Multi Crew Pilot License(MPL) thoughts.....?
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Shannon
Age: 38
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh the pot has been stirred!!! Woohoo!!
First of all I'm sorry if I offended anyone with my little rant up there. The direction I wanted to take this conversation was, that current pilot training system might be outdated and although it probably isn't in desperate need, but in need nevertheless to be be somewhat altered.
So, CPL/IR + MCC + type rating = there's probably a better way of doing it...
MPL as a-stand-alone = not gonna comment again
CPL/IR with MPL training approach = kinda seems obvious
Second... Just because EASA and CAA think it's a good idea, doesn't necessarily mean it is a good one. There is the other side to the story, which is the cost. By the time you pay for, you could have easily had a CPL/IR/ME. But to each his own. So whatever floats your boat...
And Mr. howflytrg... I find your "stick to your own" comment to be quite arrogant and stuck up. You see in the past 6 years working in heavy maintenance I managed to squeeze just slightly bit more flying experience then an averege MPL graduate (considering you're one?). Not even gonna comment on "jet aircraft gen knowledge" MPLs love to brag about, as I think it wouldn't be fair (the one other CPL/IRs are lacking
).
First of all I'm sorry if I offended anyone with my little rant up there. The direction I wanted to take this conversation was, that current pilot training system might be outdated and although it probably isn't in desperate need, but in need nevertheless to be be somewhat altered.
So, CPL/IR + MCC + type rating = there's probably a better way of doing it...
MPL as a-stand-alone = not gonna comment again
CPL/IR with MPL training approach = kinda seems obvious
Second... Just because EASA and CAA think it's a good idea, doesn't necessarily mean it is a good one. There is the other side to the story, which is the cost. By the time you pay for, you could have easily had a CPL/IR/ME. But to each his own. So whatever floats your boat...
And Mr. howflytrg... I find your "stick to your own" comment to be quite arrogant and stuck up. You see in the past 6 years working in heavy maintenance I managed to squeeze just slightly bit more flying experience then an averege MPL graduate (considering you're one?). Not even gonna comment on "jet aircraft gen knowledge" MPLs love to brag about, as I think it wouldn't be fair (the one other CPL/IRs are lacking
).
Purely a Yank view, but.....
Any Public Transport airliner should have TWO full ATPs occupying the front seats. Meet all the experience requirements, PIC time, full type ratings. Public Transport is not a training environment, not to gain experience, the passengers expect, legally and morally, the highest duty of care. The F/O should be fully ready to command the flight under any conditions, PERIOD, FULL STOP.
By Act of Congress, that is the mandate to the FAA. Yes, training needs to be improved, updated, and more in tune with modern equipment. The USAF did that with the T-1 track for heavy drivers and it produced some great guys.
Yes, the military has loads of inexperienced pilots up front, usually with instructors, the duty of care is much reduced there.
Any Public Transport airliner should have TWO full ATPs occupying the front seats. Meet all the experience requirements, PIC time, full type ratings. Public Transport is not a training environment, not to gain experience, the passengers expect, legally and morally, the highest duty of care. The F/O should be fully ready to command the flight under any conditions, PERIOD, FULL STOP.
By Act of Congress, that is the mandate to the FAA. Yes, training needs to be improved, updated, and more in tune with modern equipment. The USAF did that with the T-1 track for heavy drivers and it produced some great guys.
Yes, the military has loads of inexperienced pilots up front, usually with instructors, the duty of care is much reduced there.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
brummie
If MPL only includes 90 hours real flying, then you are talking about an extra 80 hours minimum in real aircraft for a modular course (around 210 hours realistic minimum, up to 40 in FNPT). That would be unusual, and most would have about 250 total and so more than 100 hours more.
That, though, is not all. My point is about the responsibility given to the pilot. As galaxy flyer rightly says the FO should be ready at any time to take command of the aircraft. That takes captaincy - a nebulous quality, hard to define but easy to see in a flight operation. Impossible to fake captaincy, impossible to teach it, for some it is impossible to achieve it - it comes with experience to those capable of command. It doesn't come easily, if at all, if someone is looking over your metaphorical shoulder on every flight.
galaxy flyer
I disagree that both seats require a full ATPL. The single-crew flying I have done is as hard as anything in an airliner, and I started that without the requirements for even a US ATP. However I also disagree with EASA and the European Authorities that 170 hours plus rating is sufficient experience (note both pilots flying multi-crew already need a rating under EU-OPS, even in single-crew aircraft (such as C525) and even if the flight could legally be conducted single-crew (such as BE200)). I am not convinced even by 250 hours plus rating.
If MPL only includes 90 hours real flying, then you are talking about an extra 80 hours minimum in real aircraft for a modular course (around 210 hours realistic minimum, up to 40 in FNPT). That would be unusual, and most would have about 250 total and so more than 100 hours more.
That, though, is not all. My point is about the responsibility given to the pilot. As galaxy flyer rightly says the FO should be ready at any time to take command of the aircraft. That takes captaincy - a nebulous quality, hard to define but easy to see in a flight operation. Impossible to fake captaincy, impossible to teach it, for some it is impossible to achieve it - it comes with experience to those capable of command. It doesn't come easily, if at all, if someone is looking over your metaphorical shoulder on every flight.
galaxy flyer
I disagree that both seats require a full ATPL. The single-crew flying I have done is as hard as anything in an airliner, and I started that without the requirements for even a US ATP. However I also disagree with EASA and the European Authorities that 170 hours plus rating is sufficient experience (note both pilots flying multi-crew already need a rating under EU-OPS, even in single-crew aircraft (such as C525) and even if the flight could legally be conducted single-crew (such as BE200)). I am not convinced even by 250 hours plus rating.
Thought I would bring this thread back to life. It seems a few more airlines have jumped on the "MPL" bandwagon.
I posted on another thread that I saw an agency ad for flight crew with the words "MPL trained pilots aren't eligable". Can anyone help me with where I saw that?
Seeing that made me think that maybe there are some some major airlines out there who are so against the MPL that they won't interview people if that is how they they got a licence.
I posted on another thread that I saw an agency ad for flight crew with the words "MPL trained pilots aren't eligable". Can anyone help me with where I saw that?
Seeing that made me think that maybe there are some some major airlines out there who are so against the MPL that they won't interview people if that is how they they got a licence.
