Anda di halaman 1dari 68

Flight Simulator Engineering & Maintenance Conference

2018 FSEMC
Program
September 17-20
Irving, Texas
AN ARINC DOCUMENT
Hosted by:
Prepared by FSEMC
Published by
SAE-ITC
16701 Melford Blvd., Suite 120
Bowie, Maryland, 20715

Reference 18-101/FSG-245
July 27, 2017

Please Print and Bring a Copy of this Program to the Meeting!


FSEMC Mission Statement

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.
2018 FSEMC Program
Welcome to the 2018 FSEMC in Irving, Texas. This year’s FSEMC is organized by
ARINC Industry Activities and hosted by RSi Visual Systems. 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 93 Discussion Items and 9 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 0830 on Tuesday, September 19, 2018.

Please bring an up-to-date business card when you register. This information will be
used in the attendance list in the FSEMC Report.

The FSEMC Program, including an updated list of attendees, is available at:

https://www.aviation-ia.com/conferences/fsemc-improving-flight-simulator-engineering-
and-maintenance

The FSEMC Steering Committee has decided that Business Casual (e.g., no ties or
jackets for gentlemen) is the appropriate dress for all FSEMC events.

Table of Contents
FSEMC SCHEDULE OF EVENTS P-3

FSEMC TECHNOLOGY WORKSHOP P-4

FSEMC OPENING SESSION P-5

FSEMC INDUSTRY SESSION P-6

FSEMC AWARDS P-7

FSEMC ELECTIONS P-11

FSEMC GUIDELINES P-12

FSEMC HOSPITALITY AND SPONSORSHIP P-16

2017 FSEMC FOLLOW-UP ITEMS P-17

2018 FSEMC QUESTIONS BY TOPIC See Next Page

P-1
2018 FSEMC Questions by Topic
PAGE

DATA AND SIMULATION 1

PRODUCT SUPPORT 7

VISUAL 14

STANDARDS/TRAINING 18

HOST COMPUTER AND PERIPHERALS 21

MOTION AND CONTROL LOADING 23

OTHER TRAINING DEVICES 28

INTERFACE 29

MISCELLANEOUS – FLIGHT SIMULATOR SYSTEMS 32

AVIONICS 35

REGULATORY 40

SUPPORT INFRASTRUCTURE 46

OPERATOR CODES End

P-2
2018 FSEMC Schedule of Events
Monday – September 17
1200 - 1900 Early Registration
1300 - 1600 Technology Workshop
1700 - 1900 FSEMC Reception

Tuesday – September 18
0730 Registration Opens
0830 Opening Session
0930 FSEMC Discussion
1120 Presentation – Cyber Security vs. System Performance – Which Will You Choose?
1200 Lunch
1330 Presentation – How to Improve an FSTD Technical Operation
1430 FSEMC Discussion
1525 Presentation – Simulation within an Advance Qualification Program (AQP) Training Program
1600 FSEMC Discussion
1630 Recess

Wednesday – September 19
0730 Registration Opens
0830 Industry Session
0930 Presentation – Pilot Training for NextGen & SESAR Operations – Maintaining the Illusion in
a Data-Rich 20-20 Operation Environment
1025 FSEMC Discussion
1120 Presentation – China Navigation Technology (ADS-B) Roadmap/Deployment Status and the
Impact of Technology Insertion in FSTD
1200 Lunch
1330 Presentation – Resolution Versus Frame Rate – A Cost/Performance/Training Benefit
Comparison
1400 FSEMC Discussion
1630 Recess

Thursday – September 20
0730 Registration Opens
0830 Presentation – Capabilities in Extended Envelope Training, Current Status/Achievements
0900 Regulatory Session
- EASA Presentation/Update
- FAA Presentation/Update
- Other NAAs
1025 Continue Regulatory Session
1120 Presentation – Virtual Reality in Flight Training
1200 Lunch
1330 Continue Regulatory Session
1525 FSEMC Discussion
TBD Open Q&A
1600 Adjourn *

*Open Q&A Session – Time permitting, on Thursday afternoon FSEMC will include an Open Q&A
Session for 30 minutes prior to adjourning the meeting. This is intended to provide an open
exchange of information. Since there is no question pre-notification, manufacturers may elect to
simply accept an action to respond following the meeting.
Coffee Breaks
Coffee breaks will be provided daily at approximately 1000 and 1500.

P-3
2018 FSEMC Technology Workshop
Monday, September 17, 2018 – 1300-1600

The FSEMC Steering Committee will hold an open forum setting to discuss hot
topics in the flight simulation industry.

Panel
Participants Topics Place
(expected)
Other Training Devices (Everything not an FFS)
Rick Lewis
- New technology applications
Mike Jackson
- Tailoring training to appropriate levels
Eric Fuilla-Weishaupt
- EASA’s recent efforts and explorations
John Muller Las
COTS: Friend or Enemy? Colinas
Dave Neilson Ballroom
Simulator support, obsolescence, and updates
Jeremy Wise

Moog/E2M/KLM Motion Cueing in Lower Level FSTD/Maintenance

All participants are welcome to exchange a free flow of ideas and concerns, and to
discuss implications of technology facing the industry today and in the near future.

P-4
2018 FSEMC Opening Session
Tuesday, September 18, 2018 – 0830
Welcome/Introductions

Marc Cronan
FSEMC Chairman
Rockwell Collins

Keynote Speaker

Tim Woodward
Sr. Solutions Architect, Federal Pro Viz
NVIDIA Corporation

FSEMC Awards Introduction

Eric Fuilla-Weishaupt
FSEMC Vice Chairman
Airbus

Edwin A. Link Award

FSEMC Vice Chairman to present

Roger S. Goldberg Award

FSEMC Vice Chairman to present

Conference Announcements

FSEMC Chairman to present

P-5
2018 FSEMC Industry Session
Wednesday, September 19, 2018 – 0830
FSEMC Activities Update Marc Cronan Rockwell Collins

Technology Workshop Review Marc Cronan Rockwell Collins


EASA FSTD Technical Group Stefan Nowack Lufthansa Aviation Training
Simulator Continuing Qualification Tom Shaw The Boeing Company
FSEMC Data Document Mike Jackson FedEx
SATCE Working Group Ted Chapman FlightSafety International

ICAO Update Itash Samani CAE

Training Devices Work Stream

FSEMC Steering Committee Sam Buckwalter ARINC IA


Elections Overview

FSEMC Social Events


Conference Activities

Date Time Event Place

Monday September 19 1700-1900 FSEMC Reception Mandalay Ballroom

Tuesday September 20 1830-2130 Offsite Event To Be Announced

P-6
Edwin A. Link Award
"Ed" Link was born in 1904 in Huntington, Indiana, but moved in 1910 to
Binghamton, New York, where his father purchased a bankrupt music firm. It was
here Ed would begin and develop his career as (to quote his friend Harvey Roehl)
a "backyard inventor in the finest American sense."

In his early twenties, at considerable expense and some risk, he obtained his
pilot's license. While struggling to become a pilot, he began tinkering with parts of
organs at his father's factory, trying to develop a training device so that pilots
could start learning to fly safely and inexpensively without leaving the ground.
Initially his trainer, although successful, was seen as a toy and relegated to the
status of fairground ride.

In the mid-1930's, after a series of air accidents, the Army Air


Corps ordered six of Link's instrument trainers to enhance its
pilot training program. Once public attention had been drawn
to this practical device, orders for more came from all over the
world. Ultimately Link's invention led to the development of the
whole field of flight simulation. With the help of his wife,
Marion Clayton Link, whom he had married in 1931, Ed ran a
highly successful enterprise, Link Aviation, Inc., throughout
World War II and until he sold the company in 1954.

Thereafter Ed's skills and attention focused on underwater


archaeology and exploration. In this, his wife Marion became his partner in research, and, with their two
sons William Martin and Edwin Clayton, they undertook a number of voyages. During these years Ed
worked constantly to improve diving equipment in order to allow divers to go deeper, stay longer
underwater, explore more safely and efficiently, and return to the surface with less risk. On one of the
sea voyages in 1973, during a routine dive in a submersible, the Links' younger son Clayton and his
friend Albert Stover were killed. In a very moving statement to the press, Ed expressed his conviction
that their death had not been in vain, but had identified problems that must be solved in order to meet the
challenge of safer underwater exploration.

Mr. Link continued actively exploring, tinkering, writing, and generally enjoying his many interests until
very shortly before his death in 1981. His was an unusually generous spirit: not only did he give tirelessly
of his time and energy; he also donated financially too many foundations, scholarships, and charitable
causes.

FSEMC is pleased to honor Edwin A. Link by selecting one individual each year for significant
contribution in flight simulator support. On behalf of ARINC and FSEMC, we gratefully acknowledge and
offer our thanks to the following individuals and organizations for their support of this award:

• Marilyn Link, Special Advisor, The Link Foundation


• The Link Foundation Board of Trustees
• L3 Communications’ Link Simulation & Training
• Binghamton University
• Roberson Museum and Science Center

P-7
Edwin A. Link Award – Recipients

2017 – Memphis, Tennessee 2016 – Hong Kong 2014 – Tulsa, Oklahoma 2012 – Dallas, Texas
John Frasca, accepting for Bernard Mattos Itash Samani Jeff Everett
Rudy Frasca Airbus CAE RSI Visual Systems
Frasca International

2011 – Orlando, Florida 2010 – Brighton, England 2009 – Cairo, Egypt 2008 – Salt Lake City, Utah
Joe Mays and Richard Holmes Dr. David White Craig Phillips Andy Ramsden
Barco Thales RSI Visual Systems Rockwell Collins

2007 – Montreal, Canada 2005 – Seattle, Washington 2004 – Tulsa, Oklahoma 2003 – Prague, Czech Rep
Joe Biller Jim Guvernator Stuart N. Wilmott Dr. John Hunt
Link Simulation Southwest Airlines CAE SimuFlite General Precision

2002 – Tampa, Florida 2001 – Atlanta, Georgia 2000 – Toulouse, France 1999 – Denver, Colorado
Kendall W. Neville Stuart Anderson Joe Depaola Wolf Dieter-Hass
The Boeing Company Evan and Sutherland American Airlines Lufthansa Flight Training

P-8
Roger S. Goldberg Award
The FSEMC Steering Committee gives an award each year to a special
individual. It is an award for a person that has been extraordinary
influence in the flight simulation industry, and has contributed
significantly to the FSEMC. The award acknowledges these
contributions with special recognition.

The first award was called the FSEMC Service Award. This first award
was given to Roger S. Goldberg, posthumously, in recognition of the
Extraordinary ideas, Outstanding service, and Endless passion he
gave to our organization.
In his honor, the award is now named the

Roger S. Goldberg Award


Roger was a unique person in the way he had contact with other people. Always positive and happy,
he made everyone feel good after being in his presence.

Roger was one of the cornerstones in the FSEMC Steering Committee. He was a founding member
and an expert mediator, always searching for a better way or solution to move forward. He knew what
he wanted and how he wanted the proceedings to go. Sometimes without the FSEMC Steering
Committee even knowing, he was usually able to steer them positively in that direction. He was a great
facilitator, fostering much discussion. He always stated, It is your conference, and it is what you make
of it. He was an expert on encouraging people to work together, given their different backgrounds and
experiences.

2017 Roger S. Goldberg Award Recipient


Mr. John Smith
Asian ATR Training Center

P-9
Roger S. Goldberg Award - Recipients

2017 – Memphis, Tennessee 2015 – Miami, Florida 2014 – Tulsa, Oklahoma 2013 – Tróia, Portugal
John Smith Kip Caudrey Shigeru Otomo Alain Brault
Asian ATR Training Center The Boeing Company All Nippon Airways Airbus

*Note: There was no RSG recipient in 2016.

2012 – Dallas, Texas 2010 – Brighton, England 2009 – Cairo, Egypt 2008 – Salt Lake City, Utah
Sam Buckwalter Dieter Bunge Ted Weiss Lars Gran
ARINC Industry Activities Lufthansa Flight Training The Boeing Company Oxford Aviation Academy

2007 – Montreal, Quebec 2006 – Roger S. Goldberg


Bob Glenn ARINC Industry Activities
The Boeing Company (Awarded Posthumously)

P-10
2018 FSEMC Elections

FSEMC STEERING COMMITTEE ROSTER

Marc Cronan Chairman Rockwell Collins


Eric Fuilla-Weishaupt Vice Chairman Airbus
Howard Gallinger Air Canada
Atsushi Yokota All Nippon Airways
David Neilson American Airlines
John Anderson The Boeing Company
Claude Gervais CAE
Chuk Ng Cathay Pacific Airways
Rick Lewis Delta Air Lines
Adel M. Sowedan EgyptAir
Mike Jackson FedEx
Joshua Brooks FlightSafety International
Richard Van de Nouweland KLM/Air France
Jeremy Wise L3 CTS
Stefan Nowack Lufthansa Aviation Training
John Muller Muller Simulation Consultancy
Troy Fey TRU Simulation + Training
Sam Buckwalter Executive Secretary ARINC Industry Activities
Scott Smith Assistant Secretary ARINC Industry Activities

The FSEMC Steering Committee is comprised of 18 voting representatives of


FSEMC Member Organizations (FMOs) distributed as follows:
• Representatives of 10 commercial air carrier FMOs
• Eight representatives from any FMO category
 A minimum of two airframers and two TDMs must be a part of these eight
organizations

P-11
2018 FSEMC Guidelines

Scope

FSEMC includes users of flight and cabin simulators (dynamic and static). Users include
airlines, commuter airlines, training centers, and other simulation users. Participants include
airframe manufacturers, aircraft equipment suppliers, and simulator equipment suppliers.

Background

The FSEMC is organized by ARINC Industry Activities to assist aviation interests in


cooperating to develop shared technical solutions and to establish technical standards.

FSEMC seeks to reduce life-cycle costs, as well as to improve the operation of flight
simulators and training devices by promoting reliability, better maintenance; support
techniques through the exchange of engineering, maintenance, and associated technical
information; and the development of voluntary technical standards related to simulation and
training. FSEMC also seeks to promote and advance the state of the art of the flight
simulation and training industry to the mutual benefit of its members.

Attended by more than 300 flight simulator experts from around the world, the annual
conference identifies technical solutions to engineering and maintenance issues and as a
result of this synergy, the airline industry benefits immensely.

Agenda

This program is the main document for the FSEMC. It is published several weeks in advance
of the meeting and disseminated to all interested parties.

Paper Copies – The program will no longer be available at registration.

FSEMC Report and Presentations

An FSEMC Report will be prepared following the meeting. The FSEMC Report and
Presentations will be available at no cost to FSEMC Member Organizations and ARINC
Industry Activities Corporate Sponsors. For all others, a nominal fee will be charged to
download the report and presentations from the FSEMC web site at:

https://www.aviation-ia.com/product-categories/fsemc-meeting-reports-and-presentations

P-12
2018 FSEMC Guidelines

Seating

Airlines and other simulator users are seated in the center section of the meeting room.
Manufacturers, suppliers, and others who are involved in responding to discussion items are
seated in the wings of the meeting room.

The 2017 FSEMC hosted


by FedEx was held in
Memphis, Tennessee.
The 23rd annual meeting
was attended by
simulator user
organizations, supplier
companies, airframe
manufacturers, simulator
manufacturers, and
Regulatory Authorities.

The total registered


attendance was 293
attendees from 28
countries.
Delegates seated at the 2017 FSEMC in Memphis

FSEMC Conference Room


Layout

P-13
2018 FSEMC Guidelines

Promptness and Courtesy

• Please be prompt for the start of each session. Pay careful attention
to the start times published in the FSEMC Schedule of Events.

• Persons arriving late for the FSEMC Opening Session are asked to refrain from
entering the ballroom during keynote remarks.

• Persons with mobile phones are requested to turn off the ringers for these
devices during the meeting sessions. Use of these devices is not permitted
in the conference meeting room. Please conduct phone calls outside the
conference during the scheduled breaks.

Meeting Conduct

Anyone wishing to comment on a discussion item or raise a question during the discussions
please observe the following procedure:

1. Hold up the place marker to obtain the microphone. Wait to be recognized by the
moderator.

2. When recognized by the moderator, state your


120o
name and organization.

3. Speak clearly and distinctly into the microphone.

The Conference Microphone System is activated by


pressing the button on the base of the microphone
unit. The microphone will illuminate a red ring on the
“stalk” when activated. The person speaking should be 8 to 20 inches away from the
microphone stalk and within the shaded area in the diagram. When finished speaking,
pressing the button on the base will deactivate the microphone, and the red ring light will
extinguish. The microphones on the floor stands are similar, except the button is on the
actual microphone. Queue up in a line at the floor stands to expedite the discussion.

If a microphone is left open (red light illuminated) without a person speaking into it, please
press the button to turn off the microphone unit. This will prevent unwanted sounds in the
audio system and allow other speakers to be heard clearly.

Manufacturers are requested to follow the agenda when a discussion item they are planning
to answer is being introduced and to move to a microphone so as to be ready to respond.
This will significantly help to keep the meeting flowing smoothly.

Language and Terminology - The FSEMC is conducted in the English language.


Since English is not the native language for many FSEMC participants, please keep the use
of slang, vernacular, or colloquial expressions to a minimum and speak slowly. If something

P-14
2018 FSEMC Guidelines

is said that you do not understand, please wave your hand and the moderator will ask the
speaker to repeat the comment.

FSEMC discussions typically generate a large amount of technical jargon and acronyms.
Please keep the use of acronyms to a minimum. Use only widely accepted acronyms. For
example, INS is generally well known as the acronym for the Inertial Navigation System;
however, GBL is probably not used to denote Gyro Bearing Lubricant in many organizations.

Since the FSEMC is all about communication and is an


international meeting, the FSEMC Steering Committee
encourages all attendees to participate.

The person sitting next to you at the FSEMC may have that one
bit of magic information that will solve your problem or offer a new
perspective. Take time to meet that person, listen to what they
have to say, and thank them for participating.

The moderators take additional care to ensure the use of


these guidelines. Participants are encouraged to inform the
moderator if you do not understand the discussion due to a
language barrier.

For cases where the moderator feels that the question or


response is not clear, the moderator will ask the respondent
to repeat the response more slowly. In addition,
manufacturers should be willing to restate a question to
ensure a clear understanding for everyone.
Discussion Item Procedure
• The moderator will direct your attention to each new item number. If the question is
complex, a brief summary will be made.
• When it appears that a group of operators have similar problems, the moderator may
ask for a show of hands to avoid redundant comments and to expedite discussion.
• Those making comments are urged to be brief.
• A copy of written responses should be given to the FSEMC Executive Secretary.
• If solutions must be worked out after the conference, please send a copy of the
appropriate documentation to the FSEMC Executive Secretary.

NOTE: For delegates that are not native English speakers, a written response may be
given to the moderator at the beginning of each day for entry into the record.

Information from Manufacturers


New information related to improvements to existing equipment or new designs may be of
interest to users. Manufacturers who may wish to include such information in FSEMC
discussions are asked to make prior arrangements with the Chairman. Manufacturers are
also asked to concentrate on technical aspects of the information. Any tone of a sales pitch is
highly discouraged during presentations or FSEMC discussions.

P-15
2018 FSEMC Networking Events

The FSEMC Conference has several networking events throughout the conference, starting
with the Monday evening FSEMC Reception and continuing with other hospitality events
possible on Tuesday and Wednesday.

Monday Evening FSEMC EXPO at previous Conferences

Example of a Tuesday Evening Event at the FSEMC

Vanessa Mastros, ARINC IA Business Manager, coordinates exhibits, breaks, and


other arrangements for the hospitality offered at the FSEMC. Organizations who
wish to be included as a sponsor of the Exhibit/Reception should review the
information in the
FSEMC Exhibit, Sponsorship, Mobile App, and Other Opportunities Package
and return a completed form to:

Vanessa Mastros
Business Manager
Office: 240-334-2575
Fax: 301-383-1231
Email: vanessa.mastros@sae-itc.org
www.aviation-ia.com
P-16
FSEMC Review
2017 FSEMC Follow-Up Items
The following list is a summary of OPEN items resulting from the 2017 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 Sam Buckwalter at ARINC Industry Activities, sam.buckwalter@sae-itc.org .

Item Section Submitter Respondent Follow-up


Boeing to advise on Software update to
17-03 Data and Simulation LAT Boeing
IDS.
Thales and Airbus to resolve
17-07 Data and Simulation AAL Thales/Airbus
implementation of Data-Link Editor
TDMs to develop a process so that they
are involved with airplane OEM and
17-08 Product Support L-3
receive information on obsolescence
parts.
Rockwell
16-11 Visual FDX Have a data base user group meeting.
Collins
16-56 Motion Control Loading KLM L-3 Resolve the discoloration of the oil.
CAE and Honeywell to improve process
17-41 Other Training Devices FDX CAE/Honeywell
to keep lower level devices up to date.
TDM to improve reliability of lower level
17-44 Other Training Devices LAT All
devices.
Resolve issue with rehosted FMS on
16-61 Avionics CPA CAE/Honeywell
B747-800.
Honeywell to work with LAT to resolve
17-53 Avionics LAT All
Display unit issues.

P-17
Reference 18-101/FSG-245 – Page 1

DATA AND SIMULATION

Item Part No. (Sim Mfr & TDM/Vendor Year of Aircraft From
Summary Title Component
No. Vendor) Name Mfr Type User

1 GLS Data All Various LAT

More and more aircrafts and airports support GLS approaches. The associated data are needed to simulate these
approaches. For LAT’s existing simulators with GLS, a cumbersome manual process has to be performed. The
data for every single GLS approach have to be collected from the airports and edited manually. There is no
automated update process of even notification if the data changes.

It is expected that the required data for GLS approaches can automatically be read via ARINC 424 file like ILS
data and any other navigational data.

ARINC 424 Supplement 21 is understood to contain the required definitions. Will the FSEMC take action in case
the ARINC 424 standard needs updating to fully support simulation of GLS approaches?

Will data suppliers like Jeppesen, LIDO, NavBlue, etc., collect the worldwide GLS data and populate their ARINC
424 databases with them?

Will operators and TDMs approach their data suppliers to get the GLS data delivered?

Operators, supplier TDMs, and FSEMC comment please.

Item Part No. (Sim Mfr & TDM/Vendor Year of Aircraft From
Summary Title Component
No. Vendor) Name Mfr Type User

2 Source Coding All All All MSR

TDMs no longer provide source code. How are the operators allowed to control the simulator load building as well
as perform minor software modifications such as RVR and Visibility settings for different visual categories, wind
shear scenario intensity, and cloud base layer settings?

Operator and supplier comments, please.

Item Part No. (Sim Mfr & TDM/Vendor Year of Aircraft From
Summary Title Component
No. Vendor) Name Mfr Type User

3 LSAPS Software All All FSC

Since LSAPS are increasing (for example, B787) and nowadays are more important, it is crucial for the customer
to train in a simulator that reflects their configuration and display layout. For an independent training center, it is
difficult to get all the LSAPS from their customers: there are IP rights involved. However, not being able to make a
reflection of the real aircraft configuration in the simulator could have impact on the training.

Question 1: Are operators facing this issue?

Question 2: Do OEMs like Boeing and Airbus understand the impact and have a solution for this?

Other operator and supplier comments, please.


Reference 18-101/FSG-245 – Page 2

DATA AND SIMULATION

Item Part No. (Sim Mfr & TDM/Vendor Year of Aircraft From
Summary Title Component
No. Vendor) Name Mfr Type User

4 Is a Binary File Any Any Any Any JAL


Useful to Improve
the Stability of
Simulation?

A few months ago, JAL did In Plant Acceptance (IPA) of A350FFS. Prior to IPA, JAL had a chance to do a test
ride by using other operators’ A350 FFS that were manufactured by the same company. JAL recognized the
stability of simulation was different between each one.

Q1: Why is a stability of simulation different between FSTDs, even if exact same binary files are integrated?

Q2: As adoption of binary files getting in advances more, can we expect to homogenize quality without relying on
architecture of simulation?

Other operator and supplier comments, please.

Item Part No. (Sim Mfr & TDM/Vendor Year of Aircraft From
Summary Title Component
No. Vendor) Name Mfr Type User

5 How does a User Any Any Any Any Any JAL


Create a Brand-New
Malfunction?

JAL has implemented a couple of events into their recurrent training scenario. Those events had actually
happened in flight. Trying to reproduce them on an FSTD, in most cases, we could find one suitable malfunction
in an existing malfunction list. But sometimes no suitable malfunction was available.

If any desired malfunctions were not available, JAL may choose one of three options:
• Option 1: If source codes were available, they would modify them to integrate their desired malfunction.
• Option 2: If only binary files or rehost system simulation, they would need to ask aircraft manufacturer to
integrate new malfunction in their simulation model.
• Option 3: JAL shall change their training scenario to fit with existing malfunctions.

Questions to aircraft manufacturers:


Q1. In general, could an aircraft manufacturer agree to create new malfunction by an operator?

Q2. If an operator gives some evidence that shows the details what happens in a real flight operation, could an
aircraft manufacturer develop new malfunctions to reproduce such an event?

Aircraft manufacturers, operators, and other supplier comments, please.


Reference 18-101/FSG-245 – Page 3

DATA AND SIMULATION

Item Part No. (Sim Mfr & TDM/Vendor Year of Aircraft From
Summary Title Component
No. Vendor) Name Mfr Type User

6 EASA CS FSTD Iss 2 Icing Model Update All Various LAT

We would like to understand if any operator, in order to comply with the new CS FSTD(A) Issue 2, has updated or
is planning to update their FSTDs with icing models from third-party suppliers and not use the original OEM
models.

The original OEM models require a minimum baseline standard/blockpoint prior to implementation and for some
OEMs, are only provided in a specific format. They could thus make their deployment to older devices too
prohibitive and economically unviable: not only the simulation baseline, but also simulator architecture, computer
complex, IOS technology, and tools have to be considered for this assessment.

Other operators comment please.

Item Part No. (Sim Mfr & TDM/Vendor Year of Aircraft From
Summary Title Component
No. Vendor) Name Mfr Type User

7 Feedback on Stall Stall Buffet Model Airbus Airbus


Buffet Modeling

As part of Airbus GO5’s Extended Envelope simulation software package, we deliver the stall buffet model. This
model delivers the vibration characteristics of the stall buffet phenomenon, as a function of flight parameters
(angle of attack, Mach number, configuration, icing conditions).

This model runs on several FSTDs that have been qualified in 2018 (Part 60 Change 2 or Part 60 Directive 2).

What is the feedback from Training Device Manufacturers on the integration of this model?

What is the feedback from end-users after using these FSTDs in full stall recovery training?

Other operator and TDM comments, please.

Item Part No. (Sim Mfr & TDM/Vendor Year of Aircraft From
Summary Title Component
No. Vendor) Name Mfr Type User

8 A320NEO Airbus
Introduction

Several A320 NEO Full Flight Simulators have been qualified since end-of-December 2017 and are now in
operation.

Operators, Training Device Manufacturers, what is your feedback on A320 NEO configuration introduction on
FFS?

Operators, Training Device Manufacturers, please comment.


Reference 18-101/FSG-245 – Page 4

DATA AND SIMULATION

*****17-003*****

Item Part No. (Sim Mfr & TDM/Vendor Year of Aircraft From
Summary Title Component
No. Vendor) Name Mfr Type User

IDS IDS 804 CAE 2012 B747-8 LAT


Boeing

With IDS OPS SW 804, a "feature" has been implemented by Boeing which creates unwanted effects in simulator
usage. A Fuel Tank/Eng. condition, when prevailing on ground, is latched and is not cleared after a reposition in air
and the correction of the fuel amount in the respective tanks. The only way to get rid of the latched condition is the
shutdown of at least three engines on ground.

Can the latching of the Fuel Tank/Eng. condition be remedied or made changeable in the simulator environment?

Operators, TDMs, and airframers, please comment.

Item Part No. (Sim Mfr & TDM/Vendor Year of Aircraft From
Summary Title Component
No. Vendor) Name Mfr Type User

9 CAL A330-200 CAE 2005 A330-200 CAL


Simulator Ground
Effect Discrepancy

CAL’s A330-200 simulator was updated by CAE from Airbus STD 2.0.0 to STD 2.5.0 in December 2017. First
referring to Airbus aircraft data, CAE set the ground effect parameter normally and the landing-related QTG items
results were acceptable and was approved by CAA for the QTG results.

However, after RFT CAL pilots kept reporting this ground effect after flare was too weak and far from the real
feeling in the aircraft, and pilots reported comparison with pre-update (Airbus STD 2.0.0) simulator and even
another elderly A330 simulator (Airbus STD 1.1.0), the feeling of ground effect on the updated simulator was too
weak. Thus, we followed CAE’s instructions and adjusted the ground effect parameter to fulfill the pilots' requests.

However, this adjustment will make the ground effect-related QTG items out of tolerance.

Why was the ground effect parameter referring to the approved Airbus data mismatch to the real feeling on the
aircraft? What are the changes between the aircraft data standards?

TDM’s solution required for this issue.

CAE and other operator and supplier comments, please.


Reference 18-101/FSG-245 – Page 5

DATA AND SIMULATION

*****17-007*****

Item Year of Aircraft From


Summary Title Component Part No.(Sim Mfr & Vendor) TDM/Vendor Name
No. Mfr Type User

FMS Data-Link FMC CAE/A320 Std. 1.8 & 1.9 Thales 2013 - A320 AAL
Editor R4+ Architecture current
A350

Our Data-Link Editor has the capability to DOWNLINK the Flight Plan (FPN), Performance Init. Data (PER) and the
Take-Off Data (LDI). When testing this feature on all our simulators (A320 and A350), we found that the LDI would
not downlink because the IEI RR (Runway Data Report) is not activated. AAL brought this to Thales’ attention (via
Email) and Thales responded by stating AAL will have to request this change from Airbus. In part, they stated that
“Thales did not have the authority to implement changes to the FMS on the Airbus aircraft without Airbus approval.
If AAL would like to implement the RR IEI or any additional IEIs in the ARINC 702A spec, the best bet is to submit
a Request for Change with Airbus… If Airbus agrees, they would drive the change down through Thales and would
certify the change on the Airbus SA AC.”

When Airbus was queried via DIR# STID1-2015-1123335 to update the Customer AOC options to turn on the IEI
RR functionality, Airbus responded, “There is no dedicated standard data provided within the data package. As it is
not mandatory, default values are used if the airline does not specify an AMI. If needed, these data must be provided
by the airline with the FMS vendor assistance. Therefore, as G05 is not the provider of AMI, G05 suggests that you
liaise with the provider of your AMI to have it updated in accordance with your requirement.”

In working with American Airlines Avionics Engineering, we have found that the worksheet provided by Thales to
select options for the AMI file does not include an option that would turn on the IEI RR functionality.

We have a situation where Airbus is redirecting us to work with Thales and Thales is redirecting us to work with
Airbus.

Airbus/Thales, please respond with the correct methodology that will allow American Airlines to turn this feature on,
and please respond with what FMC software file (AMI?) that must be modified to accomplish this.

Airbus should note that with delivery of the A350 simulator, and a different FMS vendor, this DOWNLINK of Take-
Off Data (LDI) functionality still does not function correctly. It is suspected by American Airlines that the AMI file
given by Airbus/Thales does not include the ability to turn this functionality on, which leads to the question: Has
Airbus specified this operational requirement is the standard they distributed to the FMS vendor?

On Boeing simulators using Honeywell and GE FMS, we do not have this limitation.

Other operator comments, please.

Item Part No. (Sim Mfr & TDM/Vendor Year of Aircraft From
Summary Title Component
No. Vendor) Name Mfr Type User

10 B737 Max Binaries Boeing B737 Max TRU


Update

Can Boeing please advise the industry on the planned up-date frequency of the B737Max Binary Loads now that
Level D has been achieved?

Boeing and other operator comments, please.


Reference 18-101/FSG-245 – Page 6

DATA AND SIMULATION

Item Part No. (Sim Mfr & TDM/Vendor Year of Aircraft From
Summary Title Component
No. Vendor) Name Mfr Type User

11 B737 Max Binaries Boeing B737Max TRU


Configuration
Control

TRU understands that Boeing intends to only maintain one version of the B737Max binary load for each Max model
(i.e., -8 and -9).

Can Boeing please brief the industry on their plans for maintaining that load in terms of configuration control for
commercial customers and what policies are in place for providing updated binary loads to customers post device
RFT?

Boeing and other operator comments, please.

Item Part No. (Sim Mfr & TDM/Vendor Year of Aircraft From
Summary Title Component
No. Vendor) Name Mfr Type User

12 B737 Max Binaries Boeing B737Max TRU


Configuration
Control

Can Boeing please brief the industry on their policies for providing updated VDRs for each new binary load when
applicable together with updated engineering tests or proof of match data?

Boeing and other operator comments, please.


Reference 18-101/FSG-245 – Page 7

PRODUCT SUPPORT
Item TDM/Vendor Part Year of Aircraft From
Summary Title Component TDM/Vendor
No. No. Mfr Type User

13 Simulator Kit Parts Aircraft Cockpit Panel Boeing All AAL

For B787 and B737 MAX, Boeing Simulator Packages consist of Boeing and Supplier Data and Hardware. All
warranties on these avionics items start from the time that Boeing receives such parts from avionics companies.
This often leads to situations that, when a simulator actually enters service with the airline, the warranty has expired
on the avionics items.

Question (1) – Why does the warranty start from the time when Boeing receives shipment from their subcontractors?
It should, as a minimum, start when the TDM applies power to such avionics. Other users please comment. Boeing,
please comment.

Question (2) – Regarding all avionics items that are purchased as part of the simulator kit, why does Boeing not
provide FAA form 8130 (airworthiness release) for all such items to the customer?

Item Part No.(Sim Mfr & Year of Aircraft From


Summary Title Component TDM/Vendor
No. Vendor) Mfr Type User

14 Maintenance All All All All All FSI


Requirements for
Lower Level Devices

As training providers are looking to maximize the Level D FFS using lower level devices to accomplish certain tasks,
are the operators finding any deficiency in design and/or capabilities of these devices?
• Are operators experiencing elevated maintenance requirements due to the increased utilization?
• Are the devices performing to the expected productivity and technical levels with the increased utilization?
• Is the reliability of the device meeting expectations of the operator?
• What challenges have you encountered in maintenance of these devices?

Other operator and supplier comments, please.

Item Part No.(Sim Mfr & Year of Aircraft From


Summary Title Component TDM/Vendor
No. Vendor) Mfr Type User

15 Maintenance All All All All All FSI


Requirements for
Lower Level Devices

We are now several years into the transition from dedicated purpose hardware components to COTS components
in our industry. To reduce the pain operators were feeling due to limited availability of components and vendors on
the commercial market, TDMs have responded to many requests for more COTS utilization in our designs.

Have the operators experienced the level of benefit they expected from the transition to COTS equipment
implementations?

Operator and supplier comments, please.


Reference 18-101/FSG-245 – Page 8

PRODUCT SUPPORT
Item Part No. (Sim Mfr & Year of Aircraft From
Summary Title Component TDM/Vendor
No. Vendor) Mfr Type User

16 Software Utilities Boeing

Are any TDMs looking at developing a software license management utility that would simplify and potentially
automate tracking and control of all the various software licenses used extensively on devices today?

Supplier and operator comments, please.

Item Part No. (Sim Mfr & Year of Aircraft From


Summary Title Component TDM/Vendor
No. Vendor) Mfr Type User

17 Effect of Stall Buffet Qualification Test Guide Airbus

If you have implemented an enhanced stall buffet modelling on your FSTDs, and have started training “full stall
recovery,” have you noticed a notable effect on the maintenance of your devices?

Are there other notable effects of UPRT and stall training on the various components of your FSTDs?

Operators, Training Device Manufacturers, please comment.

Item Part No.(Sim Mfr & Year of Aircraft From


Summary Title Component TDM/Vendor
No. Vendor) Mfr Type User

18 Simulation Model Any Any Any LAT

LAT has the experience that bugs in the simulation that could possibly affect the safety of flight (e.g., negative
training through incorrect Flight Controls behavior) are not always treated with the desired high priority by TDMs.
One recent example is the incorrect flight control laws implementation in a TDM’s design of generic EFCS (not the
Airbus sEFCS) on a Lower Level Device.

LAT also has the subsequent experience that if such product issues were solved on LAT’s training device, no
further Service Bulletin/Service Letter or publication was issued to inform other users about this correction.

LAT would like to ask the following:


a. Do TDMs have processes in place to monitor incoming snags for possible negative training effects
affecting safety of flight?
b. If such a snag is confirmed, is special/high priority given to immediately solve these issues and deploy a
fix?
c. Will possibly affected training device users/operators be informed of such issues (and availability fixes)
and through which channels?

Operators, Training Device Manufacturers, regulators, please comment.


Reference 18-101/FSG-245 – Page 9

PRODUCT SUPPORT
*****17-008*****

Item Part No.(Sim Mfr & Year of Aircraft From


Summary Title Component TDM/Vendor
No. Vendor) Mfr Type User

Obsolescence L3 CTS 2012 B787-8 QTR

Currently, there is no mechanism or support to close the loop with Simulator Operators in terms of Avionic
Panels/Cards/Instruments obsolescence installed on our device. So far, we have had three components fail in our
B787-8 BP1 FFS that we discovered are obsolete when we ordered a replacement (e.g., GGM, ISFD, and HUD)
and the new part number is not Form, Fit, and Functional. On top of that, simulator OEMs struggle to install the new
part number in our device and make it work properly.

I am pretty sure that other operators will have this same problem soon. More details about the part numbers can be
provided upon request.

L3 CTS and other operator comments, please.

Item Part No.(Sim Mfr & Year of Aircraft From


Summary Title Component TDM/Vendor
No. Vendor) Mfr Type User

19 Product Support L3 CTS All MSR

L3 CTS has used Horizon as the system for repairing and purchasing spare parts and it was very helpful for the
customers.

Three years ago, L3 CTS informed their customers that Horizon would be changed to another system.

After a while, L3 CTS provided another system called SLS for purchasing spares only and kept Horizon for repairing
parts. This is the situation as of now.

For customers:
1. It would be helpful to use one system for repair and purchase spare parts.
2. The new SLS system has many weak points as follows:
a. No attachments allowed.
b. While purchasing spares, we found the system adds extra fees to the quotation and we need to
send emails to clear them.
c. We cannot review quotation history for spare parts as in Horizon.

L3 CTS and other operator comments, please.


Reference 18-101/FSG-245 – Page 10

PRODUCT SUPPORT
Item Part No.(Sim Mfr & Year of Aircraft From
Summary Title Component TDM/Vendor
No. Vendor) Mfr Type User

20 Management of Parts MCDU Keyboard 411-915824-001 L3 CTS B777 ANA


Repair

We have experienced many of “Loss of click feeling” problems on the simulated MCDU Keypad using in our B777
FFS and B777 FTD.

L3 CTS offered the improved parts. But the problem still occurred on the improved parts.

We would like to improve not only the quality of the parts, but also the repair TAT. Some of the repairs of these
parts took over 20 months.

How does L3 CTS manage the quality of the parts and the repair TAT? Pease improve the management of repair
parts from the point of view of the operator, such as preparing (stocking) the exchange parts, in-house repairing,
and so on.

Other operators, L3 CTS comments please.

Item Part No.(Sim Mfr & Year of Aircraft From


Summary Title Component TDM/Vendor
No. Vendor) Mfr Type User

21 Sound Testing Sound Analyzer L3 CTS/Bruel & L3 CTS 2004 B747NG Boeing
Type 2260 Kjaer Type 2260

Our sound analyzer for sound QTGs Bruel & Kjaer type 2260 has failed and we have been told it is obsolete and
cannot be repaired or replaced. See picture below.

Has anyone found a suitable replacement for this equipment?

Operator and supplier comments, please.


Reference 18-101/FSG-245 – Page 11

PRODUCT SUPPORT
Item Part No. (Sim Mfr & Year Aircraft From
Summary Title Component TDM/Vendor
No. Vendor) of Mfr Type User

22 QTG QTG Revision Control TRU Simulation + TRU Simulation + 2014 B737NG Boeing
Training Training
B737MAX

Do any of the TRU operators struggle with the Configuration Management of the machines:
• Software configuration control (when running directly from the Source Vault at TRU)
• MOOG firmware/software updating and configuration control
• QTG configuration control and tracking

Operator and supplier comments, please.

Item Part No.(Sim Mfr & Year Aircraft From


Summary Title Component TDM/Vendor
No. Vendor) of Mfr Type User

23 System Documentation Documentation TRU Simulation + TRU Simulation + 2017 B737MAX Boeing
Training Training

Are any other TRU operators finding holes/having issues with the supporting documentation?

TRU and other operator comments, please.

Item Part No.(Sim Mfr & Year of Aircraft From


Summary Title Component TDM/Vendor
No. Vendor) Mfr Type User

24 CAL A330-200 CAE 2005 A330-200 CAL


Simulator Reposition
Delay

CAL’s A330-200 simulator was updated by CAE from Airbus STD2.0.0 to STD2.5.0 in December 2017. The
simulator takes too much time (over 80 seconds) to set up when executing reposition. Even the reposition from T/O
to gate or any position in the same airport will take about 40 seconds.

We tried to isolate and reposition from the visual system directly, and it seemed normal. Thus, this problem should
not be caused by the visual system (RC), because the result should be the same if this was caused by visual
system. We are monitoring this issue through SimIssue #106 under project 111746.

TDM’s solution is required for this issue.

CAE and other operator comments, please.

Item Part No.(Sim Mfr & Year of Aircraft From


Summary Title Component TDM/Vendor
No. Vendor) Mfr Type User

25 Software FlightSafety 2008 B737NG MSR

How do you generate a Software Load Control Report for all the software modifications done on the simulator for
any chosen time period?

FlightSafety and other operator comments, please.


Reference 18-101/FSG-245 – Page 12

PRODUCT SUPPORT
Item Part No.(Sim Mfr & Year of Aircraft From
Summary Title Component TDM/Vendor
No. Vendor) Mfr Type User

26 Comms Latency SSH Computer A330 L3 CTS 2005 A330-200 KLM


FFS C2000X

Are there customers who have an Simulator Server Host (SSH) computer with sound, comms, and IOS combined?
If so, do they experience any problems with the comms server?

We experience comms latency problems Instructor to Captain at random intervals (up to several seconds). We have
a strong feeling this is due to digits being very memory hungry in combination with an older computer platform and
OS (Windows XP). The only solution to solve the latency issue is to reset the comms server (on the SSH).

Other operator and supplier comments, please.

Item Part No. (Sim Mfr & Year of Aircraft From


Summary Title Component TDM/Vendor
No. Vendor) Mfr Type User

27 Sound QTG All All ANA

We have often taken Out-of-Tolerance (OOT) data of Sound QTG.

ANA's current solution is taking Sound QTG continuously by another Microphone location as slightly adjustment
until achieve In-Tolerance data, but this method takes a long time.

Do you have any efficient and logical methods to investigate what causes OOT? Sound Analyzer, explore
software, trained sound expert, and/or ordering to survey company, etc.

Other operators, TDMs comment please.

Item Part No. (Sim Mfr & Year of Aircraft From


Summary Title Component TDM/Vendor
No. Vendor) Mfr Type User

28 eQTG Tool Displays My-eQTG CAE 2016 B747-400 CLX


Incorrect Test Run
Dates

We use CAE’s My-eQTG tool to manage the yearly QTG reruns for both our full-flight simulators. While this
powerful tool works flawlessly on our new B747-8 simulator, it reads incorrect run dates from the PDF results of
our older B747-400 simulator, which makes the result file administration a tedious task.

Example: PDF file creation date [June 05, 2018] displayed by My-eQTG in italic as [December 30, 1899]

CAE has been working on a fix, but we are still waiting for a solution.

Have other users encountered the same problem? How did it get fixed?

CAE and other operator comments, please.


Reference 18-101/FSG-245 – Page 13

PRODUCT SUPPORT
Item Part No. (Sim Mfr & Year of Aircraft From
Summary Title Component TDM/Vendor
No. Vendor) Mfr Type User

29 My eQTG All DAL

CAE’s My-eQTG: We are curious on how it is being used at other airlines. For example, does the engineer ensure
the results are available in the system and graded/stamped? Does the Qualification Manager take it from there as
far as compiling the PDF for the FAA, archiving the quarters, and setting up the new quarter folders?

Any best practices, lessons learned, issues raised with CAE or corrected?

Other operators and CAE comment, please.


Reference 18-101/FSG-245 – Page 14

VISUAL

******16-011******

Item Part No.(Sim Mfr & Aircraft From


Summary Title Component TDM/Vendor Year of Mfr
No. Vendor) Type User

Visual IG Databases Rockwell All FDX


Collins

In past years, Rockwell Collins has said that they would create and support an annual or bi-annual Visual Database
User Group meeting.

What is the status of this?

Rockwell Collins comments, please.

Item Part No.(Sim Mfr & Year of Aircraft From


Summary Title Component TDM/Vendor
No. Vendor) Mfr Type User

30 Visual System Visual Projector JVC VS2200 TRU Simulation 2014 B737NG Boeing
+ Training
JVC VS2300 2017 B737MAX

We have seen a number of instances where, for no apparent reason, the center projector shifted (alignment),
which required further soft alignment to compensate pixel drift. This has occurred repeatedly on both of our TRU
simulators: one utilizes VS2200 projectors and the other VS2300 projectors.

Have any other operators experienced this and if so have they been able to resolve it? Any comments from
suppliers?

Supplier and operator comments, please.

Item Part No.(Sim Mfr & Year of Aircraft From


Summary Title Component TDM/Vendor
No. Vendor) Mfr Type User

31 Visual System Visual Projectors VS2200 TRU Simulation 2014 B737NG Boeing
+ Training

After replacement of visual projector lamps, mechanical and soft alignment/settings are made. It was observed
that newly-installed units barely achieved maximum brightness (8ft Lamberts). The HIGH BRIGHTNESS readings
on another simulator can easily reach 11-12ft Lamberts range.

Have any other operators experienced this and if so have they been able to resolve it? Any comments from
suppliers?

Supplier and operator comments, please.


Reference 18-101/FSG-245 – Page 15

VISUAL
Item Part No.(Sim Mfr & Year of Aircraft From
Summary Title Component TDM/Vendor
No. Vendor) Mfr Type User

32 BP Screen Dark Band BP Screen PN 00350090.38.8.258 CAE 2014 All ASA

Are any other operators experiencing a discolored or dark band on the CAE R4 BP screen P/N 00350090.38.8.258?

Dark Band between Arrows


Reference 18-101/FSG-245 – Page 16

VISUAL

CAE and other operator comments, please.


Reference 18-101/FSG-245 – Page 17

VISUAL
Item Part No.(Sim Mfr & Year of Aircraft From
Summary Title Component TDM/Vendor
No. Vendor) Mfr Type User

33 CAE 6000 IG Visual IG MA418716132815 CAE 2008 B747-400F NCA

About 10 years have elapsed since the start of operation of our B747-400F FFS. The capacitors that are installed
in the motherboard are beginning to deteriorate.

Our Visual IG computer is a four-channel system, but NCA believes that it is still early to replace.

Have any users replaced (updated) a part of Visual IG computer?

Supplier and operator comments, please.

Item Part No.(Sim Mfr & Year of Aircraft From


Summary Title Component TDM/Vendor
No. Vendor) Mfr Type User

34 LCOS Projectors Mechanical CAE N/A All KLM


Vibrations
SONY
Rockwell Collins
JVC

Are there any customers who experience (mechanical) vibrations on their LCOS projectors during excessive motion
usage (UPRT, Buffets)?

On several simulators, we had to modify the projector platform to reduce the projector vibrations; however, this only
partly solved the problem. We are slightly concerned that the internal structure of the projector is affected, and might
in time cause internal damage.

Other customer experiences? Vendor comments?

Item Part No.(Sim Mfr & Year of Aircraft From


Summary Title Component TDM/Vendor
No. Vendor) Mfr Type User

35 CAL B777-300 L3 CTS 2013 B777-300ER CAL


Simulator Visual
System Space Design

CAL’s B777-300 simulator reported lack of projector installation space upon the visual system platform, resulting in
one projector (channel 1) having to be installed inversely and derived the problem of insufficient cooling capacity,
causing the projector fault.

TDM’s solution required for this issue.

L3 CTS and other operator and supplier comments, please.


Reference 18-101/FSG-245 – Page 18

STANDARDS/TRAINING

Item Part No.(Sim Mfr & Year of Aircraft From


Summary Title Component TDM/Vendor
No. Vendor) Mfr Type User

36 Training UPRT N/A All All All L3 CTS


Effectiveness of
UPRT Regulations

Now that UPRT is being approved and used with crews, based on feedback from the instructor community, how
well do the instructor feedback elements specified in the regulations reflect the usefulness of these tools in
delivering training?

User feedback sought.

Item Part No.(Sim Mfr & Year of Aircraft From


Summary Title Component TDM/Vendor
No. Vendor) Mfr Type User

37 Documentation All CATC

Czech Aviation Training Centre is a small independent training center (ATO). When we were part of the airline
(CSA), we could use original documentation of the aircraft manufacturers Airbus and Boeing (FCOM, FCTM,
QRH). Now it is not possible. We cannot even buy the documentation, while it was possible in the past.

We have agreements with the airplane manufacturers and pay a substantial amount of money for the data
packages; therefore, why can’t we use original aircraft documentation? Will it be possible in the future to obtain
the documentation? We believe that aviation safety should come first.

Aircraft manufacturer and operator comments please.

Item Part No.(Sim Mfr & Year of Aircraft From


Summary Title Component TDM/Vendor
No. Vendor) Mfr Type User

38 Airbus Standard Airbus ANA


Approach

Airbus GO5 offers a "standard approach" for data packages. We understand there are some benefits from a
configuration control and cost point of view. However, in case of an operator who does not have a standard tail
configuration aircraft such as thrust rating or system difference, some extra training or teaching techniques would
be required.

Our flight crew uses the FlySmart app for performance calculation, but there is currently no selection of Std tail
configuration thrust on FlySmart. Does Airbus have any plan to include the FlySmart database within the data
package for "non-Std" operator?

Aircraft OEM and operator comments please.


Reference 18-101/FSG-245 – Page 19

STANDARDS/TRAINING

Item Part No.(Sim Mfr & Year of Aircraft From


Summary Title Component TDM/Vendor
No. Vendor) Mfr Type User

39 Competency-Based All ANA


Training

The Japanese authority, JCAB, introduced the Competency Based Training and Assessment (CBTA) as new
training and qualification program such as AQP or EBT (Advance Qualification Program or Evidence Based
Training) in April of last year.

The AQP team in flight operation of ANA is now making the training curriculums. They requested making many
lesson profiles on the IOS, including many ACARS messages to be uploaded, new visual-specific airports, and so
on.

We would like to know the kind of functions implemented in the FFS at other operators who have already
introduced AQP or EBT.

Other operators, TDMs comment please.

Item Part No.(Sim Mfr & Year of Aircraft From


Summary Title Component TDM/Vendor
No. Vendor) Mfr Type User

40 Upcoming Datalink Datalink All All All All CAE


Training

The use of Datalink is becoming more and more important on aircraft with several developments being
implemented or planned in Europe (SESAR) and in the US (NextGen):
• FAA CPDLC-DCL (2016)
• FAA National Single Data Authority (KUSA) (2017)
• FAA Initial Enroute Services (2019)
• European CPDLC mandate (2020)
• FAA Full Enroute Services (2022)
• ATN Interop B2 (2020-2023)
• ATN Interop B3/IPS (2028-2030)

In that context, what kind of functionality would better support the operators training needs?
• How important is the capability for the instructor to create/modify messages directly through the IOS
during training? Is it preferable for the IOS interface to offer all edition capability? Or is it preferable to
have a simpler interface with limited edition capability but that would minimize the instructor workload?
• Would there be value to having a generic Datalink to support CPDLC messaging without a fully
customized ACARS system?
• What kind of abnormal behavior or failures related to Datalink do you currently include in your training
curriculum? Are there additional abnormal behavior or failures that would be of value for your training?

Operators, airlines, please comment.


Reference 18-101/FSG-245 – Page 20

STANDARDS/TRAINING

Item Part No.(Sim Mfr & Year of Aircraft From


Summary Title Component TDM/Vendor
No. Vendor) Mfr Type User

41 ADS-B Training Surveillance Systems All All All All CAE

With the ADS-B In/Out systems becoming more and more integrated in the aircrafts, is there specific training
being done currently on the ADS-B features in your simulator training curriculum? How much time is spent on
ADS-B training per training session? Additionally:
• What features are the ADS-B In training being focused on: Airborne (AIRB), Visual Separation on
Approach (VSA), In-Trail Procedures (ITP), SURFACE (Taxi and Runways), Merging and Spacing, or all
of them?
• Are there specific ADS-B training scenarios that would be valuable for your training? What would be the
most valuable one?

Operators, airlines, please comment.


Reference 18-101/FSG-245 – Page 21

HOST COMPUTER AND PERIPHERALS


Item Year of Aircraft From
Summary Title Component Part No.(Sim Mfr & Vendor) TDM Vendor Name
No. Mfr Type User

42 Host Reload and Host Computers All Any All ASA


Reboots

Are there any operators reloading their Host computers as a routine maintenance practice?

Are there any operators rebooting their Host computers as a routine maintenance practice?

If so, why? What is the interval?

Operator comments, please.

Item Year of Aircraft From


Summary Title Component Part No.(Sim Mfr & Vendor) TDM Vendor Name
No. Mfr Type User

43 Cybersecurity DAL

How are other airlines handling cybersecurity/internet and VPN connections that are being required for new sims
and sim updates?

Are there any access control protocols in place, or is the line always connected to the sim manufacturer?

Operator and user comments, please.

Item Year of Aircraft From


Summary Title Component Part No.(Sim Mfr & Vendor) TDM Vendor Name
No. Mfr Type User

44 Interface ANDURIL CPU ACB (PN 61442288AA00) L3 Communications 2010 B787 Boeing
Blade Link Simulation &
(ACB/ACB+) Training UK Ltd
ACB+ (PN 61594447AA00)

Throughout the Boeing fleet of B787s, we have recorded well over 200 failures of ACB/ACB+ cards over an eight-
year period.

Is L3 CTS aware of this high failure rate, and what are they actively doing to improve the reliability of these cards?

L3 CTS and other operator comments, please.


Reference 18-101/FSG-245 – Page 22

HOST COMPUTER AND PERIPHERALS


Item Year of Aircraft From
Summary Title Component Part No.(Sim Mfr & Vendor) TDM Vendor Name
No. Mfr Type User

45 CAL A350-900 CAE 2016 A350-900 CAL


Simulator OIS INOP

CAL’s A350-900 simulator CMV node has been rebooted frequently, which leads OIS screens to stop working.
We created SimIssue #452 under project 2TF4 and got ECN 1602490 and ECN 1612263.

The issue is still on hold. TDM’s solution is required for this issue.

CAE and other operator and supplier comments, please.

Item Year of Aircraft From


Summary Title Component Part No.(Sim Mfr & Vendor) TDM Vendor Name
No. Mfr Type User

46 SimNode Task sp0c0.exe CAE 2012 B747-8 CLX


Aborts

Our B747-8 FFS is a CAE Series 7000 simulator based on the OpServer and nodes architecture (using IBM
IntelliStation Z Pro). Starting about four years ago, we have encountered numerous aborts of the synchronous
task (sp0c0.exe) on the SimNode computer. These aborts happen only right after completion of the simulator
software load process when the simulator is loaded and idling, but never later on during training. About 20% of all
load attempts fail.

After CAE implemented various (unrelated) simulator software updates, the frequency of these post-load task
aborts has become considerably higher, effectively preventing us from using the new software load for training. A
routine software reload to quickly fix a simulator issue now requires a considerable number of load attempts, thus
turning into a downtime of unpredictable duration.

CAE has analyzed the problem, but so far, no fix has been identified.

Have other users operating Series 7000 simulators encountered similar task aborts?

CAE and other operator comments, please.


Reference 18-101/FSG-245 – Page 23

MOTION AND CONTROL LOADING


Item Part No.(Sim Mfr & Year of Aircraft From
Summary Title Component TDM Vendor Name
No. Vendor) Mfr Type User

47 Advance Motion CPA


Cueing Algorithm

There have been many discussions on motion cueing algorithms in recent years in various conferences such as
the FSEMC presentations. Did any of those innovations/research make it to the recently-manufactured TDMs
used for flight crew training (civil or military)?

TDMs, OEMs (Moog, etc.), and operators comment please.

What works? What are the challenges from various perspectives: integration, IP, contractual, software maturity,
etc.?

What can the operators/training organization look forward to in the future?

******16-056******

Item Part No.(Sim Mfr & Year of Aircraft From


Summary Title Component TDM Vendor Name
No. Vendor) Mfr Type User

EM2K PCU L3 CTS 2008 KLM


2015

Every two years, we change our EM2K HF68-Naturelle (Shell Oil product), mostly because of discoloration.
Discoloration can be an indicator for deterioration of the oil. We also sample the oil for particulate contaminants on
a regular basis, but analysis shows that the oil meets the specifications.

How often do other users replace the EM2K oil?

Other user comments please.

Item Part No.(Sim Mfr & Year of Aircraft From


Summary Title Component TDM Vendor Name
No. Vendor) Mfr Type User

48 Flight Controls Control Loading L3 CTS 2003 B777-200 KLM


Tuning
2008 B777-300
2015 B787-8/9

Are there any customers from L3 CTS who experience rumble and vibrations on their primary flight controls and
throttles?

We experience this not only on the analogue systems, but also on the new digital systems. With normal tuning
procedures, it cannot be completely eliminated: it is always there.

Other operator experiences, please.


Reference 18-101/FSG-245 – Page 24

MOTION AND CONTROL LOADING


Item Part No.(Sim Mfr & Year of Aircraft From
Summary Title Component TDM Vendor Name
No. Vendor) Mfr Type User

49 Moog RTH Failures Return to Home CB57401-001 Moog All All ASA

Are other operators experiencing similar reliability issues with the CAE Moog Motion Return to Home (RTH Drives)
P/N CB57401-001? Current process is an open 5-day lead time to ship instructions to Moog for repair within the
United States.

Pico Fuse “F1” has been blowing. What causes this to blow?
Reference 18-101/FSG-245 – Page 25

MOTION AND CONTROL LOADING

Moog and other operator comments, please.

Item Part No.(Sim Mfr & Year of Aircraft From


Summary Title Component TDM Vendor Name
No. Vendor) Mfr Type User

50 Yaskawa Servomotor PM Servo Actuator CAE 2018 B787NG ASA


and Battery Availability

OEM Yaskawa user’s Manual Design and Maintenance Section 1.8.3 states the following: Servomotor life
expectancy is five years or 20,000 hours before an overhaul.

Have any users reached the high time limit for overhaul? Have users experienced any premature failures of the
servos?

Have any users experienced a depleted battery issue with Yaskawa servo encoders? The warning for a low battery
is only activated after the system is faulted from low battery on power up. This would be too late to avert an encoder
recalibration and requires a preventative maintenance schedule to replace the batteries prior to the low battery
warning.

Will Yaskawa JZSP-BA01-1 batteries be available on the open market in 10 years?


Reference 18-101/FSG-245 – Page 26

MOTION AND CONTROL LOADING

CAE and other operator comments, please.

Item Part No.(Sim Mfr & Year of Aircraft From


Summary Title Component TDM Vendor Name
No. Vendor) Mfr Type User

51 DN1 MTG Interactive Display on Micron-II P733-256M- Pre-2009 All FDX


Computer Display DN1 Cabinet FD4Gb-TS
(with Computer)

The touch screen on the DN1 will not wake up with touch. Using the reset button on the bottom rear of the unit
results in gibberish on the screen.

We are having issues with the supplier returning a unit that operates incorrectly. Most are returned with the above
mentioned or intermittent results.

FedEx would like to know if other operators are having similar issues and if they have found alternative solutions.

Supplier and operator comments, please.


Reference 18-101/FSG-245 – Page 27

MOTION AND CONTROL LOADING


Item Part No.(Sim Mfr & Year of Aircraft From
Summary Title Component TDM Vendor Name
No. Vendor) Mfr Type User

52 Control Loading SCL TRU Simulation + TRU Simulation + 2017 B737MAX Boeing
Training Training

Are any other TRU operators having issues with any Secondary Control Loading (SCL) tripping and not auto-
resetting?

TRU, and other operator comments, please.

Item TDM/Vendor Part Year of Aircraft From


Summary Title Component TDM/Vendor
No. No. Mfr Type User

53 Leaking EMM EMM Motion Actuator -889-885 Moog 2016 B737 AAL
Actuators
B787
A350

American Airlines has experienced oil dripping from the top of GEN 2 EMM legs P/N -880-085 since their original
installation in 2016 and 2017. Moog’s position is that this behavior should subside after three to four months of
normal usage. Have other users had issues with oil dripping from the top of GEN 2 EMM legs? Has it continued
past this three to four-month window?

How long have other users experienced this phenomenon?

Moog and other operator comments, please


Reference 18-101/FSG-245 – Page 28

OTHER TRAINING DEVICES


*****17-041*****

Item Part No.(Sim Mfr & TDM/Vendor Year of Aircraft From


Summary Title Component
No. Vendor) Name Mfr Type User

Simfinity Trainer FMS Rehost CAE FDX


Honeywell

CAE has provided a number of Simfinity trainers of many types to FedEx that incorporate a Honeywell FMS rehost.

There is a significant time delay between the time a new revision of the FMS is released for use on the aircraft and
an updated version of the Simfinity trainer is available to us. This has given the Simfinity trainers a poor reputation
for being up to date and for their ability to be kept up to date.

What can CAE and Honeywell do to resolve this? This issue is leading our company to look for alternatives to these
kinds of products.

CAE and Honeywell comments, please.

*****17-044*****

Item Part No. (Sim Mfr & TDM/Vendor Year of Aircraft From
Summary Title Component
No. Vendor) Name Mfr Type User

Hardware Hardware General Any Any LAT

LAT has had several poor experiences in recent years with the reliability and fidelity of Flat Panel Trainers.
Although these devices are not certified, they are anyway used as part of integrated training syllabi and must
exhibit similar reliability figures as their bigger TD cousins.

In particular, the TDMs must be encouraged to source hardware for these lower-level devices that is fit-for-
purpose and can support the demanding requirements of modern aircraft simulation software.

Similarly, where proprietary simulated panels are used on such devices, these must exhibit high reliability and
also must be supported by the TDMs with available spares and rapid repair services.

LAT is interested in comments from other operators’ experiences with such devices and TDMs on how they will
address such concerns in the future.
Reference 18-101/FSG-245 – Page 29

INTERFACE
Item Part No.(Sim Mfr & Year of Aircraft From
Summary Title Component TDM/Vendor Name
No. Vendor) Mfr Type User

54 Card Replacement FIBICU PCI PCB 91787481 L3 CTS QFA

From last year’s conference: There was no solution to replace these cards. Not providing a solution presents
unnecessary risk to operators using this I/O card. We have three C2000x devices using this technology and they
are expected to remain in service for some time.

Can we expect a solution from L3 CTS?

Do other operators of C2000x devices have the same concerns?

L3 CTS and other operator comments, please.

Item Part No.(Sim Mfr & Year of Aircraft From


Summary Title Component TDM/Vendor Name
No. Vendor) Mfr Type User

55 GPIO Firmware GPIO PS426905015268 CAE 5000 2008 B738 QFA


GPIO
PS426906015268
GPIO-S

We have recently had some issues with our GPIO/GPIO-S cards on our CAE 5000 series B737-800 simulator. We
have a number of spare GPIO/GPIO-S cards with different firmware installed. We are having difficulties in identifying
the firmware installed on the GPIO/GPIO-S cards. We are still unable to flash the firmware to these cards as we do
not have the new Panel Virtual Tool (PVT). We have asked CAE to help us identify the firmware installed; however,
it all seems too difficult. A FSB SIM-415-HW dated November 24, 2009, identifies the firmware required for certain
panels; however, it does not identify the GPIO/GPIO-S cards with which firmware is installed.

CAE do you have a way to identify the firmware installed?

CAE do you have the PVT software operational so that we can flash our own firmware?

Do other 5000 series owners have similar issues?

Are other 5000 series owners able to flash their own firmware?

CAE and other operator comments, please.


Reference 18-101/FSG-245 – Page 30

INTERFACE
Item Part No.(Sim Mfr & Year of Aircraft From
Summary Title Component TDM/Vendor Name
No. Vendor) Mfr Type User

56 IO Failure Due to Memory Module 382186055621 CAE 2005 A330 QFA


Memory Module

We operate a CAE A330 Flight Simulator and are constantly having Memory Module failures P/N: 382186055621
on any of the CPPDM’s circuit cards P/N MA334056-03. This normally occurs if we have had a power failure or the
emergency button has been pressed. The failures are random.

Any other operators experiencing the same issues?

Is CAE aware of many memory module failures?

Is there any protection that could be added to prevent these failures?

CAE and other operator comments, please.

Item Part No.(Sim Mfr & Year of Aircraft From


Summary Title Component TDM/Vendor Name
No. Vendor) Mfr Type User

57 Horizon Boards Horizon Boards Various TRU Simulation + 2015 A350 LAT
Training
Etc.

On a TRU simulator with original aircraft LRUs and TRU Horizon board interface, we saw more than a dozen boards
fail within a few hours while the simulator was powered. We did not spare sufficient boards; thus, this resulted in an
AOG situation. The simulator could only be brought back into service by changing almost all Horizon interface
boards in the simulator (defective or not) with additional spares and engineering support from the TDM.

After three months, the conclusion from the analysis of the defective boards was that they must have been in contact
with excessive electric power, probably during hot swap troubleshooting. However, swapping cards never took
place while the bus bars were powered and the simulator is buffered from the grid by a UPS.
Note: The only hot swaps we saw were done by TRU personnel supporting on site.

Currently we have no further explanation why so many cards failed almost simultaneously and we fear that it might
happen again at any time.

Recommendation: The two CAN bus analyzing tools that TRU brought to site for troubleshooting were not part of
the recommended tools and test equipment list. This might be worth a service bulletin for all operators with CAN
bus-driven TRU simulators.

Has any other TRU operator seen this kind of behavior?

We would like to encourage the TDM to investigate the source problem of this further and advise possible
(preventive) actions via SB.

TRU Simulation + Training and other operator comments, please.


Reference 17-097/FSG-233 – Page 31

INTERFACE
Item Part No.(Sim Mfr & Year of Aircraft From
Summary Title Component TDM/Vendor Name
No. Vendor) Mfr Type User

58 Design of Horizon Horizon Board Various TRU Simulation + 2015 A350 LAT
Board Training
Etc.

On a recent AOG situation on our A350 FFS with many Horizon boards failing within a few hours, we identified a
challenge to troubleshoot the boards with existing tools due to that fact that the simulator currently has both CAN-
Horizon and Ethernet-Horizon interfaces.

We wonder if it would not make the design simpler and technician’s life easier if the entire sim only had Horizon-
Boards with Ethernet interface (only one system, more common diagnosis options, in general better know-how)?

Are there plans by the TDM to simplify the design further?

Operators and TDMs comments, please.


Reference 18-101/FSG-245 - Page 32

MISCELLANEOUS - FLIGHT SIMULATOR SYSTEMS


Item Part No.(Sim Mfr & Year Aircraft From
Summary Title Component TDM/Vendor Name
No. Vendor) of Mfr Type User

59 SATCE FSEMC

How many operators are currently reviewing or implementing a modern Simulated Air Traffic Control Environment
(SATCE) solution? The SATCE Working Group has been reactivated to update ARINC Specification 439A.

Simulator users and operators, do you have any recommendations on improving or enhancing ARINC
Specification 439A?

Other user and operator comments, please.

Item Part No.(Sim Mfr & Year Aircraft From


Summary Title Component TDM/Vendor Name
No. Vendor) of Mfr Type User

60 How does Binary File Affect Any Any Any Any JAL
the Design of Simulator?

Binary files provided by an aircraft OEM or an avionics OEM are gradually major simulation components. In the
near future, most simulation modules may be replaced by binary files. The only thing simulator manufacturers
need to consider may be how they design a platform of simulation and how they design the interface between
binary modules and their designed IOS, Motion and Control Loading, and visual system.

If this assumption would be correct: From a technical point of view, does it mean that every FSTD could be
expected to have the exact same level of both a quality and fidelity of simulation, even if anyone will make
FSTDs?

Other operator and supplier comments, please.

Item Part No.(Sim Mfr & Year Aircraft From


Summary Title Component TDM/Vendor Name
No. Vendor) of Mfr Type User

61 Development of HR ANA
for FFS Engineer

Recently, troubleshooting of a problem becomes difficult on the end user’s side, because TDMs do not provide
the source code to the end users. Increasing the modularized or highly integrated parts is also a factor of
difficulty.

We think we need to change our development of human resources in these circumstances.

TDMs also cannot get the source code of the binary packages. We would like to know how other operators or
TDMs to develop their human resources.

1. What skills or knowledge do we need in the future?


2. How do you train your engineers and technicians?

Other operators, TDMs, OEMs, and vendors comment please.


Reference 18-101/FSG-245 – Page 33

MISCELLANEOUS - FLIGHT SIMULATOR SYSTEMS


Item Part No.(Sim Mfr & Year Aircraft From
Summary Title Component TDM/Vendor Name
No. Vendor) of Mfr Type User

62 Safe Disposal of All All CAE


Decommissioned
Simulators

We would like to hear from the other sim operators relating to scrapping of simulators.

What experiences have operators had with doing this with regards to safe disposal of electrical parts and
equipment, separation of recyclable equipment, and sale or scrapping of avionics equipment? Also understanding
any costs or gains to undertake the process.

We have a significant number of older sims in storage and we are now looking at trying to get them disposed of.
Any experience from other operators would be appreciated.

Other operator and supplier comments, please.

Item Part No.(Sim Mfr & Year Aircraft From


Summary Title Component TDM/Vendor Name
No. Vendor) of Mfr Type User

63 CAE 7000 Series Platform MA394123032270 CAE 2008 B747-400F NCA


Platform

We found a part which seems to be cracked on each of the CAPT side and the F/O side on the platform during
the inspection of the Platform welding part.

In accordance with the instruction in CAE FSB-SIM-661-HW, we take pictures of crack sites and seek advice from
CAE. As a result, we are planning to conduct nondestructive testing.

How is CAE thinking about future responses?

Have other operators discovered the same problem?

CAE and other operator comments, please.


Reference 18-101/FSG-245 - Page 34

MISCELLANEOUS - FLIGHT SIMULATOR SYSTEMS


Item Part No.(Sim Mfr & Year Aircraft From
Summary Title Component TDM/Vendor Name
No. Vendor) of Mfr Type User

64 Crew Seats Seats 3A380-0007-01-68 Boeing 2013 B787-8 QFA

Recent problems with the crew seats in our B787-8 FFS have highlighted the fact that even though they were
purchased as the kit of aircraft parts for the FFS, they are stamped as “simulator use only.”

Because of this, we are unable to rotate with aircraft spares. It looks like we may be required to buy spare
components, overhaul manuals, and repair in house.

Our B787-9 FFS has aircraft seats.

Is there a reason why these seats were not aircraft parts?

What are the experiences of others with similar issues?

Boeing and other operator and supplier comments, please.


Reference 18-101/FSG-245 – Page 35

AVIONICS
Item Part No.(Sim Mfr & Year of Aircraft From
Summary Title Component TDM/Vendor Name
No. Vendor) Mfr Type User

65 ISS/TAWS and PBN TAWS Terrain/Obstacle Boeing B777-9 LAT


Approaches Database
Rockwell Collins B787
Others Others

The Integrated Surveillance System (ISS) with its part Terrain Awareness System (TAWS) can come either with
aircraft hardware or as software simulated solution. The software simulated solution does not allow loading the
original aircraft/obstacle database. This database needs to be provided by the TAWS manufacturer instead.

To get the simulator approval for Precision Based Navigation (PBN) approaches, it must be demonstrated to the
authority that the most recent terrain/obstacle database is loaded as per aircraft.

How do manufacturers plan to provide such terrain/obstacle database updates in sync with the aircraft releases
and not just occasionally, like just once per year?

Other operator and supplier comments, please.

Item Part No.(Sim Mfr & Year of Aircraft From


Summary Title Component TDM/Vendor Name
No. Vendor) Mfr Type User

66 ADS-B in Simulation NextGen ADS-B in All All 2019 All FDX


Simulation

ADS-B Out is mandated by 2020. This has little effect on training and simulation. However, ADS-B In does. For
example, it will be possible to receive Flight Information Services – Broadcast and transmit the data received to
cockpit indicating systems such as EFBs, crew tablets, or avionics displays. This means that the FIS-B data stream
will need to be simulated and transmitted to display devices in the cockpit.

Have any operators started to plan how this will be used in training?

Have any operators started to implement simulation systems? What and how?

Have any TDMs or suppliers come up with simulation systems yet?

Other operator and supplier comments, please.


Reference 18-101/FSG-245 – Page 36

AVIONICS

******16-061******

Item Part No.(Sim Mfr & Year of Aircraft From


Summary Title Component TDM/Vendor Name
No. Vendor) Mfr Type User

Rehosted FMS CAE 2012 B747-8 CPA


2014

Use of some reposition functions (ground-to-air) in the B747-8 FFS will cause the FMS to behave erratically in even
basic modes (HDG/VS), following which VNAV will either not engage or will behave very poorly, and the Integrated
Approach Navigation (IAN) will not capture final approach.

This also occurs following any use of FMS save/recall at any point during the session.

The work-around is to avoid the use of such features, which has an impact on the time required to get the simulated
aircraft into position for the approach, and thus on the flow of the training exercise.

Similar issues regarding FMS function and reliability have been identified throughout the life of the B747-8 program.
We have heard (anecdotally) that the FMS BP3.1 update addresses some known issues of the -8 FMS, but not this
one.

Have other operators had similar experiences? Show of hands of B747-8 sim operators who have incorporated
FMS BP3.1 into their devices?

Vendor and user comments, please.

Item Part No.(Sim Mfr & Year of Aircraft From


Summary Title Component TDM/Vendor Name
No. Vendor) Mfr Type User

67 FMS FMS NavDB GE B737 LAT

Older B737 FMS loads up to 10.7 have been tolerant with respect to FMS NavDB’s and FMS software loads.
Beginning with FMS load 10.8A, an aircraft FMS NavDB cannot be loaded in the simulator any more if the aircraft
and simulator load do not match. Depending on update status and mixed customers with diverse FMS loads, this
causes constraints when loading aircraft databases to simulator.

Simulated approaches may come with a solution to make them tolerant against load checking. But if original FMC
hardware boxes or particular FMC simulator hardware boxes are used, the load numbers have to match.

Potentially this can be overcome by performing all FMS updates as per aircraft. But this is not a functional approach
if you have mixed customers with diverse FMS loads.

How do other operators handle this situation?

Can the FMS manufacturer and the TDMs consider a general solution to inhibit the FMS load checking for use in
simulators?

Other operator, manufacturer, and TDM comments, please.


Reference 18-101/FSG-245 – Page 37

AVIONICS
Item Part No.(Sim Mfr & Year of Aircraft From
Summary Title Component TDM/Vendor Name
No. Vendor) Mfr Type User

68 Rehost DEU DEU CDS BP2015 CAE 2006 B737-800 JAL

JAL’s 737-800FFS has a rehost system of DEU, CDS BP2006. Since RFT, JAL is waiting for the update of CDS
BP2015. This is because a Fleet Team Digest was published by The Boeing Company.

Do any operators wait for an update in this same case?

Would you share the latest information for BP2015?

CAE, Boeing, and other operator comments, please.

Item Part No.(Sim Mfr & Year of Aircraft From


Summary Title Component TDM/Vendor Name
No. Vendor) Mfr Type User

69 CAL A350-900 Simulator CAE 2016 A350-900 CAL


Terrain Database Update
Capability

CAL’s A350-900 simulator equipped with simulated TAWS (AESS). The CAE simulated AESS TDB uses the visual
DB and however accurate, it is not updated. We are wondering how this design could be aligned with the real AESS
on the aircraft with regular updated TDB.

Once the regular TDB is updated, what will be the impact on the CAL route?

TDM’s solution required for this issue.

CAE and other operator and supplier comments, please.

Item Part No.(Sim Mfr & Year of Aircraft From


Summary Title Component TDM/Vendor Name
No. Vendor) Mfr Type User

70 737 CDS BP2015 CAE Classic 1999 B737NG KLM


SIM XXI 2007

Have other users and/or operators planned or recently performed an upgrade of the CDS Common Display System
to BP2015? If so, are there any special items to consider? Pitfalls/tips, etc.

KLM plans to perform this update on their two B737NGs in 2019.

Other operator comments, please.


Reference 18-101/FSG-245 – Page 38

AVIONICS

*****17-053*****

Item Part No.(Sim Mfr & Year of Aircraft From


Summary Title Component TDM/Vendor Name
No. Vendor) Mfr Type User

Display Unit CDS Honeywell Any Before B737NG LAT


2009
AIMS B777

Failed Display Units Phase II, which are still in service in many simulators, can often not be repaired any more. A
new and very expensive Phase IIIA DU needs to be purchased.

Has any operator found a more effective solution to handle such situation? Can Honeywell provide dedicated
support for DUs operated in simulators in a similar way as done in the past?

Honeywell and other operator comments, please.

Item Part No.(Sim Mfr & Year of Aircraft From


Summary Title Component TDM/Vendor Name
No. Vendor) Mfr Type User

71 Display Unit CDS Honeywell Any Before B737NG LAT


2009
AIMS B777

This relates to the discussion item 17-053 about support for failed DUs from last year’s conference.

We like to understand if any other solution than repair or purchase of the aircraft unit from any supplier for these
DU’s has been developed.

For example: last year, Boeing Flight Services demonstrated a display rehost solution for B737. We are in touch
with BFS and they are also working on a solution for B777. However, no fixed date for a final product is known.

Honeywell, Boeing, and other operator comments, please.

Item Part No.(Sim Mfr & Year of Aircraft From


Summary Title Component TDM/Vendor Name
No. Vendor) Mfr Type User

72 GE FMC Grey Box L3 CTS B737NG QFA

With the host upgrade of our B737NG in 2016, we opted for the GE Grey Box solution for our FMS instead of the
retargeted solution. Problems continue with the snapshot function, such as FMC data not being reloaded on
snapshot recall to complete failure of the FMC (blank display). This is causing interruptions to training sessions with
some not being able to be completed due to lack of time following maintenance intervention.

Does anyone else using the Grey Box solution experience issues similar to this?

GE, L3 CTS, and other operator comments, please.


Reference 18-101/FSG-245 – Page 39

AVIONICS
Item Part No. (Sim Mfr & TDM/Vendor Year of Aircraft From
Summary Title Component
No. Vendor) Name Mfr Type User

73 A610 Function for L3 CTS B787 ANA


B787

The reset function of the electrical system is problematic on our B787 FFSs.

Many STATUS messages are displayed at power up after shutting off the electrical power in the evacuation training.
Some of the messages remain even after the reset. We made other procedures to remove those messages.

We would like the vendor to improve the ARINC 610 functions not only on the electrical reset on B787. The “binary”
approach will be increased in the future. So, we would like the vendor to develop the ARINC 610 functions reflecting
the operations in the end users.

Other operators, TDMs, vendors comment please.

Item Part No. (Sim Mfr & TDM/Vendor Year of Aircraft From
Summary Title Component
No. Vendor) Name Mfr Type User

74 An Integration of Any Avionics Any Any JAL


ARINC 610 and BITE Component
Function into a Grey
Box Modeling

Except for cost related issues, an advantage of grey box simulation may be the point at which an avionics or an
aircraft manufacturer could integrate ARINC 610 functions in their code.

But an achievement of its integration seems not to be sufficient. Auto altitude call-outs function of TAWS or
EGPWS is a good example. We still experience no call-outs or partial call-outs during approach and landing in our
simulator training. JAL suspects ARINC 610 function for switching from Take-off Mode to Approach Mode inside a
grey box might be incorrect. This phenomenon also could be observed on FSTDs that are designed by using a
real hardware black box stimulation method.

Looking back at past FSEMC discussions, an avionics OEM had mentioned that it had been really hard to
integrate some functions for training because such a software change had impacted airworthiness. JAL believes,
to avoid such a situation, an avionics OEM has started to develop a grey box modeling.

Q1: Does an avionics OEM have a plan to develop a grey box instead of current Rehost simulation to be able to
integrate ARINC 610 functions?

Q2: Does an avionics OEM have a plan to integrate BITE functions in a grey box?

Other operator and supplier comments, please.


Reference 18-101/FSG-245 - Page 40

REGULATORY
Item Part No. (Sim Mfr & Year of Aircraft From
Summary Title Component TDM/Vendor Name
No. Vendor) Mfr Type User

75 BREXIT Impact on FSI


Regulations

Are there any updates from EASA or UK-CAA regarding how BREXIT will impact FSTD Qualifications?

Regulator, supplier, and operator comments, please.

Item Part No. (Sim Mfr & Year of Aircraft From


Summary Title Component TDM/Vendor Name
No. Vendor) Mfr Type User

76 CS-FSTD(A) Issue 2 CPA


Query and Effectivity

With the recent formation of CS-FSTD(A) Issue 2, it looks like the industry continues to see a difference between
EASA's "20% engineering tolerance" versus FAA 14 CFR Part 60's "40% engineering tolerance" for evaluating
FSTD Engineering Validation Test results. Would anyone familiar with the situation know the working/thinking
behind the rationale for not including or not changing the engineering tolerance during the recent formation of CS-
FSTD(A) Issue 2? Is there any plan to do so in another future Issue or RMT?

Regulator comments, please

Item Part No. (Sim Mfr & Year of Aircraft From


Summary Title Component TDM/Vendor Name
No. Vendor) Mfr Type User

77 CS-FSTD(A) Issue 2 CPA


Query and Effectivity

The cover of CS-FSTD(A) Issue 2 suggests it was published May 3, 2018. However, there is a paragraph
describing the effective “date of entry into force” somewhere in the document. It says:

For the date of entry into force of this Issue, please refer to Decision 2018/006/R in the Official Publication of
the Agency.

This Decision shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Publication of
EASA.

It shall apply from the applicability date of the related Commission Regulation 7 (which has been prepared
based on EASA Opinion No 06/2017) that introduces new requirements on loss of control prevention and
recovery training (UPRT) into Commission Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011. Upon applicability, it shall also
apply to FSTDs used for UPRT as per Commission Regulation (EU) No 965/2012.

The multiple layers of referrals do not make it easy to understand.

Question:

Is it effective already or is it awaiting/tied to the publication of some other documents/RMT, etc., in the future?

For:
a. New simulators?
b. For previously qualified simulators intended to be used for UPRT training?

Would authorities/TDMs comment?


Reference 18-101/FSG-245 - Page 41

REGULATORY
Item Part No. (Sim Mfr & Year of Aircraft From
Summary Title Component TDM/Vendor Name
No. Vendor) Mfr Type User

78 Regulatory IFTC

The FAA Part 60 Change Directive 2 requirements will be effective in April 2019. EASA CS-FSTD(A) issue 2 was
released in May 2018 the effective date requirements are unclear.

Many FSTD operators like IFTC planned to integrate this upgrade to many simulators. All updated simulators
need to be inspected before releasing the training. We have several questions:

• How is the subjective assessment part to be done? Do EASA inspectors get training?
• Is a trained UPRT instructor required for operator acceptance before EASA inspection?
• How will EASA react the inspections requested date? Can all operators’ inspection dates be met
accordingly?

Regulator and user comments please.

Item Part No. (Sim Mfr & Year of Aircraft From


Summary Title Component TDM/Vendor Name
No. Vendor) Mfr Type User

79 NextGen and SESAR All All All All All FSI


Simulator
Requirements

The deadline for NextGen and SESAR implementation of 2020 is fast approaching. Can the regulators provide
any details related to simulation requirements for Datalink Communications resulting from these programs?

Regulator, supplier, and operator comments, please.

Item Part No. (Sim Mfr & Year of Aircraft From


Summary Title Component TDM/Vendor Name
No. Vendor) Mfr Type User

80 FSTD Load Updates Boeing

The industry is moving towards all FSTD software, whether aircraft systems or simulator specifics, being delivered
in binary/executable formats and controlled by the OEMs and TDMs. This will give increasing standardization of
simulator performance, with updates to these packages by both OEMs and TDMs for resolution of defects,
moving towards being managed via a defined release schedule. This is an evolution away from the ‘traditional’
way of working where issues were more readily resolved on an individual device under more local control and
within local timescales.

How are operators preparing to work with their users and regulators for devices built and supported in this
manner?

Other operator and supplier comments, please.


Reference 18-101/FSG-245 - Page 42

REGULATORY
Item Part No. (Sim Mfr & Year of Aircraft From
Summary Title Component TDM/Vendor Name
No. Vendor) Mfr Type User

81 UPRT CATC

The EASA Certification Specification CS-FSTD (A) Issue 2 was issued on May 3rd this year. After the entry into
force of the regulation, the transition period to update the devices is one year.

Does this mean that FSTDs need to be updated by May 2019 in order to be able to provide UPRT training? We
think that time frame is too short due to the number of FSTDs within EASA.

Regulator, supplier, and operator comments please.

Item Part No. (Sim Mfr & Year of Aircraft From


Summary Title Component TDM/Vendor Name
No. Vendor) Mfr Type User

82 UPRT Workout NIL NIL All TDMs NIL All AFR


(CAE, L3 for Air
France’s concern)

OEMs and TDMs provide upgrades (Service Bulletins) or “natives” functions for UPRT capability. However:
• On one hand, the European regulation EASA CS-FSTD (A) issue 2, incorporating UPRT requirements, is
not effective yet (April 2019)
• On the other hand, the local authority (e.g., DGAC) is not trained yet to qualify UPRT FSTDs

As far as the UPRT evaluation process (in E.U. in general and in France in particular) is not mature, as a
feedback, what would be realistic in term of scheduling and sequencing?

Air France sees the following steps (may be uncomplete):


• Analysis for FSTD Eligibility to UPRT
• Training for UPRT qualification (examination staff and operator staff)
• Scheduling and workout for UPRT upgrades (if applicable)
• Scheduling of special evaluations

Regulator, supplier, and other operator comments, please.

Item Part No. (Sim Mfr & Year of Aircraft From


Summary Title Component TDM/Vendor Name
No. Vendor) Mfr Type User

83 Common Type Rating FSEMC

Can UPRT and/or full stall training be conducted across devices for airplanes with common type ratings? For
example, UPRT in a B757 simulator and for B767, or B747-400 UPRT for B747-8?

Can the regulators provide information on the subject and advise TDM’s and operators on what will be required?
Reference 18-101/FSG-245 - Page 43

REGULATORY
Item Part No. (Sim Mfr & TDM/Vendor Year of Aircraft From
Summary Title Component
No. Vendor) Name Mfr Type User

84 Simulator Load Software All All FSC


Updates

Simulators have changed to binary loads. This results in one executable file and is updated regularly by the TDM.
Each update is released with the release notes included. The operator has to have full confidence in the TDM that
the release notes reflect all the changes and nothing else is affected. Validating the new load by the operator
consists of a subjective flight and checking the QTGs that are affected and mentioned in the release notes. This
could still be considered a spot-check since it is impossible to check everything. In the end, the operator is
responsible for having a proper training load for their customers.

Question 1: How do the authorities handle load updates and what is their position on this?

Question 2: How do other operators handle this?

Other operators, authorities, and suppliers comment, please.

Item Part No. (Sim Mfr & Year of Aircraft From


Summary Title Component TDM/Vendor Name
No. Vendor) Mfr Type User

85 FAA Part 60, Change 2 ANA


Directive 2

In FAA Part-60 Change-2 Directive-2, FAA Operator is obliged to provide UPRT Training from March 2019 and
are required to satisfy the technical requirements indicated in Directive-2. But is it possible to complete the
necessary renovation equipment by March 2019?

It is presumed that it will be difficult to complete renovation by that date, but are you thinking of a grace period
such as the extension of a provisional period? If there is no grace period, what will happen?

Other users, TDMs, OEMs, Authorities comment please.

Item Part No. (Sim Mfr & Year of Aircraft From


Summary Title Component TDM/Vendor Name
No. Vendor) Mfr Type User

86 UPRT: FFS Updates Airbus


Planning

Given the large number of FFSs that are being updated and have to be qualified in order to comply with FAA and
EASA latest FSTD regulations (Part 60 Change 2 and CS-FSTD(A) issue 2), will all the FFS operators be ready
end of March 2019?

Is there room for a delay to be discussed? If yes, on what basis?

Regulators, operators, please comment.


Reference 18-101/FSG-245 - Page 44

REGULATORY
Item Part No. (Sim Mfr & Year of Aircraft From
Summary Title Component TDM/Vendor Name
No. Vendor) Mfr Type User

87 UPRT Updates Airbus

Following recent regulatory changes introducing UPRT, Stall, Icing, Bounced Landing, and Gusting Crosswind
requirements on FSTDs, a massive wave of updates has started and is in progress.

What is the industry’s experience related to these updates (downtime, qualification process, end-user satisfaction,
etc.)?

Operators, regulators, please comment.

Item Part No. (Sim Mfr & Year of Aircraft From


Summary Title Component TDM/Vendor Name
No. Vendor) Mfr Type User

88 Digital Master QTG Qualification Test Guide Airbus

Airbus would like to know if any organization has recent experience with a really and fully digital Master QTG (i.e.,
no use of paper whatsoever) based on an electronic signature process.

As a reminder, the ARINC 436 document (dated 2010) mentions the following:
a. The eQTG viewer should be capable of adding an indication, such as electronic signature, of
evaluator approval and evaluation date to the eQTG (e.g., Quality Assurance approval).
One or more approvals can be applied to:
i. Individual tests
ii. The entire eQTG

Operators, Regulators, Training Device Manufacturers, please comment.

Item Part No. (Sim Mfr & Year of Aircraft From


Summary Title Component TDM/Vendor Name
No. Vendor) Mfr Type User

89 Uniformization of All All CAE


Standards by NAAs

Most operators are dealing with several National Aviation Authorities (NAAs) who might have different
requirements between each other. Would it be possible to standardize NAA requirements by following EASA/FAA
guidelines? For example, in some cases, QTGs are required to be performed periodically, but there are regulators
who require the full set of QTGs to be completed a month prior to annual certifications.

Authorities, please comment.


Reference 18-101/FSG-245 - Page 45

REGULATORY
Item Part No. (Sim Mfr & Year of Aircraft From
Summary Title Component TDM/Vendor Name
No. Vendor) Mfr Type User

90 EGPWC/TAWS and Terrain/Obstacle Honeywell Many LAT


PBN Approaches Database
Rockwell Collins

To get the simulator approval for PBN approaches, the timeliness of the terrain/obstacle database must be
demonstrated to the competent authority. This is relatively easy if the original aircraft EGPWC/TAWS hardware is
used and if the regular terrain/obstacle database updates are performed in time.

Terrain/obstacle database updates may be much more difficult for all kind of simulated approaches for the
EGPWC/TAWS. How do operators and authorities handle this situation?

To what extent do authorities insist in a simulator terrain/obstacle database updates in the same frequency as
released for the aircrafts? Or is it considered good enough to update the terrain/obstacle database just within a
defined time frame like once a year or so?

Regulators, suppliers, and operator’s comments, please.

Item Part No. (Sim Mfr & Year of Aircraft From


Summary Title Component TDM/Vendor Name
No. Vendor) Mfr Type User

91 Visual Geometry QTG Visual NIL All TDMs NIL All AFR
Test (_4B2)
(CAE, L3 for Air
France’s concern)

During a recurrent evaluation, French authority DGAC made the following objective remark (recommendation for
improvement):

“_4B2 Visual test (System Geometry): The theodolite has only to be used for the initial evaluation and the
acceptance phase between the FSTD operator and the FSTD manufacturer and consequently has not to be used
for the annual rerun of the test. This is clearly stated in the test procedure detailed by CAE. This annual rerun
should only consist of the overlapping of the SPHERE pattern and another pattern (e.g., physical) /…/ to check
the applicable tolerance. This has to be considered for all FFS operated by Air France, when applicable.”

To all TDMs (CAE, L3…): The “full” theodolite method represents a workload of four hours yearly for each FSTD
for the operator and does not satisfy regulation requirements for yearly rerun. Could you provide an “simpler”
alternate method to comply with _4B2 QTG test yearly rerun?

For information: CAE began work on this matter; “sticky dots” located on the mylar could be a starting point.

Other operator and TDM comments, please.


Reference 18-101/FSG-245 – Page 46

SUPPORT INFRASTRUCTURE
Item Part No.(Sim Mfr & Year of Aircraft From
Summary Title Component TDM/Vendor Name
No. Vendor) Mfr Type User

92 Air Duct for FFS’s Air All All ANA


Conditioning

We have experienced the air conditioning duct falling off for some time on our older-generation FFS. The recent
FFSs have the falling-off prevention cables or wire ladders.

Is there any improvement for this problem at other operators or TDMs?

Other operators, TDMs comment please.

Item Part No.(Sim Mfr & Year of Aircraft From


Summary Title Component TDM/Vendor Name
No. Vendor) Mfr Type User

93 Ramp Access Actuator Ramp Actuator D24-10B5-18CE CAE 2014 All ASA

Are other operators experiencing similar reliability issues with the CAE R4, D24-10B5-18CE access way linear
actuators?
Reference 18-101/FSG-245 - Page 47

SUPPORT INFRASTRUCTURE

In service July 2014, failed April 2018.


Reference 18-101/FSG-245 – Page 48

SUPPORT INFRASTRUCTURE

CAE and other operator comments, please.


Operator Codes for Submitted Discussion Items

Air France AFR


Airbus Airbus
Alaska Airlines ASA
All Nippon Airways ANA
American Airlines AAL
Boeing Boeing
CAE CAE
Cargolux CLX
Czech Aviation Training Centre CATC
Cathay Pacific CPA
China Airlines CAL
Delta Airlines DAL
FedEx FDX
FlightSafety International FSI
FSC Simulation FSC
FSEMC Steering Committee FSEMC
IFTC IFTC
Japan Airlines JAL
JAL CAE Flight Training JCFT
KLM Royal Dutch Airlines KLM
Lufthansa Aviation Training LAT
L3 CTS L3CTS
Nippon Cargo Airlines NCA
Qantas QFA
TRU Simulation + Training TRU

Minat Terkait