Originally Posted by tee emm
What a strange logic and it is probably good that your trusting passengers wre not aware the most junior pilot is flying the approach on one engine. Otherwise there would be a riot on your hands.
1. it is called monitored approach, risks, benefits, terms of use and limitations are supposed to be very well understood by the companies using it.
2. passengers don't know and don't care about juniorness of flightcrew unless prompted by the journos versed in sensationalism, "working" on the story about dangers of inexperienced crew between stories of latest possible outbreak of some new disease (which never materializes) and analysis of exact weight of some B movie star's breast implants, based on "before" and "after" photos.
3. flightdeck is not democracy, idea of flightdeck ops is doing what
really needs to be done, not what someone thinks should be done. Threat and error management refers.
Originally Posted by Tee Emm
But seriously - what is it with this new fangled warm and fuzzy approach where the approached must be "shared" between the two pilots.
Nothing, that approach must be shared is spectacularly funny misunderstanding.
Originally Posted by Piltdown Man
Secondly, and this is where the 1,500 hour pilot has an edge, they are often very immature and lack people skills
Unfortunately, I haven't observed improvement of maturity and interpersonal skills commensurate with hours logged. Methinks psycheval before training even starts does have some merit.
Originally Posted by Globalstream
it is irrefutable logic that all things being equal, that same individual should be improving with every hour.
It is not irrefutable logic; it is so wrong that it was occasionally demonstrated to be lethal! Only individuals striving to learn improve with time, there are others who just drone along with minimum effort needed to pass the checks. They are usually the loudest supporters of experience=quality fallacy. Have a go at accidents report to see a bunch of 10 000+ greybeards making mistakes that are often mistakenly referred to as beginner's.
Originally Posted by Globalstream
If you question the value of experience then ask yourself why the cold world of insurance demands demands hours well in excess of regulated hours for certain operations.
Because where it is required (GA ops), there is no structured training and checking as there is in airlines so basic equation in the wonderful world of GA is houred+alive=competent. That's why there are no increased premiums for airlines when less than 200hr TT folks fly passengers as they are 1. properly certified by their respective authorities 2. not featuring prominently in accident or incident statistics.
Originally Posted by Centaurus
I see people scorning experience as irrelevent to airline piloting.
The most important experience in flying is that of other pilots! Learn from other's mistakes, you will not have the time to perform them all personally or luck to do them a lot before bereaving your dependents.
Originally Posted by Centaurus
The attitude seems to be as long as the cadet (or MPL graduate) can say the right phraseology, twiddle the right knobs on the autopilot and type at 80 words a minute into the CDU he is automatically the Right Stuff.
Misinformed exaggeration and misinterpretation of posts here. Properly trained MPL graduate is not lacking either manual or cognitive skills to fly an airliner and operate its systems. It's just s/he doesn't have 100 hours of solo cross-country stopwatch, compass and map navigation.
Originally Posted by Centaurus
And that, PPRuNe readers, is the difference between an MPL trained cadet and an experienced pilot...
No. This is story told on anonymous forum without any verifiable reference attached to it. In developed world, such a serious breach of safety would result in AAIB or its equivalent taking note.
Originally Posted by sapco2
Airline flying is a satisfying career.
Folks who think it of it primarily as career are usually the least competent pilots and sooner they move to upper management, better for the rest of us. It's a hard work that passion for flying makes more endurable, even enjoyable.
Originally Posted by sapco2
So my humble advice to all LEPs (for what it's worth) is be confident but never arrogant!
My distinctly unhumble advice is be competent, I don't give a Q400 about your arrogance unless you use it to support something untrue.
Originally Posted by Gretchenfrage
I am pretty sure however, that all the pilots here defending the MPL system, and with it the dilution of training and skill in todays pilots, will eventually be in the left seat in a few years.
Thank you for your good wishes.
Originally Posted by Gretchenfrage
It seems that aviation is so simple, that such things do not apply.
They do apply, it is just some outsiders are unable to perceive it.
Originally Posted by Gretchenfrage
No wonder we start to read accident reports that leave us in astonishment.
My astonishment (and considerable amusement) is that despite accident reports clearly stating flightcrew experience, which is verys seldom low, everyone still bashes low houred pilots but then I have already offered an explanation on it.
Originally Posted by Gretchenfrage
But frankly, this MPL system has crossed a red line
On some PPRuNers scale. Effect on the real world: poor to nil.
Originally Posted by Huck
The issue is simple: a certain percentage of pilots shouldn't be in this business.
Some of them are weeded out in the beginning.
Some of them make it farther into the profession before failing and getting booted out.
At 250 hours, you haven't had time to be properly evaluated.
Sim time doesn't cut it - we all know pilots who can shine it on in the sim, and are worthless on the line.
Exactly! It is not as if the airlines have to cope with substandard pilots, no matter of their training background. Bad MPL pilot can be booted out at OPC.
Originally Posted by SLF in AZ
If just one graduate from a "Betty's Flying Club" had been on 447 flight deck it would have been a non-event IMO.
That IMO is based on the ignorance of the fact that the pilot whose actions doomed the flight, the right hand seated one, was a glider pilot.
Now what?
Originally Posted by FERetd
For those of you ( if any) who extol the virtues of the MPL, you might want to read the article written in "General Aviation" (the AOPA magazine) dated December 2010.
The article is titled "First UK MPL holders reach the flight deck"
Thank you, it gave me a good laugh. Article represents view of two groups who have their skin much in the game; light GA operators bound to lose a lot of rent-out hours if MPL becomes the norm and first generation of MPL graduates struggling to be accepted int the world looking suspiciously at novelties. What ensues is idiocylimpics, as both sides attempt to spew as much bravo-sierra about MPL as possible in limited space.
Originally Posted by P-T-Gamekeeper
dealing with non-normal situations, which aren't covered by the QRH or Ops Manual.
What was that which made you deal with them successfully the first time they occurred?
Originally Posted by bubbers44
This MPL experiment will end in tears - waiting for the first major accident with one of them in the crew!
...and meanwhile ignoring all the others accidents that happen to experienced crews because they don't fit our preconceived notions.
Originally Posted by FERetd
MPL is a cheap and nasty way of getting cheap labour into the right hand seat.
So, should we abolish all the bank transfer fees because some Nigerian fellas are scamming people using it?
Originally Posted by Globalstream
The first objective of an independent, commercial flight school must be profit. It will deliver a quality inversely proportional to its profit motive.
That's why the developed world has independent inspectors performing certification.
Originally Posted by capt Hook
Your comments fail to consider other avenues, whereby cadets self-fund their MPL course.
Unlike some other comments pronouncing every MPL program to be inadequate because of some unscrupulous FTO owners in countries with less than effective control of their aviation sector?
Originally Posted by parabellum
Not really V2, how do you think the industry managed before the days of P2F and MPL? We got our licences and then went off and got a job flying light twins, often overseas, until we had enough hours for an airline to even look at us, others took the Intructing route. Don't know if they still do it but QANTAS had the right idea, after cadet training go off to get 1500 hours on light stuff as PIC then back to the airline.
The world does not end outside Autralia, USA or Canada. There are many countries that just don't have GA or military aviation large enough to produce pilots for their airlines' needs so they had to find other ways of filling the seats. Unfortunately for some, they rather went for cadet schemes or recently for MPL than importing large number of Aussies, Gringos or Cannucks.