Which MCC??? [Archive] - PPRuNe Forums

Capt BK

7th Jan 2005, 07:48

Unfortunately you are not going to get a clear cut answer. I've been watching MCC threads for seemingly years now and every one is the same - Jet v Turbo. It's exactly the same as Integrated v Modular or Groundschool v Distance Learning.

All I can suggest is to get as much information from each course and make a desicion as to which one YOU would prefer to do. From what I gather there is no right or wrong in this industry. Some airlines like ex instructors but some dont. Some like MCC jet sims but some dont care. What some like, others dont so I feel it is impossible to keep everybody happy, the only person you can is yourself.

I was working on a tight budget so I considered cost, accomodation and availability and in the end chose a King Air sim at AFT. Wether this was the right or wrong desicion only time will tell but I thoroughly enjoyed my course so I'm happy. I have friends that have done their MCC on a jet sim and enjoyed theirs too.

As the MCC only has to be done once there are few people that have done the course on both types of sim and therefore it is very difficult to find any comparison.

Some advice I can give is to find out during what hours the sim is used on each course. I understand some courses (Jet and Turbo) utilise the sim during the night which is certainly not ideal, a point which should be made clear in the groundschool element!!

Which ever course you choose, it will be a bigger aircraft and it's great fun playing with it - enjoy yourself:)

CBK

P.S. Regarding Sim checks, I've been told by three training captains that all they are looking for in the sim ride is basic general handling skills and an improvement over a couple of flights. They know you can't fly a 757, they are trying to get an overall feel as to wether they think you could complete the course and they will of course take your past experience into account. If you have some jet time you may impress and improve quickly, if you don't you may not but the instructor may not look for the same level of competance. Again it's horses for courses

CAT3C AUTOLAND

7th Jan 2005, 12:39

rapg,

Agree with Capt BK, I don't think you will be at any advantage or disadvantage whether you do the course on a Jet or a Turbo-prop Sim. I have also been told by a number of different sources that when being assessed on a sim check, they are looking for your basic handling skills, and your ability to improve throughout your flight details.

From my own personal experience, I chose to do my MCC on a full motion B757 sim. For me it was a nice way to finish after doing the IRT purely from the amount of fun I had, as well as learning an awful lot about CRM, and what it is actually like to fly a heavy medium sized jet.

Good luck with what you decide.

Wee Weasley Welshman

7th Jan 2005, 13:47

Cheapest is best.

Spend the difference on a sharp suit, sharp haircut and fancy shoeshining machine - much more likely to impress a prospective interviewer.

FTO's with expensive jet style sims tell you they are worth it because they need to pay their bills and make a profit.

You can learn Multi Crew Coordination skills on two upturned orange crates in an office broom cupboard in a Slough retail park with a torch by teaching yourself from a book. Pleezzzzeee don't go spending £3,500 on it!

Its only learning how to say "check" a lot and making sure you don't do anything without saying so before or afterwards. Challenge and Response checklists aren't exactly rocketscience... Neither is calling "V1" or "Set Thrust" or "Retune Radios for Missed Approach". Its money for old rope - therefore cheapest is bestest.

Cheers

WWW

BillieBob

7th Jan 2005, 14:50

What a complete load of bollox!

You won't find many TRIs or SFIs who would support www's point of view. It's immediately obvious whether a candidate for a first multi-pilot type rating has received good or bad MCC training, and those that have received good training find the type rating course streets easier. It matters not one jot whether you do the MCC on a jet or turboprop, it's only the quality of instruction that matters. However, I lean toward the school of thought that says you find it less of a culture shock transferring from piston to turboprop and can concentrate more on the job in hand, but then I never had to do a MCC course so what do I know?

Having experienced the output of most UK MCC providers, I'd say you'd be hard pushed to beat Jetlinx - who just happen to use BA's sims at Cranebank (although I'm sure their product would be just as good if they used a FNPT II but not, perhaps, two upturned orange crates.)

Send Clowns

7th Jan 2005, 15:42

I think BillieBob has hit it, that you want good training because of what you can learn and because crew co-operation is important (though I would add that it increases your probability of surviving to buy that small island with your huge Captain's pension). I was pleased to have used a jet (L1011 Tristar - awesome :E ) because it gave me confidance that I can cope with a sim ride at jet speeds.

GASH !

7th Jan 2005, 22:18

The Flight Centre at Wolverhampton was the cheapest by far when I did mine.

However, if you enjoy wasting money (as many people on here do) then choose anywhere else! :ok:

Wee Weasley Welshman

8th Jan 2005, 09:54

MCC courses are the biggest profit centres for FTOs - they make a mint out of them.

Stick 8 people at £2,500 each into a classroom for less than a week. Let them play on 'Simulator' that may or may not handle like the real thing, and, which may or may not be fully serviceable. Work through some generic exercises that anyone with 50hours on the line has mastered anyway.

Hire some instructor who has <suck air through teeth> thousands of hours of "commercial" experience, possibly even having been, in some form, one of those mystical creatures - a Training Captain. Who now has lost his medical years ago and who largely just plays golf inbetween reading the Daily Mail and moaning about his council tax.

Let him (and it always is) generously pass down his pearls of flying wisdom of how they did it on Tristars (when Bloggs is going onto Airbus next week) in the 1980's with nothing but an NDB crosscut to get you to Bombay (as he still calls it) and back.

So its £250 for the classroom for the week, £1,500 to get Nigel to put down his clubs, £250 in materials, £500 for advertising and admin, £2,500 to cover the 'sim' machine and BINGO - £20k in for £5k out. Nice one.

And just think - up until 4 years ago every airline pilot in the country was let loose on the line WITHOUT have attended ANY Multi Crew Cooperation course! Heavens! How did they manage!

Go for the cheapest.

WWW

African Drunk

8th Jan 2005, 10:16

I would advise people to look at some of the MCC providers who have links to airlines and a have a good chance of getting you a job(if you perform well). CTC has links with the likes of easyjet and parc with EU jet. I do to an extent agree with WWW but if I was to do my MCC again I would probably pay the extra if there was a chance of getting a job from it.

moggiee

8th Jan 2005, 11:51

WWW - thanks for the glowing and "balanced" assessment!!

The majority of MCC providers do a good job of trying to impart a great deal of knowledge to trainees in a ridiculously short period of time (20 hours is too little).

The majority of MCCIs are experienced pilots who have a good understanding of the skills required to function as an effective crew member, as well as a thorough knowledge of industry practice. Our MCCIs (some of whom are in current flying practice) come from both civil and miltary backgrounds, with jet and turbprop experience and are well able to pass on their knowledge to the customers.

Airlines who currently employ some of our ex-trainees profess them to be very pleased with the standards to which the pilots in question were trained on the MCC - and when an airline requests us to do it, we can teach their specific SOP on the MCC, further enhancing the learning value.

Having taught MCC on both Jet and Turboprop FNPT2s (both of which VERY faithfully replicate the handling and performance of the aeroplanes upon which they are based), I can honestly say that the jet vs TP arguement is irrelevant - it is all about working as part of a team, not how fast you go (although below 10,000' you can pretty much fly our TP sim at jet speeds if you so desire).

What matters most is the quality of training received - and by and large that is pretty good.

You should try it some day - practice what you preach and pass on your knowledge.

BillieBob

8th Jan 2005, 12:40

It would seem that Weasley has fallen into the familiar trap of taking the example of his own, clearly poor, choice of MCC provider and assuming that all others are as bad. As has been explained many times before on these forums, it is not possible for someone who has experience of only one training provider to make a valid judgement on any other and Weasley's opinion is, therefore, of limited value. There is no doubt that a good quality MCC course makes a significant difference to the transition from single-pilot to multi-pilot operations and has a positive effect on the ability and awareness of a new F/O and, therefore, on flight safety.

The contention that the statement "up until 4 years ago every airline pilot in the country was let loose on the line WITHOUT have attended ANY Multi Crew Cooperation course!" has any relevance to a discussion on the value of such a course is intellectually flawed. The increased ease of transition and quality of product, not to mention the reduction in training time in some cases, following the introduction of the mandatory MCC course is unarguable, as any TRI with both pre and post-MCC experience on a multi-pilot type rating programme will tell you.

I repeat, having dealt with the output of most UK MCC courses, it is not the training device that makes the difference, it is the quality of the instructors - the one point on which I will agree with Weasley is that you should avoid, like the plague, the superannuated BOAC Training Captain and go for a course where the instructors are current airline pilots.

Wee Weasley Welshman

8th Jan 2005, 13:55

Billiebob - My MCC was done by my first airline. Many wannabes find that this happens anyway and that therefore their MCC 'investment' was wasted money. Luckily I never fell for that trap.

I've seen plenty of MCC courses and have many many friends, colleagues and ex-students who have been on them from dozens of providers. Therefore my opinion is of more than limited value. Whereas yours and Moggies are tainted somewhat by fact of you earning a living from MCC course provision. Caveat Emptor - people.

MCC courses are a waste of time and were never intended by the CAA to be courses paid for by students prior to airline interview.

Everything taught on them is covered anyway during the type conversion course and the subsequent line training within the airline.

YES all training has some benefit. But your average MCC course is a waste and suplication of money. Often run at great profit by FTOs employing instructors who frankly can't get work doing anything else.

Sure there are some great instructors running MCC courses that are as good as can be. But that isn't the average persons experience and you know as well as I that there are some pretty shoddy courses out there.

Its not that the MCC stuff is totally useless and irrelevant - it isn't. BUT mostly its all covered in the airline course and on the line. By which time the MCC course is usually half forgotten and used different SOPs and certainly didn't add thousands of pounds worth of training value.

If money is no object then go on the biggest shiniest MCC course you can - in fact hire a Boeing and go and do it in realtime. But in reality go for the cheapest, use the money saved for IR renewals, for interview expenses, for a decent suit, for an interview coaching course.... all these and more are going to give you a better shot at that first job.

People on these forums extolling the merit of MCC courses are very usually connected to providing them in some way. Bear that in mind.

Cheers

WWW

Crashlanding

8th Jan 2005, 18:07

I might as well add my two cents worth.

I did my MCC with Air Atlantic on the Beech 200.

Course took 2 weeks.

All the instructors both for the sim and the course where very good. I think the turbo prop was a good option as I had slightly more time to do things rather than going some 100+ knots faster and rushing.

Most importantly is to have fun and enjoy the training, consider this as the first time in your training to relaxe, your not going to kill anyone if it goes wrong, your going to learn a lot about communication and standard practices/phrases. And more importantly its not like doing your Inital IR, you will more than likely be flying most of the time using the autopilot.

Have fun

Neil

Wee Weasley Welshman

8th Jan 2005, 18:17

Well thats nice. But thousands of pounds nice? Really?!

There are far distant rumours that the MCC requirement will dissapear in coming years through a process of harmonisation. Do you really think our Southern continental cousins - wou are JAA compliant - really make their young aviators spend 3,000 Euro on a certificate.....?

Cheers

WWW

BillieBob

8th Jan 2005, 19:34

My MCC was done by my first airline. Ah, so you don't actually have first hand knowledge of any modular MCC provider
....have many many friends, colleagues and ex-students who have been on them from dozens of providers. Dozens? That's pretty neat trick considering there are only 13 modular MCC providers approved by the UK CAA. How about 'One or two'?
Whereas yours and Moggies are tainted somewhat by fact of you earning a living from MCC course provision. Not true - whilst Moggie is, by his own admission, an MCCI, I have never taught on an MCC course. I do, however, have first hand experience, as a TRI both before and after the introduction of the MCC course, of the benefit it has brought to the first MPA type rating.
MCC courses are a waste of time You are entitled to your opinion, albeit formed with no first hand knowledge.
People on these forums extolling the merit of MCC courses are very usually connected to providing them in some way. But not in this case. However, we mustn't let the facts get in the way of a bit of good old fashioned blind prejudice, must we?

Keep truckin'

moggiee

8th Jan 2005, 21:22

BillieBob - that is brilliantly put.

Having had direct contact with the airlines that take the product of MCC courses, I can categorically state that they have found that an MCC course DOES make a marked difference to the candidates arriving on type ratings - and if the SOPs can be tailored to theirs then the difference is even more marked. This is particularly the case for low hours candidates, as opposed to FIs with full log books.

The FTOs run MCC courses because most airlines can´t be bothered. I believe that BA (who were approved to run MCC) are no longer bothering to maintain that approval. Very few airlines do them - easy are an exception - but they ARE by and large happy with what they get from the FTOs

WWWs opinions are just that - opinions - with very little factual basis. Unfortunately, he is not the only moderator here who holds those opinions and that, sadly, skews the debate as many wannabees place a great deal of credence upon the words of moderators over other (more informed) correspondents.

Of course, he won't agree with me!

Wee Weasley Welshman

9th Jan 2005, 07:57

I don't agree with you.

My words are not handed down in tablets of stone. What Joe Wannabe reads on this thread is a lively passionate argument about the broad merits of MCC courses.

By way of reading hopefully his understanding of the range of views available is increased and he leaves a little better informed. Whether he thinks I'm talking rubbish or yourself is not the point. I certainly don't need to believe I'm right all the time and anybody gives a damn what I say - do you?

As long as he's heard both arguments and come to his own opinion. THATS the value of this forum. There are no Gurus in this business, nobody has all the answers and there is no one truth.

What there is is a whole spectrum of opinion, experience and thought. All collated here under one useful cyber roof for Joe Wannabe.

If you think I am in the minority in concluding MCC is a hugely money spinning racket that adds little of value for its £2000 - £4000 cost then I assure you that you are wrong. Its a very cheap course dressed up by schools to teach what has always been taught on type conversion and line training...

For the average person looking for their own MCC course whilst job hunting my advice still stands: Do the cheapest one you can find.

If they all do this then the industry will ratchet downt he cost. I see no need for the course to cost anything over £1,000 at the very most.

As nearly everyone says its just a tick in a box course.

Cheers

WWW

rapg1000

9th Jan 2005, 11:46

So let me get this right....

I could spend well over £3k on a course with CURRENT pilot jolly good blokes.

I could spend up to £3k on an all singing all dancing jet sim with ex pilot chaps who might not be politically or socially correct!

I could spend roughly £2k on a basic sim jobby.

Or I could wait for someone to offer me a course for a couple of hundred quid "on two upturned orange crates in an office broom cupboard in a Slough retail park"

Or I could sit on my bum and wait for an airline to send me on an MCC course.

Right I'm off on holiday with the money I saved then!!

Thanks

Joe Wannabe
;)

moggiee

9th Jan 2005, 21:09

rapg1000 - on the assumption that there is a heavy dose of irony overlaid upon your post, I trust that you are not genuinely awaiting an airline that will pay for your MCC.

If you are then you may be waiting a long time as only a minority will cough up for that or do it in house.

Good luck with whatever course of action you take.

Moggiee

Mosspigs

10th Jan 2005, 13:28

I'll get banned for this!!!!!

WWW.

Moderator n 1. A person or thing that moderates

Moderate adj 1. Not extreme or exessive. 2. Not violent; mild or temperatate. 3. Of average quality extent: 4. A person who holds moderate views

Chill out, think of your blood pressure and annual medical.

People don't want a lively debate, if they did they'd watch Rikki Lake. What they want is advice that is balanced and informative not passionate and biased.

carbonfibre

10th Jan 2005, 18:28

Cheap is not always best, just what your able to afford after the mounting debt of the CPL / MEIR

Anyway I ave first hand experience of Wolverhampton spaceport i have to agree the chaps who did the MCC (ex BA) were very nice, but that cant be said for one of them, who works for the shark of an owner and would not recommend them to anyone.

Go to a reputable provider and do your homework, its the same with all ratings / certificates, you dont just do them anywhere, you choose your provider for a reason

Good luck ;)

Angels One Fife

10th Jan 2005, 22:18

WWW has a very valid opinion and unlike Moggiee who is 100% dependant on teaching MCC for his bread and butter therefore in a good position to be rather unbiased.

You only need to read how Moggiee's opinion of/MCC must be done on a JET' has changed ever since he changed employer to realise that his opinions are only made for his own personal gain.

moggiee

10th Jan 2005, 23:12

One Fife - not the case. The change of opinion is based upon experience. Experience that tells me that (contrary to my previous view) the choice of FNPT2 is less an issue than I once thought it to be.

However, what has not changed is my belief that MCC is enormously valid. I say this as someone who was placed on a multicrew, large, 4 jet flight deck with 215 hours of flying experience in my logbook and expected to "pick it up as I went along". An MCC course would have been a huge advantage.

The step up to the 4 jet aeroplane in terms of handling and performance was not much of an issue - and in terms of flying ability I am just average. The step up from a single pilot aeroplane to a multicrew one is significantly greater. I am not the only person to feel this way - ex-military pilots that I know who fly for the airlines (many of whom joined before MCC became a requirement) say that an MCC would have been a huge help to them.

I began teaching "MCC" before MCC was legislated into existence - we called it LOFT but we covered the same syllabus (or greater), usually in a similar time frame. Contrary to the beliefs of WWW, MCC was never formally taught as part of the type rating - it was just something that you "picked up". Picking it up as you go along may be OK for an FI with a couple of thousand hours logged, but it's not so easy when you have 1/10th of that amount in the book. I could name a couple of WWW`s former Jerez colleagues (fellow FIs) who believe that their MCC courses were a great help when they got their first FO jobs with airlines.

The introduction of MCC has saved airlines a great deal of money as low-hours pilots then require fewer expensive remedial hours on their conversions. BA reckoned that prior to the training freeze in 2001 they were saving £1.25 million per year as a direct result of the training given to their cadet pilots between licence issue and starting type ratings. That's an average of about £3,500 per trainee.

My previous employer (and therefore myself) picked up a lot of business because a number of airlines told people applying to them to "go XXX, do a LOFT course - at least 20 hours please - and then we'll consider you". Why did they do this when a LOFT course was not aregulatory requirement? Because they knew that having done aLOFT course with us the applicant would be easier and cheaper for them to train - both on the type rating and on line.

Of course, the above could all be rubbish and MCC could be a waste of money. However, I leave you to decide.

Wee Weasley Welshman

11th Jan 2005, 06:58

I totally agree that the old Jet Orientation Courses and extended Line Orientation Flight Training courses (JOC and LOFT as they were known) were very useful. They existed before JAA when the British ran their own training system. They were useful bridges between the CAP509 course ending and the official type rating course starting. They worked well. They were tightly regulated by the CAA who had very high standards and very rigourous checkers. Most instructors were current line TRIs.

And then along came JAR harmonisation.

Johhny foreigner by and large hadn't a setup like the UK's CAP509 and consequently no history of LOFT and JOC provision. The UK CAA said "look here chaps!" and from a committee the abortion of an excuse for a course which is MCC was produced.

Now only 20 hours long, unfocused, with standards and syllabus written and 'approved' by the CAA in a fleeting visit. Nearly anyone can be deemed to have 'suitable experience' to teach them, there is no checking and it can be done on som rickety old kit. There is no way on this planet that your bog average 'CAA Approved' MCC course today is even fit to stand in the shadow of say the BAe Prestwick JOC courses of the late 90's.

I wish they were. I think the training is the most useful for a new airline FO. I agree there is a yawning gap between stepping out of your Beech Duchess with shiny new IR in hand and clambering up the steps to Mr Boeings finest.

But the current half hearted mealy mouthed lets-just-touch-on-this box-ticking-egg-sucking demands of the average MCC course goes exactly 5% the way to bridging that gap. Which for £3500 typical cost is staggeringly poor value for money.

I certainly do know that teaching MCC is THE most profitable aspect of running a larger FTO these days. Hence the scramble to offer the courses. No waiting lists or aptitude selection for an MCC course - just show us the money and watch us drool.

Anyway. Little more than a year ago someone asked whether discounts were possible on the MCC. I suggested they collar 5 other mates together and approach providers en masse with the aim of achieving a group discount. They did this, held their nerve for a week and managed to get it knocked down to £1600 each. Which was a heck of a saving and shows how much profit there must be in the system.

I recommend that all Wannabes try this. You nearly all finish your IR with a group of god mates. Stick together and work as a team. You can save quite a bit on an MCC if you come as a group and don't care where you do it.

As more and more take this line the courses will become commodities and the pricing will fall generally to more realistic levels.

--------

Of course there are some quite good MCC courses and tutors out there who work very hard to pass on knowledge.

It would be my hope that airlines return to the provison of JOC and LOFT courses as standard and thereby provide work over and above that currently available by way of MCC course provision.

---------

Mosspigs - 'Moderator' just means I get to delete and move posts and get sent dozens of emails a day asking improbable questions about the minutae of license accreditation AND fend off half a dozen questions a day about whether or not BA are starting sponsorship from people who seem to have failed to have thought that consulting that companies, not inconsiderable web presence, might have been a better idea....

It emphatically does not make me the local Vicar who is moderate in all his views and acts as Wannabe Chaplain. I do have a duty of care to these forums in the sense that I am head Gardner. I like to plant/pprune/nourish a few threads so that they grow into mighty features in the garden. Often as not this is achieved by throwing a rabid dog over the fence and retiring to a safe distance. The ensuing argument is often far more illuminating and fun to read than some turgid 'advice' page weighed down with caveats ifs and buts.

Thats quite enough highly questionable obscure metaphors from me this early in the morning...

I'm off, Cheers

WWW

moggiee

11th Jan 2005, 08:28

WWW - your lack of knowledge amazes me!

Neither JOC nor LOFT have EVER been "tightly regulated by the CAA". Until the formation of the JAA and the introduction of MCC, there was no regulation of bridge training at all. That is how an Oxfordshire based FTO got away with selling 10 hour LOFT courses! Ten hours - nearly enough time to learn how to strap in and start engines!

However, in conjunction with our airline customers, we were able to create a self-regulated JOC/LOFT sytem that predated the MCC and the JAA by some considerable period of time. That system was regulated by the airlines and ourselves to train cadet pilots to a standard that exceeded the requirments of the CAA and latterly the JAA.

But as someone who has never experienced or taught JOC and LOFT you would not be aware of this.

Clearly I am wasting my time in trying to get the message through to you - I would just encourage all wannabees to ask around, speak to other people who have done MCC, get their opinions, find out how much they REALLY gained from it, themselves on to a good one (and that does not necessarily mean an expensive one).

Wee Weasley Welshman

11th Jan 2005, 09:46

'They were tightly regulated' refers to the CAP509 courses...

So if ten hours is only 'nearly enogh time to learn how to strap in and start engines' then what is the point of a 20 hour MCC standard?

JOC/LOFT courses run at the behest of large airlines like BA were very closely regulated by those airlines Training Departments. A fact the CAA was aware of and concluded no interference was necessary.

Unlike today whereby the man from the CAA takes a look at the course notes, pitches up once and then hey presto! You are away and running as an 'Approved' MCC provider.

After spending gawd knows how many tens of thousands of borrowed money acquiring a CPL IR Frzn ATPL I think its good advice to say - do the cheapest MCC you can find.

All you get at the end is a piece of A4 run off the schools own bubblejet! Nobody knows or cares which organisation does the 'best' MCC or on which sim or to what level the instructors are qualified.

Its A Tick In The Box.

Joe Wannabe - £20,000 in debt to the bank, £30,000 in debt to Mum and Dad - is in need of some serious money saving moves. A cheap MCC is one of the least disadvantageous ways of achieving this.

Naturally as an MCC instructor you disagree.

I don't think the cheapest Groundschool not Flying Training is the way to go. I do think the cheapest MCC certainly is.

Cheers

WWW

silverknapper

11th Jan 2005, 10:23

over other (more informed) correspondents
Who happen to have a marked interest in selling expensive MCC's.

moggiee

11th Jan 2005, 11:07

silverknapper - if we sold expensive MCC courses I might be inclined to agree with you. However, we do not offer expensive courses - just useful ones which are good value for money.

Because they are good VFM then they are not the cash cow that WWW thinks they are (although at his former employer, BAE FT that is how thye were seen). We make very little on them - but we do ensure that they are of high quality and relevant.

The SOP we use is closely based upon "real" SOPs and input from airline pilots in current practice ensures that we are up to speed with industry standards.

A 10 hour course is too little - but with a 20 hour MCC (which is still too little IN AN IDEAL WORLD) you can do a whole lot more. After about 15 hours the crew are getting the hang of the MCC skills and coming to grips with operating to an SOP which is radically different from that which they used on Senecas. Because that takes about 15 hours, you can achieve something in 20 hours but not 10! A 15 hour integrated MCC (as offered by FTOswhich offer integrated courses) is still too short - that extra 5 hours makes a huge difference.

thereceiver2004

11th Jan 2005, 18:22

why does the average course cost 2-3 thousand pounds anyway

before Christmas I did a 4 weeks full time course at a local college in something relating to computers and media and cinema.. cost me 149,99 and that INCLUDED the cost of the exam.... 6 of us on the course

seems ALL MCCs are a rip off...

trouble is it is A N O T H E R hoop us wannabes have to jump through to be looked at.
:-(

moggiee

11th Jan 2005, 19:57

The is little point in complaining about having to do an MCC - you have to, either self funded or paid for by the airline. To argue that it is not needed is as pointless as arguing that there is no point in doing PFLs on your CPL as you will not being doing them on your Jetstream/737/A380.

It is required - full stop, as are VFR nav, PFLs, stalling etc all of which are things that the aspiring airline pilot will not do on line. At least he will use his MCC training every time he flies.

Still, the above mentioned nav, PFL, stalling etc. need to be done and so should be done WELL and done at a reasonable cost - as should your MCC.

MCC is a labour intensive course involving 25 hours of groundschool and 20 hours in the sim. If that costs £2000 then you pay £44 per hour. Compare that to the rest of your training.

So, if an FTO runs a standard 4 man MCC course it provides 180 man hours of learning which is 4x25 hours of groundschool and 4x20 hours of FNPT2. If that course is sold for £2000 they get £8000 in - £44 an hour out of which they pay capital costs on an FNPT2, wages, building costs, electricity, maintenance etc.

Call that a cash cow? Of course, they could run 12-16 person courses like my previous employer - whacking students through the sausage machine as fast as possible - and charge nearly twice as much for the privilege. Which would you prefer?

Wee Weasley Welshman

12th Jan 2005, 07:03

The more typical figures are £3,000 each with 8 on a course. £24k for a week long course taking 45 hours. Thats more than £500 an hour.

£500hr for sitting in a classroom watching a video.

£500hr for boredly watching an OHP presentation on CRM theory.

£500hr for sat on two chairs in front of a cardboard flightdeck reading checklists back to one another.

Even £500hr sat in an FNPT2 seems steep. They are only static mock ops of a flightdeck with a Sony projector nailed to the roof and a couple of bog standard PC's running the show. No more than £80,000 of kit. With a shelf life of, conservatively, 5 years it only owes you £16k a year. The profit from the first two course in January would cover that!

MCC used to be taught solely during type conversion and during initial line training. It still is. In addittion we now have these twee little self funded MCC requirements which are neither too cheap and simple to not worry about nor expensive and detailed enough to be useful.

Committee design at its finest.

Cheers

WWW

moggiee

12th Jan 2005, 16:00

There's not much point adding to a discussion which has reached the "oh yes it is" - "oh no it isn't stage".

I just "refer the honourable gentlemen to my previous answers", as they say in parliament.

gents - do as you see fit with your cash, but spend it wisely. Expensive does not necessarily mean good and cheapest is NOT always best, either. Ring around - we as an organisation will provide referees if required (ex customers for you to speak to). Just don't spend the cash without investigating first.

BillieBob

13th Jan 2005, 22:51

I have to agree with Moggiee that when a debate is dragged down to the level of "My Dad's bigger than your Dad", it ceases to have any purpose. It is unfortunate that personal prejudice and ignorance have brought this thread to such a state, particularly as it concerns such an important topic. It is also unfortunate, and somewhat surprising, that Weasley should have made so many demonstrably false statements in support of his ultimately untenable position.

If I were to post a severely critical opinion of the EasyJet line training programme, of which I had no experience and that was factually incorrect, I would fully expect Weasley to take me to task. It should, therefore, come as no surprise to him that when he posts a severe criticism of the modular MCC programme, of which he has no experience and which is factually incorrect, that others take issue with that ill informed opinion.

The tone of Weasley's rantings becomes more rabid as does his misunderstandings of the requirements. A comment such as "Unlike today whereby the man from the CAA takes a look at the course notes, pitches up once and then hey presto! You are away and running as an 'Approved' MCC provider." demonstrates a clear unfamiliarity with reality. JAR requirements are now that a MCCI has a minimum of 1500 hours experience in multi-pilot operations, completes an approved course of training similar to that required of a TRI and is approved only as a result of a minimum of 3 hours assessment by a CAA examiner. The approval thus gained is valid only at one training organisation - should the MCCI move on, a further course and approval is required. Bearing this in mind, Weasley's suggestion that "Nearly anyone can be deemed to have 'suitable experience' to teach them, there is no checking and it can be done on some rickety old kit." like most of Weasley's ramblings on this subject, bears little relationship to the truth. Perhaps the fact that Weasley himself would not yet be approved as competent to teach an MCCI course has some influence on his opinions?

Ultimately, however, Weasley is correct - each individual must decide for him or her self whether an MCC course is of sufficient value to justify the relvent expenditure. Weasley, having never undertaken a modular MCC course and with no experience of the pre-MCC course era, says that it has no value. I, on the other hand, having been a TRI both before and after the introduction of mandatory MCC training and having seen at first hand the benefits of such training, conclude that it is of significant value, particularly if conducted by qualified and current instructors.

You each must make up your own minds whose opinion you value the most. After all, your future careers depend upon the choices you make today.

Wee Weasley Welshman

14th Jan 2005, 15:30

What future careers depend on choice of MCC?!!?

You pays your money, sits down for a week and at the end walk away with an A4 Bubblejet printed certificate saying you've completed an MCC.

There are no exams, no skilltest, no independent examiner. The course does not carry a license endorsement, never expires and is not recognised abroad.

ITS A TICK IN A BOX.

Nobody ever fails. Nobody runs a widely recognised brilliant course. Nobody knows is a course is particularly shoddy. Nobody ever even asks you "so where did you do your MCC then?".

MCC instructors need roughly 2 years experience at some time in their lives in something resembling an airline. They go on a short course that nobody has ever failed and then are 'assessed' during a heart stoppingly stressful whole three hours of standing besides an OHP or possibly sat in a half cardbaord 'simulator' talking about challenge and response checklists.

I don't for one second doubt that MCC is a nice idea that does have some merit and is by and large delivered by some useful and experienced chaps.

Nevertheless, when push comes to borrowed thousands of pounds shove, Do The Cheapest MCC You Can Find - remains good advice.

Cheers

WWW

aged

14th Jan 2005, 21:30

Some good debate for what cannot be called the most exciting subject (wait for an MCC provider to tell me it is).
I think the best point coming out of it though is WWW's suggestion of getting together as a group and negotiating with providers. The costs aren't fixed so there is a lot of flexibility in terms of price they can afford to do the course at.
It is probably the only part of the whole training program that you can group together - not often 6 of you get together to do an IR somewhere.

Perhaps there should be a sticky in this forum for folk wanting to get together to negotiate?

I'm sure the providers would sponsor it!

silverknapper

15th Jan 2005, 09:19

I'll join in that syndicate aged.

Anyone else?

IRISHPILOT

16th Jan 2005, 09:02

jumping on this thread late, but thought I'd put in my pennies worth:

I am amazed there are still courses for GBP3000 around, when you can get the 737 NG MCC for GBP2000. What sim would they be on? Big Boeing or Airbus?

WWW mentioning acceptability internationally: This is one ot the few courses in the UK that are fully JAR compliant, and so they are internationally acceptable. I have flown in 3 JAR contries with 4 operators since I did my MCC in the UK and had no problems.
Also, if you want a check, you can do that in some countries (eg. Germany), at no extra cost, with an examiner from their CAA. This will give you an MCC according to JAR plus a German CCC according to national regs. And yes, people do fail, though not many.

It is a requirement to have flown 1500 MPA, this can and is not usually gained in something resembling an airline, but in an airline.

cheers, IP

silverknapper

16th Jan 2005, 09:08

Where can you get a 737 MCC for 2k? And what do you mean by a 1500hr requirement?

IRISHPILOT

16th Jan 2005, 16:10

Haeusl Air (http://www.flugausbildung.de)

they are the only ones on the NG, same price with a couple on classic. Please do a search.

1500h requirement was in response to WWWs comment.

michaelknight

16th Jan 2005, 17:27

http://www.flugausbildung.de/

FNPT II, not the real McCoy Boeing FFS.

But as stated, cheap and just another tick in the box.

MK

Wee Weasley Welshman

17th Jan 2005, 07:20

An FNPT2 sim is a PC and a projector plugged into a cockpit mock up of a particular or generic aircraft. It may strive to fairly accurately model how a particular aircraft behaves - but then it may not.

It is in NO WAY an actual (in this case) B737 NG Sim. It merely looks a bit like one and might behave a bit like one. A real Simulator costs well over a million pounds. An FNPT2 - well lets say £100k would get you a nice one and a building to put it in.

CHeers

WWW

bob-morris

17th Jan 2005, 13:45

WWW,

As someone who has been/is involved with FNPT2 approvals, I can tell you that you are unlikely to get an approved FNPT2 MCC for less than £250k or so - at least not new. A Mechtonix KingAir FNPT2 (MCC) is closer to £400k.

The performance has to be sufficiently close to the aeroplane upon which it is based to satisfy the CAA/JAA and an exhaustive series of QTG - Qualification Test Guide - tests (not far short of those required for a full flight sim) are required to prove this and re-approve the sim on an annual basis. Where available, ACTUAL flight test data from the aeroplanes in question is used and the tolerances allowed are very small indeed. The standards documents used to do this are all defined/controlled by the JAA.

The aeroplane has to climb, accelerate, descend and decelerate at the correct rates - +/- very little tolerance. It has to have the same characteristics with regard to pitch, roll and yaw trim, dynamic effect of gear and flap extension and retraction (even the time taken to lower gear has to be correct). Spiral stability, roll rate, pitch rate, VMCA/VMCG etc. etc. have all to be correct.

Got the idea yet, WWW?

A modern FFS is controlled by PCs, too - or is your knowledge base too low for you to aware of this? Try some research before spouting off on subjects about which you clearly know very little.

IRISHPILOT

17th Jan 2005, 13:50

Well, I really don't know how much these sims cost (and don't really care), all I know is that this sim is used for more of half the hours of type rating courses. I have personally seen it and it looks very much like the FFS sims we use for recurrency training.

Of course, I cannot comment on the handling, but must bow to the superior knowledge of someone who obviously has manipulated its controls. If he hasn't, he obviously knows more than the German CAA that authorised it for type rating training and I believe he should contact them so that they can revoke the TRTO cert.

I understand that GBP2074 may still be quite reasonable compared to UK prices? Maybe others could post information on other MCCs here for the benefit those having to do them?

cheers, IP

michaelknight

17th Jan 2005, 15:54

bob-morris

Well of course an FNPT II should be subjected to tough testing like a FFS.

What's the point in trying to sell a product like a B737 FNPT II sim and it dosen't even handle like it?

WWW's comments are true, however bluntly he put it.

MK

bob-morris

17th Jan 2005, 21:30

But WWW is suggesting that, despite this qualification and testing process, the FNPT2 MCC does NOT have handling characteristics that match the aeroplane. This is clearly untrue.

Wee Weasley Welshman

18th Jan 2005, 00:04

Thats because they don't.

I've got more hours than I care to recall in a 'fully approved' FNPT2 sim of a Senecca and its true that they handle quite a bit like the real thing. But nowhere near to the degree that a proper Sim does.

And you can get a fully 'approved' FNPT2 sim up and operational for less than £100k. I checked.

MCC - very expensive for a pretend sim and an old codger with some generic SOPs. Thats the view of many in the training industry and has been since it all started.

Cheers

WWW

bob-morris

18th Jan 2005, 12:10

WWW continually attempts to distract, confuse and befuddle the reader by changing story on a regualr (but irrational) basis.

At one point an FNPT2 is a barely disguised carboard mock up. Then it becomes something which handles "a bit like the aeroplane" - and then it "might or might not".

Finally when challenged he admits that the FNPT2 he used to use at Jerez DID in fact handle like the aeroplane.

Of course, admitting that an FNPT2 DOES handle like the aeroplane (and therefore offer a valid training environment) is not as much fun as rubbishing the whole system, it's equipment, it's instructors and it's course structure.

However, if you read carefully throughout his posts on this matter you find that he:

A ) has no experience of stand alone MCC either as instructor or customer (prefering to rely upon the "my mate down the pub said...." method of gaining knowledge) - unlike some other correspondants on this thread.

B ) has no experience of an FNPT2 MCC (as opposed to his Seneca FNPT2) either as instructor or customer- unlike some other correspondants on this thread.

C ) has no experience as a TRI/TRE training pilots pre- and post - MCC era - unlike some other correspondants on this thread.

D ) has no experience as an airline pilot pre-MCC era - unlike some other correspondants on this thread.

E ) has on knowledge or experience of the approvals process for FNPT2 or FNPT2 MCC devices - unlike some other correspondants on this thread.

Still, apart from that he is well qualified to tell us what he thinks and also what his "mate down the pub" thinks.

PS- There's on one "C" in Seneca!

Groundloop

18th Jan 2005, 12:24

Also I don't think you can use a Seneca FNPT2 sim for an MCC. For an MCC course I believe the sim has to represent a pressurised aircraft.

Or was I told that as a selling point for particular courses?!

Slightly off topic but does anyone think that WWW should have an alternative login name for when he starts spouting off in great detail. The appearance of the word "Moderator" under his name can give his postings extra credence to the new uninitiated Pprune wannabee. You never have this level of dissention and vitriol from Scroggs.

bob-morris

18th Jan 2005, 13:50

Groundloop - you are correct in stating that an FNPT2 MCC must be a turbine powered, pressurised, multi-engined aeroplane.

It may be generic, with performance and handling "typical of it's class" or based upon a particular aeroplane as most are in which case it's performance and handling are expected to match that aeroplane to the standards detailed in my earlier post.

Therefore a Seneca may not be used for an MCC - but a Kingair, for example, may.

Of course, if an FTO has access to a full flight simulator then that may be used, too, although the QTG standards required are little different in practice.

Send Clowns

18th Jan 2005, 14:23

WWW generally posts with some authority, but I'm afraid I will have to correct some misapprehensions here. I am not talking here specifically about my employer, but having done all the courses and working in the industry I do pick up some information.

Firstly, many FTOs are not making a lot of money from MCCs, in fact some seem just to be providing them to round off their portfolio of courses. If they have to lease a simulator, some of them must be making around £100 per student by my rough calculations (4-5% is not really considered a good mark up, let alone excessive!). Others I cannot see how they can even cover the costs! The pricing on many MCCs is extremely competitive.

Secondly the typical cost is not £3,500 unless you are mugged on the way in every day!

Thirdly most of them are not using "...rickety old kit".

Fourthly some very experienced crew are offering training on the course. Many of them have been check and trainign captains on wide-bodied jets. I could certainly name one who still flies such a jet and teaches MEIR, and occasionally teaches an MCC course.

Fifth, while it is true that the course was intended as an addition to the first type rating, some companies now expect applicants to have an MCC course certificate. Some even say so on adverts when recruiting low-hour pilots.

Finally, for the pride of sim owners, a good FNPT2 (and WWW did specify a good machine) is not under £100k. A decent one for a light twin is, as far as I can find, around £300k. It handles remarkably like the aircraft, especially if it is type-specific. A lot of testing is required for approval. WWW's rough Seneca FNPT2 would certainly not be allowed for an MCC, and am surprised it was approved if it was so poor (where was this, WWW?). However I would still do the course on a proper simulator if I had to choose again, as all the buttons work (they don't on some jet FNPT2s) and the whole thing feels frighteningly real with full motion!

WWW

Is it really helpful to the wannabes reading this thread that you are posting such inaccurate material in such a confrontational way?

bob-morris

18th Jan 2005, 16:40

Send Clowns - thanks.

WWW - got the message? As stated by just about all correspondents here, you need to get your facts straight before pontificating. As you can see, Send Clowns, Billybob, Moggiee and myself (speaking with some authority), have covered the facts.

But, if you prefer to stick with the "mate down the pub says...." style that's your choice! Just stop abusing the clout that the word Moderator attaches to your posts.

Wee Weasley Welshman

18th Jan 2005, 20:58

"As you can see, Send Clowns, Billybob, Moggiee and myself (speaking with some authority)".... Hmmmmm - Who all earn money from employers providing MCC courses....

I did do an MCC course thanks as did all of my students in Jerez and eleswhere. Mine was done by an employer and on a full proper actual sim. Lets leave the Sim argument behind as:

a) I think two upturned orange crates are ample,

b) Proper sims cost millions and FNPT2's cost a fraction of that and there *must* be some reason for that, e.g. in all sorts of funny little ways they don't actually fly like the proper aircraft.

My advice remains that if you need to reduce costs - and you probably do - one of the most painless ways of doing so is to Do The Cheapest MCC You Can Find.

---------------

Is it really helpful to the wannabes reading this thread that you are posting such inaccurate material in such a confrontational way?

Yep. Elsewise Wannabes gets as dull as ditchwater and you don't get a multi-page thread about the ins and outs of MCC courses whereby you lot get to put the case for the course and its merits and its cost................. .... ....!

The appearance of the word "Moderator" under his name can give his postings extra credence to the new uninitiated Pprune wannabee.

Rarely. I as I don't censor the likes of you and bob-morris or anyone else telling me I am talking out of my rectum I carry no more clout than anyone else.

Plus I'm right. Most people in the training industry think MCC is a racket, that it makes a fortune and that its Just A Tick In A Box!

;)

bob-morris

18th Jan 2005, 22:07

WWW - ever considered a career in politics? Your endless restatement of unsubstan¡tiated "facts" does not make them true.

You also love to "adjust" what people said.

I did not say that you had not done an MCC - I said that you had not done a stand alone MCC. I know full well that you did an Orange sponsored one concurrent with your type rating (you have told us that a few times now!).

I did say that you had not done an MCC course as a stand alone course - I trust that this is correct?

You started the sim vs FNPT2 argument - want to ignore it now that your "facts" have been discredited? If those upturned orange crates meet JAR STD requirements, then fine, but they won't! If the device is non-approved then so is the MCC course.

Your Jerez students will have (predominately) conducted a 16 hour stand alone MCC or a longer JOC. Wonder what THEIR feedback is?

There are a number of reasons for FNPT2 MCC STDs costing less - for example they do not require a motion system and wrap around visuals. These two items cost a HUGE amount of money for a start.

Because not all the aircraft systems are used for MCC (unlike type training) then they are not all required to work fully - only those required for MCC training. Thus, whilst pressurisation systems must work so that a press failure drill may be conducted, air con doesn`t as the course is about Multi CREW training not type training. Therefore, as long as the requisite systems work correctly then the MCC/CRM elements of the course can be conducted.

This does not affect the QUALITY of training as they must perform the same as the aeroplane but just limits its RANGE to the required syllabus content. The FNPT2 still has to fly and perform like the aeroplane upon which it is based - and for the most part they do.

Care to tell us who these "most people in the industry are"? I am waiting, as in my experience MCC has had an almost universal positive feedback from airlines.

Surely the point of the wannabes forum is to offer accurate, balanced advice - not "exciting discussion"? Or have a I missed a point here?

Please give that rectum of yours a rest - it is deafening!

(odditied for spolling era)

Lee Frost

18th Jan 2005, 23:06

General Melchett: Now then, Now then, Now then, Then Now, Now then....Now!

Wee Weasley Welshman

19th Jan 2005, 08:21

bob - please get with the plot here.

Surely the point of the wannabes forum is to offer accurate, balanced advice - not "exciting discussion"? Or have a I missed a point here?

Yep. You don't get many threads about MCC with more than 2200 views... Be grateful. ;)

Cheers

WWW

Send Clowns

19th Jan 2005, 08:54

Whatever your allegations of my motives, you are still posting very inaccurate information and I am posting accurate information. Notice I left this for a long time until you were really getting out of hand. Since you are posting material that is clearly wrong either you don't know what you are talking about or you are deliberately trying to misinform people. What are your motives?

It is interesting that instead of defending your posts you attack the people who point out the errors. Surely you should either say why you think you are right or thank us for correcting you!

Several of us do work for course providers, that is how we actually know what we are talking about. Of course we then defend our companies when you post lies about them!Elsewise Wannabes gets as dull as ditchwater and you don't get a multi-page thread about the ins and outs of MCC courses whereby you lot get to put the case for the course and its merits and its costThat is not an excuse for being confrontational and posting complete garbage that can only misinform. Why not make a reasonable post that is accurate or leave it to people who know what they are talking about?

bob-morris

19th Jan 2005, 11:13

WWW - leaving aside the insults for a while, would you care to discuss any of the MCC/FNPT2 related points I made in my last post?

Or shall we just take avoidance of the issue as indicative of an admission of defeat when faced with the facts of the matter?

By the way, is WWW following the lead of this Captain?

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=158692

That might explain some of the comments he makes! :D :D

Mosspigs

19th Jan 2005, 14:31

www.

On page 3 of this long thread you said:

“My words are not handed down in tablets of stone. What Joe Wannabe reads on this thread is a lively passionate argument about the broad merits of MCC courses.”

Yet on page 4 you go on to say:

“Surely the point of the wannabes forum is to offer accurate, balanced advice - not "exciting discussion"? Or have a I missed a point here?”

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm

:\

Wee Weasley Welshman

19th Jan 2005, 15:05

Actually that was a quote from another post... hence it was in italics.

I stand by MY comments of:

"My words are not handed down in tablets of stone. What Joe Wannabe reads on this thread is a lively passionate argument about the broad merits of MCC courses."

------

bob-morris, (someone who is paid by an MCC selling school) look mate, you may be an old codger or a whippersnapper. I don't know or care. Your Sim may be the best thing since sliced bread as well. BUT, there are plenty of FNPT2 sims out there that cost £100,000 and are fairly rubbish as simulators.

-------

Send Clowns (someone who is paid by an MCC selling school) - I am not writing any lies not misinforming nor being particularly confrontational. Trust me if we take the gloves off I could be a lot worse.

What I AM doing is telling Wannabes that MCC is a waste of money and nobody CARES where or how or with whom you gained your A4 printed bubblejet certificate.

What YOU and others don't like is me doing so.

What I DON'T care about is anybody selling MCC courses and what I DO care about is broke indebted Wannabes needing to save expenditure. Those are my motives - thanks for asking me what they were.

--------

The learning objectives of the MCC course could be achieved on two upturned orange crates. They could be taught by anyone with a couple of hundred multi crew hours on ANY aircraft. Your fancy sims and your 78 years as a Type Rating Instructor on a Mc Boeing Megabus are ALL a device for justifying a £3000+ course fee.

Thats the truth as I see it.

Its the truth from someone who has worked in the current civilian flight training world.

Its the truth from someone with no interest in how who or why MCCs are provided.

Its the truth from someone who doesn't honestly care wether you believe him or not or whether you like me, hate me or think I am jesus or lucifer.

Do The Cheapest MCC You Can Find -

anyone care to tell me why you should spend more?!?

Cheers

WWW :)

Send Clowns

19th Jan 2005, 16:14

WWW

I don't care about MCCs. It is nothing to do with me, and the main people who gain are the company who own the sim. My employers lease one from an airline, as do all the companies here who offer the course. What I do care about is the people who visit here having accurate information, the best information available to help them get a career in aviation - that is why I don't like you saying the things you do, because what you are saying is untrue.

As an aside I then corrected a few unimportant mistakes you made, and inaccurate impressions you have given.

On the latter I will correct one you repeat in ammended form here. I recently looked for an MCC. I only found one at more than £3000. The truth as you see it does not seem to coincide with the available information. Many at well below that figure were offered on a full-flight simulator. I selected one of those, and appreciated the quality, not for the purposes of achieving the MCC objectives but for reasons I have posted earlier in the thread. I mentioned those reasons to give the people reading all the information I can, and I do not appreciate you questioning my motives for doing so, and to accuse us of telling lies while piously claiming to be the only authority for truth is not going to help wannabes. Saying that the course could be done on an orange crate, which is unlikely to be approved, suggests (a) that your course was not very good, as I could not have learnt the crew co-operation lessons I did without a decent, representative training device and (b) you are not trying to help wannabes, just moan about JARs.

Right, that's out of the way.

What I can agree with is that some of the advertising of MCC courses is misleading. Take this from a certain famous training provider's website In order to qialify [sic] for an ATPL (or CPL/IR) you will have to complete a Multi-Crew Co-operation Course after your instrument ratingIt is just not true that you need MCC for a CPL/IR, nor is it relevant to the people likely to read the page that you need one for an ATPL as you also need at least 500 hours multi-crew experience.

This sort of material, and other exageration in advertising does the image of the business no good. However most of the more modest training establishments make no such claims, in my experience. The advertising I saw when looking for a course was strictly fair, accurate and unsensational, describing the course and the relevant JARs.

[edited to make my contribution less conforontational]

Mosspigs

19th Jan 2005, 17:04

WWW

Soz! My mistake.:ugh:

BillieBob

20th Jan 2005, 07:53

I had resolved to bow out of this argument after it degenerated into a fiction versus fact slanging match but I must take issue with Weasley's statement -
I am not writing any lies not misinforming nor being particularly confrontational. If repeating an untrue statement, knowing it to be untrue, is not lying could you explain to me what is?

FougaMagister

23rd Jan 2005, 09:36

My, my! The ongoing MCC debate is one that is sure to raise blood pressure on this forum every time!

The bottom line is, I have never met a student that did not thoroughly enjoy the MCC course, no matter where he/she did it.

TP or jet is more a matter of personal choice, I have experience of both and they are probably equally good in the non-type specific MCC course. It's mainly about learning, as the name says, MULTI-CREW procedures.

The quality of instructing is probably more important than the sim itself. A number of us feel that we have to (or can) splash out on a jet/EFIS MCC at the end of a frozen ATPL.

Not sure what the influence of that is on a recruiting airline (unless they fly the very same type of a/c on which you did your MCC - admittedly a fairly remote possibility).

Also, distance (i.e., accommodation costs for the duration of the course) and overall price are to be taken into account.

WWW: I agree it's "a tick in the box" and it wil have to be done all over again at type-rating level, but VERY few arlines would nowadays consider an applicant that hasn't gone through an MCC atfter his/her IR.

Cheers, :cool: