Multi-crew Pilots Licence (formerly: South African Airway's plan to get co-pilots)
 

SAA's controversial plan to get co-pilots flying
September 16, 2006 Edition 1, Saturday Star

Sheena Adams

South African Airways is on the brink of introducing a radical new pilot training programme, which will see trainees taking their place as co-pilots after 70 hours actual flying time.

The bulk of the training - 250 hours - will take place in flight simulators, which allows trainers to slash actual flying hours in a real aircraft by more than half. SAA spokesperson Jacqui O'Sullivan has confirmed the details of the new programme.

The cost-cutting initiative is part of efforts by the national carrier to introduce more black people into its pilot ranks.

Called a Multi-Crew Pilot Licence (MPL), the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) is currently drawing up programme standards and regulations, which could be ready in mid-2007, according to Captain Colin Jordaan, general manager of SAA's flight operations.

However, pilot associations around the world, including the Airline Pilots Association of South Africa (Alpa-SA), do not support the MPL, saying the safety of passengers will be compromised.

Jordaan said in an interview this week that the initiative would fast-track the num-ber of black pilots employed by the national carrier. At present, the airline employs just 66 black men and women pilots out of a total of 796.

SAA's target, introduced in 1996, was to have 300 black pilots by last year.

Jordaan said the new type of licence would be "a heck of a lot cheaper" to imple-ment than the airline's cadet school, which costs SAA R750 000 per person for the intensive 18-month course.

SAA already owns four simulators required for the new training and would thus only be paying for electricity and maintenance costs, he added.

Jordaan said the airline was intrinsically involved in the ICAO steering group drawing up the MPL regulations and that information was fed regularly to the South African Qualifications Authority to ensure that the programme, when implemented, would comply with the country's training regulations.

"We will be able to take a person off the street and train them in our simulators for between 12 and 18 months.

"They will then be able to move into the right-hand seat of a Boeing 747 as co-pilot," Jordaan said.


He said the course would be designed specifically for airline flying and would not devote any time to "unnecessary aspects" such as using topographical maps.

The course would entail just 70 hours of flying time in a real aircraft as opposed to the 200 flying hours required in order to get a commercial pilot's licence.

MPL graduates would only be able to fly in a "multi-crew environment" for the first few years, he added.

Opposition to the plan has been widespread, with organisations such as the European Cockpit Association (ECA), representing 29 professional pilots' associations, saying that the MPL risks downgrading the standards of commercial flight training when aircraft are becoming increasingly complex and when air traffic is expected to rise substantially over the coming years.

"Downgrading of these standards can not be accepted in an industry that relies on a permanently increasing safety profile and which faces numerous challenges over the coming years," the ECA said.

Alpa-SA president Harvey van Rooyen said he was concerned that while simulations could be useful, weather patterns such as storms could not be simulated.

The new licence was "obviously about costs" and Alpa-SA did not believe that 18-year-olds off the street would be able to handle intensive pilot training.

More thought should be given to taking in university graduates who were PC literate and had certain "technical advantages", said Van Rooyen.

"It is a little bit of a leap forward and people are just assuming it will work but I have my reservations. Flying is not monkey see, monkey do. You need to create people who can think under pressure.

"You can't pluck a rabbit out of a hat and then say: 'There you go! Transformation has been sorted out'," he said.

Jordaan brushed off claims that SAA's programme would compromise aviation safety. He said today's aircraft design and training programmes placed emphasis on co-operation between crew members unlike "in the old days when all the decisions were made by the captain".

Co-pilots would spend 10 years in the right-hand seat of aircraft before attaining commander status, he added.

Seems to me that this arrangement will place more, not less, responsibility on the shoulders of the captain than ever before. A pilot and a gear monitor don't a crew make. Right back to the old days of single pilot captain and seat filler/chief bottle washer. Except that these days, cappy will probably be required by feel-good company policy to pretend that the gear monitor has an opinion worth hearing. I hope they are up for the extra work.

So be it!

The concept of the MPL proposal was to reduce the overall training time not necessarily to reduce costs.

The MPL requirements indicate a total time of 240 hours, with a basic element of approximately 60 flight hours up to PPL standard. After this, all training will be in a synthetic environment with the student spending approx 60 hrs split between PF and PNF on a level-A type simulator to achieve a basic level of competency before a further 60 hrs again split between PF and PNF achieving the next intermediate level of competency.
ICAO indicate that this device should be a generic type with advanced visuals but not necessarily with motion.
Only the final 60 hrs should be spent on a level-D simulator that represents the aircraft type to be flown.

IMHO the use of level-D type specific sims or even decommissioned old (aircraft) generation sims for the basic and intermediate stages is totally inappropriate.

In needs to be remembered that the intensive use of specific dedicated simulators in airline student training programmes is not new. Lufthansa Bremen stated their programme with 5 Cheyenne FFSs in the 80s. Alitalia’s Sardinia school mirrored this with their own Cheyenne FFS and SQ have been operating Lear FFSs solely for student training purposes for many years to name but a few. Of course these programmes supplemented flight training as opposed to replacing it.

Whilst within these illustrious Pprune walls I am not suitably qualified to comment on the merits (or demerits) of the MPL as a concept and I’ll leave this to those that are I do strongly believe that the simulation industry, whether manufacturers, regulators and to some degree users have ‘screwed up’ big time by not defining any standards for the generic type simulator envisaged for the basic and intermediate stages of synthetic training and until these standards are defined, agreed and adopted both industry wide and worldwide, the MPL is not going to achieve what ICAO presented to the industry over 2 years ago in Pheonix.

The RAeS Flight Simulation Working Group amongst others is actively working on the issue now but with some establishments already investing in expensive synthetic training equipment to support their MPL programmes, adoption and acceptance of standards is now going to be that much harder.

Any operator that sees the MPL only as a cost cutting/cost saving exercise has really lost the plot.
Competency based, effective and applicable training accomplished within a shorter timeframe was the goal. Cheap training only was never the objective.

We've had a generation...or two perhaps, that have very little experience of flying a seriously compromised aircraft, or indeed an aircraft at all sometimes. Now do I understand that the ONLY other pilot apart from the captain on this substantial aircraft, will be without ANY REAL flying skills? I'm sorry about the shouting, but I'm unable to stop myself.

This is mind-boggling irresponsibility, just an incapacitated captain and a coincidental malfunction and the result could be catastrophic.

Saa Mpl
 

Ok Guys and Girls, Let's stand back and think about this one.
We all know that SAA invented flying, (They think so anyway), Over the years they of course have perfected it beyond anyone else, (They think so of course).:}
Is it not fair to now let them come full circle and destroy all they have achieved???:D
In my humble opinion this policy would be an unmitigated disaster.
Let's hear from some of the everyday Line Capt's at SAA what they think about this. Will they be happy to have a 70Hr wonder sitting next to them negotiating the "Welkom Waghonde" on a late summers afternoon? Or how about going to the bunk over darkest Africa and letting same 70hr wonder try negotiate traffic, weather and levels with Khartoum via HF?
Good luck chaps, I'll be on another carrier.

Another reason ( amoungst many )I wont ever fly them again, nor will anyone in my family or anyone in my company

Let us hope the Captain doesn’t become incapacitated during the ten years it’s going to take the seat warmer to get a vague clue about what’s going on.:ugh:

Before everyone gets too focused on SAA it should be remembered that others have already commenced MPL programmes.

SQ/Alteon Beta project is about to start. Alpha Aviation has ordered aircraft and a simulator for their MPL programme in the Philippines (to train initially Kingfisher & Deccan ab-initios). Many others are in advanced stages of preparation.

Whether one agrees or disagrees, the MPL is here.

The adoption and implementation is the greatest challenge and with synthetic training being 75% of the programme, this element is far from ready for this challenge.

Political Correctness can be a powerful force. Yes, it can really change the way we get things done in this world.

10Hrs PIC?
 

What about when the MPL holder wants to convert to an ATPL and become a Captain?

My interpretation of amendment 167 to ICAO Annex 1 says that an MPL holder needs a minimum 10 hrs PIC. Depending on how National Authorities allow the use of Pilot-In-Command under supervision (PICUS), an MPL holder can avoid the requirement of any further Command time (previously 100 hrs, now 70hrs) PIC for an ATPL by accruing 500hrs PICUS from the Right Seat of a multi crew aeroplane.

Thus an ATPL holder that converted from an MPL could conceivably have 10 hrs PIC and the rest under instruction, Co-Pilot or PICUS.

Is my interpretation of ATPL holders having only 10 hrs PIC incorrect or unlikely? If it is correct, does it matter? Can the airline training organisations handle such a reduction in command requirements for ATPL holders?

For those who cannot access ICAO documents I believe its requirements are mirrored in JAR NPA-FCL 31 particularly Para JAR-FCL 1.280.

Aside from all the safety issues pointed out, can you think of anything more deadly than having to complete 240hrs in a simulator? With no real flying except before and after :bored: 240 hours of practise ILS/go around, SE work, electrical failure, gear up landing etc, etc. How many scenarios would you need to fill those 240 hours? Like most kids nowadays, they'll be able to handle the computer after a few hours, but a simulator whizz kid is probably not going to be much help, if or when they get spooked in the real world.

How do you persuade newbies to sign up? Come along and sit in a simulator for the equivalent of 10 non-stop days, and then have no chance of command upgrade for the next 10 years :ok:

" Flying is not monkey see, monkey do."

Unfortunate choice of phrase in the circumstances by Fat Albert. Beware or the PC police will be on your case !!

@fernytickles
 

You got exactly to the point. Every lesson has to be filled with useful content.
Just flying the autopilot and reading checklists locks all the attention to satisfying the guy in the aft seat.
Real descisions make pilots beeing commanders after time. This requires real time pressure to the brain.

In fact this high amount of time in the sim will be done on a thumb sitting duck simulator having the level of micro+*#.

If they use a real airliner full flight sim we are talking about 400 - 500 dollars/h about 2 times the price of a training twin. Where is the business case - in a class room with 30 PC's.

happy landings for those having a yoke or stick (dont weigh the sequence:8 )

Certainly - but not for the better :yuk:

This should be quite easy - the chance of getting to play with a REAL flightsim is gonna be enough to draw the punters in. Look, people spend many, many more hours playing online games or, indeed, FlightSim.

What worries me (as a pax) is what has been expressed by several posters already: I doubt that these people will make the right decisions under pressure, especially if these involve 'thinking outside the box'. Another thread on here discusses the (IMHO very brave and laudable) decision by an Onur Air captain not to depart with an a/c he deemed unsafe. Would one of these 70-hour wonders really consider ALL factors ? MEL, wx, alternates ? One wonders.

Only hope, methinks, is that at least some of them get the bug and take flying lessons after they're qualified - hey, who would've thought it'll ever come to this: learn to fly a 172 AFTER you're qualified to fly a 747 :ugh:

In defence of the MPL-license...
 

So what exactly is it that the extra 130 hours in a PA28 and PA34 are gonna give our student?

These hours are - largely - worthless. You spend ages and ages training stuff that is type/class-specific, and of little worth when going straight into the RHS of a commercial jet. Actual flying hours spent putting around the flagpole on a doubious syllabus are far less worth than simulated hours spent flying the aircraft that you will eventually operate, according to a comprehensive syllabus :D

As for decision-making (especially thinking outside the box) - what makes people think that todays cadets with 250 hrs "real" aircraft have skills in this area that you cannot gain in a sim? On a multi-engine "real" aircraft, you generally train 6 failures (engine fire, engine failure, generator failure, loss of one instrument power source, gear will not extend , flaps will not extend) to a high standard. In a simulator you train these, plus many, many more. Have taught engine failure shortly after V1 in both MEPs and simulators... In the "real" aircraft, you could do 4 of these in an hour, still leaving the student with a need to do further training to master the manoeuvre. In the sim, we'd do 10-14 in one hour, and the student would now master the manoeuvre, only needing brush-up-work for the rest of the course. Plus, you can take a break in when the student needs further explainantion or gets tired in the sim, a facility that the "real" aircraft sadly lacks (short of the instructor taking control), and you can simulate ATC, cabin crew, dispatchers and ATC to your hearts content - in the "real" aircraft, any attempt to teach the student any such pitfalls would require a lot of coordination (and the FI owing the guys in the tower a lot of beer - just try doing com-fail into a busy CTR).

Bottom line - the simulator is a much more effective training tool that the "real" aircraft, you can teach the student far more things, teach them quicker and better, and you can let the student commit all the errors that you feel are necessary without having to intervene. After all, it's quite easy to say "Noooo...that's not really what we're looking for" and do a reset. Anyone who prefers "real" aircraft training over simulator training are in urgent need to expand their horizons and get a better feel of the subject before posting.

Wonder how many of the "OMG-brigade" have conducted both basic and airline training and had a chance to evaluate how well these two match? And how easy it is to get your student thinking along the lines of the latter after spending 18 months doing the former? :ugh:

MPL
 

Good Post Empty Cruise.

Most of the flight training carried out at present bears no resembelance as to what is required to operate the latest generation of transports. Smashing around in a light twin shooting NDB approaches is a total waste of time and resources.

Wether or not the MPL is the right vehicle for current training will become apparent over time and it will be tuned to meet the needs. What is apparent is that the current training is not the right tool.

Agree with Empty Cruise
 

....mostly agree with what Empty Cruise is saying.. But, I also feel that the simulator is just a big Playstation and part of you knows that. You can't re-create the pressure of a crappy dark night in the sim! Flying real aircraft where you feel a sense of self-risk is an important part of gaining confidence.

However, once trained and flying the line, experience is quickly gained flying the real aircraft. I reckon after 500 hours, you're initial training becomes a relatively minor factor.

However, (again) I don't think anyone should go ab-initio (conventional or MPL) into a long-haul job - not enough handling experience is gained when flying long haul. There should be some minimum like 1500 T/Os and Landings required before getting a job on a long-haul jet.

ok, well done empty cruise, give yourself a pat on the back becausae you clearly have all the answers. and whilst most of your arguments 'could' be legit, all i want to know is where on earth are these new MPL's going to gain the invaluable 'building block' type experience. which you and others seem to think is a waste of time.

i mean the type of flying that you get driving your caravan around in africa dodging thunderstorms, landing on rubbish runways, getting lost and learning how to make a plan, when just about all else fails.

i know you're probably going to say that the scenario that i have just described is worth nothing to a MPL, that will only ever land at lovely big airports and fly the GPS home. and i somewhat agree with that. but then you are missing my point. there is a huge learning curve that has to be travelled as a young pilot, and i think a lot of people feel that the MPL doesn't cater for that.

now if an MPL isn't going to be able to be a capt for 100 years then we are creating a new problem here and it will be an even bigger one than what is trying to be dealt with now, the lack or virtual non existance of suitable captians and training captains. where to go now.

lets see how politics solves that one bud.........................:ugh:

Amen buttline, nicely said.........that experience is vital. feeling your life is at risk in a particular ugly situation can be a huge learning process.

not saying people must go and threaten their lives, but i think you all get the picture. a sim ain't going to hurt you that bad!!!!

I really do not want to waste a year of my life to do the quite frankly pointless ATPL.

The stuff you are required to learn is superfluous to day to day big bus driving.

An entire shake up of the whole process should be called for.
In the anologue days when you had to be a real pilot lots of it was relevant, and pilot knowledge was genuinely needed and used as a highlighted safety issue to calm passengers.
Now pretty much everyone knows how computer reliant modern airliners are, to the point where an imput by an up to date sytems operator cant even exceed a certain angle of bank without the computer relinquishing control.

Handflying in some airlines is now actively discouraged so where is the real skill?

Management that is all it is.

I realise that some of the responses here are from people who have fully been through the mill as far as training goes and would hate to see someone next to them who has done half if not a quarter of the training that they have done. The truth is how many of you really remember everything you learnt? I for one would want to kill if i wasted said year and a: got hit by a bus and b: the syllabus changed.

Go for it SAA start the wave..

It has always amazed me the lengths people will go to, to fly for an airline. Just the other day i drove past a ryr hostie waiting for a bus. I thought " My god you have paid for your training and uniform. Pilots starting at 5 in the morning and late finishes with no perks. There is just no appeal and most of them just seem to take it. It will go one of two ways. Pay cuts or reduced requirements for experience.

We all hold the keys to the future of aviation.

Something will give soon

rgds
f

A US airline with highly-experienced pilots almost hit a small mountain on departure from SFO years ago. This was in a 747-400. Even the senior FO who held the right seat faced engine instruments which vibrated due to an engine problem and maybe even the black "ball" was difficult to read. The yoke was turned, but nobody pushed on a rudder until it was almost too late.
After IOE flying, where the FO or Captain flies almost each leg, how many SIDs and instrument approaches will the new FO fly each month or year?

United experienced unique problems years ago due to a "culturally-correct" hiring policy. That very young Flight Engineer is now your new B-737 FO, and STILL has a total of about 250 hours, much of it in single-engine Cessna 172s. No sweat man, most of it is cross-country! Sure, the autothrottles and anti-skid are on MEL. But this is still November...we can hack it.

Sure, the legal and/or corporate quotas were filled (during the Hillary Dynasty:rolleyes: ), and a court-mandated policy was complied with, but after that things were not always so rosy. How about into a hazardous mountain airport when an electrical problem happens (bus tie etc), or an oil pressure annunc. light goes on? "Did he say that the braking action was reported by a turboprop?" (!)
Some jet pilots might see no problem with this, but they can certainly 'type' much faster on the FMC buttons than the old f@&t in the left seat and be able to quickly reset the MCP.
Many FOs with over 20 years of flying in transport-category aircraft (it was the case that on short trans-Pacific trips the two Captains flew most approaches...), in order to maintain currency, must return to the simulator each six months.

How would these younger pilots make the transition to, for example, A-320 or B-737 Captain and fly four-five legs near mountains and around weather in a 12-hour duty period? "Let's see, 20 minutes of contingency fuel with t'storms forecast here and near the destination...well...but Dispatch says that we need to leave on schedule. I guess we don't need a dep. or dest. alternate airport...that would cause a delay! The agent needs to close the cabin door? Eh.. ok. Preflight checklist please!" You are gone flying another trip, but your wife and son are sipping their Mountain Dew soft drinks in back, behind these very low-experience guys {and how little experience might HIS brand-new First Officer have?}. Your wife and son are in a plane which is now number 1 for departure, enjoying the view of pretty lightning bolts from very big clouds near the airport, as the tree limbs swing back and forth. FO-"the winds are still within our 38 knot crosswind limit":oh:

I fly occasionally with an F/O who was moved onto jet airliners after about 2000 hrs of light aircraft flying, and instruction. His hands-on flying skills are not too bad, I'd even go so far as to say, better than some of the sharper F/O's we have. Initially he was pretty rough and almost did not pass the rating. After 500 hours now on the jet he can fly it pretty well, but his knowledge of the systems is poor and his situational awareness is still almost non-existent. Yesterday I asked him, on a route he has flown perhaps 50,60 times, what airway we were on. He didn't know. What class airspace are we in? Didn't know, just laughed. Are we left or right of track? Gave wrong answer. And he is impatient to get into bigger aircraft. I stopped there, pretty miffed that such an individual be given such a great opportunity to sit in that seat, but applies himself so little, when there are hundreds of other guys who would kill to be where he is.

Yesterday we had some drama and he lost the plot immediately, I was doing the cockpit drills, trying to keep the situation under control and talking on the radio whilst making urgent hand signals to him to turn left, he could not do that as he was fixated on the instruments, frozen, flying straight and level.

Earlier on in the flight we had been cleared through someone elses level and when they approached us head on it was apparent there was going to be an RA if not a collision. He a) did not notice the other a/c on the TCAS and b) after I had pointed it out he just sat there and watched until I suggested he level off early until we had passed the other traffic.

What I gather from this guy is firstly that if you employ pilots who have had to work hard to get where they are, ie. they pay their own way perhaps, plus they go through the mill of pre-airline work, instead of just being paid to train in a cosy sim which can be switched off when they are tired, they will quite possibly be a lot more keen and apply themselves a lot more, which leads to a far more switched-on and dedicated, eager-to-learn pilot. You don't want a guy who loses interest when things get a bit tough, or does not know the basics.

Secondly, and I think this is a most important point, this guy proves that batting around in the circuit, even for 2000hrs, or in a sim for however long does not give you anywhere near the level of situational awareness you need for flying airline operations. By situational awareness I do not just mean the aircraft in the sky around you but also where you are in the process of the flight, ie. wheres your PET, is it time to prepare for the approach, hows the fuel imbalance, should we try and get some updated weather for our alternate, etc etc.

This MPL plan will produce pilots who can operate the machine, after a long time, but it will not make up for experience gained in other areas. I will not even go to the toilet with this guy as F/O.

Which is a shame. He's a nice guy.

Agreed - I hunker for the days when you started on a Tiger Moth and ended on a 747. And you WORKED your way up. Through thunderstorms and dirt strips and REAL experience that scared the SH&* out of you at times as opposed to a simulator that couldnt scare a baby.

Alas those day are gone and the conspiracy of clarks ( management ) who are only onterested in the victory of the robotic cloned buttonpushers over pilots with a personality and some independant thinking is complete!!

I am goin to quit soon and buy a fishing boat like Ernest Gann did - now thats work for an independently minded .....:mad:

Comment from Air Florida Potomac River accident report
The investigators concluded that the limited experience was a contributing factor to the accident. Because of the rapid expansion of Air Florida between 1977 and 1981, the captain had missed the extended "seasoning" experience normally accumulated by airline first officers before they gain their first command.
NB The captains jet experience consisted of about 1200 hours as first officer on Air Florida DC9/737 and 1100 hours command on 737. Previous experience was light singles, twins and turbo prop, much of it in the more benign weather of the southern US. The report noted an informal survey showed pilots serve an average of 14 years as second/first officers prior to a command.

To pinch a quote from D E Charlwood "Takeoff to Touchdown"

They require the foresight and sagacity that can only come after a man has been in many a tight corner.

Aviation is a field that has progressed in a just generations from a few hundred yards to the stars. It is rapidly evolving and those of us involved would probably be the first to admit that so many advances are occuring that it is unlikely that any one solution is neccesarily the 'best' one. This approach is simply one of a number being taken to provide the pilots of the future.

Having read the thread it is obvious that there are very mixed feeling concerning the experiences required to make an ideal pilot for both today's and tommorrows airline pilots.

Personal feeling on the subject were that 'hands on' real life time certainly provided an invaluable core that was supplemented with invaluable sim time . Neither was the ultimate solution but together they provided a potent combination.

It would seem here that in this particular case the lack of ethnic locals was at least one of the driving forces in this particular scheme

"The cost-cutting initiative is part of efforts by the national carrier to introduce more black people into its pilot ranks"..." Jordaan said in an interview this week that the initiative would fast-track the number of black pilots employed by the national carrier. At present, the airline employs just 66 black men and women pilots out of a total of 796.
SAA's target, introduced in 1996, was to have 300 black pilots by last year."

The lack of a particular ethnicity in the cockpit should, to my mind, play no part at all in devising methods for the training of cockpit crew.

I hate to have to say this but any MPL holder on my flight deck will not be landing the aircraft. The greatest skill any pilot can possess is that "hair standing up on the back of the neck" feeling, otherwise known as "mortality". That skill is only developed by experience and self reliance during the early years of flying.

SAA Pilots Association press Statement on this issue

"The SAA Pilots’ Association wishes to express its concern regarding the article relating to pilot training which was published in the Saturday Star and Cape Argus on 16 September 2006 under the heading “SAA’s controversial plan to get co-pilots flying”. The article in question creates the false impression that SAA is about to adopt new training methods as a cost cutting measure. This, as well as some other statements made in the article, is factually incorrect.
The article in question refers to the introduction of a new pilot licence called a Multi-Crew Pilot Licence (MPL). It would appear that there is an international trend towards developing qualifications for multi-crew licences. As yet, there is no provision in South African legislation for multi-crew licences although such legislation may be considered in line with international standards. SAA and SAAPA have not yet begun to discuss the introduction of multi-crew licences.
SAAPA is justifiably proud of the safety record achieved by SAA pilots, who are internationally renowned for their high standards and we will continue to ensure that these high standards are maintained.
The Cadet pilot programme which SAA has been operating for many years has been very successful, although very costly to SAA. If a means can be found to produce the same high calibre pilot at a lower cost, then this must be investigated. However, it is unthinkable that SAAPA would support a process that would reduce safety standards. Any changes made to pilot licensing must preserve or improve upon existing flight safety levels and pilot organisations throughout the world will be monitoring the process carefully to ensure that there is no degradation in safety standards. – Captain Jimmy Conroy, SAAPA Chairman”

The use of a light jet, as has been done by at least one major carrier, or shortly to come VLJs, may well be one way to expose lowtime airline newcomers to realtime flying on the routes relatively inexpensively?

Brat,

Agreed. I think Singapore Airlines used (use?) Lears at one point just as you describe. The fact remains though that airlines are trying to force the issue of the MPL to reduce their costs.

Ultimately, I concede that the best training for airline route flying is simulator time followed by suitable line training on type, as those of us who have been through the system will testify. The problem as I see it is at the ab-initio stage. If you were to put student pilots onto a Lear or a VLJ for enhanced route training, rather than the "traditional" conventional courses that we have now, that could perhaps be an acceptable compromise. However, 150 hours on PA28s and Senecas would always be significantly cheaper than the equivalent jet time on airways. Remember that a great deal of the emphasis of the current courses is to train students to track inbound and outbound on radials of one form or another, working out the drift, etc. Sure, anyone can follow the pink string but you have to be able to do it when it all goes horribly wrong. In pure cost terms (and remember that cost is the only factor which airlines understand), this can be accomplished much more effectively on light piston types. Hence, why not do the major part on simulators to reduce costs further. Hence the MPL.

It's not just South African Airways who are interested in this!!!

Ask yourself this question:

How confident would you be as a passenger knowing that the co-pilot had only 60 hours experience flying real aeroplanes?

Also:

This particular co-pilot has spent less than that in the right-hand seat before attaining commander status. There are many in my company who spend more than that (often through choice).

What this means is that a MPL co-pilot will spend exactly the same amount of time in the right-hand seat as a properly trained pilot!:eek: :eek: :eek:

Sorry, still no landings.

While I am critical of the MPL myself we should not forget that many graduates of the current system do most of the actual flying as part of a two-pilot crew in one of the sunnier regions of the US of A (such as AZ or FL) and it would not be astonishing to hear that some get an IR without ever having been inside an actual cloud.

So far this has not resulted in poor quality and most of the new pilots my airline has hired over the last couple of years had minimum hours yet were very professional.

Doing all these hours in the sim with constant malfunctions probably puts more "content" into training, although I have a gut feeling that it does not weed out those who don't have the guts to fly (please forgive the crude wording, this is not my mother tongue).

Being honest, anyone crashing the sim should probably be dismissed to maintain some realism......

My point exactly.


....and your English is significantly better than my German;)

There have always been strange differentials in the aviation world. I took about six working days to take my CPL writtens, if the morse, light-houses and radio are counted. My ALTP as it was then, was taken after about five years of F/Oing. Another few days of high pressure exams.

Years later, when I needed an American licence to fly a 72' , the exam was held by a private company and I was given six hours to complete the detail. After one hour I started to re-read my paper to check it through. I spent twenty minutes saying why a performance question was incorrect and put the paper on the guy's desk. I got one question wrong. This was in the mid eighties, and I felt that it was totally at loggerheads to our system in the UK, yet conversely, and despite feeling a little miffed, I felt the flying was always on a par safety-wise.

Here was a situation that showed a vast difference in standards, but the real nitty gritty was much the same. The long apprenticeship mentioned above did a lot of filtering, and at the top of a long list of requirements, you had to be able to take command if the captain dies. End of storey.

If no such qualified P2 is on that aircraft, then it should not be allowed into the airspace of countries that set tried and tested standards.

I know that at 500 hours I was just getting some of my first frights that was termed ‘character building stuff.' That was usually said in jest, just after being hit by lightning, but you know what I mean. The person in that RHS must, as I mentioned earlier in this thread, be able to cope with a dead captain, a sick aircraft and a dark and stormy night. Not probably, but for certain.

Perhaps I'm a little jealous of some of the youngsters of today. No perhaps, I am. 8,000 hours for a command on a BAC1-11 and 4,600 for the right hand seat in the sixties. It has to be said that these figures soon changed as the needs arose, but by then the pilot was a known quantity, and this is the main point. The low-houred guys will be utterly unproven. The SIM? Irrelevant, they will be unproven. The concept is frightening.

Here in the United States there is a large pool of pilots. Once past the "no one but those like me" phase (age 30 or so) I came to advocate that a mix of backgrounds in hiring is best. Everyone brings something to the party.

Never had I considered that someone might bring nothing.

So when it all goes 'tits up' and the dreaded scenario develops for real is our brave new world MPL going to spend his time searching for the aircraft crash override?????

Hopefully he can tell me where it is, you never know, could be quite useful!

Seriously, I spent 20 years flying before going across to the airline world. After my previous life I find airline flying fun, calm and relaxing but only because I put the hard work in previously and also, own up time, had my fair share of close calls.

The problem here is the diversity of opinions on this board, there will always be those in the right position lamenting the changes and those that want to be in that position applauding them.

Personally I think SAA's idea is a disaster, but thats what happens when we let the accountants run airlines.

w2p

:}

Which all goes to show no doubt, that the old saying 'no substitute for experience' is past it's sell by date??

Shame On You Saa!!!!
 

what do u mean u dont need to look at a topographical map etc etc???
Ive seen this sort of thing time and time again e.g an f/o learning on the job.. cant even work a GPS but told to fly from A-B on the hdg bug as thats about all he/she is good for???
what sort of training is that?
Experience cannot be bought or saved!. Good sim training should be a part of any airline of this size.. by making such a mock up training programme you will only shoot yourself in the foot when the SH(&* HITS the Fan !!.
I have flowen with 'comprehensivly experienced captains and ' captains who meet certain regs.. I know who id rather be with during a sH^&^%UATION as ive been with both!.
( mental note to self.. dont fly SAA and dont advise people to fly with them if this is how they view 'quality' training.
You can still train the 'locals' using a standard syabus.. dont cut un-nessesary corners!.

MPL "Hours"
 

Anyone trying to defend this silly system, obviously has an eye on a change of carreer to either beancounter or common politition or both.
Open the "BACK" of your log book. Count the hours listed there. Now, think back. 180+ of "Those Hours" in a row????????
You'll have a GIBBERING WRECK left over!!!
Or, are you maybe not, going to be doing that kind of work?
Incapacitated captain, new MPL. Bad weather, one or other malfunction. (dominoes) My children or grand children on board as UM's? No. I think not.
Oh yes, I forgot, that kind of scenario can't happen. Silly me!
But wait! It gets better. I'll place my bets. The powers that be will promise you that the MPL is only flying on the long haul as P3. So there will always be 2 qualified pilots on board.
Mmmmmm. Long haul. 320's maybe now coming. 800's here now.
"NO, we'll not be letting these MPL's fly RHS on domestic. Promise."
Believe it! Pure politics. NOTHING else!! Of the worst most disgusting type too!

Hello all.

It seems SAA is following the way of Australian CAA (CASA).:D

Please check this link on their site about a similar regulation soon to be effective Down Under.

Also there is a discussion on Australian portion of Pprune on this topic


Cheers,

MPL might be a good thing!
 

So it's one year from zero to long range hero? Great! When this MPL starts rolling, all I have to do is to walk into airline office, say "I wannnabe plane driver!" and since all are striving to be PC nowadays, threat with ageism lawsuit will help me in getting accepted for the course. Once I'm in, I'll burn my licence, logbook and all the evidences that connect me with flying. Since I already hold fATPL, groundschool should be a breeeeeezeeeee and sim - I have 100 hrs of level D and 2.5 khrs on real thing (t-prop, though), so no problems expected here either. And in a year time - long range, here I come.

As it is now, there's a faint chance that I might move from ATR to some MRJT early next year and most optimistic prediction of moving to widebody is about 5 years, therefore I can't wait for this wonderful MPL thingy to begin.

Sooooooo What........
 

What do you think Emirates does..........
Off to Australia for a CPL starting with ZERO hours. Back to Dubai into the sim. for the full Induction Course then into the right hand seat for the line training min 80 sectors.