Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
This action amends the Qualification Performance Standards (QPS) for flight simulation training devices (FSTD) to provide greater harmonization with international standards for simulation. In addition, the rule adds a new level of simulation for helicopter flight training devices (FTD) and establishes FSTD Directive 1, which requires all existing FSTD airport models that are beyond the number of airport models required for qualification to meet specified requirements. The intended effect of this rule is to ensure that the flight training and testing environment is accurate and realistic. Except for the requirements of FSTD Directive 1, these technical requirements do not apply to simulators qualified before May 30, 2008. This rule results in minimal to no cost increases for manufacturers and sponsors.
These amendments become effective May 30, 2008.Start Further Info
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For technical questions concerning this final rule, contact Edward Cook, Air Transportation Division (AFS-200), Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 100 Hartsfield Centre Parkway, Suite 400, Atlanta, GA 30354; telephone: 404-832-4700; e-mail: Edward.D.Cook@faa.gov. For legal questions concerning this final rule, contact Anne Bechdolt, Office of Chief Counsel (AGC-200), Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone 202-267-7230; e-mail: Anne.Bechdolt@faa.gov.End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental Information
Authority for This Rulemaking
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in 49 U.S.C. 44701. Under that section, the FAA is charged with regulating air commerce in a way that best promotes safety of civil aircraft.
Table of Contents
A. Summary of the NPRM
B. Summary of the Final Rule
C. Summary of Comments
II. Discussion of the Final Rule and Comments
B. Simulator Qualification and Evaluation
C. FSTD Testing: Objective and Subjective
2. Visual Systems
3. Motion or Vibration Requirements
4. Sound Requirements
E. Quality Management System (QMS)
III. Regulatory Evaluation, Regulatory Flexibility Determination, International Trade Impact Assessment, and Unfunded Mandates Assessment
IV. The Amendment
On October 30, 2006, the FAA published Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 60, with an effective date of October 30, 2007 (71 FR 63392). The intent of the rule was to promote standardization and accountability for FSTD maintenance, qualification, and evaluation. The regulation codified the standards contained in advisory circulars (ACs) and implemented the Qualification Performance Standards (QPS) appendices format. The QPS appendices allow regulatory requirements and corresponding information to be presented in one location. The QPS appendices format promotes ease of use and greater insight about the FAA's intent behind the regulation and the required and approved methods of compliance. On October 22, 2007 (72 FR 59598), the FAA delayed the effective date of part 60 to coincide with the effective date of this final rule, which revises the appendices of part 60 that were originally published on October 30, 2006.
A. Summary of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)
On October 22, 2007, the FAA published an NPRM (72 FR 59600) to revise the QPS appendices. The primary purpose of the NPRM was to ensure that the flight training and testing environment is accurate and realistic and to provide greater harmonization with the international standards documents for simulation issued by the Joint Aviation Authority (JAA) (JAR-STD 1A, Aeroplanes, and JAR-STD 1H, Helicopters), and the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) (Doc 9625-AN/938, as amended, Manual of Criteria for the Qualification of Flight Simulators). The proposed requirements were expected to reduce expenses and workload for simulator sponsors by eliminating conflicts between the U.S. standards and the standards of other civil aviation authorities. The proposed amendments incorporated technological advances in simulation and standardized the initial and continuing qualification requirements for FSTDs to harmonize with the international standards documents. The comment period for the NPRM closed December 21, 2007.
B. Summary of the Final Rule
This final rule:
- Provides a listing of the tasks for which a simulator may be qualified.
- Requires, during aircraft certification testing, the collection of objective test data for specific FSTD functions, including: Idle and emergency descents and pitch trim rates for use in airplane simulators; engine inoperative rejected takeoffs for use in helicopter simulators; and takeoffs, hover, vertical climbs, and normal landings for use in helicopter FTDs.
- Provides in the QPS appendices additional information for sponsors on the testing requirements for FSTDs, including the use of alternative data sources when complete flight test data are not available or less technically complex levels of simulation are being developed.
- Clarifies and standardizes existing requirements for motion, visual, and sound systems, including subjective buffeting motions, visual scene content, and sound replication.
- Requires, by FSTD Directive 1, all existing FSTD airport models used for training, testing, or checking under this chapter that are beyond the number of airport models required for qualification to meet the requirements described in Table A3C (Appendix A, Attachment 3) or Table C3C (Appendix C, Attachment 3), as appropriate.
Except for FSTD Directive 1, manufacturers and sponsors are not required to incorporate any of the changes listed above for existing FSTDs. The appendices and attachments to part 60 affected by this final rule only apply to FSTDs that come into service after part 60 is effective (May 30, 2008). This final rule results in minimal to no cost increases for manufacturers and sponsors.
C. Summary of Comments
The FAA received 18 comments on the proposed rule. Commenters include airlines (Northwest, American, United, and FedEx), industry organizations (Air Transport Association (ATA) and Helicopter Association International (HAI)), training organizations (Alteon), manufacturers (Boeing, Thales, CAE, and Rockwell Collins), and individuals. Start Printed Page 26479
All of the commenters generally supported the proposal, but the majority of commenters had specific suggestions to revise the proposed rule. Most of these suggested revisions were technical edits. None of the comments resulted in any substantive changes to the proposed requirements, and we have incorporated the suggestions where appropriate. We have also made minor editorial revisions where appropriate.
The FAA received comments on the following general topics:
- Simulator Qualification and Evaluation.
- FSTD Testing: Objective and Subjective.
- Visual Systems.
- Motion or Vibration Requirements.
- Sound Requirements.
- Quality Management System (QMS).
II. Discussion of the Final Rule and Comments
The ATA recommended that the FAA make the effective date of the final rule at least 90 days following the publication date.
Part 60 has been available to the public for review for over 1 year. The revisions to the appendices of Part 60 reflect international standards that have been in existence for more than 4 years. Further, when the FAA delayed the effective date to Part 60, we also delayed the compliance dates of certain sections of the rule to provide adequate time for transition. Because of the notice provided and delayed compliance dates of certain sections, the FAA has determined that delaying the effective date by 90 days is not necessary.
Several of the comments were beyond the scope of the proposal. For example, CAE and others suggested including objective tests for Heads-Up Displays (HUD) and Enhanced Visual Systems (EVS). Further, several commenters suggested adopting standards currently being developed by the International Working Group (IWG) of the Royal Aeronautical Society (RAeS).
The FAA has not addressed in detail the comments that are beyond the scope of the NPRM. In addition, the FAA has determined it would be premature for the FAA to incorporate into this final rule the standards currently under review by the IWG. Once the RAeS has adopted the IWG's recommendations, the FAA will review them for incorporation in the QPS appendices.
Several commenters noted differences between the proposed standards and the current international standards and suggested adopting the international standards. As stated, one of the purposes of this rule is to harmonize with the current international standards documents for simulation issued by the JAA and ICAO. These recommendations are within the scope of the proposal and have been incorporated into this final rule as appropriate.
Some commenters to the proposed rule noted typographical and formatting errors in the proposal. The Office of the Federal Register issued a correction document addressing some of the these errors on March 5, 2008 (73 FR 11995). The FAA has addressed the remaining errors in this document.
B. Simulator Qualification and Evaluation
CAE and others noted that the listing of tasks for which an FSTD may be qualified do not correspond to the tasks set forth in the FAA Air Carrier Operations Inspector's Handbook and are not the same as those tasks in the tables that outline the Functions and Subjective tests for which each FSTD may be evaluated. Commenters also suggested that the objective and subjective tests used to evaluate the FSTD be aligned with the tasks for which the FSTD may be qualified.
The FAA recognizes that the FSTD qualification tasks do not mirror the tasks set forth in the FAA Air Carrier Operations Inspector's Handbook, the “Functions and Subjective tests” tables in Attachment 3 of Appendices A-D, and the “Tasks vs. Simulator Level” tables in Attachment 1 of Appendices A-D. However, there are differences between the tasks used to evaluate the handling, performance, and other characteristics of the FSTD and those tasks for which an FSTD may be qualified for pilot training, testing, or checking activities. Thus, the list of tasks set forth in the “Functions and Subjective tests” tables and “Tasks vs. Simulator Level” tables are not necessarily the same, nor should they be the same.
CAE, ATA, Rockwell Collins, and others asked whether the Level B simulator authorizations in Table A1B should be listed as an “X” instead of an “R” for most of the landing tasks.
As the legend in Table A1B indicates, the “R” denotes authorization for Recurrent activities while the “X” denotes authorization for Initial, Transition, Upgrade, and Recurrent activities. The landing tasks for Level B simulators are restricted to Recurrent activities and the “R” in the table at those points is the correct reference. However, the FAA acknowledges that the authorizations for Taxiing and for Normal and Crosswind Takeoffs for the Level B simulator were inadvertently left blank, and the FAA has placed an “R” in those positions in this table, indicating an authorization for Recurrent activities in this level of simulation.
American, the ATA, and others stated that the differences between “update” and “upgrade,” as used in Appendix A, Paragraph 13, Previously Qualified FFS, subparagraph “h,” were not clear. They recommended clarifying the differences and moving the subparagraph from the information section to the QPS Requirements section.
The information in subparagraph “h” allows for Full Flight Simulators (FFS) to be updated without requiring an evaluation under the new standards. Because this language is permissive in nature, we have moved it to the QPS Requirements section as requested. To clarify the meaning of these terms, we have added a definition of “update” that reflects current practice to Appendix F.
CAE and others suggested revising the note in Table A1B, entry 3.f, Recovery from Unusual Attitudes, by replacing the statement “supported by applicable simulation validation data” with “supported by the simulation models.”
The suggested revised language would allow an individual to go beyond the flight-test-validated flight-envelope in a flight simulator. This is not an acceptable practice because of the lack of information about aircraft performance and handling beyond those limits. Therefore, the FAA has not adopted the recommendation.
The ATA, Northwest, and others suggested clarifying that the 24-hour “look back” period for the functional preflight check (Table E1, entry E1.20) is from the beginning of the scheduled training period. Additionally, commenters questioned whether the FSTD use-period, if started within 24 hours of a functional preflight check, could continue beyond that 24-hour “look-back” period and whether the functional preflight check is required for Level 4 “touch screen” FTDs. Further, commenters questioned whether Level 4 FTDs remain under the responsibility of the Training Program Approval Authority (TPAA).
The proposed requirement for conducting a functional preflight check within 24 hours prior to using the FSTD is to ensure that technical personnel with the requisite preflight training have determined the readiness level of the FSTD. An FSTD use-period does not begin unless a functional preflight check Start Printed Page 26480has been completed in the previous 24 hours. If a training session begins near the end of the 24 hours after the functional preflight check was completed, the training session may continue beyond that 24 hours. However, any subsequent training session may not begin until another functional preflight check is conducted.
The National Simulator Program Manager (NSPM) is the FAA manager responsible for the evaluation and qualification of all FSTDs qualified under part 60, including Level 4 FTDs. The NSPM will continue to exercise this responsibility through inspectors and engineers assigned to the National Simulator Program (NSP) staff and others to whom the NSPM may delegate that responsibility and authority. This responsibility and authority is not intended to undermine or compromise the duties and responsibilities of the assigned TPAA with regard to the approved use of the FSTD.
CAE and others questioned when it would be necessary to complete an additional initial qualification evaluation after a modification to the FSTD. They also asked what principles would be used in determining whether an evaluation for additional authorization(s) is necessary and if an evaluation is necessary, when it must take place.
Whether a modification necessitates an additional initial qualification evaluation, necessitates part of an initial qualification evaluation, or does not necessitate an additional evaluation, depends on (1) the extent of the modification; (2) whether the modification impacts, or is impacted by, other systems or equipment in the FSTD; and (3) whether, as a result of the modification, the FSTD operation is consistent with the airplane system it is simulating. After review of these factors, the FAA will determine on a case-by-case basis whether an evaluation for additional authorizations is required and when it will take place.
The ATA, Northwest, and others suggested that the windshear provisions in Table A1A for each Level C and Level D FFS not be required for evaluation and qualification purposes because not all aircraft are required to have windshear equipment and not all pilots are required to train on recovery from inadvertent windshear encounters. Further, the commenters also suggested clarifying the aircraft conditions under which the windshear demonstrations must be conducted.
Only operations conducted in accordance with 14 CFR part 121 that use aircraft listed in § 121.358 require windshear training for crewmembers. Accordingly, the FAA has modified Table A1A to address only these operations. We have also clarified the aircraft conditions under which the windshear demonstrations must be conducted.
C. FSTD Testing: Objective and Subjective
The ATA, Rockwell Collins, and others recommended requiring Level A and Level B simulators to meet the standards in Table A2A, entry 1.b.7, Dynamic Engine Failure After Takeoff.
The standards for testing of dynamic engine failures after takeoff were first established by ICAO and were limited to advanced simulators, now referred to as Level C and Level D. One purpose of this final rule is to harmonize FAA standards with current international standards. Because current international standards do not set forth standards for testing dynamic engine failure after takeoff for level A and B simulators, the FAA has not adopted the recommendation.
The ATA, Northwest, Boeing, CAE, and others suggested the FAA review all the references in Appendix A, Attachment 2, Table A2A, Table of Objective Tests, that include references to Computer Controlled Aircraft (CCA) to ensure that the control state testing requirements (i.e., normal control state or non-normal control state) are correctly addressed.
The FAA recognizes that there were errors made in the proposal regarding CCA testing requirements. The FAA has reviewed the CCA testing requirements to address the correct control state and made appropriate revisions.
CAE, Rockwell Collins, ATA, and others submitted several comments on Appendix A, Attachment 1, Table A1A, General Simulator Requirements. CAE suggested that (1) the manual and automatic testing, described in entry 2.f, and simulator control feel dynamics, as described in entry 3.e, apply to Level A and Level B simulators in addition to Level C and Level D simulators; (2) the NSPM should further clarify the number of malfunctions that are required or provide a list of the necessary malfunctions that should be present; and (3) the instructor controls, as described in entry 4.c, either list all the expected environmental conditions over which the instructor should have control or remove the reference to “wind speed and direction.” The ATA and others requested that the statements about additional field-of-view capability for Level A and Level B simulators in entry 6.b of Table A1A be moved to the Information/Notes column.
Automatic testing and control feel dynamics was first required in 1980 with the publication of the FAA's Advanced Simulation Plan and was limited to advanced simulators, now referred to as Level C and Level D. The FAA is not expanding the requirements for automatic testing and control feel dynamics testing to Level A and Level B simulators because that would result in differing technical requirements for these simulator levels while authorizing the same training, testing, and checking tasks. The additional field-of-view reference in entry 6.b was designed to allow the option of including a larger field-of-view than the provision requires, with the understanding that the minimum fields of view would have to be retained. This reference is more informative than regulatory and the FAA has moved the statements to the Information/Notes column.
The ATA and others suggested defining the term “least augmented state” as used in Appendix A, Attachment 2, paragraph 2.j, and requested confirmation that the “least augmented state” is one that the pilot may select using normal switches found in the airplane flight deck.
The FAA has determined that a general definition of the term “least augmented state” is not appropriate because these states are dependent on the aircraft type involved. Additionally, the least augmented state is not necessarily achieved by the use of switches found in the flight deck. Therefore, the FAA will evaluate FSTDs in accordance with the least augmented state data supplied by the aircraft manufacturer or other data supplier.
The ATA, Rockwell Collins, and others suggested that the primary controls of the simulated aircraft should be tested objectively to verify correct forces and responses whether simulated aircraft parts or actual aircraft parts are used. Further, they recommended that the FAA require a Statement of Compliance and Capability (SOC) that describes how and where the control forces are generated in the aircraft, and lists all hardware required to generate these control forces.
The FAA does not require testing of flight controls in these circumstances because these aircraft controls must be maintained as if they were installed in an aircraft to provide crewmembers the same control feedback as felt in the actual aircraft. The sponsor is required to provide a statement that the aircraft hardware meets the appropriate manufacturer's specifications for the controls and the sponsor must have Start Printed Page 26481information supporting that statement available for NSPM review. Accordingly, the FAA has not adopted the recommendation.
Boeing suggested, with regard to Table A2A, entry 1.c.2, that the test for “One Engine Inoperative” should be named “One Engine Inoperative, Second Segment Climb.”
The test is required for airplanes certificated under both parts 23 and 25. The term “Second Segment Climb” applies only to airplanes certificated under part 25. Therefore, the FAA has not adopted the suggested change.
The ATA, Rockwell Collins, CAE, and others recommended that the tests in entries 1.e.1 and 1.e.2, Stopping Time and Distance, of Table A2A, not apply to Level A and Level B simulators because these simulator levels are not authorized to perform this landing task.
The FAA did not adopt this change because both Level A and Level B simulators are authorized to perform Rejected Takeoff Maneuvers. In addition, Level B simulators are authorized to perform landings in recurrent training and checking. Therefore, these tests are necessary to determine the stopping capabilities of the FSTD.
The ATA, Boeing, CAE, and others expressed concern over how to read the test requirements for Engine Acceleration and Engine Deceleration (Table A2A, entries 1.f.1 and 1.f.2). The commenters recommended various ways of publishing the established tolerances. CAE also recommended defining the terms “Ti” and “Tt.”
The published tolerances for these tests are consistent with international standards documents. As proposed, Ti and Tt were defined in the Tables as well as in the Abbreviations list in Appendix F. For clarification, we have moved these terms to the definitions section of Appendix F and added cross references in the tables to Appendix F.
The ATA, Northwest, and others noted that the Short Period Dynamics test in Table A2A, entry 2.c.10 erroneously did not to apply to Level A simulators. They also noted that entry 2.d.7, Dutch Roll (yaw damper off), erroneously applied to all levels of simulators when it should apply only to Levels B, C, and D.
The FAA acknowledges that applicability to Level A simulators for the Short Period test was inadvertently omitted and the Dutch Roll test was inadvertently included, although the correct standards appear in FAA standards documents and international standards documents. The FAA has corrected these errors in this final rule.
CAE suggested the FAA clarify Table A2A, entry 2.d.8, Steady State Sideslip, by stating that this test ``may be a series of snapshot test results using at least two rudder positions, one of which should be near maximum allowable rudder.''
The FAA agrees and has clarified the requirement where appropriate. CAE and others suggested that the definition of the term ``snapshot'' be modified from ``a presentation of one or more variables at a given instant of time'' to ``a presentation of one or more variables at a given instant of time or from a time-average of a steady flight condition.''
The FAA has determined that the suggested modification would create confusion because of the subjective nature of the phrase ``steady flight condition'' and has not adopted the suggestion.
The ATA and others suggested a change to Table A2A, entry 2.e.6, All Engines Operating, Autopilot, Go-Around, to require a manual test and, if applicable, an autopilot test.
The FAA currently requires a manual test when performing a one engine inoperative go-around. The all engines operating, autopilot, go-around test applies only when the airplane is authorized to use the autopilot function during a go-around. Because both tests are currently required, the FAA has not adopted the suggested changes.
The ATA, Rockwell Collins, and others suggested that the tests described in entries 2.e.8 and 2.e.9 of Table A2A, should be conducted differently (i.e., with the nosewheel steering disconnected or castering), unless the FAA's intent was to evaluate overall aircraft response, in which case no change is necessary.
The intent of these tests is to evaluate the aircraft response. Therefore, no change is necessary.
CAE and Boeing recommended substituting the term ``mass properties'' with the term ``fuel slosh'' in Appendices A and C, paragraph 8.h(2)(c) because mass properties are rarely, if ever, run in an integrated manner as described.
The FAA does not agree that mass properties are not run in an integrated manner. The FAA has chosen the term mass properties because it is consistent with international standards. Therefore, the FAA has not adopted the suggested change.
CAE and Boeing recommended deleting paragraph 9.b(3) in Appendices A and C because a data provider should not have to demonstrate that data gathered from an engineering simulation (in lieu of a flight test source) has necessary qualities to qualify an FSTD.
The FAA did not intend that an engineering simulation be qualified, or be capable of being qualified, as an FSTD. The data obtained from the engineering simulation would be appropriate as a replacement for flight test data when the data obtained from the engineering simulation is programmed into an FSTD. Therefore, we have clarified the information in paragraph 9.b(3) to state that in these cases, the data provider should submit validation data from an audited engineering simulator/simulation to supplement specific segments of the flight test data.
CAE and Boeing requested that paragraph 11.a(1) not apply to Table A2A, entries 1.f.1 and 1.f.2, objective tests for engine acceleration and deceleration. Rather, they suggested applying 100% of flight test tolerances to these objective tests. CAE also suggested when flight test data for an alternate engine fit is unavailable, the objective testing of engine acceleration and engine deceleration (Table A2A, tests 1.f.1 and 1.f.2) should be exempt from the 20% tolerance for the application of engineering simulator/simulation because the actual tolerance would be less than the simulation iteration rate.
Applying 100% of flight test tolerances to the objective tests results in these entries is not an acceptable routine procedure. Full flight test tolerances are appropriate when comparing FSTD results to airplane data, and 20% of those airplane tolerances are appropriate when comparing FSTD results to flight engineering simulation data because it is easier to match ``computer to computer'' data than to match ``computer to airplane'' data. Any circumstance that does not fit within these parameters would likely be acceptable under the ``best fit'' data selection set forth in Appendix A, Attachment 2, paragraph 2.d. Therefore, the FAA has not adopted these changes.
The ATA and others stated that the Rudder Response test in Table B2A, entry 2.b.6.b is confusing because it would not test the rudder power in the yaw axis. They suggested modifying the tolerance column to read ``± 2°/sec or ± 10% yaw rate, OR Roll rate ± 2°/sec, bank angle ± 3°.''
This test was originally required as a rudder test using roll rate and bank angle for the parameters. However, the FAA agrees that this test may be accomplished using either yaw rate or roll rate and bank angle. Therefore, the FAA has added a note in the Information/Notes column that this test Start Printed Page 26482may be accomplished as a yaw response test.
The ATA, Northwest, CAE, and others suggested eliminating the ±2 degree tolerance on bank angle above stick shaker or initial buffet speeds in Table A2A, entry 2.c.8, Stall Characteristics, to be consistent with international standards.
The FAA acknowledges that the ± 2 degree tolerance on bank angle above stick shaker or initial buffet speeds is not included in the international standards. However, requiring zero tolerance in these instances would be very stringent without appreciable difference in FSTD performance or handling characteristics. Accordingly, the FAA has not eliminated the tolerance.
Boeing, United, and others recommended clarifying paragraph 11.b(5) Validation Test Tolerances, and adding a new paragraph 11.b(6) allowing errors greater than 20% if the simulator sponsor provides an adequate explanation.
The FAA generally agrees with the suggestion and has modified paragraph 11.b(5) to reflect this information. The FAA has determined that adding a new paragraph 11.b(6) is not necessary.
One commenter, citing paragraph 17.a, ``Alternative Data Sources, Procedures, and Instrumentation: Level A and Level B Simulators Only,'' questioned whether the alternative data collection sources, procedures, and instrumentation listed in Table A2E were the only sources for data collection that the FAA would allow.
Appendix A, paragraph 11, Initial (and Upgrade) Qualification Requirements, requires objective data to be acquired through traditional aircraft flight testing. It also allows for the use of ``another approved'' source. The FAA has included Table A2E to provide alternative sources, procedures, or instrumentation acceptable to the FAA that may be used to acquire the necessary objective data for Level A or Level B simulators. At this time, the alternative data collection sources, procedures, and instrumentation listed in Table A2E are the only alternatives acceptable without prior approval by the NSPM.
The ATA, Rockwell Collins, and others questioned the necessity of having sounds of precipitation and rain removal devices for Level C simulators but not requiring the corresponding visual effect.
The FAA recognizes the error in the proposed language and has made the necessary changes. Level C simulators are required to be subjectively tested for the sound, motion and visual effects of light, medium and heavy precipitation near a thunderstorm and the effect of rain removal devices.
The ATA and others requested that aircraft certified with auto-ice detection coupled with auto-anti-ice or auto-de-ice capabilities be exempt from the effects of airframe and engine icing tests listed in Table A3F, Special Effects.
Because it is possible for flight crews to experience the effects of airframe or engine icing if the auto-ice detection systems are inoperative, the flight crews must be trained to recognize and respond to icing situations. Therefore, the FAA has not adopted the recommendation.
2. Visual Systems
The ATA, Northwest, Rockwell Collins, United, and several others recognized that the definition of an FSTD Directive is ``a document issued by the FAA to an FSTD sponsor requiring a modification to the FSTD due to a safety-of-flight issue and amending the qualification basis for the FSTD.'' These commenters asserted that the FAA has not provided any safety analysis to support the issuance of FSTD Directive 1. Further, these commenters asked how the FAA determines what constitutes a safety issue that would warrant the issuance of an FSTD Directive. Some commenters asserted that updating airport modeling is a complicated problem because of the difficulty in removing airport models from the instructor operating station (IOS) in some FSTDs, particularly in those FSTDs not owned or controlled by the sponsor. In addition, some commenters noted the cost of updating an existing airport model and suggested that the FAA continue to allow custom airport models meeting individual training requirements to be used without modification. Further, the commenters requested the FAA extend the timeframe for updating airport models to match any modification to the actual airport.
As proposed, FSTD Directive 1 requires each certificate holder to ensure that each airport model used for training, testing or checking, except those airport models used to qualify the simulator at the designated level, meets the requirements of a Class II or Class III airport model. The FAA acknowledges that FSTD Directives may be issued only for safety-of-flight purposes. These determinations will be made on a case-by-case basis. The FAA has determined that updating airport modeling is a safety-of-flight concern because pilots have landed airplanes on wrong runways, landed on taxiways, landed at the wrong airport, unknowingly taxied across active runways, and taken off from the wrong runway. Many FSTD users have expressed concern regarding the accuracy of these models with respect to real world airports. Training, testing, or checking in an FSTD with incomplete or inaccurate airport models representing real world airports can contribute to incomplete planning or poor decision making by pilots if they subsequently operate into or out of that real world airport. While these potentially disastrous occurrences happen infrequently, inaccurate airport modeling is a safety-of-flight issue that warrants the issuance of this FSTD Directive.
The proposed FSTD Directive is designed to address qualified FSTDs that contain airport models that were not evaluated. The FSTD Directive ensures that each model used in an FSTD for training, testing, or checking activities meets the acceptable minimum standards. Although the FAA is responsible for ensuring that these standards are met, the FSTD sponsor is responsible for maintaining the FSTD, and each certificate holder using the FSTD is responsible for ensuring that all of the FSTD components are in compliance with these standards and report any deficiencies.
Upon review of the comments, however, we have clarified the language of the FSTD Directive. The FSTD Directive still requires each certificate holder to ensure that, by May 30, 2009, except for the airport model(s) used to qualify the FSTD at the designated level, each airport model used by the certificate holder's instructors or evaluators for training, testing, or checking under 14 CFR chapter I in an FFS, meets the definition of a Class II, or Class III airport model as defined in part 60, Appendix F. We originally proposed to require removal of all airport models that did not meet the standards of a Class II or Class III model. In light of comments regarding the expense of such removal and issues regarding the sponsorship and leasing of FSTDs, FSTD Directive 1 now requires only the airport models used for training, testing or checking to meet the appropriate requirements; it does not require removal of other airport models. Additionally, we have revised the definition of a generic airport model in Appendix F to clearly describe a Class III airport model that combines correct navigation aids for a real world airport with an airport model that does not depict that real world airport. Use of such an airport model may require some limitations on that use. The clarified language in the FSTD Directive and the Start Printed Page 26483revised definitions may mitigate the actual cost of updating airport models. In addition, the FAA recognizes that it takes time to design, construct, and implement changes to computer programming. The FAA has decided to modify the time requirements in paragraph 1(f) of Attachment 3, Appendix A, and clarify the process for requesting an extension for the update in paragraph 1(g) of Attachment 3, Appendix A.
Further, the ATA and others suggested adding a statement in the Information/Notes column of Table B1A regarding visual systems that FSTD Directive 1 does not apply to Level A standards for an FTD visual system.
If a visual system installed in any level of FTD is not being used to acquire additional training credits, FSTD Directive 1 does not apply. However, if the visual system is being used to acquire training credits, the visual system must meet the requirements of at least a Level A FFS visual system. In these circumstances, FSTD Directive 1 could affect the airport models used in that system. Therefore, the FAA has not added the suggested statement.
The ATA, Rockwell Collins, and others noted that the terms visual scenes, visual models, and airport models, appear to be used interchangeably in the NPRM.
The FAA has adopted the term “airport model” instead of the terms “visual scene”or “visual model”throughout this final rule. We also have deleted the definition of “visual model” from Appendix F and changed the definition of “visual database” to “a display that may include one or more airport models” for consistency. Since there are three classes of airport models, we clarified the differences between Class I, Class II, and Class III in the definition of airport model.
ATA, Rockwell Collins, and others questioned the need for 16 moving models as well as the training tasks that would be able to be met by having these moving models. The commenters also requested clarification regarding what constitutes gate clutter.
The primary goal of the NPRM was to harmonize with international standards. The intent of the 16 moving objects requirement, which is an international standard, is to enhance the “realism”of the displayed visual scene. The FAA has added a definition of gate clutter in Appendix F, as described in entry 2.f in Table A3B.
The ATA, Rockwell Collins, and others stated that the Class II airport model requirements are excessive, especially for areas other than the “in-use” runway itself and noted that there are no model content requirements for “generic airport models.”
The Class II airport model requirements mirror the long-standing guidance in AC 120-40B, Airplane Simulator Qualification, Appendix 3, and are consistent with international standards. The FAA has determined that providing specific model content requirements for “generic airport models” would restrict unnecessarily the capability and flexibility that currently exists. Accordingly, the FAA has not made any changes to the Class II airport model requirements or created any specific requirements for “generic airport models.”
The ATA, Rockwell Collins, CAE, and others questioned whether “ambient lighting” in Daylight Visual Scenes is required.
Ambient lighting is not required in daylight visual scenes because of its distorting effects on the visual scene and inside the flight deck. The FAA has removed the requirement for ambient flight deck lighting where appropriate.
The ATA and others requested that the FAA clarify the Surface Movement Guidance and Control System (SMGCS) as referenced in Table A3B, entry 2.j.
Entry 2.j requires that a low visibility taxi route must be demonstrated for qualification of a Level D simulator. A low visibility taxi route could be satisfied, according to the Table A3B, by a depiction of one of the following means: an SMGCS taxi route, a follow-me truck, or low visibility daylight taxi lights. For further information on SMGCS, see AC 120-57A (December 19, 1996).
The ATA, Rockwell Collins, and others questioned the language in the preamble of the NPRM describing the visual system proposal as requiring a “field of view and system capacity requirements” * * * increased by 20 percent over the present requirement.” The commenters asserted that the proposed surfaces and light point requirements are “considerably in excess of a 20% increase.”
The 20% increase, as described in the NPRM preamble, should have applied only to the field-of-view requirements. However, the actual requirements stated in the proposed rule language for field-of-view and system capacity for generating surface and light points are consistent with current international standards. Further, the metrics simulator manufacturers are currently using to construct their equipment correspond to the proposed system capacity for generating surface and light points. Therefore, no changes to the rule language are necessary.
The ATA, Rockwell Collins, and others objected to the larger field-of-view requirements for FSTDs previously built but not evaluated by the FAA for qualification, and for FSTDs previously evaluated and qualified, but returning to service after a 2-year inactive interval. The concern is that these FSTDs would be required to meet the new field-of-view requirements.
The first time an FSTD is evaluated by the FAA for qualification, the FSTD is evaluated in accordance with the set of standards current at that time. An FSTD placed into an inactive status for 2 or more years will not necessarily be evaluated under any new criteria in effect at the time of re-entry into service. The NSPM, however, considers a full range of factors before deciding whether to require an FSTD coming out of an inactive period to be evaluated in accordance with its original qualification basis or in accordance with the set of standards current at that time.
CAE and others recommended modifying in Table A1A, entry 6.p, to require the visual system be free from apparent and distracting quantization, instead of only apparent quantization.
Eliminating the slightest traces of quantization cannot be technically accomplished. However, because distracting quantization can be minimized to such a level that it does not affect the performance of the visual system, the FAA has made this change.
CAE, ATA, Rockwell Collins, and others questioned why realistic color and directionality of all airport lighting is not a requirement for Level A, Level B, and Level C simulators in addition to Level D simulators.
As proposed, the airport lighting requirements for Level A and B simulators are consistent with international standards. Therefore, the FAA has not made the requested change.
The ATA, Northwest, and others suggested including a test in Table A2A, entry 4.b.3, for Level C simulators to evaluate visual systems with 150° horizontal and 30° vertical field-of-view or a monitor-based system.
The primary goal of the NPRM was to harmonize with international standards. The current international standard, as reflected in the NPRM, for Level C simulators is 180° horizontal by 40° vertical field-of-view. Therefore, the FAA has not adopted the change.
The ATA, Rockwell Collins, and others stated that the test in Table A2A, entry 4.f, Surface Resolution, does not reflect current practice for runway markings. Commenters recommended that this test mirror the current practice Start Printed Page 26484and international standards that runway stripes and spaces be 5.75 feet wide.
The FAA has modified this language where appropriate to reflect current practice and international standards.
The ATA, Rockwell Collins, CAE, and others questioned why the tolerances allowed in entry 4.i, Visual Ground Segment (VGS), of Table A2A are different from the current international standards. They also suggested that the Qualification Test Guide (QTG) contain calculations to compare the altitude used against the altitude specified when performing this test and questioned whether the test must be performed manually. They also requested deleting or correcting the conversion of feet to meters.
The international standards prescribe the application of the VGS tolerance to the far end of the VGS with no tolerance provided at the near end of the VGS. To ensure harmonization, the FAA has made the appropriate changes to the application of this VGS tolerance. The requirements for the QTG contain provisions regarding the calculation of altitude references. The FAA has stated that the altitude calculations are computed with the aircraft at 100 ft (30 m) above the runway touchdown zone and centered on the Instrument Landing System (ILS) electronic glide slope. The typical reference for modern turbojet aircraft operations for height above touchdown is the height of the main landing gear above that touchdown zone reference plane, with the aircraft at a specified weight and landing configuration. To clarify these calculations, the FAA has modified the Flight Conditions column for entry 4.i of Table A2A to reflect this information. The distances expressed in metric units are not direct conversions to U.S. customary units, nor were they intended to be. Rather, these are the appropriate standards depending on which system is being used. Therefore, the FAA has not removed the metric references.
The ATA and others requested clarification regarding the term “in-use runway” in Tables A3B and A3C. The commenters stated that using the general term “in-use runway” would require modeling all taxiways rather than the primary one used, which may overload the visual system and negatively impact training.
Each “in-use” runway is a single, one-direction runway, used for takeoffs and landings, that has the required surface lighting and markings. New visual systems are capable of generating substantially more detail than required by this final rule. However, because of the concern raised regarding associated taxiways, the FAA has modified the language in Appendices A, C, and D regarding airport model content to require the use of only the primary taxi route from parking to the end of the runway instead of requiring the modeling of all potential taxi routes.
One commenter requested the FAA provide a definition of the term “dynamic response programming,” to clarify the requirements in Table A1A, entry 6.h. CAE and others questioned the use of the terms “correlate with integrated airplane systems, where fitted,” and “dynamic response programming,” as they are used in Tables A3B and A1A. Commenters also noted that Table A3B, entry 6.d erroneously applied the requirements for “correlate with integrated airplane systems” to all levels of simulators rather than just Levels C and D.
The term “dynamic response” is used in its typical engineering context. As used in Tables A1A (entry 6.h) and C1A (entry 6.i) “dynamic response programming” requires the visual system display to respond with the continuous movement of the simulated aircraft. We have clarified the language in Tables A3b (entry 6.d), C3b (entry 6.d) and D3B (entry 5.d) by removing the phrase “where fitted.” The requirement that the visual scene correlate with the integrated aircraft systems is to ensure that all installed integrated aircraft systems correctly respond to what appears in the visual scene. This visual correspondence requirement applies to only Level C and D simulators and the FAA has corrected this error in Tables A3B and C3B.
The ATA, Rockwell Collins, and others suggested there should be no difference between entries 6.e and 8.g in Table A3B.
These two entries are designed to test separate conditions. Entry 6.e tests the external lights to ensure correlation with the airplane and associated equipment while entry 8.g tests the environmental effects of the external lights in the visual system. Because of the separate, distinct purposes of these entries, they should not be the same, and the FAA has not adopted the recommendation.
The ATA, Rockwell Collins, and others objected to the inclusion of several visual, sound, or motion systems features (e.g., the effect of rain removal devices; sound of light, medium, and heavy precipitation; and nosewheel scuffing) in the airport model presentations because they are not airport model functions.
These features are a function of the visual, sound, or motion systems. These features must be available and operate correctly in conjunction with the airport models presented during training, testing, or checking activities. These features are meaningful only when they are presented as part of the airport model. Therefore, the FAA has not removed these features from the airport model requirements.
The ATA, Northwest, Rockwell Collins, and others expressed concern that the discussion of entry 10 in Table A3B regarding the combination of two airport models to achieve two “in-use” runways at one airport, may impede control of the radio aids and terrain elevation and create distracting effects in the visual scene display.
The discussion in entry 10 of Table A3B is an authorization, not a requirement. If an FSTD has limitations such that this combination would impede control or create distracting effects, this particular authorization is not applicable. The FAA has added clarifying language in entry 10 to address this concern.
The ATA, Rockwell Collins, and others stated the requirement that “slopes in runways, taxiways, and ramp areas must not cause distracting or unrealistic effects” in entry 4.b in Table A3C implies that Level A and Level B simulators are required to have sloping terrain modeling, making the Class II airport models more stringent than Class I airport models.
Level A and B simulators are not required to have sloping terrain modeling. This provision, however, sets forth the requirements for such modeling if a sponsor elects to incorporate sloping terrain modeling in the FSTD. The FAA has clarified this requirement by adding the qualifier “if depicted in the visual scene,” in the appropriate tables in Appendices A, C, and D.
CAE and others requested the FAA establish a list of individuals or corporations who work as visual modelers and can provide detailed information about airports without creating national security concerns.
Anyone with a legitimate need for the acquisition of detailed airport information for accurate modeling of any U.S. airport for simulation modeling purposes should contact the NSPM for assistance.
3. Motion or Vibration Requirements
Rockwell Collins, CAE, the ATA, and others stated that Motion Cueing Performance Signature tests can provide an objective means of determining loss in motion system performance. The commenters were concerned that if these tests were conducted only during the Initial Qualification Evaluation, sponsors would not have objective Start Printed Page 26485information available to determine the continuing status of the motion system.
The proposal required the results of these tests to be included in the MQTG. Because sponsors are required to run the complete quarterly MQTG inspections, these tests are not intended to be one-time-only tests. The sponsor and NSPM regularly review these tests. The FAA agrees that the statement “this test is not required as part of continuing qualification evaluations” is misleading and has deleted this statement where appropriate.
The ATA, Rockwell Collins, and others questioned whether Level B simulators must be subjectively tested for nosewheel scuffing motion effects when this level of simulator was not authorized for the taxi task.
Level B simulators are authorized for Rejected Takeoff Maneuvers. At higher speeds, the movement of the nosewheel steering mechanism can be more sensitive and may cause the nosewheel to be turned beyond smooth tracking angles, resulting in nosewheel scuffing during Rejected Takeoff Maneuvers. Therefore, the FAA has determined that subjective testing for nosewheel scuffing motion effects is necessary and did not make any change.
4. Sound Requirements
The ATA, Rockwell Collins, and others suggested that in Table A2A, entry 5, Sound Requirements, the tests listed should have a defined frequency spectrum within which the tests should be conducted similar to that set forth in international standards.
Because the text in the proposal describes these processes and similar statements appear in international standards, the FAA has added language similar to the international standards to the sound test requirements of entry 5, Table A2A.
The ATA, Rockwell Collins, and others suggested requiring all levels of FTDs to be able to represent all the flight deck aural warning sounds and sounds from pilot actions instead of limiting this standard to level 6 FTDs, as it currently appears in entry 7.a of Table B1A.
A Level 6 FTD is the only level of FTD that is required to have all aircraft systems installed and operational. This requirement has been in effect for over 16 years and is consistent with current international standards. The suggested requirement is also outside the scope of this rulemaking. Accordingly, the FAA has not adopted the change.
CAE and others suggested entry 7.c, Accurate Simulation of Sounds, in Table A1A, address abnormal operations in addition to the sound of normal operations and the sound of a crash.
The current international standards contain a requirement for sounds addressing abnormal operations, which include the sound of a crash, and normal operations. To harmonize with international standards the FAA has made the change.
CAE and others noted that an SOC is not necessary for entries 1.a, 1.b, and 2.a in Table C1A. Thales also suggested that the language in entry 2.a be modified to reflect helicopter operations.
The FAA has removed the SOC requirement in entries 1.a and 1.b because it is not necessary. The SOC for entry 2.a is necessary because it describes a flight dynamics model that must account for combinations of drag and thrust normally encountered in flight. However, the FAA has modified the language in entry 2.a to better reflect helicopter operations.
Thales and others stated that the motion onset requirements in Table C1A, entry 2.e, are new requirements for helicopter simulation.
The FAA included the requirements in this entry in the October 30, 2006, final rule (71 FR 63426), and again in the NPRM for this rule. These requirements codify existing practice (e.g., AC 120-63, Helicopter Simulator Qualification).
CAE and others suggested that the Information/Notes column in Table C1A, entry 2.f, include “roll” as well as “pitch,” “side loading,” and “directional control characteristics,” when simulating brake and tire failure dynamics.
The FAA has clarified the Information/Notes column by adding the phrase “in the appropriate axes,” which includes roll, pitch, yaw, heave, sway (side loading), and surge.
Thales, CAE, and others suggested that the requirements in Table C1A, entry 2.g.1, regarding ground effect should apply to Level B simulators as it appears in table C1A, entry 2.c.1.
The FAA has separated these two requirements because helicopter simulator Levels B, C, and D may be required to perform running takeoffs and running landings, as described in entry 2.c.1. However, only Level C and D simulators are required to perform takeoffs or landings to or from a hover, as noted in entry 2.g, thus requiring separate table entries. Accordingly, the FAA has not adopted the recommendation.
CAE and others requested clarification regarding the kinds of aircraft system variables and environmental conditions as listed in Table C1A, entry 4, that must be used in simulation. Commenters suggested removing the reference to “wind speed,” including other environmental controls, and including “water spray” when hovering over water.
There is no specific list of system variables that must be available in a helicopter simulator. The requirement is that the instructor or evaluator be able to control all the system variables and insert all abnormal or emergency conditions into the simulated helicopter systems as described in the sponsor's FAA-approved training program, or as described in the relevant FSTD operating manual. The FAA has reviewed the entries for environmental controls and has included additional examples of environmental conditions that may be available in the FSTD. We also have included “water vapor” as an example of what may be expected to be re-circulated when hovering above the surface, as suggested by the commenters.
CAE, Thales, and others suggested including vortex ring and high-speed rotor vibrations for motion effects programming requirements in Table C1A, entry 5.e. Commenters also suggested requiring Level B and C simulators to demonstrate air turbulence models.
As proposed, entry 5.e included requirements for buffet due to settling with power and rotor vibrations. As the commenters noted, these terms are better expressed as buffet due to vortex ring, and high-speed rotor vibrations. The FAA has clarified the requirements as requested. The FAA also has clarified the statement in the Information/Notes column regarding the use of air turbulence models. Further changes regarding air turbulence modeling are beyond the scope of the NPRM.
Thales and others recommended adjusting surface resolution from the currently proposed three (3) arc-minutes to two (2) arc-minutes in Table C1A, entry 6.i.(4). Additionally, Thales recommended the FAA add “helipad” or “heliport” lighting effects specific to helicopter operations for subjective testing.
As noted by the commenter, the two (2) arc-minutes requirement is the current international standard. Therefore, the FAA has made the recommended change. However, there are specific requirements for both airport and helicopter landing area models for training, testing, and checking purposes in attachment 3, and the FAA has not included the “helipad” or “heliport” lighting effects in Table C1A. Start Printed Page 26486
CAE, Thales, and others suggested that the tolerance of ±3 knots, in Table C2A, entry 1.c, Takeoff, and entry 1.j, Landing, be applied to either airspeed or ground speed, because data collected at airspeeds below 30-40 knots are often unreliable. Thales suggested that for entries 1.c.2 and 1.c.3, the specific type of takeoff (Category A, Performance, Confined area, etc,) be recorded so proper comparisons can be made.
The FAA recognizes the difficulties in applying tolerances to airspeeds when the airspeed value itself may not be accurate and has added a general authorization for Takeoff tests and Landing tests. Also, the FAA has added a note in the Information/Notes column to address the differing types of takeoff profiles used for each of these tests.
CAE and others stated that in helicopter simulation, flight test data containing all the required parameters for a complete power-off landing is not always available. CAE recommended modifying the language in Tables C2A and D2A, entry 1.j.4, Autorotational Landing, to state that in those cases where data are not available, and other qualified flight test personnel are not available to acquire this data, the sponsor must coordinate with the NSPM to determine if it is appropriate to accept alternative testing means.
The FAA agrees that, in certain circumstances, the sponsor must coordinate with the NSPM to determine if it is appropriate to accept an alternative testing means. The FAA has made the appropriate changes.
CAE and others stated that Table C2A, entry 1.h.2, Autorotation Performance, requires data be recorded for speeds from 50 knots, ±5 knots, through at least maximum glide distance airspeed. However, the maximum allowable autorotation airspeed is often slower than the maximum glide distance airspeed, which would prevent accurate data for autorotation entry.
The FAA has modified the test details to include maximum allowable autorotation airspeed.
CAE and others suggested reducing the tolerance for control displacement to ±0.10 inches in Table C2A, entry 2.a.6, Control System Freeplay. The commenters also suggested harmonizing the tolerance requirements for FTDs in Table D2A, entry 2.a.6.
The FAA agrees and has made the appropriate changes, which reflect current international standards.
CAE and others suggested that the proposed ±10% tolerances on pitch and airspeed for non-periodic responses, in Table C2A, entry 2.c.3.a, Dynamic Stability, Long Term Response, be relaxed because the proposal is too restrictive. They noted non-periodic Augmentation-On responses generally exhibit less than 5 degrees peak pitch attitude change from trim. Further, commenters recommended adding a statement to the Information/Notes column to clarify the relationship between non-periodic responses and flight-test data. The rationale for these recommendations is to avoid requirements that are unduly restrictive with divergent results, while ensuring that the non-periodic responses are accurately reproduced.
The FAA agrees with the commenter's suggestions and rationale and has made the appropriate changes in Table C2A for FFSs and in Table D2A for FTDs.
CAE and others suggested relating the proposed tolerances in Table C2A, entry 2.d.3.a, Dynamic Lateral and Directional Stability, Lateral-Directional Oscillations test. The commenters stated that the non-periodic responses may be divergent, weakly convergent, or deadbeat. The commenters stated that the proposed tolerances may be too restrictive for deadbeat responses. Additionally, the commenters stated that oscillatory responses that satisfy the period and damping ratio tolerances would not necessarily meet the proposed time history tolerances because of the non-periodic nature of the response. The rationale for these recommendations is to avoid requirements that are unduly restrictive with divergent results while ensuring that the non-periodic responses are reproduced with sufficient accuracy.
The FAA agrees with the commenters' suggestions and rationale and has made the appropriate changes in Table C2A for FFSs and in Table D2A for FTDs.
Thales, CAE, and others were concerned that there are no tolerances specified for the tests listed in Table C2A, entry 3.a, Frequency Response, 3.b, Leg Balance, and 3.c, Turn Around Check.
Because of the way the tests are used, the FAA has determined it is appropriate that these specific tests do not have a specified tolerance other than the performance as established by the FSTD manufacturer in coordination with the sponsor. These tests are conducted during the initial evaluation and made part of the MQTG. While the sponsor is not required to run these tests again during continuing qualification evaluations, the test results are available if a question arises about the performance of the motion system hardware or the integrity of the motion set-up at any time subsequent to the initial qualification evaluation. The test results recorded during the initial qualification evaluation provide a benchmark against which subsequent comparisons can be made.
CAE and others questioned whether a motion signature (Table C2A, entry 3.e, Motion Cueing Performance Signature) is required for a test that only requires a snapshot test result or a series of snapshot test results, and if a sponsor may submit a result of their choice if multiple results are available for a specific test.
The specific motion cueing performance signature tests have specifically associated tests that are indicated in the Information/Notes column. When these tests are conducted, the sponsor records the motion system as an additional parameter, providing a cross-sectional benchmark for the motion system performance. When the test authorizes the result to be provided as “a series of snapshot tests,” the sponsor may choose to record the motion cueing performance signature tests as a time history or as a series of snapshot tests.
Thales, HAI, and others requested that sponsors be allowed to use alternative data sources for Helicopter FTDs, as authorized for Airplane FTDs.
At this time, alternative data source information has not been developed for Helicopter FTDs. The FAA developed the alternative data source information for airplanes in coordination with industry prior to this rulemaking. Anyone interested in researching and developing alternatives for helicopter FTDs for future rulemakings should contact the NSPM.
The HAI and others suggested expanding the vertical field-of-view requirements for level 7 helicopter FTDs to at least 70° in paragraph 24 of Appendix D, Helicopter Flight Training Devices. CAE further noted that the field-of-view requirements for Level 7 FTDs appear to be more stringent than the requirements for a Level B simulator.
Peripheral vision is a critical cue in helicopter operations. Therefore, the FAA determined that the field-of-view standards for Level C helicopter simulators, which have been in effect since 1994, provide the adequate peripheral cues for the new level 7 helicopter FTD. Because peripheral vision is the critical cue, the FAA has not expanded the vertical field-of-view requirement.
CAE and others suggested revising the requirements for handling qualities for the level 7 helicopter FTD listed in Table D1A, given the list of tasks that may be authorized for the FTD.
Although the tasks listed in the referenced table may seem extensive for a device that is not an FFS, the FAA Start Printed Page 26487does not intend that a student would be completely trained or trained to proficiency in any of the tasks authorized for that FTD. In each case, the task requires additional training, either in an aircraft or in a higher level FSTD, and a proficiency test in an aircraft or in a higher level FSTD upon completion of such training. Therefore, the FAA has not revised the handling qualities for the level 7 helicopter FTD.
CAE and others suggested modifying Table D1A, entries 1.a and 1.b, to clarify the location of bulkheads and the location and operation of circuit breakers.
The FAA has included clarifying language in entry 1.a of Table D1A.
CAE and others suggested removing the statement “An SOC is required” from Table D1A, entries 1.a, 1.b, 2.a, 6.a.1, 6.a.2, 6.a.3, 6.a.4, 6.a.5, 6.a.6, and 6.b.
The FAA agrees with the commenters with respect to entries 1.a and 1.b and has removed the SOC statement because a visual observation is sufficient. However, for the remainder of the entries, the SOC statements are still necessary because a visual observation will not reveal the data necessary to demonstrate and explain compliance with the specific requirements.
CAE and others suggested including a requirement for an SOC to explain how the computer will address the delay timing requirements for relative responses in Table D1A, entry 2.c.
The entry preceding 2.c sets forth the requirement to have a computer (analog or digital) with the capabilities necessary to meet the qualification level sought. At this point, an SOC is required. The SOC will supply the information about the delay timing tests. Therefore, an additional SOC requirement in entry 2.c is not necessary.
CAE, HAI, and others suggested requiring in Table D1A, entry 5, Motion system, that all FTD levels have a motion system instead of allowing an open authorization with the limitation that, if installed, it may not be distracting.
The current training equipment for helicopter FTDs is not designed to include motion systems. The FAA recognizes, however, that some sponsors may wish to include these systems as part of their training equipment. If a sponsor elects to install a motion system, the system must not be distracting. Further, if the system will be used for additional training, testing, or checking credits, it must meet certain other requirements outlined in Appendix C. Accordingly, the FAA has not required helicopter FTDs to have motion systems. However, as proposed, all level 7 FTDs are required, at the very least, to have a vibration system.
HAI and others questioned why “mast bumping” was not authorized for Level 6 FTDs, as it is for Level 7 FTDs.
As noted in entry 5.b of Table D1A, only Level 7 FTDs are required to have a vibration system. Because the primary cue that would alert the pilot to the onset of mast bumping would be an increase in the vibration felt from the rotor system, this task is only authorized for Level 7 FTDs.
CAE stated that in Table D2A, entry 2.b.3.d, Vertical Control Response, the augmentation condition under the flight condition column is not specified, which is different from the previous three tests for control response in that table.
The FAA agrees with the commenter and has amended the referenced flight condition column to indicate that the augmentation condition for the test is both on and off, as it is for the preceding three control response tests in Table D2A.
CAE and others questioned whether the requirements of FSTD Directive 1 should be extended to helicopter FTDs.
The provisions of FSTD Directive 1 are applicable to those FSTD airport models currently in existence. Currently, there are no helicopter FTDs that have required visual systems. Therefore, there is no need to extend the requirements set out in FSTD Directive 1 to helicopter FTDs. The requirements for airport models are included in attachment 3 of Appendix D and are applicable to newly qualified Level 7 helicopter FTDs.
HAI and others questioned the necessity and cost of requiring Table D3B, entry 5.f, Effect of Rain Removal Devices.
The visual system requirement for the Level 7 helicopter FTD was designed to mirror the Level C helicopter FFS visual system requirement, which includes rain removal devices. This requirement is necessary to ensure that the FTD adequately reflects the actual helicopter being simulated. If the actual helicopter does not have rain removal devices, the FTD is not required to demonstrate the effect of rain removal devices. The FAA notes that these devices are not always a ``windshield wiper,'' but may be high-pressure air or an application of rain-repelling fluid.
E. Quality Management System (QMS)
Federal Express, ATA, and others questioned which Quality Management System (QMS) would apply when an FSTD (including FSTDs owned by foreign entities), is installed in a Training Center with a different QMS, or if the FSTD is maintained by a contractor with a different QMS.
The system and processes outlined in the QMS should enable the sponsor to monitor compliance with all applicable regulations and ensure correct maintenance and performance of the FSTD in accordance with part 60. Thus, the sponsor's QMS must include provisions to ensure that the FSTD will only be used when it is in compliance with the sponsor's own QMS and the regulatory requirements of part 60.
The ATA, Rockwell Collins, and others requested that the voluntary elements for the QMS, as published on October 30, 2006 (71 FR 63426), be included in Appendix E of the final rule. One commenter suggested that the concept of a ``basic'' and a ``voluntary'' QMS be removed and a single QMS be required.
As noted in the NPRM (72 FR 59604), the FAA removed the voluntary QMS from Appendix E. As proposed, Appendix E sets forth the basic requirements for a QMS. Although commenters requested that we include in part 60 the voluntary program, the voluntary program does not expand, further explain, or correspond to specific regulatory requirements. Therefore, the FAA has not included the voluntary program in the final rule.
The ATA, Northwest, and others questioned the inspection responsibilities of the NSPM in evaluating the QMS as opposed to FAA entities conducting ATOS audits.
The NSPM is responsible for evaluating the FSTD, including the QMS associated with the FSTD. The ATOS inspections determine whether the incorporation of the FSTD into an FAA-approved flight training program provides the necessary tool(s) to complete the required training program activities. The FAA has determined that the ATOS inspections will not include review of the actual FSTD or the QMS associated with that FSTD.
Federal Express and others questioned whether only the Management Representative (MR) should receive Quality System training and brief other personnel on procedures and suggested that the wording be changed to allow others, besides the MR, to brief other personnel. They were also concerned that the MR, in most cases, is the Director of Operations. They also questioned what would be considered ``appropriate'' quality system training.
The FAA does not require that the MR be the Director of Operations or hold any other specific position for a certificate holder. The MR, as Start Printed Page 26488determined by the sponsor, may delegate his or her responsibilities so long as the delegation does not compromise the QMS. If the MR delegates his or her responsibilities, the MR must ensure that the person to whom the MR delegates his or her responsibilities is capable of adequately briefing other personnel on QMS procedures. Further, anyone can receive QMS training. The FAA, however, is requiring only that the MR receive QMS training. The FAA agrees that the word ``appropriate'' is not necessary in this context and has removed it.
Federal Express and others questioned the proposed requirement to notify the NSPM within 10 working days of the sponsor becoming aware of an addition to, or revision of, flight-related data or airplane systems-related data used to program or operate a qualified FSTD. The commenters are concerned because systems data may not be provided to the sponsor in a timely manner. They requested the notification time be changed to 10 working days of performing a modification, an addition, or a revision of FSTD software that affects the flight or system operations of a qualified FSTD.
The requirement that the sponsor must submit notification within 10 calendar days is only a statement that the sponsor is aware that an addition to, amendment of, or a revision of data that may relate to FFS performance or handling characteristics is available. This notification does not require any information regarding how the change is to be accomplished, nor does it commit the sponsor to implementing the particular change. Rather, information regarding the sponsor's proposed course of action must be submitted within 45 calendar days of the sponsor becoming aware of the data. Therefore, the FAA did not change the notification time requirement as requested by the commenters.
The ATA and others suggested the FAA set forth the minimum requirements for a discrepancy prioritization system or include a note in Appendix E (QMS Systems) that a prioritization system is a required element in an acceptable QMS.
There is no requirement for the development or the implementation of a discrepancy prioritization system for the correction of FSTD discrepancies. Such a system is completely voluntary. If the sponsor elects to develop such a system, the NSPM must approve the system. As stated in Note 1 to entry E1.31.b of Appendix E, if a sponsor has an approved prioritization system, the QMS must describe how discrepancies are prioritized, what actions are taken, and how the sponsor will notify the NSPM if a missing, malfunctioning, or inoperative component (MMI) has not been repaired or replaced within the specified timeframe. Because this prioritization system is voluntary, the FAA has not adopted the changes.
United, the ATA, and others suggested that the FAA clarify and confirm that elements of the QPS appendices that go beyond current requirements not apply to FSTDs qualified before May 30, 2008. Also, the commenters recommended continuing to allow currently qualified FSTDs to be updated under the guidance effective when the simulator was initially qualified.
Except for FSTD Directive 1, the rule as proposed does not require currently qualified FSTDs to meet the requirements of the QPS Appendices A-D, attachments 1, 2, and 3, as long as the FSTD continues to meet the test requirements of its original qualification (see paragraph 13, subparagraph b of Appendices A-D). In response to comments, the FAA has clarified that FSTD updates will continue to be allowed under the standards in the current Master Qualification Test Guide (MQTG) for that FSTD.
CAE and others noted that the statement ``a subjective test is required'' in Table C1A is inconsistent with international standards.
The references to ``a subjective test is required'' and ``an objective test is required'' in Tables A1A, B1A, C1A, and D1A were redundant of the requirements in Attachments 2 and 3 in Appendices A-D. Therefore, we have removed these references. The objective and subjective test requirements in Attachments 2 and 3 in Appendices A-D are consistent with international standards.
The ATA, Northwest, Boeing, CAE, and others recommended adding references to the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) in the regulatory requirements sections of the QPS appendices.
The FAA is not referencing the AFM as requested because the AFM provides specific standards based on aircraft type. Where the AFM provides helpful data, it may be used as guidance and as an additional data source, if appropriate.
CAE and others expressed concern that correcting known data calibration errors may not be permitted because of the language contained in Appendix A, Attachment 2, paragraph 9, (FSTD) Objective Data Requirements, subparagraph b(5).
The FAA acknowledges that the correction of recognized data calibration errors is often accomplished in data collection and reduction exercises. Therefore, the FAA has added language where appropriate in Appendices A-D to permit the correction of known data calibration errors provided that an explanation of the methods used to correct the errors appears in the QTG.
CAE requested the FAA explain how percentages are calculated when tolerances are expressed as a percentage in attachment 2, paragraph 2.b, of Appendices A-D.
The FAA has included an explanation of how these percentages are calculated in Appendices A-D, attachment 2, paragraph 2.b.
The ATA, Northwest, and others expressed concern over the submission of an FSTD modification notification to the NSPM as described in Appendix A, Paragraph 17, subparagraph a. The commenters were concerned that the results of the modification might not be known until after the notice of the modification is submitted to the NSPM.
The notification is not intended to be a detailed summary of each specific result. The notification must simply include a plan of action and a general description of the expected results.
The ATA, Rockwell Collins, and others requested clarification of the use of the term MMI component. Some sought clarification as to whether an MMI component was a hardware component, a software component, or a component that directly affected the training mission of the FSTD. In addition, some commenters requested an inclusive list of components such as: Flight deck hardware, a system line replaceable unit (LRU) of hardware or software, or a major FSTD system. Further, commenters asked who is responsible for determining whether an MMI component is necessary for a particular maneuver, procedure, or task.
The FAA has determined it is unnecessary to further clarify the meaning of missing, malfunctioning, or inoperative component. These words have their typical dictionary meanings. In this rule, an FSTD component could be a piece of hardware, a piece of software that performs as a piece of hardware (e.g., software functioning as an autopilot), or a piece of software that is used in the operation of the simulated aircraft or of the FSTD itself. Each FSTD component is present to serve a purpose—whether that purpose is to allow the simulation to work or to simulate a component of the aircraft being simulated. Since an FSTD is used to train, test, or check flight crewmembers, if one or more Start Printed Page 26489component of the FSTD becomes missing, is not working, or is not working correctly, there would be some impact on the function of the FSTD. Developing an inclusive list of components that are necessary for a particular maneuver, procedure, or task is impractical because of the unique characteristics of each FSTD and unnecessary because of the obvious nature and effect of an MMI component on the overall operation of the FSTD. We have added language to the information in paragraph 18, Operation with Missing, Malfunctioning, or Inoperative Components (§ 60.25) in Appendices A-D to clarify that it is the responsibility of the instructor, check airman, or representative of the administrator conducting training, testing, or checking, to exercise reasonable and prudent judgment to determine whether an MMI component is necessary for a particular maneuver, procedure, or task.
Boeing and others commented on the repetition of the definitions of the weight ranges (near maximum, medium, and light). In addition to appearing in Appendix F, the definitions also appear in Attachment 2 of Appendices A-D. The commenters are concerned that the repetition may cause confusion in the application of these ranges. Further, CAE stated that the terms may not apply to light-class helicopters.
The FAA has removed the definitions of these terms from the QPS Requirement in Appendices A-D because they are defined in Appendix F. In some cases, these gross weight ranges are not within the appropriate ranges for light-class helicopters. Therefore, in Appendices C and D, we have added a statement that these terms may not be appropriate for light-class helicopters. Prior coordination with the NSPM is required to determine the acceptable gross weight ranges for light-class helicopters.
The ATA, Northwest, and others questioned how the FAA could use Personally Identifiable Information (PII) for investigation, compliance, or enforcement purposes and then bring enforcement action against a person, not certificated by the FAA, who may have worked on an FSTD.
The FAA must ensure that FSTDs used by flight crewmembers for training, testing, and checking purposes are maintained and used properly and in accordance with all regulatory requirements. If the FAA finds grounds for investigation or enforcement action, the FAA may request, administratively subpoena, or seek a court order for the sponsor's records, which may contain PII. The FAA may use those records, and any PII contained therein, in the course of inspection, investigation, and enforcement. Furthermore, if, for example, the FAA discovered during the course of such an investigation that an individual made false or misleading statements, the FAA could use its statutory and regulatory authority to issue a cease and desist order to prohibit the individual from conducting any future maintenance on any FSTD, regardless of whether he or she holds an FAA certificate.
Paperwork Reduction Act
Information collection requirements associated with this final rule have been approved previously by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) and have been assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0680.
In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to comply with ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has reviewed the corresponding ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices and has identified no differences with these regulations.
III. Regulatory Evaluation, Regulatory Flexibility Determination, International Trade Impact Assessment, and Unfunded Mandates Assessment
Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S. standards, the Trade Act requires agencies to consider international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of the economic impacts of this rule.
Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations. If the expected cost impact is so minimal that a proposed or final rule does not warrant a full evaluation, this order permits that a statement to that effect and the basis for it to be included in the preamble. Such a determination has been made for this final rule. The reasoning for this determination follows:
This final rule codifies existing practice by requiring all existing FSTD visual scenes beyond the number required for qualification to meet specified requirements. The final rule also reorganizes certain sections of the QPS appendices and provides additional information on validation tests, established parameters for tolerances, acceptable data formats, and the use of alternative data sources. The changes ensure that the training and testing environment is accurate and realistic, codify existing practice, and provide greater harmonization with the international standards document for simulation. Except for the amendment to codify existing practice regarding certain visual scene requirements, these technical requirements do not apply to simulators qualified before May 30, 2008. The impact of this final rule results in minimal to no cost increases for manufacturers and sponsors.
The FAA has, therefore, determined that this rule is not a “significant regulatory action” as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, and is not “significant” as defined in DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures.
Regulatory Flexibility Determination
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA) establishes “as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given serious consideration.” The RFA covers a wide range of small entities, including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. Start Printed Page 26490
Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.
However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. The certification must include a statement providing the factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be clear.
This final rule codifies existing practice by requiring all existing FSTD visual scenes beyond the number required for qualification to meet specified requirements. The final rule also reorganizes certain sections of the QPS appendices and provides additional information on validation tests, established parameters for tolerances, acceptable data formats, and the use of alternative data sources. The changes ensure that the training and testing environment is accurate and more realistic, codify existing practice, and provide greater harmonization with the international standards document for simulation. Except for the amendment to codify existing practice regarding certain visual scene requirements, these technical requirements do not apply to simulators qualified before May 30, 2008. The impact of this rule results in minimal or no cost for manufacturers and sponsors. Therefore, as the individual delegated with authority to sign this final rule on behalf of the Acting Administrator of the FAA, I certify that this rule does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
International Trade Impact Assessment
The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits Federal agencies from establishing any standards or engaging in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Legitimate domestic objectives, such as safety, are not considered unnecessary obstacles. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has assessed the effect of this rule and has determined that it imposes the same costs on domestic and international entities and thus has a neutral trade impact.
Unfunded Mandates Assessment
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation with the base year 1995) in any one year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate is deemed to be a “significant regulatory action.” The FAA currently uses an inflation-adjusted value of $136.1 million in lieu of $100 million. This rule does not contain such a mandate.
Executive Order 13132, Federalism
The FAA has analyzed this final rule under the principles and criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, or the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, and, therefore, does not have federalism implications.
FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA actions that are categorically excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has determined this proposed rule action qualifies for the categorical exclusion identified in paragraph 312f and involves no extraordinary circumstances.
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
The FAA has analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under the executive order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, and it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.
Availability of Rulemaking Documents
You can get an electronic copy of rulemaking documents using the Internet by—
1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov);
2. Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/; or
3. Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.
You can also get a copy by sending a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680. Make sure to identify the amendment number or docket number of this rulemaking.
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996 requires FAA to comply with small entity requests for information or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its jurisdiction. If you are a small entity and you have a question regarding this document, you may contact your local FAA official, or the person listed under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT heading at the beginning of the preamble. You can find out more about SBREFA on the Internet at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/sbre_act/.Start List of Subjects
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 60End List of Subjects
IV. The AmendmentStart Amendment Part
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends Chapter I of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations as follows:End Amendment Part Start Part
PART 60—FLIGHT SIMULATION TRAINING DEVICE INITIAL AND CONTINUING QUALIFICATION AND USEEnd Part Start Amendment Part
1. The authority citation for part 60 continues to read as follows:End Amendment Part Start Amendment Part
2. Part 60 is amended by revising appendices A-F to read as follows:End Amendment Part Start Appendix Start Printed Page 26491
Appendix A to Part 60—Qualification Performance Standards for Airplane Full Flight Simulators
This appendix establishes the standards for Airplane FFS evaluation and qualification. The NSPM is responsible for the development, application, and implementation of the standards contained within this appendix. The procedures and criteria specified in this appendix will be used by the NSPM, or a person assigned by the NSPM, when conducting airplane FFS evaluations.
Table of Contents
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).
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.
a. This appendix contains background information as well as regulatory and informative material as described later in this section. To assist the reader in determining what areas are required and what areas are permissive, the text in this appendix is divided into two sections: “QPS Requirements” and “Information.” The QPS Requirements sections contain details regarding compliance with the part 60 rule language. These details are regulatory, but are found only in this appendix. The Information sections contain material that is advisory in nature, and designed to give the user general information about the regulation.
b. Questions regarding the contents of this publication should be sent to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Flight Standards Service, National Simulator Program Staff, AFS-205, 100 Hartsfield Centre Parkway, Suite 400, Atlanta, Georgia 30354. Telephone contact numbers for the NSP are: Phone, 404-832-4700; fax, 404-761-8906. The general e-mail address for the NSP office is: firstname.lastname@example.org. The NSP Internet Web site address is: http://www.faa.gov/safety/programs_initiatives/aircraft_aviation/nsp/. On this Web site you will find an NSP personnel list with telephone and e-mail contact information for each NSP staff member, a list of qualified flight simulation devices, advisory circulars (ACs), a description of the qualification process, NSP policy, and an NSP “In-Works” section. Also linked from this site are additional information sources, handbook bulletins, frequently asked questions, a listing and text of the Federal Aviation Regulations, Flight Standards Inspector's handbooks, and other FAA links.
c. The NSPM encourages the use of electronic media for all communication, including any record, report, request, test, or statement required by this appendix. The electronic media used must have adequate security provisions and be acceptable to the NSPM. The NSPM recommends inquiries on system compatibility, and minimum system requirements are also included on the NSP Web site.
d. Related Reading References.
(1) 14 CFR part 60.
(2) 14 CFR part 61.
(3) 14 CFR part 63.
(4) 14 CFR part 119.
(5) 14 CFR part 121.
(6) 14 CFR part 125.
(7) 14 CFR part 135.
(8) 14 CFR part 141.
(9) 14 CFR part 142.
(10) AC 120-28, as amended, Criteria for Approval of Category III Landing Weather Minima.
(11) AC 120-29, as amended, Criteria for Approving Category I and Category II Landing Minima for part 121 operators.
(12) AC 120-35, as amended, Line Operational Simulations: Line-Oriented Flight Training, Special Purpose Operational Training, Line Operational Evaluation.
(13) AC 120-40, as amended, Airplane Simulator Qualification.
(14) AC 120-41, as amended, Criteria for Operational Approval of Airborne Wind Shear Alerting and Flight Guidance Systems.
(15) AC 120-57, as amended, Surface Movement Guidance and Control System (SMGCS).
(16) AC 150/5300-13, as amended, Airport Design.
(17) AC 150/5340-1, as amended, Standards for Airport Markings.
(18) AC 150/5340-4, as amended, Installation Details for Runway Centerline Touchdown Zone Lighting Systems.
(19) AC 150/5340-19, as amended, Taxiway Centerline Lighting System.
(20) AC 150/5340-24, as amended, Runway and Taxiway Edge Lighting System.
(21) AC 150/5345-28, as amended, Precision Approach Path Indicator (PAPI) Systems.
(22) International Air Transport Association document, “Flight Simulator Design and Performance Data Requirements,” as amended.
(23) AC 25-7, as amended, Flight Test Guide for Certification of Transport Category Airplanes.
(24) AC 23-8, as amended, Flight Test Guide for Certification of Part 23 Airplanes.
(25) International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Manual of Criteria for the Qualification of Flight Simulators, as amended.
(26) Airplane Flight Simulator Evaluation Handbook, Volume I, as amended and Volume II, as amended, The Royal Aeronautical Society, London, UK.
(27) FAA Publication FAA-S-8081 series (Practical Test Standards for Airline Transport Pilot Certificate, Type Ratings, Commercial Pilot, and Instrument Ratings).
(28) The FAA Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM). An electronic version of the AIM is on the Internet at http://www.faa.gov/atpubs.
(29) Aeronautical Radio, Inc. (ARINC) document number 436, titled Guidelines For Electronic Qualification Test Guide (as amended).
(30) Aeronautical Radio, Inc. (ARINC) document 610, Guidance for Design and Integration of Aircraft Avionics Equipment in Simulators (as amended).
2. Applicability (§§ 60.1 and 60.2)
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. Start Printed Page 26492
3. Definitions (§ 60.3)
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.
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)
See Appendix E of this part for additional regulatory and informational material regarding Quality Management Systems.
6. Sponsor Qualification Requirements (§ 60.7)
a. The intent of the language in § 60.7(b) is to have a specific FFS, identified by the sponsor, used at least once in an FAA-approved flight training program for the airplane simulated during the 12-month period described. The identification of the specific FFS may change from one 12-month period to the next 12-month period as long as the sponsor sponsors and uses at least one FFS at least once during the prescribed period. No minimum number of hours or minimum FFS periods are required.
b. The following examples describe acceptable operational practices:
(1) Example One.
(a) A sponsor is sponsoring a single, specific FFS for its own use, in its own facility or elsewhere—this single FFS forms the basis for the sponsorship. The sponsor uses that FFS at least once in each 12-month period in the sponsor's FAA-approved flight training program for the airplane simulated. This 12-month period is established according to the following schedule:
(i) If the FFS was qualified prior to May 30, 2008, the 12-month period begins on the date of the first continuing qualification evaluation conducted in accordance with § 60.19 after May 30, 2008, and continues for each subsequent 12-month period;
(ii) A device qualified on or after May 30, 2008, will be required to undergo an initial or upgrade evaluation in accordance with § 60.15. Once the initial or upgrade evaluation is complete, the first continuing qualification evaluation will be conducted within 6 months. The 12-month continuing qualification evaluation cycle begins on that date and continues for each subsequent 12-month period.
(b) There is no minimum number of hours of FFS use required.
(c) The identification of the specific FFS may change from one 12-month period to the next 12-month period as long as the sponsor sponsors and uses at least one FFS at least once during the prescribed period.
(2) Example Two.
(a) A sponsor sponsors an additional number of FFSs, in its facility or elsewhere. Each additionally sponsored FFS must be—
(i) Used by the sponsor in the sponsor's FAA-approved flight training program for the airplane simulated (as described in § 60.7(d)(1));
(ii) Used by another FAA certificate holder in that other certificate holder's FAA-approved flight training program for the airplane simulated (as described in § 60.7(d)(1)). This 12-month period is established in the same manner as in example one;
(iii) Provided a statement each year from a qualified pilot (after having flown the airplane, not the subject FFS or another FFS, during the preceding 12-month period), stating that the subject FFS's performance and handling qualities represent the airplane (as described in § 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));
(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)).
7. Additional Responsibilities of the Sponsor (§ 60.9)
The phrase “as soon as practicable” in § 60.9(a) means without unnecessarily disrupting or delaying beyond a reasonable time the training, evaluation, or experience being conducted in the FFS.
8. FFS Use (§ 60.11)
No additional regulatory or informational material applies to § 60.11, Simulator Use.
9. FFS Objective Data Requirements (§ 60.13)
Begin QPS Requirements
a. Flight test data used to validate FFS performance and handling qualities must have been gathered in accordance with a flight test program containing the following:
(1) A flight test plan consisting of:
(a) The maneuvers and procedures required for aircraft certification and simulation programming and validation.
(b) For each maneuver or procedure—
(i) The procedures and control input the flight test pilot and/or engineer used.
(ii) The atmospheric and environmental conditions.
(iii) The initial flight conditions.
(iv) The airplane configuration, including weight and center of gravity.
(v) The data to be gathered.
(vi) All other information necessary to recreate the flight test conditions in the FFS.
(2) Appropriately qualified flight test personnel.
(3) An understanding of the accuracy of the data to be gathered using appropriate alternative data sources, procedures, and instrumentation that is traceable to a recognized standard as described in Attachment 2, Table A2E of this appendix.
(4) Appropriate and sufficient data acquisition equipment or system(s), including appropriate data reduction and analysis methods and techniques, as would be acceptable to the FAA's Aircraft Certification Service.
b. The data, regardless of source, must be presented as follows:
(1) In a format that supports the FFS validation process.
(2) In a manner that is clearly readable and annotated correctly and completely.
(3) With resolution sufficient to determine compliance with the tolerances set forth in Attachment 2, Table A2A of this appendix.
(4) With any necessary instructions or other details provided, such as yaw damper or throttle position. Start Printed Page 26493
(5) Without alteration, adjustments, or bias. Data may be corrected to address known data calibration errors provided that an explanation of the methods used to correct the errors appears in the QTG. The corrected data may be re-scaled, digitized, or otherwise manipulated to fit the desired presentation.
c. After completion of any additional flight test, a flight test report must be submitted in support of the validation data. The report must contain sufficient data and rationale to support qualification of the FFS at the level requested.
d. As required by § 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
f. The FFS sponsor is encouraged to maintain a liaison with the manufacturer of the aircraft being simulated (or with the holder of the aircraft type certificate for the aircraft being simulated if the manufacturer is no longer in business), and, if appropriate, with the person having supplied the aircraft data package for the FFS in order to facilitate the notification required by § 60.13(f).
g. It is the intent of the NSPM that for new aircraft entering service, at a point well in advance of preparation of the Qualification Test Guide (QTG), the sponsor should submit to the NSPM for approval, a descriptive document (see Table A2C, Sample Validation Data Roadmap for Airplanes) containing the plan for acquiring the validation data, including data sources. This document should clearly identify sources of data for all required tests, a description of the validity of these data for a specific engine type and thrust rating configuration, and the revision levels of all avionics affecting the performance or flying qualities of the aircraft. Additionally, this document should provide other information, such as the rationale or explanation for cases where data or data parameters are missing, instances where engineering simulation data are used or where flight test methods require further explanations. It should also provide a brief narrative describing the cause and effect of any deviation from data requirements. The aircraft manufacturer may provide this document.
h. There is no requirement for any flight test data supplier to submit a flight test plan or program prior to gathering flight test data. However, the NSPM notes that inexperienced data gatherers often provide data that is irrelevant, improperly marked, or lacking adequate justification for selection. Other problems include inadequate information regarding initial conditions or test maneuvers. The NSPM has been forced to refuse these data submissions as validation data for an FFS evaluation. It is for this reason that the NSPM recommends that any data supplier not previously experienced in this area review the data necessary for programming and for validating the performance of the FFS, and discuss the flight test plan anticipated for acquiring such data with the NSPM well in advance of commencing the flight tests.
i. The NSPM will consider, on a case-by-case basis, whether to approve supplemental validation data derived from flight data recording systems, such as a Quick Access Recorder or Flight Data Recorder.
10. Special Equipment and Personnel Requirements for Qualification of the FFSs (§ 60.14)
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.
11. Initial (and Upgrade) Qualification Requirements (§ 60.15)
Begin QPS Requirements
a. In order to be qualified at a particular qualification level, the FFS must:
(1) Meet the general requirements listed in Attachment 1 of this appendix;
(2) Meet the objective testing requirements listed in Attachment 2 of this appendix; and
(3) Satisfactorily accomplish the subjective tests listed in Attachment 3 of this appendix.
b. The request described in § 60.15(a) must include all of the following:
(1) A statement that the FFS meets all of the applicable provisions of this part and all applicable provisions of the QPS.
(2) A confirmation that the sponsor will forward to the NSPM the statement described in § 60.15(b) in such time as to be received no later than 5 business days prior to the scheduled evaluation and may be forwarded to the NSPM via traditional or electronic means.
(3) A QTG, acceptable to the NSPM, that includes all of the following:
(a) Objective data obtained from traditional aircraft testing or another approved source.
(b) Correlating objective test results obtained from the performance of the FFS as prescribed in the appropriate QPS.
(c) The result of FFS subjective tests prescribed in the appropriate QPS.
(d) A description of the equipment necessary to perform the evaluation for initial qualification and the continuing qualification evaluations.
c. The QTG described in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, must provide the documented proof of compliance with the simulator objective tests in Attachment 2, Table A2A of this appendix.
d. The QTG is prepared and submitted by the sponsor, or the sponsor's agent on behalf of the sponsor, to the NSPM for review and approval, and must include, for each objective test:
(1) Parameters, tolerances, and flight conditions;
(2) Pertinent and complete instructions for the conduct of automatic and manual tests;
(3) A means of comparing the FFS test results to the objective data;
(4) Any other information as necessary, to assist in the evaluation of the test results;
(5) Other information appropriate to the qualification level of the FFS.
e. The QTG described in paragraphs (a)(3) and (b) of this section, must include the following:
(1) A QTG cover page with sponsor and FAA approval signature blocks (see Attachment 4, Figure A4C, of this appendix for a sample QTG cover page).
(2) A continuing qualification evaluation requirements page. This page will be used by the NSPM to establish and record the frequency with which continuing qualification evaluations must be conducted and any subsequent changes that may be determined by the NSPM in accordance with § 60.19. See Attachment 4, Figure A4G, of this appendix for a sample Continuing Qualification Evaluation Requirements page.
(3) An FFS information page that provides the information listed in this 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. Start Printed Page 26494
(d) The source of the basic aerodynamic model and the aerodynamic coefficient data used to modify the basic model.
(e) The engine model(s) and its data revision number or reference.
(f) The flight control data revision number or reference.
(g) The flight management system identification and revision level.
(h) The FFS model and manufacturer.
(i) The date of FFS manufacture.
(j) The FFS computer identification.
(k) The visual system model and manufacturer, including display type.
(l) The motion system type and manufacturer, including degrees of freedom.
(4) A Table of Contents.
(5) A log of revisions and a list of effective pages.
(6) A list of all relevant data references.
(7) A glossary of terms and symbols used (including sign conventions and units).
(8) Statements of Compliance and Capability (SOCs) with certain requirements.
(9) Recording procedures or equipment required to accomplish the objective tests.
(10) The following information for each objective test designated in Attachment 2, Table A2A, of this appendix as applicable to the qualification level sought:
(a) Name of the test.
(b) Objective of the test.
(c) Initial conditions.
(d) Manual test procedures.
(e) Automatic test procedures (if applicable).
(f) Method for evaluating FFS objective test results.
(g) List of all relevant parameters driven or constrained during the automatically conducted test(s).
(h) List of all relevant parameters driven or constrained during the manually conducted test(s).
(i) Tolerances for relevant parameters.
(j) Source of Validation Data (document and page number).
(k) Copy of the Validation Data (if located in a separate binder, a cross reference for the identification and page number for pertinent data location must be provided).
(l) Simulator Objective Test Results as obtained by the sponsor. Each test result must reflect the date completed and must be clearly labeled as a product of the device being tested.
f. A convertible FFS is addressed as a separate FFS for each model and series airplane to which it will be converted and for the FAA qualification level sought. If a sponsor seeks qualification for two or more models of an airplane type using a convertible FFS, the sponsor must submit a QTG for each airplane model, or a QTG for the first airplane model and a supplement to that QTG for each additional airplane model. The NSPM will conduct evaluations for each airplane model.
g. Form and manner of presentation of objective test results in the QTG:
(1) The sponsor's FFS test results must be recorded in a manner acceptable to the NSPM, that allows easy comparison of the FFS test results to the validation data (e.g., use of a multi-channel recorder, line printer, cross plotting, overlays, transparencies).
(2) FFS results must be labeled using terminology common to airplane parameters as opposed to computer software identifications.
(3) Validation data documents included in a QTG may be photographically reduced only if such reduction will not alter the graphic scaling or cause difficulties in scale interpretation or resolution.
(4) Scaling on graphical presentations must provide the resolution necessary to evaluate the parameters shown in Attachment 2, Table A2A of this appendix.
(5) Tests involving time histories, data sheets (or transparencies thereof) and FFS test results must be clearly marked with appropriate reference points to ensure an accurate comparison between the FFS and the airplane with respect to time. Time histories recorded via a line printer are to be clearly identified for cross plotting on the airplane data. Over-plots must not obscure the reference data.
h. The sponsor may elect to complete the QTG objective and subjective tests at the manufacturer's facility or at the sponsor's training facility. If the tests are conducted at the manufacturer's facility, the sponsor must repeat at least one-third of the tests at the sponsor's training facility in order to substantiate FFS performance. The QTG must be clearly annotated to indicate when and where each test was accomplished. Tests conducted at the manufacturer's facility and at the sponsor's training facility must be conducted after the FFS is assembled with systems and sub-systems functional and operating in an interactive manner. The test results must be submitted to the NSPM.
i. The sponsor must maintain a copy of the MQTG at the FFS location.
j. All FFSs for which the initial qualification is conducted after May 30, 2014, must have an electronic MQTG (eMQTG) including all objective data 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
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. Start Printed Page 26495
(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.
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 the 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 flight crewmember 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 § 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.
12. Additional Qualifications for a Currently Qualified FFS (§ 60.16)
No additional regulatory or informational material applies to § 60.16, Additional Qualifications for a Currently Qualified FFS.
13. Previously Qualified FFSs (§ 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
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. Start Printed Page 26496
14. Inspection, Continuing Qualification Evaluation, and Maintenance Requirements (§ 60.19)
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
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:
(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 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.
15. Logging FFS Discrepancies (§ 60.20)
No additional regulatory or informational material applies to § 60.20. Logging FFS Discrepancies.
16. Interim Qualification of FFSs for New Airplane Types or Models (§ 60.21)
No additional regulatory or informational material applies to § 60.21, Interim Qualification of FFSs for New Airplane Types or Models.
17. Modifications to FFSs (§ 60.23)
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
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.
18. Operation with Missing, Malfunctioning, or Inoperative Components (§ 60.25)
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.
19. Automatic Loss of Qualification and Procedures for Restoration of Qualification (§ 60.27)
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.
20. Other Losses of Qualification and Procedures for Restoration of Qualification (§ 60.29)
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 Start Printed Page 26497systems; 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.
21. Recordkeeping and Reporting (§ 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 § 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 (§ 60.33)
No additional regulatory or informational material applies to § 60.33, Applications, Logbooks, Reports, and Records: Fraud, Falsification, or Incorrect Statements.
23. Specific FFS Compliance Requirements (§ 60.35)
No additional regulatory or informational material applies to § 60.35, Specific FFS Compliance Requirements.
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).
Attachment 1 to Appendix A to Part 60—General Simulator Requirements
Begin QPS 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
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.
|QPS requirements||Simulator levels||Information|
|Entry No.||General simulator requirements||A||B||C||D||Notes|
|1. General Flight deck Configuration.|
|1.a.||The simulator must have a flight deck that is a replica of the airplane simulated with controls, equipment, observable flight deck indicators, circuit breakers, and bulkheads properly located, functionally accurate and replicating the airplane. The direction of movement of controls and switches must be identical to the airplane. Pilot seats must allow the occupant to achieve the design “eye position” established for the airplane being simulated. Equipment for the operation of the flight deck windows must be included, but the actual windows need not be operable. Additional equipment such as fire axes, extinguishers, and spare light bulbs must be available in the FFS but may be relocated to a suitable location as near as practical to the original position. Fire axes, landing gear pins, and any similar purpose instruments need only be represented in silhouette||X||X||X||X||For simulator purposes, the flight deck consists of all that space forward of a cross section of the flight deck at the most extreme aft setting of the pilots' seats, including additional required crewmember duty stations and those required bulkheads aft of the pilot seats. For clarification, bulkheads containing only items such as landing gear pin storage compartments, fire axes and extinguishers, spare light bulbs, and aircraft document pouches are not considered essential and may be omitted.|
|Start Printed Page 26498|
|1.b.||Those circuit breakers that affect procedures or result in observable flight deck indications must be properly located and functionally accurate||X||X||X||X|
|2.a.||A flight dynamics model that accounts for various combinations of drag and thrust normally encountered in flight must correspond to actual flight conditions, including the effect of change in airplane attitude, thrust, drag, altitude, temperature, gross weight, moments of inertia, center of gravity location, and configuration An SOC is required||X||X||X||X|
|2.b.||The simulator must have the computer capacity, accuracy, resolution, and dynamic response needed to meet the qualification level sought An SOC is required.||X||X||X||X|
|2.c.||Surface operations must be represented to the extent that allows turns within the confines of the runway and adequate controls on the landing and roll-out from a crosswind approach to a landing||X|
|2.d.||Ground handling and aerodynamic programming must include the following:|
|2.d.1.||Ground effect||X||X||X||Ground effect includes modeling that accounts for roundout, flare, touchdown, lift, drag, pitching moment, trim, and power while in ground effect.|
|2.d.2.||Ground reaction||X||X||X||Ground reaction includes modeling that accounts for strut deflections, tire friction, and side forces. This is the reaction of the airplane upon contact with the runway during landing, and may differ with changes in factors such as gross weight, airspeed, or rate of descent on touchdown.|
|2.d.3.||Ground handling characteristics, including aerodynamic and ground reaction modeling including steering inputs, operations with crosswind, braking, thrust reversing, deceleration, and turning radius||X||X||X|
|2.e.||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 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 takeoff rotation. (2) At liftoff. (3) During initial climb. (4) On final approach, below 500 ft AGL.||X||X||If desired, Level A and B simulators may qualify for windshear training by meeting these standards; see Attachment 5 of this appendix. Windshear models may consist of independent variable winds in multiple simultaneous components. The FAA Windshear Training Aid presents one acceptable means of compliance with simulator wind model requirements.|
|Start Printed Page 26499|
|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 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|
|2.f.||The simulator must provide for manual and automatic testing of simulator hardware and software programming to determine compliance with simulator objective tests as prescribed in Attachment 2 of this appendix An SOC is required.||X||X||Automatic “flagging” of out-of-tolerance situations is encouraged.|
|2.g.||Relative responses of the motion system, visual system, and flight deck instruments, measured by latency tests or transport delay tests. Motion onset should occur before the start of the visual scene change (the start of the scan of the first video field containing different information) but must occur before the end of the scan of that video field. Instrument response may not occur prior to motion onset. Test results must be within the following limits:||The intent is to verify that the simulator provides instrument, motion, and visual cues that are, within the stated time delays, like the airplane responses. For airplane response, acceleration in the appropriate, corresponding rotational axis is preferred.|
|2.g.1.||300 milliseconds of the airplane response||X||X|
|2.g.2.||150 milliseconds of the airplane response||X||X|
|2.h.||The simulator must accurately reproduce the following runway conditions:||X||X|
|(4) Patchy Wet|
|(5) Patchy Icy|
|(6) Wet on Rubber Residue in Touchdown Zone|
|An SOC is required.|
|2.i.||The simulator must simulate: (1) brake and tire failure dynamics, including antiskid failure (2) decreased brake efficiency due to high brake temperatures, if applicable An SOC is required.||X||X||Simulator pitch, side loading, and directional control characteristics should be representative of the airplane.|
|2.j.||The simulator must replicate the effects of airframe and engine icing||X||X|
|2.k.||The aerodynamic modeling in the simulator must include: (1) Low-altitude level-flight ground effect; (2) Mach effect at high altitude; (3) Normal and reverse dynamic thrust effect on control surfaces;||X||See Attachment 2 of this appendix, paragraph 5, for further information on ground effect.|
|(4) Aeroelastic representations; and|
|(5) Nonlinearities due to sideslip.|
|Start Printed Page 26500|
|An SOC is required and must include references to computations of aeroelastic representations and of nonlinearities due to sideslip.|
|2.l.||The simulator must have aerodynamic and ground reaction modeling for the effects of reverse thrust on directional control, if applicable An SOC is required.||X||X||X|
|3. Equipment Operation.|
|3.a.||All relevant instrument indications involved in the simulation of the airplane must automatically respond to control movement or external disturbances to the simulated airplane; e.g., turbulence or windshear. Numerical values must be presented in the appropriate units||X||X||X||X|
|3.b.||Communications, navigation, caution, and warning equipment must be installed and operate within the tolerances applicable for the airplane||X||X||X||X||See Attachment 3 of this appendix for further information regarding long-range navigation equipment.|
|3.c.||Simulated airplane systems must operate as the airplane systems operate under normal, abnormal, and emergency operating conditions on the ground and in flight||X||X||X||X|
|3.d.||The simulator must provide pilot controls with control forces and control travel that correspond to the simulated airplane. The simulator must also react in the same manner as in the airplane under the same flight conditions||X||X||X||X|
|3.e.||Simulator control feel dynamics must replicate the airplane. This must be determined by comparing a recording of the control feel dynamics of the simulator to airplane measurements. For initial and upgrade qualification evaluations, the control dynamic characteristics must be measured and recorded directly from the flight deck controls, and must be accomplished in takeoff, cruise, and landing flight conditions and configurations||X||X|
|4. Instructor or Evaluator Facilities.|
|4.a.||In addition to the flight crewmember stations, the simulator must have at least two suitable seats for the instructor/check airman and FAA inspector. These seats must provide adequate vision to the pilot's panel and forward windows. All seats other than flight crew seats need not represent those found in the airplane, but must be adequately secured to the floor and equipped with similar positive restraint devices.||X||X||X||X||The NSPM will consider alternatives to this standard for additional seats based on unique flight deck configurations.|
|4.b.||The simulator must have controls that enable the instructor/evaluator to control all required system variables and insert all abnormal or emergency conditions into the simulated airplane systems as described in the sponsor's FAA-approved training program; or as described in the relevant operating manual as appropriate.||X||X||X||X|
|Start Printed Page 26501|
|4.c.||The simulator must have instructor controls for all environmental effects expected to be available at the IOS; e.g., clouds, visibility, icing, precipitation, temperature, storm cells, and wind speed and direction||X||X||X||X|
|4.d.||The simulator must provide the instructor or evaluator the ability to present ground and air hazards||X||X||For example, another airplane crossing the active runway or converging airborne traffic.|
|5. Motion System.|
|5.a.||The simulator must have motion (force) cues perceptible to the pilot that are representative of the motion in an airplane||X||X||X||X||For example, touchdown cues should be a function of the rate of descent (RoD) of the simulated airplane.|
|5.b.||The simulator must have a motion (force cueing) system with a minimum of three degrees of freedom (at least pitch, roll, and heave) An SOC is required.||X||X|
|5.c.||The simulator must have a motion (force cueing) system that produces cues at least equivalent to those of a six-degrees-of-freedom, synergistic platform motion system (i.e., pitch, roll, yaw, heave, sway, and surge) An SOC is required.||X||X|
|5.d.||The simulator must provide for the recording of the motion system response time An SOC is required.||X||X||X||X|
|5.e.||The simulator must provide motion effects programming to include:||X||X||X|
|(1) Thrust effect with brakes set.|
|(2) Runway rumble, oleo deflections, effects of ground speed, uneven runway, centerline lights, and taxiway characteristics.|
|(3) Buffets on the ground due to spoiler/speedbrake extension and thrust reversal.|
|(4) Bumps associated with the landing gear.|
|(5 O='xl') Buffet during extension and retraction of landing gear.|
|(6) Buffet in the air due to flap and spoiler/speedbrake extension.|
|(7) Approach-to-Stall buffet.|
|(8) Representative touchdown cues for main and nose gear.|
|(9) Nosewheel scuffing, if applicable.|
|(10) Mach and maneuver buffet.|
|5.f.||The simulator must provide characteristic motion vibrations that result from operation of the airplane if the vibration marks an event or airplane state that can be sensed in the flight deck||X||The simulator should be programmed and instrumented in such a manner that the characteristic buffet modes can be measured and compared to airplane data.|
|6. Visual System.|
|6.a.||The simulator must have a visual system providing an out-of-the-flight deck view||X||X||X||X|
|Start Printed Page 26502|
|6.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 minimum horizontal field-of-view coverage must be plus and minus one-half (1/2) of the minimum continuous field-of-view requirement, centered on the zero degree azimuth line relative to the aircraft fuselage An SOC is required and must explain the system geometry measurements including system linearity and field-of-view.||X||X||Additional field-of-view capability may be added at the sponsor's discretion provided the minimum fields of view are retained.|
|6.d.||The simulator must provide a continuous collimated visual field-of-view of at least 176° horizontally and 36° vertically or the number of degrees necessary to meet the visual ground segment requirement, whichever is greater. The minimum horizontal field-of-view coverage must be plus and minus one-half (1/2) of the minimum continuous field-of-view requirement, centered on the zero degree azimuth line relative to the aircraft fuselage An SOC is required and must explain the system geometry measurements including system linearity and field-of-view.||X||X||The horizontal field-of-view is traditionally described as a 180° field-of-view. However, the field-of-view is technically no less than 176°. Additional field-of-view capability may be added at the sponsor's discretion provided the minimum fields-of-view are retained.|
|6.e.||The visual system must be free from optical discontinuities and artifacts that create non-realistic cues||X||X||X||X||Non-realistic cues might include image “swimming” and image “roll-off,” that may lead a pilot to make incorrect assessments of speed, acceleration, or situational awareness.|
|6.f.||The simulator must have operational landing lights for night scenes. Where used, dusk (or twilight) scenes require operational landing lights||X||X||X||X|
|6.g.||The simulator must have instructor controls for the following: (1) Visibility in statute miles (km) and runway visual range (RVR) in ft. (m). (2) Airport selection. (3) Airport lighting.||X||X||X||X|
|6.h.||The simulator must provide visual system compatibility with dynamic response programming||X||X||X||X|
|6.i.||The simulator must show that the segment of the ground visible from the simulator flight deck is the same as from the airplane flight deck (within established tolerances) when at the correct airspeed, in the landing configuration, at the appropriate height above the touchdown zone, and with appropriate visibility||X||X||X||X||This will show the modeling accuracy of RVR, glideslope, and localizer for a given weight, configuration, and speed within the airplane's operational envelope for a normal approach and landing.|
|6.j.||The simulator must provide visual cues necessary to assess sink rates (provide depth perception) during takeoffs and landings, to include: (1) Surface on runways, taxiways, and ramps. (2) Terrain features.||X||X||X|
|Start Printed Page 26503|
|6.k.||The simulator must provide for accurate portrayal of the visual environment relating to the simulator attitude||X||X||X||X||Visual attitude vs. simulator 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.|
|6.l.||The simulator must provide for quick confirmation of visual system color, RVR, focus, and intensity An SOC is required.||X||X|
|6.m.||The simulator must be capable of producing at least 10 levels of occulting||X||X|
|6.n.||Night Visual Scenes. When used in training, testing, or checking activities, the simulator must provide night visual scenes with sufficient scene content to recognize the airport, the terrain, and major landmarks around the airport. The scene content must allow a pilot to successfully accomplish a visual landing. Scenes must include a definable horizon and typical terrain characteristics such as fields, roads and bodies of water and surfaces illuminated by airplane landing lights||X||X||X||X|
|6.o.||Dusk (or Twilight) Visual Scenes. When used in training, testing, or checking activities, the simulator must provide dusk (or twilight) visual scenes with sufficient scene content to recognize the airport, the terrain, and major landmarks around the airport. The scene content must allow a pilot to successfully accomplish a visual landing. Dusk (or twilight) scenes, as a minimum, must provide full color presentations of reduced ambient intensity, sufficient surfaces with appropriate textural cues that include self-illuminated objects such as road networks, ramp lighting and airport signage, to conduct a visual approach, landing and airport movement (taxi). Scenes must include a definable horizon and typical terrain characteristics such as fields, roads and bodies of water and surfaces illuminated by airplane landing lights. If provided, directional horizon lighting must have correct orientation and be consistent with surface shading effects. Total night or dusk (twilight) scene content must be comparable in detail to that produced by 10,000 visible textured surfaces and 15,000 visible lights with sufficient system capacity to display 16 simultaneously moving objects An SOC is required.||X||X|
|Start Printed Page 26504|
|6.p.||Daylight Visual Scenes. The simulator must provide daylight visual scenes with sufficient scene content to recognize the airport, the terrain, and major landmarks around the airport. The scene content must allow a pilot to successfully accomplish a visual landing. Any ambient lighting must not “washout” the displayed visual scene. Total daylight scene content must be comparable in detail to that produced by 10,000 visible textured surfaces and 6,000 visible lights with sufficient system capacity to display 16 simultaneously moving objects. The visual display must be free of apparent and distracting quantization and other distracting visual effects while the simulator is in motion An SOC is required.||X||X|
|6.q.||The simulator must provide operational visual scenes that portray physical relationships known to cause landing illusions to pilots||X||X||For example: short runways, landing approaches over water, uphill or downhill runways, rising terrain on the approach path, unique topographic features.|
|6.r.||The simulator must provide special weather representations of light, medium, and heavy precipitation near a thunderstorm on takeoff and during approach and landing. Representations need only be presented at and below an altitude of 2,000 ft. (610 m) above the airport surface and within 10 miles (16 km) of the airport||X||X|
|6.s.||The simulator must present visual scenes of wet and snow-covered runways, including runway lighting reflections for wet conditions, partially obscured lights for snow conditions, or suitable alternative effects||X||X|
|6.t.||The simulator must present realistic color and directionality of all airport lighting||X||X|
|7. Sound System.|
|7.a.||The simulator must provide flight deck sounds that result from pilot actions that correspond to those that occur in the airplane||X||X||X||X|
|7.b.||The volume control must have an indication of sound level setting which meets all qualification requirements.||X||X||X||X|
|7.c.||The simulator must accurately simulate the sound of precipitation, windshield wipers, and other significant airplane noises perceptible to the pilot during normal and abnormal operations, and include the sound of a crash (when the simulator is landed in an unusual attitude or in excess of the structural gear limitations); normal engine and thrust reversal sounds; and the sounds of flap, gear, and spoiler extension and retraction An SOC is required.||X||X|
|7.d.||The simulator must provide realistic amplitude and frequency of flight deck noises and sounds. Simulator performance must be recorded, compared to amplitude and frequency of the same sounds recorded in the airplane, and be made a part of the QTG||X|
|Entry No.||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.||Simulator levels||Notes|
|1. Preflight Procedures|
|1.a.||Preflight Inspection (flight deck only)||X||X||X||X|
|2. Takeoff and Departure Phase|
|2.a.||Normal and Crosswind Takeoff||R||X||X|
|2.c.||Engine Failure During Takeoff||A||X||X||X|
|3. Inflight Maneuvers|
|3.b.||Approaches to Stalls||X||X||X||X|
|3.c.||Engine Failure—Multiengine Airplane||X||X||X||X|
|3.d.||Engine Failure—Single-Engine Airplane||X||X||X||X|
|3.e.||Specific Flight Characteristics incorporated into the user's FAA approved flight training program||A||A||A||A|
|3.f.||Recovery From Unusual Attitudes||X||X||X||X||Within the normal flight envelope supported by applicable simulation validation data.|
|4. Instrument Procedures|
|4.a.||Standard Terminal Arrival/Flight Management System Arrivals Procedures||X||X||X||X|
|4.c.1.||All Engines Operating||X||X||X||X||e.g., Autopilot, Manual (Flt. Dir. Assisted), Manual (Raw Data).|
|4.c.2.||One Engine Inoperative||X||X||X||X||e.g., Manual (Flt. Dir. Assisted), Manual (Raw Data).|
|4.d.||Non-Precision Instrument Approach||X||X||X||X||e.g., NDB, VOR, VOR/DME, VOR/TAC, RNAV, LOC, LOC/BC, ADF, and SDF.|
|4.e.||Circling Approach||X||X||X||X||Specific authorization required.|
|4.f.2.||One Engine Inoperative||X||X||X||X|
|5. Landings and Approaches to Landings|
|5.a.||Normal and Crosswind Approaches and Landings||R||X||X|
|Start Printed Page 26506|
|5.b.||Landing From a Precision/Non-Precision Approach||R||X||X|
|5.c.||Approach and Landing with (Simulated) Engine Failure—Multiengine Airplane||R||X||X|
|5.d.||Landing From Circling Approach||R||X||X|
|5.f.||Landing From a No Flap or a Nonstandard Flap Configuration Approach||R||X||X|
|6. Normal and Abnormal Procedures|
|6.a.||Engine (including shutdown and restart)||X||X||X||X|
|6.e.||Environmental and Pressurization Systems||X||X||X||X|
|6.f.||Fire Detection and Extinguisher Systems||X||X||X||X|
|6.g.||Navigation and Avionics Systems||X||X||X||X|
|6.h.||Automatic Flight Control System, Electronic Flight Instrument System, and Related Subsystems||X||X||X||X|
|6.i.||Flight Control Systems||X||X||X||X|
|6.j.||Anti-ice and Deice Systems||X||X||X||X|
|6.k.||Aircraft and Personal Emergency Equipment||X||X||X||X|
|7. Emergency Procedures|
|7.a.||Emergency Descent (Max. Rate)||X||X||X||X|
|7.b.||Inflight Fire and Smoke Removal||X||X||X||X|
|8. Postflight Procedures|
|8.b.||Parking and Securing||X||X||X||X|
|“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.|
|Entry No.||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.||Simulator levels||Notes|
|1. Instructor Operating Station (IOS), as appropriate|
|Start Printed Page 26507|
|1.b.||Airplane conditions||X||X||X||X||e.g., GW, CG, Fuel loading and Systems.|
|1.c.||Airports/Runways||X||X||X||X||e.g., Selection, Surface, Presets, Lighting controls.|
|1.d.||Environmental controls||X||X||X||X||e.g., Clouds, Visibility, RVR, Temp, Wind, Ice, Snow, Rain, and Windshear.|
|1.e.||Airplane system malfunctions (Insertion/deletion)||X||X||X||X|
|1.f.||Locks, Freezes, and Repositioning||X||X||X||X|
|2. Sound Controls|
|3. Motion/Control Loading System|
|4. Observer Seats/Stations|
|4.a.||Position/Adjustment/Positive restraint system||X||X||X||X|
Attachment 2 to Appendix A to Part 60—FFS Objective Tests
|Table A2A, Objective Tests.|
|8.||Additional Information About Flight Simulator Qualification for New or Derivative Airplanes.|
|9.||Engineering Simulator—Validation Data.|
|11.||Validation Test Tolerances.|
|12.||Validation Data Roadmap.|
|13.||Acceptance Guidelines for Alternative Engines Data.|
|14.||Acceptance Guidelines for Alternative Avionics (Flight-Related Computers and Controllers).|
|15.||Transport Delay Testing.|
|16.||Continuing Qualification Evaluations—Validation Test Data Presentation.|
|17.||Alternative Data Sources, Procedures, and Instrumentation: Level A and Level B Simulators Only.|
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. Start Printed Page 26508
Begin QPS Requirements
2. Test Requirements
a. The ground and flight tests required for qualification are listed in Table 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 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
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 InformationStart Printed Page 26509
|Test||Tolerance||Flight conditions||Test details||Simulator level||Notes|
|1.a.1.||Minimum Radius Turn||±3 ft (0.9m) or 20% of airplane turn radius||Ground||Record both Main and Nose gear turning radius. This test is to be accomplished without the use of brakes and only minimum thrust, except for airplanes requiring asymmetric thrust or braking to turn||X||X||X|
|1.a.2||Rate of Turn vs. Nosewheel Steering Angle (NWA)||±10% or ±2°/sec. turn rate||Ground||Record a minimum of two speeds, greater than minimum turning radius speed, with a spread of at least 5 knots groundspeed, in normal taxi speed conditions||X||X||X|
|1.b.||Takeoff.||All commonly used takeoff flap settings are to be demonstrated at least once in the tests for minimum unstick (1.b.3.), normal takeoff (1.b.4.), critical engine failure on takeoff (1.b.5.), or crosswind takeoff (1.b.6.)|
|1.b.1.||Ground Acceleration Time and Distance||±5% time and distance or ±5% time and ±200 ft (61 m) of distance||Takeoff||Record acceleration time and distance for a minimum of 80% of the time from brake release to VR Preliminary aircraft certification data may be used.||X||X||X||X||May be combined with normal takeoff (1.b.4.) or rejected takeoff (1.b.7.). Plotted data should be shown using appropriate scales for each portion of the maneuver.|
|1.b.2.||Minimum Control Speed−ground (Vmcg) using aerodynamic controls only (per applicable airworthiness standard) or alternative low speed engine inoperative test to demonstrate ground control characteristics||±25% of maximum airplane lateral deviation or ±5 ft (1.5 m). Additionally, for those simulators of airplanes with reversible flight control systems: Rudder pedal force; ±10% or ±5 lb (2.2 daN)||Takeoff||Engine failure speed must be within ±1 knot of airplane engine failure speed. Engine thrust decay must be that resulting from the mathematical model for the engine variant applicable to the FFS 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||X||X||X||X||If a Vmcg test is not available an acceptable alternative is a flight test snap engine deceleration to idle at a speed between V1 and V1 −10 knots, followed by control of heading using aerodynamic control only. Recovery should be achieved with the main gear on the ground. To ensure only aerodynamic control is used, nosewheel steering should be disabled (i.e., castored) or the nosewheel held slightly off the ground.|
|Start Printed Page 26510|
|1.b.3.||Minimum Unstick Speed (Vmu) or equivalent test to demonstrate early rotation takeoff characteristics||±3 kts airspeed ±1.5° pitch angle||Takeoff||Record main landing gear strut compression or equivalent air/ground signal. Record from 10 kt before start of rotation until at least 5 seconds after the occurrence of main gear lift-off||X||X||X||X||Vmu 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 Vmu test is not available, alternative acceptable flight tests are a constant high-attitude take-off run through main gear lift-off or an early rotation take-off.|
|1.b.4.||Normal Takeoff||±3 kts airspeed ±1.5° pitch angle ±1.5° angle of attack ±20 ft (6 m) height. Additionally, for those simulators of airplanes with reversible flight control systems: Stick/Column Force; ±10% or ±5 lb (2.2 daN)||Takeoff||Record takeoff profile from brake release to at least 200 ft (61 m) above ground level (AGL). If the airplane has more than one certificated takeoff configurations, a different configuration must be used for each weight. Data are required for a takeoff weight at near maximum takeoff weight with a mid-center of gravity and for a light takeoff weight with an aft center of gravity, as defined in Appendix F of this part||X||X||X||X||This test may be used for ground acceleration time and distance (1.b.1.). Plotted data should be shown using appropriate scales for each portion of the maneuver.|
|1.b.5.||Critical Engine Failure on Takeoff||±3 kts airspeed ±1.5° pitch angle, ±1.5° angle of attack, ±20 ft (6 m) height, ±3° heading angle, ±2° bank angle, ±2° sideslip angle. Additionally, for those simulators of airplanes with reversible flight control systems: Stick/Column Force; ±10% or ±5 lb (2.2 daN)); Wheel Force; ±10% or ±3 lb (1.3 daN); and Rudder Pedal Force; ±10% or ±5 lb (2.2 daN)||Takeoff||Record takeoff profile at near maximum takeoff weight from prior to engine failure to at least 200 ft (61 m) AGL. Engine failure speed must be within ±3 kts of airplane data||X||X||X||X|
|Start Printed Page 26511|
|1.b.6.||Crosswind Takeoff||±3 kts airspeed, ±1.5° pitch angle, ±1.5° angle of attack, ±20 ft (6 m) height, ±2° bank angle, ±2° sideslip angle; ±3° heading angle. Correct trend at groundspeeds below 40 kts. for rudder/pedal and heading. Additionally, for those simulators of airplanes with reversible flight control systems: ±10% or ±5 lb (2.2 daN) stick/column force, ±10% or ±3 lb (1.3 daN) wheel force, ±10% or ±5 lb (2.2 daN) rudder pedal force||Takeoff||Record takeoff profile from brake release to at least 200 ft (61 m) AGL. Requires test data, including information on wind profile for a crosswind (expressed as direct head-wind and direct cross-wind components) of at least 60% of the maximum wind measured at 33 ft (10 m) above the runway||X||X||X||X||In those situations where a maximum crosswind or a maximum demonstrated crosswind is not known, contact the NSPM.|
|1.b.7.||Rejected Takeoff||±5% time or ±1.5 sec ±7.5% distance or ±250 ft (±76 m)||Takeoff||Record time and distance from brake release to full stop. Speed for initiation of the reject must be at least 80% of V1 speed. The airplane must be at or near the maximum takeoff gross weight. Use maximum braking effort, auto or manual||X||X||X||X||Autobrakes will be used where applicable.|
|1.b.8.||Dynamic Engine Failure After Takeoff||±20% or ±2°/sec body angular rates||Takeoff||Engine failure speed must be within ±3 Kts of airplane data. Record Hands Off from 5 secs. before to at least 5 secs. after engine failure or 30° Bank, whichever occurs first. Engine failure may be a snap deceleration to idle. CCA: Test in Normal and Non-normal control state||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.|
|1.c.1.||Normal Climb, all engines operating||±3 kts airspeed, ±5% or ±100 FPM (0.5 m/Sec.) climb rate||Clean||Flight test data is preferred, however, airplane performance manual data is an acceptable alternative. Record at nominal climb speed and mid-initial climb altitude. Flight simulator performance must be recorded over an interval of at least 1,000 ft. (300 m)||X||X||X||X|
|Start Printed Page 26512|
|1.c.2.||One engine Inoperative||±3 kts airspeed, ±5% or ±100 FPM (0.5 m/Sec.) climb rate, but not less than the climb gradient requirements of 14 CFR part 23 or part 25, as appropriate||For part 23 airplanes, in accordance with part 23. For part 25 airplanes, Second Segment Climb||Flight test data is preferred, however, airplane performance manual data is an acceptable alternative. Test at weight, altitude, or temperature limiting conditions. Record at nominal climb speed. Flight simulator performance must be recorded over an interval of at least 1,000 ft. (300 m).||X||X||X||X|
|1.c.3.||One Engine Inoperative En route Climb||±10% time, ±10% distance, ±10% fuel used||Clean||Record results for at least a 5000 ft (1550 m) climb segment. Flight test data or airplane performance manual data may be used||X||X|
|1.c.4.||One Engine Inoperative Approach Climb (if operations in icing conditions are authorized)||±3 kts airspeed, ±5% or ±100 FPM (0.5 m/Sec.) climb rate, but not less than the climb gradient requirements of 14 CFR parts 23 or 25 climb gradient, as appropriate||Approach||Record results at near maximum gross landing weight as defined in Appendix F of this part. Flight test data or airplane performance manual data may be used. Flight simulator performance must be recorded over an interval of at least 1,000 ft. (300 m)||X||X||X||X||The airplane should be configured with all anti-ice and de-ice systems operating normally, with the gear up and go-around flaps set. All icing accountability considerations should be applied in accordance with the aircraft certification or authorization for an approach in icing conditions.|
|1.d.1.||Level flight acceleration||±5% Time||Cruise||Record results for a minimum of 50 kts speed increase using maximum continuous thrust rating or equivalent||X||X||X||X|
|1.d.2.||Level flight deceleration||±5% Time||Cruise||Record results for a minimum of 50 kts. speed decrease using idle power||X||X||X||X|
|1.d.3.||Cruise performance||±0.05 EPR or ±5% of N1, or ±5% of Torque, ±5% of fuel flow||Cruise||May be a single snapshot showing instantaneous fuel flow or a minimum of 2 consecutive snapshots with a spread of at least 3 minutes in steady flight||X||X|
|1.d.4.||Idle descent||±3 kt airspeed, ±5% or ±200 ft/min (1.0m/sec) descent rate||Clean||Record a stabilized, idle power descent at normal descent speed at mid-altitude. Flight simulator performance must be recorded over an interval of at least 1,000 ft. (300 m)||X||X||X||X|
|Start Printed Page 26513|
|1.d.5.||Emergency descent||±5 kt airspeed, ±5% or ±300 ft/min (1.5m/s) descent rate||N/A||Performance must be recorded over an interval of at least 3,000 ft (900 m)||X||X||X||X||The stabilized descent should be conducted with speed brakes extended, if applicable, at mid-altitude and near Vmo speed or in accordance with emergency descent procedures.|
|1.e.1.||Stopping time and distance, using manual application of wheel brakes and no reverse thrust on a dry runway||±5% of time. For distance up to 4000 ft (1220 m): ±200 ft (61 m) or ±10%, whichever is smaller. For distance greater than 4000 ft (1220 m): ±5% of distance||Landing||Record time and distance for at least 80% of the total time from touch down to full stop. Data is required for weights at medium and near maximum landing weights. Data for brake system pressure and position of ground spoilers (including method of deployment, if used) must be provided. Engineering data may be used for the medium gross weight condition||X||X||X||X|
|1.e.2.||Stopping time and distance, using reverse thrust and no wheel brakes on a dry runway||±5% time and the smaller of ±10% or ±200 ft (61 m) of distance||Landing||Record time and distance for at least 80% of the total time from initiation of reverse thrust to the minimum operating speed with full reverse thrust. Data is required for medium and near maximum landing gross weights. Data on the position of ground spoilers, (including method of deployment, if used) must be provided. Engineering data may be used for the medium gross weight condition||X||X||X||X|
|1.e.3.||Stopping distance, using wheel brakes and no reverse thrust on a wet runway||±10% of distance or ±200 ft (61 m)||Landing||Either flight test data or manufacturer's performance manual data must be used where available. Engineering data based on dry runway flight test stopping distance modified by the effects of contaminated runway braking coefficients are an acceptable alternative||X||X|
|Start Printed Page 26514|
|1.e.4.||Stopping distance, using wheel brakes and no reverse thrust on an icy runway||±10% of distance or ±200 ft (61 m)||Landing||Either flight test or manufacturer's performance manual data must be used, where available. Engineering data based on dry runway flight test stopping distance modified by the effects of contaminated runway braking coefficients are an acceptable alternative||X||X|
|1.f.1.||Acceleration||(±10% Tt) and (±10% Ti, or ±0.25 sec.)||Approach or landing||Record engine power (N1, N2, EPR, Torque) from flight idle to go-around power for a rapid (slam) throttle movement||X||X||X||X||See Appendix F of this part for definitions of Ti and Tt.|
|1.f.2.||Deceleration||(±10% Tt) and (±10% Ti, or ±0.25 sec.)||Ground||Record engine power (N1, N2, EPR, Torque) from Max T/O power to 90% decay of Max T/O power for a rapid (slam) throttle movement||X||X||X||X||See Appendix F of this part for definitions of Ti and Tt.|
|2. Handling Qualities.|
|For simulators requiring Static or Dynamic tests at the controls (i.e., column, wheel, rudder pedal), special test fixtures will not be required during initial or upgrade evaluations if the sponsor's QTG/MQTG shows both test fixture results and the results of an alternative approach, such as computer plots produced concurrently, that provide satisfactory agreement. Repeat of the alternative method during the initial or upgrade evaluation satisfies this test requirement. For initial and upgrade evaluations, the control dynamic characteristics must be measured at and recorded directly from the flight deck controls, and must be accomplished in takeoff, cruise, and landing flight conditions and configurations. Testing of position versus force is not applicable if forces are generated solely by use of airplane hardware in the FFS.||Contact the NSPM for clarification of any issue regarding airplanes with reversible controls.|
|2.a.||Static Control Tests.|
|2.a.1.a.||Pitch Controller Position vs. Force and Surface Position Calibration||±2 lb (0.9 daN) breakout, ±10% or ±5 lb (2.2 daN) force, ±2° elevator||Ground||Record results for an uninterrupted control sweep to the stops||X||X||X||X||Test results should be validated (where possible) with in-flight data from tests such as longitudinal static stability or stalls. Static and dynamic flight control tests should be accomplished at the same feel or impact pressures.|
|2.a.2.a.||Roll Controller Position vs. Force and Surface Position Calibration||±2 lb (0.9 daN) breakout, ±10% or ±3 lb (1.3 daN) force, ±2° aileron, ±3° spoiler angle||Ground||Record results for an uninterrupted control sweep to the stops||X||X||X||X||Test results should be validated with in-flight data from tests such as engine out trims, or steady state sideslips. Static and dynamic flight control tests should be accomplished at the same feel or impact pressures.|
|Start Printed Page 26515|
|2.a.3.a.||Rudder Pedal Position vs. Force and Surface Position Calibration||±5 lb (2.2 daN) breakout, ±10% or ±5 lb (2.2 daN) force, ±2° rudder angle||Ground||Record results for an uninterrupted control sweep to the stops||X||X||X||X||Test results should be validated with in-flight data from tests such as engine out trims, or steady state sideslips. Static and dynamic flight control tests should be accomplished at the same feel or impact pressures.|
|2.a.4.||Nosewheel Steering Controller Force and Position Calibration||±2 lb (0.9 daN) breakout, ±10% or ±3 lb (1.3 daN) force, ±2° nosewheel angle||Ground||Record results of an uninterrupted control sweep to the stops||X||X||X||X|
|2.a.5.||Rudder Pedal Steering Calibration||±2° nosewheel angle||Ground||Record results of an uninterrupted control sweep to the stops||X||X||X||X|
|2.a.6.||Pitch Trim Indicator vs. Surface Position Calibration||±0.5° of computed trim surface angle||Ground||X||X||X||X||The purpose of the test is to compare FFS against design data or equivalent.|
|2.a.7.||Pitch Trim Rate||±10% trim rate (°/sec)||Ground and approach||The trim rate must be checked using the pilot primary trim (ground) and using the autopilot or pilot primary trim in flight at go-around flight conditions||X||X||X||X|
|2.a.8.||Alignment of Flight Deck Throttle Lever vs. Selected Engine Parameter||±5° of throttle lever angle, or ±3% N1, or ±.03 EPR, or ±3% maximum rated manifold pressure, or ±3% torque. For propeller-driven airplanes where the propeller control levers do not have angular travel, a tolerance of ±0.8 inch (±2 cm.) applies||Ground||Requires simultaneous recording for all engines. The tolerances apply against airplane data and between engines. In the case of propeller powered airplanes, if a propeller lever is present, it must also be checked. For airplanes with throttle “detents,” all detents must be presented. May be a series of snapshot test results||X||X||X||X|
|2.a.9.||Brake Pedal Position vs. Force and Brake System Pressure Calibration||±5 lb (2.2 daN) or 10% force, ±150 psi (1.0 MPa) or ±10% brake system pressure||Ground||Hydraulic system pressure must be related to pedal position through a ground static test||X||X||X||X||FFS computer output results may be used to show compliance.|
|2.b.||Dynamic Control Tests.|
|Tests 2.b.1., 2.b.2., and 2.b.3. are not applicable if dynamic response is generated solely by use of airplane hardware in the FFS. Power setting is that required for level flight unless otherwise specified.|
|Start Printed Page 26516|
|2.b.1.||Pitch Control||For underdamped systems: ±10% of time from 90% of initial displacement (0.9 Ad) to first zero crossing and ±10 (n+1)% of period thereafter. ±10% amplitude of first overshoot applied to all overshoots greater than 5% of initial displacement (.05 Ad). ±1 overshoot (first significant overshoot must be matched). For overdamped systems: ±10% of time from 90% of initial displacement (0.9 Ad) to 10% of initial displacement (0.1 Ad). For the alternate method see paragraph 4 of this attachment. The slow sweep is the equivalent to the static test 2.a.1. For the moderate and rapid sweeps: ±2 lb (0.9 daN) or ±10% dynamic increment above the static force||Takeoff, Cruise, and Landing||Data must show normal control displacement in both directions. Tolerances apply against the absolute values of each period (considered independently). Normal control displacement for this test is 25% to 50% of full throw or 25% to 50% of the maximum allowable pitch controller deflection for flight conditions limited by the maneuvering load envelope||X||X||“n” is the sequential period of a full cycle of oscillation. Refer to paragraph 4 of this attachment for more information. Static and dynamic flight control tests should be accomplished at the same feel or impact pressures.|
|2.b.2.||Roll Control||For underdamped systems: ±10% of time from 90% of initial displacement (0.9 Ad) to first zero crossing, and ±10 (n+1)% of period thereafter. ±10% amplitude of first overshoot, applied to all overshoots greater than 5% of initial displacement (.05 Ad), ±1 overshoot (first significant overshoot must be matched). For overdamped systems: ±10% of time from 90% of initial displacement (0.9 Ad) to 10% of initial displacement (0.1Ad). For the alternate method see paragraph 4 of this attachment. The slow sweep is the equivalent to the static test 2.a.2. For the moderate and rapid sweeps: ±2 lb (0.9 daN) or ±10% dynamic increment above the static force||Takeoff, Cruise, and Landing||Data must show normal control displacement in both directions. Tolerance applies against the absolute values of each period (considered independently). Normal control displacement for this test is 25% to 50% of the maximum allowable roll controller deflection for flight conditions limited by the maneuvering load envelope||X||X||“n” is the sequential period of a full cycle of oscillation. Refer to paragraph 4 of this attachment for more information. Static and dynamic flight control tests should be accomplished at the same feel or impact pressures.|
|Start Printed Page 26517|
|2.b.3.||Yaw Control||For underdamped systems: ±10% of time from 90% of initial displacement (0.9 Ad) to first zero crossing, and ±10 (n+1)% of period thereafter. ±10% amplitude of first overshoot applied to all overshoots greater than 5% of initial displacement (.05 Ad). ±1 overshoot (first significant overshoot must be matched). For overdamped systems: ±10% of time from 90% of initial displacement (0.9 Ad) to 10% of initial displacement (0.1 Ad). For the alternate method (see paragraph 4 of this attachment). The slow sweep is the equivalent to the static test 2.a.3. For the moderate and rapid sweeps: ±2 lb (0.9 daN) or ±10% dynamic increment above the static force||Takeoff, Cruise, and Landing||Data must show normal control displacement in both directions. Tolerance applies against the absolute values of each period (considered independently). Normal control displacement for this test is 25% to 50% of the maximum allowable yaw controller deflection for flight conditions limited by the maneuvering load envelope||X||X||“n” is the sequential period of a full cycle of oscillation. Refer to paragraph 4 of this attachment for more information. Static and dynamic flight control tests should be accomplished at the same feel or impact pressures.|
|2.b.4.||Small Control Inputs—Pitch||±0.15°/sec 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 course, using from 0.5°/sec to 2°/sec pitch rate. The test must be in both directions, showing time history data from 5 seconds before until at least 5 seconds after initiation of control input CCA: Test in normal and non-normal control states.||X||X|
|Start Printed Page 26518|
|2.b.5.||Small Control Inputs—Roll||±0.15°/sec body roll rate or ±20% of peak body roll rate applied throughout the time history||Approach or landing||Control inputs must be typical of minor corrections made while established on an ILS approach course, using from 0.5°/sec to 2°/sec roll rate. The test may be run in only one direction; however, for airplanes that exhibit non-symmetrical behavior, the test must include both directions. Time history data must be recorded from 5 seconds before until at least 5 seconds after initiation of control input CCA: Test in normal and non-normal control states.||X||X|
|2.b.6.||Small Control Inputs—Yaw||±0.15°/sec body yaw rate or ±20% of peak body yaw rate applied throughout the time history||Approach or landing||Control inputs must be typical of minor corrections made while established on an ILS approach course, using from 0.5°/sec to 2°/sec yaw rate. The test may be run in only one direction; however, for airplanes that exhibit non-symmetrical behavior, the test must include both directions. Time history data must be recorded from 5 seconds before until at least 5 seconds after initiation of control input CCA: Test in normal and non-normal control states.||X||X|
|2.c.||Longitudinal Control Tests.|
|Power setting is that required for level flight unless otherwise specified.|
|2.c.1.||Power Change Dynamics||±3 kt airspeed, ±100 ft (30 m) altitude, ±20% or ±1.5° pitch angle||Approach||Power is changed from the thrust setting required for approach or level flight to maximum continuous thrust or go-around power setting. Record the uncontrolled free response from at least 5 seconds before the power change is initiated to 15 seconds after the power change is completed CCA: Test in normal and non-normal control states.||X||X||X||X|
|Start Printed Page 26519|
|2.c.2.||Flap/Slat Change Dynamics||±3 kt airspeed, ±100 ft (30 m) altitude, ±20% or ±1.5° pitch angle||Takeoff through initial flap retraction, and approach to landing||Record the uncontrolled free response from at least 5 seconds before the configuration change is initiated to 15 seconds after the configuration change is completed CCA: Test in normal and non-normal control states.||X||X||X||X|
|2.c.3.||Spoiler/Speedbrake Change Dynamics||±3 kt airspeed, ±100 ft (30 m) altitude, ±20% or ±1.5° pitch angle||Cruise||Record the uncontrolled free response from at least 5 seconds before the configuration change is initiated to 15 seconds after the configuration change is completed. Record results for both extension and retraction CCA: Test in normal and non-normal control states.||X||X||X||X|
|2.c.4.||Gear Change Dynamics||±3 kt airspeed, ±100 ft (30 m) altitude, ±20% or ±1.5° pitch angle||Takeoff (retraction), and Approach (extension)||Record the time history of uncontrolled free response for a time increment from at least 5 seconds before the configuration change is initiated to 15 seconds after the configuration change is completed CCA: Test in normal and non-normal control states.||X||X||X||X|
|2.c.5.||Longitudinal Trim||±0.5° trim surface angle, ±1° elevator, ±1° pitch angle, ±5% net thrust or equivalent||Cruise, Approach, and Landing||Record steady-state condition with wings level and thrust set for level flight. May be a series of snapshot tests CCA: Test in normal or non-normal control states.||X||X||X||X|
|Start Printed Page 26520|
|2.c.6.||Longitudinal Maneuvering Stability (Stick Force/g)||±5 lb (±2.2 daN) or ±10% pitch controller force. Alternative method: ±1° or ±10% change of elevator||Cruise, Approach, and Landing||Continuous time history data or a series of snapshot tests may be used. Record results up to 30° of bank for approach and landing configurations. Record results for up to 45° of bank for the cruise configuration. The force tolerance is not applicable if forces are generated solely by the use of airplane hardware in the FFS. The alternative method applies to airplanes that do not exhibit “stick-force-per-g” characteristics CCA: Test in normal and non-normal control states||X||X||X||X|
|2.c.7.||Longitudinal Static Stability||±5 lb (±2.2 daN) or ±10% pitch controller force. Alternative method: ±1° or ±10% change of elevator||Approach||Record results for at least 2 speeds above and 2 speeds below trim speed. May be a series of snapshot test results. The force tolerance is not applicable if forces are generated solely by the use of airplane hardware in the FFS. The alternative method applies to airplanes that do not exhibit speed stability characteristics CCA: Test in normal or non-normal control states.||X||X||X||X|
|2.c.8.||Stall Characteristics||±3 kt airspeed for initial buffet, stall warning, and stall speeds. ±2° bank for speeds greater than stick shaker or initial buffet. Additionally, for those simulators with reversible flight control systems: ±10% or ±5 lb (2.2 daN) Stick/Column force (prior to “g break” only)||Second Segment Climb, and Approach or Landing||The stall maneuver must be entered with thrust at or near idle power and wings level (1g). Record the stall warning signal and initial buffet, if applicable. Time history data must be recorded for full stall and initiation of recovery. The stall warning signal must occur in the proper relation to buffet/stall. FFSs of airplanes exhibiting a sudden pitch attitude change or “g break” must demonstrate this characteristic CCA: Test in normal and non-normal control states.||X||X||X||X|
|Start Printed Page 26521|
|2.c.9.||Phugoid Dynamics||±10% period, ±10% of time to 1/2 or double amplitude or ±.02 of damping ratio||Cruise||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 time to 1/2 or double amplitude CCA: Test in Non-normal control states||X||X||X||X|
|2.c.10.||Short Period Dynamics.||±1.5° pitch angle or ±2°/sec pitch rate, ±0.10g acceleration||Cruise||CCA: Test in Normal and Non-normal control states||X||X||X||X|
|2.d.||Lateral Directional Tests.|
|Power setting is that required for level flight unless otherwise specified.|
|2.d.1.||Minimum Control Speed, Air (Vmca or Vmcl), per Applicable Airworthiness Standard or Low Speed Engine Inoperative Handling Characteristics in the Air||±3 kt airspeed.||Takeoff or Landing (whichever is most critical in the airplane)||Takeoff thrust must be used on the operating engine(s). A time history or a series of snapshot tests may be used CCA: Test in Normal or Non-normal control state.||X||X||X||X||Low Speed Engine Inoperative Handling may be governed by a performance or control limit that prevents demonstration of Vmca or Vmcl in the conventional manner.|
|2.d.2.||Roll Response (Rate).||±10% or ±2°/sec roll rate. Additionally, for those simulators of airplanes with reversible flight control systems: ±10% or ±3 lb (1.3 daN) wheel force||Cruise, and Approach or Landing||Record results for normal roll controller deflection (about one-third of maximum roll controller travel). May be combined with step input of flight deck roll controller test (2.d.3.)||X||X||X||X|
|2.d.3.||Roll Response to Flight Deck Roll Controller Step Input||±10% or ±2° bank angle||Approach or Landing||Record from initiation of roll through 10 seconds after control is returned to neutral and released. May be combined with roll response (rate) test (2.d.2) CCA: Test in Normal and Non-normal control states||X||X||X||X||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 approximately 10 seconds of airplane free response.|
|2.d.4.||Spiral Stability||Correct trend and ±2° or ±10% bank angle in 20 seconds. Alternate test requires correct trend and ±2° aileron||Cruise, and Approach or Landing||Record results for both directions. Airplane data averaged from multiple tests may be used. As an alternate test, demonstrate the lateral control required to maintain a steady turn with a bank angle of 28° to 32° CCA: Test in Non-normal control state||X||X||X||X|
|Start Printed Page 26522|
|2.d.5.||Engine Inoperative Trim||±1° rudder angle or ±1° tab angle or equivalent pedal, ±2° sideslip angle||Second Segment Climb, and Approach or Landing||May be a series of snapshot tests||X||X||X||X||The test should be performed in a manner similar to that for which a pilot is trained to trim an engine failure condition. Second 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°/sec or ±10% yaw rate||Approach or Landing||Record results for stability augmentation system ON and OFF. A rudder step input of 20%-30% rudder pedal throw is used CCA: Test in Normal and Non-normal control states||X||X||X||X|
|2.d.7.||Dutch Roll, (Yaw Damper OFF)||±0.5 sec or ±10% of period, ±10% of time to 1/2 or double amplitude or ±.02 of damping ratio. ±20% or ±1 sec of time difference between peaks of bank and sideslip||Cruise, and Approach or Landing||Record results for at least 6 complete cycles with stability augmentation OFF CCA: Test in Non-normal control state.||X||X||X|
|2.d.8.||Steady State Sideslip||For given rudder position ±2° bank angle, ±1° sideslip angle, ±10% or ±2° aileron, ±10% or ±5° spoiler or equivalent roll, controller position or force. Additionally, for those simulators of airplanes with reversible flight control systems: ±10% or ±3 lb (1.3 daN) wheel force ±10% or ±5 lb (2.2 daN) rudder pedal force||Approach or Landing||Use at least two rudder positions, one of which must be near maximum allowable rudder. Propeller driven airplanes must test in each direction. May be a series of snapshot test results||X||X||X||X|
|2.e.1.||Normal Landing||±3 kt airspeed, ±1.5° pitch angle, ±1.5° angle of attack, ±10% or ±10 ft (3 m) height. Additionally, for those simulators of airplanes with reversible flight control systems: ±10% or ±5 lbs (±2.2 daN) stick/column force||Landing||Record results from a minimum of 200 ft (61 m) AGL to nosewheel touchdown CCA: Test in Normal and Non-normal control states.||X||X||X||Tests should be conducted with two normal landing flap settings (if applicable). One should be at or near maximum certificated landing weight. The other should be at light or medium landing weight.|
|Start Printed Page 26523|
|2.e.2.||Minimum Flap Landing||±3 kt airspeed, ±1.5° pitch angle, ±1.5° angle of attack, ±10% or ±10 ft (3 m) height. Additionally, for those simulators of airplanes with reversible flight control systems: ±10% or ±5 lbs (2.2 daN) stick/column force||Minimum Certified Landing Flap Configuration||Record results from a minimum of 200 ft (61 m) AGL to nosewheel touchdown with airplane at near Maximum Landing Weight||X||X|
|2.e.3.||Crosswind Landing||±3 kt airspeed, ±1.5° pitch angle, ±1.5° angle of attack, ±10% or ±10 ft (3 m) height ±2° bank angle, ±2° sideslip angle ±3° heading angle. Additionally, for those simulators of airplanes with reversible flight control systems: ±10% or ±3 lb (1.3 daN) wheel force ±10% or ±5 lb (2.2 daN) rudder pedal force||Landing||Record results from a minimum of 200 ft (61 m) AGL, through nosewheel touch-down, to 50% decrease in main landing gear touchdown speed. Test data must include information on wind profile, for a crosswind (expressed as direct head-wind and direct cross-wind components) of 60% of the maximum wind measured at 33 ft (10 m) above the runway||X||X||X||In those situations where a maximum crosswind or a maximum demonstrated crosswind is not known, contact the NSPM.|
|2.e.4.||One Engine Inoperative Landing||±3 kt airspeed, ±1.5° pitch angle, ±1.5° angle of attack, ±10% height or ±10 ft (3 m); ±2° bank angle, ±2° sideslip angle, ±3° heading||Landing||Record results from a minimum of 200 ft (61 m) AGL, through nosewheel touch-down, to 50% decrease in main landing gear touchdown speed or less||X||X||X|
|2.e.5.||Autopilot landing (if applicable)||±5 ft (1.5 m) flare height, ±0.5 sec Tf, or ±10%Tf, ±140 ft/min (0.7 m/sec) rate of descent at touch-down. ±10 ft (3 m) lateral deviation during rollout||Landing||If autopilot provides rollout guidance, record lateral deviation from touchdown to a 50% decrease in main landing gear touchdown speed or less. Time of autopilot flare mode engage and main gear touchdown must be noted||X||X||X||See Appendix F of this part for definition of Tf.|
|2.e.6.||All engines operating, autopilot, go around||±3 kt airspeed, ±1.5° pitch angle, ±1.5° angle of attack||Normal, all-engines-operating, go around with the autopilot engaged (if applicable) at medium landing weight CCA: Test in normal or non-normal control states.||X||X||X|
|Start Printed Page 26524|
|2.e.7.||One engine inoperative go around||±3 kt airspeed, ±1.5° pitch angle, ±1.5° angle of attack, ±2° bank angle, ±2° slideslip angle||The one engine inoperative go around is required at near maximum certificated landing weight with the critical engine inoperative using manual controls. If applicable, an additional engine inoperative go around test must be accomplished with the autopilot engaged CCA: Non-autopilot test in Non-normal control state.||X||X||X|
|2.e.8.||Directional control (rudder effectiveness) with symmetric reverse thrust||±2°/sec yaw rate. ±5 kts airspeed||Landing||Record results starting from a speed approximating touchdown speed to the minimum thrust reverser operation speed. With full reverse thrust, apply yaw control in both directions until reaching minimum thrust reverser operation speed||X||X||X|
|2.e.9.||Directional control (rudder effectiveness) with asymmetric reverse thrust||±5 kt airspeed. ±3° heading angle||Landing||Maintain heading with yaw control with full reverse thrust on the operating engine(s). Record results starting from a speed approximating touchdown speed to a speed at which control of yaw cannot be maintained or until reaching minimum thrust reverser operation speed, whichever is higher. The tolerance applies to the low speed end of the data recording||X||X||X|
|Test to demonstrate Ground Effect||±1° elevator ±0.5° stabilizer angle, ±5% net thrust or equivalent, ±1° angle of attack, ±10% height or ±5 ft (1.5 m), ±3 kt airspeed, ±1° pitch angle||Landing||The Ground Effect model must be validated by the test selected and a rationale must be provided for selecting the particular test||X||X||X||See paragraph on Ground Effect in this attachment for additional information.|
|Four tests, two takeoff and two landing, with one of each conducted in still air and the other with windshear active to demonstrate windshear models||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.|
|Start Printed Page 26525|
|2.h.||Flight Maneuver and Envelope Protection Functions.|
|The requirements of tests h(1) through (6) of this attachment are applicable to computer controlled aircraft only. Time history results are required for simulator response to control inputs during entry into envelope protection limits including both normal and degraded control states if the function is different. Set thrust as required to reach the envelope protection function.|
|2.h.1.||Overspeed||±5 kt airspeed||Cruise||X||X||X|
|2.h.2.||Minimum Speed||±3 kt airspeed||Takeoff, Cruise, and Approach or Landing||X||X||X|
|2.h.3.||Load Factor||±0.1 g normal load factor||Takeoff, Cruise||X||X||X|
|2.h.4.||Pitch Angle||±1.5° pitch angle||Cruise, Approach||X||X||X|
|2.h.5.||Bank Angle||±2° or ±10% bank angle||Approach||X||X||X|
|2.h.6.||Angle of Attack||±1.5° angle of attack||Second Segment Climb, and Approach or Landing||X||X||X|
|3. Motion System.|
|Based on Simulator Capability||N/A||Required as part of the MQTG. The test must demonstrate frequency response of the motion system||X||X||X||X|
|Based on Simulator Capability||N/A||Required as part of the MQTG. The test must demonstrate motion system leg balance as specified by the applicant for flight simulator qualification||X||X||X||X|
|Based on Simulator Capability||N/A||Required as part of the MQTG. The test must demonstrate a smooth turn-around (shift to opposite direction of movement) of the motion system as specified by the applicant for flight simulator qualification||X||X||X||X|
|3.d.||Motion system repeatability.|
|With the same input signal, the test results must be repeatable to within ±0.05 g actual platform linear acceleration||Accomplished in both the “ground” mode and in the “flight” mode of the motion system operation||Required as part of the MQTG. The assessment procedures must be designed to ensure that the motion system hardware and software (in normal flight simulator operating mode) continue to perform as originally qualified||X||X||X||X||This test ensures that motion system hardware and software (in normal flight simulator operating mode) continue to perform as originally qualified. Performance changes from the original baseline can be readily identified with this information.|
|Start Printed Page 26526|
|3.e.||Motion cueing performance signature. Required as part of MQTG. For the following set of maneuvers record the relevant motion variables.||These tests should be run with the motion buffet mode disabled. See paragraph 6.d., of this attachment, Motion cueing performance signature.|
|3.e.1.||Takeoff rotation (VR to V2)||As specified by the sponsor for flight simulator qualification||Ground||Pitch attitude due to initial climb must dominate over cab tilt due to longitudinal acceleration||X||X||X||X||Associated with test 1.b.4.|
|3.e.2.||Engine failure between V1 and VR||As specified by the sponsor for flight simulator qualification||Ground||X||X||X||X||Associated with test 1.b.5.|
|3.e.3.||Pitch change during go-around||As specified by the sponsor for flight simulator qualification||Flight||X||X||X||Associated with test 2.e.6.|
|3.e.4.||Configuration changes||As specified by the sponsor for flight simulator qualification||Flight||X||X||X||X||Associated with tests 2.c.2. and 2.c.4.|
|3.e.5.||Power change dynamics||As specified by the sponsor for flight simulator qualification||Flight||X||X||X||X||Associated with test 2.c.1.|
|3.e.6.||Landing flare||As specified by the sponsor for flight simulator qualification||Flight||X||X||X||Associated with test 2.e.1.|
|3.e.7.||Touchdown bump||As specified by the sponsor for flight simulator qualification||Ground||X||X||Associated with test 2.e.1.|
|3.f.||Characteristic motion vibrations. The recorded test results for characteristic buffets must allow the comparison of relative amplitude versus frequency.|
|3.f.1.||Thrust effect with brakes set||Simulator 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||Ground||The test must be conducted within 5% of the maximum possible thrust with brakes set||X|
|3.f.2.||Buffet with landing gear extended||Simulator 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||Flight||The test must be conducted at a nominal, mid-range airspeed; i.e., sufficiently below landing gear limiting airspeed to avoid inadvertently exceeding this limitation||X|
|Start Printed Page 26527|
|3.f.3.||Buffet with flaps extended||Simulator 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||Flight||The test must be conducted at a nominal, mid-range airspeed; i.e., sufficiently below flap extension limiting airspeed to avoid inadvertently exceeding this limitation||X|
|3.f.4.||Buffet with speedbrakes deployed||Flight||X|
|3.f.5.||Buffet at approach-to-stall||Flight||The test must be conducted for approach to stall. Post stall characteristics are not required||X|
|3.f.6.||Buffet at high airspeeds or high Mach||Flight||X||The test may be conducted during either a high speed maneuver (e.g., “wind-up” turn) or at high Mach.|
|3.f.7.||In-flight vibrations for propeller driven airplanes||Flight (clean configuration)||X|
|4. Visual System.|
|4.a.||Visual System Response Time: (Choose either test 4.a.1. or 4.a.2. to satisfy test 4.a., Visual System Response Time Test. This test also suffices for motion system response timing and flight deck instrument response timing. Motion onset should occur before the start of the visual scene change (the start of the scan of the first video field containing different information) but must occur before the end of the scan of that video field. Instrument response may not occur prior to motion onset.||See additional information in this attachment; also see Table A1A, entry 2.g.|
|300 ms (or less) after airplane response||Take-off, cruise, and approach or landing||One test is required in each axis (pitch, roll and yaw) for each of the three conditions (take-off, cruise, and approach or landing)||X||X||The visual scene or test pattern used during the response testing should be representative of the system capacities required to meet the daylight, twilight (dusk/dawn) and/or night visual capability as appropriate.|
|Start Printed Page 26528|
|150 ms (or less) after airplane response||Take-off, cruise, and approach or landing||One test is required in each axis (pitch, roll and yaw) for each of the three conditions (take-off, cruise, and approach or landing).||X||X|
|300 ms (or less) after controller movement||N/A||A separate test is required in each axis (pitch, roll, and yaw)||X||X||If Transport Delay is the chosen method to demonstrate relative responses, the sponsor and the NSPM will use the latency values to ensure proper simulator response when reviewing those existing tests where latency can be identified (e.g., short period, roll response, rudder response)|
|150 ms (or less) after controller movement||N/A||A separate test is required in each axis (pitch, roll, and yaw)||X||X|
|4.b.1.||Continuous collimated visual field-of-view||Continuous collimated field-of-view providing at least 45° horizontal and 30° vertical field-of-view for each pilot seat. Both pilot seat visual systems must be operable simultaneously||N/A||Required as part of MQTG but not required as part of continuing evaluations||X||X||A vertical field-of-view of 30° may be insufficient to meet visual ground segment requirements.|
|4.b.3.||Continuous, collimated, field-of-view||Continuous field-of-view of at least 176° horizontally and 36° vertically||N/A||An SOC is required and must explain the geometry of the installation. Horizontal field-of-view must be at least 176° (including not less than 88° either side of the center line of the design eye point). Additional horizontal field-of-view capability may be added at the sponsor's discretion provided the minimum field-of-view is retained. Vertical field-of-view must be at least 36° from each pilot's eye point. Required as part of MQTG but not required as part of continuing qualification evaluations||X||X||The horizontal field-of-view is traditionally described as a 180° field-of-view. However, the field-of-view is technically no less than 176°. Field-of-view should be measured using a visual test pattern filling the entire visual scene (all channels) with a matrix of black and white 5° squares. The installed alignment should be addressed in the SOC.|
|Start Printed Page 26529|
|5° even angular spacing within ±1° as measured from either pilot eye point and within 1.5° for adjacent squares||N/A||The angular spacing of any chosen 5° square and the relative spacing of adjacent squares must be within the stated tolerances||X||X||X||X||The purpose of this test is to evaluate local linearity of the displayed image at either pilot eye point. System geometry should be measured using a visual test pattern filling the entire visual scene (all channels) with a matrix of black and white 5° squares with light points at the intersections.|
|4.d.||Surface contrast ratio.|
|Not less than 5:1.||N/A||The ratio is calculated by dividing the brightness level of the center, bright square (providing at least 2 foot-lamberts or 7 cd/m2) by the brightness level of any adjacent dark square. This requirement is applicable to any level of simulator equipped with a daylight visual system||X||X||Measurements should be made using a 1° spot photometer and a raster drawn test pattern filling the entire visual scene (all channels) with a test pattern of black and white squares, 5° per square, with a white square in the center of each channel. During contrast ratio testing, simulator aft-cab and flight deck ambient light levels should be zero.|
|Not less than six (6) foot-lamberts (20 cd/m2)||N/A||Measure the brightness of a white square while superimposing a highlight on that white square. The use of calligraphic capabilities to enhance the raster brightness is acceptable; however, measuring lightpoints is not acceptable. This requirement is applicable to any level of simulator equipped with a daylight visual system||X||X||Measurements should be made using a 1° spot photometer and a raster drawn test pattern filling the entire visual scene (all channels) with a test pattern of black and white squares, 5° per square, with a white square in the center of each channel.|
|Start Printed Page 26530|
|Not greater than two (2) arc minutes||N/A||An SOC is required and must include the relevant calculations and an explanation of those calculations. This requirement is applicable to any level of simulator equipped with a daylight visual system||X||X||When the eye is positioned on a 3° glide slope at the slant range distances indicated with white runway markings on a black runway surface, the eye will subtend two (2) arc minutes: (1) A slant range of 6,876 ft with stripes 150 ft long and 16 ft wide, spaced 4 ft apart. (2) For Configuration A; a slant range of 5,157 feet with stripes 150 ft long and 12 ft wide, spaced 3 ft apart. (3) For Configuration B; a slant range of 9,884 feet, with stripes 150 ft long and 5.75 ft wide, spaced 5.75 ft apart.|
|4.g.||Light point size.|
|Not greater than five (5) arc-minutes||N/A||An SOC is required and must include the relevant calculations and an explanation of those calculations. This requirement is applicable to any level of simulator equipped with a daylight visual system||X||X||Light point size should be measured using a test pattern consisting of a centrally located single row of light points reduced in length until modulation is just discernible in each visual channel. A row of 48 lights will form a 4° angle or less.|
|4.h.||Light point contrast ratio.|
|4.h.1||For Level A and B simulators||Not less than 10:1||N/A||An SOC is required and must include the relevant calculations||X||X||A 1° spot photometer is used to measure a square of at least 1° filled with light points (where light point modulation is just discernible) and compare the results to the measured adjacent background. During contrast ratio testing, simulator aft-cab and flight deck ambient light levels should be zero.|
|4.h.2.||For Level C and D simulators||Not less than 25:1||N/A||An SOC is required and must include the relevant calculations||X||X||A 1° spot photometer is used to measure a square of at least 1° filled with light points (where light point modulation is just discernible) and compare the results to the measured adjacent background. During contrast ratio testing, simulator aft-cab and flight deck ambient light levels should be zero.|
|Start Printed Page 26531|
|4.i.||Visual ground segment|
|The visible segment in the simulator must be ±20% of the segment computed to be visible from the airplane flight deck. This tolerance may be applied at the far end of the displayed segment. However, lights and ground objects computed to be visible from the airplane flight deck at the near end of the visible segment must be visible in the simulator||Landing configuration, with the aircraft trimmed for the appropriate airspeed, where the MLG are at 100 ft (30 m) above the plane of the touchdown zone, while on the electronic glide slope with an RVR value set at 1,200 ft (350 m)||The QTG must contain appropriate calculations and a drawing showing the pertinent data used to establish the airplane location and the segment of the ground that is visible considering design eyepoint, the airplane attitude, flight deck cut-off angle, and a visibility of 1200 ft (350 m) RVR. Simulator performance must be measured against the QTG calculations. The data submitted must include at least the following: (1) Static airplane dimensions as follows: (i) Horizontal and vertical distance from main landing gear (MLG) to glideslope reception antenna. (ii) Horizontal and vertical distance from MLG to pilot's eyepoint. (iii) Static flight deck cutoff angle. (2) Approach data as follows: (i) Identification of runway. (ii) Horizontal distance from runway threshold to glideslope intercept with runway. (iii) Glideslope angle. (iv) Airplane pitch angle on approach. (3) Airplane data for manual testing: (i) Gross weight. (ii) Airplane configuration. (iii) Approach airspeed. If non-homogenous fog is used to obscure visibility, the vertical variation in horizontal visibility must be described and be included in the slant range visibility calculation used in the computations.||X||X||X||X||Pre-position for this test is encouraged but may be achieved via manual or autopilot control to the desired position.|
|5. Sound System.|
|Start Printed Page 26532|
|The sponsor will not be required to repeat the airplane tests (i.e., tests 5.a.1. through 5.a.8. (or 5.b.1. 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. If the 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 16 kHz). 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.|
|5.a.1.||Ready for engine start||±5 dB per 1/3 octave band||Ground||Normal conditions prior to engine start with the Auxiliary Power Unit operating, if appropriate||X|
|5.a.2.||All engines at idle.||±5 dB per 1/3 octave band||Ground||Normal condition prior to takeoff||X|
|5.a.3.||All engines at maximum allowable thrust with brakes set||±5 dB per 1/3 octave band||Ground||Normal condition prior to takeoff||X|
|5.a.4.||Climb||±5 dB per 1/3 octave band||En-route climb||Medium altitude||X|
|5.a.5.||Cruise||±5 dB per 1/3 octave band||Cruise||Normal cruise configuration||X|
|5.a.6.||Speedbrake / spoilers extended (as appropriate)||±5 dB per 1/3 octave band||Cruise||Normal and constant speedbrake deflection for descent at a constant airspeed and power setting||X|
|5.a.7.||Initial approach||±5 dB per 1/3 octave band||Approach||Constant airspeed, gear up, flaps and slats, as appropriate||X|
|5.a.8.||Final approach||±5 dB per 1/3 octave band||Landing||Constant airspeed, gear down, full flaps||X|
|5.b.1.||Ready for engine start||±5 dB per 1/3 octave band||Ground||Normal conditions prior to engine start with the Auxiliary Power Unit operating, if appropriate||X|
|5.b.2.||All propellers feathered||±5 dB per 1/3 octave band||Ground||Normal condition prior to takeoff||X|
|5.b.3.||Ground idle or equivalent||±5 dB per 1/3 octave band||Ground||Normal condition prior to takeoff||X|
|5.b.4||Flight idle or equivalent||±5 dB per 1/3 octave band||Ground||Normal condition prior to takeoff||X|
|5.b.5.||All engines at maximum allowable power with brakes set||±5 dB per 1/3 octave band||Ground||Normal condition prior to takeoff||X|
|5.b.6.||Climb||±5 dB per 1/3 octave band||En-route climb||Medium altitude||X|
|5.b.7.||Cruise||±5 dB per 1/3 octave band||Cruise||Normal cruise configuration||X|
|Start Printed Page 26533|
|5.b.8.||Initial approach||±5 dB per 1/3 octave band||Approach||Constant airspeed, gear up, flaps extended as appropriate, RPM as per operating manual||X|
|5.b.9.||Final Approach||±5 dB per 1/3 octave band||Landing||Constant airspeed, gear down, full flaps, RPM as per operating manual||X|
|±5 dB per 1/3 octave band||As appropriate||X||These special cases are identified as particularly significant during critical phases of flight and ground operations for a specific airplane type or model.|
|±3 dB per 1/3 octave band||Results of the background noise at initial qualification must be included in the MQTG. Measurements must be made with the simulation running, the sound muted and a “dead” flight deck||X||The sound in the simulator will be evaluated to ensure that the background noise does not interfere with training, testing, or checking.|
|±5 dB on three (3) consecutive bands when compared to initial evaluation; and ±2 dB when comparing the average of the absolute differences between initial and continuing qualification evaluation||Applicable only to Continuing Qualification Evaluations. If frequency response plots are provided for each channel at the initial qualification evaluation, these plots may be repeated at the continuing qualification evaluation with the following tolerances applied: (a) The continuing qualification 1/3 octave band amplitudes must not exceed ±5 dB for three consecutive bands when compared to initial results. (b) The average of the sum of the absolute differences between initial and continuing qualification results must not exceed 2 dB (refer to Table A2B in this attachment)||X||Measurements are compared to those taken during initial qualification evaluation.|
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 Start Printed Page 26534regarding 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.
(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|
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.
Dynamic sweeps may be limited to forces not exceeding 100 lbs. (44.5 daN).
(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.
End QPS Requirement
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 Start Printed Page 26535conventionally accepted methods will have to be used.Start Printed Page 26536 Start Printed Page 26537
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 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
(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. Start Printed Page 26538The 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. Motion Cueing Performance Signature.
(1) Background. The intent of this test is to provide quantitative time history records of motion system response to a selected set of automated QTG maneuvers during initial qualification. This is not intended to be a comparison of the motion platform accelerations against the flight test recorded accelerations (i.e., not to be compared against airplane cueing). If there is a modification to the initially qualified motion software or motion hardware (e.g., motion washout filter, simulator payload change greater than 10%) then a new baseline may need to be established.
(2) Test Selection. The conditions identified in Section 3.e. in Table A2A are those maneuvers where motion cueing is the most discernible. They are general tests applicable to all types of airplanes and should be completed for motion cueing performance signature at any time acceptable to the NSPM prior to or during the initial qualification evaluation, and the results included in the MQTG.
(3) Priority. Motion system should be designed with the intent of placing greater importance on those maneuvers that directly influence pilot perception and control of the airplane motions. For the maneuvers identified in section 3.e. in Table A2A, the flight simulator motion cueing system should have a high tilt co-ordination gain, high rotational gain, and high correlation with respect to the airplane simulation model.
(4) Data Recording. The minimum list of parameters provided should allow for the determination of the flight simulator's motion cueing performance signature for the initial qualification evaluation. The following parameters are recommended as being acceptable to perform such a function:
(a) Flight model acceleration and rotational rate commands at the pilot reference point;
(b) Motion actuators position;
(c) Actual platform position;
(d) Actual platform acceleration at pilot reference point.
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).
In the example, “g-rms2 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.
(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. Start Printed Page 26539
|Band center frequency||Initial results (dBSPL)||Continuing qualification results (dBSPL)||Absolute difference|
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.
A description of airplane manufacturer-provided data needed for flight simulator modeling and validation is to be 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 Start Printed Page 26540flight 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:
(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.
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;
(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
11. Validation Test Tolerances
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 20% of the corresponding flight test tolerances.
(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 Start Printed Page 26541is generally 20% 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 20% 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 InformationStart Printed Page 26542 Start Printed Page 26543
13. Acceptance Guidelines for Alternative Engines Data.
(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.
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
|Entry No.||Test description||Alternative engine type||Alternative thrust rating 2|
|1.b.1., 1.b.4.||Normal take-off/ground acceleration time and distance||X||X|
|1.b.2.||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|
|1.b.7.||Rejected take-off if performed for airplane certification||X|
|1.f.1., 1.f.2.||Engine acceleration and deceleration||X||X|
|2.a.7.||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|
|1 Must be provided for all changes in engine type or thrust rating; see paragraph 13.c.(3).|
|2 See paragraphs 13.c.(1) through 13.c.(3), for a definition of applicable thrust ratings.|
End QPS Requirement
14. Acceptance Guidelines for Alternative Avionics (Flight-Related Computers and Controllers)
(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 A2C 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 A2D 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 A2C).
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 A2D).
h. Figure A2E 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 A2FA 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 A2FB 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 A2FA. 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 Start Printed Page 26545test results. This does not mean that the test has failed. Instead, the difference is 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.Start Printed Page 26546
16. Continuing Qualification Evaluations—Validation Test Data Presentation
(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.
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
Start Printed Page 26547
b. It has become standard practice for experienced simulator manufacturers to use 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.
|QPS REQUIREMENTS The standards in this table are required if the data gathering methods described in paragraph 9 of Appendix A are not used.||Information|
|Table of objective tests||Sim level||Alternative data sources, procedures, and instrumentation||Notes|
|Test entry number and title||A||B|
|1.a.1. Performance. Taxi. Minimum Radius turn||X||X||TIR, AFM, or Design data may be used|
|1.a.2. Performance. Taxi Rate of Turn vs. Nosewheel Steering Angle||X||Data may be acquired by using a constant tiller position, measured with a protractor or full rudder pedal application for steady state turn, and synchronized video of heading indicator. If less than full rudder pedal is used, pedal position must be recorded||A single procedure may not be adequate for all airplane steering systems, therefore appropriate measurement procedures must be devised and proposed for NSPM concurrence.|
|1.b.1. Performance. Takeoff. Ground Acceleration Time and Distance||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|
|1.b.2. Performance. Takeoff. Minimum Control Speed—ground (Vmcg) using aerodynamic controls only (per applicable airworthiness standard) or low speed, engine inoperative ground control characteristics||X||X||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||Rapid throttle reductions at speeds near Vmcg may be used while recording appropriate parameters. The nosewheel must be free to caster, or equivalently freed of sideforce generation.|
|Start Printed Page 26548|
|1.b.3. Performance. Takeoff. Minimum Unstick Speed (Vmu) or equivalent test to demonstrate early rotation takeoff characteristics||X||X||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|
|1.b.4. Performance. Takeoff. Normal Takeoff||X||X||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|
|1.b.5. Performance. Takeoff. Critical Engine Failure during Takeoff||X||X||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||Record airplane dynamic response to engine failure and control inputs required to correct flight path.|
|1.b.6. Performance. Takeoff. Crosswind Takeoff||X||X||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||The “1:7 law” to 100 feet (30 meters) is an acceptable wind profile.|
|1.b.7. Performance. Takeoff. Rejected Takeoff||X||X||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.|
|1.c. 1. Performance. Climb. Normal Climb all engines operating.||X||X||Data may be acquired with a synchronized video of calibrated airplane instruments and engine power throughout the climb range|
|1.c.2. Performance. Climb. One engine Inoperative Climb||X||X||Data may be acquired with a synchronized video of calibrated airplane instruments and engine power throughout the climb range|
|1.c.4. Performance. Climb. One Engine Inoperative Approach Climb (if operations in icing conditions are authorized)||X||X||Data may be acquired with a synchronized video of calibrated airplane instruments and engine power throughout the climb range|
|1.d.1. Cruise/Descent. Level flight acceleration.||X||X||Data may be acquired with a synchronized video of calibrated airplane instruments, thrust lever position, engine parameters, and elapsed time|
|1.d.2. Cruise/Descent. Level flight deceleration.||X||X||Data may be acquired with a synchronized video of calibrated airplane instruments, thrust lever position, engine parameters, and elapsed time|
|1.d.4. Cruise/Descent. Idle descent||X||X||Data may be acquired with a synchronized video of calibrated airplane instruments, thrust lever position, engine parameters, and elapsed time|
|1.d.5. Cruise/Descent. Emergency Descent||X||X|
|1.e.1. Performance. Stopping. Deceleration time and distance, using manual application of wheel brakes and no reverse thrust on a dry runway||X||X||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|
|Start Printed Page 26549|
|1.e.2. Performance. Ground. Deceleration Time and Distance, using reverse thrust and no wheel brakes||X||X||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 pertinent parameters of engine power|
|1.f.1. Performance. Engines. Acceleration||X||X||Data may be acquired with a synchronized video recording of engine instruments and throttle position|
|1.f.2. Performance. Engines. Deceleration||X||X||Data may be acquired with a synchronized video recording of engine instruments and throttle position|
|2.a.1.a. Handling Qualities. Static Control Checks. Pitch Controller Position vs. Force and Surface Position Calibration||X||X||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||For airplanes with reversible control systems, surface position data acquisition should be accomplished with winds less than 5 kts.|
|2.a.2.a. Handling Qualities. Static Control Checks. Roll Controller Position vs. Force and Surface Position Calibration||X||X||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||For airplanes with reversible control systems, surface position data acquisition should be accomplished with winds less than 5 kts.|
|2.a.3.a. Handling Qualities. Static Control Checks. Rudder Pedal Position vs. Force and Surface Position Calibration||X||X||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||For airplanes with reversible control systems, surface position data acquisition should be accomplished with winds less than 5 kts.|
|2.a.4. Handling Qualities. Static Control Checks. Nosewheel Steering Controller Force and Position||X||X||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|
|2.a.5. Handling Qualities. Static Control Checks. Rudder Pedal Steering Calibration||X||X||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|
|2.a.6. Handling Qualities. Static Control Checks. Pitch Trim Indicator vs. Surface Position Calibration||X||X||Data may be acquired through calculations|
|2.a.7. Handling qualities. Static control tests. Pitch trim rate||X||X||Data may be acquired by using a synchronized video of pitch trim indication and elapsed time through range of trim indication|
|Start Printed Page 26550|
|2.a.8. Handling Qualities. Static Control tests. Alignment of Flight deck Throttle Lever Angle vs. Selected engine parameter||X||X||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|
|2.a.9. Handling qualities. Static control tests. Brake pedal position vs. force and brake system pressure calibration||X||X||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|
|2.c.1. Handling qualities. Longitudinal control tests. Power change dynamics||X||X||Data may be acquired by using an inertial measurement system and a synchronized video of calibrated airplane instruments and throttle position|
|2.c.2. Handling qualities. Longitudinal control tests. Flap/slat change dynamics||X||X||Data may be acquired by using an inertial measurement system and a synchronized video of calibrated airplane instruments and flap/slat position|
|2.c.3. Handling qualities. Longitudinal control tests. Spoiler/speedbrake change dynamics||X||X||Data may be acquired by using an inertial measurement system and a synchronized video of calibrated airplane instruments and spoiler/speedbrake position|
|2.c.4. Handling qualities. Longitudinal control tests. Gear change dynamics||X||X||Data may be acquired by using an inertial measurement system and a synchronized video of calibrated airplane instruments and gear position|
|2.c.5. Handling qualities. Longitudinal control tests. Longitudinal trim||X||X||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|
|2.c.6. Handling qualities. Longitudinal control tests. Longitudinal maneuvering stability (stick force/g)||X||X||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|
|2.c.7. Handling qualities. Longitudinal control tests. Longitudinal static stability||X||X||Data may be acquired through the use of a synchronized video of airplane flight instruments and a hand held force gauge|
|2.c.8. Handling qualities. Longitudinal control tests. Stall characteristics||X||X||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||Airspeeds may be cross checked with those in the TIR and AFM.|
|2.c.9. Handling qualities. Longitudinal control tests. Phugoid dynamics||X||X|
|2.c.10. Handling qualities. Longitudinal control tests. Short period dynamics||X|
|Start Printed Page 26551|
|2.d.1. Handling qualities. Lateral directional tests. Minimum control speed, air (Vmca or Vmci), per applicable airworthiness standard or Low speed engine inoperative handling characteristics in the air||X||X|
|2.d.2. Handling qualities. Lateral directional tests. Roll response (rate)||X||X||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||May be combined with step input of flight deck roll controller test, 2.d.3.|
|2.d.3. Handling qualities. Lateral directional tests. Roll response to flight deck roll controller step input||X||X||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|
|2.d.4. Handling qualities. Lateral directional tests. Spiral stability||X||X||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|
|2.d.5. Handling qualities. Lateral directional tests. Engine inoperative trim||X||X||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/trim surfaces with winds less than 5 kts.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 flight deck controls||Trimming during second segment climb is not a certification task and should not be conducted until a safe altitude is reached.|
|2.d.6. Handling qualities. Lateral directional tests. Rudder response||X||X||Data may be acquired by using an inertial measurement system and a synchronized video of calibrated airplane instruments and force/position measurements of rudder pedals|
|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||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.|
|2.e.1. Handling qualities. Landings. Normal landing||X|
|2.e.3. Handling qualities. Landings. Crosswind landing||X|
|Start Printed Page 26552|
|2.e.4. Handling qualities. Landings. One engine inoperative landing||X||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. Normal and lateral accelerations may be recorded in lieu of AOA and sideslip|
|2.e.5. Handling qualities. Landings. Autopilot landing (if applicable)||X||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|
|2.e.6. Handling qualities. Landings. All engines operating, autopilot, go around||X||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|
|2.e.7. Handling qualities. Landings. One engine inoperative go around||X||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|
|2.e.8. Handling qualities. Landings. Directional control (rudder effectiveness with symmetric thrust)||X||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|
|2.e.9. Handling qualities. Landings. Directional control (rudder effectiveness with asymmetric reverse thrust)||X|
|2.f. Handling qualities. Ground effect. Test to demonstrate ground effect||X||Data may be acquired by using calibrated airplane instruments, an inertial measurement system, and a synchronized video of calibrated airplane instruments and force/position measurements of flight deck controls|
Attachment 3 to Appendix A to Part 60—Simulator Subjective Evaluation
Begin QPS 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 Start Printed Page 26553continuing 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 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
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° 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: http://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: Start Printed Page 26554
(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).
|Entry No.||Operations tasks||Simulator level|
|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 Configuration List, are not required to be listed as exceptions on the SOQ.|
|1.||Preparation For Flight Preflight. Accomplish a functions check of all switches, indicators, systems, and equipment at all crewmembers' and instructors' stations and determine that the flight deck design and functions are identical to that of the airplane simulated||X||X||X||X|
|2.||Surface Operations (Pre-Take-Off)|
|2.a.2.||Alternate start procedures||X||X||X||X|
|2.a.3.||Abnormal starts and shutdowns (e.g., hot/hung start, tail pipe fire)||X||X||X||X|
|2.c.2.||Power lever friction||X||X||X||X|
|2.c.5.||Brake operation (normal and alternate/emergency)||X||X||X||X|
|2.c.6.||Brake fade (if applicable)||X||X||X||X|
|3.a.1.||Airplane/engine parameter relationships||X||X||X||X|
|3.a.2.||Acceleration characteristics (motion)||X||X||X||X|
|3.a.3.||Nosewheel and rudder steering||X||X||X||X|
|3.a.4.||Crosswind (maximum demonstrated)||X||X||X||X|
|3.a.5.||Special performance (e.g., reduced V1, max de-rate, short field operations)||X||X||X||X|
|3.a.6.||Low visibility take-off||X||X||X||X|
|3.a.7.||Landing gear, wing flap leading edge device operation||X||X||X||X|
|3.a.8.||Contaminated runway operation||X||X|
|3.b.2.||Rejected special performance (e.g., reduced V1, max de-rate, short field operations)||X||X||X||X|
|Start Printed Page 26555|
|3.b.3.||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 V1 decision speed (ii) Between V1 and Vr (rotation speed) (iii) Between Vr and 500 feet above ground level||X||X||X||X|
|3.b.4.||With wind shear||X||X||X||X|
|3.b.5.||Flight control system failures, reconfiguration modes, manual reversion and associated handling||X||X||X||X|
|3.b.6.||Rejected takeoff with brake fade||X||X|
|3.b.7.||Rejected, contaminated runway||X||X|
|4.b.||One or more engines inoperative||X||X||X||X|
|5.a.||Performance characteristics (speed vs. power)||X||X||X||X|
|5.b.||High altitude handling||X||X||X||X|
|5.c.||High Mach number handling (Mach tuck, Mach buffet) and recovery (trim change)||X||X||X||X|
|5.d.||Overspeed warning (in excess of Vmo or Mmo)||X||X||X||X|
|5.e.||High IAS handling||X||X||X||X|
|6.a.||High angle of attack, approach to stalls, stall warning, buffet, and g-break (take-off, cruise, approach, and landing configuration)||X||X||X||X|
|6.b.||Flight envelope protection (high angle of attack, bank limit, overspeed, etc.)||X||X||X||X|
|6.c.||Turns with/without speedbrake/spoilers deployed||X||X||X||X|
|6.d.||Normal and steep turns||X||X||X||X|
|6.e.||In flight engine shutdown and restart (assisted and windmill)||X||X||X||X|
|6.f.||Maneuvering with one or more engines inoperative, as appropriate||X||X||X||X|
|6.g.||Specific flight characteristics (e.g., direct lift control)||X||X||X||X|
|6.h.||Flight control system failures, reconfiguration modes, manual reversion and associated handling||X||X||X||X|
|7.b.||Maximum rate (clean and with speedbrake, etc.)||X||X||X||X|
|7.d.||Flight control system failures, reconfiguration modes, manual reversion and associated handling||X||X||X||X|
|8.||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 wind shear 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 are not authorized to credit the landing maneuver|
|Start Printed Page 26556|
|8.a.2.||CAT I/GBAS (ILS/MLS) published approaches||X||X||X||X|
|(i) Manual approach with/without flight director including landing||X||X||X||X|
|(ii) Autopilot/autothrottle coupled approach and manual landing||X||X||X||X|
|(iii) Manual approach to DH and go-around all engines||X||X||X||X|
|(iv) Manual one engine out approach to DH and go-around||X||X||X||X|
|(v) Manual approach controlled with and without flight director to 30 m (100 ft) below CAT I minima||X||X||X||X|
|A. With cross-wind (maximum demonstrated)||X||X||X||X|
|B. With windshear||X||X||X||X|
|(vi) Autopilot/autothrottle coupled approach, one engine out to DH and go-around||X||X||X||X|
|(vii) Approach and landing with minimum/standby electrical power||X||X||X||X|
|8.a.3.||CAT II/GBAS (ILS/MLS) published approaches||X||X||X||X|
|(i) Autopilot/autothrottle coupled approach to DH and landing||X||X||X||X|
|(ii) Autopilot/autothrottle coupled approach to DH and go-around||X||X||X||X|
|(iii) Autocoupled approach to DH and manual go-around||X||X||X||X|
|(iv) Category II published approach (autocoupled, autothrottle)||X||X||X||X|
|8.a.4.||CAT III/GBAS (ILS/MLS) published approaches||X||X||X||X|
|(i) Autopilot/autothrottle coupled approach to land and rollout||X||X||X||X|
|(ii) Autopilot/autothrottle coupled approach to DH/Alert Height and go-around||X||X||X||X|
|(iii) Autopilot/autothrottle coupled approach to land and rollout with one engine out||X||X||X||X|
|(iv) Autopilot/autothrottle coupled approach to DH/Alert Height and go-around with one engine out||X||X||X||X|
|(v) Autopilot/autothrottle coupled approach (to land or to go around)||X||X||X||X|
|A. With generator failure||X||X||X||X|
|B. With 10 knot tail wind||X||X||X||X|
|C. With 10 knot crosswind||X||X||X||X|
|8.b.2.||VOR, VOR/DME, VOR/TAC||X||X||X||X|
|8.b.4.||ILS LLZ (LOC), LLZ (LOC)/BC||X||X||X||X|
|8.b.5.||ILS offset localizer||X||X||X||X|
|8.b.6.||Direction finding facility (ADF/SDF)||X||X||X||X|
|8.b.7.||Airport surveillance radar (ASR)||X||X||X||X|
|9.||Visual Approaches (Visual Segment) and Landings. 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|
|9.a.||Maneuvering, normal approach and landing, all engines operating with and without visual approach aid guidance||X||X||X||X|
|9.b.||Approach and landing with one or more engines inoperative||X||X||X||X|
|9.c.||Operation of landing gear, flap/slats and speedbrakes (normal and abnormal)||X||X||X||X|
|9.d.||Approach and landing with crosswind (max. demonstrated)||X||X||X||X|
|9.e.||Approach to land with wind shear on approach||X||X||X||X|
|9.f.||Approach and landing with flight control system failures, reconfiguration modes, manual reversion and associated handling (most significant degradation which is probable)||X||X||X||X|
|9.g.||Approach and landing with trim malfunctions||X||X||X||X|
|9.g.1.||Longitudinal trim malfunction||X||X||X||X|
|Start Printed Page 26557|
|9.g.2.||Lateral-directional trim malfunction||X||X||X||X|
|9.h.||Approach and landing with standby (minimum) electrical/hydraulic power||X||X||X||X|
|9.i.||Approach and landing from circling conditions (circling approach)||X||X||X||X|
|9.j.||Approach and landing from visual traffic pattern||X||X||X||X|
|9.k.||Approach and landing from non-precision approach||X||X||X||X|
|9.l.||Approach and landing from precision approach||X||X||X||X|
|9.m.||Approach procedures with vertical guidance (APV), e.g., SBAS||X||X||X||X|
|10.b.||One or more engine(s) out||X||X||X||X|
|10.c.||With flight control system failures, reconfiguration modes, manual reversion and associated handling||X||X||X||X|
|11.||Surface Operations (Landing roll and taxi).|
|11.b.||Reverse thrust operation||X||X||X||X|
|11.c.||Directional control and ground handling, both with and without reverse thrust||X||X||X|
|11.d.||Reduction of rudder effectiveness with increased reverse thrust (rear pod-mounted engines)||X||X||X|
|11.e.||Brake and anti-skid operation with dry, patchy wet, wet on rubber residue, and patchy icy conditions||X||X|
|11.f.||Brake operation, to include auto-braking system where applicable||X||X||X||X|
|12.||Any Flight Phase.|
|12.a.||Airplane and engine systems operation|
|12.a.1.||Air conditioning and pressurization (ECS)||X||X||X||X|
|12.a.3.||Auxiliary power unit (APU)||X||X||X||X|
|12.a.6.||Fire and smoke detection and suppression||X||X||X||X|
|12.a.7.||Flight controls (primary and secondary)||X||X||X||X|
|12.a.8.||Fuel and oil, hydraulic and pneumatic||X||X||X||X|
|12.a.13.||Autopilot and Flight Director||X||X||X||X|
|12.a.14.||Collision avoidance systems. (e.g., (E)GPWS, TCAS)||X||X||X||X|
|12.a.15.||Flight control computers including stability and control augmentation||X||X||X||X|
|Start Printed Page 26558|
|12.a.16.||Flight display systems||X||X||X||X|
|12.a.17.||Flight management computers||X||X||X||X|
|12.a.18.||Head-up guidance, head-up displays||X||X||X||X|
|12.a.21.||Wind shear avoidance equipment||X||X||X||X|
|12.a.22.||Automatic landing aids.||X||X||X||X|
|12.b.2.||Air hazard avoidance (traffic, weather)||X||X|
|12.b.4.||Effects of airframe ice||X||X|
|12.c.||Engine shutdown and parking|
|12.c.1.||Engine and systems operation||X||X||X||X|
|12.c.2.||Parking brake operation||X||X||X||X|
|Entry No.||For qualification at the stated level—Class I airport models||Simulator level|
|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.|
|1.a.||A minimum of one (1) representative airport model. This model identification must be acceptable to the sponsor's TPAA, selectable from the IOS, and listed on the SOQ||X||X|
|1.b.||The fidelity of the airport model must be sufficient for the aircrew 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||X||X|
|1.c.1.||Visible runway number||X||X|
|1.c.2.||Runway threshold elevations and locations must be modeled to provide sufficient correlation with airplane systems (e.g., altimeter)||X||X|
|1.c.3.||Runway surface and markings||X||X|
|1.c.4.||Lighting for the runway in use including runway edge and centerline||X||X|
|1.c.5.||Lighting, visual approach aid and approach lighting of appropriate colors||X||X|
|Start Printed Page 26559|
|1.c.6.||Representative taxiway lights||X||X|
|2.||Functional test content requirements for Level C and Level D simulators. The following is the minimum airport model content requirement to satisfy visual capability tests, and provide suitable visual cues to allow completion of all functions and subjective tests described in this attachment for simulators at Levels C and D. Not all of the elements described in this section must be found in a single airport model. However, all of the elements described in this section must be found throughout a combination of the three (3) airport models described in entry 2.a.|
|2.a.||A minimum of three (3) representative airport models. The model identifications must be acceptable to the sponsor's TPAA, selectable from the IOS, and listed on the SOQ||X||X|
|2.a.1.||Night and Twilight (Dusk) scenes required||X||X|
|2.a.2.||Daylight scenes required||X|
|2.b.||Two parallel runways and one crossing runway, displayed simultaneously; at least two of the runways must be able to be lighted fully and simultaneously Note: This requirement may be demonstrated at either a fictional airport or a real-world airport. However, if a fictional airport is used, this airport must be listed on the SOQ||X||X|
|2.c.||Runway threshold elevations and locations must be modeled to provide sufficient correlation with airplane systems (e.g., HGS, GPS, altimeter); slopes in runways, taxiways, and ramp areas must not cause distracting or unrealistic effects, including pilot eye-point height variation||X||X|
|2.d.||Representative airport buildings, structures and lighting||X||X|
|2.e.||At least one useable gate, at the appropriate height (required only for those airplanes that typically operate from terminal gates)||X||X|
|2.f.||Representative moving and static gate clutter (e.g., other airplane, power carts, tugs, fuel trucks, and additional gates)||X||X|
|2.g.||Representative gate/apron markings (e.g., hazard markings, lead-in lines, gate numbering) and lighting||X||X|
|2.h.||Representative runway markings, lighting, and signage, including a windsock that gives appropriate wind cues||X||X|
|2.i.||Representative taxiway markings, lighting, and signage necessary for position identification, and to taxi from parking to a designated runway and return to parking||X||X|
|2.j.||A low visibility taxi route (e.g., Surface Movement Guidance Control System, follow-me truck, daylight taxi lights) must also be demonstrated||X|
|2.k.||Representative moving and static ground traffic (e.g., vehicular and airplane), including the capability to present ground hazards (e.g., another airplane crossing the active runway)||X||X|
|2.l.||Representative moving airborne traffic, including the capability to present air hazards (e.g., airborne traffic on a possible collision course)||X||X|
|2.m.||Representative depiction of terrain and obstacles as well as significant and identifiable natural and cultural features, within 25 NM of the reference airport||X||X|
|2.n.||Appropriate approach lighting systems and airfield lighting for a VFR circuit and landing, non-precision approaches and landings, and Category I, II and III precision approaches and landings||X||X|
|2.o.||Representative gate docking aids or a marshaller||X||X|
|2.p.||Portrayal of physical relationships known to cause landing illusions (e.g., short runways, landing approaches over water, uphill or downhill runways, rising terrain on the approach path) This requirement may be met by a SOC and a demonstration of two landing illusions. The illusions are not required to be beyond the normal operational capabilities of the airplane being simulated. The demonstrated illusions must be available to the instructor or check airman at the IOS for training, testing, checking, or experience activities||X|
|2.q.||Portrayal of runway surface contaminants, including runway lighting reflections when wet and partially obscured lights when snow is present, or suitable alternative effects||X|
|Start Printed Page 26560|
|3.||Airport model management. The following is the minimum airport model management requirements for simulators at Levels A, B, C, and D.|
|3.a.||Runway and approach lighting must fade into view in accordance with the environmental conditions set in the simulator, and the distance from the object||X||X||X||X|
|3.b.||The direction of strobe lights, approach lights, runway edge lights, visual landing aids, runway centerline lights, threshold lights, and touchdown zone lights must be replicated||X||X||X||X|
|4.||Visual feature recognition. The following is the minimum distances at which runway features must be visible for simulators at Levels A, B, C, and D. Distances are measured from runway threshold to an airplane aligned with the runway on an extended 3° glide-slope in simulated meteorological conditions that recreate the minimum distances for visibility. For circling approaches, all tests apply to the runway used for the initial approach and to the runway of intended landing.|
|4.a.||Runway definition, strobe lights, approach lights, and runway edge white lights from 5 sm (8 km) of the runway threshold||X||X||X||X|
|4.b.||Visual Approach Aid lights (VASI or PAPI) from 5 sm (8 km) of the runway threshold||X||X|
|4.c.||Visual Approach Aid lights (VASI or PAPI) from 3 sm (5 km) of the runway threshold||X||X|
|4.d.||Runway centerline lights and taxiway definition from 3 sm (5 km)||X||X||X||X|
|4.e.||Threshold lights and touchdown zone lights from 2 sm (3 km)||X||X||X||X|
|4.f.||Runway markings within range of landing lights for night scenes as required by the surface resolution test on day scenes||X||X||X||X|
|4.g.||For circling approaches, the runway of intended landing and associated lighting must fade into view in a non-distracting manner||X||X||X||X|
|5.||Airport model content. The following sets out the minimum requirements for what must be provided in an airport model and also identifies the other aspects of the airport environment that must correspond with that model for simulators at Levels A, B, C, and D. 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-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 required for each “in-use” runway.|
|5.a.||The surface and markings for each “in-use” runway must include the following:|
|5.a.3.||Touchdown zone markings||X||X||X||X|
|5.a.4.||Fixed distance markings||X||X||X||X|
|5.b.||Each runway designated as an “in-use” runway must include the following:|
|5.b.1.||The lighting for each “in-use” runway must include the following:|
|(i) Threshold lights||X||X||X||X|
|(ii) Edge lights||X||X||X||X|
|(iii) End lights||X||X||X||X|
|Start Printed Page 26561|
|(iv) Centerline lights, if appropriate||X||X||X||X|
|(v) Touchdown zone lights, if appropriate||X||X||X||X|
|(vi) Leadoff lights, if appropriate||X||X||X||X|
|(vii) Appropriate visual landing aid(s) for that runway||X||X||X||X|
|(viii) Appropriate approach lighting system for that runway||X||X||X||X|
|5.b.2.||The taxiway surface and markings associated with each “in-use” runway must include the following:|
|(iii) Runway hold lines||X||X||X||X|
|(iv) ILS critical area marking||X||X||X||X|
|5.b.3.||The taxiway lighting associated with each “in-use” runway must include the following:|
|(ii) Centerline, if appropriate||X||X||X||X|
|(iii) Runway hold and ILS critical area lights||X||X||X||X|
|(iv) Edge lights of correct color||X||X|
|5.b.4.||Airport signage associated with each “in-use” runway must include the following:|
|(i) Distance remaining signs, if appropriate||X||X||X||X|
|(ii) Signs at intersecting runways and taxiways||X||X||X||X|
|(iii) Signs described in entries 2.h. and 2.i. of this table||X||X||X||X|
|5.b.5.||Required airport model correlation with other aspects of the airport environment simulation:|
|(i) The airport model must be properly aligned with the navigational aids that are associated with operations at the runway “in-use”||X||X||X||X|
|(ii) The simulation of runway contaminants must be correlated with the displayed runway surface and lighting where applicable||X|
|6.||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.|
|6.a.||Visual system compatibility with aerodynamic programming||X||X||X||X|
|6.b.||Visual cues to assess sink rate and depth perception during landings||X||X||X|
|6.c.||Accurate portrayal of environment relating to flight simulator attitudes||X||X||X||X|
|6.d.||The airport model and the generated visual scene must correlate with integrated airplane systems (e.g., terrain, traffic and weather avoidance systems and Head-up Guidance System (HGS))||X||X|
|6.e.||Representative visual effects for each visible, own-ship, airplane external light(s)—taxi and landing light lobes (including independent operation, if appropriate)||X||X||X||X|
|6.f.||The effect of rain removal devices||X||X|
|7.||Scene quality. The following are the minimum scene quality tests that must be conducted for simulators at Levels A, B, C, and D.|
|7.a.||Surfaces and textural cues must be free from apparent and distracting quantization (aliasing)||X||X|
|7.b.||System capable of portraying full color realistic textural cues||X||X|
|Start Printed Page 26562|
|7.c.||The system light points must be free from distracting jitter, smearing or streaking||X||X||X||X|
|7.d.||Demonstration of occulting through each channel of the system in an operational scene||X||X|
|7.e.||Demonstration of a minimum of ten levels of occulting through each channel of the system in an operational scene||X||X|
|7.f.||System capable of providing focus effects that simulate rain||X||X|
|7.g.||System capable of providing focus effects that simulate light point perspective growth||X||X|
|7.h.||System capable of six discrete light step controls (0-5)||X||X||X||X|
|8.||Environmental effects. The following are the minimum environmental effects that must be available as indicated.|
|8.a.||The displayed scene corresponding to the appropriate surface contaminants and include runway lighting reflections for wet, partially obscured lights for snow, or alternative effects||X||X|
|8.a.1.||Special weather representations which include:|
|(i) 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 2,000 ft (600 m) above the airport surface and within a radius of 10 sm (16 km) from the airport||X||X|
|(ii) One airport with a snow scene to include terrain snow and snow-covered taxiways and runways||X||X|
|8.b.||In-cloud effects such as variable cloud density, speed cues and ambient changes||X||X|
|8.c.||The effect of multiple cloud layers representing few, scattered, broken and overcast conditions giving partial or complete obstruction of the ground scene||X||X|
|8.d.||Visibility and RVR measured in terms of distance. Visibility/RVR checked at 2,000 ft (600 m) above the airport and at two heights below 2000 ft with at least 500 ft of separation between the measurements. The measurements must be taken within a radius of 10 sm (16 km) from the airport||X||X||X||X|
|8.e.||Patchy fog giving the effect of variable RVR||X||X|
|8.f.||Effects of fog on airport lighting such as halos and defocus||X||X|
|8.g.||Effect of own-ship lighting in reduced visibility, such as reflected glare, including landing lights, strobes, and beacons||X||X|
|8.h.||Wind cues to provide the effect of blowing snow or sand across a dry runway or taxiway selectable from the instructor station||X||X|
|9.||Instructor control of the following: The following are the minimum instructor controls that must be available in simulators at Levels A, B, C, and D.|
|9.a.||Environmental effects, e.g., cloud base, cloud effects, cloud density, visibility in statute miles/kilometers and RVR in feet/meters||X||X||X||X|
|9.c.||Airport lighting, including variable intensity||X||X||X||X|
|9.d.||Dynamic effects including ground and flight traffic||X||X|
|Start Printed Page 26563|
|End QPS Requirement|
|10.||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|
|11.||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|
|Entry No.||Additional airport models beyond minimum required for qualification—Class II airport models||Simulator level|
|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.|
|Begin QPS Requirements|
|1.||Airport model management. The following is the minimum airport model management requirements for simulators at Levels A, B, C, and D.|
|1.a.||The direction of strobe lights, approach lights, runway edge lights, visual landing aids, runway centerline lights, threshold lights, and touchdown zone lights on the “in-use” runway must be replicated||X||X||X||X|
|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 are measured from runway threshold to an airplane aligned with the runway 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.|
|2.a.||Runway definition, strobe lights, approach lights, and runway edge white lights from 5 sm (8 km) from the runway threshold||X||X||X||X|
|2.b.||Visual Approach Aid lights (VASI or PAPI) from 5 sm (8 km) from the runway threshold||X||X|
|2.c.||Visual Approach Aid lights (VASI or PAPI) from 3 sm (5 km) from the runway threshold||X||X|
|2.d.||Runway centerline lights and taxiway definition from 3 sm (5 km) from the runway threshold||X||X||X||X|
|2.e.||Threshold lights and touchdown zone lights from 2 sm (3 km) from the runway threshold||X||X||X||X|
|2.f.||Runway markings within range of landing lights for night scenes and as required by the surface resolution requirements on day scenes||X||X||X||X|
|2.g.||For circling approaches, the runway of intended landing and associated lighting must fade into view in a non-distracting manner||X||X||X||X|
|Start Printed Page 26564|
|3.||Airport model content 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.|
|3.a.||The surface and markings for each “in-use” runway:|
|3.a.3.||Touchdown zone markings||X||X||X||X|
|3.a.4.||Fixed distance markings||X||X||X||X|
|3.b.||The lighting for each “in-use” runway|
|3.b.5.||Touchdown zone lights, if appropriate||X||X||X||X|
|3.b.6.||Leadoff lights, if appropriate||X||X||X||X|
|3.b.7.||Appropriate visual landing aid(s) for that runway||X||X||X||X|
|3.b.8.||Appropriate approach lighting system for that runway||X||X||X||X|
|3.c.||The taxiway surface and markings associated with each “in-use” runway:|
|3.c.3.||Runway hold lines||X||X||X||X|
|3.c.4.||ILS critical area markings||X||X||X||X|
|3.d.||The taxiway lighting associated with each “in-use” runway:|
|3.d.3.||Runway hold and ILS critical area lights||X||X||X||X|
|4.||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.|
|4.a.||The airport model must be properly aligned with the navigational aids that are associated with operations at the “in-use” runway||X||X||X||X|
|4.b.||Slopes in runways, taxiways, and ramp areas, if depicted in the visual scene, must not cause distracting or unrealistic effects||X||X||X||X|
|5.||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.|
|Start Printed Page 26565|
|5.a.||Visual system compatibility with aerodynamic programming||X||X||X||X|
|5.b.||Accurate portrayal of environment relating to flight simulator attitudes||X||X||X||X|
|5.c.||Visual cues to assess sink rate and depth perception during landings||X||X||X|
|5.d.||Visual effects for each visible, own-ship, airplane external light(s)||X||X||X|
|6.||Scene quality. The following are the minimum scene quality tests that must be conducted for simulators at Levels A, B, C, and D.|
|6.a.||Surfaces and textural cues must be free of apparent and distracting quantization (aliasing)||X||X|
|6.b.||Correct color and realistic textural cues||X||X|
|6.c.||Light points free from distracting jitter, smearing or streaking||X||X||X||X|
|7.||Instructor controls of the following:The following are the minimum instructor controls that must be available in simulators at Levels A, B, C, and D.|
|7.a.||Environmental effects, e.g., cloud base (if used), cloud effects, cloud density, visibility in statute miles/kilometers and RVR in feet/meters||X||X||X||X|
|7.c.||Airport lighting including variable intensity||X||X||X||X|
|7.d.||Dynamic effects including ground and flight traffic||X||X|
|End QPS Requirements|
|8.||Sponsors are not required to provide every detail of a runway, but the detail that is provided must be correct within the capabilities of the system||X||X||X||X|
|Entry no.||Motion system effects||Simulator level||Notes|
|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.|
|1.||Runway rumble, oleo deflection, ground speed, uneven runway, runway and taxiway centerline light characteristics: Procedure: After the airplane has been pre-set to the takeoff position and then released, taxi at various speeds with a smooth runway and note the general characteristics of the simulated runway rumble effects of oleo deflections. Repeat the maneuver with a runway roughness of 50%, then with maximum roughness. Note the associated motion vibrations affected by ground speed and runway roughness||X||X||X||X||Different gross weights can also be selected, which may also affect the associated vibrations depending on airplane type. The associated motion effects for the above tests should also include an assessment of the effects of rolling over centerline lights, surface discontinuities of uneven runways, and various taxiway characteristics.|
|2.||Buffets on the ground due to spoiler/speedbrake extension and 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||X||X||X||X|
|Start Printed Page 26566|
|3.||Bumps associated with the landing gear: 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||X||X||X||X|
|4.||Buffet during extension and retraction of landing gear: Procedure: Operate the landing gear. Check that the motion cues of the buffet experienced represent the actual airplane||X||X||X||X|
|5.||Buffet in the air due to flap and spoiler/speedbrake extension and approach to stall buffet: 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||X||X||X||X|
|6.||Approach to stall buffet: 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||X||X||X||X|
|7.||Touchdown cues for main and nose gear: 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||X||X||X||X|
|8.||Nosewheel scuffing: 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||X||X||X||X|
|9.||Thrust effect with brakes set: Procedure: Set the brakes on at the take-off point and increase the engine power until buffet is experienced. Evaluate its characteristics. Confirm that the buffet increases appropriately with increasing engine thrust||X||X||X||X||This effect is most discernible with wing-mounted engines.|
|10.||Mach and maneuver buffet: 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||X||X||X|
|Start Printed Page 26567|
|11.||Tire failure dynamics: Procedure: Simulate a single tire failure and a multiple tire failure||X||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.|
|12.||Engine malfunction and engine damage: Procedure: The characteristics of an engine malfunction as stipulated 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||X||X||X|
|13.||Tail strikes and engine pod 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 Excessive banking of the airplane during its take-off/landing roll can cause a pod strike||X||X||X||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.|
|Entry No.||Sound system||Simulator level|
|The following checks are performed during a normal flight profile with motion system ON.|
|2.||Rain removal equipment.||X||X|
|3.||Significant airplane noises perceptible to the pilot during normal operations||X||X|
|4.||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||X|
|5.||Sound of a crash when the flight simulator is landed in excess of limitations||X||X|
|Entry No.||Special effects||Simulator level|
|This table specifies the minimum special effects necessary for the specified simulator level.|
|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||X||X|
|2.||Effects of Airframe and Engine Icing:||X||X|
|Required only for those airplanes authorized for operations in known icing conditions|
|Start Printed Page 26568|
|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, anti-ice, or de-ice systems independently. Recognition will include proper effects of these systems, eventually returning the simulated airplane to normal flight|
|Entry No.||Special effects||Simulator level|
|Functions in this table are subject to evaluation only if appropriate for the airplane and/or the system is installed on the specific simulator.|
|1.||Simulator Power Switch(es)||X||X||X||X|
|2.a.||Gross weight, center of gravity, fuel loading and allocation||X||X||X||X|
|2.b.||Airplane systems status||X||X||X||X|
|2.c.||Ground crew functions (e.g., ext. power, push back)||X||X||X||X|
|3.a.||Number and selection||X||X||X||X|
|3.c.||Runway surface condition (e.g., rough, smooth, icy, wet)||X||X|
|3.d.||Preset positions (e.g., ramp, gate, #1 for takeoff, takeoff position, over FAF)||X||X||X||X|
|4.a||Visibility (statute miles (kilometers))||X||X||X||X|
|4.b.||Runway visual range (in feet (meters))||X||X||X||X|
|4.d.||Climate conditions (e.g., ice, snow, rain)||X||X||X||X|
|4.e.||Wind speed and direction||X||X||X||X|
|4.g.||Clouds (base and tops)||X||X||X||X|
|5.||Airplane system malfunctions (Inserting and deleting malfunctions into the simulator)||X||X||X||X|
|6.||Locks, Freezes, and Repositioning|
|6.a.||Problem (all) freeze/release||X||X||X||X|
|6.b.||Position (geographic) freeze/release||X||X||X||X|
|6.c.||Repositioning (locations, freezes, and releases)||X||X||X||X|
|6.d.||Ground speed control||X||X||X||X|
|Start Printed Page 26569|
|8.||Sound Controls. On/off/adjustment||X||X||X||X|
|9.||Motion/Control Loading System|
|10.||Observer Seats/Stations. Position/Adjustment/Positive restraint system||X||X||X||X|
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.
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.
a. Initial Conditions
(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).
(a) Quick Donning Oxygen Masks.
(b) Head Sets.
(c) Smoke Goggles.
(d) Sun Visors.
(e) Escape Rope.
(f) Chart Holders.
(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
(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.
(A) Runway surface scene.
(B) Windshield wiper—operation and sound.
(A) Runway surface scene.
(B) Windshield wiper—operation and sound. Start Printed Page 26570
(c) Snow/ice runway surface scene.
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 meters.
(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 increases.
(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.
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.
(6) Icing Systems.
(7) Indicating and Recording Systems.
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.
(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° 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.
(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. Start Printed Page 26571
(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 III Approach and Landing—System Malfunctions.
(15) CAT III 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: