Flight Operations Software Development Services
Flight operations software built around your operation type, not an airline scheduling model.
Airline operations management platforms are built for the high-frequency, hub-and-spoke scheduling model of commercial passenger carriers. The mismatch appears when that platform is applied to a charter operator or corporate flight department where each flight is a separate trip request and crew are managed against a flight time limitation scheme designed for on-demand rather than scheduled operations. We build flight operations software around your actual operational model.
Flight scheduling from trip request through aircraft assignment with conflict detection and maintenance status checking
Crew scheduling with automated rest compliance checking against the applicable flight time limitation scheme
Operational flight plan generation from route, weight, and fuel data, integrated with navigation and weather sources
Flight following with position reporting and fuel state updates from crew to the operations centre throughout the flight
Bring the problem, the current workflow, or the existing code. We reply with a practical next step within one business day.
Trusted by
The brief
Start with what is not working.
Good software decisions begin with the constraint, not a list of features or a preferred technology.
Operations coordinators maintaining the crew roster in a spreadsheet and checking rest compliance manually before each assignment?
Flight following managed by phone calls and manual log entries, with no systematic view of where each aircraft is in its mission?
Plain answer
RaftLabs builds custom flight operations software for charter operators, corporate flight departments, and air ambulance services. It handles flight scheduling with conflict detection, crew scheduling with automated rest-limit compliance against your applicable FTL scheme (EASA ORO.FTL, FAA Part 117, or CASA CASR Part 48), operational flight plan generation, and real-time flight following. Fixed cost, agreed before the build.
What to remember
- Rest compliance checks run automatically before each crew assignment is committed, flagging a violation before the duty day begins rather than after.
- Cumulative duty hour tracking against 28-day, 90-day, and 12-month rolling windows shows how much headroom remains alongside each assignment.
- Operational flight plan generation integrates with Jeppesen, Lido, or Navtech for navigation data and standard METAR/TAF/SIGMET weather sources.
The rest check that happened after the duty day, not before it.
An operations coordinator keeps the crew roster in a spreadsheet. Before each assignment, they check rest compliance by hand, counting back through duty periods against the flight time limitation scheme, hoping nothing was missed.
Flight following runs on phone calls and manual log entries. There is no single view of where each aircraft is in its mission, so an overdue position report gets noticed late, if at all.
The airline platform someone suggested does not fit: it assumes a fixed network schedule and a scheduled-operation rest rule set, not on-demand trip requests.
A system built around your operation checks rest before the duty day begins, not after. When that system needs to talk to the scheduling, crew, and maintenance tools the business already runs, business systems integration connects them with clear ownership of every handoff.
When airline operations platforms don't fit your operation type
The mismatch shows up fast when you drop an airline-focused platform onto a charter operator or corporate flight department. Routing is point-to-point, not network-based. Each flight is a trip request, not a fixed schedule. Crew get managed against an on-demand rest rule set, not a scheduled-operation FTL scheme. Custom flight operations software is built around your actual trip request workflow, crew roster, applicable rest rules, and the API connections that carry operational control messages. Rest compliance checks reflect your specific applicable FTL scheme, not a generic assumption, and a breach is flagged at the point of assignment rather than after the fact.
On-demand operators feel growth first in the back office, where crew rest math and flight following still run on spreadsheets and phone calls. A system built around your operation absorbs that load instead of adding to it.
RaftLabs has shipped custom software since 2015. For operators flying government or defense missions, we plan for data residency and export-control constraints on where flight and crew data lives. The team that scopes your operation is the team that builds the system: no bait-and-switch, no offshore handoff after the contract is signed. Every project is delivered at a fixed cost, calculated and locked in writing before any development starts. We frame the first release as a validated v1 you can run live, then iterate from there.
This is built for non-scheduled operations, not for scheduled airlines.
Everything on the left should already be true for your operation. Even one thing on the right, and an airline platform or an off-the-shelf product is the smarter first step.
You run non-scheduled operations: a charter operator, corporate flight department, air ambulance service, or specialist air operator.
Each flight is a separate trip request, not a fixed network schedule, and crew are managed against an applicable FTL scheme (EASA ORO.FTL, FAA Part 117, CASA CASR Part 48, or a custom approved scheme).
Rest compliance, flight following, or operational control creates real risk or administrative burden in your current process.
You run a high-frequency, hub-and-spoke scheduled passenger airline that a commercial airline platform already fits.
Crew rest compliance is trivial, or already handled by a tool you are happy with.
You want an off-the-shelf product to configure yourself, not a system built around your actual operation.
The first decision is not what to build.
It is whether software is the right answer at all. We use four possible recommendations before discussing a development scope.
Buy
Run the build-vs-buy numbersChoose a maintained flight-ops product when it handles charter scheduling and rest rules and the remaining gaps can be solved with configuration.
Repair
Keep the current mix of spreadsheets and tools when the operation is small enough to run on them and the failure cost stays low. Start with evidence: where the data lives, who updates it, and where handoffs break.
Build
Own the system when on-demand trip requests, crew rest compliance, and flight following shape how the operation runs. Start with the trip-request-to-dispatch path.
Wait
Do not turn a temporary fleet or route change into permanent software. Stabilise the operation first, then measure what still hurts.
Not sure which path is yours? Bring it to a 30-minute call. Leave with the answer in writing.
What we build
What custom flight operations software covers
Flight scheduling
Trip request management through aircraft assignment with schedule conflict detection and maintenance status checking, schedule optimisation across multiple aircraft, and change propagation to crew and handling agents when a trip is modified.
Crew scheduling and rest compliance
Rest compliance checking runs automatically before each assignment against your applicable FTL scheme, with cumulative duty hour tracking against rolling look-back windows and augmented crew rest calculations for long-range sectors. Built for EASA and non-EASA operators alike.
Operational flight plan
Flight plan generation from route, weight, fuel policy, and weather data, with fuel calculation covering trip, contingency, alternate, and reserve fuel validated against your operations manual, and electronic filing to ATS. We integrate with Jeppesen, Lido, or Navtech for navigation data and standard METAR/TAF/SIGMET weather sources.
Flight following
A flight following board shows every active flight's position, fuel state, and ETA from position reports or ADS-B data, with overdue report alerts triggering the operations controller to initiate contact procedures.
Load and balance
Load sheet generation calculates takeoff weight and centre of gravity against aircraft limits, with dangerous goods screening and electronic captain acceptance recorded before departure.
Operational control communications
An operations control log timestamps every significant communication during the flight, with automated departure/arrival messages, delay notification management, and NOTAM pulls for the pre-flight briefing package.
Maintenance extensions: closing one workflow gap without rebuilding MRO
Replacement should be the last option. Aviation maintenance systems carry linked records, configuration, history, permissions, integrations, and operating habits that are costly to reproduce. A focused extension is safer when the authoritative platform can remain in place.
A maintenance extension covers one controlled workflow: the aircraft, component, task, approved instruction reference, prerequisites, parts, tooling, status, findings, deferrals, and required sign-off stay tied together in one technical record. Aircraft, component, and part context is mapped through stable identifiers across MRO, ERP, inventory, document, and identity systems, so users can tell authoritative data from a cached operational view. Each state change and each authorised sign-off is captured with versions, attribution, timestamps, reason, approvals, and exports. Mobile and disconnected work is supported only where the operator accepts it, with clear conflict rules and a defined list of what cannot proceed without a live authoritative check. Integration is built with idempotent exchange, validation, retries, reconciliation, and monitoring, because a failed maintenance or parts update must reach an owner rather than disappear in a queue.
The boundary is fixed: software can present approved data, enforce agreed workflow controls, record decisions, and produce evidence. It cannot determine airworthiness or maintenance compliance. The operator, approved maintenance organisation, authorised personnel, quality team, and relevant authorities retain responsibility for approved maintenance data, release, continuing airworthiness, records, and compliance. Extend or configure the approved platform when it remains supportable and authoritative; buy a specialist product when the workflow is standard; build a focused custom extension only when a material recurring gap cannot be closed through supported configuration or integration.
Have a flight operations software project?
Tell us about your operation: your aircraft types, your crew structure, your applicable rest rule set, and where your current process creates risk or administrative burden. We'll scope a system built around your actual operation.
How it works
From scope to live operations system
- Week 101
Operation model scoping
We map your aircraft types, crew structure, and applicable rest rule set. You leave week 1 with a written scope document and a fixed-price quote.
- Weeks 2-502
Compliance and workflow design
FTL compliance logic and flight following workflow designed against your actual operation.
- Weeks 6-1503
Build and integrate
Scheduling, crew compliance, and flight plan integration built in parallel, tested against real operational scenarios.
- Final 2-3 weeks04
Launch v1 and operations team training
Operations controllers and crew trained on the new workflow, then a validated v1 goes live before you expand into the rest of ops.
What it costs
Custom flight operations software, fixed cost agreed in writing.
A system built around your aircraft types, crew structure, and applicable rest rule set, with a validated v1 you can run live before expanding into the rest of ops.
Crew scheduling and rest-rule compliance is where most operators start, since it is usually the most urgent gap. The rest of flight ops gets added once that module is running.
Starting investment
Starts at $10000
Cost is calculated against your aircraft types and crew structure. Start with crew scheduling and rest-rule compliance, then add the rest of ops. After a 30-minute call, you get a written build, buy, repair, or wait recommendation plus first-phase direction. Free, whether or not you build with us.
No hourly billing
Once we scope your operation, that price is locked in writing, no surprise invoices, no change fees you didn't agree to.
One team, start to finish
The team that scopes your operation builds the system. No bait-and-switch, no offshore handoff after the contract is signed.
Work with us
Tell us where the work is stuck.
Bring the rough workflow, half-built product, or messy brief. We will map the smallest useful first move, then send scope, timeline, and price in plain English.
- Scope and cost agreed before work starts. No surprises. No obligation.
- Working prototype within 3 weeks of kickoff.
- Pay by milestone. You see progress before each invoice.
- 60-day post-launch warranty. Bug fixes, UI tweaks, and deployment support. No retainer.
- All conversations are NDA-protected.
Common questions
Yes. Rest compliance checking is built against the specific FTL scheme applicable to your operation, EASA ORO.FTL, CASA CASR Part 48, FAA Part 117, or a custom scheme approved by your authority for non-scheduled operations. Look-back windows, maximum duty periods, minimum rest periods, and augmented crew provisions are all configured to match your operations manual.
Yes. We integrate with ADS-B data providers and satellite tracking systems, Iridium and Inmarsat, to provide position data without relying solely on crew voice position reports. Where the aircraft is equipped with ACARS, we integrate with ACARS message handling to receive position and fuel reports automatically.
Yes. We integrate with Jeppesen, Lido, and Navtech for navigation database data, and standard weather sources for METAR, TAF, and SIGMET. The flight planning calculation uses your operator's approved fuel policy and aircraft performance data from your approved flight manual.
Custom flight operations software connects to the systems you already fly with through open APIs, OEM platforms, and links to ERP, MRO, and legacy databases. It does not require a full rebuild to talk to your existing dispatch data, ACARS feeds, or aircraft interface devices. Name the feeds you need connected during scoping and they get wired into the first release.
On-time performance is decided on the ground, so the software should give real-time turn visibility: the problem surfaces early enough to act on, not after the delay is locked in. It should also support station-level delay debriefs so patterns get fixed instead of repeated. And crew rest compliance must be computed from the schedule the system built, not audited afterward.
ADS-B, satellite tracking, ACARS, and dispatch feeds arrive on different clocks and sometimes disagree. The system needs a documented authority model: which feed wins, how late data is reconciled, and how conflicts surface to the dispatcher. Post-migration data validation confirms the historical record came across intact.
Check three things against your own operation. First, rest compliance: the system applies your specific FTL scheme, flags a violation at assignment time, and shows duty-hour headroom on every assignment. Second, integration: it connects to your navigation data, weather, tracking, and legacy feeds, and line users get offline support where the network does not reach the ramp. Third, safety reporting: mobile-friendly anonymous hazard reporting with real-time safety trend dashboards.
Cost follows scope: which modules are included, how many aircraft types and crew groups the system covers, and which feeds and legacy systems need integration. The price is fixed and agreed in writing before development starts, so the number you sign is the number you pay.
The GA buyer question is simple: is my aircraft compliant right now? Logbooks, inspections, airworthiness directives, registration, and required documents should form one plain-language readiness picture, exportable. Aircraft often arrive with decades of paper history, so a real digital system has to handle both worlds: maintaining paper alongside digital is the hard problem, and retroactive conversion is a real buyer cost.
An A&P mechanic's signature is required on maintenance entries, so any digital logbook has to collect and validate electronic signatures. The requirements are explicit identity, intent, meaning, and assurance. Retain versions, attribution, timestamps, reason, approvals, and exports according to client rules. A convenient interface must not become an unofficial source of maintenance data.
Serialized and lot-controlled inventory, shelf-life and expiration alerts, rotable exchange and repair tracking, and complete installation history per component. Map stable identifiers and configuration relationships across MRO, ERP, inventory, document, and identity systems so users can tell authoritative data from a cached operational view. Failed maintenance or parts updates must reach an owner rather than disappear in a queue.
No. Software can present approved data, enforce agreed workflow controls, record decisions, and produce evidence. The operator, approved maintenance organisation, authorised personnel, quality team, and relevant authorities retain responsibility for approved maintenance data, release, continuing airworthiness, records, and compliance.
Extend or configure the approved platform when it remains supportable and authoritative. Buy a specialist product when the workflow is standard. A focused custom extension is justified only when a material recurring gap cannot be closed through supported configuration or integration. Full MRO replacement carries much greater migration and assurance risk.
Go deeper