Originally Posted by Capt_SNAFU
A CPL holder that gets into an airline also has to do an endorsement on type.
MP(A)L holders are not trained for single pilot operations, they are trained as part of a total airline apprenticeship. Part of the process of getting a MP(A)L training organisation approval, the organisation has to demonstrate that they MP(A)L holders have continuing post course education. It is not like a CP(A)L where pilots can effectively be thrown into a GA charter operation without getting any ongoing professional development ever.
I am guessing most people on this thread think that the Day VFR syllabus which is the course outline for the CP(A)L gives the required knowledge and skills required in today’s multi crew airline operation.
People have not come out and said it, however reading between the lines they think that reducing the number of hours in a GA single is somehow reducing the MP(A)L holders ability to perform as a pilot in a multi crew airline operation. I would disagree, the syllabus for the MP(A)L is geared towards the required knowledge and skill required for a multi crew airline operation.
If anything I think new MP(A)L holder would be a more capable FO than a new CP(A)L holder with a new type rating. If you get a chance have a look at the required training in ICAO Doc 9868 PANS TRG, and then compare that to the Day VFR syllabus, and make you own assessment of which pilot is given the better training for a multi-crew airline environment (i.e. IFR high performance turbine).
Originally Posted by Capt_SNAFU
I also didn't think too many MP licensees had been issued worldwide.
I do not have the exact numbers, it is in the order of thousands, the process has been around internationally for 5 years. This is how airlines like Lufthansa now train their new pilots. To quote Florian Hamm, CEO Lufthansa Flight Training, "Despite the enormous cost pressure facing the industry, Lufthansa is introducing MPL not in order to save costs but to improve the quality of training."
Those who actually do the numbers know that a Level D sim is more expensive to run than a GA piston twin or single. People who are making claims that this is a ”cheap” way of training have not costed a MP(A)L training process.
Originally Posted by 'holic
Good point, except we're all talking about getting your 150 hr CPL, plus a few thousand hours in GA and then joining an airline. Which airlines are hiring bare 150 hr CPLs?
No we are not, the MP(A)L holders were all from an overseas airline. Australia exports over 500 new 150 hour CP(A)L holders a year to airlines overseas. That is the market where industry is asking for the MP(A)L approvals.
Originally Posted by 'holic
As opposed to what they do at the moment, which is .... ?
Try and get yourself a copy of ICAO Doc 9868 PANS TRG, and you will see what a CP(A)L student does not cover in their training.
Originally Posted by 'holic
When Qantas decided to change to competency based training, the only difference I noticed was that the forms they fill out at the end of a sim session changed.
A lot of larger organisations due to the very size of them had a lot of these processes in place as part of their standardisation team.
In other organisations, a lot more should have changed, however you may have been unaware of the changes. For example when doing a V1 cut, under the old system, it was up to the checker to decide what technique is acceptable or not, under a competency based system, the checkers have to be trained how to deliver and assess competency based training, this means for a V1 cut the required outcomes that define "competent" have to be defined by the training organisation upfront. This may involve defining acceptable headings, speeds, bank angles, pitch, thrust, SOP and checklist usage. It takes away from the checker the ability to fail a student because they do not do things they way they "like" it, if a student meets the required parameters, they are deemed competent.
Originally Posted by The The
There is so much wrong with that kind of mindset, it is not even worth bothering starting to debate it.
Very true.