Where Do We Start? A Practical Guide to Defining Your Flight Simulator Requirements

It is one of the most common conversations we have with operators.

The team has identified a need. Leadership has agreed that simulation capability makes sense. Everyone is broadly aligned that something needs to happen.

And then someone asks the question that stops the room.

"Where do we even start?"

It is a good question. And the honest answer is that starting in the right place matters far more than most operators realise. The simulator procurement process is not just a simple purchasing decision. It is a capability decision, a regulatory decision, and a long term operational commitment all wrapped into one.

Get the foundation right, and the rest of the process becomes manageable. Get it wrong, and even the "best" device in the world may not solve the problem you actually have.

Helping operators work through exactly this process is a core part of what we do. Not selling a product first and asking questions later, but sitting down with the people who understand the operation, and the training need, and building a clear picture of what is actually needed before a single dollar is committed towards a training device.

This post is an attempt to share how that process works, and why it matters.

Start With the Problem, Not the Solution

The most common mistake organisations make when entering the simulator space is starting with the device.

They see a competitor operating a particular platform. They read a specification sheet. Someone attends an industry event, sees something impressive, and returns with a product in mind before the requirement has been defined.

This is an understandable impulse. Simulators are tangible, visible, and in many cases genuinely impressive pieces of technology. They are easier to talk about than the quieter, less visible work of training needs analysis.

But a simulator is only valuable to the extent that it solves a specific problem for a specific operation. And the only way to know whether a given device does that is to define the problem first.

The right starting question is not "what simulator should we buy?" It is "what training outcomes do we need to achieve, and what does that require?"

That shift in framing changes everything that follows.

Define the Training Outcomes

Before any discussion of devices, qualification levels, or vendors, an organisation needs to be clear on what its simulation capability needs to deliver. This means working through a set of questions that are more operational than technical.

What training tasks need to be conducted?

Are you looking to conduct type ratings, recurrent training, instrument proficiency checks, or crew resource management exercises? Each of these has different fidelity requirements, and understanding the full list of intended training tasks is the foundation of every other decision.

Who is being trained, and to what standard?

The regulatory requirements for training commercial crew under CASR Part 61 differ significantly from those applying to military or specialist operators. The qualification level of the device needed to conduct approved training is determined by the standard being trained to, not by what feels adequate.

What does your current training pathway look like, and where are the gaps?

Many operators seeking their first simulator are not trying to replace their entire training programme. They are trying to address a specific gap, whether that is access to an approved device for recurrent checks, reduction of aircraft hours for ab initio training, or the ability to conduct emergency procedure training in a controlled environment. Knowing which gap you are filling narrows the requirement considerably.

What is the growth trajectory of your operation?

A device that is right for today's operation may be inadequate for an operation that is half the size again in three years. Building in appropriate headroom, without over-specifying and driving unnecessary cost, is part of good requirements definition.

Understand the Flight Simulator Regulatory Landscape

Once the training outcomes are clear, the regulatory framework becomes the next layer of the conversation.

In Australia, flight simulation training devices are classified across a range of types, from full flight simulators qualified under CASA Part 60 (But often using EASA or FAA qualification standards) through to flight training devices, synthetic trainers and cockpit procedural trainers, each with different levels of fidelity and different approved training applications.

Under CASR regulation 61.045, CASA may specify minimum standards for an FSTD used to conduct a CASA approved course of training. This means the qualification level of a device is not a preference or a marketing claim. It is a regulatory determination that governs what training the device can and cannot be used for.

This is one of the areas where getting advice early pays significant dividends.

An operator who commits to a device before understanding the regulatory requirements may find that the device they have purchased is qualified for training tasks they do not need, while being unable to support the training they actually want to conduct. That mismatch is far more common than it should be, and it is almost entirely avoidable.

The regulatory conversation also needs to cover the approval pathway. A qualified device is a necessary condition for conducting approved training, but it is not sufficient on its own. The operator also needs the appropriate approvals, and those approvals have their own requirements around facilities, instructors, documentation, and quality systems.

Understanding the full approval pathway before selecting a device prevents some of the most costly surprises in the procurement process.

Know Your Options Across the Market

With a defined training requirement and a clear view on the regulatory requirements, the market assessment becomes a structured exercise rather than an overwhelming one.

The simulator market is broader than many operators entering it for the first time realise. An FSTD can range anywhere from a few hundred thousand dollars for a used, low level device to between twelve and twenty million dollars for a new Level D FFS, depending on the manufacturer, aircraft type, and specification. Between those extremes sits a wide range of devices at different qualification levels, fidelity points, and price points.

The right device for your operation is not the most capable one available. It is the one that most efficiently meets the training requirement within the defined regulatory framework, at a total cost of ownership that makes operational sense.

That total cost of ownership framing is important. The acquisition cost of a simulator is only one part of the financial picture. Ongoing maintenance, software updates, spare parts, qualification renewals, staffing, and facilities all contribute to the true cost of operating a device across its service life. An organisation that focuses only on the purchase price and underestimates the operating cost is setting itself up for a difficult conversation a few years into the programme.

Equally, the decision between new and used equipment carries its own set of considerations. Used devices can represent genuine value, particularly when they are well maintained and appropriately supported. But a used device with an unclear maintenance history, obsolete components, or limited vendor support can quickly become more expensive to operate than a new platform would have been.

Navigating these elements, understanding which vendors and devices are genuinely fit for purpose, and knowing what questions to ask of each, is where independent advisory support provides disproportionate value.

The Questions That Support a Good Brief

For operators working through their requirements, the following set of questions forms a useful starting point. They are not exhaustive, but they cover the ground that most frequently determines whether a procurement process goes well or poorly.

On training outcomes - What specific training tasks must the device be able to support? What regulatory approvals are we seeking to conduct? What is the minimum acceptable qualification level for our use case?

On the operation - How many crew require training, and at what frequency? What aircraft types are in the fleet, and are they likely to change? What is our current training delivery model, and how does simulation fit into it?

On facilities and infrastructure - Do we have or need to acquire a facility to house the device? What are the power, environmental, and structural requirements? Do we have qualified technical staff to maintain the device, or will we need external support?

On budget and timeline - What is the total budget across acquisition, installation, commissioning, and first year of operation? What is the timeline to operational capability, and are there regulatory or contractual deadlines that drive it?

On support and longevity - What is the expected service life of the device? Who supports it, and on what terms? What does the parts and software support landscape look like for this platform in ten years?

The answers to these questions do not just inform the device selection. They form the basis of a requirements document that any vendor should be able to respond to clearly and specifically.

Why Independent Advice Changes the Outcome

Most simulator vendors are excellent at what they do. They build and deliver quality equipment, and they know their products well.

But they are not independent. Their interest is (naturally) in selling their product, and their advice will therefore of course be shaped by what they have available to sell.

An independent partner approaches the problem differently. The starting point is the operator's requirement, not a product catalogue. The goal is a solution that works for the operation across its full service life, not one that looks compelling on a specification sheet.

Our work in this space is built on that independence. We have significant relationships across the vendor landscape, a detailed understanding of the regulatory environment in all major jurisdictions, and hands on experience with a wide range of devices across fixed wing and rotary operations. When we work with an operator to define their requirements, our interest is in getting that definition right.

Because a well defined requirement leads to a better procurement process, a better device selection, and a better operational outcome. And an operator who enters the simulator space with confidence, rather than uncertainty, is one who is going to get genuine value from their investment.

A Practical First Step

If your organisation is at the stage of recognising that simulation capability is needed but not yet clear on what that means in practice, the most valuable thing you can do is slow down before you speed up.

Resist the pull toward product conversations until the requirement is defined. Engage with the regulatory framework early. And consider working with an independent partner who can help you build the brief before you go to market.

The question "where do we start?" has a clear answer.

You start with the problem you are trying to solve.

Everything else follows from there.