FAA withdraws ATD rule.

Henning said:
I found it interesting that a single negative comment requires a rescinding of the order. That doesn't really equate to the "Out of control rule making ability" so often touted as the destructive power of the FAA.
Click to expand...


That just means they can't use the shortcut. The FAA can still steamroll it through via a full NPRM. (That's good in this case, but depending on the rule, it often isn't)
 
kkoran said:
Here are the comments.
Click to expand...

An excerpt: "ATD's are firmly on the ground and no amount of graphic imagery or display setup, even in full motion simulators, ever causes a pilot to lose consciousness of that fact. Consequently, pilots do not experience the fear that accompanies real-life emergencies, or the sensory inputs that come with icing and thunderstorm contact."

I think he's proposing an alternate rule: all IR training must include at least one real emergency, one experience with icing, and one flight through a thunderstorm. Should weed out the ones who don't have the right stuff.
 
mcmanigle said:
An excerpt: "ATD's are firmly on the ground and no amount of graphic imagery or display setup, even in full motion simulators, ever causes a pilot to lose consciousness of that fact. Consequently, pilots do not experience the fear that accompanies real-life emergencies, or the sensory inputs that come with icing and thunderstorm contact."

I think he's proposing an alternate rule: all IR training must include at least one real emergency, one experience with icing, and one flight through a thunderstorm. Should weed out the ones who don't have the right stuff.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I do a lot in the AATD that would probably get me killed or my ticket pulled in the plane. And the only reason I practice those in the sim is so I don't die if the feces ever really hits the fan
 
mcmanigle said:
An excerpt: "ATD's are firmly on the ground and no amount of graphic imagery or display setup, even in full motion simulators, ever causes a pilot to lose consciousness of that fact. Consequently, pilots do not experience the fear that accompanies real-life emergencies, or the sensory inputs that come with icing and thunderstorm contact."

I think he's proposing an alternate rule: all IR training must include at least one real emergency, one experience with icing, and one flight through a thunderstorm. Should weed out the ones who don't have the right stuff.
Click to expand...
Sounds "frivolous" to me, and also to Flight Standards, but not to the lawyers. :mad2:
 
Sims will never duplicate the fear of real flight. If you crash a sim, you live, if you crash a real plane, you die. That's a pretty big difference.
 
coloradobluesky said:
Sims will never duplicate the fear of real flight. If you crash a sim, you live, if you crash a real plane, you die. That's a pretty big difference.
Click to expand...

Yep, so you can practice things that are far too dangerous to do in a real plane.

Want to see what happens in icing? Fire up the sim.
 
mcmanigle said:
An excerpt: "ATD's are firmly on the ground and no amount of graphic imagery or display setup, even in full motion simulators, ever causes a pilot to lose consciousness of that fact. Consequently, pilots do not experience the fear that accompanies real-life emergencies, or the sensory inputs that come with icing and thunderstorm contact."

I think he's proposing an alternate rule: all IR training must include at least one real emergency, one experience with icing, and one flight through a thunderstorm. Should weed out the ones who don't have the right stuff.
Click to expand...

I THINK there's a hint at a demo of pilot "loss of consciousness" there too. :rofl: :dunno:
 
I was kind of skeptical until I built and demod a Redbird FMX - it gives a fairly accurate sensation of motion in my opinion. Much more accurate than I thought it would be. The only thing you're missing is the vertical component but that's much more expensive and complicated for training IMO.

I think the sim is a fantastic tool for instrument training and unusual situations. For just flying from point A to B, I don't think you get the same kind of value for the time or training. I also believe that it can give you a good new panel experience - learning to use a G1000 in an environment you control that has relevant data from what you are doing. Although Redbird can't call theirs a G1000, it's an R1000 (for redbird).
 
I think sims are great tools, but there is a point as to restricting how much required training may be done in one. This doesn't limit how much total training may be done in one, just how much counts to the 40 hours minimum training. No worries doing 30 hrs in the sim, you just end up at 60 hrs total training instead of 40. Nothing says you can't train more than the minimum.
 
Ron Levy said:
The negative comments came from two individuals, neither of whom do instrument training, and if you read them, you'll see they're totally bogus. However, by law, the FAA is barred from completing the Direct Final Rule process if any negative comments are received. The folks in AFS-800 are royally peeved over this, but have no choice under the Administrative Procedures Act but to initiate the full NPRM process, probably delaying implementation of this no-brainer rule change for maybe two years. :mad:
Click to expand...


They really should learn how to speed up their NPRM process. FCC seems to get them done regularly with only about a six month lead time.

Sounds like FAA has problems.

If they're "peeved" they should get their act together. They chose this path.

The stupidity of attempting the direct final rule process in the first place and wasting time with it is off the charts stupid, if they were going for expediency. Has there ever been one make it without a negative comment, ever?

Waste of freakin' time. That process is obviously not intended for any sort of even mildly controversial rule change. And there's no way anyone could ever say changing things that affect the number of hours toward a rating wouldn't be mildly controversial. It's tied directly to people's wallets.

They *chose* to waste time, unless they were concurrently starting the NPRM process. Your words seem to indicate they weren't. And they knew it. That's a decision, and a really dumb gamble that wasn't ever going to pay off, if all anyone had to do was say "no" on a web form.

I agree with you that the rule change is a no-brainer. Too bad AFS-800 doesn't appear to have anyone who could predict the obvious and go straight to the shortest and most efficient path to a rule change. Not very bright.
 
Henning said:
I found it interesting that a single negative comment requires a rescinding of the order. That doesn't really equate to the "Out of control rule making ability" so often touted as the destructive power of the FAA.
Click to expand...


The Direct Final Rule process was never intended for controversial rule changes. It's for paper pushing on things like "we forgot words in an already stable rule".

And the NPRM process doesn't take other agencies nearly as long as it takes at FAA. They're orders of magnitude slower, of their own volition.
 
Nice, so if I understand correctly, as of May 12,2016 (one month away) 20 hours in an AATD are allowed for the IR and they are doing away with the requirement to wear a view limiting device in the ATD?
 
Somedudeintn said:
Nice, so if I understand correctly, as of May 12,2016 (one month away) 20 hours in an AATD are allowed for the IR and they are doing away with the requirement to wear a view limiting device in the ATD?
Click to expand...

-The FAA is revising § 61.65 to include a specified allowance of 10 hours for BATDs and 20 hours for AATDs in part 61 (combined use not to exceed 20 hours) for the instrument rating.

-The FAA is revising appendix C to part 141 to include a specified allowance of 25% of creditable time in BATDs and 40% of creditable time for AATDs under part 141 (not to exceed 40% total time) for the instrument rating.

-They are also revising § 61.65(i)(4) to eliminate the requirement that pilots accomplishing instrument time in an ATD wear a view-limiting device.
 
Ok, so I am confused, again. It is my understanding that 40 hours with a view limiting device or IMC are required, and time in an AATD may not exceed 40% total time, that only allows 16 hours in an AATD, and not the 20? AM I missing something here?
 
mulligan said:
Ok, so I am confused, again. It is my understanding that 40 hours with a view limiting device or IMC are required, and time in an AATD may not exceed 40% total time, that only allows 16 hours in an AATD, and not the 20? AM I missing something here?
Click to expand...

Are you training under part 61 or part 141?
 
I started my IFR training under part 61 but am considering fishing it by joining an accelerated program at a part 141 school of that makes sense.
 
mulligan said:
I started my IFR training under part 61 but am considering fishing it by joining an accelerated program at a part 141 school of that makes sense.
Click to expand...

Is the accerated program done under 141? Many schools offer both, and most accelerated programs (i.e. 7 and 10 day programs) are done under part 61. Either way, the rules cited above apply depending on what type of training you're doing.
 
I trained in an ATC 610 and I sure as heck didn't wear a hood while staring at it's ultra-realistic black wall above the panel.

I think it's considered an FTD (and frankly I don't care at this point), but I never understood the rationale of limiting time in redbirds compared to many less capable, older simulators. For $30 an hour, I didn't give a crap though, especially when many places wanted $70+ to get in a redbird. The single VOR, ADF, and the black wall got the job done.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top