Appendix 2 FIGURE 3-2. SYSTEMS OPERATOR DIFFERENCE REQUIREMENTS TABLE
EXAMPLE
SYSTEMS OPERATOR DIFFERENCE REQUIREMENTS TABLE
COMPLIANCE METHOD
CHKG/CURR CURR
D 90 DAYS + 3 FLT SEG.
FLT CHK
C*+OE
TRAINING LVL E
LVL D
LVL C
CBT/ FMS/ AT
LVL B AVT/ SU AVT AVT/ SU AVT/ SU AVT/ SU LVL A
DIFFERENCE AIRCRAFT: 737-300 BASE AIRCRAFT: 737-200 ADVANCED
APPROVED BY (POI):
PROC CHNG YES YES NO YES YES FLT CHAR NO NO NO NO NO
REMARKS
- RECIRC FAN REPLACES GASPER FAN
- 3 POSITION PACK SWITCH
- FWD OUTFLOW VALVE LIGHT
DELETED
- EQUIPMENT COOLING FAN LIGHT
- ADDITIONAL FAN INSTALLED (EFIS ONLY)
- DISTRIBUTION: MINOR CHANGES
- SP-300 AFDS REPLACES SP-77/SP-177
- AUTOTHROTTLE ADDED*
- AUTOLAND CAPABILITY ADDED* (*ONLY WHEN COMPARED TO SP-77
AIRPLANES)
- LNAV/VNAV
- TO/GA MODE
- MINOR CHANGES IN POWER
DISTRIBUTION
- CANNISTER OPTION ONLY*
- NEW CREW MASKS* (*OPTION ON SOME -200 AIRPLANES)
- DUAL-LOOP DETECTION SYSTEM
- MINOR EXTING. EQUIP. CONFIG CHANGE
- TWO SQUIBS PER BOTTLE SYSTEM 21 AIR COND. &
PRESSURIZATION 22 AUTO-FLIGHT 24 ELECTRICAL
25 EMERGENCY
EQUIPMENT 26 FIRE
PROTECTION
Appendix 2 FIGURE 3-2. SYSTEMS OPERATOR DIFFERENCE REQUIREMENTS TABLE EXAMPLE (Continued)
SYSTEMS OPERATOR DIFFERENCE REQUIREMENTS TABLE
COMPLIANCE METHOD
CHKG/CURR CURR
FLT CHK
TRAINING LVL E
LVL D
LVL C
LVL B AVT/ SU
(CBT/ AVT/ SU) AVT/ SU LVL A
DIFFERENCE AIRCRAFT: 737-300 BASE AIRCRAFT: 737-200 ADVANCED
APPROVED BY (POI):
PROC CHNG YES
(YES MIN- OR) YES FLT CHAR MINOR NO
REMARKS
- ADD’L SPOILERS ADDED
- ELECTRIC AIL TRIM
- DUAL CHANNEL MACH TRIM;
TEST BUTTON DELETED
- SPEED TRIM ADDED
- STAB TRIM BRAKE DELETED
- TWO SPEED STAB TRIM
- DIFFERENT STAB TRIM RANGE
- ELECTRIC STAB TRIM OVERRIDE
- ELECTRIC RUDDER TRIM
- AUTOSLAT SYS. ADDED
- TE FLAP PLACARD SPEEDS
- CERTIFIED T/O FLAP SETTINGS
- RUDDER SYSTEM ENHANCEMENT
- (OPTION: BLENDED WINGLET W/
SPEED BRAKE LOAD ALLEVIATION)
- CONTINUOUS FUEL HEAT SWITCHES
DELETED
- FILTER BYPASS LIGHT REPLACES
ICING LIGHT
- FUEL CAPACITY INCREASED
- GND XFER OF FUEL
- AUX TANK (OPTIONAL) SYSTEM 27 FLIGHT
CONTROLS 28 FUEL
Appendix 2 FIGURE 3-2. SYSTEMS OPERATOR DIFFERENCE REQUIREMENTS TABLE EXAMPLE (Continued)
SYSTEMS OPERATOR DIFFERENCE REQUIREMENTS TABLE
COMPLIANCE METHOD
CHKG/CURR CURR
FLT CHK
TRAINING LVL E
LVL D
LVL C
LVL B AVT/ SU AVT/ SU AVT/ SU AVT/ SU LVL A
DIFFERENCE AIRCRAFT: 737-300 BASE AIRCRAFT: 737-200 ADVANCED
APPROVED BY (POI):
PROC CHNG YES YES YES NO FLT CHAR NO NO NO NO
REMARKS
- LANDING GEAR XFER UNIT
- SYS A & B SOURCES AND COMPONENTS CHANGED; A & B
INDEPENDENT
- GROUND INTERCONNECT DELETED
- AUTOSLAT PTU
- THRUST REVERSER - ONE ON EACH SYSTEM
- B QUANTITY GUAGE ADDED
- STBY RUDDER ON LIGHT
- ENG INLET ANTI-ICE DELETED
- WING ANTI-ICE OPERATION ON GROUND PERMITTED* (*OPTION ON SOME -200 AIRPLANES)
- EFIS (AS INSTALLED)
- ADI/HIS (AS INSTALLED)
- NAV SWITCH (AS INSTALLED)
- NORM/ALT REPLACES A & B SYS BRAKES
- PAIRED WHEEL ANTI-SKID
PROTECTION ON ALT BRAKES
- TIRE SCREEN DELETED*
- NO TOUCHDOWN OR LOCKED WHEEL
PROTECTION ON ALT BRAKES
- SINGLE ANTI-SKID SWITCH (*OPTION ON SOME -200 AIRPLANES) SYSTEM 29 HYDRAULIC 30 ICE & RAIN
PROTECTION 31 FLIGHT
INSTRUMENTS 32 LANDING GEAR
Appendix 2 FIGURE 3-2. SYSTEMS OPERATOR DIFFERENCE REQUIREMENTS TABLE EXAMPLE (Continued)
SYSTEMS OPERATOR DIFFERENCE REQUIREMENTS TABLE
COMPLIANCE METHOD
CHKG/CURR CURR
D 90 DAYS + 3 FLT SEG.
B
FLT CHK
C* + OE
C*
TRAINING LVL E
LVL D
LVL C
CBT/ FMS/ AT
FMS/ AT
LVL B AVT/ SU AVT AVT/ SU AVT/ SU AVT/ SU AVT/ SU AVT/ SU LVL A
DIFFERENCE AIRCRAFT: 737-300 BASE AIRCRAFT: 737-200 ADVANCED
APPROVED BY (POI):
PROC CHNG YES YES NO YES YES NO NO FLT CHAR NO NO NO NO NO MINOR NO
REMARKS
- ADDITIONAL SYS ANNUNCIATOR
LIGHTS ADDED
- GPWS MODE 6 WINDSHEAR OPTION* (* OPTION ON SOME -200 AIRPLANES)
- FMCS ADDED
- IRS ADDED
- ANCDU
- DISTRIBUTION MINOR CHANGE
- CFM-56 ENGINES
- NEW INDICATORS
- CASCADING VANES TYPE REVERSER
WITH AUTO RESTOW
- PMC ADDED
- IGN SELECT SWITCH
- AUTOMATIC RECOVERY AVAILABLE IF
IN DUAL CHANNEL
- FLIGHT DIRECTOR GUIDANCE
AVAILABLE (OPTIONAL)
- CHANGED
- GROWTH RELATED CHANGES SYSTEM 33 WARNING 34 NAVIGATION 36 PNEUMATICS 73, 74, 77, 80
POWER PLANT
WINDSHEAR
EQUIPMENT
PERFORMANCE
LIMITATIONS
Appendix 2 FIGURE 3-3. MANEUVER OPERATOR DIFFERENCE REQUIREMENTS TABLE
EXAMPLE
MANEUVER OPERATOR DIFFERENCE REQUIREMENTS TABLE
COMPLIANCE METHOD
CHKG/CURR CURR D 90 DAYS +
FLT CHK C* + OE C*
TRAINING LVL E
LVL D
LVL C FMS/ AT FME/ AT LVL B AVT/ SU AVT/ SU LVL A
BASE AIRCRAFT: 737-200 ADVANCED
APPROVED BY (POI):
PROC CHNG SEE APP SEE APP FLT CHAR NO NO
REMARKS
- OPTIONAL USE OF AFDS, AND A/T (ALSO AN OPTION FOR -200 AFCS
AIRPLANES)
- OPTIONAL USE OF FMCS
- OPTIONAL USE OF AFDS, AND A/T (ALSO AN OP;TION FOR -200 AFCS
AIRPLANES)
- OPTIONAL USE OF FMCS
MANEUVER NORMAL
TAKEOFF, CLIMB,
CRUISE,
DESCENT,
INSTRUMENT
APPROACHES,
LANDING
NON-NORMAL
MANEUVERS Page 20
Appendix 2
(4) ODR Approval, Distribution, and Availability. ODRs are approved for each fleet by an operator’s FAA POI in accordance with FSB report recommendations. ODRs must be prepared, reviewed, approved, and then used to govern training before start of operations. The operator retains approved ODRs with a duplicate copy as part of FAA certificate-holding district office (CHDO) records.
(5) ODR Revision. ODR tables are revised by operators and re-approved by the FAA when fleet characteristics change or when compliance methods change. Fleet characteristic changes include redesignation of base aircraft, modification of aircraft, addition of aircraft, change of aircraft, or phaseout of aircraft. Changes in compliance methods refer to introduction of new or different training methods, contracting for use of different FSTDs, revision of checking or currency methods, or other such changes. Revisions to ODRs are also prepared, reviewed, and approved before operating.
NOTE: Paragraph 6 describes the development, approval, and application of ODR tables to individual operator’s programs. Paragraph 7 describes FAA review and approval of programs by POIs.
5. FORMULATION OF FSB REPORTS, MDRs, AND DETERMINATION OF TYPE RATINGS.
a. Formulation Process Overview. The process for FAA formulation and revision of MDR requirements is shown in Figure 4. The process determines which information is required for an aircraft; it includes a proposal for requirements, tests, and evaluations of the proposed requirements; it then finalizes, applies, and implements the FSB recommendations. Applicants propose MDRs, examples of ODRs, and any other FSB recommendations that are necessary.
Proposals for requirements are based on design objectives, analysis, evaluation of in-service experience, other programs that have been proved acceptable to the FAA, or other methods.
Setting of requirements is based on an objective set of tests and standards, analysis of results, and FAA judgments considering in-service experience. The applicant and the FAA prepare and conduct standardized tests. The applicant provides test support, and the FSB conducts the evaluation. The FSB, in conjunction with the applicant, evaluates the results, and the FAA formulates proposed minimum requirements. The FSB sets final recommendations by specifying MDRs and other FSB recommendations. An FSB report that describes findings can be found on the FSIMS under Publications. The formulation and application process of FSB recommendations starts at the time a new aircraft is proposed to the FAA and continues throughout the fleet life of that aircraft. For aircraft already in service the process may be initiated when significant modifications are proposed, a new piece of equipment (e.g., a HUD) requiring operational evaluation is introduced and requested by operators, or when mixed fleet flying takes place. The FAA addresses periodic revisions of requirements when necessary, and revisions are initiated by the FAA and applicants as needed.
b. Proposals for MDRs, Example ODRs, and Special Requirements.
(1) When Proposals are Necessary. The FAA usually determines when proposals are necessary and advises the applicant what information is needed, in conjunction with aircraft type certification or supplemental certification programs. Necessary information may include MDRs Page 21
Appendix 2 for related aircraft or other elements of the FSB reports. The applicant considers existing MDRs and existing or proposed ODRs.
(2) Proposal Formulation. An operator, manufacturer, or an organization that modifies aircraft proposes a new design or modification. The applicant will then do the following:
(a) Formulate necessary information for training, checking, and currency for the aircraft in proposals for MDRs and example ODRs.
(b) Prepare example ODR tables for candidate aircraft to support development of a proposed MDR. These examples represent proposals for programs for those specific aircraft and configurations that the FAA could approve.
(c) Identify related aircraft for the proposed MDR table.
(d) Formulate any necessary tests to assess difference levels and associated training, checking, and currency requirements for incorporation in the MDR table.
(e) Identify interpretations of possible test results. The FAA and the applicant will then reach an agreement on specific tests, devices, and schedules to be used for the test program.
(f) The applicant submits proposals for the following items to the FAA, as necessary:
• MDRs,
• Example ODRs,
• Tests and criteria to be used, and
• Other supporting information associated with training, checking, or currency programs.
c. Difference Level Tests. A sequence of five standard tests, described in Appendix 3, is used to set MDRs, minimum acceptable training programs, other FSB recommendations, and define type rating requirements. One or more of these tests are applied depending on the difference level sought, and the success of any previous tests used in identifying MDRs. Only those tests needed are used to establish minimum requirements. The outcome of these tests, and any resulting difference levels that apply, establish minimum requirements for training, checking, currency, and type ratings. The FAA will establish an additional type rating if it is determined during this testing that the assignment of a level E difference training is required.
NOTE: One additional test, the T6 test, can be used to establish CTLC between related aircraft, when not previously demonstrated in a T2 test.
(1) Steps in the Testing Process. The typical steps of the testing process are as follows:
(a) The applicant develops representative training programs, differences and/or related aircraft differences programs, and necessary supporting information, as needed.
(b) The applicant identifies proposed MDRs and example ODRs.
Appendix 2
(c) The applicant proposes and the FAA determines which tests and criteria apply.
(d) The applicant proposes and the FAA determines which aircraft, simulation devices, or analyses are needed to support testing.
(e) The applicant makes a proposal to the FAA, and agreement is reached on test procedures, schedules, and specific interpretation of possible results.
(f) Tests are conducted and results evaluated.
(g) The FSB draft minimum requirements are formulated.
NOTE: If the candidate aircraft is anticipated to have no greater than level A or B differences with the base aircraft, the FSB may elect to directly apply a T1 test for equivalency.
(2) Test Purpose and Application. A summary of the purpose and application of each of the six difference tests is shown in Figure 5.
(3) Test Relationships and Applications. This process is followed whenever a new aircraft is proposed, when significant changes are proposed, or when revisions to existing requirements are needed as a result of requests for change or in-service experience. The test process relationships, the sequence of conducting tests when more than one test is needed, and application of test outcomes are shown in Figure 6. The start of the process is shown at the top of Figure 6.
(a) When a new aircraft is certified and is not compared with an existing aircraft, the aircraft is evaluated using the T5 test to determine the effectiveness of the manufacturer training and evaluation plan. A type rating is determined as a result of the evaluation.
(b) When two aircraft with the same type certificate are compared, a T1 or T2/T3 test is used to determine the level of differences between the two aircraft. The result can be the assignment of a same type rating if no greater than Level D training differences exist or the assignment of a different type rating if Level E training differences exist.
(c) When two aircraft with different type certificates are compared, a T2/T3 test is used to determine the level of differences between the two aircraft. An example of this is a determination of B, C, D, or E training differences between the two aircraft.
(4) Test Failures and Retesting. Generally, failures do not have paths back to lower levels. T3 test failure at level C can lead to subsequent passage at C or D after modification of the system, operational procedures, or training and retesting. Similarly, failure at level D can subsequently lead to either D or E after modification of the system, operational procedures, or training and retesting, but not C. Failure at level E can only lead to retesting with increased programs, improved programs, or improved devices since there is no higher level. T5 test failure paths do not lead back to level C or level D. However, subsequent new programs do not preclude making a proposal at a lower difference level if technology changes, aircraft redesign takes place, training methods significantly change, or device characteristics and effectiveness change.
Appendix 2
(5) Type Rating Tests. Aircraft seeking a same type rating or type rating in common will follow the path in Figure 6 from the top right “START” of Figure 6 through T1 or T2 and T3 tests resulting in the assignment of level A, B, C, or D differences.
(6) “Currency” Tests. T4 currency tests are not shown in Figure 6 because they are necessary only when the applicant seeks relief from system, procedural, and maneuver currency requirements set by the FSB.
(7) Detailed Test Specifications. A detailed specification for the evaluation process and tests to establish difference levels is described in Appendix 3.
d. FSB Assessments and Proposal Formulation. The FSB assesses the applicant’s proposals, test results, analysis, and any other relevant factors to formulate a draft FSB report, which includes MDRs and other pertinent training, checking, and currency requirements. The FSB either validates the applicant’s proposed MDRs, training programs, and other information, or generates alternate requirements, which may include more stringent requirements, additional training, additional testing, etc.
Appendix 2 FIGURE 4. MASTER REQUIREMENTS FORMULATION
MASTER REQUIREMENTS FORMULATION (AN FAA/APPLICANT PROCESS) DESIGN
OBJECTIVES
PROPOSED MDRS
EVALUATION & TESTING COMMENTS
FSB REPORT
MDRS AND SAMPLE ODRS
FSB REPORT
APPROVAL
AND FAA
FIELD OFFICE USE FSB
REVISION REQUESTS
OPERATORS
MANUFACTURERS
FAA PRINCIPAL OPERATION
INSPECTORS
OTHER AVIATION ORGANIZATIONS
TYPICAL
MDRS & ODRS
APPLICANT
SUPPORT FAA FLIGHT
STANDARDIZATION BOARD (FSB)
Appendix 2 FIGURE 5. TEST DEFINITIONS
TEST PURPOSE APPLICATION T1 Establishes functional equivalence Sets levels A/B T2 Handling qualities comparison Pass permits T3, and A/B/C/D; failure sets level E and requires T5 T3 Evaluate differences and sets training/checking requirements Pass sets levels A/B/C/D; failure sets level E and requires T5 T4 Revises currency requirements Used to adjust FSB recommendations—if needed T5 Sets training/checking for new or “E” ACFT Sets level E T6 Evaluation for CTLC Sets recency of experience requirements Note: Expanded descriptions are contained in Appendix 3.
Appendix 2 FIGURE 6. “T” TESTS 1 THRU 5
“T” TESTS 1 THRU 5 Candidate Level E?T1 Req’d?
T3 Req’d?
T1 T2 T3 T5 LEVEL E No Commonality or T5 LEVEL E With B/C/D Commonality
SAME OR COMMON PILOT TYPE RATING START Level A Differences Level B Differences Level C Differences Level D Differences Level E Differences New T/R NO YES Waive T1 NO Pass Fail YES Fail Pass YES NO Pass Fail LEVEL A or B
A B C D E