Those Who Can, Do, Those Who Can't Teach, (Or Train).

Having spent a good proportion of my working life on the receiving end of training, I have observed that within the aviation security sector there are some aspects that need to be either thrown under the spotlight, or out of the window. I will not name and shame per se, but those who have undergone similar experiences will perhaps agree with my observations, or not.

It is useful to start with a definition of training of which there are many. Paraphrasing a number of definitions, training may be described as the process of transferring knowledge and skills to an individual to enable them to complete a task to a satisfactory standard. Training is not education. Education requires that a student undertakes an academic course provided by a recognised institution and complete examinations to achieve a set grade in a particular subject.

Training adults requires both skills and knowledge which in themselves can be taught. A useful starting point is an adult education and training course that is properly regulated by a recognised body. Coupled with subject knowledge, a person with this qualification should then be able to train others in that subject. Training adults also requires that they be motivated to learn, otherwise they will feel that their efforts are not properly recognised. So why then does one international organisation NOT provide the exam scores for their aviation security training courses? Similarly, why does the same body not regularly update its’ training material? I attended one highly regarded course in 2012 and was somewhat surprised to see that the terrorism module included a slide entitled “The Hunt for Osama Bin Laden”, this 18 months after the raid on Abbottabad. Had I been through some sort of time warp? No, the instructor, (for whom I hold enormous respect) explained that the material had to be taught as provided. Ensuring that training is maintained to a global standard is commendable, but the approach of using outdated information is simply not credible.  Moving to a national level, I attended two aviation security courses some 8 years apart, the first in 2008. The second course included exactly the same threat brief I received 8 years earlier but with no apparent recognition of the threat dynamics seen in the intervening years. By now I was somewhat used to time travelling while undergoing training.  At the end of the latter course, that included some really good highs and some equally appalling lows, I sat the exam.  The content I felt with passing the exam was soon to evaporate as the authority did not see the need to provide me with a certificate. Fast forward in time to my current role, and I have no way of proving that I spent a week of my life on this course.  Moving on to another international organisation, my experiences have also given me pause for thought.  Attending a course in Rome, (at no cost) is what we all dream about. The instructor was able to deliver with real impact based on their first-hand experiences. (Do I hear that in security we learn from the lessons of others?) There was an exam at the end, but after a number of other courses from the same organisation, including a train the instructor session, I concluded that no-one seems to ‘fail’ their courses. My evidence was that one attendee had the knowledge, but their final delivery had them facing away from the students and instructing the screen. This person still passed.

So apart from being able to demonstrate that time travel seems to be a proven concept within the aviation security training world, what have I learned? To be fair, the training that I have completed has equipped me (at least in part) for my roles within respective companies. But given the time we spend away from the job to complete the training, is it worth it? From a regulatory perspective, authorities need to adopt a training and certification process for those working within the aviation security sector. Most will rely on the training provided by the international organisation, as the authorities overriding aim will be to demonstrate compliance. Where this approach falls way short of the desired outcome is when an authority insists that for management appointments, the job holder still needs to complete a 12-day basic course. For those who have completed the 12 weeks ‘advanced’ course (with its inbuilt time warp module), but not the basic course, there is little value of trying to explain the concept of equivalence, it will be as baffling as time travel itself.