Flight Simulation Training Device Qualification Standards for Extended Envelope and Adverse...

212 Pages·2016·14.05 MB·English

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
S
E
UL
R
with
D
O
R
P
N1
V
T
P
S
K3
S
D
asabaliauskas on VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:43 Mar 29, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\30MRR4.SGM 30MRR4
18178 Federal Register/Vol. 81, No. 61/Wednesday, March 30, 2016/Rules and Regulations
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ADDRESSES: For information on where to ARC Aviation Rulemaking Committee
obtain copies of rulemaking documents AURTA Airplane Upset Recovery Training
Federal Aviation Administration and other information related to this Aid
FFS Full Flight Simulator
final rule, see ‘‘How To Obtain
FTD Flight Training Device
14 CFR Part 60 Additional Information’’ in the
FSTD Flight Simulation Training Device
SUPPLEMENTARYINFORMATIONsection of ICATEE International Committee on
[Docket No.: FAA–2014–0391; Amdt. No. this document. Aviation Training in Extended Envelopes
60–4] FORFURTHERINFORMATIONCONTACT: For LOCART Loss of Control Avoidance and
technical questions concerning this Recovery Training Working Group
RIN 2120–AK08 action, contact Larry McDonald, Air NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
QPS Qualification Performance Standards
Transportation Division/National
Flight Simulation Training Device SOC Statement of Compliance
Simulator Program Branch, AFS–205,
Qualification Standards for Extended SNPRM Supplemental Notice of Proposed
Federal Aviation Administration, P.O.
Envelope and Adverse Weather Event Rulemaking
Training Tasks Box 20636, Atlanta, GA 30320; SPAW ARC Stick Pusher and Adverse
telephone [phone]; email Weather Event Training Aviation
AGENCY: Federal Aviation [email protected]. Rulemaking Committee
Administration (FAA), DOT. UPRT Upset Prevention and Recovery
SUPPLEMENTARYINFORMATION:
Training
ACTION: Final rule.
Authority for This Rulemaking
Table of Contents
SUMMARY: The FAA has determined this The Federal Aviation
rule is necessary to amend the Administration’s (FAA’s) authority to I. Overview of Final Rule
II. Background
Qualification Performance Standards for issue rules on aviation safety is found in
A. Statement of the Problem
flight simulation training devices Title 49 of the United States Code. B. NTSB Recommendations
(FSTDs) for the primary purpose of Subtitle I, Section 106(f) describes the C. Airline Safety and Federal Aviation
improving existing technical standards authority of the FAA Administrator. Administration Extension Act of 2010
and introducing new technical Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, (Publ. L. 111–216) and the Crewmember
standards for full stall and stick pusher describes in more detail the scope of the and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final
maneuvers, upset recognition and agency’s authority. Rule
recovery maneuvers, maneuvers This rulemaking is promulgated D. Summary of the NPRM
E. Differences Between the NPRM and the
conducted in airborne icing conditions, under the authority described in 49
Final Rule
takeoff and landing maneuvers in U.S.C. 44701(a)(5), which requires the
F. Related Actions
gusting crosswinds, and bounced Administrator to promulgate regulations III. Discussion of Public Comments and Final
landing recovery maneuvers. These new and minimum standards for other Rule
and improved technical standards are practices, methods, and procedures A. Evaluation Requirements for Full Stall
intended to fully define FSTD fidelity necessary for safety in air commerce and Training
requirements for conducting new flight national security. This amendment to 1. Aerodynamic Modeling Range
training tasks introduced through recent the regulation is within the scope of that a. Aerodynamic Modeling Beyond the Stall
AOA
changes to the air carrier training authority because it prescribes an
b. Definition of the Stall AOA
requirements, as well as to address accepted method for testing and
2. Envelope Protected Aircraft
various National Transportation Safety evaluating flight simulation training a. Model Validity Ranges and Associated
Board (NTSB) and Aviation Rulemaking devices used to train and evaluate Objective Testing
Committee recommendations. This final flightcrew members. b. Validation of Stall Characteristics Using
rule also updates the FSTD technical In addition, the Airline Safety and Flight Test Data
standards to better align with the Federal Aviation Administration c. Required AOA Range for Normal Mode
current international FSTD evaluation Extension Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111–216) Objective Testing
guidance and introduces a new FSTD specifically required the FAA to 3. Data Sources for Model Development
and Validation
level that expands the number of conduct rulemaking to ensure that all
a. Define Best Available Data
qualified flight training tasks in a fixed- flightcrew members receive flight
b. Post-Stall ‘‘Type Representative’’
base flight training device. These training in recognizing and avoiding
Modeling
changes will ensure that the training stalls, recovering from stalls, and c. Use of Flight Test Data and Availability
and testing environment is accurate and recognizing and avoiding upset of an 4. Qualification on FSTD Levels Other
realistic, will codify existing practice, aircraft, as well as the proper techniques Than Level C or Level D
and will provide greater harmonization to recover from upset. This rulemaking 5. Motion Cueing System Limitations
with international guidance for is within the scope of the authority in 6. Subject Matter Expert (SME) Pilot
simulation. The amendments will not Public Law 111–216 and is necessary to Evaluation and Qualifications
a. SME Qualifications and Experience
apply to previously qualified FSTDs fully implement the training
b. Model Validation Conducted by the Data
with the exception of the FSTD requirements recently adopted in the
Provider
Directive, which codifies the new FSTD Qualification, Service, and Use of
c. NSPM Process for Evaluating and
technical standards for specific training Crewmembers and Aircraft Dispatchers Accepting an SME Pilot
tasks. final rule (Crewmember and Aircraft 7. Alignment With the ICAO 9625, Edition
RULES DcoAmTEpSl:i aEnffceec tdiavtee Mofa Fy S3T1D, 2 D0i1r6e.c Ttihvee No. D21is2p0a–tAchJ0e0r .T Sreaein 7i8n gF fRin 6a7l8 r0u0le ()N, RovIN. 1 2, 4R,e oqnu iSretamlle anntsd Stick Pusher
with 2 is March 12, 2019. After this date, any 2013). 8. Requirements for Previously Qualified
PROD FSTD being used to conduct specific List of Abbreviations and Acronyms a. FSStaTllD Bs uffet Objective Testing
VN1 training tasks as defined in FSTD Frequently Used in This Document b. FSTD Directive No. 2 and Grandfather
SPT Directive No. 2 must be evaluated and Rights
SK3 qualified in accordance with the AC Advisory Circular 9. Applicability of Stall and Upset
asabaliauskas on DVerDatDe Sireep<c1t1iv>2e0.1 4 21:43 Mar 29, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 000A00OAFrmA 0n00g0le2 ofF mAtt 4ta70c1k Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30MRR4.SGMPrev30eMnRtiRo4n and Recovery Training
Federal Register/Vol. 81, No. 61/Wednesday, March 30, 2016/Rules and Regulations 18179
(UPRT) Requirements on Newly c. Transport Delay Testing 121. It also addresses the potential lack
Qualified FSTDs d. Motion Cueing Fidelity Test of simulator fidelity as identified in
10. General Comments on Stall e. Sound Directionality Requirement
several NTSB safety recommendations.
Requirements 3. Alignment With the Recently Published
This final rule establishes new and
a. Testing and Checking of Stall Maneuvers ICAO 9625, Edition 4 Document
b. Interim FSTD Qualification for Stall 4. Integration of ICAO Requirements With updated FSTD technical evaluation
Training the Part 60 Table Structure standards for full stall and stick pusher
c. Aerodynamic Modeling Considerations 5. Deviation From the Part 60 QPS Using maneuvers, upset prevention and
B. Evaluation Requirements for UPRT the ICAO 9625 Document recovery maneuvers, flight in airborne
1. UPRT Qualification on Lower Level 6. Level 7 FTD Requirements and Usage in icing conditions, takeoff and landing
FSTDs. Training
maneuvers in gusting crosswinds, and
2. Record and Playback Requirements for G. General Comments
bounced landing recovery maneuvers.
UPRT 1. Compliance Period for Previously
3. Instructor Operating Station (IOS) Qualified FSTDs This final rule also partially aligns the
Requirements 2. Alternative Source Data for Level 5 FTDs technical standards for Level C and D
4. Aerodynamic Source Data and Range of 3. Objective Testing for Continuing (fixed wing) FSTDs that are defined in
the FSTD Validation Envelope Qualification 14 CFR part 60 with the current
a. FSTD Validation Envelope and Training 4. Windshear Qualification Requirements international FSTD evaluation
Maneuvers 5. Miscellaneous Comments
guidelines published in the
b. Expansion of the FSTD Validation a. Approved Location for Objective and
Envelope Using Existing Flight Test Data Subjective Testing International Civil Aviation
5. General Comments on UPRT b. Increase the Training Credit for Time in Organization (ICAO) document 9625,
a. FSTD Qualification and FAA Oversight a Simulator Edition 4, Manual of Criteria for the
b. Maintenance Concerns H. Economic Evaluation Qualification of Flight Simulation
C. Evaluation Requirements for Engine and 1. Cost of Aerodynamic Modeling and Training Devices.
Airframe Icing Training Implementation
1. Objective Demonstration Testing 2. Cost of Instructor Operation Station This final rule will affect sponsors of
a. Objective Demonstration Testing for (IOS) Replacement previously qualified FSTDs if the
Previously Qualified FSTDs 3. Affected FSTDs and Sponsors devices will be used to conduct the
b. Icing Effects and Recognition Cues 4. Cost and Benefits of ICAO Alignment specific training tasks defined in FSTD
2. Requirements for Lower Level FTDs IV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses Directive No. 2. The FSTD sponsor has
3. Existing Engine and Airframe Icing A. Regulatory Evaluation
Requirements in Part 60 the discretion to determine if a device
B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination
4. Applicability in Training Programs needs to be qualified based on whether
C. International Trade Impact Assessment
5. Data Sources and Tuning of Ice it will be used for training the defined
D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment
Accretion Models E. Paperwork Reduction Act tasks in FSTD Directive No. 2.
D. Evaluation Requirements for Takeoff F. International Compatibility and Additionally, because many of the
and Landing in Gusting Crosswinds
Cooperation technical FSTD evaluation standards in
1. Applicability on Lower Level FSTDs
G. Environmental Analysis the final rule will become minimum
2. Gusting Crosswind Profile Data Sources
H. Regulations Affecting Intrastate
3. Maximum Demonstrated Crosswind requirements for some newly qualified
Aviation in Alaska
4. Requirements for Previously Qualified FSTDs, this final rule will also affect
V. Executive Order Determinations
FSTDs sponsors of Level 7, Level C, and Level
A. Executive Order 13123, Federalism
E. Evaluation Requirements for Bounced B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations that D FSTDs that are initially qualified after
Landing Recovery Training
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, the effective date of the final rule. In
1. Applicability to Lower Level FSTDs
Distribution, or Use addition to FSTD sponsors, this final
2. Bounced Landing Modeling and
Evaluation VI. How To Obtain Additional Information rule will also affect data providers,
A. Rulemaking Documents
a. Nosewheel Exceedances FSTD manufacturers, and other entities
B. Comments Submitted to the Docket
b. Use of Existing Ground Reaction Models that provide products and support to
C. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
3. Alignment With Training Requirements FSTD sponsors in the qualification of
Fairness Act
4. Requirements for Previously Qualified
FSTDs for training. This final rule does
FSTDs
F. Alignment With the ICAO 9625 FSTD I. Overview of Final Rule not affect aviation training devices that
Evaluation Document This rulemaking defines simulator are evaluated and approved for use
1. Partial Alignment With the ICAO 9625 fidelity requirements for new training outside of 14 CFR part 60.
Document tasks to be conducted in Level A A general summary of the
2. New Requirements Introduced by the
through D full flight simulators (FFS) applicability, compliance dates, and
Proposed ICAO Alignment
a. Visual System Field of View that were mandated for air carrier processes used to qualify FSTDs as
b. Visual System Lightpoint Brightness training programs by Public Law 111– defined in this rule are included in the
Testing 216 and incorporated into 14 CFR part following table:
Issue Rule requirements
How does a sponsor determine if a previously qualified FSTD must be A previously qualified FSTD that will be used to obtain training, testing,
evaluated and qualified for stall, UPRT, engine and airframe icing, or checking credit in an FAA approved flight training program, re-
bounced landing recovery, and gusting crosswind training tasks as gardless of operational rule part, must be evaluated and qualified for
ES defined in FSTD Directive No. 2? the following maneuvers:
RUL Full Stall: Training maneuvers in the recognition cues and recovery
with procedures from a fully stalled flight condition (including recovery
OD from a stick pusher activation) at angles of attack beyond the activa-
R
P tion of the stall warning system.
N1
V
T
P
S
K3
S
D
asabaliauskas on VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:43 Mar 29, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30MRR4.SGM 30MRR4
18180 Federal Register/Vol. 81, No. 61/Wednesday, March 30, 2016/Rules and Regulations
Issue Rule requirements
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 de-
grees 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 accre-
tion.
Takeoff and Landing in Gusting Crosswinds.
Bounced Landing Recovery Training.
How does a sponsor obtain qualification for stall, UPRT, icing, bounced FSTD Directive No. 2 contains all of the evaluation requirements for
landing recovery, or takeoff and landing in gusting crosswinds on a the qualification of these individual tasks on previously qualified
previously qualified FSTD? FSTDs. FSTD sponsors will conduct the evaluations and modifica-
tions as described in the Directive and submit any required State-
ments of Compliance and objective testing results to the National
Simulator Program (NSP) using the standard FSTD modification/noti-
fication process. The NSP will issue additional FSTD qualification for
these tasks once compliance with the applicable sections of the Di-
rective are verified and any necessary FSTD evaluations have been
conducted.
How do you determine what portions of the updated qualification per- As described in §60.17(a), unless specified by an FSTD Directive, pre-
formance standards (QPS) appendices are applicable to previously viously qualified (grandfathered) FSTDs will retain their original quali-
qualified FSTDs? fication 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 Direc-
tive No. 2.
What are the compliance dates associated with this final rule for pre- After March 12, 2019, any FSTD being used to conduct the specific
viously qualified FSTDs? 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 final rule are applicable to With the exception of the full stall evaluation requirements, all FSTDs
new FSTDs that will be initially qualified after the final rule becomes that are initially qualified or upgraded in qualification level after the
effective? effective date of the final rule must meet all new standards in this
final rule as applicable for the particular FSTD qualification level re-
quested.
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 with this final rule for new In general, all changes to the part 60 QPS will be effective for all
FSTDs that will be initially qualified after the rule becomes effective? FSTDs that are initially qualified after the effective date of the final
rule except as permitted by §60.15(c).
What is the process to qualify an FSTD using another standard in lieu Requests for deviation from the part 60 QPS are made to the National
of the part 60 QPS as permitted by the deviation authority in Simulator Program Manager (NSPM) and must include justification
§60.15? that demonstrates an equivalent level of safety as compared to the
FSTD evaluation requirements of the part 60 QPS. Approved devi-
ations and the supporting evaluation standards will become a part of
the permanent qualification basis of the FSTD.
The FAA estimates that it will cost simulator sponsors which will fully icing models which will enhance
$72.7 million to make the necessary compensate them for their FSTD existing training requirements. If these
modifications to previously qualified modification expenses. These simulator modifications prevent only one severe
FSTDs which will enable training revenues were accounted for as costs of injury the benefits will exceed the costs.
required by the new Crewmember and the additional training and were fully The estimated cost of $6.9 million to
Aircraft Dispatcher Training final rule. justified by the benefits in that final align standards with ICAO will result in
The training cost for the Crewmember rule. The FAA estimates it will cost $1.3 improved safety and cost savings.
and Aircraft Dispatcher Training final million for the evaluation and The costs and benefits of this rule are
rule provides rental revenue to modification of engine and airframe presented in the table below.
Present value Present value
at a 7% rate at a 3% rate
S
E
RUL FSTD Modifications for New Training Requirements:
with Cost ...................................................................................................................................... $72,716,590 $63,610,049 $68,562,049
D
O
PR Benefits ................................................................................................................................. Rational simulator owner will choose to comply.
N1
V
T
P Icing provisions:
S
K3 Cost ...................................................................................................................................... $1,256,250 $1,098,926 $1,184,476
S
D
asabaliauskas on VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:43 Mar 29, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30MRR4.SGM 30MRR4
Federal Register/Vol. 81, No. 61/Wednesday, March 30, 2016/Rules and Regulations 18181
Present value Present value
at a 7% rate at a 3% rate
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 required by the Crewmember and least in part, the following NTSB Safety
Aircraft Dispatcher Training final rule, Recommendations through improved
A. Statement of the Problem
which could lead to a safety risk. FSTD evaluation standards to support
In order to mitigate aircraft loss of Furthermore, since the initial required training tasks:
control accidents and to comply with publication of the part 60 final rule in 1. Stall training and/or stick pusher
the requirements of Public Law 111– 2008, the international FSTD training (Recommendations A–10–22,
216, the FAA has issued new and qualification guidance published in the A–10–23, A–97–47, A–07–3, and A–10–
revised flight training requirements in ICAO 9625 document has been updated 24);
the Crewmember and Aircraft to incorporate general improvements to 2. Upset Recognition and recovery
Dispatcher Training final rule for flight new aircraft and simulation technology training (Recommendations A–04–62
maneuvers such as full stall and upset and the introduction of new FSTD and A–96–120);
recovery training. In support of this levels that better align FSTD fidelity 3. Engine and airframe icing training
effort, the FAA participated in a number with required training tasks. The ICAO (Recommendations A–11–46 and A–11–
of collaborative industry and 9625 document is an internationally 47)
government working groups that 4. Takeoff and landing training in
recognized set of FSTD evaluation
examined loss of control training gusting crosswind conditions
guidelines that was developed by
requirements and the flight simulation (Recommendations A–10–110 and A–
government and industry experts on
training device (FSTD) fidelity needed 10–111); and
flight simulation training and
to support such training. These working 5. Bounced landing training
technology and has been used as a basis
groups included the International (Recommendations A–00–93 and A–11–
for national regulation and guidance
Committee on Aviation Training in 69).
material for FSTD evaluation in many
Extended Envelopes (ICATEE), the
countries. Internationally aligned FSTD C. Airline Safety and Federal Aviation
Industry Stall and Stick Pusher Working
standards facilitate cost savings for Administration Extension Act of 2010
Group, the Stick Pusher and Adverse
FSTD operators because they can reduce (Pub. L. 111–216) and the Crewmember
Weather Event Training Aviation
the number of different FSTD designs, and Aircraft Dispatcher Training Final
Rulemaking Committee (SPAW ARC),
as well as reduce the amount of Rule
and the Loss of Control Avoidance and
redundant supporting documentation On August 1, 2010, President Obama
Recovery Training (LOCART) Working
that are required to meet multiple signed into law Public Law 111–216. In
Group.
Through participation in these national regulations and standards for addition to extending the FAA’s
working groups and in consideration of FSTD qualification. authorization, Public Law 111–216
the formal recommendations received This final rule was developed using included provisions to improve airline
from the SPAW ARC, the FAA recommendations from the SPAW ARC2 safety and pilot training. Specifically,
determined that many existing FSTDs and the international FSTD qualification section 208 of Public Law 111–216,
that could be used by air carriers to guidelines that are published in ICAO Implementation of NTSB Flight
conduct such training may not 9625, Edition 3 and the newly Crewmember Training
adequately represent the simulated published ICAO 9625, Edition 4.3The Recommendations, pertains directly to
aircraft for the required training tasks. requirements in this final rule are this rulemaking in that stall training and
Additionally, the FAA evaluated several primarily directed at improving the upset recovery training were mandated
recent air carrier accidents and fidelity of FSTDs that will be used in air for part 121 air carrier flightcrew
associated NTSB accident reports and carrier pilot training to conduct members.
determined that low FSTD fidelity or extended envelope training tasks, but On November 12, 2013, the FAA
the lack of ability for an FSTD to will also have an added benefit of published the Crewmember and Aircraft
adequately conduct certain training improving the fidelity of all FSTDs Dispatcher Training final rule, adding
tasks may have been a contributing initially qualified after the final rule the training tasks required by Public
factor in these accidents.1A potential becomes effective. Law 111–216 that specifically target
lack of simulator fidelity could B. National Transportation Safety Board extended envelope training, recovery
contribute to inaccurate or incomplete (NTSB) Recommendations from bounced landings, enhanced
S
RULE training on new training tasks that are This proposal will incorporate rtruaninwianyg soanfe ctryo tsrsawininindg t, aaknedo fefns haanndc ed
with changes into part 60 that address, at landings with gusts, which further
D 1Some of these accidents include the 1996
RO Airborne Express DC–8–63 loss of control accident, requires that these maneuvers be
N1P the 2001 American Airlines flight 587 A300 loss of 2A copy of the SPAW ARC final report has been completed in an FSTD. As a result,
PTV control accident, the 2009 Colgan Air flight 3407 placed in the docket for this rulemaking. revisions to all part 121 training
S DHC–8–400 loss of control accident, and the 2008 3International Civil Aviation Organization
SK3 Continental flight 1404 Boeing 737–500 runway (ICAO) publications can be located on their public programs will be necessary prior to
asabaliauskas on DVerDateex Sceupr<si1o1n> 2a0c1c4id en2t1.: 43 Mar 29, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 000in00ternFermt s 0it0e0 a0t5: htFtpm:t/ /4w70w1w.iScfamot. i4n7t0/.0 E:\FR\FM\30MRRM4.SaGrMch 3102M,R 2R0419 and the revisions to part
18182 Federal Register/Vol. 81, No. 61/Wednesday, March 30, 2016/Rules and Regulations
60 in this final rule are required to conducted in the FSTD, and providing device (the Level 7 FTD) that is based
ensure FSTDs are properly evaluated in the instructor with a minimum set of upon the similar Type V device as
order to fully implement the flight feedback tools on the instructor defined in the ICAO document. This
training required in the Crewmember operating station (IOS) that gives alignment also included adopting the
and Aircraft Dispatcher Training final information on the FSTD’s expected ICAO language and numbering format
rule. fidelity, aircraft operational limitations, for some of the technical requirements
and student flight control inputs. tables as well as integrating the existing
D. Summary of the Notice of Proposed
3. Engine and Airframe Icing: legacy part 60 FSTD levels into these
Rulemaking (NPRM)
Modifications were proposed to the tables to maintain continuity with the
On July 10, 2014, the FAA published existing part 60 Level C and Level D current part 60 defined hierarchy of
an NPRM (79 FR 39461), proposing FSTD qualification requirements for FSTD levels.
changes to the flight simulation training engine and airframe icing. The proposed In general, the proposed amendments
device (FSTD) technical evaluation amendments included requirements for to the part 60 QPS would only be
standards. The primary purpose of the ice accretion models based upon aircraft applicable to FSTDs that are initially
NPRM was to establish and update original equipment manufacturer (OEM) qualified or upgraded in qualification
FSTD technical evaluation standards to data or other analytical methods that level after the final rule becomes
address new training tasks required by incorporate the aerodynamic effects of effective. Because many previously
the Crewmember and Dispatcher icing as well as objective tests on the qualified FSTDs will likely be used to
Training final rule, including full stall FSTD that demonstrate the effects of accomplish the training tasks required
training, upset prevention and recovery icing. by the Crewmember and Dispatcher
training, and other new training tasks. 4. Takeoff and Landing in Gusting Training final rule, the FAA also
Additionally, the NPRM proposed the Crosswinds: New amendments were proposed an FSTD Directive in order to
incorporation of FSTD evaluation proposed that would require that retroactively apply evaluation
criteria as defined in the International realistic gusting crosswind profiles must requirements for those previously
Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) be available to the instructor and the qualified FSTDs that will be used to
9625, Manual of Criteria for the profiles must be tuned in intensity and conduct certain training tasks, including
Qualification of Flight Simulation variation to require pilot intervention to full stall, upset prevention and recovery
Training Devices (Edition 3) document. avoid runway departure during takeoff training, engine and airframe icing,
Significant changes to the part 60 or landing roll. A Statement of takeoff and landing in gusting
qualification performance standards Compliance (SOC) would be required to crosswinds, and bounced landing
(QPS) were proposed in the following describe the source data used to develop recovery training.
areas: the crosswind profiles. On September 16, 2014, the FAA
1. Full Stall Evaluation: Minimum 5. Bounced Landing Recovery: New extended the comment period of the
requirements were introduced to requirements were proposed to NPRM for an additional 90 days (79 FR
include aerodynamic modeling of a full complement existing part 60 ground 55407). The comment period closed on
stall and stick pusher activation (where reaction requirements to support January 6, 2015. The FAA received
equipped) up to ten degrees of angle of bounced landing recovery training. The approximately 675 individual
attack (AOA) beyond the stall AOA, updated requirements added that the comments in response to the NPRM.
subject matter expert (SME) pilot effects of a bounced landing must be Commenters included air carriers,
evaluation of the FSTD’s stall modeled and evaluated and include the simulator training providers, FSTD data
characteristics, and improved objective effects of nosewheel exceedances and providers, FSTD manufacturers, the
testing to validate the FSTD’s tail strike where appropriate. NTSB, labor organizations, trade
performance and handling qualities in 6. ICAO 9625 Alignment: In the associations, aircraft manufacturers, and
the stall maneuver. NPRM, the FAA proposed alignment individuals.
2. Upset Recognition and Recovery: with the updated ICAO 9625, Edition 3,
E. Differences Between the NPRM and
New requirements were proposed for FSTD evaluation document for similar
the Final Rule
the qualification of upset recognition FSTD levels that are defined in the part
and recovery training tasks including 60 QPS (Appendices A and B). This As a result of the comments received
the evaluation of a minimum set of included incorporating updated on the NPRM, the FAA made several
upset recovery maneuvers against the technical standards for Level C and changes to the final rule. A summary of
defined FSTD validation envelope, Level D FSTDs to align with that of the significant changes as a result of
providing a means to record and ICAO Type VII FSTD and creating a new comments are highlighted in the
playback upset recovery maneuvers high fidelity fixed-base flight training 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 eval-
uation requirements.
S
ULE (c) Improved the qualification requirements for subject matter expert (SME) pilots that subjectively evaluate the
R stall model. Adds deviation authority if an acceptable SME pilot cannot be located. Allows for SME evaluation
with to be conducted on an engineering or development simulator where objective proof-of-match test cases are
OD provided that verifies the model implementation on the FSTD.
R
N1P (d) Removed the proposed requirement for all newly qualified FSTDs to be evaluated and qualified for full stall
TV training tasks. Full stall qualification will only be required for FSTDs that will be used to conduct this training as
P
S requested by the FSTD sponsor.
K3
S
D
asabaliauskas on VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:43 Mar 29, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30MRR4.SGM 30MRR4
Federal Register/Vol. 81, No. 61/Wednesday, March 30, 2016/Rules and Regulations 18183
Issue Significant changes
(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 condi-
tions will still require aerodynamic modeling and subjective evaluation by a SME pilot.
Upset Prevention and Re- (a) Removed the proposed minimum FSTD evaluation requirements for Level A and Level B FSTDs.
covery Training (UPRT) (b) Removed the proposed specific requirements for features and malfunctions necessary to drive upset sce-
Evaluation. narios.
(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 are only required to be introduced where such effects are representative of
Evaluation. 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 Evalua- (a) Removed references to the windshear training aid for gusting crosswind model development. Recommend
tion. 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 requirement to compute nosewheel exceedances.
Evaluation. (b) Clarified the requirements to emphasize the effects and indications of ground contact due to landing in an ab-
normal aircraft attitude and that aircraft dynamics in a bounced landing recovery maneuver are already ade-
quately covered in the existing part 60 rule.
Alignment with the ICAO (a) Restored the general requirements table (Tables A1A and B1A) format, numbering system, and content to the
9625 Document. 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°x40°) 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 im-
pact 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 in-
cluded in the ICAO 9625, Edition 4 document for the Type V device.
F. Related Actions bulletin recommends the incorporation FSTD Evaluation Recommendations for
of the material in the AURTA into Upset Recovery Training Maneuvers;
As a result of information gathered
flightcrew training. The AURTA 6. FAA National Simulator Program
from various working groups, the FAA
contains guidance for upset recovery (NSP) Guidance Bulletin No. 14–01—
has taken action on loss of control
training programs for air carrier FSTD Evaluation Guidelines for Full
training and simulator fidelity
flightcrews, as well as the evaluation Stall Training Maneuvers;
deficiencies by issuing the following
guidance for FSTDs used in such 7. AC 120–109A—Stall and Stick
voluntary guidance material:
training; Pusher Training;
1. FAA Safety Alert for Operators 3. FAA Information for Operators 8. AC 120–111—Upset Prevention and
(SAFO 10012)—Possible Bulletin (InFO 15004)—Use of Recovery Training; and
Misinterpretation of the Practical Test Windshear Models in FAA Qualified 9. Airline Transport Pilot Practical
Standards (PTS) Language ‘‘Minimal Flight Simulation Training Devices Test Standards (Change 4).
D with RULES Lathloeesr sat pobpfu rAlloelattciitnhu ditsoe t.so’t’ acTlllha eeriv fpayul utrhpaetoi somen eo acfnr tiihtneigrsi ao f ((FNS4ST.P FD) AGs)Au; i Ndaanticoen Balu Slliemtiunl aNtoo.r 1P1r–o0gr4a—m mreacPtooemrrtimiaole npnsr dooevfd itd heeev FaalbSuoTavDtei o ognpu emidraeattnohcroesd ws ittoh
RO as it relates to ‘‘minimal loss of altitude’’ FSTD Modeling and Evaluation improve FSTD fidelity for selected
N1P in the Airline Transport Pilot PTS; Recommendations for Engine and training tasks. To ensure that all FSTDs
V
PT 2. FAA Information for Operators Airframe Icing; used to conduct such training are
S
K3 Bulletin (InFO 10010)—Enhanced Upset 5. FAA National Simulator Program evaluated and modified to a consistent
S
asabaliauskas on DVerDatRe Seecpo<v11e>r2y0 1T4r ai2n1:i4n3g M. aTr 2h9i, s2 0i1n6forJmkt 2a3t8i0o0n1 PO 000(0N0SPFr)m G 0u00i0d7anFcmet 4B7u01lleStifmnt N47o00. 1E1:–\F0R5\F—M\ 30MRRs4t.SaGnMdar3d0M, RthRe4 applicable part 60
18184 Federal Register/Vol. 81, No. 61/Wednesday, March 30, 2016/Rules and Regulations
technical requirements must be AOA.4In addition, the NTSB stated that pusher system (approximately eleven
modified as described in this final rule. the required aerodynamic modeling for seconds after the initial stick pusher
aircraft equipped with a stick pusher activation) did the AOA exceed the
III. Discussion of Public Comments and
should not be limited to that of the stick proposed aerodynamic modeling range
Final Rule
pusher activation and that the (of 10 degrees beyond the stall AOA) for
A. Evaluation Requirements for Full aerodynamic modeling range include FSTD evaluation purposes.7
Stall Training Tasks the flight dynamics that may occur In the Colgan 3407 accident,
where a pilot resists the stick pusher in aerodynamic stall occurred before the
The existing FSTD evaluation training. stick pusher activation8at
requirements for stall maneuvers are The FAA disagrees with CAE that the approximately 14 degrees AOA which
generally limited to the evaluation of 10 degree requirement be removed in included an initial roll off to about 50
stall speeds with little emphasis on the select cases. The 10 degree AOA range degrees of bank angle. After the initial
actual aircraft performance and was initially recommended by the stick pusher activation at about 17.5
handling characteristics as the aircraft SPAW ARC as necessary to accomplish degrees AOA, the subsequent AOA
exceeds the stall warning AOA. As a full stall training. Furthermore, this 10 overshoot remained within 24 degrees
result, FSTDs used for such training degree AOA range is currently a as the aircraft rolled through 100
may not provide the necessary cues and recommended practice for simulator degrees of bank angle in the opposite
associated performance degradation aerodynamic modeling in the direction of the initial roll off. The peak
needed to train flight crews in the International Air Transport Association AOA value of approximately 27 degrees
recognition of an impending stall as (IATA) Flight Simulation Training (10 degrees of AOA beyond the stick
well as training the techniques needed Device Design and Performance Data pusher activation where stall
to recover from a stalled flight Requirements document5and has been identification should have occurred)
condition. In the NPRM, the FAA a recommended practice since the was not recorded until after multiple
proposed updated general requirements, second edition of the IATA document incorrect column responses by the pilot
objective testing requirements, and that was published in 1986. Finally, the against the stick pusher over a time
functions and subjective testing FAA notes that an unpublished period of 30 seconds after the pilot’s
requirements for the evaluation of full simulator investigation conducted by initial incorrect response to the stall
stall training maneuvers to support air ICATEE in conjunction with NASA on warning.
carrier training as required in the their Enhanced Upset Recovery model The FAA considered the comments
Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher showed that the 10 degree AOA range and based on a review of industry
Training final rule. should be sufficient to capture most recommendations and best practices,
overshoots in AOA during various stall has determined that aerodynamic
1. Aerodynamic Modeling Range
recovery maneuvers. modeling to at least 10 degrees beyond
a. Aerodynamic Modeling Beyond the The FAA agrees with the NTSB that the stall AOA is necessary so that the
Stall AOA pilots can benefit from experiencing the modeling does not abruptly end should
aircraft dynamics involved in a stick the pilot overshoot the stall recognition
In order to support the required pusher activation and recovery and recovery in training. The FAA
training objectives, the proposal maneuver in training. The FAA has recognizes that the 10 degree AOA range
included requirements for the modeling reviewed the NTSB accident reports and may not be sufficient to capture all of
and evaluation of the FSTD’s stall supporting data on two loss of control the flight dynamics involved with
characteristics up to 10 degrees beyond accidents in which pilots resisted the multiple severe divergent pitch
the stall AOA. activation of a stick pusher and oscillations where the pilot repeatedly
CAE, Inc. (CAE) commented that the encountered an aerodynamic stall. In resists a stick pusher system; however,
10 degrees beyond the stall AOA the Pinnacle Airlines Flight 3701 training should not normally be allowed
requirement should be further reviewed, accident, the initial stick pusher to continue significantly beyond the
since application of the recovery should activation occurred at approximately point where a trainee initially resists the
immediately lead to a reduction in AOA 10.5 degrees AOA at the start of the stick pusher before recognizing the stall
and therefore is inappropriate to relate aircraft upset and the AOA identification cues and executing the
the requirement to the 10 degrees subsequently oscillated from recovery procedures. As demonstrated
approximately ¥6 degrees to +14
beyond the stall AOA. CAE by the AOA oscillations experienced in
degrees over three successive stick
recommended that the 10 degree the Colgan and Pinnacle accidents, the
pusher activations with some instability
requirement be removed where rationale FAA has determined that aerodynamic
evident in the roll axis.6Only until just
is provided for the upper limit of AOA modeling to 10 degrees beyond the stall
before the fourth activation of the stick
modeling in the required SOC. AOA should be sufficient to capture
The NTSB is generally supportive of aircraft dynamics in instances where a
4See NTSB accident report, Loss of Control on
the modeling requirements, citing that a Approach, Continental Connection Flight 3407, pilot initially resists the stick pusher
peak AOA growth of about 10 degrees February 12, 2009, NTSB Accident Report, NTSB/ activation in training. The data from
beyond the stall is typical for most AAR–10/01; page 87, ‘‘After the stall, the AOA these accidents suggests that the 10
incidents and accidents it has oscillated between 10 deg and 27 deg . . . .’’. degree AOA aerodynamic modeling
investigated. However, it did note that Fli5gIhntt eSrinmautiloantiaoln A Tirr aTirnainnsgp Doertv Aicses Doceisaitgino na n(IdA TA) requirement would adequately cover an
ES stick pusher response dynamics could Performance Data Requirements Document, 7th
RUL cause a higher AOA overshoot and this Edition (2009), sections 3.1.1.2 and 3.1.1.3 7For this aircraft, since the aerodynamic stall
D with dynamic behavior is a ‘‘critical cue to a aredqduriersesde sa nstgallel oenf tartyta acnkd r arnecgoevs eforyr saus pwpeolrl tains g data. othcec ustrasl al fitdeer nthtiefi cstaitciko np uiss hperor visid deeds ibgyn ethde t ost aicckti vate,
RO stall, which pilots must be trained to 6See NTSB accident report, Crash of Pinnacle pusher system activation and aerodynamic
N1P recognize.’’ The NTSB also noted in its Airlines Flight 3701, October 14, 2004, NTSB modeling would be required up to at least 20.5
TV comments that the Colgan flight 3407 Accident Report, NTSB/AAR–07/01 and supporting degrees AOA for this configuration.
P
SK3S accident resulted in an AOA that fpluigbhlti cd datoac kreect o(rNdTeSr Bfa catcucaidl erenpt oidrte onnti ftihcea tNioTnS B pu8sAhecrc oornd tihnigs taoi rtchrea fNt TisS dBe ascigcnideedn tto r aecptoivrta, tteh aef tsetirc k
D extended to 13 degrees beyond the stall
asabaliauskas on VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:43 Mar 29, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 000n0u0mbFerrm D 0C0A00085MFAm0t0 437)0. 1 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30MRRt4h.Se GaeMrod3y0nMaRmRi4c stall.
Federal Register/Vol. 81, No. 61/Wednesday, March 30, 2016/Rules and Regulations 18185
AOA range that includes several (part 25) definition of a ‘‘clear and similar clarifying language in Table
seconds of inappropriate pilot responses distinctive’’ indication of a stall, as well A1A, section 2.m. of the final rule.
to a stick pusher activation. The FAA as the ICAO 9625, Edition 4, stall
2. Envelope Protected Aircraft
has determined this range is sufficient definition. In order to provide a more
to meet the training objective of consistent definition of the stall AOA to a. Model Validity Ranges and
teaching a pilot to not resist a stick ensure that the required aerodynamic Associated Objective Testing
pusher system activation. modeling range covers potential In the NPRM, the FAA included
b. Definition of the Stall AOA overshoots in AOA during stall training, provisions that did not specifically
the FAA has amended the final rule to require objective validation testing at an
In the NPRM, the FAA defined the better define stall identification: AOA beyond the activation of a stall
required aerodynamic model validity i. No further increase in pitch occurs identification (stick pusher) system
range for full stall qualification as 10 when the pitch control is held on the aft through recovery. The primary purpose
degrees of AOA beyond the stall/critical stop for 2 seconds, leading to an of including this provision was to not
AOA and not as a function of when the inability to arrest descent rate; require the collection of flight test
stall identification cues are present. ii. An uncommanded nose down validation data at an AOA that could
Airbus commented that the definition
pitch that cannot be readily arrested, result in an unrecoverable and
of stall or full stall should emphasize
which may be accompanied by an dangerous stalled flight condition.
‘‘heavy buffet’’ as an important cue.
uncommanded rolling motion; Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica
Airbus further cited the ICAO 9625,
iii. Buffeting of a magnitude and S.A. (Embraer), Airbus, and an
Edition 4, document9states that a
severity that is a strong and effective individual commenter questioned why
stalled flight condition may be
deterrent to further increase in AOA; computer controlled aircraft with stall
recognized by continuous stall warning
and envelope protection systems are treated
activation accompanied by at least one
iv. The activation of a stick pusher. differently from aircraft equipped with
of the following: (1) Buffeting, which
Since AOA awareness is a stick pusher systems with respect to
could be heavy at times; (2) lack of pitch
fundamental element of stall training, model validity ranges and associated
authority and/or roll control; or (3)
the instructor must be provided with objective testing. Delta Airlines, Inc.
inability to arrest the descent rate.
feedback at the IOS concerning the (Delta) further questioned whether such
The FAA concurs with Airbus’
aircraft’s current AOA as well as the modeling and testing will be required
comment that heavy buffet can be an
stall identification AOA. This feedback for an Airbus A350 aircraft that has part
important cue of a stall. The FAA has
will not only provide the instructor with 25 special conditions on stall testing for
further considered the definition of stall
additional awareness concerning the airplane certification.
as described in the ICAO 9625
aircraft’s current AOA and proximity to The FAA notes that Public Law 111–
document to determine an appropriate
the stall, but will also assist the 216 and the Crewmember and Aircraft
definition for stall with respect to the
instructor in determining when the Dispatcher Training final rule require
modeling requirements necessary to
aircraft has stalled and that the stall training to be conducted to a stall. The
support the training objectives. The
recognition cues have been provided as primary purpose for the training is to
FAA does not fully agree, however, with
necessary to support the training provide flight crews with experience in
the ICAO 9625 definition of stall;
objectives. In the final rule, the FAA has recognizing the cues of an impending
specifically the criteria of ‘‘lack of pitch
amended the IOS feedback requirements stall, as well as reinforcing the recovery
authority and/or roll control’’ to define
for upset prevention and recovery techniques learned in stall prevention
the stall since the part 25 airplane
training to include AOA and stall training. To expose flight crews to these
certification requirements state that the
identification AOA parameters. stall identification cues, envelope
pilot must be able to control the aircraft
The FAA further notes that the stall protections systems must typically be
in pitch and roll up to the stall. While
identification cues exhibited by an disabled in training. Unlike most
control effectiveness can be reduced, it
aircraft can, and often do, vary envelope protection systems, stick
would be incorrect to say that it is
depending upon the aircraft’s pushers are typically installed to either
lacking for certified airplanes.
configuration (e.g. weight, center of compensate for an inability of the
Two fundamental objectives of the
gravity, and flap setting) and how the aircraft to meet the part 25 stalling
stall training requirements are to train
stall is entered (turning flight or wings definitions in §25.201 or the stall
pilots to recognize the cues of an
level stall entry). Where differing stall characteristics requirements in §25.203.
impending stall as well as to reinforce
identification cues are present on the Where a stick pusher is installed to meet
to pilots that the stall recovery
aircraft, the FSTD’s aerodynamic model the stall identification requirements of
procedures learned during stall
should be capable of providing these §25.201, the activation of the stick
prevention training are the same
cues and variation of stall pusher provides the pilot with a clear
recovery procedures needed to recover
characteristics for training purposes. and distinctive indication to cease any
from an unintentional full stall. To
The FAA also points out that, while this further increase in AOA. This ‘‘clear
determine the extent of FSTD
requirement was implied in the stall and distinctive’’ indication of a stall is
aerodynamic modeling necessary to
model evaluation requirements in the necessary to accomplish the training
conduct this training, the stall
NPRM, ICAO 9625, Edition 4, further objectives and simply reaching the AOA
identification AOA must be defined as
clarifies this issue with additional limits of the envelope protection or
S the point in which the pilot should
E language which states that ‘‘. . . the ‘‘alpha floor’’ on an envelope protected
UL recognize that the aircraft has stalled
R model should be capable of capturing aircraft will not provide the stall
with and that the stall recovery procedures the variations seen in the stall recognition cues that a pilot needs to
D must be initiated. The FAA has
PRO considered both the aircraft certification characteristics of the aeroplane (e.g., the learn to prevent and recover from a full
N1 presence or absence of a pitch break).’’ stall in the event that the envelope
V
PT The FAA has determined that the ability protection systems fail. The accident
S 9See section III.F.3 concerning changes made to
SK3 address the recently published ICAO 9625, Edition to show these variations would be and incident record contains multiple
asabaliauskas on DVerDat4e Sdeopc<u1m1e>n20t.1 4 21:43 Mar 29, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 000v0a0luFarbml 0e0 0in09 traFmint i4n70g1 anSdfm th 4a7s0 0inEc:l\uFRd\FeMd\ 30MRRi4n.SsGtaMnc3e0sM RoRf 4stall envelope protection
18186 Federal Register/Vol. 81, No. 61/Wednesday, March 30, 2016/Rules and Regulations
system failures in the past, some of hazardous or impractical can only be stall characteristics on computer
which progressed into a full stall done if the aircraft is equipped with controlled aircraft.
situation where recognition cues of the additional safety features, such as a tail Delta and Airlines for America (A4A)
stall were not identified by the flight parachute or other equivalent device, requested clarification on what will be
crews.10 and those features obviously change the the required AOA range for objective
The FAA further notes that the FSTD aircraft behavior during stall recovery if testing on aircraft with highly
qualification requirement for objective they are employed. Additionally, automated systems where the aircraft
and subjective testing of the stall is not Embraer emphasized that for safety does not reach aerodynamic stall in
new with this rulemaking. The part 60 reasons in the certification flight test ‘‘normal control state.’’
standard published in 2008 contains campaign, depending upon the aircraft’s The FAA has not specified a
both objective and subjective testing of aerodynamic characteristics during particular AOA range to support the
the stall to include the ‘‘g-break’’ and is stalls; full aerodynamic stall flight tests normal mode testing requirements in
required for computer controlled aircraft are not done in control states in which this final rule, as this will be a subset
in a non-normal operational mode.11 the stall protection system is not of the AOA range required for non-
Furthermore, the FAA’s FSTD available. Embraer recommended that normal mode testing. Public Law 111–
qualification standards dating back to flight testing for validation should not 216 and part 121, subparts N and O,
AC 121–14C (1980) have also had both be required for objective testing in non- require training for recoveries from
objective and subjective testing normal control states where the stall stalls and stick pusher activations, if
requirements for stall.12As a result, protection system is not available. equipped. In order to conduct stall
virtually all of the currently qualified As previously stated, the non-normal recovery training, the protections of an
Level C and Level D FSTDs for transport control mode objective testing to a full envelope-protected aircraft must be
category aircraft have objective testing stall has been required in the existing disabled. As such, aerodynamics
already in place for stall maneuvers in part 60 stall characteristics objective outside of the envelope protections up
their FAA approved Master tests as well as in previous FSTD to ten degrees beyond the stall AOA
Qualification Test Guide (MQTG) and evaluation standards dating back several must be considered to allow for stall
most of these objective tests are years and the FAA has not significantly recovery training in the event the
validated against flight test data changed this requirement in this envelope protections fail.
rulemaking. The FAA agrees with
collected up to and including the stall.
Embraer that aerodynamic stall flight 3. Data Sources for Model Development
The FAA finds that reducing these
testing may be hazardous or impractical and Validation
requirements would not support the full
stall training requirements in the to conduct in some circumstances (on a. Define Best Available Data
both envelope protected and non-
Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher In the NPRM, the FAA proposed that
envelope protected aircraft) and this
Training final rule and therefore where limited data is available to model
rulemaking has not specifically required
maintains that the requirements set and validate the stall characteristics of
additional flight test validation data to
forth in this final rule are necessary. the aircraft, the data provider is
be collected at an AOA beyond where
b. Validation of Stall Characteristics it is reasonably safe to do so. expected to develop a stall model
Using Flight Test Data As described in the NPRM, the FAA through analytical methods and the
has included allowances for utilization of the ‘‘best available data’’.
In the NPRM, the FAA proposed
aerodynamic stall models to be Bihrle Applied Research (Bihrle),
objective testing of stall characteristics
developed and validated using A4A, and an anonymous commenter
for computer controlled aircraft in both
engineering and analytical methods. stated that the term, ‘‘best available
normal mode and non-normal mode
While the FAA agrees with the data’’ (with regards to the aerodynamic
flight conditions up to the full stall
commenter that some airplane data used to model and validate the stall
through recovery to normal flight.
certification flight test data collected in model) is ambiguous and open to
Embraer commented that during the
a stall maneuver may not be suitable for interpretation. American Airlines
developmental flight test campaign, full
simulator modeling and validation (American), FlightSafety International
aerodynamic stalls that are considered
purposes (such as where a tail parachute (FlightSafety), A4A, JetBlue Airways
has been deployed as mentioned by the (JetBlue), and Delta further requested
10One such example is the June 2009 crash of Air commenter), other flight testing clarification from the FAA on whether
France flight 447, an Airbus A330–203 that
experienced failure of the high angle of attack (stall) conducted to investigate the stall a ‘‘non-OEM’’ provided source of data
protection system due to the loss of airspeed data characteristics of the airplane during the would be acceptable to the FAA to meet
as a result of pitot probe blockage. See ‘‘Final report aircraft certification program may be the representative stall model
on the accident on 1 June 2009 to the Airbus A330– used to develop engineering simulator requirements.
203 registered F–GZCP operated by Air France
flight AF 447 Rio de Janeiro—Paris’’; Bureau models. Where significant safety issues The FAA notes that there is not a
d’Enqueˆtes et d’Analyses (BEA); Paris, France. would prevent flight testing at an AOA specific requirement currently in part
Another example is the December 2014 crash of beyond the activation of a stall 60, nor has a new requirement been
Indonesia Air Asia flight 8501, an Airbus A320– protection system, engineering introduced in this final rule that
216, where flightcrew actions to correct a
malfunctioning flight augmentation system resulted simulator validation data will be mandates FSTD sponsors use the
in the loss of stall protection. See ‘‘Aircraft acceptable for FSTD objective testing original equipment [aircraft]
Accident Investigation Report; PT. Indonesia Air purposes. The FAA has made manufacturer’s (OEM) data to develop
ULES ANsaisai;o Anairl bKuess Ael3a2m0a–t2an16 T; rPaKn–spAoXrtCa’s’;i K(KoNmKitTe) , amendments in the final rule to make and validate the aerodynamic and flight
ROD with R ARe21pA1uS,b etleeisc 1t o42f . CcIn.F8dR (o Spntaaerlstli a6C 02h 0a(21ra05c0. t8e)r,i sAtipcpse) nadnidx TAa,b Tlea ble tch. iRse cqluariirfeidca AtiOonA. Range for Normal cddoeanstact rrpoibal cemkdao igdnee §lms6 ai0ny.1 qc3ou(nbalt)ia, fi‘in‘eT dfhl Fieg SvhTat lDtiedss.at At diosa nta
N1P A3A, test 6.a. (High angle of attack, approach to Mode Objective Testing from a source in addition to or
PTV stalls, stall warning, buffet, and g-break . . . .’’. In the NPRM, the FAA did not specify independent of the aircraft
S 12Advisory Circular (AC) 121–14C (1980),
SK3 ‘‘Aircraft Simulator and Visual System Evaluation a particular AOA range to support the manufacturer’s data in support of an
asabaliauskas on DVerDataen Sde pA<p1p1r>o2v0a1l4’’ . 21:43 Mar 29, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 000n0o0rmFraml 0m00o10de Ftmets 4t7in01g rSefqmut 4i7r0e0meEn:\FtsR \fFoMr\ 30MRRF4.SSGTMD q3u0MaRliRfi4cation . . .’’ There are