What are the views on the FFT product currently being promoted and now unbelievably approved by French DGAC, Indian and NZ authorities for just about everything a LD FFS does despite not complying with a raft of requirements of JAR-STD-1A or international equivalents for even a Level B sim, let alone LD?
The French DGAC is a JAA/EASA member and can't act unilaterally in the way suggested.
The FFT is an FTD/FNPT type trainer, so it meets JAA and FAA requirements for such devices. The idea of these type of devices is to allow the FFS to be used more efficiently, it's pointless to tie an FFS up for procedure training where motion and visual is not required.
It's not a new type of device, it's a new product range for the manufacturer. Their previous FTDs having been more basic.
The manufacturer claims up to 50% of initial and conversion training can be done out of the FFS, which means the FFS is still required for at least 50% of it. A lot of such training is carried out on fixed base trainers now, including in the UK.
They also say it could be used for recurrent training if regulations are changed. That might be a step too far, and I'm not sure the industry would accept that, despite the claims of the experts they cite. It would require a major change to established practice. It is true that sometimes an FFS motion trips, the crew don't notice and continue to "feel" motion cues. However when you lose motion you also lose vibration and buffet, and these can't be "interpreted" from flight displays and situations as they claim.