MPL timing (merged)
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: uk
Posts: 549
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Say again s l o w l y
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.
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?
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?
The problems are legion! Scroggs is right in that the system needs a top to toe rethink. Where I disagree is that this MPL concept is that rethink and therefore the solution. No meaningful thinking has gone into it and the result is a poor idea. The very fact that the CAA and JAA seem to endorse it would indicate that!
I am not remotely interested in the Flying Schools as their opposition will always be clouded by £ signs. Fair enough, they are running a business but remember there are bean counters coming out of the walls there as well. All I want is a reasonable expectation on the quality of a guy who will be sat next to me on a grotty night at Grottsville International when it all goes phut. I believe that 70 hours before getting in a sim regardless of how long you spend in that sim will not deliver that expectation.
I also agree that the training needs to be more regulated. How about only allowing certain activities to count for hours building? Up the requirement for say night navigation? You will notice I want it both ways - yes!
Finally, selection: The role of HR and the mind games in airline selection has been much derided. To a degree I would agree but it does filter out a few with attitude or personality traits that don't sit easy with airline operations. The company I work for has watered down the HR bit and reintroduced a bigger experienced pilot input in selection. This is now delivering good people and yet we still have some problems because of the very low experience levels of some. The company loves it because they join on low salaries. At least we still train in house but again the bean counters are gradually hiving that off to the lowest bidder. Before long we will be in the situation of taking self sponsored type ratings and all that entails. It will end when an airline comprehensively bends an airframe and a set of people and receives an accident report that says crew out of their depth. The cost base might undergo a rethink then once Sue, Grabbit and Run International Lawyers, the media and everyone else has finished.
Why do it if it's not fun?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 4,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have been reading with interest, and thinking about this a bit, and though I'd add my thoughs.
RVR800 expresses what is, I think, a common thought: "At the end of the day it will be neat to have a licence that leads directly to the RHS without further expensive training". But is that not missing the point a bit? Surely the aim of the training is not just to get a license, but also to ensure that you are properly trained?
When I did my flying instructor course, one of the aspects which was covered in ground-school but has not been mentioned on this thread was the concept of building-blocks - each lesson should build on what came before it. An example would be not trying to teach someone circuits before you've taught them to climb and descend.
When we look at the bigger picture of ongoing training after PPL level and up to transport jets, surely the same building block principals apply? In the ideal world, would people not gradually work their way up to jets, via piston twins, then turboprops, to ensure the learning gradient is not too steep?
We don't live in the ideal world, though. And whilst the kind of career progression I've just described still happens in many countries, it does not happen often in Europe at the moment. So, in designing a course, I would have thought that one of the main considerations would be to realise that market forces demand that people fly jets with less experience and a steeper learning curve than the ideal world - and to try to design the course in such a way as to take that into account, and try to compensate for it as much as possible.
Now, maybe I'm being a little naive here, having never flown a jet, and only flown jet simulators a couple of times. But it seems to me that the requirements of the MPL would, if anything, steepen the learning curve, by dumping students onto jets with very high speeds and a huge amount of inertia before they've mastered the art of flying at low speeds in manoevrable aircraft, and having never flown anything bigger than a light single. I know it took me more than 70 hours to be comfortable flying light singles.....
If I were designing a course like this, I would want to build the student up to jets in stages, starting with light singles (which it does), then light twins, then turboprops, and finally jets. No reason why a large portion of this can't be done on simulators - although I do 100% agree with previous comments that there is no substitute for real-world flying - but it would surely be an easier transition onto jets having had a structured way of progressing there, rather than being dumped into a 737 sim with no flying experience in anything bigger than a C150.
Comments, anyone?
FFF
-------------
RVR800 expresses what is, I think, a common thought: "At the end of the day it will be neat to have a licence that leads directly to the RHS without further expensive training". But is that not missing the point a bit? Surely the aim of the training is not just to get a license, but also to ensure that you are properly trained?
When I did my flying instructor course, one of the aspects which was covered in ground-school but has not been mentioned on this thread was the concept of building-blocks - each lesson should build on what came before it. An example would be not trying to teach someone circuits before you've taught them to climb and descend.
When we look at the bigger picture of ongoing training after PPL level and up to transport jets, surely the same building block principals apply? In the ideal world, would people not gradually work their way up to jets, via piston twins, then turboprops, to ensure the learning gradient is not too steep?
We don't live in the ideal world, though. And whilst the kind of career progression I've just described still happens in many countries, it does not happen often in Europe at the moment. So, in designing a course, I would have thought that one of the main considerations would be to realise that market forces demand that people fly jets with less experience and a steeper learning curve than the ideal world - and to try to design the course in such a way as to take that into account, and try to compensate for it as much as possible.
Now, maybe I'm being a little naive here, having never flown a jet, and only flown jet simulators a couple of times. But it seems to me that the requirements of the MPL would, if anything, steepen the learning curve, by dumping students onto jets with very high speeds and a huge amount of inertia before they've mastered the art of flying at low speeds in manoevrable aircraft, and having never flown anything bigger than a light single. I know it took me more than 70 hours to be comfortable flying light singles.....
If I were designing a course like this, I would want to build the student up to jets in stages, starting with light singles (which it does), then light twins, then turboprops, and finally jets. No reason why a large portion of this can't be done on simulators - although I do 100% agree with previous comments that there is no substitute for real-world flying - but it would surely be an easier transition onto jets having had a structured way of progressing there, rather than being dumped into a 737 sim with no flying experience in anything bigger than a C150.
Comments, anyone?
FFF
-------------
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by yeoman
Thanks for the forward to here BEagle. OOps!
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.
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.
Back on thread, go to this link and look for the PowerPoint presentation by Fergus Woods of JAA: http://www.halldalemedia.co.uk/eats2005/proceedings.htm
There are a few more presentations worth looking at as well as they show how the MPL syllabus might be shaping up, though none of them give hour breakdowns. It certainly appears the syllabus will retain the current Integrated CPL and then diverge where current Integrated courses commence the IR training. The Type Rating appears to be incorporated into the syllabus, so hopes of getting an airline to pay for one's TR appear to be slipping.
I can't remember which one of these speakers addresses the issue, but the current system is not being replaced by MPL. Adoption is expected to be slow and delays will occur with implementation, so I hardly see MPL as a major threat to the status quo. Most airlines will probably avoid it like the plague unless their competitors prove it to be better, cheaper or both so I don't see any reason for current pilots in training to worry they are paying for soon to be obsolete ratings.
Join Date: Dec 1997
Location: Suffolk UK
Posts: 4,927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by FlyingForFun
When we look at the bigger picture of ongoing training after PPL level and up to transport jets, surely the same building block principals apply? In the ideal world, would people not gradually work their way up to jets, via piston twins, then turboprops, to ensure the learning gradient is not too steep?
If I were designing a course like this, I would want to build the student up to jets in stages, starting with light singles (which it does), then light twins, then turboprops, and finally jets. No reason why a large portion of this can't be done on simulators - although I do 100% agree with previous comments that there is no substitute for real-world flying - but it would surely be an easier transition onto jets having had a structured way of progressing there, rather than being dumped into a 737 sim with no flying experience in anything bigger than a C150.
To teach people the delights of stalling, spinning and aerobatics is to give them the full picture of an aeroplane's 3D environment. All aeroplanes, even Airbusses, are subject to the same physical laws, and respond to much the same recovery actions from unusual positions. There are many of us who feel that there is already too little emphasis on these basic flying skills, which not only allow a student to feel totally comfortable in the aviation environment, but give an insight into the real beauty of flight - which cannot be had from NDB holds or assymetric go-arounds! The aeroplane type that is used for this training obviously is not likely to be the same as that used for IF and ME procedures, and thus it is appropriate to use a light aerobatic single. As FTOs will not pay for high-performance aerobatic aircraft (which, in any case, would have too demanding handling characteristics), there will need to be an element of familiarisation for students to get used to the faster progress over the ground of their ME/IF and simulator sypes, but that is not a major obstacle.
The biggest conversion issue at this stage of training is in getting the student to understand what it is essential to know to get his new type safely airborne and back on the ground, what is desirable to know in order to achieve his syllabus targets, and what is unnecessary to know about the aircraft in the context of the syllabus. Remember, we're not overly concerned about turning out excellent Seneca (say) pilots; we want the student to be as well prepared as possible for the kind of aircraft he will fly once in employment.
As a brief overview, I think the overall syllabus should concentrate first on achieving a solid understanding and familiarity with the airborne environment, including instilling a healthy knowledge of, respect for, and enjoyment of the kind of flying which would terrify the average passenger. This could be acheived in 40 hours. Then it should introduce the concepts of instrument flying, and the problems of complexity and multiple engines. Once that side is firmly understood (and without a break), the course should then go on to study the modern flight deck and the techniques used to conduct a flight within the current ATC environment. This can be mainly in the simulator, but should be reinforced by airborne training in an EFIs-equipped twin TP. The course should fully prepare students to go on to undertake a type rating in a modern TP or jet (there is little practical difference) without any further training. I would expect such a course to contain somwhere in the order of 170 hours of flying, on perhaps 3 different types, with perhaps 120 hours of representative simulator time. It would not be cheap, but it would be a lot better than it is now. It would be something of a cross between the current integrated CPL and the proposed MPL, but would include all the MCC, JOC etc malarky that tends to get tacked on at added expense now.
Scroggs
Join Date: May 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,904
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After 20 hours they are just pootling about from place to place not necessarily learning a lot.
We could learn a heck of a lot more if the planes we flew were up to the job. More Glass, more EFIS, more FMC's, more HSI's, more autopilots, more new planes! Just look at your average flight school aircraft fleet. It's a joke!
Well, a most interesting session with the chaps at Gatwick yesterday, thanks to the Head of Personnel Licensing.
The presentation on the MPL given by Fergus Woods from the JAA was particularly interesting and I was pleased to note that virtually all of my concerns have now been addressed. The only area of doubt which remains with me is that I consider asymmetric aircraft handling a necessary 'core skill' which cannot be completed in simulators alone.
But the MPL is seen as being an opportunity for the airlines to become involved in training the people they say they want, so it is unlikely that self-funded applicants will be able to undertake MPL training. It will be a 'third way' which is intended to run in parallel with the the current modular and integrated 'f'ATPL courses.
Given a blank chequebook, how would the ideal MPL course run? My views are:
1. Students woud be admitted to the course after passing aptitude testing and selection, ideally independently assessed with the sponsoring airlines observing the process and selecting their students.
2. As the theoretical knowledge requirements will be identical to the ATPL, a complete groundschool course should be completed before flight training commences.
3. After passing the exams, it is estimated that student 'core skill' flying training will take around 70 hours. Given that the the students will invariably end up with a Type Rating on glass cockpit jet airliners, aircraft used would ideally be something like the Diamond DA-40 Diamond Star TDI with G1000 avionics for 55 hours, followed by 15 hours on the Diamond DA-42 Twin Star.
4. The next 3 stages of the course aim to build on 'core flying skills', but in a multi-pilot environment by the use of various levels of STDs, leading to the final Type Rating on something like the A320/737NG. But 12 t/os and ldgs plus the MPL skill test will be required on the actual aircraft.
Hence it is unlikely that the MPL will be a cheap option for airlines as it will require them to do something which is common in virtually every other field of life - to invest in training for their future personnel. Something which they currently appear reluctant to contemplate. Approval to conduct the MPL course will require substantial links to the sponsoring airlines, so whether the MPL succeeds or fails will be entirely down to them!
The presentation on the MPL given by Fergus Woods from the JAA was particularly interesting and I was pleased to note that virtually all of my concerns have now been addressed. The only area of doubt which remains with me is that I consider asymmetric aircraft handling a necessary 'core skill' which cannot be completed in simulators alone.
But the MPL is seen as being an opportunity for the airlines to become involved in training the people they say they want, so it is unlikely that self-funded applicants will be able to undertake MPL training. It will be a 'third way' which is intended to run in parallel with the the current modular and integrated 'f'ATPL courses.
Given a blank chequebook, how would the ideal MPL course run? My views are:
1. Students woud be admitted to the course after passing aptitude testing and selection, ideally independently assessed with the sponsoring airlines observing the process and selecting their students.
2. As the theoretical knowledge requirements will be identical to the ATPL, a complete groundschool course should be completed before flight training commences.
3. After passing the exams, it is estimated that student 'core skill' flying training will take around 70 hours. Given that the the students will invariably end up with a Type Rating on glass cockpit jet airliners, aircraft used would ideally be something like the Diamond DA-40 Diamond Star TDI with G1000 avionics for 55 hours, followed by 15 hours on the Diamond DA-42 Twin Star.
4. The next 3 stages of the course aim to build on 'core flying skills', but in a multi-pilot environment by the use of various levels of STDs, leading to the final Type Rating on something like the A320/737NG. But 12 t/os and ldgs plus the MPL skill test will be required on the actual aircraft.
Hence it is unlikely that the MPL will be a cheap option for airlines as it will require them to do something which is common in virtually every other field of life - to invest in training for their future personnel. Something which they currently appear reluctant to contemplate. Approval to conduct the MPL course will require substantial links to the sponsoring airlines, so whether the MPL succeeds or fails will be entirely down to them!
Last edited by BEagle; 25th Feb 2006 at 19:14.
Guest
Posts: n/a
In the ideal world, would people not gradually work their way up to jets, via piston twins, then turboprops, to ensure the learning gradient is not too steep?
Either BEagle was at an entirely different presentation to me or he is cheaply bought. I found the whole thing typically obtuse, riven with non-words and doublespeak like 'ideally', 'estimated' and 'aspire', with absolutely no concrete facts to be seen. BEagles 'view' of the ideal MPL course is, sadly, no more than that.
My view, on the other hand, is clearly shared by at least one third-party training provider that is champing at the bit to start training, with the majority of the course being conducted in the far east, where simulators and instructors come cheap (and nasty). Will they be doing the initial training in shiny new Diamond glass cockpits - yeah, of course they will!
I have witnessed the product of FTOs degenerate steadily since the introduction of JAR-FCL, to the extent that we are now having to teach basic handling skills on MPL simulators because, it appears, PPL and CPL instructors are incapable of doing so. The MPL is, in my estimation, just another move in the inexorable slide towards the lowest common denominator of flight training and its product will have little or no credibility on the flight deck. I regret that BEagle, like so many other experienced instructors, has allowed himself to be blinded by the very marketing hype of which he has, in the past, been so critical.
My view, on the other hand, is clearly shared by at least one third-party training provider that is champing at the bit to start training, with the majority of the course being conducted in the far east, where simulators and instructors come cheap (and nasty). Will they be doing the initial training in shiny new Diamond glass cockpits - yeah, of course they will!
I have witnessed the product of FTOs degenerate steadily since the introduction of JAR-FCL, to the extent that we are now having to teach basic handling skills on MPL simulators because, it appears, PPL and CPL instructors are incapable of doing so. The MPL is, in my estimation, just another move in the inexorable slide towards the lowest common denominator of flight training and its product will have little or no credibility on the flight deck. I regret that BEagle, like so many other experienced instructors, has allowed himself to be blinded by the very marketing hype of which he has, in the past, been so critical.
You did hear the answer Graham gave to the question posed concerning CAA approval of the MPL course in non-JAA states, did you?
The worrying aspect is indeed JAA/EASA recognition of ICAO MPLs conducted in 'banana republic' countries, as Fergus mentioned.
Core skill training is at least to include upset training. But I still consider that asymmetric training should also be included.
It didn't surprise me that the brief did not go into great detail concerning the precise course structure; they seem to have come up with some broad subjects, but no TOs let alone EOs at this stage. Presumably because the FTOs will need to propose their solutions for approval.
The only way this MPL will be acceptable is if the 'cheap, nasty but legal' end of the market is refused approval. But is there the slightest chance in hell of the airlines (apart from LH) signing up to this? I doubt it - until the supply of traditional 'CPL/IR with ATPL knowledge' FTO graduates dries up.
I don't recall any 'marketing' having been mentioned?
The worrying aspect is indeed JAA/EASA recognition of ICAO MPLs conducted in 'banana republic' countries, as Fergus mentioned.
Core skill training is at least to include upset training. But I still consider that asymmetric training should also be included.
It didn't surprise me that the brief did not go into great detail concerning the precise course structure; they seem to have come up with some broad subjects, but no TOs let alone EOs at this stage. Presumably because the FTOs will need to propose their solutions for approval.
The only way this MPL will be acceptable is if the 'cheap, nasty but legal' end of the market is refused approval. But is there the slightest chance in hell of the airlines (apart from LH) signing up to this? I doubt it - until the supply of traditional 'CPL/IR with ATPL knowledge' FTO graduates dries up.
I don't recall any 'marketing' having been mentioned?
BEagle - I did, indeed, hear the perfectly crafted and political answer to that question. However, it did not reveal the whole truth, nor reconcile the fact that the CAA has already received, and, I am informed, reacted favourably to, representations from a UK based training provider that intends to conduct the majority of its training in the third world. Whilst it is no surprise that the UK airlines are not rushing to sign up to this excuse for a pilot licence, there are plenty of third party training providers that expect to make considerable profits from it in the short term.
The CAA has, over the years, repeatedly made much of their interpretation of the Aviation Act that requires the Authority to approve any organisation that can show compliance with the requirements for such approval, irrespective of its location. It would be nice, as you say, to believe that the 'cheap, nasty but legal' end of the market will be refused approval, although it would also, on past evidence, be foolish to do so.
The CAA has, over the years, repeatedly made much of their interpretation of the Aviation Act that requires the Authority to approve any organisation that can show compliance with the requirements for such approval, irrespective of its location. It would be nice, as you say, to believe that the 'cheap, nasty but legal' end of the market will be refused approval, although it would also, on past evidence, be foolish to do so.
