Why “Good Enough” Isn't "Good Enough" in Flight Simulator Maintenance

There is a phrase that quietly slips into flight simulator maintenance environments more often than many care to admit.

“It’s good enough.”

How often do you closely inspect visual system elements in your simulators?

Sometimes it is said out of fatigue. Sometimes under schedule pressure. Sometimes because the simulator passed the last check and no one wants to disturb a fragile balance. On the surface, it sounds harmless. Practical, even. After all, the simulator is serviceable, the training programme is running, and the issue has not caused a failure yet.

But in flight simulation, “good enough” carries risk. Not the dramatic kind that grabs attention straight away, but the slow, compounding kind that erodes reliability, confidence, and training quality over time.

This article looks at why “good enough” thinking can be dangerous in simulator maintenance, how it takes hold, and what experienced operators do differently to protect both training outcomes and aviation safety.

The Subtle Drift from Standard to Acceptable

Most simulator technicians begin their careers with a strong respect for standards. Procedures are followed closely, test results are checked twice, and deviations feel uncomfortable. Over time, as systems age and pressures increase, a quiet shift can occur.

A workaround becomes routine. A marginal test result becomes familiar. A deferred task becomes permanent.

None of these decisions are made lightly. In many cases, they are taken with good intent, to keep training running, to support customers, or to work within limited resources. The problem is not the decision itself, but what happens when these decisions are no longer challenged.

Slowly, the baseline changes. What was once unacceptable becomes tolerated. What was once temporary becomes normal. This is how “good enough” replaces “fit for purpose” without anyone consciously choosing it.

Aging Flight Simulators Maintenance Amplify the Risk

Older simulators demand more discipline, not less.

As hardware ages, tolerances tighten. Components behave less predictably. Interactions between systems become more sensitive to small changes. In this environment, marginal fixes rarely stay marginal.

A system that only just meets performance today may fail under different loading conditions tomorrow. A visual artefact dismissed as cosmetic may be masking timing or synchronisation issues elsewhere. A calibration accepted as “close enough” can slowly drift until it begins to affect handling cues.

Unlike newer platforms, older simulators often lack clear diagnostic boundaries. A small deviation in one subsystem can surface as a fault somewhere completely different. This is where “good enough” becomes particularly dangerous, because it hides root causes rather than resolving them.

When Temporary Fixes Become Technical Debt

Every workaround carries a cost. The longer it remains in place, the more interest it accumulates.

What would be your team's course of action if just a single motion base bolt witness mark was misaligned?

In simulator maintenance, technical debt often appears as undocumented changes, informal procedures, or reliance on individual knowledge. These may keep the simulator running in the short term, but they increase fragility over time.

Common examples include,

• Configuration changes made without full regression testing

• Software versions held back without documented impact analysis

• Hardware substitutions that meet function but not performance margins

• Repeated resets or power cycles used to recover from unexplained faults

Individually, these actions seem reasonable. Collectively, they create a system that only works under specific conditions, often understood by only one or two people.

When those people are unavailable (or worse yet, they leave the company), the simulator suddenly feels unpredictable. Faults become harder to isolate. Downtime increases. Confidence drops, both internally and with customers.

Training Fidelity Is Not Binary

One of the most misunderstood aspects of simulator performance is the idea that it either passes or fails. In reality, training fidelity exists on a spectrum.

A simulator can meet regulatory requirements while still delivering degraded cues. It can pass objective tests while subjectively feeling wrong to experienced instructors. It can function reliably for routine sessions but struggle during edge cases or complex scenarios.

“Good enough” thinking often focuses on pass fail outcomes, rather than training quality. The question becomes, did it pass the test, rather than, does it truly represent the aircraft under all expected conditions.

For pilot training, this distinction matters. Subtle inconsistencies can influence muscle memory, workload management, and decision making. Over time, these small gaps can undermine the very purpose of simulation, preparing crews for the real aircraft.

The Human Cost of Accepting Less

Technicians feel the weight of “good enough” more than most.

Working on a simulator that you know is marginal creates quiet stress. Every session becomes a hope that nothing new appears. Every fault becomes harder to interpret, because the baseline is no longer clean.

This environment discourages curiosity. Instead of asking why something behaves a certain way, the focus shifts to keeping it stable. Innovation slows. Pride in workmanship fades.

For newer technicians, this is especially damaging. If their early experience teaches them that shortcuts are normal and unresolved issues are simply part of the job, that mindset stays with them. Over time, it shapes the culture of the team.

Strong technical cultures are built on clarity and confidence, not constant compromise.

Safety Does Not Start and End with the Aircraft

It is easy to separate simulator maintenance from aviation safety, especially when no aircraft is physically involved. This separation is misleading. Simulators shape pilot behaviour. They influence how crews respond to failures, how they manage workload, and

Cleanliness of systems can impact outcomes more than you might tink.

how they interpret cues under pressure. If a simulator behaves inconsistently, or subtly differently from the aircraft, those differences matter.

High professional standards in simulator maintenance exist for a reason. They protect the integrity of training. They support instructor trust. They ensure that what is practised in the simulator translates correctly to the aircraft.

Accepting “good enough” weakens that chain. The impact may not be immediate or obvious, but it accumulates quietly over thousands of training hours.

Why “Good Enough” Often Feels Necessary

It is important to acknowledge why this mindset appears in the first place.

Operators face real constraints. Training Device Manufacturer (TDM) and/or Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) support may be limited or unavailable. Spare parts may be difficult to source. Budgets and schedules may be tight (let's face it, this is always the case).

In these conditions, perfection can feel unrealistic. But there is a difference between being pragmatic and lowering standards.

The most resilient simulator programmes are not those that avoid constraints, but those that manage them openly. They make conscious decisions, document risk, and revisit compromises regularly. They do not allow temporary measures to quietly redefine acceptable performance.

What Strong Operators Do Differently

Organisations that resist “good enough” thinking share several common traits.

• They define clear baselines

  • Performance standards are documented and understood. Deviations are visible, not hidden.

    
    

• They encourage challenge

  • Technicians are supported when they question existing fixes or raise concerns, even if the simulator is currently running.

    
    

• They invest in understanding

  • Time is allocated not just to fix faults, but to understand why they occurred and what they indicate about system health.

    
    

• They value clean systems

  • Returning a simulator to a known, stable configuration is seen as progress, not disruption.

    
    

• They link maintenance to training outcomes

  • Technical decisions are made with instructors and training managers in mind, not in isolation.

    
    

These behaviours do not eliminate constraints, but they prevent gradual erosion.

Moving from “Good Enough” to “Fit for Purpose”

The goal is not perfection. It is fitness for purpose, clearly defined and actively maintained.

That means asking better questions,

• Is this behaviour expected, or just familiar?

• Would we accept this if it appeared for the first time today?

• Do we understand the root cause, or are we managing symptoms?

• What risk are we accepting, and for how long?

When teams ask these questions regularly, “good enough” loses its grip.

The Role of Experience and Collaboration

Experience plays a critical role in recognising when “good enough” is masking deeper

An experienced technician is worth their weight in gold. And, two minds are often better than one.

issues. Seasoned technicians develop a feel for systems that allows them to sense when behaviour is drifting from normal, even if tests still pass.

Equally important is the willingness to reach out. Complex problems benefit from multiple perspectives. Another technician, another organisation, or a trusted partner may see patterns that those close to the system no longer notice.

Choosing to ask for help is not a weakness. In many cases, it is the moment that prevents a marginal issue from becoming a serious one.

Finally, Standards Are a Choice

Every simulator reflects the standards of the people who maintain it.

“Good enough” is rarely written into procedures. It appears through silence, habit, and fatigue. Countering it requires intent, conversation, and leadership.

High standards in simulator maintenance are not about pride or perfectionism. They are about responsibility. Responsibility to trainees, instructors, operators, and ultimately to aviation safety itself.

When systems are complex and resources are stretched, standards matter more, not less.

The simulators we maintain today shape the pilots who fly tomorrow. That alone is reason enough to aim higher than “good enough”.