Training vs. Learning: What’s the Difference?

He who controls the language, commands the industry. Herein lies the problem in aviation training.

Training is the term most often used to describe the experiences mandated by the regulatory agencies, scheduled in our flight departments and practiced in the simulator. But what does the term training really mean?

What is Training?

Training is a process for acquiring technical skills. It is usually used for mastery of a specific task or action  such as operating a piece of equipment, demonstrating marketing techniques, or running a race. Words such as drill, repetition, testing, and standards are used to describe the training process. While in training, we think of ourselves as being groomed in order to meet a specific level of expectation.

What is Learning?

Learning, on the other hand, is a broader and more comprehensive term. It is usually used to describe the mastery of thought processes. We take the skill sets we have acquired in training, practice them, and then cultivate a new understanding based on our personal experiences. Operating the piece of equipment on different terrains or in different weather conditions and using specific marketing techniques with different clients and different products would all be examples of using skills to develop learning and new knowledge. When we think of learning we think of creativity, collaboration, trial and error, exploration, passion, curiosity, and professional growth.

The Root of the Problem

Training is most often a step in the learning process. It is not, however, a synonym for learning. In fact, a lot of confusion and frustration has circulated in the field of aviation by using training and learning interchangeably. Herein lies a root problem in the aviation “training” industry.

The problem is that it has become an industry. Rather than encouraging professional pilots to continue their learning based on the trained skills they have already acquired and demonstrated, they are forced to purchase and repeat training exercises in order to meet the requirements set forth by the regulatory agencies. Huge sums of money are spent retraining year after year through what is aptly called ‘recurrent training programs”. This system, although well intended, is flawed and quite unique to our profession.

In most professions, people undergo training in order to receive a certification and/or the government sanctioned right to practice that profession. Lawyers must pass the Bar Exam. Teachers must complete a practicum and in some instances accumulate a set number of hours in the classroom. Once this certification process is complete, these professions consider the training process to also be complete. The emphasis is then placed on learning and professional growth by requiring completion of continuing education hours.

Aviation, however, has a different mindset. As with other professions, we undergo sim training in order to receive a license or certification (ie. private pilots license, instrument rating, initial type rating, etc). However, unlike other professions, pilots are required to retrain and re-certify every year with the ever present possibility of job loss should one fail the re-certification process. This does not make sense. In fact, it is becoming quite clear that it is counter productive.

So much time and money is spent trying to appease regulators and meet all of the repetitive training requirements that there is little, if any, money or time left to actually learn; to grow professionally, to practice, to create, to collaborate, and to develop a passion for our profession. Learning is far from continual. It has come to a standstill.

We believe in challenging the status quo. It is time to challenge the idea of repetitive training and replace it with continuous learning. Once a pilot has demonstrated the knowledge and skill set required for licensure or certification, time should be spent on learning activities geared toward professional growth. It is also time to replace an industry of training with a environment of learning. Instead of developing products, seminars, and coursework based on regulatory requirements, let learning activities based on the needs and interests of the pilot and the organization in which he/she works drive the supply and demand of the market.

He who controls the langauge, commands the industry. Let us take back the language of learning, and command an environment of professional growth. The Revolution marches on.