A2.1 Introduction and Framework
What the framework is
Pilot instructors and examiners are expected to conduct training and checking to the highest levels of quality and effectiveness. This is a fundamental requirement that has a direct impact on the safety and efficiency of flight operations. A considerable effort is expended to ensure that the training received by a new instructor establishes a high level of knowledge and skill in the training role: enough to meet the expectations of both training-department management at an operator and the trainees the instructor will go on to teach.
The Instructor / Examiner Competency and Performance Framework has been developed with the purpose of describing those expectations in a concise and objective form. The framework serves two functions:
- It is the basis for the baseline objectives of the initial qualification training and evaluation of new instructors. The framework defines what a freshly-qualified instructor is expected to be able to do; the initial training programme is designed to deliver against that target.
- It is the reference for the on-going evaluation and development of current and qualified instructors and examiners. Recurrent evaluation, peer observation, and the instructor's own self-assessment all work against the same framework, so that performance over a career is measured against a stable standard rather than against the preferences of whichever evaluator happens to be observing.
Where the content comes from
The content of this framework has been based upon established industry practices and standards, shaped so an operator can conform it to the specific needs of its flight operations. The framework is therefore not an invention unique to any one airline: it inherits the structure and the bulk of the behavioural content from the broader instructor-competency literature (industry standards bodies, regulator guidance, established airline training-department practice) and is written so that local detail can be tailored to an operator's fleet, courseware, and policy environment. Where a Desirable Behaviour references local programme artefacts (for example, OM Part D, company-approved courseware, the LOS Facilitator behaviours from the appendix at the end of this document), those references are the points at which the generic competency framework lands in an approved training system.
The Unit / Element / Desirable Behaviour shape
The framework is organised in three nested layers. Every competency in the framework is built from this same pattern, so once the reader has absorbed the shape of one Unit they can read the rest at speed.
| Layer | What it is | Granularity |
|---|---|---|
| Unit | A broad area of instructor competency, expressed as an outcome the instructor is expected to deliver. Each Unit carries an "Expanded Performance Descriptor": a parenthetical sentence that explains what a competent instructor in that area looks like at the headline level. | 7 Units across the framework |
| Element | A bounded sub-area of the Unit. Each Element names a specific component capability that, taken together with the other Elements of the same Unit, constitutes the Unit's outcome. Elements are letter-coded (A, B, C, ...) within their parent Unit. | Between 1 and 7 Elements per Unit, depending on the Unit's scope. The most decomposed Unit is Unit 4 (Conduct training) at seven Elements; the simplest Units have two Elements each. |
| Desirable Behaviour | A specific, observable action or pattern that demonstrates the Element. Behaviours are letter-coded (a, b, c, ...) within their parent Element. They are written so that an evaluator observing the instructor can mark each one off as observed-and-met, observed-and-not-met, or not-observed-this-session. | Between two and eight Desirable Behaviours per Element, varying with the Element's scope. |
The seven Units are:
| Unit | Title | Elements | Headline focus |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Manage safety in the training environment | A, B | The instructor is responsible for the safety of trainees in their care; this Unit is about preventing harm and intervening when prevention has failed. |
| 2 | Prepare the training environment | A, B | The instructor sets up training that can succeed: a logically structured design, and facilities and equipment adequate to deliver that design. |
| 3 | Manage the trainee | A, B | The instructor adapts to the trainee in front of them, and coaches that trainee toward the standard. |
| 4 | Conduct training | A, B, C, D, E, F, G | The largest Unit. The instructor's in-the-room delivery: credibility, presentation, instruction-and-facilitation, policy adherence, realism, time management, and operation of training devices. |
| 5 | Perform trainee assessment | A, B, C, D, E, F | The instructor's evaluator role: communicates the assessment, monitors performance, makes objective judgements, gives actionable feedback, produces records, and acts with integrity and objectivity. |
| 6 | Perform course evaluation | A, B, C | The instructor's role in evaluating the training system itself: other instructors, the course design, and reporting back. |
| 7 | Continuously improves performance | A, B | The instructor's responsibility to themselves: evaluate own effectiveness and sustain personal development. |
The number of Elements is not symbolic. Unit 4 has seven because the in-the-room delivery is genuinely seven distinct competencies that an evaluator can observe separately; Unit 7 has two because there are two distinct dimensions of self-improvement (evaluating your own effectiveness, and sustaining the qualifications and skills that effectiveness rests on). The framework is shaped by what is observable, not by editorial preference.
How to read each Unit page
Each of the seven Unit files in this appendix follows the same shape:
- Unit number, title, and Expanded Performance Descriptor, reproduced from the source.
- One section per Element, in source order (A, B, C, ...). Each Element section contains:
- The Element title and any qualifying clause from the source (for example, Unit 6 Element A's "where required to assess / coach other instructors").
- The full list of Desirable Behaviours, lettered as in the source.
- Connections at the foot of the page, linking back to the relevant sections of the Train-the-Trainer Course Manual that develop the underlying technique in depth (for example, Unit 4 Element B "Demonstrates effective presentation skills" links to 3.1 Introduction; Unit 4 Element C "Demonstrates effective instruction and facilitation" links to 7.1 Introduction and to A1.1 Foreword and Introduction).
The body of each Unit file reproduces the source's behaviour list verbatim. The framework's value depends on every behaviour being preserved as written: removing or rephrasing a behaviour weakens the evaluator's ability to observe consistently across instructors. Where context-setting prose is added on a Unit file, it is positioned around the behaviour list rather than rewriting it, and is set off so the reader can distinguish source content from editorial context.
How the framework is used
Three operational uses follow from the framework's structure.
First, initial qualification of a new instructor. The new instructor's qualification training is designed to deliver each Element across all seven Units; the qualification evaluation observes the instructor in a representative training context and grades each Element's Desirable Behaviours against observation. A new instructor who is strong on Unit 4 (in-the-room delivery) but weak on Unit 5 (trainee assessment) is identifiable by the framework, and the gap is the input to a targeted closure plan rather than a vague "needs more practice" note.
Second, recurrent evaluation of a current instructor or examiner. The same framework is applied periodically to qualified instructors. Operator policy (or the approved programme's policy) specifies the cadence (typically annual, sometimes paired with the instructor's own recurrent training-and-checking events: see Unit 7 Element B Desirable Behaviour d). The framework lets recurrent evaluation produce comparable data over time: an instructor's score on Unit 4 Element B (presentation skills) at evaluation T+0 is directly comparable with the same Element at T+12 months, which lets the training organisation spot drift, decline, or improvement.
Third, instructor self-evaluation. Individual instructors and examiners are expected to use the framework regularly to self-evaluate their own performance. This is the use case the framework's two-audience design is built for: the same observable behaviours that an external evaluator scores are also the behaviours an instructor can ask themselves whether they consistently exhibit. A self-evaluation that diverges meaningfully from the next external evaluation is itself a finding (the instructor either over-scores their own performance or under-scores it; both are addressable through coaching against the framework).
The companion appendix
The framework is followed at the end of this appendix by a short companion section: five Facilitation Competencies for LOFT Debriefing. Those five are not a Unit of the main framework: they are an annexe used in conjunction with the main framework when the training event is specifically a LOFT debriefing, where the facilitation training style is paramount. Unit 4 Element C Desirable Behaviour g of the main framework explicitly cross-references those facilitation competencies ("Demonstrates effective application of the LOS Facilitator behaviours: refer to Appendix 1"). The companion appendix is at A2.9 Appendix 1 Facilitation Competencies; the upstream FSF / NASA treatment of the same material is in A1.4 Facilitation Techniques.
Connections
- A2.2 Unit 1 Manage Safety in the Training Environment. The first Unit of the framework: the instructor's safety responsibility.
- A2.3 Unit 2 Prepare the Training Environment. Designing training and ensuring facilities and equipment.
- A2.4 Unit 3 Manage the Trainee. Understanding and coaching trainees.
- A2.5 Unit 4 Conduct Training. The largest Unit: the instructor's in-the-room delivery.
- A2.6 Unit 5 Perform Trainee Assessment. The instructor's evaluator role.
- A2.7 Unit 6 Perform Course Evaluation. Evaluating the training system itself.
- A2.8 Unit 7 Continuously Improves Performance. The instructor's responsibility for own development.
- A2.9 Appendix 1 Facilitation Competencies. The five facilitation competencies for LOFT debriefing reproduced as the companion to this framework.
- A1.4 Facilitation Techniques. The FSF / NASA upstream of the LOFT debriefing facilitation competencies.
- 12.2 Instructor Competencies. The summary of the instructor's competency expectations; this appendix is the operational reference that page compresses.