The Challenges Facing Competency-Based Training

Competency-based training and assessment (CBTA) has emerged as one of the most significant shifts in aviation training philosophy in recent decades, promising measurable safety improvements and greater training efficiency.

Yet for all its potential, the transition from traditional task-based programs to CBTA is far from straightforward. A complex web of internal and external challenges exists, ranging from assembling the right project teams and upskilling instructors, to securing regulatory buy-in and sustaining momentum when key personnel move on.

In this second edition of the series, we look at what successfully navigating this transition demands: careful planning, cross-stakeholder collaboration, and an assessment of where gaps exist. This article examines the key obstacles organisations face when implementing CBTA, and the strategies that can help them overcome these hurdles.

Building the Right Team

According to Yann Renier, head training & licensing, OSS-flight and technical operations at The International Air Transport Association (IATA), the transition to CBTA represents an opportunity in terms of safety benefits and training efficiency, but it also requires effort. “Before initiating any implementation measures, the CBTA project team must ensure that all relevant stakeholders are informed of the intention to introduce CBTA programmes. The goal of the information sessions is to ensure that internal and external stakeholders are properly aware of the plans for the transition from traditional training to CBTA”, he said. “Information sessions are necessary because effective CBTA implementation depends on fruitful collaboration between the internal stakeholders and external stakeholders, such as the competent authority responsible for overseeing the organisation.

The content of information sessions should enable the CBTA project team’s vision, including the opportunities and challenges of CBTA implementation, to be shared with internal and external stakeholders. “It is also recommended that the CBTA project team organise periodic information sessions with internal and external stakeholders to inform them of progress”, Renier said.

Organisations may encounter difficulties when original developers leave the company and are replaced by new personnel. “To address this issue, we use our oversight to promote open dialogue with certificate holders to minimise the impact of personnel changes. The FAA exercises oversight at two levels: Safety Standards and Safety Assurance. Safety Standards ensures that organisations maintain required documentation and adhere to established processes, including the established instructional systems design (ISD) process”, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) said.

Safety assurance involves ongoing verification of programme implementation and compliance. The FAA also requires organisations to submit monthly data and annual reports to monitor trends that may indicate internal problems.

The CBTA project team should be supported by of a group of experienced instructors dedicated to designing initial and refresher training for standardisers – i.e., instructors responsible for training and evaluating other instructors, according to Renier. “The goal is to ensure that the standardisers acquire in-depth knowledge and expertise in the essential components of CBTA, convey appropriate CBTA principles and procedures to instructors and pilots, transfer their experience to design initial and refresher standardisation for CBTA instructors, and share their expertise to support the professional development of CBTA course developers”, he said.

Organisations should involve standardisers from the outset, as they are the best way to convey the added value of CBTA to the workforce. The CBTA project team should also be supported by a group of experienced and committed CBTA course developers, based on the size of the organisation and the scope of the CBTA training to be delivered. “Experience has shown that competency-based course development requires different skills and mindsets than traditional task-based course design”, Renier said. “Therefore, the organisation should consider including future course developers without prior experience designing traditional training programs in this group. This facilitates the adoption of a new training philosophy, balancing representation between experts and impartial newcomers. This group of course developers should design the initial training for CBTA course developers, applying CBTA principles and procedures”.

Planning the Transition

Limitations may arise from the fact that there is currently no competency framework available for course developers. The design of this initial training for CBTA course developers, including practical exercises, should be carried out with the support of the instructors who developed the initial training for standardisers. “Instructors should particularly share their experience with the course developers, including but not limited to, identifying the list of activities and operational requirements, defining the adapted competency model, and conducting the competency-based training gap analysis and developing the vision for competency enhancement”, Renier said. “During this transition to CBTA, it is important that the two groups involved in training design (course developers) and training delivery (standardisers) collaborate closely for mutual benefit and effective CBTA implementation. Therefore, the CBTA project team should ensure that these groups do not work in isolation by scheduling regular work sessions between them”.

Renier advocates for a progressive approach to implementing CBTA to allow course developers and instructors to gain experience with CBTA on a limited range of courses before extending it to other types of training. The CBTA project team should provide the implementation plan to the competent authority responsible for approval. “The plan should be the result of an organisational gap analysis for the transition from traditional training to CBTA”, he said. “The gap analysis should be supplemented, where necessary, by a risk assessment to ensure a safe and effective transition to CBTA. The safety risk assessment requires the organisation to develop and maintain a process to ensure the analysis, evaluation, and control of safety risks associated with identified hazards”.

Measuring Training Effectiveness

Organisations should establish procedures to evaluate the effectiveness of training for any CBTA course they deliver. This evaluation may lead to course modifications or improvements. “Course standardisers and developers should analyse course outcomes, including participant performance data based on CBTA training metrics, participant feedback, instructor feedback, and audit reports based on training session observations. Course outcomes should integrate data collected during training and evaluation”, Renier said. “In any CBTA programme, this data should consist of competency metrics, observable behaviour metrics, and threat and error management metrics. Analysis of these metrics should ensure continuous programme improvement by identifying trends in participant performance during course delivery”.

Summing Up

Sustainable CBTA implementation hinges on building the right teams, maintaining open dialogue with all stakeholders, including regulators, and embedding continuous evaluation from the outset. No organisation can afford to approach this transition in isolation. A progressive, well-documented rollout, anchored in rigorous gap analysis and safety risk assessment, offers the most reliable path forward.