Engineering · Helsinki
Learning to grade simulators changes how you build them
In July 2026 an FSDC engineer spent six days in Helsinki being trained to evaluate flight simulation training devices against international criteria — alongside evaluators from the Italian Air Force, the Royal Netherlands Air Force, Hensoldt, Reiser and CopterSafety. This is what a manufacturer takes home from that.
July 2026
CopterSafety, Helsinki, Finland
TTI 6-day FSTD Evaluators Course
Abdul Ahad Khan · FSDC Aerosolutions
Italian Air Force · RNLAF · Hensoldt · Reiser · CopterSafety
In July 2026, Abdul Ahad Khan of FSDC Aerosolutions completed the six-day FSTD Evaluators Course run by Total Training Solutions (TTI) at the CopterSafety facility in Helsinki, Finland. The programme trains participants to evaluate Flight Simulation Training Devices against international qualification criteria — objective testing and QTG / eQTG generation, subjective assessment, and motion-to-visual latency verification.
The gap this closes
There are two ways to think about simulator qualification. The first is as an exam you sit at the end: build the device, then assemble the paperwork and hope the numbers fall inside tolerance. The second is as a design constraint you accept on day one.
Manufacturers who learn the difference the hard way tend to learn it during an audit. The cheaper route is to send your engineers to be trained as evaluators — to spend a week being taught to look for exactly the discrepancies an inspector will look for, on someone else’s devices, with no commercial stake in the answer.
To be precise about what this is and is not. This is a professional certification held by an FSDC engineer. It is not a qualification of any FSDC device, and it does not imply regulatory approval of a product. What it changes is our internal process — which is worth writing about honestly rather than overstating.
What an FSTD evaluator actually assesses
Qualification is not a subjective judgement about whether a simulator “feels right”. It is a structured comparison against approved aircraft data, within published tolerances, across a defined test set:
| Area | What gets measured | Why it fails |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | Take-off, climb, cruise, descent, landing against aircraft data | Flight model tuned by feel rather than to the data package |
| Handling qualities | Control force vs displacement, stick force per g, trim, damping | Control loading uncalibrated or drifted |
| Motion cueing | Onset cue direction, magnitude, washout behaviour | Motion drive tuned for comfort instead of fidelity |
| Visual system | Field of view, resolution, scene content, system latency | Latency budget blown by an added rendering stage |
| Transport delay | Control input to motion, visual and instrument response | Cumulative pipeline delay nobody measured end to end |
| Sound & environment | Cockpit acoustics, control feel of switches, layout accuracy | Cockpit built to a photograph rather than to a drawing |
The three things we brought home
1. Instrument the device for evidence, from the start
Objective testing needs recorded data at defined points in the pipeline. If the ability to capture that data is added late, you end up hand-flying tests and arguing about scatter. Designed in from the beginning, the same test set becomes a repeatable regression suite you can run after any software change — which is useful long before anyone mentions qualification.
2. Latency is a system budget, not a component spec
Motion-to-visual latency verification is one of the most instructive parts of evaluator training, because it forces you to account for the whole chain: input sampling, flight model iteration, motion command, render, display. Every component supplier quotes their own number; nobody owns the total except the integrator. Measuring it end to end, the way an evaluator does, is the only honest figure.
3. QTG discipline improves ordinary engineering
Producing a QTG or eQTG means every claim about the device is traceable to a test, a tolerance and a data source. Adopting that habit internally — even for devices where formal qualification is not the customer’s requirement — is simply better engineering practice. It also means that when a customer does ask the hard question, the answer already exists.
The most useful week you can give a simulator engineer is one spent evaluating somebody else’s simulator, with a checklist and no stake in the outcome.
— FSDC Aerosolutions Engineering
Why the cohort mattered as much as the curriculum
The July 2026 course brought together simulator evaluators, military officers and defence engineers from organisations including the Italian Air Force, the Royal Netherlands Air Force, Hensoldt, Reiser Simulation and CopterSafety.
For an engineer from a manufacturer, that mix is the real curriculum. Air force evaluators care about mission-representative behaviour; civil evaluators care about tolerance compliance; training-centre engineers care about availability and recalibration intervals. Hearing the same device argued about from three directions is a faster education in requirements than any specification document.
What changes for FSDC customers
- Objective test evidence is part of our internal acceptance process, not a document produced on request.
- End-to-end latency is measured and reported as a system figure.
- Control loading is validated against force-displacement targets and re-verified during lifecycle support visits, because force feel drifts as servos and linkages age.
- Qualification-track projects can be scoped realistically, with the evidence burden understood before the contract rather than after.
Related FSDC reading
- Simulator certification levels explained (EASA & FAA)
- What is control loading?
- Full-motion vs fixed-base simulators
- Lifecycle maintenance & support
Frequently asked questions
What is the TTI FSTD Evaluators Course?
A six-day professional programme from Total Training Solutions that trains engineers, military officers and regulators to evaluate Flight Simulation Training Devices against international qualification criteria.
What is a QTG?
A Qualification Test Guide — the evidence set proving a simulator matches its aircraft, containing objective test results compared to approved aircraft data within published tolerances, plus subjective pilot assessment. An eQTG is the electronic equivalent.
Does this mean FSDC simulators are certified?
No. This is a professional certification held by an FSDC engineer. Device qualification is a separate, device-by-device regulatory process. What the training changes is how we design, instrument and verify our devices.
Why does motion-to-visual latency matter so much?
Because mismatch between what the pilot feels and what they see is both a fidelity problem and a comfort problem. It also has to be measured across the whole pipeline — no single component supplier owns the total.
Can FSDC support a qualification-track programme?
Talk to the engineering team about your target standard and we will scope the evidence requirement honestly.
Source register
Public references for the course, the venue and the graduate registry.
