Page 1

U.S. Department of Transportation

FEDERAL AVIATION

ADMINISTRATION

REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS,

NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING 

REGULATORY EVALUATION

Flight Simulation Training Device Qualification Standards for 

Extended Envelope and Adverse Weather Event Training Tasks

(14 CFR 60)

July 2014

Carole Gaelick

OFFICE OF AVIATION POLICY AND PLANS

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS DIVISION

APO-300
Page 2

Table of Contents

Executive Summary........................................................................................................................ 3

I. Background............................................................................................................................. 7

a. Problems the Proposed Rule Addresses................................................................................. 7

b. Background on FSTDs............................................................................................................ 8

c. Summary of the Proposed Rule............................................................................................... 9

II. Costs...................................................................................................................................... 12

a. Assumptions....................................................................................................................... 12

b. Baseline.............................................................................................................................. 13

c. The Proposal ...................................................................................................................... 13

d. Estimate Number of Previously Qualified FSTDs that would be upgraded.................. 14

i. Estimate Compliance Cost for Previously Qualified FSTDs......................................... 18

d. Newly Qualified FSTDs Subject to the Proposed Rule..................................................... 28

i. Estimate Number of Newly Qualified FSTDs that would be upgraded......................... 29

ii. Estimate Compliance Costs........................................................................................ 30

III. Benefits.............................................................................................................................. 34

a. Benefit of Upgrading FSTDs to Support New Training rule............................................. 35

b. Benefit of Icing Upgrade ................................................................................................... 36

c. Benefits of Aligning with ICAO........................................................................................ 36

IV. Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 37

Appendix A - FSTDs Potentially Affected by the Proposed FSTD Directive ............................. 38

Appendix B – Letter sent to the International Committee on Aviation Training in Extended 

Envelopes (ICATEE).................................................................................................................... 75

Appendix C Letter to the Simulator Technical Issues Group (STIG) .......................................... 77

Appendix D FSTDs Grouped by Aerodynamic Model Sources................................................... 79

Appendix E New FSTDs Initially Qualified in the Years 2003-2012.......................................... 81

Appendix F List of Acronyms ...................................................................................................... 89

Appendix G Full Definitions ....................................................................................................... 90

Appendix H Definitions of FSTD Levels..................................................................................... 92
Page 3

Executive Summary

The FAA is proposing to amend the part 60 Qualification Performance Standards (QPS) for 

flight simulation training devices (FSTDs) to define simulator fidelity requirements for several 

new and modified training tasks mandated for air carrier training programs by the Airline Safety 

and Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-216) and now 

required by the Qualification, Service, and Use of Crewmembers and Aircraft Dispatchers final 

rule (to be referred to as the Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule) [78 FR 

67800 (Nov. 12, 2013)].

The Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule added training requirements for 

pilots that target the prevention of and recovery from stall and upset conditions, recovery from 

bounced landings, enhanced runway safety training, and enhanced training on crosswind takeoffs 

and landings with gusts. Stall and upset prevention requires pilot skill in manual handling 

maneuvers and procedures. Therefore, the manual handling maneuvers most critical to stall and 

upset prevention (i.e., slow flight, loss of reliable airspeed, and manually controlled departure 

and arrival) are included as part of the agency’s overall stall and upset mitigation strategy. These 

maneuvers are identified in the Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule within 

the “extended envelope” training provision, which further requires that these maneuvers be 

completed in an FSTD. Revisions to all part 121 training programs will be necessary and 

revisions to part 60 will be required to fully implement the extended envelope flight training as 

well as the bounced landing, and gusty crosswinds flight training required by the Crewmember 

and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule. 
Page 4

The FAA believes that the five year compliance period in the Crewmember and Aircraft 

Dispatcher Training Final Rule provides an ample amount of time for an FSTD sponsor to 

conduct any necessary modifications as may be required by amendments to part 60 to ensure the 

FSTD validation limits are sufficient to conduct the required training tasks. While the FAA 

recognizes that some sponsors and operators may already have the technology and simulation 

knowledge necessary to make the changes proposed in the FSTD Directive, we recognize that 

there is a significant variation in the capability of previously qualified FSTDs as well as the 

technical expertise available to FSTD sponsors which could require more or less compliance 

time than what the FAA has anticipated. We request comment on whether the 3-year compliance 

period in the FSTD Directive is adequate, too short, or too long. The comments should also take 

into consideration the March 2019 compliance date for the new training task requirements in the 

Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule and indicate whether that time is 

adequate, too short, or too long.

To meet these new training requirements, the proposed rule will seek to establish new or updated 

FSTD technical evaluation standards for

• full stall and stick pusher maneuvers, 

• upset recovery maneuvers, 

• maneuvers conducted in airborne icing conditions, 

• bounced landing recovery training, and 

• training in gusting crosswinds. 
Page 5

These new and improved technical standards also address National Transportation Safety Board 

safety recommendations and Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) recommendations. The 

proposal also updates the FSTD technical standards to better align with current international 

FSTD evaluation guidance. It also introduces a new FSTD level that expands the number of 

qualified flight training tasks that can take place in a fixed-base flight training device (FTD). The 

proposed changes would ensure that the training and testing environment is accurate and 

realistic, would codify existing practice, and would provide greater alignment with international 

guidance for simulation. With the exception of the proposal to codify new FSTD technical 

standards for specific training tasks though an FSTD Directive, the proposed amendments would 

not directly apply to previously qualified FSTDs.

We estimated three separate sets of costs, and provide separate benefit bases. The first set of 

costs would be incurred to make the necessary upgrades to the FSTDs to enable training required

by the new Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule. The training cost for the 

Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule provides rental revenue to simulator 

sponsors which will fully compensate them for their FSTD upgrade expenses. These simulator 

revenues were accounted for as costs of the additional training and were fully justified by the 

benefits in that rule. The second set of costs would be incurred for the evaluation and 

modification of engine and airframe icing models which would enhance existing training 

requirements for operations using anti-icing/de-icing equipment. Just avoiding one serious 

injury provides sufficient benefits to justify the estimated cost. Lastly there are a set of changes

to part 60 QPS appendices which would align the simulator standards for some FSTD levels with

those of the latest International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) simulator evaluation 
Page 6

guidance. This last set of changes would only apply to newly qualified FSTDs. The FAA 

expects unquantified safety improvements to result from these changes through more realistic 

training. The changes are expected to improve overall simulator fidelity with new and revised 

visual system and other FSTD evaluation standards, such as visual display resolution, visual 

system field of view, and system transport delay.

The table below summarizes the estimated costs and benefits of this proposal. The table 

represents different categories of costs incurred over a ten year period.

[1] Implementing the icing upgrades can be accomplished at the same time as the non-icing 

upgrades. Therefore these estimates do not include the cost of implementation or FSTD 

downtime because these costs are included with the costs of the non-icing upgrades.

Note: Details may not add to row or column totals due to rounding
Page 7

I. Background 

a. Problems the Proposed Rule Addresses

The rule aims to address the potential problem of inadequate fidelity in current flight training 

devices (FTDs) or full flight simulators (FFSs)), especially those used in training tasks required 

by the new Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule, as well as existing 

training requirements for operations using anti-icing/de-icing equipment.. Because current FSTD 

evaluation standards in part 60 (and previously grandfathered 1 FSTD standards) do not define 

standards for all training tasks required in the Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training 

Final Rule, a potential lack of fidelity could contribute to inappropriate simulator training. 

For example, in comments filed during the Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training 

rulemaking, ALPA cautioned that the International Committee for Aviation Training in Extended 

Envelopes (ICATEE) recommendation for full-stall training should be put into place only if the 

aerodynamic model of the aircraft in the FFS is representative of a full aerodynamic stall in 

flight; the instructor pilot is given enhanced training in upset recovery training; and the FFS has 

feedback capability to assist the instructor and pilots in ensuring the stall training is conducted 

and evaluated properly. 

In addition to ALPA, FlightSafety and Families of Continental Flight 3407 commented that 

existing FFSs lack the data package containing the information required to create the 

 1 Grandfathering —as used in this part, the practice of assigning a qualification basis for an FSTD based on the 

period of time during which a published set of standards governed the requirements for the initial and continuing 

qualification of FSTDs. Each FSTD manufactured during this specified period of time is “grandfathered” or held to 

the standards that were in effect during that time period. The grandfathered standards remain applicable to each 

FSTD manufactured during the stated time period regardless of any subsequent modification to those standards and 

regardless of the sponsor, as long as the FSTD remains qualified or is maintained in a non-qualified status in 

accordance with the specific requirements and time periods prescribed in this part, from Appendix F to Part 60.
Page 8

aerodynamic model necessary to accomplish full stall and upset recovery training, also referred 

to as extended envelope training. ALPA further commented that modifications to part 60 are 

also necessary for existing FSTDs to address bounced landings, as well as tasks such as icing, 

microburst and windshear, so as to avoid negative training in these areas. 

The agency agreed and addressed these comments throughout the preamble to the Crewmember 

and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule. However, the FAA noted that such modifications 

were outside the scope of that final rule and that new FSTD evaluation requirements would 

require revisions to the qualifications standards in part 60 (for newly qualified FSTDs) or an 

FSTD Directive (for previously qualified FSTDs). This proposed rulemaking is intended to be 

directly responsive to the issues raised by these commenters. 

The rule also aims to solve the problem of inconsistency between U.S. requirements and ICAO 

guidance for not yet qualified FSTDs. Specifically it would amend the standards (in Appendix A 

and Appendix B of Part 60) that FSTD sponsors must follow when evaluating and qualifying 

new airplane FFSs and FTDs. 

b. Background on FSTDs

FSTD includes flight training devices and full flight simulators. FSTDs are located at flight 

training centers and air carriers and are used to provide flight training to pilots. A pilot can 

receive all flight training for an airline transport pilot certificate in FSTDs. It is important that 
Page 9

these simulators reproduce as accurately as possible the flight environment that the pilot will 

actually encounter in the cockpit. 

The main difference between an FTD and a FFS is that an FTD does not require a motion cueing 

system. The current FTDs are not qualified for some training tasks that require ground effect 

and ground reaction modeling such as take-off, landing or taxiing. 2 The current proposal would 

define a new level FTD (Level 7 FTD) which would be qualified for these training tasks. 

Active FSTDs and sponsors are listed at –

http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/nsp/train_devices/. 

c. Summary of the Proposed Rule

The rule proposes modifications to the FSTD qualification requirements that are defined in the 

14 CFR Part 60 Qualification Performance Standards (QPS) Appendices. These modifications 

would either improve the fidelity of simulators used in certain training tasks or would align Part 

60 standards for Levels C and D FSTDs with ICAO guidance. The modifications would also 

create a new FTD level to align with the ICAO guidance.

The proposed modification requirements would apply differently to newly qualified 3 than to 

previously qualified FSTDs. All proposed requirements in the QPS appendices would apply 

directly to applicable newly qualified FSTDs. Only the proposals to meet the new FSTD 

technical standards for the first five training tasks listed in the section below would apply to 

 2 The highest level of FTD in part 60 (a Level 6 FTD) does not require modeling or validation testing for ground 

reaction and ground handling maneuvers. Furthermore, no part 60 defined fixed wing FTD requires motion or 

visual display cueing systems.

3 FSTDs that are initially qualified or upgraded in qualification level after the final rule becomes effective.
Page 10

previously qualified FSTDs through an FSTD Directive. Compliance with the FSTD Directive 

would be optional in that only those FSTDs that would be used to conduct the affected training 

tasks would require evaluation in accordance with the Directive. The rule cannot generally apply 

directly to previously qualified FSTDs because Part 60 contains grandfather rights for previously 

qualified FSTDs. However, the FAA has the ability to invoke an FSTD Directive 4 to require 

modification of previously qualified FSTDs, if there is a safety of flight issue. FSTD Directives 

are maintained in the QPS appendices of part 60.

Improving fidelity of simulators used in training tasks

The rule would require FSTDs be evaluated and modified so they more accurately replicate the 

actual environment when being used in the following training tasks:

1. Stall training maneuvers that are conducted at angles of attack higher than the activation 

of the stall warning system. This does not include approach-to-stall maneuvers where 

recovery is initiated at the activation of the stall warning system.

2. Upset recovery training maneuvers that may result in exceeding the parameters of an 

aircraft upset: pitch attitude greater than 25 degrees nose up; pitch attitude greater than 10 

degrees nose down; bank angle greater than 45 degrees; or flight at airspeeds 

inappropriate for conditions.

3. Takeoff and landing training tasks with realistic gusting crosswind scenarios. 

4. Bounced landing recovery training tasks. 

 4 The FSTD Directive process has provisions for mandating modifications to FSTDs retroactively for safety of flight 

reasons. See 14 CFR Part 60, § 60.23(b).
Page 11

5. Engine and airframe icing training maneuvers that demonstrate the aircraft specific 

effects of engine and airframe ice accretion.

6. Microburst and windshear recovery maneuvers

The first four fidelity improvements are necessary to support the new Crewmember and Aircraft 

Dispatcher Training Final Rule ensuring that the training occurs in FSTDs that more accurately 

reflect the actual flight environment. The fifth fidelity improvement would support training that 

is currently required by Part 121 Appendix E (Flight Training Requirements), Section III(f)(8) -

anti-icing and deicing, also ensuring the FSTDs are more representative of the actual flight 

environment. The sixth fidelity improvement on the list would only be required on newly 

qualified FSTDs. 

FSTD sponsors of previously qualified FSTDs would be required to evaluate and modify only 

those FSTDs used for these specific training tasks. All newly qualified FTSDs will be required 

to be evaluated against the new standards, regardless of whether they are used in the specified 

training.

Alignment with ICAO guidance

The rule also proposes changes intended to align the part 60 technical standards with the latest 

ICAO FSTD evaluation guidance. These standards would address new aircraft and simulation 

technology introduced since the original issuance of part 60, incorporate general improvements 

to the part 60 standards, and provide air carriers and flight training providers with additional 

options for conducting approved training tasks in a fixed base flight training device. 
Page 12

 The rule would require alignment of the part 60 technical standards for Levels C and D 

fixed wing FFSs with those of the current international guidance for Type VII FSTDs, as 

published in the ICAO 9625 Edition 3, Manual of Criteria for the Qualification of Flight 

Simulation Training Devices. All newly qualified Level C and Level D FFSs after the 

part 60 change becomes effective, would require evaluation under the aligned standards.

 Level 7 FTD - This proposal would also introduce a fixed-base FTD similar to that of a 

Type V FSTD as defined in the ICAO 9625 Edition 3, Manual of Criteria for the 

Qualification of Flight Simulation Training Devices.

II. Costs

a. Assumptions

• Given the normal regulatory cycle we estimate the final rule will be published and 

become effective two years from the publication of this NPRM. Previously qualified 

FSTDs would have three years after that to become compliant with the proposed FSTD 

Directive. Newly qualified FSTDs would have to be evaluated in accordance with the 

new QPS requirements 30 days after the publication of the final rule, subject to up to a 

two year grace period as defined in 60.15(c). 

• The number of previously qualified FSTDs that would potentially be affected by the rule 

remains constant at 322, as does the number of complex and simple projects from 2013 to 

2015 when the rule is published. 

• One third of the applicable previously qualified FSTDs would be evaluated and modified

in each of the three years following publication of the rule.
Page 13

• The required FSTD modifications do not need additional significant maintenance beyond 

the current part 60 requirements.

• Development costs 5 for newly qualified FSTDs to comply with ICAO guidance would 

be incurred the year after the rule publishes and the year before the FSTDs have to be in 

compliance6. 

b. Baseline

This baseline presumes status quo. No changes would be made to previously qualified FSTDs. 7

In the absence of the rule, the evolution of the newly qualified FSTDs would meet the proposed 

technical standards 8 on a voluntary basis for conducting flight training tasks. The baseline new 

Level C and D fixed wing FFSs would meet the current standards defined by part 60 for all the 

provisions that we propose to align with ICAO. 

c. The Proposal

Within three years of publication, sponsors of previously qualified Levels C and D FSTDs that 

are used to train the specific training tasks defined in the FSTD Directive must evaluate the 

FSTD to determine whether it meets the proposed requirements.

9

 If not, the sponsor would have 

to install and verify upgraded modeling packages. The sponsor would then submit a request for 

 5 Development costs include non-recurring costs the manufacturer would incur to develop a standard qualification 

test guide (QTG) template and testing methods to meet the new ICAO standard and recurring costs the manufacturer 

would incur to develop an aircraft specific QTG template that can be used by simulators of the same aircraft type. 6 While the QPS requirements would be effective 30 days after the publication of the final rule for newly qualified 

FSTDs, part 60 has a defined grace period of up to 24 months before newly qualified FSTDs would have to be 

evaluated against the new standards.

7 This is a simplifying but conservative assumption. In actuality, in the absence of the rule, some FSTD sponsors 

may voluntarily evaluate and modify their FSTDs to conduct the newly required training tasks while others may not.

8 FSTD manufacturers and data providers would likely use voluntary guidance material or other recommended 

simulator standards available in the public domain to improve the fidelity of newly manufactured FSTDs to conduct 

the new training tasks required by the Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule. 9 In some cases, the sponsor may be aware that the simulator doesn’t meet the requirements and could proceed with 

the modification without conducting initial tests.
Page 14

additional FSTD qualification to the National Simulator Program Manager to indicate that the 

requirements of the FSTD Directive have been met. The National Simulator Program Manager

would then amend the FSTD’s Statement of Qualification to indicate that the FSTD has been 

qualified to conduct the affected training tasks. 

The proposal also would require that newly qualified FSTDs be evaluated against all applicable 

changes to the QPS appendices. These changes include both the proposed evaluation standards 

for the new training tasks as well as the changes to align with the ICAO guidance. Due to the 

existing part 60 defined grace period, newly qualified FSTDs would not require evaluation 

against the proposed QPS requirements until up to two years 10 after the proposed changes 

become effective.

Because the proposal would impose requirements differently on the two groups of FSTDs and 

their sponsors we estimate costs separately for each. 

d. Estimate Number of Previously Qualified FSTDs that would be upgraded

There are 811 qualified FSTDs in the National Simulator Program that we subjected to 

qualifying criteria to estimate the number of FSTDs that would be affected by the proposed rule. 

We estimate that as of February 2013 there are 322 previously qualified FSTDs that could be 

affected by the proposed rule and corresponding FSTD Directive. The derivation of this number 

is explained below. Of the 322, we expect that 149 FSTDs would require more complex 

 10 Under § 60.15(c), sponsors have up to a 24 month grace period after a change to the Part 60 standards before new 

FSTDs have to be initially evaluated against the updated standards. These FSTDs will retain grandfathering rights.
Page 15

engineering and modeling work to meet the proposed standards and would be more costly to 

upgrade than the remaining 173 which would be simple projects, as will be defined below. 

To minimize the potential cost impact on industry, the proposed FSTD Directive for previously 

qualified FSTDs has been specifically written to require modifications only for those FSTDs that 

will be used to conduct the specific training tasks that are defined in the Directive. 

Since those training maneuvers will be mandated only for air carriers at this time, it is assumed 

that only Sponsors of FSTDs that are used in part 121 training would be required to comply with 

the FSTD Directive. 11

Since there is no master list of FSTDs that are specifically approved for use in a part 121 training 

program, the National Simulator Program had to estimate the number of FSTDs that could 

potentially be impacted by the FSTD Directive. This analysis 12 was conducted to eliminate 

FSTDs that are not likely to be used in a part 121 training program for the above training tasks 

by applying the criteria described. Out of the 811 13 qualified FSTDs in the National Simulator 

Program’s database, the FSTDs that met the below criteria were removed from consideration as 

not likely to be used in a part 121 training program for the described tasks:

 11 However, there are Part 135 and other operators who voluntarily train their pilots in some or all of the five 

training tasks and once this rule becomes effective that training would have to be conducted in an FSTD that meets

the requirements of the FSTD Directive. We assume that the costs of upgrading the previously qualified FSTDs that 

are used in training outside of part 121 training are not a cost of this rule because these operators are not required to 

conduct training for these particular tasks. 

12 The analysis estimating the number of FSTDs that would be potentially affected by the proposed FSTD directive 

was conducted by the National Simulator Program on February 21, 2013.

13 As of February 21, 2013.
Page 16

• FSTDs that simulate aircraft that are not currently operated in any U.S. part 121 fleet.

• Level 4, 5, 6, and 7 FTDs.

• Level A and Level B FFSs. For the training tasks being addressed, it is widely 

assumed that Level A and Level B FFSs do not have the required overall fidelity to 

conduct these training tasks (such as six degree of freedom motion cueing and motion 

vibration cueing) and should not be recommended to do so. Currently, there are only 

two of these FFSs in the NSP’s database that could potentially be used in part 121 

training. We assume that these FFSs would either be retired by the time the rule is 

effective or the sponsor would apply for deviation authority giving it permission to 

use the device in training.

• Helicopter FSTDs.

• FSTDs that are known to not be used in a part 121 training program.

• Foreign-owned FSTDs that are not located in a U.S. training center.

After applying these criteria, 322 previously qualified FSTDs remain on the list as potentially 

affected by the proposed FSTD Directive. This list of potentially affected FSTDs is included in 

Appendix A of this report. This estimate may overstate the number of affected FSTDs because a 

large number of these FSTDs are sponsored by training centers 14 which may not offer training 

that is subject to the proposed FSTD Directive. Additionally, some sponsors of FSTDs used for 

part 121 training may choose to only update a subset of their FSTDs to meet the training 

requirement, thus reducing the overall cost of compliance.

 14 Many training centers are not owned or operated by part 121 air carriers and may not choose to offer training for 

those tasks defined in the FSTD Directive.
Page 17

Some previously qualified FSTDs no longer have aircraft manufacturer simulation data or 

engineering support from the original data provider from when the FSTD was initially qualified. 

It would be more costly to evaluate, develop and modify the aerodynamic model and validation 

data for those FSTDs than for FSTDs for which data and engineering support are available. We 

refer to the evaluation, modification and development of aerodynamic models and validation 

data for the first category of FSTDs to comply with the proposed rule as complex projects. 15 

We refer to the evaluation, modification and development of aerodynamic models and validation 

data for the second category of FSTDs 16 as simple projects. We have obtained an estimate of 

the cost of a typical complex project and a typical simple project. 

We determined that 149 of 322 previously qualified FSTDs can be characterized as complex 

projects and 173 simulators as simple projects. The 149 complex project simulators support 

training in 36 unique aircraft types that likely share an aerodynamic math model from a common 

source. We expect that 36 separate complex aerodynamic models/data packages would need to 

be upgraded (the costs of which could be distributed over multiple simulators). The 173 simple 

project simulators support training in 18 unique aircraft types that likely share an aerodynamic 

math model from a common source. We expect that 18 separate simple aerodynamic 

models/data packages would need to be upgraded (the costs of which could be distributed over 

multiple simulators). This grouping of FSTD aerodynamic models/data packages was made to 

account for FSTDs that simulate aircraft within the same make, model, and series and also were 

 15 For purposes of this analysis we define complex projects as those modifying FSTDs whose simulator 

aerodynamic model and validation data is not supported by the aircraft manufacturer; aircraft is out of production; 

and the availability of flight test data or other engineering resources is limited for the development and validation of 

the necessary model improvements. 16 For purposes of this analysis we define simple projects as those modifying FSTDs whose simulated aircraft is in 

production; simulator aerodynamic model and validation data is provided by and supported by the aircraft 

manufacturer; aircraft manufacturer has engineering simulation capabilities; aircraft flight test data or other 

certification data is likely available for use in modeling and objective testing.
Page 18

likely to have been sourced from a common data provider. Where the original data source was 

unknown, each FSTD was assumed to be characterized as an individual project for the purpose 

of cost computations.

Previously qualified FSTDs would have to be in compliance with the rule within three years after 

the effective date, in order to continue to be used in the affected part 121 training tasks. 

i. Estimate Compliance Cost for Previously Qualified FSTDs

The FAA asked two industry groups to provide data on the costs of meeting the proposed 

requirements. These requests are in Appendices B and C. One request was for cost data for 

FSTD modifications for full stall, upset recovery, and icing and was sent to the International 

Committee on Aviation Training in Extended Envelopes (ICATEE). The second request asked

the Simulator Technical Issues Group (STIG) to provide cost data for FSTD modifications for 

gusting crosswinds and bounced landings. We derived cost estimates from industry responses. 

1. Meeting Requirements for Training in Upset Recovery Maneuvers (which includes 

full stall, airborne icing and upset recovery standards)

The major cost components are aerodynamic math model development costs, implementation 

costs including installation of the model and associated validation data, and the cost of lost 

training revenue.

The International Committee on Aviation Training in Extended Envelopes (ICATEE), which is a 

working group formed by the Royal Aeronautical Society, made several interim 

recommendations on FSTD technical evaluation standards for stall, upset recovery, and airborne 
Page 19

icing maneuvers to the FAA. These recommendations were made through the Stick Pusher and 

Adverse Weather Event Aviation Rulemaking Committee (SPAW ARC) and substantially 

represent the FSTD evaluation standards proposed in this rulemaking. The recommendations 

made to the SPAW ARC are based upon Appendix B of the draft International Committee on 

Aviation Training in Extended Envelopes Research and Technical (R&T) Group’s final report. 17 

We asked ICATEE for estimates of (aerodynamic model) development cost, 18 cost per FSTD 

unit not including development costs, 19 and the number of hours of lost training time during 

installation, testing and tuning to meet the recommended standards. We asked for these 

estimates to implement the standards for full stall, upset recognition and recovery (URT), and 

icing as specified in Attachment B of the draft International Committee on Aviation Training in 

Extended Envelopes R&T final report. We asked that these costs be provided for a typical 

complex and a typical simple project as indicated in Appendix B.

Aerodynamic Model Development Costs

To comply with the proposed FSTD Directive, the sponsor of each FSTD would be required to 

evaluate and modify the FSTD’s aerodynamic math model in accordance with the proposed 

technical standards. We expect that many FSTD sponsors would contract with their original data 

provider (which could be an aircraft manufacturer, FSTD manufacturer, or a third party 

 17 As recommended by the Stick Pusher and Adverse Weather Event Aviation Rulemaking Committee, in order to 

mitigate the cost of obtaining flight test validation data for the objective testing requirements (where data is not 

available), the FAA has proposed in the FSTD Directive (for previously qualified FSTDs) that engineering 

simulation validation data or focused subject matter expert evaluation may be used in lieu of flight test validation 

data for the required objective tests. 

18 Development costs are those costs that can potentially be distributed over multiple FSTDs that share a common 

aerodynamic model provided by a single source. These costs include both the cost of developing the aerodynamic 

model as well as developing validation data for objective testing on individual FSTDs. 

19 Costs per FSTD do not include development costs but include all other costs incurred on per FSTD unit such as 

installation, subject matter expert (SME)/objective testing, and hardware modification.
Page 20

contractor) to conduct the required evaluation and modifications to the FSTD's aerodynamic 

model. Since many aerodynamic math models and data packages are common among FSTDs 

that simulate a common aircraft type, we assume some development costs may be distributed 

among sponsors of FSTDs that simulate a common aircraft type. 

The development cost includes the cost to update an aerodynamic model and provide an FSTD 

sponsor with associated validation data for objective testing. We multiplied the 18 data packages 

designated as “simple” projects by the estimated cost per package to derive a total cost for simple 

data packages. We also multiply the 36 data packages designated as “complex” projects by the 

estimated cost per package to derive a total cost. We sum the total simple and complex costs and 

divide by the 322 FSTDs to derive an average FSTD cost. These costs are presented in the table 

below. 

Development Costs (Aerodynamic Model and Data) 

Source: FSTDs Affected by Part 60 Rulemaking, National Simulator Program, February 21, 2013.

Industry response to letter sent to International Committee on Aviation Training in Extended Envelopes

Refer to Appendix D for the list of unique aircraft types, an indication of whether each aircraft 

type is complex or simple as defined earlier and the number of FSTDs that simulate each aircraft 

type.
Page 21

Icing Development Costs

The Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule will require additional training in 

full stall, upset recovery maneuvers, 20 but will not require new training in icing conditions. Part 

121, subpart N currently requires training in the operations of anti-icing/de-icing equipment. 

The changes proposed to part 60 would enhance that training and further address open NTSB 

and ARC recommendations. We assume that 10% 21 of the aerodynamic math model 

development costs would be incurred to develop the proposed icing models. We also assume the 

icing modifications would be installed at the same time as the other part 60 required changes to 

the simulator resulting from the Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule. 22 

The FAA calls for comment on these two assumptions.

Development Costs 

Cost Per FSTD (Costs Not Including Development Costs)

Once a revised data package and updated aerodynamic model with associated validation data has 

been developed by the data provider, the model must be implemented on the FSTD used for 

training. This would involve installation on each FSTD, testing by subject matter expert pilots, 

tuning of required objective test cases, and software modification. Additionally, software and 

 20 As well as in gusting crosswinds and bounced landings 21 FAA subject matter expert. This is estimated at a lower proportion because many existing icing models on FSTDs 

for Part 121 aircraft will likely meet the proposed standards with little to no modification.

22 It is also noted that engine and airframe icing is not a new requirement for FSTD qualification. The requirement 

for engine and airframe icing has been a minimum requirement for the qualification of Level C and Level D FSTDs 

since 1980. This proposal only enhances the existing requirement.
Page 22

possibly hardware modifications to existing instructor operating systems (IOSs) would be 

necessary to implement the required instructor feedback mechanisms for upset recovery 

maneuvers training. The FSTD may have to be taken off-line during normal training time in 

order for the implementation to proceed. This would result in lost productivity. We use lost 

revenues as a proxy to value lost productivity. 

Cost per FSTD unit includes the implementation costs per FSTD and the cost of lost training 

revenue. Industry estimated the implementation cost would be $72,000 for a complex FSTD and 

$40,000 for a simple FSTD. We took the weighted average based on the numbers of complex 

and simple to derive an average implementation cost per FSTD of $54,807. 23 Based on industry 

input we estimated that 45 hours of training would be lost as the updates are installed on the 

FSTDs and assume sponsors receive $500 24 per hour for training. This results in $22,500 lost 

productivity per FSTD. 

FSTD Per Unit Costs (Implementation and Lost Productivity)

[1] Cost per FSTD unit not including development costs. This includes installation, subject matter expert (SME)/objective 

testing, and hardware modification. The per unit cost is a weighted average of the cost for complex and the cost for 

simple projects.

[2] # hours lost training time during installation, testing and tuning times $500. The per unit hours is a weighted average of 

the hours for complex and for simple projects.

 23 $54,807= [(173/322)*$40,000+(149/322)*$72,000] 24 The $500 per hour cost of FSTD time is based on updated FAA Flight Standards Service (AFS) data. This revised 

cost maintains consistency with analysis from the “Pilot Certification and Qualification Requirements for Air 

Carrier Operations” final rule published on July 15, 2013 (78 FR 42324). 
Page 23

[3] Per FSTD cost times 322 FSTDs.

2. Meeting Requirements for Training in Gusting Crosswinds and Bounced Landing 

Recovery Standards (Cost of Ground Handling Model Evaluation and Modification)

Additional FSTD evaluation requirements have been proposed for gusting crosswinds and 

bounced landing to support the part 121 Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final 

Rule requirements. The FAA is proposing these requirements because minimum requirements 

for gusting crosswinds do not currently exist and bounced landing recovery maneuvers are not 

specifically included in the current part 60 technical evaluation requirements. FSTDs used for 

this training may not have the required fidelity to properly conduct the training required by the 

Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule.

On some simulators, the ground handling and ground reaction modeling are not part of the 

aerodynamic model provided by an aircraft manufacturer or other data provider. Therefore, we 

expect that some individual FSTD operators would evaluate their individual FSTDs and conduct 

modifications as necessary and other FSTD operators may choose to contract the services of an 

FSTD manufacturer or third party contractor to conduct the evaluation and modifications. The 

evaluation requirements are intended to be subjective in nature and can be accomplished by a 

subject matter expert (SME) pilot with experience in the aircraft. Existing required objective 

tests for ground effect and landing already provide a reasonable validation of the aerodynamic 

model in these training maneuvers. Data to model gusting crosswind profiles is publicly 

available and the ability to simulate these wind profiles is within the capability of the vast 

majority of existing FSTDs. 
Page 24

The Simulator Technical Issues Group (STIG) 25 brings industry (including FSTD 

manufacturers, data providers, and sponsors) and the FAA together to discuss FSTD 

qualification issues. We asked this group to estimate the potential cost impact of evaluating and 

modifying FSTDs for these tasks (See Appendix C) and used an average cost estimate obtained 

from the group. Average cost per FSTD includes engineering analysis, software model 

development costs, installation cost, subject matter expert testing, tuning, and hardware 

modification. In addition, we include estimates of the lost training revenue. The total cost for 

these two modules equals the average cost per simulator plus lost revenue as shown in the table 

below.

Cost of FSTD Modifications for Gusting Crosswind Scenarios and Ground Reaction Modeling for 

Bounced Landing Recovery Training

 25 The Simulator Technical Issues Group (STIG) is organized by Airlines for America (A4A), formerly known as 

the Air Transport Association (ATA)
Page 25

3. Summary of Costs Due to FSTD Directive

Cost of the FSTD Directive

(1) Development costs for full stall, airborne icing and upset recovery maneuvers.

(2) Per unit implementation costs for full stall, airborne icing and upset recovery maneuvers.

(3) Per unit costs for bounced landing and gusting crosswinds.

We assume that a third of FSTD sponsors would update their devices each year beginning in 2016

through 2018.

Total Cost of FSTD Directive Distributed by Year and Discounted

Note: Details may not add to row or column totals due to rounding

In the table below, we separate the estimated costs that would be incurred in the development of the icing 

aerodynamic models and datasets from the development costs that would be incurred for the full stall and 
Page 26

upset recovery upgrades. The reason for separating these costs is that the basis of benefits will be 

different for each group and we will refer to these costs in the benefit section. The per unit costs 

(including aerodynamic model implementation and evaluation and lost revenues) are not included in the 

cost of upgrading the FSTDs for icing training because we expect these costs would be incurred anyway 

for installing the non-icing models. In other words, the cost would be the same to implement and evaluate 

the full stall and upset recovery maneuvers models alone or with the icing models. Therefore the cost to 

implement and evaluate the icing models is not an additional cost attributed to the icing models.
Page 27

Cost of the FSTD Directive with Icing Upgrades Separated 

(1) Development costs for advanced stall, and upset recovery maneuvers.

(2) Per unit implementation costs for advanced stall, airborne icing and upset recovery maneuvers.

(3) Per unit costs for bounced landing and gusting crosswinds.

Note: Details may not add to row or column totals due to rounding

Cost of FSTD Directive without Icing Upgrades by Year and Discounted

Note: Details may not add to row or column totals due to rounding
Page 28

Cost of FSTD Directive for Icing Upgrades Distributed by Year and Discounted

d. Newly Qualified FSTDs Subject to the Proposed Rule

The proposed rule would incorporate all of the requirements for full stall, upset recovery

maneuvers, icing, gusting crosswinds, and bounced landing recovery as well as minor 

modifications to the windshear qualification standards as standard requirements for all fixed 

wing, Level C and D FFSs that are newly qualified 26 after the final part 60 rule becomes 

effective (including those not used in part 121 training programs). Additionally, the proposal 

would also amend the QPS requirements for Level C and D FFSs to align with the ICAO 9625 

(edition 3) guidance for Type VII FSTDs and create a new fixed wing FTD level to align with 

the ICAO 9625 Type V FSTD. 

The following estimates of the number of newly qualified FSTDs that would be subject to the 

proposed rule is based on the history of new FSTDs and is described in the following section. 

For newly qualified FSTDs we expect minimal incremental cost to meet the proposed standards 

 26 FSTDs receiving an initial evaluation as described in §60.15. New FSTDs must be evaluated under the amended 

standard (QPS Appendices) after the final rule becomes effective plus any applicable grace period (up to 24 months) 

as described in 60.15(c)(1).
Page 29

for the new tasks in the Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule and the 

proposed standards for icing. Based on industry feedback we estimated the cost to align the 

newly qualified FSTDs with ICAO guidance. The discussion on compliance costs is presented 

in section ii.

i. Estimate Number of Newly Qualified FSTDs that would be upgraded 

To estimate the new FSTDs that will require evaluation under the proposed QPS amendments, 

the National Simulator Program reviewed its database 27 of the past 10 years of initial FSTD 

evaluation records. This information was used to extrapolate the number of new Level C and 

Level D FFSs that may be qualified FSTD in the ten years after the final part 60 rule becomes 

effective. This analysis captured all initial FSTD evaluations that occurred from January 2003 to 

present and excluded the following FSTDs from consideration:

• Levels 4, 5, 6, and 7 Flight Training Devices (FTDs)

• Levels A and B Full Flight Simulators (FFSs)

• Helicopter FSTDs

• Foreign owned FSTDs that are not located in a U.S. training center

• FSTDs that are no longer in service (no longer have an active FAA qualification).

The National Simulator Program records show that after excluding the FSTD’s listed above, 217 

initial evaluations were conducted over the years (2003 through 2012) on FSTDs that meet the 

criteria described above. The total number of FSTDs that were considered in this calculation is 

included in Appendix E of this report and the annual numbers are presented in the table below.

 27 This review was conducted by the National Simulator Program on February 21, 2013.
Page 30

On average, we estimate that 22 new FSTDs affected by the proposal will be initially qualified 

each year over the next ten years. 

ii. Estimate Compliance Costs

After the part 60 defined two year grace period, all newly qualified FSTDs will be required to be 

in compliance with the new rule. 

1. Cost to Comply with Requirements for Training Tasks

Based on industry feedback we expect the proposed requirements for full stall, upset recovery

maneuvers, icing, gusting crosswinds, bounced landing recovery and windshear and microburst 

requirements to result in minimal incremental cost being added to the cost of a new FSTD. This 

is supported by the responses received from industry. The additional objective test cases for stall 

and icing represent only 5 new objective tests (one additional stall characteristics test, three stall 

buffet tests, and one icing demonstration test) out of about 120 that are already required for 
Page 31

qualification under the current part 60 requirements. Because most of the data required to 

program and validate an FSTD for these training tasks is already collected for aircraft 

certification and/or simulator flight test data collection efforts, it is not expected to introduce 

significant additional cost during the design and build phase of a new FSTD after this proposal 

becomes effective. Additionally, the proposed requirements for the instructor feedback tools can 

be readily programmed into modern IOSs using existing software development tools. 

Furthermore, the proposal to amend the windshear qualification requirements to improve FSTD 

functionality has been determined to be insignificant and well within the capabilities of modern 

FSTDs. 28 We call for comment on whether the incremental costs of the proposed requirements 

for new FSTDs initially qualified after the proposal is effective would be minimal.

2. Cost to Align With ICAO Guidance

Alignment with ICAO guidance however, could result in some cost. We received responses 

from industry 29 with estimates of these costs. 30 We received one response from industry which 

indicated that certain objective tests included in the ICAO 9625 Edition 3 guidance may require 

significant research and development investment 31 or may not be possible with current visual 

system technology used in FSTDs. These tests include more restrictive test tolerances and 

procedures proposed for transport delay measurement, visual system light point size, and visual 

 28 The amendments to the windshear requirements include the addition of “complex” windshear models, turbulence 

levels, and other minor changes to improve instructor control of windshear scenarios. These changes were 

recommended by the Stick Pusher and Adverse Weather Event Aviation Rulemaking Committee as not requiring 

“significant monetary investments” to implement.

29 We received one response which estimated that the cost would be $300,000 - $500,000 per FSTD based on ten 

FSTDs qualified in the first year. We did not include this response because it was significantly higher than all of the 

other responses received and we were unable to determine which portion of this could be considered non-recurring 

costs. 

30 Some cost responses were received in Canadian dollars. Because the values of the Canadian and the U.S. dollar 

are so close (One CAD = $0.98 USD) we did not convert. So costs are slightly overestimated. 31 The respondent indicated that approximately $200,000 in non-recurring R&D investment would be required for 

new visual system projector technology. We have not included this non-recurring cost in the cost estimate from 

industry.
Page 32

system light point brightness than what currently exists in part 60. 32 The respondent further 

stated that modifications have been recommended by industry to address this issue and are under 

consideration for a future revision of the ICAO document. The FAA calls for comment on 

whether the inclusion of these more restrictive tests will add significant cost in the proposed 

alignment with the ICAO 9625 Edition 3 guidance.

Based on industry responses, we estimate an initial non- recurring cost of $50,000 would be 

incurred by each manufacturer to develop a standard qualification test guide (QTG) template and 

testing methods to meet the new standard. We estimate there are five FSTD manufacturers who 

might build new FSTDs resulting in total non-recurring costs of $250,000. The manufacturer 

would also incur another estimated $35,000 to develop an aircraft specific QTG template that 

can be used by other simulators of the same aircraft type. We estimate that newly qualified 

FSTDs would simulate 71 unique aircraft types over a ten year period which would result in a 

total cost of $2,485,000. 33 Hardware costs to meet the proposed standards might also be higher. 

We estimate the incremental cost per FSTD would be $20,000. Total incremental hardware costs 

for 198 FSTDs would be $3.96 million.

 32 See Table A2A, tests 4.a.4, 4.a.7, and 6.a.1. The transport delay test tolerances (test 6.a.1) have been reduced to 

100.0 ms from 150.0 ms and a new visual system lightpoint brightness test (test 4.a.7) has been introduced to require 

a minimum of 8.8 ft.-lamberts brightness. New procedures for the visual lightpoint size test (test 4.a.4) to include 

testing in both horizontal and vertical axis will make the existing test more restrictive.

33 To estimate this we looked at the FSTDs initially qualified in the years 2003 through February 2013 and found 

these FSTDs simulated 71 unique aircraft types.
Page 33

Cost for Newly Qualified FSTDs to Meet Requirements to Align with ICAO

e. Summary of Costs to Comply with the Proposed Rule

Costs are separated out into three major cost elements: those costs that would be incurred 

because of training that will be required by the new Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher 

Training Final Rule tasks, costs that would be incurred to enhance the FSTD when used to meet 

current icing training requirements, and costs that would be incurred to align with ICAO 

guidance. These costs are summarized in the table below.
Page 34

Summary Cost of the Proposed Rule and the FSTD Directive

Note: Details may not add to row or column totals due to rounding

III. Benefits

In the cost sections we estimated three separate sets of costs, which have three separate benefit 

bases. The first set of costs would be incurred to upgrade the FSTDs to provide a more accurate 

training environment for new training required by the new Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher 

Training Final Rule. The second set of costs would be incurred for an icing upgrade to enhance 

existing training requirements. Lastly there are a set of simulator improvements which would 

align these simulators with ICAO recommendations. 
Page 35

a. Benefit of Upgrading FSTDs to Support New Training rule

The best way to understand the benefits of this proposed rule is to view it in conjunction with the 

new Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule. The training rule used a market 

price for hourly simulator training rates as a measure of society’s resource costs of complying 

with the new training requirement. This market price of $500 an hour assumed a fully allocated 

cost for using a simulator that complies with all FAA requirements. In the new Crewmember 

and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule, sensitivities were run at different hourly rates, up to 

120% of current estimated hourly rates. In all cases, the safety benefits of that rule exceeded the 

costs.

In this proposed rule we calculate the incremental cost of upgrading existing simulators to meet 

the new, higher requirements of this proposal in support of the new Crewmember and Aircraft 

Dispatcher Training Final Rule (new training rule). This incremental upgrade cost is disclosed 

here for comment. The cost to upgrade the simulators of the proposed rule has already been 

justified in the new training rule. In that rule part 121 operators are required to provide 

additional simulator training for their pilots and these simulators must have incorporated the 

upgrades as specified in this proposed rule. The benefit-cost justification for the new training 

rule used $500 per simulator hour which includes the simulator upgrade cost. The new training 

rule requirement for additional time in an upgraded simulator is a cost to the operators. This cost 

was justified in that rule. The cost to the operator for additional pilot training in an upgraded 

simulator is revenue to the simulator owner.

34 (The Office of Management and Budget refers to 

this market exchange as a transfer from airplane operator to simulator owner.) For the simulator 

 34 We use the term owner here and elsewhere rather than sponsor because in isolated instances the FSTD sponsor 

may not be the owner of the device. 
Page 36

owner to receive the additional simulator training revenue as required in the new training rule, 

the simulator must be upgraded at cost of $140,000. 35 The simulator owner would recover these 

costs after renting the simulator for 140 two hour sessions at a rate of $500 per hour. Thus the 

incremental simulator upgrade cost will be more than fully recovered within a short period of 

time by the revenue received by the simulator owner from the airplane operator paying for 

additional pilot simulator time as required by the new training rule.

Thus the proposed standards and upgrade simulator expense supporting the new training, of $45 

million ($32 million in present value at 7%) has been fully accounted for in the training rule,

which was cost-beneficial. 

b. Benefit of Icing Upgrade

This upgrade does not support a new training requirement, but would enhance existing training 

requirements, in operations of the anti-icing/de-icing equipment and further address NSTB 36 and 

Aviation Rulemaking Committee recommendations to the FAA. 

These costs are minor at less than a million dollars and are expected to comprise a small 

percentage of the total cost of compliance with the FSTD Directive. One avoided serious injury 

would justify the minor costs of complying with these icing requirements across the whole 

industry.

c. Benefits of Aligning with ICAO

 35 The total cost to upgrade FSTDs for the new training requirements is $45.2 million. With 322 FSTDs subject to 

the directive the per FSTD cost would be $140,000 rounded - $45.2 million divided by 322. 36 NTSB recommendations A-11-46 and A-11-47address engine and airframe icing.
Page 37

We have not quantified benefits of aligning part 60 qualification standards with ICAO guidance, 

but we expect aligned FSTD standards to contribute to improved safety as they are developed by 

a broad coalition of experts with a combined pool of knowledge and experience. The FAA 

expects more realistic training to result from these changes. The changes are expected to 

improve overall simulator fidelity with new and revised visual system and other FSTD 

evaluation standards, such as visual display resolution, visual system field of view, and system 

transport delay.

By aligning with ICAO, the rule also defines a new fixed wing Level 7 FTD that would be 

qualified for use in certain introductory training tasks 37 including take-off, landing or taxiing. 

These tasks currently are only allowed to be trained in FFSs. We expect operational cost savings 

if training of these tasks are offloaded to the Level 7 FTD because the cost of operating a fixed 

base FTD is lower than that of operating a FFS that incorporates motion. We do not know how 

much of the training would be performed in the new Level 7 FTD so we do not estimate cost 

savings but we do expect there to be cost savings as FSTD sponsors qualify such devices. We 

believe that these non-quantifiable benefits justify the costs and ask for comments.

IV. Conclusion

Based on our analysis we find this rule to be cost beneficial.

 37 The proposal contains FSTD evaluation standards for ground handling and ground reaction that would enable the 

qualification of training tasks such as takeoff, landing, and taxiing in a fixed base (non-motion) FTD. Testing and 

proficiency checking in certain motion critical tasks would still be required to be conducted in full flight simulators 

with motion cueing systems.
Page 38

Appendix A - FSTDs Potentially Affected by the Proposed FSTD Directive

Simulator 

ID

Company Name Make Model

Series

SimLevel CityName Code Active Company 

Identifier

645 FedEx A-300-B4600 D Memphis 120-40B A TTS

434 FedEx A-300-B4600 D Memphis 120-40B A CAE

547 FedEx A-300-B4600 D Taipei 120-40B A REDI

699 United Parcel 

Service

A-300-B4600 D Louisville 120-

40B/Draft 

40C

A TTS

254 United Parcel 

Service

A-300-B4600R D Louisville 14 CFR 

Part 60 

Change 1, 

Appendix 

A

A LINK

461 FedEx A-310-200 C Memphis 120-40B A CAE

491 FedEx A-310-300 C Memphis 120-40B A CAE

1255 Airbus A-320-200 D Miami 

Springs

14 CFR 

Part 60 

Change 1, 

Appendix 

A

A CAE

1195 Airbus A-320-200 D Miami 

Springs

14 CFR 

Part 60 

Change 1, 

A CAE
Page 39

Appendix 

A

712 Airbus A-320-200 D Miami 

Springs

120-40B A REFL

630 Airbus A-320-200 D Miami 

Springs

120-40B A REFL

1293 American 

Airlines

A-320-200 D Dallas 14 CFR 

Part 60 

Change 1, 

Appendix 

A

A CAE

1258 FlightSafety 

International

A-320-200 D Tulsa 14 CFR 

Part 60 

Change 1, 

Appendix 

A

A FSI

640 Pan Am 

International 

Flight Academy

A-320-200 D Miami 120-40B A REFL

631 US Airways, 

Inc.

A-320-200 D Charlotte 120-

40B/Draft 

40C

A CAE

1079 US Airways, 

Inc.

A-320-200 D Charlotte 14 CFR 

Part 60 

Change 1, 

Appendix 

A

A CAE
Page 40

1250 US Airways, 

Inc.

A-320-200 D Charlotte 14 CFR 

Part 60 

Change 1, 

Appendix 

A

A CAE

539 Delta Air Lines A-320-211 C Atlanta 120-40B A LINK

335 Delta Air Lines A-320-211 C Atlanta 120-40A A LINK

607 Delta Air Lines A-320-211 D Atlanta 120-40B A CAE

299 Delta Air Lines A-320-211 D Atlanta 120-40A A TSCF

613 US Airways, 

Inc.

A-320-211 D Charlotte 120-

40B/Draft 

40C

A CAE

275 Boeing US 

Training and 

Flight Services, 

LLC

A-320-231 C Miami 120-40B A TSCF

332 Pan Am 

International 

Flight Academy

A-320-231 C Miami 120-40B A CAE

1175 Airbus A-320-232 D Miami 

Springs

14 CFR 

Part 60 

Change 1, 

Appendix 

A

A TTSL

790 CAE SimuFlite, 

Inc.

A-320-232 D San 

Francisco

14 CFR 

Part 60 

Change 1, 

A CAE
Page 41

Appendix 

A

1109 FSC Dallas, 

LLC

A-320-232 D Dallas 14 CFR 

Part 60 

Change 1, 

Appendix 

A

A CAE

920 JetBlue 

Airways

A-320-232 D Orlando 120-

40B/Draft 

40C

A CAE

921 JetBlue 

Airways

A-320-232 D Orlando 120-

40B/Draft 

40C

A CAE

924 JetBlue 

Airways

A-320-232 D Orlando 120-

40B/Draft 

40C

A CAE

919 JetBlue 

Airways

A-320-232 D Orlando 120-

40B/Draft 

40C

A CAE

614 United Airlines A-320-232 D Denver 120-40B A TTS

445 United Airlines A-320-232 D Denver 120-40B A REDI

566 United Airlines A-320-232 D Denver 120-40B A TTS

585 United Airlines A-320-232 D Denver 120-40B A TTS

798 United Airlines A-320-232 D Denver 120-

40B/Draft 

40C

A TTSL

1068 US Airways, A-320-232 D Phoenix 14 CFR A CAE
Page 42

Inc. Part 60 

Change 1, 

Appendix

A

795 US Airways, 

Inc.

A-320-232 D Phoenix 120-

40B/Draft 

40C

A TTSL

1287 Airbus A-330-200 D Miami 

Springs

14 CFR 

Part 60 

Change 1, 

Appendix 

A

A CAE

534 Airbus A-330-202 C Miami 

Springs

120-

40B/Draft 

40C

A TSCF

865 Delta Air Lines, 

Inc.

A-330-223 D Atlanta 120-

40B/Draft 

40C

A TTSL

1046 Delta Air Lines, 

Inc.

A-330-223 D Atlanta 120-

40B/JARSTD 1A 

Amdt 2

A CAE

1074 US Airways, 

Inc.

A-330-223 D Charlotte 14 CFR 

Part 60 

Change 1, 

Appendix 

A

A CAE
Page 43

1015 CAE SimuFlite 

Inc.

A-330-301 D Montreal 120-

40B/Draft 

40C

A CAE

643 US Airways, 

Inc.

A-330-323 D Charlotte 120-40B A CAE

360 FlightSafety 

International(10

8

ATR-42-300 C Houston 120-40A A FSI

258 FlightSafety 

International(10

8

ATR-42-300 C Houston 120-40A A FSI

890 FlightSafety 

International(10

8

ATR-72-212A D Houston 120-40B A FSI

642 Boeing US 

Training and 

Flight Services, 

LLC

B-717-200 D Atlanta 120-40B A CAE

734 Boeing US 

Training and 

Flight Services, 

LLC

B-717-200 D Atlanta 120-

40B/Draft 

40C

A CAE

636 Boeing US 

Training and 

Flight Services, 

LLC

B-717-200 D Seattle 120-40B A FSI

1 FedEx B-727-200 C Memphis 120-40 A CAE
Page 44

172 Global One 

Training Group, 

LLC

B-727-200 C Sanford 121-14C A REDI

16 American 

Airlines

B-727-200 D Dallas 120-40A A LINK

116 Pan Am 

International 

Flight Academy

B-727-200 D Memphis 120-40 A LINK

174 Pan Am 

International 

Flight Academy

B-727-222A C Miami 121-14C A CAE

243 FedEx B-727-2S2F D Memphis 120-40A A REDI

220 Pan Am 

International 

Flight Academy

B-737-200 C Henderson 120-40A A CAE

559 Pan Am 

International 

Flight Academy

B-737-200 C Miami 120-40B A REDI

609 Delta Air Lines, 

Inc.

B-737-200 D Atlanta 120-40B A CAE

304 Boeing US 

Training and 

Flight Services, 

LLC

B-737-300 C Miami 120-40B A FSI

446 Pan Am 

International 

Flight Academy

B-737-300 C Miami 120-40B A AAI
Page 45

27 Southwest 

Airlines

B-737-300 C Dallas 120-40A A REDI

435 Southwest 

Airlines

B-737-300 C Dallas 120-40B A REFL

65 Southwest 

Airlines

B-737-300 C Dallas 120-40A A REDI

247 US Airways, 

Inc.

B-737-300 C Charlotte 120-40A A CAE

282 United Airlines B-737-300 D Denver 120-40B A CAE

261 United Airlines B-737-322 D Denver 120-40A A CAE

217 FSC Dallas, 

LLC

B-737-3A4 C Dallas 120-40A A CAE

303 US Airways, 

Inc.

B-737-3B7 C Charlotte 120-40A A CAE

592 Alaska Airlines B-737-400 C Seattle 120-40B A REDI

1059 Pan Am 

International 

Flight Academy

B-737-400 C Miami 120-40B A REDI

473 United Airlines B-737-500 D Houston 120-40B A TSCF

652 Alaska Airlines B-737-700 D Seattle 120-40B A TTS

1144 Boeing UK 

Training and 

Flight Services 

Ltd

B-737-700 D West 

Sussex

14 CFR 

Part 60 

Change 1, 

Appendix 

A

A FSI

561 Boeing US 

Training and 

B-737-700 D Seattle 120-40B A CAE
Page 46

Flight Services, 

LLC

978 Boeing US 

Training and 

Flight Services, 

LLC

B-737-700 D Miami 120-

40B/JARSTD 1A 

Amdt 3

A CAE

882 Boeing US 

Training and 

Flight Services, 

LLC

B-737-700 D Atlanta 120-

40B/Draft 

40C

A FSI

748 Boeing US 

Training and 

Flight Services, 

LLC

B-737-700 D Miami 120-

40B/Draft 

40C

A FSI

581 Boeing US 

Training and 

Flight Services, 

LLC

B-737-700 D Seattle 120-

40B/JARSTD 1A 

Amdt 3

A CAE

1115 Southwest 

Airlines

B-737-700 D Dallas 14 CFR 

Part 60 

Change 1, 

Appendix 

A

A CAE

936 Southwest 

Airlines

B-737-700 D Dallas 14 CFR 

Part 60 

Change 1, 

Appendix 

A

A CAE
Page 47

579 Southwest 

Airlines

B-737-700 D Dallas 14 CFR 

Part 60 

Change 1, 

Appendix 

A

A TTS

799 Southwest 

Airlines

B-737-700 D Dallas 14 CFR 

Part 60 

Change 1, 

Appendix 

A

A CAE

801 Southwest 

Airlines

B-737-700 D Dallas 14 CFR 

Part 60 

Change 1, 

Appendix 

A

A CAE

770 Alaska Airlines B-737-800 D Seattle 120-

40B/Draft 

40C

A TTSL

721 American 

Airlines

B-737-800 D Dallas 120-

40B/Draft 

40C

A CAE

1249 American 

Airlines

B-737-800 D Dallas 14 CFR 

Part 60 

Change 1, 

Appendix 

A

A CAE

1143 American 

Airlines

B-737-800 D Dallas 14 CFR 

Part 60 

A CAE
Page 48

Change 1, 

Appendix 

B

1282 Boeing Training 

and Flight 

Services

B-737-800 D Singapore 14 CFR 

Part 60 

Change 1, 

Appendix 

A

A TTSL

1145 Boeing UK 

Training and 

Flight Services 

Ltd

B-737-800 D West 

Sussex

14 CFR 

Part 60 

Change 1, 

Appendix 

A

A FSI

1097 Boeing US 

Training and 

Flight Services, 

LLC

B-737-800 D Miami 14 CFR 

Part 60 

Change 1, 

Appendix 

A

A CAE

749 Boeing US 

Training and 

Flight Services, 

LLC

B-737-800 D Miami 120-

40B/Draft 

40C

A FSI

794 Boeing US 

Training and 

Flight Services, 

LLC

B-737-800 D Miami 120-

40B/Draft 

40C

A CAE

955 Boeing US 

Training and 

B-737-800 D Seattle 120-40B A CAE
Page 49

Flight Services, 

LLC

957 Boeing US 

Training and 

Flight Services, 

LLC

B-737-800 D Seattle 120-

40B/JARSTD 1A 

Amdt 3

A CAE

880 Boeing US 

Training and 

Flight Services, 

LLC

B-737-800 D Atlanta 120-

40B/Draft 

40C

A FSI

804 CAE SimuFlite 

Inc.

B-737-800 D Dallas 120-

40B/Draft 

40C

A CAE

667 Delta Air Lines, 

Inc.

B-737-800 D Atlanta 120-

40B/Draft 

40C

A CAE

1106 FSC Dallas, 

LLC

B-737-800 D Amsterdam 14 CFR 

Part 60 

Change 1, 

Appendix 

A

A CAE

1104 Pan Am 

International 

Flight Academy

B-737-800 D Miami 14 CFR 

Part 60 

Change 1, 

Appendix 

A

A

1168 Pan Am B-737-800 D Henderson 14 CFR A
Page 50

International 

Flight Academy

Part 60 

Change 1, 

Appendix 

A

1241 Pan Am 

International 

Flight Academy

B-737-800 D Miami 14 CFR 

Part 60 

Change 1, 

Appendix 

A

A

1161 Pan Am 

International 

Flight Academy

B-737-800 D Miami 14 CFR 

Part 60 

Change 1, 

Appendix 

A

A

1268 Southwest 

Airlines

B-737-800 D Dallas 14 CFR 

Part 60 

Change 1, 

Appendix 

A

A CAE

1136 United Airlines B-737-800 D Houston 14 CFR 

Part 60 

Change 1, 

Appendix 

A

A CAE

1137 United Airlines B-737-800 D Houston 14 CFR 

Part 60 

Change 1, 

Appendix 

A CAE
Page 51

A

1004 United Airlines B-737-800 D Houston 120-40B A CAE

616 United Airlines B-737-800 D Houston 120-

40B/Draft

40C

A CAE

588 American 

Airlines

B-737-823 D Dallas 120-

40B/Draft 

40C

A CAE

591 American 

Airlines

B-737-823 D Dallas 120-

40B/Draft 

40C

A CAE

675 American 

Airlines

B-737-823 D Dallas 120-

40B/Draft 

40C

A CAE

702 Delta Air Lines, 

Inc.

B-737-832 D Atlanta 120-

40B/Draft 

40C

A CAE

590 Delta Air Lines, 

Inc.

B-737-832 D Atlanta 120-

40B/Draft 

40C

A CAE

816 Atlas Air, Inc B-747-200 C Miami 120-40B A LINK

952 Evergreen 

International 

Airlines

B-747-200 C Denver 120-40B A CAE

941 Kalitta Air, 

LLC

B-747-200 C Ypsilanti 120-40B A CAE

29 United Airlines B-747-200 C Denver 120-40B A REDI
Page 52

1064 Pan Am 

International 

Flight Academy

B-747-341 C Miami 120-40B A REDI

722 Atlas Air, Inc B-747-400 C Miami 120-40B A CAE

1234 Kalitta Air, 

LLC

B-747-400 C Ypsilanti 14 CFR

Part 60 

Change 1, 

Appendix 

A

A CAE

420 United Airlines B-747-400 D Denver 120-40B A CAE

589 United Airlines B-747-400 D Denver 120-40B A CAE

1012 United Parcel 

Service

B-747-400 D Anchorage 120-

40B/ICA

O

A CAE

1092 Atlas Air, Inc B-747-400F D Miami 120-

40B/JARSTD 1A 

Amdt 3

A CAE

1091 Boeing US 

Training and 

Flight Services, 

LLC

B-747-400F D Seattle 14 CFR 

Part 60 

Change 1, 

Appendix 

A

A CAE

267 United Airlines B-747-422 D Denver 120-40A A CAE

273 Delta Air Lines, 

Inc.

B-747-451 D Atlanta 120-40A A CAE

1264 Boeing US B-747-8 C Seattle 14 CFR A CAE
Page 53

Training and 

Flight Services, 

LLC

Part 60 

Change 1, 

Appendix 

A

333 Boeing US 

Training and 

Flight Services, 

LLC

B-757-200 C Miami 120-40A A FSI

280 Delta Air Lines, 

Inc.

B-757-200 C Atlanta 120-40A A LINK

45 Delta Air Lines, 

Inc.

B-757-200 C Atlanta 120-40 A LINK

312 US Airways, 

Inc.

B-757-200 C Phoenix 120-40A A CAE

60 US Airways, 

Inc.

B-757-200 C Charlotte 120-40 A CAE

752 American 

Airlines

B-757-200 D Dallas 120-

40B/Draft 

40C

A CAE

1167 Boeing US 

Training and 

Flight Services, 

LLC

B-757-200 D Miami 14 CFR 

Part 60 

Change 1, 

Appendix 

A

A CAE

403 Delta Air Lines, 

Inc.

B-757-200 D Atlanta 120-40B A REDI

1032 FedEx B-757-200 D Memphis 120- A CAE
Page 54

40B/Draft 

40C

1041 FedEx B-757-200 D Memphis 120-

40B/Draft 

40C

A CAE

1157 FedEx B-757-200 D Memphis 120-

40B/Draft 

40C

A CAE

513 United Airlines B-757-200 D Houston 120-40B A TTS

578 United Airlines B-757-200 D Denver 120-40B A CAE

485 United Parcel 

Service

B-757-200 D Louisville 120-

40B/Draft 

40C

A REDI

318 United Parcel 

Service

B-757-200 D Louisville 120-40B A REDI

389 American 

Airlines

B-757-222 D Dallas 120-40B A CAE

328 United Airlines B-757-222 D Denver 120-40B A CAE

329 United Airlines B-757-222 D Denver 120-40B A CAE

324 American 

Airlines

B-757-223 D Dallas 120-40B A CAE

325 Delta Air Lines, 

Inc.

B-757-251 C Atlanta 120-40A A CAE

297 Delta Air Lines, 

Inc.

B-757-251 C Atlanta 120-40A A LINK

119 Pan Am 

International 

B-757-251 D Henderson 120-40 A LINK
Page 55

Flight Academy

564 ABX Air, Inc. B-767-200 C Wilmingto

n

120-40B A REDI

20 American 

Airlines

B-767-200 C Dallas 120-40 A LINK

525 Pan Am 

International 

Flight Academy

B-767-200 C Miami 120-40B A REDI

46 Pan Am 

International 

Flight Academy

B-767-200 C Miami 120-40 A LINK

228 American 

Airlines

B-767-200 D Dallas 120-40A A LINK

289 United Airlines B-767-222 C Denver 120-40A A CAE

679 Pan Am 

International 

Flight Academy

B-767-269 C Miami 120-40B A CAE

31 Pan Am 

International 

Flight Academy

B-767-275 C Miami 120-40 A REDI

359 Boeing US 

Training and 

Flight Services, 

LLC

B-767-300 C Seattle 120-40B A REDI

330 Boeing US 

Training and 

Flight Services, 

B-767-300 C Miami 120-40A A FSI
Page 56

LLC

179 United Airlines B-767-300 C Denver 120-40B A CAE

596 American 

Airlines

B-767-300 D Dallas 120-

40B/Draft 

40C

A CAE

601 Delta Air Lines, 

Inc.

B-767-300 D Atlanta 120-40B A CAE

680 United Airlines B-767-300 D Denver 120-

40B/Draft 

40C

A CAE

1183 Boeing US 

Training and 

Flight Services, 

LLC

B-767-300ER D Miami 14 CFR 

Part 60 

Change 1, 

Appendix 

A

A CAE

353 Delta Air Lines, 

Inc.

B-767-300ER D Atlanta 120-40B A CAE

766 Delta Air Lines, 

Inc.

B-767-300ER D Atlanta 120-

40B/Draft 

40C

A CAE

1140 United Parcel 

Service

B-767-300ER D Louisville 14 CFR 

Part 60 

Change 1, 

Appendix 

A

A TTSL

665 United Airlines B-767-400 C Denver 120-

40B/Draft 

A FSI
Page 57

40C

671 Delta Air Lines, 

Inc.

B-767-400ER D Atlanta 120-

40B/Draft 

40C

A CAE

691 United Airlines B-767-400ER D Houston 120-

40B/Draft 

40C

A CAE

646 American 

Airlines

B-777-200 D Dallas 120-

40B/Draft 

40C

A CAE

572 American 

Airlines

B-777-200 D Dallas 120-

40B/Draft 

40C

A CAE

615 American 

Airlines

B-777-200 D Dallas 120-

40B/Draft 

40C

A CAE

1231 Boeing Training 

and Flight 

Services

B-777-200 D Singapore 14 CFR 

Part 60 

Change 1, 

Appendix 

A

A CAE

469 Boeing US

Training and 

Flight Services, 

LLC

B-777-200 D Seattle 120-

40B/ICA

O

A CAE

619 Delta Air Lines, 

Inc.

B-777-200 D Atlanta 120-40B A CAE
Page 58

1307 Pan Am 

International 

Flight Academy

B-777-200 D Virginia 

Gardens

14 CFR 

Part 60 

Change 1, 

Appendix 

A

A CAE

606 United Airlines B-777-200 D Houston 120-40B A CAE

511 United Airlines B-777-200 D Denver 120-40B A REDI

1114 Delta Air Lines, 

Inc.

B-777-200LR D Atlanta 14 CFR 

Part 60 

Change 1, 

Appendix 

A

A CAE

467 United Airlines B-777-222 D Denver 120-40B A REDI

550 United Airlines B-777-222 D Denver 120-40B A TTS

1289 American 

Airlines

B-777-300ER D Dallas 14 CFR 

Part 60 

Change 1, 

Appendix 

A

A CAE

1232 Boeing Training 

and Flight 

Services

B-777-300ER D Singapore 14 CFR 

Part 60 

Change 1, 

Appendix 

A

A CAE

530 Boeing US 

Training and 

Flight Services, 

B-777-300ER D Miami 120-

40B/JARSTD 1A 

A FSI
Page 59

LLC Amdt 3

969 Boeing US 

Training and 

Flight Services, 

LLC

B-777-300ER D Seattle 120-

40B/ICA

O

A CAE

1260 FedEx B-777-FS2 D Memphis 14 CFR 

Part 60 

Change 1, 

Appendix 

A

A CAE

1076 FedEx B-777-FS2 D Memphis 14 CFR 

Part 60 

Change 1, 

Appendix 

A

A CAE

1101 FedEx B-777-FS2 D Memphis 14 CFR 

Part 60 

Change 1, 

Appendix 

A

A CAE

1227 Boeing Training 

and Flight 

Services

B-787-8 C Singapore 14 CFR 

Part 60 

Change 1, 

Appendix 

A

A TTSL

1228 Boeing Training 

and Flight 

Services

B-787-8 C Singapore 14 CFR 

Part 60 

Change 1, 

A TTSL
Page 60

Appendix 

A

1222 Boeing UK 

Training and 

Flight Services 

Ltd

B-787-8 C Crawley 14 CFR 

Part 60 

Change 1, 

Appendix 

A

A TTSL

1185 Boeing US 

Training and 

Flight Services, 

LLC

B-787-8 C Seattle 14 CFR 

Part 60 

Change 1, 

Appendix 

A

A TTSL

1184 Boeing US 

Training and 

Flight Services, 

LLC

B-787-8 C Seattle 14 CFR 

Part 60 

Change 1, 

Appendix 

A

A TTSL

1245 United Airlines B-787-8 C Houston 14 CFR 

Part 60 

Change 1, 

Appendix 

A

A CAE

825 A.T.S. Inc. BE-1900-D C Centennial 120-40B A

725 AIMS 

Community 

College

BE-1900-D C Greeley 120-40B A AAI

476 FlightSafety BE-1900-D D Flushing 120-40B A FSI
Page 61

International(01

1

514 FlightSafety 

International(02

9

BE-1900-D D Seattle 120-40B A FSI

693 FlightSafety 

International(03

3

BE-1900-D D Toronto 120-40B A FSI

840 CAE SimuFlite 

Inc.

CL-600-2B19 D Phoenix 120-

40B/Draft 

40C

A CAE

695 FlightSafety 

International 

042

CL-600-2B19 D Atlanta 120-40B A FSI

719 FlightSafety 

International 

042

CL-600-2B19 D Atlanta 120-

40B/Draft 

40C

A FSI

720 FlightSafety 

International 

042

CL-600-2B19 D Atlanta 120-

40B/Draft 

40C

A FSI

664 FlightSafety 

International 

042

CL-600-2B19 D Atlanta 120-40B A FSI

972 FlightSafety 

International(02

3

CL-600-2B19 D St Louis 120-

40B/Draft 

40C

A FSI

632 FlightSafety CL-600-2B19 D Salt Lake 120-40B A FSI
Page 62

International(03

0

City

787 FlightSafety 

International(03

0

CL-600-2B19 D Salt Lake 

City

120-

40B/Draft 

40C

A FSI

743 FlightSafety 

International(03

0

CL-600-2B19 D Salt Lake 

City

120-

40B/Draft 

40C

A FSI

772 FlightSafety 

International(07

1

CL-600-2B19 D Memphis 120-

40B/Draft 

40C

A FSI

666 FlightSafety 

International(07

1

CL-600-2B19 D Memphis 120-40B A FSI

553 FlightSafety 

International(07

1

CL-600-2B19 D Memphis 120-40B A FSI

754 Pinnacle 

Airlines, Inc.

CL-600-2B19 D Eagan 120-

40B/Draft 

40C

A CAE

813 US Airways, 

Inc.

CL-600-2B19 D Charlotte 120-

40B/Draft 

40C

A CAE

826 US Airways, 

Inc.

CL-600-2B19 D Phoenix 120-

40B/Draft 

40C

A CAE

661 US Airways, CL-600-2B19 D Charlotte 120- A CAE
Page 63

Inc. 40B/Draft 

40C

838 CAE SimuFlite 

Inc.

CL-600-2C10 D Phoenix 120-

40B/Draft 

40C

A CAE

847 FlightSafety 

International 

042

CL-600-2C10 D Atlanta 120-

40B/Draft 

40C

A FSI

850 FlightSafety 

International 

172

CL-600-2C10 D Dallas 120-

40B/Draft 

40C

A FSI

846 FlightSafety 

International(02

3

CL-600-2C10 D St Louis 120-

40B/Draft 

40C

A FSI

930 FlightSafety 

International(02

3

CL-600-2C10 D St Louis 120-

40B/Draft 

40C

A FSI

899 FlightSafety 

International(03

0

CL-600-2C10 D Salt Lake 

City

120-

40B/Draft 

40C

A FSI

1248 FlightSafety 

International(03

0

CL-600-2C10 D Salt Lake 

City

14 CFR 

Part 60 

Change 1, 

Appendix 

A

A FSI

814 US Airways, 

Inc.

CL-600-2C10 D Charlotte 120-

40B/Draft 

A CAE
Page 64

40C

1194 US Airways, 

Inc.

CL-600-2C10 D Phoenix 14 CFR 

Part 60 

Change 1, 

Appendix 

A

A CAE

897 CAE SimuFlite 

Inc.

CL-600-2D24 D Phoenix 120-

40B/Draft 

40C

A CAE

1010 FlightSafety 

International(02

3

CL-600-2D24 D St Louis 120-

40B/JARSTD 1A 

Amdt 3

A FSI

1067 Pinnacle 

Airlines, Inc.

CL-600-2D24 D Eagan 120-

40B/JARSTD 1A 

Amdt 3

A FSI

1002 US Airways, 

Inc.

CL-600-2D24 D Phoenix 120-

40B/JARSTD 1A 

Amdt 3

A CAE

69 FedEx DC-10-10 C Memphis 121-14C A LINK

375 Pan Am 

International 

Flight Academy

DC-10-10 C Miami 120-40A A CAE

552 Pan Am 

International 

DC-10-30 C Memphis 120-40B A LINK
Page 65

Flight Academy

48 ABX Air, Inc. DC-9-30 C Wilmingto

n

120-40B A LINK

38 Pan Am 

International 

Flight Academy

DC-9-30 C Miami 121-14C A LINK

322 Delta Air Lines, 

Inc.

DC-9-30 D Atlanta 120-40A A LINK

263 American 

Airlines

DC-9-82 C Dallas 120-40A A LINK

410 Pan Am 

International 

Flight Academy

DC-9-82 C Miami 120-40B A REDI

729 Pan Am 

International 

Flight Academy

DC-9-82 C Henderson 120-40B A SLM

350 American 

Airlines

DC-9-82 D Dallas 120-40A A CAE

240 American 

Airlines

DC-9-82 D Dallas 120-40A A LINK

196 American 

Airlines

DC-9-82 D Dallas 120-40 A LINK

23 American 

Airlines

DC-9-82 D Dallas 120-40 A LINK

24 American 

Airlines

DC-9-82 D Dallas 120-40 A LINK

714 FlightSafety DHC-8-100 C Atlanta 120-40B A FSI
Page 66

International 

042

367 FlightSafety 

International(02

9

DHC-8-100 C Seattle 120-40B A FSI

465 FlightSafety 

International(02

9

DHC-8-100 C Seattle 120-40B A FSI

288 FlightSafety 

International(03

3

DHC-8-100 C Toronto 120-40B A FSI

822 FlightSafety 

International(03

3

DHC-8-100 C Toronto 120-40B A FSI

393 US Airways, 

Inc.

DHC-8-100 C Charlotte 120-40B A CAE

802 FlightSafety 

International 

042

DHC-8-200 D Atlanta 120-40B A FSI

557 FlightSafety 

International(02

9

DHC-8-200 D Seattle 120-40B A FSI

1242 FlightSafety 

International(02

9

DHC-8-200 D Seattle 14 CFR 

Part 60 

Change 1, 

Appendix 

A

A FSI
Page 67

821 FlightSafety 

International(03

3

DHC-8-200 D Toronto 120-

40B/Draft 

40C

A FSI

517 FlightSafety 

International(02

9

DHC-8-300 C Seattle 120-40B A FSI

370 FlightSafety 

International(02

9

DHC-8-300 C Seattle 120-40B A FSI

422 FlightSafety 

International(03

3

DHC-8-300 C Toronto 120-40B A FSI

423 US Airways, 

Inc.

DHC-8-300 C Charlotte 120-40B A CAE

753 FlightSafety 

International 

042

DHC-8-300 D Atlanta 120-40B A FSI

1243 FlightSafety 

International(02

9

DHC-8-300 D Seattle 14 CFR 

Part 60 

Change 1, 

Appendix 

A

A FSI

791 FlightSafety 

International(03

3

DHC-8-300 D Toronto 120-

40B/Draft 

40C

A FSI

1028 FlightSafety 

International(02

DHC-8-400 D St Louis 120-

40B/JARA FSI
Page 68

3 North) STD 1A

Amdt 3

1008 FlightSafety 

International(02

9

DHC-8-400 D Seattle 120-

40B/JARSTD 1A 

Amdt 3

A FSI

709 FlightSafety 

International(02

9

DHC-8-400 D Seattle 120-40B A FSI

676 FlightSafety 

International(03

3

DHC-8-400 D Toronto 120-40B A FSI

1147 FlightSafety 

International(03

3

DHC-8-400 D Toronto 120-40B A FSI

345 FlightSafety 

International 

042

EMB-120-120 C Atlanta 120-40A A FSI

327 FlightSafety 

International(00

4

EMB-120-120 C Long 

Beach

120-40A A FSI

672 American Eagle 

Airlines 

Training Center

EMB-145-145 D Dallas 120-

40B/Draft 

40C

A CAE

621 American Eagle 

Airlines 

Training Center

EMB-145-145 D Dallas 120-

40B/Draft 

40C

A CAE
Page 69

841 CAE SimuFlite 

Inc.

EMB-145-145 D Phoenix 120-

40B/Draft 

40C

A CAE

862 ExpressJet 

Airlines, Inc.

EMB-145-145 D Houston 120-

40B/Draft 

40C

A CAE

788 ExpressJet 

Airlines, Inc.

EMB-145-145 D Houston 120-

40B/Draft 

40C

A CAE

668 ExpressJet 

Airlines, Inc.

EMB-145-145 D Houston 120-40B A CAE

904 FlightSafety 

International 

172

EMB-145-145 D Dallas 120-

40B/Draft 

40C

A FSI

809 FlightSafety 

International(01

7

EMB-145-145 D Paris 120-

40B/Draft 

40C

A FSI

769 FlightSafety 

International(01

7

EMB-145-145 D Paris 120-

40B/Draft 

40C

A FSI

660 FlightSafety 

International(02

3

EMB-145-145 D St Louis 120-

40B/Draft 

40C

A FSI

779 FlightSafety 

International(02

3

EMB-145-145 D St Louis 120-

40B/Draft 

40C

A FSI

819 FlightSafety EMB-145-145 D St Louis 120- A FSI
Page 70

International(02

3

40B/Draft 

40C

571 FlightSafety 

International(10

8

EMB-145-145 D Houston 120-

40B/Draft 

40C

A FSI

751 FlightSafety 

International(10

8

EMB-145-145 D Houston 120-

40B/Draft 

40C

A FSI

786 FlightSafety 

International(10

8

EMB-145-145 D Houston 120-

40B/Draft 

40C

A FSI

982 FlightSafety 

International(01

7

ERJ-170-100 D Paris 120-

40B/JARSTD 1A 

Amdt 3

A FSI

968 FlightSafety 

International(02

3 North)

ERJ-170-100 D St Louis 120-

40B/JARSTD 1A 

Amdt 3

A FSI

1036 FlightSafety 

International(02

3 North)

ERJ-170-100 D St Louis 120-

40B/JARSTD 1A 

Amdt 3

A FSI

944 FlightSafety 

International(02

3 North)

ERJ-170-100 D St Louis 120-

40B/JARSTD 1A 

Amdt 3

A FSI
Page 71

1011 JetBlue 

Airways

ERJ-170-100 D Orlando 120-

40B/JARSTD 1A 

Amdt 3

A CAE

902 US Airways, 

Inc.

ERJ-170-100 D Charlotte 120-

40B/JARSTD 1A 

Amdt 3

A CAE

1117 Compass 

Airlines, LLC

ERJ-170-200 D Minneapoli

s

120-

40B/JARSTD 1A 

Amdt 3

A FSI

1317 FlightSafety 

International

ERJ-170-200 D Cincinnati 14 CFR 

Part 60 

Change 1, 

Appendix 

A

Q FSI

1203 FlightSafety 

International(02

3 North)

ERJ-190-100 D St Louis 14 CFR 

Part 60 

Change 1, 

Appendix 

A

A FSI

949 JetBlue 

Airways

ERJ-190-100 D Orlando 120-

40B/JARSTD 1A 

Amdt 3

A CAE

928 JetBlue 

Airways

ERJ-190-100 D Orlando 120-

40B/JARA CAE
Page 72

STD 1A 

Amdt 3

940 JetBlue 

Airways

ERJ-190-100 D Orlando 120-

40B/JARSTD 1A 

Amdt 3

A CAE

662 FedEx MD-10-30F C Memphis 120-40B A CAE

674 FedEx MD-10-30F C Memphis 120-40B A CAE

315 Boeing US 

Training and 

Flight Services, 

LLC

MD-11-11 D Miami 120-40B A CAE

364 FedEx MD-11-11 D Anchorage 120-

40B/Draft 

40C

A CAE

348 Pan Am 

International 

Flight Academy

MD-11-11 D Memphis 120-40B A CAE

326 United Parcel 

Service

MD-11-11 D Louisville 120-40B A CAE

648 FedEx MD-11-11F D Memphis 120-

40B/Draft 

40C

A CAE

638 FedEx MD-11-11F D Memphis 120-

40B/Draft 

40C

A CAE

989 FedEx MD-11-11F D Memphis 120- A CAE
Page 73

40B/Draft 

40C

1037 United Parcel 

Service

MD-11-11F D Anchorage 120-

40B/Draft 

40C

A CAE

298 Delta Air Lines, 

Inc.

MD-88-88 C Atlanta 120-40A A LINK

241 Pan Am 

International 

Flight Academy

MD-88-88 C Henderson 120-40A A CAE

302 Pan Am 

International 

Flight Academy

MD-88-88 C Miami 120-40A A LINK

390 Delta Air Lines, 

Inc.

MD-88-88 D Atlanta 120-40B A CAE

368 Delta Air Lines, 

Inc.

MD-88-88 D Atlanta 120-40B A CAE

253 Delta Air Lines, 

Inc.

MD-88-88 D Atlanta 120-40B A LINK

459 Delta Air Lines, 

Inc.

MD-90-30 D Atlanta 120-40B A CAE

1303 FlightSafety 

International 

172

PC-12/47E D Dallas-Fort 

Worth 

Airport

14 CFR 

Part 60 

Change 1, 

Appendix 

A

A FSI

292 FlightSafety SD-3-60 C Flushing 120-40A A FSI
Page 74

International(01

1

373 Pan Am Int. 

Flight Academy

SF-340-340A C Minneapoli

s

120-40B A FSI

211 FlightSafety 

International(10

8

SF-340-340A D Houston 120-40B A FSI

358 Pan Am 

International 

Flight Academy

SF-340-340B C Miami 120-40B A CAE

408 FlightSafety 

International(10

8

SF-340-340B D Houston 120-40B A FSI

374 Pan Am Int. 

Flight Academy

SF-340-340B D Minneapoli

s

120-40B A FSI

633 Pan Am Int. 

Flight Academy

SF-340-340B D Minneapoli

s

120-40B A CAE

464 FlightSafety 

International(12

0

SA-227-DC C San 

Antonio

120-40B A FSI
Page 75

Appendix B – Letter sent to the International Committee on Aviation

Training in Extended Envelopes (ICATEE)

As you know we have requested your help in estimating the potential cost to FSTD sponsors for developing and 

implementing the FSTD modifications for full stall, upset recognition and recovery (URT), and icing as specified in 

Attachment B of the draft ICATEE R&T final report. We are estimating the cost an FSTD sponsor would incur per 

FSTD to modify Levels C and D FSTDs to support training for full stall, upset recovery, and airborne icing. We 

are hoping to estimate a typical cost for each of the following scenarios: 

• A complex project - A typical currently qualified (grandfathered) FSTD used for the above described part 

121 training tasks for which minimal FSTD data support is available (simulator data support from the 

aircraft manufacturer is not available).

• A simple project - A typical currently qualified (grandfathered) FSTD used for the above described part 

121 training tasks that has an aircraft manufacturer’s supported FSTD data package and would use an 

FSTD manufacturer to install the updates on their FSTD. 

• A future (not yet qualified) Level D FSTD that will be used in fixed wing training for all of the above 

described training tasks.

If you would complete the table below it would be very helpful to us. We would also like to discuss this with you 

by telephone if possible. Please let us know a convenient time for you.
Page 76

Cost to develop and implement FSTD modifications for full stall, URT, and icing as specified in 

Attachment B of the draft ICATEE R&T final report Cost

 Complex (Grandfathered FSTD)

 Development costs (1)

 Cost per FSTD unit not including development costs (2)

 Number of hours of lost training time during installation, testing and tuning

 Simple (Grandfathered FSTD)

 Development costs (1)

 Cost per FSTD unit not including development costs (2)

 Number of hours of lost training time during installation, testing and tuning

 Future Fixed Wing Level D Training Device (incremental costs for adding on Attachment B specs)

 Difference in cost between a Level D FSTD today and a Level D FSTD meeting attachment B specs.

(1) Development costs are those costs that can potentially be distributed over FSTDs that share a common 

aerodynamic model provided by a single source. These costs include both the cost of developing the 

aerodynamic model as well as developing validation data (flight test data or engineering simulation data as 

described in Attachment B) for implementation on individual FSTDs. Please itemize development costs where 

possible (i.e. stall and icing models). 

(2) Costs per FSTD don't include development costs but include all other costs incurred on a per FSTD unit such as 

installation, subject matter expert (SME)/QTG testing, and hardware modification.
Page 77

Appendix C Letter to the Simulator Technical Issues Group (STIG)

We are trying to estimate the cost of modifying Level C and D FSTDs used to provide Part 121 training to meet the 

realistic gusting crosswinds scenarios and ground reaction modeling for bounced landing recovery training as 

described below. We request your help in estimating the cost an FSTD sponsor would incur per unit to develop and 

implement these FSTD modifications. We are hoping to estimate a typical cost for each of the following scenarios: 

• A typical currently qualified (grandfathered) Level C/D FSTD used for each of the training tasks described 

below;

• A future (not yet qualified) Level C/D FSTD that will be used in fixed wing training for both training tasks 

described.

Realistic Gusting Crosswinds Scenarios - We are estimating the cost to FSTD sponsors to develop, install and test 

FSTD wind profiles that simulate realistic gusting crosswind scenarios that with appropriate instructor controls, 

provide surface wind speed, direction and gusts during takeoff and landing training tasks. The realistic gusting 

crosswind profiles available to the instructor should have been tuned in intensity and variation to require pilot 

intervention to avoid runway departure during takeoff or landing roll. The intensity and variation of the gusting 

crosswind profiles may be based upon wind profiles derived from publicly available data sources (such as the 

Windshear Training Aid) and tuned by subject matter expert (SME) pilots to achieve the required training 

objectives. For more information see NTSB safety recommendations: A-10-110 and A-10-111.

Ground Reaction Modeling for Bounced Landing Recovery Training - We are estimating the cost to FSTD 

sponsors to evaluate and modify (as necessary) aerodynamic and/or ground reaction modeling for bounced landing

recovery training tasks. The FSTD’s ground reaction/aerodynamic modeling must properly simulate the effects of a 

bounced or skipped landing as appropriate for the simulated aircraft and conditions as determined acceptable by a 

subject matter expert pilot. This should include indications of a crash typically seen where a bounced landing 

recovery is improperly executed (such as a tail strike). For more information please see NTSB safety 

recommendations: A-00-93 and A-11-69.
Page 78

The FAA has not determined the number of grandfathered FSTDs that will likely require extensive modification to 

their aerodynamic and/or ground reaction models to conduct bounced landing recovery tasks. It is anticipated that 

many existing (grandfathered) FSTDs will require little to no modification to pass a subjective assessment by a 

qualified subject matter expert (SME) pilot for this training task. Since the average cost per FSTD unit may differ 

depending on whether or not extensive modification is required, we ask for a separate cost estimate for each of these 

possibilities and the percent of Level C/D FSTDs (see footnote 2 below the table) for each. 

Cost of FSTD modifications for gusting crosswind scenarios and ground reaction modeling 

for bounced landing recovery training as described above.

Cost

% of 

total (2)

 Gusting Crosswind Scenarios (Grandfathered FSTD)

 Average cost per FSTD unit (1)

 Number of hours of lost training time during installation, testing and tuning

 Bounced Landing Recovery Training Tasks (Grandfathered FSTD)

 Average cost per FSTD unit (1) that might require extensive modification to

aerodynamic or ground reaction models and % of total FSTDs (2) that may require such 

extensive modification

 Average cost per FSTD unit (1) that would not require extensive modification to

aerodynamic or ground reaction models 

 Number of hours of lost training time during installation, testing and tuning

 Future (not yet qualified) Fixed Wing Level C/D Training Device (incremental costs)

 Difference in cost between a Level C/D FSTD qualified under current Part 60 standards 

and a Level C/D FSTD evaluated and modeled to conduct the above described training tasks.

(1) Costs per FSTD unit including any engineering analysis, software/model development costs, installation 

cost, subject matter expert (SME) testing, tuning, and hardware modification. Please provide an estimate of 

average cost per FSTD unit. 

(2) Please provide an estimated percentage of total Level C/D FSTDs (used in part 121 training) that will likely 

require extensive modifications to aerodynamic and/or ground reaction models to pass a subjective 

assessment by an SME pilot. 
Page 79

Appendix D FSTDs Grouped by Aerodynamic Model Sources
Page 80

Aircraft Type Model Source

Simple/ Shared 

Complex FSTDs

BE-1900-D FSI Complex 3

CL-600-2B19 Bombardier Simple 16

CL-600-2C10 Bombardier Simple 9

CL-600-2D24 Bombardier Simple 4

DC-10-10 Boeing (Douglas) Complex 2

DC-10-30

Boeing (Douglas) Complex 3

MD-10-30F

DC-9-30 Boeing (Douglas) Complex 3

DC-9-82 Boeing (Douglas) Complex 8

DHC-8-100 CAE Complex 1

DHC-8-100

FSI Complex 9

DHC-8-200

DHC-8-300 FSI Complex 6

DHC-8-300 CAE Complex 1

DHC-8-400 Bombardier Simple 5

EMB-120-120 FSI Complex 2

EMB-145-145 FSI Complex 9

EMB-145-145 CAE Complex 6

ERJ-170-170 Embraer Simple 8

ERJ-190-190 Embraer Simple 4

MD-11-11

Boeing (Douglas) Complex 8

MD-11-11F

MD-88-88 Boeing (Douglas) Complex 6

MD-90-30 Boeing (Douglas) Complex 1

PC-12/47E FSI Complex 1

SD-3-60 Unknown (FSI) Complex 1

SF-340-340A Unknown (FSI) Complex 2

SF-340-340B Unknown (FSI) Complex 2

SF-340-340B Unknown (CAE) Complex 2

SA-227-DC FSI Complex 1
Page 81

Appendix E New FSTDs Initially Qualified in the Years 2003-2012

Simulator 

ID Company Name Make Model Series City Name Start Date

826 US Airways, Inc. CL-600-2B19 Phoenix 1/7/2003

827 FlightSafety International(032 BE-300-300 Wichita 1/7/2003

831 FlightSafety International(073 CE-500-550 Orlando 1/28/2003

832 CAE SimuFlite Inc. LR-60-60 Dallas 1/28/2003

835 FlightSafety International(068 DASALT-FALCON-2000 Columbus 2/4/2003

834 FlightSafety International(073 CE-525-525A Orlando 2/11/2003

837 CAE SimuFlite Inc. HAWKER-800XP-800XP Dallas 2/11/2003

836 CAE SimuFlite Inc. DASALT-FALCON-2000 Dallas 2/25/2003

838 CAE SimuFlite Inc. CL-600-2C10 Phoenix 3/4/2003

840 CAE SimuFlite Inc. CL-600-2B19 Phoenix 3/11/2003

841 CAE SimuFlite Inc. EMB-145-145 Phoenix 3/11/2003

842 FlightSafety International(073 CE-560-560XL Orlando 3/18/2003

843 FlightSafety International(108 HAWKER-800XP-800XP Houston 3/25/2003

845 FlightSafety International(108 ATR-42-500 Houston 4/1/2003

847 FlightSafety International 042 CL-600-2C10 Atlanta 4/1/2003

846 FlightSafety International(023 CL-600-2C10 St Louis 4/8/2003

844 SIMCOM Training Center CE-500-550 Scottsdale 4/29/2003

850 FlightSafety International 172 CL-600-2C10 Dallas 6/24/2003

854 CAE SimuFlite Inc. AMD-50-900EX Dallas 7/22/2003

853 CAE SimuFlite Inc. BAE-125-800A Dallas 7/23/2003

859 CAE SimuFlite Inc. AMD-50-900 Dallas 8/26/2003

860 FlightSafety International(007 GA-V-SP Savannah 9/2/2003

861 Bombardier Aerospace BD-100-1A10 Dallas 9/9/2003

862 ExpressJet Airlines, Inc. EMB-145-145 Houston 9/23/2003

863 FlightSafety International 172 GA-200-200 Dallas 10/7/2003

865 Delta Air Lines, Inc. A-330-223 Atlanta 10/21/2003

874 FlightSafety International(012 DASALT-FALCON900EXEASY Teterboro 11/18/2003

880 Boeing US Training and Flight Services, 

LLC B-737-800 Atlanta 12/16/2003

882 Boeing US Training and Flight Services, 

LLC B-737-700 Atlanta 12/18/2003

888 FlightSafety International(005 BD-700-1A10 New Castle 2/24/2004

889 FlightSafety International(032 BE-300-B300 Wichita 2/24/2004
Page 82

Simulator 

ID Company Name Make Model Series City Name Start Date

890 FlightSafety International(108 ATR-72-212A Houston 3/30/2004

893 FlightSafety International(018 CE-680-680 Wichita 4/20/2004

894 FlightSafety International(032 BE-200-200 Wichita 5/4/2004

896 FlightSafety International(018 CE-560-560XLS Wichita 6/8/2004

897 CAE SimuFlite Inc. CL-600-2D24 Phoenix 6/15/2004

898 FlightSafety International(012 DASALT-FALCON2000EXEASY Teterboro 6/29/2004

899 FlightSafety International(030 CL-600-2C10 Salt Lake City 8/3/2004

902 US Airways, Inc. ERJ-170-100 Charlotte 8/10/2004

903 CAE SimuFlite Inc. CE-750-750 Dallas 8/17/2004

904 FlightSafety International 172 EMB-145-145 Dallas 8/31/2004

907 FlightSafety International(018 CE-525-525B Wichita 10/5/2004

911 FlightSafety International 042 BE-200-B200 Atlanta 12/17/2004

916 CAE SimuFlite Inc. BE-400-A Dallas 3/15/2005

913 FlightSafety International(007 GA-IV-X Savannah 3/29/2005

919 JetBlue Airways A-320-232 Orlando 4/26/2005

920 JetBlue Airways A-320-232 Orlando 5/10/2005

921 JetBlue Airways A-320-232 Orlando 5/12/2005

924 JetBlue Airways A-320-232 Orlando 5/24/2005

927 FlightSafety International 172 GA-100-100 Dallas 5/24/2005

928 JetBlue Airways ERJ-190-100 Orlando 6/28/2005

930 FlightSafety International(023 CL-600-2C10 St Louis 8/23/2005

931 FlightSafety International(005 HAWKER-800XP-800XP New Castle 10/25/2005

936 Southwest Airlines B-737-700 Dallas 2/28/2006

938 FlightSafety International(007 GA-V-SP Savannah 2/28/2006

940 JetBlue Airways ERJ-190-100 Orlando 3/21/2006

937 FlightSafety International(073 CE-680-680 Orlando 4/4/2006

942 SIMCOM Training Center BE-90-C90A Glendale 4/4/2006

944 FlightSafety International(023 North) ERJ-170-100 St Louis 5/2/2006

948 FlightSafety International(005 BD-100-1A10 New Castle 6/6/2006

949 JetBlue Airways ERJ-190-100 Orlando 6/6/2006
Page 83

Simulator 

ID Company Name Make Model Series City Name Start Date

941 Kalitta Air, LLC B-747-200 Ypsilanti 6/13/2006

950 FlightSafety International(018 CE-525-525A Wichita 6/13/2006

952 Evergreen International Airlines B-747-200 Denver 6/27/2006

953 FlightSafety International 172 DASALT-FALCON2000EXEASY Dallas 7/25/2006

955 Boeing US Training and Flight Services, 

LLC B-737-800 Seattle 8/15/2006

956 FlightSafety International(005 GA-V-SP New Castle 8/15/2006

957 Boeing US Training and Flight Services, 

LLC B-737-800 Seattle 8/15/2006

959 SIMCOM Training Center CE-525-525 Orlando 8/29/2006

963 FlightSafety International(026 P-180-180 West Palm Beach 10/3/2006

965 FlightSafety International 172 GA-150-150 Dallas 10/31/2006

967 FlightSafety International(068 CE-680-680 Columbus 11/14/2006

966 FlightSafety International 1452 HAWKER-850XP-850XP Farnborough 11/28/2006

969 Boeing US Training and Flight Services, 

LLC B-777-300ER Seattle 12/6/2006

968 FlightSafety International(023 North) ERJ-170-100 St Louis 12/19/2006

970 FlightSafety International(032 RAYTHN-HAWKER-4000 Wichita 1/30/2007

972 FlightSafety International(023 CL-600-2B19 St Louis 2/6/2007

976 FlightSafety International(068 CE-560-560XL Columbus 2/27/2007

977 FlightSafety International(007 GA-IV-X Savannah 3/6/2007

978 Boeing US Training and Flight Services, 

LLC B-737-700 Miami 3/13/2007

824 FlightSafety International 1452 CE-525-525A Farnborough 3/20/2007

979 FlightSafety International(018 CE-510-510 Wichita 3/20/2007

982 FlightSafety International(017 ERJ-170-100 Paris 3/27/2007

983 CAE NETC DASALT-FALCON900EXEASY Morristown 3/27/2007

984 CAE NETC DASALT-FALCON2000EXEASY Morristown 3/29/2007

981 FlightSafety International(017 DASALT-FALCON2000EXEASY Paris 4/2/2007

985 FlightSafety International(017 DASALT-FALCON900EXEASY Paris 4/4/2007

987 CAE NETC DASALT-FALCON-7X Morristown 4/19/2007

988 FlightSafety International(073 CE-525-525B Orlando 5/1/2007

989 FedEx MD-11-11F Memphis 5/2/2007

986 FlightSafety International(018 CE-500-560 Wichita 5/15/2007
Page 84

Simulator 

ID Company Name Make Model Series City Name Start Date

980 SIMCOM ParkSouth Training Center BE-400-A Orlando 5/22/2007

1003 FlightSafety International(073 CE-680-680 Orlando 8/2/2007

1002 US Airways, Inc. CL-600-2D24 Phoenix 8/7/2007

1004 United Airlines B-737-800 Houston 8/14/2007

1006 FlightSafety International(068 GA-200-200 Columbus 8/28/2007

1007 FlightSafety International(005 Raythn-390-390 New Castle 9/20/2007

1008 FlightSafety International(029 DHC-8-400 Seattle 10/2/2007

1010 FlightSafety International(023 CL-600-2D24 St Louis 10/16/2007

1011 JetBlue Airways ERJ-170-100 Orlando 10/30/2007

1016 CAE NETC GA-IV-X Morristown 12/10/2007

1017 CAE NETC GA-V-SP Morristown 12/12/2007

1012 United Parcel Service B-747-400 Anchorage 12/18/2007

1018 Flyright, Inc. BE-200-B200 Concord 1/8/2008

1020 SIMCOM ParkSouth Training Center ECLPS-EA500-EA500 Orlando 1/8/2008

1029 FlightSafety International(004 GA-V-SP Long Beach 2/26/2008

1030 FlightSafety International(004 GA-IV-X Long Beach 2/28/2008

1028 FlightSafety International(023 North) DHC-8-400 St Louis 3/4/2008

1031 FlightSafety International(073 CE-560-560XLS Orlando 3/18/2008

1032 FedEx B-757-200 Memphis 3/25/2008

1033 FlightSafety International(032 HAWKER-900XP-900XP Wichita 3/25/2008

1036 FlightSafety International(023 North) ERJ-170-100 St Louis 4/8/2008

1034 CAE NETC HAWKER-800XP-800XP Morristown 4/29/2008

1037 United Parcel Service MD-11-11F Anchorage 4/29/2008

1035 SIMCOM ParkSouth Training Center CE-500-560 Orlando 5/20/2008

1041 FedEx B-757-200 Memphis 6/3/2008

1045 FlightSafety International(018 CE-560-560XLS+ Wichita 7/8/2008

1060 FlightSafety International 1452 CE-510-510 Farnborough 7/10/2008

1046 Delta Air Lines, Inc. A-330-223 Atlanta 7/22/2008

1048 FlightSafety International(018 CE-208-B Wichita 8/5/2008

1052 FlightSafety International 042 BE-300-B300 Atlanta 9/2/2008
Page 85

Simulator 

ID Company Name Make Model Series City Name Start Date

1059 Pan Am International Flight Academy B-737-400 Miami 9/9/2008

1064 Pan Am International Flight Academy B-747-341 Miami 10/7/2008

1066 FlightSafety International(032 HAWKER-750 Wichita 10/21/2008

1067 Pinnacle Airlines, Inc. CL-600-2D24 Eagan 10/21/2008

1068 US Airways, Inc. A-320-232 Phoenix 11/4/2008

1073 FlightSafety International(032 BE-90-C90GTI Wichita 12/9/2008

1074 US Airways, Inc. A-330-223 Charlotte 12/9/2008

1076 FedEx B-777-FS2 Memphis 12/16/2008

1080 CAE NETC BD-100-1A10 Morristown 12/16/2008

1081 FlightSafety International(007 GA-IV-X Savannah 1/5/2009

1082 FlightSafety International(007 GA-V-SP Savannah 1/8/2009

1079 US Airways, Inc. A-320-200 Charlotte 1/15/2009

1091 Boeing US Training and Flight Services, 

LLC B-747-400F Seattle 1/27/2009

1092 Atlas Air, Inc B-747-400F Miami 2/3/2009

1097 Boeing US Training and Flight Services, 

LLC B-737-800 Miami 2/24/2009

1100 FlightSafety International 172 GA-150-150 Dallas 2/24/2009

1101 FedEx B-777-FS2 Memphis 2/24/2009

1133 FlightSafety International 1452 HAWKER-750 Farnborough 3/10/2009

1104 Pan Am International Flight Academy B-737-800 Miami 3/17/2009

1105 FlightSafety International(068 HAWKER-900XP-900XP Columbus 3/24/2009

1121 FlightSafety International 1452 GA-V-SP Farnborough 4/1/2009

1106 FSC Dallas, LLC B-737-800 Amsterdam 4/7/2009

1108 CAE NETC GA-200-200 Morristown 4/14/2009

1107 CAE SimuFlite Inc. BD-700-1A10 Dallas 4/28/2009

1132 FlightSafety International 1452 CE-680-680 Farnborough 5/1/2009

1109 FSC Dallas, LLC A-320-232 Dallas 5/5/2009

1111 FlightSafety International(073 CE-510-510 Orlando 5/12/2009

1114 Delta Air Lines, Inc. B-777-200LR Atlanta 5/12/2009

1110 FlightSafety International(018 CE-560-560XLS+ Wichita 5/19/2009

1115 Southwest Airlines B-737-700 Dallas 5/19/2009
Page 86

Simulator 

ID Company Name Make Model Series City Name Start Date

1117 Compass Airlines, LLC ERJ-170-200 Minneapolis 6/2/2009

1119 FlightSafety International(005 GA-200-200 New Castle 6/9/2009

1120 FlightSafety International(026 P-180-180 West Palm Beach 7/14/2009

1131 FlightSafety International 1452 BE-400-A Farnborough 7/28/2009

1136 United Airlines B-737-800 Houston 9/1/2009

1126 CAE SimuFlite Inc. EMB-500-500 Dallas 9/15/2009

1139 CAE NETC CE-525-525B Morristown 10/6/2009

1143 American Airlines B-737-800 Dallas 10/20/2009

1144 Boeing UK Training and Flight Services 

Ltd B-737-700 West Sussex 10/20/2009

1145 Boeing UK Training and Flight Services 

Ltd B-737-800 West Sussex 10/22/2009

1140 United Parcel Service B-767-300ER Louisville 10/27/2009

1142 Flight Crew Systems, Inc. (d.b.a. LOFT) CE-525-525 Carlsbad 10/27/2009

1147 FlightSafety International(033 DHC-8-400 Toronto 11/17/2009

1148 FlightSafety International 006 LR-45-45 Wichita 11/17/2009

1159 FlightSafety International(018 CE-525-525C Wichita 3/30/2010

1157 FedEx B-757-200 Memphis 4/6/2010

1161 Pan Am International Flight Academy B-737-800 Miami 5/4/2010

1168 Pan Am International Flight Academy B-737-800 Henderson 5/18/2010

1170 CAE SimuFlite Inc. AMD-50-50EX Dallas 5/18/2010

1165 CAE SimuFlite Inc. EMB-505-505 Dallas 6/8/2010

1175 Airbus A-320-232 Miami Springs 6/22/2010

1167 Boeing US Training and Flight Services, 

LLC B-757-200 Miami 7/20/2010

1183 Boeing US Training and Flight Services, 

LLC B-767-300ER Miami 7/21/2010

1184 Boeing US Training and Flight Services, 

LLC B-787-8 Seattle 7/26/2010

1185 Boeing US Training and Flight Services, 

LLC B-787-8 Seattle 8/2/2010

1194 US Airways, Inc. CL-600-2C10 Phoenix 9/21/2010

1137 United Airlines B-737-800 Houston 10/5/2010

1195 Airbus A-320-200 Miami Springs 10/5/2010

1203 FlightSafety International(023 North) ERJ-190-100 St Louis 10/19/2010

1204 FlightSafety International 172 DASALT-FALCON-7X Dallas 11/2/2010
Page 87

Simulator 

ID Company Name Make Model Series City Name Start Date

1208 FlightSafety International(032 BE-300-300 Wichita 11/16/2010

1211 Bombardier Aerospace CL-600-2B16 Dallas 12/14/2010

1222 Boeing UK Training and Flight Services 

Ltd B-787-8 Crawley 4/20/2011

1231 Boeing Training and Flight Services B-777-200 Singapore 5/11/2011

1227 Boeing Training and Flight Services B-787-8 Singapore 5/16/2011

1228 Boeing Training and Flight Services B-787-8 Singapore 5/23/2011

1232 Boeing Training and Flight Services B-777-300ER Singapore 5/23/2011

1234 Kalitta Air, LLC B-747-400 Ypsilanti 6/28/2011

1239 CAE NETC CE-680-680 Morristown 6/28/2011

1241 Pan Am International Flight Academy B-737-800 Miami 8/9/2011

1243 FlightSafety International(029 DHC-8-300 Seattle 8/29/2011

1242 FlightSafety International(029 DHC-8-200 Seattle 8/30/2011

1245 United Airlines B-787-8 Houston 9/20/2011

1248 FlightSafety International(030 CL-600-2C10 Salt Lake City 11/1/2011

1225 CAE SimuFlite Inc. BE-300-300 Dallas 12/13/2011

1249 American Airlines B-737-800 Dallas 12/13/2011

1250 US Airways, Inc. A-320-200 Charlotte 12/13/2011

1252 FlightSafety International(2501 GA-V-SP Hong Kong 1/9/2012

1255 Airbus A-320-200 Miami Springs 2/27/2012

1259 FlightSafety International 172 DASALT-FALCON900EXEASY Dallas 2/28/2012

1258 FlightSafety International A-320-200 Tulsa 3/27/2012

1260 FedEx B-777-FS2 Memphis 4/24/2012

1261 FlightSafety International(017 DASALT-FALCON-7X Paris 4/24/2012

1263 ProFlight LLC CE-525-525B Carlsbad 5/8/2012

1262 FlightSafety International 172 GA-280-280 Dallas 5/15/2012

1253 FlightSafety International(007 GA-VI-VI Savannah 5/22/2012

1264 Boeing US Training and Flight Services, 

LLC B-747-8 Seattle 6/25/2012

1268 Southwest Airlines B-737-800 Dallas 7/10/2012

1218 FlightSafety International(007 GA-VI-VI Savannah 8/14/2012

1269 FlightSafety International(068 BD-700-1A10 Columbus 8/14/2012

1271 FlightSafety International 172 GA-V-SP Dallas-Fort Worth 9/11/2012
Page 88

Simulator 

ID Company Name Make Model Series City Name Start Date

1270 FlightSafety International 172 GA-IV-X Dallas-Fort Worth 9/18/2012

1282 Boeing Training and Flight Services B-737-800 Singapore 10/30/2012

1289 American Airlines B-777-300ER Dallas 12/4/2012

1287 Airbus A-330-200 Miami Springs 12/10/2012

1288 Airbus A-340-313 Miami Springs 12/13/2012
Page 89

Appendix F List of Acronyms

FSTD Flight Simulation Training Devices

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

ICAO International Civil Aviation Organization
Page 90

Appendix G Full Definitions 38

Flight Simulation Training Device (FSTD) – A full flight simulator (FFS) or a flight training 

device (FTD).

FSTD Directive —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.

Flight Training Device (FTD) —a replica of aircraft instruments, equipment, panels, and 

controls in an open flight deck area or an enclosed aircraft flight deck replica. It includes the 

equipment and computer programs necessary to represent aircraft (or set of aircraft) operations in 

ground and flight conditions having the full range of capabilities of the systems installed in the 

device as described in part 60 of this chapter and the qualification performance standard (QPS) 

for a specific FTD qualification level. (Part 1)

Full flight simulator (FFS) means a replica of a specific type; or make, model, and series aircraft 

cockpit. It includes the assemblage of equipment and computer programs necessary to represent 

aircraft operations in ground and flight conditions, a visual system providing an out-of-thecockpit view, a system that provides cues at least equivalent to those of a three-degree-offreedom motion system, and has the full range of capabilities of the systems installed in the 

device as described in part 60 of this chapter and the qualification performance standards (QPS) 

for a specific FFS qualification level.

 

38 Appendix F to Part 60—Definitions and Abbreviations for Flight Simulation Training Devices, Electronic Code 

of Federal Regulations, http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/textidx?c=ecfr&SID=9505f8bab8371e9001265430eb5286f7&rgn=div9&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.1.1.0.1.25.6&idno=

14
Page 91

Sponsor – a certificate holder who seeks or maintains FSTD qualification and is responsible for 

the prescribed actions as prescribed in this part and the QPS for the appropriate FSTD and 

qualification level.

Objective Test —a quantitative measurement and evaluation of FSTD performance

Qualification Performance Standard (QPS) —the collection of procedures and criteria used 

when conducting objective and subjective tests, to establish FSTD qualification levels. The 

Qualification Performance Standards are published in the appendices to this part, as follows: 

Appendix A, for Airplane Simulators; Appendix B, for Airplane Flight Training Devices; 

Appendix C, for Helicopter Simulators; Appendix D, for Helicopter Flight Training Devices; 

Appendix E, for Quality Management Systems for Flight Simulation Training Devices; and 

Appendix F, for Definitions and Abbreviations for Flight Simulation Training Devices.

Qualification Test Guide (QTG) —the primary reference document used for evaluating an 

aircraft FSTD. It contains test results, statements of compliance and capability, the configuration 

of the aircraft simulated, and other information for the evaluator to assess the FSTD against the 

applicable regulatory criteria.

Subjective Test —a qualitative assessment of the performance and operation of the FSTD.
Page 92

Appendix H Definitions of FSTD Levels

FTD Level Descriptions 

a. The following is a general description of each level of FTD. Detailed standards and tests for the various levels of 

FTDs are fully defined in Attachments 1 through 3 of this appendix. 39

(1) Level 4. A device that may have an open airplane-specific flight deck area, or an enclosed airplane-specific 

flight deck and at least one operating system. Air/ground logic is required (no aerodynamic programming required). 

All displays may be flat/LCD panel representations or actual representations of displays in the aircraft. All controls, 

switches, and knobs may be touch sensitive activation (not capable of manual manipulation of the flight controls) or 

may physically replicate the aircraft in control operation.

(2) Level 5. A device that may have an open airplane-specific flight deck area, or an enclosed airplane-specific 

flight deck; generic aerodynamic programming; at least one operating system; and control loading that is 

representative of the simulated airplane only at an approach speed and configuration. All displays may be flat/LCD 

panel representations or actual representations of displays in the aircraft. Primary and secondary flight controls 

(e.g., rudder, aileron, elevator, flaps, spoilers/speed brakes, engine controls, landing gear, nosewheel steering, trim, 

brakes) must be physical controls. All other controls, switches, and knobs may be touch sensitive activation.

(3) Level 6. A device that has an enclosed airplane-specific flight deck; airplane-specific aerodynamic 

programming; all applicable airplane systems operating; control loading that is representative of the simulated 

airplane throughout its ground and flight envelope; and significant sound representation. All displays may be 

flat/LCD panel representations or actual representations of displays in the aircraft, but all controls, switches, and 

knobs must physically replicate the aircraft in control operation.

The following is a general description of a level 7 FTD proposed by this rule.

(4) Level 7. A Level 7 device is one that has an enclosed airplane-specific flight deck and aerodynamic program 

with all applicable airplane systems operating and control loading that is representative of the simulated airplane 

throughout its ground and flight envelope and significant sound representation. All displays may be flat/LCD panel 

representations or actual representations of displays in the aircraft, but all controls, switches, and knobs must 

physically replicate the aircraft in control operation. It also has a visual system that provides an out-of-the-flight 

deck view, providing cross-flight deck viewing (for both pilots simultaneously) of a field-of-view of at least 200 

horizontally and 40° vertically.

FFS Level Descriptions (based upon proposed Part 60 NPRM)

Level D. A device that has an enclosed airplane-specific flight deck; airplane-specific 

aerodynamic and ground handling programming; all applicable airplane systems operating; static 

and dynamic control loading that is specific to the simulated airplane throughout its ground and 

flight envelope; and aircraft specific sound representation that has been objectively measured. It 

also has a visual system that provides an out-of-the-flight deck view, providing cross-flight deck 

viewing (for both pilots simultaneously) of a field-of-view of at least 200° horizontally and 40° 

vertically. Additionally, it requires motion cueing in at least six degrees of freedom (pitch, roll, 

yaw, surge, heave, and sway) and objectively measured airplane specific characteristic motion 

vibrations.

 39 Appendix B to part 60, 24. Levels of FTDs.
Page 93

Level C. A device that has an enclosed airplane-specific flight deck; airplane-specific 

aerodynamic and ground handling programming; all applicable airplane systems operating; static 

and dynamic control loading that is specific to the simulated airplane throughout its ground and 

flight envelope; and aircraft specific significant sound representation. It also has a visual system 

that provides an out-of-the-flight deck view, providing cross-flight deck viewing (for both pilots 

simultaneously) of a field-of-view of at least 200° horizontally and 40° vertically. Additionally, 

it requires motion cueing in at least six degrees of freedom (pitch, roll, yaw, surge, heave, and 

sway) and airplane specific motion special effects and buffets. Level C FSTDs are qualified to 

conduct the same tasks as Level D FSTDs, but are restricted from crediting certain training and 

testing for pilots that do not meet the experience requirements as defined in Part 121 Appendix 

H. 

Level B. A device that has an enclosed airplane-specific flight deck; airplane-specific 

aerodynamic and ground handling programming; all applicable airplane systems operating; static 

control loading that is specific to the simulated airplane throughout its ground and flight 

envelope; and basic aircraft sound representation. It also has a visual system that provides an 

out-of-the-flight deck view of at least 45° horizontally and 30° vertically. Additionally, it 

requires motion cueing in at least three degrees of freedom (pitch, roll, and heave) and airplane 

specific motion special effects and buffets. For certain training tasks such as takeoff, landing, 

and taxi, Level B FSTDs are qualified only for continuing qualification training. 

Level A. A device that has an enclosed airplane-specific flight deck; airplane-specific 

aerodynamic programming; all applicable airplane systems operating; static control loading that 

is specific to the simulated airplane throughout its ground and flight envelope; and basic aircraft 

sound representation. It also has a visual system that provides an out-of-the-flight deck view of 

at least 45° horizontally and 30° vertically. Additionally, it requires motion cueing in at least 

three degrees of freedom (pitch, roll, and heave). Level A FSTDs are not qualified to conduct 

most takeoff, landing, or taxi training tasks.