AvWeek: Airbus Takes Aim At Inconsistent Pilot Training Quality says:

Airbus has created an ab initio pilot training program and intends to implement it in its global network of partner flying schools. The plan signals rising concerns about the varying levels of pilot training by country. The airframer is striving to standardize initial training, although national authorities have the final say.

It makes a few questions pop into my head, hopefully our a.net community can offer some answers.

Does Airbus have "partner flying schools" out of altruistic concern for global safety, or is there a profit motive too?

Is Airbus suggesting they wish they had more input into pilot training, and national authorities less?

National authorities lack uniformity in pilot training regulation. Airbus safety experts also see “strange things in poor countries where air transport is growing very fast—suspiciously quick pilot qualification and fraudulent flight-hour accounting.” They are addressing the problem at the airline level. Especially for Asian carriers, it is useful to continue giving information on weather issues, they say. For example, a video was created recently to reexplain operations in convective conditions in a straightforward manner.

Is it a bad time for Airbus to raise concerns about training standards in poor Asian countries?

Or maybe a good time?

Airbus is adopting a “lead by example” approach. The national authority of a pilot training organization is responsible for approving its programs. “Our implementing a program with this standard is encouraging the authority to follow us and raise the bar at other schools,” says Jean-Michel Bigarre, head of global flight training at Airbus.

Seems pretty clear they want to "raise the bar", but other than offering their own courses, how can they address the "strange things" that "Airbus safety experts" are reported to be seeing?

Sounds like Airbus wants to ensure pilots know the aircraft. Last thing they want would be some inexperienced pilots with subpar training crashing some new NEO or similar aircraft. They certainly do not want to be in the position Boeing finds itself in today.

flyorski wrote:

Sounds like Airbus wants to ensure pilots know the aircraft. Last thing they want would be some inexperienced pilots with subpar training crashing some new NEO or similar aircraft. They certainly do not want to be in the position Boeing finds itself in today.

Agree, but the article doesn't talk about generic pilots, it repeats the theme about nation to nation variance over and over again.

Here's another quote:

Beyond the numbers, a qualitative problem is becoming a concern, according to Jean-Michel Bigarre, head of global flight training at Airbus. “A looming pilot shortage is coupled with variation in the level of training worldwide,” he tells Aviation Week.

--

osiris30 wrote:

Are some of those quotes foreshadowing I wonder?

That's an interesting take.

Revelation wrote:

Airbus has created an ab initio pilot training program and intends to implement it in its global network of partner flying schools.

Does Airbus have "partner flying schools" out of altruistic concern for global safety, or is there a profit motive too?

Ooh, that's a tough one.
Even whilst students are learning the basics on Cessnas, they will be coached towards the A320.
And if a country has a surplus of A320 savvy student pilots, what airline is going to invest in Boeings?
Airbus are playing the long game.

National authorities lack uniformity in pilot training regulation. Airbus safety experts also see “strange things in poor countries where air transport is growing very fast—suspiciously quick pilot qualification and fraudulent flight-hour accounting

Those are bold statements indeed; I would expect some kickback.

Seems pretty clear they want to "raise the bar", but other than offering their own courses, how can they address the "strange things" that "Airbus safety experts" are reported to be seeing?

Does that actually require an answer? Simply by inserting themselves into the system, and letting it be known that they will not tolerate bribery or corruption would be a start. Also offering follow-on courses and independent verification of pilot qualification. Basically, by providing European quality flight training, but in a local environment where costs are lower.

The first question a potential employer will ask is not how many hours do you have, but "where did you accrue those hours". Up until Airbus, the choices were one dodgy training school versus another not quite so dodgy outfit. Airbus will offer a third option.... and maybe the original schools will have to lift their game?

The Airbus training outfit in Mexico offers "Flight training that meets the regulatory requirements of the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS) and European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and the Mexican Dirección General De Aeronáutica Civil (DGAC)." But no mention of Uncle Sam just across the border.

The Airbus training outfit in India offers "Fight training….." (I kid thee not)

If you read the Australian Aviation thread you would be aware of some of the safety concerns the ATSB raise when investigating safety related issues with airlines flying into the country.

For example, there was an instance where a pilot engaged the auto pilot at 400ft above ground level almost crashing the plane. Another where a pilot tried three consecutive approaches to land an aircraft, with each approach being flown in a manner not in accordance to the operating manual. These incidents revolved around training.

As such, I suspect this is an industry (rather than Airbus) issue that needs to be resolved.

To put this into greater context, the two above examples were from the same airline. If the ASTB and other countries with developed safety oversight agencies took a harder line with these types of incidents (i.e. banning the airline), the knock on effect could result in a overall higher standard of training, and subsequently safety.

Airline Ratings recently reported a recent survey of customers revealed the number one concern for the flying passenger is safety. 2-3 years ago other factors rated higher than safety suggesting the industry has some work to do.

If the perception of safety resuls in less demand for flights, there will be less demand for aircraft. It is no wonder Airbus are trying to address this issue head on.

With an OEM background, I can say all the airframers have been concerned about pilot training and experience in light of the generational turnover for 5-7 years now. At semi-annual safety conferences, this issue has been the theme. The loss of experience has been sudden and won’t be fixed soon.

GF

Revelation wrote:

Is it a bad time for Airbus to raise concerns about training standards in poor Asian countries?

Or maybe a good time?

It is quite tricky to confront the issue of pilot training quality in 'poor countries' in a way that does not create a backlash and strain business ties. With Boeing in a bit of a bind right now, it probably is a good moment for Airbus to open up on the issue and call for definitive action without fearing a loss of business to the other side. Boeing would likely call for the same.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

With an OEM background, I can say all the airframers have been concerned about pilot training and experience in light of the generational turnover for 5-7 years now. At semi-annual safety conferences, this issue has been the theme. The loss of experience has been sudden and won’t be fixed soon.

Above I quoted the article: “A looming pilot shortage is coupled with variation in the level of training worldwide" -- so Airbus acknowledges both loss of experienced pilots and variation in the level of training worldwide are major concerns.

It's interesting that you who has an OEM background and tracks industry safety conferences are seeing the same themes.

It's interesting how the majority of a.net seems to have decided that just one OEM has concerns at the same time we read their partner in the big jet duopoly has many of the same concerns.

kalvado wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

It's best to call a spade a spade. All training should be done in the conventional manner. Work your way up through the ratings and build time via flight instructing, flying small cargo aircraft, tours, etc until you have enough time and experience to go to the airline. Taking people off the street and throwing them a jet or turboprop is just asking for trouble.

This is another extreme. A high school dropout with plenty of hours is likely an even worse scenario. While US is proud of civil aviation safety, US general aviation has fatal accidents happening almost daily. Growing up safe pilots in such an environment seems wasteful and inefficient.

I don't think I'd make such a statement.

I don't think high school vs college education is a prime determinant of success as an aviator.

Many militaries around the world train people with high school level educations to become fine aviators.

I think I'd rather have the "high school dropout with plenty of hours" as my pilot in most cases, rather than the ab-initio college educated pilot.

I think a lot of it is about initiative and motivation, and a lot of high school educated people need lots of that to become successful in life and in many cases successful pilots.

I think the commercial OEM's should start something like Bomardier does with biz jets and their safety shutdown seminars. Open discussions about safety are always a good thing.

https://safetystanddown.com/en

basspaul wrote:

Open discussions about safety are always a good thing.

See this is the problem. You are absolutely, 100%, unequivocably correct with that statement. But today if one casts even the slightest shadow on someone of a different culture, race, religion or class you are shouted down, without regard for the merits of your statement. Discussions about safety and accident prevention should be based on facts, hard data and the REASONABLE inferences from said data. If an area has a higher rate of problems, calling that area (or airline, or country, or whatever) out IS NOT being racist. It is being factual. But everyone is soooo damned entitled to having their feeling respected these days we are starting to cause societal harm in the name of not being dragged onto the carpet and destroyed in terms of popular opinion. Frankly, I cannot wait for this madness to stop (and it will in about 10-15 years as the pendulum will swing back the other way). I could go on about this at great length, but much of it would be largely off-topic for an aviation forum.

Isn't Airbus actually helping out Boeing with such comments?

smokeybandit wrote:

Isn't Airbus actually helping out Boeing with such comments?

Indirectly (or directly) yes. And why wouldn't they? Airbus and Boeing need each other more than any A or B fan here would care to admit. Neither could remotely supply the entire industry and without the other, we would have a slew of new entrants trying to fill that gap. Additionally, the aviation sector would be adversely affected, the price of airfares would climb and long-term overall demand would be suppressed. Sadly, that is lost of many many posters on these forums.

osiris30 wrote:

basspaul wrote:

Open discussions about safety are always a good thing.

See this is the problem. You are absolutely, 100%, unequivocably correct with that statement. But today if one casts even the slightest shadow on someone of a different culture, race, religion or class you are shouted down, without regard for the merits of your statement. Discussions about safety and accident prevention should be based on facts, hard data and the REASONABLE inferences from said data. If an area has a higher rate of problems, calling that area (or airline, or country, or whatever) out IS NOT being racist. It is being factual. But everyone is soooo damned entitled to having their feeling respected these days we are starting to cause societal harm in the name of not being dragged onto the carpet and destroyed in terms of popular opinion. Frankly, I cannot wait for this madness to stop (and it will in about 10-15 years as the pendulum will swing back the other way). I could go on about this at great length, but much of it would be largely off-topic for an aviation forum.

I agree, the focus should be on best practices, and I think the more one tosses around powerful words casually the less meaning those words retain.

In the end, the more advocates rail, the more it becomes hard for the average person to avoid empathy fatigue.

I also think the world will self correct over time, and on a shorter time line than you suggest.

smokeybandit wrote:

Isn't Airbus actually helping out Boeing with such comments?

I think so.

It makes me wonder if Team A deliberately is trying to help out Team B, or if it's just coincidence that these comments came out when they did.

Given these comments come from the Airbus corporate head of training and were made to what is one of the world's leading aviation journals, my starting point would be to say they are considered and are intentional.

smokeybandit wrote:

Isn't Airbus actually helping out Boeing with such comments?

I think they’re helping the industry as a whole, including themselves by asking difficult questions. Airbus has a few recent examples of their aircraft flying or trying to fly into the ground and a few of those incidents could have been or even were saved by better training.

Air Asia 8501 comes down to poor training and should have been recoverable. By contrast Lufthansa 1829 was incredibly similar to the recent 737MAX crashes, even coming down to bad AoA sensors, but that flight was saved because Lufthansa trains their crews well. Had that incident happened at a AirAsia instead Airbus could be sitting in Boeing’s shoes right now.

Also they make a target of the industry and are making generalized comments. When you get the same comment after a flight has crashed you are calling out potentially individual pilots and airlines. It may be they had nothing to do with the crash but become an easy target.

I think in the cost conscious and pilot constrained age we seem to be in then it is unsurprising that there is variability in the training standards being applied.

osiris30 wrote:

smokeybandit wrote:

Isn't Airbus actually helping out Boeing with such comments?

Indirectly (or directly) yes. And why wouldn't they? Airbus and Boeing need each other more than any A or B fan here would care to admit. Neither could remotely supply the entire industry and without the other, we would have a slew of new entrants trying to fill that gap. Additionally, the aviation sector would be adversely affected, the price of airfares would climb and long-term overall demand would be suppressed. Sadly, that is lost of many many posters on these forums.

This type of reasoned thinking and common sense is in short supply on this forum.

I suspect adequate pilot training has been on the minds of both A and B, and now is the perfect time to bring this to a head.

flyorski wrote:

Sounds like Airbus wants to ensure pilots know the aircraft. Last thing they want would be some inexperienced pilots with subpar training crashing some new NEO or similar aircraft. They certainly do not want to be in the position Boeing finds itself in today.

I agree, but you probably know that Airbus did the 737MAX training for Lyon Air. Probably would have made a difference in the end, had Boeing done it.

I think an "Airbus Academy" would be a very good thing. They'd have a lot more control of training and be able to more easily identify the source of bad flying habits/practices and address them. Good discipline instilled in a student by a decent flight school will be invaluable if the airline they eventually fly for has lax standards.

TTailedTiger wrote:

It's best to call a spade a spade. All training should be done in the conventional manner. Work your way up through the ratings and build time via flight instructing, flying small cargo aircraft, tours, etc until you have enough time and experience to go to the airline.

Ideally yes, but all of that hour building costs money. Most of the world doesn't have a mature General Aviation sector - especially developing economies. How many jobs do you think there are as C172 instructors in mainland China? Basically none. Likewise, in most developing economies you would be very hard-pressed to find any flying jobs at all towing gliders, dropping skydivers, flying smallscale air ambulance missions, towing banners, aerial mapping etc. How many recreational pilots are there to instruct in somewhere like India, Nigeria, Ethiopia or Cambodia? How many float planes are there to fly in Korea?


It's very easy as westerners to tell those in the developing that they should do everything the same as we do, but the reality is that the economies (and the aviation sectors) are very different. Whilst it's normal in my country for a pilot to spend four years training + hour building then five to seven years in a turboprop before they get to a narrow-body airliner, the reality is that the rest of the world isn't like that and doesn't have the aviation industry to support career paths such as that.

As I've repeated many times here, easyjet has been putting ~250 hour ab-initio students in the right seats of their aircraft for more than 20 years and has a perfect safety record. Zero fatalities and zero hull loses.

osiris30 wrote:

See this is the problem. You are absolutely, 100%, unequivocably correct with that statement. But today if one casts even the slightest shadow on someone of a different culture, race, religion or class you are shouted down, without regard for the merits of your statement.

One also gets shouted down if one suggests that somebody else's favorite OEM might have designed/built an unsafe aircraft.

basspaul wrote:

I think the commercial OEM's should start something like Bomardier does with biz jets and their safety shutdown seminars. Open discussions about safety are always a good thing.

https://safetystanddown.com/en

That looks like a fantastic resource. Thanks for sharing.

TTailedTiger wrote:

It's best to call a spade a spade. All training should be done in the conventional manner. Work your way up through the ratings and build time via flight instructing, flying small cargo aircraft, tours, etc until you have enough time and experience to go to the airline. Taking people off the street and throwing them a jet or turboprop is just asking for trouble.

The real problem is that many of todays pilots have flight training from schools that only have light aircraft such as such as single engine or twin engine Cessnas. Most pilots do not have seven or or more years flying fighters or large military aircraft. Some do but most do not have the training and experience of flying military aircraft which means they have to work their way up through light aircraft into larger aircraft without the intense training they would have if they had flown military aircraft, There just are not many ex-military due to the fact that the last group of pilots with that experience may be from the gulf war and earlier. Examples of former military pilots having to land a damaged aircraft are when Captain Sullenberg landed an unpowered Airbus A320 with only the APU running into the Hudson River. A second example is when the female Captain of Southwest's 737 landed the aircraft in Philadelphia when the left engine threw a fan blade damaging much of the aircraft. She was a former fighter pilot. Then there was a Qantas A330 piloted by an ex USAF pilot that had a computer causing the aircraft to drop suddenly several thousand feet at least twice injuring many passengers and crew. He disengaged the computers and autopilot and landed the aircraft successfully after declaring an emergency. The first goal for a pilot in a passenger aircraft is to "FLY THE AIRCRAFT" as Donald Nyrop used to say. Pilots today rely too much on the electronics and computers to fly the aircraft. When they have an emergency situation and need to fly the aircraft they do NOT have the experience to hand fly an aircraft. Automation is great but when it does not work as intended the pilot MUST know how to hand fly an aircraft all the way down from an A380 to a Cessna or a Beechcraft Bugsmasher model AT-10.
I could continue on as this is the tip of the iceberg.

zkojq wrote:

osiris30 wrote:

See this is the problem. You are absolutely, 100%, unequivocably correct with that statement. But today if one casts even the slightest shadow on someone of a different culture, race, religion or class you are shouted down, without regard for the merits of your statement.

One also gets shouted down if one suggests that somebody else's favorite OEM might have designed/built an unsafe aircraft.

Nah, only if they insist on quoting speculation as fact. And I would argue it's been the people quoting facts that have shouted down harder. Accused of being racists, and whatever, meanwhile a certain airframer says ESSENTIALLY THE SAME THING and it's crickets. The hypocrisy, I tell ya!

Revelation wrote:

It's interesting how the majority of a.net seems to have decided that just one OEM has concerns at the same time we read their partner in the big jet duopoly has many of the same concerns.

Go on then, I'll bite.
Who are "the majority of a.net", and where have they been expressing these views?

Due to the cryptic nature of your comment, I can only guess that it is a jab at anyone in the MAX threads who comments on "incompetent" Lion Air or Ethiopian pilots.

The side that is making claims of incompetence is not doing it out altruism, or a desire to improve the situation. It's 50% smokescreen and 50% fervently hoping that it might be true because it let's B off the hook.

The side that argues against the claims of incompetence are not promoting Airbus as the only side that is doing anything about this training problem; they have a somewhat different agenda, based on not admitting there is a pilot error problem, or if there is, that it didn't apply to the specific pilots on JT610 and ET302.

This is not the same as deciding that "just one OEM has concerns".

If you have a different reason for your comment, then please be less cryptic and tell us where you have seen this disparity.

kalvado wrote:

But that is the way I see Airbus approach - this is about standard, systematic training (or should I say education?) with uniform expectations of knowledge and skills across the world.

That is supposed to be what a type rating for a pilot is all about. The fact it isn't is telling that the entire certification and safety processes are starting to crumble under the weight of the growth in air travel (I mean look we have > 1000 aircraft ordered annually for a decade... that's a LOT of metal!)

BravoOne wrote:

flyorski wrote:

Sounds like Airbus wants to ensure pilots know the aircraft. Last thing they want would be some inexperienced pilots with subpar training crashing some new NEO or similar aircraft. They certainly do not want to be in the position Boeing finds itself in today.

I agree, but you probably know that Airbus did the 737MAX training for Lyon Air. Probably would have made a difference in the end, had Boeing done it.

Is that true? Why was that?

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

The side that argues against the claims of incompetence are not promoting Airbus as the only side that is doing anything about this training problem; they have a somewhat different agenda, based on not admitting there is a pilot error problem, or if there is, that it didn't apply to the specific pilots on JT610 and ET302.

This is not the same as deciding that "just one OEM has concerns".

If you have a different reason for your comment, then please be less cryptic and tell us where you have seen this disparity.

Rev is being intentionally pithy because a lot of folks have thrown around some pretty baseless accusations. At the end of the day all this nonsense where people argue something because of 'muh side haz 2 winz teh internetz' is just murdering this forum. For those of us who have been here for a long time, there used to be MANY pilots, engineers (both A and B), industry folks all who chimed in regularly. We had engineers from the 380 programme, Airbus's UK wing division, several 787 team members, COUNTLESS pilots, mechanics, engine guys, systems guys, you name it. They have all been driven away by the constant abuse either side takes.

Take Zeke (who is still here) for example. Zeke and I rarely see eye to eye when it comes to our preferences for airframers and their business decisions. We've had some heated arguments, and I am sure we have both infuriated each other at some point, but we always stayed civil. We never said 'nuke <your side here> from orbit', or 'everyone should be locked up', or 'ban everything X makes from the air'. I have read all of those comments in the last 48 hours. Is it any wonder why folks like he, Mandala and others rarely (or never) show up anymore. I know in private messages a lot of great knowledge has been sitting on the sidelines of the two crash investigation threads because they don't want their views to get twisted and used for political gain by some super fanboy.

Or take our interactions. We have stayed civil, even though we disagree on things.

In short, what Rev was hinting at (I think, having known his postings for a long damn time) is: Where are all the cries of racism now that Airbus is the one making the statement. And I echo his question. You don't have to be right all the time, but at least be intellectually honest with yourself and others. I might be wrong about MCAS on ET, and if I am and the data proves it, I will admit it. Just as when I am corrected by someone with superior information/knowledge I might question it until I understand, but if I was wrong I admit it. If/when MCAS is faulted as a primary contributor on ET I will be the first one to put up the and admit my views were wrong.

Rbgso wrote:

BravoOne wrote:

flyorski wrote:

Sounds like Airbus wants to ensure pilots know the aircraft. Last thing they want would be some inexperienced pilots with subpar training crashing some new NEO or similar aircraft. They certainly do not want to be in the position Boeing finds itself in today.

I agree, but you probably know that Airbus did the 737MAX training for Lyon Air. Probably would have made a difference in the end, had Boeing done it.

Is that true? Why was that?

It has been said several times, but I am not aware personally of any official source. And it is likely because Lion would lack the resources to train all their pilots, especially on a new type. They have grown rapidly and likely lack the certified instructors inhouse to keep up.

Revelation wrote:

AvWeek: Airbus Takes Aim At Inconsistent Pilot Training Quality says:

Airbus has created an ab initio pilot training program and intends to implement it in its global network of partner flying schools. The plan signals rising concerns about the varying levels of pilot training by country. The airframer is striving to standardize initial training, although national authorities have the final say.

It makes a few questions pop into my head, hopefully our a.net community can offer some answers.

Does Airbus have "partner flying schools" out of altruistic concern for global safety, or is there a profit motive too?

Is Airbus suggesting they wish they had more input into pilot training, and national authorities less?

National authorities lack uniformity in pilot training regulation. Airbus safety experts also see “strange things in poor countries where air transport is growing very fast—suspiciously quick pilot qualification and fraudulent flight-hour accounting.” They are addressing the problem at the airline level. Especially for Asian carriers, it is useful to continue giving information on weather issues, they say. For example, a video was created recently to reexplain operations in convective conditions in a straightforward manner.

Is it a bad time for Airbus to raise concerns about training standards in poor Asian countries?

Or maybe a good time?

Airbus is adopting a “lead by example” approach. The national authority of a pilot training organization is responsible for approving its programs. “Our implementing a program with this standard is encouraging the authority to follow us and raise the bar at other schools,” says Jean-Michel Bigarre, head of global flight training at Airbus.

Seems pretty clear they want to "raise the bar", but other than offering their own courses, how can they address the "strange things" that "Airbus safety experts" are reported to be seeing?

Mandatory expensive training and brainwashing for all onboard personnel in Toulouse, of course.

I have posted this opinion in other threads at other times, but will do so again here.

Air travel is claimed to be the safest method of travel that exists. However, traveling 80% of the speed of sound at 35000 ft in technologically complex giant aluminum/CFRP tubes alongside thousands of pounds of kerosene that is riding alongside a significant number of ignition sources is by far and away the most dangerous thing almost all of us ever do in our lives. The sole reason the stats are so good is the processes, procedures, and standareds employed in the design, development, testing, and operation of commercial aircraft (and in thorough and effective investigation when things go wrong -- which is why posters in the 737MAX threads wondering if Ethiopian and Indonesian accident investigation standards are up to those of the NTSB, AAIB, BEA, and ATSB are asking legitimate, useful questions). Pilot training obviously is a very important component of all this. I think Airbus (and Boeing) understand this, which explains Airbus's concern with worldwide pilot training quality.

kalvado wrote:

osiris30 wrote:

kalvado wrote:

But that is the way I see Airbus approach - this is about standard, systematic training (or should I say education?) with uniform expectations of knowledge and skills across the world.

That is supposed to be what a type rating for a pilot is all about. The fact it isn't is telling that the entire certification and safety processes are starting to crumble under the weight of the growth in air travel (I mean look we have > 1000 aircraft ordered annually for a decade... that's a LOT of metal!)

My understanding is that type rating is more about aircraft specifics, while basic procedures are taught all over the place, often by those who just barely learnt them. There may be a gap to fill...

You aren't supposed to be able to get type rated if you can't handle basic aviation. Note I say supposed to.

kalvado wrote:

osiris30 wrote:

You aren't supposed to be able to get type rated if you can't handle basic aviation. Note I say supposed to.

again, for me it is about systematic education vs luckily getting no questions into those weaker areas. Disadvantage of any test is that it evaluates only a subset of total knowledge.

Oh I'm not disagreeing with you at all, just stating how it SHOULD be working. It clearly isn't if Airbus is willing to make statements THAT definitive.

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Airbus has created an ab initio pilot training program and intends to implement it in its global network of partner flying schools.

Does Airbus have "partner flying schools" out of altruistic concern for global safety, or is there a profit motive too?

Ooh, that's a tough one.
Even whilst students are learning the basics on Cessnas, they will be coached towards the A320.
And if a country has a surplus of A320 savvy student pilots, what airline is going to invest in Boeings?
Airbus are playing the long game.

Revelation wrote:

smokeybandit wrote:

Isn't Airbus actually helping out Boeing with such comments?

I think so.

It makes me wonder if Team A deliberately is trying to help out Team B, or if it's just coincidence that these comments came out when they did.

Given these comments come from the Airbus corporate head of training and were made to what is one of the world's leading aviation journals, my starting point would be to say they are considered and are intentional.

Allow me to be even more cynical than you, Revelation, and posit that Airbus may be doing this to cover its ass in the future in case of accidents. Can't have incompetent pilots crashing airplanes and having the company reputation and safety record take a hit. At least with sponsored training, you can turn out relatively competent pilots.

spinotter wrote:

Mandatory expensive training and brainwashing for all onboard personnel in Toulouse, of course.

c'mon man.... keep the thread civil... everybody was getting along so nicely....

Revelation wrote:

Is it a bad time for Airbus to raise concerns about training standards in poor Asian countries?

Or maybe a good time?

Good time... They snapped up Lion Air's training academy a few years back and still going.

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

Even whilst students are learning the basics on Cessnas, they will be coached towards the A320.
And if a country has a surplus of A320 savvy student pilots, what airline is going to invest in Boeings?
Airbus are playing the long game.

Actually, Airbus Training with Lion is aiming at both Boeings and Airbuses...
So, I think they're really looking at it as a business of its own, rather than, "how can I translate this to more Airbus aircraft sales"...

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

National authorities lack uniformity in pilot training regulation. Airbus safety experts also see “strange things in poor countries where air transport is growing very fast—suspiciously quick pilot qualification and fraudulent flight-hour accounting

Those are bold statements indeed; I would expect some kickback.

I don't think any countries who want to disagree with the statement would come out and admit they are the poor countries in the statement, and if they are ready to admit they are those poor countries then they shouldn't very resistance to the criticism either

Revelation wrote:

Seems pretty clear they want to "raise the bar", but other than offering their own courses, how can they address the "strange things" that "Airbus safety experts" are reported to be seeing?

Changing the culture.

kalvado wrote:

Revelation wrote:

kalvado wrote:

This is another extreme. A high school dropout with plenty of hours is likely an even worse scenario. While US is proud of civil aviation safety, US general aviation has fatal accidents happening almost daily. Growing up safe pilots in such an environment seems wasteful and inefficient.

I don't think I'd make such a statement.

I don't think high school vs college education is a prime determinant of success as an aviator.

Many militaries around the world train people with high school level educations to become fine aviators.

I think I'd rather have the "high school dropout with plenty of hours" as my pilot in most cases, rather than the ab-initio college educated pilot.

I think a lot of it is about initiative and motivation, and a lot of high school educated people need lots of that to become successful in life and in many cases successful pilots.

Of course, there is a lot of fine print here. As I see it, it is more thoughtful decisions vs flying by the seat of the pants.
I would expect that requirement for better understanding of complicated things - something that can be developed by education; and ability to do so can drive better grades and increase chances of graduation - can become more important with increase of system complexity. Military may see instant response as a more important factor for battlefield piloting. There is some happy medium, probably.
But the way I see it: as an extreme case consider Bob building up hours dusting crops while Jim attends ERAU. Who would be a better airline pilot? I don't know.

So by your rationale, the entire Warrant Officer aviator program in the US Military is made up of aviators who don't make "thoughtful decisions" that are "developed by education" and are only in their seats because the Army, for example, sees "instant response" (whatever that is) as the determinant for whom they put in the cockpit?

Wow.

What about the myriad number of pilots that for years were at major airlines without college degrees? I flew with someone at DL who came via the PAA acquisition who didn't have a college degree. One of the best guys I flew with too. Was an L10 F/O when I flew with him who retired off the ER as a Captain.

But I guess he was just an uneducated and slow witted troglodyte.

kalvado wrote:

Revelation wrote:

kalvado wrote:

This is another extreme. A high school dropout with plenty of hours is likely an even worse scenario. While US is proud of civil aviation safety, US general aviation has fatal accidents happening almost daily. Growing up safe pilots in such an environment seems wasteful and inefficient.

I don't think I'd make such a statement.

I don't think high school vs college education is a prime determinant of success as an aviator.

Many militaries around the world train people with high school level educations to become fine aviators.

I think I'd rather have the "high school dropout with plenty of hours" as my pilot in most cases, rather than the ab-initio college educated pilot.

I think a lot of it is about initiative and motivation, and a lot of high school educated people need lots of that to become successful in life and in many cases successful pilots.

Of course, there is a lot of fine print here. As I see it, it is more thoughtful decisions vs flying by the seat of the pants.
I would expect that requirement for better understanding of complicated things - something that can be developed by education; and ability to do so can drive better grades and increase chances of graduation - can become more important with increase of system complexity. Military may see instant response as a more important factor for battlefield piloting. There is some happy medium, probably.
But the way I see it: as an extreme case consider Bob building up hours dusting crops while Jim attends ERAU. Who would be a better airline pilot? I don't know.

So by your rationale, the entire Warrant Officer aviator program in the US Military is made up of aviators who don't make "thoughtful decisions" that are "developed by education" and are only in their seats because the Army, for example, sees "instant response" (whatever that is) as the determinant for whom they put in the cockpit?

Wow.

What about the myriad number of pilots that for years were at major airlines without college degrees? I flew with someone at DL who came via the PAA acquisition who didn't have a college degree. One of the best guys I flew with too. Was an L10 F/O when I flew with him who retired off the ER as a Captain.

But I guess he was just an uneducated and slow witted troglodyte.

travelhound wrote:

If you read the Australian Aviation thread you would be aware of some of the safety concerns the ATSB raise when investigating safety related issues with airlines flying into the country.

For example, there was an instance where a pilot engaged the auto pilot at 400ft above ground level almost crashing the plane. Another where a pilot tried three consecutive approaches to land an aircraft, with each approach being flown in a manner not in accordance to the operating manual. These incidents revolved around training.

As such, I suspect this is an industry (rather than Airbus) issue that needs to be resolved.

To put this into greater context, the two above examples were from the same airline. If the ASTB and other countries with developed safety oversight agencies took a harder line with these types of incidents (i.e. banning the airline), the knock on effect could result in a overall higher standard of training, and subsequently safety.

Airline Ratings recently reported a recent survey of customers revealed the number one concern for the flying passenger is safety. 2-3 years ago other factors rated higher than safety suggesting the industry has some work to do.

If the perception of safety resuls in less demand for flights, there will be less demand for aircraft. It is no wonder Airbus are trying to address this issue head on.

They revealed all the new systems on the A320 and A350 in their manuals, so that's a good start.

catiii wrote:

So by your rationale, the entire Warrant Officer aviator program in the US Military is made up of aviators who don't make "thoughtful decisions" that are "developed by education" and are only in their seats because the Army, for example, sees "instant response" (whatever that is) as the determinant for whom they put in the cockpit?

Wow.

What about the myriad number of pilots that for years were at major airlines without college degrees? I flew with someone at DL who came via the PAA acquisition who didn't have a college degree. One of the best guys I flew with too. Was an L10 F/O when I flew with him who retired off the ER as a Captain.

But I guess he was just an uneducated and slow witted troglodyte.

My brother will soon be retiring from Delta as a 320 Captain with only a HS diploma. He started as an Army WO who then worked his way up flying offshore in the Gulf, corporate, regional and finally to NW/DL. He has 22,000+ hours and I'd fly anywhere with him. It's not so much education as intelligence that determines how good you are. Having a 4 year degree in an unrelated field tells you nothing.

Rbgso wrote:

BravoOne wrote:

flyorski wrote:

Sounds like Airbus wants to ensure pilots know the aircraft. Last thing they want would be some inexperienced pilots with subpar training crashing some new NEO or similar aircraft. They certainly do not want to be in the position Boeing finds itself in today.

I agree, but you probably know that Airbus did the 737MAX training for Lyon Air. Probably would have made a difference in the end, had Boeing done it.

Is that true? Why was that?

I need to revise this statement as it probably would NOT have made any difference IMO, Sorry for the confusion.

kalvado wrote:

catiii wrote:

kalvado wrote:

Of course, there is a lot of fine print here. As I see it, it is more thoughtful decisions vs flying by the seat of the pants.
I would expect that requirement for better understanding of complicated things - something that can be developed by education; and ability to do so can drive better grades and increase chances of graduation - can become more important with increase of system complexity. Military may see instant response as a more important factor for battlefield piloting. There is some happy medium, probably.
But the way I see it: as an extreme case consider Bob building up hours dusting crops while Jim attends ERAU. Who would be a better airline pilot? I don't know.

So by your rationale, the entire Warrant Officer aviator program in the US Military is made up of aviators who don't make "thoughtful decisions" that are "developed by education" and are only in their seats because the Army, for example, sees "instant response" (whatever that is) as the determinant for whom they put in the cockpit?

Wow.

What about the myriad number of pilots that for years were at major airlines without college degrees? I flew with someone at DL who came via the PAA acquisition who didn't have a college degree. One of the best guys I flew with too. Was an L10 F/O when I flew with him who retired off the ER as a Captain.

But I guess he was just an uneducated and slow witted troglodyte.

USAF totally agrees with you!
https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your ... no-thanks/
Despite warrant officers being cheaper than commissioned officers. I wonder, why is that pay gap?

The thing is, you're defending an indefensible position. There are exponentially more pilots at major US carriers with high school diplomas than you realize. The actual real world data doesn't support your assertions.

catiii wrote:

The thing is, you're defending an indefensible position. There are exponentially more pilots at major US carriers with high school diplomas than you realize.

How many is that? How many have been hired in the last ten years by AA/DL/UA/AS/FedEx/UPS?