Does MPL threaten operational safety?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Nearer home than before!
Posts: 524
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good thread this.
I have the pleasure of flying with some of these very low hours new hires, on regional aircraft too, and to be fair, our company selection procedure is very good indeed. The quality of these 155hr or so First officers is impressive. They get to fly a 28t turboprop with pleanty of gotchas built in, in some nasty weather too.
If the same selection, monitoring and testing is caried out for MPL, then I have every confidence they'll turn out just fine. A couple of years with us and you heavy boys will be glad to have some of them sat next to you too.
I have the pleasure of flying with some of these very low hours new hires, on regional aircraft too, and to be fair, our company selection procedure is very good indeed. The quality of these 155hr or so First officers is impressive. They get to fly a 28t turboprop with pleanty of gotchas built in, in some nasty weather too.
If the same selection, monitoring and testing is caried out for MPL, then I have every confidence they'll turn out just fine. A couple of years with us and you heavy boys will be glad to have some of them sat next to you too.
Dash&Thump;
Certainly one key factor is the selection process. That is where flight safety begins as does industrial peace, I might add. If I might offer a nuance to the overall discussion without appearing or intending the impression of being a big-jet-jockey-self-important-elitist
, (truly laughing, here), I think the environment you're describing is ideal for MPL candidates and agree with you that low-time by itself is not a high-risk factor when other qualities such as intelligence, (native ability though that is not needed in great quantities), and a balanced ego which exhibits a keeness bordering on an unbridled passion for learning are present to some degree.
In short, immediate exposure to, and responsibility for heavy, long-haul operations in which demanding duty-days and regularly irregular ops are "standard", wouldn't be the ideal environment - I hope you take this the way it is intended!
I'm sure we both know that with such candidates, a short MPL introduction followed by a substantive line indoctrination program with a robust checking process can be successful.
Certainly one key factor is the selection process. That is where flight safety begins as does industrial peace, I might add. If I might offer a nuance to the overall discussion without appearing or intending the impression of being a big-jet-jockey-self-important-elitist
, (truly laughing, here), I think the environment you're describing is ideal for MPL candidates and agree with you that low-time by itself is not a high-risk factor when other qualities such as intelligence, (native ability though that is not needed in great quantities), and a balanced ego which exhibits a keeness bordering on an unbridled passion for learning are present to some degree. In short, immediate exposure to, and responsibility for heavy, long-haul operations in which demanding duty-days and regularly irregular ops are "standard", wouldn't be the ideal environment - I hope you take this the way it is intended!
I'm sure we both know that with such candidates, a short MPL introduction followed by a substantive line indoctrination program with a robust checking process can be successful.
PJ2,
Thankyou for your considered and non "sensationalist" response.
I now understand the meaning of the term "time in" in N America, thnx.
Practical, relevent "on the job" experience is the best training there is, with a Captain who imparts his knowledge to the new co pilot, and is capable of making up for the new pilots shortcomings until he is up to speed. The MPL system provides practical, direct training that is relevent to the current state of the art. Its an efficient effective starting point for an airline pilot. The rest will come with time, and whatever training system is in use, it was ever thus.... My point was that hundreds of hours instructing, flying NDB holds etc or floating around the skies of Florida hours building all in light aircraft is now quite unnecessary, as the experience and skills gained and taken forward are disproportionate to the time, expense, hard work and sheer aggro involved. Of course there will be people who will advocate that it is essential "experience" for a good airline pilot! They are entitled to their opinions. The ability to handle an abnormal or emergency situation in a jet comes from operating a jet, not a PA28 or whatever.
I mentioned the vested interests of flying schools purely because it is plain to see that in the shape of the MPL their livelihoods are threatened, so human nature being what it is, they will do their best to dump on the whole idea. I have my FAA and CAA licenses so now have no axe to grind, bar the fact that having been through the "system" (US flight schools/FAA were far superior btw) I can say that with the UK professional schools I got my license in spite of them, NOT because of them. I have no sympathy towards them should a good part of their income stream be cut off by MPL.
Lastly, i am envious of you if you flew the L1011. I was a maintenance engineer in my previous life and the Tristar was terrific.
P.S.....a small analogy for the MPL....my father was a professional flight engineer, and he would say the american second officer/system panel operators were the MPL's of their day....just pushing buttons and flicking switches in accordance with the procedures and QRH!!! No "real" understanding of the machine, but as that system demonstated over the years, it still worked.....There are many ways to skin a cat as the saying goes. MPL pilots in todays aircraft are no different.
All the best,
PJ.
Thankyou for your considered and non "sensationalist" response.
I now understand the meaning of the term "time in" in N America, thnx.
Practical, relevent "on the job" experience is the best training there is, with a Captain who imparts his knowledge to the new co pilot, and is capable of making up for the new pilots shortcomings until he is up to speed. The MPL system provides practical, direct training that is relevent to the current state of the art. Its an efficient effective starting point for an airline pilot. The rest will come with time, and whatever training system is in use, it was ever thus.... My point was that hundreds of hours instructing, flying NDB holds etc or floating around the skies of Florida hours building all in light aircraft is now quite unnecessary, as the experience and skills gained and taken forward are disproportionate to the time, expense, hard work and sheer aggro involved. Of course there will be people who will advocate that it is essential "experience" for a good airline pilot! They are entitled to their opinions. The ability to handle an abnormal or emergency situation in a jet comes from operating a jet, not a PA28 or whatever.
I mentioned the vested interests of flying schools purely because it is plain to see that in the shape of the MPL their livelihoods are threatened, so human nature being what it is, they will do their best to dump on the whole idea. I have my FAA and CAA licenses so now have no axe to grind, bar the fact that having been through the "system" (US flight schools/FAA were far superior btw) I can say that with the UK professional schools I got my license in spite of them, NOT because of them. I have no sympathy towards them should a good part of their income stream be cut off by MPL.
Lastly, i am envious of you if you flew the L1011. I was a maintenance engineer in my previous life and the Tristar was terrific.
P.S.....a small analogy for the MPL....my father was a professional flight engineer, and he would say the american second officer/system panel operators were the MPL's of their day....just pushing buttons and flicking switches in accordance with the procedures and QRH!!! No "real" understanding of the machine, but as that system demonstated over the years, it still worked.....There are many ways to skin a cat as the saying goes. MPL pilots in todays aircraft are no different.
All the best,
PJ.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Variable
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cheap answers
PJ2
Being a man of few words; I agree. There is no substitute for experience and much of what has been written here is a load of twaddle. The MPL is driven by airline commercial reasoning only and the rest is superfluous flim-flam.
Being a man of few words; I agree. There is no substitute for experience and much of what has been written here is a load of twaddle. The MPL is driven by airline commercial reasoning only and the rest is superfluous flim-flam.
Join Date: Jan 1998
Location: Where the job is!
Posts: 451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1. You cannot BUY experience. You cannot TEACH experience. Experience is something that has to be EARNED by practising some profession, trade, sport, craft or other activity over a suitably long enough timeframe, often under the supervision of an old master.
2. Even the above does not guarantee achieving the level of a skilled master as normal personal attitude and ability come into play. Well known sales trainer Jerry Bresser said: “We all know somebody who has been in the business for twenty years but who has only one year’s experience – repeated nineteen times!”
3. Cadet schemes in Europe, South Africa and Australia worked well many years ago when it was normal to have three or more experienced bodies in the cockpit. At least two of these were experienced pilots and the flight engineer normally held a pilot’s licence and was himself on his way up the pilot food chain from cadet. With two experienced pilots and a part-experienced pilot as flight engineer the cadet was effectively the fourth member of the cockpit crew. On long intercontinental flights with relief crews there were even more experienced pilots available in the aircraft. It was therefore fairly easy for these experienced pilots to take turns wet-nursing the "boy pilot" on board. Promotion in those days was not quick so a pilot who started as a cadet had several years of opportunity to gradually acquire real (not textbook) knowledge from those experienced aviators he flew with as he worked his way through cadet and flight engineer to the right seat. He witnessed and was part of experience-building situations where he was under supervision and did not have to make a real contribution that might affect the life-saving outcome because there were already enough experienced pilots to handle both normal operations and any crisis.
4. Since the reduction in the number of pilots to a two pilot is normal situation, non-North American airlines have continued with bringing in inexperienced pilots. This has worked as long as things have gone well. However there have been enough crashes and mishandled incidents to question the practice. Because of their lack of experience such low time pilots have to fall back on their book training and there have been several occasions where thinking outside of the box as a result of experience would or might have saved the day but such experience was not available. A number of times it has been pointed out that an EXPERIENCED North American pilot would have handled such situations in a different manner as a result of his experience and the outcome would probably, but admittedly not always, have been more favourable. A Euro/SA/Oz pilot who had worked his way through cadet and flight engineer to the right seat would probably have been equally experienced and capable.
5. The MPL has been introduced to cut costs and particularly to cheaply offset a perceived looming shortage of pilots (temporarily put back by the world economic mess). The latter was also the reason for ICAO changing the retirement age from 60 to 65.
6. I suggest that cadets who came out of the College of Air Training at Hamble 40 years ago were at a level of training and capability ahead of today’s MPLs.
7. The problem with the MPL is that there is no longer the same opportunity to gain experience within a three crew aircraft or to work one’s way up the aviation food chain outside of North America because general and regional aviation are so inconsequential elsewhere.
8. Putting a "boy pilot" whether cadet or MPL into the right seat of a two pilot aircraft effectively makes it a single pilot IFR situation. Anyone who has regularly done this will know that it is a heavy enough load for an experienced pilot to handle on its own, without the additional responsibility and distraction of effectively being an instructor to the greenhorn beside him. Creating such a situation obviously detracts from safety.
9. A little tongue in cheek, further to point 8 above, where a captain has to undertake such a dual role are the airlines going to give additional remuneration for the extra task and responsibility of also being an instructor, along with danger money for the decrease in safe working conditions?
2. Even the above does not guarantee achieving the level of a skilled master as normal personal attitude and ability come into play. Well known sales trainer Jerry Bresser said: “We all know somebody who has been in the business for twenty years but who has only one year’s experience – repeated nineteen times!”
3. Cadet schemes in Europe, South Africa and Australia worked well many years ago when it was normal to have three or more experienced bodies in the cockpit. At least two of these were experienced pilots and the flight engineer normally held a pilot’s licence and was himself on his way up the pilot food chain from cadet. With two experienced pilots and a part-experienced pilot as flight engineer the cadet was effectively the fourth member of the cockpit crew. On long intercontinental flights with relief crews there were even more experienced pilots available in the aircraft. It was therefore fairly easy for these experienced pilots to take turns wet-nursing the "boy pilot" on board. Promotion in those days was not quick so a pilot who started as a cadet had several years of opportunity to gradually acquire real (not textbook) knowledge from those experienced aviators he flew with as he worked his way through cadet and flight engineer to the right seat. He witnessed and was part of experience-building situations where he was under supervision and did not have to make a real contribution that might affect the life-saving outcome because there were already enough experienced pilots to handle both normal operations and any crisis.
4. Since the reduction in the number of pilots to a two pilot is normal situation, non-North American airlines have continued with bringing in inexperienced pilots. This has worked as long as things have gone well. However there have been enough crashes and mishandled incidents to question the practice. Because of their lack of experience such low time pilots have to fall back on their book training and there have been several occasions where thinking outside of the box as a result of experience would or might have saved the day but such experience was not available. A number of times it has been pointed out that an EXPERIENCED North American pilot would have handled such situations in a different manner as a result of his experience and the outcome would probably, but admittedly not always, have been more favourable. A Euro/SA/Oz pilot who had worked his way through cadet and flight engineer to the right seat would probably have been equally experienced and capable.
5. The MPL has been introduced to cut costs and particularly to cheaply offset a perceived looming shortage of pilots (temporarily put back by the world economic mess). The latter was also the reason for ICAO changing the retirement age from 60 to 65.
6. I suggest that cadets who came out of the College of Air Training at Hamble 40 years ago were at a level of training and capability ahead of today’s MPLs.
7. The problem with the MPL is that there is no longer the same opportunity to gain experience within a three crew aircraft or to work one’s way up the aviation food chain outside of North America because general and regional aviation are so inconsequential elsewhere.
8. Putting a "boy pilot" whether cadet or MPL into the right seat of a two pilot aircraft effectively makes it a single pilot IFR situation. Anyone who has regularly done this will know that it is a heavy enough load for an experienced pilot to handle on its own, without the additional responsibility and distraction of effectively being an instructor to the greenhorn beside him. Creating such a situation obviously detracts from safety.
9. A little tongue in cheek, further to point 8 above, where a captain has to undertake such a dual role are the airlines going to give additional remuneration for the extra task and responsibility of also being an instructor, along with danger money for the decrease in safe working conditions?
Last edited by Carrier; 6th Dec 2008 at 02:58.
PJ:
Well, yes and no. Having had 1500 hrs in the circuit, on charter, in twins and some work on the coast of BC (but only limited float time which is the reason I'm still alive...) and then transitioning to heavy transports I can say that just "being in the air, making decisions" regarding fuel, weather, weights, performance, pressing on, turning back all mean a lot and such experience does carry over.
Flying a heavy transport is I think, no different than flying a 172 or Seneca in many ways - mentally, things happen six to eight times faster in a transport than in a smaller type partly because of raw speed but mostly because of the complexity inherent in flying transports even in normal ops. Physically in terms of dealing with the machine, one needs to be ahead of the airplane in cruise by appropriate distances from weather or by about ten to fifteen miles for any routine maneuvering in cruise, (much further if it's a wall of weather!), and for configuring on the approach about four miles ahead or so on approach, one needs to appreciate eye-to-wheel distance and height and one needs to appreciate the effects of momentum (mass and speed). In single pilot operations, cockpit discipline is different than with two, three or four crewmembers, so one has to learn how to coordinate with crew with very high discipline standards.
Any MPL sim session worth it's salt should get any candidate "up to speed" to be able to stay well ahead of such an operation. That would be a major test of any such program - if a student can't stay well ahead of the airplane, after a few days in the aircraft, the training didn't do it's job. It is in the sim, after all...
Heavy transports require a few months to get used to for sure, but if one has the thinking airmanship and priorities which kept one alive in the bush, military or corporate world, one has 90% of aviation solved and one only need keep open to learning which, while it should never stop, should be at that stage, "refining knowledge" and becoming a veteran, learning the occasional brand new thing usually through an "experience".
Lots of flying experience teaches that almost always in an emergency, one needs to slow the operation down and not react swiftly.
Doesn't always work that way I know, but they are the major differences between the types.
Yup.
I flew the Lockheed 100 and 500 series aircraft for 3 years. It was and is my favourite aircraft next to all the rest - it was decades ahead of its time, had appropriate automation levels (CATIII before any other aircraft that I knew of and certainly way, way ahead of it's rushed-into-production cousin, the DC10, nice airplane that I have heard that type was). It was a pilot's, and a flight attendant's passenger's airplane, except perhaps everybody was always walking up a 3deg incline in the cabin... The MDLC was brilliant as was the flying stabilator. One only "pushed" once to "roll the airplane on 'smoothly' !! One pulled, the next time. Great to hear a wrench, (hat's off and deep bows to all wrenches btw), talking nice about the airplane, thanks.
carrier, good points, imo.
My point was that hundreds of hours instructing, flying NDB holds etc or floating around the skies of Florida hours building all in light aircraft is now quite unnecessary, as the experience and skills gained and taken forward are disproportionate to the time, expense, hard work and sheer aggro involved.
. . .
The ability to handle an abnormal or emergency situation in a jet comes from operating a jet, not a PA28 or whatever.
. . .
The ability to handle an abnormal or emergency situation in a jet comes from operating a jet, not a PA28 or whatever.
Flying a heavy transport is I think, no different than flying a 172 or Seneca in many ways - mentally, things happen six to eight times faster in a transport than in a smaller type partly because of raw speed but mostly because of the complexity inherent in flying transports even in normal ops. Physically in terms of dealing with the machine, one needs to be ahead of the airplane in cruise by appropriate distances from weather or by about ten to fifteen miles for any routine maneuvering in cruise, (much further if it's a wall of weather!), and for configuring on the approach about four miles ahead or so on approach, one needs to appreciate eye-to-wheel distance and height and one needs to appreciate the effects of momentum (mass and speed). In single pilot operations, cockpit discipline is different than with two, three or four crewmembers, so one has to learn how to coordinate with crew with very high discipline standards.
Any MPL sim session worth it's salt should get any candidate "up to speed" to be able to stay well ahead of such an operation. That would be a major test of any such program - if a student can't stay well ahead of the airplane, after a few days in the aircraft, the training didn't do it's job. It is in the sim, after all...
Heavy transports require a few months to get used to for sure, but if one has the thinking airmanship and priorities which kept one alive in the bush, military or corporate world, one has 90% of aviation solved and one only need keep open to learning which, while it should never stop, should be at that stage, "refining knowledge" and becoming a veteran, learning the occasional brand new thing usually through an "experience".
Lots of flying experience teaches that almost always in an emergency, one needs to slow the operation down and not react swiftly.
Doesn't always work that way I know, but they are the major differences between the types.
my father was a professional flight engineer, and he would say the american second officer/system panel operators were the MPL's of their day....just pushing buttons and flicking switches in accordance with the procedures and QRH!!! No "real" understanding of the machine, but as that system demonstated over the years, it still worked.....
I flew the Lockheed 100 and 500 series aircraft for 3 years. It was and is my favourite aircraft next to all the rest - it was decades ahead of its time, had appropriate automation levels (CATIII before any other aircraft that I knew of and certainly way, way ahead of it's rushed-into-production cousin, the DC10, nice airplane that I have heard that type was). It was a pilot's, and a flight attendant's passenger's airplane, except perhaps everybody was always walking up a 3deg incline in the cabin... The MDLC was brilliant as was the flying stabilator. One only "pushed" once to "roll the airplane on 'smoothly' !! One pulled, the next time. Great to hear a wrench, (hat's off and deep bows to all wrenches btw), talking nice about the airplane, thanks.
carrier, good points, imo.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Cedar Rapids
Age: 49
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Worked at several flight schools, owned one, and am now wandering the world in a whale.
What bothers me about the MPL is the lack of solo time, especially cross country solo time. This seems to me to be where novice pilots learn to make complex decisions and implement them. All of my students seemed to learn more on their first few solo trips then in myriad training flights.
As to the value of PA28 time, just took a 747-100 into FJR, before any of the navaids were up. With no procedures in place and no guidance from ATC, we ended up doing a (quite large) light aircraft landing pattern.
When I have flown with ab initio graduates, they have seemed uncomfortable outside of the standard ILS, or maybe RNAV approach.
In spite of my prejudice, I expect that MPL graduates will do just fine for the most part... I am pretty sure that my ex DC-8 captains are not to impressed with my skills, and probably their ex DC-3 captains were likewise unimpressed, as were the open cockpit graduates before them...
What bothers me about the MPL is the lack of solo time, especially cross country solo time. This seems to me to be where novice pilots learn to make complex decisions and implement them. All of my students seemed to learn more on their first few solo trips then in myriad training flights.
As to the value of PA28 time, just took a 747-100 into FJR, before any of the navaids were up. With no procedures in place and no guidance from ATC, we ended up doing a (quite large) light aircraft landing pattern.
When I have flown with ab initio graduates, they have seemed uncomfortable outside of the standard ILS, or maybe RNAV approach.
In spite of my prejudice, I expect that MPL graduates will do just fine for the most part... I am pretty sure that my ex DC-8 captains are not to impressed with my skills, and probably their ex DC-3 captains were likewise unimpressed, as were the open cockpit graduates before them...
Selection is a MUST for the MPL! Carefully selected cadets will undoubtedly be a better option for airlines than some self-funded CRM-nightmare egotist.
However, the MPL must balance core skill acquisition, decision making and airmanship against commercial expedience. I think that solo time is really essential, as is some 'real' asymmetric time on a light twin. But hours and hours of grinding around NDBs at some middle-English aerodrome in a Seneca? No - totally irrlevant and that's where early exposure to the simulator environment wins.
Personally I think that the minimum 'real aircraft' time before starting multi-pilot training should be the VFR CPL with ME Class Rating and UK IMC Rating.
However, the MPL must balance core skill acquisition, decision making and airmanship against commercial expedience. I think that solo time is really essential, as is some 'real' asymmetric time on a light twin. But hours and hours of grinding around NDBs at some middle-English aerodrome in a Seneca? No - totally irrlevant and that's where early exposure to the simulator environment wins.
Personally I think that the minimum 'real aircraft' time before starting multi-pilot training should be the VFR CPL with ME Class Rating and UK IMC Rating.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: HKG
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Manipulating an airliner, is, in fact, easy with a bit of practise. The serious error made by bean-counting managements who increasingly do not know that they are actually in the aviation business is, they take this "automation phenomenon" to mistakenly conclude that "airliners fly themselves" and airline pilots are, to use John Glenn's pithy aviator's statement, merely "spam in a can" and are dispensible or, if they are THAT necessary, we can "put a resource, cheaply and quickly trained, in the cockpit to accompany the one experienced pilot."
Truly, that is what the "MPL" conjurs for me and many who see this not as an aviation-related initiative, but an initiative driven by money not safety, and by these fundamental misconceptions of what it takes to fly an airliner in as complete safety as possible.
Truly, that is what the "MPL" conjurs for me and many who see this not as an aviation-related initiative, but an initiative driven by money not safety, and by these fundamental misconceptions of what it takes to fly an airliner in as complete safety as possible.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Socialist Republic of Europe
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ZFT
Are you seriously suggesting simulators as suitable for giving training in RT? There is no way that a simulator can give a realistic radio environment. It is OK for teaching the basics, but have you listened at peak time in a London Control sector the south of the UK?
Are you seriously suggesting simulators as suitable for giving training in RT? There is no way that a simulator can give a realistic radio environment. It is OK for teaching the basics, but have you listened at peak time in a London Control sector the south of the UK?
N4790P
No, I'm saying current simulators are totally inadequate in this area and that the rule makers have recognised this as a major area for improvement for future synthetic training for not only MPL but for what we currently know as a Level D FFS.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Socialist Republic of Europe
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed, but there are two problems there. Firstly the MPA courses are already being offered, on current simulators. Secondly I cannot see how it is going to be possible to give realistic radio training in a simulator. It has certainly never been managed before, even with humans providing the RT (I have known a few blip drivers for ATC training).
N4790P
Unfortunately the regulation changes are well behind the curve. The proposed rules which should come into force March 2010 IIRC should (will?) prevent current sims being used without significant upgrades. Visual systems will require a minimum of 200 x 40 FOV and “a fully integrated ATC environment”.
This ATC requirement is the challenge. The systems I’ve seen so far are nowhere near sufficient. Speech recognition and message broadcasting to cater an infinite number of (English) accents and regional ATC phraseology ‘peculiarities’ are probably the greatest technical challenges. However, already there are basic systems available that do indeed offer such an albeit limited ATC environment realistically integrated with visual airborne and ground traffic, TCAS traffic, ATIS, WX etc. These systems will evolve and I suspect within the next 5 years or so the simulation industry will develop systems that will fully comply with the requirements.
Until then, it is up to the various National Aviation Authorities to ensure current MPL programs reflect the present synthetic training limitations.
This ATC requirement is the challenge. The systems I’ve seen so far are nowhere near sufficient. Speech recognition and message broadcasting to cater an infinite number of (English) accents and regional ATC phraseology ‘peculiarities’ are probably the greatest technical challenges. However, already there are basic systems available that do indeed offer such an albeit limited ATC environment realistically integrated with visual airborne and ground traffic, TCAS traffic, ATIS, WX etc. These systems will evolve and I suspect within the next 5 years or so the simulation industry will develop systems that will fully comply with the requirements.
Until then, it is up to the various National Aviation Authorities to ensure current MPL programs reflect the present synthetic training limitations.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SWE
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For those of you who are not pilots:
A modern airliner cannot land itself on just any airport/runway, some special equipment is needed on the airport and for the particular runway.
A modern airliner cannot land itself on just any airport/runway, some special equipment is needed on the airport and for the particular runway.
Luvverley!
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: --
Posts: 259
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ZFT,
Thank you for expanding on my query. As an operational ATCO, I can't help but forsee all sorts of problems in our respective day-to-day environments. RT loading is high enough - and stressful enough - already. I don't need to spell out what this will inevitably mean! On paper, the MPL does seem a reasonable way of fast tracking folks to fill places that need filling, but I can't help but think that it is nothing but a short term solution which will have repercussions later on, perhaps when it is too late. I don't want to be reading the subsequent incident reports.
Thank you for expanding on my query. As an operational ATCO, I can't help but forsee all sorts of problems in our respective day-to-day environments. RT loading is high enough - and stressful enough - already. I don't need to spell out what this will inevitably mean! On paper, the MPL does seem a reasonable way of fast tracking folks to fill places that need filling, but I can't help but think that it is nothing but a short term solution which will have repercussions later on, perhaps when it is too late. I don't want to be reading the subsequent incident reports.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Room 757
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Based on what I saw on this web page: Pilot Provisioning and MPL, the proposed syllabus looks interesting.
My question would be how much cheaper would this training be? These sims don't look cheap, and you would still need an instructor/operator. All schools always give you overly optimistic estimates on time and cost. They are probably doing the same here.
You would have CRM stuff down a lot better and would be flying a "jet" in the ATC system, but you would lose a whole bunch of other stuff.
What kind of flying is done in the 60-70 hrs in an actual plane? How many are solo? Who would hire you if you don't have the chance to start as an FO or SO in a high tech jet supervised by more senior pilots? Would you basically require a glass cockpit and autopilot to be able to fly? Can't remember more challenging flying than simulated single engine, single pilot, under the hood, manually flown approaches chasing crappy needles using an old fashioned OBS.
With the steady supply of ordinarily trained pilots and constant bankruptcies and furloughs, why would you need this? It sounds like a good complement of regular training, but for the students who go this route it seems like job prospects would be reduced. Doesn't sound like they could even fly a C-172 doing traffic watch in a metropolitan area if they couldn't get the shinny jet job right away, much less do flight instruction.
rcl
My question would be how much cheaper would this training be? These sims don't look cheap, and you would still need an instructor/operator. All schools always give you overly optimistic estimates on time and cost. They are probably doing the same here.
You would have CRM stuff down a lot better and would be flying a "jet" in the ATC system, but you would lose a whole bunch of other stuff.
What kind of flying is done in the 60-70 hrs in an actual plane? How many are solo? Who would hire you if you don't have the chance to start as an FO or SO in a high tech jet supervised by more senior pilots? Would you basically require a glass cockpit and autopilot to be able to fly? Can't remember more challenging flying than simulated single engine, single pilot, under the hood, manually flown approaches chasing crappy needles using an old fashioned OBS.
With the steady supply of ordinarily trained pilots and constant bankruptcies and furloughs, why would you need this? It sounds like a good complement of regular training, but for the students who go this route it seems like job prospects would be reduced. Doesn't sound like they could even fly a C-172 doing traffic watch in a metropolitan area if they couldn't get the shinny jet job right away, much less do flight instruction.
rcl
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: The wx is here, I wish u were beautiful
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Already Happening
Would you basically require a glass cockpit and autopilot to be able to fly?
All the CRM-training is worthless if the single-pilot ADM is flawed.
4. Since the reduction in the number of pilots to a two pilot is normal situation, non-North American airlines have continued with bringing in inexperienced pilots. This has worked as long as things have gone well. However there have been enough crashes and mishandled incidents to question the practice.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: East Sussex
Age: 86
Posts: 276
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was "in the loop" about MPL from the very early days as a member of the JAA Human Factors Steering Group and, like most experienced pilots, I was both suspicious and very sceptical. To a large degree I still am. However, I think people should know is that the driver for the advent of MPL was not commercial but was an all pervading feeling in the upper levels of some very big airlines the the traditional training pattern was not producing a satisfactory product for modern operations. Cheaper it is not! At the outset the amount of real flying time was ridiculously small; behind the scenes lobbying has had it increased by about 100%. It is probably still not enough but it is not set in concrete during this transitional period.
When it was just a gleam in the eye the simulator element was established in the hopeful anticipation of vast improvements in simulator capability. This took care of the lack of ATC environment. This is not yet (as far as I know) anywhere near fruition and is certainly a stumbling block. Of course the other major potential shortfall is the lack of decision making experience under the stress of fear when solo. Even today many lucky students do not experience this during their training.
On the other hand there can be no doubt that a properly trained MPL new pilot will be much more CRM savvy and will be much better informed about his first type because he will have done a good part of the course on that type and using his airlines SOPs. Incidentally, an MPL course is specific to an airline and type and the FTO has to be in bed with an airline to have approval to undertake the training. Another fact that seems to have been missed is that potential students must have had aptitude and psychological assessment before starting. This is not required currently so that is an improvement.
As I say, I am uneasy about the whole thing but it is early days. Give it time and an open mind. Encourage the youngsters so trained and, who knows, it might actually work. The product cannot be worse than the worst I have seen produced by the ATPL route.
When it was just a gleam in the eye the simulator element was established in the hopeful anticipation of vast improvements in simulator capability. This took care of the lack of ATC environment. This is not yet (as far as I know) anywhere near fruition and is certainly a stumbling block. Of course the other major potential shortfall is the lack of decision making experience under the stress of fear when solo. Even today many lucky students do not experience this during their training.
On the other hand there can be no doubt that a properly trained MPL new pilot will be much more CRM savvy and will be much better informed about his first type because he will have done a good part of the course on that type and using his airlines SOPs. Incidentally, an MPL course is specific to an airline and type and the FTO has to be in bed with an airline to have approval to undertake the training. Another fact that seems to have been missed is that potential students must have had aptitude and psychological assessment before starting. This is not required currently so that is an improvement.
As I say, I am uneasy about the whole thing but it is early days. Give it time and an open mind. Encourage the youngsters so trained and, who knows, it might actually work. The product cannot be worse than the worst I have seen produced by the ATPL route.
I am struggling to understand why an MPL holder should have any more difficulty than an ATPL holder when it comes to ATC matters.
I have seen an experienced CPL/IR holder look at me with a pleading face when he failed to understand one single word of the ATC clearance flung at him by the female controller who was shouting at him via a tin bucket and a terrible old radio at the old Athens airport.
I have seen an experienced captain struggling to understand the old inbound ATIS at Istanbul and I have lost count of the number of pilots who found it difficult to cope on their first visit to JFK.
I can't see what any of this has to do with an MPL licence.
Incidentally, when I was driving Belfasts at Brize Norton many moons ago, we used to be made to listen to ATC broadcasts that had been recorded live in the USA, Hong Kong etc etc in the hope that we might just be able to partially "tune" our ears before we set sail.
I have seen an experienced CPL/IR holder look at me with a pleading face when he failed to understand one single word of the ATC clearance flung at him by the female controller who was shouting at him via a tin bucket and a terrible old radio at the old Athens airport.
I have seen an experienced captain struggling to understand the old inbound ATIS at Istanbul and I have lost count of the number of pilots who found it difficult to cope on their first visit to JFK.
I can't see what any of this has to do with an MPL licence.
Incidentally, when I was driving Belfasts at Brize Norton many moons ago, we used to be made to listen to ATC broadcasts that had been recorded live in the USA, Hong Kong etc etc in the hope that we might just be able to partially "tune" our ears before we set sail.
