The Future of Remote Pilot Training: An Aerospace Innovations Roundtable
Remote learning using XR (Extended Reality, a mix of Augmented Reality and Virtual Reality) headsets and related equipment is the Next Big Thing for pilot training. Thanks to their ability to combine 3D computer graphics with haptic feedback—which allows a pilot wearing a headset to physically “feel” the click and resistance of the knobs and switches in their simulated cockpit—XR training units are the perfect solution for teaching students in any remote location. Add in the highly portable, locally processed XR simulators that can be sent to these sites, and remote pilot training is an effective, affordable way to get more student pilots prepared for their first flights.
For this Aerospace Innovations virtual roundtable discussion, we brought together three experts in remote pilot training to discuss its opportunities and challenges. Col (Ret) Tim “TJ” Moser is a retired US Air Force Colonel and Account Executive at Varjo Technologies, which supplies high-fidelity, deployable VR/XR headsets. Fabi Riesen is the Founder and acting CTO of Loft Dynamics, which builds highly realistic VR flight simulators. Nacho Navacerrada is the Sales Director at Entrol, which produces XR-certified professional flight simulators.
Aerospace Innovations: How do VR, AR, and MR systems support remote pilot training today, including yours?
Nacho Navacerrada: XR technologies, such as VR and MR, help expand the capabilities of traditional simulators and are particularly useful for visual mission training. In our case, we use mixed reality (MR) goggles to complement the simulator’s visual system. This allows pilots to look downwards or backwards and better perceive distances to the ground, which is especially important during operations where having a vertical reference is critical, such as hoist rescues, external load operations, or search and rescue (SAR) missions.
These technologies are also used to incorporate other crew members in the same synthetic training environment as pilots, for example, hoist operators, rescue swimmers, or medical personnel. This makes it possible to recreate complex scenarios in which the entire crew can train together, improving coordination, communication, and decision-making during critical missions.
Fabi Riesen: Let’s split this into two parts. First, there are traditional dome simulators—the gigantic, full-flight simulators that definitely cannot be used at home. They use a traditional projected visual system, so if you move your head, the perspective doesn’t shift; it is just a flat projection.
We replaced that with virtual reality. To do this, we had to make a massive technological leap to make the human body visible in VR, allowing pilots to operate physical buttons and switches with tactile feedback. To achieve this, we built all of the software in-house.
This led us to a realisation: if we can use VR to make gigantic simulators smaller and more realistic, we can also put them on stand-alone devices, like an Apple Vision Pro or similar VR headsets. We can run our software on these stand-alone devices. You get the exact same software experience as a real simulator, just without the physical tactile feedback; instead, you use your hands and gestures to interact with the virtual cockpit.
That is how we achieved full immersion. We started by making large simulators smaller, and then we transferred the software to a small device you can use anywhere. This is how we enabled VR systems to support remote pilot training, which was simply not possible before.
TJ Moser: As a retired USAF fighter and training aircraft instructor, I personally witnessed the evolution of flight training from traditional domes to deployable and remote systems. My tenure at 19AF (2019-2022) coincided with the COVID pandemic, during which we successfully demonstrated the feasibility of delivering world-class training remotely to students without the need for the instructor’s physical presence. This was achieved through the utilisation of networked connections and Extended Reality (XR), enabling us to preserve training days while many of the education and training sectors were largely shut down. This feat would have been impossible in traditional domes.
Varjo XR-4 headsets integrated into training devices accomplish this without compromising the resolution and precision required for training. Students can wear these headsets and retain the tactile feel of switches, knobs, and buttons while viewing a high-fidelity cockpit with legible dials, screens, and Heads-Up Displays (HUDs). The Out the Window (OTW) experience is remarkably realistic, providing human-eye clarity for long-range visual scans and formation flying, which are traditionally challenging in a domed simulator.
During and after the COVID pandemic, XR systems like Varjo headsets enabled Remote Simulation Instruction (RSI). This allowed students to be located in remote locations, where instructors may or may not be physically present. The compact and portable nature of the simulator enables it to be positioned closer to the point of need. In remote areas like Del Rio, Texas, the Air Force faces challenges in hiring Civilian Simulator Instructors due to its remote location. However, XR simulators were connected to instructors stationed at Randolph AFB (a much larger and more desirable location outside San Antonio, TX), providing a solution that increased instructor capacity without relocating instructors.
Aerospace Innovations: How do your XR simulators handle poor internet connections, latency, or complete off-grid situations in remote locations?
Nacho Navacerrada: Our simulators do not rely on a constant internet connection to operate. All critical systems of the simulator, such as the software, visual databases, and training scenarios, are installed locally on the device itself.
This means that training can be carried out even in environments where connectivity is limited or non-existent. In many cases, operators prefer to keep the simulator disconnected from the internet during training sessions.
In terms of latency, our simulators meet all the necessary requirements to ensure a realistic training experience, with virtually non-existent latency during the simulation. The internet connection is typically only used for specific tasks such as software updates or remote maintenance connections, but it is not required for the normal operation of the simulator.
TJ Moser: Flight simulation is computationally demanding, so the “heavy lifting” is performed locally on the workstation connected to a Varjo XR-4 Series headset to deliver the best visuals. XR simulators operate on local PC power, utilising the best-in-class GPUs, ensuring that the flight physics and visuals are not reliant on a cloud connection.
For remote instruction, devices only need to transmit thin streams of telemetry and voice data to maintain concepts like RSI at a lower bandwidth. Furthermore, when the system is offline, it functions as a stand-alone trainer, enabling pilots to maintain their proficiency and “muscle memory” even without an active link to an HQ or even without an instructor in “free play”.
Fabi Riesen: This relates to what I explained earlier. We do not stream the entire simulation from the cloud to these stand-alone devices. Because we built all the software in-house, it can run directly on small devices, whether that is a mobile phone or an Apple Vision Pro.
This means the most critical elements, like button responses, run locally on the VR headset itself. As a result, we only need to rely on the cloud for a few minor things, while the heavy graphics processing is handled directly by the VR device. By setting it up this way, everything that is sensitive to lag or latency runs locally. That is how we made it work.
Aerospace Innovations: How easy is it to pack up, transport, and physically set up your simulators in the field compared to traditional, bulky training rigs?
Nacho Navacerrada: We are used to working with customers all over the world, so logistics and installation are a regular part of our projects. The simulators are usually transported in containers, and we work with international logistics companies that handle the delivery of the equipment to the customers’ facilities. Once the simulator arrives, our team travels to the site to carry out the installation, commissioning, and certification of the device.
This approach allows operators in different regions to have their own simulator tailored to their aircraft and operational requirements, without relying on external training centres. In addition, having the simulator installed at their own facilities makes it easier to conduct more training sessions and improve pilot availability.
TJ Moser: A traditional “legacy” simulator requires a dedicated building, HVAC system, and a team of contractors, and the footprint can be up to 80% larger. Conversely, XR systems can be set up in a typical office setting.
Initially, at 19AF, we planned to send an XR training rig home with every student. In practice, this concept proved impractical due to costs and liability, but it guided our thinking about the potential uses of immersive training devices (ITDs). Although we could not send the student home with the device, our compromise was to bring the training closer to the student.
Consequently, we embedded over 60 ITDs at each Undergraduate Pilot Training (UPT) base, typically within the flying squadron itself.
In some instances, a VR rig (headset, laptop, and controls) could fit into one or two ruggedised Pelican cases. We named these devices portable Immersive Training Devices (pITDs). For classified environments, the secure version of Varjo XR-4 Series headsets is TAA-compliant and can be configured with no radio frequency (RF) components, making it safe for use in the “skin” of a ship or other high-security, air-gapped zones (Secure Compartmented Information Facilities, or SCIFs). Security does not have to be compromised for portability.
Aerospace Innovations: Can remote pilots officially log flight training hours using XR training systems, and how are aviation regulators responding to this tech?
Nacho Navacerrada: The current CS-FSTD Issue 2 does not cover the use of technologies such as virtual reality (VR) or mixed reality (MR) in pilot training. XR certifications are done via Special Conditions. EASA published a document entitled “FSTD Special Conditions development and assessment process” in March 2023 to clarify the roadmap to achieve XR certification, after some devices were previously certified as FTD 3 by EASA.
In general, regulatory authorities are open to discussing the potential of these new technologies. However, there is still some caution when it comes to applying them within the Part-FCL, as the potential and limitations of XR technologies greatly depend on the training tasks, helicopter model, and whether they are single or multi-pilot operations.
Fabi Riesen: That process will take a while. Whenever you want to officially qualify something new, you first need to get the technology in place.
For example, when we transitioned from gigantic traditional simulators to ones using stereoscopic virtual reality, we achieved the world’s first qualification back in 2021. We started working with EASA at the end of 2018, so it took about three years to get that first qualification done. It took another two and a half years to get it adopted by the FAA. Now, that is a done deal.
We are taking the same approach with these remote training devices. First, we get them in place and into the hands of pilots, operators, and airlines. By having people use them first, we can collect data and validate that the devices actually produce good training results. Then, in the second phase—which hasn’t happened yet for remote devices—we take it to the regulators for official qualification. In a nutshell, while it isn’t a traditionally qualified flight simulator (an FSTD) yet, it can already be used to complement training and be embedded into an existing syllabus.
Remember, not all flight training is done in top-tier Level D simulators; you have classroom portions and other parts of the syllabus that use unqualified devices. Not every single training hour needs to be officially logged and credited in a logbook.
TJ Moser: In the civilian sector, regulators are shifting towards Competency-Based Training and Assessment (CBTA) over pure flight-hour accumulation. If a pilot can demonstrate a check-ride-quality manoeuvre in a qualified XR simulator, that proficiency is increasingly recognised by authorities.
Varjo works together with global regulators (FAA/EASA) and industry integrators to qualify XR-based systems for FAA Part 60 Level 4–7 Flight Training Device (FTD) equivalency, as well as Basic and Advanced Aviation Training Device (BATD/AATD) certifications. Under EASA, our technology enables FTD Level 2/3 and Flight Navigation and Procedures Trainer (FNPT) qualifications, bringing professional-grade training to the point of need.
Aerospace Innovations: What is the real cost difference between deploying an XR setup to a remote base versus flying pilots back and forth to a central training hub?
Fabi Riesen: On one hand, we have what you could call “home training kits” that you can use anywhere. You could even have a dedicated unit for each individual pilot. Because the training is remote, pilots do not have to travel to a classroom, which means travel expenses are completely eliminated.
On the other hand, we have our full simulators. Because they are powered by virtual reality, they are much smaller, more realistic, and more affordable than traditional setups. This creates far more opportunities for training.
Nacho Navacerrada: Training with simulators has a significant impact on the operational costs of pilot training. Sending pilots to external simulation training centres can involve travel costs, limited simulator availability, and long waiting lists. For this reason, many operators choose to have their own simulator, which allows them to conduct more training hours and improve operational safety. Having an in-house simulator, such as an FTD installed at the operator’s facilities, makes it possible to replicate the real aircraft configuration more accurately. This not only reduces logistical costs but also improves the overall quality of the training.
TJ Moser: The return on investment (ROI) for travel and flight hour costs is significant. Traditional sims with large footprints and high operating costs can be significantly more expensive than XR flight simulators.
A single flight hour in a modern fighter jet can cost between $20,000 and $40,000 or more. A complete XR setup costs less than a single flight hour in many airframes. By offloading 20–30% of the syllabus events to XR, the savings can reach into the millions of dollars annually.
Aerospace Innovations: Finally, what forms of pilot training still have to be done in-person and in the air? And will that ever change?
TJ Moser: The “Last Mile” training still requires being in the air or on the ground. High-G manoeuvres and the “fear factor” of actual flight or driving cannot be fully replicated in a chair. The specific smells, vibrations, and “seat of the pants” feel of a stall are best taught in-cockpit or the equivalent for vehicles and tanks. As technology advances, this gap will narrow, but for the foreseeable future, the final “stamp of approval” will be obtained in the air or on the ground in the aircraft or vehicle. Additionally, it’s crucial to get reps and sets on an easily accessible platform.
Nacho Navacerrada: Simulation has evolved significantly in recent years and today it allows pilots to train a wide range of procedures and operational scenarios with a very high level of realism. Thanks to simulators, pilots can practise emergencies, complex scenarios, or specific mission profiles as many times as needed and in a completely safe environment.
That said, the experience of flying a real aircraft remains a fundamental part of the training process. During the early stages of training, pilots need to become familiar with the real behaviour of the aircraft and develop sensations and references that can only be acquired in actual flight.
For this reason, the industry understands simulation as a complement to real aircraft training. Simulators allow pilots to practise procedures, cockpit management, crew coordination, and emergency situations in a safe and efficient way, while real flight provides the practical experience needed to consolidate those skills.
Looking ahead, simulation will likely continue to gain importance as technologies such as visual systems and immersive environments continue to improve. However, the most realistic scenario is that pilot training will continue to combine both worlds: simulator-based training and real flight experience.
Fabi Riesen: That is a very good question. It could almost become philosophical, but I don’t want to go down that path.
Speaking as a hobby pilot myself, we can make a simulator increasingly realistic, but ultimately, it is always good to have real, hands-on experience. You don’t necessarily need it in every single aircraft type, but you need to experience the basics in a real aircraft to truly understand them.
Let me be more specific: for private or commercial pilot licences, certain hours still must be completed in a real aircraft. There are so many minute details that we simply won’t be able to perfectly simulate for decades to come.
So, to your question about whether real flight time can be totally removed: I think not, and that is a good thing, because at the end of the day, we are still flying real aircraft. Nevertheless, the gap between the simulator and the real aircraft is getting smaller and smaller. They are blending together so well, and the immersion provided by these new technologies is becoming so deep, that it will soon be very difficult to tell the difference. That is the goal we are working towards—pushing the simulation to be as close to the real aircraft as physically possible.
By James Careless
