Originally Posted by AirRabbit
Knowing these obviously diametrical opposed circumstances, it is easy to understand why the NSP is seeking to develop and incorporate a professionally constructed and dependable QMS.
You might want to re-think this one, I authored the 3rd approved SQMS, and I’m pretty sure I’m not necessary a professional writer…
In somewhat line with this thread, the NSP has issued a new Guidance bulletin on full stall training maneuvers, and I have heard that the next FSTD Directive might involve crosswind landing data.
For those outside of the US, it takes about 5 years to update any FAR. The idea around FSTD Directive(s) was to short cut that time span, making simulators more like the aircraft faster. To date, the NSP has only issued one FSTD, on visual models.
Hi mnttech
Well … I don’t think it’s necessary to rethink my statement … I know about the level of “professionalism” that had to go into the description and the discussions relative to the development of a satisfactory QMS program described by the NSP … and … if you got paid for your job functions, and part of your function was to actually describe how your company would develop, employ, and manage a company QMS program … I’d say that qualifies as a piece of professional work … and as long as you can continue to have a say in those areas, I wouldn’t hesitate to include that as part of your professional resume.
In addition to the guidance bulletin, I know that the NSP is currently working on a revision to Part 60 – and at least a portion of that revision I understand was intended to address several new aspects of airplane operation – among them are likely to be full stalls, gusting and crosswind conditions (for takeoff and landing), as well as bounced landing recoveries. These issues were relatively high on the NSP “things-to-do” list and had been discussed to one degree or another for some time, each time getting closer to finalization. And, judging from the bureaucratic preferences that inevitably creep into governmental functions and usually manage to “elbow” their way to the surface, the NSP getting this Part 60 revision completed might well have been delayed by that bureaucracy … the most notable delay very probably being what was originally the development of a complete overhaul of Part 121 training requirements that was just short of conclusion, when the outflow of publicity generated by the friends and family members of the Colgan crash victims very publically demonstrating and demanding things specifically of the US Congress and dominating the Washington, DC local news. As a result, I understand that the multi-year effort to reconstruct those training requirements, was essentially gutted and dramatically reduced in favor of dealing directly, and only, with the issues brought to the surface through the Colgan accident publicity. For whatever its worth, the NSP revisions, some aspects of which would be seen in revised regulatory requirements and authorizations, and others would be reflected in the form of an FSTD Directive (mostly due to the fact that a majority of these combined revisions touched either directly or indirectly on some of the issues that the Colgan publicity included) it is likely that the Part 60 rule update and the FSTD Directive will proceed, but it’s not likely that either will do so with much publicity or fanfare.
And, you are also correct that the concept of FSTD Directives was the specific process that both made sense and was capable of becoming effective in a far shorter time frame to address appropriate and necessary modifications, additions, or deletions of simulation standards or qualification requirements – all structured to take the best advantage of simulation advancements as quickly as possible when simulation operation is governed under a bureaucratic regulatory process.