The $20 Million Question: How Much Training Really Needs the Full-Flight Simulator?

As new technology expands what lower-cost training devices can do, Acron Aviation’s Patrick Davis sees an opportunity to reduce the current level of reliance on multimillion-dollar full-flight simulators, cutting the cost of pilot training at a time when Asia-Pacific needs more pilots than ever.

Full-flight simulators are extraordinary pieces of technology. They are also expensive. With a new device potentially costing between $10 million (for a narrow-bodied aircraft) and $25 million (for a wide-bodied aircraft), Patrick Davis, VP & GM Airline Training at Acron Aviation, believes the industry needs to look closely at how it uses them.

“There’s a lot of what we currently do in training a pilot that doesn’t need all of that technology,” Davis told CAT at APATS 2026 in Bangkok.

Lower-level devices already have an established place in pilot training. The opportunity now is to go further, moving more training onto less expensive technology and reserving the full-flight simulator (FFS) for tasks that genuinely require its capabilities.

“If five sessions can be moved from the full-flight simulator to other suitable devices, the overall cost of training falls,” Davis said.

Regulation is also beginning to facilitate that shift. In 2026, the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) introduced a new framework for Flight Simulation Training Devices (FSTDs), with forecast applicability in early 2028. Its FSTD Capability Signature (FCS) defines what an individual device can do, while a task-to-tool methodology allows training objectives to be matched with the device capabilities needed to deliver them.

For Davis, the principle is straightforward: use the right tool for the training task. It is an interesting argument coming from a company that itself manufactures full-flight simulators. Acron also provides fixed-base and flat-panel devices, virtual flight decks and training software, alongside its pilot training operations.

“The natural direction of travel is that full-flight simulators will be used more selectively,” Davis said. They will remain essential, but shifting appropriate training onto lower-level devices could reduce training costs, lowering the financial barrier to entry and helping to increase both interest in the profession and the supply of cadet pilots.

Bringing Down the Cost of Training

Where aspiring pilots are expected to self-fund, that restricts the pool from which airlines can recruit, with implications for both pilot supply and diversity. Davis sees it as in the industry’s interest to see a more diverse range of people entering the profession, alongside clearer pathways for those who cannot afford the cost of training.

The real measure of success, he said, would be for “a young person from a lower-income family who thinks, ‘I want to be a pilot’” to have a viable route into the profession.

But he is wary of adopting technology simply because it is available.

“We fought hard to get to the safety standard where it is,” Davis said. “We know the tech is there; we need to think about how we embrace it.”

The Regulatory Challenge for Asia-Pacific

While EASA's new framework provides one direction of travel, Asia-Pacific presents a more complex regulatory landscape.

Unlike Europe under EASA or the US under the FAA, the Asia-Pacific region encompasses numerous national aviation authorities which may take different approaches to emerging FSTD standards. For a training provider such as Acron Aviation, that can mean navigating different requirements and repeated approvals.

Davis believes aviation has tackled similar problems before, pointing to the development of the IATA Operational Safety Audit (IOSA) as a model for greater international recognition.

“The blueprint is there,” he said. “We’ve just got to say, ‘How do we take that idea, and apply it to how we regulate FTSDs?’”

The issue was a major topic in the new FSTDO Regulatory stream launched at APATS this year, where Davis said training providers including Boeing and Airbus training centres identified many of the same challenges.

Training organisations can support the process, but ultimately regulators have to participate.

“We need them coming on the journey with us, because ultimately the regulatory requirements sits with them.”

Keeping Ahead of Asia-Pacific Growth

The need to find solutions is particularly pressing in Asia-Pacific, where airline growth has to be matched by training capacity.

Taking a cadet from zero experience to an airline-ready pilot is roughly a two-year journey, Davis said, while producing experienced captains takes considerably longer. Fleet transitions can create additional pressure as airlines introduce new aircraft faster than they can produce appropriately trained crews.

For Davis, training providers therefore need to help airlines solve capacity problems rather than simply sell individual products.

“What are you trying to do? How can we help you on your journey?” he said. “We may have solutions you may not yet have come across.”

Acron Aviation’s Bangkok Training Centre has supported Thai and regional airlines for more than 25 years, and Davis expects its training capability to continue evolving alongside customer requirements.

Three agreements highlighted at APATS illustrate the breadth of that approach.

Acron Aviation signed an agreement with Global One Training Group to house and maintain one if its Boeing 737 NG Full Flight Simulator at Global One’s facility in Sanford, Florida, close to Acron Aviation Academy.

At the other end of the technology spectrum, Acron Aviation signed an agreement with EVA Air to supply its Boeing 787 Virtual Flight Deck solution, enabling trainees to practise aircraft systems and procedures away from the FFS.

The company also announced a preferred supplier agreement with ASL Airlines Australia to deliver Boeing 737 Type Rating training through to the end of 2028, including provision for Airline Pilot Standards Multi-Crew Cooperation (APS MCC) training.

Together, the agreements span the mix Davis believes aviation training will increasingly require: full-flight simulation where its capabilities are needed, alternative technologies where they can deliver the learning objective, and training services tailored to individual airline requirements.

For Davis, the goal isn’t to replace the full-flight simulator. It is to make sure a multimillion-dollar device is being used where its capabilities genuinely add value.