Air traffic control (ATC) simulators are essential tools for controller training, operational research and higher education, enabling realistic practice without affecting live air traffic. Although commercial simulation platforms are widely available, limited research has addressed structured engineering methodologies for designing university-based ATC simulation facilities that integrate regulatory, ergonomic, and technical requirements. This paper proposes a systems engineering framework for the conceptual design of university ATC simulators, combining stakeholder requirements, international aviation regulations, human factors principles, and engineering design within a requirement-driven workflow. The framework supports the design process from requirements analysis and functional decomposition to architectural layout, visualization system design, and technical infrastructure planning. Its applicability is demonstrated through the conceptual development of a 360° panoramic ATC simulator for higher education, comprising a 6.90 m diameter cylindrical screen driven by eight synchronized 4K laser projectors (effective horizontal resolution 19,968 pixels, 1.08 arcmin/pixel), a total usable floor area of approximately 278 m2, and an estimated installed electrical power of 25 kW. Furthermore, the framework incorporates universal design principles and specialized accessibility guidelines to ensure full ergonomic and physical accommodation for students with special needs. The proposed solution integrates the main functional areas of the simulation facility, including visualization, operator workstations, communication systems, and supporting infrastructure, while ensuring compliance with relevant standards and educational requirements. The proposed framework provides a structured and reusable methodology for the development of university ATC simulators and can support future educational and research simulation projects by improving design consistency, traceability, and scalability.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Enache et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: