In the first two episodes of The Training Standard podcast, we explored what Competency Based Training andAssessment (CBTA) is and how it differs from legacy training models. But even with a clear definition and structured framework, hesitation remains across the industry.
In Episode 3, Bryan Roseveare, Training Manager at Simaero South Africa, and Cédric Coffignal, Training Manager at Simaero France and CBTA Subject Matter Expert, tackle these concerns head-on. The conversation moves beyond philosophy and into practical realities: pilot incomprehension, instructor standardization, fleet differences, and implementation challenges.
Let’s unpack the biggest myths and misconceptions.
One of the most frequent criticisms sounds like this: “If I wanted therapy, I’d go to a therapist. Why are you grading my personality?”
The concern is understandable. When training shifts from task repetition to behavioral assessment, it can feel subjective — even intrusive.
This reaction captures a widespread misunderstanding.
CBTA is not about evaluating personality. And it is certainly not therapy.
CBTA evaluates observable behaviors linked to clearly defined competencies. These competencies are standardized (ICAO framework) and supported by behavioral markers. Instructors are not judging who a pilot is. They assess how a pilot performs when facing complexity, uncertainty, and unexpected threats.
Another concern is that focusing on competencies like decision-making or situational awareness might dilute emphasis on manual handling skills.
Are we creating managers instead of pilots?
Cédric’s answer is clear: absolutely not.
Within the ICAO-defined framework of nine competencies, technical performance remains central. Two competencies are explicitly technical, and one is fully dedicated to manual flight path management. Manual handling is not downgraded. It is formally integrated into a balanced system.
The weight of each competency remains equal during assessment. What changes is the context.
For example, during a cruise-level abnormal scenario, the most critical competency may not be manual flying — especially if automation is functioning correctly. Instead, problem-solving and decision-making may determine the safety outcome.
In aviation training, flight hours and experience have long been viewed as the primary indicators of capability. However, modern operational environments demand more than accumulated exposure to past situations. The CBTA approach introduces a more precise distinction: the difference between experience and true operational competence.
Experience is the accumulation of situations previously encountered. But aviation constantly produces novel combinations of variables: weather, technical faults, operational pressures, crew dynamics.
When a situation is entirely new, experience alone is insufficient. Competence, which is the ability to transfer knowledge, apply reasoning, and adapt, becomes decisive.
Experience is what you’ve seen before.
Competence is what allows you to handle what you’ve never seen. And CBTA trains for the latter.
With increasing experience can come decreasing conscientiousness — a phenomenon instructors know well. A pilot may become relaxed about procedures, skip checklist verifications, or under estimate threats.
How does CBTA address this?
Through Individual Tailored Training (ITT), instructors can introduce targeted, unexpected threats designed to expose specific weaknesses, such as overconfidence. The goal is not to “trap”the pilot but to create reflective learning.
The debrief then becomes crucial. Instead of instructor-driven criticism, CBTA promotes facilitated reflection:
When a pilot identifies their own vulnerability, the learning becomes far more durable.
In Episode 3, Bryan raises a concern that many quietly share: What happens if two instructors watch the same simulator session. and one grades situational awareness differently from the other?
One of the most frequently raised concerns about CBTA is the risk of subjectivity. If instructors are evaluating competencies such as situational awareness or decision-making, what prevents inconsistent grading? What happens if two instructors observe the same session but reach different conclusions?
However, CBTA is specifically designed to prevent this outcome.
The first safeguard is robust course design. Clearly defined competencies are supported by observable behavioral indicators, giving instructors objective reference points during both observation and debriefing. Assessment is therefore anchored in what was seen and heard.
The second safeguard is instructor standardization and recurrent calibration. Through structured recurrent Instructor Concordance Assurance Programs (ICAP), instructors review recorded scenarios, compare evaluations, and recalibrate their interpretation of behavioral markers. These sessions promote alignment, reduce grading variability, and strengthen consistency across the instructor pool.
The conversation in the podcast also expands this idea to fleet differences.
Under legacy systems, different fleets can gradually develop their own cultures.
CBTA introduces a common language.
The aircraft, automation logic or failure management may differ. But the competencies remain the same across every cockpit. The training methodology also remains consistent.
Ironically, by reducing the focus on dozens of individual maneuvers and aligning around a finite set of competencies, CBTA can make instructor standardization easier, not harder.
For many airlines, the idea of transitioning to CBTA can feel overwhelming. With tight margins, operational pressures, and constant regulatory demands, a change in training philosophy may appear to require a complete overnight transformation.
In reality, the transition is gradual and adaptable.
The first step is understanding where the organization stands: Are we operating under legacy recurrent training? Mixed EBT? Baseline EBT? Are we an AOC, an ATO, or both? The pathway depends on that starting point.
For EBT under EASA, for example, the move from legacy training typically progresses through Mixed EBT before reaching Baseline EBT. The framework is structured and phased. For broader CBTA implementation, especially within ATOs, organizations can move at their own pace — beginning with instructor awareness and standardization before redesigning courses.
Some airlines need full end-to-end support. Others may only require assistance refining course design or aligning instructor calibration.
At Simaero, the approach is not to deliver a generic solution, but to build a partnership tailored to each operator’s maturity level and objectives.
Transitioning to CBTA is not all or nothing. It is a structured evolution — step by step.
Much of the resistance to CBTA stems from attempting to apply legacy thinking to a new structure.
CBTA is not softer training. It is a structured, behavior-based framework designed to address the human factors that most frequently contribute to accidents.
Listen to Episode 3 on your preferred podcast platform and continue the conversation:
Simaero is a world-leading provider of pilot training on full-flight simulators and simulation engineering solutions. In global aviation, change is a constant. We promise to be a straightforward and continual presence in the complex training requirements of international airlines and pilots. With five training centres strategically located in France (headquarters), South Africa, China and India, Simaero trains over 5,000 pilots every year from 250+ civil and military carriers and 80+ countries. Our simulator fleet and training solutions cover the main commercial aircraft types, including Airbus, Boeing, ATR, and Embraer.
©Simaero Holding. 26 avenue de la demi-lune, 95700 Roissy-en-France, France
