AMC5 ARA.FSTD.100(a)(1) Initial evaluation procedure
ED
Decision 2012/006/R
FSTD
EVALUATION REPORT FOR INITIAL AND RECURRENT EVALUATION
FSTD
Evaluation Report
Date:…………………………..
[competent
authority]
FSTD
EVALUATION REPORT
[Member
State] FSTD code (if applicable):
EASA
FSTD code (if applicable):
Aircraft
type and variant:
Class of
aeroplane / type of helicopter:
Engine fit(s)
simulated:
Contents
1. Flight simulation training device
(FSTD) characteristics
2. Evaluation details
3. Supplementary information
4. Training, testing and checking
considerations
5. Classification of items
6. Results
7. Evaluation team
The
conclusions presented are those of the evaluation team. The competent
authority reserves the right to change these after internal review.
|
1. Flight simulation training device
(FSTD) |
|||
|
(a) Organisation operating the FSTD: |
|||
|
(b) FSTD Location: |
|||
|
(c) FSTD Identification (Member State
FSTD code / EASA FSTD Code): |
|||
|
(d) FSTD Manufacturer and FSTD
Identification serial number: |
|||
|
(e) First entry into service
(month/year): |
|||
|
(f) Visual system (manufacturer and
type): |
|||
|
(g) Motion system (manufacturer and
type) : |
|||
|
(h) Aircraft type and variant: |
|||
|
(i) Engine fit(s): |
|||
|
(k) Engine instrumentation: Flight instrumentation: |
|||
|
2. Evaluation
details |
|||
|
(a) Date of evaluation: |
(b) Date of previous evaluation: |
||
|
(c) Type of evaluation: initial
recurrent special |
|||
|
(d) FSTD Qualification Level
recommended: FFS A B C D AG BG CG DG SC FTD 1 2 3 FNPT I II III MCC BITD |
|||
|
Technical
criteria primary reference document: |
|||
|
Validation
data roadmap (VDR) ID-No.: |
|||
|
3. Supplementary information |
|||
|
Company
representative(s) (FSTD
operator, Main FSTD user) |
|
||
|
FSTD
seats available |
|
||
|
Visual
databases used during evaluation |
|
||
|
Other |
|
||
|
4. Training, testing and checking considerations |
|||
|
CAT I RVR m |
DH ft |
|
|
|
CAT II RVR m |
DH ft |
|
|
|
CAT
III RVR m (lowest
minimum) |
DH ft |
|
|
|
LVTO RVR m |
|
|
|
|
Recency
|
|
|
|
|
IFR-training/check
|
|
|
|
|
Type
rating |
|
|
|
|
Proficiency
checks |
|
|
|
|
Autocoupled
approach |
|
|
|
|
Autoland/Roll
out guidance |
|
|
|
|
ACAS I
/ II |
|
|
|
|
Windshear
warning system/predictive windshear |
|
||
|
WX-Radar
|
|
||
|
HUD/HUGS
|
|
||
|
FANS |
|
||
|
GPWS/EGPWS
|
|
||
|
ETOPS
capability |
|
||
|
RNP
APCH LNAV |
|
||
|
RNP
APCH LNAV/VNAV |
|
||
|
RNP
APCH LPV |
|
||
|
RNP AR
APCH |
|
||
|
Other |
|
||
5. Classification of items
UNACCEPTABLE
An item
that fails to comply with the required standard and, therefore, affects the
level of qualification or the qualification itself. If these items will not be
corrected or clarified within a given time limit, the (competent
authority) should have to vary, limit, suspend or revoke the FSTD
qualification.
RESERVATION
An item
where compliance with the required standard is not clearly proven and the
issue will be reserved for a later decision. Resolution of these items will
require either:
1. a competent authority
policy ruling; or
2. additional substantiation.
UNSERVICEABILITY
A device
that is temporarily inoperative or performing below its nominal level.
LIMITATION
An item
that prevents the full usage of the FSTD according to the training, testing
and checking considerations due to the unusable devices, systems or parts
thereof.
RECOMMENDATION FOR IMPROVEMENT
An item
that meets the required standard, but where considerable improvement is
strongly recommended.
COMMENT
Self-explanatory
Period of Rectification
As set out
in AMC2 ARA.FSTD.100(a)(1) point (b):
Following
an evaluation, it is possible that a number of defects are identified.
Generally, these defects should be rectified and the competent authority
notified of such action within 30 days. Serious defects, which affect flight
crew training, testing and checking, could result in an immediate downgrading
of the qualification level, or if any defect remains unattended without good
reason for a period greater than 30 days, subsequent downgrading may occur or
the FSTD qualification could be revoked.
6. Results
6.1 Subjective/Functional
|
|
A Unacceptable |
|
1 |
|
|
B Reservation |
|
1 |
|
|
C Unserviceability |
|
1 |
|
|
D Restriction |
|
1 |
|
|
E Recommendation for improvement |
|
1 |
|
|
F Comment |
|
1 |
|
6.2 Objective
|
|
A Unacceptable |
|
1 |
|
|
B Reservation |
|
1 |
|
|
E Recommendation for improvement |
|
1 |
|
|
F Comment |
|
1 |
|
7. Evaluation Team
|
Name |
Position
|
Organisation
|
Signature |
|
|
Technical
Inspector or person designated by the competent authority |
|
|
|
|
Flight
Inspector or person designated by the competent authority |
|
|
|
|
|
[FSTD
User] |
|
|
|
|
[Organisation
operating the FSTD] |
|
Signed: …………………………………………………………….
For the competent authority
Loading collections...