AW 139 flight simulator rates

[rayfinkel]

Hi, I am trying to get hourly rates for AW 139 flight simulators. Mainly for recurrent training OPC check. All info would be appreciated. Do most of your employers have contracts with training companies or is pay by the hour?

[EESDL]

How many hours are you after and over what time span?
Will this be repeat business - ie will you be willing to sign a contract for future use?
Dry or Wet lease?
Whilst you would think the current situation would mean a better price should be available - the fact that you are looking for hours means you have a requirement, which is probably legislatively-led, so why reduce price ;-)

[SFIM]

Expect a per session 2 hour ad hoc price wet of around €4000

[krypton_john]

Dry/wet rates for *simulator* time?

My oh my, these simulators are getting very realistic these days!

[gulliBell]

Wet = simulator + instructor
Dry = simulator only.

[rayfinkel]

Thanks for the information.
OPC checks with about 6 hours level D sim time.
I was under the impression it was around €13000 wet.
Does that sound about right?

[krypton_john]

Ah, ok.

But €4000 for two hours wet in a simulator? US$2200 per hour? That sounds like the real thing, not a simulator (C&D $2163)

[212man]

But €4000 for two hours wet in a simulator? US$2200 per hour? That sounds like the real thing, not a simulator (C&D $2163)

I guess you have never hired a simulator before then? Totally normal rates for a Level D FFS.

[gulliBell]

Recurrent courses typically about $25k USD. That gets you course materials, 2 days in the classroom with ground instructor covering systems revision, maybe a few hours on the integrated procedures trainer, 4 hours simulator training + 2 hours flight test. In other words, 6 hours simulator time + 4 hours pre/post briefing with the flight instructor, 12 hours classroom = $25k.

[krypton_john]

212Man you're right, not a single second logged in sims. Not so much of that down these parts.

But What I don't follow is... why are sims so expensive? No fuel, no engines, no dynamic components, no risk etc?

[the coyote]

Probably because they cost about as much as the aircraft don't they?

[Phone Wind]

6 hours simulator time
That sounds way too low for an AW139 unless that's 6 monthly

[krypton_john]

the coyote: The capital cost is one thing, but the operational cost is what I was commenting on. Plus the real thing doesn't always get to fly that often whereas the simulators can be booked day and night.

[rayfinkel]

Phone Wind, yes its the 6 monthly check.

[whoknows idont]

the coyote: The capital cost is one thing, but the operational cost is what I was commenting on. Plus the real thing doesn't always get to fly that often whereas the simulators can be booked day and night.

Maybe there is not enough demand for a AW139 simulator to be booked out day and night?
Still I find that quite eye-watering as well. Electricity instead of fuel, maintenance & insurance must be a fraction of the real thing. Sounds like a license to print money issued by regulatory requirements.

[belly tank]

I believe the one in KL is in the vicinity of US$1500-2000 per hour dry and its usually booked 24/7 apart from maintenance during the wee hours of the morning.

[gulliBell]

The flight simulators are expensive to maintain. Hydraulics + vibration platform, computers, visual system, software, annual certification, the air conditioned facility that it's contained in, plus the spare parts inventory. There are many specialist engineering and maintenance staff required, flight instructors, support and admin staff etc. The initial capital outlay is about that of the real aircraft also. Add up all these costs, plus the cost of the finance to pay for it all, and divide that by the annual revenue hours, and you'll find there isn't much profit margin built into the client chargeable rate.

[ZFT]

People are kidding themselves here. Civil FFS’s whether they be Boeing, Airbus, Rotary or Business Jets all basically cost the same to build with the only delta being the aircraft parts and data (normally procured from the airframe OEM).

The Rotary and/or Business Jet training business has been very cleverly turned into a closed shop by CAE and FSI (and now Textron) by getting sole source agreements with the airframe OEMs for the data making other TDMs unable to build competitive platforms.

Hence the unbelievably high rates that are quoted within this thread.

[outhouse]

Gulf Helicopters had a 139 sim with various approvals a few years ago when I was Training Manager.
Maybe worth a contact, no idea now of cost or active approvals currently available.
:cool:

[Outwest]

Gulf Helicopters had a 139 sim with various approvals a few years ago

Was level B when we used it.....not sure if D now or not

[outhouse]

Yes it was but the approval status was acceptable with EASA. The night qualification was a issue with EASA until the windscreens were fitted, no idea what the situation is since I left but understand its still operating OK.

[212man]

The Rotary and/or Business Jet training business has been very cleverly turned into a closed shop by CAE and FSI (and now Textron) by getting sole source agreements with the airframe OEMs for the data making other TDMs unable to build competitive platforms.


Actually, CAE also obtain their own data from airframes when they can't source it from the OEMs - case in point being the S92.

[outhouse]

True 212 man, we had to do a series of data gathering test flights and then prove the data was accurate against the sim performance SW. Then some tweaking to accurately mimic the performance and handling characteristics to satisfy the EASA needs for certification. As I remember one of the areas needing attention was low speed and ground handling (running landings). A interesting time I seem to recall. Still the memory may well be fogged with the passing years.

[212man]

That device was made by Cuesim, of course. Frasca also gathered their own data for the S92, EC225 and S76c++.......

[outhouse]

Yes it was, Frasca has done good work getting data as you say, Trying to design and build a sim without the manufactures data available is not a task I would try again, to many sleepless nights until final approval chit was signed.

[SimFlightTest]

The CAE S92 actually uses Frasca flight test data.

[212man]

The CAE S92 actually uses Frasca flight test data.

Really? I thought the data was acquired using a CHC machine (Frasca's was acquired with BHL).

[SimFlightTest]

My understanding is that supplemental S92 data might have been collected by CAE on some other operator's machine, but the bulk of the data used by CAE comes from the data Frasca collected from BHL's machine.

[outhouse]

Hi all,
As one who was responsible for the collection and validity of data collected. The main problem was availability of air frames and the fitment of the data collecting equipment. Also ensuring valid and consistent results.
The main problem was getting the results accepted by required authority and verified. Approval of the various profiles that required confirmation re actual helicopter performance against actual flight performance was not a simple task.
Will stop now as the technical **** is tedious and not interesting to some. as i am retired and may be in need some stimulation bell me on PM if interested on any further info.

[namesiw]

Hello to all of you.
Who knows how much for a Type R. on AW139 (less price) plus IR?
And how much for AW109 + IR?
And where?
I have twin engine and IR current.
I have to decide to do one of those but in Italy they ask a lot of money.
Thank you.