The Multi Crew Pilots Licence (MPL)

[wrongwayaround]

I have seen bits and pieces of information posted in other threads about the MPL, but would like one thread directly related to this new form of licensing.

From what I can gather, the MPL is solely a way around the pilot shortage which is due to come. I'm not sure what kind of impact this will have on safety so I'll be interested to hear everyones opinion. How will MPL holders be able to get command status on Air Transport aircraft?

[Left Wing]

The Alteon Multi-Crew Pilot Licensing (MPL) Program

Backgrounder

Alteon Training L.L.C, a wholly owned subsidiary and training arm of The Boeing Company, has been working closely with major industry partners since October 2005 to develop a new pilot training program to provide jet-ready, airline qualified pilots to the airlines. Boeing’s Current Market Outlook data indicates that the world’s fleet of aircraft will double in the next two decades, which will put increasing pressure on airlines to find qualified, well-trained pilots to operate these new planes.

In response to the industry’s needs, Alteon will be conducting a beta test of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Multi-Crew Pilot License (MPL). Alteon will begin its beta test of a MPL Training Program in Brisbane, Australia, producing the first MPL qualified crew members in mid 2008.

ICAO developed this new license in response to industry concerns that the traditional licensing path was not specifically designed with the airline in mind and did not take advantage of simulation technology to effectively and efficiently train pilots for their role at the airline. The MPL takes a competency based approach to training, shifting the focus from accumulating flight hours to demonstrating competency to perform as an airline crew member.

The Alteon MPL beta test focuses on developing the skills, knowledge, and competencies a crew member will need to perform their role at the airline. The Alteon program will train cadets in a multi-crew environment from the start, integrating theory and practice in both aircraft and simulators to prepare an individual for the First Officer position to about 15 months.

Alteon is conducting the MPL beta program in conjunction with industry partners who have had a chance to review the training program as it was being developed and offer their inputs. Airlines, regulators and suppliers have all been involved in shaping this beta test MPL training program.

Rigorous phase checks will be conducted throughout the process to ensure competency goals are met and the training program will be adjusted accordingly as Alteon and its partners track the cadets’ progress in the beta test. When the cadets complete the beta test, they will go on to fly for their respective airlines where their performance will be monitored and compared with their traditionally trained peers. The learning from this beta test will be evaluated and applied to shape the Alteon MPL training program for each airline customer. Alteon will also employ the lessons learned in the beta test of the MPL training program as it continues to look into more effective and efficient training solutions for airlines.

[Left Wing]

1. What is MPL?
MPL is the Multi-Crew Pilot License that ICAO developed in response to airlines’ request for a training path focused specifically on developing airline qualified pilots more efficiently and effectively.
2. How does MPL differ from the traditional pilot training path?
The MPL is an alternative means to train and qualify an airline pilot. A pilot receiving an MPL certificate will have mastered the same knowledge base as the CPL qualified pilot who has received a type rating. Both will have demonstrated ATP-level knowledge and skills and both will need to acquire the initial operating experience and pass the check before becoming ATPL pilots.
3. Why is Alteon conducting a beta test of the MPL?
Alteon wanted to engage the industry in developing an MPL training program in collaboration with airlines, regulators, and other industry participants. Before offering a commercial product, Alteon decided to conduct a beta test of a training program as a learning experience that will help the industry approach future MPL training with a better knowledge base of the efficiencies that can be introduced into training.
4. What response are you getting from the world’s airlines?
Airlines and regulators are very interested in learning more about MPL. This new approach has great potential to develop competent, confident airline pilots more efficiently at a time when the industry demand for pilots is at its highest. The regions experiencing the greatest growth, India and China, are particularly interested in a training solution that will enhance the safety of their aviation environment while better meeting their increased pilot requirements.
5. Isn’t MPL a fast track solution that could compromise safety?
ICAO states as one of the MPL objectives that the training will achieve the same or better results than traditional training methods. Alteon believes MPL training can achieve better results and should because of the focus on airline discipline and procedures. Alteon is conducting the MPL beta and involving the industry to ensure that the MPL training program will be a better, safer training solution that is acceptable to the industry. Safety is not a competitive advantage which is why we’re sharing the lessons we learn as we develop and deliver the MPL beta training program with the industry.
6. Does the shorter training footprint mean pilots have less time and less experience than traditionally trained pilots?
The MPL training program exercises efficiencies that the traditional training path can not. Because training is focused on airline discipline and operations every training lesson is relevant, minimizing the amount of negative training – the learning and unlearning inherent in the traditional training path. That and the efficiency of increased simulator training allow the cadet to focus on mastering the knowledge and skills necessary to be a competent, confident airline pilot. The MPL training program is similar to the training program the military uses for their pilots; it is focused on preparing the pilot for the job minimizing the small airplane work and maximizing the training time in the commercial aircraft.
7. Is Boeing supportive of the MPL scheme?
Boeing is very supportive of the MPL program, as is Airbus and other manufacturers, all of whom work together to ensure a safe flying environment. And all recognize that, with the number of pilots needed to fly the planes they are manufacturing, providing better trained pilots efficiently and effectively is good for the industry.
8. Why did Alteon choose Airline Academy Australia in Brisbane as the test location for the program?
Our team visited many of Australia’s leading flight schools in 2005 recognizing that a number of Asia Pacific airlines look to Australia for primary flight training today. Airline Academy Australia offered the opportunity to host the entire beta test in Brisbane and showed interest and commitment to working together on the MPL beta training program.
9. What qualities should a potential MPL candidate have? How different is it from the selection process for a trainee pilot who is trained in the traditional method?
Whether trained in the traditional manner or through the new MPL approach, the candidate will need to possess the qualities airlines look for which indicate a potential for success in the role. A candidate that would become a competent airline pilot in the traditional training path will become a competent airline pilot through MPL more quickly and more directly.
10. Why should airlines pick the Alteon MPL program over similar programs by other companies?
Alteon has the advantage to have worked with airlines and regulators in developing and delivering the world’s first MPL training program. The lessons learned in our beta test and through discussions with the industry form a solid basis for working with an airline and their regulator in the design of an MPL training solution.
11. How did Alteon select the cadets for this test in Brisbane?
The airlines selected a cadre of cadets using their selection methods. Alteon conducted a second screening of those cadets to select those that would participate in the beta test. Because all of the cadets were acceptable to the airlines, Alteon focused on assembling the most similar in their qualifications to better gauge the success of the training.
12. With the shortened training schedule, will MPL trainees be able to learn everything necessary to be a pilot and be ready to fly a commercial jet upon graduation?
Yes, a student who is trained from the beginning to operate as a crew member progressing through basic flight training in a simple single-engine training aircraft to the complex flight deck of a modern transport airplane will have demonstrated the proficiency and experience to make sound aeronautical decisions. Safety comes from experience; flight experience comes from successfully completing flight maneuvers and tasks in real time without assistance. The focus of the MPL program is on competency, the prove ability to fly the airplane, not total flight time.
13. A large number of recent airplane accidents are due to pilot error. Do you think that today’s pilots are too dependent on technology and automation?
It’s precisely the technology and automation coupled with training that has made air travel the safest mode of transportation. The focus of airline pilot training is managing the technology and being aware of potential threats and errors that could impact the success of a flight. That’s why the Alteon MPL program will employ glass cockpit aircraft at every stage of flight training and incorporate threat and error management from the very first flight lesson.

[wrongwayaround]

Thanks for that info. Very informative.

Still a few grey areas though.

Lets look at a few examples....

There's person A, who is a young fella flying around the north in a beat up C210... who has about 500 hours. Him and his family have spent tens of thousands. Now he sees this MPL, and thinks - yes I want to get into an airline! Can he go into this training course

There's person B, who is a someone flying a kingair or similar type of turbo prop... has about 4000 hours... who only wants to get into an airline. Can he go into the MPL training course? What would the difference be compared to getting a Boeing type rating?

Will it be cheaper for CPL or ATPL qualified guys to get an MPL? Will there be a requirement for them to get an MPL at all?

WWA :ok:

[neville_nobody]

ICAO states as one of the MPL objectives that the training will achieve the same or better results than traditional training methods. Alteon believes MPL training can achieve better results and should because of the focus on airline discipline and procedures.

So why isn't it being implemented in the largest aviation market in world? :rolleyes:

In Western countries where pilots seem to pay for everything these days from initial training to endorsements, how many people are going to be able to afford a MPL anyway? With a continual downward trend in pilots wages, how do they suggest a MPL in Australia will solve a pilot shortage. You will be expected to pay at least $200 000 for initial training to earn maybe $50 000 a year as a 2nd officer. Ok so maybe $90 000 if Virgin took direct entry MPL.

Where will all the turboprop operators who pay in the $30- $60 000 range get their pilots from? I suggest that due to high costs with low returns MPL's will do more damage to the aviation industry than good.

Maybe there's a reason why the Americans won't touch it with a proverbial barge pole.

[PPRuNe Towers]

errr Neville,

Have a look at our other forums and the US ones too.

Recruiters are lurking in American airport car parks and snatching anyone with 250 hours who can walk unaided to the aircraft and sign for the food stamps programme.

That's for modern, glass turbo-props.

Do try to keep up you lot.:} :}
Regards
Rob

[Capn Bloggs]

Towers,

Do try to keep up you lot.
It's tough living in the best part of the world where there is actually competition for seats ... :}

MPL sucks. The Garuda prang shows just what will increasingly happen. I'd rather have an ex-bush-basher who has the guts to shake/thump me out of my dream than a "Captain, I say again..." MPL any day. As well as someone who might, because of his real-world experience, be able to take over and save the day (A320 x 2 into ocean, Flash 737 into ocean). An wet-eared MPL who has been put thru Alteon in BNE on an MPL will not be able to do that.

The MPL is a con. Of course Boeing supports it! If there ain't enough pilots, nobody will buy their jets! I can turn virtually anybody into a REAL airline pilot in a couple of months, provided they can fly. I don't need a MPL course to do that.

[Erin Brockovich]

Alteon and other training providers don’t really care or believe that their ‘pilot’ pilot sausage factory (as in preliminary) graduates will be better prepared for the right hand seat of a jet. It is just a business, and they have found a potential market – the growing airline industry. Cash is king I’m afraid.

I wouldn’t want to be a passenger on a flight where the Captain keels over with a heart attack, and all that is left up the front is a 300hr MPL graduate. Scary thought. Throw in a diversion due fog on arrival for good measure and kiss your @rse goodbye!

I also think comparing the MPL program to military pilot training is a bit of a stretch. Your cheque book certainly won’t get you your ‘wings’, and you won’t see most of your class mates fail either.

Safety comes from experience; flight experience comes from successfully completing flight maneuvers and tasks in real time without assistance.Yes, safety does come from experience. However, flight experience comes from dealing with real in-flight problems by yourself. You can train a monkey to successfully complete ‘supervised unassisted’ flight manoeuvres in real time, but that doesn’t give it experience!

On second thoughts, they do only pay us peanuts. :(

[PPRuNe Towers]

Err, Bloggs,

The licence was created over the last ten years by those no GA, bush flying hating, don't bother with the hard yards, ummm South Africans actually. ;) ;) :D Not Boeing

Bugger


Meanwhile the softies in Europe have been using cadets for over 50 years.
That's right - more than 50 years. Check on the histories of BA's Hamble, Air France and Lufty. The cadets not only survived but reached retirement. Collectively just these cadets totally dwarf the numbers of every Oz jet rated jockey who's ever flown.

It's different, that's all, just different and it works on a scale you guys don't seem able to imagine.

America doesn't need the licence. They can use their system to hoover up anyone into their regionals at 230 hours. Those as long in the tooth as me will remember the height of the Viet Nam period when the American mags had ads for PPL's to join no hoper shonks like Pan Am, TWA, United and American. Loads of stuff on line now so easy enough to check out the 1967/68 period.

I think they called them cadets.

There's a lot of conditioning gone on in your local market. And a lot of self serving justification.

Rob

[Lodown]

IMHO, the MPL has been a foreseeable eventuality. Most of the posters here have mentioned experience. The whole intent of electronic cockpits and the implementation of procedures throughout the entire aviation industry is to reduce the reliance on experience. I would argue that hours in GA aircraft are far more pertinent for GA flying than hours in an airline aircraft are for airline flying.

[KRUSTY 34]

Guys, Guys, Guys.....!

I keep asking this question on other threads,

Can anyone tell me what is stopping any airline from putting an endorsed bare ME/IFR/CPL with say, 250 hours total time into the right seat of their aircraft today?

If the answer is something like, the MPL will make all the diference, I think a reality check may be in order.

Gotta love the spin though!

[KRUSTY 34]

err..

I just checked a previous thread and Mathers may have answered my above question.

I think?

[LookinDown]

Though obviously a strong sales pitch, thankyou Left Wing for the first thorough, yet readable description of MPL I've come across. Though i've a few reservations on how well some real time components will be covered/substituted by this form of training, there must be huge potential to be accessed through advances in ICT and sim development. Surely its just a logical extension of what has already occured over the last couple of decades in commercial aviation worldwide and is comparable to similar training developments in many vocations, from teaching traindrivers to surgeons.

Lodown's "I would argue that hours in GA aircraft are far more pertinent for GA flying than hours in an airline aircraft are for airline flying." (Just in case you are wondering we are not related!) sums up the justification for MPL in one sentence. I'd argue that the gap is now widening dramatically.

Krusty.. there are hours and then there are hours

Jus my thoughts

[Awol57]

I don't fly for a living anymore, but the thing I find amusing with the whole experience debate is that in one thread - Pilot shortage is here - people are speculating the minimums might be dropped, so potentially a 250hr MECIR could get a job which is an excellent thing in that thread. Come here and talk about an MCPL suddenly that 250hr MECIR pilot isn't quite good enough anymore and we would rather someone with 5000hrs.


Theres hours and theres hours? Well which is it??? Keep the minimums or is a 250 MECIR pilot enough enough for a RHS job? (Yes I know 250hrs is different to a MCPL but the intent is the same)

[Bri85]

https://erau.blackboard.com/@@DE946F4FC8A499F4278C8FC4938C5D51/courses/1/07_SP_SIM_200_01DB/content/_920546_1/MPL%20for%20Ab%20Initio%20Tng.pdf


This is an article I obtained in one of my Flight Test Simulation classes.

[LeadSled]

Folks,
Haven't any of you read the post from the DCPPT of the Towers, the MPL is little more than a new name, and an amendment to ICAO Annex 1, to cover what has been going on since the early '60's.
Read and read again, it's fact !!
Isn't 50 years of experience and many thousands of pilots enough to show it works.
The retirement of BOAC/BEA Hamble graduates is now down to somewhere beyond 20 Course.
In all that wonderful European weather ( I wonder why that's where most of the CAT 111 installations and approaches are found, in numbers per square mile ??) 2-300 hours to start in the RHS (No, Not Richard Harold) is the rule, rather than the exception.
Same same Japan, Singapore and Malaysia for about as long, China more recently.
Tootle pip!!
PS: There is nothing stopping an airline hiring anybody, but they will certainly be hiring whoever they regard as best qualified, that might just be an MPL holder.

[A37575]

What exactly is an MPL "BETA" course. I note that the current Alteon "Beta" course running in Brisbane is actually for Asian cadets only? Is that because of the pilot shortage in Australia where there are no pilots to spare to go on the course?

[yowie]

Bloggs,
Your attitude to the MPL totally reflects your attitude to anyone else that may happen to be in the priveliged position to be at the control's of an aircraft,unless it is you of course!:cool: The fact is that, even you have been facilitating this "development" of pilots throughout your career within your current employment,albiet under a different guise,cadet I believe! You seriously need to drag your archaic ways and beliefs into the real world,especially with your new ride:ugh:

[4Greens]

Fatigue will be a major problem. If I had an MPL in the right hand seat I wouldn't be taking any time off.

[cunninglinguist]

Bloggsy, ask the Dep. PP CP about the accident rate in the countries mentioned V Oz :eek:
If it was'nt for the Skygods, we'd still be on zero.........dammit :hmm:

Oh well, 1 accident ( nil fatalities ) in 40 odd years of jets aint too bad...........hows yours Rob :confused:

[PPRuNe Towers]

Last One? 18 years and 3 months - but no cadets on board.

They'd both done the hard yards and the performance in that flightdeck that night totally changed UK training. Checking really did become training for everyone - not just the cadets.

Rob

[haughtney1]

Jeez Rob, its hard to believe Kegworth was that long ago......

Wasn't the skipper an "old school chap" much in the same vain as you could find bashing around the Kimberly/bush in a C210?

[PPRuNe Towers]

Kegworth indeed mate.

I fear it appears we all seem to operate under the auspices of tombstone agencies. No root and branch change until we pilots kill people on an industrial scale.

Rob

[wrongwayaround]

Let me get this straight,

Alteon can train and issue a MPL with only simulator training. Which would mean graduates get this MPL with never stepping in an aircraft?

In the future, will an airlines entry requirements be

1) MPL


If this is true... I think it's a concern.

[Capn Bloggs]

Cunning,

I was keeping the "skygods" term for those aces in fog land. Geez they must be good. But then, their FOs only have 200hrs so it can't be all that difficult.

Rob,

No root and branch change until we pilots kill people on an industrial scale.

That's generally because current methods/policies have been tried and proven, and aren't not knee-jerk reactions to, eg a short-term pilot crisis.

As has been pointed out, the USA and Aust don't need this fast-track stuff. Give me a 2000hr Bras FO any day. WHEN the day comes when there are NO FOs AT ALL, then perhaps we'll start lowering our standards. I see no reason to do that just yet.

[PPRuNe Towers]

Question for you Bloggs,

Are they actually standards though? Or entirely the result of the local market? You'll find exactly the same comments as yours running through Canadian forums on PPRuNe and AvCanada. Brit/Euro tool using cultures transposed to giant ultra low population continents.

Would these threads be runnning on this forum if the market wasn't changing fairly radically in OZ and following the European/US experience?
For many reasons, at some point airline managers simply create a system that fills their seats with the mix of right seaters they think they want. Boeing Alteon is just a symptom but as it is being openly marketed it's the one you guys notice.

The actual significant movement happened more than 50 years ago and the new licence ramps up the process to use the invisible fleet of airline owned level D sims sitting already amortised and paid for around the world. Boeing are just looking for a minor piece of the action with copycat smaller airlines and privateers.

While most of you may not agree with me you are noticing changes and kicking off these threads - not me. Change, change you are all now noticing is getting your attention and the forum has consistently reflected that in recent years.

Many of you know that you share the sky with Lufthansa cadets, now senior captains and effos who were flying Bonanzas in Arizona before you did your first cross country and Cheyennes long before your first pastoral job. I think the only thing you can point to in their record is, err, a wet runway overrun accident.

The new licence isn't a kneejerk thing flung out as a shock measure. It's been built on the back of the flying records of thousands of cadets and includes those who have now been retired for more than twenty years. They worked a full airline career of 30 plus years and you didn't even notice.

Like I said earlier, it's different, that's all just different.

All said and done though our respective views are immaterial - you are watching the market in action. It's a juggernaut and other than a major war can you see any significant market modifier to change what you are all noticing?

Rob

[redsnail]

G'day Rob,

Just a tad curious. Some time ago you had a campaign going about the low houred guys self funding a eg 737 rating and paying for hours. From memory you were against it saying that you'd rather have an FO next to you that had done some time instructing and flogging around the skies in a turboprop.

Now you appear to be talking in favour of the MPL? I realise that the two are slightly different in that one person has been specifically trained for that airline's ops and one's just forked out a lot of cash. However, you could say that both pilots are still low houred. Is it the experience or the training that makes or breaks the deal?



I believe many airlines that historically had cadets tended to farm them out to their t/prop divisions before bringing them back to the jets. I can't see any problem with that concept. My personal opinion is that going straight onto a jet means the cadet does miss out on some experience (and fun). Is it relevant? Who knows? Surely any exposure to weather and operational difficulties and challenges is better than none? Again, that is my own opinion.

Simulators are a great tool. I recently did my London City training in a sim. However, while the training was useful and prepared me reasonably well it certainly didn't compare to doing the real approach.

What isn't mentioned often and many European wannabes don't realise this is that the CAA are quite strict about the number of low houred pilots versus experienced crews in any given company.

So, while the MPL will apparently fill a gap I feel that there'll still be a need to hire experienced crews. Our company is about to experiment with cadets. They'll be getting quite specific add on training that an "ordinary" low hour pilot wouldn't receive. (Note, these cadets aren't being paid to train, they have to find a rather large some of money to do this).

[Jet_A_Knight]

Many of you know that you share the sky with Lufthansa cadets, now senior captains and effos who were flying Bonanzas in Arizona before you did your first cross country and Cheyennes long before your first pastoral job.

Alteon aren't saying anything about the MPL pilots going ANYWHERE near a Cheyenne.

[YesTAM]

With the greatest of respect, and with my corporate strategy hat on, the MPL, as I understand it, is a method for increasing corporate control over a company's pilot workforce and thereby reducing terms and conditions, thus making it very desirable. It's about lowering the market value of pilots, thats all.

As I understand it, the MPL is specific to an aircraft type and configuration, and specific to a company. What that means is that if you leave the company, you effectively have no licence anymore, and thus sharply reduced bargaining power.

Of course someone else can hire you, but then they have to "convert" you to their standard of MPL.

In other words, you are locked into your employer and change is very difficult because your skills are not easily transferable....or at least thats how I understand it.

[cunninglinguist]

This is my take on the MPL, in Australia might I add.

Currently there is no shortage of guys/gals with a good GA background, plenty of multi command some on T/Props.

GoD et al have seen the MPL as a great way to get pilots for the right seat, pay them :mad: all and know that they will be going nowhere in a hurry ( to quote Jimmy ) as with little or no command time and a handful of FO hours on a jet, the O/S boys wont exactly be beating a path to their doors.
They will be moulded into a model ( insert airline name here ) pilot and continually reminded how lucky they are they did'nt sit out at maningrida for 2years, and will probably be quite happy to sit there for 6,7,8,10 years unlike the wave of experienced drivers currently gracing most right seats in QF,JQ,VB.

The poor bugger in the left seat is the one that will suffer as he operates single pilot IFR, probably at times he does'nt really want to ( after a DN return, back of clock, crap wx in ML, you know swiss cheese ).
Cant speak for the 73 clan, but can tell you that enough GA pilots struggle ( initially, 6-12 months ) to come to terms with the Bus, partly because of the rooting around that is required at the business end of the trip, thanks to Dick and QF ( airspace and speed restrictions ).

We don't need an MPL in Oz at the moment, but will probably get it, and for all the wrong reasons :hmm

As an aside, I would be interested to know if the likes of Lufthansa were putting MPL types with a captain that was 2 years ago bashing around in a metro ( that is NOT a dig at anyone here ) and 2-3 years before that was signing up at his/her local flying school for TIF.

Stats are great, you can make them do or say whatever you want ( ask Bracks ) :yuk:

[PPRuNe Towers]

You are correct Yestam and the silver tongued polyglot - and that's the reason why the Boeing Alteon stuff is a chest beating sideshow - a pointless execise unless you are joining a national flag carrier or legacy company for life. Within those carriers this is something already well established for a couple of pilot generations. Gann's 'tyranny of the numbers,' the seniority list ensures stability whatever the mutterings. The actuaries, analysts and insurers get positively moist over this and reward this proven, safe progress over the decades. And it is that group, not the authorities, that make these cadet schemes possible.

As you are finally realising - the law, past practice and morality is not restrictive in putting sub 500 hour people on the flight deck - it is actually the insurers who both allow it and constrain the mix, the proportion of them at any one time. The market, not the national authority, is in control. Even as a PPL it is the insurance industry that actually controls what you can own and fly in the States - not the FAA.

Here in the UK we are getting the first whispers that insurers are asking to look at rosters very seriously at at least one very significant company. Rosters and flight time schemes signed off by our CAA as acceptable would appear to be causing them some concern.

However, of more significant concern to us at the Towers are the similar but far more worrying changes for engineers in Europe. Your licence is locked into the company not your pocket. The tombstone agencies are passive in the face of economic pressures from operators and purely reactive to safety issues. Searching on the word 'Chirps,' the UK confidential reporting system, will lead you to the reports on commercial pressure faced by engineering staff. It makes dire reading.

As to Reddo, she's not daft. She already knows my idea of a top effo is one who's turbopropped two euro winters and a full year in the Canadian Maritimes. But I never got to make the choice in airline service, then again, neither did the poors sods stuck next to me.:uhoh:

Rob

[desmotronic]

It amazes me how pilots lament the spiralling T&C's on the one hand and yet support the practice of lowering professional standards for new entrants. It's obvious the latter has a direct causal relationship with the former.

[Erin Brockovich]

Yes it does. The practice of lowering experience minimums and potentially professional standards is just a symptom of the industry’s initial reaction to the problem. Just not the ideal one – Yet.

Awol57, I don’t think anyone on the pilot shortage thread was implying that a 250hr MPL in the RHS of a jet (possibly carrying your family & friends) was an ‘excellent thing’. 250hrs and thrown straight into a Baron IFR at night, is not an excellent thing.

There is no substitute for real experience. Whether it was gained by yourself or watching others deal with real situations on the line as part of a crew. I just don’t think the RHS of a jet is the place to learn from scratch.

I’m also pretty sure that most of us realise that training someone to fly a modern jet requires good relevant training as opposed to total experience. Say by the proposed MPL scheme? Here is the important point. That might work with all things going well – but what happens when it doesn’t. This has been brought up a few times now and no one from the pro MPL brigade has given a straight answer. The fact that ‘it has been done over here for years’ is not what I’m after. This is Australia – few radars, navaids, support etc. Generally if the sh$t hits the fan you are by yourself with not many options.

What sets us apart from other professionals is our day to day responsibility and duty of care. The fact that a few minor oversights can lead into a pretty serious situation very quickly. If anyone honestly thinks someone with a bare MPL can safely do their job just as effectively in all situations then we all don’t deserve the money! The shareholders win, and then travel by train.

The reason some of us are getting a little excited is that eventually the shortage will improve T&Cs. The minimums can only drop so far. The MPL is still a pipe dream and Alteon can’t even pump out the demand for VB crew at the moment.

[Jet_A_Knight]

Putting these kind of pilots into the system only erodes the safety margin that automation and the quality of modern transport aircraft have brought to us; a bit like driving faster in wet weather because the car has ABS.
Or ducking under during a bad wx circling approach because 'there's 300ft terrain clearance to play with' :ooh:

[KRUSTY 34]

Windows has been known to Crash!

[Pollution IV]

The MPL sets a new low in both professional aviation standards and in responsible legislation.
The justification for its implication is specious indeed… more demand for air travel means more pilots required – rather than making the career more attractive, the powers that be simply look to a short-cut, short-sighted cost effective solution. They may argue that the industry is expanding too rapidly to afford the traditional methods of growing an airline pilot, however, what efforts are being focused on other aviation sector necessities ie. ATC, LAMEs etc – none that I can see. Are they saying to the ATC and aviation maintenance industrial bodies that they must also reduce their training timetables and adopt a scheme similar to MPL? If not, then why not? I’m not saying they should be - quite the opposite. I’m just trying to provide some perspective on how ridiculous and unsubstantiated the requirement for MPL is. Does it make sense to reduce the training and expertise for the people at the sharp end of an industry that is quite unforgiving of error? Airspace/air route volumes and facilities at nearly all major airfields in the world are already near maximum capacity. Throwing even more acft into the mix with lesser trained, less experienced crews is simply a recipe for disaster. How any intelligent person could endorse this process is truly astounding. Aren’t the politicians and Department Heads who are pushing this act through parliament frequent fliers? I wonder who they would choose to do their next medical procedure, legal counsel or electrical wiring…the experienced professional who graduated from a reputable school/college and earned his stripes the old fashioned way, or someone who is ostensibly doing one third of the tried and proven training/apprenticeship for his profession – surely there’s no difference to worry about there? It angers me that a high profile profession like piloting can be steamrolled like this on the basis of pandering to corporate greed.

The snow job that the public are being fed is also quite impressive….

“Because training is focused on airline discipline and operations every training lesson is relevant, minimizing the amount of negative training – the learning and unlearning inherent in the traditional training path.”

The airline discipline they speak of is merely a veneer that facilitates the efficient interaction of crews who have probably never met before the flt. SOPs work well in normal ops and in simple emergency scenarios. Once a complex or compounding emergency eventuates or a time critical problem rears it ugly head (eg Sioux city DC10, Winnipeg and Azores fuel starvation/glide incidents, 4 eng flameout due volcanic ash, A300 ldg Baghdad after SAM hit, loss of air data/IRU info etc), the usefulness of airline SOPs reaches its limit. Prior experience then kicks in to save the day and that fallback safety net is exactly what they will eradicate through MPL. Almost anyone can be trained to fly a modern jet acft under benign circumstances, (they even sent a dog and a monkey into space before the astronauts), but it doesn’t mean that they are truly qualified to do the job.

Technology cannot replace the need for good piloting experience, nor can the simulator be used to completely replace actual real world flying. It is a great skills and specific mission trainer but it lacks the realistic difficulty, distractions and confusion that is evident in virtually all real life emergencies.

“The MPL training program is similar to the training program the military uses for their pilots;”

False. Military pilots are a highly screened group who are given 230 hrs of actual flying in 2 different acft types (RAAF uses CT4 piston and PC9 turboprop) at a cost of approx $2 mill AUD. Pass rate is traditionally between 60-70%. They are then sent to an operational conversion (eg C130 Hercules) where they first experience around 80 hrs simulator training over 4 mths. This training is interspersed with actual acft flying and the final assessment (IRT) is done in the sim and the acft to ensure the student is competent in handling real world flying under duress. Only then is he/she let loose in the RHS and only with experienced trng Capts for the first few mths. Their performance throughout their Coplt time is closely and continuously monitored in a squadron environment where problems can be quickly detected and rectified. All of this trng is delivered by highly type experienced Flying Instructors who have themselves completed a 4 mth exhaustive course on Flying Instruction and ~ 2 yrs of instructing at the Flying schools. The Instructors’ performance is also annually reviewed by a separate external agency (CFS) to ensure standards are maintained. To say that the MPL resembles this in any way is ludicrous.

The airline trng system (and in turn safety of operation) relies on the fact that new F/Os have either had lots of previous flying experience, or in the traditional cadet scheme, have spent many years watching how its done from the middle seat as an S/O. Some airlines which have a far more direct process for cadet trng to the RHS, have strict limits on their ops. In fact, my airline regs limit them to 1000’ cloudbase and 10kts x-wind and I can tell you that the average Line Capt is quite relieved about that. Our cadet scheme affords the guys 230hrs of actual flying training and around 6 mths of simulator trng on type. At the end of all this they are only base level competent to fly a circuit or conduct an IAP under normal conds. The airline sim trng system has severe limitations (time and money) and will always be inadequate for trng abinitio students.

If MPL does not represent a degradation in safety and standards, then why don’t they just modify the requirements for an ATPL, or simply drop the requirements for qualification as an F/O to CPL standard? Actually upon further consideration, I’m sure MPL is a great idea…as long as it’s only used to train cruise S/Os – this is all its good for.
MPL is a disaster for this industry and it’s paying passengers deserve better. :=

[bushy]

If they cannot treach someone to fly a PC9 for less than two million I have to wonder about the competence of the organisation.

[OzExpat]

So are the proponents of this system saying that insurance companies will take over as the effective regulator? Heaven help us all. I guess it's okay in countries that also have fairly safe and fairly efficient long distance bus and train networks, but what about countries in the developing world that have none of those fall-back positions?

They will all want to grab onto the MPL.

Rob, has any of that 50 years of experience included countries in the developing world?

[GaryGnu]

Wrongwayround,

How will MPL holders be able to get command status on Air Transport aircraft?

The legislative changes that allow the MPL also alter the ATPL experience requirements such that the 250 command hours (that in practice is really 100hrs PIC and 150 hours ICUS) is replaced by 500hrs ICUS for an MPL holder.

In effect the MPL holder (which includes a type rating) gets a job with a carrier that has ICUS provisions for when the F/O is the handling pilot. The MPL holder then carries out their job so that they gain 500 hours ICUS and 1500 hrs Aeronautical Experience (which is now gained on a 1 for 1 basis for co-pilot time) and they have an ATPL.

Whether they have command criteria depends on the airline but they certainly have the ATPL!

All this is achieved with a minimum of 10hrs total command time in aeroplanes(or less with CASA approval).

I understand the philosophy of the MPL. THe question I have is whether the reduced experience of actual flight hours and command time that an MPL holder has is mitigated by the altered training methods utilising Threat and Error Management (TEM) and good simulators.

[Centaurus]

In effect the MPL holder (which includes a type rating) gets a job with a carrier that has ICUS provisions for when the F/O is the handling pilot.

The danger here is that MPL pilots will quickly start to log ICUS merely because the captain lets them handle the flying from the RH seat. This then gives a false indication of real in command under supervision. There is no shame in being a first officer as far as logging of copilot hours is concerned - although some seem to think so. My view is that before MPL pilots are permitted to legally log ICUS they should have done a minimum of 2000 hours logging as copilot time in their log books. It is absurb to have an MPL pilot logging ICUS soon after he gets a job in the RH seat when in fact he is still learning on the job to be a fully competent copilot.

[PPRuNe Towers]

Ex Pat and GG,

The insurers are the effective controlling body. Their actuarial statisticians and analysts will give an enthusiastic thumbs up to a Lufthansa and an effective no, through pricing, to another flag carrier. They will even go to the extent of accepting cadets but only with the quid pro quo of insisting a set minimum proportion of ex pat left seaters (and even sim trainers for some companies) which covers the situation OXP mentioned.

In some cases this is masked from us by the intermediary effects of leasing. You get your new airframes but pilots from the builder arrive with the airframe and stay for many months. In other cases I know of ETOPs flights have only been initiated with senior pilots from another company with proven, long term experience in the jumpseat for an initial period.

Given the changes apparent to many of you I'm suprised by absence of comment on the bootstrap effect this will have over time regarding terms and conditions in GA. I can only assume the 'conditioning' and paucity of expectation is very deep rooted. One way or another operators are facing extra costs whether increased premiums and training or keeping the best. They will, however, try to dump those costs on you for as long as they can get away with it.

Rob

[Capn Bloggs]

It is absurb to have an MPL pilot logging ICUS soon after he gets a job in the RH seat when in fact he is still learning on the job to be a fully competent copilot.

And we have the equally crazy situation where FOs who have more than 5 years of High-Cap time cannot ever be issued with a command in that aircraft/company because they don't have the required command time. Even more ludicrous is that if they went down to their aeroclub and did the required command time in a two-pot bug smasher in the circuit, they could get their High-Cap command immediately.

Another reason why the MPL (in Oz anyway) is a joke.

[desmotronic]

Even more ludicrous is that if they went down to their aeroclub and did the required command time in a two-pot bug smasher in the circuit, they could get their High-Cap command immediately.


Haven't a few "ICUS experienced" FO's killed themselves doing exactly that?

[cunninglinguist]

Currently, in Oz, a bare bones commercial would cost north of 60K ish.
Assuming that the MPLs will need more than the Kmart endorsement on a jet ( 8-9 sim sessions for 35k ), you would think this MPL will have to be a fair way north of 100k maybe as much as 150k knowing Alteon.

Who the hell is going to be able to afford this or want to pay for this when a ( roughly ) 50-60k a year job is waiting at the end :confused:

I really don't see how this MPL is going to help anyone, ( inc the airlines ) apart from a few rich brats getting a bee-line to the right seat of a jet.

As mentioned previously, pilots will not hang around or go to an outfit in the first place, unless they start getting looked after.
The highest bidder will end up with the safest, most EFFICIENT airline, for all of the reasons allready mentioned.

[bushy]

Are there enough suitable simulators in Australia (or nearby) to train lots of mpl's from scratch?
How much will it cost, and who pays?

About a year ago, I spoke to a man who had "purchased" 300 hours of Boeing time with an asian airline. He actually had 350 hours of Boeing time in his logbook, and was looking for a job flying pistons in Australia. He said they were all looking for at least 500 hours heavy time for an airline job.

Just like GA.

[Capn Bloggs]

desmotronic,

Haven't a few "ICUS experienced" FO's killed themselves doing exactly that?

Could you provide examples please. I'm talking about FOs who have 5 years plus experience in the right hand seat of a Hi Cap aeroplane. Who of those have killed themselves?

[cunninglinguist]

yeh, good point direct :eek:

[OzExpat]

Thanks for that Rob.

They will even go to the extent of accepting cadets but only with the quid pro quo of insisting a set minimum proportion of ex pat left seaters (and even sim trainers for some companies) which covers the situation OXP mentioned.

I accept that but, even with those insurance provisions, why couldn't it potentially set up the situation where a long-haul ETOPS flight effectively becomes a single-pilot op?

[desmotronic]

Capn Bloggs,
You are right i think they didn't make five years.

[FlexibleResponse]

As you are finally realising - the law, past practice and morality is not restrictive in putting sub 500 hour people on the flight deck - it is actually the insurers who both allow it and constrain the mix, the proportion of them at any one time. The market, not the national authority, is in control. Even as a PPL it is the insurance industry that actually controls what you can own and fly in the States - not the FAA.

It's rather alarming and more than sobering to realise that insurers, statisticians and actuaries have more commonsense than Air Regulatory Authorities and Airline Flight Operations Departments.

Is it any wonder that accountants run airlines? We professional pilots seem to have given up any moral right to ensure safe flight operations, and we should be rightly and eternally damned for relinquishing this public safety role to mere bean counters.

We should hang our heads in shame.

[Centaurus]

Assuming that the MPLs will need more than the Kmart endorsement on a jet ( 8-9 sim sessions for 35k ),

Are you implying that Alteon and Boeing Seattle who provide type ratings on jets with a training syllabus of 8-9 simulator sessions are nothing more than Kmart endorsement providers? Thinks- must alert CASA to this..

[Angle of Attack]

It's rather alarming and more than sobering to realise that insurers, statisticians and actuaries have more commonsense than Air Regulatory Authorities and Airline Flight Operations Departments.


Yes I agree Flexible but welcome to the world of not only Aviation, but Hospitals, Universities, Police Departments, Fire Departments, Ambulance Departments etc in all of Australia. Welcome to the Liberals world. It's a 20's something accountants world and they are dictating the rules of all of us!

Take heart that regardless of the fake licence known as MPL, all of us here reading this will have a bright future! Because it means a shortage of pilots! But we should continue to fight and campaign against the fake license known as MPL.
:E

[desmotronic]

Flexible response is spot on, take the legal profession for example, just because you paid for expensive bit of paper from a private university doesnt allow you to practice. You still need to pass the bar exam which is administered by the profession itself.