ARA.FSTD.100 Initial evaluation procedure

ASSESSMENT PROCESS LEADING TO THE ISSUE OF AN FSTD QUALIFICATION

(a)FSTDs require evaluation leading to qualification. The required process should be accomplished in two distinct steps. First, a check should be made to determine whether or not the FSTD complies with the applicable requirements. When making this check, the competent authority should ensure that accountability for the issue of an FSTD qualification is clearly defined. In all cases an individual department manager of the competent authority should be appointed under whose personal responsibility the issue of an FSTD qualification is to be considered. The second step should be the grant (or refusal) of an FSTD qualification.

(b)When checking compliance with the applicable requirements, the competent authority should ensure that the following steps are taken:

(1)Once an FSTD is contracted to be built, the organisation that is to operate the FSTD should ensure that the regulatory standard upon which the FSTD will eventually be qualified against is acceptable to the competent authority. This should be the current applicable version of CS-FSTD(A) or CS-FSTD(H) at the time of application.

(2)A written application for an FSTD qualification should be submitted, in a format according to ORA.FSTD.200, at least 3 months before the date of intended operation. However, the qualification test guide (QTG) may be submitted later, but not less than 30 days before the date of intended evaluation. The application form should be printed in English and any other language(s) of the competent authority's choosing.

(3)An individual should be nominated by the department manager of the competent authority to oversee, and become the focal point for, all aspects of the FSTD qualification process, and to coordinate all necessary activity. The nominated person should be responsible to the department manager for confirming that all appropriate evaluations/inspections are made.

(4)The ability of the applicant to secure, in compliance with the applicable requirements and certification specifications, the safe and reliable operation and proper maintenance of the FSTD should be assessed.

(5)The applicant's proposed compliance monitoring system should be scrutinised with particular regard to the allocated resources. Care should be taken to verify that the system is comprehensive and likely to be effective.

(6)The competent authority should inform the applicant of its final decision concerning the qualification within 14 days of completion of the evaluation process irrespective of any temporary qualification issued.

(7)On completion of the evaluation process, the application, together with a written recommendation and evidence of the result of all evaluations or assessments, should be presented to the nominated person responsible for FSTD qualification. The presentation should be made by the person with overall responsibility, nominated in accordance with (b)(3).

(8)The department manager of the competent authority should only issue an FSTD qualification certificate if he/she is completely satisfied that all requirements have been met. If he/she is not satisfied, the applicant should be informed in writing of the improvements that are required in order to satisfy the competent authority.

(9)If an application for an FSTD qualification is refused, the applicant should be informed of such rights of appeal as exist under national regulations.

GENERAL

(a)During initial and recurrent FSTD evaluations it should be necessary for the competent authority to conduct an appropriate sample of the objective and subjective tests described in Part-ORA and detailed in CS-FSTD(A) and CS-FSTD(H), as applicable. There may be occasions when all tests cannot be completed – for example during recurrent evaluations on a convertible FSTD – but arrangements should be made for all tests to be completed within a reasonable time.

(b)Following an evaluation, it is possible that a number of defects are identified. Generally, these defects should be rectified and the competent authority notified of such action within 30 days. Serious defects, which affect flight crew training, testing and checking, could result in an immediate downgrading of the qualification level I. If any defect remains unattended without good reason for a period greater than 30 days, subsequent downgrading may occur or the FSTD qualification could be revoked.

(c)For the evaluation of an FSTD the standard form as mentioned in AMC5 ARA.FSTD.100(a)(1) should be used.

INITIAL EVALUATION

(a)The main focus of objective testing is the QTG. Well in advance of the evaluation date, the aircraft manufacturer and the competent authority should agree on the content and acceptability of the validation tests contained in the QTG data package. This will ensure that the content of the QTG is acceptable to the competent authority and avoid time being wasted during the initial qualification. The acceptability of all tests depends upon their content, accuracy, completeness and recency of the results.

(b)Much of the time allocated to objective tests depends upon the speed of the automatic and manual systems set up to run each test and whether or not special equipment is required. The competent authority should not necessarily warn the organisation operating an FSTD of the sample validations tests which should be run on the day of the evaluation, unless special equipment is required.

(c)The FSTD cannot be used for subjective tests while part of the QTG is being run. Therefore, sufficient time (at least 8 consecutive hours) should be set aside for the examination and running of the QTG.

(d)The subjective tests for the evaluation can be found in CS-FSTD(A) or CS-FSTD(H), and a suggested subjective test profile is described in AMC1 ARA.FSTD.100(a)(3). Essentially, 1 working day should be required for the subjective test routine, which effectively denies use of the FSTD for any other purpose.

(e)To ensure adequate coverage of subjective and objective tests and to allow for cost effective rectification and re-test before departure of the inspection team, adequate time (up to 3 consecutive days) should be dedicated to an initial evaluation of an FSTD.

COMPOSITION OF THE EVALUATION TEAM

(a)The competent authority should appoint a technical team to evaluate an FSTD in accordance with a structured routine to gain a qualification level. The team should normally consist of at least the following personnel:

(1)A technical FSTD inspector of the competent authority, or an accredited inspector from another competent authority, qualified in all aspects of flight simulation hardware, software and computer modelling or, exceptionally, a person designated by the competent authority with equivalent qualifications; and

(2)One of the following:

(i)a flight inspector of the competent authority, or an accredited inspector from another competent authority, who is qualified in flight crew training procedures and holds a valid type rating on the aeroplane/helicopter (or for flight navigation procedures trainer (FNPT) and basic instrument training device (BITD), class rated on the class of aeroplane/type of helicopter) being simulated; or

(ii)a flight inspector of the competent authority who is qualified in flight crew training procedures, assisted by a type rating instructor holding a valid type rating on the aeroplane/helicopter (or for FNPT and BITD, class rated on the class of aeroplane/type of helicopter) being simulated; or, exceptionally,

(iii)a person designated by the competent authority who is qualified in flight crew training procedures and holds a valid type rating on the aeroplane/helicopter (or for FNPT and BITD, class rated on the class of aeroplane/type of helicopter) being simulated and sufficiently experienced to assist the technical team. This person should fly out at least part of the functions and subjective test profiles.

(3)Where a designee is used as a substitute for one of the competent authority’s inspectors, the other person shall be a properly qualified inspector of the competent authority or an accredited inspector from another Member State’s competent authority.

(b)For a flight training device (FTD) level 1 and FNPT Type I, one suitably qualified inspector may combine the functions in (a)(1) and (a)(2).

(c)For a BITD this team should consist of an inspector from a competent authority and one from another competent authority, including the manufacturer’s competent authority, if applicable.

(d)Additionally, the following persons should be present:

(1)for a full flight simulator (FFS), FTD and FNPT a type or class rated instructor from the ATO operating an FSTD or from the main FSTD user;

(2)for all types, sufficient FSTD support staff to assist with the running of tests and operation of the instructor’s station.

FSTD EVALUATION REPORT FOR INITIAL AND RECURRENT EVALUATION

FSTD Evaluation Report

Date:…………………………..

[competent authority]

FSTD EVALUATION REPORT

[Member State] FSTD code (if applicable): EASA FSTD code (if applicable): Aircraft type and variant: Class of aeroplane / type of helicopter: Engine fit(s) simulated:

Contents

1.Flight simulation training device (FSTD) characteristics

2.Evaluation details

3.Supplementary information

4.Training, testing and checking considerations

5.Classification of items

6.Results

7.Evaluation team The conclusions presented are those of the evaluation team. The competent authority reserves the right to change these after internal review.

5.Classification of items

UNACCEPTABLE An item that fails to comply with the required standard and, therefore, affects the level of qualification or the qualification itself. If these items will not be corrected or clarified within a given time limit, the (competent authority) should have to vary, limit, suspend or revoke the FSTD qualification.

RESERVATION An item where compliance with the required standard is not clearly proven and the issue will be reserved for a later decision. Resolution of these items will require either:

1.a competent authority policy ruling; or

2.additional substantiation.

UNSERVICEABILITY A device that is temporarily inoperative or performing below its nominal level.

LIMITATION An item that prevents the full usage of the FSTD according to the training, testing and checking considerations due to the unusable devices, systems or parts thereof.

RECOMMENDATION FOR IMPROVEMENT An item that meets the required standard, but where considerable improvement is strongly recommended.

COMMENT Self-explanatory

Period of Rectification As set out in AMC2 ARA.FSTD.100(a)(1) point (b): Following an evaluation, it is possible that a number of defects are identified. Generally, these defects should be rectified and the competent authority notified of such action within 30 days. Serious defects, which affect flight crew training, testing and checking, could result in an immediate downgrading of the qualification level, or if any defect remains unattended without good reason for a period greater than 30 days, subsequent downgrading may occur or the FSTD qualification could be revoked.

6.Results

6.1 Subjective/Functional

6.2 Objective

7.Evaluation Team

Signed: ……………………………………………………………. For the competent authority

INITIAL EVALUATION A useful explanation of how the validation tests should be run is contained in the ‘RAeS Aeroplane Flight Simulator Evaluation Handbook’ (February 1995 or as amended) produced in support of the ICAO Doc 9625, ‘Manual of Criteria for the Qualification of Flight Simulators’.

FUNCTIONS AND SUBJECTIVE TESTS – SUGGESTED TEST ROUTINE

(a)During initial and recurrent evaluations of an FSTD, the competent authority should conduct a series of functions and subjective tests that together with the objective tests complete the comparison of the FSTD with the aircraft, the class of aeroplane or type of helicopter.

(b)Functions tests verify the acceptability of the simulated aircraft systems and their integration. Subjective tests verify the fitness of the FSTD in relation to training, checking and testing tasks.

(c)The FSTD should provide adequate flexibility to permit the accomplishment of the desired and required tasks while maintaining an adequate perception by the flight crew that they are operating in a real aircraft environment. Additionally, the instructor operating station (IOS) should not present an unnecessary distraction from observing the activities of the flight crew whilst providing adequate facilities for the tasks.

(d)It is important that both the competent authority and the organisation operating an FSTD understand what to expect from the routine of FSTD functions and subjective tests. Part of the subjective tests routine for an FSTD should involve an uninterrupted fly-out (except for FTD level 1) comparable with the duration of typical training sessions in addition to assessment of flight freeze and repositioning. An example of such a profile is to be found under points (f) and (g) (for BITD point (h)).

(e)The competent authorities, and organisations operating FSTD, who are unfamiliar with the evaluation process should contact the Agency or the competent authority of another Member State with adequate expertise in this field.

(f)Typical test profile for an FSTD aeroplane: [Figure or form omitted from this preview — available in the Avioverse workspace library.]

(g)Typical test profile for an FSTD helicopter: [Figure or form omitted from this preview — available in the Avioverse workspace library.]

(h)Typical subjective test profile for BITDs (approximately 2 hours) - items and altitudes, as applicable:

(1)instrument departure, climb performance,

(2)level-off at 4 000 ft,

(3)fail engine (if applicable),

(4)engine out climb to 6 000 ft (if applicable),

(5)engine out cruise performance (if applicable), restart engine,

(6)all engine cruise performance with different power settings,

(7)descent to 2 000 ft,

(8)all engine performance with different configurations, followed by instrument landing system (ILS) approach,

(9)all engine go-around,

(10)non-precision approach,

(11)go-around with engine failure (if applicable),

(12)engine out ILS approach (if applicable),

(13)go-around engine out (if applicable),

(14)non-precision approach engine out (if applicable), followed by go-around,

(15)restart engine (if applicable),

(16)climb to 4 000 ft,

(17)manoeuvring,

(18)normal turns left and right,

(19)steep turns left and right,

(20)acceleration and deceleration within operational range,

(21)approaching to stall in different configurations,

(22)recovery from spiral dive,

(23)auto flight performance (if applicable),

(24)system malfunctions,

(25)approach.

GENERAL A useful explanation of functions and subjective tests and an example of subjective test routine checklist may be found in the ‘RAeS Airplane Flight Simulator Evaluation Handbook’ Volume II (February 1995 or as amended) produced in support of ICAO Doc 9625, ‘Manual of Criteria for the Qualification of Flight Simulators’.