**INITIATIVE TOWARDS MORE AFFORDABLE FLIGHT SIMULATORS**

**FOR U.S. COMMUTER AIRLINE TRAINING**

Thomas Longridge, Manager, Advanced Qualification Program

Paul Ray, Manager, National Simulator Program

Federal Aviation Administration, Washington D.C.

Edward Boothe, Consultant, Flight Simulation and Training

Atlanta, Georgia

Judith Bürki-Cohen, Engineering Psychologist, Volpe National

Transportation Systems Center, Department of Transportation

Cambridge, Massachusetts

United States of America

**[Abstract]{.underline}**

Recent regulatory action, coupled to a policy of encouraging commuter
airlines to conduct all pilot training and checking activities in ground
based equipment, has created an impetus to consider how best to
ameliorate the conditions which have discouraged the use of such
equipment for pilot recurrent training by commuter airlines in the
United States. This paper compares the relative merits of permitting
additional recurrent training credit for enhanced flight training
devices versus revising the qualification standards for Level B full
flight simulators to achieve enhanced affordability. The current status
of an ongoing Level B flight simulator qualification standards review,
results to date, and future plans, including plans for the development
of a comprehensive applied research program, are discussed.

**[Background]{.underline}**

The use of flight simulators for initial and recurrent pilot training by
U.S. major airlines is universal, and its effectiveness is well
recognized. However, the use of such equipment by smaller U.S. commuter
airlines is mixed. While many commuter airlines use approved simulator
resources available from aircraft manufacturers and training centers for
initial pilot certification, smaller airlines frequently do not make use
of such equipment for recurrent pilot training, due to various
considerations, such as cost, convenience, and flight simulator
availability. For airlines employing small aircraft, the per hour cost
of operating an aircraft for training may compare favorably with the
cost of contracting for simulator time. For some commuter aircraft,
simulator resources may be very limited in availability, and they may be
inconveniently located geographically for U.S. operators.

On 20 December 1995, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued a
new regulation (Ref 1) applicable to all airlines that operate scheduled
air carrier service in airplanes having ten or more passenger seats.
This new regulation, Part 119 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (
14 CFR), encompasses all scheduled commuter airlines that operate
airplanes of 10 or more seats under 14 CFR, Part 135. Among its
provisions, it requires all such airlines to conduct pilot training and
evaluation in accordance with the same provisions of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (FAR) that apply to major airlines, namely 14 CFR,
Part 121. These changes are intended to encourage one standard of safety
for all air carriers, regardless of the size of their aircraft or the
range of their flight operations. In concert with these new rules, the
FAA has adopted a policy of encouraging commuter airlines to transition
their pilot training programs out of the aircraft and into ground-based
training equipment. However, it is likely the effective realization of
this policy will not occur until the major obstacles which have
historically restricted access of commuter airlines to such equipment,
namely cost, convenience, and availability, are removed. If this is to
occur on a timely basis, the FAA must act proactively in meeting the
needs of the commuter airlines for affordable training equipment. The
FAA has also concluded that for any such effort to be successful without
compromising safety, it must be accomplished without degradation in the
qualification standards for such equipment.

The FAA qualification requirements for a flight training device (FTD)
are defined by Advisory Circular (AC) 120-45A (Ref 2), which defines
seven levels of such equipment. The credit permitted for a corresponding
FTD level is proscribed as an appendix to the FAA Practical Test
Standards, as revised (Ref 3). Within the U.S., the Regional Airline
Association has proposed that the FAA consider expanded options for the
use of FTDs, a proposal which has also been enthusiastically endorsed by
those equipment manufacturers for whom FTDs constitute a principle
product line. The proposed strategy would entail an upgraded Level 5 or
Level 6 FTD, consisting of an enhanced aeromodeling package and the
addition of some type of visual image generation and display system. In
some proposals, the addition of a low cost, small throw, three or four
degree-of-freedom motion platform has also been discussed, although
design specifications and associated capabilities have yet to be clearly
defined. This enhanced FTD alternative is considered appealing by its
proponents, because, provided the FAA were to agree to allow full credit
for the use of such equipment in recurrent training and checking, it
appears that this proposal would have the potential of addressing all of
the major obstacles discussed above.

From a regulatory perspective, however, there are certain drawbacks to
this proposed approach. The first such drawback concerns the need for
standardization in equipment qualification, in order to maintain
acceptable standards of safety for pilot training and checking. As the
purposes for which the FAA established the category of equipment called
FTD did not incorporate an intent to address the full spectrum of pilot
training needs, the existing FTD qualifications standards are not
applicable to the use of these devices for such broad purposes. FTDs
were established for use within an overall air carrier pilot training
curriculum, which must either employ a full flight simulator (FFS), or
the aircraft itself, as an essential component. The FFS provides an
FAA-qualified vehicle for training and testing the skill integration
required for the full range of flight operations. The FTD provides an
FAA-qualified vehicle for mastering the skills associated with
individual flight tasks, particularly procedural skills. Use of an FTD
better enables matching training objectives to training equipment, by
virtue of permitting training on lower level enabling objectives to
occur on lower level equipment.

This practice clearly permits more efficient use of FFS time, by
concentrating use of the latter on those skills for which the FTD is not
a suitable vehicle - namely, flight operations training and evaluation,
in which the training equipment must be capable of presenting a full
representive range of operational tasks, conditions, and contingencies.
While the FAA has authorized training and checking credit for certain
individual flight maneuvers to be accomplished in an FTD, the FAR also
require that the demonstration of pilot proficiency for certain other
tasks be completed in an appropriately qualified FFS, or in an aircraft,
as part of the air carrier's approved overall training program. For
recurrent pilot training proficiency checks, unless the landing
maneuvers are accomplished in a Level B or higher FFS, evaluation of
proficiency on these maneuvers must be conducted in the aircraft,
typically accomplished by the satisfactory completion of at least two
landings during the required operational (line) evaluation. In addition,
14 CFR Part 121 requires that recurrent windshear training be
accomplished annually in a FFS.

In 1990 the FAA issued Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) 58,
Advanced Qualification Program (AQP), which created a voluntary
alternative to the traditional 14 CFR Part 121 requirements for pilot
training and checking (Ref 4). SFAR 58 provides a regulatory mechanism
on which basis the FAA may approve significant departures from
traditional requirements, including the authorized use of equipment for
training. It has been argued by some in the training development
community that "\..... qualification of ground-based devices for
training needs to be based on their effectiveness for that purpose, not
solely on their verisimilitude to an airplane" (Ref 5), and that
"\.....what an effective simulation requires is as many of the
psychophysical, cockpit management and communications demands as
possible, rather than technical, physical, or aerodynamic fidelity to a
particular aircraft type. Suitable simulation devices thus need
"functional" fidelity and the simulation scenario must ensure
appropriate "operational" and "embodied" fidelity." (Ref 6). Under AQP
it is possible to conduct pilot training which is fully consistent with
this philosophy, and to obtain FAA approval for the use in an AQP
curriculum of equipment based upon such functional considerations,
rather than on engineering criteria. It is not possible, however, to
conduct the evaluation of end-level pilot proficiency in such equipment.

In the U.S., as in many other countries today, regulations permit pilot
training, qualification, and certification to be conducted entirely in
ground-based equipment. Pilots qualified on such a basis are permitted
to perform immediately as cockpit crewmembers in aircraft which fly
passengers in revenue operations, albeit under the supervision of a
check airman during the initial operating experience which follows
upgrade or transition training. Recurrent training for continuing
qualification of pilots can be accomplished entirely in ground-based
equipment. Consequently, it is critical to safety that the ground-based
equipment employed to evaluate end level proficiency for such purposes
be qualified as replicating the aircraft over the full range of
operational tasks, conditions, and contingencies.

Even in AQP, therefore, there are clear restraints on the use of
equipment for assessing terminal proficiency. Such equipment must be
qualified by the FAA, and it must be approved for its intended use as
AQP proficiency evaluation media. AQP does offer considerably
flexibility with respect to the use of FTDs for the progressive sign-off
of proficiency on individual objectives, including training to
proficiency on technical and/or cognitively oriented objectives.
However, the final criterion for successful completion of an AQP
curriculum is the formal evaluation of proficiency in realistic
operational scenarios that test a diagnostic sample of technical and
cognitive skills in a systematically developed Line Operational
Evaluation (LOE), which is designed to test both sets of skills
together. The FAA has determined that only a qualified FFS is an
acceptable media for LOE.

Authorization of an "enhanced" FTD to accomplish recurrent training and
checking, whether for credit on specific maneuvers under a traditional
14 CFR Part 121 program or under SFAR 58 with respect to evaluation on
specific proficiency objectives, would require the development of
appropriate equipment qualification standards for the modified
configuration of devices to be employed for those purposes.
Alternatively, it would necessitate the application of existing FFS
qualification standards to the enhanced components of that equipment. It
would also require modification to, or exemption from, the existing FAR
pertaining to the requirements for FAA approval of an air carrier's
pilot training program under Part 121. Since the enhancements to an FTD
necessary to justify these actions would in effect be identical to those
required to upgrade the device to a FFS, it is highly questionable
whether this proposed course of action is warranted.

From an FAA perspective, a more rationale course of action would be to
take the existing qualification standards for a Level B simulator as a
starting point, and determine (a) whether more affordable means of
meeting those equipment standards can be achieved, and (b) if certain
revisions to those qualification standards can be accomplished which
would enhance affordability without degrading the quality of equipment
performance. AC 120-40B (Ref 7) defines four FFS levels - A, B, C, and
D. Of these, Level B appears to be the most logical target for this
endeavor, because it can be used for 100% of recurrent training,
equipment for recurrent training use is among the most significant cost
considerations for U.S. commuter airlines, and the engineering
requirements for a Level B simulator are such that the likelihood of a
successful outcome for this review is higher than would be the case for
a Level C or D simulator. Most U.S. regional airlines are already using
a Level C or D FFS for initial and transition pilot training. Their use
for that purpose is recognized as cost effective, but the cost of
purchasing or leasing access to that level of equipment for pilot
recurrent training is not considered to be acceptable by many commuter
airlines, which continue to find it financially advantageous to conduct
recurrent training and checking in the aircraft. Few, if any, Level B
(or Level A) simulators are presently available for use with commuter
class aircraft in the U.S..

The choice of a Level B simulator as a target system is driven by the
stated policy of the FAA to encourage commuter airlines to conduct all
of their training in ground-based equipment, rather than in the
aircraft. While a Level A simulator can be employed under 14 CFR Part
121 to accomplish most of the requirements for aircraft specific
recurrent pilot training and checking, the regulations require that if
limited to that level of equipment, then two landings under the
observation of a check airman must also be accomplished in the aircraft
within the due period of the proficiency check for a given pilot. As
previously noted, the two landings are typically observed during the
required operational (line) evaluation, thereby necessitating at least
two flight segments. If a Level B simulator is utilized for the
proficiency check, the line checking requirement may be satisfied with a
single flight segment, thereby potentially reducing the workload on
check airmen by 50%. Another consideration for choice of Level B as the
starting point concerns the feasibility of generalizing between
equipment levels. Downward extension from Level B to Level A would
appear to be more practical than attempting to extrapolate in the
opposite direction..

Accordingly, the FAA is undertaking a comprehensive review of the
equipment qualification standards for Level B FFS. This effort
constitutes the initial phase of a systematic, multi-year program of
FAA-sponsored flight simulator applied research, intended to provide
empirical data on the relationships between training equipment
engineering characteristics, pilot cueing requirements, equipment cueing
effectiveness, and equipment pilot training and evaluation
effectiveness. As results become available, they will be presented by
the FAA for discussion and potential application internationally.

FAA efforts regarding this issue are supportive of ongoing international
initiatives to improve the quality of simulation and its use. The FAA
actively supports the recently adopted international standards for Level
I and II simulators, as exemplified by their incorporation into FAA
Level C and D simulator qualification standards. This paper will
describe the current status of the Level B flight simulator
qualification standards review, progress to date, and future plans,
including plans for the development of a comprehensive applied research
program. The paper constitutes a description of work in progress.

**[Review of Level B Simulator Qualification Standards]{.underline}**

The baseline for this review is AC120-40B and the simulator validation
tables therein. The review is being conducted on a progressive basis,
beginning with the data requirements for validation of the aeromodel for
a Level B flight simulator, since this consideration is fundamental to
the fidelity of the simulator's handling characteristics, and is crucial
for pilot acceptance of such equipment as a substitute for the aircraft.
The second priority for this review is Level B flight simulator motion
cueing. The third priority is Level B flight simulator visual display
technology. Although there are other considerations to simulator
validation, the FAA has determined that these three priorities have the
biggest potential for success relative to achieving increased flight
simulator affordability. To date, however, only the aeromodel review has
been initiated.

[Aeromodel Validation]{.underline}

In initiating a review of those portions of AC120-40B pertaining to the
validation of the aeromodeling for a Level B simulator, each test was
examined with regard to the following questions: Given a commuter class
aircraft with wing mounted turboprop engines, (a) what is the objective
of this test? (b) is the test important to simulator fidelity from the
perspective of what the pilot actually sees and feels in the cockpit?
(c) are there modifications to the test that would reduce costs without
seriously impacting simulator handling characteristics? and (d) are
there modifications to the flight data instrumentation requirements that
would reduce costs without seriously impacting the reliability and
validity of the aeromodel verification process? A meeting of selected
subject matter experts from industry, academia, and government in the
disciplines of aerodynamic modeling, aircraft flight test
instrumentation, simulator qualification, aircraft certification, and
air carrier pilot training was convened to examine the tests in light of
the above questions. The results of this review are summarized in Table
I, and the verbatim transcript of the proceedings from this meeting has
been documented (Ref 8).

As Table I indicates, changes were proposed to more than half of the
existing tests. Of 48 total tests, 27 were changed, including two which
were deleted entirely - (2.d.(2): Roll Response Rate, and 2.e.(4):
Rudder Effectiveness with Reverse Thrust. The most significant change
was the elimination of angle-of-attack and control-surface-position
measurements from all flights tests. While these recommendations do not
depart dramatically from the existing requirements of AC120-40B, it is
estimated that the net effect of adopting these proposed changes would
be a savings of at least 25% in the cost of flight simulator validation,
by virtue of reduced requirements for certain flight test
instrumentation. For example, for Crosswind Landing - 2.e.(2), and
Engine Inoperative-2.e.(3), the replacement of angle-of-attack and
sideslip measures with normal and lateral acceleration measures would
result in a significant instrumentation savings. While all these
proposed changes would simplify flight testing and thereby reduce costs,
it was the consensus of the review team that the quality of Level B
simulator performance would not be adversely affected for pilot
recurrent training purposes.

In addition to a review of FAA simulator qualification requirements as
embodied in the AC120-40B validation tables, consideration was given to
the feasibility of using predictive modeling as a substitute for the
flight test data typically required by the simulator manufacturer in
order to tune an aeromodel to better match aircraft handling
characteristics throughout the maneuver envelope. The use of flight data
for this purpose is not a requirement of the objective tests specified
in the FAA validation tables, which tend to reflect the acquisition of
data taken from the middle of the flight envelope during steady state
conditions. Nevertheless, simulator manufacturers have historically
required flight data beyond that required for FAA objective tests, in
order to refine the equations of motion so that simulation of aircraft
dynamics is acceptable for the purposes of FAA-required subjective
tests, and ultimately, for pilot acceptance. This requirement can add to
the overall cost of the data package for a given flight simulator.

Considerable progress has been made in recent years in the use of
predictive modeling techniques to generate estimated flight data. In
conjunction with increased accessibility to very high-powered computer
technology, these techniques have become quite sophisticated. Moreover,
it has been possible to refine the precision of such models by
comparisons of their output with actual flight data on an iterative
basis over a period of years. Indeed, the use of such techniques has
become standard practice for simulator manufacturers, as a means of
establishing new simulator configurations pending the availability of
actual flight test data. These techniques are also gaining acceptance as
a means for transport category aircraft manufacturers to reduce the
amount of actual flight testing required for certification of variants
from a previously flight-tested aircraft make and model.

If predictive modeling can be successfully used to significantly reduce
the requirement for flight data needed for aerodynamic model
programming, it is estimated that an additional reduction of 25% in the
cost of a simulator data package could be achieved. It was the consensus
of the review team that this proposal has merit, and warrants further
exploration, though it remains to be satisfactorily demonstrated that
this approach would produce sufficiently accurate results for commuter
class turboprop aircraft. The net cost savings for the flight test data
package, which would result from the proposed validation table changes,
and the use of predictive modeling as the primary source for
supplemental flight data, is estimated to be 50%.

[Motion Cueing]{.underline}

There is probably no topic in the domain of flight simulation in more
dire need of a unified approach to the quantitative analysis of flight
simulator cueing requirements than that of motion cueing. In the absence
of tools for that purpose, the continuing controversy over motion
extends to diametrically opposing arguments (Ref 9, 10, 11, and 12),
resolution of which is unlikely to ever occur unless a systematic
program of properly designed research is undertaken to develop the
requisite methodologies and to conduct the necessary critical studies.
Surprisingly little satisfactory progress has occurred toward that end
in recent years.

The presently described FAA program is committed to the application of
resources to address this need, but this effort is only in an early
planning stage, and it remains to be determined whether such a program
will be more successful than previous endeavors in this arena. In the
meantime, the FAA must move forward to address the motion cueing
considerations that would be applicable to updating the qualification
requirements for a Level B flight simulator. Pending the availability of
new scientific data, decisions in this regard must be based on the
existing literature, and on best expert judgment.

In light of the current state of knowledge (Refs 13, 14, 15, 16, and
17), the FAA has determined that both Level A and B full flight flight
simulators must continue to be equipped with full-body-motion
capability. Remaining at issue is whether the existing standards for
motion platform performance for a Level B simulator should be left
unchanged, or whether, in the interest of equal or better fidelity at
reduced cost, modifications may be warranted. The objective tests in
AC120-40B only directly address motion platform hardware performance,
not motion drive software, which is only indirectly assessed by virtue
of subjective acceptance testing. Consequently, there is presently no
defined standard which validates that the motion system *per se*
provides appropriate cueing. Nor is there a requirement for objective
tests which specifically address acceptable phase lag relationships
between flight simulator visual and motion systems, though there is
ample data that the lack of simulator fidelity for onset cueing therein
can not only impact motion perception (Refs 14, 15, and 17), but it can
be a contributor to simulator sickness (Ref 18). While consideration of
additional standards or guidelines along these lines might on the
surface appear to risk increasing rather than reducing the costs for a
Level B simulator, it is entirely possible that the establishment of
such standards could enable increased regulatory flexibility with
respect to approval criteria for alternative full-body-motion simulator
system configurations. For this reason, these issues will be addressed
as part of the FAA's comprehensive Level B simulator qualifications
standards review.

[Visual Image Generation & Display Technology]{.underline}

The existing requirements in AC120-40B for simulator visual image
generation systems could be considered to be minimal, given the progress
that has occurred in the capabilities of commercial off-the-shelf
technology (COT), and the associated significant drop in the cost of
such systems during the past decade. Not only are relatively inexpensive
full-color, photo-texture-capable image generation systems suitable for
Level B simulator use available in the marketplace, but user friendly,
relatively inexpensive data base modeling systems are also available, as
a result of which there does not appear to be any requirement to address
image generation from either the perspective of the FAA Level B
qualification standards review, or planned research. On the other hand,
progress in the development of affordable visual system display
technology, though evident, has been less dramatic. Until recently,
there have been few alternatives to calligraphic displays, or to hybrid
rastergraphic/calligraphic displays, suitable for meeting FAA Level B
qualification standards for approach and runway lights. Similarly,
although Level B standards do not explicitly call out a requirement for
collimated optics, it is unlikely that a display system without such
optics could qualify with respect to simultaneous field-of-view, sink
rate cueing, and depth perception. Although Level B qualification
standards only specify a requirement for a 45 H by 30 V degree
field-of-view for each pilot, the provision of such displays systems can
be relatively expensive. No change in the existing standards for Level B
simulator display systems is contemplated. However, it is planned to
seek the recommendations of subject matter experts concerning
alternatives for more affordable display technology capable of meeting
existing Level B standards.

**[Future Plans]{.underline}**

### [Practical Applications]{.underline}

### Plans for the immediate future include convening groups of recognized subject matter experts in the areas of simulator motion cueing, as well as simulator visual display technology, respectively, for the purposes of reviewing the existing AC120-40B qualification standards for Level B flight simulators in light of the considerations discussed above, and formulating recommendations to the FAA that could enhance simulator affordability without degrading quality of performance.

### Following FAA review, collation, and integration of expert input on aeromodeling, motion systems, and visual display systems, the FAA will publish an addendum to AC120-40, as revised, which will incorporate any appropriate revisions to qualification standards for Level A and B full flight simulators.

[Planned Research Program]{.underline}

Planning for an FAA-sponsored comprehensive simulator research program
is still in development. The research plan will not be finalized until
the recommendations from the remaining subject matter expert groups
discussed above are available, and a presently ongoing review of the
pertinent scientific literature in these areas has been completed.
However, certain research priorities have already emerged for the
immediate future. First, with regard to the use of predictive modeling
as a substitute for the supplementary flight data used to tune the math
model, the FAA will sponsor research to compare the results of
predictive modeling with actual flight data for commuter class turboprop
aircraft. Provided the results of that endeavor are positive, the
characteristics of effective strategies for the use of predictive models
to generate valid data estimates, and the properties of effective models
for that purpose, will be documented. This information will be
disseminated to industry. Concommitantly, the FAA will seek
recommendations on whether guidelines for the application of such models
to flight data estimation should be incorporated into agency advisory
materials.

Secondly, a research program to address the key unanswered issues in
flight simulator motion cueing for transport category aircraft will be
designed and initiated. Such a program must advance our state of
knowledge regarding the critical interactions between the human
visual/somatosensory/vestibular senses relating to motion, simulator
hardware characteristics, simulator software-drive algorithms, and the
transfer of pilot performance to the aircraft. As a minimum, this
research must resolve the question of whether whole-body cueing
information is needed for performance of particular flight tasks in the
simulator, and if so, whether its presence or absence impacts transfer
of pilot performance on those tasks from the simulator to the aircraft.
If simulator motion is needed for particular maneuvers, then research
must establish the nature of the translational, linear acceleration, and
angular acceleration motion cueing required for those maneuvers. Since
it is known that there exists a powerful interaction between visual
perception and motion perception (Ref 9), if motion cueing is needed,
then research must address the requirements for the synchronization
between visual and motion cueing systems. Given that a Level B simulator
only requires a 45 H by 30 V degree field-of-view per pilot eye point,
the research must include consideration of field-of-view size effects on
visually induced motion perception, and the associated interaction of
visual field size with whole-body motion cueing. And in particular,
since a flight simulator is restricted in its physical capacity to
provide translational and acceleration motion cues, if motion cueing is
warranted, research is needed on to how to optimize motion system
design, so as to most effectively provide the essential cues, while
minimizing false cues.

Though none of these questions are new, all of them remain
controversial, despite the existing body of research literature. It is
therefore appropriate that they should be reexamined in light of the
most recent improvements in simulator visual and motion system
technology, with a focus on better quantifying the relationships between
the pertinent engineering and behavioral variables.

**[Conclusions]{.underline}**

The FAA is undertaking a proactive effort to increase the accessibility
of flight simulators to commuter airlines for use in recurrent pilot
training in the United States. This strategy entails examining the
qualification standards for a Level B simulator, to determine whether
revisions which enhance affordability without degrading fidelity may be
feasible. The most immediate product of this ongoing effort will be an
update to AC120-40, as revised, addressing modified qualification
standards for Level A and B flight simulators. It is hoped that this
will serve as an enabling initiative for industry, by virtue of
providing advance notice of FAA acceptance of more streamlined
qualification criteria for such equipment. Whether such equipment will
in fact ever be built must be determined by the marketplace. While the
FAA encourages the use of FTDs as a means of increasing training
efficiency, the FAA does not anticipate any change in the requirement to
utilize an approved FFS for accomplishing certain pilot evaluation
requirements. The FAA has no plans to authorize the use of an enhanced
FTD to substitute for use of a FFS to accomplish those requirements.

In conjunction with its review of Level B qualification standards, the
FAA is in the process of initiating a comprehensive program of flight
simulator research. The short term goals for this program entail the
acquisition of data needed to support the Level B initiative, such as
the feasibility of using predictive modeling to generate estimated
flight data suitable for use in tuning the simulator aeromodel. On a
more long term basis, the research will address certain fundamental
issues in flight simulation, such as the contribution of whole-body
motion cueing to effective flight simulation training in transport
category aircraft. Although still in an early planning stage, the FAA
has elected to announce its intentions for such a program in the
interest of soliciting suggestions on how it should best be formulated,
and for the purpose of seeking partnerships in its execution. The FAA
welcomes the recommendations and participation of interested parties to
this endeavor.

**[References]{.underline}**

1\. Office of the Federal Register, [Code of Federal Regulations, Title
14, Part 119 - Certification: Air Carriers and Commercial
Operators]{.underline}, Federal Register, Vol 60., No. 244, 20 December
1995, pp 65913-65925.

2\. Federal Aviation Administration, [Airplane Flight Training Device
Qualification]{.underline}, Advisory Circular 120-45A, 5 February 1992.

3\. Federal Aviation Administration, [Airline Transport Pilot and Type
Rating Practical Test Standards]{.underline}, FAA-S-8081-5B, July 1995.

4\. Office of the Federal Register, [Code of Federal Regulations, Title
14, Special Federal Aviation Regulation 58-Advanced Qualification
Program]{.underline}, Federal Register, Vol 55, No. 191, 2 October 1990,
pp 40275-40277.

5\. Roscoe, Stanley N., [Simulator Qualification: Just as Phony as It
Can be]{.underline}, The International Journal of Aviation Psychology,
Vol 1, Issue 4, 1991, pp. 335-339.

6\. Johnston, Neil, [Simulation and Training: Perspectives on Theory and
Practice]{.underline}, Unpublished Manuscript, Aerospace Psychology
Research Group, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland, August 1995

7\. Federal Aviation Administration, [Airplane Simulator
Qualification]{.underline}, Advisory Circular 120-40B, 29 July 1991.

8\. Federal Aviation Administration, [Transcript of the Joint
FAA/Industry Symposium on Level B Airplane Simulator Aeromodeling
Validation Requirements]{.underline}, unpublished transcript, 14 March
1996.

9\. Waag, Wayne, L., [Training Effectiveness of Visual and Motion
Simulation]{.underline}, Air Force Human Resources Laboratory,
AFHRL-TR-79-72, January 1981.

10\. Staples, K. J., [Motion, Visual, and Aural Cues in Piloted Flight
Simulation]{.underline}, Royal Aircraft Establishment, Technical Memo
Aero 1196, January 1970.

11\. Ashworth, Billy R., McKissick, Burnell T., and Parrish, Russel V.,
[Effects of Motion Base and G-Seat Cueing on Simulator Pilot
Performance]{.underline}, NASA Langley Rese-arch Center, NASA Technical
Paper 2247, March 1984.

12\. Nataupsky, Mark, Waag, Wayne L., Weyer, Douglas. C., McFadden,
Robert W., & McDowell, Edward, [Platform Motion Contributions to
Simulator Effectiveness]{.underline}, Air Force Human Resources
Laboratory, AFHRL-TR-79-25, November 1979.

13\. Heffley, Robert K., Clement, Warren F., Ringland, Robert F.,
Jewell, Wayne, F., Jex, Henry R., McRauer, Duane, T., & Carter, Vernon,
E., [Determination of Motion and Visual System Requirements for Flight
Training Simulators]{.underline}, U.S. Army Research Institute,
ARI-TR-546, August 1981.

14 Boothe, Edward, [A Case for Simulator Motion Standards]{.underline},
In the Proceedings of the European Forum on Matching Technology to
Training Requirements, Royal Aeronautical Society, May 1992.

15\. Rolfe, John M., and Staples, K.J., (Editors), [Flight
Simulation]{.underline}, Cambridge University Press, 1986

16\. Cardullo, Frank M., [An Assessment of the Importance of Motion
Cueing Based on the Relationships between Simulated Aircraft Dynamics
and Pilot Performance: A Review of the Literature]{.underline}, American
Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, AIAA-91-2980-CP, August 1991.

17\. Luijt, Ralph S., and Van de Moesdijk, Gerrit A. J., [Some
Considerations for the Definition of Motion Cue Validation
Tests]{.underline}, In the Proceedings of the European Forum on Matching
Technology to Training Requirements, Royal Aeronautical Society, May
1992.

18\. McCauley, Michael E., (Editor), [Research Issues in Simulator
Sickness]{.underline}: Proceedings of a Workshop, National Research
Council Committee on Human Factors, National Academy Press, 1984.

**Table 1**

PROPOSED

VALIDATION TEST DATA SOURCES

AND TEST TECHNIQUES

FOR LEVEL **B** FLIGHT SIMULATOR

(Multi-engine Turboprop Aircraft)

+-----+--------+----+---+-----------------------------+--------+------+
| 1   | Test   | Ex |   | **Test Objective (Obj)**    |        | Com  |
| 20- | Name   | is |   |                             |        | ment |
| 40B |        | ti |   | Proposed Test Technique and |        |      |
|     |        | ng |   | Instrumentation             |        |      |
| t   |        |    |   |                             |        |      |
| est |        | Da |   |                             |        |      |
| No  |        | ta |   |                             |        |      |
|     |        | So |   |                             |        |      |
|     |        | ur |   |                             |        |      |
|     |        | ce |   |                             |        |      |
+-----+--------+----+---+-----------------------------+--------+------+
| **P |        |    |   |                             |        |      |
| ERF |        |    |   |                             |        |      |
| ORM |        |    |   |                             |        |      |
| ANC |        |    |   |                             |        |      |
| E** |        |    |   |                             |        |      |
+-----+--------+----+---+-----------------------------+--------+------+
| **  |        |    |   |                             |        |      |
| TAX |        |    |   |                             |        |      |
| I** |        |    |   |                             |        |      |
+-----+--------+----+---+-----------------------------+--------+------+
| 1   | Min    | A  |   | **Obj: Verify ground        |        | NC   |
| .a. | Rad    | FM |   | handling and required       |        |      |
| (1) | turn   | /O |   | ground maneuvering surface  |        |      |
|     |        | ps |   | area.**                     |        |      |
|     |        | Ma |   |                             |        |      |
|     |        | nu |   | None Required               |        |      |
|     |        | al |   |                             |        |      |
+-----+--------+----+---+-----------------------------+--------+------+
| 1   | Rate   |    |   | **Obj: Verify that steering |        | Rev  |
| .a. | of     |    |   | is commensurate with        |        |      |
| (2) | Turn   |    |   | airplane steering .**       |        |      |
|     | vs     |    |   |                             |        |      |
|     | Nos    |    |   | Tiller protractor and video |        |      |
|     | ewheel |    |   | of heading indicator during |        |      |
|     | St     |    |   | steady state turn or [full  |        |      |
|     | eering |    |   | rudder pedal steady state   |        |      |
|     | angle  |    |   | turn]{.underline} and       |        |      |
|     |        |    |   | video. If less than full    |        |      |
|     |        |    |   | rudder pedal is used, pedal |        |      |
|     |        |    |   | position must be recorded.  |        |      |
|     |        |    |   | (A single test procedure    |        |      |
|     |        |    |   | may not be applicable to    |        |      |
|     |        |    |   | all airplane's steering     |        |      |
|     |        |    |   | systems, therefore          |        |      |
|     |        |    |   | appropriate measurement     |        |      |
|     |        |    |   | procedures should be        |        |      |
|     |        |    |   | devised and proposed for    |        |      |
|     |        |    |   | FAA concurrence.) If        |        |      |
|     |        |    |   | heading change rate and     |        |      |
|     |        |    |   | speed are constant, ground  |        |      |
|     |        |    |   | speed can be calculated,    |        |      |
|     |        |    |   | otherwise groundspeed must  |        |      |
|     |        |    |   | be measured by accepted     |        |      |
|     |        |    |   | methods.                    |        |      |
+-----+--------+----+---+-----------------------------+--------+------+
| **  |        |    |   |                             |        |      |
| TAK |        |    |   |                             |        |      |
| EOF |        |    |   |                             |        |      |
| F** |        |    |   |                             |        |      |
+-----+--------+----+---+-----------------------------+--------+------+
| 1   | Ground | Ce |   | **Obj: Confirm the          |        | Rev  |
| .b. | Accele | rt |   | simulator model ground      |        |      |
| (1) | ration | Da |   | performance during          |        |      |
|     |        | ta |   | acceleration.**             |        |      |
|     |        | T  |   |                             |        |      |
|     |        | IR |   | As currently permitted by   |        |      |
|     |        |    |   | 40B. Also, could use stop   |        |      |
|     |        | A  |   | watch, calibrated A/S and   |        |      |
|     |        | FM |   | rwy markers to acquire data |        |      |
|     |        |    |   | during a takeoff with power |        |      |
|     |        |    |   | set before brake release.   |        |      |
|     |        |    |   | Power settings hand         |        |      |
|     |        |    |   | recorded. If an inertial    |        |      |
|     |        |    |   | measurement system is       |        |      |
|     |        |    |   | installed, speed and        |        |      |
|     |        |    |   | distance may be derived     |        |      |
|     |        |    |   | from acceleration           |        |      |
|     |        |    |   | measurements.               |        |      |
+-----+--------+----+---+-----------------------------+--------+------+
| 1   | Min    | Ce |   | **Obj: Confirm the          |        | NC   |
| .b. | Cont   | rt |   | simulator on ground         |        |      |
| (2) | Spd,   | Da |   | aerodynamic controls,       |        |      |
|     | Grd    | ta |   | thrust and control          |        |      |
|     |        | T  |   | models.**                   |        |      |
|     |        | IR |   |                             |        |      |
|     |        |    |   | Available in AFM, Required  |        |      |
|     |        | A  |   | Certification Test          |        |      |
|     |        | FM |   |                             |        |      |
+-----+--------+----+---+-----------------------------+--------+------+
| 1   | Alter  | No |   | **Obj: Confirm the          |        | \*\* |
| .b. | native | ne |   | simulator on ground         |        |      |
| (2) | to Min |    |   | aerodynamic controls,       |        | Rev  |
|     | Cont   |    |   | thrust and control          |        |      |
|     | Spd,   |    |   | models.** Rapid throttle    |        |      |
|     | Gnd    |    |   | reductions at speeds near   |        |      |
|     |        |    |   | Vmcg recording yaw rate,    |        |      |
|     |        |    |   | control inputs etc. The     |        |      |
|     |        |    |   | nose wheel must be free to  |        |      |
|     |        |    |   | caster, or equivalently     |        |      |
|     |        |    |   | freed of sideforce          |        |      |
|     |        |    |   | generation. The applicant   |        |      |
|     |        |    |   | for simulator qualification |        |      |
|     |        |    |   | must demonstrate that the   |        |      |
|     |        |    |   | simulator yawing moment due |        |      |
|     |        |    |   | to asymmetric thrust and    |        |      |
|     |        |    |   | the rudder yawing moment to |        |      |
|     |        |    |   | compensate are the same as  |        |      |
|     |        |    |   | those of the airplane.      |        |      |
|     |        |    |   | Inertial measurement system |        |      |
|     |        |    |   | and cockpit control force   |        |      |
|     |        |    |   | and position measurement    |        |      |
|     |        |    |   | device.                     |        |      |
+-----+--------+----+---+-----------------------------+--------+------+

(Con't)

+-----+--------+--------+--------------------------------------+------+
| 1   | Test   | Ex     | **Test Objective (Obj)**             | Com  |
| 20- | Name   | isting |                                      | ment |
| 40B |        |        | Proposed Test Technique and          |      |
|     |        | Data   | Instrumentation                      |      |
| t   |        | Source |                                      |      |
| est |        |        |                                      |      |
| No  |        |        |                                      |      |
+-----+--------+--------+--------------------------------------+------+
| 1   | Min    | Cert   | **Obj: Confirm low speed elevator    | \*\* |
| .b. | U      | Data   | effectiveness in ground effect and   |      |
| (3) | nstick | TIR    | confirm lift model at high angle of  | NC   |
|     | Speed  |        | attack in ground effect.**           |      |
|     |        |        |                                      |      |
|     |        |        | Required speed definition for Part   |      |
|     |        |        | 25, not defined for Part 23 Commuter |      |
|     |        |        | Category. Rotate, using full         |      |
|     |        |        | elevator input, at a speed less than |      |
|     |        |        | VR , hold a constant attitude until  |      |
|     |        |        | lift off etc. The test and procedure |      |
|     |        |        | are described in AC 25-7 para 10.    |      |
|     |        |        | B.(5) which should be consulted for  |      |
|     |        |        | the test procedure. An equivalent    |      |
|     |        |        | test may be used for Part 23         |      |
|     |        |        | Commuter Category airplanes for      |      |
|     |        |        | which VMU is not an airplane         |      |
|     |        |        | certification requirement. The       |      |
|     |        |        | elevator effectiveness and lift      |      |
|     |        |        | computation for the simulator must   |      |
|     |        |        | be verified by comparison to the     |      |
|     |        |        | airplane. Inertial measurement       |      |
|     |        |        | system and control input measurement |      |
|     |        |        | devices.                             |      |
+-----+--------+--------+--------------------------------------+------+
| 1   | Normal | Cert - | **Obj: Confirm the overall           | \*\* |
| .b. | T      | Perfo  | performance and handling of the      |      |
| (4) | akeoff | rmance | simulator model during ground, lift  | NC   |
|     |        | Only   | off and transition through ground    |      |
|     |        |        | effect, and initial climb            |      |
|     |        |        | operations.**                        |      |
|     |        |        |                                      |      |
|     |        |        | Calculate AOA from pitch attitude    |      |
|     |        |        | and flight path. Inertial            |      |
|     |        |        | measurement system, radio altimeter, |      |
|     |        |        | video of calibrated aircraft         |      |
|     |        |        | instruments, Force and position      |      |
|     |        |        | measurement on cockpit controls.     |      |
+-----+--------+--------+--------------------------------------+------+
| 1   | Cr     | Perfo  | **Obj: Confirm simulator model       | \*\* |
| .b. | itical | rmance | response to a critical engine        |      |
| (5) | Engine | data   | failure during the take off run,     | Rev  |
|     | F      | ava    | corrective control inputs, effect on |      |
|     | ailure | ilable | takeoff distance, and initial climb  |      |
|     | on     | from   | with one engine inoperative.**       |      |
|     | T      | c      |                                      |      |
|     | akeoff | ertifi | Need is aircraft dynamic response to |      |
|     |        | cation | engine failure and control inputs    |      |
|     |        |        | required to correct flight path.     |      |
|     |        |        | Inertial measurement system and      |      |
|     |        |        | video system. Omit AOA measurement.  |      |
|     |        |        | Measure heading and lateral          |      |
|     |        |        | acceleration.                        |      |
+-----+--------+--------+--------------------------------------+------+
| 1   | Cro    | None,  | **Obj: Confirm proper response of    | \*\* |
| .b. | sswind | except | simulator model, including flight    |      |
| (6) | T      | li     | controls, to a crosswind during take | Rev  |
|     | akeoff | miting | off and post lift off.**             |      |
|     |        | cro    |                                      |      |
|     |        | sswind | Inertial measurement system, video   |      |
|     |        |        | of calibrated aircraft instruments,  |      |
|     |        |        | Control forces measurement device,   |      |
|     |        |        | Omit AOA. Measure heading and        |      |
|     |        |        | lateral acceleration. The wind       |      |
|     |        |        | profile should be specified. The 1/7 |      |
|     |        |        | law to 10 meters is suggested as an  |      |
|     |        |        | acceptable wind profile model that   |      |
|     |        |        | is now in use.                       |      |
+-----+--------+--------+--------------------------------------+------+
| 1   | Re     | None   | **Obj: Confirm simulator model       | Rev  |
| .b. | jected |        | overall on ground performance and    |      |
| (7) |        |        | modeled wheel brake effectiveness    |      |
|     |        |        | during maximum wheel braking.**      |      |
|     |        |        |                                      |      |
|     |        |        | Use ground acceleration per 1.b.(1)  |      |
|     |        |        | and stopping per 1.d.(1) except that |      |
|     |        |        | take off flap settings must be used  |      |
|     |        |        | which may effect the stopping        |      |
|     |        |        | distance.                            |      |
+-----+--------+--------+--------------------------------------+------+
| **C |        |        |                                      |      |
| LIM |        |        |                                      |      |
| B** |        |        |                                      |      |
+-----+--------+--------+--------------------------------------+------+
| 1   | Normal | C      | **Obj: Confirm simulator model climb | Rev  |
| .c. | Climb, | ertifi | performance.**                       |      |
| (1) | all    | cation |                                      |      |
|     | e      | data,  | As now permitted by 40B, could also  |      |
|     | ngines | TIR,   | do with stop watch and calibrated    |      |
|     |        | AFM,   | ships airspeed system.               |      |
+-----+--------+--------+--------------------------------------+------+
| 1   | Second | C      | **Obj: Confirm simulator model climb | Rev  |
| .c. | S      | ertifi | performance in airplane take off     |      |
| (2) | egment | cation | configuration with one engine        |      |
|     | Climb, | data,  | inoperative.**                       |      |
|     | One    | TIR,   |                                      |      |
|     | Engine | AFM    | As now permitted by 40B, could also  |      |
|     | Inope  |        | do with stop watch and ships         |      |
|     | rative |        | calibrated airspeed system.          |      |
+-----+--------+--------+--------------------------------------+------+

(Con't)

+-----+--------+--------+--------------------------------------+------+
| 1   | Test   | Ex     | **Test Objective (Obj)**             | Com  |
| 20- | Name   | isting |                                      | ment |
| 40B |        |        | Proposed Test Technique and          |      |
|     |        | Data   | Instrumentation                      |      |
| t   |        | Source |                                      |      |
| est |        |        |                                      |      |
| No  |        |        |                                      |      |
+-----+--------+--------+--------------------------------------+------+
| 1   | Ap     | C      | **Obj: Confirm simulator model climb | Rev  |
| .c. | proach | ertifi | performance in airplane approach     |      |
| (3) | Climb, | cation | configuration with one engine        |      |
|     | one    | data,  | inoperative.**                       |      |
|     | engine | TIR,   |                                      |      |
|     | inope  | AFM    | As now permitted by 40B, could also  |      |
|     | rative |        | do with stop watch and ships         |      |
|     |        |        | calibrated airspeed system.          |      |
+-----+--------+--------+--------------------------------------+------+
| **S |        |        |                                      |      |
| TOP |        |        |                                      |      |
| PIN |        |        |                                      |      |
| G** |        |        |                                      |      |
+-----+--------+--------+--------------------------------------+------+
| 1   | Decele | C      | **Obj: Confirm simulator overall     | Rev  |
| .d. | ration | ertifi | lift, drag and wheel braking model   |      |
| (1) | Time   | cation | on the ground.**                     |      |
|     | and    | data,  |                                      |      |
|     | Dis    | l      | None Required if time to stop is     |      |
|     | tance, | anding | available in certification data.     |      |
|     | Wheel  | di     |                                      |      |
|     | Brakes | stance |                                      |      |
|     |        | tests, |                                      |      |
|     |        | TIR,   |                                      |      |
|     |        | AFM    |                                      |      |
+-----+--------+--------+--------------------------------------+------+
| 1   | Decele | None   | **Obj: Confirm simulator on ground   | Rev  |
| .d. | ration |        | overall lift, drag and thrust        |      |
| (2) | Time   |        | modeling with reverse thrust.**      |      |
|     | and    |        | Landing Tests, stop watch, runway    |      |
|     | Dis    |        | markers, video, calibrated aircraft  |      |
|     | tance, |        | instruments. Thrust control lever    |      |
|     | R      |        | positions and engine output          |      |
|     | everse |        | (pertinent parameters) must be       |      |
|     | Thrust |        | recorded.                            |      |
+-----+--------+--------+--------------------------------------+------+
| **  |        |        |                                      |      |
| ENG |        |        |                                      |      |
| INE |        |        |                                      |      |
| S** |        |        |                                      |      |
+-----+--------+--------+--------------------------------------+------+
| 1   | Accele | None   | **Obj: Demonstrate that the          | Rev  |
| .e. | ration |        | simulator engine model responds      |      |
| (1) |        |        | correctly during the specified       |      |
|     |        |        | condition.** Calibrated aircraft     |      |
|     |        |        | instruments, video with time read    |      |
|     |        |        | out.                                 |      |
+-----+--------+--------+--------------------------------------+------+
| 1   | Decele | None   | As above                             | Rev  |
| .e. | ration |        |                                      |      |
| (2) |        |        |                                      |      |
+-----+--------+--------+--------------------------------------+------+
| *   |        |        |                                      |      |
| *HA |        |        |                                      |      |
| NDL |        |        |                                      |      |
| ING |        |        |                                      |      |
| QU  |        |        |                                      |      |
| ALI |        |        |                                      |      |
| TIE |        |        |                                      |      |
| S** |        |        |                                      |      |
+-----+--------+--------+--------------------------------------+------+
| **  |        |        |                                      |      |
| STA |        |        |                                      |      |
| TIC |        |        |                                      |      |
| C   |        |        |                                      |      |
| ONT |        |        |                                      |      |
| ROL |        |        |                                      |      |
| CH  |        |        |                                      |      |
| ECK |        |        |                                      |      |
| S** |        |        |                                      |      |
+-----+--------+--------+--------------------------------------+------+
| 2   | Column | Maint  | **Obj: Confirm model of flight       | \*   |
| .a. | Po     | enance | control system force, position and   |      |
| (1) | sition | Manual | friction relationships.**            | Rev  |
|     | vs     | for    |                                      |      |
|     | Force  | s      | Control force and position           |      |
|     |        | urface | measurement device and x - y         |      |
|     |        | to     | recorder needed. Surface position    |      |
|     |        | column | could be measured from FDR sensor    |      |
|     |        | calib  | or, if no FDR sensor, at selected    |      |
|     |        | ration | column positions using a control     |      |
|     |        |        | surface protractor.                  |      |
+-----+--------+--------+--------------------------------------+------+
| 2   | Wheel  | Maint  | Same as above                        | \*   |
| .a. | Po     | Man as |                                      |      |
| (2) | sition | above  |                                      | Rev  |
|     | vs     |        |                                      |      |
|     | Force  |        |                                      |      |
+-----+--------+--------+--------------------------------------+------+
| 2   | Pedal  | Maint  | Same as above                        | \*   |
| .a. | Po     | Man as |                                      |      |
| (3) | sition | above  |                                      | Rev  |
|     | vs     |        |                                      |      |
|     | Force  |        |                                      |      |
+-----+--------+--------+--------------------------------------+------+
| 2   | Nos    | None   | **Obj: Confirm important nosewheel   | Rev  |
| .a. | ewheel |        | steering metrics of the simulator    |      |
| (4) | St     |        | model which are important to ground  |      |
|     | eering |        | handling.**                          |      |
|     | Force  |        |                                      |      |
|     | and    |        | Use 45A. Measure breakout with hand  |      |
|     | Po     |        | held force gauge. Use hand held      |      |
|     | sition |        | gauge to measure force after         |      |
|     |        |        | breakout for small arc. Predict      |      |
|     |        |        | remainder.                           |      |
+-----+--------+--------+--------------------------------------+------+
| 2   | Rudder | Acft   | **Obj: Confirm important nosewheel   | \*   |
| .a. | Pedal  | Design | steering metrics of the simulator    |      |
| (5) | St     | Data   | model which are important to ground  | Rev  |
|     | eering |        | handling.** Force pads on pedals,    |      |
|     | Calib  |        | pedal position measurement device*,* |      |
|     | ration |        | design data for nose wheel position. |      |
|     |        |        | (Turn radius will be compared to AFM |      |
|     |        |        | at full pedal, and possibly other*,* |      |
|     |        |        | deflections also) \[ See 1.a.(2)     |      |
|     |        |        | above\]                              |      |
+-----+--------+--------+--------------------------------------+------+
| 2   | Pitch  | None   | **Obj: Validate the simulator model  | NC   |
| .a. | Trim   |        | pitch trim calculation.**            |      |
| (6) | Calib. |        |                                      |      |
|     | In     |        | Calculated                           |      |
|     | dicate |        |                                      |      |
|     | vs     |        |                                      |      |
|     | C      |        |                                      |      |
|     | ompute |        |                                      |      |
+-----+--------+--------+--------------------------------------+------+

(Con't)

+-----+--------+--------+--------------------------------------+------+
| 1   | Test   | Ex     | **Test Objective (Obj)**             | Com  |
| 20- | Name   | isting |                                      | ment |
| 40B |        |        | Proposed Test Technique and          |      |
|     |        | Data   | Instrumentation                      |      |
| t   |        | Source |                                      |      |
| est |        |        |                                      |      |
| No  |        |        |                                      |      |
+-----+--------+--------+--------------------------------------+------+
| 2   | Power  | None   | **Obj: Confirm that given engine     | Rev  |
| .a. | Lever  |        | control lever positions result in    |      |
| (7) | and    |        | the proper engine performance        |      |
|     | other  |        | indications.**                       |      |
|     | engine |        |                                      |      |
|     | c      |        | Fabricate scale to use on throttle   |      |
|     | ontrol |        | quadrant. Video camera to record     |      |
|     | levers |        | steady state instrument readings or  |      |
|     | Angle  |        | hand record steady state engine      |      |
|     | vs     |        | performance readings.                |      |
|     | Engine |        |                                      |      |
|     | Indi   |        |                                      |      |
|     | cation |        |                                      |      |
+-----+--------+--------+--------------------------------------+------+
| 2   | Brake  | Acft   | **Obj: Assure that the brake pedal   | \*   |
| .a. | Pedal  | Design | produces the appropriate force       |      |
| (8) | Po     | Data   | feedback for a given brake pedal     | Rev  |
|     | sition |        | position.**                          |      |
|     | vs     |        |                                      |      |
|     | Force  |        | Use design/predicted data. As for    |      |
|     |        |        | Level 6, measure only at 0 and       |      |
|     |        |        | maximum and use acft design data     |      |
|     |        |        | curve for deflections between        |      |
|     |        |        | extremes.                            |      |
+-----+--------+--------+--------------------------------------+------+
| *   |        |        |                                      |      |
| *LO |        |        |                                      |      |
| NGI |        |        |                                      |      |
| TUD |        |        |                                      |      |
| INA |        |        |                                      |      |
| L** |        |        |                                      |      |
+-----+--------+--------+--------------------------------------+------+
| 2   | Power  | None   | **Obj: Confirm the correct simulator | \*\* |
| .c. | Change |        | model dynamic response to an in      |      |
| (1) | Dy     |        | flight airplane power or             | NC   |
|     | namics |        | configuration change.**              |      |
|     |        |        |                                      |      |
|     |        |        | Do as per AC120-40B. Inertial        |      |
|     |        |        | measurement system would then be     |      |
|     |        |        | required. Transient data is needed   |      |
|     |        |        | therefore the dynamic case must be   |      |
|     |        |        | done.                                |      |
+-----+--------+--------+--------------------------------------+------+
| 2   | Fla    | None   | Same as above                        | \*\* |
| .c. | p/Slat |        |                                      |      |
| (2) | Change |        |                                      | NC   |
|     | Dyn    |        |                                      |      |
+-----+--------+--------+--------------------------------------+------+
| 2   | Sp     | None   | Same as above                        | \*\* |
| .c. | oiler/ |        |                                      |      |
| (3) | Spee   |        |                                      | NC   |
|     | dbrake |        |                                      |      |
|     | Change |        |                                      |      |
|     | Dyn    |        |                                      |      |
+-----+--------+--------+--------------------------------------+------+
| 2   | Gear   | None   | Same as above                        | \*\* |
| .c. | Change |        |                                      |      |
| (4) | Dy     |        |                                      | NC   |
|     | namics |        |                                      |      |
+-----+--------+--------+--------------------------------------+------+
| 2   | Gear   | Design | **Obj: Assure that the simulator     | Rev  |
| .c. | Flap   | Data,  | model configuration change time      |      |
| (5) | Slat   | C      | increment corresponds to that of the |      |
|     | Ope    | ertifi | airplane.**                          |      |
|     | rating | cation |                                      |      |
|     | Time   | Tests  | Measure in conjunction with          |      |
|     |        |        | acquisition of data for 2.c.(1),     |      |
|     |        |        | (2), (3), (4) above. Statement of    |      |
|     |        |        | compliance referencing an            |      |
|     |        |        | appropriate data source*.* \[Such as |      |
|     |        |        | design data, production flight test  |      |
|     |        |        | schedule, maintenance test           |      |
|     |        |        | specification etc.\]                 |      |
+-----+--------+--------+--------------------------------------+------+
| 2   | Longit | C      | **Obj: Confirm that simulator model  | \*\* |
| .c. | udinal | ertifi | parameters are correct in level      |      |
| (6) | Trim   | cation | flight steady state conditions.**    | Rev  |
|     |        | Tests  |                                      |      |
|     |        | (li    | Inertial measurement system for      |      |
|     |        | mited) | pitch attitude, cockpit controls     |      |
|     |        |        | position measurement equipment with  |      |
|     |        |        | a calibration of cockpit controls    |      |
|     |        |        | positions and surface positions,     |      |
|     |        |        | ships engine instruments, do a       |      |
|     |        |        | number of level runs in accordance   |      |
|     |        |        | with the guidance of AC120-40B.      |      |
+-----+--------+--------+--------------------------------------+------+
| 2   | Longit | C      | **Obj: Confirm the simulator model   | \*\* |
| .c. | udinal | ertifi | longitudinal control force as a      |      |
| (7) | Ma     | cation | function of normal acceleration.**   | NC   |
|     | neuver | Tests, | Ships calibrated airspeed indicator. |      |
|     | Sta    | TIR    | Apply a temporary high resolution    |      |
|     | bility |        | bank angle scale to attitude         |      |
|     |        |        | indicator, inertial measurement      |      |
|     |        |        | system and wheel/column force        |      |
|     |        |        | measurement device.                  |      |
+-----+--------+--------+--------------------------------------+------+
| 2   | Longit | C      | **Obj: Confirm the simulator model   | NC   |
| .c. | udinal | ertifi | longitudinal control force as a      |      |
| (8) | Static | cation | function of airspeed increments from |      |
|     | sta    | Tests  | trim airspeed.**                     |      |
|     | bility |        |                                      |      |
|     |        | TIR    | Ships instruments, hand held force   |      |
|     |        |        | gauge.                               |      |
+-----+--------+--------+--------------------------------------+------+
| 2   | Stick  | TIR,   | **Obj: Confirm that the simulator    | NC   |
| .c. | S      | AFM    | model produces stall at the correct  |      |
| (9) | haker, |        | airspeed and incorporates the        |      |
|     | Ai     |        | appropriate warning modeling at      |      |
|     | rframe |        | airspeeds approaching the stall.**   |      |
|     | B      |        |                                      |      |
|     | uffet, |        | Acquire using stop watch, ships      |      |
|     | Stall  |        | calibrated airspeed, and video, hand |      |
|     | Speeds |        | record flight condition and          |      |
|     |        |        | configuration. The speeds are        |      |
|     |        |        | available in the TIR and AFM.        |      |
|     |        |        | Consideration should also be given   |      |
|     |        |        | to stall characteristics             |      |
+-----+--------+--------+--------------------------------------+------+

(Con't)

+-----+--------+--------+--------------------------------------+------+
| 1   | Test   | Ex     | **Test Objective (Obj)**             | Com  |
| 20- | Name   | isting |                                      | ment |
| 40B |        |        | Proposed Test Technique and          |      |
|     |        | Data   | Instrumentation                      |      |
| t   |        | Source |                                      |      |
| est |        |        |                                      |      |
| No  |        |        |                                      |      |
+-----+--------+--------+--------------------------------------+------+
| 2.  | P      | None   | **Obj: Confirm that the phugoid is   | \*\* |
| c.( | hugoid |        | correct as this mode is indicative   |      |
| 10) |        |        | of certain features of the           | NC   |
|     |        |        | longitudinal aerodynamic model and   |      |
|     |        |        | is very important to longitudinal    |      |
|     |        |        | trim ability.**                      |      |
|     |        |        |                                      |      |
|     |        |        | Inertial measurement system is       |      |
|     |        |        | necessary to accurately measure this |      |
|     |        |        | important response. Cockpit          |      |
|     |        |        | controller positions are also        |      |
|     |        |        | important, especially in cases where |      |
|     |        |        | the dynamics of flight control       |      |
|     |        |        | system components alter the          |      |
|     |        |        | character of the response.           |      |
+-----+--------+--------+--------------------------------------+------+
| 2.  | Short  | None   | **Obj: To assure that this primary   | \*\* |
| c.( | Period |        | longitudinal maneuvering mode is     |      |
| 11) |        |        | correctly produced by the simulator  | NC   |
|     |        |        | model.**                             |      |
|     |        |        |                                      |      |
|     |        |        | Inertial measurement system,         |      |
|     |        |        | measuring primarily accelerations    |      |
|     |        |        | (normal), video.                     |      |
+-----+--------+--------+--------------------------------------+------+
| **L |        |        |                                      |      |
| ATE |        |        |                                      |      |
| RAL |        |        |                                      |      |
| D   |        |        |                                      |      |
| IRE |        |        |                                      |      |
| CTI |        |        |                                      |      |
| ONA |        |        |                                      |      |
| L** |        |        |                                      |      |
+-----+--------+--------+--------------------------------------+------+
| 2   | M      | C      | **Obj: Confirm the minimum airspeed  | \*\* |
| .d. | inimum | ertifi | at which control can be maintained   |      |
| (1) | C      | cation | with one engine inoperative. Control | NC   |
|     | ontrol | Tests, | force and deflection, asymmetric     |      |
|     | Speed, | TIR,   | thrust and overall handling          |      |
|     | Air    |        | approaching and at the minimum       |      |
|     |        |        | control speed are important and      |      |
|     |        |        | should be recorded.**                |      |
|     |        |        |                                      |      |
|     |        |        | Inertia measurement system, cockpit  |      |
|     |        |        | control force and position           |      |
|     |        |        | measurement device. An alternative   |      |
|     |        |        | procedure to measuring just the      |      |
|     |        |        | minimum speed at which control can   |      |
|     |        |        | be maintained is to measure the      |      |
|     |        |        | needed control deflections and other |      |
|     |        |        | parameters at several speeds as the  |      |
|     |        |        | speed approaches the minimum control |      |
|     |        |        | speed and as close as possible to    |      |
|     |        |        | the minimum speed in order to        |      |
|     |        |        | develop several simulator validation |      |
|     |        |        | points at progressively lower        |      |
|     |        |        | speeds.                              |      |
+-----+--------+--------+--------------------------------------+------+
| 2   | Roll   | None   | Stop watch, ships calibrated         | \*   |
| .d. | Re     |        | instruments, high resolution scale   |      |
| (2) | sponse |        | on attitude indicator, FDR sensor    | De   |
|     | (Rate) |        | for lateral control (wheel)          | lete |
|     |        |        | deflection. Do roll in both          |      |
|     |        |        | directions using a number of wheel   |      |
|     |        |        | deflections and measure only the     |      |
|     |        |        | steady state rates. Video of         |      |
|     |        |        | instruments                          |      |
+-----+--------+--------+--------------------------------------+------+
| 2   | Roll   | None   | **Obj: Confirm that the simulator    | \*\* |
| .d. | Re     |        | model properly produces this primary |      |
| (3) | sponse |        | lateral-directional dynamic response | Rev  |
|     | to     |        | mode and produces the correct steady |      |
|     | Step   |        | state roll rate.**                   |      |
|     | Input  |        |                                      |      |
|     |        |        | Inertial measurement system to       |      |
|     |        |        | obtain rates. Lateral control input  |      |
|     |        |        | measurement device, video . Cruise   |      |
|     |        |        | case in addition to flight           |      |
|     |        |        | conditions specified in AC120-40B.   |      |
+-----+--------+--------+--------------------------------------+------+
| 2   | Spiral | None   | **Obj: Confirm that the simulator    | NC   |
| .d. | Sta    |        | model properly produces this primary |      |
| (4) | bility |        | lateral-directional dynamic response |      |
|     |        |        | mode.**                              |      |
|     |        |        |                                      |      |
|     |        |        | Stop watch, ships calibrated         |      |
|     |        |        | instruments, high resolution scale   |      |
|     |        |        | on attitude indicator or video.      |      |
+-----+--------+--------+--------------------------------------+------+
| 2   | Engine | None   | **Obj: Validate simulator trim or    | Rev  |
| .d. | Inope  |        | control deflections required to      |      |
| (5) | rative |        | counterbalance engine inoperative    |      |
|     | Trim   |        | asymmetric forces and moments.**     |      |
|     |        |        |                                      |      |
|     |        |        | Apply high resolution scales to trim |      |
|     |        |        | controls and perform a ground        |      |
|     |        |        | calibration using protractors on the |      |
|     |        |        | control/trim surfaces (ignores       |      |
|     |        |        | airloads). Use control scales for    |      |
|     |        |        | in-flight measurements. Very system  |      |
|     |        |        | dependent, but similar methods for   |      |
|     |        |        | other controls. Alternatively        |      |
|     |        |        | measure cockpit control force and    |      |
|     |        |        | position, especially during second   |      |
|     |        |        | segment climb where trimming is not  |      |
|     |        |        | a certification requirement and not  |      |
|     |        |        | a task to be accomplished in flight  |      |
|     |        |        | until the proper altitude and        |      |
|     |        |        | conditions are satisfied.            |      |
+-----+--------+--------+--------------------------------------+------+

(Con't)

+-----+--------+--------+--------------------------------------+------+
| 1   | Test   | Ex     | **Test Objective (Obj)**             | Com  |
| 20- | Name   | isting |                                      | ment |
| 40B |        |        | Proposed Test Technique and          |      |
|     |        | Data   | Instrumentation                      |      |
| t   |        | Source |                                      |      |
| est |        |        |                                      |      |
| No  |        |        |                                      |      |
+-----+--------+--------+--------------------------------------+------+
| 2   | Rudder | None   | **Obj: Validate simulator model      | \*\* |
| .d. | Re     |        | short term transient response to     |      |
| (6) | sponse |        | rudder inputs.**                     | NC   |
|     |        |        |                                      |      |
|     |        |        | Inertial measurement system, Rudder  |      |
|     |        |        | pedal input position measurement     |      |
|     |        |        | device.                              |      |
+-----+--------+--------+--------------------------------------+------+
| 2   | Dutch  | None,  | **Obj: Confirm the                   | \*\* |
| .d. | Roll   | maybe  | lateral-directional simulator        |      |
| (7) |        | TIR    | modeling as manifest by this coupled | NC   |
|     |        |        | primary response mode.**             |      |
|     |        |        |                                      |      |
|     |        |        | Inertial measurement system. Record  |      |
|     |        |        | with and without yaw damper. Rudder  |      |
|     |        |        | pedal input position measurement     |      |
|     |        |        | device*.*                            |      |
+-----+--------+--------+--------------------------------------+------+
| 2   | Steady | None,  | **Obj: Confirm the relationships     | \*   |
| .d. | State  | maybe  | that exist between sideslip and      |      |
| (8) | Si     | TIR    | rolling moment and secondarily the   | Rev  |
|     | deslip |        | rudder and roll control power.**     |      |
|     |        |        |                                      |      |
|     |        |        | Use ground reference (a long         |      |
|     |        |        | straight path) for track and heading |      |
|     |        |        | indicator for sideslip angle.        |      |
|     |        |        | Cockpit controller force and         |      |
|     |        |        | positions measurement device. If     |      |
|     |        |        | inertial measurement system is       |      |
|     |        |        | installed, measure lateral           |      |
|     |        |        | acceleration. Video. This test was   |      |
|     |        |        | not discussed during SME meeting.    |      |
|     |        |        | Revisions have been made based on    |      |
|     |        |        | the overall discussions.             |      |
+-----+--------+--------+--------------------------------------+------+
| **L |        |        |                                      |      |
| AND |        |        |                                      |      |
| ING |        |        |                                      |      |
| S** |        |        |                                      |      |
+-----+--------+--------+--------------------------------------+------+
| 2   | Normal | None   | **Obj: Confirm the overall           | \*\* |
| .e. | L      |        | performance and handling of the      |      |
| (1) | anding |        | simulator model during descending    | NC   |
|     |        |        | flight near the ground, transition   |      |
|     |        |        | through ground effect, landing flair |      |
|     |        |        | and touch down.**                    |      |
|     |        |        |                                      |      |
|     |        |        | Inertial measurement system, cockpit |      |
|     |        |        | control force and position           |      |
|     |        |        | measurement device.                  |      |
+-----+--------+--------+--------------------------------------+------+
| 2   | Cro    | None   | **Obj: Confirm proper response of    | \*\* |
| .e. | sswind |        | simulator model, including flight    |      |
| (2) | La     |        | controls, to a crosswind during      | NC   |
|     | ndings |        | descending flight near the ground,   |      |
|     |        |        | transition through ground effect,    |      |
|     |        |        | decrab and touchdown/rollout.**      |      |
|     |        |        |                                      |      |
|     |        |        | Inertial measurement system, cockpit |      |
|     |        |        | controller positions and forces,     |      |
|     |        |        | record normal and lateral            |      |
|     |        |        | acceleration in lieu of AOA and      |      |
|     |        |        | sideslip.                            |      |
+-----+--------+--------+--------------------------------------+------+
| 2   | One    | None   | **Obj: Confirm proper response of    | \*\* |
| .e. | Engine |        | simulator model, including flight    |      |
| (3) | Inope  |        | controls, with one engine            | NC   |
|     | rative |        | inoperative during descending flight |      |
|     | L      |        | near the ground, transition through  |      |
|     | anding |        | ground effect, touchdown and         |      |
|     |        |        | rollout.**                           |      |
|     |        |        |                                      |      |
|     |        |        | Same as above                        |      |
+-----+--------+--------+--------------------------------------+------+
| 2   | Rudder | None   | **Obj: Demonstrate that the rudder   | De   |
| .e. | E      |        | effectiveness during reverse thrust  | lete |
| (4) | ffecti |        | on landing in the simulator is       |      |
|     | veness |        | representative of the airplane.**    |      |
|     | with   |        |                                      |      |
|     | Rev    |        | No test recommended since the test   |      |
|     | Thrust |        | was specific to airplanes with aft   |      |
|     |        |        | fuselage mounted engines.            |      |
+-----+--------+--------+--------------------------------------+------+
| **  |        |        |                                      |      |
| GRO |        |        |                                      |      |
| UND |        |        |                                      |      |
| EF  |        |        |                                      |      |
| FEC |        |        |                                      |      |
| T** |        |        |                                      |      |
+-----+--------+--------+--------------------------------------+------+
| 2   | Ground | None   | **Obj: Confirm the simulator         | \*\* |
| .f. | Effect |        | modeling and proper aerodynamic      |      |
| (1) | Demon  |        | modeling changes as a function of    | Rev  |
|     | strate |        | height and rate of change of height  |      |
|     | G.E.   |        | in ground effect.** Level fly-by     |      |
|     |        |        | trim runs. Use high resolution scale |      |
|     |        |        | on elevator trim control. Ground     |      |
|     |        |        | calibrate Trim control with trim     |      |
|     |        |        | surface. Use ships calibrated flight |      |
|     |        |        | instruments and engine instruments,  |      |
|     |        |        | video of trim controls and aircraft  |      |
|     |        |        | instruments. Or fly low angle        |      |
|     |        |        | constant pitch attitude approach and |      |
|     |        |        | landing at constant power and record |      |
|     |        |        | trim, control displacement and       |      |
|     |        |        | airspeed changes as ground is        |      |
|     |        |        | approached (not applicable to all    |      |
|     |        |        | airplanes). Inertial measurements    |      |
|     |        |        | system, cockpit controller force and |      |
|     |        |        | positions, radio altitude and        |      |
|     |        |        | altitude rate are needed.            |      |
+-----+--------+--------+--------------------------------------+------+

**Comments Legend**

\*\* tests for which an inertial data acquisition system is
recommended - 20 tests

\* tests for which some instrumentation less than inertial is
recommended - 6 tests

Total number of tests requiring installation of instrumentation - 26

Total number of tests listed - 48

NC no change from the current AC120-40B guidance

Rev revision of the current AC120-40B guidance, usually by the use and
acceptance of existing

data sources or the use of more basic (less sophisticated and complex)
flight test methods.

Notes:

1\. Measurement of [angle of attack and sideslip]{.underline} have been
omitted for all tests. Also measurement

of control surface positions is not required, however, cockpit
controller positions must be

measured where indicated and tolerances comparable to those for the
control surfaces

determined. These measurements alone result in revision to most Level B
validation tests.

2\. With the exception of the alternative, and in some cases relieving,
techniques and

instrumentation recommendations given above, all tests should be done to
comply with the

guidance of AC120-40B.

3\. Measurements of control surface deflections/positions have been
omitted in the above table,

however, cockpit controller positions must be substituted and equivalent
tolerances will have to be used when complying with AC120-40B Level B
simulator qualification guidance.

4\. To accommodate the recommended test methods and techniques, some
measurements would be replaced with pilot's notes.

5\. Certification/TIR data points are usually at the extremes of weight
and CG, but still lie on the locus of a given parameter and are useful
for model validation.

6\. TIR data may be proprietary and should not be relied upon until
known to be available

***This paper was published in the [Proceedings of the Royal
Aeronautical Society Conference on]{.underline} ­[Training - Lowering the
Cost, Maintaining the Fidelity]{.underline}, 15-16 May 1996, London, UK,
pages 2.1-2.17***