Is the fATPL Dead?

[tailend]

Now BA, Monarch, Flybe, Easy et al have perfected their own excellent variants on the MPL scheme - and made it self sponsoring, why would any aspiring wannabee spend money on an fATPL? Will there be any jobs for integrated or modular fATPL's?
As for fATPL instructors how do we get MPL accredited? Or will we be left competing in the weekend market with the (unpaid and cheaper) 200 PPL instructors coming on stream next year?
I'm not knocking the MPL, it does reflect modern operations and the ATPL badly needs to brought into the modern world, but the MPL seems to be one of those large elephants in the dark training room.:}

[Whopity]

The MPL is just a variant of the Integrated course and graduates have a CPL/IR with frozen ATPL credits exactly as the others do. What they don't have is a single pilot IR or MEP Class rating, but they will have a MP Type rating. If they walk straight into a job thats fine but if they don't, there is not much else they can do.

On the instructor front, its going to become much more difficult under EASA to become an IRI unless you have airline or air taxi experience. If you want to teach for the MPL you need to be a FI ME with IRI, complete the MPL Instructor course and of course have 1500 hours MP experience which largely means only Ex airline pilots will qualify. Teaching in Simulators, you won't be able to claim the hours for anything either and keeping current may also be problematical as the only flying on the course is SE. Goodbye the career instructor.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I anticipate that the requirement to pass all of the CPL writtens in order to commence the FI course will keep the number of PPL instructors down; frankly the numbers are likely to be too small to impact upon current FI jobs much.

As for the suggested primacy of the MPL, this assumes that the only jobs in flying are with the airlines, and that there are no air-taxi, instructional, or just plain single-pilot jobs, whereas the truth is that there are lots of such jobs. Also it assumes that the majority of airlines will sponsor all their new direct entry F/Os. None of those things seem likely to be true now or any time in the foreseeable future.

G

[Dan Winterland]

The MPL is specific to an particular airline's training system and assumes the candidate will stay with that airline until he has enough hours for a full ATPL. Consequently, the MPL student will be recruited into a particular airline from the start of the course, or be sponsored. You will not find MPL holder finishing the course and then seeking work - unless the airline has gone bust in which case they will be screwed - as the MPL is specific to that airline. The non sponsored pilots will still have to continue down the traditional route.

My airline has only recruited cadets for the last three years and has now gone down the MPL route.

[excrab]

I stand to be corrected, but my understanding is that the MPL is not airline specific. Once you have the licence you can change type or airline, subject to type rating, OPC and of course finding an operator who will employ you.

The last of those should become easier as more airline managers/HR departments begin to understand what the licence is, a CPL/IR with ATPL theoretical knowledge but no single crew priveleges.

In the last four years I have worked at three airlines who employed ex sterling f/os who had just completed their MPL and line training when the company went bust.

[RVR800]

I think the widening acceptance of the MPL as a divergent route divorced from the single crew IR training requiement of the fATPL raises the issue of whether such a rating meets industry needs.

Training for the IR and the training that often involves endless circling round an NDB in a 6 pack display geratric twin at 10 euro/minute has limited take-up in the UK where only a handful of PPLs do it every year. The fATPL pilots have to do the multi-crew IR AFTER passing this flight test. Its inefficient training..

When the syllabus moves on beyond NDBs and away from old 6 pack displays into GPS approaches and glass cockpits and training in simulators that are cheaper to run than the old technology currently deployed we may finally have a rating that has some validity in todays real world. EASA is moving very slowly in this area compared to the FAA and that explains why many business leaders in Europe who are pilots have FAA IR's - they understand this..

[BillieBob]

The MPL is airline specific only to the extent that an airline must be involved in the training. Appendix 1 to JAR-FCL 1.520 & 1.525 states "Approval for a MPL(A) training course shall only be given to a FTO of a JAR-OPS 1 operator or a FTO having a specific approved arrangement with a JAR-OPS 1 operator. The licence shall be restricted to that specified operator until completion of the airline operator’s conversion course in accordance with JAR-OPS 1 Subpart N." Consequently, once the airline's operator conversion course is complete, the candidate may be cut loose to make his way in the world as best he can with a qualification that allows him to fly only as a co-pilot in a multi-pilot aeroplane and only in aircraft operated by the JAR-OPS operator with whom he completed the OCC. What better way to spend circa £100k?

[Genghis the Engineer]

What better way to spend circa £100k?

Well a modular fATPL + instructors rating + chunk of multi hours springs to mind.

G

[excrab]

An operators conversion course is a JAR OPS subpart N requirement for any pilot changing from one airline to another, regardless of whether they hold an MPL, CPL or ATPL.

Thus an MPL holder if they had to change airline immediately after completion of their type rating is in no worse a situation from a regulatory point of view as someone holding a traditional "frozen ATPL".

Most objections to the MPL seem to come from those with a vested interest in it not happening, such as instructors who don't want to be instructors and fear they will not be able to move on to the airlines, and from the FTOs which are not big enough to have the facilities to offer the course.

I am sure that the training and flight ops departments at BA, Flybe, Monarch, Easy etc will have considered this very carefully and would not be going down this route if they thought they would have problems in a few years time because captains on a multi-crew airliner who had trained under the MPL system didn't have 100 PIC on a light single in VFR as part of their initial training three, five or ten years previously.

The fact that the MPL doesn't have single pilot priveleges should be advantageous eventually for those who want to instruct or fly single crew operations, as they will not find hundreds (thousands?) of airline wannabees taking those jobs to build hours to move on. It should also meant that salaries for aerial work and single crew public transport jobs might increase as the pool of pilots would be smaller.

[FANS]

The problem is excrab most instructors want to be airline pilots so they can afford to eat, and this could effectively close the traditional route.

The main attribute (more then ever) for an airline gig is £100k.

[BillieBob]

Thus an MPL holder if they had to change airline immediately after completion of their type rating is in no worse a situation from a regulatory point of view as someone holding a traditional "frozen ATPL".
How does an MPL holder change airline immediately after completion of the type rating (and before completion of the OCC) when the licence is restricted to the specific operator that holds the approval?

[tailend]

Is the ATPL dead? It looks like it is judging by the comments above:-

1. Only Airline pilots can teach MPL – It’s the end of the line for ATPL self improvers.
2. The ATPL will be the route to (vocational) air taxi work – but would you spend 100K on an ATPL or MPL?
3. The ATPL is the route to career instructing. I think not:-
a. No sensible student will spend 100K on an ATPL knowing it’s not a route to the airlines. The market will dry up.
b. As of 2012 EASA are removing the CPL prerequisite for FI instructors teaching PPL.
c. CPL FI’s losing out to the MPL will have to compete to teach PPLs with unpaid 200 hour PPL FI’s.
4. The MPL is a sensible development. The single pilot ATPL is an anachronism. We are adapting our courses to accommodate airline demands for a more MCC approach and are already preparing for the change to MPL.

5. The MPL is airline specific. Therefore who teaches, and who is taught is entirely at the discretion of airlines. BA’s Future Pilot Scheme has no requirement for ATPL’s.

My advice to wanabees is not to invest in the ATPL route – unless they have a private income or a passion for clapped out singles or twins which will last a lifetime!

PS: A last polite point to Excrab and a great many confused people out there: instructors are not a special breed of pilot who touch their forelocks obligingly for every hour they have flown for free. Nope, they are normal pilots who enjoy flying, enjoy teaching (very much) and welcome the opportunity to build real piloting skills that were traditionally of value, but sadly no more.

I don’t know of a single pilot that found themselves in the right seat of an aircraft without a great deal of time spent being taught by an FI. And strange though it may seem, FI’s, as normal human pilots, also aspire to lay their hands on heavy metal, just as non FI pilots do.

Please do drop the fantasy that FI’s are a species that wish to remain forever in a twilight zone of penury.:ok:

[Genghis the Engineer]

b. As of 2012 EASA are removing the CPL prerequisite for FI instructors teaching PPL.
c. CPL FI’s losing out to the MPL will have to compete to teach PPLs with unpaid 200 hour PPL FI’s.

EASA are only dropping the requirement to hold a CPL; they are not dropping the requirement to have passed CPL writtens. In terms of somebody's time, that is far more expensive than the 25ish hour flying course and test.

We'll see PPL instructors certainly, but I'd venture not all that many.

G

[Whopity]

EASA are only dropping the requirement to hold a CPLThere has never been a requirement in the UK to hold a CPL to qualify as a FI! The only thing EASA are changing, is a reversion back to a FI being able to be remunerated whilst instructing on the privileges of a PPL. Interestingly, Helicopter FIs never lost that privilege.

[blagger]

As far as I know, the CAA has always decided that demonstrating CPL knowledge meant passing all the CPL exams. I believe other European countries have used a FI course entry test or other means of demonstrating CPL knowledge, I don't know whether under EASA the method will be more prescriptive or left to individual countries still?

ps - I think the latest EASA docs also suggest that a lot of legacy UK ATPL holders (many who have only done SEP/MEP instructing I imagine) will have to revert to CPL as they don't have multi-crew time

[Whopity]

I believe other European countries have used a FI course entry test or other means of demonstrating CPL knowledgeI believe that was even the case in the UK pre 1989. EASA FCL 915 seems to point at having passed the exams(2) hold at least a PPL(A) and have:
(i) met the requirements for CPL theoretical knowledge, except for an FI(A) providing training for the LAPL(A) only;

[dobbin1]

Will a PPL with a CRI be allowed to be paid for instructing?

[BillieBob]

Yes, provided that the trainee also holds a PPL

[Genghis the Engineer]

FCL.205.A PPL(A) — Privileges
(a) The privileges of the holder of a PPL(A) are to act without remuneration as PIC or co-pilot on aeroplanes or TMGs engaged in non-commercial operations.
(b) Notwithstanding the paragraph above, the holder of a PPL(A) with instructor or examiner privileges may receive remuneration for:
(1) the provision of flight instruction for the LAPL(A) or PPL(A);
(2) the conduct of skill tests and proficiency checks for these licences;
(3) the ratings and certificates attached to these licences

Looks like the "ratings and certificates" would cover it for a PPL/CRI.

G

[tailend]

An interesting Flight Int article on the merits of MPL over ATPL to cure Loss of Control (LOC) accidents in highly automated aircraft.

IN FOCUS: Loss of control - training the wrong stuff? (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/in-focus-loss-of-control-training-the-wrong-stuff-367220/?cmpid=EMC|JOBS|FGJOB-2012-0102-JN|INTRO1)

Interesting because:-
a. The adequacy of the ATPL is questioned
b. The ATPL is seen as a possible reason for LOC incidents
c. Counter intuitively, stick and rudder and traditional experience building routes are perceived as less safe than the MPL which reduces emphasis on trad skills.

Still think cadets should be paying 100K for an ATPL rather than an MPL?

:confused:

[RVR800]

This article outlines what many in GA fear. Traditional training in light aircraft was always assumed to be the foundation upon one would build upon, after the MEIR was completed and in an airline environment. Now the skills acquired expensive as they are in this way, are seen to be diviorced from the real needs of those that dont intend to pursure a career in GA. Its the start of the end; and may mean more control transferring to those within the airlines away from the traditional flying schools. Ryanair MPL anyone?

[Whopity]

Still think cadets should be paying 100K for an ATPL rather than an MPL?I don't think cadets will be inclined to self sponsor for an MPL Course, because without a job, its of no use for anything. Its very much tailored towards sponsored candidates with a job at the end of it.

As the MPL course is in its infancy, it will take some time to see if its fit for purpose. It gives more training time relevant to the aircraft they will be flying, but with only a glorified PPL to start the process, many basic skills will be absent.

EASA will ensure that very few new instructors qualify as IRIs on financial grounds alone, leaving IR instruction to those with airline experience. These instructors may well be more suited and inclined to teach for the MPL making that the default Integrated route. What is not clear is how MPL instructors will retain their flying qualifications. As none of the basic course is conducted in aeroplanes, ATOs will need a large fleet of twins just for staff continuation training?

[Flaymy]

tailend

Interesting in relation to AF447, where lack of basic handling skills destroyed a perfectly serviceable aircraft with a minor problem, with the loss of all on board. The integrated course was bad enough, the MPL is only going to make matters worse.