Which MCC???
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Hunched over a keyboard
Posts: 1,193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BillieBob - that is brilliantly put.
Having had direct contact with the airlines that take the product of MCC courses, I can categorically state that they have found that an MCC course DOES make a marked difference to the candidates arriving on type ratings - and if the SOPs can be tailored to theirs then the difference is even more marked. This is particularly the case for low hours candidates, as opposed to FIs with full log books.
The FTOs run MCC courses because most airlines can´t be bothered. I believe that BA (who were approved to run MCC) are no longer bothering to maintain that approval. Very few airlines do them - easy are an exception - but they ARE by and large happy with what they get from the FTOs
WWWs opinions are just that - opinions - with very little factual basis. Unfortunately, he is not the only moderator here who holds those opinions and that, sadly, skews the debate as many wannabees place a great deal of credence upon the words of moderators over other (more informed) correspondents.
Of course, he won't agree with me!
Having had direct contact with the airlines that take the product of MCC courses, I can categorically state that they have found that an MCC course DOES make a marked difference to the candidates arriving on type ratings - and if the SOPs can be tailored to theirs then the difference is even more marked. This is particularly the case for low hours candidates, as opposed to FIs with full log books.
The FTOs run MCC courses because most airlines can´t be bothered. I believe that BA (who were approved to run MCC) are no longer bothering to maintain that approval. Very few airlines do them - easy are an exception - but they ARE by and large happy with what they get from the FTOs
WWWs opinions are just that - opinions - with very little factual basis. Unfortunately, he is not the only moderator here who holds those opinions and that, sadly, skews the debate as many wannabees place a great deal of credence upon the words of moderators over other (more informed) correspondents.
Of course, he won't agree with me!
I don't agree with you.
My words are not handed down in tablets of stone. What Joe Wannabe reads on this thread is a lively passionate argument about the broad merits of MCC courses.
By way of reading hopefully his understanding of the range of views available is increased and he leaves a little better informed. Whether he thinks I'm talking rubbish or yourself is not the point. I certainly don't need to believe I'm right all the time and anybody gives a damn what I say - do you?
As long as he's heard both arguments and come to his own opinion. THATS the value of this forum. There are no Gurus in this business, nobody has all the answers and there is no one truth.
What there is is a whole spectrum of opinion, experience and thought. All collated here under one useful cyber roof for Joe Wannabe.
If you think I am in the minority in concluding MCC is a hugely money spinning racket that adds little of value for its £2000 - £4000 cost then I assure you that you are wrong. Its a very cheap course dressed up by schools to teach what has always been taught on type conversion and line training...
For the average person looking for their own MCC course whilst job hunting my advice still stands: Do the cheapest one you can find.
If they all do this then the industry will ratchet downt he cost. I see no need for the course to cost anything over £1,000 at the very most.
As nearly everyone says its just a tick in a box course.
Cheers
WWW
My words are not handed down in tablets of stone. What Joe Wannabe reads on this thread is a lively passionate argument about the broad merits of MCC courses.
By way of reading hopefully his understanding of the range of views available is increased and he leaves a little better informed. Whether he thinks I'm talking rubbish or yourself is not the point. I certainly don't need to believe I'm right all the time and anybody gives a damn what I say - do you?
As long as he's heard both arguments and come to his own opinion. THATS the value of this forum. There are no Gurus in this business, nobody has all the answers and there is no one truth.
What there is is a whole spectrum of opinion, experience and thought. All collated here under one useful cyber roof for Joe Wannabe.
If you think I am in the minority in concluding MCC is a hugely money spinning racket that adds little of value for its £2000 - £4000 cost then I assure you that you are wrong. Its a very cheap course dressed up by schools to teach what has always been taught on type conversion and line training...
For the average person looking for their own MCC course whilst job hunting my advice still stands: Do the cheapest one you can find.
If they all do this then the industry will ratchet downt he cost. I see no need for the course to cost anything over £1,000 at the very most.
As nearly everyone says its just a tick in a box course.
Cheers
WWW
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: London
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So let me get this right....
I could spend well over £3k on a course with CURRENT pilot jolly good blokes.
I could spend up to £3k on an all singing all dancing jet sim with ex pilot chaps who might not be politically or socially correct!
I could spend roughly £2k on a basic sim jobby.
Or I could wait for someone to offer me a course for a couple of hundred quid "on two upturned orange crates in an office broom cupboard in a Slough retail park"
Or I could sit on my bum and wait for an airline to send me on an MCC course.
Right I'm off on holiday with the money I saved then!!
Thanks
Joe Wannabe
I could spend well over £3k on a course with CURRENT pilot jolly good blokes.
I could spend up to £3k on an all singing all dancing jet sim with ex pilot chaps who might not be politically or socially correct!
I could spend roughly £2k on a basic sim jobby.
Or I could wait for someone to offer me a course for a couple of hundred quid "on two upturned orange crates in an office broom cupboard in a Slough retail park"
Or I could sit on my bum and wait for an airline to send me on an MCC course.
Right I'm off on holiday with the money I saved then!!
Thanks
Joe Wannabe
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Hunched over a keyboard
Posts: 1,193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
rapg1000 - on the assumption that there is a heavy dose of irony overlaid upon your post, I trust that you are not genuinely awaiting an airline that will pay for your MCC.
If you are then you may be waiting a long time as only a minority will cough up for that or do it in house.
Good luck with whatever course of action you take.
Moggiee
If you are then you may be waiting a long time as only a minority will cough up for that or do it in house.
Good luck with whatever course of action you take.
Moggiee
Guest
Posts: n/a
I'll get banned for this!!!!!
WWW.
Moderator n 1. A person or thing that moderates
Moderate adj 1. Not extreme or exessive. 2. Not violent; mild or temperatate. 3. Of average quality extent: 4. A person who holds moderate views
Chill out, think of your blood pressure and annual medical.
People don't want a lively debate, if they did they'd watch Rikki Lake. What they want is advice that is balanced and informative not passionate and biased.
WWW.
Moderator n 1. A person or thing that moderates
Moderate adj 1. Not extreme or exessive. 2. Not violent; mild or temperatate. 3. Of average quality extent: 4. A person who holds moderate views
Chill out, think of your blood pressure and annual medical.
People don't want a lively debate, if they did they'd watch Rikki Lake. What they want is advice that is balanced and informative not passionate and biased.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Saaaaaaffffhampton
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MCC
Cheap is not always best, just what your able to afford after the mounting debt of the CPL / MEIR
Anyway I ave first hand experience of Wolverhampton spaceport i have to agree the chaps who did the MCC (ex BA) were very nice, but that cant be said for one of them, who works for the shark of an owner and would not recommend them to anyone.
Go to a reputable provider and do your homework, its the same with all ratings / certificates, you dont just do them anywhere, you choose your provider for a reason
Good luck
Anyway I ave first hand experience of Wolverhampton spaceport i have to agree the chaps who did the MCC (ex BA) were very nice, but that cant be said for one of them, who works for the shark of an owner and would not recommend them to anyone.
Go to a reputable provider and do your homework, its the same with all ratings / certificates, you dont just do them anywhere, you choose your provider for a reason
Good luck
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Jerez
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WWW has a very valid opinion and unlike Moggiee who is 100% dependant on teaching MCC for his bread and butter therefore in a good position to be rather unbiased.
You only need to read how Moggiee's opinion of/MCC must be done on a JET' has changed ever since he changed employer to realise that his opinions are only made for his own personal gain.
You only need to read how Moggiee's opinion of/MCC must be done on a JET' has changed ever since he changed employer to realise that his opinions are only made for his own personal gain.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Hunched over a keyboard
Posts: 1,193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One Fife - not the case. The change of opinion is based upon experience. Experience that tells me that (contrary to my previous view) the choice of FNPT2 is less an issue than I once thought it to be.
However, what has not changed is my belief that MCC is enormously valid. I say this as someone who was placed on a multicrew, large, 4 jet flight deck with 215 hours of flying experience in my logbook and expected to "pick it up as I went along". An MCC course would have been a huge advantage.
The step up to the 4 jet aeroplane in terms of handling and performance was not much of an issue - and in terms of flying ability I am just average. The step up from a single pilot aeroplane to a multicrew one is significantly greater. I am not the only person to feel this way - ex-military pilots that I know who fly for the airlines (many of whom joined before MCC became a requirement) say that an MCC would have been a huge help to them.
I began teaching "MCC" before MCC was legislated into existence - we called it LOFT but we covered the same syllabus (or greater), usually in a similar time frame. Contrary to the beliefs of WWW, MCC was never formally taught as part of the type rating - it was just something that you "picked up". Picking it up as you go along may be OK for an FI with a couple of thousand hours logged, but it's not so easy when you have 1/10th of that amount in the book. I could name a couple of WWW`s former Jerez colleagues (fellow FIs) who believe that their MCC courses were a great help when they got their first FO jobs with airlines.
The introduction of MCC has saved airlines a great deal of money as low-hours pilots then require fewer expensive remedial hours on their conversions. BA reckoned that prior to the training freeze in 2001 they were saving £1.25 million per year as a direct result of the training given to their cadet pilots between licence issue and starting type ratings. That's an average of about £3,500 per trainee.
My previous employer (and therefore myself) picked up a lot of business because a number of airlines told people applying to them to "go XXX, do a LOFT course - at least 20 hours please - and then we'll consider you". Why did they do this when a LOFT course was not aregulatory requirement? Because they knew that having done aLOFT course with us the applicant would be easier and cheaper for them to train - both on the type rating and on line.
Of course, the above could all be rubbish and MCC could be a waste of money. However, I leave you to decide.
However, what has not changed is my belief that MCC is enormously valid. I say this as someone who was placed on a multicrew, large, 4 jet flight deck with 215 hours of flying experience in my logbook and expected to "pick it up as I went along". An MCC course would have been a huge advantage.
The step up to the 4 jet aeroplane in terms of handling and performance was not much of an issue - and in terms of flying ability I am just average. The step up from a single pilot aeroplane to a multicrew one is significantly greater. I am not the only person to feel this way - ex-military pilots that I know who fly for the airlines (many of whom joined before MCC became a requirement) say that an MCC would have been a huge help to them.
I began teaching "MCC" before MCC was legislated into existence - we called it LOFT but we covered the same syllabus (or greater), usually in a similar time frame. Contrary to the beliefs of WWW, MCC was never formally taught as part of the type rating - it was just something that you "picked up". Picking it up as you go along may be OK for an FI with a couple of thousand hours logged, but it's not so easy when you have 1/10th of that amount in the book. I could name a couple of WWW`s former Jerez colleagues (fellow FIs) who believe that their MCC courses were a great help when they got their first FO jobs with airlines.
The introduction of MCC has saved airlines a great deal of money as low-hours pilots then require fewer expensive remedial hours on their conversions. BA reckoned that prior to the training freeze in 2001 they were saving £1.25 million per year as a direct result of the training given to their cadet pilots between licence issue and starting type ratings. That's an average of about £3,500 per trainee.
My previous employer (and therefore myself) picked up a lot of business because a number of airlines told people applying to them to "go XXX, do a LOFT course - at least 20 hours please - and then we'll consider you". Why did they do this when a LOFT course was not aregulatory requirement? Because they knew that having done aLOFT course with us the applicant would be easier and cheaper for them to train - both on the type rating and on line.
Of course, the above could all be rubbish and MCC could be a waste of money. However, I leave you to decide.
I totally agree that the old Jet Orientation Courses and extended Line Orientation Flight Training courses (JOC and LOFT as they were known) were very useful. They existed before JAA when the British ran their own training system. They were useful bridges between the CAP509 course ending and the official type rating course starting. They worked well. They were tightly regulated by the CAA who had very high standards and very rigourous checkers. Most instructors were current line TRIs.
And then along came JAR harmonisation.
Johhny foreigner by and large hadn't a setup like the UK's CAP509 and consequently no history of LOFT and JOC provision. The UK CAA said "look here chaps!" and from a committee the abortion of an excuse for a course which is MCC was produced.
Now only 20 hours long, unfocused, with standards and syllabus written and 'approved' by the CAA in a fleeting visit. Nearly anyone can be deemed to have 'suitable experience' to teach them, there is no checking and it can be done on som rickety old kit. There is no way on this planet that your bog average 'CAA Approved' MCC course today is even fit to stand in the shadow of say the BAe Prestwick JOC courses of the late 90's.
I wish they were. I think the training is the most useful for a new airline FO. I agree there is a yawning gap between stepping out of your Beech Duchess with shiny new IR in hand and clambering up the steps to Mr Boeings finest.
But the current half hearted mealy mouthed lets-just-touch-on-this box-ticking-egg-sucking demands of the average MCC course goes exactly 5% the way to bridging that gap. Which for £3500 typical cost is staggeringly poor value for money.
I certainly do know that teaching MCC is THE most profitable aspect of running a larger FTO these days. Hence the scramble to offer the courses. No waiting lists or aptitude selection for an MCC course - just show us the money and watch us drool.
Anyway. Little more than a year ago someone asked whether discounts were possible on the MCC. I suggested they collar 5 other mates together and approach providers en masse with the aim of achieving a group discount. They did this, held their nerve for a week and managed to get it knocked down to £1600 each. Which was a heck of a saving and shows how much profit there must be in the system.
I recommend that all Wannabes try this. You nearly all finish your IR with a group of god mates. Stick together and work as a team. You can save quite a bit on an MCC if you come as a group and don't care where you do it.
As more and more take this line the courses will become commodities and the pricing will fall generally to more realistic levels.
--------
Of course there are some quite good MCC courses and tutors out there who work very hard to pass on knowledge.
It would be my hope that airlines return to the provison of JOC and LOFT courses as standard and thereby provide work over and above that currently available by way of MCC course provision.
---------
Mosspigs - 'Moderator' just means I get to delete and move posts and get sent dozens of emails a day asking improbable questions about the minutae of license accreditation AND fend off half a dozen questions a day about whether or not BA are starting sponsorship from people who seem to have failed to have thought that consulting that companies, not inconsiderable web presence, might have been a better idea....
It emphatically does not make me the local Vicar who is moderate in all his views and acts as Wannabe Chaplain. I do have a duty of care to these forums in the sense that I am head Gardner. I like to plant/pprune/nourish a few threads so that they grow into mighty features in the garden. Often as not this is achieved by throwing a rabid dog over the fence and retiring to a safe distance. The ensuing argument is often far more illuminating and fun to read than some turgid 'advice' page weighed down with caveats ifs and buts.
Thats quite enough highly questionable obscure metaphors from me this early in the morning...
I'm off, Cheers
WWW
And then along came JAR harmonisation.
Johhny foreigner by and large hadn't a setup like the UK's CAP509 and consequently no history of LOFT and JOC provision. The UK CAA said "look here chaps!" and from a committee the abortion of an excuse for a course which is MCC was produced.
Now only 20 hours long, unfocused, with standards and syllabus written and 'approved' by the CAA in a fleeting visit. Nearly anyone can be deemed to have 'suitable experience' to teach them, there is no checking and it can be done on som rickety old kit. There is no way on this planet that your bog average 'CAA Approved' MCC course today is even fit to stand in the shadow of say the BAe Prestwick JOC courses of the late 90's.
I wish they were. I think the training is the most useful for a new airline FO. I agree there is a yawning gap between stepping out of your Beech Duchess with shiny new IR in hand and clambering up the steps to Mr Boeings finest.
But the current half hearted mealy mouthed lets-just-touch-on-this box-ticking-egg-sucking demands of the average MCC course goes exactly 5% the way to bridging that gap. Which for £3500 typical cost is staggeringly poor value for money.
I certainly do know that teaching MCC is THE most profitable aspect of running a larger FTO these days. Hence the scramble to offer the courses. No waiting lists or aptitude selection for an MCC course - just show us the money and watch us drool.
Anyway. Little more than a year ago someone asked whether discounts were possible on the MCC. I suggested they collar 5 other mates together and approach providers en masse with the aim of achieving a group discount. They did this, held their nerve for a week and managed to get it knocked down to £1600 each. Which was a heck of a saving and shows how much profit there must be in the system.
I recommend that all Wannabes try this. You nearly all finish your IR with a group of god mates. Stick together and work as a team. You can save quite a bit on an MCC if you come as a group and don't care where you do it.
As more and more take this line the courses will become commodities and the pricing will fall generally to more realistic levels.
--------
Of course there are some quite good MCC courses and tutors out there who work very hard to pass on knowledge.
It would be my hope that airlines return to the provison of JOC and LOFT courses as standard and thereby provide work over and above that currently available by way of MCC course provision.
---------
Mosspigs - 'Moderator' just means I get to delete and move posts and get sent dozens of emails a day asking improbable questions about the minutae of license accreditation AND fend off half a dozen questions a day about whether or not BA are starting sponsorship from people who seem to have failed to have thought that consulting that companies, not inconsiderable web presence, might have been a better idea....
It emphatically does not make me the local Vicar who is moderate in all his views and acts as Wannabe Chaplain. I do have a duty of care to these forums in the sense that I am head Gardner. I like to plant/pprune/nourish a few threads so that they grow into mighty features in the garden. Often as not this is achieved by throwing a rabid dog over the fence and retiring to a safe distance. The ensuing argument is often far more illuminating and fun to read than some turgid 'advice' page weighed down with caveats ifs and buts.
Thats quite enough highly questionable obscure metaphors from me this early in the morning...
I'm off, Cheers
WWW
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Hunched over a keyboard
Posts: 1,193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WWW - your lack of knowledge amazes me!
Neither JOC nor LOFT have EVER been "tightly regulated by the CAA". Until the formation of the JAA and the introduction of MCC, there was no regulation of bridge training at all. That is how an Oxfordshire based FTO got away with selling 10 hour LOFT courses! Ten hours - nearly enough time to learn how to strap in and start engines!
However, in conjunction with our airline customers, we were able to create a self-regulated JOC/LOFT sytem that predated the MCC and the JAA by some considerable period of time. That system was regulated by the airlines and ourselves to train cadet pilots to a standard that exceeded the requirments of the CAA and latterly the JAA.
But as someone who has never experienced or taught JOC and LOFT you would not be aware of this.
Clearly I am wasting my time in trying to get the message through to you - I would just encourage all wannabees to ask around, speak to other people who have done MCC, get their opinions, find out how much they REALLY gained from it, themselves on to a good one (and that does not necessarily mean an expensive one).
Neither JOC nor LOFT have EVER been "tightly regulated by the CAA". Until the formation of the JAA and the introduction of MCC, there was no regulation of bridge training at all. That is how an Oxfordshire based FTO got away with selling 10 hour LOFT courses! Ten hours - nearly enough time to learn how to strap in and start engines!
However, in conjunction with our airline customers, we were able to create a self-regulated JOC/LOFT sytem that predated the MCC and the JAA by some considerable period of time. That system was regulated by the airlines and ourselves to train cadet pilots to a standard that exceeded the requirments of the CAA and latterly the JAA.
But as someone who has never experienced or taught JOC and LOFT you would not be aware of this.
Clearly I am wasting my time in trying to get the message through to you - I would just encourage all wannabees to ask around, speak to other people who have done MCC, get their opinions, find out how much they REALLY gained from it, themselves on to a good one (and that does not necessarily mean an expensive one).
'They were tightly regulated' refers to the CAP509 courses...
So if ten hours is only 'nearly enogh time to learn how to strap in and start engines' then what is the point of a 20 hour MCC standard?
JOC/LOFT courses run at the behest of large airlines like BA were very closely regulated by those airlines Training Departments. A fact the CAA was aware of and concluded no interference was necessary.
Unlike today whereby the man from the CAA takes a look at the course notes, pitches up once and then hey presto! You are away and running as an 'Approved' MCC provider.
After spending gawd knows how many tens of thousands of borrowed money acquiring a CPL IR Frzn ATPL I think its good advice to say - do the cheapest MCC you can find.
All you get at the end is a piece of A4 run off the schools own bubblejet! Nobody knows or cares which organisation does the 'best' MCC or on which sim or to what level the instructors are qualified.
Its A Tick In The Box.
Joe Wannabe - £20,000 in debt to the bank, £30,000 in debt to Mum and Dad - is in need of some serious money saving moves. A cheap MCC is one of the least disadvantageous ways of achieving this.
Naturally as an MCC instructor you disagree.
I don't think the cheapest Groundschool not Flying Training is the way to go. I do think the cheapest MCC certainly is.
Cheers
WWW
So if ten hours is only 'nearly enogh time to learn how to strap in and start engines' then what is the point of a 20 hour MCC standard?
JOC/LOFT courses run at the behest of large airlines like BA were very closely regulated by those airlines Training Departments. A fact the CAA was aware of and concluded no interference was necessary.
Unlike today whereby the man from the CAA takes a look at the course notes, pitches up once and then hey presto! You are away and running as an 'Approved' MCC provider.
After spending gawd knows how many tens of thousands of borrowed money acquiring a CPL IR Frzn ATPL I think its good advice to say - do the cheapest MCC you can find.
All you get at the end is a piece of A4 run off the schools own bubblejet! Nobody knows or cares which organisation does the 'best' MCC or on which sim or to what level the instructors are qualified.
Its A Tick In The Box.
Joe Wannabe - £20,000 in debt to the bank, £30,000 in debt to Mum and Dad - is in need of some serious money saving moves. A cheap MCC is one of the least disadvantageous ways of achieving this.
Naturally as an MCC instructor you disagree.
I don't think the cheapest Groundschool not Flying Training is the way to go. I do think the cheapest MCC certainly is.
Cheers
WWW
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Hunched over a keyboard
Posts: 1,193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
silverknapper - if we sold expensive MCC courses I might be inclined to agree with you. However, we do not offer expensive courses - just useful ones which are good value for money.
Because they are good VFM then they are not the cash cow that WWW thinks they are (although at his former employer, BAE FT that is how thye were seen). We make very little on them - but we do ensure that they are of high quality and relevant.
The SOP we use is closely based upon "real" SOPs and input from airline pilots in current practice ensures that we are up to speed with industry standards.
A 10 hour course is too little - but with a 20 hour MCC (which is still too little IN AN IDEAL WORLD) you can do a whole lot more. After about 15 hours the crew are getting the hang of the MCC skills and coming to grips with operating to an SOP which is radically different from that which they used on Senecas. Because that takes about 15 hours, you can achieve something in 20 hours but not 10! A 15 hour integrated MCC (as offered by FTOswhich offer integrated courses) is still too short - that extra 5 hours makes a huge difference.
Because they are good VFM then they are not the cash cow that WWW thinks they are (although at his former employer, BAE FT that is how thye were seen). We make very little on them - but we do ensure that they are of high quality and relevant.
The SOP we use is closely based upon "real" SOPs and input from airline pilots in current practice ensures that we are up to speed with industry standards.
A 10 hour course is too little - but with a 20 hour MCC (which is still too little IN AN IDEAL WORLD) you can do a whole lot more. After about 15 hours the crew are getting the hang of the MCC skills and coming to grips with operating to an SOP which is radically different from that which they used on Senecas. Because that takes about 15 hours, you can achieve something in 20 hours but not 10! A 15 hour integrated MCC (as offered by FTOswhich offer integrated courses) is still too short - that extra 5 hours makes a huge difference.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: West Scotland
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
why does the average course cost 2-3 thousand pounds anyway
before Christmas I did a 4 weeks full time course at a local college in something relating to computers and media and cinema.. cost me 149,99 and that INCLUDED the cost of the exam.... 6 of us on the course
seems ALL MCCs are a rip off...
trouble is it is A N O T H E R hoop us wannabes have to jump through to be looked at.
:-(
before Christmas I did a 4 weeks full time course at a local college in something relating to computers and media and cinema.. cost me 149,99 and that INCLUDED the cost of the exam.... 6 of us on the course
seems ALL MCCs are a rip off...
trouble is it is A N O T H E R hoop us wannabes have to jump through to be looked at.
:-(
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Hunched over a keyboard
Posts: 1,193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The is little point in complaining about having to do an MCC - you have to, either self funded or paid for by the airline. To argue that it is not needed is as pointless as arguing that there is no point in doing PFLs on your CPL as you will not being doing them on your Jetstream/737/A380.
It is required - full stop, as are VFR nav, PFLs, stalling etc all of which are things that the aspiring airline pilot will not do on line. At least he will use his MCC training every time he flies.
Still, the above mentioned nav, PFL, stalling etc. need to be done and so should be done WELL and done at a reasonable cost - as should your MCC.
MCC is a labour intensive course involving 25 hours of groundschool and 20 hours in the sim. If that costs £2000 then you pay £44 per hour. Compare that to the rest of your training.
So, if an FTO runs a standard 4 man MCC course it provides 180 man hours of learning which is 4x25 hours of groundschool and 4x20 hours of FNPT2. If that course is sold for £2000 they get £8000 in - £44 an hour out of which they pay capital costs on an FNPT2, wages, building costs, electricity, maintenance etc.
Call that a cash cow? Of course, they could run 12-16 person courses like my previous employer - whacking students through the sausage machine as fast as possible - and charge nearly twice as much for the privilege. Which would you prefer?
It is required - full stop, as are VFR nav, PFLs, stalling etc all of which are things that the aspiring airline pilot will not do on line. At least he will use his MCC training every time he flies.
Still, the above mentioned nav, PFL, stalling etc. need to be done and so should be done WELL and done at a reasonable cost - as should your MCC.
MCC is a labour intensive course involving 25 hours of groundschool and 20 hours in the sim. If that costs £2000 then you pay £44 per hour. Compare that to the rest of your training.
So, if an FTO runs a standard 4 man MCC course it provides 180 man hours of learning which is 4x25 hours of groundschool and 4x20 hours of FNPT2. If that course is sold for £2000 they get £8000 in - £44 an hour out of which they pay capital costs on an FNPT2, wages, building costs, electricity, maintenance etc.
Call that a cash cow? Of course, they could run 12-16 person courses like my previous employer - whacking students through the sausage machine as fast as possible - and charge nearly twice as much for the privilege. Which would you prefer?
The more typical figures are £3,000 each with 8 on a course. £24k for a week long course taking 45 hours. Thats more than £500 an hour.
£500hr for sitting in a classroom watching a video.
£500hr for boredly watching an OHP presentation on CRM theory.
£500hr for sat on two chairs in front of a cardboard flightdeck reading checklists back to one another.
Even £500hr sat in an FNPT2 seems steep. They are only static mock ops of a flightdeck with a Sony projector nailed to the roof and a couple of bog standard PC's running the show. No more than £80,000 of kit. With a shelf life of, conservatively, 5 years it only owes you £16k a year. The profit from the first two course in January would cover that!
MCC used to be taught solely during type conversion and during initial line training. It still is. In addittion we now have these twee little self funded MCC requirements which are neither too cheap and simple to not worry about nor expensive and detailed enough to be useful.
Committee design at its finest.
Cheers
WWW
£500hr for sitting in a classroom watching a video.
£500hr for boredly watching an OHP presentation on CRM theory.
£500hr for sat on two chairs in front of a cardboard flightdeck reading checklists back to one another.
Even £500hr sat in an FNPT2 seems steep. They are only static mock ops of a flightdeck with a Sony projector nailed to the roof and a couple of bog standard PC's running the show. No more than £80,000 of kit. With a shelf life of, conservatively, 5 years it only owes you £16k a year. The profit from the first two course in January would cover that!
MCC used to be taught solely during type conversion and during initial line training. It still is. In addittion we now have these twee little self funded MCC requirements which are neither too cheap and simple to not worry about nor expensive and detailed enough to be useful.
Committee design at its finest.
Cheers
WWW
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Hunched over a keyboard
Posts: 1,193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's not much point adding to a discussion which has reached the "oh yes it is" - "oh no it isn't stage".
I just "refer the honourable gentlemen to my previous answers", as they say in parliament.
gents - do as you see fit with your cash, but spend it wisely. Expensive does not necessarily mean good and cheapest is NOT always best, either. Ring around - we as an organisation will provide referees if required (ex customers for you to speak to). Just don't spend the cash without investigating first.
I just "refer the honourable gentlemen to my previous answers", as they say in parliament.
gents - do as you see fit with your cash, but spend it wisely. Expensive does not necessarily mean good and cheapest is NOT always best, either. Ring around - we as an organisation will provide referees if required (ex customers for you to speak to). Just don't spend the cash without investigating first.
I have to agree with Moggiee that when a debate is dragged down to the level of "My Dad's bigger than your Dad", it ceases to have any purpose. It is unfortunate that personal prejudice and ignorance have brought this thread to such a state, particularly as it concerns such an important topic. It is also unfortunate, and somewhat surprising, that Weasley should have made so many demonstrably false statements in support of his ultimately untenable position.
If I were to post a severely critical opinion of the EasyJet line training programme, of which I had no experience and that was factually incorrect, I would fully expect Weasley to take me to task. It should, therefore, come as no surprise to him that when he posts a severe criticism of the modular MCC programme, of which he has no experience and which is factually incorrect, that others take issue with that ill informed opinion.
The tone of Weasley's rantings becomes more rabid as does his misunderstandings of the requirements. A comment such as "Unlike today whereby the man from the CAA takes a look at the course notes, pitches up once and then hey presto! You are away and running as an 'Approved' MCC provider." demonstrates a clear unfamiliarity with reality. JAR requirements are now that a MCCI has a minimum of 1500 hours experience in multi-pilot operations, completes an approved course of training similar to that required of a TRI and is approved only as a result of a minimum of 3 hours assessment by a CAA examiner. The approval thus gained is valid only at one training organisation - should the MCCI move on, a further course and approval is required. Bearing this in mind, Weasley's suggestion that "Nearly anyone can be deemed to have 'suitable experience' to teach them, there is no checking and it can be done on some rickety old kit." like most of Weasley's ramblings on this subject, bears little relationship to the truth. Perhaps the fact that Weasley himself would not yet be approved as competent to teach an MCCI course has some influence on his opinions?
Ultimately, however, Weasley is correct - each individual must decide for him or her self whether an MCC course is of sufficient value to justify the relvent expenditure. Weasley, having never undertaken a modular MCC course and with no experience of the pre-MCC course era, says that it has no value. I, on the other hand, having been a TRI both before and after the introduction of mandatory MCC training and having seen at first hand the benefits of such training, conclude that it is of significant value, particularly if conducted by qualified and current instructors.
You each must make up your own minds whose opinion you value the most. After all, your future careers depend upon the choices you make today.
If I were to post a severely critical opinion of the EasyJet line training programme, of which I had no experience and that was factually incorrect, I would fully expect Weasley to take me to task. It should, therefore, come as no surprise to him that when he posts a severe criticism of the modular MCC programme, of which he has no experience and which is factually incorrect, that others take issue with that ill informed opinion.
The tone of Weasley's rantings becomes more rabid as does his misunderstandings of the requirements. A comment such as "Unlike today whereby the man from the CAA takes a look at the course notes, pitches up once and then hey presto! You are away and running as an 'Approved' MCC provider." demonstrates a clear unfamiliarity with reality. JAR requirements are now that a MCCI has a minimum of 1500 hours experience in multi-pilot operations, completes an approved course of training similar to that required of a TRI and is approved only as a result of a minimum of 3 hours assessment by a CAA examiner. The approval thus gained is valid only at one training organisation - should the MCCI move on, a further course and approval is required. Bearing this in mind, Weasley's suggestion that "Nearly anyone can be deemed to have 'suitable experience' to teach them, there is no checking and it can be done on some rickety old kit." like most of Weasley's ramblings on this subject, bears little relationship to the truth. Perhaps the fact that Weasley himself would not yet be approved as competent to teach an MCCI course has some influence on his opinions?
Ultimately, however, Weasley is correct - each individual must decide for him or her self whether an MCC course is of sufficient value to justify the relvent expenditure. Weasley, having never undertaken a modular MCC course and with no experience of the pre-MCC course era, says that it has no value. I, on the other hand, having been a TRI both before and after the introduction of mandatory MCC training and having seen at first hand the benefits of such training, conclude that it is of significant value, particularly if conducted by qualified and current instructors.
You each must make up your own minds whose opinion you value the most. After all, your future careers depend upon the choices you make today.
What future careers depend on choice of MCC?!!?
You pays your money, sits down for a week and at the end walk away with an A4 Bubblejet printed certificate saying you've completed an MCC.
There are no exams, no skilltest, no independent examiner. The course does not carry a license endorsement, never expires and is not recognised abroad.
ITS A TICK IN A BOX.
Nobody ever fails. Nobody runs a widely recognised brilliant course. Nobody knows is a course is particularly shoddy. Nobody ever even asks you "so where did you do your MCC then?".
MCC instructors need roughly 2 years experience at some time in their lives in something resembling an airline. They go on a short course that nobody has ever failed and then are 'assessed' during a heart stoppingly stressful whole three hours of standing besides an OHP or possibly sat in a half cardbaord 'simulator' talking about challenge and response checklists.
I don't for one second doubt that MCC is a nice idea that does have some merit and is by and large delivered by some useful and experienced chaps.
Nevertheless, when push comes to borrowed thousands of pounds shove, Do The Cheapest MCC You Can Find - remains good advice.
Cheers
WWW
You pays your money, sits down for a week and at the end walk away with an A4 Bubblejet printed certificate saying you've completed an MCC.
There are no exams, no skilltest, no independent examiner. The course does not carry a license endorsement, never expires and is not recognised abroad.
ITS A TICK IN A BOX.
Nobody ever fails. Nobody runs a widely recognised brilliant course. Nobody knows is a course is particularly shoddy. Nobody ever even asks you "so where did you do your MCC then?".
MCC instructors need roughly 2 years experience at some time in their lives in something resembling an airline. They go on a short course that nobody has ever failed and then are 'assessed' during a heart stoppingly stressful whole three hours of standing besides an OHP or possibly sat in a half cardbaord 'simulator' talking about challenge and response checklists.
I don't for one second doubt that MCC is a nice idea that does have some merit and is by and large delivered by some useful and experienced chaps.
Nevertheless, when push comes to borrowed thousands of pounds shove, Do The Cheapest MCC You Can Find - remains good advice.
Cheers
WWW
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Scotland
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some good debate for what cannot be called the most exciting subject (wait for an MCC provider to tell me it is).
I think the best point coming out of it though is WWW's suggestion of getting together as a group and negotiating with providers. The costs aren't fixed so there is a lot of flexibility in terms of price they can afford to do the course at.
It is probably the only part of the whole training program that you can group together - not often 6 of you get together to do an IR somewhere.
Perhaps there should be a sticky in this forum for folk wanting to get together to negotiate?
I'm sure the providers would sponsor it!
I think the best point coming out of it though is WWW's suggestion of getting together as a group and negotiating with providers. The costs aren't fixed so there is a lot of flexibility in terms of price they can afford to do the course at.
It is probably the only part of the whole training program that you can group together - not often 6 of you get together to do an IR somewhere.
Perhaps there should be a sticky in this forum for folk wanting to get together to negotiate?
I'm sure the providers would sponsor it!