ADDIE Model Emerges as a Vital Training and Safety Enabler

The global aviation industry is undergoing a shift in how pilot training is designed, delivered, and evaluated. As regulatory bodies and operators confront increasingly complex operational environments, traditional training models are giving way to performance-based and competency-driven frameworks. At the core of this evolution is the ADDIE (Analyze, Define, Develop, Implement, Evaluate) instructional systems design model, which is being adapted and integrated into modern regulatory approaches to support more data-informed and tailored training solutions.

Leading organizations—including International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), International Air Transport Association (IATA) and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) —are not only endorsing this change but also embedding elements of ADDIE into frameworks such as evidence-based training (EBT) and competency-based training and assessment (CBTA). This article explores how the ADDIE methodology is being operationalized within contemporary aviation training systems, the challenges operators face in implementation, and the tools and insights emerging to support continuous improvement.

Performance-Based

As the global aviation training industry increasingly moves towards performance-based regulation, leading international aviation bodies, such as ICAO, EASA, IATA and FAA, have expanded the ADDIE framework to support airlines and approved training organizations (ATO) in adopting these modern training paradigms, according to Andrew Mitchell, head of training at FTE. “In established systems such as the US Advanced Qualification Program (AQP) and the European Alternative Training and Qualification Programme (ATQP), the responsibility for executing all phases of ADDIE falls to the airline or ATO. In contrast, emerging systems such as evidence-based training (EBT) alleviate this burden by integrating parts of the ADDIE process into the regulatory framework itself,” he said. “This approach is designed to make next-generation training models more accessible and scalable for operators of all sizes.”

Taking as an example the EASA EBT framework, the “Analyze” and “Define” phases of ADDIE are largely predefined within the regulation, providing a clear and structured path for airlines and ATOs to create compliant simulation sessions, explained Mitchell. “In addition, the regulation provides specific requirements and guidelines for the ‘Evaluate’ phase, further simplifying its implementation,” he added. “If a similar approach were adopted in the broader area of competency-based training and assessment (CBTA), of which EBT is a subset, the transition to next-generation training could be made more robust, consistent and efficient across the entire aviation sector.”

Implementation Difficulties

According to Peter Hogston, global head of training at Acron Aviation, it is important to note that ICAO discusses the use of Instructional Systems Design (ISD) methodologies as a key factor in the delivery of CBTA. “As with all ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices (SARP), the development of ISD programs to support effective CBTA is dependent on the interpretation of ICAO SARPs by individual national aviation authorities,” he told the author.

“Many of the challenges facing ISD and CBTA programs are based on interpretation, i.e. a clear understanding of human factors and the importance of appropriate behaviors that influence or improve safety. This imbalance in understanding creates an inconsistent approach to design and competency-based development programs, caused by a lack of clarity on the part of NAAs or the inability of the operator to develop their own training programs to the correct level of understanding.”

The industry is currently in an adaptation phase where NAAs and operators are trying to develop programs that meet the different oversight needs and the wide range of operational requirements, affirmed Hogston. “This phase of the CBTA journey is not very different from the introduction of safety management systems (SMS). The early days were quite challenging, however today the global industry is fully aware of the benefits of risk-based safety management and is starting to understand the improvement that CBTA brings to the risk management paradigm,” he recalled.

Gilad Scherpf, senior director of aviation training development at Lufthansa Aviation Training, pointed out that, since EASA does not provide unified guidance for training development, requirements must be differentiated by scope. “While a training needs analysis [TNA] is foreseen for training under Parts 66 and 147, the most recent EASA Opinion 01/2025 on ‘Updating the requirements for flight simulation training devices’ includes a revision of Appendix 9 to EASA Part-FCL, to be integrated via the ADDIE instructional design process targeted in GM2 ORA.ATO.125,” he said. “The revised appendix will be based on a ‘task-to-tool’ philosophy for flight crew type rating training: tasks are prescribed here and matched to the capabilities of the device. This also extends to recurrent flight crew training.”

In parallel, EBT under EASA Air OPS ORO.FC.231 incorporates further significant guidance for the design of competency- and data-based recurrent training, explained Scherpf. “Furthermore, EASA also requires a TNA in the VTOL sector. As stated in GM1 FCD.300, ‘the applicant should have an appropriate methodology and/or tools to perform a training needs analysis (…) based on the specific characteristics of the aircraft (…)’,” he pointed out.

Ensuring Effectiveness

ADDIE requires data from a variety of sources to enable a clear development of group and individual training programs, Hogston emphasized. “Data is collected from the aircraft’s flight data recorders (FDR), simulators equipped with equipment similar to aircraft FDRs, as well as learning management systems (LMS), which record competency-based training and assessment scores and outputs,” he said. “The ability to benchmark fleets both internally and externally provides the training team with the ability to measure the effectiveness of the operator’s training programs and the performance of its SMS. These programs require significant input from the operator in developing and collecting data and, more importantly, effectively using the data to manage safety and continuous improvement.”

Each ADDIE phase requires a different focus, according to Scherpf. “The ‘analyse’ phase, for example, should be performed once, thoroughly and thoughtfully. From then on, any changes from the baseline must be constantly considered,” he said. “Typically, the ‘analyse’ phase is underestimated, and the ‘define’/’develop’ phases are started too early or with a subjective bias. The ‘evaluate’ phase offers the opportunity to integrate feedback into the entire process, for example through measuring competencies and observable behaviors (OBs) or feedback from instructors and trainees.”

To ensure effectiveness, concordance between the community of instructors and assessors (examiners) within an ATO or operator must be managed and measured to develop a consistent approach to training delivery and competency effectiveness, according to Hogston.

Identifying Gaps

Scherpf further observed that gaps can be identified based on validated operational data sources, ideally cross-checked with training data and/or qualitative feedback. “Examples of data sources include flight data monitoring (FDM), safety data (via SMS) or line operations safety audit (LOSA). This process requires expertise and resources from different areas,” he pointed out. “Training time is limited and valuable. Priorities should therefore be defined based on a competency framework, including a holistic assessment methodology and clear personal/company assessment boundaries.”

FDM and an effective safety reporting culture are indeed key to a fully effective SMS in flight operations, and this data can be used to identify training gaps. According to Hogston, by comparing flight data collected from a specific aircraft type with internal fleet and industry operations, both by airline and specific aircraft types, gaps in day-to-day operations can be identified and validated, resulting in targeted training solutions for a group of pilots or individuals. “The key is to be clear about what the training will provide, understand the data the operator holds or has access to, and how to use that data to achieve the defined objectives. Too often operators have a lot of data but little knowledge, because the initial stage of what the operator is trying to achieve has not been made clear from the outset,” he observed.

Supporting Tools

In governing the ADDIE system, it is necessary to institutionalise a standardized process and clear roles within the training organisation, according to Scherpf. “This includes tools such as simple templates or advanced design applications, including documentation of results. Continuous improvement can be achieved through existing process optimization initiatives or specific and repeated reviews, depending on the organization's configuration,” he said.

Acron Aviation uses a variety of internal and industry tools to define and collect data to support the development of training programs using ADDIE methodologies. “These tools include Flight Data Connect (FDC), our FDM tool, which allows training teams to view an operator’s daily performance, minute by minute, when needed. This data can also be compared to industry data, including aircraft types and specific locations at similar times and weather conditions,” Hogston said.

IATA publishes CBTA tables and performance metrics that allow direct engagement with partner airlines or through tables modified to meet the operator’s needs, explained the Acron Aviation executive. “Flight (motion) data can be collected from the simulator during training exercises or observed sessions, and the instructor can use our Competence Assessment Recording Application (CARA) to measure crew performance during assessment and training sessions,” he further said. “The data collected is linked directly to the Training Management System (TMS) used by training teams.”

A key enabler of continuous improvement is assessment and training sessions delivered by individual assessors and instructors, Hogston pointed out. “Recorded performance scores can be measured to ensure consistency in delivery and that training output meets the needs of the individual pilot or the safety needs of the operator,” he said. “The development of CBTA, effective use of ADDIE and continuous safety improvement will almost certainly be enhanced using artificial intelligence; systems that measure, learn, provide feedback and ultimately improve are on the horizon, which will in turn lead to very different tools for pilot training.”

Summing Up

As aviation training continues its transition toward performance-based and data-driven methodologies, the structured application of the ADDIE model emerges as a crucial enabler of consistency, effectiveness and safety. From integrating training needs analysis to harnessing flight data monitoring data and instructor feedback, operators are increasingly empowered to tailor training to real-world performance gaps. However, effectiveness depends on a clear understanding of the regulatory framework, access to quality data, and the institutionalization of robust training governance. While challenges exist around regulatory interpretation and implementation consistency, with the continued development of CBTA principles and the integration of AI-driven tools on the horizon, the aviation sector is poised to redefine how training effectiveness is measured and improved for the next generation of pilots.

(Editor’s note: Mario Pierobon is a Halldale Europe-based correspondent and regular contributor to CAT department. We’re pleased to post this latest feature article on a topic of interest to the civil aviation training enterprise.)