MPL Summary so far
Hi All
Perhaps it will be useful to summarise where we seem to be with this issue so far.
The fundamental premise behind the licence is that the traditional FATPL + Type rating route to the right seat of an airliner is not as focussed on that task as it could be because it has to equip the licence holder to fly single crew, public transport, in command. The MPL premise is that if all the training from day one is aimed at producing an effective co-pilot then the training needs to have the 'footprint' necessary for that task - unsurprisingly, it turns out that it should be shorter and cheaper to train up for the MPL (which of course includes the type rating) than to do the FATPL+Type rating. The savings come largely from the use of appropriate simulators versus multi-engined aircraft.
A quick analysis of the MPL syllabus shows that it follows in a different way the learning associated with PPL, Night, Basic Aeros, IMC, CPL+I/R, JOC, MCC, Type Rating. The MPL puts the emphasis during training in a different place - Human-Factors, Multi-Crew Threat & Error Management and confident competence in a multi-crew airline style environment.
The licence is not particularly suited to any one group of pilots on either cultural or regional grounds. However, given that around 4000 new pilots per year will be coming from Asia and the Pacific Rim, it is easy to see that structuring pilot training from beginning to the airline under one umbrella (so continuity of training culture etc) has significant advantages and economy of scale. I don't mean to be critical but one or two of the earlier comments seem to suggest that there is something inferior in the MPL. I can see why different might feel inferior, but I'd prefer simply to see it as just different and in fact better at producing an effective co-pilot as soon as possible.
National regulators have already decided how to identify the convertibility of ICAO v EASA MPL licences to the 'classic licences' so although the mud has still to settle, no-one should feel that they have to make a career limiting choice in enrolling on either a classic course or an MPL course.
None of this would be fun without addressing the piloting skills implicit in both licences. My feel for this is that they are neither better nor worse, just different. And each can become the other if they so desire. In case that doesn't sound controversial enough; my experience of FATPL cadets is that they come to the airline with very low team/crm/situational skills that time in the multi-crew environment puts right. My expectation is that MPL cadets will come with good team/crm/sa skills and take some time to get used to flying in real clouds, real turbulence and real disorientation - they will always however have the Senior Member present. In the case where Sir has gone for his physiological relief and FATPL or MPL are alone and (hopefully not all at once!) the aircraft depressurises, the fire bell rings, the TCAS RA, the engine failure at high gross weight with small margins etc.....will either fare better? Answers on a postcard. I expect it will probably be the person with the best self-discipline (is current in recall drills/SOPs and has thought about what to do when bad stuff happens other than during the conversion course).
So, as someone who has been involved in planning to deliver MPL training within the foreseeable future, I am optimistic that it will be a way of producing good quality airline pilots at a cost both the individual and the airline will be willing to pay. Perhaps this debate will have teeth when the first group of MPL trainees have a year in the right seat under their belts and then again when that first group go on their command courses.
Isn't great that after all these years we continue to try stuff that pushes boundaries and comfort zones...
TT