MPL timing (merged)
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: UK
Age: 40
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
stue and Alex your right.
Scroggs mentioned that he feels that the MPL needs alot of changes and modifications. This is also true. The total removal of all SE and ME VFR/IFR flying is not such a great idea. Burning holes in the sky when you could be doing this in a A320 or B737 sim highlights this issue. So perhaps instead why not remove most of the SE flying but leave the fundamental basics that we all need - this also gives the novice a bit of "pilot" perspective that will, together with good quality consistant sim training hopefully make a better pilot.
Scroggs mentioned that he feels that the MPL needs alot of changes and modifications. This is also true. The total removal of all SE and ME VFR/IFR flying is not such a great idea. Burning holes in the sky when you could be doing this in a A320 or B737 sim highlights this issue. So perhaps instead why not remove most of the SE flying but leave the fundamental basics that we all need - this also gives the novice a bit of "pilot" perspective that will, together with good quality consistant sim training hopefully make a better pilot.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: The Desert but shortly to be HK!)
Age: 49
Posts: 474
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alex based on your understanding of the info available to date is this likely to mean that those going down the MPL route will not have to sit the current 14 ATPL exams but instead simply learn the specifics related to the type they will fly (e.g. A320, 737 etc)?
Jet Blast Rat
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Sarfend-on-Sea
Age: 51
Posts: 2,081
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Errrmmmm ... RVR I could have had a couple of nice type ratings and still had change from £70,000. Yet I can also do the fun job I am doing now, carting car parts, people parts and people around nearby Europe. So where exactly is the advantage of an MPL?
Join Date: Oct 1998
Location: UK
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MPL Proposal
I can't remember which document I copied this quote from a couple of months ago, but it highlights the principal concept of the MPL and probably answers some of the questions on this post :-
"In relation to the MPL, Richard said that this proposed new licence is a result
of an identified demand from the airline sector. It is practiced in 2 or more
ICAO States today and is focussed on the ab initio airline pilot. Richard
reaffirmed that if the Panel’s recommendation was accepted, no State would
be non-compliant if this new pilot licence was not adopted. In broad principle,
the MPL would involve competency based training and assessment with a
greater emphasis on flight simulation training devices. Training would be
based in a multi crew environment and include awareness training in areas
such as Human Factors (CRM) and threat & error management (TEM). The
medical standards would be the same as existing licences and the MPL would
only apply to aeroplanes at this stage.
4.6 The proposed primary deliverables for MPL would include new standards in
ICAO Annex 1 and a new Appendix specifying training, assessment,
competency units and flight simulation training devices. It would involve the
development of a Procedures for Air Navigation Services – Training Document
(PANS-TRG). There would also be a requirement for bridging training to
single pilots; instructor and examiner requirements; and the need for
guidelines to ensure smooth implementation. For the approval of the new
MPL training programmes, ATO’s would need to demonstrate that the training
provides at least the same level of competency in multi-crew operations equal
to the CPL, instrument rating and the type rating. Supporting guidance
(Flight Crew Licensing Standards Sub-Committee
Draft Meeting Notes – 3 March 2005)
material would be provided in the Manual on Approval of Flight Training
Organizations. The new MPL licence would be a multi-crew pilot licence, with
age, knowledge, skill and medical fitness requirements. Privileges would be
PPL, IR, Co-pilot and single pilot bridging requirements involving 70h PIC/10h
+ PICUS. The aeroplane category rating would involve 240 hours of actual
and simulated flight as PF and PNF.
4.7 Richard said that proposed amendments to the PANS-TRG document included
the provision of guidance on competency based training and assessment.
Specific to the MPL, this includes a training schedule & syllabus structure;
competency units and competency elements; performance criteria; instructor
& examiner qualifications; and implementation guidelines.
4.8 Richard said that proposed amendments to Chapter 3 – Flight engineer and
flight navigator licences include a suggestion to retain in Annex 1 provisions
for the flight navigator licence, based on survey of State’s practices. Further,
a Class 2 medical assessment for holders of the flight engineer and flight
navigator licences.
4.9 Richard said that in relation to Chapter 5 – Specifications for personnel
licences – there is a recommendation that the colour requirement for the
licence be removed. There is also a requirement ensuring that other States
are able to determine licence privileges and the validity of ratings.
4.10 In relation to Annex 6, Richard said there are recommended amendments to
recent experience requirements of Part I and Part III, Section II, to allow
consideration for cross crew qualification on different types and variants
within a type, of aircraft.
"
"In relation to the MPL, Richard said that this proposed new licence is a result
of an identified demand from the airline sector. It is practiced in 2 or more
ICAO States today and is focussed on the ab initio airline pilot. Richard
reaffirmed that if the Panel’s recommendation was accepted, no State would
be non-compliant if this new pilot licence was not adopted. In broad principle,
the MPL would involve competency based training and assessment with a
greater emphasis on flight simulation training devices. Training would be
based in a multi crew environment and include awareness training in areas
such as Human Factors (CRM) and threat & error management (TEM). The
medical standards would be the same as existing licences and the MPL would
only apply to aeroplanes at this stage.
4.6 The proposed primary deliverables for MPL would include new standards in
ICAO Annex 1 and a new Appendix specifying training, assessment,
competency units and flight simulation training devices. It would involve the
development of a Procedures for Air Navigation Services – Training Document
(PANS-TRG). There would also be a requirement for bridging training to
single pilots; instructor and examiner requirements; and the need for
guidelines to ensure smooth implementation. For the approval of the new
MPL training programmes, ATO’s would need to demonstrate that the training
provides at least the same level of competency in multi-crew operations equal
to the CPL, instrument rating and the type rating. Supporting guidance
(Flight Crew Licensing Standards Sub-Committee
Draft Meeting Notes – 3 March 2005)
material would be provided in the Manual on Approval of Flight Training
Organizations. The new MPL licence would be a multi-crew pilot licence, with
age, knowledge, skill and medical fitness requirements. Privileges would be
PPL, IR, Co-pilot and single pilot bridging requirements involving 70h PIC/10h
+ PICUS. The aeroplane category rating would involve 240 hours of actual
and simulated flight as PF and PNF.
4.7 Richard said that proposed amendments to the PANS-TRG document included
the provision of guidance on competency based training and assessment.
Specific to the MPL, this includes a training schedule & syllabus structure;
competency units and competency elements; performance criteria; instructor
& examiner qualifications; and implementation guidelines.
4.8 Richard said that proposed amendments to Chapter 3 – Flight engineer and
flight navigator licences include a suggestion to retain in Annex 1 provisions
for the flight navigator licence, based on survey of State’s practices. Further,
a Class 2 medical assessment for holders of the flight engineer and flight
navigator licences.
4.9 Richard said that in relation to Chapter 5 – Specifications for personnel
licences – there is a recommendation that the colour requirement for the
licence be removed. There is also a requirement ensuring that other States
are able to determine licence privileges and the validity of ratings.
4.10 In relation to Annex 6, Richard said there are recommended amendments to
recent experience requirements of Part I and Part III, Section II, to allow
consideration for cross crew qualification on different types and variants
within a type, of aircraft.
"
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Bristol, England
Age: 65
Posts: 1,806
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is no syllabus set for MPL theoretical knowledge. In theory an Authority could approve an MPL designed by a TRTO/FTO to its own specification, and allow the TRTO to design and implement its own exams. It represents quite an extraordinary set of possibilities, but it remains to be seen whether or not the JAA or EASA will grasp the nettle.
Ironic, when discussion about this lunatic Microsoft Pilot Licence is coming to the attention of the media, the following from my local rag, the Oxford Mail:
'40 Years Ago today:
Oxford Air Training School at Oxford Airport, Kidlington, has won a £1m contract to train 300 BOAC and BEA pilots over the next five years.'
The days before the accursed airline bean counters pulled out of proper airline pilot training, I guess.
I remain firmly of the opinion that the MPL is a total and utter crock as it stands right now. There are ways to make it acceptable - just - but the pressure from Lufthansa and its commercial aspirations towards selling simulator time will be hard to fight off.
'40 Years Ago today:
Oxford Air Training School at Oxford Airport, Kidlington, has won a £1m contract to train 300 BOAC and BEA pilots over the next five years.'
The days before the accursed airline bean counters pulled out of proper airline pilot training, I guess.
I remain firmly of the opinion that the MPL is a total and utter crock as it stands right now. There are ways to make it acceptable - just - but the pressure from Lufthansa and its commercial aspirations towards selling simulator time will be hard to fight off.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: London
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BEagle
As the captain grappled with the intruder, the co-pilot used skills that he had learnt while flying RAF Tornados to bring the aircraft back under control. “His flying skills were key to the recovery and we must preserve similar skills in future pilots,” Mr Alder said.
Join Date: Dec 1997
Location: Suffolk UK
Posts: 4,927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEags, instead of just ranting about 'Microsoft Pilot's Licences', it would be rather more helpful to the discussion if you would expand on your objections to the MPL, and give some constructive suggestions for its improvement. Or would that be a waste of your valuable time and vast airline experience? 
Scroggs
Scroggs
I have already made my views known officially to those who matter; largely they represent those stated to have been put forward by BALPA. I repeat them on PPRuNe to reach a wider audience.
I have been asked to attend (at my own expense) a EASA-FCL Working Group next week which 'should enhance all of our understanding about the implementation process for the MPL and EASA licensing'.
I do not view this opportunity as a waste of my time and expereince, despite Scroggs' belittling comments. The MPL could build upon, but not replace, sound levels of core skills involved in aircraft piloting.
To achieve this:
1. MPL candidates must first pass independent aptitude selection.
2. Training should follow the traditional 150 hour Integrated CPL course except that this should also include the MEP Class Rating within these 150 hours.
3. Subsequent multi-pilot instrument flying training should be completed in appropriate levels of flight simulator.
4. Final Type Rating training should be as currently proposed for the MPL.
I have been asked to attend (at my own expense) a EASA-FCL Working Group next week which 'should enhance all of our understanding about the implementation process for the MPL and EASA licensing'.
I do not view this opportunity as a waste of my time and expereince, despite Scroggs' belittling comments. The MPL could build upon, but not replace, sound levels of core skills involved in aircraft piloting.
To achieve this:
1. MPL candidates must first pass independent aptitude selection.
2. Training should follow the traditional 150 hour Integrated CPL course except that this should also include the MEP Class Rating within these 150 hours.
3. Subsequent multi-pilot instrument flying training should be completed in appropriate levels of flight simulator.
4. Final Type Rating training should be as currently proposed for the MPL.
Last edited by BEagle; 13th Feb 2006 at 21:06.
Join Date: Dec 1997
Location: Suffolk UK
Posts: 4,927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not belittling you, BEagle, and I am well aware of your input into such things as the Service pilots' exemptions for civilian licences, which makes it doubly frustrating that so many of your posts on the subject (in this forum at least) have been little more than thinly-disguised rants. I know you have thought about the subject and have some well-found views about how it should be tackled; it shouldn't have taken my little dig to get you to reveal what those thoughts are! Remember this isn't Military Aircrew, the banter quotient is considerably lower.
Scroggs
Scroggs
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: uk
Posts: 549
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reduced Hours for Licences
The Times, Yesterday.
Unfortuneatley I can't get the link to work. The gist: A plan is afoot to reduce the hours requirement for a "Commercial Licence" to 70. This will allow new pilots "To take control of passenger jets".
A bad thing says some chap from flight training school Cabair, "more time spent in simulators" (doubled from 90 to 180 I think) " and less time pootling about in little aeroplanes not learning very much", the opinion of The Man From The CAA.
Anyone get the link up?
Unfortuneatley I can't get the link to work. The gist: A plan is afoot to reduce the hours requirement for a "Commercial Licence" to 70. This will allow new pilots "To take control of passenger jets".
A bad thing says some chap from flight training school Cabair, "more time spent in simulators" (doubled from 90 to 180 I think) " and less time pootling about in little aeroplanes not learning very much", the opinion of The Man From The CAA.
Anyone get the link up?
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The question "What relevance is bouncing around assymetric in a seneca?"
Well actually it does have some relevance. If you learn any skill in flying in an underpowered, limited performance machine, then you tend to have to learn the correct techniques, as the a/c won't perform unless YOU get it right.
Losing an engine on something like a 737 when at light weights, low density alts and low temperatures is something of a non-event as you have plenty of power and as long as you don't over control it, is more of a pain than a life threatening situation.
BUT if you find yourself losing an engine whilst heavy AND hot and high, then the lessons learnt years past in your little twin may suddenly come in useful.
It always amazes me how in aviation we allow people to try and run before they can walk. I've met and flown with a large numbers of pilots who have come straight out of school into the RHS of jets and apart from the odd exception for the first 500Hrs they don't know their a*se fro their elbow. I certainly didn't either.
SO how is the MPL going to help? It can't, since we will almost have "virtual" pilots who haven't experienced what flying is all about. I don't care what the airlines may say, a sim can never replicate what it's like in the air, since suddenly realising there is no big STOP button if it all goes to poop will have an effect on many.
There's no reset button in real life. Scaring yourself in light aircraft is a fundamental part your training, rather than treating real life like a game. It's all in the mind set, not just the stick and rudder skills.
Well actually it does have some relevance. If you learn any skill in flying in an underpowered, limited performance machine, then you tend to have to learn the correct techniques, as the a/c won't perform unless YOU get it right.
Losing an engine on something like a 737 when at light weights, low density alts and low temperatures is something of a non-event as you have plenty of power and as long as you don't over control it, is more of a pain than a life threatening situation.
BUT if you find yourself losing an engine whilst heavy AND hot and high, then the lessons learnt years past in your little twin may suddenly come in useful.
It always amazes me how in aviation we allow people to try and run before they can walk. I've met and flown with a large numbers of pilots who have come straight out of school into the RHS of jets and apart from the odd exception for the first 500Hrs they don't know their a*se fro their elbow. I certainly didn't either.
SO how is the MPL going to help? It can't, since we will almost have "virtual" pilots who haven't experienced what flying is all about. I don't care what the airlines may say, a sim can never replicate what it's like in the air, since suddenly realising there is no big STOP button if it all goes to poop will have an effect on many.
There's no reset button in real life. Scaring yourself in light aircraft is a fundamental part your training, rather than treating real life like a game. It's all in the mind set, not just the stick and rudder skills.
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: uk
Posts: 549
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the forward to here BEagle. OOps!
8 years ago I flew the jet for the first time having "amassed" 1800 hours instructing. Yes, a lot of it was "drilling holes in the sky" and "pootling about" but there was a lot of learning being done as well. IMHO, there is little substitute for getting yourself in a fix and getting out again, frightening yourself is another way of putting it. I was still stunned by the transition to jet flying. That does not make me a better candidate, just better equipped to deal with the huge changes required for flying jets.
I have no doubt that a good number of candidates reach a good standard on various modular courses and arrive at an airline with 145 odd hours. However, and please correct me if I'm wrong, isn't a lot (all?) of that 145 hours spent under very close supervision with minimal decision making? Once at an airline, the simulator emphasis is on training to fly that type rather than building experience. I would suggest that the training leap is too big to train on type and polish up skills previously gained through experience. Any experience.
I am involved in Initial Type Training and naturally we see that guys and gals arriving from another jet operator are quicker off the mark than the guys who arrive with minimum hours and no jet experience. That is to be expected. What is a concern to me is that the low hours guys have little experience to fall back on when it goes wriggly. I can't define it but there is something in having been out and about beyond the stictly controlled confines of basic training. Developed airmanship? I don't know. Sadly, my concerns are shared by Line Captains. The technical and basic poling skills are there, the judgement and high speed thought are not.
IMHO the "pootling about" comment is fatuous, the learning aspect tenouos and Cabairs opposition cash driven.
8 years ago I flew the jet for the first time having "amassed" 1800 hours instructing. Yes, a lot of it was "drilling holes in the sky" and "pootling about" but there was a lot of learning being done as well. IMHO, there is little substitute for getting yourself in a fix and getting out again, frightening yourself is another way of putting it. I was still stunned by the transition to jet flying. That does not make me a better candidate, just better equipped to deal with the huge changes required for flying jets.
I have no doubt that a good number of candidates reach a good standard on various modular courses and arrive at an airline with 145 odd hours. However, and please correct me if I'm wrong, isn't a lot (all?) of that 145 hours spent under very close supervision with minimal decision making? Once at an airline, the simulator emphasis is on training to fly that type rather than building experience. I would suggest that the training leap is too big to train on type and polish up skills previously gained through experience. Any experience.
I am involved in Initial Type Training and naturally we see that guys and gals arriving from another jet operator are quicker off the mark than the guys who arrive with minimum hours and no jet experience. That is to be expected. What is a concern to me is that the low hours guys have little experience to fall back on when it goes wriggly. I can't define it but there is something in having been out and about beyond the stictly controlled confines of basic training. Developed airmanship? I don't know. Sadly, my concerns are shared by Line Captains. The technical and basic poling skills are there, the judgement and high speed thought are not.
IMHO the "pootling about" comment is fatuous, the learning aspect tenouos and Cabairs opposition cash driven.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: edge of reality
Posts: 792
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A ludicrous and frightening concept...
even now there are cockpits lined with one very experienced Captain plus what amounts to a bag carrier...fine when all the bells and whistles work but on a filthy night when they don't and you're working Cairo ATC..
Maybe if a system of 2nd officer training similar to that operated by Cathay etc was introduced it could be an excellent thing...and certainly better than counting hours getting dizzy around a club circuit watching someone ham it up in a 152 on sunny days...
even now there are cockpits lined with one very experienced Captain plus what amounts to a bag carrier...fine when all the bells and whistles work but on a filthy night when they don't and you're working Cairo ATC..
Maybe if a system of 2nd officer training similar to that operated by Cathay etc was introduced it could be an excellent thing...and certainly better than counting hours getting dizzy around a club circuit watching someone ham it up in a 152 on sunny days...
Join Date: Oct 1998
Location: UK
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BEagle
but the pressure from Lufthansa and its commercial aspirations towards selling simulator time will be hard to fight off.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Scotland
Age: 38
Posts: 548
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by scroggs
There is a lot in the MPL syllabus that needs to be changed or refined. However, the recognition that the current CPL syllabus is inadequate is long overdue. As the CAA spokesman said, is uncomfortably close to the truth.
Scroggs
Scroggs
I disagree! The phase inbetween PPL and CPL is an area where experience is learned! I have learned lots during hour building (currently doing IMC, night rating, aerobatics aswell as 300 plus nautical mile journeys)! What is wrong with the system? and in your opinion what would be constructive to improve the system?
Perhaps If I done 100hours in america flying around in one area or constantly flying around in the local LFA for 100 hours then It would be a waste of time and money with nothing gained. The statement as a whole is one large generalisation. Why fix an already ok system?
Designer babies...now designer airline pilots!
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: England
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BEagle
I have already made my views known officially to those who matter; largely they represent those stated to have been put forward by BALPA. I repeat them on PPRuNe to reach a wider audience.
I have been asked to attend (at my own expense) a EASA-FCL Working Group next week which 'should enhance all of our understanding about the implementation process for the MPL and EASA licensing'.
I do not view this opportunity as a waste of my time and expereince, despite Scroggs' belittling comments. The MPL could build upon, but not replace, sound levels of core skills involved in aircraft piloting.
To achieve this:
1. MPL candidates must first pass independent aptitude selection.
2. Training should follow the traditional 150 hour Integrated CPL course except that this should also include the MEP Class Rating within these 150 hours.
3. Subsequent multi-pilot instrument flying training should be completed in appropriate levels of flight simulator.
4. Final Type Rating training should be as currently proposed for the MPL.
I have been asked to attend (at my own expense) a EASA-FCL Working Group next week which 'should enhance all of our understanding about the implementation process for the MPL and EASA licensing'.
I do not view this opportunity as a waste of my time and expereince, despite Scroggs' belittling comments. The MPL could build upon, but not replace, sound levels of core skills involved in aircraft piloting.
To achieve this:
1. MPL candidates must first pass independent aptitude selection.
2. Training should follow the traditional 150 hour Integrated CPL course except that this should also include the MEP Class Rating within these 150 hours.
3. Subsequent multi-pilot instrument flying training should be completed in appropriate levels of flight simulator.
4. Final Type Rating training should be as currently proposed for the MPL.
being a load of crock!Have a look at the objections here too:
http://www.eurocockpit.be/media/ECA_..._05_2212_F.pdf
I am also dismayed at the CAA being lame and ineffectual on the subject as outlined by the Cabair boss:
Graham Austin, the chief executive of Cabair, one of Britain’s biggest pilot training companies, said that the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) had been alerted to the dangers but had failed to act. “The CAA has asked for advice on the new licence but has ignored the replies. By supporting it, the CAA is responding to the demands of the industry at the risk of undermining pilot skills.”
I hope 'industry' tells ICAO where to stick it.
TG
Join Date: Dec 1997
Location: Suffolk UK
Posts: 4,927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by wbryce
I disagree! The phase inbetween PPL and CPL is an area where experience is learned! I have learned lots during hour building (currently doing IMC, night rating, aerobatics aswell as 300 plus nautical mile journeys)! What is wrong with the system? and in your opinion what would be constructive to improve the system?
Perhaps If I done 100hours in america flying around in one area or constantly flying around in the local LFA for 100 hours then It would be a waste of time and money with nothing gained. The statement as a whole is one large generalisation. Why fix an already ok system?
Designer babies...now designer airline pilots!
Perhaps If I done 100hours in america flying around in one area or constantly flying around in the local LFA for 100 hours then It would be a waste of time and money with nothing gained. The statement as a whole is one large generalisation. Why fix an already ok system?
Designer babies...now designer airline pilots!
The MPL seeks to address this problem with specific reference to the requirements of airline flying, though its balance between airborne and simulator work is, in many people's opinion, incorrect. There is a wide open goal available for those who can develop a proper airline pilot training system that is not hampered by legacy syllabi from the past, and who have the needs of the student and the airline to the fore. Whether the airlines and the regulators are ready for it is another matter, but both could learn a great deal from the way military flying training is conducted (specifically for large-aircraft pilots, and in a number of countries) - and from the kind of work that was done by schools such as BOAC/BA at Hamble many years ago.
I make no secret of the fact that I believe the do-it-yourself approach to flying training is out of date and an anachronism in the modern world. The current system allows financial resources to count for more than aptitude and talent. I would love to see the whole lot scrapped and rebuilt from the bottom up with proper regulation and oversight, and with a commitment to excellence rather than adequacy. I suspect, though, that I will be waiting a very long time...
Scroggs
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are some who take their "hour building" seriously, but the vast majority just bimble about burning holes in the sky and wallets.
Self funded training will NEVER disappear, so there's not much point in even discussing it really!
Is modular better than integrated? An old argument that can never be resolved.
What is it about the current system that is seen to be inadequate? Perhaps if we focus on the problems, the solutions may present themselves.
For me, the initial selection needs to be better. I see a huge number of people who are set on trying for a career in aviation. Many are wasting their time and are never going to set the world alight, but if they have the drive and determination, who am I to say they shouldn't give it a go?
We cannot expect to have a military standards for recruitment, the numbers of people involved are just too great and why should we bother anyway? The airlines are happy because they have plenty of people wanting to fill cockpits, which create the market forces to drive down salaries and make us all a less valuable commodity to the bean counters. So why would they want to change the current recruitment?
Self funded training will NEVER disappear, so there's not much point in even discussing it really!
Is modular better than integrated? An old argument that can never be resolved.
What is it about the current system that is seen to be inadequate? Perhaps if we focus on the problems, the solutions may present themselves.
For me, the initial selection needs to be better. I see a huge number of people who are set on trying for a career in aviation. Many are wasting their time and are never going to set the world alight, but if they have the drive and determination, who am I to say they shouldn't give it a go?
We cannot expect to have a military standards for recruitment, the numbers of people involved are just too great and why should we bother anyway? The airlines are happy because they have plenty of people wanting to fill cockpits, which create the market forces to drive down salaries and make us all a less valuable commodity to the bean counters. So why would they want to change the current recruitment?