As EASA rolls out Implementing Rule EU 2026/781, we’re finally seeing the FSTD Capability Signature (FCS) move from theory to reality. Underlying the changes is the concept of ‘Task-to-Tool’. It’s a bit of a mouthful, and while ‘Task-to-Tool’ might sound like just another industry buzzword, the philosophy behind it is actually a breath of fresh air. To understand why, you have to look at how we’ve been doing things—and where it occasionally went a bit sideways.
The change in the methodology of qualifying FSTDs is a consequence of the move to Task-to-Tool and Evidence Based Training (EBT). The driving factor behind the changes being driven by training not equipment.
We often assume that the more a simulator looks like and simulates the real thing, the better it teaches. However, consider this, a number of years ago one of our partners at SIM OPS found himself unexpectedly responsible for running a military training centre. So of course he visited at the first opportunity. As fate would have it earlier in his career he had been part of the design team responsible for the design of the Full Mission Simulators (FMS) at the centre featuring full dome visuals and cueing seats, cutting-edge technology. He was therefore very proud of the FMS devices there. So, imagine his consternation when his guide for the visit, in civilian terms the Head of Training, showed him what he considered to be the most useful training equipment in the centre; no, not the FMS but a simple PC attached to a simulated throttle top and a simulated stick top. It transpired that one of the most difficult parts of the training for pilots transferring to this aircraft type was mastering the Hands On Throttle and Stick (HOTAS) philosophy.
For us this perfectly illustrates the thinking behind the Task-to-Tool approach in the commercial world.
In that case;
The Task: Muscle memory and cognitive mapping of complex switchgear (HOTAS).
The Inefficient Tool: A Full Mission Simulator. It’s overkill; using an FMS to learn button locations is like using a Formula 1 car to learn how to adjust the wing mirrors.
The Efficient Tool: The desktop trainer. It isolates the specific cognitive load of the HOTAS task without the distractions (and hourly cost) of a Full Mission Simulator.
What is important to understand is that the PC trainer wasn’t replacing the FMS, but optimising it. By the time the pilots got into the FMS, they already knew where the buttons were, making the expensive FMS time much more productive.
This military lesson mirrors challenges we’ve long seen in civil training. For the military they have always had flexibility in designing their training programmes, each new aircraft being subjected to an extensive training needs analysis and procuring devices to meet those specific needs. That said the lessons carry across to the commercial aviation world as well. We’ve witnessed training sessions in Level D FFSs where trainees were taught how to enter routes into an FMC or send an ACARS message; because that was the only “tool” available.
For years, training has been “Tool-to-Task”— we had a Level D Sim, so we built a syllabus around what that Sim could do. This was (and still is) based on the Operational Sustainability Data (OSD) provided by the type certification certificate holder, who lists the mandatory type specific tasks required for a type rating.
With a Task-to-Tool approach, we ask:
- What does the pilot need to know to be able to do the task? (The Task)
- What is the most effective device to fix that? (The Tool) What features and fidelity does the tool need to accomplish the task?
Whereas our example from the military sphere wasn’t about replacing the FMS, in the commercial world it’s not about phasing out Full Flight Simulators (FFS). There are certain tasks that will always need a level of fidelity up to what we’ve all been used to in Level D.
This is where the FCS comes in. For each task an assessment is made as to what features and fidelity are required to accomplish that particular task. Consider the example of entering a route into the FMC, it’s obvious there is no need for a motion system, control loading, visual system or even a dimensionally correct flight deck.
We’ve looked at the FCS in previous blogs but in reaching their final Opinion, (2025/01), EASA did make a few changes from the system envisioned in ICAO 9625.
The result was that the FCS will comprise of 14 FSTD features;
- Flight deck layout and structure (FDK)
- Flight control forces and hardware (CLH)
- Flight control system operation (CLO)
- Aircraft systems (SYS)
- Performance and handling on ground (GND)
- Performance and handling in ground effect (IGE)
- Performance and handling out-of ground effect (OGE)
- Sound cueing (SND)
- Vibration cueing (VIB)
- Motion cueing (MTN)
- Visual cueing (VIS)
- Navigation (NAV)
- Atmosphere and weather (ATM)
- Operating sites and terrain (OST)
Each of these features is assigned a fidelity level, either;
S – Specific, the highest level of fidelity
R – Representative, the intermediate level of fidelity
G – Generic, the lowest level of fidelity
N – None
(a) the feature is not installed, functional or available, or
(b) the feature is installed but not required and is not distracting.
The inherent benefit of this is that it provides an objective assessment of the training need independent of the assessment of any devices. And, likewise, an independent assessment of the training device.
Now think about a type rating skill test, here the Type Rating Examiner (TRE) is looking to ensure the trainee is safe to operate a particular aircraft type, or as it was put to me several years ago, “if I was flying as a passenger and Captain X did the welcome announcement would I want to deplane or be happy to fly with Captain X?”; the TRE has to assess the student interacting with all the systems and features of that specific aircraft. For this task the bar is self-evidently higher, there is a need for complete immersion.
These changes are, in our opinion, a great step forward in allowing emerging technologies to fill their potential and facilitate better training on an appropriate tool at an appropriate cost.
How can SIM OPS help?
SIM OPS have closely followed the rule making activities at EASA and been active all through the process. We have a number of targeted training programmes available to assist operators navigate these changes, drop us a line on our dedicated training e-mail, training@sim-ops.com and/or take a look at our Regulatory training programme on our website.
