EASA and FAA Aeroplane Specific Testing for Simulator Evaluations
- Daniel de Vries
- Apr 20
- 18 min read
Fidelity. The Cornerstone of Simulator Qualification
Aviation demands the highest levels of skill and preparedness from its flight crews. To achieve this, pilots undergo extensive training and regular evaluations, often utilizing sophisticated Flight Simulation Training Devices (FSTDs). These devices, which include Full Flight Simulators (FFSs) and Flight Training Devices (FTDs), play a vital role in providing a safe and effective environment for learning and assessment. However, the value of any FSTD hinges on its ability to accurately replicate the performance and handling characteristics of the specific aeroplane being simulated. This fidelity – the degree to which the simulator mirrors the real aircraft – is not just desirable; it is absolutely essential for effective training and credible evaluations.
Both the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) recognize the paramount importance of simulator fidelity. As the primary regulatory bodies overseeing aviation safety in Europe and the United States respectively, they have established comprehensive and rigorous qualification standards for aeroplane FSTDs (as opposed to helicopter FSTDs). These standards are designed to ensure that the simulator provides a true-to-life experience, allowing pilots to develop and hone their skills in an environment that closely matches the complexities of actual flight. Without this high level of accuracy, the training received in a simulator would be less effective, and evaluations might not accurately reflect a pilot's ability to handle the real aircraft. Therefore, ensuring the fidelity of aeroplane simulators through thorough testing and evaluation is the cornerstone of maintaining safety and proficiency in the aviation industry.
The Two-Part Framework
To guarantee the necessary level of fidelity in aeroplane simulators, both EASA and the FAA employ a robust qualification process that relies on a dual framework. This framework incorporates two distinct yet complementary approaches: objective validation tests and functions and subjective tests.
Measuring Against the Data
Objective validation tests form the quantitative element of the qualification process. These tests involve meticulously measuring the simulator's performance and handling characteristics against a wealth of real-world data obtained from the specific aeroplane being simulated. This data can originate from flight testing, manufacturer specifications, and other approved sources. During these tests, a range of parameters, such as airspeed, altitude, control surface positions, and forces, are recorded under various flight conditions and compared to the established data. Specific tolerances are defined for each parameter, and the simulator must perform within these limits to meet the qualification standards. These objective tests provide a measurable and verifiable assessment of the simulator's accuracy in replicating the aeroplane's behavior.
The Pilot's Perspective
While objective tests provide crucial quantitative data, the overall realism and effectiveness of a simulator cannot be solely determined by numbers. This is where functions and subjective tests come into play. These evaluations involve qualified and experienced pilots taking the controls of the simulator and assessing its overall "feel" and responsiveness. They evaluate how well the simulator replicates the nuances of flight, the integration of various aircraft systems, and its suitability for training, testing, and checking flight crew. Subjective tests cover a wide range of scenarios, including normal, abnormal, and emergency procedures, as well as the handling qualities and performance of the simulated aeroplane. The pilot's expert judgment on the fidelity of the simulation, based on their real-world flying experience, provides a critical layer of assessment that complements the objective measurements.
By combining these two distinct approaches – the precise measurements of objective validation tests and the expert evaluation of subjective pilot assessments – both EASA and the FAA ensure a comprehensive and well-rounded qualification process for aeroplane simulators. This dual framework aims to guarantee that these training devices accurately represent the specific aeroplane being simulated, ultimately contributing to the safety and proficiency of flight crews.
EASA CS-FSTD(A) Perspective
The European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) provides a detailed framework for the qualification of Aeroplane Flight Simulation Training Devices (FSTDs) through its Certification Specification for Flight Simulation Training Devices (Aeroplanes), known as CS-FSTD(A). This document outlines the criteria and guidance that manufacturers and operators must adhere to in order to achieve and maintain qualification for their simulators.
Initial and Recurrent Evaluations
EASA mandates that any FSTD submitted for its first evaluation must be thoroughly assessed against the specific criteria applicable to the qualification level being sought. For Full Flight Simulators (FFSs), these levels range from Level A to Level D, with each level demanding increasing fidelity and functionality. This initial evaluation ensures that the simulator meets the minimum standards required for its intended training purposes. Furthermore, EASA emphasizes the importance of ongoing qualification. Recurrent evaluations are conducted based on the same version of CS-FSTD(A) that was used for the initial evaluation. This consistency ensures that the simulator's performance and capabilities continue to meet the established standards throughout its operational life.
Key Areas of Assessment
The EASA framework underscores the need to assess the FSTD in all areas that are essential for the effective training, testing, and checking of flight crew members. This encompasses a broad spectrum of the simulator's capabilities, including its aerodynamic modeling, handling qualities, performance characteristics across various flight phases, the correct operation of aircraft systems, and the functionality of any integrated motion, visual, and sound systems. The evaluation process is designed to ensure that the simulator provides a comprehensive and accurate representation of the aeroplane, allowing pilots to develop the necessary skills and competencies in a realistic and safe environment.
The Qualification Test Guide (QTG)
A crucial element in the EASA qualification process is the Qualification Test Guide (QTG). This comprehensive document serves as the central repository for all data, supporting material, and detailed information pertaining to the simulator's validation and testing. The QTG should be structured in a format that is easily reviewable by EASA assessors. Where applicable, EASA stipulates that the QTG should be based on aircraft validation data that is consistent with the Operational Suitability Data (OSD) established in accordance with Part-21. This linkage ensures that the simulator's performance is grounded in officially approved data for the specific aeroplane type. Moreover, the QTG must clearly and precisely describe how each test will be set up and operated, providing a standardized methodology for evaluation. EASA places a strong emphasis on overall integrated testing to ensure that the entire FSTD system functions cohesively and meets the required standards when all components are working together.
Validation Test Principles
EASA outlines several key principles that should guide the execution of validation tests. Generally, these tests should be designed to represent the aeroplane's performance and handling qualities under typical operating weights and center of gravity (CG) positions. For FFS devices, if robust data exists at one extreme of weight or CG, EASA recommends including another test at a mid-condition or the opposite extreme. This ensures that the simulator's behavior is validated across a representative range of operational parameters. Additionally, for handling qualities tests, EASA specifies that these should include validation of any flight augmentation devices fitted to the aeroplane, ensuring that the simulator accurately reflects their impact on the aircraft's handling characteristics.
Specific Objective Test Areas
The EASA CS-FSTD(A) document details a range of specific objective tests that must be conducted to validate the simulator's fidelity. These tests cover critical areas such as the accuracy of the aerodynamic modeling, including the representation of ground effect, Mach effect, thrust effects, aeroelastic representations, and non-linearities that may occur due to sideslip. The dynamic response of the flight controls is also rigorously tested. Furthermore, the simulator's performance is evaluated across all phases of flight, including take-off, climb, cruise, descent, approach, and landing. For simulators equipped with motion, visual, and sound systems, the response characteristics and fidelity of these systems are also subject to objective testing. The acceptable tolerances for the parameters measured during these objective tests are clearly defined in Appendix 1 to AMC1 FSTD(A).300.
Subjective Pilot Evaluations
In addition to objective measurements, EASA places significant value on the subjective evaluation of the simulator by a qualified and experienced pilot. This assessment focuses on the overall feel and realism of the simulation, including the seamless interaction of all simulated aircraft systems and the effective integration of the FSTD within a representative training environment. During these subjective tests, the pilot will evaluate the simulator's ability to accurately replicate normal, abnormal, and emergency procedures, the handling qualities of the aeroplane, its performance characteristics, and the correct operation of all FSTD systems. This human element of the evaluation provides critical insights into the overall training value and fidelity of the simulator.
Guidance Resources
EASA recognizes that conducting these comprehensive evaluations requires specialized knowledge and expertise. To assist manufacturers and operators in this process, EASA highlights the Royal Aeronautical Society (RAeS) Aeroplane Flight Simulator Evaluation Handbook as a valuable source of guidance and best practices for conducting these complex tests.
Ground Testing Considerations
For aeroplanes equipped with non-reversible control systems, EASA acknowledges that obtaining certain in-flight measurements may be challenging or impractical on the ground. In such cases, EASA permits the use of ground-based measurements, provided that proper pitot-static inputs are used to accurately represent in-flight conditions. This allowance provides a practical approach to data acquisition for specific control system types while still maintaining the integrity of the validation process.
FAA Part 60 Perspective
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) also establishes a comprehensive framework for the qualification of Airplane Flight Simulation Training Devices (FSTDs) in the United States through its Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 60, specifically outlining Qualification Performance Standards (QPS). This regulation details the requirements that Airplane Full Flight Simulators (FFS) and Airplane Flight Training Devices (FTDs) must meet to be approved for use in pilot training and evaluation.
Qualification Performance Standards (QPS)
FAA Part 60 defines specific Qualification Performance Standards (QPS) for different levels of Airplane FFS, which are detailed in Appendix A of the regulation, and for Airplane FTDs, found in Appendix B. These appendices provide the objective and subjective criteria that simulators must satisfy to achieve and maintain their qualification. The standards are designed to ensure that the simulator accurately represents the aircraft being simulated across a wide range of operational conditions and maneuvers.
Objective and Subjective Evaluations
Similar to EASA, the FAA's qualification process relies on a combination of objective tests and subjective evaluations. Objective tests, outlined in Attachment 2 to both Appendix A (for FFS) and Appendix B (for FTD), involve precise measurements of the simulator's performance against established data. Subjective evaluations, described in Attachment 3 to Appendices A and B, are conducted by qualified pilots who assess the simulator's overall realism and its ability to accurately replicate the flight characteristics and operational aspects of the specific airplane.
The QTG/MQTG
The primary reference document for the FAA's simulator evaluation process is the QTG, which is often referred to as the Master Qualification Test Guide (MQTG). This document serves as a comprehensive record containing the results of all objective tests, statements of compliance with the QPS, a detailed description of the simulated aircraft configuration, and any other information pertinent to the evaluation. The QTG/MQTG is a critical resource for FAA evaluators in their assessment of the simulator's qualification.
Objective Tests for Aeroplane FFS
Attachment 2 to Appendix A of FAA Part 60 provides detailed objective tests for Airplane FFS. These tests cover a wide spectrum of flight conditions and maneuvers, with specific tolerances defined for critical parameters such as airspeed, pitch angle, height, bank angle, control forces, and control surface positions. The testing encompasses various phases of flight, including takeoff, climb, cruise, descent, and landing, with specific tests for landing distance and stopping performance. Handling qualities are also rigorously evaluated through static and dynamic control tests, assessments of maneuvering stability and static stability, and evaluations of roll performance. Additionally, objective tests address the simulation of ground effect, windshear models, and the latency of the motion and visual systems to ensure a realistic and timely response to pilot inputs.
Objective Tests for Aeroplane FTDs
Attachment 2 to Appendix B of FAA Part 60 outlines the objective tests for Airplane FTDs. While these tests cover similar areas to those for FFS, the specific tolerances and requirements may differ depending on the qualification level of the FTD. The FAA recognizes that FTDs, while providing valuable training, may not have the same level of fidelity as a full flight simulator, and the objective testing standards are tailored accordingly.
Subjective Tests for FFS and FTD
Attachment 3 to both Appendix A (FFS) and Appendix B (FTD) of FAA Part 60 details the requirements for subjective tests. These evaluations, conducted by qualified pilots, assess the simulator's overall capability to perform consistently over a typical utilization period and to accurately simulate the required maneuvers, procedures, and tasks outlined in the training curriculum. Pilots verify the correct operation of all controls, instruments, and systems within the simulator. Subjective evaluations also include assessments of the flight display systems, flight management computers (FMCs), autopilot functions, the simulation of abnormal and emergency procedures, and the quality and realism of any motion and visual cues provided by the simulator.
Guidance Resources
The FAA also recognizes the value of external resources in ensuring high-quality simulator evaluations. Part 60 references the International Air Transport Association (IATA) "Flight Simulator Design and Performance Data Requirements" and The Royal Aeronautical Society's (RAeS) "Airplane Flight Simulator Evaluation Handbook" as valuable sources of guidance and best practices for conducting simulator tests and evaluations.
Ground Testing Considerations
Similar to EASA, the FAA acknowledges that obtaining certain flight data for airplanes with irreversible control systems may be challenging. Under specific conditions, with appropriate justification, the FAA allows for the use of ground tests for these systems, provided that the test setup accurately represents in-flight aerodynamic loading and conditions.
Relationship Between EASA and FAA
While EASA and the FAA are distinct regulatory bodies, each with its own set of regulations and procedures, it's important to understand the relationship between them, especially in the context of flight simulator qualification.
EASA and FAA: Separate but Parallel
EASA serves as the European counterpart to the FAA and vice-versa. Both organizations play crucial roles in overseeing aviation safety and establishing regulations within their respective jurisdictions. EASA governs aviation safety and regulations across member states of the European Union, while the FAA holds the same responsibility for the United States. Consequently, both EASA and the FAA have developed their own comprehensive sets of standards and procedures for the qualification of flight simulators. These standards, as detailed in EASA CS-FSTD(A) and FAA Part 60, share the common goal of ensuring simulator fidelity and promoting flight safety.
Mutual Recognition and Acceptance
Despite having separate regulatory frameworks, there is a degree of recognition and acceptance of simulator qualifications between different aviation authorities. For instance, some authorities, such as the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) in Australia, acknowledge and accept flight simulators that have been approved by either the FAA or EASA. This acceptance streamlines the use of simulators for training and evaluation purposes across different regions and reduces the need for redundant evaluations.
Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreements (BASA)
The FAA has also established a mechanism for the qualification of FFS based on agreements with other aviation authorities. FAA Part 60 includes a section addressing "FFS Qualification on the Basis of a Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreement (BASA)." A BASA is an agreement between the FAA and the aviation authority of another country that outlines procedures for the acceptance of each other's safety oversight. When a BASA is in place with the authority that issued the original simulator qualification, and a specific Simulator Implementation Procedure (SIP) is established under that BASA, it can facilitate the qualification of the FFS for use in the United States.
In essence, while EASA and the FAA operate under distinct regulatory frameworks, there are mechanisms for recognition and cooperation that help to harmonize simulator qualification standards and promote efficiency within the global aviation training community.
Specific Testing for Fixed-Wing Aircraft Simulators
A crucial aspect to understand about the testing frameworks outlined by EASA and the FAA is that the tests detailed in EASA CS-FSTD(A) and FAA Part 60 Appendices A and B are fundamentally designed to be aeroplane-specific. This means that the evaluation criteria and procedures are tailored to the unique characteristics of fixed-wing aircraft.
Aeroplane-Specific Performance Characteristics
The testing procedures explicitly refer to performance characteristics that are inherent to aeroplanes. These include phenomena like:
Mach effect: The changes in aerodynamic forces on an aircraft as it approaches the speed of sound.
Reverse thrust: The use of engine thrust to slow down the aircraft after landing.
Aeroelastic representations: The simulation of how the aircraft structure deforms under aerodynamic loads.
These are all factors that are critical to accurately simulating the behavior of an aeroplane but are not relevant to other types of aircraft.
Unique Control Systems and Handling Qualities
Aeroplanes possess distinct control systems and handling qualities that differ significantly from those of rotary-wing aircraft or other types of flying machines. The testing procedures reflect this by focusing on:
The operation of control surfaces such as ailerons, elevators, and rudders.
The assessment of handling qualities such as roll response and longitudinal stability.
These tests are designed to validate how the simulator accurately replicates the aeroplane's response to pilot inputs on these specific controls.
Validation Data from Aeroplane Sources
The validation data used to conduct these tests comes from sources that are specific to the aeroplane type being simulated. This data may include:
Data gathered from actual aeroplane flight testing.
Performance data provided by the aeroplane manufacturer.
Other approved sources that are relevant to the particular aeroplane model.
This emphasis on using aeroplane-specific data ensures that the simulator is validated against real-world information, increasing its accuracy and effectiveness.
Contrast with Helicopter Standards
To further highlight the aeroplane-specificity of these tests, it's useful to contrast them with the standards that apply to helicopter simulators. EASA CS-FSTD(H) outlines qualification standards for helicopter FSTDs, and these standards include tests that are relevant to the unique characteristics of rotary-wing aircraft. These may include tests related to:
Rotor dynamics: The complex aerodynamic forces acting on the helicopter's rotor system.
Auto-rotational entry and landing: Emergency landing procedures where the rotor is driven by airflow.
Hover performance: The helicopter's ability to maintain a stationary position.
Aerodynamic interference effects between the rotor wake and fuselage: The complex airflow interactions between the rotor and the helicopter's body.
The distinctions between EASA CS-FSTD(A) and EASA CS-FSTD(H) show the testing standards are carefully tailored to the specific aerodynamic and control characteristics of each aircraft type (Fixed wing or Rotary wing), ensuring that simulators accurately represent the aircraft they are designed to simulate.
Deep Dive Into Specific Aeroplane Testing Areas
To illustrate the detailed nature of aeroplane FSTD testing, let's look closer at four specific testing areas within the EASA CS-FSTD(A) and FAA Part 60 standards; Take-off Performance Tests, Landing Performance Tests, Dynamic Control Checks and Longitudinal Manoeuvring Stability.
Take-off Performance Tests
EASA CS-FSTD(A)
EASA CS-FSTD(A) includes objective tests designed to validate the simulator's representation of normal take-off procedures. These tests involve recording a range of parameters and comparing them to established tolerances. Key aspects include:
Objective tests: These tests require precise measurements of parameters such as airspeed, pitch angle, angle of attack (AOA), and height during the take-off roll and initial climb. Specific tolerances are defined for each parameter (e.g., ± 3 kts airspeed, ± 1.5º pitch angle).
Control force tolerances: For aeroplanes equipped with reversible flight control systems, the tests also include tolerances for the forces exerted on the control column, control wheel, and rudder pedals (e.g., ± 10% or ± 2.2 daN (5 lb) column force).
Test conditions: These tests are typically conducted under specific conditions, such as near maximum certificated take-off weight with a mid center of gravity and light take-off weight with an aft center of gravity.
Recording profile: The take-off profile, including airspeed, pitch angle, and height, must be recorded up to at least 61 m (200 ft) Above Ground Level (AGL).
Engine failure speed: The simulated engine failure speed must be within a specified tolerance (± 3 kts) of the aeroplane's actual data.
Wind shear models: For higher-level FFS (Level B, C, and D), the simulator must accurately model the effects of wind shear during take-off.
FAA Part 60
FAA Part 60 also outlines detailed objective tests for take-off, with a similar focus on validating the simulator's accuracy. Key aspects include:
Detailed objective tests: These tests involve precise measurements and tolerances for parameters such as airspeed (±3 kts), pitch angle (±1.5°), angle of attack (±1.5°), and height deviation (±20 ft (6 m)).
Control force tolerances: For airplanes with reversible flight control systems, tolerances are specified for stick/column force (±10% or ±5 lb (2.2 daN)), wheel force (±10% or ±3 lb (1.3 daN)), and rudder pedal force (±10% or ±5 lb (2.2 daN)).
Crosswind take-off tests: FAA Part 60 mandates crosswind take-off tests, with specific tolerances for airspeed, pitch angle, angle of attack, height, bank angle, sideslip angle, and heading angle. The tests also include requirements for the correct trend of ground speeds below 40 kts for rudder/pedal and heading.
Minimum unstick speed (Vmu) tests: Tests to demonstrate the early rotation characteristics of the aeroplane, using minimum unstick speed (Vmu) or equivalent, are required.
Landing Performance Tests
EASA CS-FSTD(A)
EASA CS-FSTD(A) also includes objective tests to validate the simulator's representation of normal landing procedures. These tests involve comparing simulated landing performance to specified tolerances. Key aspects include:
Objective tests: These tests include tolerances for parameters such as airspeed (± 3 kts), pitch angle (± 1.5º), AOA (± 1.5º), and height (± 3 m (10 ft) or ± 10% of height).
Control force tolerance: For aeroplanes with reversible flight control systems, a tolerance for column force (± 10% or ± 2.2 daN (5 lb)) is specified.
Test conditions: These tests are conducted from a minimum of 61 m (200 ft) AGL down to nosewheel touchdown.
Flap configurations: The standards require that two tests be conducted, each with a different normal landing flap configuration (if applicable), one at near maximum certificated landing weight and the other at light or medium weight.
Minimum flap landing tests: Landing tests using the minimum flap configuration also have specified tolerances for airspeed, pitch angle, AOA, and height. These tests are performed at near maximum landing weight.
Wind shear models: Similar to take-off, wind shear models for landing are required for higher-level FFS (Level B, C, and D).
FAA Part 60
FAA Part 60 specifies objective tests for normal landing, focusing on comparing simulated performance to established tolerances. Key aspects include:
Objective tests: These tests include tolerances for parameters such as airspeed (±3 kt), pitch angle (±1.5°), angle of attack (±1.5°), and height (±10% or ±10 ft (3 m)).
Control force tolerance: For airplanes with reversible flight control systems, a tolerance for stick/column force (±10% or ±5 lbs (±2.2 daN)) is included.
Minimum flap landing tests: Landing tests using the minimum certified landing flap configuration at near Maximum Landing Weight also have defined tolerances for airspeed, pitch angle, angle of attack, and height.
Visual cues: In addition to objective measurements, the subjective assessment of visual cues related to sink rate and depth perception during landings is also required.
Dynamic Control Checks
EASA CS-FSTD(A)
EASA CS-FSTD(A) includes dynamic control checks, which assess the simulator's response to control inputs. These checks often focus on the time-dependent behavior of the aircraft. Key aspects:
Pitch control: Specifically, for underdamped systems, EASA provides tolerances for parameters that describe the oscillations following a control input, such as the time from 90% of initial displacement to the first zero crossing (± 10%) and the period of subsequent oscillations (± 10(n+1)%).
Roll and yaw controls: While not explicitly detailed in this excerpt, similar tolerances are expected for the dynamic response of roll and yaw controls.
Aeroplane hardware: These tests are generally not applicable if the simulator's dynamic response is generated solely by using actual aeroplane hardware within the simulator.
FAA Part 60
FAA Part 60 also includes detailed dynamic control tests, covering pitch, roll, and yaw. Key aspects include:
Pitch, roll, and yaw tests: The FAA standards provide detailed procedures and tolerances for dynamic control tests for pitch, roll, and yaw.
Underdamped systems: For underdamped systems, tolerances are specified for parameters such as the time from 90% of initial displacement to the first zero crossing (±10%), the amplitude of the first overshoot (±10% applied to overshoots greater than 5% of initial displacement), and the number of overshoots (±1).
Overdamped systems: For overdamped systems, a tolerance of ±10% is given for the time from 90% to 10% of initial displacement.
Test configurations: These tests are conducted in various flight configurations, including take-off, cruise, and landing.
Control displacements: The tests involve both directions of normal control displacements (25% to 50% of full throw or maximum allowable deflection).
Small roll inputs: Specific tolerances are defined for body roll rate in response to small control inputs during approach or landing.
Flap/slat change dynamics: The simulator's behavior during flap or slat changes is also assessed, with tolerances for parameters such as airspeed, altitude, and pitch angle.
Longitudinal Manoeuvring Stability (Stick Force/g)
EASA CS-FSTD(A)
EASA CS-FSTD(A) includes tests to assess the longitudinal maneuvering stability of the simulated aeroplane, which is often measured as the change in control force (stick force) required to maintain a given change in g-force (acceleration). Key aspects include:
Tolerance: A tolerance of ± 2.2 daN (5 lbs) or ± 10% change of pitch controller force is specified. An alternative method using ± 1º or ± 10% change of elevator position is also acceptable.
Test configurations: These tests are conducted in cruise, approach, and landing configurations.
Data recording: The tests may involve recording continuous time history data or conducting a series of snapshot tests.
Bank angles: Tests in approach and landing configurations may be conducted up to approximately 30º of bank.
FAA Part 60
FAA Part 60 also mandates longitudinal maneuvering stability tests, focusing on the relationship between control force and g-force. Key aspects include:
Tolerance: A tolerance of ±2 lb (0.9 daN) increment in stick force per g, or ±10% of the force gradient, is specified. Alternatively, a tolerance of ±1° elevator change may be used.
Test configurations: These tests are performed in cruise, approach, and landing configurations.
Data recording: Results are recorded for both increasing and decreasing g-force.
Alternate test: The sponsor may also demonstrate the lateral control required to maintain a steady turn with a bank angle of 28° to 32° as an alternate test.
Data sources: These tests can be conducted using data obtained from actual flight tests or from the aeroplane performance manual.
These four areas provide a glimpse into the detailed and rigorous objective testing required by both EASA and the FAA to ensure the fidelity and realism of aeroplane FSTDs.
The Rigorous Standards Ensuring Aeroplane Simulator Fidelity
Both EASA and the FAA have established comprehensive and meticulous testing frameworks to guarantee the fidelity of aeroplane Flight Simulation Training Devices (FSTDs). These frameworks rely on a robust combination of objective validation tests, which compare simulator performance against aeroplane-specific data, and subjective evaluations conducted by experienced pilots.
The objective validation tests delve into the details of aeroplane performance and handling qualities, covering critical flight phases such as take-off and landing, and assessing dynamic control responses and maneuvering stability. These tests involve precise measurements and adherence to strict tolerances, ensuring that the simulator accurately replicates the aeroplane's behavior across a range of conditions.
The subjective evaluations provide a crucial real-world perspective, with pilots assessing the overall realism and feel of the simulated flight experience. This human element of the evaluation ensures that the simulator effectively replicates the nuances of flight and provides a suitable environment for flight crew training and evaluation.
The detailed nature of these testing standards, with their emphasis on aeroplane-specific characteristics and rigorous validation criteria, underscores the commitment of both EASA and the FAA to maintaining the highest levels of fidelity in aeroplane simulators. These rigorous standards are vital for ensuring that flight crew training and evaluation are conducted in a realistic and effective environment, ultimately contributing to the safety and efficiency of civil and defence aviation.
Comments