MCC - should it be on same FNPT2 as IR/ME SP?

[Trim Stab]

ATPL training is currently structured that a student does his MCC on a different type from his IR/ME SP and (unless lucky) a different type from his first line job.

I think this dilutes the value of the MCC course, as the student is forced to master a new type (which he almost certainly will never fly again) at the same time as mastering the MCC syllabus.

Would it not be better if FTOs could teach MCC on the same FNPT2 as a student has just completed IR/ME SP?

[Whopity]

The purpose of the MCC Course is to teach multicrew operation, not to learn to fly a specific "Type". Some FTOs use a more advanced device such as a 737 FNPT to teach MCC in a Multicrew aircraft. The IR is conducted in a single pilot aircraft which does not lend itself as well to multi-crew training.

Perhaps a better solution would be to complete MCC training as part of the Type rating course however there are cost implications and most civil flight training is about offering the cheapest price.

[Trim Stab]

The IR is conducted in a single pilot aircraft which does not lend itself as well to multi-crew training.


I disagree with this assertion. I think that as long as the IR/ME SP aircraft has an advanced autopilot, then it is fine for role differentiation in MCC training.

But I agree with you that it is even better that MCC training is performed on they same aircraft as first type-rating - but this is not practical the way that training is currently structured.

I think that forcing students (who may not have any worthwhile IR/ME SP experience beyond their basic training) to do MCC on a completely unfamiliar type is a poor third.

[Whopity]

The problem stems from the way MCC was introduced. Integrated FTOs are required to provide it as part of their ATPL Courses; for the modular students it was intended to be part of the Type Rating Course however most providers didn't want to pay for this and a modular MCC market grew up as the only way to fill the gap. As MCC is seldom provided by the FTO conducting the IR training, it is unlikely that a common device will be available for training.

[DFC]

I think that forcing students (who may not have any worthwhile IR/ME SP experience beyond their basic training) to do MCC on a completely unfamiliar type is a poor third.


I think that the more unfamiliar the type the better!!! A few knots faster than their brain can cope with better still !!!!!!

The objective of the course is to teach MCC and by definition unless provided as part of a type rating course should be as generic as possible.

It is not a course in being able to fly that particular type it is an introduction to operating in specific roles with defined tasks and working in a team environment.

If they both know how to fly the aircraft, many of the basic issues that provide excellent scenarios will not occur. Very hard to get a senneca FNPT to leave two qualified senneca pilots behind the curve and in a rushed scenario. Put the same to people in a jet scenario and the aircraft can sson leave them behind - unless they slow it all down and give themselves time which is one of the biggest lessons.

As for using a single pilot FNPT 2. That will never work unless you can operate the aircraft from the right seat. It makes sense that on MCC the PF role is carried out from the right seat and the PNF is in the left seat. not an easy situation when the right seat has no instrumentation etc etc.

Finally, limited time to learn systems flows and checks, 2 crew environment the posibility that one's partner will not be of the same standard - higher or lower creating a cross-cockpit gradient, unfamiliar aerodromes and procedures...........sound familiar?

The MCC is an interesting course providing ample opportunities for mistakes, poor flying and personal reflection. To take one of the main things that drives the errors into each exercise away would diminish the relevance of the course and remove too many teaching points or require too many artifical set-ups from the instructor.

[Obs cop]

Having just done my MCC I can't agree more with DFC.

Had my MCC been on a familiar type, with a pilot of similar aptitude where we could both have easily kept up single pilot let alone with two we wouldn't have learnt half as much.

I didn't learn how to fly a CRJ nor how to operate every system on it. The fact that it covered ground at 3 times the speed I was used to combined with the slippery-ness of a swept wing jet when trying to get it to go down and slow down "allowed" us to get behind the aircraft much more easily. This highlighted the need to communicate, bring your partner up to your level of situational awareness, cross cockpit gradients, the need to define roles but also be flexible with teamwork and delegation of tasks in normal and abnormal situations.

I learnt far more about myself as a team player in 8 days by being constantly taken out of my comfort zone.

Lack of knowledge of the type is actually a benefit for some training situations as the temptation when your sim partner can't find a switch to have both heads in and no-one monitoring is overwhelming but unlikely to happen in a familiar type!

Again, I was fortunate to be crewed with a fellow student who's first language wasn't English because my learning was enhanced by the experience.

I learnt more about myself in 8 days than I thought was possible and always having to work as a team to keep up with the aircraft and the scenario's was some of the most rewarding flying (albeit in a sim) I have done.

Could I get a CRJ off the ground now, possibly but unlikely. Does it matter, no. Can I work with a team mate in a demanding and previously un-experienced situation, yes.

And for me that's the point of the course.

Obs

[Vortex Thing]

I completely agree with DFC and ObsCop.

The MCC should be on a complex turbofan/turbojet type IMHO. I also did my MCC on an unfamiliar jet with a non native English speaking partner.

We still correspond years later and laugh about the first time we tried to establish comms after a rapid decompression with us both speaking different languages and both being FOs forgetting to do the captains actions from the LHS.

Not really the sort of training that you get in an FNPT 2 scenario. Funnily enough the cost really isn't that much different these days with many MCCs going for £2000ish.

There is many an Integrated provider out there doing MCC on B737 or similar. I know it is not quite the same parallel but have you noticed most of the JAA ATPL exams are based on the B737. Some fATPL integrated or modular students will never fly jets or turbo props but we have to assume the highest common denominator and I think should make training as demanding and fast paced as possible so that wherever we end up we have the best tools available to us.

VT

[potkettleblack]

As stated above it was the original intention for the hiring airline to provide the MCC course and tailor it to their operation but sadly this has not been put into practice. Our airline still has the provisions in Part D of its Ops Manual for the MCC course, however, I am not aware of anyone actually undertaking this course other than the last of the cadet courses which were run by integrated providers.

All is not lost for the prospective wannabe IMHO. If you take the view that the main aim of getting all of these licences, ratings and certificates is to get a job then a bit of research will lead you to the providers that have contacts with the airlines.

Granted the prospects aren't all that great at the moment but when I was looking 3-4 years ago the majority of us used the MCC as the first stage of the recruiting process. The instructors were for the most part all current training captains, one was the chief pilot of a well known ATR operator that hired low houred pilots and the others all flew jets. FR trawled through CVs on a regular basis and used the same sim for its checks as an overflow when East Midlands was busy. You were graded on your flights and it was well known that a good dose of enthusiasm and willingness to learn went a long way to getting a recommendation. If you were called for a sim check you were at a distinct advantage to someone that had only flown a cardboard box. It was the best investment I ever made.

As for the debate on whether the MCC actually teaches you anything relevant to flying an MPA well I am not so sure. I think I learnt more about multi crew ops from our airline induction course (included a repeat of the CRM elements of MCC course), type rating and subsequent line training than the MCC course. Sure running through challenge and response checklists is fine but there is limited time to really get stuck into the other elements of the decision making involved when flying multi crew and I think it would be of limited value in anycase given the low experience base that you are starting from.