Looking beyond the obvious

Extending this financial assistance made flying training accessible to thousands of Australian students for whom it was too expensive. The extension brought aviation programs in line with other professions, but that doesn’t necessarily mean the technical and vocational support has been made available. Sam (28) is a student in an aviation Master program expresses mixed feelings about his studies “the program is so assignment centric. It’s great to have a theoretical foundation, but the program offers no opportunity for site visits to get out and give some context to this theory”. Sam is not alone in his views, they are shared by others I have spoken to, and my own university experience.

For students looking to move into maintenance, repair and overhaul (MRO) as a maintenance technician or engineer, TAFE programs and on-job training just doesn’t deliver skill diversity. In an industry as cyclical as aviation it doesn’t give young people the confidence that they would be re-employable if the worst happens.

There’s also a belief that aviation training programs in Australia and the Asia Pacific don’t offer anything ground breaking in their studies. Programs seem to follow the conservatism seen in the broader industry, itself a result of arguable over-regulation. This doesn’tencourage the entrepreneurialism that attracts today’s youth to other industries. Why this is the case is unclear, however it may be because millennials preference a hands-on approach, learning by trial-and-error, quickly losing interest if this can’t be facilitated.

The single best thing about working in the aviation industry is that every day is different. Competition makes it dynamic, and the multitude of influencing factors make it unpredictable. It’s fast and challenging.

So it was disheartening to hear from a colleague about overhearing an aerospace executive at the recent Singapore Air Show talk about a young relative new to an aviation MRO company, who having just started work was already complaining: “the work is boring – it’s the same every day. ” His friend in Shanghai was earning far more as a mobile phone designer, and was encouraged to work across many projects. Both had studied undergraduate programs in aerospace engineering.

A different approach

Two great education programs come to mind that suggest there is recognition of the need to improve the diversity and attractiveness of aviation programs: the Royal Aeronautical Society and Boeing’s Schools Build-A-Plane (SBAP) project, and Airbus’ university Fly Your Ideas competition.

Over the last four years a group of students in Gloucestershire from Stroud High School has been building a Rans S-6 Coyote II. The inspirational project was about promoting aviation in an entirely new way to school students. Its success has seen it rolled out with a total of five public and private schools now building aircraft.

The program has a broader scope than just attracting budding pilots; the challenging aviation project saw students manage the complexities of certification, fundraising, marketing, as well as engineering and other technical roles. Throughout the project students also engaged in project teamwork, with a focus ondeveloping communication skills and their technical knowledge all attributes modern aerospace and aviation jobs demand. The first two students took to the sky with an instructor in their creation in March.

2013 was the second time that an Australian University has made it into the Fly Your Ideas finals, along with RMIT’s Team CLiMA. Kiros Lim, a undergraduate studying a double degree in Aerospace Engineering and Business Management said the forum exchanged useful information between major airlines, aircraft manufacturers, airport representatives and petroleum companies to push the boundaries on what liquid methane had to offer the aviation sector.

Both programs are great examples of entrepreneurial initiatives to attract a new generation of aviators. By encouraging students to look behind the obvious, they explore and propose practical solutions for issues that they will face within their future careers. At the same time, it helps students to develop professional skill sets that the usual university pedagogy only gives face value to in a course outline.

A similar school-based program in Australia would have the dual benefit of inspiring young people who question whether they want a career in the industry, while also changing attitudes about the accessibility of the industry.

And it’s something that Ryan Campbell advocates for. In 2013, (see AA November, 2013) Campbell became the youngest solo pilot to circumnavigate the globe. He wants to see a national aviation program for youth in Australia “providing information and support to everybody, and supported by the entire industry, not an area based or group based program that only targets a few”.

A national aviation program could target certain high schools, with guest speakers and site visits exposing teenagers to various industry areas, while workshopstap their entrepreneurial skills in a similar way to the RAeS/Boeing program in the UK.

There are enough young people out there willing and ready to promote a career in aviation. With university cooperation aviation students could, for example, have some volunteer work incorporated into their programs that supported the national program. It would also be a great opportunity for Australia’s major aviation employers Boeing, Bristow, Qantas, Virgin to offer mentoring programs. A great extension of their own CSR programs, while securing potential future employees from a young age.

There remains an unchallenged assumption that just because people in industry love aeroplanes and flying, everyone exposed to it will. In reality, the aviation industry is plain. It is fighting for the attention of young people enamored by media imagery of superstar glamour, and get-rich-quick offerings in other careers – even if they show no discernably useful skills.

Shelby Beauregard from Western Michigan University (WMU) College of Aviation sums it up well: “we have to remember that we are four generations working in this industry together, and all driven by one dream. We want to learn from you, so talk with us, not to us. We also we need mentorship, connect with us and share your passion. ” The first #AvGenY feature argued the need for a change in demographic attitudes. Perseverance is ultimately what will get a young person into the industry, but that perseverance needs inspiration, supported by a good dose of innovative vision.

The shift the industry faces will require it to fight tooth and nail for every new talent, and that requires the coordinated help of education institutions, the federal government, the broader industry, and perhaps even a handful of talented young people.

Avgeeks, rightly or wrongly, and like broader society, are infatuated by airline accidents and incidents.

In the first article I suggested that #avgeeks both in and outside the industry have become an important new voice.

However, is there a point where endless discussion and speculation without facts becomes detrimental to an investigation process? It is frustrating to see qualified members of the community engaging in continued speculative discussion on why and what might have happened.

The growth of independent voices provides us with options, for aviation this is important for an industry in which news is often misreported. However, it’s also a minefield of under qualified people vying for the title of most qualified by shouting the loudest.

Sometimes #avgeeks get it right. The hijacking of Ethiopian Airlines ET702 to Geneva is a great example.

Led by Australian Aviation contributor John Walton, the facts had been picked up and discussed by the aviation world on social media well before mainstream media noticed. John made a couple of mistakes, but he clarified them and set about to provide great factual context of the situation.

In other instances – Asiana 214 and Malaysian 370 – many #avgeeks have got it as wrong as the reporting on CNN. The problem with speculation in these instances clear: inaccuracy.

A benign source of online conversation can create a new false lead that the investigative teams may be forced to pursue – a situation the NTSB found itself in early on in the Asiana investigation.

When it comes to a major aviation incident it’s best to hold back online. Comment on facts, and don’t engage in baseless scenario discussion.

Even if you hold multiple industry qualifications, it’s better to remain silent than add to a loud mess of conjecture that fuels the disruption and insensitivity of mainstream media.

Be outspoken, but subjective. Research widely, but question. As #avgeeks we have an important voice.

Don’t risk that reputation.

#avgeek and aviation accidents