Addressing Pilot Frustrations with Flight Simulator Training

Flight simulators are indispensable tools in modern pilot training. They provide essential, highly realistic environments for pilots to practice and maintain critical skills. Simulators are important for enhancing pilot competence and mitigating risks, which is important to the travelling public given that human error is implicated in a significant portion of aviation accidents. They also offer a cost-effective and efficient training alternative, reducing the necessity for extensive actual flight hours and lowering overall training expenses. Indeed, simulator-based training has been shown to increase pilot competence and is reported to significantly reduce pilot errors.

Some training programs utilising simulators have even reported a 44% reduction in flight incidents. Regulatory bodies like the FAA and EASA require simulator use for specific training such as Multi-Crew Cooperation (MCC). These sophisticated devices allow flight crews to practice emergency procedures, communication, and phraseology in a controlled environment.

However, despite their recognised importance and technological advancements, a critical perspective often emerges from pilots during their training - simulator sessions do not always meet their expectations or provide the full value they could. While acknowledging the vital role of simulators, pilots sometimes feel that the training experience falls short, pointing to several key pain points that the industry should consider to maximise the effectiveness and perceived value of these essential training tools.

The "Run Thru the Mill" Phenomenon in Flight Simulator Training

A common and significant frustration for pilots is the feeling that simulator sessions devolve into a "box ticking exercise". Instead of comprehensive, thoughtful training, the focus often seems to be on rushing through a list of mandatory items within the allotted time. Pilots report feeling they have merely been "run thru the mill" - without sufficient time to truly practice specific manoeuvres, absorb lessons, or fully appreciate the potential training value. This feeling is often exacerbated when training on highly complex aircraft types, where the sheer number of mandated items that must be covered within a limited timeframe leads to the possibility of things being compressed and rushed. The result can be pilots feeling exhausted and irritable after a session that felt more like a compliance check than meaningful training. This perception of being rushed through a checklist underscores a fundamental challenge; ensuring that regulatory requirements, while necessary, do not compromise the depth and effectiveness of the actual learning and reinforcement experience.

Inefficiency and the Instructor's Role

Compounding the issue of "box ticking" is the observation that simulator time can be used inefficiently by both instructors and examiners. Instead of creating realistic, unfolding scenarios, sessions may consist of a rapid-fire sequence of isolated emergencies – an engine failure on takeoff, recover, quick restart, hydraulic failure, recover, unusual attitude, recover, and so on, all crammed into a short period. This approach prioritises quantity of failures over quality of response training. Reports indicate that such rushing by instructors can lead to less effective training, where procedures are hurried, and pilots don't feel as though they have adequate time to analyse the situation, consult checklists, evaluate options, decide on a course of action, and monitor the outcome as they would in a real emergency.

This highlights a critical factor - the quality of simulator training is heavily dependent on the instructor. While the simulator itself is a sophisticated piece of technology, its effectiveness as a training tool can be limited if the instructor does not utilise the time and capabilities efficiently and thoughtfully. An effective instructor can manage the mandatory requirements while still finding time for pilots to practice areas they need to improve or explore specific scenarios. The contrast between cramped, unproductive sessions and truly beneficial ones often comes down to the instructor's approach and policy.

Instructor Knowledge and Experience

The pivotal role of the instructor also brings forth concerns about their own qualifications and experience. Pilots sometimes express frustration with instructors who may not fully understand the nuances of specific operational scenarios relevant to the pilot's actual flying environment (such as EMS, SAR, or Oil & Gas operations). Furthermore, concerns exist regarding instructors who might lack recent or deep experience with the specific aircraft type they are providing training for.

While flight simulators are designed to accurately replicate aircraft behaviour, an instructor's real-world operational insight and deep understanding of the specific aircraft model are invaluable for guiding pilots through realistic scenarios and providing relevant feedback. A disconnect between the instructor's background and the pilot's operational reality can limit the perceived relevance and value of the training session. Ensuring instructors possess current, relevant experience and a thorough understanding of diverse operational contexts is important for elevating the quality of simulator training beyond basic procedure checking.

The Gap in Realism

Another significant source of pilot frustration is the perceived "constant lack of reality" in some simulator experiences. Pilots feel that simulators can sometimes fly "according to the programmer's brief" rather than accurately replicating the complex and sometimes unpredictable behaviour of the actual aircraft. Certain manoeuvres, such as hovering in helicopter simulators, are often cited as less realistic. While acknowledging that simulators aim to create an illusion of reality through elements like motion, vibration, noise, accurate cockpit representation, and air traffic control simulation, the core flight model and visual fidelity must be convincing. This is the whole reason we have qualification of flight simulators.

Although the visual systems in flight simulation have advanced considerably, significantly surpassing those in older professional simulators, realism encompasses more than just visuals. It requires careful calibration of motion and visual systems to accurately reflect real aircraft behaviour. Furthermore, regulatory bodies such as EASA mandate regular updates to simulator databases, including navigation, aircraft data, terrain, and landscapes, to prevent negative training effects that can arise from outdated or inaccurate representations. Simulators are intended to replicate a wide range of real-world conditions to allow crews to practice normal operations, emergency procedures, and critical communication. When they fail to convincingly do so, it undermines the training value.

Beyond the fidelity of the simulation itself, the scenarios presented can also feel unrealistic or overly scripted. When emergency scenarios unfold in a predictable, pre-programmed manner (such as a safety vessel vanishing unrealistically during a simulated emergency), it can undermine a pilot's decision-making processes and make it less immersive. Training should prepare pilots for the unexpected and require adaptive decision-making, which unrealistic or scripted scenarios may fail to achieve.

Limitations in Simulating Complex Malfunctions

A related pain point involves the simulator's inherent limitations in fully replicating certain critical malfunctions, particularly in complex aircraft. For instance, simulating a total loss of thrust or an engine overspeed with the same physical cues and complexities as in the real aircraft can be challenging (especially due to the difficulty in collecting data to accurately reproduce these effects). Similarly, scenarios involving fire or smoke may lack the necessary physical elements to be fully realistic and provide high level training value.

While simulators excel at allowing pilots to practice procedures associated with malfunctions that result in cockpit warnings and checklist responses, the absence of accurate physical sensations or the inability to interact with physical elements can reduce the training effectiveness for certain types of emergencies. Operators and manufacturers are continuously developing their products to enhance simulator fidelity and their ability to simulate a wider range of complex failure modes as realistically as possible.

Standardised Programs Versus Relevant Training

A limitation cited by pilots is the use of standardised training programs that check the same boxes for everyone, regardless of their specific operational environment. A pilot flying Search and Rescue (SAR) missions has different training needs and faces different operational challenges than a pilot flying standard commercial routes or supporting Oil & Gas operations. When training programs are not tailored to these distinct environments, the relevance of the training is limited.

Effective training should be operationally relevant, focusing on scenarios and skills that a pilot is likely to encounter in their day-to-day flying. While baseline competencies are necessary for all pilots on a given aircraft type, specialised training should address the unique demands of different operational roles. Some training providers recognise this need, with some offering purpose-built training programs tailored to specific clients' needs and requirements, emphasising a "boutique-style" approach to training. This tailored approach is important for ensuring that simulator training provides maximum value and prepares pilots for the specific challenges they will face.

The Stress Factor and Adjusting to the "Box"

The environment of mandatory checkrides (LPC/OPC) in the simulator inherently involves high stress and pressure. While some level of stress is unavoidable and may even be beneficial in simulating real-world pressures, the combination of this stress with the other pain points – rushing, inefficient instruction, and perceived lack of realism – can make the experience particularly challenging.

Furthermore, pilots often report needing to take time at the beginning of each simulator session to "re-learn how to fly the 'box'". This suggests that the simulator's handling characteristics, despite efforts at calibration, may differ subtly from the real aircraft or even from the same simulator on a previous session. This adjustment period consumes valuable training time, contributing to the feeling of being rushed and reducing the overall efficiency of the session. Minimising the need for this adjustment through enhanced fidelity and consistency across simulator sessions could see improved training effectiveness.

Opportunities for Enhancement and Future Directions

Addressing these pilot frustrations helps to improve pilot satisfaction, while at the same time maximises the immense potential of flight simulation for safety and efficiency. The industry is already undergoing significant evolution driven by technological advancements and market growth. The growing adoption of Full Flight Simulators and advanced simulation tools is a positive trend. Full Flight Simulators already dominate the market and are projected to continue leading, fuelled by the increasing demand for highly skilled pilots.

Technological integration offers promising avenues to address the identified issues. The increasing use of AI and real-time data analytics in simulator systems can enhance learning environments and provide predictive analytics. This technology, increasingly used in simulator systems, can provide more precise feedback to pilots and instructors, identifying areas needing more focus.

Significant investment is also being directed towards Mixed, Virtual, and Augmented Reality (MR/VR/AR) technologies to create more immersive training experiences. With notable investment growth in this area, these technologies offer decent realism and fidelity, with more affordable price ranges. The shift towards Synthetic Training Environments and Digital Twins is also growing. Furthermore, leveraging open standards and commercially available technologies like game engines such as Unreal Engine, rather than relying solely on closed proprietary systems, could accelerate innovation and potentially lead to more flexible and cost-effective simulation solutions with improved visuals and capabilities.

These technological advancements, combined with a focus on instructional quality and tailoring training programs to specific operational needs, can transform the pilot's simulator experience. The objective is to move beyond "box ticking" towards truly effective, realistic, and relevant training that fully leverages the capabilities of advanced simulation technology. This requires continued collaboration between simulator manufacturers, training organisations, instructors, and pilots to ensure that the evolution of flight simulation directly addresses the frustrations experienced by those who rely on it most for proficiency and safety.

Where to from here?

Professional flight simulators are complex, essential tools in aviation training, requiring significant investment and consistent maintenance to remain operational and compliant with regulations. While the industry sometimes focuses on market growth, technological integration, and addressing pilot shortages, it is equally critical to listen to the feedback from pilots themselves. The frustrations stemming from rushed, "box ticking" sessions, inefficient instruction, perceived lack of realism, limitations in complex malfunction simulation, and non-tailored training programs are real and impact the effectiveness of the training.

By acknowledging these issues, the industry can work towards solutions that enhance the pilot's experience. This includes optimising training schedules to allow for deeper practice, providing instructors with better tools and training on effective simulator utilisation, improving simulation fidelity and realism, developing more robust scenarios for complex malfunctions, and creating training programs that are specifically relevant to a pilot's operational environment.

Ultimately, by focusing on the quality and relevance of the training experience, the industry can ensure that professional flight simulators continue to be not just regulatory necessities, but powerful and valued tools that truly enhance pilot skill, decision-making, and safety.

Q&A

How often do pilots do simulator training?

It varies depending on the type of operations the pilot is conducting regularly.

However, under regulators such as the FAA or EASA a pilot shall not operate an aircraft in commercial air transport or to carry passengers unless they have carried out, in the preceding 90 days, at least 3 takeoffs, approaches and landings in an aircraft of the same type or class or an FFS representing that type or class. So a pilot may be conducting simulator training as often as every 90 days.

Airline pilots will undertake recurrent training in a full flight simulator approximately every 6 - 12 months, with the frequency depending on the airline's policy. Captains often go to the simulator every six months, while first officers or co-pilots typically do so once a year.

Does flight simulator make you a better pilot?

That's literally the point of flight simulators; to be able to train in a controlled environment and increase your skills through repetition.

Why is pilot training so hard?

Aviation is a complicated undertaking, and as a pilot there is a huge amount of information you need to process and understand in detail to become proficient; especially if you're aiming to achieve an ATPL and become an airline pilot.

Do flight simulators help with fear of flying?

As a passenger (not a pilot) there is potential for the use of a flight simulator to help overcome an extreme fear of flying. Understanding the ins and outs of how aircraft work and how pilots ensure the safety of all on board could alleviate some of the anxiety that people with a fear of flying experience.