Train-the-Trainer by DataHomeLab
Concept

Advanced Qualification Programme

The Advanced Qualification Programme (AQP) is the FAA's voluntary, data-driven alternative to traditional airline training and checking rules. Operators under AQP design curriculum and evaluation around proficiency objectives, collect performance data, and adjust training with authority oversight, instead of only meeting a fixed set of manoeuvre-check items. In the EBT story, AQP and Europe's Alternative Training and Qualification Programme (ATQP) are the major precursors that pushed competency thinking into recurrent airline training. EBT takes the same ambitions further by prioritising content from multi-source operational evidence and by structuring recurrent modules around evaluation, manoeuvres training, and scenario-based training.

What AQP set out to fix

Legacy US airline training regulation was heavily prescriptive: specified manoeuvres, check forms, and currency items. That model struggled with:

  • measuring "non-technical" performance without a shared taxonomy (the same gap that later plagued line-oriented evaluation);
  • using training results as organisational learning rather than individual pass/fail files;
  • adapting curriculum when line data showed different risks than the historical event list.

AQP offered a voluntary path: job-task analysis, proficiency objectives, scenario-based evaluation, instructor qualification standards, and continuous feedback. It remains constrained by the mandatory items and regulatory envelope an operator still has to satisfy. AQP and ATQP address individual and broader airline-level issues but remain limited by existing mandatory items; EBT structures recurrent assessment and training according to evidence-based priorities from a wide safety and training data analysis.

Relationship to EBT and CBTA

Programme Origin Core idea Limit relative to full EBT
AQP FAA voluntary Competency/proficiency objectives, data feedback, alternative to pure FAR part check Still bounded by US mandatory-item and approval structure
ATQP EASA path Alternative training and qualification with operator analysis Parallel European precursor; not identical to ICAO EBT matrices
EBT ICAO/IATA industry programme CBTA recurrent modules; generation matrices; EVAL/MT/SBT; Doc 9995 + Doc 9868 Requires State adoption of EBT as alternative means under Annex 6

Conceptually AQP sits inside the broader CBTA movement. ICAO later codified CBTA in Procedures for Air Navigation Services: Training (PANS-TRG) and EBT as the international recurrent specialisation. An instructor who trained under AQP will recognise scenario evaluation, data feedback, and proficiency language; what is new in EBT is the explicit generation-specific evidence matrices, the three-phase module template, the ICAO competency framework as the common language, and the global Data Report underpinning topic frequencies.

AQP-trained instructor misconceptions in the EBT room

Paraphrase of train-the-trainer (TTT) App 4 Ref B, EBT Introduction: legacy recurrent practice-then-check sequencing, LOE technical proxy for non-technical skills, individual-level results, and AQP/ATQP bounded by mandatory items, contrasted with EVAL-first baseline, three-phase modules, and fleet-visible patterns.

Misconception AQP-era habit that feels familiar What EBT expects instead Instructor move
"We already pick topics from our data" Operator-custom proficiency objectives and internal trend review Generation-specific baseline matrices plus operator safety management system (SMS) and training-metrics refinement. Manoeuvre and threat frequencies are evidence-prioritised, not only historically mandated When a crew asks why this scenario is on the plan, cite generation matrix and operator evidence, not "AQP let us customise"
"Day one is practice; day two is the check" Scripted manoeuvre rehearsal, then formal assessment on rehearsed items EVAL first: line-oriented baseline capture before coaching; MT and SBT follow identified gaps; emphasis on train-to-competency after fair measurement If you coached through EVAL, you measured practice, not baseline. Reset phase stance: observe in EVAL, coach in MT, develop in SBT
"I'll grade while we debrief together" Instructor-led review ending in a holistic pass impression Facilitated self-analysis first; grade after debrief using observe–record–classify–evaluate (ORCE) and VENN grading against nine competencies If you announce the grade before the crew has analysed behaviour, you have run an instructor debrief, not an EBT debrief
"Mandatory items still define success" Manoeuvre tick-box and repeat-until-pass mindset carried into scenario work Competency profile across phases; below-standard requires a cited observable behaviour (OB) that could lead to an unsafe situation, not only a missed altitude gate When a manoeuvre recovers technically, still ask which competency failed and whether TEM outcome was safe

What changes in debrief and grading

Lineage language ("AQP led to EBT") is not enough on the simulator floor. Module phase sequencing matches EBT's EVAL → MT → SBT arc; the deltas below are in debrief posture, grading, and data use.

Dimension Typical AQP / legacy recurrent habit EBT debrief and grading habit
When you grade Often woven through instructor-led review; manoeuvre outcome weighs heavily After facilitated debrief; announce COMPETENT or ADDITIONAL TRAINING REQUIRED early; grades grounded in recorded OBs
What you grade Proficiency objectives and mandatory manoeuvres; non-technical inference common Nine core competencies every phase; OB linked to root cause; Behavioural indicators are evidence, not a checklist to tick
EVAL conduct May resemble a check after prior practice Baseline measurement with minimal interruption; fleet-level problem patterns visible to management, not only individual files
MT conduct Technique coaching (shared with EBT) Explicitly not LOFT; reposition and coach to defined standard on matrix manoeuvres
SBT conduct LOFT/LOE-style event management Largest phase; guided self-discovery beyond SOP rehearsal; threats and errors from generation evidence
Debrief technique Mixed instruction and review Facilitation default; instruct only when the crew cannot discover the knowledge gap in time
Data use Individual results stored; limited fleet signal EVAL baseline plus training metrics feed SMS refinement; grades must be concordant enough to count as data

Instructor use

  • When a legacy instructor says "we already did this under AQP," agree on the shared CBTA spine, then name the floor deltas: generation matrices, EVAL-first baseline, train-to-competency after assessment, facilitation-centred debrief, and ORCE/VENN grading against OBs.
  • When briefing a module, if the crew expect practice-then-check sequencing, reset the contract: EVAL measures day-to-day competence first; MT and SBT exist to close gaps the evaluation exposed.
  • When running EVAL, if you feel an urge to teach through the scenario, hold observation only; note competency gaps and OBs for later phases. Coaching in EVAL contaminates baseline data.
  • When debriefing SBT, if the session becomes an instructor monologue, stop and reopen crew analysis before any grade. Grade follows facilitated discovery, not replaces it.
  • If technical recovery was adequate but communication or decision-making was weak, grade the competency that failed; do not let outcome bias excuse the OB you recorded.
  • If paperwork, examiner designation, or authority approval still says AQP/ATQP, do not call the session "EBT" for legal purposes. Teach EBT craft where the approved programme aligns; keep currency language faithful to the approved document.
  • When onboarding sceptical crews, use AQP history as teaching context for why Inter-rater reliability and common non-technical metrics matter: without them, scenario training collapses back into technical-outcome proxies (the LOE gap EBT grading is designed to close).
  • When resistance is polite but firm, use a bridge phrase with two beats: same competency ambition as AQP, and different sequencing and grading rules (measure first, train second, debrief before you grade).

Connections

Sources