AirRabbit,
I have no issues with Grandfather Rights. The pragmatic approach taken globally by the regulatory authorities was the correct decision for the reasons you state and the qualification certificate clearly indicates this status to the user. Likewise I would never underrate the importance of the person occupying the middle seat both for training and feedback.
I will disagree with you somewhat about “moving the goal”. I believe that the regulatory authorities do have the responsibility to do just that to ensure the FSTDs being designed today do take advantage of the latest technologies and take into account the current training needs. Sensible and realistic implementation times should alleviate any pain and already qualified devices should either be exempt or given very realistic timeframes to comply.
This chances of this ever happening are of course quite remote so the onus is back on to the operator to drive the FSTD manufacturers by means of tech spec requirements etc to keep moving forward.
Interestingly CASA (Singapore) unilaterally moved their regulatory goal posts and the industry was somewhat caught out initially.
OK465
EASA too no longer require glareshield ambient lighting for any FSTD qualified under CS-FSTD(A).
(A little bit of history, they came about because of a certain FAA inspector by the name of Sam Van Dyke and the original requirement for a certain level of reflected light from a face).