At this year’s recently-concluded FlightSim Expo in Houston, it became clear that the training technology lines between hobbyists and licensed pilots are becoming increasingly blurred. Major OEMs including Boeing are licensing cockpit components to companies that heretofore catered exclusively to enthusiasts, while FAA-certificated flight training device manufacturers are turning to architecture that more and more resembles the hardware from the gaming world.
The trends are being driven by a variety of factors: the soaring cost of full-motion simulator training, where individual simulator units easily run into the millions of dollars, and simulator time slots increasingly hard to come by, as well as continuing advances in augmented/virtual reality (AR/VR) and artificial intelligence (AI). The trend was in many ways punctuated by FlightSafety’s 2022 acquisition of Frasca International, a company that provides a technology gamut of simulators and flight training devices but is perhaps best known for its comparatively inexpensive line of training devices used for private pilot primary and instrument training, as well as full-flight level-B,-C, and -D simulators for lighter aircraft including Cessna, Diamond, and Piper piston-engine aircraft and business aircraft including the Cessna Citation CJ1+, Beechcraft King Air, Cessna Caravan, and Bell helicopters.
But analysts argue what really got FlightSafety’s attention was when, in 2021, Frasca was tapped to provide 18 level-6 and -7 flight training devices for the U.S. Navy’s TH-73A rotorcraft Aircrew Training Services (ATS) program. Frasca’s participation in the program was a clear sign that the Pentagon, one of the world’s largest pilot training customers, was clearly thinking better, faster, and cheaper. And as goes the Pentagon, often go the airlines, and then business aviation.
It is important to note the distinctions between FAA-certified full-flight simulators (FFS, such as a level-D) or flight training devices (FTD), such as a no-motion machine, both modeled after a specific aircraft make as well as cockpit and performance parameters, and an aviation training device (ATD), which can be more agnostic. ATDs come in two flavors: basic aviation training device (BATD), a procedural training device that can be used for certain instrument training hours and recurrency; and an advanced aviation training device (AATD), which can be used to log additional time toward certain pilot certificates and for recurrency. FFS and FTDs (collectively known as FSTDs—flight simulation training devices) can only be used for practical tests or any portion thereof when an FAA aviation safety inspector or aircrew program designee is present.
But even before Frasca won favor with the Navy, the FAA’s list of approved ATDs appeared to be growing geometrically. According to research firm Reportlinker, the global flight simulator market is expected to reach $8.5 billion by 2028 with a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 5.9 percent from 2023 to 2028. The civil side of the market is expected to grow even faster, with a CAGR of 8.72 percent over the forecast period, from $1.15 billion to $1.75 billion.
Where once there was just a handful of companies providing simulators and other ATDs, by 2022 the FAA recognized 38 of them. Given the increasing demand for pilots and pilot training, there is no reason to believe that this trajectory will level off any time soon. Many have, or are in the process of, developing ATDs for home use at prices that increasingly make sense, given the cost of initial and recurrent training on FSTDs and particularly on FFS.
For example, Gleim’s FAA-approved BATD, which replicates the Garmin G1000 system in the Cessna 172SP, can be purchased for home use for just $7,500. The Gleim system is based on X-plane 11 flight simulation software, previously the domain of gamers/hobbyists but now licensed for FAA-approved devices (as well as its successor, version 12). And the FAA allows these devices to count for some training hours and IFR recurrency.
Increasingly, BATDs and AATDs are being designed for a variety of primary training aircraft. RealSimGear of San Diego has designed BATDs for Cessna 172s and 182s, Piper PA-28s, and Cirrus SR20s, SR22s, and SR22Ts. Redbird Flight Simulations produces AATDs for a wide variety of piston, turboprop, and jet aircraft, from Cessna 172s to the CJ1+. And Precision Flight Controls builds a variety of modular, panel, motion, and “ProMotion” AATDs for dozens of aircraft models, from the Cessna 152 to the turboprop de Havilland Twin Otter. There are many, many more companies that provide devices for training for these and similar aircraft.
Time Allowed
The FAA allows for up to 2.5 hours of simulator time to be credited against the flight time required to obtain a private pilot license (PPL) and up to 50 hours of the 250 hours of required flight time for a commercial license to be “flown” in a simulator under FAR 61.129(i)(1). In both cases, an instructor must be present for the time to count. And the device must be on the FAA’s approved list of devices via a specific letter of authorization (LOA) and/or statement of qualification (SOQ) for either Part 61 or Part 141 training from the FAA’s National Simulator Program. The LOA and SOQ will specify how much time is allowable and which maneuvers can be credited.
For example, with the Gleim BATD, students can credit training times of up to 2.5 hours for the PPL and up to 10 hours toward instrument training at a Part 61 school, and up to 15 percent of total PPL training time and 25 percent of instrument time at a Part 141 school. Using it to fly six instrument approaches, holds, tasks, intercepts, and tracking counts as IFR currency. Just like aircraft, the ATDs in most cases will have a minimum equipment list (MEL) for the time to count. However, without formal written FAA approval, time logged in a device is useless as far as counting toward legal training time.
That said, the chief benefit of broader adaptation of ATDs is a more thorough understanding of the aircraft, procedures, and maneuvers and better knowledge retention that translates into more effective in-aircraft training time, a point made by the Navy when it contracted for the TH-73A ATDs. The Leonardo TH-73A is now the Navy’s new primary and instrument rotorcraft trainer. The service plans to acquire 130 of the Leonardo rotorcraft by the end of 2024 in a program valued at $648 million.
The Navy’s approach for the TH-73A was to integrate a variety of simulation technology into the overall training program for the aircraft that includes an ATD desktop avionics trainer and a mixed-reality part-task trainer (PTT) that uses common software. The PTT allows for a variety of advanced scenarios including dual-pilot, multi-ship, and night vision goggle operations. Finally, students graduate to a full, high-fidelity FTD for instrument, emergency, and other scenario-based training. The Navy spent five years revamping its primary helicopter training in preparation for instruction in the TH-73A. Students must now complete substantial ground coursework, use virtual reality, and log extensive simulator time before stepping into the actual aircraft. Naval aviators spend approximately 38 weeks at Whiting Field in Milton, Florida, before graduating onto flying fleet rotorcraft including the H-60, H-53, and AH-1.
EASA Harmony
The European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) is intentionally moving to harmonize standards with the FAA whenever possible following signage of a 2020 bilateral agreement covering reciprocal acceptance of FSTDs, including FFS, and qualification of new technologies, including virtual and augmented reality. EASA laid out the roadmap for this approval in March when it published the information paper, “FSTD Special Conditions Development and Assessment Process.”
EASA noted, “The development of applicable standards for the validation of FSTD should move in parallel with the pace of innovation.” EASA recognized that these devices have the potential to enable an “increase in training capabilities” especially with regard to pilot training for electrical vertical takeoff and landing (eVTOL) aircraft.
One of EASA’s first approvals of a VR-based training device was for Loft Dynamics’s VR-based Robinson R22 helicopter that features Varjo’s Vario XR-3 VR headset. Loft has subsequently developed additional VR simulators for the Airbus H125 turbine-single helicopter and is in the process of developing one for the larger H145, a variant of which is the primary helicopter training aircraft for the U.S. Army and the mainstay of numerous air ambulance fleets worldwide.
The Loft design mates a full-motion electronic control loading platform to a VR goggle system to create a realistic training experience. The first H125 delivered to a U.S. customer went to Colorado Highland Helicopters in Durango, Colorado. Along with high-altitude operations and initial training, including hovering and autorotations, the company uses the simulator to train pilots on external load flying.
The Brunner NovaSim MR DA-42 uses a similar-looking individual platform combined with VR-projected exterior images and a real cockpit layout to create a mixed-reality experience at Lufthansa Aviation Training in Switzerland.
The U.S. Navy and others think the benefits of VR are clear.
The Naval Air Systems Command described the benefits of incorporating the new technology into its Advanced Helicopter Training System (AHTS) as, “Using a skills-based approach to training with just-in-time methodology, and by incorporating modern technology, AHTS will help produce rotary-wing aviators at a higher quality and more efficiently. Aviators will be ready to meet the challenges faced in the fleet and the advanced rotary-wing and intermediate tilt-rotor training requirements for the Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard through 2050.”
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University claims that incorporating VR technology into its PPL training cuts time to solo by 30 percent.
A 2022 study in the Journal of Aviation/Aerospace Education & Research concluded, “Based on the results of this and many other recent studies, leaders in aviation education should seriously consider increasing research and development support related to VR innovations.”
As shown at the most recent FlightSim Expo, there is no shortage of companies ready to incorporate those innovations into approved, useful, and cost-effective flight training devices.