MPL
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 260
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 'proof of the pudding' regarding the MPL will be the quality of the course, not just the quantity. Ab Initios have been placed on swept-wing jets for over 40 years now (and some directly on to B777's and B747-400's) and if the MPL is a genuine attempt to tailor the licence to todays' requirements, then we will soon see if the quality of training is good enough. If it isn't, the accident/incident stats will reflect this very quickly.
It will largely depend how the different MPL programs work out. Some will only do around 60 hours in single engine planes, most of the rest in old FANT II training devices and the minimum time in a real flight simulator.
Others will do considerably more time in real aircraft including some time on multiengine aircraft including small jets.
Still, all MPL programs will do at most around 100 hours of real flying which is less than half what we get in current programs.
Others will do considerably more time in real aircraft including some time on multiengine aircraft including small jets.
Still, all MPL programs will do at most around 100 hours of real flying which is less than half what we get in current programs.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Southeast USA
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Denti
It will largely depend how the different MPL programs work out. Some will only do around 60 hours in single engine planes, most of the rest in old FANT II training devices and the minimum time in a real flight simulator.
Others will do considerably more time in real aircraft including some time on multiengine aircraft including small jets.
Still, all MPL programs will do at most around 100 hours of real flying which is less than half what we get in current programs.
Others will do considerably more time in real aircraft including some time on multiengine aircraft including small jets.
Still, all MPL programs will do at most around 100 hours of real flying which is less than half what we get in current programs.
And, as I've been saying, the "BETA testing" for the overall concept will begin in Australia starting next year. I, for one, am willing to wait on the results of the tests to determine if MPL has a realistic shot at providing the expected (and demanded) quality.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"BETA testing" for the overall concept will begin in Australia starting next year.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: @ some hotel far away from everything
Posts: 734
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A whopping 100 hours of real flying
WOW now I`m impressed! 
And by real flying of course you mean IFR to minimums, diversions, icing conditions, nightflying, non-preciscion approaches and so on. All at the same time of course
PLEASE! 
What is happeing to what most of us know as airmanship, or even stick and rudder skills? Don`t get me wrong here. Automation is great. It relieves pilots of a lot of pressure and gives us a larger view of things. But what kind of redundancy does a crew have when half of it is lacking basic stick and rudder skills? Doing +300kts and suddenly having to handfly the plane, IMC at night in less than simulator conditions? An MPL course may be great to fill a short-term need, but unfortunately as with very many things in aviation, it takes an accident or loss of life for the powers that be to see that they fouled up once again. I really feel sorry for the training captains who will end their careers trying to train these pilots about basic flying
. Hope you guys get good bonuses `cause you surely will deserve them.
WOW now I`m impressed! And by real flying of course you mean IFR to minimums, diversions, icing conditions, nightflying, non-preciscion approaches and so on. All at the same time of course PLEASE! What is happeing to what most of us know as airmanship, or even stick and rudder skills? Don`t get me wrong here. Automation is great. It relieves pilots of a lot of pressure and gives us a larger view of things. But what kind of redundancy does a crew have when half of it is lacking basic stick and rudder skills? Doing +300kts and suddenly having to handfly the plane, IMC at night in less than simulator conditions? An MPL course may be great to fill a short-term need, but unfortunately as with very many things in aviation, it takes an accident or loss of life for the powers that be to see that they fouled up once again. I really feel sorry for the training captains who will end their careers trying to train these pilots about basic flying. Hope you guys get good bonuses `cause you surely will deserve them.
Guttn
With all due respect to them, how much experience of "IFR to minimums, diversions, icing conditions, night flying, non-precision approaches and so on" do you think graduates of courses in Spain or Florida have at the moment when they get into the RHS of a regional tp or jet, or an airbus or a 737, with 170 hrs total plus the sim course and 6 circuits in the real aircraft.
Possibly a pilot with 150 hrs on an airbus simulator and 50 on ligt aircraft just might be better able to cope with flying the airbus at 300+ kts in IMC without the automatics than one with 170 hrs on light aircraft and 40 hrs in the sim. At the completion of a type rating course at the moment the amount of raw data flying (certainly on the last one I did which is the sixth multi crew type on my licence) was minimal, being mainly to prepare us for the RD ILS, with some steep turns and stall recovery, and some flight on standby instruments for myself, the F/O didn't even get the flight on standby instruments bit. In all probably less than one hour out of the 20 hrs of PF on the course.
A properly conducted MPL course on a level D sim might actually be a better introduction to multi-crew airline flying. I've trained and tested 170 hr pilots both in the simulator and on real multi-crew aircraft and they are very good, far better than I was at that level of experience - but I would expect a graduate of an MPL course to be just as good at handling a large aircraft at the end of the course. Stick and rudder skills in a cessna, piper or whatever are largely irrelevent, and I have seen plenty of ex instructors with hundreds of hours of light aircraft flying who can fly a large aircraft OK but are still lacking in situational awareness.
And in case you're wondering I am a product of the old UK self improver route and had many thousands of hours of instructing and single crew operations before I first flew a multi-crew aircraft, and I found the simulator course for that extremely hard work. I would like to be able to agree that my background is better, but in reality having now far more multi than single crew hours I don't think it is.
With all due respect to them, how much experience of "IFR to minimums, diversions, icing conditions, night flying, non-precision approaches and so on" do you think graduates of courses in Spain or Florida have at the moment when they get into the RHS of a regional tp or jet, or an airbus or a 737, with 170 hrs total plus the sim course and 6 circuits in the real aircraft.
Possibly a pilot with 150 hrs on an airbus simulator and 50 on ligt aircraft just might be better able to cope with flying the airbus at 300+ kts in IMC without the automatics than one with 170 hrs on light aircraft and 40 hrs in the sim. At the completion of a type rating course at the moment the amount of raw data flying (certainly on the last one I did which is the sixth multi crew type on my licence) was minimal, being mainly to prepare us for the RD ILS, with some steep turns and stall recovery, and some flight on standby instruments for myself, the F/O didn't even get the flight on standby instruments bit. In all probably less than one hour out of the 20 hrs of PF on the course.
A properly conducted MPL course on a level D sim might actually be a better introduction to multi-crew airline flying. I've trained and tested 170 hr pilots both in the simulator and on real multi-crew aircraft and they are very good, far better than I was at that level of experience - but I would expect a graduate of an MPL course to be just as good at handling a large aircraft at the end of the course. Stick and rudder skills in a cessna, piper or whatever are largely irrelevent, and I have seen plenty of ex instructors with hundreds of hours of light aircraft flying who can fly a large aircraft OK but are still lacking in situational awareness.
And in case you're wondering I am a product of the old UK self improver route and had many thousands of hours of instructing and single crew operations before I first flew a multi-crew aircraft, and I found the simulator course for that extremely hard work. I would like to be able to agree that my background is better, but in reality having now far more multi than single crew hours I don't think it is.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: @ some hotel far away from everything
Posts: 734
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Excrab, 2 things make a great differnce here...
1. the MPLs never fly solo
2. the MPLs never act solely as PIC
How the heck can one know that such a protected pilot some years on can expect to perform as PIC?
Personally I am 100% against this hype of no-timers gettings in the RHS of large aircraft (+5700kgs mtow). In a perfect world one would have to maybe do around 500-1000hrs as instructor, maybe another 1000hrs or so as linepilot for small operators on small twins or turboprops, and then could move on to regionals or medium-/longhaul. Unfortunately we don`t live in a perfect world. Money is the key to everything. Real world experience is losing its value it seems. At least with the beancounters.
You also have some valid points, but I will still argue that experience outweighs any simulator or procedure trainer. Just maybe not as much as it used to do. I will also argue that basic flying skills and deciscion making based on experience should not be taken lightly. Automation and switchboard operations is great for all that it does to help us, but if the ice is thin - walk carefully
1. the MPLs never fly solo
2. the MPLs never act solely as PIC
How the heck can one know that such a protected pilot some years on can expect to perform as PIC?
Personally I am 100% against this hype of no-timers gettings in the RHS of large aircraft (+5700kgs mtow). In a perfect world one would have to maybe do around 500-1000hrs as instructor, maybe another 1000hrs or so as linepilot for small operators on small twins or turboprops, and then could move on to regionals or medium-/longhaul. Unfortunately we don`t live in a perfect world
. Money is the key to everything. Real world experience is losing its value it seems. At least with the beancounters. You also have some valid points, but I will still argue that experience outweighs any simulator or procedure trainer. Just maybe not as much as it used to do. I will also argue that basic flying skills and deciscion making based on experience should not be taken lightly. Automation and switchboard operations is great for all that it does to help us, but if the ice is thin - walk carefully
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
graduates of courses in Spain or Florida have at the moment when they get into the RHS of a regional tp or jet, or an airbus or a 737, with 170 hrs total plus the sim course and 6 circuits in the real aircraft.
AFAIK, NO US airline -- including regionals -- hires such pilots!
Intruder,
The short answer is: Most European/Asian airlines, and they have been doing it since the mod-60's.
Indeed, with the pilot shortages of the mid-60's, major US carriers were hiring very low time pilot, who had not even had the advantage if the structured "cadet" training courses such as the BOAC/BEA (as they were then) college at Hamble, or the Lufthansa equivalent.
US Regionals are hiring low time pilots now.
When the demand is great enough, airlines will hire anybody who is warm and walking with a valid license, there is no such thing as an immutable minimum standard.
Tootle pip!!
The short answer is: Most European/Asian airlines, and they have been doing it since the mod-60's.
Indeed, with the pilot shortages of the mid-60's, major US carriers were hiring very low time pilot, who had not even had the advantage if the structured "cadet" training courses such as the BOAC/BEA (as they were then) college at Hamble, or the Lufthansa equivalent.
US Regionals are hiring low time pilots now.
When the demand is great enough, airlines will hire anybody who is warm and walking with a valid license, there is no such thing as an immutable minimum standard.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed, US regionals are recruiting "low time" pilots -- those with 250 hours and a real CPL/IR! That's a LOT more than one of these proposed MPL licenses!
The FAA has not yet approved any type of MPL scheme, so I doubt any airlines using them will be able to fly into the US any time soon... That shouldn't be a problem in the short term for airlines who use them on local 737/A320 routes, but what happens when they try to put them in the longer-haul airplanes?
Since this MPL thing has just come up, how can it be that "Most European/Asian airlines, and they have been doing it since the mod-60's."?!? Again, there is a distinct difference between a CPL/IR pilot with "minimum time" and these new MPL proposals...
The FAA has not yet approved any type of MPL scheme, so I doubt any airlines using them will be able to fly into the US any time soon... That shouldn't be a problem in the short term for airlines who use them on local 737/A320 routes, but what happens when they try to put them in the longer-haul airplanes?
Since this MPL thing has just come up, how can it be that "Most European/Asian airlines, and they have been doing it since the mod-60's."?!? Again, there is a distinct difference between a CPL/IR pilot with "minimum time" and these new MPL proposals...
Intruder,
With "most European/asian airlines and have been since the 1960s" Leadsled referred to the 170hrs plus sim that I quoted, I think, not the MPL graduates which is obviously new. Certainly every UK low cost and regional airline and some of the charter operators have such pilots in a/c up to 737/A321 size and possibly bigger. Not all the f/os but some.
There is no real problem with that except that the captain possibly needs to be a little more watchful at times, and we are used to the concept on this side of the Atlantic so it's not such a big deal.
As far as the FAA approval I think that you are deluding yourself. If for example the UK CAA approved such a license and BA were to put an MPL holder into the right hand seat of a 747 or 777 (I know seniority would prevent it in reality) then there would be no reason that they shouldn't operate into US airspace in a UK registered aircraft. The FAA haven't approved the current UK or JAR integrated license courses either but it doesn't have to for someone to hold a non FAA license.
With "most European/asian airlines and have been since the 1960s" Leadsled referred to the 170hrs plus sim that I quoted, I think, not the MPL graduates which is obviously new. Certainly every UK low cost and regional airline and some of the charter operators have such pilots in a/c up to 737/A321 size and possibly bigger. Not all the f/os but some.
There is no real problem with that except that the captain possibly needs to be a little more watchful at times, and we are used to the concept on this side of the Atlantic so it's not such a big deal.
As far as the FAA approval I think that you are deluding yourself. If for example the UK CAA approved such a license and BA were to put an MPL holder into the right hand seat of a 747 or 777 (I know seniority would prevent it in reality) then there would be no reason that they shouldn't operate into US airspace in a UK registered aircraft. The FAA haven't approved the current UK or JAR integrated license courses either but it doesn't have to for someone to hold a non FAA license.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FAR 61.55 would appear to prohibit it:
So, without the equivalent of a Private license and Instrument Rating, an MPL holder would not be eligible.
While FAR 129.15 MAY provide a loophole regarding foreign air carriers, I do not know how it is applied with non-equivalent licenses:
§ 61.55 Second-in-command qualifications.
(a) A person may serve as a second-in-command of an aircraft type certificated for more than one required pilot flight crewmember or in operations requiring a second-in-command pilot flight crewmember only if that person holds:
(1) At least a current private pilot certificate with the appropriate category and class rating; and
(2) An instrument rating or privilege that applies to the aircraft being flown if the flight is under IFR; and
(3) The appropriate pilot type rating for the aircraft unless the flight will be conducted as domestic flight operations within United States airspace.
(a) A person may serve as a second-in-command of an aircraft type certificated for more than one required pilot flight crewmember or in operations requiring a second-in-command pilot flight crewmember only if that person holds:
(1) At least a current private pilot certificate with the appropriate category and class rating; and
(2) An instrument rating or privilege that applies to the aircraft being flown if the flight is under IFR; and
(3) The appropriate pilot type rating for the aircraft unless the flight will be conducted as domestic flight operations within United States airspace.
While FAR 129.15 MAY provide a loophole regarding foreign air carriers, I do not know how it is applied with non-equivalent licenses:
§ 129.15 Flight crewmember certificates.
No person may act as a flight crewmember unless he holds a current certificate or license issued or validated by the country in which that aircraft is registered, showing his ability to perform his duties connected with operating that aircraft.
No person may act as a flight crewmember unless he holds a current certificate or license issued or validated by the country in which that aircraft is registered, showing his ability to perform his duties connected with operating that aircraft.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: flightdeck/earlyhours commute
Posts: 199
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Intruder, I think you have missed the point of the MPL.
It is a commercial licence, in the same way as a JAA CPL.
The main difference is that the training regime begins on the premise that the pilot is NEVER going to be involved in single pilot operations of any type. Therefore, the single pilot aspect is not incorporated, and ALL the training oriented on teaching the student with an aim towards multicrew operations.
After licence issue, the relevant type ratings are of course needed.
So according to the FAR req's that you quote, the minimum licence aspect is met by having a commercial licence. The FAR says At least Private Pilot.
A MPL holder would be type rated and the IR would be relevant to type.
The licencing is JAA, or EU or whatever it is going to become next.
The MPL would not be eligeable for Single pilot operations.
It is a commercial licence, in the same way as a JAA CPL.
The main difference is that the training regime begins on the premise that the pilot is NEVER going to be involved in single pilot operations of any type. Therefore, the single pilot aspect is not incorporated, and ALL the training oriented on teaching the student with an aim towards multicrew operations.
After licence issue, the relevant type ratings are of course needed.
So according to the FAR req's that you quote, the minimum licence aspect is met by having a commercial licence. The FAR says At least Private Pilot.
A MPL holder would be type rated and the IR would be relevant to type.
The licencing is JAA, or EU or whatever it is going to become next.
The MPL would not be eligeable for Single pilot operations.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually, I have not missed the point at all. I know the intention is "NEVER going to be involved in single pilot operations of any type." That premise, however, goes DIRECTLY to a point brought up at the beginning of this thread: The case when the Captain is incapacitated. At that point this under-experienced pilot WILL effectively become a 'single pilot opsration'. Not only that, but it will be his FIRST single-pilot operation, and it will be in an emergency situation for which he has absolutely no experience! Added to that is the total lack of autonomous decision-making pilot experience, which will tend to develop absolutely NO decision-making skills at all!
While the MPL may be a "commercial license" by some definition, but it will not have the credibility of a CPL/IR simply because it is not backed with the much more rigorous requirements of a "true" CPL/IR. AFAIK, all the rigorous written and practical tests required for a JAA CPL/IR will NOT be required for a MPL. Why is it that one F/O (with a CPL/IR) is seen as "needing" all this testing (and, by inference, the training & study behind them), while another F/O (with a MPL) does NOT need all this testing?
The Part 61 quote covers both Part 91 (non-commercial) and Part 121/129/135 (commercial) operations. Because commercial operations require at least a CPL/IR, a Private license is NOT adequate. Also, the requirement for a CPL/IR is based on an environment where the MPL does not exist anywhere in the world, so I would expect clarification of that some time in the near future, when ICAO and/or JAA officially adopt/endorse the concept.
The bottom line of the MPL is simply COST to emerging and start-up "low cost" air carriers. They want to reduce their costs as much as possible, and are pushing the MPL concept as a band-aid fix with NO proposal for fixing the experience problem down the line and with no rigorous study addressing the safety aspects of the lack of experience.
For example, how is an MPL pilot going to obtain the PIC and solo requirements to obtain a CPL/IR and ATPL to become a Captain? Is his airline going to pay for all that, or is his airline going to tell him to get that experience and those ratings on his own, using some undefined portion of his meager salary, in order to keep his job? If the answer is, "He'll just become a career F/O," then the credibility of a future corps of indigenous pilots has just been shot down.
As for the safety aspect, how are the dynamics of on-the-job "training" (after IOE) going to work, when you have a significant majority of Captains who are NOT training qualified, but who are by default expected to give this inexperienced pilot his line "training"? I admit that it will work in some cases with dedicated and understanding Captains, but there is far from any gurarantee that this will happen in even a significant minority of cases.
My bottom line is that I cannot see any justification for the MPL beyond the selfish corporate economic greed.
While the MPL may be a "commercial license" by some definition, but it will not have the credibility of a CPL/IR simply because it is not backed with the much more rigorous requirements of a "true" CPL/IR. AFAIK, all the rigorous written and practical tests required for a JAA CPL/IR will NOT be required for a MPL. Why is it that one F/O (with a CPL/IR) is seen as "needing" all this testing (and, by inference, the training & study behind them), while another F/O (with a MPL) does NOT need all this testing?
The Part 61 quote covers both Part 91 (non-commercial) and Part 121/129/135 (commercial) operations. Because commercial operations require at least a CPL/IR, a Private license is NOT adequate. Also, the requirement for a CPL/IR is based on an environment where the MPL does not exist anywhere in the world, so I would expect clarification of that some time in the near future, when ICAO and/or JAA officially adopt/endorse the concept.
The bottom line of the MPL is simply COST to emerging and start-up "low cost" air carriers. They want to reduce their costs as much as possible, and are pushing the MPL concept as a band-aid fix with NO proposal for fixing the experience problem down the line and with no rigorous study addressing the safety aspects of the lack of experience.
For example, how is an MPL pilot going to obtain the PIC and solo requirements to obtain a CPL/IR and ATPL to become a Captain? Is his airline going to pay for all that, or is his airline going to tell him to get that experience and those ratings on his own, using some undefined portion of his meager salary, in order to keep his job? If the answer is, "He'll just become a career F/O," then the credibility of a future corps of indigenous pilots has just been shot down.
As for the safety aspect, how are the dynamics of on-the-job "training" (after IOE) going to work, when you have a significant majority of Captains who are NOT training qualified, but who are by default expected to give this inexperienced pilot his line "training"? I admit that it will work in some cases with dedicated and understanding Captains, but there is far from any gurarantee that this will happen in even a significant minority of cases.
My bottom line is that I cannot see any justification for the MPL beyond the selfish corporate economic greed.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I could understand your whole 'COST' theory intruder, if we were talking about sponsorship, but 99% of airlines now don't sponsor, so that destroys your argument there. How can it be a cost saving measure when the bill is footed by the pilot??
Also, your point that the difference between current ab-inito experience levels and proposed MPL experience levels to be vast, is laughable.
250 hours barely scratches the surface of any degree of experience, you make it out to be a country mile!!
Also, your point that the difference between current ab-inito experience levels and proposed MPL experience levels to be vast, is laughable.
250 hours barely scratches the surface of any degree of experience, you make it out to be a country mile!!
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: KDEN
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I could understand your whole 'COST' theory intruder, if we were talking about sponsorship, but 99% of airlines now don't sponsor, so that destroys your argument there. How can it be a cost saving measure when the bill is footed by the pilot??
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
250 hours barely scratches the surface of any degree of experience, you make it out to be a country mile!!
Since, as you point out, 250 hours "barely scratches the surface" of experience, WHY would you accept anything significantly LESS?!?
Also, the Alteon proposal I read implied that it would be run for specific airlines, so the airlines WOULD likely be sponsoring it via a training bond. Why would a would-be pilot pay $25,000 or so for all that simulator time when it could ONLY get him a job with a specific airline, and that job was FAR from guaranteed? At least a CPL/IR has other possibilities attached to it...
Actually the MPL pilots still need to sit the whole ATPL exams same as a normal pilot. All they save is actual flying time, not time in the classroom. At least that is how its gonna be handled in germany.
LH is aquiring 4 CJ1 for its own MPL scheme at the moment and the first step of that training is 12 months of pure theoretical training until they pass their atpl exam, after that its 4 months flight training on beech bonanzas in goodyear/az and after that the final phase in germany on those shiny new CJ1 which will supposedly take another 6 months.
LH is aquiring 4 CJ1 for its own MPL scheme at the moment and the first step of that training is 12 months of pure theoretical training until they pass their atpl exam, after that its 4 months flight training on beech bonanzas in goodyear/az and after that the final phase in germany on those shiny new CJ1 which will supposedly take another 6 months.
Join Date: Feb 1998
Location: Formerly of Nam
Posts: 1,595
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I screamed blue murder in another related thread how I
would never accept a snot-nose MPL kid for safety reasons
in the RHS with only 5 or 6 hours command in a bloodey
Cherokee. I stand by that more than ever.
A sim can never simulate the REAL world. Yeh it can
simulate the aircraft well but never the add-ons such as
poor and congested ATC coms, panicky pax, incapacitation
of the capt on a dark and stormy night, reinventing flight
manouvers after severe structural damage etc etc etc. A
Second-in-Command needs SOME cmd experience to fall
back on should it ever befall him to save the day, not only
if the capt karcks it but if the capt is unwittingley pushing
a bad sitch.
Old TAA in Oz required 1500 hours practical command
experience to join it as a FO (I had 1750). Apart from the
obvious, it meant the capts decisions could be understood
AND challenged if in the opinion of the FO it may not be
the correct command decision to make, taking into acount
ALL pertenant factors. This obviously would require some
command experience on the part of the FO if he's to have
an effective input.
Mobs that employed low-time guys as SOs had the right
idea - shove the kid in the jumpseat for a couple of years
as the capts sexual adviser so he can gain the necessary
experience before being given the responsibility of
becoming a real part of the aircraft command structure. It
worked well and to my knowledge no one fussed over it.
Id be all for a MPL if the kids are relegated to the jumpseat
a couple of years so that as a FO hes an asset and not just
a well-informed pax sittin in row 0. Fairer on the kid too.
would never accept a snot-nose MPL kid for safety reasons
in the RHS with only 5 or 6 hours command in a bloodey
Cherokee. I stand by that more than ever.
A sim can never simulate the REAL world. Yeh it can
simulate the aircraft well but never the add-ons such as
poor and congested ATC coms, panicky pax, incapacitation
of the capt on a dark and stormy night, reinventing flight
manouvers after severe structural damage etc etc etc. A
Second-in-Command needs SOME cmd experience to fall
back on should it ever befall him to save the day, not only
if the capt karcks it but if the capt is unwittingley pushing
a bad sitch.
Old TAA in Oz required 1500 hours practical command
experience to join it as a FO (I had 1750). Apart from the
obvious, it meant the capts decisions could be understood
AND challenged if in the opinion of the FO it may not be
the correct command decision to make, taking into acount
ALL pertenant factors. This obviously would require some
command experience on the part of the FO if he's to have
an effective input.
Mobs that employed low-time guys as SOs had the right
idea - shove the kid in the jumpseat for a couple of years
as the capts sexual adviser so he can gain the necessary
experience before being given the responsibility of
becoming a real part of the aircraft command structure. It
worked well and to my knowledge no one fussed over it.
Id be all for a MPL if the kids are relegated to the jumpseat
a couple of years so that as a FO hes an asset and not just
a well-informed pax sittin in row 0. Fairer on the kid too.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LH is aquiring 4 CJ1 for its own MPL scheme at the moment and the first step of that training is 12 months of pure theoretical training until they pass their atpl exam, after that its 4 months flight training on beech bonanzas in goodyear/az and after that the final phase in germany on those shiny new CJ1
How much time in the Bonanza and CJ1 will they be getting? Any solo or cross country or instrument time?
It would be interesting seeing a pilot taking off for the first time in his life in a Bonanza -- heavy, complex -- without having had any training airplanes under his belt to erase most of the mystery. OTOH, the US Navy starts out their pilots with airplanes just as (or moreso) complex as that, and they have a good success rate after about 250 hours total time in SE and ME jets...