MPL to eliminate "bad habits" gained in GA

[ITCZ]

From "The Australian"
Boeing arm trials faster pilot training (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21118420-23349,00.html)
Geoffrey Thomas
January 26, 2007

THE airline industry faces the daunting challenge of training 340,000 new pilots by 2024 - including 73,000 in the Asia-Oceania region - to meet growth and retirements.

Alteon president Sherry Carbary said the challenge for the industry was "significant".

Ms Carbary said Alteon, a division of Boeing, was pioneering the International Civil Aviation Organisation's multi-crew pilot licence (MPL) concept, which aimed to produce first officers (co-pilots) in only 15 months by teaching them just what they needed to know.

The MPL concept is being examined by regulators around the globe, and Alteon has launched a beta training program for 16 pilots at its Brisbane facility.

MPL was established by ICAO in 2002 in an attempt to take zero-time, off-the-street potential pilots and train them up to first officers of a multi-engined transport, such as a 737NG, in half the usual time required.

The concept has caused some disquiet among traditional pilot groups. But Ms Carbary pointed out that MPL pilots would have to perform 12 actual take-offs and landings before being certified.

Alteon director of marketing Roei Ganzarski said the MPL program was in beta test only. "We are assessing its effectiveness at this stage," he said.

Alteon has selected Australia and its regulator, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, to trial the program because Australia is a major training centre for pilots, particularly from Asian airlines.

Alteon is working with Brisbane-based Airline Academy Australia and has leased two Diamond DA 20 single-engine aircraft for initial training.
According to Mr Ganzarski, airlines are extremely interested in MPL and look favourably at the fact that they would not have to "eliminate the bad habits pilots pick up working in general aviation, which is the typical career path for pilots".

While the MPL program is based on ICAO guidelines, those guidelines are not prescriptive and the consensus is that they may change once the beta test program is concluded with CASA's input and endorsement.

Mr Ganzarski said: "A new training program, like our MPL course, necessitates instructor training."

Alteon instructors, as well as instructors at Airline Academy Australia, have received training on the MPL curriculum to effectively teach the new course.
Airline Academy Australia instructors spent time in Seattle in training and Alteon instructors also provided training in Brisbane.

"These were all qualified instructors but the crew-based training approach of the MPL course is new to the typical flight school," Mr Ganzarski said.

[ITCZ]

Perhaps only doing 70 hours flying in a Duchess plus 12 takeoffs and landings in a B737/A320 to get one's MPL means there will not be any time to pick up 'bad habits'.

There will not have been any time to pick up many 'good habits' either!

[Aussie]

Interesting to see where this goes....

What happens if all the newbies do the MPL and noone to fly GA!

Aussie

[cunninglinguist]

Bad habits like:
thinking on your feet, wx avoidance without radar, traffic avoidance OCTA, basic navigation, dealing with problems that are'nt in a textbook, making command decisions every day ( not ICUS decisions ) dealing with pax face to face, and worst of all............appreciating any jet job you can get due to the 4 years of flying :mad: boxes :confused:

[4Greens]

Forget the habits. it is just another way of reducing costs.

[Blip]

And where is the extra training (and pay) for all the line captains who will now be forced to become pseudo training captains?

[hotnhigh]

Anyone know what flying experience or licences Ms Carbary or Mr Ganzarski hold?

[Green gorilla]

I am sure some of these guys with MPLs will like to know when they go command maybe in the right seat for 15yrs.

[vh_ajm]

Would also like to know how well command decisions would go in the event of the left hand seater becoming incapacitated. There are many events of this nature per year.

I would think it wouldn't be too long before such an event would take place AND some sort of other emergency or something out of the ordinary would make things VERY challenging for an F/O with said qualifications.

Gaping hole in the swiss cheese I reckon...

AJM.

[Jet_A_Knight]

He forgot to mention how pilots flying singlepilot ops for more than 5 hrs cannot possibly be trained to fly in a multi-crew environment.:rolleyes:

[Howard Hughes]

They'll be perfect when the Captain keels over then won't they?;)

Perhaps the big biccies will eventually be in GA? At least it would eventually force airline wages up, when people start leaving for greener pastures!:ok:

[M.25]

Perhaps the big biccies will eventually be in GA? At least it would eventually force airline wages up, when people start leaving for greener pastures!:ok:

Thats if they can meet the minimum experience requirements for GA.:E

[BPA]

Isn’t the biggest issue airlines are facing is the shortage of experienced pilots? So how will the MPL fix this? Airlines need Captains now, not in 15 years time. What about pilots for regional airlines. Flying a jet ILS to ILS is vastly different to flying a Dash 8 or Saab in to some sh@t hole using an NDB at night. How will the MPL teach this, when all the MPL sim training is done on a jet? Experienced gained in GA (via instructing or going bush) is where 90-95% of our current regional captains have come from.

Comparing the two Paths

GA Path:

1st Year: Gain CPL, IR and ATPL subjects.
2nd to 3rd Year: GA experience (Go Bush or Instructor rating).
4th Year: First Airline job or perhaps small regional or night freight. Gain More experience. If you are lucky FO position with a major airline.
5th Year +: FO position with major airline, spend 12 months in the RH seat, gain 700 – 800 hours FO time and provided you are suitable, it’s time to move across to the LH seat.
So in less than 6 years an airline has pilot they can upgrade to command.

MPL Path:

First 2 years: Gain MPL, but no real experience.
3rd to 8- 10th year: FO position, command slot maybe in sight, and he/she still hasn’t made one command decision in their flying career.

[freddyKrueger]

The computer industry they would term this "vendor lock-in" or "proprietary format".
An MPL graduate will be beholden to their sponsor airline. This would be appear to be an attempt to limit pilot market power.
The airlines know (despite protest to the contrary) that a massive shortage is looming and want to lock in their crews, whilst denying them a portable qualification.
So yes, it is about controlling costs.

[GaryGnu]

The computer industry they would term this "vendor lock-in" or "proprietary format".
An MPL graduate will be beholden to their sponsor airline. This would be appear to be an attempt to limit pilot market power.
The airlines know (despite protest to the contrary) that a massive shortage is looming and want to lock in their crews, whilst denying them a portable qualification.
So yes, it is about controlling costs.
Any MPL graduate will meet the experience requirements for an ATPL with only 500hrs PICUS. There are no further command hour requirments. One would assume that the ATPL is a portable qualification.

[freddyKrueger]

Any MPL graduate will meet the experience requirements for an ATPL with only 500hrs PICUS. There are no further command hour requirments. One would assume that the ATPL is a portable qualification.
I stand corrected. A bit more sleuthing revealed the draft legislation HERE (http://www.casa.gov.au/fcl/multicrew/Draft_MPL_CAR5.pdf). Multicrew ops are ok, but for single pilot ops more training will be required.

['aveagoodknight]

Cheaper.

Just like it's cheaper to have a baggage handler on the headset than a LAME for pushback, or cheaper for a pilot to do a walkaround.

The new-age headset people are trained to deal with all the normal scenarios, just like these MPLs would be trained for, but that's all. As a LAME, I've got plenty of experience and training, which I pursued for years to score a line job, but now I'm too expensive to do pushbacks or walkarounds. I know from reading these forums over the years, some of you can quite accept that a pilot can do his own walkaround, and I agree!!! 999,999 times out of one million it isn't a problem, just like 999,999 times out of a million it isn't a problem to have a baggie on a headset.

Likewise it isn't a problem 999,999 times out of a million having a 250 (for example) hour F/O in the right seat, if that 250 hours has been spent moulding the candidate with the requirements that the operator needs. Possibly it comes under the title of 'risk management'. Don't get me wrong, I know what goes on up there and know the value of the experience, but I'm not blessed with the ignorance of society or the arrogance of financial management.

On the other hand, we spend millions of dollars setting up a system that takes nailfiles off people and making old ladies take their shoes off and x-raying their ear trumpets, or swiping my mother's shoelaces for traces of explosive chemicals when the odds again are probably about the same that permitting any of the above persons on-board will cause some sort of incident. We seem prepared to take risks in some areas because of the costs, but absolutely none in others regardless of cost.

Society is demanding a cheaper product and seems prepared to take the gamble that they won't be in that 'one in a million' seat. What I can't understand is that society is also prepared to put money on similar odds week after week on the opportunity that they will win millions on the lotto.

Face it fellas, the cost cutting isn't going to stop on the tarmac. It isn’t an issue of whether you will accept any given situation; it is an issue of whether society is prepared to pay for what you want or risk not having it. If you aren’t prepared to change and accept it, you may well be cast aside in favour of people who will accept it. The advent of the LCC is testament to this. I don’t necessarily support it; but it is the truth I am discovering every day.


Remember, the customer is always right…


‘ave a good night.

[Quokka]

From the bench, my 2c worth on this one...


15 months to become what you always wanted to be... instead of 4 years plus (and you guys always complain about how long you have to wait and what you have to do to get a seat flying big shiny airline jets!!).

15 months of intensive training focusing on the final goal... a seat in one of those big shiny jets. Training that's consistent with the sponsored airline's standard operating procedures and consistency in training is always a good thing. Ask any Air Traffic Control trainee... it's a rare commodity.

Testing to the standard required to fly one of those big shiny jets.

Years of supervised experience flying one of those big shiny jets.


I'm not seeing a lot of negatives in this idea... it's closer to a win-win for everyone, you guys, the companies and I don't agree that this will be an instant cure for the looming pilot shortage nor will it cut your salaries and keep you from bargaining for higher salaries... as long as you keep logging those hours... & as long as those hours keep climbing... it'll be smiles all around in the bar at the end of each day.

Global Shortage + Market Forces = $ $$$,$$$.$$

But then... I am sitting on the bench (ducking for cover :ouch: )

[Chimbu chuckles]

It is an interesting scenario.

In my view the "GA developes bad habits" mentality comes from the growing % of airline management pilots who never did much or any real GA. They of course are convinced of their own infallability because as management pilots they have spent many years in a situation where no-one ever says "No, you're wrong".

What GA developes is command decision making and command judgement.

Experienced pilots can occasionally give management pilots grief because they don't accept what they are told at face value...i.e they can question the wisdom passed down to them by people who are unfamiliar with being challenged...and they REALLY don't like it...much better to have a compliant pilot body that just say "Yessir...how high?". You see it too after a cadet has a few years in command...they start questioning what they are told...and believe me it sometimes needs questioning:ugh:

You sometimes get the impression that management would like to get rid of the really experienced pilots...the 'if you don't like it then leave' attitude. While part of that is about replacing expensive pilots with cheaper ones you occassionally get just a hint that less than spectacularly gifted management pilots don't want their authority challenged. Beancounters certainly place little if any value in experience...many years ago a major charter company in the UK operating 757s and 767s offered huge payouts to their most experienced pilots...something like 100k...to just leave:ugh: They of course took them and took their experience somewhere else and not only netted a huge windfall but often a payrise as well...this actually happened and was cost effective as far as the beancounters were concerned...their junior replacements were probably earning 75% of what they had been earning and didn't have the huge super payouts looming via defined benefit super schemes.:rolleyes:

99.99% of airline flying is NOT about utilising superior skill to rescue a broken aeroplane full of passengers...the once in a blue moon scenario like Souix City will only effect 1 pilot in many thousands and only once in a career for that 1 in many thousands. Even a mundane engine failure is VERY rare indeed statistically and most pilots will never experience one...or even a precautionary shutdown.

What GA experience should and usually does equip a pilot with is an ability to circumvent the daily things that effect airline operations and can either cost the company large amounts of money or not...depending on the decision the captain makes..life is rarely at risk, just capital. This, of course, is not anything that ever shows up on a spread sheet so it is not obvious to the beancounters who run airlines.

In the final analysis I don't think there is a need yet within the Australian context for an MPL system. Maybe one day but that day is a long way out in the future. Airline management in Australia have not got their heads around the possibility of hiring off the street and training pilots from scratch and paying for their training and paying them while training the way ALL Asian airlines do right now.

They do this in Asia because there simply isn't a GA system in place and most young people don't grow up dreaming about flying...most young people in asia don't even think about flying as a career until they suddenly stumble over an ad in a news paper looking for cadets in SQ, Japan or somewhere in mainland China. The parents of most young people in Asia have VERY strict views about what is a 'suitable' career path for their children and they all revolve around Medicine, law, Science or accountancy...the children are steered VERY firmly in those directions from a very young age. I wouldn't mind betting a significant % of asian cadets are in fact young people who have tried and failed in those areas first and then come to an airline cadetship as a poor second choice, certainly in the view of their family...I have seen this first hand a bunch of times..."What got you into flying?" "Oh I was at Uni studying Medicine/Law/Accountancy and I hated it/was not doing well and then I saw an advert for airline cadets and I thought I'd give it a go".

Given the eternal beancounter mantra of cutting costs the difference between the current cadet system and the MPL is not significant in terms of the product that graduates...only the costs for the company. I would think they would be looking for a system that,in their minds at least, allows them to turf the fleets of Lear 45s that they currently run for starters.

Current cadets at the asian airline I work for go through to the LHS in about 10 years...and they do pretty well too...10 years and 6000 odd hrs is enough time to teach anybody anything. They do not suffer a huge lack of mechanical skills that impact significantly on their ability to fly..although a dark, raining night with a stiff crosswind has most of em autolanding...which is exactly what they are taught to do...they do suffer a lack of self confidence and a discomfort with making a decision. That becomes less an issue as time spent in the LHS increases as, you would expect.

There is the difference I suppose...we learn command decision making and judgement in C210, Barons amd Metros they learn them in a Boeing...and they tend to make the same mistakes we made at an early age in C210s and Barons but they cost more money in a Boeing..but rarely is life threatened either way...mind you there is a fair bit of luck in that.

Professional pilots cannot stand relying on luck...beancounters live that way...but call it cost/benefit analysis.:ugh:

[Jet_A_Knight]

It makes a farce out of working hard to gain a foundation in your skill base.
I don't think that it will improve positions for experienced guys looking for RHS in an airliner, either.

The training organisations behind this concept could be honest about it too, rather than spruiking things like the 'added safety benefits' as these MPL trainees will be 'trained to operate in a team environment like that of an airliner from day one' rather than 'gain bad habits in GA'.

"There is a mass market for minimally trained occupiers of the RHS in airliners, and we are going to make a KILLING out of it '.

For the airlines, it's a good way of getting cheap, indentured labour for many years:"We can get an MPL monkey as indentured labour for 1/2 the money you want, the equipment is so good these days, the chances of a wreck are minimal, so fly for food, or fcuk off' .

And then, so for 5-10 years, whilst the equipment is effectively new, all is going swimmingly, not too many abnormals, the authorities will amend the minimum PIC hrs required for ATPL, and these guys will go to command.
After that, when the equipment starts to age, and things start to fail more and more often, is when the wheels will fall off this thing - big time.

You can say what you want about GA, but the majority of people in it are aspiring to get employment in an airline the honest way: By working hard, being a pro, building on their skillset and making a solid foundation for when the time comes to fly in a jet airliner.

[Quokka]

Just as a comparison...

How long is the RAAF training for a pilot (F-111 or C130J) from start to type rating?

What are the similarities/differences in the skill-sets of graduates from the MPL training vs. graduates from RAAF training?

[Chimbu chuckles]

Quokka while I am not ex mil I have flown with a bunch of guys who were and asked this very same question of an ex RAAF wing Commander (ex Sabres/Mirages/F111s)

His answer as I remember it was at the end of basic training the knowledge of theory is just below CPL and at the end of advanced training a bit below ATPL level. Raw hand flying skills are much higher because of the nature of the training...aerobatics, formation flying, low level, tactical flying etc.

The ex mil guys can probably confirm that by the time you graduate to command of a transport you have 1000 hrs + and a GREAT deal of ongoing training. The fast jet guys have even more on the job training ( a HUGE!!! amount) before they are let loose in a F18 or F111. These guys have REALLY high manipulative skills (witness the fella in the F111 wheels up landing a few mths ago dragging his hook through the dirt) and enormous natural talent in situational awareness...theoretically they may not be the sharpest tools in the shed but that is not required in a fighter pilot...I was on ATPL course with 4 F18 pilots many years ago...they were all go getters with enormous self confidence but asked the dumbest questions in ATPL flight planning class...all were on the 3rd or 4th go at passing the ATPL subjects...mil skill sets are not always directly transferrable to civvy life...they are trained to defend us by killing people and breaking their stuff and that presupposes a level of self confidence (they absolutely HAVE to believe they are indestructable) and a degree of result orientation that is not wanted in civvy flying...as in pushing on through flak etc and hitting the target type thinking. The civvy equivalent is busting IFR minimas to 'get the job done'.

[The_Cutest_of_Borg]

The RAAF categorization system is probably the best indicator.

When bograts graduate from Pearce they are rated as a Cat D PC-9 captain. This has taken them 15 months with approx 220 hours of intensive real-life hand-flying. This straight away differentiates them from the MPL concept.

Once they graduate off a conversion course, they are Cat D F-18/P3/Herc/Caribou etc pilots. Cat D pilots can fly the aircraft but are not operational captains.

Cat D F-18 pilots for instance would not generally lead a mission, Cat D Herc pilots are co-pilots. Some of the transport types and maritime have higher rated co-pilot ratings but generally pilots are captains when they achieve a Cat C Captain rating. This is the equivalent of a line Captain in an airline.

The time spent from Cat D to Cat C in each role will vary, but in each case it is characterised as a period of intense training and scrutiny.

Maritime pilots can take 3-4 years to full maritime command due to the complexity of their role.

I was not a knuck but assume that it would be at least well into the first tour before a pilot would be leading operational missions.

A Herc copilot will typically be looked at for command around two years after joining a squadron and the will have more than 1000 hours under their belt.

Herc/Caribou co-pilots will spend many hours answering questions whilst in the cruise. This not only gets them into the books but introduces them to many operational scenarios.

In my experience this does not happen much these days in the airlines and would be the major change for a crew with a MPL holder in the right hand seat. Whether or not airline line captains would see this as their role is another matter. I generally expect my FO's to come out of the training system knowing pretty much all they need to know and they generally do.

An MPL holder fresh out of the system would require a lot of OJT.

[clear to land]

PAF, to answer your question: IF the Captain is a Check/Training Captain they MIGHT ask you a question or two on a line flight, but it is highly unlikely as they will be trying to enjoy their rare break from training. Most reasonable guys will probably show you something out of their 'bag of tricks' if they believe it is useful and not common knowledge. If a line Capt was asking a line F/O questions, he would more often than not be told to pull his head in, the personality of the individual determining the politeness level! Either Captain or F/O may offer to discuss/show something obscure they have learnt. Remember, unlike the military, due to Seniority there is a reasonable chance the F/O will be more experienced than the Captain. Also, in the real world, you are part of a team whose job it is to get the aircraft from A to B safely and efficiently, nothing more or less. Your job finishes as soon as sign off happens. You are not being constantly assessed by the aircraft commander, as you are in the Mil Cat system. Reports are not written by the Captain on your performance (unless it is truly bad). :)

[bullamakanka]

MPL pilot = lower paid pilot? Maybe the airlines will like it for these reasons too.?

However we can feel comfortabe in an aircraft with an MPL at the controls knowing he/she has done 12 real landings though, pause, not.

B

[Aussie]

Many interesting points being made...

I think the RAAF training is far more advanced then the MPL will ever be...
After all, most the training for MPL will be in sims.

Either way, interesting to see which way this goes...

[Chimbu chuckles]

Jet A Knight...I think it needs to be recognised that while a wide variety of experience is nice and never a bad thing it is not essential in a modern jet aircraft. Outside of a simulator there is very little opportunity to display skilled handling...the aircraft aren't designed that way anymore...without doubt that is deliberate on the part of Boeing and Airbus.

Modern jet aircraft are almost not about flying at all in a traditional sense..and that is something I still struggle to get my head around too...modern airliner flying is about unquestioningly following SOPs on 99.9999% of occassions...the only exception really is for the Souix City type scenario. Technology has moved on from Super Connies and the skills that modern airliners require are very different...do I feel a little sad? Yes I do.

But I still get a kick out of the view from my office window..and I get a kick out of tickling a 767 onto the ground...and I even get a kick out of the automation...but if I want to really fly an aeroplane I drag my Bonanza out of the hangar...I get a greater, or maybe just different, sense of satisfaction, of being an aviator, flying my Bo 500nm than I get flying a 767 5000nm...in fact as the years roll on I think seriously about selling the Bo and buying a Pitts so I can really indulge the 'pilot' in me...but that doesn't dim the sense of genuine happiness I feel when I slide into my seat in the Boeing.

It is still a great career...perhaps a little diminished by the technology but probably more just changed...but I think we need to lose the fantasies that we are Atlantic/Pacific Barons Captaining the aviation equivalent of square riggers across the world. That was my fathers generation...and I envy him it to some extent although I have been blessed too with a career I wouldn't exchange for that of a modern cadet's....but the fact remains that cadets do the job adequately at least and more often very well indeed and do so without a GA background.

I certainly don't agree GA promotes bad habits...just different habits and they can take a little while to morph into appropriate airliner 'habits'...some individuals don't seem to be able to make the transition from GA to airlines but 95% do...and in the end there is very little difference between someone who came through GA and someone who was a cadet....a small % of each shouldn't be allowed to fly a kite but the vast majority are just fine.

I may be a little biassed because MPLs are never going to effect me other than I might have one as an FO one of these days...but I actually don't think they will significantly effect the career of any pilot currently climbing the greazy pole...certainly not in Australia.

[Quokka]

Here we go... :E

[gliderboy]

Chimbu

There is NO such thing as a DUMB question in Aviation.

Where was your ATPL course?Bankstown circa 1989/90? Gavin Secombe's course?

Gliderboy

[hoss]

Back to basics, of the 16 'pilots' being trained at the moment what is there background and are they sponsored by an Airline?

If not, perhaps their decision making process's need some work!:rolleyes:

[BPA]

I read that the 16 pilots are from China and are sponsored by a Chinese airline.

[Chimbu chuckles]

Sorry if I offended re the F18 drivers...most of that post was the opinion of a retired F111 Wing Commander, who also flew Mirages and Sabres in his earlier RAAF career, I used to fly F28s with....and a retired RAAF Test pilot I used to fly with too...and the son of a best mate who got his wings about 3 years ago and is now on Hercs, probably a captain by now...I have the greatest respect for RAAF pilots...my dad was one too but in the 1950s.:ok:

The old 'there are no dumb questions' saying is all very good but not really true 100% of the time. These guys were asking questions over and over that just had the rest of the class shaking their heads...they were bordering on bizarre. Many years later when I started flying with ex RAAF pilots it was they who said the most important knuck qualities were superior hand eye coordination and almost supernatural situational awareness.

The 4 guys I was on course with were nice enough fellas but the only one who freely mixed with us civvies was the FCI member of the group. He was the one who told us they were all on the 3 or 4th try at passing the ATPL subjects...now even then they were not THAT hard. from memory there were also a handfull of Herc drivers on the course too...I cannot remember the instructors name but he was ex RAAF as well, and an excellent teacher who knew his subject backwards...I got a 94% pass first time through:ok:

I dislike broadbrush answers too...and I very nearly didn't post that answer at all...but then I figured I might as well add my opinion based on limited personal experience and the opinions of mates who ran the fast jet system for many, many years, because that is what this BB is about.

Not all RAAF trained pilots are superior either by the way...I have known and flown with a few complete idiots...but like every area of aviation and life they were in the tiny minority.

No I don't equate pushing on through enemy fire with a lack of discipline...and I agree it was not a great comparison, or at least not worded well...but it was all I could think of at the time to try and compare the military acceptance of higher risk to get the job done with something that sometimes appears in civvy life...pushing weather minimas to get the job done. I think it is a reasonably valid comparison though...I am sure in peace time the RAAF has rules that go out the window in wartime? It is somewhat similar to my time in PNG...we pushed weather VERY hard to get the job done because that was the nature of the beast...we did stuff routinely that would be considered completely unacceptable within the context of mainland Australian flying...but it was generally accepted that PNG was not Australia and if you were not prepared to accept a higher level of risk then you might as well go home because without that higher level of risk nothing got done in PNG. I don't think we were undisciplined in our approach to flying in PNG and pushing the weather as hard as we did...but plenty of pilots in Australia would not agree with me.

Anyway if I got up your nose I appologise.:ouch:

[Sunfish]

With the greatest of respect, can I give you a little observation from a management perspective? Mr. Chimbu posted a remark regarding certain "management pilots" who haven't done much GA and have little respect for those that have, if I read it right.

From a behavioural point of view, it looks to me that these new licences are about reinforcing the power and authority of management and "management pilots" because the new licence holders will never, ever, have the experience necessary to question their authority.

Now that is a very comforting and attractive situation for a manager....always being guaranteed to be the smartest person around in terms of experience and technical competence. Conversly, being a manager of a group of people who have more technical competence and experience than you do is an absolute nightmare if you don't understand it. Trust me, I've been there and it is most unpleasant being challenged all the time and then losing!

This is about "Formal Leadership" and "Informal leadership". I'm sure most of you know what I mean. The wet behind the ears manager who suggests doing something that is guaranteed not to work gets really annoyed when his authority is challenged by someone explaining in excruciating detail why his actions make no sense...and mentally saying "so there! Sonny" at the end of it.

High time pilots with lots of expereince, including GA or RAAF, are effectively informal group leaders in some situations and this is often perceived as a threat by weak managers. Unfortunately the usual management response to such a situation is to get rid of the informal group leader, thereby reducing the capabilities of the company.

Of course the smartest thing a manager can do for a company is to be the dumbest person in the company, hiring only people who are smarter than he is, but this requires humility - something that is in short supply in management these days.

I would far prefer to fly with someone who has come up "the hard way".

The bean counters are right about the probability of an accident being averted by GA skills and expereince is being very low, but it is not zero and the cost of a major incident is very high.

I do not believe you can or should enter any craft or profession without demonstrating mastery of even its simplest and most basic tools, because one day you may be asked to use them and be found wanting.

[Chimbu chuckles]

To get the thread back on track a little...I think those worried that all of a sudden MPLs are going to wipe out career progression for GA pilots are worrying about nothing.

My understanding of the proposed MPL system is that they will be type and operator specific. Many airlines may well find that too restrictive to bother with.

Take QF for instance. They currently run a system that has individuals paying for a licence course that meets certain QF requirements. At the end of that course they are placed in the RHS of a dash 8 for 2 years with a regional. All things being equal at the end of that time they are bought back into the system and type rated on the 744 as an SO. At this point they are quite an experienced pilot...say 1700-2000 hrs with 1500-1800 in the RHS of a dash 8.

If QF went down the path of MPLs they would have to completely restructure there recruitment and training system and instead get young people with an MPL and type rating on say a 737 or A320...you couldn't really give them a 744 type rating because they cannot really make them a straight up 744 FO. The long sectors and little hands on flying would mean an unacceptably long learning curve...it would be to hard to go back and be a 737 Captain within a feasible time frame.

If they graduate with an MPL and a Dash type rating it would seem to make it quite difficult to switch them over to mainline jets within the 2 years time frame if the licence is limited to Eastern Airlines/Dash 8 300 operations only.

It just seems to me to be a system with no synergies for QF and as such a waste of energy when they have sufficient people prepared to chance their arm within the present cadet system...which arguably works very well and aint broke.

What Asian/European airlines may or may not do is irrelevant to discussion within Australia because it is never going to effect the career aspirations of Australian GA pilots to any significant degree. Cathay, Dragonair etc have current cadet courses and I am unaware of how they are structured...I know a little about SQ's and the one where I work is structured the same way QF's is but the cadets don't pay for a thing...but the sad fact is that insufficient numbers of young asians are interested in aviation as a career for all the reasons I mentioned above. From what I hear from mates at CX and KA those two airlines put quite some effort into attracting local cadets for little real result.

CX/KA and indeed the airline where I work will still need to hire significant numbers of ex GA and mil pilots with say 5000+ hrs and some turbine 2 crew experience because an MPL holder who graduates tomorrow will be 10-15 years away from a possible command and asia is short of captains and even short of people that can be upgraded within the required time frame...in my airline an expat who joins with the above qualifications will typically be looking at a command, all things being equal, in the 3-4 years time frame...same with KA...CX is a bit different but call it 8-10 years.

One thing that no one seems to be thinking about is the fact that the world is not that far off a recession...it cannot boom forever and the longer it does the bigger the recession will be....the world wide money markets are in cloud cuckoo land at present...if someone blinks there will be blood on the ground around the world...and sooner or later someone WILL blink. I suspect asia is so short of pilots that it would have to be a mamoth recession to actually stop all growth and typically even then things would start to recover in a few years...but it would bring the impetous for MPLs to a grinding halt for at least a few years...we could be looking at 20 years before the first MPL graduate is looking at jet command.
I think it's all a bit of a storm in a tea cup.:ok:

[señor_jones]

CC,
Congratulations on your 94%.

As SJM111 mentioned, the 4 people of whom you spoke would have done manual flight planning by exception rather than rule.

On any given day, how is your working knowledge of ADIZ visual interception signals? They're in your AIP, so I presume they are fair game.

[Capt Wally]

.....this MPL goes hand in hand with one thing here...............apart from cost as others have mentioned here it's called "progress" !!!............modern day airliners in the not too distant future will be so automated that the only reason they will have any living flesh at the pointy end will be 'cause when all else fails (as it will always do at random times) we still need that last safety barrier/net............... & that's called US !!!:-)

Capt Wally :-)

[Bleve]

But what sort of experience will said living flesh be able to call on to save the day?

[Chimbu chuckles]

'Modern day' airline aircraft have been, in my view, at the optimum level of automation for 15-20 years...any changes in the last 15 years have been fiddling at the edges...minor indeed.

There is just no economic justification for much more and as a result you will not see transformational technological changes in your life time.

You won't see huge speed increases because it just plane costs too much per bum/mile to go a lot faster than we do today.

There is no technology that will ever enable aircraft to automatically detect and avoid severe weather...not as economically as a human...so it won't be developed...in 2007 still the best weather avoidance tool in any aeroplane is the mark 1 eyeball attached to an experienced human brain...despite the boffins best efforts.

Just a month or so back I did a Cat3b no decision autolanding in London due to the fog...that's cloud on ground and 75 meters vis..just how much better can all weather landing capability be..and at what cost? We still need to disconnect everything and taxi manually to the aerobridge which is a whole lot more exciting than the landing I can assure you...what would be the cost benefit analysis of automating that part...would it even be possible if the will was there?

Machines malfunction and we are, in my opinion, at the limit already with what man can recover from when they inevitably do break when operating at the limits such as the Cat3b no decision scenario above. Man will never be out of the loop so it therefore follows that automation can never, logically, be allowed to get to a point where a human can no longer intervene when required...when it gets to a point, and I don't think it will, when having a human in the loop is a waste of time because he is ineffective then it has gone too far...which manufacturer or airline will risk the financial penalties of that scenario in the ever increasing litigious world in which we live.

In the next few years we will be seeing 787s etc coming into our fleets...they are merely an incremental improvement in fuel,systems and human factors efficiency. The next step beyond will be similarly incremental and THAT increment is 30 yrs away.

[Datum]

Simulator time will never substitute for time spent 'In command' of any aircraft of any weight or any type...anywhere...

It does not matter how stressed you might think you are or could be in a Simulator... it is not and never will be the same thing...

Simulators are valuable training AIDS.....

Unfortunately - the experience of a simulator is not passed on to you after sitting in it for 60 mins!...

Simulator time will never 'simulate' the actual stress endured under the circumstances you will find yourself during the many hours gaining during actual flying experience....

Simulation is great...however, it is no substitute and never will be a substitute for real flying experience....

All professional pilots know this.....

It is up to those pilots in influential positions (god help us!) to convince the commercially 'confused and aligned' of the long term effects of a path proposed.:ugh:

[DutchRoll]

Having said that, you have pilots with 250 hours total going into the right hand seat of RAAF transport aircraft most days of the week.
Yep, and as we both know PAF, look at some of the crazy ASORs (bit like an ASIR for those non-mil types) in the system as a result! Certain colleagues of mine who've recently worked in DFS (military ATSB for those non-mil types) are amazed there are no fresh big holes in the ground at the moment.

Then again, whether you flip upside down in the training area, have a VMCA departure at circuit altitude and recover below tree-top height (they're quite old ones), crunch the tail into the runway on landing (recent), nearly lose directional control on the runway and just clear the trees (a while ago now), or nearly run off the end of the runway after a CRM debacle (recent), I guess "lady luck" has always smiled on the transport force (except for the 707, where she was asleep). I just wish I could say these (and many others) involved mechanical failures........but I can't!

And geez I'm not even going to get into some of the insanity which has occurred with those flying the pollies around! What they don't know won't hurt them (hopefully) I guess.:rolleyes:

The multi-crew licence is going to remove some substantial accident defences, but I expect noone in industry or Government will care until there are 300 body bags involved.

[Howard Hughes]

The multi-crew licence is going to remove some substantial accident defences, but I expect noone in industry or Government will care until there are 300 body bags involved.
Then of course, they'll just apportion blame to the previous incumbents, be they CEO's or pollies and continue on with the same winning aviation strategies...:hmm:

[Chimbu chuckles]

I'd love someone to give me an example of a proactive safety enhancement voluntarily instituted by management, in any industry really but lets keep it aviation specific if we can, that wasn't preceeded by tomb stones.

PAF etc I am genuinely interested in how CRM, as we know it within the airline industry, is modified or molded or otherwise forced to function in the military system given the long entrenched, and arguably historically correct and essential, substantive rank system.

Genuine question...I am not trying to start something that will upset the knucks:E ...it never occurred to me that 'steely eyed messengers of death' could be so thin skinned...just banter fellas:uhoh: :ok: :E

Re the MPL...while I agree it is not warranted within the system in Australia I think emotive statements like "12 landings in a real aeroplane...etc" somewhat understate the reality...even if my airline changed from their QF like cadet structure to an MPL structure the graduate would arrive back from Alteon, or where ever, and then go straight back into school...a week or two of ground classes in FTL,CRM,ETOPs, LVPs etc etc...then a course in the sim which would be the equivalent of a full type rating (they do this even with DECs of vaste experience) to ensure compliance with company SOPs and then out for 40-60 line sectors with trainers.

After all that they would be let loose on line captains and start 6000-8000 hrs of flying experience as FOs and then SFOs with very real limitations on the conditions under whch they can be PF.... before the first glimmer of command...10 years+ with twice annual OPC/LPCs.

I honestly don't see a huge difference between the asian cadet system as it currently exists (in reputable airlines) and an MPL system. Don't compare 3000-5000 hr GA pilots with MPL compare 200-250 hr traditional cadets with MPL.

[DutchRoll]

You might be right PAF, in that particular case regarding experience vs cockpit gradient (but there are plenty of other examples).

Yes as far as I'm aware it was a first for our ops, and the only one I know of on landing. I seem to recollect one of the Lockheed guys managed to do it very early in the piece some years ago (STOL takeoff I think). Despite the less forgiving geometry of that model, you still have to do some serious mishandling especially on landing, and crikey it's not like you don't have enough visual and artificial cues!:eek:

Hey Chimbu, I could give you a great personal example from my uniformed days of rank gradient versus CRM! I was just lucky to have a boss at the time who backed me up - that's often not the case in the military, as with many other employers! It's a very real and ongoing problem (to which I don't profess to have the answers).

[Blue-Footed Boobie]

'Bad Habbits' gained in GA...

Umm, would someone like to hazard a guess for me what is vaguely implied by this meaningless phrase 'bad habbits'?

So what's a bad habbit if you you're a GA veteran and still alive and well?

It's just as cliched as this expression I 've heard so often that airlines judge certain potential pilots that can be 'moulded' into their way of doing things.

Blue Foot

[Jet_A_Knight]

Don't compare 3000-5000 hr GA pilots with MPL compare 200-250 hr traditional cadets with MPL.

Fair call, CC.

I am under no illusion that 'airline' flying is not all about 'bare-knuckled' aeroplane handling - just like GA is not all about that either - it's just we are forced to do it more often due to the limitations of 30yr old recycled-pieces-of-piston/turbine-****e:{ (and I mean that affectionately:hmm:)

What gets up my nose is the assumption - and is also propagated by members of the training industry who stand to profit enormously from this MPL concept- that the MPL graduate will be 'safer' than some GA 'scholar' who has picked up nothing but 'bad habits' that are difficult or damn near impossible to remove/beat out/train out because they are trained from day one to operate in a 'team environment'. That is their sell to deflect the obvious lack of experience that will be 'up the front'.

These candidates will have to deep-throat a CPL, CP Instrument rating and jet transport Type rating in, what 12 months or so??? When do they consolidate their knowledge? On the line with 150+ punters on board????

What happens when a situation crops up where SOPS do not apply - and pieces of a puzzle have to be put together from a LIMITED and ARTIFICIAL experience, to string together an ALTERNATIVE??

If a bird goes down with all hands because a hand-flown manoeuvre can't be done at night or IMC with or without the use of a FD or auto thrust, ie basic skills (like the A320 in Dubai), then for the poor simples on board, it will be a tragedy - but for the airline industry - the 'cost of doing business'.

[haughtney1]

If a bird goes down with all hands because a hand-flown manoeuvre can't be done at night or IMC with or without the use of a FD or auto thrust, ie basic skills (like the A320 in Dubai), then for the poor simples on board, it will be a tragedy - but for the airline industry - the 'cost of doing business'.
Sadly jet, this is the reality of the airline industry worldwide....the cost of everything, and the value of nothing.
The airline where I currently work accept 300hr cadets through a well known UK training organisation that conducts most of the flying part of the course in Hamilton NZ.
The reports in the crew room are pretty positive regarding the standard of these guys/girls after they have completed a type-rating course, although most will admit they are passengers for the first 200-300hrs of line flying. My employer also has a policy of not putting cadets on anything other than the A320/21, as it is deemed less demanding than our Boeing fleet.
The MPL license is a reality, how it is implemented will decide whether flight safety margins will be eroded or not.

[Sunfish]

I think I noticed that the MPL is type specific and specific to the airline involved. Which appears to mean it is "not transferable'.

Now from a management point of view, assuming that it is reasonably expensive to implement an MPL at an airline, then I have "locked in" my workforce since their "credentials" are company specific and of no use elsewhere. This is a desirable state of affairs from a management perspective.

[Quokka]

...is that a definite... or a maybe? It's still only a trial at this stage.

[AnQrKa]

'There is no technology that will ever enable aircraft to automatically detect and avoid severe weather...not as economically as a human...so it won't be developed...in 2007 still the best weather avoidance tool in any aeroplane is the mark 1 eyeball attached to an experienced human brain...despite the boffins best efforts.'

Chimbu, this ignorant comment reminds of a notice that the US Government Patent Office issued in the late 19th century. 'The Office anticipates closing in the next decade as anything that can be patented has been been done. We envisage very few new inventions requiring patent'.

Open your mind a little.

[Delta_7]

Will the MPL eliminate bad habits gained in GA?

Yes. However:

Will the MPL eliminate good habits/skills gained in GA?

Yes.

Airline colleges like China Southern use the CASA CPL syllabus which includes 70 hours solo for CPL etc, and their students go from arriving in Australia with 0 hours to right hand seat in a jet in 15-18 months.

Manufacturers and airlines appear be pushing the time to RH seat of the MPL as an attractive feature (ie 12 months), but as it can be done in almost that time using the GA method, I believe that getting costs down is the greater (and somewhat hidden) agenda.

[404 Titan]

AnQrKa

I think you are missing CC's point. He is quite correct in saying the technology doesn’t exist today to do what a human pilot does. The next step is artificial intelligence and the ability for computers to reason and learn like a human. That technology for commercial airliners is a long way off. It won’t be seen in my career or probably lifetime so for all intensive purposes will never happen as I won’t and most that read and post on this forum will never see it.

[Capt Wally]

Chimba yr quite right in much of what you say reference that we can't in the forseeable future achieve much more automation than we have these days in civial airliners ( as we see it now)..............but & there's always a but:-).....................imagine Orvil & Wilbur standing there on Kill Devil hills thinking/saying ..........I think we have perfected flight, or men thinking that the rooms full of man sized computers that got man to the moon all those years was the best available.........it obviously was..........THEN !!!!!..............................oh how wrong they where !.....................progress comes in many forms.............some no doubt as evolution has shown us is most likely way beyond our current way of thinking:-).......we may not see it in our life time as pilots but it will happen, the MPL is but the tip of the iceberg & you can take that to the bank .....'cause those buggers will be around long after mankind has finished with earth originated transport !!:-)

Capt Wally :-)

[Zhaadum]

China Southern cadets are not the best example to push the MPL issue.
They can follow SOP's but when it all hits the fan they HAVE NO IDEA.

Two crew ops with these guys is classified as either "Impaired Single Pilot" or "Degraded Multi Crew". Take your pick.

Perhaps after TEN years as an FO they may have some better idea.

Z.:ok:

[Chimbu chuckles]

Wally & AnQrKa,

Certainly agree that the hunt will go on as that is the nature of mankind...my argument is more along the lines of at what point does it become self defeating?

Just because something is, or becomes, technically feasible is not reason enough to do it. Life, with ALL that entails, is a human endeavour...if you exclude humans to the point of them being irrelevant then it is not worth doing.

I am sure someone will now point out that we are the weakest link etc and that we 'cause' more accidents...blah blah.

That is pure unadulterated bull****....it's just that the 1000s of injuries and deaths a year that don't happen BECAUSE we are sitting in the front intervening can never be quantified.

[Capt Wally]

...............yes Chimba yr correct in some ways everything we do is a human endevour (obviously) but we humans have come a long way since the caveman days, again as I mentioned b4 it's called "progress"............without it there wouldn't be a human race as we know it, self defeating or otherwise:-)
Imagine mankind going to the moon & not actually landing on it, in other words to not go as far as possible even if only 'cause of curiosity.
Imagine Christopher Columbus dicovering Nth America & then not coming back to 'see' if mankind couldn't discover/advance more, hence the original thread here (MPL's, (progress) the sign of the times good or bad).

The pursuit of transporting humans around our tiny planet (in the scheme of things) will always be a human endevour (again obviously) & we are but if nothing else a very curious species indeed. There will always be aviation related deaths (sadly) whether we have breathing humans up front at the pointy end or not, the only difference is at the end of the day when technology allows us to have pilotless pax planes or any other form of transport for that matter (trains lead the way already in humanless ground transport) will be who/what to blame when the accident occurs, & we humans love to aportion blame, anyway it's always good to debate, it's healthy & sometimes "progressive" results, whoops there's that word again, progressive, we can't have progress now can we ? *smile*

...fly safe everybody while we still have some control:-)

Capt Wally :-)

[Capt Wally]

...whoops soz Chimbu, I addressed you as Chimba............

plz 4give :-)

[Delta_7]

Zhaadum, you have completely missed the point.:ugh:

I didn't say anything about how good or bad CS cadets are or whether they should use the MPL. I said that the time saving benefits of the MPL may be over-emphasised by airlines/manufacturers because CS demonstrate that the traditional training can be conducted in very similar time frames to the MPL. I didn't think my post was that confusing.

BTW, yes, you are correct - some of the CS guys are terrible. But some of them would run rings around any pilot trained through GA in Oz. Like anything in aviation, you take the good with the bad.

Whether the MPL is going to be better or worse - I have absolutely no idea. Both sides have positive and negative aspects. Time will tell.

[Zhaadum]

Ok Delta 7.

I agree that the jury is still out whether or not the MPL will save time training without a loss of standards and skills. I suspect it will save some time, however the new MPL airline recruit will need more support by the Captain and check and training procedures/SOPS than a pilot with other command decision making experience. We will see.

Perhaps I misunderstood your post to mean that you supported the proposition of this thread? MPL to eliminate "bad habits" gained in GA.

If so, I stand corrected.

I also agree that there are good and bad in any bunch of pilot trainees either CS or AUS GA but I believe that CS cadets are on the average much worse overall. Without the support of a Captain making the decisions they would crash quite often for sure.

I just feel the MPL isn't the magic bullet the airlines are seeking to fix their crew shortages. In the short term, the new MPL FO is almost useless as a crewmember who can contribute his experience to the decision making process. Longer term, they would be fine. The short term part is the concern to me if you are a pax on that flight.

Z.:ok:

[aircabbie]

Gentlemen,

Hi have been reading all the posts under this tread regarding the introduction of the MPL and peoples opinions on the effects for GA guys .

Reading these posts it sounds like you all have a great deal of experience in the industry . However i have a mere 370hrs mostly flying around the top end in a C206 . I only have a NVFR , I haveto get out of the industry to get a little more coin to get either my MECIR and or Instructor rating + pay for my ATPL . Im 26 now and i have absolutly no problem doing this because i love flying , but now with this MCPL , is it best to sit on my money and wait to see if most airlines adopt this fast tracking of FO's or should i head of instructing , i mean im neither here nor there in this industry . I don't really have a path in which to follow due to being so :mad: confused about what , where , who to do my further training , I like most don't have a rich pair of oldies so where and on what i spend my dollars are pretty important . Should i go on like normal ? i don't want to pay 30K for Instructor rating , MECIR and ATPL just to find out that i need to Spend another 100K to do this MPL . Please any pointers is great , No welcome to the Industry notes , i understand its tough though im sticking with it and i just want a few honest pointers .

Thanks guys

[Towering Q]

Cabbie, I wouldn't "sit on my money and wait to see". Get the MECIR knocked over and move onto twins. If you love flying then this shouldn't be a problem.
Try and squeeze the ATPL's in around your flying. Sometimes there's not much else to do when sitting around on charters. When ready make the next move onto turbine equipment. Enjoy the journey and try not to get too far ahead of yourself.
I don't really have a path in which to follow Maybe you should make your own path.;) :ok:

[bushy]

Unfortunately the MPL will probably be costly, unless someone produces a cheap running multi crew simulator.
And there will not be so many F/O's with ATPL's for a while.

[aircabbie]

:ok: Guys Thankyou for your prompt responses , Its always great to get some direction from you blokes with the experiance .

Kind regards
cabbie