Is MPL finally taking off? (now with job guarantee?) [Archive]

8ah

1st Feb 2009, 20:21

An MPL typerating is an MPL type rating, only valid with the host airline, nowhere else. You have to do a new rating for an CPL/ATPL if this comes up.

It may be a quick way to get right seat time, but no future. You are stuck in the right seat.

ICAO presentet MPL as an option for the BIG airlines to train their own pilots some years ago. Sadly some FTO se a goldmine in this and get you boys and girls to sign up for something thats realy does not have a futurer todays world.

THINK before you go this route......

My two cents...

SMJP

1st Feb 2009, 21:37

Not really 8ah.
Only during the course (which ends with the line training) is the MPL limited to the host airline. Thereafter, if you change from airline, you have to do a airline conversion course. But this applies to a normal CPL or ATPL as well. If i'm right the Multi crew Pilot License course, as offered by true blue aviation academy, is an integrated ATP course. So like any other integrated course, you're limited to the FTO and in this case, the airline.
One more thing: i'm interested in the MPL because i'm a Line Training Captain myself and i've experienced that MPL cadets perform well above standard during the line-training. So i wonder where this will lead to.

BigGrecian

1st Feb 2009, 22:56

This looks like a plant to me;

The original poster firsts posts the website then later on says:

i'm interested in the MPL because i'm a Line Training Captain myself and i've experienced that MPL cadets perform well above standard during the line-training.

Really?

How many MPL candiates are there out there? Only really those trained by Sterling, who were pre-selected anyhow, look what happened to them...

Trying to blow MPL's trumpet because you have an interest in MPL training by any chance?

craigbell

2nd Feb 2009, 01:36

Sorry for being ignorant, but could someone please explain how MPL would differ from the more traditional routes?

Is there any truth from some reports of trouble on flightdecks between MPL holders and some of the pilots from the PPL, ATPL, CPL, IR system where the latter is angry about how the former got their license?

What is the reason for above?

And if you were to move airlines, how easy and how long would it take to do a conversion course? Is it normal practice to pay for it out of your own pocket or would your new employer foot the bill?

SMJP

2nd Feb 2009, 08:25

How many MPL candiates are there out there? Only really those trained by Sterling, who were pre-selected anyhow, look what happened to them..
A few questions in one:
There are more MPL candidates flying around. MPL as a name is new (2006) but as a concept it's nothing new. Look at FTO's like KLM, Lufthansa etc..so not only those from Sterling. And believe me, i fly with them so i can tell.
The MPL pilots from Sterling were fired together with other pilots as part of a reform plan. So i don't think it's fair to say that it's just the MPL candidates.

Trying to blow MPL's trumpet because you have an interest in MPL training by any chance?
Yes, i do have an interest in MPL training. Because as i said earlier:i've experienced that MPL cadets perform well above standard during the line-training

The MPL is Competency based and very effective if implemented right. But it definitely has a downside because of the lack of knowledge (about the subject) or greed (by organisations who just want to earn money).

tbavprof

2nd Feb 2009, 08:54

SMTP
MPL as a name is new (2006) but as a concept it's nothing new. Look at FTO's like KLM, Lufthansa etc..so not only those from Sterling.

Or the various militaries...and there's still a reduction in actual flight hours between MPL and those airline FTO's old programs.

Yes, i do have an interest in MPL training. Because as i said earlier: Quote:
i've experienced that MPL cadets perform well above standard during the line-training

Are you saying CPL/IR's and frozen ATPL's perform below the LOFT standards? Have you met any fATPL's and CPL/IR's that perform well-above the standard? If you're saying that MPL candidates are superior overall, what's your basis for comparison? MPL v 250hr fATPL? MPL v 2500 hr CPL/IR?

The MPL is Competency based and very effective if implemented right. But it definitely has a downside because of the lack of knowledge (about the subject) or greed (by organisations who just want to earn money).

Some excellent points about the program. But the devil is in the details, and its being implemented in many places without any of the controls that were incorporated in the programs that spawned the idea.

While there's a selection process, is it honestly as rigorous as a military UPT or the old national carrier selection processes? Or has the bar been set lower to accomodate the larger numbers of crew members required?

And what about washout rates? A fair number of those that made the selection under those old programs got the boot, and never actually finished. Don't have any firm data (and the private FTO's marketing departments probably won't want to make it available), but I suspect that FTO's and even sponsored FTO programs may not be as quick to say good-bye to their revenue streams.

ewsd02

2nd Feb 2009, 09:09

The MPL seems to be one of those things that will be difficult to get established and accepted. And the fact remains that most training captains are still extremely skeptical towards it. Posting on a site like this is one of the ways to gradually get this accepted as an alternative route to the right hand seat. As someone has already said, the margins for training providers are far greater for simulator training compared to actual flight time, so of course this is attractive to some training organizations.

It should be no surprise that students trained solely on a simulator (virtually) are in the short term better prepared for airline ops. The argument usually banded about is the lack of decision making and airmanship skills that result from the lack of proper airtime, and what happens when the systems fail?

For me the MPL will be the difference between 'true aviators' who started in a light aircraft and fly for the fun of it as well as the job, and despite big jets at work, will have a share is a light aircraft because they love it, and the others who see the airline pilot as a job bringing a reasonable status and salary. A sentimental view perhaps.

Another view that we can all sympathize with is, of course, that flying training is too expansive, and any way of getting to where you want to be with more in the bank at the end (or less of a loan) can not be bad.

What do you think?

tbavprof

3rd Feb 2009, 02:35

You will have the same opportunity to upgrade as everyone else.

After completing, at your own expense, the additional flying required for a CPL/IR. And then, there's the little matter of implementation again.

You'll still have to comply with the ATP requirements for the upgrade. While 1400 of those hours may be spent in the RHS of big iron, where are those 500 hours XC PIC, etc. coming from? How many varied definitions of implementation for "PIC under supervision" will be found around the world and in the various operators?

Undoubtedly the high sim time on specific equipment makes for highly proficient aircraft operators. But does a 1600 TT flight crew (1500 LHS + 100 RHS) really have enough aviation experience?

SMJP

3rd Feb 2009, 08:14

tbavprof,:
After completing, at your own expense, the additional flying required for a CPL/IR. And then, there's the little matter of implementation again
Is there a good reason for gaining CPL/IR after the MPL? Unless you want to get back flying around in piston aircraft. Again the idea of MPL is major aviation not general aviation.

You'll still have to comply with the ATP requirements for the upgrade. While 1400 of those hours may be spent in the RHS of big iron, where are those 500 hours XC PIC, etc. coming from? How many varied definitions of implementation for "PIC under supervision" will be found around the world and in the various operators?
500 hours XC PIC? Please go through JAR-FCL 1.280 and make sure you have the right amendment included. The requirements are stated very clearly. The exact definition of PICUS is also stated.
So as aviatiorisu says Actually this is not correct. You will have the same opportunity to upgrade as everyone else

Undoubtedly the high sim time on specific equipment makes for highly proficient aircraft operators
you bet. and that's exactly what MPL is all about. It's not a licence for GA.

But does a 1600 TT flight crew (1500 LHS + 100 RHS) really have enough aviation experience?
Compared to?

Are you saying CPL/IR's and frozen ATPL's perform below the LOFT standards? Have you met any fATPL's and CPL/IR's that perform well-above the standard? If you're saying that MPL candidates are superior overall, what's your basis for comparison? MPL v 250hr fATPL? MPL v 2500 hr CPL/IR
No, i'm not saying CPL/IR's perform below standards. I'm saying that all MPL cadets i came through performed above standard. And off course a lot of CPL/IR's perform above standard as well. I compare two cadets who just finished an integrated flighttraining and got a type-rating (so about 350 TT). Nothing more, nothing less.

And what about washout rates? A fair number of those that made the selection under those old programs got the boot, and never actually finished....
You're right. And to my idea that's one of the advantages of MPL. You NEED a JAR-OPS 1-operator upfront to even think about starting. I would say that this licence has lower finacial risks for the cadets and to be honest i've seen students go through alot of unnecessary sh*t to gain that RHS and to me that's not fair at all because the only ones profitting are the malafide fto's.
And there are still some disadvantages in MPL (as in everything) but that's why it's so important to implement it right.

Groundloop

4th Feb 2009, 09:40

It should be no surprise that students trained solely on a simulator (virtually) are in the short term better prepared for airline ops.

For me the MPL will be the difference between 'true aviators' who started in a light aircraft

Seems to be yet more ignorance of the MPL. There is still a fair amount of actual flying in light aircraft involved before concentrating on simulators later in the course.

Is there any truth from some reports of trouble on flightdecks between MPL holders and some of the pilots from the PPL, ATPL, CPL, IR system where the latter is angry about how the former got their license?

If this were true - highly unlikely - anyone who allows personal feelings to intrude onto the flightdeck does not deserve to be there.

They say on their web-site that they are training pilots for easyJet. Not very likely at the moment!

hobbler

4th Feb 2009, 10:10

Forgive me for coming accross as very negative for a moment...

I have visited the TRUE BLUE Aviation Academy website, and it does not ring true for me in a couple of instances.

The website itself is far below any kind of standard which i would expect from a Training Organisation - this in itself is nothing to go on.

Then i used their contact form, as the content on the website is minimal to say the least, to ask about eligibility, financial arrangements etc. I received a reply this morning telling me nothing more but to attend one of their open days. There are three scheduled i believe, correct me if i am wrong. I certainly wouldn't venture to holland on this tiny amount of information alone.

All things considered together as a whole smells a lil' fishy to me??? i could well be wholly wrong and if i am i hold my hands up to that.

Thoughts?? or if anyone has any facts about this organisation i would be very interested in hearing them.

zerosum69

4th Feb 2009, 10:21

MPL holders perform better in line training than ATPL holders?!
how shocking...

if you spend a year in a jet sim rather than 4 - 5 weeks, clearly you're going to be more familiar with it. the question is - how do they compare after a year of line flying?

Hopefully no difference at all. But i still like the idea of learning in a small plane, on your own about half of the time, with the occasional brown underpants moment to show you that you don’t know it all...

apart from anything, its a lot more fun than flying a sim.

craigbell

6th Feb 2009, 00:45

All things considered together as a whole smells a lil' fishy to me???First impressions do last, the moment I saw there website I thought to myself "Whoa, they didn't put much effort in here". It is the first point of call and is almost like being greeted by a drunk Aeroflop Captain.

If they didn't send you any more info than what is on there website I wouldn't be flying to Holland either. Have they not thought that people have to get there and should be entitled to have some comprehensive information before deciding to go to one of their open days? Maybe the reason is that they don't have the information themselves?

Groundloop

6th Feb 2009, 07:56

But i still like the idea of learning in a small plane, on your own about half of the time, with the occasional brown underpants moment to show you that you don’t know it all...

Once again, students on MPL courses STILL do this!!!:ugh:

nickyjsmith

6th Feb 2009, 08:12

From what i've read MPL's need 60 hrs SE, surely if the rest of the training is jet sim based instead of just the last 20-50 hrs then the result is a better bet for the airlines.
If its light twins you want to fly then fine but there is a big difference between them and a 737/ Airbus, so if the training is focused on the objective surely thats better.
Yes 30-40 years ago there was no choice but now there is, do you stay in the stone age or do you use the best facilities available ?
It all depends what you want to do.

zerosum69

6th Feb 2009, 10:09

they still do a small amount of basic training in a real plane, but not very much compared to the normal training path... :ugh:

you have your whole career to play with jets and autopilots, light planes are fun, why not learn to fly that way? just my two cents

ewsd02

6th Feb 2009, 11:28

It all boils down to getting a job at the end of the day.

If training Captains are faced with a CPL/MEP/IR/MCC and an MPL both straight out of training with good results, who is most likely to get the job? Any Captains with a view on this?

Groundloop

6th Feb 2009, 12:26

they still do a small amount of basic training in a real plane, but not very much compared to the normal training path...

If you look at, for example, OAA's Integrated Course there is in the syllabus 140 hours of actual airborne time. In comparison, the MPL syllabus followed by the Sterling cadets included 76 hours of actual airborne time. So about half of the traditional ATPL but still a not insignificant amount, unlike what seems to be a common misconception of virtually zero actual flight time.

SMJP

7th Feb 2009, 20:49

So about half of the traditional ATPL
Most discussions are about half of actual time and so on... For MPL 70 hours is the minimum. Depending on the fto it can be more.

I've read the arguments but a lot of them make no sense at all. It looks like the main argument is the flighttime but did you know that MPL only excluded the "build time" hours and VFR. So those "build time" hours are now done in the big jet with an experienced captain beside you (just in case, the FO is normally trained for pilot incapacitation). Don't forget that flying these days isn't the same as 20 years ago when you were almost the only one flying in the area, with no other crew to deal with, at low altitudes and doing 120 kts in a SEP.
Have you ever heard of TEM and do you know what that is? (It's a very important issue and you might read a little more on that on http://www.flightsafety.org/pdf/tem/tem_dspt_12-6-06.pdf
And what about focus on MCC from the beginning of the training? Or starting with SOP's from the first days already? Most flightschools don't focus on those subjects but MPL does and those subjects are not of least importance.

One more thing
But i still like the idea of learning in a small plane, on your own about half of the time, with the occasional brown underpants moment to show you that you don’t know it all...
You will have brown underpants AND wet ones too when you join us at the majors :}

Dualinput

8th Feb 2009, 16:13

I heard alpha aviation in UAE (Sharja) just started/about to start their MPL program. Any idea if they are offering employment with air arabia?

cheers

Groundloop

8th Feb 2009, 18:11

Most flightschools don't focus on those subjects but MPL does and those subjects are not of least importance.

Then why are these a requirement with most airlines - and MCC is mandatory!

What do you mean by "build time"?

Adios

8th Feb 2009, 20:06

EWSD02,

Your question is irrelevant at this point in the development cycle of MPL. MPL will be for cadets and the recruiters will choose them before they start or perhaps halfway through their course, not Captains after they finish.

You could rephrase the question to see what Captains prefer, but their say in the matter will only go as far as their influence within their company on whether or not to offer an MPL Cadetship. This is not insignificant, as many Captains are opposed to MPL, but once the decision is made, the debate will wait for the results on the line.

The only MPL so far in the UK is FlyBe. The Cadets are chosen in advance and will train at FTE, though I hear rumours that OAA will get a batch of them as well.

SMJP

20th Feb 2009, 11:21

Adios,

To correct it: MPL is not in the development cycle, it's developed already and the question is whether or not the JAR-OPS operators train according to this MPL concept. EWSD02's question is who will get the job? An MPL or CPL, both just having finished their training. And to make it complicated: what if the pilot has his CPL AND trained according to the MPL concept?
99,99% the last one has more changes. That is IF this last one hasn't been offered a job yet.

Adios

20th Feb 2009, 22:02

SMJP,

I don't understand what you mean by a pilot who has a CPL, bui ttrained the MPL way, since MPL is an alternative license to CPL, not a new way of getting a CPL.

I didn't parse my words closely enough as I was writing in the context of FlyBe and FTE being the first UK MPL. I think I confused this thread for another where the originating post was about FlyBe's new MPL. You are correct in saying the MPL is developed already, but according to Flight International, FTE's syllabus for the first batch of FlyBe MPL cadets has not been approved by the UK CAA yet, so it seems to me it's still in "development." By that I mean specifically what aircraft and sims will be used and how many hours in each, plus the lesson plan for each flight. I'm sure the CAA wants to get it right and are probably taking a belts and braces approach to it.

It seems to me that each syllabus will need approval because the employing airline's SOPs and stamp are all over it. MPL includes a type rating and if the airline will be delivering this in-house as an integral part of the MPL syllabus, it needs approval by the relevant aviation authority. The FTO and Airline will seek this approval jointly in such a case. The second point is that nobody will train on MPL except pre-selected cadets, therefore, they won't be going head-to-head with a CPL holder for a job. They will already have one waiting for them.

As for as what happens to the MPL holders if they are made redundant before reaching 1,500 hours, or whatever it will take them to swap the MPL for an ATPL, well let's just say they will probably be royally screwed and I'd put my money on a ME/CPL/IR holder being more employable, or at least employable by more airlines.

ewsd02

21st Feb 2009, 12:49

I think we all know that if the MPL becomes an accepted method of entry into the airlines (and although it is available and under trial, it is not yet in general acceptance) in a few years you will see the integrated courses being replaced my MPL courses. The training can easily be for generic airline ops rather than a specific one, much like many of the MCC courses.

We know that the MPL will be more attractive to those training providers who can afford the investment, but what I want to know is will it be better for the students, the airlines and ultimately the passengers sitting in the back. And would there be implications for general aviation? My questions are a little rhetorical, but I think these are the important ones.

Wetstart

21st Feb 2009, 15:40

with thousand of guys ready with all the licences (cpl-ir atpl), well prepared with mcc and all,
why a company would hire an Mpl pilot???
it' s a nonsense for me now there are too many full pilots available

Adios

21st Feb 2009, 22:24

Wetstart,

I can think of a few reasons an airline would get involved with MPL. First, SMJP has already stated he's flown with some and he sees a significant difference in the quality of their skills. Second, new pilots are willing to work for less money than the experienced pilots probably will. Third, there is a significant amount of excess flight simulator capacity in Europe and those who invested many Millions in the sims would like to find a way to put that capacity to use in revenue generation through training. Many of these sims belong to airlines large enough to conduct all or most of their own training. Lufthansa comes to mind here.

My list is not exhaustive, but in light of the fact that two of the three reasons I can come up with for MPL happen to be economic, EWSD02's questions are the relevant ones. They won't be settled for most people until there are a lot more MPL pilots out there. Even then, the debate will rage on for years, just as the Modugated vs. Interbobular debate goes on ad nauseam.

22nd Feb 2009, 13:12

First, SMJP has already stated he's flown with some and he sees a significant difference in the quality of their skills.

Adios—this guy SMJP is probably the owner of the 'school' he's promoting. Of course he says that he has very positive experiences with MPL pilots!

His English writing style and errors are very clearly the same as the poor English on his website. Including the use of the term "major aviation".

He's also started a topic on a Dutch forum frequented by many student pilots and youngsters looking into flight training, in the same fashion, pretending to be an 'innocent bystander' who is very interested in this school.

So far, there've been just a handful of MPL-pilots in the world (a grand total of 10, as far as I can count, 4 for Sterling who are now jobless and 6 by Alteon). So unless SMJP flew for Sterling or Xiamen or China Eastern, I'm very interested to find out where he flew with these guys. In an article on Flight, these Sterling MPL guys are in trouble, not necessarily because of their skills, but they probably have to get a full CPL/IR in order to apply with other airlines (good luck with that in these times).

Very, very dubious...

Clear of Conflict

22nd Feb 2009, 17:07

First, SMJP has already stated he's flown with some and he sees a significant difference in the quality of their skills. Second, new pilots are willing to work for less money than the experienced pilots probably will.

Besides the fact that I also suspect SMJP is spamming PPRuNe with his own flightschool (for me the threat and error management remark (a term I've never heard before by a Dutch pilot) was noticeable, reminding me of the big arrow you see on the right side of this document (http://www.trueblueaviationacademy.nl/en/TBAA-Student-Brochure.pdf)), I also doubt that MPL pilots would be happy with less salary than new "conventional" CPL pilots, mainly because the true blue training is about 20% more expensive than comparable conventional integrated FTO's (120.000 euros total vs. around 100.000), resulting in a significant higher debt at the end of training (interest upon interest). Also significant higher skills can just be a result of better / stricter selections at the root of any training (besides having doubts about SMJP's credibility anyway).

Groundloop

22nd Feb 2009, 17:48

in a few years you will see the integrated courses being replaced my MPL courses. The training can easily be for generic airline ops rather than a specific one, much like many of the MCC courses.

That goes completely against the whole initial concept of the MPL. The MPL was developed to SPECIFICALLY cover an individual airline's SOPs.

Adios

22nd Feb 2009, 22:14

I agree with Groundloop, MPL is not going to replace fATPL for non-sponsored students. MPL will end up costing £80-90K because of the included Type Rating and Base Training. FTO's won't be able to sell this without a job attached in advance anymore than they can sell a bolt on Type Rating to an integrated graduate. Oxford and CTC are the only UK schools I know of that are both FTO and TRTO and as far as I know, neither of them has ever seen hordes of integrated graduates rush over to but a Type Rating without a job attached.

Regulatory issues aside, MPL is only going to be marketable when it includes an airline job offer up front. Those who think otherwise should send their CV to the TRTOs and ask for a job selling speculative Type Ratings, because that is what this opinion that MPL will replace fATPL really means.

Celtic Pilot

22nd Feb 2009, 22:29

very good point Adios!!!!

:ok:

timzsta

23rd Feb 2009, 14:06

I was speaking socially to a TRI/TRE who works for a large European airline recently and he said as far as he can see the MPL is a total no brainer and will be dead in the water quite soon.

rogerg

23rd Feb 2009, 17:56

TRI/TRE
They are not God, and can be just as ignorant as the rest of us.
I suspect that the MPL will be the standard in a few years time.

snuble

24th Feb 2009, 19:44

I have stated it before, but here I go again. The singel biggest problem with holding a MPL licence and applying for a job is getting even considered for that particular job. And if you get considered, then there is the problem with the airline AOC, SOP, OM, union (and so on) documenation stating that you need a CPL or ATPL to fly for the airline. Today, most airlines will not take the time to change the documents to accomodate one ot two pilots out of many. With a CPL on the other hand....

Adios

24th Feb 2009, 21:49

FOs will only have an MPL for 2-3 years. When they get to 1500 hours, they will get an ATPL. Since an airline will have pre-selected them and given them a job and bonded them for 3-5 years, the only ones who will need to worry about employability for their second job are those made redundant before they get 1500 hours. These will have a type rating and they will be able to do 3-6 months of modular training to earn a single pilot ME/CPL/IR. I wouldn't write them off as dead in the water. An FO with an fATPL who is made redundant is little better off, though he has a shot in to DEP schemes if he got past 500 on type.

Clear of Conflict

25th Feb 2009, 18:01

Since an airline will have pre-selected them and given them a job and bonded them for 3-5 years, the only ones who will need to worry about employability for their second job are those made redundant before they get 1500 hours.In the case of TBAA they have a lot more to worry about though, since it's not a 3-5 year bond:

A  one season  Job  Contract  as  First  Officer  on  the  Boeing 737  or  Airbus 319/320/321,  which  is  signed  BEFORE  the  training  is  started     with  a  minimum  monthly  salary  of  € 3.000  NET 