PDA

View Full Version : MPL – We told you so…


international hog driver
11th Aug 2008, 11:46
As reported in an aviation weekly the MPL is causing trouble, in the same vein as the AERAD thread, if it ain’t broke don’t fix it!

As stated due to current economic conditions one of the first firms to use MPL candidates had put several of them off, as the candidates have no licence to operate any other aircraft other than their rating, they are screwed.

One of the carriers in Germany is having massive trouble getting its candidates through and is seriously considering dropping the whole thing (due to various factors it must be stressed).

What might have worked well in the days of protected industry of national majors, is simple an un-attainable dream in the real world of low-cost, open market and high fuel prices.

I hate to say we told you so, but seriously.

It was dodgy from day one to put your money into a licence that that is only good for one aircraft. The chickens have come home to roost.

Add to this the spat between EASA and the FAA requiring all FAA instructors in the US training EU pilots to have EU qualifications…… its all going to get ugly.

So please EASA, if its not broken don’t try and fix it, you will never do it cheaper than the westerns side of the puddle, and the weather is better anyway.

The reason for posting this here and not in wannabees is that most of us qualified people avoid it like the plague.

rogerg
11th Aug 2008, 14:12
OAA are starting MPL training soonish. I hear the scandinavion operators are very happy with the results.
Who is "we"

MIKECR
11th Aug 2008, 14:18
Someone's just posted it in wannabees too.

I assume its the article in FTN your refer to re Sterling.

Ayla
11th Aug 2008, 14:55
Hog Driver

Just Because An Airline Has Laid Off A Number Of Pilots, Some Conventionally Trained And Some Through Mpl, It Does Not Mean That The Mpl Is Flawed. All The Mpl Pilots Got Through Line Training In Good Time. Have The Conventionally Trained Pilots Been Re-employed On Different Types?

Your Argument Seems To Be That Any Change To Improve Flight Crew Training Is Wrong. Somewhat Ludite Me Thinks!

Flashdance9
11th Aug 2008, 16:00
No, the whole argument of MPL is about getting enough good quality candidates to sign up to the scheme and hand over ~£30K (courses being part sponsored)

Now that wanabes realise:
I do the course with £30k of my own money
I do some line flying, great.,
Then get fired when times get tough
Have a licence which useless else where;

Therefore wanabe basicaly stuffed as wont get job anywhere else;

Whose gona sign up to this!? Yes it might be a good deal for the airlines, but where they gona get the students if they see this as a highly risky route. It aint cheaper than normal CPL/IR route anyway. Therefore wannabe far better off doing it the old fashioned route.

MPL will only work under a fully sponsored scheme (ie airline pays for all training). Been saying this all along.

international hog driver
11th Aug 2008, 16:17
All The Mpl Pilots Got Through Line Training In Good Time.

and rightly so, given that they had extensive CPT and FFS, more so than the regular candidate.

Have The Conventionally Trained Pilots Been Re-employed On Different Types?

Yes they were easier to redeploy due to a new type entering the fleet.

However those that had been trained to "Plane X" proficiency, and are now in a no-mans land as the Plane X deliveries have been suspended and another type is coming.

There is no fudge factor as there are no rules EASA/JAA as to what credits will be given to candidates re-retraing on another type. One national regulator is saying "Start Again".

All this cost money.

There are no public figures available, however just running the numbers as to hours at discount sim rates, in comparison to conventionally trained pilots, there is zero if not negative financial benefit.

Who is "we"

I am just voicing the expressions of two mates of mine who happen to be in positions of responsibility in the training depts of differing european airlines.

Both poor buggers are scratching their heads, thinking how to get out of this mess delivered to them by boardroom/fleet planning decisions that have stuck them with lame ducks.

Both of these airlines are actively seconding crews to other european and middle east airlines. So I am sure you have heard the buzz out there.

:hmm:

Why change for change sake? It has not been thought through well at all, and once again the line schwein have to deal with someone else' feckup!

Where is the accountability?

Any Change To Improve Flight Crew Training Is Wrong

Is this an improvement when some youngster in the industry has forked out serious dollars for a licence that he cant fly anything other than Plane X? And finds oneself out on their backside?

At least with a conventional CPL/IR they could forage for anything.:ugh:

Ayla
11th Aug 2008, 16:20
The point I make is that the redundancies at Sterling have nothing to do with the students being MPL trained.

As for re-employment of those who lost their job, lets see what happens. The MPL pilots are just as employable on 737 as their counterparts. The conventionally trained pilots will still have to get a type rating on a new type.

The proof of the pudding will be in how good the MPL graduates prove to be. If it is a good product then more and more Airlines will be happy to employ them. Admittedly this will take time.

Pleasing to see that MPL is not being viewed as a cheap way of pilot training!

Here is the first part of the article stating that 61 employees have been laid off, 13 of which are MPL Pilots.


The world’s first MPL-rated airline pilots are to be laid off this November. Danish carrier Sterling Airlines (http://www.sterling.dk/about_sterling) are dismissing 61 employees as part of cutbacks forced on the carrier due to high fuel prices and the economic downturn, and the MPL-rated pilots will be amongst those to go.



The thirteen MPL pilots are due to finish with Sterling (http://www.sterling.dk/about_sterling) this November and given their training at Danish Center Air Pilot Academy (http://centerair.dk/) was focused specifically on Sterling Airlines (http://www.sterling.dk/about_sterling) standard operating procedures (SOPs), they may find it hard to find employment elsewhere.

Sterling (http://www.sterling.dk/about_sterling)'s chief pilot Claus Gammelgaard told FTN that the dismissal of the MPL pilots was in no way related to their piloting skills, but merely based on their last-in, first-out employment practise. He said that they were "extremely satisfied" with their level of piloting ability, but faced with the need for redundancies Sterling had no option but to dismiss them.

Guttn
11th Aug 2008, 21:09
So what other airlines accept applications from "pilots" with an MPL?

Of course the cheif pilot is going to say there is nothing wrong with his pilots. C`mon, what else can he really say? I really hope this MPL scam stops here and now, because it eventually will deteriorate the level of profession in aviation. There is a world of difference between a pilot and a system operator. Enough said.

Silvio Pettirossi
12th Aug 2008, 03:58
In my country, when the window on the airlines closes for us pilots, we have alternatives, we can look for a job on a business jet maybe (no need for a type rating if you are copilot by our rules) or maybe a job in the left seat of a King Air (only IFR/Multi/CPL needed). Even a job on a piston multi could pay your bills. BUT if you have a MPL you cannot even rent a 152 to fly around your grandma!

No thanks.....

Chippie Chappie
12th Aug 2008, 07:25
Sounds like an MPL is better than a bond for keeping crews at an airline - at the airlines convenience, of course. If you've had to pay for the privilage as well.....

Glad I have an old fashioned licence.

Chips

Duckbutt
12th Aug 2008, 10:33
ouns, and the start of a new sentence are usually where a capital letter feels most at home. Makes you look like an idiot writing like a 7 year old.

What's an oun? :rolleyes:

ICEHOUSES
12th Aug 2008, 11:17
Who cares about the CAPS..get a life! :ugh:

Re-Heat
12th Aug 2008, 11:25
I really hope this MPL scam stops here and now, because it eventually will deteriorate the level of profession in aviation. There is a world of difference between a pilot and a system operator. Enough said.
Perhaps, instead of conjecture, it would be more useful to ignore comments such as this unless one has actually flown with an MPL or understands the requirements of the MPL licencing.

This thread contains more than its fair share of utter tosh.:suspect:

Conan The Barber
12th Aug 2008, 11:48
Curious how some find they need to chip away at others to make themselves feel better.

rogerg
12th Aug 2008, 12:34
"hear hear"

Ayla
12th Aug 2008, 12:55
Spicejetter, apologies for the capital letters causing you upset. I wrote it all in capitals for emphesis, when it moved to the thread it changed form.

Anything to contribute on the content of this thread or are you just policing PPRUNE for errors in grammar and hunting down spelling mistakes?

Re-Heat
12th Aug 2008, 13:34
It's just the silver surfers who aren't up to quick internet-style scan-reading and insist on reading the web like a book. I wouldn't worry about them.

Groundloop
12th Aug 2008, 13:57
Just so everyone knows what they are talking about this is the syllabus and experience that the Sterling MPL'ers should have had:-

Pre-entry testCAPA & Sterling
Week 1 -6 PPL Theory/ Nat. Beg/ Core Flying Air Exercises 0 –5
Week 7 -9 Core Flying Air Exercises 6 –10 –First Solo
Week 10 -13 Core Flying Air Exercises 11 -18
Week 13 -16 Gen. Cert. –Core Flying Air Exercises 19 –24
Week 17 -58 ATPL Theory –Core Flying Air Exercises 25 –34Sterling entry test
Week 58 -64 Instrument Briefings –Core Flying Air Exercises 35 –53
Week 64 -67 AssumetricBriefings –Core Flying Air Exercises 54 –60
Week 68 -70 MCC/TEM Ground School –Basic MCC 1 –5
Week 71 -80 EM cont. –Basic MCC 6 –15
Week 81 -85 Introduction and Job Rotation in Sterling Airlines
Week 85 -86 B737 Ground School CBT/Performance/Mass and Balance
Week 86 -87 Emergency Training –Intermediate FFS 1 –5
Week 88 -89 Advanced FFS 1 –10 / MPL Skill Test
Week 90 Aircraft Training –12 Take offs and Landings
Week 91 -100 Route Training B737 NG –100 Block hours/40 legs

•A/C (1/2 eng) 76 hours
•FNPT II Multieng / MCC 110 hours
•B 737 Jet proc 20 hours
•B 737 FFS C/D 44 hours
•MPL total 250 hours
•B 737 A/C approx. 1hr (12 T/O & landings)
•Route trainingB737 100 hours

CarltonBrowne the FO
13th Aug 2008, 15:53
Ayla, all in capitals would not have been interpreted here as emphasis, but as shouting. If you think the mild response you got here was flaming, try an all capitals post...

point8six
13th Aug 2008, 18:44
What a pity for these young hopefuls, that their dreams have taken a sharp knock. However, it will serve them well in the future, when they realise how fickle their chosen career might be. What is required now is not "I told you so" but whether an enterprising school can come up with an economical conversion to a recognised CPL or frozen ATPL that will enable them to apply for jobs elsewhere. I have no doubt that the current initial licensing course to a frozen ATPL required modernisation and that the MPL may not be the finished article, but this profession never rests on its' laurels and fine tuning is always required. "Last in, first out" is a harsh welcome for anyone, but such is life.

LedZeppelin
13th Aug 2008, 22:19
:yuk:

Am I the only PPrune who finds one of the Google ads (to the left of these messages) REALLY distasteful?

"
Russian Cargo Plane Crash (http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/iclk?sa=l&ai=B4sVSmlujSNPIG5CUiQKc1dD9BJzf9YQBuP6FuQfAjbcBkNCmARABGAIg gZKMEDgAUM-li-H8_____wFgu76ug9AKsgEOd3d3LnBwcnVuZS5vcme6AQoxMjV4MTI1X2pzyA EB2gFIaHR0cDovL3d3dy5wcHJ1bmUub3JnL2ZvcnVtcy9ydW1vdXJzLW5ld3 MvMzM4NzQxLW1wbC13ZS10b2xkLXlvdS1zby5odG1sgAIBqQI4KdyVJShmPs gCwvaEB6gDAegDowPoA5YF9QMCAwAA9QMEAAAAiAQBkAQBmAQA&num=2&adurl=http://russiatoday.com/news/news/25277&client=ca-ib_employment_sede_1)
Nine Dead In Russian Plane Crash Watch Online!"


YUK!

rogerg
14th Aug 2008, 05:33
What a huge relief that I may never have to share my flightdeck with someone that can't even fly a cessna 152.

Its a pity that you dont read the flying requirements of a MPL licence. (post 19 shows an example). But dont let the facts get in the way of a good rant.

Any way I would rather sit next to someone who can sort the fms out than one who can do chandelles in a 152. (is that how you spell chandelles?)

Re-Heat
14th Aug 2008, 08:09
What a huge relief that I may never have to share my flightdeck with someone that can't even fly a cessna 152.
Have you ever seen a 30-year jet pilot's first few circuits upon returning to light aircraft after a 30-year hiatus?

Thought not - it typically takes some re-learning.

eight16kreug
14th Aug 2008, 14:59
So what does an MPL pilot relearn? How to sort the FM's? Seat of the pants experience (whether one has seen the horizon upside down or not) still counts for something in my flight deck.:)

rogerg
14th Aug 2008, 16:24
I dont see how you could tell whether he was an MPL or ATPL. The dont have it tattood on their forehead. An ATPL could have spent many hours time building in a 152. The MPL will have spent all his hours on positive training with lots of Jet upset training in a in a decent sim. Re cat 2/3 operations. No pilot undertakes these unless trained and approved to do so whether he has an MPL, ATPL, 20.000hrs or 200.

JW411
14th Aug 2008, 16:33
If I had an airline equipped with 737NGs and I needed pilots then I would hire these guys right away.

If I had an airline not equipped with 737NGs but something similar like A320s then I would hire these guys right away. They would be easier to train rather than someone who was an expert on Cessna 150s.

These guys were well trained by Sterling to the highest standards and I am sure that they would be a better asset on the flight deck of a B737/A320 than someone with minimum exerience.

My only worry would be whether they have learned in the meantime to be as militant as some of their Sterling colleagues have been in the past.

Pugilistic Animus
14th Aug 2008, 18:21
you all might as well begin training of other mammals to fly airplanes--or perhaps robots as this is what the industry there seems to want---because MPL can't replace sound experienced judgment----unless you don't want any independent thinking--believe you wont get it

Gary Lager
14th Aug 2008, 20:24
I have more than 6500 hrs TT, 3000 PIC medium jets (A320/737). I have an ATPL, naturally. I did a CAA 'approved' course (200hrs) and some private PPL flying before I got my first job as a jet FO.

What exactly is it that you think I learnt in the 51 hours of solo flying (circuit-bashing, hour-building navexes, PFLs) which I had before I earned my command, that the MPL pilots have missed out on? Or maybe you think that hours of flying manually round the hold was good preparation for commanding a modern jet, 'cause I did that too.

I think the best (i.e. relevant, interesting, useful) bit of my route to a CPL was the 50 hours of MCC training, post-IR, with a mate in a jet sim. Only then did it all make sense.

I am not worried about the ability of MPL holders to fly an aircraft, more that the MPL scheme seems rather airline-specific, and therefore keeps pilots almost in hock to their 'parent' airline - not a good thing for industry terms and conditions.

Ayla
15th Aug 2008, 05:10
Pugilistic,
The aim of the MPL is to make a pilots training experiences more relevant to the job he is going to do. A pilot who graduates with an MPL is no less experienced than one with a CPL/IR he has just experienced more relevant training!

international hog driver
15th Aug 2008, 09:40
I dont think many of you guys sen the forest for the trees!

It is not whether an MPL holder is better than a CPL/IR holder or the route its taken to get there. Most of the sub 500hr guys and girls I have flown with are still in over their heads with having obtained the window seat. Its not till the gloss wears off that they become seasoned operators.

The point is simply a CPL/IR guy has other options and will easily transition to completing another rating, given the local requirements.

On the other hand, a MPL is simply a permit to operate a particular type of aircraft. Should a MPL holder even be offered a job to fly tourists or the like. They can not.

The "licence" for want of a better term is and industry restriction that has once again lowered the prospects for a candidate and further denied the narrow view in some parts of europe that a "light aircraft" is anything less than an ATR and hence is irrelevant.

Its a shame really to think this is happening and many forms of "Light aviation", pay better and have much better lifestyles that those of the "airline" world.

Which is something an MPL holder, will never realise or experience. Welcome to regulated slavery.

Re-Heat
15th Aug 2008, 11:38
All good points, but that is the aim of the MPL is to mitigate what is your main concern - the lack of awareness in a jet flightdeck, so that it is not over their heads.

Be that as it may, are the comments above relating to the lack of ability to fly other aircraft really true? I feel there is still a great deal of conjecture and lack of hard facts concerning the reality.

Intruder
15th Aug 2008, 17:03
All good points, but that is the aim of the MPL is to mitigate what is your main concern - the lack of awareness in a jet flightdeck, so that it is not over their heads.
I disagree.

A bunch of simulator time makes the person aware of procedures in canned scenarios. It makes him somewhat aware of CRM. However, it does not make him aware of the realities of flying in real-world airspace with its real-world dynamics.

A MPL pilot does not even qualify for the basic real-world experience level of a US Commercial Pilot License or Instrument Rating. A bunch of extra simulator time -- much of which is merely OBSERVING others do stuff -- does not make up for this. "Air sense" is gotten in the AIR, not in a simulator. I do not believe these new MPL pilots will have the required air sense for a LONG TIME to be effective pilots.

Re-Heat
15th Aug 2008, 19:37
If it were simply procedural, a fixed-base sim would be all that is used for anyone's semi-annual checkride, and zero flight time conversions would not exist.

Besides, this is all conjecture - does any commentator on here have any experience of this whatsoever - are the abilities of the Sterling guys any better or not, whatever our preconceptions here?

Guttn
15th Aug 2008, 20:03
For sake of argument... IF these folks were to gain enough seniority to be eligible within Sterling to become Captains... Could they?

Personal opinion.... MPL is almost the same as letting a 16 year old take the wheel of a semi-trailer down the autobahn:ugh:. It`s not about skills and checklists and memory items you can study for in your hotel room or practise in a sim, it`s about airmanship, situational awareness and aircraft handling. It`s also about not letting the industry let you buy your way past a lot of others who also want to be professional, e.g. being paid from day 1 of employment to be put through a typerating.

Intruder
15th Aug 2008, 20:24
For sake of argument... IF these folks were to gain enough seniority to be eligible within Sterling to become Captains... Could they?
No. They do not have an ATPL, or even a CPL or Instrument Rating. They do not have the required amount of dual time with a qualified CFI/CFII, and they do not have enough solo time to qualify for any of them (at least by US FAA rules).

Re-Heat
15th Aug 2008, 22:20
For sake of argument... IF these folks were to gain enough seniority to be eligible within Sterling to become Captains... Could they?
Yes they can. Intruder is following a superfluous argument - the FAA do not issue MPLs so there are no rules for them to follow there - however, they do have to recognise an MPL held issued by a non-US authority per ICAO rules (see second link).

When eligible for an ATPL, exactly as a CPL with ATPL exams, an MPL can gain an ATPL and act as PIC. Read: http://www.nats-uk.ead-it.com/aip/current/aic/white/EG_Circ_2007_W_104_en.pdf

ICAO | FLS | FAQs (http://www.icao.int/icao/en/trivia/peltrgFAQ.htm#31)

For goodness sake, if you feel strongly against the MPL, post reasonable opinions, but do not wade in and state utter rubbish!

The only reason I feel an MPL should be wary is the lack of fidelity in replicating an air traffic environment - not in replicating flight itself or handling. A FFS is not a procedures trainer!

Intruder
16th Aug 2008, 00:31
An MPL pilot CANNOT be PIC of an airliner, except when the Captain is disabled and the MPL pilot takes over in a dire emergency. That was the thrust of Guttn's question and my response.

Indeed, an MPL pilot can try to get an ATPL. However, NOTHING in NATS 104-2007 (cited by you above) exempts the MPL holder from ANY of the CPL or ATPL requirements. Therefore, ALL the solo FLIGHT time and dual FLIGHT instruction requirements must be met. It is likely that the average MPL pilot will not attain those in the right seat of a 737 or A320. Even the ICAO FAQ you cite clearly states that:
MPL holders cannot exercise the privileges of a CPL and instrument ratings on single pilot aeroplane without meeting specific actual flight time and flight instruction requirements.
Also, that ICAO FAQ does not hint of ANY exemption from ANY of the flight time and flight instruction requirements of a CPL or ATPL.

My response was not "rubbish" in any way, shape, or form.

Re-Heat
16th Aug 2008, 08:07
It is hardly relevant, as you said in your own words "at least by US FAA rules", while the FAA do not yet issue MPLs - if we consider the MPL in Europe though, the rules are set out as below.

http://www.jaa.nl/publications/jars/607069.pdf

p214 is the page. You are correct that there does not appear to be any framework to move to an ATPL as yet, but that does not mean that there will not be one - none of those with MPLs are likely to meet the flight time requirements as yet.

However, your first response was based upon the FAA - hardly useful guidance for a European MPL holder.

Private jet
16th Aug 2008, 11:16
There is nothing wrong with the MPL qualification per se, it is still very new and will require some modification and addition as experience dictates.
The main problem is the fact that it is airline specific. I believe this is an artificial constraint, in place to protect the vested interests of "traditional" FTO's and also the employing airlines. Successful expansion of the MPL would cut out the "middle men" would it not? Can't have CPL/IR instructors and examiners out of a job now can we? Of course the airlines love it too, a captive "slave" market.
As for all the "they have no real experience" crowd, well, everybody starts with zero real experience on their first line flight. My 400 odd hrs on light aircraft taught me a limited amount that i could take onto my first jet, I was "on the back of the drag curve" competence wise for my first few hundred hours i can tell you. Its similar for everyone regardless of background, thats what the experienced captain sitting next to the new starter should be there for, as a mentor and "real world" instructor to get them up to speed.

Centaurus
16th Aug 2008, 14:34
I wrote it all in capitals for emphesis,

By your spelling you certainly wouldn't qualify for Eton...

cockney steve
16th Aug 2008, 16:02
I suppose reading that ,was a Harrowing experience for you :}

Intruder
16th Aug 2008, 17:11
However, your first response was based upon the FAA - hardly useful guidance for a European MPL holder.

Actually, it is quite useful as a guideline; all that MPL holder has to do is look at the JAR or his local country regulations to verify the requirements are similar.

For a CPL, JAR-FCL 1 requires 100 hours PIC, including 20 hours PIC in cross-country flying. It also requires a minimum of 5 hours instrument instruction in an airplane. For an MPL holder the 100 hours is reduced to 70 (FCL 1.155(e)), similar to the requirements for an integrated CPL course. The CPL course and skill test must also be completed, and the MPL course does NOT qualify.

According to FCL 1.190, an MPL holder does NOT qualify to attain an IR. So, he would have to get a PPL or CPL plus 50 PIC hours of cross-country time.

Similarly, the ATPL requires a minimum of 500 hours of PIC/PICUS time (though I don't know if PICUS time can be routinely had as a co-pilot with an MPL).

So, the bottom-line answer is still the same: An MPL holder CANNOT become an airline Captain without first attaining his ATPL rating, and very little of his flight time as an MPL co-pilot will "count" for the minimum requirements. Granted, his co-pilot experience will make it easier for him to pass all the required tests, but he still has to get the required training and PIC experience in airplanes first. While FCL 1.290 allows an MPL holder to apply for an ATPL, it does not exempt him from any of the basic requirements.

Ayla
16th Aug 2008, 17:58
Intruder
An interesting post, but please lets get back to the serious issue.... poor spelling and grammar!

corsair
16th Aug 2008, 18:30
400 odd hrs on light aircraft taught me a limited amount that i could take onto my first jet,

Perhaps you underestimate the usefullness of that time, private jet. Imagine if you will how you would have coped with only 100 hours. By 400 hours you would no doubt be sufficiently compfortable in actual flying to have enough spare capacity to take in the info you need to cope with flying a jet. The more I fly the better I get and I was a damm sight better pilot at 400 hours than I was at 100.

I'm not completely against the MPL, it has it's merits. The 'good intention' is to provide a candidate who has most of the training and part of the skills needed to be a good airline pilot. But it's not for the benefit of the new pilot. It's for the airline. It saves the airline time and money.

What bothers me about it is the reduction in flying hours. Particularly solo hours. I think it reduces the role of pilot to that of a machine operator. This is in line with many people's perception of airline flying as simply being procedural. 'All you do is punch a few buttons'.

Quite possibly the CPL training needs to be changed to meet the needs of the industry. Maybe aspects of MPL airline type training should be incorporated into the CPL syllabus. I fear that the current MPL system if it caught on would produce a generation of airline pilots who haven't got the basic airmanship skills to cope with real emergencies not previously practised on a sim.

You simply cannot escape the fact that an airliner, despite what the average SLF is made to think, is in fact a big complicated aeroplane that operates in a hostile environment and is at the mercy of the whims of nature at times. You still needs pilots who can fly the thing. Otherwise all you would need is for the senior cabin crew member to type in the destination and push the big green button marked GO!

rogerg
16th Aug 2008, 20:06
Post 46 turned up in the wrong place, sorry. Now deleted. I still think that the MPL could be a good thing. It does require a bit of time to settle down, and more experinced pilots to gave the MPL their support.

Intruder
16th Aug 2008, 23:38
Intruder
An interesting post, but please lets get back to the serious issue.... poor spelling and grammar!
Write! Eyell try beter next time. :)

Private jet
17th Aug 2008, 00:03
Corsair,

I am not familiar with the MPL programme in great detail, but i agree, an ability to hand fly the aircraft and generally cope with stuff in between, whatever it may be, is a must. However operating an airliner or bizjet is a bit different to flying a light aircraft! In fact, as many readers of this thread will know, in many operational aspects its very, very different.
The point of emphasis in my post was the vested interests of the established flight training community and the airlines, albeit for completely different reasons!!

Wee Willy McGorbals
17th Aug 2008, 00:42
"I still think that the MPL could be a good thing"

Tell that to the 150 holiday makers on their way to Tenerife when their Captain is incapacited and the FO has to complete his/her first ever solo:=

Intruder
17th Aug 2008, 02:11
...but i agree, an ability to hand fly the aircraft and generally cope with stuff in between, whatever it may be, is a must. However operating an airliner or bizjet is a bit different to flying a light aircraft! In fact, as many readers of this thread will know, in many operational aspects its very, very different.
The actual "stick & rudder" part is not all that different. However, a pilot who has not experienced a wide range of airplane control forces and responses may not be readily adaptable to a "new" airplane.

I've flown a range of airplanes from 0 to 4 engines, 800 to 800,000 pounds, fixed- and fling-wing, military and civilian, to fixed and mobile airports. I believe I can say with some authority that a 737 or A320 simulator is NOT anywhere near to the "best" way to learn to fly airplanes. While the MPL may be an expedient way for 3rd-world airlines to find co-pilots to fill their seats, I do not believe it is a "good" way to train proficient pilots.

prospector
17th Aug 2008, 04:25
:E"Otherwise all you would need is for the senior cabin crew member to type in the destination and push the big green button marked GO!"

Would it have to be the senior cabin crew member? surely anyone could push a big green button, even one of the pax, but who would push the big red button for stop???:ok:

pilotbear
17th Aug 2008, 09:42
They could push a big green button in OPs and it could fly itself:E
However, I am of the mind that this is not a good way to train. The reason is the prospective 'pilot' has never had to take responsibility in the air, never had to make a genuine life decision without the comfort of knowing the video game can just switch off. What does that do for you subconsciously. Primacy will have taught them that it is not real, that if you crash you don't get hurt, they have never had that first solo terror and exhilaration or the first solo nav with all that teaches you about being in charge.
That is why video games that teach where you can kill people, steal cars, crash etc with no consequences are bad, the subconscious mind believes it regardless of your morales or beliefs.
And what if on their first flight they have a Captain incapacity and autopilot and maybe FD failure in IMC? do you really think they will survive without that initial IR training on top of the sim?
And never had to have the gym workout of controlling a light twin single engine to show that high asymmetric thrust will kill you if you do it wrong>>
Maybe I'm wrong but I cannot see it as a good thing in its present form.

Groundloop
18th Aug 2008, 08:27
Tell that to the 150 holiday makers on their way to Tenerife when their Captain is incapacited and the FO has to complete his/her first ever solo

they have never had that first solo terror and exhilaration or the first solo nav with all that teaches you about being in charge.

Once again people are posting rubbish without knowing the MPL syllabus. Of course they will have soloed and done solo X-countrys.

Week 7 -9 Core Flying Air Exercises 6 –10 –First Solo

Re-Heat
18th Aug 2008, 10:03
I believe I can say with some authority that a 737 or A320 simulator is NOT anywhere near to the "best" way to learn to fly airplanes. While the MPL may be an expedient way for 3rd-world airlines to find co-pilots to fill their seats, I do not believe it is a "good" way to train proficient pilots.
You may have a point. I am inclined to disagree, but I believe that aspect, rather than the contrary point of the value (or not) of seat of the pants solo light aircraft flying, is the real issue at hand.

As I said before, ZFT exists, and works for experienced crew TRs. An effective programme may mitigate those concerns, but unless one works with MPLs, it is conjecture to suggest their quality of experience is better or worse.

Artificial Horizon
18th Aug 2008, 10:13
I think maybe we all just have a slight to high opinion of ourselves!! Doing all of the training in a full flight simulator will, in my opinion, produce a more than capable pilot. Yes I had fun and learnt loads during all of my initial training but I don't honestly think that 1200 hours in singles has made much difference to how I fly an airliner. I have seen 180 hour pilots on their initial type ratings fly rings around highly experienced ex-RAF types who have all of the 'talk'. If the selection is completed properly there is no reason why the MPL shouldn't churn out highly capable future airline captains.

CarltonBrowne the FO
18th Aug 2008, 11:13
The best thing that solo flying taught me was how to get myself out of trouble. As a jet FO this was of limited use, but when I made the
jump to the left seat it was much more useful, especially when bits of the aeroplane started breaking.
I could not find a reference for how MPL holders could achieve an ATPL- that will be the real test of the system.

Intruder
18th Aug 2008, 16:11
Once again people are posting rubbish without knowing the MPL syllabus. Of course they will have soloed and done solo X-countrys.
50 hours of solo/PIC X-country, as is required for an IR? I doubt it.

Intruder
18th Aug 2008, 16:21
I don't honestly think that 1200 hours in singles has made much difference to how I fly an airliner. I have seen 180 hour pilots on their initial type ratings fly rings around highly experienced ex-RAF types who have all of the 'talk'.
I can readily think of several situations where real-world flying gives training/experience that simulators CANNOT replicate: Weather assessment, crosswind landings, hand-flying in turbulence, fuel monitoring/assessment when holding near minimum fuel, immediate decision-making "in the short hairs"... Even where simulators can give a "taste" of these, their fidelity and the willingness of the schools to take the time for proper realistic training will likely be lacking.

Initial type rating rides are just like any other checkride -- they assess pilots in canned scenarios relative to a set of standards. Simulator training does in fact prepare the pilot sufficiently to pass -- and even excel in -- the checkride. Some of the issues you may have seen relative to the RAF types could well be a transient problem with shedding ingrained habits that didn't translate well to the airliner environment (been there; done that).

Huck
18th Aug 2008, 17:03
Maybe I'm wrong but I cannot see it as a good thing in its present form.

No you are not.

A Cessna can accurately replicate the following scenario (and a simulator cannot):

These new aircraft fly themselves, really.... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJmb3NBIHX4)


(By replicate, I mean that it can provide the same threat of bodily injury or death.)

excrab
18th Aug 2008, 21:55
I am biased in favour of the MPL as anyone who has followed other threads on the same subject will be aware, but whilst I have to agree with

"I can readily think of several situations where real-world flying gives training/experience that simulators CANNOT replicate: Weather assessment, crosswind landings, hand-flying in turbulence, fuel monitoring/assessment when holding near minimum fuel, immediate decision-making "in the short hairs"..."

I find it hard to believe that that sort of experience can be gained in the solo flying which forms part of a traditional integrated or modular CPL/IR course in the UK or Europe. Possibly if we are talking of CPL/IR holders who have done hundreds/thousands of hours of instructing and single crew air taxi in horrible weather in Senecas and Chieftans and the like.

But I have flown with graduates from colleges in southern Europe who had never been in a real cloud, or from UK integrated courses who had never flown an instrument approach at night until we did it in an airliner during line training - and I am not convinced that they would have fared any better in an incapacitation scenario than the holder of an MPL. And before you ask, whilst I know I don't have a huge amount of experience compared to some who are posting on here, that is an opinion based on just under 5000 hrs of single crew ops and 7000 hrs multi crew over the last twenty odd years plus time spent as a UK TRI/TRE on multi pilot aircraft.

There is nothing wrong with the concept of the MPA in my opinion, it just needs a bit of tweaking. Even after the afore mentioned 5000 hrs single crew operation and a type rating course I spent the first couple of hundred hours in the right hand seat of a jet being only just on the drag curve if not a bit behind it, and I am very impressed with those who can say that with 170 hrs and a conventional fATPL it was not the same for them.

Lost man standing
18th Aug 2008, 23:21
I for one could never put passengers in an aircraft with a pilot who had never taken full responsibility for an aircraft in his life.

The holder of a new MPL has never signed for an aircraft. Of course in those terms an integrated course is no better, but I would make the same case against that. If he is allowed to command (I don't claim to know the details of the rules, or to be bothered to mess with pronouns although I admit the possibility of female MPL holders) then his first day doing so will be the first time he accepts responsibilty for a go/no go decision.

I happen to agree with those that suggest real experience cannot be replaced by synthetic. I would say to those that suggest some inexperienced graduates of the traditional routes have comparable experience to an MPL holder that this is an argument against hiring commercial pilots with 200 hours, rather than a case for hiring an MPL with only a few dozen real hours.

However these points are obvious, if debatable, and I think my first point is more interesting.

The Sandman
19th Aug 2008, 01:23
You simply cannot escape the fact that an airliner, despite what the average SLF is made to think, is in fact a big complicated aeroplane that operates in a hostile environment and is at the mercy of the whims of nature at times. You still needs pilots who can fly the thing. Otherwise all you would need is for the senior cabin crew member to type in the destination and push the big green button marked GO!

I think the above is a quite relevant quote - and eventually that said scenario will indeed be the case, but as today the technology does not afford the manufacturers (Sperry, Honeywell, etc...) the impregnability they require, you will always need a pilot to pin the blame on - not to be too blunt... The more experience the better obviously, but not to say that focussed training is a bad thing. It seems that the legislative requirements that tie a MPL licencee to a particular type/airline's procedures is the Achilles heel of the entire concept. Just what was it intended to accomplish viv-a-vis the traditional CPL/IR license? It appears that a minimal savings in flight time at the expense of maximal classroom/sim time is intended to suffice for a small increment in flight time, at the tremendous cost of flexibility on the part of the licensee.

Seems only well thoguht out if viewed from the perspective of a sponsoring carrier. Otherwise pretty dodgy.

Wee Willy McGorbals
19th Aug 2008, 01:52
No doubt there will be queues of wannabes eager to hand their money over to play airline pilots:eek:

misd-agin
19th Aug 2008, 21:56
I'm just glad my carrier required approx. 5+yrs prior experience, be it military or civilian, before they would grant you an interview.

SimJock
22nd Aug 2008, 15:47
I wonder who decided that the MPL(A) should be an 'Ab Initio only' licence ??

It seems to me that a CPL holder with ATPL exam passes, could enter the MPL at a halfway stage and have a better/quicker chance of getting into the right hand seat of a jet.

Lets say you have the CPL and the exams and you know what type you'd like to fly, and perhaps who you'd like to fly with, so do you pay for an IR and then a type rating and MCC and hope for an interview, or do you do a part MPL course tailored to your preferred employer ? Which would the employer rather have ?

Shame that option doesn't seem to be available really.

Intruder
22nd Aug 2008, 18:58
I don't know why a CPL holder would want to go the MPL route. Any airline that accepts the MPL would likely accept a CPL/IR for a normal training program...

I don't see the advantage of jumping into a "partial MPL course," even if such a thing existed. An airline would be better off getting the candidate through the remainder of the IR so he could then become a candidate for Captain in a few years. It would be better for the pilot, too!

In either case the airline would make the decision whether it makes the candidate pay for the training. If an airline paid for an MPL course, then it might allow equivalent cost credit for an IR and normal sim training for new FOs. If the airline required the candidate to pay, I see NO advantage for a CPL holder to go the MPL route -- especially if he has already been through the ATPL courses and tests!

SimJock
24th Aug 2008, 08:17
Intruder

I was looking at it from a cost and marketability viewpoint.

Assuming that the CPL holder had to pay for everything, which seems par for the course in Europe and what you have to plan for, it seemed that 1/2 a MPL(A) course might be cheaper than an indpendant IR, MCC & Type Rating, plus if the MPL was 'sponsored' then you might be better placed to get a job.

Accepting that this may fix you in the RH seat for some considerable time may not be an issue.

Guttn
24th Aug 2008, 09:38
Intruder pretty much answered my question... To qualify as PIC/Commander of an aircraft of more that 12500lbs/5700kgs MTOW you essentially need to hold a valid ATPL and an appropriate type rating. To qualify for an ATPL you need the theory (of course), minimum 1500 hours, 500 multicrew, some IFR time (if I`m not mistaken) and some PIC time. But those are minimums for the license, not what an airline actually may require for upgrades for F/O to Capt. :D

A lot of things can be said pro and con the MPL license, and the training. But the one thing I really think not a lot of people pay attention to is the factor called situational awareness. One side of it has to do with aircraft position in regards to distance, altitude, attitude, speed and so on. The other has to do with being able to make a mental picture of what every other aircraft is doing, where they are and which way they are going. I don`t think this can be replicated in a sim, with all kinds of ways of speaking English and accents, though you can of course practise collision avaoidance. My point being that with having a menatl picture of the traffic you should never be in a position where you need to take action because of TCAS activation. The other thing I have against the MPL is that if the Capt suddenly is incapacitated, the MPL is PIC/solo for the first time in his flying career:sad: with around 150 pax on the other side of the cockpit door. With a bit of luck there might be another pilot onboard who can assist with radios and checklists and such, but if not then this is an immense task:ugh:

Deep and fast
24th Aug 2008, 09:40
The MPL is all about training a machine operator not a pilot. It is also a mechanism for reducing cost for the airline. In days gone by, airline would employ instructors with 700 hours plus needed to get the cpl. In gaining these hours they learnt not only the mechanics of flight but also CRM. Also you learn about people and what they are like under stress and how to both deal with and mitigate the negative factors that stress brings. I think instructors are an undervalued resourse but who am I to say.

I am ex instructor and single pilot air taxi in Seneca Navajo and had no difficulty transitioning onto a jet.

D and F :8

Groundloop
24th Aug 2008, 19:11
the MPL is PIC/solo for the first time in his flying career

Jeez, no he/she bl**dy isn't. Haven't you read the previous posts?

Intruder
24th Aug 2008, 19:29
I was looking at it from a cost and marketability viewpoint.

Assuming that the CPL holder had to pay for everything, which seems par for the course in Europe and what you have to plan for, it seemed that 1/2 a MPL(A) course might be cheaper than an indpendant IR, MCC & Type Rating, plus if the MPL was 'sponsored' then you might be better placed to get a job.

Accepting that this may fix you in the RH seat for some considerable time may not be an issue.
Again, i suspect the cost would likely be about equal -- or even less for the IR. The 100+ hours of 737 or A320 sim time would not be cheaper than an equivalent amount of IR instruction. Same for the ground training for the "1/2 MPL." After that, a type rating would take a good deal less sim time (31 for my 744 and 37.5 for 742) -- and many airlines do not even require a type rating for F/Os (dunno what kind of rating comes with the MPL)! Add to that the fact that most/all airlines pay for the required aircraft-specific training for new-hires, which would be the same (or less) ground school and sim time required for a type rating.

Also, a "sponsored" MPL will likely incur an extended payback contract, with attendant lower wages very possible.

Marketability is another issue. Again, I have no doubt that an ATPL is more widely marketable than an MPL. Same with a CPL/IR. While a few airlines may give preference to those who complete their own MPL courses (and from whom they have already taken a considerable amount of money), that would not extend in general to other airlines. So, you would be trapped in the right seat of a single airline, with little or no ability to even try another airline, for a LONG time. You might be "better placed" to get a job with the sponsoring airline of an MPL course, but that would be the full extent of any advantage.

Finally, the ONLY reason airlines are going to the MPL is that they cannot find qualified CPL/IR holders, and it is cheaper for them to run an MPL course than to bring someone all the way from ground zero through a CPL/IR. So, any aitline that is thinking of hiring MPL pilots would also be prone to hire CPL/IR pilots. Those CPL/IR pilots would also get into the left seat WELL before their MPL contemporaries.

So, bottom line to me is that a CPL holder would be MUCH better off to complete his IR and look for a job with those credentials.

snuble
24th Aug 2008, 20:35
Many pro's and con's have been adressed. Most of them are valid points, but way too many are plain bull sh1t. Wich is the singel biggest problem with the MPL licence. Many people have (and voice) their strong personal thoughts about this subject, but do not take the time to check basic facts. To learn that some of those people are even sitting in positions handleing pilot applications is worrying. No wonder it will be a hard time finding a new job..!

tbavprof
26th Aug 2008, 07:53
Interesting article on UAV losses. Human error causes most Predator crashes - Military - MSNBC.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26397393/)

Herz reported that most Predator mishaps were the result of three types of human errors: inadequate skills and knowledge necessary to operate the aircraft; lack of teamwork; and lack of situational awareness.The result, Herz wrote, is that operators are less able to conduct "real-world operations." For example, he said, "lapses of judgment and lack of experience" often lead pilots to continue marginal landing approaches when it would have been better to circle around for another attempt.