CAE SimuFlite

PO Box 619119

2929 W Airfield Drive DFW Airport, TX 75261

United States

CAE Inc. Confidential a nd/or Proprietary Information 

### January 12, 2016

Docket Management Facility US Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue , SE West Building Ground Floor

Room W12

- 140 Washington, DC 20590

Dear Sir/Madam :

RE: Petition for Exemption to 14 CFR Part

- 6 0 Table C2A, Paragraph 4.b. 1, 4.b.2, and 4.b. 3

.



### CAE Inc. respectfully submits this request for an exemption with respect to the requirement

for a tolerance of 1 4 Code of Federal Regulations Part 60 Table C2A, paragraph s 4.b.1,
4.b.2, and 4.b.3 which requires a geometric error between the image generator eye point and the pilot eye point to be less than 8°

.

We refer you to Exemption No. 10518 and Regulatory Docket No. FAA

- 2011

- 0814 , including

the amendment dated November 26, 2013 . CAE Inc. respectfully submits requests that the exemption be extended and to include , in addition to the previously exempted platforms, the following platforms:

(1) Augusta Westland AW

- 10 9 , (2) Augusta Westland AW

- 16 9, (3) Bell B

- 412 (4) Eurocopter EC

- 135 (5 ) Eurocopter EC

- 145 (6 ) Sikorsky S

- 70i (7) Boeing CH

- 47 and (8) Augusta Westland AW

- 101

The enclosure to this letter provides the details of the petition

, in accordance with Title

14 CFR S ection 11.81. T he following summary is provided for the Federal Regist er in

a ccordance with 14 CFR §11.81(f):

“CAE Inc. respectfully submits the following request for an exemption to the tolerance requirements of 14 CFR Part 60, Continuous Field

- of

- View tests as stated in Table C2A paragraphs 4.b.1, 4.b.2 and 4.b.3. CAE see ks exemption to extend the requirement for the geometric error between the Ima ge Generator eye point and the pilot eye point from

‘8 ° or less ’ to ‘ 12° or less ’ .”

I trust that this correspondence will be to your satisfaction

, and it satisfies the requirements of

14 CFR §60.5; should you have any questions or require additional information please do not

hesitate to contact the undersigned by email Itash.Samani@cae.com or te lephone at (972)

456

- 8078

.

Thank you for your consideration of this request.

Sincerely,

___________________________ Itash Samani, Global Head of FSTD Regulations

Cc: Mr. Stephane Clement , Director Regulatory Affairs Page 2 of 5 January 12, 2016

CAE Inc. Confidential and/or Proprietary Information This petition contains the following elements:

• Introduction (Extent of Relief) • Background on 14 CFR Part

- 60

• Statement of Public Interest

• Statement of no Adverse Effect on Safety

• Conclusion

The extent of relief CAE seeks, and the reason CAE seeks the relief

14 CFR Part 60, objective t est for demonstration of the Continuous Field

- Of

- View (Test Entry No’s: 4.b.1; 4.b.2; and 4.b.3) requires that “ Any geometric error between the Image Generator eye point and the pilot eye point must be 8° or less.”

The Helicopter International Working Group (H

- IWG) performing the work under the auspices of the Royal Aeronautical Society (RAeS) which is currently working on the development of the standards for the ICAO 9625 Revision 3 has reviewed the acceptable tolerance for this error to be 1 2 °.

CAE’s own technical and training analysis supports the H

- IWG position and therefore u nder the provisions set forth in Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) §11.81, CAE petitions the FAA to grant exemption from the tolerance requirement of 8 °. In accordance with §11.81 (c), the extent of relief sought via this petition is limited to extending the tolerance beyond “ 8 ° or less” to

“12° or less”.

As required by §11.81(d) and 11.81(e), it will be shown in the following technical assessment that

gr anting of this petition for exemption will not adversely affect safety, and is in the "Public

Interest."

Per §11.81(h), CAE requests the privileges of this exemption be extended outside the United

States. FAA has Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreements with a number of countries and a number of CAE simulators have been qualified under the BASA Flight Standards Agreements, Simulator Implementation Procedures (SIP). This extension of privileges is therefore necessary for operations based within foreign countri es for equipment which has been qualified under FAA 14 CFR Part 60 and in use under an FAA approved training program or for operations having bilateral agreements with the United States accepting FAA 14 CFR Part 60 as their standard for the qualification o f Flight Simulation Training Equipment.

Background on the Geometry Error Requirement of 14 CFR Part 60

The change from the FAA A dvisory C ircular 120

- 63 standard to the 14 CF R Part 60 regulations for the qualification and use of Flight Simulation Training Devices with regards to helicopter simulators included the removal of the requirement for collimated display systems for rotorcraft simulators along with the addition of a requirement for a maximum allowable geometric error. The relevant sections of

both d ocuments, as they apply to Level D simulators, are as follows:

AC120

- 63, Appendix 1, Paragraph 4.d Continuous minimum collimated (or equivalent) visual field of view of 180 degrees horizontal and 60 degrees vertical available to each pilot. In addition, operational chin windows representative of those found in the helicopter model simulated are required.

Part 60, Table C2A, Paragraph 4.b.3

Continuous field

- of

- view of at least 176° horizontal and 56° vertical field

- of

- view for each pilot

sim ultaneously. Any geometric error between the Image Generator eye point and the pilot eye point must be 8° or less

.

Note: This requirement did not exist in the previous FAA AC120

- 63 standard nor does it exist in

the current JAR/EASA FSTD

- H.

The effect of these changes is to eliminate the requirement for collimation (allowing use of direct projection/dome displays) while limiting the allowable angular error seen by the pilot(s) that results from

the removal of the collimation. Page 3 of 5 January 12, 2016

CAE Inc. Confidential and/or Proprietary Information Parallax Error

The angular er ror in a dome display is a function of the distance between the design eyepoint (DEP, the position for which the system geometry has been optimized) and the pilot eyepoint as well as the

distance from these eyepoint‘s to the dome surface. The error is also a function of which point in the field of view (FOV) is being tested, and the modeled distance to the point of the scene in view, but assuming an eyepoint that is roughly centered fore/aft and up/down relative to the center of curvature of the dome the po int of maximum error is generally for distant objects straight ahead of the eyepoint. The diagram below shows the error assuming that the DEP was selected to be the midway point between the PEP and CPEP rather than being located at the PEP or CPEP. Of cour se, it is always possible to compute the distortion from the PEP (effectively moving the DEP to overlay the PEP position), and hence have zero error from the PEP, but this roughly doubles the error from the CPEP.

For the situation shown in the diagram the error can be computed as :

error=at an(eyepoint_offset/dome_radius)

Alternately, the maximum allowable lateral eyepoint offset for a given allowed error and dome radius can be computed as :

eyepoint_offset = dome_radius * tan(error)

The second formula is useful for determining which helicopter models can be supported by a given dome configuration. The resulting values are shown in the table below for a range of radii and allowable errors. It should be noted that moving the cockpit relative to th e dome center provides the potential for increasing the distance from the eyepoint to the dome, and can therefore provide some flexibility in the PEP CPEP DEP Angular

Error ( PEP ) Angular Error ( CPEP ) Modeled Position of Distant Object in the Visual Scene Page 4 of 5 January 12, 2016

CAE Inc. Confidential and/or Proprietary Information maximum eyepoint offset that can be supported for a given allowable error and dome radius, but the

table still provides useful guidelines for suitable display system configurations.

Error Radius Radius Eyepoint offset

degrees Feet Metres Inches mm

8 8 2.44 13.49 343

8 9 2.74 15.18 386

8 10 3.05 16.86 428

8 11 3.35 18.55 471

8 12 3.66 20.24 514

8 13 3.96 21.92 557

8 14 4.27 23.61 600

8 15 4.57 25.30 643

10 8 2.44 16.93 430

10 9 2.74 19.04 484

10 10 3.05 21.16 537

10 11 3.35 23.28 591

10 12 3.66 25.39 645

10 13 3.96 27.51 699

10 14 4.27 29.62 752

10 15 4.57 31.74 806

12 8 2.44 20.41 518

12 9 2.74 22.96 583

12 10 3.05 25.51 648

12 11 3.35 28.06 713

12 12 3.66 30.61 777

12 13 3.96 33.16 842

12 14 4.27 35.71 907

12 15 4.57 38.26 972

These values can be compared to the lateral eyepoint offsets of typical helicopter types

AIRCRAFT

TYPE Eyepoint Offset Eyepoint Offset

mm

CH53G 24 610

UD

- 1D, AB205 22 559

LYNX RBL 18.5 / LBL 17.52 RBL 470/ LBL 445

BELL 412 22 559

CH47 RBL 22 / LBL 21 RBL 559 / LBL

533

MERLIN 23.62 600

PUMA RBL 19.3 / LBL 19.7 RBL 490 / LBL

500

S76 RBL 18 / LBL 17 RBL 457 / LBL

432

UH

60/Blackhawk 24 610

TH

- 57 RBL 14.21 / LBL

11.21 RBL 361 / LBL

285

TH

- 67 RBL 14.21 / LBL

11.21 RBL 361 / LBL

285

OH

- 58 RBL 14.21 / LBL

11.21 RBL 361 / LBL

285

AH/MH

- 6 13.4 340 Page 5 of 5 January 12, 2016

CAE Inc. Confidential and/or Proprietary Information A109 13.2 335

AB139 21.7 550

H92 22.0 559

EC135 15.4 390

NH90 24.8 630

EC175 22 559

How our request would benefit the public as a whole

The FAA clearly recognized the benefits of direct projections systems to allow for more cost effective solutions to building rotary wing FSTDs and with this in mind the consideration that larger domes are inherently more expensive to build (larger/heavier designs in turn driving motion system requirements, more and/or brighter projectors required to meet brightness requirements) and to operate (l arger facility requirements). It is therefore inherently preferable to use smaller domes where possible. T herefore this provides for the more cost effective build of these FSTDs, while still maintaining the high standards required performing the necessary training, and the public as a whole benefits from the fact that more crews are able to complete such training due to affordability.

In addition, by use of 

### Exemption No. 10518, Regulatory Docket No. FAA

- 2011

- 0814 CAE has

built and delivered X S

- 76C++ and Y AW

- 139 and our original assumptions have been proven to be correct, the customers using these devices have not experienced any limitations in training and in fact we have received very positive feedback for the higher fidelity provided by the direct proj ection system utilized in a dome configuration. Furthermore we were able to offer this solution at significantly lower cost which has allowed more training with the use of

simulators.

Statement of no Adverse Effect on Safety

There is no adverse effect on safety. The grant of exemption will allow for the most cost effective build of Flight Simulation Training Devices and therefore can only help towards better safety. Experiments performed by the RAeS IWG support the view that the expected errors , limited t o 12 ° do not adversely affect the performance of maneuvers by either pilot

.

Conclusion:

The g rant of this exem ption is in the public interest, it will allow the FAA to align the requirement for the geometric error to the standard recommended by the industry and global regulatory bodies participating in the RAeS IWG and will help towards reducing the cost of developing rotary wing simulators, which can only further help towards an improvement in the safety levels for rotary wing operations.