Behavioural indicators

Behavioural indicators are the short, observable actions that define and evidence a competency. Also called observable behaviours (OBs) or performance indicators (PIs): same construct. If you cannot see it, hear it, or reasonably infer it from crew action in the session, it is not an indicator and it cannot carry a grade.

Indicators turn an abstract competency label ("Situation Awareness") into something an instructor can point at: "Monitors and assesses the aeroplane's energy state and its anticipated flight path." Without them, competency grading collapses into opinion. With them misused as a checklist, grading collapses into box-ticking that the EBT methodology was written to escape.

#Structure

In an ICAO competency framework each competency has:

1. A name (e.g. Workload management)
2. A description (what competent performance means at headline level)
3. A list of observable behaviours (the evidence menu)

The adapted nine-competency model follows the same shape. For pilots, each of the nine core competencies carries a set of indicators (seven for KNO; a comparable list for each of the eight ICAO-derived competencies). For instructors, the parallel construct is the desirable behaviour under each element of the instructor competency framework.

Indicators are written as action-oriented statements so an observer can mark them as demonstrated when required, partially demonstrated, or not demonstrated. Lineage for the pilot-side style includes the UK civil aviation authority (CAA) CAP 737 behavioural-marker system that the original EBT working group extended with technical competencies.

#What indicators are for (and not for)

For:

• Classify. Map a recorded observation to one or more competencies by matching it to the indicator language.
• Defend a grade. Especially grades 1, 2 and 5: record the applicable indicators so the grade is auditable.
• Anchor a below-standard call. Any area assessed as not meeting the required level should be associated with an observable behaviour that could lead to an unsafe situation. Preference is not enough.
• Target remediation. The indicator names what failed; fault analysis then asks why.

Not for:

• Checklist scoring. Do not sum ticks into a grade. A pilot who nails one indicator and ignores the rest when they were required is not "level 5 on a, level 1 on the rest"; the session pattern maps to one grade per competency.
• Exhaustive truth. ICAO notes that OBs may include but are not limited to the listed behaviours. The list is a working vocabulary, not a closed set of all possible good performance.
• Invisible mental states. Indicators describe what shows; knowledge and attitude are graded only when they surface as behaviour (speech, decision, control action, search behaviour).

#How many, how often

Indicators are the raw material for the how-many and how-often dimensions of assessment:

• How many indicators the pilot demonstrated when they were required (breadth / acquisition of the competency)
• How often those indicators appeared when required (robustness)

Word pictures scale those dimensions (few / some / many / most / all) and (rarely / occasionally / regularly / routinely / always). Combined with quality of demonstration and TEM outcome, they drive the single grade. See VENN grading.

#Instructor use

• During the session, record significant moments on a timeline; after (or at phase end), classify each against competency indicators.
• When you assign level 1, 2 or 5, name the indicators that support the call.
• In debrief, prefer concrete indicator language over labels: not "your SAW was weak" alone, but "you did not call the energy state when the profile went high, and the path deviation was not challenged."
• Use missing or weak indicators as the entry to root-cause analysis, not as the entire debrief script.
• Standardise with peers on what each indicator looks like on type and in the lesson plan; that calibration is half of inter-rater reliability.

#Connections

• Core competencies. Each competency is defined by its indicator set; nine competencies in the adapted model.
• Word pictures. Grade-level language that scales how many and how often indicators appear.
• VENN grading. How many / how often / how well / outcome applied to demonstrated indicators.
• Evaluation cycle. Item and method design that makes observed indicators valid evidence.
• From competency to observable behaviour. Full chain from competency construct to recorded grade.
• Inter-rater reliability. Shared indicator language is useless if instructors apply it inconsistently.
• Knowledge, skills and attitudes. Indicators are the observable surface of underlying KSA.
• Fault analysis. Below-standard indicators feed root-cause diagnosis.
• Threat and error management. TEM outcome dimension judges whether the demonstrated indicators actually managed threats and errors.
• Instructor competencies. Instructor framework uses desirable behaviours as the same kind of observable evidence.

#Sources

• Doc 9868, Part II §1. ICAO aeroplane-pilot OBs for the eight competencies; notes that listed OBs are not exhaustive.
• Doc 9868, Part I Ch 2. Competency–description–observable behaviour (OB) framework structure; adapted models select and adapt OBs.
• Doc 9995, Part I Ch 7 (Conduct of evidence-based training). Observe, record, classify against OBs; competencies and OBs must not be used as a checklist; how-many and how-often dimensions.
• Doc 9995, App 4 (Word pictures for competency assessment). Word-picture scales for how many and how often OBs demonstrated when required.
• A4.D Core Competencies. Performance-indicator framing; CAP 737 lineage; KNO indicators.
• A4.E Performance Grades. Grade cells written against "all / most / some / any" of the performance indicators when required.
• A4.2.4 Grading Methodology for Recurrent Training and Checking. Classify step; indicators not a checklist; record PIs for grades 1, 2, 5.
• A4.1.6 Competencies. Below-standard assessment must associate an observable behaviour that could lead to an unsafe situation.