CBTA
Competencies are widely used in aviation.
There are many documents that develop this training "tool" (e.g. ICAO 9868, IATA Guidance Material and Best Practices for Competency-Based Training and Assessment (CBTA), ...).
In the EASA environment, the competences are also recommended in the EPAS 2020-24 and the equivalent within the different NAA.
Putting the focus on the regulation, we find it in the Reg 1178/2011 the use of competences as an element of many courses (IR, MCC, Instructor ...).
However, if we look at Reg 965/2012, seems to be some confusion.
The demonstration of competencies is required in SPA.LVO and indirectly in SPA.DG, but if you look at ORO.FC everything about competencies could be considered in EBT (ORO.FC.146, ORO.FC.231, ...).
But EBT is not just CBTA, right?
My guess is that this misconception is because EBT has its own implementation rules, as well as recurrent training and checking.
And this is where I want to get to: is CBTA a tool that can be used to train like the legacy method or does it require a specific approval apart from the specific training programme?
Could someone give us their opinion if there is any limitation to train with CBTA within a Command Course (ORO.FC.205) or Either Seat (ORO.FC.235)?
Thank you,
As long as you don’t ask for any credit you can use CBTA for everything and you don’t need any approval.
The approval will be compulsory when you intend to ask some credits of your work in order to reduce the regulatory requested amount of training.
EBT is a specific CBTA with its own rules and its own credits.
Miguel, CBTA is simply a model for developing training. So, yes, it can be used to develop courses as you proposed. The issue is, as Michel says, getting approval. EBT is a framework for delivering recurrent pilot training. The 2 frameworks overlap where they use the same output measures: the competencies. If you take Dangerous Goods as a template, training is delivered under CBTA. To get approval you theoretically need to do more than just pass an exam. You have to show ‘competence’ in the workplace. BUT, the ICAO/EASA 8/9 competencies are inadequate. If we look at command training, CBTA is the framework, first, to develop the course. What should then happen is you adapt a sub-set of the EASA competence framework to specifically address the performance required of a commander. This will probably require additional work. I would argue that the course, the workplace assessment regime and some evaluation data is what an Inspector would need to see.
Thank you Gentleman, I agree 100%.
Please log in or sign up to comment.