JAR MCC : a SCAM ?

[skysheriff]

can someone explain to me the usefulness of JAR MCC ? there was no need for a MCC before JAR.
airline pilots could fly before without MCC before JAR. Were they less skillfull ?
there is no need of MCC outside JAR space (FAA and others) there is no examination at the end of the MCC, its short, its expensive (ads on this site for 2000£ ).
just more money for JAR crooks ?

[Baldie Man]

Knew this post would come sooner or later.

[AMEX]

The choice is yours;)
Whether you think it is useful or not is irrelevant since it is only a company requirement in many cases.

[worzel]

This is my theory of how MCC as we know it came about.

When the JAA was formed and the rule books were being written, it was decided to invent MCC, a course to be completed as part of a type rating in an airline environment demonstrating the importance of operating effectively as part of a crew in the Flight Deck. As well as learning to ask someone else to put the gear up for you, there are some very important lessons that need to be learnt about working safely with others. Responsible operators had actually been carrying this out in the UK by for years, as part of the type rating (what other countries within the newly formed JAA were doing is anyones guess) so it was decided to standarise with the MCC course. A very good, safety concious idea.

A flight school/university in the UK then got the idea that, as well as offering the ATPL course they could make a bit of cash by offering the new MCC course. A bastardised version of the crew interaction part of the type rating was born.

The wannabes of this world desparately searching for jobs, are always keen to get something new on their CV's to put them ahead of others, so they enrolled on this course. Before you can say 'what a load of tosh' other schools see the potential to make a few extra quid out of us and start to offer the course too.

As more training providers start to offer the course the airlines who have not yet got approval to do it in-house, start to request it as part of their minimum criteria.

We all feel we have to do the course to get a job, so we do it. The flight schools make loads of money, some airlines save money by not having to worry about designing the new course and we wannabes eat economy beans for another year.

In my (worthless) opinion, MCC when carried out properly ie as part of a type rating, in a realistic working environment using company sop's is a very worthwhile course. In its current form MCC - being tought fabricated procedures on an aircraft type your probably never going to fly for real, with an instructor who does not fly for an airline- is a worthless course from a learning point of view. And whats more you could be the worst Multi Crew operator in the world and you still get a certificate at the end of it all. If it were the employer doing the course you would be out!

This is how I see it at the moment. I'm ready to be corrected if I've got the wrong end of the ****ty stick.

worzel

[foghorn]

Hello again gorky/ronchonner.

[Send Clowns]

Worzel

This cannot be entirey of the schools' doing, as the MCC is part of the integrated course. Natually in order to compete the student with a modular fATPL must take an MCC, so it was tagged tot he end of the full-course modular programmes that were being deveoped. In fact this all happened too quickly to be a result of the chain of evnts you suggest. By the time I looked at courses in December 1999, before JARs were in effect the MCC was part of the Cabair and SFT courses, the two I looked at.

SkySheriff

You seem to have the same views as an old, very experienced pilot I once had the temerity to argue with. We came onto the subject of crew co-operation, and he (an arrogant ex-fast-jet, single-seat pilot) refused to accept that the current feeling was that a lot of accidents are caused at least partly by poor crew co-operation. If you sat the MCC you would see the advantages to it just from the case studies that you are taught about, past accidents and learning from the errors of those crews.

worzel

I don't think the MCC was ever intended to teach procedures. The procedures are unimportant and generalized, it is opening the student's mind to the pitfalls of cockpit relationships that seemed to be the bulk of what was directed at me. Therefore the specific procedures are irrelevant (and in fact could conceal problems if you learnt with procedures that happened to be imperfect in their ease of MCC), and they should be taught as you say on the type rating and line training, but of course always with reference to what has already been learnt abouc crew co-operation and management. Of course a lot of what is learn on MCC is about when procedures break down, and you don't want to concentrate too much on that during type and line training!

[worzel]

Send Clowns

I'm not saying that MCC is designed to teach procedures, I know that it's not and agree with the points you make. What I am saying is that, procedures have to be used to operate in a two crew environment therefore it should be tought by someone who has knowledge of current airline operating procedures. MCC can be tought as part of the type rating. So, you can do the course on the aircraft type you will be flying, with the airline you will be flying for. There really is no reason why any of us should be paying for MCC courses, they should be provided for us when we get our first job.

My MCC was a sham. The guy teaching us was out of touch, he had no idea about what goes on in the real world. I learned very little of any use on my course, I was also tought a load or rubbish which if I had taken it all on board would probably do me more harm than good.



foghorn

I hope that gorky/ronchooner comment wasn't aimed at me, because I'm neither of those.

worzel

[Professor Fog]

Is the MCC a scam ? depends on your point of view really.

All I can say is that I did one a few months ago and it gave me a valuable insight into airline operating procedures and as it was run on a heavy jet sim - a chance of handling jets.

Like most things I believe you get what you put into it. I did my IR sim time on a beechking thing and these are also used by some MCC providers. If you feel the MCC is just another tick in the box then goto them and get the cheapest deal possible - that's fair enough.

I looked around and found a firm offering an MCC course for only a couple of hundred quid more than those run on beechkings which was run on a heavy jet and run by old and bolds from BA/Virgin.

I have been lucky enough to get a job since and must put alot of my sucess down to the fact that I got 20 hrs or so in on a heavy jet sim - which made all the difference when it came to the sim ride. Im not saying do an MCC and you'll get a job but if you do a decent one it can only help.

worzel
they should be provided for us when we get our first job

well that would be nice - in fact I would love to have had all my training paid for by an airline !!!

[foghorn]

worzel,

no, I just remember from way back that skysheriff is another of ronch's alter egos...

since gorky has been banned I guess he's reverted to one of his spare logins...

cheers!
foggy.

[worzel]

foggy

Thanks for the reply. You had me worried, I thought I was about to be ousted!

cheers
worzel

[skysheriff]

justifications for JAR MCC seem very vague until now because there arent any. Has someone an idea of who invented the concept of MCC ?
it makes me think of other marketing bull**** soon they will invent the MCC classic (dont accept imitations on other than FNPT JAR crap), MCC light (on 152s but same price)

foghorn

sorry to disappoint you, i am not the same person as gorky/ronchonner

[TheDrop]

The MCC course is a requirement today before a pilot does his first type rating on a Multi Pilot Aeroplane (MPA). It is found in JAR FCL (NOT JAR OPS!), because it has only to do with your license.

If you know you will never fly an aeroplane requiring two pilots, you don't need the MCC course (unless you do an integrated course, where it is required in any case).

As to whether it is relevant or not ? For the time and the money spent, I could use it in a better way, but to pilots going from a small piston straight to a big jet, it would be probably be an advantage. But you really don't need the fancy full flight sim - it is mainly for the "real time" aspect of the training.


If you are doing an integrated course, you have to do an MCC:

--------------------------------------------

Appendix 1 to JAR-FCL 1.160 & l.l65(a)(l)
ATP(A) integrated course

...

8 The course shall comprise:
(a)
(b)
(c)
theoretical knowledge instruction to the ATPL(A) knowledge level;
visual and instrument flying training; and
training in multi-crew co-operation for the operation of multi-pilot aeroplanes.


(The last part is the MCC course or equivalent)
--------------------------------------------

Appendix 1 to JAR-FCL 1.160 8 1.165(a)(4)
CPL(A) modular course

-- 2 Before commencing a CPL(A) modular course an applicant shall:
(a)
(b)
(c)
skill test.
be the holder of a PPL(A) issued in accordance with ICAO Annex 1;
have completed 150 hours flight time as a pilot; and
have complied with JAR-FCL 1.225 and 1.240 if a multi-engine aeroplane is to be used on the skill test


("Multi-engine" should not be confused with "Multi-crew")
--------------------------------------------


JAR-FCL 1.240 Type and class ratings -
Requirements
(See Appendices 1 to 3 to
(1) An applicant for a type rating for
JAR-FCL 1.240)
(a) General
a multi-pilot type of aeroplane shall comply
with the requirements for type ratings set out
in JAR-FCL 1.250, 1.261 and 1.262;

JAR-FCL 1.250 Type rating, multi-pilot -
Conditions
(See AMC FCL 1.261 (d))
(See IEM FCL 1.261(d))
(a) Pre-requisite conditions for training:
[An applicant for the first type rating for a multi-]
pilot aeroplane type shall:
(1) have at least 100 hours as pilot-in-
command of aeroplanes;
(2) have a valid multi-engine
[instrument rating (A);]
(3) hold a certificate of satisfactory
completion of multi-crew co-operation
(MCC). If the MCC course is to be added to
the type rating course (see JAR-FCL 1.261
and 1.262 and AMC FCL 1.261(d) and IEM
FCL 1.261(d)), this requirement is not
applicable; and ...

[more requirements !]

[fibod]

TheDrop

You are nearly right. What you quoted from was the ATPL Integrated Course. From memory (I may be sad, but I'm not sad enough to have a copy of JAR-FCL 1 at home), the only difference between that and the CPL Integrated Course is the MCC. Everyone who is approved for an ATPL Integrated Course is automatically approved for a CPL Integrated Course. The course and the licence is identical other than the MCC certificate. i.e. both result in a fATPL

The effect of this is that the MCC may become a stand alone 'module'. For example, our BA cadets do their MCC on the BA Jet Orientation Course (JOC). Anyone who does an Integrated Course has the option (subject to their contract with the FTO) to not do the MCC.

As far as I am aware, a number of airlines do not require MCC prior to application as it is incorporated within their TRTO approval.

Yes, this is a means to save money. Yes, many people do an MCC twice. Yes, there may be other value of an MCC (more sim time, proof of enthisiasm, etc.).

[TheDrop]

In the above posting I wrote

("Multi-engine" should not be confused with "Multi-crew")

because the modular doesn't require it. Whether you can say no to MCC in an integrated course is not exactly what it says in JAR FCL (see above).

It is correct that a pilot might encounter an MCC course more than once, as it is often an integrated part of an initial type rating. And this would be the ideal solution, but as you say, several companies (not just in the UK) has made a business out of doing MCC courses. Where I come from prices run up into GBP 2900 (!) http://www.centerair.dk/mccfolder/mccframe.html (12 dkk/kr = 1 gbp/£, press the top button in the blue frame "Formal"). I had to buy one myself, even though I had plenty of multi crew experience already (but it wasn't in multi pilot aeroplanes, but rather multi pilot operations. Right after I took that course, the long term exemption came up where 500 hours in multi pilot operations was accepted - so my money and time was wasted. Yes, wasted, because I didn't learn anything breathtaking, with the experience I already had.

[foghorn]

Ok, skysheriff, apologies, you've just got the same pet subject. For a minute you looked like ronch trying really hard with his spelling and grammar. With hindsight maybe you're too coherent to be him;)

[worzel]

RTO

That's exactly it. FTO's should not be offering MCC courses. Any course that an FTO offers, someone will do to get one up on everybody else, so then the rest of us do it to get it on our CV's too. Then chances are as fibod says you will do it again when you do a type rating, there is absolutely no need for it.

And before anyone rants on about it being part of the integrated course, yes I know it is, but it shouldn't be. I like the idea behind MCC and I think it can teach valuable lessons, but a lot of FTO's cannot provide the knowledge of current commercial operations, in the same way that the airline can.

worzel

[Grivation]

... and meanwhile the rest of the aviation world goes about its merry way operating exactly the same aircraft in exactly the same way without ever having heard of an MCC course -

YES! IT'S A SCAM!!

[moggie]

OK, maybe my internet connection will stay up long enough to post this time.

MCC can be extrememly relevant - after 12 months on an integrated course operating as a one-man band then you need someone to train you in multi-crew skills. The type rating course may not be the best time for this as you will also be trying to learn the aeroplane tech stuff, handling skills and your company SOP. Take it from someone who went through the military system where MCC and CRM were stuff that you would "pick up as you go along" - this kind of course (if done well) is invaluable.

The step up to an airliner from a Seneca is huge - and until you do it you will not appreciate just how huge (WWW did it not so long ago - ask him). Some kind of bridging course is needed to fill the gap. The aim of the MCC course was to provide this bridge - with 25 hours of compulsory ground school (syllabus dictated by JAA) and 15 hours FNPT2 time (20 hours on non-integrated courses). Most suppliers do not believe that the 15 hours is enough to cram in all the syllabus requirements from the JAA, and allow the trainee to learn from the experience.

I was involved in providing LOFT and JOC training before MCC arrived and I believe that an opportunity was missed because it is non-assessed. Therefore just experiencing the syllabus is enough to earn a certificate. If it was assessed a) trainees would have an incentive to work at it (though to be fair MOST do) and b) FTOs would have THEIR performance evaluated by default - and the word would get round on this forum.

Prior to the arrival of MCC we in fact covered the MCC syllabus in the 44 hour JOC we supplied for BA and most of it was covered in our 40 hour LOFT course (some in our 20 hour course and we did NOT offer a 10 hour "LOFT" as some people did!). We found airlines telling those who did NOT have a LOFT course to their name to come to us for one - our reputation went before us and while 20 hours helped, they were even more keen on those who had 40.

Yes, MCC may be incorporated into type training but for the likes of BA they don't actually want to have to do 25 hours of non-type specific groundschool on top of 4 weeks of type tech. They also want to concentrate on type training - the MCC skills can be done by us as we are cheaper. We also get the chance to teach jet handling skills, spot weak candidates early, and provide remedial training at a much lower cost than on a BA 737 full flight sim with training Captain in tow. JOC saved BA something like £1.25 million per year before 11th sept - and that is no small amount when you think that is costs £60k to sponsor a trainee through ab-initio and MCC (that equates to 20 "free" pilots per year).

You also must be approved by the JAA to provide MCC training and many smaller airlines are not - so they must contract out or only recruit those pilots already in possession of a certificate.

However, up to a point, you get what you pay for. The MCC syllabus is short, crammed full of activity and very much open to abuse by trainees and trainers alike - no test means that you are partly dependant upon the skill and enthusiasm of the trainers and the trainee's desire to get the best. Additionally, the JAA want the emphasis on Multi-Crew skills, not aeroplane handling, so we are OBLIGED to use the autopilot as much as possible - meaning you will not get the chance to brush up your handling skills. I believe that you need 8 hours on top of MCC to prepare for that selection sim ride - bearing in mind that most selections are done on B737 or BAC 1-11, do you REALLY want to do that practice on KingAir? Just a thought there! It is also worth noting that almost none of our airline sponsored students get a minimum MCC - most airlines bump it up to a minimum of 30 hours, with 40+ being more typical. Does this tell you something about whether what we do is worth it to an airline? Worzels' theory would have us believe that the only sensible way to do MCC is by the airline doing it in house, but I know of NONE that do - but they would do if it saved money!

In order to operate any Multi-Crew aeroplane you MUST have an SOP - there is just no other way to do it - or you will have unsafe anarchy on the flghtdeck . We use a generic SOP which is similar to that used by a number of airlines and gives trainees a good grounding in the type of thing to expect on joining an airline. We obviously can't match everyone - there are as many SOPs as there are airlines but we will get you some of the way there. Of course, a sponsor airline can have their trainees taught their SOP at the MCC stage, saving time, effort and money at the type conversion - because it is just one less thing for the trainee to get his head round as he tries to become familiar with an A320 in 44 hours! This contributes in a large way to the money that airlines save by getting FTOs to do their courses.

A basic MCC of 15 hours may be a sham - as would be a 10 hour LOFT course - but if the exercises are well planned, the instructors well trained and enthusiastic, the simulator good enough to have a high degree of realism and the exercises conducted effectively with good constructive criticism then you can get something worthwhile out of it.

Or you could not do one or just go for the cheapest you can get - your choice.

[MorningGlory]

A reply from Professor Fog ONE WEEK AGO to a guy asking about doing a type rating without having a job!!

"Gorky - I have 300 hrs and have just recently got a 767 rating and I am interested in buying 500 hrs on type. Is this offer only available in the US ?? If so can you set up the visas etc ??"

Get a Flight Deck Position in a week Professor Fog? Some people really do talk utter *****!

[javier]

This MCC course was invented for 2 pilots flight deck. How many of you have flown with flight eng.? the difference is quite big. After 1 hour flight in a 2 pilot deck you have talked all in can be talked, but with a flight eng. there is always something to talk about. it happens when you take an extra-crew or more in your cokpit.

This MCC is only invented for those pilots with 190 hours that enters a big company and thinks they know everything. A good pilot and co-pilot always knows when to pull the gear-knob, call for a heading on the A/P or set a frecuency. Because if your partner is like having the evil on your side MCC is not worth a ****.

JAR in Europe is like comming back to 1910 on aviation. You only have to look at your license, is big as the whole ATPL course books!!!!!! instead of simplify it as a simple as the FAA one....


I do not know who invented this JAR staff, but surely it was not a pilot.

javier, free mind

[laurie]

Ronchon,

I wonder if the moderators are about to send the 'javier' username the same way 'gorky' went...:D

Shame though, I though the bollox you posted under 'gorky' was at times, almost coherent.

Bye for now, nutty!

:)

Laurie

[Professor Fog]

How many folk do you know that can buy 500 hrs on a 767 - I certainly can't !

ever heard of sarcasm, and by the by I have just got a job thanks !

[MorningGlory]

It was your post pal not mine!

Silly me, there must be another Professor Fog on here somewhere!

[moggie]

Skysheriff - you asked for opinion on the value of MCC - care to respond to it?

[zoru]

evidently the caa tried to make the airlines provide the mcc course,and of course the bean counters said 'no waaaaay hose'.

the fto's of this world said 'luverrrrrly jubbly!we'll have some of that pleeeze!!'

as usual the impoverished wannabe's are left to pick up the tab.

I did mine at oxford in the end,the good thing is that they will offer you a refresher at a 'reduced' cost if and when you get a sim ride.

overall i thought it was a good course and worth the extra cost to be able to put in on your c.v.:

20 HRS B737-EFIS







(sim)
;)

[moggie]

Sky Sherriff, we're still waiting for your response to the points raised above!!!!!