Private jet;
I think you make some excellent points. For example, in my new-hire course of 16, the "time in" ranged from 250hrs to 4500hrs with an average of 1500hrs. We were all placed on the DC8 or L1011 as Second Officers. If one had military or corporate time, they went directly onto the DC9, all with good success and nothing more than the usual that aviation has to present.
The notion of apprenticeship" is what I meant by "time in". The guys with low time (I had 1500hrs) were put into the "back seat" of the '8 or Lockheed and we watched "how it was done" for a number of years. Movement was governed by the seniority system so moving up was a function of many factors and not just experience/time in. Some of us sat in the back for a year and a half, (long enough, believe me) and some sat at senior bases for 15 years in the back - other priorities, I guess.
The key is, on "Day One" when we actually handled the aircraft, all the ancilliary stuff like company procedures, policies, "the way it was done" was in-hand and we knew what the crusty guys in the left seat did when they didn't like what was going on and we adopted that learning.
The gentleman with 250hrs had as little trouble flying the airplane as those who had higher time - it was a non-event for him as it was for all the others, even as though individual differences meant different levels of initial difficulties which are inherent in all complex systems.
The second key here is, all we had to do when transitioning to a flying job was to learn the airplane, re-learn flying skills and put the thinking we saw being done "up front", to work for real. I/we certainly were challenged in the first few months but we had a lot to fall back on.
Today, international carriers at least have an "RP", Relief Pilot position and while not nearly as engaging as the Second Officer (Engineer) position, at least it is an opportunity for learning where the candidate is a legal part of the operational crew.
A "100-hr simulator wonder" has nothing to fall back upon. BTW, I use the term "100hr wonder" to criticize the undeserved respect and legitimacy offered the MPL candidates' level of experience and "expertise" thought to be brought to the profession and cockpit. It just isn't there.
Regarding your comments about "vested interests", (in capitals, so I must assume you have an interest in this beyond mere opinion), and the notion that the MPL is taking business away from the "clapped out Seneca operators",...well, perhaps, perhaps not. That isn't a notion that either occurred to me or that I am motivated by or interested in. Anybody with sufficient hands-and-feet time and basic instrument training can fly an airliner. September 11th was sufficient evidence for that.
To take that comprehension of what "airline pilot" means a bit further, and keeping in mind the remarkable advances that computerization of airliners has made with concurrent increase in safety, the mistake we in our profession make is to "make it look easy".
Manipulating an airliner, is, in fact, easy with a bit of practise. The serious error made by bean-counting managements who increasingly do not know that they are actually in the aviation business is, they take this "automation phenomenon" to mistakenly conclude that "airliners fly themselves" and airline pilots are, to use John Glenn's pithy aviator's statement, merely "spam in a can" and are dispensible or, if they are THAT necessary, we can "put a resource, cheaply and quickly trained, in the cockpit to accompany the one experienced pilot."
Truly, that is what the "MPL" conjurs for me and many who see this not as an aviation-related initiative, but an initiative driven by money not safety, and by these fundamental misconceptions of what it takes to fly an airliner in as complete safety as possible. QED.
As a captain (now retired) for a major North American carrier, my only concern, and you would know this already, was the competency of my crew when the going gets tough. Like the brain itself, we use about 5% of the available "power" but there is a lot in reserve when "flight or fight" must be brought to the fore. Same with "time in" in aviation.
The MPL Program can't possibly teach such things because neither fear nor "readiness" in aviation can be taught - it must be grown through experience and that is what "time-in", especially as it is meant in the US and Canada where I entered the aviation system so long ago, means.
Thanks for your thoughts on this...well worth reading, imo.
PJ2
Last edited by PJ2; 5th Dec 2008 at 20:49.