Multi-crew Pilots Licence (formerly: South African Airway's plan to get co-pilots)

[Fat A1bert]

SAA's controversial plan to get co-pilots flying
September 16, 2006 Edition 1, Saturday Star

Sheena Adams

South African Airways is on the brink of introducing a radical new pilot training programme, which will see trainees taking their place as co-pilots after 70 hours actual flying time.

The bulk of the training - 250 hours - will take place in flight simulators, which allows trainers to slash actual flying hours in a real aircraft by more than half. SAA spokesperson Jacqui O'Sullivan has confirmed the details of the new programme.

The cost-cutting initiative is part of efforts by the national carrier to introduce more black people into its pilot ranks.

Called a Multi-Crew Pilot Licence (MPL), the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) is currently drawing up programme standards and regulations, which could be ready in mid-2007, according to Captain Colin Jordaan, general manager of SAA's flight operations.

However, pilot associations around the world, including the Airline Pilots Association of South Africa (Alpa-SA), do not support the MPL, saying the safety of passengers will be compromised.

Jordaan said in an interview this week that the initiative would fast-track the num-ber of black pilots employed by the national carrier. At present, the airline employs just 66 black men and women pilots out of a total of 796.

SAA's target, introduced in 1996, was to have 300 black pilots by last year.

Jordaan said the new type of licence would be "a heck of a lot cheaper" to imple-ment than the airline's cadet school, which costs SAA R750 000 per person for the intensive 18-month course.

SAA already owns four simulators required for the new training and would thus only be paying for electricity and maintenance costs, he added.

Jordaan said the airline was intrinsically involved in the ICAO steering group drawing up the MPL regulations and that information was fed regularly to the South African Qualifications Authority to ensure that the programme, when implemented, would comply with the country's training regulations.

"We will be able to take a person off the street and train them in our simulators for between 12 and 18 months.

"They will then be able to move into the right-hand seat of a Boeing 747 as co-pilot," Jordaan said.


He said the course would be designed specifically for airline flying and would not devote any time to "unnecessary aspects" such as using topographical maps.

The course would entail just 70 hours of flying time in a real aircraft as opposed to the 200 flying hours required in order to get a commercial pilot's licence.

MPL graduates would only be able to fly in a "multi-crew environment" for the first few years, he added.

Opposition to the plan has been widespread, with organisations such as the European Cockpit Association (ECA), representing 29 professional pilots' associations, saying that the MPL risks downgrading the standards of commercial flight training when aircraft are becoming increasingly complex and when air traffic is expected to rise substantially over the coming years.

"Downgrading of these standards can not be accepted in an industry that relies on a permanently increasing safety profile and which faces numerous challenges over the coming years," the ECA said.

Alpa-SA president Harvey van Rooyen said he was concerned that while simulations could be useful, weather patterns such as storms could not be simulated.

The new licence was "obviously about costs" and Alpa-SA did not believe that 18-year-olds off the street would be able to handle intensive pilot training.

More thought should be given to taking in university graduates who were PC literate and had certain "technical advantages", said Van Rooyen.

"It is a little bit of a leap forward and people are just assuming it will work but I have my reservations. Flying is not monkey see, monkey do. You need to create people who can think under pressure.

"You can't pluck a rabbit out of a hat and then say: 'There you go! Transformation has been sorted out'," he said.

Jordaan brushed off claims that SAA's programme would compromise aviation safety. He said today's aircraft design and training programmes placed emphasis on co-operation between crew members unlike "in the old days when all the decisions were made by the captain".

Co-pilots would spend 10 years in the right-hand seat of aircraft before attaining commander status, he added.

[westhawk]

He said today's aircraft design and training programmes placed emphasis on co-operation between crew members unlike "in the old days when all the decisions were made by the captain".

Seems to me that this arrangement will place more, not less, responsibility on the shoulders of the captain than ever before. A pilot and a gear monitor don't a crew make. Right back to the old days of single pilot captain and seat filler/chief bottle washer. Except that these days, cappy will probably be required by feel-good company policy to pretend that the gear monitor has an opinion worth hearing. I hope they are up for the extra work.

So be it!

[ZFT]

The concept of the MPL proposal was to reduce the overall training time not necessarily to reduce costs.

The MPL requirements indicate a total time of 240 hours, with a basic element of approximately 60 flight hours up to PPL standard. After this, all training will be in a synthetic environment with the student spending approx 60 hrs split between PF and PNF on a level-A type simulator to achieve a basic level of competency before a further 60 hrs again split between PF and PNF achieving the next intermediate level of competency.
ICAO indicate that this device should be a generic type with advanced visuals but not necessarily with motion.
Only the final 60 hrs should be spent on a level-D simulator that represents the aircraft type to be flown.

IMHO the use of level-D type specific sims or even decommissioned old (aircraft) generation sims for the basic and intermediate stages is totally inappropriate.

In needs to be remembered that the intensive use of specific dedicated simulators in airline student training programmes is not new. Lufthansa Bremen stated their programme with 5 Cheyenne FFSs in the 80s. Alitalia’s Sardinia school mirrored this with their own Cheyenne FFS and SQ have been operating Lear FFSs solely for student training purposes for many years to name but a few. Of course these programmes supplemented flight training as opposed to replacing it.

Whilst within these illustrious Pprune walls I am not suitably qualified to comment on the merits (or demerits) of the MPL as a concept and I’ll leave this to those that are I do strongly believe that the simulation industry, whether manufacturers, regulators and to some degree users have ‘screwed up’ big time by not defining any standards for the generic type simulator envisaged for the basic and intermediate stages of synthetic training and until these standards are defined, agreed and adopted both industry wide and worldwide, the MPL is not going to achieve what ICAO presented to the industry over 2 years ago in Pheonix.

The RAeS Flight Simulation Working Group amongst others is actively working on the issue now but with some establishments already investing in expensive synthetic training equipment to support their MPL programmes, adoption and acceptance of standards is now going to be that much harder.

Any operator that sees the MPL only as a cost cutting/cost saving exercise has really lost the plot.
Competency based, effective and applicable training accomplished within a shorter timeframe was the goal. Cheap training only was never the objective.

[Loose rivets]

We've had a generation...or two perhaps, that have very little experience of flying a seriously compromised aircraft, or indeed an aircraft at all sometimes. Now do I understand that the ONLY other pilot apart from the captain on this substantial aircraft, will be without ANY REAL flying skills? I'm sorry about the shouting, but I'm unable to stop myself.

This is mind-boggling irresponsibility, just an incapacitated captain and a coincidental malfunction and the result could be catastrophic.

[Sir Osis of the river]

Ok Guys and Girls, Let's stand back and think about this one.
We all know that SAA invented flying, (They think so anyway), Over the years they of course have perfected it beyond anyone else, (They think so of course).:}
Is it not fair to now let them come full circle and destroy all they have achieved???:D
In my humble opinion this policy would be an unmitigated disaster.
Let's hear from some of the everyday Line Capt's at SAA what they think about this. Will they be happy to have a 70Hr wonder sitting next to them negotiating the "Welkom Waghonde" on a late summers afternoon? Or how about going to the bunk over darkest Africa and letting same 70hr wonder try negotiate traffic, weather and levels with Khartoum via HF?
Good luck chaps, I'll be on another carrier.

[Gauteng Pilot]

Another reason ( amoungst many )I wont ever fly them again, nor will anyone in my family or anyone in my company

[max_cont]

Let us hope the Captain doesn’t become incapacitated during the ten years it’s going to take the seat warmer to get a vague clue about what’s going on.:ugh:

[ZFT]

Before everyone gets too focused on SAA it should be remembered that others have already commenced MPL programmes.

SQ/Alteon Beta project is about to start. Alpha Aviation has ordered aircraft and a simulator for their MPL programme in the Philippines (to train initially Kingfisher & Deccan ab-initios). Many others are in advanced stages of preparation.

Whether one agrees or disagrees, the MPL is here.

The adoption and implementation is the greatest challenge and with synthetic training being 75% of the programme, this element is far from ready for this challenge.

[PAXboy]

Political Correctness can be a powerful force. Yes, it can really change the way we get things done in this world.

[GaryGnu]

What about when the MPL holder wants to convert to an ATPL and become a Captain?

My interpretation of amendment 167 to ICAO Annex 1 says that an MPL holder needs a minimum 10 hrs PIC. Depending on how National Authorities allow the use of Pilot-In-Command under supervision (PICUS), an MPL holder can avoid the requirement of any further Command time (previously 100 hrs, now 70hrs) PIC for an ATPL by accruing 500hrs PICUS from the Right Seat of a multi crew aeroplane.

Thus an ATPL holder that converted from an MPL could conceivably have 10 hrs PIC and the rest under instruction, Co-Pilot or PICUS.

Is my interpretation of ATPL holders having only 10 hrs PIC incorrect or unlikely? If it is correct, does it matter? Can the airline training organisations handle such a reduction in command requirements for ATPL holders?

For those who cannot access ICAO documents I believe its requirements are mirrored in JAR NPA-FCL 31 particularly Para JAR-FCL 1.280.

[fernytickles]

Aside from all the safety issues pointed out, can you think of anything more deadly than having to complete 240hrs in a simulator? With no real flying except before and after :bored: 240 hours of practise ILS/go around, SE work, electrical failure, gear up landing etc, etc. How many scenarios would you need to fill those 240 hours? Like most kids nowadays, they'll be able to handle the computer after a few hours, but a simulator whizz kid is probably not going to be much help, if or when they get spooked in the real world.

How do you persuade newbies to sign up? Come along and sit in a simulator for the equivalent of 10 non-stop days, and then have no chance of command upgrade for the next 10 years :ok:

[rmac]

" Flying is not monkey see, monkey do."

Unfortunate choice of phrase in the circumstances by Fat Albert. Beware or the PC police will be on your case !!

[DoNotFeed]

You got exactly to the point. Every lesson has to be filled with useful content.
Just flying the autopilot and reading checklists locks all the attention to satisfying the guy in the aft seat.
Real descisions make pilots beeing commanders after time. This requires real time pressure to the brain.

In fact this high amount of time in the sim will be done on a thumb sitting duck simulator having the level of micro+*#.

If they use a real airliner full flight sim we are talking about 400 - 500 dollars/h about 2 times the price of a training twin. Where is the business case - in a class room with 30 PC's.

happy landings for those having a yoke or stick (dont weigh the sequence:8 )

[172driver]

Political Correctness can be a powerful force. Yes, it can really change the way we get things done in this world.

Certainly - but not for the better :yuk:

How do you persuade newbies to sign up? Come along and sit in a simulator for the equivalent of 10 non-stop days, and then have no chance of command upgrade for the next 10 years

This should be quite easy - the chance of getting to play with a REAL flightsim is gonna be enough to draw the punters in. Look, people spend many, many more hours playing online games or, indeed, FlightSim.

What worries me (as a pax) is what has been expressed by several posters already: I doubt that these people will make the right decisions under pressure, especially if these involve 'thinking outside the box'. Another thread on here discusses the (IMHO very brave and laudable) decision by an Onur Air captain not to depart with an a/c he deemed unsafe. Would one of these 70-hour wonders really consider ALL factors ? MEL, wx, alternates ? One wonders.

Only hope, methinks, is that at least some of them get the bug and take flying lessons after they're qualified - hey, who would've thought it'll ever come to this: learn to fly a 172 AFTER you're qualified to fly a 747 :ugh:

[Empty Cruise]

So what exactly is it that the extra 130 hours in a PA28 and PA34 are gonna give our student?

These hours are - largely - worthless. You spend ages and ages training stuff that is type/class-specific, and of little worth when going straight into the RHS of a commercial jet. Actual flying hours spent putting around the flagpole on a doubious syllabus are far less worth than simulated hours spent flying the aircraft that you will eventually operate, according to a comprehensive syllabus :D

As for decision-making (especially thinking outside the box) - what makes people think that todays cadets with 250 hrs "real" aircraft have skills in this area that you cannot gain in a sim? On a multi-engine "real" aircraft, you generally train 6 failures (engine fire, engine failure, generator failure, loss of one instrument power source, gear will not extend , flaps will not extend) to a high standard. In a simulator you train these, plus many, many more. Have taught engine failure shortly after V1 in both MEPs and simulators... In the "real" aircraft, you could do 4 of these in an hour, still leaving the student with a need to do further training to master the manoeuvre. In the sim, we'd do 10-14 in one hour, and the student would now master the manoeuvre, only needing brush-up-work for the rest of the course. Plus, you can take a break in when the student needs further explainantion or gets tired in the sim, a facility that the "real" aircraft sadly lacks (short of the instructor taking control), and you can simulate ATC, cabin crew, dispatchers and ATC to your hearts content - in the "real" aircraft, any attempt to teach the student any such pitfalls would require a lot of coordination (and the FI owing the guys in the tower a lot of beer - just try doing com-fail into a busy CTR).

Bottom line - the simulator is a much more effective training tool that the "real" aircraft, you can teach the student far more things, teach them quicker and better, and you can let the student commit all the errors that you feel are necessary without having to intervene. After all, it's quite easy to say "Noooo...that's not really what we're looking for" and do a reset. Anyone who prefers "real" aircraft training over simulator training are in urgent need to expand their horizons and get a better feel of the subject before posting.

Wonder how many of the "OMG-brigade" have conducted both basic and airline training and had a chance to evaluate how well these two match? And how easy it is to get your student thinking along the lines of the latter after spending 18 months doing the former? :ugh:

[TRISTAR1]

Good Post Empty Cruise.

Most of the flight training carried out at present bears no resembelance as to what is required to operate the latest generation of transports. Smashing around in a light twin shooting NDB approaches is a total waste of time and resources.

Wether or not the MPL is the right vehicle for current training will become apparent over time and it will be tuned to meet the needs. What is apparent is that the current training is not the right tool.

[buttline]

....mostly agree with what Empty Cruise is saying.. But, I also feel that the simulator is just a big Playstation and part of you knows that. You can't re-create the pressure of a crappy dark night in the sim! Flying real aircraft where you feel a sense of self-risk is an important part of gaining confidence.

However, once trained and flying the line, experience is quickly gained flying the real aircraft. I reckon after 500 hours, you're initial training becomes a relatively minor factor.

However, (again) I don't think anyone should go ab-initio (conventional or MPL) into a long-haul job - not enough handling experience is gained when flying long haul. There should be some minimum like 1500 T/Os and Landings required before getting a job on a long-haul jet.

[ChiyaWena]

ok, well done empty cruise, give yourself a pat on the back becausae you clearly have all the answers. and whilst most of your arguments 'could' be legit, all i want to know is where on earth are these new MPL's going to gain the invaluable 'building block' type experience. which you and others seem to think is a waste of time.

i mean the type of flying that you get driving your caravan around in africa dodging thunderstorms, landing on rubbish runways, getting lost and learning how to make a plan, when just about all else fails.

i know you're probably going to say that the scenario that i have just described is worth nothing to a MPL, that will only ever land at lovely big airports and fly the GPS home. and i somewhat agree with that. but then you are missing my point. there is a huge learning curve that has to be travelled as a young pilot, and i think a lot of people feel that the MPL doesn't cater for that.

now if an MPL isn't going to be able to be a capt for 100 years then we are creating a new problem here and it will be an even bigger one than what is trying to be dealt with now, the lack or virtual non existance of suitable captians and training captains. where to go now.

lets see how politics solves that one bud.........................:ugh:

[ChiyaWena]

Amen buttline, nicely said.........that experience is vital. feeling your life is at risk in a particular ugly situation can be a huge learning process.

not saying people must go and threaten their lives, but i think you all get the picture. a sim ain't going to hurt you that bad!!!!

[Flash0710]

I really do not want to waste a year of my life to do the quite frankly pointless ATPL.

The stuff you are required to learn is superfluous to day to day big bus driving.

An entire shake up of the whole process should be called for.
In the anologue days when you had to be a real pilot lots of it was relevant, and pilot knowledge was genuinely needed and used as a highlighted safety issue to calm passengers.
Now pretty much everyone knows how computer reliant modern airliners are, to the point where an imput by an up to date sytems operator cant even exceed a certain angle of bank without the computer relinquishing control.

Handflying in some airlines is now actively discouraged so where is the real skill?

Management that is all it is.

I realise that some of the responses here are from people who have fully been through the mill as far as training goes and would hate to see someone next to them who has done half if not a quarter of the training that they have done. The truth is how many of you really remember everything you learnt? I for one would want to kill if i wasted said year and a: got hit by a bus and b: the syllabus changed.

Go for it SAA start the wave..

It has always amazed me the lengths people will go to, to fly for an airline. Just the other day i drove past a ryr hostie waiting for a bus. I thought " My god you have paid for your training and uniform. Pilots starting at 5 in the morning and late finishes with no perks. There is just no appeal and most of them just seem to take it. It will go one of two ways. Pay cuts or reduced requirements for experience.

We all hold the keys to the future of aviation.

Something will give soon

rgds
f

[Ignition Override]

A US airline with highly-experienced pilots almost hit a small mountain on departure from SFO years ago. This was in a 747-400. Even the senior FO who held the right seat faced engine instruments which vibrated due to an engine problem and maybe even the black "ball" was difficult to read. The yoke was turned, but nobody pushed on a rudder until it was almost too late.
After IOE flying, where the FO or Captain flies almost each leg, how many SIDs and instrument approaches will the new FO fly each month or year?

United experienced unique problems years ago due to a "culturally-correct" hiring policy. That very young Flight Engineer is now your new B-737 FO, and STILL has a total of about 250 hours, much of it in single-engine Cessna 172s. No sweat man, most of it is cross-country! Sure, the autothrottles and anti-skid are on MEL. But this is still November...we can hack it.

Sure, the legal and/or corporate quotas were filled (during the Hillary Dynasty:rolleyes: ), and a court-mandated policy was complied with, but after that things were not always so rosy. How about into a hazardous mountain airport when an electrical problem happens (bus tie etc), or an oil pressure annunc. light goes on? "Did he say that the braking action was reported by a turboprop?" (!)
Some jet pilots might see no problem with this, but they can certainly 'type' much faster on the FMC buttons than the old f@&t in the left seat and be able to quickly reset the MCP.
Many FOs with over 20 years of flying in transport-category aircraft (it was the case that on short trans-Pacific trips the two Captains flew most approaches...), in order to maintain currency, must return to the simulator each six months.

How would these younger pilots make the transition to, for example, A-320 or B-737 Captain and fly four-five legs near mountains and around weather in a 12-hour duty period? "Let's see, 20 minutes of contingency fuel with t'storms forecast here and near the destination...well...but Dispatch says that we need to leave on schedule. I guess we don't need a dep. or dest. alternate airport...that would cause a delay! The agent needs to close the cabin door? Eh.. ok. Preflight checklist please!" You are gone flying another trip, but your wife and son are sipping their Mountain Dew soft drinks in back, behind these very low-experience guys {and how little experience might HIS brand-new First Officer have?}. Your wife and son are in a plane which is now number 1 for departure, enjoying the view of pretty lightning bolts from very big clouds near the airport, as the tree limbs swing back and forth. FO-"the winds are still within our 38 knot crosswind limit":oh:

[AfricanSkies]

I fly occasionally with an F/O who was moved onto jet airliners after about 2000 hrs of light aircraft flying, and instruction. His hands-on flying skills are not too bad, I'd even go so far as to say, better than some of the sharper F/O's we have. Initially he was pretty rough and almost did not pass the rating. After 500 hours now on the jet he can fly it pretty well, but his knowledge of the systems is poor and his situational awareness is still almost non-existent. Yesterday I asked him, on a route he has flown perhaps 50,60 times, what airway we were on. He didn't know. What class airspace are we in? Didn't know, just laughed. Are we left or right of track? Gave wrong answer. And he is impatient to get into bigger aircraft. I stopped there, pretty miffed that such an individual be given such a great opportunity to sit in that seat, but applies himself so little, when there are hundreds of other guys who would kill to be where he is.

Yesterday we had some drama and he lost the plot immediately, I was doing the cockpit drills, trying to keep the situation under control and talking on the radio whilst making urgent hand signals to him to turn left, he could not do that as he was fixated on the instruments, frozen, flying straight and level.

Earlier on in the flight we had been cleared through someone elses level and when they approached us head on it was apparent there was going to be an RA if not a collision. He a) did not notice the other a/c on the TCAS and b) after I had pointed it out he just sat there and watched until I suggested he level off early until we had passed the other traffic.

What I gather from this guy is firstly that if you employ pilots who have had to work hard to get where they are, ie. they pay their own way perhaps, plus they go through the mill of pre-airline work, instead of just being paid to train in a cosy sim which can be switched off when they are tired, they will quite possibly be a lot more keen and apply themselves a lot more, which leads to a far more switched-on and dedicated, eager-to-learn pilot. You don't want a guy who loses interest when things get a bit tough, or does not know the basics.

Secondly, and I think this is a most important point, this guy proves that batting around in the circuit, even for 2000hrs, or in a sim for however long does not give you anywhere near the level of situational awareness you need for flying airline operations. By situational awareness I do not just mean the aircraft in the sky around you but also where you are in the process of the flight, ie. wheres your PET, is it time to prepare for the approach, hows the fuel imbalance, should we try and get some updated weather for our alternate, etc etc.

This MPL plan will produce pilots who can operate the machine, after a long time, but it will not make up for experience gained in other areas. I will not even go to the toilet with this guy as F/O.

Which is a shame. He's a nice guy.

[SIC]

Agreed - I hunker for the days when you started on a Tiger Moth and ended on a 747. And you WORKED your way up. Through thunderstorms and dirt strips and REAL experience that scared the SH&* out of you at times as opposed to a simulator that couldnt scare a baby.

Alas those day are gone and the conspiracy of clarks ( management ) who are only onterested in the victory of the robotic cloned buttonpushers over pilots with a personality and some independant thinking is complete!!

I am goin to quit soon and buy a fishing boat like Ernest Gann did - now thats work for an independently minded .....:mad:

[Brian Abraham]

Comment from Air Florida Potomac River accident report
The investigators concluded that the limited experience was a contributing factor to the accident. Because of the rapid expansion of Air Florida between 1977 and 1981, the captain had missed the extended "seasoning" experience normally accumulated by airline first officers before they gain their first command.
NB The captains jet experience consisted of about 1200 hours as first officer on Air Florida DC9/737 and 1100 hours command on 737. Previous experience was light singles, twins and turbo prop, much of it in the more benign weather of the southern US. The report noted an informal survey showed pilots serve an average of 14 years as second/first officers prior to a command.

To pinch a quote from D E Charlwood "Takeoff to Touchdown"

They require the foresight and sagacity that can only come after a man has been in many a tight corner.

[Brat]

Aviation is a field that has progressed in a just generations from a few hundred yards to the stars. It is rapidly evolving and those of us involved would probably be the first to admit that so many advances are occuring that it is unlikely that any one solution is neccesarily the 'best' one. This approach is simply one of a number being taken to provide the pilots of the future.

Having read the thread it is obvious that there are very mixed feeling concerning the experiences required to make an ideal pilot for both today's and tommorrows airline pilots.

Personal feeling on the subject were that 'hands on' real life time certainly provided an invaluable core that was supplemented with invaluable sim time . Neither was the ultimate solution but together they provided a potent combination.

It would seem here that in this particular case the lack of ethnic locals was at least one of the driving forces in this particular scheme

"The cost-cutting initiative is part of efforts by the national carrier to introduce more black people into its pilot ranks"..." Jordaan said in an interview this week that the initiative would fast-track the number of black pilots employed by the national carrier. At present, the airline employs just 66 black men and women pilots out of a total of 796.
SAA's target, introduced in 1996, was to have 300 black pilots by last year."

The lack of a particular ethnicity in the cockpit should, to my mind, play no part at all in devising methods for the training of cockpit crew.

[Human Factor]

I hate to have to say this but any MPL holder on my flight deck will not be landing the aircraft. The greatest skill any pilot can possess is that "hair standing up on the back of the neck" feeling, otherwise known as "mortality". That skill is only developed by experience and self reliance during the early years of flying.

[divinehover]

SAA Pilots Association press Statement on this issue

"The SAA Pilots’ Association wishes to express its concern regarding the article relating to pilot training which was published in the Saturday Star and Cape Argus on 16 September 2006 under the heading “SAA’s controversial plan to get co-pilots flying”. The article in question creates the false impression that SAA is about to adopt new training methods as a cost cutting measure. This, as well as some other statements made in the article, is factually incorrect.
The article in question refers to the introduction of a new pilot licence called a Multi-Crew Pilot Licence (MPL). It would appear that there is an international trend towards developing qualifications for multi-crew licences. As yet, there is no provision in South African legislation for multi-crew licences although such legislation may be considered in line with international standards. SAA and SAAPA have not yet begun to discuss the introduction of multi-crew licences.
SAAPA is justifiably proud of the safety record achieved by SAA pilots, who are internationally renowned for their high standards and we will continue to ensure that these high standards are maintained.
The Cadet pilot programme which SAA has been operating for many years has been very successful, although very costly to SAA. If a means can be found to produce the same high calibre pilot at a lower cost, then this must be investigated. However, it is unthinkable that SAAPA would support a process that would reduce safety standards. Any changes made to pilot licensing must preserve or improve upon existing flight safety levels and pilot organisations throughout the world will be monitoring the process carefully to ensure that there is no degradation in safety standards. – Captain Jimmy Conroy, SAAPA Chairman”

[Brat]

The use of a light jet, as has been done by at least one major carrier, or shortly to come VLJs, may well be one way to expose lowtime airline newcomers to realtime flying on the routes relatively inexpensively?

[Human Factor]

Brat,

Agreed. I think Singapore Airlines used (use?) Lears at one point just as you describe. The fact remains though that airlines are trying to force the issue of the MPL to reduce their costs.

Ultimately, I concede that the best training for airline route flying is simulator time followed by suitable line training on type, as those of us who have been through the system will testify. The problem as I see it is at the ab-initio stage. If you were to put student pilots onto a Lear or a VLJ for enhanced route training, rather than the "traditional" conventional courses that we have now, that could perhaps be an acceptable compromise. However, 150 hours on PA28s and Senecas would always be significantly cheaper than the equivalent jet time on airways. Remember that a great deal of the emphasis of the current courses is to train students to track inbound and outbound on radials of one form or another, working out the drift, etc. Sure, anyone can follow the pink string but you have to be able to do it when it all goes horribly wrong. In pure cost terms (and remember that cost is the only factor which airlines understand), this can be accomplished much more effectively on light piston types. Hence, why not do the major part on simulators to reduce costs further. Hence the MPL.

It's not just South African Airways who are interested in this!!!

Ask yourself this question:

How confident would you be as a passenger knowing that the co-pilot had only 60 hours experience flying real aeroplanes?

Also:

Co-pilots would spend 10 years in the right-hand seat of aircraft before attaining commander status, he added.

This particular co-pilot has spent less than that in the right-hand seat before attaining commander status. There are many in my company who spend more than that (often through choice).

What this means is that a MPL co-pilot will spend exactly the same amount of time in the right-hand seat as a properly trained pilot!:eek: :eek: :eek:

Sorry, still no landings.

[Alpine Flyer]

While I am critical of the MPL myself we should not forget that many graduates of the current system do most of the actual flying as part of a two-pilot crew in one of the sunnier regions of the US of A (such as AZ or FL) and it would not be astonishing to hear that some get an IR without ever having been inside an actual cloud.

So far this has not resulted in poor quality and most of the new pilots my airline has hired over the last couple of years had minimum hours yet were very professional.

Doing all these hours in the sim with constant malfunctions probably puts more "content" into training, although I have a gut feeling that it does not weed out those who don't have the guts to fly (please forgive the crude wording, this is not my mother tongue).

Being honest, anyone crashing the sim should probably be dismissed to maintain some realism......

[Human Factor]

...although I have a gut feeling that it does not weed out those who don't have the guts to fly...

My point exactly.


....and your English is significantly better than my German;)

[Loose rivets]

There have always been strange differentials in the aviation world. I took about six working days to take my CPL writtens, if the morse, light-houses and radio are counted. My ALTP as it was then, was taken after about five years of F/Oing. Another few days of high pressure exams.

Years later, when I needed an American licence to fly a 72' , the exam was held by a private company and I was given six hours to complete the detail. After one hour I started to re-read my paper to check it through. I spent twenty minutes saying why a performance question was incorrect and put the paper on the guy's desk. I got one question wrong. This was in the mid eighties, and I felt that it was totally at loggerheads to our system in the UK, yet conversely, and despite feeling a little miffed, I felt the flying was always on a par safety-wise.

Here was a situation that showed a vast difference in standards, but the real nitty gritty was much the same. The long apprenticeship mentioned above did a lot of filtering, and at the top of a long list of requirements, you had to be able to take command if the captain dies. End of storey.

If no such qualified P2 is on that aircraft, then it should not be allowed into the airspace of countries that set tried and tested standards.

I know that at 500 hours I was just getting some of my first frights that was termed ‘character building stuff.' That was usually said in jest, just after being hit by lightning, but you know what I mean. The person in that RHS must, as I mentioned earlier in this thread, be able to cope with a dead captain, a sick aircraft and a dark and stormy night. Not probably, but for certain.

Perhaps I'm a little jealous of some of the youngsters of today. No perhaps, I am. 8,000 hours for a command on a BAC1-11 and 4,600 for the right hand seat in the sixties. It has to be said that these figures soon changed as the needs arose, but by then the pilot was a known quantity, and this is the main point. The low-houred guys will be utterly unproven. The SIM? Irrelevant, they will be unproven. The concept is frightening.

[742]

Here in the United States there is a large pool of pilots. Once past the "no one but those like me" phase (age 30 or so) I came to advocate that a mix of backgrounds in hiring is best. Everyone brings something to the party.

Never had I considered that someone might bring nothing.

[wobble2plank]

So when it all goes 'tits up' and the dreaded scenario develops for real is our brave new world MPL going to spend his time searching for the aircraft crash override?????

Hopefully he can tell me where it is, you never know, could be quite useful!

Seriously, I spent 20 years flying before going across to the airline world. After my previous life I find airline flying fun, calm and relaxing but only because I put the hard work in previously and also, own up time, had my fair share of close calls.

The problem here is the diversity of opinions on this board, there will always be those in the right position lamenting the changes and those that want to be in that position applauding them.

Personally I think SAA's idea is a disaster, but thats what happens when we let the accountants run airlines.

w2p

:}

[Brat]

Which all goes to show no doubt, that the old saying 'no substitute for experience' is past it's sell by date??

[outboundjetsetter]

what do u mean u dont need to look at a topographical map etc etc???
Ive seen this sort of thing time and time again e.g an f/o learning on the job.. cant even work a GPS but told to fly from A-B on the hdg bug as thats about all he/she is good for???
what sort of training is that?
Experience cannot be bought or saved!. Good sim training should be a part of any airline of this size.. by making such a mock up training programme you will only shoot yourself in the foot when the SH(&* HITS the Fan !!.
I have flowen with 'comprehensivly experienced captains and ' captains who meet certain regs.. I know who id rather be with during a sH^&^%UATION as ive been with both!.
( mental note to self.. dont fly SAA and dont advise people to fly with them if this is how they view 'quality' training.
You can still train the 'locals' using a standard syabus.. dont cut un-nessesary corners!.

[3rdBogey]

Anyone trying to defend this silly system, obviously has an eye on a change of carreer to either beancounter or common politition or both.
Open the "BACK" of your log book. Count the hours listed there. Now, think back. 180+ of "Those Hours" in a row????????
You'll have a GIBBERING WRECK left over!!!
Or, are you maybe not, going to be doing that kind of work?
Incapacitated captain, new MPL. Bad weather, one or other malfunction. (dominoes) My children or grand children on board as UM's? No. I think not.
Oh yes, I forgot, that kind of scenario can't happen. Silly me!
But wait! It gets better. I'll place my bets. The powers that be will promise you that the MPL is only flying on the long haul as P3. So there will always be 2 qualified pilots on board.
Mmmmmm. Long haul. 320's maybe now coming. 800's here now.
"NO, we'll not be letting these MPL's fly RHS on domestic. Promise."
Believe it! Pure politics. NOTHING else!! Of the worst most disgusting type too!

[Grunf]

Hello all.

It seems SAA is following the way of Australian CAA (CASA).:D

Please check this link (http://www.casa.gov.au/media/2006/06-10-17.htm)on their site about a similar regulation soon to be effective Down Under.

Also there is a discussion on Australian portion of Pprune on this topic (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=248181)


Cheers,

[Clandestino]

So it's one year from zero to long range hero? Great! When this MPL starts rolling, all I have to do is to walk into airline office, say "I wannnabe plane driver!" and since all are striving to be PC nowadays, threat with ageism lawsuit will help me in getting accepted for the course. Once I'm in, I'll burn my licence, logbook and all the evidences that connect me with flying. Since I already hold fATPL, groundschool should be a breeeeeezeeeee and sim - I have 100 hrs of level D and 2.5 khrs on real thing (t-prop, though), so no problems expected here either. And in a year time - long range, here I come.

As it is now, there's a faint chance that I might move from ATR to some MRJT early next year and most optimistic prediction of moving to widebody is about 5 years, therefore I can't wait for this wonderful MPL thingy to begin.

[SmokinJoe]

What do you think Emirates does..........
Off to Australia for a CPL starting with ZERO hours. Back to Dubai into the sim. for the full Induction Course then into the right hand seat for the line training min 80 sectors.

[SpringbokDreamer]

If this does come into force there will be no chance I'll be flying with them ever again. Nor will anyone I can influence... This is Affirm. Act. Gone BAD BAD BAD :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

Oh and now I have to change my Nick Name:mad:

[FougaMagister]

Those who affirm that "real" flying skills don't matter seem to conveniently forget that:

1/ For all the sim training in the world, learning to use (or should I say monitor) systems, all the whizz-bang, flashy electronics can (and occasionally do) fail. What are you left with then? Basic flying skills, stick and rudder stuff going sometimes as far back as single-engine CPL.

2/ Sims are great. Airline-type CAT D sims are even better. They get more realistic as time goes by. But they are a training help, NOT a substitute to actual flying. Doing, say, an NDB hold on a stormy night in a Seminole/Duchess/Seneca/Cessna 310 etc. IS training for heavy turboprop/jet operations.

3/ A nearby FTO's Chief Ground Instructor recently wrote to a number of European airlines asking them their opinion regarding the Multi Pilot Licence. I saw their answers: most (they include regionals, cargo outfits, "legacy" and low-cost airlines) aren't interested in the MPL and are not willing to contemplate it as part of their recruiting plans.

4/ Most airlines work on a seniority basis. How do you think would current FOs, who have trained under the traditional system, view MPL-trained newbies that would be seen not only as lacking real flying experience, but also as jumping the queue?

5/ To use a common comparison, would you let a surgeon that would only have practiced on simulators perform brain/heart surgery or any other difficult surgical procedure either on you or a loved one? Methinks not.

Cheers :cool:

[Airbubba]

Doing, say, an NDB hold on a stormy night in a Seminole/Duchess/Seneca/Cessna 310 etc. IS training for heavy turboprop/jet operations.


Can't say I've ever done NDB holding in a modern jet...

[Huck]

I have, in a DC-10 in Africa.

Sporty, it was....

[Airbubba]

I have, in a DC-10 in Africa.

Like I said, in a modern jet...

The DC-10 entered service 36 years ago.

[MrBernoulli]

I am fortunate(?) enough to now fly a modern jet (B777) but I learnt my trade on military pistons/turboprops flying around southern Africa. NDBs were the norm, and sometimes in ****ty conditions.

I graduated to large military jets in Europe but they were old and still needed a lot of 'stick & rudder' work.

Now flying an all-electric (almost) jet and what surprises me is that if you suggest having a go at something manually, without using all that FMS bollocks (which, frankly, often gets in the way of safe flying becuase guys are head down way too much), you get some real sideways glances by the folk who have little real flying under their belts.

That concerns me greatly because it means there is no practsie of the basics. Way too much faffing around twiddling knobs and pushing buttons instead of getting to grips with flying the approach (whats it doing now syndrome).

I acknowledge that young pilots making their way in their careers now are seeing less of the old fashioned steam-driven way of doing things ..... but that must mean there is a need to emphasise basic flying skills ..... 'stick & rudder' .... if not disaster surely awaits. MPL is a disaster waiting to strike, but it cannot be stopped .... the world is run by short-term accountants. Profit today ..... disiasters down the line are someone elses problem!

[Mac the Knife]

5/ To use a common comparison, would you let a surgeon that would only have practiced on simulators perform brain/heart surgery or any other difficult surgical procedure either on you or a loved one? Methinks not. Cheers :cool:

Doing a difficult and unfamiliar (lets make it long and tedious as well) procedure at 2am with poor instruments, bad light, a grumpy scrub-nurse, no backup and no back-out.

Ahhhhhhh! "Character building..." as one of my old chiefs used to say.

As Chuck Yeager says, you gotta be afraid to panic (you can puke AFTERWARDS)

No sim will ever teach you that - and if you can't do it then you shouldn't be doing it.

[MungoP]

If SAA are really keen to save money they need not screw around with this nonsence... just fly the a/c single crew... 'cause that's what this amounts to.

I suspect though that the cost saving is secondary to seeing faces in the cockpit with a low reflectivity index... quickly... Very dangerous to have unmotivated people in the cockpit so why not let nature take its course and start streaming those who show the right qualities and dedication to the task in order that they are ready for the full ATPL course when of the right age... oh ! er... sorry... isn't that the way it's always been done ?

[divinehover]

A bit of education for the SAA bashers

JAA's multi-crew pilot licence standards to be ready next month
Kerry Ezard, London (20Oct06, 13:03 GMT, 457 words)
Europe’s Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) is expecting to release its own set of standards for the first version of the ICAO-sanctioned multi-crew pilot licence (MPL) on 15 November, but the International Federation of Air Line Pilots’ Associations (IFALPA) remains concerned about the implementation of the new programme.
Speaking at the recent Royal Aeronautical Society’s Flight Crew Training: Meeting Tomorrow’s Challenges conference in London, JAA licensing director Fergus Woods said the MPL is “coming to its fruition point after four years of work”. He adds that “everything should go through” on the JAA’s side on 15 November, while ICAO’s MPL standards are expected to be available on 23 November.
The MPL requires student pilots to be trained as part of a crew of two, the aim being that the student will be able to begin professional flying as an airline co-pilot. Earlier this year, IFALPA voiced concerns that the reduced training times associated with the new licence could mean that first officers lack the necessary flying skills to take over in the event of a captain becoming incapacitated.
IFALPA still has concerns over the implementation of the MPL, and notes that certain questions remain unanswered concerning some of the scientific data involved in putting together the licence. But while Woods admits that the JAA will “need to improve on version one of the MPL in the future”, he says a step-by-step approach to its implementation should act as a compromise to “those who are skeptical of the simulation approach”.
Training for the MPL will be broken down into four phases, the first of which focuses on core flying skills. This initial phase will involve “less than 140h but more than 60h” of flight time, most of which will be airborne, with up to 5h taking place on a flight and navigation procedure trainer (FNPT I).
The intermediate and advanced phases will include air traffic control (ATC) simulation training, for which Woods says the technology is available and guidance material is currently being published. “ATC simulation should be introduced at the early stage of implementation,” he says.
Future versions of the MPL will require a “fine-tuning” of the feedback process, as well as improved instructor requirements. A competency-based approach to training and testing theoretical knowledge is also on the cards for future versions. “We see the need to change to a competency-based approach but this is a big step and we couldn’t fit it into the current timescale,” says Woods.
A key feature of the MPL is that it will enable pilots to take the “right-hand seat” on an aircraft after 240h of training, notes the licensing director. He adds that one of the key aims of the licence is to “train to proficiency, rather than test to destruction”.
Source: Air Transport Intelligence news

[Master Mariner]

Forgive me for butting my big nose into this debate if you will.

Although not a Pilot (as yet) I am a Ship Master and have seen exactly the same style of lunacy in the shipping industry. A few vested interests push for a shiny "New" training regime and promise that standards will be maintained and that the level of training is only "different" but of an equal standard to the status quo.

Total Horse*&^% as we all know.

Don't let the Aviation industry make the same mistakes that the Shipping industry made 15 years ago!

I recently sailed with a supposed "1st Officer" who could barely alter course on his own. His "International" Certificate of Competency is theoretically the same as a European one.....

This crazy spiral downwards puts even more pressure on the Captain and means that it is very easy indeed to get fatigued and make mistakes - 20-22 hour days are no exception. If this MPL training system really "takes off", unfortunatly incidents will be on the way as there is no substitute for good training and plenty of experience. I will not be flying SA that is for sure.

Guess who will get the blame when it all goes Tango Uniform onboard??http://www.pprune.org/forums/images/icons/laugh.gif

[FougaMagister]

Can't say I've ever done NDB holding in a modern jet...

Granted, but that's my point (at least partly): one has to learn to walk before they can run...

Cheers :cool:

[DaveO'Leary]

Do NASA (correct me if i'm wrong) train all shuttle pilots on sims? These guys/gals seem to do it right.

DO'l

[skydriller]

Do NASA (correct me if i'm wrong) train all shuttle pilots on sims? These guys/gals seem to do it right.
DO'l

OMG !! Did you really say that?

I am not an airline pilot, only a lowly PPL who tries to maintain a "Professional" standard of flying. But even I know that in order to get into the position of being trained as a NASA Shuttle pilot on one of their simulators, that turning up to NASA's door with zero hours (or even a PPL, gasp!!, horror!!) is not going to qualify me to fly a Space Shuttle RHS, regardless my ethnic background....

...One believes they probably have just a tad more flight experience :rolleyes:

[Sleeve Wing]

D O'L.
Have you seen the FLYING qualifications of these Shuttle pilots ? Mostly Test Pilots I think you'll find. Not just pilots already but exceptional.

And just to add a few coals to the fire ...........a very experienced Training Captain pal of mine came back the other night after a Line Check on a new "graduate" FO. He looked absolutely whacked. "What's up, mate?", I asked. "I've been flying on my f**king own again", he said.

[PAXboy]

“We see the need to change to a competency-based approach but this is a big step and we couldn’t fit it into the current timescale,” says Woods.
The word 'competency' is a weasel word that has emerged in the past few years. On the surface, it sounds as if you are training people to be competent in the job, in the same way that you always have but ... it doesn't work out that way.

In a TOTALLY unrelated field, the training has also moved over to 'competencies' and the results are dire. Fifteen years ago, for a specialist job, myself and two colleagues wrote the qualities needed and the skills that must be acquired onto a single peice of A4 paper. Now they have been rewritten by a special consultant (£ x Thousands) and cover 34 pages. Meanwhile, the people emerging from the training are not a patch on the previous candidates.

In all areas, companies want to reduce costs and boost productivity and will use any words and methods to do that. Whenever you hear the MD of a company say things, "Everything wil continue as before" "We are moving into a new era of high standards" and "Your jobs are safe", is the time to start updating your CV.


Concise Oxford Dictionary 10th Edition
competence (also competency)
· n.
1 the quality or extent of being competent.
2 Linguistics a person’s subconscious knowledge of the rules governing the formation of speech in their first language. Often contrasted with performance.
3 dated an income large enough to live on.

I write as a non pilot and 50% South African and feel very sad and worried about this development.

[Wannabe1974]

This sounds truly awful. I am just about to start my career in aviation and I hope this project is not repeated elsewhere. I don't want to sit there for hours looking at dials and screens and making the odd course or alt adjustment. I can continue doing that in the military for more money and less hassle! I want to take-off, fly and land the bugger! Hopefully not a sign of things to come. My boss told me today that he reckoned that airliners would not have a human crew in about 40 years. Again, I hope not!

[WhatsaLizad?]

A bit of education for the SAA bashers

JAA's multi-crew pilot licence standards to be ready next month
Kerry Ezard, London (20Oct06, 13:03 GMT, 457 words)
Europe’s Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) is expecting.......................


This road of thought is more fitting to John Cleese in a Monty Python skit than flying a commercial jet in weather with problems.


Absolute fools.

[Lucifer]

Open the "BACK" of your log book. Count the hours listed there. Now, think back. 180+ of "Those Hours" in a row????????
You'll have a GIBBERING WRECK left over!!!
Which is one benefit of the MPL - you can put constant pressure on a student, without danger, but with the benefit of realism, introducing complexities that you cannot, and will not deal with in a twin (even on an NDB, at night, in rain). True, you won't hit real terra firma, but are you all honestly saying that you don't feel huge pressure in the sim?

Go on - show of hands - who does not feel the pressure in the sim to perform; who does not find it realistic as an assesment of their handling skills in an emergency?

Face it - once established, this debate will go the same way as ZFT conversion courses. Yes, I can well see airlines abusing it, but the intent was pure - brought in to raise skills of low-time pilots in a jet environment. Are your opinions really ones with backgrounds in training, or ones of nostalgia for "the way things were done". Face it - times move on.

Even some ex-mil pilots struggle with moving to airline ops, as many of us will know. Some guys who spend hours bashing grass strips in singles and twin piston aircraft will gain a lot, but fact is that most will not, and most will not experience the flight conditions consistent with airline ops.

I quite agree on the diversity of backgrounds however.


Just an edit to add - I agree too that their use on longhaul without real landing experience appears equally foolish, although consider that CX and others use SOs for exactly this purpose.

[Lucifer]

My boss told me today that he reckoned that airliners would not have a human crew in about 40 years.
Au contraire - why waste a human life and weight of associated life support systems on a bombing machine that can, and is remote controlled today (UAV).

Passengers on the other hand will not ever board something without a pilot.

[Wannabe1974]

Au contraire - why waste a human life and weight of associated life support systems on a bombing machine that can, and is remote controlled today (UAV).

Passengers on the other hand will not ever board something without a pilot.


The thought had occurred to me....

I was merely pointing out that some people have strange ideas.

[Cardinal]

The sim and the aircraft are different places, different environments. Just last year we had a low-time First Officer emerge from simultaor training without difficulty (his first airline job, turboprop). Struggled through a fair-weather week of IOE. Began flying the line, and upon the commencement of his first instrument approach procedure with people in the back, simply froze up. Crossed his hands, looked out the window, stopped moving, stopped talking, stopped listening. Wouldn't respond to the captain, wouldn't say a word. He just let the captain fly the procedure, configure the aircraft, and run the radios all by his lonesome.

Once safely on terra firma, he packed up his stuff and walked away without a word. Needless to say, he was terminated, and he didn't even protest. My point: The simulator does not always separate the men from the boys.

[Lucifer]

The sim and the aircraft are different places, different environments. Just last year we had a low-time First Officer emerge from simultaor training without difficulty (his first airline job, turboprop). Struggled through a fair-weather week of IOE. Began flying the line, and upon the commencement of his first instrument approach procedure with people in the back, simply froze up. Crossed his hands, looked out the window, stopped moving, stopped talking, stopped listening. Wouldn't respond to the captain, wouldn't say a word. He just let the captain fly the procedure, configure the aircraft, and run the radios all by his lonesome.
Once safely on terra firma, he packed up his stuff and walked away without a word. Needless to say, he was terminated, and he didn't even protest. My point: The simulator does not always separate the men from the boys.
Fair point - and situations such as that are why this must be discussed more - why he did that, and why it was not picked up. We can't dismiss the inevitable, but need to constructively discuss its implementation and the consequences.

[WhatsaLizad?]

Lucifer,

If these 240 hour graduates could somehow land a widebody jet without hydraulics as did the UAL and DHL crews without any previous "simulator" training, your confidence in this idea might be more understandable, but I don't see them surviving any scenario that wasn't included in the syllabus by some training committee.

[WhatsaLizad?]

Cardinal,

Was this at a US Regional airline? I've heard due to the low pay and non-existent advancement outlook that the bottom of the barrel is being scraped for pilots. I've heard of classes where nobody shows up and Captains who have had FO's in jet marvel out the view outside because they've never flown in clouds:eek:

[Cardinal]

Yep, a small US regional. Classes often have vacancies, and lots of staring out the window happens. Increasingly when you spend some time with the new guys you wonder how they ended up here.

[sandkfir]

Someone posted a few pages back that this is how the Emirates cadet program is run. Well not exactly. The cadets, after passing the initial selection course, are schooled in a number of areas i.e. Aviation English etc. after which they are sent to Adelaide. They return from Adelaide with a frozen ATPL and about 250hrs total flight time, both single and twin.

The next phase is a bridge course that consists of ground school, procedures trainer, fixed base and full flight sim. This takes between 4 and 6 months to complete. Only on successful completion of this do they begin the type-rating course, either B777 or A330. On completion of full flight sim they embark on line training which involves base training (circuits and bumps) and no less than 80 sectors with an instructor on varied routes worldwide.

What hasn’t been mentioned is the wash out rate. Only the very best ever make it to the line training. The wash out is ruthless and has the full backing of the Chairman. Out of every 100 potential cadets who apply to the scheme only +- 10 ever make it onto the line. Emirates is proof that this type of training can be effective but the overseers must have absolute authority to remove any underperformers. Knowing affirmative action and South African politics I doubt that this element will be incorporated which renders the whole scheme flawed and dangerous.

[Danny]

The one thing that a simulator can never replicate is the 'mortality' factor. Whilst I shall leave the rest of you on here to debate the pros and cons of this new licence which reduces even further the actual flying experience of the trainee, the one thing that actual flying experience versus simulated flying experience cannot replicate is that subconcious fear that we manage to suppress knowing that if we really screw it up it's going to hurt real bad or worse! :bored:

It is those pilots that have flown in marginal situations and learnt from their experiences that will have the real advantage when things get bad later on. No one is denying that you can't train a pilot with less flying hours and many more sim hours to operate the aircraft. How many hours does a fast jet military pilot have before being let loose?

As with most things in aviation, the beancounters rule and this new licence is just another example of knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing. Lip service will be paid to how safety is the number one priority but in reality we all know that it is a compromise between profit and loss! :rolleyes: The fear of failing a course in the sim can never replace the fear of knowing that the consequences of getting it wrong is going to kill you!

I remember about five years ago when someone from South African Airways first proposed this new licence. SAA have been the drivers behind it and no doubt, with the backing of most of the worlds major airlines, they have seen it to fruition as most countries will introduce the MPL soon. Ah, when I were a lad...

[SIC]

Right on Dan - its all about mortality - or the level of risk you are perceived to be exposed to - which determines the amount of training (and reward) you receive.

An airmail pilot in 1926 earned almost a MILLION dollars ( in 2006 dollars - adjusted for inflation etc ) per year, but did not live very long.

Cathay A scale pilots in the early days (1950's) were on several HUNDRED THOUSAND a year.

Today I know pilots in Canada ( JAZZ ) who work for 40 000 CA$ a year.

WHY????

Cause flying has become easier, there's less decision making and planes safer. We are worth less because we dont die so often any more....

However sooner or later less and less training and experience will not be balanced any more by safer and safer aircraft - and we will start to die again. Only then things will change.
Or Airbus will succeed and build them pilotless...

[d246]

Yes SIC, absolutely right about the relative difficulty in flying nowadays. Anyone, who can walk and talk at the same time, can raise the money and pass a few simple exams can do it. All this nonsense about ‘the mortality factor’ is just that. The sophistication and reliability of aircraft now means that flying is much safer and will continue to get more so. Danny and co are desperately trying to hang onto the myth, it is simply not necessary to manually fly NDB’s etc they are history and when the civil world catches up with the military in using three dimensional GPS, which in the interests of safety will happen, then you won’t need ‘pilots’ with any hours but systems operators monitoring the control of events from the ground if that. No one thought forty years ago that driverless trains would happen. As for pilots saving lives, unfortunately it is usually the other way around, if the aircraft malfunctions your chances of surviving are statistically poor. For every DC10 hero there are a dozen muppets witness the Cyprus incident. In any case it is the licensing authority that will determine the experience requirements for the issue of a licence not the airline. Similar things are planned for JAR licenses.

[clunckdriver]

I cant speak for SAA and their training but I hope the bean counters dont think it will work in Canada where only about 20% of the flying is "airline type" My youngest is a good example of what is needed over here, her first season was on floats way up North and on her own apart from about 700 First Nations folks, can you even contemplate doing this kind of flying, ie glassy water/rough water/ freezing spray/no docks or dockhands with only 70hrs PIC?Second season, fire detection, now medivac into black hole gravel strips, no NDBs or ILS and all this in an MU2!Also gets to see the other side as most flights bring the patient down South to busy airports . During my time in the heavy metal I found that those coming from this type of flying were light years ahead of those we took from the "Puppy Farms" an experiment which lasted about six months may I add! We recently had some grads of a UK colledge{sorry, no names} They were bright and smart but lacking in any of the skills needed in this type of flying, unforunately we had to terminate them before who lost an aircraft, they had spent huge amounts of money and were I feel short changed by the system, so maybe if its all vectors and long paved runways this will work, but not here.

[CarltonBrowne the FO]

For every DC10 hero there are a dozen muppets witness the Cyprus incident.
If that was true we would all need umbrellas to protect us from the raining aluminium. More accurate to say, for every incident that hits the news, there are a hundred that are handled well, with no one outside the company concerned ever hearing about it. Even on modern jet aircraft (the aircraft I fly entered service long after the A320) there are situations the autopilot cannot cope with. Tooling around in a PA28 may not seem relevant, but it does give you the chance to learn to COPE.

[d246]

Bush Flying has got nothing to do with this scenario 'clunckdriver' and 'CarltonBrowne the FO' the vast majority of airline pilots these days will complete a whole career with no significant aircraft failures. Engine and system problems are rare, unless you forget to switch them on of course, but automation will pre empt those problems. Fact is that an awful lot of airlines are now recruiting very low houred people, they don't have to fly with floats or deal with life threatening 'hands on' situations, they just push the buttons. As for situations that the autopilot cannot cope with, come off it.

[Jet_A_Knight]

The fact that aircraft and their systems are so reliable is so as to enhance their safety in the hands of a well trained and suitably experienced crew - not for their safety margin to be eroded by inexperienced 'machine/systems operators' because they are 'easy to fly'.:rolleyes:

There is a whole lot more to flying an aeroplane, than just operating the machine.

[Clandestino]

Cause flying has become easier, there's less decision making and planes safer. We are worth less because we dont die so often any more....


We're not worth less (or worthless) but paid less! And while your explanation is massively perverse, there just might be a grain of truth in it, but (for my own sake) I hope there isn't.

the vast majority of airline pilots these days will complete a whole career with no significant aircraft failures

Yep! And some of them will "complete" their career soon after their first significant aircraft failure, leaving the whole world and the PPRuNe to wonder "Why did they do that?!?" - if the quality of flightcrew trainning is allowed to deteriorate, that is.

As for situations that the autopilot cannot cope with, come off it

Automation, electronics and electrics don't always work as desired/predicted/needed. Autopilots can an do fail. Actually, there are at least two cases of failed autopilots causing airplane to disintegrate in midair. No use of pushing buttons then, eh?

In any case it is the licensing authority that will determine the experience requirements for the issue of a licence not the airline.

Yeeeees sir! And licensing authorities work in complete isolation from airlines, because too close cooperation would be seen as the conflict of interests. It's true in some parallel universe, just not in ours.

when the civil world catches up with the military in using three dimensional GPS, which in the interests of safety will happen

In interest of reducing collateral civilian casualties, military should better come up with something better than 3dGPS. Airliners guided to landing as accurately as smart bombs are guided to target would be a very bad news, for pax and people who live near airports alike.

With just one year from the start of general flying theory to TR, the whole syllabuss has to be very dumbed down. Chances of getting good pilots (or even good sysops) from it are minimal. I just hope someone realises it before someone gets hurt.

Oh, and for the uninformed, there is more to inside of the clouds than just the looks. And that's the part I find not-so-reallistically simulated even in level D sims.

There, now I can close my OVBD VENT valve. However, I have a nagging feeling that I have just fed a troll...

[Lucifer]

If these 240 hour graduates could somehow land a widebody jet without hydraulics as did the UAL and DHL crews without any previous "simulator" training, your confidence in this idea might be more understandable, but I don't see them surviving any scenario that wasn't included in the syllabus by some training committee.
(a) I think many people are missing the point, that eliminating the "hour building" requirement of a modular course - for example, is not going to change the skill level of the graduate very much;

(b) The "death zone" of between 45 and 200 hours encountered by many students is called that for a reason, and eliminating that time spent unsupervised, hour building, and generally wasting money in a non-airline environment, and replacing it with a learning, constructive simulator environment can only be a positive thing; and,

(c) Huge numbers of airlines have taken many people with just 200 hours over the last 50 years - what many consider "dangerous". What the MPL produces is not only no different, but many people have also seen fantastic 200 hours pilots, who can handle the lot when it all goes awry. Name me a BOAC/BEA/BA accident caused by a 200 hr graduate with insufficient training?

The danger has little to nothing to do with the MPL, and everything to do with adequate selection. The danger with SAA is positive discrimination that allows lower standards based upon colour - be they white, black or Indian. The danger is that the simulator training is added to the course yet adds nothing to the training. The danger is that the total training is insufficient.

The danger does not lie in substituting essentially useless time in the air for productive time on the ground.

If you don't have a sense of mortality after 70 hours, pray when are you going to obtain it? Magically at 200 hours? Come on, that is tosh.

[Clandestino]

Very well put, Lucifer and Studi. It would be even better if it we were discussing replacing SEP hour building for fATPL with level D sim hours but no such luck! What we have here is compressing the process which currently takes about two years, at the fastest, to one (1) year. Are you sure that everything that will be left out is useless? Surely we can do away with VFR droning and LORAN theory but I'm afraid that some basic stuff, like flight mechanics and aerodynamics will be severly reduced, to let MPL students to have barely enough time to learn the systems. After all, there' seems to be widespread notion that modern airline pilot is merely systems operator, so who needs aerodynamics with operative alpha protection.
Off the record, SAS flight academy crunched the numbers and found out that MPL would cost about 100 000€, a few K€ more then their current fATPL+TR syllabus. Mind you, that's for real cost of fATPL and TR, and not the price charged to the outside customers. Only benefit of MPL, as proposed, is increased simulator utilization.
Even more off record, certain airline had very nice cadetship sheme. Not much droning, more than half flight time on multi and about 60 hrs of it on very well equiped PA-42 (5 CRT EFIS, WXrad). Cross country would easily take student across the borders, cruise was done at high twenties and well above 250kt, there was presurization and anti-icing to take care of and its Vref was always above 100 kt. Not to mention that it was challenging to land well, at least for someone with a bit over 100 hrs TT. Alas, someone disregarded the benefits of learning to fly on such an advanced machine and ordered replacing Cheyennes with Senecas as more cost efficient solution to trainning needs. A year later, cadets with all-seneca experience started their TR courses and, to everyone's surprise, regularly needed aditional sim hours. I guess this still made economical sense, but hour-for-hour, even the complex turboprop twin was cheaper to operate than level D sim (in the late nineties, that is).

[tubby one]

Below is what the JAA are planning for the MPL theory. I don't see much in the way of a reduction in standards. In addition the ICAO requirement is for ATPL level knowledge, so the opportunity to cut corners is unlikely to be available regardless of what operators may wish to do. As for completeing the course in one year - that really is dream world stuff. 750 hours of theory is > 21 weeks just for openers.:cool: :confused:


9 The theoretical knowledge syllabus is set out in Appendix 1 to JAR-FCL 1.470. An approved ATPL(A) theoretical knowledge course shall comprise at least 750 hours (1 hour = 60 minutes instruction) of instruction which can include classroom work, inter-active video, slide/tape presentation, learning carrels, computer based training, and other media as approved by the Authority, in suitable proportions.

The 750 hours of instruction shall be divided in such a way that in each subject the minimum hours are:
Subject hours
Air Law 40
Aircraft General Knowledge 80
Flight Performance & Planning 90
Human Performance & Limitations 50
Meteorology 60
Navigation 150
Operational Procedures 20
Principles of Flight 30
Communications 30
Other sub-division of hours may be agreed between the Authority and the FTO.
The theoretical knowledge instruction for the type rating shall be in accordance with Appendix 1 to JAR-FCL 1.261(a), and shall cover the syllabus as set out in AMC FCL 1.261(a).

[Ignition Override]

Alpine Flyer: A furloughed pilot who instructs on the CRJ sim. and in the actual aircraft gave me a short description of a guy who went throught the Gulfstream program in Florida. We were walking up a jetway at DFW. This Gulfstream program included the basic ratings, then some experience as B-1900 First Officer.

When this new pilot was then hired by a different company with CRJs, the guy had some serious problems flying instrument approaches in the simulator. He had very little actual instrument experience as B-1900 FO and he failed the training. I can easily imagine being new with the enormous learning challenges of your first FMC, and in your first jet (by the way, a Flight Attendant who is married to an Instructor there told me that lady new-hires receive much more extra help...compared to the guys). The problem he stated was instrument experience in weather, or at least flying the approaches.

But once trained at the famous or 'infamous' Gulfstream as FO, the promises of the training package must have been quite encouraging. Imagine the huge financial expense, and then finding out at your first jet airline that your limited flying hours, despite being in a twin-turbine (in mostly good weather) have not prepared you to fly a single-engine ILS, a regular 2-engine LOC or NDB approach, and combine these with some automation (how much?).:(

Many years ago, a guy at a regional airline I worked for had some problems in training. He had flown as King Air "FO" at a small charter company, and the guy he flew with most of the time was very selfish about sharing the flying: he seldom allowed this nice guy to fly departures or approaches (maybe the Captain only cared about his own actual instrument time, for use on a job application, but PIC is always PIC in most turbine aircraft). But he made it through the training ok and about two-three years later checked out as a Brasilia Captain at another company, then later went with a major east coast airline which was a fine company until being consumed by a dour 'yankee' airline.

[ALPHA FLOOR]

As a South African I am embarresed by this intiaive which is nothing more than a loop hole in order boost the ranks with "Afirmative Action" recruits.

The success rate for the SAA cadet scheme has been abismal and has cost the company an absolute fortune and has not delivered the numbers of non-white pilots that was hoped for.

Now when there are able bodied, experienced crew available in South Africa it has been decided to over look them and recruit via an easier cheaper channel than the cadet scheme and fast track these token pilots to Command simply to "balance the numbers". It is public knowledge that this and the cadet scheme are not open to white males - only to Blacks, Indians, Coloured male and female!

IT IS A SHAME THAT 12 YEARS AFTER THE FALL OF APARTHEID THAT THIS GOVERNMENT CHOOSES TO WALK THE SAME ROAD!

Whether or not this scheme has merit as a means of coping with a rapid exansion is not the question here, in the context of SAA it is simply reverse rasism!

The fact is that SAA is the only State Sponcered carrier in the world today that is shrinking while most other airlines are expanding - and its not due to lack of work or high fuel prices, but rather due to pathetic management.

While I respect many of my collegues at SAA I cannot and will not accept this as means to disqualify anyone due racial orientation from having a chance to fly for SAA.

But thats just my point of view.

AF

[FougaMagister]

What Studi and Lucifer seem to (conveniently?) forget is that the great majority of airline pilots have had to self-sponsor their flight training, go the modular way and work their way up in the industry. Those who are "lucky" enough to benefit from some kind of sponsorship and then sometimes go straight on a heavy jet are but a tiny fraction of the overall professionnal pilot output of a country such as, say, the UK.

Therefore, quite apart from the finance side (how will they afford an even more expensive course if the MPL goes ahead), how would a typical modular, self-sponsored course be organised, bearing in mind that most of us have to train THEN find a first flying job - and that for a number of us, it will be on a turboprop :ok: . What would be the point of training on a jet simulator for a good part of the MPL if you have no idea what you will be flying for your first job? Jet sims are only partly relevant to turboprop ops - and I know which type are actually harder to fly...

What about those that accumulate flight hours (and a great deal of useful experience) as Flight Instructors? Is their hard work to be discounted as not relevant to multi-pilot ops?

What about those that work in airline ops or dispatch for a few months (or years) while networking to get their lucky break - an invaluable experience for later on?

I'm not saying that one can't go on a heavy jet with 250 hrs and strive in that environment; a number of my friends have done it and are doing just fine. There are also a great many guys/gals who reach that goal having worked their way up and are great flyers - yet there are also failures in each system.

With a proportion of ex-fighter jocks in the airlines, does anybody really believe that these make lesser airline pilots - just because they haven't been trained in a MPL environment from the outset?

The industry as a whole will be all the poorer if it comes to favour a single type of training background; airlines strive (or should strive) on the diverse experience of their aircrew - a fact often overlooked in recruitment, and which may help in emergencies, when people trained in a like manner will tend to react in the same way, when thinking "out of the box" might be called for (cue Sioux City/Baghdad).

While cost may not be the issue (at least not initially), the airlines would like "ready-made" pilots straight out of the same mould, and to spend less time, effort and money on selection with a lower chance of getting it wrong. These are, unfortunately, conflicting requirements. In SAA's case (the starting point of this thread), the driving requirement is affirmative action, not to remedy some perceived deficiency in training (which is of a very good standard).

Cheers :cool:

[Ignition Override]

SIC: Good points about somebody connecting an Airbus aircraft to being pilotless.
D246: One major reason as to why a large US regional airline (which only operates CRJs) has hired pilots with only about 500 hours is that they pay nothing during training, not even per diem, unless this changed. Some of this might be in order to comply with a....eh...'cross-gender' quota :uhoh: . After training, their pay as First Officer qualifies them to use govt. food coupons so they can feed a wife or baby at home. Apparently, pilots with a much better chunk of experience refuse to work for such demeaning and insulting conditions during Initial Training. This is exactly what one of their Line Check Airmen told me while we waited in line for a burrito at a major airport in the "Great Lakes" region. Bean counters at their best- no, not Taco Bell-I mean corporate 'integrity', or the lack thereof :E .

Boeing has probably had its share of crews not understanding or allowing the automation (partial auto. can be worse) to be the boss.
Airbus alone had four or five accidents which I can name by place or airline, and misunderstandings or non-standard procedures (over-confidence) etc led to tragedies. This includes the A-330 in Toulouse, with a factory demonstration pilot in command.

To second the vote of Commander Danny Pprune, not only do the 'leaders' of many airlines understand the cost of everything and the value of nothing, they are well-insured against a major "hull loss", and they are never found liable after the FAA and the NTSB are finished with months of playing "Monday morning {football} quarterback". Look at what the previous "Freight King" got away with at Willow Run years ago (YIP). Somebody was allegedly paid off numerous times, or certain "field reps" received some free type ratings to buy them off.

A US company suffered quite a string of accidents over several years {narrow but mostly widebodies}, plus or minus some well-known MD anomalies (possibly misplaced logbook pages?...I don't know about there, but it happened after the TWA B-727 flown by 'Hoot' Gibson rolled over Michigan in the 70s....the pages with previously documented UNcommanded leading edge problems turned up decades later...based upon "Aviation Week & ST"...very strange coincidence?) and kept their hull loss insurance. This latest incident can not be blamed on the pilots, apparently. This might prove to be unfortunate for one or two major corporate departments. What is the duration for the warranty on landing gear?:O

[Lucifer]

What Studi and Lucifer seem to (conveniently?) forget is that the great majority of airline pilots have had to self-sponsor their flight training, go the modular way and work their way up in the industry.

With a proportion of ex-fighter jocks in the airlines, does anybody really believe that these make lesser airline pilots - just because they haven't been trained in a MPL environment from the outset?

The industry as a whole will be all the poorer if it comes to favour a single type of training background.
Rather than forgetting, I perhaps failed to emphasise the use of the MPL, if properly constructed, for the airline environment in turboprops as well as jets.

Military training is not particularly relevant in this respect, as there is no element of unsupervised hour building at all, however it is of note that some fighter pilots do have trouble in an airline environment, while others are of great additional value.

That is why I stressed the point of diversity of backgrounds, however for an ab initio, the intentions of the MPL are intended as an improvement on current training - this benefits everyone, including those who have to build up to the jet job through other backgrounds.

[stargazer50]

I agree Alfa, its a pitty that , once again saa is trying to re invent something, together with the jokers at caa. The only hope weve got is the fact that faa, now in sa, inspecting caa due to irrigualities trying to set things right for icao inspection shortly , might put a hold on this 3rd world type licience. Because, if caa dont pass the inspection with icao then saa gets its but kicked out of usa and poss uk !!!!!!! O and, I would imagin that this MPL Licience will only be available to black candidates if it comes !! so dont worry, the international adverts for jobs will say, -- icao atpl licences only-- or something to that effect, and what when Mr Public just does;nt get on board!! or the hul insurance is x3 for MPL operators.:D

[Airbubba]

It is public knowledge that this and the cadet scheme are not open to white males - only to Blacks, Indians, Coloured male and female!

We've had programs like this in the U.S. for a couple of decades now. United Airlines had a famous settlement with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission where numerical goals (but not quotas <g>) were set for various sub-categories of other than white males.

Separate interviewing and hiring criteria were established. A friend of mine tells of an all black interview group at the old Stapleton Airport in Denver. One of the very vocal rejects was none other than Auburn Calloway, the future FedEx hijacker.

Attempts were made to modify seniority to promote "affirmative action" but most of these failed. However, when United offered jobs to Pan Am pilots in 1992 class dates were delayed for many since they were not in the right EEOC categories due to Pan Am's hiring practices years earlier.

More than one white South African expat has attempted to list as an African American in the obligatory ethnicity declaration on a U.S. airline application. A buddy of mine at United (last name same as a Rolls Royce competitor) was threatened with dismissal even though he was born in Africa and was a naturalized American citizen.

This idea of segregated pilot hiring standards is coming to many international carriers, for example, a recent Air India posting:

"Air-India Limited invites applications for the post of Trainee Pilot from Indian Nationals belonging exclusively to the Scheduled Tribe / Other Backward Class Community"

http://www.airindia.com/page.asp?pageid=512

The details go on to mention certified exclusion of the "Creamy Layer" in the recruitment qualifications, the codewords for political correctness are somewhat different everywhere you go...

[Sleeve Wing]

[QUOTE=Lucifer;2935173] however it is of note that some fighter pilots do have trouble in an airline environment, while others are of great additional value.

Perhaps, Lucifer,me old mate, it's because they can think..............

[Ignition Override]

AirBubba: What descriptive language-to "paraphrase" it.... I never found the nerve to state that on Pprune.
I was reluctant to explain what several United pilots had told me.

They had no hang-ups with various 'types' of new-hires, whether their ethnic desription or whether a man or a woman. But with so little experience, and despite so much Extra IOE time required after the sims, it would not have bothered people if most new-hires had somehow made the transition from FE to pilot, i.e. to 737 FO.. (well...at least to the easier job of 727 FO etc). By the way, if these young applicants with almost no experience had decided to work their way up the experience ladder in the normal way, is it not possible that many more of them would have been hired in the normal manner and succesfully transitioned to a United pilot seat, instead of remaining as Flight Engineer?

Had so few young people in these other minority categories wanted, years earlier, to actually become pilots, but years later during this United process, were many then somehow persuaded to try a career which previously had no real attraction for them, in order to meet the murky legalistic agendas of various groups?

The company filled lots of quotas, and I feel sorry for the pilots who had far too little background to adapt to fast, two-person c0ckp1ts and many kinds of changing weather, airport scenarios etc. BUT-their employer United met ITS apparent court-orderd obligations.
Never mind very sudden system malfunctions with little time to decide WHO flies, then WHO identifies which of similarly-titled abnormal procedures to read and somehow do, as they descend into the mountains. The CIVET Arrival at LAX (maybe controller ignorance and/ or lack of jumkpseat observation into that cesspool) bugged the heck out of me after many years of flying, just three runway changes on an FMC with speedbrakes the whole way down {757...}).

Those pilots were sometimes woefully unprepared while at the same time United met some outside private agenda. In a similar realm, this reminds me of the amazingly frank comments of a feminist attorney on the 5:30 NBC new years ago, when she admitted to a reporter that whether young overweight female cadet 'S. F.' made it years ago thru the Citadel military school was not the point.
She stated that the goal was "to break down a male tradition", or "barrier", or almost identical words to that effect. It must have humiliated the young, out of shape Miss S.F. But so what? The ever-so-smug, legalistic, always abrasive (their true goal and joy in life :E ...) politicized feminist goal was achieved.

So what was accomplished? A young lady was used, exploited, squeezed like a plump lemon, by these outside, "interested" parties, who proved to be indifferent to her actual success, when their true motivations were exposed to the harsh light of day. This film clip is quite true.:hmm:

Does this sort of callous exploitation of naive young people in the name of a purportedly "noble agenda" apply to aviation?

[Airbubba]

What descriptive language-to "paraphrase" it! I never found the nerve to state that on Pprune.

I imagine South African will go through much of the cycle we've seen at United and most of the other U.S. carriers in the last twenty years.

There will be a whole "touchy-feely" mandatory training syllabus on "diversity", "cultural awareness" and "sensitivity". The perpetrators in the training videos will always seem to be from the same oppressive group:

http://www.pfandp.com/videoclips/Continental_Airlines.wmv

Some of the folks hired with low time will eventually do really well after a while. However, a very few will never get the picture, will fail checkride after checkride, even have their ticket pulled by the feds, but never get terminated due to threat of adverse publicity and litigation. At least, that's how it has worked at some airlines here in the U.S.

European airlines are just now coming around on the idea of giving preference in pilot hiring for diversity, I'm sure they will see a lot more of the same issues disccussed in this thread in the years to come.

[clunckdriver]

D246, sorry about the long delay in getting back to the thread but have been on the road again. The type of flying I described is simply not "bush flying" It is a combination of all the skills needed to make a safe and well rounded pilot, the combination of "black hole" landings combined with high density airports is no more "bush flying" than Regents Park is a wild game reserve{dont be fooled by the Canada Geese crapping all over the park. thats just our revenge for sending the Starling to Canada} A few years back I was involved with the introduction of the Airbus to Canada,we had an experienced crew find themselves with a totally black flight deck one night with a 400ft ceiling, by reaching deep into their experience bank they were able to get it down in one piece, we then put this failure into the sim and tried it on some overseas students who had very low real world time and were products of one of these "puppy farms" which crank out a Lic called a "frozen ATPL" {thought we had the edge on frozen things!}The results were that only one crew hit the ground wings level but even they were about a mile short of the paving.Dont get me wrong, the sim is a great training aid, but our recent experience with products of training which does not expose pilots to an envioroment which gives them a sound background can only result in more bent tin when things dont go acording to "the book"In closing I recently had to sit jump seat in order to get home, the F/O on this flight was a bright friendly fellow and tried hard but when it came to a simple visual landing{the aids were of for routine maint} the Capt had to twice re-stabilize the aircraft to get it back in the slot, my wife and I were going to sell our company but I think we will keep one aircraft for our own transport in retirment as this experience has quite put me of being a pax !

[FlexibleResponse]

Isn't it wonderful that SAA thinks they can train an airline pilot in two weeks (70 hours).

What's next? I wonder how long they think they would take to train a brain surgeon?

[scroggs]

It's amazing how few people have actually read the facts quoted at the beginning of this thread before going off on a rant!

The MCL is an ICAO initiative at the behest of airlines who wish to see airline pilot basic training made more relevant to the job. It has nothing to do with South Africa, South African Airways, or aviation in Africa as a whole. The MCL proposal is being examined by every major Aviation Authority worldwide, and the final structure of the course is still a matter of debate. As I understand it, the MCL will neither replace nor invalidate the conventional route to the ICAO ATPL.

For those who wish to learn more (which might be wise before you comment), Google Multi Crew Pilot Licence. Some information is available on Pprune in this (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=209230&highlight=multi) thread. Please don't leap in there with the kind of ill-informed drivel I see here (with one or two notable exceptions); such posts will not appear for long!

Scroggs

[FlexibleResponse]

First Thread Page 1
South African Airway's controversial plan to get co-pilots flying

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

SAA's controversial plan to get co-pilots flying
September 16, 2006 Edition 1, Saturday Star

Sheena Adams

South African Airways is on the brink of introducing a radical new pilot training programme, which will see trainees taking their place as co-pilots after 70 hours actual flying time.

The bulk of the training - 250 hours - will take place in flight simulators, which allows trainers to slash actual flying hours in a real aircraft by more than half. SAA spokesperson Jacqui O'Sullivan has confirmed the details of the new programme.

The cost-cutting initiative is part of efforts by the national carrier to introduce more black people into its pilot ranks.

Called a Multi-Crew Pilot Licence (MPL), the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) is currently drawing up programme standards and regulations, which could be ready in mid-2007, according to Captain Colin Jordaan, general manager of SAA's flight operations.

It's amazing how few people have actually read the facts quoted at the beginning of this thread before going off on a rant!

The MCL is an ICAO initiative at the behest of airlines who wish to see airline pilot basic training made more relevant to the job. It has nothing to do with South Africa, South African Airways, or aviation in Africa as a whole.

Are we missing something here?

[scroggs]

Yes, you are missing something. The quote in the first post was from an inadequately-researched and essentially scaremongering South African newspaper article, as was made perfectly clear in this (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showpost.php?p=2862694&postcount=27) post.

The MCL is not a South African Airways initiative. It is an ICAO one. It is a work in progress, and is not yet available. South Africa, and any other nation, may adopt the MCL if it sees fit in future. If it does so, SAA will be free to recruit and train for the MCL, as will any other airline from any country where the national authorities accept the MCL.

Scroggs

[Mac the Knife]

What's next? I wonder how long they think they would take to train a brain surgeon?

Neurosurgical training in South Africa takes 4 years (this is in addition to a minimum of 2 years basic surgical training beforehand, plus 5 years med school and 2 years Community Service).

:ok:

[MungoP]

Scoggs... Slightly Bemused or not...
I don't think anyone here doubts the validity of your claim that the MCPL is not a purely South African initiative... the feeling is only that it is likely to be seized upon by SAA as a way of introducing more non-white f/o's into the stream who might otherwise lack the necessary talent to achieve a conventional ATPL by the more traditional routes.

[Flopsie]

Scoggs... Slightly Bemused or not...
I don't think anyone here doubts the validity of your claim that the MCPL is not a purely South African initiative... the feeling is only that it is likely to be seized upon by SAA as a way of introducing more non-white f/o's into the stream who might otherwise lack the necessary talent to achieve a conventional ATPL by the more traditional routes.

Complete and absolute b**lox - read the previous posts as suggested by Scroggs and then return with an intelligent comment

[MungoP]

Flopsie.
"Complete and absolute b**lox - read the previous posts as suggested by Scroggs and then return with an intelligent comment"

Despite your obnoxious phrasing I did take the trouble to read the whole page ( I'm assuming that 'Scroggs' wasn't commenting on something said 4 pages back ) and I stand by my statement. With one small arguable exception, a ref. to a 3rd world type licence ( which doesn't mean the contributor was under the impression that it WAS a licence designed for the 3rd world... the contributors appear only to be questioning the advisablity of the MCL as it maybe taken advantage of by SAA who have their own dubious agenda,

This is not a racial question, it's not even a debate about the lack of opportunities for white South Africans to fly for their national airline.. it's much more important than that... IT'S ABOUT SAFETY. That's what we're all concerned about in the forums as it's our livelihood and our lives and the lives of those we fly every day that may be put in jeopardy.

There is bound to be concern world-wide amongst existing aircrew at such a radical departure from the accepted forms of pilot training... and SAA's current misplaced enthusiasm for accepting Affirmative Action policies over safety, together with their inability to attract sufficient non white recruits of the required calibre will inevitably lead to close scrutinisation of their policies. That is what this is about, SAFETY.

[Flopsie]

If you read the whole thread, you may well be better informed. I find your comment offensive and it does contain overtones of a racist nature. As a professional pilot I have met many “non-white” pilots who are extremely competent and undoubtedly have sufficient “talent” to obtain an ATPL and operate an aircraft in accordance with national and international requirements.
The final product of the proposed MPL syllabus has yet to be validated but from extensive research carried out by several FTOs around the world, there is sufficient evidence to believe that the result will be positive within the limitations and restrictions of the license. As with any new and radical training concept there are risks involved and that is why the regulating authorities are monitoring progress very carefully to ensure the quality of training and therefore that SAFETY is not compromised. It is not only SAA that is considering the MPL, there are many other operators that have already committed to supporting this license. There is extensive coverage in the links that Scroggs has already mentioned but as a reminder:
Proposals developed by ICAO’s Flight Crew Licensing & Training Panel (FCLTP)
• The Multi-crew Pilots Licence (MPL) is a product of
ICAO’s recent review of Annexes 1 & 6
• Demand from airline sector:
• Licence training route adapted to multi-crew pilot
• Advantage of modern simulation
• Training programmes geared to the airline
Panel consisted of:
• Australia
• Brazil
• Chile
• Canada
• China
• Egypt
• France
• Germany
• Japan
• Mexico
• Netherlands
• Russian Federation
• Singapore
• South Africa
• United Kingdom
• United States
• IAOPA
• IATA
• IBAC
• IFALPA
Observers:
• Korea, New Zealand, FAI, JAA, IFHA
Quality Assurance
• Training Programme competency equivalent to
CPL + IR + Type Rating
• First MPL course in each Training Organisation provisional
• ICAO Risk & Safety Benefit Analysis
• ICAO Proof of Concept programme
So don’t hold your breath – it will be some time before we see an MPL holder in the right-hand seat of any aircraft.

[clunckdriver]

I see that we{Canada} are included in the list of those who must sign on to this new Lic, it may be worth pondering tha t when it comes to regulating safety we recently had a PM who registered his single hull tanker rustbuckets under a "Flag of covienience" and we are the refueling destination of choice for every clapped out, crew fatigued aircraft that can stagger across the pond.Further to this the "Nodding Donkeys "in Transport Canada consist largly of those who have been booted out of the industry for various sins, one only has to read our TSB reports on their gear up landings to see that TC is not staffed by the cream of the crop, so Canadas input to this process will consist of going along with the crowd in the interest of job security and indexed pensions!

[FlexibleResponse]

Neurosurgical training in South Africa takes 4 years (this is in addition to a minimum of 2 years basic surgical training beforehand, plus 5 years med school and 2 years Community Service).
It's comforting that the medical profession is sticking to the time-honoured methods of training!

[scroggs]

Scoggs... Slightly Bemused or not...
I don't think anyone here doubts the validity of your claim that the MCPL is not a purely South African initiative... the feeling is only that it is likely to be seized upon by SAA as a way of introducing more non-white f/o's into the stream who might otherwise lack the necessary talent to achieve a conventional ATPL by the more traditional routes.

Yes, I understand that Mungo. However, some posts here give the impression that the posters think the MCL and its ramifications are a purely South African issue - and, given the wording of that original newspaper article, they could be forgiven for thinking so. I was attempting to point out that in fact it's an international issue, and will affect airlines worldwide.

It also seems to be the understanding by some posters that the MCL will be some kind of shortcut, and will be less rigorous than the current systems of obtaining an ATPL. I see no evidence for that, and it is this point that is perhaps the most important one to take on board. The purpose of the MCL is purely to better fit the training to the task, not to shortcut the current, old-fashioned and deeply flawed (from an airline perspective) training system.

[poorwanderingwun]

The purpose of the MCL is purely to better fit the training to the task, not to shortcut the current, old-fashioned and deeply flawed (from an airline perspective) training system.

It's that "shortcut" that bothers some of us. Airline recruitment has evolved over the last 60 years and borrows some of its techniques from the military..I'ts designed not only to educate but to stream candidates who have the right qualities... nobody would say that Psychometric testing made someone a better pilot...but it can eliminate those who are wrong for the demands of the cockpit.. the european system of ground exams works in a similar way.. those who don't have the required academic abilities OR the required work ethic will not make it.. ultimately you get the best people for the job. The time to find out you've got the wrong candidate is in the classroom not when the lights are glowing red and the warning horns are blasting at 02:00 on a difficult approach into a difficult airport, that's when P1 needs all the help he /she can get. Self improvers have generally had some difficult situations to deal with along the way... a sort of Darwin approach to professional flying.. generally, those are the one I like to have sitting next to me. The proposed MCL seems only to serve the airlines in keeping costs down and getting people quickly into the right hand seat ... something they're having to do in a hurry due to their lack of foresight and investment over the last ten years...
Where SAA are concerned, their motives are even more suspect..

[scroggs]

The 'self-improver' route has been effectively replaced in UK - though I like your Darwinian analagy! Many, many (we are talking hundreds, currently) new pilots every year are recruited into jet airliner flight decks in UK with around 200 hours. The training they got in that 200 hours is the best adaptation of an outdated system that the FTOs can make, but it is still outdated and rather less well matched to its demands than it might be. The proponents of the MCL recognise this, and recognise the fact that, increasingly, airline pilots will be recruited directly from FTOs. In many larger airlines (though not in UK), those FTOs will be part of the company's own structure.

You mention the military; their training has evolved in much the same way as the MCL seeks to do. Less time is spent learning generic, light-aircraft handling techniques and far more on techniques and procedures appropriate to the operational tasks the student will be asked to carry out. As an airline captain, I have little interest in how well the guy in my RHS can fly a Seneca or C152. I want to know that he knows the Airbus!

The MCL is, as I've said earlier, a work in progress. There appears (I'm not involved other than as an interested observer) to be a great deal of work going on to ensure that the final product meets the needs of the airlines that choose to use it. The indications are, incidentally, that it will be costlier than the current training system. There are many disagreements about how the MCL should be shaped, but there is general agreement that the old system is no longer appropriate in the more formalised and direct process of going from wannabe to 737 copilot.

For those who wish to, or whose national industry demands it, the old system will apparently remain available. the MCL would clearly be inappropriate for someone who intends to fly air taxis, or do bush flying, crop spraying or any one of the myriad of non-airline ways of earning a living in an aeroplane.

[shortfinals]

This is why more and more airlines will do this, like it or not...
http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2006/11/07/Navigation/177/210364/Alteon+on+course+to+validate+multi-crew+pilot+licence+course%2c+first+customers+China+Eastern.h tml

[Clandestino]

Many, many (we are talking hundreds, currently) new pilots every year are recruited into jet airliner flight decks in UK with around 200 hours.
Recruited indeed, but not allowed to fly with pax untill completing at least 40 more hours on full flight sim and a couple of circuits on real thing.

MPL will produce pilots better suited to airline environment than today's system - integrated or self-improving alike. Also it will introduce more CRM into training - needed improvment it is. Possible misuse of trainning system to achieve some political goals will not be made easier with MPL, current cadetships schemes are as open (or closed) to corruption as MPL will be. So where's the catch?

Altheon says that entire MPL process will take 13 months.That is for:
a) general theory - JAA insists on 750 hours in classroom
b) some flying on GA aircraft is still required - seems like 70 hrs will be enough
c) company indoc, sops, etc
d) type specific ground school
e) some FFS "flying", perhaps 100 hrs will suffice

Let's boldly assume c) and d) can be crammed into just 80 hrs of instruction, that gives our potential trainee 1000hrs of training to amuse him/herself with. Oh, and I've forgot flight preparations, briefing and debriefings. I can't see this being realistic unless there's "slight" reduction of a).

When we mention military, you don't go bombing current enemy in your goverment's tornado 13 months after entering the barracks for the first time.

There appears (...) to be a great deal of work going on to ensure that the final product meets the needs of the airlines that choose to use it.
I really, but really, don't doubt it. :E

[MungoP]

A few years back I was based for a short while in Malta and frequently found myself at the hold watching approaches being made by young pilots being trained by (I think ) Lufthansa. The young men and women being trained in those aircraft had been selected following a very tough selection process that filters the qualities that are most desirable in an airline pilot. They’re highly motivated, have above average intelligence, and have shown that they have the mental and co-ordination skills required to deal with multiple functions under stress….and without bursting into tears. During the many stages of the selection process, and their basic flying training, they have seen many of their fellow candidates chopped from the course. By the time they are seen training on an actual airliner they have spent a minimum of two years gaining their private pilots licences on small aircraft, their instrument ratings, their Airline Transport Pilots Licences with all the attendant exams followed by many hours of training in CRM. Having survived all that to the satisfaction of Lufthansa, they have then spent many hours in a simulator that is in almost all aspects exactly the same as the aircraft they will be flying for the company. By the time they get to sit in the cockpit of the actual aircraft they are as primed and ready as Lufthansa can make them, for all intents and purposes they can fly the aeroplane. Now sit down alongside the runway and watch them practise their first approaches.

When it comes to the real thing it will never be quite the same. It is I suppose partly psychological, as good as the simulators are..and they are superb.… the trainee knows that it is after all an exercise, if the aircraft is not lined up exactly right or if the descent profile is becoming unstable the instructor can simply put everything on hold while the student thinks about where it’s going wrong. This is never an option in the aeroplane. I’ve watched those training aircraft making the approach, skewing around and climbing and descending while the poor tyro is sweating it out in the cockpit wondering why it’s all going pear shaped...
What puzzles me is;
1) just which bits of all that training are now considered worthless ?
2) (Ignoring the bean-counters and SAA's questionable motives)... Who is happy about reducing the training requirements for new pilots ?..Is it the passengers ? ..I doubt it...

Scroggs speaks intelligently about streamlining the new generation of pilots and I'm quite prepared to go along with it ... Provided that the overall abilities of the new pilots remain the same. As for the CAA / FAA's of various countries.. they are far from being fool-proof... they have been shown in the past to be subject to pressure from airlines through an old boy network and that includes the UK CAA... And they have shown in the past how thoroughly arrogant they can be when a post accident investigation leads to criticism by the NTSB / AIB of their acceptance of limited/inadequate training (eg. transferring from basic to glass cockpits )... they have on more than one occasion simply responded with a comment along the lines of : The CAA does not accept the findings of the Board.

Has there been any input at all from a group representing pilots when designing these new training syllabuses ?

[snuble]

Of course airliners perfer to hire pilots with experience, but there is simply not enought experience for all to go around. Politicans in several european country's have effectivly killed the GA marked.

The question is what is better between:

a pilot with 1000h flying sightsing on sunny days, around the same airport and along the same route

or

a pilot with 200h, including a typerating, who is allready geard up to recive all the new aspects of working in a real airliner?

snuble

[poorwanderingwun]

Snuble
"Of course airliners prefer to hire pilots with experience, but there is simply not enough experience for all to go around. Politicans in several european country's have effectivly killed the GA marked."

Sorry Snuble...just not the case.... There are thousands of hugely capable pilots out there with hard won very real experience of hard-time IFR night ops, flying cheques around the States, flying night-freight all over the world, sitting around for hours waiting for some corporate dude to finish a meeting... but they won't work for the peanuts that a 200 hr wanabee will work for.... and that's why we see zero-experience kids in the cockpit... the people down the back deserve better.... and so does the P1 who has to shoulder the extra load when things start to unravel.

[Maltese Falcon]

This assumption that affirmative action/positive discrimination is necessarily a bad thing has to be addressed. A quick look at the population of South Africa: 79.5% Black, 11.4% Asian and Coloured and 9.2% White. The flight deck crew of SAA meanwhile is at least 80% white. The reason for this grossly disproportionate representation of white people on the flight deck is not, as some posters seem to think, because black people lack the intelligence or the wherewithal to become airline pilots nor that white people have displayed greater determination and tenacity in attaining airline positions. No, the reason is the legacy of apartheid and 40 odd years of racist legislation that meant that black people were denied access to a decent education and hence jobs. Without intervention, this grossly disproportionate distribution of opportunity could continue for a number of generations. Affirmative action in SA is just a way of speeding up the process of restoring social justice.

To comment, as some have, that the introduction of the MPL as a tool of affirmative action is bound to compromise safety is just plain racist. Do you really believe that a black populace that outnumbers the white by more than eight to one will be unable to produce the required number of suitable candidates? Any shortfall in suitable candidates at this time is a legacy of the poor education offered to black people during the apartheid era and will in the near future become a thing of the past.

As for the white South African pilots who have been whining on this forum about "reverse racism", what utter tosh. When SAA's flight decks properly represent the ethnic spread of the country, if you are then denied access to jobs, then and only then will you have earned the right to complain of being victims of racism. What you are now calling racism is the undoing of the racism of the past. I honestly feel sorry for you but unfortunately for you history has placed you in the wrong place at the wrong time. Don't blame this government. Blame the one before that gave you a misplaced optimism.

Interesting to note that alot of this debate was provoked by an article in an English language SA newspaper which, as Scroggs has pointed out, was highly inaccurate. I spent 14 years in SA up to '89 and in that time I learned that 90% of the SA English and Afrikaans language media could not be trusted to report a simple story like this one without twisting it to serve their right wing political agenda. Plus ca change . . .

As regards the merits of the MPL itself, others here have stated good cases for and against. But don't tarnish the good reputation of SAA. Tell me what well run, competitive airline wouldn't be looking into the relative merits of a whole new training philosophy proposed by ICAO?

[poorwanderingwun]

Rant away as you feel M Falcon but the fact remains tht SA ARE having difficulty recruiting 'acceptable' new F/o's. Feedback is that selection panels accustomed to being faced with highly motivated and well prepared candidates now all too often finding themselves with applicants who are anything but well prepared and have an attitude that simply turning up for an interview will gain them a place in the right hand seat.

Most of us would accept your philosophy regarding the numbers and accept that in the future the balance will be redressed... but we're talking about a number of years while the education system produces sufficient candidates that have not only the necessary educational standards but all too important motivation that is also required...

It is a recognised and accepted fact that the people sitting at the front of an aircraft do have to be highly motivated.. a slip-shod approach to the task that might be (and often is) acceptable in an office has no place on the flight-deck. Personally I don't give a damn who is sitting at the front of the aircraft as long as they have the right qualifications and experience, and a compelling wish to get the job done properly.

[Mac the Knife]

.....selection panels accustomed to being faced with highly motivated and well prepared candidates now all too often finding themselves with applicants who are anything but well prepared and have an attitude that simply turning up for an interview will gain them a place in the right hand seat.

It's very much a question of attitude. Quite apart from the fact that relatively few have the academic requirements, a significant number of "previously disadvantaged" just seem to have no idea quite how hard you have to work or how much you have to forego when you embark on a higher technical training.

This is not to say that they're not capable of getting there, but the erroneous idea of privilege has to be unlearned before we can progress further. The people in these jobs before worked long and hard to get there. Just because you were "disadvantaged" before does NOT mean that you can just walk into a job, get a nice suite and a seccy and an expense account and a car straightaway.

I think that dropping standards to get people in is a rather dangerous approach.

University applications for "hard" subjects is way down and Deans are scrabbling for students. "Soft" subjects and business are crammed because chaps know that the course is short and a job with a firm desperate to fulfil it's quotas is assured.

We also have an almost catastrophic shortage of skilled artisans now, as many have emigrated and few are willing to embark on a poorly paid apprenticeship.

At this stage in our development a degree of affirmative action is a necessary evil. But we must be careful not to nurture a generation of disaffected white/indian/coloured kids - they already scoff at job ads - "No point applying, they're only looking for blacks".

These are difficult problems :(

But we'll get there :ok:

[late developer]

I have dipped in and out of this thread (and many others) and I am beginning to wonder if the dumbing down started long ago.
Surely only the most intelligent, communicative and resilient students could graduate from any of these cut down courses with a fully-rounded and tested jetpilot / navigator skillset?
I graduated nearly 30 years ago with a medium strength degree from a top university. It was Physics and in those days that meant a pretty serious Maths component too. The Physics course was actually a soft option compared to the Aeronautics Dept. next door where the dropout rate was quite high each year. Those 'dropouts' simply came along the road and swelled the top ranks of the second and third year Physics course!

I haven't a clue how few people actually start or finish an Aeronautics degree course now, because even Physics is seen as a 'hard' subject! Is it actually the maths that people now find hard? As the decades have passed I have sometimes been amazed at how many people I have come across in quite senior jobs don't seem to have a good enough grasp of maths to run a sweetshop let alone understand a balance sheet or a machine.

I think the truth is, the successful 'doers' in any business no longer try to really understand raw theory or need to. Instead they become adept at following patterns that lead to the usual answers down a well trod path to common profit-making scenarios. Much of it is 'quick and dirty' too.

"Multiple choice" exam questions have evolved in the last thirty years to become the only type of written theory question that an ATPL student answers. Are they just 'quick and dirty'? I know there have been reams and reams written about the pros and cons, but the mere existence of such exams I think encourages quite large numbers of students with quite ordinary abilities to take them and eventually secure a pass. I've always been a bit of a nerd and passed exams routinely, both the old style and the generally easier, peasier multiple choice, but I have been astonished at how fast I have forgotten most of the ATPL theory I supposedly learned and passed exams in. As I wasn't a borderline student, I have a feeling that many people would forget it faster than me too! So what was the point of that bit of the road to a right hand seat?

Maybe much of it just doesn't matter with modern aircraft systems? Or maybe I have it all wrong and because I didn't have to work hard to pass the ATPL theory, I perhaps didn't learn/absorb as much as those less(?) fortunate who slaved for more than 6 months and had to make heavy life-changing commitments to see the task through. Maybe this is the angle that the JAA seek to cover with the minimum 750 classroom hours requirement. That would be fine if the standard of teaching was universally excellent. But it isn't is it? Personally, in some subjects I felt I learned rather more from self-study than from attending class but that shouldn't ever be the case ideally, should it?

Sometimes the 'structured learning' caused as much confusion and conflicting opinion in class as reigns in some of the more technical threads on PPrune!
The thread about converting from Boeing to Airbus is interesting in this regard. I gleaned that the Airbus is designed so the pilot doesn't make so many mistakes, has less chance of confusion, or if he does get confused, then he is overriden by the system with a safer option. Someone else implied that the big difference between Boeing and Airbus is that the Boeing is still a (hairy) machine whilst the Airbus is a big shiney (FO) computer. Both are good at what they can be made to do, but both need pilots. Question is whether the same kind of pilot is needed? Probably not really. Which is no doubt where the type-rating and company SOPs and line training comes in which is very system and operation specific. In the other thread Viscount Sussex says (of a move to Airbus) "Get to learn how to use ECAM. If after using ECAM you still have time, look at the QRH and if you still have time dig out the FCOM 3. Listen to those good guys that have been on it for some time. Be methodical and disciplined with it." Sounds a bit like getting MCSE certified! Someone else in another thread says you even have "Windows" type software glitches on these things!

In short, I just don't believe that many of the actual or proposed integrated or shortened or reformed training regimes produce the world's most intelligent, wise and resourceful aviation problem solvers and practitioners.
Useful people yes, but all-round pilots/navigators/systems managers?...nah;)

In many cases, the skills taught, examined and tested are probably much akin to those procedures / beans-in-a-row needed to succeed in some narrow 2D cult computer game in multiplayer mode. As I read it, in an Airbus you rarely have to press "Play Again" if you make a control input that might surely crash a Boeing! ...the game will probably just continue just as if you are the ace of the base you appeared to be when you did the same thing yesterday!

But maybe if you have been taught to play a limited level of one good traditional hairy game particularly well, say the right hand seat component of a 744 operation, then actually that's quite a reasonable thing to assimilate quite quickly and to practice without upset, well so long as your captain and mentor remains alive, kicking and perfection personified in the left hand seat?:\

Pilots of all descriptions will always go on to learn from their own experience eventually building thousands of hours of observations that could never be taught in a classroom or even a modern simulator, but as an industry group, did not the real dumbing down of airline pilots begin some years ago?

[Lucifer]

I think the truth is, the successful 'doers' in any business no longer try to really understand raw theory or need to. Instead they become adept at following patterns that lead to the usual answers down a well trod path to common profit-making scenarios. Much of it is 'quick and dirty' too.
If that is why people are successful, then bleating that higher academics are required is a somewhat false argument. It is an age-old moan of highly-intelligent people that those of lesser intelligence are unfairly more successful, but this reflects the reality that success requires other soft skills such as management, leadership, practicality etc that pure academics do not give.

I realise that is an aside from the thread, but that translates back to the flight deck through having people with management skills and flying skills, but who do not require some areas of deep technical knowledge of the engineering, which help nobody, even in a dire emergency.

Going back to the academics - consider the school and university jocks, who passed, but were not intelligent. Looking ahead, some of those become highly-successful (others are of course not), while intelligent students are also split between those who are successful or not. Successful people realise that they do not need to know all the detail - they organise those who do, and reap the rewards of a successful delivery to market.

Some intelligent people on the other hand never discover those other skills - for example those who never go beyond the lowly-paid research lab roles etc.

In relation to this thread, it is bogus to suggest allowing only the best candidates to succeed is racist. Any other policy is potentially dangerous in this environment. While racist white minority rule produced the current SAA demographics, the way to fix it is to ensure that all apply and choose the best candidates regardless of colour. If the demographic endures, it is not racist to suggest that safety should not be compromised through recruitment policies.

It is however racist to deny the education to all that will allow them to put themselves in a position to apply, should they wish to do so.

[sidtheesexist]

I'll post again since my first was removed.............:confused:

I am in no way PC and would be reluctant to support positive descrimination, but I find myself sympathetic to the points Maltese Falcon makes.

It brings to mind that film 'The Tuskegee Airmen' which is based on a true story of US coloured gents overcoming extreme racial prejudice and bigotry to pass out as USAAF fighter pilots. They were very successful in their bomber escort missions operating out of Italy - the fact that they were an all black Fighter Group caused quite a stir!!!!!!!!!!!!

[divinehover]

Here is IFALPA's position on this story. This is from an IFALPA doc and has not been changed. It is the view of the group representing most of the worlds airline pilots.

IFALPA Position Statement: Multi-Crew Pilot License (MPL)
Summary
The new Multi-Crew Pilot License (MPL), if applied correctly, could produce a highly qualified new hire first officer for the airlines. However, applied incorrectly in response to cost or time pressures to respond to the current pilot shortage, it could have a detrimental impact on flight safety. Improper application could also erode current, proven training standards.
IFALPA has yet to be convinced that the new MPL scheme will provide sufficient guarantees for safeguarding the highest safety and training quality standards currently in place. Any downgrading of these standards cannot and must not be accepted in an industry that has the goal of maintaining a continuous improvement of safety standards in the face of ever growing challenges.
Only a well-devised MPL scheme that is gradually introduced into common use, coupled with an effective Advisory Board system with a clearly defined charter that assists in implementation of any MPL scheme, will overcome the challenges posed by the new MPL concept. IFALPA will continue to contribute ideas and expertise to assist in obtaining appropriate solutions to any MPL implementation issues, but will only give its support when we are convinced that MPL will assure a greater safety margin for passengers, crew and the general public.

1. MPL Background

The International Civil Aviation Organization’s (ICAO) Amendment 167 to Annex 1 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation and supporting Procedures for Air Navigation Services – Training (PANS-TRG) will establish a new flight crew licence called the Multi-Crew Pilot Licence (MPL), which is due to come into effect on 23 November 2006. This new grade of certificate is the result of work by ICAO’s Flight Crew Licensing and Training Panel (FCLTP). Individual countries will incorporate the MPL into their individual licensing structure as they find necessary. Upon completion of the MPL training program, the candidate will be licensed to act as a first officer in commercial air carrier operations, and will possess an instrument rating for multi-crew operations and an aircraft type rating.
The ICAO amendment for the MPL allows for the development of an alternative pilot training program over those found in traditional licensing methodologies. The goal of MPL training is to train candidates with no prior aircraft flight experience to be competent flight crew members in today’s commercial aviation environment. The MPL training program uses a competency-based approach in lieu of the "required hours" approach utilised in traditional training methodologies. In addition to training a candidate in basic flying skills, MPL training maximizes the use of two-pilot airplanes, simulators, and flight training devices to train candidates for airline entry proficiency on turbine powered aircraft, and establish a foundation in crew concepts such as Crew Resource Management (CRM) and Threat and Error Management (TEM).
The minimum experience that an MPL holder will be required to have is 240 hours total time, which may be obtained in either an aircraft or a simulator. Particulars of the elements of instruction are contained in the ICAO Procedures for Air Navigation - Training (PANS TRNG) document, which will become effective coincidentally with the applicability of the Annex 1 Standard. It was agreed that MPL training would be competency-based and conducted in a multi-crew operational environment. The PANS-Training Document states: The ICAO Standards for the MPL specify the minimum number of actual and simulated flight hours (240). However, they do not specify the breakdown between actual and simulated flight hours and thus allow part of the training curriculum that was traditionally conducted on an aeroplane to be done on flight simulation training devices.
The strength of the MPL licensing process allows an airline to provide multi-crew/multi-engine training in a structured environment that is tailored to commercial airline operations versus having student pilots accumulate flight hours that are often flown unsupervised in a single-engine/single pilot airplane. MPL training will also expose ab-initio pilots to CRM and TEM much earlier in their flight training. Most members of the ICAO FCLTP, the body that defined the MPL licensing requirements, agreed that a properly developed MPL training syllabus would require more flight hours and cost more than current traditional ab-initio programs. Such a program has the potential to produce in a shorter amount of time pilots who are better qualified to operate safely in commercial operations.
The International Federation of Air Line Pilots’ Associations (IFALPA) recognizes that the training required for a candidate to be issued an MPL may have potential benefits when developed and implemented properly, and with adequate regulator oversight. IFALPA recognizes that carefully chosen MPL candidates will complete a focused training program that incorporates the significant training concepts developed under traditional training methodologies during the past 30 years. These established concepts, in addition to new and innovative technologies, may be integrated into a carefully constructed and supervised programme that will be able to efficiently train competent flight crew members in commercial air operations through an expedited training program with minimal actual aircraft experience.
However, IFALPA believes that a data-driven approach is necessary to ensure that MPL candidates will meet or exceed the standards currently required in traditional training methodologies. The MPL concept must be demonstrated and proven using quantifiable metrics before a candidate in this program is permitted to perform flight deck duties in commercial air transport operations.
2. IFALPA’s Concerns
PANS-TRNG document not complete
The MPL pilot must be able to consistently demonstrate satisfactory aeronautical skills and cognitive skill sets to the established level of proficiency required for actual air carrier operations. In that regard, it is significant to note that the industry has not yet defined the appropriate flight training devices required to measure proficiency for aeronautical tasks and cognitive skill sets. Presently, ICAO has tasked the Royal Aeronautical Society (RAeS) to identify the appropriate flight training device for each component of the instruction, validation and checking envisioned by PANS-TRNG. The results of the RAeS work will ultimately be incorporated into PANS TRNG as guidance for the construction of an MPL syllabus.
Unfortunately, this guidance will not be available for the first efforts undertaken to produce MPL holders. This means that the burden of making certain that MPL holders reach the required level of proficiency will fall on the individuals administering progress checks during the training cycle and by the official conducting the actual "rating ride" which results in the issuance of the licence.

Reduction in actual flying hours
The MPL licence allows a reduction in actual flying hours during training, conceivably towards zero in the distant future when more advanced simulators and training devices are developed. To ensure that safety will not be compromised in any manner, any such reduction from the current ICAO minimum hours required in an actual aircraft for a traditional commercial license (140 hours for an approved training program) has to take place in a carefully monitored and controlled manner, with emphasis placed on avoiding sudden and substantial reductions in actual flight time. This step-by-step approach is outlined in Chapter 3, Appendix C of the PANS-TRNG document and is entitled "Guidelines for the Implementation of the MPL." IFALPA proposes that the incremental substitution of simulated hours for actual aircraft hours follow the guidelines stated in paragraphs 2.2 and 2.3 of Appendix C.
IFALPA notes with concern that a number of recent accidents were contributed to, by loss of control or a lack of handling abilities. IFALPA strongly believes that maintaining a high number of actual flying hours will ensure that current quality standards are maintained, whereas offering the possibility of drastically cutting real flying hours would represent a significant downgrade in the quality of training and would be a degradation to aviation safety. The actual flight hours ultimately required is still unknown and must be determined by a rational measuring procedure.
Lack of proper analysis and scientific basis
The MPL philosophy is un-proven and is therefore a significant departure from existing pilot instruction methodologies. No proper analysis of the new rules has yet been undertaken nor is there any scientific basis upon which to rely to conclude that the new MPL philosophy is a sound procedure that meets the current level of safety provided by traditional training methods.
Flight Training Organisations (FTO) are mandated to focus on Human Factors, CRM, teamwork and TEM, as required by the MPL, and will therefore be faced with new standards for experience, knowledge and quality. It is unclear how FTOs will deal with this challenge, since it is most likely that the most experienced flight trainers can be expected to be hired by airlines. In addition, page 55 of the ICAO Amendment 167 to Annex 1 states: "3.2 When a Licensing Authority approves a training programme for a multi-crew pilot licence, the approved training organization shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Licensing Authority that the training provides a level of competency in multi-crew operations at least equal to that met by holders of a commercial pilot licence, instrument rating and type rating for an aeroplane certificated for operation with a minimum crew of at least two pilots." It is questionable if the FTO’s have the expertise or scientific evidence required to demonstrate that they meet this standard at the current time and will be able to "preserve and improve upon existing flight safety levels" as required by the ANC in Amendment 167.
Regulators must be required to perform strict quality control of FTOs and their MPL programmes. In many cases it is questionable whether or not the National Authorities will have sufficient experience and/or capacity for developing competency-based flight training programs and will possess the ability to provide quality assurance of the new MPL program. Before a State can implement an MPL program the State has to define what its assessment system is going to be and how it is going to use this system to ensure that MPL pilots have met each of the competency requirements.
Airlines that hire MPL candidates must be required to properly train these new recruits, focusing on airmanship, judgement, decision-making and aircraft handling. This training will cost money, and given the current financial difficulties of many operators and increasingly fierce industry competition, it is difficult to understand how some airlines will be able to
finance such a programme. Under these circumstances implementation of an MPL program could very well result in a reduced level of experience and safety.
Scientific Evidence and experience on the use of flight simulation to replace actual aircraft flying in the early phase of airline pilot training has to date been limited, and is thus an unproven concept. In addition, the Royal Aeronautical Society’s International Working Group on simulators has just started the process to identify the appropriate flight training device for each component of the instruction, validation and checking envisioned by the PANS TRNG document. Until such time that the RAeS has completed its work, IFALPA firmly believes that extreme caution has to be exercised when replacing actual airplane flying experience with simulated flying hours as a means for teaching aircraft handling and airmanship skills.
ICAO will attempt to monitor the development of the MPL program. Regulatory authorities are required to collect individual progress assessments, rating ride reports and recurrent checks and to forward these to ICAO for analysis by the Flight Crew Licensing and Training Panel (FCLTP) of the Air Navigation Commission (ANC). It is unclear how ICAO will define standardized assessment criteria as well as a data collection format for the different states. It is also unclear who will collect the data and how it will be analyzed to ensure safety is not compromised.

3. IFALPA’s Proposals

MPL Advisory Board
IFALPA proposes the creation of a national MPL Advisory Board in any State where the MPL program will be introduced. The MPL Advisory Board’s aim would be to effectively monitor the implementation process of an MPL Training program and to also effectively evaluate the results of the MPL training.
The MPL Advisory Board must include pilot representatives from the State implementing an MPL programme. The Advisory Board should also involve professionals from relevant parts of the industry, including training and education experts and members from safety organizations. The Advisory Board should provide expertise, assessments and valuable advice on all proposed new MPL programs prior to their approval by the National Authorities. It should also assist these Authorities in their evaluation of the training programme to ensure that the MPL program produces at least an equivalent level of safety and professionalism as any current schemes that are in effect.
.
In addition to involvement in the implementation phase the Advisory Board must continue to monitor the quality assurance and oversight of all MPL programs within their State, as well as the progression of MPL pilots as their careers progress. The Advisory Board should remain active until such time that sufficient data and experience exists which accurately demonstrates that MPL programs can produce pilots at a level of safety and professionalism equivalent to the traditional ATPL. At a minimum, the national MPL Advisory Board should remain until ICAO completes its MPL review in the FCLTP Panel and any recommended changes are implemented and validated.
ICAO Guidelines for the Implementation of the MPL
IFALPA strongly encourages States to follow the intent and guidance of Chapter 3, Appendix C of the PANS-TRG document. These guidelines offer a cautious step-by-step approach to replacing actual aircraft flight training hours with simulator hours. During the FCLTP proceedings a survey of current ab-initio training programs showed an average flight time of approximately 230 actual aircraft flight hours. The intent of section 2.2 and 2.3 of Chapter 3,
Appendix C, was to not allow the first MPL courses to reduce the actual flight hours much below this average (or the hours required in the ATO’s current ab-initio program) until such time that replacement of some actual aircraft flying hours with simulator hours could be scientifically validated. In other words, what was agreed to by the ICAO FCLTP was for the first MPL courses to conduct most of the training in actual airplanes, except where it made more sense to use simulators (i.e., TEM, CRM, in-flight emergencies). Once the MPL concept was proven safe, and better simulators and other training devices were developed, some of the airplane flying could be replaced by these and other training devices in an incremental process with proper validation. The substitution of simulated hours for actual airplane hours was intended to be a gradual process.

Link between the Flight Training Organisations and Operators to Be Maintained

Only a Flight Training Organisation contractually linked to an airline should receive approval to issue an MPL. Unless this requirement is met, supervision, control, and feedback of the training cannot be assured because the direct link between the airline and the training is not maintained. A requirement of the MPL is to train to Standard Operating Procedures (SOP). This requires the training to be airline specific, and therefore MPL instructors must be familiar with the airline’s SOP’s through personal observation.

Evaluation of the MPL
An evaluation of the MPL pilot would verify that he or she has acquired the necessary airmanship, judgment and technical skills. This evaluation could be demonstrated at the pilot's first re-current check by using exercises involving hand flying skills, such as: windshear encounter in direct law, gusty cross wind landings onto a wet runway, loss of all generators requiring flying with basic instrumentation and flying a descent profile without FMS. Since both pilots in modern two pilot aeroplanes can become quickly task-saturated while handling an emergency during an approach in marginal weather, MPL pilots can be given scenarios requiring them to hand-fly the airplane and make decisions independent of the Captain.

Adequate monitoring by the FCLTP:
To maintain current levels of safety, ICAO should monitor the implementation of MPL training schemes to ensure they follow the intent and guidance of Amendment 167 to Annex 1 and the PANS-TRG document. IFALPA intends to make certain that ICAO monitors the implementation of MPL courses, collects the assessment information required from each State that issues MPL licenses, that it does in fact review the entire concept at the fourth anniversary of the applicability of the Standard and that it approves, amends or rejects the concept as indicated by actual field results.

[777SandMan]

Yip, flew with some of the "traditional" cadets from SAA and found most of them utterly useless as a f/o - at the best of times! With the new simulator wonders, SAA is taking another step backwards.

Strange how silent the 4 bar drivers are on this forum. Brain washed, tired or convinced by management?

Hope Comair and the others won't follow the "National" carrier route!:ugh:

[pontifex]

I think IFALPA has produced a well thought out treatise on the MPL debate.However, it seems that no airline in Europe is prepared to dip their toes in the water. Not even Lufthansa now! The greatest take-up is likely to be from Chindian airlines where expansion has created an unbelievable demographic gap. For them cost is not the issue; it is time. They need the pilots now. The attraction is 13 months from pavement to flight deck.

I have spent a fair proportion of my flying career in the pilot training sphere (both civil and military) so I can claim some credibility for the following opinion: No human being has the capacity to learn and assimilate the knowledge and skills required to safely operate as an F/O of a complex aircraft in 13 months without any provision for time to consolidate. It is totally unreallistic. But never fear that is what they will do with the competency based element of the issue being massaged to enable it to happen. Based on past experience can we put our hands on our hearts and say it will not occur? Furthermore what guarantee is there that the states in question will not put put pressure on those whose jobs it will be, under the terms of the MPL, to monitor results? I hope I am wrong because I can see the positive side of the MPL, but I fear the worst.

[western bronco]

I am all for change and progress when it is beneficial and produces a better quality product. But this is all about one thing and that is $$$$$$$. They will be able to spit pilots out like a sausage factory!

Throughout my flying career the one thing from day one that was always stressed upon me was airmanship. An art only acquired through experience. How can this be achieved with an MPL???? Yes a C172 or PA34 bear no resemblance to a 737 but they are vital as they teach you many valuable skills that no sim trainer could. E.g situations with ATC, other aircraft, spacial awareness, weather....all of which comes under airmanship. When has being in IMC in a sim ever really felt the same in real life, never, because you know if it all goes wrong the guy behind hits the stop button, you step outside, have a nice cup of tea and debrief.

This is a disaster waiting to happen:ugh: , and will destroy CRM as the only guy that will be able to offer a decision based on experience (and frequently that is what determines it) is the Capt. This whole concept is insulting but hey what a great way to solve a pilot shortage!:mad:

[A-3TWENTY]

I have flown with 500 hours cops and I am frequently by myself....Imagine with these guys...

The worst is waiting to hapen, but no worries about that...Tha Captain willl be guilty....

[Champagne Lover]

I am confused.
Let me get this right.
We are going to take ZERO hour human beings. Start with training them to fly a small aeroplane, to the point of a PPL. Then we give them a twin conversion. Then we give them a night rating. We then train them in a classroom with respect to what? A commercial licence? We make them sit the commercial licence exams? (South Africa) Then we tell them; you now do all your further training in a A320 simulator. (Oops, sorry, I forgot:a 340 simulator. Remember, they will NEVER be alone with the captain in a two crew environment.......There will ALWAYS be a SF/O present)
Now they have +- 270 TOTAL hours. Mmmm.
Now here's the catch. Please someone kick me against the head, HARD!
WAKEUP!! We don't want people who have on their own: Done the PPL, night rating, multi rating, written the commercial exams and passed them, written the ATPL exams and passed them, all on their own, now have +- 250 -300 total time on REAL aeroplanes, but are still either instructing in the circuit, dropping parachutists, flying in the swamps...etc etc BECAUSE:?????????
Oh sorry again, I remember: These candidates DON"T EXIST!! There are NO PILOTS out there!
We don't want these guys, to then make them MPL's because??????????????
Please help me understand the difficult nuances of company politics and business politics that say we need zero hour candidates of our choice?????:ugh:

[LEVC]

I am myself a product of an integrated course, although later i did instruct for a couple of years, then flew as F/O in a bizzjet and finally now getting rated to work for a regional operator with mixed fleet jets and TP's.

When i first got in to a jet cockpit as F/O it was damned hard and very different to what i had flown before, but i found that my background and experience helped me quite a lot to cope and adapt to it.

I had over 1000 hours piston time at the time (not much compared to US standards, fair amount if we think of europe in terms of experience level when getting to fly heavier iron), as most pointed out this hours are not on modern equiped aircraft, but you really need to go trough it for several reasons, among others:

-Develop decision making (you would not with MPL, as you are always under the "shell", you never will fly on your own.

- basic skills are lost very quickly, and to be fair , 60 hours is nothing, at this level, when you begin flying, after a few months you'll forget most of the basics, you need the hours to make sure your mind retains the skills for good, if you know what i mean.


I have to say that the experience you get flying instructing, doing aerial work, or freight in a light twin et etc,do make you a better and more prepared pilot.

The guy of the example,that did not make it any good after 2000 hours on GA, wouldn't make it any better through the MPL scheeme.



I agree there are improvements and lots of changes to be done in Pilot training schemes we have now in order to get better and more flexible and suitable F/O's, but this whole MPL thing seems suicidal to me and to most pilots i talked to, and i am sorry if that bothers to some, but about flying the thing, the ones to ask are THE PILOTS.

[Flopsie]

but this whole MPL thing seems suicidal to me and to most pilots i talked to, and i am sorry if that bothers to some, but about flying the thing, the ones to ask are THE PILOTS.
Well who the **** do you think designed the MPL?????:ugh:

[MungoP]

Well Flopsie... I think a lot of us are wondering just that... Pilots ? Maybe but Pilots or 'Management' pilots wearing management hats ?

[western bronco]

This is all about one thing, money!!!! Dont forget guys all we do is push buttons anyone can do that....who needs experience!:hmm:

[western bronco]

Oh and Champagne lover I might be wrong but I heard the plan is only to fly a real aircraft to ppl.....twin and night conversion and everything else is all in the sim!
Cant wait to fly with these guys!

[LEVC]

Well who the **** do you think designed the MPL?????:ugh:

Certainly not the ones i have talked to about it, and looks that neither are most of the ones posting in this thread.:=

[affluent boss]

[quote=Maltese Falcon;2958055]This assumption that affirmative action/positive discrimination is necessarily a bad thing has to be addressed. A quick look at the population of South Africa: 79.5% Black, 11.4% Asian and Coloured and 9.2% White. The flight deck crew of SAA meanwhile is at least 80% white. The reason for this grossly disproportionate representation of white people on the flight deck is not, as some posters seem to think, because black people lack the intelligence or the wherewithal to become airline pilots nor that white people have displayed greater determination and tenacity in attaining airline positions. No, the reason is the legacy of apartheid and 40 odd years of racist legislation that meant that black people were denied access to a decent education and hence jobs. Without intervention, this grossly disproportionate distribution of opportunity could continue for a number of generations. Affirmative action in SA is just a way of speeding up the process of restoring social justice.


While I support affirmative action in SAA, there are no justifiable reasons why these Non-White cadets should not be given a proper Pilots course leading to a proper CPL/IR and ATPL. This will ensure that their Knowledge, Skills, Abilities and Capabilities are not suspect or in doubt. I am afraid that this may turn out to be another grand design (intentionally or otherwise) to patronise and justify the continued discrimination of our Black and Non-white collgues. I think the World has since moved on past this type of justificaton for covert and insipient denial of proper and equal education to Blacks, just to maintain a non level professional playing field. If the cadet system worked well for the White Pilots, then it should be used for the Black and Non-White Cadets. Period

[JG1]

There are two issues in this discussion - one, the MPL; and two, SAA's interest in it.

The MPL may indeed have some merit - at least there has been and continues to be in-depth investigation at an international level of these possible merits.

The problem is that SAA will not even give the MPL as much consideration as it has been given in this very thread! SAA want black pilots, and they want them as quickly as they can get them, period. And if something called, eish, an MPL, can help with this, then, hau, that is the way to go, yes.

If there were a licence which enabled you to be an airliner pilot after gaining 200hrs in a taxi, you can bet your bottom dollar that SAA would be trying to implement it.

SAA is as a microcosm of the New South Africa. Study it's chequered history since 1994 and look at its intentions - they truly reflect the state of the nation as a whole and give a very good indication of what we can expect in the nation in the future.

[Brat]

Basicaly end of story. In Chinas case cost/time is the driving factor. In SA's case race is the case.
In both safety will be sacrificed if it is judged that experience in actual real life flying can be forgone by virtual 'sit in box' let us 'simulate' real life conditions.
While I will immediatly say that simulation has been a major force in avaition safety I would also have to say that it may well be the opinion of many that some realtime experienc is vital.
Question is how long is a piece of string.

[Human Factor]

The attraction is 13 months from pavement to flight deck.

I was sponsored through the old CAP509 (200 hour approved) course and it took me 15 months to the RHS of a 737, so it's a big gamble just to save two months.

[touch_of_glass]

I'm not a frequent poster on pprune, and must admit i've not read every single word of this thread (more of a scan job) however it seems to me that most of those who object to the MPL are one, or a combination of the following;
a. a begrudger. i.e "well, if i had to do it, why shouldn't everyone else"
b. someone with a vested interested in a CPL/IR flying school, because if the MPL comes in there will be less need for these, and their senecas, Be76's twinstars etc.....they will be largely cut out of the loop with the subsequent financial consequences.....(also the CAA examiners won't have their little opportunity to play "god" on test days....)
c. someone who is fearful and resistive of change, despite the world moving on around them

I struggled to get my CPL and struggled even more to get my IR. (No first times passes on either) but now, several years down the line, flying a 744 (and loving it) i've reflected on the system i went through and come to the following conclusions;

Its a system that has worked thus far, although the basic format has not changed in 50 years. However it is becoming more anacronistic as the licensing tests bear little resemblance to the real world of the airline pilot. I was told to memorize all the comms freqs, route details, app tracks etc for my IR test. You never do that in the real world as you go to different places and things change too! Also told to memorize the checklists...All a recipe for disaster in the real world, you might just forget something vital.
With respect, some of the previous posters seem to think airline pilots are training to become some sort of academic, we are not. We are professionals, but should be trained to do a job of work, no more, no less. We should be respected and earn a decent salary to reflect the skills and responsibility of the job,NOT passing a set of outdated and unnecessary tests......The sims have come a long way over the past 25 years, and i've seen sim engineers who can fly them a lot better than many TRI's....food for thought?
With regards to airmanship, i got my first airline (jet) position with 350 hrs on light aircraft. I did my type course with several who had 1000+ hrs on light aircraft, mainly instructing. They had no more insight/ability etc than I. Hours bashing the (same) circuit, & teaching a PPL (or indeed CPL) syllabus imparts little in the way of useful airmanship for an airline scenario. It was a steep learning curve for all of us, and MPL will be the same, not easier, but different, more relevent.

[MungoP]

MPL or any other modification that puts very inexperienced bums in the right hand seat makes a nonsence of CRM... if it's accepted that someone with very limited or no practical experience is an acceptable 2nd pilot for a passenger jet then why the emphasis on CRM.. ? What high time Capt is going to want to discuss the viability of continuing an approach through and around multiple cells to a partially contaminated runway with a kid who's sh*tting himself just looking out of the window, or is too inexperienced to recognise the threat in the first place. It will be a single crew decision to proceed or abort.

[A330busdriver]

It certainly appears that the MPL is the start of the "one pilot and a dog" era.

[npasque]

the whole concept is quite flawed. I actually am just finishing my training at a school wher the MPL is being implemented this year (Airline Academy of Australia, Archerfield).
We know these guys are just being trained to push buttons, they are trained to fly the autopilot and to program the gps. Fair enough that they learn the basic flying skills, however i would like to see how they cope with a complete electrical failure and pressurization failure at say FL250, and find their way back to the nearest airport using only DR techniques. Once the electricity disappears, the gps and fmc wont help you anymore.

I, of course did the typical 200 hour CPL+MEIR course, finding the road junctions and ****ty towns in the middle of whoop. I dont call myself a pro pilot but i can at least say that i believe if i was thrown in that situation i probably would be able to find the nearest airport whilst the newbie MPL F/O will probably still be trying to reboot the gps. SO there are pros and cons, just like with everything else

Just my two cents

[PENKO]

ehrr nice idea....but we do not carry VFR charts in our cockpits anyway!

Come on guys, 300 hours low level makes you a good low level pilot.
If you want to fly an airliner, you need a sim!

[Empty Cruise]

npasque,

what makes you believe that a 200-hrs "real aircraft"-chap(esse) is going to cope any better whith loss of all elec?

I think there are actually 3 discussions in this thread:

1) SAAs (et als) plans to get pilots on the F/D fast. I don't think anybody in here have any doubts as to their motives... :ugh:

2) Experience - I also doubt that anybody here can have a major disagreement over the value of that :ok:

3) How much experience is enough? Is 200 hrs real aircraft enough? Is an MPL enough? And will we be able to tell the difference between the two if we were to find ourselves on the F/D with one?

I think this 3rd discussion is where the real rub lies. If we are happy to sign in with a 200-hr pilot, should we be concerned about signing in with an MPL?

We know the qualities (and shortcomings) of the 200-hr crowd. Mostly a very intelligent, fast-learning and hard-working crowd. I doubt the MPL guys/gals will be any different (given the correct screening & training). I also know what they lack in experience - and doubt that the MPLs are going to be any different in that respect as well. If only the MPL was type-specific (and not :rolleyes: generic), at least the MPLs would start one up.

The MPL holds both great promise and a great many pitfalls. I hope that the guys now starting the MPL-courses all over the world will prove the doubters wrong.

[pontifex]

Er, Empty Cruise - The Mpl is type specific; it is also company specific. An FTO connot run a MPL course unless it has a contract with a main stream operator and trains the students using that company's SOPs. So, if the company goes bust just before Bloggs graduates, he's wasted his money. Another concern - since the licence will only permit our lad/ladette to fly as a F/O, how is the eventual transition to commander to be accomplished?

[PENKO]

. Another concern - since the licence will only permit our lad/ladette to fly as a F/O, how is the eventual transition to commander to be accomplished?


The same as for any CPL I would guess! You cannot command a large passenger aircraft on a CPL, yet we all start of on one of them with a CPL (JAA). When you reach the hours, you do a sim et voila, le ATPL.

What was the other problem?

[npasque]

EMpty Cruise,

in some respects it is somewhat unfair to us 200hr course pilots, due to the fact that we learnt to fly the hard way. We need to head out to god knows where and rack up 1000 hours for almost no money. Then come along these guys, sit their MPL program, learn to use a gps and hop in the right seat of a 747 earning maybe $60,000USD? Sorry but i dont quite see how that is fair, and yes i have read all the posts in this thread. I understand everything that is here. As i said before, there are great advantages and disadvantages to this.

Tell me this, how would you feel if you knew the F/O had 200hrs and the captain has just passed out? I would be a little anxious myself. Not because he cant fly, by god he can, but he lacks the experience and most probably has not dealt with any real life emergenicies before. He will sh*t himself.

[Re-Heat]

in some respects it is somewhat unfair to us 200hr course pilots, due to the fact that we learnt to fly the hard way. We need to head out to god knows where and rack up 1000 hours for almost no money. Then come along these guys, sit their MPL program, learn to use a gps and hop in the right seat of a 747 earning maybe $60,000USD?
People have been going to the RHS with 200 hours for years from integrated courses, and indeed many modular guys do so too nowadays.

Tell me this, how would you feel if you knew the F/O had 200hrs and the captain has just passed out? I would be a little anxious myself. Not because he cant fly, by god he can, but he lacks the experience and most probably has not dealt with any real life emergenicies before.
Except they have spent far longer than you doing just that in the same aircraft sim type as the aircraft that that they are now flying.

Better suited for the situation? Certainly.

Fair? Fairness has never entered the equation. If 1000 hours bashing around the country in a light aircraft is unnecessary, as many trainers believe, why bother.

[MungoP]

I think a lot of people out there are missing the point of the argument that we have against these shortcuts to stardom. Whether the low-time pilot has an MPL background or the more conventional training, none of it is worth a monkeys toss to the poor guy in the left hand seat who has to shoulder the entire load...
anyone who has either very few hours ( < 1000 ) or relatively meaningless hours ( ab initio flight instruction ) is of very little practical use to a captain other than to play with the FMS and the gear handle.... critical decision making ability comes with hard-time hours in the log book... that's why we bother to keep a log, it's relevant to experience... these entry level candidates should ideally be put through a second officer training program before ever getting to first officer status, that adds up to a useful pilot... dismissing this obvious safety oriented program just because it doesn't suit the bean-counters is counter productive and will ultimately lead to crewing weaknesses that will be damaging to our health. CAA take note... when the AAIB identify lack of crew experience as a primary cause of an accident I for one will be hoping that the law suits for damages encompass individuals at Gatwick.

[npasque]

People have been going to the RHS with 200 hours for years from integrated courses, and indeed many modular guys do so too nowadays.


Except they have spent far longer than you doing just that in the same aircraft sim type as the aircraft that that they are now flying.

Better suited for the situation? Certainly.

Fair? Fairness has never entered the equation. If 1000 hours bashing around the country in a light aircraft is unnecessary, as many trainers believe, why bother.

fair enough.. agreed :P

[Longtimer]

Flying Without Wings
Rule on Simulators Could Change How Pilots Are Trained

By Del Quentin Wilber
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, December 13, 2006; D01



Before stepping into the cockpit of a commercial jetliner for the first time, pilots have racked up hundreds of hours in the air, usually at the controls of small planes.

In coming years, they may get most of their flight experience without ever leaving the ground.

The international organization that sets the world's aviation regulations has adopted a new standard that could alter the nature of pilot training. In essence, prospective co-pilots will be able to earn most of their experience in ground-based simulators.

The move is designed to allow foreign airlines, especially those in Asia and the Middle East that face shortages of pilots, to more quickly train and hire flight crews. The United States isn't expected to adopt the new rules anytime soon, but international pilots trained under the new standards will be allowed to fly into and out of the country.

The change is generating some controversy. Safety experts and pilot groups question whether simulators -- which have long been hailed as an important training tool -- are good enough to replace critical early flight experience.

"In a simulator, you have pride at stake," said Dennis Dolan, president of the International Federation of Air Line Pilots' Associations, which has raised questions about the new standard. "In a real airplane, you have your life at stake."

Officials at the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), which is setting the new standards for pilot licensing, said the role of simulators has grown substantially in most airline training programs. Airlines often train co-pilots for new aircraft only in simulators, without flying; such a co-pilot's first flight on the new plane is with paying passengers on board.

The new rules apply only to co-pilots of commercial planes. Captains, who are in charge of those aircraft, must have hundreds more hours of flight experience. The new standards will allow people to become a co-pilot on a jetliner with about 70 hours of flight time and 170 hours in simulators. Other licenses require about 200 hours of flight experience. Co-pilots perform many of the same duties as captains.

In the United States, a co-pilot of a commercial plane must have at least 250 hours of experience, some of which can be earned in simulators, federal regulators said.

Each country sets its own licensing requirements, which can be tougher than the ICAO standards. The Federal Aviation Administration is not expected to adopt the new license in this country. But experts say that if the number of people learning to fly in the United States continues to drop, the FAA could be forced to adopt the rules.

The new standards allow airlines to more properly train and supervise young pilots before they develop bad habits at flight school or flying alone, industry officials said, adding that the devices better prepare pilots for today's sophisticated cockpits.
"Those hours flying solo in a single-engine piston airplane, they do us no good at the airlines, and we can't monitor the pilots," said Christian Schroeder, an official with the International Air Transport Association, a trade group that represents airlines. "We are training a better-qualified and safer pilot this way."

However, safety experts and pilots groups said pilots gain invaluable "white knuckle" experience during hundreds of hours of flight time in real planes. Flight crews also learn the intricacies and pressures of dealing with air-traffic controllers in congested air space -- conditions that are hard to replicate in simulators, the experts and pilots said.

In addition, no one has studied whether simulators can safely replace early flight experience, said Cass Howell, chairman of the department of aeronautical science at Embry Riddle Aeronautical University in Florida.

"There is no objective proof that this will be just as safe a method of training," Howell said. "At this point, nobody knows if this is an effective training method."

Still, Howell and others say simulators have helped make aviation far safer than it was just a few decades ago. Full-motion simulators with advanced computer graphics are exact replicas of airplane cockpits, down to the switches and circuit breakers.

The graphics displayed on cockpit windows have become so advanced that pilots can watch baggage carts rumble across taxiways and see wisps of clouds rush past their windows and even snow drift across tarmacs. Full-motion simulators -- giant boxes atop moving legs -- can toss crews around in bad turbulence and even duplicate the thud-thud-thudding of a jet streaking down a runway for takeoff.

Pilots use the devices to practice difficult approaches to airports, recovery from engine failure and what to do when they encounter extreme weather -- all scenarios that are too dangerous to attempt in an aircraft. The simulators also have become instrumental in teaching pilots about managing the increasingly complex and computerized cockpits of modern jets.

In the United States, simulators help pilots adjust to new aircraft and keep them up to date on safety measures. They also are used to teach pilots how to manage modern cockpit systems, how to work together and how to troubleshoot problems before they get out of hand.

"They allow us to teach our crews that there is more to flying an airplane than just the stick and rudder skills," said John T. Winter, director of United Airlines' training center in Denver.

Like most major carriers, United Airlines has a big training center, and instructors rely heavily on simulators to train pilots. On a recent afternoon, pilots Ron Davis and Jeff DePaolis took an Airbus A320 simulator through situations they could never attempt in a real plane because they are too dangerous.

In one simulator scenario, they were approaching Denver International Airport in poor visibility. Suddenly, about 600 feet above the ground, DePaolis noticed that the wind was rapidly shifting. He alerted Davis to the hazard. Then a computerized voice blared: "Wind shear! Wind shear!"

The cockpit jolted and felt as if it were falling. Davis pulled back on the control stick and shoved the throttles to full power. The plane throbbed and seemed to hover. Then, slowly, it inched safely back into the sky.

[Orographic]

Although , no i am not yet a pilot ( still a trainee ... not under MCPL, nor would i ever be, i have some pride after all ) , i feel i must express alarm about this as well, for a number of reasons. the most previlant of them has to be safety, not only of the aircraft crewed by FO's of such .. abbrevated exprence, but of other aircraft in the vacinity, ...... i am not sure i would want to be under the flight path of one of them either .

Reading anicdotes from a couple of people earlier in the thread about "similerly trained" crew not being able to answer questions that boil down to "where are you" is alarming. instriments and computers are not right all the time, ( the first thing that comes into my mind is the mt erebus .. * ahem* incident.) and being able to get down intact is the biggest thing when something goes wrong.

are sims useful, .. hell yes, i doubt anyone is saying otherwise. best place for emergancy procedures training. but they are not enough on their own.

if my training provider tried to tell me that live flight time was not needed, or downgraded it from how much they give ( yes .. about 200 hrs ... and at the end of that, yes a " frozen ATPL ", which my understanding is more just permission to come back and do the check flight when you get your experence up to the task .... at the end of which i will not be ready to sit right seat in a heavy. period.) i would be looking for a new training provider.

then again, i seem to have the intention to be a "self improver" as it has been put a few times. i have heard that pilots with glider experence are usualy good for when the manure meets the air displacement device ... and this is not just from a single source, so i have to concider this nessercery self improvement. not just for flying heavys.

and yes i might be rambling, but for those who are going to tell me thats irrelivent, what happens in your multi engine heavy's when all the engines flame out, 'cause some muppet didn't load the fuil correctly. its happened. or so i am told.

200 hrs gonna prep me for that? i don't think so

[PPRuNeUser0165]

was having a look round oat in march and they were talking about the MPL as a possiblility for this coming spring? Any 1 no of any more news about this? Apparently you will need to be signed on to an airline first?

[Saintsman]

Reported on Flight's website. An ab initio course for a Multi-crew Pilots Licence (MPL) where the student will never fly solo http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/01/22/211619/airline-pilots-without-solo-flying-experience-a-reality-as-boeing-alteons-first-multi-crew-pilot.html

I suppose that if you're never going to fly solo what's the point, but as for a confidence booster, your first solo is a pretty big milestone on your way to getting a licence.

[FlexibleResponse]

My whole working life has been dedicated to aviation.

I have trained many military pilots on a wide range of multiengined transport aircraft through to high performance jet aircraft. In more recent years I have trained many airline S/Os, F/Os and Captains on a variety of widebody airline aircraft.

The MPL system is based soley on political expediency and airline economics. Most changes to pilot training over the years have been based on training excellence and safety.

It is my firm belief that if the MPL system is implemented, it will result, sometime down the track, in the unnecessary loss of hundreds if not thousands of innocent lives.

I hope that I am proven to be wrong...

[Digitalis]

I hope that I am proven to be wrong...

You will be.

[olliew]

I have an uneasy feeling that he will not be...

[electricjetjock]

I think flex is correct.

But of course the Airline Managers etc want this new system not just for the supposed cost savings but because they will then have a bunch of pilots over which they will have total control. These "pilots" would and will have great difficulty in moving to another flying position with another company.

[FlexibleResponse]

In an anonymous forum, it is likely that in discussions like this one on the MPL concept, for there to be a number of folks with undeclared vested interests who might well manipulate and cloud the real underlying issues, to their advantage.

Let's face the facts; the MPL concept has been driven by airlines who are becoming desperately short of pilots and want to reduce training and wage costs. The MPL will legally allow them to put warm bodies in cockpit seats in a much reduced timescale at a much reduced cost, and will allow the selection of warm bodies that would not otherwise qualify to be professional pilots.

Safety in aviation is a legacy born of bitter experience that has shaped the selection, training, experience, performance, discipline and punishment systems and processes over many years.

Experience gained through the early years of a pilot's career is very efficient in weeding out most unsuitable pilots by either killing them in aviation accidents, or preventing them from further advancement by denying them further aviation jobs due to poor performance.

To dump these systems and processes based on a century of aviation experience and replace them instead with a new system driven by political expediency and economics is ill-advised to say the least.

If I have discovered one thing about aviation over many years, is that it sometimes lets you get away with taking shortcuts for indeterminite periods.

However, in the long run, aviation is unrelenting and merciless in punishing all folk who are prone to taking shortcuts, along with the innocent travelling public who may be in their care.

[PAXboy]

Flexible If I have discovered one thing about aviation over many years, is that it sometimes lets you get away with taking shortcuts for indeterminite periods. I could not agree more and found the same to be true in an unrelated field. If I have discovered one thing about telecommunications over many years, is that it sometimes lets you get away with taking shortcuts for indeterminate periods.

I recall the manager of a telephone system at financial firm in the City of London. Over the years, having a small amount of knowledge, he tinkered around with the system and it always worked. One day - he tinkered and the whole system was off the air for a day. No one died but they lost a lot of moeny and he was out on his ear. The cause and effect is the same.

As a pax who often travels to South Africa, this will affect my purchases in the future. The difficulty will be to know which carriers are using MPL. I shall have to rely on PPRuNe for that.

[snuble]

As a pax who often travels to South Africa, this will affect my purchases in the future. The difficulty will be to know which carriers are using MPL. I shall have to rely on PPRuNe for that.

But you are happy to fly with a 200tt self improver, fresh form the cheapest trto he/she could find...?


@FlexibleResponse: I look foreward to prove you wrong!

[PAXboy]

snuble The problem is that, for the most part, I shall not know! However, some carriers that have such a person in place will have made sure that they meet certain (dare I say 'traditional') criteria and other carriers will have grabbed what was left over.

In the same way that I might try to understand the purchasing standards and process of a supermarket chain, so I might I try to understand that of the airlines I choose.

[Digitalis]

It is highly likely that the first adopters of the MPL will be the major European airlines that currently run their own cadet training schemes - airlines like Lufthansa, for example. Such airlines are very unlikely to accept a lower standard of cadet than they do currently. It's my understanding that it is airlines such as these that have driven the development of the MPL, as they feel that the traditional training syllabus is getting further and further detached from the requirements of flying modern airliners.

As has been explained earlier in this thread, the MPL is very unlikely to be a cheap option. The number of hours required in highly-capable and expensive simulators is likely to make the cost comparable to, or even higher than, the current procedure. While it is true that some of the danger will be removed (this is a bad thing?!), I don't perceive the death rate among airline wannabes is so high as to be a significant factor in the selection process!

As in all new things, there will be early adopters, late adopters and Luddites. The early adopters will have to iron out the problems that will undoubtedly be discovered with experience - experience which the later adopters will bvenefit from. For the Luddites, the traditional route will still be available.

[Jet_A_Knight]

But you are happy to fly with a 200tt self improver, fresh form the cheapest trto he/she could find...?

No, that's not really a great option either.

These guys, the 200hr TT 'self improver' and MPL wonders will be flying around, not knowing enough to know what they don't know.:ugh:

[Blue06]

To all you guys whith MPL as your wet dream:
What you seem to forget is that you cannot compare a MPL/737 with a guy with 200hrs SEP. Once the 200hr guy have got his 737 rating, THEN we can start discussing who's the "best" pilot.

The standards for the MPL 737 rating is all the same as the "normal" 737 rating. In other words the 200hr guy is trained to the same "perfection"/proficiency as the MPL guy, but in addition he has 200hrs of real flying time, incl all the descition making etc that comes with that.
Those of you who say instructing in a 172 for 1000hrs is a waste of time, don't understand much. Most likely your one of those 200hr guys who bought yourself a job in some LCC.
Sure, flying a 172 is not too relevant for pushing buttons on the 737 or 319, but flying is not all about flying the 'bus on autopilot, but more about making decisions. And what do you base your desicions on? Knowlegde and experience. Where do you get that knowlegde and experience? By flying! So all the decsicion making and responsibilities you learn by 1000hrs in the sky, is HIGHLY relevant when you become a captain and have to start thinking yourself.
Did I hear "Monkey see, monkey doo"? No wonder it'll take 10 years for this poor F/O until he can start making descicions... :D
Doesnt matter what way you twist and turn this issue;
The total experience level of the 737/MPL is LESS than the 1000hr guy with 737 rating, or even the 200hr guy!

The allegded positive reasons;
1 "more proficient pilots"
2 takes less time to become a pilot
3 airline saves money
Only 1 of these should even be considered when training pilots. "More proficient pilots" - I dont see how this can be the case, since the standards for the MPL TR and "normal" TR is exactly the same!
The other two isn't even worth discussing...
The MPL is only a back-up solution when the airlines is short on desperate people willing to buy them selves a job... :yuk:

It is apparent that the airlines have too much influence on the JAA/ICAO... FAA has said no to this, wonder why? :rolleyes: