Only an accountant would argue that it is safe to permit someone with 100 hours to occupy the right seat of a 320/330. Any pilot manager in a position of authority that sanctions this should have his pilot credentials withdrawn.

If only we were governed by a professional association (bar, college) this crap would not go on. Hopefully, someday......

The FAA has finally put a stop to this insanity, hopefully it will spread to other jurisdictions; but don't hold your breath.

Dumb accountants come up with these cost saving ideas, but the sad part is that pilot managers attach their stamp of "approval".

Yep, you did.....

http://jobsatdragonair.com/pilots/cadet-pilots-career-progression.php

People might want to bag the MPL scheme for bringing in 0 hour pilots but I for one think it works.
We all had 0 hours at one point, whether we gained our experience in the military or GA.
The "old" cadet scheme that gave the student 200 h of real a/c time flying around a circuit does not make up for the hours of simulator time that MPL's receive.
The end product is good, and I have no issue flying with them. Even when the are still classified as SO's

Oh, dear.

So, sitting and watching flying is as good as actually flying?!

Wow.

JY9024

Are you serious? Let's advance your logic shall we? If the simulator is better than the real airplane/real stick time, then why not give a trainee even less real stick time, and more video time? Imagine the money to be saved!?

Yes we all had 100 or 200 hours at one time....but not in the right seat of a commercial airliner. Can you not grasp this? Did you miss the Air Asia crash last year? The F/O was unable to maintain level flight when the autopilot disengaged in level flight.

That's why the FAA has banned this rediculous concept! It's insanely dangerous and has set up the industry (outside the FAA jurisdiction) for more catastrophe. It's not a question of "if" this will happen, but "when".

So people will say and do anything to justify their position.

This MPL fiasco is a ...........fiasco.

Four genuine questions:

1. How many sectors/hours do MPL cadets at KA fly with a safety pilot before them being allowed to fly with just the trainer?

2. How long is their course to line check?

3. What is the pass rate for MPL cadets?

4. How many hours does the FH PPRuNe community think is an absolute minimum number of actual hours in an actual control seat of an actual aircraft before they'd be comfortable flying with a cadet of any variety?

STP

Bit of miss inform there PW. That's the now defunct expat B package. New C scale very similar to CX C scale. New pilots and almost all command upgrades now C scale.

Flex 88

Your creative use of the term 'Fact' and incessant banging on about about direct entry zero hour pilots is very tiresome. KA employ SO's. It's a convenient excuse to pay pilots in an operating seat a lower salary but in light of their lesser experience, they operate to greatly reduced minima (wind/cloud/vis). Just because CX has a long haul network that can support years of cruise-only operations is both convenient.... and another excuse to pay pilots a lower salary, this time to get around FTL's. Many airlines around the world put cadet pilots straight into the RHS, I believe BA is one. Conversely to CX, BA rosters two Captains for long haul as they're not prepared to leave the flight deck sans Skipper. Something your own airline is more than happy to do.

raven11

You've missed his point. He's saying elements such as precautionary search and landings and 500ft low level nav in a Grob/DA42, 2 elements of a 'full' licence, have no relevance to airline flying and replacing that time with hours in the sim of the type they're going to fly on the line are more beneficial.

raven11 & ACMS

You've never flown with an MPL, never assessed the product and are dismissing the guy that has?

Personal opinion on MPL's

They're fine. They certainly don't need to be "untrained" of the bad habits picked up from GA and/or previous operators. The MPL's that went through the first course that included time in a King Air are noticeably better but both streams are ultimately acceptable. I'm pissed that the company accountants cut this element as it short changes the candidate and pushes those lessons to the line. Ultimately, it's their line Captains that have to pick up the slack.

Where the MPL stream suffers is manipulative skills and confidence. They have not been exposed to enough landings in sufficiently varied conditions to develop the skill and judgement required to land the in all the conditions their 'restricted minima' allow (yes, I'm talking about 10kts XW here people). This leads to a lack of confidence and over reliance on automation. Following the flight director to touchdown is common. Making weather deviation decisions on a gin clear day with 1-2 isolated cells by sole reference to the WXRDR is common. Pushing the wrong rudder in a crosswind is common. Thinking ability is demonstrated by the speed with which you program the box is common.

They are dedicated, motivated, know what they need to know and turn up at dispatch without attitude/arrogance. They start out lacking in manipulative skill and experience. For the latter, no more than the regular cadet stream and the former only marginally so.

TT

Terrain Terrain

My comments are not meant to be personal; as I said in my post, the cost cutting practice of placing no-time/low-time "pilots" in the right seat of a commercial airliner is patently dangerous.

Your personal evidence suggesting that "they're fine" is anecdotal. On the other hand the FAA compiled massive evidence, and the associated accident statistics, to justify new regulations banning this cost saving practice in US jurisdictions.

I suggest you challenge their findings with your own personal observations.

Four genuine questions: With answers...

1. How many sectors/hours do MPL cadets at KA fly with a safety pilot before them being allowed to fly with just the trainer?

Min 20

2. How long is their course to line check?

About 80 sectors.

3. What is the pass rate for MPL cadets?

Very Good, they just give them more sectors till there at an acceptable standard but they do lose the odd one.

4. How many hours does the FH PPRuNe community think is an absolute minimum number of actual hours in an actual control seat of an actual aircraft before they'd be comfortable flying with a cadet of any variety?

Up to the individual captain..

The point is that we have to take on cadets in HK due to some law. its actually no cheaper these days than hiring a DEFO with experience.

The company did screw up its math a few years back by only bringing in cadets as we now have very little experience to upgrade. (which is why KA are recruiting DEFO's right now)

OK4Wire

Flying a circuit in a C152 for 100 hours is les useful than spending an equivalent amount of time in a multi crew environment (Simulator) dealing with real time scenarios.
MPl come into the system notably better team players and in most parts are easier to train. Handling issues are always a problem with a cadet/MPL and some are noticeably better than others.

I never said I agree with the concept but its not up to me. The end result, whether MPL or cadet after a couple of years on the line is the same.. Good guys/girls, eager to learn and in all cases very professional. I think being thrown into the operating seat from the start does this.

Raven11

Ive witnessed some very average hand flying from experienced pilots at late and can also say that more locals take out the automatics than the experienced FO's when flying the line.

JY

Here's some reading about the 1500 hour requirement imposed by the FAA.

The 1500-Hour Rule - Is America at a Disadvantage? Cass Report

Forbes Welcome

I found this extract from the Forbes article interesting:

I've not flown with an MPL pilot so I can't speak from personal experience. What I can say, and I've said this before, is that I've flown with some very inexperienced pilots (in terms of hours) who have been nothing short of exceptional. I've also flown with some experienced pilots who were average (that's a euphemism by the way). The opposite is also true.

@JY9024 thanks for the reply.

STP

Personally, I'll take high hours over low hours when screening new pilots. However, I also think that hiring high quality candidates with little experience can be managed effectively as long as the main hiring pool consists of experienced pilots.

The real enemy here is a management culture that does not respect the pilot profession and wants to spend peanuts on training and compensation. This culture resulted in a number of (predictable) accidents that forced the FAA to implement regulations to protect the traveling public from unscrupulous management practices that sought the cheapest pilot possible.

The second link below is a balanced editorial from Air Transport world that seems to get to the core of the problem.What may be getting lost in this debate is that regardless of the hours a candidate has prior to being permitted to operate a large commercial airliner, compensation is a key driver in attracting the best qualified candidate (with or without prior experience).

https://www.faa.gov/news/press_relea...m?newsId=14838
Editorial - When Hours Rule | Labor content from ATWOnline

You guys are mixing up two separate issues:

C scale and entry requirements

If entry requirements are really your main concern, then why you guys do not come forward with a demand to raise the bar ?

The argument to offer more compensation in order to get more qualified pilots is not persuasive. Why take the detour via pay, why not directly ask for more experience?

I don't remember much opposition at the time expat SO's still got B.

The company sees thru this, you will not impress anybody with that strategy. They will just sit back and take their chances.

Also I find it schizophrenic with all due respect: on the one hand you clearly have nothing but contempt for our new-joiners, on the other hand you fall into your sword to get them more housing.


I get it of course, you guys think : raise all to B then I will never get C.

The problem is : C is reality and it will not go away. Period. Like it or not.

@raven11

Probably my final input to this discussion about low hour pilots. This is an extract from a 2013 ATSB study commissioned by the Senate following the introduction of the 1500 hour rule by the FAA to help decide whether a similar rule was required in Australia:

STP

Oh yes and exactly which interested stake holder said that?

STP
Please stop! It's no wonder our management can constantly get the better of us.

Why is it that only members of the pilot profession will willingly cheerlead low time/no time replacements?

For goodness sake STP, our management agrees with you. What does that tell you?

You never see any member of any other profession engage in such self destructive behavior! Can anyone imagine a doctor, lawyer, accountant, etc campaign for less trained and less experienced replacements? To even go so far as to suggest less/no experience is just as good...or even better. It's enough to make me weep.

I guess the next thing I'll be told is to check my privilege...

Raven11 is probably one of the most qualified persons out there to opinion on this matter.

And he's absolute correct.

OK, not my final input.

@ACMS

I guess the interested stakeholders must have been the authors of the report, Melanie A. Todd, of the ATSB & University of South Australia and Dr Matthew J.W. Thomas, of the Central Queensland University & University of South Australia. The report is available for download on the ATSB website. Are you insinuating that the authors weren't being impartial?

@raven11

I'm not an advocate for MPL type schemes but what I am saying is that using hours as a metric for experience and, by association competence, is outdated. Our industry has moved on from the days when 1500 hours in a DC4 equated to experience. I'm sure you'll agree that 1500 hours in a 777 going across the Pacific is not the same thing.

There is no doubt that to produce competent pilots, not only do training schemes need to be thorough and demanding but, probably more importantly, the checking system has to be honest. If the checkers at an airline see that candidates, of whatever background, meet the required standard I fail to see your point - either pilots are good enough or they're not.

The following is an extract from a 2006 article by Richard M. Satava, MD FACS, Professor of Surgery at the University of Washington Medical Center on the use of simulators in surgical training:

As can be seen, aviation is not the only profession where increased use of simulators is being employed for the acquisition of practical skills.

Finally, as far as seeing other professions engage in this supposed self-destructive behaviour I can't say because I never read any medical/legal/accounting equivalents of PPRuNe. In fact, I can't imagine any of those professions engaging in such a forum as their employment world is so different from ours but I'm happy to be proven wrong.

STP

There's no substitute whatsoever for experience and the airmanship it develops.

Any monkey can be trained to say, "flight plan fuel?" and "everybody happy?" and push the right buttons at the right time. It's when the s^$t hits the fan that the shortcomings of trading training for experience and airmanship will become evident.

As long as the procedures are followed and Mother Nature cooperates, everything will be fine.