MCC training EASA

[RAT 5]

I am looking for some advise about EASA MCC courses. I've read my local syllabus, and that from other ATO's, and the EASA MCCI syllabus. Not to be confused with a JOC course, but a stand alone mCC course.
IMHO the 'multi crew concept' trying course is just that; to teach inexperienced new CPL pilots how to operate in a multi-crew environment. It is an integral component of a CPL and these guys energy from flight school MPA with 148 hrs of airborne time. They have flown only cable controlled a/c and not used FMC's or FD's.
They have not operated in PF/PNF/PM scenarios, used non-normal checklists - QRH's etc. - nor liaised wth cabin crew.
I thought the concept was to teach them how to operate in a multi crew environment, including cabin crew & ATC, and how to manage a scenario. The type of a/c was not important.
Now I see the syllabus, in a Boeing jet, B737 or even B747 FFS includes:
1. SIDS via FMC, i.e. LNAV/VNAV.
2. Steep turns. Not even normal rate 1 turns
3. FD ILS.
4. Raw data ILS.
5. Engine failures on takeoff.
6. SE ILS + GA.
7. NPA using V/S.
8. Circle to Land.

etc. etc. One school quotes "this course will help with your transition into jet training, or enhance your jet handling skills."

I thought a TR course was about jet handling, and an MCC was already held by any jet pilot; so why enhance your skills?

Why is an FFS necessary. Why not an FTD? Handling skills is not the issue.

Am I missing something and can some experienced MMCI's shed light on this seemingly overly advanced an complicate course for cadets? Please.

[STBYRUD]

What exactly is your question - I can assure you that MCCs can be performed in FNPTs as well, FFSs are not required. Type ratings as far I know are not there to teach you basic jet handling, but to teach you the peculiarities of the type you are training on. MCC syllabi are therefore usually designed to give cadets a bit of a head start on the TR in terms of handling automation, malfunctions and handling of medium jets and flight management systems. A few FTOs/ATOs still offer a pure JOCs which only focus on getting trainees used to the handling and speed of jets, but do not fulfill MCC requirements by usually not including malfunctions and CRM exercises.

[RAT 5]

My question is does the syllabus of the published MCC fulfil the objective of teaching a basic piston powered cadet, who was taught to fly very much single crew in a cable controlled a/c, the concept of how to operate and manage a flight in a multi crew environment? The type of a/c is not relevant; it is the multi-crew concept that is relevant. Or am I missing the objective of an MCC course?
Expecting a cadet to handle some of the manoeuvres quoted is quite unrealistic. Therefore expecting a cadet to act as PM & PNF while PF is struggling to control the a/c also seems unrealistic. I'm looking to understand how best to make this a positive training experience when all I see is throwing 2 cadets in the deep end. If the MCCI is expected to 'coach' the PF through some of the handling manoeuvres what role in MCC is the PM cadet playing. It seems the blind trying to lead the blind.
After single crew flying in a piston at 100kts, the idea that 2 cadets can somehow manage a jet at 250kts in non-normal situations while learning the concept of PF & PNF and using a QRH, all within 5 sessions just does not seem realistic in a positive instructional sense. That is why I ask those of experience to share their experiences of doing it. I, too, shall soon be in the deep end. I am an experienced SFI/TRI/TRE, but admit that this syllabus does make me wonder at its ambition.
I understand the concept of operating as a crew and using SOP's & checklists, but trying to teach cadets this philosophy while asking them to control a hydraulically controlled jet is challenging in the extreme.
I remember Richard Hammond, of TG fame - and a highly experienced & accomplished high speed driver - trying to get a Renault F2 round the track. He stalled so many times before he got going. Then he almost lost it numerous times while just trying to drive round a track in 2D. Now we expect very low experienced cadets to try and do the same thing with an a/c in 4D, round a visual circuit, and handle engine failures with the whole new concept of PNF doing checklists.
Is it realistic and positive training? That's my question. It is not pass/fail. It is course completion.

[STBYRUD]

I see what you're saying, but maybe you underestimate the capabilities of those ab-initios - they are usually trained to fly their single and multi pistons like a jet right from the start, no idle descents steeper than 3°, checklist and SOP usage, just that they don't get help from the other seat. They can easily handle engine failures on conventional piston aircraft, in my opinion it only gets simpler on a jet. No prop to worry about and there is suddenly another guy to read the checklist for you :ok:
Obviously you can't expect them to have memorised the FCOM, but they shouldn't have problems reading off the QRH and performing those non-normals. The first session is going to be a shocker, obviously, a lot of new things to deal with, a much faster plane, lots of colourful lights and (comparatively) sluggish engine response, and suddenly depending on the competency of the other guy next to you. From personal experience though I can tell you that you can bring two reasonably eager cadets almost to skill test level within those five sessions :}

[Denti]

Well, the syllabus you quote in your first post seems to be a combined JOC and MCC course, which is of course fine in itself.

[RAT 5]

Thanks SBYRUD. I look forward to the challenge. It will certainly be a different mind-set, for me, than a TR course. Glad to hear that it is possible. But I still consider it's a little bit trying to run before learning to walk. Some years ago it was the case an MCC was run on a B1900 FTD or Caravelle/BAC-111. Now it is FFS B737 doing SE work. I can understand this more advanced course on a JOC, but a basic MCC course is also about learning multi-crew team work, communications, briefings, use of checklists, etc. If the autopilot is in CMD, and nav is via VOR/NDB then OK. It should be possible to do an MCC on a non-EFIS a/c. Adding the confusion of an FMC & FD/MCP seems it might distract from time better spent on the basic concepts of MCC. Is it an MCC course or a diluted TR course?

I'm glad to hear it can succeed with sharp guys, but what about the average jocks? I remember my transition from cable to hydraulic controls, from a sluggish a/c to a race horse, from a simple cockpit to a christmas tree flight deck, from doing my own thing to having to manage a scenario. It was a high work-load & steep learning curve. Learning all the early points were necessary before I had the capacity to manage to latter.

We'll see.

[STBYRUD]

Thanks SBYRUD. I look forward to the challenge. It will certainly be a different mind-set, for me, than a TR course. Glad to hear that it is possible. But I still consider it's a little bit trying to run before learning to walk. Some years ago it was the case an MCC was run on a B1900 FTD or Caravelle/BAC-111. Now it is FFS B737 doing SE work. I can understand this more advanced course on a JOC, but a basic MCC course is also about learning multi-crew team work, communications, briefings, use of checklists, etc. If the autopilot is in CMD, and nav is via VOR/NDB then OK. It should be possible to do an MCC on a non-EFIS a/c. Adding the confusion of an FMC & FD/MCP seems it might distract from time better spent on the basic concepts of MCC. Is it an MCC course or a diluted TR course?

I'm glad to hear it can succeed with sharp guys, but what about the average jocks? I remember my transition from cable to hydraulic controls, from a sluggish a/c to a race horse, from a simple cockpit to a christmas tree flight deck, from doing my own thing to having to manage a scenario. It was a high work-load & steep learning curve. Learning all the early points were necessary before I had the capacity to manage to latter.

We'll see.
It should definitely be a fun challenge, don't forget your trainees will be highly motivated, still actually interested in learning something new and excited about flying a jet for the first time - unspoilt by years of recurrent training - very much unlike type rating candidates often :}

[Capt Pit Bull]

A tricky area.

I've been involved with several MCC, JOC and Combined courses, both for modular students and also airline cadet specific company versions.

TBH, its all a bit of a muddle. I seriously doubt there has every been a proper training needs analysis done on most of these things.

I've also been involved in initial setup, and had to deal with intransigent regulators insisting on jam packing them full with everything under the sun until it becomes almost a mini type rating.

A few observations in no particular order.

An MCC on a complex jet inevitably will end up including some JOC elements.

A JOC on a multi crew aircraft will inevitably include some MCC elements.

Basic handling skills are required otherwise the students don't have the capacity to learn the multi crew stuff. Not least, being an effective multi crew with the automatics out requires different prioritisation and workload management.

Students inevitably want to use the course as interview sim check prep.

In my experience, everyone want to cram as much stuff into the course as possible.

The best analogy is this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA

But instead of armoured vehicles, think flying training.

[RAT 5]

I searched a few ATO's courses and they seem similar, some including use of a B747, which I find overwhelming. On EASA's website I could find only the MCCI syllabus, and indeed it included some extreme manoeuvres. I suspect the MCC student syllabus has been taken from this.

However, I found this 'course objective' paragraph, and this is where my questioning started.

"The objective of the MCC course is to develop optimum decision making, delegation of tasks and effective communication; use of checklists in normal & non-normal scenarios; development of teamwork and supervision of crew colleagues; development of support techniques using solid CRM principles.

Training is arranged to allow students to participate as PF & PNF/PM. Scenarios & manoeuvres are planned in which each student can practice these roles and develop leadership skills and support skills. It is important to develop multi-crew teamwork philosophies rather than competent individual skills."

I question if Emergency Descents, Engine failures, SE approaches & GA, NPA & circling to land or visual approaches, emergency QRH items in an unfamiliar a/c are best suited to achieve those objectives for some one coming from a low experience simple a/c single crew background.
I just gave an SFI/TRI core course. In that it was emphasised the basic concepts of teaching: establishing an Objective for that teaching and an Aim how it would be achieved. Proceed at the pace of the student and don't overload. Be aware of the entry level and knowledge of the student and match that to the entry level of the course.

IMHO the common MCC course I've found is questionable as to fulfilling those philosophies. Yet they both come from the same institution. EASA FCL. To me it's like they have been written on different planets.
I'm aware many guys use those ATO'S as sim check preparations for airlines using the same a/c. That is 'playing the system', but is it the true reason of the MCC course? They are not cheap.

[Amadis of Gaul]

Thanks SBYRUD. I look forward to the challenge. It will certainly be a different mind-set, for me, than a TR course. Glad to hear that it is possible. But I still consider it's a little bit trying to run before learning to walk. Some years ago it was the case an MCC was run on a B1900 FTD or Caravelle/BAC-111. Now it is FFS B737 doing SE work. I can understand this more advanced course on a JOC, but a basic MCC course is also about learning multi-crew team work, communications, briefings, use of checklists, etc. If the autopilot is in CMD, and nav is via VOR/NDB then OK. It should be possible to do an MCC on a non-EFIS a/c. Adding the confusion of an FMC & FD/MCP seems it might distract from time better spent on the basic concepts of MCC. Is it an MCC course or a diluted TR course?

I'm glad to hear it can succeed with sharp guys, but what about the average jocks? I remember my transition from cable to hydraulic controls, from a sluggish a/c to a race horse, from a simple cockpit to a christmas tree flight deck, from doing my own thing to having to manage a scenario. It was a high work-load & steep learning curve. Learning all the early points were necessary before I had the capacity to manage to latter.

We'll see.

Seems to me you're overthinking things a tad.