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

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

``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

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

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

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

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

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<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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

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,<PHONE_NUMBER>; 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

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

* * * * *

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.118

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.119

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.120

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.121

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.122

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.123

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.124

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.125

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.126

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.127

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.128

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.129

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.130

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.131

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.132

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.133

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.134

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.135

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.136

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.137

[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.;

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.
* * * * *

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.139

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.140

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.141

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.142

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.143

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.144

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.145

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.146

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.147

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.148

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.149

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.150

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.151

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.152

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.153

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.154

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.155

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.156

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.157

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.158

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.159

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.160

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.161

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.162

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.163

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.164

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.165

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.166

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.167

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.168

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.169

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.170

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.171

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.172

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.173

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.174

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.175

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.176

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.177

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.178

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.179

* * * * *

6. Motion System.

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

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

* * * * *

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.180

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.181

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.182

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.183

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.184

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.185

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.186

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.187

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.188

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.189

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.190

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.191

* * * * *

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.192

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.193

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.194

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.195

* * * * *

[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<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
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

    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).

    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.

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

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

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.116

BILLING CODE 4910-13-C

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,<PHONE_NUMBER>; 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.
* * * * *

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

* * * * *

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.197

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.198

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.199

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.200

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.201

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.202

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.203

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.204

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.205

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.206

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.207

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.208

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.209

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.210

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.211

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.212

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.213

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.214

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR16.215

[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;

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