MPL

[downwind]

Hello to all, just wanting to know peoples thoughts on these issues with the MPL license

how it came about?

what the processes were?

what it really achieves?

pro's and cons?

Thank You,

DW

[Cardinal]

My thoughts? Revulsion.

What it really achieves? Puts a switch-operator into seat that used to be occupied by someone with experience, perspective, and well-honed skill.
Further it puts the industry on their right side of the supply-demand curve. It migh cost 'em 200,000 quid to put junior through school, but it ensures an endless supply of switch-operators. That allows wages to be kept down en masse, resulting in lower cost. A true pilot shortage, why, that might get expensive!

[OzExpat]

I was watching the National Geographic Channel a few hours ago, when they told the well-known story of Speedbird 009, the BA 747 that lost all 4 engines after passing through volcanic ash. This was the incident that changed the world, with regard to volcanic activity, as you would all recall. The Captain was fully focussed on flying the aeroplane and making lots of desperate but excellent command decisions.

While he was doing that, his EXPERIENCED co-pilot was busy working with the flight engineer in many increasingly more desperate attempts to relight the engines. The crew can certainly be forgiven for not being aware of the close proximity of danger from an un-notified volcanic eruption and they all did one hell of a great job. My question is... will a MPL-holder be capable of the same sort of competence and support to the captain?

I know that volcanic events are now part of SIM training sessions and there are some SOPs for it, as well as advance notice and diagnosis methods. But, when the dirty stuff hits the fan(s), in the next unforeseen event, will the entire crew be up to it? What is the actual price that airlines put on the safety of passengers?

What is the actual price they put on the safety of the crew?

I'm just asking, of course...

[Slasher]

The Makeshift Pilot Licence is a cheap way of putting badley
needed kids in the RHS to maintain crew numbers. Birdseed I hear made the first sugestion of a MPL.

If you think Id accept a kid as my crew with only 10hrs in
C150s VFR and a total of 300hrs in a bloodey simulater
you got rocks in your head.

In my opinion they should only fly with instructors and
checkers and spend an absalute minimum of 18 months
to 2 years of scarin the crap out of THEM before there let
loose on us line capts.

[Guttn]

IMHO this is very questionable. Also disgusting. A lot of learning is done by experience. You can only learn so much in a sim, allthough they have become very realistic. It`s the next step from the buy-your-own-rating scams.

2 questions;

- They never fly solo, not even as students, so how sure of themselves can they be?
- One day there will be a upgrade to captaincy... how can this be done without ever having truly commanded an aircraft before?

Is the MPL the same as an F/E with a yoke/sidestick? An F/E with landing privileges?

As with all things in aviation... it takes an accident

[Pugilistic Animus]

The best way to learn to fly is to do it

Contact---instrument--- aerobatic---formation[optional]

make sure you know how to fly multi's as there is a very important Vmc min contol speed demo that you need to understand COMPLETELY if ever your V1 [takeoff decision speed]=Vmc ... get some glider and seaplane/ski plane training ---do a CFI rating you should acquire about 250-300 hrs of quality experience rather than waste your money on the ripoff fastbuck programs out there today---and you'll actually know what you're doing.


Some may object and say airline flying and "barnstorming" are different sets of skills--- true, but before you deal with EICAS, MCPs/ AT/AP/FD/PFD/ND---It's nice to actually know how to fly!!!

[AirRabbit]

Excuse me for pointing out the obvious, but sometime you folks are likely going to have to “search” the web yourself. If you go to the ICAO website, in 3 minutes you can find the references listed below which will give you worlds more solid information than you’ll likely get from those who don’t take the time to research and who post their own opinions of something for which they have little (if any) personal knowledge or experience.

It’s quite easy to take “pot-shots” at new and inventive ways of doing things – after all, who would ever think of a “real” pilot using anything like a “flight director,” right? Well, MPL is somewhat in that league. It’s a new approach to pilot training – and the concept is in its infancy. I understand that it will begin “beta” testing – in Australia, I believe – early next year.

There is nothing in the MPL proposals that say anything about restricting training to simulation, although it DOES emphatically and dramatically increase the dependency on simulation in pilot training. That, by itself, is not necessarily a bad thing – given, of course, that the simulators that are ultimately used are quality simulators that actually DO perform and handle like the airplane they are supposed to simulate.

http://www.icao.int/tcb/trainair/mee...e-Sabourin.pdf

http://www.icao.int/icao/en/jr/2007/6203_en.pdf

http://www.icao.int/icao/en/trivia/peltrgFAQ.htm

[Pugilistic Animus]

AirRabbit When a have a few moments I will read the documents, however my current impression of MPL is that:

1.the "Al Haynes" types will be extinct thereafter---
2. BorrrrrrrrinG!
3. I would be thoroughly annoyed with myself if I couldn't track to an NDB in a C-180 [yes I know of the supposed 'phaseout' but it's the FAA] after having flown 6000 miles in an A340 or 777

However, I will not comment more about this until I read the 'facts' you are right a bit short-sighted on my part, but I've seen sooooo many arrogant clowns starting on glass cockpits---who probably can't even read a sectional/use a plotter or flight computer/ determine a RB and WCA or do a proper lazy eight---all they SEEM to know/speak about is Ray Ban and Breitling---I like Fossil watches myself BTW--not too overstated, but elegant.

I'm standing by for my thrashing

[Intruder]

There is nothing in the MPL proposals that say anything about restricting training to simulation, although it DOES emphatically and dramatically increase the dependency on simulation in pilot training.

The REALITY of the MPL proposals is that total airplane time will be SIGNIFICANTLY less than that required for a US Commercial License or Instrument rating! This is the experience level we will see in future F/Os!

[Cardinal]

A simulator can startle you, but can never recreate the stark terror after doing something stupid in an aeroplane all alone. I have been convinced of my own imminent demise several times in little airplanes. Now my passengers benefit from my desire not to repeat those experiences, or anything remotely similar. The MPL grad will very likely miss that opportunity, thus lacking the perspective and confidence they would have gained.

[5150]

Can't really see the drama - after all, they put guys straight out of training into the RHS of 73's and Airbus with a CPL/IR. . . .

It's the quality of the line training that's gonna make or break this licence.

[Intruder]

...but the MPL will have significantly less experience than the CPL/IR!

Also, the airlines talking about these are not necessarily well regarded for their stellar line training...

[5150]

Significantly - please. . . .

This is a licence brought about after considerable research into improving training for ab-initio pilots moving straight onto jet transport aircraft.

The industry will continue to put people straight from training with a CPL/IR onto these aircraft.

They've identified weaknesses in the current modular/integrated route, hence a rebadged and tweaked licence more relevant to the job whilst taking away the single crew operating privilages currently held (but rarely exercised) by pilot's sat in the right hand seat..

[Intruder]

This is a licence brought about after considerable research into improving training for ab-initio pilots moving straight onto jet transport aircraft.

I disagree with the premise. The "research" was more accurately into improving [reducing] the cost [to the airlines] and time for ab-initio training. The training may provide a stopgap measure for airlines who need FOs to fill the right seat, but it fails to provide a long-term solution to the pilot shortage in the affected countries. Those MPL pilots will be ineligible to serve as Captain, so the future searches for pilots who have the experience and air sense to become Captains will become even harder.

[Cardinal]

"Can't really see the drama - after all, they put guys straight out of training into the RHS of 73's and Airbus with a CPL/IR. . . ."

Which is also a bad idea. What pilot do we want? A switch operator trained from youth on? Or the classic "seasoned" aviator? Difficult to have both. 6 - 8 legs/day in a turboprop provides more raw experience in 6 months than a comparable 4 years flying long legs in a large jet, spending time on reserve, and flying a comfortable schedule. Since I was hired into my Airbus I have forgotten so much about flying that it's scary. How does one build airmanship in a scenario where most experienced pilots face continually ebbing skills and knowledge?

[5150]

Guys (Cardinal & Intruder) - while I totally agree with you on the 'experience' front, (I myself did 6 years mixing single crew and turbobprop before getting on a jet) over here in the UK we do put very low hours pilots straight into the right hand seat of an airbus or 737.

It's by no means a stop gap as it has been going on for many years now - like I said before, it is addressing the weakness's in current courses and tailoring it more for the jump from multi-engine piston to jet FO.

I personally don't agree with sticking someone on a swept wing jet with 250 hours, but it does go on, so I'd rather they be better trained for this than not. . . .

[Mephistopheles]

I have flown with plenty of guys in the right seat that have come straight from ab-inito to jets & also with plenty of guys who did lots of GA before coming onto jets. I rarely see any big difference, in fact if I would make a guess I would say that the ab-initio guys were better, but that's just my personal opinion. Whereas the guys who come GA have lots of experience that are also prone to having extremely bad habits & tend not to work well in a 2 crew enviroment. On the other hand the AB guys tend to be on the timid side & rarely attempt any decision making. So it's 6 of 1 & half a dozen of the other.

[Intruder]

This is NOT a question of "ab initio vs GA"!!! This is a question of the TOTAL airplane experience and "air sense" a pilot has after 50 hours in an airplane vs after 250 hours in an airplane!
One does NOT "improve" training by reducing the amount, intensity, or thoroughness of the training. One does NOT improve training or experience or air sense by replacing X hours of actual instrument time with X (or X-y) hours doing (or observing) canned procedures in a simulator.
The MPL will put pilots in the right seat of a 737 or A320 with MUCH less time and experience -- especially instrument time and experience -- than a CPL/IR pilot!

It's also interesting to me that the JAA and CAA, who currently have probably the most rigid testing program in the world for the ATP license, would agree to allow "untested" pilots in the cockpits of commercial airliners. It gives evidence that the entire testing program is a sham!

[411A]

It's also interesting to me that the JAA and CAA, who currently have probably the most rigid testing program in the world for the ATP license....

That's what the Brit pilots thought at SV until they received their FAA ATP license and type rating together, and had to sit in front of an FAA inspector during the oral examination on the aircraft, and explain the systems in minute detail....several of 'em flunked, and all said it was quite difficult.

Don't believe?
For the JAA and CAA pilots...try it yourself and find out.

[AirRabbit]

Originally Posted by Pugilistic Animus

I'm standing by for my thrashing

Hi PA – don’t hold your breath while waiting … I’m not generally into such reactions - although I have been known to respond somewhat caustically at times…

I don’t generally disagree with your comment about not desiring less experienced pilots in the cockpit. Unfortunately, I am old enough to remember the times when pilots were recruited with the bare minimum flight time for CPL in the US. Admittedly, the time these chaps DID have was in an airplane, it is also true that a good share of that time was as “an instructor.” Please know that I’m not denigrating all instructors here; however, it is also true that in the middle 1960s a pilot going to work for US airlines (e.g., Eastern or Northeast) often was hired with 220 – 250 total hours, where up to 200 of those hours were logged while “instructing.” I’m sure there were some exceptions, but generally an instructor with 60 or 70 hours of total time is there primarily to log time - and the only “instructing” that is carried out is limited to keeping the poor student from killing himself while he learns to fly. In my book that doesn’t necessarily add a lot to a pilot’s ability – either decision making or aviating.

In the US, the wartime footing that the US maintained during the Viet Nam conflict, and the aviators required to service that need, also provided a flood of very highly experienced pilots when their military obligation was completed. No doubt, the world’s militaries will continue to supply some of the commercial pilots – but not very likely in the numbers that were seen in the late 1960s through the 1970s. Corporate operations may supply others, but, again, the numbers won’t provide a very large portion of the need. Also, the regional airlines may provide some additional resources – but that would be limited. The question here would be where would those operators recruit replacements? Overall, I think this means that the desired “experience” of new-hires in national airlines is not likely to be there as it has been. What options exist? Future pilots will be a necessity – until the traveling public is willing to climb on board an RPV – and those pilots will have to come from some place … with whatever experience they have. Certainly, some will be from the instructor ranks; but, even with former military, former corporate, and former regional, that still leaves a sizeable portion of the need that will be unaddressed. Hence … MPL.

The value of the MPL, as it is currently described, will be, like pudding, found in the proverbial “eating;” (from the old adage “the proof of the pudding is in the eating”). MPL advocates may wind up “eating” their words – but then again, they may not. I think almost everyone today recognizes that good simulation training is really good training – and is probably better training than what would have been received in the airplane – IF done correctly. I only use the words “probably” and “IF” here because not all simulator instructors know how to use simulation to its maximum extent. Some of these folks tend to do in the simulator exactly what they would have done in the airplane. Unfortunately, that limits the value of the simulator rather dramatically.

Suffice it to say that the only time things should be “simulated” when training, is when training is accomplished in the airplane. One should never have to resort to “simulating” anything when using a properly built, tested, and qualified airplane flight simulator - and when the capabilities of simulation are used, it should be to capitalize on the time factors involved. Simulators are a trememdous "time shifting" mechanism and can increase the concentration on any aspect of the flight training syllabus - when understood and used correctly.

Will MPL work? I cannot answer that definitively. However, should it not work, there will have to be a substitute generated if, indeed, pilots remain a necessity.