2017

Competency Based Training 
and Assessment (CBTA) for 
dangerous goods 
WHITE PAPER 
IATA ‐ DGTWG 
 
Table of Contents

1.0  Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................. 2 

2.0  Background ............................................................................................................................................................. 2 

3.0 What is competency-based training and assessment (CBTA)? ..................................................................... 3 

3.1 What are the CBTA principles? ........................................................................................................................... 4 

3.2 How to implement CBTA? ..................................................................................................................................... 4 
4.0 Opportunities and challenges .................................................................................................................................. 6 

4.1 Impact to the training participant* ...................................................................................................................... 6 

4.2 Impact on the training curricula/content ........................................................................................................... 7 
4.3 Impact on the training instructors qualifications ........................................................................................... 8 
4.4 Impact on approvals ............................................................................................................................................... 8 
5.0  Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................................. 10 

Page 1 of 11 
 
 
1.0 Introduction
 

The ICAO Dangerous Goods Panel (DGP) undertook the development of new proposed provisions and
guidance material under a competency-based approach for dangerous goods training to be first
implemented in 2019-2020. The objective of the Competency Based Training and Assessment (CBTA)
proposed provisions is to provide focused training in order to produce a competent workforce. It does
so by identifying key competencies that need to be acquired, determining the most effective way of
achieving them and establishing valid and reliable assessment tools to evaluate pre-established
performance criteria.

The goals of this white paper is, on behalf of the IATA - Dangerous Goods Training Working Group
(DGTWG) to share the findings of a review of the opportunities and challenges observed by IATA
through several stakeholders interactions on the competency-based training and assessment (CBTA)
proposed provisions by ICAO (See DGR 58th Edition, appendix H) to be applied to dangerous good
training.

Additionally, the content of this white paper should serve to facilitate discussion points among all
parties involved in the training, assessment and oversight of dangerous good training.

Finally we encourage active participation of all dangerous goods parties involved in training to provide
feedback before March 31st 2017. All comments received by ICAO will be considered during the review
of the provisions for potential inclusion in the 2019-2020 Technical Instructions.

2.0 Background
 

ICAO introduced the Procedures for Air Navigation Services—Training (PANS-TRG, Doc 9868) in the
form of guidance as a first step towards implementation of competency-based training in 2006. Since
then, competency-based training assessment guidance has been developed for several aviation
functions including aircraft maintenance personnel, designated medical examiners, flight procedure
designers, flight validation pilots, air traffic controllers and air traffic safety electronics personnel.

The ICAO Dangerous Goods Panel (DGP) undertook the development of guidance on a competency-
based approach to dangerous goods training. The scope of the specific working group was to develop:

1. proposed new training provisions to replace Part 4 of the Technical Instructions (IATA DGR 1.5
Training Requirements), based on the competency based training and assessment framework
to be implemented in 2019-2020 (attachment to the 2017-2018 TI’s for consultation)
2. proposed guidance material (Dangerous goods competency framework, dangerous goods
functions process flowchart)
3. a competency framework for dangerous goods State employees

Page 2 of 11 
 
 
The competency framework for dangerous goods State employees has been adopted and published
as part of Doc 9284 AN/905 2017-2018 Supplement, Chapter 5.

The proposed provisions (2) and guidance materials (3) aim to assist operators and other entities
involved in the transport of dangerous goods to implement a competency-based approach.

Areas Details

Replace current provisions: Consultation

TI’s training 1. DGR 1.5

provisions 2. Guidance Materials - Appendix H) -

New training requirements TI’s 2019 – 2020 Edition

3. Guidance to States on CBTA for States employees

States guidance
TI’s Supplement 2017 – 2018 Edition -Chapter 5 & attachment I
material

For the provisions to include in 1 & 2 above, the ICAO working group is gathering feedback from all
parties involved in training to consider during the next round of discussions before moving forward with
the final proposal. Several regulatory bodies have organized a series of consultation activities within
their local markets. IATA has played an active role in discussions with various stakeholders and more
recently a webinar with our training partners and approved schools. The objective has been to create
opportunities for discussion and to promote active participation in providing the ICAO working group
with comprehensive feedback from a broad reach of industry.

To provide feedback visit (before March 31st, 2017):  

http://www.icao.int/safety/DangerousGoods/Pages/NewTrainingProvisions0630-4506.aspx

3.0 What is competency-based training and assessment (CBTA)?

 

The CBTA is a systematic training methodology supporting the objective to provide focused training in
order to produce a competent workforce.

While the wording of the revised provisions have changed, the principle of “commensurate with
responsibilities” and the goal of ensuring all employees perform their functions competently has not.
 

Page 3 of 11 
 
 
The revisions aim to emphasize these principles by supporting a competency-based approach to
training and assessment and providing guidelines and tools for implementation.

3.1 What are the CBTA principles?

a. Focus on job function. Function driven methodology - Clear training needs assessment (TNA)
or task analysis (T/A).
b. Specific measurement of the competency – Assessment design to measure performance
standard to be achieved (both regulatory and business requirements).
c. Tailored content - Then design the course with the objective to be able to demonstrate the
competency.
d. Continuous assessment that verifies performance standard.
The following table summarizes the basic differences from traditional training to the CBTA principles.
Although CBTA has been mentioned in the regulations since some time already under current 1.5.7
the provisions proposed are more detailed and specific about the principles and elements of the
approach.

TRADITIONAL COMPETENCY – BASED

 Based on job tittle  Based on job function

 Subject-matter driven  Aims to reach performance

 Wide scope of knowledge  Tailored content & measurements

 Continuous assessment

3.2 How to implement CBTA?

Employers are given a more explicit responsibility under this approach, where by using a competency-
based-training framework. “The employer must ensure that personnel are competent to perform any
function described in these Instructions for which they are responsible prior to performing any of these
functions. This must be achieved through training and assessment.” (DGR, H.1.5.0)

In other words, it is the employer who is responsible to determine the knowledge and skills needed by
the employee and be able to assess the level of competency prior to them performing a specific function
or functions. This responsibility implies that the employer must have a clear picture of the tasks to be
performed, such as a task assessment (TA) and pre-establish the performance criteria to evaluate it.

In order to assist the employer, the ICAO provisions for dangerous goods under the CBTA approach
includes a competency framework. This is a high level structure outlining the employee’s expected
performance for a given function(s). The framework consists of competency units, competency

Page 4 of 11 
 
 
elements and performance criteria. Competency standards are defined based on expected job
performance in a specific work context.

The key elements of the framework identified by ICAO are:

CU – Competency Unit

CE – Competency element

PC – Performance Criteria

Six competency units have been identify by the ICAO Working Group:

CU1 - Classifying dangerous goods;

CU2 - Preparing a dangerous goods shipment;

CU3 – Processing / accepting cargo;

CU4 - Managing cargo pre-loading;

CU5 - Accepting passenger and crew baggage; and

CU6 - Transporting cargo / baggage

Each is composed of different competency elements and each of these in turn contain the specific
performance criteria expected level of the observable behavior to be measure.

Once the CU, CE and PC have been defined, the design and development of the training and
assessment can be deployed and applied. Special care should be given to the assessment, based on
 

Page 5 of 11 
 
 
the level of competency acquired during training prior to performing the job function. The assessment
must be able to demonstrate that the employee can competently perform the job.

4.0 Opportunities and challenges

 

The Dangerous Goods Training Working Group has dedicated time to analyse the potential impact of
implementing the provisions under four dimensions: the impact to the participant, the curricula or
content, the instructor qualification and finally the approval processes of training programmes.

The below table is provided as the result of substantial hours of discussions, investigation and forums
in which the CBTA methodology and its application to the wide spectrum of stake holders in the air
transport industry has been analyzed.

4.1 Impact to the training participant*

Opportunities Challenges
The training participant should experience The learning job mobility is perceived as
“learn by doing” approach in which both the negatively impacted, the provisions however
knowledge and the skills being transmitted provide the guidance on changing roles, but the
and assess are directly linked to the job value of content standardization is being
function. The learning experience is more diminished creating the need of reassessment by
pertinent and relevant. It could be expected to each new supervisor or employer increasing cost.
introduce mentoring and coaching in the
execution and post training assessment.
The framework tools (Flow chart and Matrix) The methodology implies that employer must sign
help employer and participant to more off on a TNA, should this sign off be made
precisely choose the training and assessment compulsory? ICAO proposed provisions do not
(content and method) that best fits their include such a requirement and practice suggest
competency needs. There is still room for that employers often do not get involved mainly
better guidance on how to use the proposed because they do not know the details of the topic
tools. and cannot determine the requirements. Courses
Knowing better the learner needs helps are often provided to employees as a mandatory
designers and developers to create more requirement from either an authority or organized
tailored made courses. safety program.
It proposes the need for employers training - If employer does not have the competencies,
digital-learning for example to support the there is an expectation that the employer will
employers on deciding what training their proactively take the steps necessary to acquire
employee needs and furthermore what kind of the competencies. This expectations is
assessment/metrics are required. particularly critical if there is no oversight nor the
State possess the competencies or resources to
supervise. Do the new provisions imply the
addition of a training assessor role, potentially
increasing cost?
The role of the current standardized materials
would become less relevant as the trainee
requires multi-reference materials to meet their
 

Page 6 of 11 
 
 
needs (e.g. international regulations,
local/regional regulations, in company safety
manuals)
When competency demonstration is required,
then after training on the job assessment is
required, determination of the gap, documenting
and then further training if required. This process
is perceived to raise cost of training and required
much more training, guidance or support for the
responsible (employer)
There is a need to seek more clarity on all job
functions define in the DG Functions Processes
Flowchart, for example pilot, cabin crew, security
screeners and load master are not very well
defined or missing.
Operationally how can a training organization can
have training participants from different functions in
one classroom?
If not possible a potential cost increase with not clear
tangible benefit for certain organizations is perceived.
4.2 Impact on the training
curricula/content
Opportunities Challenges
Design of the content can be done on a Uncertainty on how the after training assessment
modular basis to mix and match the needs of should be per CU. If the Performance Criteria
the trainee at a particular level (PC) (PC) will be very individually/functional oriented,
would there be a minimum score or metric? For
similar functions very many variations of PC
metrics could co-exist.
Introduction of new content material and Workbooks as they exist today will not serve the
delivery methods (e.g. apps, gamification) for purpose, these must be redesign.
training exercises purposes.
Establishing a “minimum content” criteria, a Potentially over specification of job function that
bench mark per module or CU. Perhaps a personalized the design and development.
single resource in modular form to be meet
(CBTA/ICAO matrix with further development)
Increases the possibility for more different Will require the design of more materials per task
types of training (diversification): assessment meaning lots of development time: (pre - task
tools, evaluation tools, short training modules, analysis, modules (task specific) course, post -
etc. assessment (task specific), follow up (continuous
The methodology seems to fit well when the assessment)
target audience is more homogeneous within Far more different, courses/modules, splintered
company training for organizations designing participation (disturbance). In other words the
and developing their own training or amount of customizations that may be required to
outsourcing it to be customized to particular properly apply the methodology which may end
needs. up with very personalized courses with low

Page 7 of 11 
 
 
attendance which may create a sustainability
issue for some training institutions.
Create content with the measurement tools in How detailed the competency assessment will
mind for the level of proficiency/competency. practically be. The more detailed it is the more
individually focus the course end up being. This
raises a question: how practical could that be? On
the other hand if we wander away from the
individual and focus on the function we may end
up where we are today with the existing
categories in the future call CU.
Design/development complexity that current
training organizations may not be able to
accommodate.
4.3 Impact on the training instructors
qualifications
Opportunities Challenges
At the moment there is not such as an Resources available to be used in the extensive
assessor figure, if one is needed then the time of task analysis requirements. Some
profile and the certification of such a profile organizations would have to gather originally and
may be required. periodical resources.
Relaunch and validation of Dangerous Goods For continuous assessment more resources will
Training Programme guidelines (Instructors be needed. Will increase price/investment in the
Guidelines (INSG) + Workbooks) in whatever training programmes for employers.
future form and content. Better recognition as
a benchmark.
Role change. Must be able to coach or What would the role be for the instructor?
facilitate learners to master a skill, not a Currently the instructor needs to be qualified in
category. the same category, with widely different
Instructor must possess different standards. How do we ensure "best adequate
competencies, manage different class standard"
objectives / methods
Create more guidance on how to use a TNA. Further capability/skills to "size" single topics.
Developing job tools for task analysis / ways
of assessment.
If the instructor will be expected to conduct site
assessments. This activity will require additional
time to assess proficiency/competency.
4.4 Impact on approvals
Opportunities Challenges
DGTWG could design and provide a standard The approvers (appropriate authorities, IATA
matrix based on the guidelines provided by training partners program) must be able to identify
ICAO for Airlines/operators approval as best the knowledge level required to competently
practice. demonstrate an acquired skill.
DGTWG could design and provide a standard As it has to be more tailored it would require more
matrix based on the guidelines provided by time to review the training programs and
ICAO for GHA approval as best practice. documentation supporting the TNA/TA. Means
 

Page 8 of 11 
 
 
additional time and human resources to validate
and maintain the updates.
IATA could become the 1st best practice study Approval by States/appropriate authorities will
case if we implement CBTA on experimental have to manage ambiguity.
basis (e.g. for Lithium Batteries Shipping For CAA approval - would there be a lack of
course) consistency on what is trained as it is based on
individual TNA/TA.
Mutual recognition of validation will be even more
difficult than it is now due to the wide range of
CAA's implementation approaches.
Add more guidance on assessment tools and Assuming specific CU(s) is required, how to keep
expectations of the output of the consistency in the record of training?
assessments. Could include pre-assessment,
after training and continuous assessment.
If this will be the only methodology prescribed by
ICAO will regulations provide metrics to measure
the output or on the job demonstration
considering that the TNA/TA response to
individual pre-assessment.
Different countries might end up with different
standards, adding lack of uniformity? Should the
Technical Instructions be interpreted in the same
way across the world?
Too prescriptive or forced requirements from
appropriate authorities could lead to an "extended
Table 1.5.A"
Clearly define the impact in audits that operators
do on external contractors as this may directly
have an impact on IOSA and ISAGO audits.
Airlines and GHA’s work towards IATA standards
such as IOSA and ISAGO, what guidance will be
given to IATA to enable us to meet with these
requirements?
Oversight and enforcement complexity that
current competent authorities may struggle to
accommodate.

*Under participant both employee and employer are included. The employer is ultimately the
decision maker and responsible for determining the appropriate training program and
assessment.

Page 9 of 11 
 
 

5.0 Conclusion
 

In conclusion we fully support the objective of improving dangerous goods competencies in the broad
supply chain, as the ultimate aim is to improve safety in the air cargo industry. Design and development
of training commeasurable with the employee’s responsibilities is an area where improving
opportunities are foreseen.

Two major positive impacts of CBTA proposal are:

 closer involvement of the employer in determining the needs and measuring performance in a
more precise way;
 an increase in employee’s engagement as a result of a closer correlation between the training
content and job performance assessment.

While giving the employer more responsibility on the training decision process, maintenance of the
competency by continuous assessment and measurement of the performance criteria, building this
competency whether internally in an organization or relying on a third party training provider will be a
big challenge in many cases.

It is recognized that the impact of CBTA varies for a range of organizations as per the following
breakdown:

a. Operator’s training their own staff – considered the most applicable area for CBTA, as many
operators already implement to some extend this approach. Additionally their training programs
already require competent authority’s approval.
b. Operator’s training delivered by external third party providers (e.g. smaller carriers, or outstations)
– is a challenging expectation unless there is a good level of standard curricula (CU’s) applied
and continuous assessment tools facilitated where in this case cost-benefit must be clearly
defined.
c. Big organizations from the rest of the supply chain training their own personnel.
d. Small and medium organizations from the rest of the supply chain outsourcing their training. Is
there enough incentive (cost/benefit) for implementing CBTA? Is regulatory oversight reaching
to these organisations enforcing compliance with the regulations?
While it’s true that CBTA as a training approach has been implemented by ICAO in other air transport
technical areas, for the dangerous goods training, it proposes a significantly wider scope (currently
defined by 6 CUs). Several of the CU’s are performed by individuals in organizations out of the range
of appropriate authority’s oversight making compliance and enforcement more challenging than the
current provisions. At the same time, it is important to realise that the described CU’s leave out of scope
areas such as security screening and others.

Page 10 of 11 
 
 
The aviation industry is very dependent on standards that can be mutually recognized and applied by
the key players in the supply chain and therefore a certain level of standardisation in knowledge and
skills should be maintained.

Considering the benefits and challenges, the CBTA approach for dangerous goods outside the operator
or ground handler services is not expected to result in an increase in training quality and there is
concern this could lead to lower training standards than currently achieved. The CBTA approach has
already being implemented in other aviation sectors in which the aviation industry/operators have full
control and there is established compliance oversight, usually by civil aviation authorities of the State
of origin of the operators.

Page 11 of 11