Multi Crew Pilots Licence
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Near the end of a long, long road
Age: 76
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Multi Crew Pilots Licence
I've just been reading an article about this licence in the latest edition of GA, AOPA's magazine.
If I've understood correctly, with this licence the systems fly the aircraft and the pilots monitor the systems. The pilots themselves need not even be able to fly a Cessna 152.
As a pilot at the very bottom of the food chain (I fly on an NPPL), I find this rather worrying and would be very interested to hear some views from the professional side of the fence.
If I've understood correctly, with this licence the systems fly the aircraft and the pilots monitor the systems. The pilots themselves need not even be able to fly a Cessna 152.
As a pilot at the very bottom of the food chain (I fly on an NPPL), I find this rather worrying and would be very interested to hear some views from the professional side of the fence.
Fly Conventional Gear
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From what I understand they do a number of hours in light aircraft to get the basics but don't get a PPL. To be honest I think a lot of negative rubbish has been written about the MCPL; the idea of a licence that is actually applicable to flying multi crew aircraft is fundamentally better than the current system whereby everyone learns PPL/CPL/IR etc as a single pilot and then goes onto mulitcrew training later.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 18nm NE grice 28ft up
Posts: 1,129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Miroku,
I find it worrying as well. It's like a dumbed down or inferior ATPL.
The authorities in the USA have suddenly realised that they have crews with marginal handling skills (following the Dash 8 crash at Buffalo) and are increasing the hours requirements.
There have been a few incidents over the years where exceptional piloting skills have saved lives, drawing on skills learnt in a previous life.
DO.
I find it worrying as well. It's like a dumbed down or inferior ATPL.
The authorities in the USA have suddenly realised that they have crews with marginal handling skills (following the Dash 8 crash at Buffalo) and are increasing the hours requirements.
There have been a few incidents over the years where exceptional piloting skills have saved lives, drawing on skills learnt in a previous life.
DO.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Near the end of a long, long road
Age: 76
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DO
Captain Sullenberger comes to mind................
There have been a few incidents over the years where exceptional piloting skills have saved lives, drawing on skills learnt in a previous life.
Most experienced people in the industry also think it's rather worrying - or "barking mad" would perhaps be a more accurate summary.
I've to date come across two people who thought it was a good idea. One was a sponsored cadet who saw it as his route into a big jet flight deck, and one was a recruiter for BA. Both, frankly have too much vested interest to be independent experts.
CRM and multicrew training must be essential for anybody getting up the front of a big jet - and those have historically been the big omission on those flight decks. But that does not replace handling skill and command experience - which will be needed by enough airline co-pilots, enough times, to justify retaining that skillset.
G
I've to date come across two people who thought it was a good idea. One was a sponsored cadet who saw it as his route into a big jet flight deck, and one was a recruiter for BA. Both, frankly have too much vested interest to be independent experts.
CRM and multicrew training must be essential for anybody getting up the front of a big jet - and those have historically been the big omission on those flight decks. But that does not replace handling skill and command experience - which will be needed by enough airline co-pilots, enough times, to justify retaining that skillset.
G
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: .
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Although I do not totally agree with the MPL, I can understand it's concept.
Commercial flight training hasn't changed in a long time. With the different role of a pilot in todays airliners it is of no surprise that something like the MPL has been created. A pilot with a MEP CPL IR cannot just transition to an airline environment without further training, for example JOC, MCC. From my understanding the MPL helps focus the pilot more towards a multi crew operation from the very beginning with SOPs and a more airline environment in general. To say these pilots have less flying experience isn't really true. They still learn to fly on the same aircraft a traditional student might fly on but there is also more emphasis on simulator training. How much experience can a 250hour pilot have anyway.
"with this licence the systems fly the aircraft and the pilots monitor the systems"
This sounds an awful like how many airline pilots operate these days?
If I had teh choice I would revert to the traditional method..maybe because I'm old fashioned but I can sympathise with the understanding behind the multi pilots licence.
MB
Commercial flight training hasn't changed in a long time. With the different role of a pilot in todays airliners it is of no surprise that something like the MPL has been created. A pilot with a MEP CPL IR cannot just transition to an airline environment without further training, for example JOC, MCC. From my understanding the MPL helps focus the pilot more towards a multi crew operation from the very beginning with SOPs and a more airline environment in general. To say these pilots have less flying experience isn't really true. They still learn to fly on the same aircraft a traditional student might fly on but there is also more emphasis on simulator training. How much experience can a 250hour pilot have anyway.
"with this licence the systems fly the aircraft and the pilots monitor the systems"
This sounds an awful like how many airline pilots operate these days?
If I had teh choice I would revert to the traditional method..maybe because I'm old fashioned but I can sympathise with the understanding behind the multi pilots licence.
MB
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it is barking mad myself. I think every single pilot should learn to handle aeroplanes and learn the basic stick and rudder skills. I also think that they should explore the envelope a bit before jumping into the RHS of an A330. By this I mean learn to make real life decision (weather etc..), maybe do some aerobatics, learn to fly fast singles and multi's as single pilot, gliders, microlights, whatever but build some experience.
This is where the old "you can't get an ATPL until 1500 hrs & after flight test" route is much better than this "frozen" ATPL route. I think the MPL is a waste of time and only designed for someone who has no real interest in aviation.
This is where the old "you can't get an ATPL until 1500 hrs & after flight test" route is much better than this "frozen" ATPL route. I think the MPL is a waste of time and only designed for someone who has no real interest in aviation.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,929
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Complete madness, IMHO. Interestingly, though, one of the airlines pushing hardest for it was, IIRC, Quantas. After their recent string of mishaps, that were all saved by very competent flying by the chaps up front, perhaps they are having a bit of a re-think. One would at least hope so....
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Betwixt and between
Posts: 666
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MPL or CPL you still cannot get a. ATPL without a skill test and 1500 of the right sort of hours.
However, I am certain that if I hadn't been a confident operator of light aircraft, challenging myself all alone as most PPLs do, then I would never have become the confident operator of the 737 that I now enjoy flying. These guys will not be truely tested until they are Captains, and then realise what it is like to be in an unusual situation, especially if all the F/O can say is "Errrm"
All things being equal, I am sure that a CPL ME/IR pilot with an MCC (JOCs are a waste of time and money) could transition to a mediuim jet not only just as easily as the same pilot undertaking an MPL course, but also be a more rouded and accomplished pilot throughout their career too.
Personally, I believe thaf a 250hr pilot who endeavours to always fly a different route to a different destination, pushes his comfort zone but is able to fly defensively whe required, has had a very rich 250hrs.
In terms of multi crew flying, an MPL course will be no more effective compared to a traditional MCC and type rating.
However, I am certain that if I hadn't been a confident operator of light aircraft, challenging myself all alone as most PPLs do, then I would never have become the confident operator of the 737 that I now enjoy flying. These guys will not be truely tested until they are Captains, and then realise what it is like to be in an unusual situation, especially if all the F/O can say is "Errrm"
All things being equal, I am sure that a CPL ME/IR pilot with an MCC (JOCs are a waste of time and money) could transition to a mediuim jet not only just as easily as the same pilot undertaking an MPL course, but also be a more rouded and accomplished pilot throughout their career too.
Personally, I believe thaf a 250hr pilot who endeavours to always fly a different route to a different destination, pushes his comfort zone but is able to fly defensively whe required, has had a very rich 250hrs.
In terms of multi crew flying, an MPL course will be no more effective compared to a traditional MCC and type rating.
The MPL includes 70 hours on Single Engine aeroplanes and anyone completing the training should have no trouble flying a C152. That is roughly the same amount of single engine flying as conducted on a traditional Integrated ATPL Course.
The latter phase of the course is conducted on simulators which are more akin to the type of aircraft likely to be flown once qualified. Is this not more relevant than learning on an air taxi type aircraft that one is never likely to fly again after passing the IR skill test?
The MPL is not likely to be a cheaper option; it has been badly conceived in many respects and there are likely to be issues finding instructors. The end product however will have had more training in MPA operations, so should be at least equal to if not better than graduates from an Integrated course.
With the recent launch of the Future Airspace Strategy we are going to have to see a major overhaul of the IR from a needle based skill to one of systems monitoring.
The latter phase of the course is conducted on simulators which are more akin to the type of aircraft likely to be flown once qualified. Is this not more relevant than learning on an air taxi type aircraft that one is never likely to fly again after passing the IR skill test?
The MPL is not likely to be a cheaper option; it has been badly conceived in many respects and there are likely to be issues finding instructors. The end product however will have had more training in MPA operations, so should be at least equal to if not better than graduates from an Integrated course.
With the recent launch of the Future Airspace Strategy we are going to have to see a major overhaul of the IR from a needle based skill to one of systems monitoring.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Betwixt and between
Posts: 666
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know why systems monitoring is talked about in such lofty tones. Focusing on such things to the detriment of basic instrument skills sounds like a recepie for an interesting and incident packed career. Flying an airliner is as much about needles and stick/rudder skills as it is about multi crew, automation and magenta lines.
In my view, neither CRM nor SOPs require anywhere near the same amount of effort to train as the basic ability to fly in challenging conditions and know what is going on within and around the aircraft. Clearly, doing this efficietly as a multi crew operation is different, but not to the extent that it is justifiable to reduce individual airmship, handling and navigation skills - the general buggeration factor cannot be effectively replicated in simulators.
Therefore, I maintain that properly selected and well trained modular indivduals would probably be a better bets. The clincher is the phrase pertaining to selection and training
In my view, neither CRM nor SOPs require anywhere near the same amount of effort to train as the basic ability to fly in challenging conditions and know what is going on within and around the aircraft. Clearly, doing this efficietly as a multi crew operation is different, but not to the extent that it is justifiable to reduce individual airmship, handling and navigation skills - the general buggeration factor cannot be effectively replicated in simulators.
Therefore, I maintain that properly selected and well trained modular indivduals would probably be a better bets. The clincher is the phrase pertaining to selection and training
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Near the end of a long, long road
Age: 76
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many thanks for the replies so far.
Could I pose a further question? Assuming you're over the Hudson river following a bird strike and with no engine power, would you prefer the pilot to have:
a: An ATPL
b: An MCPL
c: Either as it wouldn't make any difference
Could I pose a further question? Assuming you're over the Hudson river following a bird strike and with no engine power, would you prefer the pilot to have:
a: An ATPL
b: An MCPL
c: Either as it wouldn't make any difference
(d) 18,000hrs and excellent crew resource management skills.
Realistically, by the time somebody gets to, say, 5,000+ hours it's completely irrelevant how they initially trained - it's all about the experience in the second half of their flying career. The concerns that many people have in the MPL is for the first officer and their ability to handle emergencies in the early part of their flying career.
For example if this accident were to repeat with a new co-pilot on board, I'd be much more confident in a first officer with 1000hrs of flying instruction and air taxi flying who had just got their first airline job, than one with 200hrs on an MPL course and had also just been hired the previous month.
G
Realistically, by the time somebody gets to, say, 5,000+ hours it's completely irrelevant how they initially trained - it's all about the experience in the second half of their flying career. The concerns that many people have in the MPL is for the first officer and their ability to handle emergencies in the early part of their flying career.
For example if this accident were to repeat with a new co-pilot on board, I'd be much more confident in a first officer with 1000hrs of flying instruction and air taxi flying who had just got their first airline job, than one with 200hrs on an MPL course and had also just been hired the previous month.
G
At the moment there is I believe only one UK airline training MPL candidates.
I have heard directly from someone high up in the training department of that airline that the standard of pilots commencing the final phase of the course ie the company type rating training, is generally higher than those in the past from traditional backgrounds.
It really makes very little difference if an airline captain has 70 or 170 hours of light aircraft flying - remembering that a lot of those 170 hours may have been flown in training environments where real clouds are rarely seen. The ability to make decisions pertinent to command of an airliner is gained by sitting in the right hand seat for several thousand hours and participating (assuming that good CRM principals are being followed and the captain actually involves the F/O) in the decision making processes which happen throughout the day.
There is also no reason why the MPL should be significantly more expensive than a traditional CPL/IR - any TRTO booking significant amounts of simulator time will get a level D simulator for less than £400 per hour, and bearing in mind that is split between two candidates as they fly as PF and PNF during the course it equates to less than £200 per hour for their training, which is significantly less than most IR schools are charging for a seneca and not much more than you will pay for commercial training in a PA28.
Whilst at the moment there might be a shortage of instructors - in the long run there are probably enough pilots who would be prepared to work as SFIs but can't fly for medical grounds or would be happy working in a nice warm simulator to get around that problem. Airlines running the courses could even use more F/Os as SFIs than tends to happen at the moment.
Most of the opposition also comes from those with vested interests - CPL/IR holders who are building up hours trying to get an airline job, or FTOs which are not large enough or don't have airline contacts and are therefore unable to offer the course. There would also be a potential loss of income for the major schools - as the MPL needs a sponsoring airline then the FTOs could no longer take thousands of pounds from aspiring commercial pilots even when they know that there are no jobs available at the end of the course, as they do at the moment.
I have heard directly from someone high up in the training department of that airline that the standard of pilots commencing the final phase of the course ie the company type rating training, is generally higher than those in the past from traditional backgrounds.
It really makes very little difference if an airline captain has 70 or 170 hours of light aircraft flying - remembering that a lot of those 170 hours may have been flown in training environments where real clouds are rarely seen. The ability to make decisions pertinent to command of an airliner is gained by sitting in the right hand seat for several thousand hours and participating (assuming that good CRM principals are being followed and the captain actually involves the F/O) in the decision making processes which happen throughout the day.
There is also no reason why the MPL should be significantly more expensive than a traditional CPL/IR - any TRTO booking significant amounts of simulator time will get a level D simulator for less than £400 per hour, and bearing in mind that is split between two candidates as they fly as PF and PNF during the course it equates to less than £200 per hour for their training, which is significantly less than most IR schools are charging for a seneca and not much more than you will pay for commercial training in a PA28.
Whilst at the moment there might be a shortage of instructors - in the long run there are probably enough pilots who would be prepared to work as SFIs but can't fly for medical grounds or would be happy working in a nice warm simulator to get around that problem. Airlines running the courses could even use more F/Os as SFIs than tends to happen at the moment.
Most of the opposition also comes from those with vested interests - CPL/IR holders who are building up hours trying to get an airline job, or FTOs which are not large enough or don't have airline contacts and are therefore unable to offer the course. There would also be a potential loss of income for the major schools - as the MPL needs a sponsoring airline then the FTOs could no longer take thousands of pounds from aspiring commercial pilots even when they know that there are no jobs available at the end of the course, as they do at the moment.
