There are obviously good contributors to this thread.
Yes, indeed the MPL training was designed to be taught, in its last stages, using the SOPs of the sponsoring airline. Nevertheless and up to that phase (Type Rating and Base Training), all the instruction follows the normal (traditional) syllabus to get a PPL and CPL/IR. So, the major part of the requirements to get a " normal" CPL are already there.
In my opinion, ICAO made a mistake when it restricted the MPL to the sponsoring operators customised SOPs instead of the manufacturer's published procedures, as seen in the (A320) FCOM Volume 3.03.00, and, therefore, closing the door to the students that would like a generic Type Rating that would enable them to be employed by any airline.
As a matter of fact, most operators use the manufacturer's FCOM in the cockpit. Only very few have a suplementary folder containing small procedural changes to the original. Food for thought....
Is it so difficult for ICAO to change this ruling?
In any case, the ICAO MPL guidelines were published and it was up to the individual aeronautical authorities to set the local rules to accept the MPL training and licenses before any instruction was allowed to take place. Did Alpha Aviation ensure that the local authorities had all the rules in the statute books before advertising for the MPL course?
Give you an example how it was properly done somewhere else:
"Multi-crew pilot licence proposals released
Proposals for the introduction of an Australian multi-crew pilot licence have been set out by CASA. A notice of proposed rule making has been issued providing the broad framework for the new category of licence, which was established by the International Civil Aviation Organization in late 2006. The multi-crew pilot licence offers a new way of training people to become co-pilots in large aircraft operations with at least two pilots. It was established because there was an international recognition that current training requiring a large number of solo flying hours on smaller aircraft is not the most efficient and safe way to train jet aircraft co-pilots. Training organisations and airlines also wanted a greater use of modern training techniques such as flight simulators.
Key proposals put forward by CASA include: the minimum aeronautical knowledge requirements should be the same as the requirements for obtaining an air transport pilot licence and the instrument rating; the minimum flying experience should be the hours specified by ICAO as long as the training course, assessments and flight tests are based on the competency standards specified by ICAO; an MPL candidate will have demonstrated competency acting as pilot flying and as pilot monitoring a multi-crew multi-engine turbine powered aeroplane; a newly qualified MPL pilot should be limited initially to flying aircraft of the same type that was used in the final phase of the MPL course and with the airline associated with the MPL course; induction training and continuity experience requirements should apply to airlines using MPL pilots; the recent experience requirements for the MPL should be the same as the requirements for an air transport pilot licence."
Read the MPL notice of proposed rule making.
In the document you will find the whole MPL proposed ruling details here http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_asset...fs_annex_d.pdf
and I call your attention to the Annex A (ICAO MPL Licensing Pathway) where it seems that CASA has some sort of bridging to the CPL.
Could other PPRuners comment on this?
There must be a practical and legal way out of the poor self-sponsored students nightmare. A nightmare totally caused by Alpha Aviation.
What cannot be expected is that this situation be allowed to continue indefinitely!!!