Advisory Circular --- _--~~ ~~~- ~_-- S&j&: A3RPLANE FLIGHT TRAINING DEVfCE QUALIFICATION Dmtc: 2/5/92 AC No: 120~65A InStlrtctl by: ASO- Ckqt:
1. PURPOSE. This Advisory Circular (AC) provides an acceptable meane, but not the only means, of ensuring compliance with the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) regarding the evaluation and qualification of all training devices in which flight training, qualification, or certification of airmen under Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations is accomplished. These device6 are referred to in this document and other documents published by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) as “flight training devices.” This AC specifies the criteria to be used by the FAA when qualifying a device and determining what the qualification level should be, While these guideline6 are not mandatory, they are derived from extensive FAA and industry experience in determining compliance with the pertinent FAR, Mandatory terms used in this AC such a6 “shall” or “must” are used only in the sense of ensuring applicability of this particular method of compliance when th.e acceptable method of compliance described herein is u6ed. Applicable regulations must also be referenced to assure compliance with the provisions herein. This AC ,does not change regulatory requirements or create additional ones, and does not authorize change6 in, or deviation6 from, regulatory requirements. The provision6 of the FAR are controlling. This document does not interpret the regulations. Interpretation6 are issued only under establifihed agency procedures. This AC applies only to the evaluation and qualification of flight training devices described in this paragraph and further defined in paragraph 6b.
Guidance for the evaluation of simulator6 JB published inAC 120-40, Airplane Simulator Qualification, as amended.
2. CANCELLATION. AC 120-45, Advanced Training Devices (Airplane Only) Evaluation and Qualification, dated May 11, 1987, is cancelled. Operators having acquisition or upgrade projects in progress on the effective date of this AC have 90 days from the effective date to notify the National Simulator Program Manager (NSPM) of those projects which the operator desires to complete under the provisions of AC 120-45.
AC 61-66, Annual Pilot in Command Proficiency Checks, dated November 2, 1973, is cancelled since its provisions are superseded by this AC and other newly published FAA guidance and directives.
3 RELATED FAR SECTIONS. FAR Part 1; FAR Sections 61.57, 61.58, and 61.157; FAR Part 61 Appendix A; FAR Section 63.39; FAR Part 63 Appendix C; FAR Sections 121.407,
121.409, 121.439, and 121.441; Special Federal Aviation Regulation 58; FAR Part 121 Appendices E, F, and H; FAR Sections 125,285, 125.287, 125.291, and 125.297; FAR Part 127; and FAR Sections 135.293, 135.297, 135.323, and 135.335.
4, BELATED READING MATER IAL. AC 120-2&J, Criteria for Approval of Category TII Landing Weather Minima; AC 120-29, Criteria for Approving Category I and Category II Landing Minima for FAR 121 Operators; AC 120-358, Line Operational Simulations: Line- Oriented Flight Training, Special Purpose Operational Training, Line Operational
AC 120-&A 2/s/92 Evaluation; AC 120-4’#, Criteria for Operational Approval of Airborne Wind Shear Alerting and Flight Guidance Systems; AC 120-46, Use of Advanced Training Devices (Airplane Only); and appropriate sections of FAA Order 8400.10, Air Transportation Operations Inspector’s Handbook, and of FM Order 8700.1, Qeneral Aviation Operation8 Inspector’s Handbook.
5. INTRODUCTION.
The primary objective of flight training is to provide a means for flight’crewmembers to acquire the skills and knowledge necessary to perform to a desired safe standard. Flight simulation provides an effective, viable environment for the instruction, demonstration, and practice of the maneuvers and procedures (called training events) pertinent to a particular airplane and crewmember position. Successful completion of flight training is validated by appropriate testing, called checking events. The complexity, operating costs, and operating environment of modern airplanes, together with the technological advances made in flight simulation, have encouraged the expanded use of training devices and simulators in the training and checking of flight crewmembers. These devices provide more indepth training than can be accomplished in the airplane and provide a very high transfer of skills, knowledge, and behavior to the cockpit. Additionally, their use results in safer flight training and cost reductions for the operators, while achieving fuel conservation, a decrease in noise and otherwise helping maintain environmental quality.
b. The FAA has traditionally recognized the value of training devices and has awarded credit for their use in the completion of specific training and checking events in both general aviation and air carrier flight training programs and in pilot certification activities. Such credits are delineated in FAR Part 61 and Appendix A of that part; FAR Part 121, including Appendices E and F;
andin other appropriate sources suchas handbooks andguidance documents. These FAR sources, however, refer only to a “training device,” with no further descriptive information. Other sources refer to training devices in several categories such as Cockpit Procedures Trainers, Cockpit Systems Simulators, Fixed Base Simulators (commonly referred to as CPT, CSS, and FBS, respectively), as well as other descriptors. These categories and names have had no standard definition or design criteria within the industry and, consequently, have presented communications difficulties and inconsistent standardization in their application. Furthermore, no single source guidance document has existed to categorize these devices, to provide qualification standards for each category, or to relate one category to another in terms of capability or technical complexity. As a result, approval of these devices for use in training progrsms has not always been equitable.
Recent events have demanded that standard categories and definitions be de%oped and that improved guidance for use of training devices be provided.
These demands have evolved from:
(1) Efforts to develop improved handbooks for FAA inspectors.
(2) The development of a standard method for determining differences training and type rating requirements.
(3) Rulemakingprojectswhich require clear definitions and standards, 2 Par 4
2/s/92 AC 120-45A
(4) The obvious need within industry and government for an ability to communicate clearly concerning training devices, including their required standards and permitted use in the training and checking of airmen.
d. In coordination with a broad cross section of the aviation industry, the FAA has defined seven levels of flight training devices, Level 1 through Level. 7. Level 1 is currently reserved. Levels 2 and 3 are generic in that they are representative of no specific airplane cockpit and do not require reference to a specific airplane. Level.6 4 through 7 represent a specific cockpit for the airplane represented. Within the generic or specific category, each higher level of flight training device is progressively more complex. Recause of the increase in complexity and more demanding standards when progressing from Level 2 to Level 7, there is a continuum of technical definition across those levels, Above the seven levels of flight training devices there are four levels of simulators which are defined in AC 120-40, as amended. The uses permitted for each level of flight training device in training curricula conducted in accordance with FAR Parts 61, 63, 121, 125, 135, or 141 are tabulated in the applicable FAR Part, FAA Orders 8400.10 and 8700.1, as appropriate, and AC 120-46, as amended.
e. In addition to those flight training devices meeting the prescribed criteria contained in this AC for Level 6, this level will also be the category into which nonvisual simulators (see AC 120-40, as amended) will be placed for reference purposes. The placement of these unique simulators into Level 6 will not affect the standard6 or criteria of Level 6 flight training devices, nor will these flight training devices affect the standards or criteria of these simulators.
6. DEFINTTTONS.
a. An Airplane Simulator is a full size replica of a specific type or make, model, and series airplane cockpit, including the assemblage of equipment and computer software programs necessary to represent the airplane in ground and flight operations, a visual system providing an out-of-the-cockpit view, a force (motion)cueing system which provides cues at least equivalent to that of a three degree of freedom motion system; and is in compliance with the minimum standards for a Level A simulator specified in AC 120-40, as amended.
b, An Airplane Flight Training Device is a full scale replica of an airplane’s instruments, equipment, panels, and controls in an open flight deck area or an enclosed airplane cockpit, including the assemblage of equipment and computer software programs necessary to represent the airplane in ground and flight conditions to the extent of the systems installed in the device; does not require a force (motion) cueing or visual system; is found to meet the criteria outlined in this AC for a specific flight training device level; and in which any flight training event or flight checking event is accomplished.
Approval of the Flight Traininx Device is authorization by the Princypal Operations Inspector (POT) for the device to be used for flight training events or flight checking events, as may be appropriate, based on its assigned qualification level and approved program.
Par 5 3
AC 120-45A 2/s/92
d. Aooroval Test Guide (AT01 is a document designed to validate that the performance and handling qualities of a flight training device agree within prescribed limita with those of the airplane or set of airplanes and that all applicable regulatory requirements have beenmet. The ATQ include6 both approved reference and flight training device comparison data used to support the validation. The Master Approval Test Ouide (MATG) is the AT0 approved by the FAA. It incorporates the results of FM witnessed tests, and serves as a reference for future evaluations.
A C kDit (for the purposes of this AC) ie an enclosed structure that is a ‘full scze replica of the airplane simulated, including all installed instruments, equipment, panels, systems, and controls. It consists of all space forward of a cross section of the fuselage at the most extreme aft setting of the pilots’ seats, including other required crewmember duty stat ions.
Additionally, those bulkheads or portions of bulkheads aft of the pilot seats that serve a procedural or training function are considered part of the cockpit and must replicate the airplane. The back may be open provided the device is located in a suitably isolated environment.
f. Convertible Flight Traininn Device is a device in which hardware and software can be changed so that it becomes a replica of a different model, usually of the same type airplane.
B* Evaluation of the Flight Traininn Device is the process in which a Simulator Evaluation Specialist or the POI, as appropriate, compares the device and its performance, functions, and other characteristics to that of the replicated aircraft in accordance with acceptable methods, procedures, and standards.
h. Latency is the additional response time of the flight training device beyond that of the basic aircraft perceivable response time. This includes the update rate of the computer ayatem combined with the time delays of the instruments, and, if installed, the time delays of themotion and visual systems.
s
1. National Simulator Pronram Mananer (NSPH) is the FM Manager responsible for the overall administration and direction of the National Simulator Program.
3. Operator, as used in this AC, identifies the person OS organization requesting FM qualification of a flight training device and is responsible for continuing qualification of that device through liaison with the FAA.
k. Qualification of the flight training&device is issued by the NSPM or PM, as appropriate, for a specified level and is determined as a result of the evaluation of the device against the established criteria for that level.
Par 6
2/s/92 AC 120~4%
1. A Renlica (as used in the definition of a flight training device in this AC) does not imply total duplication of all furniehings of the respective airplane. Items such as mounting panels, walls, ceilings, floors, coverings, windows, etc., must present only a representative appearance.
m. A Set of Airplanea, for purposes of this AC, is a grouping of airplanes which all share similar performance (i.e., normal airspeed/altitude operating envelope), similar handling characteristics, and the same number and type of propulsion system(s) (i.e., turbojet engine, reciprocating engine, etc.).
a, Simulation Data are the various types of data used by the flight training device manufacturer and the operator to design, manufacture, and test a flight training device.
. 0. Simulator Evaluation Soeclali st is an FAA technical specialist trained to evaluate simulators and flight training devices and to provide expertise on matters concerning aircraft simulation.
P* gnaoshot is a presentation of one or more variables at a given instant of time. A snapshot is appropriate for a steady state condition in which the variables are constant with time.
9. Statement of Connliance (SOCl is a certification from the operator that specific requirements have been met. It must provide references to needed sources of information for showing compliance, rationale to explain how the referenced material is used, mathematical equations and parameter values used, and conclusions reached.
r. Time History is a presentation of the change of a variable with respect to time. It is usually in the form of a continuous data plot over the time period of interest or a printout of test parameter values recorded at multiple constant time intervals over the time period of interest.
Transoort Delay is the total flight training device system processing time :iquired for an input signal from a pilot primary flight control until output response. It does not include the characteristic delay of the airplane simulated.
t. Uvnrade, for the purpose of this AC, means the improvement or enhancement of a flight training device for the purpose of achieving a higher qualification level.
7. EVALUATION POLICY.
a. The methods, procedures, and standards defined in this AC constitute one means acceptable to the Administrator for the evaluation and qualification of flight training devices that are or may be used in the following:
Par 6 5
AC 120-b!% 2/5/92
(1) A training program approved under FAR Parts 61, 63, 721, 125, 135, or 141;
(2) The course of conducting the pilot-in-command proficiency check required by FAR Section 61.58;
(3) The issuance of an airline transport pilot certificate or type rating in accordance with the provisions of FAR Section 61.157; or
(4) The satisfactory completion of the provisions of FAR Sections
61.55, 61.57, 61.65, 61.t29, or 141.41.
b. If an applicant ChOO6e6 to utilize the approach described in this AC, the applicant must adhere to all of the methods, procedures, and standards herein. However, this position is not intended to suppress innovation and imaginative development of flight training devices. Those f 1 ight training devices, which for one re86on or another, do not, or cannot meet the provisions described in this AC for a specific level, may be evaluated on 8 case-by-case basis, especially when it appears that such a device could offer valuable or otherwise unique benefits. If an applicant desire6 to have 8 flight training device evaluated on this case-by-case b86i6, or desire6 to u6e 8 mean6 other than that described in this AC to evaluete a flight training device, a proposal must be submitted to the FM for review 8nd approval prior to the submittal of a detailed ATG.
C. It ia the responsibility of the NSPH to evaluate and qualify all Level 6 and Level 7 flight training devices. The POI, certificate holding district office (CHDO), or responsible Flight Standard6 District Office (FSDO), 86 appropriate, will evaluate and qualify Level6 2-5 flight training device6 in accordance with the standards herein. Assistance may be Obt8in8d from the NSPM On a Case-by-Case basis.
d. An operator may contract for use of a Levels 2-S flight training device currently qualified by a POT, CHDO, or FSDO and need not obtain separate qualification of the device prior to obtaining FAA approval to u6e the device in that operator’s FAA-approved training program.
e. The flight training device muet be assessed in those area6 which are essential to accomplishing airman training and checking events. This include6 aerodynamic response6 and control checks, 86 well 86 performance in the takeoff, climb, cruise, descent, approach, and landing phase6 of flight. Crewmember station check6, instructor station functions,checks; and certain additional requirement6 depending on the complexity of the device (i.e., touch activated cathode ray tube instructor controls; automatic leeson plan operation; 68leCted mode of operation for “fly-by-wire” airplanes; etc.)must be thoroughly 86BeS6ed.
Should a motion system or visual eystem be contemplated for installation on any level of flight training device, the operator or the manufacturer should contact the NSPM for information regarding an accept8ble method for measuring motion and/or visual system operation and applicable tolerances, The motion and visual 6y6tem6, if installed, Will be 8V8lU8ted t0 ensure their proper Operation.
6 Par 7
.
2/s/92 AC 120-45A
f. The intent is to evaluate flight training devices as objectively as possible. Pilot acceptance, however, is also an important consideration.
Therefore, the device will be subjected to the validation tests listed in appendix 2 of this AC and the functions and subjective tests from appendix 3.
These tests include a qualitative assessment by an FM pilot who is qualified in the respective airplane, or set of airplanes in the case of Levels 2 or 3.
Validation tests are used to compare objectively flight training device data and airplane data (or other spproved reference data) to assure that they agree within a specified tolerance. Functions tests provide a basis for evaluating flight training device capability to perform over a typical training period and to verify correct operation of the controls, instruments, and systems.
8, Tolerances, listed for parameters inappendix 2, should not be confused with design tolerances specified for flight training device manufacture.
Tolerances for the parameters listed in appendix 2 are the maximum acceptable to the Administrator for validation of the device.
h. A convertible flight training device will be addressed as a separate device for each model and series to which it will be converted and FM qualification sought. An FM evaluation is required for each configuration.
For example, if an operator seeks qualification for two models of an airplane type using a convertible device, two ATQ’s or a supplemented ATG, and two evaluations are required.
i. Theairplane manufacturer’s flight test data are the accepted standard for initial qualification of Levels 6 and 7 flight training devices due to the specific airplane aerodynamic programming necessary. Exceptions to this policy may be made, but must first be submitted to the NSPM for review and consideration.
3. ff flight test data from a source in addition to or independent of the airplane manufacturer’s data are to be submitted in support of a flight training device qualification, it must be acquired in accordance with normally accepted professional flight test methods. Proper consideration for the following must be an intrinsic part of the flight test planning.
(1) Appropriate and sufficient data acquisition equipment or system.
(2) Current calibration of data acquisition equipment and airplane.
Performance instrumentation (calibration must be traceable to a recognized standard).
(3) Flight test plan, including: ’
(i) Maneuvers and procedures.
(ii) fnitial conditions.
(iii) Flight condition.
(iv) Aircraft configuration.
(v) Weight and center of gravity.
Par 7 7
AC 120~45A z/5/92
(vi) Atmospheric ambient and environmental conditions.
(vii) Data required.
(viii) Other appropriate factors.
(4) Appropriately qualified flight test personnel.
(5) Data reduction and analysis methods and techniques.
(6) Data accuracy. The data must be presented in a format that supports the flight training device validation.
(7) Resolution must be sufficient to determine compliance with the tolerances of appendix 2.
(8) Presentation must be clear with necessary guidance provided.
(9) Over-plots must not obscure the reference data.
(10) The flight test plan ebould be reviewed with the National Simulator Program Staff well in advance of commencing the flight test. After completion of the tests, a flight test report should be submitted in support of the validation data. The report must contain sufficient data and rationale to support qualification of the device at the level requested.
k. For a new type or model of airplane, predicted data validated by flight test data, which has not been finalized and made official by the manufacturer, can be used for an interim period as determined by the FM. In the event predicted data are used in programming the device, an update should be accomplished as soon as practicable when actual airplane flight test data become available. Unless specific conditions warrant otherwise, this update should OCCIU within 6 months after release of the final flight test data package by the airplane manufacturer.
1. Levels 2, 3, and 5 flight training devices do not require a specific aerodynamic model ; however, their performance must be compared to a reference set of validation data for initial qualification and for repeated recurrent evaluations. (Note: Level 4 requires no aerodynamic model.) fn the absence of a specific model, these device6 may use a generic model typical of the set of airplanes as described in this AC. For example, a twin engine, turbojet transport airplane flight training device must demonstrate the performance and handling typical of that set of airplanes. gimilarly, a light twin or single engine airplane flight training device must demonstrate performance typical of the respective set of airplanes. The aerodynamic model may be one representing an actual airplane within that set of airplanes or it may be created or derived using the same aatheaatical expressions as those used in a specific model, but with coefficient values which are not obtained from flight test results for a particular airplane. Instead, the coefficient values could be fictitious, but 8 Par 7
2/s/92 AC 120-45A be typical of the set of airplanes replicated, The reference validation data could then be created hy doing a computer simulation using these fictitious coefficients. A generic model may also be acquired from public domain resources or it may be a composite of various models, none of which is complete within itself.
(1) It is the re6pOnSibility of the operator to demonstrate that the reference data used represent the appropriate set of airplanes. To assure that it continues to comply with its original qualification status, each flight training device will be compared to the accepted reference data for subsequent recurrent evaluations.
(2) The NSPM i6 the acceptance authority for adequacy and suitability of this data and will resolve question6 which may arise over its application.
Once reference data for a specific set of airplanes is accepted by the NSPM, this data will be considered accepted for that set of airplanes without a requirement for further review and approval.
m. If a problem with a validation test result is detected by the FAA evaluator, lhe test may be repeated. If it still does not meet the test tolerance, the operator may demonstrate alternative test result6 which relate to the test in question. Tn the event a validation test does not meet specified criteria, but is not considered critical to the level of evaluation being conducted, the NSPM, or the PO1 in consultatian with the NSPM, may conditionally qualify the training device at that level and the operator will be given a specified period of time to correct the problem and submit the ATG changes for evaluation. Alternatively, if it is determined that the results of a validation test would have a detrimental effect on the level of qualification being sought or is a firm regulatory requirement, the device may be qualified to a lesser level or restricted from training and checking events affected by the fai.led test. For example, if a Level 5 qualification is requested and the device fails to meet a Level 5 requirement, the device could he qualified at Level 4 provided al1 Level 4 requirements have been met.
n. Wit.hin 20 working day6 of receiving an acceptable ATG, the POT or NSPM, as appropriate, will coordinate with the operator to set a mutually acceptable date for the evaluation. Evaluation dates will not be established until the ATG has been reviewed and determined to be acceptable. To avoid unnecos6ary delays, operators are encouraged to work closely with the POT, and the NSPM if appropriate, during the ATG development process prior to making formal application, All Level s 6 and 7 devices mu6 t be evaluated by the NSPM, and POT ’ s must forward the AT0 to the NSPM with the appropriate transmittal memorandum.
For devices not requiring NSPM qualification (Levels Z-S), the POT will evaluate the ATG in accordance with the guidance of this 4C and may seek as6istance from the NSPM.
0. At the discretion of the FAA Simulator Evaluation Specialist, the operator’6 pilot6 may assiet during evaluations in completing the functions and validation6 tests. However, only FAA personnel should manipulate the pilot controls during the functions check portion of an FAA evaluation.
P* FAA evaluations of flight training devices located outside the United States will be performed jf the device is used by a U.S. operator in satisfying Par 7 9
any training event or checking event requirements, including certification of U.S. airmen. Evaluations may be conducted otherwise a6 deemed appropriate by the Administrator on a Case-by-Case basis.
Upon qualification of the flight training device (whether by the NSPM, the Pz;, the CHDG, or the PSDO), approval for the use of the device in an FAA-approved training program is the responsibility of the POf, the CHDO, or the FSDO, as appropriate.
a. INITIAL OR UPGRADE EVALUATIONS.
An operator seeking flight training device initial or upgrade evalufiion must submit a request in writing to the PO1 or responsible FSDO.
Evaluations will normally be accomplished by a representative of the PO1 or a FSDO inspector for Levels 2 through 5 and must be accomplished by the NSPM for Levels 6 and 7. If the flight training device is proposed to be Level 6 or 7, the PO1 or FSDO will promptly forward the ATG to the MPH with a transmittal memorandum. All requests should contain a compliance statement certifying that the device meets all of the provisions of this AC, that the cockpit configuration conforms to that of the airplane, that specific hardware and software configuration control procedure6 have been established, and that the pilot(e) designated by the operator confirm that it is representative of the airplane in all appropriate functions test areas. A sample letter of request is included in appendix 4.
b, The operator should submit an ATG which includes:
(1) A title page with the operator and FAA signature blocks.
(2) A flight training device information page, for each configuration in the case of convertible devices, providing the following information, if applicable:
0) or code.
(ii) simulated,
(iii) reference.
(iv) appropriate.
(4
(vi) if appropriate.
(vii)
(viii) The operator’s flight training device identification number Airplane, or set of airplanes, a6 appropriate, being Source of aerodynamic data and any appropriate revision Engine model (and data revision, as applicable), if Flight control data revisidn, if appropriate.
FlightManagement Systemidentification(andrevision level), Flight training device model and manufacturer.
Date of device manufacture.
Computer identification, if appropriate.
Visual system model and manufacturer, if installed.
Moti.on system type and manufacturer, if installed.
(3) Table of contents.
10 Par 7
2/s/92 AC 120-45A
(4) Log of revision and/or list of effective pages.
(5) Listing of all other reference or source data, if applicable.
(6) Glossary of terms and symbols used.
(7) Statements of Compliance (SOC) as may be required in sppendix 1, “Flight Training Device Standards,” comments column, for SOC requirements.
(8) A list of equipment required to accomplish the validation tests anda description of the appropriate procedures tobe followed to record the test results. If testing and recording are to be accomplished automatically, a listing of the equipment and appropriate procedures should be included.
(9) The following is needed for each validation test designated in appendix 2 of this AC:
(i) Name of the test.
(ii) Objective of the test.
(iii) Initial conditions.
(iv) Method for evaluating validation test results.
(v) Tolerances for relevant parameters.
(vi) Source of validation reference data.
(vii) Copy of validation reference data.
(viii) Validation test results as obtained by the operator.
(ix) A means, acceptable to the FAA, of easily comparing the training device test results to validation reference data.
C. Test results should be labeled using terminology common to airplane parameters as opposed to computer software identifications or other references.
These results should be easily compared with the supporting data by employing cross-plotting, overlays, transparencies, or other acceptable means. Use of multichannel recorder, line printer, or similar recording media is encouraged for all flight training device levels; however, regardless of the media used, it must be acceptable to the FAA. Data reference documents included in an ATG maybe reduced photographically only if such reduction will not alter the graphic scaling or cause difficulties in scale interpretation or resolution. Incremental scales on graphical presentations must provide the resolution necessary for evaluation of the parameters shown in appendix 2. The test guide will provide the documented proof of compliance with the validation tests in appendix 2. In the case of an upgrade, an operator should run the validation tests for the requested qualification level. Validation test’ results offered in a test guide for a previous initial or upgrade evaluation should not be used to validate flight training device performance in a test guide offered for a current upgrade. Flight training device test results should be clearly marked with appropriate reference points to ensure an accurate comparison between training device and validation reference datawith respect to time when tests involve time history parameters. Operators using line printers to record time histories should clearly mark that information taken from the line printer data output for Par 8 11
AC 120-45A 2/s/92 cross-plotting on the airplane data. The cross-plotting of the operator’s flight training device data to the reference data is essential to verify performance in each test. During an evaluation, the FAA will devote its time to detailed checking of selected tests from the ATG. The FAA evaluation serves to validate the operator’s test results.
d. The completed ATG, as well as the operator’s compliance letter and request for the evaluation, will be submitted to the operator’s POI. For ATG’s requiring NSPM review, the PO1 will submit the total package with a letter or memorandum of transmittal to the NSPM, The ATG will be reviewed and determined to be acceptable prior to scheduling an evaluation of the device. Should the POX desire NSPM assistance with ATG evaluation for devices not requiring NSPM review, a request should be prepared and forwarded with the ATG to the NSPM.
e. The operator may elect to accomplish the ATG validation tests while.
the flight training device is at the manufacturer’s facility, Tests at the manufacturer’s facility should be accomplished at the latest practical time prior to disassembly and shipment. The operator must then validate the performance of the device at the final location by repeating at least one-third of the validation tests in the ATG and submitting those tests to the POI, and to the NSPM, if appropriate. After review of these tests, the FAA will schedule an initial evaluation. The ATG must be clearly annotated to indicate when and where each test was accomplished.
f. In the event an operator moves a flight training device to a new location and its level of qualification is not changed, the following procedures shall apply:
(1) Advise the PO1 (and NSPM if appropriate) prior to the move.
(2) Prior to returning the flight training device to service at the new location, the operator should perform a typical recurrent validation and functions test. The results of such tests will be retained by the operator and be available for inspection by the FM at the next evaluation or as requested.
(3) The FAA may schedule an evaluation prior to return to service.
8* When there is a change of operator, the new operator must accomplish all required administrative procedures including the submission of the currently approved ATG to the POI, or through the POX to the NSPM for Levels 6 and 7 flight training devices. The ATG must be identified with the new operator by displaying the operator’s name or logo. The PO1 will thengubmit the package as described in paragraph 7d above. The flight training device may, at the discretion of the PO1 or NSPM, be subject to an evaluation in accordance with the original qualification criteria.
h. The scheduling priority for initial and upgrade evaluations will be based on the sequence in which acceptable ATG’s and evaluation requests are received by the FAA.
12 Par 8