Why EASA’s Task-to-Tool Model is Changing Pilot Training

For decades, the full flight simulator (FFS) has been the centerpiece of pilot training. From take-off emergencies to low-visibility landings, it is still considered the gold standard—sometimes even the only standard. But with its recent update to the task-to-tool model, the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) has proposed a change: training tasks no longer must be tied to the most advanced simulator by default, but to the one best suited for the task.

It’s a deceptively simple idea with far-reaching consequences: more innovative use of simulators, lower training costs, and more agile programs—without compromising safety. How can training organizations strike the balance between fidelity, flexibility, and cost?

The EASA Task-to-Tool Model Explained

EASA’s proposed update to the flight simulation training device requirements introduces a new way of classifying and deploying simulators through the Flight Simulation Training Device (FSTD) Capability Signature (FCS). This framework defines a simulator’s capability and fidelity across specific features—such as performance in different flight regimes, flight control hardware fidelity, or system operation accuracy.

In practice, this means each training device is assessed not only as a whole, but feature by feature, offering a more transparent picture of what it can (and cannot) deliver in training.

“The FCS provides a common language for training organizations and regulators,” says Vytautas Ledakas, Chief Simulator Training Officer at BAA Training, one of the leading global aviation training organizations delivering both Ab Initio and Type Rating training. “It makes it clearer which simulator is best suited for which task, which in turn allows us to design training programs with far greater accuracy.”

The heart of the update is the task-to-tool concept. Training providers must now match each Type Rating or recurrent training task with a device that meets or exceeds the required FCS-defined capability. In other words, the training objective comes first, and the choice of device follows—rather than defaulting to the highest-level simulator.

For example, cockpit familiarization, flows, and checklist discipline might be effectively introduced in lower-cost devices, while complex handling tasks or failure scenarios remain firmly in the domain of the FFS.

“This doesn’t diminish the role of the FFS,” notes Ledakas. “It ensures the full flight simulator is used where it adds the most value, while other tasks can be trained effectively in less resource-intensive devices. It’s about optimization, not replacement.”

A Strategic Shift in Simulator Use

Beyond cost efficiency, the model promotes a more balanced simulator ecosystem. Instead of overloading FFS schedules and driving up costs, training organizations can distribute tasks across a portfolio of devices aligned with ICAO criteria, which EASA is harmonizing toward.

“The new approach allows Approved Training Organizations (ATOs) in Europe to rethink their long-term simulator strategies,” says Ledakas. “By integrating a mix of fixed-base trainers and full flight simulators, we can deliver training that is scalable, cost-effective, and fully compliant.

“We ourselves are already working within a similar approach, and our clients as well are utilizing it. We see this especially with our Level 2 FTDs in Paris and Barcelona training centers, where they are used extensively for procedures, flows, and coordination training. That resilience is especially valuable at a time when demand for pilot training is growing.”

Importantly, there are no immediate changes to existing programs. Approved training courses and simulators remain valid, with a two-year transition period giving ATOs and operators time to adapt. Early adopters, however, can already start applying the FCS framework voluntarily.

Implications for Instructors

For instructors, this shift requires adapting to a more multi-platform teaching environment. Their role expands from delivering content to also understanding which device is best suited for each training objective.

That means:

• Gaining proficiency across different types of FSTDs;
• Strengthening debriefing skills to ensure lessons from one platform transfer effectively to others;
• Staying updated on how the FCS framework evolves and how regulators expect it to be applied in practice.

“Instructors will increasingly act as both educators and strategists,” Ledakas points out. “Their expertise will be critical in ensuring that a session in a lower-level simulator delivers the intended outcomes and complements what’s later reinforced in an FFS.”

Looking Ahead

By introducing the FCS and task-to-tool concept, EASA has signaled a modernization of simulator regulation that balances safety, flexibility, and cost-effectiveness. The harmonization with ICAO further ensures global consistency, helping European training providers remain competitive in the international training market. Full flight simulators remain essential—what changes is how ATOs integrate them into a smarter, layered training system that serves both safety and sustainability.