View Full Version : Multi Crew Pilot License(MPL) thoughts.....?
16th Aug 2010, 05:04
Im interested in peoples thoughts on the MPL. I understand that it allows pilots to have less overall flight experience and PIC hours.
But at the same time from the get go you are taught to fly the way you will fly as an airline pilot which in my opinion is much more uselfull and relevant than VFR and dead reckoning nav which no one uses once they hit the airlines anyway.
This may be an insult or even seem unfair for those guys and gals who had to get their 3000 hrs in the far reaches of the outback flying charter and mail runs but it is the way the industry is moving.
Im only a student and i may be blinded by the prospects of it being a faster track to the airlines but for mine it makes perfect and logical sense to conduct training in this manor, what is the point in learning to fly one way then abandoning it only to learn to fly another. Why not just begin with the later.....?
I would love to hear peoples thoughts on this....
Especially, if there are any out there, some airline hr and recruitment persons.
16th Aug 2010, 07:29
MPL will further reduce piloting skills, airmanship and decision-making skills. The whole point of PIC hours throughout PPL and hour-building towards CPL is that you gain decision-making skills and that you get some experience flying in less-than CAVOK weather, flying into short strips, abroad, etc.
what is the point in learning to fly one way then abandoning it only to learn to fly another
It's called experience. I bet that Captain Pearson (Gimli Glider) wasn't taught how to sideslip a 767 on his type-rating course, yet he knew how to do it and did it properly. Saying that VFR flying is a waste of time can come only from someone without any flying experience - what else is visual or circling approach than pure VFR? Sure there are pilots today that insist on typing even the most basic visual approaches into FMS and then blindly follow the calculated VNAV profile.
I think you should get some real VFR flying from RHS first before considering applying for MPL course. And not to forget, MPL course teaches you how to push buttons on a modern airliner, it doesn't learn you to fly the aircraft. You also won't be subjected to overloading single-pilot IFR, since most of hours during MPL are done multi-crew.
Besides, Oxford's description of MPL course sounds like this is the best training course ever: they claim you will gain the skills of a commercial pilot in only 90 hours, of which half would be in multi-crew environment. So actually in 45 hours single-pilot flying you will have CPL skills while the rest of us, who by that point (completing PPL) only knew enough so not to kill ourselves during hour-buiding, are bunch of loosers?
Remember, you can ONLY get experience by flight time, not by reading books and playing in a flight simulator....
Call me old fashioned, call me anything you like but to me the MPL is not a real license.
And I don't think too many people in the airline industry think so either.
Try finding a job with it.Not going too happen.
Too many pilots available that have a real license.
Genghis the Engineer
16th Aug 2010, 16:23
Apart from anything else, in a 2-crew aeroplane, if one of the pilots becomes incapacitated: which has happened quite a few times over the years, it becomes a single pilot aeroplane for the duration. I'd rather trust somebody with 300 passengers in a (suddenly) single pilot aeroplane who genuinely has a fair number of hundreds of hours commanding single pilot aeroplanes than the chap who has no real experience of that nature.
One of the arguments for MPL is that in recent years most serious accidents in big aeroplanes were down to poor CRM. Technically this is true, but quite probably because the pilots up to now have had the handling and problem solving skills which meant that CRM was the only thing left for them to screw up on a regular basis. The MPL will re-introduce all the potentials for error that had been eliminated previously by hour-building.
So far, the only airline professional who I've met who really seemed to believe honestly in MPL was a recruiter for BA who had a background in accountancy then HR. I've not met a single professional pilot who thought well of it. I also hang around with quite a few aviation safety researchers, who are all fairly bemused at the idea whilst so far as I know nobody has published any peer-reviewed research into its supposed benefits or demerits, so technically we're all just guessing (but especially those who claim it will work).
17th Aug 2010, 10:16
FYI, I am an MPL cadet & until this moment, with all of what was said...I still believe its the right choice, I am coming from a family of Aviators & ALL of them believe in the MPL. Most of my classmates are sons of pilots & the other guys who joined recently are coming from an Aviation background, not a single one of us has any doubts about the Success of the license. :ok:
There are some MPL graduates who are Flying, while the rest got interviewed by different Airlines...And I am proud to say most (if not All) of them got accepted & are going to start flying the jets soon. :D
BTW, Single Pilot Ops & Pilot incapacitation are included in our training (From MCC to Level D sim). Getting 50 hrs of VFR in a Cessna 172 & then 20hrs IFR on the Cessna again & then 120 Hrs of IFR on an A320 (Actual Flying time) sounds fair enough to deal with IFR/VFR problem. Having 110 hours of A320 Level D Sim, Would take you to the limits of all kinds of Ops (110 hrs...you'll learn the airplane even if you were observing!) :)
Lets wait & See, I am going to graduate with an MPL by the end of the year...:ok:
17th Aug 2010, 12:17
Relax malirm boy, nobody said it's not the right choice. It's just not the right choice NOWADAYS and until only god knows when! That simple. & since you and your mates are the descendants of the "Almighty Aviation Families" in your part of the world, then it's not really a big deal if you have MPL whatsoever, is it?
17th Aug 2010, 12:40
BTW, Single Pilot Ops & Pilot incapacitation are included in our training (From MCC to Level D sim).
And how many hours do you spend real flying (not sim of any kind, since with some things you only get one chance in real life) ALONE, far away from any nearest airport when weather turns to sh**, fuel gauges reading close to zero and aircraft unequipped for real IFR flight?
You cannot compare "single pilot ops training" with 100 PIC hours required for issue of real (CPL) licence, sorry.
17th Aug 2010, 13:17
There are two sets of numbers which the MPL graduates will generate. The first is the cost. To a great extent, our bean counting friends have virtually eliminated initial licence and type training as a cost - most prospective employees have already paid for this. So there are no savings here for many operators. So the MPL will only really appeal to those airlines who foot the bill for cadet training. And it is amongst these airlines that the secondary cost will be felt. The price of smoking holes. We have already had bent metal generated by a P2F scheme.
May I also suggest that MPL will only work if the the bod in the LHS seat is a 'real' captain and as a crew fly the aircraft under real LOFT conditions. Only the route should be announced beforehand and certainly not the WX or the failures. Flying well documented and pre-rehearsed failures in the sim. should always result in reasonable outcomes. Unfortunately, real life is so unfair. The real poo often arrives in well disguised packets and sorting it out often requires creative uses of checklists, interesting decisions and above all a certain degree of airmanship. To fast track the guy in the RHS requires the victim to absorb a great deal of experience in very little time. The good news is, it is very difficult to hide a large aircraft prang, so we'll all find out how good the MPL system is before long. I just hope nobody gets hurt while the MPL holders learn to fly.
17th Aug 2010, 13:33
This is an interesting topic. I did some research in to the MPL for my dissertation a couple of years ago. Without going in to detail, I think that there are benefits to it over the current CPL/IR route. However, let me point out that I am an MPL sceptic.
I don't claim to have the answer to flight training, but what I do know is that pilot training has not had any fundamental changes made to it since the Chicago Convention in 1944. I think that it is outdated when you consider that in 1944 the most common airliner was a DC-3, not an A320.
I am of the belief that some sort of fusion between the current CPL/IR system and the MPL needs to occur - I do not have the authority nor the experience to say what the best alternative is (I'm a Flight Data Analyst with a PPL), but does anyone agree that something needs to change in order to provide new low-hour FO's with the best possible training, for both multi-crew and single-crew operations?
I just don't like the idea of going to the likes of CTC/OAA/FTE etc on an 18 month ab initio course and not doing any multi-crew flying until 13/14 months have gone by and I've got a CPL/IR.
18th Aug 2010, 00:09
It genuinely frightens me to think that a newly qualified MPL pilot could find themselves flying single pilot due to an incapacitation. In the thick of crap weather, on mimumums.....severce icing....at night..into some non precision airfield somewhere with no radar coverage....perhaps low on fuel with an alternate some place far far away. Even with very limited several hundred airline hours operational experience now under my belt(and several hundred PIC general aviation hours behind me)....it genuinely puts the wind right up me that one day soon it might actually happen to me. Sitting playing in a nice comfy sim looking at pretty flashing lights is one thing....but real world is a horrible scary thought when the shit does actually hit the fan. Its like learning to drive a car in a car park and then suddenly being let loose on the M25...at night...in the pissing rain with 5 people squashed in the back. There are many jobs out there that dont require experience....flying is not one of them. I havent met one pilot yet who is in favour of this MPL....harsh but true im afraid. For the chap wo said - "BTW, Single Pilot Ops & Pilot incapacitation are included in our training (From MCC to Level D sim)" - good luck mate:rolleyes: Oh and for those who think incapacitations dont happen....2 in the same week where I work.
18th Aug 2010, 09:49
Cant see it makes any difference. A newly qualified pilot will find it challenging even if he has spent 50 hrs flying round the cabbage patch. Maybe better to have spent some time in a proper sim flying ndb approaches in a large aircraft.
18th Aug 2010, 14:56
I've thought more about this issue today and JP_Safety makes a good point. As a fare paying pap, you need to have a flight crew are are frightened/concerned enough not to do anything really stupid. The bright young things, newly graduated from their academies, have not been exposed to enough unpleasantness to make them wary or at least spot the warning signs. An MPL's experience will be even less. Yet our training system does nothing to help bridge the experience gap. The current CPL training system is basically pointless. Spend enough and you can get virtually any plonker through the hoops. So may I suggest that the twin flying, instrument flying, CPL handling and MCC elements of CPL courses are all scrapped and replaced with an initial Multi-crew aircraft type rating. Here you will learn how to fly a twin (or triple etc.), fly multi-crew and a type which you will be paid on. Make it so that only airline company employees can do the course. Then thousands will be saved by all. Airlines will have the employees they want, prospective employees will no longer waste vast amounts of cash on pointless type ratings and the training will be more relevant.
Yes! there are fairies are at the bottom of my garden.
19th Aug 2010, 11:01
Ladies and Gents,
I am a career biz jet pilot. I know that my side of the industry is terrified of what might come if training goes almost exclusively to MPL. Let me give you an example of flying single pilot in a multi-crew environment...
The aircraft have almost identical avionic and system capabilities to the airliners. The type I was flying at this time was a short haul (Europe only) 8 seater EFIS jet. We were tasked with positioning the aircraft for about 1 hour to a VFR only airfield. Picking up 3 pax and then flying them to Nice.
We checked all NOTAM's, weather and even phoned the tower at the pick up point to check the weather and make sure we had the required fire cover. This is because that airfield does not normally have the required cover for that type. They confirmed their weather and their fire cover. Off we set.
We left the airway and went to the AG operator at the airport. We were then told that we did not have the required fire cover because one of the fire men was late and they couldn't crew one of their trucks. We were told it was ok to land because we were just positioning empty.
This set up a massive problem because we were flying AOC, even when empty. I had to check the ops manual and get on the sat phone to operations and 'sort something out pretty damn quick'. Either get some more fire cover, get some sort of permission to land or divert to a closeish airport and tell the pax.
Well, my FO had only been flying jets for around 4 or 5 months and had maybe a maximum of 150 hours jet.
Had he been a fresh MPL holder, I would have been very concerned indeed. But since this guy had probably 2000 hours of instructing and MEP charter experience I was confident he could handle my plan.
I tasked him with flying a constant level circuit over the airfield and varying the width of the circuit each time so as to not annoy the neighbors at 9am on that beautiful sunny sunday morning.
He took the aircraft and all comms. Of course the auto-pilot was being used, but since this was all uncontrolled airspace, he and I maintained a keen look-out while he followed through on the yoke in case immediate action was required to avoid the multitude of bug smashers. We also lowered the second stage of flap and safely got our speed back to 140kts. As slow as we could safely fly to match our speed better to the predominant traffic in that area.
He had the flying and decision making skills for me to task him and trust him so I could liaise with our ops on the sat phone and with various ATC agencies on comm 2 to arrange a smooth and unrushed divert when the time came.
Great work by him and a great example of where the single pilot skills came in, even in a multi-crew environment.
He and I had a similar experience while avoiding CB's low level after breaking off an approach into an airfield that then closed to us due to the weather.
In my simple and humble opinion, there is never any comparison for experience. A new pilot out of flight school has no experience and now they want to make that even less?
19th Aug 2010, 12:52
Potatowings, exactly. :D
(another bizjet pilot)
19th Aug 2010, 17:20
I can't see how any Bizjet organisation would end up employing a MPL pilot unless the pilot had been sponsored by an airline and had completed their time with them. After that they would have more hours and experience and would be in the same position as any pilot.
21st Aug 2010, 01:35
"After that they would have more hours and experience and would be in the same position as any pilot."
Having experience with the MPL and CTC/OAA trainning system I don't believe the MPL pilot will ever have the experience and training that potatowings is talking about. The Cadets are Mothered through the course and given all the answers to the questions so they can pass their exams, they then enter a budget airline that can't afford to train them and they sit in the RHS because the law says they have to be there.
When will they ever have to make decisions and fly like potatowings is talking about?
21st Aug 2010, 06:33
But why is that different to any pilot who goes to an airline for their first job? I am pretty sure that any carrier puts them in the RHS to gain experience.
23rd Aug 2010, 16:15
Reading the comments further, I get the impression that people seem to think the primary role of the right hand seat of a jet is to give low time pilots experience. It is not there for this reason.
The right hand seat of a jet is there because it is required due to the complexity of the job at hand AND when required to provide system redundancy. When one engine fails, there is another engine to keep us flying until we can land safely. When one PFD fails, there is another one to keep us flying until we can land safely. When a pilots single heart fails (poor system design, no redundancy) then there is another pilot there to keep us flying until we can land safely.
The right hand seat of a jet is there to provide a system cross check between the two crews and to provide redundancy in the event of incapacitation. Incidentally, incapacitation is not just caused by a serious medical complaint. I have seen it where one crew member develops diarrhea after a night stop. They are ineffective as a crew member and thus the flight is more or less single pilot. I have seen 1 case and heard of several where a crew member becomes overloaded during the later stages of a flight. This takes the other pilot to help unload them and take some of the work.
A pilot with experienced operating in the pre-defined simulator training that is becoming more and more popular with these new licences will be hard pressed to behave the same way as a pilot that has been required to gain at least some experience in single pilot flying where a workload overload is not an option.
The other benefit of flying in the right hand seat is to provide experience to work a pilot up to command. Learning to make decisions and experiencing several scenarios at the hand of experienced Captains is fantastic.
It concerns me greatly that the right hand seat is being viewed as a learning environment in normal operations rather than a professional environment with a fully competent and capable experienced pilot. The 'right seat pilot' should be a Captain in waiting, not a co-pilot in training.
Just my 2p's worth.
30th Aug 2010, 13:53
Right on potatowings. If you don't mind; I'd like to use your line, "The 'right seat pilot' should be a Captain in waiting, not a co-pilot in training" to further inspire and motivate my students. Thanks.
31st Aug 2010, 11:55
Potatowings says that if the F/O had been a new MPL holder he would have been very concerned in the situation he found himself in, and then goes on to suggest that it was the fact that the F/O he was flying with had 2000 hours of MEP/instructing etc that everything went OK.
How would it have gone if he had been a new CPL/IR holder with no experience other than an integrated course. You cannot say that the MPL is no good because a graduate from the course is not as good as a CPL/IR holder with several hundred hours on jets and 2000 hours of other flying since gaining a CPL.
If you want to compare the two licenses then you have to compare the standards when the course is completed ie about 200 hrs ish of light aircraft flying then a type rating for the traditional route or about 200 hrs ish of mixed sim and light aircraft but mainly sim then a type rating for the MPL. I would suggest that the only people qualified to make that comparison would be the line captains or training captains at airlines such as flybe who will be flying with graduates from both schemes.
31st Aug 2010, 18:57
In fact, you can't even compare the MPL students with a regular CPL from an integrated course, as you can't just turn up at an airline with your licence and ask for a job. The MPL requires the direct involvement of an airline sponsor from the outset, and as such, MPL students are cherry-picked from the best candidates from the word go. Most CPL students are not.
So, you really have to compare sponsored CPL students with the MPL students, and I think you'll find that the ability and therefore subsequent quality, of the respective candidates is pretty evenly matched.
It makes me laugh to read all this rubbish at how much better 'commanders' CPL holders become with a whole extra 50 hours of trundling around the sky in a Piper Warrior with all the key decisions already made by their FTO. Thank goodness for all their extra valuable experience. :rolleyes:
16th Oct 2010, 17:30
Dear Contributers to this thread,
I have found your comments very interesting and quite informative.
I am still doing my study on MPL (http://www.pprune.org/professional-pilot-training-includes-ground-studies/410644-mpl-study.html) , please feel free to contribute, I will be very grateful for any input on this study, especially if you are a captain.
The rationale behind the reasons for this study:
Why MPL is important to study:
It is predicted by International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) that by 2026 the growth of airline industry will result in the number of airliners more than doubling. Only 20 percent of modern air fleet by then will be operational, which means 28.600 new aircraft deliveries (Hansen, Cherniavsky, Pilarinos, & Jackson, 2009). Overall there is need for 350.000 new pilots to fly them by 2026 (ICAO, 2010)
The reasons behind the MPL is to insure a steady supply of quality first officers who are trained by a standardised procedure which makes the best use of modern instructional System Design (ISD) and latest of Flight Simulation Training Devices (FSTD) as well as teaching CRM and Threat and Error management (TEM) from “day one”. At the same time, it shortens the time it takes to qualify for the licence (ICAO). MPL can be considered to be the biggest rethink of ICAO regulations on Procedures for Air Navigation Services -Training (PANS- TRG)since it was laid down in 1944, until the Amendment 167 to Annex 1 was made that established a the new licence for the crew : MPL was brought in on 23 November 2006.
“By 2015 it is intended to have the majority of the world’s ab-initio airline co-pilots trained through the MPL curriculum.” – IATA (2009)
Why study possible effects of MPL on CRM:
Just before and when MPL came out, the International Federation of Air Line Pilots' Association (IFALPA) (2006) and European Cockpit Association (ECA) (2005, 2006) made statements to voice their concern about possible affects on lowering training standards by MPL compared with previous methods of Ab-Initio training. This concern was also shown by a study by Scheck (2006.) Although the IFALPA (2008) in a recent statement made it clear that it did see advantages in MPL, it still expressed concern. Similarly, ECA (2009) still voices concern about possible threat of MPL undermining the current safety standards.
Pilots with more experience have an attitude that less experienced pilots might possibly contribute to errors and they are unable to come with the failure of automatics (Mitchell, Vermeulen, & Naidoo, 2009). So the question is: do pilots see the experience gained in simulators as being equal to actual flight time experience?
Based on all that is mentioned above, my hypothesis is that MPL can have an effect on CRM, particularly Trans-Cockpit Authority Gradient. It is possible that this can have detrimental effects on CRM, and also on the captain mentoring the co-pilot.
18th Oct 2010, 05:17
How does the 250-hr MPL dovetail with the tentative proposals in the US for 1500-hr minimum for heavy jet newbies ? An exemption for MPL holders would make a nonsense of the proposals. Can someone kindly explain.
13th Nov 2010, 23:52
The idea of the MPL hasn´t takenoff in the US, and it won´t, especially with the new 1500 rule.
Big Pistons Forever
14th Nov 2010, 04:20
It says something when the nation with the most airline aircraft flying the most number of daily departures has utterly rejected the MPL.......
14th Nov 2010, 07:13
It says something when the nation with the most airline aircraft flying the most number of daily departures has utterly rejected the MPL.......
Does this same nation have an FATPL system?
14th Nov 2010, 13:01
The US has a CPL system, and later when you meet the minimums for ATPL, you can test for ATPL. The idea of fATPL is actually not an official term. Those who have an fATPL in the JAR world actually only have a CPL, but they have passed the theoretical requirements for an ATPL. When they have the experience requirements, they can do the checkride for the ATPL, not much different than the FAA system. The big difference is that in the US, we don´t have 14 exams to get the ATPL, but rather 4 (private, instrument, commercial, ATP).
Some reasons for implementing the MPL in the US would have been because the rapid need for lots of pilots in 2004-2008, but with the economic downturn, the need for pilots quickly turned into an excess of pilots. Also, the old CPL method is a system which has existed for many decades without any large overhaul in training. Granted, guys coming out of flight training with little experience were flying jets and TPs, but since all their previous experience (little experience as it was) was on smaller piston driven aircraft, it seemed as if a new method of training could be beneficial. One where all training was focused on getting to a multicrew jet or TP. In the US, experience is still highly valued and as the airlines are slowly starting to hire again, and the introduction of the 1500 hr rule, the MPL probably will never came to fruition there.
14th Nov 2010, 15:08
Definition of MPL : A carve-out from the proposed 1,500 hour minimum requirement for pilots to fly large commercial aircraft (now under consideration in several major countries). A conflict of terms. :ugh:
14th Nov 2010, 20:41
Avoid at all costs.
15th Nov 2010, 10:24
What one should ask oneself, before choosing ones training route, is why the EASA and the FAA are pulling in so different directions when it comes to employment minimums for FOs. The FAA`s background is due to several incidents with low experienced FOs, with the Colgan Q400 accident in NY state being what fronted the new 1500 hour TT rule for passenger carrying aircraft. The EASA, being in a more theoretical state of mind towards flying (e.g. the 14 ATPL exams) appear to be inclining towards the pilots-to-be who prefer to get all information and experience from reading books. Thus not being in need of real world deciscion making skills, because the cases have been experienced from books and briefed during sim sessions.
In a perfect world you should get the best of both worlds; a generally high amount of flying hours (subdivided into day/night/VMC/IMC/single pilot/multi pilot/SE/ME) as well as a sound theoretical background. But the world is far from perfect, so all you can do as an up-and-coming pilot is to give it your best. Doing the FAA route will reward you with more hands on flying experience than the EASA way, but reverted, the EASA way will give you more theoretical background but not as much stick and rudder deciscion making.
IMHO, the MPL is just another side of the SSTR and P2F scam. You don`t have to nearly kill yourself up to several times to gain experience - you just need to be up there (yes, in the air) in different situations and have done good preflight planning. The experience comes when not everthing goes as planned, and as we all know, the your world changes suddenly without any pre-programmed sim-instructor intervention. There is no flight-freeze function in the air. You just need to stick to it. :ok:
Potatowings, that`s some of the best posting I`ve read here in a very long time :ok::D
15th Nov 2010, 11:01
Contrary to what some (including myself) would like to believe, I understand that the MPL graduates at flybe have performed very well so far in the sim conversion. Time will of course tell when we see them on the line. I'm reserving judgement for the time being - My gut instinct is that hours with 'air under your butt' is considered at flybe of not much great value.
15th Nov 2010, 11:21
The FAA`s background is due to several incidents with low experienced FOs, with the Colgan Q400 accident in NY state being what fronted the new 1500 hour TT rule for passenger carrying aircraft.
Except in the Colgan case the 1500 hr rule may not have made any difference. The FO already had 2200 hours!!
15th Nov 2010, 12:29
Groundloop, that is true. But in addition to the 1500 hr rule (they actually wanted newhire FOs to have an ATP), there are put forth regulations rgarding both training standards/methods, emphasis on how the 1500 hrs are put together (ME, night, icing etc), as well as a new look into the flight time regulations and payscales for regionals in the US. But, unfortunately, it took an accident and loss of life. :uhoh:
12th Feb 2012, 14:06
I know we live in a time where being "politically correct" is generally accepted before common sense and someone stating the obvious.
But I'll take the risk of sounding completely "politically incorrect and unacceptable :yuk:"
ARE THEY :mad: DAFT??!! :ugh:
MPL?? Seriously...? And what's the next step? Granting a pilot's license to anyone in excess of 100 hours TT in MS Flight Simulator X?? Maybe 200 hours TT for older versions of MS Flight Sim?
The real question is, and the one for all the certified pilots here, not those poor ignorant souls we call passengers and take for granted as just the number to fill the cabin. This is the question for people who actively fly.
How would YOU feel being a passenger on an A320 for example knowing that one of the pilots flying your aircraft has less exprience and knowledge than an average 250 hour TT PPL SEP pilot?
12th Feb 2012, 15:31
90 Hours flight time is gained from the licence. Includes solo time, VFR navigation, single crew IFR flying, Multi-engine flying, and upset training. 120 hours is then spent what can only be described as introducing you into the Airline world and "way of doing things", and learning procedures to fly a large aircraft, specific to the airlines SOP's.
I can see exactly where people's issues lie with what sounds like a small amount of real time flying hours. But I really wish people would open their eyes to the alternative guy who will be sitting next to you in the RHS as you remenisce to the old days and cling onto NDB's. A CPL/IR cadet with 150 hours of single engine flying and twin engine flying. 20-30 hours of which have been in a dated twin prop simulator.
At the end of the day, you would love to fly with someone who has as much experience as possible for your own comfort. But really, take a look at the numbers, it's a drop in the ocean of inexperience. I had done a fair bit of flying before starting the MPL, and I'm glad I did so; who wouldn't be? but by no means do I feel superior in experience to any other MPL's or CPL's starting the line at an airline just because of a few more measely hours. All this talk of "let's just hope nobody is killed while an MPL is learning to fly" and bizjet stories on days of hard operations are quite irrelevant, Inexperience is simply that; Inexperience.
Just giving my (what will no doubt be received as useless and insubordinate) opinion from the other side of the fence where nobody will give their opinion of the licence to your face, just whinge about it in the crew room behind your back or rant about it on here on a late saturday night. Fantastic style there.
12th Feb 2012, 16:22
Well said brummielout. Perhaps aviofreek can enlighten us to his massed superiority, sorry i should say training route. CPL/IR are we? Wow, really great. You seem to be trying to dig dirt on the MPL. Why? What has it done to you? Cost you a job after graduating perhaps? Please address your issues to CHIRP if you have a real problem with the system. EASA and the CAA do not appear to share your reservations. Obviously it must just be a mistake, they are waiting this sunday for your call to put them straight. You are after all in the seat of massed experience that they clearly are not.
12th Feb 2012, 16:29
Turns out aviofreek appears to be a teccy. Again, huge flying experience to draw your conclusion from......yawn. I wont tell you how to change an oil filter, or change over a tcas box, so stick to your area of expertise, and we will stick to ours.
Yes, pilots hate change, they really do. Pprune will show you that. But updating an out of date training system from the 40s/50s for the modern day has got to be a good thing.
12th Feb 2012, 16:29
When will an average MPL holder first sign for an aircraft?
I am not talking about flying solo. I could send a monkey solo with enough time and patience. I am talking about signing out an aircraft to go and fly, on your own authority. This entails a decision that the conditions are right. That the plan is sound. That you can cope when the plan goes to rats. That the aircraft is fit for purpose. That if anything goes wrong, up to and including total loss of power, you will be able to deal with it and have a fair chance of everyone surviving without serious injury.
That is where Captaincy starts: the decisions made on the ground. In CRM training you will be told that. You will not have experienced it.
This is a problem I have with the integrated course, and even some modular courses. Instructors check every decision. The first time many of these people sign for an aircraft on their own authority it has over 100 passengers, and more importantly that they have been flying for many thousands of hours, over many years without this experience. Yet they are expected to be monitoring the Captain and confirming every command decision from on duty to signing off the tech log
The MPL takes this problem and compounds it with lower experience of handling real aircraft.
Then there is the problem of AF447, where 228 people dies because one pilot made a basic error of handling and another with little command experience but in authority (the senior FO; the Captain did not enter the flight deck until very late) didn't take command. I've seen the latter happen in the sim, with two FOs flying together.
The fault in AF447 was probably largely with Airbus philosophy, pilots thinking their plane can't stall, but the fewer hours flying real aeroplanes the pilots have logged under their own authority, taking responsibility for themsleves, then the more likely accidents such as this.
I am just glad we will not see MPLs in GA. That is of course your biggest loss.
12th Feb 2012, 16:35
They say that a great landing in the sim is like kissing your sister.
Doing well in the conversion course will save training budget and proves they can follow procedures when they are expecting it. With you my judgement is seriously reserved as to what these guy can do on the line.
12th Feb 2012, 16:48
Not disregarding your points at all, they are completely good ones. If I was a passenger on a flight, idle minded and ignorant to the aviation world, I'd love to think the guys up front had thousands of hours experience and would be able to handle situations like you've pointed out. Or at least new guys in an airline had a fair amount of flying experience elsewhere before getting their hands on something with such responsibility.
But my point was, nobody, absolutely nobody who reaches the line out of "top" schools in europe has this kind of immense skygod material, CPL or MPL, doesn't make any difference. It's clearly picked up along the way, and it just cringes me when people brand the MPL as not a "real licence" but will happily sit there and accept that CPL guys are much finer aviators and have such better handling skills because they have about 30ish hours more flying looking at a 1:500 000.
I am just glad we will not see MPLs in GA. That is of course your biggest loss.
You will, a single engine, single crew rating is endorsed on the MPL after doing what is a whole PPL within the course. And if you moan about that then you may as well moan about every other PPL in the country with 45 hours and CPL guys at airlines who do 6 hours a year in the right hands seat just to keep the thing current.
12th Feb 2012, 23:02
Oh the pot has been stirred!!! Woohoo!!
First of all I'm sorry if I offended anyone with my little rant up there. The direction I wanted to take this conversation was, that current pilot training system might be outdated and although it probably isn't in desperate need, but in need nevertheless to be be somewhat altered.
So, CPL/IR + MCC + type rating = there's probably a better way of doing it...
MPL as a-stand-alone = not gonna comment again
CPL/IR with MPL training approach = kinda seems obvious
Second... Just because EASA and CAA think it's a good idea, doesn't necessarily mean it is a good one. There is the other side to the story, which is the cost. By the time you pay for, you could have easily had a CPL/IR/ME. But to each his own. So whatever floats your boat...
And Mr. howflytrg... I find your "stick to your own" comment to be quite arrogant and stuck up. You see in the past 6 years working in heavy maintenance I managed to squeeze just slightly bit more flying experience then an averege MPL graduate (considering you're one?). Not even gonna comment on "jet aircraft gen knowledge" MPLs love to brag about, as I think it wouldn't be fair (the one other CPL/IRs are lacking :ugh:).
13th Feb 2012, 07:54
Purely a Yank view, but.....
Any Public Transport airliner should have TWO full ATPs occupying the front seats. Meet all the experience requirements, PIC time, full type ratings. Public Transport is not a training environment, not to gain experience, the passengers expect, legally and morally, the highest duty of care. The F/O should be fully ready to command the flight under any conditions, PERIOD, FULL STOP.
By Act of Congress, that is the mandate to the FAA. Yes, training needs to be improved, updated, and more in tune with modern equipment. The USAF did that with the T-1 track for heavy drivers and it produced some great guys.
Yes, the military has loads of inexperienced pilots up front, usually with instructors, the duty of care is much reduced there.
14th Feb 2012, 17:27
If MPL only includes 90 hours real flying, then you are talking about an extra 80 hours minimum in real aircraft for a modular course (around 210 hours realistic minimum, up to 40 in FNPT). That would be unusual, and most would have about 250 total and so more than 100 hours more.
That, though, is not all. My point is about the responsibility given to the pilot. As galaxy flyer rightly says the FO should be ready at any time to take command of the aircraft. That takes captaincy - a nebulous quality, hard to define but easy to see in a flight operation. Impossible to fake captaincy, impossible to teach it, for some it is impossible to achieve it - it comes with experience to those capable of command. It doesn't come easily, if at all, if someone is looking over your metaphorical shoulder on every flight.
I disagree that both seats require a full ATPL. The single-crew flying I have done is as hard as anything in an airliner, and I started that without the requirements for even a US ATP. However I also disagree with EASA and the European Authorities that 170 hours plus rating is sufficient experience (note both pilots flying multi-crew already need a rating under EU-OPS, even in single-crew aircraft (such as C525) and even if the flight could legally be conducted single-crew (such as BE200)). I am not convinced even by 250 hours plus rating.
30th Dec 2013, 12:36
Thought I would bring this thread back to life. It seems a few more airlines have jumped on the "MPL" bandwagon.
I posted on another thread that I saw an agency ad for flight crew with the words "MPL trained pilots aren't eligable". Can anyone help me with where I saw that?
Seeing that made me think that maybe there are some some major airlines out there who are so against the MPL that they won't interview people if that is how they they got a licence.