### 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 )

Ju ly 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 FST Ds 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 propos ing 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 ( Pub lic 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 F inal R ule) [ 78 FR 67800 (Nov. 12, 2013) ].
The Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final R ule 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 trai ning 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 F inal R ule within the “extended envelope” training provision, which further requires that these maneuvers be completed in an FSTD
. R evisions 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 th e Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training F inal R ule provides an ample amount of time for an FSTD s ponsor 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 t he 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 qua lified 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, to o 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, t he 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 alignme nt 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 upgrade s to the FSTDs to enable training required by the new Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training F inal R ule
. 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 expense s . These simulator revenues were accounted for as cost s 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 operati ons 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 p art 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 guid ance . This last set of change s 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, vis ual 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 (F TDs ) or full flight simulators (FFSs) ) , especially those us ed in training tasks required by the new Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training F inal R ule , as well as existing training requirements for operations using anti

- icing/de

- icing equipment.
. Because current FSTD evaluation standards in p art 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 as sist 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 re quired 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 manufacture d 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 subseque nt 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 Par t 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 m odifications to part 60 are also necessary for existing FSTDs to address bo unced 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 F inal R ule. However, the FAA noted that such modifications
were outside the scope of th at final rule and that new FSTD evaluation requirements w ould require revisions to the qualifications standards in part 60 (for newly qualified FSTDs) or an FSTD Directive (fo r 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 qu alified 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 airl in e transport pilot certificate in FSTD s . I t 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 a n FTD and a FFS is that a n FTD does not require a motion cueing system . The current F TD s 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 F TD ( L evel 7 FTD ) which would be qualified for these t raining tasks.

A ctive FSTDs and sponsor s 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 trainin g 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 p roposed 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 sec tion 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 D irective. 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 w ith 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 D irective 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 m ore 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
- st all maneuvers where recovery is initiated at the activation of the stall warning system. 2. Upset r ecovery training maneuvers that may result in exceed ing 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 ta sks 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 6 0, § 60.23(b).

### Page 11 5. Engine and a irframe i cing training maneuvers that demonstrate the aircraft specific effects of engine and airframe ice accretion. 6. Microburst and w indshear r ecovery m aneuvers

The first four fidelity improvements are necessary to support the new Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training F inal R ule ensuring that the training occurs in FSTDs that more accurately reflect the actual flight environment. The fift h 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
. T he 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 p art 60 technical standa rds 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 F FSs 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 F FSs a fter the p art 60 change becomes effective , w ould 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. N ewly 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 compliance 6



### . 

## b. **Baseline** This baseline pres umes status quo. No changes would be made to previously qualified FSTDs. 7 

### In the absence of the rule, t he 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 F FSs would meet the current standards defined by part 60 for all the provisions that we propose to align with ICAO.



## c. **The Proposal** W ithin three years of publication, sponsors of previously q ualified Levels C and D FSTDs that are used to train the specific training tasks defined in the FSTD D irective 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 s ponsor 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 perio d 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 t heir 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 fidel ity of newly manufactured FSTDs to conduct the new training tasks required by the Crewmember and Airc raft Dispatcher Training F inal R ule. 9 I n 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 N ational S imulator P rogram M anager to indicate that the requirements of the FSTD Directive have been met
. The N ational S imulator P rogram M anager
w ould then amend the FSTD’s Statement of Q ualification 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, n ewly qualified FSTDs would not require evaluation against th e proposed QPS requirements until up to two years 10 

### after the proposed changes become effective
.

Because t he proposal would impose requirements d ifferent ly 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 c ould 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 gr andfathering 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.

T o minimize the potential cost impact on industry, the propos ed 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 ar e 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 spec ifically approved for use in a p art 121 training program, the N ational S imulator P rogram 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 p art 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 p art 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 me e t s the requirements of the FSTD D irective. 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 f or 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. p art 121 fleet
.
• Level 4, 5, 6, and 7 FTDs
.
• Level A and Level B FFSs
. For the training tasks being addressed, it is widely
ass umed 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 F FSs in the NSP’s database that could potentially be used in p art 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 de vice in training.

• Helicopter FSTDs
.
• FSTDs that are known to not be used in a p art 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 a s 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, s ome sponsors of FSTDs used for p art 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 c enters 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 mo dels 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 obtain ed 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 pr oj ects . The 149 complex project simulators support training in 36 unique aircraft types that likely share an aerodynamic math model from a common
source . W e expect that 36 separate complex aerodynamic models/data packages would need to be upgraded (the cos ts of which could be distributed over multiple simulators) . The 173 simple project simulators suppor t training in 18 unique aircraft types that likely share an aerodynamic math model from a common source
. W e expect that 18 separate simple aerodynamic
m odels/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 s imulator 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 necess ary 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 A viation 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 bounce d 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 a irborne

### 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 rec ommendations made to the SPAW ARC are based up on Appendix B of the draft International Committee on Aviation Training in Extended Envelopes R esearch and Technical (R&T) Group’s final report. 17 

### W e asked ICATEE for estimates of (aerodynamic model) develop ment 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 Cost s To comply with the proposed FSTD Directiv e, 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 w ould 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 Rul emaking 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 sim ulation 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 c osts 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
am ong sponsors of FSTD s that simulate a common aircraft type
.

The d evelopment 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 s um 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 F inal R ule 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

- ic ing /de

- ic ing equipment. Th e 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 F inal R ule
. 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 obje ctive test cases, and software modification. Additionally, software and

20 A s well as in gusting crosswinds and bounced landings 21 FAA subject matter expert. This is estima ted 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 qualific ation. 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 (IOS s) 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 p er FSTD unit include s the implementation cost s 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 $54,80 7
. 23 

### Based on industry input we estimated that 45 hours of training would be lost as th e upd ates 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 i ncludes 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 t raining time during installation, testing and tuning times $5 0 0. The per unit hours is a weighted average of the hours for complex and for simple projects.

23 $54,807= [(173/3 2 2)*$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 publ ished 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 landin g to support the part 121 Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training F inal R ule 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 trai ning requir ed by the Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training F inal R ule.

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 individua l 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 subje ctive 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 train ing 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 t h is g roup to estimate the potential cost impact of evaluating and modifying FSTDs for these tasks (See Appen dix 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 i nclude 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 Modeli ng 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. S ummary 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 devel opment 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 bec ause we expect the se cost s 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 t he 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 F FSs that are newly qualified 26 

### after the final p art 60 rule becomes effectiv e (incl uding those not used in p art 121 training programs). Additionally, the proposal would also amend the QPS requirements for Level C and D F FSs 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 expe ct minimal incremental cost to meet the proposed standards

26 FSTDs receiving an initial evaluation as described in §60.15. New FS TDs 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 F inal R ule and the proposed standards for icing
. Based on industry feedback we estimate d 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** 
T o estimate the new FSTDs that will require evaluation under the proposed QPS amendments, the N ational S imulator P rogram 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 F FSs that may be qualifie d FSTD in the ten years after the final p art 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 (F TDs)

• 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 N ational S imulator P rogram records show that after excluding the FSTD’s listed above, 2 1 7 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 in cluded 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 Februa ry 21, 2013.

### Page 30 O n 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 pa rt 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 w e 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 fr om 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 p art 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 fl ight 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 ca pabilities 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 guida nce however, c ould 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 si gnificant 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 Pu sher 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 th e 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 bright ness than what currently exists in p art 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 whe ther 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 manu facturer to develop a standard qualification test guide (QTG) template and testing methods to meet the new standard. We estimate there are five FSTD manufact urers who might build new FSTDs resulting in total non

- recurring costs of $250,000. The manufactu rer 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 peri od which would result in a total cost of $2,485,000. 33 

### Hardwar e 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 to lerances (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 (t est 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 in to three major cost elements : those costs that would be incurred because of training that will be required by the new C rewmember and Aircraft D ispatcher T raining F inal R ule 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 Cre wmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training F inal R ule
. 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 r ecommendations.

### Page 35 

## a. **Benefit of Upgrading FSTDs to**  **S upport**  **N ew**  **Training rule**  The best way to understand the benefits of this proposed rule is to view it in conjunction with t he
new Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training F inal R ule
. 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 F inal R ule, 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 simulator s to meet the new, higher requirements of this proposal in support of the new Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final Rule (new training rule). T his incremental upgrade cost is disclosed here for comment. The cost to upgrade the simulator s 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 traini ng 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 O ffice 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 b e 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 trainin g rule.

Thus t he 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 trainin g requirements, in operations of the anti

- ic ing /de

- ic ing 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 Align**  **ing w**  **ith ICAO**

35 The total cost to upgrade FSTDs for the new training requirement s 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 kn owledge 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 r esolution, 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 FFS s . 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 incorpo rates 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 be nefits 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 sta ndards 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 r equired 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/JAR

STD 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/JAR

STD 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/JAR

STD 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/JAR

STD 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/JAR

STD 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/JAR

STD 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/JAR

STD 1A Amdt 3 A FSI

1067 Pinnacle Airlines, Inc. CL

- 600

- 2D24 D Eagan 120

- 40B/JAR

STD 1A Amdt 3 A FSI

1002 US Airways, Inc. CL

- 600

- 2D24 D Phoenix 120

- 40B/JAR

STD 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/JAR

A FSI

### Page 68 3 North) STD 1A Amdt 3 1008 FlightSafety International(02 9 DHC

- 8

- 400 D Seattle 120

- 40B/JAR

STD 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/JAR

STD 1A Amdt 3 A FSI

968 FlightSafety International(02 3 North) ERJ

- 170

- 100 D St Louis 120

- 40B/JAR

STD 1A Amdt 3 A FSI

1036 FlightSafety International(02 3 North) ERJ

- 170

- 100 D St Louis 120

- 40B/JAR

STD 1A Amdt 3 A FSI

944 FlightSafety International(02 3 North) ERJ

- 170

- 100 D St Louis 120

- 40B/JAR

STD 1A Amdt 3 A FSI

### Page 71 1011 JetBlue Airways ERJ

- 170

- 100 D Orlando 120

- 40B/JAR

STD 1A Amdt 3 A CAE

902 US Airways, Inc. ERJ

- 170

- 100 D Charlotte 120

- 40B/JAR

STD 1A Amdt 3 A CAE

1117 Compass Airlines, LLC ERJ

- 170

- 200 D Minneapoli
s 120

- 40B/JAR

STD 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/JAR

STD 1A Amdt 3 A CAE

928 JetBlue Airways ERJ

- 190

- 100 D Orlando 120

- 40B/JAR

A CAE

### Page 72 STD 1A Amdt 3 940 JetBlue Airways ERJ

- 190

- 100 D Orlando 120

- 40B/JAR

STD 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 sp ecified 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 estim ate 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 u s. 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 inc lude 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 the se 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 realist ic 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 up on wind profiles derived from public ly 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.

Gr ound R eaction 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 boun ced landing recovery training tasks
. The FSTD’s g round 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 e xpert 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 dete rmined 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 t raining 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 r equire 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 r equire 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 Aerod**  **ynamic Model Sources**

### Page 80 Aircraft Type Model Source Simple/ Shared FSTDs Complex 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

- FALCON

900EXEASY 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

- FALCON

2000EXEASY 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

- FALCON

2000EXEASY 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

- FALCON

900EXEASY Morristown 3/27/2007 984 CAE NETC DASALT

- FALCON

2000EXEASY Morristown 3/29/2007 981 FlightSafety International(017 DASALT

- FALCON

2000EXEASY Paris 4/2/2007 985 FlightSafety International(017 DASALT

- FALCON

900EXEASY 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

- FALCON

900EXEASY 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 

### F light S imulation T raining D evice (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. Flig ht 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 lev el. (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 conditio ns, a visual system providing an out

- of

- the

cockpit view, a system that provides cues at least equivalent to those of a three

- degree

- of

freedom motion system, and has the full range of capabilities of the systems installed in the device as described in par t 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/text

idx?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 Q ualification P erformance S tandards are published in the appendices to this part, as follows: Appendix A, for Airpl ane 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 configurat ion 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 L evels F TD 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 hav e 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 d evice 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 ap proach 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 control s, 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 aerodyn amic 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 representatio ns 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.


### F FS Level Descriptions (based upon proposed Part 60 NPR M) 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 airpla ne 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 sim ultaneously) 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 characterist ic 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 t he 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 simulta neously) 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 s ame 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 s pecial 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 a erodynamic 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 provi des 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, o r taxi training tasks.