But isn't PANS supposed to be of lesser authoritativeness than SARPs? meaning while any variance on the SARPs will require the ICAO member state to file for differences of practice with ICAO (which will then "judge" if the difference filing is merited and other ICAO member states may choose to withdraw certain privileges granted to the "differing" state), the PANS do not require such notice of difference? in other words, a member such as CAAP precisely can pick those they want and discard those they don't?
for instance, if i remember correctly, the MPL in PANS 9868 is supposed to be for turbine powered engine only, but FLybe of UK is doing it for turboprops. this difference would not have been possible if the MPL is a SARPs document rather than a PANS. So how is UK able to deviate from the MPL but not Phils? i hope we get informed comments, rather than the usual racist sh*t.
for instance, if i remember correctly, the MPL in PANS 9868 is supposed to be for turbine powered engine only, but FLybe of UK is doing it for turboprops.
"I think we've gone as far as we can with this forum. When the answers do come, hopefully they will be reported here. As for those who so kindly brought to the public's attention some of the challenges at Clark, I say: the cadets here aren't naive or stupid; we know what's what. We also figure that ICAO/CAAP will do what they are being paid to do--make sure that noone graduates with a 'worthless license'."
So, it seems that Lolo is now controlling what and who is allowed to post on this forum.... Naive, to say the least.
I stand by my statement that the MPL is, at the moment, a worthless licence unless the ICAO rules/law changes to make it a GA licence not depending on any sponsoring airline SOPs. And I'm not the only one making that afirmation here.
Does Lolo know how long it will take ICAO to make those necessary changes? I doubt....
Does Lolo understand the reach of his statement:
"We also figure that ICAO/CAAP will do what they are being paid to do--make sure that noone graduates with a 'worthless license'" ?
Surely Lolo does not know, or has forgotten, that ICAO is part of the UNO and CAAP is a branch of the Philippines Government. One makes the licensing rules, the other ensures that, once accepted, those rules are followed followed by the FTOs which, clearly, Alpha Aviation did not.
Where does the "...being paid to do..." come into?
Lolo does not like questions.... but questions must be asked to make him (and others that try the "flowery route") explain, in clear terms, how the rosy MPL holders future will come to be in countries where that licence has not yet been put into the statute books (some 99% of them)? And ICAO cannot force them....
I stand by my statement that the MPL is, at the moment, a worthless licence unless the ICAO rules/law changes to make it a GA licence not depending on any sponsoring airline SOPs. And I'm not the only one making that afirmation here.
The problem with you is that you think that what CA/CAAP/ICAO is doing is already finalized.
What we are pointing out is that CA/CAAP/ICAO are all adapting to the needs. And it does not take a day or two.. it takes months.
Making it a GA license and not depending on any sponsoring airline SOPs? If you are really indepth with whats going around CA/CAAP/ICAO, they have been planning this for months already. CA has given them proposals already. Atfirst ICAO and CAAP didnt like the idea but eventually, CAAP agreed on something. (hmm.. what did they agree upon? well, you're indepth knowledge with whats happening means you know whats cooking for months)
While this suggestions sounds good, making a MPL GA license might be a blunder also. What happens when CA has already given a nonsponsored student his/her 12 TAGS? He gets his license yet doesnt have an airline to work on. And, thats even worthless if he doesnt get an airline in 6months?! What makes the MPL supposedly attractive is that there's an airline waiting for you to continue and finalize your training on the type specific equipment. All these has been messed up when the first management accepted non-sponsored cadets. And yes, the current CA management is working on something for these nonsponsored cadets.
Lucky for Filipino nonsponsored cadets is that PAL, Cebu Pac and Zestair has almost the same SOPs. So, whatever training nonsponsored students get here, it will be easier for them to adapt to the company SOPs.
From a moderation standpoint, this thread is becoming tiresome. It generates more complaints in this one forum than any other. It is clear that it has become too large and seems to perpetuate (in part) with some users simply typing to their own alter egos!
From a moderation standpoint, this thread is becoming tiresome. It generates more complaints in this one forum than any other. It is clear that it has become too large and seems to perpetuate (in part) with some users simply typing to their own alter egos!
Get it back on track fast or it terminates!
The ball is apparently in the courts of the school/airline(s)/authorities involved. The rest in the peanut gallery have no choice but to let off steam. It's your prerogative as moderator to terminate it. Too bad though if you do. The topic still falls under a "breaking news" category, a long-winded one but still developing news.
I find the topic interesting reading and ignore the following (to quote one contributor):
Quote:
So this leaves the rest of us to post a bunch of circular questions, periodically interrupted by teen-agers, or unhappy pilots/bitter ex-Clark staff, or just cretins who are able to touch-type...
The fellow also wrote:
Quote:
We also figure that ICAO/CAAP will do what they are being paid to do--make sure that no one graduates with a 'worthless license'. This isn't Nigeria!*
Nigeria is on track to move from FAA's Category 2 to Category 1 late this year, I don't know about the CAAP.
So girls & boys, don't upset our moderator - this is supposed to be a PROFESSIONAL pilots' network - or we get a meltdown.
Ah, yes, it's you Lolo, whom I quoted ... which shows you're one of the level-headed ones whose contributions I read.
In closing, you expressly stated that you meant no disrespect to teenagers and Nigerians (and rightfully so - their NCAA may return to FAA Category 1 earlier than CAAP) - that was good.
To the rest of the group: criticism is fine, fellows, but let us keep it constructive.
Oh, sorry fellows, that was bad editing on my part. I had my type on Bold - makes one appear to be screaming. By the way, I'm one of Lolo's touch-typing cretins. I never really learned to type fast, except on the MCDU. Have a nice day everyone, got to move on to other forums.
Hi Lolo,
Can you please shed some light on Nigerian issue? I mean is there anyone from Nigeria in Clark, Management, Student? or what you are trying to refer to? or things are damnn in Nigeria?
You must be a rocket scientist to make this comment or just part of the same snake hesds who tried to ruin a good thing - which is it ///traveller93 ha we all know who you are
It is evident that the point is being missed by some here that keep on trumpeting the "good news" about the CIA "success".... which is desired but seems to be very difficult to achieve.
In two and half years of MPL training program, how many pilots graduated besides the three at 5J?
Other schools around the world have completed the training program within the time frame set by ICAO.
I fail to see the relevancy of posting news about the China aviation on this thread. Unless CIA has a contract to supply pilots to that market....
In two and half years of MPL training program, how many pilots graduated besides the three at 5J?
FYI:
3 are in their IOE stage in 5J
8 are in their OBS stage in 5J
11 finished their BOM and waiting for the 12 TAGS with 5J
20++ finished their a320 checkride already with clark av. Awaiting for 5J to absorb them. (so the ball is already with 5Js court, not clark av)
simply means... thats atleast 41 cadets finished with Clark Av already.
41 cadets in 2 and a half years? thats fairly average considering its a new program, a new school, newly established CAAP.
3 are in their IOE stage in 5J
8 are in their OBS stage in 5J
11 finished their BOM and waiting for the 12 TAGS with 5J
20++ finished their a320 checkride already with clark av. Awaiting for 5J to absorb them. (so the ball is already with 5Js court, not clark av)
simply means... thats atleast 41 cadets finished with Clark Av already.
41 cadets in 2 and a half years? thats fairly average considering its a new program, a new school, newly established CAAP.
These, at face value, look like some positive move forward for the 5J sponsored and partly sponsored cadets. Congrats and good luck to them!!!
Nevertheless, we need to clarify something here. The 12 TAGS are part of the MPL program and, although 5J will provide the a/c to do them, I doubt that the 11 cadets have been issued with their MPL licences.
The same applies to those 20++ cadets. No TAGS = No licence.
So, in fact only 11 cadets have graduated from CIA until now.
But, there again, I could be wrong....
On another tack, the info provided only applies to the 5J linked cadets and that leaves us with the self-sponsored group for whom 5J will not provide a/c for the 12 TAGS. Any ideas to resolve this issue soon?
Just to finish for today. The commentator LOLO had two posts that disappeared from the thread.
In those posts he was singing the virtues of CIA and how everything is running to schedule, and how CAAP and ICAO are actually working to resolve the real mess while mentioning things such as the Stirling pilots that lost their jobs because of the crisis, and the chinese MPLrs in Australia time to complete the course and the second(????) Airbus factory in China and the KAL cadets, etc. etc....
Honestly, while these details might make some interesting conversation, what does all that have to do with the CIA cadets graduation and insertion in the job market? NOTHING!!!! Except that it shows some desperate attempt, by someone obviously not experienced in aviation matters, to white wash a bad situation.
And this is evidenced by the FACT that CAAP and ICAO had to step-in to avoid very serious consequences caused by the malpractices of a private business. CAAP and ICAO should not be involved because they are the lawmaker and the regulator authority. But since they are involved, lets hope that we can see light at the end of the tunnel soon.
After all, CIA has its own management to take care of business. Or not?
hmmmmmmmmmm very positve comment
Linear Mode
