The 'END OF G/A As A Stepping Stone' ???.....
I know of a number of companies in nearby asia which have been putting 300 hour cadets into the RH seat of both 737 and A320 types for the last 10-15 years.
I do not think low-hour cadets are as good as F/Os as high time ex-GA guys, at least until they cut their teeth- but is it safer for low-hour guys to get their experience in Multi-pilot ops next to an experienced Captain, or with unsuspecting punters in a single-pilot situation?
These guys then, on average, upgrade as quickley and successfully as any high-time GA guy as ALL their experience is in the type of SOP regulated, CRM environment they will be using for the rest of their carreers.
The bottom line will be cost- If there is a cost advantage to the airlines to have MPL schemes (and, let's face it, I can see them being run profitably BY the airlines!!) it will happen, and there is unlikely to be any negative impact on saftey.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Up there
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We had this a while ago in Europe and I can say that only a handful of MPL qualified cadets got a job because nearly every airline refused to recognise the license due to the risks involved in employing an observer of systems rather than a pilot and went for ATPL or frozen ATPL guys instead. one of the airlines that employed these few has now gone bust (not to do with MPL) which means that the number of MPL's that are flying is reduced even further.
Having come from the ATPL route myself IMO the MPL is a crazy idea and a slapdash answer to what 'could' be a shortage of pilots. The idea means that you literally get to the front of a jet without ANY real life experience of anything like the thing you are flying. That to me add's up to one thing...a complete loss of safety added to the massive experience gap between the LHS airline pilot and the RHS simulator driver.
In short if you look at europe as a test case then the MPL has already failed and the idea thrown out.
Thats just my opinion but the day that the MPL idea is erased from world aviation is a good day for passenger safety.
Having come from the ATPL route myself IMO the MPL is a crazy idea and a slapdash answer to what 'could' be a shortage of pilots. The idea means that you literally get to the front of a jet without ANY real life experience of anything like the thing you are flying. That to me add's up to one thing...a complete loss of safety added to the massive experience gap between the LHS airline pilot and the RHS simulator driver.
In short if you look at europe as a test case then the MPL has already failed and the idea thrown out.
Thats just my opinion but the day that the MPL idea is erased from world aviation is a good day for passenger safety.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Oz
Age: 75
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh dear
yet again we have the un/ill informed holding forth on the merits (or otherwise) of the MPL basing their arguements on personal prejuduce, lack of knowledge or rumour. 
the genesis of the MPL was based on the valid premise of focussing training towards the requirements of the task - which despite views to the contrary is not flying SE IFR in the back blocks of Oz. this was well before the last 'shortage' of pilots, indeed it was at a time when airlines here in OZ had pools of applicants from which to select. cost saving was not a key aspect as those involved recognised that any savings would be very long term.
however, there was an expectation that there would be efficiencies gained through time saving and the acquisition of skills that were not readily acquired via traditional CPL/CIR training. there was also an expectation that the 'solo' hours contained in the CPL could be better utilised with focussed training and an emphasis on the competencies required to operate in a multi-crew aircraft.
basically, there is nothing overly wrong with the CPL that some updating would not cure along with a a greater degree of standardisation across the training industry.
and at the end of the day MPL was not intended to and nor will it replace the CPL/CIR.
the genesis of the MPL was based on the valid premise of focussing training towards the requirements of the task - which despite views to the contrary is not flying SE IFR in the back blocks of Oz. this was well before the last 'shortage' of pilots, indeed it was at a time when airlines here in OZ had pools of applicants from which to select. cost saving was not a key aspect as those involved recognised that any savings would be very long term.
however, there was an expectation that there would be efficiencies gained through time saving and the acquisition of skills that were not readily acquired via traditional CPL/CIR training. there was also an expectation that the 'solo' hours contained in the CPL could be better utilised with focussed training and an emphasis on the competencies required to operate in a multi-crew aircraft.
basically, there is nothing overly wrong with the CPL that some updating would not cure along with a a greater degree of standardisation across the training industry.
and at the end of the day MPL was not intended to and nor will it replace the CPL/CIR.
Hi 'PM'
I guess I may have missed yr point but I was trying to answer yr concerns/questions rather than perhaps directly adding to the MPL thingy.
I'd like to think that perhaps you will still enjoy some of my other posts
Wmk2
I guess I may have missed yr point but I was trying to answer yr concerns/questions rather than perhaps directly adding to the MPL thingy.
I'd like to think that perhaps you will still enjoy some of my other posts
Wmk2
Whilst I might have phrased it more diplomatically, I have to agree with the thrust of Tubbys post.
Aerofoil, what exactley is this "Real life experience" that a guy with a traditional frozen ATPL has that an MPL holder doesn't?
A few non-revenue Nav-exes in a Seneca has very little to do with airline ops.
MPL simply takes the time, effort and money that was used giving guys experience in single pilot pistons, a type of operation they will probably never take part in again, and instead train them in Sims in both the type of aircraft and type of operation they will use for the rest of their career.
I'm specifically talking about places like Europe where a high percentage of pilots first jobs are in multi-engine, multi-pilot turbines, and have said that a guy with thousands of hours GA time probably makes a better FO. Come Command time, however, I don't think theres any evidence that any particular avenue produces a better Captain.
Aerofoil, what exactley is this "Real life experience" that a guy with a traditional frozen ATPL has that an MPL holder doesn't?
A few non-revenue Nav-exes in a Seneca has very little to do with airline ops.
MPL simply takes the time, effort and money that was used giving guys experience in single pilot pistons, a type of operation they will probably never take part in again, and instead train them in Sims in both the type of aircraft and type of operation they will use for the rest of their career.
I'm specifically talking about places like Europe where a high percentage of pilots first jobs are in multi-engine, multi-pilot turbines, and have said that a guy with thousands of hours GA time probably makes a better FO. Come Command time, however, I don't think theres any evidence that any particular avenue produces a better Captain.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: somewhere civilised
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am working my butt off cutting my teeth to earn my right to eventually sit in the left hand seat of a shiny new jet and have access to staff travel, good looking cabing crew, international travel, and all the other benefits associated with that lifestyle, and it s*#ts me to tears that there are punks out there jumping the que!
However have realised that this is the way the world is and that I have it a lot easier that generations that have gone before me. The truth is we must feel sorry for these people that go the MPL route and skip GA. I fly SE VFR now and have a long way to go, but for these people, when you start at the top what have you got to look forward too?
However have realised that this is the way the world is and that I have it a lot easier that generations that have gone before me. The truth is we must feel sorry for these people that go the MPL route and skip GA. I fly SE VFR now and have a long way to go, but for these people, when you start at the top what have you got to look forward too?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 1,744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And ga safety
Wizofoz
I believe that it is probably better to have newbies sitting alongside an experienced captain.
It is also much better to have GA crewed by experienced career pilots. The present system of mainly a surplus of broke, desparate, low time pilots, or an unpredictable shortage if the airlines decide to recruit, is not good for economics or safety.
I believe that it is probably better to have newbies sitting alongside an experienced captain.
It is also much better to have GA crewed by experienced career pilots. The present system of mainly a surplus of broke, desparate, low time pilots, or an unpredictable shortage if the airlines decide to recruit, is not good for economics or safety.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NZ
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is all well and good.
I am in GA and loving every minute of it, in my opinion the experience i've gained from my time here is worth its weight in gold.
Experience beats the "fast track" any day of the week.
I'm glad for all those who get the "jet job" straight off the bat but which sounds better, a 500hr pilot or a 5000hr pilot? Who would you entrust the lives of 200+ people with?
I am in GA and loving every minute of it, in my opinion the experience i've gained from my time here is worth its weight in gold.
Experience beats the "fast track" any day of the week.
I'm glad for all those who get the "jet job" straight off the bat but which sounds better, a 500hr pilot or a 5000hr pilot? Who would you entrust the lives of 200+ people with?
A study based on commercial aviation CFIT accidents from a while back showed the following results:
A captain with less than 4000 total hours was equally likely to have an accident as one with more. The range was 480 hours to 16000 hours total time.
A captain with less than 1000 hours on type was involved 67% of the time
A captain with less than 500 hours instrument time was involved 73% of cases, (50% involved less than 220 hours IF).
Have not been able to find more up to date statistics on flight crew experience data.
The point is that the total hours are not so much an issue as experience on type and in operational conditions.
A captain with less than 4000 total hours was equally likely to have an accident as one with more. The range was 480 hours to 16000 hours total time.
A captain with less than 1000 hours on type was involved 67% of the time
A captain with less than 500 hours instrument time was involved 73% of cases, (50% involved less than 220 hours IF).
Have not been able to find more up to date statistics on flight crew experience data.
The point is that the total hours are not so much an issue as experience on type and in operational conditions.
'43' I couldn't agree more with yr last...........The point is that the total hours are not so much an issue as experience on type and in operational conditions. Today 18:42
I was privy some time ago now to overseeing some CV's that where for perusal in the hoep of finding another driver for the Co I used to work for.
One CV in particular had a guy with a TT of 5000+ & he was around the late 20's if I recall. Pretty impressive at that age with all those hrs but looking further into the breakdown of his hrs revealed nearly 4000 hrs on SE types as an instructor. Hmmmm, would a large TT make this guy better than someone who had say 3000TT with 2000 of those twin & perhaps night IFR? I doubt it. You can gain an awful lot of experience in the first 500 to 1000 hrs but after that sit in the R/H seat instructing basic stuff adds little.
The Cpt whom pulled off a lucky ldg in the river was indeed lucky, Skill no dout played a big part in it but who actually practices ditching at that level, or any level for that matter? Nobody, he was damn lucky that's for sure & so where the pax. Lets hope that we don't ever find out if a MPL driver can pull off the same stunt.
Wmk2
I was privy some time ago now to overseeing some CV's that where for perusal in the hoep of finding another driver for the Co I used to work for.
One CV in particular had a guy with a TT of 5000+ & he was around the late 20's if I recall. Pretty impressive at that age with all those hrs but looking further into the breakdown of his hrs revealed nearly 4000 hrs on SE types as an instructor. Hmmmm, would a large TT make this guy better than someone who had say 3000TT with 2000 of those twin & perhaps night IFR? I doubt it. You can gain an awful lot of experience in the first 500 to 1000 hrs but after that sit in the R/H seat instructing basic stuff adds little.
The Cpt whom pulled off a lucky ldg in the river was indeed lucky, Skill no dout played a big part in it but who actually practices ditching at that level, or any level for that matter? Nobody, he was damn lucky that's for sure & so where the pax. Lets hope that we don't ever find out if a MPL driver can pull off the same stunt.
Wmk2
43,
You've specifically quoted Captain hours. We're more talking about enrty level experience. It should, perhaps be noted that with MPL, FOs will HAVE a few thousand hours on type when they recieve their upgrade.
Don't get me wrong, GA gave me some of the most treasured experiences I've ever had, but wether that was the best preperation for an Airline career is what is under discussion.
I believe the FO Coward, who managed to get the BA 777 down in (more or less) one piece after the non-responsive engine accident, may not have been MPL, but DID come through a Cadet scheme, low time into a Jet.
You've specifically quoted Captain hours. We're more talking about enrty level experience. It should, perhaps be noted that with MPL, FOs will HAVE a few thousand hours on type when they recieve their upgrade.
Don't get me wrong, GA gave me some of the most treasured experiences I've ever had, but wether that was the best preperation for an Airline career is what is under discussion.
I believe the FO Coward, who managed to get the BA 777 down in (more or less) one piece after the non-responsive engine accident, may not have been MPL, but DID come through a Cadet scheme, low time into a Jet.
Wizofoz - The stats for FO's are similar, 50% under 2000 hours total and 50% over. The interesting note was that almost all had less than 500hours on type. Again it shows whether MPL/CPL/ATPL its type & operational experience which is important.
Low time FO cadets have been around almost as long as airlines. The difference in todays world is that they may be paired with an inexperienced captain (on type). This to me is the main concern with the current situation. In the late 1980's a similar situation was faced by commuters/regionals in the US;
http://www.flightsafety.org/ap/ap_nov88.pdf
The section titled 'The wide range of hiring and experience' sounds a lot like todays regional woes.
Low time FO cadets have been around almost as long as airlines. The difference in todays world is that they may be paired with an inexperienced captain (on type). This to me is the main concern with the current situation. In the late 1980's a similar situation was faced by commuters/regionals in the US;
http://www.flightsafety.org/ap/ap_nov88.pdf
The section titled 'The wide range of hiring and experience' sounds a lot like todays regional woes.
