MCL - Is it Mickey Mouse?
 

I am starting to see Pilot Schools across the world, especially in Asia, promote the Multi-Crew Pilot License. You never fly solo but it seems according to the ICAO, the world needs pilots and fast. You can be fully qualified to fly an A320 (or whatever aircraft the school is dealing with) within 12 months - and basically walk straight into an airline that is recruiting for that certain type.

Whilst this is not a Mickey Mouse course as it was invented by ICAO's Navigation Commision in Europe, is it seen by airlines as a Mickey Mouse way of becoming an airline Pilot??

The reason this came about is because it is no longer necessary or Relevant to build 1500 hours in a cessna flying by yourself when what you really need is Multi-Crew Experience - hence why this new way was made.

I just want people's views. I've found a place in Asia that does for the grand total of £36 grand. Not bad really. At the end, you fly 12 landings/take offs in an A320.

:}:}:}

Just an opinion, but I think it may be a while before heads of recruiting are convinced - in the UK at least.

And even then you will probably be the third choice after integrated and modular.

Probably not - but I think that 100 hours or so of making command decisions about weather, diverting etc are very relevant. Presumably you eventually want to be a Captain and unless there is a major shift in CRM/operating procedures within the airlines then a Captains job will suddenly include your entire training because initially you will probably be treated as an extension of his arms (ie he will just be flying the aircraft through you). At the moment my sector is my sector from planning, briefing, fuel decisions etc etc they only time the Skipper would interfere is if he thinks that I am doing something dangerous:}

It is a much cheaper route - but the airlines aren't putting up the cash - so they won't really care about that. And twelve whole take-offs and landings! If you didn't alternate sectors in the airline that can be done in 1 and a half days work. Given that is the time for potential mishaps in even relatively benign conditions - would you let a surgeon perform 'routine' open heart surgery on you (doing the same thing a consultant does after 10 years or so experience) one and a half days after coming out of med school whilst simply being watched by someone else?

I'm sure there are many posts on this subject with many arguements for and against - I just know that I wouldn't want to be the first one applying for a job with a licence the airlines have no experience with (or any specific interest in - what happens when you want to move to the left hand seat. Do they then have to pay for your full training, do they give you a sabbatical while you do it or do they employ someone that they can just give a command course to and let them loose with minimal disruption to their crewing figures?)

It may be the way ahead in the future, but I wouldn't go down that path yet myself.

You are corrcet in everything that you said - especially the analogy regarding a surgeon with no experience. But I am talking about the direct comparison between a pilot straight out of ATPL school compared with a Pilot straight out of MPL School. In a head-to-head competition, surely the airline would rather go for the person who can straight away walk into the right seat of an A320 on Day 1 compared with the ATPL person who will need type rating, line training, simulator time which is alll a considerable amount of cost aand time to the airline?

Obviously, 5 years down the line, if the MPL pilot hasnt bettered himself - i.e done more training to get the ATPL license, he could certainly find himself third in the pecking order when he/she goes for the covetted position as a 747-400/A380 pilot or indeed a Captain position.

I'm trying to find out who gets their foot on the ladder first- the ATPL pilot straight out of school or the MPL pilot straight out of school? Surely you are at that advantage of being the first in the pecking order (providing the airline requires pilots for the specific plane you trained on). And rememebr, if you are looking at further career progression, you would have had the job first, earned the money and paid for extra training yourself to get more licenses whilst still building up hundreds of hours in an airline and getting paid for it!

I still welcome anyon'es opinion cos this is such a tough decision.

A cheap school is not necessarily the cheapest option in the long run. I suggest you to look for a quality school, one that has been in the game for some time, witch offer linetraining as part of the package (or even better a bond).

It might be difficult convincing conservative chief pilots that the MPL is a good thing, while hours on type is something they can relate to:ok:



That is your Mickey Mouse right there, as the JAR FCL states that you need 500h PIC to take an ATPL. 70h of those 500h has to be genuine PIC time, not PICUS!



snuble

"That is your Mickey Mouse right there, as the JAR FCL states that you need 500h PIC to take an ATPL. 70h of those 500h has to be genuine PIC time, not PICUS!"

Sorry, can you please explain the acronymns. i have no idea what that means. - thanks

"A cheap school is not necessarily the cheapest option in the long run. I suggest you to look for a quality school, one that has been in the game for some time, witch offer linetraining as part of the package (or even better a bond)."

It is only cheap as the fuel costs are like 50% of the obscene costs we pay here. And also you becoming FULLY QUALIFIED Pilot - albeit without the line training but you only get that in Airlines don't you? i.e 50 hours with a captain doing operational routes. Surely no school is affiliated/offers line training. the fuel for 50 hours in an A320 would be hundreds of thousands?

Let me copy and paste this from the website:

The MPL was developed by a panel of experts from 25 different ICAO member states following a review ICAO initiated back in 2001. This review determined what many aviation experts already knew; that existing ICAO licencing and training standards had not kept up with development in the aviation industry and advancement of aviation training, thereby having a detrimental effect on aviation safety and efficiency.

The benefit of the MPL is that we train pilots from day one to be airline pilots; in a multi-crew airline operating environment where the training is delivered by experienced airline training personnel. We utilise the majority of the flying training instruction on the actual aircraft type that the cadets will be entering airline service on.

Benefits to cadets are;

• Progress dependent on competency - not hours
• Flight instruction hours increased over current requirements (240 vs. 200)
• Utilisation of modern training methodologies as practised by airlines
• Emphasis on modern jet aircraft techniques rather than light aircraft techniques
• Continuous assessment process throughout training
• Modern simulation technology allowing weather and environmental effects to feature in training
• Comprehensive and integrated training syllabus

Key benefits to airline customers are;

• Pilots trained, in a highly disciplined, multi-crew operating environment
• Superior, relevant training at no cost and no delay to airline
• Pilots ready and prepared to for active airline service in 12 months
• Guaranteed, consistent supply of fully trained pilots to meet airline’s needs in accordance with their scheduled aircraft deliveries
• Win-win solution for the pilots, airlines and aviation industry

What do you think?

I think there might be couple of misconceptions here. In the JAA, the MPL can be offered only by the a JAR-OPS 1 operator or by an FTO that has an approved arrangement with a JAR-OPS1 operator and the course includes all line training. It would be a very dangerous option for self-sponsoring, not least because the training in Phase 4 is directed to a single aeroplane type, which restricts one's options on graduation.

It would not be a very clever move to self-sponsor an MPL course without a cast-iron guarantee of a job at the end of it. How, for example, would you feel if you had an MPL valid only on the A320 and there were only 737 jobs available?
Except that you would then have to find a job in Asia - that course would not qualify you to fly for a JAR-OPS 1 operator.

you would of course still have to complete a sim course to get to grips with the particular airline SOPs and to pass an OPC. Ok, so you might get away with a slightly shortened course but not significant enough to outwiegh the cost of hiring an intergrated/modular pilot with circa 1000hrs.
Sorry, but there is no substitute for experiance, and in my airline there is little chance of employment without time on type...

Back in the day when I was training (on UAS), I remember working at a significantly higher level when with an instructor, rather than without (when one could get away with far more)...particularly when instructed to do a practice divert without notice...

The MPL course does actually include you going solo. You complete a minimum of 70 hours aircraft training (both dual and solo) and the bulk of the course is FBS and FFS with glass cockpit which is what you are going to fly on qualifying for your licence. Check out www.alphagroupclark.aero and check the MPL information pack. This company has some airlines they are working with to find you a job on completion of the licence.

pfd99

In JAR-land, this Mickey Mouse Licence will only be available as part of qualification for a specific airline and aircraft.

There will be no such thing as a 'generic' MPL.

Still, most captains I've heard say "No problem, I just won't let the little buggers touch the controls".

So it'll become a glorified wireless operator/flap lever operator's licence.....

One of the principal ideas behind the MPL is that that all the type-specific training is undertaken to a particular airline's SOPs. This, of course, means that the airline has to be involved in the student's training. At the moment, in the UK, no airline appears to be prepared to make that level of commitment.

My understanding of the original concept behind the MPL as that you cannot undertake one on your own - you have to be supported by an airline. Of course, now the MPL is a reality no doubt certain "requirements" will quietly disappear.

Id like to thank everyone who has commented so far. I really appreciate your views so please keep them coming!!!! I need all your views. But there still seems to be some confusion as to what my point is.

"It would not be a very clever move to self-sponsor an MPL course without a cast-iron guarantee of a job at the end of it. How, for example, would you feel if you had an MPL valid only on the A320 and there were only 737 jobs available?"

Surely the fact that the best cross-commonality is Airbus. A320=A319/A318/A321/A330/A340 et al. Much more commonality than boeing. So at least you've got a 50% chance of getting a placement compared to the ATPL graduate who has flown weed-killer planes for a year! PLus- you'll be able to know your way around an FMC much more.

I'm just looking for the fasted/cheapest way to getting my foot through the door. ANd surely this MPL means that on head-to-head straight out of ATPL/MPL school - the person who has got the A320 type rating is a better candidate?? Surely this muct be the case. Regardless of whether they are looking for 737 or A320 pilots? You have Multi-Crew experience - infinetly much more than Mr ATPL straight out of school. You know the flight deck-the electronics- flight operations etc.

"Still, most captains I've heard say "No problem, I just won't let the little buggers touch the controls".
So it'll become a glorified wireless operator/flap lever operator's licence....."

Slightly cynical - even if its true? The point is ur gaining your hours, you're being paid, you're in the environment, you've got a job and ur earning the bucks to pay for other courses yourself. Compared with Mr ATPL who is still building up his flight hours as an instructor in a cessna. No Multi-Crew experience etc..

This has obviously brought quite a bit of controversy. This is a new license. Budding Pilots have spent thousands of pounds and time building up hours towards your ATPL, then suddenly some Wally (thats me!) comes along and says you can be a fully qualified A320 pilot in 12 months - whilst the ATPL pilot is still flying weed-killing planes or flying tourists in Eastern africa.

Please please keep your comments coming. and dont be to attached to the acronyms. I'm a wannabe so don't know too much technical jargon. Again-thank you.

Mach086,
It is my belief that the MCL will only be for one type of aircraft be that A320 or A330 or B737 etc.
You will not be able to chop and change into another type as the whole point of the licence is type specific.
You cannot become a Captain.
If you wish to change type or move over to the left hand seat (Captain) you would have to undertake your ATPL's and CPL etc....
On the other hand,
If you get a Private Pilots Licence (PPL), hour build, Commercial Pilots Licence (CPL), Multi Engine Rating, Insturment Rating (IR) and then do a Multi Crew Course (MCC) you will find you are a much better pilot than one who has done a quick MCL course.
The whole point of the current route to Frozen ATPL is designed to make you think and learn from mistakes. There are many Commercial Pilots out there who have tried to kill themselves on more than one occasion (me included) when they where hour building whilst holding their PPL. The whole point of a CPL is to instill in you command decisions and improve your airmanship skills.
When you undergo a type rating you are learning how to manage the aircraft. You are expected to be able to fly, I know its faster than a twin prop but it is not that difficult to master.
We fly B737's on numbers, Power settings and pitch settings, I have no doubt in my mind that that is the same for any jet just as it is for any prop aircraft, just faster.
I could not agree more with BEgale's comments regarding the fact that any MCL holder will not be allowed to touch any of the controls.
Most airlines when recruiting low houred non type rated pilots are looking to see if you will fit in, and in the sim, flying skills are very very very important, not messing around with the FMC, in fact messing around with it can cause lots of problems. have a look here:
http://http://www.planecrashinfo.com/1995/1995-77.htm
http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...nes_Flight_965
The basic principle is this, Aviate, Navigate, Communicate.
Just my two pence worth, but I feel that this so called licence will not be worth very much.
Tony

My opinion, we will see a lot of crash of planes in Asia... :bored: I think 250 hours from a FTO today is low so a MPL, that's a joke in a Kinder.

Tony,

That was a very good reply and thanks for your opinions. So am I right in thinking that according to you, if an Airline is adverising for pilots to fly on their Airbus Fleet who have just finsihed Piltot school - they will go for the one with an ATPL compared to the person who has an MPL and has a license to fly an A320 straight away?

Forgetting about being a captain for a minute - I have read so many posts here about pilots that can't find jobs etc. Now surely, with Airbus having approx 50% market, you have a better advantage of getting a job in the first place with an MPL? We are talking about getting that coveted position in an Airline. Once your in, you get paid- you build hours. You get hundreds of hours and priceless operational experience as well as flying. YOu earn money to do your IR, CPL, MCC. Yet the ATPL pilot is still flying around in cessnas? Yeah- the ATPL person is the better pilot. But so what- an airline have got a pilot ready to walk straight into the right hand seat of an A320 - or with very little time/training/cost - can walk into the right hand seat of any airbus.

I'm finding this so confusing. I'm going to write to every major airline i can think of and ask their reruiting department whether they see the MPL as Useless in this present day. Ill obviously post more info as i get it

MPL Costs
 

One of the major costs/barriers in all this is the "instructor" resource for MPL training.
Wont be $10/hr.. they may want a tad more pay than that
Being trained on an airliner if you want to be an airline pilot and operating multi crew may have advantages over a candidates from a 6 pack display and single crew environment.

Mach086,
From reading your reply it seems that you have already made up your mind.
I am a aviaitor.....I happen to drive a Boeing for my job, it pays the bills and can be fun. However I enjoy flying, I try to fly a little Cessna as often as I can as that is REAL FLYING, honest it really is.
I can understand your point that people are struggling to get a job, BUT, and it is a dammed big BUT.... the MPL has to be run in conjuction with an airline and as such it is airline specific.
This means you have to find an airline willing to take you on, which means all the hoops have to be jumped through.
If this is the future you must ask yourself why CTC, Oxford, Jerez and all the other schools are not worried, remember the Chief Pilot of any airline had to learn somewhere as well.
My understanding of the MPL is this, you can only fly one type of aircraft.... so that means for example a Airbus A320 and not any other model of Airbus.
Who told you Airbus has 50% of the market..... there have been over 5000 B737's built and an awful lot of them are still in the air, it is the worlds most popular passenger jet.

Tony,

Trust me, I'm far from making my mind up. Whilst 50-60% cheaper than an ATPL, not much point me doing it if all airlines are of the same opinion as you that this is a Mickey Mouse course (my own words admitedly). I am just playing devils advocate so I get as much views as possible whilst stading up for the MPL.

"My understanding of the MPL is this, you can only fly one type of aircraft.... so that means for example a Airbus A320 and not any other model of Airbus.
Who told you Airbus has 50% of the market..... there have been over 5000 B737's built and an awful lot of them are still in the air, it is the worlds most popular passenger jet"

Again my point was missed. I'm saying that IF an airline was hiring for A320 positions and it was open to Pilot Graduates (not just 40 year olds with 4000 hours) , surely the guy with an MPL for the A320 is in a better position than the ATPL guy who has spent 1.5 years in a cessna?

"Who told you Airbus has 50% of the market"

Also, I'm amaking the assumption that as Boeing and Airbus more or less manufacture the same amount of planes (give or take 25-50 planes a year - whoever is winning in terms of builds/sales) then I'm making an educated guess that they have 50% of the market. And correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it universally accepted that across the whole of the Airbus Fleet there is much more cockpit cross-functionality/comonality (318/319/320/321/330/340) compared with Boeings Fleet. I think 757/767 is the closest they have, with 747 being completely different to 737/757/767 etc.

Which concludes that an MPL graduate has at least a 50% chance of flying in an airline due to the Airbus A320 license( and thus a 'commonality' with ALL airbus planes), compared with the ATPL graduate who has no Airbus/Boeing license at all and thus a much reduced chance of getting their foot in the door unless British Airways starts flying cessnas to singapore?

Again, i really welcome your thoughts Tony- especially as you actually are a Pilot and fly for an airline. Please keep them coming everyone. I rally do thank you for ALL your advice. I want people to slate the MPL (with good reasons) if you want, and i want to be able to argue against it until I have no more arguments and agree with the rest of you. So Please, keep them coming.

Taken slightly out of context here but I believe it sums up a lot of your thinking.

Just because you have that rating on you license do not expect airlines to come to you begging you to work for them! The bigger outfits turn plenty of people down with ATPL / boeing plus airbus ratings and several thousand hours on jets! They are not looking to save a few pounds on a rating they are looking at a potential pilot that will do their company proud for 30+ years! They are looking at you. If you are a to$$er with a rating expect to be shown the door. If you are a good bloke without a rating but meet their criteria, welome aboard! There are plenty of cases of ATPL candiates paying for an airbus rating at £20K+ to find that no-one is in the slightest bit interested in it:eek:

My company took a lot of people with airbus ratings on and put then though a boeing 777 course and took me on with a light jet rating and put me on an airbus course (at the same time) - why not save money and employ bloke A on the 'bus and only pay for one course? Because they are not that bothered!

When looking at the bigger picture most companies do not see a type rating as a major cost (and most will 'bond' you for it anyway -differing methods ranging from paying them back at a fews hundred pounds a month to paying nothing unless you resign within a few years).

Also you were saying £36K is 50 - 60% cheaper than an ATPL. Don't think that a £75 integrated course is the only way to do it. If you go modular and are willing to travel (USA is a good option) you may only be looking at £45-50K all in (At least I did in 2003).

Bottom line is - don't be the guinea pig! You don't say how soon you are looking to apply, but you could end up with nothing but a £36,000 framed certificate on mummy's wall;) if the airlines don't go for it.
Let someone else run the gauntlet and follow their success (whether than be with a 'proven' MCL in 5 years time or with an ATPL next year)

ps - don't think you will be flying a 340 on a 319 license with little more than 'differences training' (Unless you are aleardy tri- rated on the boeing 737/747/777:ok:)

One of those guinea pigs would be me.


If all goes well, I will soon have my MPL with linetraining as part of the contract, and with a possibility for a two year bonding. (reduced salary, but still ok)

During the basic phase we had instructors from several European airlines and the local CAA, all convinced that the MPL route is the best route forward. I know it is a bit one-sided, but it shows that at least not all major airlines are anti MPL. But if the "common" perception out there is what is reflected in this forum, I hope pilots out there would be a bit more open-minded.

As for the ATPL, as long as you have the required hours, you do not need anything beyond a MPL.



Think I will dig myself a ditch now, waiting for the incomings...:)
-Snuble

btw: I look forward to prove you all wrong:ok: