What is AICC?
AICC is one of the earliest e-learning standards, created by the Aviation Industry CBT Committee so that computer-based training could report results to a learning management system. Published in 1993, it defines how a course sends completion, score, and time data to the LMS over HTTP. The committee dissolved in 2014, but the standard still shows up in RFPs and older course libraries.
A short history: the standard before SCORM
The Aviation Industry CBT Committee was formed in 1988, when airlines needed a common way to run and track computer-based training across systems. The AICC guidelines that followed introduced a simple idea with a long legacy: course content and the platform that tracks it should speak a common language. That idea carried straight into SCORM in 2000, and later into xAPI in 2013 and cmi5 in 2016.
Technically, AICC uses HACP, an HTTP-based protocol where the course posts its results to the LMS. Plain, robust, and firewall-friendly, which is a big part of why it survived as long as it did.
Why AICC still appears in RFPs
- Legacy content: organizations with older course libraries still need platforms that can play AICC packages.
- Copied requirements: procurement templates often inherit standard lists from earlier RFPs, AICC included.
- Regulated industries: aviation, defense, and energy hold on to validated training content for a long time.
Seeing AICC in an RFP is rarely a sign of a modern requirement. It is usually a signal to ask: do you have actual AICC content, or is the line item historical?
AICC vs SCORM vs xAPI vs cmi5
Four standards tell the story of e-learning interoperability:
| AICC | SCORM | xAPI | cmi5 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Released | 1993 | 2000 | 2013 | 2016 |
| How it works | Course reports to the LMS over HTTP (HACP) | Course runs in the LMS via a JavaScript API | Activities send statements to an LRS | LMS launches the course, results go to an LRS |
| Tracking depth | Completion, score, and time | Completion, score, progress, and time | Any learning experience, in detail | xAPI-level detail for LMS-launched courses |
| Offline support | No | No | Yes | Yes |
| Status today | Legacy, committee dissolved in 2014 | Widely supported but aging | Modern standard for broad tracking | Emerging successor to SCORM |
The chronology matters: AICC proved the concept, SCORM made it mainstream, xAPI broke tracking out of the LMS by sending statements to a learning record store (LRS), and cmi5 combines the structure of SCORM with the depth of xAPI.
Migrating away from AICC
- Inventory first: list which courses are actually AICC and which are still in use.
- Find the source files: most authoring tools can republish the same course to SCORM or cmi5.
- Prioritize by value: migrate active compliance and certification content first, archive the rest.
- Preserve the records: export historical completion data before you retire the old system.
AICC in practice for L&D teams
For most teams, AICC is a checkbox from the past, not a plan for the future. If a vendor or RFP raises it, trace it back to real content before you let it steer a platform decision. And if you do sit on AICC courses that still matter, treat the migration as housekeeping, not a crisis: the path to SCORM or cmi5 is well worn, and your future tracking will thank you.
FAQ: AICC
How do I know if a course package is AICC?
Look inside the package. An AICC course ships as a set of structure files with extensions like .crs, .des, .au and .cst, while a SCORM package always contains an imsmanifest.xml file. Your authoring tool or LMS import dialog usually states the format too. If the course was published before roughly 2005 and predates your current platform, AICC is a reasonable first guess.
Can a modern LMS still run AICC content?
Many can, but support is fading. Some platforms play AICC packages natively, others have dropped the format entirely, so check before you migrate a legacy library. If your LMS does not support AICC, the practical route is usually to republish the course from its source files to SCORM or cmi5, or to convert the package with a dedicated tool.
Should we ever choose AICC for new courses?
No. The standard has not been maintained since the committee dissolved in 2014, and modern authoring tools default to SCORM, xAPI or cmi5. Choosing AICC today would mean building on a format with no future support. The only reason to touch AICC now is compatibility with existing content, never as a target format for anything new.








