Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

FNPT2 Simulator - How come they are so expensive?

It would appear you can buy a FNTP2 simulator for any were between 5 and 15 grand. Yet the prices that flying schools charge is horrendous.

With quotes (including instructor of)

£207.00

£175.00

£215

How an earth can they be so expensive?

5 and 15 grand? Where from?

Most of them are much more expensive. I have not been in that market for years, but at the time the Frasca and ATC products cost well into the 100k’s. The certified Elite products should also be massively more than 15 k….

What I have seen recently are prices for fully equipped but not certified 737/A320 rigs driven by Prepare3D or FSX, all of those are in the 80-100k range. Add certification e.t.c.

LSZH(work) LSZF (GA base), Switzerland

I talked with Elite last year and they told me that the price for a Seneca-like sim with certification is 250k Swiss francs.

LSZH, LSZF, Switzerland

Bathman wrote:

It would appear you can buy a FNTP2 simulator for any were between 5 and 15 grand.

Ours cost more like 300,000 Euros, making it by far the most expensive “aircraft” on the fleet. A maintenance contract for such a device costs in the order of 30,000 Euros per year. Our authoritiy sends two people every year for re-certification, for which they charge in the order of 5,000 Euros. The machine takes up the largest room in our flying school building, for which a lot of rent, heating, electricity and everything else must be paid. Sometimes, things break. Spares are as expensive as real aircraft spares, some even more because they have to be modified for the simulator. We instructors are not paid really well (noboby is…) but at least we get paid. Add all this together and you will find that at 160 Euros per hour including the instructor (which is what they charge for it) you get a fat bargain.

Last Edited by what_next at 30 Jun 09:02
EDDS - Stuttgart

Just the kit for Redbird simulators for FNPT2 is about 20-30k USD. With it, those run around 100k from what I recall (they have one significantly more expensive which is over 200k). That’s without taxes for us. From what I understand, Redbird simulators are quite cheap. Plus you need the paperwork, inspections. I haven’t seen an FNPT2 in the price range you mentioned.

Also you have e.g. UK CAA charges

Attempts have been made to do IR training outside the UK, where often these charges are much smaller or nonexistent. However the UK CAA has refused to allow this. Last I heard (a guy called Jim Thorpe tried this and posted about it) they would not even allow flying to LFAT etc for an IAP, within the core IR training programme. Money talks, as usual, and yeah I am ready to be accused of conspiracy theories as usual

For an aircraft owner it is cheaper to fly the plane than to fly the sim – especially if doing a conversion which then doesn’t require packing the logbook with the old 55hrs or whatever.

Actually does anybody do the 55hr (ME) IR anymore? I would think the FTO business too must have moved to the CB IR process. (SE IR was 50hrs but ATPL training won’t be doing that). Mind you, 55hrs dual, plus a failed 170A “test”, is a great money printing machine

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Peter wrote:

UK CAA charges

So they charge more or less the same in the UK as in Germany…

Peter wrote:

For an aircraft owner it is cheaper to fly the plane than to fly the sim…

Depends. Some years ago we had a Bonanza owner who did the IR course and he chose to use the FNPT for as many hours as possible after doing his math. And I even doubt that an IFR capable C172 can beat the FNPT hourly rate if you count the additional costs like airport fees, airport security fees, airport parking fees, approach charges, etc. And one saves a lot of time with the FNPT and can fly in every weather and at every time of day/night.

Peter wrote:

I would think the FTO business too must have moved to the CB IR process.

For private pilots yes. But most students do the integrated ATPL course and use the FNPT training device as much as they can. And CB-IR is kind of a dead end for someone who plans to get a commercial license or ATPL sometime in the future.

From the instructor’s point of view, FNPT training is far superior to training on the actual aircraft (just like real flight simulators give orders of magnitude better training than flying on the airplane itself). Every flight is in real IMC down to minima. No hoods or foggles or other crappy devices to simulate bad weather in an aircraft. One can spend 80 percent of the training time to practice the difficult stuff and not waste 80 percent of the training time for flying straight and level as in a real aircraft IFR session.

EDDS - Stuttgart

Bathman wrote:

It would appear you can buy a FNTP2 simulator for any were between 5 and 15 grand

Sorry. These are sort of the prices I’ve seen for them second hand.

Those CAA charges are simply horrendous. Do such charges exist in FAA land.

Also are such approvals really needed? As far as I am aware there is no charge made to the CAA for an aircraft to be used by an ATO for IR training.

Last Edited by Bathman at 30 Jun 10:22

Peter wrote:

SE IR was 50hrs but ATPL training won’t be doing that

At least some schools do (in modular ATPL training) SE IR first and then the 5 hour extension to ME IR. CB-IR for ME is 45 hours, so CB route in both cases brings 10 hour saving.

It always seemed to me like an odd coincidence that the CB-IR is 10 hours shorter which corresponds to the Basic Instrument Flying Module (or some such). AIUI this could be done separately and used for CPL which requires 10 hours of instrument instruction – if you did CPL before IR, you could do the BIFL first (10 hours), get it credited for the CPL (which reduced the training from 25 to 15 hours dual) and then do the IR training (40 hours for SE, 45 for ME). I wouldn’t mind hearing some background about this (where they took those 10 hours from and the rationale behind it).

And why leave the old IR? Especially flight training, but if it’s true that only HPA related theory was removed for the CB-IR, it doesn’t make sense to me to keep even the old IR theory (anyone wishing to fly HPA needs HPA course anyway, or ATPL theory). But I’m getting really off topic here.

For private pilots yes. But most students do the integrated ATPL course and use the FNPT training device as much as they can. And CB-IR is kind of a dead end for someone who plans to get a commercial license or ATPL sometime in the future.

CB-IR is supposed to be just the IR portion, however. So how is the 50/55hrs justified today? The CPL is separate anyway. And of course the 14 ATPL exams are still done.

I have read many times that the FTO business was going to adopt the CB-IR process for the IR portion. They were not too concerned about revenue loss because most candidates need about 50hrs anyway to pass the test. And they have zero experience and zero unlogged IMC time (no previous exposure to GA in most cases). The CB IR is an advantage really for an experienced private pilot who can turn up with a lot of IMC time, logged or not.

At least some schools do (in modular ATPL training) SE IR first and then the 5 hour extension to ME IR. CB-IR for ME is 45 hours, so CB route in both cases brings 10 hour saving.

OK; I recall this too. It is the cheapest way to get an ME IR because flying SE is much cheaper than flying ME.

And why leave the old IR?

  • Syllabus inertia
  • Customers not aware of the new option (= more €)

Also are such approvals really needed?

Arguably the sim needs to be of a reasonable standard, but the right way to deal with this would be conformance at the manufacturer end, not the CAA approving every single installation of the same sim…

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom
16 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top