Fit for Duty
 

Are we required by the FARS to be fit for duty for a Sim training event just like we are to fly? If so can you please link to or cite a source.

Well, which FARs are you looking at to start?

Generally operating a machine that does not part Terra Firma has no safety concerns, and thus FAA does not care how tired you are when you play with them.

Federal regulations limiting railroad engineers consecutive duty hours and mandatory rest periods. Trains are machines that do not part Terra Firma.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/21103

The FAA doesn't care if you're fit or fatigued for sim training. They don't have regulatory authority for that either. A sim trainee has no real-world safety role.

As a general rule, conventional wisdom is don't do sim training if you're too sick or tired to fly a real plane for the simple reason that your training value is diminished. If it's a checking event, you obviously don't want to fail (fatigue will not be an excuse after the fact). But that's not a regulatory thing.

If you're a sim instructor you could argue that it's not safe to operate the sim when tired however the safety systems in a sim are pretty simple (stop button, fire ext,) so it probably doesn't require the same mental acuity as piloting an aircraft. That's not an FAA issue either, but could have OSHA/liability ramifications.

That is why I started my comment with "generally". Neither do trucks, yet they are regulated as well, since both do have safety implications if operated by a tired person. Everyone else got the point but you. Story of your life.

Operating a sim, you are not conducting passenger operations.

And generally, a training program is also not a "Part 121 operation", it's required by Part 121 to have a training program, however, if you went out and flew the jet for the training program instead of the sim, it's a Part 91 operation, having to comply with all the other requirements that the aircraft type/size require. Flying the sim really isn't a part-anything operation. In fact, in Part 125 (large aircraft) applicability it states that despite that part applying to all operations for more than 20pax configuration or 6000lbs payload without common carriage, it reverts back to Part 91 when the aircraft is used for training (121.1(b)(3)). There are subparts in Part 91 for operating large turbine powered aircraft, so this isn't just a free-for-all, but back to the point, if you are going to apply a reg, you have to look at the applicability of it. I was asking the question originally because I was curious which reg you were using for "fit for duty". There are Part 61 and 65 requirements that are applicable to operating an aircraft...but that's what it's going to state, a medical is necessary for operating an aircraft, to act as PIC, or a pilot must self-ground themselves if they know of any condition that would prohibit the safe operation of an aircraft, etc.

I don't think the FAA cares much about trains.

My employer requires employees to arrive fit to operate, and to hold a current medical, and simulator instructors to hold a current medical. We are also prescribed duty limitations for training days, and we are subject to drug or alcohol testing.

Is the context of the question at the outset of the thread one of jeopardy? Is the real question, "can we be penalized for failing to show up fit?" or it is the question "can the company get us to do sim training if we're tired or fatigued or otherwise unfit to fly?"

The response to the original posters question is not as simple as a response regarding the CFR. Context would be useful.

I remember hearing about some sim instructors getting disciplined by the FAA for failing an alcohol test while providing sim instruction. I can't remember the details, but I think they said simulator training is a safety critical task or something like that. A quick Google search returned this blurb from a 20 year old ALPA article (obviously way before 117). Not sure if or how this applies to receiving instruction:

"The FAA recently uncovered a little-known and little-disseminated policy "clarification" stating that simulator instructors are considered to be performing "flight instruction" duties for purposes of the alcohol testing regulations. This means that instructors whose duties may involve only training and checking in a simulator and in a classroom are, nonetheless, subject to the alcohol rules, including the testing provisions. This interpretation is not contained in the regulations, was not published in the federal register, is not accessible on the FAA website, was not distributed to certificated airmen, and is absent from many airlines’ alcohol policies.

Nevertheless, the FAA relied upon it in a recent case, revoking a simulator instructor’s certificates, an action that has been upheld by an Administrative Law Judge and the NTSB."

Alcohol Prohibitions for Pilots and Flight Instructors

Haha, not surprising, just making stuff up as they go. But the system grants them a lot of leeway to do that.


I don't have a philosophical issue with instructor sobriety, just regulatory cowboys.