Questions on Synthetic Flight Trainer

[Up-into-the-air]

There have been a lot of Synthetic Flight Trainers popping up - Redbird and the Melbourne CKAS machines spring to mind.

I had a look at casa's FSD-2, which gives the following:

Conditions of Operation

"3.1 For credits to be applicable for the purposes of issue of a flight crew licence or rating, the synthetic trainer must be operated in accordance with the following conditions:

1. An instructor is present at the instructor station for the duration of the flight

2. The synthetic trainer has been approved in the appropriate category and for the appropriate credit

3. The limitations of the minimum equipment list are observed

4. Training is conducted in accordance with the STOM [Synthetic Operations Manual].

3.2 Instrument rating holders may use a synthetic trainer to log instrument ground time to meet the recent experience requirements of CAO 40.2.1 without the presence of a flight instructor, provided the simulated flight path and flight duration can be verified.

Verification may be by means of automatic recording of the date, flight path and flight duration by the synthetic trainer software.

Alternatively, if the trainer does not have automatic recording facilities, an authorised flight instructor who can verify that data may sign the pilot's logbook to that effect."

My questions are:

How do these operate under the regs [Is it just FSD-2 that applies]?

Does the operator need an AOC?

Does casr 206 and casr 210 apply?

Does 28BD apply if an organisation does not comply with casr 206?

Can anyone help???

[mudpig]

If it's a CASA approved cat B sim it can be used to remain current as long as it does record the session.
As far as renewals go it can only be used for part of the renewal as long as the sim is being used under and listed on an operators AOC. :ok:

[LeadSled]

Folks,
Just putting Mudpig's point a little differently ---- you can only know what a Flight Training Device ( which is not a Flight Simulator -- see CASR 60) is "approved" for by inquiring of the operator --- it is quite possible for two functionally identical boxes to have quite different approvals --- depending on variable factors ---- such as the local FOI.
----- in all too many cases allowing approvals that are well beyond even the devices sales manager's idea of what the box can be used for ---- a serious safety hazard.

To be definitive, you need to read the CASA approval details of the specific installation.
Tootle pip!!

PS: Thank goodness the new ICAO rules eliminate all the confusion between Flight Training Devices and Flight Simulators, by defining Flight Simulator Training Devices, and to further eliminate residual confusion, current letter and number descriptions are dropped, with Roman numerals I through VII being the classes, VII being the equivalent of FAA D+

[mudpig]

LeadSled I apologize for putting the sim word in there. You are correct in that there is a huge difference between a synthetic trainer and a sim.:O
Therefore I retract using the word sim in my previous post and replace it with synthetic trainer. Some synthetic trainers are approved by CASA (cat B) for instrument training, currency and for part of your renewal.

[ZFT]

Lead Sled

PS: Thank goodness the new ICAO rules eliminate all the confusion between Flight Training Devices and Flight Simulators, by defining Flight Simulator Training Devices, and to further eliminate residual confusion, current letter and number descriptions are dropped, with Roman numerals I through VII being the clases, VII being the equivalent of FAA D+ Until ICAO 9625 3rd Edition is adopted by any National Regulatory Authority the existing (local) rules still apply and there is no sign of the 3rd edition being adopted by anyone yet, more's the pity.

[LeadSled]

ZFT,
Tell me something I don't know!
Strange how FSD2 is still alive, as are some FSD1 approvals, even 'orrible boxes operating with dispensations from FSD-1, and how long have we had the present CASR 60 in place?
Some countries are moving quite quickly, it will be adopted by EASA, FAA have made their pronouncement, as has Australia, I will make a very small bet that China will actually be the first to fully adopt in the form of a new CAAC 60.
Tootle pip!!

[Up-into-the-air]

This article makes interesting reading, following LeadSleds comment of:

you can only know what a Flight Training Device ( which is not a Flight Simulator -- see CASR 60) is "approved" for by inquiring of the operator --- it is quite possible for two functionally identical boxes to have quite different approvals --- depending on variable factors ---- such as the local FOI.
----- in all too many cases allowing approvals that are well beyond even the devices sales manager's idea of what the box can be used for ---- a serious safety hazard.Unfamiliarity led to unstabilised approaches (http://www.aviationadvertiser.com.au/news/2012/02/unfamiliarity-led-to-low-approaches/)