Aviation, planes, and flying have all become incorporated in the daily lives of millions of people worldwide. There are still issues, however, that need to be addressed and studied so that the aviation industry can continue to thrive in its highest capacity.

So, with that being the case, one of the best places to start is to evaluate the training standard differences between Europe, the United States, and Canada as opposed to the developing world. In addition, a in- depth look into the reason behind a high rate of aviation accidents would come in hand.

Finally, looking through a lens to the future, what could be done through global and intercultural cooperation to improve safety world-wide? Although the aviation industry is always working to be safer, faster, and more efficient in general, as the industry evolves, so too do the regulations surrounding it have to be radically revised to maintain those key objectives.

To start with the United States, this actor within the international system has the FAA, the Federal Aviation Administration. Functioning in several capacities, this particular organization also has an additional purpose, to monitor, regulate, and develop “flight training programs that are more convenient, more accessible, less expensive, and more relevant to today’s users of the National Airspace System,” (“FAA- -Industry Training Standards,” 2009).

Canada, on the other hand, has the Civil Aviation Branch of Transport; responsible for everything, from licensing, training, testing, regulating, and all aspects of the aircraft, including a register and log, this one bureau runs it all, for the provinces of Canada.

Finally, Europe is on another system entirely; they use the European Aviation Safety Agency. Not unlike the FAA and the Civil Aviation Branch of Transport, EASA is the equivalent both in standards and services through with a primary focus on the aforementioned safety as opposed to the broad spectrum of the Canadian administration.

Developing countries, unfortunately, do not have the resources to which other lay claim. As a result the more lax standards create issues for the others. This is particularly the case as governments have limited control on the regulations of carriers coming in from across their borders.

All in all, Europe and the “United States have two of the strongest and most progressive aviation safety control programs in the world,” with Canada not far behind, but little can be done to control the developing world, (Anger, 2007). The main variance in their approaches is the amount of control that the individual governments can exert over the various airlines maneuvering within their borders. The United States has more of the aforementioned control than Europe but they still have a ways to go.

Ultimately, these slip- ups in contiguous regulation lead to too many accidents. “Small airlines operating from countries with limited safety controls” have been found to be a leading source of airline accidents worldwide. As such, it only makes sense for an organization, not unlike the United Nations, or even NATO, to form to reign in a tighter control on airline safety and regulation (Anger, 2007).

This would help to create a more uniform standard and encourage an even higher efficiency, safety rating, and speed than the international system has ever before been privy. In the past, whenever too many parts have tried to operate one industry, everything has, inevitably fallen apart. The only way to get back on track and ensure overall prosperity for the business was to consolidate a power role. Excellent case- in- point, the United States during the civil war. With fewer people to confuse regulations, law, standards, etc… the consumers of the industry will be better taken care of, leading to an increase amount of revenue.

Additionally, it would not be a bad idea to just expect more in general. The more thoroughly every instrument, gauge, component, and gas tank is checked, the more likely that everything will fun as expected. Aircraft go down due to running out of fuel, failing to pressurize correctly, failing engines, and any number of reasons; to correct these occurrences and save lives, it is time to up the standards. Some tasks may seem repetitive, but ultimately things will be safer, and that has to be the primary goal, otherwise, there is no industry.

Many items, events, and circumstances influence the aviation field. If every nation that has some form of air program can learn to work together, aviators, personnel, and customers will all end up on the positive side of things. Although the aviation industry is always working to be safer, faster, and more efficient in general, as the industry evolves, so too do the regulations surrounding it have to be radically revised to maintain those key objectives. The truth of the matter is, nothing trumps safety of the passengers, and the difference in the aviation training standards imperatively has to re- enforce that continuously.