MPL experiences from students
 

Honestly, I think the risk is far, far too high. Just look around at the position many MPL students/owners now find themselves in, as much as I'm very optimistic on aviation over the next few years the MPL is too limiting/risky, it's been very harshly demonstrated that it's not a guarantee ... get an fATPL.

Think you’ll struggle to find anyone about to compete an MPL, can’t think of any that haven’t just been dumped by the airline and left to it.

Take note.

From someone who got through it, in terms of learning to fly big jets, it is so much better. Makes the traditional ATPL seem incredibly archaic.

Line trainers do often comment on the difference standards between MPLs and non MPL.

It needs to find a way forward!

I'm about to finish my MPL. MCC and TR left which we will do next year. Our flight school is owned by one of the big Airline Groups in Europe and puts lots of effort into manual flying (pitch & power) so we don't become used to just following the magenta line.
I enjoyed every minute of the training and having worked in an two man cockpit style environment from already in training (we flew the citation during our second practical phase) makes adapting to airline procedures easier. Obv it's not just all shiny and it comes with its drawbacks especially during these times where we could face up to 5years of waiting period.

2 years on the line having done an MPL;

The training was good, we started on the line with far more Jet sim experience than someone with an fATPL, yes it does sort of limit you to multi-crew airline ops but thats what you signed up for so I don't see it as a huge disadvantage. We were lucky and got a tax free 'bond' added to our salary. We should save in the region of £30k over several years on income tax. The bond probably doesn't exist anymore and don't think it ever will again due to the large payment if MPL pilots are made redundant.

Things to note; there is absolutely no guarantee of a job afterwards, eJ canned a lot of their MPL cadets whilst still at flight school, you can't blame them really. Until you sign the employment contract having finished flight school you don't have a job. The ones that were canned face a hefty bill to realign their training to the fATPL scheme, but from what I've heard (do qualify this though) you can add new type ratings onto an MPL like you can to a fATPL. So if you were chopped, but got another job on a different type, apart from paying for your rating you should be able to add it to your existing MPL. Also you are not tied to an airline, I know BA were taking eJ MPL cadets, so you could go and work for a different operator flying the same type.

If I had known then what I know now I would advise people to go modular and find a sponsored type rating. Will save you so much money. Flight training costs are obscene nowadays. CAE were charging ~£40k+ for a 320 TR, madness.

My advice now would be don't even think about flight training for at least 12 months from now. There are a lot of redundant pilots out there and the covid recovery is going to take a while, also we are entering one of the biggest, if not the biggest, recession in modern history. People may not want to fly that much anymore, or they may not be allowed to. We just don't know yet. Until we do, don't gamble away huge sums of money.

I know of three

One never finished of the type rating, one finished the type rating but never flew the third managed about 150 hours before hitting the buffers. I doubt any of them will fly again.

The dream has gone
But the debt is real

I graduated from an MPL a little under a decade ago.

The type rating is an integral part and without it you do not have a licence at all. There was a clause in the contract that in the event the sponsor airline couldn’t provide a type rating, the training organisation would convert our (incomplete) MPL to an ATPL. This clause came about to mitigate the risk of the airline being unable to employ the cadets, as was the case with the first MPL students of Sterling Airlines. From what I gather on this forum, this guarantee has sadly not become an industry standard.

To those MPL cadets reading this who have been disadvantaged by current circumstances, you have my deepest sympathy for what must be an extremely stressful and upsetting time. I would encourage you to pause before spending any more money on training. I hope that in the months and years to come, the airlines will do the right thing and continue your training.

tolip1

Perhaps it's true on initial TR however it loses its shine by the time you're signed off. Then you are left with two pilots, one who has developed core flying skills through experience and another who learn't what all the buttons do, through experience. Therein lies the difference. Flying a sim is unlike flying an aircraft and it can't be compensated for during the learning process. You have years upon years to learn SOPs, procedures and become an FMC whizzkid, you can't learn fundamental motorskills on the line.
Whilst I think the traditional ATPL program needs a refresh, I don't think the MPL as it is, is the solution.

Unless of course pilots simply become operators and are therefore no longer to provide manual redundancy. In which case I expect salaries to be closer to minimum wage and with it a reduction in training fees.

Isn't the answer to just modify the type rating part of the training to get the best of both worlds?

Contact Approach

I just don't get the same feedback as you have been. We aren't going to agree. Where is the evidence that we don't have core flying skills? Where is the increased incident rate of MPL Vs non?

I'm not pointing fingers or claiming its conclusive, It's simply facts: how do you learn how to ski? You put on some skis and point them downhill. How do you become a competent skier? You put on your skis, point them downhill then practise over and over again - the slopes change, the runs differ, the conditions change, you learn and adapt over time through making mistakes and learning to anticipate through feel, experience and instinct. You can apply this to learning any motor skill. Flying is a motor skill, It is highly dynamic and is a learned process through practise and experience. After 50 hours in an SEP you've barely put your skis on and learning such things on the line is unfortunately a thing of the past. You won't convince me novice skiers could hit the slopes for a day then spend the rest of the time in a skiing simulator and then smash a black run like theres no tomorrow. Learning how to operate an airbus sim will not equip you with the fundamental flying skills required to operate a kingair/Q400/737 etc. I've seen it, trust me.

USA has a 1500 hour rule for FOs. Before this the limit was 250 hours. Many training people I spoke to said when they still took 250 hour people, many washed out in the sim. It wasn't the flying of the sim they failed, it was situation awareness and being able to talk to ATC, run a checklist and make critical decisions all at oncw. They could not imagine taking someone with only 50 odd hours in a real airplane and then expecting the sim to make up the difference in these critical areas.

If really worked they said, the military would train that way.

How on earth does that work?

​​​​​​

This should give you some background.

https://www.travelweekly.com/Robert-...pilot-shortage

Thanks
I'm still curious as to HOW you manage to rack up that many hours without being in a full time job!

There's only so much self-funded hour building, glider towing and instructing that can be done!
​​​​​

Yes, 1500 hours in that case. Even then that simply represents the minimum number of hours required for ATR (ATPL) issue. It’s likely nowhere near the average experience level to be invited to an interview. In the U.K. it used to be possible to undertake remunerated flight instruction with a PPL and an instructors rating. Indeed that was how a lot of “self improvers” acquired the flying experience to provide the stepping stones to CPL/ATPL issue and then the entry level transport jobs. Most other countries required a CPL (Commercial) for all forms of remunerated flying including instruction. In reality these requirements were not worlds apart as an instructors rating required a minimum experience level of 100 hours and with the advent of JAR (later EASA) harmonisation, the CPL requirement raised it to 250 hours. However, this was one of the “stepping stone” pathways. Airline entry at 250 hours was only ever achieved through one route. That route was “approved” (by the regulator) full time courses of integrated study. These approved courses were offered by only a few schools who were either wholly owned (such as Hamble to BEA/BOAC later British airways) or affiliated to a handful of commercial airlines.

These “approved” schools trained pilots to a CPL with a view to fast track airline entry, not dissimilar to those same programmes you see today. Outside of these programmes, the minimum hour requirement for a CPL was 700 hours and an ATPL 1500 hours. As I have already mentioned, an airline job at even these base levels would have been very rare.

The changes that came with JAR also occurred at around the time the first of the “lo-cost” carriers came on the scene. One notorious CEO at the time was (however seriously) advocating doing away with co-pilots all together! Since that was obviously a non-starter the next best thing was to find the cheapest option. So opened the floodgates of people who felt that a basic 250 hour licence however obtained was the new normal. Usually it wasn’t!

Over the last 20 years you see on these forums the waves of aspirant pilots who thought a 250 hour CPL however obtained was their invitation to the cockpit of a 737 or A320. For most airlines who operated their own cadet programmes, they could tie those opportunities to the modern versions of the old “approved” schools. Not only that, but they could also gradually shift almost all of the risk/training cost burden to the aspiring pilot.

The old “approved” school courses of 200 hours of integrated training have evolved, but broadly remain what they were in the 1960’s. The MPL was constructed to significantly evolve these programmes into much more integrated airline ab-initio apprenticeship programmes. The intention failed to realistically appreciate the commercial volatility of airlines as the businesses they have become. Their future evolution needs to address the ability to change airline end consumers more easily than it has been.

Beyond these programmes, and the clue is in the name, the ATPL really needs to become the baseline qualification for airline employment. This is what has happened in the US albeit for likely the wrong reasons. Generally, a 250 hour CPL should be but one stepping stone to airline employment not the final hurdle. Save for those specific programmes, it never was, and in more recent times it has become a distortion that sets up a lot of unrealistic expectations.

Having taught both MPL and traditional CPL/IR student pilots from ab-initio onwards, the aircraft handling skills and situation awareness of an average MPL student are weaker when compared to an average CPL/IR student at the point they finish flying 'real' training aircraft prior to going across to the airline sim phase. Post-sim phase, on arriving in the jet, generally the average MPL student will be ahead of the average CPL/IR student as they will be more conversant with SOP's and operating (rather than flying) the aircraft. However, line trainers feedback is that on average, after 50 hours online, there's not much difference in ability/competence.

I'm right at the beginning of the journey myself.

I'd considered the integrated route, but heard so much negativity about the financial side of things, that I've decided to go modular.

What I really need to know is (assuming the "Covid effect" is gone in a few years and air travel is back roughly where it was), will UK airlines be taking on recruits with less than 1000 hours?

​​​​​If they're not, I'm completely stuffed realistically, as I said above, there's no way I'll be able to get that many hours in, even if I get my instructor rating.

​​​​That of course leaves the big question, where on earth are they going to get their pilots?

Flying hours has been likened to money you have in the bank; it depends what you do with it.

A critical issue is the quality of basic training received, with the importance of being able to select the appropriate ATTITUDE & TRIM extremely accurately. This fundamental skill is what students must be taught by a competent instructor. Get this bit right, and the rest will fall into place.
It matters not jot which route you take, be it fATPL, MPL, PPL into modular CPL/IR, unless you achieve this fundamental skill, don’t expect to be proficient at flying.

If the airlines want young competent pilots they need to insist on QUALITY training and that is not exclusively the preserve of large ATOs. Junior Birdmen need to bring this fundamental skill, together with the other competencies to the simulator. If you cannot fly a light aircraft smoooooothly, don’t expect to hack it in the B.737-800 simulator. The A.320 simulator whilst far more sophisticated offers far less of the necessary challenge for the big bad world.

glush

I agree and this aligns with my experience. The problem the average mpl cadet finds further down the line is that they lack the core flying skills that may be required later on down the line. There’s no substitute when it’s comes down to learning.

dns

Why wouldn’t you be able to amass experience from instructing? People have been doing it for decades. What will you do if that airline job isn’t ready and waiting when you acquire your licence?

For the foreseeable future, airlines are going to be able shake trees and have pilots with years of experience and many thousands of hours fall from the branches. The perception that “airline pilot” is an entry level job needs a reality check.

I don’t believe the a320 should be permitted to learn the fundamentals on during such a critical stage of training. It’s like learning how to ride a bike with stabilisers on and never taking them off.

Bealzebub

If every future airline pilot is going to be an instructor first, surely that's going to create an enormous excess, meaning most of them won't get any flight time anyway!

​​​​​Airlines have always taken minimal hours pilots (whether from their own integrated training schemes, or modular hours builders), if that's no longer the case I'm wondering how they are to fill the positions in future

Historically turbo prop operators would often take new qualified CPL/IR + MCC holders, both from the Integrated or Modular route.
Ryanair offered mentored schemes at the MCC phase

Once C-19 vaccinations are rolled out, normality will slowly begin to return. In the meantime keep the day job and study part time once you have your Class One Medical and PPL issued.

Pretty well evidenced in unaided visual approaches and crosswind landing handling.

I’ve flown with mpl guys in pa28s and they couldn’t land, they struggled with steep turns and they used aileron throughout the stall just to name a few things...

This would apply to any student, irrespective of the type of course, whose first twenty hours or so was poorly taught; it is not a function of the MPL training, but more than likely as a result of poor teaching, as you refer to more than one individual.

I refer you to my earlier comments about the importance of quality training.

The start of the slippery slope was in the early 1990s
when CAP 509 “Approved Schools” started to experience difficulty
employing ex CFS A2 QFIs.
That is not to say that quality non military FI do not exist, rather a dilution of standards and standardisation.

Not in the 42 years I have been flying for them. Usually the only sourced low hour pilots have come from their own cadet schemes ( where they have them). The other two primary sources have been career advancers and ex-military. In recent years the latter group has decreased as a primary source and probably to the extent that the cadet group has increased. For the career advancers it is usually those with the better experience. A lot of pilots would traditionally instruct, fly out in Africa or Asia or look for “aerial work” opportunities that would provide the hours and exposure that would eventually lead to an airline interview. The airline “jet jobs” would be the pinnacle level of many of those aspirants.

To whatever extent, and in whatever proportion that is likely to be the case well into the future. I cannot see any shortage of significant experience within the next 5 years just from the redundant pilot group and the build up of the traditional sources. As cadet schemes come back on line it is likely to be from the same selective programmes.

You mean they reduced your salary by X, labelled X a 'bond' and paid it to you under that title?

This meant you avoided taxes on a part of your salary. HMRC took a dim view of it. That is the reason it is no longer offered.

HMRC didn’t “take a dim view of it.” HMRC agreed it.

So basically beazlebub, you're saying that modular students should give up now?

No! They never have done. “Self improver” pilots have always been a major part of the career landscape. It is the expectations that have changed. Read these forums for the last 20 years (and longer) and you will see it for yourself.

Regarding the topic of MPL v ATPL, I think it's one for the trainers to answer as they are the ones who see both sets of students. As an ATPL student I can only comment how it felt following my path onto an airline type rating. For me personally I have a very set and firm idea of handling in my mind and it was built into me in initial training, particularly with regard crosswind landings and "seat of the pants" feel and all round awareness. The picture has always been clear for me when flying.

From talking to line trainers about how they find MPL cadets or anecdotal evidence from their colleagues at airlines who have a lot of MPL cadets come through, it is overwhelmingly negative. The pilots and hobbyists almost always seem to be set apart when storm *insert name* shows up, it is more often than not a one man show those days with MPL guys I have always been told. Aileron use in particular during crosswind landings comes up a lot, many don't know quite know what they are supposed to be doing with it or the rudder.

Could it be due to lack of real aircraft experience in less than favourable conditions? Flying 25kts across in a light SEP in the early days sure did lay the foundations quite nicely from personal experience anyway.

Bealzebub

But you just posted that low hour pilots only come from airline cadet schemes.

​​​​​

I think you are confusing low houred commercial pilots with low houred airline pilots? Airlines have never traditionally had much of a requirement for the former outside of their cadet programmes. Usually because they have never needed to. If you think they will in the future then roll the dice!

I find it quite funny nowadays that atpl guys with 180 hrs at best are the experienced seat of the pants flyers. While 80 something hrs mpls don’t have a clue in mighty crosswinds or challenging extreme scenarios.
My humble opinion after 21 years of flying is that cadet 80 hrs vs cadet 180 hrs make very little difference, selection and training is the only thing that counts with young pilots like that (as it does for more experienced ones also to be honest).
This was a thing of the past in the last decade though. But given the reset we are living, it could be coming back soon you never know.

The risk maybe be high although, there are still people have been doing it for decades.

I beg to differ. The 120 hour piston aircraft flight time difference between MPL and CPL grads is very evident in aircraft handling. That 120 hours has a lot more take off and landings with much increased solo time.

Once both get to 1000 hours total time the difference is arguably negligible but to say MPL is superior or prepares a student better for jet ops is pure bull. It's just a money maker for either the flight school, airline or both.

Whilst everyone should heed the opinions and respect the experience of guys who have been in the flying business for a long time, let’s not forget ultimately it is what the airlines (your potential future employers) are looking for that counts.

I come from a part of the world whereby modular flight training is not available. Many aspiring pilots go to independent flying schools to obtain their licences but find difficulty in securing employment. Most airlines here require cadets to go through a recognised integrated flight training course to obtain their ATPL/MPL, which the airlines can have the ability to monitor the progress of the cadets and have oversight of the programme syllabus delivery with the assured standards. This is seen as a necessity for the airlines, to minimise any possible poor training standards that MAY come from other flying schools that the airlines have no affiliation with.

Do your flight training (ATPL or MPL) with an institution which is recognised by the airlines, this will give you the best chance of employment when things pick up eventually.