2021 FSEMC Program - Flight Simulator Engineering & Maintenance Conference - ARINC Industry Activities
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
FSEMC
Flight Simulator Engineering & Maintenance Conference
2021 FSEMC
Program
October 12-13 – Opening, Symposiums & Expo
October 19-20 – Discussion Items
Sponsors & Exhibitors:
AN ARINC DOCUMENT As of Sept. 7
Prepared by FSEMC
Published by
SAE-ITC
16701 Melford Blvd., Suite 120
Bowie, Maryland, 20715
Reference 21-078/FSG-270
September 7, 2021
2021 FSEMC
Supporting Organizations
(As of September 1, 2021)
Primary Host:
OPEN
Platinum Shared Hosts:
OPEN
Gold Lobby Sponsors:
Gold Registration Sponsors:
Tuesday Break Sponsors:
Wednesday Break Sponsors:
Exhibitors:
To be recognized as the international authority on the Aviation
Training Device industry. To enhance the safety and operational
efficiency of aviation worldwide through the dissemination of
engineering, maintenance, and associated technical information,
including the development of consensus standards. To promote and
advance the state of the art of the Aviation Training Device industry.
FSEMC Mission Statement
2021 FSEMC Program
Welcome to the 2021 FSEMC! This year’s FSEMC is organized by ARINC Industry
Activities supported by the following organizations (as of September 7, 2021):
We are certain that your attendance at the FSEMC will prove enlightening and
beneficial.
The FSEMC Program is organized into two major sections. The general section
contains the information that you need to get the most benefit from this unique aviation
meeting. The FSEMC Discussion Items by Topic – the most important part of the
program – presents 30 Discussion Items and 2 follow-up items submitted by the
simulator users and suppliers that will be discussed at the FSEMC.
FSEMC Reminders
The FSEMC’s Opening Session is at 1000 EDT on Tuesday, October 12, 2021.
Please register in order to attend any part or day of the FSEMC.
2021 FSEMC Registration
This information will also be used in the attendance list in the FSEMC Report.
An updated list of attendees, as well as the entire FSEMC conference suite of
information is available, here:
2021 FSEMC General Information
The 2021 FSEMC is held virtual. Appropriate attire for web video and audio is
appreciated.
P-1
2021 FSEMC Program
FSEMC STEERING COMMITTEE ROSTER
Eric Fuilla-Weishaupt Chair Airbus
Joshua Brooks Vice Chair FlightSafety International
Howard Gallinger Air Canada
Atsushi Yokota All Nippon Airways
Mike Lilley American Airlines
Erik Drost CAE
Suresh Rodrigo Cathay Pacific Airways
Marc Cronan Collins Aerospace
Rick Lewis Delta Air Lines
Amr Samir EgyptAir
Mark Martin FedEx
Yusuf Cuhan IFTC
Richard van de Nouweland KLM/Air France
Sanjay Kaeley L3Harris Technologies
Michael Schofield Lufthansa Aviation Training
Tim Herget Moog
John Muller Muller Simulation Consultancy
Scott Smith Program Director ARINC IA, SAE ITC
P-2
2021 FSEMC Program
Table of Contents
FSEMC STEERING COMMITTEE P-2
FSEMC FOLLOW-UP ITEMS P-4
FSEMC SCHEDULE OF EVENTS P-5
2021 FSEMC QUESTIONS BY TOPIC See Below
2021 FSEMC Questions by Topic
PAGE
DATA SIMULATION AND TRAINING 1
SIMULATOR MAINTENANCE AND SYSTEM/MISC. 3
LOWER LEVEL DEVICES, NOT LEVEL D 10
INNOVATION IN SIMULATION 11
REGULATORY 14
ROTARY WING TRAINING AND UAV 18
P-3
2021 FSEMC Program
Follow-Up Items
The following list is a summary of OPEN items resulting from the 2019 FSEMC. The discussion
items contain references to proposed corrective measures.
To close an item, please work with the submitter and request them to provide written notification
when the item can be considered closed. The notification should include a brief summary of the
solution.
This should be submitted to Scott Smith at ARINC Industry Activities, smitty@sae-itc.org.
Item Section Submitter Respondent Follow-up
Resolve issue with rehosted FMS on
19-08 Data and Simulation LAT Honeywell
B747-800.
19-046 Sim Maintenance ASA CAE Intermittent loss of terrain data
P-42021 FSEMC Schedule of Events
All Times Shown are Eastern Time Zone
Tuesday – October 12
0945 – 1000 Conference doors open
1000 – 1010 Conference Open – Eric Fuilla-Weishaupt, Ph.D. FSEMC Chairman
1010 – 1050 Presentation – UAM/eVTOL – “The Next Generation” of FSTD Industry Standards
1050 – 1100 Break – Sponsor: Collins Aerospace
1100 – 1150 Presentation – Towards Intelligent Digitation of FSTD Maintenance and Operation
1150 – 1200 Break – Sponsor: Avion
1200 – 1250 Presentation – Challenges FSTD Capability Signature and Suitable Training
1250 – 1300 Break
1300 Adjourn for the Day
Wednesday – October 13
0945 – 1000 Conference doors open
1000 – 1010 Daily Open – Eric Fuilla-Weishaupt, Ph.D. FSEMC Chairman
1010 – 1050 Presentation – Paradigm Shift in Training & Impact to Simulation and Regulations
1050 – 1100 Break – Sponsor: Avion
1100 – 1150 Discussion – Regulatory Session
1150 – 1200 Break – Sponsor: Collins Aerospace
1200 – 1250 Discussion – Regulatory Session
1250 – 1300 Break
1300 Adjourn for the Day
Tuesday – October 19
0945 – 1000 Conference doors open
1000 – 1010 Daily Open – Eric Fuilla-Weishaupt, Ph.D. FSEMC Chairman
1010 – 1050 Presentation – Simulator Software Packages – Critical to Fidelity
1050 – 1100 Break
1100 – 1150 FSEMC Discussion Items
1150 – 1200 Break
1200 – 1250 FSEMC Discussion Items
1250 – 1300 Break
1300 Adjourn for the Day
Wednesday – October 20
Note: This day will only be utilized if needed.
0945 – 1000 Conference doors open
1000 – 1010 Daily Open
1010 – 1300 FSEMC Discussion Items
*Open Q&A Session – Time permitting after all program questions, the FSEMC will provide time
for an open exchange of section topic related information. Since there is no question pre-
notification, manufacturers may elect to simply accept an action to respond following the meeting.
P-5Tuesday, October 12, 2021 – 1010
UAM/eVTOL – “The Next Generation” of FSTD Industry Standards
Speaker: Mark Dransfield, FRAeS Sim Ops
ABSTRACT: Arguably we are on the edge of the next generation of aviation with Urban Air Mobility, covering both
manned and unmanned eVTOL operations. The projected market in 10 years’ time is significant in terms of pilot
numbers required prior to autonomous flight becoming acceptable.
Simulation will thus play a key role to train this next generation of pilots for UAM. To be successful we must not be
constrained by doing things the way we have always done them…we also need a new generation approach to
FSTDs, potentially embracing technologies such as VR/MR and AI, new FSTD regulation and best practices as
industry standards.
ARINC Industry Activities and the FSEMC has achieved this for fixed wing FSTDs over the last 20 years covering
all aspects of the simulator life cycle.
This presentation will make the case that the FSEMC committee should agree to engaging with the UAM OEMs,
TDMs and other industry parties to update/adaptation of the exist library of ARINC FSTD related standards, or
creation of new ones, taking into account this new market and new technologies
BIOGRAPHY: Mr. Dransfield is an independent Flight Simulation Training Device
(FSTD) regulatory consultant to Sim Ops and Salient companies, based out of the
UK, specializing in the evaluation and qualification of FSTDs in accordance with the
latest regulatory frameworks around the world
As such he is involved in various industry rule-making activities within the
regulatory agencies concerned with flight crew training, including EASA with whom
he is registered as an independent FSTD subject matter expert.
With over 25 years in the FSTD industry Mark has held various engineering and
senior management positions at several Training Device Manufactures
(Rediffusion, Thales Training & Simulation, Mechtronix, TRU Simulation & Training)
where he covered most aspects of commercial flight simulator engineering, Mark Dransfield
production, evaluation, qualification, customer support and strategic business Co-Founder
development. Sim Ops
In addition, Mark spent 3 years as a regulator as UK CAA Simulator Standards Manager responsible for managing
the regulatory oversight of all FSTD Qualifications within the UK, and on behalf of the JAA.
In 2018 he was awarded the Halldale CAT magazine Aviation Pioneer award and in 2019 the ARINC FSEMC
Edwin A. Link Award for his vision and services to the flight simulation industry.
Mark is a registered Chartered Engineer, Fellow of the Royal Aeronautical Society, past Chairman of the RAeS
Flight Simulation Group Committee for 2011 – 2013, and holds a BSc (Hons) degree in Aeronautical Engineering
from Queen Mary College, London University, United Kingdom.
As part of his work for the RAeS he has also co-chaired the International Working Group responsible for the update
of the current ICAO 9625 Edition 3: Manual of Criteria for the Qualification of FSTDs.
P-6Tuesday, October 12, 2021 – 1100
Towards Intelligent Digitation of FSTD Maintenance and Operation
Speakers: Walter Loch Leader, PDS Growth Strategy CAE
ABSTRACT: According to ICF1, 23,500 aircrafts over 39,000 fleets will be equipped with Aircraft Health
Monitoring (AHM) by 2027. This number is even announced to grow by at least 10% CAGR which sets the total
number of fleets of e-enabled aircraft to more than double by the next decade.
Parallelly, emerging technologies such data analytic, machine learning, and cloud computing have largely
accelerated the implementation, the adoption, and the quick return on investment of integrating this new concept.
The race is on, and new battlegrounds are emerging across the aircraft maintenance industry. New strategic
partnerships between airplane manufacturers (OEMs); Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul (MROs); and Hi-Tech
corporations, such as Airbus Skywise and Boeing Analytx, are covering the data value chain. This trend is fueled by
the heavy digitization process taking place within the airlines industry which could enable them to save billions of
dollars in maintenance annually.
A number of successful initiatives started to be reported recently and several airlines start seeing first tangible
benefits of their Aircraft Health Monitoring efforts: Delta Airline avoided 1000 engine events in one-year timestamp,
with Delta’s predictive approach. 31 instances of Skywise correctly predicted faults before they occurred in-service
for EasyJet. Cathay Pacific reduced APU-related delay minutes by 51% using Honeywell’s predictive maintenance
trial program.
This presentation will explore opportunities to apply similar concept for
Simulator Operation & Maintenance and leverage big data to reduce sim
operator costs, help increase efficiency and reliability. We will expose
options, criteria, and constraints that should be considered by TDMs to catch
the digitization train in-relate to sim maintenance lifecycle. The availability of
huge amount of data in different industries has empowered the creation of
new core disciplines to leverage all this information, while using Artificial
Intelligence to accurately predict key variables under complex scenarios.
Successful application of emerging technologies goes beyond predicting and
replacing components, it incorporates operations and helps sim operators to
better manage their fleets and inventory.
BIOGRAPHY: Mr. Loch joined CAE in 1992 as an aerodynamics specialist.
He was responsible for the design, implementation, and validation of flight
performance models on numerous fixed and rotary wing aircraft. The early
part of his career saw him travelling the world, supporting numerous.
simulator acceptances and qualification events with global operators and
their associated regulatory agencies. Since 1999, he has held many
leadership roles within CAE, in both Hardware Engineering and Software
Development organizations, serving both the civil and military business
units. In March of 2017, he was promoted to Leader, Growth Strategy for the Walter Loch
civil aftermarket business. Walter has a bachelor's degree in Mechanical Leader, PDS Growth Strategy
Engineering, with a specialization in Aerospace Engineering, from McGill CAE
University in Montreal.
P-7Tuesday, October 12, 2021 – 1300
Challenges FSTD Capability Signature and Suitable Training
Speakers: Eric Fuilla-Weishaupt, Ph.D Airbus
ABSTRACT: An approach linking training tasks to suitable training tools has been defined in ICAO Doc 9625 ed4.
This approach was taken on board by EASA, resulting in the recently issued Notice of Proposed Amendment
NPA 2020-15. This approach defines the characteristics of the training tools as its FSTD Capability Signature
(FCS).
The FCS approach aims at encouraging the industry to use devices offering the right level of fidelity for the training
to be performed.
Until now, the prevailing approach in our industry has been to make massive use
of the highest fidelity data for the high-end device of choice, the Level D Full
Flight Simulator.
Based on this existing situation, Airbus GO5 has been delivering, for many years,
a SimPack suited to the Level D FFS.
The “task-to-tool” approach leads Airbus GO5 to question the content of the
SimPack, in order to adapt it to the customer’s targeted FCS.
This presentation aims at explaining Airbus GO5’s perspective and drivers that
may enable adapting the SimPack to the FCS approach.
BIOGRAPHY: Eric works in the Airbus Aircraft Simulation Solutions group
(GO5), as an expert in Simulator Qualification and Regulation. He is involved in
the Flight Simulation Training Devices (FSTDs) regulatory aspects related to the
Airbus SimPack (made of Data Package, Simulation Software Package, and
Hardware). Eric Fuilla-Weishaupt
FSTD Qualification and
He coordinated the modifications and enhancements of the SimPack related to Regulations, GO5
stall modelling and UPRT, that allowed to support the qualification of FSTDs with Airbus
regard to the FSTD regulations issued by FAA (14 CFR Part 60 Effective 2016)
and EASA (CS-FSTD(A) Issue 2).
He is the Chairman of the EASA Rulemaking Task 0196 (RMT.0196). He was involved in the changes to CS-FSTD
for UPRT, Stall and Icing requirements, as well as changes to CS-SIMD, and more recently changes to CS-FSTD
in order to incorporate the FSTD Capability Signature (FCS) concept and the ICAO Doc 9625 methodology.
He is the Chairman of the Flight Simulation Engineering and Maintenance Conference (FSEMC), and he also
represents Airbus in the Royal Aeronautical Society (RAeS) Flight Simulation Group (FSG).
P-8Wednesday, October 13, 2021 – 1010
Paradigm Shift in Training & Impact to Simulation and Regulations
Speakers: Itash Samani, Global Head of Regulatory Affairs CAE
ABSTRACT: As we move away from the traditional prescriptive training methods to competency-based training
and assessment, it is apparent that we need to reexamine how flight simulation training devices are used under
these new methods!
The presenters examine the key changes in the training methodology and the changes needed, in terms of
technology and the regulatory framework, to support this new
training paradigm.
Furthermore, the presenters look at the limitations of the current
regulatory framework which has been in place for over 50 years
and propose substantive changes to the framework to support the
new paradigm in training, as well to provide practical solutions to
the limitations imposed by the current system and the unintended
consequences including impact of coronavirus, drive to reduce the
carbon footprint, cybersecurity amongst other issues we face
today.
Itash Samani
Global Leader of Regulatory Affairs
CAE
P-9Tuesday, October 19, 2021 – 1010
Simulator Software Packages – Critical to Fidelity
Speakers: TBD Airbus
ABSTRACT: In order to ease integration, ensure homogeneity among Flight Simulation Training Devices (FSTDs)
and make support more efficient, Airbus delivers more and more Simulation Software Package (SSP) components.
In the past, text specification used to prevail, requiring from the Training Device Manufacturers (TDMs) that they
coded the simulation models.
When using such SSPs, it is important that models are integrated as delivered, without modifications or alteration of
coefficients. It is a matter of quality of training.
The presentation will provide insight on past and present examples where the transition from traditional text
specification to SSP has led Airbus to realize that adjustment of specified coefficients may have been performed
during integration and acceptance of FSTDs.
The goal of this presentation is to insist on the importance of integrating models and SSPs as delivered, in order to
ensure the fidelity of the FSTDs. When facing difficulties in the integration or acceptance process between the TDM
and their customer, the first action should be to contact Airbus in order to identify the origin of the discrepancy
between the expected and the actual behavior of the FSTD.
P-10Reference 21-078/FSG-270 – Page 1
DATA SIMULATION AND TRAINING
Item Part No. (Sim Mfr & TDM/Vendor Year of Aircraft From
Summary Title Component
No. Vendor) Name Mfr Type User
ARINC Industry Rotary Wing Sim Ops
21-001
Standards Training and UAV
The FSEMC and ARINC IA has produced many standards of great benefit to the fixed wing simulation community
over the past years covering all aspects of the simulator life cycle.
Arguably we are on the edge of the next generation of aviation with Urban Air Mobility (UAM) covering both
manned and unmanned operations and in which simulation will play a key role, potentially embracing
technologies such as VR/MR and AI.
Consequently, it is proposed that the FSEMC committee agree to engaging the industry to review the potential to
update/adaptation of the existing library of ARINC FSTD related standards or creation of new ones taking into
account this new market and new technologies.
Other users’, suppliers’, and OEMs comments, please.
Item Part No. (Sim Mfr & TDM/Vendor Year of Aircraft From
Summary Title Component
No. Vendor) Name Mfr Type User
FSTD Product Loads Simulation Software Sim Ops
21-002
Package
At the 2019 FSEMC there was considerable discussion regarding the pros and cons of FSTD product loads.
How successful has the move to simulator product loads been from the operators viewpoint during the pandemic?
Particularly regarding the quality of the loads, the testing by the TDMs and the ability to get corrections (in a timely
manner) to your own discrepancies.
Other users, suppliers, and OEM comments, please.
Item Part No. (Sim Mfr & TDM/Vendor Year of Aircraft From
Summary Title Component
No. Vendor) Name Mfr Type User
21-003 FSTD Software Product Boeing
Certification
The industry held exploratory discussions around software release with an ARINC meeting in Atlanta back in
January 2020.
Since then, efforts have stagnated since then due to the Covid pandemic. Throughout the pandemic regulators
conducted oversight using different methods, and some of the benefits of common software loads have been
utilized for updates across multiple devices.
Boeing believes that the information learned throughout this period of alternative oversight should be built upon to
evolve the industry and regulatory oversight methods in line with FSTD software management advances and
commonality of simulation software for some types of FSTD.Reference 21-078/FSG-270 – Page 2
DATA SIMULATION AND TRAINING
The ARINC Software Release Working Group should be reconvened to focus their efforts in this area, and to
derive standards and guidance on ‘product certification’ of simulation software.
Other users, suppliers, and OEM comments, please.
Item Part No. (Sim Mfr & TDM/Vendor Year of Aircraft From
Summary Title Component
No. Vendor) Name Mfr Type User
21-004 Updating Legacy TDM Simulation Software Sim Ops
FSTDs Package
Since the pandemic began there has been a definite rise in the number of FSTDs being relocated and updated
and transferring ownership.
With the TDMs increasingly restricting the ability, via product loads, IPR and licensing means, of third party and/or
independent contractors to carry-out updates/upgrades on such devices:
How comfortable are operators with being forced to single source these services, especially for FSTDs from
legacy training device manufacturers?
Other users’, suppliers’, and OEMs comments, please.
******19-008******
Item Part No. (Sim Mfr & TDM/Vendor Year of Aircraft From
Summary Title Component
No. Vendor) Name Mfr Type User
FMC BP4.0 Update FMC CAE 2012 747-8 LAT
Honeywell
Boeing
747-8 FMC BP update 4.0
In October 2016, Boeing contacted the 747-8 simulator operators to collect issues related to the 747-8 CAE FMC
rehost. As far as I know, all simulator operators reported those problems, and a consolidated list of these issues
was created by Boeing. The remediations should have been jointly developed by Honeywell and CAE to be
integrated into the FMC BP 4.0.
Beginning 2019, BP 4.0 was made available for the 747-8 airplanes equipped with the new-generation FMS,
accompanied by various SBs giving details of the improvements and corrections for the airplanes.
Until now, there is no information available about the improvements of BP 4.0 in the simulation environment.
Can Boeing/CAE please give details of the update? Are simulator FMC issues addressed?
Boeing, CAE, Honeywell, and other operator comments, please.Reference 21-078/FSG-270 – Page 3
SIMULATOR MAINTENANCE AND SYSTEM/MISC.
Item Part No.(Sim Mfr & Aircraft From
Summary Title Component TDM/Vendor Year of Mfr
No. Vendor) Type User
21-005 Boeing 737NG - AOA 1997 737NG LAT
Failure and Trim
Wheel Forces
Boeing has published simulator data bulletins to support simulation of AOA disagree malfunction and to verify trim
wheel forces with official data.
• Do operators consider updating their legacy devices to implement these features?
• Boeing, please elaborate on the need to do so.
Other users’, suppliers’, regulatory, and OEMs comments, please.
Item Part No.(Sim Mfr & Aircraft From
Summary Title Component TDM/Vendor Year of Mfr
No. Vendor) Type User
21-006 Outsourcing Sim
Maintenance Ops
Operations
With some of the TDMs contracting out Field Service and installations to third parties, has this simply been to
mitigate the effects of pandemic travel restrictions, or do we see this as part of the new normal post pandemic?
Other users’ and suppliers’ comments, please.
Item Part No.(Sim Mfr & Aircraft From
Summary Title Component TDM/Vendor Year of Mfr
No. Vendor) Type User
21-007 Repositioning Time Full Flight Sim L3Harris 2019 A320 ANA
After Airbus STD
Update
One of our A320 FFS, manufactured by L3Harris, was updated from STD 1.9 to STD 2.0 in 2019. After the
update, the repositioning time was extended from 20-30 sec. to 50-60 sec.
ANA has found this is inefficient for training and the instructors are complaining.
We have asked L3Harris about the increase in time, but we still have not received the solution from them.
As a side note, EP-8100 visual system is equipped on that device.
Other operators please share your experience and/or solutions about same or similar problems if you have.
L3Harris comments, please.Reference 21-078/FSG-270 – Page 4
SIMULATOR MAINTENANCE AND SYSTEM/MISC.
*****19-046****
Item Part No. (Sim Mfr & TDM/Vendor Year of Aircraft From
Summary Title Component
No. Vendor) Name Mfr Type User
Intermittent “TERR FSS CAE 737NG ASA
FAIL”
We have experienced intermittent terrain data loss and associated TERR FAIL messages on either the captain, or
FO, side on one of our 737NG CAE devices (averaging about 18 occurrences per year). We were initially told
“This is a fleet design problem that manifests itself only on few sims. The signal strength measured at the displays
is below the threshold and needs to be boosted.”
Installation of powered amplifier – DU COAX splitter tray; an alternate work configuration for PCMIPWXR
_20180404; replacing all three PCMIP_WXR daughter boards in the FSS node with version (tab 63); replacing the
70-ohm cable between the FSS node and the EGPWS computer; all have failed to resolve the issue. When the
problem occurs, stopping and restarting the FSS process on the FSS node, from within Launchpad, will generally
temporarily clear the issue.
Have any other users experienced a similar issue with intermittent TERR FAIL.
Other users’, OEMs, TDMs, and suppliers’ comments, please.
Item Part No.(Sim Mfr & Aircraft From
Summary Title Component TDM/Vendor Year of Mfr
No. Vendor) Type User
21-008 ISFD Modification for ISFD C16221MA01 Thales 2005 737 ANA
Simulator Use Avionics
We are using simulated ISFD (P/N C16743AA01) on 737NG FFS, but it is already obsolete. So, ANA is
considering using the aircraft ISFD on the FFS.
Aircraft ISFD (P/N C16221MA01) has a simulator mode. So, does any operator have an experience to modify the
aircraft ISFD for using on your FSTD?
Other users’, OEMs, TDMs, and suppliers’ comments, please.Reference 21-078/FSG-270 – Page 5
SIMULATOR MAINTENANCE AND SYSTEM/MISC.
Item Part No.(Sim Mfr & Aircraft From
Summary Title Component TDM/Vendor Year of Mfr
No. Vendor) Type User
21-009 Industry Technical Boeing
Resource Levels and
Competence
The level of engineering resources available within the industry, and the maintaining the health of the pipeline
supplying that future resource to the industry is a challenge.
Do operators and TDM’s feel confident they can continue to source and train the technical competence needed to
support the in-service FSTD fleets of varying levels of technology over the next 10+ years?
Where is the resource envisaged to come from?
What retention strategies do operators and TDMs employ to maintain competent resources within their
organizations?
Other users’, OEMs, TDMs, and suppliers’ comments, please.
Item Part No.(Sim Mfr & Aircraft From
Summary Title Component TDM/Vendor Year of Mfr
No. Vendor) Type User
21-010 In-Service Simulator Boeing
Support
Do TDMs keep an operational in-house simulation running that reflects what is operational on a customer’s device
in order to allow investigation of post-delivery issues raised via their customer portals?
Other users, OEMs, TDMs, and suppliers’ comments, please.
Item Part No.(Sim Mfr & Aircraft From
Summary Title Component TDM/Vendor Year of Mfr
No. Vendor) Type User
21-011 Product Design Life Boeing
With the increased use of COTS components, do the TDMs expect a reduction in FSTD design life?
Can the TDMs discuss their philosophies for supporting COTS obsolescence issues with regards to customer
desires to delay obsolescence updates?
Other users’, OEMs, TDMs, and suppliers’ comments, please.Reference 21-078/FSG-270 – Page 6
SIMULATOR MAINTENANCE AND SYSTEM/MISC.
Item Part No.(Sim Mfr & Aircraft From
Summary Title Component TDM/Vendor Year of Mfr
No. Vendor) Type User
21-012 Reliability Data Simulator Maintenance Ansett
Aviation
Training
Now that more and more simulators (New and Old) have had UPRT updates, are we seeing a higher failure rate
or a decreased reliability rate across the world?
Have any platforms developed cracks in the structure, if so are TDMs issuing service bulletins or updated
preventative maintenance procedures?
Other users’, OEMs, TDMs, and suppliers’ comments, please.
Item Part No.(Sim Mfr & Aircraft From
Summary Title Component TDM/Vendor Year of Mfr
No. Vendor) Type User
21-013 Decontamination Simulator Maintenance Ansett
Aviation
Training
With many simulator operators around the world implementing strict cleaning/disinfecting protocol before after
sessions, how are the OEM’s review types of chemicals that are suitable for use in the simulators?
Other users’, OEMs, TDMs, and suppliers’ comments, please.
Item Part No.(Sim Mfr & Aircraft From
Summary Title Component TDM/Vendor Year of Mfr
No. Vendor) Type User
21-014 Long Response Simulator Maintenance All Ansett
Times Aviation
Training
Excessively long supplier response times for AOG or other critical support requests due to obsolescence or
component supply issues can have a serious impact on a training device operator’s business.
One example are motion actuators – long lead times impact FSTD users’ operations.
What are TDM’s and other suppliers doing to address/improve these response times?
Item Part No.(Sim Mfr & Aircraft From
Summary Title Component TDM/Vendor Year of Mfr
No. Vendor) Type User
21-015 Rudder Setup on Rudder Aircraft Parts 184676-01 CAE 1991 747 MSC BV
747-400
From some recent experiences, I have seen two (2) different CAE built 747-400 FSTDs in the last year.
I have had issues where the rudder pedal and the mechanical linkage to the control loading system broke.Reference 21-078/FSG-270 – Page 7
SIMULATOR MAINTENANCE AND SYSTEM/MISC.
Have other 747-400 users experienced this problem? How have they solved it?
Broken Part (Assembled)Reference 21-078/FSG-270 – Page 8
SIMULATOR MAINTENANCE AND SYSTEM/MISC.
The Aircraft PartReference 21-078/FSG-270 – Page 9
SIMULATOR MAINTENANCE AND SYSTEM/MISC.
Broken and Good PartsReference 21-078/FSG-270 – Page 10
LOWER LEVEL DEVICES, NOT LEVEL D
Item Part No.(Sim Mfr & Year of Aircraft From
Summary Title Component TDM/Vendor
No. Vendor) Mfr Type User
21-016 COTS FSEMC
How are airlines and other FSTD users dealing with obsolescence on their lower-level devices that use COTS
equipment and software?
Other users’, OEMs, TDMs, and suppliers’ comments please.Reference 21-078/FSG-270 – Page 11
INNOVATION IN SIMULATION
Item Part No.(Sim Mfr Year of Aircraft From
Summary Title Component TDM Vendor Name
No. & Vendor) Mfr Type User
Qualification of
21-017 Qualification Criteria Airbus
FSTDs
Qualification of FSTDs using “new” technologies: XR (Cross Reality, Virtual, Augmented, Mixed)
Visualization technologies such as virtual reality, when implemented on Flight Simulation Training Devices
(FSTDs) may be considered as a visual system.
Such technologies, combined with various devices and panels, may be considered as well as a flight deck and
flight controls.
The existing regulatory criteria are defined in the context of a “physical” FSTD.
Regulators: what would be your recommendations to Training Device Manufacturers (TDMs) aiming at qualifying
such novel FSTDs?
Users, TDMs: what is your feedback?Reference 21-078/FSG-270 – Page 12
INNOVATION IN SIMULATION
Item Part No.(Sim Year of Aircraft From
Summary Title Component TDM Vendor Name
No. Mfr & Vendor) Mfr Type User
21-018 Health & Safety Airbus
Effects
Health & Safety Effects of Virtual Reality in a Professional Flight Training Context.
Airbus has been developing a Virtual Reality (VR) SOP Training solution to allow pilots to drill their procedures to
perfection outside of FSTDs. This solution is our first step in flight training with the latest generation of immersive
technology.
In order to prepare the entry into service of this solution, we analyzed the academic “state of the art” dealing with
the Health and Safety effects of VR.
In order to refine these results, we decided to conduct our own Human Factors and Health and Safety study, with
a population of experienced type-rated pilots, subject to medical regulation (Medical Class 1), in a professional
context where flight safety is the priority.
This study is still ongoing, however at this stage we have observed some effects, which may imply the definition
of a set of precautions for use:
• Time of VR use vs rest time,
• Time between VR sessions and flight/FSTD duty, etc.
We propose to provide an overview of the academic “state of the art” and the results of this study to start the
discussion during the FSEMC.
We are very interested to hear from other OEM’s, ATO’s, Virtual Reality Head Mounted Devices manufacturers,
and other VR development teams.
We are especially curious to hear from industry any results from Human Factors testing for new users over longer
durations and over repeated sessions.
Users’, TDMs, comments please.
Item Part No.(Sim Year of Aircraft From
Summary Title Component TDM Vendor Name
No. Mfr & Vendor) Mfr Type User
21-019 EASA Qualification of Boeing
VR FSTD
EASA has recently issued their first qualification to a VR-based FSTD as an FNPT II and FTD 3.
We would like to hear more about the process that was followed by both the applicant (VR Motion) and EASA,
and how an equivalent level of safety to that specified in CS-FSTD(H) for the qualification’s levels granted was
demonstrated.
Were any special conditions prescribed to the qualification and if so, how were these derived by EASA? What
evaluation process was followed?
Users’, TDMs, comments please.Reference 21-078/FSG-270 – Page 13
INNOVATION IN SIMULATION
Item TDM/Vendor Part Year of Aircraft From
Summary Title Component TDM/Vendor
No. No. Mfr Type User
21-020 Mixed Reality FSI
Training Device
Qualification
In the wake of EASA qualifying the first Mixed Reality training device for pilot training credit, are there any lessons
learned from the regulatory standpoint that can shared with industry?
Other users’, suppliers’, and regulators’ comments, please.Reference 21-078/FSG-270 – Page 14
REGULATORY
Item TDM/Vendor Part Year of Aircraft From
Summary Title Component TDM/Vendor
No. No. Mfr Type User
21-021 Qualification of Regulatory Criteria Airbus
FSTDs
Qualification of FSTDs for novel aircraft categories (not airplanes, not helicopters).
Over the recent past years (and probably for the coming years), new aircraft categories (mostly eVTOLs) have
been defined and are on their way to certification.
In order to train the flight crews of these aircraft, the use of simulation and Flight Simulation Training Devices
(FSTDs) may seem a reasonable approach.
These aircraft do not always fall into one of the usual (and regulated) categories of aircraft (airplanes or
helicopters). Therefore, the existing regulations for FSTDs may not offer the appropriate FSTD criteria enabling
proper definition and assessment for such aircraft categories.
Regulators: What would be your recommendations to aircraft manufacturers and TDMs?
Aircraft manufacturers: What are your approaches in order to define and collect data packages?
Training Device Manufacturers (TDMs): What are your approaches in order to qualify FSTDs for such categories
of aircraft?
Regulator and other user comments, please.
Item TDM/Vendor Part Year of Aircraft From
Summary Title Component TDM/Vendor
No. No. Mfr Type User
21-022 QTG Ideal Approach ANA
Latest qualification standard requires “hundred” of cases of objective testing to demonstrate a device
fidelity/accuracy to prove certain qualification level at both initial qualification and continuous evaluation.
Especially Section 1 & 2 of objective testing, these tests only prove an implemented model has not been changed
since last time run.
In other words, if operator or TDM will be able to prove no software change within a model and manage
configuration control, these tests would not be necessary running in regularly basis. Regularly running of any
hardware-in-the-loop testing (e.g., Controls, Motion, Visual, and Sound) should be essential.
Operators’, TDMs, and regulators’ comments please.Reference 21-078/FSG-270 – Page 15
REGULATORY
Item TDM/Vendor Part Year of Aircraft From
Summary Title Component TDM/Vendor
No. No. Mfr Type User
21-023 ICAO 9625 and EASA CS FSTD Sim Ops
Currently there are separate ICAO 9625 and EASA CS FSTD regulatory documents for fixed wing versus
helicopter FSTD qualifications. We will soon see additional aircraft types in our training centers for vehicles such
as eVTOL and even airships, using new technologies such as VR/MR, that may require additional volumes of
regulation.
Do FSEMC attendees support the current industry regulatory discussion that there is potentially great benefit in
establishing a common regulatory framework/document covering FSTD qualification requirements for any type of
aircraft and FSTD technology?
Other users, suppliers’, and regulators’ comments, please.
Item TDM/Vendor Part Year of Aircraft From
Summary Title Component TDM/Vendor
No. No. Mfr Type User
21-024 UPRT, V-n Plot, Stall UPRT, IOS feedback CAE CRJ900 LAT
Speed Parabolic Line tool
L3Harris 737-800
Others 777-200LR
777-300ER
For the mentioned aircraft types the lower airspeed limit (parabolic line) in the V-n-plot of the UPRT IOS feedback
tool made is not depending on altitude as it is required to comply with CS-FSTD(A) Issue 2, AMC12 FSTD(A).300
Furthermore, just the values for 10,000 ft are provided.
Background seems to be that the limited data are considered to be sufficient for proper UPRT training.
LAT has got a bunch of high-level complaint from their certifying authority. Restrictions are very likely if the issue
will not be resolved.
• What are other operators experience with respect to training value and potential authority complaints?
• What is OEM’s position to provide the required data?
• Can TDM’s obtain the required data from other sources or modelling?
• What is regulators position?
Other users’, suppliers’, and regulators’ comments, please.Reference 21-078/FSG-270 – Page 16
REGULATORY
Item TDM/Vendor Part Year of Aircraft From
Summary Title Component TDM/Vendor
No. No. Mfr Type User
21-025 FSTD Capability Sim
Signature Ops
With the recent publication of EASA NPA 2020-15 regarding the possible update of CS-FSTD(A) requirements for
FSTDs:
Have any EASA regulated FSTD operators started to try classifying their FSTDs using the proposed FSTD
Capability Signature (FCS) methodology?
Can they share their experiences and the outcomes of how they went about this?
Other users’, suppliers’, and regulators’ comments, please.
Item TDM/Vendor Part Year of Aircraft From
Summary Title Component TDM/Vendor
No. No. Mfr Type User
21-026 Evolution of FSTD Boeing
Evaluation Methods
The Covid 19 pandemic has seen regulators change their oversight methods to ensure their regulatory obligations
have still been met and safety oversight of industry maintained.
Examples of this have been initial and recurrent evaluations conducted remotely with live video feeds, and
recurrent evaluations conducted by documentary submittal and review. Some of this change has been
underpinned with the application of risk-based principles to the methods employed. Risk based oversight is
something that most, if not all regulators are moving towards with differing levels of maturity at present.
However, the notion of return to normal operations carries the risk of losing sight of the benefits and efficiencies
seen by industry with these changes, which have come without the erosion of safety margins.
Now is the time to change – the majority of regulator risk-based oversight activity has only focused on recurrent
evaluations; the opportunity exists to widen the scope to also include initial and special evaluations.
Other users’, suppliers’, and regulators’ comments, please.Reference 21-078/FSG-270 – Page 17
REGULATORY
Item TDM/Vendor Part Year of Aircraft From
Summary Title Component TDM/Vendor
No. No. Mfr Type User
21-027 Status of EASA NPA Boeing
2020-15 and
Regulation Updates
Can EASA provide an update on the status of NPA 2020-15 sharing the themes of the comments raised, next
steps, plans for the regulation updates?
Can EASA provide an update on the status of NPA 2021-03?
Can EASA provide a status on future rule making activities?
Other users’, suppliers’, and regulators’ comments, please.
Item TDM/Vendor Part Year of Aircraft From
Summary Title Component TDM/Vendor
No. No. Mfr Type User
21-028 Software Releases Regulatory Ansett
Aviation
Training
With OEM’s now having more control over their product and only providing periodic product or load releases, are
they engaging with worldwide regulators in developing requirements for testing/evaluating those loads?
Other user, supplier, and regulator comments, please.
Item TDM/Vendor Part Year of Aircraft From
Summary Title Component TDM/Vendor
No. No. Mfr Type User
21-029 Alternate Means of Regulatory Ansett
Compliance Aviation
Training
For UPRT training, how are regulators and operators approaching the “alternate” methods of training?
Are they using a similar aircraft type/frame?
How are regulators working with operators of simulators as well as airlines to progress this method of training?
Have any FFS been approved as an alternate method of compliance for a different type?
Other users’, suppliers’, and regulators’ comments, please.Reference 21-078/FSG-270 – Page 18
ROTARY WING TRAINING AND UAM
Item Part No. (Sim Mfr & Year of Aircraft From
Summary Title Component TDM Vendor Name
No. Vendor) Mfr Type User
21-030 UPRT CAE
Requirements
Are the regulators and/or industry, aware of any UPRT requirements for rotary wing training? Are any operators
already conducting such a training scenario on their device?
Operators, Training Device Manufacturers, and Regulatory Authorities please comment.You can also read
