Document ID: FAA-2014-0391-0119
Agency: faa
Document Type: Rule
Title: Flight Simulation Training Device Qualification Standards for Extended Envelope and Adverse Weather Event Training Tasks
Posted Date: 2016-03-30T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 61 (Wednesday, March 30, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18177-18388]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-05860]

[[Page 18177]]

Vol. 81

Wednesday,

No. 61

March 30, 2016

Part IV

Department of Transportation

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 Federal Aviation Administration

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

14 CFR Part 60

 Flight Simulation Training Device Qualification Standards for Extended 
Envelope and Adverse Weather Event Training Tasks; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 81 , No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 18178]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 60

[Docket No.: FAA-2014-0391; Amdt. No. 60-4]
RIN 2120-AK08

Flight Simulation Training Device Qualification Standards for 
Extended Envelope and Adverse Weather Event Training Tasks

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The FAA has determined this rule is necessary to amend the 
Qualification Performance Standards for flight simulation training 
devices (FSTDs) for the primary purpose of improving existing technical 
standards and introducing new technical standards for full stall and 
stick pusher maneuvers, upset recognition and recovery maneuvers, 
maneuvers conducted in airborne icing conditions, takeoff and landing 
maneuvers in gusting crosswinds, and bounced landing recovery 
maneuvers. These new and improved technical standards are intended to 
fully define FSTD fidelity requirements for conducting new flight 
training tasks introduced through recent changes to the air carrier 
training requirements, as well as to address various National 
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and Aviation Rulemaking Committee 
recommendations. This final rule also updates the FSTD technical 
standards to better align with the current international FSTD 
evaluation guidance and introduces a new FSTD level that expands the 
number of qualified flight training tasks in a fixed-base flight 
training device. These changes will ensure that the training and 
testing environment is accurate and realistic, will codify existing 
practice, and will provide greater harmonization with international 
guidance for simulation. The amendments will not apply to previously 
qualified FSTDs with the exception of the FSTD Directive, which 
codifies the new FSTD technical standards for specific training tasks.

DATES: Effective May 31, 2016. The compliance date of FSTD Directive 
No. 2 is March 12, 2019. After this date, any FSTD being used to 
conduct specific training tasks as defined in FSTD Directive No. 2 must 
be evaluated and qualified in accordance with the Directive.

ADDRESSES: For information on where to obtain copies of rulemaking 
documents and other information related to this final rule, see ``How 
To Obtain Additional Information'' in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION 
section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning 
this action, contact Larry McDonald, Air Transportation Division/
National Simulator Program Branch, AFS-205, Federal Aviation 
Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, GA 30320; telephone (404) 474-
5620; email larry.e.mcdonald@faa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA's) authority to issue 
rules on aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States 
Code. Subtitle I, Section 106(f) describes the authority of the FAA 
Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more 
detail the scope of the agency's authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in 49 
U.S.C. 44701(a)(5), which requires the Administrator to promulgate 
regulations and minimum standards for other practices, methods, and 
procedures necessary for safety in air commerce and national security. 
This amendment to the regulation is within the scope of that authority 
because it prescribes an accepted method for testing and evaluating 
flight simulation training devices used to train and evaluate 
flightcrew members.
    In addition, the Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration 
Extension Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-216) specifically required the FAA 
to conduct rulemaking to ensure that all flightcrew members receive 
flight training in recognizing and avoiding stalls, recovering from 
stalls, and recognizing and avoiding upset of an aircraft, as well as 
the proper techniques to recover from upset. This rulemaking is within 
the scope of the authority in Public Law 111-216 and is necessary to 
fully implement the training requirements recently adopted in the 
Qualification, Service, and Use of Crewmembers and Aircraft Dispatchers 
final rule (Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training final rule), 
RIN 2120-AJ00. See 78 FR 67800 (Nov. 12, 2013).

List of Abbreviations and Acronyms Frequently Used in This Document

AC Advisory Circular
AOA Angle of Attack
ARC Aviation Rulemaking Committee
AURTA Airplane Upset Recovery Training Aid
FFS Full Flight Simulator
FTD Flight Training Device
FSTD Flight Simulation Training Device
ICATEE International Committee on Aviation Training in Extended 
Envelopes
LOCART Loss of Control Avoidance and Recovery Training Working Group
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
QPS Qualification Performance Standards
SOC Statement of Compliance
SNPRM Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
SPAW ARC Stick Pusher and Adverse Weather Event Training Aviation 
Rulemaking Committee
UPRT Upset Prevention and Recovery Training

Table of Contents

I. Overview of Final Rule
II. Background
    A. Statement of the Problem
    B. NTSB Recommendations
    C. Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Extension 
Act of 2010 (Publ. L. 111-216) and the Crewmember and Aircraft 
Dispatcher Training Final Rule
    D. Summary of the NPRM
    E. Differences Between the NPRM and the Final Rule
    F. Related Actions
III. Discussion of Public Comments and Final Rule
    A. Evaluation Requirements for Full Stall Training
    1. Aerodynamic Modeling Range
    a. Aerodynamic Modeling Beyond the Stall AOA
    b. Definition of the Stall AOA
    2. Envelope Protected Aircraft
    a. Model Validity Ranges and Associated Objective Testing
    b. Validation of Stall Characteristics Using Flight Test Data
    c. Required AOA Range for Normal Mode Objective Testing
    3. Data Sources for Model Development and Validation
    a. Define Best Available Data
    b. Post-Stall ``Type Representative'' Modeling
    c. Use of Flight Test Data and Availability
    4. Qualification on FSTD Levels Other Than Level C or Level D
    5. Motion Cueing System Limitations
    6. Subject Matter Expert (SME) Pilot Evaluation and 
Qualifications
    a. SME Qualifications and Experience
    b. Model Validation Conducted by the Data Provider
    c. NSPM Process for Evaluating and Accepting an SME Pilot
    7. Alignment With the ICAO 9625, Edition 4, on Stall and Stick 
Pusher Requirements
    8. Requirements for Previously Qualified FSTDs
    a. Stall Buffet Objective Testing
    b. FSTD Directive No. 2 and Grandfather Rights
    9. Applicability of Stall and Upset Prevention and Recovery 
Training

[[Page 18179]]

(UPRT) Requirements on Newly Qualified FSTDs
    10. General Comments on Stall Requirements
    a. Testing and Checking of Stall Maneuvers
    b. Interim FSTD Qualification for Stall Training
    c. Aerodynamic Modeling Considerations
    B. Evaluation Requirements for UPRT
    1. UPRT Qualification on Lower Level FSTDs.
    2. Record and Playback Requirements for UPRT
    3. Instructor Operating Station (IOS) Requirements
    4. Aerodynamic Source Data and Range of the FSTD Validation 
Envelope
    a. FSTD Validation Envelope and Training Maneuvers
    b. Expansion of the FSTD Validation Envelope Using Existing 
Flight Test Data
    5. General Comments on UPRT
    a. FSTD Qualification and FAA Oversight
    b. Maintenance Concerns
    C. Evaluation Requirements for Engine and Airframe Icing 
Training
    1. Objective Demonstration Testing
    a. Objective Demonstration Testing for Previously Qualified 
FSTDs
    b. Icing Effects and Recognition Cues
    2. Requirements for Lower Level FTDs
    3. Existing Engine and Airframe Icing Requirements in Part 60
    4. Applicability in Training Programs
    5. Data Sources and Tuning of Ice Accretion Models
    D. Evaluation Requirements for Takeoff and Landing in Gusting 
Crosswinds
    1. Applicability on Lower Level FSTDs
    2. Gusting Crosswind Profile Data Sources
    3. Maximum Demonstrated Crosswind
    4. Requirements for Previously Qualified FSTDs
    E. Evaluation Requirements for Bounced Landing Recovery Training
    1. Applicability to Lower Level FSTDs
    2. Bounced Landing Modeling and Evaluation
    a. Nosewheel Exceedances
    b. Use of Existing Ground Reaction Models
    3. Alignment With Training Requirements
    4. Requirements for Previously Qualified FSTDs
    F. Alignment With the ICAO 9625 FSTD Evaluation Document
    1. Partial Alignment With the ICAO 9625 Document
    2. New Requirements Introduced by the Proposed ICAO Alignment
    a. Visual System Field of View
    b. Visual System Lightpoint Brightness Testing
    c. Transport Delay Testing
    d. Motion Cueing Fidelity Test
    e. Sound Directionality Requirement
    3. Alignment With the Recently Published ICAO 9625, Edition 4 
Document
    4. Integration of ICAO Requirements With the Part 60 Table 
Structure
    5. Deviation From the Part 60 QPS Using the ICAO 9625 Document
    6. Level 7 FTD Requirements and Usage in Training
    G. General Comments
    1. Compliance Period for Previously Qualified FSTDs
    2. Alternative Source Data for Level 5 FTDs
    3. Objective Testing for Continuing Qualification
    4. Windshear Qualification Requirements
    5. Miscellaneous Comments
    a. Approved Location for Objective and Subjective Testing
    b. Increase the Training Credit for Time in a Simulator
    H. Economic Evaluation
    1. Cost of Aerodynamic Modeling and Implementation
    2. Cost of Instructor Operation Station (IOS) Replacement
    3. Affected FSTDs and Sponsors
    4. Cost and Benefits of ICAO Alignment
IV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses
    A. Regulatory Evaluation
    B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination
    C. International Trade Impact Assessment
    D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment
    E. Paperwork Reduction Act
    F. International Compatibility and Cooperation
    G. Environmental Analysis
    H. Regulations Affecting Intrastate Aviation in Alaska
V. Executive Order Determinations
    A. Executive Order 13123, Federalism
    B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations that Significantly Affect 
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
VI. How To Obtain Additional Information
    A. Rulemaking Documents
    B. Comments Submitted to the Docket
    C. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

I. Overview of Final Rule

    This rulemaking defines simulator fidelity requirements for new 
training tasks to be conducted in Level A through D full flight 
simulators (FFS) that were mandated for air carrier training programs 
by Public Law 111-216 and incorporated into 14 CFR part 121. It also 
addresses the potential lack of simulator fidelity as identified in 
several NTSB safety recommendations. This final rule establishes new 
and updated FSTD technical evaluation standards for full stall and 
stick pusher maneuvers, upset prevention and recovery maneuvers, flight 
in airborne icing conditions, takeoff and landing maneuvers in gusting 
crosswinds, and bounced landing recovery maneuvers. This final rule 
also partially aligns the technical standards for Level C and D (fixed 
wing) FSTDs that are defined in 14 CFR part 60 with the current 
international FSTD evaluation guidelines published in the International 
Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) document 9625, Edition 4, Manual of 
Criteria for the Qualification of Flight Simulation Training Devices.
    This final rule will affect sponsors of previously qualified FSTDs 
if the devices will be used to conduct the specific training tasks 
defined in FSTD Directive No. 2. The FSTD sponsor has the discretion to 
determine if a device needs to be qualified based on whether it will be 
used for training the defined tasks in FSTD Directive No. 2. 
Additionally, because many of the technical FSTD evaluation standards 
in the final rule will become minimum requirements for some newly 
qualified FSTDs, this final rule will also affect sponsors of Level 7, 
Level C, and Level D FSTDs that are initially qualified after the 
effective date of the final rule. In addition to FSTD sponsors, this 
final rule will also affect data providers, FSTD manufacturers, and 
other entities that provide products and support to FSTD sponsors in 
the qualification of FSTDs for training. This final rule does not 
affect aviation training devices that are evaluated and approved for 
use outside of 14 CFR part 60.
    A general summary of the applicability, compliance dates, and 
processes used to qualify FSTDs as defined in this rule are included in 
the following table:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Issue                          Rule requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
How does a sponsor determine if a          A previously qualified FSTD
 previously qualified FSTD must be          that will be used to obtain
 evaluated and qualified for stall, UPRT,   training, testing, or
 engine and airframe icing, bounced         checking credit in an FAA
 landing recovery, and gusting crosswind    approved flight training
 training tasks as defined in FSTD          program, regardless of
 Directive No. 2?                           operational rule part, must
                                            be evaluated and qualified
                                            for the following maneuvers:
                                           Full Stall: Training
                                            maneuvers in the recognition
                                            cues and recovery procedures
                                            from a fully stalled flight
                                            condition (including
                                            recovery from a stick pusher
                                            activation) at angles of
                                            attack beyond the activation
                                            of the stall warning system.

[[Page 18180]]

 
                                           UPRT: Upset recovery
                                            maneuvers and unusual
                                            attitude maneuvers that are
                                            intended to exceed the
                                            parameters of an aircraft
                                            upset as defined in the
                                            Airplane Upset Recovery
                                            Training Aid (pitch
                                            attitudes greater than 25
                                            degrees nose up; pitch
                                            attitudes greater than 10
                                            degrees nose down, and bank
                                            angles greater than 45
                                            degrees).
                                           Engine and Airframe Icing:
                                            Flight training maneuvers
                                            that demonstrate the
                                            recognition cues and effects
                                            of engine and airframe ice
                                            accretion.
                                           Takeoff and Landing in
                                            Gusting Crosswinds.
                                           Bounced Landing Recovery
                                            Training.
How does a sponsor obtain qualification    FSTD Directive No. 2 contains
 for stall, UPRT, icing, bounced landing    all of the evaluation
 recovery, or takeoff and landing in        requirements for the
 gusting crosswinds on a previously         qualification of these
 qualified FSTD?                            individual tasks on
                                            previously qualified FSTDs.
                                            FSTD sponsors will conduct
                                            the evaluations and
                                            modifications as described
                                            in the Directive and submit
                                            any required Statements of
                                            Compliance and objective
                                            testing results to the
                                            National Simulator Program
                                            (NSP) using the standard
                                            FSTD modification/
                                            notification process. The
                                            NSP will issue additional
                                            FSTD qualification for these
                                            tasks once compliance with
                                            the applicable sections of
                                            the Directive are verified
                                            and any necessary FSTD
                                            evaluations have been
                                            conducted.
How do you determine what portions of the  As described in Sec.
 updated qualification performance          60.17(a), unless specified
 standards (QPS) appendices are             by an FSTD Directive,
 applicable to previously qualified         previously qualified
 FSTDs?                                     (grandfathered) FSTDs will
                                            retain their original
                                            qualification basis under
                                            which they were originally
                                            evaluated, regardless of
                                            sponsor. All retroactive
                                            evaluation requirements for
                                            previously qualified FSTDs
                                            in this final rule are fully
                                            described in FSTD Directive
                                            No. 2.
What are the compliance dates associated   After March 12, 2019, any
 with this final rule for previously        FSTD being used to conduct
 qualified FSTDs?                           the specific training
                                            maneuvers (as described in
                                            FSTD Directive No. 2) in an
                                            FAA approved training
                                            program must be issued
                                            additional FSTD
                                            qualification in accordance
                                            with the Directive.
How do you determine what changes in this  With the exception of the
 final rule are applicable to new FSTDs     full stall evaluation
 that will be initially qualified after     requirements, all FSTDs that
 the final rule becomes effective?          are initially qualified or
                                            upgraded in qualification
                                            level after the effective
                                            date of the final rule must
                                            meet all new standards in
                                            this final rule as
                                            applicable for the
                                            particular FSTD
                                            qualification level
                                            requested.
                                           The qualification of full
                                            stall training tasks will be
                                            optional as requested by the
                                            sponsor to support FAA
                                            approved training being
                                            conducted in the FSTD. The
                                            qualification of full stall
                                            training tasks will be
                                            included as part of the list
                                            of qualified tasks on the
                                            FSTD's Statement of
                                            Qualification (SOQ).
What is the compliance date associated     In general, all changes to
 with this final rule for new FSTDs that    the part 60 QPS will be
 will be initially qualified after the      effective for all FSTDs that
 rule becomes effective?                    are initially qualified
                                            after the effective date of
                                            the final rule except as
                                            permitted by Sec.
                                            60.15(c).
What is the process to qualify an FSTD     Requests for deviation from
 using another standard in lieu of the      the part 60 QPS are made to
 part 60 QPS as permitted by the            the National Simulator
 deviation authority in Sec.   60.15?       Program Manager (NSPM) and
                                            must include justification
                                            that demonstrates an
                                            equivalent level of safety
                                            as compared to the FSTD
                                            evaluation requirements of
                                            the part 60 QPS. Approved
                                            deviations and the
                                            supporting evaluation
                                            standards will become a part
                                            of the permanent
                                            qualification basis of the
                                            FSTD.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA estimates that it will cost $72.7 million to make the 
necessary modifications to previously qualified FSTDs which will enable 
training required by the new Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher 
Training final rule. The training cost for the Crewmember and Aircraft 
Dispatcher Training final rule provides rental revenue to simulator 
sponsors which will fully compensate them for their FSTD modification 
expenses. These simulator revenues were accounted for as costs of the 
additional training and were fully justified by the benefits in that 
final rule. The FAA estimates it will cost $1.3 million for the 
evaluation and modification of engine and airframe icing models which 
will enhance existing training requirements. If these modifications 
prevent only one severe injury the benefits will exceed the costs. The 
estimated cost of $6.9 million to align standards with ICAO will result 
in improved safety and cost savings.
    The costs and benefits of this rule are presented in the table 
below.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Present value   Present value
                                                                                   at a 7% rate    at a 3% rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FSTD Modifications for New Training Requirements:
    Cost........................................................     $72,716,590     $63,610,049     $68,562,049
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Benefits....................................................      Rational simulator owner will choose to
                                                                                      comply.
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
Icing provisions:
    Cost........................................................      $1,256,250      $1,098,926      $1,184,476
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------

[[Page 18181]]

 
    Benefits....................................................    Only one prevented severe injury valued at
                                                                   $2.5 million makes the icing benefits exceed
                                                                                    the costs.
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
Aligning Standards with ICAO:
    Cost........................................................      $6,875,000      $5,356,979      $6,132,690
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Benefits....................................................         Improved safety and cost savings.
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
        Total Cost..............................................     $80,847,840     $70,065,954     $75,879,215
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background

A. Statement of the Problem

    In order to mitigate aircraft loss of control accidents and to 
comply with the requirements of Public Law 111-216, the FAA has issued 
new and revised flight training requirements in the Crewmember and 
Aircraft Dispatcher Training final rule for flight maneuvers such as 
full stall and upset recovery training. In support of this effort, the 
FAA participated in a number of collaborative industry and government 
working groups that examined loss of control training requirements and 
the flight simulation training device (FSTD) fidelity needed to support 
such training. These working groups included the International 
Committee on Aviation Training in Extended Envelopes (ICATEE), the 
Industry Stall and Stick Pusher Working Group, the Stick Pusher and 
Adverse Weather Event Training Aviation Rulemaking Committee (SPAW 
ARC), and the Loss of Control Avoidance and Recovery Training (LOCART) 
Working Group.
    Through participation in these working groups and in consideration 
of the formal recommendations received from the SPAW ARC, the FAA 
determined that many existing FSTDs that could be used by air carriers 
to conduct such training may not adequately represent the simulated 
aircraft for the required training tasks. Additionally, the FAA 
evaluated several recent air carrier accidents and associated NTSB 
accident reports and determined that low FSTD fidelity or the lack of 
ability for an FSTD to adequately conduct certain training tasks may 
have been a contributing factor in these accidents.\1\ A potential lack 
of simulator fidelity could contribute to inaccurate or incomplete 
training on new training tasks that are required by the Crewmember and 
Aircraft Dispatcher Training final rule, which could lead to a safety 
risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Some of these accidents include the 1996 Airborne Express 
DC-8-63 loss of control accident, the 2001 American Airlines flight 
587 A300 loss of control accident, the 2009 Colgan Air flight 3407 
DHC-8-400 loss of control accident, and the 2008 Continental flight 
1404 Boeing 737-500 runway excursion accident.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, since the initial publication of the part 60 final 
rule in 2008, the international FSTD qualification guidance published 
in the ICAO 9625 document has been updated to incorporate general 
improvements to new aircraft and simulation technology and the 
introduction of new FSTD levels that better align FSTD fidelity with 
required training tasks. The ICAO 9625 document is an internationally 
recognized set of FSTD evaluation guidelines that was developed by 
government and industry experts on flight simulation training and 
technology and has been used as a basis for national regulation and 
guidance material for FSTD evaluation in many countries. 
Internationally aligned FSTD standards facilitate cost savings for FSTD 
operators because they can reduce the number of different FSTD designs, 
as well as reduce the amount of redundant supporting documentation that 
are required to meet multiple national regulations and standards for 
FSTD qualification.
    This final rule was developed using recommendations from the SPAW 
ARC \2\ and the international FSTD qualification guidelines that are 
published in ICAO 9625, Edition 3 and the newly published ICAO 9625, 
Edition 4.\3\ The requirements in this final rule are primarily 
directed at improving the fidelity of FSTDs that will be used in air 
carrier pilot training to conduct extended envelope training tasks, but 
will also have an added benefit of improving the fidelity of all FSTDs 
initially qualified after the final rule becomes effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ A copy of the SPAW ARC final report has been placed in the 
docket for this rulemaking.
    \3\ International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) 
publications can be located on their public internet site at: http://www.icao.int/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Recommendations

    This proposal will incorporate changes into part 60 that address, 
at least in part, the following NTSB Safety Recommendations through 
improved FSTD evaluation standards to support required training tasks:
    1. Stall training and/or stick pusher training (Recommendations A-
10-22, A-10-23, A-97-47, A-07-3, and A-10-24);
    2. Upset Recognition and recovery training (Recommendations A-04-62 
and A-96-120);
    3. Engine and airframe icing training (Recommendations A-11-46 and 
A-11-47)
    4. Takeoff and landing training in gusting crosswind conditions 
(Recommendations A-10-110 and A-10-111); and
    5. Bounced landing training (Recommendations A-00-93 and A-11-69).

C. Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 
2010 (Pub. L. 111-216) and the Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher 
Training Final Rule

    On August 1, 2010, President Obama signed into law Public Law 111-
216. In addition to extending the FAA's authorization, Public Law 111-
216 included provisions to improve airline safety and pilot training. 
Specifically, section 208 of Public Law 111-216, Implementation of NTSB 
Flight Crewmember Training Recommendations, pertains directly to this 
rulemaking in that stall training and upset recovery training were 
mandated for part 121 air carrier flightcrew members.
    On November 12, 2013, the FAA published the Crewmember and Aircraft 
Dispatcher Training final rule, adding the training tasks required by 
Public Law 111-216 that specifically target extended envelope training, 
recovery from bounced landings, enhanced runway safety training, and 
enhanced training on crosswind takeoffs and landings with gusts, which 
further requires that these maneuvers be completed in an FSTD. As a 
result, revisions to all part 121 training programs will be necessary 
prior to March 12, 2019 and the revisions to part

[[Page 18182]]

60 in this final rule are required to ensure FSTDs are properly 
evaluated in order to fully implement the flight training required in 
the Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training final rule.

D. Summary of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)

    On July 10, 2014, the FAA published an NPRM (79 FR 39461), 
proposing changes to the flight simulation training device (FSTD) 
technical evaluation standards. The primary purpose of the NPRM was to 
establish and update FSTD technical evaluation standards to address new 
training tasks required by the Crewmember and Dispatcher Training final 
rule, including full stall training, upset prevention and recovery 
training, and other new training tasks. Additionally, the NPRM proposed 
the incorporation of FSTD evaluation criteria as defined in the 
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) 9625, Manual of 
Criteria for the Qualification of Flight Simulation Training Devices 
(Edition 3) document. Significant changes to the part 60 qualification 
performance standards (QPS) were proposed in the following areas:
    1. Full Stall Evaluation: Minimum requirements were introduced to 
include aerodynamic modeling of a full stall and stick pusher 
activation (where equipped) up to ten degrees of angle of attack (AOA) 
beyond the stall AOA, subject matter expert (SME) pilot evaluation of 
the FSTD's stall characteristics, and improved objective testing to 
validate the FSTD's performance and handling qualities in the stall 
maneuver.
    2. Upset Recognition and Recovery: New requirements were proposed 
for the qualification of upset recognition and recovery training tasks 
including the evaluation of a minimum set of upset recovery maneuvers 
against the defined FSTD validation envelope, providing a means to 
record and playback upset recovery maneuvers conducted in the FSTD, and 
providing the instructor with a minimum set of feedback tools on the 
instructor operating station (IOS) that gives information on the FSTD's 
expected fidelity, aircraft operational limitations, and student flight 
control inputs.
    3. Engine and Airframe Icing: Modifications were proposed to the 
existing part 60 Level C and Level D FSTD qualification requirements 
for engine and airframe icing. The proposed amendments included 
requirements for ice accretion models based upon aircraft original 
equipment manufacturer (OEM) data or other analytical methods that 
incorporate the aerodynamic effects of icing as well as objective tests 
on the FSTD that demonstrate the effects of icing.
    4. Takeoff and Landing in Gusting Crosswinds: New amendments were 
proposed that would require that realistic gusting crosswind profiles 
must be available to the instructor and the profiles must be tuned in 
intensity and variation to require pilot intervention to avoid runway 
departure during takeoff or landing roll. A Statement of Compliance 
(SOC) would be required to describe the source data used to develop the 
crosswind profiles.
    5. Bounced Landing Recovery: New requirements were proposed to 
complement existing part 60 ground reaction requirements to support 
bounced landing recovery training. The updated requirements added that 
the effects of a bounced landing must be modeled and evaluated and 
include the effects of nosewheel exceedances and tail strike where 
appropriate.
    6. ICAO 9625 Alignment: In the NPRM, the FAA proposed alignment 
with the updated ICAO 9625, Edition 3, FSTD evaluation document for 
similar FSTD levels that are defined in the part 60 QPS (Appendices A 
and B). This included incorporating updated technical standards for 
Level C and Level D FSTDs to align with that of the ICAO Type VII FSTD 
and creating a new high fidelity fixed-base flight training device (the 
Level 7 FTD) that is based upon the similar Type V device as defined in 
the ICAO document. This alignment also included adopting the ICAO 
language and numbering format for some of the technical requirements 
tables as well as integrating the existing legacy part 60 FSTD levels 
into these tables to maintain continuity with the current part 60 
defined hierarchy of FSTD levels.
    In general, the proposed amendments to the part 60 QPS would only 
be applicable to FSTDs that are initially qualified or upgraded in 
qualification level after the final rule becomes effective. Because 
many previously qualified FSTDs will likely be used to accomplish the 
training tasks required by the Crewmember and Dispatcher Training final 
rule, the FAA also proposed an FSTD Directive in order to retroactively 
apply evaluation requirements for those previously qualified FSTDs that 
will be used to conduct certain training tasks, including full stall, 
upset prevention and recovery training, engine and airframe icing, 
takeoff and landing in gusting crosswinds, and bounced landing recovery 
training.
    On September 16, 2014, the FAA extended the comment period of the 
NPRM for an additional 90 days (79 FR 55407). The comment period closed 
on January 6, 2015. The FAA received approximately 675 individual 
comments in response to the NPRM. Commenters included air carriers, 
simulator training providers, FSTD data providers, FSTD manufacturers, 
the NTSB, labor organizations, trade associations, aircraft 
manufacturers, and individuals.

E. Differences Between the NPRM and the Final Rule

    As a result of the comments received on the NPRM, the FAA made 
several changes to the final rule. A summary of significant changes as 
a result of comments are highlighted in the following table:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Issue                         Significant changes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Full Stall Evaluation........  (a) Improved the definition of the stall
                                AOA for the purposes of defining the
                                required aerodynamic modeling range.
                                Clarifies specific issues concerning
                                stick pusher equipped aircraft and
                                envelope protected aircraft.
                               (b) Made clarifications concerning
                                acceptable source data for stall
                                aerodynamic models. Clarified that data
                                sources other than the aircraft
                                manufacturer may be acceptable if they
                                meet the modeling and SME pilot
                                evaluation requirements.
                               (c) Improved the qualification
                                requirements for subject matter expert
                                (SME) pilots that subjectively evaluate
                                the stall model. Adds deviation
                                authority if an acceptable SME pilot
                                cannot be located. Allows for SME
                                evaluation to be conducted on an
                                engineering or development simulator
                                where objective proof-of-match test
                                cases are provided that verifies the
                                model implementation on the FSTD.
                               (d) Removed the proposed requirement for
                                all newly qualified FSTDs to be
                                evaluated and qualified for full stall
                                training tasks. Full stall qualification
                                will only be required for FSTDs that
                                will be used to conduct this training as
                                requested by the FSTD sponsor.

[[Page 18183]]

 
                               (e) (Previously qualified FSTDs) Removed
                                the proposed objective testing
                                requirements for stall maneuvers where
                                validation data may not exist for some
                                older FSTD data packages (cruise and
                                turning flight stall). These conditions
                                will still require aerodynamic modeling
                                and subjective evaluation by a SME
                                pilot.
Upset Prevention and Recovery  (a) Removed the proposed minimum FSTD
 Training (UPRT) Evaluation.    evaluation requirements for Level A and
                                Level B FSTDs.
                               (b) Removed the proposed specific
                                requirements for features and
                                malfunctions necessary to drive upset
                                scenarios.
                               (c) Removed the proposed requirement for
                                audio and video record/playback
                                functionality.
                               (d) Improved the definition of required
                                instructor operating station (IOS)
                                parameters and feedback mechanisms.
                                Allows for methods other than graphical
                                displays to be used where the required
                                parameters are provided to support the
                                training program.
                               (e) Expands the definition of UPRT to
                                include unusual attitude training in
                                which scenarios are introduced that are
                                intended to exceed the defined
                                parameters of an aircraft upset. This
                                change better differentiates UPRT from
                                the existing part 60 unusual attitude
                                evaluation requirement in Table A1B.
Engine and Airframe Icing      (a) Clarified that specific icing effects
 Evaluation.                    are only required to be introduced where
                                such effects are representative of the
                                particular aircraft being simulated.
                               (b) Revised the existing part 60 engine
                                and airframe icing special effects test
                                (Table A3F) to remove references to
                                gross weight increments and to better
                                align with the updated requirements.
                               (c) Clarified that flight test data is
                                not necessarily required for the
                                development of icing models. Engineering
                                and analytical methods may be used to
                                develop representative icing models.
                               (d) Added provisions to allow for
                                supplemental tuning of icing models
                                using an SME pilot assessment.
Gusting Crosswind Evaluation.  (a) Removed references to the windshear
                                training aid for gusting crosswind model
                                development. Recommend use of gusting
                                crosswind profiles provided by the FAA
                                in guidance material.
                               (b) Removed the proposed minimum
                                qualification requirement for Level A
                                and Level B FSTDs.
Bounced Landing Recovery       (a) Removed the proposed ground reaction
 Evaluation.                    requirement to compute nosewheel
                                exceedances.
                               (b) Clarified the requirements to
                                emphasize the effects and indications of
                                ground contact due to landing in an
                                abnormal aircraft attitude and that
                                aircraft dynamics in a bounced landing
                                recovery maneuver are already adequately
                                covered in the existing part 60 rule.
Alignment with the ICAO 9625   (a) Restored the general requirements
 Document.                      table (Tables A1A and B1A) format,
                                numbering system, and content to the
                                existing part 60 versions. Appended the
                                proposed ICAO 9625 (Edition 3)
                                requirements from the NPRM into their
                                applicable sections.
                               (b) Restored the existing part 60 visual
                                system field of view (180[deg]x40[deg])
                                and system geometry requirements for
                                Level C and Level D FSTDs.
                               (c) Adopted the less restrictive visual
                                system lightpoint brightness tolerance
                                (5.8 ft.-lamberts) from the updated ICAO
                                9625, Edition 4, document.
                               (d) Adopted the less restrictive
                                transport delay tolerances (100 ms for
                                instrument and motion system response;
                                120 ms for visual system response) from
                                the updated ICAO 9625, Edition 4,
                                document.
                               (e) Modified the objective motion cueing
                                test (OMCT) description to not require
                                testing for continuing qualification
                                evaluations, removed minimum tolerances,
                                and further moved much of the technical
                                test details into guidance material.
                               (f) Aligned language where practical for
                                similar stall, UPRT, and icing
                                requirements from the ICAO 9625, Edition
                                4, document.
                               (g) Added deviation authority for the FAA
                                to accept alternate FSTD evaluation
                                standards where no adverse impact to the
                                fidelity of the FSTD can be
                                demonstrated.
                               (h) Reorganized the flight training
                                device (FTD) requirements in Appendix B
                                to restore the existing part 60 table
                                structure and better separate
                                requirements for the new Level 7 FTD and
                                the legacy part 60 FTD levels.
                               (i) Clarified the Level 7 FTD's minimum
                                qualified training tasks in Table B1B to
                                better align with the ICAO 9625
                                guidelines.
                               (j) Removed minimum requirements for
                                extended envelope training tasks for the
                                Level 7 FTD that are not included in the
                                ICAO 9625, Edition 4 document for the
                                Type V device.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Related Actions

    As a result of information gathered from various working groups, 
the FAA has taken action on loss of control training and simulator 
fidelity deficiencies by issuing the following voluntary guidance 
material:
    1. FAA Safety Alert for Operators (SAFO 10012)--Possible 
Misinterpretation of the Practical Test Standards (PTS) Language 
``Minimal Loss of Altitude.'' The purpose of this alert bulletin is to 
clarify the meaning of the approach to stall evaluation criteria as it 
relates to ``minimal loss of altitude'' in the Airline Transport Pilot 
PTS;
    2. FAA Information for Operators Bulletin (InFO 10010)--Enhanced 
Upset Recovery Training. This information bulletin recommends the 
incorporation of the material in the AURTA into flightcrew training. 
The AURTA contains guidance for upset recovery training programs for 
air carrier flightcrews, as well as the evaluation guidance for FSTDs 
used in such training;
    3. FAA Information for Operators Bulletin (InFO 15004)--Use of 
Windshear Models in FAA Qualified Flight Simulation Training Devices 
(FSTDs);
    4. FAA National Simulator Program (NSP) Guidance Bulletin No. 11-
04--FSTD Modeling and Evaluation Recommendations for Engine and 
Airframe Icing;
    5. FAA National Simulator Program (NSP) Guidance Bulletin No. 11-
05--FSTD Evaluation Recommendations for Upset Recovery Training 
Maneuvers;
    6. FAA National Simulator Program (NSP) Guidance Bulletin No. 14-
01--FSTD Evaluation Guidelines for Full Stall Training Maneuvers;
    7. AC 120-109A--Stall and Stick Pusher Training;
    8. AC 120-111--Upset Prevention and Recovery Training; and
    9. Airline Transport Pilot Practical Test Standards (Change 4).
    Portions of the above guidance material provide FSTD operators with 
recommended evaluation methods to improve FSTD fidelity for selected 
training tasks. To ensure that all FSTDs used to conduct such training 
are evaluated and modified to a consistent standard, the applicable 
part 60

[[Page 18184]]

technical requirements must be modified as described in this final 
rule.

III. Discussion of Public Comments and Final Rule

A. Evaluation Requirements for Full Stall Training Tasks

    The existing FSTD evaluation requirements for stall maneuvers are 
generally limited to the evaluation of stall speeds with little 
emphasis on the actual aircraft performance and handling 
characteristics as the aircraft exceeds the stall warning AOA. As a 
result, FSTDs used for such training may not provide the necessary cues 
and associated performance degradation needed to train flight crews in 
the recognition of an impending stall as well as training the 
techniques needed to recover from a stalled flight condition. In the 
NPRM, the FAA proposed updated general requirements, objective testing 
requirements, and functions and subjective testing requirements for the 
evaluation of full stall training maneuvers to support air carrier 
training as required in the Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training 
final rule.
1. Aerodynamic Modeling Range
a. Aerodynamic Modeling Beyond the Stall AOA
    In order to support the required training objectives, the proposal 
included requirements for the modeling and evaluation of the FSTD's 
stall characteristics up to 10 degrees beyond the stall AOA.
    CAE, Inc. (CAE) commented that the 10 degrees beyond the stall AOA 
requirement should be further reviewed, since application of the 
recovery should immediately lead to a reduction in AOA and therefore is 
inappropriate to relate the requirement to the 10 degrees beyond the 
stall AOA. CAE recommended that the 10 degree requirement be removed 
where rationale is provided for the upper limit of AOA modeling in the 
required SOC.
    The NTSB is generally supportive of the modeling requirements, 
citing that a peak AOA growth of about 10 degrees beyond the stall is 
typical for most incidents and accidents it has investigated. However, 
it did note that stick pusher response dynamics could cause a higher 
AOA overshoot and this dynamic behavior is a ``critical cue to a stall, 
which pilots must be trained to recognize.'' The NTSB also noted in its 
comments that the Colgan flight 3407 accident resulted in an AOA that 
extended to 13 degrees beyond the stall AOA.\4\ In addition, the NTSB 
stated that the required aerodynamic modeling for aircraft equipped 
with a stick pusher should not be limited to that of the stick pusher 
activation and that the aerodynamic modeling range include the flight 
dynamics that may occur where a pilot resists the stick pusher in 
training.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See NTSB accident report, Loss of Control on Approach, 
Continental Connection Flight 3407, February 12, 2009, NTSB Accident 
Report, NTSB/AAR-10/01; page 87, ``After the stall, the AOA 
oscillated between 10 deg and 27 deg . . . .''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA disagrees with CAE that the 10 degree requirement be 
removed in select cases. The 10 degree AOA range was initially 
recommended by the SPAW ARC as necessary to accomplish full stall 
training. Furthermore, this 10 degree AOA range is currently a 
recommended practice for simulator aerodynamic modeling in the 
International Air Transport Association (IATA) Flight Simulation 
Training Device Design and Performance Data Requirements document \5\ 
and has been a recommended practice since the second edition of the 
IATA document that was published in 1986. Finally, the FAA notes that 
an unpublished simulator investigation conducted by ICATEE in 
conjunction with NASA on their Enhanced Upset Recovery model showed 
that the 10 degree AOA range should be sufficient to capture most 
overshoots in AOA during various stall recovery maneuvers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ International Air Transport Association (IATA) Flight 
Simulation Training Device Design and Performance Data Requirements 
Document, 7th Edition (2009), sections 3.1.1.2 and 3.1.1.3 addresses 
stall entry and recovery as well as required angle of attack ranges 
for supporting data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA agrees with the NTSB that pilots can benefit from 
experiencing the aircraft dynamics involved in a stick pusher 
activation and recovery maneuver in training. The FAA has reviewed the 
NTSB accident reports and supporting data on two loss of control 
accidents in which pilots resisted the activation of a stick pusher and 
encountered an aerodynamic stall. In the Pinnacle Airlines Flight 3701 
accident, the initial stick pusher activation occurred at approximately 
10.5 degrees AOA at the start of the aircraft upset and the AOA 
subsequently oscillated from approximately -6 degrees to +14 degrees 
over three successive stick pusher activations with some instability 
evident in the roll axis.\6\ Only until just before the fourth 
activation of the stick pusher system (approximately eleven seconds 
after the initial stick pusher activation) did the AOA exceed the 
proposed aerodynamic modeling range (of 10 degrees beyond the stall 
AOA) for FSTD evaluation purposes.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See NTSB accident report, Crash of Pinnacle Airlines Flight 
3701, October 14, 2004, NTSB Accident Report, NTSB/AAR-07/01 and 
supporting flight data recorder factual report on the NTSB public 
docket (NTSB accident identification number DCA05MA003).
    \7\ For this aircraft, since the aerodynamic stall occurs after 
the stick pusher is designed to activate, the stall identification 
is provided by the stick pusher system activation and aerodynamic 
modeling would be required up to at least 20.5 degrees AOA for this 
configuration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Colgan 3407 accident, aerodynamic stall occurred before the 
stick pusher activation \8\ at approximately 14 degrees AOA which 
included an initial roll off to about 50 degrees of bank angle. After 
the initial stick pusher activation at about 17.5 degrees AOA, the 
subsequent AOA overshoot remained within 24 degrees as the aircraft 
rolled through 100 degrees of bank angle in the opposite direction of 
the initial roll off. The peak AOA value of approximately 27 degrees 
(10 degrees of AOA beyond the stick pusher activation where stall 
identification should have occurred) was not recorded until after 
multiple incorrect column responses by the pilot against the stick 
pusher over a time period of 30 seconds after the pilot's initial 
incorrect response to the stall warning.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ According to the NTSB accident report, the stick pusher on 
this aircraft is designed to activate after the aerodynamic stall.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA considered the comments and based on a review of industry 
recommendations and best practices, has determined that aerodynamic 
modeling to at least 10 degrees beyond the stall AOA is necessary so 
that the modeling does not abruptly end should the pilot overshoot the 
stall recognition and recovery in training. The FAA recognizes that the 
10 degree AOA range may not be sufficient to capture all of the flight 
dynamics involved with multiple severe divergent pitch oscillations 
where the pilot repeatedly resists a stick pusher system; however, 
training should not normally be allowed to continue significantly 
beyond the point where a trainee initially resists the stick pusher 
before recognizing the stall identification cues and executing the 
recovery procedures. As demonstrated by the AOA oscillations 
experienced in the Colgan and Pinnacle accidents, the FAA has 
determined that aerodynamic modeling to 10 degrees beyond the stall AOA 
should be sufficient to capture aircraft dynamics in instances where a 
pilot initially resists the stick pusher activation in training. The 
data from these accidents suggests that the 10 degree AOA aerodynamic 
modeling requirement would adequately cover an

[[Page 18185]]

AOA range that includes several seconds of inappropriate pilot 
responses to a stick pusher activation. The FAA has determined this 
range is sufficient to meet the training objective of teaching a pilot 
to not resist a stick pusher system activation.
b. Definition of the Stall AOA
    In the NPRM, the FAA defined the required aerodynamic model 
validity range for full stall qualification as 10 degrees of AOA beyond 
the stall/critical AOA and not as a function of when the stall 
identification cues are present.
    Airbus commented that the definition of stall or full stall should 
emphasize ``heavy buffet'' as an important cue. Airbus further cited 
the ICAO 9625, Edition 4, document \9\ states that a stalled flight 
condition may be recognized by continuous stall warning activation 
accompanied by at least one of the following: (1) Buffeting, which 
could be heavy at times; (2) lack of pitch authority and/or roll 
control; or (3) inability to arrest the descent rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See section III.F.3 concerning changes made to address the 
recently published ICAO 9625, Edition 4 document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA concurs with Airbus' comment that heavy buffet can be an 
important cue of a stall. The FAA has further considered the definition 
of stall as described in the ICAO 9625 document to determine an 
appropriate definition for stall with respect to the modeling 
requirements necessary to support the training objectives. The FAA does 
not fully agree, however, with the ICAO 9625 definition of stall; 
specifically the criteria of ``lack of pitch authority and/or roll 
control'' to define the stall since the part 25 airplane certification 
requirements state that the pilot must be able to control the aircraft 
in pitch and roll up to the stall. While control effectiveness can be 
reduced, it would be incorrect to say that it is lacking for certified 
airplanes.
    Two fundamental objectives of the stall training requirements are 
to train pilots to recognize the cues of an impending stall as well as 
to reinforce to pilots that the stall recovery procedures learned 
during stall prevention training are the same recovery procedures 
needed to recover from an unintentional full stall. To determine the 
extent of FSTD aerodynamic modeling necessary to conduct this training, 
the stall identification AOA must be defined as the point in which the 
pilot should recognize that the aircraft has stalled and that the stall 
recovery procedures must be initiated. The FAA has considered both the 
aircraft certification (part 25) definition of a ``clear and 
distinctive'' indication of a stall, as well as the ICAO 9625, Edition 
4, stall definition. In order to provide a more consistent definition 
of the stall AOA to ensure that the required aerodynamic modeling range 
covers potential overshoots in AOA during stall training, the FAA has 
amended the final rule to better define stall identification:
    i. No further increase in pitch occurs when the pitch control is 
held on the aft stop for 2 seconds, leading to an inability to arrest 
descent rate;
    ii. An uncommanded nose down pitch that cannot be readily arrested, 
which may be accompanied by an uncommanded rolling motion;
    iii. Buffeting of a magnitude and severity that is a strong and 
effective deterrent to further increase in AOA; and
    iv. The activation of a stick pusher.
    Since AOA awareness is a fundamental element of stall training, the 
instructor must be provided with feedback at the IOS concerning the 
aircraft's current AOA as well as the stall identification AOA. This 
feedback will not only provide the instructor with additional awareness 
concerning the aircraft's current AOA and proximity to the stall, but 
will also assist the instructor in determining when the aircraft has 
stalled and that the stall recognition cues have been provided as 
necessary to support the training objectives. In the final rule, the 
FAA has amended the IOS feedback requirements for upset prevention and 
recovery training to include AOA and stall identification AOA 
parameters.
    The FAA further notes that the stall identification cues exhibited 
by an aircraft can, and often do, vary depending upon the aircraft's 
configuration (e.g. weight, center of gravity, and flap setting) and 
how the stall is entered (turning flight or wings level stall entry). 
Where differing stall identification cues are present on the aircraft, 
the FSTD's aerodynamic model should be capable of providing these cues 
and variation of stall characteristics for training purposes. The FAA 
also points out that, while this requirement was implied in the stall 
model evaluation requirements in the NPRM, ICAO 9625, Edition 4, 
further clarifies this issue with additional language which states that 
``. . . the model should be capable of capturing the variations seen in 
the stall characteristics of the aeroplane (e.g., the presence or 
absence of a pitch break).'' The FAA has determined that the ability to 
show these variations would be valuable in training and has included 
similar clarifying language in Table A1A, section 2.m. of the final 
rule.
2. Envelope Protected Aircraft
a. Model Validity Ranges and Associated Objective Testing
    In the NPRM, the FAA included provisions that did not specifically 
require objective validation testing at an AOA beyond the activation of 
a stall identification (stick pusher) system through recovery. The 
primary purpose of including this provision was to not require the 
collection of flight test validation data at an AOA that could result 
in an unrecoverable and dangerous stalled flight condition.
    Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (Embraer), Airbus, and an 
individual commenter questioned why computer controlled aircraft with 
stall envelope protection systems are treated differently from aircraft 
equipped with stick pusher systems with respect to model validity 
ranges and associated objective testing. Delta Airlines, Inc. (Delta) 
further questioned whether such modeling and testing will be required 
for an Airbus A350 aircraft that has part 25 special conditions on 
stall testing for airplane certification.
    The FAA notes that Public Law 111-216 and the Crewmember and 
Aircraft Dispatcher Training final rule require training to be 
conducted to a stall. The primary purpose for the training is to 
provide flight crews with experience in recognizing the cues of an 
impending stall, as well as reinforcing the recovery techniques learned 
in stall prevention training. To expose flight crews to these stall 
identification cues, envelope protections systems must typically be 
disabled in training. Unlike most envelope protection systems, stick 
pushers are typically installed to either compensate for an inability 
of the aircraft to meet the part 25 stalling definitions in Sec.  
25.201 or the stall characteristics requirements in Sec.  25.203. Where 
a stick pusher is installed to meet the stall identification 
requirements of Sec.  25.201, the activation of the stick pusher 
provides the pilot with a clear and distinctive indication to cease any 
further increase in AOA. This ``clear and distinctive'' indication of a 
stall is necessary to accomplish the training objectives and simply 
reaching the AOA limits of the envelope protection or ``alpha floor'' 
on an envelope protected aircraft will not provide the stall 
recognition cues that a pilot needs to learn to prevent and recover 
from a full stall in the event that the envelope protection systems 
fail. The accident and incident record contains multiple instances of 
stall envelope protection

[[Page 18186]]

system failures in the past, some of which progressed into a full stall 
situation where recognition cues of the stall were not identified by 
the flight crews.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ One such example is the June 2009 crash of Air France 
flight 447, an Airbus A330-203 that experienced failure of the high 
angle of attack (stall) protection system due to the loss of 
airspeed data as a result of pitot probe blockage. See ``Final 
report on the accident on 1 June 2009 to the Airbus A330-203 
registered F-GZCP operated by Air France flight AF 447 Rio de 
Janeiro--Paris''; Bureau d'Enqu[ecirc]tes et d'Analyses (BEA); 
Paris, France. Another example is the December 2014 crash of 
Indonesia Air Asia flight 8501, an Airbus A320-216, where flightcrew 
actions to correct a malfunctioning flight augmentation system 
resulted in the loss of stall protection. See ``Aircraft Accident 
Investigation Report; PT. Indonesia Air Asia; Airbus A320-216; PK-
AXC''; Komite Nasional Keselamatan Transportasi (KNKT), Republic of 
Indonesia 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA further notes that the FSTD qualification requirement for 
objective and subjective testing of the stall is not new with this 
rulemaking. The part 60 standard published in 2008 contains both 
objective and subjective testing of the stall to include the ``g-
break'' and is required for computer controlled aircraft in a non-
normal operational mode.\11\ Furthermore, the FAA's FSTD qualification 
standards dating back to AC 121-14C (1980) have also had both objective 
and subjective testing requirements for stall.\12\ As a result, 
virtually all of the currently qualified Level C and Level D FSTDs for 
transport category aircraft have objective testing already in place for 
stall maneuvers in their FAA approved Master Qualification Test Guide 
(MQTG) and most of these objective tests are validated against flight 
test data collected up to and including the stall. The FAA finds that 
reducing these requirements would not support the full stall training 
requirements in the Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training final 
rule and therefore maintains that the requirements set forth in this 
final rule are necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See 14 CFR part 60 (2008), Appendix A, Table A2A, test 
2.c.8 (Stall Characteristics) and Table A3A, test 6.a. (High angle 
of attack, approach to stalls, stall warning, buffet, and g-break . 
. . .''.
    \12\ Advisory Circular (AC) 121-14C (1980), ``Aircraft Simulator 
and Visual System Evaluation and Approval''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Validation of Stall Characteristics Using Flight Test Data
    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed objective testing of stall 
characteristics for computer controlled aircraft in both normal mode 
and non-normal mode flight conditions up to the full stall through 
recovery to normal flight.
    Embraer commented that during the developmental flight test 
campaign, full aerodynamic stalls that are considered hazardous or 
impractical can only be done if the aircraft is equipped with 
additional safety features, such as a tail parachute or other 
equivalent device, and those features obviously change the aircraft 
behavior during stall recovery if they are employed. Additionally, 
Embraer emphasized that for safety reasons in the certification flight 
test campaign, depending upon the aircraft's aerodynamic 
characteristics during stalls; full aerodynamic stall flight tests are 
not done in control states in which the stall protection system is not 
available. Embraer recommended that flight testing for validation 
should not be required for objective testing in non-normal control 
states where the stall protection system is not available.
    As previously stated, the non-normal control mode objective testing 
to a full stall has been required in the existing part 60 stall 
characteristics objective tests as well as in previous FSTD evaluation 
standards dating back several years and the FAA has not significantly 
changed this requirement in this rulemaking. The FAA agrees with 
Embraer that aerodynamic stall flight testing may be hazardous or 
impractical to conduct in some circumstances (on both envelope 
protected and non-envelope protected aircraft) and this rulemaking has 
not specifically required additional flight test validation data to be 
collected at an AOA beyond where it is reasonably safe to do so.
    As described in the NPRM, the FAA has included allowances for 
aerodynamic stall models to be developed and validated using 
engineering and analytical methods. While the FAA agrees with the 
commenter that some airplane certification flight test data collected 
in a stall maneuver may not be suitable for simulator modeling and 
validation purposes (such as where a tail parachute has been deployed 
as mentioned by the commenter), other flight testing conducted to 
investigate the stall characteristics of the airplane during the 
aircraft certification program may be used to develop engineering 
simulator models. Where significant safety issues would prevent flight 
testing at an AOA beyond the activation of a stall protection system, 
engineering simulator validation data will be acceptable for FSTD 
objective testing purposes. The FAA has made amendments in the final 
rule to make this clarification.
c. Required AOA Range for Normal Mode Objective Testing
    In the NPRM, the FAA did not specify a particular AOA range to 
support the normal mode testing requirements for stall characteristics 
on computer controlled aircraft.
    Delta and Airlines for America (A4A) requested clarification on 
what will be the required AOA range for objective testing on aircraft 
with highly automated systems where the aircraft does not reach 
aerodynamic stall in ``normal control state.''
    The FAA has not specified a particular AOA range to support the 
normal mode testing requirements in this final rule, as this will be a 
subset of the AOA range required for non-normal mode testing. Public 
Law 111-216 and part 121, subparts N and O, require training for 
recoveries from stalls and stick pusher activations, if equipped. In 
order to conduct stall recovery training, the protections of an 
envelope-protected aircraft must be disabled. As such, aerodynamics 
outside of the envelope protections up to ten degrees beyond the stall 
AOA must be considered to allow for stall recovery training in the 
event the envelope protections fail.
3. Data Sources for Model Development and Validation
a. Define Best Available Data
    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed that where limited data is available 
to model and validate the stall characteristics of the aircraft, the 
data provider is expected to develop a stall model through analytical 
methods and the utilization of the ``best available data''.
    Bihrle Applied Research (Bihrle), A4A, and an anonymous commenter 
stated that the term, ``best available data'' (with regards to the 
aerodynamic data used to model and validate the stall model) is 
ambiguous and open to interpretation. American Airlines (American), 
FlightSafety International (FlightSafety), A4A, JetBlue Airways 
(JetBlue), and Delta further requested clarification from the FAA on 
whether a ``non-OEM'' provided source of data would be acceptable to 
the FAA to meet the representative stall model requirements.
    The FAA notes that there is not a specific requirement currently in 
part 60, nor has a new requirement been introduced in this final rule 
that mandates FSTD sponsors use the original equipment [aircraft] 
manufacturer's (OEM) data to develop and validate the aerodynamic and 
flight control models in qualified FSTDs. As described in Sec.  
60.13(b), ``The validation data package may contain flight test data 
from a source in addition to or independent of the aircraft 
manufacturer's data in support of an FSTD qualification . . .'' There 
are

[[Page 18187]]

numerous FSTDs that have been qualified up through Level D where the 
FSTD manufacturer or other third party data provider has instrumented 
and flight tested an aircraft in order to collect flight test data to 
develop and validate their own aerodynamic and flight control models to 
support FSTD evaluation and qualification.
    The FAA has considered the issues involved with requiring aircraft 
OEM data to develop and validate stall models for the purpose of 
conducting full stall training. While flight test data collected by the 
aircraft manufacturer will generally be the preferred source of data to 
model and validate FSTDs for training, the FAA has determined that 
``non-OEM'' sources of aerodynamic data must be considered for the 
following reasons:
    i. Restricting the development of stall models to that of the 
airplane manufacturers could impose a high cost on the FSTD sponsors 
and may not be possible in some instances where the airplane 
manufacturer does not support a simulator data package or is no longer 
in existence;
    ii. Recommendations by the SPAW ARC, ICATEE, and other working 
groups have supported the use of analytically developed ``type 
representative'' stall models for training purposes; and
    iii. An FAA simulator study \13\ has supported the SPAW ARC's 
findings and found that analytically derived ``type representative'' 
stall models that are developed by third party data sources and 
thoroughly evaluated by a SME pilot can be effectively used to support 
stall training tasks in a simulator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Schroeder, J.A., Burki-Cohen, J., Shikany, D.A., Gingras, 
D.R., & Desrochers, P. (2014). An Evaluation of Several Stall Models 
for Commercial Transport Training. AIAA Modeling and Simulation 
Technologies Conference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these reasons, the FAA finds that it would not be practical to 
require FSTD sponsors to use an aircraft manufacturer's high AOA/stall 
model to meet the requirements of this final rule and other source data 
may be acceptable. Furthermore, Boeing, A4A, and an anonymous commenter 
stated that ``flight test data should be noted as the preferred source 
of data, if available, with other data sources to be used if acceptable 
to the FAA.'' The FAA concurs with this statement. To manage unknown 
risks, an aircraft manufacturer provided stall model developed with 
flight test data will generally be the preferred source of data; 
however, the FAA has concluded that there is not sufficient evidence to 
warrant mandating a particular source of data for model development. 
The FAA acknowledges that the term, ``best available data'' is 
ambiguous and has removed that language in the final rule.
b. Post Stall ``Type Representative'' Modeling
    In the NPRM, FAA indicated that flight crews should be provided 
with practical experience in recognizing a full stall should the stall 
warning system become ineffective. To support this objective, the FSTD 
must provide critical aircraft type-specific stall recognition cues to 
enable the crew to recognize the onset of a stalled flight condition. 
Where data limitations and aircraft behavior may prevent conducting 
precise objective validation of post-stall behavior in the FSTD, the 
FAA included provisions in the proposal for ``type representative'' 
modeling and validation. To distinguish between the objectively 
validated ``type specific'' pre-stall modeling and post-stall modeling 
that may be developed through engineering analysis and SME pilot 
evaluation, the FAA used the term ``type representative'' in the NPRM.
    Delta, FlightSafety, and A4A requested that the FAA better define 
the term, ``type representative'' with regards to post stall model 
fidelity.
    In defining the FSTD fidelity requirements for full stall behavior, 
the FAA considered the primary training objectives for such training. 
The first objective of stall training is to provide flight crews with 
practical experience in recognizing a full stall should the stall 
warning system become ineffective (either through malfunction or human 
error). To support this objective, the FSTD must provide critical 
aircraft ``type specific'' recognition cues of an impending stall. 
Examples include cues such as reduced lateral/directional stability, 
deterrent stall buffet, and reduced pitch control if the particular 
aircraft has these cues.
    The second objective of stall training is to reinforce to flight 
crews that the recovery procedures learned during stall prevention 
training are the same procedures needed to recover from a full stall. 
From an aerodynamic modeling standpoint, this presents a more 
significant challenge for two reasons. First, aircraft behavior in an 
aerodynamic stall may not be stable and is often sensitive to initial 
conditions, which creates the impression of non-repeatable chaotic 
behavior. Second, because this occurs in a flight regime with reduced 
stability, there can be practical limitations on the amount of flight 
test data that can be safely collected for simulator modeling and 
validation purposes. It is for these reasons that objectively validated 
``type specific'' behavior at an AOA beyond the aerodynamic stall may 
not be a reasonable goal for defining fidelity in a training simulator.
    The FAA has determined that the primary training objective for 
stall training is to have a pilot learn the proper stall recovery 
procedure in response to the variety of stall cues that a particular 
aircraft presents. Owing to the reduced stability, unsteady 
aerodynamics, and surface and rigging variations that occur with use, 
an aircraft will respond differently from stall to stall. However, the 
physics of what can happen in a stall are known, accepting that they 
can differ from aircraft to aircraft. The FAA has concluded that if a 
pilot can demonstrate applying the stall recovery technique for the 
general characteristics of what might occur for an aircraft type, the 
precise characteristics are not required. That is, if an airplane 
typically rolls 10 degrees left or 20 degrees right in a stall does not 
matter as long as the pilot does not incorrectly apply the stall 
recovery technique by responding to that roll before reducing AOA. What 
is important is to present roll if an aircraft has rolling tendencies 
to ensure that a pilot responds properly.
    In order to avoid confusion with other uses of the word 
``representative'' with respect to simulator fidelity, and to remain 
consistent with the ICAO 9625 definitions, the FAA has changed the 
description of the post-stall fidelity requirements to ``sufficiently 
exemplar of the airplane being simulated to allow successful completion 
of the stall entry and recovery training tasks.'' For the purposes of 
stall maneuver evaluation, the term ``exemplar'' is defined as a level 
of fidelity that is type-specific of the simulated airplane to the 
extent that the training objectives can be satisfactorily accomplished.
c. Use of Flight Test Data and Availability
    In consideration of the recommendations of the SPAW ARC as well as 
the results of the FAA stall study, the FAA proposed that the necessary 
levels of simulator fidelity (including type specific pre-stall 
behavior and type representative post-stall behavior) can be achieved 
through a combination of engineering analysis, SME pilot assessment, 
and improved pre-stall objective testing through the use of existing 
stall flight test data that is already required by part 60 and

[[Page 18188]]

previous simulator standards.\14\ Furthermore, the FAA proposed 
additional objective testing requirements for stall characteristics to 
include turning flight stall and high altitude cruise stall. In the 
proposal, these tests were also included in the FSTD Directive as 
applicable to previously qualified FSTDs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 14 CFR part 60 (2008) currently requires stall 
characteristics objective testing that extends to the full stall and 
``g-break''. Similar requirements exist for grandfathered simulator 
standards dating back to AC 121-14C (1980).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dassault Aviation (Dassault) commented on the availability of full 
stall flight tests and that flight test points may not be available for 
some conditions where aircraft certification does not require them. 
Dassault further commented that corresponding flight test points might 
be implemented in the devices where partial data is available; however, 
no extension or extrapolation should be considered as type 
representative because this might lead to a very different behavior. An 
anonymous commenter made similar comments in that ``unless there is a 
source of flight test data in every possible combination of conditions 
that might exist in a full stall, a demonstration of recovery 
techniques in a given set of conditions is the only plausible 
solution.''
    FlightSafety further questioned whether there would be a release 
from liability should a stall model developed through engineering 
judgment and analytical methods prove to be inadequate.
    As stated in previous sections, the FSTD qualification standards 
have had objective testing requirements for flight maneuvers up to and 
including full stall since 1980, so nearly all currently qualified full 
flight simulators (FFS) already have full stall flight test points that 
are used for simulator validation purposes. For previously qualified 
FSTDs, this data could be used to further improve existing stall models 
to meet the requirements of this final rule. The FAA does recognize, as 
Dassault points out, that additional flight test validation data may 
not readily exist to validate the new stall maneuvers introduced in the 
objective testing requirements (e.g., cruise stall and turning flight 
stall). To address this concern, the FAA has amended the FSTD Directive 
for previously qualified FSTDs to remove the objective testing 
requirements for both the cruise condition and the turning flight stall 
condition and replaced them with subjective evaluation by an SME pilot. 
The remaining required objective testing stall characteristics tests 
(second segment climb and approach or landing conditions) are already 
required under the existing part 60 rule and should have existing 
validation data that can be used to meet the new objective testing 
requirements. Where limitations exist in the stall aerodynamic model 
due to the lack of data or reliable analytical methods, the data 
provider may declare these limitations as part of the required 
aerodynamic modeling SOC for the purposes of restricting the FSTD to 
certain stall maneuvers.
    In response to FlightSafety's comment, the FAA notes that 
engineering judgment and analytical methods are used extensively in 
other areas of a simulation model besides stall and these models are 
used for training in conditions and situations that vary from the 
flight conditions used to validate the model. This practice has proven 
satisfactory, as known physical principles are used by FSTD 
manufacturers and data providers to represent the training conditions 
that vary from the flight-validated conditions. The FAA issues 
standards for FSTD evaluation, but generally does not prescribe 
specific methods for developing simulation models. The FAA does not 
have the authority to declare a release from liability.
4. Qualification on FSTD Levels Other Than Level C and Level D
    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed modifications to the Level A and 
Level B stall qualification requirements to include stick pusher system 
force objective testing and updated objective and subjective testing 
requirements for the approach to stall flight conditions for newly 
qualified FSTDs.
    Boeing, Delta, and A4A commented that while the FAA proposed 
modifications to the Level A and Level B stall qualification 
requirements, the Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training final 
rule does not permit such training in these devices and therefore these 
requirements should be removed. Delta and Boeing had additional 
comments concerning new requirements proposed for the ``approach to 
stall'' objective tests on Level A and Level B simulators (including 
additional configurations, tolerances, and subjective testing of the 
autoflight/stall protection systems) with one commenter stating that 
there is no apparent explanation why the approach to stall 
characteristics objective test has changed for Level A and Level B 
simulators and it should remain unchanged to be consistent with the 
ICAO 9625 document.
    The FAA concurs with the commenters in that Sec.  121.423 requires 
extended envelope training be conducted in a Level C or Level D 
simulator and has removed the associated minimum requirements for full 
stall on Level A and Level B simulators. However, the FAA notes that 
such devices are qualified to conduct stall prevention training at AOAs 
below that of the activation of the stall warning system and improving 
the validation of these FSTDs in the approach to stall flight condition 
would be beneficial to this training. Where new testing requirements 
were proposed for Level C and Level D simulators for AOAs below the 
activation of the stall warning system, these testing requirements were 
carried over to Level A and Level B simulators to provide better 
validation of the simulator to conduct stall prevention training tasks. 
The FAA further notes that these requirements for Level A and Level B 
simulators are not retroactive requirements defined in the FSTD 
Directive and will only be required for Level A and Level B simulators 
that are initially qualified after this final rule becomes effective. 
The FAA does not believe these changes for Level A and Level B FSTDs 
will have an impact on the alignment with the ICAO document since the 
Level A and Level B FSTD levels in part 60 have no equivalent ICAO 
device level.
5. Motion Cueing System Limitations
    In the NPRM, the FAA included provisions to allow the FSTD 
manufacturer to limit the maximum buffet based on ``motion platform 
capabilities and limitations'' (see Table A2A, Entry No. 2.c.8). A 
similar provision was also included in the ICAO 9625, Edition 4.
    The FAA received several comments that the FSTD sponsors, in 
addition to the device manufacturers, should be allowed to limit 
maximum buffet based upon motion platform capabilities and limitations. 
Furthermore, Delta, Boeing, FlightSafety, A4A, JetBlue, and United 
Parcel Service (UPS) commented that FSTD sponsors should have the 
ability to tune down or otherwise reduce motion vibrations due to 
maintenance and reliability aspects, personnel safety, and limitations 
of other simulator components, such as visual display systems and other 
hardware onboard the simulator. Boeing additionally commented that 
other simulator systems, such as the visual system, may also limit the 
buffet levels.
    With regards to reducing or otherwise limiting motion vibrations 
that are within the motion platform's capabilities and limitations, the 
FAA has determined not to include specific

[[Page 18189]]

provisions to allow for arbitrary reductions in stall buffet from the 
levels that are evaluated through SME pilot assessment or objective 
testing. On many aircraft, the stall buffet is an important cue of an 
impending stall and, in some cases, may be the only distinctive cue a 
pilot will receive before or during an actual stall. In an FAA stall 
study on its B737-800 simulator \15\ in which the magnitude of the 
stall buffet cues had been modified and increased significantly, all 
ten of the participating test pilots who had stalled the B737 noted the 
importance of accurately presenting the strong buffet cues as a stall 
progresses. Furthermore, the importance of stall buffet in training has 
been emphasized numerous times by the various working groups that 
provided recommendations to the FAA on stall training and associated 
simulator fidelity. As such, the FAA has determined that to accomplish 
the intended training objectives to provide flight crews with accurate 
recognition cues of an impending stall, the stall buffet 
characteristics should be provided in the FSTD at a level that is 
representative of the aircraft as evaluated by an SME pilot.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Schroeder, J.A., Burki-Cohen, J., Shikany, D.A., Gingras, 
D.R., & Desrochers, P. (2014). An Evaluation of Several Stall Models 
for Commercial Transport Training. AIAA Modeling and Simulation 
Technologies Conference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, as cited in A4A's and American's comments, Schroeder 
did acknowledge in his paper that buffet levels are sometimes reduced 
in a simulator to extend component life; however, no such reduction in 
stall buffet was implemented for this experiment. In fact, overall 
buffet gains were increased by a factor of 2.5 in the simulator with no 
adverse effects noted after the completion of the five week 
experiment.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The FAA's CAE simulator was operated for an average of 8 
hours per day for five weeks to conduct approximately 700 stall 
maneuvers which had significant buffet levels. The FAA estimated 
that this simulator was exposed to approximately 67 total minutes of 
stall buffet over this five week period of time, which is comparable 
to what a typical part 121 carrier's simulator may be exposed to 
over an entire year under the new training rule. There were no 
reports of equipment damage after the completion of the experiment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA acknowledges that the potential exists for increased 
maintenance and reliability issues due to the repeated exposure of the 
FSTD to stall buffet. The FAA concurs with Boeing's comment in that 
other simulator systems (e.g., visual systems) may limit the maximum 
buffet levels that are possible in a simulator and the FAA has made 
changes in the final rule to reflect this. Particularly with visual 
display systems, notch filters are frequently employed to reduce the 
vibration output of the motion platform at or around a resonant 
frequency that would cause damage to visual system components such as a 
Mylar mirror. These methods have been employed in the past and will 
continue to be permissible to protect the simulator and its occupants 
from known system limitations where damage is likely to occur or 
occupant safety may be compromised.
    Furthermore, given that these standards may be applied to 
previously qualified FSTDs where the original FSTD manufacturer may not 
be accomplishing and evaluating the modifications of the FSTD, the FAA 
agrees with the commenters that the ability to limit the maximum buffet 
due to motion platform and other simulator system capabilities and 
limitations should be extended to the FSTD sponsor. The FAA has amended 
the final rule to allow for the FSTD manufacturer or the FSTD sponsor 
to limit the maximum motion buffet levels as described in this section.
6. Subject Matter Expert Pilot Evaluation and Qualification
a. SME Qualifications and Experience
    In the NPRM the FAA proposed that the SME pilot who conducts the 
subject evaluation of the FSTD's stall characteristics must have ``. . 
. acceptable supporting documentation and/or direct experience of the 
stall characteristics of the aircraft being simulated'' and have 
``knowledge of the training requirements to conduct the stall training 
tasks.'' The additional requirements proposed in Attachment 7 of the 
NPRM further stated that that the SME pilot must have experience in 
conducting stalls in the type of aircraft being simulated and, where 
not available, experience in an aircraft with similar stall 
characteristics.
    The FAA received several comments concerning the experience and 
qualification requirements for SME pilots. American, A4A, Delta, and 
FlightSafety requested clarification on whether the required SME must 
be a pilot who has flown a full stall in the airplane or a pilot who 
only has knowledge of training requirements to conduct the stall tasks. 
Delta and A4A also questioned whether there are any other SME 
experience requirements beyond conducting stalls in the aircraft being 
simulated, or in an aircraft with similar stall characteristics. A4A, 
Delta, and FlightSafety, further requested clarification on whether an 
SME pilot can gain the necessary stall experience in an audited 
engineering simulator or on another Level D FFS that has already been 
qualified for stall maneuvers.
    The FAA maintains that the subjective evaluation of the aerodynamic 
stall model is a critical component in ensuring that the FSTD's stall 
characteristics are representative of the aircraft and support the 
training objectives. The FAA further maintains that for such a 
subjective assessment to have credibility, the pilot must have direct 
experience in conducting stall maneuvers in the aircraft being 
simulated or in a similar aircraft that is expected to share the same 
general stall characteristics.
    The FAA acknowledges that the SME requirements in the NPRM were not 
clearly defined and has revised Attachment 7 of Appendix A of the final 
rule to better define these requirements. In particular, rather than 
just stating the stall experience must be in the ``type of aircraft 
being simulated'', the FAA clarified this by stating that the 
experience must be ``. . . direct experience in conducting stall 
maneuvers in an airplane that shares a common type rating with the 
simulated aircraft.'' In instances where the stall experience is in a 
different make, model, and series of aircraft within a common type 
rating, the FAA clarified that differences in aircraft specific stall 
recognition cues and handling characteristics must be addressed using 
available documentation such as aircraft operating manuals, aircraft 
manufacturer flight test reports, or other documentation that describes 
the stall characteristics of the aircraft.
    Particularly for aircraft that are no longer in production, the FAA 
recognizes that there may be practical limits in finding SME pilots 
with the required experience to conduct the stall model evaluations. In 
instances where an acceptable SME cannot be reasonably located, the FAA 
has included deviation authority in the final rule for a sponsor to 
propose alternate methods in conducting the SME pilot evaluation of an 
FSTD's stall model.
    In response to the comments concerning whether the SME pilot is 
required to have experience in the stall characteristics of the 
aircraft or knowledge of the training requirements to conduct the stall 
training tasks, the FAA has determined that the SME pilot must have 
both aircraft experience and knowledge of the training requirements, 
with the exceptions on experience as noted previously. While an 
important element of the subjective assessment is the comparison of the 
FSTD's performance against that of the aircraft, knowledge of the 
training tasks to be conducted in the FSTD should be

[[Page 18190]]

considered when conducting these evaluations. The recognition cues and 
handling qualities of an airplane can change significantly as a 
function of the aircraft configuration and how the stall is entered. To 
ensure the model can support the training objectives as well as to 
communicate any known or potential deficiencies in the model, the SME 
pilot conducting this subjective evaluation should focus the evaluation 
on those general aircraft configurations and stall entry methods that 
will likely be used in training. The FAA has clarified this language in 
the SME pilot evaluation requirements in Attachment 7.
    The FAA has considered whether an SME pilot can gain experience in 
an audited engineering simulator or another Level D FFS that has been 
qualified for full stall maneuvers and has concerns that the 
effectiveness of an SME pilot evaluation may be diminished when making 
such comparisons from simulator to simulator without an objective 
measure to ensure that the aerodynamic model from the engineering 
simulator has been properly implemented on the training simulator. For 
these reasons, the FAA maintains that the SME pilot conducting the 
subjective evaluation of the FSTD or associated stall model must have 
direct experience of the stall in the aircraft. A pilot cannot gain the 
necessary aircraft experience required to be a SME in an engineering 
simulator or another FFS that has been qualified for full stalls.
b. Model Validation Conducted by the Data Provider
    Boeing and Airbus commented that in lieu of an SME pilot evaluation 
being conducted on the individual FSTDs for initial and recurrent 
evaluations, the model validation with the SME pilot can be conducted 
by the data provider where objective stall data is provided to validate 
the individual FSTDs. Delta and A4A made similar comments. The FAA 
agrees with the commenters and notes that provisions to conduct the SME 
pilot evaluation on an engineering simulator were included in the 
proposal in Attachment 7 to Appendix A. The FAA maintains that where 
objective proof of match tests are provided to verify the models have 
been properly implemented on the training FSTD (including stall 
characteristics and stall buffet objective testing), the FAA will 
accept an SOC from the data provider that confirms the integrated stall 
model has been evaluated by an SME pilot on an engineering simulator or 
other simulator acceptable to the FAA. Furthermore, there is no intent 
to require that this SME evaluation be conducted annually, and the SOC 
that confirms this SME assessment has taken place will remain valid as 
long as the stall model remains unmodified.
c. NSPM Process for Evaluating and Accepting an SME Pilot
    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed that an SOC be provided to the FAA 
that confirms that the FSTD has been evaluated by an SME pilot. This 
requirement was proposed to apply to both newly qualified FSTDs as well 
as previously qualified FSTDs that are evaluated under the requirements 
of FSTD Directive No. 2.
    Delta and A4A requested clarification on this process that the NSPM 
follows to evaluate and accept an SME pilot.
    As described in FSTD Directive No. 2 and Attachment 7 to Appendix 
A, the process for the qualification of stall maneuvers requires that 
the sponsor submit an SOC to the NSPM confirming that the FSTD has been 
evaluated by a SME pilot with the required experience. The NSPM will 
review this SOC to verify that the evaluating SME pilot has the 
required experience as specified in the rule before issuing additional 
qualification for full stall training tasks. Additionally, requests for 
deviation from the SME experience requirements as described in 
Attachment 7 should be submitted to the NSPM when requesting additional 
qualification for full stall training tasks. Where specific questions 
arise, the NSPM will contact the sponsor or data provider directly for 
clarification.
7. Alignment With ICAO 9625, Edition 4, on Stall and Stick Pusher 
Requirements
    The FAA's proposal for the stall and stick pusher requirements were 
primarily based upon the recommendations from the SPAW ARC, as well as 
other working groups such as ICATEE and the LOCART working group. After 
the FAA first initiated this rulemaking, the ICATEE recommendations 
that were considered by the FAA in developing the proposal were also 
considered by ICAO for updating the ICAO 9625 document to include FSTD 
evaluation standards for stall and upset prevention and recovery 
training.
    The FAA received numerous comments that some of the general 
requirements and objective testing requirements in the proposal did not 
align with the ICAO 9625, Edition 4 requirements, which became 
available following the publication of the NPRM. A4A, Boeing, and an 
anonymous commenter indicated that the stick pusher requirements (Table 
A1A, Entry No. 2.1.7.S) in the NPRM should be relocated to the flight 
controls section where they are more applicable. Boeing and A4A also 
commented that the stall buffet onset measurements in the stall 
characteristics objective tests (Table A2A, Entry No. 2.c.8) are based 
upon speed rather than AOA like ICAO 9625, Edition 4. Delta, A4A, and 
an anonymous commenter indicated that the control force tolerances in 
the stall characteristics test should be applicable only to aircraft 
with reversible flight control systems. Finally, A4A and Boeing 
commented that the required test conditions for the stall buffet motion 
characteristics test (test 3.f.8 in Table A2A of the NPRM) do not 
include the same conditions as ICAO 9625, Edition 4.
    The FAA was unable to fully participate in the ICAO deliberations 
due to ex parte concerns as the agency was engaged in this rulemaking 
proceeding. The FAA has had an opportunity to review the final release 
of the ICAO 9625, Edition 4, document and has found that only minor 
differences exist with regards to the stall qualification requirements 
as compared to the final rule. As such, in order to maintain alignment 
with the ICAO document as identified by the commenters, the FAA has 
incorporated the ICAO language into the final rule to the maximum 
extent possible. The FAA has amended the final rule by adopting much of 
the ICAO language for high AOA/stall modeling minimum requirements 
(Table A1A, Entry No. 2.m. in the final rule) as well as the stall 
characteristics objective test tolerances and flight conditions (Table 
A2A, Entry No. 2.c.8.a in the final rule).
    The FAA did not, however, amend the required conditions for the 
stall buffet tests to align with the ICAO 9625 standard. As recommended 
by the SPAW ARC report, stall buffet evaluation should include a 
broader range of flight conditions than what is currently evaluated. 
The FAA has determined that the inclusion of the second segment climb 
condition is important to evaluate the differences in stall buffet 
vibrations at high power settings, particularly for turboprop 
airplanes. As a result, the FAA has maintained this is as a required 
condition for the stall buffet characteristic vibrations test (Table 
A2A, Entry No. 3.f.5).
    While the FAA has aligned a majority of the general requirements 
and the objective testing requirements with the ICAO document, specific 
differences must be maintained in the final rule to address comments 
received on the proposal as well as retroactive FSTD

[[Page 18191]]

evaluation requirements that are required to support the mandated 
training for United States (U.S.) air carriers.
8. Requirements for Previously Qualified FSTDs
a. Stall Buffet Objective Testing
    In the proposal, the retroactive requirements for previously 
qualified FSTDs, as described in FSTD Directive No. 2., did not include 
objective testing for stall buffets.
    Boeing, Delta, A4A, and an anonymous commenter stated that the 
general requirement and objective testing requirements (Table A1A and 
Table A2A, respectively) for stall buffet vibration measurement state 
that these tests are required for all FSTDs qualified for stall 
training tasks. This is in conflict with the proposed FSTD Directive 
No. 2, which specifically states that stall buffet objective vibration 
testing is not required for previously qualified FSTDs.
    In recognizing the potentially high cost of gathering additional 
flight test validation data for stall buffets, the FAA did not include 
this requirement in the proposed FSTD Directive No. 2 retroactive 
requirements for previously qualified FSTDs. Since changes to the QPS 
tables are not typically applicable to previously qualified FSTDs, 
changes to Table A1A or Table A2A are not necessary since all of the 
retroactive requirements are defined in FSTD Directive No. 2. The FAA 
has added language in FSTD Directive No. 2 in the final rule to clarify 
the retroactive testing requirements.
b. FSTD Directive No. 2 and Grandfather Rights
    In FSTD Directive No. 2, previously qualified FSTDs that will be 
used to conduct full stall, UPRT, and other specific training tasks 
will be required to meet certain sections of the general requirements, 
objective testing requirements, and subjective testing requirements of 
the updated QPS tables in order to obtain qualification for these 
training tasks.
    A4A requested clarification on whether FSTDs that are ``upgraded'' 
to provide extended envelope training would also have to comply with 
the proposed ICAO alignment requirements as well (such as the new 
visual display system requirements). American and A4A further noted 
that some sections within the QPS tables appear to have been mistakenly 
applied to all simulators instead of those qualified after the 
effective date of the final rule.
    The FAA notes that the only new QPS requirements applicable for 
previously qualified FSTDs are those that are described in FSTD 
Directive No. 2. As described in Sec.  60.17 and paragraph 13 of 
Appendix A, previously qualified FSTDs will continue to hold 
grandfather rights and the changes to the QPS tables will not generally 
be applicable to previously qualified devices unless specifically 
stated in an FSTD Directive. The FAA has reviewed FSTD Directive No. 2 
and made amendments in the final rule to clarify which sections of the 
QPS appendices will be applicable to previously qualified devices.
    The FAA further notes that an ``upgrade,'' as defined by part 60, 
is an ``improvement or enhancement of an FSTD for the purpose of 
achieving a higher qualification level.'' FSTDs that are upgraded in 
qualification level will generally have to comply with the standard 
that is in effect at the time of the upgrade. It is important to note, 
however, that compliance with FSTD Directive No. 2 does not require a 
change in qualification level and is not considered an ``upgrade'' 
under part 60. As a result, the other changes made to the QPS 
appendices, including the general changes made to align with the ICAO 
document, will not be applicable to previously qualified FSTDs unless 
upgrading in FSTD qualification level.
9. Applicability of Stall and UPRT Requirements on Newly Qualified 
FSTDs
    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed that the minimum requirements for the 
evaluation of full stall maneuvers and UPRT maneuvers would be 
applicable for all fixed wing Level C and Level D FSTDs that are 
initially qualified after the final rule becomes effective.
    Dassault commented that while UPRT and full stall training will 
become mandatory for part 121 operators, it is not clear if this 
applies to part 135 and part 91 operators as well. Dassault further 
questioned whether the objective testing requirements for full stall 
maneuvers would be required for an FSTD that will not be used for full 
stall training. Finally, Dassault commented that they would prefer the 
requirements to be applied to new or modified aircraft types instead of 
new FSTDs since this would allow collecting necessary data at the time 
of the type certification flight tests.
    CAE made similar comments that point out that the FSTD Directive 
(for previously qualified devices) is only applicable for those FSTDs 
that will be used to conduct such (UPRT and stall) training, however, 
the requirements in the QPS appendices are mandatory for newly 
qualified FSTDs regardless of whether they are used in an air carrier 
or a non-air carrier training program. CAE recommended that operators 
of newly qualified FSTDs (that are initially qualified after the final 
rule becomes effective) who are not subject to the Crewmember and 
Aircraft Dispatcher Training final rule should also be given the same 
option on whether or not to invest in the additional features that 
support extended envelope and other tasks as required under the final 
rule. CAE further stated that this would provide an option to those 
operators who may have multiple devices to limit such updates to 
certain equipment that will be utilized to conduct such training.
    FAA agrees with the commenters that the requirement for FSTD 
modifications and data collection should not be imposed on sponsors who 
will not use those FSTDs to conduct full stall training and have no 
mandate to conduct such training. Similar to the FSTD Directive for 
previously qualified FSTDs, the FAA has amended the final rule to make 
the qualification of full stall maneuvers optional for newly qualified 
FSTDs. This will allow flexibility for operators to decide how many 
FSTDs need to be evaluated for full stall maneuvers to support training 
requirements.
    FAA has, however, maintained the minimum requirements for UPRT 
evaluation on newly qualified Level C and Level D FFSs. The FAA has 
estimated that the addition of such IOS feedback tools to support UPRT 
would add little to no incremental cost to that of a newly qualified 
FSTD and will enhance instructor awareness in support of the existing 
part 60 unusual attitude qualification requirement.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 14 CFR part 60, Appendix A, Table A1B, Entry No. 3.f., 
``Recovery From Unusual Attitudes''. This minimum qualification 
requirement covers maneuvers that are ``within the normal flight 
envelope supported by applicable simulation validation data.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to ensure that only FFSs that are evaluated and qualified 
for stall training tasks are used for such training, compliance with 
the stall and UPRT evaluation requirements will be tracked by the FAA 
through modifications to the FSTD's Statement of Qualification (SOQ).
10. General Comments on Stall Requirements
a. Testing and Checking of Stall Maneuvers
    Boeing commented that stall training beyond the stick shaker 
activation does not require testing or checking in part 121 and 
references made to testing and checking in FSTD Directive No. 2 should 
be removed.

[[Page 18192]]

    FAA agrees with Boeing's comment and has modified the language in 
FSTD Directive No. 2 accordingly.
b. Interim FSTD Qualification for Stall Training
    A4A commented that the FSTD Directive (for previously qualified 
FSTDs) requires evaluation by the NSPM for additional qualification and 
should allow a draft SOQ to be issued until the next scheduled 
evaluation.
    FAA notes that FSTD Directive No. 2 does not require an update to 
the FSTD's permanent SOQ before stall training can be conducted in an 
FAA approved training program. A positive response from the NSPM to the 
FSTD modification notification confirming that the requirements of the 
Directive have been met will, in most cases, serve as an interim update 
to the FSTD's SOQ until the next scheduled FSTD evaluation. In some 
instances, however, additional FSTD evaluations conducted by the FAA 
may be required before the modified FSTD is placed into service. FAA 
has added clarifying language to the FSTD Directive that this response 
will serve as interim FSTD qualification for stall training tasks until 
the next scheduled FSTD evaluation where additional FSTD evaluations 
conducted by the FAA have been determined to not be required.
c. Aerodynamic Modeling Considerations
    Frasca International (Frasca) commented that AOA rate is a 
significant contributor to stall behavior and should be considered as 
part of the requirement for aerodynamic stall modeling. FAA agrees with 
Frasca's comment and has added AOA rate to the list of aerodynamic 
modeling considerations in Attachment 7.

B. Evaluation Requirements for Upset Prevention and Recovery Training 
Tasks

    In order to support UPRT that was introduced in the Crewmember and 
Aircraft Dispatcher Training final rule, the FAA proposed new FSTD 
evaluation requirements for these training tasks. The proposed 
requirements were based upon recommendations from the LOCART and ICATEE 
working groups as well as from the guidance in the Airplane Upset 
Recovery Training Aid (AURTA), and included new standards to better 
define the FSTD's aerodynamic validation envelope. The proposal also 
included requirements to improve the feedback at the instructor 
operating station (IOS) concerning the FSTD validation envelope limits, 
aircraft operational limits, and flight control inputs by the trainee.
1. UPRT Qualification on Lower Level FSTDs
    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed minimum qualification requirements 
for full stall and UPRT in the newly defined Level 7 flight training 
device (FTD) (Table B1A of Appendix B).
    TRU Simulation and A4A commented that the proposal requires 
extended envelope modeling for the Level 7 FTD, but the part 121 
training requirements have a minimum requirement that this training 
must be conducted in a Level C or higher simulator. In addition, A4A 
commented that this is inconsistent with ICAO 9625, Edition 4, where 
UPRT training is only qualified on a Type VII device. Finally, Air Line 
Pilots Association, International (ALPA) commented that training could 
be negatively impacted if allowed to be conducted on a Level A or Level 
B FFS as the proposal states and this is inconsistent with the 
recommendations of the SPAW ARC.
    FAA agrees with A4A and TRU Simulation regarding UPRT qualification 
on a Level 7 FTD. This was an error in the proposal and the FAA has 
amended the final rule to remove minimum qualification requirements for 
both full stall and UPRT on the Level 7 FTD.
    The FAA has reconsidered the qualification of Level A and Level B 
FFSs for UPRT tasks that involve no bank angle excursions, such as 
nose-high or nose-low upsets, as defined in the NPRM, and amended the 
final rule by removing references to full stall and UPRT evaluation 
requirements for Level A and Level B FFSs in the FSTD Directive.
    The FAA notes that the primary differences between the Level A and 
Level B minimum qualification requirements compared to the Level C and 
Level D qualification requirements are generally limited to ground 
reaction modeling, visual system field of view requirements, and 
minimum motion cueing requirements. The ground reaction modeling 
requirements have no impact on UPRT or stall training given that 
training is typically conducted well outside of ground effect. There 
are significant differences in the motion cueing abilities between 
Level A and Level B FFSs versus Level C and Level D FFSs that impact 
the ability for effective full stall and upset training to be conducted 
in the lower level devices. Level A and Level B FFSs have a 3 degree-
of-freedom (DOF) motion cueing system compared to the 6-DOF motion 
cueing requirement for Level C and Level D FFSs. Typically, a 3-DOF 
motion cueing system includes motion cues in the pitch, roll, and heave 
axes.\18\ For wings-level maneuvers, such as the nose-high or nose-low 
upsets, the dominant motion cues during the stimulation of such an 
upset will typically be limited to the pitch and heave axis with little 
activity in the other axes. Because there may be considerable variation 
in how each pilot responds to an upset in training, other cues may be 
introduced during the recovery maneuver that are outside of the 
capability of a Level A or Level B FFS. Furthermore, a wings-level 
stall entry may result in considerable lateral-directional 
accelerations on airplanes that are unstable at the stall. These cues 
will generally be outside the capability for a Level A or Level B FFS 
with a 3-DOF motion cueing platform to reproduce; therefore, evaluation 
of full stall and upset in these devices would not be appropriate in 
most cases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See 14 CFR part 60, Table A1A, entry 5.b.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FAA adds that while the qualification of extended envelope training 
tasks will generally be applicable only to Level C and Level D 
simulators, operators of other FFSs have the option to apply for FAA 
consideration of a deviation from the use of a Level C or Level D 
simulator for extended envelope training tasks as described in Sec.  
121.423(e). Since the approval of such a deviation will be linked to 
the training program and the alternate means that are proposed to 
achieve the required learning objectives, approvals to deviate from the 
Level C or higher requirements in Sec.  121.423 will have to be 
reviewed on a case-by-case basis under the deviation authority.
2. Record and Playback Requirements for UPRT
    In its proposal, the FAA included minimum requirements for a means 
to record and playback audio and video as well as a means to record and 
playback certain parameters for the qualification of UPRT maneuvers.
    American, Boeing, Delta, A4A, FedEx, JetBlue, and an anonymous 
commenter stated that the requirement for record and playback 
functionality is outside the scope of the part 60 rule and does not 
provide additional benefits to the training scenario. While the 
commenters generally agreed with having parameters available to the 
instructor during the scenario, such as the aerodynamic validation 
envelope and the aircraft operational limits, the recording and 
playback of parameters, particularly the recording and playback of 
audio and video, should be left to the discretion of the operator. Both 
ALPA and A4A further commented that there are union and collective 
bargaining agreements to

[[Page 18193]]

consider with videotaping flight crews in training. Additionally, 
several commenters noted that there is a high cost burden with 
requiring the audio and video playback functionality and the 
requirement should be removed.
    The FAA has reconsidered the instructor feedback requirements and 
agrees with the commenters that effective UPRT can be conducted without 
audio and video playback capabilities or with the use of an instructor 
off-board debriefing system located outside of the simulator for the 
purposes of replaying the training scenario after its conclusion. While 
the use of off-board debriefing tools and audio/video playback may 
enhance such training, the FAA recognizes that operators can still 
conduct effective training without them and has amended the final rule 
to remove the audio and video record and playback requirements.
3. Instructor Operating Station (IOS) Requirements
    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed minimum requirements for a feedback 
mechanism, located on the IOS and available to the instructor, that 
provides a minimum set of parameters to display to determine expected 
FSTD fidelity, aircraft structural/performance limitations, and student 
flight control inputs. The FAA provided example IOS feedback displays 
in the information section of Attachment 7 to Appendix A. The proposal 
also included requirements for features or malfunctions to support the 
training of crew awareness, recognition, and recovery from an aircraft 
upset.
    American and A4A commented that the UPRT requirements for upset 
``awareness'' and ``recognition'' features and/or malfunctions are 
outside of the scope of the rule and emphasis should be placed on 
recovery from an upset. JetBlue made similar comments on this topic. 
Boeing further commented that how the training requirements are met 
should be at the discretion of the training program and is not 
pertinent to FSTD qualification. Since these features are not 
prescribed, they should appear in the information/notes column and not 
in the requirements column of Table A1A. Frasca additionally questioned 
what would be some examples of relevant data sources with respect to 
externally driven upset scenarios.
    Regarding the IOS requirement to display ``Cl-max'', A4A, Boeing, 
and an anonymous commenter stated that ``Cl-max'' is not an explicit 
output of most aerodynamic models and is not available for plotting on 
the IOS display. Similar comments concerning the use of ``Cl-max'' as 
an example of a limit were made by the NTSB. Boeing and FlightSafety 
also recommended changing the IOS feedback requirement from showing 
``aircraft structural/performance limitations'' to showing ``aircraft 
operating limits''. FlightSafety further commented that aircraft 
structural and performance limitations are not likely to be known or 
provided to simulator manufacturers or operators. Delta commented that 
as an alternative to the record and playback functionality, enhancing 
existing IOS functionality to include ``FSTD crash'' and freeze when g-
load or control input parameters are exceeded would provide immediate 
information to the instructor. UPS made similar comments in that a flag 
could be added to the IOS for envelope excursion and a maximum load 
indication and that other feedback mechanisms are cost prohibitive and 
not needed.
    The FAA agrees with the commenters in that mandating specific 
features and malfunctions to drive upset scenarios is generally outside 
the scope of part 60 and has removed these requirements in the final 
rule. The FAA further notes that specific guidance material on 
developing UPRT scenarios has been published as part of Advisory 
Circular (AC) 120-111, Upset Prevention and Recovery Training.
    The FAA maintains that minimum feedback requirements have been 
found necessary to provide meaningful information to the instructor in 
training and evaluating pilots in UPRT maneuvers. The FAA recognizes 
that FSTD sponsors and operators may have other means to display this 
information and the example IOS displays provided in Attachment 7 are 
included in an information section as guidance material and are 
intended to be examples that could be used if desired. Digital or 
discrete IOS feedback mechanisms may prove to be acceptable for some or 
all parameters as Delta and UPS have suggested and, consequently, the 
FAA has not mandated a particular solution. The FAA has amended the 
final rule to allow FSTD sponsors the discretion to determine a 
feedback mechanism design that provides the required parameters needed 
for UPRT and supports their particular training programs and FSTD 
capabilities.
    The FAA has further amended the final rule to remove the 
``structural/performance limitations'' terminology and replaced it with 
``aircraft operational limitations'' as suggested by the commenters. 
Additionally, the FAA has removed the feedback parameter, ``Cl-max'' as 
suggested by the commenters and replaced it with ``stall speed'' and 
``stall identification angle of attack'' since these are more useful 
parameters for instructors to directly provide feedback to crew members 
when conducting UPRT and stall maneuvers.
4. Aerodynamic Source Data and Range of the FSTD Validation Envelope
a. FSTD Validation Envelope and Training Maneuvers
    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed requirements to define the limits of 
the FSTD's validation envelope and test the FSTD against a minimum set 
of standard upset recovery maneuvers as defined in the AURTA.
    Boeing, A4A, and an anonymous commenter stated that the term 
``extended envelope'' in the general requirements is redundant because 
``modeling to the extent necessary. . . .'' defines the requirement 
adequately. Boeing further commented that this phrase is a misnomer and 
implies that the flight model may need to be extended. For some upset 
recovery training, the existing model may be sufficient to support the 
training needs. A4A made similar comments stating that its experience 
has shown that the current data appears to be sufficient for conducting 
upset recovery training.
    Airbus further commented that the evaluation of the FSTD should 
take into consideration the training practices recommended by the 
aircraft OEM. An anonymous commenter additionally stated that it is 
imperative that the validation limits are defined by the aerodynamic 
data provider since they are the only credible source for these limits.
    FAA agrees that the term, ``extended envelope'' may be redundant in 
this particular context and has amended the final rule accordingly. The 
FAA recognizes that many aerodynamic models on existing FSTDs may 
currently be capable of conducting UPRT maneuvers within their AOA 
versus sideslip validation envelope with no need to be extended further 
as the commenters suggest. However, the range of validation envelopes 
can vary significantly between FSTDs as a function of the extent of 
flight test data, wind tunnel data, and other data used to develop the 
model. Since those validation envelopes have not been transmitted by 
the data providers to the FSTD operators in most cases, the FAA has 
determined that the comments are unsupported and have concluded that 
operators need to obtain the validation envelopes and ensure that their 
training maneuvers remain within them.

[[Page 18194]]

    The FAA agrees with Airbus in that the evaluation of the FSTD 
should consider the training that will be conducted in the device. 
However, this rulemaking only addresses FSTD qualification standards 
and the FSTD evaluation requirements were primarily developed to 
support training as required by the Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher 
Training final rule and public law. In developing the FSTD evaluation 
standards for UPRT, the SPAW ARC recommendations, as well as the AURTA 
recommendations, were reviewed to define a standard set of upset 
recovery maneuvers that were needed to minimally qualify an FSTD for 
such training. This set of maneuvers is considered to be the minimum 
required for FSTD qualification that will provide a baseline evaluation 
of the FSTD's capabilities to conduct UPRT, but in no way limits an 
FSTD sponsor's decisions concerning which upset recovery maneuvers they 
incorporate into their training programs.
    The FAA further notes that the qualification requirements for UPRT 
in this final rule exceeds the current part 60 FSTD qualification 
requirement for ``recoveries from unusual attitudes'' which limits 
maneuvers to ``within the normal flight envelope supported by 
applicable simulation validation data.'' \19\ If a training provider, 
regardless of operational rule part, performs unusual attitude training 
\20\ maneuvers that exceed the parameters that define an aircraft 
upset, that FSTD must be evaluated and qualified for UPRT. The FAA does 
not believe this will impose an additional cost burden on sponsors of 
previously qualified FSTDs since UPRT qualification is only required if 
the training provider chooses to conduct unusual attitude training that 
exceeds the defined upset conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 14 CFR part 60, Appendix A, Table A1B, Entry No. 3.f., 
``Recovery From Unusual Attitudes''.
    \20\ Unusual attitude training is required training for an 
instrument rating, an airline transport pilot certificate, and an 
aircraft type rating.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA generally agrees that the validation limits are best 
defined by the aerodynamic data provider and has provided clarification 
in Attachment 7 in Appendix A of the final rule; however, there may be 
instances where the original aerodynamic data provider cannot directly 
provide this information (the original data provider is either no 
longer in business or no longer supports the model) and the FSTD 
sponsor must determine the validation envelope using data supplied with 
the original aerodynamic data package. The FSTD sponsor will be 
required to define such aerodynamic data sources in the required SOC.
b. Expansion of the FSTD Validation Envelope Using Existing Flight Test 
Data
    In the existing part 60 rule, the objective testing requirements 
found in Attachment 2 of Appendix A requires that testing be conducted 
in weights and centers of gravity (CG) conditions that are typical of 
normal operations. Furthermore, where such testing is conducted at one 
extreme weight or CG condition, a second test must be provided at 
``mid-conditions'' or as close as possible to the other extreme 
condition.
    Airbus and Boeing commented that the existing part 60 requirement 
for objective testing to be predominately conducted in mid-weight/mid-
CG flight conditions is outdated and a wider coverage of the alpha/beta 
(e.g., AOA versus sideslip) envelope may be accomplished using critical 
flight conditions testing during aircraft certification at extreme 
weight and CG combinations. Boeing additionally stated that while the 
current regulation supports this, it requires testing at the opposite 
extreme conditions which increases the burden on the sponsor. Airbus 
additionally commented that there is no need to have a global 
requirement for this because the weight/CG requirements can be 
specified for each test where relevant. CAE made similar comments on 
this issue.
    FAA agrees with the commenters and supports allowing flexibility in 
providing the best range of data to support not only extended envelope 
training, but all training conducted in an FSTD. Where weight and CG 
configuration is critical for validating a particular flight maneuver 
(such as in some of the takeoff objective tests), those conditions are 
described as a test requirement for that particular test. In general, 
the FAA recognizes that weight and CG effects on the aerodynamic model 
are well known and requiring redundant test conditions at varying 
weight and CG ranges has questionable benefit for FSTD validation in 
some required objective tests. The FAA has amended the final rule as 
recommended by the commenters to allow for greater flexibility in 
determining appropriate weight and CG conditions for some of the 
required objective tests that do not have specific requirements 
contained within Table A2A.
5. General Comments on UPRT
a. FSTD Qualification and FAA Oversight
    ALPA commented that while they support the requirements associated 
with the simulator providing feedback to the instructors and 
evaluators, they believe that only simulators that can perform all 
aspects of the new training required in the Crewmember and Aircraft 
Dispatcher Training final rule should be qualified. In addition, ALPA 
further stated that since the proposed rule only requires FSTD 
evaluation for those FSTDs used to conduct the additional training 
tasks, a robust oversight system will be needed to ensure that only the 
simulators qualified for this training are used in the required 
training.
    In developing the proposed requirements in the NPRM, the FAA 
considered the economic costs and benefits of mandating FSTD 
modifications and evaluations to support training requirements. With 
the considerable cost in the implementation of new aerodynamic stall 
models on previously qualified FSTDs, the FAA could not justify 
imposing this cost on FSTD sponsors who currently do not have a mandate 
to conduct such training. Furthermore, the FAA determined that some 
FSTD sponsors that do have a training mandate for stall and UPRT may 
realize some cost savings by not having to qualify all of their FSTDs 
where the training can be accomplished on a lesser number of devices. 
Finally, with the large number of FSTDs that will require evaluation to 
meet the part 121 compliance date of March 2019, this may provide some 
practical relief in having to qualify all FSTDs within a relatively 
short amount of time.
    The FAA appreciates ALPA's concern for proper FAA oversight to 
ensure that the FSTDs are evaluated and qualified before extended 
envelope training is conducted. The FAA notes that an oversight system 
to track FSTD qualifications is already in place with the list of 
qualified tasks that is currently required on the part 60 required SOQ 
for all FAA qualified FSTDs.\21\ In the final rule, the FAA maintained 
the requirement in FSTD Directive No. 2 that the individual training 
tasks are to be reflected on the FSTD's SOQ once qualified. The FSTD's 
SOQ will then serve as a tracking mechanism to ensure the FSTD has been 
properly evaluated and qualified by the FAA NSP to conduct the 
individual training tasks. Furthermore, the FAA

[[Page 18195]]

will coordinate internally with Principal Operations Inspectors (POIs) 
to ensure that only FSTDs that are qualified in accordance with FSTD 
Directive No. 2 are approved for use in training those specific tasks 
as part of an FAA approved training program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Sec.  60.17(b)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Maintenance Concerns
    A4A commented that further testing is needed to ensure that the 
reliability and availability of FSTDs due to maintenance issues is 
unchanged with the addition of UPRT training.
    The potential for stall vibrations to cause FSTD maintenance issues 
has been acknowledged and discussed in a previous section on stall 
buffet. The FAA acknowledges that conducting UPRT maneuvers in an FSTD 
can produce significant motion system excursions, however, the FAA is 
not aware of any evidence that the addition of general UPRT maneuvers 
will introduce significant maintenance issues that would affect the 
overall reliability and availability of an FSTD beyond what is normally 
seen in existing training. As with motion system tuning in general, the 
FAA expects that FSTD sponsors will employ limits and protections 
within their motion system hardware and software that will protect the 
FSTD from dangerous excursions that could damage the FSTD's equipment 
or injure its occupants. The exposure to stall buffet likely has the 
greatest potential for affecting an FSTD's reliability and the FAA has 
addressed this issue in the stall requirements sections.

C. Evaluation Requirements for Engine and Airframe Icing Training Tasks

    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed changes to the general requirements 
for engine and airframe icing qualification as well as adding a new 
objective demonstration test for ice accretion effects for newly 
qualified FSTDs. The changes were based upon new icing requirements in 
the ICAO 9625 document, as well as recommendations made by the SPAW 
ARC, and were intended to improve upon the existing engine and airframe 
icing requirements in part 60. The proposed changes focused on 
requirements for improved ice accretion models that represent the 
aerodynamic effects of icing rather than estimating icing effects 
through gross weight increments.
1. Objective Demonstration Testing
a. Objective Demonstration Testing for Previously Qualified FSTDs
    In the proposal, the FAA introduced new objective testing 
requirements for the demonstration of icing effects on Level C and 
Level D FFSs. The objective tests are intended to demonstrate that the 
aerodynamic effects of ice accretion are present in the simulation with 
the icing model active as compared to the simulation where no ice is 
present. Due to the potential cost impact for previously qualified 
FSTDs, these tests were not retroactively required in FSTD Directive 
No. 2.
    Boeing commented that the objective demonstration test for engine 
and airframe icing is not required in FSTD Directive No. 2 (for 
previously qualified FSTDs) and recommended that text should be added 
to Table A2A (Entry No. 2.i.) to clarify that this test is not required 
for previously qualified FSTDs.
    FAA agrees with Boeing in that this demonstration test for engine 
and airframe icing is not required for previously qualified FSTDs and 
has added clarifying language in FSTD Directive No. 2. As with comments 
in previous sections concerning stall buffet testing, previously 
qualified FSTDs will maintain grandfather rights and the modifications 
to Table A2A will generally not be applicable to previously qualified 
FSTDs unless specified in an FSTD Directive. As a result, FAA has not 
added additional text in Table A2A concerning previously qualified 
FSTDs because it will be adequately addressed in the FSTD Directive.
b. Icing Effects and Recognition Cues
    In the proposed icing effects objective demonstration test, the FAA 
included specific icing effects that may be present and evaluated as 
applicable to the particular airplane type. This list included both 
aerodynamic effects of ice accretion as well as engine effects that may 
also be present with the icing model activated in the simulation.
    Boeing commented that the objective demonstration test for icing 
includes engine effects, but the general requirement for icing does not 
specifically identify engine effects and this should be removed from 
the objective testing requirement. An anonymous commenter stated that 
it may be necessary to show engine effects and airframe effects of 
icing separately because the test will not differentiate between thrust 
losses and drag increases. Another anonymous commenter pointed out that 
changes in control effectiveness and control forces are limited mainly 
to reversible systems on certain airframe configurations and the FSTD 
should only introduce these changes when they are representative of the 
specific make and model of aircraft. Additionally, an anonymous 
commenter stated that there is ``very little guidance on what engine 
icing effects should be represented and most manufacturers state there 
are little effects on engine indications for current turbofans. Based 
upon the data we do have for engine inlet icing, the effects are often 
very subtle, yet the requirements seem to ask for something more 
dramatic. If we modify our icing models to favor dramatic effects, do 
we risk training pilots to miss looking for the subtle indications?''
    Concerning Boeing's comment, the general requirement for engine and 
airframe icing (Table A1A, Entry No. 2.j.) does include modeling the 
effects of icing on the engine, where appropriate, as does the current 
requirement in part 60. While the information section in the 
demonstration test does state ``aerodynamic parameters,'' the intent of 
the test is to demonstrate the effects of the icing model integrated 
into the simulation. If the sponsor designated icing model used for the 
demonstration test has an effect on relevant engine parameters (such as 
thrust reduction or other effects), these effects should also be shown 
as part of the test. FAA has amended the test details in the table to 
clarify this. Other icing models that may be optionally developed by 
the FSTD sponsor to train recognition of engine effects due to icing 
will not require separate objective demonstration testing.
    The FAA agrees that icing effects should only be introduced where 
representative of the specific make and model of aircraft and has 
clarified this in Table A2A (test 2.i.) and Attachment 7 of the final 
rule. The FAA does not intend for a simulator operator to artificially 
insert dramatic icing effects that are not representative of the 
aircraft. While the FAA is aware that the cues of ice accretion can 
vary significantly depending upon the nature of the icing event and the 
aircraft's characteristics, the icing models developed for simulation 
and training purposes should support the general recognition of icing 
cues that are typical for the aircraft being simulated.
2. Requirements for Lower Level FTDs
    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed general requirements and objective 
demonstration testing for engine and airframe icing as part of the new 
Level 7 FTD requirements in Appendix B.
    TRU Simulation commented that in the proposal for ICAO 9625, 
Edition 4, only a Type VII is allowed for use in UPRT and this item 
(icing) is identified as only being required on devices where UPRT will 
be trained. TRU Simulation requested that the FAA confirm applicability 
on a Level 7 FTD and

[[Page 18196]]

remove the requirement if not. TRU Simulation and A4A further commented 
that the objective demonstration test for icing is not required for an 
ICAO 9625 Type V device and should be removed from the Level 7 FTD 
requirements. TRU Simulation and A4A additionally commented that a new 
requirement for Level 6 FTD was introduced to have the anti-icing 
system operate with appropriate effects upon ice formation on airframe, 
engines, and instrument sensors.
    FAA reviewed ICAO 9625 Edition 4 and found that the general 
requirement for the modeling of icing (Appendix A, Entry No. 2.1.S.e.) 
is a minimum requirement for an ICAO 9625 Type V device and has 
therefore maintained this requirement for the FAA Level 7 FTD. FAA 
confirms that the objective demonstration testing for icing is not 
required for an ICAO 9625 Type V device and therefore has removed this 
requirement for the FAA Level 7 FTD in Table B2A to maintain 
consistency with the ICAO document.
    Regarding the addition of anti-icing effects to a Level 6 FTD, FAA 
has removed the ICAO numbering system in the general requirements table 
that was published with the NPRM and restored the existing part 60 
requirements for Level 6 FTDs. The FAA notes, however, that the 
existing part 60 functions and subjective testing requirements for 
Level 6 FTDs includes ``operations during icing conditions'' and 
``effects of airframe/engine icing'' in Table B3A of Appendix B. The 
FAA has not changed these requirements in the final rule.
3. Existing Engine and Airframe Icing Requirements in Part 60
    In the existing part 60, the subjective evaluation requirements in 
Appendix A includes a table of special effects (Table A3F) that 
contains additional requirements for the qualification of engine and 
airframe icing. In the NPRM, the FAA maintained this table with no 
changes to it.
    Boeing, A4A, and NTSB commented that the requirements for icing 
evaluation in Table A3F (special effects) include the evaluation of 
increased gross weight due to ice accumulation. The commenters noted 
that the pilot has no means to recognize if the simulated aircraft's 
weight has increased and an increased gross weight due to ice 
accumulation is typically an insignificant effect of icing. Boeing 
further commented that this test requires a ``nominal altitude and 
cruise airspeed and is likely to result in a flight condition where 
icing does not occur for large commercial transport category airplanes. 
This flight condition will also likely result in trimming at a low AOA 
where the effects of ice, even with the anti-ice system deactivated, 
are small (a few tenths change in pitch attitude or a few percent 
change in thrust to maintain level flight). In the lower AOA range, the 
aerodynamic effects of ice are relatively small. For large commercial 
transports one might expect to see a few tenths of a degree change in 
pitch attitude or a few percent change in thrust to maintain level 
flight with the addition of ice. This proposed new test will likely 
result in generating unnecessary questions when the expected (larger) 
results are not seen.''
    FAA agrees with the commenters and has removed references to 
increased gross weight in the final rule as that table entry for icing 
special effects (Table A3F, Entry No. 2) was inadvertently retained in 
the proposal. Furthermore, the FAA has amended this table to remove the 
``nominal altitude and cruise airspeed'' requirement and made 
additional changes to better align this section with the general 
requirements for engine and airframe icing in Table A1A, Entry No. 2.j.
4. Applicability in Training Programs
    In the NPRM, the proposed updated requirements for engine and 
airframe icing were applied to all Level C and Level D FFSs, regardless 
of the type of aircraft or operator. This is consistent with the engine 
and airframe icing requirements in the existing part 60 and previous 
FSTD evaluation standards. The FAA notes that ``engine and airframe 
icing'' simulation is not a new FSTD qualification requirement that was 
introduced by this rulemaking. In fact, the ``effects of airframe 
icing'' has been a minimum FSTD qualification requirement for Level D 
(Phase III) FFSs since the publication of AC 121-14C, Aircraft 
Simulator and Visual System Evaluation and Approval, published in 1980. 
Similarly, the ``effects of airframe and engine icing'' is currently an 
FSTD qualification requirement in the existing part 60 rule (published 
in 2008) for Level C and Level D FFSs.
    Delta commented that the de-icing and anti-icing systems are very 
effective on turbojet airplanes. The accidents referenced in NTSB 
reports are turboprops with significantly less performance available. 
Delta added there are no useful training objectives to be taught to 
pilots of commercial turbojet airplanes in icing conditions. A4A 
commented that stall ice effects are not required by Public Law 111-216 
or the Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training final rule and 
should be deleted from this final rule. Delta, A4A, and FlightSafety 
further questioned whether the FAA has a specific list of airframes 
that are impacted by icing or are vulnerable to a specific type of ice 
accretion.
    The FAA points out that Section 208(b)(1) of Public Law 111-216 
addressed increasing the familiarity of flight crewmembers with, and 
improving the response of flight crewmembers to icing conditions. 
However, irrespective of statutory direction, the FAA believes the 
understanding of the effects of icing on aircraft performance is 
essential for professional crewmembers particularly as it relates to 
stall AOA.
    The FAA agrees with Delta that de-icing and anti-icing systems are 
generally very effective on turbojet airplanes. However, every airplane 
is susceptible to icing to some extent and therefore, there are useful 
training objectives to be taught to pilots of turbojet aircraft. While 
the FAA recognizes that turboprop airplanes are generally more 
susceptible to ice accretion, accidents and incidents on turbojet 
aircraft have occurred in the past. In the case of the Circuit City 
Cessna 560 (a turbojet aircraft) accident in Pueblo, Colorado on 
February 16, 2005,\22\ the flight crew did not comply with de-icing 
procedures during approach which led to an aerodynamic stall from which 
they did not recover. While it is unknown if the crew recognized the 
effects of icing before the aerodynamic stall occurred, enhanced 
simulator training on de-icing and/or anti-icing procedures with 
representative effects of ice accretion may have increased their 
awareness that ice accretion was occurring.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Crash During Approach to Landing; Circuit City Stores, 
Inc.; Cessna Citation 560, Pueblo, Colorado, February 16, 2005. 
Accident Report NTSB/AAR-07/02. National Transportation Safety 
Board.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to engines, while turboprop and propeller aircraft 
engines are generally more susceptible to the effects of ice accretion 
than turbojet engines, power loss events due to core icing have been 
known to occur on multiple models of aircraft and engines (including 
large turbojet aircraft). In research conducted in 2009, it was found 
that engine power loss events due to ice accretion were occurring at a 
rate of about one event every 4 months.\23\ While these events often 
occurred in conditions that pilots considered benign with no airframe 
ice accreted, there were recognition cues present and it was noted that 
each engine appeared to

[[Page 18197]]

have a different manifestation of the icing event. While this final 
rule does not require specific engine icing models such as these, 
providing flight crews with representative cues of engine icing, where 
present during a typical in-flight ice accretion event, could aid in 
its recognition during line operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Mason, J., ``Current Perspectives on Jet Engine Power Loss 
in Ice Crystal Conditions: Engine Icing,'' Presentation at 2008 AIAA 
Atmospheric and Space Environments, June 23rd, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA has not prescribed specific types of ice accretion models 
to be implemented in the final rule. The intent is to provide flight 
crews with representative recognition cues of ice accretion for the 
aircraft being simulated. Where the accident and incident record 
indicates that a particular airframe may be susceptible to a particular 
type of ice accretion, the simulation of the cues associated with that 
type of icing should be considered when developing a representative 
icing model. While the accident record has some general examples of 
this (such as supercooled large droplet icing or tailplane icing on 
some aircraft), the aircraft manufacturer will likely be the best 
source of information as to a particular type of icing scenario that 
may enhance training in recognizing and exiting icing conditions for 
that aircraft.
5. Data Sources and Tuning of Ice Accretion Models
    In the proposal, the FAA introduced updated engine and airframe 
icing requirements that included a requirement to use ``aircraft OEM 
data or other acceptable analytical methods'' to develop ice accretion 
models.
    An anonymous commenter stated that the cost of purchasing icing 
data, if it exists, could be prohibitive. Due to the availability of 
SME's who have flown the subject aircraft in icing conditions, the 
requirement should allow SME pilot validation of icing models. Both A4A 
and CAE made similar comments that some SME pilot tuning and validation 
of icing models should be allowed in the requirements.
    Dassault further commented that flight test data obtained through 
the aircraft certification process is limited with larger amounts of 
ice accretion. Engineering tests might be conducted in those 
conditions; however, Dassault claimed it would be unable to provide an 
SOC because there is no flight test data to support it.
    The FAA maintains that icing models may be developed using 
analytical or other engineering methods, incorporating flight test data 
where available. This process may include supplemental SME pilot 
assessment to tune and subjectively validate the models. Furthermore, 
the objective demonstration test does not require the use of flight 
test data or other data to validate the model. The demonstration test 
is for the purpose of demonstrating that the expected icing recognition 
cues are present as compared to the simulation with no ice present. The 
FAA has added clarifying language in Table A1A and Attachment 7.
    The FAA agrees with Dassault that flight test data gathered during 
the aircraft certification process will generally be limited to ice 
shape testing conducted to demonstrate performance limits. Like the 
current part 60 requirements for the simulation of airframe and engine 
icing, engineering and analytical methods may be used to develop 
representative icing models that support the intended training 
objectives. While the use of flight test data would certainly assist in 
developing such models, engineering analysis supported with subjective 
assessment and tuning of the icing models for the expected recognition 
cues will be acceptable in lieu of flight test developed models and 
should not be as costly.

D. Evaluation Requirements for Takeoff and Landing in Gusting 
Crosswinds

    In order to support the new gusting crosswind training requirements 
in the Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training final rule, the FAA 
proposed new minimum requirements for Levels A, B, C, and D FFSs to 
include the programming of realistic gusting crosswind profiles. The 
FAA notes that in the existing part 60 and previous FSTD evaluation 
standards, there is no requirement for any FSTD to simulate gusting 
crosswinds. These proposed requirements also included updated ground 
handling characteristics to be evaluated with crosswinds and gusting 
crosswinds up to the aircraft's maximum demonstrated crosswind 
component. The FAA further included guidance material in the 
information section of the proposal that recommended the use of the 
Windshear Training Aid or other acceptable source data in the 
development of the gusting crosswind profiles.
1. Applicability on Lower Level FSTDs
    In the proposal, FSTD evaluation requirements for gusting crosswind 
profiles were made applicable for all FFS levels in Appendix A as well 
as the Level 7 FTD defined in Appendix B.
    TRU Simulation and A4A commented that a new gusting crosswind 
requirement was added for the Level 7 FTD and questioned whether this 
was appropriate for a Level 7 FTD. Boeing additionally commented that 
the requirement for gusting crosswinds are proposed for Levels A, B, C, 
and D FFSs, but crosswind takeoff and landing tasks are not minimum 
requirements for Level A simulators in Table A1B. Finally, A4A and 
Delta commented that gusting crosswind requirements have been added for 
both Level A and B simulators, but should be removed due to lack of 
alignment with the ICAO 9625 FSTD device type categories.
    With regards to the Level 7 FTD, FAA has examined the ICAO 9625 
requirements for the Type V device and found that instructor control of 
``surface wind speed, direction, and gusts'' is a minimum requirement 
for this device level (see ICAO 9625, Appendix A, section 11.4.R,G). In 
order to maintain consistency and alignment with the similar ICAO 
device, FAA has maintained this requirement in the general requirements 
and functions and subjective testing tables for the Level 7 FTD, but 
removed the more detailed requirement for realistic gusting crosswind 
profiles and the associated SOC that was proposed in the NPRM.
    FAA agrees with Boeing's comment concerning the qualification of 
the Level A simulator for takeoff and landing tasks and has removed 
this requirement in the final rule. Additionally, due to the lack of 
required side force motion cueing in a Level B simulator that would 
enhance the simulation of a realistic and dynamic gusting crosswind 
scenario, the FAA has also removed this minimum requirement for Level B 
simulators in the final rule.
2. Gusting Crosswind Profile Data Sources
    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed requirements for FSTD sponsors to 
develop a realistic gusting crosswind profile for use in training. The 
FAA was not prescriptive in this requirement and only required that the 
profile be ``realistic'' and ``tuned in intensity and variation to 
require pilot intervention to avoid runway departure during takeoff or 
landing roll.'' The FAA additionally provided guidance in the 
information column of the proposal recommending the use of the 
Windshear Training Aid or other acceptable data sources to develop the 
gusting crosswind profiles.
    The FAA received several comments concerning the data sources 
needed to develop realistic gusting crosswind profiles to meet the rule 
requirements. American, JetBlue, and A4A commented that FAA should 
provide an appropriate gusting crosswind model as recommended by the 
NTSB in its safety recommendation. Boeing commented that the Windshear 
Training Aid does not provide the necessary data to effectively model 
gusting crosswinds. Delta and A4A further commented that

[[Page 18198]]

the FAA should define ``other acceptable source data'' to help sponsors 
be consistent in programming the gusting crosswind scenarios. 
Additionally, A4A commented that the FAA should permit carriers to use 
crosswinds with gust data from multiple sources because doing so will 
provide flexibility, more compliance options, and reduce compliance 
burdens. Finally, an anonymous commenter stated that all references in 
the NPRM to ``gusting crosswinds'' lack definition of what is 
considered a ``gust''. ``Without a definition such as ``10 percent 
increase over steady state wind speed for x seconds, repeated 
randomly'', this is an entirely subjective condition and as such is 
subject to every inspector's idea of what a wind gust should or could 
be. If the FAA cannot provide subjective guidance similar to the 
Windshear Training Aid, which does not provide adequate information for 
this scenario, the gusting crosswind scenarios should be treated as 
`demonstration only' and not for training credit.''
    While the FAA would generally agree that a defined wind gust model 
could provide standardization for FSTD qualification purposes, such a 
generic model may not be realistic unless tuned for the particular 
aircraft and training scenario. Similar to the Windshear Training Aid's 
windshear profiles, subjective tuning would be required to adjust the 
model as a function of the aircraft type/configuration and ambient 
conditions to provide the cues and aircraft performance needed to 
accomplish the training objectives. In the proposal, the FAA required 
that such wind gust models be ``realistic'' and have been ``tuned in 
intensity and variation to require pilot intervention to avoid runway 
departure.'' Like many other areas in the simulator qualification 
standards, this allows for the FSTD sponsor to develop solutions that 
meet the needs of their particular training program without the FAA 
prescribing a specific solution. While realistic baseline wind gust 
models may be derived from aircraft operational data, meteorological 
data, or other data, a certain amount of subjective tuning will be 
required in many cases to ensure the gusts are adequate enough to 
require pilot intervention to avoid runway departure or otherwise do 
not exceed the crosswind capabilities of the simulated aircraft and 
supporting aerodynamic and ground model data. Due to the wide range of 
aircraft and associated crosswind capabilities, the FAA has found that 
specifying a certain gust characteristic for FSTD qualification would 
not be practical and has maintained the requirements as proposed.
    In response to the NTSB safety recommendation \24\ and commenters' 
requests for an FAA developed gusting crosswind model, the FAA 
conducted an analysis of the extracted wind data from the Continental 
(CO) 1404 accident \25\ and developed two wind gust models that may be 
used by FSTD sponsors to meet the requirements for a realistic gusting 
crosswind model. The first model was developed using the CO 1404 
accident data to closely replicate the wind gust that was experienced 
by the flight crew in that accident. While this model was tested by FAA 
on a Boeing B737-800 simulator and was found to provide a subjectively 
acceptable training scenario, it is expected that the model will need 
to be tuned by the sponsor for different aircraft and operator specific 
training scenarios.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ NTSB safety recommendation no. A-10-110.
    \25\ Runway Side Excursion During Attempted Takeoff in Strong 
and Gusty Crosswind Conditions, Continental Flight 1404, December 
20, 2008, NTSB Final Report, NTSB/AAR-10/04.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A second model was developed using a simplified linear estimation 
of the CO 1404 accident data using maximum wind rates of change as 
referenced in the Windshear Training Aid and the Joint Airport Weather 
Studies (JAWS) \26\. Similar to the continuous wind gust model, this 
model may also require tuning by the sponsor for different aircraft and 
operator specific training scenarios.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ The maximum wind rates published in the Windshear Training 
Aid are based upon the Joint Airport Weather Studies (JAWS) and were 
calculated from accident flight data recorder and Doppler radar 
measurements of microburst events.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FAA recognizes that sponsors may desire to implement their own wind 
models that may be more suitable for their particular training programs 
and has not mandated the above described wind gust models as a 
condition of FSTD qualification. These models will be provided with the 
final rule as guidance material in a National Simulator Program (NSP) 
Guidance Bulletin and may be used as one method to develop realistic 
gusting crosswind profiles to satisfy the requirements of the rule. As 
suggested by A4A, this will provide operators with flexibility to 
develop other wind gust models from multiple sources to meet the FSTD 
qualification requirements.
3. Maximum Demonstrated Crosswind
    In the proposal, the FAA included general requirements for Level C 
and Level D FFSs that included ground handling characteristics for 
crosswinds and gusting crosswinds up to the aircraft's maximum 
demonstrated crosswind component.
    Delta and A4A requested clarification if the maximum demonstrated 
crosswind value includes the gusting component, or is the intent to 
require the gusting component in addition to the maximum demonstrated 
crosswind value.
    The FAA has not prescribed a specific wind magnitude and direction 
to be implemented in the gusting crosswind model requirements. The wind 
gust models that will be provided by the FAA in guidance material were 
designed to allow for tuning of the gust characteristics as needed for 
the particular training scenarios (such as steady state wind conditions 
and runway direction) and aircraft type being simulated. The tuning of 
gust models should be conducted in consideration of the maximum 
crosswind capabilities of the aircraft in order to provide 
operationally realistic scenarios that are survivable in training. The 
specific aircraft crosswind capabilities, to include the addition of 
gust factors, are determined by the aircraft OEM. If this information 
is not clear in the aircraft flight manual, the FSTD sponsor should 
consult with the aircraft OEM. Additionally, the FSTD sponsor should 
coordinate with the data provider to ensure that gust models do not 
exceed the capabilities of the simulator's aerodynamic and ground 
models. The FAA has added information material in Table A1A (entry no. 
2.d.3) to the final rule for clarification.
4. Requirements for Previously Qualified FSTDs
    In the proposal, the updated ground handling and ground reaction 
requirements in Table A1A included information that stated ``tests 
required'' for these particular sections. The FAA notes that this text 
was derived from the similar sections in the ICAO 9625 document as part 
of the alignment process.
    Delta and A4A pointed out that the general requirement for gusting 
crosswind (Table A1A, Entry No. 3.1.S in the NPRM) states ``tests 
required'' and requested clarification if additional objective testing 
is required under the FSTD Directive for previously qualified FSTDs.
    In the final rule, since the FAA restored the existing part 60 
format for the general requirements table as compared to the ICAO 
format in the proposal (including sections for ground reaction and 
ground handling

[[Page 18199]]

characteristics), the text for ``tests required'' was removed from the 
ground handling requirements in Table A1A, Entry No. 2.d.3. in the 
final rule. No additional objective testing for ground reaction and 
ground handling characteristics was intended for previously qualified 
FSTDs in FSTD Directive No. 2. The FAA further notes that all required 
objective testing is fully described in Table A2A, making any such 
``tests required'' notations in the information column redundant.

E. Evaluation Requirements for Bounced Landing Recovery Training Tasks

    In the proposal, the FAA included updated FSTD evaluation 
requirements for ground reaction characteristics to support the bounced 
landing recovery training task that is required in the Crewmember and 
Aircraft Dispatcher Training final rule. The new requirements included 
ground reaction modeling to simulate the effects of a bounced or 
skipped landing as well as the indications of a tail strike or 
nosewheel exceedances as appropriate for the simulated aircraft and 
conditions.
1. Applicability to Lower Level FSTDs
    In the proposal, the new requirements for bounced landing recovery 
evaluation were included for Level C and Level D FSTDs in Appendix A as 
well as for the new Level 7 FTD in Appendix B.
    TRU Simulation and A4A commented that the bounced landing 
requirements were added for the Level 7 FTD and questioned whether it 
was appropriate for this device.
    Given the Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training final rule 
requirement that a Level C or higher FSTD be used to conduct bounced 
landing recovery training tasks, the FAA has removed the additional 
FSTD evaluation requirements in the final rule for bounced landing 
recovery from the Level 7 FTD minimum requirements in Appendix B.
2. Bounced Landing Modeling and Evaluation
a. Nosewheel Exceedences
    As part of the bounced landing recovery requirements in the 
proposal, the FAA included requirements to include indications of a 
tail strike and nosewheel exceedances.
    Boeing commented that the requirement for ``nosewheel exceedances'' 
needs to be more clearly defined (e.g., limit, yield, or ultimate 
loads) and suggested changing the rule text to read ``effects and 
indications of ground contact. . .''. An anonymous commenter further 
stated that calculation of structural loads on the nose gear is not a 
common feature in current FSTDs. Any nose first landing is considered 
abnormal and could be flagged on the IOS.
    The FAA agrees with the commenters and has removed the nosewheel 
exceedances requirement from the final rule as it is not necessary to 
accomplish the training objectives for bounced landing recovery 
training tasks. This language was replaced with ``the effects and 
indications of ground contact due to landing in an abnormal aircraft 
attitude . . .'' since information on aircraft attitude during the 
landing and go-around sequence will be more useful to the instructor in 
evaluating bounced landing recovery training tasks.
b. Use of Existing Ground Reaction Modeling
    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed that ground reaction modeling must 
simulate ``. . . the effects of a bounced or skipped landing (to 
include indications of a tail strike or nosewheel exceedances) as 
appropriate for the simulated aircraft and conditions''.
    Delta and A4A commented that the existing part 60 requires 
verification of ground reaction and ground effects by minimum unstick 
speed, ground effects, and takeoff and landing performance objective 
tests. An SOC from the data provider and an affirmation that the model 
has been implemented correctly should be adequate. There is no need for 
additional subjective verification by a qualified pilot. A4A further 
commented that at least one data provider has implied that their 
current data and model meets the proposed requirements. CAE commented 
that the strut system simulation (damper/spring) and its geometry are 
already properly modeled and should provide the appropriate forces and 
moments during a bounce.
    As described in the proposal, the FAA agrees with the commenters 
that much of the aerodynamic and ground reaction modeling is currently 
required and validated in several required objective tests for FSTD 
qualification. As such, the FAA has not required any additional 
objective testing for the qualification of bounced landing recovery 
training tasks in this final rule. In order to support bounced landing 
recovery training, the FSTD must have the ability to provide the 
instructor with the effects and indications of ground contact as a 
result of the FSTD being landed or conducting a go-around at an 
improper aircraft attitude. In addition to pitch attitude information, 
other parameters such as indications of nosewheel contact and 
indications of a tailstrike would provide useful information to the 
instructor in evaluating a bounced landing recovery maneuver. FAA 
agrees with the commenters that the use of a qualified SME pilot to 
evaluate these indications may be of limited value because they may not 
have any direct experience in the indications of a tailstrike in the 
airplane to base such an evaluation on. The FAA does recognize, 
however, that a tailstrike and other indications of ground contact can 
be computed in software using the geometric dimensions of the airplane 
and these indications will provide the instructor with additional 
feedback to assist in determining whether the aircraft landed in or a 
go-around was attempted in an unusual aircraft attitude. These 
indications and the ability of the modified FSTD to perform the 
intended training tasks are what should be evaluated by the sponsor's 
designated pilot as described in the FSTD Directive and Sec.  
60.16(a)(1).
    The FAA has reviewed the current part 60 ground reaction and ground 
handling requirements along with associated objective testing that are 
already required for Level B through Level D FFSs and has determined 
that adequate requirements already exist in part 60 to evaluate and 
validate the aircraft dynamics necessary to support bounced landing 
recovery training tasks.\27\ In order to improve the instructor's 
evaluation of an abnormal aircraft attitude during the bounced landing 
recovery maneuver, the FAA has amended the current ground reaction 
requirement for Level B through Level D FFSs to include appropriate 
effects during bounced or skipped landings, including the effects and 
indications of ground contact due to landing in an abnormal aircraft 
attitude.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ In addition to objective testing requirements for maneuvers 
such as takeoff, landing, minimum unstick speed, and ground effect, 
the current part 60 ground reaction general requirements (Table A1A, 
Entry No. 2.d.2.) already requires ground reaction modeling that 
generally supports bounced landing recovery training.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Alignment With Training Requirements
    As noted in the NPRM, the FSTD evaluation requirements for bounced 
landing recovery maneuvers were introduced both to support new 
requirements in the Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training final 
rule as well as to address comments concerning potential deficiencies 
in FSTD fidelity in this flight regime.
    An anonymous commenter stated that ``there is no bounced landing 
training task listed in Table A1B (Table of Tasks v. Simulator Level). 
It is agreed that a

[[Page 18200]]

Level D simulation should produce a bounced landing if appropriate, 
however that does not translate into a training requirement. There is 
currently no approved pilot training program that includes bounced 
landing. At most, it could be a required demonstration element, but it 
should not be a required training maneuver.''
    A4A commented that Boeing has already addressed the bounced landing 
recognition and recovery procedure in their operating manuals and in 
recurrent simulator training and that the FAA should review simulator 
data it currently receives to determine if recurrent training programs 
implemented due to the NTSB recommendations were effective. A4A and 
JetBlue further commented that ``the training final rule limits new 
training requirements to recovery from bounced landing because carrier 
training programs currently include bounced landing training as 
recommended in FAA's InFO 08029 . . . simulator modeling for this final 
rule should be limited to enhancement to train recovery methods; it 
should avoid introducing elements that might induce negative training 
associated with `teaching to bounce'.'' In addition, CAE made similar 
comments concerning the potential of a transfer of negative training in 
introducing a bounced condition during landing.
    The FAA notes that bounced landing recovery is a training 
requirement for air carriers under Sec.  121.423. While the minimum 
qualified task list in Table A1B does not specifically list bounced 
landing tasks, the final rule will require an amendment to the FSTD's 
SOQ that the FSTD has been evaluated for bounced landing recovery 
training tasks. As addressed in the Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher 
Training final rule, the FAA is aware of the incorporation of bounced 
landing recovery training by operators in response to the FAA's InFO 
and SAFO bulletins. To support the new training requirements in Sec.  
121.423 for bounced landing recovery training, the FSTD qualification 
standards were revised in this rule to ensure the FSTDs used to conduct 
such training have been properly evaluated for the training tasks.
    The FAA agrees with commenters in that the purpose of bounced 
landing recovery training is to train bounced landing recovery methods 
and not to teach a pilot how to bounce the aircraft. While the 
simulation should support the ability to reproduce a bounce where the 
flight conditions dictate, the primary objective of training is to 
train recovery techniques should the landing result in an inadvertent 
bounce. The FAA agrees with the commenters in that these recovery 
techniques can be taught without stimulating an actual bounce during 
the landing sequence and rather ``calling a bounce'' to initiate the 
recovery maneuver. The FAA has amended the final rule to emphasize that 
the FSTD evaluation requirements are on the aircraft dynamics resulting 
from the bounced landing recovery and not in stimulating a bounce 
during the landing sequence.
    The FAA further emphasizes that the FSTD evaluation requirements in 
the final rule that support bounced landing recovery training tasks are 
essentially a consolidation of existing requirements within part 60 
\28\ and will further support the instructor evaluation of other 
landing training tasks where the simulator may be inadvertently landed 
in an abnormal aircraft attitude.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See 14 CFR part 60 (2008), Appendix A: Table A1A, Entry No. 
2.d.2 (ground reaction modeling); and Table A3D (motion system 
effects), Entry no. 7 (main and nose gear touchdown cues), and Entry 
No. 13 (tail strikes and engine pod strikes).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Requirements for Previously Qualified FSTDs
    Delta, FlightSafety, and A4A pointed out that the general 
requirement for ground reaction modeling (Table A1A, Entry No. 3.1.S in 
the NPRM) states ``tests required'' and requested clarification if 
additional objective testing is required under the FSTD Directive for 
previously qualified FSTDs.
    In the final rule, since the FAA restored the existing part 60 
format for the general requirements table as compared to the ICAO 
format in the proposal (including sections for ground reaction and 
ground handling characteristics), the text for ``tests required'' was 
removed from the ground reaction requirements in Table A1A, Entry No. 
2.d.2. No additional objective testing for ground reaction and ground 
handling characteristics was intended for previously qualified FSTDs in 
FSTD Directive No. 2. The FAA further notes that all required objective 
testing is fully described in Table A2A, making any such ``tests 
required'' notations in the information column redundant.

F. Alignment With the ICAO 9625 International FSTD Evaluation Document

    In order to promote harmonization of FSTD evaluation standards with 
that of other national aviation authorities, the FAA proposed alignment 
of the part 60 Qualification Performance Standards (QPS) with the 
latest international FSTD evaluation guidance in the ICAO 9625, Edition 
3, document. Unlike previous alignment efforts the FAA undertook with 
earlier versions of the ICAO 9625 document that only contained one 
level of FSTD, this alignment effort proved to be more complex because 
the Edition 3 document contained many other FSTD levels that do not 
share an equivalent fidelity level in part 60 and other FAA training 
regulations and guidance material. Furthermore, since the main purpose 
of this rulemaking was to define new FSTD evaluation standards for new 
training tasks introduced by the Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher 
Training final rule, practical time limits prevented the FAA from 
conducting the significant updates to other regulations and guidance 
material to support a complete change in the existing hierarchy of FSTD 
levels. For these reasons, a full alignment with all of the FSTD levels 
in the ICAO 9625 document was not proposed with this rulemaking and 
only portions of the technical guidance material from ICAO were 
incorporated where practical.
1. Partial Alignment With the ICAO 9625 Document
    For reasons cited above, the FAA did not propose complete alignment 
with ICAO 9625, Edition 3. In lieu of conducting a full alignment, the 
FAA proposed partial alignment with the ICAO document where significant 
overlap existed between the FAA FSTD fidelity levels in the part 60 QPS 
and the ICAO document. This included alignment of the part 60 Level C 
and D FFS evaluation standards with that of the highest level of ICAO 
device (the Type VII device) as well as adding a new Level 7 FTD to 
align with the ICAO Type V device.
    FAA received several general comments concerning the proposed 
partial alignment with the ICAO 9625 FSTD evaluation guidance document. 
A4A commented that the ``incorporation of 9625 is not required to meet 
Sec. Sec.  121.423 and 121.434. We are not opposed to harmonizing part 
60 with the international standards but this piecemeal approach to 
incorporating the ICAO STD does not provide additional benefits for 
flight training''. A4A further stated that ``the FAA should consider 
incorporating ICAO 9625 as the standard for flight training in its 
entirety. Until this approach for part 121 training can be adopted, 
incorporating pieces of the standard into part 60 is only providing 
additional burden without benefit.'' American and Alaska Airlines made 
similar comments that there is no training value in adopting the ICAO 
standard as presented and recommended that the FAA should not adopt the 
ICAO standard unless doing so in its entirety. ALPA generally

[[Page 18201]]

supported the incorporation of the ICAO 9625 guidance into part 60, but 
expressed concern regarding the introduction of a fixed-base (non-
motion) FTD for flightcrew training. Also, ICAO generally supported the 
incorporation of the ICAO 9625 document and further noted that the 
fourth edition of the ICAO 9625 document was recently published on the 
ICAO internet site for regulatory authorities.
    The FAA notes that the primary purpose of this rulemaking was to 
update the FSTD evaluation standards to address the new extended 
envelope training introduced by the Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher 
Training final rule. Because the FAA and industry were integrally 
involved in the development of the ICAO 9625 FSTD evaluation guidance 
material, and much of the current part 60 and grandfathered FSTD 
standards are based upon previous versions of the ICAO 9625 document, 
the FAA proposed updating the current part 60 standard for certain FSTD 
levels that overlapped with similar FSTD levels defined in the ICAO 
9625 document. Unlike previous versions of the ICAO 9625 document, ICAO 
9625, Edition 3, introduced several new FSTD levels that have no direct 
equivalent in the part 60 rule. Because of the time critical nature of 
the extended envelope training requirements, it was determined that 
redefining all of the FAA FSTD levels to align with the ICAO document 
would not be practical because of the numerous other training rules and 
guidance material that would be affected if we made significant changes 
to the part 60 qualification standards and FSTD level definitions.
    The benefits of general ICAO alignment are not readily quantifiable 
since they primarily focus on improving the overall simulation 
environment and not on specific safety issues. From an international 
harmonization standpoint, FSTD manufacturers and data providers can 
benefit from developing FSTDs and supporting data packages that meet a 
single internationally recognized standard. Despite statements made by 
one commenter concerning ``illusory benefits from internationally 
aligned FSTD standards,'' the FAA believes there is anecdotal evidence 
that supports the benefits of international harmonization. Based upon 
past experience with the previous international alignment efforts, the 
FAA points out that over 250 FSTDs (including FSTDs qualified by A4A 
air carriers) were voluntarily qualified against the more stringent 
ICAO 9625, Edition 2, JAR-STD 1A, Amendment 3,\29\ and Draft AC 120-40C 
internationally harmonized standards during the 1995 to 2008 timeframe 
before part 60 became effective in 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ JAR-STD 1A was a publication by the Joint Aviation 
Authorities that provided FSTD qualification standards for European 
countries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Due to the time critical nature of the extended envelope training 
requirements, complete alignment with the ICAO 9625 document was not 
considered in this rulemaking. Most of the device levels defined in 
ICAO are not within the scope of part 60 (all but two FSTD levels in 
ICAO 9625 are for generic or representative devices that are not 
defined in part 60) and would require significant rulemaking and policy 
changes outside of part 60 to address a new hierarchy of device levels. 
The FAA considers the ICAO alignment conducted in this rulemaking as a 
significant step in maintaining harmonization with the international 
FSTD evaluation standards and will continue to look for opportunities 
to further expand the alignment with the ICAO 9625 document where 
practical.
2. New Requirements Introduced by the Proposed ICAO Alignment
    Several commenters pointed out that some of the new requirements 
introduced in the proposed ICAO 9625 alignment would add to the cost of 
a new Level C or Level D FFS with no demonstrated value to training. 
The FAA partially agrees with the commenters in that it is difficult to 
quantify specific safety benefits from some of the new and updated 
standards introduced as a result of the ICAO alignment. Most of these 
changes in the ICAO alignment target the improvement of objective 
testing tolerances, the incorporation of testing requirements for new 
technology that is not currently addressed in the simulator standards, 
and improvement of the overall simulation environment.
a. Visual System Field of View
    A4A, JetBlue, Delta, and an anonymous commenter stated that the 
increased visual system field of view requirement from 180 degree x 40 
degree in the existing part 60 general requirements to 200 degree x 40 
degree in the proposal would introduce significant cost to a new 
simulator and has no demonstrated benefit to crew training. In 
addition, A4A and JetBlue further commented that the justification for 
this proposal is harmonizing with ICAO standards; there is no statutory 
or regulatory requirement or NTSB recommendation on this topic. The 
increased field of view for newly qualified FSTDs does not demonstrate 
any improved training value; the existing field of view has been used 
successfully in training programs worldwide for well over a decade. 
Increasing the field by 10 degrees on each side would add no value in 
taxiing or on the circling approach and there is no data or industry 
trend to indicate that pilots are experiencing difficulty performing 
these maneuvers using the current systems. Most part 121 air carriers 
train to Visual Flight Rules (VFR) minimums for a circling approach and 
in fact most flight schools that offer Airline Transport Pilot 
qualification courses now require only demonstration at a VFR level. A 
simulator field of view expansion to 200 degrees would not change 
practices at other facilities.
    Concerning the cost of this new requirement, A4A further commented 
that the expense associated with this field of view expansion would add 
an estimated 20 to 30 percent to the cost of a visual system for the 
purchasing of a newly qualified FSTD, depending on the manufacturer. In 
most cases this would require the addition of at least one and possibly 
two image generators, very similar to helicopter simulators. In 
addition, changing the field of view standard for newly qualified FSTDs 
will prevent carriers from obtaining existing simulators that reside 
outside the United States (U.S.) that have a 180 degree field of view, 
and have not yet been qualified in the U.S. This would force carriers 
to purchase new simulators instead of purchasing used simulators; it 
will cost more and impose less efficient training options.
    The FAA concurs with the commenters in that little evidence 
suggests that increasing the visual system field of view requirements 
to 200 degrees (horizontal) will have a quantifiable safety benefit. In 
order to avoid incurring significant additional cost as a result of the 
ICAO 9625 alignment as identified by the commenters, the visual system 
field of view requirements will remain at the existing part 60 
requirement of 180 degrees x 40 degrees for Level C and Level D FFSs in 
the final rule.
b. Visual System Lightpoint Brightness Testing
    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed the addition of a new objective 
visual lightpoint brightness test as part of the ICAO 9625 alignment. 
The addition of this test addresses inherent system limitations in 
fixed matrix visual display systems (such as LCD systems) and their 
ability to display lightpoints as compared to older calligraphic 
display systems. American, A4A, and an

[[Page 18202]]

anonymous commenter stated that the tolerance for this test should be 
reduced from the 8.8 foot-lamberts as proposed in the NPRM to 5.8 foot-
lamberts as proposed in the updated ICAO 9625, Edition 4, document 
because it has no technical advantage and is not achievable with 
current technology over long periods of time. CAE further stated that 
this requirement cannot currently be met with light emitting diode 
(LED) based visual projectors and this issue has been subsequently 
addressed in ICAO 9625, Edition 4. Similar comments were made by TRU 
Simulation. Frasca commented that, with regards to the surface 
brightness test, a modern display system cannot boost the brightness 
for light points only. If the system just meets the display brightness 
requirement, it will not pass the light point brightness requirement. 
This would only be possible using calligraphic projectors, which are no 
longer in regular use for simulation.
    The FAA concurs with the commenters and has reviewed the updated 
ICAO 9625, Edition 4, document as suggested. In that document, the 
light point brightness test tolerance has been amended to be less 
restrictive (5.8 foot-lamberts) as compared to the Edition 3 document 
due to the inherent limitations of solid state illuminators (such as 
LEDs). In these types of systems, the benefit of improved temporal 
stability justifies the inherently lower brightness that an LED can 
produce as compared to a standard lamp illuminator. To support the 
alignment of the part 60 technical requirements with the ICAO document, 
as well as to address the commenters concerns, the FAA has amended this 
objective test (Table A2A and Table B2A, Entry No. 4.a.7.) in the final 
rule as recommended by the commenters.
c. Transport Delay Testing
    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to reduce the transport delay 
tolerances from150 millisecond (ms) to a more restrictive 100 ms 
tolerance for the purposes of aligning with ICAO 9625, Edition 3 as 
well as improving the overall simulation environment with faster 
simulation induced response times. The FAA received many comments on 
this issue which generally recommended that the FAA should not adopt 
these tighter tolerances. Boeing, FedEx, Delta, A4A, and American 
commented that while ICAO 9625 Edition 3 recommends a more restrictive 
tolerance than what is currently in part 60, there appears to be no 
evidence that timing below 150 ms provides better crew training. Boeing 
further commented that those values have been hard to achieve in 
industry, costing substantial amounts of money to meet this 
requirement. A4A further commented that ``the FAA should not change the 
transport delay standard because there have been no reports of pilot 
induced oscillation due to a throughput (transport) delay tolerance 
being too high. The current transport delay tolerance of 150 ms has 
proven to be adequate for all Level D FFSs with no known problems to 
date. The tolerance has no impact on safety and is a technical 
limitation of the software and hardware. Carriers have operated with 
the 150 ms for decades with no measurable degradation in training. In 
addition, the ICAO standard is being revised and will change in 2015; 
an FAA change to 100 ms will result in misaligned U.S. and ICAO 
standards starting next year. Therefore, to require adjustment of the 
delay to 100 ms would provide no additional benefit to pilot training 
and it is recommended that 150 ms tolerance be retained.'' Frasca, 
American, Boeing, and CAE made similar comments concerning the less 
restrictive 120 ms tolerance that has been amended in ICAO 9625, 
Edition 4.
    While the FAA would concur that it is difficult to quantify 
transfer of training benefits with transport delay tolerances reduced 
to lower than 150 ms, it has been well established through multiple 
research studies that transport delay in simulation can significantly 
affect pilot performance. The FAA maintains that the proposed 100 ms 
tolerance is not a significant technical limitation of simulators and 
has, in fact, been a minimum FSTD qualification requirement for 
helicopter simulators since 1994.\30\ Furthermore, the FAA conducted a 
random sampling of currently qualified FSTDs that were initially 
evaluated within the past 10 years and found that 44 percent of these 
FSTDs would have met the ICAO 9625, Edition 3, tolerance of 100 ms and 
83 percent of these FSTDs would have met the ICAO 9625, Edition 4, 
tolerances (100 ms for motion/instrument and 120 ms for visual system 
response) with no modification.\31\ These numbers generally support the 
commenters' concerns that the 100 ms transport delay tolerance in the 
NPRM may not be easily attainable with current technology that is 
implemented on previously qualified fixed wing FSTDs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See Advisory Circular (AC) 120-63, ``Helicopter Simulator 
Qualification'' (1994); Appendix 2, test 5.a.; and 14 CFR part 60 
(2008), Appendix C, Table C2A, test 4.a.2.
    \31\ The FAA conducted a random sampling of transport delay test 
results from the Master Qualification Test Guides (MQTGs) of 18 
currently qualified FSTDs that were initially evaluated within the 
past 10 years. Eight out the 18 FSTDs would have met the 100 ms 
transport delay tolerance for all axes. Fifteen of the 18 FSTDs 
would have met the 100/120 ms tolerance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To address these concerns and to maintain consistency with the 
international guidance material, the FAA has amended the final rule to 
incorporate the updated ICAO 9625, Edition 4, transport delay 
tolerances of 100 ms for motion system/instrument response and 120 ms 
for visual system response as recommended by many commenters.
d. Objective Motion Cueing Fidelity Test
    As part of the ICAO 9625 alignment proposed in the NPRM, the FAA 
included objective motion cueing fidelity testing (OMCT) as a minimum 
requirement for FSTD qualification.
    The FAA received several comments on the adoption of the ICAO 9625 
OMCT test. American commented that the OMCT in the ICAO 9625 document 
is still a work in progress with some testing details that are still 
under consideration as more experience is gained with conducting the 
test. American further questioned what source data was used to define 
the motion fidelity tolerances that are associated with the test as 
well as the lack of a time-domain test that was supposed to complement 
the frequency-domain test in the ICAO document. Additionally, American 
stated that the purpose of including an incomplete set of tests in the 
ICAO standard is to collect data and that a final rule is not 
appropriate vehicle to `gather data'. Finally, American recommended 
against replacing the existing motion cueing signature (MCPS) tests 
with the OMCT, however, if it were to be adopted in the final rule, it 
should be limited to an SOC issued by the training device manufacturer 
stating compliance. A4A and JetBlue made similar comments opposing the 
adoption of the proposed OMCT.
    The FAA agrees that the proposed OMCT from ICAO 9625, Edition 3, 
primarily consisted of a testing method with no specific fidelity 
standard applied to the test results. The FAA further notes that the 
recently published ICAO 9625, Edition 4, document has improved the OMCT 
method and has added recommended tolerances to the test results that 
were based upon ``. . . the statistical results of reliable OMCT 
measurements of eight Level D or Type VII FSTDs.'' The FAA maintains 
that a significant weakness in today's FSTD evaluation standards is the 
lack of a consistent method to measure and apply motion cueing in crew 
training

[[Page 18203]]

simulators. An industry-led group developed the objective motion cueing 
test, and it represents a marked improvement over today's subjective-
only assessments. While the FAA concurs that a specific fidelity 
requirement needs development, applying the OMCT and comparing the 
results against representative responses will promote useful 
standardization and improvement of overall motion cueing.
    To address the commenters concerns, the FAA has amended the final 
rule so as to not require OMCT results in the MQTG for annual 
continuing qualification evaluation purposes. Instead, OMCT results 
will only be required once during the initial qualification of the FSTD 
and included in an SOC from the FSTD manufacturer. Furthermore, the FAA 
will not require a specific tolerance to be met for this test and only 
require that the FSTD manufacturer use the OMCT to document the overall 
performance of the motion system and use its results to aid in the 
tuning of the motion cueing algorithms. Finally, because the technical 
details of this testing method are multifaceted and not suitable for 
inclusion in the final rule's text, the FAA will issue guidance 
material with the final rule on how to apply the OMCT to meet the part 
60 requirements.
e. Sound Directionality Requirement
    A4A commented that the directional sound requirements (incorporated 
from the ICAO 9625 document) are not cost/benefit justified and are not 
required to meet any existing or proposed training requirement.
    The FAA notes that the requirement for ``sound directionality'' was 
introduced as part of the ICAO 9625 alignment proposed in the NPRM.\32\ 
After review of this requirement, the FAA will maintain the proposed 
requirement in the final rule. FAA has found that it is essentially a 
codification of existing practice where FSTDs are subjectively 
evaluated for flight maneuvers, including engine failures and other 
malfunctions, which would result in directionally representative sound 
cueing in the FSTD. FAA further notes that the accident record has 
documented instances where flight crews have inadvertently shut down 
the wrong engine while diagnosing an engine malfunction in flight. This 
additional sound cueing in the simulator may enhance training in 
recognizing and verifying the cues of an actual engine failure in 
flight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ ICAO 9625 (Edition 3), Part II, Appendix A, section 6.5.R 
requires that ``sound should be directionally representative.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Alignment With the Recently Published ICAO 9625, Edition 4, Document
    Concurrent with the development of the part 60 NPRM, an 
international working group was convened to review and update the ICAO 
9625, Edition 3, document to incorporate FSTD evaluation requirements 
to address full stall training, UPRT, and icing. This working group was 
essentially operating in parallel with the part 60 rulemaking effort 
and used a similar set of recommendations issued from the ICATEE 
working group to incorporate FSTD evaluation standards into the ICAO 
9625 document. In addition to the changes made to support UPRT and 
stall evaluation, this working group also made general changes to the 
ICAO 9625 document that addressed known issues with the Edition 3 
document. These included changes that addressed technological 
improvements, changes that updated various test tolerances which were 
relieving in nature, as well as editorial changes to correct or clarify 
the requirements in the Edition 3 document. Since the FAA proposed 
alignment with ICAO 9625, Edition 3, many of the known issues 
identified with that document were also present in the NPRM.
    The FAA received several comments, including various comments from 
A4A, Boeing, CAE, Frasca, ICAO, and TRU Simulation that recommended the 
use of the draft ICAO 9625, Edition 4, document in order to correct 
specific problems introduced from ICAO 9625, Edition 3, into the NPRM. 
Several commenters also recommended aligning the FAA requirements for 
the extended envelope training tasks with that of the updated ICAO 
document. Many of these comments have been discussed in previous 
sections of this document.
    Since the publication of the NPRM and subsequent close of the 
comment period, ICAO has published the final version of the ICAO 9625, 
Edition 4, document. The FAA has reviewed its contents for potential 
incorporation of the changes into the final rule as recommended by 
several commenters and has found that the changes made to the ICAO 
document in the Edition 4 release were relatively limited in scope and 
have some overlap with the requirements published in the NPRM in the 
following areas:
    1. Introduced ``extended envelope'' FSTD evaluation requirements 
for full stall, UPRT, and airframe icing.
    2. Changes to testing requirements and tolerances to improve and 
correct issues in ICAO 9625, Edition 3, including transport delay 
testing tolerances, visual lightpoint brightness tolerances, objective 
motion cueing testing tolerances, and other changes that were generally 
less restrictive.
    3. Other editorial and technical changes to improve the document 
and clarify existing requirements.
    The FAA agrees with the commenters that alignment with the latest 
edition of the ICAO 9625 document would be desirable, particularly with 
evaluation requirements that have been found to be problematic in ICAO 
9625, Edition 3. The FAA has incorporated many of these changes into 
the final rule; however, some differences were maintained to address 
public comments to the NPRM, as well as to address FAA specific 
training requirements and FSTD grandfathering rights. Where the more 
restrictive requirements were introduced in ICAO 9625, Edition 4, that 
were not included in the NPRM for public comment, the FAA included 
these in the final rule within non-regulatory ``information'' sections 
as recommended practices. The following table summarizes the sections 
that were modified in the final rule to incorporate changes made in 
ICAO 9625, Edition 4:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Change                    ICAO 9625  Section     Final rule  entry No.           Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              General Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Appendix A (ICAO)/Table A1A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Icing effects........................  2.1.S.e................  2.j....................  Alignment of language
                                                                                          with the equivalent
                                                                                          ICAO section.

[[Page 18204]]

 
High Angle of Attack Modeling........  2.1.S.f................  2.m....................  Alignment of language
                                       2.1.S.g................                            with the equivalent
                                                                                          ICAO section.
Stick Pusher Systems.................  5.1.S.b................  3.f....................  Alignment of language
                                                                                          with the equivalent
                                                                                          ICAO section.
Stall Buffet Sounds..................  6.1.R..................  7.c....................  Added to information
                                                                                          column as recommended
                                                                                          practice.
Stall Buffet Motion Effects..........  8.3.R(8)...............  5.e.1..................  Added to information
(Buffet as first indication of stall                                                      column as recommended
 or lack of stall buffet).                                                                practice.
Stall Buffet Amplitude and Frequency   8.4.R(5)...............  8. (Table A3D).........  Added to information
 Content.                                                                                 column as recommended
                                                                                          practice.
UPRT.................................  13.2.1.S...............  2.n....................  Alignment of language
                                       13.2.2.S...............                            with the equivalent
                                                                                          ICAO section.
Transport Delay......................  13.8.S.................  2.g.2..................  Updates transport delay
                                                                                          tolerance to less
                                                                                          restrictive values.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Objective Testing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Appendix B (ICAO)/Table A2A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Static Flight Control Checks.........  2.a....................  2.a....................  Moved test description
                                                                                          text to ensure it is
                                                                                          not improperly applied
                                                                                          to dynamic control
                                                                                          checks.
Stick Pusher Calibration.............  2.a.10.................  2.a.10.................  Alignment with
                                                                                          equivalent ICAO test.
Stall Characteristics................  2.c.8.a................  2.c.8.a................  Alignment with
                                                                                          equivalent ICAO test.
Approach to Stall Characteristics....  2.c.8.b................  2.c.8.b................  Alignment with
                                                                                          equivalent ICAO test.
Engine and Airframe icing effects      2.i....................  2.i....................  Alignment with
 demonstrations.                                                                          equivalent ICAO test.
Stall Buffet.........................  3.f.5..................  3.f.5..................  Alignment with
                                                                                          equivalent ICAO test.
                                                                                          (FAA retained three
                                                                                          test conditions).
Visual Lightpoint Brightness.........  4.a.7..................  4.a.7..................  Updates tolerance to
                                                                                          less restrictive
                                                                                          value.
Transport Delay......................  6.a.1..................  6.a.1..................  Updates tolerance to
                                                                                          less restrictive
                                                                                          value.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Other
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visual Model--Airport Clutter........  2.a.12.c (Appendix C)..  2.a.12.c (Table A3B)...  Specific ``gate
                                                                                          clutter'' requirement
                                                                                          changed to ``airport
                                                                                          clutter''.
Additional FSTD Evaluations            Attachment P...........  Attachment 7 (Appendix   Alignment with
 Requirements for Stall, Upset                                   A).                      equivalent ICAO
 Recovery, and Icing.                                                                     language.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Integration of ICAO Requirements With the Part 60 Table Structure
    The FAA received several comments concerning the integration of the 
ICAO requirements within the tables of the part 60 QPS appendices. 
Several commenters pointed out that while there were requirements 
introduced into the tables for the purpose of aligning with the ICAO 
equivalent FSTD levels, many of these requirements were carried over to 
lower level FSTDs that were not specifically targeted in the alignment 
(e.g., Level A and Level B FFSs that do not have an ICAO equivalent 
device). These differences were most apparent in the general 
requirements tables (Table A1A and Table B1A) where the ICAO format, 
language, and numbering system significantly differs from the existing 
part 60 format. Additionally, A4A commented that the incorporation of 
the ICAO format extends the overall structure of the document, is not 
value added, and creates repeated requirements.
    The FAA agrees with the commenters in that the integration of the 
ICAO numbering system into some of the part 60 tables resulted in some 
overlapping requirements with FSTD levels that were not subject to the 
alignment. The main reason for this overlap was to avoid the addition 
of redundant table entries for the aligned Level C and Level D devices 
and the non-aligned Level A and Level B devices in cases where they 
substantially share the same requirement. Other changes were carried 
over to the Level A and Level B requirements simply because the 
requirements represented existing practice, and the FAA found it 
unlikely that a new FSTD would be initially qualified that could not 
meet these requirements. For example, one commenter noted that the 
requirement in Table A3B for taxiway edge lights to be of a correct 
color was a new requirement introduced for a Level A and Level B FFS. 
While this is a new requirement as compared to the current part 60, the 
FAA finds it very unlikely that any new FSTD would be initially 
qualified with a visual display system that could not produce taxiway 
edge lights of the correct color.
    To address the commenters concerns as well as to reduce the overall 
complexity of the general requirements tables, the FAA has reverted 
back to the existing part 60 structure and format in the final rule for 
the general requirements tables in Appendix A and Appendix B (Tables 
A1A and A1B). Where specific changes were proposed in the ICAO 
alignment process, corresponding changes were made to the existing 
sections within the current part 60 general requirements tables for the 
appropriate FSTD levels. This will eliminate unintentional carryover of 
requirements into the other FSTD levels that were not subject to the 
proposed ICAO alignment.
    Additionally, the FAA has examined other tables impacted by the 
ICAO alignment and has corrected other specific testing requirements as 
identified by the commenters that were unintentionally carried over to 
FSTD levels not subject to the ICAO alignment.
    Finally, to address comments concerning the integration of the 
functions and subjective testing tables for all FTD levels in Appendix 
B, the FAA has separated the Level 7 FTD requirements into different 
tables and

[[Page 18205]]

restored the functions and subjective testing tables for Levels 4, 5, 
and 6 FTDs back to their original format and contents in the final 
rule. This change will address commenters concerns and provide a clear 
distinction between the new Level 7 FTD requirements and the other FTD 
levels. The reorganized tables will be renumbered as follows in the 
final rule:
Tables of Functions and Subjective Testing
Table B3A (Level 6 FTD)
Table B3B (Level 5 FTD)
Table B3C (Level 4 FTD)
Table B3D (Level 7 FTD)
Level 7 FTD Specific Tables
Table B3E (Airport Modeling Requirements)
Table B3F (Sound System)
Table B3G (IOS Requirements)
5. Deviation From the Part 60 QPS Using the ICAO 9625 Document
    CAE commented that the FAA should ``consider the adoption of the 
ICAO 9625 document technical standards through Incorporation by 
Reference as allowed by statute and in accordance with 1 CFR part 51, 
and allow for the qualification of devices using the ICAO technical 
standard as an Alternate Means of Compliance (AMOC).'' An individual 
commenter recommended that since the ``fast track'' process for part 60 
QPS revisions has never come to fruition, the FAA should conduct 
separate rulemaking to remove the part 60 QPS appendices and replace 
them with an industry consensus standard.
    The FAA notes that due to the high level of interest in this 
rulemaking with regards to supporting other significant rulemaking work 
and Public Law, it was determined that it would not be appropriate for 
the FAA to use the streamlined process as described by the commenter 
\33\ and this particular part 60 rulemaking would have to proceed in 
accordance with the agency's normal rulemaking procedures. While the 
FAA agrees with the commenter that using a voluntary consensus standard 
may allow for faster changes to the FSTD evaluation standards, the 
incorporation of a consensus standard would be outside of the scope of 
this rulemaking. The FAA will consider this topic for future rulemaking 
as suggested by the commenter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ This streamlined process delegates the authority for final 
review and issuance of the part 60 QPS documents from the FAA 
Administrator to the Director of the Flight Standards Service (see 
71 FR 63392).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding CAE's comment concerning the use of the ICAO 9625 
document as an AMOC to the part 60 standards, the FAA agrees that 
allowing the use of other technical FSTD evaluation standards (such as 
ICAO 9625 or other FSTD evaluation standards issued by a national 
aviation authority) to initially qualify a new FSTD may allow for a 
more refined approach to incorporating future changes to the FSTD 
technical standards. The FAA agrees that where updated internationally 
recognized FSTD evaluation standards have been published and have been 
determined to provide an equivalent or higher level of safety (e.g. 
does not adversely impact the fidelity of the device) as compared to 
the part 60 standards, the voluntary use of these standards to 
initially qualify new FSTDs should be considered. Particularly with 
updates to the ICAO 9625 document, deliberations on changes to this 
document are conducted through international working groups with 
representation from many sectors of the training and simulation 
industry, including FSTD manufacturers, air carriers, training 
providers, aircraft manufacturers, government agencies, and other 
organizations. In addition to making changes to the FSTD evaluation 
standards that address safety related issues, other changes are made to 
improve the overall FSTD evaluation process, as well as addressing new 
simulation and aircraft technology that has not been adequately 
addressed in the existing standards.
    Furthermore, the ability for the FAA to recognize equivalent FSTD 
evaluation standards issued by ICAO and national aviation authorities 
will support the qualification of FSTDs located in other countries and 
promote existing bilateral agreements which may result in cost savings 
for FSTD sponsors, manufacturers, and data providers. Particularly with 
FSTDs that are qualified by multiple national aviation authorities, the 
ability to recognize an equivalent international standard can reduce 
redundant testing requirements and documentation that would otherwise 
be needed to demonstrate compliance with multiple international 
standards. The FAA additionally points out that a similar process was 
successfully used prior to the initial publication of part 60 in 2008 
where over 250 FSTDs were initially qualified on a voluntary basis 
using updated international FSTD evaluation standards (including ICAO 
and European FSTD evaluation standards) in lieu of the then current FAA 
evaluation standards in Advisory Circular (AC) 120-40B.
    Where such new and updated standards are available, potential 
safety benefits, as well as cost savings, can be quickly realized 
through the recognition of new standards ahead of the formal rulemaking 
process. As with most of the past updates to the international 
standards, there are significant delays of months and even years in 
integrating updated ICAO standards into regulation. This results in a 
continuous lag between advances in simulation technology and the 
regulatory standards.
    In order for the agency to be more responsive to changes in the 
international FSTD evaluation criteria as well as to provide additional 
options to sponsors of FSTDs that are qualified by multiple national 
aviation authorities, the FAA has included deviation authority in Sec.  
60.15(c) of the final rule to accept FSTD evaluation standards (such as 
ICAO 9625 or other FSTD evaluation standards issued by a national 
aviation authority). Such deviations must demonstrate that there will 
be no adverse impact to the fidelity or the capabilities of the FSTD as 
compared to the part 60 QPS. Deviations may be granted to an FSTD 
sponsor or to an FSTD manufacturer for application on multiple FSTDs. 
Where an FSTD has been initially qualified under the deviation 
authority, the evaluation standard will become a part of the FSTD's 
permanent qualification basis and recorded in the FSTD's MQTG and SOQ. 
The FAA will issue guidance material with this final rule in the form 
of an NSP guidance bulletin that explains the process for submitting 
and reviewing deviation requests under Sec.  60.15(c).
6. Level 7 FTD Requirements and Usage in Training
    As part of the ICAO 9625 alignment process, the FAA introduced a 
new FSTD level to the fixed wing FSTD evaluation standards in the NPRM. 
This FSTD level was based upon the ICAO 9625 Type V device and was 
intended to define requirements for a high fidelity, fixed-base FTD 
that could be used to conduct additional introductory training tasks 
beyond what the Level 6 FTD is currently qualified to do. Furthermore, 
the addition of this FTD level to the fixed wing standards in part 60 
Appendix B would align with the current Level 7 helicopter FTD 
evaluation requirements that are already in Appendix D of part 60.
    Boeing commented that the Level 7 FTD requirements exceed those for 
Level A and Level B FFSs. The Level 7 FTD will offer no additional 
training credit and appears to have no additional benefit to the 
industry. CAE further commented that while the Level 7 FTD is 
introduced and is based upon the ICAO Type V device, the applicable

[[Page 18206]]

flight crew licensing regulations should include provisions for 
training credits for this device.
    The FAA notes that the corresponding ``Tasks vs. Simulator/FTD 
Level'' tables (Tables A1A and B1B) define the particular tasks that a 
particular FSTD level is qualified to conduct. Table B1B was updated in 
the NPRM to include the Level 7 FTD and adds several tasks that Level A 
and Level B FFSs are not currently qualified to conduct. The addition 
of this FSTD level was based upon the ICAO recommendations to create a 
high fidelity, fixed-base FTD in which introductory training could be 
conducted in lieu of a higher cost FFS. The part 60 FSTD qualification 
standards do not currently define such a high fidelity FTD \34\ and the 
addition of the Level 7 FTD fills this gap. The FAA agrees with Boeing 
and CAE in that the FSTD qualification standards do not fully address 
the allowable training credit for this new FTD level and the FAA is 
currently reviewing supporting training guidance material to make 
corresponding updates to address this new FSTD level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ The current Level 6 FTD as defined in part 60 is not 
validated for most ground maneuvers (including takeoff and landing 
tasks) and does not require a visual system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, the FAA notes that a similar device level was 
introduced for helicopter training (a helicopter Level 7 FTD) with the 
initial publication of part 60 in 2008. The FAA has qualified several 
of these Level 7 helicopter FTDs since the initial publication of part 
60 and these devices continue to be used within operator's training 
programs.
    ALPA commented that while they support the incorporation of the 
ICAO 9625, Edition 3, guidance, they are concerned with the intention 
to increase use of non-motion devices at the expense of more realistic 
training in higher fidelity devices with motion. In addition, ALPA 
stated that they are ``concerned with the stated rationale for adopting 
the ICAO Doc 9625, Edition 3 Type V simulator guidance. The NPRM 
indicates this guidance will be used to introduce a new Level VII 
simulator for the purposes of increasing the opportunities to utilize 
fixed base, non-motion simulators. Some use of fixed based simulators 
is appropriate. However, the higher the simulator fidelity is, and the 
more realistic the training environment is, the better the transfer of 
learning to actual flight will be.''
    ALPA went on to state that the ``highest-level flight simulators 
need to be used to the maximum extent possible. It is imperative that 
all end-level evaluations be conducted in full flight simulators (FFS) 
with six degree of freedom motion cues. Maneuver-based validation 
points required by airline-specific AQP documentation must be conducted 
in a FFS with six degree of freedom motion cues also. In addition, 
these FFSs should be used extensively in advance of evaluations and 
validation points to provide significant opportunity to prepare.''
    The FAA notes that the concept of the Level 7 FTD was based 
primarily upon the recommendations made in the ICAO 9625 document. In 
this document, through the work of an industry and government working 
group, it was determined that the introduction of many training tasks 
could be conducted in a high fidelity, fixed-base FTD where the 
continuation and completion of that training task (training to 
proficiency) is conducted in a FFS with motion cueing. The FAA shares 
the commenter's concerns regarding the use of FFSs for end-level 
evaluations and in advance of evaluations and validations points. In 
the proposal, the FAA attempted to capture this ICAO concept in the 
``Table of Tasks v. FTD Level'' (Table B1B), which defines the minimum 
qualified tasks for a specific FSTD level. The FAA has made additional 
amendments in the final rule to better define the differences in 
``training'' and ``training to proficiency'' in Table B1B to maintain 
consistency with ICAO 9625.
    Finally, the FAA notes that the part 60 FSTD qualification 
standards only define what training tasks an FSTD is qualified to 
conduct and does not define how the FSTD will be approved for use in a 
training program. The FAA is currently reviewing supporting training 
guidance material and will take these comments into consideration when 
making corresponding updates to address this new FSTD level.

G. General Comments

1. Compliance Period for Previously Qualified FSTDs
    In the proposal, the FAA requested comment on the proposed three 
year compliance period for previously qualified FSTDs as described in 
the FSTD Directive. This request was to determine if the three year 
compliance period was adequate to conduct the necessary modifications 
to FSTDs in consideration of the March 2019 compliance date for the 
extended envelope provisions in the Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher 
Training final rule.
    Delta, American, and A4A commented that the three year compliance 
date proposed in FSTD Directive No. 2 should be aligned with the air 
carrier training rule's compliance date of March 12, 2019, for the 
extended envelope training provisions. Delta and A4A additionally 
commented that there would not be enough lead time to develop 
supplemental data for legacy aircraft within the proposed three year 
compliance period and recommended that the compliance period be changed 
to a firm date of March 12, 2019, to align with the air carrier 
training rule. American and A4A also recommended that the due date of 
the FSTD Directive be 90 days prior to March 12, 2019, for 
incorporation and review by the local training authority.
    The FAA agrees with the commenters in that the compliance period of 
the FSTD Directive should be changed to a firm date that aligns to the 
Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training final rule compliance date 
of March 12, 2019, and has made this change in the final rule. The FAA 
is aware that some aircraft manufacturers and third party data 
providers have already made substantial progress in the development of 
simulator data packages to meet the requirements of the proposed FSTD 
Directive and additional data packages will likely become available for 
many FSTD sponsors soon after the publication date of this final rule. 
Finally, it was not the intent of the FAA that all FSTDs must be 
modified and evaluated by the compliance dates proposed in this rule. 
As described in the proposal, only those FSTDs that will be used to 
conduct certain training tasks will require compliance with the FSTD 
Directive. This should provide FSTD sponsors with some flexibility in 
determining which FSTDs to modify as well as determining a timeline for 
the FSTD modifications that meets their training requirements.
2. Alternative Data Sources for Level 5 FTDs
    TRU Simulation and A4A commented that the authorized performance 
range tables for Level 5 FTDs in Appendix B (Table B2B, B2C, B2D, and 
B2E) are incorrect for the change force maneuvers. For each maneuver, 
the stick force directions are reversed from the direction as needed to 
maintain airspeed as described. This error exists in the current part 
60 and exists for all sets of aircraft. TRU Simulation and A4A further 
commented that the alternative data source tables for Level 5 FTDs are 
invaluable, especially when flight test data is difficult to come by. 
However, there are no data tables published in the current part 60 for 
turbofan/turbojet aircraft. These are the aircraft where such tables 
would have

[[Page 18207]]

the biggest positive impact, since the flight test data gathering is 
the most expensive for those aircraft. Following the release of Change 
1 (of part 60), there was a statement made that the only reason they 
were not included in Change 1 was that there was no time to prepare 
them.
    The FAA concurs with the commenters and has amended the authorized 
performance range tables in Appendix B in the final rule to correct the 
stated errors in Tables B2B, B2C, B2D, and B2E. While the FAA agrees 
with the commenters that such additional alternative source data for 
turbofan/turbojet aircraft could provide for less expensive data 
collection and validation of Level 5 FTDs, the FAA did not propose 
modifications to these tables and making significant additions and 
modifications to these tables would be out of scope for this 
rulemaking.
3. Objective Testing for Continuing Qualification
    CAE commented that the requirement for the objective test sequence 
that is part of the quarterly inspections requires that all of the 
objective tests as defined in the applicable QPS are included in the 
content of the complete annual evaluation. There are certain tests, 
however, such as visual geometry and motion frequency domain tests, 
that primarily serve to confirm or baseline the system performance at 
the initial evaluation. These tests are significantly time consuming to 
run and require special resources and equipment and do not necessarily 
provide value or benefit as part of the quarterly test sequence.
    The FAA agrees with the commenter in that some tests specified in 
the table of objective tests may be time consuming and require special 
equipment to run on an annual basis as part of the quarterly test 
sequence. Concerning the objective motion cueing test as stated by the 
commenter, the FAA concurs that it would not be reasonable to conduct 
this test on an annual basis and has amended the final rule to only 
require this test be run at the initial evaluation.
    With regards to the visual geometry test, the FAA has found that 
there is some benefit to verifying that the FSTD's visual system 
geometry has not been changed over time. As with the currently accepted 
practice for visual geometry testing, the FAA has not required FSTD 
sponsors to verify the visual system geometry on an annual basis using 
a theodolite since this requires special equipment and resources that 
most sponsors do not have. In lieu of conducting such detailed visual 
geometry testing on continuing qualification evaluations, provisions 
were added in the NPRM (Attachment 2, paragraph 18) that were 
consistent with the ICAO requirements allowing for the use of a ``hand-
held optical checking device'' to check that the relative positioning 
is maintained. Due to this comment and other comments concerning the 
complexity of the visual system geometry test as well as the fact that 
the ICAO visual system geometry test was specified assuming a 200 x 40 
degree field of view system, the FAA has maintained the existing part 
60 existing visual geometry test in the final rule. The FAA has further 
added clarifying language in the test requirement (Table A2A, test 
4.a.2) that allows for methods to quickly check the visual system 
geometry for continuing qualification evaluations.
4. Windshear Qualification Requirements
    In the proposal, the FAA amended the windshear qualification 
requirements as a result of recommendations received from the SPAW ARC 
concerning improvements to windshear training. These proposed changes 
included requirements for complex windshear models to be available on 
the FSTD, the addition of realistic levels of turbulence associated 
with windshear, and requiring that all IOS selectable windshear 
profiles have a method to ensure the FSTD is properly configured for 
the selected windshear profile.
    With regards to the updated windshear qualification requirements, 
A4A, Boeing, and an anonymous commenter stated that the proposal 
requires all required windshear models to be selectable and clearly 
labeled on the IOS. Additionally, they pointed out that all IOS 
selectable windshear models must employ a method, such as a simulator 
preset, to ensure that the FFS is properly configured for use in 
training. This method must address variables such as windshear 
intensity, aircraft configurations (weights, flap settings, etc.), and 
ambient conditions to ensure that the proper windshear recognition cues 
and training objectives are present as originally qualified. The 
commenters went on to state that this implies that all windshear 
training scenarios will have to be evaluated for some specific 
condition that is not specified and that this is a far reaching 
requirement and should be removed. The commenters suggested that a more 
definitive requirement to have a method to repeatedly establish a 
survivable and a non-survivable windshear scenario would make more 
sense and meet the desired requirement.
    The FAA notes that this particular proposed change to the windshear 
qualification requirements was made to ensure that the windshear models 
which are available on the IOS are properly set up for use in training 
as recommended by the SPAW ARC. Specifically, the SPAW ARC recommended 
that all required windshear models should be selectable and clearly 
labeled on the IOS. The SPAW ARC determined that the labeling of 
available windshear models is not standardized in many FSTDs and 
instructors may lack the necessary information to ensure that the 
windshear recognition cues in a particular training scenario will occur 
as desired.
    While the FAA agrees that the use of presets in the simulator 
should be at the discretion of the sponsor, there should be a method 
employed by the operator to ensure repeatability of the windshear 
training profiles if the instructor has the ability to change basic 
parameters of the aircraft or conditions that would affect the outcome 
of the windshear maneuver (e.g. aircraft gross weight, ambient 
conditions, etc.). As described in the Windshear Training Aid, most 
windshear profiles are tuned to produce specific recognition cues and 
performance characteristics for consistent training scenarios. If the 
basic aircraft configuration and ambient conditions are changed, the 
instructor cannot be guaranteed that the windshear recognition cues and 
performance during the escape maneuver will be present as originally 
evaluated and qualified. Since this rulemaking was originally proposed, 
the FAA has issued guidance material \35\ to operators recommending the 
use of simulator presets or providing instructor guidance to ensure 
that windshear profiles are set up correctly in training. The FAA 
believes that the publication of this guidance material will 
sufficiently address this issue and has amended this section in the 
final rule, as suggested by the commenters, to recommend that a method 
to ensure the repeatability of the windshear required survivable and 
non-survivable scenarios be employed in the FSTD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ Information for Operators (InFO) Number 15004, ``Use of 
Windshear Models in FAA Qualified Flight Simulation Training 
Devices'', published March 13, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Miscellaneous Comments
a. Approved Location for Objective and Subjective Testing
    With regards to the changes proposed for Sec.  60.15(e), Delta, 
A4A, and an anonymous commenter noted that while

[[Page 18208]]

the NPRM states that the subjective tests that form the basis for the 
statements described in paragraph (b) of this section and the objective 
tests referenced in paragraph (f) of this section must be accomplished 
at the FSTD's permanent location, except as provided for in the 
applicable QPS, we recommend changing FSTD's ``permanent location'' to 
FSTD's ``sponsor designated facility'' as an FSTD may be moved from one 
location to another over time. Frasca further commented that current 
FAA guidance allows for objective testing to be run at the FSTD 
manufacturer's facility as an option for submitting the required 
qualification test guide (QTG) prior to the initial evaluation.
    The FAA concurs with the commenters and has amended the final rule 
to state that this testing ``must be accomplished at the sponsor's 
training facility or other sponsor designated location where training 
will take place, except as provided for in the applicable QPS.'' With 
regards to Frasca's comment, the ability to submit QTG test results 
conducted at the manufacturer's facility is defined in the applicable 
QPS (see Appendix A, paragraph 11.h.) and has not changed in this 
rulemaking. The submission of QTG test results in this manner will 
remain acceptable as described in the applicable QPS.
b. Increasing the Credit for Time in a Simulator
    An individual commented that general aviation needs more extensive 
use of simulators rather than less. Reducing the number of hours a 
simulator can be used towards a private or instrument rating is bad for 
aviation and the flying community. Letters of authorization should 
increase the usage of simulator training allowed.
    The FAA notes that this rulemaking has not reduced the number of 
hours that a FSTD can be used for a private pilot or instrument rating. 
The FAA believes the commenter is referring to training devices not 
covered under part 60. Those devices are referred to as aviation 
training devices. An approved aviation training device, if determined 
to meet the standards in AC 61-136A,\36\ will receive a letter of 
authorization from the FAA, which specifies the amount of credit a 
pilot may take for training time in that specific device towards a 
pilot certificate or rating. Revising the amount of credit a pilot can 
take for training in any aviation training device or FSTD is outside 
the scope of this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Advisory Circular (AC) 61-136A, FAA Approval of Aviation 
Training Devices and Their Use for Training and Experience (2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

H. Economic Evaluation

    In July 2014, the FAA conducted a preliminary regulatory evaluation 
to estimate the costs and benefits of the provisions proposed in the 
NPRM. This regulatory evaluation was posted on the public docket with 
the NPRM. The agency received several comments on the NPRM from air 
carriers, FSTD manufacturers, and trade associations.
1. Cost of Aerodynamic Modeling and Implementation
    An individual commenter questioned whether the FAA factored in the 
costs associated with the acquisition of OEM data needed to comply with 
the new requirements; the costs associated with obtaining licenses for 
third party implementation of data; and the costs associated with the 
loss of FFS utilization/revenue for the changes, design, 
implementation, installation, validation and actual FAA qualification 
activities. American, Delta, JetBlue, and A4A made similar comments on 
the basis of the simulator modification costs and how the FAA can 
provide an estimate if data licensing pricing and implementation costs 
are unknown. American and A4A additionally commented that the FAA needs 
to provide their assumptions used for the cost analysis. In addition, 
A4A further commented that the cost estimate for implementation of UPRT 
is not realistic, is understated, and will depend upon the host and 
software architecture of the device being updated. A4A also stated that 
once more definitive data is developed the FAA should prepare a 
supplemental regulatory impact analysis (RIA) to update the cost 
estimate for upgrading FSTDs and provide more detail on the assumptions 
used in the analysis.
    The FAA notes that in the preliminary RIA, the estimated cost of 
aerodynamic model development included all modifications needed to meet 
the standards proposed for full stall, UPRT, and icing evaluation. This 
cost was estimated on a per model basis for grandfathered FSTDs and was 
further broken down into ``complex'' and ``simple'' projects that were 
based upon the likelihood that existing data was available to support 
the necessary modifications. This cost was estimated based upon 
feedback from an industry questionnaire which estimated the cost of a 
``complex'' model development at $100,000 and a ``simple'' model 
development at $60,000. Since many FSTDs share a common aerodynamic 
model developed by a common source, it was assumed that the costs of 
aerodynamic model development would be distributed amongst the 
purchasers of the model. Section II.d. of the RIA that was published 
with the NPRM, fully explained the agency's assumptions and rationale 
used to develop the cost estimates.
    With regards to implementation costs, the FAA calculated this 
separately from the aerodynamic model development costs on a per unit 
basis since implementation costs would impact individual FSTDs and not 
be distributed amongst several FSTDs. The FAA estimated the per unit 
costs as $77,307 per FSTD to include implementation costs, lost 
productivity/revenue, SME pilot testing, and hardware modifications. 
This estimate includes 45 hours of lost training time at $500 per hour 
to conduct these activities. This estimate was based upon the responses 
from an industry questionnaire and is fully explained in the RIA that 
was placed on the public docket with the NPRM. The FAA did not receive 
any cost estimates in the public comments concerning additional 
licensing fees for the implementation of data by a third party.
    An individual commenter further questioned the cost basis for the 
icing modifications and that the summary is not based on any factual, 
verifiable analysis. The commenter further stated that assumptions are 
made that icing upgrades can be accomplished at the same time as non-
icing upgrades and that there is no basis in fact for this statement 
and because of that, the costs are artificially low. A4A and American 
made similar comments concerning the cost of the required modifications 
for icing.
    The FAA notes that the costs for the aerodynamic modeling 
development necessary for both the full stall requirements and the 
icing requirements were estimated based upon the responses from an 
industry questionnaire. Since most simulators for transport category 
aircraft currently use icing models that are supplied by a common 
source as that of the aerodynamic model, the FAA assumed the updated 
models for both full stall and icing would likely be developed 
concurrently by the data provider and subsequently installed by the 
FSTD sponsors as a package in most cases. The agency's rationale for 
the breakdown of aerodynamic modeling costs for both stall and icing 
are described in the regulatory evaluation that was published with the 
NPRM.
    In response to these comments, the FAA has revised its cost 
estimates for the final rule to include additional

[[Page 18209]]

information gathered from air carriers, FSTD manufacturers, and data 
providers to better estimate the cost of this rule. One aircraft OEM 
simulator data provider has indicated that the estimated cost of an 
enhanced stall model would be in the area of $25,000 per FSTD. 
Furthermore, this data provider stated that in order to support the 
installation of an enhanced stall model, FSTDs running certain versions 
of their data package would need to be brought up to the latest 
revision or blockpoint before this installation can take place. The FAA 
also obtained a cost estimate from a third party provider to implement 
its model on FSTDs.
    As a result of this additional information as well as further 
analysis conducted on FAA FSTD qualification records, the FAA was able 
to group the FSTDs into seven different categories. The groups were 
based upon the estimated cost components to implement the modifications 
needed to meet the requirements of FSTD Directive No. 2. The estimated 
costs are separated by various factors such as the anticipated source 
of the aerodynamic data, whether the FSTD will need a standard data 
revision before further modifications can occur, whether the FSTD could 
potentially need a significant hardware update, and other factors that 
might affect the overall cost to meet the requirements of this final 
rule. This refined granularity for categorizing the FSTDs as well as 
the estimated cost for each category of FSTD is fully explained in the 
final RIA that is published with this final rule.
2. Cost of Instructor Operation Station (IOS) Replacement
    American commented that the cost to bring an FSTD into compliance 
with FSTD Directive No. 2 is low by many orders of magnitude. Older 
simulators will need new IOSs since many FSTDs cannot support the 
required graphics capabilities and would have to be replaced. American 
further commented that they have a rough estimate from one vendor that 
it will cost $250,000 alone for IOS update/replacement. A4A made 
similar comments that older simulators would need IOS replacement at an 
estimated cost of $250,000 in order to meet the instructor feedback 
mechanism requirements for UPRT. A4A further commented that this 
underestimated cost is a concern because there is no benefit to this 
element of the proposal as there are other methods available to provide 
instructors with the information necessary to evaluate a pilot's skills 
during simulator sessions that are used successfully today. The record 
and playback function should be left as an option available to FSTD 
customers, but it should be removed from this proposed rule.
    The FAA notes that the requirements for UPRT in the proposal and in 
the final rule do not specifically require the use of graphical 
displays to provide the necessary feedback. The FAA provided some 
example displays in Attachment 7 of Appendix A, but these examples are 
within an ``information'' section as recommendations, but are not 
regulatory. The FAA acknowledges that the instructor feedback that is 
necessary for UPRT could potentially be accomplished using methods 
other than graphical displays (such as numerical or discrete feedback 
at the IOS) and the agency has not been overly prescriptive in the 
final rule that requires a single solution. The FAA further notes that 
the requirement for video and audio recording and playback has been 
removed in the final rule as discussed in previous sections and this 
should provide some cost relief in meeting the requirements for UPRT. 
Finally, the FAA agrees with American and A4A in that there are a small 
number of older simulators still in operation which may have IOS 
display systems that cannot meet the requirements for UPRT without 
extensive modification or replacement. The FAA has made adjustments to 
the final RIA to account for the additional cost of replacing old IOS 
display systems for some older FSTDs.
3. Affected FSTDs and Sponsors
    American commented that ``. . . the FAA indicates cost savings by 
Sponsors not modifying all FSTDs, just part of the fleet. This is not 
an option for [American] and we believe all sponsors. This would impose 
scheduling complexity. Cost and other factors should be reviewed in the 
context of modifying all part 121 flight simulators. It is not feasible 
to only modify part of a simulator fleet and efficiently schedule 
crews. Our plan is to modify all FSTDs in our fleet. This will drive 
the costs higher with increase data licenses, implementation costs, and 
training impact. This does not provide additional cost relief for the 
sponsors.'' Similar comments were made by A4A. An individual commenter 
stated that it appears that the effect on the industry could include a 
larger number of Level C and Level D FFSs than the 322 cited in the RIA 
and asked if the FAA calculated total costs if all currently FAA 
qualified Level C and Level D devices were to comply with FSTD 
Directive No. 2. This commenter further questioned whether the FAA 
calculated the cost to a sponsor if an FFS were to not comply with FSTD 
Directive No. 2.
    The FAA notes that the cost estimates for FSTD Directive No. 2 
included the cost to update and evaluate all Level C and Level D FFSs 
that could potentially be used to meet the part 121 extended envelope 
training requirements. The FAA assumed that all part 121 Level C and 
Level D FFSs would require updating and did not include any cost 
reductions in the RIA. These assumptions and the associated rationale 
were fully described in the RIA that was published with the NPRM.
    The FAA further notes that the costs for previously qualified FSTDs 
were derived solely from the proposed FSTD Directive for full stall, 
upset recovery, icing, bounced landing recovery, and gusting crosswind 
FSTD evaluation requirements in the NPRM. Compliance with this 
Directive is only required for sponsors of FSTDs that will be used to 
deliver such training. The only operators required to conduct such 
training are air carriers operating under part 121. The estimated 322 
FSTDs were derived from those currently qualified FSTDs that simulate 
an aircraft that is likely to be used in a U.S. part 121 air carrier's 
training program. Since the NPRM was published, the number of FSTDs 
that could be impacted by the air carrier training requirements has 
increased from 322 to 335 FSTDs. We assumed that the cost of modifying 
the previously qualified FSTDs that are not used in part 121 training 
are not a cost of this rule because these operators are not required to 
conduct such training for these particular tasks. If a sponsor chooses 
not to offer the training defined in the FSTD Directive, there are no 
additional requirements or costs imposed by this rule for previously 
qualified FSTDs.
    American and A4A commented that the provisions included in the NPRM 
for Level A and Level B FFSs have no applied cost savings for sponsors 
since there are no Level A or Level B FFSs for part 121 sponsors.
    The FAA notes that as of the close of the comment period of the 
NPRM, one Level A and one Level B FFS are still in operation and 
actively sponsored by part 121 operators. No cost savings were applied 
in the RIA for Level A and Level B FFSs as stated by the commenters.
    Frasca commented that the NPRM stated that only sponsors are 
affected by this rule and FSTD sponsors are air carriers who own 
simulators to train their pilots or training centers that own 
simulators and sell simulator training time. Frasca went on to state 
that this statement assumes only part 119 and part 142 organizations, 
implying part

[[Page 18210]]

141 sponsors were not considered in the analysis. The FAA should 
consider reevaluating the analysis of small entities taking into 
consideration part 141 organizations that sponsor FSTDs. CAE further 
commented that FSTD manufacturers, aircraft OEMs and other data 
providers are also affected by these requirements.
    The FAA acknowledges CAE's comment in that other entities beyond 
the FSTD sponsor may be indirectly affected by this rule; however, the 
part 60 requirements apply to FSTD sponsors and not directly to the 
FSTD manufacturers and data providers. The FAA concurs with Frasca's 
comment in that all affected FSTD sponsors should be considered in the 
cost analysis of the rule. The FAA points out that the cost estimates 
in the RIA considered all FSTDs and sponsors that may be affected by 
this rulemaking, regardless of the certificate held by the sponsor.\37\ 
For previously qualified FSTDs that will have to meet the requirements 
of FSTD Directive No. 2 to conduct extended envelope training tasks, 
these estimates were based upon an analysis of FSTDs that could 
potentially be used in part 121 training programs to meet the air 
carrier training requirements, regardless of the sponsor's operating 
certificate. For newly qualified Level C and Level D FFSs that will be 
required to meet the updated requirements that were aligned with the 
ICAO 9625 document, this estimate was conducted using historical data 
on all new Level C and Level D FFSs that the FAA has initially 
qualified within the last 10 years. The specific impact on small 
entities was fully explained and accounted for in the RIA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ Sec.  60.7(a) requires that an FSTD sponsors holds or is an 
applicant for a certificate under part 119, 141, or 142.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Costs and Benefits of ICAO Alignment
    A4A commented that, in the NPRM, the FAA states that 
``Internationally aligned FSTD standards facilitate cost savings for 
FSTD operators because they effectively reduce the number of different 
FSTD designs that are required.'' A4A further stated that ``We can find 
no simulator manufacturer information in the docket to substantiate 
this statement. The FAA should explain and provide the basis for this 
statement. Based on past experience, the A4A believes that simulator 
manufacturers will continue to differentiate their product features 
instead of adopting one design due to aligned standards. Unless 
simulator manufacturers can provide product pricing information that 
proves otherwise, there will be no savings for purchasers of FSTDs as a 
result of the alignment proposed in this rule. A final or supplemental 
RIA must therefore eliminate reference to or quantification of illusory 
benefits from internationally-aligned FSTD standards.''
    The FAA notes that while the NPRM and RIA references qualitative 
benefits and potential cost savings due to internationally aligned FSTD 
evaluation standards, there were no quantified benefits included in the 
preliminary or final RIA. The FAA acknowledges that there will be a 
small cost associated with updating the part 60 FSTD evaluation 
standards to the latest ICAO 9625 document. In the RIA that was 
published with the NPRM, the FAA estimated the cost of compliance to 
initially qualify a new FSTD under the proposed standards that were 
aligned with ICAO 9625, Edition 3. Based upon the responses to a 
questionnaire that was distributed to industry for the purposes of 
determining these costs, the FAA estimated the recurring and non-
recurring cost of compliance with the internationally aligned standards 
to be approximately $30,431.82 per FSTD. Considering that the cost of a 
new Level C or Level D FSTD can range from $8 million or more, the 
incremental cost of compliance with the internationally aligned 
standards will represent less than 0.5 percent of the cost of a new 
FSTD. Furthermore, as a result of the comments received on the NPRM as 
discussed in previous sections, the FAA has removed and/or modified 
some of the more costly requirements in the final rule which were 
introduced by the ICAO alignment (e.g., the visual field-of-view 
requirement and the transport delay requirement). This will further 
reduce the estimated incremental cost of ICAO alignment that was 
estimated in the NPRM. The final rule estimate does not include these 
potential cost savings and therefore likely over estimates costs.
    The FAA maintains that alignment with updated international FSTD 
evaluation standards benefits industry in a number of ways. Because 
updates made to the ICAO document are typically conducted by working 
groups with a significant amount of industry participation, many of 
those changes are made to correct problems with the existing standards 
that result in requirements that are sometimes less restrictive, deal 
with new technology that is not adequately addressed in existing 
standards, and clarifies requirements that are ambiguous in nature and 
left to subjective assessment. For example, in the current part 60, 
objective tests that are validated against engineering simulation data 
are generally required to meet tighter tolerances than that of 
objective tests that are validated against flight test data.\38\ Due to 
practical issues with evaluating FSTDs against such tighter tolerances, 
ICAO 9625, Edition 3, provided relief to this requirement which now 
allows up to 40 percent of flight test tolerances to be used to 
evaluate engineering simulation validated objective tests. This is a 
less restrictive requirement that corrected an issue that was found to 
be problematic by FSTD sponsors, FSTD manufacturers, data providers, 
and regulators. As a result of the ICAO alignment, corresponding 
changes were proposed for the part 60 QPS. Several other examples exist 
in the ICAO 9625 alignment where less restrictive objective test 
tolerances were proposed or new objective evaluation requirements were 
introduced to replace subjective assessments (e.g., standards for 
liquid crystal display (LCD) or liquid crystal on silicon (LCoS) visual 
display systems). In many cases, objective tolerances are preferable to 
industry because they eliminate the inherent variance amongst 
inspectors and evaluators when conducting a subjective assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ 14 CFR part 60, Appendix A, Attachment 2, paragraph 11 
``Validation Test Tolerances'' recommends that 20% of the 
corresponding flight test tolerances should be used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, international alignment can reduce redundant testing 
requirements and documentation for sponsors of FSTDs that are qualified 
by multiple national aviation authorities. A long standing requirement 
for the qualification of FSTDs by the FAA and many other national 
aviation authorities is the development of a MQTG which documents that 
the FSTD meets the evaluation requirements and any required objective 
testing of the FSTD as compared to flight test or other validation 
data. Where FSTDs are qualified by different countries and national 
aviation authorities under different standards, the FSTD sponsor is 
sometimes required to create redundant documentation and conduct 
additional testing to meet each individual qualification standard. This 
usually results in complex differences matrices and, in some cases, 
completely different MQTG documents for each qualifying authority. 
Where standards are aligned on an international basis, this redundant 
documentation and testing burden can be significantly reduced. 
Furthermore, because much of the flight test data needed to validate 
the individual objective test cases is supplied by common data sources, 
the burden on the simulation data providers can

[[Page 18211]]

potentially be reduced through a reduction of flight test data 
collection needed to meet the requirements of multiple different FSTD 
evaluation standards.
    Finally, as mentioned previously in this document, the FAA believes 
that a large portion of industry looks favorably on international 
alignment and has demonstrated a willingness to adopt such standards in 
the past. Since the publication of ICAO 9625, Edition 3, in 2009, the 
FAA has received numerous inquiries and requests from many sectors of 
the industry (including air carriers, trade associations, FSTD 
manufacturers, and FSTD data providers) requesting the adoption of this 
updated document. Prior to this rulemaking, previous versions of the 
FAA and European FSTD evaluation standards were developed and aligned 
with previous versions of the ICAO 9625 document. This included the 
FAA's (draft) AC 120-40C which was aligned with the ICAO 9625, Edition 
1, document as well as the existing (2008) part 60 standard, which was 
aligned with the ICAO 9625, Edition 2, document. Further demonstrating 
industry's desire to maintain alignment with the latest international 
FSTD evaluation standards, during the time period between 1995 and 2010 
before the initial part 60 rule became effective, industry requested 
and the FAA qualified over 250 FSTDs using more stringent 
internationally aligned FSTD evaluation standards on a completely 
voluntary basis.\39\ The FAA believes this is strongly indicative that 
many sectors of the industry have found benefits in using 
internationally aligned FSTD evaluation standards to initially qualify 
new FSTDs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ Before part 60 was initially published, the FAA authorized 
the use of other FSTD evaluation standards as an alternate means of 
compliance to AC 120-40B. The FAA initially qualified 166 FSTDs 
against the (draft) AC 120-40C and the ICAO 9625 (edition 2) 
documents. Another 90 FSTDs were initially qualified under the 
European JAR STD-1A (amendment 3) standard which was also 
substantially harmonized with the ICAO 9625 (edition 2) document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses

A. Regulatory Evaluation

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic 
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 direct 
that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon 
a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation 
justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. 
L. 96-354) requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of 
regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act 
(Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits agencies from setting standards that create 
unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In 
developing U.S. standards, this Trade Act requires agencies to consider 
international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis 
of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of 
the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that 
include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, 
local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private 
sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with 
base year of 1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's 
analysis of the economic impacts of this final rule. We suggest readers 
seeking greater detail read the full regulatory evaluation, a copy of 
which we have placed in the docket for this rulemaking.
    In conducting these analyses, the FAA has determined that this 
final rule: (1) Has benefits that justify its costs, (2) is not an 
economically ``significant regulatory action'' as defined in section 
3(f) of Executive Order 12866, (3) is not ``significant'' as defined in 
DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures; (4) will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; 
(5) will not create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of 
the United States; and (6) will not impose an unfunded mandate on 
state, local, or tribal governments, or on the private sector by 
exceeding the threshold identified above. These analyses are summarized 
below.
Total Benefits and Costs of This Rule
    The table below summarizes the estimated costs and benefits of this 
proposal.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Present value   Present value
                                                                                   at a 7% rate    at a 3% rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FSTD Modifications for New Training Requirements:
    Cost........................................................     $72,716,590     $63,610,049     $68,562,049
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Benefits....................................................      Rational simulator owner will choose to
                                                                                      comply.
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
Icing provisions:
    Cost........................................................      $1,256,250      $1,098,926      $1,184,476
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Benefits....................................................    Only one prevented severe injury valued at
                                                                   $2.5 million makes the icing benefits exceed
                                                                                    the costs.
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
Aligning Standards with ICAO:
    Cost........................................................      $6,875,000      $5,356,979      $6,132,690
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Benefits....................................................         Improved safety and cost savings
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
        Total Cost..............................................     $80,847,840     $70,065,954     $75,879,215
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Costs
    Within each of the estimates we estimated three separate sets of 
costs, and later in the document provide separate benefit bases. These 
three sets include:
    Modifications of Previously Qualified FSTDs for New Training 
Requirements. The first set of costs will be incurred to make the 
necessary modifications to the FSTDs to enable training required by the 
new Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training final rule. A potential 
lack of full flight simulator (FFS) fidelity could contribute to 
inaccurate or incomplete training for

[[Page 18212]]

``extended envelope'' training tasks in the new training rule, 
therefore FSTDs will require evaluation and modification as defined in 
the FSTD Directive of this part 60 final rule.
    Icing Provisions. The second set of costs will be incurred for the 
evaluation and modification of engine and airframe icing models which 
will enhance existing training requirements for operations using anti-
icing/de-icing equipment. This improvement is based on NTSB safety 
recommendations, recommendations from the International Committee on 
Aviation Training in Extended Envelopes (ICATEE) and the Stick Pusher 
and Adverse Weather Event Training Aviation Rulemaking Committee (SPAW 
ARC), and it aligns with the updated International Civil Aviation 
Organization (ICAO) 9625 standards. Most of the models that will be 
installed to update STDs for new training requirements will meet the 
icing requirements as well. However, the FAA estimates about 15 percent 
of all of the FSTDs may need additional icing updates to be compliant 
with the final rule and we estimate the costs of these additional 
updates.
    Aligning Standards with ICAO. Lastly there are a set of changes to 
the part 60 Qualification Performance Standards (QPS) appendices which 
will align the FSTD standards for some FSTD levels with those of the 
latest ICAO FSTD evaluation guidance. This last set of changes will 
only apply to newly qualified FSTDs.
    Assumptions:
    A. Estimates are in 2012 $.
    B. The estimated number of previously qualified FSTDs that will 
potentially be affected by the rule (335) includes all FSTDs that are 
capable of providing training for part 121 operations and as such are 
likely to be an overestimate of the number of FSTDs that will be 
affected by this rule, as some devices may not be used for the 
training.
    C. As in the NPRM Regulatory Impact Analysis for newly qualified 
FSTDs, we expect minimal incremental cost to meet the standards for the 
new tasks in the Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training final rule 
and the standards for icing.
Who is Potentially Affected by This Rule?
    Sponsors of flight simulation training devices.
Changes to Costs From the NPRM to the Final Rule
    The FAA made two major changes in the final rule that might be cost 
relieving, although the FAA did not include these cost savings in the 
estimated costs.
    A. Removal of audio/video record and playback capability 
requirement;
    B. Removal/adjustment of the visual system field of view (FOV) and 
the transport delay requirements.
    The FAA has also revised its cost estimates for the final rule to 
include additional information gathered from air carriers, FSTD 
manufacturers, and data providers to better estimate the cost of this 
rule. One aircraft OEM simulator data provider has indicated that the 
estimated cost of an enhanced stall model would be in the area of 
$25,000 per FSTD. Furthermore, this data provider stated that in order 
to support the installation of an enhanced stall model, FSTDs running 
certain versions of their data package would need to be brought up to 
the latest revision or blockpoint before this installation can take 
place. The FAA also obtained a cost estimate from a third party 
provider to implement its model on FSTDs. As a result of this 
additional information and data and comments received, the FAA has 
updated its cost estimates for the final rule. Details on the analysis 
can be found in the Regulatory Impact Analysis accompanying this final 
rule.
    The table below shows the estimates derived during the NPRM phase, 
and the final rule updated cost estimate from data obtained after NPRM 
publication. The table indicates the three separate sets of costs 
incurred over a ten year period.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                            Final rule                      Final rule
                                                                            Final rule     NPRM Present    cost estimate   NPRM Present    cost estimate
                                                          NPRM  Estimate   cost estimate   value at a 7%   present value   value at a 3%   present value
                                                                                               rate        at a 7% rate        rate        at a 3% rate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FSTD modifications for New Training Requirements:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Cost................................................     $45,215,480     $72,716,590     $32,286,867     $63,610,049     $39,014,931     $68,562,049
Icing provisions:
    Cost................................................         468,000       1,256,250         334,183       1,098,926         403,822       1,184,476
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aligning Standards with ICAO:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Cost................................................       6,695,000       6,875,000       4,273,464       5,356,979       5,473,924       6,132,690
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total Cost......................................      52,378,480      80,847,840      36,894,514      70,065,954      44,892,676      75,879,215
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Benefits of This Rule
Modifying FSTDs To Support the Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher 
Training Final Rule
    The best way to understand the benefits of this final rule is to 
view them in conjunction with the new Crewmember and Aircraft 
Dispatcher Training final rule. In that rule, the cost/benefit analysis 
assumed that the new extended envelope training tasks would be 
conducted in a FSTD capable of producing the flight characteristics of 
an aircraft in a stall or upset condition. The Crewmember and Aircraft 
Dispatcher Training final rule estimated a $500 hourly FSTD rental rate 
that included all modifications expected to be required by this final 
rule. Alternative sensitivity analyses used $550 and $600 hourly FSTD 
rates to reflect the possibility of additional costs for the 
modifications. The costs generated by either hourly rate were justified 
and captured by the benefits of that rule.
    This final rule takes the next step to develop qualification 
standards for updating these FSTDs to ensure the extended envelope 
training provided is conducted in a realistic, accurate training 
environment. These modifications require FSTD owners \40\ to purchase 
and install updated data packages, the costs of which are a cost of 
this rule. Revenues received by FSTD owners for providing a modified 
FSTD required by the new training tasks are

[[Page 18213]]

costs previously accounted for in the Crewmember and Aircraft 
Dispatcher Training final rule and justified by the benefits of that 
rule. This revenue over time exceeds the cost of this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The part 60 standards and FSTD modification expense supporting the 
new training is $72.7 million ($63.6 million in present value at 7 
percent) and has been fully justified by the new Crewmember and 
Aircraft Dispatcher Training final rule.
Icing Provisions
    The second area for benefits is for the icing update. Although this 
update is not in response to a new training requirement, it will 
enhance existing training requirements for operations involving anti-
icing/de-icing equipment and further address NTSB, \41\ \42\ ICATEE and 
SPAW ARC recommendations to the FAA. It also aligns with the updated 
ICAO 9625 standards. These costs are minor at approximately $1.3 
million dollars and are expected to comprise a small percentage of the 
total cost of compliance with the FSTD Directive. One avoided severe 
injury would justify the minor costs of complying with these icing 
requirements. We received no comments on this benefit discussed in the 
proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ NTSB recommendations A-11-46 and A-11-47 address engine and 
airframe icing.
    \42\ www.ntsb.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Aligning Standards With ICAO
    Lastly, we have not quantified benefits of aligning part 60 
qualification standards with ICAO guidance, but we expect aligned FSTD 
standards to contribute to improved safety as they are developed by a 
broad coalition of experts with a combined pool of knowledge and 
experience. The FAA expects more realistic training to result from 
these changes. The changes are expected to improve overall FSTD 
fidelity by enhancing the evaluation standards for visual display 
resolution, system transport delay, sound direction, and motion cueing.
    Furthermore, internationally aligned FSTD standards for FSTD 
sponsors can reduce the redundant testing and documentation that are 
required to meet multiple national regulations and standards for FSTD 
qualification, potentially resulting in cost savings.
    The addition of the Level 7 FTD through the ICAO alignment will 
provide training providers with more options that do not exist today to 
conduct training at lower cost. If the sponsor chooses to qualify a 
level 7 FTD, it is because they expect the benefits to exceed the 
costs. We have not quantified these costs and benefits.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA) 
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall 
endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable 
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale 
of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions 
subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required 
to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain 
the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given 
serious consideration.'' The RFA covers a wide-range of small entities, 
including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small 
governmental jurisdictions.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must 
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.
    However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the 
agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not 
required. The certification must include a statement providing the 
factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be 
clear. The FAA made such a certification for the initial regulatory 
flexibility analysis, received no comments, and provides the factual 
basis below for such a determination in this final regulatory 
flexibility analysis.
Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities
    Only FSTD sponsors are affected by this rule. FSTD sponsors are air 
carriers that own FSTDs to train their pilots or training centers that 
own FSTDs and sell FSTD training time. To identify FSTD sponsors that 
could be affected retroactively by the FSTD directive,\43\ the FAA 
subjected the 876 FSTDs with an active qualification by the FAA to 
qualifying criteria designed to eliminate FSTDs not likely to be used 
in a part 121 training program for the applicable training tasks (i.e., 
stall training, upset recovery training, etc.). The remaining list of 
335 FSTDs (included in Appendix A of the regulatory evaluation), were 
sponsored by the 29 companies presented in the table below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ Part 60 contains grandfather rights for previously 
qualified FSTD so the FAA would invoke an FSTD Directive to require 
modification of previously qualified devices. The FSTD Directive 
process has provisions for mandating modifications to FSTDs 
retroactively for safety of flight reasons. See 14 CFR part 60, 
Sec.  60.23(b).

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      FSTD Sponsor                          # of FSTDs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A.T.S. Inc..............................................               1
ABX Air, Inc............................................               2
AIMS Community College..................................               1
Airbus..................................................               6
Alaska Airlines.........................................               4
Allegiant Airlines......................................               1
American Airlines.......................................              50
Atlas Air, Inc..........................................               3
Boeing Training and Flight Services.....................              42
CAE SimuFlite Inc.......................................               9
Compass Airlines, LLC...................................               1
Delta Air Lines, Inc....................................              27
Embry Riddle Aeronautical Univ..........................               1
Endeavor Air............................................               2
ExpressJet Airlines, Inc................................               3
Federal Express Corp....................................              19
FlightSafety International..............................              69
Global One Training Group, LLC..........................               1
Hawaiian Airlines, Inc..................................               1
JetBlue Airways.........................................               6
Kalitta Air, LLC........................................               2
Pan Am International Flight Academy.....................              26
Sierra Academy of Aeronautics...........................               2
Southwest Airlines......................................              10
Spirit Airlines, Inc....................................               3
Strategic Simulation Solutions L.L.C....................               3
Sun Country Airlines....................................               1
United Airlines.........................................              31
United Parcel Service...................................               8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................................             335
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To determine which of the 29 organizations listed in the previous 
table are small entities, the FAA consulted the U.S. Small Business 
Administration Table of Small Business Size Standards Matched to North 
American Industry Classification System Codes.\44\ For flight training 
(NAICS Code 611512) the threshold for small business is revenue of 
$25.5 million or less. The size standard for scheduled passenger air 
transportation (NAICS Code 481111) and scheduled freight air 
transportation (NAICS Code 481112) and non-scheduled charter passenger 
air transportation (NAICS Code 481211) is 1,500 employees. After 
consulting the World Aviation Directory, and other on-line sources, for 
employees and annual revenues, the FAA identified eight companies that 
are qualified as small entities. In this

[[Page 18214]]

instance, the FAA considers eight a substantial number of small 
entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ http://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/Size_Standards_Table.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Economic Impact
    The economic impact of this rule applies differently to previously 
qualified FSTD sponsors than it would to newly qualified FSTD sponsors. 
Below is a summary of the two separate analyses performed. One 
determines the impact of the final rule on small entities that will 
have to update their previously qualified devices and the other 
analysis determines the impact on those that would have to purchase a 
newly qualified device.
Economic Impact of Upgrading Previously Qualified FSTDs
    Five of the eight small entities are training providers. They are 
expected to offer this new required training as there would be 
increased demand for training time in their FSTDs because in addition 
to current requirements for training, all part 121 PICs and SICs must 
have two hours of additional training in the first year and additional 
training time in the future. The FAA found that costs that will be 
incurred by these small entities in order to train pilots in the tasks 
required by the new training rule, range from $122,300 to $335,842 \45\ 
per FSTD and can be recovered by renting the FSTD for 245 hours \46\ to 
672 hours.\47\ To recover modification costs within one year the 
training company would have to rent the most expensive modified FSTD 
for 7 two-hour sessions per week (14 hours/week) and 2 hour two-hour 
sessions per week (4 hours/week) in the case of the least expensive 
modification. In fact, the owners of these FSTDs will have guaranteed 
revenue for the life of the airplane used in part 121 operations. 
Therefore, the rule provides additional profit and would not impose a 
significant economic impact on these companies. Further, if the 
training company does not expect to recoup its costs in a reasonable 
amount of time for a particular FSTD it has the option not to offer the 
new part 121 training in that FSTD. Therefore, it will not have to 
incur the modification cost for that device.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ There are higher estimated per FSTD costs to update the 
FSTDs to meet the new training requirements, but these higher costs 
are for FSTDs owned by large entities.
    \46\ ($122,300 divided by $500 = 245 hours, resulting in 123 two 
hour sets--(245/2). If the training company offered 2 two hour sets 
per week it would recover its costs within a year (123/52 = 2).
    \47\ ($335,842/$500 = 672 hours, resulting in 336 two hour 
sets--(672/2). If the training company offered 6 two hour sets per 
week it would recover its costs within a year (336/52 = 6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Three of the companies identified as small businesses are part 121 
air carriers. They have to comply with the Crewmember and Aircraft 
Dispatcher Training final rule by training their pilots in FSTDs that 
meet the standards of this part 60 rule. The additional pilot training 
cost in a modified FSTD was accounted for and justified in that 
training final rule. This part 60 rule simply specifies how the FSTDs 
need to be modified such that the new training will be in compliance 
with the Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training final rule. These 
part 121 operators have two options. They can purchase training time 
for their pilots at a qualified training center. Alternatively they 
could choose to comply with the FSTD Directive by modifying their own 
FSTDs to train their pilots for the new training tasks. For these 
operators who already own FSTDs, the cost of complying with the FSTD 
Directive is estimated to be less than the cost of renting time at a 
training center to comply with the new requirements. Therefore, we 
expect that they will choose to modify their devices because it will be 
less costly to offer training in-house than to send pilots out to 
training centers. The cost to train pilots in the tasks required by the 
training rule is a cost of the training rule and not this rule. Thus, 
the rule will not impose a significant economic impact on these 
companies, because by modifying their FSTDs these operators will lower 
their costs.
    An estimated 50 of the FSTDs (15 percent) may require additional 
modifications to comply with the icing requirements of the final rule. 
We do not know how many are small businesses however the estimated cost 
of these additional icing modifications ($25,000) are less than 0.3 
percent of the estimated $10 million cost of a FSTD, which is not a 
significant impact.
Economics of Newly Qualified Devices
    It is unknown how many sponsors of newly qualified FSTDs in the 
future may qualify as small entities, but we expect it will be a 
substantial number as it could include some or all of the eight 
identified above. The FAA expects the final rule requirements that 
address the new training tasks and modify the icing FSTD requirements 
to be included in future training packages, the revenues obtained from 
training will exceed the costs, and the cost will be minimal for a 
newly qualified FSTD. The requirement to align with ICAO guidance 
however, will result in some cost. The FAA does not know who in the 
future will be purchasing and qualifying FSTDs after the rule becomes 
effective. The FAA estimates that the incremental cost per newly 
qualified FSTD will be approximately $33,000. This is less than 0.5 
percent of the cost of a new FSTD, which generally costs $10 million or 
more. Therefore we do not believe the final rule will have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
that purchase newly qualified FSTDs after the rule is in effect.
    Thus this final rule is expected to impact a substantial number of 
small entities, but not impose a significant negative economic impact. 
We made a similar determination in the initial regulatory flexibility 
analysis and received no comments. Therefore, as provided in section 
605(b), the head of the FAA certifies that this rulemaking will not 
result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities.

C. International Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the 
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal 
agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities 
that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United 
States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not 
considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the 
United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic 
objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not operate in a 
manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also 
requires consideration of international standards and, where 
appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has 
assessed the potential effect of this final rule and determined that 
the rule will provide improved safety training and will use 
international standards as its basis and does not create unnecessary 
obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States, and the purpose 
of this rule is the protection of safety.

D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 
104-4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement 
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final 
agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more 
(in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate 
is deemed to be a ``significant regulatory action.'' The FAA currently

[[Page 18215]]

uses an inflation-adjusted value of $155.0 million in lieu of $100 
million.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires 
that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information 
collection burdens imposed on the public. According to the 1995 
amendments to the Paperwork Reduction Act (5 CFR 1320.8(b)(2)(vi)), an 
agency may not collect or sponsor the collection of information, nor 
may it impose an information collection requirement unless it displays 
a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
    This final rule will impose the following amended information 
collection requirements. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 
1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)), the FAA has submitted these information 
collection amendments to OMB for its review. Notice of OMB approval for 
this information collection will be published in a future Federal 
Register document.
    Summary: As a result of this final rule, an increase in the 
currently approved information collection requirements \48\ will be 
imposed on Sponsors of previously qualified FSTDs that require 
modification for the qualification of certain training tasks as defined 
in FSTD Directive No. 2. These Sponsors will be required to report FSTD 
modifications to the FAA as described in Sec. Sec.  60.23 and 60.16, 
which would result in a one-time information collection. Additionally, 
because compliance with the FSTD Directive (for previously qualified 
FSTDs) and the new QPS requirements (for newly qualified FSTDs) will 
increase the overall amount of objective testing necessary to maintain 
FSTD qualification under Sec.  60.19, a slight increase in annual 
information collection will be required to document such testing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number 2120-
0680.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the FAA added deviation authority to Sec.  
60.15(c)(5) in the final rule to allow for an FSTD sponsor to deviate 
from the technical requirements in the part 60 QPS. For FSTD sponsors 
requesting such a deviation, this will impose a small amount of 
additional information collection burden.
    Public comments: The FAA did not receive any substantive comments 
on the amended information collection requirements as a result of this 
final rule.
    Use: For previously qualified FSTDs, the information collection 
will be used to determine that the requirements of the FSTD Directive 
have been met. The FAA will use this information to issue amended SOQs 
for those FSTDs that have been found to meet those requirements and 
also to determine if the FSTDs annual inspection and maintenance 
requirements have been met as currently required by part 60.
    For FSTD sponsors requesting a deviation as described in Sec.  
60.15(c)(5), the information collection will be used to evaluate and 
track the approval of deviations to support the initial evaluation of 
FSTDs.
    Respondents (including number of): The additional information 
collection burden in this proposal is limited to those FSTD Sponsors 
that will require specific FSTD qualification for certain training 
tasks as defined in FSTD Directive 2. Approximately 335 previously 
qualified FSTDs \49\ may require evaluation as described in the FSTD 
Directive to support the Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Training 
final rule. The number of respondents would be limited to those 
Sponsors that maintain FSTDs which may require additional qualification 
in accordance with the FSTD Directive. Currently, there are 29 FSTD 
sponsors that may request additional FSTD qualification to support the 
training requirements in the Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher 
Training final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ The FAA estimated this from the number of previously 
qualified FSTDs that simulate aircraft which are currently used in 
U.S. part 121 air carrier operations. This number of FSTDs has 
increased from 322 to 335 since the publication of the NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Frequency: This additional information collection would include 
both a one-time event to report FSTD modifications as required by the 
FSTD Directive as well as a slight increase to the annual part 60 
information collection requirements.
    Annual Burden Estimate: The FAA estimates that for each additional 
qualified task required in accordance with FSTD Directive No. 2, the 
one-time information collection burden to each FSTD Sponsor would be 
approximately 0.85 hours per FSTD for each additional qualified 
task.\50\ Assuming all five of the additional qualified tasks would be 
required for each of the estimated 335 FSTDs (including qualification 
for full stall training, upset recovery training, airborne icing 
training, takeoff and landing in gusting crosswinds, and bounced 
landing training), the cumulative one-time information collection 
burden would be approximately 1,424 hours. This collection burden would 
be distributed over a time period of approximately 3 years. This 3 year 
time period represents the compliance period of the proposed FSTD 
Directive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ The 0.85 hour burden is derived from the existing Part 60 
Paperwork Reduction Act supporting statement (OMB-2120-0680), Table 
5 (Sec.  60.16) and includes estimated time for the FSTD Sponsor's 
staff to draft and send the letter as well as estimated time for 
updating the approved MQTG with new test results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The one-time information collection burden to the Federal 
government is estimated at approximately 0.6 hours per FSTD for each 
qualified task to include Aerospace Engineer review and preparation of 
an FAA response.\51\ Assuming all five of the additional qualified 
tasks will be required for each of the estimated 335 FSTDs, the 
cumulative one-time information collection burden to the Federal 
government will be approximately 1,005 hours. The modification of the 
FSTD's SOQ would be incorporated with the FSTD's next scheduled 
evaluation, so this will not impose additional burden.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ The 0.6 hour burden on the Federal government is also 
derived from the existing Part 60 Paperwork Reduction Act supporting 
statement (OMB-2120-0680), Table 5 (Sec.  60.16).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because the number of objective tests required to maintain FSTD 
qualification would increase slightly with this proposal, the annual 
information collection burden would also increase under the FSTD 
inspection and maintenance requirements of Sec.  60.19. This additional 
information collection burden is estimated by increasing the average 
number of required objective tests for Level C and Level D FFSs by four 
tests.\52\ For the estimated 335 FSTDs that may be affected by the FSTD 
Directive, this will result in an additional 134 hours of annual 
information collection burden to FSTD Sponsors. This additional 
collection burden is based upon 0.1 hours \53\ per test for a simulator 
technician to document as required by Sec.  60.19. The additional 
information collection burden to the Federal government will also 
increase by approximately 45 hours \54\ due to the additional tests 
that may be sampled and reviewed by the

[[Page 18216]]

FAA during continuing qualification evaluations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ For previously qualified FSTDs, the requirements of FSTD 
Directive No. 2 will add a maximum of four additional objective test 
cases to the existing requirements.
    \53\ The 0.1 hour burden is derived from the existing Part 60 
Paperwork Reduction Act supporting statement (OMB-2120-0680), Table 
6 (Sec.  60.19) and includes estimated time for the FSTD Sponsor's 
staff to document the completion of required annual objective 
testing.
    \54\ This information collection burden is based upon 0.1 hours 
per test required for FAA personnel to review. These four additional 
tests are subject to the approximately 33% of which may be spot 
checked by FAA personnel on site during a continuing qualification 
evaluation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For new FSTDs qualified after the proposal becomes effective, the 
changes to the QPS appendices proposed to align with ICAO 9625 as well 
as the new requirements for the evaluation of stall and icing training 
maneuvers would result in an estimated average increase of four 
objective tests \55\ that would require annual documentation as 
described in Sec.  60.19. For the estimated 23 new \56\ Level C and 
Level D FFSs that may be initially qualified annually by the FAA, this 
will result in an additional 9 hours of annual information collection 
burden to FSTD Sponsors and an additional 3 hours of annual information 
collection burden to the Federal government. For newly qualified FSTDs, 
this proposal does not increase the frequency of reporting for FSTD 
sponsors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ These four additional tests were estimated through 
comparison between the current and proposed list of objective tests 
required for qualification (Table A2A). Note that the total number 
of tests can vary between FSTDs as a function of aircraft type, test 
implementation, and the employment of certain technologies that 
would require additional testing.
    \56\ Based upon internal records review, the FAA calculated the 
number of newly qualified fixed-wing Level C and Level D FSTDs at 
approximately 23 per year over a ten year period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The total additional information collection burden for FSTD 
sponsors as a result of this final rule is summarized in the following 
tables:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Sec.   60.16 Private sector burden (One-time       Hours per
                      cost)                        notification        Hours        Hourly rate        Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional Tasks/Modifications..................
    Number of notifications--1675...............
    Management Rep hours to draft letter........            0.5              838          $73.74         $61,794
    Management Rep hours to make/insert MQTG                0.25             419           73.74          30,897
     change.....................................
    Clerk hours to prepare/mail letter..........            0.1              168           29.70           4,990
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
        Total...................................  ..............            1425  ..............          97,681
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Sec.   60.19 Private sector burden (Annual cost)               Hours        Hourly rate        Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Simulator technician (FSTD Directive No. 2).....................             134          $42.39          $5,680
Simulator technician (ICAO Alignment)...........................               9           42.39             382
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................             143           42.39           6,062
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The total additional information collection burden for the Federal 
government as a result of this final rule is summarized in the 
following tables:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Hours per
   Sec.   60.16 Federal burden (One-time cost)     notification        Hours        Hourly rate        Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Notifications--1675...................
Engineer/Pilot (equivalent of GS14, Step 1).....             0.5             838          $65.96         $55,274
Clerk (equivalent of GS10, Step 1)..............             0.1             168           35.64           5,988
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................  ..............            1006  ..............          61,262
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Sec.   60.19 Federal burden (Annual cost)                  Hours        Hourly rate        Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Aviation Safety Inspector Review (FSTD Directive No. 2).              45          $65.96          $2,968
Federal Aviation Safety Inspector Review (ICAO Alignment).......               3           65.96             198
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................              48           65.96           3,166
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, as a result of public comments filed in response to 
the NPRM for this rule, the FAA added deviation authority to Sec.  
60.15(c)(5). The primary purpose for including this deviation authority 
is to allow for FSTD sponsors to initially qualify a new FSTD using 
internationally recognized FSTD evaluation standards, including those 
issued by the ICAO or another national aviation authority. This will 
improve international harmonization of FSTD evaluation standards as 
well as reduce redundant FSTD qualification documentation in instances 
where an FSTD is qualified by multiple national aviation authorities or 
evaluated under a bilateral agreement. Because an FSTD sponsor will 
have to submit a request to the FAA for the approval of a deviation, 
there will be an information collection burden for those FSTD sponsors 
or manufacturers that choose to request deviation authority. Since such 
deviations will generally be applicable only to those FSTDs that are 
undergoing an initial evaluation, and the total number of initial FSTD 
evaluations the FAA conducts averages around 50 per year, the burden 
for this information collection is expected to be very small. 
Furthermore, it is expected that most of these deviations will be 
submitted by FSTD manufacturers for the initial evaluation of multiple 
FSTDs as provisioned for in the deviation authority section of the 
final rule. As a result, the number of deviation requests received by 
the FAA will be mainly limited to a few FSTD manufacturers and will be 
result in a negligible information collection burden.

F. International Compatibility and Cooperation

    (1) In keeping with United States (U.S.) obligations under the 
Convention on International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to conform 
to International

[[Page 18217]]

Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and Recommended Practices 
to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has determined that there 
are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices that correspond to 
these proposed regulations.
    (2) Executive Order (EO) 13609, Promoting International Regulatory 
Cooperation, (77 FR 26413, May 4, 2012) promotes international 
regulatory cooperation to meet shared challenges involving health, 
safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues and reduce, 
eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory 
requirements. The FAA has analyzed this action under the policy and 
agency responsibilities of Executive Order 13609, Promoting 
International Regulatory Cooperation. The agency has determined that 
this action would reduce differences between U.S. aviation standards 
and those of other civil aviation authorities by aligning the part 60 
FSTD qualification standards with that of the latest international FSTD 
qualification guidance document (ICAO 9625) for equivalent FSTD levels.
    (3) Harmonization. The FSTD evaluation standards that have been 
codified in this final rule were the result of numerous recommendations 
received from working groups that the FAA participated in on a 
collaborative basis. Many of these working groups had significant 
international presence from both industry and international regulatory 
authorities. Furthermore, much of the foundation of this final rule has 
been based upon the guidance material developed by the International 
Civil Aviation Organization which provides such material to promote 
international harmonization on aviation safety issues.

G. Environmental Analysis

    FAA Order 1050.1F identifies FAA actions that are categorically 
excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or 
environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy 
Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has 
determined this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical 
exclusion identified in paragraph 5-6.6.(f) and involves no 
extraordinary circumstances.

V. Executive Order Determinations

A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    The FAA has analyzed this final rule under the principles and 
criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The agency determined 
that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on the 
States, or the relationship between the Federal Government and the 
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government, and, therefore, does not have Federalism 
implications.

B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    The FAA analyzed this final rule under Executive Order 13211, 
Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The agency has determined that it 
is not a ``significant energy action'' under the executive order and it 
is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 
distribution, or use of energy.

VI. How To Obtain Additional Information

A. Rulemaking Documents

    An electronic copy of a rulemaking document my be obtained by using 
the Internet--
    1. Search the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov);
    2. Visit the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/ or
    3. Access the Government Printing Office's Web page at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/.
    Copies may also be obtained by sending a request (identified by 
notice, amendment, or docket number of this rulemaking) to the Federal 
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence 
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680.

B. Comments Submitted to the Docket

    Comments received may be viewed by going to http://www.regulations.gov and following the online instructions to search the 
docket number for this action. Anyone is able to search the electronic 
form of all comments received into any of the FAA's dockets by the name 
of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if 
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).

C. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 
1996 requires FAA to comply with small entity requests for information 
or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its 
jurisdiction. A small entity with questions regarding this document, 
may contact its local FAA official, or the person listed under the FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT heading at the beginning of the preamble. 
To find out more about SBREFA on the Internet, visit http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/sbre_act/.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 60

    Air Carriers, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Safety Transportation.

The Amendment

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, amend part 60 of title 
14 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 60--FLIGHT SIMULATION TRAINING DEVICE INITIAL AND CONTINUING 
QUALIFICATION AND USE

0
1. The authority citation for part 60 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, and 44701; Pub. L. 
111-216, 124 Stat. 2348 (49 U.S.C. 44701 note)

0
2. Amend Sec.  60.15 by adding paragraph (c)(5), revising paragraph 
(e), and adding paragraph (g)(7) to read as follows:

Sec.  60.15  Initial Qualification requirements.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (5) An FSTD sponsor or FSTD manufacturer may submit a request to 
the Administrator for approval of a deviation from the QPS requirements 
as defined in Appendix A through Appendix D of this part.
    (i) Requests for deviation must be submitted in a form and manner 
acceptable to the Administrator and must provide sufficient 
justification that the deviation meets or exceeds the testing 
requirements and tolerances as specified in the part 60 QPS or will 
otherwise not adversely affect the fidelity and capability of the FSTDs 
evaluated and qualified under the deviation.
    (ii) The Administrator may consider deviation from the minimum 
requirements tables, the objective testing tables, the functions and 
subjective testing tables, and other supporting tables and requirements 
in the part 60 QPS.
    (iii) Deviations may be issued to an FSTD manufacturer for the 
initial qualification of multiple FSTDs, subject to terms and 
limitations as determined by Administrator. Approved deviations will 
become a part of the permanent qualification basis of the individual 
FSTD and will be noted in the FSTD's Statement of Qualification.
    (iv) If the FAA publishes a change to the existing part 60 
standards as

[[Page 18218]]

described in paragraph (c)(1) of this section or issues an FSTD 
Directive as described in Sec.  60.23(b), which conflicts with or 
supersedes an approved deviation, the Administrator may terminate or 
revise a grant of deviation authority issued under this paragraph.
* * * * *
    (e) The subjective tests that form the basis for the statements 
described in paragraph (b) of this section and the objective tests 
referenced in paragraph (f) of this section must be accomplished at the 
sponsor's training facility or other sponsor designated location where 
training will take place, except as provided for in the applicable QPS.
* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (7) A statement referencing any deviations that have been granted 
and included in the permanent qualification basis of the FSTD.
* * * * *

0
3. Amend Sec.  60.17 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:

Sec.  60.17  Previously qualified FSTDs.

    (a) Unless otherwise specified by an FSTD Directive, further 
referenced in the applicable QPS, or as specified in paragraph (e) of 
this section, an FSTD qualified before May 31, 2016 will retain its 
qualification basis as long as it continues to meet the standards, 
including the objective test results recorded in the MQTG and 
subjective tests, under which it was originally evaluated, regardless 
of sponsor. The sponsor of such an FSTD must comply with the other 
applicable provisions of this part.
* * * * *

0
4. Amend Sec.  60.19 by revising paragraphs (b)(4) through (6)to read 
as follows:

Sec.  60.19  Inspection, continuing qualification evaluation, and 
maintenance requirements.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (4) The frequency of NSPM-conducted continuing qualification 
evaluations for each FSTD will be established by the NSPM and specified 
in the Statement of Qualification.
    (5) Continuing qualification evaluations conducted in the 3 
calendar months before or after the calendar month in which these 
continuing qualification evaluations are required will be considered to 
have been conducted in the calendar month in which they were required.
    (6) No sponsor may use or allow the use of or offer the use of an 
FSTD for flight crewmember training or evaluation or for obtaining 
flight experience for the flight crewmember to meet any requirement of 
this chapter unless the FSTD has passed an NSPM-conducted continuing 
qualification evaluation within the time frame specified in the 
Statement of Qualification or within the grace period as described in 
paragraph (b)(5) of this section.
* * * * *

0
5. Amend Sec.  60.23 by revising paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows:

Sec.  60.23  Modifications to FSTDs.

    (a) * * *
    (2) Changes are made to either software or hardware that are 
intended to impact flight or ground dynamics; changes are made that 
impact performance or handling characteristics of the FSTD (including 
motion, visual, control loading, or sound systems for those FSTD levels 
requiring sound tests and measurements); or changes are made to the 
MQTG. Changes to the MQTG which do not affect required objective 
testing results or validation data approved during the initial 
evaluation of the FSTD are not considered modifications under this 
section.
* * * * *

0
6. Amend Appendix A by:
0
A. Revising paragraph 1.b.;
0
B. Revising paragraph 1.d.(22);
0
C. Revising paragraph 1.d.(25);
0
D. Revising paragraph 1.d.(26);
0
E. Revising paragraph 11.b.(2);
0
F. Removing and reserving paragraph 11.e.(2);
0
G. Revising paragraph 11.h;
0
H. Revising paragraph 13.b; and
0
I. Revising paragraph 13.d.
    The revisions read as follows:

Appendix A to Part 60--Qualification Performance Standards for Airplane 
Full Flight Simulators

* * * * *

1. Introduction.

* * * * *
    b. Questions regarding the contents of this publication should 
be sent to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation 
Administration, Flight Standards Service, National Simulator Program 
Staff, AFS-205, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia, 30320. Telephone 
contact numbers for the NSP are: phone, 404-474-5620; fax, 404-474-
5656. The NSP Internet Web site address is: http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/nsp/. On this Web site you will find an NSP 
personnel list with telephone and email contact information for each 
NSP staff member, a list of qualified flight simulation devices, 
advisory circulars (ACs), a description of the qualification 
process, NSP policy, and an NSP ``In-Works'' section. Also linked 
from this site are additional information sources, handbook 
bulletins, frequently asked questions, a listing and text of the 
Federal Aviation Regulations, Flight Standards Inspector's 
handbooks, and other FAA links.
* * * * *
    d. * * *
    (22) International Air Transport Association document, ``Flight 
Simulation Training Device Design and Performance Data 
Requirements,'' as amended.
* * * * *
    (25) International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Manual of 
Criteria for the Qualification of Flight Simulation Training 
Devices, as amended.
    (26) Aeroplane Flight Simulation Training Device Evaluation 
Handbook, Volume I, as amended and Volume II, as amended, The Royal 
Aeronautical Society, London, UK.
* * * * *

11. Initial (and Upgrade) Qualification Requirements (Sec.  60.15).

* * * * *
    b. * * *
    (2) Unless otherwise authorized through prior coordination with 
the NSPM, a confirmation that the sponsor will forward to the NSPM 
the statement described in Sec.  60.15(b) in such time as to be 
received no later than 5 business days prior to the scheduled 
evaluation and may be forwarded to the NSPM via traditional or 
electronic means.
* * * * *
    h. The sponsor may elect to complete the QTG objective and 
subjective tests at the manufacturer's facility or at the sponsor's 
training facility (or other sponsor designated location where 
training will take place). If the tests are conducted at the 
manufacturer's facility, the sponsor must repeat at least one-third 
of the tests at the sponsor's training facility in order to 
substantiate FFS performance. The QTG must be clearly annotated to 
indicate when and where each test was accomplished. Tests conducted 
at the manufacturer's facility and at the sponsor's designated 
training facility must be conducted after the FFS is assembled with 
systems and sub-systems functional and operating in an interactive 
manner. The test results must be submitted to the NSPM.
* * * * *

13. Previously Qualified FFSs (Sec.  60.17).

* * * * *
    b. Simulators qualified prior to May 31, 2016, are not required 
to meet the general simulation requirements, the objective test 
requirements or the subjective test requirements of attachments 1, 
2, and 3 of this appendix as long as the simulator continues to meet 
the test requirements contained in the MQTG developed under the 
original qualification basis.
* * * * *
    d. Simulators qualified prior to May 31, 2016, may be updated. 
If an evaluation is deemed appropriate or necessary by the NSPM 
after such an update, the evaluation will not require an evaluation 
to standards

[[Page 18219]]

beyond those against which the simulator was originally qualified.
* * * * *

0
7. Amend Attachment 1 to Appendix A:
0
A. By revising Table A1A;
0
B. In Table A1B, ``Table of Tasks vs. Simulator Level by:
0
i. Revising text of entry 3.b.;
0
ii. Adding entry 3.b.1;
0
iii. Adding entry 3.b.2; and
0
iv. Adding entry 3.g..
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Appendix A to Part 60--Qualification Performance Standards for Airplane 
Full Flight Simulators

* * * * *

Attachment 1 to Appendix A to Part 60--GENERAL SIMULATOR REQUIREMENTS

* * * * *

[[Page 18220]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.118

[[Page 18221]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.119

[[Page 18222]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.120

[[Page 18223]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.121

[[Page 18224]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.122

[[Page 18225]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.123

[[Page 18226]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.124

[[Page 18227]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.125

[[Page 18228]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.126

[[Page 18229]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.127

[[Page 18230]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.128

[[Page 18231]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.129

[[Page 18232]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.130

[[Page 18233]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.131

[[Page 18234]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.132

[[Page 18235]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.133

[[Page 18236]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.134

[[Page 18237]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.135

[[Page 18238]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.136

[[Page 18239]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.137

[[Page 18240]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.138

0
8. Amend Attachment 2 to Appendix A by revising:
0
A. Paragraph 2.e.;
0
B. Table A2A;
0
C. Paragraph 6.b.;
0
D. Paragraph 6.d.;

[[Page 18241]]

0
E. Paragraph 11.a.(1);
0
F. Paragraph 11.b.(5);
0
G. Paragraph 12.a.;
    The revisions read as follows:

Appendix A to Part 60--Qualification Performance Standards for Airplane 
Full Flight Simulators

* * * * *

Attachment 2 to Appendix A to Part 60--FFS OBJECTIVE TESTS

* * * * *
    2. * * *
* * * * *
    e. It is not acceptable to program the FFS so that the 
mathematical modeling is correct only at the validation test points. 
Unless otherwise noted, simulator tests must represent airplane 
performance and handling qualities at operating weights and centers 
of gravity (CG) typical of normal operation. Simulator tests at 
extreme weight or CG conditions may be acceptable where required for 
concurrent aircraft certification testing. Tests of handling 
qualities must include validation of augmentation devices.
* * * * *

[[Page 18242]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.139

[[Page 18243]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.140

[[Page 18244]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.141

[[Page 18245]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.142

[[Page 18246]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.143

[[Page 18247]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.144

[[Page 18248]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.145

[[Page 18249]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.146

[[Page 18250]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.147

[[Page 18251]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.148

[[Page 18252]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.149

[[Page 18253]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.150

[[Page 18254]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.151

[[Page 18255]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.152

[[Page 18256]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.153

[[Page 18257]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.154

[[Page 18258]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.155

[[Page 18259]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.156

[[Page 18260]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.157

[[Page 18261]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.158

[[Page 18262]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.159

[[Page 18263]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.160

[[Page 18264]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.161

[[Page 18265]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.162

[[Page 18266]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.163

[[Page 18267]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.164

[[Page 18268]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.165

[[Page 18269]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.166

[[Page 18270]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.167

[[Page 18271]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.168

[[Page 18272]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.169

[[Page 18273]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.170

[[Page 18274]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.171

[[Page 18275]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.172

[[Page 18276]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.173

[[Page 18277]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.174

[[Page 18278]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.175

[[Page 18279]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.176

[[Page 18280]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.177

[[Page 18281]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.178

[[Page 18282]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.179

* * * * *

6. Motion System.

* * * * *
    b. Motion System Checks. The intent of test 3a, Frequency 
Response, and test 3b, Turn-

[[Page 18283]]

Around Check, as described in the Table of Objective Tests, are to 
demonstrate the performance of the motion system hardware, and to 
check the integrity of the motion set-up with regard to calibration 
and wear. These tests are independent of the motion cueing software 
and should be considered robotic tests.
* * * * *
    d. Objective Motion Cueing Test--Frequency Domain
    (1) Background. This test quantifies the response of the motion 
cueing system from the output of the flight model to the motion 
platform response. Other motion tests, such as the motion system 
frequency response, concentrate on the mechanical performance of the 
motion system hardware alone. The intent of this test is to provide 
quantitative frequency response records of the entire motion system 
for specified degree-of-freedom transfer relationships over a range 
of frequencies. This range should be representative of the manual 
control range for that particular aircraft type and the simulator as 
set up during qualification. The measurements of this test should 
include the combined influence of the motion cueing algorithm, the 
motion platform dynamics, and the transport delay associated with 
the motion cueing and control system implementation. Specified 
frequency responses describing the ability of the FSTD to reproduce 
aircraft translations and rotations, as well as the cross-coupling 
relations, are required as part of these measurements. When 
simulating forward aircraft acceleration, the simulator is 
accelerated momentarily in the forward direction to provide the 
onset cueing. This is considered the direct transfer relation. The 
simulator is simultaneously tilted nose-up due to the low-pass 
filter in order to generate a sustained specific force. The tilt 
associated with the generation of the sustained specific force, and 
the angular rates and angular accelerations associated with the 
initiation of the sustained specific force, are considered cross-
coupling relations. The specific force is required for the 
perception of the aircraft sustained specific force, while the 
angular rates and accelerations do not occur in the aircraft and 
should be minimized.
    (2) Frequency response test. This test requires the frequency 
response to be measured for the motion cueing system. Reference 
sinusoidal signals are inserted at the pilot reference position 
prior to the motion cueing computations. The response of the motion 
platform in the corresponding degree-of-freedom (the direct transfer 
relations), as well as the motions resulting from cross-coupling 
(the cross-coupling relations), are recorded. These are the tests 
that are important to pilot motion cueing and are general tests 
applicable to all types of airplanes.
    (3) This test is only required to be run once for the initial 
qualification of the FSTD and will not be required for continuing 
qualification purposes. The FAA will accept test results provided by 
the FSTD manufacturer as part of a Statement of Compliance 
confirming that the objective motion cueing tests were used to 
assist in the tuning of the FSTD's motion cueing algorithms.
* * * * *

11. Validation Test Tolerances

* * * * *
    a. * * *
    (1) If engineering simulator data or other non-flight-test data 
are used as an allowable form of reference validation data for the 
objective tests listed in Table A2A of this attachment, the data 
provider must supply a well-documented mathematical model and 
testing procedure that enables a replication of the engineering 
simulation results within 40% of the corresponding flight test 
tolerances.
    b. * * *
* * * * *
    (5) The tolerance limit between the reference data and the 
flight simulator results is generally 40 percent of the 
corresponding `flight-test' tolerances. However, there may be cases 
where the simulator models used are of higher fidelity, or the 
manner in which they are cascaded in the integrated testing loop 
have the effect of a higher fidelity, than those supplied by the 
data provider. Under these circumstances, it is possible that an 
error greater than 40 percent may be generated. An error greater 
than 40 percent may be acceptable if simulator sponsor can provide 
an adequate explanation.
* * * * *

12. Validation Data Roadmap

    a. Airplane manufacturers or other data suppliers should supply 
a validation data roadmap (VDR) document as part of the data 
package. A VDR document contains guidance material from the airplane 
validation data supplier recommending the best possible sources of 
data to be used as validation data in the QTG. A VDR is of special 
value when requesting interim qualification, qualification of 
simulators for airplanes certificated prior to 1992, and 
qualification of alternate engine or avionics fits. A sponsor 
seeking to have a device qualified in accordance with the standards 
contained in this QPS appendix should submit a VDR to the NSPM as 
early as possible in the planning stages. The NSPM is the final 
authority to approve the data to be used as validation material for 
the QTG.
* * * * *

0
9. Amend Attachment 3 to Appendix A by revising:
0
A. Table A3A;
0
B. Table A3B;
0
C. Table A3D; and
0
D. Table A3F;
    The revisions read as follows:

Appendix A to Part 60--Qualification Performance Standards for Airplane 
Full Flight Simulators

* * * * *

Attachment 3 to Appendix A to Part 60--SIMULATOR SUBJECTIVE EVALUATION

* * * * *

[[Page 18284]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.180

[[Page 18285]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.181

[[Page 18286]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.182

[[Page 18287]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.183

[[Page 18288]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.184

[[Page 18289]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.185

[[Page 18290]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.186

[[Page 18291]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.187

[[Page 18292]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.188

[[Page 18293]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.189

[[Page 18294]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.190

[[Page 18295]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.191

* * * * *

[[Page 18296]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.192

[[Page 18297]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.193

[[Page 18298]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.194

[[Page 18299]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.195

* * * * *

[[Page 18300]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.196

Appendix A to Part 60--Qualification Performance Standards for Airplane 
Full Flight Simulators--[Amended]

0
10. Amend Attachment 4 to Appendix A by removing and reserving Figure 
A4H.

0
11. Amend Attachment 6 to Appendix A by adding the text for FSTD 
Directive No. 2 in sequential order after FSTD Directive No. 1 to read 
as follows:

Appendix A to Part 60--Qualification Performance Standards for Airplane 
Full Flight Simulators

* * * * *

Flight Simulation Training Device (FSTD) Directive

    FSTD Directive 2. Applicable to all airplane Full Flight 
Simulators (FFS), regardless of the original qualification basis and 
qualification date (original or upgrade), used to conduct full stall 
training, upset recovery training, airborne icing training, and 
other flight training tasks as described in this Directive.
    Agency: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
    Action: This is a retroactive requirement for any FSTD being 
used to obtain training, testing, or checking credit in an FAA 
approved flight training program for the specific training maneuvers 
as defined in this Directive.
    Summary: Notwithstanding the authorization listed in paragraph 
13b in Appendix A of this Part, this FSTD Directive requires that 
each FSTD sponsor conduct additional subjective and objective 
testing, conduct required modifications, and apply for additional 
FSTD qualification under Sec.  60.16 to support continued 
qualification of the following flight training tasks where training, 
testing, or checking credit is being sought in a selected FSTD being 
used in an FAA approved flight training program:

a. Recognition of and Recovery from a Full Stall
b. Upset Prevention and Recovery
c. Engine and Airframe Icing
d. Takeoff and Landing with Gusting Crosswinds
e. Recovery from a Bounced Landing

The FSTD sponsor may elect to apply for additional qualification for 
any, all, or none of the above defined training tasks for a 
particular FSTD. After March 12, 2019, any FSTD used to conduct the 
above training tasks must be evaluated and issued additional 
qualification by the National Simulator Program Manager (NSPM) as 
defined in this Directive.
    Dates: FSTD Directive No. 2 becomes effective on May 31, 2016.
    For Further Information Contact: Larry McDonald, Air 
Transportation Division/National Simulator Program Branch, AFS-205, 
Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, GA 30320; 
telephone (404) 474-5620; email larry.e.mcdonald@faa.gov.

Specific Requirements

    1. Part 60 requires that each FSTD be:

    a. Sponsored by a person holding or applying for an FAA 
operating certificate under Part 119, Part 141, or Part 142, or 
holding or applying for an FAA-approved training program under Part 
63, Appendix C, for flight engineers, and
    b. Evaluated and issued a Statement of Qualification (SOQ) for a 
specific FSTD level.
    2. The evaluation criteria contained in this Directive is 
intended to address specific training tasks that require additional 
evaluation to ensure adequate FSTD fidelity.
    3. The requirements described in this Directive define 
additional qualification criteria for specific training tasks that 
are applicable only to those FSTDs that will be utilized to obtain 
training, testing, or checking credit in an FAA approved flight 
training program. In order to obtain additional qualification for 
the tasks described in this Directive, FSTD sponsors must request 
additional qualification in accordance with Sec.  60.16 and the 
requirements of this Directive. FSTDs that are found to meet the 
requirements of this Directive will have their Statement of 
Qualification (SOQ) amended to reflect the additional training tasks 
that the FSTD has been qualified to conduct. The additional 
qualification requirements as defined in this Directive are divided 
into the following training tasks:

a. Section I--Additional Qualification Requirements for Full Stall 
Training Tasks
b. Section II--Additional Qualification Requirements for Upset 
Prevention and Recovery Training Tasks
c. Section III--Additional Qualification Requirements for Engine and 
Airframe Icing Training Tasks
d. Section IV--Additional Qualification Requirements for Takeoff and 
Landing in Gusting Crosswinds
e. Section V--Additional Qualification Requirements for Bounced 
Landing Recovery Training Tasks

[[Page 18301]]

    4. A copy of this Directive (along with all required Statements 
of Compliance and objective test results) must be filed in the MQTG 
in the designated FSTD Directive Section, and its inclusion must be 
annotated on the Index of Effective FSTD Directives chart. See 
Attachment 4, Appendix A for a sample MQTG Index of Effective FSTD 
Directives chart.

Section I--Evaluation Requirements for Full Stall Training Tasks

    1. This section applies to previously qualified Level C and 
Level D FSTDs being used to obtain credit for stall training 
maneuvers beyond the first indication of a stall (such as stall 
warning system activation, stick shaker, etc.) in an FAA approved 
training program.
    2. The evaluation requirements in this Directive are intended to 
validate FSTD fidelity at angles of attack sufficient to identify 
the stall, to demonstrate aircraft performance degradation in the 
stall, and to demonstrate recovery techniques from a fully stalled 
flight condition.
    3. After March 12, 2019, any FSTD being used to obtain credit 
for full stall training maneuvers in an FAA approved training 
program must be evaluated and issued additional qualification in 
accordance with this Directive and the following sections of 
Appendix A of this Part:

a. Table A1A, General Requirements, Section 2.m. (High Angle of 
Attack Modeling)
b. Table A1A, General Requirements, Section 3.f. (Stick Pusher 
System) [where applicable]
c. Table A2A, Objective Testing Requirements, Test 2.a.10 (Stick 
Pusher Force Calibration) [where applicable]
d. Table A2A, Objective Testing Requirements, Test 2.c.8.a (Stall 
Characteristics)
e. Table A2A, Objective Testing Requirements, Test 3.f.5 
(Characteristic Motion Vibrations--Stall Buffet) [See paragraph 4 of 
this section for applicability on previously qualified FSTDs]
f. Table A3A, Functions and Subjective Testing Requirements, Test 
5.b.1.b. (High Angle of Attack Maneuvers)
g. Attachment 7, Additional Simulator Qualification Requirements for 
Stall, Upset Prevention and Recovery, and Engine and Airframe Icing 
Training Tasks (High Angle of Attack Model Evaluation)

    4. For FSTDs initially qualified before May 31, 2016, including 
FSTDs that are initially qualified under the grace period conditions 
as defined in Sec.  60.15(c):

a. Objective testing for stall characteristics (Table A2A, test 
2.c.8.a.) will only be required for the (wings level) second segment 
climb and approach or landing flight conditions. In lieu of 
objective testing for the high altitude cruise and turning flight 
stall conditions, these maneuvers may be subjectively evaluated by a 
qualified subject matter expert (SME) pilot and addressed in the 
required statement of compliance.
b. Where existing flight test validation data in the FSTD's Master 
Qualification Test Guide (MQTG) is missing required parameters or is 
otherwise unsuitable to fully meet the objective testing 
requirements of this Directive, the FAA may accept alternate sources 
of validation, including subjective validation by an SME pilot with 
direct experience in the stall characteristics of the aircraft.
c. Objective testing for characteristic motion vibrations (Stall 
buffet--Table A2A, test 3.f.5) is not required where the FSTD's 
stall buffets have been subjectively evaluated by an SME pilot. For 
previously qualified Level D FSTDs that currently have objective 
stall buffet tests in their approved MQTG, the results of these 
existing tests must be provided to the FAA with the updated stall 
and stall buffet models in place.
d. As described in Attachment 7 of this Appendix, the FAA may accept 
a statement of compliance from the data provider which confirms the 
stall characteristics have been subjectively evaluated by an SME 
pilot on an engineering simulator or development simulator that is 
acceptable to the FAA. Where this evaluation takes place on an 
engineering or development simulator, additional objective ``proof-
of-match'' testing for all flight conditions as described in tests 
2.c.8.a. and 3.f.5.will be required to verify the implementation of 
the stall model and stall buffets on the training FSTD.

    5. Where qualification is being sought to conduct full stall 
training tasks in accordance with this Directive, the FSTD Sponsor 
must conduct the required evaluations and modifications as 
prescribed in this Directive and report compliance to the NSPM in 
accordance with Sec.  60.23 using the NSP's standardized FSTD 
Sponsor Notification Form. At a minimum, this form must be 
accompanied with the following information:

a. A description of any modifications to the FSTD (in accordance 
with Sec.  60.23) necessary to meet the requirements of this 
Directive.
b. Statements of Compliance (High Angle of Attack Modeling/Stick 
Pusher System)--See Table A1A, Section 2.m., 3.f., and Attachment 7
c. Statement of Compliance (SME Pilot Evaluation)--See Table A1A, 
Section 2.m. and Attachment 7
d. Copies of the required objective test results as described above 
in sections 3.c., 3.d., and 3.e.

    6. The NSPM will review each submission to determine if the 
requirements of this Directive have been met and respond to the FSTD 
Sponsor as described in Sec.  60.23(c). Additional NSPM conducted 
FSTD evaluations may be required before the modified FSTD is placed 
into service. This response, along with any noted restrictions, will 
serve as interim qualification for full stall training tasks until 
such time that a permanent change is made to the Statement of 
Qualification (SOQ) at the FSTD's next scheduled evaluation.

Section II--Evaluation Requirements for Upset Prevention and Recovery 
Training Tasks

    1. This section applies to previously qualified FSTDs being used 
to obtain training, testing, or checking credits for upset 
prevention and recovery training tasks (UPRT) as defined in Appendix 
A, Table A1A, Section 2.n. of this part. Additionally, FSTDs being 
used for unusual attitude training maneuvers that are intended to 
exceed the parameters of an aircraft upset must also be evaluated 
and qualified for UPRT under this section. These parameters include 
pitch attitudes greater than 25 degrees nose up; pitch attitudes 
greater than 10 degrees nose down, and bank angles greater than 45 
degrees.
    2. The requirements contained in this section are intended to 
define minimum standards for evaluating an FSTD for use in upset 
prevention and recovery training maneuvers that may exceed an 
aircraft's normal flight envelope. These standards include the 
evaluation of qualified training maneuvers against the FSTD's 
validation envelope and providing the instructor with minimum 
feedback tools for the purpose of determining if a training maneuver 
is conducted within FSTD validation limits and the aircraft's 
operating limits.
    3. This Directive contains additional subjective testing that 
exceeds the evaluation requirements of previously qualified FSTDs. 
Where aerodynamic modeling data or validation data is not available 
or insufficient to meet the requirements of this Directive, the NSPM 
may limit additional qualification to certain upset prevention and 
recovery maneuvers where adequate data exists.
    4. After March 12, 2019, any FSTD being used to obtain training, 
testing, or checking credit for upset prevention and recovery 
training tasks in an FAA approved flight training program must be 
evaluated and issued additional qualification in accordance with 
this Directive and the following sections of Appendix A of this 
part:

a. Table A1A, General Requirements, Section 2.n. (Upset Prevention 
and Recovery)
b. Table A3A, Functions and Subjective Testing, Test 5.b.3. (Upset 
Prevention and Recovery Maneuvers)
c. Attachment 7, Additional Simulator Qualification Requirements for 
Stall, Upset Prevention and Recovery, and Engine and Airframe Icing 
Training Tasks (Upset Prevention and Recovery Training Maneuver 
Evaluation)
    5. Where qualification is being sought to conduct upset 
prevention and recovery training tasks in accordance with this 
Directive, the FSTD Sponsor must conduct the required evaluations 
and modifications as prescribed in this Directive and report 
compliance to the NSPM in accordance with Sec.  60.23 using the 
NSP's standardized FSTD Sponsor Notification Form. At a minimum, 
this form must be accompanied with the following information:

a. A description of any modifications to the FSTD (in accordance 
with Sec.  60.23) necessary to meet the requirements of this 
Directive.
b. Statement of Compliance (FSTD Validation Envelope)--See Table 
A1A, Section 2.n. and Attachment 7
c. A confirmation statement that the modified FSTD has been 
subjectively evaluated by a qualified pilot as described in Sec.  
60.16(a)(1)(iii).

[[Page 18302]]

    6. The NSPM will review each submission to determine if the 
requirements of this Directive have been met and respond to the FSTD 
Sponsor as described in Sec.  60.23(c). Additional NSPM conducted 
FSTD evaluations may be required before the modified FSTD is placed 
into service. This response, along with any noted restrictions, will 
serve as an interim qualification for upset prevention and recovery 
training tasks until such time that a permanent change is made to 
the Statement of Qualification (SOQ) at the FSTD's next scheduled 
evaluation.

Section III--Evaluation Requirements for Engine and Airframe Icing 
Training Tasks

    1. This section applies to previously qualified Level C and 
Level D FSTDs being used to obtain training, testing, or checking 
credits in maneuvers that demonstrate the effects of engine and 
airframe ice accretion.
    2. The requirements in this section are intended to supersede 
and improve upon existing Level C and Level D FSTD evaluation 
requirements on the effects of engine and airframe icing. The 
requirements define a minimum level of fidelity required to 
adequately simulate the aircraft specific aerodynamic 
characteristics of an in-flight encounter with engine and airframe 
ice accretion as necessary to accomplish training objectives.
    3. This Directive contains additional subjective testing that 
exceeds the evaluation requirements of previously qualified FSTDs. 
Where aerodynamic modeling data is not available or insufficient to 
meet the requirements of this Directive, the NSPM may limit 
qualified engine and airframe icing maneuvers where sufficient 
aerodynamic modeling data exists.
    4. After March 12, 2019, any FSTD being used to conduct training 
tasks that demonstrate the effects of engine and airframe icing must 
be evaluated and issued additional qualification in accordance with 
this Directive and the following sections of Appendix A of this 
part:

a. Table A1A, General Requirements, Section 2.j. (Engine and 
Airframe Icing)
b. Attachment 7, Additional Simulator Qualification Requirements for 
Stall, Upset Prevention and Recovery, and Engine and Airframe Icing 
Training Tasks (Engine and Airframe Icing Evaluation; Paragraphs 1, 
2, and 3). Objective demonstration tests of engine and airframe 
icing effects (Attachment 2, Table A2A, test 2.i. of this Appendix) 
are not required for previously qualified FSTDs.

    5. Where continued qualification is being sought to conduct 
engine and airframe icing training tasks in accordance with this 
Directive, the FSTD Sponsor must conduct the required evaluations 
and modifications as prescribed in this Directive and report 
compliance to the NSPM in accordance with Sec.  60.23 using the 
NSP's standardized FSTD Sponsor Notification Form. At a minimum, 
this form must be accompanied with the following information:

a. A description of any modifications to the FSTD (in accordance 
with Sec.  60.23) necessary to meet the requirements of this 
Directive;
b. Statement of Compliance (Ice Accretion Model)--See Table A1A, 
Section 2.j., and Attachment 7; and
c. A confirmation statement that the modified FSTD has been 
subjectively evaluated by a qualified pilot as described in Sec.  
60.16(a)(1)(iii).

    6. The NSPM will review each submission to determine if the 
requirements of this Directive have been met and respond to the FSTD 
Sponsor as described in Sec.  60.23(c). Additional NSPM conducted 
FSTD evaluations may be required before the modified FSTD is placed 
into service. This response, along with any noted restrictions, will 
serve as an interim update to the FSTD's Statement of Qualification 
(SOQ) until such time that a permanent change is made to the SOQ at 
the FSTD's next scheduled evaluation.

Section IV--Evaluation Requirements for Takeoff and Landing in Gusting 
Crosswind

    1. This section applies to previously qualified FSTDs that will 
be used to obtain training, testing, or checking credits in takeoff 
and landing tasks in gusting crosswinds as part of an FAA approved 
training program. The requirements of this Directive are applicable 
only to those Level B and higher FSTDs that are qualified to conduct 
takeoff and landing training tasks.
    2. The requirements in this section introduce new minimum 
simulator requirements for gusting crosswinds during takeoff and 
landing training tasks as well as additional subjective testing that 
exceeds the evaluation requirements of previously qualified FSTDs.
    3. After March 12, 2019, any FSTD that is used to conduct 
gusting crosswind takeoff and landing training tasks must be 
evaluated and issued additional qualification in accordance with 
this Directive and the following sections of Appendix A of this 
part:

a. Table A1A, General Requirements, Section 2.d.3. (Ground Handling 
Characteristics);
b. Table A3A, Functions and Subjective Testing Requirements, test 
3.a.3 (Takeoff, Crosswind--Maximum Demonstrated and Gusting 
Crosswind); and
c. Table A3A, Functions and Subjective Testing Requirements, test 
8.d. (Approach and landing with crosswind--Maximum Demonstrated and 
Gusting Crosswind).

    4. Where qualification is being sought to conduct gusting 
crosswind training tasks in accordance with this Directive, the FSTD 
Sponsor must conduct the required evaluations and modifications as 
prescribed in this Directive and report compliance to the NSPM in 
accordance with Sec.  60.23 using the NSP's standardized FSTD 
Sponsor Notification Form. At a minimum, this form must be 
accompanied with the following information:

a. A description of any modifications to the FSTD (in accordance 
with Sec.  60.23) necessary to meet the requirements of this 
Directive.
b. Statement of Compliance (Gusting Crosswind Profiles)--See Table 
A1A, Section 2.d.3.
c. A confirmation statement that the modified FSTD has been 
subjectively evaluated by a qualified pilot as described in Sec.  
60.16(a)(1)(iii).

    5. The NSPM will review each submission to determine if the 
requirements of this Directive have been met and respond to the FSTD 
Sponsor as described in Sec.  60.23(c). Additional NSPM conducted 
FSTD evaluations may be required before the modified FSTD is placed 
into service. This response, along with any noted restrictions, will 
serve as an interim qualification for gusting crosswind training 
tasks until such time that a permanent change is made to the 
Statement of Qualification (SOQ) at the FSTD's next scheduled 
evaluation.

Section V--Evaluation Requirements for Bounced Landing Recovery 
Training Tasks

    1. This section applies to previously qualified FSTDs that will 
be used to obtain training, testing, or checking credits in bounced 
landing recovery as part of an FAA approved training program. The 
requirements of this Directive are applicable only to those Level B 
and higher FSTDs that are qualified to conduct takeoff and landing 
training tasks.
    2. The evaluation requirements in this section are intended to 
introduce new evaluation requirements for bounced landing recovery 
training tasks and contains additional subjective testing that 
exceeds the evaluation requirements of previously qualified FSTDs.
    3. After March 12, 2019, any FSTD that is used to conduct 
bounced landing training tasks must be evaluated and issued 
additional qualification in accordance with this Directive and the 
following sections of Appendix A of this Part:

a. Table A1A, General Requirements, Section 2.d.2. (Ground Reaction 
Characteristics)
b. Table A3A, Functions and Subjective Testing Requirements, test 
9.e. (Missed Approach--Bounced Landing)

    4. Where qualification is being sought to conduct bounced 
landing training tasks in accordance with this Directive, the FSTD 
Sponsor must conduct the required evaluations and modifications as 
prescribed in this Directive and report compliance to the NSPM in 
accordance with Sec.  60.23 using the NSP's standardized FSTD 
Sponsor Notification Form. At a minimum, this form must be 
accompanied with the following information:

a. A description of any modifications to the FSTD (in accordance 
with Sec.  60.23) necessary to meet the requirements of this 
Directive; and
b. A confirmation statement that the modified FSTD has been 
subjectively evaluated by a qualified pilot as described in Sec.  
60.16(a)(1)(iii).

    5. The NSPM will review each submission to determine if the 
requirements of this Directive have been met and respond to the FSTD 
Sponsor as described in Sec.  60.23(c). Additional NSPM conducted 
FSTD evaluations may be required before the modified FSTD is placed 
into service. This response, along with any noted restrictions, will 
serve as an interim qualification for bounced landing recovery 
training tasks until such time that a permanent change is made to 
the Statement of Qualification (SOQ) at the FSTD's next scheduled 
evaluation.

[[Page 18303]]

0
12. In appendix A to part 60, add Attachment 7 to read as follows:

Appendix A to Part 60--Qualification Performance Standards for Airplane 
Full Flight Simulators

* * * * *

Attachment 7 to Appendix A to Part 60--Additional Simulator 
Qualification Requirements for Stall, Upset Prevention and Recovery, 
and Engine and Airframe Icing Training Tasks

Begin QPS Requirements

A. High Angle of Attack Model Evaluation (Table A1A, Section 2.m.)

    1. Applicability: This attachment applies to all simulators that 
are used to satisfy training requirements for stall maneuvers that 
are conducted at angles of attack beyond the activation of the stall 
warning system. This attachment is not applicable for those FSTDs 
that are only qualified for approach to stall maneuvers where 
recovery is initiated at the first indication of the stall. The 
material in this section is intended to supplement the general 
requirements, objective testing requirements, and subjective testing 
requirements contained within Tables A1A, A2A, and A3A, 
respectively.
    2. General Requirements: The requirements for high angle of 
attack modeling are intended to evaluate the recognition cues and 
performance and handling qualities of a developing stall through the 
stall identification angle-of-attack and recovery. Strict time-
history-based evaluations against flight test data may not 
adequately validate the aerodynamic model in an unsteady and 
potentially unstable flight regime, such as stalled flight. As a 
result, the objective testing requirements defined in Table A2A do 
not prescribe strict tolerances on any parameter at angles of attack 
beyond the stall identification angle of attack. In lieu of 
mandating such objective tolerances, a Statement of Compliance (SOC) 
will be required to define the source data and methods used to 
develop the stall aerodynamic model.
    3. Fidelity Requirements: The requirements defined for the 
evaluation of full stall training maneuvers are intended to provide 
the following levels of fidelity:

a. Airplane type specific recognition cues of the first indication 
of the stall (such as the stall warning system or aerodynamic stall 
buffet);
b. Airplane type specific recognition cues of an impending 
aerodynamic stall; and
c. Recognition cues and handling qualities from the stall break 
through recovery that are sufficiently exemplar of the airplane 
being simulated to allow successful completion of the stall recovery 
training tasks.

For the purposes of stall maneuver evaluation, the term ``exemplar'' 
is defined as a level of fidelity that is type specific of the 
simulated airplane to the extent that the training objectives can be 
satisfactorily accomplished.
    4. Statement of Compliance (Aerodynamic Model): At a minimum, 
the following must be addressed in the SOC:
a. Source Data and Modeling Methods: The SOC must identify the 
sources of data used to develop the aerodynamic model. These data 
sources may be from the airplane original equipment manufacturer 
(OEM), the original FSTD manufacturer/data provider, or other data 
provider acceptable to the FAA. Of particular interest is a mapping 
of test points in the form of alpha/beta envelope plot for a minimum 
of flaps up and flaps down aircraft configurations. For the flight 
test data, a list of the types of maneuvers used to define the 
aerodynamic model for angle of attack ranges greater than the first 
indication of stall must be provided per flap setting. In cases 
where it is impractical to develop and validate a stall model with 
flight-test data (e.g., due to safety concerns involving the 
collection of flight test data past a certain angle of attack), the 
data provider is expected to make a reasonable attempt to develop a 
stall model through the required angle of attack range using 
analytical methods and empirical data (e.g., wind-tunnel data);
b. Validity Range: The FSTD sponsor must declare the range of angle 
of attack and sideslip where the aerodynamic model remains valid for 
training. For stall recovery training tasks, satisfactory 
aerodynamic model fidelity must be shown through at least 10 degrees 
beyond the stall identification angle of attack. For the purposes of 
determining this validity range, the stall identification angle of 
attack is defined as the angle of attack where the pilot is given a 
clear and distinctive indication to cease any further increase in 
angle of attack where one or more of the following characteristics 
occur:

i. No further increase in pitch occurs when the pitch control is 
held at the full aft stop for 2 seconds, leading to an inability to 
arrest descent rate;
ii. An uncommanded nose down pitch that cannot be readily arrested, 
which may be accompanied by an uncommanded rolling motion;
iii. Buffeting of a magnitude and severity that is a strong and 
effective deterrent to further increase in angle of attack; and
iv. Activation of a stick pusher.

The model validity range must also be capable of simulating the 
airplane dynamics as a result of a pilot initially resisting the 
stick pusher in training. For aircraft equipped with a stall 
envelope protection system, the model validity range must extend to 
10 degrees of angle of attack beyond the stall identification angle 
of attack with the protection systems disabled or otherwise degraded 
(such as a degraded flight control mode as a result of a pitot/
static system failure).
c. Model Characteristics: Within the declared range of model 
validity, the SOC must address, and the aerodynamic model must 
incorporate, the following stall characteristics where applicable by 
aircraft type:

i. Degradation in static/dynamic lateral-directional stability;
ii. Degradation in control response (pitch, roll, yaw);
iii. Uncommanded roll acceleration or roll-off requiring significant 
control deflection to counter;
iv. Apparent randomness or non-repeatability;
v. Changes in pitch stability;
vi. Stall hysteresis;
vii. Mach effects;
viii. Stall buffet; and
ix. Angle of attack rate effects.

An overview of the methodology used to address these features must 
be provided.

    5. Statement of Compliance (Subject Matter Expert Pilot 
Evaluation): The sponsor must provide an SOC that confirms the FSTD 
has been subjectively evaluated by a subject matter expert (SME) 
pilot who is knowledgeable of the aircraft's stall characteristics. 
In order to qualify as an acceptable SME to evaluate the FSTD's 
stall characteristics, the SME must meet the following requirements:

a. Has held a type rating/qualification in the aircraft being 
simulated;
b. Has direct experience in conducting stall maneuvers in an 
aircraft that shares the same type rating as the make, model, and 
series of the simulated aircraft. This stall experience must include 
hands on manipulation of the controls at angles of attack sufficient 
to identify the stall (e.g., deterrent buffet, stick pusher 
activation, etc.) through recovery to stable flight;
c. Where the SME's stall experience is on an airplane of a different 
make, model, and series within the same type rating, differences in 
aircraft specific stall recognition cues and handling 
characteristics must be addressed using available documentation. 
This documentation may include aircraft operating manuals, aircraft 
manufacturer flight test reports, or other documentation that 
describes the stall characteristics of the aircraft; and
d. Must be familiar with the intended stall training maneuvers to be 
conducted in the FSTD (e.g., general aircraft configurations, stall 
entry methods, etc.) and the cues necessary to accomplish the 
required training objectives. The purpose of this requirement is to 
ensure that the stall model has been sufficiently evaluated in those 
general aircraft configurations and stall entry methods that will 
likely be conducted in training.

This SOC will only be required once at the time the FSTD is 
initially qualified for stall training tasks as long as the FSTD's 
stall model remains unmodified from what was originally evaluated 
and qualified. Where an FSTD shares common aerodynamic and flight 
control models with that of an engineering simulator or development 
simulator that is acceptable to the FAA, the FAA will accept an SOC 
from the data provider that confirms the stall characteristics have 
been subjectively assessed by an SME pilot on the engineering or 
development simulator.
    An FSTD sponsor may submit a request to the Administrator for 
approval of a deviation from the SME pilot experience requirements 
in this paragraph. This request for deviation must include the 
following information:

a. An assessment of pilot availability that demonstrates that a 
suitably qualified pilot

[[Page 18304]]

meeting the experience requirements of this section cannot be 
practically located; and
b. Alternative methods to subjectively evaluate the FSTD's 
capability to provide the stall recognition cues and handling 
characteristics needed to accomplish the training objectives.

B. Upset Prevention and Recovery Training (UPRT) Maneuver 
Evaluation (Table A1A, Section 2.n.)

    1. Applicability: This attachment applies to all simulators that 
are used to satisfy training requirements for upset prevention and 
recovery training (UPRT) maneuvers. For the purposes of this 
attachment (as defined in the Airplane Upset Recovery Training Aid), 
an aircraft upset is generally defined as an airplane 
unintentionally exceeding the following parameters normally 
experienced in line operations or training:

a. Pitch attitude greater than 25 degrees nose up;
b. Pitch attitude greater than 10 degrees nose down;
c. Bank angles greater than 45 degrees; and
d. Within the above parameters, but flying at airspeeds 
inappropriate for the conditions.

FSTDs that will be used to conduct training maneuvers where the FSTD 
is either repositioned into an aircraft upset condition or an 
artificial stimulus (such as weather phenomena or system failures) 
is applied that is intended to result in a flightcrew entering an 
aircraft upset condition must be evaluated and qualified in 
accordance with this section.
    2. General Requirements: The general requirement for UPRT 
qualification in Table A1A defines three basic elements required for 
qualifying an FSTD for UPRT maneuvers:

a. FSTD Training Envelope: Valid UPRT should be conducted within the 
high and moderate confidence regions of the FSTD validation envelope 
as defined in paragraph 3 below.
b. Instructor Feedback: Provides the instructor/evaluator with a 
minimum set of feedback tools to properly evaluate the trainee's 
performance in accomplishing an upset recovery training task.
c. Upset Scenarios: Where dynamic upset scenarios or aircraft system 
malfunctions are used to stimulate the FSTD into an aircraft upset 
condition, specific guidance must be available to the instructor on 
the IOS that describes how the upset scenario is driven along with 
any malfunction or degradation in FSTD functionality that is 
required to stimulate the upset.

    3. FSTD Validation Envelope: For the purposes of this 
attachment, the term ``flight envelope'' refers to the entire domain 
in which the FSTD is capable of being flown with a degree of 
confidence that the FSTD responds similarly to the airplane. This 
envelope can be further divided into three subdivisions (see 
Appendix 3-D of the Airplane Upset Recovery Training Aid):
a. Flight test validated region: This is the region of the flight 
envelope which has been validated with flight test data, typically 
by comparing the performance of the FSTD against the flight test 
data through tests incorporated in the QTG and other flight test 
data utilized to further extend the model beyond the minimum 
requirements. Within this region, there is high confidence that the 
simulator responds similarly to the aircraft. Note that this region 
is not strictly limited to what has been tested in the QTG; as long 
as the aerodynamics mathematical model has been conformed to the 
flight test results, that portion of the mathematical model can be 
considered to be within the flight test validated region.
b. Wind tunnel and/or analytical region: This is the region of the 
flight envelope for which the FSTD has not been compared to flight 
test data, but for which there has been wind tunnel testing or the 
use of other reliable predictive methods (typically by the aircraft 
manufacturer) to define the aerodynamic model. Any extensions to the 
aerodynamic model that have been evaluated in accordance with the 
definition of an exemplar stall model (as described in the stall 
maneuver evaluation section) must be clearly indicated. Within this 
region, there is moderate confidence that the simulator will respond 
similarly to the aircraft.
c. Extrapolated: This is the region extrapolated beyond the flight 
test validated and wind tunnel/analytical regions. The extrapolation 
may be a linear extrapolation, a holding of the last value before 
the extrapolation began, or some other set of values. Whether this 
extrapolated data is provided by the aircraft or simulator 
manufacturer, it is a ``best guess'' only. Within this region, there 
is low confidence that the simulator will respond similarly to the 
aircraft. Brief excursions into this region may still retain a 
moderate confidence level in FSTD fidelity; however, the instructor 
should be aware that the FSTD's response may deviate from the actual 
aircraft.

    4. Instructor Feedback Mechanism: For the instructor/evaluator 
to provide feedback to the student during UPRT maneuver training, 
additional information must be accessible that indicates the 
fidelity of the simulation, the magnitude of trainee's flight 
control inputs, and aircraft operational limits that could 
potentially affect the successful completion of the maneuver(s). At 
a minimum, the following must be available to the instructor/
evaluator:
a. FSTD Validation Envelope: The FSTD must employ a method to 
display the FSTD's expected fidelity with respect to the FSTD 
validation envelope. This may be displayed as an angle of attack vs 
sideslip (alpha/beta) envelope cross-plot on the Instructor 
Operating System (IOS) or other alternate method to clearly convey 
the FSTD's fidelity level during the maneuver. The cross-plot or 
other alternative method must display the relevant validity regions 
for flaps up and flaps down at a minimum. This validation envelope 
must be derived by the aerodynamic data provider or derived using 
information and data sources provided by the original aerodynamic 
data provider.
b. Flight Control Inputs: The FSTD must employ a method for the 
instructor/evaluator to assess the trainee's flight control inputs 
during the upset recovery maneuver. Additional parameters, such as 
cockpit control forces (forces applied by the pilot to the controls) 
and the flight control law mode for fly-by-wire aircraft, must be 
portrayed in this feedback mechanism as well. For passive 
sidesticks, whose displacement is the flight control input, the 
force applied by the pilot to the controls does not need to be 
displayed. This tool must include a time history or other equivalent 
method of recording flight control positions.
c. Aircraft Operational Limits: The FSTD must employ a method to 
provide the instructor/evaluator with real-time information 
concerning the aircraft operating limits. The simulated aircraft's 
parameters must be displayed dynamically in real-time and also 
provided in a time history or equivalent format. At a minimum, the 
following parameters must be available to the instructor:
i. Airspeed and airspeed limits, including the stall speed and 
maximum operating limit airspeed (Vmo/Mmo);
ii. Load factor and operational load factor limits; and
iii. Angle of attack and the stall identification angle of attack. 
See section A, paragraph 4.b. of this attachment for additional 
information concerning the definition of the stall identification 
angle of attack. This parameter may be displayed in conjunction with 
the FSTD validation envelope.

End QPS Requirements

Begin Information

    An example FSTD ``alpha/beta'' envelope display and IOS feedback 
mechanism are shown below in Figure 1 and Figure 2. The following 
examples are provided as guidance material on one possible method to 
display the required UPRT feedback parameters on an IOS display. 
FSTD sponsors may develop other methods and feedback mechanisms that 
provide the required parameters and support the training program 
objectives.
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P

[[Page 18305]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.116

BILLING CODE 4910-13-C

[[Page 18306]]

End Information

Begin QPS Requirements

C. Engine and Airframe Icing Evaluation (Table A1A, Section 2.j.)

    1. Applicability: This section applies to all FSTDs that are 
used to satisfy training requirements for engine and airframe icing. 
New general requirements and objective requirements for simulator 
qualification have been developed to define aircraft specific icing 
models that support training objectives for the recognition and 
recovery from an in-flight ice accretion event.
    2. General Requirements: The qualification of engine and 
airframe icing consists of the following elements that must be 
considered when developing ice accretion models for use in training:
    a. Ice accretion models must be developed to account for 
training the specific skills required for recognition of ice 
accumulation and execution of the required response.
    b. Ice accretion models must be developed in a manner to contain 
aircraft specific recognition cues as determined with aircraft OEM 
supplied data or other suitable analytical methods.
    c. At least one qualified ice accretion model must be 
objectively tested to demonstrate that the model has been 
implemented correctly and generates the correct cues as necessary 
for training.
    3. Statement of Compliance: The SOC as described in Table A1A, 
Section 2.j. must contain the following information to support FSTD 
qualification of aircraft specific ice accretion models:
    a. A description of expected aircraft specific recognition cues 
and degradation effects due to a typical in-flight icing encounter. 
Typical cues may include loss of lift, decrease in stall angle of 
attack, changes in pitching moment, decrease in control 
effectiveness, and changes in control forces in addition to any 
overall increase in drag. This description must be based upon 
relevant source data, such as aircraft OEM supplied data, accident/
incident data, or other acceptable data sources. Where a particular 
airframe has demonstrated vulnerabilities to a specific type of ice 
accretion (due to accident/incident history) which requires specific 
training (such as supercooled large-droplet icing or tailplane 
icing), ice accretion models must be developed that address the 
training requirements.
    b. A description of the data sources utilized to develop the 
qualified ice accretion models. Acceptable data sources may be, but 
are not limited to, flight test data, aircraft certification data, 
aircraft OEM engineering simulation data, or other analytical 
methods based upon established engineering principles.
    4. Objective Demonstration Testing: The purpose of the objective 
demonstration test is to demonstrate that the ice accretion models 
as described in the Statement of Compliance have been implemented 
correctly and demonstrate the proper cues and effects as defined in 
the approved data sources. At least one ice accretion model must be 
selected for testing and included in the Master Qualification Test 
Guide (MQTG). Two tests are required to demonstrate engine and 
airframe icing effects. One test will demonstrate the FSTDs baseline 
performance without icing, and the second test will demonstrate the 
aerodynamic effects of ice accretion relative to the baseline test.
    a. Recorded Parameters: In each of the two required MQTG cases, 
a time history recording must be made of the following parameters:

i. Altitude;
ii. Airspeed;
iii. Normal Acceleration;
iv. Engine Power/settings;
v. Angle of Attack/Pitch attitude;
vi. Bank Angle;
vii. Flight control inputs;
viii. Stall warning and stall buffet onset; and
ix. Other parameters as necessary to demonstrate the effects of ice 
accretions.

    b. Demonstration maneuver: The FSTD sponsor must select an ice 
accretion model as identified in the SOC for testing. The selected 
maneuver must demonstrate the effects of ice accretion at high 
angles of attack from a trimmed condition through approach to stall 
and ``full'' stall as compared to a baseline (no ice buildup) test. 
The ice accretion models must demonstrate the cues necessary to 
recognize the onset of ice accretion on the airframe, lifting 
surfaces, and engines and provide representative degradation in 
performance and handling qualities to the extent that a recovery can 
be executed. Typical recognition cues that may be present depending 
upon the simulated aircraft include:

i. Decrease in stall angle of attack;
ii. Increase in stall speed;
iii. Increase in stall buffet threshold of perception speed;
iv. Changes in pitching moment;
v. Changes in stall buffet characteristics;
vi. Changes in control effectiveness or control forces; and
vii. Engine effects (power variation, vibration, etc.);

The demonstration test may be conducted by initializing and 
maintaining a fixed amount of ice accretion throughout the maneuver 
in order to consistently evaluate the aerodynamic effects.

End QPS Requirements

    13. Amend Appendix B by:
0
A. Revising paragraph 1.b.;
0
B. Revising paragraph 1.d.(21);
0
C. Revising paragraph 1.d.(24);
0
D. Revising paragraph 1.d.(25);
0
E. Revising paragraph 11.b.(2);
0
F. Removing and reserving paragraph 11.e.(2);
0
G. Revising paragraph 11.h.;
0
H. Revising paragraph 13.b.;
0
I. Revising paragraph 13.d.; and
0
J. Adding paragraph 24.a.(4)
    The revisions and addition read as follows:

Appendix B to Part 60--Qualification Performance Standards for Airplane 
Flight Training Devices

* * * * *

1. Introduction

* * * * *
    b. Questions regarding the contents of this publication should 
be sent to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation 
Administration, Flight Standards Service, National Simulator Program 
Staff, AFS-205, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320. Telephone 
contact numbers for the NSP are: Phone, 404-474-5620; fax, 404-474-
5656. The NSP Internet Web site address is: http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/nsp/. On this Web site you will find an NSP 
personnel list with telephone and email contact information for each 
NSP staff member, a list of qualified flight simulation devices, 
advisory circulars (ACs), a description of the qualification 
process, NSP policy, and an NSP ``In-Works'' section. Also linked 
from this site are additional information sources, handbook 
bulletins, frequently asked questions, a listing and text of the 
Federal Aviation Regulations, Flight Standards Inspector's 
handbooks, and other FAA links.
* * * * *
    d. * * *
    (21) International Air Transport Association document, ``Flight 
Simulation Training Device Design and Performance Data 
Requirements,'' as amended.
* * * * *
    (24) International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Manual of 
Criteria for the Qualification of Flight Simulation Training 
Devices, as amended.
    (25) Aeroplane Flight Simulation Training Device Evaluation 
Handbook, Volume I, as amended and Volume II, as amended, The Royal 
Aeronautical Society, London, UK.
* * * * *

11. Initial (and Upgrade) Qualification Requirements (Sec.  60.15)

* * * * *
    b. * * *
    (2) Unless otherwise authorized through prior coordination with 
the NSPM, a confirmation that the sponsor will forward to the NSPM 
the statement described in Sec.  60.15(b) in such time as to be 
received no later than 5 business days prior to the scheduled 
evaluation and may be forwarded to the NSPM via traditional or 
electronic means.
* * * * *
    h. The sponsor may elect to complete the QTG objective and 
subjective tests at the manufacturer's facility or at the sponsor's 
training facility (or other sponsor designated location where 
training will take place). If the tests are conducted at the 
manufacturer's facility, the sponsor must repeat at least one-third 
of the tests at the sponsor's training facility in order to 
substantiate FTD performance. The QTG must be clearly annotated to 
indicate when and where each test was accomplished. Tests conducted 
at the manufacturer's facility and at the sponsor's designated 
training facility must be conducted after the FTD is assembled with 
systems and sub-systems functional and operating in an interactive 
manner. The test results must be submitted to the NSPM.
* * * * *

[[Page 18307]]

13. Previously Qualified FTDs (Sec.  60.17)

* * * * *
    b. FTDs qualified prior to May 31, 2016, and replacement FTD 
systems, are not required to meet the general FTD requirements, the 
objective test requirements, and the subjective test requirements of 
Attachments 1, 2, and 3 of this appendix as long as the FTD 
continues to meet the test requirements contained in the MQTG 
developed under the original qualification basis.
* * * * *
    d. FTDs qualified prior to May 31, 2016, may be updated. If an 
evaluation is deemed appropriate or necessary by the NSPM after such 
an update, the evaluation will not require an evaluation to 
standards beyond those against which the FTD was originally 
qualified.
* * * * *

24. Levels of FTD

* * * * *
    a. * * *
    (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 180[deg] horizontally and 40[deg] 
vertically.
* * * * *
0
14. In appendix B to part 60, amend Attachment 1 to Appendix B by 
revising Tables B1A and B1B to read as follows:

Appendix B to Part 60--Qualification Performance Standards for Airplane 
Flight Training Devices

* * * * *

Attachment 1 to Appendix B to Part 60--General FTD REQUIREMENTS

* * * * *

[[Page 18308]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.197

[[Page 18309]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.198

[[Page 18310]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.199

[[Page 18311]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.200

[[Page 18312]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.201

[[Page 18313]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.202

[[Page 18314]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.203

[[Page 18315]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.204

[[Page 18316]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.205

[[Page 18317]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.206

[[Page 18318]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.207

[[Page 18319]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.208

[[Page 18320]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.209

[[Page 18321]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.210

[[Page 18322]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.211

[[Page 18323]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.212

[[Page 18324]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.213

[[Page 18325]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.214

[[Page 18326]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.215

[[Page 18327]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.216

* * * * *
0
15. Amend Attachment 2 to Appendix B as follows:
0
A. Revise paragraph 2.e.;
0
B. Revise Table B2A;

[[Page 18328]]

0
C. In Table B2B;
0
D. In Table B2C;
0
E. In Table B2D; and
0
F. In Table B2E,.
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Appendix B to Part 60--Qualification Performance Standards for Airplane 
Flight Training Devices

* * * * *

Attachment 2 to Appendix B to Part 60--FFS OBJECTIVE TESTS

* * * * *
    2. * * *
* * * * *
    e. It is not acceptable to program the FTD so that the 
mathematical modeling is correct only at the validation test points. 
Unless otherwise noted, FTD tests must represent airplane 
performance and handling qualities at operating weights and centers 
of gravity (CG) typical of normal operation. FTD tests at extreme 
weight or CG conditions may be acceptable where required for 
concurrent aircraft certification testing. Tests of handling 
qualities must include validation of augmentation devices.
* * * * *

[[Page 18329]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.217

[[Page 18330]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.218

[[Page 18331]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.219

[[Page 18332]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.220

[[Page 18333]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.221

[[Page 18334]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.222

[[Page 18335]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.223

[[Page 18336]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.224

[[Page 18337]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.225

[[Page 18338]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.226

[[Page 18339]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.227

[[Page 18340]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.228

[[Page 18341]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.229

[[Page 18342]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.230

[[Page 18343]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.231

[[Page 18344]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.232

[[Page 18345]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.233

[[Page 18346]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.234

[[Page 18347]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.235

[[Page 18348]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.236

[[Page 18349]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.237

[[Page 18350]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.238

[[Page 18351]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.239

[[Page 18352]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.240

[[Page 18353]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.241

[[Page 18354]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.242

[[Page 18355]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.243

[[Page 18356]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.244

[[Page 18357]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.245

[[Page 18358]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.246

[[Page 18359]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.247

[[Page 18360]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.248

[[Page 18361]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.249

[[Page 18362]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.250

[[Page 18363]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.251

* * * * *

[[Page 18364]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.252

[[Page 18365]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.253

[[Page 18366]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.254

[[Page 18367]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.255

[[Page 18368]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.256

[[Page 18369]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.257

[[Page 18370]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.258

[[Page 18371]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.259

[[Page 18372]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.260

[[Page 18373]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.261

[[Page 18374]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.262

[[Page 18375]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.263

[[Page 18376]]

* * * * *
0
16. Amend Attachment 3 to Appendix B by adding Tables B3D, B3E, B3F, 
and B3G to read as follows:

Appendix B to Part 60--Qualification Performance Standards for Airplane 
Flight Training Devices

* * * * *

Attachment 3 to Appendix B to Part 60--Flight Training Device (FTD) 
Subjective Evaluation

* * * * *
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P

[[Page 18377]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.264

[[Page 18378]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.265

[[Page 18379]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.266

[[Page 18380]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.267

[[Page 18381]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.268

[[Page 18382]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.269

[[Page 18383]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.270

[[Page 18384]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.271

[[Page 18385]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.272

[[Page 18386]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.273

[[Page 18387]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.274

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P

[[Page 18388]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.117

* * * * *

    Issued under authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 44701(a), 
and 44703 in Washington, DC, on February 24, 2016.
Michael P. Huerta,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2016-05860 Filed 3-29-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-C