MPL

[Denti]

Can't say how the hours are splitted between the F33 and the CJ1, however in total its around 100 hours in real airplanes and another 220 in simulators and FNPTs.

As for the Bonanza as an initial training aircraft, well, LH uses it in that role for several years now so they have some experience to say the least. There was an intermezzo a couple years back when they used Archers for the first 65 hours but they got rid of them pretty fast (unfortunately i did my training during that period, oh, and Senecas too, what a bad training aircraft).

I'm still skeptical myself about the MPL, especially if it is not backed by a school with considerable knowledge in abinitio training in the first place. However abinitio training and then right onto a 737 or a320 is the norm for many airlines in europe, either by hiring 200 hour experts from the free schools or by having their own sponsored training facilities. And i cannot really see a trend towards considerably higher incident figures in europe at the moment, it will be interesting though to see how it works out with the sponsored training schemes switching to MPL.

[OzExpat]

I suppose there's a chance that this scheme will work, if airlines fly new-ish aircraft and maintain them to high standards...

[DaMajor]

To be fair, almost all airlines who 'train' their own pilots are putting them in the RHS with a whopping 200+ hours.

Now, while we can argue if they have enough experience, airlines feel that they will learn as they work and this has been the practice all this while.

I believe what the MPL is trying to address is the lack of understanding of the modern cockpit when new SO are thrown onto the seat. Take away some stick and rudder time and properly train them on cockpit management and on how to work in multi-crew environment.

The jury is still out of course, but my understanding is MPL holders actually fly to at least PPL level (including solo and navs) before being transfered to simulators.

To me, from that point on, since they are going to be working in a 'modern' cockpit, they are on OJT, and this experience will aid them more than spending months/years flying a smallish SE aeroplane, either alone or with students with even less experience...

My reservation about MPL comes when the holders are slated for command, but that is an issue more for the airlines (since MPL holders have the ATPL theory sorted...and surely the hours by that time), and besides, that won't happen for many years yet.

It's a bit unfair to ask if a MPL holder can handle emergencies as well as a CPL/IR pilot...assuming both are fairly new to the cockpit, my vote would actually go to the MPL holder seeing he/she has spend a lot more time during training in a multi-crew, 'modern' cockpit environment.

It's a no brainer; if you ask me if I want to be operated on, in a modern hospital, using the latest equipment, by a surgeon ASSISTED by
1) a newly qualified doctor- trained specifically in those sophisticated equipment, even though I am only his first real live patient, OR
2) an experienced GP, great with his stethoscope and years of dealing with fever, sore throat and minor ailment, who have only recently been introduced to said advance equipment....
I'd choose the first doctor every day of the week and twice on sunday.

Sure, there are pitfalls in any training scheme and I am not 100% onboard with MPL yet. But from what I've read, it's actually a good thing when compared to how many airlines (who train their own pilots) have been training their pilots.

Money comes into it of course, but if you seriously think that the same hours on a type 4 level D simulator saves the company money when compared to C172 or even a Kingair...you may want to do a search on how much simulators are going for these days...

Anyhoo, I understand many of us ('young' timers who have put in our fair share on pulley controls ) won't be happy about some young upstart getting in on the easy...but don't diss MPL by being blind to what the industry is churning out when left to the airlines at present...

My personal feeling is the aviation authorities are finally coming out with this 'formal' licence to stop airlines from puttin whoever they want on the seat...

[Intruder]

The jury is still out of course, but my understanding is MPL holders actually fly to at least PPL level (including solo and navs) before being transfered to simulators.

To me, from that point on, since they are going to be working in a 'modern' cockpit, they are on OJT, and this experience will aid them more than spending months/years flying a smallish SE aeroplane, either alone or with students with even less experience...

My reservation about MPL comes when the holders are slated for command, but that is an issue more for the airlines (since MPL holders have the ATPL theory sorted...and surely the hours by that time), and besides, that won't happen for many years yet.

First, I don't believe there is a consistent definition of MPL training worldwide yet. What has been described by European advocates here does not resemble the Alteon proposal for China that was released some time last year, and upon which I place my strong reservations/objections. That proposal did NOT address the theory courses and exams up to the ATP level AT ALL, and included a lot less airplane time than that described in European proposals.

Second, learning "system management" and raw procedures in a simulator does NOT equate in any way to the "air sense" acquired by actually flying an airplane under your control. It will not add much to decision-making capacity, because it will all be done in preparation for being #2 or #3 in the cockpit for the foreseeable future.

You seem to realize this problem to some extent, going by your statement in the last paragraph I quoted. Your reservations about the MPL progress toward command are significantly understated, though. While the typical ATPL candidate will have well over 1000 command hours in anything from a C150 or Aeronca Champ, to a Caravan or King Air or Citation, the MPL will have MAYBE 10 command hours -- depending on how much solo he is allowed in the pre-simulator phase.

Maybe some people are willing to bet their lives on "management" skills rather than experience and critical thinking ability, but I am not.

[excrab]

Intruder,

It may well be the norm in the US for most ATPL holders to have 1000hrs in command of smaller aircraft, but that certainly isn't the case in the UK.
Large numbers of pilots get into the RHS of a turboprop or jet with 100 hrs of solo time and 170 total - it isn't that which teaches them what they need to upgrade to the LHS, it is the subsequent several 1000 hrs they spend as F/O(hopefully "captain under training") observing an experienced captain making decisions, and making their own decisions as PF.

At the end of that, 10 hrs or 100 hrs of light aircraft flying in VMC is probably irrelevant.

[DaMajor]

First, I don't believe there is a consistent definition of MPL training worldwide yet. What has been described by European advocates here does not resemble the Alteon proposal for China that was released some time last year, and upon which I place my strong reservations/objections.

Fair enough mate. But I made my points from reading ICAO and CASA documents on MPL training. Perhaps we are dabating with differing information. Nevertheless, I assume ICAO's standard are usually the baseline and most authorities and airlines will raise the levels even higher instead of merely complying to the minimums.

Second, learning "system management" and raw procedures in a simulator does NOT equate in any way to the "air sense" acquired by actually flying an airplane under your control.

In the modern flight deck, it's nothing much more than system management mate. I was once on an airline sim ride interview and the other pilot interviewee was an air force pilot instructor with more than 10 thousand hours (not kidding, he had more than 7000 instructional hours) he could do the handling fine but he kept getting distracted by having to set all the systems (which he said later he had never even seen before the ride)...anyhoo, he busted minimas twice and that was the end of his ride.

While the typical ATPL candidate will have well over 1000 command hours in anything from a C150 or Aeronca Champ, to a Caravan or King Air or Citation,

I'm not sure this is the norm mate...in Australia, most APTL "candidates" are people fresh from finishing their CPL and while they are still on study mode (ie, all of 200+ hours). Some do wait till they have been instructing for a while but that is more due to finances than a lack of desire. Let's face it, everyone knows that in this day and age, someone without an ATP is almost completely unemployable... All the airlines who train their own pilots, as far as I know, get all their cadets up to ATPL before they even get onto jet training.

I sat my ATPL written exams many moons ago with a whole bunch of SIA cadets and they revealed after that they haven't even done their IREX yet.

If ever you need a cofidence boost, just hang with these cadets and know that in less then a year from then, they will be in a right seat with less than 350 total hours (including sim time).

At the end of that, 10 hrs or 100 hrs of light aircraft flying in VMC is probably irrelevant.

Well said mate...that hit the nail squarely on the head.

[Intruder]

With 170 hours total, a pilot in the US can't even get a CPL and Instrument rating -- that alone takes 100 hours PIC (including 50 hours X-country) and 250 hours total!

Even commuter airlines in the US have, until recently, required 1000+ hours total, and many of them required ATPs even for FOs! Those requirements have recently taken a nosedive, though, with a couple airlines reducing the requirement to 500 hours with some waivers to 350.

Traditionally, those pilots have earned their time as flight instructors or in any of a multitude of small commercial operations such as flying bank cheques overnight. Luckier ones may have earlier found a corporate jet or turboprop job, starting in the right seat and eventually advancing to Captain.

[DaMajor]

You're right mate...it's around 250 hours for CPL...but there's no hour requirement for ATPL theory (fATPL).

Even commuter airlines in the US have, until recently, required 1000+ hours total, and many of them required ATPs even for FOs!

For most airlines in the greater 'asia' region, tt needed for FO is around 500 but all require an ATPL (or fATPL...which can be obtained with less than 300 hours) .

So you see mate, MPL makes sense in many cases seeing how standard is dropping across the board anyway, and it's the authorities way to clamp down by making sure it doesn't slip any further?!?!

[Intruder]

So far I have to disagree. I believe the MPL bar is set WAY too low. The other problem is the upgrade issue that is merely delayed 3-5 years into the future. That will be a real mess, too.

Right now the US carriers cannot drop the standard below the CPL/IR. The MPL is WAY below that standard!

There is no "fATPL" in the US. You either have an ATP or not. The written test is good for 2 years after taking it. If you don't get the cert within that time, you retake the test.

It appears they ("in the greater 'asia' region") are trying to replace experience with bookwork. I still don't buy it. I like it even less knowing some of the cultural roadblocks to OJT (I lived in Japan a couple years, and have traveled quite a bit in Asia).

[DaMajor]

Ahh...I see where you're coming from now mate...

As far as I know, most 'fresh' FO in airlines around here take up to 10 years (certainly no less than 7) to even be considered for command.

I also have some concerns about stories from a few European airlines and certainly hope with the introduction of MPL, the transition to the left seat will be based more on actual ability and not just seniority.

Anyways, it's not set in stone yet...those ATO who are producing MPL holders (beta..) will have to tweak and change according to feedback from operators.

I don't really see it as doom and gloom but a fresh approach. Might work, might not work...

In any case, airlines need to fill those seats and there simply aren't enough 'experienced' pilots to go around. Authorities will have to either lower entry standard significantly or hand out all sorts of waivers, and to me, that is even more dangerous.

[excrab]

Just to clarify things for those not in Europe.

The minimum hours from ab initio to "frozen ATPL" under JAR/FCL is 195 hrs, but 40 hrs of that may be in a simulator. Thus it is possible to complete the course in the minimum time, complete a type rating course in a level D sim which only requires 6 landings in the real aircraft for the type rating to be issued, and commence line training in an aircraft full of passengers with 156 hrs of actual flight time.

When comparing that to the MPL I would still contend that the MPL might be preferable provided it was conducted on the same type as the initial type rating. Having carried out line training with pilots having 160 hrs or so I feel that if the majority of that had been on the sim for the aircraft we were flying, rather than on a PA28, my job as a line trainer might have been a lot easier.

[DaMajor]

Exactly right mate...

My understanding after talking with a few mates in Alteon (although they are not directly involved with MPL...) is that most of the students actually get their type rating during the course...which means they must be doing a fair amount of work 'on type'....

That makes a lot of sense to me...so will have to wait and see the end product before passing my judgement on the course...

Certainly, there's a chance this can be exploited...but hey...so can much of our present system...