualified. e. Table B1C provides the functions that an instructor/check airman must be able to control in the simulator. f. It is not required that all of the tasks that appear on the List of Qualified Tasks (part of the SOQ) be accomplished during the initial or continuing qualification evaluation. End Information lllllllllllllllllllll E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS VerDate Mar<15>2010 Table B1A- Minimum FTD Requirements Entry Number 1. Jkt 232001 l.S PO 00000 l.R Frm 00183 l.G Fmt 4701 1.1 Sfmt 4725 l.l.S.a E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM l.l.S.b l.l.S.c FTD Level INF0&'\1A TION General FTD Requirements 4151617 ~otes FEATURE GENERAL REQUIREMENT FLIGHT DECK LAYOUT & STRUCTURE An enclosed full scale replica of the airplane cockpit/flight deck, which will have fully functional controls, instruments and switches to support the approved use. X X X Anything not required to be accessed by the flight crew during normal, abnormal, emergency and, where applicable, non-normal operations does not need to he functional. The FTD must have equipment (e.g., instmments, panels, systems, circuit breakers, and controls) simulated sufficiently for the authorized training/checking events lo be accomplished. The installed equipment must be located in a spatially correct location and may be in a flight deck or an open flight deck area. Additional equipment required for the authorized training/checking events must be available in the FTD, but may be located in a suitable location as near as practical to the spatially correct position. Actuation of equipment must replicate the appropriate function in the airplane. Fire axes, landing gear pins, and any similar purpose instruments need only be represented in silhouette. Rt>st>rved X X X X FEATURE TECHNICAL REQUIREMENT COCKPITifLIGIIT DECK LAYOUT & STRUCTURE COCKPIT/FLIGHT DECK STRUCTURE Reserved 10JYP2 An enclosed, full scale replica of the cockpit/flight deck of the airplane being simulated except the enclosure need only extend to the aft end of the cockpit/flight deck area. An enclosed, full scale replica ofthe cockpit/t1ight deck of the airplane being simulated including all: structure and panels; primary and secondary flight controls; engine and propeller controls, as applicable; equipment and systems with associated controls and observable indicators; circuit breakers; flight instruments; navigation, communications and similar usc equipment; caution and warning systems and emergency equipment. The tactile feel, technique, effort, travel and direction required to manipulate the preceding, as applicable, must replicate those in the airplane. As applicable, equipment for operation of the cockpit/flight deck windows must be included but the actual windows need not be operable. Additional required Hight crew member duty stations and those bulkheads aft of the pilots' seats containing items such as switches, circuit breakers, supplementary radio panels, etc., to which the flight crew ma:y require access during any event after pre-flight cockpitiJlight deck preparation is complete, are also considered pati ofthc cockpit/ Hight deck and must replicate the airplane. Note.- The cockpitljlight deck. .fi>rflight simulation purposes, consists o{al/ 1hat space .forward ola cross section oF the .fuselage at the must extreme ajl selling uftheflight crew members' seals ur il applicable. /u that cross section . Airplane observer seats are not considered to be additional flight crew member duty stations and may be omitted. The use of electronically displayed images with physical overlay or masking for FSTD instruments and/or instrument panels is acceptable provided: - all instruments and instrument panel layouts are dimensionally conect with differences, if any, being imperceptible to the pilot; - instruments replicate those of the airplane including lull instrument functionality and embedded logic; 39643 EP10JY14.131</GPH> X Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 QPS REQUIREMENTS sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 39644 VerDate Mar<15>2010 Table BtA- Minimum FTD Requirements I~ FORMATION General f'TD Requirements Entry '---Number FTD Level 4151617 Notes -· immediately afl of additional flight crew member seats and/or required bulkheads. - Jkt 232001 PO 00000 instrument display characteristics replicate those ofthe airplane including: resolution, colors, luminance, brightness, fonts, till patterns, line styles and symbology; - Frm 00184 overlay or masking, including bezels and bugs, as applicable, replicates the airplane panel(s); Fmt 4701 instrument controls and switches replicate and operate with the same technique, effort, travel and in the same direction as those in the airplane; Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM instrument lighting replicates that of the airplane and is operated 11-om the FSTD control for that lighting and, if applicahle, is at a level commensurate with other lighting operated by that same control; as applicable, instruments should have faceplates that replicate those in the airplane. l.l.R Reserved l.l.G Reserved 10JYP2 1.2 SEATING 1.2.l.S Flight <:rew member seals must replicate those in the airplane being simulated. 1.2.l.R Reserved 1.2.1.G In addition to the flight crew member seats, there must be one instructor station seat, and two suitable seats for an observer and an FAA inspector. 1.2.2.R Reserved 1.2.2.G Reserved X Reserved l.2.2.S.b X Reserved 1.2.2.S.a EP10JY14.132</GPH> instruments displayed are tree of quantization l stepping); X At least one seat should have a system to pennit selective monitoring of all flight crew member and instructor communications. Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 QPS REQUIREMENTS sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS VerDate Mar<15>2010 Table BtA- Minimum FTD Requirements 4151617 Notes COCKPJT/FLIGI!T DECK LIGIITING U.S.a Cockpitlnight deck lighting must replicate that in the airplane 1.3.S.b The lighting environment for panels and instruments must be sufficient for the operation being conducted. 1.3.R The lighting environment for panels and instruments must be sufficient for the operation being conducted. PO 00000 1.3.G Reserved Frm 00185 2. 2.S X Back-lighted panels and instruments may be installed but are not required. Back-lighted panels and instruments may he installed but are not required. X X X FEATURE GEI'IERAL REQUIREMENT FLIGHT MODEL Aerodynamic and engine modeling fm· all combinations of drag and thrust, including the effects of change in airplane attitude, sideslip, altitude, temperature, gross mass, center of gravity location and configuration to support the approved use. X Fmt 4701 Must address ground effect, mach effect, aeroelastic representations, non-linearities due to sideslip, effects of airframe icing, forward and reverse dynamic thrust effect on control surfaces. Realistic airplane mass properties, including mass, center of gravity and moments of inertia as a function of payload and fuel loading must be implemented. Sfmt 4725 2.S1 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 2.R 10JYP2 Extended envelope modeling to the extent necessary for full stall training and upset recovery training. The FTD must provide the proper effect of aerodynamic changes for the combinations of drag and thrust normally encountered in flight. This must include the effect of change in airplane attitude, thrust, drag, altitude, temperature, and configuration. 2.G An SOC is required. Reserved 2.1 X fEATURE TECI!NlCAL REQUIREMENT FLIGHT MODEL FLIGHT DYNAMICS MODEL 2.l.l.S 2.1.2.S Flight dynamics model that accounts for various combinations of drag and thrust normally encountered in flight supported by lype-specitic !light test data, including the effect of change in airplane attitude. sideslip, thrust, drag, altitude, temperature, gross mass, moments of inertia, center of gravity location and configuration to support the approved usc. Aerodynamic modeling that includes, for airplanes issued an original type certificate after 30 June 1980, Mach effect, normal and reverse dynamic thrust eflect on control surfaces, aeroelastic effect and representations of nonlinearities due to side-slip based on airplane flight test data provided by the airplane manufacturer. X X X SOC required. Mach effect, aeroelastic representations and non-linearities due to sideslip are normally included in the t1ight simulator aerodynamic model. The SOC 39645 EP10JY14.133</GPH> An SOC is required. The FTD must provide the proper effect of aerodynamic changes for the combinations of drag and thrust normally encountered in flight. This must include the effect of change in airplane attitude, thrust, drag, altitude, temperature, and configuration. l.evel 5 requires only generic aerodynamic programming. Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 1.3 I~ FORMATION General FTD Requirements Entry Number FTD Level Jkt 232001 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 QPS REQUIREMENTS sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 39646 VerDate Mar<15>2010 Table RtA- Minimum FTD Requirements iNFORMATION General FTD Requirements Entry Number FTD Level 4151617 Notes should address each of these items. Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Aerodynamic modeling to include ground effect derived from type-specific t1ight test data. For example: round-out, flare and touchdown. This requires data on lift. drag, pitching moment, trim and power in ground effect. X 2.1.4.S Aerodynamic modeling for the effects of reverse thrust on directional control. X 2.1.5.S Engine and Airframe Icing Modeling that includes the effects of icing, where appropriate, on the airframe, aerodynamics, and the engine(s). Icing models must simulate the aerodynamic degradation effects of ice accretion on the airplane lifting surfaces including loss of lift, decrease in stall angle of attack, change in pitching moment, decrease in wntrol effectiveness, and changes in control forces in addition to any overall increase in drag. Aircraft systems (such as the stall protection system and autotlight system) must respond properly to detected icc accretion consistent with the simulated aircraft. X Frm 00186 2.1.3.S Fmt 4701 Aircraft OEM data or other acceptable analytical methods must be utilized to develop ice accretion models that are representative of the simulated aircraft's performance degradation in a typical in-flight icing encounter. Separate tests for thrust effects and an SOC are required. SOC required. See Attachment 2, paragraph 5 and test 2.ffor further information on ground effect. Tests required. Sec Attachment 2, tests 2.c.8 and 2.e. 9 (directional control). SOC should be provided describing the effects which provide training in the specific skills required for recognition of icing phenomena ami execution of recovery. The SOC should describe the source data and any analytical methods used to develop icc accretion models including verification that rhese effects have been tested. Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM Icing effects simulation models arc only required fur those airplanes authorized fur operations in icing conditions. Icing simulation models should be developed to provide training in the specific skills required for recognition of ice accumulation and execution ofthe required response. SOC and tests required. See objective testing requirements. See Attachment 7 of Appendix A for further guidance material. 10JYP2 2.1.6.S Reserved 2.1.7.S Reserved 2.1.R Reserved 2.l.G Reserved 2.2 MASS PROPERTIES 2.2.S Type specific implementation of airplane mass properties, including mass, center of gravity and moments of inertia as a function of payload and fuel loading. X The effects of pitch attitude and of fuel slosh on the aircraft center of gravity must be simulated. SOC required. SOC should include a range of tabulated target values to enable a demonstration of the mass properties model to be conducted from the iw,tructor\ station. The SOC should include the eftecls ot'fuel slosh on center of gravity. 2.2.Sl Level6 requires the eftects of changes in gross weight and center of gravity. An SOC is required. EP10JY14.134</GPH> X Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 QPS REQUIREMENTS sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS VerDate Mar<15>2010 Table BtA- Minimum FTD Requirements INFOR'\1A TION General FTD Requirements Entry Number FTD Level 4151617 Notes Jkt 232001 2.2.R Reserved 2.2.G Reserved 3. 3.S FEATURE GENERAL REQUIREMENT GROUND REACTION AND HA:\IDLil'iG CHARACTERISTICS Represents ground reaction and handling characteristics of the airplane during surface operations to support the approved use. PO 00000 Frm 00187 Fmt 4701 3.R Brake and tire failure dynamics (including antiskid) and decreased brake efficiency must be specific to the aircraft simulated. Stopping and directional control forces must be representative for all environmental runway conditions. Reserved 3.G Reserved 3.1 FEATURE TECHNICAL REQUIREMENT GROUND REACTION AND HANDLING CHARACTERISTICS GROUND REACT! ON AND HANDLING CHARACTERISTICS 3.1.S Airplane type specific ground handling simulation to include: X Sfmt 4725 Tests required. X Objective tests required for ( l ), (2) and (3). See Attachment 2, tests l.e (stopping). (I) Grmmd reaction. Reaction of the airplane upon contact with the runway during take-off, landing and ground operations to include strut deflections, tire friction. side forces, environmental effects and other appropriate data, such as weight and speed, necessary to identi:ty the flight condition and contiguration. Ground reaction modeling must properly simulate the e!Teds of a bounced or skipped landing (to include tail strike) as appropriate lor the simulated aircraft and conditions; and E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 X (2) Ground handling characteristics. Steering inputs to include crosswind, gusting crosswind, braking, thmst reversing, deceler2tion and turning radius. Ground handling must react properly to crosswind and gusting crosswind up to the aircraft's maximum demonstrated crosswind component. 3.1.R SOC required. Reserved 3.l.G Reserved 3.2 RUJ\W AY CONDITIONS 3.2.S Stopping and directional control forces for at least the following runway conditions based on airplane related data: (I) dry; (2) wet; Subjective tests for (4 ), ( 5) and ( 6 ). See Attachment 3. Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 QPS REQUIREMENTS (3) icy; EP10JY14.135</GPH> 39647 (41 patchy wet sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 39648 VerDate Mar<15>2010 Table RtA- Minimum FTD Requirements iNFORMATION General FTD Requirements Entry Number FTD Level 4151617 Notes (5) patchy icy; and Jkt 232001 (6) wet on rubber residue in touchdown zone. PO 00000 3.2.R SOC required. Reserved Frm 00188 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 3.2.G Reserved 3.3 BRAKE AND TIRE FAILURES 3.3.S Brake and tire failure dynamics (including anti-skid) and decreased braking efficiency due to brake temperatures. 3.3.R Reserved 3.3.G Reserved 4. 4.S FEA TLIRE GE:'IIERAL REQLIIREMENT AIRPLANE SYSTEMS (ATA) Airplane systems must be replicated with sufticient functionality for flight crew operation to support the approved usc. X SOC required. Subjective tests required for decreased braking etliciency due to brake temperature, if applicable. X System functionality must enable all normal, abnormal, and emergency operating procedures to be accomplished. E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 4.G To include communications, navigation, caution and warning equipment corresponding to the airplane. Circuit breakers required for operations must he functional. Installed systems must simulate the applicable airplane system operation, both on the ground and in flight. Installed systems must he operative to the extent that applicable normal, abnormal, and emergency operating procedures included in the sponsor's trainin2 programs can be accomplished. Reserved 4.1 FEATURE TECHNICAL REQUIREMENt AIRPLAt\E SYSTEMS (AT A) NORMAL, ABNORMAL AND EMERGENCY SYSTEMS OPERATION 4.Sl,S2,R 4.l.S All airplane systems represented in the FSTD must simulate the specific airplane type system operation including system interdependencies, both on the ground and in tlight. Systems must be operative to the extent that all normal, abnonnal and emergency operating procedures can be accomplished. X X X X Airplane system operation should be predicated on, and traceable to, the system data supplied by either the airplane manufacturer, original equipment manufacturer or alternative approved data for the airplane system or component. Once activated, proper systems operation should result from system management by the crew member and not require any further input from the instrudor's controls. EP10JY14.136</GPH> Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 QPS REQUIREMENTS sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS VerDate Mar<15>2010 Table BtA- Minimum FTD Requirements Jkt 232001 4.1.S2 PO 00000 Frm 00189 4_l_R 4151617 Notes ----- ~-- 4.1.Sl INFORMATION General FTD Requirements Entry Number FTD Level Installed systems must simulate the applicable airplane system operation, both on the ground and in flight. Installed systems must be operative to the extent that applicable normal, abnormal, and emergency operatir1g procedares included in the sponsor's training programs can be accomplished. Level 6 must simulate all applicable airplane flight. navigation, and systems operation. Installed systems must simulate the applicable airplane system operation, both on the ground and in flight. Installed systems must be operative to the extent that applicable normal, abnormal, and emergency operating procedures included in the sponsor's training programs can be accomplished_ Level 5 must have at least fi.mctional flight and navigational controls, displays. and instrumentation. Installed systems must simulate the applicable airplane system operation, both on the ground and in flight. Installed systems must be operative to the extent that applicable normal, abnormal, and emergency operating procedures included in the sponsor's training programs can be accomplished. Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 4.1.0 4.2 X CIRCUIT BREAKERS 4.2.S,SI X Level 4 must have at least one airplane system installed and functional. Reserved Circuit breakers that affect procedures and/or result in observable cockpit/flight deck indications must be functionally accurate. Reserved 4.2.R E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 4.2.0 X INSTRUMENT JNDICATlO'JS 4.3.S X Reserved 4.3 COMMU'JJCATIONS, NA VI GAT! ON AND CAUTION AND WARNING SYSTEMS 4.4.S 4.4.Sl Communications, navigation, and caution and warning equipment corresponding to that installed in a specific airplane type must operate within the tolerances prescribed for the applicable airbome equipment. Navigation equipment must be installed and operate within the tolerances applicable for the airplane. Level 6 must also include communication equipment (inter-phone and air/ground) like that in the airplane and, if appropriate to the operation being conducted, an oxygen mask microphone system. Navigation equipment must be installed and operate within the tolerances applicable for the airplane. Level 5 need have only that navigation equipment necessary to fly an instrument approach. N/A. 4.5 ANTI-ICING SYSTEMS 4_5_S,S I Operation of anti-icing systems corresponding to those installed in the specific airplane type must operate with appropriate effects upon ice formation on airli'ame, engines and instrument sensors. X 4.3.SI,S2 X X X X X X Numerical values should be presented in the appropriate units. X 39649 4.4 4.4.0 10JYP2 4.3.0 All relevalll instrument indications involved in the simulation ofthc airplane must automatically respond to control movement by a flight crew member or to atmospheric disturbance and also respond to effects reSlllting ti·om icing. All relevant instrument indications involved in the simulation ofthe airplane must automatically respond to control movement or external disturbances to the simulated airplane; e.g .. turbulence or winds. N/A. 4.4.S2 EP10JY14.137</GPH> X Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 QPS REQUIREMENTS sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 39650 VerDate Mar<15>2010 Table BtA- Minimum FTD Requirements I~ FORMATION General f'TD Requirements Entry Number FTD Level 4151617 Notes Jkt 232001 4.5.R Reserved 4.5.0 N/A. 5. FEATURE GEI'\ERAL REQUIREMENT FLIGHT CONTROLS AND FORCES Control forces and control travd must correspond to that of the airplane to support the approved use. 5.S X PO 00000 Control displacement must generate the same effect as the airplane under the same flight conditions. S.Sl Control feel dynamics must replicate the airplane simulated. Control forces and control travel must correspond to that of the airplane to support the approved use. X S.R Control forces and control travel must correspond to that of the airplane to support the approved use. Fmt 4701 S.G Reserved Sfmt 4725 Frm 00190 Control displacement must generate the same effect as the airplane under the same flight conditions. 5.1 FEATURE TECHNICAL REQUIREMENT FLIGHT CONTROLS AND FORCES CONTROL FORCES AND TRAVEL 5.1.Sl 5.1.0 The FTD must provide control forces and control travel that corresponds to the airplane being simulated. Control forces must react in the same manner as in the airplane under the same 11ight conditions. The FTD must provide control forces and control travel of sufficient precision to manually fly an insn·ument approach. Reserved 5.2 Control feel dynamics must replicate the airplane simulated_ N/A. CONTROL SYSTEM OPERATION 5.3.S,Sl Control systems must replicate airplane operation for the normal and any non-normal modes including back-up systems and must reflect failures of associated systems. Appropriate cockpit indications and messages must be replicated. Reserved 5.l.R 5.3.R EP10JY14.138</GPH> Testing of position versus force is not applicable if forces are generated solely by use of airplane hardware in the fSTD. Active Force feedback required if appropriate lo the airplane installation. CONTROL FEEL DYNAMICS 5.2.S 5.3 10JYP2 Control forces, control travel and surface position must correspond to that of the type-specific airplane being replicated. Control travel, forces and surfaces must react in the same manner as in the airplane w1der the same llighl and system conditions. 5.2.S l ,R,li E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 5.1.S X X X X X X X See Appendix A (Attachment 2), paragraph 4 for a discussion of acceptable methods of validating control dynamics. Tests required. See Attachment 2, tests 2.b.l through 2.b.3 (dynamic control checks). Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 QPS REQUIREMENTS sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS VerDate Mar<15>2010 Table BtA- Minimum FTD Requirements I~ FORMATION General f'TD Requirements Entry '------Number FTD Level 4151617 Notes -· Jkt 232001 5.3.G Reserved 6. 6.S FRATlJRE GE!\"FRAL REQlJIRFMFNT SOUND CUES N/A. 6.R Significant sounds perceptible to the flight crew during flight operations to support the approved use. PO 00000 Frm 00191 Fmt 4701 Objective tests required X See Attachment 2. Comparable engine, airframe and environmental sounds. 6.Rl 6.1 6.l.R The volume control must have an indication of sound level setting. The FTD must simulate significant flight deck sounds resulling from pilm actions that correspond to those heard in the airplane. FEATURE TECHNICAL REQUIREMENT SOUl'\DCUES SOUl'\D SYSTEM X Significant cockpit/flight deck sounds during normal and abnormal operations corresponding to those of the airplane, including engine and airframe sounds as well as those which result from pilot or instructor-induced actions. Sfmt 4725 SOC required. E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 6.l.Rl 6.l.G Tests required. Significant cockpit/flight deck sounds during normal and abnormal operations corresponding to those of the airplane, including engine and airframe sounds as well as those which result from pilot or instructor-induced actions. Reserved The sound of a crash when the simulated airplane exceeds limitations. 6.2.G Reserved 6.3 ENVIRONMENTAL 6.3.R Significant environmental sounds must be coordinated with the simulated weather. 6.3.G Reserved 6.4 SOUl'\D VOLUME The volume control must have an indication of sound level setting which meets all qualification requirements. Full volume must correspond to actual volume levels in the approved data set. When full volume is not selected, an indication of abnormal setting must he provided to the instructor. Reserved 6.5 SOUl'\D DlRECTIONALITY 6.5.R, Sound must be directionally representative. X CRASH SOUNDS 6.2.R 6.4.G 10JYP2 6.2 6.4.R X SOU~DS X X The abnormal setting should consist of an annunciation on a main !OS page which is always visible to the instructur. X 39651 SOC required. EP10JY14.139</GPH> X Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 QPS REQUIREMENTS sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 39652 VerDate Mar<15>2010 Table BtA- Minimum FTD Requirements I~ FORMATION General FTD Requirements Entry Number FTD Level 4151617 Notes Jkt 232001 6.5.0 Reserved 7. 7.S FEATURE GEI\"ERAL REQUIREMENT VISUAL DISPLAY CUE Reserved 7.R Continuous field of view with textured representation of all ambient conditions for each pilot, to support the approved use. X PO 00000 Horizontal and wrtical field of view to support the most demanding maneuvers requiring a continuous view of the runway. Frm 00192 7.RI 7.Rl Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 A minimum of200° horizontal and 40° vertical field of view. The FTI> may have a visual system, if desired, although it is not required. If a visual system is installed, it must meet the following criteria (RI): If a visual system is installed and additional training, testing, or checking credits are being sought on the basis of having a visual system, a visual system meeting the standards set out for at least a Level A FFS (see Appendix A of this part) will be required. A "direct-view," non-collimated visual system (with the other requirements for a Level A visual system met) may be considered satisfactory for those installations where the visual system design "eye point" is appropriately ad.iusted for each pilot's position such that the parallax error is at or less than 10° simultaneously for each pilot. E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 7.G X X Directly projected, non-collimated visual displays may prove to be unacceptable for dual pilot applications. X Au SOC is nquired. Reserved 7.1 X FEATURE TECHNICAL REQUIREMENT VlSlJAI ClJES DISPLAY 7.1.1 DlSPLA Y GEOMETRY AND FIELD OF VIEW 7.1.l.S Reserved 7.1.l.R Continuous visual field of view providing each pilot with 200° horizontal and 40° vertical field of view. X 10JYP2 Collimation is not required hut parallax effects must be minimized (not greater than I0° for each pilot when aligned for the point midway between the left and right scat cycpoints ). See Attachment 2 Test 4.a.l. The system should have the capability to align the view to the pilot flying. Installed alignment should be confitmcd in an SOC. (This would generally be results from acceptance testing). 7.1.l.RI The visual system must provide at least a field-of-view of 18° vertical I 24° horizontal for the pilot flying. The minimum distance from the pilot's eye position to the surface of a direct view display may not be less than the distance to any front instrument panel and provide for a maximum parallax error of I 0 degrees per pilot. 7.1.1.G EP10JY14.140</GPH> An SOC is required Reserved X X X Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 QPS REQUIREMENTS sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS VerDate Mar<15>2010 Table BtA- Minimum FTD Requirements 4151617 Notes 7.1.2 DTSPLA Y RESOLUTION 7.1.2.S Reserved 7.1.2.R Display resolution demonstrated by a test pattem of objects shown to occLtpy a visual angle of not greater than 4 arc minutes in the visual display used on a scene from the pilot's eye point. PO 00000 7.1.2.Rl Frm 00193 7.1.Hi SOC required containing calculations confirming resolution. The visual system must provide tor a minimum resolution of 5 arc-minutes tor both computed and displayed pixel Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 X X X See Attachment2 (visual scene quality)- Test 4.a.3. X See Attachment2 -Test 4.a.4. X See Attachment 2 (surface contrast ratio) Test 4.a.5. X See Attachment2 (light-point contrast ratio) Test 4.a.6. X See Attachment 2 (light-point brightness)Test 4.a.7. X See Appendix B X size. An SOC is required. Reserved 7.1.3 LJGHT-PU!"'T S!Zb 7.1.3.S Reserved 7.1.3.R Light-point size- not greater than 8 arc minutes. 7.1.3.G SOC required confirming test pattern represents lights used tor airport lighting. Reserved 7.1.4 DISPLAY CONTRAST RATIO 7.l.4.S Reserved 7.1.4.R Display Contrast ratio not less than 5: I. 7.1.4.G Reserved 7.1.5 LIGHT-POI"iT CONTRAST RATIO 7.1.5.S Reserved 7.1.5.R I ,ight-pnint contrast ratio not less than I 0: I. 7.1.5.G Reserved 7.1.6 LIGHT-POI'JT BRIGHTNESS 7.1.6.S Reserved 7.1.6.R Light-point brightness- not less than 20 cd/m1 (5.8 foot-lamberts). 7.1.6.G Reserved 7.1.7 DISPLAY BRIGHTNESS 7.1.7.S Reserved 7.1.7.R 7.1.7.G Display brightness must he demonstrated using a raster drawn test pattern. The surface brightness must not he less than 14 cd/m1 (4.1 foot-lambctis). Reserved 7.1.8 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules I~ FORMATION General FTD Requirements Entry Number FTD Level Jkt 232001 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 QPS REQUIREMENTS BLACK LEVEL AND SEQUENTIAL CONTRAST (Light valve systems only) Test4.a.8. 39653 EP10JY14.141</GPH> sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 39654 VerDate Mar<15>2010 Table BtA- Minimum FTD Requirements 7.1.8.S I~ FORMATION General FTD Requirements Entry Number FTD Level 4151617 Notes Reserved Jkt 232001 7.1.8.R Suitable to support the approved use. 7.l.R.G Reserved MOTION BLUR 7.1.9.S PO 00000 7.1.9 X (Light valve systems only) Reserved 7.1.9.R Suitable to support the approved usc. 7.1.9.G Reserved 7.1.10 SPECKLE TEST (Laser systems only) Frm 00194 7.l.IO.S Reserved 7.1.10.R Suitable to support the approved use. 7.1.10.G X Reserved Fmt 4701 7.2 7.2.1.S Reserved Sfmt 4725 7.2.l.R The system must be shown to perform its intended function for each operation and phase of flight. X ADDITIONAL DISPLAY SYSTEMS 7.2.1 HEAD-UP DrSPLA Y (where fitted) E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM An active display (repeater) of all parameters displayed on the pilot's combiner must be located on the instructor operating station (lOS), or other location approved by the NSPM. Display format of the repeater must represent that of the combiner. 7.2.1.G 7.2.2 See Attachment 2 -Test 4.b Only the one HUD can be used by the pilot flying due to alignment display issues. Alternatively the H\JD may be presented as part of the visual scene. SOC required. N!A. ENHANCED FLIGHT VISION SYSTEM (EFVS) (Where tilted) Reserved 7.2.2.R The EFVS simulator hardware/software, including associated cockpit displays and annunciation, must function the same or equivalent to the FFVS system installed in the airplane. 10JYP2 7.2.2.S X See Attachment 2 -Test 4.c Only the one EFVS can be used by the pilot flying due to alignment display issues. Alternatively the EFVS may be presented as part of the visual scene. A minimum of one airpmi must be modeled for EFVS operation. The model must include an ILS and a nonprecision approach (with V!\A V if required for that airplane type). 7.2.2.G N!A. 7.3 VISUAL GROUND SEGMENT 7.3.S Reserved 7.3.R 7.3.G A test is required to demonstrate that the visibility is correct on final approach in CAT II conditions and the positioning of the airplane is correct relative to the runway. Reserved 8. EP10JY14.142</GPH> X FEATURE GEl'\ERAL REQUIREMENT X See Attachment 2 -Test 4.d. Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 QPS REQUIREMENTS sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS VerDate Mar<15>2010 Table BtA- Minimum FTD Requirements I~ FORMATION General f'TD Requirements Entry Number FTD Level 4151617 Notes Jkt 232001 PO 00000 8.R MOTION ClJF:S (not required) The FTD may have a motion system, if desired, although it is not required. If a motion system is installed and additional training, testing, or checking credits are being sought on the basis of having a motion system, the motion system operation may not be distracting and must be coupled closely to provide integrated sensory cues. The motion system must also respond to abrupt input at the pilot's position within the allotted time, but not before the time when the airplane responds under the same conditions. 8.R If a motion system is installed, it must be measured by latency tests or transport delay tests and may not exceed 300 milliseconds. Instrument response may not occur prior to motion onset. 9. Frm 00195 10 lO.S X The motion system standards set out in part 60, Appendix A for at least Level A simulators is acceptable. X The motion system standards set out in part 60, Appendix A tor at least Level A simulators is acceptable. Reserved FEATUIU<: GEI'\ERAL REQUIREMENT ENVIRONMENT- NAVlGA TION Navigational data with the corresponding approach facilities to support the approved usc. X Fmt 4701 Navigation aids must be usable within range or line-of-sight without restriction, as applicable to the geographic area. Sfmt 4725 IO.SI A complete navigational database is required for at least 3 airport models Navigational data with the corresponding approach facilities to support the approved use. X E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM Navigation aids must be usable within mnge or line-of-sight without restriction, as applicable to the geographic area. lO.R A complete navigational database is required for at least 1 airport model N/A. IO.G N/A. Navigation database sufficient to support simulated airplane systems for real world operations. lO.l.R N/A. N/A. MINIMUM AIRPORT REQUIRE'v!E"JT !0.2.S 10.2.R Complete navigation database for at least 3 airp01ts with corresponding precision and non-precision approach procedures, including regular updates. Complete navigation database for at least I airport with corresponding precision and non-precision approach procedures, including regular updates. N/A. 10.2.0 N/A. 10.3 INSTRUCTOR CO'-ITROLS !0.2.SI X X X Regular updates means navigation database updates as mandated by the NAA. X 39655 IO.l.S,Sl 10.2 10JYP2 10.1 FEATURE TECHNICAL REQUIREMENT ENVIRONMENT- NAVIGATION NAVIGATION DATABASE 10.1.0 EP10JY14.143</GPH> X X X Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 QPS REQUIREMENTS sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS I~ FORMATION General f'TD Requirements Entry Number FTD Level 4151617 Notes Jkt 232001 10.3.S,SI lnstmctor controls of internal and external navigational aids. 10.3.R N/A. 10.3.G PO 00000 Frm 00196 X X X X X E.g. airplane ILS glides lope receiver failure compared to ground facility glideslope failure. N/A. 10.4 X ARRIVAL/ DEPARTURE FEATURES 10.4.S,Sl Navigational data with all the corresponding standard arrival and departure procedures. l0.4.R N/A. 10.4.G N/A. 10.5 NAVIGATION AIDS RANG!:' 10.5.S,Sl Navigation aids must be usable within range or line-of-sight without restriction, as applicable to the geographic area. Fmt 4701 10.5.R NIA. 10.5.G N/A. 11 Replication of the geographic environment with its specitic limitations. FEATURE GENERAL REQUIREMENT ENVIRONMENT- ATMOSPHERE AND WEATHER N/A. ll.S Sfmt 4725 ll.R E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM ll.G Fully integrated dynamic environment simulation including a representative atmosphere with weather effects to support the approved use. The environment must he synchronized with appropriate airplane and simulation features to provide integrity. Environment simulation must include thunderstorms, wind shear, turbulence, micro bursts and appropriate types of precipitation. Basic atmospheric model, pressure, temperature, and winds to support the approved use. X X 10JYP2 The environment must be synchronized with appropriate airplane and simulation features to provide integrity. FEATURE TECHNICAL REQUIREMENT ENVIRONMENT- ATMOSPHERE AND WEATHER Il.l STANDARD ATMOSPHERE ll.I.S ll.I.R,G N/A. Simulation of the standard atmosphere including instmctor control over key parameters. 11.2 X WIND SIIEAR N/A. If the aircraft being simulated is one of the aircraft listed ins 121.358, Low-altitude windshear system equipment requirements, the simulator must employ wind shear models that provide training for recognition of windshear phenomena and the execution of recovery procedures. Models must be available to the instructor/evaluator for the following critical phases of flight: ( 1) Prior to takeott rotation. (2) At Iillo lT. X X Refer to Attachment 2 - Test 2.g. The QTG should reference the FAA Wind Shear Training Aid or present alternate airplane-related data, including the Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 QPS REQUIREMENTS 11.2.S 11.2.R EP10JY14.144</GPH> 39656 VerDate Mar<15>2010 Table BtA- Minimum FTD Requirements sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS VerDate Mar<15>2010 Table BtA- Minimum FTD Requirements I~ FORMATION General f'TD Requirements Entry Number FTD Level 4151617 Notes (3) During initial climb. (4) On final approach, below 500ft AGL. Jkt 232001 PO 00000 The QTG must reference the FAA Windshear Training Aid or present alternate airplane related data, including the implementation method(s) used. If the alternate method is selected, wind models from the Royal Aerospace Establishment (RAE), the Joint Airport Weather Studies (JAWS) Project and other recognized sources may be implemented, but must be suppmied and properly referenced in the QTG. Only those simulators meeting these requirements may be used to satisfy the training requirements of part 121 pertaining to a ce11ificate holder's approved low-altitude windshear tlight training program as described in§ 121.409. For Level 7FTDs, winds hear training tasks may only be qualified for aircraft equipped with a synthetic stall warning system and the qualified windshear profile(s) are evaluated to ensure is the synthetic stall warning (and not the stall buffet) is tirst indication ofthe stall. Frm 00197 The addition of realistic levels ofturhulence associated with each required windshear profile must he availahle and selectable to the instructor. Fmt 4701 In addition to the four basic windshear models required tor qualification, at least two additional "complex" wind shear models must be available to the instructor which represent the complexity of actual windshear encounters. These models must be available in the takeoff and landing configurations and must consist of independent variable winds in multiple simultaneous components. The Wimlshear Training Aid provides two such example "complex'' wind shear models that may be used to satisfY this requirement. Any proposed alternate wind models used to meet this requirement must he properly supported and referenced in the Master QTG. Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM Instructor Operating Station (lOS): All required windshear models must be selectable and clearly labeled on the Instructor Operating Station (lOS). Additionally, all lOS selectable windshear models must employ a method, such as a simulator preset, to ensure that the FFS is properly configured lor use in training. This method must address variables such as windshear intensity, aircraft configurations (weights, !lap sellings, etc.), and ambient conditions to ensure that the proper windshear recognition cues and training objectives are present as originally qualified. 11.2.G N/A 11.3 WEATHER EFFECTS 11.3.S ll.3.R N/A. The following weather effects as observed on the visual system must be simulated and respective instructor controls provided. Storm cells activation and/or deactivation. Visibility and runway visual range (RVR), including fog and patchy fog effect. (4) Effects on ownship external lighting. (5) Effects on airport lighting (including variable intensity and fog effects). (6) Surface contaminants (including wind blowing effect). (7) Objective test required. Refer to Attachment 2 -Test 4.d. Variable precipitation effects (rain, hail, snow). (8) In-cloud airspeed effect. (9) 11.3 G X Multiple cloud layers with adjustable bases, tops, sky coverage and scud effect. (2) 10JYP2 (I) (3) Gradual visibility changes entering and breaking out of cloud. N/A 39657 EP10JY14.145</GPH> implementation method(s) used. lfthe alternate method is selected, wind models from the Royal Aeroplane Establishment (RAE) Wind Shear Training, the Joint Airport Weather Studies (JAWS) Project and other recognized sources may be implemented, but should be supported and properly referenced in the QTG. Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 QPS REQUIREMENTS sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS I~ FORMATION General f'TD Requirements Entry ~Number FTD Level 4151617 Notes ------------ Jkt 232001 11.4 INSTRUCTOR CO:-.ITROLS 11.4.S 11.4.R N/1\. X The following features must be simulated with appropriate instructor controls provided: (1) surface wind speed. direction and gusts. Realistic gusting crosswind profiles must be available to the instructor that have been tuned in intensity and variation to require pilot intervention to avoid runway departure during takeoff or landing roll; PO 00000 Programmed gusting crosswind intensity and rate of change should be based upon data sources such as the FAA Windshear Training Aid or other acceptable source data. Additional tuning of the gusting crosswind profile(s) by a subject matter expert pilot in order to achieve the required training objectives is encouraged. An SOC is required describing source data used to construct gusting crosswind pro files. Frm 00198 intermediate and high altitude wind speed and direction; (3) (4) Fmt 4701 (2) thunderstonns and micro bursts; and turbulence. Sfmt 4725 For devices without motion, effects should be simulated on the instruments. Controls lor temperature, climate conditions, wind speed and direction. X Environmental controls. 11.4.0 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 12 12.S 12.R FEATURE GEI\ERAL REQUIREMENT ENVIRONMENTAIRPORTS AND TERRAIN N/A. X Specific airport models with topographical features to support the approved use. When the FTD is being used by an instructor, or evaluator for the purposes of training, testing, or checking under this chapter, only Class l, Class II, or Class III models may be used by the instructor or evaluator. See Appendix A, Attachment 3, Paragraph 1 fur additional QPS requirements concerning airport model usage. Class II airport model requirements are defined in Table A3C of Appendix A. 10JYP2 Correct terrain modeling, runway orientation, markings, lighting, dimensions and ta:~chvays. Visual terrain and EGPWS databases must be matched to support training to avoid CFlT accidents. Class Ill airpmt model requirements are defined in Appendix F o I' this Part. Where the device is required to perform low visibility operations, at least one airport scene with functionality to support the required approval type, e.g. low visibility taxi route with marker boards, stop bars, runway guard lights plus the required approach and runway lighting. l2.R(S) Additional information concerning the usage of Class Ill airport models can be found in Appendix A, Attachment 3 of the Part. The FTD may have a visual system, if desired, although it is not required. If a visual system is installed, the visual scene content must not be distracting and must be modeled to the extent to support the approved use. Reserved 12.G Reserved X Reserved , 12.G(S) Class I airport model requirements tor Level 7 FTDs are defined in Table B3B of this Appendix. ' X X Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 QPS REQUIREMENTS 12.R1 EP10JY14.146</GPH> 39658 VerDate Mar<15>2010 Table BtA- Minimum FTD Requirements sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS VerDate Mar<15>2010 Table BtA- Minimum FTD Requirements Jkt 232001 12.1 4151617 Notes VISUAL CUES 12.1.1R(S) G(S) 12.l.lR I~ FORMATION General FTD Requirements Entry Number FTD Level Reserved Visual cues to assess sink rate and depth perception during take-off and landing must be provided. X This must include: PO 00000 (l) (2) Frm 00199 Fmt 4701 12.l.IG smface on nmways, taxiways, and ramps; terrain features; and (3) highly detailed and accurate surface depiction of the terrain surface within an approximate area from 400 m ( 114 sm) before the runway approach end to 400 m (1/4 sm) beyond the runway departure end with a total width of approximately 400 m (114 sm) including the width ofthe runway. Reserved 12.2 VISUAL EFFECTS 12.2.1R The system must provide visual effects for: Sfmt 4725 (I) light poles; (2) X raised edge lights as appropriate; and E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM (3) 12.3 glow associated with approach lights in low visibility before physical lights are seen. ENVIRONMENT A TTITL'DE 12.3.1R The FSTD must provide for accurate portrayal of the visual environment relating to the FSTD attitude. X Visual attitude versus FSTD attitude is a comparison of pitch and roll of the horizon as displayed in the visual scene compared to the display on the attitude indicator. 10JYP2 Required for initial qualification only (SOC acceptable). 12.4 AIRPORT SCENES 12.4.1R X The designated real-world airports should be pati of the approved training program. 12.4.1G The system must include at least 3 designated real-world airports available in daylight, twilight (dusk or dawn) and night illumination states. Reserved 12.4.2.1R Daylight Capability. X SOC required for system capability. The system must provide full-color presentations and sufficient surfaces with appropriate textural cues to successfnlly accomplish a visual approach, landing and airport movement (taxi). Surface shading effects must be consistent with simulated sun position. System objective tests ru·e required. See Attachment 2 (visual scene quality)Test 4.a. X 12.4.2.2R l2.4.2.3R X This does not imply continuous time of day. 39659 EP10JY14.147</GPH> Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 QPS REQUIREMENTS sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS I~ FORMATION General f'TD Requirements Entry Number FTD Level 4151617 Notes -· ~- 12.4.2.4R Jkt 232001 Total scene content comparable in detail to that produced by 10 000 visible textured surfaces and 6 000 visible lights must he provided. Reserved X 12.4.2.5R 1 he system must have sufficient capacity to display 16 simultaneously moving objects. X 12.4.3.JR Twilight (dusk) capability. 12.4.3.2R X X 12.4.3.4R The system must provide twilight (or dusk) visual scenes with full color presentations of reduced ambient intcnsit) and typical terrain characteristics such as fields, roads and bodies of water and surfaces illuminated by representative ownship lighting (e.g. landing lights) sunicient to successfully accomplish visual approach, landing and airport movement (taxi). Total scene content comparable in detail to that produced by l 0 000 visible textured surfaces and 15 000 visible lights must be provided. Scenes must include self-illuminated objects such as road networks, ramp lighting and airport signage, to conduct a visual approach, landing and airport movement (taxi). The system must include a detinahle horizon. 12.4.3.6R The system must have sufficient capacity to display 16 simultaneously moving objects. 12.4.4R Night capability. 12.4.4.1R The system must provide at night all features applicable to the twilight scene, as delined above, with the addition of the need to portray reduced ambient intensity that removes ground cues that are not selt~illuminating or illuminated hy airplane lights (e.g. landing lights). AIRPORT CLUTTER 12.4.2AG PO 00000 Frm 00200 l2.4.3.3R 12.4.3.3R Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 12.5 12.5.1R 12.6 Airport models must include representative static and dynamic clutter such as gates, airplanes, and ground handling equipment. DATABASE CURRENCY 10JYP2 12.6.1R X X Reserved 12.9 LOW VISIBILITY TRAINI:\IG 12.9.1R "I he system must include at least one airport scene with functionality to support the required approval type, e.g. low visibility taxi route with marker boards, stop bars, runway guard lights plus the required approach and runway lighting. FEATURE GEI'\ERAL REQUIREMENT MISCELLANEOUS N/A. l3.Sl N/A. l3.R N/A. 13.G N/A. 13 FEATURE TECHNICAL REQUIREMENT If provided, directional horizon lighting should have correct orientation and be consistent with surface shading effects. X X X Reserved 12.8 X Reserved 12.7 X X X Clutter need not be dynamic unless required (e.g. ATC correlation). Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 QPS REQUIREMENTS l3 13.S EP10JY14.148</GPH> 39660 VerDate Mar<15>2010 Table BtA- Minimum FTD Requirements sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS VerDate Mar<15>2010 Table BtA- Minimum FTD Requirements 13.1 I~ FORMATION General FTD Requirements Entry Number FTD Level 4151617 Notes MISCELLANEOUS INSTRUCTOR OPERATING STATION The instructor station must provide an adequate view ofthe pilots' panels and forward windows. 13.1G N/A. X X X X 13.2 INSTRUCTOR CO'JTROLS PO 00000 Jkt 232001 IJ.IS,Sl 13.2 S,Sl Instructor controls must be provided tor all required system variables, freezes, resets and for insertion of malfunctions to simulate abnormal or emergency conditions. The effects of these malfunctions must be sufficient to correctly exercise the procedures in relevant operating manuals. SELF-DIAGNOSTIC TEST!l\G X X X X Self-diagnostic testing of the FSTD must be available to determine the integrity of hardware and software operation and to provide a means for quickly and effectively conducting daily testing of the FSTD software and hardware. X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 13.3 Fmt 4701 13.4 An SOC is required COMPUTER CAPACITY 13.4 S,Sl Sufticient FSTD computer capacity, accuracy, resolution and dynamic response must be provided to tully support the overall FSTD fidelity needed to meet the qualification level sought. 13.5 An SOC is required. AUTOMATIC TESTING FACILITIES Sfmt 4725 Frm 00201 13.3S,Sl E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 13.5S Automatic QTG/validation testing ofFSTD hardware and software to detennine compliance with the validation requirements must be available. 13.5 R,G 13.6 Reserved 13.6S Timely permanent update of PSTD hardware and software must be conducted subsequent to airplane modification where it affects training, sufficient for the qualification type sought. Reserved 13.6G UPDATES TO FSTD HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE DAILY PRE-FLIGHT DOCCMENTAT!ON 13.7 S.Sl 13.8 Daily pre-flight documentation either in the daily log or in a location easily accessible for review is required. 13.8 System Integration. Relative response of the visual system, cockpit/flight deck instruments and initial motion system coupled closely to provide integrated sensory cues. Visual scene changes fi·om steady state distmbance (i.e. the start of the scan of the first video field containing difterent information) must occm within the system dynamic response limit of I 00 milliseconds (ms). Motion onset must also occur within the system dynamic response limit of 100 ms. While motion onset must occur before the start of the scan of the first video lieh.l containing diflerenl information, it needs lo occur X X SYSTEM INTEGRATION Test required. See Attachment 2, Transport delay- Test 6.a. Latency test may be used as an alternate means of compliance in place of the transport delay lest. 39661 13.7 EP10JY14.149</GPH> Evidence of testing should include test identification, FSTU number, date, time, conditions, tolerances, and the appropriate dependent variables portrayed in comparison with the airplane standard. Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 QPS REQUIREMENTS sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 39662 VerDate Mar<15>2010 Table Bl A -Minimum FTD Requirements Entry Number General FTD Requirements FTD Level INFORMATION 14151617 Notes I Jkt 232001 before the end of the scan of the same video field. The test to determine compliance with these requirements must include simultaneously recording the output from the pilot's pitch, roll and yaw controllers, the output from the accelerometer attached to the motion system platform located at an acceptable location near the pilots' seats, the output signal to the visual system display (including visual system analogue delays) and the output signal to the pilot's attitude indicator or an equivalent test approved by the NSPM. Transport delay: PO 00000 13.8S Appendix A. Attachment 2. Paragraph 15 provides guidance for transport delay test methodology and also latency. X Results required for instruments, motion and visual systems. A transport delay test may be used to demonstrate that the FSTD system response does not exceed I 00 ms. Frm 00202 Additional transport delay test results arc required where Hl'D systems are installed, which are simulated and not actual airplane systems. Where EFVS systems are installed, they must respond within- or- 30 ms from the visual system, and not before the motion response. Fmt 4701 Where a visual system's mode of operation (daylight, twilight aml night) can affect performance, additional tests are required. Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 13.8Sl X Transport delay: X An SOC is required where the visual system's mode of operation does not affect performance, precluding the need to submit additional tests. Results required for instruments, motion and visual systems. A transport delay test may be used to rkmonslrate that the FSTD system response dues not exceed 300 ms. Where EFVS systems are installed, they musl respond motion response. ~»ithin Additional transport delay test results are required where Hl'D systems are installed, which are simulated and not actual airplane systems. or- 30 ms from the visual system, and not before the 10JYP2 Where a visual system's mode of operation (daylight, twilight and night) can affect performance, additional tests are required. An SOC is required where the visual system's mode of operation does not affect performance, precluding the need to submit additional tests. I~6 EP10JY14.150</GPH> I Reserved I I I I Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 QPS REQUIREMENTS sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS VerDate Mar<15>2010 In order to be qualified at the FTD qualification level indicated, the FTD must be able to perform at least the tasks associated with that level of qualification. See Notes 1 and 2 at the end of the Table Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00203 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 I. Preflight Procedures. Preflight Inspection (flight deck only) l.a. Engine Start I. b. Taxiing I.e. Pre-takeoff Checks I. d. 2. Takeoff and Departure Phase. Normal and Crosswind Takeoff 2.a. 2.b. Instrument Takeoff Engine Failure During Takeoff 2.c. Rt::iected Takeoff(requires visual system) 2.d. Departure Procedure 2.e. 3. Inflight Maneuvers. Steep Turns 3.a. Approaches to Stalls 3.b E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 3.c. 3.d. 3.e. 3.f. Engine Failure-Multiengine Airplane Engine Failure-Single-Engine Airplane Specific Flight Characteristics incorporated into the user's FAA approved flight training program. Windshear Recovery INFORMATION FTD Level 4 15 16 17 A A A A X X A A X X X T X X A X T T T X X X A X X X X A A A X X A X X A A T 10JYP2 4. Instrument Procedures. 4.a. Standard Terminal Arrival/ Flight Management System Arrivals Procedures Holding 4.b. 4.c. Precision Instrument 4.c.l. All engines operating. 4.c.2. A A X X X X For Level 7 FTD, windshear recovery may be qualified at the Sponsor's option. See Table B lA for specific requirements and limitations. X X A Approach to stall maneuvers qualified only where the aircraft does not exhibit stall buffet as the first indication of the stall. T e.g., Autopilot, Manual (Fit. Dir. Assisted), Manual (Raw Data) e.g., Manual (Fit. Dir. Assisted), Manual (Raw Data) 39663 EP10JY14.152</GPH> One engine inoperative. Notes Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Entry Number Table BlB Table of Tasks vs. FTD Level QPS REQUIREMENTS Subjective Requirements sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS In order to be qualified at the FTD qualification level indicated, the FTD must be able to perform at least the tasks associated with that level of qualification. Sec Notes 1 and 2 at the end of the Table INFORMATION FTD Level 4 Jkt 232001 Non-precision Instrwnent Approach PO 00000 Frm 00204 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 Circling Approach (requires visual system) 4.e. 4.f. Missed Approach 4.f.l. Normal. One en_gine Inoperative. 4.£.2. 5. Landings and Approaches to Landings. Normal and Crosswind Approaches and Landings S.a. Landing From a Precision I Non-Precision Approach S.b. Approach and Landing with (Simulated) Engine Failure - Multiengine Airplane S.c. Landing From Circling Approach S.d. Rejected Landing S.e. Landing From a No Flap or a Nonstandard Flap Configuration Approach S.f. 6. Normal and Abnormal Procedures. Engine (including shutdown and restart) 6.a. Fuel System 6.b. Electrical System 6.c. Hydraulic System 6.d. Environmental and Pressurization Systems 6.e. Fire Detection and Extinguisher Systems 6.f. Navigation and Avionics Systems 6.~. Automatic Flight Control System, Electronic Flight Instrument System, and 6.h. Related Subsystems Flight Control Systems 6.i. Anti-ice and Deice Systems 6..i. Aircraft and Personal Emergency Equipment 6.k. 7. Emergency Procedures. Emergency Descent (Max. Rate) 7.a. Inflight Fire and Smoke Removal 7.b. Rapid Decompression 7.c. Emergency Evacuation 7.d. 8. Postflight Procedures. 15 16 17 A X X A A X X X T T T T T T T A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X A A A A A A X X X X X X A A A A A X X X X X X X X Notes e.g., NDB, VOR, VOR/DME, VOR/TAC, RNA V, LOC, LOC/BC, ADF, and SDF. Specific authorization required. Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 4.d. 39664 VerDate Mar<15>2010 EP10JY14.153</GPH> Entry Number Table BlB Table of Tasks vs. FTD Level QPS REQUIREMENTS Subjective Requirements sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS VerDate Mar<15>2010 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00205 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 8.a. 8.b. In order to be qualified at the FTD qualification level indicated, the FTD must be able to perform at least the tasks associated with that level of qualification. See Notes 1 and 2 at the end of the Table INFORMATION FTD Level 4 15 16 17 Notes I After-Landing Procedures I Parking and Securing E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM Note 1: An "A" in the table indicates that the system, task, or procedure, although not required to be present, may be examined if the appropriate airplane system is simulated in the FTD and is working properly. Note 2: Items not installed or not functional on the FTD and not appearing on the SOQ Configuration List, are not required to be listed as exceptions on the SOQ. Note 3: A "T" in the table indicates that the FTD may only be qualified for initial or recurrent qualification training. These tasks may not be qualified for proficiency testing or checking credits in an FAA approved flight training program. 10JYP2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Entry Number Table BlB Table of Tasks vs. FTD Level QPS REQUIREMENTS Subjective Requirements 39665 EP10JY14.154</GPH> sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 39666 VerDate Mar<15>2010 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Entry Number Table of FTD System Tasks QPS REQUIREMENTS Subjective Requirements In order to be qualified at the FTD qualification level indicated, the FTD must be able to perform at least the tasks associated with that level of qualification. INFORMATION 4 FTD Level Is I 6 I 1 Notes Frm 00206 1. Instructor Operating Station (lOS), as appropriate. Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM La. Lb. Power switch(es). Airplane conditions. X A X X X X X X I.e. Airports I Runways. X X X X I. d. Environmental controls. X X X X A X X X X X X X X X X X A A A A 10JYP2 Airplane system malfunctions (Insertion I deletion) I.e. Locks, Freezes, and Repositioning. l.f. 2. Sound Controls. On I off I adjustment 2.a. 3. Motion I Control Loading System. On I o1TI emergency stop. 3.a. 4. Observer Seats I Stations. I Position I Adjustment I Positive restraint system. 4.a. IX IX IX IX e.g., GW, CG, Fuel loading and Systems. e.g., Selection, Surface, Presets, Lighting controls. e.g., Clouds, Visibility, RVR, Temp, Wind, Ice, Snow, Rain, and Windshear. I Note 1: An "A" in the table indicates that the system, task, or procedure, although not required to be present, may be examined if the appropriate system is in the FTD and is working properly. EP10JY14.155</GPH> Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Table BIC Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules Attachment 2 to Appendix B to Part 60— Flight Training Device (FTD) Objective Tests lllllllllllllllllllll Begin Information sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 1. Discussion a. For the purposes of this attachment, the flight conditions specified in the Flight Conditions Column of Table B2A, are defined as follows: (1) Ground—on ground, independent of airplane configuration; (2) Take-off—gear down with flaps/slats in any certified takeoff position; (3) First segment climb—gear down with flaps/slats in any certified takeoff position (normally not above 50 ft AGL); (4) Second segment climb—gear up with flaps/slats in any certified takeoff position (normally between 50 ft and 400 ft AGL); (5) Clean—flaps/slats retracted and gear up; (6) Cruise—clean configuration at cruise altitude and airspeed; (7) Approach—gear up or down with flaps/ slats at any normal approach position as recommended by the airplane manufacturer; and (8) Landing—gear down with flaps/slats in any certified landing position. b. The format for numbering the objective tests in Appendix A, Attachment 2, Table A2A, and the objective tests in Appendix B, Attachment 2, Table B2A, is identical. However, each test required for FFSs is not necessarily required for FTDs. Also, each test required for FTDs is not necessarily required for FFSs. Therefore, when a test number (or series of numbers) is not required, the term ‘‘Reserved’’ is used in the table at that location. Following this numbering format provides a degree of commonality between the two tables and substantially reduces the potential for confusion when referring to objective test numbers for either FFSs or FTDs. c. The reader is encouraged to review the Airplane Flight Simulator Evaluation Handbook, Volumes I and II, published by the Royal Aeronautical Society, London, UK, and FAA AC 25–7, as amended, Flight Test Guide for Certification of Transport Category Airplanes, and AC 23–8, as amended, Flight Test Guide for Certification of Part 23 Airplanes, for references and examples regarding flight testing requirements and techniques. d. If relevant winds are present in the objective data, the wind vector should be clearly noted as part of the data presentation, expressed in conventional terminology, and related to the runway being used for the test. e. A Level 4 FTD does not require objective tests and therefore, Level 4 is not addressed in the following table. End Information lllllllllllllllllllll Begin QPS Requirements 2. Test Requirements a. The ground and flight tests required for qualification are listed in Table B2A Objective Tests. Computer generated FTD test results must be provided for each test except VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 where an alternate test is specifically authorized by the NSPM. If a flight condition or operating condition is required for the test but does not apply to the airplane being simulated or to the qualification level sought, it may be disregarded (e.g., an engine out missed approach for a single-engine airplane; a maneuver using reverse thrust for an airplane without reverse thrust capability). Each test result is compared against the validation data described in § 60.13, and in Appendix B. The results must be produced on an appropriate recording device acceptable to the NSPM and must include FTD number, date, time, conditions, tolerances, and appropriate dependent variables portrayed in comparison to the validation data. Time histories are required unless otherwise indicated in Table B2A. All results must be labeled using the tolerances and units given. b. Table B2A in this attachment sets out the test results required, including the parameters, tolerances, and flight conditions for FTD validation. Tolerances are provided for the listed tests because mathematical modeling and acquisition and development of reference data are often inexact. All tolerances listed in the following tables are applied to FTD performance. When two tolerance values are given for a parameter, the less restrictive may be used unless otherwise indicated. In those cases where a tolerance is expressed only as a percentage, the tolerance percentage applies to the maximum value of that parameter within its normal operating range as measured from the neutral or zero position unless otherwise indicated. c. Certain tests included in this attachment must be supported with a SOC. In Table B2A, requirements for SOCs are indicated in the ‘‘Test Details’’ column. d. When operational or engineering judgment is used in making assessments for flight test data applications for FTD validity, such judgment may not be limited to a single parameter. For example, data that exhibit rapid variations of the measured parameters may require interpolations or a ‘‘best fit’’ data section. All relevant parameters related to a given maneuver or flight condition must be provided to allow overall interpretation. When it is difficult or impossible to match FTD to airplane data throughout a time history, differences must be justified by providing a comparison of other related variables for the condition being assessed. e. It is not acceptable to program the FTD so that the mathematical modeling is correct only at the validation test points. Unless noted otherwise, tests must represent airplane performance and handling qualities at operating weights and centers of gravity (CG) typical of normal operation. If a test is supported by aircraft data at one extreme weight or CG, another test supported by aircraft data at mid-conditions or as close as possible to the other extreme is necessary. Certain tests that are relevant only at one extreme CG or weight condition need not be repeated at the other extreme. The results of the tests for Level 6 are expected to be indicative of the device’s performance and handling qualities throughout all of the following: PO 00000 Frm 00207 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 39667 (1) The airplane weight and CG envelope; (2) The operational envelope; and (3) Varying atmospheric ambient and environmental conditions—including the extremes authorized for the respective airplane or set of airplanes. f. When comparing the parameters listed to those of the airplane, sufficient data must also be provided to verify the correct flight condition and airplane configuration changes. For example, to show that control force is within the parameters for a static stability test, data to show the correct airspeed, power, thrust or torque, airplane configuration, altitude, and other appropriate datum identification parameters must also be given. If comparing short period dynamics, normal acceleration may be used to establish a match to the airplane, but airspeed, altitude, control input, airplane configuration, and other appropriate data must also be given. If comparing landing gear change dynamics, pitch, airspeed, and altitude may be used to establish a match to the airplane, but landing gear position must also be provided. All airspeed values must be properly annotated (e.g., indicated versus calibrated). In addition, the same variables must be used for comparison (e.g., compare inches to inches rather than inches to centimeters). g. The QTG provided by the sponsor must clearly describe how the FTD will be set up and operated for each test. Each FTD subsystem may be tested independently, but overall integrated testing of the FTD must be accomplished to assure that the total FTD system meets the prescribed standards. A manual test procedure with explicit and detailed steps for completing each test must also be provided. h. For previously qualified FTDs, the tests and tolerances of this attachment may be used in subsequent continuing qualification evaluations for any given test if the sponsor has submitted a proposed MQTG revision to the NSPM and has received NSPM approval. i. FTDs are evaluated and qualified with an engine model simulating the airplane data supplier’s flight test engine. For qualification of alternative engine models (either variations of the flight test engines or other manufacturer’s engines) additional tests with the alternative engine models may be required. This attachment contains guidelines for alternative engines. j. Testing Computer Controlled Aircraft (CCA) simulators, or other highly augmented airplane simulators, flight test data is required for the Normal (N) and/or Nonnormal (NN) control states, as indicated in this attachment. Where test results are independent of control state, Normal or Nonnormal control data may be used. All tests in Table B2A require test results in the Normal control state unless specifically noted otherwise in the Test Details section following the CCA designation. The NSPM will determine what tests are appropriate for airplane simulation data. When making this determination, the NSPM may require other levels of control state degradation for specific airplane tests. Where Non-normal control states are required, test data must be provided for one or more Non-normal control states, and must include the least augmented E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 39668 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS state. Where applicable, flight test data must record Normal and Non-normal states for: (1) Pilot controller deflections or electronically generated inputs, including location of input; and (2) Flight control surface positions unless test results are not affected by, or are independent of, surface positions. k. Tests of handling qualities must include validation of augmentation devices. FTDs for highly augmented airplanes will be validated both in the unaugmented configuration (or failure state with the maximum permitted degradation in handling qualities) and the augmented configuration. Where various levels of handling qualities result from failure states, validation of the effect of the failure is necessary. Requirements for testing will be mutually agreed to between the VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 sponsor and the NSPM on a case-by-case basis. l. Some tests will not be required for airplanes using airplane hardware in the FTD flight deck (e.g., ‘‘side stick controller’’). These exceptions are noted in Section 2 ‘‘Handling Qualities’’ in Table B2A of this attachment. However, in these cases, the sponsor must provide a statement that the airplane hardware meets the appropriate manufacturer’s specifications and the sponsor must have supporting information to that fact available for NSPM review. m. For objective test purposes, see Appendix F of this part for the definitions of ‘‘Near maximum,’’ ‘‘Light,’’ and ‘‘Medium’’ gross weight. End QPS Requirements lllllllllllllllllllll PO 00000 Frm 00208 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 Begin Information n. In those cases where the objective test results authorize a ‘‘snapshot test’’ or a ‘‘series of snapshot test 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 snap shot. o. Refer to AC 120–27, ‘‘Aircraft Weight and Balance;’’ and FAA–H–8083–1, ‘‘Aircraft Weight and Balance Handbook’’ for more information. lllllllllllllllllllll End Information E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS VerDate Mar<15>2010 Table B2A Fli~ht Trainin~ Test Jkt 232001 Entry Number Title Test Details FTD Level 5 6 Notes 7 1. Performance. I.a. Taxi. I.a. I Minimum radius tum. ±0.9 m (3ft) or ±20% of airplane turn radius. Ground. l.a.2 Rate of turn versus nosewheel steering angle (NW A). ±10% or±2°/s of turn rate. Ground. l.b. Takeoff. l.b.l Ground acceleration time and distance. ci 1.5 s or ±5% of time; and ±61 m (200ft) or ±5% of distance. Takeoff. PO 00000 Frm 00209 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 Plot both main and nose gear loci and key engine parameter( s). Data for no brakes and the minimum thrust required to maintain a steady turn except for airplanes requiring asymmetric thrust or braking to achieve the minimum radius turn. Record for a minimum of two speeds, greater than minimum turning radius speed with one at a typical taxi speed, and with a spread of at least 5 kt. Note.- All airplane manufacturer commonly-used certificated take-o.ffflap settings must be demonstrated at least once either in minimum unstick speed (J.b.3). normal take-off (l.b.4), critical engine failure on take-off (l.b.5) or crosswind take-o.ff'(l.b.6). Acceleration time and distance must be recorded tor a minimum of80% ofthe total time from brake release to V,.. Preliminary aircraft certification data may be used. X X X X For Level 6 FTD: s or ciS% of time. ic 1.5 l.b.2 Minimum control speed, ground (Vm,g) using aerodynamic controls only per applicable airworthiness requirement or alternative engine inoperative test to demonstrate ground control characteristics. ±25% of maximum airplane lateral deviation reached or ± 1.5 m (5 ft). For airplanes with reversible flight control systems: ±I 0% or ±2.2 daN ( 5 lbf) rudder pedal force. Takeoff Engine failure speed must be within ±1 kt of airplane engine failure speed. Engine thrust decay must be that resulting from the mathematical model for the engine applicable to the FSTD under test. If the modeled engine is not the same as the airplane manufacturer's flight test engine, a further test may be run with the same initial conditions using the thrust trom the Hight test data as the driving parameter. To ensure only aerodynamic control, nosewheel steering must be disabled (i.e. castored) or the nosewheel held slightly off the ground. X May be combined with normal takeoff (l.b.4.) or rejected takeoff(l.b.7.). Plotted data should be shown using appropriate scales for each portion of the maneuver. For Level 6 FID, this test is required only ifRTO training credit is sought. If a V mrg test is not available, an acceptable alternative is a flight test snap engine deceleration to idle at a speed between V 1 and V 1-l 0 kt, followed by control of heading using aerodynamic control only and recovety should be achieved with the main gear on the ground. 39669 EP10JY14.157</GPH> Tolerance Flight Conditions INFORMATION Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Device (FTD) Ob_jective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 39670 VerDate Mar<15>2010 Table B2A Test Entry Number Jkt 232001 l.b.3 Tolerance Title PO 00000 Minimum unstick speed (V mul or equivalent test to demonstrate early rotation take-off characteristics. ±3 kt airspeed. ± 1.5° pitch angle. Flight Conditions Takeoff: Test Details Record time history data trom I 0 knots be tore start of rotation until at least 5 seconds after the occurrence of main gear lift-off. INFORMATION FTD Level 5 6 Notes 7 X Frm 00210 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 If either of these alternative solutions is selected, aft body contact/tail strike protection functionality, if present on the airplane, should be active. E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM l.b.4 Normal take-off. ±3 kt airspeed. Takeoff. ± 1.5° pitch angle. ±1.5° AOA. 10JYP2 ±6 m (20 ft) height. Critical engine failure on take-off. ±2.2 daN (5 lbt) or ± 10% of column force. ±3 kt airspeed. ± 1.5° pitch angle. ±1.5° AOA. ±6 m (20ft) height. Data required tor near maximum certificated takeoff weight at mid center of gravity location and light takeoff weight at an aft center of gravity location. If the airplane has more than one certilicated take-off configuration, a different configuration must be used for each weight. X TakeofT. Record takeoff profile to at least 61 m (200ft) AGL. Engine failure speed must be within ±3 kt of airplane data. The test may be used for ground acceleration time and distance (l.b.l). Plotted data should be shown using appropriate scales for each portion of the maneuver. Record takeoff profile from brake release to at least 61 m (200ft) AGL. For airplanes with reversible flight control systems: I.b.S EP10JY14.158</GPH> Ymu is defined as the minimum speed at which the last main landing gear leaves the ground. Main landing gear strut compression or equivalent air/ground signal should be recorded. If a V mutest is not available, alternative acceptable flight tests are a constant highattitude takeoff run through main gear lift-otT or an early rotation takeoff. X Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Flight Training Device (FTD) Objective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS VerDate Mar<15>2010 Table B2A Test Entry Number Tolerance Title Test Details 5 6 Notes 7 Jkt 232001 ±2° roll angle. Test at near maximum takeoff weight ±2° side-slip angle. ct3° heading angle. PO 00000 For airplanes with reversible flight control systems: Frm 00211 Jc2.2 daN (5 lbt) or ±I 0% of column force; Fmt 4701 ± 1.3 daN (3 lbf) or ±10% of wheel force; and Sfmt 4725 l.b.6 Crosswind take-off. ±2.2 daN (5 lbf) or ±I 0% of rudder pedal force. ± 3 kt airspeed. Takeoff. Record takeoff profile from brake release to at least 61 m (200ft) AGL. E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM ± 1.5° pitch angle. ±1.5° AOA. ±6 m (20ft) height. ±2° roll angle. 10JYP2 ±2° side-slip angle. ±3° heading angle. Correct trends at ground speeds below 40 kt for rudder/pedal and heading angle. This test requires test data, including wind profile, for a crosswind component of at least 60% of the airplane performance data value measured at 10m (33 ft) above the runway. Wind components must be provided as headwind and crosswind values with respect to the runway. X In those situations where a maximum crosswind or a maximum demonstrated crosswind is not known, contact theNSPM. 39671 For airplanes with reversible flight control systems: EP10JY14.159</GPH> Flight Conditions INFORMATION FTD Level Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Fli~ht Trainin~ Device (FTD) Ob_jective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 39672 VerDate Mar<15>2010 Table B2A Test Tolerance Entry Number Title Flight Conditions Test Details INFORMATION FTD Level 5 Notes Jkt 232001 X X Autobrakes will be used where applicable. X For safety considerations, airplane flight test may be performed out of ground effect at a safe altitude, but with correct airplane configuration and airspeed. ± 1.3 daN (3 lbt) or ±10% of wheel force; and Frm 00212 7 ±2.2 daN (5 lbf) or ± 10% of column force; PO 00000 6 c±c 10% Fmt 4701 l.b.7. Rejected Takeoff. ±2.2 daN (5 lbf) or of rudder pedal Ioree. ±5% oftime or ±1.5 s. Takeoff. Speed for reject must be at least 80% ofV1. ±7.5% of distance or ± 76 m (250ft). Sfmt 4725 Maximum braking effort, auto or manual. For Level 6 FTD: ±5% of time or ± 1.5 s. E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM l.b.8. Dynamic Engine Failure After Takeoff. ±2°/s or±20% ofbody angular rates. Record at mass ncar maximum takeoff weight. Where a maximum braking demonstration is not available, an acceptable alternative is a test using approximately 80% braking and full reverse, if applicable. Takeoff. Time and distance must be recorded from brake release to a full stop. Engine failure speed must be within ±3 kt of airplane data. Engine failure may be a snap deceleration to idle. 10JYP2 Record hands-off from 5 s before engine failure to +5 s or 30° roll angle, whichever occurs first. CCA: Test in Normal and Non-normal control state. I.e. Climb. l.c.l. Normal Climb, all engines operating. ±3 kt airspeed. ±0.5 m/s (100ft/ min) or ±5% of rate of climb. Clean. Flight test data are preferred; however, airplane performance manual data are an acceptable alternative. Record at nominal climb speed and mid initial climb altitude. EP10JY14.160</GPH> X X X Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Flight Training Device (FTD) Objective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS VerDate Mar<15>2010 Table B2A Test Entry Number Tolerance Title Flight Conditions Test Details FTD Level 5 6 Notes 7 Jkt 232001 FSTD perfonnance is to be recorded over an interval of at least 300m (I 000 ft). PO 00000 l.c.2. One-engineinoperative 2nd segment climb. ±3 kt airspeed. 2nd segment climb. Frm 00213 ±0.5 m/s (100 ttl min) or ±5% of rate of climb, but not less than airplane performance data requirements. Flight test data is preferred; however, airplane performance manual data is an acceptable alternative. X Record at nominal climb speed. Fmt 4701 FSTD performance is to be recorded over an interval of at least 300 m ( 1 000 ft). Sfmt 4725 Test at WAT (weight, altitude or temperature) limiting condition. E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM One Engine Inoperative En route Climb. ±I 0% time, ±I 0% distance, ±I 0% fuel used Clean l.c.4. One Engine Inoperative Approach Climb for airplanes with icing accountability if provided in the airplane performance data for this phase of flight. ±3 kt airspeed. Approach 10JYP2 l.c.3. l.d. Level flight acceleration ±0.5 m/s (1 00 ftl min) or ±5% rate of climb, but not less than airplane performance data. Flight test data or airplane performance manual data may be used. Test for at least a 1550 m (5 000 ft) segment. Flight test data or airplane performance manual data may be used. X X FSTD perfonnance to be recorded over an interval of at least 300m (1 000 ft). ±5%Time Cruise Time required to increase airspeed a minimum of 50 kt, using maximum continuous thrust rating or equivalent. X 39673 For airplanes with a small operating speed range, speed change may be reduced lo 80% of operational speed change. Airplane should be contigured with all anti-ice and de-ice systems operating normally, gear up and go-around flap. All icing accountability considerations, in accordance with the airplane performance data for an approach in icing conditions, should be applied. Test near maximum certificated landing weight as may be applicable to an approach in icing conditions. Cruise I Descent. l.d.l. EP10JY14.161</GPH> INFORMATION Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Fli2ht Trainin2 Device (FTD) Ob.iective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Test Entry Number Jkt 232001 l.d.2. Tolerance Title Level flight deceleration. PO 00000 Frm 00214 l.d.3. Cruise performance. l.d.4. Idle descent. ±5%Time ±.05 EPR or±3% Nl or ±5% of torque. ±5% off\.tel !low. ±3 kt airspeed. Flight Conditions Cruise Cruise. Clean. Fmt 4701 ± 1.0 m/s (200ft/min) or ±5% of rate of descent. Sfmt 4725 l.d.S. Emergency descent. ±5 kt airspeed. As per airplane performance data. Test Details Time required to decrease airspeed a minimum of 50 kl, using idle power. For airplanes with a small operating speed range, speed change may be reduced to 80% of operational speed change. The test may be a single snapshot showing instantaneous fuel flow, or a minimum of two consecutive snapshots with a spread of at least 3 minutes in steady flight. Idle power stabilized descent at normal descent speed at mid altitude. FST[) performance to be recorded over an interval of at least 300m (I 000 ft). FSTD performance to be recorded over an interval of at least 900 m (3 000 ft). INFORMATION FTD Level 5 6 Notes 7 X X X X ·± 1.5 m/s (300ft/min) or ±5% of rate of descent. E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM Stopping. Deceleration time and distance, manual wheel brakes, dry runway, no reverse thrust. 10JYP2 I.e. l.e.l. ±1.5 s or ±5% of time. Landing. For distances up to I 220m (4 000 ft), the smaller of±6lm (200 fi) or± I 0% of distance. l.e.2. Deceleration time Landing ± 1.5 s or ±5% of time; and distance, reverse and thrust, no wheel brakes, dry run~ the smaller of±61 ~ Time and distance must be recorded for at least 80% of the total time fi·om touchdown to a full stop. X Position of ground spoilers and brake system pressure must be plotted (if applicable). Data required for medium and near maximum certificated landing weight. Engineering data may be used for the medium weight condition. Time and distance must be recorded for at least 80% of the total time from initiation of reverse thrust to full thrust reverser minimum operating X -'--- Stabilized descent to be conducted with speed brakes extended if applicable, at mid altitude and near Vmo or according to emergency descent procedure. Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Fli~ht Training Device (FTD) Ob.iective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS For distances greater than 1 220 m (4 000 ft), ±5% of distance. EP10JY14.162</GPH> 39674 VerDate Mar<15>2010 Table B2A sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS VerDate Mar<15>2010 Table B2A Test Entry Number Tolerance Title Flight Conditions Jkt 232001 (200 ft) or ±l 0% of distance. Test Details INFORMATION FTD Level 5 6 Notes 7 Position of ground spoilers must be plotted (if applicable). PO 00000 Data required lor medium and near maximum certificated landing weight. Frm 00215 Engineering data may be used for the medium weight condition. Either flight test or manufacturer's performance manual data must be used, where available. l.e.3. Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 l.e.4. Stopping distance, wheel brakes, wet runway. ±61 m (200ft) or ±10% of distance. Stopping distance, wheel brakes, icy runway. ±61 m(200ft)or±IO% of distance. E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 l.f. Acceleration. l.f.2. Deceleration. Landing. X Engineering data, based on dry runway flight test stopping distance and the effects of contaminated runway braking coefficients, are an acceptable alternative. Either flight test or manufacturer's performance manual data must be used, where available. X Engineering data, based on dry runway flight test stopping distance and the effects of contaminated runway braking coefficients, are an acceptable alternative. Engines. l.f.l. Landing. ±I 0% Ti or ±0.25 s; and ±I 0% Tt or ct0.25 s. Approach or landing Total response is the incremental change in the critical engine parameter from idle power to goaround power. X X X See Appendix F of this part for definitions ofT;. and T,. Ground Total response is the incremental change in the critical engine parameter from maximum take-off power to idle power. X X X See Appendix F of this part for definitions ofTL and T,. For Level 5 FTD: ±I s ±I 0% Ti or ±0.25 s; and ±I 0% Tt or ±0.25 s. For LevelS FTD: ±I s 2. Handling Qualities. EP10JY14.163</GPH> Contact the NSPM for clarification of any issue regarding airplanes with reversible controls. 39675 Note 1.- Pitch. roll and yaw controller position versus force or time must be measured at the control. An alternative method in lieu of external test fixtures at the .flight controls would be to have recording and measuring instrumentation built into the N)TD. The force and position data from this instrumentation could be directly recorded and matched to the airplane data. Provided the instrumentation was verified by using external measuring equipment while conducting the static control checks. or equivalent means, and that evidence of the satisfactory comparison is included in the ,ifQTG. the instrumentation could be u1·ed for both initial and recurrent evaluations for the measurement of all required control checks. Verification o,/the instrumentation by Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Flight Training Device (FTD) Objective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 39676 VerDate Mar<15>2010 Table B2A Test Entry Number Tolerance Title Flight Conditions Test Details INFORMATION FTD Level 5 Notes Jkt 232001 7 X X using external measuring equipment should be repeated if major modifications and/or repairs are made to the control loading system. Such a permanent installation could be used without any time being /ostfiJr the installation (~f external devices. Static and dynamic flight control tests must be accomplished at the same feel or impact pressures as the validation data where applicable. PO 00000 6 Note 2.- FSTD testingfrom the second set ofpilot controls is only required if both sets (~f controls are not mechanically interconnected on the FSTD. A rationale is required from the data provider if a single set of data is applicable to both sides. If controls are mechanically interconnected in the FSTD, a single set of tests is sufficient. Static Control Tests. 2.a. Frm 00216 2.a.I.a. Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 2.a.I.b. Pitch controller position versus force and surface position calibration. Pitch controller position versus force ±0.9 daN (2 lbi) breakout. E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM Ground. Record results for an uninterrupted control sweep to the stops. As determined by sponsor Record results during initial qualification evaluation for an uninterrupted control sweep to the stops. The recorded tolerances apply to subsequent comparisons on continuing qualification evaluations. Ground. Record results for an uninterrupted control sweep to the stops. As determined by sponsor Record results during initial qualification evaluation for an uninterrupted control sweep to the stops. The recorded tolerances apply to subsequent comparisons on continuing qualification evaluations. ±2.2 daN (5 lbl) or ± 10% of force. ±2° elevator angle. ±0.9 daN (2 lbt) breakout. ±2.2 daN ( 5 lbt) or ±10% of force. 2.a.2.a. 10JYP2 Roll controller position versus force and surface position calibration. ±0.9 daN (2 lbf) breakout. X X ± 1.3 daN (3 lbt) or ±I 0% of force. X Test results should be validated with in-flight data ti·om tests such as longitudinal static stability. stalls, etc. Applicable only on continuing qualification evaluations. The intent is to design the control feel for Level 5 to be able to manually fly an instrument approach; and not to compare results to flight test or other such data. Test results should be validated with in-flight data from tests such as engine-out trims, steady state side-slips, etc. ±2° aileron angle. 2.a.2.b. Roll controller position versus force ±3° spoiler angle. ±0.9 daN (2 lbl) breakout. ± 1.3 daN (3 lbt) or ±10%offorce. EP10JY14.164</GPH> X Applicable only on continuing qualification evaluations. The intent is to design the control tee! for Level 5 to be able to manually fly an instrument approach; and not to compare results to flight test or other such Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Flight Training Device (FTD) Objective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS VerDate Mar<15>2010 Table B2A Test Entry Number Jkt 232001 2.a.3.a. PO 00000 Frm 00217 2.a.3.b. Tolerance Title Rudder pedal position versus force and surface position calibration. Rudder pedal position versus force ±2.2 daN (5 lbl) breakout. Flight Conditions Test Details 5 Notes 6 7 X X E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 Record results for an uninterrupted control sweep to the stops. As determined by sponsor Record results during initial qualification evaluation for an uninterrupted control sweep to the stops. The recorded tolerances apply to subsequent comparisons on continuing qualification evaluations. Ground. Record results of an uninterrupted control sweep to the stops. Ground. Record results of an uninterrupted control sweep to the stops. ±2° rudder angle. ±2.2 daN (5 lbf) breakout. Record results of an uninterrupted control sweep to the stops. X X X X Applicable only on continuing qualification evaluations. The intent is to design the control feel for Level 5 to be able to manually fly an instrument approach; and not to compare resu Its to flight test or other such data. X ±2° rudder angle. 2.a.4.a. Nosewheel Steering Controller Force and Position Calibration. ±0.9 daN (2 lbf) breakout. data. Test results should be validated with in-flight data from tests such as engine-out trims, steady state side-slips, etc. X ±2.2 daN (5 lbf) or ±10% of force. ±2.2 daN (5 lbf) or ±I 0% of force. Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 Ground. X ± 1.3 daN (3 lbt) or ±10% of force. 2.a.4.b. Nosewheel Steering Controller Force ±2°NWA. ±0.9 daN (2 lbf) breakout. ± 1.3 daN (3 lbf) or ±I 0% of force. Rudder Pedal Steering Calibration. Pitch Trim Indicator vs. Surface Position Calibration. ±2°NWA. Ground. 2.a.6. ±0.5° trim angle. Ground. 2.a.7. Pitch Trim Rate. ±10% oftrim rate Cfs) or Ground and approach. 2.a.5. Trim rate to be checked at pilot primary induced trim rate (ground) and autopilot or pilot primary trim rate in-flight at go-around t1ight conditions. For CCA, representative flight test conditions must The purpose of the test is to compare the FlU surface position and indicator against the software value. X 39677 ±0.1 °/s trim rate. EP10JY14.165</GPH> INFORMATION FTD Level Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Flight Training Device (FTD) Objective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 39678 VerDate Mar<15>2010 Table B2A Test Entry Number Jkt 232001 2.a.8. Tolerance Title PO 00000 Alignment of cockpit throttle lever versus selected engine parameter. When matching engine parameters: Flight Conditions Ground. ±5° ofTLA. Frm 00218 ±3% N l or ±.03 EPR or ±3% torque, or equivalent. Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 2.a.9.a. E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM Brake pedal position versus force and brake system pressure calibration. be used. Sirnullant:ous rt:conling for all engines. The tolerances apply against airplane data. Ground. 7 X X Data from a lest airplane or engineering test bench are acceptable, provided the correct engine controller (both hardware and software) is used. In the case of propeller-driven airplanes, if an additional lever, usually referred to as the propeller lever, is present. it should also be checked. This test may be a series of snapshot tests. Relate the hydraulic system pressure to pedal position in a ground static test. 10JYP2 Brake pedal position versus force ±2.2 daN (5 lbf) or ± 10% of force. Ground. 2.a.10 Stick Pusher System Force Calibration ±10% or ±5 lb (2.2 daN)) Stick/Column force Ground or Flight Two data points are required: zero and maximum deflection. Computer output results may be used to show compliance. Test is intended to validate the stick/column transient forces as a result of a stick pusher system activation to prevent an aerodynarni<.: stall. This test may be conducted in an on-ground condition through stimulation of the stall protection system in a manner that generates a stick pusher response that is representative of an in-flight condition. Dynamic Control Tests. Note.- Tests 2.h.J, 2.h.2 and 2.h.3 are not applicahlefor FSTDs where the control forces are completely generated within the airplane controller unit installed in the FSTD. Power setting may be that required for !eve/flight unless otherwise specified. See paragraph 4 ofAppendix A, Attachment 2. EP10JY14.166</GPH> 6 X FTD computer output results may be used to show compliance. Both left and right pedals must be checked. ± 1.0 MPa (150 psi) or ±10% of brake system pressure. 2.a.9.b. 2.b. 5 Notes For airplanes with throttle detents, all detents to be presented and at least one position between detents/ endpoints (where practical). For airplanes without detents, end points and at least three other positions are to be presented. When matching detents: Where the levers do not have angular travel, a tolerance of ±2 em (±0.8 in) applies. ±2.2 daN (5 lbf) or ±10% of force. Test Details INFORMATION FTD Level FTD computer output results may be used to show compliance. X X X Aircraft manufacturer design data may be utilized as validation data as determim:d acceptable by the NSPM. Test requirement may be met through column force validation testing in conjunction with the Stall Characteristics test (2.c.8). Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Flight Training Device (FTD) Ob.iective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS VerDate Mar<15>2010 Table B2A Test Entry Number Jkt 232001 2.b.l. Tolerance Title Pitch Control. For underdamped systems: PO 00000 T(P0) ±I 0% ofP 0 or ±0.05 s. Frm 00219 T(P 1) ±20% ofP 1 or ±0.05 s. T(P2) ±30% ofP 2 or clc0.05 S. Fmt 4701 T(Po) ±IO*(n+l)% ofP" or ±0.05 s. Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM T(Ao) ±I 0% of Ama" where Amax is the largest amplitude or ±0.5% of the total control travel (slop to slop). T(Ad) ±5% of Ad= residual band or ±0.5% of the maximum control travel = residual band. 10JYP2 ± 1 significant overshoots (minimum of I significant overshoot). Steady state position within residual band. Note 1.- Tolerances should not be applied on period or amplitude (l{ter the last significant overshoot. Flight Conditions Takeoff, Cmise, and Landing. Test Details Data must be for normal control displacements in both directions (approximately 25% to 50% of full throw or approximately 25% to 50% of maximum allowable pitch controller deflection for flight conditions limited by the maneuvering load envelope). l'olerances apply against the absolute values of each period (considered independently). INFORMATION FTD Level 5 6 Notes 7 X n = the sequential period of a full oscillation. Refer to paragraph 4 of Appendix A, Attachment 2. Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Flight Training Device (FTD) Objective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS 39679 EP10JY14.167</GPH> sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 39680 VerDate Mar<15>2010 Table B2A Test Entry Number Tolerance Title Flight Conditions Test Details 5 6 Notes 7 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Note2.Usc illations within the residual band are not considered significant and are not subject to tolerances. Roll Control. 2.b.3. Yaw Control. 2.b.4. Small Control Inputs Pitch. Frm 00220 2.b.2. For overdamped and critically damped systems only, the following tolerance applies: T(P0 ) ± 10% of Po or ±0.05 s. Same as 2.b.l. Fmt 4701 Data must be for normal control displacement (approximately 25% to 50% of full throw or approximately 25% to 50% of maximum allowable roll controller deflection for Hight conditions limited by the maneuvering load envelope). X Refer to paragraph 4 of Appendix A, Attachment 2. Same as 2.b.l. Takeoff, Cruise, and Landing. Data must be for normal control displacement (approximately 25% to 50% of full throw). X Refer to paragraph 4 of Appendix A, Attachment 2. ±0.15°/s body pitch rate or ±20% of peak body pitch rate applied throughout the time history. Approach or Landing. Control inputs must be typical of minor corrections made while established on an ILS approach (approximately 0.5 to 2"/s pitch rate). X Sfmt 4725 Takeoff, Cruise, and Landing. E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 Test in both directions. Show time history data from 5 s before until at least 5 s after initiation of control input. If a single test is used to demonstrate both directions, there must be a minimum of 5 s before control reversal to the opposite direction. CCA: Test in normal and non-normal control state. EP10JY14.168</GPH> INFORMATION FTD Level Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Fli2ht Trainin2 Device (FTD) Ob_jective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS VerDate Mar<15>2010 Table B2A Test Entry Number Jkt 232001 2.b.S. Tolerance Title Small Control Inputs Roll. ±0.15°/s body roll rate or ±20% of peak body roll rate applied throughout the time history. Flight Conditions Approach or landing. Test Details Control inputs must be typical of minor corrections made while established on an ILS approach (approximately 0.5 to 2°/s roll rate). INFORMATION FTD Level 5 6 Notes 7 X PO 00000 Test in one direction. For airplanes that exhibit non-symmetrical behavior, test in both directions. Frm 00221 Show time history data from 5 s before until at least 5 s after initiation of control input. Fmt 4701 If a single test is used to demonstrate both directions, there must be a minimum of 5 s before control reversal to the opposite direction. Sfmt 4725 2.b.6. E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM Small Controllnputs -Yaw. ±0.15° /s body yaw rate or ±20% of peak body yaw rate applied throughout the time history. Approach or landing. CCA: Test in normal and non-normal control state. Control inputs must be typical of minor corrections made while established on an !LS approach (approximately 0.5 to 2°/s yaw rate). X Test in both directions. Show time history data from 5 s before until at least 5 s after initiation of control input. 10JYP2 If a single test is used to demonstrate both directions, there must be a minimum of 5 s before control reversal to the opposite direction. CCA: Test in normal and non-normal control state. 2.c. Longitudinal Control Tests. Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Fli2ht Trainin2 Device (FTD) Ob_jective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS Power setting is that required for level flight unless otherwise specified. 2.c.l.a. ±3 kt airspeed. ±30m (I 00 ft) altitude. _t_ 1.5° or J-20% of pitch angle. Approach. Power change from thrust for approach or level flight to maximum continuous or go-around power. X 39681 EP10JY14.169</GPH> Power Change Dynamics. sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Test Entry Number Tolerance Title Flight Conditions Test Details INFORMATION FTD Level Jkt 232001 6 X 7 X Time history of uncontrolled free response for a time increment equal to at least 5 s before initiation of the power change to the completion of the power change + 15 s. PO 00000 Frm 00222 5 Notes Fmt 4701 2.c.J.b. Power Change Force. ±5 lb (2.2 daN) or, ±20% pitch control force. Approach. 2.c.2.a. Flap/Slat Change Dynamics. ±3 kt airspeed. Takeoff through initial flap retraction, and approach to landing. Sfmt 4725 ±30 m (I 00 ft) altitude. ±1.5° or±20% of pitch angle. E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM ±5 lb (2.2 daN) or, ±20% pitch control force. Takeoff through initial flap retraction, and approach to landing. 2.c.3. Spoiler/Speedbrake Change Dynamics. ±3 kt airspeed. Cruise. 10JYP2 Flap/Slat Change Force. ±30 m (I 00 ft) altitude. Gear Change Dynamics. ±3 kt airspeed. ±30m (I 00 ft) altitude. X CCA: Test in normal and non-normal control mode 2.c.2.b. 2.c.4.a. CCA: Test in normal and non-normal control mode May be a series of snapshot test results. Power change dynamics test as described in test 2.c.l.a. will be accepted. CCA: Test in Normal and Non-normal control mode. Time history of uncontrolled free response for a time increment equal to at least 5 s before initiation of the reconfiguration change to the completion of the rcconfiguration change+ 15 s. May be a series of snapshot test results. Flap/Slat change dynamics test as described in test 2.c.2.a. will be accepted. CCA: Test in Normal and Non-normal control mode. Time histmy of uncontrolled free response for a time increment equal to at least 5 s before initiation of the configuration change to the completion of the configuration change+ 15 s. X X X Results required for both extension and retrad ion. Takeoff (retraction), and Approach (extension). CCA: Test in normal and non-normal control mode Time history of uncontrolled free response for a time increment equal to at least 5 s before initiation of the configuration change to the completion of the configuration change X Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Device (FTD) Ob_jective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS ± 1.5° or ±20% of pitch angle. EP10JY14.170</GPH> 39682 VerDate Mar<15>2010 Table B2A Fli~ht Trainin~ sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS VerDate Mar<15>2010 Table B2A Fli~ht Trainin~ Test Entry Number Tolerance Title Flight Conditions Test Details INFORMATION FTD Level Notes Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00223 6 7 X X X X X X X X X + 15 s. ± 1.5° or ±20% of pitch angle. 2.c.4.b. Gear Change Force. ±5 lb (2.2 daN) or, ±20% pitch control force. Takeoff (retraction) and Approach (extension). 2.c.5. Longitudinal Trim. ±I o elevator angle. Cruise, Approach, and Landing. CCA: Test in normal and non-normal control mode May be a series of snapshot test results. Gear change dynamics test as described in test 2.c.4.a. will be accepted. CCA: Test in Normal and Non-normal control mode. Steady-state wings level trim with thrust for level flight. This test may be a series of snapshot tests. ±0.5° stabilizer angle. Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 5 Level 5 FTD may use equivalent stick and trim controllers in lieu of elevator and trim surface. ± 1° pitch angle. 2.c.6. E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM Longitudinal Maneuvering Stability (Stick Force/g). ±5% of net thrust or equivalent. ±2.2 daN (5 lbt) or ±I 0% of pitch controller force. CCA: Test in normal or non-normal control mode, as applicable. Cruise, Approach, and Landing. Continuous time history data or a series of snapshot tests may be used. Test up to approximately 30° of roll angle for approach and landing configurations. Test up to approximately 45° of roll angle for the cruise configuration. Alternative method: ±JO or± 10% of the change of elevator angle. 10JYP2 Force tolerance not applicable if forces are generated solely by the use of airplane hardware in the FSTD. Alternative method applies to airplanes which do not exhibit stick-force-per-g characteristics. 2.c.7. Longitudinal Static Stability. .L2.2 daN (5 lbf) or ±I 0% of pitch controller force. EP10JY14.171</GPH> CCA: Test in normal or non-normal control mode Data for at least two speeds above and two speeds below trim speed. The speed range must be sufficient to demonstrate stick force versus speed characteristics. X 39683 Alternative method: Approach. Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Device (FTD) Ob_jective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Entry Number Tolerance Title Flight Conditions Test Details INFORMATION FTD Level 5 Notes 6 7 X X X X Jkt 232001 This test may be a series of snapshot tests. ±I 0 or ±10% ofthe change of elevator angle. PO 00000 Force tolerance is not applicable if forces are generated solely by the use of airplane hardware in the FSTD. Alternative method applies to airplanes which do not exhibit speed stability characteristics. Frm 00224 Level 5 must exhibit positive static stability, but need not comply with the numerical tolerance. Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 Approach to Stall rharacteristics actuation of stall warning device) ±3 kt airspeed for initial buffet, stall warning, and stall speeds. E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM Control inputs must be plotted and demonstrate cmTect trend and magnitude. Second Segment Climb, High Altitude Cruise tNear Performance Limited Condition), and Approach or Landing CCA: Test in normal or non-normal control mode, as applicable. Each of the following stall entry methods must be demonstrated in at least one of the three required flight conditions: Stall entry at wings level (I g) Stall entry in turning flight of at least 25° bank angle (accelerated stall) Stall entry in a power-on condition (required only for turboprop aircraft) . . . 10JYP2 ±2.0° pitch angle ±2.0° angle of attack ±2.0° bank angle ±2.0° sideslip angle 2.c.9.a. Phugoid Dynamics. The required cruise condition must be conducted in a flaps-up (clean) configuration. The second segment climb and approach/landing conditions must be conducted at different flap settings. Additionally, for those simulators with reversible flight control systems: ± 10% or±5 lb (2.2 daN)) Stick/Column force (prior to "g break" only). ±10% of period. For airplanes that exhibit stall buffet as the first indication of a stall, for qualification of this task, the FTD must be equipped with a vibration system that meets the applicable subjective and objective requirements in Appendix A ofthis Part. ±10% oftime to one half or double amplitude or Cruise. Test must include three full cycles or that necessary to determine time to one half or double amplitude, whichever is less. Tests may be conducted at centers of gravity typically required for airplane certification stall testing . Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Test 2.c.8 EP10JY14.172</GPH> 39684 VerDate Mar<15>2010 Table B2A Flight Training Device (FTD) Objective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS VerDate Mar<15>2010 Table B2A Test Entry Number Tolerance Title Flight Conditions Jkt 232001 ±0.02 of damping ratio. Phugoid Dynamics. ±I 0% period, Representative damping. Cruise. 2.c.l0 Short Period Dynamics. ± 1.5'' pitch angle or ±2°Is pitch rate. Cruise. PO 00000 2.c.9.b. Test Details CCA: Test in non-normal control mode. The test must include whichever is less of the following: Three full cycles (six overshoots after the input is completed), or the number of cycles sufficient to determine representative damping. INFORMATION FTD Level 5 Notes Frm 00225 6 7 X X X CCA: Test in Non-nonnal control mode. CCA: Test in normal and non-normal control mode. 2.c.ll. 2.d. Lateral Directional Tests. Sfmt 4725 2.d.l. Minimum control speed, air (Vm'"l or landing (V md), per applicable airworthiness requirement or low speed engineinoperative handling characteristics in the air. Roll Response (Rate). E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM Fmt 4701 ±0.1 g normal acceleration (Reserved) Power setting is that required for level flight unless otherwise specified. 2.d.2. ±3 kt airspeed. Takeoff or Landing (whichever is most critical in the airplane). 10JYP2 Minimum speed may be defined by a performance or control limit which prevents demonstration of Vmea or Vmc~ in the conventional manner. CCA: Test in normal or non-normal control state, as applicable. ±2°/s or ±10% of roll rate. Cruise, and Approach or Landing. ± 1.3 daN (3 lb f) or ± 10% of wheel force. ±2° or ±10% of roll angle. Test with normal roll control displacement (approximately one-third of maximum roll controller travel). X X X X X This test may be combined with step input of flight deck roll controller test 2.d.3. Approach or Landing. This test may be combined with roll response (rate) test 2.d.2. With wings level, apply a step roll control input using approximately one-third of the 39685 EP10JY14.173</GPH> Step input of flight deck roll controller. X Time history or snapshot data may be used. For airplanes with reversible flight control systems (Level 7 FTD only): 2.d.3. Takeoff thrust must be set on the operating engine(s). Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Flight Training Device (FTD) Objective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 39686 VerDate Mar<15>2010 Table B2A Test Entry Number Tolerance Title Flight Conditions Test Details INFORMATION FTD Level 5 6 Notes 7 Jkt 232001 CCA: Test in normal and non-normal control mode PO 00000 2.d.4.a. Spiral Stability. Frm 00226 Correct trend and ±2° or ±10% of roll angle in 20 s. Cruise, and Approach or Landing. Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 Spiral Stability. Correct trend and ±3 o or ±1 0% of roll angle in 30 s. Airplane data averaged from multiple tests may be used. X Test for both directions. As an alternative test, show lateral control required to maintain a steady turn with a roll angle of approximately 30°. If alternate test is used: cmTect trend and ±2° aileron angle. 2.d.4.b. roll controller travel. When reaching approximately 20° to 30° of bank, abruptly return the roll controller to neutral and allow approximately 10 seconds of airplane free response. Cruise CCA: Test in non-normal control mode. Airplane data averaged from multiple tests may be used. X E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM Test for both directions. As an alternative test, show lateral control required to maintain a steady turn with a roll angle of approximately 30°. If alternate test is used: cmTect trend and ±2° aileron angle. 10JYP2 2.d.4.c. Spiral Stability. Correct trend Cruise 2.d.S. Engine Inoperative Trim. ± 1o rudder angle or± 1o tab angle or equivalent rudder pedal. Second Segment Climb, and Approach or Landing. CCA: Test in non-normal control mode. Airplane data averaged from multiple tests may be used. X CCA: Test in non-normal control mode. This test may consist of snapshot tests. X Test should be performed in a manner similar to that for which a pilot is trained to trim an engine failure condition. ±2° side-slip angle. 2nd segment climb test should be at takeoff thrust. Approach or landing test should be at thrust for level flight. 2.d.6.a. EP10JY14.174</GPH> Rudder Response. ±2°/s or± 10% of yaw Approach or Landing. Test with stability augmentation on and off. X X Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Flight Training Device (FTD) Objective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS VerDate Mar<15>2010 Table B2A Test Entry Number Tolerance Title Test Details 5 6 Notes 7 Jkt 232001 rate. Test with a step input at approximately 25% of full rudder pedal throw. PO 00000 CCA: Test in normal and non-normal control mode 2.d.6.b. Frm 00227 2.d.7. Rudder Response. Dutch Roll Roll rate ±2°/sec, bank angle c±J 0 • Fmt 4701 ±0.5 s or ±10% of period. Approach or Landing. May be roll response to a given rudder deflection. Cruise, and Approach or Landing. CCA: Test in Normal and Non-normal control states. Test for at least six cycles with stability augmentation off. Sfmt 4725 ±I 0% of time to one half or double amplitude or +.02 of damping ratio. May be accomplished as a yaw response test, in which case the procedures and requirements of test 2.d.6.a. will apply. X E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM X X X X CCA: Test in non-normal control mode. (Level 7 FTD only): +I s or ±20% of time difference between peaks of roll angle and side-slip angle. 2.d.8. Steady State Sideslip. 10JYP2 For a given rudder position: ±.2° roll angle; ±I o side-slip angle; ±2° or± I 0% of aileron angle; and Approach or Landing. This test may be a series of snapshot tests using at least two rudder positions (in each direction for propeller-driven airplanes), one of which must be near maximum allowable rudder. (LevelS and Level6 FTD only): Sideslip angle is matched only for repeatability and only on continuing qualification evaluations. X 39687 ±5° or± I 0% of spoiler or equivalent roll controller position or force. EP10JY14.175</GPH> Flight Conditions INFORMATION FTD Level Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Flight Training Device (FTD) Objective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 39688 VerDate Mar<15>2010 Table B2A Test Entry Number Tolerance Title Flight Conditions Test Details 5 6 Notes 7 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 For airplanes with reversible flight control systems (Level 7 FTD only): Frm 00228 ± 1.3 daN (3 lbf) or ±10% of wheel force. Fmt 4701 ±2.2 daN (5 lbf) or ±I 0% of rudder pedal force. Sfmt 4725 2.e. Landings. 2.e.l. Normal Landing. ±3 kt airspeed. Landing. Test from a minimum of61 m (200ft) AGL to nosewheel touchdown. X ± 1.5° pitch angle. CCA: Test in normal and E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM ±1.5° AOA. non-normal control mode, if applicable. ±3m (10ft) or±lO% of height. 10JYP2 For airplanes with reversible flight control systems: 2.e.2. Minimum Flap Landing. ±2.2 daN (5 lbf) or ±I 0% of column force. ±3 kt airspeed. ± 1.5° pitch angle. Minimum Certified Landing Flap Configuration. Test from a minimum of61 m (200ft) AGL to nosewheel touchdown. Test at near maximum certificated landing weight. ±1.5° AOA. ±3m (10ft) or±IO% of height. EP10JY14.176</GPH> INFORMATION FTD Level X Two tests should be shown, including two normal landing flaps (if applicable) one of which should be near maximum certificated landing mass, the other at light or medium mass. Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Flight Training Device (FTD) Objective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS VerDate Mar<15>2010 Table B2A Test Entry Number Tolerance Title Test Details 5 6 Notes 7 Jkt 232001 For airplanes with reversible flight control systems: PO 00000 ±2.2 daN ( 5 lbf) or ±I 0% of column force. ±3 kt airspeed. Flight Conditions INFORMATION FTD Level ±1.5° AOA. ±3m (10ft) or±IO% of height. crosswind component of at least 60% of airplane performance data value measured at I 0 m (33ft) above the runway. ±2° roll angle. X It requires test data, including wind profile, for a ±3° heading angle. Frm 00229 ± 1.5° pitch angle. Test from a minimum of61 m (200ft) AGL to a 50% decrease in main landing gear touchdown speed. E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM Landing. Sfmt 4725 Crosswind Landing. Fmt 4701 2.e.3. Wind components must be provided as headwind and crosswind values with respect to the nmway. ±2° side-slip angle. For airplanes with reversible flight control systems: 10JYP2 ±2.2 daN (5 lbf) or ±10% of column force. ± 1.3 daN (3 lbf) or ±10% of wheel force. 2.e.4. One Engine Inoperative Landing. ±2.2 daN ( 5 lbf) or ± 10% of rudder pedal force. ±3 kt airspeed. cf.].5° pitch angle. Landing. Test from a minimum of 61 m (200ft) AGL to a 50% decrease in main landing gear touchdown speed. In those situations where a maximum crosswind or a maximum demonstrated crosswind is not known, contact theNSPM. Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Flight Training Device (FTD) Ob.iective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS X 39689 EP10JY14.177</GPH> sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 39690 VerDate Mar<15>2010 Table B2A Fli~ht Trainin~ Test Entry Number Tolerance Title Flight Conditions Test Details INFORMATION FTD Level 5 6 Notes 7 Jkt 232001 ±1.5° AOA. ±3m (10ft) or±10% of height. PO 00000 ±2° roll angle. Frm 00230 ±2° side-slip angle. 2.e.S. Fmt 4701 Autopilot landing (if applicable). ±3° heading angle. ±1.5 m (5 ft) flare height. Landing. If autopilot provides roll-out guidance, record lateral deviation from touchdown to a 50% decrease in main landing gear touchdown speed. X ±0.5 s or± 10% ofTf. Sfmt 4725 Time of autopilot flare mode engage and main gear touchdown must be noted. ±0.7 m/s (140ft/min) rate of descent at touchdown. E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 2.e.6. All-engine autopilot go-around. ±3m (I 0 fl) lateral deYiation during rollout. ±3 kt airspeed. 10JYP2 As per airplane performance data. Normal all-engine autopilot go-around must be demonstrated (if applicable) at medium weight. X As per airplane performance data. Engine inoperative go-around required near maximum certificated landing weight with critical engine inoperative. X ± 1.5° pitch angle. 2.c.7. One engine inoperative go around. ±1.5° AOA. ±3 kt airspeed. ±1.5° pitch angle. ±1.5° AOA. Provide one test with autopilot (if applicable) and one without autopilot. ±2° roll angle. CCA: Non-autopilot test to be conducted in nonnormal mode. ±2° side-slip angle. 2.e.8. EP10JY14.178</GPH> Directional control ±5 kt airspeed. Landing. Apply rudder pedal input in both directions using X See Appendix F of this part for definition ofT f· Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Device (FTD) Ob_jective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS VerDate Mar<15>2010 Table B2A Test Entry Number Jkt 232001 2.e.9. PO 00000 Frm 00231 2.f. Flight Conditions Tolerance Title (rudder effectiveness) with symmetric reverse thrust. Directional control (rudder effectiveness) with asymmetric reverse thrust. Test Details 5 6 Notes 7 full reverse thrust until reaching full thrust reverser minimum operating speed. ±2"/s yaw rate. With full reverse thrust on the operating engine(s), maintain heading with rudder pedal input until maximum rudder pedal input or thrust reverser minimum operation speed is reached. X Landing. A rationale must be provided with justit1eation of results. X See paragraph on Ground Effect in this attachment for additional information. X Tests required only for those Level 7 FTDs qualified for wind shear training tasks. ±3° heading angle. Ground Effect. Test to demonstrate Ground Effect. ±I o elevator angle. ±0.5° stabilizer angle. Fmt 4701 CCA: Test in normal or non-normal control mode, as applicable. ±5% of net thrust or equivalent. Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM Landing. ±5 kt airspeed. ±1° AOA. ±1.5 m (5 ft) or ±10% of height. ±3 kt airspeed. ±I o pitch angle. 2.g. Windshcar 10JYP2 Four tests, two takeoffs and two landing, with one of each conducted in still air and the other with windshcar active to demonstrate windshear models. See Attachment 5 of Appendix A. Requires wimlshear mouels that provide training in the specific skills needed to recognize windshear phenomena and to execute recovery procedures. See Attachment 5 of this Appendix A for tests, tolerances, and procedures. Takeoff and Landing. Flight Maneuver and Envelope Protection Functions. 2.h.I. Note. The requirements of2.h are only applicable to computer-controlled airplanes. Time history results ()fresponse to control inputs during entry into each envelope protectionfimction (i.e. with normal and degraded control states iftheirfunction is different) are required. Set thrust as required to reach the envelope protection fimction. Overspeed. ±5 kt airspeed. Cruise. I I I X 39691 2.h. EP10JY14.179</GPH> INFORMATION FTD Level Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Flight Training Device (FTD) Ob.iective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Test Tolerance Entry Number Title Jkt 232001 ±3 kt airspeed. Flight Conditions PO 00000 Frm 00232 Minimum Speed. 2.h.3. Load Factor. ±O.lg normal load factor Takeoff: Cruise, and Approach or Landing. Takeoff, Cruise. 2.h.4. Pitch Angle. ±1.5° pitch angle Cruise, Approach. 2.h.S. Bank Angle. ±2° or± I 0% bank angle Approach. 2.h.6. Angle of Attack. ± 1.5° angle of attack 2.i. Engine and Airframe Icing Effects Demonstration (Aerodynamic Stall) Second Segment Climb, and Approach or Landing. Takeoff, Approach, or Landing Fmt 4701 2.h.2. Test Details FTD Level 5 6 Notes 7 X X X X X Time history of a full stall and initiation of the recovery. Tests arc intended to demonstrate representative aerodynamic effects caused by intlighl ice accretion. Flight test validation data is not required. Sfmt 4725 Two tests are required to demonstrate engine and airframe icing effects. One test will demonstrate the FSTDs baseline perfom1ance without ice accretion, and the second test will demonstrate the aerodynamic effects of icc accretion relative to the baseline test. E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 The test must utilize the icing modcl(s) as described in the required Statement of Compliance in Table B lA, Section 2.1.5.S. Test must include rationale that describes the icing effects being demonstrated. Icing effects must include, but are not limited to the following effects as applicable to the particular airplane: • Decrease in stall angle of attack • Changes in pitching moment • Decrease in control effectiveness • Changes in control forces • Increase in drag • Change in stall buffet characteristics and onset. • Engine effects (power reduction/variation, vibration, etc.) 4. Visual System. INFORMATION X Tests will be evaluated for representative effects on relevant aerodynamic parameters such as angle of attack, control inputs, and thrust/power settings. Plotted parameters must include: • Altitude • Airspeed • Normal acceleration • Engine power • Angle of attack • Pitch altitude • Bank angle • Flight control inputs • Stall warning and stall buffet onset Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Device (FTD) Ob_jective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS 3. Reserved EP10JY14.180</GPH> 39692 VerDate Mar<15>2010 Table B2A Fli~ht Trainin~ sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS VerDate Mar<15>2010 Table B2A Test Entry Number Tolerance Title Jkt 232001 4.a. Continuous crosscockpit visual field of view. Test Details 5 6 Notes 7 Visual scene quality 4.a.l. Flight Conditions INFORMATION FTD Level PO 00000 Visual display providing each pilot with a minimum of200° horizontal and 40° vertical continuous field of view. Not applicable. Required as part of MQTG but not required as part of continuing evaluations. X Field of view should be measured using a visual test pattern filling the entire visual scene (all channels) consisting of a matrix of black and white 5° squares. Frm 00233 Fmt 4701 Installed alignment should be confirmed in an SOC (this wuulu generally consist of results from acceptance testing). Sfmt 4725 4.a.2. System Geometry 4.a.3 Surface resolution (object detection). Geometry of image must have no distracting discontinuities. Not greater than 4 arc minutes. Not applicable X Not applicable. X E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM Resolution will be demonstrated by a test of objects shown to occupy the required visual angle in each visual display used on a scene from the pilot's eyepoint. The object will subtend 4 arc minutes to the eye. This may be demonstrated using threshold bars for a horizontal test. 10JYP2 A vertical test should also be demonstrated. The subtended angles should be confirmed by calculations in an soc. 4.a.4 Light point size. Not greater than 8 arc minutes. Not applicable. X Light point size should be measured using a test pattern consisting of a centrally located single row of white light points displayed as both a horizontal and vertical row. EP10JY14.181</GPH> 39693 It should be possible to move the Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Flight Training Device (FTD) Objective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 39694 VerDate Mar<15>2010 Table B2A Test Entry Number Tolerance Title Flight Conditions Test Details INFORMATION FTD Level 5 6 Notes 7 Jkt 232001 light points relative to the eyepoinl in all axes. PO 00000 At a point where modulation is just discernible in each visual channel, a calculation should be made to determine the light spacing. Frm 00234 4.a.5 Fmt 4701 Raster surface contrast ratio. Not less than 5: l. Not applicable. X An SOC is required to state test method and calculation. Surface contrast ratio should be measured using a raster drawn test pattern filling the entire visual scene (all channels). Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM The test pattern should consist of black and white squares, 5° per square, with a white square in the center of each channel. 10JYP2 Measurement should be made on the center bright square for each chaunel using a 1o spot photometer. This value should have a minimum brightness of7 cd/m2 (2 ft-lambet1s ). Measure any adjacent dark squares. The contrast ratio is the bright square value divided by the dark square value. Note 1. During contrast ratio testing, FSTD qft-cab and .flight deck ambient light levels should be as low as possible. Note 2. -Measurements should be taken at the center of EP10JY14.182</GPH> Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Flight Training Device (FTD) Ob.iective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS VerDate Mar<15>2010 Table B2A Test Entry Number Jkt 232001 4.a.6 Tolerance Title PO 00000 Light point contrast ratio. Not less than 10: I. Flight Conditions Not applicable. Test Details INFORMATION FTD Level 5 6 Notes 7 X Frm 00235 Fmt 4701 Note. - Light point modulation should be just discernible on calligraphic systems but will not be discernable on raster systems. Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM Measurements of the background should be taken such that the bright square is just out ofthe light meter FOV. 4.a.7 10JYP2 Light point brightness. Not less than 20 cd/m 2 (5.8 ft-lamberts). Not applicable. X During contrast Note. ratio testing. FSTD aft-cab and flight deck ambient light levels should be as low as practical. Light points should be displayed as a matrix creating a square. On calligraphic systems the light points should just merge. 4.a.8 Surface brightness. Not less than 14 cd/m2 (4.1 ft-lamberts) on the Not applicable. X On raster systems the Iight points should overlap such that the square is continuous (individual light points will not be visible). Surface brightness should be measured on a white raster, 39695 EP10JY14.183</GPH> squares to avoid light spill into the measurement device. Light point contrast ratio should be measured using a test pattern demonstrating an area of greater than 1o area filled with white light points and should be compared to the adjacent background. Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Fli~ht Trainin~ Device (FTD) Ob_jective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 39696 VerDate Mar<15>2010 Table B2A Test Entry Number Tolerance Title Flight Conditions Test Details INFORMATION FTD Level 5 6 Notes 7 Jkt 232001 display. measuring the brightness using the l o spot photometer. Light points are not acceptable. PO 00000 Frm 00236 Csc of calligraphic capabilities to enhance raster brightness is acceptable. 4.b 4.b.l Head-Up Display (HUD) Static Alignment. Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM Alignment requirement only applies to the pilot flying. X A statement of the system capabilities should be provided and the capabilities demonstrated Ht:D bore sight must align with the center of the displayed image spherical pattern. 10JYP2 4.b.2 System display. 4.b.3 HUD attitude versus FSTD attitude indicator (pitch and roll of horizon). Enhanced Flight Vision System (EFVS) Registration test. 4.c 4.c.l 4.c.2 EP10JY14.184</GPH> X Static alignment with displayed image. EFVS RVRand visibility calibration. Tolerance+/- 6 arc - min. ·-------All functionality in all flight modes must be demonstrated. Pitch and roll align with aircraft instruments. Flight X Alignment between EFVS display and out of the window image must represent the alignment typical of the aircraft and svstem type. The scene represents the EFVS view at 350m Takeoff point and on approach at 200 ft. X Flight X Alignment requirement only applies to the pilot flying. Note. The ejjects of the alignment tolerance in 4.b.l should be taken into account. Infra-red scene representative of both 350m (I 200ft), and Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Flight Training Device (FTD) Objective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS VerDate Mar<15>2010 Table B2A Test Entry Number Tolerance Title Jkt 232001 Thermal crossover. 4.d 4.d.l Visual ground segment (VGS). Test Details 5 6 Notes 7 1 609 m (Ism) RVR. Day and night Visual scene may be removed. The scene will correctly represent the thermal characteristics of the scene during a day to night transition. Visual ground segment PO 00000 4.c.3 (1200 ft) and 1609 m ( 1 sm) RVR including c<mect light intensity. Demonstrate thermal crossover effects during day to night transition. Flight Conditions INFORMATION FTD Level Frm 00237 Fmt 4701 Near end: the con·ect number of approach lights within the computed VGS must be visible. Sfmt 4725 Far end: ±20% of the computed VGS. Trimmed in the landing configuration at 30 m (l 00 tt) wheel height above touchdown zone on glide slope at an RVR setting of300 m (I 000 ft) or 350m ( 1 200ft). E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM The threshold lights computed to be visible must be visible in the FSTD. X This test is designed to assess items impacting the accuracy of the visual scene presented to a pilot at DH on an ILS approach. These items include: X Pre-position for this test is encouraged but may be achieved via manual or autopilot control to the desired position. X Demonstrated through use of a visual scene rendered with the 1) RVR/Visibility; 2) glide slope (GIS) and localizer modeling accuracy (location and slope) for an ILS; 3) for a given weight, configuration and speed representative of a point within the airplane's operational envelope lor a normal approach and landing; and 4) Radio altimeter. 10JYP2 Note. -{I' non-homogeneous fog is used, the vertical variation in horizontal visibility should be described and included in the slant range visibility calculation used in the VGS computation. 4.e 4.e.l Visual System Capacity System capacity Day mode. Not less than: I 0 000 visible textured surfaces, 6 000 light points, 16 moving models. Not applicable sarne irnage generator rnodes used to produce scenes for training. 39697 The required surfaces, light EP10JY14.185</GPH> Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Flight Training Device (FTD) Ob.iective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 39698 VerDate Mar<15>2010 Table B2A Test Entry Number Jkt 232001 4.e.2 Tolerance Title PO 00000 System capacity Twilight/night mode. Not less than: 10 000 visible textured surfaces, 15 000 light points, 16 moving models. Flight Conditions Test Details Not applicable INFORMATION FTD Level 5 6 Notes 7 X points, and moving models should be displayed simultaneously. Demonstrated through use of a visual scene rendered with the same image generator modes used to produce scenes for training. Frm 00238 Fmt 4701 The required surfaces, light points, and moving models should be displayed simultaneously. Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 5. Sound System. The sponsor will not be required to repeat the airplane tests (i.e., tests 5.a.l. through 5.a.8. (or 5.b.1. through 5.b.9.) and S.c., as appropriate) during continuing qualification evaluations if frequency response and background noise test results are within tolerance when compared to the initial qualification evaluation results, and the sponsor shows that no software changes have occurred that will affect the airplane test results. If the frequency response test method is chosen and fails, the sponsor may elect to tix the frequency response problem and repeat the test or the sponsor may elect to repeat the airplane tests. lfthe airplane tests are repeated during continuing qualification evaluations, the results may be compared against initial qualification evaluation results or airplane master data. All tests in this section must be presented using an unweighted 113-octave band format tl'om band 17 to 42 (50 Hz to 16kHz). A minimum 20 second average must be taken at the location con·esponding to the airplane data set. The airplane and t1ight simulator results must be produced using comparable data analysis techniques. S.a. Turbo-jet airplanes. All tests in this section should be presented using an unweighted 1/3-octave band format from at least band 17 to 42 (50 Hz to 16 kHz). 10JYP2 A measurement ofminimum20 s should be taken at the location corresponding to the approved data set. The approved data set and FSTD results should be produced using comparable data analysis techniques. Refer to paragraph 7 of Appendix A, Attachment 2. EP10JY14.186</GPH> Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Flight Training Device (FTD) Objective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS VerDate Mar<15>2010 Table B2A Test Entry Number Jkt 232001 S.a.l. Tolerance Title Ready for engine start. PO 00000 Frm 00239 Fmt 4701 S.a.2. All engines at idle. Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 S.a.3. All engines at maximum allowable thrust with brakes set. Initial evaluation: Subjective assessment of 113 octave bands. Recurrent evaluation: cannot exceed ±5 dB difterence on three consecutive bands when compared to initial evaluation and the average of the absolute diJTerences between initial and recurrent evaluation results cannot exceed 2 dB. Initial evaluation: Subjective assessment of I /3 octave bands. Rectment evaluation: cannot exceed ±5 dB di1Terence on three consecutive bands when compared to initial evaluation and the average of the absolute differences between initial and recurrent evaluation results cannot exceed 2 dB. Initial evaluation: Subjective assessment of I/3 octave bands. EP10JY14.187</GPH> Ground. Test Details Normal condition prior to engine start. 5 6 Notes 7 X The APU must be on if appropriate. Ground. Normal condition prior to takeoff. X Ground. Normal condition prior to takeofi X 39699 Recurrent evaluation: cannot exceed ±5 dB difTerence on three consecutive bands when compared to initial evaluation and the average of the absolute Flight Conditions INFORMATION FTD Level Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Flight Training Device (FTD) Ob.iective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Test Tolerance Entry Number Title Jkt 232001 PO 00000 5.a.4. Climb Frm 00240 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 5.a.5. Cruise E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 Speed brake/spoilers extended (as appropriate). differences between initial and recurrent evaluation results cannot exceed 2 dB. Initial evaluation: Subjective assessment of 1/3 octave bands. Recurrent evaluation: cannot exceed ±5 dB difference on three consecutive bands when compared to initial evaluation and the average of the absolute differences between initial and recurrent evaluation results cannot exceed 2 dB. Initial evaluation: Subjective assessment of 1/3 octave bands. Recurrent evaluation: cannot exceed ±5 dB difterence on three consecutive hands when compared to initial evaluation and the average of the absolute differences between initial and recurrent evaluation results cannot exceed 2 dB. Initial evaluation: Subjective assessment of 113 octave bands. Recun·ent evaluation: ~:annol exceed ±5 dB difference on three Flight Conditions INFORMATION FTD Level Test Details 5 6 Notes 7 En-route climb. Medium altitude. X Cruise. Normal cruise configuration. X Cruise. Normal and constant speed brake deflection for descent at a constant airspeed and power setting. X -------------------- - --- ------- Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Flight Training Device (FTD) Objective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS 5.a.6. EP10JY14.188</GPH> 39700 VerDate Mar<15>2010 Table B2A sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS VerDate Mar<15>2010 Table B2A Test Jkt 232001 Entry Number Tolerance Title PO 00000 Frm 00241 5.a.7 Initial approach. Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 5.a.8 Final approach. consecutive bands when compared to initial evaluation and the average of the absolute differences between initial and recurrent evaluation results cal111ot exceed 2 dB. Initial evaluation: Subjective assessment of l /3 octave bands. Recurrent evaluation: cannot exceed ±5 dB difference on three consecutive bands when compared to initial evaluation and the average of the absolute differences between initial and recurrent evaluation results cannot exceed 2 dB. Initial evaluation: Subjective assessment of 1/3 octave bands. 10JYP2 Recurrent evaluation: cannot exceed ±5 dB difterencc on three consecutive bands when compared to initial evaluation and the average of the absolute difterences between initial and recurrent evaluation results cannot exceed 2 dB. Flight Conditions Test Details INFORMATION FTD Level 5 6 Notes 7 Approach. Constant airspeed, gear up, flaps/slats as appropriate. X Landing. Constant airspeed, gear down, landing configuration flaps. X Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Fli~ht Trainin~ Device (FTD) Ob_jective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS 39701 EP10JY14.189</GPH> sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 39702 VerDate Mar<15>2010 Table B2A Fli~ht Trainin~ Test Entry Number Jkt 232001 S.b Tolerance Title Flight Conditions Test Details INFORMATION FTD Level 5 6 Notes 7 Propeller-driven airplanes PO 00000 All tests in this section should be presented using an unweighted 1/3-octave band format from at least band 17 to 42 (50 Hz to 16kHz). Frm 00242 A measurement of minimum 20 s should be taken at the location corresponding to the approved data set. Fmt 4701 Refer to paragraph 7 of Appendix A, Attachment 2. S.b.l. Ready for engine start. Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 5.b.2 All propellers feathered, if applicable. Initial evaluation: Subjective assessment of 1/3 octave bands. Recurrent evaluation: cannot exceed ±5 dB difterence on three consecutive bands when compared to initial evaluation and the average of the absolute differences between initial and recurrent evaluation results cannot exceed 2 dB. Initial evaluation: Subjective assessment of 113 octave bands. Recurrent evaluation: cannot exceed ±5 dB difference on three consecutive bands when compared to initial evaluation and the average of the absolute differences between EP10JY14.190</GPH> Ground. Normal condition prior to engine start. X The APU must be on if appropriate. Ground. Normal condition prior to take-off X Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Device (FTD) Ob_jective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS VerDate Mar<15>2010 Table B2A Test Entry Number Jkt 232001 S.b.3. PO 00000 Title Ground idle or equivalent. Frm 00243 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 S.b.4 Flight idle or equivalent. E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 S.b.S All engines at maximum allowable power with brakes set. initial and recurrent evaluation results cannot exceed 2 dB. Initial evaluation: Subjective assessment of 113 octave bands. 5 6 Notes 7 Ground. - X Normal condition prior to takeoll X Uround. Recurrent evaluation: cannot exceed 15 dB difference on three consecutive bands when compared to initial evaluation and the average of the absolute differences between initial and recurrent evaluation results cannot exceed 2 dB. Initial evaluation: Subjective assessment of 113 octave bands. Normal condition prior to takeoff. Ground. Recurrent evaluation: cannot exceed ±5 dB difference on three consecutive bands when compared to initial evaluation and the average of the absolute differences between initial and recurrent evaluation results cannot exceed 2 dB. Initial evaluation: Subjective assessment of 113 octave bands. Recurrent evaluation: cannot exceed ±5 dB difference on thn:e consecutive bands when Test Details Normal condition prior to takeoff. X --- -- -- ---------- ----- ---- ---- ---------- 39703 ----------------- EP10JY14.191</GPH> Flight Conditions Tolerance INFORMATION FTD Level Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Flight Training Device (FTD) Objective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Test Tolerance Entry Number Title Jkt 232001 PO 00000 5.b.6 Climb. Frm 00244 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 5.b.7 Cruise 10JYP2 Initial approach. compared to initial evaluation and the average of the absolute dilferences between initial and recurrent evaluation results cannot exceed 2 dB. Initial evaluation: Subjective assessment of 113 octave bands. Recurrent evaluation: cannot exceed ±5 dB difference on three consecutive bands when compared to initial evaluation and the average of the absolute differences between initial and recurrent evaluation results cannot exceed 2 dB. Initial evaluation: Subjective assessment of I/3 octave bands. Recurrent evaluation: cannot exceed ±5 dB difference on three consecutive bands when compared to initial evaluation and the average of the absolute differences between initial and recurrent evaluation results cannot exceed 2 dB. Initial evaluation: Subjective assessment of 113 octave bands. Flight Conditions Test Details INFORMATION FTD Level 5 6 Notes 7 En-route climb. Medium altitude. X Cruise. Normal cruise configuration. X Approach. Constant airspeed, gear up, flaps extended as appropriate, RPM as per operating manual. X Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Flight Training Device (FTD) Objective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS 5.b.8 EP10JY14.192</GPH> 39704 VerDate Mar<15>2010 Table B2A sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS VerDate Mar<15>2010 Table B2A Test Entry Number Tolerance Title Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00245 5.b.9 Final approach. Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 Special cases. Recurrent evaluation: cannot exceed ±5 dB difference on three consecutive bands when compared to initial evaluation and the average of the absolute differences between initial and recurrent evaluation results cannot exceed 2 dB. Initial evaluation: Subjective assessment of 1/3 octave bands. RecUJTent evaluation: cannot exceed ±5 dB difference on three consecutive bands when compared to initial evaluation and the average of the absolute differences between initial and recurrent evaluation results cannot exceed 2 dB. Landing. As appropriate. Test Details Constant airspeed, gear down, landing configuration flaps, RPM as per operating manual. FTD Level 5 6 Notes 7 X X This applies to special steadystate cases identified as particularly significant to the pilot, important in training, or unique to a specific airplane type or model. 39705 EP10JY14.193</GPH> S.c. Recurrent evaluation: cannot exceed ±5 dB difference on three consecutive bands when compared to initial evaluation and the average of the absolute differences between initial and recurrent evaluation results cannot exceed 2 dB. Initial evaluation: Subjective assessment of 1/3 octave bands. Flight Conditions INFORMATION Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Flight Training Device (FTD) Objective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 39706 VerDate Mar<15>2010 Table B2A Test Entry Number Jkt 232001 S.d Tolerance Title FSTD background noise Flight Conditions PO 00000 Initial evaluation: background noise levels must fall below the sound levels described in Appendix A, Attachment 2, Paragraph 7 .c ( 5). Test Details Results of the background noise at initial qualification must be included in the (.JTG document and approved by the NSPM. The measurements are to be made with the simulation miming, the sound muted and a dead cockpit. INFORMATION FTD Level 5 6 Notes 7 X Refer to paragraph 7 of this Appendix A, Attachment 2. Frm 00246 Fmt 4701 Recurrent evaluation: ±3 dB per I /3 octave band compared to initial evaluation. S.e Frequency response This test should be presented using an unweighted 113 octave band format from band 17 to 42 (50 Hz to 16kHz). X Sfmt 4725 Initial evaluation: not applicable. E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM Recurrent evaluation: cannot exceed ±5 dB di lference on three consecutive bands when compared to initial evaluation and the average of the absolute differences between initial and recurrent evaluation results cannot exceed 2 dB. 10JYP2 6 6.a. 6.a.l SYSTEMS INTEGRATION System response time Transpo11 delay. I 00 milliseconds or less after controller movement. The simulated sound will be evaluated to ensure that the background noise does not interfere with training. Only required if the results are to be used during continuing qualification evaluations in lieu of airplane tests. The results must be approved by the NSPM during the initial qualification. ll1is test should be presented using an unweighted l/3 octave band format from band 17 to 42 (50 Hz to 16kHz). Pitch, roll and yaw. X One separate test is required in each axis. Where EFVS systems are installed, the EFVS response should be within +or- 30 ms from visual system response, EP10JY14.194</GPH> Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Flight Training Device (FTD) Objective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS VerDate Mar<15>2010 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00247 Test Fmt 4701 Entry Number Tolerance Title Flight Conditions Test Details INFORMATION FTD Level 5 6 Notes 7 and not before motion system response. Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM Note.- The delaY.from the airplane EFVS electronic elements should be added to the 30 ms tolerance before comparison with visual .1ystem reference as described in Attachment G <~[this Part. 6.a.2 Transport delay. 300 milliseconds or less after controller movement. Pitch, roll and yaw. X X 10JYP2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Table B2A Flight Training Device (FTD) Objective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS 39707 EP10JY14.195</GPH> 39708 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules lllllllllllllllllllll Begin Information 3. For Additional Information on the Following Topics, Please Refer to Appendix A, Attachment 2, and the Indicated Paragraph Within That Attachment • Control Dynamics, paragraph 4. • Motion System, paragraph 6. • Sound System, paragraph 7. • Engineering Simulator Validation Data, paragraph 9. • Validation Test Tolerances, paragraph 11. • Validation Data Road Map, paragraph 12. • Acceptance Guidelines for Alternative Engines Data, paragraph 13. • Acceptance Guidelines for Alternative Avionics, paragraph 14. • Transport Delay Testing, paragraph 15. • Continuing Qualification Evaluation Validation Data Presentation, paragraph 16. End Information lllllllllllllllllllll 4. Alternative Objective Data for FTD Level 5 lllllllllllllllllllll sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Begin QPS Requirements a. This paragraph (including the following tables) is relevant only to FTD Level 5. It is VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 provided because this level is required to simulate the performance and handling characteristics of a set of airplanes with similar characteristics, such as normal airspeed/altitude operating envelope and the same number and type of propulsion systems (engines). b. Tables B2B through B2E reflect FTD performance standards that are acceptable to the FAA. A sponsor must demonstrate that a device performs within these parameters, as applicable. If a device does not meet the established performance parameters for some or for all of the applicable tests listed in Tables B2B through B2E, the sponsor may use NSP accepted flight test data for comparison purposes for those tests. c. Sponsors using the data from Tables B2B through B2E must comply with the following: (1) Submit a complete QTG, including results from all of the objective tests appropriate for the level of qualification sought as set out in Table B2A. The QTG must highlight those results that demonstrate the performance of the FTD is within the allowable performance ranges indicated in Tables B2B through B2E, as appropriate. (2) The QTG test results must include all relevant information concerning the conditions under which the test was conducted; e.g., gross weight, center of gravity, airspeed, power setting, altitude PO 00000 Frm 00248 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 (climbing, descending, or level), temperature, configuration, and any other parameter that impacts the conduct of the test. (3) The test results become the validation data against which the initial and all subsequent continuing qualification evaluations are compared. These subsequent evaluations will use the tolerances listed in Table B2A. (4) Subjective testing of the device must be performed to determine that the device performs and handles like an airplane within the appropriate set of airplanes. End QPS Requirements lllllllllllllllllllll Begin Information d. The reader is encouraged to consult the Airplane Flight Simulator Evaluation Handbook, Volumes I and II, published by the Royal Aeronautical Society, London, UK, and AC 25–7, Flight Test Guide for Certification of Transport Category Airplanes, and AC 23–8A, Flight Test Guide for Certification of Part 23 Airplanes, as amended, for references and examples regarding flight testing requirements and techniques. End Information lllllllllllllllllllll E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS VerDate Mar<15>2010 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 I. I.e I.e. I. Frm 00249 Fmt 4701 l.f. l.f.l. l.f.2. 2. 2.c. 2.c.l. Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 Performance. Climb. Normal climb with nominal gross weight, at best rate-of-climb airspeed. Engines. Acceleration; idle to takeoff power. Deceleration; takeoff power to idle. Handlin~ Qualities. Longitudinal Tests. Power change force. a) Trim for straight and level flight at 80% of normal cruise airspeed with necessary power. Reduce power to flight idle. Do not change trim or configuration. After stabilized, record column force necessary to maintain original airspeed. OR b) Trim for straight and level flight at 80% of normal cruise airspeed with necessary power. Add power to maximum setting. Do not change trim or configuration. After stabilized, record column force necessary to maintain original airspeed. Flap/slat change force. a) Trim tor straight and level flight with flaps fully retracted at a constant airspeed within the flaps-extended airspeed range. Do not adjust trim or power. Extend the flaps to 50% of full flap travel. After stabilized, record stick force necessary to maintain original airspeed. OR b) Trim for straight and level flight with flaps extended to 50% of full flap travel, at a constant airspeed within the flaps-extended airspeed range. Do not adjust trim or power. Retract the flaps to zero. After stabilized, record stick force necessary to maintain original airspeed. Climb rate 500- 1200 fpm (2.5- 6 m/sec). 2 - 4 Seconds. 2 - 4 Seconds. 5 - 15 lbs (2.2 - 6.6 daN) of force (Pull). 5- 15 lbs (2.2- 6.6 daN) of force (Push). 5 - 15 lbs (2.2 - 6.6 daN) of force (Pull). 5- 15 lbs (2.2- 6.6 daN) offorce (Push). 39709 EP10JY14.196</GPH> 2.c.2. I Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Entry Number TableB2B Alternative Data Source for FTD Level 5 Small, Single Engine (Reciprocating) Airplane QPS REQUIREMENT The performance parameters in this table must be used to program the FTD if flight test data is not used to program the FTD. Applicable Test Authorized Performance Range Title and Procedure sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00250 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 2.c.5. E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 2.c.7. 2.c.8. 10JYP2 2.c.9.b. 2.d. 2.d.2. 2.d.4.b. 2.d.6.b. EP10JY14.197</GPH> Gear change force. a) Trim for straight and level flight with landing gear retracted at a constant airspeed within the landing gear-extended airspeed range. Do not adjust trim or power. Extend the landing gear. After stabilized, record stick force necessary to maintain original airspeed. OR b) Trim for straight and level flight with landing gear extended, at a constant airspeed within the landing gear-extended airspeed range. Do not adjust trim or power. Retract the landing gear. After stabilized, record stick force necessary to maintain original airspeed. Longitudinal trim. Longitudinal static stability. Stall warning (actuation of stall warning device) with nominal gross weight; wings level; and a deceleration rate of not more than three (3) knots per second. a) Landing configuration. b) Clean configuration. Phugoid dynamics. 2 - 12 lbs (0.88 - S.3 daN) of force (Pull). 2- 12lbs (0.88- S.3 daN) of force (Push). Must be able to trim longitudinal stick force to "zero" in each of the following configurations: cruise; approach; and landing. Must exhibit positive static stability. 40- 60 knots;± so of bank. Landing configuration speed + 10 - 20%. Must have a phugoid with a period of 30 - 60 seconds. May not reach \12 or double amplitude in less than 2 cycles. Lateral Directional Tests. Roll response (rate). Roll rate must be measured through at least 30° of roll. Aileron control must be deflected 1/3 (33.3 percent) of maximum travel. Spiral stability. Cruise configuration and normal cruise airspeed. Establish a 20° 30° bank. When stabilized, neutralize the aileron control and release. Must be completed in both directions of turn. Rudder response. Must have a roll rate of 4°- 2S 0 /second. Initial bank angle(± S0 ) after 20 seconds. 2°- 6° /second yaw rate. Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 2.c.4. I 39710 VerDate Mar<15>2010 Entry Number TableB2B Alternative Data Source for FTD Level 5 Small, Single Engine (Reciprocating) Airplane QPS REQUIREMENT The performance parameters in this table must be used to program the FTD if flight test data is not used to program the FTD. Applicable Test Authorized Performance Range Title and Procedure sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS VerDate Mar<15>2010 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00251 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 2.d.7. E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 2.d.8. 6. 6.a. I 10JYP2 Use 25 percent of maximum rudder deflection. (Applicable to approach or landing configuration.) Dutch roll, yaw damper off. (Applicable to cruise and approach configurations.) Steady state sideslip. Use 50 percent rudder deflection. (Applicable to approach and landing configurations.) FTD System Response Time. Latency. Flight deck instrument systems response to an abrupt pilot controller input. One test is required in each axis (pitch, roll, yaw). A period of 2 - 5 seconds; and 12 - 2 cycles. 2°- 10° ofbank; 4°- 10° of sideslip; and 2° -10° of aileron. 300 milliseconds or less. Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Entry Number TableB2B Alternative Data Source for FTD Level 5 Small, Single Engine (Reciprocating) Airplane QPS REQUIREMENT The performance parameters in this table must be used to program the FTD if flight test data is not used to program the FTD. Applicable Test Authorized Performance Range Title and Procedure 39711 EP10JY14.198</GPH> sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 39712 VerDate Mar<15>2010 The performance parameters in this table must be used to program the FTD if flight test data is not used to program the FTD. Jkt 232001 Applicable Test Entry Number Authorized Performance Range Title and Procedure PO 00000 Frm 00252 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 1. l.c l.c.l. Performance. Climb. l.f. l.f.l. l.f.2. 2. 2.c. 2.c.l. Engines. Normal climb with nominal gross weight, at best rate-of-climb airspeed. Acceleration; idle to takeoff power. Deceleration; takeoff power to idle. Climb airspeed= 95 - 115 knots. Climb rate= 500- 1500 fpm (2.5 -7.5 m/sec) 2 - 5 Seconds. 2 - 5 Seconds. Handling Qualities. Longitudinal Tests. E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM Power change force. a) Trim for straight and level flight at 80% of normal cruise airspeed with necessary power. Reduce power to flight idle. Do not change trim or configuration. After stabilized, record column force necessary to maintain original airspeed. 10 - 25 lbs (2.2 - 6.6 daN) of force (Pull). OR 10JYP2 2.c.2. EP10JY14.199</GPH> I b) Trim for straight and level flight at 80% of normal cruise airspeed with necessary power. Add power to maximum setting. Do not change trim or configuration. After stabilized, record column force necessary to maintain original airspeed. Flap/slat change force. a) Trim for straight and level flight with flaps fully retracted at a constant airspeed within the flaps-extended airspeed range. Do not adjust trim or power. Extend the flaps to 50% of full flap travel. After stabilized, record stick force necessary to maintain original airspeed. 5- 15lbs (2.2- 6.6 daN) afforce (Push). 5 - 15 lbs (2.2 - 6.6 daN) of force (Pull). Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Table B2C Alternative Data Source for FTD Level 5 Small, Multi-Engine (Reciprocating) Airplane QPS REQUIREMENT sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS VerDate Mar<15>2010 The performance parameters in this table must be used to program the FTD if flight test data is not used to program the FTD. Applicable Test Jkt 232001 Entry Number Title and Procedure Authorized Performance Range PO 00000 OR Frm 00253 Fmt 4701 2.c.4. Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM b) Trim for straight and level flight with flaps extended to 50% of full flap travel, at a constant airspeed within the flapsextended airspeed range. Do not adjust trim or power. Retract the flaps to zero. After stabilized, record stick force necessary to maintain original airspeed. Gear change force. a) Trim for straight and level flight with landing gear retracted at a constant airspeed within the landing gear-extended airspeed range. Do not adjust trim or power. Extend the landing gear. After stabilized, record stick force necessary to maintain original airspeed. 5- 15 lbs (2.2- 6.6 daN) afforce (Push). 2- 12lbs (0.88- 5.3 daN) of force (Pull). OR 10JYP2 2.c.4. 2.c.7. 2.c.8. b) Trim for straight and level flight with landing gear extended, at a constant airspeed within the landing gear-extended airspeed range. Do not adjust trim or power. Retract the landing gear. After stabilized, record stick force necessary to maintain original airspeed. Longitudinal trim. Longitudinal static stability. Stall waming (actuation of stall waming device) with nominal gross weight; wings level; and a deceleration rate of not more than three (3) knots per second. a) Landing configuration. b) Clean configuration. Phugoid dynamics. 2- 12lbs (0.88- 5.3 daN) of force (Push). Must be able to trim longitudinal stick force to "zero" in each of the following configurations: cruise; approach; and landing. Must exhibit positive static stability. 60 - 90 knots; ± 5° ofbank. Landing configuration speed + 10 - 20%. Must have a phugoid with a period of 30 - 60 seconds. May not reach 39713 2.c.9.b. EP10JY14.200</GPH> I Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Table B2C Alternative Data Source for FTD Level 5 Small, Multi-Engine (Reciprocating) Airplane QPS REQUIREMENT sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 39714 VerDate Mar<15>2010 Jkt 232001 The performance parameters in this table must be used to program the FTD if flight test data is not used to program the FTD. PO 00000 Applicable Test Entry Number Authorized Performance Range Title and Procedure Frm 00254 Y2 or double amplitude in less than 2 cycles. Fmt 4701 2.d. 2.d.2. Sfmt 4725 2.d.4.b. E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 2.d.6.b. 2.d.7. 2.d.8. 10JYP2 6. 6.a. EP10JY14.201</GPH> I Lateral Directional Tests. Roll response. Roll rate must be measured through at least 30° of roll. Aileron control must be deflected 1/3 (33.3 percent) of maximum travel. Spiral stability. Cruise configuration and normal cruise airspeed. Establish a 20° - 30° bank. When stabilized, neutralize the aileron control and release. Must be completed in both directions of turn. Rudder response. Use 25 percent of maximum rudder deflection. (Applicable to approach or landing configuration.) Dutch roll, yaw damper off. (Applicable to cruise and approach configurations.) Steady state sideslip. Use 50 percent rudder deflection. (Applicable to approach and landing configurations.) FTD System Response Time. Flight deck instrument systems response to an abrupt pilot controller input. One test is required in each axis (pitch, roll, yaw). Must have a roll rate of 4° - 25° /second. Initial bank angle (± 5°) after 20 seconds. 3°- 6° /second yaw rate. A period of 2 - 5 seconds; and Y2 - 2 cycles. 2° - 10° of bank; 4 - 10 degrees of sideslip; and 2° -10° of aileron. 300 milliseconds or less. Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Table B2C Alternative Data Source for FTD Level 5 Small, Multi-Engine (Reciprocating) Airplane QPS REQUIREMENT sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS VerDate Mar<15>2010 The performance parameters in this table must be used to program the FTD if flight test data is not used to program the FTD. Jkt 232001 Applicable Test Entry Number PO 00000 1. Frm 00255 l.c l.c.l. Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 l.f. l.f.l. l.f.2. 2. 2.c. 2.c.1. E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 2.c.2. I Authorized Performance Range Title and Procedure Performance. Climb. Normal climb with nominal gross weight, at best rate-of-climb airspeed. Climb airspeed = 95 - 115 knots. Climb rate = 800 - 1800 fpm (4 - 9 m/sec) Engines. Acceleration; idle to takeoff power. Deceleration; takeoff power to idle. 4 - 8 Seconds. 3 - 7 Seconds. Handling Qualities. Longitudinal Tests. Power change force. a) Trim for straight and level flight at 80% ofnonnal cruise airspeed with necessary power. Reduce power to flight idle. Do not change trim or configuration. After stabilized, record column force necessary to maintain original airspeed. OR b) Trim for straight and level flight at 80% of normal cruise airspeed with necessary power. Add power to maximum setting. Do not change trim or configuration. After stabilized, record column force necessary to maintain original airspeed. Flap/slat change force. a) Trim for straight and level flight with flaps fully retracted at a constant airspeed within the flaps-extended airspeed range. Do not adjust trim or power. Extend the flaps to 50% of full flap travel. After stabilized, record stick force necessary to maintain original airspeed. OR 8 lbs (3 .5 daN) of Push force- 8 lbs (3 .5 daN) of Pull force. 12-22 lbs (5.3 9.7 daN) of force (Push). 5- 15 lbs (2.2- 6.6 daN) offorce (Pull). Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Table B2D Alternative Data Source for FTD Level 5 Small, Sin~le En~ine (Turbo-Propeller) Airplane QPS REQUIREMENT 39715 EP10JY14.202</GPH> sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Applicable Test Jkt 232001 Entry Number PO 00000 Frm 00256 2.c.4. Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 2.b.5. 10JYP2 2.c.7. 2.c.8. 2.d. 2.d.2. 2.d.4.b. I Title and Procedure b) Trim for straight and level flight with flaps extended to 50% of full flap travel, at a constant airspeed within the flaps-extended airspeed range. Do not adjust trim or power. Retract the flaps to zero. After stabilized, record stick force necessary to maintain original airspeed. Gear change force. a) Trim for straight and level flight with landing gear retracted at a constant airspeed within the landing gear-extended airspeed range. Do not adjust trim or power. Extend the landing gear. After stabilized, record stick force necessary to maintain original airspeed. OR b) Trim for straight and level flight with landing gear extended, at a constant airspeed within the landing gear-extended airspeed range. Do not adjust trim or power. Retract the landing gear. After stabilized, record stick force necessary to maintain original airspeed. Longitudinal trim. Longitudinal static stability. Stall warning (actuation of stall warning device) with nominal gross weight; wings level; and a deceleration rate of not more than three (3) knots per second. a) Landing configuration. b) Clean configuration. Phugoid dynamics. Authorized Performance Range 5- 15 lbs (2.2- 6.6 daN) of force (Push). 2- 12lbs (0.88- 5.3 daN) of force (Pull). 2- 12lbs (0.88- 5.3 daN) of force (Push). Must be able to trim longitudinal stick force to "zero" in each of the following configurations: cruise; approach; and landing. Must exhibit positive static stability. 60- 90 knots;± 5° of bank. Landing configuration speed + 10 - 20%. Must have a phugoid with a period of 30 - 60 seconds. May not reach \0 or double amplitude in less than 2 cycles. Lateral Directional Tests. Roll response. Roll rate must be measured through at least 30° of roll. Aileron control must be deflected 1/3 (33.3 percent) of maximum travel. Spiral stability. Must have a roll rate of 4°- 25° /second. Initial bank angle(± 5°) after 20 seconds. Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 The performance parameters in this table must be used to program the FTD if flight test data is not used to program the FTD. 2.c.8.b. EP10JY14.203</GPH> 39716 VerDate Mar<15>2010 Table B2D Alternative Data Source for FTD Level 5 Small, Single Engine (Turbo-Propeller) Airplane QPS REQUIREMENT sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS VerDate Mar<15>2010 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 The performance parameters in this table must be used to program the FTD if flight test data is not used to program the FTD. Frm 00257 Applicable Test Entry Number Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 2.d.6.b. E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 2.d.7. 2.d.8. 10JYP2 6. 6.a. I Authorized Performance Range Title and Procedure Cruise configuration and normal cruise airspeed. Establish a 20° 30° bank. When stabilized, neutralize the aileron control and release. Must be completed in both directions of turn. Rudder response. Use 25 percent of maximum rudder deflection. (Applicable to approach or landing configuration.) Dutch roll, yaw damper off. (Applicable to cruise and approach configurations.) Steady state sideslip. Use 50 percent rudder deflection. (Applicable to approach and landing configurations.) 3°- 6° /second yaw rate. A period of2- 5 seconds; and Yz- 3 cycles. 2°- 10° ofbank; 4°- 10° of sideslip; and 2° -1 oo of aileron. FTD System Response Time. Flight deck instrument systems response to an abrupt pilot controller input. One test is required in each axis (pitch, roll, yaw). 300 milliseconds or less. Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Table B2D Alternative Data Source for FTD Level 5 Small, Sin~le En~ine (Turbo-Propeller) Airplane QPS REQUIREMENT 39717 EP10JY14.204</GPH> sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS The performance parameters in this table must be used to program the FTD if flight test data is not used to program the FTD. Applicable Test Jkt 232001 Entry Number I Authorized Performance Range Title and Procedure PO 00000 1. I.e Performance. Climb. I.b. I. Normal climb with nominal gross weight, at best rate-of-climb airspeed. Frm 00258 Fmt 4701 l.f. l.f.l. l.f.2. 2. 2.c. 2.c.l. Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 2.c.2. Climb airspeed= 120 140 knots. Climb rate= 1000-3000 tpm (5- 15m/sec) Engines. Acceleration; idle to takeoff power. Deceleration; takeoff power to idle. 2 - 6 Seconds. 1 - 5 Seconds. Handling Qualities. Longitudinal Tests. Power change force. a) Trim for straight and level flight at 80% of normal cruise airspeed with necessary power. Reduce power to flight idle. Do not change trim or configuration. After stabilized, record column force necessary to maintain original airspeed. OR b) Trim for straight and level flight at 80% of normal cruise airspeed with necessary power. Add power to maximum setting. Do not change trim or configuration. After stabilized, record column force necessary to maintain original airspeed. Flap/slat change force. a) Trim for straight and level flight with flaps fully retracted at a constant airspeed within the flaps-extended airspeed range. Do not adjust trim or power. Extend the flaps to 50% of full flap travel. After stabilized, record stick force necessary to maintain original airspeed. OR b) Trim for straight and level flight with flaps extended to 50% of full flap travel, at a constant airspeed within the flaps-extended airspeed range. Do not adjust trim or power. Retract the flaps to zero. After stabilized, record stick force necessary to maintain original airspeed. 8 lbs (3.5 daN) of Push force to 8 lbs (3.5 daN) of Pull force. 12- 22 lbs (5.3- 9.7 daN) of force (Push). 5- 15 lbs (2.2- 6.6 daN) of force (Pull). 5- 15 lbs (2.2- 6.6 daN) afforce (Push). Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 EP10JY14.205</GPH> 39718 VerDate Mar<15>2010 Table B2E Alternative Data Source for FTD Level 5 Multi-En~ine (Turbo-Propeller) Airplane QPS REQUIREMENT sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS VerDate Mar<15>2010 The performance parameters in this table must be used to program the FTD if flight test data is not used to program the FTD. Applicable Test Jkt 232001 Entry Number 2.c.4. I PO 00000 Frm 00259 Gear change force. a) Trim for straight and level t1ight with landing gear retracted at a constant airspeed within the landing gear-extended airspeed range. Do not adjust trim or power. Extend the landing gear. After stabilized, record stick force necessary to maintain original airspeed. 2- 12lbs (0.88- 5.3 daN) of force (Pull). OR Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 2.b.S. E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 2.c.7. 2.c.8. 10JYP2 2.c.8.b. b) Trim for straight and level flight with landing gear extended, at a constant airspeed within the landing gear-extended airspeed range. Do not adjust trim or power. Retract the landing gear. After stabilized, record stick force necessary to maintain original airspeed. Longitudinal trim. Longitudinal static stability. Stall warning (actuation of stall warning device) with nominal gross weight; wings level; and a deceleration rate of not more than three (3) knots per second. a) Landing configuration. b) Clean configuration. Phugoid dynamics. Lateral Directional Tests. Roll response. Roll rate must be measured through at least 30° of roll. Aileron control must be deflected 113 (33.3 percent) of maximum travel. Spiral stability. Cruise configuration and normal cruise airspeed. Establish a 20° 30° bank. When stabilized, neutralize the aileron control and release. Must be completed in both directions of turn. Rudder response. 2.d.6.b. 2- 12 lbs (0.88- 5.3 daN) of force (Push). Must be able to trim longitudinal stick force to "zero" in each of the following configurations: cruise; approach; and landing. Must exhibit positive static stability. 80- 100 knots;± 5° of bank. Landing configuration speed + 10 - 20%. Must have a phugoid with a period of 30 - 60 seconds. May not reach 'iS or double amplitude in less than 2 cycles. Must have a roll rate of 4-25 degrees/second. Initial bank angle(± 5°) after 20 seconds. 3°- 6° /second yaw rate. 39719 2.d. 2.d.2. 2.d.4.b. EP10JY14.206</GPH> Authorized Performance Range Title and Procedure Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Table B2E Alternative Data Source for FTD Level 5 Multi-Engine (Turbo-Propeller) Airplane QPS REQUIREMENT sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 39720 VerDate Mar<15>2010 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00260 The performance parameters in this table must be used to program the FTD if flight test data is not used to program the FTD. Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 EP10JY14.207</GPH> Applicable Test Entry Number 2.d.7. 2.d.8. 6. 6.a. I Authorized Performance Range Title and Procedure Use 25 percent of maximum rudder deflection. (Applicable to approach or landing configuration.) Dutch roll, yaw damper off. (Applicable to cruise and approach configurations.) Steady state sideslip. Use 50 percent rudder deflection. (Applicable to approach and landing configurations.) A period of 2 - 5 seconds; and 1 - 2 cycles. /z 2°- 10° ofbank; 4° - 10° of sideslip; and 2° -1 oo of aileron. FTD System Response Time. Flight deck instrument systems response to an abrupt pilot controller input. One test is required in each axis (pitch, roll, yaw). 300 milliseconds or less. Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Table B2E Alternative Data Source for FTD Level 5 Multi-En~ine (Turbo-Propeller) Airplane QPS REQUIREMENT Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules End QPS Requirements lllllllllllllllllllll Begin QPS Requirements 5. Alternative Data Sources, Procedures, and Instrumentation: Level 6 FTD Only a. Sponsors are not required to use the alternative data sources, procedures, and instrumentation. However, a sponsor may choose to use one or more of the alternative sources, procedures, and instrumentation described in Table B2F. End QPS Requirements lllllllllllllllllllll Begin Information b. It has become standard practice for experienced FTD manufacturers to use such techniques as a means of establishing data bases for new FTD configurations while awaiting the availability of actual flight test data; and then comparing this new data with the newly available flight test data. The results of such comparisons have, as reported by some recognized and experienced simulation experts, become increasingly consistent and indicate that these techniques, applied with appropriate experience, are becoming dependably accurate for the development of aerodynamic models for use in Level 6 FTDs. c. In reviewing this history, the NSPM has concluded that, with proper care, those who are experienced in the development of aerodynamic models for FTD application can successfully use these modeling techniques to acceptably alter the method by which flight test data may be acquired and, when applied to Level 6 FTDs, does not compromise the quality of that simulation. d. The information in the table that follows (Table of Alternative Data Sources, Procedures, and Information: Level 6 FTD Only) is presented to describe an acceptable alternative to data sources for Level 6 FTD modeling and validation, and an acceptable alternative to the procedures and instrumentation found in the flight test methods traditionally accepted for gathering modeling and validation data. (1) Alternative data sources that may be used for part or all of a data requirement are the Airplane Maintenance Manual, the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM), Airplane Design Data, the Type Inspection Report (TIR), Certification Data or acceptable supplemental flight test data. (2) The NSPM recommends that use of the alternative instrumentation noted in Table B2F be coordinated with the NSPM prior to employment in a flight test or data gathering effort. e. The NSPM position regarding the use of these alternative data sources, procedures, and instrumentation is based on three primary preconditions and presumptions regarding the objective data and FTD aerodynamic program modeling. (1) Data gathered through the alternative means does not require angle of attack (AOA) 39721 measurements or control surface position measurements for any flight test. AOA can be sufficiently derived if the flight test program insures the collection of acceptable level, unaccelerated, trimmed flight data. Angle of attack may be validated by conducting the three basic ‘‘fly-by’’ trim tests. The FTD time history tests should begin in level, unaccelerated, and trimmed flight, and the results should be compared with the flight test pitch angle. (2) A simulation controls system model should be rigorously defined and fully mature. It should also include accurate gearing and cable stretch characteristics (where applicable) that are determined from actual aircraft measurements. Such a model does not require control surface position measurements in the flight test objective data for Level 6 FTD applications. f. Table B2F is not applicable to Computer Controlled Aircraft FTDs. g. Utilization of these alternate data sources, procedures, and instrumentation does not relieve the sponsor from compliance with the balance of the information contained in this document relative to Level 6 FTDs. h. The term ‘‘inertial measurement system’’ allows the use of a functional global positioning system (GPS). End Information lllllllllllllllllllll TABLE B2F Alternative Data Sources, Procedures, and Intrumentation Level 6 FTD QPS Requirements The standards in this table are required if the data gathering methods described in paragraph 9 of Appendix B are not used. Objective test reference No. and title Alternative data sources, procedures, and instrumentation 1.b.1. Performance. Takeoff. Ground acceleration time. Data may be acquired through a synchronized video recording of a stop watch and the calibrated airplane airspeed indicator. Hand-record the flight conditions and airplane configuration. Data may be acquired through a synchronized video recording of a stop watch and the calibrated airplane airspeed indicator. Hand-record the flight conditions and airplane configuration. Data may be acquired with a synchronized video of calibrated airplane instruments and engine power throughout the climb range. Data may be acquired with a synchronized video recording of engine instruments and throttle position. Data may be acquired with a synchronized video recording of engine instruments and throttle position. Surface position data may be acquired from flight data recorder (FDR) sensor or, if no FDR sensor, at selected, significant column positions (encompassing significant column position data points), acceptable to the NSPM, using a control surface protractor on the ground. Force data may be acquired by using a hand held force gauge at the same column position data points. 1.b.7. Performance. Takeoff. Rejected takeoff .. 1.c.1. Performance. Climb. Normal climb all engines operating. 1.f.1. Performance. Engines. Acceleration ......... 1.f.2. Performance. Engines. Deceleration ........ sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Information 2.a.1.a. Handling qualities. Static control tests. Pitch controller position vs. force and surface position calibration. VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00261 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 Notes This test is required only if RTO is sought. This test is required only if RTO is sought. For airplanes with reversible control systems, surface position data acquisition should be accomplished with winds less than 5 kts. E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 39722 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules TABLE B2F—Continued Alternative Data Sources, Procedures, and Intrumentation Level 6 FTD QPS Requirements The standards in this table are required if the data gathering methods described in paragraph 9 of Appendix B are not used. Objective test reference No. and title Alternative data sources, procedures, and instrumentation 2.a.2.a. Handling qualities. Static control tests. Wheel position vs. force and surface position calibration. Surface position data may be acquired from flight data recorder (FDR) sensor or, if no FDR sensor, at selected, significant wheel positions (encompassing significant wheel position data points), acceptable to the NSPM, using a control surface protractor on the ground. Force data may be acquired by using a hand held force gauge at the same wheel position data points. Surface position data may be acquired from flight data recorder (FDR) sensor or, if no FDR sensor, at selected, significant rudder pedal positions (encompassing significant rudder pedal position data points), acceptable to the NSPM, using a control surface protractor on the ground. Force data may be acquired by using a hand held force gauge at the same rudder pedal position data points. Breakout data may be acquired with a hand held force gauge. The remainder of the force to the stops may be calculated if the force gauge and a protractor are used to measure force after breakout for at least 25% of the total displacement capability. Data may be acquired through the use of force pads on the rudder pedals and a pedal position measurement device, together with design data for nosewheel position. Data may be acquired through calculations. 2.a.3.a. Handling qualities. Static control tests. Rudder pedal position vs. force and surface position calibration. 2.a.4. Handling qualities. Static control tests. Nosewheel steering force. 2.a.5. Handling qualities. Static control tests. Rudder pedal steering calibration. 2.a.6. Handling qualities. Static control tests. Pitch trim indicator vs. surface position calibration. 2.a.8. Handling qualities. Static control tests. Alignment of power lever angle vs. selected engine parameter (e.g., EPR, N1, Torque, Manifold pressure). 2.a.9. Handling qualities. Static control tests. Brake pedal position vs. force. 2.c.1. Handling qualities. Longitudinal control tests. Power change force. 2.c.2. Handling qualities. Longitudinal control tests. Flap/slat change force. 2.c.4. Handling qualities. Longitudinal control tests. Gear change force. sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Information 2.c.5. Handling qualities. Longitudinal control tests. Longitudinal trim. VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 Data may be acquired through the use of a temporary throttle quadrant scale to document throttle position. Use a synchronized video to record steady state instrument readings or hand-record steady state engine performance readings. Use of design or predicted data is acceptable. Data may be acquired by measuring deflection at ‘‘zero’’ and at ‘‘maximum’’. Data may be acquired by using an inertial measurement system and a synchronized video of the calibrated airplane instruments, throttle position, and the force/position measurements of flight deck controls. Data may be acquired by using an inertial measurement system and a synchronized video of calibrated airplane instruments, flap/slat position, and the force/position measurements of flight deck controls. Data may be acquired by using an inertial measurement system and a synchronized video of the calibrated airplane instruments, gear position, and the force/position measurements of flight deck controls. Data may be acquired through use of an inertial measurement system and a synchronized video of flight deck controls position (previously calibrated to show related surface position) and engine instrument readings. PO 00000 Frm 00262 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 Notes For airplanes with reversible control systems, surface position data acquisition should be accomplished with winds less than 5 kts. For airplanes with reversible control systems, surface position data acquisition should be accomplished with winds less than 5 kts. Power change dynamics test is acceptable using the same data acquisition methodology. Flap/slat change dynamics test is acceptable using the same data acquisition methodology. Gear change dynamics test is acceptable using the same data acquisition methodology. E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 39723 TABLE B2F—Continued Alternative Data Sources, Procedures, and Intrumentation Level 6 FTD QPS Requirements The standards in this table are required if the data gathering methods described in paragraph 9 of Appendix B are not used. Objective test reference No. and title Alternative data sources, procedures, and instrumentation 2.c.6. Handling qualities. Longitudinal control tests. Longitudinal maneuvering stability (stick force/g). Data may be acquired through the use of an inertial measurement system and a synchronized video of the calibrated airplane instruments; a temporary, high resolution bank angle scale affixed to the attitude indicator; and a wheel and column force measurement indication. Data may be acquired through the use of a synchronized video of the airplane flight instruments and a hand held force gauge. Data may be acquired through a synchronized video recording of a stop watch and the calibrated airplane airspeed indicator. Hand-record the flight conditions and airplane configuration. Data may be acquired by using an inertial measurement system and a synchronized video of the calibrated airplane instruments and the force/position measurements of flight deck controls. Data may be acquired by using an inertial measurement system and a synchronized video of the calibrated airplane instruments and the force/position measurements of flight deck controls. May use design data, production flight test schedule, or maintenance specification, together with an SOC. Data may be acquired by using an inertial measurement system and a synchronized video of the calibrated airplane instruments and the force/position measurements of flight deck lateral controls. Data may be acquired by using an inertial measurement system and a synchronized video of the calibrated airplane instruments and the force/position measurements of flight deck lateral controls. Data may be acquired by using an inertial measurement system and a synchronized video of the calibrated airplane instruments; the force/position measurements of flight deck controls; and a stop watch. Data may be acquired by using an inertial measurement system and a synchronized video of the calibrated airplane instruments; the force/position measurements of rudder pedals. Data may be acquired by using an inertial measurement system and a synchronized video of the calibrated airplane instruments and the force/position measurements of flight deck controls. Data may be acquired by using an inertial measurement system and a synchronized video of the calibrated airplane instruments and the force/position measurements of flight deck controls. 2.c.7. Handling qualities. Longitudinal control tests. Longitudinal static stability. 2.c.8. Handling qualities. Longitudinal control tests. Stall Warning (activation of stall warning device). 2.c.9.a. Handling qualities. Longitudinal control tests. Phugoid dynamics. 2.c.10. Handling qualities. Longitudinal control tests. Short period dynamics. 2.c.11. Handling qualities. Longitudinal control tests. Gear and flap/slat operating times. 2.d.2. Handling qualities. Lateral directional tests. Roll response (rate). 2.d.3. Handling qualities. Lateral directional tests. (a) Roll overshoot. OR (b) Roll response to flight deck roll controller step input. 2.d.4. Handling qualities. Lateral directional tests. Spiral stability. 2.d.6.a. Handling qualities. Lateral directional tests. Rudder response. 2.d.7. Handling qualities. Lateral directional tests. Dutch roll, (yaw damper OFF). 2.d.8. Handling qualities. Lateral directional tests. Steady state sideslip. sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Information VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00263 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 Notes Airspeeds may be cross checked with those in the TIR and AFM. E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 39724 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules Attachment 3 to Appendix B to Part 60— Flight Training Device (FTD) Subjective Evaluation lllllllllllllllllllll Begin Information 1. Discussion sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS a. The subjective tests provide a basis for evaluating the capability of the FTD to perform over a typical utilization period. The items listed in the Table of Functions and Subjective Tests are used to determine whether the FTD competently simulates each required maneuver, procedure, or task; and verifying correct operation of the FTD controls, instruments, and systems. The tasks VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 do not limit or exceed the authorizations for use of a given level of FTD as described on the SOQ or as approved by the TPAA. All items in the following paragraphs are subject to examination. b. All simulated airplane systems functions will be assessed for normal and, where appropriate, alternate operations. Simulated airplane systems are listed separately under ‘‘Any Flight Phase’’ to ensure appropriate attention to systems checks. Operational navigation systems (including inertial navigation systems, global positioning systems, or other long-range systems) and the associated electronic display systems will be evaluated if installed. The NSP pilot will include in his report to the TPAA, the effect PO 00000 Frm 00264 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 of the system operation and any system limitation. c. At the request of the TPAA, the NSP Pilot may assess the FTD for a special aspect of a sponsor’s training program during the functions and subjective portion of an evaluation. Such an assessment may include a portion of a specific operation (e.g., a Line Oriented Flight Training (LOFT) scenario) or special emphasis items in the sponsor’s training program. Unless directly related to a requirement for the qualification level, the results of such an evaluation would not affect the qualification of the FTD. End Information lllllllllllllllllllll E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 39725 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules Table B3A Functions And Subjective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS ;.... c~ e ~ ~ 'Z = l.a. l.a.l l.a.2 l.a.3 2. 2.a. 2.a.l. 2.a.2. 2.a.3. 2.b. 2.b.l 2.b.2. 2.b.3. 2.b.4. 2.b.5. 2.b.6. 2.b.7. 2.c. 2.c.l. 2.c.2. 2.d sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 3. 3.a. 3.a.l. 3.a.2. 3.a.3. 3.a.4. 3.a.4.a 3.a.4.b 3.a.4.c 3.a.4.d 3.a.4.e 3.a.5. 3.a.6. VerDate Mar<15>2010 4 I s I 6 I 7 Tasks in this table are subject to evaluation if appropriate for the airplane simulated as indicated in the SOQ Configuration List or the level of simulator qualification involved. Items not installed or not fimctional on the simulator and, therefore, not appearing on the SOQ Configuration List, are not required to be listed as exceptions on the SOQ. Preparation For Flight Pre-flight. Accomplish a functions check of all switches, indicators, systems, and equipment (where installed for Level 5 FTD) at all crew members' and instructors' stations and determine that: The flight deck design and functions are identical to that of the airplane X X simulated. X The flight deck (or flight deck area) design and functions replicate the appropriate airplane. Reserved Surface Operations (pre-flight). Engine Start. (if installed for Level 5 FTD) Normal start. X X X Alternate start procedures. X X X Abnormal starts and shutdowns (e.g., hot/hung start, tail pipe X X X fire). Taxi. Pushbacklpowerback (powerback requires visual system) X X Thrust response. X Power lever friction. X Ground handling. X Nosewheel scuffing. Taxi aids (e.g. taxi camera, moving map) X Low visibility (taxi route, signage, lighting, markings, etc.) X Brake Operation Brake operation (normal and alternate/emergency). X Brake fade (if applicable). X Other X Take-off. Normal. Airplane/engine parameter relationships, including run-up. X X I I Nosewheel and rudder steering. X X Crosswind (maximum demonstrated and gusting crosswind). X Special performance Reduced V1 X Maximum engine de-rate. X Soft surface. X Short field/short take-off and landing (STOL) operations. X Obstacle (performance over visual obstacle). X Low visibility take-off. X Landing gear, wing flap leading edge device operation. X X 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00265 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 EP10JY14.208</GPH> 1. FTD Level Operations Tasks 39726 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules Table B3A Functions And Subjective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS ;.... ~~ ;...J:l =z= e ~ 3.a.7. 3.b. 3.b.l. 3.b.2. 3.b.3. 3.b.4. FTD Level Operations Tasks 4 I s I 6 I Contaminated runway operation. Abnormal/emergency. I Rejected Take-off. X Rejected special performance (e.g., reduced V 1, max de-rate, short field operations). I Rejected take-off with contaminated runway. I Takeoff with a propulsion system malfunction (allowing an analysis of causes, symptoms, recognition, and the effects on aircraft performance and handling) at the following points: (i) Prior to V 1 decision speed. (ii) Between Vl and Vr (rotation speed). (iii) Between Vr and 500 feet above ground level. I Flight control system failures, reconfiguration modes, manual reversion and associated handling. I Climb. Normal. X X One or more engines inoperative. i Approach climb in icing (for airplanes with icing accountability). Cruise. Performance characteristics (speed vs. power, confi~uration, and attitude) Straight and level flight. X X Change of airspeed. X X High altitude handling. X High Mach number handling (Mach tuck, Mach buffet) and X recovery (trim change). Overspeed warning (in excess ofVmoor Mm 0 ). X High IAS handling. X Maneuvers. High angle of attack, approach to stalls, and stall warning (takeX off, cruise, approach, and landing configuration) including reaction of the autoflight system and stall protection system. Slow night I X Reserved Flight envelope protection (high angle of attack, bank limit, I overspeed, etc.). Turns with/without speedbrake/spoilers deployed. Normal and standard rate turns. X X Steep turns X Performance tum In flight engine shutdown and restart (assisted and windmill). IX Maneuvering with one or more engines inoperative, as appropriate. Specific flight characteristics (e.g., direct lift control). I X I 1 X X X X X I 4. 4.a. 4.b. 4.c. 5. 5.a. 5.a.l. 5.a.2. 5.a.3. 5.a.4. 5.a.5. 5.a.6. 5.b. 5.b.1. sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 5.b.2. 5.b.3. 5.b.4. 5.b.5. 5.b.6. 5.b.7. 5.b.8. 5.b.9. 5.b.10. 5.b.11. VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00266 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X EP10JY14.209</GPH> 3.b.5. 39727 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules Table B3A Functions And Subjective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS ... >,QJ -..o .... e FTD Level Operations Tasks == ~z 4 I s I 6 I 7 Flight control system failures, reconfiguration modes, manual X X reversion and associated handling. 5.b.l3 Gliding to a forced landing. X Visual resolution and FSTD handling and performance for the following: 5.b.14 5.b.l4.a Terrain accuracy for forced landing area selection. X Terrain accuracy for VFR Navigation. 5.b.14.b X Eights on pylons (visual resolution). 5.b.14.c X Turns about a point. 5.b.14.d X S-tums about a road or section line. 5.b.l4.e X Reserved S.b.lS Descent. 6. 6.a. Nonnal. X X X Maximum rate/emergency (clean and with spccdbrakc, etc.). 6.b. X X With autopilot. 6.c. X X Flight control system failures, reconfiguration modes, manual X X 6.d. reversion and associated handling. 7. Instrument Approaches And Landing. Those instrument approach and landing tests relevant to the simulated airplane type are selected from the following list. Some tests are made with limiting wind velocities, under windshear conditions, and with relevant system failures, including the failure of the Flight Director. If Standard Operating Procedures allow use autopilot for non-precision approaches, evaluation of the autopilot will be included. Level 5 and Level 6 FTDs arc not authorized to credit the landing maneuver. For Level 5 FTD, approaches are evaluated as applicable for the svstcms installed. Precision approach (Approach only for Level 5 and Level 6 FTDs) 7.a. 7.a.l CAT l published approaches. 7.a.l.a Manual approach with/without flight director including X X X landing. Autopilot/autothrottle coupled approach and manual landing. 7.a.l.b X X X Autopilotlautothrottle coupled approach, engine(s) 7.a.l.c X inoperative. 7.a.l.d Manual approach, engine(s) inoperative. X · · -1--- --· HUD/EFVS. 7.a.l.e X 7.a.2 CAT II published approaches. 7.a.2.a Autopilotlautothrottle coupled approach to DH and landing X X X (manual and autoland). Autopilot/autothrottle coupled approach with one-engine7.a.2.b X inoperative approach to DH and go-around (manual and autopilot). 7.a.2.c HUD/EFVS. X CAT III published approaches. 7.a.3 Autopilot/autothrottle coupled approach to landing and roll7.a.3.a X out (if applicable) guidance (manual and auto land). VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00267 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 EP10JY14.210</GPH> sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 5.b.l2. 39728 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules Table B3A Functions And Sub.icctive Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS ... >,QJ e ~ ~ = z 7.a.3.b 7.a.3.c 7.a.3.d 7.a.3.e 7.a.4 7.a.4.a 7.a.4.b 7.a.4.c 7.a.5 7.a.6 7.b. 7.b.l 7.b.2 7.b.3 7.b.4 7.b.5 7.b.6 7.c sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 7.c.l 7.c.2 8. VerDate Mar<15>2010 FTD Level Operations Tasks 4 I s I 6 XI Autopilot/autothrottle coupled approach to DH and goX around (manual and autopilot). I I Autopilot/autothrottle coupled approach to land and roll-out I (if applicable) guidance with one engine inoperative (manual and autoland). I Autopilot/autothrottle coupled approach to DH and goaround with one engine inoperative (manual and autopilot). I HUD/EPVS. i I Autopilot/autothrottle coupled approach (to a landing or to a goi I around): I With generator failure. XI With maximum tail wind component certified or authorized. XI XI With maximum crosswind component demonstrated or I authorized. I PAR approach, all engine(s) operating and with one or more X XI I engine(s) inoperative. (engine inoperative required only for Level I i I 7FTD) xl MLS, GBAS, all engine(s) operating and with one or more X engine(s) inoperative. (engine inoperative required only for Level I I 7 FTD) I Non-precision approach (Engine inoperative required only for Level 7 FTD) Surveillance radar approach, all engine(s) operating and with one X X or more engine( s) inoperative. NDB approach, all engine(s) operating and with one or more X X engine( s) inoperative. VOR, VOR/DME, TACAN approach, all engines(s) operating X X and with one or more engine(s) inoperative. X RNAVI RNP I GNSS (RNP at nominal and minimum authorized X temperatures) approach, all engine(s) operating and with one or more engine(s) inoperative. ILS LLZ (LOC), LLZ back course (or LOC-BC) approach, all X X engine(s) operating and with one or more engine(s) inoperative. lLS offset localizer approach, all engine(s) operating and with X X one or more engine( s) inoperative. Approach procedures with vertical guidance (APV), e.g. SBAS, flight path vector (Engine inoperative required only for Level 7 FTD) APV/baro-VNAV approach, all engine(s) operating and with one X X or more engine(s) inoperative. Area navigation (RNAV) approach procedures based on SBAS, X X all engine( s) operating and with one or more engine( s) inoperative. Visual Approaches (Visual Segment) And Landings. 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00268 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 I 7 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X EP10JY14.211</GPH> -...c 39729 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules Table B3A Functions And Subjective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS ~~ FTD Level Operations Tasks =z = ~ ~-~~-~-" --~-------------------------~-----·----·--------- "~~~----------~~~--~-~~~~-~- Maneuvering, normal approach and landing, all engines operating with and without visual approach aid guidance. S.b. Approach and landing with one or more engines inoperative. Operation of landing gear, flap/slats and speedbrakes (normal and S.c. abnormal). Approach and landing with crosswind (max. demonstrated and S.d. gusting crosswind). Approach and landing with flight control system failures, S.e. reconfiguration modes, manual reversion and associated handling (most significant degradation which is probable). Approach and landing with trim malfunctions. S.e.l. Longitudinal trim malfunction. S.e.l.a Lateral-directional trim malfunction. S.e.l.b 1-S.f. Approach and landing with standby (minimum) electrical/hydraulic power. Approach and landing from circling conditions (circling S.g. approach). S.h. Approach and landing from visual traffic pattern. Approach and landing from non-precision approach. S.i. S.j. Approach and landing from precision approach. Missed Approach. 9. All engines, manual and autopilot. 9.a. Engine(s) inoperative, manual and autopilot. 9.b. Rejected landing 9.c. With flight control system failures, reconfiguration modes, 9.d. manual reversion and associated handling. Bounced landing 9.e. 10. Surface Operations (landinf,!, after-landin2 and post-flif,!ht). lO.a Landing roll and taxi. HUD/EFVS. lO.a.l Spoiler operation. 10.a.2. Reverse thrust operation. 10.a.3. 10.a.4. Directional control and ground handling, both with and without reverse thrust. Reduction of rudder effectiveness with increased reverse thrust lO.a.S. (rear pod-mounted engines). 10.a.6. Brake and anti-skid operation 10.a.6.a Brake and anti-skid operation with dry, patchy wet, wet on rubber residue, and patchy icy conditions. 10.a.6.b Brake and anti-skid operation with dry and wet conditions. lO.a.6.c Brake and anti-skid operation with dry conditions. 10.a.6.d Auto-braking svstem operation. lO.b Engine shutdown and parking. --- 4 I s I ~J X S.a. sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS -~--- VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00269 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 7 X X X X " " X X X X ~-~----- 10JYP2 X X X X I X X X X X X X X X X X X X EP10JY14.212</GPH> • "" ..... .c e 39730 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules Table B3A Functions And Subjective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS ;.... ~~ FTD Level ;.....Q =z= e Operations Tasks ~ 4 I s I 6 I I 7 I Engine and systems operation. X I X Parking brake operation. X I X 11. Any Flight Phase. Airplane and engine systems operation (where fitted). For Level 5 FTD, airplane and ll.a. engine svstem operation is evaluated as applicable for the systems installed. ll.a.l. Air conditioning and pressurization (ECS). X i X X De-icing/anti-icing. ll.a.2. X X X Auxiliary power unit (APU). ll.a.3. X X X ll.a.4. Communications. X X X Electrical. X ll.a.5. X I X ll.a.6. Fire and smoke detection and suppression. X I X X Flight controls (primary and secondary). ll.a.7. X XI X Fuel and oil ll.a.8. X XI X xl X Hydraulic X ll.a.9. ll.a.IO. Pneumatic X I X X Landing gear. ll.a.ll. X I X X I Oxygen. X I X ll.a.l2. X Engine. X I X 11.a.l3. X Airborne radar. X ll.a.l4. I X Autopilot and Flight Director. ll.a.l5. X X Terrain awareness warning systems and collision avoidance ll.a.l6. X X X __ systems (e.g. EGPWS, GPWS, TCAS). -----Flight control computers including stability and control X ll.a.l7. X X augmentation. ll.a.l8. Flight display systems. X I X X Flight management computers. X ll.a.19. X X Head-up displays (including EFVS, if appropriate). X ll.a.20. ll.a.21. Navigation svstems X X ll.a.22. Stall warning/avoidance X X ll.a.23. Wind shear avoidance/recovery guidance equipment X I Flight envelope protections X X ll.a.24. X Electronic flight bag X I X ll.a.25. X ll.a.26. Automatic checklists (normal, abnormal and emergency X I X X procedures). I Runway alerting and advisory system. 11.a.27. X I Airborne procedures ll.b. Holding. 11.b.1. X I X X 11.b.2. Air hazard avoidance (traffic, weather, including visual I I correlation). Windshear (where qualified) ll.b.3. X Prior to take-off rotation. 11.b.3.a X I ll.b.3.b At lift-off X I During initial climb. ll.b.3.c X lO.b.l 10.b.2 I I t=i VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00270 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 EP10JY14.213</GPH> sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS I 39731 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules Table B3A Functions And Sub·ective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS FTD Level Operations Tasks 4 11.b.3.d 11.b.4. 12. On final approach, below 150m (500ft) AGL. Effects of airframe ice. Level 4 FTDs are required to have at least one operational system. The NSPM will accomplish a functions check of all installed systems, switches, indicators, and equipment at all crewmembers' and instructors' stations, and determine that the flight deck (or flight deck area) design and functions replicate the appropriate airplane. X X X X VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00271 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 EP10JY14.214</GPH> sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS End QPS Requirements 39732 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules Table B3B Functions And Subjective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS ;... ;...Q For Qualification at Level 7 FTD ~z Class I Airport Models ,~ - e == This table specifies the minimum airport model content and functionality to qualify a simulator at the indicated level. This table applies only to the airport models required for FTD qualification. Be~in QPS Requirements l. Reserved 2.a.l 2.a.l.a 2.a.l.b 2.a.l.c 2.a.l.d sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 2.a.2 2.a.2.a 2.a.2.b 2.a.2.c 2.a.3 2.a.3.a 2.a.3.b 2.a.3.c 2.a.4 2.a.5 2.a.6 VerDate Mar<15>2010 Functional test content requirements Airport scenes A minimum of three (3) real-world airport models to be consistent with published data used for airplane operations and capable of demonstrating all the visual system features below. Not all of the clements described in this section must be found in a single airport model. Each model should be in a different visual scene to permit assessment ofFSTD automatic visual scene changes. The model identifications must be acceptable to the sponsor's TPAA, selectable from the lOS, and listed on the SOQ. Reserved Reserved Airport model content. For circling approaches, all tests apply to the runway used for the initial approach and to the runway of intended landing. If all runways in an airport model used to meet the requirements of this attachment are not designated as ''in use," then the "in use" runways must be listed on the SOQ (e.g., KORD, Rwys 9R, 14L, 22R). Models of airports with more than one runway must have all significant runways not "in-usc" visually depicted for airport and runway recognition purposes. The use of white or offwhite light strings that identify the runway threshold, edges, and ends for twilight and night scenes are acceptable for this requirement. Rectangular surface depictions are acceptable for daylight scenes. A visual system's capabilities must be balanced between providing airport models with an accurate representation of the airport and a realistic representation of the suiTounding environment. Airport model detail must be developed using airport pictures, construction drawings and maps, or other similar data, or developed in accordance with published regulatory material; however, this does not require that such models contain details that are beyond the design capability of the ctmently qualified visual system. Only one "primary" taxi route from parking to the runway end will be required for each "in-use" runway. Visual scene fidelity. The visual scene should coiTectly represent the parts of the airport and its suiToundings used in the training program. Reserved Reserved Runways and taxiways. Reserved Representative runways and taxiways. Reserved Reserved Runway threshold elevations and locations should be modeled to provide correlation with airplane systems (e.g. HUD, GPS, compass, altimeter). Reserved 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00272 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 EP10JY14.215</GPH> ~.a. Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules Table B3B Functions And Subjective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS . For Qualification at Level 7 FTD ~~ :...Q =z 5 = ~ 2.a.7.a 2.a.7.b 2.a.7.c 2.a.7.d 2.a.7.e 2.a.7.f 2.a.7.g 2.a.7.h 2.a.7.i 2.a.8 2.a.8.a 2.a.8.b 2.a.8.c 2.a.8.d 2.a.8.e 2.a.8.f 2.a.8.g 2.a.8.h 2.a.9 2.a.9.a 2.a.9.b 2.a.9.c 2.a.9.d 2.a.9.e 2.a.10 2.a.lO.a 2.a.lO.b 2.a.lO.c 2.a.ll sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 2.a.ll.a 2.a.ll.b 2.a.l2 2.a.l2.a 2.a.12.a. 2.a.l2.a. 2.a.l2.a. 2.a.l2.b VerDate Mar<15>2010 Class I Airport Models Runway surface and markings for each "in-use" runway should include the following, if appropriate: Threshold markings. Runway numbers. Touchdown zone markings. Fixed distance markings. Edge markings. Center line markings. Reserved Reserved Windsock that gives appropriate wind cues. Runway lighting of appropriate colors, directionality, behavior and spacing for the "in-use" runway including the following: Threshold lights. Edge lights. End lights. Center line lights. Touchdown zone lights. Lead-off lights. Appropriate visual landing aid(s) for that runway. Appropriate approach lighting svstem for that runway. Taxiway surface and markings (associated with each "in-use" runway): Edge markings Center line markings. Runway holding position markings. ILS critical area markings. Reserved Taxiway lighting of appropriate colors, directionality, behavior and spacing (associated with each "in-use" runway): Edge lights. Center line lights. Runway holding position and ILS critical area lights. Required visual model correlation with other aspects of the airport environment simulation. The airport model should be properly aligned with the navigational aids that are associated with operations at the runway "in-use". Reserved Airport buildings, structures and lighting. Buildings, structures and lighting: Reserved Representative airport buildings, struchtres and lighting. Reserved Reserved 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00273 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 EP10JY14.216</GPH> 2.a.7 39733 39734 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules Table B3B Functions And Subjective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS ;... For Qualification at Level 7 FTD ~ ,. . . e ;....Q == ~z 2.a.12.c 2.a.12.d 2.a.13 2.a.13.a 2.a.13.b 2.a.14 2.a.14.a 2.a.14.b 2.a.14.c 2.b 2.b.l 2.b.2 2.b.3 2.c 2.c.l sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 2.c.2 2.c.2.a 2.c.2.b 2.c.3 2.c.4 2.c.5 2.c.6 2.d 2.d.l 2.d.2 2.d.3 2.d.4 VerDate Mar<15>2010 Class I Airport Models Representative moving and static gate clutter (e.g. other airplanes, power carts, tugs, fuel trucks, additional gates). Reserved Terrain and obstacles. Reserved Representative depiction of terrain ami obstacles within 46 km (25 NM) of the reference airport. Significant, identifiable natural and cultural features. Reserved Representative depiction of significant and identifiable natural and cultural features within 46 km (25 NM) of the reference airport. Note.- This refers to natural and culturalfeatures that are typically usedfor pilot orientation in flight. Outlying airports not intendedfor landing need only provide a reasonable facsimile of runway orientation. Representative moving airborne traffic (including the capability to present air hazards e.g. airborne traffic on a possible collision course). Visual scene management. Reserved Airport runway, approach and taxiway lighting and cultural lighting intensity for any approach should be set at an intensity representative of that used in training for the visibility set; all visual scene light points should fade into view appropriately. Reserved Visual feature recognition. Note.- The following are the minimum distances at which runway features should be visible. Distances are measuredjrom runway threshold to an airplane aligned with the runway on an extended 3-degree glide slope in suitable simulated meteorological conditions. For circling approaches, all tests below apply both to the runway usedfor the initial approach and to the runway of intended landing Runway definition, strobe lights, approach lights, and runway edge white lights from 8 km (5 sm) of the runway threshold. Visual approach aids lights. Reserved Visual approach aids lights from 4.8 km (3 sm) of the runwav threshold. Runway center line lights and taxiway definition from 4.8 km (3 sm). Threshold lights and touchdown zone lights from 3.2 km (2 sm). Reserved For circling approaches, the runway of intended landing and associated lighting should fade into view in a non-distracting manner. Selectable airport visual scene capability for: Night. Twilight. Day. Dynamic effects -the capability to present multiple ground and air hazards such as another airplane crossing the active runway or converging airborne traffic; hazards should be selectable via controls at the instructor station. 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00274 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 EP10JY14.217</GPH> .... Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules Table B3B Functions And Subjective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS . ;,<V For Qualification at Level 7 FTD =zE Class I Airport Models ;...Q ~ :::1 2.d.5 2.e 2.e.l 2.e.2 2.e.2.a 2.e.2.b 2.e.3 2.e.4 2.e.5 2.f 2.f.l 2.f.l.a 2.f.l.b 2.f.2 2.f.3 2.f.4 2.f.5 2.g 2.g.1 2.g.2 2.g.3 2.g.4 2.g.5 2.g.6 2.g.7 2.g.8 2.g.9 2.g.10 2.g.ll VerDate Mar<15>2010 Reserved Correlation with airplane and associated equipment. Visual cues to relate to actual airplane responses. Visual cues during take-off, approach and landing. Visual cues to assess sink rate and depth perception during landings. Reserved Accurate portrayal of environment relating to airplane attitudes. The visual scene should correlate with integrated airplane systems, where fitted (e.g. terrain, traffic and weather avoidance systems and HUD/EFVS). Reserved Scene quality. Quantization. Surfaces and textural cues should be free from apparent quantization (aliasing). Reserved System capable of portraying full color realistic textural cues. The system light points should be free from distracting jitter, smearing or streaking. Reserved System capable of providing light point perspective growth. Environmental effects. Reserved Reserved Reserved Reserved Reserved Reserved Visibility and RVR measured in tenus of distance. Visibility/RVR should be checked at and below a height of 600 m (2 000 ft) above the airport and within a radius of 16 km (10 sm) from the airport. Reserved Reserved Reserved Reserved End QPS Requirement Begin Information An example of being able to "combine two airport models to achieve two "in-use" runways: One nmway designated as the "in use" runway in the first model of the airport, and the second runway designated as the "in use" runway in the second model of the same airport. For example, the clearance is for the ILS approach to Runway 27, Circle to Land on Runway 18 right. Two airport visual models might be used: the first with Runway 27 designated as the "in use" runway for the approach to runway 27, and the second with Runway 18 Right designated as the "in use" runway. When the pilot breaks off the lLS approach to runway 27, the instructor may change to the second airport visual model in which runway 18 Right is designated as the "in use" runway, and the pilot would make a 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00275 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 EP10JY14.218</GPH> sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 3. 39735 39736 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules Table B3B Functions And Sub.iective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS ;.... For Qualification at Level 7 FTD ,...,~ ... e ;.....Q == ~z VerDate Mar<15>2010 visual approach and landing. This process is acceptable to the FAA as long as the temporary interruption due to the visual model change is not distracting to the pilot, does not cause changes in navigational radio frequencies, and does not cause undue instructor/evaluator time. Sponsors are not required to provide every detail of a runway, but the detail that is provided should be correct within the capabilities of the system. End Information 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00276 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 EP10JY14.219</GPH> sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 4. Class I Airport Models 39737 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules Table B3C Functions and Subjective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS :.. ~ ... 6 FTD Level Sound System == ~z 1. 2. 3. 4. sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 5. VerDate Mar<15>2010 4 The following checks are performed during a normal flight profile. Precipitation. Reserved Significant airplane noises perceptible to the pilot during normal operations. Abnormal operations for which there are associated sound cues including, engine malfunctions, landing gear/tire malfunctions, tail and engine pod strike and pressurization malfunction. Sound of a crash when the flight simulator is landed in excess of limitations. 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00277 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 I s I 6 I 7 X X X X X EP10JY14.220</GPH> .... :...C 39738 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules Table B3D Functions and Subjective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS ... tl5 FTD Level Special Effects - 8 == ~z 4 1. 2. I s I 6 This table specifies the minimum special effects necessary for the specified simulator level. Braking Dynamics: Representations of the dynamics of brake failure (flight simulator pitch, side-loading, and directional control characteristics representative of the airplane), including antiskid and decreased brake efficiency due to high brake temperatures (based on airplane related data), sufficient to enable pilot identification of the problem and implementation of appropriate procedures. Effects of Airframe and Engine Icing: Required only for those airplanes authorized for operations in known icing conditions. I 7 X X VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00278 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 EP10JY14.221</GPH> sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Procedure: With the simulator airborne, in a clean configuration, nominal altitude and cruise airspeed, autopilot on and auto-throttles off, engine and airfoil anti-ice/de-ice systems deactivated; activate icing conditions at a rate that allows monitoring of simulator and systems response. Icing recognition will include an increase in gross weight, airspeed decay, change in simulator pitch attitude, change in engine performance indications (other than due to airspeed changes), and change in data from pitot/static system. Activate heating, antiice, or de-ice systems independently. Recognition will include proper effects of these systems, eventually returning the simulated airplane to nonnal flight. 39739 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules Table B3E Functions and Subjective Tests QPS REQUIREMENTS ;... >,QJ FTDLevel Instructor Operating Station (lOS) (As appropriate) ;...C - = = l'oolz 4 3.e. 4. 4.a 4.b. 4.c. 4.d. 4.e. 4.f. 4.g. 5. 6. 6.a. 6.b. 6.c. 6.d. 7. 8. sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 9. 9.a. 10. VerDate Mar<15>2010 5 I 6 I 7 Functions in this table are subject to evaluation only if appropriate for the airplane and/or the system is installed on the specific simulator. Simulator Power Switch(es) X X X Airplane conditions. Gross weight, center of gravity, fuel loading and allocation X X Airplane systems status. X X Ground crew functions (e.g., ext. power, push back) X X Airports. Number and selection. X X Runway selection. X X Runway surface condition (e.g., rough, smooth, icy, wet) X X Preset positions (e.g., ramp, gate, #1 for takeoff: takeoff X X X position, over F AF) Lighting controls. X Environmental controls. Visibility (statute miles (kilometers)). X Runway visual range (in feet (meters)). X Temperature. X X Climate conditions (e.g., ice, snow, rain). X X Wind speed and direction. X X Windshear. X Clouds (base and tops). X Airplane system malfunctions (Inserting and deleting X X X malfunctions into the simulator). Locks, Freezes, and Repositionin2. Problem (all) freeze I release. X X Position (geographic) freeze I release. X X Repositioning (locations, freezes, and releases). X X Ground speed control. X X Remote lOS. (if installed) X X Sound Controls. On I off I adjustment X X Control Loading System. On I off I emergency stop. X X Observer Seats I Stations. Position I Adjustment X X 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00279 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 EP10JY14.222</GPH> 1. 2. 2.a. 2.b. 2.c. 3. 3.a. 3.b. 3.c. 3.d. I 39740 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules Attachment 4 to Appendix B to Part 60— Sample Documents lllllllllllllllllllll Begin Information Table of Contents sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Title of Sample VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Figure B4A—Sample Letter, Request for Initial, Upgrade, or Reinstatement Evaluation. Figure B4B—Attachment: FTD Information Form Figure B4C—Sample Letter of Compliance Figure B4D—Sample Qualification Test Guide Cover Page Figure B4E—Sample Statement of Qualification—Certificate Frm 00280 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 Figure B4F—Sample Statement of Qualification—Configuration List Figure B4G—Sample Statement of Qualification—List of Qualified Tasks Figure B4H—Sample Continuing Qualification Evaluation Requirements Page Figure B4I—Sample MQTG Index of Effective FTD Directives E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 39741 Attachment 4 to Appendix B to Part 60-- Figure B4A- Sample Letter, Request for Initial, Upgrade, or Reinstatement Evaluation. INFORMATION Date _ __ Edward D. Cook, Ph.D. Manager, National Simulator Program Federal Aviation Administration 100 Hartsfield Centre Parkway. Suite 400 Atlanta, GA 30354 Dear Dr. Cook: RE: Request for Initial/Upgrade Evaluation Date This is to advise you of our intent to request an (initial or upgrade) evaluation of our (FTD Manufacturer), (Aircraft Type/Level) Flight Training Device (FTD), (FAA ID Number, if previously qualified), located in (City, State) at the (facility) on (Proposed Evaluation Date). (The proposed evaluation date shall not be more than 180 days following the date ofthis letter.) The FTD will be sponsored by (Name of Training Center/Air Carrier), FAA Designator (4 Letter Code). The FTD will be sponsored as follows; (Select One) D The FTD will be used within the sponsor's FAA approved training program and placed on the sponsor's Training/Operations Specifications. D The FTD will be used for dry lease only. We agree to provide the formal request for the evaluation to your staff as follows: (check one) 0 For QTG tests run at the factory, not later, than 45 days prior to the proposed evaluation date with the additional "1/3 on-site" tests provided not later than 14 days prior to the proposed evaluation date. 0 For QTG tests run on-site, not later than 30 days prior to the proposed evaluation date. We understand that the formal request will contain the following documents: 4. Sponsor's Letter ofRequest (Company Compliance Letter). 5. Principal Operations Inspector (POI) or Training Center Program Manager's (TCPM) endorsement. 6. Complete QTG. If we are unable to meet the above requirements, we understand this may result in a sign(ficant delay, perhaps 45 days or more, in rescheduling and completing the evaluation. (The sponsor should add additional comments as necessary). Please contact (Name Telephone and Fax Number of Sponsor's Contact) to confirm the date for this initial evaluation. We understand a member of your National Simulator Program staff will respond to this request within 14 days. Sincerely, Attachment: FTD Information and Characteristics Form cc: POI/TCPM VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00281 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 EP10JY14.223</GPH> sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS A copy of this letter of intent has been provided to (Name), the Principal Operations Inspector (POI) and/or Training Center Program Manager (TCPM). 39742 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules Attachment 4 to Appendix B to Part 60Figure B4B - Sample Letter , Request for Initial, Upgrade, or Reinstatement Evaluation Attachment: FSTD Information Form INFORMATION Date: Section 1. FSTD Information and Characteristics Sponsor Name: FSTD Location: Address: --- City: -- City: -- State: -- State: -- Country: Physical Address: Country: ----- ZIP: Manager Sponsor ID No: (Four Letter FAA Designator) ZIP: ID Initial D Upgrade D Continuing Qualification D Special D Reinstatement -Date: - - l,evel - MMIDD/YYYY (If Applicable) Upgrade Qualification: -- (Airport Designator) ·.· Aircraft Make/model/series: --- Nearest Airport: Type of Evaluation Requested: Initial Qualification: -- Manufacturer's Identification or Serial Number DeMQTG Date: - - Level - - . MM/DD/YYYY (If Applicable) Qualification Basis: IDA ID6 Other Technical Information: FAA FSTD ID No: IDC ID Interim C I D Provisional Status I IDB ID7 -- FSTD Manufacturer: (If Applicable) -- Convertible FSTD: DYes: Date of Manufacture: -MM/DD/YYYY Related FAA ID No. ------ Sponsor FSTD ID No: IDD (If Applicable) Engine model(s) and data revision: Visual system manufacturer/model: Flight control data revision: Source of aerodynamic model: --- FMS identification and revision level: --- Source of aerodynamic coefficient data: --- Aerodynamic data revision number: --- Visual system display: --- Mot ion system manufacturer/type: --- --- --- FSTD computer(s) identification: --- --- --- .. National Aviation Authority (NAA): --- (If Applicahle) NAA FSTD ID No: Last NAA Evaluation Date: --- --- NAA Qualification Level: --- NAA Qualification Basis: -·. Visual System Manufacturer and Type: --- Motion System Manufacturer and Type: FSTD Seats Available: -- --- - VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00282 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 EP10JY14.225</GPH> sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS .· Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 39743 Attachment 4 to Appendix B to Part 60Figure B4B- Sample Letter, Request for Initial, Upgrade, or Reinstatement Evaluation Attachment: FSTD Information Form INFORMATION Aircraft Equipment: Engine Type(s): Flight Instrumentation: 0KFIS 0HUD 0HGS0 li:FVS 0 TCAS 0 GPWS 0 Plain View 0GPS 0FMSType:_ 0 WX Radar 0 Other: _ --- Engine Instrumentation: D EICAS D FADii:C 0 Other:_ ·. Airport Models: 3.6.1 - Airport Designator 3. 7.1 - Airport Designator 3.8.1 -Airport Designator Circle to Land: Visual Ground Segment 3.6.2- Airport Designator 3. 7.2- Approach 3.8 .2 Approach 3.6.3 - Airport Designator 3. 7.3 - Landing Runway 3. 8.3 -Landing Runway Se.ction 2~ Supplementary Information FAA Training Program Approval Authority: Name: .· 0 POI 0 TCPM 0 Other: Office: --- --- Tel: Fax: --- --- Email: --l<'STD Scheduling Person: Name: - Address 1: Address 2 --City: --- State: --- --- ZIP: Email: --- --- Tel: Fax: --- --- ·. J<'STD Technical Contact: Name: --- Address 1: Address 2 --- --- City: State: --- --- ZIP: Email: --- --- Tel: Fax: --- Section 3. Training, Testing and Checking Considerations Area/Function/Maneuver Requested Private Pilot- Training I Checks: (142) D D D D D D Multi-Engine Rating- Training I Checks ( 142) sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Instrument Rating-Training I Checks ( 142) Type Rating -Training I Checks (135/121/142) Proficiency Checks (1351121/142) VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00283 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 --- - - ----- --- E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 EP10JY14.226</GPH> Commercial Pilot- Training 1Chccks:(142) Remarks 39744 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules Attachment 4 to Appendix B to Part 60Figure B4B- Sample Letter, Request for Initial, Upgrade, or Reinstatement Evaluation Attachment: FSTD Information Form INFORMATION CAT II: (RVR 1200 ft. DH 100ft) CAT III* (lowest minimum) --- RVR --- ft. * State CAT III (~ 700 ft.), CAT fiib (< ISO ft.), or CAT liTe (0 ft.) Circling Approach Windshear Training: Windshear Training IA W 121.409(d) (121 Turbojets Only) Generic Unusual Attitudes and Recoveries within the Normal Flight Envelope Specific Unusual Attitudes Recoveries Auto-land I Roll Out Guidance TCAS/ACAS 1111 WX-Radar HUD HGS EFVS Future Air Navigation Systems GPWS/EGPWS ETOPS Capability GPS SMGCS Helicopter Slope Landings Helicopter External Load Operations Helicopter Pinnacle Approach to Landings Helicopter Night Vision Maneuvers sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Helicopter Category A Takeoffs 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 D D D 0 Auto-coupled Approach/Auto Go Around VerDate Mar<15>2010 0 0 0 0 Frm 00284 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 ,_ ------- ,_ ----- ------- --------- --------------- --------- E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 EP10JY14.227</GPH> 0 0 0 CAT 1: (RVR 2400/1800 ft. DH200 ft) Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 39745 Attachment 4 to Appendix B to Part 60Figure B4C - Sample Letter of Compliance INFORMATION (Date) Mr. (Name of Training Program Approval Authority): ili_ame ofF AA FSDO) (Address) (City/State/Zip) Dear Mr. (Name ofTPAA): RE: Letter of Compliance (Operator Sponsor Name) requests evaluation of our (Aircraft Type) FTD for Level <~) qualification. The (FTD Manufacturer Name) FTD with (Visual System Manufacturer Name/Model) system is fully defined on the FTD Information page of the accompanying Qualification Test Guide (QTG). We have completed the tests of the FTD and certifY that it meets all applicable requirements ofF AR parts 121, 125, or 135), and the guidance of (AC 120-40B or 14 CFR Part 60). Appropriate hardware and software configuration control procedures have been established. Our Pilot(s), (Name(s)), who are qualified on (Aircraft Type) aircraft have assessed the FTD and have found that it conforms to the (Operator/Sponsor) (Aircraft Type) flight deck configuration and that the simulated systems and subsystems function equivalently to those in the aircraft. The above named pilot(s) have also assessed the perfonnance and the flying qualities of the FTD and find that it represents the respective aircraft. (Added Comments may be placed here) Sincerely, (Sponsor Representative) VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00285 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 EP10JY14.228</GPH> sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS cc: FAA, National Simulator Program 39746 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules Attachment 4 to Appendix B to Part 60Figure B4D - Sample Qualification Test Guide Cover Page INFORMATION SPONSOR NAME SPONSOR ADDRESS FAA QUALIFICATION TEST GUIDE (SPECIFIC AIRPLANE MODEL) for example Stratos BA797-320A (Type ofFTD) (FTD Identification Including Manufacturer, Serial Number, Visual System Used) (FTD Level) (Qualification Performance Standard Used) (FTD Location) FAA Initial Evaluation Date: - - - - - - Date: (Sponsor) Date: VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00286 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 EP10JY14.229</GPH> sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Manager, National Simulator Program, FAA Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 39747 Attachment 4 to Appendix B to Part 60Figure B4E- Sample Statement of Qualification - Certificate INFORMATION Federal Aviation Administration National Simulatot Program This is to certify that representatives of the National Simulator Program Completed an evaluation of the Go.Fast Airlines Farnsworth z. .Joo Flight Training Device FAA ldenti11catioll N\llmber 998 And pursuant to 14 CFR Part 60 found it to meet its original qualification basis, AC 12045A (MM/DD/YY) The Master Qualification Test Guide and the attached Configuration List and Restrictions List Provide the Qualification Basis for this device to operate at L,evel6 Until March 31, 2010 Unless sooner rescinded or extended by the National Simulator Program Manager B. Williamson February 15, 2UU9 VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 (for the NSPM) Frm 00287 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 EP10JY14.230</GPH> sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS (date) 39748 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules Attachment 4 to Appendix B to Part 60Figure B4F- Sample Statement of Qualification; Configuration List TNFORMA TTON Date: Section 1. FSTD Information and Characteristics Sponsor Name: -- FSTD Location: Address: -- Physical Address: -- City: -- City: -- -- State: -- ---- Country: ZIP: --- Nearest Airport: -- State: Country: ZIP: Manager Sponsor ID -- ~o: (four Letter FAA Designator) (Airport Designator) ID Type of Evaluation Requested: Aircraft Make/model/series: Initial Qualification: Initial D UpgradeD Continuing Qualification D Special D Reinstatement -Date: - - Level - MM/DD/YYYY (If Applicable) Upgrade Qualification: Manufacturer's Identification or Serial Number DeMQTG Date: - - Level - - (If Applicable) MMIDD/YYYY Qualification Basis: IDA ID6 .· IDe ID Interim C I D Provisional Status I IDB ID7 IDD .· Other Technical Information: FAA FSTD ID No: -- FSTD Manufacturer: (If Applic8ble) -- Convertible FSTD: DYes: Date of Manufacture: -MM/DDIYYYY Related FAA ID No. ------ Sponsor l<'STD lD No: (If Applicable) --- Engine model(s) and data revision: _ Source of aerodynamic model: FMS identification and revision level: Source of aerodynamic coefficient data: Visual system manufacturer/model: Flight control data revision: ~--··-·-- Aerodynamic data revision number: --- Visual system display: --- Mot ion system manufacturer/type: National Aviation Authority (NAA): ··-·········-- --- --- FSTD computer(s) identification: --- --- --- --- (If Applicable) .- Last NAA Evaluation Date: - NAA Qualification Level: --NAA Qualification Basis: VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 -- Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00288 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 EP10JY14.231</GPH> sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS NAA FSTD ID No: 39749 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules Attachment 4 to Appendix B to Part 60Figure B4F- Sample Statement of Qualification; Configuration List INFORMATION Visual System Manufacturer and Type: FSTD Seats --- Available: Motion System Manufacturer and Type: --- : -- - Aircraft Equipment: Engine Type(s): Flight Instrumentation: OEFIS OHUD 0HGS0EFVS 0 TCAS 0 GPWS 0 Plain View 0GPS 0 FMSType: 0 WX Radar 0 Other: _ --·.. Engine Instrumentation: 0 EICAS 0 FADEC 0 Other: ·. Airport Models: 3.6.1 - Airport Designator 3. 7.1 Airport Designator 3.8.1 - Airport Designator Circle to Land: 3.6.2 Airport Designator 3. 7.2- Approach 3.8 .2- Approach -- Visual Ground Segment 3.6.3 - Airport Designator 3. 7.3 Landing Runway 3. 8.3 - Landing Runway -- Section.2. Supplementary Information FAA Training Program Approval Authority: 0 POI 0 TCPM 0 Other:_ Name: Office: --- --- Tel: Fax: --- - Email: --- .. .. .. ·. FSTD Scheduling Person: Name: --- Address 1: Address 2 --- --- City: State: --- --- ZIP: Email: --- --Fax: Tel: --- --- FSTD Technical Contact: Name: --Address 1: Address 2 --- - City: State: --- --- ZIP: Email: --- --- Tel: Fax: --- ~ Section 3. Training, Testing and Checking Considerations Requested Private Pilot- Training I Checks: (142) D Commercial Pilot- Training /Checks:(l42) 0 Multi-Engine Rating- Training I Checks (142) 0 VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00289 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 Remarks ------- E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 EP10JY14.232</GPH> sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Area/.Fnnction/Maneuver 39750 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules Attachment 4 to Appendix B to Part 60Figure B4F- Sample Statement of Qualification; Configuration List INFORMATION D D D Instrument Rating-Training I Checks (142) Type Rating -Training I Checks (1351121/142) Proficiency Checks (135/121/142) D D D CAT I: (RVR 2400/1800 ft. DH200 ft) CAT II: (RVR 1200 ft. DH 100ft) CAT III * (lowest minimum) - - - RVR --- ft. * State CAT III (< 700ft.), CAT I!Ib (< 150ft.), or CAT IIIc (0 ft.) Circling Approach D Wiudshear Training: D D D Windshear Training IA W 121.409(d) ( 121 Turbojets Only) Generic Unusual Attitudes and Recoveries within the Normal Flight Envelope Specific Unusual Attitudes Recoveries D ----- ------- ------- ----- D D --- --- WX-Radar D D HUD D HGS D EFVS D D D D Auto-land I Roll Out Guidance TCAS/ACAS I I II Future Air Navigation Systems GPWS/EGPWS ETOPS Capability D D D D GPS SMGCS Helicopter Slope Landings Helicopter External Load Operations D D D Helicopter Pinnacle Approach to Landings Helicopter Night Vision Maneuvers sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Helicopter Category A Takeoffs VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00290 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 --- --- --- ,_ --------------------- --- E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 EP10JY14.233</GPH> Auto-coupled Approach/Auto Go Around Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules 39751 Attachment 4 to Appendix B to Part 60Figure B4G- Sample Statement of Qualification;- List of Qualified Tasks INFORMATION Go Fast Airline' Training ~~ Farnsworth Z.~lOO --Level D ~-FAA ID# 999 The FTD is qualified to perform all of the tasks listed in Appendix 1, Table BlB for its assigned level of qualification except for the following listed tasks. Qualified for all tasks in Table BlB, for which the sponsor has requested qualification, except for the following: 4.e. 6. (a) Circling Approach Emergency Descent (maximum rate) 6. (b) Inflight Fire and Smoke Removal 6. (c) 6. (d) Rapid Decompression Emergency Evacuation Additional tasks for which this FTD is qualified (i.e., in addition to the list in Table BlB): VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00291 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 EP10JY14.234</GPH> sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS NONE 39752 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules Attachment 4 to Appendix B to Part 60Figure B4H- Sample Continuing Qualification Evaluation Requirements Page INFORMATION Continuing qualification Evaluation Requirements Completed at conclusion of Initial Evaluation Continuing qualification Evaluations to be conducted each (fill in) Continuing qualification evaluations are due as follows: (month) and (month) and (month) (enter or strike out, as appropriate) months Allotting - - - hours ofFTD time. Signed: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ NSPM I Evaluation Team Leader Date Revision: Based on (enter reasoning): Continuing qualification Evaluations are to be conducted each (fill in) months. Allotting hours. Signed: NSPM I Evaluation Team Leader Continuing qualification evaluations are due as follows: (month) and (month) and (month) (enter or strike out, as appropriate) Date Revision: Based on (enter reasoning): Continuing qualification Evaluations are to be conducted each (fill in) months. Allotting hours. (month) and (month) and (month) (enter or strike out, as appropriate) Date (Repeat as Necessary) VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00292 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 EP10JY14.235</GPH> sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Signed: NSPM I Evaluation Team Leader Continuing qualification evaluations are due as follows: Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules Issued under authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 44701(a), 44703, and Pub. L. 39753 111–216, 124 Stat. 2348 (49 U.S.C. 44701 note) in Washington, DC, on June 24, 2014. John Barbagallo, Acting Deputy Director, Flight Standards Service. [FR Doc. 2014–15432 Filed 7–9–14; 8:45 am] VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Jul 09, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00293 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\10JYP2.SGM 10JYP2 EP10JY14.237</GPH> sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 132 (Thursday, July 10, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 39461-39753]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-15432]

[[Page 39461]]

Vol. 79

Thursday,

No. 132

July 10, 2014

Part II

Department of Transportation

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Federal Aviation Administration

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

14 CFR Part 60

Flight Simulation Training Device Qualification Standards for Extended
Envelope and Adverse Weather Event Training Tasks; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 79 , No. 132 / Thursday, July 10, 2014 /
Proposed Rules

[[Page 39462]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 60

[Docket No.: FAA-2014-0391; Notice No. 2014-04]
RIN 2120-AK08

Flight Simulation Training Device Qualification Standards for
Extended Envelope and Adverse Weather Event Training Tasks

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to amend the Qualification Performance
Standards for flight simulation training devices (FSTDs) for the
primary purpose of improving existing technical standards and
introducing new technical standards for evaluating an FSTD for full
stall and stick pusher maneuvers, upset recognition and recovery
maneuvers, maneuvers conducted in airborne icing conditions, takeoff
and landing maneuvers in gusting crosswinds, and bounced landing
recovery maneuvers. These new and improved technical standards are
intended to fully define FSTD fidelity requirements for conducting new
flight training tasks introduced through recent changes in the air
carrier training requirements as well as to address various National
Transportation Safety Board and Aviation Rulemaking Committee
recommendations. The proposal also updates the FSTD technical standards
to better align with the current international FSTD evaluation guidance
and introduces a new FSTD level that expands the number of qualified
flight training tasks in a fixed-base flight training device. The
proposed changes would ensure that the training and testing environment
is accurate and realistic, would codify existing practice, and would
provide greater harmonization with international guidance for
simulation. With the exception of the proposal to codify new FSTD
technical standards for specific training tasks through an FSTD
Directive, the proposed amendments would not apply to previously
qualified FSTDs.

DATES: Send comments on or before October 8, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2014-0391
using any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at 202-493-2251.
Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.
Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
https://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning
this action, contact Larry McDonald, Air Transportation Division/
National Simulator Program Branch, AFS-205, Federal Aviation
Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, GA 30320; telephone (404) 474-
5620; email larry.e.mcdonald@faa.gov.
For legal questions concerning this action, contact Robert H.
Frenzel, Manager, Operations Law Branch, Office of the Chief Counsel,
Regulations Division (AGC-200), Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-
3073; email Robert.Frenzel@faa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

The Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA's) authority to issue
rules on aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States
Code. Subtitle I, Section 106(f) describes the authority of the FAA
Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more
detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in 49
U.S.C. 44701(a)(5), which requires the Administrator to promulgate
regulations and minimum standards for other practices, methods, and
procedures necessary for safety in air commerce and national security.
This amendment to the regulation is within the scope of that authority
because it prescribes an accepted method for testing and evaluating
flight simulation training devices used to train and evaluate
flightcrew members.
In addition, the Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration
Extension Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-216) specifically required the FAA
to conduct rulemaking to ensure that all flightcrew members receive
flight training in recognizing and avoiding stalls, recovering from
stalls, and recognizing and avoiding upset of an aircraft, as well as
the proper techniques to recover from upset. This rulemaking is within
the scope of the authority in Public Law 111-216 and is necessary to
fully implement the training requirements recently adopted in the
Qualification, Service, and Use of Crewmembers and Aircraft Dispatchers
final rule (Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule),
RIN 2120-AJ00. See 78 FR 67800 (Nov. 12, 2013).

List of Abbreviations and Acronyms Frequently Used in This Document

AC--Advisory Circular
ARC--Aviation Rulemaking Committee
AURTA--Airplane Upset Recovery Training Aid
FFS--Full Flight Simulator
FTD--Flight Training Device
FSTD--Flight Simulation Training Device
ICATEE--International Committee on Aviation Training in Extended
Envelopes
LOCART--Loss of Control Avoidance and Recovery Training Working
Group
NPRM--Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
QPS--Qualification performance standards
SNPRM--Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
SPAW ARC--Stick Pusher and Adverse Weather Event Training Aviation
Rulemaking Committee

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary
II. Background
A. Statement of the Problem
B. History
1. Industry Stall and Stick Pusher Working Group
2. International Committee on Aviation Training in Extended
Envelopes (ICATEE)
3. Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Extension
Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-216)
4. Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule

[[Page 39463]]

5. Stick Pusher and Adverse Weather Event Training Aviation
Rulemaking Committee (SPAW ARC)
6. Advisory Circular (AC) 120-109 (Stall and Stick Pusher
Training)
7. Loss of Control Avoidance and Recovery Training (LOCART)
Working Group
C. Deficiencies in FSTD Evaluation Requirements
1. Full Stall Training Maneuvers
2. Upset Recognition and Recovery Training Maneuvers
3. Airborne Icing Training Maneuvers
4. Microburst and Windshear Recovery Maneuvers
5. Takeoff and Landing in Gusting Crosswinds
6. Bounced Landing Recovery Maneuvers
D. Related Actions
E. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Recommendations
III. Discussion of the Proposal
A. The FSTD Evaluation Process
B. General Rationale for the Proposal
C. Requirements Applicable to Previously Qualified FSTDs--FSTD
Directive 2 (Appendix A, Attachment 6)
D. FSTD Evaluation Requirements for Full Stall Training Tasks
(Appendix A; Table A1a, Section 2.1.7.S, Table A2A, Tests
2.a.10.c.8, and 3.f.8; Table A3a, Test 5.b.1; and Attachment 7)
E. FSTD Evaluation Requirements for Upset Recognition and
Recovery Training Tasks (Appendix A; Table A1A, Section 2.1.6.S and
Attachment 7)
F. FSTD Evaluation Requirements for Airborne Icing Training
Tasks (Appendix A; Table A1A, Section 2.1.5.S; Table A2A, Test 2.i.
and Attachment 7)
G. FSTD Evaluation Requirements for Takeoff and Landing Training
Tasks in Gusting Crosswinds (Appendix A, Table A1A, Sections 3.1.S,
3.1.R, and 11.4.R)
H. FSTD Evaluation Requirements for Bounced Landing Training
Tasks (Appendix A, Table A1A, Section 3.1.S)
I. FSTD Evaluation Requirements for Windshear Training Tasks
(Appendix A, Table A1a, Section 11.2.R)
J. Significant Changes To Align With the International FSTD
Evaluation Guidance (Appendix A)
1. Table A1A (General Requirements)
2. Table A2A (Objective Testing Requirements)
3. Table A3A (Functions and Subjective Testing Requirements)
4. Table A3B (Class I Airport Models)
5. Table A3D (Motion System Effects)
K. New Level 7 Fixed Wing FSTD Requirements--Appendix B Changes
(Appendix B, Tables B1A, B1B, B2A, B3A, B3B, B3C, B3D, and B3E)
L. Miscellaneous Amendments To Improve and Codify FSTD
Evaluation Procedures (Sec. Sec. 60.15, 60.17, 60.19, 60.23,
Appendix A Paragraph 11)
IV. Regulatory Notices and Analysis
V. Executive Order Determinations
VI. Additional Information

I. Executive Summary

The primary purpose of this proposal is to define simulator
fidelity requirements for new training tasks that were mandated for air
carrier training programs by Public Law 111-216. The notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) proposes to accomplish this by establishing new or
updated Flight Simulation Training Device (FSTD) technical evaluation
standards for full stall and upset recognition and recovery training
tasks as required in the Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training
Final Rule and as proposed by the Stick Pusher and Adverse Weather
Event Training ARC (SPAW ARC).
The Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule added
training requirements for pilots that target the prevention of and
recovery from stall and upset conditions, recovery from bounced
landings, enhanced runway safety training, and enhanced training on
crosswind takeoffs and landings with gusts. Stall and upset prevention
requires pilot skill in manual handling maneuvers and procedures.
Therefore, the manual handling maneuvers most critical to stall and
upset prevention (i.e., slow flight, loss of reliable airspeed, and
manually controlled departure and arrival) are included as part of the
agency's overall stall and upset mitigation strategy. These maneuvers
are identified in the Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final
Rule within the ``extended envelope'' training provision, which further
requires that these maneuvers be completed in an FSTD. As a result,
revisions to all part 121 training programs will be necessary and
revisions to part 60 will be required to fully implement the extended
envelope, bounced landing, and gusty crosswinds flight training
required by the Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule.
In addition, this proposal addresses a potential lack of simulator
fidelity as identified in several NTSB safety recommendations and
Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) recommendations concerning flight
training tasks, such as anti-icing, bounced landing, gusty crosswind,
and extended envelope training. These changes are necessary to ensure a
realistic crew training environment and to prevent incorrect simulator
training.
For the purpose of this rulemaking, the term ``extended envelope
training tasks'' (such as full stall and aircraft upset recovery)
refers to maneuvers and procedures conducted in a FSTD that may extend
beyond the limits where typical FSTD performance and handling qualities
have been validated with heavy reliance on flight data to represent the
actual aircraft. In instances when obtaining such flight data is
hazardous or impractical, engineering predictive methods and subject-
matter-expert assessment are used to program and validate the
aircraft's behavior in the simulator.
The secondary purpose of this NPRM is to align the technical
standards for Level C and D (fixed wing) FSTDs that are defined in
Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 60 with the
current international FSTD evaluation guidelines published in the
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) document 9625 Edition
3, Manual of Criteria for the Qualification of Flight Simulation
Training Devices (ICAO 9625, Edition 3). These changes would
incorporate the technical guidelines for the highest level of ICAO-
defined FSTD (Type VII) into the part 60 Level C and Level D FSTD
standards, where appropriate. This proposal also introduces a new level
of fixed-wing FSTD (a Level 7 flight training device (FTD)) that is
based upon the ICAO 9625, Edition 3, Type V FSTD technical guidance.
Changes intended to align with the ICAO guidance would address new
aircraft and simulation technology introduced since the original
issuance of part 60, incorporate general improvements to the FSTD
evaluation standards, and provide air carriers and flight training
providers with additional options for conducting approved training
tasks in an FTD as opposed to a more costly full flight simulator
(FFS).
In general, the proposed changes to the technical standards would
apply only to those FSTDs that are initially qualified or upgraded in
qualification level after the final rule becomes effective. For
previously qualified FSTDs used to conduct extended envelope, airborne
icing, gusting crosswind, and bounced landing training, the FAA is also
seeking comment on a proposed FSTD Directive that would require FSTD
Sponsors to retroactively evaluate those FSTDs against certain
objective and subjective testing requirements as defined in the QPS
appendices and modify them if necessary to meet the proposed
requirements. This proposed FSTD Directive would be applicable to any
FSTD being used to conduct these training tasks, including those FSTDs
being used to conduct such training on a voluntary basis in a non-air
carrier flight training program. Those previously qualified devices
that would not be used to conduct these specified training tasks would
not require modification or evaluation.
For all FSTDs that are initially qualified or upgraded in
qualification level after implementation of these regulations, the
proposed changes to the

[[Page 39464]]

QPS appendices would become effective 30 days after publication of a
final rule. However, new FSTDs may still be initially qualified under
existing standards after this date, subject to up to a 24 month grace
period as currently defined in Sec. 60.15(c). For previously qualified
FSTDs that will be used to conduct certain extended envelope and other
training tasks described in the Crewmember and Dispatcher Training
Final Rule, compliance with the proposed FSTD Directive would be
required within three years of the publication date of a final rule
implementing these provisions. The FAA is seeking comment on these
proposed compliance dates.
A summary of the cost and benefit information is presented below.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.236

II. Background

A. Statement of the Problem

In order to mitigate aircraft loss of control accidents and to
comply with the requirements of Public Law 111-216, the FAA has
required new or revised flight training requirements in the Crewmember
and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule for flight maneuvers such
as full stall and upset recovery training. Through participation with
various industry working groups and recommendations received from the
SPAW ARC, the FAA determined that many existing FSTDs used by air
carriers to conduct such training may not adequately represent the
simulated aircraft to a degree necessary for successful completion of
required training tasks. Additionally, the FAA evaluated several recent
air carrier accidents and determined that low FSTD fidelity or the lack
of ability for an FSTD to adequately conduct certain training tasks may
have been a contributing factor in these accidents. A potential lack of
simulator fidelity could contribute to inaccurate or incomplete
training on new training tasks that are required by the Crewmember and
Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule, which could lead to an
associated and unnecessary safety risk.
Furthermore, since the initial publication of the part 60 final
rule in 2008, the international FSTD qualification guidance published
in ICAO 9625, Edition 3 have been updated to incorporate general
improvements to new aircraft and simulation technology and the
introduction of new FSTD levels that better align FSTD fidelity with
required training tasks. The ICAO 9625 document is an internationally
recognized set of FSTD evaluation guidelines that was developed by a
wide range of government and industry experts on flight simulation
training and technology and has been used as a basis for national
regulation and guidance material for FSTD evaluation in many countries.
Internationally aligned FSTD standards facilitate cost savings for FSTD
operators because they effectively reduce the number of different FSTD
designs that are required to meet multiple national regulations and
standards for FSTD qualification.
The proposals in this NPRM were largely developed using
recommendations from the SPAW ARC \1\ and the international FSTD
qualification guidelines that are published in ICAO Document 9625,
Edition 3.\2\ These proposals are primarily directed at improving the
fidelity of FSTDs that would be used in air carrier pilot training.
They would also have an added benefit of improving the fidelity of all
FSTDs qualified after the proposed rule becomes effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ A copy of the SPAW ARC final report has been placed in the
docket for this rulemaking.
\2\ International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)
publications can be located on their public internet site at: https://www.icao.int/.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 39465]]

B. History

1. Industry Stall and Stick Pusher Working Group
In March 2010, the FAA worked with industry leaders to address
concerns arising from the increase in stall and loss of control
accidents. The Stall and Stick Pusher Working Group met over a 9 month
period and produced many training recommendations to prevent stall
events. This working group included members from aircraft
manufacturers, simulator manufacturers, training companies, pilot
associations, airlines, and the FAA.
In addition to providing best training practices using current
simulation, the working group recommended that simulators in use today
should not be used for training to or past the aerodynamic stall unless
further testing and validation in that flight regime are performed for
the specific simulator and approved by the FAA. This working group did
not recommend post-stall training because the roll and yaw
characteristics and the stall buffet characteristics of the simulator
may not be representative of the aircraft.
2. International Committee on Aviation Training in Extended Envelopes
(ICATEE)
In 2009, the Royal Aeronautical Society formed the International
Committee on Aviation Training in Extended Envelopes (ICATEE) working
group to examine aircraft upset recovery training and recommend
improvements to both training and simulation devices used to conduct
training. This working group was comprised of subject matter experts in
many facets of industry and government including airlines, flight
training providers, research entities, FSTD manufacturers, airframe
manufacturers, regulatory authorities, and airline pilots associations.
The ICATEE working methodology was to first conduct a training needs
analysis using subject matter experts in the area of pilot training and
then determine the training device requirements as a function of the
identified training needs. Once the training needs were established,
subject matter experts in FSTD technology developed proposed
modifications to the FSTD qualification standards to support the
recommended training tasks. While the ICATEE final report has not been
published yet, several interim recommendations from ICATEE on FSTD
technical evaluation standards for stall, upset recovery, and airborne
icing maneuvers were provided to the SPAW ARC for consideration in
developing its recommendations.
3. Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of
2010 (Pub. L. 111-216)
On August 1, 2010, President Obama signed into law Public Law 111-
216. In addition to extending the FAA's authorization, Public Law 111-
216 included provisions to improve airline safety and pilot training.
Specifically, section 208 of Public Law 111-216, Implementation of NTSB
Flight Crewmember Training Recommendations, pertains directly to this
rulemaking in that stall training and upset recovery training were
mandated for part 121 air carrier flightcrew members.
4. Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule
On November 12, 2013, the FAA published the Crewmember and Aircraft
Dispatcher Training Final Rule, adding the training tasks required by
Public Law 111-216, specifically targeting extended envelope training,
recovery from bounced landings, enhanced runway safety training, and
enhanced training on crosswind takeoffs and landings with gusts which
further requires that these maneuvers be completed in an FSTD. As a
result, revisions to all part 121 training programs will be necessary
and the revisions to part 60 as proposed in this rule will be required
to ensure FSTDs are properly evaluated in order to fully implement the
flight training required in the Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher
Training Final Rule.
In the Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule, the
FAA established a 5-year compliance period for air carriers to update
their training programs because of the need to revise both the FSTD
standards and to allow for FSTD sponsors to have a sufficient amount of
time to make any required modifications to their FSTDs as a result of
this rulemaking. The FAA recognizes that a significant amount of
engineering, testing, and subject matter expert evaluation time will be
required to evaluate and modify the numerous FSTDs that will be
required to conduct such tasks in part 121 training programs. As a
result, the FAA has proposed a 3-year compliance period in the FSTD
Directive that would require the evaluation and modification of
previously qualified FSTDs that will be used for certain ``extended
envelope'' and other training tasks in the Crewmember and Aircraft
Dispatcher Training Final Rule. The FAA believes that the 5-year
compliance period in the Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training
Final Rule provides sufficient time to complete this rulemaking and
also to give FSTD sponsors enough time to comply with the proposed 3-
year compliance period in the FSTD Directive. While the FAA recognizes
that some sponsors and operators may already have the technology and
simulation knowledge necessary to make the changes proposed in the FSTD
Directive, we recognize that there is a significant variation in the
capability of previously qualified FSTDs as well as the technical
expertise available to FSTD sponsors which could require more or less
compliance time than what the FAA has anticipated. We request comment
on whether the 3-year compliance period in the FSTD Directive is
adequate, too short, or too long. The comments should also take into
consideration the March 2019 compliance date for the new training task
requirements in the Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final
Rule and indicate whether that time is adequate, too short, or too
long.
5. Stick Pusher and Adverse Weather Event Training Aviation Rulemaking
Committee
The formation of the SPAW ARC was mandated by Public Law 111-216,
Section 208. It held its first meeting on November 30, 2010, and held
its last full group meeting on May 12, 2011. The SPAW ARC included
members from aircraft manufacturers, simulator manufacturers, training
companies, pilot associations, and airlines.
The final report provided numerous recommendations to the FAA on
stall and stick pusher training, upset recovery training, icing
training, and microburst and windshear training. In addition to the
training recommendations, the ARC made recommendations to the FAA in
its final report concerning the potential lack of simulator fidelity
and proposed modifications to part 60 to address those deficiencies.
The ARC cited several specific areas of improvement to simulation
including modeling of flight dynamics and performance changes due to
ice accretion, modeling of aircraft response in a stall, and providing
flight instructors with improved feedback concerning the validity of
the simulation during upset prevention and recovery training maneuvers.
A copy of the SPAW ARC's final report has been placed in the docket for
this rulemaking.
6. Advisory Circular (AC) 120-109 (Stall and Stick Pusher Training)
In August 2012, the FAA issued AC 120-109 (Stall and Stick Pusher

[[Page 39466]]

Training),\3\ which provided a series of best practices relating to
training, testing, and checking of stall warnings; aerodynamic stalls
and stick pusher activations; and recommended recovery procedures. The
content of this AC was developed using the recommendations of previous
working groups and was intended to provide guidance to training
providers and air carriers to ensure correct and consistent responses
to unexpected stall warnings and stick pusher activations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ FAA Advisory Circulars can be located on the FAA's public
internet site at: https://www.airweb.faa.gov/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

7. Loss of Control Avoidance and Recovery Training (LOCART) Working
Group
In March 2012, the FAA reconvened the SPAW ARC to seek more
detailed recommendations on academic and flight training programs to
support the upset prevention and recovery training that was proposed by
the SNPRM on air carrier crewmember training. The ARC was also tasked
with examining the training device requirements to support upset
prevention and recovery training in an FSTD. The final report from this
ARC included technical recommendations to revise the part 60 FSTD
standards to include minimum FSTD evaluation requirements for upset
prevention and recovery training maneuvers. Some of these
recommendations to amend part 60 expanded upon the previous
recommendations made in the original SPAW ARC report. A copy of this
final report has also been placed in the docket for this rulemaking.

C. Deficiencies in FSTD Evaluation Requirements

1. Full Stall Training Maneuvers
The SPAW ARC examined various issues involving stall training and
recommended against any simulator training being conducted beyond the
first indication of the stall unless the simulator modeling and
fidelity are such that the simulation of the specific airplane is
representative in this flight regime. Particular concerns addressed by
the SPAW ARC regarding FSTD fidelity in full stall maneuvers were the
modeling of aircraft stability and aircraft response to control inputs,
improved motion response for acceleration cueing, and improved modeling
of the stall buffet to cover a broader range of flight conditions. The
SPAW ARC also made recommendations concerning the evaluation of FSTD
stall characteristics in flight conditions other than wings-level
stalls. These include stall training maneuvers such as high altitude
cruise stall, turning flight (accelerated) stall, and the objective
validation of stick pusher forces (where equipped in the aircraft).
The exposure of flightcrews to a low fidelity representation of an
airplane's stall characteristics in an FSTD can lead to improper
recovery techniques being reinforced during training. Such improper
recovery techniques can be evidenced in the investigation of the 1996
Airborne Express DC-8 aircraft accident in Narrows, Virginia. In this
investigation, the NTSB concluded that the flightcrew had been exposed
to a low fidelity reproduction of the DC-8's stall characteristics in
the company's flight simulator that likely contributed to their
inappropriate response to an actual stall in the aircraft. The NTSB
report stated:
The simulator's benign flight characteristics when flown more into
the stall provided the flightcrew with a misleading expectation of the
handling characteristics of the actual airplane. The [pilot flying
(PF)] initial target pitch attitudes during the attempted stall
recovery (from 10 degrees to 14 degrees) may have resulted in a
successful recovery during his practice and teaching in the simulator.
Further, because their experience with stalls in the DC-8 was obtained
in a simulator without a stall break, the PF and [pilot not flying
(PNF)] could not practice the nose-down control inputs required to
recover a stalled airplane that is pitching down or at a nose-low
attitude. Moreover, because the PF and PNF were exposed during
extensive simulator experience to what they presumed was the stall
behavior of the DC-8, the stall break that occurred in the airplane
most likely surprised them. The Safety Board concludes that the
flightcrew's exposure to a low fidelity reproduction of the DC-8's
stall characteristics in the ABX DC-8 flight training simulator was a
factor in the PF holding aft (stall-inducing) control column inputs
when the airplane began to pitch down and roll, which contributed to
the accident.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ See NTSB aircraft accident report number NTSB/AAR-97/05:
Uncontrolled Flight into Terrain; ABX Air (Airborne Express);
Douglas DC-8-63, N827AX; Narrows, Virginia (Dec. 22, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The FAA notes that because there has never been a requirement for
an air carrier to conduct training in a simulator to a full stall,\5\
there has been relatively little exposure of flightcrews to such low
fidelity stall characteristics in a simulator. However, once full stall
training becomes a mandatory training requirement for air carriers, it
is imperative that any FSTD being used to conduct such training is
properly evaluated to ensure such negative training does not take place
as evidenced in the Airborne Express accident. Failing to properly
evaluate air carrier FSTDs to deliver this training would potentially
expose many crewmembers to incorrect stall characteristics in an FSTD
and thereby introducing an associated safety risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ Air carrier flight training is currently only required to
train to an ``approach to stall'' flight condition where recovery is
initiated at the activation of the stall warning system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Upset Recognition and Recovery Training Maneuvers
The SPAW ARC recommended that simulator and academic training in
upset prevention and recovery should be based on the Airplane Upset
Recovery Training Aid (AURTA).\6\ The SPAW ARC further stated that
instructors do not always have the proper tools to provide adequate
feedback to students with respect to control responses and aircraft
operating limits during upset prevention and recovery training.
Additionally, they noted if part of the training is conducted outside
of the simulator's validated envelope,\7\ there is an increased risk
that the simulator will no longer accurately replicate the aircraft,
which could result in negative training. The SPAW ARC recommended
improved instructor feedback tools which can display when a training
pilot has exceeded either the accepted simulator model envelope or the
known aircraft load factor envelope. These instructor feedback tools
would allow the instructor to identify and inform the student that he
or she is exceeding those limits, thus mitigating potentially negative
training. Furthermore, the SPAW ARC recommended employing the AURTA
methods in assessing an FSTD's capability to conduct such maneuvers and
to provide improved instructor feedback mechanisms to better evaluate
both the FSTD's and the student's performance during such training.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ The Airplane Upset Recovery Training Aid can be located on
the FAA's public Internet site at: https://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/airline_operators/training/.
\7\ An FSTD's validation envelope generally consists of those
combinations of angle of attack and sideslip where the FSTD's
aerodynamic model has been validated using flight test data or
reliable predictive methods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

When an FSTD is used to conduct upset recovery training, the
instructor must be provided with the necessary tools to assess a
student's performance when executing the recovery. When an instructor
does not have these tools, potentially dangerous or inappropriate
control strategies may be learned in the

[[Page 39467]]

FSTD. In the case of the 2001 American Airlines flight 587 accident,
the NTSB determined that an unrealistic portrayal of the aircraft's
response to a wake vortex incident in the simulator may have
contributed to the flying pilot applying unnecessary and excessive
control inputs that ultimately led to the structural failure of the
aircraft. Among the deficiencies the NTSB noted in the American
Airlines Advanced Aircraft Maneuvering Program, the following were
directly related to simulator functionality with regard to training
upset recovery maneuvers to flightcrew members: \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\8\ See NTSB aircraft accident report number NTSB/AAR-04/04: In-
Flight Separation of Vertical Stabilizer; American Airlines Flight
587; Airbus Industrie A-300-605R, N14053; Belle Harbor, New York;
November 12, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

This simulator exercise could have caused the first
officer of the accident flight to have an ``unrealistic and exaggerated
view of the effects of wake turbulence; erroneously associate wake
turbulence encounters with the need for aggressive roll upset recovery
techniques; and develop control strategies that would produce a much
different, and potentially surprising and confusing response if
performed during flight.''
The simulator exercise provided ``unrealistic portrayals
of the airplane response to wake turbulence and significantly
suppressed control input effectiveness to induce a large rolling
potential that was unlikely to occur with an airplane as large as an
A300-600.''
The simulator exercise ``encouraged the use of rudder in a
highly dynamic situation without portraying the large buildup in
sideslip angle and side load that would accompany such rudder inputs in
an actual airplane.''
Because the current FSTD evaluation standards do not contain
minimum requirements on the implementation of aircraft upset scenarios,
the potential remains for training to occur using such unrealistic
upset scenarios. Furthermore, with improved instructor situational
awareness available in the simulator (including improved feedback on
student flight control inputs and simulator/aircraft operational
limitations), it is possible that such aggressive roll upset recovery
techniques as evidenced in the American 587 accident may have been
identified and corrected during simulator training.
3. Airborne Icing Training Maneuvers
Although the simulation of engine and airframe icing has been an
evaluation requirement for all Level C and Level D FSTDs since the
early 1980's, the SPAW ARC recommended improving the fidelity of the
aerodynamic effects of aircraft icing conditions in FSTDs used in
flightcrew member training. The SPAW ARC stated specific aircraft data
should be used when available; lacking that, other sources of
engineering data may be used. The SPAW ARC further cited specific
simulator improvements that the FAA should consider in developing
improved standards for ice accretion models, such as the aerodynamic
effects of lift, drag, and rotational moments (e.g. pitch, roll, and
yaw effects) through means other than weight; the effects of icing on
control feel, airframe buffeting, and control effectiveness; the
potential to have the aircraft stall before the stall warning systems
activate; the simulation of ice protection equipment failures; and the
effect on engine performance due to ice ingestion.
Some current FSTD icing models simply employ a weight additive to
the aircraft's gross weight in order to simulate more sluggish handling
characteristics and higher stall speeds than expected. Although these
characteristics may be representative of some effects of icing, the FAA
believes the improved icing models that have been proposed would have
an appreciable benefit to flightcrew training. FSTD icing models that
incorporate the aerodynamic effects of ice accretion on lifting
surfaces can provide critical recognition cues of dangerous ice
buildup, such as changes in pitching moment, control effectiveness, and
buffet characteristics. Furthermore, ice accretion on wing surfaces can
disrupt the airflow over a wing, significantly in some cases, leading
to an aerodynamic stall. Aerodynamic stall as a result of icing can
occur at angles of attack much lower than stall warning systems are
designed to activate. The ability to replicate these conditions in a
simulator can provide invaluable training to flightcrews on the hazards
of wing ice accretion and provide a higher awareness of the potential
effects of icing conditions.\9\ These proposed improvements would
enhance the anti-icing training tasks that are currently required for
air carrier training programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\9\ See NTSB aircraft accident report number NTSB/AAR-96/01: In-
Flight Icing Encounter and Loss of Control; Simmons Airlines, d.b.a.
American Eagle Flight 4184; Avions de Transport Regional (ATR) Model
72-121, N401AM; Roselawn, Indiana (Oct. 31, 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Microburst and Windshear Recovery Maneuvers
While accidents involving windshear and microburst have decreased
significantly since the late 1980's, the SPAW ARC recommended improving
FSTD evaluation requirements to support the standardization and quality
of current training practices. Specific recommendations made by the
SPAW ARC to improve FSTD functionality for windshear training included
the addition of ``complex'' windshear models (as defined in the
Windshear Training Aid) to provide flightcrew members experience in
more realistic windshear encounters; employing methods to ensure an
FSTD is properly configured for a windshear training profile; and
including realistic levels of turbulence with existing windshear
profiles.
5. Takeoff and Landing in Gusting Crosswinds
The Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule
introduced a new requirement to address an NTSB safety recommendation
for the incorporation of ``realistic, gusty crosswind profiles'' into
pilot simulator training programs. This recommendation was based on the
results of an aircraft accident investigation in which the NTSB
determined that a contributing factor of the accident was ``inadequate
crosswind training in the airline industry due to deficient simulator
wind gust modeling'' (see NTSB report AAR-10/04). During the course of
the accident investigation, NTSB found that the airline's simulator did
not have the capability to incorporate such realistic gusting crosswind
scenarios for use in pilot training. Furthermore, the FAA reviewed the
current part 60 FSTD evaluation standards and found that no such
minimum requirement exists for the qualification of an FSTD for use in
training.
6. Bounced Landing Training Maneuvers
The Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule
introduced a new requirement for bounced landing recovery training
based on a review of accidents and various NTSB safety recommendations.
As a result of public comments received in response to the Crewmember
and Aircraft Dispatcher Training SNPRM, the FAA reviewed the part 60
minimum FSTD evaluation requirements to ensure that bounced landing
maneuvers are adequately evaluated for crew training. The FAA notes
that bounced landing

[[Page 39468]]

maneuvers are not specifically included in the current part 60
technical evaluation requirements and, as a result, FSTDs used for this
training may not have the required fidelity to properly conduct the
training.

D. Related Actions

As a result of information gathered from various working groups,
the FAA has taken action on loss of control training and simulator
fidelity deficiencies by issuing the following voluntary guidance
material:
[ssquf] FAA Safety Alert for Operators (SAFO 10012)--Possible
Misinterpretation of the Practical Test Standards (PTS) Language
``Minimal Loss of Altitude.'' The purpose of this alert bulletin is to
clarify the meaning of the approach to stall evaluation criteria as it
related to ``minimal loss of altitude'' in the Airline Transport Pilot
PTS.
[ssquf] FAA Information for Operators Bulletin (InFO 10010)--
Enhanced Upset Recovery Training. This information bulletin recommends
the incorporation of the material in the AURTA into flightcrew
training. The AURTA contains guidance for upset recovery training
programs for air carrier flightcrews as well as the evaluation guidance
for FSTDs used in such training.
[ssquf] FAA National Simulator Program (NSP) Guidance Bulletin
11-04--FSTD Modeling and Evaluation Recommendations for Engine
and Airframe Icing
[ssquf] FAA National Simulator Program (NSP) Guidance Bulletin
11-05--FSTD Evaluation Recommendations for Upset Recovery
Training Maneuvers
[ssquf] AC 120-109--Stall and Stick Pusher Training
[ssquf] Airline Transport Pilot Practical Test Standards (Change
4).
Portions of this guidance material provide FSTD operators with
recommended evaluation methods to improve FSTD fidelity for selected
training tasks. To ensure that all FSTDs used to conduct such training
are evaluated and modified to a consistent standard, the applicable
part 60 technical requirements must be modified.

E. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Recommendations

This proposal would incorporate changes into part 60 that would
either directly or indirectly address the following NTSB Safety
Recommendations through improved FSTD evaluation standards to support
the outlined training tasks:

[ssquf] Stall training and/or stick pusher training (Recommendations A-
10-22, A-10-23, A-97-47, A-07-03, and A-10-24)
[ssquf] Upset Recognition and recovery training (Recommendations A-042-
62 and A-96-120)
[ssquf] Engine and airframe icing training (Recommendations A-11-46 and
A-11-47)
[ssquf] Takeoff and landing training in gusting crosswind conditions
(Recommendations A-10-110 and A-10-111)
[ssquf] Bounced landing training (Recommendations A-00-93 and A-11-69).

III. Discussion of the Proposal

A. The FSTD Evaluation Process

For a new FSTD to be used in an FAA approved training program, it
must be evaluated in accordance with the technical standards defined in
the Qualification Performance Standards (QPS) appendices in part 60 and
issued a Statement of Qualification. The QPS appendices in part 60
consist of general requirements, objective testing requirements, and
subjective testing requirements that the FSTD must be evaluated against
for qualification at a specific level. To validate an FSTD's
aerodynamic and ground model programming, objective tests are required
that compare the FSTD's performance and handling qualities against
flight-test-collected validation data within prescribed tolerances.
These objective tests that are required for the qualification of an
FSTD are defined in the part 60 QPS appendices. Although part 60
prescribes a minimum number of objective tests required for
qualification, FSTD manufacturers and aerodynamic data providers often
independently conduct additional tests to fully assess the FSTD's
performance beyond the minimum requirements. This additional testing
may consist of supplemental validation using flight test data,
engineering simulation data, or wind tunnel analysis to expand the
validation envelope of an FSTD.
While objective testing using flight test data is generally the
preferred method for FSTD validation, many flight training maneuvers
cannot be practically validated in such a manner due either to the wide
variance that arises in the flight test response due to unsteady
aerodynamics and airplane stability, or to the safety risk associated
with the flight data collection. These maneuvers include flight at
angles of attack beyond stall identification, flight characteristics
associated with significant icing, or other maneuvers where significant
safety risks exist in the collection of flight test data. For such
maneuvers, reliance on engineering and analytical data to extend an
FSTD's validation envelope may be both appropriate and acceptable where
the flight training objectives can be accomplished.

B. General Rationale for the Proposal

The primary objective of this NPRM is to introduce FSTD technical
standards that adequately evaluate an FSTD's ability to replicate the
performance and flight handling characteristics of an aircraft during
specific new and revised training tasks required as part of an air
carrier training program. For many of these new training requirements,
the current part 60 and previously grandfathered FSTD evaluation
standards do not adequately assess an FSTD's fidelity beyond the normal
flight envelope. New FSTD evaluation standards therefore must be
developed prior to requiring these enhanced training tasks. An accurate
and realistic training environment is necessary to ensure flightcrew
members are properly trained in the recognition of a dangerous onset of
an upset or a stall condition as well as being able to properly react
if the recognition cues are missed. Accident history has shown that
unrealistic recognition cues and recovery techniques learned in an FSTD
can contribute to an improper recovery technique being attempted in the
aircraft.
A secondary objective of this NPRM is to promote harmonization with
the current international FSTD qualification guidance to the maximum
extent possible. To meet this objective, the FAA is proposing to adopt
portions of the ICAO 9625, Edition 3 FSTD evaluation guidance into the
appropriate part 60 QPS appendices. This would be limited to revising
the part 60 Appendix A standards for Level C and Level D FSTDs with the
updated guidelines in ICAO 9625 for a Type VII device. It would also
introduce a new FTD level in Appendix B of part 60 using the ICAO 9625
guidelines for a Type V device.
The part 60 technical standards for the evaluation of an FSTD are
contained in the QPS appendices of the rule. These QPS appendices are
further subdivided into various attachments and tables containing
General Simulator Requirements, Objective Testing Requirements, and
Subjective Testing Requirements. Due to the extensive reorganization
required to align the tables within the part 60 QPS appendices to match
the ICAO 9625, Edition 3 structure and numbering

[[Page 39469]]

format, the FAA is proposing to reissue both appendix A and appendix B
in their entirety. All significant amendments are discussed in the
following sections as they relate to the intended objectives.
Under this proposal, the changes to the technical evaluation
standards in the QPS appendices would become effective for all FSTDs
that are newly qualified or upgraded in qualification level 30 days
after publication of a final rule implementing these provisions.
However, FSTD sponsors may elect to use the existing part 60 standards
to qualify new or upgraded FSTDs for up to 24 months after the
effective date of a final rule under the grace period provisions that
are currently defined in Sec. 60.15(c). All FSTDs (including
previously qualified or grandfathered FSTDs) that would be used conduct
certain extended envelope and other training tasks required by the
Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule would require
evaluation within three years of the effective date of a final rule in
accordance with the proposed FSTD Directive. See section III.C. for
additional information on the proposed FSTD Directive.

C. Requirements Applicable to Previously Qualified FSTDs--FSTD
Directive 2 (Appendix A, Attachment 6)

Previously qualified FSTDs retain ``grandfather rights'' in
accordance with the current part 60 rule.\10\ As a result, most changes
made to the part 60 QPS appendices would not be applicable to
previously qualified FSTDs. Because the majority of FSTDs that would be
used to conduct the training required by the Crewmember and Dispatcher
Training Final Rule would retain grandfather rights and would not
require requalification under the new standards, the FAA must issue an
FSTD Directive to ensure these previously qualified FSTDs are properly
evaluated. The primary purpose of this proposal is to address the
potential lack of FSTD fidelity in certain individually identified
training tasks that will be required for air carrier training when the
Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule becomes
effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\10\ See Sec. 60.17, Previously Qualified FSTDs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

An FSTD Directive is defined in Sec. 60.23 for existing FSTDs and
provides the FAA with a mechanism to mandate FSTD modifications where
necessary for safety of flight reasons. Some of the training tasks that
have been mandated by Public Law 111-216 and required in the Crewmember
and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule have significant potential
to introduce either inappropriate or incomplete training to flightcrew
members due to a lack of FSTD fidelity. In most of these training
tasks, the flight conditions the crews would be exposed to have never
been previously experienced in the aircraft, making the accuracy and
realism of the FSTD of prime importance. The potential of inadequate
fidelity of an FSTD used to conduct such training can lead to a
misunderstanding of recognition cues, learning of inappropriate
recovery techniques, and an unrealistic understanding, or a lack of
understanding of dangerous flight conditions that must be avoided. As a
result, the FAA believes that proper evaluation of any FSTD (including
those previously qualified FSTDs that hold grandfather rights) used to
conduct these training tasks must be accomplished. To keep the cost of
evaluating and modifying previously qualified FSTDs to a minimum, the
FAA is proposing to apply the requirements of the FSTD Directive only
to those FSTDs that would be used to accomplish specific training tasks
as described in the FSTD Directive. Under this proposal, FSTD Sponsors
may choose to qualify any number of FSTDs to conduct any of the
individual tasks as required to meet the needs of their training
programs. FSTDs that have been evaluated and modified in accordance
with the FSTD Directive would have their Statements of Qualification
modified to indicate the FSTD has been evaluated and qualified for the
tasks.
The QPS requirements for the qualification of full stall maneuvers
and upset recognition and recovery maneuvers are generally applicably
to Level C and Level D FSTDs that have minimum requirements for both
six degree of freedom motions cues and motion special effects (stall
buffet) cues. Particularly for full stall maneuvers that involve
significant roll and yaw deviations as well as high bank angle upset
recovery maneuvers, motion cues in all six degrees of freedom are
critical to provide the pilot with the cues necessary to learn
effective recovery techniques. Additionally, motion vibration (buffet)
cueing is necessary for the qualification of full stall maneuvers in
order to provide the pilot with the proper recognition cues of an
impending stall.
The FAA recognizes that some of the full stall and upset
recognition and recovery maneuvers described in this proposal may not
necessarily result in significant roll or yaw deviations (such as wings
level stalls and nose high/nose low upsets with no bank angle) and
could potentially be conducted in a Level A or a Level B FFS equipped
with a three degree of freedom motion cueing system.\11\ Furthermore,
many Level A FFSs that do not have a minimum requirement for the
simulation of stall buffets may, in fact, be equipped with such a
system on a voluntary basis.\12\ It is for these reasons, the FAA has
proposed that Level A and Level B FFSs may be considered for the
qualification of certain full stall and upset recognition and recovery
maneuvers in accordance with the FSTD Directive where the motion and
vibration cueing systems have been specifically evaluated to provide
adequate cues for the accomplishment of the particular training tasks.
Specific full stall or upset recovery maneuvers (such as high bank
angle upset recovery maneuvers) may be excluded from qualification
where it has been determined that the FSTD cannot provide the proper
motion or vibration cues to accomplish the particular training tasks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\11\ Level A and Level B FFSs have minimum requirements for
three degrees of freedom motion cues. See 14 CFR Part 60, Table A1A,
Section 5.b.
\12\ Level A FFSs do not have a minimum requirement for motion
effects (stall buffets). See 14 CFR Part 60, Table A1A, Section 5.e.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The FAA has considered the potential cost impact of imposing new
evaluation requirements on previously qualified FSTDs where aerodynamic
data and associated validation data for objective testing may not
exist. Particularly with older aircraft and FSTDs that have been out of
production for a number of years or may no longer be supported by the
original aerodynamic data provider, the FAA recognizes that the
collection of such data may prove to be very costly. In order to
mitigate this potential cost impact, the FAA has proposed a number of
cost relieving provisions in the FSTD Directive that would reduce the
overall cost of compliance with the Directive. These provisions
include:
All new objective test cases for stall maneuvers include
those maneuvers that are typically required for aircraft certification,
such as turning flight stall and cruise configuration stalls. This
would increase the likelihood that the aircraft manufacturer may
already have flight test validation data on hand for use in validating
required objective tests.
Where an FSTD's aerodynamic data package is supplied by an
aircraft manufacturer, the FAA is proposing to allow the use of
approved engineering simulation data \13\ for the purposes of

[[Page 39470]]

meeting the objective testing requirements of the FSTD Directive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\13\ 14 CFR part 60, Appendix A, Attachment 2, paragraph 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Where no adequate flight test data or engineering
simulation data is available for use in validating required objective
tests for stall maneuvers, the FAA is proposing to allow the validation
of objective tests through evaluation by a subject matter expert pilot
with relevant experience in the aircraft.
For evaluating full stall maneuvers, where aerodynamic
modeling data or validation data is not available or insufficient to
fully meet the requirements of the Directive, the National Simulator
Program Manager (NSPM) may restrict FSTD qualification to certain
maneuvers where adequate validation data exists. For example, if
validation data exists only for wings level stall maneuvers at angles
of attack at or below the stick pusher activation, the NSPM may still
qualify the FSTD for those limited stall maneuvers where data exists
(in this example, wings level stalls where recovery is initiated at
stick pusher activation).
The primary focus of this FSTD Directive is for those FSTDs that
would be used to meet the air carrier training requirements in the
Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule. However,
because the same safety risk exists for inappropriate simulator
training in non-air carrier training programs, other qualified FSTDs
that would be used to conduct such training tasks in any FAA-approved
flight training program would also have to meet the requirements of
this FSTD Directive. Since existing air carriers would not have to
comply with the mandatory training requirements until 5 years after the
Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training rulemaking becomes
effective, the FAA believes there is sufficient time for the affected
previously qualified FSTDs to be evaluated and modified in accordance
with the FSTD Directive before such training takes place. In cases
where affected training tasks are currently being conducted on a
voluntary basis and the FSTD has been evaluated by the sponsor to
conduct such maneuvers, the FAA has no intent to immediately halt such
training. In order for such FSTDs to be modified and evaluated in a
timely manner as described in the Directive, the FAA is proposing a
compliance date of 3 years after this rule (and associated FSTD
Directive) becomes effective. After that date, any FSTD being used in
an FAA-approved training program for the following training tasks must
be evaluated and issued an amended Statement of Qualification (SOQ) by
the NSP in accordance with the FSTD Directive:
[ssquf] Stall training maneuvers that are conducted at angles of
attack higher than the activation of the stall warning system. This
does not include approach-to-stall (stall prevention) maneuvers where
recovery is initiated at the activation of the stall warning system.
[ssquf] Upset Recognition and Recovery training maneuvers.
[ssquf] Engine and Airframe Icing training maneuvers that
demonstrate the aircraft specific effects of engine and airframe ice
accretion.
[ssquf] Takeoff and landing training tasks with gusting crosswinds.
[ssquf] Bounced landing recovery training tasks.
Specific evaluation requirements that have been proposed for
previously qualified FSTDs by FSTD Directive are indicated in the
following sections by topic (sections D through H).

D. FSTD Evaluation Requirements for Full Stall Training Tasks (Appendix
A; Table A1A, Section 2.1.7.S, Table A2A, Tests 2.a.10, 2.c.8, and
3.f.8; Table A3A, Test 5.b.1; and Attachment 7)

The current and previous FSTD qualification standards (dating back
to AC 121-14C in 1980) contain both objective and subjective testing
requirements for full stall maneuver evaluation. While these
requirements include the evaluation of full stall maneuvers, the
objective testing requirements are limited to only validating stall
warning speeds, stall buffet onset speeds, and the stall speeds in
flight conditions typically used for aircraft certification testing in
a very controlled environment (such as wings level stalls in approach
and climb configurations). Because there has never previously been a
requirement to conduct full stall training in an FSTD (historically,
stall training ends at the first indication of the stall), relatively
little emphasis has been placed on the objective validation of
simulator performance and handling qualities at airspeeds lower than
the activation of the stall warning system.
When flight training to a full stall is provided to crewmembers,
recognition cues and performance and handling characteristics in the
FSTD must be accurate to ensure pilots properly respond to stall events
or low energy states. Where a stall is imminent, critical seconds can
be lost if the crew is not aware of the low energy cues indicating that
the aircraft is approaching a dangerous flight condition. Furthermore,
if a stalled condition is encountered in flight, accurate and repeated
training helps pilots react and apply appropriate control input(s), to
maintain or regain the desired flight path. Training in accurate and
realistic scenarios may also help mitigate the startle factor that
often accompanies such an event.
While the existing FSTD stall evaluation requirements have
generally proven to be sufficient for approach to stall training tasks
that terminate at the first indication of the stall, these standards do
not adequately extend beyond the activation of the stall warning system
for the purpose of validating the FSTD's performance and handling
qualities at the stall through recovery. New FSTD evaluation
requirements for stall recognition and aircraft handling qualities are
necessary if training is to be conducted to a full stall. Most
aerodynamic modeling on modern FSTDs assumes a certain amount of
linearity from objectively validated test points to extrapolate
aircraft performance and handling qualities between test points. As an
aircraft approaches a stalled flight condition, this linearity can no
longer be assumed, and more test points are required to validate the
fidelity of the model.
Through the work of ICATEE and the SPAW ARC, several subject matter
experts on pilot training concluded that stall recovery training does
not require, nor is it practical, that the post stall behavior of the
aircraft be exactly replicated in the FSTD. They also concluded that a
``type representative'' post stall model should suffice in properly
training the recovery maneuver. Because of the typically unstable
behavior of the aircraft at or beyond the stall angle of attack, it is
not reasonable or practical to require tight tolerances applied to
objective tests against flight test validation data beyond the stall
angle of attack. In lieu of mandating objective tolerances in the post
stall flight regime, it was recommended that the use of analytical
methods, engineering simulation, and wind tunnel methods in combination
with subject matter expert pilot assessment be authorized to develop
and validate ``type representative'' post stall models.
In consideration of the recommendations of the SPAW ARC, the FAA
proposes to amend the appendix A QPS requirements to improve the FSTD
evaluation requirements for full stall training tasks. These amendments
are intended to accomplish the following objectives to improve FSTD
fidelity for flightcrews conducting full stall training tasks:
Improve the fidelity of the FSTD's aerodynamic model and
cueing systems

[[Page 39471]]

at angles of attack beyond the first indication of the stall (stall
warning, stick shaker, etc.) to better match the aircraft specific
recognition cues of an impending stall. This is accomplished through:
[cir] Improved objective testing to include additional test cases
against approved validation data (flight test data, engineering
simulation data, etc.) in training critical maneuvers such as turning
flight (accelerated) stalls, high altitude (clean configuration)
stalls, power-on stalls, and stalls at multiple flap settings.
[cir] New and improved objective testing tolerances to better
validate performance and handling qualities, control inputs, stall
buffet, and stick pusher forces (if equipped) of the FSTD as the stall
is approached.
Improve the fidelity of the FSTD's aerodynamic model and
cueing systems at the stall break (if present) through stall recovery.
This is accomplished through:
[cir] Defining a minimum level of fidelity and modeling
requirements to develop ``type representative'' extended full stall
models using available flight test data and alternate methods, such as
engineering simulation, analytical methods, and wind tunnel analysis.
[cir] Defining functional evaluation criteria for qualified subject
matter expert evaluation to determine suitability of a representative
full stall model that supports training requirements.
In order to accomplish these objectives to improve FSTD fidelity in
full stall training maneuvers, the FAA is proposing revisions to the
following sections in appendix A of the QPS for FFSs. Where a specific
requirement has been proposed for previously qualified FSTDs by FSTD
Directive, it is indicated as such with an ``FD'':

Table A1A (General Simulator Requirements)

Section 2.1.7.S/[FD] (High Angle of Attack Modeling)

Table A1B (Table of Tasks vs. Simulator Level)

Table A1B, Section 3.b. (High Angle of Attack Maneuvers)

Table A2A (Full Flight Simulator Objective Tests)

Test 2.a.10/[FD] (Stick Pusher System Force Calibration)
Tests 2.c.8.a. and 2.c.8.b/[FD] (Stall Characteristics)
Test 2.f.8. (Characteristic Motion Vibrations--Buffet at
Stall)

Table A3A (Functions and Subjective Tests)

Tests 5.b.1.a and 5.b.1.b/[FD] (Maneuvers--High Angle of
Attack)

Attachment 7 (Additional Simulator Qualification Requirements for
Stall, Upset Recognition and Recovery, and Airborne Icing Training
Tasks)

High Angle of Attack Model Evaluation [FD]

E. FSTD Evaluation Requirements for Upset Recognition and Recovery
Training Tasks (Appendix A; Table A1A, Section 2.1.6.S and Attachment
7)

The current part 60 requirements do not explicitly define a minimum
envelope of FSTD aerodynamic model validity required for training
purposes. The objective validation of an FSTD is primarily based on
direct comparison of the FSTD's performance and handling qualities
against that of flight test collected validation data in a
representative cross section of the flight envelope that includes many
relevant training maneuvers. Outside of these objectively validated
test conditions, an FSTD's aerodynamics are typically interpolated or
extrapolated using predictive methods and data sources such as wind
tunnel data and analytically derived data. Many of the recommended
upset recovery training maneuvers (as defined in the AURTA) are
conducted in flight regimes that make direct comparison against flight
test data impractical due to safety concerns. However, since much of
the aerodynamic characteristics necessary to program an FSTD to conduct
such maneuvers are based on angle of attack and sideslip ranges that
can be derived from flight testing and reliable predictive methods, a
certain amount of aerodynamic model fidelity can be accurately implied
across a large range of pitch, roll, and heading values. This
aerodynamic model fidelity would necessarily be a function of the
quality and amount of data sources, ranging from flight test and wind
tunnel data sources through established extrapolation methods.
In addition to defining and measuring aerodynamic model fidelity in
upset recovery maneuvers, it is important that the instructor have
real-time situational awareness with respect to the aircraft's
operational limits (including the degree to which the simulation being
used accurately portrays the actual reaction of the airplane) and the
flight control inputs being used by the student to conduct the
recovery. It is critical for the instructor to be able to assess the
student's application of control inputs, including those that may not
be readily visible from the instructor's station (such as rudder pedal
displacements and forces) to ascertain that control inputs to affect
recovery do not result in exceeding either the aircraft's operational
load limits or the simulator's validation data limits.
In order to properly conduct upset recovery training in an FSTD, a
feedback mechanism is necessary to provide full situational awareness
to the instructor to properly assess the student's recovery technique.
The FAA proposes new requirements to define minimum requirements for a
feedback mechanism necessary for upset recovery training in an FSTD.
However, because FSTD sponsors may choose a number of methods to
accomplish this, the FAA has not prescribed the exact content and
layout of such a feedback mechanism. In this proposal, the FAA has
included examples of recommended Instructor Operating Station displays
the information section of appendix A.
In order to codify all of the proposed qualification requirements
for upset recovery training in an FSTD, the FAA is proposing the
following changes to Table A1A (General Simulator Requirements) and
Attachment 7 of appendix A:
The FSTD's validation limits (as a function of angle of
attack and sideslip angle) must be defined by the aerodynamic data
provider for use in establishing a validation envelope of the FSTD for
upset recovery training maneuvers.
For airplane upset conditions or scenarios,\14\ the FSTD's
aerodynamics must be evaluated to ensure the FSTD can stay within the
flight tested or wind tunnel validation envelope during the execution
of the recovery maneuvers. A minimum of three defined maneuvers
(consistent with the maneuvers described in the AURTA) must be
evaluated for FSTD qualification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\14\ The AURTA generally defines an airplane upset as one of the
following unintentional conditions: Pitch attitude greater than 25
degrees nose up; Pitch attitude greater than 10 degrees nose down;
Bank angle greater than 45 degrees; or flying at airspeeds
inappropriate for the conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Externally driven dynamic upset scenarios must be
realistic, based on relevant data sources, and must not artificially
degrade the simulated aircraft's performance capability without clear
indication to the instructor.
An instructor feedback mechanism must be provided to
notify the instructor where the FSTD's validation envelope or the
aircraft's operating limits has been exceeded. This feedback mechanism
must also provide the

[[Page 39472]]

instructor with relevant flight control position information and have
the ability to record and playback for debriefing purposes.
In order to accomplish these objectives to improve FSTD
functionality for upset recognition and recovery maneuvers, the FAA is
proposing revisions to the following sections in appendix A of the QPS
for FFSs. Where a specific requirement has been proposed for previously
qualified FSTDs by FSTD Directive, it is indicated as such with an
``FD'':

Table A1A (General Simulator Requirements)

Section 2.1.6.S/[FD] (Upset Recognition and Recovery)

Table A1B (Table of Tasks vs. Simulator Level)

Section 3.f. (Upset Recognition and Recovery)

Table A3A (Functions and Subjective Tests)

Test 5.b.15/[FD] (Maneuvers--Upset Recognition and Recovery)

Attachment 7 (Additional Simulator Qualification Requirements for
Stall, Upset Recognition and Recovery, and Airborne Icing Training
Tasks)

Upset Recognition and Recovery Evaluation [FD]

F. FSTD Evaluation Requirements for Airborne Icing Training Tasks
(Appendix A; Table A1A, Section 2.1.5.S; Table A2A, Test 2.i. and
Attachment 7)

The FAA is proposing to amend the evaluation requirements for the
simulation of engine and airframe icing as currently required in part
60 for Level C and Level D FSTDs. The proposed changes would require
that an FSTD have ice accretion models that simulate the aerodynamic
effects of ice accretion on the lifting surfaces of the aircraft. These
ice accretion models must be realistic and based upon relevant data
sources, such as aircraft manufacturer's data or other acceptable
analytical methods. The SPAW ARC recommendations form the basis for
these proposed requirements. The SPAW ARC recommended that aircraft
type-specific flight training be conducted on the aerodynamic effects
of ice accumulation; the use and failure of aircraft ice equipment; the
use of autopilot; and the performance and handling effects of ice
accumulation. The SPAW ARC cites incidents in which aircraft have
encountered stall warning, stall buffet, and aerodynamic stall at lower
than normal angles of attack due to ice accretion. Accordingly, the
SPAW ARC found it to be important that flightcrews are appropriately
trained on this phenomenon in a simulator training scenario that
emphasizes that in icing conditions, the stall warning or protection
system may not activate and stall margins may be significantly reduced.
The SPAW ARC further noted that some simulators may lack the
fidelity to accurately portray the aerodynamic effects of ice
accumulation. While minimum requirements for engine and airframe icing
have existed in the FSTD qualification standards since the early
1980's, these requirements have lacked the specific detail for
aerodynamic effects to be simulated. On many older simulators, the
effects of ice accumulation have been approximated by adding weight
increments to the simulated aircraft. While some icing effects can be
approximated using this method, many other critical icing
characteristics are not realistically replicated in this manner. For
example, neither the altered critical angle of attack due to ice
accumulation nor the actual weight indicative of the accumulation are
accurately replicated using such weight increments.
To improve flightcrew training for such events, the FAA is
proposing to amend some of the current requirements for FSTD evaluation
of engine and airframe icing. These amendments would enhance the
existing flightcrew training requirement for anti-icing operations by
improving the recognition cues and realistic aerodynamic effects of ice
accretion. The changes are based on the updated engine and airframe
icing requirements that are published in the ICAO 9625, Edition 3
international FSTD qualification guidance as well as the following
additional improvements that were recommended by the SPAW ARC:
[ssquf] Ice accretion models must incorporate the aerodynamic
effects of icing (where appropriate for the aircraft) such as reduced
stall angle of attack, loss of lift, changes in pitching moment, and
control effectiveness. These models must be based on aircraft original
equipment manufacturer data or other analytical methods.
[ssquf] Aircraft systems, such as autoflight systems and stall
protection systems must respond properly to the effects of ice
accretion.
[ssquf] Objective tests must be developed to demonstrate the
intended aerodynamic effects of simulated ice accretion.
In order to accomplish these objectives to improve FSTD fidelity in
airborne icing training maneuvers, the FAA is proposing specific
revisions to the following sections in appendix A of the QPS for FFSs.
Where a specific requirement has been proposed for previously qualified
FSTDs by FSTD Directive, it is indicated as such with an ``FD'':

Table A1A (General Simulator Requirements)

Section 2.1.5.S/[FD] (Engine and Airframe Icing)

Table A2A (Full Flight Simulator Objective Tests)

Test 2.i (Engine and Airframe Icing Effects Demonstration)

Attachment 7 (Additional Simulator Qualification Requirements for
Stall, Upset Recognition and Recovery, and Airborne Icing Training
Tasks)

Engine and Airframe Icing Evaluation [FD]

G. FSTD Evaluation Requirements for Takeoff and Landing Training Tasks
in Gusting Crosswinds (Appendix A, Table A1A, Sections 3.1.S, 3.1.R,
and 11.4.R)

The FAA has introduced new FSTD evaluation requirements for the
modeling of gusting crosswinds for takeoff and landing training tasks.
The basis for this change is due to a recent air carrier accident where
the aircraft experienced strong and gusty crosswinds during takeoff
roll and departed the runway. The NTSB concluded the following in their
final accident report:

Because Continental's simulator training did not replicate the
ground-level disturbances and gusting crosswinds that often occur at
or near the runway surface, and it is unlikely that the accident
captain had previously encountered gusting surface crosswinds like
those he encountered the night of the accident, the captain was not
adequately prepared to respond to the changes in heading encountered
during this takeoff.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\15\ Runway Side Excursion During Attempted Takeoff in Strong
and Gusty Crosswind Conditions, Continental Flight 1404, December
20, 2008, NTSB Final Report, NTSB/AAR-10/04.

While the current part 60 requirements have both objective and
subjective evaluation requirements for crosswind takeoff and landing
maneuvers, there is no current requirement for the modeling of gusting
crosswinds. Since steady state crosswinds are currently validated with
objective testing, the FAA believes most FSTDs should have adequate
aerodynamic and ground modeling to react properly when stimulated with
gusting crosswind profiles. Furthermore, the FAA agrees with the

[[Page 39473]]

NTSB's recommendations that such gusting crosswind profiles should be
realistic and based on data sources. However, the FAA believes that
such realistic gusting crosswind profiles can be derived from existing
sources, such as the FAA Windshear Training Aid, and evaluated for
training by subject matter expert pilots.
To ensure the FSTD supports a realistic training environment, the
FAA proposes to add the following minimum requirements for the modeling
of gusting crosswind profiles and the evaluation of the ground handling
characteristics of the FSTD:
[ssquf] Realistic gusting crosswind profiles must be available to
the instructor. The profiles must be tuned in intensity and variation
to require pilot intervention to avoid runway departure during takeoff
or landing roll.
[ssquf] A Statement of Compliance would be required that describes
the source data used to develop the crosswind profiles. Additional
information material in the QPS appendix recommends the use of the FAA
Windshear Training Aid or other acceptable data sources in determining
appropriate wind profiles.
[ssquf] The FSTD's ground reaction model must be subjectively
assessed to ensure it reacts appropriately to the gusting crosswind
profiles.
In order to accomplish these objectives to improve FSTD
functionality for gusting crosswinds, the FAA is proposing revisions to
the following sections in appendix A of the QPS for FFSs. Where a
specific requirement has been proposed for previously qualified FSTDs
by FSTD Directive, it is indicated as such with an ``FD'':

Table A1A (General Simulator Requirements)

Section 3.1.S(2)/[FD] (Ground Handling Characteristics)
Section 11.4.R/[FD] (Atmosphere and Weather--Instructor
Controls)

Table A3A (Functions and Subjective Tests)

Test 3.a.3/[FD] (Takeoff--Crosswind--maximum demonstrated and
gusting crosswind)
Test 8.d./[FD] (Approach and Landing with crosswind--maximum
demonstrated and gusting crosswind)

H. FSTD Evaluation Requirements for Bounced Landing Training Tasks
(Appendix A, Table A1A, Section 3.1.S)

The Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training SNPRM proposed new
requirements for bounced landing training tasks to address various
aircraft accidents and NTSB Safety Recommendations. In response to the
SNPRM, the FAA received a comment from the Air Line Pilots Association
International (Docket entry FAA-2008-0677-0307) with concerns about the
ability of an FSTD to adequately represent a bounced landing.
The FAA reviewed the current FSTD qualification standards and found
that many of the currently required objective tests do, in fact, test
the fidelity on an FSTD in this phase of flight. Objective tests, such
as the required minimum unstick speed takeoff test (Vmu), landing
tests, and ground effect tests should provide for a reasonable
validation of the FSTD's aerodynamic performance in this phase of
flight. Furthermore, the current part 60 rule has explicit motion
system effects requirements for tail and engine pod strikes that can
typically be a result of an incorrectly performed touchdown that could
lead to the necessity of a bounced landing recovery. However, it was
noted that the current part 60 general requirements for ground reaction
and ground handling did not address the effects that should be
accounted for in the models. To address this deficiency, the FAA is
proposing to add new general requirements for ground reaction modeling
to ensure the effects of a bounced landing and related tail strike are
properly modeled and evaluated. Because of the safety risk involved in
collecting airplane flight test data for such a maneuver, no new
objective testing would be required and only subjective assessment of
the FSTD would be conducted for this particular task.
In order to accomplish these objectives to improve FSTD
functionality for bounced landing training tasks, the FAA is proposing
revisions to the following sections in appendix A of the QPS for FFSs.
Where a specific requirement has been proposed for previously qualified
FSTDs by FSTD Directive, it is indicated as such with an ``FD'':

Table A1A (General Simulator Requirements)

Section 3.1.S(1)/[FD] (Ground Reaction Characteristics)

Table A3A (Functions and Subjective Tests)

Test 9.3./[FD] (Missed Approach--Bounced landing)

I. FSTD Evaluation Requirements for Windshear Training Tasks (Appendix
A, Table A1A, Section 11.2.R)

One of the mandates of Public Law 111-216 was for the FAA to form a
multidisciplinary panel to study ``. . . methods to increase the
familiarity of flightcrew members with, and improve the response of
flightcrew members to, stick pusher systems, icing conditions, and
microburst and windshear weather events.'' \16\ The FAA chartered the
SPAW ARC in response to this mandate. While the SPAW ARC agreed that
microburst and windshear events have decreased significantly since the
introduction of the Windshear Training Aid,\17\ it recommended a number
of improvements to enhance the current FSTD windshear qualification
requirements. The FAA is proposing to adopt the following three
recommendations of the SPAW ARC, which would improve on the realism and
provide better standardization of windshear training events:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\16\ Public Law 111-216, Section 208(b).
\17\ Windshear Training Aid, U.S. Department of Transportation,
Federal Aviation Administration 1987.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[ssquf] All required windshear profiles must be selectable and
clearly labeled on the FSTD's instructor operating station. A method
must be employed (such as an FSTD preset) to ensure that the FSTD is
properly configured for the selected windshear profile. This
requirement is to ensure that the proper windshear cues are present in
crew training as originally qualified on the FSTD.
[ssquf] Realistic levels of turbulence associated with each
windshear profile must be available and selectable to the instructor.
[ssquf] In addition to the four basic windshear models that are
currently required, two additional ``complex'' models would be required
that represent the complexity of an actual windshear encounter. These
additional models may be derived from the example complex models
published in the Windshear Training Aid. This requirement would provide
an opportunity for crew training and practice in responding to more
challenging and realistic windshear events.
In order to accomplish these objectives to improve FSTD
functionality for windshear training tasks, the FAA is proposing to
revise the following section of appendix A in the QPS for FFSs. No
retroactive requirements have been proposed for windshear qualification
by FSTD Directive:

Table A1A (General Simulator Requirements)

Section 11.2.R (Windshear Qualification)

[[Page 39474]]

J. Significant Changes To Align With the International FSTD Evaluation
Guidance (Appendix A)

In addition to the part 60 changes to address extended envelope and
adverse weather event training, the FAA is also proposing to
incorporate select portions of the latest ICAO FSTD qualification
guidance \18\ into the part 60 QPS requirements where practical. ICAO
9625, Edition 3 represents a major industry effort that redefined all
qualification levels of FSTDs to better align FSTD fidelity with the
intended pilot training tasks. The FAA is not proposing to align with
the entire ICAO 9625, Edition 3 guidance document because it contains
FSTD levels that differ significantly from the FAA's existing hierarchy
of FSTD levels. There are several device levels in the new ICAO
guidance document that currently have no basis in the FAA's existing
regulations or in the FAA's existing guidance on flight training.
Because of the far reaching implications beyond part 60 if changes were
made to the FAA's existing FSTD hierarchy, we have limited our
alignment to those FSTDs and associated evaluation guidance in the ICAO
9625, Edition 3 document that have an equivalent device in the FAA
(Level C and D) or could potentially be used in the future (Level 7
FTD) with minimal impact to the existing hierarchy. Incorporation of
the other device levels and evaluation guidance would require careful
consideration and additional rulemaking. The FAA notes that the primary
purpose of this proposal is to address the weather event, stall, stick
pusher, and upset recovery training tasks required by Public Law 111-
216. The FAA will continue to assess the possibility of incorporating
additional ICAO 9625, Edition 3 FSTD qualification levels and
evaluation guidance; however any changes made in this proposal cannot
jeopardize the timely implementation of updated FSTD standards to
address new and revised training tasks mandated by Public Law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\18\ Manual of Criteria for the Qualification of Flight
Simulation Training Devices, ICAO 9625, Edition 3, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

After an assessment of the ICAO 9625, Edition 3 document, the FAA
is proposing to make the following changes to appendix A (Qualification
Performance Standards for Airplane Full Flight Simulators) to better
align the evaluation standards for Level C and Level D FSTDs with that
of the current international guidance. The FAA has not proposed to
align the evaluation standards for Level A and Level B FSTDs because
similar devices do not exist in the ICAO 9625, Edition 3 document.
Additional changes to introduce a new FTD level as defined in ICAO 9625
have been proposed in appendix B (fixed wing Qualification Performance
Standards for Airplane Flight Training Devices) and will be discussed
in a later section.
In its review of the new ICAO 9625, Edition 3 guidance, the FAA
finds that some of the guidelines necessary for inclusion into part 60
are more restrictive and may impose additional cost (such as the
increased visual field of view requirements). However, a majority of
the changes are less restrictive or reflect established FSTD evaluation
practice. The proposed requirements in part 60 that would align with
the new ICAO guidance are expected to reduce expenses and workload for
FSTD Sponsors by avoiding conflicting compliance standards between the
FAA and other Civil Aviation Authorities. These amendments incorporate
technological advances in, encourage innovation of, and standardize the
initial and continuing qualification requirements for FSTDs that are
consistent with the guidance recently established by the international
flight simulation community.
1. Table A1A (General Requirements): The FAA is proposing to
rewrite table A1A to incorporate the ICAO 9625, Edition 3 language and
numbering system where appropriate. The FAA changed the numbering
system to use the ICAO 9625, Edition 3 fidelity definitions for each
simulation feature and to incorporate all general requirements for the
ICAO 9625, Edition 3 Type VII FSTD into the FAA Level C and Level D
FSTDs where appropriate. The general requirements for Level A and Level
B FSTDs have been left mostly unchanged to maintain continuity with the
current hierarchy of FSTD qualification levels. Where such a fidelity
level is not used for any part 60 defined FSTD, the FAA kept the
numbering intact and marked it as ``reserved'' for future use. The
following sections within Table A1A contain notable changes to align
with the ICAO 9625, Edition 3 requirements:
[ssquf] Section 1.1.S (Flight Deck Layout and Structure)--
Introduces minimum requirements for electronically displayed
representations of cockpit instrumentation. This amendment to the
existing standard would give FSTD sponsors a lower cost option of
simulating costly aircraft components with digital representations.
[ssquf] Section 6.4.R (Sound Volume)--Requires indication to the
instructor when FSTD sound volume is in an abnormal setting. This is a
new standard though some FSTDs already have this functionality.
[ssquf] Section 6.5.R (Sound Directionality)--Requires cockpit
sounds to be directionally representative. This is a new standard, but
generally reflects existing practice.
[ssquf] Section 7.1.1.S (Visual System Field of View)--Increases
minimum visual display system field of view requirements from 180
(horizontal) x 40 (vertical) degrees to 200 x 40 degrees.
[ssquf] Section 7.1.6.S (Visual System Lightpoint Brightness)--
Introduces a new minimum brightness requirement of 8.8 foot-lamberts
for visual scene lightpoints.
[ssquf] Section 7.1.8 (Visual System Black Level and Sequential
Contrast)--Introduces a new maximum visual system black level and
sequential brightness level requirements (applicable only to light
valve projectors).
[ssquf] Section 7.1.9 (Visual Motion Blur)--Introduces a new
maximum visual system motion blurring requirements (applicable only to
light valve projectors).
[ssquf] Section 7.1.10 (Visual Speckle Test)--Introduces a new
maximum visual system speckle contrast requirement (applicable only to
laser projectors).
[ssquf] Section 7.2.1 (Visual--Heads-Up Display)--Introduces new
minimum general requirements for the simulation of heads-up display
systems.
[ssquf] Section 7.2.2 (Visual--EFVS)--Introduces new minimum
general requirements for the simulation of enhanced flight vision
systems.
[ssquf] Section 13.8.S (Miscellaneous--Transport Delay)--Reduces
the maximum transport delay requirements from 150 ms to 100 ms (more
restrictive).
2. Table A2A (Objective Testing Requirements): The FAA is proposing
to rewrite table A2A to incorporate all of the ICAO 9625, Edition 3
language and test tolerances. Most changes to this section are less
restrictive as compared to the current part 60 standards. Less
restrictive test tolerances or testing conditions are expected to
reduce overall cost to an FSTD Sponsor due to a reduction in the
engineering hours required to match objective test results to
validation data. The FAA is proposing to change the tolerances and test
conditions in the following tests to align with the ICAO 9625, Edition
3 objective testing requirements:
[ssquf] Test 1.a.1 (Minimum Radius Turn)--Adds a new requirement
for ``key engine parameters.''

[[Page 39475]]

[ssquf] Test 1.b.1 (Ground Acceleration)--Revises the tolerance
from 5% of time to 1.5 seconds or 5% of time (less restrictive).
[ssquf] Test 1.b.7 (Rejected Takeoff)--Adds an acceptable
alternative to requiring maximum braking (80% of maximum braking).
[ssquf] Test 1.d.1 (Level Acceleration)--Relaxes the speed change
requirement from a minimum of 50 kts of speed increase to 80% of
operational speed range (for airplanes with a small operating speed
range).
[ssquf] Test 1.d.2 (Level Deceleration)--Relaxes the speed change
requirement from a minimum of 50 kts of speed increase to 80% of
operational speed range (for airplanes with a small operating speed
range).
[ssquf] Test 1.e.1 (Deceleration Time and Distance)--Revises the
tolerance from 5% of time to 1.5 seconds or
5% of time (less restrictive).
[ssquf] Test 1.e.2 (Deceleration Time and Distance, Reverse
Thrust)--Revises the tolerance from 5% of time to 1.5 seconds or 5% of time (less restrictive).
[ssquf] Test 1.f.1 (Engine Acceleration)--Revises the total time of
engine acceleration (Tt) from 10% to 10% or
0.25 seconds (less restrictive).
[ssquf] Test 1.f.2 (Engine Deceleration)--Revises the total time of
engine deceleration (Tt) from 10% to 10% or
0.25 seconds (less restrictive).
[ssquf] Test 2.a.7 (Pitch Trim Rate)--Revises the tolerance on trim
rate from 10% to 10% or 0.1 deg/sec
(less restrictive).
[ssquf] Tests 2.b.1, 2.b.2, 2.b.3 (Dynamic Control Checks)--Places
a minimum absolute (less restrictive) tolerance on both time (0.05 s)
and amplitude (0.5% of total control travel) where minimum tolerances
did not previously exist. This prevents the rigid application of very
small tolerances (10% of time and 10% of
amplitude) on certain flight control systems.
[ssquf] Test 2.c.7 (Longitudinal Static Stability)--Adds a new test
condition that ``the speed range should be sufficient to demonstrate
stick force versus speed characteristics.''
[ssquf] Test 2.e.3 (Crosswind Landing)--Adds a new test tolerance
on column force for airplanes with reversible flight control systems.
This additional tolerance will improve the overall validation of
cockpit control forces during the landing maneuver. Previous standards
only included control force tolerances for the wheel and rudder pedal
inputs.
[ssquf] Test 3.b. (Motion Leg Balance)--Removes the testing
requirement for motion leg balance. This test was determined to have
not provided additional value in assessing the capability of a motion
cueing platform and was recommended for removal during the development
of the ICAO 9625 document.
[ssquf] Test 3.e.1 (Motion Cueing Fidelity)--Replaces the existing
part 60 tests for ``motion cueing performance signature'' (MCPS) with
an objective test for motion cueing developed by the ICAO 9625, Edition
3 International Working Group. This test is designed to better compare
motion platform cueing with the actual translational and rotational
motion experienced in the aircraft.
[ssquf] Test 4.a.1 (Visual--Field of View)--Increases the minimum
visual system field of view from 176 x 36 degrees to 200 x 40 degrees.
[ssquf] Test 4.a.2.a (Visual--System Geometry)--Defines new system
geometry tolerances for image position, absolute geometry, and relative
geometry.
[ssquf] Test 4.a.7 (Visual--Lightpoint Brightness)--Defines a new
minimum lightpoint brightness tolerance
[ssquf] Test 4.a.9 (Visual--Black Level)--Defines new maximum black
level requirements
[ssquf] Test 4.a.10 (Visual--Motion Blur)--Defines new tolerances
for motion blur of visual scenes
[ssquf] Test 4.a.11 (Visual--Laser Speckle)--Defines a new maximum
laser speckle contrast tolerance for applicable display systems
[ssquf] Tests 4.b.1, 4.b.2, 4.b.3 (Heads-Up Display)--Defines new
minimum tolerances for HUD alignment, display, and attitude.
[ssquf] Tests 4.c.1, 4.c.2, 4.c.3 (Enhanced Flight Vision
Systems)--Defines new minimum tolerances for EFVS registration, RVR,
and thermal crossover.
[ssquf] Tests 5.a and 5.b. (Sound System)--Revised objective sound
testing tolerances to address subjective tuning and repeatability for
recurrent evaluations
[ssquf] Tests 6.a.1 (Systems Integration--Transport Delay)--
Transport delay tolerances are reduced from 150 ms to 100 ms.
[ssquf] Paragraph 6.d. (Motion Cueing--Frequency Domain Testing)--
Additional background and recommended testing procedures for the OMCT
tests (replaces existing guidance on the MCPS tests).
[ssquf] Paragraphs 11.a.1 and 11.b.5 (Validation Test Tolerances)--
Extends reduced tolerances for engineering simulation validation data
from 20% of flight test tolerances to 40% of flight test tolerances
(less restrictive).
3. Table A3A (Functions and Subjective Testing Requirements): The
FAA added is proposing to add subjective tests in the following
sections to align with ICAO 9625, Edition 3:
[ssquf] Test 2.b.6 and 2.b.7 (Taxi)
[ssquf] Test 5.b.2 (Slow Flight)
[ssquf] Tests 5.b.1 (High Angle of Attack)
[ssquf] Test 5.b.13 (Gliding to a Forced Landing)
[ssquf] Tests 5.b.14 (Visual Resolution and FSTD Handling and
Performance)
[ssquf] Tests 7.a.1, 10.a.1, 11.a.20 (HUD/EFVS)
[ssquf] Tests 11.a.16, 11.a.20, 11.a.25, 11.a.26, 11.a.27 (New
Technology)

4. Table A3B (Class I Airport Models)

[ssquf] The FAA is proposing to restructure this table to align
with the ICAO 9625, Edition 3 airport model requirements. No
significant differences exist between this proposed table and the
current part 60 requirements.
5. Table A3D (Motion System Effects): The FAA is proposing to add
or modify tests in the following sections to align with ICAO 9625,
Edition 3:
[ssquf] Test 1 (Taxi)--Introduces a new requirement for lateral and
directional motion cueing effects during taxi maneuvers.
[ssquf] Test 2 (Runway Contamination)--Introduces a new requirement
for motion effects due to runway contamination and associated anti-skid
system characteristics.
[ssquf] Test 7 (Buffet Due to Atmospheric Disturbance)--Introduces
a new requirement for motion cueing effects due to atmospheric
disturbances.

K. New Level 7 Fixed Wing FSTD Requirements--Appendix B Changes
(Appendix B, Tables B1A, B1B, B2A, B3A, B3B, B3C, B3D, and B3E)

In addition to the changes proposed for FFS requirements in
appendix A, the FAA is also proposing to add a new FTD qualification
level (Level 7 FTD) in appendix B of part 60. This new FTD level would
be modeled after the ICAO 9625, Edition 3 Type V FSTD and would
incorporate all of the general requirements, objective testing
requirements, and subjective testing requirements as defined in ICAO
9625, Edition 3 for this level of FSTD. The purpose of adding this new
FSTD level would be to expand the number of training tasks that can be
qualified for training in a lower cost, fixed-base FSTD. The highest
FTD level currently defined in the part 60 FSTD qualification standards
is the Level 6 FTD. Because the standards for a Level 6 FTD do not
include minimum requirements for ground reaction and ground handling
modeling and also do

[[Page 39476]]

not require objective testing to validate the FSTD's performance in
related maneuvers such as takeoff, landing, and taxi training tasks,
the Level 6 FTD cannot be used for training these tasks.
In order to qualify such an FTD for these training tasks, new
evaluation requirements would be required to properly evaluate the
aerodynamic ground effect, ground handling, and visual display system
characteristics to ensure an adequate level of fidelity for related
training maneuvers. In ICAO 9625, Edition 3, such a new FSTD level (the
ICAO Type V FSTD) was defined to expand the number of introductory
training tasks that can be conducted in a fixed base FSTD. The Type V
FSTD evaluation guidance introduce new objective testing requirements
in the takeoff, landing, and taxi flight maneuvers in a fixed base FTD
that do not currently exist in a part 60 defined Level 6 FTD. This
additional validation testing would allow for additional training to be
qualified for such maneuvers beyond what a current FAA Level 6 FTD is
capable of performing. Consistent with the ICAO Type V guidance
material, some testing and checking tasks would still be limited to
upper level FFSs that have the six degree of freedom motion cueing
systems. The minimum requirements for the Type V FSTD as defined in the
ICAO 9625, Edition 3 are essentially that of an ICAO Type VII simulator
without motion cueing requirements and less restrictive visual display
system requirements.
The addition of this new FTD qualification level would be
beneficial to industry because it would provide FSTD Sponsors with more
options for conducting lower cost training in fixed base FSTDs rather
than using more expensive Level D FFS for certain training tasks. The
qualification and use of such FTDs in an FAA approved training program
would be voluntary and would not impose additional cost on FSTD
Sponsors.
To incorporate the proposed addition of the Level 7 FTD into
appendix B of part 60, the FAA is proposing to make several
modifications to the existing tables to define the technical evaluation
requirements for the new FTD level while keeping the requirements
intact for the current Level 4, 5, and 6 FTDs. The FAA proposes the
following changes to appendix B to achieve this objective:
[ssquf] Minimum FTD Requirements (Table B1A): The FAA has rewritten
the minimum FTD requirements table to use the ICAO 9625, Edition 3
format and numbering system. The FAA has integrated the new Level 7 FTD
requirements into the table and based them on the proposed Level D FFS
requirements as defined in Table A1A with the exception of the motion
and visual display system requirements. The FAA is proposing to leave
all other FTD levels essentially unchanged from the current part 60
requirements.
[ssquf] Table of Tasks vs FTD Level (Table B1B): The FAA is
proposing to modify the minimum qualified task list to include the new
Level 7 FTD device. The FAA based the qualified tasks for the Level 7
FTD upon the recommendations in ICAO 9625, Edition 3 for a Type V FSTD.
Where a specific training task is limited to training only and not
qualified for training to proficiency tasks (testing or checking), the
FAA is proposing to annotate it in the table with a ``T.''
[ssquf] Objective Testing Requirements (Table B2A): The FAA is
proposing to update the table of objective tests to include new testing
requirements for the Level 7 FTD. The FAA based these requirements on
the FFS Level D requirements proposed in Table A2A with the exception
of the motion system and visual system requirements.
[ssquf] Functions and Subjective Testing Requirements (Tables B3A,
B3B, B3C, B3D, and B3E): The FAA is proposing to add new and updated
subjective tests to address the new tasks that may be accomplished in a
Level 7 FTD. The FAA left the existing requirements for Level 4, 5, and
6 FTDs unchanged.

L. Miscellaneous Amendments To Improve and Codify FSTD Evaluation
Procedures (Sec. Sec. 60.15, 60.17, 60.19, 60.23, Appendix A Paragraph
11)

The FAA is further proposing to make minor amendments to the FSTD
evaluation and oversight process as defined in several sections of the
main rule. The part 60 rule was originally published in 2008 and
codified many of the existing FSTD evaluation practices that had
previously been defined in guidance material. Since the rule originally
became effective, the FAA has found a number of requirements in the
rule that have had unintentional negative consequences in the FAA's
ability to oversee FSTD qualification issues. The proposed changes
would allow for more flexibility in scheduling FSTD evaluations and
reduce some of the paperwork that FSTD Sponsors currently submit to the
FAA. The changes being proposed would be less restrictive and would not
have a cost impact on FSTD Sponsors.
[ssquf] Corrects language in the initial evaluation requirements
where FSTD objective testing must be accomplished at the ``sponsor's
training facility.'' This has been corrected to the FSTD's ``permanent
location'' to accommodate for FSTDs that are not located at the
sponsor's training facility, but at a third party location. (Sec.
60.15 and appendix A, paragraph 11).
[ssquf] Modifies the ``grace month'' for conducting annual
Continuing Qualification (CQ) evaluations from one month to three
months.
[ssquf] Establishes the CQ evaluation schedule on the Statement of
Qualification rather than in the Master Qualification Test Guide
(MQTG). These changes would provide more flexibility in scheduling CQ
evaluations to accommodate both the FAA and FSTD Sponsors. (Sec.
60.19).
[ssquf] Amends the date before which previously qualified FSTDs
retain the qualification basis under which they were originally
evaluated. This would ensure that FSTDs which were qualified after the
original publication of part 60 (May 30, 2008) do not inadvertently
lose grandfather rights. (Sec. 60.17).
[ssquf] Clarifies the requirement to notify the FAA of changes made
to an FSTD's MQTG. This requirement has been modified to require FAA
reporting only for changes that would have a material impact on the
MQTG content or the FSTD's qualification basis. This change would
reduce the amount of reporting the FSTD Sponsors would have to conduct
for minor text changes in the MQTG document. (Sec. 60.23).
[ssquf] Reduces the minimum time prior to an initial evaluation
that an FSTD Sponsor is required to send a confirmation statement to
the FAA that an FSTD has been evaluated in accordance with the part 60
QPS, provided there is prior coordination and approval by the NSPM.
This change would allow more flexibility for the FSTD sponsors in
complex FSTD installations where on-site testing cannot be accomplished
before the current 5 day time limit. (appendix A, Paragraph 11).

IV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses

A. Regulatory Evaluation

Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 direct
that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon
a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation
justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub.
L. 96-354) requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of
regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act
(Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits agencies

[[Page 39477]]

from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign
commerce of the United States. In developing U.S. standards, this Trade
Act requires agencies to consider international standards and, where
appropriate, that they be the basis of U.S. standards. Fourth, the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies
to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other
effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate
likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100
million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of
1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of
the economic impacts of this proposed rule. We suggest readers seeking
greater detail read the full regulatory evaluation, a copy of which we
have placed in the docket for this rulemaking.
In conducting these analyses, FAA has determined this proposed rule
has benefits that justify its costs. It has also been determined that
this rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' as defined in
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, and is not ``significant'' as
defined in DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures. The proposed rule,
if adopted, will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, will not create unnecessary
obstacles to international trade and will not impose an unfunded
mandate on state, local, or tribal governments, or on the private
sector.
Total Benefits and Costs of This Rule
Total Costs and Benefits
The FAA estimated three separate sets of costs, and provide
separate benefit bases. The first set of costs would be incurred to
make the necessary upgrades to the FSTDs to enable training required by
the new Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule. The
training cost for the Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final
Rule provides rental revenue to simulator sponsors which will fully
compensate them for their FSTD upgrade expenses. These simulator
revenues were accounted for as costs of the additional training and
were fully justified by the benefits in that final rule. The second set
of costs would be incurred for the evaluation and modification of
engine and airframe icing models which would enhance existing training
requirements for operations using anti-icing/de-icing equipment. Just
avoiding one serious injury provides sufficient benefits to justify the
estimated cost. Lastly there are a set of changes to part 60 QPS
appendices which would align the simulator standards for some FSTD
levels with those of the latest ICAO simulator evaluation guidance.
This last set of changes would only apply to newly qualified FSTDs. The
FAA expects unquantified safety improvements to result from these
changes through more realistic training and possibly cost savings
through avoiding conflicting compliance standards with other aviation
authorities. The changes are expected to improve overall simulator
fidelity with new and revised visual system and other FSTD evaluation
standards, such as visual display resolution, visual system field of
view, and system transport delay.
The table below summarizes the costs and benefits of this proposal
over a ten year period:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.000

[[Page 39478]]

Costs
We now discuss the three separate sets of costs.
Upgrade Previously Qualified FSTDs for New Training Requirements.
The first set of costs would be incurred to make the necessary upgrades
to the FSTDs to enable training required by the new Crewmember and
Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule. In order to avoid
inappropriate or negative training, FSTDs being used to comply with
certain ``extended envelope'' training tasks in the new training rule
would require evaluation and modification as defined in the FSTD
Directive of this proposed part 60 rule.
Icing Provisions. The second set of costs would be incurred for the
evaluation and modification of engine and airframe icing models which
would enhance existing training requirements. These costs were
estimated as a percentage of the total cost of the FSTD aerodynamic
model development costs proposed by this rule. We did not include
additional model implementation and FSTD downtime costs because it was
assumed that these modifications would likely be conducted concurrently
with the modifications required for the stall training tasks.
Aligning Standards With ICAO. Lastly there are a set of changes to
part 60 QPS appendices which would align the simulator standards for
some FSTD levels with those of the latest ICAO FSTD evaluation guidance
document. These changes would only apply to newly qualified FSTDs.
Benefits
Upgrade Previously Qualified FSTDs for New Training Requirements.
The best way to understand the benefits of this proposed rule is to
view it in conjunction with the new Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher
Training Final Rule. The costs of that training rule were justified by
the expected benefits. The training rule cost/benefit analysis assumes
that the simulators will be able to provide the required training at an
hourly rate of $500. The part 60 proposed rule specifies the necessary
simulator upgrade specifications. These upgrades require simulator
owners to purchase and install upgrade packages, the costs of which are
a cost of this proposed rule. Revenues received by simulator owners for
providing training from the upgraded simulators are costs already
incurred in the training rule that have been justified by the benefits
of that rule. This revenue over time exceeds the cost of this proposed
rule.
The proposed part 60 standards and upgrade simulator expense
supporting the new training is $45 million ($32 million in present
value at 7%) and has been fully justified by the new Crewmember and
Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule.
Icing Provisions. The second area for benefits is for the icing
upgrade. Although this upgrade is not in response to a new training
requirement, it would enhance existing training requirements for
operations involving anti-icing/de-icing equipment and further address
NTSB ^{19 20} and ARC recommendations to the FAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\19\ NTSB recommendations A-11-46 and A-11-47 address engine and
airframe icing.
\20\ www.ntsb.gov
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

These costs are minor at less than a million dollars and are
expected to comprise a small percentage of the total cost of compliance
with the FSTD Directive. One avoided serious injury would justify the
minor costs of complying with these icing requirements.
Aligning Standards with ICAO. Lastly, we have not quantified
benefits of aligning part 60 qualification standards with those
recommended by ICAO, but we expect aligned FSTD standards to contribute
to improved safety as they are developed by a broad coalition of
experts with a combined pool of knowledge and experience and to result
in cost savings through avoiding conflicting compliance standards with
other aviation authorities. The changes are expected to improve overall
simulator fidelity with new and revised visual system and other FSTD
evaluation standards, such as visual display resolution, visual system
field of view, and system transport delay.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA)
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall
endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale
of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions
subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required
to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain
the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given
serious consideration.'' The RFA covers a wide-range of small entities,
including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.
However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the
agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not
required. The certification must include a statement providing the
factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be
clear.
Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities
Only FSTD sponsors are affected by this rule. FSTD sponsors are air
carriers who own simulators to train their pilots or training centers
who own simulators and sell simulator training time. To identify FSTD
sponsors that would be affected retroactively by the FSTD
directive,\21\ the FAA subjected the 811 FSTDs with an active
qualification by the FAA to qualifying criteria designed to eliminate
FSTDs not likely to be used in a part 121 training program for the
applicable training tasks (i.e., stall training, upset recovery
training, etc.). The remaining list of 322 FSTDs (included in Appendix
A of the regulatory evaluation) were sponsored by the 26 companies
presented in the table below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\21\ Part 60 contains grandfather rights for previously
qualified FSTD so the FAA would invoke an FSTD Directive to require
modification of previously qualified devices. The FSTD Directive
process has provisions for mandating modifications to FSTDs
retroactively for safety of flight reasons. See 14 CFR Part 60,
Sec. 60.23(b).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 39479]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.001

To determine which of the 26 organizations listed in the previous
table are small entities, the FAA consulted the U.S. Small Business
Administration Table of Small Business Size Standards Matched to North
American Industry Classification System Codes.\22\ For flight training
(NAICS Code 611512) the threshold for small business is revenue of
$25.5 million or less. The size standard for scheduled passenger air
transportation (NAICS Code 481111) and scheduled freight air
transportation (NAICS Code 481112) and non-scheduled charter passenger
air transportation (NAICS Code 481211) is 1,500 employees. After
consulting the World Aviation Directory, and other on-line sources, for
employees and annual revenues, the FAA identified six companies that
are qualified as small entities. In this instance, the FAA considers
six a substantial number of small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\22\ https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/Size_Standards_Table.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Economic Impact
The economic impact of this rule applies differently to previously
qualified FSTD sponsors than it would to newly qualified FSTD sponsors.
Below is a summary of the two separate analyses performed. One
determines the impact of the proposal on small entities that would have
to upgrade their previously qualified devices and the other analysis
determines the impact on those that would have to purchase a newly
qualified devices.
Economic Impact of Upgrading Previously Qualified FSTDs
Four of the small entities are training providers. If these
companies choose to offer training in the extended envelope training
tasks as required by the Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training
Final Rule, they could do so only in an upgraded FSTD. However, if they
offer this new required training there would be increased demand for
training time in their FSTDs because in addition to current
requirements for training, captains and first officers have two hours
of additional training in the first year and additional training time
in the future. The FAA estimated the cost of upgrading each simulator
would be recovered in less than 300 hours at a simulator rental rate of
$500 per hour. The training companies could therefore recover their
upgrade costs for each simulator in less than one year. Therefore, the
rule would not impose a significant economic impact on these companies.
Two of the companies identified as small businesses are part 121
air carriers. They have to comply with the Crewmember and Aircraft
Dispatcher Training Final Rule by training their pilots in simulators
that meet the standards of this part 60 rule. The additional pilot
training cost in an upgraded simulator was accounted for and justified
in that training final rule. This part 60 rule simply specifies how the
simulators need to be upgraded such that the new training will be in
compliance with the training final rule. These part 121 operators have
two options. They can purchase training time for their pilots at a
qualified training center. Alternatively they could choose to comply
with the FSTD Directive by upgrading their own devices to train their
pilots for the new training tasks. For these operators who already own
simulators, the cost of complying with the FSTD Directive is estimated
to be less than the cost of renting time at a training center to comply
with the new requirements. Therefore, we expect that they would choose
to upgrade their devices because it would be less costly to offer
training in-house than to send pilots out to

[[Page 39480]]

training centers. The cost to train pilots in the tasks required by the
training rule is a cost of the training rule and not this rule. Thus,
the rule would not impose a significant economic impact on these
companies, because by upgrading their simulators these operators would
lower their costs.
Economics of Newly Qualified Devices
It is unknown how many sponsors of newly qualified FSTDs in the
future may qualify as small entities, but we expect it would be a
substantial number as it could likely include the six identified above.
The FAA expects the proposed requirements that address the new training
tasks and upgrade the icing FSTD requirements to be included in future
training packages and the cost would be minimal for a newly qualified
FSTD. The requirement to align with ICAO guidance however, would result
in some cost. The FAA does not know who in the future will be
purchasing and qualifying FSTDs after the rule becomes effective. The
FAA estimates that the incremental cost per newly qualified FSTD would
be approximately $34,000. This is less than 0.5 percent of the cost of
a new FSTD, which generally costs $10 million or more. Therefore we do
not believe the proposed rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities that purchase newly qualified
FSTDs after the rule is in effect.
Thus this proposed rule is expected to impact a substantial number
of small entities, but not impose a significant economic impact.
Therefore, as provided in section 605(b), the head of the FAA certifies
that this rulemaking will not result in a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The FAA solicits comments
regarding this determination.

C. International Trade Impact Assessment

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal
agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities
that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United
States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not
considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the
United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic
objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not operate in a
manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also
requires consideration of international standards and, where
appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has
assessed the potential effect of this proposed rule and determined that
it uses international standards as its basis and does not create
unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States.

D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final
agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more
(in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate
is deemed to be a ``significant regulatory action.'' The FAA currently
uses an inflation-adjusted value of $151 million in lieu of $100
million. This proposed rule does not contain such a mandate; therefore,
the requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires
that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information
collection burdens imposed on the public. According to the 1995
amendments to the Paperwork Reduction Act (5 CFR 1320.8(b)(2)(vi)), an
agency may not collect or sponsor the collection of information, nor
may it impose an information collection requirement unless it displays
a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
This action contains the following proposed amendments to the
existing information collection requirements previously approved under
OMB Control Number 2120-0680. As required by the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)), the FAA has submitted these proposed
information collection amendments to OMB for its review.
Summary: Under this proposal, an increase in information collection
requirements would be imposed on Sponsors of previously qualified FSTDs
that require modification for the qualification of certain training
tasks as defined in FSTD Directive 2. These Sponsors would be required
to report FSTD modifications to the FAA as described in Sec. 60.23 and
Sec. 60.16 which would result in a one-time information collection.
Additionally, because compliance with the FSTD Directive (for
previously qualified FSTDs) and the new QPS requirements (for newly
qualified FSTDs) would increase the overall amount of objective testing
necessary to maintain FSTD qualification under Sec. 60.19, a slight
increase in annual information collection would be required to document
such testing.
Use: For previously qualified FSTDs, the information collection
would be used to determine that the requirements of the FSTD Directive
have been met. The FAA will use this information to issue amended
Statements of Qualification (SOQ) for those FSTDs that have been found
to meet those requirements and also to determine if the FSTDs annual
inspection and maintenance requirements have been met.
Respondents (including number of): The additional information
collection burden in this proposal is limited to those FSTD Sponsors
that would require specific FSTD qualification for certain training
tasks as defined in FSTD Directive 2. Approximately 322 previously
qualified FSTDs \23\ may require evaluation as described in the FSTD
Directive to support the Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training
Final Rule. The number of respondents would be limited to those
Sponsors that maintain FSTDs which may require additional qualification
in accordance with the FSTD Directive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\23\ The FAA estimated this from the number of previously
qualified FSTDs that simulate aircraft which are currently used in
U.S. part 121 air carrier operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Frequency: This additional information collection would include
both a one-time event and an increase to the annual part 60 information
collection requirements.
Annual Burden Estimate: The FAA estimates that for each additional
qualified task required in accordance with FSTD Directive 2, the one-
time information collection burden to each FSTD Sponsor would be
approximately 0.85 hours per FSTD for each additional qualified
task.\24\ Assuming all five of the additional qualified tasks would be
required for each of the estimated 322 FSTDs (including qualification
for full stall training, upset recovery training, airborne icing
training, takeoff and landing in gusting crosswinds, and bounced
landing training), the cumulative one-time information collection
burden would be approximately 1,369 hours. This collection burden would
be distributed over a time period of approximately 3

[[Page 39481]]

years. This 3 year time period represents the compliance period of the
proposed FSTD Directive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\24\ The 0.85 hour burden is derived from the existing Part 60
Paperwork Reduction Act supporting statement (OMB-2120-0680), Table
5 (Sec. 60.16) and includes estimated time for the FSTD Sponsor's
staff to draft and send the letter as well as estimated time for
updating the approved MQTG with new test results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The one-time information collection burden to the Federal
government is estimated at approximately 0.6 hours per FSTD for each
qualified task to include Aerospace Engineer review and preparation of
an FAA response.\25\ Assuming all five of the additional qualified
tasks would be required for each of the estimated 322 FSTDs, the
cumulative one-time information collection burden to the Federal
government would be approximately 966 hours. The modification of the
FSTD's Statement of Qualification would be incorporated with the FSTD's
next scheduled evaluation, so this would not impose additional burden.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\25\ The 0.6 hour burden on the Federal government is also
derived from the existing Part 60 Paperwork Reduction Act supporting
statement (OMB-2120-0680), Table 5 (Sec. 60.16).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Because the number of objective tests required to maintain FSTD
qualification would increase slightly with this proposal, the annual
information collection burden would also increase under the FSTD
inspection and maintenance requirements of Sec. 60.19. This additional
information collection burden is estimated by increasing the average
number of required objective tests for Level C and Level D FSTDs by
four tests.\26\ For the estimated 322 FSTDs that may be affected by the
FSTD Directive, this will result in an additional 129 hours of annual
information collection burden to FSTD Sponsors. This additional
collection burden is based upon 0.1 hours \27\ per test for a simulator
technician to document as required by Sec. 60.19. The additional
information collection burden to the Federal government would also
increase by approximately 43 hours \28\ due to the additional tests
that may be sampled and reviewed by the FAA during continuing
qualification evaluations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\26\ For previously qualified FSTDs, the requirements of FSTD
Directive 2 will add a maximum of four additional objective
test cases to the existing requirements.
\27\ The 0.1 hour burden is derived from the existing Part 60
Paperwork Reduction Act supporting statement (OMB-2120-0680), Table
6 (Sec. 60.19) and includes estimated time for the FSTD Sponsor's
staff to document the completion of required annual objective
testing.
\28\ This information collection burden is based upon 0.1 hours
per test required for FAA personnel to review. These four additional
tests are subject to the approximately 33% of which may be spot
checked by FAA personnel on site during a continuing qualification
evaluation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

For new FSTDs qualified after the proposal becomes effective, the
changes to the QPS appendices proposed to align with ICAO 9625 as well
as the new requirements for the evaluation of stall and icing training
maneuvers would result in an estimated average increase of four
objective tests \29\ that would require annual documentation as
described in Sec. 60.19. For the estimated 22 new \30\ Level C and
Level D FSTDs that may be initially qualified annually by the FAA, this
will result in an additional 9 hours of annual information collection
burden to FSTD Sponsors and an additional 3 hours of annual information
collection burden to the Federal government. For newly qualified FSTDs,
this proposal does not increase the frequency of reporting for FSTD
sponsors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\29\ These four additional tests were estimated through
comparison between the current and proposed list of objective tests
required for qualification (Table A2A). Note that the total number
of tests can vary between FSTDs as a function of aircraft type, test
implementation, and the employment of certain technologies that
would require additional testing.
\30\ Based upon internal records review, the FAA calculated the
number of newly qualified FSTDs at approximately 22 per year over a
ten year period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The agency is soliciting comments to--
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed information requirement is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency,
including whether the information would have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of collecting information on those who are
to respond, including by using appropriate automated, electronic,
mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms
of information technology.
Individuals and organizations may send comments on the information
collection requirement to the address listed in the ADDRESSES section
at the beginning of this preamble by October 8, 2014. Comments also
should be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Desk Officer for FAA,
New Executive Building, Room 10202, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC
20053.

F. International Compatibility and Cooperation

In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to conform to ICAO
Standards and Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable.
The FAA has determined that there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended
Practices that correspond to these proposed changes to the part 60
regulations. While the FAA has proposed to align the part 60
qualification standards for Level 7 FTDs and Level D fixed wing FFSs
with that of ICAO Document 9625, the FSTD qualification guidance
contained within ICAO 9625 are not defined in an ICAO Annex as a
Standard and Recommended Practice and are considered guidance material.
Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory
Cooperation, (77 FR 26413, May 4, 2012) promotes international
regulatory cooperation to meet shared challenges involving health,
safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues and reduce,
eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory
requirements. The FAA has analyzed this action under the policy and
agency responsibilities of Executive Order 13609, Promoting
International Regulatory Cooperation. The agency has determined that
this action would promote the elimination of differences between U.S.
aviation standards and those of other civil aviation authorities by
aligning evaluation standards for similar FSTD fidelity levels to the
latest internationally recognized FSTD evaluation guidance in the ICAO
9625 document.

G. Environmental Analysis

FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA actions that are categorically
excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy
Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has
determined this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical
exclusion identified in paragraph 312f and involves no extraordinary
circumstances.

V. Executive Order Determinations

A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

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

[[Page 39482]]

B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

The FAA analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The agency has determined that it
would not be a ``significant energy action'' under the executive order
and would not be likely to have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy.

VI. Additional Information

A. Comments Invited

The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this
rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. The agency
also invites comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy,
or federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in
this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion
of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and
include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain
duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written
comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should
submit only one time.
The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well
as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA
personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this
proposal, the FAA will consider all comments it receives on or before
the closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed
after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without
incurring expense or delay. The agency may change this proposal in
light of the comments it receives.
Proprietary or Confidential Business Information: Commenters should
not file proprietary or confidential business information in the
docket. Such information must be sent or delivered directly to the
person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this document, and marked as proprietary or confidential. If submitting
information on a disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD
ROM, and identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific
information that is proprietary or confidential.
Under 14 CFR 11.35(b), if the FAA is aware of proprietary
information filed with a comment, the agency does not place it in the
docket. It is held in a separate file to which the public does not have
access, and the FAA places a note in the docket that it has received
it. If the FAA receives a request to examine or copy this information,
it treats it as any other request under the Freedom of Information Act
(5 U.S.C. 552). The FAA processes such a request under Department of
Transportation procedures found in 49 CFR part 7.

B. Availability of Rulemaking Documents

An electronic copy of rulemaking documents may be obtained from the
Internet by--
1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (https://www.regulations.gov);
2. Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies or
3. Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at https://www.fdsys.gov.
Copies may also be obtained by sending a request to the Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680.
Commenters must identify the docket or notice number of this
rulemaking.
All documents the FAA considered in developing this proposed rule,
including economic analyses and technical reports, may be accessed from
the Internet through the Federal eRulemaking Portal referenced in item
(1) above.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 60

Airmen, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

The Proposed Amendment

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend chapter I of title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations as follows:

PART 60--FLIGHT SIMULATION TRAINING DEVICE INITIAL AND CONTINUING
QUALIFICATION AND USE

0
1. The authority citation for part 60 is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, and 44701; Pub. L.
111-216, 124 Stat. 2348 (49 U.S.C. 44701 note).

0
2. Amend Sec. 60.15 by revising paragraph (e) to read as follows:

Sec. 60.15 Initial Qualification requirements.

* * * * *
(e) The subjective tests that form the basis for the statements
described in paragraph (b) of this section and the objective tests
referenced in paragraph (f) of this section must be accomplished at the
FSTD's permanent location, except as provided for in the applicable
QPS.
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec. 60.17 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:

Sec. 60.17 Previously qualified FSTDs.

(a) Unless otherwise specified by an FSTD Directive, further
referenced in the applicable QPS, or as specified in paragraph (e) of
this section, an FSTD qualified before [effective date of final rule]
will retain its qualification basis as long as it continues to meet the
standards, including the objective test results recorded in the MQTG
and subjective tests, under which it was originally evaluated,
regardless of sponsor. The sponsor of such an FSTD must comply with the
other applicable provisions of this part.
0
4. Amend Sec. 60.19 by revising paragraphs (b)(4) and (b)(5) to read
as follows:

Sec. 60.19 Inspection, continuing qualification evaluation, and
maintenance requirements.

* * * * *
(b) * * *
(4) The frequency of NSPM-conducted continuing qualification
evaluations for each FSTD will be established by the NSPM and specified
in the Statement of Qualification.
(5) Continuing qualification evaluations conducted in the 3
calendar months before or after the calendar month in which these
continuing qualification evaluations are required will be considered to
have been conducted in the calendar month in which they were required.
* * * * *
0
5. Amend Sec. 60.23 by adding new paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows:

Sec. 60.23 Modifications to FSTDs.

(a) * * *
(3) Changes to the MQTG which do not affect required objective
testing results or validation data approved during the initial
evaluation of the FSTD are not considered modifications under this
section.
* * * * *
0
6. Part 60 is amended by revising Appendix A to read as follows:

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

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin Information

This appendix establishes the standards for Airplane FFS
evaluation and qualification. The NSPM is responsible for the
development, application, and

[[Page 39483]]

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.
Attachment 7 to Appendix A to Part 60--Additional Simulator
Qualification Requirements for Stall, Upset Recognition and
Recovery, and Engine and Airframe Icing Training Tasks.

End Information

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Introduction

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin Information

a. This appendix contains background information as well as
regulatory and informative material as described later in this
section. To assist the reader in determining what areas are required
and what areas are permissive, the text in this appendix is divided
into two sections: ``QPS Requirements'' and ``Information.'' The QPS
Requirements sections contain details regarding compliance with the
part 60 rule language. These details are regulatory, but are found
only in this appendix. The Information sections contain material
that is advisory in nature, and designed to give the user general
information about the regulation.
b. Questions regarding the contents of this publication should
be sent to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation
Administration, Flight Standards Service, National Simulator Program
Staff, AFS-205, 100 Hartsfield Centre Parkway, Suite 400, Atlanta,
Georgia, 30354. Telephone contact numbers for the NSP are: Phone,
404-832-4700; fax, 404-761-8906. The general email address for the
NSP office is: 9-aso-avs-sim-team@faa.gov. The NSP Internet Web site
address is: https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/nsp/. On this Web
site you will find an NSP personnel list with telephone and email
contact information for each NSP staff member, a list of qualified
flight simulation devices, advisory circulars (ACs), a description
of the qualification process, NSP policy, and an NSP ``In-Works''
section. Also linked from this site are additional information
sources, handbook bulletins, frequently asked questions, a listing
and text of the Federal Aviation Regulations, Flight Standards
Inspector's handbooks, and other FAA links.
c. The NSPM encourages the use of electronic media for all
communication, including any record, report, request, test, or
statement required by this appendix. The electronic media used must
have adequate security provisions and be acceptable to the NSPM. The
NSPM recommends inquiries on system compatibility, and minimum
system requirements are also included on the NSP Web site.
d. Related Reading References.
(1) 14 CFR part 60.
(2) 14 CFR part 61.
(3) 14 CFR part 63.
(4) 14 CFR part 119.
(5) 14 CFR part 121.
(6) 14 CFR part 125.
(7) 14 CFR part 135.
(8) 14 CFR part 141.
(9) 14 CFR part 142.
(10) AC 120-28, as amended, Criteria for Approval of Category
III Landing Weather Minima.
(11) AC 120-29, as amended, Criteria for Approving Category I
and Category II Landing Minima for part 121 operators.
(12) AC 120-35, as amended, Line Operational Simulations: Line-
Oriented Flight Training, Special Purpose Operational Training, Line
Operational Evaluation.
(13) AC 120-40, as amended, Airplane Simulator Qualification.
(14) AC 120-41, as amended, Criteria for Operational Approval of
Airborne Wind Shear Alerting and Flight Guidance Systems.
(15) AC 120-57, as amended, Surface Movement Guidance and
Control System (SMGCS).
(16) AC 150/5300-13, as amended, Airport Design.
(17) AC 150/5340-1, as amended, Standards for Airport Markings.
(18) AC 150/5340-4, as amended, Installation Details for Runway
Centerline Touchdown Zone Lighting Systems.
(19) AC 150/5340-19, as amended, Taxiway Centerline Lighting
System.
(20) AC 150/5340-24, as amended, Runway and Taxiway Edge
Lighting System.
(21) AC 150/5345-28, as amended, Precision Approach Path
Indicator (PAPI) Systems.
(22) International Air Transport Association document, ``Flight
Simulator Design and Performance Data Requirements,'' as amended.
(23) AC 25-7, as amended, Flight Test Guide for Certification of
Transport Category Airplanes.
(24) AC 23-8, as amended, Flight Test Guide for Certification of
Part 23 Airplanes.
(25) International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Manual of
Criteria for the Qualification of Flight Simulators, as amended.
(26) Airplane Flight Simulator Evaluation Handbook, Volume I, as
amended and Volume II, as amended, The Royal Aeronautical Society,
London, UK.
(27) FAA Publication FAA-S-8081 series (Practical Test Standards
for Airline Transport Pilot Certificate, Type Ratings, Commercial
Pilot, and Instrument Ratings).
(28) The FAA Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM). An
electronic version of the AIM is on the internet at https://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 person who are not sponsors and who are engaged in
certain unauthorized activities.

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.

[[Page 39484]]

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
FFSs 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.
(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

[[Page 39485]]

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) Unless otherwise authorized through prior coordination with
the NSPM, 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.
(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.

[[Page 39486]]

(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 obtained from airplane testing, or another
approved source (reformatted or digitized), together with
correlating objective test results obtained from the performance of
the FFS (reformatted or digitized) as prescribed in this appendix.
The eMQTG must also contain the general FFS performance or
demonstration results (reformatted or digitized) prescribed in this
appendix, and a description of the equipment necessary to perform
the initial qualification evaluation and the continuing
qualification evaluations. The eMQTG must include the original
validation data used to validate FFS performance and handling
qualities in either the original digitized format from the data
supplier or an electronic scan of the original time-history plots
that were provided by the data supplier. A copy of the eMQTG must be
provided to the NSPM.
k. All other FFSs not covered in subparagraph ``j'' must have an
electronic copy of the MQTG by May 30, 2014. An electronic copy of
the MQTG must be provided to the NSPM. This may be provided by an
electronic scan presented in a Portable Document File (PDF), or
similar format acceptable to the NSPM.
l. During the initial (or upgrade) qualification evaluation
conducted by the NSPM, the sponsor must also provide a person who is
a user of the device (e.g., a qualified pilot or instructor pilot
with flight time experience in that aircraft) and knowledgeable
about the operation of the aircraft and the operation of the FFS.

End QPS Requirements

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin Information

m. Only those FFSs that are sponsored by a certificate holder as
defined in Appendix F of this part will be evaluated by the NSPM.
However, other FFS evaluations may be conducted on a case-by-case
basis as the Administrator deems appropriate, but only in accordance
with applicable agreements.
n. The NSPM will conduct an evaluation for each configuration,
and each FFS must be evaluated as completely as possible. To ensure
a thorough and uniform evaluation, each FFS is subjected to the
general simulator requirements in Attachment 1 of this appendix, the
objective tests listed in Attachment 2 of this appendix, and the
subjective tests listed in Attachment 3 of this appendix. The
evaluations described herein will include, but not necessarily be
limited to the following:
(1) Airplane responses, including longitudinal and lateral-
directional control responses (see Attachment 2 of this appendix);
(2) Performance in authorized portions of the simulated
airplane's operating envelope, to include tasks evaluated by the
NSPM in the areas of surface operations, takeoff, climb, cruise,
descent, approach, and landing as well as abnormal and emergency
operations (see Attachment 2 of this appendix);
(3) Control checks (see Attachment 1 and Attachment 2 of this
appendix);
(4) Flight deck configuration (see Attachment 1 of this
appendix);
(5) Pilot, flight engineer, and instructor station functions
checks (see Attachment 1 and Attachment 3 of this appendix);
(6) Airplane systems and sub-systems (as appropriate) as
compared to the airplane simulated (see Attachment 1 and Attachment
3 of this appendix);
(7) FFS systems and sub-systems, including force cueing
(motion), visual, and aural (sound) systems, as appropriate (see
Attachment 1 and Attachment 2 of this appendix); and
(8) Certain additional requirements, depending upon the
qualification level sought, including equipment or circumstances
that may become hazardous to the occupants. The sponsor may be
subject to Occupational Safety and Health Administration
requirements.
o. The NSPM administers the objective and subjective tests,
which includes an examination of functions. The tests include a
qualitative assessment of the FFS by an NSP pilot. The NSP
evaluation team leader may assign other qualified personnel to
assist in accomplishing the functions examination and/or the
objective and subjective tests performed during an evaluation when
required.
(1) Objective tests provide a basis for measuring and evaluating
FFS performance and determining compliance with the requirements of
this part.
(2) Subjective tests provide a basis for:
(a) Evaluating the capability of the FFS to perform over a
typical utilization period;
(b) Determining that the FFS satisfactorily simulates each
required task;
(c) Verifying correct operation of the FFS controls,
instruments, and systems; and
(d) Demonstrating compliance with the requirements of this part.

[[Page 39487]]

p. The tolerances for the test parameters listed in Attachment 2
of this appendix reflect the range of tolerances acceptable to the
NSPM for FFS validation and are not to be confused with design
tolerances specified for FFS manufacture. In making decisions
regarding tests and test results, the NSPM relies on the use of
operational and engineering judgment in the application of data
(including consideration of the way in which the flight test was
flown and way the data was gathered and applied) data presentations,
and the applicable tolerances for each test.
q. In addition to the scheduled continuing qualification
evaluation, each FFS is subject to evaluations conducted by the NSPM
at any time without prior notification to the sponsor. Such
evaluations would be accomplished in a normal manner (i.e.,
requiring exclusive use of the FFS for the conduct of objective and
subjective tests and an examination of functions) if the FFS is not
being used for flightcrew member training, testing, or checking.
However, if the FFS were being used, the evaluation would be
conducted in a non-exclusive manner. This non-exclusive evaluation
will be conducted by the FFS evaluator accompanying the check
airman, instructor, Aircrew Program Designee (APD), or FAA inspector
aboard the FFS along with the student(s) and observing the operation
of the FFS during the training, testing, or checking activities.
r. Problems with objective test results are handled as follows:
(1) If a problem with an objective test result is detected by
the NSP evaluation team during an evaluation, the test may be
repeated or the QTG may be amended.
(2) If it is determined that the results of an objective test do
not support the level requested but do support a lower level, the
NSPM may qualify the FFS at that lower level. For example, if a
Level D evaluation is requested and the FFS fails to meet sound test
tolerances, it could be qualified at Level C.
s. After an FFS is successfully evaluated, the NSPM issues a
Statement of Qualification (SOQ) to the sponsor. The NSPM recommends
the FFS to the TPAA, who will approve the FFS for use in a flight
training program. The SOQ will be issued at the satisfactory
conclusion of the initial or continuing qualification evaluation and
will list the tasks for which the FFS is qualified, referencing the
tasks described in Table A1B in Attachment 1 of this appendix.
However, it is the sponsor's responsibility to obtain TPAA approval
prior to using the FFS in an FAA-approved flight training program.
t. Under normal circumstances, the NSPM establishes a date for
the initial or upgrade evaluation within ten (10) working days after
determining that a complete QTG is acceptable. Unusual circumstances
may warrant establishing an evaluation date before this
determination is made. A sponsor may schedule an evaluation date as
early as 6 months in advance. However, there may be a delay of 45
days or more in rescheduling and completing the evaluation if the
sponsor is unable to meet the scheduled date. See Attachment 4 of
this appendix, Figure A4A, Sample Request for Initial, Upgrade, or
Reinstatement Evaluation.
u. The numbering system used for objective test results in the
QTG should closely follow the numbering system set out in Attachment
2 of this appendix, FFS Objective Tests, Table A2A.
v. Contact the NSPM or visit the NSPM Web site for additional
information regarding the preferred qualifications of pilots used to
meet the requirements of Sec. 60.15(d).
w. Examples of the exclusions for which the FFS might not have
been subjectively tested by the sponsor or the NSPM and for which
qualification might not be sought or granted, as described in Sec.
60.15(g)(6), include windshear training and circling approaches.

End Information

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

12. Additional Qualifications for a Currently Qualified FFS (Sec.
60.16)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin Information

No additional regulatory or informational material applies to
Sec. 60.16, Additional Qualifications for a Currently Qualified
FFS.

End Information

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

13. Previously Qualified FFSs (Sec. 60.17)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin QPS Requirements

a. In instances where a sponsor plans to remove an FFS from
active status for a period of less than two years, the following
procedures apply:
(1) The NSPM must be notified in writing and the notification
must include an estimate of the period that the FFS will be
inactive;
(2) Continuing Qualification evaluations will not be scheduled
during the inactive period;
(3) The NSPM will remove the FFS from the list of qualified
FSTDs on a mutually established date not later than the date on
which the first missed continuing qualification evaluation would
have been scheduled;
(4) Before the FFS is restored to qualified status, it must be
evaluated by the NSPM. The evaluation content and the time required
to accomplish the evaluation is based on the number of continuing
qualification evaluations and sponsor-conducted quarterly
inspections missed during the period of inactivity.
(5) The sponsor must notify the NSPM of any changes to the
original scheduled time out of service;
b. Simulators qualified prior to May 30, 2008, are not required
to meet the general simulation requirements, the objective test
requirements or the subjective test requirements of attachments 1,
2, and 3 of this appendix as long as the simulator continues to meet
the test requirements contained in the MQTG developed under the
original qualification basis.
c. After May 30, 2009, each visual scene or airport model beyond
the minimum required for the FFS qualification level that is
installed in and available for use in a qualified FFS must meet the
requirements described in attachment 3 of this appendix.
d. Simulators qualified prior to May 30, 2008, may be updated.
If an evaluation is deemed appropriate or necessary by the NSPM
after such an update, the evaluation will not require an evaluation
to standards beyond those against which the simulator was originally
qualified.

End QPS Requirements

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin Information

e. Other certificate holders or persons desiring to use an FFS
may contract with FFS sponsors to use FFSs previously qualified at a
particular level for an airplane type and approved for use within an
FAA-approved flight training program. Such FFSs are not required to
undergo an additional qualification process, except as described in
Sec. 60.16.
f. Each FFS user must obtain approval from the appropriate TPAA
to use any FFS in an FAA-approved flight training program.
g. The intent of the requirement listed in Sec. 60.17(b), for
each FFS to have a SOQ within 6 years, is to have the availability
of that statement (including the configuration list and the
limitations to authorizations) to provide a complete picture of the
FFS inventory regulated by the FAA. The issuance of the statement
will not require any additional evaluation or require any adjustment
to the evaluation basis for the FFS.
h. Downgrading of an FFS is a permanent change in qualification
level and will necessitate the issuance of a revised SOQ to reflect
the revised qualification level, as appropriate. If a temporary
restriction is placed on an FFS because of a missing,
malfunctioning, or inoperative component or on-going repairs, the
restriction is not a permanent change in qualification level.
Instead, the restriction is temporary and is removed when the reason
for the restriction has been resolved.
i. The NSPM will determine the evaluation criteria for an FFS
that has been removed from active status. The criteria will be based
on the number of continuing qualification evaluations and quarterly
inspections missed during the period of inactivity. For example, if
the FFS were out of service for a 1 year period, it would be
necessary to complete the entire QTG, since all of the quarterly
evaluations would have been missed. The NSPM will also consider how
the FFS was stored, whether parts were removed from the FFS and
whether the FFS was disassembled.
j. The FFS will normally be requalified using the FAA-approved
MQTG and the criteria that was in effect prior to its removal from
qualification. However, inactive periods of 2 years or more will
require requalification under the standards in effect and current at
the time of requalification.

End Information

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

14. Inspection, Continuing Qualification Evaluation, and Maintenance
Requirements (Sec. 60.19)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 39488]]

Begin QPS Requirements

a. The sponsor must conduct a minimum of four evenly spaced
inspections throughout the year. The objective test sequence and
content of each inspection must be developed by the sponsor and must
be acceptable to the NSPM.
b. The description of the functional preflight check must be
contained in the sponsor's QMS.
c. Record ``functional preflight'' in the FFS discrepancy log
book or other acceptable location, including any item found to be
missing, malfunctioning, or inoperative.
d. During the continuing qualification evaluation conducted by
the NSPM, the sponsor must also provide a person knowledgeable about
the operation of the aircraft and the operation of the FFS.
e. The NSPM will conduct continuing qualification evaluations
every 12 months unless:
(1) The NSPM becomes aware of discrepancies or performance
problems with the device that warrants more frequent evaluations; or
(2) The sponsor implements a QMS that justifies less frequent
evaluations. However, in no case shall the frequency of a continuing
qualification evaluation exceed 36 months.

End QPS Requirements

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin Information

f. The sponsor's test sequence and the content of each quarterly
inspection required in Sec. 60.19(a)(1) should include a balance
and a mix from the objective test requirement areas listed as
follows:
(1) Performance.
(2) Handling qualities.
(3) Motion system (where appropriate).
(4) Visual system (where appropriate).
(5) Sound system (where appropriate).
(6) Other FFS systems.
g. If the NSP evaluator plans to accomplish specific tests
during a normal continuing qualification evaluation that requires
the use of special equipment or technicians, the sponsor will be
notified as far in advance of the evaluation as practical; but not
less than 72 hours. Examples of such tests include latencies,
control dynamics, sounds and vibrations, motion, and/or some visual
system tests.
h. The continuing qualification evaluations, described in Sec.
60.19(b), will normally require 4 hours of FFS time. However,
flexibility is necessary to address abnormal situations or
situations involving aircraft with additional levels of complexity
(e.g., computer controlled aircraft). The sponsor should anticipate
that some tests may require additional time. The continuing
qualification evaluations will consist of the following:
(1) Review of the results of the quarterly inspections conducted
by the sponsor since the last scheduled continuing qualification
evaluation.
(2) A selection of approximately 8 to 15 objective tests from
the MQTG that provide an adequate opportunity to evaluate the
performance of the FFS. The tests chosen will be performed either
automatically or manually and should be able to be conducted within
approximately one-third (\1/3\) of the allotted FFS time.
(3) A subjective evaluation of the FFS to perform a
representative sampling of the tasks set out in attachment 3 of this
appendix. This portion of the evaluation should take approximately
two-thirds (\2/3\) of the allotted FFS time.
(4) An examination of the functions of the FFS may include the
motion system, visual system, sound system, instructor operating
station, and the normal functions and simulated malfunctions of the
airplane systems. This examination is normally accomplished
simultaneously with the subjective evaluation requirements.

End Information

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

15. Logging FFSs Discrepancies (Sec. 60.20)

Begin Information

No additional regulatory or informational material applies to
Sec. 60.20. Logging FFS Discrepancies.

End Information

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

16. Interim Qualification of FFSs for New Airplane Types or Models
(Sec. 60.21)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin Information

No additional regulatory or informational material applies to
Sec. 60.21, Interim Qualification of FFSs for New Airplane Types or
Models.

End Information

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

17. Modifications to FFSs (Sec. 60.23)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin QPS Requirements

a. The notification described in Sec. 60.23(c)(2) must include
a complete description of the planned modification, with a
description of the operational and engineering effect the proposed
modification will have on the operation of the FFS and the results
that are expected with the modification incorporated.
b. Prior to using the modified FFS:
(1) All the applicable objective tests completed with the
modification incorporated, including any necessary updates to the
MQTG (e.g., accomplishment of FSTD Directives) must be acceptable to
the NSPM; and
(2) The sponsor must provide the NSPM with a statement signed by
the MR that the factors listed in Sec. 60.15(b) are addressed by
the appropriate personnel as described in that section.

End QPS Requirements

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin Information

c. FSTD Directives are considered modifications of an FFS. See
Attachment 4 of this appendix for a sample index of effective FSTD
Directives. See Attachment 6 of this appendix for a list of all
effective FSTD Directives applicable to Airplane FFSs.
d. Examples of MQTG changes that do not require FAA notification
under Sec. 60.23(a) are limited to repagination, correction of
typographical or grammatical errors, typesetting, or presenting
additional parameters on existing test result formats. All changes
regardless of nature should be documented in the MQTG revision
history.

End Information

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

18. Operation With Missing, Malfunctioning, or Inoperative Components
(Sec. 60.25)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin Information

a. The sponsor's responsibility with respect to Sec. 60.25(a)
is satisfied when the sponsor fairly and accurately advises the user
of the current status of an FFS, including any missing,
malfunctioning, or inoperative (MMI) component(s).
b. 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 if
any MMI component is necessary for the satisfactory completion of a
specific maneuver, procedure, or task.
c. If the 29th or 30th day of the 30-day period described in
Sec. 60.25(b) is on a Saturday, a Sunday, or a holiday, the FAA
will extend the deadline until the next business day.
d. In accordance with the authorization described in Sec.
60.25(b), the sponsor may develop a discrepancy prioritizing system
to accomplish repairs based on the level of impact on the capability
of the FFS. Repairs having a larger impact on FFS capability to
provide the required training, evaluation, or flight experience will
have a higher priority for repair or replacement.

End Information

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

19. Automatic Loss of Qualification and Procedures for Restoration of
Qualification (Sec. 60.27)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin Information

If the sponsor provides a plan for how the FFS will be
maintained during its out-of-service period (e.g., periodic exercise
of mechanical, hydraulic, and electrical systems; routine
replacement of hydraulic fluid; control of the environmental factors
in which the FFS is to be maintained) there is a greater likelihood
that the NSPM will be able to determine the amount of testing
required for requalification.

End Information

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

20. Other Losses of Qualification and Procedures for Restoration of
Qualification (Sec. 60.29)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 39489]]

Begin Information

End Information

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

21. Recordkeeping and Reporting (Sec. 60.31)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin QPS Requirements

a. FFS modifications can include hardware or software changes.
For FFS modifications involving software programming changes, the
record required by Sec. 60.31(a)(2) must consist of the name of the
aircraft system software, aerodynamic model, or engine model change,
the date of the change, a summary of the change, and the reason for
the change.
b. If a coded form for record keeping is used, it must provide
for the preservation and retrieval of information with appropriate
security or controls to prevent the inappropriate alteration of such
records after the fact.

End QPS Requirements

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

22. Applications, Logbooks, Reports, and Records: Fraud, Falsification,
or Incorrect Statements (Sec. 60.33)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin Information

No additional regulatory or informational material applies to
Sec. 60.33, Applications, Logbooks, Reports, and Records: Fraud,
Falsification, or Incorrect Statements.

23. Specific FFS Compliance Requirements (Sec. 60.35)

No additional regulatory or informational material applies to
Sec. 60.35, Specific FFS Compliance Requirements.

24. [Reserved]

25. FFS Qualification on the Basis of a Bilateral Aviation Safety
Agreement (BASA) (Sec. 60.37)

No additional regulatory or informational material applies to
Sec. 60.37, FFS Qualification on the Basis of a Bilateral Aviation
Safety Agreement (BASA).

End Information

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Attachment 1 to Appendix A to Part 60--General Simulator Requirements

Begin QPS Requirements

1. Requirements

a. Certain requirements included in this appendix must be
supported with an SOC as defined in Appendix F, which may include
objective and subjective tests. The requirements for SOCs are
indicated in the ``General Simulator Requirements'' column in Table
A1A of this appendix.
b. Table A1A describes the requirements for the indicated level
of FFS. Many devices include operational systems or functions that
exceed the requirements outlined in this section. However, all
systems will be tested and evaluated in accordance with this
appendix to ensure proper operation.

End QPS Requirements

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin Information

2. Discussion

a. This attachment describes the general simulator requirements
for qualifying an airplane FFS. The sponsor should also consult the
objective tests in Attachment 2 of this appendix and the examination
of functions and subjective tests listed in Attachment 3 of this
appendix to determine the complete requirements for a specific level
simulator.
b. The material contained in this attachment is divided into the
following categories:
(1) General flight deck configuration.
(2) Simulator programming.
(3) Equipment operation.
(4) Equipment and facilities for instructor/evaluator functions.
(5) Motion system.
(6) Visual system.
(7) Sound system.
c. Table A1A provides the standards for the General Simulator
Requirements.
d. Table A1B provides the tasks that the sponsor will examine to
determine whether the FFS satisfactorily meets the requirements for
flight crew training, testing, and experience, and provides the
tasks for which the simulator may be qualified.
e. Table A1C provides the functions that an instructor/check
airman must be able to control in the simulator.
f. It is not required that all of the tasks that appear on the
List of Qualified Tasks (part of the SOQ) be accomplished during the
initial or continuing qualification evaluation.

End Information

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 39490]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.002

[[Page 39491]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.003

[[Page 39492]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.004

[[Page 39493]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.005

[[Page 39494]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.006

[[Page 39495]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.007

[[Page 39496]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.008

[[Page 39497]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.009

[[Page 39498]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.010

[[Page 39499]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.011

[[Page 39500]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.012

[[Page 39501]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.013

[[Page 39502]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.014

[[Page 39503]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.015

[[Page 39504]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.016

[[Page 39505]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.017

[[Page 39506]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.018

[[Page 39507]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.019

[[Page 39508]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.020

[[Page 39509]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.021

[[Page 39510]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.022

[[Page 39511]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.023

[[Page 39512]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.024

[[Page 39513]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.025

[[Page 39514]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.026

[[Page 39515]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.027

[[Page 39516]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.028

[[Page 39517]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.029

[[Page 39518]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.030

[[Page 39519]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.031

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin Information

1. Introduction

a. For the purposes of this attachment, the flight conditions
specified in the Flight Conditions Column of Table A2A of this
appendix, are defined as follows:
(1) Ground--on ground, independent of airplane configuration;
(2) Take-off--gear down with flaps/slats in any certified
takeoff position;
(3) First segment climb--gear down with flaps/slats in any
certified takeoff position (normally not above 50 ft AGL);
(4) Second segment climb--gear up with flaps/slats in any
certified takeoff position (normally between 50 ft and 400 ft AGL);
(5) Clean--flaps/slats retracted and gear up;
(6) Cruise--clean configuration at cruise altitude and airspeed;
(7) Approach--gear up or down with flaps/slats at any normal
approach position as recommended by the airplane manufacturer; and
(8) Landing--gear down with flaps/slats in any certified landing
position.
b. The format for numbering the objective tests in Appendix A,
Attachment 2, Table A2A, and the objective tests in Appendix B,
Attachment 2, Table B2A, is identical. However, each test required
for FFSs is not necessarily required for FTDs. Also, each test
required for FTDs is not necessarily required for FFSs. Therefore,
when a test number (or series of numbers) is not required, the term
``Reserved'' is used in the table at that location. Following this
numbering format provides a degree of commonality between the two
tables and substantially reduces the potential for confusion when
referring to objective test numbers for either FFSs or FTDs.
c. The reader is encouraged to review the Airplane Flight
Simulator Evaluation Handbook, Volumes I and II, published by the
Royal Aeronautical Society, London, UK, and AC 25-7, as amended,
Flight Test Guide for Certification of Transport Category Airplanes,
and AC 23-8, as amended, Flight Test Guide for Certification of Part
23 Airplanes, for references and examples regarding flight testing
requirements and techniques.
d. If relevant winds are present in the objective data, the wind
vector should be clearly noted as part of the data presentation,
expressed in conventional terminology, and related to the runway
being used for the test.

End Information

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin QPS Requirements

2. Test Requirements

a. The ground and flight tests required for qualification are
listed in Table of A2A, FFS Objective Tests. Computer generated
simulator test results must be provided for each test except where
an alternative test is specifically authorized by the NSPM. If a
flight condition or operating condition is required for the test but
does not apply to the airplane being simulated or to the
qualification level sought, it may be disregarded (e.g., an engine
out missed approach for a single-engine airplane or a maneuver using
reverse thrust for an airplane without reverse thrust capability).
Each test result is compared against the validation data described
in Sec. 60.13 and in this appendix. Although use of a driver
program designed to automatically accomplish the tests is encouraged
for all simulators and required for Level C and Level D simulators,
it must be possible to conduct each test manually while recording
all appropriate parameters. The results must be produced on an
appropriate recording device acceptable to the NSPM and must include
simulator number, date, time, conditions, tolerances, and
appropriate dependent variables portrayed in comparison to the
validation data. Time histories are required unless

[[Page 39520]]

otherwise indicated in Table A2A. All results must be labeled using
the tolerances and units given.
b. Table A2A in this attachment sets out the test results
required, including the parameters, tolerances, and flight
conditions for simulator validation. Tolerances are provided for the
listed tests because mathematical modeling and acquisition and
development of reference data are often inexact. All tolerances
listed in the following tables are applied to simulator performance.
When two tolerance values are given for a parameter, the less
restrictive may be used unless otherwise indicated. In those cases
where a tolerance is expressed only as a percentage, the tolerance
percentage applies to the maximum value of that parameter within its
normal operating range as measured from the neutral or zero position
unless otherwise indicated.
c. Certain tests included in this attachment must be supported
with an SOC. In Table A2A, requirements for SOCs are indicated in
the ``Test Details'' column.
d. When operational or engineering judgment is used in making
assessments for flight test data applications for simulator
validity, such judgment must not be limited to a single parameter.
For example, data that exhibit rapid variations of the measured
parameters may require interpolations or a ``best fit'' data
selection. All relevant parameters related to a given maneuver or
flight condition must be provided to allow overall interpretation.
When it is difficult or impossible to match simulator to airplane
data throughout a time history, differences must be justified by
providing a comparison of other related variables for the condition
being assessed.
e. It is not acceptable to program the FFS so that the
mathematical modeling is correct only at the validation test points.
Unless otherwise noted, simulator tests must represent airplane
performance and handling qualities at operating weights and centers
of gravity (CG) typical of normal operation. If a test is supported
by airplane data at one extreme weight or CG, another test supported
by airplane data at mid-conditions or as close as possible to the
other extreme must be included. Certain tests that are relevant only
at one extreme CG or weight condition need not be repeated at the
other extreme. Tests of handling qualities must include validation
of augmentation devices.
f. When comparing the parameters listed to those of the
airplane, sufficient data must also be provided to verify the
correct flight condition and airplane configuration changes. For
example, to show that control force is within the parameters for a
static stability test, data to show the correct airspeed, power,
thrust or torque, airplane configuration, altitude, and other
appropriate datum identification parameters must also be given. If
comparing short period dynamics, normal acceleration may be used to
establish a match to the airplane, but airspeed, altitude, control
input, airplane configuration, and other appropriate data must also
be given. If comparing landing gear change dynamics, pitch,
airspeed, and altitude may be used to establish a match to the
airplane, but landing gear position must also be provided. All
airspeed values must be properly annotated (e.g., indicated versus
calibrated). In addition, the same variables must be used for
comparison (e.g., compare inches to inches rather than inches to
centimeters).
g. The QTG provided by the sponsor must clearly describe how the
simulator will be set up and operated for each test. Each simulator
subsystem may be tested independently, but overall integrated
testing of the simulator must be accomplished to assure that the
total simulator system meets the prescribed standards. A manual test
procedure with explicit and detailed steps for completing each test
must also be provided.
h. For previously qualified simulators, the tests and tolerances
of this attachment may be used in subsequent continuing
qualification evaluations for any given test if the sponsor has
submitted a proposed MQTG revision to the NSPM and has received NSPM
approval.
i. Simulators are evaluated and qualified with an engine model
simulating the airplane data supplier's flight test engine. For
qualification of alternative engine models (either variations of the
flight test engines or other manufacturer's engines) additional
tests with the alternative engine models may be required. This
attachment contains guidelines for alternative engines.
j. For testing Computer Controlled Aircraft (CCA) simulators, or
other highly augmented airplane simulators, flight test data is
required for the Normal (N) and/or Non-normal (NN) control states,
as indicated in this attachment. Where test results are independent
of control state, Normal or Non-normal control data may be used. All
tests in Table A2A require test results in the Normal control state
unless specifically noted otherwise in the Test Details section
following the CCA designation. The NSPM will determine what tests
are appropriate for airplane simulation data. When making this
determination, the NSPM may require other levels of control state
degradation for specific airplane tests. Where Non-normal control
states are required, test data must be provided for one or more Non-
normal control states, and must include the least augmented state.
Where applicable, flight test data must record Normal and Non-normal
states for:
(1) Pilot controller deflections or electronically generated
inputs, including location of input; and
(2) Flight control surface positions unless test results are not
affected by, or are independent of, surface positions.
k. Tests of handling qualities must include validation of
augmentation devices. FFSs for highly augmented airplanes will be
validated both in the unaugmented configuration (or failure state
with the maximum permitted degradation in handling qualities) and
the augmented configuration. Where various levels of handling
qualities result from failure states, validation of the effect of
the failure is necessary. Requirements for testing will be mutually
agreed to between the sponsor and the NSPM on a case-by-case basis.
l. Some tests will not be required for airplanes using airplane
hardware in the simulator flight deck (e.g., ``side stick
controller''). These exceptions are noted in Section 2 ``Handling
Qualities'' in Table A2A of this attachment. However, in these
cases, the sponsor must provide a statement that the airplane
hardware meets the appropriate manufacturer's specifications and the
sponsor must have supporting information to that fact available for
NSPM review.
m. For objective test purposes, see Appendix F of this part for
the definitions of ``Near maximum,'' ``Light,'' and ``Medium'' gross
weight.

End QPS Requirements

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin Information

n. 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 should
exist from 4 seconds prior to, through 1 second following, the
instant of time captured by the snap shot.
o. For references on basic operating weight, see AC 120-27,
``Aircraft Weight and Balance;'' and FAA- H-8083-1, ``Aircraft
Weight and Balance Handbook.''

End Information

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 39521]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.033

[[Page 39522]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.034

[[Page 39523]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.035

[[Page 39524]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.036

[[Page 39525]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.037

[[Page 39526]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.038

[[Page 39527]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.039

[[Page 39528]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.040

[[Page 39529]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.041

[[Page 39530]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.042

[[Page 39531]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.043

[[Page 39532]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.044

[[Page 39533]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.045

[[Page 39534]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.046

[[Page 39535]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.047

[[Page 39536]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.048

[[Page 39537]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.049

[[Page 39538]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.050

[[Page 39539]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.051

[[Page 39540]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.052

[[Page 39541]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.053

[[Page 39542]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.054

[[Page 39543]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.055

[[Page 39544]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.056

[[Page 39545]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.057

[[Page 39546]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.058

[[Page 39547]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.059

[[Page 39548]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.060

[[Page 39549]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.061

[[Page 39550]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.062

[[Page 39551]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.063

[[Page 39552]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.064

[[Page 39553]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.065

[[Page 39554]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.066

[[Page 39555]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.067

[[Page 39556]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.068

[[Page 39557]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.069

[[Page 39558]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.070

[[Page 39559]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.071

[[Page 39560]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.072

[[Page 39561]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.073

[[Page 39562]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.074

[[Page 39563]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.075

[[Page 39564]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.076

[[Page 39565]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin Information

3. General

a. If relevant winds are present in the objective data, the wind
vector should be clearly noted as part of the data presentation,
expressed in conventional terminology, and related to the runway
being used for test near the ground.
b. The reader is encouraged to review the Airplane Flight
Simulator Evaluation Handbook, Volumes I and II, published by the
Royal Aeronautical Society, London, UK, and AC 25-7, as amended,
Flight Test Guide for Certification of Transport Category Airplanes,
and AC 23-8, as amended, Flight Test Guide for Certification of Part
23 Airplanes, for references and examples regarding flight testing
requirements and techniques.

4. Control Dynamics

a. General. The characteristics of an airplane flight control
system have a major effect on handling qualities. A significant
consideration in pilot acceptability of an airplane is the ``feel''
provided through the flight controls. Considerable effort is
expended on airplane feel system design so that pilots will be
comfortable and will consider the airplane desirable to fly. In
order for an FFS to be representative, it should ``feel'' like the
airplane being simulated. Compliance with this requirement is
determined by comparing a recording of the control feel dynamics of
the FFS to actual airplane measurements in the takeoff, cruise and
landing configurations.
(1) Recordings such as free response to an impulse or step
function are classically used to estimate the dynamic properties of
electromechanical systems. In any case, it is only possible to
estimate the dynamic properties as a result of being able to
estimate true inputs and responses. Therefore, it is imperative that
the best possible data be collected since close matching of the FFS
control loading system to the airplane system is essential. The
required dynamic control tests are described in Table A2A of this
attachment.
(2) For initial and upgrade evaluations, the QPS requires that
control dynamics characteristics be measured and recorded directly
from the flight controls (Handling Qualities--Table A2A). This
procedure is usually accomplished by measuring the free response of
the controls using a step or impulse input to excite the system. The
procedure should be accomplished in the takeoff, cruise and landing
flight conditions and configurations.
(3) For airplanes with irreversible control systems,
measurements may be obtained on the ground if proper pitot-static
inputs are provided to represent airspeeds typical of those
encountered in flight. Likewise, it may be shown that for some
airplanes, takeoff, cruise, and landing configurations have like
effects. Thus, one may suffice for another. In either case,
engineering validation or airplane manufacturer rationale should be
submitted as justification for ground tests or for eliminating a
configuration. For FFSs requiring static and dynamic tests at the
controls, special test fixtures will not be required during initial
and upgrade evaluations if the QTG shows both test fixture results
and the results of an alternate approach (e.g., computer plots that
were produced concurrently and show satisfactory agreement). Repeat
of the alternate method during the initial evaluation satisfies this
test requirement.
b. Control Dynamics Evaluation. The dynamic properties of
control systems are often stated in terms of frequency, damping and
a number of other classical measurements. In order to establish a
consistent means of validating test results for FFS control loading,
criteria are needed that will clearly define the measurement
interpretation and the applied tolerances. Criteria are needed for
underdamped, critically damped and overdamped systems. In the case
of an underdamped system with very light damping, the system may be
quantified in terms of frequency and damping. In critically damped
or overdamped systems, the frequency and damping are not readily
measured from a response time history. Therefore, the following
suggested measurements may be used:
(1) For Level C and D simulators. Tests to verify that control
feel dynamics represent the airplane should show that the dynamic
damping cycles (free response of the controls) match those of the
airplane within specified tolerances. The NSPM recognizes that
several different testing methods may be used to verify the control
feel dynamic response. The NSPM will consider the merits of testing
methods based on reliability and consistency. One acceptable method
of evaluating the response and the tolerance to be applied is
described below for the underdamped and critically damped cases. A
sponsor using this method to comply with the QPS requirements should
perform the tests as follows:
(a) Underdamped response. Two measurements are required for the
period, the time to first zero crossing (in case a rate limit is
present) and the subsequent frequency of oscillation. It is
necessary to measure cycles on an individual basis in case there are
non-uniform periods in the response. Each period will be
independently compared to the respective period of the airplane
control system and, consequently, will enjoy the full tolerance
specified for that period. The damping tolerance will be applied to
overshoots on an individual basis. Care should be taken when
applying the tolerance to small overshoots since the significance of
such overshoots becomes questionable. Only those overshoots larger
than 5 per cent of the total initial displacement should be
considered. The residual band, labeled T(Ad) on Figure
A2A is 5 percent of the initial displacement amplitude
Ad from the steady state value of the oscillation. Only
oscillations outside the residual band are considered significant.
When comparing FFS data to airplane data, the process should begin
by overlaying or aligning the FFS and airplane steady state values
and then comparing amplitudes of oscillation peaks, the time of the
first zero crossing and individual periods of oscillation. The FFS
should show the same number of significant overshoots to within one
when compared against the airplane data. The procedure for
evaluating the response is illustrated in Figure A2A.
(b) Critically damped and overdamped response. Due to the nature
of critically damped and overdamped responses (no overshoots), the
time to reach 90 percent of the steady state (neutral point) value
should be the same as the airplane within 10 percent.
Figure A2B illustrates the procedure.
(c) Special considerations. Control systems that exhibit
characteristics other than classical overdamped or underdamped
responses should meet specified tolerances. In addition, special
consideration should be given to ensure that significant trends are
maintained.
(2) Tolerances.
(a) The following table summarizes the tolerances, T, for
underdamped systems, and ``n'' is the sequential period of a full
cycle of oscillation. See Figure A2A of this attachment for an
illustration of the referenced measurements.

T(P0) 10% of P0
T(P1) 20% of P1
T(P2) 30% of P2
T(Pn) 10(n+1)% of Pn
T(An) 10% of A1
T(Ad) 5% of Ad = residual band
Significant overshoots First overshoot and 1 subsequent
overshoots

(b) The following tolerance applies to critically damped and
overdamped systems only. See Figure A2B for an illustration of the
reference measurements:

T(P0) 10% of P0

End Information

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin QPS Requirement

c. Alternative method for control dynamics evaluation.
(1) An alternative means for validating control dynamics for
aircraft with hydraulically powered flight controls and artificial
feel systems is by the measurement of control force and rate of
movement. For each axis of pitch, roll, and yaw, the control must be
forced to its maximum extreme position for the following distinct
rates. These tests are conducted under normal flight and ground
conditions.
(a) Static test--Slowly move the control so that a full sweep is
achieved within 95 to 105 seconds. A full sweep is defined as
movement of the controller from neutral to the stop, usually aft or
right stop, then to the opposite stop, then to the neutral position.
(b) Slow dynamic test--Achieve a full sweep within 8-12 seconds.
(c) Fast dynamic test--Achieve a full sweep within 3-5 seconds.
Note: Dynamic sweeps may be limited to forces not exceeding 100
lbs. (44.5 daN).
(d) Tolerances
(i) Static test; see Table A2A, FFS Objective Tests, Entries
2.a.1., 2.a.2., and 2.a.3.
(ii) Dynamic test-- 2 lbs (0.9 daN) or
10% on dynamic increment above static test.

[[Page 39566]]

End QPS Requirement

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin Information

d. The FAA is open to alternative means such as the one
described above. The alternatives should be justified and
appropriate to the application. For example, the method described
here may not apply to all manufacturers' systems and certainly not
to aircraft with reversible control systems. Each case is considered
on its own merit on an ad hoc basis. If the FAA finds that
alternative methods do not result in satisfactory performance, more
conventionally accepted methods will have to be used.
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P

[[Page 39567]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.077

BILLING CODE 4910-13-C

5. Ground Effect

a. For an FFS to be used for take-off and landing (not
applicable to Level A simulators in that the landing maneuver may
not be credited in a Level A simulator) it should reproduce the
aerodynamic changes that occur in ground effect. The parameters

[[Page 39568]]

chosen for FFS validation should indicate these changes.
(1) A dedicated test should be provided that will validate the
aerodynamic ground effect characteristics.
(2) The organization performing the flight tests may select
appropriate test methods and procedures to validate ground effect.
However, the flight tests should be performed with enough duration
near the ground to sufficiently validate the ground-effect model.
b. The NSPM will consider the merits of testing methods based on
reliability and consistency. Acceptable methods of validating ground
effect are described below. If other methods are proposed, rationale
should be provided to conclude that the tests performed validate the
ground-effect model. A sponsor using the methods described below to
comply with the QPS requirements should perform the tests as
follows:
(1) Level fly-bys. The level fly-bys should be conducted at a
minimum of three altitudes within the ground effect, including one
at no more than 10% of the wingspan above the ground, one each at
approximately 30% and 50% of the wingspan where height refers to
main gear tire above the ground. In addition, one level-flight trim
condition should be conducted out of ground effect (e.g., at 150% of
wingspan).
(2) Shallow approach landing. The shallow approach landing
should be performed at a glide slope of approximately one degree
with negligible pilot activity until flare.
c. The lateral-directional characteristics are also altered by
ground effect. For example, because of changes in lift, roll damping
is affected. The change in roll damping will affect other dynamic
modes usually evaluated for FFS validation. In fact, Dutch roll
dynamics, spiral stability, and roll-rate for a given lateral
control input are altered by ground effect. Steady heading sideslips
will also be affected. These effects should be accounted for in the
FFS modeling. Several tests such as crosswind landing, one engine
inoperative landing, and engine failure on take-off serve to
validate lateral-directional ground effect since portions of these
tests are accomplished as the aircraft is descending through heights
above the runway at which ground effect is an important factor.

6. Motion System

a. General.
(1) Pilots use continuous information signals to regulate the
state of the airplane. In concert with the instruments and outside-
world visual information, whole-body motion feedback is essential in
assisting the pilot to control the airplane dynamics, particularly
in the presence of external disturbances. The motion system should
meet basic objective performance criteria, and should be
subjectively tuned at the pilot's seat position to represent the
linear and angular accelerations of the airplane during a prescribed
minimum set of maneuvers and conditions. The response of the motion
cueing system should also be repeatable.
(2) The Motion System tests in Section 3 of Table A2A are
intended to qualify the FFS motion cueing system from a mechanical
performance standpoint. Additionally, the list of motion effects
provides a representative sample of dynamic conditions that should
be present in the flight simulator. An additional list of
representative, training-critical maneuvers, selected from Section 1
(Performance tests), and Section 2 (Handling Qualities tests), in
Table A2A, that should be recorded during initial qualification (but
without tolerance) to indicate the flight simulator motion cueing
performance signature have been identified (reference Section 3.e).
These tests are intended to help improve the overall standard of FFS
motion cueing.
b. Motion System Checks. The intent of test 3a, Frequency
Response, test 3b, Leg Balance, and test 3c, Turn-Around Check, as
described in the Table of Objective Tests, is to demonstrate the
performance of the motion system hardware, and to check the
integrity of the motion set-up with regard to calibration and wear.
These tests are independent of the motion cueing software and should
be considered robotic tests.
c. Motion System Repeatability. The intent of this test is to
ensure that the motion system software and motion system hardware
have not degraded or changed over time. This diagnostic test should
be completed during continuing qualification checks in lieu of the
robotic tests. This will allow an improved ability to determine
changes in the software or determine degradation in the hardware.
The following information delineates the methodology that should be
used for this test.
(1) Input: The inputs should be such that rotational
accelerations, rotational rates, and linear accelerations are
inserted before the transfer from airplane center of gravity to
pilot reference point with a minimum amplitude of 5 deg/sec/sec, 10
deg/sec and 0.3 g, respectively, to provide adequate analysis of the
output.
(2) Recommended output:
(a) Actual platform linear accelerations; the output will
comprise accelerations due to both the linear and rotational motion
acceleration;
(b) Motion actuators position.
d. Objective Motion Cueing Test--Frequency Domain
(1) Background. This test quantifies the response of the motion
cueing system from the output of the flight model to the motion
platform response. Other motion tests, such as the motion system
frequency response, concentrate on the mechanical performance of the
motion system hardware alone. The intent of this test is to provide
quantitative frequency response records of the entire motion system
for specified degree-of-freedom transfer relationships over a range
of frequencies. This range should be representative of the manual
control range for that particular aircraft type and the simulator as
set up during qualification. The measurements of this test should
include the combined influence of the motion cueing algorithm, the
motion platform dynamics, and the transport delay associated with
the motion cueing and control system implementation. Specified
frequency responses describing the ability of the FSTD to reproduce
aircraft translations and rotations, as well as the cross-coupling
relations, are required as part of these measurements. When
simulating forward aircraft acceleration, the simulator is
accelerated momentarily in the forward direction to provide the
onset cueing. This is considered the direct transfer relation. The
simulator is simultaneously tilted nose-up due to the low-pass
filter in order to generate a sustained specific force. The tilt
associated with the generation of the sustained specific force, and
the angular rates and angular accelerations associated with the
initiation of the sustained specific force, are considered cross-
coupling relations. The specific force is required for the
perception of the aircraft sustained specific force, while the
angular rates and accelerations do not occur in the aircraft and
should be minimized.
(2) Frequency response test. This test requires the frequency
response to be measured for the motion cueing system. Reference
sinusoidal signals are inserted at the pilot reference position
prior to the motion cueing computations. The response of the motion
platform in the corresponding degree-of-freedom (the direct transfer
relations), as well as the motions resulting from cross-coupling
(the cross-coupling relations), are recorded. These are the tests
that are important to pilot motion cueing and are general tests
applicable to all types of airplanes. These tests can be run at any
time deemed acceptable to the NSPM prior to and/or during the
initial qualification.
(3) Transfer Functions. The frequency responses describe the
relations between aircraft motions and simulator motions. The
relations are explained below per individual test. Tests 1, 3, 5, 6,
8 and 10 show the direct transfer relations, while tests 2, 4, 7 and
9 show the cross-coupling relations.

1. FSTD pitch response to aircraft pitch input
2. FSTD surge specific force response due to aircraft pitch input
3. FSTD roll response to aircraft roll input
4. FSTD sway specific force response due to aircraft roll input
5. FSTD yaw response to aircraft yaw input
6. FSTD surge specific force response to aircraft surge input
7. FSTD pitch rate and pitch acceleration response to aircraft surge
input
8. FSTD sway specific force response to aircraft sway input
9. FSTD roll rate and pitch acceleration response to aircraft sway
input
10. FSTD heave specific force response to aircraft heave input

(4) Frequency Range. The tests should be conducted by
introducing sinusoidal inputs at discrete input frequencies entered
at the output of the flight model, transformed to the pilot
reference position just before the motion cueing computations, and
measured at the response of the FSTD platform. For each relation
defined in section (3), measurements must be taken in at least 12
discrete frequencies within a range of 0.0159 and 2.515 Hz.
(5) Input Signal Amplitude. The tests applied here to the motion
cueing system are intended to qualify its response to normal control
inputs during maneuvering (i.e. not aggressive or excessively hard
control inputs). It is necessary to excite the system in such a
manner that the response is measured with a high signal-to-noise
ratio,

[[Page 39569]]

and that the possible non-linear elements in the motion cueing
system are not overly excited.
(6) Presentation of Results. The measured modulus and phase
should be tabulated for the twelve frequencies and for each of the
transfer relations given section (3). The results should also be
plotted for each component in a modulus versus phase plot. The
modulus should range from 0.0 to 1.0 along the horizontal axis, and
the absolute value of the phase from 0 to 180 degrees along the
vertical axis. An example is shown in Figure A2C.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.079

e. Motion Vibrations.
(1) Presentation of results. The characteristic motion
vibrations may be used to verify that the flight simulator can
reproduce the frequency content of the airplane when flown in
specific conditions. The test results should be presented as a Power
Spectral Density (PSD) plot with frequencies on the horizontal axis
and amplitude on the vertical axis. The airplane data and flight
simulator data should be presented in the same format with the same
scaling. The algorithms used for generating the flight simulator
data should be the same as those used for the airplane data. If they
are not the same then the algorithms used for the flight simulator
data should be proven to be sufficiently comparable. As a minimum,
the results along the dominant axes should be presented and a
rationale for not presenting the other axes should be provided.
(2) Interpretation of results. The overall trend of the PSD plot
should be considered while focusing on the dominant frequencies.
Less emphasis should be placed on the differences at the high
frequency and low amplitude portions of the PSD plot. During the
analysis, certain structural components of the flight simulator have
resonant frequencies that are filtered and may not appear in the PSD
plot. If filtering is required, the notch filter bandwidth should be
limited to 1 Hz to ensure that the buffet feel is not adversely
affected. In addition, a rationale should be provided to explain
that the characteristic motion vibration is not being adversely
affected by the filtering. The amplitude should match airplane data
as described below. However, if the PSD plot was altered for
subjective reasons, a rationale should be provided to justify the
change. If the plot is on a logarithmic scale, it may be difficult
to interpret the amplitude of the buffet in terms of acceleration.
For example, a 1 x 10^-3 g-rms\2\/Hz would describe a
heavy buffet and may be seen in the deep stall regime.
Alternatively, a 1 x 10^-6 g-rms\2\/Hz buffet is almost
not perceivable; but may represent a flap buffet at low speed. The
previous two examples differ in magnitude by 1000. On a PSD plot
this represents three decades (one decade is a change in order of
magnitude of 10; and two decades is a change in order of magnitude
of 100).
Note: In the example, ``g-rms\2\ is the mathematical expression
for ``g's root mean squared.''

7. Sound System

a. General. The total sound environment in the airplane is very
complex, and changes with atmospheric conditions, airplane
configuration, airspeed, altitude, and power settings. Flight deck
sounds are an important component of the flight deck operational
environment and provide valuable information to the flight crew.
These aural cues can either assist the crew (as an indication of an
abnormal situation), or hinder the crew (as a distraction or
nuisance). For effective training, the flight simulator should
provide flight deck sounds that are perceptible to the pilot during
normal and abnormal operations, and comparable to those of the
airplane. The flight simulator operator should carefully evaluate
background noises in the location where the device will be
installed. To demonstrate compliance with the sound requirements,
the objective or validation tests in this attachment were selected
to provide a representative sample of normal static conditions
typically experienced by a pilot.
b. Alternate propulsion. For FFS with multiple propulsion
configurations, any condition listed in Table A2A of this attachment
should be presented for evaluation as part of the QTG if identified
by the airplane manufacturer or other data supplier as significantly
different due to a change in propulsion system (engine or
propeller).
c. Data and Data Collection System.
(1) Information provided to the flight simulator manufacturer
should be presented in the format suggested by the International Air
Transport Association (IATA) ``Flight Simulator Design and
Performance Data Requirements,'' as amended. This information should
contain calibration and frequency response data.

[[Page 39570]]

(2) The system used to perform the tests listed in Table A2A
should comply with the following standards:
(a) The specifications for octave, half octave, and third octave
band filter sets may be found in American National Standards
Institute (ANSI) S1.11-1986;
(b) Measurement microphones should be type WS2 or better, as
described in International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) 1094-4-
1995.
(3) Headsets. If headsets are used during normal operation of
the airplane they should also be used during the flight simulator
evaluation.
(4) Playback equipment. Playback equipment and recordings of the
QTG conditions should be provided during initial evaluations.
(5) Background noise.
(a) Background noise is the noise in the flight simulator that
is not associated with the airplane, but is caused by the flight
simulator's cooling and hydraulic systems and extraneous noise from
other locations in the building. Background noise can seriously
impact the correct simulation of airplane sounds and should be kept
below the airplane sounds. In some cases, the sound level of the
simulation can be increased to compensate for the background noise.
However, this approach is limited by the specified tolerances and by
the subjective acceptability of the sound environment to the
evaluation pilot.
(b) The acceptability of the background noise levels is
dependent upon the normal sound levels in the airplane being
represented. Background noise levels that fall below the lines
defined by the following points, may be acceptable:
(i) 70 dB @ 50 Hz;
(ii) 55 dB @ 1000 Hz;
(iii) 30 dB @ 16 kHz
(Note: These limits are for unweighted 1/3 octave band sound
levels. Meeting these limits for background noise does not ensure an
acceptable flight simulator. Airplane sounds that fall below this
limit require careful review and may require lower limits on
background noise.)
(6) Validation testing. Deficiencies in airplane recordings
should be considered when applying the specified tolerances to
ensure that the simulation is representative of the airplane.
Examples of typical deficiencies are:
(a) Variation of data between tail numbers;
(b) Frequency response of microphones;
(c) Repeatability of the measurements.

Table A2B--Example of Continuing Qualification Frequency Response Test Tolerance
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Continuing
Initial qualification Absolute
Band center frequency results results difference
(dBSPL) (dBSPL)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
50.............................................................. 75.0 73.8 1.2
63.............................................................. 75.9 75.6 0.3
80.............................................................. 77.1 76.5 0.6
100............................................................. 78.0 78.3 0.3
125............................................................. 81.9 81.3 0.6
160............................................................. 79.8 80.1 0.3
200............................................................. 83.1 84.9 1.8
250............................................................. 78.6 78.9 0.3
315............................................................. 79.5 78.3 1.2
400............................................................. 80.1 79.5 0.9
500............................................................. 80.7 79.8 0.9
630............................................................. 81.9 80.4 1.5
800............................................................. 73.2 74.1 0.9
1000............................................................ 79.2 80.1 0.9
1250............................................................ 80.7 82.8 2.1
1600............................................................ 81.6 78.6 3.0
2000............................................................ 76.2 74.4 1.8
2500............................................................ 79.5 80.7 1.2
3150............................................................ 80.1 77.1 3.0
4000............................................................ 78.9 78.6 0.3
5000............................................................ 80.1 77.1 3.0
6300............................................................ 80.7 80.4 0.3
8000............................................................ 84.3 85.5 1.2
10000........................................................... 81.3 79.8 1.5
12500........................................................... 80.7 80.1 0.6
16000........................................................... 71.1 71.1 0.0
--------------------------------
Average 1.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

8. Additional Information About Flight Simulator Qualification for New
or Derivative Airplanes

a. Typically, an airplane manufacturer's approved final data for
performance, handling qualities, systems or avionics is not
available until well after a new or derivative airplane has entered
service. However, flight crew training and certification often
begins several months prior to the entry of the first airplane into
service. Consequently, it may be necessary to use preliminary data
provided by the airplane manufacturer for interim qualification of
flight simulators.
b. In these cases, the NSPM may accept certain partially
validated preliminary airplane and systems data, and early release
(`red label') avionics data in order to permit the necessary program
schedule for training, certification, and service introduction.
c. Simulator sponsors seeking qualification based on preliminary
data should consult the NSPM to make special arrangements for using
preliminary data for flight simulator qualification. The sponsor
should also consult the airplane and flight simulator manufacturers
to develop a data plan and flight simulator qualification plan.
d. The procedure to be followed to gain NSPM acceptance of
preliminary data will vary from case to case and between airplane
manufacturers. Each airplane manufacturer's new airplane development
and test program is designed to suit the needs of the particular
project and may not contain the same events or sequence of events as
another manufacturer's program, or even the same manufacturer's
program for a different airplane. Therefore, there cannot be a
prescribed invariable procedure for acceptance of preliminary data,
but instead there should be a statement describing the final
sequence of events, data sources, and validation procedures agreed
by the simulator sponsor, the airplane manufacturer, the flight
simulator manufacturer, and the NSPM.
Note: A description of airplane manufacturer-provided data
needed for flight simulator modeling and validation is to be

[[Page 39571]]

found in the IATA Document ``Flight Simulator Design and Performance
Data Requirements,'' as amended.
e. The preliminary data should be the manufacturer's best
representation of the airplane, with assurance that the final data
will not significantly deviate from the preliminary estimates. Data
derived from these predictive or preliminary techniques should be
validated against available sources including, at least, the
following:
(1) Manufacturer's engineering report. The report should explain
the predictive method used and illustrate past success of the method
on similar projects. For example, the manufacturer could show the
application of the method to an earlier airplane model or predict
the characteristics of an earlier model and compare the results to
final data for that model.
(2) Early flight test results. This data is often derived from
airplane certification tests, and should be used to maximum
advantage for early flight simulator validation. Certain critical
tests that would normally be done early in the airplane
certification program should be included to validate essential pilot
training and certification maneuvers. These include cases where a
pilot is expected to cope with an airplane failure mode or an engine
failure. Flight test data that will be available early in the flight
test program will depend on the airplane manufacturer's flight test
program design and may not be the same in each case. The flight test
program of the airplane manufacturer should include provisions for
generation of very early flight test results for flight simulator
validation.
f. The use of preliminary data is not indefinite. The airplane
manufacturer's final data should be available within 12 months after
the airplane's first entry into service or as agreed by the NSPM,
the simulator sponsor, and the airplane manufacturer. When applying
for interim qualification using preliminary data, the simulator
sponsor and the NSPM should agree on the update program. This
includes specifying that the final data update will be installed in
the flight simulator within a period of 12 months following the
final data release, unless special conditions exist and a different
schedule is acceptable. The flight simulator performance and
handling validation would then be based on data derived from flight
tests or from other approved sources. Initial airplane systems data
should be updated after engineering tests. Final airplane systems
data should also be used for flight simulator programming and
validation.
g. Flight simulator avionics should stay essentially in step
with airplane avionics (hardware and software) updates. The
permitted time lapse between airplane and flight simulator updates
should be minimal. It may depend on the magnitude of the update and
whether the QTG and pilot training and certification are affected.
Differences in airplane and flight simulator avionics versions and
the resulting effects on flight simulator qualification should be
agreed between the simulator sponsor and the NSPM. Consultation with
the flight simulator manufacturer is desirable throughout the
qualification process.
h. The following describes an example of the design data and
sources that might be used in the development of an interim
qualification plan.
(1) The plan should consist of the development of a QTG based
upon a mix of flight test and engineering simulation data. For data
collected from specific airplane flight tests or other flights, the
required design model or data changes necessary to support an
acceptable Proof of Match (POM) should be generated by the airplane
manufacturer.
(2) For proper validation of the two sets of data, the airplane
manufacturer should compare their simulation model responses against
the flight test data, when driven by the same control inputs and
subjected to the same atmospheric conditions as recorded in the
flight test. The model responses should result from a simulation
where the following systems are run in an integrated fashion and are
consistent with the design data released to the flight simulator
manufacturer:
(a) Propulsion
(b) Aerodynamics;
(c) Mass properties;
(d) Flight controls;
(e) Stability augmentation; and
(f) Brakes/landing gear.
i. A qualified test pilot should be used to assess handling
qualities and performance evaluations for the qualification of
flight simulators of new airplane types.

End Information

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin QPS Requirement

9. Engineering Simulator--Validation Data

a. When a fully validated simulation (i.e., validated with
flight test results) is modified due to changes to the simulated
airplane configuration, the airplane manufacturer or other
acceptable data supplier must coordinate with the NSPM if they
propose to supply validation data from an ``audited'' engineering
simulator/simulation to selectively supplement flight test data. The
NSPM must be provided an opportunity to audit the engineering
simulation or the engineering simulator used to generate the
validation data. Validation data from an audited engineering
simulation may be used for changes that are incremental in nature.
Manufacturers or other data suppliers must be able to demonstrate
that the predicted changes in aircraft performance are based on
acceptable aeronautical principles with proven success history and
valid outcomes. This must include comparisons of predicted and
flight test validated data.
b. Airplane manufacturers or other acceptable data suppliers
seeking to use an engineering simulator for simulation validation
data as an alternative to flight-test derived validation data, must
contact the NSPM and provide the following:
(1) A description of the proposed aircraft changes, a
description of the proposed simulation model changes, and the use of
an integral configuration management process, including a
description of the actual simulation model modifications that
includes a step-by-step description leading from the original
model(s) to the current model(s).
(2) A schedule for review by the NSPM of the proposed plan and
the subsequent validation data to establish acceptability of the
proposal.
(3) Validation data from an audited engineering simulator/
simulation to supplement specific segments of the flight test data.
c. To be qualified to supply engineering simulator validation
data, for aerodynamic, engine, flight control, or ground handling
models, an airplane manufacturer or other acceptable data supplier
must:
(1) Be able to verify their ability able to:
(a) Develop and implement high fidelity simulation models; and
(b) Predict the handling and performance characteristics of an
airplane with sufficient accuracy to avoid additional flight test
activities for those handling and performance characteristics.
(2) Have an engineering simulator that:
(a) Is a physical entity, complete with a flight deck
representative of the simulated class of airplane;
(b) Has controls sufficient for manual flight;
(c) Has models that run in an integrated manner;
(d) Has fully flight-test validated simulation models as the
original or baseline simulation models;
(e) Has an out-of-the-flight deck visual system;
(f) Has actual avionics boxes interchangeable with the
equivalent software simulations to support validation of released
software;
(g) Uses the same models as released to the training community
(which are also used to produce stand-alone proof-of-match and
checkout documents);
(h) Is used to support airplane development and certification;
and
(i) Has been found to be a high fidelity representation of the
airplane by the manufacturer's pilots (or other acceptable data
supplier), certificate holders, and the NSPM.
(3) Use the engineering simulator/simulation to produce a
representative set of integrated proof-of-match cases.
(4) Use a configuration control system covering hardware and
software for the operating components of the engineering simulator/
simulation.
(5) Demonstrate that the predicted effects of the change(s) are
within the provisions of sub-paragraph ``a'' of this section, and
confirm that additional flight test data are not required.
d. Additional Requirements for Validation Data
(1) When used to provide validation data, an engineering
simulator must meet the simulator standards currently applicable to
training simulators except for the data package.
(2) The data package used must be:
(a) Comprised of the engineering predictions derived from the
airplane design, development, or certification process;
(b) Based on acceptable aeronautical principles with proven
success history and valid outcomes for aerodynamics, engine
operations, avionics operations, flight control applications, or
ground handling;

[[Page 39572]]

(c) Verified with existing flight-test data; and
(d) Applicable to the configuration of a production airplane, as
opposed to a flight-test airplane.
(3) Where engineering simulator data are used as part of a QTG,
an essential match must exist between the training simulator and the
validation data.
(4) Training flight simulator(s) using these baseline and
modified simulation models must be qualified to at least
internationally recognized standards, such as contained in the ICAO
Document 9625, the ``Manual of Criteria for the Qualification of
Flight Simulators.''

End QPS Requirement

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

10. [Reserved]

11. Validation Test Tolerances

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin Information

a. Non-Flight-Test Tolerances

(1) If engineering simulator data or other non-flight-test data
are used as an allowable form of reference validation data for the
objective tests listed in Table A2A of this attachment, the data
provider must supply a well-documented mathematical model and
testing procedure that enables a replication of the engineering
simulation results within 40% of the corresponding flight test
tolerances.

b. Background

(1) The tolerances listed in Table A2A of this attachment are
designed to measure the quality of the match using flight-test data
as a reference.
(2) Good engineering judgment should be applied to all
tolerances in any test. A test is failed when the results clearly
fall outside of the prescribed tolerance(s).
(3) Engineering simulator data are acceptable because the same
simulation models used to produce the reference data are also used
to test the flight training simulator (i.e., the two sets of results
should be ``essentially'' similar).
(4) The results from the two sources may differ for the
following reasons:
(a) Hardware (avionics units and flight controls);
(b) Iteration rates;
(c) Execution order;
(d) Integration methods;
(e) Processor architecture;
(f) Digital drift, including:
(i) Interpolation methods;
(ii) Data handling differences; and
(iii) Auto-test trim tolerances.
(5) The tolerance limit between the reference data and the
flight simulator results is generally 40% of the corresponding
`flight-test' tolerances. However, there may be cases where the
simulator models used are of higher fidelity, or the manner in which
they are cascaded in the integrated testing loop have the effect of
a higher fidelity, than those supplied by the data provider. Under
these circumstances, it is possible that an error greater than 20%
may be generated. An error greater than 40% may be acceptable if
simulator sponsor can provide an adequate explanation.
(6) Guidelines are needed for the application of tolerances to
engineering-simulator-generated validation data because:
(a) Flight-test data are often not available due to technical
reasons;
(b) Alternative technical solutions are being advanced; and
(c) High costs.

12. Validation Data Roadmap

a. Airplane manufacturers or other data suppliers should supply
a validation data roadmap (VDR) document as part of the data
package. A VDR document contains guidance material from the airplane
validation data supplier recommending the best possible sources of
data to be used as validation data in the QTG. A VDR is of special
value when requesting interim qualification, qualification of
simulators for airplanes certificated prior to 1992, and
qualification of alternate engine or avionics fits. A sponsor
seeking to have a device qualified in accordance with the standards
contained in this QPS appendix should submit a VDR to the NSPM as
early as possible in the planning stages. The NSPM is the final
authority to approve the data to be used as validation material for
the QTG. The NSPM and the Joint Aviation Authorities' Synthetic
Training Devices Advisory Board have committed to maintain a list of
agreed VDRs.
b. The VDR should identify (in matrix format) sources of data
for all required tests. It should also provide guidance regarding
the validity of these data for a specific engine type, thrust rating
configuration, and the revision levels of all avionics affecting
airplane handling qualities and performance. The VDR should include
rationale or explanation in cases where data or parameters are
missing, engineering simulation data are to be used, flight test
methods require explanation, or there is any deviation from data
requirements. Additionally, the document should refer to other
appropriate sources of validation data (e.g., sound and vibration
data documents).
c. The Sample Validation Data Roadmap (VDR) for airplanes, shown
in Table A2C, depicts a generic roadmap matrix identifying sources
of validation data for an abbreviated list of tests. This document
is merely a sample and does not provide actual data. A complete
matrix should address all test conditions and provide actual data
and data sources.
d. Two examples of rationale pages are presented in Appendix F
of the IATA ``Flight Simulator Design and Performance Data
Requirements.'' These illustrate the type of airplane and avionics
configuration information and descriptive engineering rationale used
to describe data anomalies or provide an acceptable basis for using
alternative data for QTG validation requirements.

End Information

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P

[[Page 39573]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.080

[[Page 39574]]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-C

Begin Information

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

13. Acceptance Guidelines for Alternative Engines Data

a. Background

(1) For a new airplane type, the majority of flight validation
data are collected on the first airplane configuration with a
``baseline'' engine type. These data are then used to validate all
flight simulators representing that airplane type.
(2) Additional flight test validation data may be needed for
flight simulators representing an airplane with engines of a
different type than the baseline, or for engines with thrust rating
that is different from previously validated configurations.
(3) When a flight simulator with alternate engines is to be
qualified, the QTG should contain tests against flight test
validation data for selected cases where engine differences are
expected to be significant.

b. Approval Guidelines For Validating Alternate Engine Applications

(1) The following guidelines apply to flight simulators
representing airplanes with alternate engine applications or with
more than one engine type or thrust rating.
(2) Validation tests can be segmented into two groups, those
that are dependent on engine type or thrust rating and those that
are not.
(3) For tests that are independent of engine type or thrust
rating, the QTG can be based on validation data from any engine
application. Tests in this category should be designated as
independent of engine type or thrust rating.
(4) For tests that are affected by engine type, the QTG should
contain selected engine-specific flight test data sufficient to
validate that particular airplane-engine configuration. These
effects may be due to engine dynamic characteristics, thrust levels
or engine-related airplane configuration changes. This category is
primarily characterized by variations between different engine
manufacturers' products, but also includes differences due to
significant engine design changes from a previously flight-validated
configuration within a single engine type. See Table A2D, Alternate
Engine Validation Flight Tests in this section for a list of
acceptable tests.
(5) Alternate engine validation data should be based on flight
test data, except as noted in sub-paragraphs 13.c.(1) and (2), or
where other data are specifically allowed (e.g., engineering
simulator/simulation data). If certification of the flight
characteristics of the airplane with a new thrust rating (regardless
of percentage change) does require certification flight testing with
a comprehensive stability and control flight instrumentation
package, then the conditions described in Table A2D in this section
should be obtained from flight testing and presented in the QTG.
Flight test data, other than throttle calibration data, are not
required if the new thrust rating is certified on the airplane
without need for a comprehensive stability and control flight
instrumentation package.
(6) As a supplement to the engine-specific flight tests listed
in Table A2D and baseline engine-independent tests, additional
engine-specific engineering validation data should be provided in
the QTG, as appropriate, to facilitate running the entire QTG with
the alternate engine configuration. The sponsor and the NSPM should
agree in advance on the specific validation tests to be supported by
engineering simulation data.
(7) A matrix or VDR should be provided with the QTG indicating
the appropriate validation data source for each test.
(8) The flight test conditions in Table A2D are appropriate and
should be sufficient to validate implementation of alternate engines
in a flight simulator.

End Information

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin QPS Requirement

c. Test Requirements

(1) The QTG must contain selected engine-specific flight test
data sufficient to validate the alternative thrust level when:
(a) the engine type is the same, but the thrust rating exceeds
that of a previously flight-test validated configuration by five
percent (5%) or more; or
(b) the engine type is the same, but the thrust rating is less
than the lowest previously flight-test validated rating by fifteen
percent (15%) or more. See Table A2D for a list of acceptable tests.
(2) Flight test data is not required if the thrust increase is
greater than 5%, but flight tests have confirmed that the thrust
increase does not change the airplane's flight characteristics.
(3) Throttle calibration data (i.e., commanded power setting
parameter versus throttle position) must be provided to validate all
alternate engine types and engine thrust ratings that are higher or
lower than a previously validated engine. Data from a test airplane
or engineering test bench with the correct engine controller (both
hardware and software) are required.

End QPS Requirement

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin QPS Requirement

Table A2D--Alternative Engine Validation Flight Tests
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Entry No. Test description Alternative Alternative
engine type thrust rating
\2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.b.1.................... Normal take-off/ground acceleration time and X X
1.b.4.................... distance
1.b.2.................... Vmcg, if performed for airplane certification X X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.b.5.................... Engine-out take-off...... Either test may be X ...............
performed..
1.b.8.................... Dynamic engine failure
after take-off
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.b.7.................... Rejected take-off if performed for airplane X
certification
1.d.1.................... Cruise performance X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.f.1.................... Engine acceleration and deceleration X X
1.f.2....................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.a.8.................... Throttle calibration \1\ X X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.c.1.................... Power change dynamics (acceleration) X X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.d.1.................... Vmca if performed for airplane certification X X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.d.5.................... Engine inoperative trim X X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.e.1.................... Normal landing X ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Must be provided for all changes in engine type or thrust rating; see paragraph 13.c.(3).
\2\ See paragraphs 13.c.(1) through13.c.(3), for a definition of applicable thrust ratings.

[[Page 39575]]

End QPS Requirement

Begin Information

14. Acceptance Guidelines for Alternative Avionics (Flight-Related
Computers and Controllers)

a. Background
(1) For a new airplane type, the majority of flight validation
data are collected on the first airplane configuration with a
``baseline'' flight-related avionics ship-set; (see subparagraph
b.(2) of this section). These data are then used to validate all
flight simulators representing that airplane type.
(2) Additional validation data may be required for flight
simulators representing an airplane with avionics of a different
hardware design than the baseline, or a different software revision
than previously validated configurations.
(3) When a flight simulator with additional or alternate
avionics configurations is to be qualified, the QTG should contain
tests against validation data for selected cases where avionics
differences are expected to be significant.
b. Approval Guidelines For Validating Alternate Avionics
(1) The following guidelines apply to flight simulators
representing airplanes with a revised avionics configuration, or
more than one avionics configuration.
(2) The baseline validation data should be based on flight test
data, except where other data are specifically allowed (e.g.,
engineering flight simulator data).
(3) The airplane avionics can be segmented into two groups,
systems or components whose functional behavior contributes to the
aircraft response presented in the QTG results, and systems that do
not. The following avionics are examples of contributory systems for
which hardware design changes or software revisions may lead to
significant differences in the aircraft response relative to the
baseline avionics configuration: Flight control computers and
controllers for engines, autopilot, braking system, nosewheel
steering system, and high lift system. Related avionics such as
stall warning and augmentation systems should also be considered.
(4) The acceptability of validation data used in the QTG for an
alternative avionics fit should be determined as follows:
(a) For changes to an avionics system or component that do not
affect QTG validation test response, the QTG test can be based on
validation data from the previously validated avionics
configuration.
(b) For an avionics change to a contributory system, where a
specific test is not affected by the change (e.g., the avionics
change is a Built In Test Equipment (BITE) update or a modification
in a different flight phase), the QTG test can be based on
validation data from the previously-validated avionics
configuration. The QTG should include authoritative justification
(e.g., from the airplane manufacturer or system supplier) that this
avionics change does not affect the test.
(c) For an avionics change to a contributory system, the QTG may
be based on validation data from the previously-validated avionics
configuration if no new functionality is added and the impact of the
avionics change on the airplane response is small and based on
acceptable aeronautical principles with proven success history and
valid outcomes. This should be supplemented with avionics-specific
validation data from the airplane manufacturer's engineering
simulation, generated with the revised avionics configuration. The
QTG should also include an explanation of the nature of the change
and its effect on the airplane response.
(d) For an avionics change to a contributory system that
significantly affects some tests in the QTG or where new
functionality is added, the QTG should be based on validation data
from the previously validated avionics configuration and
supplemental avionics-specific flight test data sufficient to
validate the alternate avionics revision. Additional flight test
validation data may not be needed if the avionics changes were
certified without the need for testing with a comprehensive flight
instrumentation package. The airplane manufacturer should coordinate
flight simulator data requirements, in advance with the NSPM.
(5) A matrix or ``roadmap'' should be provided with the QTG
indicating the appropriate validation data source for each test. The
roadmap should include identification of the revision state of those
contributory avionics systems that could affect specific test
responses if changed.

15. Transport Delay Testing

a. This paragraph explains how to determine the introduced
transport delay through the flight simulator system so that it does
not exceed a specific time delay. The transport delay should be
measured from control inputs through the interface, through each of
the host computer modules and back through the interface to motion,
flight instrument, and visual systems. The transport delay should
not exceed the maximum allowable interval.
b. Four specific examples of transport delay are:
(1) Simulation of classic non-computer controlled aircraft;
(2) Simulation of computer controlled aircraft using real
airplane black boxes;
(3) Simulation of computer controlled aircraft using software
emulation of airplane boxes;
(4) Simulation using software avionics or re-hosted instruments.
c. Figure A2D illustrates the total transport delay for a non-
computer-controlled airplane or the classic transport delay test.
Since there are no airplane-induced delays for this case, the total
transport delay is equivalent to the introduced delay.
d. Figure A2E illustrates the transport delay testing method
using the real airplane controller system.
e. To obtain the induced transport delay for the motion,
instrument and visual signal, the delay induced by the airplane
controller should be subtracted from the total transport delay. This
difference represents the introduced delay and should not exceed the
standards prescribed in Table A1A.
f. Introduced transport delay is measured from the flight deck
control input to the reaction of the instruments and motion and
visual systems (See Figure A2D).
g. The control input may also be introduced after the airplane
controller system and the introduced transport delay measured
directly from the control input to the reaction of the instruments,
and simulator motion and visual systems (See Figure A2E).
h. Figure A2F illustrates the transport delay testing method
used on a flight simulator that uses a software emulated airplane
controller system.
i. It is not possible to measure the introduced transport delay
using the simulated airplane controller system architecture for the
pitch, roll and yaw axes. Therefore, the signal should be measured
directly from the pilot controller. The flight simulator
manufacturer should measure the total transport delay and subtract
the inherent delay of the actual airplane components because the
real airplane controller system has an inherent delay provided by
the airplane manufacturer. The flight simulator manufacturer should
ensure that the introduced delay does not exceed the standards
prescribed in Table A1A.
j. Special measurements for instrument signals for flight
simulators using a real airplane instrument display system instead
of a simulated or re-hosted display. For flight instrument systems,
the total transport delay should be measured and the inherent delay
of the actual airplane components subtracted to ensure that the
introduced delay does not exceed the standards prescribed in Table
A1A.
(1) Figure A2GA illustrates the transport delay procedure
without airplane display simulation. The introduced delay consists
of the delay between the control movement and the instrument change
on the data bus.
(2) Figure A2GB illustrates the modified testing method required
to measure introduced delay due to software avionics or re-hosted
instruments. The total simulated instrument transport delay is
measured and the airplane delay should be subtracted from this
total. This difference represents the introduced delay and should
not exceed the standards prescribed in Table A1A. The inherent delay
of the airplane between the data bus and the displays is indicated
in figure A2GA. The display manufacturer should provide this delay
time.
k. Recorded signals. The signals recorded to conduct the
transport delay calculations should be explained on a schematic
block diagram. The flight simulator manufacturer should also provide
an explanation of why each signal was selected and how they relate
to the above descriptions.
l. Interpretation of results. Flight simulator results vary over
time from test to test due to ``sampling uncertainty.'' All flight
simulators run at a specific rate where all modules are executed
sequentially in the host computer. The flight controls input can
occur at any time in the iteration, but these data will not be
processed before the start of the new iteration. For example, a
flight simulator running at 60 Hz may have a difference of as much
as 16.67 msec between test results. This does not mean that the test
has failed. Instead, the difference is

[[Page 39576]]

attributed to variations in input processing. In some conditions,
the host simulator and the visual system do not run at the same
iteration rate, so the output of the host computer to the visual
system will not always be synchronized.
m. The transport delay test should account for both daylight and
night modes of operation of the visual system. In both cases, the
tolerances prescribed in Table A1A must be met and the motion
response should occur before the end of the first video scan
containing new information.
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.081

[[Page 39577]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.082

BILLING CODE 4910-13-C
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin Information

16. Continuing Qualification Evaluations--Validation Test Data
Presentation

a. Background

(1) The MQTG is created during the initial evaluation of a
flight simulator. This is the master document, as amended, to which
flight simulator continuing qualification evaluation test results
are compared.
(2) The currently accepted method of presenting continuing
qualification evaluation test results is to provide flight simulator
results over-plotted with reference data. Test results are carefully
reviewed to determine if the test is within the specified
tolerances. This can be a time consuming process, particularly when
reference data exhibits rapid variations or an apparent anomaly
requiring engineering judgment in the application of the tolerances.
In these cases, the solution is to compare the results to the MQTG.
The continuing qualification results are compared to the results in
the MQTG for acceptance. The flight simulator operator and the NSPM
should look for any change in the flight simulator performance since
initial qualification.

b. Continuing Qualification Evaluation Test Results Presentation

(1) Flight simulator operators are encouraged to over-plot
continuing qualification validation test results with MQTG flight
simulator results recorded during the initial evaluation and as
amended. Any change in a validation test will be readily apparent.
In addition to plotting continuing qualification validation test and
MQTG results, operators may elect to plot reference data as well.
(2) There are no suggested tolerances between flight simulator
continuing qualification and MQTG validation test results.
Investigation of any discrepancy between the MQTG and continuing
qualification flight simulator performance is left to the discretion
of the flight simulator operator and the NSPM.
(3) Differences between the two sets of results, other than
variations attributable to repeatability issues that cannot be
explained, should be investigated.
(4) The flight simulator should retain the ability to over-plot
both automatic and manual validation test results with reference
data.

End Information

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin QPS Requirements

17. Alternative Data Sources, Procedures, and Instrumentation: Level A
and Level B Simulators Only

a. Sponsors are not required to use the alternative data
sources, procedures, and instrumentation. However, a sponsor may
choose to use one or more of the alternative sources, procedures,
and instrumentation described in Table A2E.

End QPS Requirements

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin Information

b. It has become standard practice for experienced simulator
manufacturers to use

[[Page 39578]]

modeling techniques to establish data bases for new simulator
configurations while awaiting the availability of actual flight test
data. The data generated from the aerodynamic modeling techniques is
then compared to the flight test data when it becomes available. The
results of such comparisons have become increasingly consistent,
indicating that these techniques, applied with the appropriate
experience, are dependable and accurate for the development of
aerodynamic models for use in Level A and Level B simulators.
c. Based on this history of successful comparisons, the NSPM has
concluded that those who are experienced in the development of
aerodynamic models may use modeling techniques to alter the method
for acquiring flight test data for Level A or Level B simulators.
d. The information in Table A2E (Alternative Data Sources,
Procedures, and Instrumentation) is presented to describe an
acceptable alternative to data sources for simulator modeling and
validation and an acceptable alternative to the procedures and
instrumentation traditionally used to gather such modeling and
validation data.
(1) Alternative data sources that may be used for part or all of
a data requirement are the Airplane Maintenance Manual, the Airplane
Flight Manual (AFM), Airplane Design Data, the Type Inspection
Report (TIR), Certification Data or acceptable supplemental flight
test data.
(2) The sponsor should coordinate with the NSPM prior to using
alternative data sources in a flight test or data gathering effort.
e. The NSPM position regarding the use of these alternative data
sources, procedures, and instrumentation is based on the following
presumptions:
(1) Data gathered through the alternative means does not require
angle of attack (AOA) measurements or control surface position
measurements for any flight test. However, AOA can be sufficiently
derived if the flight test program ensures the collection of
acceptable level, unaccelerated, trimmed flight data. All of the
simulator time history tests that begin in level, unaccelerated, and
trimmed flight, including the three basic trim tests and ``fly-by''
trims, can be a successful validation of angle of attack by
comparison with flight test pitch angle. (Note: Due to the
criticality of angle of attack in the development of the ground
effects model, particularly critical for normal landings and
landings involving cross-control input applicable to Level B
simulators, stable ``fly-by'' trim data will be the acceptable norm
for normal and cross-control input landing objective data for these
applications.)
(2) The use of a rigorously defined and fully mature simulation
controls system model that includes accurate gearing and cable
stretch characteristics (where applicable), determined from actual
aircraft measurements. Such a model does not require control surface
position measurements in the flight test objective data in these
limited applications.
f. The sponsor is urged to contact the NSPM for clarification of
any issue regarding airplanes with reversible control systems. Table
A2E is not applicable to Computer Controlled Aircraft FFSs.
g. Utilization of these alternate data sources, procedures, and
instrumentation (Table A2E) does not relieve the sponsor from
compliance with the balance of the information contained in this
document relative to Level A or Level B FFSs.
h. The term ``inertial measurement system'' is used in the
following table to include the use of a functional global
positioning system (GPS).
i. Synchronized video for the use of alternative data sources,
procedures, and instrumentation should have:
(1) Sufficient resolution to allow magnification of the display
to make appropriate measurement and comparisons; and
(2) Sufficient size and incremental marking to allow similar
measurement and comparison. The detail provided by the video should
provide sufficient clarity and accuracy to measure the necessary
parameter(s) to at least \1/2\ of the tolerance authorized for the
specific test being conducted and allow an integration of the
parameter(s) in question to obtain a rate of change.

End Information

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P

[[Page 39579]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.083

[[Page 39580]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.084

[[Page 39581]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.085

[[Page 39582]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.086

[[Page 39583]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.087

[[Page 39584]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.088

[[Page 39585]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.089

[[Page 39586]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.090

End Information

BILLING CODE 4910-13-C
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin Information

18. Visual Display Systems--Additional Information on Image Geometry
Testing

a. Background.
(1) The geometry of the final image as displayed to each pilot
should meet the criteria defined. This assumes that the individual
optical components have been tested to demonstrate a performance
that is adequate to achieve this end result.
b. Image Position. See test 4.a.2.a.1.
(1) When measured from the pilot's and co-pilot's eyepoint the
centre of the image should be positioned horizontally between 0
degrees and 2 degrees inboard and within 0.25 degree
vertically relative to the aircraft centreline taking into account
any designed vertical offset.
(2) The differential between the measurements of horizontal
position between each eyepoint should not exceed 1 degree.
(3) The tolerances are based on eye spacings of up to 53.3 cm (21 inches). Greater eye spacings should
be accompanied by an explanation of any additional tolerance
required.
c. Image Absolute Geometry. See test 4.a.2.a.2.
(1) The absolute geometry of any point on the image should not
exceed 3 degrees from the theoretical position. This tolerance
applies to the central 200 degrees by 40 degrees. For larger fields
of view, there should be no distracting discontinuities outside this
area.
d. Image Relative Geometry. See test 4.a.2.a.3.
(1) The relative geometry check is intended to test the
displayed image to demonstrate that there are no significant changes
in image size over a small angle of view. With high detail visual
systems, the eye can be a very

[[Page 39587]]

powerful comparator to discern changes in geometric size. If there
are large changes in image magnification over a small area of the
picture the image can appear to `swim' as it moves across the
mirror.
(2) The typical Mylar-based mirror system will naturally tend to
form a `bathtub' shape. This can cause magnification or `rush'
effects at the bottom and top of the image. These can be
particularly distracting in the lower half of the mirror when in the
final approach phase and hence should be minimized. The tolerances
are designed to try to keep these effects to an acceptable level
while accepting the technology is limited in its ability to produce
a perfect spherical shape.
(3) The 200[deg] x 40[deg] Field of View is divided up into 3
zones to set tolerances for relative geometry as shown in Figure B-
9. The testing of the relative geometry should be conducted as
follows:
(a) From the pilot's eye position, measure every visible 5
degree point on the vertical lines and horizontal lines. Also, at -
90, -60, -30, 0 and +15 degrees in azimuth, measure all visible 1
degree points from the -10[deg] point to the lowest visible point.
Note.--Not all points depicted on the pattern are measured, but they
may be measured if observation suggests a problem.
(b) From the co-pilot's eye position, measure every visible 5
degree point on the vertical lines and horizontal lines. Also, at
+90, +60, +30, 0 and -15 degrees in azimuth, measure all visible 1
degree points from the -10[deg] point to the lowest visible point.
Note.-- Not all points depicted on the pattern are measured, but
they may be measured if observation suggests a problem.
(c) The relative spacing of points should not exceed the
following tolerances when comparing the gap between one pair of dots
with the gap between an adjacent pair:
Zone 1 < 0.075 degree/degree.
Zone 2 < 0.15 degree/degree.
Zone 3 < 0.2 degree/degree.
(d) Where 5 degree gaps are being measured the tolerances should
be multiplied by 5, e.g., one 5 degree gap should not be more than
(5*0.075) = 0.375 deg. more or less than the adjacent gap when in
zone 1.
(e) For larger fields of view, there should be no distracting
discontinuities outside this area.
(4) For continuing qualification testing, the use of an optical
checking device is encouraged. This device should typically consist
of a hand-held go/no go gauge to check that the relative positioning
is maintained.

Figure A2H

Relative Geometry Test Pattern Showing Zones.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.091

Attachment 3 to Appendix A to Part 60--Simulator Subjective Evaluation

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin QPS Requirements

1. Requirements.

a. Except for special use airport models, described as Class
III, all airport models required by this part must be
representations of real-world, operational airports or
representations of fictional airports and must meet the requirements
set out in Tables A3B or A3C of this attachment, as appropriate.
b. If fictional airports are used, the sponsor must ensure that
navigational aids and all appropriate maps, charts, and other
navigational reference material for the fictional airports (and
surrounding areas as necessary) are compatible, complete, and
accurate with respect to the visual presentation of the airport
model of this fictional airport. An SOC must be submitted that
addresses navigation aid installation and performance and other
criteria (including obstruction clearance protection) for all
instrument approaches to the fictional airports that are available
in the simulator. The SOC must reference and account for information
in the terminal instrument procedures manual and the construction
and availability of the required maps, charts, and other
navigational material. This material must be clearly marked ``for
training purposes only.''
c. When the simulator is being used by an instructor or
evaluator for purposes of training, checking, or testing under this
chapter, only airport models classified as Class I, Class II, or
Class III may be used by the instructor or evaluator. Detailed
descriptions/definitions of these classifications are found in
Appendix F of this part.
d. When a person sponsors an FFS maintained by a person other
than a U.S. certificate holder, the sponsor is accountable for that
FFS originally meeting, and continuing to meet, the criteria under
which it was originally qualified and the appropriate Part 60
criteria, including the airport models that may be used by
instructors or evaluators for purposes of training, checking, or
testing under this chapter.
e. Neither Class II nor Class III airport visual models are
required to appear on the SOQ, and the method used for keeping
instructors and evaluators apprised of the airport models that meet
Class II or Class III requirements on any given simulator is at the
option of the sponsor, but the method used must be available for
review by the TPAA.
f. When an airport model represents a real world airport and a
permanent change is made to that real world airport (e.g., a new
runway, an extended taxiway, a new lighting system, a runway
closure) without a written extension grant from the NSPM (described
in paragraph 1.g. of this section), an update to that airport model
must be made in accordance with the following time limits:
(1) For a new airport runway, a runway extension, a new airport
taxiway, a taxiway extension, or a runway/taxiway closure--within 90
days of the opening for use of the new airport runway, runway
extension, new airport taxiway, or taxiway extension; or within 90
days of the closure of the runway or taxiway.
(2) For a new or modified approach light system--within 45 days
of the activation of the new or modified approach light system.
(3) For other facility or structural changes on the airport
(e.g., new terminal, relocation of Air Traffic Control Tower)--
within 180 days of the opening of the new or changed facility or
structure.
g. If a sponsor desires an extension to the time limit for an
update to a visual scene or airport model or has an objection to
what

[[Page 39588]]

must be updated in the specific airport model requirement, the
sponsor must provide a written extension request to the NSPM stating
the reason for the update delay and a proposed completion date, or
explain why the update is not necessary (i.e., why the identified
airport change will not have an impact on flight training, testing,
or checking). A copy of this request or objection must also be sent
to the POI/TCPM. The NSPM will send the official response to the
sponsor and a copy to the POI/TCPM. If there is an objection, after
consultation with the appropriate POI/TCPM regarding the training,
testing, or checking impact, the NSPM will send the official
response to the sponsor and a copy to the POI/TCPM.

End QPS Requirements

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin Information

2. Discussion

a. The subjective tests provide a basis for evaluating the
capability of the simulator to perform over a typical utilization
period; determining that the simulator accurately simulates each
required maneuver, procedure, or task; and verifying correct
operation of the simulator controls, instruments, and systems. The
items listed in the following Tables are for simulator evaluation
purposes only. They may not be used to limit or exceed the
authorizations for use of a given level of simulator, as described
on the SOQ, or as approved by the TPAA.
b. The tests in Table A3A, Operations Tasks, in this attachment,
address pilot functions, including maneuvers and procedures (called
flight tasks), and are divided by flight phases. The performance of
these tasks by the NSPM includes an operational examination of the
visual system and special effects. There are flight tasks included
to address some features of advanced technology airplanes and
innovative training programs. For example, ``high angle-of-attack
maneuvering'' is included to provide a required alternative to
``approach to stalls'' for airplanes employing flight envelope
protection functions.
c. The tests in Table A3A, Operations Tasks, and Table A3G,
Instructor Operating Station of this attachment, address the overall
function and control of the simulator including the various
simulated environmental conditions; simulated airplane system
operations (normal, abnormal, and emergency); visual system
displays; and special effects necessary to meet flight crew
training, evaluation, or flight experience requirements.
d. All simulated airplane systems functions will be assessed for
normal and, where appropriate, alternate operations. Normal,
abnormal, and emergency operations associated with a flight phase
will be assessed during the evaluation of flight tasks or events
within that flight phase. Simulated airplane systems are listed
separately under ``Any Flight Phase'' to ensure appropriate
attention to systems checks. Operational navigation systems
(including inertial navigation systems, global positioning systems,
or other long-range systems) and the associated electronic display
systems will be evaluated if installed. The NSP pilot will include
in his report to the TPAA, the effect of the system operation and
any system limitation.
e. Simulators demonstrating a satisfactory circling approach
will be qualified for the circling approach maneuver and may be
approved for such use by the TPAA in the sponsor's FAA-approved
flight training program. To be considered satisfactory, the circling
approach will be flown at maximum gross weight for landing, with
minimum visibility for the airplane approach category, and must
allow proper alignment with a landing runway at least 90[deg]
different from the instrument approach course while allowing the
pilot to keep an identifiable portion of the airport in sight
throughout the maneuver (reference--14 CFR 91.175(e)).
f. At the request of the TPAA, the NSPM may assess a device to
determine if it is capable of simulating certain training activities
in a sponsor's training program, such as a portion of a Line
Oriented Flight Training (LOFT) scenario. Unless directly related to
a requirement for the qualification level, the results of such an
evaluation would not affect the qualification level of the
simulator. However, if the NSPM determines that the simulator does
not accurately simulate that training activity, the simulator would
not be approved for that training activity.
g. The FAA intends to allow the use of Class III airport models
when the sponsor provides the TPAA (or other regulatory authority)
an appropriate analysis of the skills, knowledge, and abilities
(SKAs) necessary for competent performance of the tasks in which
this particular media element is used. The analysis should describe
the ability of the FFS/visual media to provide an adequate
environment in which the required SKAs are satisfactorily performed
and learned. The analysis should also include the specific media
element, such as the airport model. Additional sources of
information on the conduct of task and capability analysis may be
found on the FAA's Advanced Qualification Program (AQP) Web site at:
https://www.faa.gov/education_research/training/aqp/.
h. The TPAA may accept Class III airport models without
individual observation provided the sponsor provides the TPAA with
an acceptable description of the process for determining the
acceptability of a specific airport model, outlines the conditions
under which such an airport model may be used, and adequately
describes what restrictions will be applied to each resulting
airport or landing area model. Examples of situations that may
warrant Class III model designation by the TPAA include the
following:
(a) Training, testing, or checking on very low visibility
operations, including SMGCS operations.
(b) Instrument operations training (including instrument
takeoff, departure, arrival, approach, and missed approach training,
testing, or checking) using--
(i) A specific model that has been geographically ``moved'' to a
different location and aligned with an instrument procedure for
another airport.
(ii) A model that does not match changes made at the real-world
airport (or landing area for helicopters) being modeled.
(iii) A model generated with an ``off-board'' or an ``on-board''
model development tool (by providing proper latitude/longitude
reference; correct runway or landing area orientation, length,
width, marking, and lighting information; and appropriate adjacent
taxiway location) to generate a facsimile of a real world airport or
landing area.
i. Previously qualified simulators with certain early generation
Computer Generated Image (CGI) visual systems, are limited by the
capability of the Image Generator or the display system used. These
systems are:
(1) Early CGI visual systems that are excepted from the
requirement of including runway numbers as a part of the specific
runway marking requirements are:
(a) Link NVS and DNVS.
(b) Novoview 2500 and 6000.
(c) FlightSafety VITAL series up to, and including, VITAL III,
but not beyond.
(d) Redifusion SP1, SP1T, and SP2.
(2) Early CGI visual systems are excepted from the requirement
of including runway numbers unless the runways are used for LOFT
training sessions. These LOFT airport models require runway numbers
but only for the specific runway end (one direction) used in the
LOFT session. The systems required to display runway numbers only
for LOFT scenes are:
(a) FlightSafety VITAL IV.
(b) Redifusion SP3 and SP3T.
(c) Link-Miles Image II.
(3) The following list of previously qualified CGI and display
systems are incapable of generating blue lights. These systems are
not required to have accurate taxi-way edge lighting:
(a) Redifusion SP1.
(b) FlightSafety Vital IV.
(c) Link-Miles Image II and Image IIT
(d) XKD displays (even though the XKD image generator is capable
of generating blue colored lights, the display cannot accommodate
that color).

End Information

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 39589]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.092

[[Page 39590]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.093

[[Page 39591]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.094

[[Page 39592]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.095

[[Page 39593]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.096

[[Page 39594]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.097

[[Page 39595]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.098

[[Page 39596]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.099

[[Page 39597]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.100

[[Page 39598]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.101

[[Page 39599]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.102

[[Page 39600]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.103

[[Page 39601]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.104

[[Page 39602]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.105

[[Page 39603]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.106

[[Page 39604]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.107

[[Page 39605]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.108

[[Page 39606]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.109

[[Page 39607]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.110

[[Page 39608]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.111

[[Page 39609]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.112

[[Page 39610]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.113

[[Page 39611]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.114

[[Page 39612]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.115

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin Information

1. Introduction

a. The following is an example test schedule for an Initial/
Upgrade evaluation that covers the majority of the requirements set
out in the Functions and Subjective test requirements. It is not
intended that the schedule be followed line by line, rather, the
example should be used as a guide for preparing a schedule that is
tailored to the airplane, sponsor, and training task.
b. Functions and subjective tests should be planned. This
information has been organized as a reference document with the
considerations, methods, and evaluation notes for each individual
aspect of the simulator task presented as an individual item. In
this way the evaluator can design his or her own test plan, using
the appropriate sections to provide guidance on method and
evaluation criteria. Two aspects should be present in any test plan
structure:
(1) An evaluation of the simulator to determine that it
replicates the aircraft and performs reliably for an uninterrupted
period equivalent to the length of a typical training session.
(2) The simulator should be capable of operating reliably after
the use of training device functions such as repositions or
malfunctions.

[[Page 39613]]

c. A detailed understanding of the training task will naturally
lead to a list of objectives that the simulator should meet. This
list will form the basis of the test plan. Additionally, once the
test plan has been formulated, the initial conditions and the
evaluation criteria should be established. The evaluator should
consider all factors that may have an influence on the
characteristics observed during particular training tasks in order
to make the test plan successful.

2. Events

a. Initial Conditions.
(1) Airport.
(2) QNH.
(3) Temperature.
(4) Wind/Crosswind.
(5) Zero Fuel Weight/Fuel/Gross Weight/Center of Gravity.
b. Initial Checks.
(1) Documentation of Simulator.
(a) Simulator Acceptance Test Manuals.
(b) Simulator Approval Test Guide.
(c) Technical Logbook Open Item List.
(d) Daily Functional Pre-flight Check.
(2) Documentation of User/Carrier Flight Logs.
(a) Simulator Operating/Instructor Manual.
(b) Difference List (Aircraft/Simulator).
(c) Flight Crew Operating Manuals.
(d) Performance Data for Different Fields.
(e) Crew Training Manual.
(f) Normal/Abnormal/Emergency Checklists.
(3) Simulator External Checks.
(a) Appearance and Cleanliness.
(b) Stairway/Access Bridge.
(c) Emergency Rope Ladders.
(d) ``Motion On''/``Flight in Progress'' Lights.
(4) Simulator Internal Checks.
(a) Cleaning/Disinfecting Towels (for cleaning oxygen masks).
(b) Flight deck Layout (compare with difference list).
(5) Equipment.
(a) Quick Donning Oxygen Masks.
(b) Head Sets.
(c) Smoke Goggles.
(d) Sun Visors.
(e) Escape Rope.
(f) Chart Holders.
(g) Flashlights.
(h) Fire Extinguisher (inspection date).
(i) Crash Axe.
(j) Gear Pins.
c. Power Supply and APU Start Checks.
(1) Batteries and Static Inverter.
(2) APU Start with Battery.
(3) APU Shutdown using Fire Handle.
(4) External Power Connection.
(5) APU Start with External Power.
(6) Abnormal APU Start/Operation.
d. Flight deck Checks.
(1) Flight deck Preparation Checks.
(2) FMC Programming.
(3) Communications and Navigational Aids Checks.
e. Engine Start.
(1) Before Start Checks.
(2) Battery start with Ground Air Supply Unit.
(3) Engine Crossbleed Start.
(4) Normal Engine Start.
(5) Abnormal Engine Starts.
(6) Engine Idle Readings.
(7) After Start Checks.
f. Taxi Checks.
(1) Pushback/Powerback.
(2) Taxi Checks.
(3) Ground Handling Check:
(a) Power required to initiate ground roll.
(b) Thrust response.
(c) Nosewheel and Pedal Steering.
(d) Nosewheel Scuffing.
(e) Perform 180 degree turns.
(f) Brakes Response and Differential Braking using Normal,
Alternate and Emergency.
(g) Brake Systems.
(h) Eye height and fore/aft position.
(4) Runway Roughness.
g. Visual Scene--Ground Assessment. Select 3 different airport
models and perform the following checks with Day, Dusk and Night
selected, as appropriate:
(1) Visual Controls.
(a) Daylight, Dusk, Night Scene Controls.
(b) Flight deck ``Daylight'' ambient lighting.
(c) Environment Light Controls.
(d) Runway Light Controls.
(e) Taxiway Light Controls.
(2) Airport Model Content.
(a) Ramp area for buildings, gates, airbridges, maintenance
ground Equipment, parked aircraft.
(b) Daylight shadows, night time light pools.
(c) Taxiways for correct markings, taxiway/runway, marker
boards, CAT I and II/III hold points, taxiway shape/grass areas,
taxiway light (positions and colors).
(d) Runways for correct markings, lead-off lights, boards,
runway slope, runway light positions, and colors, directionality of
runway lights.
(e) Airport environment for correct terrain and significant
features.
(f) Visual scene quantization (aliasing), color, and occulting
levels.
(3) Ground Traffic Selection.
(4) Environment Effects.
(a) Low cloud scene.
(i) Rain:
(A) Runway surface scene.
(B) Windshield wiper--operation and sound.
(ii) Hail:
(A) Runway surface scene.
(B) Windshield wiper--operation and sound.
(b) Lightning/thunder.
(c) Snow/ice runway surface scene.
(d) Fog.
h. Takeoff. Select one or several of the following test cases:
(1) T/O Configuration Warnings.
(2) Engine Takeoff Readings.
(3) Rejected Takeoff (Dry/Wet/Icy Runway) and check the
following:
(a) Autobrake function.
(b) Anti-skid operation.
(c) Motion/visual effects during deceleration.
(d) Record stopping distance (use runway plot or runway lights
remaining).
Continue taxiing along the runway while applying brakes and
check the following:
(e) Center line lights alternating red/white for 2000 feet/600
meters.
(f) Center line lights all red for 1000 feet/300 m.
(g) Runway end, red stop bars.
(h) Braking fade effect.
(i) Brake temperature indications.
(4) Engine Failure between VI and V2
(5) Normal Takeoff:
(a) During ground roll check the following:
(i) Runway rumble.
(ii) Acceleration cues.
(iii) Groundspeed effects.
(iv) Engine sounds.
(v) Nosewheel and rudder pedal steering.
(b) During and after rotation, check the following:
(i) Rotation characteristics.
(ii) Column force during rotation.
(iii) Gear uplock sounds/bumps.
(iv) Effect of slat/flap retraction during climbout.
(6) Crosswind Takeoff (check the following):
(a) Tendency to turn into or out of the wind.
(b) Tendency to lift upwind wing as airspeed increase.
(7) Windshear during Takeoff (check the following):
(a) Controllable during windshear encounter.
(b) Performance adequate when using correct techniques.
(c) Windshear Indications satisfactory.
(d) Motion cues satisfactory (particularly turbulence).
(8) Normal Takeoff with Control Malfunction
(9) Low Visibility T/O (check the following):
(a) Visual cues.
(b) Flying by reference to instruments.
(c) SID Guidance on LNAV.
i. Climb Performance. Select one or several of the following
test cases:
(1) Normal Climb--Climb while maintaining recommended speed
profile and note fuel, distance and time.
(2) Single Engine Climb--Trim aircraft in a zero wheel climb at
V2.
Note: Up to 5[deg] bank towards the operating engine(s) is
permissible. Climb for 3 minutes and note fuel, distance, and time.
Increase speed toward en route climb speed and retract flaps. Climb
for 3 minutes and note fuel, distance, and time.
j. Systems Operation During Climb.
Check normal operation and malfunctions as appropriate for the
following systems:
(1) Air conditioning/Pressurization/Ventilation.
(2) Autoflight.
(3) Communications.
(4) Electrical.
(5) Fuel.
(6) Icing Systems.
(7) Indicating and Recording systems.
(8) Navigation/FMS.
(9) Pneumatics.
k. Cruise Checks. Select one or several of the following test
cases:
(1) Cruise Performance.
(2) High Speed/High Altitude Handling (check the following):
(a) Overspeed warning.
(b) High Speed buffet.
(c) Aircraft control satisfactory.

[[Page 39614]]

(d) Envelope limiting functions on Computer Controlled Aircraft.
Reduce airspeed to below level flight buffet onset speed, start
a turn, and check the following:
(e) High Speed buffet increases with G loading.
Reduce throttles to idle and start descent, deploy the
speedbrake, and check the following:
(f) Speedbrake indications.
(g) Symmetrical deployment.
(h) Airframe buffet.
(i) Aircraft response hands off.
(3) Yaw Damper Operation. Switch off yaw dampers and autopilot.
Initiate a Dutch roll and check the following:
(a) Aircraft dynamics.
(b) Simulator motion effects.
Switch on yaw dampers, re-initiate a Dutch roll and check the
following:
(c) Damped aircraft dynamics.
(4) APU Operation.
(5) Engine Gravity Feed.
(6) Engine Shutdown and Driftdown Check: FMC operation Aircraft
performance.
(7) Engine Relight.
l. Descent. Select one of the following test cases:
(1) Normal Descent Descend while maintaining recommended speed
profile and note fuel, distance And time.
(2) Cabin Depressurization/Emergency Descent.
m. Medium Altitude Checks. Select one or several of the
following test cases:
(1) High Angle of Attack/Stall. Trim the aircraft at 1.4 Vs,
establish 1 kt/sec\2\ deceleration rate, and check the following--
(a) System displays/operation satisfactory.
(b) Handling characteristics satisfactory.
(c) Stall and Stick shaker speed.
(d) Buffet characteristics and onset speed.
(e) Envelope limiting functions on Computer Controlled Aircraft.
Recover to straight and level flight and check the following:
(f) Handling characteristics satisfactory.
(2) Turning Flight. Roll aircraft to left, establish a 30[deg]
to 45[deg] bank angle, and check the following:
(a) Stick force required, satisfactory.
(b) Wheel requirement to maintain bank angle.
(c) Slip ball response, satisfactory.
(d) Time to turn 180[deg].
Roll aircraft from 45[deg] bank one way to 45[deg] bank the
opposite direction while maintaining altitude and airspeed--check
the following:
(e) Controllability during maneuver.
(3) Degraded flight controls.
(4) Holding Procedure (check the following:)
(a) FMC operation.
(b) Autopilot auto thrust performance.
(5) Storm Selection (check the following:)
(a) Weather radar controls.
(b) Weather radar operation.
(c) Visual scene corresponds with WXR pattern.
(Fly through storm center, and check the following:)
(d) Aircraft enters cloud.
(e) Aircraft encounters representative turbulence.
(f) Rain/hail sound effects evident.
As aircraft leaves storm area, check the following:
(g) Storm effects disappear.
(6) TCAS (check the following:)
(a) Traffic appears on visual display.
(b) Traffic appears on TCAS display(s).
As conflicting traffic approaches, take relevant avoiding
action, and check the following:
(c) Visual and TCAS system displays.
n. Approach And Landing. Select one or several of the following
test cases while monitoring flight control and hydraulic systems for
normal operation and with malfunctions selected:
(1) Flaps/Gear Normal Operation. Check the following:
(a) Time for extension/retraction.
(b) Buffet characteristics.
(2) Normal Visual Approach and Landing.
Fly a normal visual approach and landing--check the following:
(a) Aircraft handling.
(b) Spoiler operation.
(c) Reverse thrust operation.
(d) Directional control on the ground.
(e) Touchdown cues for main and nosewheel.
(f) Visual cues.
(g) Motion cues.
(h) Sound cues.
(i) Brake and Anti-skid operation.
(3) Flaps/Gear Abnormal Operation or with hydraulic
malfunctions.
(4) Abnormal Wing Flaps/Slats Landing.
(5) Manual Landing with Control Malfunction.
(a) Aircraft handling.
(b) Radio Aids and instruments.
(c) Airport model content and cues.
(d) Motion cues.
(e) Sound cues.
(6) Non-precision Approach--All Engines Operating.
(a) Aircraft handling.
(b) Radio Aids and instruments.
(c) Airport model content and cues.
(d) Motion cues.
(e) Sound cues.
(7) Circling Approach.
(a) Aircraft handling.
(c) Radio Aids and instruments.
(d) Airport model content and cues.
(e) Motion cues.
(f) Sound cues.
(8) Non-precision Approach--One Engine Inoperative.
(a) Aircraft handling.
(b) Radio Aids and instruments.
(c) Airport model content and cues.
(d) Motion cues.
(e) Sound cues.
(9) One Engine Inoperative Go-around.
(a) Aircraft handling.
(b) Radio Aids and instruments.
(c) Airport model content and cues.
(d) Motion cues.
(e) Sound cues.
(10) CAT I Approach and Landing with raw-data ILS.
(a) Aircraft handling.
(b) Radio Aids and instruments.
(c) Airport model content and cues.
(d) Motion cues.
(e) Sound cues.
(11) CAT I Approach and Landing with Limiting Crosswind.
(a) Aircraft handling.
(b) Radio Aids and instruments.
(c) Airport model content and cues.
(d) Motion cues.
(e) Sound cues.
(12) CAT I Approach with Windshear. Check the following:
(a) Controllable during windshear encounter.
(b) Performance adequate when using correct techniques.
(c) Windshear indications/warnings.
(d) Motion cues (particularly turbulence).
(13) CAT II Approach and Automatic Go-Around.
(14) CAT Ill Approach and Landing--System Malfunctions.
(15) CAT Ill Approach and Landing--1 Engine Inoperative.
(16) GPWS evaluation.
o. Visual Scene--In-Flight Assessment.
Select three (3) different visual models and perform the
following checks with ``day,'' ``dusk,'' and ``night'' (as
appropriate) selected. Reposition the aircraft at or below 2000 feet
within 10 nm of the airfield. Fly the aircraft around the airport
environment and assess control of the visual system and evaluate the
Airport model content as described below:
(1) Visual Controls.
(a) Daylight, Dusk, Night Scene Controls.
(b) Environment Light Controls.
(c) Runway Light Controls.
(d) Taxiway Light Controls.
(e) Approach Light Controls.
(2) Airport model Content.
(a) Airport environment for correct terrain and significant
features.
(b) Runways for correct markings, runway slope, directionality
of runway lights.
(c) Visual scene for quantization (aliasing), color, and
occulting.
Reposition the aircraft to a long, final approach for an ``ILS
runway.'' Select flight freeze when the aircraft is 5-statute miles
(sm)/8-kilometers (km) out and on the glide slope. Check the
following:
(3) Airport model content.
(a) Airfield features.
(b) Approach lights.
(c) Runway definition.
(d) Runway definition.
(e) Runway edge lights and VASI lights.
(f) Strobe lights.
Release flight freeze. Continue flying the approach with NP
engaged. Select flight freeze when aircraft is 3 sm/5 km out and on
the glide slope. Check the following:
(4) Airport model Content.
(a) Runway centerline light.
(b) Taxiway definition and lights.
Release flight freeze and continue flying the approach with A/P
engaged. Select flight freeze when aircraft is 2 sm/3 km out and on
the glide slope. Check the following:
(5) Airport model content.
(a) Runway threshold lights.
(b) Touchdown zone lights.
At 200 ft radio altitude and still on glide slope, select Flight
Freeze. Check the following:
(6) Airport model content.
(a) Runway markings.

[[Page 39615]]

Set the weather to Category I conditions and check the
following:
(7) Airport model content.
(a) Visual ground segment.
Set the weather to Category II conditions, release Flight
Freeze, re-select Flight.
Freeze at 100 feet radio altitude, and check the following:
(8) Airport model content.
(a) Visual ground segment.
Select night/dusk (twilight) conditions and check the following:
(9) Airport model content.
(a) Runway markings visible within landing light lobes.
Set the weather to Category III conditions, release Flight
Freeze, re-select Flight Freeze at 50 feet radio altitude and check
the following:
(10) Airport model content.
(a) Visual ground segment.
Set WX to a typical ``missed approach'' weather condition,
release Flight Freeze, re-select Flight Freeze at 15 feet radio
altitude, and check the following:
(11) Airport model content.
(a) Visual ground segment.
When on the ground, stop the aircraft. Set 0 feet RVR, ensure
strobe/beacon tights are switched on and check the following:
(12) Airport model content.
(a) Visual effect of strobe and beacon.
Reposition to final approach, set weather to ``Clear,'' continue
approach for an automatic landing, and check the following:
(13) Airport model content.
(a) Visual cues during flare to assess sink rate.
(b) Visual cues during flare to assess Depth perception.
(c) Flight deck height above ground.
p. After Landing Operations.
(1) After Landing Checks.
(2) Taxi back to gate. Check the following:
(a) Visual model satisfactory.
(b) Parking brake operation satisfactory.
(3) Shutdown Checks.
q. Crash Function.
(1) Gear-up Crash.
(2) Excessive rate of descent Crash.
(3) Excessive bank angle Crash.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.116

Attachment 4 to Appendix A to Part 60--Sample Documents

Table of Contents

Title of Sample
Figure A4A--Sample Letter, Request for Initial, Upgrade, or
Reinstatement Evaluation.
Figure A4B--Attachment: FFS Information Form
Figure A4C--Sample Letter of Compliance
Figure A4D--Sample Qualification Test Guide Cover Page
Figure A4E--Sample Statement of Qualification--Certificate
Figure A4F--Sample Statement of Qualification--Configuration List
Figure A4G--Sample Statement of Qualification--List of Qualified
Tasks
Figure A4H--Sample Continuing Qualification Evaluation Requirements
Page
Figure A4I--Sample MQTG Index of Effective FFS Directives

[[Page 39616]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.117

[[Page 39617]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.118

[[Page 39618]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.119

[[Page 39619]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.120

[[Page 39620]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.121

[[Page 39621]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.122

[[Page 39622]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.123

[[Page 39623]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.124

[[Page 39624]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.125

[[Page 39625]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.126

[[Page 39626]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.127

[[Page 39627]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.128

[[Page 39628]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.129

Attachment 5 to Appendix A to Part 60--Simulator Qualification
Requirements For Windshear Training Program Use

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin QPS Requirements

1. Applicability

This attachment applies to all simulators, regardless of
qualification level, that are used to satisfy the training
requirements of an FAA- approved low-altitude windshear flight
training program, or any FAA-approved training program that
addresses windshear encounters.

2. Statement of Compliance and Capability (SOC)

a. The sponsor must submit an SOC confirming that the
aerodynamic model is based on flight test data supplied by the
airplane manufacturer or other approved data provider. The SOC must
also confirm that any change to environmental wind parameters,
including variances in those parameters for windshear conditions,
once inserted for computation, result in the correct simulated
performance. This statement must also include examples of
environmental wind parameters currently evaluated in the simulator
(such as crosswind takeoffs, crosswind approaches, and crosswind
landings).
b. For simulators without windshear warning, caution, or
guidance hardware in the original equipment, the SOC must also state
that the simulation of the added hardware and/or software, including
associated flight deck displays and annunciations, replicates the
system(s) installed in the airplane. The statement must be
accompanied by a block diagram depicting the input and output signal
flow, and comparing the signal flow to the equipment installed in
the airplane.

3. Models

The windshear models installed in the simulator software used
for the qualification evaluation must do the following:
a. Provide cues necessary for recognizing windshear onset and
potential performance degradation requiring a pilot to initiate
recovery procedures. The cues must include all of the following, as
appropriate for the portion of the flight envelope:
(1) Rapid airspeed change of at least 15 knots
(kts).
(2) Stagnation of airspeed during the takeoff roll.
(3) Rapid vertical speed change of at least 500 feet
per minute (fpm).
(4) Rapid pitch change of at least 5[deg].
b. Be adjustable in intensity (or other parameter to achieve an
intensity effect) to at least two (2) levels so that upon
encountering the windshear the pilot may identify its presence and
apply the recommended procedures for escape from such a windshear.
(1) If the intensity is lesser, the performance capability of
the simulated airplane in the windshear permits the pilot to
maintain a satisfactory flightpath; and
(2) If the intensity is greater, the performance capability of
the simulated airplane in the windshear does not permit the pilot to
maintain a satisfactory flightpath (crash). Note: The means used to
accomplish the ``nonsurvivable'' scenario of paragraph 3.b.(2) of
this attachment, that involve operational elements of the simulated
airplane, must reflect the dispatch limitations of the airplane.
c. Be available for use in the FAA-approved windshear flight
training program.

4. Demonstrations

a. The sponsor must identify one survivable takeoff windshear
training model and one survivable approach windshear training model.
The wind components of the survivable models must be presented in
graphical format so that all components of the windshear are shown,
including initiation point, variance in magnitude, and time or
distance correlations. The simulator must be operated at the same
gross weight, airplane configuration, and initial airspeed during
the takeoff demonstration (through calm air and through the first
selected survivable windshear), and at the same gross weight,
airplane configuration, and initial airspeed during the approach
demonstration (through calm air and through the second selected
survivable windshear).
b. In each of these four situations, at an ``initiation point''
(i.e., where windshear onset is or should be recognized), the
recommended procedures for windshear recovery are applied and the
results are recorded as specified in paragraph 5 of this attachment.
c. These recordings are made without inserting programmed random
turbulence. Turbulence that results from the windshear model is to
be expected, and no attempt may be made to neutralize turbulence
from this source.
d. The definition of the models and the results of the
demonstrations of all four (4) cases described in paragraph 4.a of
this attachment, must be made a part of the MQTG.

5. Recording Parameters

a. In each of the four MQTG cases, an electronic recording (time
history) must be made of the following parameters:

[[Page 39629]]

(1) Indicated or calibrated airspeed.
(2) Indicated vertical speed.
(3) Pitch attitude.
(4) Indicated or radio altitude.
(5) Angle of attack.
(6) Elevator position.
(7) Engine data (thrust, N1, or throttle position).
(8) Wind magnitudes (simple windshear model assumed).
b. These recordings must be initiated at least 10 seconds prior
to the initiation point, and continued until recovery is complete or
ground contact is made.

6. Equipment Installation and Operation

All windshear warning, caution, or guidance hardware installed
in the simulator must operate as it operates in the airplane. For
example, if a rapidly changing wind speed and/or direction would
have caused a windshear warning in the airplane, the simulator must
respond equivalently without instructor/evaluator intervention.

7. Qualification Test Guide

a. All QTG material must be forwarded to the NSPM.
b. A simulator windshear evaluation will be scheduled in
accordance with normal procedures. Continuing qualification
evaluation schedules will be used to the maximum extent possible.
c. During the on-site evaluation, the evaluator will ask the
operator to run the performance tests and record the results. The
results of these on-site tests will be compared to those results
previously approved and placed in the QTG or MQTG, as appropriate.
d. QTGs for new (or MQTGs for upgraded) simulators must contain
or reference the information described in paragraphs 2, 3, 4, and 5
of this attachment.

End QPS Requirements

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin Information

8. Subjective Evaluation

The NSPM will fly the simulator in at least two of the available
windshear scenarios to subjectively evaluate simulator performance
as it encounters the programmed windshear conditions.
a. One scenario will include parameters that enable the pilot to
maintain a satisfactory flightpath.
b. One scenario will include parameters that will not enable the
pilot to maintain a satisfactory flightpath (crash).
c. Other scenarios may be examined at the NSPM's discretion.

9. Qualification Basis

The addition of windshear programming to a simulator in order to
comply with the qualification for required windshear training does
not change the original qualification basis of the simulator.

10. Demonstration Repeatability

For the purposes of demonstration repeatability, it is
recommended that the simulator be flown by means of the simulator's
autodrive function (for those simulators that have autodrive
capability) during the demonstrations.

End Information

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Attachment 6 to Appendix A to Part 60--FSTD Directives Applicable to
Airplane Flight Simulators

Flight Simulation Training Device (FSTD) Directive

FSTD Directive 1. Applicable to all Full Flight Simulators
(FFS), regardless of the original qualification basis and
qualification date (original or upgrade), having Class II or Class
III airport models available.
Agency: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT
Action: This is a retroactive requirement to have all Class II
or Class III airport models meet current requirements.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary: Notwithstanding the authorization listed in paragraph
13b in Appendices A and C of this part, this FSTD Directive requires
each certificate holder to ensure that by May 30, 2009, except for
the airport model(s) used to qualify the simulator at the designated
level, each airport model used by the certificate holder's
instructors or evaluators for training, checking, or testing under
this chapter in an FFS, meets the definition of a Class II or Class
III airport model as defined in 14 CFR part 60. The completion of
this requirement will not require a report, and the method used for
keeping instructors and evaluators apprised of the airport models
that meet Class II or Class III requirements on any given simulator
is at the option of the certificate holder whose employees are using
the FFS, but the method used must be available for review by the
TPAA for that certificate holder.
Dates: FSTD Directive 1 becomes effective on May 30, 2008.
For Further Information Contact: National Simulator Program
Manager, Air Transportation Division, AFS-205, P.O. Box 20636,
Atlanta, Georgia 30320: telephone: (404) 474-5620; fax: (404) 474-
5656.
Specific Requirements:
1. Part 60 requires that each FSTD be:
a. Sponsored by a person holding or applying for an FAA
operating certificate under Part 119, Part 141, or Part 142, or
holding or applying for an FAA-approved training program under Part
63, Appendix C, for flight engineers, and
b. Evaluated and issued an SOQ for a specific FSTD level.
2. FFSs also require the installation of a visual system that is
capable of providing an out-of-the-flight-deck view of airport
models. However, historically these airport models were not
routinely evaluated or required to meet any standardized criteria.
This has led to qualified simulators containing airport models being
used to meet FAA-approved training, testing, or checking
requirements with potentially incorrect or inappropriate visual
references.
3. To prevent this from occurring in the future, by May 30,
2009, except for the airport model(s) used to qualify the simulator
at the designated level, each certificate holder must assure that
each airport model used for training, testing, or checking under
this chapter in a qualified FFS meets definition of a Class II or
Class III airport model as defined in Appendix F of this part.
4. These references describe the requirements for visual scene
management and the minimum distances from which runway or landing
area features must be visible for all levels of simulator. The
airport model must provide, for each ``in-use runway'' or ``in-use
landing area,'' runway or landing area surface and markings, runway
or landing area lighting, taxiway surface and markings, and taxiway
lighting. Additional requirements include correlation of the v
airport models with other aspects of the airport environment,
correlation of the aircraft and associated equipment, scene quality
assessment features, and the control of these models the instructor
must be able to exercise.
5. For circling approaches, all requirements of this section
apply to the runway used for the initial approach and to the runway
of intended landing.
6. The details in these models must be developed using airport
pictures, construction drawings and maps, or other similar data, or
developed in accordance with published regulatory material. However,
this FSTD DIRECTIVE 1 does not require that airport models contain
details that are beyond the initially designed capability of the
visual system, as currently qualified. The recognized limitations to
visual systems are as follows:
a. Visual systems not required to have runway numbers as a part
of the specific runway marking requirements are:
(1) Link NVS and DNVS.
(2) Novoview 2500 and 6000.
(3) FlightSafety VITAL series up to, and including, VITAL III,
but not beyond.
(4) Redifusion SP1, SP1T, and SP2.
b. Visual systems required to display runway numbers only for
LOFT scenes are:
(1) FlightSafety VITAL IV.
(2) Redifusion SP3 and SP3T.
(3) Link-Miles Image II.
c. Visual systems not required to have accurate taxiway edge
lighting are:
(1) Redifusion SP1.
(2) FlightSafety Vital IV.
(3) Link-Miles Image II and Image IIT
(4) XKD displays (even though the XKD image generator is capable
of generating blue colored lights, the display cannot accommodate
that color).
7. A copy of this Directive must be filed in the MQTG in the
designated FSTD Directive Section, and its inclusion must be
annotated on the Index of Effective FSTD Directives chart. See
Attachment 4, Appendices A through D for a sample MQTG Index of
Effective FSTD Directives chart.

Flight Simulation Training Device (FSTD) Directive

FSTD Directive 2. Applicable to all airplane Full Flight
Simulators (FFS), regardless of the original qualification basis and
qualification date (original or upgrade), used to conduct full stall
training, upset recovery training, airborne icing training, and
other flight training tasks as described in this Directive.
Agency: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

[[Page 39630]]

Action: This is a retroactive requirement for any FSTD being
used to obtain training, testing, or checking credit in an FAA
approved flight training program to meet current FSTD evaluation
requirements for the specific training maneuvers as defined in this
Directive.
Summary: Notwithstanding the authorization listed in paragraph
13b in Appendix A of this Part, this FSTD Directive requires that
each FSTD sponsor conduct additional subjective and objective
testing, conduct required modifications, and apply for additional
FSTD qualification under Sec. 60.16 to support continued
qualification of the following flight training tasks where training,
testing, or checking credit is being sought in a selected FSTD being
used in an FAA approved flight training program:
a. Recognition of and Recovery from a Full Stall
b. Upset Recognition and Recovery
c. Airborne Icing (Engine and Airframe Ice Accretion)
d. Takeoff and Landing with Gusting Crosswinds
e. Recovery from a Bounced Landing

The FSTD sponsor may elect to apply for additional qualification for
any, all, or none of the above defined training tasks for a
particular FSTD. After [THE FAA WILL INSERT DATE 3 years FROM
EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE PUBLISHED IN THE Federal Register],
any FSTD used to conduct the above training tasks must be evaluated
and issued additional qualification by the National Simulator
Program Manager (NSPM) as defined in this Directive.
Dates: FSTD Directive 2 becomes effective on [THE FAA WILL
INSERT THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER].
For Further Information Contact: Larry McDonald, Air
Transportation Division/National Simulator Program Branch, AFS-205,
Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, GA 30320;
telephone (404) 474-5620; email larry.e.mcdonald@faa.gov.

Specific Requirements

1. Part 60 requires that each FSTD be:
a. Sponsored by a person holding or applying for an FAA
operating certificate under Part 119, Part 142, or Part 142, or
holding or applying for an FAA-approved training program under Part
63, Appendix C, for flight engineers, and
b. Evaluated and issued a Statement of Qualification (SOQ) for a
specific FSTD level.
2. The evaluation criteria contained in this Directive is
intended to address specific training tasks that require additional
evaluation to ensure adequate FSTD fidelity.
3. The requirements described in this Directive define
additional qualification criteria for specific training tasks that
are applicable only to those FSTDs that will be utilized to obtain
training, testing, or checking credit in accordance with an FAA
approved flight training program. In order to obtain additional
qualification for the tasks described in this Directive, FSTD
sponsors must request additional qualification in accordance with
Sec. 60.16 and the requirements of this Directive. FSTDs that are
found to meet the requirements of this Directive will have their
Statement of Qualification (SOQ) amended to reflect the additional
training tasks that the FSTD has been qualified to conduct. The
additional qualification requirements as defined in this Directive
are divided into the following training tasks:

a. Section I--Additional Qualification Requirements for Full Stall
Training Tasks
b. Section II--Additional Qualification Requirements for Upset
Recognition and Recovery Training Tasks
c. Section III--Additional Qualification Requirements for Airborne
Engine and Airframe Icing Training Tasks
d. Section IV--Additional Qualification Requirements for Takeoff and
Landing Tasks in Gusting Crosswinds
e. Section V--Additional Qualification Requirements for Bounced
Landing Training Tasks

4. A copy of this Directive (along with all required Statements
of Compliance and objective test results) must be filed in the MQTG
in the designated FSTD Directive Section, and its inclusion must be
annotated on the Index of Effective FSTD Directives chart. See
Attachment 4, Appendices A through D for a sample MQTG Index of
Effective FSTD Directives chart.

Section I--Evaluation Requirements for Full Stall Training Tasks

1. This section applies to previously qualified Level C and
Level D FSTDs being utilized to obtain training, testing, or
checking credits at angles of attack beyond the first indication of
a stall (such as stall warning system activation, stick shaker,
etc.). Qualification of full stall maneuvers for Level A and Level B
FSTDs in accordance with this Directive may be considered where the
FSTD's motion and vibration cueing systems have been evaluated to
provide adequate stall recognition and recovery cues to conduct the
specific stall maneuvers described in Table A1A, Section 2.1.7.S.
2. The evaluation requirements in this Directive are intended to
validate FSTD fidelity at angles of attack sufficient to identify
the stall, to demonstrate aircraft performance degradation in the
stall, and to train recovery techniques from a fully stalled flight
condition.
3. This Directive contains additional objective and subjective
testing that exceed the evaluation requirements of previously
qualified FSTDs. Where aerodynamic modeling data and/or validation
data is not available or insufficient to fully meet the requirements
of this Directive, the NSPM may restrict FSTD qualification to
certain stall maneuvers where adequate validation data exists.
4. By [THE FAA WILL INSERT DATE 3 years FROM EFFECTIVE DATE OF
THE FINAL RULE PUBLISHED IN THE Federal Register], any FSTD being
used to obtain training, testing, or checking credits for full stall
training tasks in an FAA approved training program must be evaluated
by the FSTD sponsor in accordance with the following sections of
Appendix A of this Part:

a. Table A1A, General Requirements, Section 2.1.7.S (High Angle of
Attack Maneuvers)
b. Table A2A, Objective Testing Requirements, Test 2.a.10 (Stick
Pusher Force Calibration) [where applicable]
c. Table A2A, Objective Testing Requirements, Test 2.c.8.b (Stall
Characteristics)
d. Table A3A, Functions and Subjective Testing Requirements, Test
6.a.2 (High Angle of Attack Maneuvers)
e. Attachment 7, Additional QPS Requirements for Stall Maneuver
Evaluation

5. The validation data for the required stall characteristics
tests may be derived from an approved engineering simulation data
source or other data source acceptable to the FAA. An SOC must be
provided by the validation data provider that the engineering
simulation has been evaluated by an appropriate SME pilot in
accordance with Table A1A, Section 2.1.7.S and Attachment 7. Where
no flight test or engineering simulation validation data is
available, baseline objective tests of the FSTD's performance may be
acceptable where accompanied by an SME evaluation of each required
objective test conditions.
6. Where qualification is being sought to conduct full stall
training tasks in accordance with this Directive, the FSTD Sponsor
must conduct the required evaluations and modifications as
prescribed in this Directive and report compliance to the NSPM in
accordance with Sec. 60.23 using the NSP's standardized FSTD
Sponsor Notification Form. At a minimum, this form must be
accompanied with the following information:

a. A description of any modifications to the FSTD (in accordance
with Sec. 60.23) necessary to meet the requirements of this
Directive.
b. Statement of Compliance (Aerodynamics and Stick Pusher System
Modeling)--See Table A1A, Section 2.1.7.S and Attachment 7
c. Statement of Compliance (SME Pilot Evaluation)--See Table A1A,
Section 2.1.7.S and Attachment 7
d. Copies of the required objective test results as described above
in sections 4.b. and 4.c.

7. The NSPM will review each submission to determine if the
requirements of this Directive have been met and respond to the FSTD
Sponsor as described in Sec. 60.23(c). This response, along with
any noted restrictions, may serve as an interim update to the FSTD's
Statement of Qualification (SOQ) until such time that a permanent
change is made to the SOQ at the FSTD's next scheduled evaluation.

Section II--Evaluation Requirements for Upset Recovery Training Tasks

1. This section applies to previously qualified FSTDs being
utilized to obtain training, testing, or checking credits for upset
recognition and recovery training tasks as defined in Appendix A,
Table A1A, Section 2.1.6.S. of this Part. Qualification of upset
recovery maneuvers for Level A and Level B FSTDs in accordance with
this Directive may be considered where the FSTD's motion and
vibration cueing systems have been evaluated to provide adequate
cues to conduct the

[[Page 39631]]

specific upset recovery maneuvers described in Table A1A, Section
2.1.6.S.
2. The requirements contained in this section are intended to
define minimum standards for evaluating an FSTD for use in upset
recognition and recovery training maneuvers that may exceed an
aircraft's normal flight envelope. These standards include the
evaluation of qualified training maneuvers against the FSTD's
validation envelope and providing the instructor with minimum
feedback tools for the purpose of determining if a training maneuver
is conducted within FSTD validation limits and the aircraft's
structural/performance limitations.
3. This Directive contains additional objective and subjective
testing that exceeds the evaluation requirements of previously
qualified FSTDs. Where aerodynamic modeling data and/or validation
data is not available or insufficient to meet the requirements of
this Directive, the NSPM may limit additional qualification to
certain upset recovery maneuvers where adequate validation data
exists.
4. By [THE FAA WILL INSERT DATE 3 years FROM EFFECTIVE DATE OF
THE FINAL RULE PUBLISHED IN THE Federal Register], any FSTD being
used to obtain training, testing, or checking credit for upset
recognition and recovery training tasks in an FAA approved flight
training program must be evaluated by the FSTD sponsor in accordance
with the following sections of Appendix A of this Part:

a. Table A1A, General Requirements, Section 2.1.6.S. (Upset
Recognition and Recovery)
b. Table A3A, Functions and Subjective Testing, Test 5.b.15. (Upset
Recovery and Recovery Maneuvers)
c. Attachment 7, Additional QPS Requirements for Upset Recognition
and Recovery Maneuver Evaluation

6. Where qualification is being sought to conduct upset
recognition and recovery training tasks in accordance with this
Directive, the FSTD Sponsor must conduct the required evaluations
and modifications as prescribed in this Directive and report
compliance to the NSPM in accordance with Sec. 60.23 using the
NSP's standardized FSTD Sponsor Notification Form. At a minimum,
this form must be accompanied with the following information:

a. A description of any modifications to the FSTD (in accordance
with Sec. 60.23) necessary to meet the requirements of this
Directive.
b. Statement of Compliance (FSTD Validation Envelope)--See Table
A1A, Section 2.1.6.S and Attachment 7
c. A confirmation statement that the modified FSTD has been
subjectively evaluated by a qualified pilot as described in Sec.
60.16(a)(1)(iii).

7. The NSPM will review each submission to determine if the
requirements of this Directive have been met and respond to the FSTD
Sponsor as described in Sec. 60.23(c). Additional NSPM conducted
FSTD evaluations may be required before the modified FSTD is placed
into service. This response, along with any noted restrictions, will
serve as an interim update to the FSTD's Statement of Qualification
(SOQ) until such time that a permanent change is made to the SOQ at
the FSTD's next scheduled evaluation.

Section III--Evaluation Requirements for Engine and Airframe Icing
Training Tasks

1. This section applies to previously qualified Level C and
Level D FSTDs being utilized to obtain training, testing, or
checking credits in maneuvers that demonstrate the effects of engine
and airframe ice accretion.
2. The evaluation requirements in this section are intended to
supersede and improve upon existing Level C and Level D FSTD
evaluation requirements on the effects of engine and airframe icing.
The requirements define a minimum level of fidelity required to
adequately simulate the aircraft specific aerodynamic
characteristics of an in-flight encounter with engine and airframe
ice accretion as necessary to accomplish training objectives.
3. This Directive contains additional subjective testing that
exceeds the evaluation requirements of previously qualified FSTDs.
Where aerodynamic modeling data is not available or insufficient to
meet the requirements of this Directive, the NSPM may limit
qualified engine and airframe icing maneuvers where sufficient
aerodynamic modeling data exists.
4. By [THE FAA WILL INSERT DATE 3 years FROM EFFECTIVE DATE OF
THE FINAL RULE PUBLISHED IN THE Federal Register], any FSTD being
used to conduct training tasks in engine and airframe icing must be
evaluated by the FSTD sponsor in accordance with the following
sections of Appendix A of this Part:

a. Table A1A, General Requirements, Section 2.1.5.S. (Engine and
Airframe Icing)
b. Attachment 7, Additional QPS Requirements for Engine and Airframe
Icing Evaluation (Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3). Objective demonstration
testing is not required for previously qualified FSTDs.

5. Where continued qualification is being sought to conduct
engine and airframe icing training tasks in accordance with this
Directive, the FSTD Sponsor must conduct the required evaluations
and modifications as prescribed in this Directive and report
compliance to the NSPM in accordance with Sec. 60.23 using the
NSP's standardized FSTD Sponsor Notification Form. At a minimum,
this form must be accompanied with the following information:

a. A description of any modifications to the FSTD (in accordance
with Sec. 60.23) necessary to meet the requirements of this
Directive.
b. Statement of Compliance (Ice Accretion Model)--See Table A1A,
Section 2.1.5.S and Attachment 7
c. A confirmation statement that the modified FSTD has been
subjectively evaluated by a qualified pilot as described in Sec.
60.16(a)(1)(iii).

6. The NSPM will review each submission to determine if the
requirements of this Directive have been met and respond to the FSTD
Sponsor as described in Sec. 60.23(c). Additional NSPM conducted
FSTD evaluations may be required before the modified FSTD is placed
into service. This response, along with any noted restrictions, will
serve as an interim update to the FSTD's Statement of Qualification
(SOQ) until such time that a permanent change is made to the SOQ at
the FSTD's next scheduled evaluation.

Section IV--Evaluation Requirements for Gusting Crosswinds During
Takeoff and Landing

1. This section applies to previously qualified FSTDs that will
be utilized to obtain training, testing, or checking credits in
takeoff and landing tasks in gusting crosswinds as part of an FAA
approved training program. The requirements of this Directive are
applicable only to those Level B and higher FSTDs that are qualified
to conduct takeoff and landing training tasks.
2. The evaluation requirements in this section are intended to
introduce new evaluation requirements for gusting crosswinds during
takeoff and landing training tasks and contains additional
subjective testing that exceeds the evaluation requirements of
previously qualified FSTDs.
3. By [THE FAA WILL INSERT DATE 3 years FROM EFFECTIVE DATE OF
THE FINAL RULE PUBLISHED IN THE Federal Register], any FSTD that is
utilized to conduct gusting crosswind takeoff and landing training
tasks must be evaluated by the FSTD sponsor in accordance with the
following sections of Appendix A of this Part:

a. Table A1A, General Requirements, Section 3.1.S.(2) (Ground
Handling Characteristics)
b. Table A1A, General Requirements, Section 11.4.R.(1) (Atmosphere--
Instructor Controls, Gusting Crosswind)
c. Table A3A, Functions and Subjective Testing Requirements, Test
3.a.3 (Takeoff, Crosswind--Maximum Demonstrated and Gusting
Crosswind)
d. Table A3A, Functions and Subjective Testing Requirements, Test
8.d. (Approach and landing with crosswind--Maximum Demonstrated and
Gusting Crosswind)

4. Where qualification is being sought to conduct gusting
crosswind training tasks in accordance with this Directive, the FSTD
Sponsor must conduct the required evaluations and modifications as
prescribed in this Directive and report compliance to the NSPM in
accordance with Sec. 60.23 using the NSP's standardized FSTD
Sponsor Notification Form. At a minimum, this form must be
accompanied with the following information:

a. A description of any modifications to the FSTD (in accordance
with Sec. 60.23) necessary to meet the requirements of this
Directive.
b. Statement of Compliance (Gusting Crosswind Profiles)--See Table
A1A, Section 11.4.R.
c. A confirmation statement that the modified FSTD has been
subjectively evaluated by a qualified pilot as described in Sec.
60.16(a)(1)(iii).

5. The NSPM will review each submission to determine if the
requirements of this Directive have been met and respond to the

[[Page 39632]]

FSTD Sponsor as described in Sec. 60.23(c). Additional NSPM
conducted FSTD evaluations may be required before the modified FSTD
is placed into service. This response, along with any noted
restrictions, will serve as an interim update to the FSTD's
Statement of Qualification (SOQ) until such time that a permanent
change is made to the SOQ at the FSTD's next scheduled evaluation.

Section V--Evaluation Requirements for Bounced Landing Recovery
Training Tasks

1. This section applies to previously qualified FSTDs that will
be utilized to obtain training, testing, or checking credits in
bounced landing recovery as part of an FAA approved training
program. The requirements of this Directive are applicable only to
those Level B and higher FSTDs that are qualified to conduct takeoff
and landing training tasks.
2. The evaluation requirements in this section are intended to
introduce new evaluation requirements for bounced landing recovery
training tasks and contains additional subjective testing that
exceeds the evaluation requirements of previously qualified FSTDs.
3. By [THE FAA WILL INSERT DATE 3 years FROM EFFECTIVE DATE OF
THE FINAL RULE PUBLISHED IN THE Federal Register], any FSTD that is
utilized to conduct bounced landing training tasks must be evaluated
by the FSTD sponsor in accordance with the following sections of
Appendix A of this Part:

a. Table A1A, General Requirements, Section 3.1.S.(1) (Ground
Reaction Characteristics)
b. Table A3A, Functions and Subjective Testing Requirements, Test
9.e. (Missed Approach--Bounced Landing)

4. Where qualification is being sought to conduct bounced
landing training tasks in accordance with this Directive, the FSTD
Sponsor must conduct the required evaluations and modifications as
prescribed in this Directive and report compliance to the NSPM in
accordance with Sec. 60.23 using the NSP's standardized FSTD
Sponsor Notification Form. At a minimum, this form must be
accompanied with the following information:

a. A description of any modifications to the FSTD (in accordance
with Sec. 60.23) necessary to meet the requirements of this
Directive.
b. A confirmation statement that the modified FSTD has been
subjectively evaluated by a qualified pilot as described in Sec.
60.16(a)(1)(iii).

5. The NSPM will review each submission to determine if the
requirements of this Directive have been met and respond to the FSTD
Sponsor as described in Sec. 60.23(c). Additional NSPM conducted
FSTD evaluations may be required before the modified FSTD is placed
into service. This response, along with any noted restrictions, will
serve as an interim update to the FSTD's Statement of Qualification
(SOQ) until such time that a permanent change is made to the SOQ at
the FSTD's next scheduled evaluation.

Attachment 7 to Appendix A to Part 60--Additional Simulator
Qualification Requirements for Stall, Upset Recognition and Recovery,
and Engine and Airframe Icing Training Tasks

Begin QPS Requirements

High Angle of Attack Model Evaluation (Table A1A, Section 2.1.7.S.)

1. Applicability: This attachment applies to all simulators that
are used to satisfy training requirements for full stall maneuvers
that are conducted at angles of attack beyond the activation of the
stall warning system. This attachment is not applicable for those
FSTDs that are only qualified for approach to stall maneuvers that
cease after recovery from the first indication of the stall. The
material in this section is intended to supplement the general
requirements, objective testing requirements, and subjective testing
requirements contained within Tables A1A, A2A, and A3A,
respectively.
2. General Requirements: The requirements for high angle of
attack modeling are intended to provide aircraft specific
recognition cues and performance and handling qualities of a
developing stall through the stall break and recovery. It is
recognized, however, that strict time-history-based evaluation
against flight test data may not adequately validate the aerodynamic
model in an unstable flight regime, such as stalled flight,
particularly in cases where significant deviations are seen in the
aircraft's stability and control. As a result, the objective testing
requirements defined in Table A2A do not prescribe strict tolerances
on any parameter at angles of attack beyond the stall angle of
attack. In lieu of mandating objective tolerances to flight test
data at angles of attack at and beyond the stall, a Statement of
Compliance (SOC) will be required to define the source data and
methods used to develop the stall aerodynamic model which
incorporates defined stall characteristics as applicable for the
simulated aircraft type. In this flight regime (at angles of attack
above the stall angle of attack), the aerodynamic modeling is
expected to simulate aircraft ``type representative'' post-stall
behavior to the extent that the training objectives can be
accomplished. This SOC must also include verification that the stall
model has been evaluated by a subject matter expert (SME) pilot
acceptable to the FAA.
3. Statement of Compliance (Aerodynamic Model): At a minimum,
the following must be addressed in the SOC:
a. Source Data and Modeling Methods: The SOC must identify the
sources of data used to develop the aerodynamic model. Of particular
interest is a mapping of test points in the form of alpha/beta
envelope plot for a minimum of flaps up and flaps down aircraft
configurations. For the flight test data, a list of the types of
maneuvers used to define the aerodynamic model for angle of attack
ranges greater than the first indication of stall must be provided
per flap setting. In cases where limited data is available to model
and/or validate the stall characteristics (e.g. safety issues
involving the collection flight test data), the data provider is
expected to make a reasonable attempt to develop a stall model
through analytical methods and utilization of the best available
data.
b. Validity Range: The FSTD Sponsor must declare the range of
angle of attack and sideslip where the aerodynamic model remains
valid. For full (aerodynamic) stall training tasks, model validation
and/or analysis should be conducted through at least 10 degrees
beyond the critical angle of attack. In cases where training is
limited to the activation of a stall identification system (stick
pusher), model validation may be conducted at a lower angle of
attack range, but the FSTD Sponsor must specify and restrict the use
of the FSTD to those maneuvers that have been appropriately
validated.
c. Model Characteristics: Within the declared range of model
validity, the SOC must address and the aerodynamic model must
incorporate the following typical stall characteristics where
applicable by aircraft type:

i. Degradation in static/dynamic lateral-directional stability
ii. Degradation in control response (pitch, roll, yaw)
iii. Uncommanded roll response
iv. Apparent randomness or non-repeatability
v. Changes in pitch stability
vi. Stall hysteresis
vii. Mach effects
viii. Stall buffet

An overview of the methodology used to address these features must
be provided.
4. Statement of Compliance (SME Evaluation): The stall model
must be evaluated by a subject matter expert (SME) pilot with
knowledge of the cues necessary to accomplish the required training
objectives and with experience in conducting stalls in the type of
aircraft being simulated. In cases where such an SME pilot is not
available, a pilot with experience in an aircraft with similar stall
characteristics may be utilized. The SME pilot conducting the stall
model evaluation must be acceptable to the NSPM. This evaluation may
be conducted in the sponsor's FSTD or in an ``audited'' engineering
simulation. The engineering simulation can then be used to provide
objective checkout cases and subjective evaluation guidance material
to the FSTD sponsor/operator for evaluation of the implemented model
on the Sponsor's FSTD.
Final evaluation and approval of the Sponsor's FSTD must be
accomplished by an SME pilot with knowledge of the training
requirements to conduct the stall training tasks. Where available,
documentation, including checkout documentation from an acceptable
data provider, AFM documentation, or other source documentation
related to stall training tasks for the simulated aircraft should be
utilized. Particular emphasis should be placed upon recognition cues
of an impending aerodynamic stall (such as the stall buffet,
lateral/directional instability, etc.), stall break (g-break, pitch
break, roll off departure, etc.), response of aircraft automation
(such as autopilot and auto throttles), and the necessary control
input required to execute an immediate recovery from the stall.

[[Page 39633]]

Upset Recognition and Recovery Evaluation (Table A1A, Section
2.1.6.S.)

1. Applicability: This attachment applies to all simulators that
are used to satisfy training requirements for upset recognition and
recovery maneuvers. For the purposes of this attachment (as defined
in the Airplane Upset Recovery Training Aid), an aircraft upset is
generally defined as an airplane unintentionally exceeding the
following parameters normally experienced in line operations or
training:
Pitch attitude greater than 25 degrees nose up.
Pitch attitude greater than 10 degrees nose down.
Bank angles greater than 45 degrees.
Within the above parameters, but flying at airspeeds
inappropriate for the conditions.

FSTDs that will be used to conduct upset recognition and recovery
training maneuvers in which the FSTD is either repositioned into an
aircraft upset condition or an artificial stimulus (such as weather
phenomena or system failures) is applied that could potentially
result in a flightcrew entering an aircraft upset condition must be
evaluated and qualified in accordance with this section.
2. General Requirements: The general requirement for upset
recognition and recovery qualification in Table A1A defines three
basic elements required for qualifying an FSTD for upset recognition
and recovery maneuvers:
a. FSTD Validation Envelope: The FSTD validation envelope must
be defined and utilized to determine if qualified upset recovery
maneuvers can be executed while remaining within FSTD validation
limits.
b. Instructor Feedback: In order to enhance the instructor's
situational awareness, the FSTD must employ a method to provide a
minimum set of feedback tools to determine if the FSTD remains
within validation limits and the simulated aircraft remains within
operating limits during a student's execution of an upset recovery
maneuver.
c. Upset Scenarios: Where dynamic upset scenarios or aircraft
system malfunctions are used to stimulate the FSTD into an aircraft
upset condition, such external stimuli/malfunctions must be
realistic and supported by data sources where available. Acceptable
data sources may include studies of environmental phenomena,
aircraft accident/incident data, aircraft manufacturer's data, or
other relevant data sources.
3. Validation Envelopes: For the purposes of this attachment,
the term ``flight envelope'' refers to the entire domain in which
the FSTD is capable of being flown. This envelope can be further
divided into three subdivisions (e.g. see Appendix 3-D of the
Airplane Upset Recovery Training Aid):
[ssquf] Flight Test Validated: This is the region of the flight
envelope which has been validated with flight test data, typically
by comparing the performance of the FSTD against the flight test
data through tests incorporated in the QTG and other flight test
data utilized to further extend the model beyond the minimum
requirements. Within this region, there is high confidence that the
simulator responds similarly to the aircraft. Note that this region
is not strictly limited to what has been tested in the QTG; as long
as the aerodynamic math model has been conformed to the flight test
results, that portion of the math model can be considered to be
within the Flight Test Validated region.
[ssquf] Wind Tunnel and/or Analytical: This is the region of the
flight envelope for which the FSTD has not been compared to flight
test data, but for which there has been wind tunnel testing and/or
the use of other reliable predictive methods (typically by the
aircraft manufacturer) to define the aerodynamic model. Any
extensions to the aerodynamic model that have been evaluated in
accordance with the definition of a ``representative'' stall model
(as described above in the stall maneuver section) must be clearly
indicated. Within this region, there is moderate confidence that the
simulator will respond similarly to the aircraft.
[ssquf] Extrapolated: This is the region extrapolated beyond the
flight test validated and wind tunnel/analytical regions. The
extrapolation may be a linear extrapolation, a holding of the last
value before the extrapolation began, or some other set of values.
Whether this extrapolated data is provided by the aircraft or
simulator manufacturer, it is a ``best guess'' only. Within this
region, there is reduced confidence that the simulator will respond
similarly to the aircraft. Brief excursions into this region may
still retain a moderate confidence level in simulator fidelity;
however, the instructor should be aware that the simulator's
response may deviate from the actual aircraft.
4. Instructor Feedback Mechanism: For the instructor/evaluator
to provide feedback to the student during URT maneuver training,
additional information must be accessible that indicates the
relative fidelity of the simulation, magnitude of student control
inputs, and aircraft operational limits that could potentially
affect the successful completion of the maneuver(s). At a minimum,
the following must be available to the instructor/evaluator:
a. Simulator Validation Envelope: The FSTD must employ a method
to record the FSTD's expected level of fidelity with respect to the
designed validation envelope. This may be displayed as an ``alpha/
beta'' crossplot on the Instructor Operating System (IOS) or other
alternate method acceptable to the FAA to clearly convey the
simulator's expected fidelity level during the maneuver.
b. Flight Control Inputs: The FSTD must employ a method for the
instructor/evaluator to assess the student's flight control input
used to execute the upset recovery maneuver. Parameters which may
not be easily assessed visually from the instructor station, such as
rudder pedal displacement and control forces, must be included in
this feedback mechanism.
c. Aircraft Operational Limits: The FSTD must employ a method to
provide the instructor/evaluator with information concerning the
aircraft operating limitations (such as normal load factor and
airspeed limits found on a V-n diagram) that may affect the
successful completion of the maneuver.

End QPS Requirements

Begin Information

An example FSTD ``alpha/beta'' envelope display and IOS feedback
mechanism are shown below in Figure 1 and Figure 2.

[[Page 39634]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.130

[[Page 39635]]

End Information

Begin QPS Requirements

Engine and Airframe Icing Evaluation (Table A1A, Section 2.1.5.S.)

1. Applicability: This attachment applies to all simulators that
are used to satisfy training requirements for engine and airframe
ice accretion. New general requirements and objective requirements
for simulator qualification have been developed to define aircraft
specific icing models that support training objectives for the
recognition and recovery from an in-flight ice accretion event.
2. General Requirements: The qualification of engine and
airframe icing consists of the following elements that must be
considered when developing ice accretion models for use in training:
a. Ice accretion models must be developed to account for
training the specific skills required for recognition of ice
accumulation and execution of the required response.
b. Ice accretion models must be developed in a manner to contain
aircraft specific recognition cues as determined with aircraft OEM
supplied data or other suitable analytical methods.
c. At least one qualified ice accretion model must be
objectively tested to demonstrate that the model has been
implemented correctly and generates the correct cues as necessary
for training.
3. Statement of Compliance: The SOC as described in Table A1A,
Section 2.1.5.S. must contain the following information to support
FSTD qualification of aircraft specific ice accretion models:
a. A description of expected aircraft specific recognition cues
and degradation effects due to a typical in-flight icing encounter.
Typical cues may include loss of lift, decrease in stall angle of
attack, change in pitching moment, decrease in control
effectiveness, decrease in stall angle of attack, and changes in
control forces in addition to any overall increase in drag. This
description must be based upon relevant source data, such as
aircraft OEM supplied data, accident/incident data, or other
acceptable data source. Where a particular airframe has demonstrated
vulnerabilities to a specific type of ice accretion (due to
accident/incident history) which may require specific training, ice
accretion models must be developed that address the training
requirements.
b. A description of the data sources utilized to develop the
qualified ice accretion models. Acceptable data sources may be, but
are not limited to, flight test data, aircraft certification data,
aircraft OEM engineering simulation data, or other analytical
methods based upon established engineering principles.
4. Objective Demonstration Testing: The purpose of the objective
demonstration test is to demonstrate that the ice accretion models
as described in the Statement of Compliance have been implemented
correctly and demonstrate the proper cues as defined in the approved
data sources. At least one ice accretion model must be selected for
testing and included in the Master Qualification Test Guide (MQTG).
Two tests are required to demonstrate engine and airframe icing
effects. One test will demonstrate the FSTDs baseline performance
without icing, and the second test will demonstrate the aerodynamic
effects of ice accretion relative to the baseline test.
a. Recorded Parameters: In each of the two required MQTG cases,
a time history recording must be made of the following parameters:

i. Altitude
ii. Airspeed
iii. Normal Acceleration
iv. Engine Power/settings
v. Angle of Attack/Pitch attitude
vi. Bank Angle
vii. Flight control inputs
viii. Stall warning and stall buffet onset
ix. Other parameters as necessary to demonstrate the effects of ice
accretions

b. Analysis: The FSTD sponsor must select an ice accretion model
as identified in the SOC for testing. The selected maneuver must
demonstrate the effects of ice accretion at high angles of attack
from a trimmed condition through approach to stall and ``full''
stall as compared to a baseline (no ice build up) test. The ice
accretion models must demonstrate the cues necessary to recognize
the onset of ice accretion on the airframe, lifting surfaces, and
engines and provide representative degradation in performance and
handling qualities to the extent that a recovery can be executed.
Typical recognition cues that may be present depending upon the
simulated aircraft include:

i. Decrease in stall angle of attack
ii. Increase in stall warning speed
iii. Increase in stall buffet onset speed
iv. Changes in pitching moment
v. Changes in stall buffet characteristics
vi. Changes in control effectiveness or control forces
vii. Engine effects (power variation, vibration, etc.)

The demonstration test may be conducted by initializing and
maintaining a fixed amount of ice accretion throughout the maneuver
in order to consistently evaluate the aerodynamic effects.

End QPS Requirements

0
7. Part 60 is amended by revising Appendix B to read as follows:

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

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin Information

This appendix establishes the standards for Airplane FTD
evaluation and qualification at Level 4, Level 5, Level 6, or Level
7. The Flight Standards Service, 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 or
persons assigned by the NSPM when conducting airplane FTD
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. FTD Use (Sec. 60.11).
9. FTD Objective Data Requirements (Sec. 60.13).
10. Special Equipment and Personnel Requirements for Qualification
of the FTD (Sec. 60.14).
11. Initial (and Upgrade) Qualification Requirements (Sec. 60.15).
12. Additional Qualifications for Currently Qualified FTDs (Sec.
60.16).
13. Previously Qualified FTDs (Sec. 60.17).
14. Inspection, Continuing Qualification Evaluation, and Maintenance
Requirements (Sec. 60.19).
15. Logging FTD Discrepancies (Sec. 60.20).
16. Interim Qualification of FTDs for New Airplane Types or Models
(Sec. 60.21).
17. Modifications to FTDs (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. [Reserved]
24. Levels of FTD.
25. FTD Qualification on the Basis of a Bilateral Aviation Safety
Agreement (BASA) (Sec. 60.37).
Attachment 1 to Appendix B to Part 60--General FTD Requirements.
Attachment 2 to Appendix B to Part 60--Flight Training Device (FTD)
Objective Tests.
Attachment 3 to Appendix B to Part 60--Flight Training Device (FTD)
Subjective Evaluation.
Attachment 4 to Appendix B to Part 60--Sample Documents.

End Information

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Introduction

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin Information

[[Page 39636]]

b. Questions regarding the contents of this publication should
be sent to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation
Administration, Flight Standards Service, National Simulator Program
Staff, AFS-205, 100 Hartsfield Centre Parkway, Suite 400, Atlanta,
Georgia, 30354. Telephone contact numbers for the NSP are: phone,
404-832-4700; fax, 404-761-8906. The general email address for the
NSP office is: 9-aso-avs-sim-team@faa.gov. The NSP Internet Web site
address is: https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/nsp/. On this Web
site you will find an NSP personnel list with telephone and email
contact information for each NSP staff member, a list of qualified
flight simulation devices, 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 120-41, as amended, Criteria for Operational Approval of
Airborne Wind Shear Alerting and Flight Guidance Systems.
(14) AC 120-45, as amended, Airplane Flight Training Device
Qualification.
(14) AC 120-57, as amended, Surface Movement Guidance and
Control System (SMGCS).
(15) AC 150/5300-13, as amended, Airport Design.
(16) AC 150/5340-1, as amended, Standards for Airport Markings.
(17) AC 150/5340-4, as amended, Installation Details for Runway
Centerline Touchdown Zone Lighting Systems.
(18) AC 150/5340-19, as amended, Taxiway Centerline Lighting
System.
(19) AC 150/5340-24, as amended, Runway and Taxiway Edge
Lighting System.
(20) AC 150/5345-28, as amended, Precision Approach Path
Indicator (PAPI) Systems.
(21) International Air Transport Association document, ``Flight
Simulator Design and Performance Data Requirements,'' as amended.
(22) AC 25-7, as amended, Flight Test Guide for Certification of
Transport Category Airplanes.
(23) AC 23-8A, as amended, Flight Test Guide for Certification
of Part 23 Airplanes.
(24) International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Manual of
Criteria for the Qualification of Flight Simulators, as amended.
(25) Airplane Flight Simulator Evaluation Handbook, Volume I, as
amended and Volume II, as amended, The Royal Aeronautical Society,
London, UK.
(26) FAA Publication FAA-S-8081 series (Practical Test Standards
for Airline Transport Pilot Certificate, Type Ratings, Commercial
Pilot, and Instrument Ratings).
(27) The FAA Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM). An
electronic version of the AIM is on the internet at https://www.faa.gov/atpubs.
(28) Aeronautical Radio, Inc. (ARINC) document number 436,
titled Guidelines For Electronic Qualification Test Guide (as
amended).
(29) 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.

3. Definitions (Sec. 60.3)

See Appendix F of this part for a list of definitions and
abbreviations from part 1, part 60, and the QPS appendices of part
60.

4. Qualification Performance Standards (Sec. 60.4)

No additional regulatory or informational material applies to
Sec. 60.4, Qualification Performance Standards.

5. Quality Management System (Sec. 60.5)

Additional regulatory material and informational material
regarding Quality Management Systems for FTDs may be found in
Appendix E of this part.

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 FTD, 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 FTD may change from one 12-month period to the next 12-
month period as long as that sponsor sponsors and uses at least one
FTD at least once during the prescribed period. There is no minimum
number of hours or minimum FTD periods required.
b. The following examples describe acceptable operational
practices:
(1) Example One.
(a) A sponsor is sponsoring a single, specific FTD for its own
use, in its own facility or elsewhere--this single FTD forms the
basis for the sponsorship. The sponsor uses that FTD at least once
in each 12-month period in that 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 FTD 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 FTD use required.
(c) The identification of the specific FTD may change from one
12-month period to the next 12-month period as long as that sponsor
sponsors and uses at least one FTD at least once during the
prescribed period.
(2) Example Two.
(a) A sponsor sponsors an additional number of FTDs, in its
facility or elsewhere. Each additionally sponsored FTD 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 FTD or another
FTD, during the preceding 12-month period) stating that the subject
FTD'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) There is no minimum number of hours of FTD use 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.

[[Page 39637]]

(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 FTDs 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 FTDs in the Chicago and
Moscow centers) because--
(i) Each FTD in the Chicago center and each FTD 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 FTD or another FTD during the
preceding 12-month period) stating that the performance and handling
qualities of each FTD 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
FTD.

8. FTD Use (Sec. 60.11)

No additional regulatory or informational material applies to
Sec. 60.11, FTD use.

End Information

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

9. FTD Objective Data Requirements (Sec. 60.13)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin QPS Requirements

a. Flight test data used to validate FTD 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 FTD.
(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 B2F of this appendix.
(4) Appropriate and sufficient data acquisition equipment or
system(s), including appropriate data reduction and analysis methods
and techniques, acceptable to the FAA's Aircraft Certification
Service.
b. The data, regardless of source, must be presented:
(1) In a format that supports the FTD 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 B2A, Appendix B;
(4) With any necessary guidance information provided; and
(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 FTD 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 or a revision of the
flight related data or airplane systems related data is available if
this data is used to program and operate a qualified FTD. The data
referred to in this sub-section are those data that are used to
validate the performance, handling qualities, or other
characteristics of the aircraft, including data related to any
relevant changes occurring after the type certification is issued.
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--
(i) The schedule to incorporate this data into the FTD; or
(ii) The reason for not incorporating this data into the FTD.
e. In those cases where the objective test results authorize a
``snapshot test'' or a ``series of snapshot test 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 snap shot.

End QPS Requirements

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin Information

f. The FTD 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 FTD in
order to facilitate the notification described in this paragraph.
g. It is the intent of the NSPM that for new aircraft entering
service, at a point well in advance of preparation of the QTG, the
sponsor should submit to the NSPM for approval, a descriptive
document (see Appendix A, 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 FTD 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 FTD 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 FTD (Sec. 60.14)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin Information

[[Page 39638]]

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 FTD is moved; at the request of the TPAA; or as
a result of comments received from users of the FTD that raise
questions about the continued qualification or use of the FTD.

End Information

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

11. Initial (and Upgrade) Qualification Requirements (Sec. 60.15)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin QPS Requirement

a. In order to be qualified at a particular qualification level,
the FTD 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 (Level 4 FTDs do not require objective tests);
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 FTD 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) Except for a Level 4 FTD, a QTG, acceptable to the NSPM,
that includes all of the following:
(a) Objective data obtained from aircraft testing or another
approved source.
(b) Correlating objective test results obtained from the
performance of the FTD as prescribed in the appropriate QPS.
(c) The result of FTD 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 FTD objective
tests in Attachment 2, Table B2A 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 conducting automatic
and manual tests;
(3) A means of comparing the FTD 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 FTD.
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 B4C, 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 B4G,
of this appendix, for a sample Continuing Qualification Evaluation
Requirements page.
(3) An FTD information page that provides the information listed
in this paragraph, if applicable (see Attachment 4, Figure B4B, of
this appendix, for a sample FTD information page). For convertible
FTDs, the sponsor must submit a separate page for each configuration
of the FTD.
(a) The sponsor's FTD identification number or code.
(b) The airplane model and series being simulated.
(c) The aerodynamic data revision number or reference.
(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 FTD model and manufacturer.
(i) The date of FTD manufacture.
(j) The FTD 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) 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 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 FTD objective test results.
(g) List of all relevant parameters driven or constrained during
the automatic test(s).
(h) List of all relevant parameters driven or constrained during
the manual 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) FTD 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 FTD is addressed as a separate FTD for each
model and series airplane to which it will be converted and for the
FAA qualification level sought. The NSPM will conduct an evaluation
for each configuration. If a sponsor seeks qualification for two or
more models of an airplane type using a convertible FTD, the sponsor
must provide 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. The form and manner of presentation of objective test results
in the QTG must include the following:
(1) The sponsor's FTD test results must be recorded in a manner
acceptable to the NSPM, that allows easy comparison of the FTD test
results to the validation data (e.g., use of a multi-channel
recorder, line printer, cross plotting, overlays, transparencies).
(2) FTD 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 B2A of this appendix.
(5) Tests involving time histories, data sheets (or
transparencies thereof) and FTD test results must be clearly marked
with appropriate reference points to ensure an accurate comparison
between FTD and 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 may 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 FTD
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 FTD 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 FTD
location.
j. All FTDs for which the initial qualification is conducted
after May 30, 2014, must have an electronic MQTG (eMQTG) including
all objective data obtained from airplane testing, or another
approved source (reformatted or digitized), together with
correlating objective test results obtained from the performance of
the FTD

[[Page 39639]]

(reformatted or digitized) as prescribed in this appendix. The eMQTG
must also contain the general FTD performance or demonstration
results (reformatted or digitized) prescribed in this appendix, and
a description of the equipment necessary to perform the initial
qualification evaluation and the continuing qualification
evaluations. The eMQTG must include the original validation data
used to validate FTD performance and handling qualities in either
the original digitized format from the data supplier or an
electronic scan of the original time-history plots that were
provided by the data supplier. A copy of the eMQTG must be provided
to the NSPM.
k. All other FTDs (not covered in subparagraph ``j'') must have
an electronic copy of the MQTG by and after May 30, 2014. An
electronic copy of the copy of the MQTG must be provided to the
NSPM. This may be provided by an electronic scan presented in a
Portable Document File (PDF), or similar format acceptable to the
NSPM.
l. During the initial (or upgrade) qualification evaluation
conducted by the NSPM, the sponsor must also provide a person
knowledgeable about the operation of the aircraft and the operation
of the FTD.

End QPS Requirements

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin Information

m. Only those FTDs that are sponsored by a certificate holder as
defined in Appendix F will be evaluated by the NSPM. However, other
FTD evaluations may be conducted on a case-by-case basis as the
Administrator deems appropriate, but only in accordance with
applicable agreements.
n. The NSPM will conduct an evaluation for each configuration,
and each FTD must be evaluated as completely as possible. To ensure
a thorough and uniform evaluation, each FTD is subjected to the
general FTD requirements in Attachment 1 of this appendix, the
objective tests listed in Attachment 2 of this appendix, and the
subjective tests listed in Attachment 3 of this appendix. The
evaluations described herein will include, but not necessarily be
limited to the following:
(1) Airplane responses, including longitudinal and lateral-
directional control responses (see Attachment 2 of this appendix);
(2) Performance in authorized portions of the simulated
airplane's operating envelope, to include tasks evaluated by the
NSPM in the areas of surface operations, takeoff, climb, cruise,
descent, approach and landing, as well as abnormal and emergency
operations (see Attachment 2 of this appendix);
(3) Control checks (see Attachment 1 and Attachment 2 of this
appendix);
(4) Flight deck configuration (see Attachment 1 of this
appendix);
(5) Pilot, flight engineer, and instructor station functions
checks (see Attachment 1 and Attachment 3 of this appendix);
(6) Airplane systems and sub-systems (as appropriate) as
compared to the airplane simulated (see attachment 1 and attachment
3 of this appendix);
(7) FTD systems and sub-systems, including force cueing
(motion), visual, and aural (sound) systems, as appropriate (see
Attachment 1 and Attachment 2 of this appendix); and
(8) Certain additional requirements, depending upon the
qualification level sought, including equipment or circumstances
that may become hazardous to the occupants. The sponsor may be
subject to Occupational Safety and Health Administration
requirements.
o. The NSPM administers the objective and subjective tests,
which include an examination of functions. The tests include a
qualitative assessment of the FTD by an NSP pilot. The NSP
evaluation team leader may assign other qualified personnel to
assist in accomplishing the functions examination and/or the
objective and subjective tests performed during an evaluation when
required.
(1) Objective tests provide a basis for measuring and evaluating
FTD performance and determining compliance with the requirements of
this part.
(2) Subjective tests provide a basis for:
(a) Evaluating the capability of the FTD to perform over a
typical utilization period;
(b) Determining that the FTD satisfactorily simulates each
required task;
(c) Verifying correct operation of the FTD controls,
instruments, and systems; and
(d) Demonstrating compliance with the requirements of this part.
p. The tolerances for the test parameters listed in Attachment 2
of this appendix reflect the range of tolerances acceptable to the
NSPM for FTD validation and are not to be confused with design
tolerances specified for FTD manufacture. In making decisions
regarding tests and test results, the NSPM relies on the use of
operational and engineering judgment in the application of data
(including consideration of the way in which the flight test was
flown and way the data was gathered and applied) data presentations,
and the applicable tolerances for each test.
q. In addition to the scheduled continuing qualification
evaluation, each FTD is subject to evaluations conducted by the NSPM
at any time without prior notification to the sponsor. Such
evaluations would be accomplished in a normal manner (i.e.,
requiring exclusive use of the FTD for the conduct of objective and
subjective tests and an examination of functions) if the FTD is not
being used for flight crewmember training, testing, or checking.
However, if the FTD were being used, the evaluation would be
conducted in a nonexclusive manner. This nonexclusive evaluation
will be conducted by the FTD evaluator accompanying the check
airman, instructor, Aircrew Program Designee (APD), or FAA inspector
aboard the FTD along with the student(s) and observing the operation
of the FTD during the training, testing, or checking activities.
r. Problems with objective test results are handled as follows:
(1) If a problem with an objective test result is detected by
the NSP evaluation team during an evaluation, the test may be
repeated or the QTG may be amended.
(2) If it is determined that the results of an objective test do
not support the qualification level requested but do support a lower
level, the NSPM may qualify the FTD at a lower level. For example,
if a Level 6 evaluation is requested, but the FTD fails to meet the
spiral stability test tolerances, it could be qualified at Level 5.
s. After an FTD is successfully evaluated, the NSPM issues an
SOQ to the sponsor. The NSPM recommends the FTD to the TPAA, who
will approve the FTD for use in a flight training program. The SOQ
will be issued at the satisfactory conclusion of the initial or
continuing qualification evaluation and will list the tasks for
which the FTD is qualified, referencing the tasks described in Table
B1B in attachment 1 of this appendix. However, it is the sponsor's
responsibility to obtain TPAA approval prior to using the FTD in an
FAA-approved flight training program.
t. Under normal circumstances, the NSPM establishes a date for
the initial or upgrade evaluation within ten (10) working days after
determining that a complete QTG is acceptable. Unusual circumstances
may warrant establishing an evaluation date before this
determination is made. A sponsor may schedule an evaluation date as
early as 6 months in advance. However, there may be a delay of 45
days or more in rescheduling and completing the evaluation if the
sponsor is unable to meet the scheduled date. See Attachment 4,
Figure B4A, Sample Request for Initial, Upgrade, or Reinstatement
Evaluation, of this appendix.
u. The numbering system used for objective test results in the
QTG should closely follow the numbering system set out in Attachment
2, FTD Objective Tests, Table B2A, of this appendix.
v. Contact the NSPM or visit the NSPM Web site for additional
information regarding the preferred qualifications of pilots used to
meet the requirements of Sec. 60.15(d).
w. Examples of the exclusions for which the FTD might not have
been subjectively tested by the sponsor or the NSPM and for which
qualification might not be sought or granted, as described in Sec.
60.15(g)(6), include engine out maneuvers or circling approaches.

12. Additional Qualifications for Currently Qualified FTDs (Sec.
60.16)

No additional regulatory or informational material applies to
Sec. 60.16, Additional Qualifications for a Currently Qualified
FTD.

End Information

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

13. Previously Qualified FTDs (Sec. 60.17)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin QPS Requirements

a. In instances where a sponsor plans to remove an FTD from
active status for a period of less than two years, the following
procedures apply:
(1) The NSPM must be notified in writing and the notification
must include an estimate of the period that the FTD will be
inactive;
(2) Continuing Qualification evaluations will not be scheduled
during the inactive period;
(3) The NSPM will remove the FTD from the list of qualified FTDs
on a mutually established date not later than the date on which the
first missed continuing

[[Page 39640]]

qualification evaluation would have been scheduled;
(4) Before the FTD is restored to qualified status, it must be
evaluated by the NSPM. The evaluation content and the time required
to accomplish the evaluation is based on the number of continuing
qualification evaluations and sponsor-conducted quarterly
inspections missed during the period of inactivity.
(5) The sponsor must notify the NSPM of any changes to the
original scheduled time out of service;
b. FTDs qualified prior to May 30, 2008, and replacement FTD
systems, are not required to meet the general FTD requirements, the
objective test requirements, and the subjective test requirements of
Attachments 1, 2, and 3 of this appendix as long as the FTD
continues to meet the test requirements contained in the MQTG
developed under the original qualification basis.
c. [Reserved]
d. FTDs qualified prior to May 30, 2008, may be updated. If an
evaluation is deemed appropriate or necessary by the NSPM after such
an update, the evaluation will not require an evaluation to
standards beyond those against which the FTD was originally
qualified.

End QPS Requirements

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin Information

e. Other certificate holders or persons desiring to use an FTD
may contract with FTD sponsors to use FTDs previously qualified at a
particular level for an airplane type and approved for use within an
FAA-approved flight training program. Such FTDs are not required to
undergo an additional qualification process, except as described in
Sec. 60.16.
f. Each FTD user must obtain approval from the appropriate TPAA
to use any FTD in an FAA-approved flight training program.
g. The intent of the requirement listed in Sec. 60.17(b), for
each FTD to have an SOQ within 6 years, is to have the availability
of that statement (including the configuration list and the
limitations to authorizations) to provide a complete picture of the
FTD inventory regulated by the FAA. The issuance of the statement
will not require any additional evaluation or require any adjustment
to the evaluation basis for the FTD.
h. Downgrading of an FTD is a permanent change in qualification
level and will necessitate the issuance of a revised SOQ to reflect
the revised qualification level, as appropriate. If a temporary
restriction is placed on an FTD because of a missing,
malfunctioning, or inoperative component or on-going repairs, the
restriction is not a permanent change in qualification level.
Instead, the restriction is temporary and is removed when the reason
for the restriction has been resolved.
i. The NSPM will determine the evaluation criteria for an FTD
that has been removed from active status for a prolonged period. The
criteria will be based on the number of continuing qualification
evaluations and quarterly inspections missed during the period of
inactivity. For example, if the FTD were out of service for a 1 year
period, it would be necessary to complete the entire QTG, since all
of the quarterly evaluations would have been missed. The NSPM will
also consider how the FTD was stored, whether parts were removed
from the FTD and whether the FTD was disassembled.
j. The FTD will normally be requalified using the FAA-approved
MQTG and the criteria that was in effect prior to its removal from
qualification. However, inactive periods of 2 years or more will
require re-qualification under the standards in effect and current
at the time of requalification.

End Information

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

14. Inspection, Continuing Qualification, Evaluation, and Maintenance
Requirements (Sec. 60.19).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin QPS Requirement

a. The sponsor must conduct a minimum of four evenly spaced
inspections throughout the year. The objective test sequence and
content of each inspection in this sequence must be developed by the
sponsor and must be acceptable to the NSPM.
b. The description of the functional preflight check must be
contained in the sponsor's QMS.
c. Record ``functional preflight'' in the FTD discrepancy log
book or other acceptable location, including any item found to be
missing, malfunctioning, or inoperative.
d. During the continuing qualification evaluation conducted by
the NSPM, the sponsor must also provide a person knowledgeable about
the operation of the aircraft and the operation of the FTD.

End QPS Requirements

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin Information

e. The sponsor's test sequence and the content of each quarterly
inspection required in Sec. 60.19(a)(1) should include a balance
and a mix from the objective test requirement areas listed as
follows:
(1) Performance.
(2) Handling qualities.
(3) Motion system (where appropriate).
(4) Visual system (where appropriate).
(5) Sound system (where appropriate).
(6) Other FTD systems.
f. If the NSP evaluator plans to accomplish specific tests
during a normal continuing qualification evaluation that requires
the use of special equipment or technicians, the sponsor will be
notified as far in advance of the evaluation as practical; but not
less than 72 hours. Examples of such tests include latencies,
control sweeps, or motion or visual system tests.
g. The continuing qualification evaluations described in Sec.
60.19(b) will normally require 4 hours of FTD time. However,
flexibility is necessary to address abnormal situations or
situations involving aircraft with additional levels of complexity
(e.g., computer controlled aircraft). The sponsor should anticipate
that some tests may require additional time. The continuing
qualification evaluations will consist of the following:
(1) Review of the results of the quarterly inspections conducted
by the sponsor since the last scheduled continuing qualification
evaluation.
(2) A selection of approximately 8 to 15 objective tests from
the MQTG that provide an adequate opportunity to evaluate the
performance of the FTD. The tests chosen will be performed either
automatically or manually and should be able to be conducted within
approximately one-third (\1/3\) of the allotted FTD time.
(3) A subjective evaluation of the FTD to perform a
representative sampling of the tasks set out in attachment 3 of this
appendix. This portion of the evaluation should take approximately
two-thirds (\2/3\) of the allotted FTD time.
(4) An examination of the functions of the FTD may include the
motion system, visual system, sound system as applicable, instructor
operating station, and the normal functions and simulated
malfunctions of the airplane systems. This examination is normally
accomplished simultaneously with the subjective evaluation
requirements.
h. The requirement established in Sec. 60.19(b)(4) regarding
the frequency of NSPM-conducted continuing qualification evaluations
for each FTD is typically 12 months. However, the establishment and
satisfactory implementation of an approved QMS for a sponsor will
provide a basis for adjusting the frequency of evaluations to exceed
12-month intervals.

15. Logging FTD Discrepancies (Sec. 60.20)

No additional regulatory or informational material applies to
Sec. 60.20. Logging FTD Discrepancies.

16. Interim Qualification of FTDs for New Airplane Types or Models
(Sec. 60.21)

No additional regulatory or informational material applies to
Sec. 60.21, Interim Qualification of FTDs for New Airplane Types or
Models.

End Information

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

17. Modifications to FTDs (Sec. 60.23)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin QPS Requirements

a. The notification described in Sec. 60.23(c)(2) must include
a complete description of the planned modification, with a
description of the operational and engineering effect the proposed
modification will have on the operation of the FTD and the results
that are expected with the modification incorporated.
b. Prior to using the modified FTD:
(1) All the applicable objective tests completed with the
modification incorporated, including any necessary updates to the
MQTG (e.g., accomplishment of FSTD Directives) must be acceptable to
the NSPM; and
(2) The sponsor must provide the NSPM with a statement signed by
the MR that the factors listed in Sec. 60.15(b) are addressed by
the appropriate personnel as described in that section.

[[Page 39641]]

End QPS Requirements

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin Information

c. FSTD Directives are considered modification of an FTD. See
Attachment 4 of this appendix for a sample index of effective FSTD
Directives.
d. Examples of MQTG changes that do not require notification
under Sec. 60.23(a) are limited to repagination, correction of
typographical or grammatical errors, typesetting, or presenting
additional parameters on existing test result formats. All changes
regardless of nature should be reported in the MQTG revision
history.

End Information

18. Operation With Missing, Malfunctioning, or Inoperative Components
(Sec. 60.25)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin Information

a. The sponsor's responsibility with respect to Sec. 60.25(a)
is satisfied when the sponsor fairly and accurately advises the user
of the current status of an FTD, including any missing,
malfunctioning, or inoperative (MMI) component(s).
b. 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 if
any MMI component is necessary for the satisfactory completion of a
specific maneuver, procedure, or task.
c. If the 29th or 30th day of the 30-day period described in
Sec. 60.25(b) is on a Saturday, a Sunday, or a holiday, the FAA
will extend the deadline until the next business day.
d. In accordance with the authorization described in Sec.
60.25(b), the sponsor may develop a discrepancy prioritizing system
to accomplish repairs based on the level of impact on the capability
of the FTD. Repairs having a larger impact on the FTD's ability to
provide the required training, evaluation, or flight experience will
have a higher priority for repair or replacement.

End Information

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

19. Automatic Loss of Qualification and Procedures for Restoration of
Qualification (Sec. 60.27)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin Information

If the sponsor provides a plan for how the FTD will be
maintained during its out-of-service period (e.g., periodic exercise
of mechanical, hydraulic, and electrical systems; routine
replacement of hydraulic fluid; control of the environmental factors
in which the FTD is to be maintained) there is a greater likelihood
that the NSPM will be able to determine the amount of testing that
required for requalification.

End Information

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

20. Other Losses of Qualification and Procedures for Restoration of
Qualification (Sec. 60.29.)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin Information

End Information

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

21. Recordkeeping and Reporting (Sec. 60.31.)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin QPS Requirements

a. FTD modifications can include hardware or software changes.
For FTD modifications involving software programming changes, the
record required by Sec. 60.31(a)(2) must consist of the name of the
aircraft system software, aerodynamic model, or engine model change,
the date of the change, a summary of the change, and the reason for
the change.
b. If a coded form for record keeping is used, it must provide
for the preservation and retrieval of information with appropriate
security or controls to prevent the inappropriate alteration of such
records after the fact.

End QPS Requirements

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

22. Applications, Logbooks, Reports, and Records: Fraud, Falsification,
or Incorrect Statements (Sec. 60.33)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin Information

No additional regulatory or informational material applies to
Sec. 60.33, Applications, Logbooks, Reports, and Records: Fraud,
Falsification, or Incorrect Statements.

End Information

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

23. [Reserved]

24. Levels of FTD

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin Information

a. The following is a general description of each level of FTD.
Detailed standards and tests for the various levels of FTDs are
fully defined in Attachments 1 through 3 of this appendix.
(1) Level 4. A device that may have an open airplane-specific
flight deck area, or an enclosed airplane-specific flight deck and
at least one operating system. Air/ground logic is required (no
aerodynamic programming required). All displays may be flat/LCD
panel representations or actual representations of displays in the
aircraft. All controls, switches, and knobs may be touch sensitive
activation (not capable of manual manipulation of the flight
controls) or may physically replicate the aircraft in control
operation.
(2) Level 5. A device that may have an open airplane-specific
flight deck area, or an enclosed airplane-specific flight deck;
generic aerodynamic programming; at least one operating system; and
control loading that is representative of the simulated airplane
only at an approach speed and configuration. All displays may be
flat/LCD panel representations or actual representations of displays
in the aircraft. Primary and secondary flight controls (e.g.,
rudder, aileron, elevator, flaps, spoilers/speed brakes, engine
controls, landing gear, nosewheel steering, trim, brakes) must be
physical controls. All other controls, switches, and knobs may be
touch sensitive activation.
(3) Level 6. A device that has an enclosed airplane-specific
flight deck; airplane-specific aerodynamic programming; all
applicable airplane systems operating; control loading that is
representative of the simulated airplane throughout its ground and
flight envelope; and significant sound representation. All displays
may be flat/LCD panel representations or actual representations of
displays in the aircraft, but all controls, switches, and knobs must
physically replicate the aircraft in control operation.
(4) Level 7. A Level 7 device is one that has an enclosed
airplane-specific flight deck and aerodynamic program with all
applicable airplane systems operating and control loading that is
representative of the simulated airplane throughout its ground and
flight envelope and significant sound representation. All displays
may be flat/LCD panel representations or actual representations of
displays in the aircraft, but all controls, switches, and knobs must
physically replicate the aircraft in control operation. It also has
a visual system that provides an out-of-the-flight deck view,
providing cross-flight deck viewing (for both pilots simultaneously)
of a field-of-view of at least 200[deg] horizontally and 40[deg]
vertically.

End Information

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

25. FTD Qualification on the Basis of a Bilateral Aviation Safety
Agreement (BASA) (Sec. 60.37)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin Information

No additional regulatory or informational material applies to
Sec. 60.37, FTD Qualification on the Basis of a Bilateral Aviation
Safety Agreement (BASA).

End Information

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Attachment 1 to Appendix B to Part 60-- General FTD Requirements

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin QPS Requirements

1. Requirements

a. Certain requirements included in this appendix must be
supported with an SOC as

[[Page 39642]]

defined in Appendix F, which may include objective and subjective
tests. The requirements for SOCs are indicated in the ``General FTD
Requirements'' column in Table B1A of this appendix.
b. Table B1A describes the requirements for the indicated level
of FTD. Many devices include operational systems or functions that
exceed the requirements outlined in this section. In any event, all
systems will be tested and evaluated in accordance with this
appendix to ensure proper operation.

End QPS Requirements

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin Information

2. Discussion

a. This attachment describes the general requirements for
qualifying Level 4 through Level 7 FTDs. The sponsor should also
consult the objectives tests in Attachment 2 of this appendix and
the examination of functions and subjective tests listed in
Attachment 3 of this appendix to determine the complete requirements
for a specific level FTD.
b. The material contained in this attachment is divided into the
following categories:
(1) General Flight deck Configuration.
(2) Programming.
(3) Equipment Operation.
(4) Equipment and facilities for instructor/evaluator functions.
(5) Motion System.
(6) Visual System.
(7) Sound System.
c. Table B1A provides the standards for the General FTD
Requirements.
d. Table B1B provides the tasks that the sponsor will examine to
determine whether the FTD satisfactorily meets the requirements for
flight crew training, testing, and experience, and provides the
tasks for which the simulator may be qualified.
e. Table B1C provides the functions that an instructor/check
airman must be able to control in the simulator.
f. It is not required that all of the tasks that appear on the
List of Qualified Tasks (part of the SOQ) be accomplished during the
initial or continuing qualification evaluation.

End Information

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 39643]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.131

[[Page 39644]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.132

[[Page 39645]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.133

[[Page 39646]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.134

[[Page 39647]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.135

[[Page 39648]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.136

[[Page 39649]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.137

[[Page 39650]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.138

[[Page 39651]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.139

[[Page 39652]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.140

[[Page 39653]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.141

[[Page 39654]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.142

[[Page 39655]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.143

[[Page 39656]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.144

[[Page 39657]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.145

[[Page 39658]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.146

[[Page 39659]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.147

[[Page 39660]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.148

[[Page 39661]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.149

[[Page 39662]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.150

[[Page 39663]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.152

[[Page 39664]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.153

[[Page 39665]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.154

[[Page 39666]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.155

[[Page 39667]]

Attachment 2 to Appendix B to Part 60--Flight Training Device (FTD)
Objective Tests

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin Information

1. Discussion

a. For the purposes of this attachment, the flight conditions
specified in the Flight Conditions Column of Table B2A, are defined
as follows:
(1) Ground--on ground, independent of airplane configuration;
(2) Take-off--gear down with flaps/slats in any certified
takeoff position;
(3) First segment climb--gear down with flaps/slats in any
certified takeoff position (normally not above 50 ft AGL);
(4) Second segment climb--gear up with flaps/slats in any
certified takeoff position (normally between 50 ft and 400 ft AGL);
(5) Clean--flaps/slats retracted and gear up;
(6) Cruise--clean configuration at cruise altitude and airspeed;
(7) Approach--gear up or down with flaps/slats at any normal
approach position as recommended by the airplane manufacturer; and
(8) Landing--gear down with flaps/slats in any certified landing
position.
b. The format for numbering the objective tests in Appendix A,
Attachment 2, Table A2A, and the objective tests in Appendix B,
Attachment 2, Table B2A, is identical. However, each test required
for FFSs is not necessarily required for FTDs. Also, each test
required for FTDs is not necessarily required for FFSs. Therefore,
when a test number (or series of numbers) is not required, the term
``Reserved'' is used in the table at that location. Following this
numbering format provides a degree of commonality between the two
tables and substantially reduces the potential for confusion when
referring to objective test numbers for either FFSs or FTDs.
c. The reader is encouraged to review the Airplane Flight
Simulator Evaluation Handbook, Volumes I and II, published by the
Royal Aeronautical Society, London, UK, and FAA AC 25-7, as amended,
Flight Test Guide for Certification of Transport Category Airplanes,
and AC 23-8, as amended, Flight Test Guide for Certification of Part
23 Airplanes, for references and examples regarding flight testing
requirements and techniques.
d. If relevant winds are present in the objective data, the wind
vector should be clearly noted as part of the data presentation,
expressed in conventional terminology, and related to the runway
being used for the test.
e. A Level 4 FTD does not require objective tests and therefore,
Level 4 is not addressed in the following table.

End Information

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin QPS Requirements

2. Test Requirements

a. The ground and flight tests required for qualification are
listed in Table B2A Objective Tests. Computer generated FTD test
results must be provided for each test except where an alternate
test is specifically authorized by the NSPM. If a flight condition
or operating condition is required for the test but does not apply
to the airplane being simulated or to the qualification level
sought, it may be disregarded (e.g., an engine out missed approach
for a single-engine airplane; a maneuver using reverse thrust for an
airplane without reverse thrust capability). Each test result is
compared against the validation data described in Sec. 60.13, and
in Appendix B. The results must be produced on an appropriate
recording device acceptable to the NSPM and must include FTD number,
date, time, conditions, tolerances, and appropriate dependent
variables portrayed in comparison to the validation data. Time
histories are required unless otherwise indicated in Table B2A. All
results must be labeled using the tolerances and units given.
b. Table B2A in this attachment sets out the test results
required, including the parameters, tolerances, and flight
conditions for FTD validation. Tolerances are provided for the
listed tests because mathematical modeling and acquisition and
development of reference data are often inexact. All tolerances
listed in the following tables are applied to FTD performance. When
two tolerance values are given for a parameter, the less restrictive
may be used unless otherwise indicated. In those cases where a
tolerance is expressed only as a percentage, the tolerance
percentage applies to the maximum value of that parameter within its
normal operating range as measured from the neutral or zero position
unless otherwise indicated.
c. Certain tests included in this attachment must be supported
with a SOC. In Table B2A, requirements for SOCs are indicated in the
``Test Details'' column.
d. When operational or engineering judgment is used in making
assessments for flight test data applications for FTD validity, such
judgment may not be limited to a single parameter. For example, data
that exhibit rapid variations of the measured parameters may require
interpolations or a ``best fit'' data section. All relevant
parameters related to a given maneuver or flight condition must be
provided to allow overall interpretation. When it is difficult or
impossible to match FTD to airplane data throughout a time history,
differences must be justified by providing a comparison of other
related variables for the condition being assessed.
e. It is not acceptable to program the FTD so that the
mathematical modeling is correct only at the validation test points.
Unless noted otherwise, tests must represent airplane performance
and handling qualities at operating weights and centers of gravity
(CG) typical of normal operation. If a test is supported by aircraft
data at one extreme weight or CG, another test supported by aircraft
data at mid-conditions or as close as possible to the other extreme
is necessary. Certain tests that are relevant only at one extreme CG
or weight condition need not be repeated at the other extreme. The
results of the tests for Level 6 are expected to be indicative of
the device's performance and handling qualities throughout all of
the following:
(1) The airplane weight and CG envelope;
(2) The operational envelope; and
(3) Varying atmospheric ambient and environmental conditions--
including the extremes authorized for the respective airplane or set
of airplanes.
f. When comparing the parameters listed to those of the
airplane, sufficient data must also be provided to verify the
correct flight condition and airplane configuration changes. For
example, to show that control force is within the parameters for a
static stability test, data to show the correct airspeed, power,
thrust or torque, airplane configuration, altitude, and other
appropriate datum identification parameters must also be given. If
comparing short period dynamics, normal acceleration may be used to
establish a match to the airplane, but airspeed, altitude, control
input, airplane configuration, and other appropriate data must also
be given. If comparing landing gear change dynamics, pitch,
airspeed, and altitude may be used to establish a match to the
airplane, but landing gear position must also be provided. All
airspeed values must be properly annotated (e.g., indicated versus
calibrated). In addition, the same variables must be used for
comparison (e.g., compare inches to inches rather than inches to
centimeters).
g. The QTG provided by the sponsor must clearly describe how the
FTD will be set up and operated for each test. Each FTD subsystem
may be tested independently, but overall integrated testing of the
FTD must be accomplished to assure that the total FTD system meets
the prescribed standards. A manual test procedure with explicit and
detailed steps for completing each test must also be provided.
h. For previously qualified FTDs, the tests and tolerances of
this attachment may be used in subsequent continuing qualification
evaluations for any given test if the sponsor has submitted a
proposed MQTG revision to the NSPM and has received NSPM approval.
i. FTDs are evaluated and qualified with an engine model
simulating the airplane data supplier's flight test engine. For
qualification of alternative engine models (either variations of the
flight test engines or other manufacturer's engines) additional
tests with the alternative engine models may be required. This
attachment contains guidelines for alternative engines.
j. Testing Computer Controlled Aircraft (CCA) simulators, or
other highly augmented airplane simulators, flight test data is
required for the Normal (N) and/or Non-normal (NN) control states,
as indicated in this attachment. Where test results are independent
of control state, Normal or Non-normal control data may be used. All
tests in Table B2A require test results in the Normal control state
unless specifically noted otherwise in the Test Details section
following the CCA designation. The NSPM will determine what tests
are appropriate for airplane simulation data. When making this
determination, the NSPM may require other levels of control state
degradation for specific airplane tests. Where Non-normal control
states are required, test data must be provided for one or more Non-
normal control states, and must include the least augmented

[[Page 39668]]

state. Where applicable, flight test data must record Normal and
Non-normal states for:
(1) Pilot controller deflections or electronically generated
inputs, including location of input; and
(2) Flight control surface positions unless test results are not
affected by, or are independent of, surface positions.
k. Tests of handling qualities must include validation of
augmentation devices. FTDs for highly augmented airplanes will be
validated both in the unaugmented configuration (or failure state
with the maximum permitted degradation in handling qualities) and
the augmented configuration. Where various levels of handling
qualities result from failure states, validation of the effect of
the failure is necessary. Requirements for testing will be mutually
agreed to between the sponsor and the NSPM on a case-by-case basis.
l. Some tests will not be required for airplanes using airplane
hardware in the FTD flight deck (e.g., ``side stick controller'').
These exceptions are noted in Section 2 ``Handling Qualities'' in
Table B2A of this attachment. However, in these cases, the sponsor
must provide a statement that the airplane hardware meets the
appropriate manufacturer's specifications and the sponsor must have
supporting information to that fact available for NSPM review.
m. For objective test purposes, see Appendix F of this part for
the definitions of ``Near maximum,'' ``Light,'' and ``Medium'' gross
weight.

End QPS Requirements

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin Information

n. In those cases where the objective test results authorize a
``snapshot test'' or a ``series of snapshot test 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 snap shot.
o. Refer to AC 120-27, ``Aircraft Weight and Balance;'' and FAA-
H-8083-1, ``Aircraft Weight and Balance Handbook'' for more
information.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

End Information

[[Page 39669]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.157

[[Page 39670]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.158

[[Page 39671]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.159

[[Page 39672]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.160

[[Page 39673]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.161

[[Page 39674]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.162

[[Page 39675]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.163

[[Page 39676]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.164

[[Page 39677]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.165

[[Page 39678]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.166

[[Page 39679]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.167

[[Page 39680]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.168

[[Page 39681]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.169

[[Page 39682]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.170

[[Page 39683]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.171

[[Page 39684]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.172

[[Page 39685]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.173

[[Page 39686]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.174

[[Page 39687]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.175

[[Page 39688]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.176

[[Page 39689]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.177

[[Page 39690]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.178

[[Page 39691]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.179

[[Page 39692]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.180

[[Page 39693]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.181

[[Page 39694]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.182

[[Page 39695]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.183

[[Page 39696]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.184

[[Page 39697]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.185

[[Page 39698]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.186

[[Page 39699]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.187

[[Page 39700]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.188

[[Page 39701]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.189

[[Page 39702]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.190

[[Page 39703]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.191

[[Page 39704]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.192

[[Page 39705]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.193

[[Page 39706]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.194

[[Page 39707]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.195

[[Page 39708]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin Information

3. For Additional Information on the Following Topics, Please Refer to
Appendix A, Attachment 2, and the Indicated Paragraph Within That
Attachment

Control Dynamics, paragraph 4.
Motion System, paragraph 6.
Sound System, paragraph 7.
Engineering Simulator Validation Data, paragraph 9.
Validation Test Tolerances, paragraph 11.
Validation Data Road Map, paragraph 12.
Acceptance Guidelines for Alternative Engines Data,
paragraph 13.
Acceptance Guidelines for Alternative Avionics,
paragraph 14.
Transport Delay Testing, paragraph 15.
Continuing Qualification Evaluation Validation Data
Presentation, paragraph 16.

End Information

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Alternative Objective Data for FTD Level 5

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin QPS Requirements

a. This paragraph (including the following tables) is relevant
only to FTD Level 5. It is provided because this level is required
to simulate the performance and handling characteristics of a set of
airplanes with similar characteristics, such as normal airspeed/
altitude operating envelope and the same number and type of
propulsion systems (engines).
b. Tables B2B through B2E reflect FTD performance standards that
are acceptable to the FAA. A sponsor must demonstrate that a device
performs within these parameters, as applicable. If a device does
not meet the established performance parameters for some or for all
of the applicable tests listed in Tables B2B through B2E, the
sponsor may use NSP accepted flight test data for comparison
purposes for those tests.
c. Sponsors using the data from Tables B2B through B2E must
comply with the following:
(1) Submit a complete QTG, including results from all of the
objective tests appropriate for the level of qualification sought as
set out in Table B2A. The QTG must highlight those results that
demonstrate the performance of the FTD is within the allowable
performance ranges indicated in Tables B2B through B2E, as
appropriate.
(2) The QTG test results must include all relevant information
concerning the conditions under which the test was conducted; e.g.,
gross weight, center of gravity, airspeed, power setting, altitude
(climbing, descending, or level), temperature, configuration, and
any other parameter that impacts the conduct of the test.
(3) The test results become the validation data against which
the initial and all subsequent continuing qualification evaluations
are compared. These subsequent evaluations will use the tolerances
listed in Table B2A.
(4) Subjective testing of the device must be performed to
determine that the device performs and handles like an airplane
within the appropriate set of airplanes.

End QPS Requirements

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin Information

d. The reader is encouraged to consult the Airplane Flight
Simulator Evaluation Handbook, Volumes I and II, published by the
Royal Aeronautical Society, London, UK, and AC 25-7, Flight Test
Guide for Certification of Transport Category Airplanes, and AC 23-
8A, Flight Test Guide for Certification of Part 23 Airplanes, as
amended, for references and examples regarding flight testing
requirements and techniques.

End Information

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 39709]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.196

[[Page 39710]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.197

[[Page 39711]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.198

[[Page 39712]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.199

[[Page 39713]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.200

[[Page 39714]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.201

[[Page 39715]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.202

[[Page 39716]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.203

[[Page 39717]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.204

[[Page 39718]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.205

[[Page 39719]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.206

[[Page 39720]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.207

[[Page 39721]]

End QPS Requirements

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin QPS Requirements

5. Alternative Data Sources, Procedures, and Instrumentation: Level 6
FTD Only

End QPS Requirements

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin Information

b. It has become standard practice for experienced FTD
manufacturers to use such techniques as a means of establishing data
bases for new FTD configurations while awaiting the availability of
actual flight test data; and then comparing this new data with the
newly available flight test data. The results of such comparisons
have, as reported by some recognized and experienced simulation
experts, become increasingly consistent and indicate that these
techniques, applied with appropriate experience, are becoming
dependably accurate for the development of aerodynamic models for
use in Level 6 FTDs.
c. In reviewing this history, the NSPM has concluded that, with
proper care, those who are experienced in the development of
aerodynamic models for FTD application can successfully use these
modeling techniques to acceptably alter the method by which flight
test data may be acquired and, when applied to Level 6 FTDs, does
not compromise the quality of that simulation.
d. The information in the table that follows (Table of
Alternative Data Sources, Procedures, and Information: Level 6 FTD
Only) is presented to describe an acceptable alternative to data
sources for Level 6 FTD modeling and validation, and an acceptable
alternative to the procedures and instrumentation found in the
flight test methods traditionally accepted for gathering modeling
and validation data.
(1) Alternative data sources that may be used for part or all of
a data requirement are the Airplane Maintenance Manual, the Airplane
Flight Manual (AFM), Airplane Design Data, the Type Inspection
Report (TIR), Certification Data or acceptable supplemental flight
test data.
(2) The NSPM recommends that use of the alternative
instrumentation noted in Table B2F be coordinated with the NSPM
prior to employment in a flight test or data gathering effort.
e. The NSPM position regarding the use of these alternative data
sources, procedures, and instrumentation is based on three primary
preconditions and presumptions regarding the objective data and FTD
aerodynamic program modeling.
(1) Data gathered through the alternative means does not require
angle of attack (AOA) measurements or control surface position
measurements for any flight test. AOA can be sufficiently derived if
the flight test program insures the collection of acceptable level,
unaccelerated, trimmed flight data. Angle of attack may be validated
by conducting the three basic ``fly-by'' trim tests. The FTD time
history tests should begin in level, unaccelerated, and trimmed
flight, and the results should be compared with the flight test
pitch angle.
(2) A simulation controls system model should be rigorously
defined and fully mature. It should also include accurate gearing
and cable stretch characteristics (where applicable) that are
determined from actual aircraft measurements. Such a model does not
require control surface position measurements in the flight test
objective data for Level 6 FTD applications.
f. Table B2F is not applicable to Computer Controlled Aircraft
FTDs.
g. Utilization of these alternate data sources, procedures, and
instrumentation does not relieve the sponsor from compliance with
the balance of the information contained in this document relative
to Level 6 FTDs.
h. The term ``inertial measurement system'' allows the use of a
functional global positioning system (GPS).

End Information

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Table B2F
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternative Data Sources, Procedures, and Intrumentation Level 6 FTD
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
QPS Requirements The standards in this table are Information
required if the data gathering methods described ---------------------
in paragraph 9 of Appendix B are not used.
---------------------------------------------------
Alternative data Notes
Objective test reference No. sources, procedures,
and title and instrumentation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.b.1. Performance. Takeoff. Data may be acquired This test is
Ground acceleration time. through a required only if
synchronized video RTO is sought.
recording of a stop
watch and the
calibrated airplane
airspeed indicator.
Hand-record the
flight conditions
and airplane
configuration.
1.b.7. Performance. Takeoff. Data may be acquired This test is
Rejected takeoff. through a required only if
synchronized video RTO is sought.
recording of a stop
watch and the
calibrated airplane
airspeed indicator.
Hand-record the
flight conditions
and airplane
configuration.
1.c.1. Performance. Climb. Data may be acquired
Normal climb all engines with a synchronized
operating. video of calibrated
airplane
instruments and
engine power
throughout the
climb range.
1.f.1. Performance. Engines. Data may be acquired
Acceleration. with a synchronized
video recording of
engine instruments
and throttle
position.
1.f.2. Performance. Engines. Data may be acquired
Deceleration. with a synchronized
video recording of
engine instruments
and throttle
position.
2.a.1.a. Handling qualities. Surface position For airplanes with
Static control tests. Pitch data may be reversible control
controller position vs. acquired from systems, surface
force and surface position flight data position data
calibration. recorder (FDR) acquisition should
sensor or, if no be accomplished
FDR sensor, at with winds less
selected, than 5 kts.
significant column
positions
(encompassing
significant column
position data
points), acceptable
to the NSPM, using
a control surface
protractor on the
ground. Force data
may be acquired by
using a hand held
force gauge at the
same column
position data
points.

[[Page 39722]]

2.a.2.a. Handling qualities. Surface position For airplanes with
Static control tests. Wheel data may be reversible control
position vs. force and acquired from systems, surface
surface position flight data position data
calibration. recorder (FDR) acquisition should
sensor or, if no be accomplished
FDR sensor, at with winds less
selected, than 5 kts.
significant wheel
positions
(encompassing
significant wheel
position data
points), acceptable
to the NSPM, using
a control surface
protractor on the
ground. Force data
may be acquired by
using a hand held
force gauge at the
same wheel position
data points.
2.a.3.a. Handling qualities. Surface position For airplanes with
Static control tests. data may be reversible control
Rudder pedal position vs. acquired from systems, surface
force and surface position flight data position data
calibration. recorder (FDR) acquisition should
sensor or, if no be accomplished
FDR sensor, at with winds less
selected, than 5 kts.
significant rudder
pedal positions
(encompassing
significant rudder
pedal position data
points), acceptable
to the NSPM, using
a control surface
protractor on the
ground. Force data
may be acquired by
using a hand held
force gauge at the
same rudder pedal
position data
points.
2.a.4. Handling qualities. Breakout data may be
Static control tests. acquired with a
Nosewheel steering force. hand held force
gauge. The
remainder of the
force to the stops
may be calculated
if the force gauge
and a protractor
are used to measure
force after
breakout for at
least 25% of the
total displacement
capability.
2.a.5. Handling qualities. Data may be acquired
Static control tests. through the use of
Rudder pedal steering force pads on the
calibration. rudder pedals and a
pedal position
measurement device,
together with
design data for
nosewheel position.
2.a.6. Handling qualities. Data may be acquired
Static control tests. Pitch through
trim indicator vs. surface calculations.
position calibration.
2.a.8. Handling qualities. Data may be acquired
Static control tests. through the use of
Alignment of power lever a temporary
angle vs. selected engine throttle quadrant
parameter (e.g., EPR, N1, scale to document
Torque, Manifold pressure). throttle position.
Use a synchronized
video to record
steady state
instrument readings
or hand-record
steady state engine
performance
readings.
2.a.9. Handling qualities. Use of design or
Static control tests. Brake predicted data is
pedal position vs. force. acceptable. Data
may be acquired by
measuring
deflection at
``zero'' and at
``maximum''.
2.c.1. Handling qualities. Data may be acquired Power change
Longitudinal control tests. by using an dynamics test is
Power change force. inertial acceptable using
measurement system the same data
and a synchronized acquisition
video of the methodology.
calibrated airplane
instruments,
throttle position,
and the force/
position
measurements of
flight deck
controls.
2.c.2. Handling qualities. Data may be acquired Flap/slat change
Longitudinal control tests. by using an dynamics test is
Flap/slat change force. inertial acceptable using
measurement system the same data
and a synchronized acquisition
video of calibrated methodology.
airplane
instruments, flap/
slat position, and
the force/position
measurements of
flight deck
controls.
2.c.4. Handling qualities. Data may be acquired Gear change dynamics
Longitudinal control tests. by using an test is acceptable
Gear change force. inertial using the same data
measurement system acquisition
and a synchronized methodology.
video of the
calibrated airplane
instruments, gear
position, and the
force/position
measurements of
flight deck
controls.
2.c.5. Handling qualities. Data may be acquired
Longitudinal control tests. through use of an
Longitudinal trim. inertial
measurement system
and a synchronized
video of flight
deck controls
position
(previously
calibrated to show
related surface
position) and
engine instrument
readings.

[[Page 39723]]

2.c.6. Handling qualities. Data may be acquired
Longitudinal control tests. through the use of
Longitudinal maneuvering an inertial
stability (stick force/g). measurement system
and a synchronized
video of the
calibrated airplane
instruments; a
temporary, high
resolution bank
angle scale affixed
to the attitude
indicator; and a
wheel and column
force measurement
indication.
2.c.7. Handling qualities. Data may be acquired
Longitudinal control tests. through the use of
Longitudinal static a synchronized
stability. video of the
airplane flight
instruments and a
hand held force
gauge.
2.c.8. Handling qualities. Data may be acquired Airspeeds may be
Longitudinal control tests. through a cross checked with
Stall Warning (activation synchronized video those in the TIR
of stall warning device). recording of a stop and AFM.
watch and the
calibrated airplane
airspeed indicator.
Hand-record the
flight conditions
and airplane
configuration.
2.c.9.a. Handling qualities. Data may be acquired
Longitudinal control tests. by using an
Phugoid dynamics. inertial
measurement system
and a synchronized
video of the
calibrated airplane
instruments and the
force/position
measurements of
flight deck
controls.
2.c.10. Handling qualities. Data may be acquired
Longitudinal control tests. by using an
Short period dynamics. inertial
measurement system
and a synchronized
video of the
calibrated airplane
instruments and the
force/position
measurements of
flight deck
controls.
2.c.11. Handling qualities. May use design data,
Longitudinal control tests. production flight
Gear and flap/slat test schedule, or
operating times. maintenance
specification,
together with an
SOC.
2.d.2. Handling qualities. Data may be acquired
Lateral directional tests. by using an
Roll response (rate). inertial
measurement system
and a synchronized
video of the
calibrated airplane
instruments and the
force/position
measurements of
flight deck lateral
controls.
2.d.3. Handling qualities. Data may be acquired
Lateral directional tests. by using an
(a) Roll overshoot. OR (b) inertial
Roll response to flight measurement system
deck roll controller step and a synchronized
input. video of the
calibrated airplane
instruments and the
force/position
measurements of
flight deck lateral
controls.
2.d.4. Handling qualities. Data may be acquired
Lateral directional tests. by using an
Spiral stability. inertial
measurement system
and a synchronized
video of the
calibrated airplane
instruments; the
force/position
measurements of
flight deck
controls; and a
stop watch.
2.d.6.a. Handling qualities. Data may be acquired
Lateral directional tests. by using an
Rudder response. inertial
measurement system
and a synchronized
video of the
calibrated airplane
instruments; the
force/position
measurements of
rudder pedals.
2.d.7. Handling qualities. Data may be acquired
Lateral directional tests. by using an
Dutch roll, (yaw damper inertial
OFF). measurement system
and a synchronized
video of the
calibrated airplane
instruments and the
force/position
measurements of
flight deck
controls.
2.d.8. Handling qualities. Data may be acquired
Lateral directional tests. by using an
Steady state sideslip. inertial
measurement system
and a synchronized
video of the
calibrated airplane
instruments and the
force/position
measurements of
flight deck
controls.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 39724]]

Attachment 3 to Appendix B to Part 60--Flight Training Device (FTD)
Subjective Evaluation

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin Information

1. Discussion

a. The subjective tests provide a basis for evaluating the
capability of the FTD to perform over a typical utilization period.
The items listed in the Table of Functions and Subjective Tests are
used to determine whether the FTD competently simulates each
required maneuver, procedure, or task; and verifying correct
operation of the FTD controls, instruments, and systems. The tasks
do not limit or exceed the authorizations for use of a given level
of FTD as described on the SOQ or as approved by the TPAA. All items
in the following paragraphs are subject to examination.
b. All simulated airplane systems functions will be assessed for
normal and, where appropriate, alternate operations. Simulated
airplane systems are listed separately under ``Any Flight Phase'' to
ensure appropriate attention to systems checks. Operational
navigation systems (including inertial navigation systems, global
positioning systems, or other long-range systems) and the associated
electronic display systems will be evaluated if installed. The NSP
pilot will include in his report to the TPAA, the effect of the
system operation and any system limitation.
c. At the request of the TPAA, the NSP Pilot may assess the FTD
for a special aspect of a sponsor's training program during the
functions and subjective portion of an evaluation. Such an
assessment may include a portion of a specific operation (e.g., a
Line Oriented Flight Training (LOFT) scenario) or special emphasis
items in the sponsor's training program. Unless directly related to
a requirement for the qualification level, the results of such an
evaluation would not affect the qualification of the FTD.

End Information

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 39725]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.208

[[Page 39726]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.209

[[Page 39727]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.210

[[Page 39728]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.211

[[Page 39729]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.212

[[Page 39730]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.213

[[Page 39731]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.214

[[Page 39732]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.215

[[Page 39733]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.216

[[Page 39734]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.217

[[Page 39735]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.218

[[Page 39736]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.219

[[Page 39737]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.220

[[Page 39738]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.221

[[Page 39739]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.222

[[Page 39740]]

Attachment 4 to Appendix B to Part 60--Sample Documents

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin Information

Table of Contents

Title of Sample
Figure B4A--Sample Letter, Request for Initial, Upgrade, or
Reinstatement Evaluation.
Figure B4B--Attachment: FTD Information Form
Figure B4C--Sample Letter of Compliance
Figure B4D--Sample Qualification Test Guide Cover Page
Figure B4E--Sample Statement of Qualification--Certificate
Figure B4F--Sample Statement of Qualification--Configuration
List
Figure B4G--Sample Statement of Qualification--List of Qualified
Tasks
Figure B4H--Sample Continuing Qualification Evaluation
Requirements Page
Figure B4I--Sample MQTG Index of Effective FTD Directives

[[Page 39741]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.223

[[Page 39742]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.225

[[Page 39743]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.226

[[Page 39744]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.227

[[Page 39745]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.228

[[Page 39746]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.229

[[Page 39747]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.230

[[Page 39748]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.231

[[Page 39749]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.232

[[Page 39750]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.233

[[Page 39751]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.234

[[Page 39752]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.235

[[Page 39753]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY14.237

Issued under authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 44701(a),
44703, and Pub. L. 111-216, 124 Stat. 2348 (49 U.S.C. 44701 note) in
Washington, DC, on June 24, 2014.
John Barbagallo,
Acting Deputy Director, Flight Standards Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-15432 Filed 7-9-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.