MPL timing (merged)

[Grass strip basher]

Did a search but couldn't find any info so apologies if this has been discussed before.

Does anybody know what the proposed timing is regarding the introduction of the new MPL license??

It doesn't seem to be discussed too much on pprune but couldn't it represent a fundamental shift in the route to the RHS for many folks out there?

Are we talking 1-2 years, 3-5 years or +5 years before this scheme is meant to be introduced?

Also if the airlines end up preferring this route where does it leave the smaller commerical training schools with limited access to full flight simulators?

Would be a pain to go down the modular route, splash out a load of cash buzzing a SEP and then a light twin around only to then have a brand spanking new MPL licence come out that is flavour of the month with the airlines leaving us low hour "old fATPLs" even further down the pecking order!

[Port Strobe]

GSB, not sure of too many of the details and sure they've been discussed here before, but I do know MPL is coming into play this year, June I believe but stand open to correction. Predicament you mention is worthy of consideration but will probably lead to another modular/integrated type argument so I'll say no more on subject just now. Maybe try EASA website for info, I do believe they're overseeing the licence hence they should have some. If they don't who else does?!

[BEagle]

Even some of the airlines are beginning to get cold feet now that they've realised how much this Microsoft Pilot Licence training would cost.....

For once the French are right - the whole thing is an utter crock. Originally proposed by Lufthansa, which may explain some of the French attitude.

VFR CPL training with MEP Class Rating should be the absolute minimum level of stick-and-rudder skill training - then do all the IR and multi crew stuff in simulators various.

[Flopsie]

It was discussed at some length at:

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=111060&highlight=multi+crew+pilot+licence

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=209230&highlight=multi+crew+pilot+licence

The MPL WILL come later this year but will probably only be sponsored by a few of the major carriers on an experimental basis. Lufthansa will be offering the course during the 3rd Q of this year.

[RVR800]

Sep 2005 – JAA starts draft changes to JAR-FCL 1
Oct 2005 - Comments from Contracting States to ICAO
Nov 2005? – JAA completes draft changes to JAR-FCL 1
Jan 2006 ? - JAA goes out to NPA
June 2006? – JAA adoption
Nov 2006 - ICAO effective date
Sep 2007? - First MPLs issued


At least the pilots on the MPL will not need another wedge of cash after qualifying like the fATPL to get them airline qualified........although they wont be able to take granny to Blackpool IFR in the Seneca!

[JustAnotherVictim]

Finding all this MPL lark very confusing!! As someone who is considering starting CPL/IR training in the next few months I am wondering what the implications are. Is the CPL/IR still going to be valid after graduating from an integrated course in say 18 months time, or is it worthwhile postponing training until this licence comes into force?
And I thought it was all confusing BEFORE I'd even heard of MPL.....:confused:

[BillieBob]

The MPL wil never be a replacement for the conventional route to an ATPL, via CPL/IR. It is likely that the MPL route will be at least as expensive as a modular ATPL and will enable you only to sit in the RHS of a specific multi-pilot aeroplane type (e.g. if you do the MPL on a 737 it will not be valid on any other type or class of aeroplane without considerable extra training).

It is notable that enthusiasm for the MPL among the airlines (except KLM, who started it all) has waned considerably over the last two years and it now looks as if few will take it up. This is significant as entrants to a MPL course must be 'sponsored' by an airline. (In this case 'sponsored' does not imply that the airline will make any financial commitment or guarantee of employment).

[Malcolm G O Payne]

May I suggest a look at www.ainonline.com and click on
Search Archives. Enter Multi-crew Pilot Licence in the box and you will be referred to the November 2004 issue. Right at the bottom of the contents archived for that issue is an entry "ICAO mulls over multi-crew pilot licence". Click
on that and you will see an article on the subject that I wrote for that issue. It may help to clarify the proposal as it was just over a year ago.

[BEagle]

From today's 'Times':

Halving of new pilots' flying time raises fears over safety

By Ben Webster, Transport Correspondent



THE minimum number of flying hours for trainee commercial pilots is to be halved under new rules that are being rushed through despite protests that the changes will be unsafe.
Newly qualified pilots are to be allowed to take control of airliners after only 70 hours’ flying experience. Under the present rules, pilots must accumulate at least 145 flying hours before being entrusted with carrying passengers.



The new training scheme, due to be introduced by the end of the year, places far more emphasis on flying in simulators. The time that trainees spend in simulators will almost double, from 90 to 170 hours.

The changes are being supported by the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), which has come under pressure from Lufthansa, the German airline, to reform pilot licensing. Lufthansa has invested heavily in new simulators and hopes to rent them to pilot training organisations throughout Europe.

But the British Air Line Pilots’ Association argues that a simulator is no substitute for real flying experience. Martin Alder, the head of the association’s safety group and an airline captain with 30 years’ experience, said: “Simulators may be amazingly realistic but you always know you will be going home at the end of the day. There is no substitute for the unpredictability of real flying.

“It is vital for building confidence for dealing with difficult situations.”

Although newly qualified pilots will be accompanied by captains with several years’ experience, there may be occasions when they have to fly the plane alone. Mr Alder said there had been several previous incidents in which a co-pilot’s flying skills had saved hundreds of lives.

A British Airways jumbo jet came within four seconds of plunging into an irrecoverable nosedive in December 2000 after a deranged Kenyan student entered the cockpit and grabbed the controls. As the captain grappled with the intruder, the co-pilot used skills that he had learnt while flying RAF Tornados to bring the aircraft back under control. “His flying skills were key to the recovery and we must preserve similar skills in future pilots,” Mr Alder said.

The changes were partly being pushed through for commercial reasons, he added. There is a growing shortage of pilots in Europe and airlines are keen to streamline the training process.

The pilots’ association has appealed to ICAO and Europe’s Joint Aviation Authorities to hold trials before introducing the licence. “We need to assess the results of trials before exposing the public to this,” Mr Alder said.

Graham Austin, the chief executive of Cabair, one of Britain’s biggest pilot training companies, said that the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) had been alerted to the dangers but had failed to act. “The CAA has asked for advice on the new licence but has ignored the replies. By supporting it, the CAA is responding to the demands of the industry at the risk of undermining pilot skills.”

Mr Austin acknowledged that modern airliners had become so automated that pilots spent most of their time monitoring systems rather than handling the controls. But he added: “Flying skills might not be required every day but there will be occasions when they are needed.”

A spokesman for the CAA said that it was “supportive of the principle” of reforming pilot training. Trainee pilots now spent most of their time flying light aircraft. “After 20 hours they are just pootling about from place to place not necessarily learning a lot. Flying a light aircraft is nothing like flying an airliner.

“The simulator allows them to practice extreme situations like engine failures and severe turbulence.”

[scroggs]

There is a lot in the MPL syllabus that needs to be changed or refined. However, the recognition that the current CPL syllabus is inadequate is long overdue. As the CAA spokesman said, “After 20 hours they are just pootling about from place to place not necessarily learning a lot." is uncomfortably close to the truth.

Scroggs

[JohnnyRocket]

The pilots union, BALPA, is calling for a review of plans to cut the number of flying hours completed by trainee commercial pilots. Under new rules recruits will be able to take control of airliners after 70 hours of real flying experience, at the moment that stands at 145 hours. The Civil Aviation Authority says the number of simulator hours will almost double from 90 to 170 hours.

[RVR800]

You could equally say 'Potential Co-Pilots leave major training schools
£70,000 lighter with a frozen 'airline' pilots licence unable to fly unless
someone pays £Loads more to make the pilots transition from GA.....'

[potkettleblack]

Also discussed here as well

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=210975

General consensus is that it won't be a runner as the French are against it and the airlines are starting to wake up to the fact that it could end up costing them loads of money notwithstanding the shortage of available sim time at the moment.

[Alex Whittingham]

Its not surprising that Cabair don't like the MPL, they are very poorly placed to deliver it. The MPL will be driven by the TRTOs who have the simulators, not the likes of Cabair and OAT. I think you can expect a fair bit of spin and bluster.

Consider the MPL this way. Which has more value, 10 hours in a B737 sim or 10 hours boring holes in the Florida sky in a C152?

[stue]

So, hang on. Some one can be sitting in the RHS of a 737, A320 etc landing at Heathrow but yet cant fly a C150at their local airfield? Seems a bit daft to me? I havent heard much about the "MPL" but surly you should learn to crawl befor you can walk? :confused:

[RVR800]

Sep 2005 – JAA starts draft changes to JAR-FCL 1
Oct 2005 - Comments from Contracting States to ICAO
Nov 2005? – JAA completes draft changes to JAR-FCL 1
Jan 2006 ? - JAA goes out to NPA
June 2006? – JAA adoption
Nov 2006 - ICAO effective date
Sep 2007? - First MPLs issued

[RVR800]

AT least when you finish the course you WILL be able to fly an AIRLINER

That is not so of the frozen 'AIRLINE' pilots Licence which is actally a light aircraft licence requiring more finance and time to get thet elusive first job - although you wont get the light aircraft IR as part of the MPL anymore you will be able to fly a C150 etc

[Alex Whittingham]

Ah, but you need to stop and think about it for a bit. The argument is: Why teach a guy to fly asymmetric in a Seneca when he's never going to do it? Why teach him the details of VPP piston engine operation when he's never going to fly an Arrow? If you design a syllabus to match the skill sets required by an Airbus FO you are not also going to match the skill set required of a Seneca charter pilot. Why not accept you can be licensed for one but not the other?

[stue]

I understand what you mean RVR and Alex, but it still just seems abit daft. Surly the real seat of your pants flying is tought at c150 level and thats when the basics are drilled into you. And you build on thoes skills right the way up to line training. I understand that a 747 captin doesnt need to be able to fly a c150 but the two are still flying at the end of the day. I just whould have thought that it would make sence to start at the bottom, work your way up the ladder, building on hours, experience, training with different people and in general getting a decent grasp of the aviation world before you are able to fly a 737 etc.

Like i say, i understand where you are both coming from but its abit like saying to a HGV driver that the can drive his 40t truck but not his mini, the two are still driving, it just doesnt make sence?

Im not trying to have an argument or anything, just trying to understand it from both sides, thats all!:)

[BillieBob]

...although you wont get the light aircraft IR as part of the MPL anymore you will be able to fly a C150 etc Not quite - it will be a multi-pilot licence, not valid on single-pilot aeroplanes. ICAO has not yet decided whether the SPA flying in the first phase will meet the minimum requirements for issue of a PPL.

[cparker]

stue and Alex your right.

Scroggs mentioned that he feels that the MPL needs alot of changes and modifications. This is also true. The total removal of all SE and ME VFR/IFR flying is not such a great idea. Burning holes in the sky when you could be doing this in a A320 or B737 sim highlights this issue. So perhaps instead why not remove most of the SE flying but leave the fundamental basics that we all need - this also gives the novice a bit of "pilot" perspective that will, together with good quality consistant sim training hopefully make a better pilot.

[Grass strip basher]

Alex based on your understanding of the info available to date is this likely to mean that those going down the MPL route will not have to sit the current 14 ATPL exams but instead simply learn the specifics related to the type they will fly (e.g. A320, 737 etc)?

[Send Clowns]

Errrmmmm ... RVR I could have had a couple of nice type ratings and still had change from £70,000. Yet I can also do the fun job I am doing now, carting car parts, people parts and people around nearby Europe. So where exactly is the advantage of an MPL?

[Flopsie]

I can't remember which document I copied this quote from a couple of months ago, but it highlights the principal concept of the MPL and probably answers some of the questions on this post :-

"In relation to the MPL, Richard said that this proposed new licence is a result
of an identified demand from the airline sector. It is practiced in 2 or more
ICAO States today and is focussed on the ab initio airline pilot. Richard
reaffirmed that if the Panel’s recommendation was accepted, no State would
be non-compliant if this new pilot licence was not adopted. In broad principle,
the MPL would involve competency based training and assessment with a
greater emphasis on flight simulation training devices. Training would be
based in a multi crew environment and include awareness training in areas
such as Human Factors (CRM) and threat & error management (TEM). The
medical standards would be the same as existing licences and the MPL would
only apply to aeroplanes at this stage.

4.6 The proposed primary deliverables for MPL would include new standards in
ICAO Annex 1 and a new Appendix specifying training, assessment,
competency units and flight simulation training devices. It would involve the
development of a Procedures for Air Navigation Services – Training Document
(PANS-TRG). There would also be a requirement for bridging training to
single pilots; instructor and examiner requirements; and the need for
guidelines to ensure smooth implementation. For the approval of the new
MPL training programmes, ATO’s would need to demonstrate that the training
provides at least the same level of competency in multi-crew operations equal
to the CPL, instrument rating and the type rating. Supporting guidance
(Flight Crew Licensing Standards Sub-Committee
Draft Meeting Notes – 3 March 2005)
material would be provided in the Manual on Approval of Flight Training
Organizations. The new MPL licence would be a multi-crew pilot licence, with
age, knowledge, skill and medical fitness requirements. Privileges would be
PPL, IR, Co-pilot and single pilot bridging requirements involving 70h PIC/10h
+ PICUS. The aeroplane category rating would involve 240 hours of actual
and simulated flight as PF and PNF.

4.7 Richard said that proposed amendments to the PANS-TRG document included
the provision of guidance on competency based training and assessment.
Specific to the MPL, this includes a training schedule & syllabus structure;
competency units and competency elements; performance criteria; instructor
& examiner qualifications; and implementation guidelines.

4.8 Richard said that proposed amendments to Chapter 3 – Flight engineer and
flight navigator licences include a suggestion to retain in Annex 1 provisions
for the flight navigator licence, based on survey of State’s practices. Further,
a Class 2 medical assessment for holders of the flight engineer and flight
navigator licences.

4.9 Richard said that in relation to Chapter 5 – Specifications for personnel
licences – there is a recommendation that the colour requirement for the
licence be removed. There is also a requirement ensuring that other States
are able to determine licence privileges and the validity of ratings.

4.10 In relation to Annex 6, Richard said there are recommended amendments to
recent experience requirements of Part I and Part III, Section II, to allow
consideration for cross crew qualification on different types and variants
within a type, of aircraft.
"

[Alex Whittingham]

There is no syllabus set for MPL theoretical knowledge. In theory an Authority could approve an MPL designed by a TRTO/FTO to its own specification, and allow the TRTO to design and implement its own exams. It represents quite an extraordinary set of possibilities, but it remains to be seen whether or not the JAA or EASA will grasp the nettle.

[BEagle]

Ironic, when discussion about this lunatic Microsoft Pilot Licence is coming to the attention of the media, the following from my local rag, the Oxford Mail:

'40 Years Ago today:

Oxford Air Training School at Oxford Airport, Kidlington, has won a £1m contract to train 300 BOAC and BEA pilots over the next five years.'

The days before the accursed airline bean counters pulled out of proper airline pilot training, I guess.

I remain firmly of the opinion that the MPL is a total and utter crock as it stands right now. There are ways to make it acceptable - just - but the pressure from Lufthansa and its commercial aspirations towards selling simulator time will be hard to fight off.

[Flashdance9]

As the captain grappled with the intruder, the co-pilot used skills that he had learnt while flying RAF Tornados to bring the aircraft back under control. “His flying skills were key to the recovery and we must preserve similar skills in future pilots,” Mr Alder said.

What students need to learn is recovery from a spin or unusual attitudes. Dont think loads more hours on simulators are going to help! Why dont airlines send studes through BFJT at Linton??

[scroggs]

BEags, instead of just ranting about 'Microsoft Pilot's Licences', it would be rather more helpful to the discussion if you would expand on your objections to the MPL, and give some constructive suggestions for its improvement. Or would that be a waste of your valuable time and vast airline experience? ;) :E

Scroggs

[BEagle]

I have already made my views known officially to those who matter; largely they represent those stated to have been put forward by BALPA. I repeat them on PPRuNe to reach a wider audience.

I have been asked to attend (at my own expense) a EASA-FCL Working Group next week which 'should enhance all of our understanding about the implementation process for the MPL and EASA licensing'.

I do not view this opportunity as a waste of my time and expereince, despite Scroggs' belittling comments. The MPL could build upon, but not replace, sound levels of core skills involved in aircraft piloting.

To achieve this:

1. MPL candidates must first pass independent aptitude selection.

2. Training should follow the traditional 150 hour Integrated CPL course except that this should also include the MEP Class Rating within these 150 hours.

3. Subsequent multi-pilot instrument flying training should be completed in appropriate levels of flight simulator.

4. Final Type Rating training should be as currently proposed for the MPL.

[scroggs]

I'm not belittling you, BEagle, and I am well aware of your input into such things as the Service pilots' exemptions for civilian licences, which makes it doubly frustrating that so many of your posts on the subject (in this forum at least) have been little more than thinly-disguised rants. I know you have thought about the subject and have some well-found views about how it should be tackled; it shouldn't have taken my little dig to get you to reveal what those thoughts are! Remember this isn't Military Aircrew, the banter quotient is considerably lower.

Scroggs

[yeoman]

The Times, Yesterday.

Unfortuneatley I can't get the link to work. The gist: A plan is afoot to reduce the hours requirement for a "Commercial Licence" to 70. This will allow new pilots "To take control of passenger jets".

A bad thing says some chap from flight training school Cabair, "more time spent in simulators" (doubled from 90 to 180 I think) " and less time pootling about in little aeroplanes not learning very much", the opinion of The Man From The CAA.

Anyone get the link up?:ok:

[Say again s l o w l y]

The question "What relevance is bouncing around assymetric in a seneca?"
Well actually it does have some relevance. If you learn any skill in flying in an underpowered, limited performance machine, then you tend to have to learn the correct techniques, as the a/c won't perform unless YOU get it right.

Losing an engine on something like a 737 when at light weights, low density alts and low temperatures is something of a non-event as you have plenty of power and as long as you don't over control it, is more of a pain than a life threatening situation.
BUT if you find yourself losing an engine whilst heavy AND hot and high, then the lessons learnt years past in your little twin may suddenly come in useful.

It always amazes me how in aviation we allow people to try and run before they can walk. I've met and flown with a large numbers of pilots who have come straight out of school into the RHS of jets and apart from the odd exception for the first 500Hrs they don't know their a*se fro their elbow. I certainly didn't either.

SO how is the MPL going to help? It can't, since we will almost have "virtual" pilots who haven't experienced what flying is all about. I don't care what the airlines may say, a sim can never replicate what it's like in the air, since suddenly realising there is no big STOP button if it all goes to poop will have an effect on many.

There's no reset button in real life. Scaring yourself in light aircraft is a fundamental part your training, rather than treating real life like a game. It's all in the mind set, not just the stick and rudder skills.

[yeoman]

Thanks for the forward to here BEagle. OOps!

8 years ago I flew the jet for the first time having "amassed" 1800 hours instructing. Yes, a lot of it was "drilling holes in the sky" and "pootling about" but there was a lot of learning being done as well. IMHO, there is little substitute for getting yourself in a fix and getting out again, frightening yourself is another way of putting it. I was still stunned by the transition to jet flying. That does not make me a better candidate, just better equipped to deal with the huge changes required for flying jets.

I have no doubt that a good number of candidates reach a good standard on various modular courses and arrive at an airline with 145 odd hours. However, and please correct me if I'm wrong, isn't a lot (all?) of that 145 hours spent under very close supervision with minimal decision making? Once at an airline, the simulator emphasis is on training to fly that type rather than building experience. I would suggest that the training leap is too big to train on type and polish up skills previously gained through experience. Any experience.

I am involved in Initial Type Training and naturally we see that guys and gals arriving from another jet operator are quicker off the mark than the guys who arrive with minimum hours and no jet experience. That is to be expected. What is a concern to me is that the low hours guys have little experience to fall back on when it goes wriggly. I can't define it but there is something in having been out and about beyond the stictly controlled confines of basic training. Developed airmanship? I don't know. Sadly, my concerns are shared by Line Captains. The technical and basic poling skills are there, the judgement and high speed thought are not.

IMHO the "pootling about" comment is fatuous, the learning aspect tenouos and Cabairs opposition cash driven.:eek:

[MungoP]

A ludicrous and frightening concept...
even now there are cockpits lined with one very experienced Captain plus what amounts to a bag carrier...fine when all the bells and whistles work but on a filthy night when they don't and you're working Cairo ATC.. :(
Maybe if a system of 2nd officer training similar to that operated by Cathay etc was introduced it could be an excellent thing...and certainly better than counting hours getting dizzy around a club circuit watching someone ham it up in a 152 on sunny days...

[Flopsie]

but the pressure from Lufthansa and its commercial aspirations towards selling simulator time will be hard to fight off.
Your statement is, to quote your own phrase, "a total and utter crock" - your commercial grasp of the MPL is somewhat lacking my friend. No pressure has been put on any authorities from LH to sell sim time - LH, among others, have identified the need for this type of licence and are presently preparing for it's implementation this year. You can rant and rave as much as you like but believe me, you will see the MPL approved this year.

[dboy]

2 questions,

Will in the future my cpl /ir/me useless??
Will i be able to find a job without this MPL??

chrs

[wbryce]

There is a lot in the MPL syllabus that needs to be changed or refined. However, the recognition that the current CPL syllabus is inadequate is long overdue. As the CAA spokesman said, is uncomfortably close to the truth.
Scroggs


I disagree! The phase inbetween PPL and CPL is an area where experience is learned! I have learned lots during hour building (currently doing IMC, night rating, aerobatics aswell as 300 plus nautical mile journeys)! What is wrong with the system? and in your opinion what would be constructive to improve the system?

Perhaps If I done 100hours in america flying around in one area or constantly flying around in the local LFA for 100 hours then It would be a waste of time and money with nothing gained. The statement as a whole is one large generalisation. Why fix an already ok system?

Designer babies...now designer airline pilots! :D

[Tartan Giant]

I have already made my views known officially to those who matter; largely they represent those stated to have been put forward by BALPA. I repeat them on PPRuNe to reach a wider audience.
I have been asked to attend (at my own expense) a EASA-FCL Working Group next week which 'should enhance all of our understanding about the implementation process for the MPL and EASA licensing'.
I do not view this opportunity as a waste of my time and expereince, despite Scroggs' belittling comments. The MPL could build upon, but not replace, sound levels of core skills involved in aircraft piloting.
To achieve this:
1. MPL candidates must first pass independent aptitude selection.
2. Training should follow the traditional 150 hour Integrated CPL course except that this should also include the MEP Class Rating within these 150 hours.
3. Subsequent multi-pilot instrument flying training should be completed in appropriate levels of flight simulator.
4. Final Type Rating training should be as currently proposed for the MPL.

I agree with the BEagle as above, and also his previous about the ICAO idea:( being a load of crock!

Have a look at the objections here too:
http://www.eurocockpit.be/media/ECA_IFALPA_ICAO_FCLTP_PP_05_2212_F.pdf

I am also dismayed at the CAA being lame and ineffectual on the subject as outlined by the Cabair boss:
Graham Austin, the chief executive of Cabair, one of Britain’s biggest pilot training companies, said that the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) had been alerted to the dangers but had failed to act. “The CAA has asked for advice on the new licence but has ignored the replies. By supporting it, the CAA is responding to the demands of the industry at the risk of undermining pilot skills.”

I hope 'industry' tells ICAO where to stick it.

TG

[scroggs]

I disagree! The phase inbetween PPL and CPL is an area where experience is learned! I have learned lots during hour building (currently doing IMC, night rating, aerobatics aswell as 300 plus nautical mile journeys)! What is wrong with the system? and in your opinion what would be constructive to improve the system?
Perhaps If I done 100hours in america flying around in one area or constantly flying around in the local LFA for 100 hours then It would be a waste of time and money with nothing gained. The statement as a whole is one large generalisation. Why fix an already ok system?
Designer babies...now designer airline pilots! :D

The system is not 'ok'! The current 'training' system (at least in some iterations) leaves far too much up to the student, who by definition has little or no idea of what is best, and what is the the best way, to learn. There isn't a professional training course in existence in any other field that says to a student 'go away and do some stuff on your own for a few months - you decide what and how - and then we'll pick it up again afterwards'! Training, to get the best results, requires constant supervision within a structured syllabus. This is at the heart of the argument between modular and integrated training, and why CTC's 'structured modular' system exists.

The MPL seeks to address this problem with specific reference to the requirements of airline flying, though its balance between airborne and simulator work is, in many people's opinion, incorrect. There is a wide open goal available for those who can develop a proper airline pilot training system that is not hampered by legacy syllabi from the past, and who have the needs of the student and the airline to the fore. Whether the airlines and the regulators are ready for it is another matter, but both could learn a great deal from the way military flying training is conducted (specifically for large-aircraft pilots, and in a number of countries) - and from the kind of work that was done by schools such as BOAC/BA at Hamble many years ago.

I make no secret of the fact that I believe the do-it-yourself approach to flying training is out of date and an anachronism in the modern world. The current system allows financial resources to count for more than aptitude and talent. I would love to see the whole lot scrapped and rebuilt from the bottom up with proper regulation and oversight, and with a commitment to excellence rather than adequacy. I suspect, though, that I will be waiting a very long time...

Scroggs

[Say again s l o w l y]

There are some who take their "hour building" seriously, but the vast majority just bimble about burning holes in the sky and wallets.

Self funded training will NEVER disappear, so there's not much point in even discussing it really!

Is modular better than integrated? An old argument that can never be resolved.

What is it about the current system that is seen to be inadequate? Perhaps if we focus on the problems, the solutions may present themselves.

For me, the initial selection needs to be better. I see a huge number of people who are set on trying for a career in aviation. Many are wasting their time and are never going to set the world alight, but if they have the drive and determination, who am I to say they shouldn't give it a go?

We cannot expect to have a military standards for recruitment, the numbers of people involved are just too great and why should we bother anyway? The airlines are happy because they have plenty of people wanting to fill cockpits, which create the market forces to drive down salaries and make us all a less valuable commodity to the bean counters. So why would they want to change the current recruitment?

[yeoman]

What is it about the current system that is seen to be inadequate? Perhaps if we focus on the problems, the solutions may present themselves.


The airlines are happy because they have plenty of people wanting to fill cockpits, which create the market forces to drive down salaries and make us all a less valuable commodity to the bean counters. So why would they want to change the current recruitment?


The problems are legion! Scroggs is right in that the system needs a top to toe rethink. Where I disagree is that this MPL concept is that rethink and therefore the solution. No meaningful thinking has gone into it and the result is a poor idea. The very fact that the CAA and JAA seem to endorse it would indicate that!

I am not remotely interested in the Flying Schools as their opposition will always be clouded by £ signs. Fair enough, they are running a business but remember there are bean counters coming out of the walls there as well. All I want is a reasonable expectation on the quality of a guy who will be sat next to me on a grotty night at Grottsville International when it all goes phut. I believe that 70 hours before getting in a sim regardless of how long you spend in that sim will not deliver that expectation.

I also agree that the training needs to be more regulated. How about only allowing certain activities to count for hours building? Up the requirement for say night navigation? You will notice I want it both ways - yes!

Finally, selection: The role of HR and the mind games in airline selection has been much derided. To a degree I would agree but it does filter out a few with attitude or personality traits that don't sit easy with airline operations. The company I work for has watered down the HR bit and reintroduced a bigger experienced pilot input in selection. This is now delivering good people and yet we still have some problems because of the very low experience levels of some. The company loves it because they join on low salaries. At least we still train in house but again the bean counters are gradually hiving that off to the lowest bidder. Before long we will be in the situation of taking self sponsored type ratings and all that entails. It will end when an airline comprehensively bends an airframe and a set of people and receives an accident report that says crew out of their depth. The cost base might undergo a rethink then once Sue, Grabbit and Run International Lawyers, the media and everyone else has finished.

[RVR800]

At the end of the day it will be neat to have a licence that leads directly to the RHS without further expensive training.

[FlyingForFun]

Have been reading with interest, and thinking about this a bit, and though I'd add my thoughs.

RVR800 expresses what is, I think, a common thought: "At the end of the day it will be neat to have a licence that leads directly to the RHS without further expensive training". But is that not missing the point a bit? Surely the aim of the training is not just to get a license, but also to ensure that you are properly trained?

When I did my flying instructor course, one of the aspects which was covered in ground-school but has not been mentioned on this thread was the concept of building-blocks - each lesson should build on what came before it. An example would be not trying to teach someone circuits before you've taught them to climb and descend.

When we look at the bigger picture of ongoing training after PPL level and up to transport jets, surely the same building block principals apply? In the ideal world, would people not gradually work their way up to jets, via piston twins, then turboprops, to ensure the learning gradient is not too steep?

We don't live in the ideal world, though. And whilst the kind of career progression I've just described still happens in many countries, it does not happen often in Europe at the moment. So, in designing a course, I would have thought that one of the main considerations would be to realise that market forces demand that people fly jets with less experience and a steeper learning curve than the ideal world - and to try to design the course in such a way as to take that into account, and try to compensate for it as much as possible.

Now, maybe I'm being a little naive here, having never flown a jet, and only flown jet simulators a couple of times. But it seems to me that the requirements of the MPL would, if anything, steepen the learning curve, by dumping students onto jets with very high speeds and a huge amount of inertia before they've mastered the art of flying at low speeds in manoevrable aircraft, and having never flown anything bigger than a light single. I know it took me more than 70 hours to be comfortable flying light singles.....

If I were designing a course like this, I would want to build the student up to jets in stages, starting with light singles (which it does), then light twins, then turboprops, and finally jets. No reason why a large portion of this can't be done on simulators - although I do 100% agree with previous comments that there is no substitute for real-world flying - but it would surely be an easier transition onto jets having had a structured way of progressing there, rather than being dumped into a 737 sim with no flying experience in anything bigger than a C150.

Comments, anyone?

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

[Nimbus5]

I have already made my views known officially to those who matter...

Nice to know we don't matter!

[Nimbus5]

Thanks for the forward to here BEagle. OOps!
I have no doubt that a good number of candidates reach a good standard on various modular courses and arrive at an airline with 145 odd hours.

According to LASORS, the JAR minima for an integrated fATPL course are 195 and most FTOs actually include more than that. Not a totally relevant point I guess, since an extra 50 hours weigh about the equivalent to gopher testicles in the context of the experience debate. You would also be hard pressed to complete a modular syllabus with less than 250 hours.

Back on thread, go to this link and look for the PowerPoint presentation by Fergus Woods of JAA: http://www.halldalemedia.co.uk/eats2005/proceedings.htm

There are a few more presentations worth looking at as well as they show how the MPL syllabus might be shaping up, though none of them give hour breakdowns. It certainly appears the syllabus will retain the current Integrated CPL and then diverge where current Integrated courses commence the IR training. The Type Rating appears to be incorporated into the syllabus, so hopes of getting an airline to pay for one's TR appear to be slipping.

I can't remember which one of these speakers addresses the issue, but the current system is not being replaced by MPL. Adoption is expected to be slow and delays will occur with implementation, so I hardly see MPL as a major threat to the status quo. Most airlines will probably avoid it like the plague unless their competitors prove it to be better, cheaper or both so I don't see any reason for current pilots in training to worry they are paying for soon to be obsolete ratings.

[scroggs]

When we look at the bigger picture of ongoing training after PPL level and up to transport jets, surely the same building block principals apply? In the ideal world, would people not gradually work their way up to jets, via piston twins, then turboprops, to ensure the learning gradient is not too steep?
There is nothing to stop you being trained on jets from the word go - I was, and so I suspect was BEagle. However, it is expensive and thus unlikely to happen in the civilian world. The speed of the aircraft is not a problem; handling characteristics and complexity are the main issues in a training aircraft.
If I were designing a course like this, I would want to build the student up to jets in stages, starting with light singles (which it does), then light twins, then turboprops, and finally jets. No reason why a large portion of this can't be done on simulators - although I do 100% agree with previous comments that there is no substitute for real-world flying - but it would surely be an easier transition onto jets having had a structured way of progressing there, rather than being dumped into a 737 sim with no flying experience in anything bigger than a C150.

The issue is not building people up to 'jets'. As I've already illustrated, the aircraft's potential speed is not an impediment to learning. The problem comes in ensuring that your students have seen and practiced all the techniques they need before they are let loose on an aeroplane where others' lives are at stake. BEagle's (and others) issue with the MPL is that is does not give sufficient emphasis on basic handling skills before it takes students into the more academic environment of the simulator - and I agree.

To teach people the delights of stalling, spinning and aerobatics is to give them the full picture of an aeroplane's 3D environment. All aeroplanes, even Airbusses, are subject to the same physical laws, and respond to much the same recovery actions from unusual positions. There are many of us who feel that there is already too little emphasis on these basic flying skills, which not only allow a student to feel totally comfortable in the aviation environment, but give an insight into the real beauty of flight - which cannot be had from NDB holds or assymetric go-arounds! The aeroplane type that is used for this training obviously is not likely to be the same as that used for IF and ME procedures, and thus it is appropriate to use a light aerobatic single. As FTOs will not pay for high-performance aerobatic aircraft (which, in any case, would have too demanding handling characteristics), there will need to be an element of familiarisation for students to get used to the faster progress over the ground of their ME/IF and simulator sypes, but that is not a major obstacle.

The biggest conversion issue at this stage of training is in getting the student to understand what it is essential to know to get his new type safely airborne and back on the ground, what is desirable to know in order to achieve his syllabus targets, and what is unnecessary to know about the aircraft in the context of the syllabus. Remember, we're not overly concerned about turning out excellent Seneca (say) pilots; we want the student to be as well prepared as possible for the kind of aircraft he will fly once in employment.

As a brief overview, I think the overall syllabus should concentrate first on achieving a solid understanding and familiarity with the airborne environment, including instilling a healthy knowledge of, respect for, and enjoyment of the kind of flying which would terrify the average passenger. This could be acheived in 40 hours. Then it should introduce the concepts of instrument flying, and the problems of complexity and multiple engines. Once that side is firmly understood (and without a break), the course should then go on to study the modern flight deck and the techniques used to conduct a flight within the current ATC environment. This can be mainly in the simulator, but should be reinforced by airborne training in an EFIs-equipped twin TP. The course should fully prepare students to go on to undertake a type rating in a modern TP or jet (there is little practical difference) without any further training. I would expect such a course to contain somwhere in the order of 170 hours of flying, on perhaps 3 different types, with perhaps 120 hours of representative simulator time. It would not be cheap, but it would be a lot better than it is now. It would be something of a cross between the current integrated CPL and the proposed MPL, but would include all the MCC, JOC etc malarky that tends to get tacked on at added expense now.

Scroggs

[FlyingForFun]

Scroggs - thanks for the informed comments on my uninformed ramblings!

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

[Superpilot]

After 20 hours they are just pootling about from place to place not necessarily learning a lot.

It's the tools and the environment that we use which need to be changed. Like the gentleman said, pootling around in a light single adjusting the bloody DI every 15 minutes, and trimming for every oddity in the atmosphere is not the way it is done in this day and age. Note: I am not, repeat NOT saying we shouldn't learn these skills at all, what I am saying though is that these skills are well and truly homed in by around 25 hours. Also, we get minimal exposure to busy international airports. The Americans can do it, why can't we?

We could learn a heck of a lot more if the planes we flew were up to the job. More Glass, more EFIS, more FMC's, more HSI's, more autopilots, more new planes! Just look at your average flight school aircraft fleet. It's a joke!

[BEagle]

Well, a most interesting session with the chaps at Gatwick yesterday, thanks to the Head of Personnel Licensing.

The presentation on the MPL given by Fergus Woods from the JAA was particularly interesting and I was pleased to note that virtually all of my concerns have now been addressed. The only area of doubt which remains with me is that I consider asymmetric aircraft handling a necessary 'core skill' which cannot be completed in simulators alone.

But the MPL is seen as being an opportunity for the airlines to become involved in training the people they say they want, so it is unlikely that self-funded applicants will be able to undertake MPL training. It will be a 'third way' which is intended to run in parallel with the the current modular and integrated 'f'ATPL courses.

Given a blank chequebook, how would the ideal MPL course run? My views are:

1. Students woud be admitted to the course after passing aptitude testing and selection, ideally independently assessed with the sponsoring airlines observing the process and selecting their students.

2. As the theoretical knowledge requirements will be identical to the ATPL, a complete groundschool course should be completed before flight training commences.

3. After passing the exams, it is estimated that student 'core skill' flying training will take around 70 hours. Given that the the students will invariably end up with a Type Rating on glass cockpit jet airliners, aircraft used would ideally be something like the Diamond DA-40 Diamond Star TDI with G1000 avionics for 55 hours, followed by 15 hours on the Diamond DA-42 Twin Star.

4. The next 3 stages of the course aim to build on 'core flying skills', but in a multi-pilot environment by the use of various levels of STDs, leading to the final Type Rating on something like the A320/737NG. But 12 t/os and ldgs plus the MPL skill test will be required on the actual aircraft.

Hence it is unlikely that the MPL will be a cheap option for airlines as it will require them to do something which is common in virtually every other field of life - to invest in training for their future personnel. Something which they currently appear reluctant to contemplate. Approval to conduct the MPL course will require substantial links to the sponsoring airlines, so whether the MPL succeeds or fails will be entirely down to them!

[High Wing Drifter]

In the ideal world, would people not gradually work their way up to jets, via piston twins, then turboprops, to ensure the learning gradient is not too steep?
From a piloting and administration PoV, I would wager a year's supply of beer that flying an airliner in its normal operational environment is a damn sight easier than flying a Seneca in its! In the ideal world you would probably need to do a couple of thousand hours in an Airbus before they let you loose single pilot in a MEP :}

[Send Clowns]

You're right, HWD, but I'll bet the Seneca is a whole lot more fun. I can't get the grin off my face :}

[BillieBob]

Either BEagle was at an entirely different presentation to me or he is cheaply bought. I found the whole thing typically obtuse, riven with non-words and doublespeak like 'ideally', 'estimated' and 'aspire', with absolutely no concrete facts to be seen. BEagles 'view' of the ideal MPL course is, sadly, no more than that.
My view, on the other hand, is clearly shared by at least one third-party training provider that is champing at the bit to start training, with the majority of the course being conducted in the far east, where simulators and instructors come cheap (and nasty). Will they be doing the initial training in shiny new Diamond glass cockpits - yeah, of course they will!
I have witnessed the product of FTOs degenerate steadily since the introduction of JAR-FCL, to the extent that we are now having to teach basic handling skills on MPL simulators because, it appears, PPL and CPL instructors are incapable of doing so. The MPL is, in my estimation, just another move in the inexorable slide towards the lowest common denominator of flight training and its product will have little or no credibility on the flight deck. I regret that BEagle, like so many other experienced instructors, has allowed himself to be blinded by the very marketing hype of which he has, in the past, been so critical.

[BEagle]

You did hear the answer Graham gave to the question posed concerning CAA approval of the MPL course in non-JAA states, did you?

The worrying aspect is indeed JAA/EASA recognition of ICAO MPLs conducted in 'banana republic' countries, as Fergus mentioned.

Core skill training is at least to include upset training. But I still consider that asymmetric training should also be included.

It didn't surprise me that the brief did not go into great detail concerning the precise course structure; they seem to have come up with some broad subjects, but no TOs let alone EOs at this stage. Presumably because the FTOs will need to propose their solutions for approval.

The only way this MPL will be acceptable is if the 'cheap, nasty but legal' end of the market is refused approval. But is there the slightest chance in hell of the airlines (apart from LH) signing up to this? I doubt it - until the supply of traditional 'CPL/IR with ATPL knowledge' FTO graduates dries up.

I don't recall any 'marketing' having been mentioned?

[BillieBob]

BEagle - I did, indeed, hear the perfectly crafted and political answer to that question. However, it did not reveal the whole truth, nor reconcile the fact that the CAA has already received, and, I am informed, reacted favourably to, representations from a UK based training provider that intends to conduct the majority of its training in the third world. Whilst it is no surprise that the UK airlines are not rushing to sign up to this excuse for a pilot licence, there are plenty of third party training providers that expect to make considerable profits from it in the short term.

The CAA has, over the years, repeatedly made much of their interpretation of the Aviation Act that requires the Authority to approve any organisation that can show compliance with the requirements for such approval, irrespective of its location. It would be nice, as you say, to believe that the 'cheap, nasty but legal' end of the market will be refused approval, although it would also, on past evidence, be foolish to do so.