International Journal of Training Research

ISSN: 1448-0220 (Print) 2204-0544 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ritr20

Can competency-based training fly?: An overview

of key issues for ab initio pilot training

Peter Franks, Stephen Hay & Tim Mavin

To cite this article: Peter Franks, Stephen Hay & Tim Mavin (2014) Can competency-based
training fly?: An overview of key issues for ab�initio pilot training, International Journal of Training
Research, 12:2, 132-147, DOI: 10.1080/14480220.2014.11082036

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14480220.2014.11082036

Published online: 29 Jan 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 401

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 5 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ritr20
 Copyright © eContent Management Pty Ltd. International Journal of Training Research (2014) 12(2): 132–147.

Can competency-based training fly?:

An overview of key issues for
ab initio pilot training
P ETER F RANKS
School of Education and Professional Studies, Griffith University, Brisbane, QLD, Australia

S TEPHEN H AY
School of Education and Professional Studies, Griffith University, Brisbane, QLD, Australia

TIM M AVIN
School of Education and Professional Studies, Griffith University, Brisbane, QLD, Australia

ABSTRACT
Competency-based training (CBT) for pilots was formally introduced in 1999 by the Civil Avia-
tion Safety Authority (CASA) for training leading to the issue of aeroplane private and commercial
pilot licences. This initiative followed the Australian government’s introduction of CBT policy for
vocational and workplace training in the late 1980’s. Since then CBT has been criticised for sup-
porting the teaching and assessment of complex skills by breaking them down into sets of simple
skills or sub-routines. This paper argues that in the case of aviation in Australia, codifying flying
skills for the purpose of standardising and regulating flying instruction and assessment in early fly-
ing lessons has resulted in unintended consequences for pilot training policy and practice. It pro-
poses that while CBT may be used appropriately for initial development of physical flying skills, its
application is limited in areas of pilot training which require complex decision-making and criti-
cal judgement. The paper considers alternative approaches to pilot training that may be more suit-
able for teaching and assessing complex flying skills, whilst also addressing the identified
limitations inherent in CBT.

Keywords: CBT, instruction, flight, pilot, training, assessment, cognitive, learning

INTRODUCTION

A ccording to the National Quality Council

(NQC, 2009) competency is: the consistent
application of knowledge and skill to the stan-
dard of performance required in the workplace.
It embodies the ability to transfer and apply skills
and knowledge to new situations and environ-
ments. It encompasses the following concepts of
competencies – that they:
1. Are demonstrated to the standards required
in the workplace;
2. Comprise the application of specified knowl-
edge and skills relevant to that occupation;
3. Make appropriate reference to required generic
and employability skills;
4. Cover all aspects of workplace performance;
and

132 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TRAINING RESEARCH Volume 12, Issue 2, August 2014
© eContent Management Pty Ltd Can competency-based training fly? An overview of key issues
5. Can be demonstrated consistently over time,
covering a sufficient range of experiences
(including those in simulated or institutional
environments).
Following the Australian Government’s intro-
duction of competency-based training (CBT) for
vocational and workplace training (VET) in the
late 1980’s, CBT for pilot training in Australia
was formally introduced in 1999 by the Civil
Aviation Safety Authority (CASA). The main
vehicle for its introduction was the CASA syl-
labus for flight under Visual Flight Rules (VFR),
called the DAY VFR Syllabus (CASA, 2010). The
Day VFR Syllabus details the requirements for
training new (ab initio) pilots towards the issue
of the aeroplane private and commercial pilot
licences, while flying light aircraft in mostly
visual conditions by day.
While the focus of this paper is to critically
review the implementation of CBT in aviation
training in Australia, its main purpose is to
examine how the implementation of a govern-
ment-mandated training system aimed at regu-
lating training can lead to unintended negative
consequences for training outcomes, unless evo-
lutionary progressive review and evaluation
processes are implemented. Thus, the findings
presented in this paper may have implications for
understanding the impact of CBT in other coun-
tries, where CBT is being implemented for pilot
training and in other industries beyond aviation,
where CBT has been adopted for the training of
complex skills.
Accordingly, this paper engages broader
debates over CBT in vocational education and
training by critically examining the adoption and
implementation of CBT in ab initio flight train-
ing in Australia. It reviews the implementation of
CBT policy in the context of aviation to illus-
trate how mandated policies have focused prima-
rily on the administration of vocational training;
at the expense of appropriate training outcomes.
While it is acknowledged that CBT has provided
a convenient means for codifying flying skills for
Volume 12, Issue 2, August 2014 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TRAINING RESEARCH
the purposes of standardising and regulating fly-
ing instruction and assessment at the ab initio
level, this paper argues that the implementation
of CBT has resulted in an industry-wide ten-
dency to provide training aimed at achieving
minimum acceptable levels of competence in
pilots, rather than excellence. There is also a ten-
dency for this training to deemphasise the devel-
opment of cognitive skills required for complex
decision making during flight.
The paper is presented in three parts. Part one
places the introduction of CBT in aviation in
context by examining the broader issues relating
to the adoption of CBT nationally as a training
framework for the VET sector in Australia. Part
two extends this discussion to examine specific
issues relating to the adoption and implementa-
tion of CBT in the aviation industry. Part three
concludes the paper by considering alternative
approaches to pilot training, which may address
some of the identified weaknesses of CBT.
THE ADOPTION OF CBT IN
AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRY
The introduction of CBT for training in Aus-
tralian industries, including aviation, has been
controversial. CBT has been described as being
behaviourist in nature, given its emphasis on
observation and measurement of human behav-
iour. Support for its methods has arisen from
theorists who have argued that observation of
behaviour is the most definitive method for
judging performance, and, according to some,
the only way to assess learning (Tennant, 1997).
Moreover, there has been significant support for
the use of behavioural objectives – the founda-
tion of CBT – by those who point to their utility
for guiding training (e.g., Winter & Maisch,
1996; Tennant, 1997). According to Tennant
(1997) behavioural approaches command wide-
spread support because ‘… there is something
very compelling in the proposition that, at the
commencement of learning, both the teacher
and learner should be clear about the intent’ (p.
100). This view was adopted and emphasised,
133
 Peter Franks, Stephen Hay and Tim Mavin
and is still current in CASA’s own documenta-
tion for implementation of CBT in pilot training
(CASA, 2009a).
Some educationalists view such approaches to
curriculum design as problematic. For example,
Billett (2004) argued that while competency
standards may be useful for defining vocational
intent and outcomes, focusing exclusively on
observed behaviour ignores thinking and acting
processes (cognition) which training is supposed
to elicit. Furthermore, CBT is a method of voca-
tional training which emphasises the outcome of
training, rather than inputs which, in many
cases, are related to the teaching process itself
(Guthrie, 2009; Wolny, 1999). Accordingly, it
has been suggested that CBT tends to oversim-
plify inherently complex educational processes.
In contrast, there has also been support for CBT
in vocational education with arguments dismiss-
ing criticism based on inappropriate assump-
tions. It has been argued that for a clear debate
on CBT, a distinction in the areas of ‘perform-
ance and its outcomes, the underpinning con-
stituents of competence (capabilities, abilities,
skills) and the education, training or develop-
ment of people to be competent performers’
needs to be made (Hager, 2004; p. 409).
While the debate over the effectiveness of
CBT continues, there is general consensus that
CBT does tend to emphasise the assessment
process, and therefore what trainees do, rather
than what they know or understand (Billett,
2004). Generally, assessment of performance is
made against specific standards, which are pre-
scriptively detailed in official training documen-
tation. In aviation, the document that specifies
competencies for pilots at the ab initio level is
the Day VFR Syllabus (CASA, 2010).
THE EFFICACY OF CBT IN
AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRY
In overviewing the efficacy of CBT for Aus-
tralian industry training and in aviation specifi-
cally it is as well to note that key personnel
directly involved in CBT’s implementation in
134 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TRAINING RESEARCH
© eContent Management Pty Ltd
the aviation field were professional pilots and
while technically expert, had no formal training
in adapting historical and standardised training
processes in ways that allowed for the evolution
of knowledge and learning occurring in educa-
tional and training fields. Consequently, the
instructional practices in use in aviation today
are little changed from those designed in the mil-
itary in 1916, and extended in World War II,
and civil flying since then (Conrad & Harris,
2003; Elshaw, 1993; Henley, 1991 & 2003a).
Therefore, the following discussion focuses on
the context in place in Australia at the time of
CBT’s introduction to the aviation industry.
The Australian Government introduced
CBT into Australia with the explicit objective of
making its workforce more globally competitive
(Dawkins, 1988, cited in Billett, McKavanagh,
Bevan, Angus, Seddon, Gough, Hayes, Robert-
son, 1999). Cornford (2004) stated that Aus-
tralia adopted CBT following the view held in
the United Kingdom that the training frame-
work would provide the solution to low skill and
productivity levels in its workforce compared to
competitors such as France and Germany. How-
ever, the UK moved away from CBT because, it
was criticised in that country ‘as not even the
answer to yesterday’s problems’ (Cornford, 2004;
p. 34). Furthermore, there were concerns that
CBT was not achieving desired outcomes and
that, consequently, some industries were falling
behind overseas competitors.
In 2003, an Australian Senate inquiry, into
present and future skill needs considered that
existing VET policies were not meeting Aus-
tralia’s needs (Cornford, 2004). The following
year, the Business Council of Australia came to a
similar view regarding the policy failure of CBT
(Cornford, 2004). Among its shortcomings it
noted that ‘most CBT and Training Packages do
not encourage development of critical thinking
skills’ (Cornford, 2004; p. 35).
Billett and colleagues in their report, The CBT
Decade (Billet et al., 1999), analysed the degree to
which the original aims of CBT had been met.
Volume 12, Issue 2, August 2014
© eContent Management Pty Ltd Can competency-based training fly? An overview of key issues
They reported positive findings in the areas of
standardisation, particularly of assessment;
record keeping and audits; training and testing
within authentic environments and, practice and
skill performance. However, they criticised
aspects of CBT, citing reduced incentive for stu-
dents to achieve, due to the non-graded nature of
assessment and the lack of emphasis on problem
solving, creativity and the integration of knowl-
edge and skills. These capacities were identified
as essential for developing a more flexible and
responsive workforce, a stated aim of the intro-
duction of CBT (Billett et al., 1999).
Billett and colleagues (1999) further found
that teachers were not necessarily well prepared
for the implementation of CBT, noting that
because of confusion and uncertainty about its
intent, it was unlikely that teaching methods had
changed as a result of CBT’s introduction. This
suggested that ‘pure’ CBT practices had not been
widely accepted or applied by teachers (Billett et
al., 1999). These early criticisms of CBT and its
application in Australian industry over the previ-
ous decade are still relevant in the aviation con-
text. However, the literature documenting the
implementation of CBT for flight training
points to important differences with respect to
emphasis and application. Accordingly, the fol-
lowing section briefly overviews the implementa-
tion of CBT in aviation training in Australia.
THE INTRODUCTION OF CBT IN
AUSTRALIAN FLIGHT TRAINING
As noted, CBT was introduced into flight train-
ing in Australia in 1999 via the Day VFR Syl-
labus (CASA, 2010). Its aim was to address the
perceived lack of standardisation of training
across the aviation industry by improving report-
ing procedures, instructional standards and train-
ing practices. Significantly, it formalised the
requirement for observation of prescribed skills
to determine a pilot’s ability to safely operate an
aeroplane. Although the implementation of CBT
in flight training has been fairly recent compared
to many other industries, it was preceded by the
Volume 12, Issue 2, August 2014 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TRAINING RESEARCH
earlier introduction of behavioural objectives to
instructional practice in the 1980’s.
By way of introducing CBT into aviation,
CASA provided two key references to inform
pilot training organisations about its principles.
These were also major influences in its imple-
mentation and practice, which have not been
modified since. The first being Smith and Keat-
ing (1997), the other that of Wolny (1999).
Smith and Keating (1997) addressed the applica-
tion of CBT in the general VET sector at that
time, stating that, in the Australian context,
CBT was characterised by the following:
1. Based on industry standards;
2. Focused on outcomes not on inputs;
3. Recognition of prior learning (RPL);
4. The use of modularised syllabi;
5. Self-paced instruction;
6. A focus on demonstration of skills rather
than knowledge; and
7. The use of criterion referenced and un-graded
assessment tasks.
The second recommended text by Wolny
(1999) provided more specific information
regarding the application of CBT to Australian
aviation. Wolny pointed out that assessment
should be based on what the trainee did, particu-
larly in work-like situations, addressing knowl-
edge, skills and attitudes. Further, he argued that
assessment should ensure performance measure-
ment was holistic, and not limited to knowledge
recall or written examinations. Notably, both
Smith and Keating (1997) and Wolny (1999)
accepted the difficulty of the notion of compe-
tence, asserting that it was a quality that lay
behind performance, and, consequently, could
not be directly observed.
Drawing on these and other informing papers,
in July 1999 CASA published its key policy doc-
ument, the Day VFR Syllabus (CASA, 2010), a
significant upgrade of the original 1993 docu-
ment, and which detailed the implementation of
CBT for ab initio pilot training in Australia. To
support the syllabus implementation in 2005,
135
 Peter Franks, Stephen Hay and Tim Mavin
CASA published other documents on their web-
site providing guidance and training material to
the flight training industry (CASA, 2011a). Fol-
lowing, in 2008, assessment procedures were
specified in a new manual for pilot examiners:
the Approved Testing Officers Manual (CASA,
2011b).This was further supplemented by brief-
ings and training seminars. CASA also produced
the Civil Aviation Advisory Publication (CASA,
2009a), which directed all pilots, instructors and
assessors to adopt CBT in accordance with its
requirements – which has been revised in 2010
and 2011.
Perceptions of standards of flight
training in Australia
The CASA Flight Training and Testing Office
Review (CASA, 2009b) noted that the authority
had received anecdotal feedback from many sec-
tions of the aviation industry regarding the
declining standards of flying training. While
acknowledging that there was little reference to
data in these reports to support this view, other
reports had provided ‘compelling information’ of
poor airmanship and training standards (CASA,
2009b; p. 9).
This view was supported recently by leaders in
the airline industry in Australia, who gave evi-
dence to the Senate Inquiry into Pilot Training
and Airline Safety Standards (The Official Com-
mittee Hansard, 2010). This inquiry heard that
declining pilot standards were affecting the Aus-
tralian airline industry. While CBT approaches
are not used universally in overseas pilot training,
the Vice President of the Australian and Interna-
tional Airline Pilots Association (AIAPA) stated
that the increase in accidents worldwide was due
to poor manual flying skills and training and that
these issues were now impacting the Australia avi-
ation industry (The Official Committee Hansard,
1 December 2010; p. 3). Another expert witness
raised doubts as to whether the flight training
industry in Australia produced ‘pilots with the
qualifications to fly as safely as possible’ (The
Official Committee Hansard, 1 December, 2010;
136 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TRAINING RESEARCH
© eContent Management Pty Ltd
p. 32). It should be noted that manipulative skill
training for pilots is developed and embedded in
ab initio training, whereas airline training concen-
trates on maintaining skill levels as well as con-
ducting enhanced operational training including
crew team skills, flight management and decision
making.
These statements reflect the current view of
the aviation industry in Australia, which is that
flying training standards appear to be declining.
While it is acknowledged that this perception
may not be attributable to the implementation
of CBT, it is nevertheless significant that this
view is being advanced at a time when CBT has
been in place in aviation for more than a decade
in Australia.
Further underscoring concerns over the ade-
quacy of pilot training in Australia, The CASA
Flight Training and Testing Office Review
(CASA, 2009b) cited their analysis of the Aus-
tralian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) 2004
study on fatal accidents in general aviation over a
ten year period, noting that 43 per cent of these
were attributable to a loss of aircraft control.
They concluded this could be linked to the stan-
dards of basic flight training and that this should
be a major focus (CASA, 2009b). This finding
was strengthened by the later Australian Aviation
Safety Review from the ATSB (ATSB, 2008),
which stated that 47 per cent of Australian acci-
dents occurred in the approach and landing
phase of flight.
This figure is consistent with data cited in a
1997 report examining worldwide accidents by
the National Aerospace Laboratory, the Nether-
lands, indicating that 47.7 per cent of fatal acci-
dents occurred during approach and landing
(ATSB, 2007). This data suggests that Australia’s
safety record is consistent with the international
average. As such, it could be concluded that the
standard of Australian air safety is not directly
attributable to the introduction of CBT. How-
ever, it is significant that CBT was introduced
specifically to standardise and improve training,
and to minimise the kind of events leading to
Volume 12, Issue 2, August 2014
© eContent Management Pty Ltd Can competency-based training fly? An overview of key issues
loss of aircraft control. Because the ATSB (2007)
review linked such events to basic flight training,
and in light of strong industry perceptions of
declining standards of pilot training, it is neces-
sary to review the effectiveness of CBT, and
investigate its apparent failure to improve the
skills of trainee pilots., The following section will
overviews the literature critically examining CBT
in aviation in Australia.
Strengths of CBT within aviation
In reviewing the efficacy of CBT in pilot train-
ing, it is important to acknowledge that this
approach appears to confer considerable advan-
tages in specific areas for preparing pilots to
operate aircraft, particularly, practical flying
skills. Pellegrino (2004, p. 39) has noted that
‘cognitive theories emphasise practice to promote
fluency, thus reducing the information process-
ing demands of a task’. He further argues that to
reach high levels of expertise, much practice is
needed over time, with critical analysis and feed-
back directing further practice. The application
of CBT in aviation promotes repetition and con-
solidation of basic flight techniques with
repeated assessment at varying levels throughout
training to embed prerequisite perceptual–motor
skills in all pilots. Moreover, as Bye and Henley
(2003) point out, volumes of procedural drills
must be memorised along with complex con-
cepts which must be integrated into practice by
trainee pilots.
Supporting this view, Wolny (1999, p. 5)
argued that while it is behaviourist in its approach,
CBT nonetheless strongly assists the development
of ‘motor skills, propositional knowledge and
process skills’. The requirement for repetitive skills
training exists because manipulating an aircraft
sometimes requires rapid and almost automatic
responses to environmental changes. The ability to
recall critical drills and to react in appropriate
ways at the time of an in-flight emergency has
proven critical in avoiding incidents, and on occa-
sions, fatal outcomes in flight situations. Accord-
ingly, repetition and memorisation as modes of
Volume 12, Issue 2, August 2014 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TRAINING RESEARCH
learning play a crucial and necessary role in pilot
training. However, an interesting paradox is
revealed in the suggestion that CBT indeed con-
fers apparent advantages for the development of
manual flying skills when set against data, noted
above, indicating that a high percentage of acci-
dents are attributable to poor manual skills in
approach and landing. This suggests that the
observation by Billett et al. (1999), that CBT in
the VET sector generally was poorly understood
in the decade earlier years after introduction, and
therefore poorly implemented in practice, appears
to still hold true in the specific case of aviation.
Further, one of the most significant outcomes
of the introduction of CBT for pilot training has
been the industry-wide standardisation of train-
ing and assessment. Anderson, Brown and Rush-
brook (2004) point out that CBT has become
the international currency for the standardisation
of both qualifications and skills. Indeed, one of
the aims of the introduction of CBT in aviation
was to align pilot training standards in Australia
to internationally recognised standards derived
from the Convention on International Aviation
administered by the International Civil Aviation
Organisation (ICAO). In Australian aviation,
standardisation has occurred mainly at the assess-
ment level where CASA has a level of control
through its industry examiner delegates and the
administrative processes surrounding these.
However, the behaviourist underpinning of CBT,
which has resulted in apparent advantages with
respect to standardisation of training and skill
development for pilots, brings with it a number
of apparent disadvantages and limitations in
other areas of flight training. It is to these issues
that this paper now turns.
The CASA approach to CBT in
pilot training
To place the practice of CBT in pilot training
into context, and to further understand the cri-
tique of this practice in the following sections
about weaknesses and problems, it is necessary to
understand the published emphasis by CASA on
137
 Peter Franks, Stephen Hay and Tim Mavin
the training, and particularly the assessment of
pilot standards. To illustrate, the advice con-
tained in the CASA Civil Aviation Advisory Pub-
lication (CAAP) demonstrates the official
approach to CBT. This advises the pilot training
industry on principles required to comply with
regulatory requirements. A key paragraph states
the philosophy behind the implementation and
practice of CBT by CASA:
Most Unit Descriptions start with the words
‘Skills, knowledge and behaviours to…’. In
national and other competency standards the
words ‘Skills, knowledge and attitudes’ are
usually used. Why the preference of behaviour
over attitude? One of the major areas being
emphasised by CASA is the training and
assessment of human factors. The assessment
of human factors relies on the observation of
behaviours. This is not just semantics: it is
important to understand why behaviour’ is the
determinant. Attitudes are part of a person’s
‘mental make-up’ which can only be specu-
lated upon. Attitudes such as anger, reckless-
ness or impulsiveness are often suppressed or
hidden and cannot be determined until behav-
iour such as ‘lashing out’, failing to follow
rules or conduct of some unsafe impulsive
action (unauthorised low flying) are exhibited
and observed. Therefore, it is vital that asses-
sors look for an observable (and measurable)
behaviour to confirm what may initially be a
‘gut feeling’ about a person having an ‘attitude
problem.’ (CASA, 2009a; p. 11)
This statement seems to preclude the use of
inference, and requires professional judgement to
be based on observable behaviour only. In prac-
tice, however, more experienced flight instructors
do use inference and professional judgement, but
less experienced flight instructors concentrate on
the format during assessment (to the detriment
of continuous observation) and are less able to
infer competence.
In fact, at first, CASA hadn’t really understood
the concept of CBT, or how it would be imple-
138 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TRAINING RESEARCH
© eContent Management Pty Ltd
mented at the time. The CAAP, introduced a
decade after implementation, stated that ‘little
training or guidance material was produced and
gaps occurred in its implementation’ (CASA,
2009a; p. 5). Since then, CASA addressed the
issue of standards by tightening assessment
requirements, particularly the assessment of
flight instructors, but have not yet changed the
methods of training flight instructors since
before CBT’s implementation.
Weaknesses of CBT within aviation
With the introduction of CBT into pilot training,
there has been a tendency to reduce complex skills
and decision making processes required to fly an
aeroplane to simplified sets of sub-skills and sub-
routines. This outcome has been endorsed by the
notion that behavioural objectives adequately
account for all aspects of skill, knowledge and
behaviour required for pilots to demonstrate com-
petence. This assumption is problematic for a
number of reasons. Torr (2010, p. 2) points out
that ‘conceptualising competence as a collection of
discrete tasks does not reflect a good understand-
ing of the processes that professionals engage in’.
Additionally, Stevenson (2003, p. 34) describes
prescribed outcomes for learning as a ‘new kind of
behaviourism in the form of managerialism’ in
that it confines what is to be learned. This
approach works to ‘exert control over what is to be
taught’ and to limit it to only what is relevant to
immediate industry needs. Stevenson (2003) fur-
ther points to the obfuscation of broader knowl-
edge caused by the atomisation of learning such
that integrated understanding becomes difficult to
achieve. This atomisation has been recently criti-
cised by Mavin (2013) in assessing airline pilot
standards. Mavin argued that the drive by CASA
to specify clear, measurable outcomes through the
process of breaking skills into smaller units has, in
fact, shifted flight training away from the realities
of what is occurring on the flight decks of com-
plex modern aircraft. Further studies have shown
the difficulty that arise when pilot assessment is
based on traditional measures of performance
Volume 12, Issue 2, August 2014
© eContent Management Pty Ltd Can competency-based training fly? An overview of key issues
assessment (see Mavin, Roth & Dekker, 2013)
and have even move towards utilising fuzzy logic
modelling (Roth & Mavin, 2013) and use of lan-
guage interpretation (Mavin & Roth, 2014) in
attempt to better understand complex perform-
ance judgments. These views have been mirrored
in other industries – like osteopathy – where there
is a need to develop clear assessment approaches
and measures that enable individuals to be
assessed for fitness for practice (Stone, Boud and
Hager, 2011).
The concerns outlined above bring into ques-
tion the adequacy of currently applied practices of
CBT as a basis for pilot training. For instance,
Brady (2002) brought into question assumptions
that achieving specific competency standards dur-
ing training automatically results in the achieve-
ment of key competencies, by noting a lack of
connection between the two. Key competencies
are regarded by Blom and Clayton (2003) as
generic skills ‘that learners need for lifelong learn-
ing and living’ (p. 2). Generic skills include those
necessary for employment such as industry aware-
ness, commitment to customer service, self-man-
agement, work management and responsibility
for self-learning (Blom and Clayton, 2003). In
the aviation context, generic skills include those
which are needed to apply knowledge and under-
standing to unforeseen flight situations, which,
for example, may include technical abnormalities,
dealing with adverse weather conditions and
complex airspace procedures. It is argued that
ignoring these generic skills in aviation is prob-
lematic, given the potential seriousness of the
consequences.
These criticisms suggest that the CBT frame-
work, as specifically implemented in flight train-
ing at the ab initio level, is unable to adequately
account for cognitive processes leading to higher
order thinking. By contrast, airline training for
graduate pilots addresses both situated learning
and higher cognitive processes (e.g., problem
solving) by setting scenario-based operational
problem-solving situations, which are applied in a
flight simulator (Mavin and Murray, 2010). This
Volume 12, Issue 2, August 2014 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TRAINING RESEARCH
context replicates specific aircraft type environ-
ments. However, there appears no formally struc-
tured approach within the CASA documents (cf.
CASA, 2010) for this process at the ab initio level
to prepare students to learn in this manner.
Billett and colleagues (1999) have noted
CBT’s lack of engagement with higher order
cognitive concepts and their application to real
work practices. Their review of the implementa-
tion of CBT found that: 1) the development of
routine skills inhibited the opportunity to extend
skills and theory application in combination; 2)
priority for developing appropriate attitudes and
common sense assessment was generally low or
ignored altogether; and 3) the modularisation of
learning into small and discrete packages inhib-
ited the integration of knowledge needed for the
development of expertise. This tendency towards
modularisation is particularly applicable to avia-
tion in that reduced instructional attention is
paid to manipulative skills once more applied
areas of flight are introduced such as navigation,
instrument flying and commercial operations. As
trainee pilots progress through the various com-
petencies, it is generally assumed that appropri-
ate manual flying skills have been attained once
the first formal test for manipulative skills, the
General Flying Progress Test, has been passed.
Statistics which attribute a high proportion of
accidents to poor flying skills noted above,
should serve to bring this fundamental assump-
tion into question.
Yet another weakness that can be attributed to
CBT is in the area of assessment, in particular,
the emphasis on measuring observable responses
to teaching. Billett (2003) identified that behav-
ioural intents only account for superficial learn-
ing outcomes, rather than those which are
needed for complex performance. Gonczi (2004)
pointed out that one result of the introduction of
CBT was the evolution of training into a highly
behaviourist and reductionist system. He
advanced the view that the process of listing
hundreds of competencies for complex tasks
actually replaced curriculum development in
139
 Peter Franks, Stephen Hay and Tim Mavin
vocational education. This means, in effect that
within CBT, skills that are to be acquired are
transformed by the statements of competencies.
Gonczi also asserted that instructors and asses-
sors, while observing a skill performance or a
task, can only infer the underlying attributes of
performance.
The reductionist approach of CBT in Aus-
tralian flight training is highlighted when con-
trasting it with the approach adopted in the
United States. The Aviation Instructor’s Handbook
(FAA, 2008; pp. 2–3), states that ‘behaviourism
is now used more to break unwanted behaviours
than in teaching’. The FAA added that research
shows learning to be ‘a much more complex
process than a response to stimuli’. While US
accident rates are not significantly different from
those in Australia, this relatively recent philo-
sophical approach offers improved understand-
ing and instructional standards here.
The previous section has overviewed the theo-
retical and conceptual underpinnings of CBT
through an examination of its implementation in
aviation. The following section examines prob-
lems related to the assessment of competencies in
practice in the context of aviation.
Problems of CBT in practice
Since introducing CBT, CASA personnel have
worked with state education departments and
national training organisations to align their
practices with Australian industry. However,
within the standardised and reductionist
approach to training and assessment provided by
the CBT framework, assessment of competence
has become limited in practice. This is revealed
by the significant degree of subjective judgement
required on the part of assessors to assess compe-
tence. To highlight the difficulties facing instruc-
tors and assessors in flight training, examples of
particular units: Land Aeroplane, Manage Flight
and Threat and Error Management (CASA, 2010)
will be used.
Some examples of the listed elements required
to be performed and observed for assessment of
140 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TRAINING RESEARCH
© eContent Management Pty Ltd
the Land Aeroplane unit are: 1) flares aircraft at
an appropriate height; 2) controls ballooning
during flare and bouncing after touchdown by
adjustment of attitude without the application of
power; and 3) touches down at a controlled rate
of descent. These are clearly statements of
required observable behaviours, although they
lack the measureable performance criteria which
CASA states are required for valid assessment. As
stated above, instructors and assessors do use
professional judgement (despite the lack of guid-
ance in assessment forms and other material),
however summative assessment is made from
observations in a single flight, which cannot take
into account a student’s performance in a variety
of situations which CASA states is requirement
for valid assessment. In the same unit there are
some performance measures with clearly defined
criteria such as: 1) touches down within two
metres of centreline; and 2) touches down within
400 feet/120 metres beyond a nominated touch-
down point. Overall, there are twelve criteria for
Land Aeroplane, another twelve for Land Aero-
plane in a Crosswind, plus seven additional crite-
ria for Perform Mishandled Landing Procedures.
Many criteria for the competency elements
throughout the syllabus have stated criteria for
flight which specify maximum allowed devia-
tions in direction, altitude and speed. However,
the landing criteria stated above demonstrate
that some of the major requirements for landing
cannot be clearly defined in the same way. The
result is that assessments are inevitably subjec-
tive, requiring a mature level of judgement from
an instructor and/or assessor. In practice these
judgements are made subjectively in context,
with the detailed assessment requirements being
recorded to satisfy CBT administration.
This example is significant as it demonstrates
the limitations inherent in assessing competence
through the observation of a skill for which, it is
assumed, the performance criteria are relatively
clear and explicit. However, the problem of
assessing competence through observation alone
is more dramatically highlighted when it comes
Volume 12, Issue 2, August 2014
© eContent Management Pty Ltd Can competency-based training fly? An overview of key issues
to the assessment of aspects of flight which are
more complex, as is common practice, involving
problem solving, and for which performance cri-
teria can only be stated in broad terms.
With the inclusion of two newer units in the
Day VFR Syllabus: Manage Flight and Threat and
Error Management (CASA, 2010) mentioned
above, there has been an attempt to define
observable behaviours for an area traditionally
referred to as ‘airmanship’ in flight training for
over sixty years. CASA acknowledges the diffi-
culty of assessing airmanship because of the diffi-
culty of identifying performance criteria (CASA,
2008; p. 8). Furthermore, it is suggested that this
capacity can only be inferred by an experienced
instructor or assessor by observing how the stu-
dent approaches decision making over an
extended period (see Kern, 1997, p. 364; CASA,
2008, p. 20). However, within the CBT frame-
work, assessment of competence in these two
units requires the observation and measurement
of behaviour during flight. One of the stated
competencies is: Demonstrates a level of assertive-
ness that ensures the safe completion of the flight.
Given the limited timeframe over which pilot
assessment is usually conducted, the students’
actual ‘achievement’ of this competency may
result from a process of closed reasoning resulting
from the way the competency is stated with
respect to observed behaviour. That is, if the
assessment flight has been concluded safely, it
may be assumed, ipso facto, that the required
assertiveness had been demonstrated, even if there
had been no complications or difficulties that
would test that capacity on that occasion.
Another stated competency is: takes actions to
achieve optimum outcomes for the operation. Again,
as in the example above, the successful comple-
tion of a routine flight does not necessarily pres-
ent the student pilot with situations requiring
demonstration of the ability to deal with more
complex situations. These situations point to the
inadequacy of CBT’s core assumption, that obser-
vation of behaviour is an adequate way of assess-
ing competence. While contemporary
Volume 12, Issue 2, August 2014 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TRAINING RESEARCH
applications of CBT seem to show that observa-
tion is not sufficient of itself, it is remains CASA’s
official approach to assessment.
The final issue addressed in this section con-
cerns the impact of industry wide adoption of
CBT on the standards of pilot training in Aus-
tralia. While there has been an attempt to link
standards of performance with assessment crite-
ria in aviation, there is clearly a problem with
assuming that detailed criteria necessarily leads to
improved training standards. Indeed, one of the
most serious criticisms of CBT that may be
advanced with respect to its implementation in
aviation is that the inherent focus on achieving
competencies tends to reduce flight training
standards to those required to ensure minimum
levels of competence in student pilots.
The criticism noted above – that non-graded
assessment in CBT reduces student incentive
(Billett et al., 1999) – is undeniably and currently
reflected in the context of aviation. Highlighting
this issue, Thomas (2001) has argued that assess-
ment of students as ‘competent’ versus ‘not yet
competent’ is inadequate for performance evalua-
tion. For students, simplistic, binary assessment
outcomes (pass/fail; competent/not competent)
provide no inducement to pursue higher levels of
training beyond the minimum required for com-
petence, let alone motivation to achieve excel-
lence. Significantly, the tendency to provide the
minimum training necessary for students to
demonstrate basic competence is further consoli-
dated through the competitive market in which
flight training providers operate. Quotes provided
to students for the cost of basic pilot training are
commonly aimed at the minimum time required
to meet the minimum levels of competence. Sur-
vival in a competitive market thus provides a
powerful disincentive for flight training schools
to strive for a graduation standard above the min-
imum requirement. These issues were highlighted
by a statement made to an Australian Senate
Inquiry that ‘Training organisations will not pro-
vide, in the main, more than they have to. That is
primarily because the average student fronting up
141
 Peter Franks, Stephen Hay and Tim Mavin
is not going to pay for anything that is not
required’ (The Official Committee Hansard, 1
December 2010, p. 33; see also the AIAPA Vice
President’s statement to the Senate Inquiry on
18th March 2011, The Official Committee
Hansard, 18 March 2011, p. 39). Notably, else-
where in the vocational education field, graded
assessment is being used successfully, and pilot
training could gain from these approaches (see
Griffin, Gillis & Calvitto, 2007).
COGNITIVE LEARNING: AN ALTERNATIVE
APPROACH TO PILOT TRAINING
The above discussion about pilot training in
Australia has argued that CBT represents a lim-
ited training framework because it places little
emphasis on the acquisition of generic and com-
plex cognitive skills essential for developing
expertise. Knowles (2005) argues that the behav-
iourist approach implies that what learning is
cannot be known directly. Knowles stresses the
multi-dimensional nature of learning encompass-
ing the view that: 1) that the goal of learning is
self-actualisation; 2) that learning involves char-
acteristics of personal involvement, self-initia-
tion, pervasiveness and evaluation by the learner.
This conceptualisation points to a more diverse
set of cognitive abilities underpinning learning
than those addressed by CBT in its application
to ab initio training. Gonczi and Hager (2010)
make the comment: ‘The task view of compe-
tence skates over these matters by pretending
that a relatively objective checklist of tasks
describes competence. It does no such thing.
One result is that the task view of competence
omits vital higher-level competencies, such as
planning or reacting to contingencies. Hence
training programs based on this approach are
flawed’ (p. 405).
The report Understanding the brain: the birth
of a learning science (OECD, 2007) points to a
cognitive approach to learning and states that
cognitive functions relate to the processing of
information and the development of knowledge.
Examples of these functions include perception,
142 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TRAINING RESEARCH
© eContent Management Pty Ltd
memory and learning, language, reasoning, plan-
ning and decision making. From a psychological
perspective, learning can be defined as a change
in efficiency or use of basic cognitive processes,
both conscious and unconscious, that promote
more effective problem solving and performance
in the tasks of everyday life (OECD, 2007;
p. 212). Significantly, the report also distin-
guishes between competence and competency; the
later term being more commonly used in the
context of CBT. The report defines competence as
the application of ‘cognitive abilities and skills in
order to solve certain problems as well as being
able to make use of the motivational, volitional
and social willingness and abilities related to this
in a successful and responsible way in variable
situations’ (OECD, 2007; p. 225). The report
then discusses problem-oriented learning in
which learning should be developed through
‘meaningful activities and practical problems’
(OECD, 2007; p. 225).
Gonczi and Hager (2010) propose that com-
petency training should be an integrated
approach, which does not follow either the ‘tasks’
or ‘attributes’ mentalities prevalent previously.
This integrated approach centres ‘on key tasks
involved in the practice of the occupation. Major
attributes, such as cognitive skills (knowledge,
critical thinking, and problem-solving strategies),
interpersonal skills, affective attributes, and tech-
nical/psychomotor skills that are required for
competent performance of these key tasks are
identified’ (p. 405).
Pilot training is a context in which these
processes can usefully be applied as they reflect
the characteristics of tasks which a pilot must
perform. Wiggins (1997) in describing the lack
of cognitive skill development in pilot training,
states that because of ‘the restrictive nature of the
typical ab initio training environment, novice
pilots often lack the cognitive skills necessary to
operate safely within an uncertain and dynamic
aeronautical environment’ (p. 55). He further
suggests that this has resulted in pilots lacking
the skills to ‘recognise the requirements for prob-
Volume 12, Issue 2, August 2014
© eContent Management Pty Ltd Can competency-based training fly? An overview of key issues
lem-solving/decision-making’ and, consequently,
an inability to use such processes. There is little
obvious evidence that this lack has been
addressed in any systematic way by the pre-air-
line flight training industry in Australia. Never-
theless, these issues and their implications need
to be explored if higher order training at the ab
initio level is to be achieved.
Using cognitive methods: training
beyond the limitations of CBT
In aviation, there is debate emerging around the
idea that something more than learning and per-
formance of discrete tasks is essential for devel-
oping higher order problem solving skills and
their application for performing complex tasks of
the kind that are routinely encountered by pilots
during flight. This indicates that some instruc-
tional practitioners see the need for CBT to be
used in a more holistic and integrated way than
is the current practice in pilot training.
Wiggins (1997), for example, argues the
necessity for developing problem solving and
decision-making skills in aviation contexts (see
also Wolny, 1999, p. 6). Knowles, Holton and
Swanson (2005) following Gagne’s model, place
problem-solving at the top of a hierarchy of eight
distinctive types of learning. Clearly, learning
frameworks aimed at developing this capacity
such as problem-based learning (PBL), aspire to
develop higher levels of competence in learners
than those which are enabled by competency-
based frameworks. Accordingly, problem-based
approaches should be the preferred models for
training in professional environments routinely
requiring complex decision making.
Henley (2003b) points out that the objectives
of PBL include: development of high profes-
sional competency; fostering reasoned decisions
in unfamiliar conditions; dealing with poorly
defined problems; developing self-evaluation
skills, and team skills among others. PBL is also
seen as an approach which encourages the inte-
gration of skills and knowledge. It suggests that
as long as learning problems are authentic and
Volume 12, Issue 2, August 2014 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TRAINING RESEARCH
relevant, and where theory and practice are prop-
erly combined, the ability to transfer the skill to
actual work situations is greatly enhanced.
Reflecting this approach to learning, team skills
have become a major focus for post-graduate pilots
transitioning to the modern airline cockpit, where
cockpit resource management (CRM) training
occurs. This is a highly developed set of skills
learned in simulators designed as precise replicas of
specific airline aircraft. Operational problems are
set and dealt with in real time, with the ability to
‘freeze’ the flight to discuss decisions and make
changes where necessary. Henley (2003b) stresses
the importance of this type of training. Unfortu-
nately, it is not common at the ab initio level prin-
cipally due to cost and the availability of resources.
There is no reason, however, that the concept
could not be introduced both through classroom
based scenarios, and in briefing sessions before a
flight where a student could review typical scenar-
ios based on a proposed flight plan. Logically, the
use of PBL in aviation requires, among other sce-
narios, the use of problems associated with credible
operational situations. These should be situation-
ally relevant and specific to the pilots’ operational
environment – the aircraft cockpit.
Bye and Henley (2003) suggest other ways in
which the situated learning principles may be
applied to aviation training, such as: stories (e.g.,
hangar talk); reflection (stepping back within the
workplace to review); cognitive apprenticeship
(using coaches, mentors); collaboration; coach-
ing (adopting the role of coach or mentor); mul-
tiple workplace practice; articulation of learning
skills (articulation both by breaking work tasks
down, and by learners articulating their under-
standing); and technology (using training aids,
but also synthetic flight training devices specific
to aviation). Evidence presented in this paper
suggests that training during the applied flying
stage may be significantly improved with a shift
towards student-oriented learning and facilitative
teaching processes. This requires a markedly dif-
ferent approach to training than that currently
informed by CBT at the ab initio level.
143
 Peter Franks, Stephen Hay and Tim Mavin
An approach to training that emphasises prob-
lem solving is promoted by the FAA in America
called the FAA/Industry Training Standards and
has been designed in conjunction with the avia-
tion industry. It proposes that every flight for a
student (after basic knowledge and skills train-
ing) is conducted as a scenario, usually incorpo-
rated in a cross-country flight (McMahon,
2008). The Aviation Instructors Handbook (FAA,
2008) also describes scenario-based training, a
variation of PBL, whereby student and instructor
discuss potential risks and problems that may
occur before a training flight. Through this
approach, potential problems that might be
encountered during flight are raised by the
instructor with the student suggesting possible
solutions which are then practised during the
training flight. This training method enhances
development of situational awareness, aeronauti-
cal decision making and risk management.
While this student-based approach to ab initio
pilot training is not mandated in the United
States, it is applied specifically to training on
technically advanced aircraft with digital cockpits
as opposed to the conventional analogue cockpits
of older aircraft. However, there is a growing trend
towards applying the methods to all ab initio
training (FAA, 2008; pp. 6–9). Such a change in
approach would require instructors in Australia
to be trained to facilitate learning in more diverse
ways than those enabled by the current CBT
framework.
CONCLUSION
In reviewing CBT for pilot training in Australia,
this paper has discussed its implementation
within the wider context of Australia’s VET sec-
tor. The paper further sought to identify evident
strengths and limitations of CBT as a framework
for pilot training. It argued that CBT, together
with its focus on competencies for assessing stu-
dent performance appears to have significant
advantages for some limited aspects of pilot
training at the ab initio level, particularly the
early acquisition of manual flying skills.
144 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TRAINING RESEARCH
© eContent Management Pty Ltd
Nevertheless, despite apparent advantages
afforded by CBT in this area, it constitutes an
inadequate framework for aviation training, sim-
ply because it fails to comprehensively address the
full range of training requirements for pilots at the
ab initio level. Illustrating this point, the paper
examined the use of competencies stated in the
Day VFR Syllabus (CASA, 2010) as a basis for
both instruction and assessment of pilots. These
examples demonstrated that even for the assess-
ment of relatively discrete flying skills, such as air-
craft landing procedures, for which relatively clear
criteria can be stated, competencies fail to capture
the complex decision-making processes leading to
safe outcomes in flight. Analysis of other examples
relating to flight management and airmanship fur-
ther underscored the inadequacy of competencies
as a basis for assessment whereby complex prob-
lem solving and decision making is required.
Drawing on Billett et al.’s (1999) criticism of
the use of ungraded assessment within CBT, it
was argued that the adoption of pass/fail assess-
ment of competencies in pilot training has
resulted in an institutionalised, industry-wide
focus for training of new pilots aimed at achiev-
ing only minimum required levels of compe-
tence. It was suggested that competency based
assessment coupled with economic pressures to
remain competitive in training markets works to
limit incentive for flight instructors and schools
to improve the quality of programs offered to
student pilots. In addition, pass/fail assessment
regimes tend to limit the aspirations of students
to achieving the minimum required standards of
competence rather than encouraging them to
achieve excellence.
The criticisms of CBT advanced in this paper
point to two main recommendations to address
the apparent inadequacies of the framework in
pilot training. First, it is suggested that flight
training at the ab initio level be adapted to incor-
porate problem-based approaches to learning
emphasising higher order cognitive skills. The
paper noted that such approaches to training do
exist at the postgraduate levels of pilot training
Volume 12, Issue 2, August 2014
© eContent Management Pty Ltd Can competency-based training fly? An overview of key issues
and in a limited number of flying schools provid-
ing basic pilot training in the United States.
However, criticisms by industry sources about
the quality of graduates from basic flight training
suggest the need for wide-scale incorporation of
such training approaches to complement and
extend the current CBT model.
Second, in order to address criticisms con-
cerning the constraining influences of non-
graded assessment of pilot trainees, it is proposed
that a system of assessment be adopted which
would enable the grading of trainees in a way
that could distinguish between different levels of
expertise. Such an outcome could be achieved by
the use of criteria and achievement standards (see
Montecinos, Rittershaussen, Solís, Contreras, &
Contreras, 2010; Hendry, Armstrong, &
Bromberger, 2012) for particular phases of flight
including pre-flight planning and assessment of
potential fight management issues, the practical
conduct of planned flights and post-flight analy-
sis and reflection. This approach, emphasising
higher-order cognitive skills from the beginning
of pilot training, could serve to build a robust
foundation for lifelong learning in aviation.
References
Anderson, D., Brown, M., & Rushbrook, P.
(2004). Vocational education and training. In
Foley, G. (ed). Dimensions of adult learning:
adult education & training in a global era. Crows
Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin.
Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) (2007).
CFIT: Australia in context: 1996 to 2005. ATSB
Transport Safety Research Report – Aviation Safety and
Analysis Report B2006/0352 Final. Canberra, ACT:
Australian Transport Safety Bureau.
Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) (2008).
Australian aviation safety in review: 2002 to
2006. ATSB Transport Safety Research Report –
Aviation Research AR-2007-061 2nd ed. Canberra,
ACT: Australian Transport Safety Bureau.
Billett, S. (2003). Vocational curriculum and
pedagogy: An activity theory perspective.
European Educational Research Journal, 2(1), 6-21.
Billett, S. (2004). From your business to our business:
Industry and vocational education in Australia.
Oxford Review of Education, 30(1), 13-35.
Volume 12, Issue 2, August 2014 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TRAINING RESEARCH
Billett, S., McKavanagh, C., Bevan, F., Angus, L.,
Seddon, T., Gough, J., Hayes, S., & Robertson, I.
(1999). The CBT decade: Teaching for flexibility
and adaptability, Adelaide, SA: National Centre
for Vocational Education Research, Adelaide.
Blom, J., & Clayton, B. (2003). We can’t teach them
that!: Reinstating the place of generic skills in VET.
Paper at the 6th Annual Australian Vocational
Education and Training Research Association
(AVETRA), Sydney, NSW, 9-11 April.
Brady, P. (2002). The use of competency standards in
the design of curriculum: a NSW experience in
construction and automotive courses. Paper at the
5th Annual Australian Vocational Education and
Training Research Association (AVETRA),
Melbourne, VIC, 20-22 March.
Bye, J., & Henley, I. (2003). Learning theories and
their application to aviation education. In
Henley, I. Aviation Education and Training.
Hampshire, England: Ashgate.
Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) (2008).
Teaching and assessing single-pilot human
factors and threat and error management. In
Civil Aviation Advisory Publication 5.59-1(0).
Canberra, ACT: Australian Government.
Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) (2009a).
Competency Based Training and assessment in
the aviation environment. In Civil Aviation
Advisory Publication 5.59A-1(0). Canberra,
ACT: Australian Government.
Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) (2009b). Flight
Training & Testing Office – Post Implementation
Review. Canberra, ACT: Australian Government.
Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) (2010). Day
(VFR) Syllabus – Aeroplanes. CASADOC 201. Issue
4.2. Canberra, ACT: Australian Government.
Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) (2011a).
Competency Based Training course. Canberra,
ACT: Australian Government.
Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) (2011b).
Approved Testing Officer Manual (ATOM) (Version
1.2). Canberra, ACT: Australian Government.
Conrad, D.L., & Harris, J. (2003). Aviation, adult
learning and andragogy: a Canadian perspective.
In Henley, I. (ed.). Aviation Education and
Training. Hampshire, England: Ashgate.
Cornford, I. (2004). Competency-based training
policy: doesn’t Australia deserve better? Fine
Print, 27(3), 33-36.
Elshaw, C. (1993). Preparing better flight
instructors. In Telfer, R.A. (ed.). Aviation
Instruction and Training. Aldershot, England:
Ashgate.
145
 Peter Franks, Stephen Hay and Tim Mavin
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) (2008).
Aviation Instructor’s Handbook. Washington,
DC: US Government Printing Office.
Gonczi, A. (2004). The new professional and
vocational education. In Foley, G. Dimensions in
Adult Learning. Crow Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin.
Gonczi, A. & Hager, P. (2010). The competency
model. In Peterson, P., Baker, E., & McGaw, B.
International Encyclopedia of Education Vol. 8.
Oxford, England: Elsevier.
Griffin, P., Gillis, S., & Calvitto, L. (2007). Assess-
ment for Vocational Education Training in Schools.
Australian Journal of Education, 51(1), 19-38.
Guthrie, H. (2009). Competence and competency-
based training: what the literature says. Adelaide,
SA: National Centre for Vocational Education
Research.
Hager, P. (2004). The competence affair, or why
vocational education and training urgently needs
a new understanding of Learning. Journal of
Vocational Education & Training, (56)3, 409-433.
Hendry, G.D., Armstrong, S., & Bromberger, N.
(2012). Implementing standards-based
assessment effectively: incorporating discussion
of exemplars into classroom teaching. Assessment
& Evaluation in Higher Education Management
& Policy, 37(2), 149-161.
Henley, I.M.A. (1991). The development and
evaluation of flight instructors: a descriptive
survey. The International Journal of Aviation
Psychology, 1(4), 319-333.
Henley, I.M.A. (2003a). Factors that affect learning.
In I.M.A. Henley (ed.). Aviation Education and
Training. Hampshire, England: Ashgate.
Henley, I. M. A. (2003b). Using PBL to develop
essential skills in aviation. In I.M.A. Henley (ed.).
Aviation Education and Training. Hampshire,
England: Ashgate.
Kern, T. (1997). Redefining Airmanship. Highstone,
NJ: McGraw-Hill.
Knowles, M. S. (2005). Exploring the world of
learning theory. In Knowles, M.S., Holton, E.F., &
Swanson, A.R. (eds). The Adult Learner (6th ed).
Burlington, VT: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.
Knowles, M.S., Holton, E.F., & Swanson, A.R.
(eds). The Adult Learner (6th ed). Burlington:
Elsevier Butterworth-Heinamann.
Mavin, T.J. (2013). Mapping pilot assessment: A new
model for assessing pilot performance for captaincy.
Brisbane, QLD: Griffith University Press.
Mavin, T.J., Roth, W-M., & Dekker, S. (2013).
Understanding variance in pilot performance
ratings: Two studies of flight examiners, captains
146 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TRAINING RESEARCH
© eContent Management Pty Ltd
and first officers assessing the performance of
peers. Aviation Psychology and Applied Human
Factors, 3, 53–62.
Mavin, T.J., & Murray, P. S. (2010). The develop-
ment of airline pilot skills through simulated
practice. In Billett, S. (ed). Learning through
practice: Models, traditions, orientations and
approaches. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Mavin, T.J., & Roth, W-M. (2014). A holistic view
of cockpit performance: An analysis of the
assessment discourse of flight examiners. The
International Journal of Aviation Psychology doi:
10.1080/10508414.2014.918434
McMahon, A. (2008). Train like you fly. Newcastle,
WA: Aviation Supplies & Academics Inc.
Montecinos, C., Rittershaussen, S., Solís, M.C.,
Contreras, I., & Contreras, C. (2010).
Standards-based performance assessment for the
evaluation of student teachers: A consequential
validity study. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher
Education, 38(4), 285-300.
National Quality Council (NQC) (2009). VET
Products for the 21st Century – Final Report of the
Joint Steering Committee of the NQC and the
COAG Skills and Workforce Development
Subgroup – June 2009. Melbourne, VIC: NQC
Secretariat.
Organization for Economic Co-orperation &
Development (OECD) (2007). Understanding
the brain: the birth of a learning science. Paris,
France: Author.
Pellegrino, J.W. (2004). Complex learning
environments: Connecting learning theory,
instructional design, and technology. In Seel,
N.M. & Dijkstra, S. Curriculum, plans, and
processes in instructional design. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Roth, W-M., & Mavin, T.J. (2013). Assessment of
non-technical skills: From measurement to
categorization modeled by fuzzy logic. Aviation
Psychology and Applied Human Factors, 3, 73–82.
Smith, E., & Keating, J. (1997). Making sense of
training reform and competency based training.
Frenchs Forest, NSW: Social Science Press.
Stevenson, J. (2003). Vocational teaching and
learning in context. In Stevenson, J. (ed.).
Developing Vocational Expertise. Crows Nest,
NSW: Allen & Unwin.
Stone, C., Boud, D., & Hager, P. (2011).
Assessment of osteopaths – developing a
capability-based approach to judging readiness
to practice. International Journal of Osteopathic
Medicine, 14(4), 129-140.
Volume 12, Issue 2, August 2014
© eContent Management Pty Ltd Can competency-based training fly? An overview of key issues
Tennant, M. (1997). Psychology and adult learning
(2nd ed.). London, England: Routledge.
The Official Committee Hansard. (2010). Senate
Rural Affairs And Transport References Committee
Inquiry, Reference: Pilot training, airline safety
and the Transport Safety Investigation Amendment
(Incident Reports) Bill 2010, Wednesday, 1
December 2010, Sydney. Canberra, ACT:
Commonwealth of Australia.
The Official Committee Hansard (2011). Senate
Rural Affairs And Transport References Committee
Inquiry, Reference: Pilot training, airline safety
and the Transport Safety Investigation Amendment
(Incident Reports) Bill 2010, Wednesday, 18
March 2011, Canberra. Canberra, ACT:
Commonwealth of Australia.
Thomas, M.J.W. (2001). Enhancing instructional
systems: The development of a tool for evaluating
POST PRESSED BOOKS
Beyond Communities
of Practice: Theory
as Experience
– Tom Stehlik,
Pam Carden
ISBN: 978-1-876682-88-0
Doctrina Perpetua:
Brokering Change,
Promoting Innovation
and Transforming
Marginalisation in
University Learning and
Teaching –
Jeanne McConachie,
Jo Luck, Fons Nouwens,
Patrick Alan Danaher
ISBN: 978-1-876682-93-4
Learning Strategies,
Performance Indicators
and University Student
Satisfaction: What Can
Psychosocial Variables
Tell Us?
– Nerina J Caltabiano,
Marie L Caltabiano,
Agnes Au
ISBN: 978-1-921214-90-5
Preparing Graduates
for the Professions
Using Scenario-based
Learning
– Edward Peter Errington
ISBN: 978-1-921214-66-0
eContent Management Pty Ltd, Innovation Centre Sunshine Coast, 90 Sippy Downs Drive, Sippy Downs, QLD 4556, Australia
Tel.: +61-7-5430-2290; Email: subscriptions@e-contentmanagement.com
Fax: +61-7-5430-2299; www.e-contentmanagement.com
Volume 12, Issue 2, August 2014 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TRAINING RESEARCH
instructor and student performance. In Thomas,
M.J.W., & Hunt, G.J.F. (Eds). Enhancing
Professionalism in Aviation. Auckland, New
Zealand: Massey University School of Aviation.
Torr, A. (2010). A complex view of professional
competence. Wellington, New Zealand:
Wellington Institute of Technology.
Wiggins, M.W. (1997). Expertise and cognitive
skills development for ab-initio pilots. In Telfer,
R.A., & Moore, P.J. (eds). Aviation training:
learners, instruction and organization. Aldershot,
England: Ashgate.
Winter, R. & Maisch, M. (1996). Professional
competence and higher education: The ASSET
programme. London, England: Falmer.
Wolny, M. (1999). CBT in the aviation
environment. Canberra, ACT: Australian
Government – Civil Aviation Safety Authority.
Changing University Designing Educational
Learning and Teaching: Research: Theories,
Engaging and Methods and Practices
Mobilising Leadership, – Parlo Singh,
Quality and Technology Erica McWilliam
– Jeanne McConachie, ISBN: 978-1-876682-27-9
Michael J Singh,
Patrick Alan Danaher,
Fons Nouwens,
Geoff Danaher
ISBN: 978-1-921214-38-7
Educational Research Inquiry-based
Partnerships: Initiatives Professional Learning:
and Pedagogy Speaking Back to
– Allan G Harrison, Standards-based Reforms
Bruce Allen Knight, – Graham Parr
Bernadette Walker-Gibbs ISBN: 978-1-921214-48-6
ISBN: 978-1-876682-75-0
Performing Educational Practical Experiences in
Research: Theories, Professional Education:
Methods and Practices A transdisciplinary
– Erica McWilliam, approach
Susan Danby, – Jan Millwater,
John Knight Lisa Catherine Ehrich,
ISBN: 978-1-876682-61-3 Denise Beutel
ISBN: 978-1-921214-85-1
Techno Maths: Troubling Terrains:
Technology Enriched Tactics for Traversing
Activities for the and Transforming
Mathematics Classroom Contemporary
– Merrilyn Goos Educational Research
ISBN: 978-1-876682-30-9 – Robyn Henderson,
Patrick Alan Danaher
ISBN: 978-1-921214-31-8
147