Multi-Crew Pilots License
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: at the edge of the alps
Posts: 447
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks to JAR-FCL most airline-only pilots are not licensed to fly C150s unless they do so frequently.
As for the "more of a manager" philosophy, I am not sure if there are really that many aircraft around that do not need more than button pushing if more than one thing goes wrong at the same time. While my trusted steed is able to autoland itself along an ILS even with an engine failure, things get rather nasty if electrics elect to quit. We also fly to places where there is no ILS at all and to others were you need a little bit of manual flying in order to do not make a fool of yourself.
As a traditional license can be done in slightly over a year (plus time for conversion training), it does not sound unreasonable to try to get it in a little less time and it is probably true that more can be learned inside a SIM than by droning up and down Florida or Arizona in CAVU weather to meet some minimum flight hours requirement. (At least since the advent of GPS which took one of the main elements of adventure out of true VFR without radio navigation. I remember getting splendidly lost on some of my first cross-country trips and still maintain that there are only pilots who have lost their bearings and those who pretend not to remember.....)
It depends on what the industry makes with MPL.
BTW, I find it highly unrealistic to degrade an MPL pilot to a you-will-not-touch anything on my flight deck-role. These guys might have limited training but that will not prevent them from gathering experience in the right seat.
As for the "more of a manager" philosophy, I am not sure if there are really that many aircraft around that do not need more than button pushing if more than one thing goes wrong at the same time. While my trusted steed is able to autoland itself along an ILS even with an engine failure, things get rather nasty if electrics elect to quit. We also fly to places where there is no ILS at all and to others were you need a little bit of manual flying in order to do not make a fool of yourself.
As a traditional license can be done in slightly over a year (plus time for conversion training), it does not sound unreasonable to try to get it in a little less time and it is probably true that more can be learned inside a SIM than by droning up and down Florida or Arizona in CAVU weather to meet some minimum flight hours requirement. (At least since the advent of GPS which took one of the main elements of adventure out of true VFR without radio navigation. I remember getting splendidly lost on some of my first cross-country trips and still maintain that there are only pilots who have lost their bearings and those who pretend not to remember.....)
It depends on what the industry makes with MPL.
BTW, I find it highly unrealistic to degrade an MPL pilot to a you-will-not-touch anything on my flight deck-role. These guys might have limited training but that will not prevent them from gathering experience in the right seat.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Singapore
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
thanks guys for the 2 different opinions on a MPL...
seems that there are 2 camps right now with differing views: 1) that MPL holders are mickey mouse pilots, 2) that MPL holders should be given a chance to prove themselves..
anyone cares to share how airlines view these MPL licences and whether an MPL is worth taking up or should one still stick to the tired and tested route of a CPL/fATPL..
seems that there are 2 camps right now with differing views: 1) that MPL holders are mickey mouse pilots, 2) that MPL holders should be given a chance to prove themselves..
anyone cares to share how airlines view these MPL licences and whether an MPL is worth taking up or should one still stick to the tired and tested route of a CPL/fATPL..
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: at the edge of the alps
Posts: 447
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If self-sponsored and without a good, major airline commited to taking oneself, one should surely go by the proven way for the time.
What worth is an MPL if it ties you to a mediocre airline you have been "tailor-trained" for with no other airline outside China or India willing to take you?
For the time a "classic" license gives you more flexibility in the good employment climate we enjoy.
What worth is an MPL if it ties you to a mediocre airline you have been "tailor-trained" for with no other airline outside China or India willing to take you?
For the time a "classic" license gives you more flexibility in the good employment climate we enjoy.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
isnt it funny how in aviation most "old school" pilots are very weary about changing the things they are used to and are familiar to. Like in most other professions i guess people tend to try and stop "progression" or "new filosophies" by stating that the old and proven way is the best one. When the first cars came on this planet people said it would be the end of the world. when cars could go faster it would be the end of safe driving. 
When ,metro systems started operating without drivers it would be the end of safe public transportation. 
now the introduction of the MPL is the end of safe flying. Nevertheless we all know that this progression will continue and cannot be stopped.
Aircraft are getting more and more automated and we cannot stop that. Its a fact of life that automation will start to take over and we pilots WILL actually become system operators. Lets face it... old school flying is over... its a pitty...YES defenately.... on the other hand its also nice. I for one (and been in aviation for a good 20+ years) dont mind that i can have a coffee, read my newspaper, play with my laptop during cruise knowing that the plane will take care of itself. the chances of these systems failing is smaller than the chances in the old days of the FO becomming incapacitated
I beleive the old way of learing aviation (starting small and growing bigger) has become impossible symply for economical reasons. Flying a C-152 has become more expensive than 1 hour of A320 simulator and charters with PA-31 with young new pilots have become rare since low cost airlines are much cheaper and fly the same destinations that we used to do in PA-31's. So young pilots symply have no other option than to start straight on the bigger planes. Wether we like it or not..it has become a way of life. we CANNOT stop this so lets make the best of it and try to train those guys as well as we can. NOT by not allowing them to touch anything. This will FOR SURE not make better pilots out of them. As commanders we should take the responsability to teach these guys to the best of our ability and make sure they become safer pilots with every hour they fly. Yes it involves a higher workload... temporarily... untill they get more experience.... SO WHAT. We are mostly well paid and therefore cannot complain that we do not get an ace in the right seat because it interferes with the movie we have downloaded from LimeWire.
Lets not try to stop the inevitable
but lets try to make the best out of it and do our best to keep the cockpit as safe as we can by teaching teamwork and exchanging experience.
When ,metro systems started operating without drivers it would be the end of safe public transportation. now the introduction of the MPL is the end of safe flying. Nevertheless we all know that this progression will continue and cannot be stopped. Aircraft are getting more and more automated and we cannot stop that. Its a fact of life that automation will start to take over and we pilots WILL actually become system operators. Lets face it... old school flying is over... its a pitty...YES defenately.... on the other hand its also nice. I for one (and been in aviation for a good 20+ years) dont mind that i can have a coffee, read my newspaper, play with my laptop during cruise knowing that the plane will take care of itself. the chances of these systems failing is smaller than the chances in the old days of the FO becomming incapacitated
I beleive the old way of learing aviation (starting small and growing bigger) has become impossible symply for economical reasons. Flying a C-152 has become more expensive than 1 hour of A320 simulator and charters with PA-31 with young new pilots have become rare since low cost airlines are much cheaper and fly the same destinations that we used to do in PA-31's. So young pilots symply have no other option than to start straight on the bigger planes. Wether we like it or not..it has become a way of life. we CANNOT stop this so lets make the best of it and try to train those guys as well as we can. NOT by not allowing them to touch anything. This will FOR SURE not make better pilots out of them. As commanders we should take the responsability to teach these guys to the best of our ability and make sure they become safer pilots with every hour they fly. Yes it involves a higher workload... temporarily... untill they get more experience.... SO WHAT. We are mostly well paid and therefore cannot complain that we do not get an ace in the right seat because it interferes with the movie we have downloaded from LimeWire.
Lets not try to stop the inevitable
but lets try to make the best out of it and do our best to keep the cockpit as safe as we can by teaching teamwork and exchanging experience.
As suggested above possibly we should keep an open mind about this and see what happens.
Currently, at least in the UK, it is not unusual to have F/Os with 170 hrs TT who have never flown an instrument approach at night or in real cloud prior to joining an airline, having trained in sunnier climates. That is the way the system works, and is no reflection on their abilities, most of them adapting quickly to the multi-crew environment.
However, it is not that which fits them for command, but the several thousand hours they spend in the RHS before passing their command assesments and checks. Conversely, there are others with thousands of hours of instructing and single crew experience who freely admit that with the 500 hrs on type required for a command assesment they still don't feel ready for command.
Whilst those with financial interests in traditional training will never agree, is it not possible that it might be better or at least as good to have a new F/O with 150 hrs in the simulator for the type of aircraft they are operating, who has experienced all the faults available on the instructors panel, hopefully with proper understanding of what the systems of the aircraft are doing and why they are carrying out each step of the recall/memory items and QRH - and with time in the training programme for this to be done as LOFT with decision making thrown in.
As they presumably wouldn't qualify for zero flight time training they would have done the same minimum six actual circuits on type, and the same 60 line training sectors prior to being released to fly with a line captain as opposed to an LTC.
As a current airline Captain, I would hate to think that I am "not in my right mind", but I would expect such a pilot to be perfectly capable of handling the aircraft they had been trained to fly, within the limits laid down in the ops manual, and would be happy to let them do so - just as the Captains I flew with years ago were prepared for me to, when all I brought to the operation was 40 hours in the sim and a couple of log books full of largely irrelevant single crew and instructing knowledge, the majority of which I have long since forgotten.
Currently, at least in the UK, it is not unusual to have F/Os with 170 hrs TT who have never flown an instrument approach at night or in real cloud prior to joining an airline, having trained in sunnier climates. That is the way the system works, and is no reflection on their abilities, most of them adapting quickly to the multi-crew environment.
However, it is not that which fits them for command, but the several thousand hours they spend in the RHS before passing their command assesments and checks. Conversely, there are others with thousands of hours of instructing and single crew experience who freely admit that with the 500 hrs on type required for a command assesment they still don't feel ready for command.
Whilst those with financial interests in traditional training will never agree, is it not possible that it might be better or at least as good to have a new F/O with 150 hrs in the simulator for the type of aircraft they are operating, who has experienced all the faults available on the instructors panel, hopefully with proper understanding of what the systems of the aircraft are doing and why they are carrying out each step of the recall/memory items and QRH - and with time in the training programme for this to be done as LOFT with decision making thrown in.
As they presumably wouldn't qualify for zero flight time training they would have done the same minimum six actual circuits on type, and the same 60 line training sectors prior to being released to fly with a line captain as opposed to an LTC.
As a current airline Captain, I would hate to think that I am "not in my right mind", but I would expect such a pilot to be perfectly capable of handling the aircraft they had been trained to fly, within the limits laid down in the ops manual, and would be happy to let them do so - just as the Captains I flew with years ago were prepared for me to, when all I brought to the operation was 40 hours in the sim and a couple of log books full of largely irrelevant single crew and instructing knowledge, the majority of which I have long since forgotten.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Where its at
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I see it, this really boils down to what had in mind for these guys - essentially I'd imagine they're being recuited simply as someone that isn't going to drop the ball.
You see, if you've ever looked through ads in the sunday supplements or taken a look on the bookshelves, you may've seen the generic "be fluent in X language in 4 weeks" courses. Generally you pop on a pair of oversized headphones, fix a rictus grin to your face, spend half an hour a day doing this amongst some pine furniture and voilá, you're fluent.
Of course you're not, what you've been learning is phrases. Your ability to adapt them to your own circumstances, to interpret the differences amongst broadly similar things that are being said, etc etc, is limited, if at all present.
So whilst one can hardly claim aviation fluency after 200 hours, but it is indeed equivalent to some grounding in basic grammar and idiom. You're aware it exists, and if push comes to shove, you will at least have a minimum foundation upon which to fall back.
Will you need to fall back on it?
This is the interesting part I believe. Now recently I've been having a play with my aircraft, FDs and AP/AT off for various departures and arrivals - back to the sorts of basics I had to practice when I had 100hrs or so - it's good exercise and I enjoy the challenge. Will I ever find myself in a scenario in which they have failed?
No.
Not failed, but switched off. Job interviews and sim rides folks? We're like battery chickens 99% or the time. When we're let out to peck the dust in the sunny farmyard, our feathers and wattle grow back, we get healthier, and are altogether a more appetising meal. As battery chickens our old fashioned flying skills are usually rusty - an understatement - but like the chickens we can improve and pass the sim check. I'm wondering if the MPL guys could. To me it seems like they would have nothing to improve and would thus find it disproportionally difficult to pass an old fashioned (ie normal) sim ride for a job. Unless, that is, the sim rides will in future consist of who can say "check" the most amount of times and the most crisply..
You see, if you've ever looked through ads in the sunday supplements or taken a look on the bookshelves, you may've seen the generic "be fluent in X language in 4 weeks" courses. Generally you pop on a pair of oversized headphones, fix a rictus grin to your face, spend half an hour a day doing this amongst some pine furniture and voilá, you're fluent.
Of course you're not, what you've been learning is phrases. Your ability to adapt them to your own circumstances, to interpret the differences amongst broadly similar things that are being said, etc etc, is limited, if at all present.
So whilst one can hardly claim aviation fluency after 200 hours, but it is indeed equivalent to some grounding in basic grammar and idiom. You're aware it exists, and if push comes to shove, you will at least have a minimum foundation upon which to fall back.
Will you need to fall back on it?
This is the interesting part I believe. Now recently I've been having a play with my aircraft, FDs and AP/AT off for various departures and arrivals - back to the sorts of basics I had to practice when I had 100hrs or so - it's good exercise and I enjoy the challenge. Will I ever find myself in a scenario in which they have failed?
No.
Not failed, but switched off. Job interviews and sim rides folks? We're like battery chickens 99% or the time. When we're let out to peck the dust in the sunny farmyard, our feathers and wattle grow back, we get healthier, and are altogether a more appetising meal. As battery chickens our old fashioned flying skills are usually rusty - an understatement - but like the chickens we can improve and pass the sim check. I'm wondering if the MPL guys could. To me it seems like they would have nothing to improve and would thus find it disproportionally difficult to pass an old fashioned (ie normal) sim ride for a job. Unless, that is, the sim rides will in future consist of who can say "check" the most amount of times and the most crisply..
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Somewhere between Europe and Africa
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My believe is that MPL is an idea from the industry to try to have pilots quicker and cheaper, trusting on the unfallibility of the machine to try to keep the safety of the system at the same level.
However, a great part of the acidents that we have is CFIT, where a perfectly flyable machine goes down do to human factor.
Everybody knows that we (humans) are the weakest link, and trying to get even weaker is nonsense.
I am not one of the guys that's always for "the old schooll", but what tat system gave you is airmanship. That airmanship will give you the tools necessary to have the best decision. Of course, MPL guys will get them with time, but it will be a longer run and until then the system will be weak. Put a nearly 65 year old captain with a fresh MPL in bad weather, both on their max FTL and with the new JAR-FCL 3 (medical certification) and probably you will be below the power curve. Do we need this?
Check Six , Krueger...
However, a great part of the acidents that we have is CFIT, where a perfectly flyable machine goes down do to human factor.
Everybody knows that we (humans) are the weakest link, and trying to get even weaker is nonsense.
I am not one of the guys that's always for "the old schooll", but what tat system gave you is airmanship. That airmanship will give you the tools necessary to have the best decision. Of course, MPL guys will get them with time, but it will be a longer run and until then the system will be weak. Put a nearly 65 year old captain with a fresh MPL in bad weather, both on their max FTL and with the new JAR-FCL 3 (medical certification) and probably you will be below the power curve. Do we need this?
Check Six , Krueger...
Who pays for the MPL?
There appear to be serious recruiting and line check issues right now in the US:
A CRJ Captain was heard on tower freq. several weeks ago stating that he needed an immediate return to the airport because the autopilot would not engage. He was probably giving IOE (Initial Oper. Exper.) to a brand-new FO
with very little experience. Somebody claimed that he declared an emergency. One of their Check Airmen told me a few weeks ago (riding to the terminal) than he refuses to give IOE right now. The company offered to pay him time and a half (150%) but he said no thanks-he only flies normal trips. Their problems sound almost as chaotic as those at Mesa. Mesa reportedly had an entire class of new-hire 'no-shows'. No pilots were there for the first day of new-hire class. They have lost about 400 pilots over a one year period-many made lateral moves, to similar small jet operators.
A few years ago, an IP there (he met us going up the DFW jetway) told me that one guy had paid loads of money to Gulfstream Int'l to earn ratings then fly as B-1900 FO in Florida. The poor guy got way behind in sim. training and never made it through. This might reflect on him, or the weather in Florida, and possibly the sim. training on the CRJ.
Read about what United Airlines went through back in the 90s, while either under an imminent threat to require UAL to hire pilots in certain quotas (experience was no longer required, in oder to meet these), or under actual court-imposed orders to fill 'certain' quotas. United apparently filled these artificially created slots/billets, but aviation is much more than simple statistics.
United's travails were described in either "Aviation Week & ST" or "Flying" magazine.
There appear to be serious recruiting and line check issues right now in the US:
A CRJ Captain was heard on tower freq. several weeks ago stating that he needed an immediate return to the airport because the autopilot would not engage. He was probably giving IOE (Initial Oper. Exper.) to a brand-new FO
with very little experience. Somebody claimed that he declared an emergency. One of their Check Airmen told me a few weeks ago (riding to the terminal) than he refuses to give IOE right now. The company offered to pay him time and a half (150%) but he said no thanks-he only flies normal trips. Their problems sound almost as chaotic as those at Mesa. Mesa reportedly had an entire class of new-hire 'no-shows'. No pilots were there for the first day of new-hire class. They have lost about 400 pilots over a one year period-many made lateral moves, to similar small jet operators.
A few years ago, an IP there (he met us going up the DFW jetway) told me that one guy had paid loads of money to Gulfstream Int'l to earn ratings then fly as B-1900 FO in Florida. The poor guy got way behind in sim. training and never made it through. This might reflect on him, or the weather in Florida, and possibly the sim. training on the CRJ.
Read about what United Airlines went through back in the 90s, while either under an imminent threat to require UAL to hire pilots in certain quotas (experience was no longer required, in oder to meet these), or under actual court-imposed orders to fill 'certain' quotas. United apparently filled these artificially created slots/billets, but aviation is much more than simple statistics.
United's travails were described in either "Aviation Week & ST" or "Flying" magazine.
Last edited by Ignition Override; 10th Sep 2007 at 01:52.
I've always mantained that, if MPL training on real aircraft was to CPL/ME standard (without the IR element), then everything else could be conducted in decent simulators. Boring holes in ADF holds in Senecas on one engine always seemed rather irrelevant to me - but basic airmanship and flying skills are essential.
But 'real' asymmetric isn't even considered to be a 'core' skill....
The MPL can only be associated with an individual airline. Many have now realised that the cost of all this synthetic training, plus the increased flying training needed to pass the final TR check, won't make the cost any cheaper than the current 'traditional' route. In fact, it'll probably be more expensive!
And where do the MPL advocates think all the simulator instructors will come from?
But 'real' asymmetric isn't even considered to be a 'core' skill....
The MPL can only be associated with an individual airline. Many have now realised that the cost of all this synthetic training, plus the increased flying training needed to pass the final TR check, won't make the cost any cheaper than the current 'traditional' route. In fact, it'll probably be more expensive!
And where do the MPL advocates think all the simulator instructors will come from?
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: South
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have any of you guys actually seen the MPL syllabus, before you cast it aside as some kind of disney qualification?
Your 170 hours of ground school training is EXACTLY the same as the training you'd do for the Frozen ATPL rating going the CPL route...
Then you do 70 hours of flying in a light aircraft - to learn the "hands-on" stuff
Then you start in the simulator (I can't remember how many hours this is, but its quite a significant amount) which saves (sometimes) years of flying for nothing in tugs, or as an instructor etc etc.
this qualification grants you a licence to fly as a second officer initially, then as a first officer, then eventually - once you have covered a whole bunch of other exams and a fair amount of flying (just as much as any other F/O trying to get into the LHS) you can become a Captain.
Why don't you bother to take a look at the facts before you start slagging off a system you know nothing about.
I work for a leading provider of MPL licences in the world (who currently has over 90 cadets with another course starting next month!) and having seen these guys studying, I'd be more than happy to have them helping to fly my aircraft in a multi-crew environment!
I suggest that if you're really interested in learning about something new, instead of just bashing it.. go and look here - it tells you in detail what the MPL is.
http://www.icao.int/icao/en/trivia/peltrgFAQ.htm#31
Potter out.
Your 170 hours of ground school training is EXACTLY the same as the training you'd do for the Frozen ATPL rating going the CPL route...
Then you do 70 hours of flying in a light aircraft - to learn the "hands-on" stuff
Then you start in the simulator (I can't remember how many hours this is, but its quite a significant amount) which saves (sometimes) years of flying for nothing in tugs, or as an instructor etc etc.
this qualification grants you a licence to fly as a second officer initially, then as a first officer, then eventually - once you have covered a whole bunch of other exams and a fair amount of flying (just as much as any other F/O trying to get into the LHS) you can become a Captain.
Why don't you bother to take a look at the facts before you start slagging off a system you know nothing about.
I work for a leading provider of MPL licences in the world (who currently has over 90 cadets with another course starting next month!) and having seen these guys studying, I'd be more than happy to have them helping to fly my aircraft in a multi-crew environment!
I suggest that if you're really interested in learning about something new, instead of just bashing it.. go and look here - it tells you in detail what the MPL is.
http://www.icao.int/icao/en/trivia/peltrgFAQ.htm#31
Potter out.
Last edited by beatrix; 11th Sep 2007 at 12:02. Reason: personal involvement
"The INTRODUCER"
Solo
Regarding solo, I believe MPL as agreed with ICAO does not require solos, but individual airlines and/or schools (and, I suppose, CAAs) are at liberty to insist on them.
And regarding the source of instructors, I just spent some time with a high-up at a very large training organisation whose suggestion is simple: we will need to pay instructors more.
And regarding the source of instructors, I just spent some time with a high-up at a very large training organisation whose suggestion is simple: we will need to pay instructors more.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Philippines
Age: 57
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: MPL
I am a captain of the A320. A former F5A pilot and Lead Solo of an aerobatics team. I became a captain after so many stick time. My view regarding the new MPL program if quite different from my own experience as a pilot. The MPL program was well researched by professionals and MPL pilots when hired will surely gain the skills and experience through time in the RHS. Just like operating a machine-proficiency comes through constant handling.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: local
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MPL
Good post beatrix. Just to back up with more details for those who have not read the ICAO paper.
ALL THESE ARE MINIMUMS
Ground school:750 hours (about 5-6 months) which is up to JAA ATPL standard so you could take your exams for future command.
Core Flying: 70 hours minimum and you go solo
(real solo, in other words ALONE)You also do cross countries solo, instrument and night flying. All the basic flying skills and more.
Simulator phase 1: MCC 60 hours, STD 2 or above. (standard training device). Flying as a crew.
Simulator phase 2: LOFT 50 hours, STD 3 or above
A320 ground school: 3 weeks (standard Airbus course)
A320 Type rating: 60 hours A320 FFS Level D
Base Training: 12 take off and landings A320 (real aircraft)
Hope this adds to the information already pumped out and also answers some questions!
elac2
oh yes just a small point as announced by ICAO 2 weeks ago, once you have the hours, exams etc for your ATPL it can be issued and you can get your command but will be restricted to multi crew flying only.
ALL THESE ARE MINIMUMS
Ground school:750 hours (about 5-6 months) which is up to JAA ATPL standard so you could take your exams for future command.
Core Flying: 70 hours minimum and you go solo
(real solo, in other words ALONE)You also do cross countries solo, instrument and night flying. All the basic flying skills and more.
Simulator phase 1: MCC 60 hours, STD 2 or above. (standard training device). Flying as a crew.
Simulator phase 2: LOFT 50 hours, STD 3 or above
A320 ground school: 3 weeks (standard Airbus course)
A320 Type rating: 60 hours A320 FFS Level D
Base Training: 12 take off and landings A320 (real aircraft)
Hope this adds to the information already pumped out and also answers some questions!
elac2
oh yes just a small point as announced by ICAO 2 weeks ago, once you have the hours, exams etc for your ATPL it can be issued and you can get your command but will be restricted to multi crew flying only.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: somedays in a helicopter, other days in a fixed-wing....
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you have a MPL, whats to stop you from doing some more hands on flying and finishing your CPL qualification while your earning good money flying in the RHS ?
can it work the other way.... say you have a CPL...
can you enroll is a MPL course ?
This would atlest put guys with sufficient/ or "some" hands on time into the RHS....
can it work the other way.... say you have a CPL...
can you enroll is a MPL course ?
This would atlest put guys with sufficient/ or "some" hands on time into the RHS....
Last edited by jetflite; 19th Sep 2007 at 13:24.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: somedays in a helicopter, other days in a fixed-wing....
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone got any information on my above question ?
would appreciate it, if someone could shed some light on the matter.
cheers.
would appreciate it, if someone could shed some light on the matter.
cheers.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Qatar
Age: 67
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jetflite
The entry level for MPL training is ab-initio, which means in simple terms that you start at the beginning. Holding a CPL would not entitle you to start halfway through.
The entry level for MPL training is ab-initio, which means in simple terms that you start at the beginning. Holding a CPL would not entitle you to start halfway through.
Last edited by felipe56; 24th Sep 2007 at 17:36. Reason: spelling mistake
