Multicrew pilot licence numbers grow as it approaches proof of concept

[Squawk7777]

link (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/in-focus-multicrew-pilot-licence-numbers-grow-as-it-approaches-proof-of-concept-378880/)


IN FOCUS: Multicrew pilot licence numbers grow as it approaches proof of concept

At the end of 2013, ICAO will hold a proof-of-concept symposium for the multicrew pilot licence (MPL) adopted in 2006. The licence and training system could be rejected as inadequate - but is that likely? Not according to Capt Dieter Harms, a senior Lufthansa pilot also known as "father of the MPL" for his work with ICAO and the International Federation of Air Line Pilots' Associations to define the competency elements and performance requirements for a pilot operating as a part of an airline crew, on which the award of an MPL is based. There are more than 600 MPL-licensed pilots globally, Harms told the Royal Aeronautical Society's (RAeS) Flight Crew Training Conference in September, adding that "the vast majority are performing above the standards expected of graduates from the commercial pilot licence courses".

MPL take-up has been slow but is accelerating, Harms says: 50 US states recognise MPL, 16 countries have flight-training organisations that run MPL courses, and 20 airlines have set up partnerships with FTOs to train their pilots to MPL standards. Harms says that in December 2010, 1,000 MPL students enrolled, with 180 graduations. By September 2012, there were 1,900 enrolments and 600 MPL graduations. ICAO says future qualifications for pilots and air traffic controllers will be subject to the same competency measurements used to define MPL requirements. The organisation makes it clear this is the only viable route not only to measurable competency, but to unified global standards in licensing aviation professionals.

LINE EXPERIENCE

Mitchell Fox, ICAO chief of flight operations at the Air Navigation Bureau, said at the RAeS conference that once on the line, recurrent training for pilots and controllers will be increasingly shaped by evidence of training needs, rather than performance of statutory exercises which Harms calls "inventory-based training".

The new concept, known as evidence-based training, is already in use by some carriers such as Emirates. The use of line experience to determine what is required, and adopting the concept of training pilots to competency in particular manoeuvres or scenarios rather than only testing them on a pass/fail basis, will bring a new culture to recurrent training.

Harms explains the basis for the new emphasis on competency-based - rather than hours-based - training that arrived with the MPL: "It is based on the insight that inventory-based training and the repetition of past accident scenarios is insufficient to prepare pilots and crews to successfully handle the infinite number of unforeseeable situations they might face and that only the existence and the continuous application of a set of core competencies enable pilots and crews to operate safely, efficiently and effectively, and manage the infinite number of abnormal situations in modern civil aviation."

The facts of modern aviation are that increased reliability will mean rarer technical occurrences, but increasing aircraft complexity also raises the chances that - when things do go wrong - the number of unforeseeable combinations of factors that could occur also increases.

Training, Harms argues, has to provide crews with the basic knowledge, skills and mental resilience to be able to deal with combinations of circumstances for which there is no checklist solution. It is proactive rather than reactive training, he adds, predicting: "Be assured, MPL will continuously grow. The recovery from the current crisis will augment this trend, provided that the international airline training and regulating community is able to facilitate a globally harmonised and standardised implementation."

[Capt Hook]

Bring back the requirement to hold a full ATPL before operating in aircraft greater than 5700 Kg's!

The standard of Cadets has been steadily declining and is now at the stage where I feel I am operating a large commercial aircraft with the aid of an apprentice. I only have to compare what a long 4 sector day feels like when operating with these very inexperienced pilots compared to flying with an SFO to know it is not right. When I had as many hours as these guys it was just my pink body I was putting on the line and not 100's of fare paying passengers.

My first commercial job followed many years of multi-transport military flying; I found the conversion hard work and can barely fathom how these cadets manage; however, I very much feel that rather than giving them a conversion onto an A/C type we are now using large commercial A/C to teach them how to fly and land, rather than applying an already learnt skill onto a new A/C type.

This has resulted in a complete 'dumbing down' of our profession to the extent where we are required to verbally announce the wind component on selection of Flap! Our Company are now on its 2nd fleet wide landing campaign as a result of heavy/tail scrape landings whilst ignoring the blinding obvious that if you employ 'zero' hour pilots in preference to the many experienced pilots available in the market at the moment, then you invite this risk into your operation. It is not until the guy's get around 1500 hours experience that you find yourself sat next to a competent operator! Um, 1500 hours, that rings a bell?

[bermudatriangle]

capt hook,well said,i could not agree more !

[A320baby]

Capt Hook,

Its all well and good what you are saying, But there is simply NO jobs.
I got lucky i'm flying A nice shinny jet. It took me 3 years to get my first flying job. Having worked in a previous Career to fund my training.
Believe me I would have liked to start off Instructing then small turbo props working my way up ETC, But there are no jobs here for beginners. Also you must agree how expensive that would be for me, Because I can Guarantee all these companies would want you to pay for type ratings.

When I was in search for a job I took a month off work travelled the whole of the UK personally handing out my CVs to everyone, Flight schools, Small operators Large operators Nearly over 1000 CVs. Only one company got back to me, The company im flying with today.

To say that I had limited experience back then, (and still do now) that im not capable for the job is dam right disrespectful. I have first time passes all my flying career, I do good OPC/LPC time in time out, Good line training spend most of my free time preparing for my next flight, or studying the FCOMS. Just feel your a little harsh there Buddy.

Good evening

[exeng]

Thats you pal - as you say it. But if you are right you are the exception in my experience.

Most of the new pilots (less than 2000 hrs) where I fly have difficulty putting the aircraft in the touchdown zone as well as deficiencies in RT and general aviation knowledge. OK it is Africa but apparently they have been trained to the same standards in S.A. And the U.S.A.

It will all work out in the end one way or another.

[A320baby]

I very much doubt that I am a "exception". But I have worked dam right hard to be where I am today. I will continue to do so. When i watch my Pax board the Aircraft, young kids, Babies. To know that all these people are trusting me is a huge responsibility for me. That is the reason I strive to perfect my Knowledge.
Im just your average joe, No smarty blue eyed boy. I just take pride in my profession.

[keepin it in trim]

A320 baby,

May I make one small point, and no disrespect is intended here, as an FO you only get to fly with other capts. Now while the standard can vary here too (!!) hopefully they are all reasonably experienced and competent.

You certainly seem to be a very conscientious individual, and I have no reason to doubt your commitment, or ability. However, as you do not yet have the opportunity to fly with other colleagues having your current level of experience, please do not be surprised by comments that some may not reach the same high standards that you set for yourself.

I think it might be Shakespeare who said something along the lines that "experience is a jewel, and it has need to be, for it often bought at the ultimate price!" That's the history of aviation covered then...:hmm:

[Pontius]

This broad-brush, 'all cadets are crap' nonsense that pervades these pages really annoys me. It all depends on where they've been trained, the philosophy behind that training and, of course, the individuals.

Flying with a certain, well known, British carrier I have flown with more than my fair share of cadets and can put my hand on my heart and tell you to a boy and a girl they were all good and I would have absolutely no compunction about flying with them on a dark and dirty night. That airline's philosophy was to to train 'captains of the future', not FOs, and that distinction is significant. In other parts of the World the emphasis is definitely training someone to operate the radio and sling the gear to order and this really shows when they are then called upon to act as PF in less than ideal conditions. The same could not be said of those cadets that were trained by the well known British airline. Their thinking was totally different, they operated just as an SFO would and their training was that of a pilot, not a radio operator.

My first commercial job followed many years of multi-transport military flying; I found the conversion hard work and can barely fathom how these cadets manage

I think this says far more about you than them. I'm not talking about you being a Truckie but the fact that, from day one, these cadets have had training relevant to the commercial field in which they're operating, whereas you had to 'convert' from Betty's Flying Club, no expense spared, providing a pretty lacklustre service for your 'customers', to civvy flying in a commercial operation with all that's involved in that. They've been brought up on FMCs, CPDLC etc, whereas you had to put up with 1950s technology and a flight deck full of specialists to make up for that paucity of decent kit. In short, it's not a big deal for them because the flight decks of today are just X boxes to them and they're learning the commercial side of things, just as you learnt the military operating side of things. Imagine if we said all military pilots have to join already trained to TWU standard (ATPL) and having already passed IOT (line ops)!

I will end by saying that a LOT of people that comment on cadets have never actually flown with them. Because they've had to do the 'hard yards' and have had to work hard to get where they are, they object to others who have been lucky enough to go an easier route. They pontificate with comments that flying a Cessna around darkest Africa has huge relevance to airline operations and how it helps make command decisions which, of course, is nonsense. I enjoy flying with these pilots because I find their stories interesting and their experiences are something they can cherish for life but people need to get off the 'pillory cadets' bandwagon. If they've been trained properly there's absolutely no need for them to have an ATPL to sit on the right seat of a 737 (or whatever) and having 1500 hours flying a 152 around the circuit does not them more or less useful when the chips are down.

[SLFinAZ]

But that might be the most ignorant post of the year. Forget about the exceptionally high standard of training and the washout rate involved in just qualifying for status as a military aviator. Look at the realities of training to a combat standard, fatalities and near misses are simply a part of the job.

Go beyond that and look at the operational conditions in peacetime military flying and then go to X10 for flying in combat conditions. For you to compare the quality of a fully qualified military aviator with at least one complete tour under his belt to a cadet (or even a 1500 hour civilian) is telling.

[Fly3]

Having recently retired after over 40 years in the business I have to agree with Capt. Hook. I'm sure that there are a few very good performing MPL's out there but sadly I never had the pleasure of flying with one.
Shakespeare was right.

[Gretchenfrage]

IMHO anybody approving of such MPL or similar programs is simply adding a nail into the coffin of future safe operations.

Without wanting to go into details of why such training, and by the way a lot of today's training in general, is not adequate enough, I simply want to state here, that the flying skill of the FOs I flew with the last 5-10 years, has gradually deteriorated. Not the human quality, not the general aviation knowledge!
It's a simple observation, please take it as that.

Todays sops do not allow a gradual increase of flying skill. Too many restrictions for FOs, too stringent sops to execute other than the highest automated approaches and too many hidden (management) threats to skippers if something goes only slightly wrong, makes that any even slightly special conditions are handled by the skipper, almost every approach goes ILS down to 200 feet.

These FOs then go through upgrade in the same system. They come out as sops performing monkeys and within sometimes one year they run around the ops-centre as TRIs. Logically enough they continue to preach the same very restricted sops and propagate their extremely limited experience, admittedly with their extremely profound knowledge of the AOM and sops, to the newly admitted MPL cadets.

It's a vicious circle and no one wants to break it.

When something sad happens (i.e. AF 447), the involved are very rapidly counting out the standard of training. It was just the individual pilots that screwed up, even if the whole crew was involved. But the training is called as up to regulatory minimum and the airline, the regulator and in close cooperation the manufacturer wash each others hands ..... and together they go one step further in cutting cost and training.

It's a vicious circle and no one wants to break it.

If the older, mostly more experienced pilots start pointing at the deficits, there is a huge, well armed lobby (especially financially) to cry them down.

As skippers, it has been said before, we are more and more confronted with a pilot to our side who is not capable of replacing us. A simple incapacitation might be handled, the autopilot with the FMS and ATC will allow a safe landing. But if we are at 70N30W and confronted with difficult multiple system failures, the new generation FOs are more of a burden than a help, because of their lack of experience. I cannot let them fly at high altitude without AP (lack of skill), risk and damage assessment is a stranger to them, so they are mostly tasked to do the electronic checklists. Now we know how many traps are incorporated there, so we have to follow up very closely that they do not screw up . Again, I do not dare stating why, but it's an experienced observation.

To conclude I reiterate that it is not the human or intellectual quality, it simply the lack of training, time-wise and hours on the real thing. By the real thing I not only mean the final airliner, but the initial goat that had to be dominated, the first underpowered twin with EO and the hours in a aerobatic donkey!!

All this is fatally missing on the belts of today's aviators. And it shows.

[lilflyboy262...2]

Yet what blows my mind is that guys like myself with thousands of hours operating around the globe in small aircraft are struggling to find work over guys who have an MPL or MCC licence with "zero" hours.

To say there is no work out there is bull****. You will move around the globe to fly the big metal, so why not move around the world to fly the smaller stuff.
I have done that and it has been one hell of an experience.

@Pontius.
How can you possibly say that a person with an MPL is just as good as someone who has had real world experience.
Can you trust them to catch you if you make a small error and forget something?
Don't try to preach that you will never make mistakes.

I'm not talking about simple checklist stuff like forgetting to put gear down. I'm talking about things like when you are suffering from visual illusions or flying through heavy icing.

How about when dealing with emergency situations? Or when the chicken doesn't agree with you?

Sure maybe after five hundred or a thousand hours that these guys become competent, but until then....

[Pontius]

SLF,

For you to compare the quality of a fully qualified military aviator with at least one complete tour under his belt to a cadet (or even a 1500 hour civilian) is telling.

I suggest you re-read my post and tell me where I compared the two :hmm: I thank you for your nomination of Ignorant Post Of The Year but I'll have to decline the offer as I am not ignorant of the facts and those are portrayed in my message. If I were writing as supposed SLF, then perhaps I might not know about what I write. On the other hand, as an ex-military single-seat, fast jet aviator (as you like to call them), a commercial airlines captain and one who has flown with a good number of cadets, I think I write from a position of reasonable knowledge, as opposed to ignorance.

Go beyond that and look at the operational conditions in peacetime military flying and then go to X10 for flying in combat conditions.

Thank you, again, for your lesson in a subject with which I am familiar but, again, look at what I wrote (carefully this time), climb off that high horse and then tell me where I'm comparing the standards of military training and operations with civilian.

Lilfly,

How can you possibly say that a person with an MPL is just as good as someone who has had real world experience.

I'm not saying (and didn't say) ALL. I am saying that those I flew with, who were trained as 'future captains', rather than FOs and who knew more than slinging gear are just as good as a good proportion of those with 'real world experience', better than some and worse than others.

This broad-brush, 'all cadets are crap' nonsense that pervades these pages really annoys me.

Again, this is what I wrote, with the emphasis being on 'broad-brush'. What some of the nay-sayers consider 'real world experience' (for instance, bashing the circuit in the right seat of a Cessna 152) has little relevance to airline operations. This imagined scenario where, because of the plethora of 'real world experience' he's going to be given more scope for saving the day is nonsense. In day-to-day operations, where SOPs dictate how we operate, there is so little latitude for individual 'creativity' to shine through. I'd much rather have a cadet who does what's required by the airline and operates in a standard manner than someone who's spent 3000 hours flying a C185 in the bush and wants to demonstrate to me and my passengers what a great pilot he is. 'Real world experience' definitely had its place when aircraft were basically a hand-flown, single man operation but things have moved on and our perception of pilots as all-conquering heroes needs to advance too. Yes, there will be occasions when things go wrong and require pilots AND experience but Cadet X is not going to be doing anything in isolation, just as SFO Y is not going to be doing anything in isolation, because it's a team job and the bloke in the left seat has got a veto if he doesn't like what's going on in the right seat.

How about when dealing with emergency situations?

If I haven't already 'outed' myself, this isn't going to help :{ I had a cadet pilot in the right seat of a 737, who was on their first flight, having been cleared to the line the day before. This pilot had fewer than 200 hours in their logbook (JAR 'frozen' ATPL). We had to shut down an engine in flight and then followed Company SOPs, FO flies the approach for captain's landing. This supposedly incapable pilot (lacking in loads of 'real world experience'), flew and operated the aircraft like a dream and made my job extremely easy for me. In summary, when dealing with an emergency situation, it couldn't have gone better if it were a 15000 hour captain sitting next to me. Doubtless you will tell me there are exceptions to the rules and I agree.......both ways ;)

[australiancalou]

MPL is the way they found to hide single pilot operation on modern aircraft.
Next step is no pilot operation as MPL will upgrade to captain position on cabin crew salary basis.
What the hell have they between their ears.
I hate these technocrats but we are all responsible of the current situation.
Major airlines have maintain a good package untill now and unions did not react on licence downgrading as the majority of their memberships were flying for them.
Future for everybody will be a real pension shame:}
Capitalism is more and more looking like Communism where real workers work to pay for administration staff and a few happy folks.
Down down and down untill we hit the ground.:ooh:

[V_2]

I was going to write a post pointing out the many flaws in peoples arguements, and the many (at least theoretical) advantages of MPL training. But then I decided you all seem so set in your ways that it would be a complete waste of my time. Instead I look forward to discussing it in the flight deck with you, seeing as clearly you'll be doing all the flying.

And to the ex-military multi pilot (Cpt Hook). If you were so awesome why didn't you get streamed fastjet after EFT? And maybe this is backed up by the fact you admit you found it hard to convert? Maybe you flew both, in which case fair play, but remember to thank Betty for the free type-ratings! ;)

[Capt Hook]

V_2, I never said I was awesome; my remark was in recognition of the task achieved by such low hour individuals in remembering how hard it was when I completed my initial Airbus conversion, and that was with 14 years previous aviation experience; it was not meant as a criticism to any individuals, quite the opposite!

I have been in the training role for over 8 years now (Airbus), and my posting was based on those observations. Arriving on such large A/C, with such little experience, it is apparent that many individuals are still very much learning to fly.

We should not be using large commercial A/C full of passengers as a tool in order to train pilots how to fly and Land, rather, they should already have mastered these skills and it is then simply a case of applying the technique (conversion course). My experience is that the former is now prevailing over the later, and this is recognised by the myriad of restrictions now appearing in response to an increasing number of landing incidents.

What these cadets lack is experience, and after a couple of years they prove to be very competent operators; it’s how they gain this experience that is the issue!

[IcePack]

There is no substitute for experience index

Unfortunately there are those that disagree. Usually accountants. (who think they know the cost of every thing including hard landings. BUT know the value of nothing)

[Globalstream]

Before I give my replies, I want to make sure I understand what`s being said.

Pontius-

1. Do you say that cadet schemes provide the most satisfactory source of FOs?

2. Do you contend that cadet standards, far from declining, are satisfactory?

3. Are you saying that, on balance, you consider operational and system knowledge to be more important than basic handling skills and airmanship with regards to flying an airliner?

4. If the answer to 3 is yes, what general aircraft specification do you believe imparts skills that are "transferable" to airline operations?

V2-

1. Are you saying that FJ streaming indicates "easy" transitions in the future?

2. When determining training processes, do you believe in training for the most capable or least capable candidate?

A320baby

- Are you saying that the absence of other flying opportunities is a legitimate reason to allow newly qualified pilots to operate as commercial SICs?

[BugSpeed]

I think a few things need to be put in context here.

Certainly within the UK MPL programmes the following are true:

The only difference between a ATPL(F) and MPL is the single pilot hire/reward restriction. They can however still fly PPL so long as they have their SEP slip stamped because they complete all requiste training to fly to that level.

A typical MPL student will arrive to the airline with c. 110 flight hours as opposed to c.150 for the ab initio ATPL(F). The difference comes in the amount of time, at the latter stages, spent in a suitable simulator.

At 1500 hours it all becomes a moot point anyway because they upgrade to an ATPL in the same way an ATPL(F) would.

Having trained MPL and ATPL(F) students alike on the line, there is very little difference. Both sets of students have the same relative problems at the same relative points.

If you want to be a single crew pilot, do a ATPL(F) course. If you want to be a multi-crew pilot, do a MPL course.

Incidentally, under the UK CAA, in order to have a valid MPL course, you must have an airline partner because the MPL is not complete until the base training has been successfully done (amongst other reasons).

[Mel Effluent]

Some of the posters here seem to be confusing experience with competence.

Competence: "The ability to do something successfully or efficiently".
Experience: "Practical contact with and observation of facts or events".

Experience is no guarantee of competence (though it may help), and if the MPL delivers competent co-pilots, I do not see that there is a problem.

[BugSpeed]

Mel Eff,

Well said.

[sapco2]

The company I work for has a track record for taking on young LEP's straight out of training to fly our B757's and I have to say I've been very impressed with the majority of them who quickly get to grips with the aircraft. I think this has a lot to do with the fact they join us with no preconceived ideas therefore have a tendency to quickly adapt to the company's SOP's. The majority of these young guys and gals are highly intelligent young individuals. During the past 10 years I can only think of one cocky young man who desperately needed to mature up a bit - he has since moved up in the world and now works for a world favourite airline!

[Globalstream]

MEL Effluent

I think the sentiment that those of us advocating the need for experience are expressing is this- that nurtured experience yields increasing competence and all things being equal we would prefer to see the same candidates with (something like) a minimum of 700 hrs + before they go to the right seat.

For us, the MPL philosophy undermines some of the core skills that we value, skills that may not be readily needed when flying day to day with a capable commander, but may be called for when things go wrong or are significantly non-standard.

In my experience, cadet programs are only an appropriate stream for a handful of candidates and even then, the outcome is totally dependent on the quality of those programs. I can only think of a handful of these, all directed exclusively by major airlines.

[Tee Emm]

The licence and training system could be rejected as inadequate - but is that likely? Not according to Capt Dieter Harms, a senior Lufthansa pilot also known as "father of the MPL" for his work with ICAO

Of course he would say that. After all he would look a bloody fool if he criticised his own wheel barrow that he pushed..

[Mikehotel152]

Playing the Devil's Advocate, might I ask exactly what this added 700 hrs of experience flying light aircraft will bring to the party? I have flown with 140 different Captains. Some were excellent airmen; many were rubbish; some less competent than I, a mere FO. Experience does not equate to skill or guarantee good decision making.

Given that society tolerates the risk inherent in the lower level of competence held by professionals in other industries at the early stages of their careers, why is there a fear of cadet pilots?

You may counter with the argument that our industry is dangerous, but the statistics do not support an argument that 250hr cadets are a danger. Apart from one hard landing by a cadet line training with a UK charter airline about three years ago, I cannot think of a serious incident involving a cadet.

The many incidents and accidents I have seen discussed on Pprune over the years have all been the responsibility of experienced pilots. Ergo, if we were to look at barring pilots owing to statistical risk we might be looking at wholly different swathes of people.

As I say, I'm playing Devil's Advocate, but these points deserve addressing.

[Clandestino]

Well, I'm not Pontius, V_2 or A320baby but I can certainly give it a try.

Do you say that cadet schemes provide the most satisfactory source of FOs?Well conceived and executed MPL will give you as good fresh F/O as any other mean of training. Also it will cost and last similarly as an integrated course. That many training touted as MPL has turned out to be a scam doesn't mean every MPL is.

Do you contend that cadet standards, far from declining, are satisfactory?They are declining but they are so far mostly satisfactory. It has nothing to do with the type of training, most problems I've encountered were connected with either personal attitude towards work and flying or weak understanding of maths and physics at high school level.

Are you saying that, on balance, you consider operational and system knowledge to be more important than basic handling skills and airmanship with regards to flying an airliner?Nice example of false dichotomy. Both are equally important and that is: extremely!

If the answer to 3 is yes, what general aircraft specification do you believe imparts skills that are "transferable" to airline operations? Apart from flying, faster, higher, longer and in worse weather than GA there is not much difference in basic flying skills required to fly GA type or airliner. Operating the systems is another matter. Could be reason why Singapore has its cadets flying Learjets and Lufthansa CitationJets before type rating training.

Are you saying that FJ streaming indicates "easy" transitions in the future? Not by itself. FJ jocks have demonstrated to be extremely competent pilots, occasional problem is them remaining stuck in FJ mentality. That being said, arrogant ex-FJ capt denigrating everyone not being military trained is nowadays seemingly extinct species.

When determining training processes, do you believe in training for the most capable or least capable candidate?Relative. Training is modeled to cater least capable candidate still deemed able to pass it and fly the aeroplane safely and efficiently afterwards. "Least capable" still means high above average capability of general population.

Are you saying that the absence of other flying opportunities is a legitimate reason to allow newly qualified pilots to operate as commercial SICs? Legitimate reason to allow newly qualified pilots to operate as commercial SICs is they are certified competent by appropriate authority and accepted by airline. If real life justifies their decision, there is no problem here.

As this is highly emotionally charged issue, I do expect that discussion will be now enlivened by blowing accident or two out of every proportion by those who feel insulted by the proposition that less than 200 hr TT wonders can fly the aeroplane safely.

Some of the posters here seem to be confusing experience with competence.Exactly! E.g. GA pilot experienced in working for shoddy operator that made him regularly bust the rules but he was lucky to never get caught (or killed) that expects whole world to operate as his unscrupulous first master, has so less valuable than properly trained cadet that his net worth is negative.

I think the sentiment that those of us advocating the need for experience are expressing is this- that nurtured experience yields increasing competenceVery well said. It is sentiment, not knowledge.

For us, the MPL philosophy undermines some of the core skills that we value It is not MPL philosophy but some less than scrupulous FTO owners selling deficient programs as MPL.

In my experience, cadet programs are only an appropriate stream for a handful of candidates and even then, the outcome is totally dependent on the quality of those programs. I can only think of a handful of these, all directed exclusively by major airlines. Exactly! So is the MPL.

[Tee Emm]

I had a cadet pilot in the right seat of a 737, who was on their first flight, having been cleared to the line the day before. This pilot had fewer than 200 hours in their logbook (JAR 'frozen' ATPL). We had to shut down an engine in flight and then followed Company SOPs, FO flies the approach for captain's landing.

Clearly from what you say about company SOP's your company doesn't trust you to fly a single engine approach but does permit you to do the actual touch down. What a strange logic and it is probably good that your trusting passengers wre not aware the most junior pilot is flying the approach on one engine. Otherwise there would be a riot on your hands.

But seriously - what is it with this new fangled warm and fuzzy approach where the approached must be "shared" between the two pilots. Is it that the captain of the aircraft and who holds the ultimate responsibility for the safety of the flight needs `help` to manage such a simple task?

I realise you are a captive audience to your higher authority but surely there must be a commonsense limit to how much the captain is allowed to abrogate his authority in order to allow his subordinate to practice his new found skills at a single engine approach at the expense of the fare paying punters in cattle class. Why not go the whole hog? Give the young bloke the leg and sit back and let him do the lot including the engine failure and approach and landing in Cat 2. After all, he may only have two figure command hours in a single engine trainer in his log book but is qualified as aircraft commander of a jet transport in a simulator. Big deal

[Piltdown Man]

My experience to date is that the physical handling of an aircraft by low hour pilots is excellent. If the MPL system throws out pilots who have the same level of aircraft handling skills as my low houred colleagues, they will have done a good job. And I can see no reason as to they shouldn't have the same or better skills, because they will have spend more time in the sim. than the approved course chappies.

However, pilots with low hours have weaknesses in two areas. Firstly in operating an aircraft - basically due to a lack of experience. Whilst they can "pole" the aircraft to point X, they often don't consider whether they really should be going to point X. Secondly, and this is where the 1,500 hour pilot has an edge, they are often very immature and lack people skills (arrogant little sods, some of them). But overall, when you consider the overall skills of new First Officers, by the best are generally the current crop of ex-air force pilots. Not surprisingly, they move on to become good commanders as well.

But some of the worst pilots I have seen are the crusty old "Cold War" fast jet pilots. I found them lazy, supremely arrogant, slap-dash, egotistical and at times, bloody dangerous. I'm sure CRM was invented to deal with these obnoxious gits. I reckon they were passed out to be single-crew fast jet pilots because nobody would ever fly with them.

If the current crop of MPL pilots are exposed to realistic training scenarios and properly mentored throughout the training process, there is no reason why they can't qualify to become airline pilots and perform every bit as well (or better) as their colleagues who have been trained under the traditional system. The new system allows all of the rubbish regarding piston engines, the nuances of VFR nav, circuits, first solos, cross countries to be dumped. If you want to do that, fine but it hasn't got much to do with airline flying. The relevant bits will still be taught (and I think learnt more about VFR nav. when doing my line training in an F27).

Let's see the product before we trash it.

[Globalstream]

DA

You may note that I said 700 hours or something like that. It might be more or less, but the point is that many of us who have been trainers, instructors, TRIs/TREs can attest that those additional hours increase a pilot`s capacity to react and to focus on operational matters rather than basic handling.

Somewhere beyond 250 hours, the process whereby repetition causes a pilot`s responses to become instinctive- doing the right thing, at the right time, without thought- is well underway. This should ensure that line training is just that; LINE training and line captains do not find their skills unreasonably challenged by weakness in the right seat. Training and evaluation programs must consider the likely minimum performance, not maximum.

Now, let`s be clear, we all acknowledge the quality of any pilot depends on the individual and the system that developed him, but it is irrefutable logic that all things being equal, that same individual should be improving with every hour.

This experience philosophy is fundamental to the whole aviation training process. If you question the value of experience then ask yourself why the cold world of insurance demands demands hours well in excess of regulated hours for certain operations. I believe the only reason the adjusters have not made it cost prohibitive for airlines to have inexperienced pilots in the right seat is because the high profile accident that will cause it is yet to happen.

What I am saying, and I think I represent many others, is that cadets have a useful but limited role to play in pilot recruitment and that some of the philosophies of the MPL license run contrary to our thoughts on the positive contributions of experience and handling in producing safe pilots.

[Centaurus]

I see people scorning experience as irrelevent to airline piloting. The attitude seems to be as long as the cadet (or MPL graduate) can say the right phraseology, twiddle the right knobs on the autopilot and type at 80 words a minute into the CDU he is automatically the Right Stuff.

Two of these commanders of the future undergoing a Boeing 737 conversion knew their company SOP off pat. Then the unspeakable happened in the simulator. The Boeing SOP included the support pilot calling `80 knots" during the take off run and calling V1 and `Rotate`at the appropriate speeds. Normal airline procedure.

On this occasion one cadet conducted the take off acting as the captain while his chum in the RH seat made the calls. 80 knots was called and correctly acknowledged by the `captain`

But for some unknown reason the cadet in the RH seat failed to call V1 and VR. Unabashed, the `captain` continued the take off roll and simply stayed on the runway, all the while accelerating quickly towards the departure end of the 8000 ft runway. The speed passed V1, VR, V2, and V2 plus 10, 20, 30 and 40 knots, with the `captain` making no attempt to get airborne. At the last desperate second before taking out the localiser aerials beyond the end of the runway, he looked accusingly across the flight deck at his compatriot and said "You forgot to call V1 and VR"

And that, Pprune readers, is the difference between an MPL trained cadet and an experienced pilot...

[sapco2]

Just to qualify my support of LEPs, the one thing LEPs do need to guard against is in treating the job as some sort of contest. Airline flying is a satisfying career which has a fairly steep learning curve for most, and there are traps along the way. The job also requires good CRM training and a level of humility and that's a quality that exists in the more intelligent amongst them. The dangerous and stupid ones are those who find the need to tell everyone how good they think they are. So my humble advice to all LEPs (for what it's worth) is be confident but never arrogant!

[Gretchenfrage]

Experience is no guarantee of competence (though it may help), and if the MPL delivers competent co-pilots, I do not see that there is a problem

I read a very shy "if" in your statement ....

Well "to be or not to, that is the question".
It is exactly the little "if" that we are debating about. No one can actually prove his point of view in that respect.

I am pretty sure however, that all the pilots here defending the MPL system, and with it the dilution of training and skill in todays pilots, will eventually be in the left seat in a few years. If the trend is not reversed, the beancounters and greedy managers will be allowed to dilute it even more.

I am pretty sure to hear from all these venerable colleagues in a few years about how the the standard of FOs has dropped .... and they will be much more troubled by that, because their own training standard is quite low as well, and set in a MPL environment, meaning they are not very comfortable in operating an airliner alone or with big frightened eyes wide open staring at him from the right.

Brave new world, but I guess even that is something the new generation is not educated to know what it means.

Today everybody is beautiful, very important and can achieve anything, without work, without studying, without having to go through all the first, second and third loops and hoops as the former generation had to do, as long as the clown-hosts of the casting show pretend to see some talent in them.

Does a young doctor go right into cardiac surgery after a few weeks? Does a lawyer assistant stand up in court on a important clients case after a few weeks? Even in most top sports the athletes have to climb a certain ladder. A rookie has to earn his position with hard work and experience. The lone millennium talent is rare and even he/she has to work hard for her position.
It seems that aviation is so simple, that such things do not apply. With a mere 150 hours you can easily do in an emergency what a skipper learned in 10 years. And this is sustained and proudly written on these thread.

No wonder we start to read accident reports that leave us in astonishment.

I might exaggerate a bit to get the message over. But frankly, this MPL system has crossed a red line. Defending such a low training standard can actually on ly be done by either the financially interested on management side, or by pilots with a equally low training standard that they can not judge the actual threat.
No wonder Clandestino is defending the system .....

[Huck]

The issue is simple: a certain percentage of pilots shouldn't be in this business.

Some of them are weeded out in the beginning.

Some of them make it farther into the profession before failing and getting booted out.

At 250 hours, you haven't had time to be properly evaluated.

Sim time doesn't cut it - we all know pilots who can shine it on in the sim, and are worthless on the line.

[Globalstream]

Huck

Some of them are weeded out in the beginning. Some of them make it farther into the profession before failing and getting booted out

What you say is true in part, but I would say it`s an unreasonably harsh assessment. I would say the real argument for forcing more experience is that it ensures the average pilot arrives in the right seat with a basic set of skills and experience.

Exceptionally few candidates can go through an intensive cadet program and be fully ready with 200/250 hours or less, so it is not their inability at that point that`s the problem. It`s the failure of industry and regulators to make sure their competence vs entry point is appropriate.

I and most of my colleagues prefer a well trained pilot who has had several hundred hours to consolidate his training before hiring.

[rogerg]

At least the MPL students, in the in UK at least, do some aerobatics as part of the course. Don't know about elsewhere.

[SLFinAZ]

I think this says far more about you than them. I'm not talking about you being a Truckie but the fact that, from day one, these cadets have had training relevant to the commercial field in which they're operating, whereas you had to 'convert' from Betty's Flying Club

Sums it up entirely for me. Yes it was an ignorant post. You compare thousands of hours of actual flight operations under often demanding conditions with the garbage masquerading as actual commercial flight training these days.

If just one graduate from a "Betty's Flying Club" had been on 447 flight deck it would have been a non-event IMO.

[FERetd]

For those of you ( if any) who extol the virtues of the MPL, you might want to read the article written in "General Aviation" (the AOPA magazine) dated December 2010.
The article is titled "First UK MPL holders reach the flight deck"

I quote from page 32 " The MPL radically downgrades tradtional stick 'n' rudder skills; a student can obtain the licence and progress to the left seat, with as little as ten hours solo time" unquote.

That's ten hours of thinking for youself time!

But have no fear, the article continues, quote " Flybe seems to make some concession to these fears - it stipulated that its MPL students should fly not ten, but more than twenty hours solo and that they should experience asymmetrical flight and be able to do deal with it in a real aeroplane" unquote.

What more could you ask for?

The MPL is indeed a Muppet Pilots Licence, for the Muppets that prostitute themselves at the bottom end of P2Fliers and for the Muppets that promoted and approved the scheme, having enjoyed the good times and then reduce the profession to one of cheap labour and ever deteriorating Ts & Cs.

No wonder MOL seems to have such little regard for pilots.

Read the article, it is an eye opener. If you don't like the integrated cadet scheme, you're going to love the MPL!

[LeadSled]

Folks,
Given the very high proportion of pilots in major European and Asian airlines who have started off as cadets of one form or another, the very clear fact is that, looking at some 50 (yes! 50) years statistics, there is simply no accident or incident trend that can be sheeted home to pilots coming into aviation via cadet schemes.

If you looked at the underlying philosophy of the MPL, all it is, firstly, is an ICAO framework to standardize the many approaches to training cadet pilots and secondly, a way to recognize and utilise all we have learned about pilot training in that time. And that includes an appropriate mix of actual and simulated flight time.

To suggest that we should continue to train and license pilots essentially the same way as pre- WW II is just silly --- and flies in the face of 50 years of results achieved.

Tootle pip!!

PS: I was not a cadet, I came through a GA background, and had a very jaundiced view of ex- Hamble type cadets --- until I actually flew with them --- and found them no different to any other pilot, varying from very good through indifferent to "how did he get hired".

[P-T-Gamekeeper]

Surely the best aviators are both competent and experienced?

I would count myself as a reasonably competent pilot, not an ace, but good enough.
I am, however, pretty experienced. You can't train experience, it is absorbed over many years, operating into unfamiliar parts of the world, dealing with non-normal situations, which aren't covered by the QRH or Ops Manual.

This is one of the reasons that my company puts its Training Entry pilots onto short haul first. Not because they arent good enough for LH, but because more happens in SH, so they get accelerated experience.

I am lucky that my airline recruits a good mix of cadets, military, and other airline pilots. It is a great melting pot, and shared experiences from all sides make us all better pilots.

[fireflybob]

This MPL experiment will end in tears - waiting for the first major accident with one of them in the crew!

Flying basic aircraft solo over a hundred hours or so teaches you something - SURVIVAL!

[Denti]

Abinitio programs are a normal way into the flightdeck of major european carriers for the last 60 years. In most of those programs multicrew concepts were tought from day one. The MPL is just a new name for a reality that has been with us those last 60 years, with varying amount of hours in real aircraft and simulators as they became more sophisticated. For example Lufty has around 5500 pilots, at least 4500 of those went through their own abinitio program, something they did since they restarted their flight ops after the war (which was initially with WW2 trained pilots of course, usual training duration 20 to 25 hours). The last four years or so they ran only the MPL program.

Im with a competitor of Lufty and we started our own MPL program a bit earlier and have flown with those MPL students for the last five years. No problem at all with them, in fact they have usually a much better system knowledge and pretty much the same handling quality as traditionally trained pilots. During their MPL they do the normal JAR FCL PPL SEL and do train a few hours on multi engine piston planes, so they are allowed to fly solo as much as they want to (and their pocket money allows). However they do receive around a 100 hours full flight sim plus around 150 hours FNPT training before they even start their type rating and with that receive a lot more airline specific training in jets before they even come on the line, the training is finished after their type rating and around 150 hours linetraining.

[FERetd]

Denti, as you are a provider of the Muppet Pilots Licence, it is not surprising that you extol its virtues, although rather one sidedly.

MPL is not a new name for the previously known ab initio schemes.

MPL is a cheap and nasty way of getting cheap labour into the right hand seat.

Read the AOPA article from December 2010.

[Globalstream]

Denti

The first objective of an airline managed training program is the quality of the pilot and the airline will endeavor to do this on a cost effective basis. There are very few airlines that have been left with sufficient resources to operate such programs.

The first objective of an independent, commercial flight school must be profit. It will deliver a quality inversely proportional to its profit motive. In my experience it is always less than military or airline managed training and, in my opinion, that`s as true of basic flight training providers as it is of TRTOs.

I think the mistake you`re making is holding up a desperately small sample of pilots (LH and other direct airline managed ab-initio programs) and assuming that those standards are representative of other training schemes.

I think your other mistake is not recognizing that, regardless of the cadet scheme, technological, operational and systemic improvements are likely to be masking weak handling skills that need fixing.

By definition, MPL cannot deliver equivalent handling skills. How can it? The presumption would have to be that handling stops improving after a certain number of hours and that the additional hours of other licenses (or gained by experience) are unnecessary.

[Denti]

@FERetd, i wonder what stake a General Aviation organisation like AOPA has in professional airline training? Anyway, a real MPL program isn't cheap, quite the contrary it does cost a lot more than the traditional unsupervised 250h wonder boy school of questionable quality. Our program costs the applicant 60k€, the airline has to pay another 60 to 80k€ to cover the rest of the costs. And no, in the beginning i was very much against it myself, but the results do speak for themselves.

@Globalstream, indeed, there is a huge difference between a commercial school and an airline run program. However the MPL was not designed for commercial schools without a very close airline partnership. In my part of europe there is no independent MPL program for exactly that reason, as the requirements of airline partnership are so strong that only airline run programs can exist here. As i said, our MPLs do get their full MPL only after they finished their linetraining, only from that point on could they apply to other airlines, before that they are locked to the sponsoring airline. And of course airlines can afford to do an extremely thorough entry selection and only take the best suited applicants, we had around 1000 applicants per seat available on the program and could therefore be extremely picky.

There are more and more airline run training programs, not so much in the west of course as many airlines do have financial problems to begin with, however BA might be a point in case against that trend with their future pilot program which is nothing else but an airline run abinitio program, although the risk is squarely on the shoulder of the applicant. But considering that all middle east carriers have their own program, most asian carriers either run their program or will start with it in the near future, or have access to students from a state run program, the number of abinitio pilots in airliner seats is growing quite fast.

I was surprised myself when our experience based training showed a distinct lack of manual handling skills of many (but not all) traditionally trained pilots including quite a large number of our ex military guys. Apparently those skills erode very fast when pilots become lazy enough not to use them anymore on the line and rather let "george" do his thing. Our MPL students in general (yes, there are exceptions) were not worse off and in many cases better, however they are just starting their carreer and still enthusiastic about manual flight, as manual flight is actively encouraged in my company many of those MPL guys and gals used that to fly manually a lot and increase their handling skills.

[Capt Hook]

Denti, such airline run programs have a very tough selection process, with only the most able candidates securing a place. Your comments fail to consider other avenues, whereby cadets self-fund their MPL course.

In the past such self-funded schemes only recruited the best candidates through arrangements with a variety of UK Airlines; this scheme guaranteed permanent employment after an initial 6 month probationary period. This agreement was funded by the HSBC providing un-secured loans which were paid back through a salary deduction with the airline over a number of years. This enabled any candidate, whatever his background, an opportunity to become an airline pilot, the sole selection criteria being ability.

Once my airline stopped offering permanent contracts to these entrants, HSBC stopped providing un-secured financing. Since that point I have witnessed a decline in the standard of these Cadets.

The current situation is now self-selecting based on the availability of money (self-funded); these candidates do not necessarily possess the ability or aptitude to the extent that they are still learning to fly when they arrive on these larger A/C types, rather than applying a learnt skill.

[FERetd]

Denti, quote:- "@FERetd, i wonder what stake a General Aviation organisation like AOPA has in professional airline training?"

Answer:- Probably none, which makes their opinion rather more credible than yours.

What other "qualification" will let someone sit in the LH or RH seat of an airliner with 10 hours of solo time? You need a minimum of 10 hours solo for a PPL!

Read the article!!

[V_2]

Cpt Hook, I do not mean to keep picking you out, just that you raise particually interesting comments!

Your comments fail to consider other avenues, whereby cadets self-fund their MPL course.All MPL courses must have an airline partner in order to complete phase 4 of the training. Therefore the airlines get involved with the pre-selection. Any MPL without an airline partner upfront is I believe committing fraud (at least within EASA?).

The current situation is now self-selecting based on the availability of money (self-funded)Well by offering a MPL scheme, and therefore a "secure" job, you are actually opening up the industry to people who otherwise could not afford, or were not prepared to take the finicial risk.

Your arguement that people should have experience is valid, but who can afford to just hours bash? Only the well off, which is exacterly what you are worried about! I can believe that you may well have noticed a drop recently with new FO's, but at least the MPL scheme (and fATPL tagged schemes,eg BA) gives the most able a chance of joining the industry and re-raising standards, no?

[LeadSled]

TarasB,
Somebody committing fraud does not invalidate the concept of the MPL.
After all, there have been no shortage of frauds with old fashioned pilot training, over the years.
Tootle pip!!

[parabellum]

Your arguement that people should have experience is valid, but who can afford
to just hours bash? Only the well off

Not really V2, how do you think the industry managed before the days of P2F and MPL? We got our licences and then went off and got a job flying light twins, often overseas, until we had enough hours for an airline to even look at us, others took the Intructing route. Don't know if they still do it but QANTAS had the right idea, after cadet training go off to get 1500 hours on light stuff as PIC then back to the airline.

As far as I can see all the MPL will produce are inexperienced systems operators who will become experienced systems operators and eventually competent co pilots, just that, not potential captains.

[V_2]

Not really V2, how do you think the industry managed before the days of P2F and MPL? We got our licences and then went off and got a job flying light twins, often overseas, until we had enough hours for an airline to even look at us, others took the Intructing route.And people used to think the world was flat. What was the best system in the past does not mean it is best for today. Times have changed.

1. Private GA has become remarkably more expensive, stopping many from hours bashing as I have remarked before.
2. Commercial GA is increasingly hard to come across. Yes there is some abroad, which provides excellent handling opportunities, and I would love to do it. But some may question the practices that occurs, the mentality that builds and also the difficulty in converting them to multicrew +multi systems flying. Depends on the individual I guess. But even so, is there enough to go round?
3. Instructing you often get no more than £15ph, maybe £20 if you are lucky, exluding the ground briefing times. This is not enough to even repay the interest on the loans. Yes in the past you may just get a second job until you get your 1500 hours, but in the current eco climate, this becomes unfeasible. Secondly if you are worried about pilots with 10-100 hours lacking handling skills, what makes you sure they are gonna be competant instructors. Double standards no?
4. In the past, maybe when some of you guys were training, the RAF/military was double, 3, maybe even 4 times as big? This provided a massive pool of high trained and skilled individuals, with many hours, to move onto the commercial ladder. Many of these individual's (like myself) could not afford to become commercial pilots without the RAF's "help". We all know that now, this stream of pilots is drickling dry. Commercial flying's thirst for pilot has stayed about the same, arguably even grown. Where are these extra pilots going to come from if not the military?
5. As Flybe, BA, BACF, Monarch, Aer Lingus, etc offer more schemes, less people will be prepared to take the self sponsored route. Why would you? No longer will people feel it is nessessary to pay for a type rating, go to RyanAir, and then leave for a traditional charachter asap. As self sponsored's dry up (or their quality declines as "the best" are on schemes), hopefully this will force RyanAir/Easy to up their games, and improve their T+C's once again. One can only hope!

[Depone]

Firstly, Globalstream, I have instructed my lawyers to issue proceeding against you for unlawfully posting my portrait photograph online. I use that particular pic for job applications and fear you may have dented my chances by distributing it willy-nilly. ;)

V_2

1. Absolutely. Only a rich person, or person living in a caravan eating baked beans for every meal, can afford sufficient regular GA flying to build hours.
2. I agree with this. Considering the growth of commercial aviation at the airline level and the death of aviation at the local level, the very few opportunities to gain experience on air taxis etc are almost insignificant compared with needs of the airlines.
3. Instructing is worthwhile and good instructors make good pilots, but I know of many instructors who are in dead end jobs. Sitting in the right seat of a Cessna gaining hours as PiC despite rarely touching the controls does not make you a good pilot, but more importantly it does not make you attractive to employers. It might have done fifteen to twenty years ago, but now? Empirical evidence suggests no.
5. Those within the industry at the higher levels were not faced with the options that greet the new joiners. If there was a genuine option of self improving by going the light aircraft route I suspect many would take it. The reality is that there is not.

[Clandestino]

What a strange logic and it is probably good that your trusting passengers wre not aware the most junior pilot is flying the approach on one engine. Otherwise there would be a riot on your hands.
1. it is called monitored approach, risks, benefits, terms of use and limitations are supposed to be very well understood by the companies using it.

2. passengers don't know and don't care about juniorness of flightcrew unless prompted by the journos versed in sensationalism, "working" on the story about dangers of inexperienced crew between stories of latest possible outbreak of some new disease (which never materializes) and analysis of exact weight of some B movie star's breast implants, based on "before" and "after" photos.

3. flightdeck is not democracy, idea of flightdeck ops is doing what really needs to be done, not what someone thinks should be done. Threat and error management refers.

But seriously - what is it with this new fangled warm and fuzzy approach where the approached must be "shared" between the two pilots.Nothing, that approach must be shared is spectacularly funny misunderstanding.

Secondly, and this is where the 1,500 hour pilot has an edge, they are often very immature and lack people skills Unfortunately, I haven't observed improvement of maturity and interpersonal skills commensurate with hours logged. Methinks psycheval before training even starts does have some merit.

it is irrefutable logic that all things being equal, that same individual should be improving with every hour. It is not irrefutable logic; it is so wrong that it was occasionally demonstrated to be lethal! Only individuals striving to learn improve with time, there are others who just drone along with minimum effort needed to pass the checks. They are usually the loudest supporters of experience=quality fallacy. Have a go at accidents report to see a bunch of 10 000+ greybeards making mistakes that are often mistakenly referred to as beginner's.

If you question the value of experience then ask yourself why the cold world of insurance demands demands hours well in excess of regulated hours for certain operations. Because where it is required (GA ops), there is no structured training and checking as there is in airlines so basic equation in the wonderful world of GA is houred+alive=competent. That's why there are no increased premiums for airlines when less than 200hr TT folks fly passengers as they are 1. properly certified by their respective authorities 2. not featuring prominently in accident or incident statistics.

I see people scorning experience as irrelevent to airline piloting.The most important experience in flying is that of other pilots! Learn from other's mistakes, you will not have the time to perform them all personally or luck to do them a lot before bereaving your dependents.

The attitude seems to be as long as the cadet (or MPL graduate) can say the right phraseology, twiddle the right knobs on the autopilot and type at 80 words a minute into the CDU he is automatically the Right Stuff.Misinformed exaggeration and misinterpretation of posts here. Properly trained MPL graduate is not lacking either manual or cognitive skills to fly an airliner and operate its systems. It's just s/he doesn't have 100 hours of solo cross-country stopwatch, compass and map navigation.

And that, PPRuNe readers, is the difference between an MPL trained cadet and an experienced pilot... No. This is story told on anonymous forum without any verifiable reference attached to it. In developed world, such a serious breach of safety would result in AAIB or its equivalent taking note.

Airline flying is a satisfying career.Folks who think it of it primarily as career are usually the least competent pilots and sooner they move to upper management, better for the rest of us. It's a hard work that passion for flying makes more endurable, even enjoyable.

So my humble advice to all LEPs (for what it's worth) is be confident but never arrogant! My distinctly unhumble advice is be competent, I don't give a Q400 about your arrogance unless you use it to support something untrue.

I am pretty sure however, that all the pilots here defending the MPL system, and with it the dilution of training and skill in todays pilots, will eventually be in the left seat in a few years.Thank you for your good wishes.

It seems that aviation is so simple, that such things do not apply.They do apply, it is just some outsiders are unable to perceive it.

No wonder we start to read accident reports that leave us in astonishment.My astonishment (and considerable amusement) is that despite accident reports clearly stating flightcrew experience, which is verys seldom low, everyone still bashes low houred pilots but then I have already offered an explanation on it.

But frankly, this MPL system has crossed a red lineOn some PPRuNers scale. Effect on the real world: poor to nil.

The issue is simple: a certain percentage of pilots shouldn't be in this business.

Some of them are weeded out in the beginning.

Some of them make it farther into the profession before failing and getting booted out.

At 250 hours, you haven't had time to be properly evaluated.

Sim time doesn't cut it - we all know pilots who can shine it on in the sim, and are worthless on the line. Exactly! It is not as if the airlines have to cope with substandard pilots, no matter of their training background. Bad MPL pilot can be booted out at OPC.

If just one graduate from a "Betty's Flying Club" had been on 447 flight deck it would have been a non-event IMO.That IMO is based on the ignorance of the fact that the pilot whose actions doomed the flight, the right hand seated one, was a glider pilot.

Now what?

For those of you ( if any) who extol the virtues of the MPL, you might want to read the article written in "General Aviation" (the AOPA magazine) dated December 2010.
The article is titled "First UK MPL holders reach the flight deck"Thank you, it gave me a good laugh. Article represents view of two groups who have their skin much in the game; light GA operators bound to lose a lot of rent-out hours if MPL becomes the norm and first generation of MPL graduates struggling to be accepted int the world looking suspiciously at novelties. What ensues is idiocylimpics, as both sides attempt to spew as much bravo-sierra about MPL as possible in limited space.

dealing with non-normal situations, which aren't covered by the QRH or Ops Manual.What was that which made you deal with them successfully the first time they occurred?

This MPL experiment will end in tears - waiting for the first major accident with one of them in the crew!...and meanwhile ignoring all the others accidents that happen to experienced crews because they don't fit our preconceived notions.

MPL is a cheap and nasty way of getting cheap labour into the right hand seat.So, should we abolish all the bank transfer fees because some Nigerian fellas are scamming people using it?

The first objective of an independent, commercial flight school must be profit. It will deliver a quality inversely proportional to its profit motive.That's why the developed world has independent inspectors performing certification.
Your comments fail to consider other avenues, whereby cadets self-fund their MPL course.Unlike some other comments pronouncing every MPL program to be inadequate because of some unscrupulous FTO owners in countries with less than effective control of their aviation sector?

Not really V2, how do you think the industry managed before the days of P2F and MPL? We got our licences and then went off and got a job flying light twins, often overseas, until we had enough hours for an airline to even look at us, others took the Intructing route. Don't know if they still do it but QANTAS had the right idea, after cadet training go off to get 1500 hours on light stuff as PIC then back to the airline.The world does not end outside Autralia, USA or Canada. There are many countries that just don't have GA or military aviation large enough to produce pilots for their airlines' needs so they had to find other ways of filling the seats. Unfortunately for some, they rather went for cadet schemes or recently for MPL than importing large number of Aussies, Gringos or Cannucks.

[P-T-Gamekeeper]

Clandestino - I was lucky enough to be trained by an organisation that didn't just give the bare minimum legal training, so I gained plenty of training in these situations within the training environment.

When on the line, I also enjoyed way beyond the minimum training events, both ground, sim and aircraft based.

I also flew within an environment that encouraged airmanship, problem solving, and thinking outside the box.

By the time I was an airline P2, I had plenty of real world experience to fall back on.

[FERetd]

Clandeastino, a minute extract from your lengthy post "
Quote:
Originally Posted by FERetd
MPL is a cheap and nasty way of getting cheap labour into the right hand seat.
"So, should we abolish all the bank transfer fees because some Nigerian fellas are scamming people using it?"

Nowhere have I mentioned any scam and nowhere have I mentioned any Nigerian fellows, although they might be able to get you a good deal on a MPL.

Sadly, now that you have hijacked this thread, as you have done to others, it is time for me to move on.

As for your comments about the AOPA article being "bravo sierra", I should perhaps give your remarks some credability.

After all, you should know, you are full of it and always have been.

I do not know if you have actually read the article. It was well written and neither supported or opposed the MPL. Both sides of opinion were well represented and the reader was free to make up his own mind.

For me, any "qualification" that permits a "pilot" to occupy an operating seat in an airliner, with only 10 hours solo time is seriously flawed.

[fireflybob]

For me, any "qualification" that permits a "pilot" to occupy an operating seat in an airliner, with only 10 hours solo time is seriously flawed.

FERetd, could not agree more!

[TTex600]

Do Captains demand a pay override for giving Operating Experience to either Cadets or MPL pilots?

If want me to play instructor, pay me. Other than that, I'm OK with the basic concept.

[Pontius]

Clearly from what you say about company SOP's your company doesn't trust you to fly a single engine approach but does permit you to do the actual touch down. What a strange logic and it is probably good that your trusting passengers wre not aware the most junior pilot is flying the approach on one engine. Otherwise there would be a riot on your hands.

No, Tee Emm, is doesn't clearly say anything of the sort :rolleyes: Funnily enough, not all captains feel it is necessary, nor sensible, to be the steely-eyed hero who battles his crippled machine through adversity and saves the day....all the while ignoring the resource sitting next to him. The job of the captain is to manage the situation to achieve a safe outcome, not use the situation to try and grandstand how all his hours flying GA around the GAFA have given him an amazing ability to hand-fly in a non-normal situation. Far better to use the guy next to you, as he flies the aircraft through the autopilot and monitor his progress, all the while dealing with the other things a captain should: passengers, ATC, Company etc. I know I have the ability to do all those things but it is not effective use of all the resources I have to hand and, as I said previously, I always have the veto if I don't like something Bloggs is doing. As for the passengers being scared by the FO flying, why should they be? We're talking about someone, who is qualified to do so, operating the aircraft using SOPs while being checked by the other pilot. In your mind it's okay if he's an FO who's done 1500 hours of circuits in a C152 but not if he's come through as a cadet. To ensure the 'most junior pilot' is not allowed to fly the machine that means the captain is always going to have to fly it and it's that that makes no sense, not your ill-conceived opinion of the way a very large and successful British airline chooses to do it's business.

This MPL experiment will end in tears - waiting for the first major accident with one of them in the crew!

Flying basic aircraft solo over a hundred hours or so teaches you something - SURVIVAL!

Firefly Bob,

That has to be one of the most crass statements made in this thread. You're waiting for an accident to happen with an MPL pilot as part of the crew just so you can say 'I told you so' :ugh: What about all the other accidents that have happened where non-MPL crew were involved? Just look at the most recent incidents and tot up how many thousands of hours the FOs had.

As for your suggestion that >100 hours of solo flight in a basic aircraft teaches you survival, I think you should try looking inward and not tarring others with the strange brush of logic with which you paint. I had a very healthy survival instinct before I ever stepped into an aircraft and that didn't change after 100 hours or 10000. Yes, we gain experience and that helps us to assist in the diagnosis of non-normal events but, let's face it, the vast majority of those are already pre-dealt with, thanks to the likes of Boeing and Airbus and those are well within the remit of a cadet that has been properly trained.

[Mikehotel152]

I think there is something to be said for gaining 100 hours of solo time before joining the airlines and potentially flying solo with 150 passengers depending on your survival instincts.

Those who only fly modern airliners with auto-everything, with the occasional hand flying under a colleague's supervision, will have forgotten the latent terror in the backs of the minds of those for whom safe flying in 3 dimensions required constant attention and physical action.

Those for whom their flight training comprised primarily the sim and 10 hours solo, might never have known that feeling. And I think it does matter.

[A37575]

But some may question the practices that occurs, the mentality that builds and also the difficulty in converting them to multicrew +multi systems flying. Depends on the individual I guess. But even so, is there enough to go round?

That mind-set has been going around for decades and is a myth. Recently a young CPL with 1800 hours plus and nearly all of it low level below 500 ft in a twin flying solo on survey work in the desert, completed a 737 type rating. Part of that training was as PNF to his crash-mate also doing the type rating.
Both quickly learned the duties of a first officer and their instrument and manual flying was top class. There was no "mentality" problems whatever that is supposed to mean. In other words whether or not the jet transport candidate has flown fighters, crop dusters, seaplanes or instructing, they all have to undergo the same basic type rating course on a jet simulator.

And as part of that course they automatically absorb normal multi-crew techniques. This includes briefings on the Human Factors aspects of the strong possibility in their career of crewing with a pedantic legend-in-his-own-mind, up himself captain. They are told the chances of that happening occasionally in their career is 75 percent for. In any case, any half decent airline will thoroughly brief new candidates what is expected of them as part of the Induction process.

[SLFandProud]

This MPL experiment will end in tears - waiting for the first major accident with one of them in the crew!
Does the fact you're still waiting not tell you something?
Flying basic aircraft solo over a hundred hours or so teaches you something - SURVIVAL!
And yet quite a few people with that experience have nevertheless flown perfectly good aircraft into the ground (or sea.) It's not immediately clear therefore what the first MPL pilot making the same mistakes until now reserved for Biggles is going to prove.



Your rightful indignation would probably be better reserved for the first major accident involving no crew whatsoever: Biggles should probably be more concerned about automation than MPLs...

[RVR800]

One may have need to fear the GPL (Ground Pilot's licence)