PDA

View Full Version : Multi Crew Pilot Licence (MCL)


VFR800
4th Dec 2003, 23:22
Picked up a copy of Flyer today and spotted at article about the 'proposed' ICAO Co-Pilot licence. is this something a new wannabe needs to be concerned about? The author seemed to believe that it might be in force by 2005, which may have implications for my training.

Apparently under the new proposals only 50 hours would be actual flying, the rest being done in the sim, or have I got the wrong end of the stick?

Laters dudes :)

Flypuppy
4th Dec 2003, 23:35
I remember reading something about this a while ago. I think at the time it was being proposed as a "zero flight time" licence. Airlines would be the primary source of this training for their own cadet students and all training would be based on Level D (?) simulators.

Effectively it would produce a type rated first officer with a type specific IR who would not need to go through the current system of Single Engine Piston/Multi Engine Piston training. I was under the impression that the plan had been shelved.

If is the case that it will be available by 2005, time for someone to pass me the revolver....

:yuk: :{ :{ :sad:

Jojojeremy
5th Dec 2003, 21:16
Seems ideal for airlines... MCC training emphasised, so less of that for airlines to pay for.

I just wonder whether the finished product will have any other options whilst waiting for the airline position the training has prepared him/her for - i.e. will this licence produce a pilot capable of air taxi, banner towing, parachutist dropping, aerial work, etc to the same level that the traditional CPL/IR/ATPL system does?

Without details - perhaps I shouldn´t comment untill there are more details... - it appears that this system is another way of airlines having a heap of ready and waiting potential pilots unable to be employed as anything else. Captive markets allowing companies to dictate job terms more? I´m sure it´s not all so doom and gloom though. Has anyone more details?

Send Clowns
7th Dec 2003, 03:25
More importantly, when the **** hits the fan, would they be able to actualy fly the damned aeroplane with skill? Remember Gimli (no, not the dwark in the Lord of the Rings, the forced landing site of a Boeing glider).

ecj
28th Nov 2005, 08:56
There was a proposal a year or so ago, about this new style of course. A small amount of flying to PPL standard followed by state of the art simulator, with then specific type rating course - Airbus? - straight into the right hand seat, but not qualified for SP commerical operarations.

Cheaper option than the present JAR licence course.

Did this ever get of the ground [no pun intended] and if so which JAR/EU FTOs are offering it??

:hmm:

RVR800
28th Nov 2005, 10:05
from

http://www.swiss-aviation-training.com/satindex/newsletter-muster/newsletter.htm

The new Multi-crew Pilot's License (MPL) - what’s it all about?

Gallus Bammert is a ground instructor for Swiss AviationTraining Ltd. in Zurich, and is a qualified representative of both JAA and ICAO. In the following question-and-answer session, Bammert explains what the new Multi-crew Pilot’s License (MPL) is, the reasoning behind it, and comments on its effect.

What exactly is meant by Multi-crew Pilot’s License?
The MPL will be a new pilot’s licence that will be issued to ab-initio students after completion of a pilot training course in a multi-crew cockpit. According to the ICAO, it will be possible to train pilots for an MPL from the year 2007.

Where are the provisions for the MPL training defined?
As with other pilot’s licences, the MPL requirements are listed in a document called “Personnel Licensing” which is published by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), whose membership includes every country on earth except the Vatican.

What prompted the ICAO to develop the MPL training?
In today’s courses a lot of time is devoted to pilot-in-command training in a single-pilot cockpit, for which the demand is small, and getting smaller. Since most students are planning anyway to work in a multi-crew cockpit, the MPL will offer them direct access to this kind of work.

Will current training be replaced or limited by the MPL?
No. But there might well be some changes in 2007, regardless of the MPL, because all licence requirements and authorizations will also be revised. Current regulations date all the way back to1948, and fundamental changes have taken place in aviation since then.

If the holder of an MPL is trained exclusively for multi-crew cockpits, does this mean that he or she will not be allowed to work in a single-pilot cockpit?
No, but further training will be required in order to qualify for other licences.

Does the MPL replace another licence?
No. It is a completely new kind of training, and a licence in its own right.

What are the advantages of the MPL?
The decisive advantage is the fact that MPL students are better prepared for their real-life tasks. Another advantage is that the MPL pilot-to-be will have all the qualifications – Licence and Type Rating – needed to be a co-pilot. And incidentally, because they spend more hours on the simulator than in the aircraft, students waste less time waiting for aircraft availability.

Are there any disadvantages of the MPL?
Not really, though at first glance, the implied confinement to a multi-crew cockpit seems like a restriction. But it is really more of a specialization – one that more accurately reflects the reality of today’s and tomorrow’s commercial aviation world.

BEagle
28th Nov 2005, 10:34
A couple of points for those who think that this ludicrous machine-minder's ticket will be an universal panacea:

1. It will be expensive to the individual as many airlines won't be interested in paying for training. Just as they aren't today.

2. The French are totally opposed to it. One of the few things (such as TGV, the Millau bridge, wine etc) to admire them for. Will they permit a 2-person aircraft to operate over their territory knowing that one pilot might only hold this Microsoft pilot's licence?

3. The FAA don't see any place for it.

4. You wouldn't even be able to take your friends flying in a Cessna 150 on a sunny afternoon without extra training.

parkfell
28th Nov 2005, 10:52
It will only get going if the beancounters think it is a good idea. They are driven purely by HOW MUCH WILL IT "COST".
IS IT CHEAPER THAN WHAT WE HAVE TO DO NOW?

They often know the price of everything, and the value of nothing.

Their blinkered mentality asks usually but one question: can this achieve MP licence issue cheaper. Answer, probably yes.

What they will fail to understand initially is the increase in the failure to pass line training. "Cost" this increase in the chop rate, against undertaking quality [tried and tested] which may be more expensive at the outset. It is worth its weight in gold.

The "Q" word does not feature on their balance sheet - that is the problem.

Buy one get one free
28th Nov 2005, 11:32
I feel sorry for the ad-initio student being talked into signing up for this by a smooth sounding sales person.

The acidic test is simply how many airlines will be prepared to fund these courses. An expensive experiment in proving a concept, as yet untested.

Think of it like a new drug [not the life or death type] without the clinical trials to prove it will work.

Do you want to be part of an experiment, when there are prefectly sound options already available. I think not.

:mad:

Flopsie
28th Nov 2005, 13:30
For the actual facts, check out the EATS web site which has the presentations given to the training industry in Amsterdam on Nov 7/8.

http://www.halldalemedia.co.uk/eats2005/proceedings.htm

Whatever you may think of it, the MPL WILL come and is already being supported by a number of major airlines worldwide.

RVR800
28th Nov 2005, 15:35
Its 2006.....

JAA is making all efforts to facilitate it, by creating a regulatory framework in JAR-FCL

Change to General Requirements, Instrument Rating, ATPL(A), Instructors, Examiners and Theoretical Knowledge Requirements

Introduction of new Subpart K – Multi-Crew Pilot Licence

Looks like LASORS will get some (more) updating..... At least pilots will leave training after MPL with a qualification that they can use and not have to fork out more on Sims as is required with the current light aicraft based fATPL.....

Groundloop
29th Nov 2005, 08:10
The big gamble with this licence is in deciding which type-rating to include. 737, A320, 767???

It is certaig airlines that have been pushing for this licence, particularly Lufthansa as they have lots of sims they can put students through. Smaller airlines are definitely not in favour as they see nobody wanting to do such a course and including something like a Dash 8 or ATR rating. However looks like the big boys are winning.

parkfell
29th Nov 2005, 10:32
There is little doubt that the simulators can teach students the upper air work to a high standard.

The interesting part will be how they will cope in the big bad world with landing the real thing, and being sufficiently consistent in even benign conditions.

Are the visuals really that good ??

:cool:


ps. Flying the aeroplane is one thing, but just how is exposure to the real world of air traffic control going to be taught.

Flopsie
29th Nov 2005, 15:01
Good enough for ZFTT....

Send Clowns
29th Nov 2005, 17:16
RVR800

Are you the fount of all knowledge, to say that there are no disadvantages? You completely fail to address those already stated on this thread. I would certainly not like to be a passenger if my pilots never had a solid grounding in actually flying an aeroplane.

As BEagle points out this is not universally popular - it is not just people here who disagree.

Piltdown Man
29th Nov 2005, 18:45
I'd suggest that the aircraft the new boy (or girl) actually flies has little to do with the thing that he (or she) initially learnt to fly, unless it was very similar. To suggest that various skills learnt in a bug smasher are relevant are fantasy. Maybe more relevant in our lives is the ability to write neatly in small boxes. However, given an appropriate course, I can't see a reason as to why a zero houred person can't learn to fly an airliner from scratch. And when the brown stuff hits the rotating circular device designed for accelerating and projecting a mass of air in a certain direction would they be less well equipped to cope? I think not.

Flopsie
29th Nov 2005, 19:15
The MPL is a radically different concept of ab-initio training and just as with any new concept, it will take time to be acknowledged as an acceptable standard of training throughout the industry. But this concept, a demand from the airline sector, was originally defined by a panel from 16 ICAO countries (including France) as well as IAOPA, IATA and IFALPA, and not from FTOs who want to make a fast buck. It is designed for the airline sponsored candidate – not the self-sponsored student. The syllabus will be defined by the FTOs but the competency training level must be equivalent to a CPL/IR with type rating, with much of the emphasis on CRM and TEM, and programs geared to individual airline operations. Like it or not, in 2 years time there may well be F/Os flying with the MPL but for those who doubt it’s validity, the first course from each FTO will be provisional and ICAO will be running proof-of-concept and risk/safety benefit programs. The proof of the pudding……..

Send Clowns
29th Nov 2005, 20:38
Piltdown Man

But do you know? Are you willing to risk your life on that unproven hypothesis? On a person who has basically never been the captain of an aircraft? Integrated courses are bad enough, with the lack of true responsibility given to the pilot, but how much time would the graduate of an MPL pilot spend in command before taking command of a multi-engine jet? Or before taking over when the Captain is incapacitated due to illness?

No-one has tested this; it seems to be a response only to the demnds of the industry, not to the setting up of a course to teach real pilots.

Finally Gimli? Any answer?

Flopsie
29th Nov 2005, 21:01
Send Clowns

but how much time would the graduate of an MPL pilot spend in command before taking command of a multi-engine jet

Not quite sure if I follow your argument here but the MPL is a co-pilot licence which includes a type rating and one assumes that if he passes this, he can fly the aircraft with the captain incapacitated.

No-one has tested this; it seems to be a response only to the demnds of the industry, not to the setting up of a course to teach real pilots.

It's the airlines who set the standards for pilots - it's the airlines who have initiated this licence and it's the airlines who will determine if this concept of training produces "real pilots".

BillieBob
29th Nov 2005, 22:24
At least pilots will leave training after MPL with a qualification that they can use and not have to fork out more on Sims as is required with the current light aicraft based fATPL Except that when you emerge from the MPL course with a B737 rating and find that there are no B737 jobs available, you will still have to find another bucket of money to complete a B757/A320/etc. type rating....or two buckets to complete the extra training to enable you to fly a SPA/MEP or do a FI rating.

I hear that the MPL courses must be 'sponsored' by an airline so it may be that the 'self-sponsored' option will not exist.

FlyingForFun
30th Nov 2005, 09:00
It's a few months old, but this thread (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=186283) contains some relevant stuff.

For what it's worth, everyone I have asked, either on these forums or anyone else, has given me a pretty similar answer: the cost of this license, and the fact that it will be type-specific, make it very unlikely that self-sponsored students will be using it. It's success, therefore, will depend on how many students airlines are willing to sponsor through ab-initio training in the near future - and judging by the current situation, it will be a very small minority of people.

Flopsie, you are missing Send Clown's point. Yes, this is a co-pilots license - which can then be upgraded to a full ATPL once the relevant hours requirements are met. Therefore, the captains of the future will be sitting in the left hand seat of jets with very little P1 time in their logbook. (Unless there will be a requirement for P1 time, in which case where will it come from?) Personally, I think this is a very bad thing. It may be true that the hands-on flying skills developed in a C150 aren't directly relevant to a B737, but the decision-making skills and captaincy skills surely are?

I'd also question your confidence in the airlines' ability to 'determine if this concept of training produces "real pilots".' The airlines are in the business of making money, and if they see a way of potentially cutting costs they will jump on it. They are not in the business of improving the quality of ab-initio flight training, they merely regard ab-initio flight training as an unavoidable nuisance, the cost of which should be dumped on the student if at all possible, and reduced to absolute minimum if they have to bear the cost themselves.

FFF
------------------

BEagle
30th Nov 2005, 16:49
Great PR for the first airline to admit that its co-pilots can't even fly a Cessna 150 without extra training.

If this stupid non-licence ever comes to fruition, I shall write personally to the CEO of the airline I fly with and ask whether his airline uses real pilots or those with a Microsoft pilots licence.... If the latter, then I shall take my custom elsewhere.

Malcolm G O Payne
30th Nov 2005, 19:10
May I suggest that you look at www.ainonline.com and the click on the archive search icon. Enter Multi-crew Pilot Licence and you will see an article that I wrote about twelve months ago on the subject

Send Clowns
1st Dec 2005, 00:44
Flopsie

Flying an aircraft requires responsibility and decision making. I take it from your answer you didn't have to take full responsibility in difficult circumstances when you had little experience. I have had to do so - and I can tell you it is about a lot more than being able to fly the aircraft!

FFF has addressed your points with some very valid challenges.

Might I ask how you got into a 320? Integrated course and straight to jet / turboprop?

scroggs
1st Dec 2005, 12:03
From Malcolm's article (referred to above): The present ICAO CPL/IR (instrument rating) calls for a minimum total time of 180 hours. Those hours must include 170 hours of command time, a minimum of 15 hours under instruction and 40 hours in a “synthetic training device.”
This is outdated and patently ridiculous. What possible use is 170 hours command time for someone who has a total time of 250 hours or less? Those hours are, by definition, unsupervised and an inefficient use of expensive airborne time. As a contrast, my initial training in the RAF, prior to starting on the C130, took 380 hours of which around 100 were command time. If I had done flying purely related to basic training plus the multi-engine stuff required prior to the C130 (leaving out the Valley Advanced Flying Training on the Hawk, and Tactical Weapons Unit on the Hunter, neither of which was relevant to my later employment), I would have had around 240 hours, with about 60 or less in command.

Time in training should be used to train, not to have pilots boring holes in the sky unsupervised. I have some issue with the proportion of simulator hours proposed for this course, but not the principle that training for potential airline pilots should be task-specific, and not tacked on to the PPL with lots of extra solo time. The MPL is a start in this direction. I doubt it will survive long in its current form without several changes, but it will provide the basis for future commercial training.

Scroggs

RVR800
1st Dec 2005, 13:33
There are two sides to this argument

1. A training course - fATPL (£loads) that is supposed to lead to a job that cannot be undertaken without additional training - Type rating (more £ loads) - So why not train 'horses for courses' or more specifically why not train 'airline pilots in airliners'

2. 'Hands on' experience of 'real' flying for when Beagle goes on his hols and the the sh1t hit the fan at the pointy bit at the front of the aluminum tube

Which is most important? Both?

I'd imagine its a method that will based upon some evidence base that indicates its efficacy..

I suppose the argument is where you draw the line that one supposes wil come in the light of further research?

At the end of the day theres always two sometimes more guys at the front and there is always one guy with a lot of experence like Scroggs there so we can rest easy I guess.....

Just dont have the same fish supper OK guys....!

Send Clowns
1st Dec 2005, 15:02
Scroggs

I disagree, and feel that a comparrison with military training is not very accurate.

As an officer you had command training, possibly before you ever reached an aircraft. In addition you had been selected for you aptitude, and trained with a view to going straight into command.

Comparing my experience in military flight training to my experience in civilian flight training (having been chopped at AFT I was still inexperienced) the civvie training is very different. The student at my civilian school (no longer in existence) was very much trained to follow a well-worn path to the test. Even after this, having more than 100 hours P1 and well over 250 hours I felt that when it came to commanding a light aircraft as an instructor or under IFR, flying to new destinations and across international borders I was having to work very hard. Had I not experienced that command time it would have been very tough indeed. I cannot see that being suddenly dumped with a multi-crew aircraft when your Captain comes down with gastroenteritis is going to be much easier!

The other problem is that line flying many jet piltos get extremely little hands-on flying. In some airlines there is no option to get more than a few minutes per flight. Those skills are going to degrade much more quickly as they become based on less experience.

The point of flight training is that initially it is not task specific; this is fortunate when the task can change so drastically. I mentioned Gimli already, but how about Sioux City? The Baghdad Airbus? Other accidents that didn't happen because the aircraft felt wrong, not because of any particular, identifiable piece of training? You are experienced enough to know how an aircraft should feel and some of the ways it feels wrong and why. This feel for flying develops rapidly over the first few hundred hours flying and is vital to both Captain and FO. An FO with only 60 hours under his belt is not going to have it!

scroggs
1st Dec 2005, 15:49
Don't get me wrong; I don't approve of a flying training course which consists of very little real-world flying. I would far rather the balance of aircraft to simulator was much more in favour of aircraft for one major reason - fear. All pilots need to have experience of understanding that the consequences of getting it wrong are - or could be - fatal. That just does not come across in a simulator, and never will. Als, as you say, real-world skills deteriorate quickly. I would put money on there being very little pure handing time in the proposed MPL syllabus - simulators are too expensive to 'waste' on fault-free flying!

However, I dispute your contention that military pilots' training is irrelevant to the civilian system. Training for command is exactly why more time should be spent under instruction; under the current system you are expected to train yourself during your hour-building, which is at best inefficient and at worst bloody dangerous. It's rather like leaving a child to discover that a fire can burn by letting them try it rather than telling them beforehand and then supervising them when they are actually near a fire, and training them how to avoid being burned while getting all the advantages a fire offers. One of the advantages (and thus appeal to airlines) of the integrated courses now available from the major FTOs is that this flying time is structured, though, thanks to the rules, it is not used as productively as it might be.

There is a great deal of room for improvement in the system used to prepare pilots for an airline career. The MPL, however inadequate, is at least a recognition that things need to change.

Scroggs

Flopsie
1st Dec 2005, 18:40
Points well made Scroggs - I agree entirely.....

Send Clowns

Flying an aircraft requires responsibility and decision making.

One assumes that if the pilot passes a type rating course (at a reputable FTO/TRTO), this is true

I take it from your answer you didn't have to take full responsibility in difficult circumstances when you had little experience

Yes - this happens to very pilot on his first solo.....

You seem to be missing the point about the MPL. The present integrated course does little to educate the student about CRM - one of the major criticisms from the airlines concerning low hour ab-initio F/Os. Some FTOs are now taking steps to improve this by introducing F/O "further education" programs eg. Oxford, InterCockpit Lufthansa Flight Training. The MPL is not a command rating - it is a licence for a copilot to safely fly the aircraft in a multi crew environment in abnormal conditions - that is what the type rating part of the course is designed for. As we have found in our FTO, a pilot having flown around in a C150 for 1000 hrs as P1 does not necessarily mean that he will be a more competent F/O than a zero hour student , particularly in medium/large jets. Handling skills for these types of aircraft can be adequately learned in a sim - perhaps where the higher flight time student has the advantage is with situation awareness.

As Scroggs correctly summed up, the present method of training professional pilots for the airlines needs improvement and the MPL is the first step to achieving this whilst also satisfying the quality requirements of the operators and regulating authority.

BEagle
1st Dec 2005, 20:41
My solution would be the current CPL without IR, but with a MEP Class Rating, followed by all the boring procedural IF in multi-pilot simulators, doing the huggy-huggy CRM and MCC stuff at the same time, then the Type Rating and IR on the appropriate type.

Basic commercial level handling skills would be retained; hours of staggering around the NDB hold in a Seneca on one engine with some Oxford Don making a science out of non-precision needle following would rightly be condemned to the rubbish bin of history.

Send Clowns
1st Dec 2005, 22:58
Flopsie

The type ratingis almost entirely in a sim!

First solo is very straight-forward. Unless your instructor was criminally negligent you would not have been sent off in difficult circumstances as I specified. In fact a range of circumstances is very important too. It breeds flexibility.

I am not missing the point. I am not saying there shuold be no CRM training. I approve of the increases there, have an MCC myself and would expect company-specific training on a CRM course when I fly multi-crew.

The point you are missing is that this training has to be built on a strong foundation of a skilled pilot with a little experience behind him of both flying and making decisions in the real world. I have always criticised integrated courses for too little of this, and the MPL will be worse. I am not talking only about handling skills, but primarily skills closer to the airmanship side and others that are less easy to pin down but all instructors see developing in pilots post-PPL.

BEagle suggests an elegant compromise, although I disagree about the utility of attempting NDB holds. It drastically increases the ability of a pilot to think and fly at the same time, and tests such skill.

Maximum
2nd Dec 2005, 23:34
While the details of the ratio of sim to actual flying can be debated, it's a simple fact that 1000 hours in a Cessna 150 really doesn't count for much when it comes to commanding an airliner.

I know from experience that selected ab-initio low hours guys/gals perform very well in the airline environment and go on to make very good commanders in the minimum time.

The point about this new licence is that it enables F/O's to start gaining experience in the two crew cockpit from the start - and that's invaluable. And flying a transport jet is a world away from a light single or twin.

Send Clowns, with all due respect - you talk about people 'feeling' the aircraft - well who is going to be in a better position to do this? Obviously the person who's spent more time flying that aircraft! (Or sim). 1000 take-offs in a Cessna aren't going to tell you how your 737 should feel after take-off.

Beagle makes a good point about the NDB by the way, and I fully agree with him - the point is, in the real world, it's just not done that way. In fact, people need to be re-taught how to actually use the thing in a practical way!

Incoming.:}

Wrongstuff
22nd Dec 2005, 20:30
Three years ago I was involved in the TR course of a batch of the latest wunder kids straight out of flying college flying the latest wunder jet. They were all the latest students of the JAR CPL course in which the flying content had been reduced to about 150 hours from approx over two hundred, and the difference replaced with 50 hours in a 737 simulator, which also covered the CRM/MCC requirement.

They were all highly intelligent, highly motivated young men and women and by the end of the course could operate to the airline SOP, deal with multiple failures and hand fly the aircraft in IMC as well as any Pilot with thousands of hours.

During the course one of the interesting problems that emerged was after flying an immaculate ILS under IMC when they became visual at 200/300/500ft the fun would start. I never came across one who could stay on the centre line, on the glide path and fly approx at Vref, most of the deviations were so extreme that the outcome in the real aircraft would have been a spectacular fireball.

A lot of time was spent correcting what are basic flying skill errors. The last session on the course was an introduction to circuit work in preparation for the base training detail in the real aircraft. Again the sessions proved that if the circuit was standard, once they had been taught how to fly straight and level and control an approach visually, a reasonable standard could be reached, however the fun would start again when say extending downwind or flying a larger circuit.

Never under estimate the value of poleing an aerolpane around the sky, especially when one is not under the eagle eye of the instructor, some of the best lessons were learnt on my own or with a fellow cadet flying mutual. Also told to me by my first instructor 'Never under estimate the value of the the two lessons on a flying course that get glanced over, effect of controls part 1 and 2'.

As for the NDB I've just looked in me logbook, 14 in the last year, in some very odd places and still flown in almost exactly the same way I was taught at Perth nearly 30 years ago.

For this old guffer SC is pretty much spot on.

Send Clowns
23rd Dec 2005, 00:27
Thanks Wrongstuff.

Maximum

No-one spends 1000 hours poling a Cessna! Everyone who gets those sorts of hours before flying jets (and I humbly submit my case - 950 hours fixed-wing) has some sort of a job to do in the aircraft. In that job he learns not just command skills but often crew co-operation - either as an instructor (who is monitoring pilot for a lot of time, and it becomes instinctive to point out important errors, and take over in extremis but not too early) or in small multi-crew aircraft. Instructors also learn a lot of airmanship, which is more than half of flying any aircraft. They also learn very good handling techniques (apply to all aircraft), as they teach them every day.

However much of that applies to even the first 300 hours - massive amounts are learnt, some type or class-specific, much that is generally applicable. Some can be learnt on a synthetic training device, some cannot. Some cannot be learnt (safely) in a real aircraft, so FNPTs/sims are required.

Thank you for the unintended compliment, but I don't believe I warrant it. Unless I am a really good instinctive pilot then poling a light aircraft really does allow you to feel the flight of a larg one. I did my MCC course as a very current PPL instructor. I was flying a Lockheed Tristar sim together with a CPL/IR/FI(R) holder on 300 hours who wasn't flying regularly. Our instructor assessed that we both did well at the course, better than he would expect on a type-rating course at that level (he was experienced in the airline training environment). I also flew better than my partner (my partner's assessment, although I could see it too), although by the best assessment I could make there was little difference in native ability, as rates of improvement were comparable. I was just far more experienced in flying, or am a better natural aviator than even I, an egotistical pilot, would ever think.

Note that 900 hours, mostly in a PA-28 will not tell me how a Partenavia will feel after take-off either. However because of my experience in other aircraft I know how to get a feel for the aircraft, and very quickly it became second nature. I am not learning the direct skills of flying a 737, but I am learning the meta skills of how to learn to fly an aeroplane, which can be applied to each aircraft I try.

RVR800
23rd Dec 2005, 08:51
Anyway regardless of what we all think the MPL is happening and is seen as “The Future” for airline pilot training

Indeed JAA is making all efforts to facilitate it, by creating a regulatory framework in JAR-FCL and so there will be a Change to General Requirements, Instrument Rating, ATPL(A), Instructors, Examiners and Theoretical Knowledge Requirements and an Introduction of new Subpart K – Multi-Crew Pilot Licence in Lasors

I guess the cost of sims is less prohibitive now and more real than in the past. The technological divide between the traditional six-pack display single-crew type aeroplane and the glass display automated multicrew computerised systems that make up a larger and larger percentage of airliners has resulted in a change of philosophy by some who want people to be trained on the kit they will fly.

In short its a horses for courses thing - I guess its "evidence based" as well

Will self sponsored students bipass the traditional route by lobbing a low cost carrier some cash to train them on the job in the future?

Probably yes - could be a nice income stream ...

On the subject of NDBs - areent they being withdrawn in the US and I am aware that none precision approaches are being introduced using GPS - The technology is moving very fast in this area and even Joe Bloggs in the street can for a few quid buy a GPS device that navigates to within a few feet....It's altering perceptions..... The regulatory authorities are slow to grasp some technological nettles

apruneuk
23rd Dec 2005, 08:55
In my opinion the new co-pilot's licence is nothing more than an inevitable consequence of the advances in aircraft and computer technology in recent years. The days of two hairy macho men hauling a converted WW2 bomber around the skies, fighting with towering CBs while feathering a flaming Pratt and Whitney a la Ernest Gann are long gone.
It has been recognized, and rightly so, that there is very little in common between hand-Flying a Seneca single pilot IFR and Operating a modern transport jet multi crew in a highly regimented environment. It could even, and has been, argued that flying one is actually detrimental to the other. This was not, however, always so; the airline pilot of the 1930's almost certainly came from a military background. He was used to being in charge. In civilian life he flew a ponderous, sub-sonic machine with a basic autopilot and a Boy to help him. The Boy had a head full of books and a basic commercial ticket and had even demonstrated that he could bang a DC3 down at Croydon 5 times in a row without breaking anything. He was an apprentice and would spend several years learning his craft from his Captain (Captains often kept the same co-pilot for months at a time). He was "brought on" as the Captain saw fit - a landing here, a take-off there, maybe even a closely-supervised NDB approach.
The trouble with this method of instruction was that it was unregulated and was totally dependent on the teaching skills of a man who often resented having to spoon-feed an apprentice who he saw as of little or no practical help. The problem came when the apprentice saw the Captain making a mistake. Should he speak out and risk a tongue-lashing and possible curtailment of his career or keep quiet and hope that the Captain would see his error in time....? There were many accidents that could have been avoided if the crew had worked as a team.
Fast forward to today. Transport aircraft are now highly automated multi-million dollar pieces of kit. The sky they fly in is increasingly crowded, particularly around the major airports and the airlines run on miniscule margins, relying on high turnover to generate the necessary cash to stay afloat. In this compo-mad World we live in, even one crash is likely to be enough to put an airline out of business. A computer will fly a modern jet far more efficiently than any human but the public still like to think that there is a man who will take control if things go wrong. CRM has massively reduced the instances of avoidable accidents and low houred pilots now enter service rated on type and are the product of a regimented training process; two complete strangers can now fly as a team from the minute they meet and seamlessly change to a new partner if required.
The odds of a co-pilot actually having to take manual control of a modern jet transport aircraft in an emergency are just about nil. The job requires different skills to those of 50 years ago but the basic training format has remained much the same. The present system is still relevant to those pilots who wish to fly single pilot air taxi in a piston twin although this market has seen a large decline with the advent of the Low Cost Carrier. As far as I am aware, commercial pilots of the future will have to make a choice at the outset of their training: Airline or GA. The training road post-PPL will fork and the two roads will not meet. It is likely that only airline-sponsored candidates will fly airliners as it just won't be worth the risk for a self-sponsored student to invest in a co-pilots licence.
The GA route will still be there but without 700 hours TT minimum it is unlikely that a newly-qualified pilot will find a wage-paying job. The co-pilot's licence is coming - it suits the airlines for all the obvious reasons, but it will take several years before it is unilaterally implemented. In the meantime the airlines still need to fill those right hand seats..............

RVR800
23rd Dec 2005, 09:14
aprune

Excellent, I particularly liked the bit about some hairy @rse hauling converted bombers around the sky

The assumption that all these guys will be sponsored is a big one. The supply demand relationship dictates in my view that there will be big incentives for airline "sponsored" MPLs to bung some £cash (loads) to the "sponsor"... as they do now for their type rating training..

Maybe MOL will not see the MPL as a potential revenue stream and sponsor candidates ... you never know :D

scroggs
23rd Dec 2005, 11:10
Apruneuk, I'm not sure what your experience is, but some of your statements suggest that you don't have a full grasp of the current airline pilot situation, and your colourful description of the past, while entertaining, is, I think, a little overdone. In any case, what the airline scene of the 1930s has to do with the current training scenario, even pre-MPL, I fail to understand!
Fast forward to today. Transport aircraft are now highly automated multi-million dollar pieces of kit. The sky they fly in is increasingly crowded, particularly around the major airports and the airlines run on miniscule margins, relying on high turnover to generate the necessary cash to stay afloat. In this compo-mad World we live in, even one crash is likely to be enough to put an airline out of business. A computer will fly a modern jet far more efficiently than any human but the public still like to think that there is a man who will take control if things go wrong. CRM has massively reduced the instances of avoidable accidents and low houred pilots now enter service rated on type and are the product of a regimented training process; two complete strangers can now fly as a team from the minute they meet and seamlessly change to a new partner if required.

- Transport aircraft have been highly-automated, multi-million dollar pices of kit for several years. Even the B747 Classics I used to fly (dating from around 1980) were highly-automated, multi-million dollar pieces of kit. This is not a new thing!

- The sky is indeed increasingly crowded, but it is far less hazardous than it used to be. Airlines do work on relatively small margins, but I can't think of one that has collapsed as the result of a single accident.

- CRM has made an incremental improvement in safety, but it has not 'massively reduced the instances of avoidable accidents'. It is an important weapon in the overall pursuit of safety, not the only one.

- The public is absolutely right to expect there to be a man at the controls when things go wrong. Computers do not fly 'more efficiently' than people; what they do is offload pilots so that their capacity for decision-making is increased. Even my brand-new A340-600 can't make decisions and is terrible at prioritising. That's one of the reasons we do CRM and MCC - how could CRM make a difference if the computers can do it all?

- The odds of a co-pilot having to fly the aircraft in an emergency are actually quite high; there are several emergency scenarios in which hand-flying of the aircraft is required and, to allow the captain to have the time and capacity to think, it is the first officer who gets the job every time.

You are right that airline training should follow a different route from an early stage. As in military flying, the PPL syllabus is irrelevant from pretty much right after first solo, and there's no reason why the commercial syallabus shouldn't diverge at that point also. However, I see no indication that this syllabus will be picked up and paid for by the industry; it seems to me that it will be an expensive speculative qualification for most, just as it is now.

Scroggs

Luke SkyToddler
23rd Dec 2005, 13:23
apruneuk ...

I would keep my lofty put downs of single pilot seneca ops to myself until I actually had learned how to fly either a Seneca or an airliner if I was you.

I trust you are aware that outside this strange little bubble called Europe, it is still all but impossible to get onto the one without having done several years in the other. Try and take your poetic little historical analysis to the recruiting personnel at United Airlines or Qantas and explain why they should really give you a job, and watch them hit the floor laughing before they explain that you can't in fact even submit a CV to them without several thousand hours of the kind of flying you've just so derided.

In fact I would argue that the only reason circumstances are different here, is the fact that due to geological and economic oddities of Europe there just isn't enough of a viable air force or G.A. industry to provide the airlines with all the pilots they need. Hence they've had to come up with other kinds of schemes (like the integrated course and now this new multi pilot licence thing) to make the travelling public feel comfy and cushion the newly qualified FO from reality for their first thousand hours or so, until they've actually learned their trade.

apruneuk
23rd Dec 2005, 15:32
SkyToddler

I think you have misunderstood me. I actually happen to agree with you and was not trying to put down single pilot IFR at all. I am merely playing Devil's Advocate in this case and trying to show my take on the thinking behind the new co-pilot's licence.
I have flown in the States (and hold a FAA CPL/ME IR as well as a JAA CPL. I am also a pilot examiner for the British Parachute Association so do know a little bit about "flying" a plane) and have every respect for their system. You can't buy experience after all. However, the powers that be in JAR Land seem to have decided that a small number of hours of relevant training and a comprehensive course of groundschool is as effective/safe as a large number of hours of varied flying and slightly less theory (although many American pilots do take an Aeronautical Science degree while training for the CPL which is almost certainly more thorough and relevant than our scatter-gun selection of 14 exams loosely based around aviation. The copilot's licence as I see it is merely an attempt at making the present minimum hour to airline syllabus more relevant to airline flying than it currently is. As it stands it is a one size fits all course that doesn't adequately prepare a pilot for either airline flying or GA (in my opinion).
Prior to the "frozen ATPL" our route to the airlines was similar to that in the States: PPL/Instructor/Regional/Airline. I like that and always have. However there is another school of thought and it currently prevails in the JAA airline World. Only time will tell which is safer.

scroggs
23rd Dec 2005, 15:58
There is absolutely no reason why a suitably-trained pilot cannot make a useful crew member with 300 hours or so. The RAF put pilots in the front seat of Tornadoes, and the right seat of C17s and C130Js, with around that number of hours - and those jobs are infinitely more varied and demanding than the average airline job. The major difference is that the pilots concerned have been through a highly specialised selection system, and have undergone several months of leadership training before they've even looked at a technical textbook. With the right sort of reliable and repeatable selection, and adequate pre-flying training (as all the old national airlines have practised for many years), pilots are entirely adequate to begin first-officer duties with low hours.

Scroggs

BEagle
24th Dec 2005, 08:19
scroggs - the days of co-piglets arriving on sqns with 300 or so hours are long since gone. Nowadays they only have about 20% of the PIC hours required for a CPL and a total time of around 200 hours at best....

They don't even have Basic Flying Training School experience any more - they go straight from elementary flying training to a short pre-multi engine course, then fly the King Air.

Even though they have been through aptitiude testing, when they get to their Operational Conversion Units, many do indeed struggle. Not due to ability, but lack of experience and training.

This ar$e Microsoft Pilot Licence is not viewed as acceptable by many. Who is supposed to pay for the training - the airline or the 'pilot'?

The French are totally against it - it wouldn't surprise me if they announced that the MPL will not be acceptable for any flights in French airspace.

It would be interesting to see what the pilot unions will have to say about these MPL knob-twiddlers.

Basic VFR CPL plus UK IMC Rating and MEP Class Rating - then do all the 2-person crew stuff and further IF in the type simulator.

Kak Klaxon
24th Dec 2005, 12:08
Wrong Stuff

I have just started training new cadets and could not agree more, 200 feet, autopilot out, no clue how to get it on the runway.

Line training turns into a bit of a basic PPL lesson on where to look in the flare etc.

On the flip side they learn real fast so maybe more expensive LST training required before they hit the line?

ASIAN FROG
1st Feb 2006, 22:48
What is the current state of discussion on this licence?
American companies are visiting schools in SE Asia to introduce this licence!!

RVR800
2nd Feb 2006, 13:54
The changes to the UK Lasors document to incorporate the MPL will be in sub-part K.

The licence will enable a pilot who wants to fly an airliner to train in one rather than a light aircraft - they will go direct to rhs missing the light aircraft NDB holds bit etc.. this is currently done single crew and makes up much of the current cost of trainng an 'airline' pilot.

Its modernising the training process away from 6 pack single crew light aircraft into a modern environment

ASIAN FROG
2nd Feb 2006, 14:29
Thank you very much RVR800
However more questions:
1) What is the package to upgrade to ATPL?
2) If on the flying side, there are apparently some savings (Apparently because a Full Motion Simulator hour costs more than one hour of Diesel Engined aircraft and some american guys have presented the end training of the MPL on jet citation!!!), what about the pakage cost for upgrading to the ATPL? (So we have to compare MPL + package)
3) In the past, before the frozen ATPL, in some countries, we have known some First Officer unable to upgrade their CPL/IR in ATPL. This was creating "social cases", and was not a sane situation. With the MPL is it going to start again? It is not very funny to go back to the Ground school after few years of line activity.
4) All the theoretical knowledge of the JAR syllabus is bring back to an "operational level" + the threat error Management, more or less equivalent to the FAA CPL program +TEM + Ground School of the Type Rating: this is what I have picked up from the presentation done. What is your information on this aspect?
5) Even if originally this idea is apparently European (KLM, Lufthansa), I find quite suspect the rush of the American Companies on this new licence (Three companies making a presentation on the topic)? Is it to bar the JAR licence in order to recover some influence in the Training Industry?
Thank you very much, your opinion appreciated

ASIAN FROG
2nd Feb 2006, 14:47
And I would like to underline that most of FTOs are unable to invest in a Full Motion Simulator. So the MPL will be done in TRTOs. What about costs of a TRTO compared to a FTO? Not the same staffing, What about the Simulator Instructor salary of a TRTO compared with a FI of a FTO?

RVR800
3rd Feb 2006, 09:28
MPL to ATPL upgrade

Need to meet ATPL experience requirements:

1500 hours as pilot of aeroplanes
Time in FSTD can be considered by Licensing Authority (max 100)
500 hours as PICUS or
250 hours PIC or
70 hours PIC + additional hours PICUS
200 hours X-country, 100 hours PIC or PICUS
(PICUS = Pilot in Command Under Supervision)

There is a route from MPL to CPL as well....

70 hours PIC (or 10 hours PIC, the remainder PICUS)
CPL requirements:
Knowledge
Skill
200 hours flight time (150 if approved training)
CPL X-country, instrument, night requirements
Appropriate instruction for class/type

ASIAN FROG
3rd Feb 2006, 11:18
Thank you very much for the infos.
I suppose the CPL knwoledge is also required for ATPL.
In South East Asia, Major Airlines and Governments aim to replace as soon as possible Expat commanders by Nationals... Obviously the MPL is not the fastest way.
Once more RVR800, Thanks

pilottom
27th Mar 2006, 09:46
Hi all,

On 25th March I went to the Flyer Professional Training Exibition, as many of you no doubt went to.

On the front cover of the Flight training newspaper, it stated that JAA are now going to introduce the MPL to replace the ATPL. I am therefore a little concerned about this as will this mean that there will be a big difference between the licenses gained in non JAA countries and thus conversions will involve a lot of extra flying etc, to that at the moment. Also, are the people who have gained a JAA ATPL going to be at an dissadvantage to those with the MPL, as the new license is closer to what the employers are looking for, or will those with a MPL be at a dissadvantage as the license is new and hasnt proved that it is any good. Also, the MPL will only have about 70hours actual flight time, the rest will be done in a sim, and so the employer will want more actual flying before they consider employing anyone. :confused:

Has anyone got any more information on this, and any advice?

Cheers,
Pliottom

Empty Cruise
27th Mar 2006, 11:00
Nah,

They'll prolly be very happy about the extra sim time vs. the present MCC where people are both expected to learn CRM & struggle with flying a big jet for the first time. Actual flying (in connection with training) helps very little in actual airline transition - we still get 250 hr. guys on the line with loads of "actual flying" in PA28s, but they have difficulties with a) the radio b) scan-flows c) spatial awareness d) energy management. So a) can't get any worse, while b) through d) will improve with simulator use.

So the earlier the better (assuming we are sticking with the concept of 250-hr. guys'n'gals in jets, that is)

Empty

RVR800
27th Mar 2006, 14:16
The fATPL is very useful for flying a light twin with a 6-pack display as single crew in IMC, although strangely the JAA dont allow it for air-taxi until you are more experienced notwithstanding the money you have spend. (700 hrs)

In contrast the MPL will allow you to become immediately productive on course completion in a multi-crew glass cockpit airliner using the multi-crew instrument rating.

The MPL is a co-pilot entry licence. The fATPL is really a CPL and is done on light aircraft so requires more cash spending to get the pilot up to speed.

Is the MPL low-cost that is the question? One supposes some will see it as a revenue stream

And will direct money to airlines rather than to traditional flying schools

um bongo
27th Mar 2006, 14:56
anyone know any detail about the multi pilot course?

like will the theory side of it be the same as it is currently? and when it will come to pass.

or is it all undecided.

ta

rwhites
27th Mar 2006, 17:23
sounds to me like the MPL is for people who what to get into jets strait away. you only get 70 hours of flying time(of which 10 is pic) the rest is sim time. mite not be to bad for the play station generation which it looks like who it is aimed at. but you'll not do any proper flying.

Whopity
27th Mar 2006, 17:24
The syllabus and course for the MPL are as yet still on the drawing board. As the requirements have not been deceided, nobody knows what qualifications will be required to teach for it either.

The probability is that it will cost a lot more and thus only be available through sponsorship. It is primarily being driven by certain airlines who would like to use their existing simulators to train their own pilots.

Traditional FTOs will find it difficult to compete, bearing in mind the cost of a full blown simulator?

Self sponsorship is a huge risk if you don't have an employer ligned up at the end of the course, the skills learned will not stay valid for very long.

RVR800
28th Mar 2006, 07:30
This was the date given by the CAA as a start date for MPL training - of course it may be delayed slightly - the first airline co-pilots would graduate late 2007

scroggs
28th Mar 2006, 08:14
Couple of threads that might help:

MPL Timing (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=210457&highlight=multi+pilot+licence)

Multi Crew Pilots Licence (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=209230&highlight=multi+pilot+licence)

scroggs
28th Mar 2006, 12:16
As far as I understand it, the MPL is likely to be adopted by those large carriers that have their own cadet schemes, such as Lufthansa, KLM and Air France. It could also be offered by organisations like CTC who train towards specific airline jobs. It seems unlikely to be offered as a speculative qualification, though I suppose if wannabes demand it, someone will offer it!

There are serious misgivings about the syllabus as it stands, and I believe there is still much work to be done to make the MPL acceptable. Whether it becomes 'live' this year or not, though, it will appear eventually, and it is likely in time to become the primary route to low-hour airline employment.

Scroggs

BigGrecian
28th Mar 2006, 14:07
So I guess this could be a turning point, if it is going to be so expensive, for wannabes to say no to the escalating cost of training. I guess they have every opportunity to do so and give- but I fear there will always be one person willing to pay the extra money - even though the MPL is pitched at Airline sponsorship only. :uhoh:

sicky
14th May 2006, 23:22
So, what are the differences between the MPL and ATPL/FATPL?

What are the differences in the training?

It kind of seems like they stick u in a sim pretty much the whole time, kind of going straight to the top. So does this mean it bypasses stages, like a "brief" PPL stage, a few hours ME and straight into a MP jet sim?

As you can tell, i'm a little confused about what exactly it is, and how it works, even after reading through the threads and a quick google search. :confused:

ASIAN FROG
15th May 2006, 01:06
So the MPL gives you the Privilege to seat on the right seat of an Airliner. But for going on the left seat your training on sim give only a credit of 100 hours if I understand RVR 800.

Left Wing
15th May 2006, 02:36
The theory is you get on the RHS with an MPL fly for an airline for 1500 hrs get your ATPL via the airline build your RHS hrs and get ready for upgrade to LHS.

MPL is targeted to reduce VFR training and focus on airline style flying ..2 crew ops on a jet IFR based etc.
GA pilots will continue to go the normal route of CPL then ATPL self funded TR etc

FougaMagister
15th May 2006, 06:16
To add my 5 P's worth: a number of airlines recently asked by a British FTO answered that in its "current" form, they would NOT be interested in MPL-trained FOs...

Seems that ICAO's drive to introduce the MPL may face an uphill struggle with a number of operators - at least this side of the pond.

I can't help but think, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Cheers :cool:

Groundloop
16th May 2006, 09:03
"Seems that ICAO's drive to introduce the MPL may face an uphill struggle with a number of operators - at least this side of the pond."

My understanding is that one of the main pushers for the MPL IS from this side of the pond - namely Lufthansa.

Left Wing
16th May 2006, 09:29
Alteon is pushing it hard, LFT is part of development team SQ in Asia is doing work on it...

Its mostly aimed towards Asia & Middle East markets no genral aviation and huge shortage of ab-initio pilots

ASIAN FROG
16th May 2006, 10:39
Yes,
in SE ASIA, ALTEON, but also CAE are pushing and are preparing heavy investments.
The target is maybe CHINA as flying in China does not appeared a simple affair!!! (PANAM nearby Beijing is experimenting the issue!!)
The American have found a way to stop the influence of the JAR licensing system with the help of Lufhtansa!!!
But the error is that it does not suit most of the South asian Goverments because they want ASAP local on the Left seat and the MPL prepares for the Right seat.
After listening all the sellers of the MPL, I have concluded that it is level FAA plus a varnish named TEM evolution of CRM courses plus a Type Rating: most of the theoretical knowledge has disappeared from the MPL syllabus.
On the costing side, it is not obvious:
MPL + (Package to go on the Left seat )= how much?
(And this capsule will have to be done few years later, do you like to go back to school 4 or 5 years after you enter in the job?)
All Europeans should resist this demolition of the JAR standard.

Flopsie
16th May 2006, 13:39
After listening all the sellers of the MPL, I have concluded that it is level FAA plus a varnish named TEM evolution of CRM courses plus a Type Rating: most of the theoretical knowledge has disappeared from the MPL syllabus.


Suggest you read the previous thread on the MPL because you are quite incorrect in what you have stated. The MPL DOES include theoretical training to ATPL level.

BillieBob
16th May 2006, 14:28
Groundloop - Virtually all of the pressure in Europe for the MPL is coming from LH, mainly because they already have the infrastructure in place to conduct the courses, with plenty of spare capacity for synthetic training. As FougaMagister suggested, enthusiasm in the rest of the European airline industry is, at best, lukewarm and getting cooler as more details are emerging. There are, to the best of my knowledge, two UK-based training providers that are actively pursuing approval for the MPL and both are seeking to conduct the bulk of the training in the third world.

So far as the bulk of wannabees is concerned, the MPL will not be relevant - it will only be financially viable for airline sponsored training and will give the holder very restricted privileges.

ASIAN FROG
16th May 2006, 15:21
Flopsie,
Which ATPL level? The FAA one? A joke...

For your information I have been briefed on the contents by several sellers visiting the SE Asia. CONTENTS as seen per them= mainly OPERATIONAL (the Ground school of the Type Rating)+ the TEM, the theory is very, very limited -something like the FAA ATPL (100 h of theory- same that the JAR PPL) just in order to understand the very basic of the Type Rating.

It is really a Monkey Pilot Licence

Flopsie
16th May 2006, 20:51
Flopsie,
Which ATPL level? The FAA one? A joke...
For your information I have been briefed on the contents by several sellers visiting the SE Asia. CONTENTS as seen per them= mainly OPERATIONAL (the Ground school of the Type Rating)+ the TEM, the theory is very, very limited -something like the FAA ATPL (100 h of theory- same that the JAR PPL) just in order to understand the very basic of the Type Rating.
It is really a Monkey Pilot Licence

My friend - I'm talking about Europe, not Asia. Quite different.

ASIAN FROG
17th May 2006, 00:27
Flopsie,
1) MPL is a proposed new international standard the same everywhere
2) The fact that the JAR standard is attractive gives jobs to Europeans easily compared to FAA Licences owners. True in the Middle East, true in SE and Eastern Asia. Plenty of Europeans are currently staffing Airlines and schools. American are loosing grip. Example Hong Kong, Malaysia, Vietnam wants a closed to JAR standard for its cadets....Only very experienced FAA Licences holders are accepted. ...Numerous threads on this topics. Middle East,...the JAR Licence is the reference, local schools and Airlines are taking reference to JAR!
3) JAR Standard has been a real improvement and is gaining momentum. On safety issues it is a plus compared to the ICAO or FAA standard
4) A low level of licence is also the perspective of low salaries at the end
Our planet is a village now, it is a global market. If the Americans are pushing so strongly behind the MPL it is because they are loosing influence with their FAA licence. They have found a new trojan horse...the MPL

Flopsie
17th May 2006, 04:55
Flopsie,
1) MPL is a proposed new international standard the same everywhere
2) The fact that the JAR standard is attractive gives jobs to Europeans easily compared to FAA Licences owners. True in the Middle East, true in SE and Eastern Asia. Plenty of Europeans are currently staffing Airlines and schools. American are loosing grip. Example Hong Kong, Malaysia, Vietnam wants a closed to JAR standard for its cadets....Only very experienced FAA Licences holders are accepted. ...Numerous threads on this topics. Middle East,...the JAR Licence is the reference, local schools and Airlines are taking reference to JAR!
3) JAR Standard has been a real improvement and is gaining momentum. On safety issues it is a plus compared to the ICAO or FAA standard
4) A low level of licence is also the perspective of low salaries at the end
Our planet is a village now, it is a global market. If the Americans are pushing so strongly behind the MPL it is because they are loosing influence with their FAA licence. They have found a new trojan horse...the MPL

I'm not exactly sure exactly what point you're trying to make here but you have just reinforced my previous statement. The MPL will NOT be "the same standard everywhere" as it's up to the national authorities to approve their own MPL syllabus. The ICAO FCLTP have issued guidelines and in Europe, these have been implemented in to the JAA LST NPA-FCL 31 Draft that defines the minimum requirements. Going back to my original point, this includes a theory syllabus in accordance with the existing JAR ATPL. The NPA clearly states that the MPL will "provide a level of competency in multi-crew operations at least equivalent to what is currently expected from graduates of the ATP(A) integrated course who have completed type rating training for a multi-pilot aeroplane".
What the Americans or Asians do with their MPL syllabus is not of much interest to European airlines, since the MPL will be an airline sponsored course and tailored to the airline requirements. Once again, I suggest you read the previous thread on the MPL (the search function does work very well) which covers in depth the European perspective of the MPL.

ASIAN FROG
17th May 2006, 06:24
Flopsie,
Apparently the presentation of MPL here is not only dedicated to Airlines sponsorised cadets. It is also presented as an alternate for self sponsorised cadets because they will have a type rating in the package. the trend is there, already AIR ASIA recruits malaysian self sponsorised students AT THE CONDITION THEY PAY 75 000 Ringgits (Half the cost of a TR in plus of their CPL/IR paid by themselves).
We can guess that the MPL is going to be proposed also to private students (Big Business like ALTEON or CAE will certainly do....)
I am happy you told me that the JAR ATPL knowledge is included for Europe, but here it is the FAA ATPL. So we will have to distinguish a JAR MPL, an ICAO MPL and a FAA MPL.
What about the merging of licences and the meetings FAA/JAA to make an "IPL"? We should stop to spend the money of European citizens and keep at home Administration officers meeting regularly on this project as at the first opportunity, everybody make again its own standard!!!!

DJRC
10th Aug 2006, 19:06
Does anyone have any information on the new MPL (Multi Pilot License) that is rumoured to be in the pipeline. The 2006/2007 'Learn to Fly' magazine (a spin off publication from 'Flyer') mentions the rumour as being a fast track license that bypasses the traditional fATPL route, getting you in the right hand seat of a commercial airliner with just 70 hours flight time.

It suggests the new license will encompas ground school exams the same as the current ATPL, but will bypass PPL, CPL and other ratings and licenses. This would mean you would be qualified to fly a commercial airliner but not a light aircraft.

The artical also suggests that the requirement for the MPL may have come from the airlines themselves. Does this mean there is a genuine lack of fATPL pilots (the wannabe forums suggest not), or do the airlines just want a quicker and cheaper way of getting pilots trained?

As someone who is about to embark on the fATPL route (I need to save some more money first!), this route does seem quite interesting. That said, I belive a MPL pilot would not be permitted to progress to the position of Captain, so it is restricting from a career perspective.

Any further rumours or information on this would be appreciated.

BillieBob
10th Aug 2006, 19:35
No need for rumour - all of the details are in NPA-FCL 31, available on the JAA website.

Adios
11th Aug 2006, 12:44
Flopsie,
So we will have to distinguish a JAR MPL, an ICAO MPL and a FAA MPL.


How, might I ask, is this any different than the current situation wherein it is easy to distinguish between JAA and FAA licenses.

The chief difference I see in the discussions to date, is that JAR MPL appears it will only be available in an Integrated variant, most likely with airline mentoring, tagging or sponsorship of some sort.

JAR ATPL via CPL/MEP/IR/MCC in both self-funded Modular and Integrated variants will most likely continue.

I can therefore see no reason to get up in arms about MPL. It is simply a new choice that will be available. If it turns out that airlines will assist in any way at all with the cost, then some people will choose to train this way, but the rest can continue under currently available training methods.

From an adequacy of training or safety point of view, many people have valid concerns and reasons to get up in arms over MPL. Discussing these points is quite useful and needful, but let's drop the Europe vs. other parts of the world hyperbole as MPL is neither an alien invasion of JAR nor overseas protectionism.

ASIAN FROG
11th Aug 2006, 14:02
In SE Asia, the JAR licences are attractive and are reference of quality. But today, I see some american travellers visiting the schools and some investors (investors in general with a limited knowledge of professional aviation), in order to promote a "MPL" which is a source of profit. Sure, it is not directly affecting Europe, but indirectly yes, as the confusion is introduced about quality, modernism. More,numerous young Flight Intructors with a JAR licence are currently finding a job in the region.
On the Ground Studies side, as the local proposal of MPL is based on the FAA licence + the Ground training of the initial type rating, most of the theoretical knowledge is trashed compared to a syllabus style CAP 509 (UK-CAA International).( I do not compare with the JAR!!!)
On the flying side, I am a defender of simulator in the training up to a certain extent, I fight an excess. It is clear that experiences of real flights must be gained, particularly because we are human being and when we are in a simulator, our subconscient knows that the risks are nil which is not the case when the young cadet is flying in navigation in a Monsoon environment , with the fear to be lost and fuel to manage. ( Some other circumstances could have been choosen as example).
Real surpassing of the stress has to be implemented, in order the decision making is not influenced by personnality, real flying is really important. Yes, the simulator is a wonderful tool for Instrument training, yes some dangerous situations can be depicted without any risk, but this is the problem...the risk is nil and will the behavior of the young pilot be the same in an aggressive situation? Everybody knows "the quietness of the old soldiers compared to the new recruits tension".
In summary, an equilibrium is necessary between flying and simulation and you cannot limit your view to Europe only... a lot of Europeans are concerned by what happens overseas. It is important that the European standards are promoted worldwide, it is employment for a lot of people.
Thank You.

biggles84
22nd Sep 2006, 15:35
Hi everyone.

I'm in my third year at uni studying BA (Hons) Air Transport With Pilot Training at BCUC. The time has come to begin my dissertation. I'm trying to find a good area to foccus my research on, i was gonna look at the new MPL or commercial pilot training in general. What do pilots think of the new MPL course? Good? Bad? A way forward in commerical pilot training? I'm still researching the whole thing at the moment, would appreciate any comments and suggestions on the topic, or any other areas suitable for a level three project.

Cheers.

Fat Clemenza
28th Sep 2006, 08:04
A new ICAO initiative aims at nothing less than a complete overhaul in the way in which commercial air transport pilots are trained and licensed.

By Oliver Sutton, Air Transport World, October 2005, p.51 (https://www.atwonline.com/store/stores/1/ATW_Back_Issue_-_October_2005_P152C19.cfm)

http://www.atwonline.com/channels/training/article.html?articleID=1428

Tiller Torquer
2nd Oct 2006, 16:11
Hi All

Perhaps it will be useful to summarise where we seem to be with this issue so far.

The fundamental premise behind the licence is that the traditional FATPL + Type rating route to the right seat of an airliner is not as focussed on that task as it could be because it has to equip the licence holder to fly single crew, public transport, in command. The MPL premise is that if all the training from day one is aimed at producing an effective co-pilot then the training needs to have the 'footprint' necessary for that task - unsurprisingly, it turns out that it should be shorter and cheaper to train up for the MPL (which of course includes the type rating) than to do the FATPL+Type rating. The savings come largely from the use of appropriate simulators versus multi-engined aircraft.

A quick analysis of the MPL syllabus shows that it follows in a different way the learning associated with PPL, Night, Basic Aeros, IMC, CPL+I/R, JOC, MCC, Type Rating. The MPL puts the emphasis during training in a different place - Human-Factors, Multi-Crew Threat & Error Management and confident competence in a multi-crew airline style environment.

The licence is not particularly suited to any one group of pilots on either cultural or regional grounds. However, given that around 4000 new pilots per year will be coming from Asia and the Pacific Rim, it is easy to see that structuring pilot training from beginning to the airline under one umbrella (so continuity of training culture etc) has significant advantages and economy of scale. I don't mean to be critical but one or two of the earlier comments seem to suggest that there is something inferior in the MPL. I can see why different might feel inferior, but I'd prefer simply to see it as just different and in fact better at producing an effective co-pilot as soon as possible.

National regulators have already decided how to identify the convertibility of ICAO v EASA MPL licences to the 'classic licences' so although the mud has still to settle, no-one should feel that they have to make a career limiting choice in enrolling on either a classic course or an MPL course.

None of this would be fun without addressing the piloting skills implicit in both licences. My feel for this is that they are neither better nor worse, just different. And each can become the other if they so desire. In case that doesn't sound controversial enough; my experience of FATPL cadets is that they come to the airline with very low team/crm/situational skills that time in the multi-crew environment puts right. My expectation is that MPL cadets will come with good team/crm/sa skills and take some time to get used to flying in real clouds, real turbulence and real disorientation - they will always however have the Senior Member present. In the case where Sir has gone for his physiological relief and FATPL or MPL are alone and (hopefully not all at once!) the aircraft depressurises, the fire bell rings, the TCAS RA, the engine failure at high gross weight with small margins etc.....will either fare better? Answers on a postcard. I expect it will probably be the person with the best self-discipline (is current in recall drills/SOPs and has thought about what to do when bad stuff happens other than during the conversion course).

So, as someone who has been involved in planning to deliver MPL training within the foreseeable future, I am optimistic that it will be a way of producing good quality airline pilots at a cost both the individual and the airline will be willing to pay. Perhaps this debate will have teeth when the first group of MPL trainees have a year in the right seat under their belts and then again when that first group go on their command courses.

Isn't great that after all these years we continue to try stuff that pushes boundaries and comfort zones...

TT

D'vay
19th Oct 2006, 00:55
What's the point of having 737 stamped in your (somewhat empty) logbook after 6 weeks from scratch when it won't allow you to take a tiger moth out, or to fly recreationally with yourfriends and family?

Wanting to become an airline pilot is great, but please don't rip the soul out of aviation whilst trying to get there. Flying should be done for passion and not merely for status. I've met too many of Mummy's little pilots recently who are financially able to train at a faster pace than others but frankly couldn't give two ****s about flying. These people are the sort who can't wait for the MCPL to become the norm. Which it must not!

Cavallier
19th Oct 2006, 02:39
Nice one D ' vay I could not have said it better. :D I started flying first and foremost because it was a passion of mine, so being paid to do it is just an added bonus! My theory is if the system aint broke then dont fix it!


The Cav:cool:

scroggs
19th Oct 2006, 09:11
What's the point of having 737 stamped in your (somewhat empty) logbook after 6 weeks from scratch when it won't allow you to take a tiger moth out, or to fly recreationally with yourfriends and family?The point - and the relevance to this forum - is that it is about training to fly airliners for a living, not about jolly days out in little planes showing Mummy what fun it all is.

Don't get me wrong, there's still room for a passion for flying, but never forget that this is a profession, not a hobby. The licencing and training procedures are not there for your enjoyment, they are there to prepare people to do a job of work; nothing more nor less. By all means go and fly for fun, and learn appropriately. This forum is not about that process.

Scroggs

Left Wing
19th Oct 2006, 09:27
Phased trials have begun in China and Australia with flt schools and TRTOs offering the MPL to partner airlines based on the success of this trial run the complete ICAO MPL will be submitted for approvals.

ASIAN FROG
19th Oct 2006, 09:58
Yes some experiments are under preparation in SE Asia and clearly the target seems to be the Chinese Market.
1 To my knowledge ICAO will introduce the MPL the 23 November. So nobody is officially training on the MPL at the present time but certainly ready to do itin few weeks
2. An interesting position is IFALPA one on the topic. It must be read by everybody.
3. It appears that if the MPL is done correctly it will be more expansive than the traditional training.
4. Already two issues are surfacing:
- The lack of exposition to Communications in a real environment and this is an important point as we know a significative amount of accidents is due to misunderstanding Ground- AIR or AIR-AIR. The simulator training cannot provides such an exposure with a real time situation
- stress and real situation management; if the situation is not real, our subconscient knows it. we are not so sensitive to stress in a simulator as we can be in an aircraft, no randow event can suddenly affect our well being. ... lack of maturation is the consequence
5. The MCL (or MPL) will be enforced differently depending on the countries. Most of countries are serious about that, but unfortunately, from time to time, the local administration is not sufficiently strong to ensure the MPL will be correctly implemented. IFALPA has underlined those aspects.
6. I know some Major European Airlines are following very closely this issue and that a task Force is implemted in order to survey what is happening. Some countries are very reserved on this new licence,....
To be followed

Based
19th Oct 2006, 10:43
but I can't see it happening yet in Europe, give it five years!

I wouldn't be so sure about that!

What's the point of having 737 stamped in your (somewhat empty) logbook after 6 weeks from scratch when it won't allow you to take a tiger moth out, or to fly recreationally with yourfriends and family?

This may make you sick, but surely you have to accept that there may be people out there who have no real interest in flying a tiger moth but feel very passionate about flying a jet.

Also, would you not accept the argument that you should be able to obtain a licence for whatever category you wish? Is it wrong that a person can learn to drive a lorry without having to hold a licence to drive a car first? Anyway obtaining a PPL would hardly be a taxing task should you wish to flying recreationally as well.

My theory is if the system aint broke then dont fix it!

I can think of numerous points that would help support an argument that the system is broke, or somewhat flawed and inefficient at the very least.

ASIAN FROG
19th Oct 2006, 12:21
I think we are missing an opportunity:
Not everything is bad in the MPL:
- Threat Error Management, we should study and introduce it in the Standard Training
- More simulator and less Cross country, but not to the MPL extent
In the current MPL version, I personnally think it is too much imbalanced, but we should have modified the basic CPL/IR training taking into account some new ideas. In its current version., with the obvious push of the FFS manufacturer...the MPL seems too much mercantile to be honest.

snuble
25th Oct 2006, 21:57
A new lisence witch is to be implementet from this winter.

Basicly you follow a integratet course with standard ATPL to start with, then specalize in multipilot operations, ending up with a MPL. (No CPL or MEIR, just MPL with multipilot IR.)

240h TT when finished, including a typerating.

This is something most airliners has aked for for a long time, but the big question is: Are any airliners ready for it? Is this lisence as welcomed as they say considering all the conservative people in the buisiness???



If anyone has any insight information it would be much appreciated!


regards
snuble


(I don't want to start the neverending debate about selffunded typeratings. This has nothing to do with that part.)

I could'n find any info on mpl with the search function..

mcgoo
25th Oct 2006, 22:05
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=209230

snuble
26th Oct 2006, 06:47
mpl - mcl...

that explains it. thank you

scroggs
26th Oct 2006, 08:52
No, it doesn't. What explains it is that the search engine within the UBB software will not search for words or acronyms of three letters or less. Had you searched for 'multi' you would have found this thread - and realised that it had been a topic of conversation for some time. Had you opened your search to the whole site (What?! There are other forums here???), you might also have come across this (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=244114) topic, where the South Africans (who appear to feel that they invented aviation!) are agonising over the same licence - even though there are no proposals to adopt it in South Africa:rolleyes: :hmm: .

Scroggs

ZFT
26th Oct 2006, 10:22
with the obvious push of the FFS manufacturer...
Could you expand upon this as I've heard both the major manufacturers (Thales & CAE) state they still don't know what an MPL type simulator is. Certainly the regulators haven't defined it.

ASIAN FROG
26th Oct 2006, 22:57
CAE is very active in the SE Asia, lobbying with SIA and negotiating with Langkawi. They have already approached the Malaysian DCA on the MPL. Mektronic is present in Beijing. Alteon/ Jeppesen is also turning around

Left Wing
27th Oct 2006, 07:48
Seattle, Washington, October 24, 2006 – In preparation for Alteon Training’s Multi-Crew Pilot License (MPL) beta test in Australia, four instructors, members of the Airline Academy of Australia, complete their training at the Galvin Flying School at Boeing Field. Once back in Australia, the four will begin training the first cadets in Alteon’s MPL beta test program in Brisbane. Developed by ICAO, MPL was designed to develop-airline qualified pilots more efficiently and effectively than traditional methods. The four pilots (from right to left are: Peter Shire, Paul Toomey, Peter Griffiths and James Perry.

Algy
2nd Nov 2006, 07:34
Boeing/Alteon and ICAO don't think so. (http://tinyurl.com/yllgz3)

So what is it? Just a 'rite of passage' or does it actually have practical significance?

Wee Weasley Welshman
2nd Nov 2006, 07:53
A first solo is better achieved in a Cessna 152 than it is in a Boeing or Airbus with a few hundred people strapped to it. Pilot incaps do happen. I can't see the regulators every allowing a training scheme that didn't have a first solo.

Cheers

WWW

Algy
2nd Nov 2006, 07:56
Maybe, but I'm not sure the Indian or Chinese authorities share your affection for single pistons.

Wee Jumbo
20th Nov 2006, 13:27
G'day!

I agree with a few of the earlier posts. For example seems more like a licence geared towards jet cadets rather than your mondular self funded wannabee. Because, if the MPL was the only course on offer, there would be a lot less pilots graduating every year. The reason being, most wannabees cannot afford an integrated course, and I struggle to think how they would develop a modular MPL!?!

Question I have is Joe Bloggs with his MPL and 2000 hours jet more qualified than myself wih a regular ATPL and 2000 jet? What I mean is during an interview when it comes down to the crunch of who is best, is Joe Bloggs going to be picked for having the MPL?

Before I get slated for waking up this post again, there were a few posts on MPL developments occuring towards the end of november, and was wandering if any more developments have occurred.

WJ

ken0311
23rd May 2007, 13:26
Hi guys! :)

Do you know if there are any schools in the US that offer this type of course? Or is it too early to ask? Since this a new thing.

As quoted from this website:

http://www.atwonline.com/channels/safetySecurity/article.html?articleID=1428

"The MPL would see trainees moving into the right seat of high-performance jet transports with just 240 hr. of instruction. Of this, only between 60 and 120 hr. might actually be in the air and the student would have performed just 12 takeoffs and landings in the type he or she is to fly. The MPL is designed to bypass the training for the current commercial pilot certificate with instrument rating and let the trainee head directly for the "frozen" airline transport pilot license."

This sounds very interesting. Some may see it as a short cut others may see it as an opportunity to fly the big jets as soon as one can.

What do you guys think?

BEagle
23rd May 2007, 14:08
It's an utter crock!

The minimum should be to do the current CPL and MEP Class Ratings in real aircraft; although it is perhaps fair enough for the rest of the MPL course to be flown in simulators until the base check.

Several airline captains have already stated that MPL holding co-pilots on their flight decks will never be permitted to handle the aircraft during take-off and landing.

NH2390
23rd May 2007, 14:45
Learn to be a real pilot.

snuble
23rd May 2007, 15:11
Go for it!

If you got proper motivation and self discipline that is. Because it requires a lot from you. I find the pressure during the last stages higher than doing the ATPL exams.

In the end, we'll just have to prove the old conservatives wrong:ok:

BlueRobin
23rd May 2007, 15:31
I thought the MPL was a European thing and that the standards, course, syallbus etc have not even been finalised yet? :confused:

ken0311
23rd May 2007, 15:36
i know i've already have a PPL and was going to go do my CPL/IR Frozen ATPL course. just wanted to know what the community and major airlines think about this. it's an easy way out i know...but its also quite tempting....:O

potkettleblack
23rd May 2007, 15:41
Bear in mind that it is difficult to get a balanced reply here.

The MPL probably represents one of the greatest threats to the UK flight training industry. Poor old little snoring flying club is already struggling to get people through the doors with their current prices when it is so much cheaper to head to the US or further abroad and get what it says on the tin in a fraction of the time. Then along comes the MPL which will take away a lot of their target market. They will be left with the guys/gals who don't want to go down the commercial route, your working types that do an hour here and an hour there and take a good year or two to get the PPL. Typically they will drift away after a while as work and family commitments dictate. More so if we hit a correction in the economy.

BlueRobin
23rd May 2007, 18:36
Ken, bureaucratic wheels turn very slowly. How long are you prepared to wait?