I remember our 2 day course to qualify for our new B737 300 from the 200 using computer trainers. Two months later you got your first flight and you can guess how that went because the FO had the same training. They said you would learn it on the line. From who?
Slightly ludicrous given the complexity/capability of the aircraft (even over the more-glass 757) - that would seem to be FAA-led rather than pervasive over the world though, as other regimes required greater training on transfer.
Not wishing to divert too much, the FAA has abdicated so much on their reg responsibilities as compared to what is done elsewhere, relying on union agreements that are no longer effective post-deregulation, that it is not fit for adequate oversight. Not much near-term change is going to happen from Washington though...
I think this whole thread is slightly missing the point (aside from the fact that the main subject was GA in the report):
- Quirky design is unhelpful if it differs from instinctive knowledge - regardless of a glass or steam-dial flightdeck (particularly for a GA pilot) - the quid pro quo is that familiarity for the 200hr fATPL is better where training is consistent and designed to the type flown on the line...even if they have not experienced the seat of the pants moments as much...
- Gizmos must be Apple-ised if they are to be useful and not distract from aviate/navigate/communicate principles
- PPL piston ratings should possibly have restrictions based upon cockpit complexity, rather than present limitations based solely on mechanical complexity
Many cockpit designs are killers if you are not instinctively used to them - think of Soviet AIs, or complexity of something like the B1B or B52 - none of the below mass-produced cockpits are standard
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft...b_panel_01.jpg
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/le...%28SEND%29.jpg
http://www.genebenson.com/Neat%20Stu..._cockpit_2.jpg
http://scharch.org/Dick_Baer/_RFB%20...17_Cockpit.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3441/...3c8e576f90.jpg
There is a difference between acknowledging poor design and being precious about change though...!