847
1 INTRODUCTION
The use of simulators has significantly changed
training methodologies in industries where precision,
safety, and high-stakes decision-making are key factors
(Jentsch & Curtis, 2017; Sellberg, 2017). Two industries
that have really embraced this technology are maritime
and aviation, where simulation plays a key role in
preparing professionals for real-life situations. In both
domains, simulators are used to replicate complex
operational environments, enabling trainees to
develop critical skills, enhance decision-making
Instructor Autonomy and Training Structures
in Simulator-Based Education: A Study of Maritime
and Aviation Training Approaches
J.F. Røds
University of Tromsø the Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway
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.
http://www.transnav.eu
the International Journal
on Marine Navigation
and Safety of Sea Transportation
Volume 19
Number 3
September 2025
DOI: 10.12716/1001.19.03.18
848
capabilities, and build confidence in handling routine
and emergency scenarios (Hjelmervik et al., 2018). As
tasks and systems in these industries become more
complex, simulation training has become more
important than ever.
Even though both sectors rely heavily on
simulators, their training goals and how they use the
technology can differ quite a bit. These differences
come from the unique operational demands, risks, and
regulatory frameworks that define each sector
(Allerton, 2009; Vederhus et al., 2018). In the maritime
field, simulator training often focuses on navigation,
vessel operation, and teamwork on the bridge, with
scenarios designed to address challenges such as
adverse weather, port entry, and collision avoidance.
On the other hand, aviation simulators focus on flight
operations, aircraft systems management, and the
mitigation of critical in-flight emergencies, reflecting
the sector’s focus on speed, precision, and passenger
safety.
A big part of what shapes how simulators are used
is the regulatory framework behind them.
Organizations such as the International Maritime
Organization (IMO) and the International Civil
Aviation Organization (ICAO) set standards to ensure
that simulation-based training aligns with industry-
specific requirements for competency, safety, and
operational efficiency (EASA, 2020; ICAO, 2018; IMO,
2011). These frameworks influence not only the
technical specifications of simulators but also the
pedagogical approaches employed by training
institutions.
This paper seeks to explore two critical aspects of
simulator training in the maritime and aviation sectors.
First, it investigates the primary objectives of simulator
training in each domain and examines how these
objectives shape the methodologies used. Second, it
analyses the influence of regulatory frameworks on the
design and application of simulators, highlighting
points of convergence and divergence between the two
industries. By addressing these questions, the study
aims to provide a deeper understanding of the role of
simulator training in enhancing safety and operational
performance, while identifying opportunities for cross-
industry learning and innovation (Aronsson et al.,
2021).
2 BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE REVIEW
Simulation-based training has become an essential
component of professional development in safety-
critical industries such as maritime and aviation. The
adoption of simulators in these fields dates back
several decades, driven by the need to replicate real-
world scenarios in controlled environments. This
section reviews the historical development,
technological advancements, and pedagogical theories
underpinning simulator training, as well as the current
regulatory frameworks that govern its application.
2.1 Historical Development of Simulator Training
The origins of simulator training can be traced to the
early 20th century, with the development of flight
simulators for pilot training during World War I. The
iconic Link Trainer, introduced in the 1930s, marked a
significant leap forward, offering pilots an opportunity
to practice instrument flying in a safe and controlled
setting (Jeon, 2015). In the maritime sector, the
adoption of simulators gained traction in the late 20th
century, as advances in computing power enabled the
creation of sophisticated models for bridge operations
and ship handling (Gudmestad et al., 1995; Hanzu-
Pazara et al., 2008).
Both sectors have seen a steady evolution in
simulation technologies, moving from simple
mechanical devices to high-fidelity systems that
incorporate virtual reality (VR), augmented reality
(AR), and artificial intelligence (AI). These
advancements have enhanced the realism of training
scenarios, enabling professionals to practice complex
operations and decision-making under near-real-
world conditions (Myers III et al., 2018).
2.2 Pedagogical Foundations of Simulator Training
Simulator training is grounded in experiential learning
theories, particularly Kolb’s experiential learning
model, which emphasizes learning through active
engagement with experiences (Morris, 2020). The
model’s four stages—concrete experience, reflective
observation, abstract conceptualization, and active
experimentation—are inherently aligned with
simulation-based education. In both maritime and
aviation contexts, simulators facilitate hands-on
learning, allowing trainees to apply theoretical
knowledge to practical situations.
Another key pedagogical principle is the concept of
deliberate practice, which focuses on repetitive, goal-
oriented training with continuous feedback. In
aviation, for instance, pilots use simulators to master
specific manoeuvres and emergency protocols, while
maritime trainees focus on more general tasks such as
navigation, collision avoidance, and crisis
management. The structured nature of simulator
training ensures that learners can refine their skills
incrementally, minimizing the risks associated with
real-world errors.
2.3 Regulatory Frameworks Governing Simulator
Training
International regulations play a crucial role in
standardizing the use of simulators for training and
certification purposes. In maritime education, the
International Maritime Organization (IMO) prescribes
guidelines under the Standards of Training,
Certification, and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW)
(IMO, 2011). These standards mandate the use of
simulators for training in navigation, engine room
operations, and crisis management, ensuring that
seafarers are adequately prepared for operational
challenges.
Similarly, in the aviation sector, the International
Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and regional
authorities such as the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) and the European Union
Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) establish requirements
for simulator training (EASA, 2020; ICAO, 2018). These
frameworks specify the design, fidelity, and
849
operational capabilities of flight simulators used for
pilot certification and recurrent training.
2.4 Research Gap and Study Focus
While extensive research has been conducted on
simulator training in individual sectors, (Nazir et al.,
2019; Tusher et al., 2024), comparative analyses remain
relatively limited. A literature search in the database
Web of Science was performed using the following
Boolean search string: (“Maritime” AND “Aviation”
AND “Simulator”). The search returned a total of 29
documents after including only peer-reviewed articles.
After the initial screening of abstracts, a total of 11
articles were selected for review. 5 of the articles were
related to maritime simulators, and 5 were related to
aviation simulators, but none were found to compare
the simulator training in each domain. One study
looked into factors related to negative transfer of
training in safety-critical professions (Pennings et al.,
2025). This study is based on interviews with
instructors from both the aviation and the maritime
sectors. But most of the instructors interviewed in the
study come from the aviation sector, and only one
came from the maritime sector. There is a need for
studies that explore how the objectives and regulatory
frameworks of simulator training shape methodologies
in maritime and aviation contexts. This paper aims to
address this gap, contributing to a better
understanding of the role of simulator training in
enhancing safety and operational efficiency across
industries.
3 REGULATORY FRAMEWORKS
Simulator training in the maritime and aviation sectors
is underpinned by regulatory frameworks designed to
ensure safety, competency, and adherence to industry
standards. These frameworks establish guidelines for
the design, application, and evaluation of simulators,
promoting consistency and reliability in training
programs. This section examines the key regulatory
bodies and standards that shape simulator training in
both industries.
3.1 Regulatory Frameworks in Maritime Training
In the maritime industry, simulator training is
governed by the International Maritime Organization
(IMO), which sets global standards for seafarer training
under the International Convention on Standards of
Training, Certification, and Watchkeeping for
Seafarers (STCW). The STCW convention specifies the
competencies required for various maritime roles and
mandates the use of simulators for specific training
tasks (IMO, 2011).
Key provisions include:
− Navigation and Bridge Operations: Simulators are
used to train officers in collision avoidance, route
planning, and response to navigational hazards.
− Engine Room Operations: Engine room simulators
allow engineers to practice operating and
troubleshooting propulsion systems and auxiliary
machinery.
− Crisis Management: Scenario-based training
focuses on emergency response, including fire-
fighting, abandoning ship, and oil spill
containment.
The IMO’s Model Courses provide detailed
guidance on the design and implementation of
simulator training, emphasizing realism, relevance,
and assessment methodologies. An example is IMO
Model Course 1.22, Ship Simulator and Bridge
Teamwork. The IMO Model Courses also set
requirements regarding the instructors’ competence
through IMO Model Course 6.09 and 6.10, Training
Course for Instructors and Train the Simulator Trainer
and Assessor.
3.2 Regulatory Frameworks in Aviation Training
The aviation sector’s regulatory environment is equally
robust, with international and regional bodies
overseeing simulator training. The International Civil
Aviation Organization (ICAO) sets global standards
through its Standards and Recommended Practices
(SARPs), which are detailed in Annex 1 (Personnel
Licensing) and Annex 6 (Operation of Aircraft) (ICAO,
2018).
Regional authorities, such as the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) in the United States and the
European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) in
Europe, enforce these standards and provide
additional regulations. Key aspects include:
− Simulator Standards: Simulators must meet strict
standards for fidelity and functionality, as outlined
in documents such as EASA’s CS-FSTD(A) (EASA,
2020).
− Pilot Certification and Recurrent Training:
Simulators are integral to the initial certification of
pilots, as well as ongoing proficiency checks and
scenario-based training.
− Crew Resource Management (CRM): Regulatory
requirements emphasize the use of simulators for
training in teamwork, communication, and
decision-making under high-stress conditions.
Simulator instructors’ competence is regulated
through EASA regulations (EASA, 2020).
3.3 Commonalities in Regulatory Approaches
Both maritime and aviation regulators share key
principles in their approach to simulator training:
− Focus on Safety: Regulations prioritize training that
minimizes risks and prepares professionals to
handle emergencies effectively.
− Competency-Based Standards: Training programs
are designed to ensure that trainees meet clearly
defined performance criteria.
− Emphasis on Realism: High-fidelity simulators are
mandated to replicate real-world operational
environments accurately.
− Continuous Evaluation: Regular audits and
updates to training programs ensure compliance
with evolving standards and technologies.
3.4 Challenges in Regulatory Compliance
While regulatory frameworks provide a strong
foundation, their implementation presents challenges:
850
− Cost and Accessibility: High-quality simulators and
compliance with stringent standards require
significant investments, which can be excessive for
smaller organizations.
− Standardization Across Regions: Variability in
regional regulations can complicate the
development of standardized training programs.
− Technological Advances: Regulators must
continuously adapt to new technologies, such as
autonomous systems and artificial intelligence,
ensuring that training remains relevant.
3.5 Opportunities for Harmonization and Innovation
Efforts are underway to harmonize regulations across
regions, facilitating cross-industry learning and
resource sharing, for example, in the case of port
security training (Urciuoli, 2016). Also, joint initiatives
between the IMO and ICAO explore synergies in
simulator training methodologies, leveraging best
practices from both sectors.
Innovation in simulator design, driven by
advancements in virtual reality (VR) and artificial
intelligence (AI), offers opportunities to enhance
training quality. Regulatory frameworks will probably
in the future evolve to incorporate these technologies,
ensuring that they meet safety and performance
standards.
In conclusion, regulatory frameworks in maritime
and aviation training play a pivotal role in maintaining
safety and competency. By addressing challenges and
embracing innovation, these frameworks can continue
to support the development of highly skilled
professionals capable of meeting the demands of their
industries.
4 METHODOLOGY
This study employs a combined methods approach to
examine the similarities and differences in simulator
training between the maritime and aviation sectors.
The methodology combines document analysis,
interviews, and observational techniques to provide a
thorough understanding of training practices and their
regulatory and operational contexts.
4.1 Research Design
The research design is structured to explore the
multifaceted nature of simulator training through the
triangulation of qualitative data sources. By integrating
document analysis, interviews, and observation, the
study ensures a robust and nuanced analysis of the
research questions.
4.2 Document Analysis
Document analysis can serve as the foundation for
understanding the regulatory frameworks and
historical development of simulator training in both
sectors (Clark et al., 2021). Key documents include:
− Regulatory Texts: International Maritime
Organization (IMO) guidelines, such as the STCW
convention (IMO, 2011), and aviation standards
from the International Civil Aviation Organization
(ICAO) and EASA (EASA, 2020; ICAO, 2018).
− Training Manuals: Operational and procedural
guides used in maritime and aviation training
centres.
These documents were reviewed to identify
commonalities and differences in training objectives,
methodologies, and compliance requirements (Clark et
al., 2021). Table 1 below gives an overview of the
documents reviewed as part of the study.
Table 1. Regulatory texts and training documents
Regulatory Texts
Type
Maritime international legislative framework for
education and training
Aviation international legislative framework for
education and training
Training Documents
Type
In total, 10 exercise descriptions from 4 different
providers of higher maritime navigational
education and training
Training manual describing all simulator training
from 1 provider of higher aviation navigational
education and training
4.3 Semi-Structured Interviews
Interviews were conducted with subject matter
experts, including:
− Maritime Professionals: Captains, training officers,
and simulator instructors.
− Aviation Professionals: Pilots, flight instructors,
and regulatory compliance officers.
The semi-structured format allowed for flexibility,
enabling participants to elaborate on their experiences
and perspectives (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009). The
interviews covered topics such as:
− The role of simulators in skill development.
− Perceptions of regulatory requirements and their
impact on training design.
− Challenges and opportunities in integrating new
technologies.
Table 2 below gives an overview of the interviews
performed as part of the study. A total of 8 interviews
were performed with 5 maritime instructors from 2
different providers of higher maritime navigational
education and training, and 3 aviation instructors from
1 provider of higher aviation navigational education
and training.
Table 2. Interview candidates
Candidate
Position
Method
1
Maritime Instructor
Virtual
2
Maritime Instructor
Virtual
3
Maritime Instructor
Face to face
4
Maritime Instructor
Face to face
5
Maritime Instructor/PhD-student
Face to face
6
Aviation Instructor
Face to face
7
Aviation Instructor
Face to face
8
Aviation Instructor/ Flight Operations Officer
Face to face
4.4 Observational Studies
Observations were conducted at simulator training
centres in both industries to capture real-time insights
into training practices. Key aspects included:
851
− Session Dynamics: The structure and flow of
simulation sessions, including pre-briefings and
debriefings.
− Instructor-Trainee Interactions: Communication
patterns, feedback mechanisms, and decision-
making processes.
− Technology Utilization: The integration of high-
fidelity systems, virtual reality, and other advanced
tools.
Field notes were taken to document observations
systematically, and these were later analysed to
identify patterns and themes (Emerson et al., 2011).
Table 3 below gives an overview of the observations
of simulator training as a part of the study. A total of
98 hours of simulator training were observed as a part
of the study, where 93 hours were observation of
maritime simulator training at the 4 maritime training
providers, and 5 hours of aviation simulator training
were observed at the aviation training centre.
Table 3. Observation of simulator training
Type of provider
Number of exercises
Duration
Maritime
3
25.5 hours
Maritime
2
21.5 hours
Maritime
3
18 hours
Maritime
3
28.5 hours
Aviation
2
5 hours
4.5 Data Analysis
The collected data were analysed using thematic
analysis, which involved the following steps:
1. Coding: Initial codes were generated from the data,
focusing on recurring themes such as safety,
teamwork, and regulatory compliance.
2. Categorization: Codes were grouped into
categories, reflecting the research objectives.
3. Integration: Insights from document analysis,
interviews, and observations were synthesized to
develop a well-integrated narrative.
4.6 Ethical Considerations
The study adhered to ethical guidelines to ensure the
integrity and confidentiality of the research process:
− Informed Consent: Participants were informed
about the study’s objectives, methods, and potential
outcomes, and their consent was obtained before
data collection.
− Confidentiality: Data were anonymized to protect
participants’ identities and sensitive information.
− Voluntary Participation: Participants were free to
withdraw from the study at any time without
penalty.
4.7 Limitations
While the combined-methods approach provides a
useful perspective, certain limitations must be
acknowledged:
− Access to Participants: Challenges in securing
interviews with regulatory officials may have
limited insights into policy-making processes.
− Generalizability: Findings may not fully represent
all training centres or regulatory contexts, given the
variability across regions and organizations.
In summary, the methodology integrates document
analysis, interviews, and observations to ensure a
holistic exploration of simulator training in maritime
and aviation contexts. This approach not only
addresses the research questions but also provides
actionable insights for stakeholders in both industries.
5 ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
Simulator training in the maritime sector operates
within a regulatory framework primarily governed by
the International Maritime Organization (IMO)
through the Standards of Training, Certification, and
Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW) convention. While
the STCW convention provides a global baseline of
standards and competencies for maritime
professionals, it leaves significant room for
interpretation and implementation at the national and
institutional levels. This flexibility has a profound
impact on how simulator training is designed and
delivered. Interviews with instructors and observation
of simulator training at different institutions show
variations in how the simulator training is organized
and executed
Unlike aviation, where training requirements are
often codified in detailed and prescriptive regulations
issued by bodies such as the FAA or EASA, maritime
regulations emphasize outcomes rather than specific
methodologies. For instance, the STCW convention
mandates the use of simulators for tasks, such as bridge
resource management or engine room operations, but
does not dictate the exact scenarios or instructional
techniques to be used. This approach gives simulator
instructors considerable freedom to design exercises
tailored to the specific needs of their trainees and the
operational contexts of their vessels.
Regarding the training manuals, a significant
difference observed between the maritime training
centres and the aviation training centre is the layout
and structure of the training manual. For the aviation
training centre, the training manual is an implemented
part of the total training system that is certified and
approved by external accreditation authorities. This
means that all simulator exercises a student is to
execute during a training program are available from
the start of the training program. This kind of
organization of the training program will probably also
lead to a stronger coherence between the exercises, and
thereby a predetermined progress through the
exercises. A negative effect can be that it can be difficult
to implement changes to the training program, for
example because of new technology or new instructors
with new ideas and thoughts regarding the training
program. It is possible to argue that this strict handling
of the training manual can have a negative impact on
innovation in the field of simulator training in aviation.
For the training manuals at the maritime training
centres, the situation is very different. It can be argued
whether the maritime training centres have training
manuals or if they have a training program consisting
of independent training exercises. Interviews and
observations indicate that the freedom for the
instructor is high when it comes to which exercises to
run and when it comes to implementing changes to the
simulator exercises. Often, an instructor is assigned as
852
the course responsible for a single course. As a result of
this, usually the consistency between exercises inside a
specific course is high, but the coordination between
different courses can be weak. An instructor stated in
the interview that it is normal to inherit a training
program when you start as a new instructor or take
over responsibility for a new course, and then to adjust
the program over time based on your own experience.
The same instructor stated that if he finds it necessary
to, for instance, make a new simulator exercise and
implement it into the training program, he will make
the exercise himself. There would be no requirements
for control from other instructors responsible for other
courses or from the study program management.
However, it was normal to discuss new exercises with
colleagues, especially since there were always two
instructors in the specific course he was responsible
for.
Another instructor informed that he preferred to
have a dynamic approach to simulator exercises. He
usually uses baseline scenarios with a preset traffic
scenario, but he always makes alterations to the
exercise based on the decisions the students take. To
deliberately put students in situations where they must
learn how to handle different circumstances. As an
example, he elaborated on a situation where a student
was consequently positioning the ship in the wrong
part of the fairway. He would then insert extra traffic
to force the student to act regarding the positioning of
the ship. Regarding the planning of the training
program, he informed that he always makes a rough
plan together with the assistant instructor before the
start of the semester. They set up a list of exercises with
goals and aim for each exercise, and descriptions of
desired learning outcomes. But the plan is changed
every semester based on the progression of the
students. Some years they change the sequence of the
exercises, and some years they replace exercises with
other exercises with other learning outcomes. They
have a library of extra exercises that can be used as
replacement exercises when necessary. After each
exercise, they have a debrief session and discuss the
outcome of the exercise, and if it is necessary to adjust
the sequence of exercises or adjustments for the next
exercise.
Another factor specific to maritime simulator
training is that the instructors have a high threshold for
non-approval of exercises for students based on their
performance. One instructor informed that he had
never failed a student in his career as an instructor, as
he considered the goal of the exercise to be learning,
and that making mistakes can be an effective way to
learn. A quote that sums up this instructor’s feelings
regarding this matter is “Exam is for passing and
failing, exercises are for learning”. This is also
supported by another instructor who states that
students failing exercises are very rare and are
considered extreme cases.
Another instructor from another institution points
out the advantages of having dynamic exercises that
evolve based on trainees’ actions. He claims that the
most fantastic characteristic of humans is the ability to
adapt and to change direction during the exercises. The
same instructor states that the timing and sequence of
exercises are very important, and that these are key
factors in the planning of the courses he is responsible
for. The exercises used in these courses are well-tested
exercises that have been used for several years and
adjusted when needed. But he also states that if the
instructor responsible for the other courses at his
institution wants to make 5 new exercises and replace
the old ones, he would have no problem with that.
The last point to discuss related to maritime
simulator training is that nearly all training is carried
out with more than one student in the simulator at the
same time. This means that the instructor must focus
on several students at the same time. In the simulator
exercises observed as a part of this study, the number
of bridges used in the exercises varied between 3 and
7, and the number of students on each bridge varied
between 2 and 4. At the same time, the number of
instructors handling the exercise varied between 1 and
2. As a result of this, the worst-case scenario can be that
one instructor is available for the monitoring and
assessment of 28 students at the same time.
For simulator training in aviation, the execution of
the training is quite different. Almost all training in a
simulator is individual, with one student and one
instructor present in the simulator. The exception is
specified training courses in crew resource
management. This is a significant difference from the
maritime simulator training, as explained above.
Another difference is that for aviation training,
students must pass mandatory level confirmation
exercises before progressing to the next level of the
training program. As described above, this is not the
case for maritime simulator training, as the exam
normally is the only level confirmation check for the
students.
A good case for illustrating the differences between
the two fields of simulator training is to consider
training regarding the loss of important instruments
during operations. This is highly relevant for both
maritime and aviation, and something the students
need to be able to detect and handle. In maritime
simulator training, an example of this can be found in
the training manual from one of the simulator training
centres. One of the learning objectives in a specific
exercise is to train on handling loss of GPS signals,
which is a highly relevant and possible situation that
can occur. In this specific exercise, loss of GPS signals
is 1 out of a total of 12 learning objectives, which vary
from route planning, equipment familiarization,
bridge resource management and communication to
leadership and situational awareness. The exercise
description does not instruct the students in any way
regarding how to handle the situation, it only states the
goal, to ensure the position of the ship using other
means than the GPS. The exercise description includes
some recommendations and hints for the students on
how to reach this goal. How and when the failure is
implemented is up to the instructor to decide.
A similar exercise can be found in the training
manual for the aviation training centre. The goal with
this exercise is to handle the loss of important
equipment during the flight. A major difference is that
both the student and the instructor have access to the
same description and procedures regarding how the
situation should be solved. The instructor follows a
predefined list that describes when and in what
sequence the failures should be implemented. The
student follows procedures and checklists that describe
how the situation should be handled. The role of the
853
instructor is to run the exercise and implement failures,
and to assess if the student handles the situation
following the procedure. If the student is making
mistakes, the instructor will interfere and guide the
student.
Although the aviation exercise seems to be stricter
and more formal than the maritime exercise,
observations show that exercises in this segment can
include dynamic elements. In one specific exercise, the
student was allowed to practice landing skills at the
end of the exercise, although this was not relevant for
this part of the training manual. The instructor
emphasized that this was a reward for the student
performing well on the objectives in the exercise, and
that the time would have been used for more training
on the objectives if this had not been the case.
Interviews with instructors from aviation shows that
they share the maritime instructors’ view that these
kinds of exercises are mainly for learning, and not for
testing of performance or progression. The level
confirmation checks will serve this function. One
instructor stated that he wants the students to make
mistakes in the simulator instead of in the aircraft, so
the mistakes can be handled and discussed in a safe
environment without safety concerns or time
restrictions. However, the instructor said that he
knows that not all instructors share this view, and that
some instructors handle every exercise as a test.
Students rarely fail basic exercises like this one, but it
occurs that students are denied access to the exercise
due to a lack of preparation. It can also be that the
student and instructor together decide that the
students need to train more to reach the desired level,
and because of this repeats the exercise or parts of the
exercise.
6 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Simulator training in the maritime sector differs
significantly from aviation due to the flexibility
allowed by the IMO’s STCW convention. While
maritime instructors have greater autonomy in
designing exercises, this results in varied training
approaches across institutions. In contrast, aviation
training follows strict regulatory frameworks, ensuring
consistency but limiting adaptability. Maritime
training emphasizes learning over assessment, while
aviation incorporates mandatory level confirmation
checks. These differences impact training coherence,
assessment rigor, and innovation. Based on this, the
following recommendations are given:
− Maritime training centres should consider adopting
structured guidelines while preserving instructor
autonomy to enhance consistency.
− Maritime training should consider implementing
level confirmation checks in addition to exams
while maintaining learning-oriented exercises.
− Aviation training centres should consider
leveraging dynamic training scenarios to better
prepare trainees for real-world challenges.
REFERENCES
Allerton, D. (2009). Principles of flight simulation (Vol. 27).
John Wiley & Sons.
Aronsson, S., Artman, H., Brynielsson, J., Lindquist, S., &
Ramberg, R. (2021). Design of simulator training: a
comparative study of Swedish dynamic decision-making
training facilities. Cognition, technology & work, 23, 117-
130.
Clark, T., Foster, L., Sloan, L., & Bryman, A. (2021). Bryman's
social research methods (Sixth edition. ed.). Oxford
University Press.
Easy Access Rules for Flight Crew Licensing (Part-FCL),
EASA (2020).
Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (2011). Writing
ethnographic fieldnotes. University of Chicago Press.
Gudmestad, O. T., Rettedal, W. K., Sand, S. S., Brabazon, P.,
Trbojevic, V., & Helsøe, E. (1995). Use of simulator
training to reduce risk in offshore marine operations.
Hanzu-Pazara, R., Bârsan, E., Arsenie, P., Chiotoroiu, L. C., &
Raicu, G. (2008). Reducing maritime accidents caused by
human factors using simulators in the training process.
Journal of maritime research, 5, 3-18.
Hjelmervik, K., Nazir, S., & Myhrvold, A. (2018). Simulator
training for maritime complex tasks: an experimental
study. Wmu Journal of Maritime Affairs, 17(1), 17-30.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13437-017-0133-0
Convention on International Civil Aviation: Personnel
Licensing, ICAO (2018).
International Convention on Standards of Training,
Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW) :
including 2010 Manila amendments ; STCW Convention
and STCW Code, IMO (2011).
Jentsch, F., & Curtis, M. (2017). Simulation in aviation
training. Routledge.
Jeon, C. (2015). The virtual flier: The link trainer, flight
simulation, and pilot identity. Technology and culture,
56(1), 28-53.
Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2009). Det kvalitative
forskningsintervju (Vol. 2). Gyldendal akademisk.
Morris, T. H. (2020). Experiential learning – a systematic
review and revision of Kolb’s model. Interactive Learning
Environments, 28(8), 1064--1077.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1570279
Myers III, P. L., Starr, A. W., & Mullins, K. (2018). Flight
simulator fidelity, training transfer, and the role of
instructors in optimizing learning. International Journal
of Aviation, Aeronautics, and Aerospace, 5(1), 6.
Nazir, S., Jungefeldt, S., & Sharma, A. (2019). Maritime
simulator training across Europe: a comparative study.
Wmu Journal of Maritime Affairs, 18(1), 197-224.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13437-018-0157-0
Pennings, H. J. M., Landman, A., & Groen, E. (2025). Factors
Related to Negative Transfer of Training in Safety-Critical
Professions: An Interview Study. International Journal of
Training and Development, n/a(n/a).
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/ijtd.12358
Sellberg, C. (2017). Simulators in bridge operations training
and assessment: a systematic review and qualitative
synthesis. Wmu Journal of Maritime Affairs, 16(2), 247-
263. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13437-016-0114-8
Tusher, H. M., Munim, Z. H., & Nazir, S. (2024). An
evaluation of maritime simulators from technical,
instructional, and organizational perspectives: a hybrid
multi-criteria decision-making approach. Wmu Journal of
Maritime Affairs, 23(2), 165-194.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13437-023-00318-1
Urciuoli, L. (2016). Port security training and education in
Europe—a framework and a roadmap to harmonization.
Maritime Policy & Management, 43(5), 580-596.
Vederhus, L., Ødegård, A., Nistad, S., & Håvold, J. I. (2018).
Perceptions of demanding work in maritime operations.
Safety science, 110, 72-82.