Evaluation guide
How AeroEBT compares. With the other ways operators run EBT.
Most shortlists contain three kinds of product and one internal option. This page sets out what each approach is good at, where each struggles, and the questions worth asking any supplier, including us.
Where AeroEBT stands
Dedicated to EBT and CBTA. Scenario design, grading, concordance and records on one data set.
AeroEBT is built specifically for the EBT framework and CBTA, with the applications the framework needs in one platform: the EBT Scenario Builder, the instructor app, concordance, reporting and the included TMS. It is built for simple daily operations, across fleets and organisations.
- Most alternatives
- One module, or one app
- AeroEBT
- The whole framework
Dedicated
Built around ORO.FC.231, ICAO Doc 9995 and the ORCA cycle, not adapted from an administration system or a generic grading form.
Complete
Scenario design, grading in the simulator, concordance, evidence for the authority and training management, working on the same data.
Simple to operate
One practical procedure for the instructor: open the session, grade, debrief. One session with a colleague is enough to learn it.
SkyDynamics' position, from its review of publicly available product information in October 2026. Test it against the products on your own shortlist: the questions on this page apply to us as well.
The field
Four ways operators run EBT today. Described by approach, not by brand.
Any of them can be the right answer depending on what you are solving.
Training management suites with an EBT module
Strong on administration, scheduling and records. EBT is one module among many, so competency analysis is usually shallower than the admin.
Standalone grading apps
Good instructor experience and quick to deploy. The data often stops at the grade: limited concordance analysis and no link to the programme or the device.
OEM and training-centre programmes
Deep type expertise and courseware. Built around the provider's own training delivery, so portability and adaptation to your programme can be limited.
In-house spreadsheets and forms
Free, flexible and completely yours. The cost appears at audit time and in the impossibility of seeing trends across a fleet.
Side by side
What each approach typically gives you. Categories, not products.
Generalisations about categories, not statements about any specific product. Verify each row against the actual products on your shortlist.
| Admin suite + EBT module | Grading app | OEM programme | AeroEBT | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Offline grading in the simulator | Varies | Usually | Varies | Yes |
| Your own grading scale and framework | Usually | Varies | Limited | Yes |
| Instructor concordance measured | Rarely | Rarely | Varies | Yes |
| Observations from instructor notes | No | Rarely | Varies | Yes |
| Scenario design in the same system | Varies | No | Provider-authored | Yes |
| Aircraft-aware malfunctions in scenarios | No | No | Varies | Yes |
| Mixed and baseline EBT in one platform | Varies | Varies | Varies | Yes |
| Device capability linked to the session | No | No | Varies | Yes, with FCS++ |
| Simulator qualification evidence in the group | No | No | Varies | Yes, FCS++ and QTG work |
| Training administration, LMS, documents, expiries | Strong | No | Varies | With TMS |
| Cabin crew, maintenance and ground training | Often | No | Rarely | With TMS |
| Ab initio through to airline recurrent in one record | Rarely | No | Varies | Yes |
| Student keeps logbook and record on leaving | Rarely | No | No | Yes |
| Built by the simulator manufacturer | No | No | Sometimes | Yes |
| Data exportable and owned by you | Usually | Varies | Varies | Yes |
Where we have written "varies", it genuinely varies: ask for a demonstration rather than a statement.
How to choose
Match the choice to the problem. The one you actually have.
If your problem is administration
Expiries, scheduling and course records: an administration suite may serve you better than a competency platform. TMS covers this alongside AeroEBT.
If your problem is instructor adoption
Start with the app instructors will hold. A platform nobody uses in the simulator produces no data worth analysing.
If your problem is the authority
Ask what evidence the system produces, not what dashboards it shows. Approval rests on evidence and on what you changed.
If your problem is drift
You need concordance measurement and trend analysis, which is exactly where lighter tools stop.
If your problem is devices
When mixed fleets and device suitability drive your planning, the training system needs to know what each simulator can credit.
If you are early
A well-run spreadsheet beats a platform nobody has configured. Move when the data volume or the audit makes it necessary.
Due diligence
Nine questions for every supplier. Including us.
Show me grading offline
Not a slide. The app, in aeroplane mode, with a sync afterwards.
Show me instructor concordance
On real data, with an explanation of how it is calculated.
Show me the audit export
The actual document an inspector would receive.
How do we get our data out?
Format, completeness and whether it costs anything.
What does the AI decide?
If the answer includes grading pilots, ask how the instructor stays accountable.
Can we keep our grading scale?
And who does the configuration: you, or a paid service every time.
What does implementation really take?
Ask for a reference who has done it, and what went wrong.
Where does the data live?
Jurisdiction, residency and whether on-premises is possible.
What exactly is certified?
If a supplier says "EASA approved" or "certified", ask for the certificate number, who it was issued to and its scope. Approvals attach to organisations and devices, not to software.
The same questions, asked of AeroEBT
Our answers. One line each, and what the demo shows.
Each answer is limited to what we state elsewhere on this site. Where the proof is a demonstration, we say so.
Grading offline
The instructor app on iPad captures grades and notes offline and synchronises when the device reconnects. In the demo you see it in aeroplane mode.
Instructor concordance
Each instructor's grade distribution is shown against the fleet baseline, from the grades already entered. In the demo we explain how it is calculated.
The audit export
The pilot record and the authority pack come from the recorded sessions, with signatures and paper-parity PDF records. In the demo we open one.
Getting your data out
Training records belong to your organisation and can be exported in a structured form at any time. The demo shows an export; ask us for the format and any cost in writing.
What the AI decides
Nothing about a grade. AeroBrain proposes observations from instructor notes and highlights trends. The instructor remains the assessor and confirms every entry.
Keeping your grading scale
Yes. AeroEBT is configured to your programme, competency framework and grading scale in the first weeks. The demo shows how a scale is set up, and by whom.
What implementation takes
A typical rollout takes about 90 days from programme mapping to go-live, including a parallel run. For an operator's own account, ask us for a reference call.
Where the data lives
Training records and documents are held in data centres in Switzerland. Personal data is processed in the EU under the GDPR. An on-premises deployment in your own infrastructure is available.
What is certified
No training software is "EASA certified", ours included: approvals attach to your organisation and your devices. AeroEBT is built around ORO.FC.231 and ICAO Doc 9995.
We would rather lose the shortlist than win it wrongly
If your problem is training administration rather than competency management, say so and we will tell you plainly whether AeroEBT is the right answer. A programme that fails after purchase costs both of us more than a lost deal.
Put us on the shortlist and test us.
Thirty minutes, your programme, the nine questions above. If another approach suits you better, we will say so.
We respond within one business day.