European helicopter operators looking for simulator training providers face a deceptively complex decision. Beyond the obvious constraint of aircraft type lie myriad considerations, but now more than ever the choice goes far beyond simply cost and fidelity. With a range of options that run the gamut from Level D full flight simulators (FFS) to new virtual reality (VR) and mixed reality (MR) systems, operators arguably have more choice than ever. The seemingly ever-widening array of technology available is presenting operators with new options that must be carefully considered, as well as opening new markets where the benefits of simulation simply haven’t previously been available.
Maintaining their place at the pinnacle of fidelity, Level D simulators offer unmatched flight model dynamics and multi-crew interaction, while VR and MR systems enable training for specific visual handling skills like vertical reference flying that traditional simulators struggle to replicate due to the limits of their projection field and their inability to replicate a sense of depth in the projected image.
As European training providers integrate new technologies into their existing training protocols, and adapt their approaches in the process, they face fundamental questions about how to maximize their potential. And for an industry tackling acute personnel shortages, understanding these trade-offs is becoming key, not only to realizing the maximum value from their training, but also to addressing the mounting pressure of pilot and technician shortages that are quickly becoming a driving force in the industry.
The Current Landscape
European helicopter training infrastructure reflects decades of incremental investment in traditional simulation technologies. Bell’s Valencia facility, opened in 2017, centers on a Level D Bell 429 FFS certified by both the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Leonardo maintains FFS for its AW139, AW169, and AW189 at its A. Marchetti Training Academy in Sesto Calende, Italy. Airbus Helicopters also maintains a global network of 19 training centers for all its twin-engine types still in production, as well as the H125.
But the OEMs are not the only option. For example, CopterSafety in Finland operates Level D FFS for the AW139, AW169, H145 and H125, with plans to expand their fleet with new simulators from REISER (H145 and H175) and TRU Simulation (AW139) by 2028.
“As an industry we can and should look at the overall training path of a pilot to see what additional and appropriate devices could be used at different training phases,” the company said. “We aren’t implementing any new technology into our training programs. We see the continued benefits of Level D full flight simulators, and do not see that changing.”
This position reflects the company’s customer base — operators requiring maximum regulatory credit for multi-crew type ratings where Level D certification delivers the most value.
They are not the only ones aiming to offer specific value while using established facilities. Atlantic Airways Academy in the Faroe Islands focuses on their expertise in a single type — the Leonardo Helicopters AW139 — using its Thales Aerospace “Reality H” Level D FFS, as well as a VR hoist trainer which can be synchronized with the pilot module for combined training benefit. In doing so, Atlantic Airways Academy is capitalizing on the company’s unique multi-mission operation to offer a variety of initial, recurrent and specific skill-based training such as specialized night vision imaging systems and search-and-rescue courses.
Level D simulators doubtless provide irreplaceable value for operators of large, complex types that require crew cooperation and where dedicated flight training in a live aircraft would otherwise represent an untenably high cost. But their focus on systems and flight model fidelity is less compelling for other operators, for reasons both of cost and capability.
Lower-level devices, even down to flight navigation procedures trainer (FNPTII) systems, continue to serve light twin instrument flight rules (IFR) operators effectively. For the substantial European AW109 charter market, and particularly for those offering initial type ratings for new pilots, these systems represent a pragmatic choice, having sufficient fidelity for instrument training, without Level D expense.
Elsewhere, Flight Training Device (FTD) systems are making use of VR or MR to fully encapsulate the trainee in the widest possible visual field, often taking advantage of the weight saved from deleting the screen and projection system by mounting the device on a full motion platform, adding to the sensory immersion.
The ever-improving cost/capability ratio of these devices is making it possible for operators in all manner of fields — from pilots to hoist operators and technicians — to realize the benefits of synthetic training in roles where complete immersion in the visual element of the simulation is paramount.
Tools of the trade
At Airbus Helicopters, the adoption of Loft Dynamics’ VR FTD for H125 training exemplifies this shift, being certified to EASA Level 3 and FAA Level 7.
“There were very few simulators existing for the H125, and the ones that existed were located in areas where they were not always accessible,” explained Melchior Kaag, VP head of training and flight operation services at Airbus Helicopters. “The virtual reality devices reduce the cost of training, and they increase the accessibility and the ways that we can deliver it because they are a lot more mobile.”
This isn’t a wholesale replacement of traditional simulation. Airbus maintains extensive FFS capabilities, as well as a suite of other devices and facilities. The company employes what it calls a “family concept,” taking advantage of commonalities between aircraft types while selecting appropriate training devices for specific objectives.
“We look at the simplest device for the learning task, and when you step up in complexity, you take only one step up,” Kaag explained. “It needs to be a simple tool that people can understand, otherwise you end up teaching people to use the tool, not the piloting or the maintenance.”
This approach of incremented complexity in its training methods acknowledges not only that different training objectives require different tools, but also that implementing them may come with hidden costs.
However, while maintaining simplicity in its training tools is a driving principle, Airbus must also be mindful of the potential pitfalls inherent in this approach. In overoptimizing for simplicity in the individual tools, they could end up overcomplicating the overall system.
Yann Guérin, head of pilot training and flight ops at Airbus Helicopters, explained the paradox: “The right tool is important, but too many tools is also not good, because you have to maintain them,” he said. “So, we also strategically choose the smallest number of different tools in order to simplify maintenance and keep the focus on the training objective.”
This balance needs to be struck in the human domain, too. Each device requires instructors proficient in its operation and its limitations. The technology also needs to be integrated with existing syllabi and regulatory requirements, and they may all require different methods to ensure training objectives are met effectively. The proliferation of options risks creating systemic complexity that undermines the efficiency gains that the technologies themselves promise.
Airbus’s experience with its HATS (Helicopter Advanced Tool System) is an example of how the company aims to solve these issues. Rather than being technological, its innovation was one of application. The company took a relatively simple tool that was already integrated into one company process and applied it to another, realizing a training benefit with marginal additional complexity overhead.
HATS is a systems troubleshooting simulator and an interactive procedure trainer aimed at enabling a smooth transition from theory to practice for pilots and technicians on all Helionix-equipped aircraft and the H225.
Originally developed for maintenance troubleshooting, the Airbus Helicopters training team soon recognized its potential value for pilot training.
“We saw all the benefits that we can have with this tool for the pilot also,” Guérin said. “It minimizes the time that you need to spend in the simulator.”
HATS succeeds not through comprehensive aircraft replication, but by effectively helping the learner navigate the gaps between declarative knowledge (facts about things), procedural knowledge (how to do things) and building conditional knowledge — how to select the right process and execute it the right way, at the right time.
This approach is an example of competency-based training and assessment (CBTA), an approach focusing on outcomes rather than time in training. It is an approach that is gaining widespread adoption in the aviation industry, and one which Airbus Helicopters is embracing.
“The idea behind competency-based training is not just to change our approach [to training] but to customize the training based on the people in front of us, because it is their competency which is important to the customer,” explained Guérin. “So, the objective is not just to have average [learners] but to have someone who can face the unexpected, and has the right mindset for that.”
While this philosophical shift is underway, manufacturers are making practical decisions about training gaps, and how to adapt their product lines to accommodate anticipated demand.
Elsewhere, TRU Simulation + Training recently successfully achieved FAA FTD Level 7 (broadly equivalent to EASA FTD Level 3) for its Veris MR system, while Leonardo has invested in its own “VxR — virtual and extended reality” platform. Each manufacturer is targeting specific needs where traditional simulation either isn’t economically viable or just doesn’t exist.
But all this tech isn’t the result of technological evangelism. The divergence in approaches reflects intractable operational realities and hard economics.
“We’re not going to run behind every single innovation,” explained Kaag. “It’s interesting to be out in front of the innovation, but sometimes you have to have the calmness to not over-react. We really look at what the customers need, and adapt our products accordingly.”
Unsurprisingly, other players in the market are looking to their own customers’ needs. CopterSafety’s continued investment in Level D simulators makes equal sense for its market segment, and it too is adopting CBTA and the related concept of evidence based training (EBT) — a data-driven methodology that uses scientific evidence and statistics to identify critical skills and competencies.
“The idea behind EBT is using data from the aviation industry, such as safety reports and operational data, to essentially act as an indicator for what pilots should be training for,” the company stated.
Great expectations
Looming over these technological and strategic considerations are the questions about where the new beneficiaries of this training potential will come from.
“The biggest challenge is to inspire people for our industry,” Kaag said. “We are all products of the era of the Concorde, the era of Apollo. Those were special, amazing projects. How can we do that for the new generation, inspire them and show them how cool this industry is? We can do it by easing access for newcomers and simplifying their onboarding, using the new technology that’s available to us.”
With traditional talent supply channels such as military transitions or apprenticeship programs drying up, it’s not just new recruit numbers that are impacted. Without a steady stream of experienced operators entering the market, it is becoming harder and harder to maintain a cadre of instructors in sufficient depth to train new entrants to the profession. The system has never needed to be more efficient.
And with operators competing in a dwindling talent pool, training must be ever more accessible and more targeted. The promise of new technologies such as VR and MR isn’t just lower cost and greater mobility, but also potentially in presenting the front door of the industry as being equipped with the kind of technology with which the next generation is familiar, and the kind of equipment they expect to be trained with.
European helicopter training stands at a critical juncture. Virtual and mixed reality technologies have proven their viability through adoption by major manufacturers, while market pressures demand innovation to address personnel shortages that threaten operational continuity.
But success requires more than just embracing the latest technology trends. Every novel piece of equipment that is adopted requires frameworks to evaluate its validity, regulation to govern its application and the development of new training methods to ensure its efficacy. That’s before the instructors themselves are trained in its use, and the students familiarized with the learning environment.
Nobody understands these challenges better than the training providers themselves, because their value depends not only on which technologies they adopt and how effectively they integrate them, but how well they understand the needs of their customers, and match the tools to the task.