Understanding Flight Simulator Quality and Compliance Management
- Daniel de Vries
- Feb 25
- 6 min read
What is a Quality System in Flight Simulation?
What is quality? This is a fundamental question within the world of aviation training, "quality" is not a vague marketing term; rather, it is a rigid regulatory requirement that forms the backbone of your operation. Regardless of which regulator you operate under, some call it quality management, others compliance monitoring, but the fundamental definition remains the same.
At its core, a quality system is a set of coordinated activities designed to direct and control an organisation. Its purpose, in our context, is to ensure that a Flight Simulation Training Device (FSTD) remains suitable for use in pilot training. But for the Training Centre Manager, it goes deeper than that. The primary goal is to define the specific processes, procedures, and responsibilities that effectively guarantee the consistent availability of compliant training devices.
This consistency is key. A quality system ensures that the device meets its qualification requirements not just on the day of the audit, but on every single day a pilot steps inside for critical flight crew training.
While the FAA refers to this as a Simulator Quality Management System (SQMS) under 14 CFR Part 60, and EASA calls it Compliance Monitoring System (CMS) under Part-ORA, the philosophy is identical. It shifts the mindset from simply "fixing things when broken" to continuous improvement. It is about achieving established operational objectives through well trained, professional staff and effective, documented implementation.
Core Principles and Framework
The Process Approach
Modern quality systems do not just look at the end product; they examine the process that created it. This relies heavily on the Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) cycle. This cycle manages the complex interactions between different departments (maintenance, compliance, and training) ensuring that resources are adequate and, crucially, that opportunities for improvement are acted upon rather than ignored.
This approach also demands risk-based thinking. Organisations can no longer be reactive. They must determine the factors that could cause processes to deviate from the planned results (such as a shortage of critical spares or a gap in technician training) and put preventive controls in place to minimise negative effects before they impact a customer.
To visualise this, many operators use process mapping. These visual tools describe workflows, clearly identifying who is responsible for specific activities and how those activities fulfil qualification performance standards.
Assurance vs. Control
It is vital to distinguish between two concepts that are often confused. Compliance or Quality Control refers to the inspections of the product itself to confirm it conforms to a standard at a specific moment; for example, the daily pre-flight check.
Compliance or Quality Assurance, on the other hand, refers to the broader processes defined to provide confidence that the FSTD is being supported and maintained effectively between those inspections. An audit program is a prime example of assurance; it verifies that the "controls" are working as intended.
Roles and Responsibilities
A system is only as effective as the people running it, and of course, how well they're trained in it's use. A robust quality framework defines clear roles to ensure accountability.
The Management Team
At the top sits the Accountable Manager (AM). This person holds ultimate accountability (as the name suggests), possessing the corporate authority to finance activities and ensure standards are met. They bear the responsibility for establishing the management system and ensuring the necessary resources (money, staff, and tools) are applied.
Reporting to them is the Management Representative (MR) (FAA) or Compliance Monitoring Manager (CMM) (EASA). This individual acts as the focal point for all FSTD qualification matters with the regulatory authority. To ensure integrity, the MR/CMM should have direct access to the Accountable Manager and, preferably, should not be one of the other nominated persons (like the Head of Training). Their duty is to establish, maintain, and continuously improve the quality program.
Technical and Operational Staff
On the floor, the FSTD Engineers and Technicians are responsible for daily readiness, troubleshooting, and running the Qualification Test Guide tests (QTGs). Supporting them are the Subjective Pilots; qualified aviators who perform functional checks to verify that the "feel" and handling of the simulator match the aircraft, ensuring the data aligns with the pilot experience.
Operational Maintenance and Testing
The heartbeat of any simulator centre is its testing regime. This is how an operator proves to the regulator that their quality system is working.
The Master Qualification Test Guide (MQTG)
The MQTG is the approved document containing the test results that demonstrate the FSTD performs within prescribed limits compared to the aircraft. It is not a static set of pages; it is a living document that must be updated whenever modifications are made or when the authority requires new tests. Typically, these tests are scheduled in quarterly segments to ensure the entire testing requirements are achieved over a 12-month period.
Functional Pre-flight Checks
To ensure training readiness, a functional pre-flight check must be performed once every 24 hours preceding any training event. This covers safety checks, visual and sound system verification, and a functional fly-out including take-off, cruise, and landing. The completion of this check must be recorded in a technical log with the signature of the person performing it, creating a clear audit trail.
Subjective Testing (Fly-Outs)
Sometimes, the objective data is correct, but the simulation still feels wrong. This is where Subjective Testing comes in. It qualitatively assesses the FSTD on top of objective QTG testing, particularly regarding handling qualities and flight deck configuration. These fly-outs are performed as part of the regular requirements of ongoing evaluations, and can also be triggered by initial or upgrade evaluations, following major defect rectifications, or if the device hasn't been used for training in a 12-month period.
Discrepancy and Defect Management
In the real world, things break. A quality or compliance system is defined by how it handles these failures.
An effective reporting system requires a discrepancy log (electronic or paper) kept adjacent to the FSTD. It is mandatory for instructors and other simulator users to record any discrepancies found during sessions.
When a discrepancy affects the Statement of Qualification or the accomplishment of training tasks, it can be classified as a Missing, Malfunctioning, or Inoperative (MMI) component. Under FAA rules, if an MMI component cannot be repaired within 30 days, it must be reported to the National Simulator Program Manager (NSPM). To ensure transparency, a list of these MMI components must be posted in or adjacent to the FSTD so users are immediately aware of the device's degraded status.
Corrective action goes beyond just a quick fix. It often requires a root cause analysis to prevent recurrence. Discrepancies remain open in the system until they are reviewed and approved for closure by the Management Representative, ensuring nothing falls through the cracks.
The Compliance Monitoring Programme
You cannot improve what you do not measure. This is why Internal Assessments (sometimes called Internal Audits) are typically conducted every six months, ensuring the entire program is covered every two years. These audits cover facilities, flight training sessions, technical standards, and management system procedures. Crucially, auditors must be independent; they cannot audit their own work.
In addition to internal checks, FSTDs undergo External Regulatory Evaluations, typically annually. Operators must prepare a detailed dossier covering the device's technical status, recurring defects, and QTG status for the authority prior to these visits.
Managing Change and Modifications
Simulators are rarely static; they evolve with the aircraft they replicate. Any change to hardware or software that affects handling, performance, or the MQTG is considered a modification. The authority must be notified before major modifications are implemented.
Furthermore, operators must manage Data Updates. Navigation databases (FMS/GPS) must be updated regularly to remain current. Operators must also monitor for updates to aircraft validation data (such as those from Airworthiness Directives) and determine if the simulation needs to be updated to match the real aircraft.
Final Thoughts
An effective Simulator Quality Management System or Compliance Monitoring System shouldn't be viewed simply as a regulatory hoop to jump through, or a box-ticking exercise; it is the framework that guarantees the fidelity of pilot training, and the legal basis for which pilot training can be certified when using the simulator.
Through rigorous testing, disciplined reporting, and continuous auditing, these systems ensure that the device a pilot trains in accurately reflects the aircraft they will fly. We love helping operators build and maintain these systems, ensuring that compliance translates directly into operational confidence and safety.
Comments