2016 FSEMC Program - AEEC - AMC

Transcription

Flight Simulator Engineering & Maintenance Conference
2016 FSEMC
Program
October 3-6
Hong Kong
Hosted by:
AN ARINC DOCUMENT
Prepared by FSEMC
Published by
SAE-ITC
16701 Melford Blvd., Suite 120
Bowie, Maryland, 20715
Reference 16-092/FSG-223
August 11, 2016
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.
2016 FSEMC Program
Welcome to the 2016 FSEMC in Hong Kong. This year’s FSEMC is organized by
ARINC Industry Activities and hosted by Rockwell Collins. 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 Questions by Topic—the most important part of the program—
presents 98 questions and 13 follow-up items submitted by the simulator users and
suppliers that will be discussed at the FSEMC.
FSEMC Reminders
The FSEMC officially begins with the Opening Session at 0830 on Tuesday, October 4,
2016.
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:
http://www.aviation-ia.com/fsemc/upcoming/index.html
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 CHAIRMAN WELCOME
P-3
FSEMC SCHEDULE OF EVENTS
P-4
FSEMC TECHNOLOGY WORKSHOP
P-5
FSEMC OPENING SESSION
P-6
FSEMC INDUSTRY SESSION
P-7
FSEMC AWARDS
P-8
FSEMC ELECTIONS
P-12
FSEMC GUIDELINES
P-16
FSEMC HOSPITALITY and SPONSORSHIP
P-19
2015 FSEMC FOLLOW-UP ITEMS
P-20
2016 FSEMC QUESTIONS BY TOPIC
See Next Page
FSEMC TRANSPORTATION
Back Cover
P-1
2016 FSEMC Questions by Topic
PAGE
DATA AND SIMULATION
1
VISUAL
7
PRODUCT SUPPORT
9
STANDARDS AND TRAINING
13
HOST COMPUTER AND PERIPHERALS
16
INSTRUCTOR STATION
20
MOTION AND CONTROL LOADING
24
SUPPORT INFRASTRUCTURE
29
OTHER TRAINING DEVICES
30
AVIONICS
31
REGULATORY/QTG
36
INTERFACE
49
MISCELLANEOUS
51
OPERATOR CODES
End
P-2
WELCOME TO THE 2016 FSEMC
On behalf of your FSEMC Steering Committee, as well as this
year’s host, Rockwell Collins, I would like to welcome all of you to
this year’s conference. I am proud to call many of you in the field
colleagues and almost as many of you friends whom I look forward
to seeing each year at FSEMC.
For those whom I have not had the pleasure to meet, I am Marc
Cronan from Rockwell Collins and I have recently been given the
honor to perform the Chairman role in the FSEMC.
As a short introduction, I have been involved in in the flight
simulation industry for over 33 years since I began my career with
Singer Link Flight Simulation in Binghamton, New York. I have
been a strong advocate of the FSEMC since its inception and have
had the pleasure of representing Rockwell Collins on the Steering
Committee since 2004.
Marc Cronan
FSEMC Chairman
Rockwell Collins
As Chairman of the FSEMC, I plan to broaden our presence more
globally beginning with this year’s conference in Hong Kong. We are reaching out to regulators,
operators and manufacturers in the Asia Pacific region, inviting their teams to join us to lead
the industry. I also look forward to expanding the scope of our conference to include more
emphasis on helicopter simulation and training as this becomes more prevalent throughout our
industry.
Aviation safety through improved training devices continues to be our number one goal. We
can only achieve that goal through the ongoing and dedicated participation of FSEMC
members and conference attendees like you. Without you, and this conference, the flight
simulation industry loses its collective voice and ability to make a difference.
I challenge all of you to voice your opinions and ideas on how to make this and future activities
better. With your involvement, I believe the benefits of the conferences, the working groups,
and the FSEMC developed ARINC Standards will continue to be delivered with the same
professionalism and value to our industry that has existed for the past 20 years.
I thank you in advance for your support of the FSEMC conference, and our industry work
programs as we move forward. If there is anything the FSEMC or I can do for you, please let
me know.
Thank you and welcome to Hong Kong!
Marc Cronan
Marc Cronan
FSEMC Chairman
P-3
2016 FSEMC Schedule of Events
Monday – October 3
1200 - 1900
1300 - 1600
1800 - 2000
Early Registration
Technology Workshop
FSEMC Reception
1430
1520
1600
1630
Tuesday – October 4
Registration Opens
Opening Session
FSEMC Discussion
Presentation – The Challenges of Integrating Supplier Software Simulation Packages
Lunch
Visual Session
Presentation – Factors to Consider in The Use of Head-Up Displays in Simulators
Visual Questions Discussion
FSEMC Discussion
Presentation – The Challenges of Digital Data Packages
FSEMC Discussion
Recess
0730
0830
0930
1020
1120
1200
1315
1400
1630
Wednesday – October 5
Registration Opens
Industry Session
Presentation – The Airbus Upset Prevention and Recovery Training Data Package
FSEMC Discussion
Presentation – Optimal Motion Cueing – Optimizing Motion to Allow Realistic Simulation
Lunch
Presentation – Moving from Reactive to Proactive Product Support
FSEMC Discussion
Recess
0730
0830
0900
1020
1120
1200
1315
TBD
TBD
Thursday – October 6
Registration Opens
Presentation – Delivering Upset Prevention and Recovery
Regulatory Session
FSEMC Discussion
Presentation – Recent FAA Research On Motion Cueing
Lunch
FSEMC Discussion
Open Q&A Session*
Adjourn
0730
0830
0930
1120
1200
1315
*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
ARINC IA will provide coffee breaks daily at approximately 1000 and 1500.
P-4
2016 FSEMC Technology Workshop
Monday, October 3, 2016 – 1300-1600
The FSEMC Steering Committee will hold an open forum setting to discuss hot
topics in the flight simulation industry.
Panel
Participants
(expected)
Topics
Rockwell
Collins
Visual databases, content creation, present visual quality
and future/certification scenes/visual regulations
Airbus
Regulators
Standard VDR for all aircraft acceptable to all
agencies/group on validation data roadmaps/workshop on
the VDR/eQTG
FedEx
FSETA
Training New Entrants For A Career In Flight Simulation
Maintenance
Place
Ballroom
C
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-5
2016 FSEMC Opening Session
Tuesday, October 4, 2016 - 0830
Welcome/Introductions
Marc Cronan
FSEMC Chairman
Rockwell Collins
Keynote Speaker
TBD
FSEMC Awards Introduction
Eric Fuilla-Weishaupt
FSEMC Vice Chairman
Airbus Training
Edwin A. Link Award
FSEMC Vice Chairman to present
Roger S. Goldberg Award
FSEMC Vice Chairman to present
Conference Announcements
FSEMC Chairman
P-6
2016 FSEMC Industry Session
Wednesday, October 5, 2016 - 0830
FSEMC Activities Update
Marc Cronan
Rockwell Collins
Technical Workshop Review
Simulated Air Traffic Control Environments
EASA FSTD Technical Group
Simulator Data Validation
FSTD Data Requirements Working Group
FSEMC Steering Committee
Elections Overview
Sam Buckwalter
ARINC IA
FSEMC Social Events
Conference Activities
Date
Time
Event
Place
Monday
October 3
1800-2000
FSEMC Reception
Ballrooms A and B
Tuesday
October 4
1830-2030
Hospitality Suites
To Be Announced
Wednesday
October 5
1830-2030
Hospitality Suites
To Be Announced
P-7
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-8
Edwin A. Link Award – Recipients
2014 – Tulsa, Oklahoma
Itash Samani
CAE
2012 – Dallas, Texas
Jeff Everett
RSI Visual Systems
2011 – Orlando, Florida
Joe Mays and Richard Holmes
Barco
2010 – Brighton, England
Dr. David White
Thales
2009 – Cairo, Egypt
Craig Phillips
RSI Visual Systems
2008 – Salt Lake City, Utah
Andy Ramsden
Rockwell Collins
2007 – Montreal, Canada
Joe Biller
Link Simulation
2005 – Seattle, Washington
Jim Guvernator
Southwest Airlines
2004 – Tulsa, Oklahoma
Stuart N. Wilmott
CAE SimuFlite
2003 – Prague, Czech Rep
Dr. John Hunt
General Precision
2002 – Tampa, Florida
Kendall W. Neville
The Boeing Company
2001 – Atlanta, Georgia
Stuart Anderson
Evan and Sutherland
2000 – Toulouse, France
Joe Depaola
American Airlines
1999 – Denver, Colorado
Wolf Dieter-Hass
Lufthansa Flight Training
P-9
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 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.
2015 FSEMC Roger S. Goldberg Award Winner
Kip Caudrey
The Boeing Company
P-10
Roger S. Goldberg Award - Recipients
2015 -Kip Caudrey
The Boeing Company
Miami, Florida
2014 – Shigeru Otomo
All Nippon Airways
Tulsa, Oklahoma
2013 – Alain Brault
Airbus
Tróia, Portugal
2012 – Sam Buckwalter
ARINC Industry Activities
Dallas, Texas
2010 – Dieter Bunge
Brighton, England
2009 – Ted Weiss
The Boeing Company
Cairo, Egypt
2008 – Lars Gran
Oxford Aviation Academy
Salt Lake City, Utah
2007 – Bob Glenn
The Boeing Company
Montreal, Quebec
2006 – Roger S. Goldberg
(Awarded Posthumously)
P-11
2016 FSEMC Elections
FSEMC STEERING COMMITTEE ROSTER
Marc Cronan
Chairman
Eric Fuilla-Weishaupt
Vice Chairman
Sam Buckwalter
Executive Secretary
Scott Smith
Assistant Secretary
Howard Gallinger
Hiromitsu Koyano
David Neilson
Christopher Curtis
Jean Bergeron
Neil Cothran
Rick Lewis
Adel M. Sowedan
Mike Jackson
Joshua Brooks
Richard Van de Nouweland
Jeremy Wise
Stefan Nowack
John Muller
Troy Fey
Rockwell Collins
Airbus
Air Canada
All Nippon Airways
American Airlines
The Boeing Company
CAE
Cathay Pacific Airways
Delta Air Lines
EgyptAir
FedEx
FlightSafety International
KLM/Air France
L-3 Link Simulation and Training
Muller Simulation Consultancy
TRU Simulation
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
One representative of a commercial aircraft manufacturer FMO
One representative of a full-flight simulator manufacturer FMO
Six representatives from any FMO category, including simulator suppliers
P-12
2016 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:
www.aviation-ia.com/fsemc.
P-13
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 2015 FSEMC hosted
by Airbus was held in
Miami. The 21th annual
meeting was attended by
simulator user
organizations, supplier
companies, airframe
manufacturers, simulator
manufacturers, and
Regulatory Authorities.
The total registered
attendance was 292
attendees from 30
countries.
Delegates seated at the 2015 FSEMC in Miami, Florida
FSEMC Conference Room Layout
P-14
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
name and organization.
1 2 0
o
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-15
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-16
2016 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
hosted on Tuesday and Wednesday.
Monday Evening Reception at previous FSEMC Conferences
Example of an Evening Suite at the FSEMC
Vanessa Mastros, ARINC IA Business Manager, coordinates exhibits, breaks, and other
arrangements for the hospitality offered at the FSEMC. Manufacturers who wish to be
included as a sponsor of the Exhibit/Reception should review the information in the
FSEMC Exhibit, Activity Sponsor, and Organization Hightlight Options 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-17
2016 FSEMC Sponsorship
There are several opportunities to sponsor the 2016 FSEMC Conference and highlight
your products and services.
Monday Evening Reception Table Options
There are three table top exhibit options available: single, double, or
triple. Each table is 6 ft. x 2.5 ft. The tables will be skirted/draped. See
the Exhibit Map on our web site for a current map of assigned tables
(www.aviation-ia.com/fsemc/upcoming/).
Suite Options (For Reception Exhibitors ONLY)
Organizations who have already secured a Monday Evening Reception
Table are eligible to secure a hospitality suite to continue to display
their products and services.
Break Sponsors
Refreshments during the morning and afternoon breaks are provided by
break sponsoring organizations. Morning and afternoon refreshments
include regular coffee, decaffeinated coffee, tea, water, and
cookie/pastry. Wednesday and Thursday morning breaks remain
available.
Break sponsors receive recognition in our mobile application, on our
web site, and during the conference.
P-18
2016 FSEMC Sponsorship
Organization Highlights and Information (Mobile App)
We will debut the FSEMC Mobile App at this year’s conference. There are
many great features and conference information loaded to the mobile app.
One of the features allows for the opportunity to increase brand
recognition and put your product information in the hands of your current
and potential customers before, during, and after the FSEMC.
This opportunity includes links to your company’s Internet, Twitter,
Facebook, and LinkedIn sites. Additional information includes such details
as:
Brief description of your company (to be added in the mobile app)
Company logo (high resolution with largest side being 300 pixels)
PDF advertisement(s) and/or pamphlet of products and services
offered or highlighted
For more information about sponsoring an FSEMC activity, contact: Vanessa Mastros Business Manager ARINC Industry Activities Email: vanessa.mastros@sae‐itc.org Tel: +1 240 334 2575 P-19
2016 FSEMC Follow-Up Items
The following list is a summary of OPEN items resulting from the 2015 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
14-043
Instructor Station
Boeing
All
15-021
Instructor Station
MSR
FlightSafety
15-022
Instructor Station
AAL
CAE
15-026
Regulatory/QTG
CLX
All
15-062
Miscellaneous
ASA
CAE
15-066
Motion
UAE
CAE/Moog
15-067
Motion
UAE
Moog
15-069
Motion
MSR
FlightSafety
15-074
Avionics
QFA
CAE
15-075
Avionics
QFA
CAE
15-076
Avionics
QFA
CAE
15-081
Avionics
QFA
CAE
15-083
Avionics
UAL
All
P-20
Follow-up
Develop a solution to international
training approvals and qualifications
FlightSafety to work with MSR to
resolve issue with IOS Seat.
CAE to work with Users with issue with
Touch Screen Monitor.
Regulatory Authorities to further review.
CAE to develop a SB for the Map Chart
Light.
CAE/Moog to resolve issue the Returnto-Home batteries, short life span.
Moog to resolve problem with the
REGEN overheat.
FlightSafety to work with MSR to
resolve problems with control loading.
CAE to resolve issue with simulated
EGPWS.
CAE to work A380 Users resolve
problems with MFTD.
CAE to work A380 Users resolve issues
with the SURV/TAWS status messages.
CAE to work A380 Users resolve issues
with the FMS.
CAE to resolve problems with SimSoft
limitations.
Reference 16-092/FSG-223 – Page 1
DATA AND SIMULATION
Item
No.
Subsystem Name
Component
1
Navigation
Radio Aids Databases
Part No. (Sim Mfr &
Vendor)
Sim Mfr/Vendor
Name
Year of Aircraft
Mfr
Type
All
Jeppesen
From
User
FDX
How do we resolve Jeppesen’s chart problems? Often we find that there are inaccuracies between the charts and
the real world data (i.e., the ARINC 424 data such as missing or misplaced waypoints, marker beacons, etc.).
What is the mechanism to get these errors corrected? Is there any mechanism through ARINC IA or within the
ARINC 424 subcommittee?
Jeppesen and other operator comments, please.
Item
No.
Subsystem Name
2
Flight Test Data
Component
Part No. (Sim Mfr &
Vendor)
Sim Mfr/Vendor
Name
All
All
Year of Aircraft
Mfr
Type
All
All
From
User
SAT
In order to satisfy the requests from training device users for definitive information regarding the current device
capability for UPRT, there is a requirement to provide them with a corresponding and concise description of the
Validated Training Envelope (VTE). For legacy training devices simulating older aircraft, support from the OEMs
and TDMs on this topic is limited at best. Whilst it is recognized that all existing Level-D FFS provide an adequate
simulation for current UPRT requirements, the need to provide VTE data to customers remains a challenge.
Comments from TDMs, OEMs, and operators please. In particular, when no VTE data is available from the OEM
or TDM, does this automatically mean that UPRT is not permissible on the device in question?
Comments from TDMs, OEMs, and operators please.
Item
No.
Subsystem Name
3
License Agreements
Component
Part No. (Sim Mfr &
Vendor)
Sim Mfr/Vendor
Name
Year of Aircraft
Mfr
Type
From
User
AATC
Recently, we were unjustly and without due cause threatened with legal action by an OEM for “…simulators…are
designed and qualified for training purposes only and should be used solely for these purposes as confirmed in
the terms and conditions of the agreements in place…using simulators for analytical purposes…is an infringement
of the agreements in place between our companies”.
This caused us to critically review all OEM and TDM license Agreements and whilst the above was in relation to
an accident investigation (performed by a User), does this infer that by using FSTDs for any internal incident
investigations or any form of flight analysis (FOQA or FDM) we could be in breach of licensing Agreements?
Additionally, (some) TDM license Agreements also have ‘Permitted Use’ clauses and the like and they also tend
to restrict use to Pilot and/or Flight Crew training.
Does this further infer that (some) TDMs could interpret using an FSTD for maintenance training or “Fear of
Flying’ type activities are also in breach?
What are other operator’s interpretation of this and more importantly, what are the OEM and TDM views?
Other operator and supplier comments, please.
DATA AND SIMULATION
Item
No.
4
Subsystem Name
Component
Part No. (Sim Mfr &
Vendor)
Sim Mfr/Vendor
Name
Year of Aircraft
Mfr
Type
All
Malfunction (Pitot
Icing Simulation)
From
User
ANA
ANA has experienced “Airspeed Unreliable” situation on real world B787 aircraft caused by pitot icing. B787 pitot
probe has dynamic pressure port and water drain port, and the pressure would be vented from the water drain
port due to dynamic pressure port icing. As a result, airspeed indication dramatically dropped to 30kt as a
minimum indication in flight.
However, our B787 FFS behavior is that airspeed stays the same value at the point which activated the “airspeed
unreliable” malfunction. ANA reported to Boeing that our B787 FFS effect is different than our flying fleet
experience. As a result, Boeing agreed to make a solution which will create the new FSTD malfunction “Airspeed
Unreliable with Pitot Drain (Pressure Vent)”. This new malfunction will be included in Common Block Point (CBP)
Update. It will be useful for future training such as UPRT (AF447 accident was caused by pitot icing).



How have other operators experienced their aircraft repeatability?
Does current malfunction behave as correct with actual aircraft?
Is current malfunction deviating from an actual experience?
Other users, aircraft OEMs, FSTD manufacturers, and regulatory comments please.
Item
No.
Subsystem Name
5
Malfunctions
Component
Part No. (Sim Mfr &
Vendor)
Sim Mfr/Vendor
Name
All
All
Year of Aircraft
Mfr
Type
All
All
From
User
JAL
For UPRT, we shall use a realistic scenario to make an unusual aircraft situation on FSTD by using a single or
some combination of malfunctions. How shall we check fidelity of malfunctions?
Boeing announced last April that they did not have a malfunction for B787 simulator, which represented two or
more of the three pitot tubes were blocked at the same time. This malfunction could lead to an airspeed unreliable
condition. But on the IOS of our B787 simulator, we can choose such a malfunction (i.e., three of three pitot tubes
are blocked). This is just an example, but in the case when we choose this malfunction, how can we see if this
situation would be real even if a data provider has not provided such malfunction data yet?
DATA AND SIMULATION
Item
No.
Subsystem Name
6
Data Package
Component
Part No. (Sim Mfr &
Vendor)
Sim Mfr/Vendor
Name
Year of Aircraft
Mfr
Type
All
From
User
ANA
Since the Binary-Aircraft (later than Boeing 787 or Airbus 350) has been introduced in the industry, FSTDs have
become much more complex. In addition, state-of-art Binary-Aircraft such as Boeing 777X will significantly
expand its binary area for the Aircraft OEM data package.
As an operator point of view, both economic and technical aspects are concerned such as below:
1. FSTD cost is a dramatically larger number than Legacy-Aircraft, especially caused by the Aircraft OEM
data package portion.
2. Longer lead times to fix the software issue within the logic of LSAP or binary area would be expected.
Aircraft OEM or data package provider requires stronger and immediate support with TDM and/or
operator.
We would like to share other operator’s comments, aircraft OEM and TDM perspectives.
DATA AND SIMULATION
Item
No.
7
Subsystem Name
Component
Part No. (Sim Mfr &
Vendor)
Sim Mfr/Vendor
Name
Minimum Control
Airspeed, Air
(VMCA)
We have tried several approaches with regard to the QTG test 2d1 (VMCA):
 Snapshots
Year of Aircraft
Mfr
Type
Any
From
User
Airbus
DATA AND SIMULATION

Simulation data run on our engineering platform in order to provide a manoeuver that demonstrates the
VMCA:

We are in the process of changing this, as neither of these techniques seems easy to use by our
customers.
We would like to open a discussion on this topic.
Regulators, TDMs, operators, please comment.
Item
No.
Subsystem Name
8
Wind Measurement
Component
Part No. (Sim Mfr &
Vendor)
Sim Mfr/Vendor
Name
Year of Aircraft
Mfr
Type
From
User
AAL
When wind conditions are reported from Tower, at what height is the wind measured?
At what height is the windsock from the ground? Does the wind sock stand full at 15 knots reported from tower?
Our simulators use a surface friction model that decreases the surface wind closer to ground.
DATA AND SIMULATION
Item
No.
Subsystem Name
9
Data
Component
Part No.(Sim Mfr &
Vendor)
Sim Mfr/ Vendor
Name
Year of Aircraft
Mfr
Type
From
User
Airbus
KLM
Airbus
With the whole UPRT Part 60 discussion, we noticed that Airbus is delivering new STD update packages.
However, there is not always the need by the operator to update the simulator to the new STD (especially legacy
simulators and associated fleet configuration).
Is Airbus considering allowing partial updates especially in the area affecting the Part 60 requirements?
Other user and Airbus comments, please.
Item
No.
Subsystem Name
Component
10
Digital Flight Controls
Thrust Asymmetry
Compensation
Part No.(Sim Mfr &
Vendor)
Sim Mfr/ Vendor
Name
Any
Year of Aircraft
Mfr
Type
Any
B777
From
User
LFT
After Engine Severe Damage/Seizure malfunctions the Thrust Asymmetry Control (TAC) will usually disengage.
But the malfunctions scenarios are often designed to allow re-engage of TAC immediately after engine fail without
executing engine checklists and shut down the faulty engine first. LFT experienced that some operators took this
as the regular behavior and insisted to see this in the simulator.
After lengthy discussion, LFT learned that TAC reset depends on behavior of N1, N2, and P3 and made sure to
have a selection of engine malfunctions installed on its B777 simulators supporting both scenarios (immediate
TAC reset and after shutdown). Doing this, LFT wants to make clear that the possibility of TAC reset depends on
the way the engine has failed and cannot be expected immediately. LFT believes this will help to better prepare
crews for potential critical situations.
Boeing, manufacturers, and operators comment please.
VISUAL
Item
No.
Subsystem Name
Component
11
Visual IG
Databases
Part No.(Sim Mfr &
Vendor)
Sim Mfr/
Aircraft
Year of Mfr
Vendor Name
Type
Rockwell
Collins
All
From
User
FDX
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
No.
Subsystem Name
Component
Part No.(Sim Mfr &
Vendor)
12
Visual Models
Generic Models
Tropos 6000
Sim Mfr/
Aircraft
Year of Mfr
Vendor Name
Type
CAE 5000
2008
B737-800
From
User
QFA
We have had many reports of pilots in the simulator flying into a “Glass Mountain” at generic airports.
Our concern is a safety critical issue as during an approach into one of these generic airports a pilot may get
injured as a result of hitting some type of object that is invisible: we call it “A Glass Mountain”. When this object is
hit, it is quite sudden and completely unexpected. The simulator responses with a sudden crash, large violent
motion thump, and a red screen indicating a crash situation.
CAE has been working with us in resolving this issue. In the past, the fix was to replace the generic model with an
actual model. The latest CAE changes have been to increase the morphing value around the airport now set to
60, which flattens the immediate terrain surrounding the runway. It is very hard to reproduce these crashes and
we are concerned that the issue is still present in all generic models.
Has any other operator using a CAE 5000-series simulator with a Tropos 6000 visual system experienced these
issues with generic models?
CAE and other operator comments, please.
Item
No.
13
Subsystem Name
LED/Laser Light
Source Projectors
Component
Part No.(Sim Mfr &
Vendor)
Sim Mfr/
Aircraft
Year of Mfr
Vendor Name
Type
From
User
Boeing
Do any users and/or regulators have experience with or feedback regarding the new LED/Laser light source
projectors? Do they noticeably improve the training experience? Are they easier and cheaper to maintain?
User comments, please.
VISUAL
Item
No.
Subsystem Name
14
Flight Freeze
Component
Part No.(Sim Mfr &
Vendor)
Sim Mfr/
Year of Mfr
Vendor Name
CAE
2000
Aircraft
Type
From
User
B747-400F CAL
Aircraft gradually drops down to the ground after reposition to some of the specific locations when flight freeze
released.
Item
No.
Subsystem Name
Component
Part No.(Sim Mfr &
Vendor)
15
EP-8000
Projector VS2200
261226-101 (JVC)
Sim Mfr/
Year of Mfr
Vendor Name
CAE
Aircraft
Type
From
User
A330-200 CAL
B747-400F
B737-800
Rockwell Collins visual system: JVC projectors used with Rockwell Collins EP-8000 do not appear to have the
durability and stability expected.
Users' comments please.
PRODUCT SUPPORT
Item
No.
Subsystem Name
Component
16
Autobrake
Switch –
Autobrake & APU
Part No.(Sim Mfr &
Vendor)
Sim Mfr/ Vendor
Name
Year of
Mfr
Aircraft
Type
From
User
B787
JCFT
CAE
APU
CertainB787 aircraft parts such as APU switches and autobrake switches are repeatedly broken.
Do any other users have the same experience?
If some other operator has the same issue, we think it would be good to ask the manufacturer to improve the
durability or find out alternative parts for a lower cost.
User and supplier comments, please.
Item
No.
Subsystem Name
17
Snapshot Function
Component
Part No.(Sim Mfr &
Vendor)
Sim Mfr/ Vendor
Name
Year of
Mfr
Aircraft
Type
From
User
2014
B777-300
EVA
L-3/L1025
Snapshot function is unreliable. After snapshot recall, sometimes the aircraft position is incorrect. IAS or flight
status is not the same as the snapshot take value.
Are other operators seeing similar issues?
Other operator comments, please.
Item
No.
18
Subsystem Name
Component
Modification
Operational Impact
Part No.(Sim Mfr &
Vendor)
Sim Mfr/ Vendor
Name
Year of Aircraft
Mfr
Type
From
User
CAL
Airplane AD/SB update assessment is now becoming more important for the simulator; will Boeing consider to
provide a Modification Operational Impact (MOI) along with the AD/SB like Airbus? The MOI is very helpful for us
for doing such assessment.
Boeing and other operator comments, please.
PRODUCT SUPPORT
Item
No.
Subsystem Name
19
Simulator Updates
Component
Part No.(Sim Mfr &
Vendor)
Sim Mfr/ Vendor
Name
Year of
Mfr
Aircraft
Type
Any
From
User
CAL
We at China Air Lines are concerned with the TDMs consideration of the resources required in a simulator update
assessment. Specifically, with an Airworthiness Directive (AD) or a Service Bulletin (SB).
Do the TDMs monitor aircraft status changes (AD/SB) to evaluate and communicate to their FSTD customers?
Item
No.
Subsystem Name
20
Visual Database
Component
Part No.(Sim Mfr &
Vendor)
Sim Mfr/ Vendor
Name
Year of
Mfr
Aircraft
Type
From
User
CAE
1998
B747-400P
CAL
How many years more will CAE keep on supporting the airport database update for Tropos II visual system?
Other operator and CAE comments, please.
Item
No.
Subsystem Name
21
Rehosted Systems
Component
Part No. (Sim Mfr &
Vendor)
Sim Mfr/Vendor
Name
Year of Aircraft
Mfr
Type
From
User
L-3
CAE
Airbus
Boeing
2008
A350
Onward B747-8
B777
CPA
In past FSEMC discussions (several!), concern has been expressed regarding the length of time involved to get
responses and solutions to issues on FSTDs which involve so-called “third-party supplied” rehosted systems
and/or binary simulation packages. In recent history, we have experienced a growing number of such issues,
some minor and some not.
For many issues, particularly those which are noted by the regulators during initial or recurrent qualifications, it is
less than acceptable to receive a response along the lines of “…will be addressed in the next
[blockpoint/standard] update…”, which may be years away.
I would like to enquire of the TDMs and the airframers, who are now also producing the simulations, how they
intend to provide higher confidence and perhaps even performance guarantees about the timeliness of
responses.
PRODUCT SUPPORT
Item
No.
22
Subsystem Name
Component
Display Management
Computer
OBRM DMC MV
KIT
Part No.(Sim Mfr &
Vendor)
Sim Mfr/ Vendor
Name
C19311BA01
CAE
C19312BA01
Sextant
Year of Aircraft
Mfr
Type
2000
A340
From
User
CAL
A330
We have difficulty getting support from simulator manufacturer to repair failed “Convertible OBRM DMC MV KIT”
for A340/300 FFS. In addition, FCPCs and FCSCs fault very often, especially during preflight check every
morning.
Item
No.
Subsystem Name
Component
23
Autopilot
Mode Control
Panel
Part No.(Sim Mfr & Sim Mfr/ Vendor Year of
From
Aircraft Type
Vendor)
Name
Mfr
User
822-1494-101
L-3
2014
B777-300ER CAL
Currently, the MCP used on the simulator is P/N 822-1494-101; however, the fleet has been updated to
P/N 822-1494-103 in order to be used the updated part as the spare provided by the contractor. L-3’s comment
on this issue is necessary for us. CAL inquired about this issue through U&U Engineering, the simulator owner,
three months ago, but we have not got any answer back yet.
L-3 and other operator comments, please.
Item
No.
Subsystem Name
Component
Part No.(Sim Mfr &
Vendor)
Sim Mfr/ Vendor
Name
24
Throttle Quadrant
Throttle Levers
254A1240-3
L-3
All
Year of Aircraft
Mfr
Type
2002 B737-800
From
User
QFA
We recently broke our Number 1 throttle on our B737-800 Simulator and have made a temporary repair for now
until we purchase two new throttle assemblies from Boeing.
I would like to know if any other operator has replaced throttles in their B737-800 simulators.
 Did you encounter any major problems changing the levers?
 How long did the task take?
 Any specialized tooling required?
 Did you change each throttle assembly or the complete pedestal?
 Any recommendations?
PRODUCT SUPPORT
Item
No.
25
Subsystem Name
Component
Standardized
Interface/Protocol
Part No.(Sim Mfr &
Vendor)
Sim Mfr/ Vendor
Name
All
Any
Year of Aircraft
Mfr
Type
From
User
LFT
Currently each FSTD OEM sets up their own software for tracking issues but also managing material orders (CAE =
xtranet/RMRs, L-3 = Velox store...).
Part requests/orders are tracked in the manufacturer’s and the operator’s IT system accordingly. Data transfer is
done manually. Operators using simulators from multiple manufacturers face multiplied interfaces to each
manufacturers system. This increases workload on the operator’s side.
A standardized interface/protocol would help a lot to enable a dialogue between the operators managing system and
the OEMs order/tracking/techlog-system (i.e., L-3’s Velox store). The standardized interface/protocol would allow the
operator to solely work in their system to trigger material orders whereas the OEM may manage the requests solely
in their system.
Has this ever been discussed in the industry?
STANDARDS/TRAINING
Item
No.
Subsystem Name
26
UPRT
Component
Part No.(Sim Mfr &
Vendor)
Sim Mfr/ Vendor
Name
All
Year of Aircraft
Mfr
Type
All
All
From
User
KLM
Has anybody already implemented tools in their simulators to collect and display additional data for the new
UPRT/Part 60 training, to assist the instructor in evaluating the pilot performance?


Were they delivered by third party/OEM or developed in-house?
What are your experiences? Does it meet requirements and fulfill expectations?
Item
No.
Subsystem Name
27
Stall and UPRT
Component
Part No.(Sim Mfr &
Vendor)
Sim Mfr/ Vendor
Name
Year of Aircraft
Mfr
Type
From
User
Boeing
What tools are operators planning on using to teach pilot recovery for stall and upset recovery training?
Boeing believes it is important that the instructor have a tool to immediately assess crew response (pass/fail) with
further detailed analysis available (i.e., control sequence, control rates, control forces).
Item
No.
28
Subsystem Name
Component
Part No. (Sim Mfr &
Vendor)
Sim Mfr/Vendor
Name
Bounced Landing
Scenarios
Year of Aircraft
Mfr
Type
From
User
Boeing
Boeing has developed bounced landing scenarios that use aerodynamic effects to induce bounced landing
maneuvers while avoiding crew negative training.
Are any TDM’s or operators working on similar methods? What types of methods?
STANDARDS/TRAINING
Item
No.
Subsystem Name
29
Aviation Knowledge
Component
Part No.(Sim Mfr &
Vendor)
Sim Mfr/ Vendor
Name
Year of Aircraft
Mfr
Type
From
User
LFT
Aviation Knowledge for Simulator Maintenance Personnel
To what extent do and should simulator maintenance personnel/technicians receive training in terms of "flying"?
What extent of airplane systems and flying knowledge is useful in the daily life of a simulator technician for
troubleshooting and direct contact with the customer?
What would be the best and most suitable approach to do this kind of training?
 Theoretical knowledge using ATPL training courses or training material?
 Practical sessions with instructors in the simulators?
 Type rating courses for the aircraft type's simulators they are working on?
Other supplier and operator comments, please.
Item
No.
30
Subsystem Name
Component
Simulator Maintenance
Training
Part No.(Sim Mfr &
Vendor)
Sim Mfr/ Vendor
Name
Any
Any
Year of Aircraft
Mfr
Type
From
User
ANA
Have any TDMs developed a PC-based education tool such as a CBT for simulator maintenance training?
TDM comments, please.
Item
No.
Subsystem Name
Component
31
Virtual Trainers
Process and Tools
Part No. (Sim Mfr &
Vendor)
Sim Mfr/Vendor
Name
Year of Aircraft
Mfr
Type
All
From
User
CAE
What kind of tools and process are being utilized that either complete or complement existing virtual solutions?
Please consider the following:



Does the industry use Virtual Reality for maintenance? If yes, is it more VR (Virtual Reality) or AR
(Augment Reality)?
The level of use of 3D content in maintenance tasks.
What are the different 3D rendering engines and frameworks being used?
STANDARDS/TRAINING
Item
No.
Subsystem Name
Component
32
Virtual Trainers
Process and Tools
Part No. (Sim Mfr &
Vendor)
Sim Mfr/Vendor
Name
Year of Aircraft
Mfr
Type
All
From
User
CAE
What are the tools you are currently using today for the following activities?
 Tools for self-paced student lesson
 Tools for instructor driven session
 Tools for student in a classroom environment
Item
No.
Subsystem Name
Component
33
Virtual Trainers
Platforms
Part No. (Sim Mfr &
Vendor)
Sim Mfr/Vendor
Name
Year of Aircraft
Mfr
Type
All
From
User
CAE
What platform is mostly used currently and which platform is preferred for future application development?
 Web-based
 Mobile
Item
No.
Subsystem Name
34
SOQA
Component
Part No.(Sim Mfr &
Vendor)
Sim Mfr/ Vendor
Name
Year of
Mfr
Aircraft
Type
From
User
Any
Any
Any
Any
ANA
Does any FSTD operator utilize the SOQA as particular training method? How do you collect and utilize the data?
In recent years, the concepts of SOQA/FOQA/EBT are being raised in the aviation industry. ANA is currently
studying how to deal with the flight and training data from various sources and introduce optimized system to
conduct those concepts.
 SOQA: Simulator Operational Quality Assurance
 FOQA: Flight Operational Quality Assurance
 EBT: Evidence Based Training
However, manufacturers have commercialized various kinds of product, like a debriefing system, animation
device, analysis/evaluation device, and data sharing device, etc., to aid the implementation of those concepts.
ANA is still faced with difficulties in terms of integrated operation of SOQA/FOQA/EBT.
Question:
We raised same agenda at the 2014 FSEMC in Tulsa. If there are any users with information, comments, or
advice, please respond.
Item
No.
Subsystem Name
Component
Part No.(Sim Mfr & Vendor)
35
DU Cockpit Display
Cable
CAE PS400496.23.5.122
Sim Mfr/ Vendor
Name
HDTV Extreme
Extension Cable
Year of Aircraft
Mfr
Type
2008 B737-800
From
User
KLM
We experience problems with the DVI cable between the graphic computer and the display units in the cockpit.
Original given type CAB-HDTV-210MM HDTV Extreme Fiber Optic DVI Male to DVI cable CAE P/N
PS400496.23.5.122
We get two kinds of failures.
1. Cable breakdown/mechanical problem in the cable. Movement of the waterfall resulted in a destroyed
picture on the display.
2. Problems with the electronics in the cable plug, resulting in no picture at all and noise on the display unit
and green snow all over the screen. This problem was introduced by a failure of the OEM power supply (a
cheap type of telephone charger), which destroyed the electronics in the plug.
We are unpleasantly surprised that an expensive cable is delivered with such an unreliable power supply.
Are the other users experiencing the same problem?
Item
No.
Subsystem Name
36
EFB LSAP
Component
Sim Mfr/ Vendor
Name
CAE
CAE
Year of Aircraft
Mfr
Type
2013
B787
From
User
QFA
CAE B787 Sim and IPT
Do any operators have different customers utilizing these devices which require their own load for the Loadable
Software Aircraft Parts (LSAP) for the Electronic Flight Bags (EFB) as well as the configuration?
How do you change the EFB LSAPs between customers as well as the configuration LSAPs?
Note - EFB LSAPs may be customer-specific documents and the configuration LSAPs may include customerspecific Nav databases, checklists, and customer configurable AMIs (Aircraft Modifiable Instructions).
What is the time frame required to make these changes between sessions?
Do you have spare aircraft EFB LRUs already loaded for individual customers?
Other user and supplier comments, please.
Item
No.
Subsystem Name
37
Host Computer
Component
Sim Mfr/ Vendor
Name
IBM PS418593045842
CAE
Year of Aircraft
Mfr
Type
2007
A380
From
User
QFA
Recently, our A380 simulator host computer began failing intermittently. CAE was unable to supply a replacement
immediately and were having trouble sourcing one. This computer is less than 10 years old yet it seems it is
obsolete. Moving forward, it seems major computer hardware cannot be supported beyond 10 years for
simulators.
Question for CAE – As upgrading computer hardware such as host computers is expensive and disruptive to
training. How does CAE plan to address computer obsolescence moving forwards?
Item
No.
Subsystem Name
Component
Sim Mfr/ Vendor
Name
38
Line Printer
Printronix Line
Printer
P300
All
Year of Aircraft
Mfr
Type
From
User
Before
2000
SSC
All
P600
P6000
Older simulators from most FFS vendors are usually supplied with GeniCom Printronix type line printers (e.g.,
P300, P600, P6000). These are used for QTG test output, file printing, and other printed output tasks. These
printers are no longer produced and are becoming very difficult to maintain. However, they are crucial to the
operation of the simulator.
What have other operators done to support or replace their Printronix printers?
Have any users or TDMs developed a plug and play (more or less) replacement for this type of line printer that
allows the use of modern printers (i.e., laser printer) on older simulators with non PC host computers (e.g., VAX,
Micro VAX, SEL, PERKIN-ELMER)?
Item
No.
Subsystem Name
Component
Sim Mfr/ Vendor
Name
39
IOS
Dell 420
Computer
Windows NT
IOS System
Thales
Year of Aircraft
Mfr
Type
2002 B767-300
From
User
QFA
L-3
We have been experiencing a significant number of failures of our Dell 420 computers over the past five years.
These computers are used on the IOS, CDF, and ECRM on our B767 Thales C2000X simulator. We have found it
very difficult to source spare motherboards on the secondary market.
Question to other operators – Has any operator come up with a suitable cost effective solution to replace the Dell
420 computers?
Question to L-3 – What cost effective solution does L-3 have to resolve the obsolescence issue?
Item
No.
Subsystem Name
Component
Sim Mfr/ Vendor
Name
40
Aero Simulation
Computer
Servers
Complete
Simulation
Dell SR2400
FlightSafety
Year of Aircraft
Mfr
Type
2008 Bombard
Dash 8
2009
From
User
QFA
Our Dash 8 simulators use a number of Dell SR2400 servers running on Windows XP. We experienced a recent
motherboard failure on one of our servers and found that these servers cannot be readily sourced due to
obsolescence.
Question for FlightSafety - Does FSI see any support issues regarding these servers moving forward that we
should be concerned about? Is there a newer replacement server available as a line replaceable unit?
FlightSafety and other operator comments, please.
Item
No.
Subsystem Name
Component
Sim Mfr/ Vendor
Name
41
Motherboard
Computer
35181-MA002T19.01
CAE
700 Series R3
CAE
Year of Aircraft
Mfr
Type
2009
B787
From
User
JCFT
A large number of COTS components are used on both JCFT B787 FFS manufactured by CAE.
We would like to know if other operators have found solutions against the obsolescence of the Tyan Tempest
i5000XT S2696 motherboard used on some computed nodes, such as “Simnode.”
CAE has proposed a computer kit upgrade, but we feel the risk, cost, and complexity of a whole computer kit
upgrade are too high and we would rather find a compatible motherboard to install in the existing nodes.
User and supplier comments, please.
Item
No.
Subsystem Name
42
Operating System
Component
Sim Mfr/ Vendor
Name
General
General
Year of Aircraft
Mfr
Type
From
User
MSR
We would like to ask about the possibility and benefits of using an operating system other than Windows on flight
simulator computers that can be more stable and robust. The simulators using Windows need many restarts
during operation, and causes lost time just to restart the computer and run the simulation again.
What are the pros and cons of using an operating system other than Windows?
Item
No.
43
Subsystem Name
Component
Alternatives for
Floppy Disk
Part No.(Sim Mfr &
Vendor)
Sim Mfr/ Vendor
Name
AIX Machines
CAE
Year of Aircraft
Mfr
Type
1998
B737
From
User
KLM
Currently new LSAPs (e.g., nav databases) are loaded via the ENTERNDB (navigation database reader) program
running on AIX. According to CAE, there is no program update available to have the ENTERNDB program looking
at any other location but the floppy disk.
1. How do other users update their nav databases on legacy simulators?
2. Have other users seeking alternatives in loading there nav databases and have they succeeded to
implement this on an AIX machine?
3. Have other users been able to have ENTERNDB looking at a directory (e.g., /cae1/ship/)?
Other users/vendors comments, please.
INSTRUCTOR STATION
Item
No.
Subsystem Name
Component
44
IOS Station
FFIOS Chair
Part No.(Sim Mfr &
Vendor)
Sim Mfr/ Vendor
Name
CAE
Year of Aircraft
Mfr
Type
All
From
User
CAL
The function of the “Forward/Backward movement and Brake” of the IOS chair/seat failed around 2-3 years after
RFT. The quality of FFIOS chair is not reliable. Any improvement of Forward/Backward movement and Brake” of
IOS chair/seat from simulator manufacture is required.
******14-043******
Item
No.
Subsystem Name
Component
Part No.(Sim Mfr &
Vendor)
Sim Mfr/ Vendor
Name
Instructor Seat Assy
C2000/C2000X
46494187
Thales
Year of Aircraft
Mfr
Type
From
User
ASA
I would like to know how many other operators use the Thales Instructor Seat Assy similar to those used on our
C2000 and C2000X devices (part number 46494187). We have chronic trouble with these seats, typically failing to
remain locked in position. I am curious to ask other end users for mods or replacement options.
Drawings and pictures attached.
Reference 16-092/FSG-223 - Page 21
INSTRUCTOR STATION
INSTRUCTOR STATION
******15-021******
Item
No.
Subsystem Name
Component
IOS Seat
Part No.(Sim Mfr &
Vendor)
Sim Mfr/ Vendor
Name
FlightSafety
FlightSafety
Year of Aircraft
Mfr
Type
2009
B737
From
User
MSR
In our B737 simulator, we have a complaint about the IOS seat. It has some problems as all mechanical and
electrical parts are installed in a random way under the seat. We are facing a lot of defects such as:
1. Cables wearing
2. Touch screens cables get loose and worn frequently
3. FWD and AFT motor sticks frequently
4. For the maintenance personnel it is very hard to maintain the seat due to access problems
5. Keeping the seat stationary is difficult as it swings during training with motion
INSTRUCTOR STATION
Item
No.
Subsystem Name
Component
Part No.(Sim Mfr &
Vendor)
Sim Mfr/ Vendor
Name
45
IOS
Forward Facing IOS
35181MA002TB02.01
CAE
Year of Aircraft
Mfr
Type
2008 A330-200
From
User
QFA
Concerning the question asked at the 2014 FSEMC in Tulsa and then again asked last year at the Miami FSEMC
regarding broken cables going to the Forward facing IOS: Qantas would like to know what CAE has done or is doing
to rectify this issue as we are still waiting for a solution to this issue.
Are any other sim users still seeing this issue and if so, what are they doing to address this problem?
******15-022******
Item
No.
Subsystem Name
Component
Part No.(Sim Mfr &
Vendor)
Sim Mfr/ Vendor
Name
IOS
Touch Screen Monitor
NEC LCD175M
CAE
Year of Aircraft
Mfr
Type
20122014
A320
From
User
AAL
Are other operators experiencing issues with the bezel of the IOS Monitor cracking? Has anyone found a permanent
solution?
Other operator and vendor comments, please.
Item
No.
Subsystem Name
46
Lesson Plan
Component
Part No.(Sim Mfr &
Vendor)
Sim Mfr/ Vendor
Name
Year of Aircraft
Mfr
Type
From
User
SAT
The generation of customized lesson plans for simulator users is already a time-intensive and error-prone activity
which involves experienced engineering resources of simulator operators.
Additional time and expertise is then required to convert or re-author the same lessons on simulators of different
generations, technologies and manufacturers.
At the FSEMC in 2014, the industry (or at least the operators) appeared to agree that there is a need to standardize
the authoring tools of lesson plans in order to optimize and streamline the generation of lessons across all device
types.
Have there been any developments in this direction in the meantime and, if not, how can the operators push for a
change in approach by the TDMs to facilitate this.
Comments from users and suppliers, please.
******15-066******
Item
No.
Subsystem Name
Component
MOOG EMM
Motion System
RTH Battery Life
Part No.(Sim Mfr &
Vendor)
Sim Mfr/ Vendor
Name
Year of
Mfr
Aircraft
Type
From
User
CAE
2013
B777
UAE
MOOG
Emirates is finding that the MOOG EMM motion system Return To Home (RTH) batteries are only lasting 4-6
months before failing and needing replacement, and causing simulator downtime. We believe this battery lifespan
is excessively short, but would like to hear from other operators on their experiences, and if anyone else is
experiencing such frequent failures?
******15-067******
Item
No.
Subsystem Name
Component
EMM
REGEN
Part No.(Sim Mfr &
Vendor)
Sim Mfr/ Vendor Year of
Name
Mfr
Moog
Aircraft
Type
2014 B777-300E
From
User
UAE
If the simulator is used with a not unrealistic amount of turbulence for more than 25 mins, the EMM will trip with
REGEN overheat.
Do other operators suffer with this interruption?
We would like Moog to comment on this and give their thoughts on possibly giving a better method of:
 Removing the hot air
 Providing better cooling air/airflow
What do other operators who are suffering this think?
Other operators and Moog comments, please.
******15-069******
Item
No.
Subsystem Name
Component
Part No.(Sim Mfr &
Vendor)
Sim Mfr/ Vendor
Name
Year of
Mfr
Aircraft
Type
From
User
FlightSafety
FlightSafety
Moog
2009
B737-800
MSR
Electric Motion
Control loading and motion system reliability is deteriorating. Attempting to engage the motion when control
loading is already engaged causes several errors, forcing EgyptAir to lose more time resetting the errors.
This issue was raised during the last FSEMC. FlightSafety promised to solve this issue as fast as possible. One
year passed and we are still suffering from this problem. During this year, FlightSafety logged on our simulator
several times and did many trials, but the problem is still unresolved.
Other operator and FlightSafety comments, please.
Item
No.
Subsystem Name
47
EMM Motion
Component
Part No.(Sim Mfr &
Vendor)
Sim Mfr/ Vendor
Name
Year of
Mfr
Moog
CAE
All
Aircraft
Type
From
User
LFT
This is a follow up of FSEMC Item #84 of 2014 and FSEMC Item #68 of 2015.
Important messages and information are stored in the ElectroMechanical Motion (EMM) Logfiles located on the
Moog PC.
From LFT’s perspective, this information, which is useful to prevent any downtime needs to be shown and
indicated in a troubleshooting tool. This will help the operator distinguish between normal Messages and failure
Messages. Especially in training centers, which operate a large bandwidth of different motion systems will help
this to reduce downtimes.
LFT spend a lot of effort to train their personnel, nevertheless proper troubleshooting tools are essential to
improve the reliability of the EMM systems.
Has CAE/Moog made any developments to troubleshoot the EMM’s?
CAE, Moog, and other operator comments, please.
Item
No.
Subsystem Name
Component
48
Motion
Dyn Braking Resistor
127-305A
Part No.(Sim Mfr &
Vendor)
Sim Mfr/ Vendor
Name
Year of
Mfr
Aircraft
Type
From
User
Moog
FlightSafety
2008
Bombard
Dash 8
QFA
We have experiencing the Dynamic braking resistors becoming smoking hot on our Dash 8-300 simulator when
the sim is at rest and maintenance is being performed? (Fuse F20 engaged). They get hot enough to set off the
facility fire alarm. The issue is resolved by turning off the cabinets and re-establishing power.
Question for FlightSafety and Moog – What is the probable cause? How can the problem be appropriately
addressed to prevent future occurrences?
FlightSafety, Moog, and other operator comments, please.
Item
No.
Subsystem Name
Component
Part No.(Sim Mfr &
Vendor)
Sim Mfr/ Vendor
Name
49
Motion
EMA
880-020
Moog
Year of
Mfr
Aircraft
Type
From
User
KLM
Due to expensive shipment costs of the MOOG Electric Motion Actuators 880-020 to MOOG America, we are
looking for alternatives.
Except for routine maintenance, do other users perform maintenance and/or repairs on their MOOG Electric
Motion Actuators 880-020? If so, will this be done in-house? Or are there alternative repair stations within the
European Union to reduce shipment costs?
Other user comments, please.
Item
No.
Subsystem Name
Component
Part No.(Sim Mfr &
Vendor)
Sim Mfr/ Vendor
Name
50
Motion
Servo Valve
728-003C
Moog
CAE
Year of
Mfr
Aircraft
Type
From
User
KLM
CAE’s 600/800 motion systems are equipped with Moog servo 728-003C valves, we observed that the valves are
starting to leak from the mechanical abort valve. We send them to Moog for repair but they advised us to upgrade
these valves to -003G, which results in considerably extra costs.
Do other users use an alternative seal kit for this type of valve?
Item
No.
Subsystem Name
Component
Part No.(Sim Mfr &
Vendor)
Sim Mfr/ Vendor
Name
Year of
Mfr
Aircraft
Type
From
User
51
Motion
Hydraulic Pump
Rexroth
CAE
1999
B777
AAL
Has any user had to replace or repair Rexroth Pumps A7VTO200DR/61R?
Have any users found a form fit and function replacement for these pumps?
User comments, please.
Item
No.
Subsystem Name
Component
Part No.(Sim Mfr &
Vendor)
Sim Mfr/ Vendor
Name
Year of
Mfr
Aircraft
Type
From
User
52
Motion Cabinet
Any
Any
CAE 7000
2008
B747-400
NCA
Recently, cases of small part in the motion cabinet breaking has been increasing, but a component parts list is not
provided. It is difficult to understand P/Ns by the outward appearance of the parts. We think if we had a
component parts list for motion cabinet, it would be useful for future troubleshooting.
Does the vendor plan to provide a component parts list of the motion cabinet?
CAE and Moog comment please.
Item
No.
Subsystem Name
Component
Part No.(Sim Mfr &
Vendor)
Sim Mfr/ Vendor
Name
Year of
Mfr
Aircraft
Type
From
User
53
Motion Cabinet
Any
Any
CAE 7000
2008
B747-400
NCA
The Moog user’s manual (CDS7322 Rev.K) was released by FSB-SIM-581-HW.
Why did Moog decide to change of all surge suppressors every 6 months? Previously, this item was checked
every year and replaced the non-conforming part only.
CAE and Moog comment please.
Item
No.
Subsystem Name
Component
Part No.(Sim Mfr &
Vendor)
Sim Mfr/ Vendor
Name
Year of
Mfr
Aircraft
Type
From
User
54
Motion System
Landing Simulation
C2000X
L-3
2002
A330-200
QFA
We upgraded our L3 A330-200 simulator to Airbus STD 2.4 in 2015. The simulator technology is C2000X and the
visual system is Rockwell EP8000. The upgrade included a new airbus ground reaction model and an upgrade
from Rockwell EP1000 to EP8000 visual image generator.
Since the upgrade, we have been experiencing intermittent hard landings. The landings are especially hard on
sloping runways, although intermittent.
Airbus was queried and according to simulator data presented to them the landings are within acceptable limits.
Feedback from crew is that landings are far too hard compared to the real aircraft. The aircraft appears to fall
dramatically at the end of the flare. There were no hard landing issues prior to upgrading to EP8000 and Airbus
STD 2.4. This question was brought up at the 2015 FSEMC conference.
L-3 has been working closely with Qantas to resolve this issue, working mainly on tuning of the motion reaction
model. The end result has been softer landings, but all too often, too soft.
Question for other users: Are other users using the same simulator and visual technology experiencing similar
issues? How did you resolve the problem?
Question for L-3 and Rockwell Collins. What do you see as the way forward on this issue?
L-3, Rockwell Collins, and other operator comments, please.
Item
No.
Subsystem Name
Component
55
Hydraulic Motion
Hydraulic Valve
Part No.(Sim Mfr &
Vendor)
Sim Mfr/ Vendor
Name
Year of
Mfr
Aircraft
Type
From
User
Moog/E790-300
Moog/E790-100
L-3
Several
Several
LFT
To ensure spare situation and for costs reduction we use on some L-3 Motion Systems, we successfully use
Moog Valve E790-300 instead of Moog Valve E790-100. E790-300 is downwards compatible and can replace
E790-100.
Furthermore, we successfully used a new valve with lower costs from SERVOSTAR with part number 990-xxxx.
Does any other simulator operator have similar good experience with the part from SERVOSTAR?
Item
No.
Subsystem Name
Component
56
EM2K
PCU
Part No.(Sim Mfr &
Vendor)
Sim Mfr/ Vendor
Name
Year of
Mfr
L-3
2008
2015
Aircraft
Type
From
User
KLM
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.
SUPPORT INFRASTRUCTURE
Item
No.
57
Subsystem Name
Component
Part No.(Sim Mfr &
Vendor)
Sim Mfr/ Vendor
Name
Year of Aircraft
Mfr
Type
Record & Replay
System
From
User
KLM
Inside the simulator we use a camera, connected to a recording system, to film the crew during their training (record
and replay video system). During the debriefing, the crew can view the recorded images via a LCD TV.
KLM is investigating to upgrade their record and replay system.
What kind of record and replay systems do other operators use? Are there any operators who recently upgraded
their system?
Other user/vendor comments, please.
Item
No.
Subsystem Name
58
Defect Reproduction
Component
Part No.(Sim Mfr &
Vendor)
Sim Mfr/ Vendor
Name
Year of Aircraft
Mfr
Type
From
User
Airbus
When a defect is reported by an instructor at the end of a Training session, much time is often spent trying to
reproduce the defect. Sometimes, the instructor is even asked to come again to try to reproduce the defect in the
exact same conditions.
Couldn’t there be a way to avoid wasting all this time reproducing the defect? For example, a systematic record of
the Training session. The instructor would indicate the time of the issue. The simulator maintenance teams would
then be able access off-line to the exact conditions of the defect.
OTHER TRAINING DEVICES
Item
No.
59
Subsystem Name
Component
Part No.(Sim Mfr & Sim Mfr/ Vendor Year of Aircraft
Vendor)
Name
Mfr
Type
Cabin Crew Training
Cabin Emergency
Device
Procedure Trainer – with
Motion System
All
From
User
ANA
ANA has a plan to introduce the Cabin Emergency Procedure Trainer with Motion System. So, we want to learn
various things:
ARINC 435 notes as follows: 6.6.5 Emergency Procedure Trainer – Aircraft Type Specific – With Motion System
Training Objective: Provide training on the correct use of cabin emergency equipment and evacuation procedures
in representative environment and scenarios.
Equipment Requirement: Equipment and cabin must represent specific aircraft type(s) for the desired training
purpose:
 Motion system or Positioning system
 Any combination of equipment from the type specific modules above (Sections 6.2 - 6.6.1)
 Doors (Section 5.2)
Q1: What kind of measures are other operators taking to enhance the safety of cabin crew training?
Q2: In order to set the specifications of the equipment, what kind of requirements should be taken into account?
Q3: Is there consideration about certification of Cabin Emergency Evacuation Trainers (CEET)?
Q4: What is maintenance requirement and performance requirement (Objective test, etc.) for Motion system?
Other user and vendor comments please.
AVIONICS
******15-074******
Item
No.
Subsystem Name
Component
EGPWS
EGPWS
Part No.(Sim Mfr &
Vendor)
Sim Mfr/ Vendor
Name
CAE 5000
Year of Aircraft
Mfr
Type
2008 B737-800
From
User
QFA
We have 2 EGPWS issues outstanding since device acceptance:
1. EGPWS false callouts after a snapshot – EGPWS gives false don’t sink callouts after a snapshot recall
below 1500ft RA. These should only occur if the aircraft has taken off and has not broken 1500ft and
attempts to re-land, but Qantas are breaking 4000ft and conducting a snapshot on final at 1500ft recalling
that and then, as the aircraft descends, don’t sink calls are incorrectly generated.
2. There are no aural warnings or indications with the selection of EGPWS FALSE MODE TERRAIN
WARNING MALFUNCTION.
Any other users having similar issue with EGPWS?
******15-075******
Item
No.
Subsystem Name
Component
Part No.(Sim Mfr &
Vendor)
Sim Mfr/ Vendor
Name
Year of
Mfr
Aircraft
Type
From
User
On Board Info (OIT)
A380 MFTD
OIT Simulation
CAE
2007
A380
QFA
OITs blinking on A380 MFTD. This has been a problem since the A380 MFTD was upgraded to Airbus STD 1.3.
After two years, this problem has yet to be resolved.
Questions for CAE.
 Can CAE provide feedback as to the cause?
 Why was this fault not picked up in house before release of the 1.3 STD Upgrade?
 When will a permanent solution be provided?
Item
No.
Subsystem Name
Component
60
OIT System
OIT Simulation
Part No. (Sim Mfr &
Vendor)
Sim Mfr/Vendor
Name
Simfinity A380
MFTD
CAE
Year of Aircraft
Mfr
Type
2007
A380
From
User
QFA
Onboard Information Terminals (OIT) are intermittently blanking and reinitializing on our Simfinity A380 MFTD.
This issue has closely followed on from a similar fault for Blinking OITs. The blinking issue has been resolved but
blanking OITs remain as an unresolved problem. We have been experiencing problems since upgrading to Airbus
Standard 1.3 three years ago.
Question to other users of this device - Are other users experiencing similar issues and have they been resolved?
Question for CAE – Is it reasonable to expect it take three years to resolve? What action is CAE taking to
resolving this problem permanently?
AVIONICS
******15-076******
Item
No.
Subsystem Name
Component
SURV/TAWS
SURV System
Part No.(Sim Mfr &
Vendor)
Sim Mfr/ Vendor
Name
Year of
Mfr
Aircraft
Type
From
User
SURV/TAWS
System
CAE
2007
A380
QFA
Constant SURV/TAWS status messages on our A380 CAE flight simulator. This fault has been persistent with our
A380 simulator since RFT. USB IO7 errors have been consistent and symptomatic over this time. Some
improvement was gained through securing poorly installed cables around USB hubs and switches. However, the
faults are still occurring regularly.
Questions for CAE:
 Does CAE acknowledge how long this issue has been around and the impact it is having?
 Has CAE identified the cause and what is CAE doing regarding a permanent solution?
Operator and CAE comments, please.
******15-081******
Item
No.
Subsystem Name
Component
Part No.(Sim Mfr &
Vendor)
Sim Mfr/ Vendor
Name
FMS
FMS System
FMS
CAE
Year of Aircraft
Mfr
Type
2007
A380
From
User
QFA
A380 simulator FMS SYNC and FMS SAVE/RECALL problems. There are various scenarios where the FMSs
start resyncing with no real repeatable scenarios. The FMS SAVE issue causes the IOS to lock up, requiring a
reboot of the IOS node or simulator to recover. These issues have been around since RFT and continue to plague
crew training.
Questions for CAE:
 What is the real underlying problem with the FMS and why is it taking so long to resolve?
 What is CAE’s plan to resolve these issues?
AVIONICS
Item
No.
Subsystem Name
61
Rehosted FMS
Component
Part No.(Sim Mfr &
Vendor)
Sim Mfr/ Vendor
Name
CAE
Year of Aircraft
Mfr
Type
2012
2014
B747-8
From
User
CPA
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
No.
Subsystem Name
62
Rehosted FMC
Component
Part No.(Sim Mfr &
Vendor)
Sim Mfr/ Vendor
Name
CAE
Year of Aircraft
Mfr
Type
1999 B737-800
From
User
CAL
We have routinely experienced our B737-800 Rehosted FMC to freeze after a snapshot recall.
Item
No.
Subsystem Name
Component
63
SIM XXI Rehost
FMS
Part No.(Sim Mfr &
Vendor)
Sim Mfr/ Vendor
Name
CAE
Year of Aircraft
Mfr
Type
2007 B737-800
From
User
KLM
For several years, we noticed that the FMS UTC time lags by 2 minutes or so every day, which results in the flight
deck UTC clocks also lagging the same amount. After a few days, this is more than 9-15 minutes, which is an
irritating factor for the crew.
After a reload, this problem is solved again.
1. Have other users with the same architecture experienced the same issues?
2. If so, is it solved (and how)?
Other users and vendors comment please.
AVIONICS
******15-083******
Item
No.
Subsystem Name
Component
Sim Soft
All LRUs
Part No.(Sim Mfr &
Vendor)
Sim Mfr/ Vendor
Name
Year of Aircraft
Mfr
Type
From
User
UAL
How and where can a user find the limitations of SimSoft (ARINC 610) functionality? If we ask the LRU
manufacturer (in this case, Honeywell) we are told none, yet the simulator manufacturer (CAE) is telling us
problems with the simulator are SimSoft limitations?
How do we trust but verify?
Item
No.
Subsystem Name
64
VNAV
Component
Part No.(Sim Mfr &
Vendor)
Sim Mfr/ Vendor
Name
Year of
Mfr
Aircraft
Type
From
User
L-3/L1025
L-3
2014
B777-300
EVA
Unable to engage VNAV, especially using lesson plan or aircraft slew function. CDU keying data function during
reposition (during reposition CDU shown "STBY ONE") have been disabled by L-3 but it still happens
intermittently, frequently occurring on ASALT position (KJFK 13L VOR approach).
Item
No.
Subsystem Name
Component
65
Standards
ARINC 610C
Part No.(Sim Mfr &
Vendor)
Sim Mfr/ Vendor
Name
Year of Aircraft
Mfr
Type
All
From
User
CAE
Following-up from last year presentation: 'Life Without ARINC 610?'; we understand that vendor executables
solutions are not Aircraft Equipment; however, what level of ARINC 610C should we expect these models to
offer?
Simulator operator comments?
AVIONICS
Item
No.
Subsystem Name
66
Repositions
Component
Part No.(Sim Mfr &
Vendor)
L-3/L1025
Sim Mfr/ Vendor
Name
Year of Aircraft
Mfr
Type
2014 B777-300
From
User
EVA
Reposition condition is different from IOS setting. When the simulator repositions to RCTP (Taipei Int’l) take off
position, IOS setting and visual change to RCTP, but Navigation Display stays in old position. FMC position page 3/3
GPS and FMC position also mismatch.
REGULATORY
******15-026******
Item
No.
Subsystem Name
Component
Visual Systems
Visual Ground Segment
(VGS)
Part No.(Sim Mfr &
Vendor)
Sim Mfr/ Vendor
Name
Year of Aircraft
Mfr
Type
From
User
CLX
ICAO Doc 4444-RAC/501/8 defines the Runway Visual Range (RVR) as the maximum distance in the direction of
take-off or landing at which the runway or the specified lights or markers delineating the runway can be seen from
a position above a specified point on its centre line at a height corresponding to the average eye-level of pilots at
touchdown.
According to this definition, the RVR cannot be checked against the visibility of the approach lights. The physical
reason for that is the considerable brightness difference between runway lights and approach lights (ref. ICAO
Annex 14, Vol. I). The average brightness of white high-intensity runway edge lights is 11,000 Cd, while the
average brightness of white high-intensity approach centre line lights is twice as much: 22,000 Cd.
Consequently, the VGS test result is invalid if the runway threshold is not within the calculated visual segment.
Are the aviation authorities aware of that problem?
REGULATORY
As a short-term measure, a higher RVR setting could be used, which would bring the landing threshold into the
calculated visual segment.
Are the authorities prepared to accept such a work-around as an alternative means of compliance, until the VGS
definition gets corrected and the VGS test subsequently fixed?
Regulator, airframer, operator, and vendor comments, please.
Item
No.
Subsystem Name
67
Sourceless FSTDs
Component
Part No. (Sim Mfr &
Vendor)
Sim Mfr/Vendor
Name
Year of Aircraft
Mfr
Type
From
User
AATC
Whether we like it or not, sourceless FSTD delivery is fast becoming a fact of life. Subject to the areas that require
frequent regulatory updating:
 Visual databases
 Nav Db, TAWS/EGPWS, FMS
and those items that are needed for Customer requirements:
 Aircraft options
 IOS customization
being left under the FSTD operator’s total control, then sourceless is probably manageable except this will require
a mindset change from both the regulators and the TDMs for as long as FSTDs are qualified (by the operator) and
not certified (by the TDM) operating under our configuration control systems, not theirs.
However, it MUST be recognized that:
1. The operator has limited (in effect zero) control in resolving most evaluation write ups within the required
typical 30-day reporting timeframe.
2. The operator has zero control in implementing ADs or SBs within any timeframe.
3. The TDM cannot just issue a new baseline without giving the operator both full details and the option
whether to adopt it or not.
4. The TDMs must rapidly share other operators’ experiences/defects and issue (optional) bug fixes under
reasonable commercial terms.
5. The TDMs need to have a better appreciation of regulatory requirements, and not just build standards.
They also should recognize operators’ operating regulations (Part-ORA, etc.) and also recognize there
are different regulatory environments, not just the major regulatory authorities that need satisfying.
Other operators, TDMs, but especially regulators, please comment.
REGULATORY
Item
No.
Subsystem Name
68
Visual
Component
Part No.(Sim Mfr &
Vendor)
Sim Mfr/ Vendor
Name
Year of Aircraft
Mfr
Type
L-3 Link
From
User
MSR
The visual system in 3 of our simulators has been updated to the latest EP8000. The mirrors were also re-skinned
during the update.
During the Qualification that has been done by the EASA after the update, the inspector insisted that the visual
qualification should be done according to the latest EASA standards and refused to qualify the simulators’ visual
according to the Grandfather rights, knowing that the HOST computer was not updated. He also asked for the
mirror Geometry test to meet the latest standard.
We need to enquire about the following:
1. If the visual system was updated alone without re-skinning the mirror, will EASA request the Geometry
test to be according to the latest regulations?
2. If in the future the mirror is re-skinned without any updates to the visual system, do we need to adjust the
Geometry according to the current regulations at that time?
Other regulator, supplier, and user comments, please.
Item
No.
Subsystem Name
Component
69
QTG Tests
Motion Vibration
Part No.(Sim Mfr &
Vendor)
Sim Mfr/ Vendor
Name
Year of Aircraft
Mfr
Type
From
User
Airbus
In existing “Characteristic motion vibrations” QTG tests, the information is usually displayed on two plots:
 Power Spectral density (PSD)
 Time History
This is well suited to steady phenomena.
However, for a more unsteady, dynamic phenomenon (e.g., a stall manoeuver, as described in the Part 60
change 2, test 3f5):
 The PSD calculated over the whole duration of the manoeuver shows an average frequency content,
which “blends” all phases of the manoeuver.
 A time history does not show the frequency content of the vibration.
Would it be suitable to display this information on a spectrogram, as shown below?
REGULATORY
Of course this would require to display two plots (reference + results).
Are there other suitable display formats?
Regulators, TDMs, please comment.
Item
No.
Subsystem Name
70
QTG Tests
Component
Part No.(Sim Mfr &
Vendor)
Sim Mfr/ Vendor
Name
Year of Aircraft
Mfr
Type
Some of the QTG tests need to be re-run several times to obtain an acceptable test result.
We would like to know how the number of test reruns will still be deemed as reasonable/acceptable.
From
User
CAL
REGULATORY
Item
No.
Subsystem Name
71
Master QTG
Component
Part No.(Sim Mfr &
Vendor)
Sim Mfr/ Vendor
Name
Year of Aircraft
Mfr
Type
All
From
User
Airbus
In the past years, we have discussed of the “Paper Master QTG” versus the “Electronic Master QTG” (Discussion
items 2013-20, 2015-42).
In the CS-FSTD(A), there is a mention to “Use of an electronic Qualification Test Guide (eQTG)” with reference to
the ARINC Report 436. In the 14 CFR part 60, there is a reference to the ARINC Report 436 as well, and a
change in 2014 towards the “electronic Master QTG (eMQTG)”.
In operation, we face a dual issue:
 Maintain a paper copy of the Master QTG, that is maintained mainly for the evaluations, checked,
stamped, signed…
 Maintain a digital copy of the Master QTG (including only the test results) that is used every day by the
teams.
In other fields of the industry, use of electronic documentation is generalized; digital signatures are used
extensively, even on regulatory documents.
Are there examples of a fully electronic MQTG, i.e., with no scan of the paper version, no manual signature, use
of a Regulator approved digital signature process, configuration management of the whole document (including
references, rationales, SOC)?
Do you think that it is time to include such possibility in the regulatory texts?
Operators, TDMs, regulators, please comment.
Item
No.
Subsystem Name
72
UPRT
Component
Part No.(Sim Mfr &
Vendor)
Sim Mfr/ Vendor
Name
All
All
Year of Aircraft
Mfr
Type
All
All
From
User
JAL
These are questions from a world outside of FAA and EASA umbrella.
1. Regarding the FSTD, is a technical requirement for UPRT the same between FAA and EASA,
especially a recovery from a complete stall? If a difference exists, does such difference give an
impact to aircraft data suppliers and/or TDMs?
2. If an operator who is under FAA or EASA would like to use an FSTD located in or outside of the FAA
and EASA umbrella, and if their regulation does not need to update an FSTD for UPRT, what should
the operator do? Should he ask the owner of the FSTD to update?
REGULATORY
Item
No.
73
Subsystem Name
Component
Part No.(Sim Mfr &
Vendor)
Sim Mfr/ Vendor
Name
All
Simulation and
Avionics Databases
Year of Aircraft
Mfr
Type
All
From
User
CPA
This question perhaps re-opens the 2015 Discussion Item #27 asked in Miami.
What guidance is available from the Regulatory agencies regarding currency and integrity of the various
databases which are used in our training devices?
With increasing emphasis on such things as RNP-AR approaches, more effort is being expended to validate the
training processes for those events using the simulators. Demonstrations which form part of the airline approval to
conduct such approaches in the real world are increasingly being done in the simulators. In addition, there are the
day-to-day training events themselves. This involves databases of many different types: the FMS nav data, the
simulated ground station nav data, visual models, ADIRU/ADIRS Magvar tables, GPS almanac data, EGPWC
data, EFB chart databases, et cetera. All of these have different update cycles, methods and technical
requirements which can vary widely in both difficulty and cost. Previous discussion essentially said that it is up to
us, based on our training programs.
If the regulators wish to validate the training devices for such training, adding mention of those capabilities on the
qualification certificates, and also use them as part of the real-world approval cycle, should there be some
definition or clarification of the requirements and expectations of the regulators?
Regulator and user comments, please.
Item
No.
Subsystem Name
74
QTG Requirements
Component
Part No.(Sim Mfr &
Vendor)
Sim Mfr/ Vendor
Name
Year of Aircraft
Mfr
Type
From
User
Boeing
The FSEMC Simulator Data Validation (SDV) meetings previously generated a lot of industry interest in
investigating the continuing need for extensive QTG requirements and how potential changes to the QTG lifecycle
could reduce overall training costs. The last Simulator Technical Information Group (STIG) recommended that the
FSEMC SDV activity continue. How can FSEMC help re-instigate this initiative?
Item
No.
Subsystem Name
75
Regulatory
Component
Part No.(Sim Mfr &
Vendor)
Sim Mfr/ Vendor
Name
Year of Aircraft
Mfr
Type
All
From
User
CAE
Recurrent/Continuing Evaluation and Quarterly Tests:
The purpose of these tests is primarily to provide a means to demonstrate continued compliance, and secondarily
to provide the operator a means to help diagnose (through sampling) issues that may lead to non-compliance.
With the advent of new digital technologies, especially flight controls and visual systems, as well an established
Quality Management System or Compliance Monitoring Program the value of these tests is therefore substantially
diminished and we need to reassess the need for this testing.
Operator and regulator comments please.
REGULATORY
Item
No.
Subsystem Name
76
Regulatory
Component
Part No.(Sim Mfr &
Vendor)
Sim Mfr/ Vendor
Name
Year of Aircraft
Mfr
Type
All
From
User
CAE
Recurrent Evaluations conducted by NAAs:
The purpose of the recurrent evaluation is primarily to establish the FSTD continues to meet the requirements of
the MQTG in accordance with the applicable regulation. The NAA reviews the operators QTG and F&S test runs
conducted over the course of the previous year and then during the evaluation attempts to repeat a sample of
these tests.
In the same spirit as the earlier question on continued qualification and notwithstanding that fact that many FSTDs
are subject to multiple recurrent checks by NAAs, is there value in NAAs repeating/performing these tests? We
have been doing this for many years and industry and NAAs have substantial data from these evaluations and we
should look at this data to establish which tests, if any, truly provide value – both from a regulatory compliance
view as well the effectiveness and suitability of this methodology to establish the device continues to meet the
applicable qualification basis. Is it time to consider an alternative approach?
Industry and regulator comments please.
Item
No.
Subsystem Name
77
FSTD Qualifications
Component
Part No.(Sim Mfr &
Vendor)
Sim Mfr/ Vendor
Name
Year of Aircraft
Mfr
Type
From
User
Boeing
One of the most difficult challenges for international training providers is obtaining FSTD qualification from
National Aviation Authorities who may not align with globally accepted standards and/or do not have dedicated
FSTD departments nor FSTD specialists.
Do delegates have thoughts on what can be done to remedy this situation? How can we help each other?
Item
No.
Subsystem Name
78
EASA CMS Audits
Component
Part No.(Sim Mfr &
Vendor)
Sim Mfr/ Vendor
Name
Year of Aircraft
Mfr
Type
From
User
FSI
Has anyone seen any particular areas of emphasis during EASA Compliance Monitoring Systems (CMS) audits?
For instance, configuration control, management review, etc.?
Other operator, regulator, and supplier comments, please.
REGULATORY
Item
No.
79
Subsystem Name
Component
Part No.(Sim Mfr &
Vendor)
Sim Mfr/ Vendor
Name
Year of Aircraft
Mfr
Type
FAA Extended
Evaluation Intervals
From
User
FSI
Have there been any further discussions or decisions regarding the FAA extended evaluation intervals?
Item
No.
Subsystem Name
Component
80
Regulatory
A320 NEO
Part No.(Sim Mfr &
Vendor)
Sim Mfr/ Vendor
Name
Year of Aircraft
Mfr
Type
All
From
User
CAE
For a system update to A320 Neo, will authorities (FAA and EASA) force the update of the light plate, from
incandescent bulb to LED technology, in order to have the device qualified?
Regulator and operator comments, please.
Item
No.
81
Subsystem Name
Component
Discrepancy
Baselines
Part No.(Sim Mfr &
Vendor)
Sim Mfr/ Vendor
Name
Year of Aircraft
Mfr
Type
From
User
Boeing
How do operators handle the tracking and reporting of discrepancies across devices with identical software
baselines?
The current regulation and reporting rules are entirely built on tracking individual devices while the industry is
pushing towards common software which should mean common discrepancy baselines.
Should guidelines be created that could address a simulation baseline across multiple devices which could
potentially reduce workload for both regulators and operators?
REGULATORY
Item
No.
Subsystem Name
82
FSTD Qualification
Component
Part No.(Sim Mfr &
Vendor)
Sim Mfr/ Vendor
Name
All
All
Year of Aircraft
Mfr
Type
All
All
From
User
JAL
When we introduce a new FSTD, we have to spend a huge number of hours to do an acceptance and also spend
more hours to get our NAA’s certification. JAL thinks how we can reduce such (man) x (hours).
Qualities of both design and manufacturing of the FSTD have been improving over these years and TDMs have
skills to keep manufacturing the exact same FSTD with very high quality.
Once one type of FSTD has been approved by NAA: could NAA give their approval not only for a unique serial
number device to the sponsor but also give their authorization for a model number of FSTD to the TDM?
If it would be possible, we would be able to order our FSTD by a specific model number (i.e., an authorized model
number by NAA) with NAA’s authorization tag. It means we do not need to do any qualification processes,
because it has already been certified by NAA.
Is this an unrealistic dream?
Item
No.
83
Subsystem Name
Component
Part No.(Sim Mfr &
Vendor)
Sim Mfr/ Vendor
Name
Year of Aircraft
Mfr
Type
From
User
ANA
ICAO 9625 Edition 4
FAA Part 60 Change 2
As you know, ICAO 9525 Edition 4 was issued last year and FAA Part 60 Change 2 was issued on March 30 this
year.
We would like to know adoption plan and status of these new standards in your country, especially EASA and
Asian country. By the way, Japan will adopt the FAA Part 60 Change 2.
Comments please.
Item
No.
Subsystem Name
84
ICAO 9625
Component
Part No.(Sim Mfr &
Vendor)
Sim Mfr/ Vendor
Name
Year of Aircraft
Mfr
Type
Is anyone aware of countries expressing interest in adopting ICAO 9625 as their qualification standard?
From
User
FSI
REGULATORY
Item
No.
Subsystem Name
85
FAA Website
Component
Part No.(Sim Mfr &
Vendor)
Sim Mfr/ Vendor
Name
Year of Aircraft
Mfr
Type
From
User
Airbus
For operators looking for simulators hours, for Training Devices Manufacturers and for Aircraft Manufacturer
Simulator support organizations, an up-to-date list of qualified simulators and their detailed configuration is
paramount.
This information (list and configuration) is available on the EASA site (See https://lisstdis.easa.europa.eu/eqstdis/)
On the FAA website, the NSP page listing FAA FSTD (see http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/nsp/train_devices/)
is very useful by providing information on make, model and FAA ID. However, FSTD configurations are not
available through these lists.
Is the FAA NSP intending to update their site to provide "FSTD DATA SHEET" for FAA qualified FSTD, in addition
to FAA qualified FSTD list, in order to retrieve configuration for the FSTD, similar to what is available on the EASA
site?
Item
No.
Subsystem Name
86
BASA/SIP
Component
Part No.(Sim Mfr &
Vendor)
Sim Mfr/ Vendor
Name
Year of Aircraft
Mfr
Type
We would like to hear any updates regarding the United States and European Union BASA/SIP.
From
User
FSI
REGULATORY
Item
No.
Subsystem Name
87
Stall and UPRT
Component
Part No.(Sim Mfr &
Vendor)
Sim Mfr/ Vendor
Name
Year of Aircraft
Mfr
Type
From
User
Boeing
What tools are operators planning on using to teach pilot recovery for stall and upset recovery training?
Boeing believes it is important that the instructor have a tool to immediately assess crew response (pass/fail) with
further detailed analysis available (i.e., control sequence, control rates, control forces).
Item
No.
Subsystem Name
88
Malfunctions
Component
Part No. (Sim Mfr &
Vendor)
Sim Mfr/Vendor
Name
All
All
Year of Aircraft
Mfr
Type
All
All
From
User
JAL
For UPRT, we shall use a realistic scenario to make an unusual aircraft situation on FSTD by using a single or
some combination of malfunctions. How shall we check fidelity of malfunctions?
Boeing announced last April that they did not have a malfunction for the B787 simulator, which represented two or
more pitot tubes blocked at the same time. This malfunction could lead to an unreliable airspeed condition. But on
the IOS of our B787 simulator, we can choose such a malfunction (i.e., all three pitot tubes are blocked). This is
just an example, but in the case when we choose this malfunction, how can we see if this situation would be real
even if a data provider has not provided such malfunction data yet?
REGULATORY
Item
No.
Subsystem Name
Component
89
Cockpit LRUs
Various
Part No.(Sim Mfr &
Vendor)
Sim Mfr/ Vendor
Name
Year of Aircraft
Mfr
Type
All
All
From
User
AATC
The below question was raised at this year’s AMC conference:
Item
LRU Name
LRU PN
Vendor
Aircraft
ATA
From
If MRO, the Associate
Airline
29
Cockpit LRUs
Various
Various
Various
Various
LHT
DLH
Over the time LRUs are getting signs of aging and normal wear and tear which are only cosmetic issues and have
no impact on fit, form and function. A simple example might be some slight scratches on an LRU display, slightly
missing color around knobs and push buttons of an individual LRU which is installed in the cockpit.
This cosmetic wear might be acceptable and not require any repair or touch-up in the work shop, but sometimes
the aircraft technicians are becoming insecure if these minor issues are still acceptable or not, although a release
to service certificate comes with it. This might impact the aircraft maintenance, clarification effort, and
unnecessary NFF and removals.
One solution might be to reference this kind of cosmetic damage in the release to service certificate, so that the
aircraft technicians know that this topic was evaluated and nothing which was overseen or a result of bad
handling during transportation. This is unfortunately not a common practice. There is no Industry standard
defining cosmetic issues, but it might be beneficial having one.
We received an Unserviceability write up from a recent EASA recurrent qualification of a 1-year-old A320 FFS as
follows:
These were the offending FFS FCP selectors:
Below is a photograph from an in service aircraft regularly flying into Europe with typically wear and tear:
REGULATORY
...and the equivalent in the same now 18-month-old FFS:
The question raised at AMC is very relevant to our industry, possibly more so due to the higher duty cycles and at
what point does cosmetic wear and tear render a unit unserviceable?
One could even argue that we are in fact achieving higher levels of fidelity!
What standards do other operators use to determine what level of cosmetic damage is deemed acceptable for
continuing use?
INTERFACE
Item
No.
Subsystem Name
Component
Part No.(Sim Mfr &
Vendor)
Sim Mfr/ Vendor
Name
90
Control Loading
FIBICU
FIBICU
L-3
Year of Aircraft
Mfr
Type
2002
B767
From
User
QFA
We occasionally experience problems with control loading on the simulator caused by temperature sensitivity of
the FIBICU cards in the Host computer. A reduction of air flow or a 1 or 2-degree temperature variation results in
controls instability or the inability to reset the FIBICU card during a reboot.
Question for L-3: Is there a solution regarding the temperature sensitivity? Is there a newer version or
replacement for this card that does not exhibit this problem?
Item
No.
Subsystem Name
Component
91
Audio
Audio Node
Part No.(Sim Mfr &
Vendor)
Sim Mfr/ Vendor
Name
CAE 5000
Year of Aircraft
Mfr
Type
2008 B737-800
From
User
QFA
This problem has been ongoing for the last 6 years. We have been experiencing intermittent problems which
exhibit themselves in differing ways. Sudden loss of EGPWS callouts, comms lost between operator stations on
board, also the special feature buttons of Capt.’s private mode, and FO’s private functions appear to operate in
the reverse sense. The diagnostic viewer function shows failed on some occasions and satisfactory on others
when cockpit problems exist. The unload/reload process takes 12 minutes to perform, which is disruptive to crews
awaiting resolution. The node appears build to a large number of log files on load and reload.
Do any other CAE 5000-series customers using the Strive platform have similar issues and how were they
overcome?
Item
No.
Subsystem Name
Component
92
Surv/Taws/Wxr
1394 Hubs &
Cables
Part No.(Sim Mfr &
Vendor)
Sim Mfr/ Vendor
Name
1394 Network
CAE
Year of Aircraft
Mfr
Type
2007
A380
From
User
QFA
Firewire networks have been a problem on our A380 simulator since installation. Faults have been varied and
found to be mainly related to firewire cable security around the firewire hubs. It took a number of years to
determine the fact the firewire connections were causing so many of our intermittent problems. Firewire cables
and Hub sockets were found to have deformed or flattened pins (cause unknown). We are now in the process of
closely inspecting all firewire plugs and hub connections, replacing suspect hardware as required.
Question and discussion for other operators – Have other operators experienced similar problems on their
simulators with firewire networks and what were final solutions?
Question for CAE - Does CAE acknowledge the fragility of these networks on their SimXXI technology and if so,
what is CAE’s solution?
INTERFACE
Item
No.
Subsystem Name
Component
Part No.(Sim Mfr &
Vendor)
Sim Mfr/ Vendor
Name
93
Obj. & Val. Testing
SFS & DocViewer
eCLMnt
FlightSafety
Year of Aircraft
Mfr
Type
2008 Bombard
Dash 8
From
User
QFA
SFS
Docview
When running objective validation checks, trust between the eCLMnt computer and the Simulation File Server
(SFS) is lost at the commencement of the testing. This results in the output trace for motion and control plots not
being transferred to the DocViewer. There is a 30 to 40-minute process to follow to re-establish the trust which is
quite a time waster. This is repeatable.
Question for FlightSafety – Does FlightSafety have a solution to resolve this issue?
Item
No.
Subsystem Name
94
Sound/Audio
Component
Part No.(Sim Mfr &
Vendor)
Sim Mfr/ Vendor
Name
CAE Super C
Year of Aircraft
Mfr
Type
19901998
From
User
FDX
We are interested to know if other users have upgraded their sound and audio chassis on CAE Super C devices.
Our current sound and audio systems have DMC 16, SPC, DSG, DAC, and DASIU boards connected to an IBM
595 host computer.
What did you upgrade to and were you satisfied with the results?
MISCELLANEOUS - FLIGHT SIMULATOR SYSTEMS
******15-062******
Item
No.
Subsystem Name
Component
Map/Chart Light
Switch Rheostat
Part No.(Sim Mfr &
Vendor)
Sim Mfr/ Vendor
Name
35181-MA322466-04
CAE 7000R4+
Year of Aircraft
Mfr
Type
2014 B737-800
From
User
ASA
The simulated map and chart light knobs feel loose and fake. The tactile feel of the pull/push does not feel right.
Map light frequently does not extinguish when the knob is pushed down, is very hard to turn, has grinding sound
when turned, and is difficult to push down. Having both aircraft switches and the simulated knobs in our devices,
the aircraft knobs have much fewer issues.
Have any other carriers experienced this issue with simulated parts?
Item
No.
Subsystem Name
Component
95
Simulator Parts
Any
Part No.(Sim Mfr &
Vendor)
Sim Mfr/ Vendor
Name
Year of Aircraft
Mfr
Type
Any
From
User
KLM
In the industry we see more and more the usage of 3D printers to print all kind of parts, in all kinds of material.
Of course we are curious, so we started experimenting with printed parts to replace defective simulator (!) parts
(especially the ones that are hard to get on legacy Sims). In some cases, the printed parts are just a fraction of
the cost of an original OEM part.
With respect to licensing and propriety we have to tread lightly in this new area. So for every new part we print,
we need to ask ourselves: is this allowed?
1. How does the industry in general look at this?
2. Do other simulator operators have experience with 3D printers (and 3D scanners)?
Item
No.
96
Subsystem Name
Component
Part No.(Sim Mfr &
Vendor)
Sim Mfr/ Vendor
Name
Ground Traffic
Scenarios
Visual System
Training Load
FlightSafety
Year of Aircraft
Mfr
Type
2008 Bombard
Dash 8
From
User
QFA
When new training loads are built all the visual system “Ground Traffic Scenarios” are lost and have to be reedited each time to re-establish.
Question to FlightSafety – Is there a time saving method in which to keep the ground traffic scenarios without
reediting each time?
Item
No.
Subsystem Name
97
Environment Simulation
Component
Part No.(Sim Mfr &
Vendor)
Sim Mfr/ Vendor
Name
All
All
Year of Aircraft
Mfr
Type
All
All
From
User
JAL
How shall we give our aircrew startle training on FSTD?
About a year ago, JAL has started new training scenario which included some startle factors. When we discussed
with designers of this scenarios, they said some of environment simulations were not so real. For example, during
a lightning hit simulation, no motion effect was given.
To give a startle by some environmental changes, shall we improve such environment simulation to be more real?
Item
No.
98
Subsystem Name
Component
ATC Environment
Simulation
Part No.(Sim Mfr &
Vendor)
Sim Mfr/ Vendor
Name
All
All
Year of Aircraft
Mfr
Type
All
All
From
User
JAL
Are there any Approved Training Organizations (ATO) who have already integrated SATCE air traffic environment
simulation into their FFS? ARINC Specification 439A has provided much information but we are interested in
hearing other users’ experiences.
Except for LOFT training, what kind of training would be appropriate to a use of this simulation on FFS?
Item
No.
Subsystem Name
99
OTM and ATM
Component
Part No.(Sim Mfr &
Vendor)
Sim Mfr/ Vendor
Name
Year of Aircraft
Mfr
Type
CAE
From
User
CAL
Two different documents Operational Test Manual and Acceptance Test Manuals (OTM and ATM) are normally
provided by CAE as a baseline doing the acceptance for a new simulator. CAE usually suggests to its customer to
select the OTM due to cost and time-saving considerations.
We would like to know if either one of the documents alone would be sufficient for all the necessary checks.
If not, any suggestion for this issue?
CAE and other comments, please.
Operator Codes for Submitted Discussion Items
Airbus Alaska Airlines All Nippon American Airlines Asian Aviation Training Centre Boeing CAE Cargolux Cathay Pacific China Airlines Egyptair EVA Air FedEx FlightSafety Japan Airlines JAL CAE Flight Training KLM Lufthansa Flight Training Nippon Cargo Airlines Qantas Stefan Sobol Consulting Swiss United Airlines Airbus ASA ANA AAL AATC Boeing CAE CLX CPA CAL MSR EVA FDX FSI JAL JCFT KLM LFT NCA QFA SSC SAT UAL 2016 FSEMC
Ground
Transportation Guide
Now that I am in Hong Kong – How do I get to the FSEMC?
The Airport
Hong Kong International Airport (HKG) is a busy airport, seeing over 100 airlines operating
flights to over 180 cities across the globe. Opened in 1998, it is the 8th busiest airport worldwide,
handling 68.5 million passengers in 2015. In February of 2016, HKIA was named “Airport of the
Year” at the Air Transport World Airline Industry Achievement Awards 2016.
HKG has 2 terminals and free Wi-Fi. The airport also has links to the Hong Kong SkyPier for
ocean cruises and ferry service to the Pearl River Delta.
After retrieving your baggage, head to the ground transportation areas outside of each terminal.
Follow the signs for the Sky City Marriott; the pick-up is at Terminal 2.
This website can assist you with airport information:
http://www.hongkongairport.com/eng/index.html
Ground Transportation
From the HKG Airport the best method of getting to the FSEMC is to use the shuttle. Alternately,
there is circuitous route to walk, but this route is quite lengthy.

Shuttle Services – Free, call to request upon arrival, from Terminal 2
o
Tel: 852 396 92205
The hotel does not offer shuttle service from the Macau International Airport, or the Shenzhen
International Airport.
The Hotel
First things first:

You are going to the Hong Kong SkyCity Marriott Hotel
o
1 Sky City Road East, Hong Kong Int’l Airport, Lantau, Hong Kong, China
o
Tel: +852 3969 1888

Check in time is 1500.

If you hire a rental car, there is self-parking onsite 200 HKD/day or offsite (145
HKD/day).
Hotel Highlights

Full Service Business Center

Dry cleaning and laundry service

Fitness Center

Accessible Rooms and Facilities

Indoor Pool

4 Restaurants and Lounges

2016 FSEMC Program - AEEC - AMC

Transcription

Similar documents

How Investology easily promotes their courses

application to vend - Road to California

George Middle School / Homepage

Dovre 500 MFR/MFF Cast Iron Multifuel Stoves

BLAMMO Error Reporting

save 20% 2 for $28 only $2999 FREE save $5 only$2399

Wherever you are. Whenever you need it.

Alliston Potato Festival Vendor Application