There is a shift in the way some airlines and airline training organizations are looking at training their work forces, especially new hires. Their complaint is an old one … there is too much theory and not enough practical learning of modern aircraft.
It is admitted that taking an aircraft off the line to do training on it is expensive and impractical. Additionally, there is less and less hands-on training with a mentor watching, the essence of practical training, because of the pressures of the modern air carrier maintenance environment.
As a result some airline training organizations are changing their approach to a more skills-based method, rather than a priority on overall knowledge content. In other words, less theory. In Europe, training for aircraft engineering licenses is changing from the traditional concept of understanding the aircraft and its systems, plus years of apprenticeship, to a compacted instruction period with more hands-on and verifications of proficiency with the actual aircraft.
On the other hand, business aviation appears to be moving in a different direction by recognizing that its operations and training needs are very different from airline operations and training needs. While ATA 104 remains the fundamental basis for business aircraft training, there is a growing recognition of the need for divergence from this airline-created code.Â
While in its infancy, the NBAA is taking a hard look at the training that is provided to the industry, including the 147 schools and the products that are produced for the workplace, the manufacturers, and the private schools. One of the concepts being explored by the maintenance committee is the need for a greater emphasis on education, as opposed to task-oriented instruction. I assume this means a more knowledge-based approach. On the plus side of this kind of orientation I recall an instructor I worked with that had an ability to train others on multiple aircraft. He was an excellent instructor. I asked him how he could do this when sometimes it took other instructors more than six months to learn to provide the same instruction. He told me that he first learned the manufacturer's approach to building systems, the theory behind the product. Once he had that, the rest was easy. I do not mean to oversimplify the task, but there is something to having a more complete grasp of the intricacies of the system on which you are working. Because of nonstandardized operations, general aviation technicians, working for business jet operations or the MROs that support them, may have more of a requirement for this and I applaud the NBAA maintenance committee in this pursuit.
What are your thoughts on this?