Flybe MPL at Oxford (commences 1 September 2009)
 

This came up on Tuesday:

Oxford Aviation Training

I am considering applying for this course (if I can get the finance!). I was just wondering if anyone knew anything more about this scheme, or could shed some light on whether an MPL after 1500 hours is as valuable as a fully defrosted ATPL at 1500 hours. In other words, are you as likely to get a job with a jet operator later on in your career with an MPL as with an ATPL?

I am not blind to the fact that the airline industry is in a bad way, but considering this is an airline tailored scheme surely this would be considered a "safe" route into the industry - or am I completely missing the point here?

Apologies if this has been asked before, any insight would be much appreciated.

Thanks!

Looks like a good opportunity for all wannabees out there. Would imagine a lot of competition for the places as no other sponsorships seem to be in existance anymore.

Good luck everyone.

Kingofkabul,

Firstly, how can you have zero posts?

On the MPL, there are many threads and posts on the subject. Use the search function. The bottom line is tread carefully, you will be a ginnea pig for the FTOs and airlines to experiment with.

It may work out if the industry picks up and you get 1500 hours. You can then convert it to an ATPL. This is in an ideal world.

If you get made redundant before then, you are screwed. You can't fly for another airline or on your own. This has happened already in europe.

You are taking a risk, maybe more than going down the tradidtional route but that's open to debate. One thing is for certain though - it is NOT a sponsorship. You pay for it yourself.

Get searching.

EK

There are clearly some caveats around the scheme, as EK points out....however, I think in fairness to Oxford they've done their best to remove those problems - in that they'll convert you to an fATPL course if it does go tits up.

MPL at 1500 hours I think I'm right in saying becomes an ATPL, the same way an fATPL matures, so once you hit that, you're laughing. The danger would be if you got taken on, got to about 7/800 hours and THEN FlyBE went under...doubt OAA would change your qual at that point - so you'd be stuck with some conversion work....SOME financial cost, but mainly the pain in the ass of it.

However, all told, right now if you CAN get on an airline mentored scheme of any sort, then it is by far the safest route. FlyBE seems an excellent company with strong business model....really not a bad bet in my book

Thank you for all your replies,

I posted this a few days ago, it seems it took a while to actually turn up on the boards, and has since been discussed in other posts!

I went to the open day at Oxford the other day when someone asked the Commercial Director whether or not OAA would convert you to a CPL/IR if Flybe were to go tits up pre 1500 hours. There was no reply, simply he did not know the answer. But then I do not think OAA are really prepared for Flybe to not take on cadets/go bust or they would not underwrite the risk of having to re-train people. But even then, unless it is a legally binding agreement I would not feel comfortable taking the risk! But that's just my opinion.

I agree with other posts that mentorship does seem to be the way to go, I find it amazing that people go in to schemes self-sponsored without any visibilty on the jobs market, but hey mentorships are almost non-existent at present.

Out of interest, has anyone heard any rumours about when/if the Netjets scheme will re-open? Seems to be the best deal at the mo!

Thanks again, and happy landings.

KofK,

EK4457 is right on one count and wrong on another. With an MPL, you can't fly single pilot unless you obtain single pilot ratings. MPL's will have a type rating and a multi-pilot IR only. A PPL would be easy to get if you just want to take your mates up for a jolly. If you want an fATPL, you'll need more. A single engine CPL would be easy to get with about 10 hours instruction. An ME course is 6 hours. A single pilot IR would be the costly bit, though I would certainly ask the CAA to authorize a 15 hour IR conversion, but whether they would approve and whether you could pass the test in 15 hours, I can't guess. I doubt that you would be required to take an MCC course.

EK4457 is wrong when he says if you are made redundant before 1500 hours, you can't fly for another airline. Bollocks! Any airline flying under JAR 1 Ops can hire an MPL holder as a First Officer. There will be many that might not be willing to hire MPL holders but I think that is more to do with ignorance than an MPL holder being higher risk.

If a JAA MPL holder is made redundant, any other JAA airline can hire them. If the new employer operates their type, they only need a conversion course to learn the new SOPs. If they are hired for a different type, they need a new type rating. Please tell me how that is any different than what would be required of an fATPL or even an ATPL holder? It's no different.

The risk for the first MPL cadets then is the ignorance they will encounter from others if they need to seek a second job before they reach 1500 hours.

Adios,

Thanks for so eloquently pointing out that my post is not JAR-FCL word for word.

In theory, like you say, not a problem. Simple conversion course. Eveyones happy.

In reality, an airline is very unlikely to take on an FO with a few hundred hours on type who was trained by and for a different airline. You will call that ignorence and I'd agree. But, lots of airlines have much stranger training/recruitment requirements, flyBE being one of the worst.

This has happened already in europe. MPL graduates were made redundant and unable to find work because they fall into a training 'no mans land' of low hours, low experience yet trained to very specific SOPs on one type. They can't even become FIs. Of course, their banks still wanted their monthly wedge of cash.

The point of my post was to illustrate how good the MPL works on paper but in the real world it has lots of holes in it. You might be lucky. You might not.

Unfortunately, I got PPRUNE'd by the usual crowd. :rolleyes:

EK

EK4457,

I agree they might get lucky and they might not. That's no different than any other low hour wannabe though, so it really comes down to how financially sound Flybe is and if they are likely to remain so. I give them better odds than many others, but each wannabe has to make that call for themselves.

Don't hold your breath on NetJets. I understand that some cadets had been offered places on 2 upcoming courses later this year have been deferred indefinitely.

Be wary of the 'financial assistance' you get on this scheme. Apparently the previous one had you paying back both loans simultaneously.

Total monthly repayments were very large for the first few years making living on a flybe wage almost impossible.

Dont know if its the same deal for this one, just check into it.

I would be careful about OAA upholding their contractual obligations. When i trained there they were continually changing things to suit their own needs of which we had no say, or if we did bark up with a complaint were told to keep quiet or there'd be no airline recommendation for us.

Does anyone knows anything about the skills assessment. I heard it's gonna be Pilapt or compass test? And what about the math test?

bye

You know people complain about pilots buying ratings, as in Ryanair. But here with the MPL we have people buying the whole thing, including the job.

At least with a normal mentorship, you are in fact getting an fATPL at the end, usuable for any flying job. In an MPL you're getting the promise of job which 'due to market forces' may or may not be available on the day you qualify. Thus you will be left high and dry, no job and no usable qualifications until you spend even more money to upgrade to a 'real' licence. Worse still, if you find yourself out of a job before you get to the magic 1500 hours and an actual ATPL in your hands you end up like the Sterling guinea pigs. Unemployable.

Now this may not apply to FlyBe, they may be around forever. But the Sterling example is more apt. As more and more airlines pick up the idea the bigger the risk. With any downturn airlines dump pilots or go bust. Any MPL pilot will be left high and dry. Incidentally are there any FlyBe mentored fATPL pilots floating about in the pool at the moment? I'll bet there are.

Make no mistake the MPL seems like a good idea. Produce well trained pilots groomed from the start in airline flying. Get them to pay for it. No risk to the airline. It's a brilliant idea for airlines. Lousy idea for potential pilots.

What is actually needed is a generic airline MPL that can be used for all airlines. That won't happen though.

The Sterling MPL pilots have found other jobs, some with Ryanair, some with SAS and another airline I can't remember the name. I assume the ones who went to Ryanair had to pay for the 737 TR. I think SAS grounded their Dash 8s, so the ones who went there probably got a new type. I'm not sure who pays for them at SAS.

The flybe MPL cadets don't pay for the Type Rating, flybe do and bond them for three years, so they don't pay for the whole lot. Flybe has also required both FTE and OAA to guarantee that they will fund retraining to CPL/IR if flybe are unable to take them onto the type rating at the end.

An MPL is useable for any flying job every bit as much as an fATPL is. The only part not transferable to any other airline is the type rating and that happens to be the case with an fATPL holder as well.

Flybe has 4 cadets at OAA from last year who are getting an MPL. They will have MPL cadets there soon. Let's compare them. The 2008 batch will get fATPL. The 2009 batch will get MPL. Both will get a Q400 type rating paid for by flybe.

If flybe go to the wall before either batch finishes their type rating, the 2008 batch will be able to apply to other airlines right away, but will not have to pay back the £20K sponsored costs to flybe. The 2009 batch will be retrained at FTE and OAA expense to an fATPL and not have to repay flybe for the sponsored costs.

If flybe go to the wall after they are on the line, they will be made redundant. It is not clear if FTE and OAA will retrain the 2009 batch to fATPL if this happens, but I suspect not since there is no regulation preventing other JAR 1 Ops operators from hiring them. Both the 2008 and 2009 batches will have recognized licenses and Q400 type ratings. The 2008 batch can apply for a broader range of jobs since they are qualified for both single pilot and multi pilot operations.

Both the 2008 and 2009 batches of flybe cadets could fly for another airline that operates the Q400 and all they would need to do is a conversion course where they would learn their new company's SOPs. Both batches would need a new type rating if they get a job with an airline that assigns them to something other than the Q400. The only question is who will pay for the new type rating and guess what, there is no difference in the odds for the MPL and fATPl holder as far as who will have to pay except for one very overlooked fact.

The fATPL holder before the flybe type rating will have less than 40 hours multi crew training and the MPL holders will have over 100 hours of it. Both will need to undergo a simulator assessment to get a job with a new airline. My money is on the MPL holders to be more likely to get the job.

Here's the bottom line, very few airliners have crashed because the pilots didn't get enough training in puddle jumpers. Most crashes occur when either a human error occurs or an equipment malfunction occurs and is then compounded by human errors. This is what MPL aspires to redress and you can't train for CRM, TEM, etc. without a two person flight deck crew.

Adios,

The Sterling guys had to fork out an extra £30,000 to get an FR 'pay to fly' job off their own backs. They will have spent well over £100,000 to fly for an airline with non existent employee rights. Just goes to show what a mess you can get yourself into when you are a lab rat.

Nobody is suggesting that flyBE are going to go bust. However, a real issue is this;

1) They have a recruitment freeze.

2) They have a holding pool. Incidently it costs around £5,000 per year to be in the holding pool to remain current.

3) They will only start emptying the hold pool when the economy dictates.

4) The new MPL cadets will have to wait their turn in the hold pool.

So, for MPL cadets to go into a job, the economy has to pick up, flyBE start recruiting and the hold pool has to empty. All within the next 18 months.

Possible? Yes.

Would I put £71,000 on it? Not a chance.

IMHO it is very likely you will go into the dreaded hold pool and tread water indefinately. Just like people are now.

As a side issue, OAA can be summed up with this quote from their web site:

Since when was a sponsorship a loan? Surely it's one or the other? It's a loan. It is not in any way, shape or form a sponsorship.

If it all works out, fine. But there are enough question marks to take a second look even if flyBE stay in business for the next century.

EK

EK,

I don't care what they call it. They state very clearly that it is a loan. The name has nothing to do with whether or not any individual might wish to apply for it.

The main thing though is that my posts are rebutting the ignorance about MPL, not saying whether the market conditions are ideal for doing it right now.

All wannabes who fund their own training are taking a risk that they will end up at Ryanair or the likes forking out for a TR. Having seen a contract for a flybe cadet a few years ago, I can say that if flybe doesn't take these guys, they don't have to repay, which takes a bit if the sting out of having to fork over for Ryanair.

EK,

you must have a bl**dy good pair of spectacles to have such a precise view of what's going on within Flybe from your sand pit in DXB...

5 Rings;

Why is that then?

No genius myself, but I'm sure DXB is closer than the moon. Particularly the dark side.

EK

Well i've just sent off my application. Let's see what reply i'll get, will keep you posted! :ok:

Good luck Lew! :ok:

I'd be intersted to see how it all pans out.

EK

There is one minor flaw to all this - according to the UK CAA, Oxford do NOT have approval for the MPL. I would strongly suggest that anyone thinking of entering into a contract with OAA for an MPL course checks with PLD at Gatwick before signing up.

Hi!

Where did you get that info from BillieBob?

CAA standards document 31 lists OAA as approved to conduct JAR ATPL(A), CPL/IR(A), CPL(A), IR(A) ....etc. No mention of a Multi-Crew Pilot Licence. To be fair, no UK registered training organisation is approved for MPL, or so it seems.

they only school I know who has a MPL course is in Philippine, and they are not JAA.

this MPL, is another new method to attract wanabe who don't know how to fly a plane correctly.

Oxford in my point of view, is soon finshed! lack of cash!

Just seen an add from 'Alpha Aviation' to the right who offer an MPL course with 40 sectors or something :bored: >>>>>

:confused:

1) May or may not be relevant to this particular scheme a year or more from now?

2) "Holding?" Nobody is held. You are free to go elsewhere as you wish. It might cost you £5000 a year. It costs them virtually nothing except maybe the price of a postage stamp.

3) The "pool" can be made larger or smaller or done away with completely as they see fit. There is absolutely no binding commitment one way or the other to anybody within it. Offering contracts of employment to anybody who has been previously interviewed and deemed suitable will only happen when each individual airline has a requirement. The wider economy might or might not have a bearing on the absolute requirement. Even then employment may be offered to previous applicants deemed suitable, or may be offered to brand new applicants.

4) Will they? I can find no stated requirement or any legal obligation to do that. This scheme is a structured scheme that operates at outset within one particular airlines training programme. If you actually stop and think about it, applying that logic, no MPL student would ever realistically be able to gain employment within an airline so long as there were suitably qualified applicants within this "pool". Clearly that is not the stated aim or in any part a requirement of this particular programme. The money that has been advanced to these students is recovered from their employment within that company. Given the financial outlay who do you think they will actually employ first?

No it doesn't. No they don't and no it doesn't.

At 250 hours and a fATPL the product of these establishments is only just scrapes the bottom line.

The magenta line kindergaten was bad enough but this............. what a load of bean counter bull the MPL is dragging the standards of pilot training into the gutter and is a disaster in the making.

I only hope that the industry gets wise before the MPL holders get to kill them selfs and the 180 or so punters that have to fly follow them around the sky

A and C,

How does being an MPL make you dangerous? This is a genuine question - I'm someone who hopes to train in two years.

From what I can see (admittely from zero expirience) the MPL seems perfect for airline sponsorship schemes when an airline wants a cadet trained to their exact requirements. I don't see it replacing the ATPL - but another route. An MPL, again from what I've seen, is just less time spent in a simple SEP aircraft and more time spent in complex aircraft and then alot of time in simulators flying pretty much like they will be when they're in the RHS. They'll be taught the company SOPs from the beginning and CRM should be very good as MCC is almost built into the entire course. They should be very competent in handling airliners as they've spent most of their training doing this. Do they not have to meet the same standards for a type rating that an ATPL does? From what I can see, isn't this just a very effective way of training those airline cadets to the exact requirements of an airline?

Don't get me wrong, I think there are problems with it. It's perfect for those people who just see flying as a way of looking good, showing off and for a job that will impress Daddy's friends. But that is certainly not everyone. And from what I can see, there are many ATPLs, young and old, who don't seem to give a damn about the flying and just care about the money or lifestyle, or whatever. I read a post recently by someone who is in his forties and flies for BA. He seemed to be jumping at the chance for getting redundancy and, presumably, giving it all up whereas many are absolutely desperate for a job, let alone one for BA.

I don't want to fly for the money or for the social credit - I want to fly because I love flying and aslong as I can live a half decent life off my wage - I'm happy. For me the MPL presents some issues. I plan to do the PPL before I start my main training and this doesn't seem to wash down well with the airline schemes. Which would mean I'd have to do all the differences training for single pilot, SEP operations (as I'd like to bimble above during my days off). Also, I wouldn't feel comfortable taking up such a scheme unless it was through an airline with "guaranteed" employment at the end. And, of course, such schemes I suspect would be fierce in competition.

An MPL is ovbiously different, but what makes you say that it is dangerous, or maybe, better worded, any more dangerous than a frozen ATPL straight out of an intergrated or modular course?

Bealzebub

Nil points for clear and concise communication. I've seen software licensing agreements which read better than that.

I think you are trying to say that my post is wrong. If so, by definintion you are implying that flyBE will recruit these guys regardless of prevailing recruitment policy, economic conditions and size of holding pool. If so, we'll have to disagree on that.

In particular;

1) This was my point. Is it wise to spent £71,000 to get a job with a company which is not recuriting? They might. They might not. But you are simply hoping for the best.

2) Eh? Not sure an official definition of 'holding pool' is required here. Especialy when I think we agree. What is your point?

3) You got me. Not a clue what you are getting at. Particularly since my comment is a fairly obvious statement of common sense.

4) I think you are trying to say that they will sneak them to the front because they are 'structured' students.

The problem here is that flyBE have more mentored schemes at the minute than soft mick. Loads of the holdpoolers are there via structured schemes. I can see no special status for MPLs. If you were just finishing a MAPS at FTE for example, you'd be well chuffed to hear that the MPLs have priority.

Indeed, if you apply your logic in a devils advocate (pun inteded) way, you will be less in a rush to employ those who are bound to work for you. Whatever you think about this point, it is at least a serious consideration.

In a nutshell, my point was to say its a lot of cash for the possability of job with a company who are not recruiting, during a recession, with a large holdpool via a license which is still unproven.

If you disagree, you didn't half make a dog's dinner out of it.

EK

I am sure as you get older you will understand.

Let me put it even more simply for you.

"Holding pool," simply means thank you for the attending the interview and if a suitable vacancy occurs in the near future we will re-consider your application. It doesn't mean you are next. There is no contract in existence, and if you wish to find employment elsewhere that is fine. Nobody cares what it costs you (except you of course,) to keep your licence current.

This scheme (MPL) is a structured scheme that in order to be successful does require some significant degree of commitment on the part of the participating airline. Common sense should be telling you that these MPL pilots are most definetaly going to be a priority project. They will have been trained with a partial loan from the employing airline that is only recovered from the proceeds of that employment. These MPL pilots will have been trained in accordance with the specific requirements of the participant airline.

These are pilots being fast tracked into a career with the MPL participating airline. They are not going to wait for any of your "hold pools" to empty, or economies to improve. These pilots are not being "sneaked in", they are being fast tracked. Your problem is believing that a reserve pool of possible candidates has any other meaning than "maybe". Nobody, but nobody cares who might or might not be "chuffed". This is all about business, and in this case a new business opportunity. Whether it is successful at the end of the day remains to be seen. However MPL or 250 hour candidate means little in meaningful flying experience terms. The tailored aspects of the training though, will have a particular appeal to the participating airline.

I don't think you had any problem understanding my 4 simple replies to your own 4 bullet points. I think your problem was the common one of not wanting to understand them. No doubt borne out of reaction to your usual reading matter, software licensing agreements?

Gone fishing
 

A pilot who has done next to no solo flying simply has not got enough experience to handle a jet airliner, the guys from the integrated course have enough trouble doing so.

How the hell do you think that this beancounter derived couse is going to equipe you to fly on a good high workload day in the UK let alone a dirty night in the Greek islands? You will simply not have enough real flying decision experiance to fall back on.

In the USA most FO's have 1500-2000 hours flying in turboprops before getting into a jet so why in a more demanding enviroment of Europe are we looking at putting next to zero hour pilots in the right seat of an airliner?

The answer is money ...............and the airlines will pay in terms of a rising inccident/accident rate. Only then will the insurance company's set the minimum hour requirement for pilots and those who are in the second wave of MPL training will find them selfs with an MPL and no chance of a job and unable to even fly for fun because they won't even get a PPL out of this.

How does flying a PA28 solo relate to flying a jet transport aircraft in a multi crew environment? :confused:

IGNORANCE!!!!!!!

I think you'll find that Doc 31 hasn't been updated since FTE and OAA got their MPL approvals.

Regards, jez

of course flying a pa28 relates to flying a jet. i think the important things are learning self reliance and gaining confidence in yourself in making good decisions, getting yourself out of trouble and learning where your limits are. learning SOPs is important but airmanship is what saves your ass when the SOPs let you down.

Purely playing devils advocate - and fully accepting that there is no substitute for experience - but WHO is better equipped to fly a MPA jet aircraft straight from their training - someone with 100 hours on a simple, single engine PA28 or similar, or someone who has spent that same 100 hours operating the aircraft they eventually fly, albeit simulated? The differences are absolutely ridiculously enormous. I would actually say that 100 hours PA28 would not equip you in any shape or form for the rigours of flying a commercial transport aircraft. [I caveat this with my only experience of the latter being my 50 or so hours in 737 sim on MCC/JOC]

I have no doubt whatsoever that someone with 1500TT moving to a jet would be significantly safer than any variety of 200hr newbie, but that's not on the menu in JAA land, so the question is whether SEP hours are worth a shiny fig when it comes to operating a complex Multi pilot aircraft.

From my experience - confidence in yourself and knowledge of the limits is more about knowing your aircraft than it is yourself. I would trust someone with 200 hours PA34 (bit more complex than PA28) for example, more than I'd trust an airline captain with 5000 hours, but no PA34 time if I had to be flown somewhere in a Seneca.
I doubt even Chuck Yeager would get into a brand new aircraft type and start throwing it around first flight....

Ignor.........What!
 

Areospace101

Let me guess, five years flying about Northern Europe in the Q400 as FO and with one company, type ratings .....................ONE.

I would think that 100+ flying a PA28 should teach airmanship, flight planning, weather appriciation, Situational awareness & a bit of commercial sense as well (Planning the cheapest landings & fuel stops).
In short done correctly the hour building part of a modular fATPL is a very inportant part of what is called "airmanship". This is an atribute that is sadly lacking in the new "integrated" pilots who seen transfixed by the FMC and it's magenta line.

Any one who thinks that 100 hours in a simulator is a substitute for 100 hours of flying in command of a light aircraft is away with the faireys, the only way to learn to the basics is to do it for real, that way it is real and "flight freeze" is not avalable to get you out of trouble.

Zerosum 69 What wise words.

10 pence worth
 

I agree with Clangers sentiments (alright pal!! how are you?) in saying that I learnt more from the the 40hrs of JOC and MCC at OAA than I did of the other 200hrs I have on 152's, PA28's and PA34's at OAA.

I can see the need to get a basic understanding of the principles of flight and the equipment of VOR, NDB, ILS etc and the use of radios and generally an understanding of the aerial environment. But I think the MPL in principle is a variety good way of getting students line orientated prior to getting to the TR.

But like so many of the other posts, I also am slightly skeptical about the MPL, maybe its because its cheaper than the ATPL, Quicker than the ATPL and possibly more relevant that the ATPL. So basically I'm concerned that the MPL is going to undercut the ATPL and the way into the airline industry might change fundamentally. Aircrew in general are stubborn bastards and we don't like change. But I'm just slightly concerned that the skills and experience brought from an ATPL course rather than an MPL course will be lost.

I will standby for the barrage of abuse and opinions, of which you're all entitled to!

A and C, fair enough. I see the point you are making and would not even pretend to have the background to argue against it. Thanks for your explanation. As I said, I expect any of my training will be the more traditional route, but nonetheless was still interested in the opportunities presented by such as scheme as the flybe one.

P-T, I don't think it will undercut or replace the ATPL for people going the self-funded route. I do believe, however, for those few airlines that offer sponsorship schemes or cadet programmes, that the MPL will (if successful) most likely replace the ATPL as it provides customised training exactly to the requirements of the airline.

Gone Fishing
 

Another thing to keep in mind is the volitilty of the airline business, over the years I have worked for seven airline companys (that is just for flying) two have gone bust and another two are more or less out of business.

If I had been a low time MPL holder my chances of re-employment would not have been good simpley because the training would have been so "customised" for one company.

Airlines are funny things when it comes to SOP's in one airline the pilot who flys the approach hands over control at decision Alt and the other guy lands the aircraft ( no auto throttle disconecting permitted) as I say "nout as strange as airlines"! It is that sort of thing that is going to limmit the employment prospects of MPL holders.

The information did not come from Doc 31 but from a PLD employee who flies at our club.

It matters not whether you believe it, a simple call to the CAA before signing up for the course will confirm the truth or otherwise of the allegation. A small price to pay, I would have thought. Alternatively, you could ask for sight of OAA's approval certificate.