FAA policy "change" on aviation training devices

[TMetzinger]

Cross-posted from IMCNews:

Radek Wyrzykowski - On January 2nd, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) posted a Notice of Policy Change in the Federal Register for the use of FAA Approved Training Devices (ATDs). This unexpected change in a policy for GA flight simulators may harm aviation safety by discouraging the use of flight simulators in instrument training.

GA simulators affected by the FAA change in policy will include virtually all FAA approved Personal Computer Aviation Training Devices (PCATD), Flight Training Devices (FTD) level 1-3, Basic Aviation Training Devices (BATD) and Advanced Aviation Training Devices (AATD). The change will limit pilots to the maximum of 10 hours of simulator time loggable toward an instrument rating. Some ATD simulators currently are allowed to be used as many as 20 hours to count toward an instrument rating.

Since flight education should not be about reaching minimums but rather gaining knowledge and skill as necessary, I would like to appeal to all instructors to incorporate ATD’s in their flight educational activities regardless of the ability to log the time.

Although FAA is not preventing any flight instructor from using an ATD in their flight training as much as it is needed, the IMC Club International, Inc. is seeing this - time allowed reduction - as a potential step in a wrong direction. We strongly believe that setting appropriate minimums rather than limiting the maximum use should encourage use of modern simulators, especially with today’s complex cockpit environment.

It is our responsibility, as the pilot community as whole, to respond, comment and stop any regulatory changes that may impact the growth, and safety of General Aviation community regardless if we are affected directly by it or not.

I would like to appeal to all our members and all pilots who are reading this to post their comments on the FAA’s website. Our power to influence positive outcomes is in numbers. Be brief and to the point in your opinion to allow real possibility of review by the agency.

Here's the link to the FAA notice. http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2013-0809-0001

I actually favor getting all the LOAs consistent. That said, I think the limits placed on the usage of these devices (or more accurately, on how much of the time spent with them is creditable for a rating) is arbitrary and not backed up by any research. Since the standard for obtaining the rating is the same no matter how the applicant learned, and the test is taken in an airplane, I think the limits in the FAR for ATDs and FTDs should be altered and it should be up the instructor to teach the student in training devices or airplanes as he sees fit, knowing he's got to sign the student off for a ride in the airplane.

 

[LDJones]

Talked to the owner of our flight school about this....he's very concerned as it will significantly devalue his $110,000 helicopter sim we use for instrument training.

 

[wsuffa]

Fff... what are they thinking?

There's a lot of stuff that can be done more effectively in an ATD - including failures - than an airplane. And it's usually less expenisve in a trainer. I prefer to do some recurrent training in an ATD for those reasons.

Are they trying to kill off aviation training?

 

[TMetzinger]

Folks, they're not saying you can't do training with these devices. What they're saying is that all the LOAs have to reflect the most recent regulations related to PC-ATDs, FTDs, and AATDs.

The problem they're trying to solve is that different FSDOs have written different LOAs for the SAME devices, in some cases different LOAs for the SAME device in the SAME FSDO.

So let's use the Redbird as an example:

In some areas, the LOA says it can be used for 20 hours training towards the instrument rating, and can be used for instrument currency without an instructor present, and you can log all the currency tasks in the Redbird.

In other FSDOs, the LOA will say 15 hours, and you must have an instructor present.

I forget when the rewrite occurred, but the FAR now has regs that say how many hours can be credited toward a rating, and how the devices can be used for currency. The problem is that the LOAs (some before the reg, some after) don't match the regs.

So the policy changes says "follow the regs, everybody". I don't agree with the regs as written, but this action isn't changing them... separate action is needed to change them. Now this may be a big change to folks - i don't know how the devices PIC uses are classified, but it should make things more consistent, and then that may provide pressure to change the regs a bit. I have a hard time accepting that in some cases the desktop device used by PIC (510?) is considered more capable than a Redbird FMX for training.

Personally, I'd rather see a system where the LOA from the FSDO says "I've inspected this installation, and the device is a PCATD/FTD/BATD/AATD. It may be used in accordance with the FAR as long as the device is maintained in accordance with manufacturer guidance." Leave the other stuff out of the LOA altogether.

 

[JeffDG]

Tim,

In terms of leaving stuff out of the LOA, I would suggest having the LOA read something like "This device complies with the requirements of a PCATD, and may be used provided it is maintained IAW manufacturer guidance for such purposes as specified in AC-1234"

Then they can keep all of them consistent by keeping Advisory Circular 1234 up to date.

 

[TMetzinger]

Tim,

In terms of leaving stuff out of the LOA, I would suggest having the LOA read something like "This device complies with the requirements of a PCATD, and may be used provided it is maintained IAW manufacturer guidance for such purposes as specified in AC-1234"

Then they can keep all of them consistent by keeping Advisory Circular 1234 up to date.

Exactly, or the appropriate sections of FAR 61.

 

[JeffDG]

Exactly, or the appropriate sections of FAR 61.

It's a lot easier for them to update an AC than a FAR.

 

[poadeleted20]

Fff... what are they thinking?

There's a lot of stuff that can be done more effectively in an ATD - including failures - than an airplane. And it's usually less expenisve in a trainer. I prefer to do some recurrent training in an ATD for those reasons.

Are they trying to kill off aviation training?

ATD's have always been generally limited to 10 hours towards the IR. Only FTD's and a few AATD's were allowed to go for 20. This change has no effect on the vast majority of the ATD's introduced in the last 5-10 years which were always limited to 10 hours towards the IR. Therefore, I don't see this as "kill[ing] off aviation training" even if I think it's a bad idea to cut the FTD limit to 10.

 

[TMetzinger]

It's a lot easier for them to update an AC than a FAR.

The usage is ALREADY in the FAR... you can't supercede a FAR with an AC.

 

[poadeleted20]

So let's use the Redbird as an example:

In some areas, the LOA says it can be used for 20 hours training towards the instrument rating, and can be used for instrument currency without an instructor present, and you can log all the currency tasks in the Redbird.

In other FSDOs, the LOA will say 15 hours, and you must have an instructor present.

I forget when the rewrite occurred, but the FAR now has regs that say how many hours can be credited toward a rating, and how the devices can be used for currency. The problem is that the LOAs (some before the reg, some after) don't match the regs.

Those regs have always been there. The problem is that some FSDO's weren't following them when they wrote the LoA's in question. The problem was compounded by HQ Flight Standards violating the regulations when they issued authorizations for BATD's to be used for recent experience without an instructor present. This got to be a hot item between Flight Standards and the Chief Counsel, especially when Flight Standards ignored a Chief Counsel letter and continued to issue BATD LoA's for no-instructor present recent experience work in violation of 61.51(g)(4). Perhaps what you're seeing here is part of the result of that, but I can't be sure.

So the policy changes says "follow the regs, everybody". I don't agree with the regs as written, but this action isn't changing them... separate action is needed to change them. Now this may be a big change to folks - i don't know how the devices PIC uses are classified, but it should make things more consistent, and then that may provide pressure to change the regs a bit. I have a hard time accepting that in some cases the desktop device used by PIC (510?) is considered more capable than a Redbird FMX for training.

It's the ATC-610 which PIC formerly used (we got rid of them about a year ago), and yes, it was grandfathered as an FTD back in the 1980's so it could be used for up to 20 hours towards the IR even though it did not have an enclose cockpit as required for an FTD, or for 20-hour approval for an AATD. Whether that's what was bothering AFS-800, I don't know, but they've now solved the problem by limiting everything but a full flight sim to 10 hours towards the instrument rating. However, this has no effect on the authorized use of FTD's or ATD's in accordance with the existing regulations and LoA's for any other purpose, including recurrent training and recent experience training.

 

[PPC1052]

The biggest thing I see (from an end user perspective) is that if you have more than 10 hours in a FTD that has an LOA approving more time, you gotta take the check ride before January 1, 2015 if you want count all of the hours toward the experience requirement.

 

[PPC1052]

Those regs have always been there. The problem is that some FSDO's weren't following them when they wrote the LoA's in question.

The Red Bird approval that I am familiar with wasn't written by a FSDO. It's signed by the manager of the General Aviation and Commerce Division.

Admittedly, I am not familiar with the back and forth, and what may have preceded this letter.

 

[JimNtexas]

If they take away Skyport's 'no instructor for currency' LOA I'll be sad.

 

[TMetzinger]

Those regs have always been there. The problem is that some FSDO's weren't following them when they wrote the LoA's in question. The problem was compounded by HQ Flight Standards violating the regulations when they issued authorizations for BATD's to be used for recent experience without an instructor present. This got to be a hot item between Flight Standards and the Chief Counsel, especially when Flight Standards ignored a Chief Counsel letter and continued to issue BATD LoA's for no-instructor present recent experience work in violation of 61.51(g)(4). Perhaps what you're seeing here is part of the result of that, but I can't be sure.

It's the ATC-610 which PIC formerly used (we got rid of them about a year ago), and yes, it was grandfathered as an FTD back in the 1980's so it could be used for up to 20 hours towards the IR even though it did not have an enclose cockpit as required for an FTD, or for 20-hour approval for an AATD. Whether that's what was bothering AFS-800, I don't know, but they've now solved the problem by limiting everything but a full flight sim to 10 hours towards the instrument rating. However, this has no effect on the authorized use of FTD's or ATD's in accordance with the existing regulations and LoA's for any other purpose, including recurrent training and recent experience training.

As I read it, all LOAs have to be reissued over a short period of time, so hopefully we'll get some consistency elsewhere.

 

[TMetzinger]

The biggest thing I see (from an end user perspective) is that if you have more than 10 hours in a FTD that has an LOA approving more time, you gotta take the check ride before January 1, 2015 if you want count all of the hours toward the experience requirement.

That really shouldn't be too hard.

 

[PPC1052]

That really shouldn't be too hard.

True. Accordingly, I don't think this is that big of a deal from my perspective.

The big picture issue is whether they really want to maintain the 10 hour threshold. I am using a Red Bird now for my instrument training. It's not any cheaper (to me) per hour than using my own aircraft, but there are some benefits that I felt it worth it to choose the Red Bird for this portion of my training. (No weather related cancelations, no taxi and re-positioning time, instrument failure modes, etc.) I can see a benefit to more than 10 hours of time in the sim.

 

[poadeleted20]

The Red Bird approval that I am familiar with wasn't written by a FSDO. It's signed by the manager of the General Aviation and Commerce Division.

Admittedly, I am not familiar with the back and forth, and what may have preceded this letter.

I am familiar, and I know they were told by the Chief Counsel that it wasn't legal but they did it anyway because they think 61.4 gives Flight Standards the authority to do it -- a point on which the Chief Counsel disagrees. Internal FAA politics at its best.

 

[poadeleted20]

If they take away Skyport's 'no instructor for currency' LOA I'll be sad.

That LoA violates the regulation, so according to the Chief Counsel, it was never valid to begin with.

The real problem is that Flight Standards wanted to short-cut the regulatory process necessary to change 61.51(g)(4), and did so by putting this in the LoA's. Unfortunately, that violates the Administrative Procedures Act, and the Chief Counsel didn't like that. Personally, I've got no problem with not having an instructor present when doing instrument events for 61.57(c) currency on any flight simulation device, not just BATD's, but I have to agree with the Chief Counsel that Flight Standards can't be allowed to ignore regulations they don't like any more than we can. That way lies chaos, and chaos is counterproductive to safety. If AFS-800 doesn't like the regulation, I think they should go through the process to change the regulation, not just ignore it and do what they want regardless of the rules.

 

[poadeleted20]

As I read it, all LOAs have to be reissued over a short period of time,...

Where did you read that?

 

[TMetzinger]

Where did you read that?

After January 1, 2015, all LOAs previously issued prior to August 23, 2013, for training devices approved to meet requirements under parts 61 and 141 will terminate.

2015 is a "short" timeframe to me. All those LOAs will have to be reissued, in accordance with the new guidance.

 

[poadeleted20]

After January 1, 2015, all LOAs previously issued prior to August 23, 2013, for training devices approved to meet requirements under parts 61 and 141 will terminate.

2015 is a "short" timeframe to me. All those LOAs will have to be reissued, in accordance with the new guidance.

Sorry -- I misread. I thought you were still talking about Chief Counsel LoI's, not Flight Standards LoA's.

 

[JimNtexas]

That LoA violates the regulation, so according to the Chief Counsel, it was never valid to begin with.

...

The Chief Counsel is an adviser to FAA management. That's all. Their word is not law.

 

[denverpilot]

I am familiar, and I know they were told by the Chief Counsel that it wasn't legal but they did it anyway because they think 61.4 gives Flight Standards the authority to do it -- a point on which the Chief Counsel disagrees. Internal FAA politics at its best.

At its worst, and it's external now.

I always note no one gets fired.

 

[poadeleted20]

The Chief Counsel is an adviser to FAA management. That's all. Their word is not law.

You keep saying things like that, but from a practical standpoint, it's not true. Yes, the law isn't absolutely the law until the US Supreme Court says it is, but in general, the courts defer to the interpretations by Federal agencies of their own regulations, and the US Supreme Court has never overturned an FAA Chief Counsel interpretation (or even agreed to hear such a case). Further, while the Administrator of the agency speaks for the agency in this regard, for regulatory interpretation, the Administrator has delegated that authority to the Chief Counsel. In particular, Flight Standards was told that the Chief Counsel's interpretations are binding on Flight Standards (a directive growing out of the old Part 61 FAQ File issue), and specifically that Flight Standards is not authorized to make its own interpretations of the regulations (a position agreed to in an AFS-1 memo in 2004), only policy based on them.

So, if push comes to intradepartmental shove, history tells us the Administrator is going to side with the Chief Counsel's interpretation of any given regulation, not AFS-800's conflicting interpretation. And in this case, the problem is that Flight Standards interprets 14 CFR 61.4 as allowing them the freedom to ignore the requirements of 14 CFR 61.51(g)(4) when writing flight simulation device LoA's, and that is a position the Chief Counsel has already rejected in writing.

The only reason this hasn't become an enforcement issue is because nothing gets to the Regional Counsel for enforcement action without a Flight Standards Inspector sending it there, and as long as HQ Flight Standards is telling field inspectors it's OK, it is very unlikely any of them will do that. In that regard, this is a bit like the popular discussion issue of mom/dad paying son/daughter to fly them somewhere. It really is a violation of the rules, but it will never be enforced because nobody who cares will notice and report it.

 

[JimNtexas]

You keep saying things like that, but from a practical standpoint, it's not true.

Yet you yourself said in this exact case the management disregarded the sage words of the Chief Counsel.

Just because a lawyer writes a memo does not mean someone has to grab their ankles.

The more I think about this latest imperial dictate from the FAA the more it bothers me that somebody in the FAA, probably the Chief Counsel, is willing to cause chaos in an important segment of the general aviation community for no good reason.

I hope and expect the alphabet groups to push back hard on this latest arbitrary and capricious action from the FAA.

 

[poadeleted20]

Yet you yourself said in this exact case the management disregarded the sage words of the Chief Counsel.

Yes, I did -- and there is trouble in River City as a result. So don't think that you or any other individual can get away with doing something the Chief Counsel says violates the FAA's regulations.

 

[Cruiser]

How many hours may be logged in a sim is one issue but forcing all sims to meet the new standard a totally different issue.

Due to regulatory changes, new standards for qualifying aviation training devices, and ongoing improvements in technology, the FAA has determined that it is necessary to ensure all approved devices meet current standards contained in AC 61-136 (issued in July 2008) and are consistent with existing regulations. As such, all manufacturers of devices (3) (including ground trainers, PCATD, FTD level 1-3, and ATDs) who currently hold an LOA (or any other official method of approval) must apply for a new LOA. By January 1, 2015, all FAA approved training devices must have an LOA that has been reissued by AFS-800 (excluding part 60 approvals) that: (1) Assesses the training device under the standards in current AC 61-136; (2) contains an expiration date; and (3) reflects current regulatory requirements. The only exception to the reapplication requirement in this notice applies to new devices that received their first LOAs after August 23, 2013. As noted, these devices have been approved in accordance with AC 61-136, contain expiration dates, and reference the appropriate regulatory limitations."

by that logic all aircraft certified under CAR3 would not be airworthy. No more Cubs, Champs, Luscombe, Taylorcraft etc .

 

[Art VanDelay]

Hey Ron, what does PIC use now for a sim ?

 

[RotorAndWing]

I am familiar, and I know they were told by the Chief Counsel that it wasn't legal but they did it anyway because they think 61.4 gives Flight Standards the authority to do it -- a point on which the Chief Counsel disagrees. Internal FAA politics at its best.

That LoA violates the regulation, so according to the Chief Counsel, it was never valid to begin with.

The real problem is that Flight Standards wanted to short-cut the regulatory process necessary to change 61.51(g)(4), and did so by putting this in the LoA's. Unfortunately, that violates the Administrative Procedures Act, and the Chief Counsel didn't like that. Personally, I've got no problem with not having an instructor present when doing instrument events for 61.57(c) currency on any flight simulation device, not just BATD's, but I have to agree with the Chief Counsel that Flight Standards can't be allowed to ignore regulations they don't like any more than we can. That way lies chaos, and chaos is counterproductive to safety. If AFS-800 doesn't like the regulation, I think they should go through the process to change the regulation, not just ignore it and do what they want regardless of the rules.

Just more buffoonery from AFS-800. This is just a sampling of what goes on there.

 

[poadeleted20]

Hey Ron, what does PIC use now for a sim ?

Primarily the FlyThisSim Touch Trainer, but we also have a few Elite PI-135's for certain situations where the TT isn't appropriate.

 

[gismo]

How many hours may be logged in a sim is one issue but forcing all sims to meet the new standard a totally different issue.

...by that logic all aircraft certified under CAR3 would not be airworthy. No more Cubs, Champs, Luscombe, Taylorcraft etc .

Does this mean that any previously approved FTD or ATD with no current manufacturer support can no longer be used?

 

[poadeleted20]

Does this mean that any previously approved FTD or ATD with no current manufacturer support can no longer be used?

Good question. AFAIK, the FAA has all it needs in its files to re-issue the LoA's based on the systems' capabilities and the current AC on point, but I will ask this question in the appropriate quarter.

 

[RotorAndWing]

In particular, Flight Standards was told that the Chief Counsel's interpretations are binding on Flight Standards (a directive growing out of the old Part 61 FAQ File issue), and specifically that Flight Standards is not authorized to make its own interpretations of the regulations (a position agreed to in an AFS-1 memo in 2004), only policy based on them.

You have this so twisted into what you want it to say, not what it actually says.

 

[poadeleted20]

You have this so twisted into what you want it to say, not what it actually says.

I know from conversations with FAA HQ participants on this particular issue what has transpired. If you've communicated with any of them and heard something different, please share that with us. Otherwise, please don't tell my I've "twisted" what they've said.

 

[Henning]

Fff... what are they thinking?

There's a lot of stuff that can be done more effectively in an ATD - including failures - than an airplane. And it's usually less expenisve in a trainer. I prefer to do some recurrent training in an ATD for those reasons.

Are they trying to kill off aviation training?

Where does this limit the amount one can do in a simulator? It doesn't, what it does is increases the minimum time you must spend actually controlling an aircraft.

 

[RotorAndWing]

I know from conversations with FAA HQ participants on this particular issue what has transpired. If you've communicated with any of them and heard something different, please share that with us. Otherwise, please don't tell my I've "twisted" what they've said.

Sorry Ron, I don't buy it, and I don't buy that you are ever involved in policy discussions with FAA HQ personnel.

Keep living the fantasy.

 

[poadeleted20]

Sorry Ron, I don't buy it

Frankly, R&W, I don't give a damn whether you buy it or not. I'm reporting what I've been told by participants. If you don't know any better (and apparently you don't), then you have no reason to harass me.

:bye:

 

[RotorAndWing]

Frankly, R&W, I don't give a damn whether you buy it or not. I'm reporting what I've been told by participants. If you don't know any better (and apparently you don't), then you have no reason to harass me.

:bye:

I do know better. Unlike you I've BTDT.

An opposing view is not harassment. Anyone who pierces your fantasy world is "harassing" you.

Take care! Bye!

 

[JimNtexas]

That LoA violates the regulation, so according to the Chief Counsel, it was never valid to begin with.
... Chief Counsel that Flight Standards can't be allowed to ignore regulations they don't like any more than we can. That way lies chaos, and chaos is counterproductive to safety. If AFS-800 Chief Counsel doesn't like the regulation, I think they should go through the process to change the regulation, not just ignore it and do what they want regardless of the rules.

There fixed it for you.

Edited to add the regulation that the Counsel wants to cause chaos by ignoring:

Use of a flight simulator or flight training device for maintaining instrument experience. Within the 6 calendar months preceding the month of the flight, that person performed and logged at least the following tasks and iterations in a flight simulator or flight training device, provided the flight simulator or flight training device represents the category of aircraft for the instrument rating privileges to be maintained and involves having performed the following--

(i) Six instrument approaches.
(ii) Holding procedures and tasks.

(iii) Intercepting and tracking courses through the use of navigational electronic systems.

Nothing about needing an instructor in an FTD.

 

[cirrusmx]

Most of the entry level ppl sims are pointless anyways. in my experiece i never saw the value of using atdnvs going out and flying, single engine at least. ecen when training a ton of emergency scenarios the handling and realism is crap. this was on a frasca. i cant imagine how useful the approved pc simulators are.