To determine the current state of robotic urological practice, to establish how robotic training has been delivered and to ascertain whether this training was felt to be adequate. A questionnaire was emailed to members of the European Association of Urology robotic urology section mailing list. Outcomes were subdivided into three groups: demographics, exposure and barriers to training, and delivery of training. A comparative analysis of trainees and independently practising robotic surgeons was performed. 239 surgeons completed the survey, of these 117 (48.9 %) were practising robotic surgeons with the remainder either trainees or surgeons who had had received training in robotic surgery. The majority of robotic surgeons performed robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (90.6 %) and were undertaking >50 robotic cases per annum (55.6 %). Overall, only 66.3 % of respondents felt their robotic training needs had been met. Trainee satisfaction was significantly lower than that of independently practising surgeons (51.6 versus 71.6 %, p = 0.01). When a subgroup analysis of trainees was performed examining the relationship between regular simulator access and satisfaction, simulator access was a positive predictor of satisfaction, with 87.5 % of those with regular access versus 36.8 % of those without access being satisfied (p < 0.01). This study reveals that a significant number of urologists do not feel that their robotic training needs have been met. Increased access to simulation, as part of a structured curriculum, appears to improve satisfaction with training and, simultaneously, allows for a proportion of a surgeon's learning curve to be removed from the operating room.