MPL – We told you so…

[cockney steve]

[QUOTEBy your spelling you certainly wouldn't qualify for Eton...][/QUOTE]

I suppose reading that ,was a Harrowing experience for you

[Intruder]

However, your first response was based upon the FAA - hardly useful guidance for a European MPL holder.

Actually, it is quite useful as a guideline; all that MPL holder has to do is look at the JAR or his local country regulations to verify the requirements are similar.

For a CPL, JAR-FCL 1 requires 100 hours PIC, including 20 hours PIC in cross-country flying. It also requires a minimum of 5 hours instrument instruction in an airplane. For an MPL holder the 100 hours is reduced to 70 (FCL 1.155(e)), similar to the requirements for an integrated CPL course. The CPL course and skill test must also be completed, and the MPL course does NOT qualify.

According to FCL 1.190, an MPL holder does NOT qualify to attain an IR. So, he would have to get a PPL or CPL plus 50 PIC hours of cross-country time.

Similarly, the ATPL requires a minimum of 500 hours of PIC/PICUS time (though I don't know if PICUS time can be routinely had as a co-pilot with an MPL).

So, the bottom-line answer is still the same: An MPL holder CANNOT become an airline Captain without first attaining his ATPL rating, and very little of his flight time as an MPL co-pilot will "count" for the minimum requirements. Granted, his co-pilot experience will make it easier for him to pass all the required tests, but he still has to get the required training and PIC experience in airplanes first. While FCL 1.290 allows an MPL holder to apply for an ATPL, it does not exempt him from any of the basic requirements.

[Ayla]

Intruder
An interesting post, but please lets get back to the serious issue.... poor spelling and grammar!

[corsair]

400 odd hrs on light aircraft taught me a limited amount that i could take onto my first jet,

Perhaps you underestimate the usefullness of that time, private jet. Imagine if you will how you would have coped with only 100 hours. By 400 hours you would no doubt be sufficiently compfortable in actual flying to have enough spare capacity to take in the info you need to cope with flying a jet. The more I fly the better I get and I was a damm sight better pilot at 400 hours than I was at 100.

I'm not completely against the MPL, it has it's merits. The 'good intention' is to provide a candidate who has most of the training and part of the skills needed to be a good airline pilot. But it's not for the benefit of the new pilot. It's for the airline. It saves the airline time and money.

What bothers me about it is the reduction in flying hours. Particularly solo hours. I think it reduces the role of pilot to that of a machine operator. This is in line with many people's perception of airline flying as simply being procedural. 'All you do is punch a few buttons'.

Quite possibly the CPL training needs to be changed to meet the needs of the industry. Maybe aspects of MPL airline type training should be incorporated into the CPL syllabus. I fear that the current MPL system if it caught on would produce a generation of airline pilots who haven't got the basic airmanship skills to cope with real emergencies not previously practised on a sim.

You simply cannot escape the fact that an airliner, despite what the average SLF is made to think, is in fact a big complicated aeroplane that operates in a hostile environment and is at the mercy of the whims of nature at times. You still needs pilots who can fly the thing. Otherwise all you would need is for the senior cabin crew member to type in the destination and push the big green button marked GO!

[rogerg]

Post 46 turned up in the wrong place, sorry. Now deleted. I still think that the MPL could be a good thing. It does require a bit of time to settle down, and more experinced pilots to gave the MPL their support.

[Intruder]

Intruder
An interesting post, but please lets get back to the serious issue.... poor spelling and grammar!

Write! Eyell try beter next time.

[Private jet]

Corsair,

I am not familiar with the MPL programme in great detail, but i agree, an ability to hand fly the aircraft and generally cope with stuff in between, whatever it may be, is a must. However operating an airliner or bizjet is a bit different to flying a light aircraft! In fact, as many readers of this thread will know, in many operational aspects its very, very different.
The point of emphasis in my post was the vested interests of the established flight training community and the airlines, albeit for completely different reasons!!

[Wee Willy McGorbals]

"I still think that the MPL could be a good thing"

Tell that to the 150 holiday makers on their way to Tenerife when their Captain is incapacited and the FO has to complete his/her first ever solo

[Intruder]

...but i agree, an ability to hand fly the aircraft and generally cope with stuff in between, whatever it may be, is a must. However operating an airliner or bizjet is a bit different to flying a light aircraft! In fact, as many readers of this thread will know, in many operational aspects its very, very different.

The actual "stick & rudder" part is not all that different. However, a pilot who has not experienced a wide range of airplane control forces and responses may not be readily adaptable to a "new" airplane.

I've flown a range of airplanes from 0 to 4 engines, 800 to 800,000 pounds, fixed- and fling-wing, military and civilian, to fixed and mobile airports. I believe I can say with some authority that a 737 or A320 simulator is NOT anywhere near to the "best" way to learn to fly airplanes. While the MPL may be an expedient way for 3rd-world airlines to find co-pilots to fill their seats, I do not believe it is a "good" way to train proficient pilots.

[prospector]

"Otherwise all you would need is for the senior cabin crew member to type in the destination and push the big green button marked GO!"

Would it have to be the senior cabin crew member? surely anyone could push a big green button, even one of the pax, but who would push the big red button for stop???

[pilotbear]

They could push a big green button in OPs and it could fly itself
However, I am of the mind that this is not a good way to train. The reason is the prospective 'pilot' has never had to take responsibility in the air, never had to make a genuine life decision without the comfort of knowing the video game can just switch off. What does that do for you subconsciously. Primacy will have taught them that it is not real, that if you crash you don't get hurt, they have never had that first solo terror and exhilaration or the first solo nav with all that teaches you about being in charge.
That is why video games that teach where you can kill people, steal cars, crash etc with no consequences are bad, the subconscious mind believes it regardless of your morales or beliefs.
And what if on their first flight they have a Captain incapacity and autopilot and maybe FD failure in IMC? do you really think they will survive without that initial IR training on top of the sim?
And never had to have the gym workout of controlling a light twin single engine to show that high asymmetric thrust will kill you if you do it wrong>>
Maybe I'm wrong but I cannot see it as a good thing in its present form.

[Groundloop]

Tell that to the 150 holiday makers on their way to Tenerife when their Captain is incapacited and the FO has to complete his/her first ever solo

they have never had that first solo terror and exhilaration or the first solo nav with all that teaches you about being in charge.

Once again people are posting rubbish without knowing the MPL syllabus. Of course they will have soloed and done solo X-countrys.

Week 7 -9 Core Flying Air Exercises 6 –10 –First Solo

[Re-Heat]

I believe I can say with some authority that a 737 or A320 simulator is NOT anywhere near to the "best" way to learn to fly airplanes. While the MPL may be an expedient way for 3rd-world airlines to find co-pilots to fill their seats, I do not believe it is a "good" way to train proficient pilots.

You may have a point. I am inclined to disagree, but I believe that aspect, rather than the contrary point of the value (or not) of seat of the pants solo light aircraft flying, is the real issue at hand.

As I said before, ZFT exists, and works for experienced crew TRs. An effective programme may mitigate those concerns, but unless one works with MPLs, it is conjecture to suggest their quality of experience is better or worse.

[Artificial Horizon]

I think maybe we all just have a slight to high opinion of ourselves!! Doing all of the training in a full flight simulator will, in my opinion, produce a more than capable pilot. Yes I had fun and learnt loads during all of my initial training but I don't honestly think that 1200 hours in singles has made much difference to how I fly an airliner. I have seen 180 hour pilots on their initial type ratings fly rings around highly experienced ex-RAF types who have all of the 'talk'. If the selection is completed properly there is no reason why the MPL shouldn't churn out highly capable future airline captains.

[CarltonBrowne the FO]

The best thing that solo flying taught me was how to get myself out of trouble. As a jet FO this was of limited use, but when I made the
jump to the left seat it was much more useful, especially when bits of the aeroplane started breaking.
I could not find a reference for how MPL holders could achieve an ATPL- that will be the real test of the system.

[Intruder]

Once again people are posting rubbish without knowing the MPL syllabus. Of course they will have soloed and done solo X-countrys.

50 hours of solo/PIC X-country, as is required for an IR? I doubt it.

[Intruder]

I don't honestly think that 1200 hours in singles has made much difference to how I fly an airliner. I have seen 180 hour pilots on their initial type ratings fly rings around highly experienced ex-RAF types who have all of the 'talk'.

I can readily think of several situations where real-world flying gives training/experience that simulators CANNOT replicate: Weather assessment, crosswind landings, hand-flying in turbulence, fuel monitoring/assessment when holding near minimum fuel, immediate decision-making "in the short hairs"... Even where simulators can give a "taste" of these, their fidelity and the willingness of the schools to take the time for proper realistic training will likely be lacking.

Initial type rating rides are just like any other checkride -- they assess pilots in canned scenarios relative to a set of standards. Simulator training does in fact prepare the pilot sufficiently to pass -- and even excel in -- the checkride. Some of the issues you may have seen relative to the RAF types could well be a transient problem with shedding ingrained habits that didn't translate well to the airliner environment (been there; done that).

[Huck]

Maybe I'm wrong but I cannot see it as a good thing in its present form.

No you are not.

A Cessna can accurately replicate the following scenario (and a simulator cannot):

These new aircraft fly themselves, really....


(By replicate, I mean that it can provide the same threat of bodily injury or death.)

[excrab]

I am biased in favour of the MPL as anyone who has followed other threads on the same subject will be aware, but whilst I have to agree with

"I can readily think of several situations where real-world flying gives training/experience that simulators CANNOT replicate: Weather assessment, crosswind landings, hand-flying in turbulence, fuel monitoring/assessment when holding near minimum fuel, immediate decision-making "in the short hairs"..."

I find it hard to believe that that sort of experience can be gained in the solo flying which forms part of a traditional integrated or modular CPL/IR course in the UK or Europe. Possibly if we are talking of CPL/IR holders who have done hundreds/thousands of hours of instructing and single crew air taxi in horrible weather in Senecas and Chieftans and the like.

But I have flown with graduates from colleges in southern Europe who had never been in a real cloud, or from UK integrated courses who had never flown an instrument approach at night until we did it in an airliner during line training - and I am not convinced that they would have fared any better in an incapacitation scenario than the holder of an MPL. And before you ask, whilst I know I don't have a huge amount of experience compared to some who are posting on here, that is an opinion based on just under 5000 hrs of single crew ops and 7000 hrs multi crew over the last twenty odd years plus time spent as a UK TRI/TRE on multi pilot aircraft.

There is nothing wrong with the concept of the MPA in my opinion, it just needs a bit of tweaking. Even after the afore mentioned 5000 hrs single crew operation and a type rating course I spent the first couple of hundred hours in the right hand seat of a jet being only just on the drag curve if not a bit behind it, and I am very impressed with those who can say that with 170 hrs and a conventional fATPL it was not the same for them.

[Lost man standing]

I for one could never put passengers in an aircraft with a pilot who had never taken full responsibility for an aircraft in his life.

The holder of a new MPL has never signed for an aircraft. Of course in those terms an integrated course is no better, but I would make the same case against that. If he is allowed to command (I don't claim to know the details of the rules, or to be bothered to mess with pronouns although I admit the possibility of female MPL holders) then his first day doing so will be the first time he accepts responsibilty for a go/no go decision.

I happen to agree with those that suggest real experience cannot be replaced by synthetic. I would say to those that suggest some inexperienced graduates of the traditional routes have comparable experience to an MPL holder that this is an argument against hiring commercial pilots with 200 hours, rather than a case for hiring an MPL with only a few dozen real hours.

However these points are obvious, if debatable, and I think my first point is more interesting.