• Designed as an aircraft-specific replica of the Guimbal Cabri G2 cockpit to ensure seamless transition to the flight line.
  
  
• Features a cylindrical visual system with 3 projectors, a 10 US airport database, and an integrated vibration system.
  
  
• Includes remote IOS capabilities to streamline instructor scenarios, system failures, and debriefings.
  
  
  

Madrid, September 28, 2026

entrol, the manufacturer of EASA and FAA certified FNPT, FTD, and FFS flight simulators, announces the sale of a Cabri G2 AATD simulator to the University of Dubuque, located in the United States.

The agreement, formalized in May 2026, marks a significant step in entrol’s expansion within the North American collegiate aviation sector. The device is scheduled for installation in 2027 to support the ongoing growth of the university’s rotor-wing program.

Faithful cockpit replication and visual precision

The simulator’s flight deck is built as an exact replica of the Guimbal Cabri G2, the primary training helicopter operated by the University of Dubuque. This aircraft-specific layout provides students with direct continuity between classroom theory, simulator practice, and actual flight operations.

The physical immersion is supported by a standard cylindrical visual projection system with three projectors and a database containing 10 key US airports. Tactile feedback is enhanced through an integrated vibration system, while a remote Instructor Operator Station (IOS) allows flight instructors to easily modify weather conditions, introduce system failures, pause scenarios, and repeat maneuvers.

“We wanted a simulator that closely matched the aircraft our students actually fly. entrol’s Guimbal G2 simulator offered the aircraft-specific environment and training capabilities we were looking for,” Evan Lawler, Helicopter Chief Pilot at the University of Dubuque. “It will allow our students to practice procedures and challenging scenarios in a controlled environment before encountering them in the aircraft, giving them more repetition while improving safety, confidence, and decision-making”.

A Multi-stage asset for pilot advancement

The Cabri G2 AATD will be integrated throughout multiple phases of the university’s rotor-wing curriculum, spanning Private Pilot, Instrument, and Commercial training, as well as Certified Flight Instructor (CFI and CFII) courses.


Key training applications include:

• Instrument & emergency procedures: allowing pilots to practice high-risk scenarios, system failures, and adverse weather conditions that are difficult or unsafe to fully demonstrate in the real aircraft.
• Scenario-based training & CRM: incorporating real-world operational scenarios and Crew Resource Management to develop situational awareness and decision-making skills.
• Standardization & continuous progress: enabling ongoing student progression when weather or aircraft availability limits flying, while serving as a tool for instructor training and standardization.
  
  
  

With this installation, entrol reinforces its position as a trusted partner for higher education flight programs, providing high-precision simulation technology designed to elevate training safety, quality, and operational efficiency.

For this reason, choosing a certified flight simulator should involve more than comparing technical specifications or purchase prices. Certification experience, aircraft fidelity, customisation, technology, maintenance and long-term support all play a role in determining the value of a flight simulation training device.

What should you look for in a flight simulator manufacturer?

The right manufacturer should be able to understand the operator’s aircraft, training objectives and regulatory requirements, and translate them into a complete simulation solution.

Certification and regulatory experience

A professional simulator manufacturer should have experience developing and qualifying training devices according to the applicable aviation regulations. Depending on the intended market and training objectives, this can include EASA FSTD qualification or an FAA approved flight simulator.

Certification should therefore be considered from the beginning of the project, rather than as a final step once the simulator has already been developed.

It is also important to involve your Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) at an early stage of the project. Early discussions can help confirm that the intended certification level is appropriate for the training you want to provide and ensure that the certification approach is aligned with your training objectives from the outset.

Aircraft-specific simulation

A simulator should accurately represent the aircraft it is intended to reproduce. Cockpit configuration, avionics, systems, controls and flight characteristics all contribute to creating a representative training environment.

For operators with specific aircraft configurations or mission requirements, the ability to customise the simulator is equally important. A manufacturer that develops the solution around the customer’s aircraft can provide a closer connection between simulator training and real-world operations

From training needs to the right simulator solution

Selecting the right simulator starts with understanding what the customer actually needs to train. At entrol, we ask customers to provide a Potential Training Needs list to help us understand their training objectives, operational requirements and the business case behind the project.

This initial assessment allows us to identify the type of training the organisation intends to provide, the operations and scenarios that need to be reproduced and the capabilities required from the simulator.

Linking training needs to Part-FCL

Once the training needs are defined, we link them to the applicable Part-FCL requirements. This helps establish how the intended training can be supported within the applicable regulatory framework and what level of simulator certification may be required.

Working through these requirements at an early stage also helps ensure that the training objectives, certification approach and simulator capabilities are aligned before the project moves forward.

Selecting the right simulator and certification level

Based on the customer’s training needs, regulatory requirements and business case, entrol works with the customer to identify the simulator model and certification level that best fit their intended training.

The objective is not simply to select a simulator with the highest level of certification or the most advanced specifications, but to find the solution that is appropriate for the organisation’s actual training requirements.

This approach allows the simulator configuration and certification level to be considered from the beginning of the project, helping customers make a more informed decision and ensuring that the final solution is aligned with their training objectives and operational needs.

A simulator manufacturer is a long-term partner, not just a supplier

Purchasing a simulator is the beginning of a relationship rather than the end of a transaction. Once a device is installed and qualified, the operator depends on the manufacturer for technical knowledge, maintenance, updates and, in many cases, future modifications to the system.

Supporting the project from business case to lifecycle

The simulator manufacturer can also provide support before the device is installed. Working with the manufacturer from an early stage can help operators prepare the business case, define the appropriate simulator configuration and understand the requirements associated with the project.

This can include defining the requirements for the simulator room, installation and ongoing maintenance, helping ensure that the infrastructure and operational requirements are considered from the beginning rather than once the simulator has already been selected.

Maintenance and technical support

Regular maintenance is essential to preserve simulator performance and availability, particularly for devices used intensively for training. Having direct access to technical assistance also helps operators resolve issues efficiently and minimise downtime.

For international operators, having support capabilities closer to their location can make a significant difference. entrol has established support and maintenance capabilities in America, making it easier to provide technical assistance to customers in different parts of the world and respond more quickly to their needs throughout the simulator’s operational life.

In-house technology development

Another important factor is how much of the simulator technology is developed in-house. At entrol, the simulator’s core technologies, hardware and software integration are developed internally. This gives entrol greater control over the complete solution and allows it to adapt, customise and upgrade simulators according to each customer’s aircraft and training requirements.

Choosing the right flight simulator manufacturer

When evaluating flight simulator manufacturers, operators should look beyond the initial specification and consider the complete lifecycle of the simulator. Certification experience, aircraft-specific simulation, mission capabilities and long-term technical support are all important factors to consider.

A simulator is a long-term investment, and its requirements can evolve as aircraft configurations and training needs change. Choosing a manufacturer that understands the complete system, can support the project from the initial business case through installation and certification, and provides ongoing maintenance and technical support can help operators maintain the value of their training investment over time.

entrol develops professional flight simulation training devices for flight schools and operators worldwide, combining aircraft-specific simulation, certification experience, in-house technology development and advanced training capabilities. From FNPTs and FTDs to specialised mission-training solutions, entrol works with customers to develop, support and evolve their simulators according to their operational requirements.

For an organisation investing in a certified flight simulator, choosing the manufacturer therefore means choosing more than a supplier: it means choosing a long-term training partner that can support the simulator throughout its operational life.

But how does the lifespan of a high-fidelity Flight Training Device (FTD) compare with that of a Full Flight Simulator (FFS)?

What determines the lifespan of a Flight Simulator?

The lifespan of an FSTD varies depending on factors such as use, maintenance, component availability, and its ability to incorporate new technologies. Therefore, FSTD lifespan is not only about how long a simulator operates, but also its maintainability, upgradeability, and continued training value.

Therefore, simulator lifespan is not simply about how many years a device remains operational. Its long-term value also depends on its maintainability, upgradeability and ability to continue meeting the operator’s training requirements.

Physical durability and technological obsolescence

The physical components of a simulator can remain operational for many years when they are properly maintained. However, technology evolves much faster than the basic mechanical structure of a training device.

Visual systems, computers, displays, avionics interfaces, and software can become outdated before the simulator itself reaches the end of its physical life. This makes the ability to replace or upgrade individual components an important factor when evaluating the long-term value of a simulator.

Maintenance and operational use

The frequency with which a simulator is used also affects its lifecycle. Devices operating for many hours every day require consistent preventive maintenance and replacement of components subject to wear.

Both FTD simulators and Full Flight Simulators require maintenance to preserve their performance and training capabilities. However, FFSs generally involve additional mechanical systems, particularly their motion platforms, which can add complexity to long-term maintenance.

This is also relevant when considering the return on the initial investment. Because an FFS requires a significantly higher initial investment and involves more complex systems to maintain, it needs a high level of utilisation over a longer period to recover that investment. For operators, maintenance requirements, simulator availability and the number of training hours that can be performed therefore play an important role in determining the overall return on investment.

High-Fidelity FTDs vs Full Flight Simulators

A Flight Training Device (FTD) replicates key aircraft elements such as the cockpit, systems, controls, and flight characteristics. Higher-level FTDs can provide detailed, representative training without a full motion platform.

In contrast, Full Flight Simulators (FFSs) include a motion system, making them more complex and suitable for training such as type ratings and recurrent training.

Fixed-Base does not mean low fidelity

A fixed-base FTD can still deliver highly immersive, high-fidelity training through aircraft-specific cockpits, advanced visuals, control loading, sound, vibration, and immersive technologies.

Therefore, FTDs and FFSs should be compared based on their capabilities and training objectives, rather than simply on whether they include motion.

Choosing the right simulator for the training task

The choice between a high-fidelity FTD and a Full Flight Simulator should be based on the training objectives and regulatory requirements applicable to the operator.

An FTD can be particularly relevant when the training programme requires a high degree of aircraft-specific fidelity but does not require a full-motion platform. An FFS, meanwhile, can provide the combination of aircraft fidelity and motion required for more demanding training scenarios.

The appropriate solution therefore depends on what the operator needs the simulator to train, rather than on the level of technology alone.

Upgradeability: extending the useful life of a simulator

Simulation technology evolves rapidly. For this reason, replacing an entire simulator whenever a new technology becomes available is not always the most efficient option.

The ability to upgrade individual components can significantly extend the useful life of an FSTD. Visual systems, image-generation computers, displays, avionics systems, or specific cockpit components can be upgraded as training requirements evolve.

Updating visual and simulation technologies

Visual technology is one of the areas where developments can have a significant impact on the simulator experience.

Upgrading image-generation systems, displays, LED visual systems, or other visual technologies can improve the training environment without requiring the replacement of the complete simulator.

This approach allows operators to benefit from new technologies while continuing to use the existing aircraft-specific configuration.

Keeping Aircraft-Specific configurations current

Aircraft also evolve. Avionics systems, cockpit configurations, and installed equipment can change throughout an aircraft’s operational life.

For this reason, the value of an FTD is closely linked to its ability to accurately represent the aircraft used in real operations.

A simulator that can adapt to the specific configurations of a fleet is more likely to remain relevant as an operator’s training requirements change. This is particularly important for helicopter fleets and specialised operations, where aircraft configuration and mission profiles can vary considerably.

Technology independence and long-term support

Another factor to consider when evaluating the lifespan of a simulator is how much control the manufacturer has over the technologies integrated into the system.

Flight simulators combine multiple technologies, including visual systems, image generators, computers, avionics interfaces, software and control-loading systems. Over a simulator’s operational life, these technologies can evolve, suppliers can change their products or discontinue components, and regulatory requirements can also change.

When key technologies depend on external suppliers, these changes can make it more difficult to maintain or upgrade a simulator over time. A change in a component, supplier or regulatory requirement may require adaptations to the system to ensure that it remains operational and compliant.

Developing key technologies in-house can provide greater control over the evolution of the simulator. At entrol, several core technologies are developed internally. This gives entrol greater flexibility to develop new functionalities, adapt the system to customer requirements and continue evolving the simulator as technology and training needs change.

For operators making a long-term investment, this level of technological control can be an important consideration when evaluating the future maintainability and upgradeability of an FSTD.

FTD or Full Flight Simulator: which offers better long-term value?

Choosing between an FTD and a Full Flight Simulator depends primarily on the training programme and the objectives the device needs to fulfil.

An FFS provides a high level of fidelity and motion, while a high-fidelity FTD can offer aircraft-specific training for numerous procedures and scenarios without the complexity of a full-motion system.

Factors that determine long-term value

When evaluating which solution offers greater long-term value, it is important to consider several aspects beyond the simulator’s initial capabilities:

• Training requirements
• Certification level
• Aircraft fidelity
• Maintenance
• Upgradeability
• Operational use
• Total cost over its lifespan

Considering these factors together makes it possible to assess not only which device provides the required capabilities at the time of acquisition, but also which solution can remain useful and relevant as training requirements evolve.

Choosing the right device for each operation

Not all operators have the same training requirements. While certain programmes may require the capabilities of a Full Flight Simulator, others may achieve their training objectives with a high-fidelity FTD.

The decision should therefore be based on the specific objectives of the training programme, the type of aircraft, certification requirements, and the intended use of the device. The ability to keep the simulator up to date and adapt it to new requirements is also a key factor in maximising its value throughout its useful life.

Choosing an FSTD for long-term value

The lifespan of a flight simulator depends on more than its physical durability. Maintenance, upgradeability, aircraft-specific fidelity, and the ability to adapt to evolving training requirements all play an important role in its long-term value.

High-fidelity FTDs and Full Flight Simulators serve different training needs, with full motion simulators offering advanced motion capabilities and FTDs providing a flexible and highly representative training environment. Ultimately, selecting the right flight training device means considering the training objectives, operational requirements, and the complete lifecycle of the simulator to ensure it continues to deliver value over time.

Among the different Flight Training Device (FTD) qualification levels, FAA FTD Level 7 provides a high level of fidelity. But what does this qualification mean, and what can it offer helicopter operators?

What is an FTD Level 7 flight simulator?

A Flight Training Device is a training device that reproduces the instruments, equipment, panels and controls of an aircraft, together with the systems and computer programmes necessary to represent its operation.

Within the FAA qualification framework, FTD Level 7 is specifically designed for helicopters.

The Level 7 requirements go beyond simply reproducing the appearance of a helicopter. The device must represent the relevant aircraft characteristics and systems, while providing the physical and visual interfaces needed for training.

A simulator built around a specific helicopter

One of the key characteristics of an FAA FTD Level 7 is that it is built around a specific helicopter.

The FAA requires an enclosed, helicopter-specific cockpit, aerodynamic programming with applicable helicopter systems operating, representative control loading throughout the ground and flight envelope, and controls, switches and knobs that physically replicate the aircraft in their operation.

Visual, sound and vibration systems

The Level 7 qualification also includes requirements covering the sensory aspects of the simulated flight environment.

The FAA specifies a visual system with a wide field of view, together with sound representation and vibration cueing to reproduce characteristic helicopter vibrations.

Together, these systems contribute to a high-fidelity training environment, providing pilots with visual and sensory cues representative of helicopter operations.

Why is FTD Level 7 relevant for helicopter operators?

Helicopter operators can have very different training requirements depending on the aircraft they operate and the missions they perform.

Firefighting, heavy-lift operations, search and rescue and other specialised activities can require pilots to maintain proficiency in aircraft-specific procedures and demanding operational situations.

An FTD Level 7 provides an environment in which these tasks can be practised without relying exclusively on the operational helicopter.

Training in a controlled environment

Simulation allows instructors to repeat and configure training scenarios according to the objectives of each session.

Pilots can practise procedures and systems repeatedly, while instructors can introduce specific situations and review performance afterwards. This makes simulation particularly useful for training tasks that benefit from repetition and structured practice.

Training for specialised missions

Helicopter operators perform a wide range of missions, each with different operational requirements and training needs. An FTD Level 7 can provide a suitable environment to practise these missions in a controlled way.

By combining specific helicopter representation with mission-oriented training scenarios, pilots can practise the procedures, skills and operational situations associated with their day-to-day activities.

This makes the simulator particularly valuable for operators whose crews need to prepare for demanding or specialised missions, while allowing training to take place in an environment adapted to the operation.

FTD Level 7 for specialised helicopter operations

entrol’s recent Level 7 projects show how this type of simulator can be developed for very different helicopter platforms and missions.

The H145, S-64 and Bell 214ST projects each require specific cockpit configurations, systems and training capabilities, demonstrating the importance of adapting the simulator to the aircraft and its intended use.

 From H145 to S-64 and Bell 214ST

entrol’s Level 7 projects include different helicopter platforms, from the H145 to the S-64 and Bell 214ST, each developed according to the characteristics of the aircraft and the training requirements of the operator.

The H145 FTD Level 7 for Transportes Aéreos Pegaso includes a specific H145 cockpit configuration, with Helionix components and Dual GTN 750 Xi systems, as well as a flight model adjusted to the FAA FTD Level 7 requirements.

The S-64 FTD Level 7 for Helicopter Express includes specific systems, additional instruments and predefined mission scenarios for firefighting.

For McDermott Aviation’s Bell 214ST, entrol’s project includes an aircraft-specific simulator with an LED visual system, Unreal Engine image generation, cockpit vibration and mission scenarios for firefighting and cargo operations. The development process also includes an inspection of the real Bell 214ST to take photographs and measurements and define the simulator’s final specifications.

Together, these projects illustrate how FTD Level 7 simulators can be adapted to different helicopter platforms and operational requirements, combining aircraft representation with the training capabilities needed for each operator.

FTD Level 7 vs Full Flight Simulator: what is the difference?

When comparing an FTD Level 7 vs Full Flight Simulator, the main distinction is the way each device provides simulation and motion cues.

An FTD Level 7 is a fixed-base device. It can reproduce the aircraft’s cockpit, systems, aerodynamic characteristics, controls and sensory cues, including vibration, but it does not incorporate the full-motion platform of an FFS.

A Full Flight Simulator, in contrast, incorporates a motion system to reproduce aircraft movement and provide motion cues during training.

Fixed-base does not mean low fidelity

The absence of a motion platform does not mean that an FTD Level 7 provides a basic simulation experience.

The qualification requires a combination of aircraft-specific systems, representative controls, control loading, visual representation, sound and vibration. These elements are designed to provide a high degree of fidelity while maintaining a fixed-base configuration.

The important distinction is therefore the type of capabilities provided by each simulator rather than simply considering one as a more realistic version of the other.

Choosing the right simulator for the training task

The choice between an FTD Level 7 and an FFS should be based on the training objectives and regulatory requirements applicable to the operator.

An FTD Level 7 can be particularly relevant when the training programme requires a high degree of helicopter-specific fidelity but does not require a full-motion platform.

FTD Level 7 solutions for different helicopter operations

At entrol, we develop certified helicopter flight simulators designed around the aircraft and training requirements of each customer, incorporating technologies such as advanced visual systems, control loading, vibration and Unreal Engine-based image generation.

From the H145 to the S-64 and Bell 214ST, our Level 7 projects demonstrate how simulation can combine high-fidelity aircraft representation with mission-specific training environments.

To support this evolution, EASA has introduced a new capability-based approach to Flight Simulation Training Devices (FSTDs). At the centre of this new framework is the FSTD Capability Signature (FCS), which provides a more detailed description of the capabilities and fidelity levels of a training device.

This approach is particularly relevant to Mission-specific flight training, where the capabilities required from an FSTD can depend on the specific operation being trained. From firefighting and search and rescue to HEMS and law enforcement, modern simulation increasingly needs to reproduce more than the aircraft itself.

What is the FSTD Capability Signature?

Traditionally, FSTDs have been classified according to defined categories and qualification levels. The new FSTD Capability Signature introduces a more detailed, capability-based way of describing a training device.

The FCS identifies the specific capabilities of an FSTD and their corresponding fidelity levels, providing a clearer description of what the device can reproduce for training purposes.

This represents an important evolution in the way simulation devices are described and qualified, particularly as training technologies continue to develop.

From FSTD levels to capabilities

The key difference is the focus on capabilities.

Instead of looking at an FSTD only through its traditional qualification category, the new approach allows the specific capabilities of the device to be identified. This creates a closer connection between the technical characteristics of an FSTD and the training objectives for which it is used.

For operators and training organizations, this means that understanding the capabilities of a simulator becomes increasingly important when determining whether it is appropriate for a particular training task.

A framework for new simulation technologies

Flight simulation technology has evolved significantly in recent years. Visual systems, image generators and immersive technologies are expanding the type of training that can be performed in a simulator.

The new EASA framework has been designed to accommodate these developments, including technologies such as extended reality (XR). This provides a regulatory framework that can adapt to different technologies while maintaining defined requirements for FSTD qualification.

For manufacturers, this creates an opportunity to develop new training capabilities while considering how they fit within the overall FSTD framework.

FCS and Mission-specific flight training

The evolution towards a capability-based approach is particularly relevant to Mission-specific flight training.

Mission training requires pilots and crews to deal with more than aircraft procedures. The environment, the type of operation and the specific tasks performed during a mission can all influence the training requirements.

A simulator used for a firefighting operation, for example, may need to reproduce a very different environment from one used primarily for conventional procedural training.

Training beyond the cockpit

Modern mission simulation can recreate the operational environment surrounding the aircraft.

For missions such as firefighting, SAR or HEMS, this can include specific geographical areas, visual references, heliports, accident locations or other elements relevant to the operation.

Entrol’s ENVISION image generator, powered by Unreal Engine, has been developed to support this type of mission training. It can provide customised visual environments for firefighting, SAR, HEMS, law enforcement and offshore operations, including geospecific terrain, airports, heliports and specific visual references.

This allows operators to move beyond generic scenarios and train in environments that are relevant to their operational requirements.

Matching training objectives with simulator capabilities

The new capability-based approach also strengthens the relationship between the training objective and the FSTD used to achieve it.

EASA’s new framework includes a task-to-tool methodology that can be used to identify the capabilities and fidelity levels required for a specific training task and match them with an appropriate FSTD.

This approach is particularly relevant for specialised operations, where training requirements can vary significantly depending on the mission.

For operators, the objective is not simply to select a simulator with a particular classification, but to ensure that the device provides the capabilities required for the training they need to perform.

What does FCS mean for operators?

For operators, the FSTD Capability Signature provides a more detailed way of understanding the capabilities of a training device.

This is particularly relevant for organisations that operate specialised aircraft or perform missions that require specific training environments. Their requirements may go beyond the reproduction of the aircraft cockpit and include specific visual, operational or mission capabilities.

More tailored training solutions

Aircraft and missions are not always identical from one operator to another.

An operator may require a simulator configured around its own aircraft, procedures and operational environment. entrol has previously highlighted its ability to develop simulators according to the customer’s aircraft configuration and specific training requirements.

This approach becomes particularly valuable for mission training, where the geographical environment and operational scenario can be an important part of the training itself.

A capability-based framework provides a more precise way of describing the technologies and features available on the device and how they relate to specific training objectives.

The role of immersive technologies

Immersive technologies can also expand the capabilities available for mission training.

Entrol uses Mixed Reality (MR) technology to complement the simulator’s visual system. MR goggles can allow pilots to look downwards or backwards and better perceive the distance between the helicopter and the terrain.

This is particularly useful for operations such as Bambi bucket firefighting, external load operations and SAR missions, where spatial awareness is an important part of the task.

MR can also be used in mission stations where different crew members train together in the same synthetic environment. This can include hoist operators, rescue swimmers or medical personnel, allowing crews to practise communication and coordination during complex missions.

The role of these technologies illustrates why describing the capabilities of an FSTD is becoming increasingly important as simulation evolves.

The future of Mission-specific flight training

The introduction of the FSTD Capability Signature reflects a broader evolution in flight simulation: moving towards a more detailed understanding of what a training device is capable of delivering.

For Mission-specific flight training, this is particularly relevant. Operators need to prepare crews for the specific aircraft, environments and operational scenarios they encounter in real life. Simulation therefore needs to provide the appropriate combination of aircraft fidelity, visual capabilities and mission-specific features.

The new FCS approach provides a framework for describing these capabilities and connecting them with specific training requirements.

At entrol, our simulation solutions combine certified FSTD technology with customised aircraft configurations, advanced visual systems and mission capabilities. From firefighting and SAR to HEMS, law enforcement and offshore operations, our solutions are designed to support the specific training requirements of operators.

As flight simulation continues to evolve, the focus is increasingly moving from simply asking what type of simulator is being used to understanding what the simulator is capable of training.

• Built on an AS350B specific cockpit layout equipped with real dual Garmin GDU1060 avionics.
  
  
• Features complete official Tunisian navigation data, 15 customized helipads, and specialized environmental effects like sandstorms.
  
  
• Equipped with initial NVIS capabilities, formation flight options, and a D-BOX vibration system as standard.
  
  
  

Madrid, August 24, 2026

entrol, the manufacturer of EASA and FAA certified FNPT, FTD, and FFS flight simulators,announces the sale of a customized H125 FNPT II simulator to the Tunisian Air Force, operating under the Ministry of National Defense of Tunisia.

The agreement, formalized in July 2025, marks the second simulator project delivered by entrol to the Tunisian Air Force, reinforcing the trust established between both organizations and further strengthening entrol’s presence in the international defense and public sector markets.

Real avionics and high-fidelity immersion

The simulator’s cockpit is customized to match the customer’s specific AS350B fleet configuration. To ensure maximum fidelity and a seamless transition from simulator to aircraft, the flight deck integrates real Garmin dual GDU1060 hardware.

Physical immersion is complemented by a standard cylindrical visual projection system integrated with a D-BOX vibration system, providing authentic tactile feedback during all flight regimes and maneuvers.

“Working with military operators like the Tunisian Air Force reinforces entrol’s capability to deliver highly specialized, mission-ready simulation devices,” states Juanjo Lechosa, Business Manager at entrol. “Our goal with this H125 project was not just to deliver a certified device, but to provide a tailored environment where pilots can practice high-risk procedures—such as NVIS operations or flying through sandstorms—with total realism and zero risk.”

Geo-specific environments and mission-oriented training

Designed to prepare pilots for complex operational conditions in North Africa, the device incorporates a comprehensive visual and navigation database tailored specifically for the Tunisian Air Force:

• Official Navigation Charts: complete navigation data covering all official Tunisian airports, provided directly by the local aviation authority.
• Tactical Landing Sites: 15 customized, geo-specific helipads across the region.
• Environmental & Tactical Scenarios: specific atmospheric conditions, including realistic desert sandstorms and initial NVIS (Night Vision Imaging System) integration.
• Dedicated Instructor Station: Dual IOS seating layout designed for both the instructor and an observer, optimizing tactical evaluation and debriefing.
  
  
  
  

The H125 FNPT II will be utilized for advanced military mission training, covering procedural drills, emergency management, NVIS tactical flights, and formation flying practice within specialized local scenarios.

With this delivery, entrol reinforces its position as a trusted global partner for defense operators, offering flexible, high-precision simulation technology tailored to public safety and military standards.