Type rating course standards seem to be on a downward spiral!In the early ninties I completed a course of seven weeks duration, while in basic training,with several different instructors who all had 20+ experience on the type,the manual was one big book of diagrams ,no text so you had to listen and understand,every different system diagram possibility was gone trough.After qualifing the authorities said that this course was not acceptable! The subsequent modular course was thought by guys who had never worked on the aircraft who had sat in a classroom for a few weeks.We spent most of the course TELLING the instructor what actually happened!the CBT/VACBI is good but you need plenty of support material ie fcoms,mm, etc,and ESSENTIALLY INTREST ! There is an unfortunate trend whereby new type ratings are being thought by instructors who themselves have just completed type courses and never worked on the aircraft, you need "X" years to work on it but whats the min. to teach everybody else about it?(now that I think about it good question)Experienced engineers should be able to deal with inadequate courses due to thier experience but it is the guys on their first type ratings who I feel sorry for!
