I happen to believe that training at EK is very good. Well perhaps 'training' is not the proper word as most of it is self-study.
In addition we are required to perform manoevres once each 6 months in a sim, that we are not allowed to do on the line. (I'm not referring to EFATO's etc, but other things such as visual approaches, NPA's and raw data approaches)
It appears, much to my surprise, that the training department has taken a new approach or at least a new attitude. This surprises me since the recent requirements to enter training seems to be that an applicant has a pulse.
Perhaps this new perception is based on the fact that the 'very few' nightmare trainers have either departed or been moved to another fleet. Then again, I have found throughout my career that when new individuals enter training they approach it with an open mind and a conscientious approach to their tasks.
I saw it first hand years ago, even amongst my friends and colleagues, that over time it is quite common for an individual to forget what its like to be under the gun during a training session. I suppose having seen the same errors repeated time and time again, this could lead to this attitude.
I do have one complaint about training in general though. Why isn't everything spelled out in no uncertain terms how the company wants us to perform each and every task. In other words, I think its long overdue for a comprehensive and well written SOP manual covering all aspects of the job. I have lost count how many times I have been told contradicting techniques by various trainers. I don't blame the individual trainers at all by the way. With respect to the Airbus fleet, I cannot put the blame solely on the "airbus" techniques, literature and inconsistencies either, although I think that is the underlying cause in most cases.
I think the new FCTM is a good start, in that it is at least readable and clear, but it is far from comprehensive.