Taiwanese flag carriers such as China Airlines, EVA Air, and Starlux Airlines have built cadet pipelines around FAA-based flight training, typically sending selected candidates to U.S.-based Part 141 academies to earn their private, instrument, commercial, and multi-engine certificates before returning home for type-rating and airline-specific indoctrination. The Reddit post reflects a common entry point into that pipeline: an aspiring cadet with little formal aviation background asking what to study before training begins, specifically whether the FAA's free handbooks—the Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge (PHAK) and the Airplane Flying Handbook (AFH)—are still relevant despite their age. These publications, along with the Instrument Flying Handbook and Instrument Procedures Handbook, remain the FAA's core reference material for airman knowledge testing and are updated periodically (the PHAK was refreshed in 2016 and again with amendments since), so while the prose style feels dated compared to commercial ground school apps, the aerodynamic, regulatory, and procedural content remains authoritative and directly testable on FAA written and oral exams.
For working pilots and training managers, this kind of question underscores a persistent gap in how cadet programs onboard candidates who often come from non-aviation backgrounds, particularly in Asian markets where cadet selection prioritizes English proficiency, aptitude testing, and interview performance over prior flight experience. Airlines running these programs typically assume ground school will cover foundational knowledge once candidates arrive at the training academy, but self-directed pre-course study using FAA handbooks, along with commercial supplements like the ASA Test Prep series, Sporty's or King Schools video courses, and Sheppard Air or Gleim question banks, can meaningfully reduce washout risk and accelerate progress through the private and instrument phases. This matters operationally because cadet program attrition is costly for carriers that have committed significant capital to third-party flight schools, and it matters for the cadets themselves since most of these programs carry bonded service agreements that penalize failure to complete training on schedule.
More broadly, the persistence of FAA training material as the de facto global standard—even for carriers outside U.S. jurisdiction—reflects how deeply embedded the American certification framework remains in international pilot production, despite ICAO's push toward Multi-crew Pilot License (MPL) standards and EASA's competing regulatory ecosystem. Airlines in Taiwan, mainland China, and elsewhere in Asia continue to favor FAA-based ab initio training partly because it's cost-effective, partly because English-language FAA materials are widely available and free, and partly because U.S. flight schools have well-established pipelines for issuing student and training visas to foreign cadets. This dynamic sustains demand at U.S. Part 141 academies even as domestic U.S. airline hiring cycles fluctuate, meaning corporate and airline training departments in the U.S. should expect continued international cadet volume as a stable revenue base regardless of domestic pilot supply trends.
Finally, the thread is a useful reminder of how much informal knowledge-sharing happens outside official cadet program channels. Forums like r/flying function as an unofficial mentorship network for candidates navigating opaque selection processes, and the quality of advice circulating there—accurate here, in recommending FAA handbooks as still current and relevant—has real downstream effects on training outcomes. For flight training organizations and airline cadet program administrators, this suggests an opportunity: clearer pre-arrival study guidance and structured onboarding materials could reduce reliance on crowdsourced forum advice and better standardize candidate readiness before cadets ever set foot in a Cessna 172 or Diamond DA40.