Six generations of aircraft

In EBT, "six generations of aircraft" is the taxonomy that groups commercial types by flight-deck and systems technology so that recurrent training priorities can follow generation-specific risk, not a one-size fleet catalogue. Four jet generations and two turboprop generations make six. The classification is not marketing and not simply "year of first flight"; it is a data-analysis bucket used in Doc 9995 Table I-3-1 and in the assessment and training matrices that feed baseline EBT programmes.

#Why generation matters

Analysis for the EBT Data Report found important differences in training needs between manoeuvres and between generations. Early-jet accident lists still dominate many national recurrent rules, yet modern fly-by-wire types present different failure modes, automation management demands, and envelope-protection behaviours. Treating a Generation 4 A320 the same as a Generation 1 B707 for recurrent content either wastes time on low-yield items or under-trains generation-critical risks. Generation is therefore an input to programme design: select the correct matrix, then adapt to type and operator network.

Modern-generation crews often reach manoeuvre competence faster on some items; the overall knowledge and automation load is nevertheless higher. Doc 9995 still assumes comparable FSTD time across generations so that the topic set for each generation can be covered.

#The six generations (Doc 9995 Table I-3-1)

Characteristics are summarised; example types are illustrative of the table, not exhaustive.

#How generation enters the programme

1. Select generation for the aeroplane type (Table I-3-1 / operator analysis).
2. Apply generation-specific matrices (Doc 9995 Part II Appendices): assessment and training topics, frequencies (A every module, B alternate, C once per three-year cycle), manoeuvres, example scenario elements, competency maps.
3. Adapt to type and operation: manufacturer malfunction lists, approach network, safety management system (SMS) and flight data analysis (FDA) themes; enhanced programmes lean harder on operator data while preserving matrix discipline unless evidence compels change.
4. Review when data or the type changes; generation table and topic frequencies are not static dogma, but deviations need compelling data and usually authority partnership.

Frequency letters are not calendar habits. Doc 9995 derives them from the training criticality survey: items above the median of likelihood × severity × training benefit, plus secondary cuts on risk and medium-or-higher training benefit, all collated by generation. Part II Ch 1 adds a cautious rule: when adjacent generations diverge sharply, the higher frequency often propagates to the neighbour so neither fleet is under-served.

#Training consequences

The matrix is generation-specific because the same topic name can carry a different letter on another row, and the same letter can demand different instructional work on another flight deck (Doc 9995 Part I Ch 3 criticality survey). Three illustrations per band tie matrix rows to instructor choices.

#Generation 4 – automation and mode awareness

1. Automation management is Frequency A on every generation in Appendix 2, but the failure mode on Gen4 is mode confusion under integrated autoflight, not "learning the autopilot." A captain briefs the module as "LNAV check on day one." The crew passes the mode change yet PM never challenges a silent descent through the constraint. Frequency A exists because mishandled autoflight and inappropriate mode selection ranked above the median for likelihood × severity × training benefit on fly-by-wire data, not because automation is novel.
2. Go-around management (A) is not the MT go-around manoeuvre (A). In scenario-based training (SBT), the instructor embeds an unstable approach that demands a late decision; recovery may require automation or manual flight. A Gen4 crew that habitually disconnects and hand-flies may satisfy psychomotor grades while failing flight path management, automation (FPA), and situation awareness when the correct countermeasure was a managed mode transition.
3. Wind shear recovery: C → B for Generation 4 jet per Doc 9995 Appendix 2 (2021 Data Report amendment note). Scheduling it only on the old three-year C cadence under-trains a topic the matrix now rates B on Gen4; other generation columns retain their own letters on the same topic row; compare your matrix column, not another fleet's habit.

#Generation 3 – mixed fleet and split matrices

1. An operator runs B737 NG and ATR 72-600: both "Generation 3" in hallway conversation but different matrix columns. Terrain is Frequency B on the jet, C on the turboprop. Runway or taxiway contamination is B on Gen3 jet, C on Gen3 turboprop. Copying the jet lesson plan onto the turboprop squadron satisfies the wrong risk profile even though the hangar label sounds the same.
2. Engine failure is C on Gen3/4 jets but B on Gen2 types. A mixed-fleet instructor who tells a DC-9 cohort "we'll catch engine failures next module" when the matrix demands B exposure lets competence decay on a higher-priority Gen2 risk while over-weighting the same topic on a Gen4 jet where evidence ranks it lower.
3. Conversion from Gen4 to Gen3 is a common instructor trap: the pilot brings mode-annunciation vigilance but may under-scan analogue-adjacent cues on a Classic/NG hybrid deck. Frequency A topics (automation management, manual aeroplane control, unstable approach) still apply; the scenario lever shifts from envelope-law surprises to MEL-weighted departures, terrain alerts, and contaminated-surface decisions that sit at B on the jet matrix.

#Generation 2 – manual habit and higher-weight legacy risks

1. Manual aeroplane control is Frequency A everywhere, but the training job inverts for many crews. A Gen2 B727 captain with deep hand-fly and raw-scan habit may grade well on FPM but remain weak on automation management: the mirror image of a Gen4 convert on the same letter. Same frequency, opposite remediation; the instructor must read competencies, not assume the topic title defines the stressor.
2. Fire and smoke is B on Gen2 jet, C on Gen4. Importing a Gen4 operator's lighter fire schedule onto a DC-9 fleet under-trains a topic the matrix still weights higher for that generation. Frequency letters encode accident and LOSA patterns for that row, not universal moral priority.
3. CRT/analogue scan collapse under workload is the Gen2 weak point; envelope protection never rescues the crew. Frequency A error-management and mismanaged-aeroplane-state scenarios should stress PM monitoring and intervention when the PF's scan fragments, not mode-annunciation puzzles that belong on Gen4. Doc 9995 assumes the same 48-hour FSTD cycle across generations with slightly fewer topics on early generations; Gen2 gains module space for B-tier engine and fire exposure that Gen4 rows treat less often.

#Generation 1

Doc 9995 provides no baseline matrix for Generation 1 jets: too few types in commercial service and insufficient qualified FSTDs. National recurrent rules still shaped by early-jet hull-loss lists often over-train this band with tick-box repetition. Operators on legacy types must negotiate programme content with the civil aviation authority (CAA) using available devices; instructors cannot import a Gen3/4 matrix and call it evidence-based.

#Instructor use

#Mental model: generation → weakness → lever

• Know which generation column your fleet sits in and what that implies for manoeuvre lists and SBT threats.
• When a pilot converts from another generation, expect different automation habits and different weak competencies; design stretch from the table row, not from their previous operator's module script.
• Malfunction and approach equivalency still apply inside the generation programme; generation does not replace type-specific original equipment manufacturer (OEM) analysis.

#Connections

• Evidence-based training. Programme that routes content through generation matrices.
• ICAO Doc 9995. Table I-3-1 and Part II generation matrices.
• What counts as evidence in evidence-based training. Data analysis that produced generation differences.
• Flight simulation training device. Device in which generation-specific modules run.
• How Train-the-Trainer maps to ICAO evidence-based training. Train-the-Trainer reproduces the generation table for instructors.
• Type operating and training documentation. OEM and type manuals specialise generation-level programme content for a named fleet.
• Pilot flying and pilot monitoring. PM challenge and mode awareness differ by generation flight-deck architecture.
• Core competencies. Generation matrices map scenario elements to competency columns; weak competencies vary by row.

#Sources

• Doc 9995, Part I Ch 3 (Principles and programme philosophy). Table I-3-1 generations; training criticality survey; frequency derivation; data sources.
• Doc 9995, Appendix 2. Generation matrices; 2021 amendment frequency changes (UPRT, wind shear Gen4, terrain and runway/taxiway Gen3 jet).
• Doc 9995, Part II Ch 1. Frequency A/B/C definitions; 48-hour cycle; adjacent-generation frequency propagation; manoeuvre competence across generations.
• Doc 9995, Part I Ch 1 (Background). Training-need differences by manoeuvre and generation; tick-box saturation of legacy recurrent training.
• A4.B.2 Overview. Instructor-facing generation table; four-jet / two-turboprop framing; per-generation appendix matrices.
• A4.1.3 Evidence. Evidence claim that training needs vary by manoeuvre and generation.