AMC10 FSTD(A).300 Guidance on high angle of attack/stall model evaluation

• ED Decision 2018/006/R found in: CS-FSTD(A) Issue 2 - Aeroplane Flight Simulation Training Devices (May 2018)

AMC10 FSTD(A).300 Guidance on high angle of attack/stall model evaluation ED Decision 2018/006/R (a) This AMC applies to all FSTDs that are used to satisfy training provisions for stall manoeuvres conducted at angles of attack beyond the activation of the stall warning system. This AMC is not applicable to FSTDs that are only qualified for approach-to-stall manoeuvres where recovery is initiated at the first indication of the stall. This AMC supplements the following: (1) [Appendix 1 to CS FSTD(A).300](#_DxCrossRefBm1310592838) ‘Flight Simulation Training Device Standards’; (2) AMC1 FSTD(A).300(b)(3) ‘Table of FSTD Validation Tests’; and (3) AMC1 FSTD(A).300(c) ‘Functions and subjective tests’. (b) General provisions The provisions for high angle of attack modelling should be applied to evaluate the recognition cues as well as performance and handling qualities of a developing stall through the stall identification angle of attack and stall recovery. Strict time-history-based evaluations against flight test data may not adequately validate the aerodynamic model in an unsteady and potentially unstable flight regime, such as stalled flight. As a result, the objective testing provisions of [AMC1 FSTD(A).300](#_DxCrossRefBm1310592836) do not contain strict tolerances for any parameter at angles of attack beyond the stall identification angle of attack. In lieu of mandating such objective tolerances, an SOC should define the source data and methods used to develop the aerodynamic stall model. (c) Fidelity provisions The provisions for the evaluation of full stall training manoeuvres should provide the following levels of fidelity: (1) aeroplane-type-specific recognition cues of the first indication of the stall (such as the stall warning system or aerodynamic stall buffet); (2) aeroplane-type-specific recognition cues of an impending aerodynamic stall; and (3) recognition cues and handling qualities from stall break through recovery which are sufficiently representative of the aeroplane being simulated to allow successful completion of the stall recovery training tasks. For the purposes of stall manoeuvre evaluation, the term ‘representative’ is defined as a level of fidelity that is type-specific of the simulated aeroplane to the extent that the training objectives can be satisfactorily accomplished. Therefore, the term ‘representative’ in this AMC is specifically limited to the characteristics of the aerodynamic model in the post-stall region. The description of this term is given to explain the intent of the model rather than defining the meaning of the term ‘representative modelling’ which may be described in other simulator definitions. (d) SOC (aerodynamic model) At a minimum, the following must be addressed in the SOC: (1) Source data and modelling methods The SOC must identify the sources of data used to develop the aerodynamic model. These data sources may be from the aeroplane original equipment manufacturer (OEM), the original FSTD manufacturer/data provider, or other data providers acceptable to the competent authority. Of particular interest is a mapping of test points in the form of an alpha/beta envelope plot for a minimum of flaps-up and flaps-down aeroplane configurations. For the flight test data, a list of the types of manoeuvres used to define the aerodynamic model for angle of attack ranges greater than the first indication of stall must be provided per flap setting. Flight test reports, when available, describing stall characteristics of the aeroplane type being modelled, issued by the OEM or flight test pilot, can be referred to. In cases where it is impractical to develop and validate a stall model with flight-test data (e.g. due to safety concerns involving the collection of flight-test data past a certain angle of attack), the data provider is expected to make a reasonable attempt to develop a stall model through the required angle of attack range using analytical methods and empirical data (e.g. wind-tunnel data). (2) Validity range The FSTD operator should declare the range of angle of attack and sideslip where the aerodynamic model remains valid for training. Satisfactory aerodynamic model fidelity must be shown through stall recovery training tasks. For the purposes of determining this validity range, the stall identification angle of attack is defined as the angle of attack where the pilot is given a clear and distinctive indication to cease any further increase in the angle of attack where one or more of the following characteristics occur: (i) no further increase in pitch occurs when the pitch control is held at the full aft stop for two seconds, leading to an inability to arrest the descent rate; (ii) an uncommanded nose-down pitch that cannot be readily arrested, which may be accompanied by an uncommanded rolling motion; (iii) buffeting of a magnitude and severity that is a strong and effective deterrent to a further increase in the angle of attack; (iv) activation of a stick pusher. For the validity range, the modelling continuity should allow for an angle of attack range that is adequate to allow for the completion of stall recovery; for pusher-equipped aeroplanes, this should be adequate to capture any inappropriate action during the recovery procedure. For aeroplanes equipped with a stall envelope protection system, the model should allow training with the protection systems disabled or otherwise degraded (such as a degraded flight control mode as a result of a pitot/static system failure). (3) Model characteristics Within the declared model validity range, the SOC must address, and the aerodynamic model must incorporate, the following stall characteristics, where applicable by aeroplane type: (i) degradation of the static/dynamic lateral-directional stability; (ii) degradation in control response (pitch, roll, and yaw); (iii) uncommanded roll acceleration or roll-off requiring significant control deflection to counter; (iv) apparent randomness or non-repeatability; (v) changes in pitch stability; (vi) stall hysteresis; (vii) Mach effects; (viii) stall buffet; and (ix) angle of attack rate effects. An overview of the methodology used to address these features must be provided. (e) SOC (subject-matter expert (SME) pilot’s evaluation) The operator must provide an SOC confirming that the simulation stall model has been subjectively evaluated by an SME pilot knowledgeable of the aeroplane’s stall characteristics (please refer to (d)(1) above). The operator is also required to provide a SOC to state that the simulation stall model, as defined above, has been implemented and verifies that the aerodynamic stall training tasks can be accomplished on the FSTD. The purpose is to ensure that the stall model has been sufficiently evaluated using those general aeroplane configurations and stall-entry methods that will likely be conducted in training. In order to qualify as an acceptable SME to evaluate the stall model characteristics, the SME must meet the following criteria: (1) has held or currently holds a type rating/qualification in the aeroplane being simulated; (2) has direct experience in conducting stall manoeuvres in an aeroplane that shares the same type rating as the make, model, and series of the simulated aeroplane; this stall experience must include hands-on manipulation of the controls at angles of attack sufficient to identify the stall (e.g. deterrent buffet, stick pusher activation, etc.) through recovery to stable flight; (3) where the SME’s stall experience is in an aeroplane of a different make, model, and series within the same type rating, differences in aeroplane-specific stall recognition cues and handling characteristics must be addressed using available documentation; this documentation may include aeroplane operating manuals (OMs), aeroplane manufacturer flight test reports, or other documentation that describes the stall characteristics of the aeroplane; and (4) be familiar with the intended stall training manoeuvres to be conducted in the FSTD (e.g. general aeroplane configurations, stall-entry methods, etc.) and the cues necessary to accomplish the required training objectives. This SOC will only be required at the time the FSTD is initially qualified for stall training tasks as long as the FSTD’s stall model remains unmodified compared to what was originally evaluated and qualified. Where an FSTD shares common aerodynamic and flight control models with those of an engineering or development simulator, the competent authority will accept an SOC from the aeroplane manufacturer or data provider confirming that the stall characteristics have been subjectively assessed by an SME pilot on the engineering/development simulator (please refer to [AMC1 FSTD(A).200](#_DxCrossRefBm1310592832) and [AMC7 FSTD(A).300(b)](#_DxCrossRefBm1310592841) for the description of an engineering/ development simulator). An FSTD operator may submit a request to the competent authority for approval of a deviation from the SME pilot’s experience provisions under this paragraph. This request for deviation must include the following information: (1) an assessment of pilot availability demonstrating that a subject-matter expert pilot, meeting the experience described in AMC10 FSTD(A).300(e), is not available; and (2) alternative methods to subjectively evaluate the FSTD’s capability to provide the stall recognition cues and handling characteristics needed to accomplish the training objectives. (f) SOC (subjective tests) Test provisions The necessity of subjective tests arises from the need to confirm that the simulation model has been integrated correctly and performs as declared under (d) above. It is vital to examine, for example, that the simulation validity range allows modelling continuity that is adequate to allow for the completion of stall recovery. Considerations on aeroplane certification flight test provisions In aeroplane certification flight tests, there is no provision to go beyond the maximum coefficient of lift (CL max), and the aeroplane is not to be held indefinitely in a full stall condition, so this provision should be applied in the same way during the simulator’s subjective evaluation. The subjective tests of the simulation model should assess modelling continuity when slightly increasing the angle of attack beyond the validity range defined in paragraph (d)(2) of this section CL max. The increase in angle of attack beyond the validity range CL max should be limited to a value not greater than the maximum angle achieved two seconds after stall recognition, which is sufficient to allow a proper recovery manoeuvre. Stall recognition is defined as follows: (1) no further increase in pitch occurs when the pitch control is held at the full aft stop for two seconds, leading to an inability to arrest the descent rate; (2) an uncommanded nose-down pitch that cannot be readily arrested, which may be accompanied by an uncommanded rolling motion; (3) buffeting of a magnitude and severity that is a strong and effective deterrent to a further increase in the angle of attack; and (4) activation of a stick pusher. Where known limitations exist in the aerodynamic model for particular stall event manoeuvres (such as aeroplane configuration, approach-to-stall entry methods, and limited range for continuity of the modelling), these limitations must be declared in the required SOC. [Issue: CS-FSTD(A)/2]