FNPT Flight Simulators

[sarboy w****r]

Mods - please bear with me on this. I've posted this thread in Tech Log, then it was moved to Flight Testing when there was no response. There have been hundreds of views of the post on each forum, but not a single comment. I know that there are lots of training providers that read this thread so I thought perhaps they may be able to assist, or at least point me in the right direction.

I'm trying to understand the different certification levels of flight simulators. I can see in CS-FSTD A & H what the different technical specs should be, i.e. the minimum technical requirements for the different levels of certification.

So far, so good, however I have 2 questions please.

Firstly, what does having a FFS or FTD allow you to do as a training organisation that an FNPT (1/2/3/MCC) does not? e.g. I can see that an FNPT II and MCC FNPT would allow you to run IR and MCC courses. i.e. what can you do in a FFS or FTD that you may not do using a suitable level of FNPT?

Secondly, in order for a simulation device to be used, the device must be qualified and the user (the FTO) approved. The CAA fees for qualification are hefty (potentially £20k+, depending on type of sim to be qualified). If a manufacturer has developed a device, I understand that the first qualification of the device must follow the full qualification test procedure. My questions is: do subsequent simulators built to the same design and specification require an approval and if so, is it the full procedure that is followed?

Many thanks.

[dcoded]

I have not been involved directly with Simulators, But we do have them where I work.
Recently we added an FNTP 2.

After assembly it had to be approved by the CAA. They come and perform some test and meassure some parameters.
Then of course, every year the license has to be renewed by doing a similar procedure.

I hope this can help a little bit.

[hvogt]

Firstly, what does having a FFS or FTD allow you to do as a training organisation that an FNPT (1/2/3/MCC) does not? e.g. I can see that an FNPT II and MCC FNPT would allow you to run IR and MCC courses. i.e. what can you do in a FFS or FTD that you may not do using a suitable level of FNPT?Many items of type rating training courses, skill tests and proficiency checks require full flight simulators (FFS) or higher level training equipment, which - coming from a simulator - would be the actual aircraft. Other items, such as Mach tuck under, must not be executed in real aircraft, but have to be flown in a FFS.

For details, see Appendix 9 to Part FCL of the Air Crew Regulation (Commission Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 of 3 November 2011).

[Shawn Coyle]

sarboy:
I was involved in the certification of an FNPT 2 in several countries in Europe. This particular machine was a single computer that drove flight model and visuals for both out-the-window and cockpit instruments. It made little sense to require an annual revalidation once it was determined that the only source of possible changes was the inputs from the flight controls.
At least one European certification agency agreed - they said they'd come and check it after one year, and if there were no changes, and if we could show that a calibration of the flight controls would be part of the annual maintenance, that they'd give a pass on subsequent re-certifications. Pretty forward looking - and no names of the certification agency!

[AirRabbit]

With reference to your question regarding simulation levels, specifically FNPT and other variations, I would strongly suggest that you acquire a copy of the latest edition of the International Civil Aviation Organization’s (ICAO) Document #9625, ANB/938, Manual of Criteria for the Qualification of Flight Simulation Training Devices, Volume I, Aeroplanes.

In this document you will find a whole series of tables that include several concepts:
1. One concept is the listing of individual license or rating levels in the document and how these rating or license levels are distributed through the seven (7) levels of devices, expressed in terms of Roman Numerals, One through Seven.

2. Another concept is a listing of the specific flight tasks on which pilots may be trained and/or checked, broken into sections: the first of which contains the tasks required by ICAO, the second contains the tasks required by the FAA where they may be different from those required by ICAO, and the third section contains those tasks that are classified as Miscellaneous.

3. Still another concept is what feature is required in each level of device, and whether this feature must be one of the following, with respect to the specific airplane being simulated:
S (Specific) — Highest level of fidelity
R (Representative) — Intermediate level of fidelity
G (Generic) — Lowest level of fidelity
N (None) — Feature not required

4. One of the important differences addressed throughout the document … that is whether a specifically identified task can be “trained” or if that task can be “trained to proficiency.” These are important terms and they are defined quite specifically – as below:
a. “Train is defined as the introduction of a specific training task. The training accomplished may be credited towards the issuance of a license, rating or qualification, but the training would not be completed to proficiency. The fidelity level of one or more of the simulation features may not support training-to-proficiency.
b. “Train-to-proficiency” is defined as the introduction, continuation, or completion of a specific training task. The training accomplished may be credited towards proficiency and/or the issuance of a license, rating or qualification, and the training is completed to proficiency. The fidelity level of all simulation features supports training-to-proficiency.

My guess is that you will find the answer to a good share of the questions you may have … but I would also suspect that it will generate even more questions. If I’m correct, please feel free to let me know and I’ll try to provide you answers or direct you to the place where you can read more about the whole issue.

[sarboy w****r]

Hvogt, Shawn and AirRabbit,

Thank you very much indeed, that's all exceptionally helpful and I really appreciate your input.