MPL was not brought up to fast track training of pilots. It actually changes how pilots are trained for the airline.
I think that is more than a little naive. There has always been an economic and staffing factor in the length-of-training argument, whether commercial or military. To be a little more accurate, you might want to say, at least for the initial MPL programs in Europe, it changed how pilots are trained for
a specific airline.
The authors realized that the traditional training for the airline PPL-CPL-ATPL can be actually enhanced by training ab-initio direct to the equipment they'll be starting.
That reasoning, with a notable exception, is used to rationalize the economic decision. The exception being that, the more training you get in operating any specific aircraft, the better you'll be at operating that aircraft. So, why bother with the Cessna hours at all? Why not start training in the big iron right up front? Economics maybe?
PPL and CPL will always be there because pilots have their own purpose of flying. Some wants to fly as a hobby, leisure etc etc. Yet some, wants to fly directly to the airlines.
Take PPL out of the equation. We're talking about CPL v MPL. And there are a lot of "commercial" and "airline" jobs that don't use the two approved aircraft. Again, the MPL, especially self-sponsored, is so restrictive.
Some say that they will NEVER fly with an MPL pilot as their F/O because of their lack of experience. But when this MPL pilot reaches 1500 in 2-3years, then they're no different with an CPL/ATPL pilot.
I'll bring up ZFT's point, too, here. Where does an MPL get the requisite PIC and PIC XC time for the ATP? It's not just a matter of 1500 TT. How many national interpretations of "PIC under supervision" will there be? About as many as there are for English Proficiency Level 6?
You cannot say 100% that a CPL holder with 3000 hours of Cessna flying in his belt is a better F/O than a 230 hour MPL holder (70hours cessna, 60hours Multicrew coordination training, 100hours Level D equipment based trained).
If I look at the logbook, and examine those 3000 hours, I may very well come to that conclusion.
Does the MPL know how to operate the Airbus or Boeing? Yes. Can the CPL holder with 3000 hours of Cessna be taught to operate the Boeing to the same proficiency standard with about 25 hours of FPD and Level D sim training? Again, yes.
Primarily because, there are CPL holder who flunks airline training. Why? because its a totally different environment.
You've conveniently ignored the fact that there are thousands of CPL holders who have PASSED airline training. Which brings up the question of selection. The military and the major-carrier sponsored ab initio programs have rigid pre-screening processes in place. That's one of the keys to making this work, and in the European programs, the carrier sponsors implemented a process, similar to their ab initio. How does that actually work with a "self-sponsored" MPL in an organization whose primary revenue source is flight training? We'll ignore the well-connected father and tons-of-money screening bypasses for now.
You also need to reconsider your definition of "environment." Everyone flies in the same weather and airspace. That's the environment of reality. I'm very worried that you would consider the ops manual that you fly under as your "environment."
In my opinion, General Aviation training is totally different from Airline LOFT and Base training. CPL pilots and MPL cadets are on the level playing field when they start training for the airline environment.
There are plenty of multi-crew "general aviation" aircraft. High-performance, turbojet, complex systems, type ratings required, etc. Do you think your 320/737 training is somehow superior to that? Don't know how the regs in your country are divvied up, but in FAA-land Part 135 carriers are AOC holders, just like the 119's and 121's (airlines). Do you think that folks don't have to "fly by the rulebook" in those operations? And what about the 125 operators? "General aviation" on the same equipment as an MPL.
CPL pilots are ahead of MPL cadets when they start training for the airline environment. MPL candidates start at 0 hours. CPL's have at least a minimal amount of PIC time. They know how to control an aircraft, and hopefully have done enough airwork and had experiences to sharpen some of those "between the ears" skills that make a PIC. Remember, there are two people sitting up front for a couple of reasons. With a PIC incapacitated, you're now single-pilot, same as the Cessna driver. What happens then when it all goes tits-up, and all of that MCC training is worthless?
For a positive discussion, I ask those who are in the PPL and CPL/IR, give any experiences or lessons that you have encountered that will be impossible for an MPL pilot to learn throughout his training. Thanks.
Stolen from a Rumors & News thread: fear of death and destruction in making a go-around decision in hairy weather. You can simulate the conditions, but not the visceral reaction of fear.
Night single-pilot IMC xcountry into unforecast icing, with a vacuum pump failure. Pick your own instrument failure set, with an unconscious captain, and aircraft is FIKI-prohibited.
Actual determining factor for maximum crosswind velocity on landing. (Hint: It's not in your flight or ops manual).