In this context, flight simulation can also contribute to broader pilot shortage solutions by improving access to training, increasing training capacity and helping operators make more efficient use of their resources.

Understanding the investment difference between FTDs and FFSs

Flight simulator investment goes beyond the initial purchase price, encompassing installation, infrastructure, maintenance, software updates and technical support. While Full Flight Simulators (FFSs) offer motion capabilities, they also involve greater technical complexity and potentially higher maintenance and infrastructure requirements. Fixed-base Flight Training Devices (FTDs) can deliver high-fidelity aircraft-specific simulation without a full-motion platform, making them an attractive alternative when full-motion capabilities are not essential. The actual cost advantage depends on the simulator’s configuration, intended training applications and ongoing operating costs.

Evaluating FTD vs FFS cost over the simulator lifecycle

When evaluating FTD vs FFS cost, operators should consider the total cost of ownership rather than focusing solely on the initial purchase price. Acquisition, installation, maintenance, technical support, facility requirements and expected utilisation all influence the financial performance of a simulator throughout its operational life. Comparing these factors helps organisations identify the most cost-effective solution for their specific training requirements.

FTD vs FFS: comparing capabilities and operational requirements

FTDs and FFSs follow different qualification standards under FAA and EASA regulations, with capabilities varying according to the device, aircraft representation and qualification level. The following table summarises the key differences to support the selection process, noting that qualification levels are not directly interchangeable and capabilities vary between devices.

The cost and infrastructure comparisons above are general tendencies, not guaranteed outcomes. Actual requirements depend on the selected simulator and its installation. Likewise, the ability to perform a proficiency check must be established from the applicable regulations and the specific device’s approved capabilities.

Choosing the right proficiency check simulator

Choosing the right proficiency check simulator starts with identifying the tasks pilots must demonstrate, the applicable training or checking programme and the qualification required for the intended activity. The selected device must be approved for that use under the relevant FAA or EASA framework, as its qualification level alone does not guarantee suitability for every manoeuvre, procedure or check.

Assessing FTD suitability for proficiency checks

A Flight Training Device (FTD) can be a suitable option for certain helicopter training and checking activities, provided its qualification and approved capabilities meet the requirements of the intended programme.

The suitability of an FTD depends on more than its qualification level. Operators must consider the specific helicopter representation, the manoeuvres and procedures to be performed, and the applicable FAA or EASA requirements. Not every device is approved for every proficiency check, and requirements may vary depending on the aircraft and the relevant regulatory framework.

Before selecting a simulator, operators should verify its qualification documentation, any applicable limitations and its suitability for the intended activities with the relevant aviation authority and simulator manufacturer. This helps ensure that the chosen device meets operational requirements while supporting an efficient, long-term training strategy.

A practical framework for selecting the right simulator

A structured assessment helps organisations avoid over-specifying a simulator or selecting a device that cannot support their intended activities. Before committing to an investment, flight schools and operators should consider the following factors.

1. Define the training requirements

Identify the proficiency checks, recurrent training activities, aircraft systems and procedures the simulator must support. Separate mandatory training requirements from additional activities that would improve operational preparedness.

2. Confirm qualification and regulatory acceptance

Establish the applicable regulatory framework and identify the required qualification level and task approvals. Confirm any limitations with the relevant authority and ensure that the intended training programme can be conducted on the selected device.

3. Compare total ownership costs

Assess acquisition, installation, maintenance, support, upgrades and facility requirements. Estimate expected annual training hours and compare the resulting costs over a consistent period. Include realistic assumptions about downtime, staffing and future demand.

4. Assess utilisation and future requirements

Consider whether the simulator will support enough training activity to justify the investment. Review expected fleet changes, aircraft configurations, future training needs and the possibility of upgrading the device as requirements evolve.

5. Evaluate the complete solution

Look beyond the simulator’s headline specifications. Aircraft fidelity, instructor tools, debriefing capabilities, technical support and long-term maintainability all contribute to its operational value. Early collaboration with the manufacturer can help align the technical configuration, qualification strategy and business case.

Choosing an FTD over an FFS: a decision based on training needs

Selecting an FTD over an FFS can be a sound investment when the device meets the requirements of the intended training activities and its qualification permits the planned use. A high-level FTD can provide aircraft-specific training without the additional complexity of a full-motion platform when motion capabilities are not essential. However, an FFS remains necessary when the training programme requires capabilities an FTD cannot provide or regulatory requirements do not permit the activity on the available device.

For flight schools and operators, the goal is to balance training capabilities, regulatory compliance, availability and lifecycle costs rather than simply choosing the most advanced or least expensive simulator. Evaluating these factors together enables organisations to make informed investment decisions, allocate training resources effectively and select a simulation solution that supports their long-term operational requirements.

• ENVISION mission package addresses tactical training challenges by combining AI-driven urban scenarios, integrated thermal imaging, and dynamic terrain generation to maximize operational readiness and reduce flight-hour costs.
  
  
• High-resolution urban environments featuring dynamic traffic, pedestrians, and AI-controlled crowds.
  
  
• Advanced mission editor to prepare pursuit, interdiction, and arrest scenarios with full session repeatability.
  
  
• Fully integrated FLIR, thermal camera, and volumetric searchlight directly simulated within the graphics engine without additional hardware.
  
  
  

Madrid, October 14, 2026

entrol, the manufacturer of EASA and FAA certified FNPT, FTD, and FFS flight simulators, introduces the latest operational advancements in ENVISION, its proprietary visual system developed on Unreal Engine 5. These strategic enhancements address the growing demand from police air units and flight academies for high-fidelity, cost-effective tactical training devices capable of simulating complex law enforcement missions without exposing crews or real aircraft to operational risks.

By developing its own Image Generator on Unreal Engine, entrol maintains complete technological independence, allowing agile software iterations, feature expansion, and bug resolution without reliance on third-party visual providers. Over recent years, entrol has successfully transitioned developmental concepts from 2022 into active operational capabilities, including police pursuit management and native Night Vision Goggles (NVG) compatibility.

Urban environments tailored for law enforcement operations

To optimize spatial awareness across different flight regimes, the Law Enforcement database is structured into three operational zones: an Urban Zone (low-altitude flight with street-level detail), a Traffic Zone (mid-altitude operations on real road networks), and a Flight Zone (high-altitude navigation).

Key AI-driven operational features include:

• Native optics & sensors: integrated FLIR with dual-screen options, volumetric searchlight, NVG support, and engine-simulated thermal camera modes (White Hot, Black Hot, Ironbow) adjusted for seasonal ambient temperatures—without extra hardware.
• Autonomous traffic & dynamic crowds: real-road traffic density is fully adjustable (0–100%). Pedestrians and public gatherings react dynamically to weather (opening umbrellas) and armed threats (taking cover or fleeing).
• Tactical mission editor: instructors program multi-entity behaviors from the IOS (movement, pursuit, vehicle entry/exit, triggers, and scalable aggressiveness) to replicate complete pursuit and arrest cycles in real time with ground units. Exercises can be saved and instantly reloaded.

Real-time procedural terrain generation: Unmatched immersion and system performance

ENVISION eliminates the operational constraints of static, pre-rendered scenery. Buildings, forests, power lines, infrastructure obstacles, and urban lighting are procedurally rendered in real time from authentic geographical data as the aircraft navigates the airspace. This enables vast geographical coverage without requiring manual 3D modeling for every region, while fully preserving hand-crafted, high-precision zones such as certified airports and hospital helipads.

• Enhanced visual realism: structures are built using modular components linked to real-world land usage; foliage varies in height, orientation, and seasonal color—including burnt textures following simulated wildfires; streetlights illuminate automatically at dusk, and wind turbine blades adjust rotation according to live wind vectors. Terrain elements render smoothly with distance, eliminating visual popping and ensuring absolute image consistency across all visual channels.
• Optimized architecture & performance: data loads dynamically by geographic sector, drastically reducing map loading times, improving frame rates, and minimizing system memory overhead.

Full visual alignment between instructor and flight crew

IOS Mission Map: Powered by the identical Image Generator engine as the visual projection system. Entities placed on the instructor map mirror precisely in the crew’s visual field, complemented by 2D overhead maps and an exclusive 3D Unreal front-facing view featuring live trajectory paths and entity labels.

Multi-entity perspective tracking: Instructors can immediately shift their view to any entity on the ground, observing the exercise directly from the perspective of the fleeing suspect or the pursuing ground officer.

The key is not simply to reduce aircraft hours, but to determine which parts of the syllabus can be trained more efficiently in a simulator and how this can contribute to the academy’s overall return on investment.

How can Flight Training Devices improve training efficiency?

Aircraft training involves costs associated with fuel, maintenance, aircraft availability and operational use. Some training activities, however, do not necessarily require the aircraft itself.

Moving suitable training activities to simulation

Procedures, instrument training, cockpit familiarisation, systems training and repetitive exercises can often be practised in a simulator environment, depending on the applicable training programme and regulatory requirements.

This allows aircraft time to be focused on exercises where real flight is essential, while simulation provides a controlled environment for procedures that benefit from repetition and standardisation.

Standardising the training experience

A standardised simulator environment allows instructors to reproduce the same procedures and scenarios consistently. Students can repeat an exercise without the variables associated with real-world operations, making it easier to identify areas that require further practice.

For a regional academy, this can contribute to a more predictable training process and more efficient use of both aircraft and instructor time.

Choosing the right device for the training programme

Different flight training devices provide different levels of capability. The appropriate solution depends on the academy’s syllabus, aircraft and regulatory framework rather than simply selecting the most advanced simulator available.

FNPT II and AATD for Procedural Training

FNPT II and AATD simulators can support a wide range of flight training activities, particularly those involving instrument procedures, navigation, cockpit familiarisation and crew coordination.

FNPT II devices are widely used by flight schools for training programmes such as ATPL and MCC, providing a controlled environment where students can practise procedures and develop their skills before applying them in the aircraft.

AATDs, within the applicable FAA regulatory framework, provide another option for certain basic and procedural training activities. Their level of complexity can make them suitable for training tasks that do not require the capabilities of a higher-fidelity device.

FTDs for Aircraft-Specific Training

Higher-fidelity Flight Training Devices (FTDs) can provide more detailed, aircraft-specific training, including the representation of aircraft systems, controls and operational procedures.

These devices can be particularly useful when training requires a higher level of representation of the aircraft environment and its systems, allowing suitable training activities to be transferred from the aircraft to a controlled simulation environment.

Ultimately, the right training device should be selected based on the activities that need to be transferred to simulation and the applicable certification requirements. The objective is not necessarily to select the most advanced device, but to use the right level of simulation for each training task.

How to build a cost-efficient training programme

Maximising the value of simulation starts with integrating the flight training device into the syllabus rather than treating it as a separate training resource. This can form an important part of a broader pilot training cost optimization strategy.

Identify which hours can be performed in simulation

The academy can analyse its existing syllabus and identify activities that can be effectively trained or practised using an FTD, FNPT II or AATD.

These may include instrument procedures, emergency and abnormal procedures, systems training, navigation and repetitive procedural exercises, depending on the applicable regulatory framework.

This approach helps reduce unnecessary aircraft utilisation while ensuring that students arrive at their aircraft sessions better prepared.

Consider aircraft availability

Aircraft operations can also be affected by maintenance, weather and other operational constraints. A simulator provides an additional training environment that is less dependent on these factors.

This can help academies maintain training continuity and make better use of instructor availability when aircraft operations are disrupted.

How to measure Flight Training Device ROI

The flight training device ROI should be assessed across the complete operational use of the device, rather than by looking only at its initial purchase price or comparing the cost of a simulator hour with an aircraft hour.

A complete business case should consider how the flight training device will be used, how much training can be transferred from the aircraft and how it can contribute to the academy’s overall training capacity.

Calculate the cost of each training hour

A useful starting point is to compare the cost of an aircraft training hour with the cost of performing the same suitable training activity in the simulator.

Aircraft costs can include fuel, maintenance, component and engine usage, leasing or depreciation and other operational expenses. For the simulator, the calculation can include maintenance, technical support, facility costs and instructor time.

This comparison provides an initial indication of the potential savings that can be achieved by transferring suitable training activities from the aircraft to the simulator.

Consider simulator utilisation and training capacity

Direct cost savings are only one part of the ROI equation. The value of a Flight Training Device also depends on how frequently it will be used and how much additional training capacity it can provide.

A well-utilised simulator can help an academy reduce its reliance on aircraft for suitable training activities, increase aircraft availability and support a greater number of students without necessarily increasing its aircraft fleet at the same rate. Depending on its qualification and intended use, it may also support additional training programmes or external operators.

For this reason, the business case should consider factors such as:

• Simulator utilisation
• Training hours transferred from aircraft
• Aircraft operating costs
• Number of pilots and expected training demand
• Student capacity
• Maintenance and support costs
• Additional training services
  

Build a business case based on your academy´s needs

There is no single simulator solution that delivers the same return for every flight academy. The most cost-effective option depends on factors such as the number of pilots being trained, expected flight hours, training activities and the level of simulator utilisation that can realistically be achieved.

At entrol, we help flight schools assess these factors and build a business case around their specific training needs. By analysing the academy’s expected training demand and potential simulator utilisation, we can help identify which simulator configuration and certification level provide the most appropriate balance between training capability and investment.

This approach allows the academy to evaluate not only the cost of the simulator, but also its potential contribution to training capacity, aircraft utilisation, operational efficiency and long-term return on investment.

Standardised simulation as a long-term investment

For a regional flight academy, simulation can become part of a broader strategy for controlling training costs and increasing capacity.

A standardised training environment allows procedures to be practised consistently, while an appropriately selected FTD, FNPT II or AATD can provide capabilities aligned with the academy’s actual training requirements.

The objective is therefore not to replace aircraft training, but to use each training environment where it provides the greatest value. By combining aircraft operations with standardised simulation, flight academies can improve training efficiency while making better use of their existing resources.

For organisations evaluating a new simulator, the most important question is not simply how much the device costs, but which training activities it can support and what value those activities can generate throughout its operational life.

• 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.