What security and data-isolation standards should airlines require before trusting a training center's software?

Before signing off on a training center's software, an airline or charter client should require documented tenant isolation between client accounts, role-based access control scoped to job function, encryption in transit and at rest, a written vulnerability-disclosure process, and audit logging that shows who touched a pilot's record and when. If a vendor can't produce a security and trust page answering these points in writing, treat that as a red flag before pilot data ever goes in.

Pilot training records contain medical data, check-ride history, and credential expirations tied to a person's ability to fly under FAA rules — data an airline, charter operator, or corporate flight department is trusting to a third party it doesn't control. Because most training centers run this software for multiple client accounts on the same platform, the review an airline runs before signing off needs to go beyond "do you have a login page" and into how client data is actually separated, who inside the vendor's system can see it, and what happens when something goes wrong. This is a due-diligence checklist any operator can use regardless of which vendor they're evaluating.

Why the answer is what it is

Tenant isolation between client accounts

If a training center serves multiple airlines or charter clients from one platform, ask specifically how one client's pilot roster, records, and billing are kept separate from another's — not just at the login screen, but in the underlying data model. A vendor should be able to describe this in plain terms in a written security document, not just assert it verbally on a sales call.

Role-based access, scoped to job function

Not every seat at a training center needs to see every pilot's file. Ask whether access is scoped by role (director of training, dispatcher, instructor, billing) so a person's job function limits what they can view or edit, and whether write access to compliance and training records is restricted to specific roles by default rather than open to anyone logged in.

Time-limited access for outside auditors and evaluators

FAA evaluators, your own compliance staff, or a client-side auditor may need to look at records without becoming permanent users of the vendor's system. Ask whether the platform supports read-only access that expires automatically after a defined window, rather than a shared login or a credential someone has to remember to revoke manually.

Encryption, and a real vulnerability-disclosure process

Confirm data is encrypted both in transit and at rest, and ask what the vendor's process is if a security researcher or a client finds a flaw — is there a published way to report it, and a stated commitment to respond. A vendor that treats this as an afterthought instead of a documented policy is telling you something about how they'll handle an actual incident.

Audit logging you can hand to an inspector or your own compliance team

Ask whether the system logs who accessed or changed a pilot's training record and when, and whether that log is exportable. This matters twice over: an FAA inspector may ask for it during an audit, and your own airline safety or compliance department may need it to confirm a record wasn't altered after the fact.

What to look for

• Ask for a written security and trust document, not a verbal assurance on a sales call
• Confirm tenant isolation between client accounts is described in specific, technical terms
• Verify role-based access limits who inside the vendor's system can view or edit pilot records
• Check that outside auditor or evaluator access is time-limited and expires automatically
• Confirm encryption in transit and at rest, plus a published vulnerability-disclosure process
• Require exportable audit logs showing who touched a record and when
• Get a client-portal walkthrough so you see your own pilots' data separated from the vendor's internal staff view

Related questions

Should we require SOC 2 or a formal security certification before signing with a training center's software vendor?

A formal certification is one way to get assurance, but it's not the only one. At minimum, require a written security and trust document covering tenant isolation, encryption, RBAC, and vulnerability disclosure, and ask direct questions until the vendor's answers match what's written. Treat vague or verbal-only answers as a reason to slow down, regardless of whether a certification is in place.

Does the FAR 117 duty-rest or fatigue-risk scoring in aviation ops software count as AI, and does that affect a security review?

It shouldn't be AI at all if you want an answer you can defend to an inspector. Duty-rest legality under FAR 117 and 121.467, FRAT scoring, and AOG or predictive-maintenance risk scores should run on deterministic, auditable rules — same inputs produce the same answer every time. AviationAlley is built this way: those engines are rules-based, not probabilistic, with any AI assistance limited to drafting plain-English briefs and narrating what's driving a score a human still reviews.

Who should have access to a client airline's pilot records inside a training center's shared platform?

Ideally, the client's own designated manager sees their pilots' training status, medical expiry, and upcoming sessions through a dedicated client portal — cleanly separated from the training center's internal staff interface. Ask the vendor to show you that separation directly rather than taking a description of it at face value.

How Roffik addresses this

The platform for FAA-approved Part 142 training centers — simulator scheduling, FAA compliance records, client-account billing, and SWIFT wire reconciliation. Learn more about AviationAlley.