MPL

[downwind]

Hello to all, just wanting to know peoples thoughts on these issues with the MPL license

how it came about?

what the processes were?

what it really achieves?

pro's and cons?

Thank You,

DW

[Cardinal]

My thoughts? Revulsion. :yuk:

What it really achieves? Puts a switch-operator into seat that used to be occupied by someone with experience, perspective, and well-honed skill.
Further it puts the industry on their right side of the supply-demand curve. It migh cost 'em 200,000 quid to put junior through school, but it ensures an endless supply of switch-operators. That allows wages to be kept down en masse, resulting in lower cost. A true pilot shortage, why, that might get expensive!

[OzExpat]

I was watching the National Geographic Channel a few hours ago, when they told the well-known story of Speedbird 009, the BA 747 that lost all 4 engines after passing through volcanic ash. This was the incident that changed the world, with regard to volcanic activity, as you would all recall. The Captain was fully focussed on flying the aeroplane and making lots of desperate but excellent command decisions.

While he was doing that, his EXPERIENCED co-pilot was busy working with the flight engineer in many increasingly more desperate attempts to relight the engines. The crew can certainly be forgiven for not being aware of the close proximity of danger from an un-notified volcanic eruption and they all did one hell of a great job. My question is... will a MPL-holder be capable of the same sort of competence and support to the captain?

I know that volcanic events are now part of SIM training sessions and there are some SOPs for it, as well as advance notice and diagnosis methods. But, when the dirty stuff hits the fan(s), in the next unforeseen event, will the entire crew be up to it? What is the actual price that airlines put on the safety of passengers?

What is the actual price they put on the safety of the crew? :eek:

I'm just asking, of course...

[Slasher]

The Makeshift Pilot Licence is a cheap way of putting badley
needed kids in the RHS to maintain crew numbers. Birdseed I hear made the first sugestion of a MPL.

If you think Id accept a kid as my crew with only 10hrs in
C150s VFR and a total of 300hrs in a bloodey simulater
you got rocks in your head.

In my opinion they should only fly with instructors and
checkers and spend an absalute minimum of 18 months
to 2 years of scarin the crap out of THEM before there let
loose on us line capts.

[Guttn]

IMHO this is very questionable. Also disgusting:yuk::=. A lot of learning is done by experience. You can only learn so much in a sim, allthough they have become very realistic. It`s the next step from the buy-your-own-rating scams. :yuk::ugh:

2 questions;

- They never fly solo, not even as students, so how sure of themselves can they be?
- One day there will be a upgrade to captaincy... how can this be done without ever having truly commanded an aircraft before?

Is the MPL the same as an F/E with a yoke/sidestick? An F/E with landing privileges? :eek::ouch::bored:

As with all things in aviation... it takes an accident:sad:

[Pugilistic Animus]

The best way to learn to fly is to do it

Contact---instrument--- aerobatic---formation[optional]

make sure you know how to fly multi's as there is a very important Vmc min contol speed demo that you need to understand COMPLETELY if ever your V1 [takeoff decision speed]=Vmc ... get some glider and seaplane/ski plane training ---do a CFI rating you should acquire about 250-300 hrs of quality experience rather than waste your money on the ripoff fastbuck programs out there today---and you'll actually know what you're doing.


Some may object and say airline flying and "barnstorming" are different sets of skills--- true, but before you deal with EICAS, MCPs/ AT/AP/FD/PFD/ND---It's nice to actually know how to fly!!!

[AirRabbit]

Excuse me for pointing out the obvious, but sometime you folks are likely going to have to “search” the web yourself. If you go to the ICAO website, in 3 minutes you can find the references listed below which will give you worlds more solid information than you’ll likely get from those who don’t take the time to research and who post their own opinions of something for which they have little (if any) personal knowledge or experience.

It’s quite easy to take “pot-shots” at new and inventive ways of doing things – after all, who would ever think of a “real” pilot using anything like a “flight director,” right? Well, MPL is somewhat in that league. It’s a new approach to pilot training – and the concept is in its infancy. I understand that it will begin “beta” testing – in Australia, I believe – early next year.

There is nothing in the MPL proposals that say anything about restricting training to simulation, although it DOES emphatically and dramatically increase the dependency on simulation in pilot training. That, by itself, is not necessarily a bad thing – given, of course, that the simulators that are ultimately used are quality simulators that actually DO perform and handle like the airplane they are supposed to simulate.

http://www.icao.int/tcb/trainair/meetings/gtc9/Panel%2004%20-%20Nicole%20Barrette-Sabourin.pdf

http://www.icao.int/icao/en/jr/2007/6203_en.pdf

http://www.icao.int/icao/en/trivia/peltrgFAQ.htm

[Pugilistic Animus]

AirRabbit When a have a few moments I will read the documents, however my current impression of MPL is that:

1.the "Al Haynes" types will be extinct thereafter---
2. BorrrrrrrrinG!
3. I would be thoroughly annoyed with myself if I couldn't track to an NDB in a C-180 [yes I know of the supposed 'phaseout' but it's the FAA] after having flown 6000 miles in an A340 or 777

However, I will not comment more about this until I read the 'facts' you are right a bit short-sighted on my part, but I've seen sooooo many arrogant clowns starting on glass cockpits---who probably can't even read a sectional/use a plotter or flight computer/ determine a RB and WCA or do a proper lazy eight---all they SEEM to know/speak about is Ray Ban and Breitling---I like Fossil watches myself BTW--not too overstated, but elegant.

I'm standing by for my thrashing:ouch:

[Intruder]

There is nothing in the MPL proposals that say anything about restricting training to simulation, although it DOES emphatically and dramatically increase the dependency on simulation in pilot training.
The REALITY of the MPL proposals is that total airplane time will be SIGNIFICANTLY less than that required for a US Commercial License or Instrument rating! This is the experience level we will see in future F/Os!

[Cardinal]

A simulator can startle you, but can never recreate the stark terror after doing something stupid in an aeroplane all alone. I have been convinced of my own imminent demise several times in little airplanes. Now my passengers benefit from my desire not to repeat those experiences, or anything remotely similar. The MPL grad will very likely miss that opportunity, thus lacking the perspective and confidence they would have gained.

[5150]

Can't really see the drama - after all, they put guys straight out of training into the RHS of 73's and Airbus with a CPL/IR. . . .

It's the quality of the line training that's gonna make or break this licence.

[Intruder]

...but the MPL will have significantly less experience than the CPL/IR!

Also, the airlines talking about these are not necessarily well regarded for their stellar line training...

[5150]

Significantly - please. . . . :rolleyes:

This is a licence brought about after considerable research into improving training for ab-initio pilots moving straight onto jet transport aircraft.

The industry will continue to put people straight from training with a CPL/IR onto these aircraft.

They've identified weaknesses in the current modular/integrated route, hence a rebadged and tweaked licence more relevant to the job whilst taking away the single crew operating privilages currently held (but rarely exercised) by pilot's sat in the right hand seat..

[Intruder]

This is a licence brought about after considerable research into improving training for ab-initio pilots moving straight onto jet transport aircraft.
I disagree with the premise. The "research" was more accurately into improving [reducing] the cost [to the airlines] and time for ab-initio training. The training may provide a stopgap measure for airlines who need FOs to fill the right seat, but it fails to provide a long-term solution to the pilot shortage in the affected countries. Those MPL pilots will be ineligible to serve as Captain, so the future searches for pilots who have the experience and air sense to become Captains will become even harder.

[Cardinal]

"Can't really see the drama - after all, they put guys straight out of training into the RHS of 73's and Airbus with a CPL/IR. . . ."

Which is also a bad idea. What pilot do we want? A switch operator trained from youth on? Or the classic "seasoned" aviator? Difficult to have both. 6 - 8 legs/day in a turboprop provides more raw experience in 6 months than a comparable 4 years flying long legs in a large jet, spending time on reserve, and flying a comfortable schedule. Since I was hired into my Airbus I have forgotten so much about flying that it's scary. How does one build airmanship in a scenario where most experienced pilots face continually ebbing skills and knowledge?

[5150]

Guys (Cardinal & Intruder) - while I totally agree with you on the 'experience' front, (I myself did 6 years mixing single crew and turbobprop before getting on a jet) over here in the UK we do put very low hours pilots straight into the right hand seat of an airbus or 737.

It's by no means a stop gap as it has been going on for many years now - like I said before, it is addressing the weakness's in current courses and tailoring it more for the jump from multi-engine piston to jet FO.

I personally don't agree with sticking someone on a swept wing jet with 250 hours, but it does go on, so I'd rather they be better trained for this than not. . . .

[Mephistopheles]

I have flown with plenty of guys in the right seat that have come straight from ab-inito to jets & also with plenty of guys who did lots of GA before coming onto jets. I rarely see any big difference, in fact if I would make a guess I would say that the ab-initio guys were better, but that's just my personal opinion. Whereas the guys who come GA have lots of experience that are also prone to having extremely bad habits & tend not to work well in a 2 crew enviroment. On the other hand the AB guys tend to be on the timid side & rarely attempt any decision making. So it's 6 of 1 & half a dozen of the other.

[Intruder]

This is NOT a question of "ab initio vs GA"!!! This is a question of the TOTAL airplane experience and "air sense" a pilot has after 50 hours in an airplane vs after 250 hours in an airplane!
One does NOT "improve" training by reducing the amount, intensity, or thoroughness of the training. One does NOT improve training or experience or air sense by replacing X hours of actual instrument time with X (or X-y) hours doing (or observing) canned procedures in a simulator.
The MPL will put pilots in the right seat of a 737 or A320 with MUCH less time and experience -- especially instrument time and experience -- than a CPL/IR pilot!

It's also interesting to me that the JAA and CAA, who currently have probably the most rigid testing program in the world for the ATP license, would agree to allow "untested" pilots in the cockpits of commercial airliners. It gives evidence that the entire testing program is a sham!

[411A]

It's also interesting to me that the JAA and CAA, who currently have probably the most rigid testing program in the world for the ATP license....

That's what the Brit pilots thought at SV until they received their FAA ATP license and type rating together, and had to sit in front of an FAA inspector during the oral examination on the aircraft, and explain the systems in minute detail....several of 'em flunked, and all said it was quite difficult.

Don't believe?
For the JAA and CAA pilots...try it yourself and find out.:E

[AirRabbit]

I'm standing by for my thrashing
Hi PA – don’t hold your breath while waiting … I’m not generally into such reactions - although I have been known to respond somewhat caustically at times…

I don’t generally disagree with your comment about not desiring less experienced pilots in the cockpit. Unfortunately, I am old enough to remember the times when pilots were recruited with the bare minimum flight time for CPL in the US. Admittedly, the time these chaps DID have was in an airplane, it is also true that a good share of that time was as “an instructor.” Please know that I’m not denigrating all instructors here; however, it is also true that in the middle 1960s a pilot going to work for US airlines (e.g., Eastern or Northeast) often was hired with 220 – 250 total hours, where up to 200 of those hours were logged while “instructing.” I’m sure there were some exceptions, but generally an instructor with 60 or 70 hours of total time is there primarily to log time - and the only “instructing” that is carried out is limited to keeping the poor student from killing himself while he learns to fly. In my book that doesn’t necessarily add a lot to a pilot’s ability – either decision making or aviating.

In the US, the wartime footing that the US maintained during the Viet Nam conflict, and the aviators required to service that need, also provided a flood of very highly experienced pilots when their military obligation was completed. No doubt, the world’s militaries will continue to supply some of the commercial pilots – but not very likely in the numbers that were seen in the late 1960s through the 1970s. Corporate operations may supply others, but, again, the numbers won’t provide a very large portion of the need. Also, the regional airlines may provide some additional resources – but that would be limited. The question here would be where would those operators recruit replacements? Overall, I think this means that the desired “experience” of new-hires in national airlines is not likely to be there as it has been. What options exist? Future pilots will be a necessity – until the traveling public is willing to climb on board an RPV – and those pilots will have to come from some place … with whatever experience they have. Certainly, some will be from the instructor ranks; but, even with former military, former corporate, and former regional, that still leaves a sizeable portion of the need that will be unaddressed. Hence … MPL.

The value of the MPL, as it is currently described, will be, like pudding, found in the proverbial “eating;” (from the old adage “the proof of the pudding is in the eating”). MPL advocates may wind up “eating” their words – but then again, they may not. I think almost everyone today recognizes that good simulation training is really good training – and is probably better training than what would have been received in the airplane – IF done correctly. I only use the words “probably” and “IF” here because not all simulator instructors know how to use simulation to its maximum extent. Some of these folks tend to do in the simulator exactly what they would have done in the airplane. Unfortunately, that limits the value of the simulator rather dramatically.

Suffice it to say that the only time things should be “simulated” when training, is when training is accomplished in the airplane. One should never have to resort to “simulating” anything when using a properly built, tested, and qualified airplane flight simulator - and when the capabilities of simulation are used, it should be to capitalize on the time factors involved. Simulators are a trememdous "time shifting" mechanism and can increase the concentration on any aspect of the flight training syllabus - when understood and used correctly.

Will MPL work? I cannot answer that definitively. However, should it not work, there will have to be a substitute generated if, indeed, pilots remain a necessity.

[skiesfull]

The 'proof of the pudding' regarding the MPL will be the quality of the course, not just the quantity. Ab Initios have been placed on swept-wing jets for over 40 years now (and some directly on to B777's and B747-400's) and if the MPL is a genuine attempt to tailor the licence to todays' requirements, then we will soon see if the quality of training is good enough. If it isn't, the accident/incident stats will reflect this very quickly.

[Denti]

It will largely depend how the different MPL programs work out. Some will only do around 60 hours in single engine planes, most of the rest in old FANT II training devices and the minimum time in a real flight simulator.

Others will do considerably more time in real aircraft including some time on multiengine aircraft including small jets.

Still, all MPL programs will do at most around 100 hours of real flying which is less than half what we get in current programs.

[AirRabbit]

It will largely depend how the different MPL programs work out. Some will only do around 60 hours in single engine planes, most of the rest in old FANT II training devices and the minimum time in a real flight simulator.

Others will do considerably more time in real aircraft including some time on multiengine aircraft including small jets.

Still, all MPL programs will do at most around 100 hours of real flying which is less than half what we get in current programs.
Well, I'm not sure what a "FANT II" device really is, unless you mean the JAA's Flight and Navigation Procedures Trainer, the FNPT II. But, regardless you should read the requirements being developed for Type I, II, III, and IV devices prescribed by the draft MPL document, published by ICAO, that will be required to be used in MPL applications. You might be surprised what those technical requirements are turning out to be.

And, as I've been saying, the "BETA testing" for the overall concept will begin in Australia starting next year. I, for one, am willing to wait on the results of the tests to determine if MPL has a realistic shot at providing the expected (and demanded) quality.

[Intruder]

"BETA testing" for the overall concept will begin in Australia starting next year.
I've read elsewhere that there are already some graduates from a program in Denmark(?). Also, Alteon has floated a proposal for a couple Chinese and Korean airlines, but I don't know if they have started yet.

[Guttn]

A whopping 100 hours of real flying:D WOW now I`m impressed! :} And by real flying of course you mean IFR to minimums, diversions, icing conditions, nightflying, non-preciscion approaches and so on. All at the same time of course:mad: PLEASE! :oh: What is happeing to what most of us know as airmanship, or even stick and rudder skills? Don`t get me wrong here. Automation is great. It relieves pilots of a lot of pressure and gives us a larger view of things. But what kind of redundancy does a crew have when half of it is lacking basic stick and rudder skills? Doing +300kts and suddenly having to handfly the plane, IMC at night in less than simulator conditions? An MPL course may be great to fill a short-term need, but unfortunately as with very many things in aviation, it takes an accident or loss of life for the powers that be to see that they fouled up once again. I really feel sorry for the training captains who will end their careers trying to train these pilots about basic flying:(. Hope you guys get good bonuses `cause you surely will deserve them.

[excrab]

Guttn

With all due respect to them, how much experience of "IFR to minimums, diversions, icing conditions, night flying, non-precision approaches and so on" do you think graduates of courses in Spain or Florida have at the moment when they get into the RHS of a regional tp or jet, or an airbus or a 737, with 170 hrs total plus the sim course and 6 circuits in the real aircraft.

Possibly a pilot with 150 hrs on an airbus simulator and 50 on ligt aircraft just might be better able to cope with flying the airbus at 300+ kts in IMC without the automatics than one with 170 hrs on light aircraft and 40 hrs in the sim. At the completion of a type rating course at the moment the amount of raw data flying (certainly on the last one I did which is the sixth multi crew type on my licence) was minimal, being mainly to prepare us for the RD ILS, with some steep turns and stall recovery, and some flight on standby instruments for myself, the F/O didn't even get the flight on standby instruments bit. In all probably less than one hour out of the 20 hrs of PF on the course.

A properly conducted MPL course on a level D sim might actually be a better introduction to multi-crew airline flying. I've trained and tested 170 hr pilots both in the simulator and on real multi-crew aircraft and they are very good, far better than I was at that level of experience - but I would expect a graduate of an MPL course to be just as good at handling a large aircraft at the end of the course. Stick and rudder skills in a cessna, piper or whatever are largely irrelevent, and I have seen plenty of ex instructors with hundreds of hours of light aircraft flying who can fly a large aircraft OK but are still lacking in situational awareness.

And in case you're wondering I am a product of the old UK self improver route and had many thousands of hours of instructing and single crew operations before I first flew a multi-crew aircraft, and I found the simulator course for that extremely hard work. I would like to be able to agree that my background is better, but in reality having now far more multi than single crew hours I don't think it is.

[Guttn]

Excrab, 2 things make a great differnce here...
1. the MPLs never fly solo
2. the MPLs never act solely as PIC
How the heck can one know that such a protected pilot some years on can expect to perform as PIC?

Personally I am 100% against this hype of no-timers gettings in the RHS of large aircraft (+5700kgs mtow). In a perfect world one would have to maybe do around 500-1000hrs as instructor, maybe another 1000hrs or so as linepilot for small operators on small twins or turboprops, and then could move on to regionals or medium-/longhaul. Unfortunately we don`t live in a perfect world:(. Money is the key to everything. Real world experience is losing its value it seems. At least with the beancounters.

You also have some valid points, but I will still argue that experience outweighs any simulator or procedure trainer. Just maybe not as much as it used to do. I will also argue that basic flying skills and deciscion making based on experience should not be taken lightly. Automation and switchboard operations is great for all that it does to help us, but if the ice is thin - walk carefully:ok:

[Intruder]

graduates of courses in Spain or Florida have at the moment when they get into the RHS of a regional tp or jet, or an airbus or a 737, with 170 hrs total plus the sim course and 6 circuits in the real aircraft.
Exactly which airlines are doing such hiring? I want to be sure I don't fly on them!

AFAIK, NO US airline -- including regionals -- hires such pilots!

[LeadSled]

Intruder,
The short answer is: Most European/Asian airlines, and they have been doing it since the mod-60's.

Indeed, with the pilot shortages of the mid-60's, major US carriers were hiring very low time pilot, who had not even had the advantage if the structured "cadet" training courses such as the BOAC/BEA (as they were then) college at Hamble, or the Lufthansa equivalent.

US Regionals are hiring low time pilots now.

When the demand is great enough, airlines will hire anybody who is warm and walking with a valid license, there is no such thing as an immutable minimum standard.

Tootle pip!!

[Intruder]

Indeed, US regionals are recruiting "low time" pilots -- those with 250 hours and a real CPL/IR! That's a LOT more than one of these proposed MPL licenses!

The FAA has not yet approved any type of MPL scheme, so I doubt any airlines using them will be able to fly into the US any time soon... That shouldn't be a problem in the short term for airlines who use them on local 737/A320 routes, but what happens when they try to put them in the longer-haul airplanes?

Since this MPL thing has just come up, how can it be that "Most European/Asian airlines, and they have been doing it since the mod-60's."?!? Again, there is a distinct difference between a CPL/IR pilot with "minimum time" and these new MPL proposals...

[excrab]

Intruder,

With "most European/asian airlines and have been since the 1960s" Leadsled referred to the 170hrs plus sim that I quoted, I think, not the MPL graduates which is obviously new. Certainly every UK low cost and regional airline and some of the charter operators have such pilots in a/c up to 737/A321 size and possibly bigger. Not all the f/os but some.

There is no real problem with that except that the captain possibly needs to be a little more watchful at times, and we are used to the concept on this side of the Atlantic so it's not such a big deal.

As far as the FAA approval I think that you are deluding yourself. If for example the UK CAA approved such a license and BA were to put an MPL holder into the right hand seat of a 747 or 777 (I know seniority would prevent it in reality) then there would be no reason that they shouldn't operate into US airspace in a UK registered aircraft. The FAA haven't approved the current UK or JAR integrated license courses either but it doesn't have to for someone to hold a non FAA license.

[Intruder]

FAR 61.55 would appear to prohibit it:

§ 61.55 Second-in-command qualifications.

(a) A person may serve as a second-in-command of an aircraft type certificated for more than one required pilot flight crewmember or in operations requiring a second-in-command pilot flight crewmember only if that person holds:
(1) At least a current private pilot certificate with the appropriate category and class rating; and
(2) An instrument rating or privilege that applies to the aircraft being flown if the flight is under IFR; and
(3) The appropriate pilot type rating for the aircraft unless the flight will be conducted as domestic flight operations within United States airspace.

So, without the equivalent of a Private license and Instrument Rating, an MPL holder would not be eligible.

While FAR 129.15 MAY provide a loophole regarding foreign air carriers, I do not know how it is applied with non-equivalent licenses:
§ 129.15 Flight crewmember certificates.

No person may act as a flight crewmember unless he holds a current certificate or license issued or validated by the country in which that aircraft is registered, showing his ability to perform his duties connected with operating that aircraft.

[Shiny side down]

Intruder, I think you have missed the point of the MPL.

It is a commercial licence, in the same way as a JAA CPL.
The main difference is that the training regime begins on the premise that the pilot is NEVER going to be involved in single pilot operations of any type. Therefore, the single pilot aspect is not incorporated, and ALL the training oriented on teaching the student with an aim towards multicrew operations.

After licence issue, the relevant type ratings are of course needed.

So according to the FAR req's that you quote, the minimum licence aspect is met by having a commercial licence. The FAR says At least Private Pilot.
A MPL holder would be type rated and the IR would be relevant to type.
The licencing is JAA, or EU or whatever it is going to become next.

The MPL would not be eligeable for Single pilot operations.

[Intruder]

Actually, I have not missed the point at all. I know the intention is "NEVER going to be involved in single pilot operations of any type." That premise, however, goes DIRECTLY to a point brought up at the beginning of this thread: The case when the Captain is incapacitated. At that point this under-experienced pilot WILL effectively become a 'single pilot opsration'. Not only that, but it will be his FIRST single-pilot operation, and it will be in an emergency situation for which he has absolutely no experience! Added to that is the total lack of autonomous decision-making pilot experience, which will tend to develop absolutely NO decision-making skills at all!

While the MPL may be a "commercial license" by some definition, but it will not have the credibility of a CPL/IR simply because it is not backed with the much more rigorous requirements of a "true" CPL/IR. AFAIK, all the rigorous written and practical tests required for a JAA CPL/IR will NOT be required for a MPL. Why is it that one F/O (with a CPL/IR) is seen as "needing" all this testing (and, by inference, the training & study behind them), while another F/O (with a MPL) does NOT need all this testing?

The Part 61 quote covers both Part 91 (non-commercial) and Part 121/129/135 (commercial) operations. Because commercial operations require at least a CPL/IR, a Private license is NOT adequate. Also, the requirement for a CPL/IR is based on an environment where the MPL does not exist anywhere in the world, so I would expect clarification of that some time in the near future, when ICAO and/or JAA officially adopt/endorse the concept.

The bottom line of the MPL is simply COST to emerging and start-up "low cost" air carriers. They want to reduce their costs as much as possible, and are pushing the MPL concept as a band-aid fix with NO proposal for fixing the experience problem down the line and with no rigorous study addressing the safety aspects of the lack of experience.

For example, how is an MPL pilot going to obtain the PIC and solo requirements to obtain a CPL/IR and ATPL to become a Captain? Is his airline going to pay for all that, or is his airline going to tell him to get that experience and those ratings on his own, using some undefined portion of his meager salary, in order to keep his job? If the answer is, "He'll just become a career F/O," then the credibility of a future corps of indigenous pilots has just been shot down.

As for the safety aspect, how are the dynamics of on-the-job "training" (after IOE) going to work, when you have a significant majority of Captains who are NOT training qualified, but who are by default expected to give this inexperienced pilot his line "training"? I admit that it will work in some cases with dedicated and understanding Captains, but there is far from any gurarantee that this will happen in even a significant minority of cases.

My bottom line is that I cannot see any justification for the MPL beyond the selfish corporate economic greed.

[5150]

I could understand your whole 'COST' theory intruder, if we were talking about sponsorship, but 99% of airlines now don't sponsor, so that destroys your argument there. How can it be a cost saving measure when the bill is footed by the pilot??

Also, your point that the difference between current ab-inito experience levels and proposed MPL experience levels to be vast, is laughable.
250 hours barely scratches the surface of any degree of experience, you make it out to be a country mile!!

[Cardinal]

I could understand your whole 'COST' theory intruder, if we were talking about sponsorship, but 99% of airlines now don't sponsor, so that destroys your argument there. How can it be a cost saving measure when the bill is footed by the pilot??

Supply and demand. Anything that eases or speeds the average punter's path to the cockpit results in more "fresh meat" for the industry, thus keeping a lid on pilot wages. There lies the real cost savings.

[Intruder]

250 hours barely scratches the surface of any degree of experience, you make it out to be a country mile!!
250 hours is more than 3 times as good as 70 hours, and more than twice as good as 100 hours. Add to that the PIC experience that includes decision-making rather than blindly following procedures, plus the actual instrument time where the clouds flying by are infinitely more disorienting than any simulator, and I will agree with that country mile!

Since, as you point out, 250 hours "barely scratches the surface" of experience, WHY would you accept anything significantly LESS?!?

Also, the Alteon proposal I read implied that it would be run for specific airlines, so the airlines WOULD likely be sponsoring it via a training bond. Why would a would-be pilot pay $25,000 or so for all that simulator time when it could ONLY get him a job with a specific airline, and that job was FAR from guaranteed? At least a CPL/IR has other possibilities attached to it...

[Denti]

Actually the MPL pilots still need to sit the whole ATPL exams same as a normal pilot. All they save is actual flying time, not time in the classroom. At least that is how its gonna be handled in germany.

LH is aquiring 4 CJ1 for its own MPL scheme at the moment and the first step of that training is 12 months of pure theoretical training until they pass their atpl exam, after that its 4 months flight training on beech bonanzas in goodyear/az and after that the final phase in germany on those shiny new CJ1 which will supposedly take another 6 months.

[Slasher]

I screamed blue murder in another related thread how I
would never accept a snot-nose MPL kid for safety reasons
in the RHS with only 5 or 6 hours command in a bloodey
Cherokee. I stand by that more than ever.

A sim can never simulate the REAL world. Yeh it can
simulate the aircraft well but never the add-ons such as
poor and congested ATC coms, panicky pax, incapacitation
of the capt on a dark and stormy night, reinventing flight
manouvers after severe structural damage etc etc etc. A
Second-in-Command needs SOME cmd experience to fall
back on should it ever befall him to save the day, not only
if the capt karcks it but if the capt is unwittingley pushing
a bad sitch.

Old TAA in Oz required 1500 hours practical command
experience to join it as a FO (I had 1750). Apart from the
obvious, it meant the capts decisions could be understood
AND challenged if in the opinion of the FO it may not be
the correct command decision to make, taking into acount
ALL pertenant factors. This obviously would require some
command experience on the part of the FO if he's to have
an effective input.

Mobs that employed low-time guys as SOs had the right
idea - shove the kid in the jumpseat for a couple of years
as the capts sexual adviser so he can gain the necessary
experience before being given the responsibility of
becoming a real part of the aircraft command structure. It
worked well and to my knowledge no one fussed over it.

Id be all for a MPL if the kids are relegated to the jumpseat
a couple of years so that as a FO hes an asset and not just
a well-informed pax sittin in row 0. Fairer on the kid too.

[Intruder]

LH is aquiring 4 CJ1 for its own MPL scheme at the moment and the first step of that training is 12 months of pure theoretical training until they pass their atpl exam, after that its 4 months flight training on beech bonanzas in goodyear/az and after that the final phase in germany on those shiny new CJ1
That is significantly different than the Alteon proposal for China and Korea that I saw several months ago -- no solo, no jet time, maybe a smattering of ME in a Diamond twin.

How much time in the Bonanza and CJ1 will they be getting? Any solo or cross country or instrument time?

It would be interesting seeing a pilot taking off for the first time in his life in a Bonanza -- heavy, complex -- without having had any training airplanes under his belt to erase most of the mystery. OTOH, the US Navy starts out their pilots with airplanes just as (or moreso) complex as that, and they have a good success rate after about 250 hours total time in SE and ME jets...

[Denti]

Can't say how the hours are splitted between the F33 and the CJ1, however in total its around 100 hours in real airplanes and another 220 in simulators and FNPTs.

As for the Bonanza as an initial training aircraft, well, LH uses it in that role for several years now so they have some experience to say the least. There was an intermezzo a couple years back when they used Archers for the first 65 hours but they got rid of them pretty fast (unfortunately i did my training during that period, oh, and Senecas too, what a bad training aircraft).

I'm still skeptical myself about the MPL, especially if it is not backed by a school with considerable knowledge in abinitio training in the first place. However abinitio training and then right onto a 737 or a320 is the norm for many airlines in europe, either by hiring 200 hour experts from the free schools or by having their own sponsored training facilities. And i cannot really see a trend towards considerably higher incident figures in europe at the moment, it will be interesting though to see how it works out with the sponsored training schemes switching to MPL.

[OzExpat]

I suppose there's a chance that this scheme will work, if airlines fly new-ish aircraft and maintain them to high standards...

[DaMajor]

To be fair, almost all airlines who 'train' their own pilots are putting them in the RHS with a whopping 200+ hours.

Now, while we can argue if they have enough experience, airlines feel that they will learn as they work and this has been the practice all this while.

I believe what the MPL is trying to address is the lack of understanding of the modern cockpit when new SO are thrown onto the seat. Take away some stick and rudder time and properly train them on cockpit management and on how to work in multi-crew environment.

The jury is still out of course, but my understanding is MPL holders actually fly to at least PPL level (including solo and navs) before being transfered to simulators.

To me, from that point on, since they are going to be working in a 'modern' cockpit, they are on OJT, and this experience will aid them more than spending months/years flying a smallish SE aeroplane, either alone or with students with even less experience...

My reservation about MPL comes when the holders are slated for command, but that is an issue more for the airlines (since MPL holders have the ATPL theory sorted...and surely the hours by that time), and besides, that won't happen for many years yet.

It's a bit unfair to ask if a MPL holder can handle emergencies as well as a CPL/IR pilot...assuming both are fairly new to the cockpit, my vote would actually go to the MPL holder seeing he/she has spend a lot more time during training in a multi-crew, 'modern' cockpit environment.

It's a no brainer; if you ask me if I want to be operated on, in a modern hospital, using the latest equipment, by a surgeon ASSISTED by
1) a newly qualified doctor- trained specifically in those sophisticated equipment, even though I am only his first real live patient, OR
2) an experienced GP, great with his stethoscope and years of dealing with fever, sore throat and minor ailment, who have only recently been introduced to said advance equipment....
I'd choose the first doctor every day of the week and twice on sunday.

Sure, there are pitfalls in any training scheme and I am not 100% onboard with MPL yet. But from what I've read, it's actually a good thing when compared to how many airlines (who train their own pilots) have been training their pilots.

Money comes into it of course, but if you seriously think that the same hours on a type 4 level D simulator saves the company money when compared to C172 or even a Kingair...you may want to do a search on how much simulators are going for these days...

Anyhoo, I understand many of us ('young' timers who have put in our fair share on pulley controls :ooh:) won't be happy about some young upstart getting in on the easy...but don't diss MPL by being blind to what the industry is churning out when left to the airlines at present...

My personal feeling is the aviation authorities are finally coming out with this 'formal' licence to stop airlines from puttin whoever they want on the seat...

[Intruder]

The jury is still out of course, but my understanding is MPL holders actually fly to at least PPL level (including solo and navs) before being transfered to simulators.

To me, from that point on, since they are going to be working in a 'modern' cockpit, they are on OJT, and this experience will aid them more than spending months/years flying a smallish SE aeroplane, either alone or with students with even less experience...

My reservation about MPL comes when the holders are slated for command, but that is an issue more for the airlines (since MPL holders have the ATPL theory sorted...and surely the hours by that time), and besides, that won't happen for many years yet.
First, I don't believe there is a consistent definition of MPL training worldwide yet. What has been described by European advocates here does not resemble the Alteon proposal for China that was released some time last year, and upon which I place my strong reservations/objections. That proposal did NOT address the theory courses and exams up to the ATP level AT ALL, and included a lot less airplane time than that described in European proposals.

Second, learning "system management" and raw procedures in a simulator does NOT equate in any way to the "air sense" acquired by actually flying an airplane under your control. It will not add much to decision-making capacity, because it will all be done in preparation for being #2 or #3 in the cockpit for the foreseeable future.

You seem to realize this problem to some extent, going by your statement in the last paragraph I quoted. Your reservations about the MPL progress toward command are significantly understated, though. While the typical ATPL candidate will have well over 1000 command hours in anything from a C150 or Aeronca Champ, to a Caravan or King Air or Citation, the MPL will have MAYBE 10 command hours -- depending on how much solo he is allowed in the pre-simulator phase.

Maybe some people are willing to bet their lives on "management" skills rather than experience and critical thinking ability, but I am not.

[excrab]

Intruder,

It may well be the norm in the US for most ATPL holders to have 1000hrs in command of smaller aircraft, but that certainly isn't the case in the UK.
Large numbers of pilots get into the RHS of a turboprop or jet with 100 hrs of solo time and 170 total - it isn't that which teaches them what they need to upgrade to the LHS, it is the subsequent several 1000 hrs they spend as F/O(hopefully "captain under training") observing an experienced captain making decisions, and making their own decisions as PF.

At the end of that, 10 hrs or 100 hrs of light aircraft flying in VMC is probably irrelevant.

[DaMajor]

First, I don't believe there is a consistent definition of MPL training worldwide yet. What has been described by European advocates here does not resemble the Alteon proposal for China that was released some time last year, and upon which I place my strong reservations/objections.

Fair enough mate. But I made my points from reading ICAO and CASA documents on MPL training. Perhaps we are dabating with differing information. Nevertheless, I assume ICAO's standard are usually the baseline and most authorities and airlines will raise the levels even higher instead of merely complying to the minimums.


Second, learning "system management" and raw procedures in a simulator does NOT equate in any way to the "air sense" acquired by actually flying an airplane under your control.


In the modern flight deck, it's nothing much more than system management mate. I was once on an airline sim ride interview and the other pilot interviewee was an air force pilot instructor with more than 10 thousand hours (not kidding, he had more than 7000 instructional hours) he could do the handling fine but he kept getting distracted by having to set all the systems (which he said later he had never even seen before the ride)...anyhoo, he busted minimas twice and that was the end of his ride.


While the typical ATPL candidate will have well over 1000 command hours in anything from a C150 or Aeronca Champ, to a Caravan or King Air or Citation,

I'm not sure this is the norm mate...in Australia, most APTL "candidates" are people fresh from finishing their CPL and while they are still on study mode (ie, all of 200+ hours). Some do wait till they have been instructing for a while but that is more due to finances than a lack of desire. Let's face it, everyone knows that in this day and age, someone without an ATP is almost completely unemployable... All the airlines who train their own pilots, as far as I know, get all their cadets up to ATPL before they even get onto jet training.

I sat my ATPL written exams many moons ago with a whole bunch of SIA cadets and they revealed after that they haven't even done their IREX yet.

If ever you need a cofidence boost, just hang with these cadets and know that in less then a year from then, they will be in a right seat with less than 350 total hours (including sim time).



At the end of that, 10 hrs or 100 hrs of light aircraft flying in VMC is probably irrelevant.


Well said mate...that hit the nail squarely on the head.:ok:

[Intruder]

With 170 hours total, a pilot in the US can't even get a CPL and Instrument rating -- that alone takes 100 hours PIC (including 50 hours X-country) and 250 hours total!

Even commuter airlines in the US have, until recently, required 1000+ hours total, and many of them required ATPs even for FOs! Those requirements have recently taken a nosedive, though, with a couple airlines reducing the requirement to 500 hours with some waivers to 350.

Traditionally, those pilots have earned their time as flight instructors or in any of a multitude of small commercial operations such as flying bank cheques overnight. Luckier ones may have earlier found a corporate jet or turboprop job, starting in the right seat and eventually advancing to Captain.

[DaMajor]

You're right mate...it's around 250 hours for CPL...but there's no hour requirement for ATPL theory (fATPL). :)


Even commuter airlines in the US have, until recently, required 1000+ hours total, and many of them required ATPs even for FOs!


For most airlines in the greater 'asia' region, tt needed for FO is around 500 but all require an ATPL (or fATPL...which can be obtained with less than 300 hours) .

So you see mate, MPL makes sense in many cases seeing how standard is dropping across the board anyway, and it's the authorities way to clamp down by making sure it doesn't slip any further?!?!

[Intruder]

So far I have to disagree. I believe the MPL bar is set WAY too low. The other problem is the upgrade issue that is merely delayed 3-5 years into the future. That will be a real mess, too.

Right now the US carriers cannot drop the standard below the CPL/IR. The MPL is WAY below that standard!

There is no "fATPL" in the US. You either have an ATP or not. The written test is good for 2 years after taking it. If you don't get the cert within that time, you retake the test.

It appears they ("in the greater 'asia' region") are trying to replace experience with bookwork. I still don't buy it. I like it even less knowing some of the cultural roadblocks to OJT (I lived in Japan a couple years, and have traveled quite a bit in Asia).

[DaMajor]

Ahh...I see where you're coming from now mate...

As far as I know, most 'fresh' FO in airlines around here take up to 10 years (certainly no less than 7) to even be considered for command.

I also have some concerns about stories from a few European airlines and certainly hope with the introduction of MPL, the transition to the left seat will be based more on actual ability and not just seniority.

Anyways, it's not set in stone yet...those ATO who are producing MPL holders (beta..) will have to tweak and change according to feedback from operators.

I don't really see it as doom and gloom but a fresh approach. Might work, might not work...

In any case, airlines need to fill those seats and there simply aren't enough 'experienced' pilots to go around. Authorities will have to either lower entry standard significantly or hand out all sorts of waivers, and to me, that is even more dangerous.

[excrab]

Just to clarify things for those not in Europe.

The minimum hours from ab initio to "frozen ATPL" under JAR/FCL is 195 hrs, but 40 hrs of that may be in a simulator. Thus it is possible to complete the course in the minimum time, complete a type rating course in a level D sim which only requires 6 landings in the real aircraft for the type rating to be issued, and commence line training in an aircraft full of passengers with 156 hrs of actual flight time.

When comparing that to the MPL I would still contend that the MPL might be preferable provided it was conducted on the same type as the initial type rating. Having carried out line training with pilots having 160 hrs or so I feel that if the majority of that had been on the sim for the aircraft we were flying, rather than on a PA28, my job as a line trainer might have been a lot easier.

[DaMajor]

Exactly right mate...:ok:

My understanding after talking with a few mates in Alteon (although they are not directly involved with MPL...) is that most of the students actually get their type rating during the course...which means they must be doing a fair amount of work 'on type'....

That makes a lot of sense to me...so will have to wait and see the end product before passing my judgement on the course...

Certainly, there's a chance this can be exploited...but hey...so can much of our present system...