Flight Simulators and Type-Rating Training: FFS Levels A–D and What a Gulf Operator Specifies

When a GCC procurement team types "flight simulators for A320 type rating training in Saudi Arabia" into a search box, the names that come back — CAE, L3Harris, TRU Simulation + Training — are only half the answer. The harder half is the regulatory grammar that decides whether a given box of motion, visuals and avionics is actually allowed to issue a type rating, refresh a recurrent check, or grant a landing without ever leaving the building. A simulator that looks identical on a brochure can be qualified to two different levels and deliver completely different training credit. This brief explains the qualification hierarchy — Full Flight Simulator (FFS) Levels A to D, plus the lower FTD/FNPT tiers — the standards behind it (ICAO Doc 9625, EASA CS-FSTD(A), GACAR Part 60, GCAA AMC-12), how a Gulf operator's training economics actually drive the specification, and the real player landscape, so a buyer specifies against training credit rather than against a spec sheet.

The qualification ladder: device fidelity is the whole game

A flight simulation training device is bought to substitute for the aircraft. How much of the aircraft it can substitute for — how much real-flying credit a regulator will award against time in the device — is governed entirely by its qualified fidelity. That fidelity is graded, and the grade is what you are really procuring.

The top of the ladder is the Full Flight Simulator (FFS): a full-size replica of a specific make, model and series flight deck, with a force-cueing motion platform, an out-of-the-window collimated visual system, and the complete suite of systems and aerodynamic modelling needed to represent the aircraft in ground and flight operations. Below the FFS sit lower-fidelity devices — the Flight Training Device (FTD), the Flight and Navigation Procedures Trainer (FNPT), and the Basic Instrument Training Device (BITD) in the European scheme — which model systems and procedures but lack the full motion and visual fidelity to earn type-rating and landing credit.

Within the FFS band, the European scheme used across the GCC grades devices Level A through Level D, each level adding fidelity and therefore training credit:

Level A — the entry FFS. Minimal motion (three degrees of freedom, or none in some configurations) and a narrow collimated field of view. Suitable for procedural and transition work, not for awarding takeoff and landing credit.
Level B — adds a wider field of view and a three-degrees-of-freedom motion platform, supporting instrument training and limited manoeuvre credit.
Level C — six-degrees-of-freedom motion, tighter transport-delay tolerances (the lag between control input and the cueing response), and a wide collimated visual. This is the first level at which an operator can run meaningful landing training and, crucially, Zero Flight Time Training (ZFTT) — completing a type rating's base-training landings entirely in the device — for suitably experienced crews.
Level D — the highest qualification. Full six-degrees-of-freedom motion with buffet and failure modelling, the widest high-detail collimated visual, and a sound system reproducing aircraft acoustics across the audible band. A Level D FFS supports the full type-rating curriculum, recurrent proficiency checks, Line-Oriented Flight Training (LOFT), and Upset Prevention and Recovery Training (UPRT) without the trainee ever flying the actual airframe before line training.

The practical translation for a Gulf carrier: a Level D A320 FFS lets an experienced pilot earn an A320 type rating, do all six takeoffs and landings in the simulator under ZFTT, and walk onto a revenue aircraft for supervised line flying — no costly empty-aircraft base-training detail required. That single capability is why Level D, not Level A, is what a scaling GCC operator specifies.

The standards behind the levels — and a naming trap to avoid

The fidelity criteria themselves originate in ICAO Doc 9625, the Manual of Criteria for the Qualification of Flight Simulation Training Devices, Volume I — Aeroplanes. Doc 9625 is the global reference that harmonises what "fidelity" means — visual scene content, motion cueing, transport delay, aerodynamic and systems modelling — so that national authorities aren't each inventing their own physics tests.

Here is the trap that catches buyers: Doc 9625 does not use the "Level A–D" labels. ICAO's own scheme classifies devices into fidelity Types (Type I through Type VII), built from a feature-based methodology where the training task drives the required device features. The "Level A–D" vocabulary is the EASA / European certification specification, carried in CS-FSTD(A) for aeroplanes, and it closely mirrors the older FAA Level A–D convention (codified in the US under 14 CFR Part 60). So when a supplier and a regulator are talking about the same simulator, the supplier may describe it in Doc 9625 Type terms while the operator's authority qualifies it as "Level D." A buyer must confirm which vocabulary is being used and what credit the local authority will actually grant — the label alone is not the contract.

For the GCC specifically, the qualifying authority is national:

Saudi Arabia (GACA) — FSTDs are governed by GACAR Part 60 (Flight Simulation Training Devices and Aviation Training Devices), with training centres approved under GACAR Part 142 and pilot licensing/type ratings under GACAR Part 61. Saudi has been harmonising its GACAR framework toward EASA, so the A–D level structure and its credits map closely to the European model. A device used to train or check Saudi-licensed crew must hold a current GACAR qualification at the relevant level and sit inside a Part 142 training centre's approval.
UAE (GCAA) — UAE simulator requirements are set out in GCAA AMC-12 (Aircraft Simulators). A notable procedural feature: a UAE-based device must first be qualified by a recognised foreign authority capable of the task; the GCAA then issues its own Certificate of Qualification on that basis, and a UAE approval is typically time-limited (validity in the order of twelve months) — so recurrency of the qualification itself, not just of the pilots, is an ongoing operational cost.

Underneath all of it sit the ICAO instruments the national rules implement: Annex 1 (Personnel Licensing) for the licence and rating framework, and Annex 6 (Operation of Aircraft) for the operational training and checking requirements that the simulator exists to satisfy.

How the procurement decision is actually made

Operators very rarely buy "a simulator." They buy a training capacity solution, and the level is dictated by the credits they need. The decision tree, in practice:

1. What credit must the device award? If the requirement includes type ratings, ZFTT landings, and recurrent proficiency checks for a fleet, the answer is a Level D FFS for that aircraft type. If the requirement is procedural training, systems familiarisation, and crew-coordination practice, a lower-cost FTD or fixed-base device may carry most of the load, with Level D time reserved for the credit-bearing events. Mixing tiers — many FTD hours feeding a smaller pool of Level D hours — is the standard way to manage the economics.

2. Buy, or buy hours? A Level D FFS is a major capital asset with a multi-year installation, qualification and maintenance commitment, plus a purpose-built bay with the floor loading, cooling and power a motion platform demands. An operator with a large single-type fleet (an A320-family carrier flying a deep roster) can justify owning devices and even selling spare hours to third parties. A smaller or mixed-fleet operator often buys wet/dry training hours from a regional training centre instead — converting capex into per-event cost and offloading the qualification-maintenance burden.

3. Configuration fidelity to the actual fleet. A "type rating" is awarded on a type, but the simulator must match the operator's specific configuration closely enough for the authority and the operator's safety case: avionics standard, flight-management software version, engine variant, and cockpit option fit. A mismatch between the simulated flight deck and the line aircraft is a training-quality and safety issue, and it is a recurring source of dispute in acquisition. The aircraft OEM's data package — the validated aerodynamic and systems data the simulator is built and tested against — is part of what makes a high-level qualification possible, and access to current data is a real procurement variable.

4. Throughput and utilisation. A Level D bay running near 24 hours a day is the only way the unit economics close. Procurement therefore weighs not just the device but the surrounding capacity: instructor and examiner availability, briefing rooms, scheduling software, and the recurrent-check calendar for the whole fleet. The device is the cheapest part of a training centre to talk about and the most expensive to leave idle.

The player landscape

The manufacturing side of the market is highly concentrated. CAE (Canada) is the dominant builder of commercial and business-aviation full flight simulators and also runs a large global network of training centres, frequently as joint ventures with airlines. L3Harris builds full flight simulators — its RealitySeven platform is the commercial line — at its UK facility and serves both civil and military customers. TRU Simulation + Training, formerly a Textron subsidiary, builds simulators for Boeing and Airbus types as well as Textron's own aircraft lines; CAE acquired TRU's non-US assets from Textron, further consolidating the field. The airframers themselves — Airbus and Boeing — sit upstream as the source of the validated aircraft data and, in Airbus's case, as a training provider in its own right.

On the GCC training-provision side, the relevant names are operator-anchored centres rather than box-builders. Emirates-CAE Flight Training (ECFT) in Dubai — a joint venture between Emirates and CAE — operates Level D full flight simulators across multiple types. Etihad Aviation Training (EAT) in Abu Dhabi runs a fleet of full flight simulators across Airbus and Boeing types, qualified to GCAA and EASA standards, and delivers A320 type ratings among others. Emirates Flight Training Academy (EFTA) anchors the ab-initio end with its own airfield and simulator facilities, and Saudia Academy provides the equivalent national training capability in the Kingdom. For a Saudi A320 requirement, the live choice is typically between buying capacity from one of these established GCC centres and standing up dedicated capability — a decision that, in the Vision 2030 context of expanding national carriers and new airports, increasingly tilts toward in-Kingdom capacity.

What GCC buyers should ask before shortlisting

What qualification level, under which authority, awards which credit? Get it in writing: GACAR Part 60 / GCAA AMC-12 qualification level, and the specific type-rating, ZFTT and recurrent-check credits the local authority will grant against time in the device. A vendor's "Level D" claim under a foreign authority is necessary but not sufficient.
Doc 9625 Type or EASA Level — which vocabulary is the spec written in, and do they reconcile? Confirm the device maps to the credit you need, not just to an impressive-sounding label.
Does the simulated flight deck match our actual fleet configuration — avionics standard, FMS software version, engine and option fit — and who owns keeping it current as the fleet evolves?
Is the data package current and licensed? Confirm the OEM-validated aircraft data behind the qualification, and the path to updates when the aircraft type's standard changes.
For ZFTT, do our crews meet the experience thresholds the rating requires (the lower experience bar applies when a Level D device is used; a higher bar applies at Level C), and is our ATO's approval scope written to permit it?
Buy the box or buy the hours? Run the capex-plus-qualification-maintenance case against per-hour training from ECFT, EAT or Saudia Academy at realistic utilisation — and factor the annual GCC re-qualification cycle, instructor/examiner supply, and the bay's power and cooling load (a motion platform in a 50°C summer is a real facilities line item, not a footnote).
What is the qualification-recurrency cost? A GCC device's certificate is time-limited; budget the recurring re-evaluation, not just the purchase.