The Standardised Instructor's Operating System (IOS)

The idea of having a standardised IOS, used on all FSTDs, has been around for a long time. As is often the case, a conversation with one of our customers brought this perennial topic to mind. In this case the customer, looking for an additional FSTD, was proposing to put a requirement that the new FSTD had the same IOS layout as their existing FSTDs even if sourced from a different Training Device Manufacturer (TDM). 

On the face of it the request seems perfectly reasonable, indeed sensible, for an operator adding a new FSTD simulating an aircraft type they already have as it would mean their instructors wouldn't have to "learn" a new IOS.

At SIM OPS our partners have had direct experience of this exact requirement during our careers, Unfortunately in the cases we encountered the customers ended up with a "Frankenstein" IOS that soon became unsupportable. The problem being that at the TDM we were working for, as with most TDMs, the IOS was a stand alone product that was interfaced to each aircraft type as necessary; hence having a bespoke IOS left the operator with an "orphaned product". So our advice is to not put this particular requirement in Requests for Proposals (RFP).

However, that scenario is very different to having an industry standard IOS, that would surely be possible, which leads to the question as to why has it never happened? 

Well in fact we’ve been at conferences where it has been proposed, we’ve even heard suggestions of an ARINC specification for such an IOS.

The first hurdle is which, or more succinctly whose, IOS would be the standard. All the TDMs would naturally favour their own designs. They put a lot of effort into their designs so, of course, they believe in them. So if the prospect of all the TDMs agreeing on one TDM’s system seems remote, the other option of a completely new IOS designed by a committee of TDMs is so remote as to be unobtainable. 

Of course as the production of such a standard would inevitably require an industry working group which would need input from not only the TDMs but also from the operators, in particular the operators’ instructors (Simulator Flight Instructors (SFI), Type Rating Instructors (TRI) etc). Whereas getting a representative cross-section of TDMs involved is probably achievable, getting a representative cross-section of instructors, keeping them engaged for the whole process and ultimately getting them to agree on a common IOS is never going to happen.

And we shouldn’t underestimate the commercial aspects, for any FSTD the aircraft simulation models should all accurately simulate the particular aircraft type regardless of the specific TDM. But the IOS from different TDMs is where a TDM can develop a discriminator. We’ve all been in internal TDM meetings where the discussions on a standardised IOS have taken place; the outcome being, to paraphrase, why should we help brand X, their IOS is awful which gives us a competitive advantage. And, we want to maintain exclusivity with customer Y, if all the competitors have the same IOS it erodes our position.

So despite the good intentions of those who advocate a standardised IOS, in our opinion, it will frankly never happen, further more in the very unlikely event it did happen it would be a restriction to innovation.

That being said, there are requirements the TDMs have to meet. Both EASA (in CS-FSTD (A/H)) and the FAA (in FAA 14 CFR Part 60) lay out required functionality that has to be present in the IOS implementation. ARINC 610 also provides invaluable guidance to the simulator-specific functions an FSTD, through the IOS, should support. But these requirements, with the possible exception of how UPRT should be implemented, concentrate on the "what" as opposed to the "how".

What IOSs should allow

There are features that should be included in IOS systems and are not always present. The one that immediately comes to mind is an open interface, a GUI, that allows the device to interface to, for example, a new visual system Image Generator (IG). Particularly with Full Flight Simulators (FFS) it is probable that the IG will be replaced during its service life and that the replacement IG will have additional capabilities. We have often seen FFSs with an updated IG where either some of the additional features are not accessible or a separate tablet computer has to be used to access the additional features. 

It should also be possible for the end user to make minor modifications to the IOS without recourse to the TDM. For example defining quick action keys.

Summary

In conclusion, we do not believe a standard IOS will ever be viable. For the TDMs who would need to agree on it there is no benefit and as we’ve seen, would erode competitive advantage. Whilst the idea of getting a TDM to mimic another TDM’s IOS (if indeed you could find anyone to do that nowadays) is not going to work. That leaves the only option of taking the TDM’s standard IOS, this is not a bad thing: as stated the TDMs put a lot of effort into designing their IOS systems. So the IOS should be a significant element in the selection criteria for a TDM, at the end of the day an IOS should be usable with minimal training by any operator with previous exposure to any FSTD IOS: think Windows Vs Apple Vs Android.

How can SIM OPS help?

If you are procuring a new FSTD and need help in specifying the IOS and all aspects of the FSTD we can provide you guidance on what is reasonable to request and what you should be requesting.