ABSTRACT: Simulator-based training is an essential component of both maritime and aviation education, yet the regulatory frameworks and pedagogical approaches governing these fields differ significantly. Aviation training operates under highly standardized and prescriptive regulations, ensuring structured progression through predefined exercises, while maritime training is more flexible, guided by the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO) Standards of Training, Certification, and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW) convention. This study explores how these differences impact simulator training design, instructor autonomy, and student learning experiences. Using a qualitative research approach, data was collected through instructor interviews and observations of simulator training sessions in both maritime and aviation institutions. Findings reveal that maritime instructors have significant freedom to design and adapt training exercises, leading to high levels of customization but also inconsistencies across institutions. In contrast, aviation instructors follow strict, externally approved training manuals, ensuring coherence but limiting adaptability. Another key difference is in assessment structures—aviation training includes mandatory level confirmation checks throughout the program, whereas maritime training relies on final exams, with simulator exercises seen as learning opportunities rather than evaluative assessments. This study highlights the advantages and challenges of both approaches. While the flexibility in maritime training fosters innovation and adaptability, it risks a lack of coherence between courses. Conversely, aviation’s structured training ensures standardization and regulatory compliance but may hinder responsiveness to technological advancements or evolving industry needs. The study suggests that a balanced approach—incorporating aviation’s structured assessments into maritime training while preserving instructor-driven adaptability—could optimize learning outcomes in the maritime sector, and that a balanced approach also could be considered for the aviation sector. This research contributes to the ongoing discourse on simulator-based education by identifying areas for cross-sector learning and improvement. Recommendations include enhancing coordination between maritime training programs, implementing structured assessment milestones, and exploring adaptive simulation techniques to enhance both standardization and flexibility in training methodologies.

KEYWORDS: Qualitative Thematic Analysis, Simulator-Based Training, Maritime vs Aviation Comparison, Instructor Autonomy, Regulatory Frameworks, Pedagogical Approaches, Standardization vs Flexibility, Assessment Structures

REFERENCES