Best Combined ATO/AOC Operations Software 2026: Complete Comparison

The practical consequence is a software gap. Pure flight school platforms handle ATO training records well but cannot model AOC charter billing, crew duty time aggregation across certificates, or sales-to-dispatch workflows for commercial customers. Pure charter and AOC platforms handle dispatch and crew rostering well but lack student syllabus tracking, CBTA progression, and the audit-ready training file inspectors will request during ATO oversight. Combined operators that try to use one tool for both ends up running parallel systems — and the seam between the systems is where revenue, duty time accuracy, and compliance gaps appear.

We wrote about the broader operational picture in managing combined ATO/AOC operations, and the underlying regulatory differences in EASA vs FAA compliance. This article compares the four platforms operators most commonly evaluate when they need software that genuinely covers both certificates.

We compare on the dimensions that change the decision rather than the ones that pad a feature grid:

Aviatize is built around the assumption that a modern operator does more than one thing. The platform combines scheduling, component-level maintenance, multi-rate billing, training records, document compliance, and safety reporting in a single system — covering the full mix of ATO, AOC, SPO, and HEMS activities under one tenant.

Multi-certificate scheduling is core to the design. Each booking carries its certificate context, which drives the validation rules, the duty time accounting, and the invoicing logic. A morning training flight under Part-FCL, a midday Part-CAT charter, and an evening Part-SPO survey all use the same scheduling engine but with different rules applied per booking. Duty time aggregates across all activities — a pilot flying training in the morning and an AOC charter in the afternoon cannot be booked into a third flight that would breach the cumulative limit, even if no single activity has exceeded its individual limit.

The billing engine uses itemised line items for both sides. Training is billed by the Hobbs hour at a fixed rate with separate aircraft, instructor, and landing-fee lines. AOC charter is billed with positioning legs, productive flight time, on-site standby, daily minimums, monthly retainers, and mission-specific fuel surcharges — all generated automatically from the booking type. The same airframe that flies a training sortie on Tuesday at the standard Hobbs rate flies a survey mission on Wednesday with positioning, productive, and four-hour daily minimum lines. Accounting integrations cover PEPPOL, Sage Intacct, Exact Online, and QuickBooks.

Aviatize supports 110+ aviation authorities natively — including EASA, UK CAA, FAA, CASA, TCCA, and others — with the validation rules adapting to each operator's regulatory mix. Crew qualifications track type ratings, instructor authorisations, examiner approvals, HEMS crew member certificates, and currency expirations across all certificates simultaneously. The native iOS and Android apps cover student check-in, instructor lesson grading, charter dispatch, squawk reporting, and document uploads. Pricing is per aircraft per month, starting at €29 per aircraft on an annual plan, with all users included.

And Aviatize is no untested newcomer: it is a mature platform relied on by operators worldwide for years, built and maintained by a serious team with real aviation and engineering expertise. Your operation's backbone deserves a system that has already been proven in the field.

FL3XX documents FL3XX Platform and FL3XX BRIGHT, Maintenance, logs, flight tracking and resource planning, Sales quoting, Integration ecosystem and FTL compliance across EMEA, APAC and the Americas on its own product pages.

Also from their own pages, read on 2026-07-28: 7 Continents, 60 Countries, 180+ Integrated Services, 250K+ Flights and Founded 2010. Those are the vendor's own statements — we quote them rather than audit them.

Their solutions list covers charter and commercial operations. Flight training is not among the segments they name, which is worth raising directly if you are evaluating them for an ATO.

FL3XX publishes no pricing — no rates, and no pricing model — so a like-for-like cost comparison means asking them for a quote.

What their public pages don't settle: whether ATO or flight-training records are in scope. Those are the questions to put to them in a demo rather than gaps we are asserting: a capability missing from a marketing page is evidence about the page, not about the product.

Leon Software documents Schedule, Sales, Marketplace, Crew and OPS on its own product pages, along with 8 further capabilities.

Also from their own pages, read on 2026-07-29: Hundreds of aviation companies around the globe and Release notes published on a roughly two-week cadence. Those are the vendor's own statements — we quote them rather than audit them.

Their solutions list covers business, scheduled, cargo, trip-support and broker operations. Flight training is not among the segments they name — across their home, pricing, about and product pages there is no mention of flight schools, students, syllabi or instructors — so an ATO evaluating them should ask directly how training records would be handled.

On pricing, their own site states: published in full on their pricing page, per active aircraft per month: BASIC at €99, and PRO at €350 for MTOW under 50,000 lbs, €535 for 50,000–110,000 lbs, or €929 above 110,000 lbs. Trip support is a €2,299 flat monthly fee and brokers are €99 per user per month. Every plan includes unlimited users and stations and a 30-day free trial; their page describes it as "a very transparent pricing model. You pay a monthly fee per each active aircraft in a given month." Online training sessions are 100 EUR/h, with four included on PRO.

What their public pages don't settle: whether training records for an ATO could be held in the product at all — the concept does not appear on their pages. Those are the questions to put to them in a demo rather than gaps we are asserting: a capability missing from a marketing page is evidence about the page, not about the product.

FlightLogger documents Student Progression, Learning Management System (LMS), User Balance Module, Flight Time Limitation and CBTA Pro on its own product pages, along with 5 further capabilities.

Also from their own pages, read on 2026-07-28: 50 countries, 220 clients and 120,000 users. Those are the vendor's own statements — we quote them rather than audit them.

FlightLogger publishes how it charges but not what it charges. Their packages page publishes the structure without amounts: one Platform package described as "Only pay for what you train", charged on "Active Student & Operations Flights Fees", including all base platform features, standard support, unlimited aircraft and simulators, and unlimited renters, instructors, crew and admin users. Ten-plus optional add-on modules extend it. Amounts come via a "Get Pricing" enquiry. For a like-for-like total you will need a quote.

What their public pages don't settle: which regulatory frameworks the training records are built against — the site names none, whether native iOS and Android apps exist, and for which roles, how the maintenance module handles airworthiness directives, task cards, and parts inventory and whether the safety management system is included or priced separately. Those are the questions to put to them in a demo rather than gaps we are asserting: a capability missing from a marketing page is evidence about the page, not about the product.

Aviatize is the exception with published per-aircraft pricing from €29 per aircraft per month on annual billing, with all users included. For a combined operator running 12 aircraft across both sides of the operation, software cost stays constant regardless of how many students, instructors, dispatchers, charter clients, or admins use the system.

When comparing custom quotes, look beyond the headline rate at what is included versus paid as add-on. SMS modules, training modules, integration fees, hardware costs, onboarding fees, and support tier pricing all add to the total. A combined operator running two single-purpose platforms — one for ATO and one for AOC — should also factor in the integration cost between systems and the manual reconciliation effort for crew duty time and maintenance status.

Start with your activity balance. If your operation is 80% training and 20% charter, FlightLogger paired with a smaller AOC platform may work well — your centre of gravity is the training records. If your operation is 80% charter and 20% training, FL3XX or Leon Software paired with an ATO platform is a pattern worth pricing up — neither names flight training among the segments they sell to, so ask each of them what they would do with your training records before assuming a seam is unavoidable. If your operation is genuinely balanced — significant volume on both sides — the cost of two systems plus the seam between them adds up, and a platform built for both certificates in one tenant becomes more attractive.

European combined operators looking for a single multi-authority platform across EASA, UK CAA, and other frameworks lean toward Aviatize.

Pressure-test the duty time and billing seams. The two places combined operations bleed accuracy and revenue are crew duty time aggregation across certificates and itemised charter billing for positioning, standby, and minimums. If you are evaluating two platforms instead of one, walk through a realistic week — pilot flying training Monday through Wednesday and Part-CAT charter Thursday through Friday — and check whether the duty time totals at the end of the week match what your authority would expect to see during oversight.

Test data portability. Combined operations accumulate two streams of regulated records — training files and AOC records — both of which may be required during oversight. Ask each vendor what export formats are supported and how long records are retained. Comprehensive CSV export plus a documented REST API is the standard worth holding vendors to.

Two consequences worth naming. First, we build one of the products compared here and we list it first — read this as a well-sourced argument from an interested party, not an independent test, and get a demo from everyone on the list including us. Second, where we could not read a vendor's own material, that product is left out rather than described from second-hand summaries, so this comparison may be shorter than other round-ups.

If you work for one of the companies here and we have described your product inaccurately or out of date, email hello@aviatize.com with the correct information and where you publish it. We will correct the article and update the retrieval date.

For operators that genuinely want one platform across both certificates — with itemised multi-rate billing, crew duty aggregation, multi-authority validation, and per-aircraft pricing that does not punish growth on either side — Aviatize is built for that scenario. For combined operators with strong existing investments on either the AOC side (FL3XX, Leon) or the ATO side (FlightLogger), the two-platform pattern works as long as the seam between systems is managed deliberately. See how Aviatize handles combined ATO/AOC operations, or book a demo using a real workflow from your operation.