Manual of Standards (MOS) – Part 60

Qualification level is the central classification. For aeroplane flight simulators, levels A, B, C and D exist, with D being the most advanced (allowing zero flight time training for type rating). For helicopter flight simulators, levels A, B, C and D also apply. For flight training devices, different qualification levels are set out in the referenced FAA Appendices B and D and EASA specifications, though the MOS does not list them explicitly. The qualification level determines how much training and checking credit can be given for time spent in the device under CASR.

Recurrent evaluation is the periodic assessment conducted to confirm that a qualified flight simulator continues to meet the standard against which its qualification level was determined. Section 5(1) provides that for grandfathered aeroplane simulators, the standard used in the recurrent evaluation is the version that existed at the time of original qualification, not the version current on the evaluation date. This concept locks in a static benchmark for ongoing compliance, which reduces uncertainty for operators but creates a risk that the simulator may no longer represent the latest aircraft configuration or training requirements.

Special evaluation is a non-routine assessment, for example after a modification or an incident. Section 5(4) extends the transitional arrangements to special evaluations for stall-training modifications until March 2025.

Incorporation by reference as existing from time to time is the most significant drafting feature. The MOS does not quote the FAA, EASA or ICAO standards; it simply names them and states they apply “as existing from time to time”. This means that when the FAA updates Appendix A to 14 CFR Part 60, those amendments automatically become the Australian standard for new qualification determinations without any further legislative amendment. The same applies to EASA CS-FSTD(A) and CS-FSTD(H) and ICAO Doc 9625. Operators must actively track foreign regulatory changes, because a new edition could impose additional technical requirements such as updated motion cueing tolerances, visual system performance, or aerodynamic model fidelity. Failure to maintain the device to the current standard means it risks failing a recurrent evaluation even if it was satisfactory under the previous edition.

Transitional arrangements are limited to aeroplane flight simulators. Section 5 covers three former Australian standards: Chapter 3 of the old Manual of Standards Part 60 - Synthetic Training Devices; FSD-1; and the 1995 ICAO Doc 9625-AN/938. Helicopter simulators and all flight training devices have no grandfathering; they must immediately meet the new standards. This asymmetry likely reflects the smaller population of helicopter simulators in Australia and a judgement that the earlier Australian helicopter standards were not sufficiently different to warrant transition.

FAA FSTD Directive 2 is a specific set of requirements for full stall training modifications. It is defined in section 2 by reference to Attachment 6 to FARs Part 60 Appendix A. The MOS incorporates only the paragraphs that apply to devices initially qualified before 31 May 2016, and only the full flight simulator requirements. Tables A1A and A2A of that appendix are incorporated as existing from time to time, creating a second dynamic reference layered inside the transitional provisions.

National aviation authority substitution under section 2(2) ensures that when the FAA or EASA standards refer to actions by the FAA or EASA, those actions are taken by CASA in the Australian context. This prevents a regulatory gap and gives CASA the discretion to interpret foreign provisions. However, it also means that CASA’s discretion may not be identical to the original authority’s practice, creating potential inconsistency for operators who also hold qualification under FAA or EASA directly.

The primary affected entities are holders of flight simulator qualification certificates issued under CASR Part 60. These are typically airlines, flight training organisations, and independent simulator operators who own and maintain full flight simulators or flight training devices. The MOS directly dictates the technical standards they must meet to obtain and retain qualification.

Simulator manufacturers are indirectly affected because they design and build devices to meet one or more of the referenced standards. An Australian operator may specify compliance with FAA Appendix A or EASA CS-FSTD(A) as a condition of purchase, and the manufacturer must certify that the device meets that standard at the time of delivery. Because the references are dynamic, a manufacturer building a device for delivery in two years must anticipate which version of the standard will be current on the delivery date.

CASA’s own staff in the Flight Standards Branch and the Legal and International Affairs Division must assess qualifications against standards they did not draft. They must interpret FAA and EASA regulatory language, which may use different concepts and definitions from Australian law. The substitution of CASA for other national aviation authorities gives them the authority to act but also imposes a significant administrative burden to maintain technical expertise in foreign regimes.

Pilots and training captains are end users. They do not have direct duties under the MOS, but the qualification level of the simulator determines how much of their training and checking can be conducted in the device versus an aircraft. If a simulator’s qualification level is downgraded, pilots may need to complete additional flying hours, increasing training costs and scheduling pressures.

Airline operators who conduct in-house training often own their own simulators. The MOS affects their capital expenditure planning: they must budget for periodic upgrades to maintain compliance with the dynamic standards, and they must decide whether to grandfather existing devices under section 5 or upgrade to current standards to gain higher training credits. The transitional provisions reduce the immediate compliance burden for aeroplane simulators, but the stall training sunset clause of 24 March 2025 imposes a hard deadline for certain modifications.

Smaller flying schools operating a single flight training device (such as a fixed-base procedural trainer) are affected because the MOS applies to all devices, not just full flight simulators. They may need to meet FAA Appendix B or EASA CS-FSTD(A) standards, which are more demanding than the earlier Australian standards they may have been using. The cost of upgrading a basic device to meet international qualification levels could be disproportionate to the training value derived, potentially driving some operators out of the synthetic training market.

Insurance underwriters may factor the MOS into risk assessments. If a simulator is not qualified to the relevant standard, any training conducted in it may not be recognised for licensing purposes, increasing liability exposure. Conversely, maintaining qualification under a recognised international standard may reduce premiums.

The compliance burden is not uniform. Large airlines with multiple simulators can spread the fixed cost of monitoring standard changes across their fleet. A single-operator flying school bears the entire cost alone. The MOS provides no tiered compliance pathway for small operators; the same FAA Appendix A standards apply regardless of the device’s use or the operator’s size.

The MOS itself does not impose duties. It is a standards instrument. The duties arise from CASR, which requires that a flight simulator or flight training device must hold a current qualification certificate before it can be used for activities that attract training credit, such as flight crew type rating, recurrent checking, or instrument proficiency checks. The MOS specifies the technical criteria that CASA will apply in determining whether to issue or renew that certificate.

The key duty that flows from the MOS is the obligation to meet the applicable standard at the time of initial or recurrent evaluation. The operator must demonstrate that the device satisfies the performance, motion, visual, and aerodynamic modelling requirements of whichever standard they elect to use. For aeroplane qualified simulators covered by section 5, the duty is to meet the version of the standard in force when the qualification level was originally determined (or, if modified, the standard as supplemented by FAA FSTD Directive 2 until 2025). For all other devices, the duty is to meet the current version of the chosen standard.

Operators have the right to choose among the alternative standards listed in sections 3, 4, 6 and 7. An aeroplane flight simulator operator may choose FAA Appendix A, EASA CS-FSTD(A), or ICAO Doc 9625 (level D only). A helicopter simulator operator may choose FAA Appendix C or EASA CS-FSTD(H). An aeroplane flight training device operator may choose FAA Appendix B or EASA CS-FSTD(A). A helicopter flight training device operator may choose FAA Appendix D or EASA CS-FSTD(H). This choice gives operators flexibility to select the standard that best matches their training programme, existing device design, or regulatory relationships. However, the right is not unqualified: once chosen, the device must consistently meet that standard through its lifecycle.

Operators have the right to rely on transitional arrangements under section 5. For aeroplane qualified simulators that held qualification before the MOS commenced, the operator may continue to use the standard that was applied at initial qualification for recurrent evaluations. This right is subject to two conditions: first, that CASA has not changed the qualification level since the MOS commenced (section 5(3)), and second, that if the device is modified for full stall training, the transitional path expires on 24 March 2025 (section 5(4)).

Operators have the right to apply for a change of qualification level under CASR regulation 60.045(3). If CASA changes the qualification level, the standard for subsequent recurrent evaluations becomes one of the current standards listed in section 3(1), not the original grandfathered standard. This means an operator who seeks to upgrade from level C to level D must meet the current international standard, even if the original level C qualification was under a superseded Australian standard.

The MOS does not grant operators a right to be heard if a foreign standard changes. Because the references are dynamic, an amendment to FAA Part 60 automatically becomes the Australian standard without consultation. Operators affected by such a change must adjust their devices or risk losing qualification. There is no transitional period built into the MOS for adopting foreign amendments, except the specific sunset provisions in section 5.

The MOS does not contain its own penalty provisions. Enforcement flows from the Civil Aviation Act 1988 and CASR. If a simulator is used for a purpose that requires it to hold a qualification certificate, and it does not meet the applicable standard under the MOS, the operator may be in breach of CASR regulation 60.020 or other provisions that mandate the use of qualified devices for certain training and checking activities.

Penalties for non compliance could include:

• Civil penalty provisions under the Civil Aviation Act, which can involve significant financial penalties.
• Suspension or cancellation of the qualification certificate under CASR regulation 60.045, preventing the operator from using the simulator for credited training.
• Adverse action under the Act, such as a direction to cease using the device.
• In the case of deliberate or reckless non compliance, potential criminal prosecution under section 20A of the Act for operating an aircraft or training device that endangers safety, although this would require a nexus to safety.

CASA is the enforcement body. It conducts recurrent evaluations and special evaluations to verify compliance. If a simulator fails a recurrent evaluation because it no longer meets the dynamic standard, the operator must rectify the deficiency or have the qualification level downgraded. For grandfathered simulators under section 5, if the operator has not kept the device to the original standard (for example, by modifying it without complying with CASR 60.070), CASA could treat the qualification as invalid.

The enforcement approach has an economic dimension. CASA may issue a notice of non compliance and allow a period for rectification, but the cost of bringing a device up to the current standard can be substantial, especially if the foreign standard has changed significantly since the last evaluation. For a small operator, a downgrade in qualification level may mean that pilots must conduct training in an aircraft instead, increasing operational costs and reducing flight capacity.

There is no private right of action under the MOS. Only CASA can enforce compliance. However, an operator who believes CASA has incorrectly applied a standard may seek internal review or apply to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for review of a decision to refuse or cancel a qualification certificate. The tribunal would need to interpret the MOS and the incorporated foreign standards, which is a complex task given the dynamic references and the lack of direct statutory text.

The absence of transitional provisions for helicopter simulators and flight training devices means that any device that was previously qualified under the old Australian standards must immediately meet the new international standards. If an operator fails to upgrade, CASA could withdraw the qualification without any grandfathering period. This creates a cliff edge that may have been unanticipated by some operators.

The MOS is a subordinate instrument made under the Civil Aviation Act 1988 (section 9(1)(c)) and CASR regulation 60.020. It sits within the broader regulatory framework for synthetic training devices. Its interaction with other parts of the law can be described at four levels.

Level one: the parent regulations. CASR Part 60 establishes the system of qualification certificates, evaluations, and obligations. Regulation 60.020 requires CASA to determine qualification levels in accordance with a Manual of Standards, which is this MOS. Regulation 60.045 sets out the requirements for recurrent evaluations and the effect of changes in qualification level. Regulation 60.070 governs modifications to qualified flight simulators, including for full stall training. The MOS gives content to those regulations by specifying the technical criteria. An operator cannot understand their full legal obligations by reading the MOS alone; they must read it together with CASR Part 60.

Level two: other Manuals of Standards. The MOS replaces earlier standards: Chapter 3 of the former Manual of Standards Part 60 - Synthetic Training Devices, and FSD-1. Those older standards are still relevant for transitional purposes under section 5, but only for aeroplane flight simulators. For all other devices, the old standards are superseded. There is also interaction with other MOS instruments, such as Part 61 (pilot licensing), which may specify when simulator training credit is available. The MOS does not list these interactions, but practitioners must cross‑reference.

Level three: foreign law incorporated dynamically. The MOS incorporates US Federal Regulations (14 CFR Part 60) and EASA Certification Specifications. These foreign instruments are not published as Australian legislative instruments. They change at the direction of the FAA or EASA without Australian parliamentary oversight. This creates a delegation of standard setting to foreign agencies, which is legally permissible but practically significant. If the FAA amends its Appendices to require a new type of visual system or motion cueing algorithm, Australian operators must comply immediately for new qualifications. The only exception is the transitional provisions for aeroplane simulators, which freeze the standard for recurrent evaluations but not for initial qualification.

Level four: international obligations. The ICAO Doc 9625 is an ICAO manual, not a binding treaty. Its inclusion as an option for level D aeroplane simulators aligns Australian practice with ICAO’s recommended criteria, but it is not mandatory. Operators who choose the ICAO path must still satisfy CASA that the device meets qualification level D, and the MOS explicitly limits the ICAO standard to level D only. This prevents an operator from using ICAO Doc 9625 to claim level A, B or C, even though the manual contains criteria for those levels. The reason for this restriction is not stated in the source, but it may reflect CASA’s view that lower levels are not sufficiently defined in the ICAO manual.

The interaction with other Australian laws, such as work health and safety legislation, privacy laws, or competition laws, is not addressed in the MOS. The instrument is purely technical and does not overlap with those regimes.

The original Part 60 Manual of Standards 2019 was registered on 11 September 2019 and commenced on 12 September 2019 (F2019L01176). It established the framework of adopting FAA, EASA and ICAO standards and provided initial transitional provisions.

The first amendment was the Part 60 Manual of Standards Amendment Instrument 2021 (No. 1), registered on 20 September 2021 and commenced on 21 September 2021 (F2021L01303). This amended section 3 (aeroplane flight simulator standards) and section 5 (transitional arrangements). Based on the compilation table, the amendment added the ICAO Doc 9625 option to section 3(1)(d) and made corresponding changes to section 5. The explanatory details are not provided in the source, but the effect was to allow aeroplane simulators to qualify using the ICAO manual for level D, and to extend transitional recognition to simulators qualified under that manual or under the earlier Australian standards.

The second amendment was the Part 60 Manual of Standards Amendment Instrument 2023, registered on 23 March 2023 and commenced on 24 March 2023 (F2023L00314). This amended section 5 to insert the transitional arrangements for full stall training modifications and the 24 March 2025 sunset date. It also added subsection 5(6) incorporating Tables A1A and A2A from FAA Appendix A as existing from time to time. This amendment was likely prompted by regulatory developments in the United States requiring full stall training in simulators, and the need to provide a path for Australian operators who had modified their devices under CASR 60.070.

The compilation also shows that sections 1A and 1B were repealed automatically by the Legislation Act 2003 sections 48D and 48C respectively. These were likely provisions dealing with commencement or application that became redundant under the Legislation Act’s regime for legislative instruments. Their repeal does not affect substantive obligations.

As of 24 March 2023, the MOS is at Compilation No. 2. No further amendments are recorded in the source. The instrument remains current, but the dynamic references mean that the substantive standards are constantly evolving. Practitioners should check the latest FAA and EASA publications to determine the current technical requirements, even though the MOS text itself has not been amended.

No cases are cited in the source material, and no litigation arising specifically from Part 60 MOS is identified. The instrument is relatively recent (first made in 2019) and is a technical standards document, which makes direct litigation unlikely. Most disputes would be more likely to arise under the parent CASR provisions, such as a challenge to CASA’s decision to refuse or cancel a qualification certificate, rather than a challenge to the MOS itself.

If a case were to arise, it would likely involve the Administrative Appeals Tribunal reviewing a CASA decision on whether a simulator meets the applicable standard. The Tribunal would need to interpret the dynamic references and determine the content of the foreign standard at the relevant time. This could raise issues of justiciability - whether an Australian tribunal can authoritatively interpret FAA regulations - and whether the dynamic incorporation is valid under Australian law. No such case has yet been reported.

There is also the possibility of a constitutional challenge, arguing that delegating standard setting to foreign agencies without parliamentary oversight breaches the separation of legislative power. However, such a challenge would be directed at the Civil Aviation Act or CASR, not at the MOS itself. No such challenge has been brought.

In summary, the litigation history is a blank slate. This is unsurprising for a technical instrument of this kind, but it means there is no judicial guidance on how the MOS should be interpreted in practice. Operators must rely on CASA’s administrative practice and legal advice.

Dynamic references mean continuous monitoring. The most significant trap is that the standards change without any Australian legislative process. If FAA Appendix A is amended to require a new validation test, an Australian operator whose device was qualified under the previous version must either ensure the device meets the new test at the next recurrent evaluation, or accept a downgrade. The MOS provides no grace period for foreign amendments, except the limited grandfathering in section 5. An operator who does not monitor Federal Register notices from the US FAA could be caught unaware.

Section 5 transitional provisions apply only to aeroplane flight simulators. Helicopter flight simulators and all flight training devices have no transitional protection. If you operate a helicopter simulator that was qualified under the old Australian standards, it must immediately meet FAA Appendix C or EASA CS-FSTD(H) at the current version. There is no grandfathering. This asymmetry is not explained in the instrument.

ICAO Doc 9625 is only for level D aeroplane simulators. An operator cannot use the ICAO manual to qualify an aeroplane flight simulator at level A, B or C, even though the manual contains criteria for those levels. The MOS expressly limits the ICAO standard to level D (section 3(2)). If you want a lower level, you must use FAA or EASA standards.

The stall training transitional path expires on 24 March 2025. Section 5(4) allows modified aeroplane qualified simulators to be assessed against a combination of the original standard and FAA FSTD Directive 2, but only until 24 March 2025. After that date, any recurrent or special evaluation must be against a standard listed in section 3(1) - presumably the current version. Operators who have modified their simulators for full stall training should plan for a full requalification under current standards before the sunset date.

National aviation authority substitution is not complete. Section 2(2) substitutes CASA for references to foreign national aviation authorities, but excludes references in the superseded Australian standards themselves (FSD-1 and the old MOS Part 60). This means that those old standards continue to refer to CASA as originally drafted, which is consistent but could cause confusion if an operator mistakenly tries to apply the substitution provision to the old text.

The Table of Contents is for guidance only. The MOS states this explicitly. You cannot rely on the Table of Contents to determine the legal effect of a provision. This is standard drafting practice but can catch users who rely on the summary rather than the text.

Section 2 interpretation says certain terms have the same meaning as in the Act and regulations. However, it also defines new terms like “FAA FSTD Directive 2” and “qualification level D”. Practitioners must check both the CASR dictionary and section 2 of the MOS for definitions.

The MOS does not specify which standard applies if an operator elects to use more than one. For example, an aeroplane flight simulator could theoretically meet both FAA Appendix A and EASA CS-FSTD(A). The MOS does not address whether the device can hold dual qualification or whether it must be assessed against only one standard. In practice, CASA likely assesses against the standard chosen by the applicant, but the silence creates uncertainty.

Helicopter flight simulators have no option to use the ICAO standard. Section 4 only lists FAA and EASA. The ICAO manual exists for helicopters (Doc 9625 Volume II) but is not incorporated. This may be because CASA considers the ICAO helicopter criteria insufficiently developed, but the effect is to limit operator choice.

Compliance with Part 60 MOS is a process of ongoing management, not a one-off certification. The following steps are based on the instrument’s requirements and the broader CASR framework.

1. Determine which standard applies. For an aeroplane flight simulator, you may choose among FARs Appendix A, EASA CS-FSTD(A), or ICAO Doc 9625 (level D only). For a helicopter simulator, choose between FARs Appendix C or EASA CS-FSTD(H). For flight training devices of either type, choose between the relevant FAA appendix or EASA specification. The choice should be based on the device’s design, the training programme, and any existing qualification history. Once chosen, you must consistently meet that standard for all evaluations.

2. Check eligibility for transitional arrangements. If you operate an aeroplane flight simulator that was qualified before 12 September 2019 under an earlier Australian standard (old MOS Part 60, FSD-1, or 1995 ICAO Doc 9625-AN/938), you may use the original standard for recurrent evaluations. However, if CASA has changed the qualification level since then, you must use the current standards from section 3(1) for that level. Also check if the device has been modified for full stall training; if so, you are in the special transitional path that expires 24 March 2025.

3. Monitor foreign standard amendments. Because the MOS adopts the FAA, EASA and ICAO standards “as existing from time to time”, you must track amendments to those documents. Subscribe to the US Federal Register, the EASA Official Journal, and ICAO publications. When a new version is published, assess its impact on your device. For grandfathered devices, the new version does not apply to recurrent evaluations, but it will apply if you apply for a qualification level change, a new initial qualification, or a new certificate after a change of ownership or major modification.

4. Engage with CASA early. The substitution of CASA for foreign aviation authorities means that CASA will interpret and apply the foreign standards. Before submitting a device for initial qualification, discuss the chosen standard and any interpretation issues with CASA. Obtain written confirmation of CASA’s view on borderline requirements. This reduces the risk of a failed evaluation due to differing interpretations.

5. Maintain documentation. You must be able to demonstrate that the device meets every applicable requirement of the chosen standard at the time of evaluation. This includes validation data, test results, configuration management records, and modification history. For grandfathered devices, keep records of the original qualification determination and the version of the standard used. For modified devices, document compliance with CASR 60.070 and the FAA FSTD Directive 2 requirements.

6. Plan for recurrent evaluations. Schedule recurrent evaluations in accordance with the CASR requirements. For grandfathered aeroplane simulators, the evaluation will check against the original standard version. For all other devices, the evaluation will check against the current version. Ensure the device is up to date before the evaluation. If a foreign standard has changed since the last evaluation, you may need to upgrade the device.

7. Consider the 24 March 2025 sunset. If your aeroplane flight simulator has been modified for full stall training and is relying on the section 5(4) transitional path, plan for requalification under current standards before the sunset date. The modification may need to be updated to meet the latest requirements of FAA Appendix A or EASA CS-FSTD(A). Start the process at least 12 months before the deadline.

8. Review for helicopter simulators. If you operate a helicopter flight simulator, note that there is no transitional protection. You must meet the current international standard. If your device was built to an earlier Australian standard, you will need to upgrade or replace it. Discuss a compliance timeline with CASA.

9. Train staff. Ensure that the personnel responsible for simulator maintenance, qualification, and regulation compliance understand the dynamic nature of the standards. They should be familiar with the FAA, EASA and ICAO documents and know how to interpret them in the Australian context.

10. Budget for uncertainty. Because foreign standards change without notice, maintain a contingency budget for unplanned upgrades. A new FAA rule requiring higher visual system resolution could cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to retrofit. Operators who rely solely on the transitional provisions may face a sudden compliance cost if the foreign standard changes and they decide to upgrade qualification level.

Compliance is not a static exercise. It requires active engagement with three foreign regulatory systems and proactive management of CASA’s expectations. The MOS provides the framework, but the real work is in keeping the device current with changing international benchmarks.