MPL experiences from students

[robby239]

hi, since we are talking a lot about the MPL course, I wanted to ask people who have completed it or who are about to complete it, how they found it, listing strengths and weaknesses of their course.

[sms8]

Honestly, I think the risk is far, far too high. Just look around at the position many MPL students/owners now find themselves in, as much as I'm very optimistic on aviation over the next few years the MPL is too limiting/risky, it's been very harshly demonstrated that it's not a guarantee ... get an fATPL.

[VariablePitchP]

Think you’ll struggle to find anyone about to compete an MPL, can’t think of any that haven’t just been dumped by the airline and left to it.

Take note.

[tolip1]

From someone who got through it, in terms of learning to fly big jets, it is so much better. Makes the traditional ATPL seem incredibly archaic.

Line trainers do often comment on the difference standards between MPLs and non MPL.

It needs to find a way forward!

[F3LD]

I'm about to finish my MPL. MCC and TR left which we will do next year. Our flight school is owned by one of the big Airline Groups in Europe and puts lots of effort into manual flying (pitch & power) so we don't become used to just following the magenta line.
I enjoyed every minute of the training and having worked in an two man cockpit style environment from already in training (we flew the citation during our second practical phase) makes adapting to airline procedures easier. Obv it's not just all shiny and it comes with its drawbacks especially during these times where we could face up to 5years of waiting period.

[skyblue12]

2 years on the line having done an MPL;

The training was good, we started on the line with far more Jet sim experience than someone with an fATPL, yes it does sort of limit you to multi-crew airline ops but thats what you signed up for so I don't see it as a huge disadvantage. We were lucky and got a tax free 'bond' added to our salary. We should save in the region of £30k over several years on income tax. The bond probably doesn't exist anymore and don't think it ever will again due to the large payment if MPL pilots are made redundant.

Things to note; there is absolutely no guarantee of a job afterwards, eJ canned a lot of their MPL cadets whilst still at flight school, you can't blame them really. Until you sign the employment contract having finished flight school you don't have a job. The ones that were canned face a hefty bill to realign their training to the fATPL scheme, but from what I've heard (do qualify this though) you can add new type ratings onto an MPL like you can to a fATPL. So if you were chopped, but got another job on a different type, apart from paying for your rating you should be able to add it to your existing MPL. Also you are not tied to an airline, I know BA were taking eJ MPL cadets, so you could go and work for a different operator flying the same type.

If I had known then what I know now I would advise people to go modular and find a sponsored type rating. Will save you so much money. Flight training costs are obscene nowadays. CAE were charging ~£40k+ for a 320 TR, madness.

My advice now would be don't even think about flight training for at least 12 months from now. There are a lot of redundant pilots out there and the covid recovery is going to take a while, also we are entering one of the biggest, if not the biggest, recession in modern history. People may not want to fly that much anymore, or they may not be allowed to. We just don't know yet. Until we do, don't gamble away huge sums of money.

[Mickey Kaye]

I know of three

One never finished of the type rating, one finished the type rating but never flew the third managed about 150 hours before hitting the buffers. I doubt any of them will fly again.

The dream has gone
But the debt is real

[flypaddy]

I graduated from an MPL a little under a decade ago.

The type rating is an integral part and without it you do not have a licence at all. There was a clause in the contract that in the event the sponsor airline couldn’t provide a type rating, the training organisation would convert our (incomplete) MPL to an ATPL. This clause came about to mitigate the risk of the airline being unable to employ the cadets, as was the case with the first MPL students of Sterling Airlines. From what I gather on this forum, this guarantee has sadly not become an industry standard.

To those MPL cadets reading this who have been disadvantaged by current circumstances, you have my deepest sympathy for what must be an extremely stressful and upsetting time. I would encourage you to pause before spending any more money on training. I hope that in the months and years to come, the airlines will do the right thing and continue your training.

[Contact Approach]

tolip1

Perhaps it's true on initial TR however it loses its shine by the time you're signed off. Then you are left with two pilots, one who has developed core flying skills through experience and another who learn't what all the buttons do, through experience. Therein lies the difference. Flying a sim is unlike flying an aircraft and it can't be compensated for during the learning process. You have years upon years to learn SOPs, procedures and become an FMC whizzkid, you can't learn fundamental motorskills on the line.
Whilst I think the traditional ATPL program needs a refresh, I don't think the MPL as it is, is the solution.

Unless of course pilots simply become operators and are therefore no longer to provide manual redundancy. In which case I expect salaries to be closer to minimum wage and with it a reduction in training fees.

[dns]

Isn't the answer to just modify the type rating part of the training to get the best of both worlds?

[tolip1]

Contact Approach

I just don't get the same feedback as you have been. We aren't going to agree. Where is the evidence that we don't have core flying skills? Where is the increased incident rate of MPL Vs non?

[Contact Approach]

I'm not pointing fingers or claiming its conclusive, It's simply facts: how do you learn how to ski? You put on some skis and point them downhill. How do you become a competent skier? You put on your skis, point them downhill then practise over and over again - the slopes change, the runs differ, the conditions change, you learn and adapt over time through making mistakes and learning to anticipate through feel, experience and instinct. You can apply this to learning any motor skill. Flying is a motor skill, It is highly dynamic and is a learned process through practise and experience. After 50 hours in an SEP you've barely put your skis on and learning such things on the line is unfortunately a thing of the past. You won't convince me novice skiers could hit the slopes for a day then spend the rest of the time in a skiing simulator and then smash a black run like theres no tomorrow. Learning how to operate an airbus sim will not equip you with the fundamental flying skills required to operate a kingair/Q400/737 etc. I've seen it, trust me.

[Climb150]

USA has a 1500 hour rule for FOs. Before this the limit was 250 hours. Many training people I spoke to said when they still took 250 hour people, many washed out in the sim. It wasn't the flying of the sim they failed, it was situation awareness and being able to talk to ATC, run a checklist and make critical decisions all at oncw. They could not imagine taking someone with only 50 odd hours in a real airplane and then expecting the sim to make up the difference in these critical areas.

If really worked they said, the military would train that way.

[dns]

USA has a 1500 hour rule for FOs. Before this the limit was 250 hours.

How on earth does that work?

​​​​​​

[Bealzebub]

This should give you some background.

https://www.travelweekly.com/Robert-Silk/How-1500-hour-rule-created-pilot-shortage

[dns]

Thanks
I'm still curious as to HOW you manage to rack up that many hours without being in a full time job!

There's only so much self-funded hour building, glider towing and instructing that can be done!
​​​​​

[Bealzebub]

Yes, 1500 hours in that case. Even then that simply represents the minimum number of hours required for ATR (ATPL) issue. It’s likely nowhere near the average experience level to be invited to an interview. In the U.K. it used to be possible to undertake remunerated flight instruction with a PPL and an instructors rating. Indeed that was how a lot of “self improvers” acquired the flying experience to provide the stepping stones to CPL/ATPL issue and then the entry level transport jobs. Most other countries required a CPL (Commercial) for all forms of remunerated flying including instruction. In reality these requirements were not worlds apart as an instructors rating required a minimum experience level of 100 hours and with the advent of JAR (later EASA) harmonisation, the CPL requirement raised it to 250 hours. However, this was one of the “stepping stone” pathways. Airline entry at 250 hours was only ever achieved through one route. That route was “approved” (by the regulator) full time courses of integrated study. These approved courses were offered by only a few schools who were either wholly owned (such as Hamble to BEA/BOAC later British airways) or affiliated to a handful of commercial airlines.

These “approved” schools trained pilots to a CPL with a view to fast track airline entry, not dissimilar to those same programmes you see today. Outside of these programmes, the minimum hour requirement for a CPL was 700 hours and an ATPL 1500 hours. As I have already mentioned, an airline job at even these base levels would have been very rare.

The changes that came with JAR also occurred at around the time the first of the “lo-cost” carriers came on the scene. One notorious CEO at the time was (however seriously) advocating doing away with co-pilots all together! Since that was obviously a non-starter the next best thing was to find the cheapest option. So opened the floodgates of people who felt that a basic 250 hour licence however obtained was the new normal. Usually it wasn’t!

Over the last 20 years you see on these forums the waves of aspirant pilots who thought a 250 hour CPL however obtained was their invitation to the cockpit of a 737 or A320. For most airlines who operated their own cadet programmes, they could tie those opportunities to the modern versions of the old “approved” schools. Not only that, but they could also gradually shift almost all of the risk/training cost burden to the aspiring pilot.

The old “approved” school courses of 200 hours of integrated training have evolved, but broadly remain what they were in the 1960’s. The MPL was constructed to significantly evolve these programmes into much more integrated airline ab-initio apprenticeship programmes. The intention failed to realistically appreciate the commercial volatility of airlines as the businesses they have become. Their future evolution needs to address the ability to change airline end consumers more easily than it has been.

Beyond these programmes, and the clue is in the name, the ATPL really needs to become the baseline qualification for airline employment. This is what has happened in the US albeit for likely the wrong reasons. Generally, a 250 hour CPL should be but one stepping stone to airline employment not the final hurdle. Save for those specific programmes, it never was, and in more recent times it has become a distortion that sets up a lot of unrealistic expectations.

[glush]

Having taught both MPL and traditional CPL/IR student pilots from ab-initio onwards, the aircraft handling skills and situation awareness of an average MPL student are weaker when compared to an average CPL/IR student at the point they finish flying 'real' training aircraft prior to going across to the airline sim phase. Post-sim phase, on arriving in the jet, generally the average MPL student will be ahead of the average CPL/IR student as they will be more conversant with SOP's and operating (rather than flying) the aircraft. However, line trainers feedback is that on average, after 50 hours online, there's not much difference in ability/competence.

[dns]

I'm right at the beginning of the journey myself.

I'd considered the integrated route, but heard so much negativity about the financial side of things, that I've decided to go modular.

What I really need to know is (assuming the "Covid effect" is gone in a few years and air travel is back roughly where it was), will UK airlines be taking on recruits with less than 1000 hours?

​​​​​If they're not, I'm completely stuffed realistically, as I said above, there's no way I'll be able to get that many hours in, even if I get my instructor rating.

​​​​That of course leaves the big question, where on earth are they going to get their pilots?

[parkfell]

Flying hours has been likened to money you have in the bank; it depends what you do with it.

A critical issue is the quality of basic training received, with the importance of being able to select the appropriate ATTITUDE & TRIM extremely accurately. This fundamental skill is what students must be taught by a competent instructor. Get this bit right, and the rest will fall into place.
It matters not jot which route you take, be it fATPL, MPL, PPL into modular CPL/IR, unless you achieve this fundamental skill, don’t expect to be proficient at flying.

If the airlines want young competent pilots they need to insist on QUALITY training and that is not exclusively the preserve of large ATOs. Junior Birdmen need to bring this fundamental skill, together with the other competencies to the simulator. If you cannot fly a light aircraft smoooooothly, don’t expect to hack it in the B.737-800 simulator. The A.320 simulator whilst far more sophisticated offers far less of the necessary challenge for the big bad world.

[Contact Approach]

glush

I agree and this aligns with my experience. The problem the average mpl cadet finds further down the line is that they lack the core flying skills that may be required later on down the line. There’s no substitute when it’s comes down to learning.

[Bealzebub]

dns

Why wouldn’t you be able to amass experience from instructing? People have been doing it for decades. What will you do if that airline job isn’t ready and waiting when you acquire your licence?

For the foreseeable future, airlines are going to be able shake trees and have pilots with years of experience and many thousands of hours fall from the branches. The perception that “airline pilot” is an entry level job needs a reality check.

[Contact Approach]

The A.320 simulator whilst far more sophisticated offers far less of the necessary challenge for the big bad world.

I don’t believe the a320 should be permitted to learn the fundamentals on during such a critical stage of training. It’s like learning how to ride a bike with stabilisers on and never taking them off.

[dns]

Bealzebub

If every future airline pilot is going to be an instructor first, surely that's going to create an enormous excess, meaning most of them won't get any flight time anyway!

​​​​​Airlines have always taken minimal hours pilots (whether from their own integrated training schemes, or modular hours builders), if that's no longer the case I'm wondering how they are to fill the positions in future

[parkfell]

..........will UK airlines be taking on recruits with less than 1000 hours?​​​​​

Historically turbo prop operators would often take new qualified CPL/IR + MCC holders, both from the Integrated or Modular route.
Ryanair offered mentored schemes at the MCC phase

Once C-19 vaccinations are rolled out, normality will slowly begin to return. In the meantime keep the day job and study part time once you have your Class One Medical and PPL issued.

[havick]

Contact Approach

I just don't get the same feedback as you have been. We aren't going to agree. Where is the evidence that we don't have core flying skills? Where is the increased incident rate of MPL Vs non?

Pretty well evidenced in unaided visual approaches and crosswind landing handling.

[Contact Approach]

I’ve flown with mpl guys in pa28s and they couldn’t land, they struggled with steep turns and they used aileron throughout the stall just to name a few things...

[parkfell]

This would apply to any student, irrespective of the type of course, whose first twenty hours or so was poorly taught; it is not a function of the MPL training, but more than likely as a result of poor teaching, as you refer to more than one individual.

I refer you to my earlier comments about the importance of quality training.

The start of the slippery slope was in the early 1990s
when CAP 509 “Approved Schools” started to experience difficulty
employing ex CFS A2 QFIs.
That is not to say that quality non military FI do not exist, rather a dilution of standards and standardisation.

[Bealzebub]

Airlines have always taken minimal hours pilots (whether from their own integrated training schemes, or modular hours builders), if that's no longer the case I'm wondering how they are to fill the positions in future

Not in the 42 years I have been flying for them. Usually the only sourced low hour pilots have come from their own cadet schemes ( where they have them). The other two primary sources have been career advancers and ex-military. In recent years the latter group has decreased as a primary source and probably to the extent that the cadet group has increased. For the career advancers it is usually those with the better experience. A lot of pilots would traditionally instruct, fly out in Africa or Asia or look for “aerial work” opportunities that would provide the hours and exposure that would eventually lead to an airline interview. The airline “jet jobs” would be the pinnacle level of many of those aspirants.

To whatever extent, and in whatever proportion that is likely to be the case well into the future. I cannot see any shortage of significant experience within the next 5 years just from the redundant pilot group and the build up of the traditional sources. As cadet schemes come back on line it is likely to be from the same selective programmes.

[A320LGW]

The training was good, we started on the line with far more Jet sim experience than someone with an fATPL, yes it does sort of limit you to multi-crew airline ops but thats what you signed up for so I don't see it as a huge disadvantage. We were lucky and got a tax free 'bond' added to our salary. We should save in the region of £30k over several years on income tax. The bond probably doesn't exist anymore and don't think it ever will again due to the large payment if MPL pilots are made redundant.

You mean they reduced your salary by X, labelled X a 'bond' and paid it to you under that title?

This meant you avoided taxes on a part of your salary. HMRC took a dim view of it. That is the reason it is no longer offered.

[Bealzebub]

HMRC didn’t “take a dim view of it.” HMRC agreed it.

[dns]

So basically beazlebub, you're saying that modular students should give up now?

[Bealzebub]

No! They never have done. “Self improver” pilots have always been a major part of the career landscape. It is the expectations that have changed. Read these forums for the last 20 years (and longer) and you will see it for yourself.

[A320LGW]

Regarding the topic of MPL v ATPL, I think it's one for the trainers to answer as they are the ones who see both sets of students. As an ATPL student I can only comment how it felt following my path onto an airline type rating. For me personally I have a very set and firm idea of handling in my mind and it was built into me in initial training, particularly with regard crosswind landings and "seat of the pants" feel and all round awareness. The picture has always been clear for me when flying.

From talking to line trainers about how they find MPL cadets or anecdotal evidence from their colleagues at airlines who have a lot of MPL cadets come through, it is overwhelmingly negative. The pilots and hobbyists almost always seem to be set apart when storm *insert name* shows up, it is more often than not a one man show those days with MPL guys I have always been told. Aileron use in particular during crosswind landings comes up a lot, many don't know quite know what they are supposed to be doing with it or the rudder.

Could it be due to lack of real aircraft experience in less than favourable conditions? Flying 25kts across in a light SEP in the early days sure did lay the foundations quite nicely from personal experience anyway.

[dns]

Bealzebub

But you just posted that low hour pilots only come from airline cadet schemes.

​​​​​

[Bealzebub]

I think you are confusing low houred commercial pilots with low houred airline pilots? Airlines have never traditionally had much of a requirement for the former outside of their cadet programmes. Usually because they have never needed to. If you think they will in the future then roll the dice!

[bringbackthe80s]

I find it quite funny nowadays that atpl guys with 180 hrs at best are the experienced seat of the pants flyers. While 80 something hrs mpls don’t have a clue in mighty crosswinds or challenging extreme scenarios.
My humble opinion after 21 years of flying is that cadet 80 hrs vs cadet 180 hrs make very little difference, selection and training is the only thing that counts with young pilots like that (as it does for more experienced ones also to be honest).
This was a thing of the past in the last decade though. But given the reset we are living, it could be coming back soon you never know.

[poporange]

The risk maybe be high although, there are still people have been doing it for decades.

[Climb150]

I beg to differ. The 120 hour piston aircraft flight time difference between MPL and CPL grads is very evident in aircraft handling. That 120 hours has a lot more take off and landings with much increased solo time.

Once both get to 1000 hours total time the difference is arguably negligible but to say MPL is superior or prepares a student better for jet ops is pure bull. It's just a money maker for either the flight school, airline or both.

[dream747]

Whilst everyone should heed the opinions and respect the experience of guys who have been in the flying business for a long time, let’s not forget ultimately it is what the airlines (your potential future employers) are looking for that counts.

I come from a part of the world whereby modular flight training is not available. Many aspiring pilots go to independent flying schools to obtain their licences but find difficulty in securing employment. Most airlines here require cadets to go through a recognised integrated flight training course to obtain their ATPL/MPL, which the airlines can have the ability to monitor the progress of the cadets and have oversight of the programme syllabus delivery with the assured standards. This is seen as a necessity for the airlines, to minimise any possible poor training standards that MAY come from other flying schools that the airlines have no affiliation with.

Do your flight training (ATPL or MPL) with an institution which is recognised by the airlines, this will give you the best chance of employment when things pick up eventually.

[MachBrum]

Climb150

120 hours? 10 years ago when I did it the difference was about 40 hours from an integrated CPL/IR. 30 SEP 10 MEP. With an extra 100+ Sim hours on what is done in a traditional MCC.

Saving for the training school? Fail to see how when they’re running training on a high end sim and the MPL was a bit cheaper.

Saving for the airline? How? The only element of input they have is the type rating. Which costs the same for anyone. MPL students require more base and line training sectors, so if anything it costs more?

Think there is a poor understanding of the actual content of any integrated course, MPL or CPL. I had a PPL with about 80 hours total when I started the MPL and finished with more hours than students on a fresh CPL/IR course so those numbers don’t quite add up. For what it’s worth, I have an ATPL now, 5500 hours, 3 type ratings from different airlines, and have still gone in and out of GA over the years. I’ve seen some superb guys and girls from both training mechanisms. Some people struggle a bit regardless of their route, you can’t cater for individual weaknesses that don’t show until the student is well into whatever course they choose. Such a flawed argument to say you’ve flown with a low houred MPL who struggled in a crosswind. Great, I’ve flown with ATPL’s who’ve struggled with hand flying a descending turn. I’ve jumpseated CPL’s who can’t nail a rotation rate for love nor money. Regurgitating hot air from people who (like we all do) are proud of their training journey decades ago doesn’t really give much value. I have a friend who’s doing his ATPL theory at the moment and I sit there in my ivory tower talking about NDB’s and my disbelief they don’t have to use a CRP-5 now. Aren’t I a hero.

The problem isn’t the course, it’s the current climate. You can’t get an MPL without completing a type rating, which has to be attached to an ATO at an airline. Which obviously isn’t happening at the moment. Follow all the advice out there and unless you have money to burn, do it the modular route and save yourself some stress and anxiety down the line.

[manjanakipaso]

Have you attended a MPL program or attending one now? Otherwise I don't think you should comment "Which obviously isn't happening" as the type rating just requires TGL's from the airlines side, which most MPL schools pay the airlines to conduct, especially in these times. I've seen it happen.

[Alex Whittingham]

HMRC didn’t “take a dim view of it.” HMRC agreed it.

I am told that the local HMRC office agreed to the bond scheme in the distant past, but the continuing agreement was contingent on there being a reasonable take-up from airlines 'buying' the bond and then discharging it through an element of pay. When that ceased to be the case, but the bond scheme continued anyway, it raised questions from different sections of HMRC about VAT avoidance, as the primary benefit to the ATO seems to have been that no VAT was paid on a large element of the training costs.

[parkfell]

.........you're saying that modular students should give up now?

If you have that necessary burning ambition to fly, then crack on with obtaining your Class One Medical, then complete your PPL,
then “head in the books”.
Asking all these Qs might possibly indicate that you lack the focused determination necessary for the modular route.
Decision time matey........

[A320LGW]

HMRC didn’t “take a dim view of it.” HMRC agreed it.

Do reference Alex's post, it is pretty much what I have been told previously and it is the reason it is no longer offered.

Shafting the cadets but making them feel as though they have been given a bargain deal, there is a special place for the people responsible for the scheme and it's in jail.

[dns]

parkfell

Sorry, I'm confused by how you come to that conclusion!

I've been desperate to do it my whole life although I've only recently found out that I have a chance of getting the medical.

I was initially looking at taking the integrated route, but was advised not to by people on here, so focussed on going down the modular route, but now it seems I'm hearing many discouraging noises about that as well!

As I say, I'm really not sure how you've decided that I lack the determination... Surely the fact that I'm asking constant questions shows that I'm absolutely determined (and determined to get it right!)

[flypaddy]

MachBrum

I couldn’t have put it better myself.

It is also worth noting that nearly every hour of flying, be it in an aircraft or a simulator, is structured on the MPL. There are far more hours observed by instructors in which to have poor technique corrected.

The simulator also allowed training at max crosswind limits. I consider crosswind landings to be a strength of mine so I just don’t accept that MPL students are somehow defective in this area. If anything, they are likely to have had more practice; and all of it under the scrutiny of an instructor.

UPRT was a headline focus of the course. We were given aerobatics training to build recovery skills in a real aircraft. In the simulator these techniques were repeatedly honed for the jet.

I have no experience of a traditional course, so you won’t find me criticising those who hold an ATPL.

[Dashtrash]

In my time as an A320 trainer with both CPL and MPL cadets, my opinion is that the MPL cadets were most definately lacking in not only their manual flying ability, but their confidence to fly manually. Some other curious observations was the lack of basic ability to taxi the aircraft. A rather candid confession from one student on the way to the aircraft led to him telling of how limited the sim time was, necessitating the aircraft being positioned at the holding point ready to fly. The little things we take for granted like braking and overshooting the nosewheel on tight turns was left out. This was easily trained but it, and other areas led me to believe that the MPL was not a complete package. (the process, NOT the students).
As good as modern sims are, I don't believe that they were ever designed for "learn to fly" type of use. There is more to learn in light aircraft than just flying around. Many of the MPL cadets didn't quite have a firm grasp on the realities of some situations. The rain repellent button doesn't freeze real life, it just squirts stuff on the screen.
The old fashioned CPL has served generations of pilots well and while there obviously are outliers at either end of the curve, a solid consolidation of the basics is essential. Is the MPL the way of the future? In my opinion NO, but there must be a better way to find a middle ground. The good parts of the MPL could be used as a faster step to full ATPL rather than bypassing so much of the old fashioned CPL flying.
Of course, every course is only as good as the individual on it. And indeed the company employing it. If it is used as a tool to get the shiny jet job and wear cool sunnies and take selfies in the cockpit at an airline that is using to fast-track cadets as it's too cheap to employ experience, then it's doomed to fail. If it is seen as a different pathway with it's own limitations and failings and a supplimentary method to crew the airline, then there could be a future. But I do think it needs work. You cant build a house from the roof down.

[LTCTerry]

An addition/correction to the 1500/250 FAA comment(s) above.

Until a few years ago, the minimum certificate required for the FO was "just" a commercial certificate with SIC type rating. ATP typically came with upgrade to Captain. Congress raised the minimum to ATP and 1500 hours, to "solve" a problem that had nothing to do with lack of an ATP.

The minimum flight time to get hired, however, was much higher. About 20 years ago it was possible to get a regional job with 500 hours. Not super likely, but it was happening. The reality: in the mid 80s I worked with a Navy pilot who was leaving active duty and looking for a job. He had 1800 hours - all of it turbine time (T-34C, King Air, P-3). Delta told him, "go get 200 more hours in anything. Without 2000 hours we can't touch you."

There was a comment above "how do you get to 1500 hours" when "there's only so much instructing one can do." (Paraphrasing.) In the US there is a very robust General Aviation world. There enough people learning to fly that most new 250-hour instructors can find a place to instruct and build 4-500 hours a year. Along the way they often get right seat opportunities in someone's charter twin.

"1500 hours and ATP" is new, but the reality is that with few exceptions no one was getting airline jobs with less than 1,000 hours. With 1,500 hours a competent pilot will quite likely get hired and the actual ATP training and type rating will be paid for by the hiring airline.

As hinted at above, waiting for an instructor to accumulate 1,500 hours in the European/UK market would not work. So, the entire airline, hiring, training, etc, industry has developed around the European/UK model of flying - essentially parallel paths of hobby and professional.

The USAF puts a 250-hour new pilot in training for a C-17. the Navy does the same with P-8s. So why not the same for an A320 or B737? I don't see that the European model has safety stats any better/worse than the US model. (There is a difference, the military training has a couple hundred hours of flying around in King Airs before moving into the jets...)

I can see that an MPL graduate is certainly better at reading checklists and following SOPs as that's what they did for many hours. Likewise I can see that an fATPL graduate is better at weather decisions and steep turns in a Pa-28 as that's what they did for many hours. After a couple hundred hours in the right seat their "history" has begun to average out.

As an American riding around in LoCos around Europe/UK for many years I never wondered "is there a 250-hour-wonder in the right seat? Should I be scared?" or thought "I'm crossing 'the pond' on Delta so I'm safe with a skilled crew up front."

I was in the jump seat of a C-17 leaving Baghdad at the end of my tour. Flying into Kuwait. We're cleared to land on 12R. The wind is perpendicular to us, 12-24kts. There's an Air Force Captain in the left seat (so more than four years service) and a 1st Lieutenant in the right seat actually flying (less that four years). Boom. We're suddenly left of 12L! Yes. It happened that quickly. The Lieutenant said, "What do I do?" That's not the question you want to hear. "Lower the upwind wing and use top rudder" was the answer - the same thing I did in hundreds or hours of Pa-28/C172 time...

[Climb150]

dream747

Saying that an airline uses a particular school because they can monitor quality is only slightly true. Most schools with ties to airlines use that link to charge top dollar for their product and in my experience the airline and school have a financial arrangement.

If integrated was so good why is L3 now advertising modular as the best thing now days? Because no airline is hiring but they need people to buy their product.

I worked at an airline that had a feeder school but also hired modular students from other schools. The training failure rate between the feeder school and modular students was identical.

[parkfell]

......... I'm absolutely determined (and determined to get it right!)

Start the Modular route once issued with a Class One. Aim to complete 2023/24. Keep the day job up to the point you are offered employment in aviation. Avoid going into debt. Simple.

[parkfell]

.......The training failure rate between the feeder school and modular students was identical.

An experienced FI will know by 20 hours or so flying whether the student is likely to succeed without undue difficulty: struggle (training risk):
or wasting their time.
This would be the time to cut your losses, and bail out.
Terribly difficult decisions are sometimes necessary in marginal cases and save the trainee tens of thousand of dollars/euros etc.

The ‘no hopers’ ( although some would say: ‘never say never’ ) are clear cut and probably easier to deal with.

A decisive decision at this point would reduce the failure rate by a significant amount.

It might not however please the beancounters at the feeder school. Depends how the contract is written.

[dream747]

Climb150

If airlines in Europe are open and unbiased towards students that went the modular way, that would be a good reason to go the modular way. In my part of the world, students getting their licences from accredited schools are vital to their job prospects, mainly because the integrated programmes are audited by the aviation authorities and are tailored to prepare students for the airline environment. If a candidate who did his training in a “non-approved” school is hired by an airline, he would to go through training again in a accredited school with a reduced syllabus just to get his standards in line with the rest.

With the increasing number of cadet pilot schemes run by airlines here and in EU, it could be difficult if one’s training background is not similar to those cadet pilots especially if supply exceeds demand.

As for the MPL programme, it is similar here whereby one needs to a type rating attached to it in order for this licence to be of any use. We can only hope that the airlines do the right thing by resuming the training of those guys who have their course interrupted by this crappy pandemic.

[Farrell]

I've always been a proponent of modular over integrated as I am of the opinion that it gives the student more control and the option to bail out at any point.

The MPL was pushed into place by airlines that have jets and the focus, advantage and get out clauses are all airline, not student focused.
You'd do well to remember that.

With a modular route you can take all the time you need in a more manageable financial outlay over whatever period is required.
It will provide you with some more protection against market up, market down, illness, funding etc

Have heard of far too many MPL students not finish over the past few years for me to believe it is a prudent investment for any young student pilot to get involved with.

My advice is to keep it old school. It gives you more options.

Modular at best.
Integrated if you have the money available to pony up if you run out of time / hours etc
MPL - to be avoided.

[Contact Approach]

The days of airlines preferring Integrated over modular died with L3. You can also do modular faster than you can Integrated for half the price.

[Alpine Flyer]

I have line trained new copilots from MPL as well as non-MPL ab-initio courses as well as "self-sponsored" pilots. Due to different selection/aptitude criteria applied over time it is not possible to attribute differences to the method of training alone. I couldn't say that I found any obvious differences between MPL and non-MPL trainees but some correlation between a higher number of simulator sessions and subsequent performance on the line. Most of my trainees had close to minimum hours (around 200, MPL even less) and I don't consider that a problem. The US 1500 hour requirement is great from an industrial point of view as it raises the bar for joining but there's nothing in it that grades the quality of those hours between training and employment. They can give you great experience but do not necessarily. I had more than minimum hours when joining myself and would not miss those hours, although I consider the VFR cross-country hours more instructive than most of the towing. While not the best way to learn, narrowly avoiding killing yourself when flying alone does have a training effect.

When MPL was "invented" I always thought that the general idea of a mission-tailored training is good, but that I'd only recommend it if offered by a large, respectable airline. Having seen hundreds of Lufthansa MPL students "stranded" somewhere along their MPL path I would not recommend it at all unless accompanied by a "convert to ATPL" guarantee by a training Organization "too large to fail" or structured in a manner that would allow you to convert to conventional with minimal cost (some ATOs seem to offer that).

You need to understand that converting your MPL to another operator's MPL is a major effort for the new recipient's training department which only makes sense if they need a lot of pilots. There's no sense in establishing a conversion syllabus/programme with the authority for just one or two cadets.

[dr dre]

The US 1500 hour requirement is great from an industrial point of view as it raises the bar for joining but there's nothing in it that grades the quality of those hours between training and employment. They can give you great experience but do not necessarily.

The whole mentality behind that rule is warped.

I always thought that the first years of a pilot’s career were the most critical to establishing their long term attitudes and discipline, and they would be the most crucial for oversight and mentoring from someone more experienced sitting next to them on the flight deck. So have an MPL program, to be second in command for several years to learn those crucial lessons in a structured environment.

Instead they’re sent off on their own for a while, and then can learn whatever they choose, some good perhaps, but also potential for bad habits and attitudes to both develop and become ingrained. Harder to knock out bad attitudes in an airline after a long period of single pilot ops, and then if it’s a quick time to command those bad habits can resurface quickly.

[Climb150]

1500 hours in the USA is really to stop low time people working for poor wages on the way to that Legacy airline. US regional airlines had to dramaticallyimprove pay and conditions once the 1500 rule came in.
What bad habits are people learning between 200 and 1500 hours? Getting better at cross wind landing? Getting to fly more complex aircraft? This bad habits tripe was peddled by the integrated schools trying to tell that if you go any other way the airlines won't hire you.

[Contact Approach]

I wholeheartedly agree. I lean't more flying single pilot IFR after my CPL/IR training than I ever did elsewhere. It made me engage my brain like I hadn't needed to do before. Completing flight training is only the start of the journey.

[greeners]

UPRT was a headline focus of the course. We were given aerobatics training to build recovery skills in a real aircraft. In the simulator these techniques were repeatedly honed for the jet.


It's great that UPRT was a 'headline focus' of your course. However, I would humbly suggest that anybody giving you aerobatics training didn't really understand what real world challenges are presented by Flight Upsets resulting from LOC-I, nor how to train for them effectively.

[olster]

Good point. I am continually amazed that aerobatics is conflated with structured uprt. They are quite different or should be.

[greeners]

Absolutely correct. Sadly there are still a lot of organisations in the industry - ATOs, airlines, regulators, TRI/TREs, flying instructors and some UPRT ATOs - who are a long way away from understanding what ICAATEE, LOCART, IATA, ICAO and EASA through two RMGs resulting in Decision 2019/025/R for UPRT in FSTDs and 2019/005/R for on-aircraft UPRT are trying to achieve.

[Contact Approach]

Sadly this industry is full of documents, acronyms and legal buzzwords that only the crazed lawyers can understand.

[Vessbot]

Regular acro is a building block necessary before any meaningful UPRT. It's maintaining an oriented picture of the world with respect to yourself now, a picture (or several) for the future, and acting on that picture with appropriate control inputs.

Doing that (which in itself can be disorienting and overwhelming for many) in a planned manner with some time to sort out the pieces in your mind, is a prerequisite to doing the same except with no planning, and suddenly being thrown into the situation. That's a hundred times more disorienting and overwhelming.

It's like, you do a rectangular course over a farm field with a student before starting into circuits, right? (Well, maybe not, I don't know what you do in Europe, but go with me here.) A circuit has all the elements of a rectangular course, plus so much more. You give them a chance to learn those elements, before throwing the rest at them at the same time. You wouldn't say that the 2 maneuvers shouldn't be conflated because one doesn't have "the real world challenges" of the other. Or, say, learning how to just track a course at a level altitude before introducing ILS'es...

[goaround737]

Our MPL students typically struggled during the initial period due to the aforementioned lack of manual handling skills, airmanship, and decision making ability. Many reasons for this of course but it was a definite observed trend.

99% had ironed this out by the 1500hr point and achieved parity with their Atpl colleagues.

Don’t forget, the MPL course IS NOT there to benefit the student. It is cheaper to produce, less time consuming, and ties the student to a prospective airline during the ‘danger period’ where they are most likely to seek pastures new!

There is no need for me to repeat the endless horror stories here, but this years events have proved decisively that this course offers nil protection to MPL student, and should not be your first choice when planning a career in aviation.

[Climb150]

Goaround737 has summer it up. By 1500 hours just about everyone is the same. Some things I was told from instructors at former intergrated schools are as follow,

The argument that the airlines like intergrated students cause they you are a known product is nosense. This is just to convince you that you won't get a job if you go modular.

You will get bad habits if you go modular and airlines don't like it. Another ridiculous statement made by schools to scare you into integrated.

All those people who went bush flying in Africa or instructing must be so full of bad habits they will never get airline jobs!

[Bealzebub]

Climb 150,

I have worked with cadets for over 20 years and speak from experience rather than “what somebody has told me.” Those airlines that have cadet programmes have traditionally taken pilots with little or no experience into those programmes as a full time course of approved training. That training has traditionally taken 12-18 months. There is nothing new in this, it was happening back in the 1960’s. It was an apprenticeship programme where the school dovetailed into advanced training with the sponsoring airline. The training was by definition always integrated. At the conclusion of the course the student obtained their licence with around 200-250 hours of flying time, but the course was all geared to the receiving airlines requirements.

For pilots obtaining their licence by any other civilian method in their own time, at their own pace, and institutes of their choice the requirements involved a minimum of 700 hours. If you wanted to go “bush flying in Africa” for remuneration you would likely have had a minimum of 700 hours before you ever could! Trust me, I spent thousands of hours doing just that. Airlines wouldn’t give you the time of day unless you had thousands of hours of similar experience, and even when they did it was likely to be on a turboprop or if you were very lucky a small jet.

When JAA (the forerunner) of EASA came into being, they harmonised the commercial licensing requirements (quite distinct to any preference most Airlines had). All forms of remunerated “aerial work” then required a CPL whereas that hadn’t previously been the case ( you could previously instruct for money with a PPL and an Instructors rating). This brought the system more into line with ICAO requirements and indeed those that long existed in the USA under their FAR’s. It didn’t mean that a 250 hour CPL holder suddenly became the airlines golden ticket.

The 200 hour airline pilot is a relatively rare commodity and certainly always has been. The idea that every 250 hour CPL holder is just what the airlines want despite this conspiracy that it depends on a modular/integrated argument isn’t generally true.

[Alex Whittingham]

You left out the introduction of the BCPL, Bealzebub, and the opportunity for Modular BCPL holders to upgrade to CPL with a BCPL to CPL upgrade course, which put them on a par with the integrated cadets in the recruitment stakes. From that point the genii was out of the bottle and modular and integrated candidates stood an equal chance of employment. To their credit, the modular candidates held up well and the steady and consistent feedback from Andy O'Shea of Ryanair shows that where an airline was open minded enough to consider modular candidates they were as good or bad as the integrated candidates. That put an end to the 'integrated is better' argument, the only thing left for CTC et al was the suggestion that some airlines somehow preferred integrated students and, to be fair, for a while some did but in the end the dominoes fell and nearly everyone (possibly everyone?) accepted both modular cadets and integrated cadets equally. What was left to justify the high prices? Only the MPL. "Train with us and you will be 'tagged' for Easyjet". Yes, that worked for the marketing team, until it didn't. It will be interesting to see how the next surge of demand is satisfied.

[Bealzebub]

I did Alex, because the BCPL was a very short term phenomenon that wasn’t really relevant. It was a Basic commercial pilots licence that was upgradable as you have said. The CPL (in the U.K.) had been slashed from a (non-approved) 700 hour requirement to a 250 hour licence as it became the benchmark “aerial work licence.” This brought it into line with most other ICAO member states licences. The BCPL was an irrelevance with regards to airline employment. Even in the pre-JAR days a 700 hour CPL/IR holder was going to struggle to find airline employment. The exception was full time integrated students who had come through the “approved school” programmes that were either wholly owned or affiliated to specific airlines with properly structured cadet programmes. Examples being BEA/BOAC/British airways from Hamble. AST Perth, and Oxford, to companies such as Britannia and others.

The BCPL was a short lived stepping stone to the (non-approved) CPL. It wasn’t a bridge to an (approved) course. I never met a holder of one and clearly it’s longevity was doomed at onset.

Pre-JAA, many of the airlines would recruit from three sources. The military was a popular recruiting ground and satisfied a significant proportion of most recruiting rounds. The approved schools supplied an element of recruits into those airlines with affiliated and structured cadet programmes. The remainder was what then referred to as “ Self improvers.” These were (as now) those pilots who had worked their way through the system obtaining their CPL/IR with a minimum of 700 hours and then gone on to work their way through third and second tier jobs to get the experience levels that airlines usually set as benchmark levels for employment. Generally those levels were 2500-3000 (tel:2500-3000) hours of which at least 500 hours were “turbine” or multi engine experience. This latter group comprised a significant source of airline employment and produced a great many excellent pilots. Of the three groups, without doubt, the attrition rates were always highest in the “self improvers.”

JAA, as well as slashing the CPL experience requirements also occurred at about the same time as the appearance of the so called “lo-co operators.” Andy O’Shea’s boss famously suggested that two pilots in the flightdeck was (in his view) one two many. The next best thing was to find the cheapest way of putting a pilot there and taking advantage of a large supply of source material was a good way of achieving that aim. This clearly opened up a pathway that hadn’t really existed before. Of course the laws of supply and demand only work to that goal when the source remains plentiful and this clearly opened up the floodgates that remain to this day. Many other airlines sourced their cadets from the modern incarnations of the previously “approved schools” with the added advantage of gradually shifting almost the entire financial risk burden to those aspirants. The growth in these schools with tied programmes expanded to fill the drop in military sourced candidates as that source shrank,

The MPL was an evolution designed to update the “apprenticeship” training of fully integrated cadet programmes. A good idea in principle. The problem was in practice it’s success relied on the economic success of the participating airlines on an individual basis. As I recall, Stirling Airways in Denmark was a primary adopter and its corporate demise highlighted the problem. A problem that has been reinforced many times since then with changes evolving as a result. As an airline apprenticeship on an ab-initio basis, I believe it was a good concept and the results I have experienced certainly bear that out.

as you say, it will be interesting to see how this evolves going forward. I would like to see a two path route into airline flying. The basic requirement being either an ATPL (and 1500 hours) for unstructured candidates and an MPL obtained by a full time course of relevant structured training to airline requirements for apprenticeship “cadet” programmes. In many ways this would bring the requirements back to where they existed pre-JAA and to a certain extent where they already are in North America. Whilst awaiting the howls of protest, I would say that if supply becomes problematic I would expect the consumers (airlines) to either have to reach into their own pocket more than they have had to in recent years, or perhaps Mr O’Shea’s boss will be granted his wish from his own personal Genie.

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/air-transport/2010-09-10/ryanairs-oleary-calls-single-pilot-commercial-flights

[mrmax29]

I just finished one. Government funded like most education here so no debt at least, which seem to be the only good thing right now. Completed in cooperation with a certain Scandinavian Airline (haha).
B737 rating with 0 hours, ~100 or so on SEP and 170 in FNPTII/FFS.

Not sure what to do now, we're not tied to one airline as some seem to think. We are free to apply wherever, although will probably take a few years until the airlines will start hiring on a decent level. If I knew what the airline industry is like and how vonourable it can be I would have chosen the CPL path instead of the MPL path, I had the choice back in 2019 as there are two sponsored pilot schools with 20 spots per year here, but I chose the MPL road because things were looking good then. Would never ever pay for MPL training, too much risk now in hindsight. I feel my chances of landing a job in the future market is low with the hours I have and a rating with no hours. I have a PPL/SEP rating so I'm guessing my best bet is to do a CPL conversion to be less restricted on where I can apply and how airlines see my application.

Any advice from more experienced people?

[global2express]

I wouldn't spend any money on a CPL conversion. There are only a few jobs for which a CPL will be beneficial, i.e. you will be the PIC of a CS-23 airplane, and those vacancies will most likely be filled by guys who have a couple of hundred hours more than you. Contrary to common believe, most business jets are CS-25 airplanes, so no advantage there either.

Try to keep your 737 rating current for two reasons: a) there's a good chance that one day you'll be assessed on 737 simulator and for that you should be on top of your game, after all you're type-rated on the airplane, and b) most training departments would like you to have a current ME/IR upon joining, even if it's not strictly necessary.

[mrmax29]

I just feel like many airlines doesn't recognize the MPL for their applicants, most just say CPL ME/IR in their ads. But maybe that is because MPL is probably extremely uncommon in their applicants. Ryanair for example does not hold the MPL as a valid certificate in their cadet program..

Regarding the CPL conversion, i'd keep my rating valid and when you're "unlocking" the MPL for single pilot ops with the CPL the IR/ME comes with it. And everything would be kept valid with the yearly 737 PC, this is why i am considering it. Not sure anyway, one of the good parts is that I would be able to fly single pilot IFR to keep current with those parts and IFR time feels like it would be more attractive to a possible employer. Not sure though as I said, never been to a real interview except the one for school where the airline essentially recruited us.