By Anthony Digati, The Jetstream Group
When pursuing a type rating in light jets such as the Beechcraft Premier I (RA-390), Embraer Phenom 100 (EMB-500), Embraer Phenom 300 (EMB-505), or Cessna Citation Mustang (CE-510), pilots are faced with a critical decision: should training be conducted in a full-motion simulator or in the actual aircraft?
This question often sparks passionate debate in the aviation community. Both approaches have proven records of producing competent, safe pilots. Yet the ideal choice depends greatly on the pilot's background, goals, and training style.
Simulator-Based Training: Strengths and Limitations
Full-motion simulators have become the gold standard for most airline, charter, and corporate flight departments. These devices replicate aircraft behavior, systems, and environmental conditions with remarkable fidelity, allowing pilots to practice emergencies too dangerous to simulate in the real airplane.
Advantages:
- Safety in scenario training – Engine failures at V1, rapid decompression, and other critical failures can be repeated safely without risk to people or equipment.
- Controlled environment – Training centers can create highly specific weather, traffic, and systems conditions on demand.
- Standardization – Professional crews benefit from consistent evaluation standards, especially for recurrent checks required by company or regulatory programs.
However, simulator training is not without drawbacks, particularly for owner-pilots making the jump from piston or turboprop aircraft:
- Transfer gap – Even high-fidelity Level D simulators can differ in feel, control responsiveness, and cockpit ergonomics from the actual aircraft.
- Longer time commitments – Courses at large training providers often require 18–21 days on site, away from home and business.
- Less individualization – Group scheduling and standardized curricula can make personalization more challenging.
In-Aircraft Training: A Hands-On Approach
For many owner-pilots—especially those whose flying experience has been almost exclusively in real airplanes—in-aircraft training offers a natural and familiar learning progression.
- Immediate real-world application – Training in the aircraft ensures every maneuver, checklist, and system operation is experienced exactly as it will be in day-to-day flying.
- One-on-one instruction – Instructors tailor the pacing and depth to the individual pilot, focusing on areas that most need reinforcement.
- Time efficiency – In-aircraft programs can be completed in as few as eight days at the pilot's home airport, minimizing disruption to business and personal life.
- Enhanced confidence in type – The transition to unsupervised flight is smoother when the pilot has already logged significant time in the exact airframe they will operate.
From over 15 years of experience training in these aircraft, it's clear that owner-pilots often thrive with this method. These are highly capable individuals—often entrepreneurs or business owners—who value efficiency, direct instruction, and hands-on learning.
Professional vs. Owner-Pilot Perspectives
Professional pilots, such as those employed by airlines, charter companies, or freight carriers, are generally accustomed to simulator training. Their entire careers may have been built on recurrent checks, line checks, and semiannual proficiency tests in simulators. They benefit from the standardization simulators provide, and from training programs built for crews flying together.
Owner-pilots, in contrast, typically experience only one formal proficiency check per year—during recurrent training—and otherwise fly without a check airman monitoring them. In-aircraft training provides these pilots with immersive, personal attention, and replicates the same kind of direct mentorship they've had since their earliest flight lessons.
The Insurance Factor
Insurance considerations often drive the training format decision. Many underwriters favor simulator-based training, in part because large simulator companies have long-standing relationships with insurers. While this can influence the path an owner-pilot chooses, growing acceptance of in-aircraft training—especially when paired with strong safety records—has helped open the door for alternative programs.
Finding the Balance
The debate between in-aircraft and simulator-based training is unlikely to be settled anytime soon. For some, the simulator's safety and scenario flexibility will remain indispensable. For others, particularly owner-pilots of light jets like the RA-390, EMB-500, EMB-505, and CE-510, the real aircraft environment offers unmatched realism, efficiency, and personal engagement.
The decision ultimately comes down to matching the training environment to the pilot's background, goals, and lifestyle—and ensuring that whichever method is chosen, it is delivered with professionalism, rigor, and a commitment to safety.