Which MCC???
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: AMS
Posts: 374
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jumping on this thread late, but thought I'd put in my pennies worth:
I am amazed there are still courses for GBP3000 around, when you can get the 737 NG MCC for GBP2000. What sim would they be on? Big Boeing or Airbus?
WWW mentioning acceptability internationally: This is one ot the few courses in the UK that are fully JAR compliant, and so they are internationally acceptable. I have flown in 3 JAR contries with 4 operators since I did my MCC in the UK and had no problems.
Also, if you want a check, you can do that in some countries (eg. Germany), at no extra cost, with an examiner from their CAA. This will give you an MCC according to JAR plus a German CCC according to national regs. And yes, people do fail, though not many.
It is a requirement to have flown 1500 MPA, this can and is not usually gained in something resembling an airline, but in an airline.
cheers, IP
I am amazed there are still courses for GBP3000 around, when you can get the 737 NG MCC for GBP2000. What sim would they be on? Big Boeing or Airbus?
WWW mentioning acceptability internationally: This is one ot the few courses in the UK that are fully JAR compliant, and so they are internationally acceptable. I have flown in 3 JAR contries with 4 operators since I did my MCC in the UK and had no problems.
Also, if you want a check, you can do that in some countries (eg. Germany), at no extra cost, with an examiner from their CAA. This will give you an MCC according to JAR plus a German CCC according to national regs. And yes, people do fail, though not many.
It is a requirement to have flown 1500 MPA, this can and is not usually gained in something resembling an airline, but in an airline.
cheers, IP
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: AMS
Posts: 374
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
search on Google
Haeusl Air
they are the only ones on the NG, same price with a couple on classic. Please do a search.
1500h requirement was in response to WWWs comment.
they are the only ones on the NG, same price with a couple on classic. Please do a search.
1500h requirement was in response to WWWs comment.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.flugausbildung.de/
FNPT II, not the real McCoy Boeing FFS.
But as stated, cheap and just another tick in the box.
MK
FNPT II, not the real McCoy Boeing FFS.
But as stated, cheap and just another tick in the box.
MK
An FNPT2 sim is a PC and a projector plugged into a cockpit mock up of a particular or generic aircraft. It may strive to fairly accurately model how a particular aircraft behaves - but then it may not.
It is in NO WAY an actual (in this case) B737 NG Sim. It merely looks a bit like one and might behave a bit like one. A real Simulator costs well over a million pounds. An FNPT2 - well lets say £100k would get you a nice one and a building to put it in.
CHeers
WWW
It is in NO WAY an actual (in this case) B737 NG Sim. It merely looks a bit like one and might behave a bit like one. A real Simulator costs well over a million pounds. An FNPT2 - well lets say £100k would get you a nice one and a building to put it in.
CHeers
WWW
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WWW,
As someone who has been/is involved with FNPT2 approvals, I can tell you that you are unlikely to get an approved FNPT2 MCC for less than £250k or so - at least not new. A Mechtonix KingAir FNPT2 (MCC) is closer to £400k.
The performance has to be sufficiently close to the aeroplane upon which it is based to satisfy the CAA/JAA and an exhaustive series of QTG - Qualification Test Guide - tests (not far short of those required for a full flight sim) are required to prove this and re-approve the sim on an annual basis. Where available, ACTUAL flight test data from the aeroplanes in question is used and the tolerances allowed are very small indeed. The standards documents used to do this are all defined/controlled by the JAA.
The aeroplane has to climb, accelerate, descend and decelerate at the correct rates - +/- very little tolerance. It has to have the same characteristics with regard to pitch, roll and yaw trim, dynamic effect of gear and flap extension and retraction (even the time taken to lower gear has to be correct). Spiral stability, roll rate, pitch rate, VMCA/VMCG etc. etc. have all to be correct.
Got the idea yet, WWW?
A modern FFS is controlled by PCs, too - or is your knowledge base too low for you to aware of this? Try some research before spouting off on subjects about which you clearly know very little.
As someone who has been/is involved with FNPT2 approvals, I can tell you that you are unlikely to get an approved FNPT2 MCC for less than £250k or so - at least not new. A Mechtonix KingAir FNPT2 (MCC) is closer to £400k.
The performance has to be sufficiently close to the aeroplane upon which it is based to satisfy the CAA/JAA and an exhaustive series of QTG - Qualification Test Guide - tests (not far short of those required for a full flight sim) are required to prove this and re-approve the sim on an annual basis. Where available, ACTUAL flight test data from the aeroplanes in question is used and the tolerances allowed are very small indeed. The standards documents used to do this are all defined/controlled by the JAA.
The aeroplane has to climb, accelerate, descend and decelerate at the correct rates - +/- very little tolerance. It has to have the same characteristics with regard to pitch, roll and yaw trim, dynamic effect of gear and flap extension and retraction (even the time taken to lower gear has to be correct). Spiral stability, roll rate, pitch rate, VMCA/VMCG etc. etc. have all to be correct.
Got the idea yet, WWW?
A modern FFS is controlled by PCs, too - or is your knowledge base too low for you to aware of this? Try some research before spouting off on subjects about which you clearly know very little.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: AMS
Posts: 374
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, I really don't know how much these sims cost (and don't really care), all I know is that this sim is used for more of half the hours of type rating courses. I have personally seen it and it looks very much like the FFS sims we use for recurrency training.
Of course, I cannot comment on the handling, but must bow to the superior knowledge of someone who obviously has manipulated its controls. If he hasn't, he obviously knows more than the German CAA that authorised it for type rating training and I believe he should contact them so that they can revoke the TRTO cert.
I understand that GBP2074 may still be quite reasonable compared to UK prices? Maybe others could post information on other MCCs here for the benefit those having to do them?
cheers, IP
Of course, I cannot comment on the handling, but must bow to the superior knowledge of someone who obviously has manipulated its controls. If he hasn't, he obviously knows more than the German CAA that authorised it for type rating training and I believe he should contact them so that they can revoke the TRTO cert.
I understand that GBP2074 may still be quite reasonable compared to UK prices? Maybe others could post information on other MCCs here for the benefit those having to do them?
cheers, IP
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bob-morris
Well of course an FNPT II should be subjected to tough testing like a FFS.
What's the point in trying to sell a product like a B737 FNPT II sim and it dosen't even handle like it?
WWW's comments are true, however bluntly he put it.
MK
Well of course an FNPT II should be subjected to tough testing like a FFS.
What's the point in trying to sell a product like a B737 FNPT II sim and it dosen't even handle like it?
WWW's comments are true, however bluntly he put it.
MK
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But WWW is suggesting that, despite this qualification and testing process, the FNPT2 MCC does NOT have handling characteristics that match the aeroplane. This is clearly untrue.
Thats because they don't.
I've got more hours than I care to recall in a 'fully approved' FNPT2 sim of a Senecca and its true that they handle quite a bit like the real thing. But nowhere near to the degree that a proper Sim does.
And you can get a fully 'approved' FNPT2 sim up and operational for less than £100k. I checked.
MCC - very expensive for a pretend sim and an old codger with some generic SOPs. Thats the view of many in the training industry and has been since it all started.
Cheers
WWW
I've got more hours than I care to recall in a 'fully approved' FNPT2 sim of a Senecca and its true that they handle quite a bit like the real thing. But nowhere near to the degree that a proper Sim does.
And you can get a fully 'approved' FNPT2 sim up and operational for less than £100k. I checked.
MCC - very expensive for a pretend sim and an old codger with some generic SOPs. Thats the view of many in the training industry and has been since it all started.
Cheers
WWW
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WWW continually attempts to distract, confuse and befuddle the reader by changing story on a regualr (but irrational) basis.
At one point an FNPT2 is a barely disguised carboard mock up. Then it becomes something which handles "a bit like the aeroplane" - and then it "might or might not".
Finally when challenged he admits that the FNPT2 he used to use at Jerez DID in fact handle like the aeroplane.
Of course, admitting that an FNPT2 DOES handle like the aeroplane (and therefore offer a valid training environment) is not as much fun as rubbishing the whole system, it's equipment, it's instructors and it's course structure.
However, if you read carefully throughout his posts on this matter you find that he:
A ) has no experience of stand alone MCC either as instructor or customer (prefering to rely upon the "my mate down the pub said...." method of gaining knowledge) - unlike some other correspondants on this thread.
B ) has no experience of an FNPT2 MCC (as opposed to his Seneca FNPT2) either as instructor or customer- unlike some other correspondants on this thread.
C ) has no experience as a TRI/TRE training pilots pre- and post - MCC era - unlike some other correspondants on this thread.
D ) has no experience as an airline pilot pre-MCC era - unlike some other correspondants on this thread.
E ) has on knowledge or experience of the approvals process for FNPT2 or FNPT2 MCC devices - unlike some other correspondants on this thread.
Still, apart from that he is well qualified to tell us what he thinks and also what his "mate down the pub" thinks.
PS- There's on one "C" in Seneca!
At one point an FNPT2 is a barely disguised carboard mock up. Then it becomes something which handles "a bit like the aeroplane" - and then it "might or might not".
Finally when challenged he admits that the FNPT2 he used to use at Jerez DID in fact handle like the aeroplane.
Of course, admitting that an FNPT2 DOES handle like the aeroplane (and therefore offer a valid training environment) is not as much fun as rubbishing the whole system, it's equipment, it's instructors and it's course structure.
However, if you read carefully throughout his posts on this matter you find that he:
A ) has no experience of stand alone MCC either as instructor or customer (prefering to rely upon the "my mate down the pub said...." method of gaining knowledge) - unlike some other correspondants on this thread.
B ) has no experience of an FNPT2 MCC (as opposed to his Seneca FNPT2) either as instructor or customer- unlike some other correspondants on this thread.
C ) has no experience as a TRI/TRE training pilots pre- and post - MCC era - unlike some other correspondants on this thread.
D ) has no experience as an airline pilot pre-MCC era - unlike some other correspondants on this thread.
E ) has on knowledge or experience of the approvals process for FNPT2 or FNPT2 MCC devices - unlike some other correspondants on this thread.
Still, apart from that he is well qualified to tell us what he thinks and also what his "mate down the pub" thinks.
PS- There's on one "C" in Seneca!
Also I don't think you can use a Seneca FNPT2 sim for an MCC. For an MCC course I believe the sim has to represent a pressurised aircraft.
Or was I told that as a selling point for particular courses?!
Slightly off topic but does anyone think that WWW should have an alternative login name for when he starts spouting off in great detail. The appearance of the word "Moderator" under his name can give his postings extra credence to the new uninitiated Pprune wannabee. You never have this level of dissention and vitriol from Scroggs.
Or was I told that as a selling point for particular courses?!
Slightly off topic but does anyone think that WWW should have an alternative login name for when he starts spouting off in great detail. The appearance of the word "Moderator" under his name can give his postings extra credence to the new uninitiated Pprune wannabee. You never have this level of dissention and vitriol from Scroggs.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Groundloop - you are correct in stating that an FNPT2 MCC must be a turbine powered, pressurised, multi-engined aeroplane.
It may be generic, with performance and handling "typical of it's class" or based upon a particular aeroplane as most are in which case it's performance and handling are expected to match that aeroplane to the standards detailed in my earlier post.
Therefore a Seneca may not be used for an MCC - but a Kingair, for example, may.
Of course, if an FTO has access to a full flight simulator then that may be used, too, although the QTG standards required are little different in practice.
It may be generic, with performance and handling "typical of it's class" or based upon a particular aeroplane as most are in which case it's performance and handling are expected to match that aeroplane to the standards detailed in my earlier post.
Therefore a Seneca may not be used for an MCC - but a Kingair, for example, may.
Of course, if an FTO has access to a full flight simulator then that may be used, too, although the QTG standards required are little different in practice.
Jet Blast Rat
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Sarfend-on-Sea
Age: 51
Posts: 2,081
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WWW generally posts with some authority, but I'm afraid I will have to correct some misapprehensions here. I am not talking here specifically about my employer, but having done all the courses and working in the industry I do pick up some information.
Firstly, many FTOs are not making a lot of money from MCCs, in fact some seem just to be providing them to round off their portfolio of courses. If they have to lease a simulator, some of them must be making around £100 per student by my rough calculations (4-5% is not really considered a good mark up, let alone excessive!). Others I cannot see how they can even cover the costs! The pricing on many MCCs is extremely competitive.
Secondly the typical cost is not £3,500 unless you are mugged on the way in every day!
Thirdly most of them are not using "...rickety old kit".
Fourthly some very experienced crew are offering training on the course. Many of them have been check and trainign captains on wide-bodied jets. I could certainly name one who still flies such a jet and teaches MEIR, and occasionally teaches an MCC course.
Fifth, while it is true that the course was intended as an addition to the first type rating, some companies now expect applicants to have an MCC course certificate. Some even say so on adverts when recruiting low-hour pilots.
Finally, for the pride of sim owners, a good FNPT2 (and WWW did specify a good machine) is not under £100k. A decent one for a light twin is, as far as I can find, around £300k. It handles remarkably like the aircraft, especially if it is type-specific. A lot of testing is required for approval. WWW's rough Seneca FNPT2 would certainly not be allowed for an MCC, and am surprised it was approved if it was so poor (where was this, WWW?). However I would still do the course on a proper simulator if I had to choose again, as all the buttons work (they don't on some jet FNPT2s) and the whole thing feels frighteningly real with full motion!
WWW
Is it really helpful to the wannabes reading this thread that you are posting such inaccurate material in such a confrontational way?
Firstly, many FTOs are not making a lot of money from MCCs, in fact some seem just to be providing them to round off their portfolio of courses. If they have to lease a simulator, some of them must be making around £100 per student by my rough calculations (4-5% is not really considered a good mark up, let alone excessive!). Others I cannot see how they can even cover the costs! The pricing on many MCCs is extremely competitive.
Secondly the typical cost is not £3,500 unless you are mugged on the way in every day!
Thirdly most of them are not using "...rickety old kit".
Fourthly some very experienced crew are offering training on the course. Many of them have been check and trainign captains on wide-bodied jets. I could certainly name one who still flies such a jet and teaches MEIR, and occasionally teaches an MCC course.
Fifth, while it is true that the course was intended as an addition to the first type rating, some companies now expect applicants to have an MCC course certificate. Some even say so on adverts when recruiting low-hour pilots.
Finally, for the pride of sim owners, a good FNPT2 (and WWW did specify a good machine) is not under £100k. A decent one for a light twin is, as far as I can find, around £300k. It handles remarkably like the aircraft, especially if it is type-specific. A lot of testing is required for approval. WWW's rough Seneca FNPT2 would certainly not be allowed for an MCC, and am surprised it was approved if it was so poor (where was this, WWW?). However I would still do the course on a proper simulator if I had to choose again, as all the buttons work (they don't on some jet FNPT2s) and the whole thing feels frighteningly real with full motion!
WWW
Is it really helpful to the wannabes reading this thread that you are posting such inaccurate material in such a confrontational way?
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Send Clowns - thanks.
WWW - got the message? As stated by just about all correspondents here, you need to get your facts straight before pontificating. As you can see, Send Clowns, Billybob, Moggiee and myself (speaking with some authority), have covered the facts.
But, if you prefer to stick with the "mate down the pub says...." style that's your choice! Just stop abusing the clout that the word Moderator attaches to your posts.
WWW - got the message? As stated by just about all correspondents here, you need to get your facts straight before pontificating. As you can see, Send Clowns, Billybob, Moggiee and myself (speaking with some authority), have covered the facts.
But, if you prefer to stick with the "mate down the pub says...." style that's your choice! Just stop abusing the clout that the word Moderator attaches to your posts.
"As you can see, Send Clowns, Billybob, Moggiee and myself (speaking with some authority)".... Hmmmmm - Who all earn money from employers providing MCC courses....
I did do an MCC course thanks as did all of my students in Jerez and eleswhere. Mine was done by an employer and on a full proper actual sim. Lets leave the Sim argument behind as:
a) I think two upturned orange crates are ample,
b) Proper sims cost millions and FNPT2's cost a fraction of that and there *must* be some reason for that, e.g. in all sorts of funny little ways they don't actually fly like the proper aircraft.
My advice remains that if you need to reduce costs - and you probably do - one of the most painless ways of doing so is to Do The Cheapest MCC You Can Find.
---------------
Is it really helpful to the wannabes reading this thread that you are posting such inaccurate material in such a confrontational way?
Yep. Elsewise Wannabes gets as dull as ditchwater and you don't get a multi-page thread about the ins and outs of MCC courses whereby you lot get to put the case for the course and its merits and its cost................. .... ....!
The appearance of the word "Moderator" under his name can give his postings extra credence to the new uninitiated Pprune wannabee.
Rarely. I as I don't censor the likes of you and bob-morris or anyone else telling me I am talking out of my rectum I carry no more clout than anyone else.
Plus I'm right. Most people in the training industry think MCC is a racket, that it makes a fortune and that its Just A Tick In A Box!
I did do an MCC course thanks as did all of my students in Jerez and eleswhere. Mine was done by an employer and on a full proper actual sim. Lets leave the Sim argument behind as:
a) I think two upturned orange crates are ample,
b) Proper sims cost millions and FNPT2's cost a fraction of that and there *must* be some reason for that, e.g. in all sorts of funny little ways they don't actually fly like the proper aircraft.
My advice remains that if you need to reduce costs - and you probably do - one of the most painless ways of doing so is to Do The Cheapest MCC You Can Find.
---------------
Is it really helpful to the wannabes reading this thread that you are posting such inaccurate material in such a confrontational way?
Yep. Elsewise Wannabes gets as dull as ditchwater and you don't get a multi-page thread about the ins and outs of MCC courses whereby you lot get to put the case for the course and its merits and its cost................. .... ....!
The appearance of the word "Moderator" under his name can give his postings extra credence to the new uninitiated Pprune wannabee.
Rarely. I as I don't censor the likes of you and bob-morris or anyone else telling me I am talking out of my rectum I carry no more clout than anyone else.
Plus I'm right. Most people in the training industry think MCC is a racket, that it makes a fortune and that its Just A Tick In A Box!
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WWW - ever considered a career in politics? Your endless restatement of unsubstanĦtiated "facts" does not make them true.
You also love to "adjust" what people said.
I did not say that you had not done an MCC - I said that you had not done a stand alone MCC. I know full well that you did an Orange sponsored one concurrent with your type rating (you have told us that a few times now!).
I did say that you had not done an MCC course as a stand alone course - I trust that this is correct?
You started the sim vs FNPT2 argument - want to ignore it now that your "facts" have been discredited? If those upturned orange crates meet JAR STD requirements, then fine, but they won't! If the device is non-approved then so is the MCC course.
Your Jerez students will have (predominately) conducted a 16 hour stand alone MCC or a longer JOC. Wonder what THEIR feedback is?
There are a number of reasons for FNPT2 MCC STDs costing less - for example they do not require a motion system and wrap around visuals. These two items cost a HUGE amount of money for a start.
Because not all the aircraft systems are used for MCC (unlike type training) then they are not all required to work fully - only those required for MCC training. Thus, whilst pressurisation systems must work so that a press failure drill may be conducted, air con doesn`t as the course is about Multi CREW training not type training. Therefore, as long as the requisite systems work correctly then the MCC/CRM elements of the course can be conducted.
This does not affect the QUALITY of training as they must perform the same as the aeroplane but just limits its RANGE to the required syllabus content. The FNPT2 still has to fly and perform like the aeroplane upon which it is based - and for the most part they do.
Care to tell us who these "most people in the industry are"? I am waiting, as in my experience MCC has had an almost universal positive feedback from airlines.
Surely the point of the wannabes forum is to offer accurate, balanced advice - not "exciting discussion"? Or have a I missed a point here?
Please give that rectum of yours a rest - it is deafening!
(odditied for spolling era)
You also love to "adjust" what people said.
I did not say that you had not done an MCC - I said that you had not done a stand alone MCC. I know full well that you did an Orange sponsored one concurrent with your type rating (you have told us that a few times now!).
I did say that you had not done an MCC course as a stand alone course - I trust that this is correct?
You started the sim vs FNPT2 argument - want to ignore it now that your "facts" have been discredited? If those upturned orange crates meet JAR STD requirements, then fine, but they won't! If the device is non-approved then so is the MCC course.
Your Jerez students will have (predominately) conducted a 16 hour stand alone MCC or a longer JOC. Wonder what THEIR feedback is?
There are a number of reasons for FNPT2 MCC STDs costing less - for example they do not require a motion system and wrap around visuals. These two items cost a HUGE amount of money for a start.
Because not all the aircraft systems are used for MCC (unlike type training) then they are not all required to work fully - only those required for MCC training. Thus, whilst pressurisation systems must work so that a press failure drill may be conducted, air con doesn`t as the course is about Multi CREW training not type training. Therefore, as long as the requisite systems work correctly then the MCC/CRM elements of the course can be conducted.
This does not affect the QUALITY of training as they must perform the same as the aeroplane but just limits its RANGE to the required syllabus content. The FNPT2 still has to fly and perform like the aeroplane upon which it is based - and for the most part they do.
Care to tell us who these "most people in the industry are"? I am waiting, as in my experience MCC has had an almost universal positive feedback from airlines.
Surely the point of the wannabes forum is to offer accurate, balanced advice - not "exciting discussion"? Or have a I missed a point here?
Please give that rectum of yours a rest - it is deafening!
(odditied for spolling era)
Last edited by bob-morris; 18th Jan 2005 at 23:52.
bob - please get with the plot here.
Surely the point of the wannabes forum is to offer accurate, balanced advice - not "exciting discussion"? Or have a I missed a point here?
Yep. You don't get many threads about MCC with more than 2200 views... Be grateful.
Cheers
WWW
Surely the point of the wannabes forum is to offer accurate, balanced advice - not "exciting discussion"? Or have a I missed a point here?
Yep. You don't get many threads about MCC with more than 2200 views... Be grateful.
Cheers
WWW