Simulator QTGs for 737

[Adsto]

Hello Pprune flight testers.

I'm doing some research on simulator qualification test guides. These are the documents simlator manufacturers prepare for the regulators which form the basis of their aerodynamic, visual, motion simulator systems.

My specific questions relates to the 737 series. I read a paper which indicated that Boeing did detailed flight testing on the 737-700 and produced a simulator qualification test guide (QTG) for this aircraft. When the 737-600/-800/-900 came along, Boeing saved money and did a controlled ammendment to the -700 QTG to produce the -600/-800/-900 QTGs. So the later aircraft had QTGs based on the -700 but not identical.

I'm seeking a point of contact or clarification of the process as I summarised above. Can anyone help? I'd like to be able to discuss this and get an authoritive answer on whether this process is possible, and whether it was used to develop four different 737 QTGs covering the -600 to -900 series.

Thanks in advance.

[Mad (Flt) Scientist]

I'd think the National Simulator Program Office in FAA Atlanta would be a good place to get the authoritative "what you can and can't do" answer for a given simulator/aircraft (though they won't tell you what the 737 did, they'll tell you what you can, and must, do).

(Obviously that's not much use if you're looking for a JAA?EASA qualification)

The process certainly seems plausible; we've used a similar approach of demonstrating 'similarity' between two models of the same basic airframe to allow two types to share some or all of the basic QTG. Even if you can't get away with no new QTG testing, the saving on what I'd call 'development' testing for a similar type can be considerable (the tests you need to construct the flight model to a decent fidelity, which are usually rather more than the qualification minimum required tests)

[AngloPepper]

Agree with MFS; this is entirely possible, but contact the FAA directly for the straight skinny.

It is quite commonplace for a data package to be extended to a developed model of the same aircraft by analysis, offline simulation (using the manufacturers aerodynamic/dynamics design simulations) and even tuning using an approved flight simulator. The more usual method is to analyse the changes from the aircraft as tested to the aircraft standard now being certified, and produce a delta flight test data package based on those areas expected to be most affected. The exchange of opinions between manufacturer and certifying authority can be quite concilliatory regarding level flight performance, static stability, etc but can get downright nasty when it comes to dynamic stability and handling! No surprises there ........

One minor point; the vernacular I'm used to is Data Package for the data coming from the aircraft manufacturer. The QTG comes from the simulator manufacturer and shows the match of simulator data to the aircraft data. It is entirely possible to produce a QTG without using all of the supplied Data Package......but that's the subject of a new and seperate argument between the simulator manufacturer and it's certifying authority.

[Adsto]

MFS/AngloPepper,

Thanks both for your reply. I contacted the FAA NSP who confirmed what you said. 737-800 QTG based on -700 DP with corrections. Nothing authorative is published though apparently EASA STD 1A permits the use of engineering data in lieu of a FT DP.

Thanks both of you.

[ZFT]

Adsto,

FYI - There is a new document released for consultation, JAR-FSTD A which basically reformats JAR-STD-1A,2A,3A & 4A into a single document which better defines the regulatory processes.

[AngloPepper]

ZFT,
do you happen to know if JAR 1,2,3 H will be getting the same repackaging?

[ZFT]

Yes - NPA-STD-12 will do the same thing with rotary. Not sure of release date, but sure to be 2006 i.e. before the potential fiasco of EASA takeover in 2007