For reasons I'll explain, I have thought for a while that professional pilots, once they have been practising their trade for a couple of years after ab-initio training, should undergo advanced training. A bit like following up a Bachelors degree with a Masters, but it doesn't need to take that long.
The reason is simple. The Colgan Q400 accident at Buffalo proved a lot of things, but one of them is how fragile a pilot's understanding of the basics can be when s/he emerges from training. If it is not consolidated quickly, knowledge can been lost, and experience on the line is not the answer. It's possible to win a licence and get a job despite some important gaps of understanding, because your learning, when you sit the written exams, is so recent that you can spout the answer by rote. And a final handling test can never test the full range of skills an aviator needs.
Ab initio courses don't contain any spare time; as soon as you have just grasped a basic piece of knowledge you're pushed onward into the next learning phase. You can enter line flying not only with gaps in your knowledge, but with actual misperceptions which might consolidate into bad habits.
Re-entering training once flying has become familiar means the trainee has the spare brain capacity for more advanced learning and consolidation of knowledge. My realisation of this came when, after a tour of duty on C-130s, the RAF sent me to its Central Flying School to learn to be a Qualified Flying Instructor.
The course takes you back to basics, but with a view to enabling you to explain the details of, say, Bernoulli's theorem, clearly to other people, rather than just believing you understand it well enough to make practical use of what it reveals. You cannot explain things properly to someone else unless you understand the subject matter well and completely, and there were many areas of knowledge in which I found, to my surprise, that my understanding was thoroughly imperfect. The upside was that, now that I was being re-introduced to the subject matter as a fairly confident aviator rather than a struggling student, I was quickly able to grasp the whole truth.
The point is that aviators should seek, early in their careers, any forms of advanced training they can lay their hands on, and their employers would be wise not only to back this, but to insist on it. A command course for a SFO would be an opportunity - it should, after all, be more than a course in CRM as practised from the left hand seat.
I have eulogised about Bombardier's Safety Standdown before: the instruction is free and amazingly good.
Meanwhile distance learning can help too. And operational bulletins, when they are good, can be very very good.
A superb example of the latter is a training leaflet just issued by the European Helicopter Safety Team (EHEST) innocently called "Safety Considerations". It says its purpose is to provide "methods to improve helicopter pilots' capabilities." It re-introduces rotary wing pilots to some of the most intractable and complex problems they can encounter: vortex ring state, loss of tail rotor effectiveness, static and dynamic rollover, and inadvertent entry into a degraded visual environment.
I urge all helo pilots to read it. It does not talk down to you, and I bet it tells you some stuff you'd forgotten, and even more that you didn't know you didn't know.