AMC2 ARA.FSTD.120 Continuation of an FSTD qualification

• ED Decision 2012/006/R found in: Aircrew (1178/2011) Part-FCL Part-MED Part-CC Part-ARA Part-ORA Part-DTO (Dec 2024)

AMC2 ARA.FSTD.120 Continuation of an FSTD qualification ED Decision 2012/006/R COMPOSITION OF THE EVALUATION TEAM (a)     The composition of the evaluation team for a recurrent evaluation should be the same as for the initial evaluation (see [AMC4 ARA.FSTD.100(a)(1)](#_DxCrossRefBm894736145). On a case-by-case basis (except for BITD), when a specific FSTD in operation by a specific organisation is being evaluated, the competent authority may reduce the evaluation team to: (1)     the competent authority’s flight inspector; and (2)     a type rated instructor (or class rated instructor for FNPT) from a main FSTD user. (b)     Evaluations with a reduced evaluation team in line with (a) may only take place if: (1)     this composition is not being used prior to the second recurrent evaluation; (2)     such an evaluation is followed by an evaluation with a full competent authority evaluation team; (3)     the competent authority’s flight inspector performs some spot checks in the area of objective testing; (4)     no major change or upgrading has been applied since the directly preceding evaluation; (5)     no relocation of the FSTD has taken place since the last evaluation; (6)     a system is established enabling the competent authority to monitor and analyse the status of the FSTD on a continuous basis; and (7)     the FSTD hardware and software has been working reliably for the previous years. This should be reflected in the number and kind of discrepancies (technical log entries) and the results of the compliance monitoring system audits. (c)      In the case of a BITD, the recurrent evaluation may be conducted by one suitably qualified flight inspector only, in conjunction with the inspection of any ATO, using the BITD. AMC2 ARA.FSTD.120 Continuation of an FSTD qualification ED Decision 2012/006/R COMPOSITION OF THE EVALUATION TEAM (a) The composition of the evaluation team for a recurrent evaluation should be the same as for the initial evaluation (see [AMC4 ARA.FSTD.100(a)(1)](#_DxCrossRefBm1199964000). On a case-by-case basis (except for BITD), when a specific FSTD in operation by a specific organisation is being evaluated, the competent authority may reduce the evaluation team to: (1) the competent authority’s flight inspector; and (2) a type rated instructor (or class rated instructor for FNPT) from a main FSTD user. (b) Evaluations with a reduced evaluation team in line with (a) may only take place if: (1) this composition is not being used prior to the second recurrent evaluation; (2) such an evaluation is followed by an evaluation with a full competent authority evaluation team; (3) the competent authority’s flight inspector performs some spot checks in the area of objective testing; (4) no major change or upgrading has been applied since the directly preceding evaluation; (5) no relocation of the FSTD has taken place since the last evaluation; (6) a system is established enabling the competent authority to monitor and analyse the status of the FSTD on a continuous basis; and (7) the FSTD hardware and software has been working reliably for the previous years. This should be reflected in the number and kind of discrepancies (technical log entries) and the results of the compliance monitoring system audits. (c) In the case of a BITD, the recurrent evaluation may be conducted by one suitably qualified flight inspector only, in conjunction with the inspection of any ATO, using the BITD. ##### AMC2 ARA.FSTD.120 Continuation of an FSTD qualification *ED Decision 2012/006/R* **COMPOSITION OF THE EVALUATION TEAM** (a) The composition of the evaluation team for a recurrent evaluation should be the same as for the initial evaluation (see [AMC4 ARA.FSTD.100(a)(1)](#_DxCrossRefBm1743303814). On a case-by-case basis (except for BITD), when a specific FSTD in operation by a specific organisation is being evaluated, the competent authority may reduce the evaluation team to: (1) the competent authority’s flight inspector; and (2) a type rated instructor (or class rated instructor for FNPT) from a main FSTD user. (b) Evaluations with a reduced evaluation team in line with (a) may only take place if: (1) this composition is not being used prior to the second recurrent evaluation; (2) such an evaluation is followed by an evaluation with a full competent authority evaluation team; (3) the competent authority’s flight inspector performs some spot checks in the area of objective testing; (4) no major change or upgrading has been applied since the directly preceding evaluation; (5) no relocation of the FSTD has taken place since the last evaluation; (6) a system is established enabling the competent authority to monitor and analyse the status of the FSTD on a continuous basis; and (7) the FSTD hardware and software has been working reliably for the previous years. This should be reflected in the number and kind of discrepancies (technical log entries) and the results of the compliance monitoring system audits. (c) In the case of a BITD, the recurrent evaluation may be conducted by one suitably qualified flight inspector only, in conjunction with the inspection of any ATO, using the BITD.