Competency-Based Training Faces New Demands As Its Scope Expands

Competency-based training and assessment (CBTA) has been reshaping aviation training for nearly two decades, steadily broadening its reach from flight crews to air traffic controllers, cabin crew, and beyond.

What began as a framework for the multi-crew pilot licence in 2006 has evolved into a comprehensive methodology that teaches real-world skills and competencies in preference to completing a set number of training hours. Aviation organisations worldwide are now adopting or are being required to adopt CBTA across their entire workforce, yet, as its scope expands, so do the challenges: regulatory gaps, cultural resistance, and evolving requirements.

The first in a two-part series on CBTA, this article examines how organisations are extending competency-based training beyond its traditional domains, the implementation requirements they face, and what lies ahead as upcoming International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) requirements set to take effect in 2028 raise the bar for the entire industry.

CBTA Expansion

Yann Renier, head training & licensing, OSS-flight and technical operations at The International Air Transport Association (IATA), said that CBTA has evolved from pilot-focused evidence-based training into a broader ICAO-supported framework applied across multiple aviation roles, including air traffic controllers and flight operations officers. From 2008 to 2013, the IATA training and qualification initiative (ITQI) extended the scope of CBTA to include recurrent operator training through evidence-based training (EBT), a paradigm for air operators’ recurrent training based on CBTA and operational safety data. “Since 2016, with the publication of Amendment 5 to the procedures for air navigation services – training (PANS-TRNG), the general CBTA provisions have been extended to all authorised personnel, such as air traffic controllers and dispatchers/flight operations officers (FOO)”, he says. “The criteria for implementing CBTA were primarily influenced by the chronological availability of the ICAO provisions and their incorporation into national regulations. Consequently, the first organisations to implement CBTA were approved training organisations (ATO) and air operators choosing to adopt MPL and EBT. The next step was to implement CBTA for other disciplines, such as air traffic controllers”.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) affirms that CBTA helps organisations mitigate risks, create a healthy corporate culture, manage operating costs, and improve service. “Advanced qualification programmes’ (AQP) CBTA simplifies the development of the skills needed to operate in dynamic or complex operating environments, resulting in time savings. AQP also ensures that the workforce keeps their knowledge and skills up to date”, it said in a statement.

From an airline’s perspective, the training manager is generally responsible for training the following operational personnel: flight crew, cabin crew, and flight operations officers. “Therefore, several airlines that have implemented CBTA for flight crew have extended the programme’s applicability to cabin crew and/or FOO personnel,” said Renier. “The implementation of CBTA for aircraft maintenance personnel is also ongoing, but generally less advanced than for air operations personnel.”

Implementation Requirements

The main differences between ICAO’s CBTA framework and the AQP in the United States are the prescriptive nature of the competencies and the less stringent requirements for summative assessments, data collection, and reporting. “In [ICAO’s Procedures for Air Navigation Services – Training] PANS-TRNG, the CBTA framework can be applied as an overlay to existing FAA training requirements”, the FAA said. “Implementing a CBTA programme is not limited to curriculum development and documentation, it also relies on training support activities, including recordkeeping, planning, facilitated debriefings, logistics, and IT”.

IATA has identified several instances where the vocabulary used in drafting various regulatory requirements is not aligned with ICAO provisions, leading to significant confusion. One basic example relates to presence of different definitions of ‘competency’ within a regulation. “Furthermore, there is evidence that many stakeholders, representing governments and industry, consider themselves CBTA-compliant because trainees’ performance is measured using an ICAO competency framework (or equivalent)”, Renier said. “This demonstrates a limited understanding of what a CBTA programme is and the level of resources required to adequately implement it”.

While a behavioural competency framework is indeed a very important CBTA component, in order for training programmes to qualify as ‘CBTA’ several additional elements must be embedded in training system, such as a competency based assessment and grading system, word pictures for competency grading, instructor guidance/standardisation for behavioural observation and competency assessment, training system performance and feedback process, and the use of facilitation as an instructional method.

Cultural Change

CBTA implementation requires a cultural change of training design shifting the perspective from prescriptive (every operator does pretty much the same) to performance-based (every operator customises training items and procedures to its peculiar reality).

One of the main challenges identified during the implementation of CBTA is the application of workflow 2 of the ICAO ADDIE instructional system design (ISD) model. “This workflow 2 is particularly challenging because the design of the training and assessment plan under a CBTA program implies a structured and consistent competency ‘ramp up’, which is far more elaborate compared to the traditional task-based training and checking approach,” said Renier. “Achieving workflow 2 requires demonstrating CBTA-specific knowledge and competence, emphasising that, within CBTA, the role of the course developer is as crucial as that of the instructor delivering the programme. Consequently, upcoming ICAO requirements (effective in 2028) will require course developers to demonstrate their ability to design a CBTA programme”.

By moving from a pass/fail evaluation system to a multi-point rating scale, instructors and evaluators can gain a clear understanding of the defined performance standards. “AQP requires organisations to use the same instructional systems design (ISD) process for operational staff, instructors, and evaluators, an approach that has been positively received”, the FAA said. “Data collection remains a challenge for organisations. However, the situation is improving as instructors and evaluators recognise that their input supports continuous training improvement”.

Regarding air operators, many have extensive experience with initial and ongoing instructor standardisation as part of approved evidence-based training programmes, which use operational data to prioritise relevant successful scenarios. “This standardisation ensures that EBT instructors can train and assess pilots using the competency framework. Some operators have also implemented the competency framework for flight instructors/evaluators promoted by IATA and published in PANS-TRNG. The European EBT regulations, for example, refer to this competency framework for instructors. Consequently, standardisers can train and evaluate instructors using the instructor competency framework”, Renier said.

Concordance (calibration) requirements are mandatory for EBT but not yet effectively implemented for CBTA. “For this reason, operators are more advanced in this area. Upcoming ICAO Licensing requirements, effective in 2028, will require more rigorous collection and analysis of concordance data for CBTA programmes. We can therefore expect ATOs to strengthen their current concordance programs in the coming years”, Renier said.

Recognising the importance of the instructor’s role, IATA recommends progressive development of instructor staff skills. Specifically, in the area of pilot competency assessment, IATA recommends that instructor competency development be based on explaining CBTA/EBT principles, engaging participants in discovering the pilot competency framework, assessing participants’ adequate understanding of threat and error management, and committing participants in defining the role of pilot competencies within threat and error management. “Additional practices include engaging participants in recognising pilot competencies through mini scripts, in recognising pilot performance through case studies, in evaluating pilot performance through videos and during training sessions”, said Renier.

Summing Up

CBTA’s expansion from flight crews to the broader aviation workforce reflects growing recognition that operational competence requires more than procedural compliance. Yet implementation remains at different speeds with some regulatory vocabulary misalignment and the understanding of CBTA requirements often limited to applying a competency framework. The 2028 ICAO requirements - mandating demonstrated course developer capability and strengthened concordance programmes - will compel organisations to invest more substantially in instructional design and data infrastructure.