Two Regulatory Frameworks, Different Approaches to Simulation
Flight schools operating internationally or considering expansion across borders face a fundamental challenge: the FAA and EASA treat simulator training hours differently. The classifications, terminology, approved devices, and the number of hours that can count toward certificates and ratings vary between the two regulatory systems. Schools that assume one framework mirrors the other risk purchasing equipment that does not meet their regulatory requirements or designing training programs that do not maximize the value of their simulator investment.
Understanding these differences is essential for any flight school operating in, or serving students from, both regulatory environments.
FAA Simulator Classifications
The FAA categorizes simulation devices into several tiers. At the lower end are Aviation Training Devices (ATDs), which are further divided into Basic ATDs (BATDs) and Advanced ATDs (AATDs). Above these sit Flight Training Devices (FTDs) at various qualification levels, and at the top are Full Flight Simulators (FFSs) qualified at Levels A through D.
For general aviation flight schools, BATDs and AATDs are the most relevant categories. A BATD allows limited loggable hours: up to 2.5 hours toward the private pilot certificate and up to 10 hours toward the instrument rating under Part 61. An AATD increases the instrument rating allowance to 20 hours under Part 61 and potentially more under Part 141 approved course outlines.
The FAA's ATD qualification process involves the manufacturer obtaining a letter of authorization from the FAA, which specifies the training credits the device may provide. Individual flight schools do not need separate FAA approval to use a device that already holds its letter of authorization.
EASA Simulator Classifications
EASA uses a different classification system. The European framework categorizes devices as Flight Navigation and Procedures Trainers (FNPTs), Flight Training Devices (FTDs), and Full Flight Simulators (FFSs). EASA does not use the BATD and AATD terminology that the FAA employs.
FNPTs are divided into levels, with the FNPT I being roughly analogous to a mid-range ATD and the FNPT II providing more capability. The FNPT II, particularly when equipped with a visual system, is widely used in European flight schools for instrument training and multi-engine procedures.
EASA regulations allow simulator hours to count toward training requirements, but the specific allowances are embedded within the approved training organization's course syllabus. The number of creditable hours depends on the training course, the device qualification level, and the national aviation authority's approval of the specific training program.
Key Differences in Loggable Hours
The differences in how each system credits simulator time have direct financial implications for flight schools and students.
Under FAA Part 61, the loggable hours for ATDs are fixed and clearly defined in the regulations. A school knows exactly how many hours each student can log in a BATD or AATD without needing individual course approval.
Under EASA, the creditable simulator hours are more closely tied to the approved training course. An Approved Training Organisation (ATO) working under EASA must have its training course approved by the relevant national authority, and the simulator hours are specified within that approved course. This gives EASA ATOs some flexibility in how they structure training but also adds an approval layer that does not exist in the FAA system.
For instrument rating training specifically, EASA has historically allowed a substantial portion of the required training hours to be completed in an FNPT II, which can make the simulator a more central part of the European instrument training experience than it typically is under FAA Part 61 rules.
Device Qualification and Cross-Border Recognition
A simulator qualified under one system is not automatically recognized by the other. A device that holds an FAA AATD letter of authorization does not qualify as an EASA FNPT without separate EASA evaluation and qualification. Schools that serve students from both regulatory environments may need devices that hold dual qualification, which limits the available options and can increase cost.
Manufacturers that serve both markets typically offer devices that have been qualified under both systems, but this should be verified before purchase rather than assumed.
Implications for Flight School Business Planning
Flight schools planning their simulator investment should begin with a clear understanding of which regulatory framework governs their operations and their students' certificates.
Schools operating exclusively under FAA regulations have a straightforward path: select a BATD or AATD that holds the appropriate letter of authorization and design the training program to maximize the use of approved simulator hours.
Schools operating under EASA, or those serving an international student population, face a more complex planning process. The device must meet EASA qualification standards, and the training course must be approved with the simulator hours specified. Engaging with the relevant national aviation authority early in the planning process can prevent costly missteps.
Schools in countries with bilateral agreements between the FAA and EASA should understand how those agreements affect license conversion and whether simulator hours logged under one system receive credit when converting to the other.
The Practical Takeaway
The regulatory differences between the FAA and EASA regarding simulator training are not merely administrative details. They affect which devices a school should purchase, how many hours of training can be conducted in the simulator, and ultimately the economics of the training program. Schools that invest time in understanding these differences before making equipment purchases and curriculum decisions will build training programs that extract the maximum regulatory and financial value from their simulator investment.